An Updated Classification of the Recent Crustacea

Submitted by Roger L. Kaesler,
Paleontological Institute,
The University of Kansas
OSTRACODA
Spelling of Suborder Halocyprina Dana, 1853.
Dana (1853: 1281) based his subfamily Halocyprinae
and family Halocypridae on his new genus Halocypris.
Therefore, at least according to present
rules, the subfamily should be Halocypridinae and
the family Halocyprididae. Dana did not use the
names Halocyprina or Halocyprida. If you are basing
your Halocyprina and Halocyprida on the family
name Halocyprididae, it seems to me that, to be
consistent, the suborder should be Halocypridina
and the order should be Halocypridida. If you are
basing your Halocyprina on the commonly used
name for the order, Halocyprida, then I think you
are correct in using Halocyprina. Possibly, you
should explain your reasoning for using Halocyprina,
because I think that you are creating a new
spelling for the suborder. [Editors’note: we retained
the spelling Halocyprida for the order, as listed in
Bowman and Abele (1982: 13), and Halocyprina
for the suborder based on the order name.]
Submitted by Louis Kornicker,
Smithsonian Institution,
National Museum of Natural History
STOMATOPODA
I am leery of following suggestions made in abstracts
concerning higher taxonomy. Cappola has
never published her Pseudosquilloidea (which I see
you accept) with documented reasons for her decision.
In fact, some of the new analyses of Ahyong
and Hof (not yet published) would not entirely support
such an arrangement.
Thus, while we are at it, you need to turn to
[page 86 in original draft]. I suggest for now you
simply leave all the ‘‘gonodactyloid’’ families in one
superfamily Gonodactyloidea. When we can identify
clear clades and suggest valid groupings, you
can change it; or when people actually publish revisions
in a refereed journal.
Submitted by Frederick R. Schram,
Zoölogisches Museum, Amsterdam
AMPHIPODA
Although I agree in general with the thrust of your
arguments, you fail to recognise the complexity of
amphipod morphology and the lack of family level
revisions, which makes the development of an acceptable
classification extremely difficult. Suborder
and families were established long ago and for the
most part have never been revised. Superfamilies
were to a certain extent based on gestalt, which
worked well for some groups like corophioids, lysianssoids
and haustorioids, but failed for families
which didn’t show clear body-plan relationships.
Even groups as seemingly distinctive as the Lysianassoidea
are very difficult to define morphologically
when all genera are considered. When Barnard
and Karaman (1991) collapsed the majority
of corophioid families, they did it because these traditional
families (although workable when they
were originally established) were no longer definable
and could no longer be supported. Genera described
over the years had been pigeon-holed into
one family or another until any characters which
might define them had become totally diluted. It
will take a large effort using modern phylogenetic
techniques to develop an acceptable classification.
The results of these works have to be published in
reputable journals after careful peer-group review.
Attempts to revise classifications are underway. For
instance, Lowry and Myers are currently revising
the iphimedioid group and Myers and Lowry are
revising the corophioid group. The website
www.crustacea.net has recently been established to
publish information and retrieval systems (electronic
monographs) for all crustaceans. For instance,
Watling and his students are currently preparing
cumacean data bases and Lowry and his students
are working on amphipod data bases for the website.
It is unfortunate that the use of poorly refereed
journals and pseudophylogenetic methodologies
have been used in some cases to produce untestable
and, in some cases, unacceptable classification systems.
Because of these problems, we currently list our
taxa alphabetically in the Amphipoda. I do not see
the problem. All classifications are hypotheses
which change as new hypotheses are produced. In
a large monograph, it is fine to discuss and list the
phylogenetic classification, but probably the taxonomic
section should be alphabetical. Trying to find
families or genera listed phylogenetically in a large
monograph can be a nightmare for those not in the
know (basically everyone but experts). It is relatively
easy, for example, to find a family level taxon
in Barnard and Karaman (1991). One does not
have to continually consult the index.
Submitted by Jim Lowry,
Australian Museum, Sydney
AMPHIPODA: GAMMARIDEA
As Ed Bousfield was not present at the amphipod
conference in Amsterdam to defend the value of
phyletic vs. alphabetical classification of the Gammaridea,
several points raised in the Vader-Baldinger-K-S-Watling
report seem largely matters of mechanics
rather than matters of phyletic substance.
Some points of your recent ‘‘critique’’ summary
may require modification, viz: (1) ‘‘the schedules of
Jerry Barnard and Ed Bousfield (are) often not very
compatible’’ and (2) ‘‘. . . not espousing one worker’s
view over another.’’ With all due respect to Jerry’s
enormous contribution to gammaridean taxonomy,
his formal ‘‘track record’’ in gammaridean
phylogeny was actually quite modest in scope.
Contributions in Science, Number 39 Appendix I: Comments and Opinions 107