@article {119, title = {Phylogenetic analysis of the amphipod family Bogidiellidae s. lat., and revision of taxa above the species level}, journal = {Crustaceana}, volume = {72}, year = {1999}, month = {Nov. 1999}, pages = {781-816}, abstract = {

The increasing number of world-wide discoveries of subterranean amphipods, especially during the last two decades, has led to additions of numerous new taxa in the stygobiont family Bogidiellidae s. lat. To date, the family is composed of 23 genera and 11 subgenera, and approximately 110 described species. However, given the uneven quality of generic and subgeneric diagnoses in the literature, there is considerable confusion regarding the status of some of the taxa at these levels. Even the family itself lacks a clear definition. In order to gain a better knowledge of the phylogeny of this group, a cladistic analysis, employing both PAUP 3.0s and MacClade, was performed on the genera and subgenera currently assigned to the Bogidiellidae s. lat. Supported by the results of this analysis, the taxonomic structure of this group is completely revised above the species level. The revision excludes 5 genera from the family, all remaining subgenera are elevated to generic level. Four taxa are split, resulting in 5 new genera. The family Bogidiellidae now consists of 33 genera.

}, keywords = {phylogeny, revision}, author = {Koenemann, Stefan and Holsinger, John R.} } @article {22, title = {Tercer Bogidiellidae (Crustacea Amphipoda) be la cuenca del Rio Grande (Jujuy, Argentina)}, journal = {Neotropica}, volume = {30}, year = {1984}, pages = {223-231}, abstract = {

Third Bogidtellidae (Crustacea Amphipoda) from Rio Grande basin (Jujuy, Argentina). Bogidiella lavillai n. sp. is described from the river\&$\#$39;s basin, where two other congeneric species were discovered before and included in the subgenus Stygogidiella Stock.

}, keywords = {Argentina}, author = {Grosso, Luise E and Claps, Guillermo L} } @article {21, title = {Un caso de simpatria de tres especies del genero Bogidiella (Crustacea, Amphipoda) en el Noroeste Argentino, con la descripcion de dos nuevas especies}, journal = {Stygologia, Leiden}, volume = {4}, year = {1988}, pages = {64-78}, abstract = {

Three species of Bogidiella were collected together in the hyporheal of the river Medina, Sierra de Medina (27\°01\&$\#$39;S 65\°04\&$\#$39;W) Tucuman, Argentina.
One of the species B. tucumanensis Grosso \& Fernandez, 1985 was already known from the Taf\í stream, sierras de San Javier, 30 Km to the southwest; the two others are new B. horcomollensis n. sp. has also been collected in Las Ca\ñas river, Sierras de San Javier, 8 km south of the Taf\í stream, and B. ringueleti n. sp. has been found in the type locality only. Both new species are described (both sexes).
B. horcomollensis is the most plesiomorphic of these species. It is characterized by the outer lobe of the second maxilla bearing less than 10 spines; the second male pleopod in which the outer plumose seta of the second article is modified into a foliaceous structure with short spinules on the edge; the outer lobe of maxilliped bearing 2 spines; the inner lobe of the second maxilla having the inner spine more developed than the other ones. There are no modifications in the second male uropod in the first male of female uropods, or in the first male pleopod.
B. ringueleti possesses more than 10 spines on the outer lobe of the second maxilla; the second male pleopod is modified as in B. horcomollensis, however it lacks spinules on the edge, but shows a spinulose area in the enlarged basal part; the second male uropod has a shortened and enlarged peduncle and endopod, with a strongly developed hollow spine and another small one which closes the cavity; the telson is longer than wide; the outer lobe of the maxilliped carries 4 spines; the inner lobe of the second maxilla has the inner spines more developed than die others; the first male and female uropods, as well as the first male pleopod do not show modifications.
B. tucumanensis shares similar modifications with the former species in the second male pleopod; like B. ringueleti it has modifications in the second male uropod and it possesses two autapomorphies: slight modifications in the first uropod of both sexes and in the first male pleopod, the exopod of which is shortened and enlarged, the external element of the second article being bent in a right angle.
Through phylogenetic analysis we found that the three species form a monophyletic group sharing the same modification in the second male pleopod. В. ringueleti and B. tucumanensis possess three synapomorphies: the second male uropod with the same modification, the edge of the foliaceous seta of the second male pleopod without spinules and the number of spines of the outer lobe of the second maxilla being 10 or more.
Because of the different combinations of modified appendages and according to recent systematic criteria, the three species belong to three different subgenera: В. horcomollensis belongs to Stygogidiella Stock. В. ringueleti to Dyctiogidiella Grosso \& Claps, and В. tucumanensis to Mesochtongidiella Grosso \& Fernandez.
A lack of articulation in the palp of the first maxilla of some individuals of B. horcomollensis and B. ringueleti was observed; this variable character was used in the past to establish genera in this family.
The high rate of supernumerary spines in the telson, and the intermediate shapes between the modified male pleopod in mixed populations of В. tucumanensis and the unmodified one is considered a sign of hybridization. Such variations were not observed in isolated populations of B. horcomollensis and B. tucumanensis. B. ringueleti was never found in allopatric situations, and has been described on the basis of individuals without traces of hybrization.
Although the close phylogenetic relationships and lack of exclusion is suggestive of sympatric speciation, the meeting of the three species after differentiation by allopatric speciation before the formation of the Sierra de Medina is considered to be more probable.

}, keywords = {Argentina, phylogeny}, author = {Grosso, Luise E and Fern{\'a}ndez, Hugo R} }