Abstract
<p class="HeadingRunIn" style="margin-top: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph; line-height: 12.0pt; page-break-after: auto;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">Asterocheres <span style="font-size: 10pt;">Boeck, 1860 is the largest genus in the family Asterocheridae and includes approximately 96 nominal species. Nevertheless, according to Kim (2010), the current assignment of twelve of these species to Asterocheres is debatable, and fifteen species are too incompletely described for reliable comparisons to be made. In this paper, two species, A. corneliae Schirl, 1973 and A. boeckii (Brady, 1880), are redescribed and compared with their congeners. As a result of the comparison between A. boeckii and A. fastigatus Kim, 2010, a new genus, Kimcheres, is erected to accommodate the only species of Asterocheres displaying the armature formula (0-1) on the second endopodal segment of leg 4. The taxonomic position of A. longisetosus Nair & Pillai, 1984, considered as species inquirenda by Kim (2010), is discussed. Examination of the original description and illustrations, especially the antennules and the mandible, casts doubts on the validity of the species.<p class="MsoNormal">Asterocheres Boeck, 1860 is the largest genus in the family Asterocheridae and includes approximately 96 nominal species. Nevertheless, according to Kim (2010), the current assignment of twelve of these species to Asterocheres is debatable, and fifteen species are too incompletely described for reliable comparisons to be made. In this paper, two species, A. corneliae Schirl, 1973 and A. boeckii (Brady, 1880), are redescribed and compared with their congeners. As a result of the comparison between A. boeckii and A. fastigatus Kim, 2010, a new genus, Kimcheres, is erected to accommodate the only species of Asterocheres displaying the armature formula (0-1) on the second endopodal segment of leg 4. The taxonomic position of A. longisetosus Nair & Pillai, 1984, considered as species inquirenda by Kim (2010), is discussed. Examination of the original description and illustrations, especially the antennules and the mandible, casts doubts on the validity of the species.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
