An inordinate fondness for systematics
The general habitus first made me think of the Pauropoda, but the mouthparts and the biramous legs are Crustacean features. No pleopods whatsoever suggest to me that it is the Mictacea, but I can not point out any other diagnostic features.
Hmm, looks copepodish to me - maybe something in the Harpacticoida (based on the uniramous antennula and distinct joint between body segments 4 and 5)?
It's Paramesochra mielki (Huys 1987), a subtidal copepod from the SW dutch coast.I got it by putting the terms from the figure labels into Google Scholar and the paper with the figures popped up. I can't really say anything about the organism except to regurgitate from the paper. Sorry! :)http://www.luciopesce.net/pdf4/huys.pdf
I think tf cheated...I would have said Isopoda, but unfortunately that seems to be incorrect.~Kai
I think cheated is a little strong, but I'd agree I'm not due any points... I was hoping to find a paper which would bring me to the right order, and then find the appropriate diagnostic features and work down from there. It was just bad luck that the first search result was the target organism. I didn't think I'd be likely to write a better diagnosis than the original description! :)
I'm going to give beetlesinthebush two points for the diagnostic characters of harpacticoids, and tf one point for successful application of smart-aleckry. I was considering making it the other way around, but tf lost points for the misplaced parentheses around the authority ;-P .
Markup Key:- <b>bold</b> = bold- <i>italic</i> = italic- <a href="http://www.fieldofscience.com/">FoS</a> = FoS