An Updated Classification of the Recent Crustacea

Superfamily Ocypodoidea
Within the Ocypodoidea, Guinot (pers. comm.)
questioned the inclusion of the Retroplumidae
among the ocypodoids and also among the thoracotremes;
she now feels that the family Retroplumidae
‘‘probably belongs to the Heterotremata’’
(where we have now placed it, in its own superfamily
following Saint Laurent, 1989). Also within the
Ocypodoidea, Guinot (pers. comm.) questions the
placement of the Palicidae and suggests that they
be listed currently as incertae sedis; Guinot and
Bouchard (1998) treat them as members of the Heterotremata.
C. Schubart (pers. comm.) also questions
the placement of the palicids based on results
of his 16S mtDNA studies (Schubart et al., 1998).
We have left the palicids among the Ocypodoids
pending more firm suggestions as to where they
might belong. We have also corrected authorship of
the family Palicidae to Bouvier from Rathbun (as
in Bowman and Abele, 1982, and most other earlier
treatments), following the detailed explanation
offered in Castro’s (2000) revision of the Palicidae
of the Indo-West Pacific. The family Camptandriidae
Stimpson is recognized by Ng (1988). Schubart
(pers. comm.) points out that if we recognize the
Camptandriidae, it would be logical also to elevate
the other three ocypodid subfamilies (Macropthalminae,
Dotillinae, and Heloeciinae) to family level,
and apparently there is some preliminary data to
support this from zoeal and adult morphology (C.
Schubart, pers. comm.). This seems especially logical
in light of the finding of Kitaura et al. (1998)
that the Camptrandriinae (now Camptrandriidae)
is more closely related to the Dotillinae (based on
molecular studies) than to any other ocypodid
group; however, we have not yet taken that step.
Superfamily Grapsoidea
It has been suggested that the former grapsid subfamilies
(especially the Varuninae) should be elevated
to family status based on a combination of
morphological, larval, and molecular data (Cuesta
and Schubart, 1999; Cuesta et al., 2000; Schubart,
2000a–c; Spivak and Cuesta, 2000; Sternberg and
Cumberlidge, 2000b). Schubart, Cuesta, and Felder
(in press) review some of these arguments and establish,
on the basis of adult and larval morphology
and molecular sequence data, the validity of the
Glyptograpsidae (containing only Glyptograpsus
and Platychirograpsus); they also review relationships
among other former grapsid subfamilies. On
the basis of these papers, we recognize as valid families
within the Grapsidoidea the Gecarcinidae,
Glyptograpsidae, Grapsidae, Plagusiidae, Sesarmidae,
and Varunidae. Comparing the families Grapsidae
(as restricted; see Schubart, Cuesta, and Felder,
in press, and Schubart, Cuesta, and Rodríguez,
in press) and Gecarcinidae, Cuesta and Schubart
stated (1999: 52) that there is ‘‘not a single larval
morphological character that consistently distinguishes
the Gecarcinidae from the Grapsidae.’’
However, J. Cuesta (pers. comm.) does not feel that
the families are closely related and instead feels that
larvae of the Gecarcinidae are more similar to larvae
of the Varunidae and Sesarmidae.
56 Contributions in Science, Number 39 Rationale