Abstract
The current systematics of the genus Allocyclops Kiefer, Citation1932 is a contentious subject. The emended diagnosis proposed in 2001 by Karanovic has not been unanimously accepted and the classical outline and species arrangement has been favoured in the latest update by Dussart and Defaye in Citation2006. Based on re-examination of types and additional material both concepts are tested and rejected because they are unnatural groupings. The redefined genus absorbs Bacillocyclops Lindberg, 1956 within it, and includes the species Allocyclops chappuisi Kiefer, Citation1932, Allocyclops cavicola Chappuis, Citation1951, Allocyclops beadlei (Lindberg, 1956) comb. nov. and Allocyclops botosaneanui Plesa, 1981. Psammocyclops Kiefer, Citation1955 and Stolonicyclops Reid and Spooner, Citation1998 are re-instated as separate genera: the former including Psammocyclops excellens Kiefer, Citation1955 and Psammocyclops ritae (Dumont and Lamoot, Citation1978), the latter including Stolonicyclops heggiensis Reid and Spooner, Citation1998 only. Hypocyclops gen. nov. is erected to accommodate Hypocyclops kieferi (Petkovski, Citation1971) comb. nov. and Hypocyclops montenegrinus (Karanovic, Citation2001) comb. nov. Virbiocyclops gen. nov. is defined for Virbiocyclops silvaticus (Rocha and Bjornberg, Citation1988) comb. nov. and Olmeccyclops gen. nov. for Olmecyclops veracruzanus (Suárez-Morales, Mendoza and Mercado-Salas, Citation2010) comb. nov. Speocyclops transsaharicus Lamoot, Dumont and Pensaert, Citation1981 is allocated to the genus Hesperocyclops Herbst, Citation1984 and Bryocyclops arenicolous (Fryer, Citation1956) returned to its initial placement in Metacyclops Kiefer Citation1927. Each of the herein (re)defined genera is representative of a different lineage within Cyclopidae. The status and affinities of Cyclops minutissimus Kiefer, Citation1933 auct. and Allocyclops (A.) australonipponicus Tomikawa, Ishida and Mawatari, Citation2005 remain unresolved. They are considered gen. spec. inq.
Acknowledgements
I am most indebted to H.-W. Mittmann (Staatliches Museum für Naturkunde, Karlsruhe) for providing me with the possibility to study the Friedrich Kiefer collection and archive, to S. Iepure (Speology Institute “Emil Racovitza”, Cluj), Miranda Lowe (BMNH, London) and D. Van der Spiegel (RMCA, Tervuren) for the loan of material lodged in the collections under their custody. I am especially grateful to Fr. Lescher-Moutoué, C.E.F. da Rocha and H.J. Dumont for the donation of several (type) specimens which are now hosted in the Crustacea collections of the RBINSc, Brussels. Lastly, I am most grateful to Janet Reid and Maria Holynska for their constructive comments on a first draft of this paper.