An Updated Classification of the Recent Crustacea

knowledge on the phylogeny and the classification
of Crustacea, and obviously new, and perhaps
strong, changes will come in the near future. However,
we need to put in order our present knowledge
of the group.
Submitted by Enrique Macpherson,
Centre D’Estudios Avancats de Blanes, Spain
DECAPODA: ANOMURA
I can only address your classification of the Anomura.
Forest (1987a, b), while concurring with
McLaughlin’s (1983) argument that the Paguridea
represented a monophyletic taxon, did not agree
with her elimination of the Coenobitoidea as a superfamily.
Consequently he elevated the Paguridea
to rank of Section and reinstated the superfamily
Coenobitoidea to include the families Pylochelidae,
Diogenidae and Coenobitidae. He did concur with
McLaughlin’s removal of the Lomidae and its elevation
to superfamily. He did not address the hierarchical
ranking of the other Anomuran superfamilies.
McLaughlin and Lemaitre (1997) acknowledged
Forest’s sectional ranking for the Paguridea,
but continued to refer to all of the
anomuran major taxa as superfamilies. However,
Forest et al. (2000), Forest and McLaughlin (2000),
and de Saint Laurent and McLaughlin (2000) all
refer to the superfamilies Coenobitoidea and Paguroidea,
under the Section Paguridea.
I personally still believe that the Paguridea represent
a monophyletic taxon; however, I also believe
that Forest’s argument for reinstatement of the
Coenobitoidea is valid. For hierarchical balance
within the Anomura, perhaps the other superfamilies
should similarly be elevated to Section rank in
your classification.
Additional References
Forest, J. 1987a. Les Pylochelidae ou ‘‘Pagures symetriques’’
(Crustacea Coeno-bitoidea). In Résultats des
campagnes MUSORSTOM. Mémoires du Muséum
National d’Histoire Naturelle, série A, Zoologie, vol.
137, 1–254, figs. 1–82, plates 1–9.
. 1987b. Ethology and distribution of Pylochelidae
(Crustacea Decapoda Coenobitoidea). Bulletin of
Marine Science 41(2):309–321.
Forest, J., M. de Saint Laurent, P. A. McLaughlin, and R.
Lemaitre. 2000. The marine fauna of New Zealand:
Paguridea (Decapoda: Anomura) exclusive of the
Lithodidae. NIWA Biodiversity Memoir 114 (in
press).
Forest, J., and P. A. McLaughlin, 2000. Superfamily Coenobitoidea.
In The marine fauna of New Zealand:
Paguridea (Decapoda: Anomura) exclusive of the
Lithodidae, eds. J. Forest, M. de Saint Laurent, P. A.
McLaughlin, and R. Lemaitre. NIWA Biodiversity
Memoir 114.
McLaughlin, P. A. and R. Lemaitre. 1997. Carcinization
in the Anomura—fact or fiction? I. Evidence from
adult morphology. Contributions to Zoology, Amsterdam
67(2):79–123, figs. 1–13.
Saint Laurent, M. de, and P. A. McLaughlin, 2000. Superfamily
Paguroidea, Family Paguridae. In The marine
fauna of New Zealand: Paguridea (Decapoda:
Anomura) exclusive of the Lithodidae, eds. J. Forest,
M. de Saint Laurent, P. A. McLaughlin, and R. Lemaitre.
NIWA Biodiversity Memoir 114.
Submitted by Patsy McLaughlin,
Shannon Point Marine Center,
Anacortes, Washington
DECAPODA: BRACHYURA
As before, I think that the Oregoninae of Garth
should be elevated to a family. I contacted Michel
Hendrickx about the classification. He in turn
quoted a paper that provided larval evidence for
the distinction of the group as a family, and said
that he will treat the group as such in his forthcoming
work on crabs. Please contact Michel for further
information. If you cannot contact him, let me
know and I’ll find that larval paper for you. My
own suspicion is that the oregoniids are not covered
in most monographs because they are a cirumArctic
and boreal northern hemisphere group that does
not range at all into tropical waters, where most
researchers work!
Submitted by Mary K. Wicksten,
Texas A&M University
DECAPODA: BRACHYURA
I strongly believe that the Pinnotheridae are not
monophyletic. So if I argued that this family
‘‘should remain in the Thoracotremata based on evidence
from DNA sequencing’’ [as cited in your
classification], I should add that this might only be
true for some of its constituent subfamilies or genera.
My statement was made based on the phylogenetic
position of Pinnixa in molecular analyses
that showed a strikingly close relationship to the
Ocypodinae (Schubart et al., 2000a).
I also think that the Ocypodidae in the traditional
sense as well as the Ocypodoidea as defined in
the latest draft of your classification might not be
monophyletic. Molecular as well as larval morphological
data suggest a close relationship between the
Varunidae (Grapsoidea) and the Macropthalminae
(Schubart et al., 2000a; Schubart and Cuesta, unpublished).
I think that this possible phylogenetic
link would be another reason to elevate ocypodid
subfamilies to family level as already considered in
your draft and suggested for the Grapsidae (Schubart
et al., 2000b). This would certainly make justice
to ocypodoid morphological diversity and allow
a more objective comparison with other thoracotremes
in the future.
I disagree on the use of the superfamily name
‘‘Grapsidoidea.’’ Since the stem of the name is
Graps- (based on Cancer grapsus Linnaeus, see also
family name Grapsidae) and the ending for superfamilies
is -oidea, the superfamily should be called
Grapsoidea (and not Grapsidoidea). The fact that
the term Grapsoidea has been used in the past for
a much wider systematic grouping of eubrachyuran
Contributions in Science, Number 39 Appendix I: Comments and Opinions 111