The Silent Epidemic of Diabetic Ketoacidosis at Diagnosis of Type 1 Diabetes in Children and Adolescents in Italy During the COVID-19 Pandemic in 2020

To compare the frequency of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) at diagnosis of type 1 diabetes in Italy during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 with the frequency of DKA during 2017-2019

Microplastic Toxicity and Trophic Transfer in Freshwater Organisms: Ecotoxicological and Genotoxic Assessment in Spirodela polyrhiza (L.) Schleid. and Echinogammarus veneris (Heller, 1865) Treated with Polyethylene Microparticles

The widespread occurrence of microplastics (MPs) has resulted in their interaction with biological processes. Thus, there is a great concern about the potential toxicity of MPs on animal and plant cells and on the possibility that MPs reach humans through the food web. In order to shed light on both issues, laboratory assays were performed for evaluating the effects of polyethylene (PE) microparticles on the aquatic plant Spirodela polyrhiza (L.) Schleid. and the gammarid Echinogammarus veneris (Heller, 1865). Moreover, a stock of MP-treated Spirodela plants was used to feed gammarid individuals, and the presence of MP particles in their digestive tracts was analyzed. Results evidenced the lack of toxic effects of MPs on plants, evaluated at growth and physiological level by biometric parameters, pigment content, and photosynthetic performance estimated by chlorophyll fluorescence imaging through the ETPT (EcoTox Photosystem Tool). Only a slight reduction in pigment-related indices in MP-treated plants was observed. A remarkable genotoxic effect was instead highlighted by Comet assay in the hemocytes of gammarid individuals exposed to MPs, with three times more DNA damage (expressed as Tail Moment) in MP-treated individuals compared to control ones. Finally, the gut content of the gammarids fed with MP-treated plants revealed the presence of 7.6 MP particles/individual, highlighting the occurrence of trophic transfer of MPs among freshwater ecosystem organisms. Novel indications about the potential impact of the PE microparticles in the aquatic compartment are provided. Notably, the transfer of MP particles between primary producer and primary consumer organisms of the freshwater trophic chain and the genotoxic effects associated with the ingestion of such particles by gammarids are issues of concern for the aquatic ecosystem and the food web leading to the human diet

Ingolfiella alba Iannilli, Berera & Cottarelli, 2008, sp. nov.

Ingolfiella alba sp. nov. Material examined. Holotype: female 1.85 mm, dissected and mounted on 3 slides labeled: Ingolfiella alba, Marinduque, White Beach, 92 -08- 26, (MVRCr 448). Deposited in Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Verona. Allotype: male 1.76 mm, dissected and mounted on 3 slides labeled: Ingolfiella alba, Marinduque, White Beach, 04-02- 26, (MVRCr 442). Paratypes: one male dissected and mounted on slides labelled: Ingolfiella alba, Marinduque, White Beach, 04-02- 26; 4 females dissected and mounted on slides labelled: Ingolfiella alba, Marinduque, White Beach, 92 -08- 26, numbered from 1 to 4; 2 females dissected and 3 females undissected and mounted on slides labelled: Ingolfiella alba, Marinduque, White Beach, 04-02- 26, numbered from 5 to 9; 2 females dissected and mounted on slides labelled: Ingolfiella alba, Oriental Mindoro, Long Beach,, numbered 10 and 11, respectively. All material collected by V. Cottarelli Diagnosis. Ocular lobes developed. Maxilla 1, outer plate with seven spines. Oostegites observed in pereopods 3–5. Gnathopods 1–2 carposubchelate, dactyli with four spiniform processes. Pereopods 3–4 with cilindrical trifid unguis. Pereopods 5–7 with dactyli similar, distally ending with bifid unguis. Pleopods 1–3 present, subtrapezoidal (subtriangular) similar. Uropod 1 with outer ramus length about two thirds of inner ramus; uropod 2 peduncle with three oblique rows of spines apically complex and long setae. Description. Body elongate (Fig. 1 A), all segments laterally compressed. Head with weakly protruding rostrum; ocular lobe subtriangular (Fig. 1 A, B), reaching half length of the first article of antenna 2. Antenna 1 (Fig. 1 D), peduncular article 1 longer than articles 2 + 3; article ratio: 1: 0.4: 0.32; flagellum 4 – articulate (first minute), shorter than peduncle, articles 2–4 with one or two aesthetascs; accessory flagellum (Fig. 1 C) 3 -articulate, shorter than flagellar articles 1 + 2. Antenna 2 (Fig. 1 E), peduncle longer than peduncle of antenna 1; flagellum 5 -articulate, shorter than half length of peduncle, article 5 with one apical aesthetasc. Mandible (Fig. 2 F, G) without palp, incisor with seven teeth, lacinia mobilis distally denticulate (l. m. as broad as incisor) with several small teeth flanked by two large curved teeth, molar long and pointed, with minutely denticulate distal margin. Maxilla 1 (Fig. 2 I), palp 2 -articulate, just longer than (or subequal) outer plate, with three apical setae; outer plate with one 3 -cuspidate, one 4 -cuspidate and one 2 -cuspidate spines on posterior row; two 6 -cuspidate spines, strongly curved and one combed spine on anterior row. Maxilla 2 (Fig. 2 H), inner and outer plate both with 4 naked apical setae. Maxilliped (Fig. 2 E), basis endite bearing 2 apical setae, palp with 5 articles; palp articles 1–4 with one mesial seta each, palp article 2 with also one basal seta, article 5 (dactylus) with one strong spine and a long falcate unguis. Gnathopod 1 (Fig. 2 A, C) carposubchelate, carpus relatively elongate and strong, inner face with 2 distal setae, anterior margin with 1 distal seta; propodus strong, with 2 setae on posterior and 1 on anterior margin; dactylus with 4 spiniform processes; palm strongly oblique with 4 setae apically bifid and one simple, 2 submedial spines (one of them strong) on inner face and one submedial tooth and one spine on outer face. Gnathopod 2 (Fig. 2 B, D) carposubchelate, stronger than in gnathopod 1, c/p index (see Stock, 1977) = 2.1; palm oblique, defined by a strong spine, with four or five setae bifid apically and one submedial spine, one seta (apically simple) and one tooth proximal to palmar corner spine, and margin with six or seven serrations; propodus strong, with one triangular blade and one distal seta posteriorly; dactylus with four or five (Fig. 2 B, D; Fig. 4 G, H) subquadrate teeth on posterior margin and one simple proximal seta on anterior margin; Claw (unguis) elongate, overreaching the palmar spine. In male (Fig. 2 D; Fig. 4 I), posterior margin, near to the palmar corner, with a heavy forked tooth, proximal to definitive palmar spine. Only in male specimens it is also present a foliaceus structure on the posterior margin of the merus. Pereopods 3–4 (Fig. 3 A, B) similar; pereopod 4, propodus and dactylus with many short setae on posterior margin, three distal spines on propodus, two of them apically bifid; dactylus length about half of propodus, distally bearing one or two setae apically complex, one spine, one seta and a slender and cylindrical trifid unguis. Oostegites (on pereopods 3–5) small, suboval and elongate (Fig. 3 A, B, C), sometimes with one short seta; the main character is the presence of three bud-like (or button) processes. Pereopod 5 (Fig. 3 C) shorter than pereopod 6, basis broad and short, heavy spines and setae on carpus and propodus; merus with one posterodistal bifid spine and one seta on anterodistal margin; dactylus similar to those of pereopods 6–7, feebly separated from unguis bifid, distally ending in two small spines. Pereopod 6 (Fig. 3 D, E), basis longer and slightly narrower than P 5; merus, carpus and propodus bearing many heavy spines (both simple and apically bifid); a very feeble demarcation line separates dactylus from unguis bifid. Pereopod 7 (Fig. 3 F, I) distinctly longer than pereopods 5–6; basis slender and elongate than in pereopods 5–6; merus with two spines (one of them very long) on posterodistal corner; carpus (Fig. 3 G, H) with many slender spines (shorter in male) and three strong modified (comb-like) spines; dactylus feebly separated from unguis bifid. Pleopods 1–3 (Fig. 4 A, B, C) subtrapezoidal, similar, without setae; pleopod 3 slightly larger than pleopods 1–2. Pleopods in male (Fig. 4 D, E, F) with 1 or 3 lobes, pleopod 1 with 2 setae. Uropod 1 (Fig. 5 A, C) biramous, peduncle longer than inner ramus, with two distal and one dorsomedial seta; outer ramus length about two thirds of inner ramus, distally pointed, with one seta; inner ramus, medial surface with eight or nine long setae and two distal spines on edge of denticulate apex with five or six spiniform processes. Uropod 2 (Fig. 5 B, D), peduncle bearing three oblique rows, each of (proximal to distal) eight, nine, nine strong spines on inner face, some of them modified at tips (2 + 2 +0 in female and 2 + 4 +0 in male) and six setae; rami apically pointed (not in male); inner ramus, with five setae and one small distal spine; outer ramus shorter than inner one, with two setae near mid-length. It is also present a facial hooked spine (Fig. 5 D) in male specimens (that I. canariensis shows in female) in the proximal region of peduncle. Uropod 3 (Fig. 5 E, F) very short, uniramous; peduncle with two long distal setae; ramus shorter than peduncle, broad, with one long distal seta. Telson (Fig. 5 E) globose, with one pair of long dorsal setae. Derivatio nominis. The specific name is derived from the Latin adjective “ alba ”, meaning “white”. It refers to White Beach, the location on Marinduque island where the types were collected, and to the white coral beaches where the new species was collected. These habitats are typical of coastal tropical areas, and are endangered by human impact (such as it happens in the collecting site in Mindoro). The epitheton is an adjective in feminine singular. Affinities and remarks. The new species shows characters leading us to refer it to the Tethydiella group, the marine subgenus suggested by Ruffo & Vigna Taglianti (1989), with well developed ocular lobes, dactyli of pereopods 3–4 with claw elongated and apically trifid, unlike pereopods 5–7, with stout claw apically bifid. The authors attribute to this subgenus six marine species distributed from the Indian Ocean (I. kapuri Coineau & Rao, 1973; I xarifae Ruffo, 1966); to the central Atlantic Ocean: Bermuda (I. longipes Stock, Sket & Illfe, 1987); South Carolina and Florida (I. fuscina Dojiri & Sieg, 1987); Caribbean region (I. grandispina Stock, 1979; I. quadridentata Stock, 1979). It is also possible to recognise affinities with this subgenus in other species described after 1989: I. canariensis Vonk & Sanchez, 1991, from Canary Islands; I. sandroruffoi Andres, 2004 from deep sea in the North Atlantic Ocean; the recently described species I. rocaensis Senna & Serejo, 2005 from a submerged atoll in Brazil and another Ingolfiella now being described from Arabian Sea (Abd el Kuri Island, Socotra Archipelago, Oman) by Iannilli & Ruffo. Among the species of this group, Ingolfiella alba sp. nov. has the largest number of characters in common with I. xarifae described from Maldive Islands. We could analyse the type material of I xarifae preserved in Verona Natural History Museum. I. alba sp. nov. differs from I. xarifae mainly for the shape of carpus palm and posterior margin of dactylus of the gnathopod 2 with 5 serrations. In male a heavy forked spine near the palmar margin of the gnathopod 2 is present, as well as a foliaceous structure hanging from the posterior margin of the merus. This structure is also observed in I. canariensis and I. sandroruffoi. The c/p index is 2.1 in I. alba and 1.9 in I. xarifae. The new species differs also in pereopod 3, which shows the carpus longer than propodus and not the contrary as happen in I. xarifae. We can find also in I. alba sp. nov., several modified spines not described in I. xarifae and many other species, because it is not included in traditional characters and described only in recent descriptions. The main differences among the tethydean species can be found in the shape and distance of spines and teeth on carpus palmar margin and serrations or teeth of gnathopod 2. Ingolfiella alba sp. nov. presents a character never observed in other species of this genus: the oostegites present three small button-like processes. However, we don’t understand their significance. A character never observed in other species of this genus: something similar was described in Metaingolfiella mirabilis Ruffo, 1969, although the processes were smaller and numerous. The re-examination of I. xarifae typus allowed us to observe also on the oostegites of this species the button-like processes described for I. alba. The same processes can be observed in the Ingolfiella now being described from Arabian Sea (Iannilli com. pers.). These structures are probably present in other Ingolfiella species but have yet to be observed and described. Vonk & Schram (2003) recently proposed an important phylogenetic and biogeographic analysis of Ingolfiellidae, based on a 43 characters matrix. The genus Ingolfiella, was considered by those authors as “a single undivided taxon”, nevertheless the wide distribution area and the large variety of habitats occupied by this genus were not considered. Vonk & Schram (2003) did not accept the splitting of Ingolfiella in genus and subgenera, as suggested by Karaman, 1959, Ruffo (1970), Stock, 1976, and Ruffo & Vigna Taglianti (1989). However, even though Vonk & Schram’s manuscript represents the most complex and exhaustive work available on Ingolfiellidae phylogeny and biogeography, we think some of the results still need further discussion, which, however, is not the aim of the present paper. The CI value of 0.3511 and a HI value of 0.6489 reported in the cladistic analysis of Vonk & Schram (2003) do not represent optimal values to provide an interpretation of the results. Moreover, “only 13 of the 27 species of the genus Ingolfiella have both sexes well known… 11 are known only for females and three are known only from males” (Senna & Serejo, 2005), and therefore several characters related to sexual dimorphism were not taken into account by Vonk & Schram (op. cit.) for cladistic analysis. Several taxa are poorly described when compared with the recent taxonomic descriptions. In conclusion, our opinion is that the systematic of the genus is still in state of flux and therefore it may be too early to institute new genera and/or subgenera of Ingolfiella. In agreement with Vonk & Schram (op. cit.) “as more taxa are added to the genus the cladogram will acquire some additional structure”, and so, it will be possible to review the systematic of the genus. In the meantime the species-groups sensu Ruffo (1970) and Ruffo & Vigna Taglianti (1989) may still be of practical taxonomic use. Furthermore, more detailed biogeographic data are required to reconstruct the history of the actual distribution of Ingolfiellidae. For the genus Ingolfiella there is still a need for alpha-taxonomy, using the “traditional” characters but also other, informative characters which were often ignored even in recent description, such as the structure of transformed setae and spines in mouthparts, pereopods, and uropods. Vonk & Schram (op. cit.) presented a long and interesting discussion of the distribution of the genus Ingolfiella, suggesting that in this taxon, as in other peracarids, the marine interstitial species, which typically have reduced body size, are the most recent ones. They derived from freshwater cave ancestors in a three-steps process leading first to freshwater interstitial species of small size from which (about 90 my) would have originated first brackish, and then marine taxa living in interstitial and deep benthic habitats. There are other alternative hypotheses to this scenario, which are discussed in Vonk & Scram (op. cit.). Finally, it is still not possible to choose one of the several hypotheses proposed because from one hand the Ingolfiellidae phylogeny is not completely clear, and on the other hand, the number of known species and data on the genus geonemy are still insufficient. Sampling sites and remarks on the ecology. The two sampling sites have similar substrate, represented by medium-coarse carbonatic sand, composed by shell and coral fragments. The holes from where the specimens were collected were dug on the beach during low tide, 2–3 m from the shoreline. In Marinduque, the pH of interstitial water was 8.1 and the temperature 28.4 ºC, while in Mindoro, the pH was 7.8 and the temperature, 24.7 ºC. Ingolfiella alba sp. nov. was collected together with isopods of the genus Microcerberus Karaman, 1933 and several harpacticoid taxa. Palpigrads probably of the genus Leptokoenenia Condè 1965 were collected in Marinduque stations. One of these palpigrads was holding a half-eaten male of I. alba sp. nov on the chelicera. This information might be relevant because there are no literature data reporting predation on Ingolfiellidae, and data on the autoecology of Leptokoenenia, as well as for all palpigrads, are very limited (Condé, 1996). The interstitial habitat is in fact characterized by the scarcity of specialized predators, thus the importance of reporting any new information on such interactions among interstitial organisms.Published as part of Iannilli, Valentina, Berera, Raffaella & Cottarelli, Vezio, 2008, Description of the first marine interstitial ingolfiellid from Philippines, Ingolfiella alba sp. nov., with some remarks on the systematic of the genus (Amphipoda: Ingolfiellidae), pp. 49-58 in Zootaxa 1675 on pages 50-57, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18029

Stockigidiella Iannilli, Holsinger, Ruffo & Ronald, 2006, new genus

Stockigidiella new genus Diagnosis A stygomorphic bogidiellid amphipod distinguished by mandibles without molars, gnathopods 1 and 2 subsimilar in size, carpus and propodus of pereopods 5 and 6 with row of long, deeply bifid setae, pleopods without inner rami, and uropods 1 and 2 similar. Type species Stockigidiella aequimana new species, by monotypy. Gender is feminine. Derivatio nominis It is a distinct pleasure to name this new genus in honour of our late friend and eminent colleague, Prof. Dr. Jan H. Stock of the University of Amsterdam, whose expedition to the Sultanate of Oman and other parts of the world resulted in the collection of many new taxa of subterranean amphipods from biologically poorly known regions. Remarks The peculiar characters that collectively distinguish Stockigidiella from the other bogidiellid genera include the absence of a true mandibular molar, subequality of gnathopods 1–2 and the long, apically bifid setae on the carpus and propodus of pereopods 5 and 6. In all previously described bogidiellids the first pair of gnathopods differs from the second pair, especially in the shape of the propodus, which is typically piriform in the first and subtrapezoidal in the second. Whereas, in contrast the propods of both pairs of gnathopods in S tockigidiella are elongate and suboval. The carpal segment of gnathopod 1 in Stockigidiella is also different. In most other bogidiellids the carpal lobe of gnathopod 1 is typically more prominent, and in many it extends along the posterior margin of the propodus, sometimes nearly reaching the defining angle of the palmar margin. However, in Stockigidiella the posterior lobe of the carpus of gnathopod 1 is a relatively poorly developed prolongation not much extended along the posterior margin of the propodus. In comparison, the posterior lobe of the carpus of gnathopod 2 is rounded, not elongate, and similar to that in most other bogidiellids. We believe that the near equality of the gnathopods is a primitive or plesiomorphic character in bogidiellid amphipods, whereas the presence of the deeply bifid setae on the carpus and propodus of pereopods 5 and 6 appears to be a novel or apomorphic character. The latter character was previously unknown, or at least un­recorded, in other genera of bogidiellids. Among all bogidiellids known to date, only the genus Hebraegidiella Karaman (1988) from the shore of the Dead Sea in Palestine shows a moderately close affinity with Stockigidiella. In this genus, the gnathopods are only weakly differentiated and the mandible lacks a triturative molar. However, several other important characters, including presence of inner rami on the pleopods and normal setation of pereopods 5 and 6, separate Hebraegidiella from Stockigidiella.Published as part of Iannilli, Valentina, Holsinger, John R., Ruffo, Sandro & Ronald, 2006, Two new genera and two new species of the subterranean family Bogidiellidae (Crustacea, Amphipoda) from groundwaters in northern Oman, with notes on the geographic distribution of the family, pp. 37-56 in Zootaxa 1208 on page 39, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17239

Omangidiella Iannilli, Holsinger, Ruffo & Ronald, 2006, new genus

Omangidiella new genus Diagnosis A highly aberrant stygomorphic bogidiellid distinguished from almost all other members of the family by the following combination of characters: mandibles with triturative molars; maxilliped with coxal endite partially fused with inner (basal) plate; accessory flagellum of antenna 1 uniarticulate; carpus of gnathopod 2 elongate and subequal in length to propodus; propodus of gnathopod 2 subrectangular and reduced in length, with very short dactylus and palm; large lenticular organs marginally present on bases of gnathopod 2 and pereopods 3–6; pleopods without inner rami; uropod 1 with 3 basofacial spines; telson with both lateral and distal spines; very long, narrow, linguiform oostegites on pereopods 2–5; and coxal gills on pereopods 4–6. Type species Omangidiella parvidactyla new species, by monotypy. Gender is feminine. Remarks The genus Omangidiella is clearly distinguished from all other genera of bogidiellids by the remarkably different structure of gnathopod 2 and development of prominent oostegites, which suggest existence of a strong marsupium to hold and protect developing eggs. It should be noted that female bogidiellids have never been observed to brood eggs, although a number of them possess very small oostegites, which probably allow eggs to be given out freely in the environment. The exceptional development of oostegites in Omangidiella parvidactyla described below suggests that it has a different behavior than most other bogidiellids. However, this must be confirmed by future studies. The oostegites development could also be linked to tegumental respiration, because the gills are very small. The lenticular organs, which are very wide in Omangidiella, are in a marginal position on gnathopod 2 and pereopods 3–6, which is an unusual position for these organs in the bogidiellids. There is no existing hypothesis about the exact function of these “organs,” except that they could play a role in tegumental respiration. The fact that they are not always present in the bogidiellids, argues against a phylogenetic significance, and instead suggests only a functional importance. In support of this suggestion is the presence of analogous structures in several other subterranean amphipod families, such as the ingolfiellids and paracrangonyctids. Perhaps of greater phylogenetic importance is the highly unusual presence of a third coxal lobe on the maxilliped, which is in addition to the basal and ischial endites and appears to be similar to that observed in Nubigidiella and discussed in a recent paper by Iannilli et al. (2005). This unusual structure is present in addition to these two endites, which are typically present in amphipods and often called, respectively, inner and outer plates or lobes. In Omangidiella the coxal lobe is partially fused with the basal lobe. A third coxal lobe or endite is also present in other African bogidiellids besides Nubigidiella, including Maghrebidiella and Afridiella. In Maghrebidiella the coxal endite is totally fused with the basal endite, whereas in Afridiella, a recent re­examination revealed a slender structure, largely fused with the basal endite. This unique structure appears to characterize a group of genera from Africa and Arabia. The presence of the coxal endite is clear in Nubigidiella, partially fused with the basal endite in Omangidiella, largely fused in Afridiella and completely fused in Maghrebidiella. The degree of fusion of the coxal endite appears to follow a graduated trend or pattern, leading us to regard the presence of this structure in the Afro­Arabian group as a plesiomorphic character state, with the more fused condition representing increasing reduction phases that tend toward an apomorphic state. Whether or not this actually represents a trend from primitive to advanced for this character is questionable for the moment and will remain unclear until the maxillipeds of specimens in the other bogidiellid genera are carefully re­examined.Published as part of Iannilli, Valentina, Holsinger, John R., Ruffo, Sandro & Ronald, 2006, Two new genera and two new species of the subterranean family Bogidiellidae (Crustacea, Amphipoda) from groundwaters in northern Oman, with notes on the geographic distribution of the family, pp. 37-56 in Zootaxa 1208 on pages 43-45, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17239

Omangidiella parvidactyla Iannilli, Holsinger, Ruffo & Ronald, 2006, new species

Omangidiella parvidactyla new species Figs. 4, 5 Material examined (expedition station number in parentheses is from Stock et al. 1997) Sultanate of Oman. (96 – 67) border of wadi Taww at Halban (23 ° 34 ’N; 58 °01’ E), 3 paratype specimens, 1 April 1996, with thermosbaenaceans, cyclopid copepods, oligochaetes, diverse insect larvae; (96 – 75) Wadi Bani Henay (26 ° 30 ’ 35 "N; 57 ° 19 ’ 34 "E), pump in gravel at 50 cm below sediment surface, 10 paratype specimens, 1 April 1996, with thermosbaenaceans, stenasellid isopods, oligochaetes, chironomids; (96 – 76) same place and date as (96 – 75), probe; at 1.20 cm, 10 paratype specimens (very damaged), with thermosbaenaceans, stenasellid isopods, cyclopid copepods; (96 – 77) Wadi Bani Henay (26 ° 30 ’ 35 "N; 57 ° 19 ’ 34 "E) pump in gravel probe at 90 cm, 1 female paratype, 1 April 1996, with thermosbeanaceans, stenasellids, chironomids. Wadi Nakhl (ca. 23 ° 26 ’ N 57 ° 52 ’ E), Oesterreich Expedition, female holotype (collection date unknown) dissected and mounted in Faure’s medium on slides 4577 –4581, 2 paratypes (slides 4582–4591) deposited in Museo Civico di Storia Naturale Verona (MVRCr 444), and 5 paratypes in ethanol deposited in Zoological Museum Amsterdam. Description The description is based on the holotype female from Wadi Nakhl, with exception of the mouthparts, which are based on a paratype female from Wadi Bani Henay (see above). Female (3.0 mm) with oostegites.— Antenna 1: (Fig. 4 a) ratio of articles 1–3 of peduncle = 1: 0.8: 0.5, articles without spines, with only few short setae; flagellum little longer than peduncle, with 13 articles increasing in length distally, bearing only fine setae, and without aesthetascs; accessory flagellum uniarticulate, shorter than article 1 of flagellum. Antenna 2 (Fig. 4 b) shorter than antenna 1, with few short setae; gland­cone not elongate; articles 4 and 5 of peduncle subequal in length; flagellum less than half length of peduncle, with 5 articles, the distal one very short. Mouthparts: labrum (upper lip) rounded distally (Fig. 4 c). Left mandible (Fig. 4 d): incisor 5 ­dentate; lacinia mobilis also 5 ­dentate and followed by 4 setulose rakers; molar triturative and articulated on short conical base, bearing 1 long plumose seta; mandibular palp reduced in length, article 2 longer than article 3; article 3 bearing only single apical seta; right mandible (Fig. 4 e) similar to left but lacinia mobilis pluridenticulate; labium (lower lip) (Fig. 4 f) with well developed inner lobes and rather short, blunt lateral processes. Maxilla 1 (Fig. 4 g); palp reduced in length and bearing only 2 apical setae; outer plate with 7 serrate spines (3 external ones 4 ­toothed and 4 internal ones pectinate); inner plate with 3 naked apical setae. Maxilla 2 (Fig. 4 h): inner plate little shorter than outer, with many fine setae along inner margin distally, apically with 6 distal spines, the 2 inner ones plumose. Maxilliped (Fig. 4 i): coxal endite partially fused with inner lobe and similar to those of Nubigidiella, bearing fine setae distally and 1 spine apically; inner lobe bearing 2 short, stout bifid spines apically; outer lobe scarcely expanded, bearing 3 blade spines subapically on inner margin; palp article 2 expanded; dactylus as long as preceding article, with fine pubescence on inner face. Gnathopod 1 (Fig. 4 l): coxa subrectangular, ratio length:height = 1: 0.7, with 2 setules on anterodistally rounded corner; basis relatively broad, with 3 long setae on posterior margin; merus with pubescent posterior margin; carpus produced into narrowly rounded ventral lobe, partly pubescent and bearing 2 long distal and 2 long subdistal setae; propodus (Fig. 4 l’) subtrapezoidal, palm rather short, only about 40 percent as long as the posterior margin, margin uneven and bearing only few setae and 1 or 2 spines near defining angle; posterior margin nearly straight, without spines or setae; dactylus falcate and closing on defining angle. Gnathopod 2 (Fig. 4 m, n) strikingly different from gnathopod 1: coxa similar to coxa 1 but ventral margin weakly rounded; basis with 2 long setae on posterior margin; carpus elongate, as long as basis and longer than propodus, posterior margin pubescent and bearing 2–4 groups of 2 long setae each; propodus (Fig. 4 n’) elongate and weakly suboval but little shorter than carpus, medial and lateral faces with inferior and superior rows of numerous short, fine setae; palmar margin very short, without defining spines; posterior margin with approximately 9 long setae; dactylus reduced to small, curved, toothlike process. Pereopods 3 and 4 similar (Fig. 5 a): ratio coxa length:height = 1: 0.6, ventral margin with 2 anterodistal setules each; basis broad, anterior margin convex and bearing large lenticular organ; merus, carpus and propodus subequal in length, with few short marginal setae; dactylus rather short, ratio propodus:dactylus = 1: 0.4. Posterior and inferior margins of coxal plates 1–4 thinly sclerotized. Pereopod 5 (Fig. 5 b): coxa anteriorly lobed, with posterodistal spine; basis suboval, anterior and posterior margins with 4 or 5 short spines, distal half with a large lenticular organ; merus, carpus, and propodus subequal in length, with few short marginal spines; ratio propodus:dactylus = 1: 0.4. Pereopod 6 (Fig. 5 c) similar to pereopod 5 but distinctly longer; coxa with anterior lobe of coxa reduced; basis with a large lenticular organ on distal half of posterior margin; ratio propodus:dactylus = 1: 0.4. Pereopod 7 the longest (Fig. 5 d); basis little wider than those of pereopods 5 and 6, without lenticular organ, anterior margin with 4 short spines, posterior margin with 6 short spines; merus, carpus and propodus subequal in length but much stronger than those of pereopods 5 and 6; propodus little longer and more robust than two preceding articles, anterior margin with row of 5 or 6 short spines accompanied by long setae; dactylus comparatively long, ratio propodus:dactylus = 1: 0.37. Anterior and inferior margins of coxal plates 5–7 thinly sclerotized. Oostegites on pereopods 2–5, elongate, with long marginal and distal setae. Pleonal plates: posteroventral corners rounded and not produced (Fig. 5 e). Pleopods (Fig. 5 e) greatly reduced; inner rami absent; outer rami reduced to 3 articles, the terminal one very short; peduncles nearly twice length of rami, each with 2 coupling spines (Fig. 5 e’). Uropod 1 (Fig. 5 f): inner and outer rami subequal in length, armed with only 3 apical spines on outer and 4 on inner; peduncle longer than either rami, armed with 9 or 10 spines on upper margin and 3 basofacial spines. Uropod 2 shorter than uropod 1 (Fig. 5 g): outer ramus shorter than inner ramus, armed with 4 apical spines; inner ramus as long as peduncle, armed with 4 apical spines; peduncle with 5 spines. Uropod 3 (Fig. 5 h): rami approximately equal in length (aequiramus), each bearing several sets of lateral spines in groups of 1, 2, or 3; apex with 3 or 4 spines. Telson (Fig. 5 i) about as broad as long at base but slightly tapered distally; each side with 1 mediolateral spine and 1 penicillate seta; apical margin convex and armed with 2 + 2 distolateral spines. Male unknown. Type­locality Wadi Nakhl, located at approximately 23 ° 26 ’ N; 57 ° 52 ’ E (Fig. 6). There are no other details available on the date of collection or the physical/chemical characteristics of this locality. Derivatio nominis The epithet parvidactyla is derived from the latin parvus (small) and dactylus (finger), denoting the very small dactylus of gnathopod 2.Published as part of Iannilli, Valentina, Holsinger, John R., Ruffo, Sandro & Ronald, 2006, Two new genera and two new species of the subterranean family Bogidiellidae (Crustacea, Amphipoda) from groundwaters in northern Oman, with notes on the geographic distribution of the family, pp. 37-56 in Zootaxa 1208 on pages 46-50, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17239