An Updated Classification of the Recent Crustacea

would be a choice of the future for the reasons
mentioned below.
I think it is better to have your higher level classification
to include only what is quite certain. The
highest categories (classes) should then be something
like the following: Malacostraca, Branchiopoda,
Remipedia, Copepoda, Mystacocarida, Branchiura,
Thecostraca, Cephalocarida, Ostracoda,
Tantulocarida, (Pentastomida).
These are with the highest certainty all monophyletic
(not considering that insects may go in
somewhere). As for the grouping of these taxa, we
appear to know too little yet. As you know, this is
reflected in the high number of different schemes
put forward that all differ from each other. Perhaps
it will take 50–100 years before we get the full story,
if ever. The great advantage of having such a flat
structure is that it would tell people what the crustacean
community thinks is certain, but it would
also point at what is unknown by not having any
of these weakly supported higher level taxa included
(like Maxillopoda, Entomostraca, Thoracopoda,
and the one you now suggest being comprised of
all non-branchiopod Crustacea). This will be a logical
starting point for any students of the Crustacea
that want to address the higher level phylogeny. If
a taxon like Maxillopoda is included, for example,
then the starting point is most likely already polluted.
Submitted by Jørgen Olesen,
University of Copenhagen, Denmark
MAXILLOPODA: RHIZOCEPHALA
Boschma (1928) is without any doubt the author
of the family Lernaeodiscidae, but both the families
Peltogastridae and Sacculinidae must be ascribed to
Lilljeborg (1860). This has been duly checked.
Boschma lived 1893–1976, and cannot possibly be
the author of these two families. Holthuis and I
consulted Lilljeborg’s (1860) publication, a copy of
which is in our library; there is not a shadow of a
doubt concerning his authorship!
Submitted by W. Vervoort,
Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie,
Leiden, The Netherlands
MAXILLOPODA: COPEPODA
I suggest you strictly adhere to what is already published.
Names should in my view not be introduced
unofficially but through full and reviewed papers.
Two PhD theses have just been completed here with
phylogenetic revisions of the Cyclopoida and one
branch of Harpacticoida. I could tell you all the
changes they entail but that would alter your list
quite visibly. The Poecilostomatoida, e.g., are not a
separate order but a specialised branch within Cyclopoida.
There are many new families and others
had to be synonymized. So, please, stick to published
and avoid cryptic information ( pers.
comm.).
Submitted by H. Kurt Schminke,
Universität Oldenburg, Germany
MAXILLOPODA: PENTASTOMIDA
First, on a separate subclass Pentastomida—what
can I say. You cite all the relevant papers that argue
and provide evidence that these are Branchiura, and
yet you reject these and separate them. This is one
of the few places where we have good apomorphies
to unite the groups involved. If you accept Thecostraca,
then why not accept a single subclass Branchiura
with two orders: Arguloida and Cephalobaenida?
Concerning the Walossek arguments in the second
paragraph: All this Cambrian apparent pentastomid
says is that Pentastomida are older than we
thought they were. It does not argue against anything.
You rightly point out that the fossils might
not even be pentastomids. As to whether or not the
hosts ‘‘were on the scene,’’ you must be careful. Recent
issues of Science and Nature have featured a
stunningly preserved early chordate that to all intents
and purposes looks like it was drawn by old
Al Romer himself when figuring a vertebrate ancestor.
This Chengjiang fossil in fact trumps Brusca’s
suggestion, which is true by the way, that the
conodont animal is a chordate.
Submitted by Frederick R. Schram,
Zoölogisches Museum, Amsterdam
OSTRACODA
I am sure the classification and appended rationale
will be useful and will advance the study of crustaceans.
I am still of the opinion that the suborders
of the order Podocopida are unnecessary and
should be deleted, especially as each contains only
one superfamily except for the Cypridoidea, all superfamilies
of which are monotypic.
It is likely that the paleontologists will follow the
classification that is published in the revised Treatise,
and that classification will be determined by
Professor Whatley and his team of specialists,
which includes Dr. Martens.
As for -acea v. -oidea, you must of course be consistent
throughout your classification. Some volumes
of the Treatise (most notably the revision of
the brachiopods) have now begun to follow the recommendation
of the ICZN, but you should realize
that these are only recommendations, not rules; and
they may sometimes lead to the curious duplications
of names among superfamilies and genera.
Good luck with the classification. I look forward
to seeing the final version.
106 Contributions in Science, Number 39 Appendix I: Comments and Opinions