Download PDF as one large file - AToL Decapoda

198 De Grave & Fransen. Carideorum catalogus (Crustacea: Decapoda). Zool. Med. Leiden 85 (2011)
following De Grave et al. (2009) with the changes noted above. As the focus of the current
compilation is on genera and species, for the sake of brevity we have not provided
the historical information for superfamilies and families, nor have we listed their synonyms.
These can be found in Holthuis (1993a) for Stenopodidae and Caridea (including
Procarididae) and Pérez Farfante & Kensley (1997) for Dendrobranchiata. For each genus,
we provide the reference to the original description, as well as on type species (and
the way in which they were designated) as well as their gender. In addition, we list all
their known synonyms. For species and subspecies, we list their original generic designation,
in original orthography for both genus and species, as well as all known synonyms.
For each, we provide the page number on which the species description starts, as
well as a reference to all figures and/or plates on which the species is illustrated, as well
as their type locality (see below). Lectotype and neotype designations are included, as
well as additional comments when required. Additional comments concern dating issues,
as well as figures and/or further descriptions by the same author (often again as
sp. nov.) in a later work. For instance, Parapasiphaë gilesii was illustrated in Wood-Mason
(1892), thus validating the name, but without any accompanying textual description
which appeared later in Wood-Mason & Alcock (1893). Such cases have been annotated
to provide clarity for future researchers.
All species names are given in their original orthography. This also includes usage of
the Latin ligatures, æ and œ when present in a species name, such as in Palæmon longicornis
Olivier, 1811, or Œdipus gramineus Dana, 1852a. Although we are aware that the
ICZN Code does not differentiate this orthography, we felt this to be more appropriate in
view of the long history of taxonomy. For instance we list Pelias Niloticus Roux, 1833 (now
Caridina nilotica) and Pal.[æmon] Swainsonii White, 1847a (a synonym of Macrobrachium
acanthurus), as written in their original descriptions. The square brackets in the latter case
signifying an addition on our part, to make the generic designation clearer.
As a general rule the latest taxonomic or systematic treatment for each species were
followed, listing species as valid or as a synonym accordingly. This does not take into
account the uncertainties regarding the true status of some taxa, which in reality may
be valid species instead of a synonym and vice versa, but does reflect our current understanding
of species richness. One notable exception is that the sergestid genera
erected by Judkins & Kensley (2008) were not recognised in a more recent revision by
Vereshchaka (2009), who instead recognised several species groups in Sergestes sensu
lato. As these species groups largely correspond to the new genera proposed by Judkins
& Kensley (2008), we have elected to continue to treat them as genera, necessitating
some generic rearrangements to new species proposed in Vereshchaka (2009).
Nomina dubia and nomina nuda have been listed as synonyms under currently
valid names if such information was available, if not they have been listed as a separate
category. We were aided herein by the Holthuis card catalogue, who listed many such
names even under appropriate family headings. As Holthuis’s logic was not always
transparent and other names surfaced or were assigned differently by other workers,
we have not followed his family level assignations, but have retained them under three
categories: Penaeoidea, Sergestoidea and Caridea.
The scientific literature abounds with misspellings of species names due to printing
and typographical errors. Listing all of these would enlarge the current volume manyfold.
Thus a minor error, such as Palaemon pandaliformes instead of Palaemon pandali-