An Updated Classification of the Recent Crustacea

tained in our classification, although there is reason
to believe that this family was erected to accommodate
what are turning out to be highly derived
males of some species of the Leucothoidae (J. Lowry,
pers. comm.). If true, the Anamixidae will have
to be synonymized at some point. A few workers
asked us to ‘‘correct’’ the spelling of the family
name Liljeborgiidae to Lilljeborgiidae to reflect the
fact that the family name honors William Lilljeborg
(1816–1908). The confusion stems from the fact
that Vilhelm Liljeborg changed the spelling of his
name to William Lilljeborg sometime in the early
1860s. When Bate (1862) established the genus Liljeborgia,
he used the then-correct spelling honoring
Vilhelm Liljeborg. Thus, when Stebbing in 1899 established
the family Lilejborgiidae based on the genus
Liljeborgia, he was obliged to use this spelling
as well even though, by that time, the man was
known as William Lilljeborg (J. Lowry, pers.
comm., and see Vader, 1972). (As an aside, the
spelling of the genus Lilljeborgiella, erected by
Schellenberg in 1931, is therefore also correct, as
by that time the name was William Lilljeborg).
All of the 67 families that Bellan-Santini (1999)
lists as those that ‘‘ne présent pas actuellement de
problème majeur d’interprétation’’ are included in
our list. Bellan-Santini (1999) also lists another 24
families that do present problems, and some of
those are in our list as well. Some of the names and
dates attributed to some families differ between our
list and hers as well.
SUBORDER CAPRELLIDEA
Takeuchi (1993) indicated that the Caprellidea may
not be monophyletic but stopped short of proposing
a new classification of the group. His results
(Takeuchi, 1993, figs. 1, 5) indicated that the phtisicids
are the sister group to all other caprellideans
and that the paracercopids are more closely related
to the caprellid-caprogammarid line (he did not
deal with the parasitic family Cyamidae). Thus, we
have removed the family Paracercopidae from the
superfamily Phtisicoidea and have placed it instead
in the superfamily Caprelloidea, leaving the Phtisicidae
the sole family of the Phtisicoidea. We saw
this move as preferable to creating yet another superfamily
(to contain the paracercopids) in an already
taxon-dense suborder. In the same year and
in the same volume, Laubitz (1993) described two
new caprellidean families (Caprellinoididae and
Pariambidae). She also recognized as valid the Protellidae
McCain and tentatively suggested some
evolutionary lines or trends within and leading up
to the Caprellidea. Some of these ideas differ from
those proposed by Takeuchi (1993), although both
workers recognize the same eight families (as does
Bellan-Santini, 1999). Also in that same volume,
Kim and Kim (1993) suggested affinities between
caprellideans and corophioids. Margolis et al.
(2000) have suggested that the Cyamidae may be
closer to the Caprogammaridae-Caprellidae lineage
rather than to the Caprellinoididae-Phtiscidae line,
as suggested by Laubitz (1993). Several names and
dates have reverted to earlier workers (suggestions
of L. Holthuis, pers. comm.). The families Aeginellidae
and Dodecadidae have been deleted, as they
are now considered subfamilies of the Caprellidae
and Phtisicidae (K. Larsen, pers. comm.; Laubitz,
1993). See also Bellan-Santini (1999).
SUBORDER HYPERIIDEA
Workers familiar with hyperiideans may wonder
why we did not follow the revision of the Hyperiidea
by Vinogradov et al. (1982, with English translation
edited by D. Siegel-Causey appearing in
1996). While that work contains much updated information
concerning the biology of hyperiideans
and nomenclatural changes below the level of family,
the authors followed, for the higher classification,
the earlier work by Bowman and Gruner
(1973). Thus, the Bowman and Abele (1982) classification
is the more current of the two for higher
level taxa, although workers will want to consult
the Vinogradov et al. volume for information within
families and genera (D. Causey, pers. comm.).
Our classification is also consistent with the classifications
of Schram (1986, which in turn was
based largely on Bousfield, 1983) and Bellan-Santini
(1999). Kim and Kim (1993) suggested that hyperiids
may be related to certain leucothoid members
(Amphilochidae and Stenothoidae) of the
Gammaridea.
SUBORDER INGOLFIELLIDEA
Several workers (e.g., J. Holsinger, pers. comm.)
have pointed out that the ingolfiellids and metaingolfiellids
may not justify their own suborder and
could probably be accommodated within the Gammaridea.
Indeed, Bowman and Abele (1982) listed
them alphabetically among the other gammaridean
families. However, Holsinger notes at the same time
that this view is not universally shared by other
amphipod workers, and most workers (e.g., Bellan-
Santini, 1999) continue to treat these two families
as the sole members of the suborder Ingolfiellidea.
Vonk and Schram (1998) argue for maintaining
separate status for the group. We have retained
their separate status pending further investigations
into the group’s affinities.
ORDER ISOPODA
The diversity of and fascination with isopods are
reflected in the relatively large number of carcinologists
currently working on isopod systematics and
phylogeny. Although it is encouraging to see so
many skilled workers dedicated to resolving questions
of isopod systematics, there are negative aspects,
one of which is the relatively large number
of responses we received that contained conflicting
ideas or information. For the most part, we have
relied on the rather straightforward list of the ma-
Contributions in Science, Number 39 Rationale 37