An Updated Classification of the Recent Crustacea

did not want to attempt it. We are also aware that
there are a number of works in progress that will
have a bearing on our understanding of the classification
of Crustacea (future volumes of the Traité
de Zoologie [J. Forest, editor] and the ongoing revision
of the Crustacea sections of the Treatise on
Invertebrate Paleontology [edited by R. L. Kaesler,
University of Kansas] are examples of works we
have not yet seen). However, the field is moving
rapidly, and we felt that there was more merit to
publishing what we have than in waiting for additional
analyses and publications to appear. We are
also aware of the relatively recent suggestions to
replace Linnaean hierarchical taxonomy and classification
with a more phylogenetically based system.
A brief review by Milius (1999, Science News,
vol. 156: 268) outlines the controversy as presented
at the International Botanical Congress meetings in
St. Louis (see also de Queiroz and Gauthier, 1994;
Hibbett and Donoghue, 1998; Cantino et al., 1999;
Cantino, 2000; Nixon and Carpenter, 2000; Meier
and Richter, 1992; and the web site for the
PhyloCode at www.ohiou.edu/phylocode/). Some
authors have even advocated doing away with species
names as a supposedly logical consequence of
using phylogenetic taxonomy (e.g., Pleijel and
Rouse, 2000). However, we have retained a more
classical approach for now.
METHODS
To arrive at the present classification, we began by
incorporating all of the changes or rearrangements
of which we were aware. Mostly, because of our
own taxonomic interests and the strengths of the
Crustacea collection of the Natural History Museum
of Los Angeles County, this meant the changes
or updates within the Decapoda and Branchiopoda.
In addition, we scanned the following journals
from 1982 until the present: Crustaceana, Journal
of Crustacean Biology, Proceedings of the Biological
Society of Washington, Smithsonian Contributions
in Zoology, Contributions in Science of the
Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County,
Researches on Crustacea (now Crustacean Research),
and Journal of Natural History. Knowing
that these journals would not provide a complete
account of the many changes and additions suggested
since 1982, we then endeavored to solicit the
input of a large number of crustacean systematists
from around the world. Any measure of completeness
is due to the considerable help and input given
by these workers (Appendix II). At the same time,
we accept the responsibility and inevitable criticism
that any such undertaking generates, as final decisions
were made by us.
After incorporating comments received from the
first mailing of the updated classification, we again
sent the classification back to the same carcinologists
and also to several other workers whose
names had been suggested to us. Finally, in a third
mailing, we asked those same workers (again, with
some new names added to the list) to send us additional
corrections and also their comments, supportive
or otherwise, concerning the resulting classification,
with the promise that we would try to
publish these comments verbatim as Appendix I. In
this way, we hope to point out areas of disagreement
and existing controversies in the ‘‘current’’
classification such that future workers will know
that what is presented here as a classification is
merely a suggested starting point and that there is
considerable room for improvement.
Not all workers responded. Some responded only
to the first mailing, others only to the second or
third. And of course not all persons listed in Appendix
II received all three of the mailings. It is
important to note that the listing of a name in Appendix
II does not necessarily imply agreement with
the new classification, regardless of whether a dissenting
opinion has been offered. We also received
a large number of positive comments and letters of
encouragement.
The present classification will not be accepted by
all current workers and is sure to be considered
obsolete almost immediately. Yet we have found the
Bowman and Abele (1982) classification to be of
such help, in everything from organizing our museum
collections to searching for taxa with which
we are unfamiliar, that we hoped to provide a similar
and updated tool that would be of at least some
usefulness for students of the Crustacea.
As concerns the authorship of this paper, it is
pertinent to note that G. E. Davis has been responsible
for the overall organization, tracking, and dissemination
of information from the beginning of
this project. Thus, any and all errors or oversights
concerning the actual classification itself or concerning
the rationale behind the choices, the literature
reviewed and cited, and the introductory text
are the responsibility of J. W. Martin.
NAMES, DATES, AND THE ICZN
The Introduction section of the fourth edition of
the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature
(ICZN, 1999:xix) states that the Code ‘‘does not
fully regulate the names of taxa above the family
group.’’ This is, as we understand it, an intentional
move designed to allow for some flexibility in establishing
higher order taxa. Because of this flexibility,
there are different schools of thought for recognizing
the names of higher taxonomic categories
and for crediting the names and dates of these higher
taxa. One school of thought would advocate that
a different name (and thus a different person and
date) should be used each time the constituency of
the taxon is altered. Thus, for example, if the thalassinoid
families are removed from the Anomura,
then we should no longer use the term Anomura
(or use it in a newly restricted sense) to describe the
remaining (nonthalassinoid) members of that assemblage.
Using another example, if we persist in
keeping the taxon name Eumalacostraca and yet
Contributions in Science, Number 39 General Introduction 3