An Updated Classification of the Recent Crustacea

eventually led us to keep dromiids with the other
‘‘primitive’’ brachyurans in our section Dromiacea,
knowing that by so doing we are continuing to displease
students of crab phylogeny who rely mostly
on larval characters and that the current arrangement
of primitive crabs is not completely in keeping
with the molecular evidence in the Spears et al.
(1992) study. A detailed discussion of the situation
within the Dromiacea can be found in the review
of the Dynomenidae by McLay (1999).
Superfamily Dromioidea
The families Dromiidae and Dynomenidae are still
listed as valid families, although based on molecular
data (Spears et al., 1992) and sperm morphology
(Jamieson, 1994; Jamieson et al., 1995; Guinot
et al., 1998), their monophyletic status has been
questioned (but see McLay, 1991, 1999; Števčić,
1995). Earlier classifications, some of which have
included the Homolidae among the dromiacean
families, are reviewed by Števčić (1995), Guinot
and Richer de Forges (1995), and McLay (1999).
Guinot et al. (1998) argue that the Dromioidea (referred
to as Dromiacea in that paper, a lapsus calami,
Guinot, pers. comm.), containing the three
families Dromiidae, Dynomenidae, and Homolodromiidae,
is a valid monophyletic superfamily, although
they note the differences separating the
homolodromiids. We have maintained the separate
status of the homolodromiids (i.e., placing them in
their own superfamily Homolodromioidea; see below)
in light of the many morphological features of
adults that seem to separate them from the dromiids
and dynomenids. In doing so, we follow Guinot
(1995), even though Guinot and Bouchard (1998)
have reverted to treating all three of these families
in one superfamily (their Dromiacea). The families
were reviewed recently by McLay (1991, Dromiidae;
1999, Dynomenidae) with special regard to
their Indo-Pacific members.
Superfamily Homolodromioidea
Separate superfamily status for the Homolodromiidae
appears warranted on the basis of larval and
adult morphology (see Martin, 1991; Guinot,
1995). Števčić (1998) considers the homolodromiids
the most primitive extant family of brachyuran
crabs. The date of Alcock’s establishment of the
Homolodromiidae has been changed from 1899 to
1900 following the revision by Guinot (1995).
Superfamily Homoloidea
The alliance of homolids with dromiids has been
supported by ultrastructural characters of the
sperm (Guinot et al., 1994; see also the extensive
review by Guinot and Richer de Forges, 1995). The
family Poupiniidae was added by Guinot (1991).
SECTION EUBRACHYURA, SUBSECTION
RANINOIDA
Superfamily Raninoidea
Within the Raninoidea, the subfamily Symethinae
(monogeneric; Symethis Goeke) was elevated to
family level by Tucker (1998), as had been suggested
earlier by Guinot (1993). However, Tucker
did not agree with the removal of the subfamily
Cyrtorhininae from the Raninidae, which had been
suggested as a possibility by Guinot (1993).
Superfamily Cyclodorippoidea
The superfamily Tymoloidea has been removed and
in its place is the superfamily Cyclodorippoidea, as
the family name Cyclodorippidae Ortmann has seniority
over Tymolidae Alcock, according to Guinot
(pers. comm.) and Tavares (1991, 1993). Tavares
(1998) also established a new family, the Phyllotymolinidae,
within the Cyclodorippoidea. Guinot
and Bouchard (1998) continue to recognize the superfamily
Cyclodorippoidea (as did Tavares, 1991,
1993, 1998), stating that this was done ‘‘for convenience’’
while at the same time cautioning against
possible paraphyly in the assemblage.
Placement of this superfamily with the raninoids
in the Raninoida is possibly a mistake; molecular
data seem to indicate a placement somewhere between
the raninids and the higher eubrachyurans
(T. Spears, pers. comm.).
SECTION EUBRACHYURA, SUBSECTION
HETEROTREMATA
Superfamily Dorippoidea
The family Orithyiidae Dana has been transferred
to this superfamily based on the suggestion of Bellwood
(1996, 1998; see below).
Superfamilies Calappoidea and Leucosioidea
The monophyly of the family Calappidae and its
constituent subfamilies has been questioned recently.
Bellwood (1996, 1998) has recommended that
only the families Calappidae and Hepatidae be retained
in the superfamily Calappoidea, with the
Matutidae joining the leucosiids in the Leucosioidea
and with the Orithyiidae transferred to the dorippoids.
To some extent, these changes reflect earlier
suggestions based on larval (Rice, 1980) and
adult (Guinot, 1978; Seridji, 1993) morphology,
and there is at least some fossil support for this
arrangement as well (Feldmann and Hopkins,
1999; Schweitzer and Feldmann, 2000). Števčić
(1983) had earlier suggested recognition of the Matutidae
and Orithyidae and their separation from
other Calappidae as well. We have followed Bellwood’s
(1996) recommendations while at the same
time not agreeing with her that the Oxystomata be
retained. Bellwood’s rearrangement of the calappids
is not supported by recent molecular data (S.
Boyce, unpublished).
Contributions in Science, Number 39 Rationale 51