On the recent Cyclocypridinae (Podocopida, Candonidae) with description of two new genera and one new species 2820 Author Karanovic, Ivana text Zootaxa 2011 2011-04-14 2820 1 1 61 https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.2820.1.1 journal article 10.11646/zootaxa.2820.1.1 1175­5334 5288957 Keysercypria pellucida ( Sars, 1901 ) ( Figures 16C–F ) 1901 Cypria pellucida Sars : p. 37, Pl. 8, Figs 7 , 8 ? 1905 Cypria pellucida Sars —Daday: p. 255, Pl. 16, Figs 10–15 non 1933 Cypria pellucida Sars —Furtos: p. 467, Pl. 15, Figs 15–17 . Redescription. Female: Carapace ovoid in lateral view, with dorsal margin almost evenly rounded. LV overlapping RV on all free margins. RV without marginal tubercles along free margin ( Figure 16F ). T2 ( Figure 16E ): Basal seta missing. Setae “e” and “f” reaching distal end of following segments. Seta “h3” on terminal segment short, reaching only 1/3 of L of terminal claw. Terminal claw as long as three distal segments combined. T3 ( Figure 16C ): Setae “e”, “f” and “g” all being very short. Terminal segment almost as wide as long, L ratios between three distal setae (of which h1 and h2 being almost claw-like) 1: 2.2: 5. UR ( Figure 16D ): L ratios between anterior margin, anterior, and posterior claw equaling 1.7: 1.4: 1. Posterior seta, long and inserted slightly more proximally on posterior margin. Remarks and Affinities. Keysercypria pellucida ( Sars, 1901 ) was described only after females, and the original description ( Sars 1901 ) contains only the appearance of the carapace. I checked the type material and provide some additional drawings. Unfortunately, the slide contains only an undissected female, so my observations were limited. Daday (1905) , reported the species from Paraguay , and he described the male as well. However, the male’s UR has a very short posterior seta, which is not the case in the female ( Figure 16D ). I was able to check Daday’s material but, unfortunately, all the slides are in such a bad state that it is not possible to draw any conclusion and all would need remounting to be able to verify the identity of the species Daday was dealing with. Furtos (1933) reported the species from Ohio, but this is definitely not even a representative of the genus Keysercypria , since it has long “e” and “f” setae on the T3 and equally long “h1” and “h2” setae on the T3. This was also noted by Klie (1940) . If we accept that Daday’s finding was not of K. pellucida , then both, K. pellucida and K. circinata ( Würdig & Pinto, 1993 ) are described only after females and they differ from K. obtusa only by slightly higher valves in the lateral view. Since I had an opportunity to study the type material of both K. pellucida and K. obtusa , it is indeed difficult to find out any further morphological difference between the two species.