An Updated Classification of the Recent Crustacea

crabs and is now restricted to the families Grapsidae,
Gecarcinidae, Plagusiidae, Searmidae, and Varunidae
should not influence the nomenclature.
Additional References
Schubart, C. D., J. A. Cuesta, R. Diesel, and D. L. Felder.
2000b. Molecular phylogeny, taxonomy, and evolution
of non-marine lineages within the American
Grapsoidea (Crustacea: Brachyura). Molecular Phylogenetics
and Evolution (in press).
Schubart, C. D., J. E. Neigel, and D. L. Felder. 2000a. The
use of the mitochondrial 16S rRNA gene for phylogenetic
and population studies of Crustacea. Crustacean
Issues 12 (in press).
Submitted by Christoph Schubart,
Universität Regensburg, Germany
DECAPODA: BRACHYURA
Although recently I published my arrangement of
the brachyuran families, I have some new discoveries
in the brachyuran classification, but it is not
finished and it will be published next year. I was
able to classify all dromiacean families into superfamilies,
but not the eubrachyuran ones, because
there are many families with obscure systematic position:
Orithyiidae, Calappidae, Matutidae, Astenognathidae,
Hexapodidae, Palicidae, Dairodidae
and many up to now undescribed families (Acidopidae,
Melybiidae, Speocarcinidae, etc.). Here are
some of my remarks.
(1) Dynomenidae are the most primitive Dromioidea,
because only the last pair of legs is aberrant.
(2) Among Homoloidea, the Poupinidae are the
most primitive because the last pair of legs are of
‘‘normal’’ structure but are partly subdorsal in position.
(3) Raninidae are ‘‘Podotremata’’ (i.e. Dromiacea)
because their sexual openings in both sexes
are on the coxae of the legs (hence the name Podotremata).
(4) The most primitive eubrachyuran
family is the Atelecyclidae, because they have the
antennules and antennae longitudinally directed, a
narrow thoracic sternum, thoracic sternites 4/5–7/8
continuous (entire), and sternites nearly regularly
metamerized. (5) The Dorippidae are highly derived
and aberrant: the dorsal position of the posterior
pair of legs, the sternite 8 facing dorsally, and
the narrowed buccal cavern all are secondarily attained.
The similarity with the Dromiacea is thus
superficial. (6) The same could be said for the Leucosiidae:
highly derived crabs and consequently
should be placed at the end of the classificatory
scheme of the Heterotremata. (7) The Majidae are
only one family with many subfamilies. The arrangement
is enclosed [Števčić, Z. 1994. Contribution
to the re-classification of the family Majidae.
Periodicum Biologorum 96:419–420]. (8) The
Parthenopidae are more primitive than Majidae,
and therefore should be ahead of the Majidae. (9)
The Retroplumidae are a very derived brachyuran
family. (10) Geryonidae have a similar organization
to the Goneplacidae s.s. (11) Your Xanthoidea is a
highly polyphyletic group. (a) The most primitive
‘‘xanthoids’’ are the Eriphiidae, not Menippidae!
The most primitive Eriphiidae have sternites 4/5–
7/8 entire, abdominal segments freely articulated in
both sexes, and the second gonopod longer than the
first. They are probably related to Trapeziidae. In
the same assemblage with the Eriphiidae are the
Pilumnoididae Guinot and Macpherson, 1987. (b)
Xanthidae s.s. have [some] primitive representatives
(Krausinae, with sternal sutures 4/5–7/8 entire),
but abdominal segments 3–5 in the male are
fused, and the second gonopod is short. They are
related to the Panopeidae/Panopeinae and the Pseudorhombilidae.
(c) Pilumnidae have a primitive abdomen
(all segments freely articulated in both sexes)
but specific first and second gonopods, the latter
short. They are related to the Eumedonidae (in fact
the Eumedoninae). (d) Goneplacidae s.s. are in fact
a very small taxon, without any close relationships
with the Xanthidae. They are probably close to the
Geryonidae and Euryplacidae/Euryplacinae. (12)
The Potamidae are in fact a very difficult problem,
however the gaps among subfamilies are not quite
distinct. The gaps are not always [clear] and therefore
the separation of the freshwater crabs into
families remains uncertain. (13) I think that between
Ocypodidae and Mictyridae and between
Grapsidae and Gecarcinidae the gaps are not decisive
and only Ocypodidae and Grapsidae are true
families (this will be published later). (14) Finally,
I think that the Cancroidea are not a taxon, they
are only a grade, not a clade (taxon i.e., monophyletic
group). (15) Hepatinae are a subfamily of the
family Aethridae. (16) Palicidae belong to the Heterotremata,
with no close affinity with the Ocypodidae.
Submitted by Zdravko Števčić,
Rudjer Boskovic Institute, Croatia
DECAPODA: BRACHYURA
Concerning my special knowledge, the Brachyura,
I do not agree with all decisions (see my responses),
but I respect them. May I add my feeling, however.
Concerning the Podotremata, the molecular data
seem to outweigh all other considerations, despite
the fact that the first results (Spears and Abele,
1988; Spears, Abele, and Kim, 1992) were fragmentary,
based only on very few taxa (only two
Dromiidae were studied; and the conclusion was
made without any Dynomenidae, Homolodromiidae,
Homolidae, Latreilliidae, Cyclodorippidae,
Cymonomidae, nor Phyllotymolinidae) and that the
new results are not yet published. I am happy to
see that Spears now returns to the opinion that the
Dromiidae are true Brachyura, but we wait her paper
where the new demonstration is given.
Concerning your Section Raninoida, you write
(p. 66, 69) that there is ‘‘possibly a mistake.’’ I recognize
that the problem of the placement of on the
one hand Cyclodorippidae, Cymonomidae, and
Phyllotymolinidae, and on the other hand the Ran-
112 Contributions in Science, Number 39 Appendix I: Comments and Opinions