The surface microstructure of marine and terrestrial isopoda (Crustacea, Peracarida)

Ultrastructure and mineral distribution in the tergite cuticle of the beach isopod Tylos europaeus Arcangeli, 1938

“…changes that frequently occur in the intertidal zone (MeyerRochow, 1980;Powell and Halcrow, 1982). Here it is of interest that the scales of T. europaeus resemble those of the intertidal species Jaera marina (Powell and Halcrow, 1982).…”

“…in preventing delamination of the epicuticular surface structures. Microscales are common in terrestrial and marine isopods (Powell and Halcrow, 1982). It is thought that in terrestrial species scales function in water retention and, in addition to other microstructures, as anti-adhesive devices preventing that particles of the substrate stick to the cuticle (Schmalfuss, 1977(Schmalfuss, , 1978.…”

Suitability of cuticular pores and sensilla for harpacticoid copepod species delineation and phylogenetic reconstruction

“…Even within Crustacea their diversity is astonishing. A quick look through several complete or partial surveys of cuticular organs in some groups of decapods , amphipods (Oshel et al, 1988;Zimmer et al, 2009), isopods (Powell and Halcrow, 1982;KhalajiPirbalouty, 2014), branchiopods (Cash-Clark and Martin, 1994;Olesen, 1996;Boudrias and Pires, 2002), cephalocaridans (Elofsson and Hessler, 1994), ostracods (Puri, 1974;Meisch and Wouters, 2004), and copepods (Von Vaupel Klein, 1982a) reveals a plethora of specialized sensilla and pores (and their terminology), some of which hold a potential to increase the number of recognized synapomorphies for certain taxa. According to Von Vaupel Klein (1982a) the total diversity of cuticular organs reported for copepods alone comprises at least some twenty distinct types.…”

The morphology, arrangement, and ultrastructure of a new type of microtrich sensilla in marine isopods (Crustacea, Isopoda)

“…The cuticular microstructures of a few aquatic species of crustaceans like amphipods and isopods have been studied previously by SEM (e.g., Schmalfuss 1978;Meyer-Rochow 1980;Powell and Halcrow 1982;Holdich 1984;Laverack and Barrientos 1985;Platvoet 1985;Olyslager and Williams 1993;Halcrow and Bousfield 1987;Read and Williams 1991;Khalaji-Pirbalouty and Sari 2006;Zimmer et al 2009;Kaim-Malka 2010). The majority of these studies investigated the cuticular surface of Amphipoda, and only few attempts have been conducted to study the microscopic structures on the tegument surface of aquatic isopods (e.g., Wägele 1993;Escobar et al 2002;Brandt 1988;Kaim-Malka 2010).…”

“…Fish (1972) described the setae of the aquatic isopod Eurydice pulchra Leach, 1815 on the basis of size as either macrotrichs or microtrichs. Powell and Halcrow (1982) described the surface microstructures of several marine littoral and terrestrial isopods using SEM, and and described and discussed the setae and microtrich sensilla of some amphipods. In most cases, these studies were conducted with an emphasis on only one type of cuticular structure, viz., tricorn setae (Holdich and Lincoln 1974;Schmalfuss 1978), sensory spines (Brandt 1988), pores (Halcrow and Bousfield 1987;Khalaji-Pirbalouty andSari 2004, 2006;Khalaji-Pirbalouty and Sari 2006), or microtrichs Platvoet 1985;Steele 1991;Olyslager and Williams 1993).…”