An Updated Classification of the Recent Crustacea

er than Mysida Boas or Mysida Dana) following
the recommendation of L. Holthuis (pers. comm.)
citing ICZN article 50(c)(i) (now 50.3.1, ICZN
fourth edition, 1999). Tchindonova (1981) suggested
the erection within the Mysida of the suborders
Petalopthalmina and Stygiomysina as well as
the tribe Amblyopsini and the family Boreomysidae
(in addition to several new subfamilies, tribes, and
genera; P. Chevaldonne, pers. comm.). We have not
followed this suggestion.
ORDER MICTACEA
In 1985, two groups of workers simultaneously described
two new families of an entirely new order
of peracarid crustaceans and then jointly described
the new order (Bowman et al., 1985). The new
families were the Hirsutiidae (Sanders et al., 1985)
and the Mictocarididae (Bowman and Iliffe, 1985),
the latter of which formed the basis of the name of
the new order Mictacea. A second species of the
Hirsutiidae was described from Australia by Just
and Poore (1988). Although discovery of the Mictacea
has prompted speculation about its phylogenetic
affinities, most workers are in agreement that
the group fits comfortably within the Peracarida.
Thus, we include the order and its two families
among the Peracarida, as does the most recent
treatment (Hessler, 1999) of the order. Gutu and
Iliffe (1998) described a new (third) species of hirsutiid
from anchialine and submarine caves in the
Bahamas and suggested that the family be removed
to a new order, the Bochusacea (separate order status
for the hirsutiids had been suggested also by
Sanders et al., 1985). The other family of Mictacea
(Mictocarididae) was then proposed by Gutu
(1998) to belong to a new order, Cosinzeneacea,
which would include as suborders the Spelaeogriphacea
and Mictacea. We have not followed the
suggestions of Gutu and Iliffe (1998) and Gutu
(1998).
ORDER AMPHIPODA
The Amphipoda, despite a large number of dedicated
workers and numerous proposed phylogenies
and classificatory schemes, remain to a large extent
an unresolved mess. Families proposed by one
worker often are not recognized by another, and
disparate classifications based on poorly defined
features seem to be the rule. The Gammaridea, containing
the vast majority of amphipod families, is
the most confusing suborder, although several
workers (e.g., Kim and Kim, 1993) have proposed
cladistically based rearrangements of the taxa. We
should comment especially on the ‘‘semi-phyletic
classification’’ put forth by Bousfield and Shih
(1994) in the journal Amphipacifica. This classification
apparently is being used as the basis for amphipod
classification in an upcoming publication
on common names of North American invertebrates
overseen by the American Fisheries Society
(although ‘‘minor changes may yet be made’’; E.
Bousfield, pers. comm., March, 1999). Consequently,
the Bousfield and Shih (1994) classification or
its successor in the AFS publication (see Bousfield,
2001) is likely to be cited often in the years to
come. Although the Bousfield and Shih (1994)
work is of value in reviewing previous classificatory
attempts in recent years, we have not adopted it
here. The classification divides the group into the
Amphipoda ‘‘Natantia’’ and Amphipoda ‘‘Reptantia,’’
without assigning taxonomic rank to these divisions,
and then lists the amphipod families under
superfamily headings. Unfortunately, no authors or
dates are provided for any of the higher taxa. A
further point of frustration is that the authors include
in that paper several different phylogenetic
hypotheses based on different morphological features;
however, the phylogenies are not concordant,
so it is difficult to determine the characters on
which they base their resulting ‘‘semi-phyletic’’ classification.
These disparaging comments should not
be taken as reflecting adversely on other papers
from these authors. And indeed, a large number of
papers in which various gammaridean amphipod
superfamilies and families are revised have been authored
by Bousfield and his colleagues in recent
years and should be consulted by workers interested
in those families. These works include Jarett and
Bousfield (1994a, b, superfamily Phoxocephaloidea:
Phoxocephalidae), Bousfield and Hendrycks
(1994, superfamily Leucothoidea: Pleustidae; 1997,
superfamily Eusiroidea: Calliopidae), Bousfield and
Kendall (1994, superfamily Dexaminoidea: Atylidae,
Dexaminidae), Bousfield and Hoover (1995,
superfamily Pontoporeioidea: Haustoriidae), Bousfield
and Hendrycks (1997, superfamily Eusiroidea:
Calliopiidae), and Bousfield and Hoover (1997, superfamily
Corophioidea: Corophiidae), and other
papers in the journal Amphipacifica.
Following the Fourth International Crustacean
Congress in Amsterdam, there was a meeting of
amphipod specialists in Kronenburg, Germany (the
IXth International Meeting on Amphipoda, July,
1998). One topic discussed in Kronenburg was
‘‘Whither amphipod family-level taxonomy?’’ The
report stemming from that discussion (Vader et al.,
1998) is interesting and informative, and we quote
from it here:
Currently the classification of the Amphipoda is still in
a state of flux; the schedules of Jerry Barnard and Ed
Bousfield, often not very compatible and neither of
them based on cladistic analyses, are still prevalent.
Discussions revolved around the bush-like evolution of
the Amphipoda and envious comparisons to the Isopoda
where the general classification appears clearer.
Not unexpectedly, the classification problems of the
Amphipoda were not solved! However, it was suggested
that a cladistic analysis of the amphipod families should
have high priority, simply to give a general idea of the
overall relationships, and to generate topics for further
studies.
To summarize, in the words of Les Watling (pers.
comm.), ‘‘most of us working in the amphipod
Contributions in Science, Number 39 Rationale 35