INTRODUCTIONTop

Cumaceans are a group of peracarid crustaceans predominantly inhabiting marine soft bottom habitats. They can occur in large numbers (e.g. San Vicente at al. 1997San Vicente C., Ramos A., Jimeno A., et al. 1997. Suprabenthic assemblages from South Shetland Islands and Bransfield Strait (Antarctica): preliminary observations on faunistical composition, bathymetric and near-bottom distribution. Polar Biol. 18: 415-422., Rehm et al. 2007Rehm P., Thatje S., Mühlenhardt-Siegel U., et al. 2007. Composition and distribution of the peracarid crustacean fauna along a latitudinal transect off Victoria Land (Ross Sea, Antarctica) with special emphasis on the Cumacea. Polar Biol. 30: 871-881.) and are an essential component of the benthic fauna, thus being an important food source for demersal fish and other macrofauna (e.g. Cartes 1993Cartes J.E. 1993. Diets of two deep-sea decapods: Nematocarcinus exilis (Caridea: Nematocarcinidae) and Munida tenuimana (Anomura: Galatheidae) on the Western Mediterranean slope. Ophelia 37: 213-229., Schlacher and Woolbridge 1996Schlacher T.A, Wooldridge T.H. 1996. Patterns of selective predation by juvenile, benthivorous fish on estuarine macrofauna. Mar. Biol. 125: 241-247.). The first report of an Antarctic cumacean was published by Sars (1873)Sars G.O. 1873. Beskrivelse af syv nye Cumaceer fravestindien og det syd-Atlantiske Ocean. Kongl Svenska Vetenskaps-Akademiens Handlingar 11: 3-30.. Additional descriptions of five Antarctic cumaceans followed during the next decade (Sars 1887Sars G.O. 1887. Report on the Cumacea collected by H.M.S Challenger during the years 1873-1876. Rep. Sci. Res. Voy. HMS Chall. Zool. 19: 1-78.). Today, about 100 cumacean species from all extant families of Cumacea (Bodotriidae, Ceratocumatidae, Diastylidae, Gynodiastylidae, Lampropidae, Leuconidae, Nannastacidae and Pseudocumatidae) are described for the Antarctic and sub-Antarctic (Błażewicz and Heard 1999Błażewicz M., Heard W.H. 1999. First record of the family Gynodiastylidae Stebbing, 1912 (Crustacea: Malacostraca: Cumacea) from Antarctic waters with the description of Gynodiastylis jazdzewskii, a new species. Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash. 112: 362-367., Mühlenhardt-Siegel 1999Mühlenhardt-Siegel U. 1999. On the biogeography of Cumacea (Crustacea, Malacostraca). A comparison between South America, the Subantarctic Islands, and Antarctica: present state of the art. Sci. Mar. 63(Suppl. 1): 295-302., Pabis and Błażewicz-Paszkowycz 2011Pabis K., Błażewicz-Paszkowycz M. 2011. Distribution and diversity of cumacean assemblages in Admiralty Bay, King George Island. Polish Polar Res. 32: 341-354.). However, knowledge about Antarctic cumaceans is still incomplete and restricted to species inventory, diversity and biogeography.

Hypotheses on the evolutionary history of cumacean families have been proposed by Zimmer (1941)Zimmer C. 1941. Cumacea. Dr. H.G. Bronns Klassen und Ordnungen des Tierreichs 5: 222 pp. and Lomakina (1968)Lomakina M. 1968. Stroenie pecenocinih diverticul u cumovih rakov (Cumacea) i ego filogeneticeskoe znancenie. Zool. J. 47: 60-72.. Both regard the Lampropidae and Diastylidae as basal taxa, but their interpretations differ regarding the more derived families. Nevertheless, both authors are of the opinion that the pleotelson-bearing families are most derived. Testing phylogenetic hypotheses has been difficult for cumaceans because characters used for the taxonomy of this peracarid taxon are inconsistent within and often among families. Haye et al. (2004)Haye P.A., Kornfield I., Watling L. 2004. Molecular insights into Cumacean family relationships (Crustacea, Cumacea). Mol. Phyl. Evol. 30: 798-809. discuss the monophyly of the pleotelson-bearing Bodotriidae, Leuconidae and Nannastacidae, as indicated by the phylogenetic analysis of amino acid sequences from the mitochondrial cytochrome oxidase I gene and morphological characters. With respect to the “pleotelson clade”, their findings are in accordance with Zimmer and Lomakina, but monophyly (with reasonable support) was confirmed only for the families Gynodiastylidae and Lampropidae by molecular data. The present study aimed to investigate the phylogenetic relationship of three cumacean families and within the family Leuconidae using a fragment of the mitochondrial LSU gene (16S rDNA).

Furthermore, genetic variation in Antarctic species of the genus Leucon is studied to reveal possible patterns of cryptic speciation, which have been demonstrated for Antarctic isopod (Held 2003Held C. 2003. Molecular evidence for cryptic speciation within the widespread Antarctic crustacean Ceratoserolis trilobitoides (Crustacea, Isopoda). In: Huiskes A.H., Geiskes W.W., et al. (eds), Antarctic biology in a global context. Backhuys Publishers, Leiden, 135-139., Held and Wägele 2005Held C., Wägele J.W. 2005. Cryptic speciation in the giant Antarctic isopod Glyptonotus antarcticus (Isopoda: Valvifera: Chaertiliidae). Sci. Mar. 69: 175-181., Raupach and Wägele 2006Raupach M.J., Wägele J.W. 2006. Distinguishing cryptic species in Antarctic Asellota (Crustacea: Isopoda)-a preliminary study of mitochondrial DNA in Acanthaspidia drygalskii. Ant. Sci. 18: 191-198.), amphipod (Baird et al. 2011Baird H.P., Miller K.J., Stark J.S. 2011. Evidence of hidden biodiversity, ongoing speciation and diverse patterns of genetic structure in giant Antarctic amphipods. Mol. Ecol. 20: 3439-3454.), mollusc (Allcock et al. 1997Allcock A.L., Brierley A.S., Thorpe J.P., et al. 1997. Restricted gene flow and evolutionary divergence between geographically separated populations of the Antarctic octopus Pareledone turqueti. Mar. Biol. 129: 97-102., Linse et al. 2007Linse K., Cope T., Lörz A.N., et al. 2007. Is the Scotia Sea a centre of Antarctic marine diversification? Some evidence of cryptic speciation in the circum-Antarctic bivalve Lissarca notorcadensis (Arcoidea: Philobryidae). Polar Biol. 30: 1059-1068.), and crinoid species (Wilson et al. 2007Wilson N.G., Hunter R.L., Lockhart S.J., et al. 2007. Multiple lineages and absence of panmixia in the “circumpolar” crinoid Promachocrinus kerguelensis from the Atlantic sector of Antarctica. Mar. Biol. 152: 895-904.). The discoveries of cryptic speciation indicated that diversity of Antarctic zoobenthic organisms in terms of species richness is much higher than previously believed. Therefore, circum-Antarctic distribution, which was postulated for many taxa, is not valid for a variety of taxa because many nominal species with circumpolar distributions may in reality consist of a series of cryptic species with more local distributions (Arango et al. 2011Arango C.P., Soler-Membrives A., Miller K.J. 2011. Genetic differentiation in the circum-Antarctic sea spider Nymphon australe (Pycnogonida; Nymphonidae). Deep-Sea Res. II 58: 212-219., Dornburg et al. 2016Dornburg A., Federman S., Eytan R.I., et al. 2016. Cryptic species diversity in sub-Antarctic islands: A case study of Lepidonotothen. Mol. Phyl. Evol. 194: 32-43., Beermann et al. 2018Beermann J., Westbury M.V., Hofreiter M., et al. 2018. Cryptic species in a well-known habitat: applying taxonomics to the amphipod genus Epimeria (Crustacea, Peracarida). Sci. Rep. 8: 6893.). Patterns of cryptic speciation observed in shallow water species inhabiting the Antarctic continental shelf are assumed to be caused by geographic isolation and mainly glaciation processes on a Milankovitch timescale, which might have led to isolated shelters on the Antarctic shelf (Clarke and Crame 1989Clarke A., Crame J.A. 1989. The origin of the Southern Ocean marine fauna. In: Crame J.A. (ed.) Origins and evolution of the Antarctic biota. Geol. Soc. Lond. Spec. Publ. 47: 253-268., Thatje et al. 2005Thatje S., Hillenbrand C.D., Larter R. 2005. On the origin of Antarctic marine benthic community structure. Trends Ecol. Evol. 20: 534-540., 2008Thatje S, Hillenbrand C.D, Mackensen A., et al. 2008. Life hung by a thread: endurance of Antarctic fauna in glacial periods. Ecology 89: 682-692.). Species with pelagic larvae or dispersal life stages are commonly assumed to overcome the barriers separating ‘biogeographic islands’ on the Antarctic shelf, and thus ensuring gene flow between isolated populations (Thatje 2012Thatje S. 2012. Effects of capability for dispersal on the evolution of diversity in Antarctic benthos. Int. Comp. Biol. 52: 470-482.), although unexpected evidence for strong population connectivity has also been found in benthic species without obvious dispersal capabilites (Leese et al 2010Leese F., Agrawal S., Held C. 2010. Long-distance island hopping without dispersal stages: transportation across major zoogeographic barriers in a Southern Ocean isopod. Naturwissenschaften, 97: 583-594., Fraser et al. 2013Fraser C.I., Zuccarello G.C., Spencer H.G., et al. 2013. Genetic affinities between trans-oceanic populations of non-buoyant macroalgae in the high latitudes of the Southern Hemisphere. PLoS ONE 8: e69138.). As cumaceans belong to the brooding crustacean supraorder Peracarida the hypotheses presented above is tested for evidence in this taxon.

MATERIALS AND METHODSTop

Source and preservation of material

Antarctic Cumacea were collected during the 19th Italian Antarctic expedition with RV Italica along the coast of Victoria Land in the Ross Sea (Rehm et al. 2007Rehm P., Thatje S., Mühlenhardt-Siegel U., et al. 2007. Composition and distribution of the peracarid crustacean fauna along a latitudinal transect off Victoria Land (Ross Sea, Antarctica) with special emphasis on the Cumacea. Polar Biol. 30: 871-881.). Further material was obtained from the BENDEX (ANT XXI-2) expedition and ANDEEP cruises I and II to the Scotia-Arc region, the Antarctic Peninsula and the Weddell Sea carried out with RV Polarstern in the years 2002 and 2004. The species Diastylis rathkei was sampled in the Kiel Bay in the Baltic Sea (Table 1). The material was sorted by hand from trawled gear (Rauschert dredge and epibenthos sledge) using a dissecting microscope. Samples were preserved in pre-chilled 80% (0°C, –80°C, resp.) ethanol. Samples were obtained from depths of between 15 and 3685 m. Samples were stored at –30°C for at least 4 months and were kept at 5°C until further processing. During the cruise with RV Italica, samples were stored at –80°C during the first four days. Extraction and sequencing of cumacean material collected during the BENDEX expedition was less successful than treating the material from the campaign with RV Italica. In contrast to sample processing during the BENDEX expedition, during which samples were fixed with 0°C cold ethanol, samples were fixed at –80°C onboard RV Italica. Deep temperatures at the beginning of the fixation might be the reason for better results during molecular work, so we suggest cooling newly collected material at –80°C during the first weeks of fixation.

Molecular work

DNA was extracted from individual legs, from the pleon without telson and uropods, or from entire smaller specimens. The following modifications were applied to the protocol of the QIAamp DNA Mini Kit, which was used for DNA extraction: the spin column loaded with elution buffer was incubated for 5 min at 70°C before elution of the DNA and the volume of the elution buffer was decreased from 200 to 50 µl in order to increase the concentration of eluted DNA.

PCRs were carried out in 50 µl volumes with 0.15 µl HotMaster Taq polymerase 5 U/µl, 2.5 µl 10x PCR buffer, 0.5 µl dNTPs 2 mmol/µl, 0.25 µl BSA, 0.125 µl of each primer both 100 pmol/µl, and 3 µl of DNA template filled up to 25 µl with sterile H₂O. All amplification reactions were performed on an Eppendorf Master Cycler.

Primer choice and creation

For DNA amplification the broadly applicable primers 16Sar 5’-CGCCTGTTTATCAAAAACAT- 3’ and 16Sbr 5’-CCGGTCTGAACTCAGATCACGT- 3’ (Palumbi et al. 1991Palumbi S.R., Martin A., Romano S., et al. 1991. The Simple Fool’s Guide to PCR, version 2. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu, 43 pp.) were used. Despite the general application of these primers on arthropod taxa, amplification of cumacean DNA was weak. Therefore, cumacean-specific primers were designed on the basis of the sequences obtained in our pilot study and from GenBank. The program ‘Fast PCR’ (Kalendar 2003Kalendar R. 2003. FastPCR: A Program for fast design PCR Primer, DNA and Protein manipulation. (2.5.59).) was used to construct primers. Primers ALh (5’-GTACTAAGGTAGCATA-3’) and CLr (5’-ACGCTGTTAYCCCTAAAGTAATT-3’) were designed for the cumacean family Leuconidae in highly conserved regions of the 16S gene and used during this study. The amplification protocol for ALh and CLr was 2 min at 94°C for initial denaturing, 38 cycles of 20 s at 94°C, 10 s at 46°C, and 1 min at 65°C, followed by 8 min for final extension.

DNA sequencing

PCR products were purified with the QIAquick PCR-purification kit of Qiagen, Hilden, Germany. To achieve higher concentrations of purified DNA, only 30 µl of elution buffer were used. DNA purity and amount of DNA were controlled on an ethidium bromide-stained 1.5% agarose gel. Cycle sequencing was performed according to the manufacturer’s instructions of the BigDye Terminator v3.1 kit of Applied Biosystems (ABI) using a ABI 3130 sequencer (96°C 1 min initial denaturing, 30 cycles of 10 s 96°C, 50 s 50°C, 4 min 60°C). In general, 1 to 3 µl of purified DNA was used for cycle sequencing on an Eppendorf Master Cycler (4 µl was used for samples with very low DNA concentrations). Surplus dye was removed with the DyeEx 2.0 spin kit (Qiagen) and 10 µl samples were denatured for 3 min at 95°C with 10 µl ABI HighDiye formamide (Applied Biosystems). The samples were kept on ice prior to sequencing.

Sequence alignment and phylogenetic analysis

Raw electropherograms from the sequencer were assembled using the programs Pregap4 and Gap4 of the Staden package (Staden et al. 1989Staden R., Beal K.F., Bornefield J.K. 1989. The Staden package, 1989. Methods Mol. Biol. 132: 115-130.). For the first alignment of the contig sequences and additional sequences of the mitochondrial 16S rDNA gene, downloaded from GenBank (Table 2), the “ClustalW Multiple alignment” option of the program BioEdit (Hall 1999Hall T.A. 1999. BioEdit: a user-friendly biological sequence alignment editor and analysis program for Windows 95/98/NT. Nucleic Acids Symp. Ser. 41: 95-98.) was used. The alignments were improved further manually by identifying secondary structure elements of the homologous molecules in Drosophila melanogaster (mitochondrial ribosomal LSU, Accession No. X53506, Gutell et al. 1993Gutell R.R., Gray M.W., Schnare M.N. 1993. A compilation of large subunit (23S and 23S-like) ribosomal RNA structures: 1993. Nucleic Acids Res. 21: 3055-3074.). Loop regions were locally re-aligned using a hidden Markov model implemented in the program ProAlign version 0.5 (Löytynoja and Milinkovitch 2003Löytynoja A., Milinkovitch M.C. 2003. ProAlign, a probabilistic multiple alignment program (version 0.5a0). Bioinformatics 19: 1505-1513.). Default parameters were used for alignment sampling with 1000 replicates, if not stated otherwise. Estimated nucleotide frequencies were A=0.366, C=0.149, G=0.171, T=0.3131. The analysis included sites which could only be aligned in the ingroup or within the family Leuconidae. Corresponding sites of the outgroup or cumaceans other than Leuconidae, respectively, were substituted with gaps. Sites that were still ambiguously aligned at this stage were excluded from analysis.

Phylogenetic analyses were performed using maximum parsimony, maximum likelihood and Bayesian approaches. Bayesian analyses were performed with MrBayes 3.1.2 (Huelsenbeck and Ronquist 2001Huelsenbeck J.P., Ronquist F.R. 2001. MrBayes: Bayesian inference of phylogeny. Biometrics 17: 754-755.) on preset parameters, whereas for maximum likelihood and maximum parsimony analyses the programs RAxML 7.0.4 (Stamatakis 2006Stamatakis A. 2006. RAxML-VI-HPC: maximum likelihood-based phylogenetic analyses with thousands of taxa and mixed models. Bioinformatics 22: 2688-2690.) and PAUP* 4.0b10 (Swofford 2003Swofford D.L. 2003. PAUP*. Phylogenetic analysis using parsimony (*and other methods). Version 4. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts.), respectively, were used. We used the general time-reversible model with invariable sites and gamma distribution (GTR+I+Γ), whose parameters were estimated using the program ModelTest version 3.7 (Posada and Crandall 1998Posada D., Crandall K.A. 1998. Modeltest: testing the model of DNA substitution. Bioinformatics 14: 817-818.) and the Akaike information criterion. The ratio of invariable sites was 0.1935, the gamma distribution shape parameter was 0.7813 and the base frequencies were A=0.3629, C=0.1332, G=0.1742 and T=0.3297. Rates for the six substitution types estimated from the dataset were AC=3.2491, AG=13.2695, AT=5.3873, CG=2.2114, CT=21.8755, and GT=1.0000).

The settings for maximum likelihood and maximum parsimony were a heuristic search with random sequence addition (10 replicates) and tree bisection reconnection. The robustness of the tree topologies was assessed with bootstrapping with 1000 and 10000 replicates for maximum likelihood and maximum parsimony, respectively.

Outgroup selection

Malacostracan phylogeny is far from being solved at the moment, as is the phylogeny of the Peracarida (for review see: Martin and Davis 2001Martin J.W., Davis G.E. 2001. An updated classification of the recent Crustacea. Nat. Hist. Mus. Los Ang. Count., Sci. Ser. 39: 124 pp., Richter and Scholz 2001Richter S., Scholz G.S. 2001. Phylogenetic analysis of the Malacostraca (Crustacea). J. Zool. Syst. Evo. Res. 39: 113-136.). Both Malacostraca (Wills 1998Wills M.A. 1998. A phylogeny of recent and fossil Crustacea derived from morphological characters. In: Fortey R.A., Thomas R.H. (eds), Arthropod Relationships. Syst. Ass. Spec. Vol. Ser. 55, Chapman & Hal, London, pp. 189-209.) and Peracarida (Schram and Hof 1998Schram F.R., Hof C.H.J. 1998. Fossils and the interrelationships of major Crustacean groups. In: Edgecombe G.D. (ed.), Arthropod Fossils and Phylogeny. New York, Columbia University Press: pp. 233-302., Watling 1991Watling L. 1991. Revision of the cumacean family Leuconidae. J. Crust. Biol. 11: 569-582.) are even suggested to be polyphyletic.

Siewing (1963)Siewing R. 1963. Studies in malacostracan morphology: results and problems. In: Whittington H.B., Rolfe W.D.I. (eds), Phylogeny and Evolution of Crustacea. Mus. Comp. Zool. Spec. Publ. 13: 85-103. suggested Tanaidacea and Isopoda as a sister group to Cumacea, whereas Watling (1999)Watling L. 1999. Towards understanding the relationships of the peracaridan orders: the necessity of determining exact homologies. In: Schram F.R., von Vaupel Klein J.C., (eds), Crustaceans and the Biodiversity Crisis. Proc. Fourth Int. Crust. Congr. Vol. I, Amsterdam, Netherlands, pp. 73-89. and Schram (1986)Schram F.R. 1986. Crustacea. Oxford University Press, New York, 606 pp. placed the isopods more basally. After Schram and Hof (1998)Schram F.R., Hof C.H.J. 1998. Fossils and the interrelationships of major Crustacean groups. In: Edgecombe G.D. (ed.), Arthropod Fossils and Phylogeny. New York, Columbia University Press: pp. 233-302., the tanaids are a more basal group, but the tree shown is not fully resolved, with a possible close relationship between Tanaidacea and Cumacea, while there is no closer relationship between Isopoda and Cumacea. Resent phylogenetic analysis by Richter and Scholz (2001)Richter S., Scholz G.S. 2001. Phylogenetic analysis of the Malacostraca (Crustacea). J. Zool. Syst. Evo. Res. 39: 113-136. indicate a possible sister relationship of Tanaidacea and Isopoda to Cumacea. Following these authors, the exact position of the Cumacea and related taxa in the phylogenetic tree is still not resolved. Still, several morphological characters, such as the carapace as a respiratory structure (Watling 1999Watling L. 1999. Towards understanding the relationships of the peracaridan orders: the necessity of determining exact homologies. In: Schram F.R., von Vaupel Klein J.C., (eds), Crustaceans and the Biodiversity Crisis. Proc. Fourth Int. Crust. Congr. Vol. I, Amsterdam, Netherlands, pp. 73-89.), the dorsally folded embryo, in addition to the manca stage and similar formation of the midgut (Hessler 1983Hessler R.R. 1983. A defense of the caridoid facies: wherein the early evolution of the Eumalacostraca is discussed. In: Schram F.R, (ed.) Crustacean Phylogeny, Crustacean Issues, A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 145-164.), support a closer linkage of Cumacea, Isopoda and Tanaidacea. Following these common characters, Isopoda and Tanaidacea were selected as an outgroup to Cumacea.

RESULTSTop

The fragment amplified with the primers ALh/CLr varied between 255 and 256 bp in length, while those amplified with the primers 16Sa/16Sb ranged from 470 to 472 bp. The alignment is based on sequences obtained with the primers 16Sa/16Sb; sequences of Leucon antarcticus and Leucon rossi were solely obtained using the primers ALh/CLr. The total length of the alignment was 523bp. After the exclusion of ambiguously aligned positions, 382 remained, of which 106 were constant and 54 were parsimony-uninformative.

Maximum parsimony resulted in a tree with most taxa included in only one polytomy. Transition/transversion ratios from 0 to 10 (values presented in Fig. 1 were calculated with a ratio of 3) were tested, all yielding similar trees with differences only in the bootstrapping support. The cumacean family Diastylidae was the only well-supported monophylum (bootstrap support 83%) and Cumacea were not monophyletic because Apseudes latreiellei (Tanaidacea) was placed on the same branch.

Trees obtained with the Bayesian and maximum likelihood methods were similar, but in general nodes had a weaker maximum likelihood support (Fig. 1). The Bayesian analysis indicated that the Cumacea are monophyletic, supported by a Bayesian score (BS) of one. Furthermore, the Diastylidae are well supported (0.99 BS), while Bodotriidae were not resolved as a monophylum. The Leuconidae are weakly supported as monophyletic family, but with a BS of only 0.67. At this node the tree is trichotomous with Leucon assimilis, Eudorella pusilla and the remaining Leuconidae. The latter are fairly well supported (0.97 BS). The subgenus Crymoleucon is monophyletic and also well supported (0.88 BS), but fails to resolve in the maximum likelihood tree. Species pairs, which exhibit high BS, are Leucon antarcticus/L. rossi and Diastylis sculpta/D. rathkei.

The sequence belonging to species of the genus Leucon are split into three groups (Fig. 2) when compared with pairwise p-distances. The first group comprises within-species comparison with p-distances from 0 to 0.05, whereas the second group gives the minimum distance (0.20-0.21) of interspecific variation of the two closely related species Leucon antarcticus and L. rossi (compare Fig. 1). Interspecific distances of the remaining species are confined to the third group (p-distance 0.30-0.36). Intraspecific variation in the 16S rDNA of the two species L. antarcticus and L. intermedius follows different patterns. Intraspecific p-distances of L. intermedius (Fig. 3A) range from 0 to 0.033, while sequence similarity of L. antarcticus (Fig. 3B) shows higher variation (0-0.052) and a bimodal distribution with no intermediate sequence, correlating to geographical distance and depth distribution. Pairs of sequences with p-values from 0 to 0.014 were obtained from specimens collected either in the Ross Sea (depth ranging from 316 to 358 m) or in the Weddell Sea (900 m), whereas p-distances from 0.038 to 0.052 were observed between these groups.

DISCUSSIONTop

Phylogenetic analysis of 16S rDNA

The model test recommended a complex model (GTR+I+G) for the present dataset. This is reflected by the fact that maximum likelihood and Bayesian methods lead to more resolved tree topologies than maximum parsimony. Maximum parsimony describes observed changes of characters and the method does not consider complex evolutionary assumptions, which are contained in the GTR model. According to the rescaled consistency index (0.0980) calculated with the program PAUP*, a certain homoplasy is indicated for the data set. Consequently, the result of maximum parsimony is regarded as less informative and will not be discussed further.

Tree topologies observed from Bayesian and likelihood analyses both show that cumaceans including the families Diastylidae, Bodotriidae and Leuconidae are monophyletic with regard to the outgroup. Additionally, the Diastylidae appear monophyletic. In the phylogenetic analysis of molecular data from the cytochrome oxidase I (COI) by Haye et al. (2004)Haye P.A., Kornfield I., Watling L. 2004. Molecular insights into Cumacean family relationships (Crustacea, Cumacea). Mol. Phyl. Evol. 30: 798-809., the Bayesian and maximum likelihood methods, in contrast to maximum parsimony, could not confirm monophyly for the Cumacea. The authors assumed that this is due to the low taxon number of Pseudocumatidae represented in their study, which do not group with other cumaceans. COI data suggest that the Diastylidae may be paraphyletic. As the number of diastylid taxa was less than half in the present study, we cannot rule out that 16S data might also prove paraphyly for a greater number of Diastylidae. Nevertheless, Haye et al. (2004)Haye P.A., Kornfield I., Watling L. 2004. Molecular insights into Cumacean family relationships (Crustacea, Cumacea). Mol. Phyl. Evol. 30: 798-809. point out that constraining the Diastylidae to be monophyletic results in a tree that is not significantly longer than the Bayesian tree.

Bodotriidae (two branches) and Leuconidae (weakly supported) are part of the same polytomous node during the present study. Therefore, the result of the COI data could not be confirmed, showing that Bodotriidae were paraphyletic with the other pleotelson-bearing families, Leuconidae and Nannastacidae, nested within. A “pleotelson clade” has very low support in both studies. On the other hand, this clade is confirmed by morphological data with the three families monophyletic each and the Nannastacidae as a possible intermediate taxon between the more basal Leuconidae and derived Bodotriidae (Haye et al. 2004Haye P.A., Kornfield I., Watling L. 2004. Molecular insights into Cumacean family relationships (Crustacea, Cumacea). Mol. Phyl. Evol. 30: 798-809.).

The genus Atlantocuma was originally placed in the family Bodotriidae (Băcescu and Muradian 1974Băcescu M., Muradian Z. 1974. Campylaspenis, Styoptocuma, Atlantocuma, new genera of Cumacea from the deep waters of the Atlantic. Rev. Roum. Biol. 19: 71-78.). Jones (1984)Jones N.S. 1984. The family Nannastacidae (Crustacea: Cumacea) from the deep Atlantic. Bull. Brit. Mus. Nat. Hist. Zool. 46: 207-289. mentioned the nannastacid-like character of the species, but preferred to leave it as an aberrant form within the Bodotriidae, while Haye (2002)Haye P.A. 2002. Systematics of the Cumacea (Crustacea). PhD Thesis, University of Maine, 266 pp. used the taxon as an outgroup in the phylogenetic analysis of the Bodotriidae because it grouped as a sister taxon to the nannastacid genera Cumellopsis and Scherocumella. The recent morphological analysis of Bodotriidae (Haye 2007Haye P.A. 2007. Systematics of the genera of Bodotriidae (Crustacea: Cumacea). Zool. J. Linn. Soc. 151: 1-58.) does not include Atlantocuma in the Bodotriidae. In the present study Atlantocuma is a sister taxon to Cyclaspis, so a close relationship of Atlantocuma to the Bodotriidae is highlighted. Nevertheless, the placement of Atlantocuma cannot be solved finally since no sequences of 16S rDNA for the family Nannastacidae were available.

Monophyly of the Leuconidae is only weakly supported by the data presented here, but within the family a monophyletic group comprises the monophyletic subgenus Crymoleucon and an undescribed species of the subgenus Leucon (pers. comm. Mühlenhardt-Siegel). The tree topology suggests good evidence that the subgenus Leucon is paraphyletic because L. assimilis also belongs to the subgenus Leucon. The species L. antarcticus and L. rossi, which represent a monophyletic group, are also closely related morphologically. Besides decreasing size of the dorsomedial teeth to the posterior end of the carapace, the species can be distinguished by the shape of the pseudorostrum, which is blunt in L. rossi and tipped and slightly upturned in L. antarcticus, as well as by a spine present on the first article of the exopod of the first pereopod (Rehm and Heard 2008Rehm P., Heard R. 2008. Leucon (Crymoleucon) rossi, a new species (Crustacea: Cumacea: Leuconidae) from the shelf waters of the Ross Sea (Antarctica), with a key to the genus Leucon south of 60°S. Sci. Mar. 72: 683-691.).

Phylogenetic information provided during this study is reliable partially within the Leuconidae, in delimiting Cumacea from the outgroup, and in the monophyly of the Diastylidae with respect to the other ingroup taxa. Some authors have suggested that the Diastylidae are the most derived cumacean family (Băcescu and Petrescu 1999Băcescu M., Petrescu I. 1999. Ordre des Cumacés (Cumacea Krøyer, 1846). Mém. Inst. Océanogr. (Monaco) 19: 391-428.), while Lomakina (1968)Lomakina M. 1968. Stroenie pecenocinih diverticul u cumovih rakov (Cumacea) i ego filogeneticeskoe znancenie. Zool. J. 47: 60-72. and Zimmer (1941)Zimmer C. 1941. Cumacea. Dr. H.G. Bronns Klassen und Ordnungen des Tierreichs 5: 222 pp. placed this family next to the Lampropidae at the basis of the Cumacea. A derived position of the Diastylidae was not confirmed by the results of the present study. Moreover, phylogenetic analyses of morphological characters and the cytochrome oxidase I gene presented by Haye et al. (2004)Haye P.A., Kornfield I., Watling L. 2004. Molecular insights into Cumacean family relationships (Crustacea, Cumacea). Mol. Phyl. Evol. 30: 798-809. both indicate a more basal position of the Diastylidae. Therefore, the assumption of Zimmer and Lomakina considering the general position of the Diastylidae has to be regarded as confirmed.

For a well-founded analysis of cumacean families, more taxa of all families need to be analysed. Since cumaceans represent a relatively old group, more genes including more slowly evolving ones than the mitochondrial 16S rRNA gene are needed to fully resolve the phylogeny of higher cumacean taxa. The more slowly evolving 18S gene is a possible candidate for further investigations; in addition more genes should be included to enhance the resolution of cumacean phylogeny (Hillis et al. 1996Hillis D.M., Moritz C., Mable B.K. (eds). 1996. Molecular Systematics, 2nd ed., Palgrave Macmillan, 655 pp.).

Variation in 16S rDNA of Antarctic Leuconidae

It should be highlighted that no previous molecular information on the Cumacea from Antarctica is available. The mitochondrial 16S sequences of Leucon antarcticus show a pronounced barcoding gap, i.e. a bimodal distribution pattern of pairwise genetic distances with no intermediate values, indicating the possible existence of cryptic species (Fig. 3B; see Held 2003Held C. 2003. Molecular evidence for cryptic speciation within the widespread Antarctic crustacean Ceratoserolis trilobitoides (Crustacea, Isopoda). In: Huiskes A.H., Geiskes W.W., et al. (eds), Antarctic biology in a global context. Backhuys Publishers, Leiden, 135-139.). The sequences fall into two groups: one was obtained from the Weddell Sea at a depth of 900 m, whereas the other was obtained from the Ross Sea at about 350 m water depth. From the Weddell Sea only two sequences were available for genetic analysis; therefore, it is possible that intermediate sequences exist. Even if the results represent true haplotype distribution, intermediate sequences could exist in geographically intermediate populations of L. antarctica. Nevertheless, 14 sequences of the ‘Ross Sea haplotype’, sampled at two stations with a distance of 340 km, vary only in one position in the alignment, whereas nine positions are different to the “Weddell Sea haplotype”.

The second criterion for distinguishing cryptic species is the differentiation level of the gene, which should be in the range of clearly separated but closely related species. The differentiation between L. antarcticus and L. rossi (Fig. 2), which are closely related species (see phylogenetic analysis), is less than that between L. antarcticus and other leuconid species, but still five times higher than that within the two observed haplotypes of L. antarcticus. The study of 16S rDNA of brachyuran crabs from Jamaica has shown that cryptic speciation may take place at lower levels than revealed for L. antarcticus (Schubart and Koller 2005Schubart C.D, Koller P. 2005. Genetic diversity of freshwater crabs (Brachyura: Sesarmidae) from central Jamaica with description of a new species. J. Nat. Hist. 39: 469-481.). On the other hand, p-values observed for the differentiation of cryptic Antarctic isopod species (Held 2003Held C. 2003. Molecular evidence for cryptic speciation within the widespread Antarctic crustacean Ceratoserolis trilobitoides (Crustacea, Isopoda). In: Huiskes A.H., Geiskes W.W., et al. (eds), Antarctic biology in a global context. Backhuys Publishers, Leiden, 135-139., Held and Wägele 2005Held C., Wägele J.W. 2005. Cryptic speciation in the giant Antarctic isopod Glyptonotus antarcticus (Isopoda: Valvifera: Chaertiliidae). Sci. Mar. 69: 175-181.) is at the upper range or even higher than in L. antarcticus. A further indication for cryptic speciation might be the different distance pattern observed in L. intermedius, with the upper limit of p-values at 0.033 and intermediate values (Fig. 3B). The third criterion mentioned by Held is not applicable, as it demands constantly high level of differentiation in sympatry.

Morphological records of L. antarctica are ambiguous. The species was first described by Zimmer (1907)Zimmer C. 1907. Neue Cumaceen aus den Familien Diastylidae und Leuconidae von der Deutschen und Schwedischen Südpolar-Expedition. Zoologischer Anzeiger 31: 220-229. from the East Antarctic (compare also Zimmer 1913Zimmer C. 1913. Die Cumaceen der Deutschen Südpolar-Expedition 1901-1903. Zoologie 6: 437-492.) and by Calman (L. australis) from the Ross Sea in the same year. Ledoyer described the species for a third time from the Weddell Sea. Zimmer presented a more detailed description, whereas the descriptions of Calman and Ledoyer are vague in several aspects. Zimmer mentioned five lateral spines on the carapace, while no spine is mentioned in Calman’s description. For L. antarctica (sensu Ledoyer 1993Ledoyer M. 1993. Cumacea (Crustacea) de la campagne EPOS 3 du R.V. Polarstern en mare de Weddell (est Antarctique). J. Nat. Hist. 27: 1041-1096., Calman 1907Calman W.T. 1907. Crustacea. II. Cumacea. National Antarctic Expedition 1901-1904. Brit. Mus. Nat. Hist. Rep. Zool. 2: 1-6.) no spine is mentioned either, but in the drawing one spine is depicted. All descriptions cover only a part of the appendages. Moreover, due to low quality of the drawings and insufficient descriptions given in the text, it is not possible to judge possible geographical differences reflected in morphology. Specimens from the Weddell Sea used for the present study bear a similar spine pattern on the carapace as specimens from the Ross Sea. Both populations show some variation, which does not allow a differentiation according to the lateral spines of the carapace.

In conclusion, morphological descriptions of L. antarctica are indistinct, the number of samples of the 16S rDNA gene and the geographical distribution of sample sites are not sufficient to allow a final evaluation of genetic variability and cryptic speciation. Still, differences exist in the sequences of 16S rDNA, which can only be explained by genetic separation of populations from the Weddell Sea and the Ross Sea for an extended period of time. Further studies with more sequences and extended geographical range of samples will provide a more detailed image of the genetic diversity of this species and finally bring the stage of speciation to light.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSTop

We thank the crew of RV Italica for their help and efficient work at sea. We are also grateful to Olaf Heilmayer, Susanne Gatti and M. Chiantore for the organization of the cruise and their help on board. Our thanks go to Ricardo Cattaneo Vietti for the invitation to participate at and his help during the 19th expedition of the PNRA (S.C.r.l.). The German Science Foundation (DFG) provided travelling funds to the principal author (Br 1121/23-1). We thank two anonymous reviewers for constructively commenting on the manuscript.

REFERENCESTop

Allcock A.L., Brierley A.S., Thorpe J.P., et al. 1997. Restricted gene flow and evolutionary divergence between geographically separated populations of the Antarctic octopus Pareledone turqueti. Mar. Biol. 129: 97-102.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s002270050150

Arango C.P., Soler-Membrives A., Miller K.J. 2011. Genetic differentiation in the circum-Antarctic sea spider Nymphon australe (Pycnogonida; Nymphonidae). Deep-Sea Res. II 58: 212-219.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr2.2010.05.019

Băcescu M., Muradian Z. 1974. Campylaspenis, Styoptocuma, Atlantocuma, new genera of Cumacea from the deep waters of the Atlantic. Rev. Roum. Biol. 19: 71-78.

Băcescu M., Petrescu I. 1999. Ordre des Cumacés (Cumacea Krøyer, 1846). Mém. Inst. Océanogr. (Monaco) 19: 391-428.

Baird H.P., Miller K.J., Stark J.S. 2011. Evidence of hidden biodiversity, ongoing speciation and diverse patterns of genetic structure in giant Antarctic amphipods. Mol. Ecol. 20: 3439-3454.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2011.05173.x

Beermann J., Westbury M.V., Hofreiter M., et al. 2018. Cryptic species in a well-known habitat: applying taxonomics to the amphipod genus Epimeria (Crustacea, Peracarida). Sci. Rep. 8: 6893.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-25225-x

Błażewicz M., Heard W.H. 1999. First record of the family Gynodiastylidae Stebbing, 1912 (Crustacea: Malacostraca: Cumacea) from Antarctic waters with the description of Gynodiastylis jazdzewskii, a new species. Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash. 112: 362-367.

Calman W.T. 1907. Crustacea. II. Cumacea. National Antarctic Expedition 1901-1904. Brit. Mus. Nat. Hist. Rep. Zool. 2: 1-6.

Cartes J.E. 1993. Diets of two deep-sea decapods: Nematocarcinus exilis (Caridea: Nematocarcinidae) and Munida tenuimana (Anomura: Galatheidae) on the Western Mediterranean slope. Ophelia 37: 213-229.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00785326.1993.10429919

Clarke A., Crame J.A. 1989. The origin of the Southern Ocean marine fauna. In: Crame J.A. (ed.) Origins and evolution of the Antarctic biota. Geol. Soc. Lond. Spec. Publ. 47: 253-268.
https://doi.org/10.1144/GSL.SP.1989.047.01.19

Dornburg A., Federman S., Eytan R.I., et al. 2016. Cryptic species diversity in sub-Antarctic islands: A case study of Lepidonotothen. Mol. Phyl. Evol. 194: 32-43.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2016.07.013

Fraser C.I., Zuccarello G.C., Spencer H.G., et al. 2013. Genetic affinities between trans-oceanic populations of non-buoyant macroalgae in the high latitudes of the Southern Hemisphere. PLoS ONE 8: e69138.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0069138

Gutell R.R., Gray M.W., Schnare M.N. 1993. A compilation of large subunit (23S and 23S-like) ribosomal RNA structures: 1993. Nucleic Acids Res. 21: 3055-3074.
https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/21.13.3055

Hall T.A. 1999. BioEdit: a user-friendly biological sequence alignment editor and analysis program for Windows 95/98/NT. Nucleic Acids Symp. Ser. 41: 95-98.

Haye P.A. 2002. Systematics of the Cumacea (Crustacea). PhD Thesis, University of Maine, 266 pp.

Haye P.A. 2007. Systematics of the genera of Bodotriidae (Crustacea: Cumacea). Zool. J. Linn. Soc. 151: 1-58.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1096-3642.2007.00322.x

Haye P.A., Kornfield I., Watling L. 2004. Molecular insights into Cumacean family relationships (Crustacea, Cumacea). Mol. Phyl. Evol. 30: 798-809.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2003.08.003

Held C. 2000. Speziation im Südpolarmeer - Systematik und Biogeographie der Serolidae und Arcturidae (Crustacea, Isopoda). PhD Thesis, University of Bielefeld, 144 pp.

Held C. 2003. Molecular evidence for cryptic speciation within the widespread Antarctic crustacean Ceratoserolis trilobitoides (Crustacea, Isopoda). In: Huiskes A.H., Geiskes W.W., et al. (eds), Antarctic biology in a global context. Backhuys Publishers, Leiden, 135-139.

Held C., Wägele J.W. 2005. Cryptic speciation in the giant Antarctic isopod Glyptonotus antarcticus (Isopoda: Valvifera: Chaertiliidae). Sci. Mar. 69: 175-181.
https://doi.org/10.3989/scimar.2005.69s2175

Hessler R.R. 1983. A defense of the caridoid facies: wherein the early evolution of the Eumalacostraca is discussed. In: Schram F.R, (ed.) Crustacean Phylogeny, Crustacean Issues, A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 145-164.

Hillis D.M., Moritz C., Mable B.K. (eds). 1996. Molecular Systematics, 2nd ed., Palgrave Macmillan, 655 pp.
https://doi.org/10.2307/1447682

Huelsenbeck J.P., Ronquist F.R. 2001. MrBayes: Bayesian inference of phylogeny. Biometrics 17: 754-755.
https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/17.8.754

Jones N.S. 1984. The family Nannastacidae (Crustacea: Cumacea) from the deep Atlantic. Bull. Brit. Mus. Nat. Hist. Zool. 46: 207-289.
https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.part.15965

Kalendar R. 2003. FastPCR: A Program for fast design PCR Primer, DNA and Protein manipulation. (2.5.59).

Karaman S. 1953. Über subterrane Isopoden und Amphipoden des Karstes von Dubrovnik und seines Hinterlandes. Acta Musei Macedonici Sci. Nat. 1(7): 137-167.

Leese F., Agrawal S., Held C. 2010. Long-distance island hopping without dispersal stages: transportation across major zoogeographic barriers in a Southern Ocean isopod. Naturwissenschaften, 97: 583-594.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00114-010-0674-y

Ledoyer M. 1993. Cumacea (Crustacea) de la campagne EPOS 3 du R.V. Polarstern en mare de Weddell (est Antarctique). J. Nat. Hist. 27: 1041-1096.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00222939300770661

Linse K., Cope T., Lörz A.N., et al. 2007. Is the Scotia Sea a centre of Antarctic marine diversification? Some evidence of cryptic speciation in the circum-Antarctic bivalve Lissarca notorcadensis (Arcoidea: Philobryidae). Polar Biol. 30: 1059-1068.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00300-007-0265-3

Lomakina M. 1968. Stroenie pecenocinih diverticul u cumovih rakov (Cumacea) i ego filogeneticeskoe znancenie. Zool. J. 47: 60-72.

Löytynoja A., Milinkovitch M.C. 2003. ProAlign, a probabilistic multiple alignment program (version 0.5a0). Bioinformatics 19: 1505-1513.
https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btg193

Martin J.W., Davis G.E. 2001. An updated classification of the recent Crustacea. Nat. Hist. Mus. Los Ang. Count., Sci. Ser. 39: 124 pp.

Mühlenhardt-Siegel U. 1999. On the biogeography of Cumacea (Crustacea, Malacostraca). A comparison between South America, the Subantarctic Islands, and Antarctica: present state of the art. Sci. Mar. 63(Suppl. 1): 295-302.
https://doi.org/10.3989/scimar.1999.63s1295

Pabis K., Błażewicz-Paszkowycz M. 2011. Distribution and diversity of cumacean assemblages in Admiralty Bay, King George Island. Polish Polar Res. 32: 341-354.
https://doi.org/10.2478/v10183-011-0024-6

Palumbi S.R., Martin A., Romano S., et al. 1991. The Simple Fool’s Guide to PCR, version 2. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu, 43 pp.

Posada D., Crandall K.A. 1998. Modeltest: testing the model of DNA substitution. Bioinformatics 14: 817-818.
https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/14.9.817

Raupach M.J., Wägele J.W. 2006. Distinguishing cryptic species in Antarctic Asellota (Crustacea: Isopoda)-a preliminary study of mitochondrial DNA in Acanthaspidia drygalskii. Ant. Sci. 18: 191-198.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954102006000228

Rehm P., Heard R. 2008. Leucon (Crymoleucon) rossi, a new species (Crustacea: Cumacea: Leuconidae) from the shelf waters of the Ross Sea (Antarctica), with a key to the genus Leucon south of 60°S. Sci. Mar. 72: 683-691.
https://doi.org/10.3989/scimar.2008.72n4683

Rehm P., Thatje S., Mühlenhardt-Siegel U., et al. 2007. Composition and distribution of the peracarid crustacean fauna along a latitudinal transect off Victoria Land (Ross Sea, Antarctica) with special emphasis on the Cumacea. Polar Biol. 30: 871-881.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00300-006-0247-x

Richter S., Scholz G.S. 2001. Phylogenetic analysis of the Malacostraca (Crustacea). J. Zool. Syst. Evo. Res. 39: 113-136.
https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1439-0469.2001.00164.x

San Vicente C., Ramos A., Jimeno A., et al. 1997. Suprabenthic assemblages from South Shetland Islands and Bransfield Strait (Antarctica): preliminary observations on faunistical composition, bathymetric and near-bottom distribution. Polar Biol. 18: 415-422.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s003000050208

Sars G.O. 1873. Beskrivelse af syv nye Cumaceer fravestindien og det syd-Atlantiske Ocean. Kongl Svenska Vetenskaps-Akademiens Handlingar 11: 3-30.

Sars G.O. 1887. Report on the Cumacea collected by H.M.S Challenger during the years 1873-1876. Rep. Sci. Res. Voy. HMS Chall. Zool. 19: 1-78.
https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.10403

Schlacher T.A, Wooldridge T.H. 1996. Patterns of selective predation by juvenile, benthivorous fish on estuarine macrofauna. Mar. Biol. 125: 241-247.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00346304

Schram F.R. 1986. Crustacea. Oxford University Press, New York, 606 pp.

Schram F.R., Hof C.H.J. 1998. Fossils and the interrelationships of major Crustacean groups. In: Edgecombe G.D. (ed.), Arthropod Fossils and Phylogeny. New York, Columbia University Press: pp. 233-302.

Schubart C.D, Koller P. 2005. Genetic diversity of freshwater crabs (Brachyura: Sesarmidae) from central Jamaica with description of a new species. J. Nat. Hist. 39: 469-481.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00222930410001671291

Siewing R. 1963. Studies in malacostracan morphology: results and problems. In: Whittington H.B., Rolfe W.D.I. (eds), Phylogeny and Evolution of Crustacea. Mus. Comp. Zool. Spec. Publ. 13: 85-103.

Staden R., Beal K.F., Bornefield J.K. 1989. The Staden package, 1989. Methods Mol. Biol. 132: 115-130.
https://doi.org/10.1385/1-59259-192-2:115

Stamatakis A. 2006. RAxML-VI-HPC: maximum likelihood-based phylogenetic analyses with thousands of taxa and mixed models. Bioinformatics 22: 2688-2690.
https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btl446

Swofford D.L. 2003. PAUP*. Phylogenetic analysis using parsimony (*and other methods). Version 4. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts.

Thatje S. 2012. Effects of capability for dispersal on the evolution of diversity in Antarctic benthos. Int. Comp. Biol. 52: 470-482.
https://doi.org/10.1093/icb/ics105

Thatje S., Hillenbrand C.D., Larter R. 2005. On the origin of Antarctic marine benthic community structure. Trends Ecol. Evol. 20: 534-540.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2005.07.010

Thatje S, Hillenbrand C.D, Mackensen A., et al. 2008. Life hung by a thread: endurance of Antarctic fauna in glacial periods. Ecology 89: 682-692.
https://doi.org/10.1890/07-0498.1

Watling L. 1991. Revision of the cumacean family Leuconidae. J. Crust. Biol. 11: 569-582.
https://doi.org/10.2307/1548527

Watling L. 1999. Towards understanding the relationships of the peracaridan orders: the necessity of determining exact homologies. In: Schram F.R., von Vaupel Klein J.C., (eds), Crustaceans and the Biodiversity Crisis. Proc. Fourth Int. Crust. Congr. Vol. I, Amsterdam, Netherlands, pp. 73-89.

Wills M.A. 1998. A phylogeny of recent and fossil Crustacea derived from morphological characters. In: Fortey R.A., Thomas R.H. (eds), Arthropod Relationships. Syst. Ass. Spec. Vol. Ser. 55, Chapman & Hal, London, pp. 189-209.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-4904-4_15

Wilson N.G., Hunter R.L., Lockhart S.J., et al. 2007. Multiple lineages and absence of panmixia in the “circumpolar” crinoid Promachocrinus kerguelensis from the Atlantic sector of Antarctica. Mar. Biol. 152: 895-904.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00227-007-0742-9

Zimmer C. 1907. Neue Cumaceen aus den Familien Diastylidae und Leuconidae von der Deutschen und Schwedischen Südpolar-Expedition. Zoologischer Anzeiger 31: 220-229.

Zimmer C. 1913. Die Cumaceen der Deutschen Südpolar-Expedition 1901-1903. Zoologie 6: 437-492.

Zimmer C. 1941. Cumacea. Dr. H.G. Bronns Klassen und Ordnungen des Tierreichs 5: 222 pp.