An Updated Classification of the Recent Crustacea

CONCLUDING REMARKS
We have thoroughly enjoyed the discussions with,
and suggestions from, fellow carcinologists during
the compilation and editing of this classification.
Doubtless we have pleased and angered some
workers more than others in our ‘‘final’’ arrangement.
We have been accused of making changes
‘‘simply for the sake of change,’’ while at the same
time we have been accused of ‘‘classificatory paralysis’’
in our ‘‘unwillingness to change.’’ The classification
has been criticized as being ‘‘nonphylogenetic,’’
while at the same time parts of it have been
criticized as relying too heavily on ‘‘recent lines of
cladistic evidence’’ (for which read molecular systematics).
We accept all such criticisms gladly; they
are the signs of a growing and developing field of
study and of a field that is of passionate interest to
a large number of dedicated workers. We are proud
to be your colleagues.
It is our sincere hope that the classification that
follows is used primarily as a starting point for future
research. By comparing the new classification
with that of Bowman and Abele and seeing where
changes have, and have not, occurred, and by reading
the various dissenting opinions that follow (in
Appendix I), we hope that the weaknesses inherent
in this classification will be more readily spotted.
We further hope that knowledge of these weaknesses
will in turn lead to further work on the Crustacea,
the planet’s most morphologically diverse—
and to us, the most interesting—group of organisms.
Contributions in Science, Number 39 Concluding Remarks 57