|Temoridae Giesbrecht, 1893 ( Diaptomoidea )|
|Syn.: ||Temorina Giesbrecht, 1892 (p.60); Temorinae Esterly, 1905 (p.173)|
|Ref.: ||Sars, 1902 (1903) (p.95, Rev.); Gurney, 1931 a (p.84); Wilson, 1932 a (p.103); Rose, 1933 a (p.169); Brodsky, 1950 (1967) (p.83, 279); Gonzalez & Bowman, 1965 (p.248); Andronov, 1974 a (p.1005); Razouls, 1982 (p.395); 1993 (p.308); Bowman & Abele, 1982 (p.9); Dussart & Defaye, 1983 (p.47); Brodsky & al., 1983 (p.142, 146); Zheng Zhong & al., 1984 (1989) (p.241, Genera Key); Sazhina, 1985 (p.50); Mauchline, 1988 (p.712, 740: cuticular pores); Huys & Boxshall, 1991 (p.467); Razouls, 1993 (p.308); Madhupratap & al., 1996 (p.863, Table 5: %/copepods); Chihara & Murano, 1997 (p.916); Barthélémy, 1999 a (p.24); Bradford-Grieve & al., 1999 (p.884, 902, 904, 953, 954: Genera Key); Bradford-Grieve,1999 b (p.155, Def., Rem.); Ohtsuka & Huys, 2001 (p.461); Boxshall & Halsey, 2004 (p.12; 49; 205: Def., Genera Key); Vives & Shmeleva, 2007 (p.521); Blanco-Bercial & al., 2011 (p.103, Table 1, Fig.2, 3, 4, molecular biology, phylogeny); Kos, 2016 (p.39, Def., Gennera Key); Laakmann & al., 2019 (p.330, fig. 2, 3, phylogenetic relationships) |
Bradford-Grieve J.M., (2002 onwards). Key to calanoid copepod families. Version 1 : 2 oct 2002. http://www.crustacea.net/crustace/calanoida/index.htm
|Rem.: ||Cette famille ne renferme qu'un genre marin : Temora Baird,1850; et trois genres saumâtres et dulçaquicoles: Eurytemora Giesbrecht,1881; Heterocope Sars,1863; Epischura Forbes, 1882; plus peut-être Lamellipodia Schmeil,1897 . Oliveira, 1946 (1947) (p.463 & suiv.) décrit trois genres: Lahmeyeria, Ganchosia, Manaia, dont les espèces types sont des formes juvéniles appartenant à d’autres familles.|
Vives & Shmeleva, 2007 (p.521, 528) maintiennent le genre Temoropia dans la famille des Temoridae.
After Madhupratap & al. (1996), la famille des Temoridae représente de 0,1 à 2 % des copepodes selon la saison dans la couche de mélange des eaux océaniques de la région ouest de l'Inde (Mer Arabe), en usant un filet type Multiple Plankton Closing Net à 200 µm de vide de maille (mesh aperture).
Issued from : G.A. Boxshall & S.H. Halsey in
An Introduction to Copepod Diversity. The Ray Society, 2004, No 166,
Part. I. [p.205].
Armature formula of swimming legs P1 to P4.
Nota: Setation sometimes reduced, often by loss of outer margin spine from 3rd exopodal segments, and by loss of outer margin element from distal endopodal segment.
- Female P5 with coxae and intercoxal sclerite forming transverse plate; basis distinct, with outer seta. Endopod absent. Free exopod 2-segmented; 1st segment double (formed by fusion of 1st and 2nd exopodal segments) and armed with 1 or 2 outer spines, inner margin produced into spinous process in some genera; distal exopodal segment armed with up to 2 outer margin spines and distal element, plus, in some genera, several spinous processes along inner margin.
- Male P5 asymmetrical; carried on bilobed trnsverse plate formed by fusion of coxae and intercoxal sclerite; right leg comprising basis with outer seta and 2 or 3-segmented exopod. Endopod absent. Exopod sometimes short, sometimes forming long curved subchela; segments typically with smallmarginal spines. Left leg either subchelate or chelate, with exopod opposing curved digitiform process (possibly representing endopod) on medial margin of basis. basis didtinct. Exopod 2-segmented, distal segment often withexpanded apex bearing spinous processes (reduced setation elements usually present.
- Eggs released into water, retained in mass on ventral side of urosome, or contained in paired, multiseriate sacs.
Issued from : J.M. Bradford-Grieve in
NIWA Biodiversity Memoir 111, 1999. [p.155].
Spine and setal formula of swimming legs P1 to P4.
Female P5 simple, not natatory, usually without an endopod; 2-3-segmented with common basal segment. Ovisac present in some cases.
Male P5 simple, not natatory, usually without an endopod; larger than those of the female and prehensile, often pincer-like on one side, 2-4-segmented with common basal segment.
|Syn.: ||Temorella Claus, 1881; Canu, 1892 (p.173)|
|Ref.: ||Giesbrecht & Schmeil, 1898 (p.102, clé spp. Key); Sars, 1902 (1903) (p.97, 99); van Breemen, 1908 a (p.98, spp. Key); Esterly, 1924 (p.93); Gurney, 1931 a (p.182, spp. Key); Wilson, 1932 a (p.107, spp. Key); Rose, 1933 a (p.171, spp. Key); Mori, 1937 (1964) (p.66); Brodsky, 1950 (1967) (p.279, spp. Key); Jeffries, 1962 (p.291, Salinity vs. distribution); Tanaka, 1963 (p.15); Dussart, 1967 (p.69, clé spp.); Heron & Damkaer, 1976 (p.127, Rem.); Kos, 1977 a (p.20, Rev.); Razouls, 1982 (p.398); Gardner & Szabo, 1982 (p.313); Dussart & Defaye, 1983 (p.47); Zheng Zhong & al., 1984 (1989) (p.242, Rem.); Ferrari, 1992 (p.392, tab.3); Razouls, 1993 (p.308); Kos, 1993 (p.30, spp. Key); Chihara & Murano, 1997 (p.917); Mauchline, 1998 (p.93: F,M); Bradford-Grieve,1999 b (p.155, Def., Rem.); Boxshall & Halsey, 2004 (p.207); Dodson & al., 2010 (p.653, table 1, 2, fig.1, 2, 4, 5, 6); Kos, 2016 (p.52, Species Key: p.53-55); Sukhikh & Alekseev, 2013 (p.85, Remark concerning the species type E. affinis.|
|Rem.: ||espèces dulçaquicoles, quelques formes saumâtres. Analyse de ce genre provisoire, non inclus dans la matrice et dans le traitement des données géographiques. Type: Temora affinis Poppe,1880. Total: 24 spp. noted|
|Remarques sur les dimensions et le sex-ratio:|
|The mean female size is 1.488 mm (n = 42; SD = 0.3550), and for male 1.324 mm (n = 39; SD = 0.3230). The size ratio (male: female) is 0.89. The sex ratio is 1.1.|
Issued from : S.I. Dodson & D.A. Skelly in
Hydrobiologia, 2010, 653. [p.131
Morphological characters used for principal component analysis (PCA) permitting to distinguish various species from the Alaska region.
For the first analysis were measured 16 characters.
For the second analysis
A, habitus; A1: total length, from the tip ofb the head to the end of the caudal ramus. Although body length is not in itself a useful character, itb is often important to determine whether otrher characters vary with body length to detect allometric relationship.
B, A2 and A3 =: lengths of the terminal and subterminal setae of the terminal segment of the exopodite of P1.
C, A4 and A5: lengths of the proximal and distal setae of the basis of P5.
D, A6: width of basis of P5 measured at the level of the base of the proximal lateral seta.
E, A7: Curvature of the internal projection of the basis of P5, measured as the distance between the process and a line drawn between the projection tip and base.
E, A8: length of the internal projection of the basis of P5 measured from the base (on the distal end of the segment) to the tip. There is often a joint, nbulge, or winkle at the base on the projection, where it joins the segment.
D, A9: width of internal projection of the basis of P5, measured at the base of the projection. The basal thickness captures the impression that some projections are slender and some are wedge-shaped.
C, A10: The number of teeth on the internal projection of the 1st exopodal segment of P5. Teeth can be present on one or both sides of the projection. In figure 2C there are 10 teeth on the projection, 5 on the distal (A10d) and 5 on the proximal (A10d) margin. In addition, the internal projection sometimes had a few hair-like microspinules (A10ms)
A11: the angle of the internal projection on the 1st exopodal segment of P5, relative to the long axis of the segment. Both the curvature and the angle measurements (A7 and A11) of the 1st exopodal segment of P5 internal projection were attempts to capture the distinction used by Wilson & Yeatmans (1959): ''inner process ... ... strongly directed backwards'' versus ''inner process ... directed inwards''.
A12: length of 2nd exopodal segment of P5.A13 and A14: lengths of the terminal and subterminal setae of the 2nd exopodal segment of P5.
A15: length of the metasomal wing, from the base at the internal medial angle to the tip.
A16: the length of the caudal ramus measured along the outer margin.
For the second analysis were recorded data on 10 additional characters:
A7: 0= negative, 1 = straigth, 2 = positive.
A9: 0 = slender, 1, triangular, 2 = elogated.
A10D: 1st exopodal segment of P5 internal process with teeth on distal margin = 1.
A10ms: 1st exopodal segment of P5 internal process with teeth on proximal margin = 1.
A10P: 1st exopodal segment of P5 with microspines on proximal margin = 1.
A16: the caudal ramus length was normalized by dividing it by the width of the ramus at the base, where it is widest, and this ratio was the categorized as 0 when <3.8, 1 when > or = 3.8 and <4.0, and 2 when > or = 4.0.
A17: presence/absence of a row of microsetules along the internal margin of the caudal ramus. Do not confuse with spines from the dorsal patch.
A18: a row of microsetules along the outer lateral margin of the caudal ramus, proximal from the lateral seta on the ramus: present/absent.
A19: a row of microsetules alng the outer lateral margin of the caudal ramus, distal to the lateral seta on the ramus: present/absent.
A20: the ratio of the width of the genital segment divided by the length of the longest lateral lobe. The width of the segment is measured from lines drawn parallel to the body axis , from the corners of the segment. The length of the lobe is measured at right angles to the body axis. The ratiocategorized as: 0 = 0.2, 1: >0.2 to <0.35, 2: > or = 0.35 to <0.60, and 3: > or = 0.60.
A21, A22 and A23: prsence/absence of patches of microspines on the dorsal surface of the 2nd and 3rd abdominal segments and the caudal rami.
A24: presence/absence of stiff microspines on the posterior abdominal somite, between the two caudal rami.
A25: presence/absence of a notch near the base of the posterior margin of the metasomal wing.
A26: strong asymmetry of the left and right internal projections of the 1st exopodal segment of P5 versus symmetrical projections. The projections were judged asymmetrical if one was at least 1.5 times as long as the other.
|Syn.: ||Halitemora Giesbrecht,1881 (p.257)|
Cyclops (part.): Müller, 1785 (p.115).
Calanus (part.): Dana, 1848 (p.12).Diaptomus (part.): Lubbock, 1856 (p.10).
|Ref.: ||Brady, 1878 (part., p.53); Giesbrecht, 1892 (p.60, 328); Giesbrecht & Schmeil, 1898 (p.100, clé spp.); Wheeler, 1901 (p.174); Sars,1902 (1903) (p.96); A. Scott, 1909 (p.118); Sewell, 1932 (p.244); Wilson, 1932 a (p.103, spp. Key); Rose,1933 a (p.169); Mori, 1937 (1964) (p. 64); Dakin & Colefax, 1940 (p.92, clé spp.); Carvalho, 1952 a (p.147); Tanaka, 1963 (p.13); Gonzalez & Bowman, 1965 (p.248); Ramirez, 1966 (p.13); Razouls,1982 (p.395); Zheng Zhong & al.,1984 (1989) (p.241, clé spp.); Mauchline, 1988 (p.712, cuticular pores); Ferrari, 1992 (p.392, tab.3); Razouls,1993 (p.308); Chihara & Murano, 1997 (p.916); Mauchline, 1998 (p.76; p.95);Bradford-Grieve & al., 1999 (p.954: clé spp.); Bradford-Grieve,1999 b (p.157, Def.); Boxshall & Halsey, 2004 (p.207); Vives & Shmeleva, 2007 (p.521, spp. Key); Kos, 2016 (p.42, Def., p.43: species Key).|
|Rem.: || Type: Cyclops longicornis Müller, 1785. Total: 5 spp. (dont 1 douteuse).|
|Remarques sur les dimensions et le sex-ratio:|
|The mean female size is 1.418 mm (n = 8; SD = 0.5205), and the mean male size is 1.471 mm (n = 9; SD = 0.5054). The size ratio (Male: Female) is 0.989 (n = 4; SD = 0.0848). The sex-ratio (Female: Male) is 1.|
issued from : G.O. Sars in
An Account of the Crustacea of Norway, with short descriptions and figures of all species. Vol. IV. Copepoda Calanoida. Publ. by The Bergen Museum. 1903. [Pl. LXV]. Female & Male.
C = Cephalosome; R = Rostrum; Urs = urosome.
Toute utilisation de ce site pour une publication sera mentionnée avec la référence suivante :
Razouls C., Desreumaux N., Kouwenberg J. et de Bovée F., 2005-2022. - Biodiversité des Copépodes planctoniques marins (morphologie, répartition géographique et données biologiques). Sorbonne Université, CNRS. Disponible sur http://copepodes.obs-banyuls.fr [Accédé le 21 mai 2022]
© copyright 2005-2022 Sorbonne Université, CNRS