2012
DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3368.1.8
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

An exploration of Echinoderes (Kinorhyncha: Cyclorhagida) in Korean and neighboring waters, with the description of four new species and a redescription of E. tchefouensis Lou, 1934

Abstract: A large collection of kinorhynch specimens from coastal and subtidal localities around the Korean Peninsula and in the East China Sea was examined, and the material included several species of undescribed or poorly known species of Echinoderes Claparède, 1863. The present paper is part of a series dealing with echinoderid species from this material, and inludes descriptions of four new species of Echinoderes, E. aspinosus sp. nov., E. cernunnos sp. nov., E. microaperturus sp. nov. and E. obtuspinosus sp. nov.,… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
40
0

Year Published

2012
2012
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

3
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 56 publications
(40 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
0
40
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Unfortunately, there has never been a phylogenetic reconstruction of crustaceans, nor any groups thereof, based on cuticular organs, despite the fact that many studies have advocated this potential and proposed some groupings based on intuitive methods (Puri, 1974;Mauchline, 1988;Tsukagoshi, 1990;Olesen, 1996;Høeg and Kolbasov, 2002). This is in stark contrast with taxonomic and phylogenetic practices in some other groups of small animals with a rigid integument, such as, for example, insects (Bousquet and Goulet, 1984;Alarie, 1995Alarie, , 1998D'Haese, 2003;Faucheux et al, 2006), tardigrades (Nichols et al, 2006), and kinorhynchs (Nebelsick, 1992;GaOrd oñez et al, 2000;Sørensen et al, 2012).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Unfortunately, there has never been a phylogenetic reconstruction of crustaceans, nor any groups thereof, based on cuticular organs, despite the fact that many studies have advocated this potential and proposed some groupings based on intuitive methods (Puri, 1974;Mauchline, 1988;Tsukagoshi, 1990;Olesen, 1996;Høeg and Kolbasov, 2002). This is in stark contrast with taxonomic and phylogenetic practices in some other groups of small animals with a rigid integument, such as, for example, insects (Bousquet and Goulet, 1984;Alarie, 1995Alarie, , 1998D'Haese, 2003;Faucheux et al, 2006), tardigrades (Nichols et al, 2006), and kinorhynchs (Nebelsick, 1992;GaOrd oñez et al, 2000;Sørensen et al, 2012).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…nov. makes it even easier to distinguish the species from others. Cooccurrence of glandular cell outlets type 2 in these positions is only known from three other species of Echinoderes, i.e., E. abbreviatus Higgins, 1983 (see Table 6 in present contribution), Sørensen et al, 2012, but these three species have five middorsal spines, and cannot be confused with E. charlotteae sp.…”
Section: Additional Diagnostic Characters On Other Species Of Echinodmentioning
confidence: 76%
“…Type 2 outlets in sublateral positions are found in E. obtuspinosus only, but with its short and stout lateral terminal accessory spines (Sørensen et al, 2012), this species cannot be confused with E.…”
Section: Notes On Distribution and Diagnostic Features In E Bookhoutimentioning
confidence: 88%
See 2 more Smart Citations