An Updated Classification of the Recent Crustacea
An Updated Classification of the Recent Crustacea
An Updated Classification of the Recent Crustacea
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
and Dalens (1999) in that we include six families.<br />
Roman and Dalens do not recognize <strong>the</strong> family <strong>An</strong><strong>the</strong>luridae<br />
and <strong>of</strong> course could not have known<br />
about <strong>the</strong> Expanathuridae and Leptanthuridae.<br />
SUBORDER MICROCERBERIDEA<br />
Wägele (1983) placed <strong>the</strong> family Microcerberidae<br />
within <strong>the</strong> Aselloidea; Brusca and Wilson (1991)<br />
considered <strong>the</strong> Microcerberoidea <strong>the</strong> sister group to<br />
<strong>the</strong> Asellota and consequently suggested <strong>the</strong>y not<br />
be included among <strong>the</strong> Asellota. Our treatment <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> family as belonging to its own suborder and<br />
superfamily follows Bowman and Abele (1982) but<br />
is also in keeping with <strong>the</strong> suggestion <strong>of</strong> Brusca and<br />
Wilson (1991). Additionally, we now treat <strong>the</strong><br />
monotypic family Atlantasellidae in this suborder<br />
on <strong>the</strong> recommendation <strong>of</strong> G. D. F. Wilson (pers.<br />
comm.).<br />
SUBORDER FLABELLIFERA<br />
Brusca and Wilson (1991) showed that <strong>the</strong> Flabellifera<br />
was a paraphyletic grouping, a finding that<br />
has been suggested also by o<strong>the</strong>r workers. Wägele<br />
(1989) (rebutted to some degree by Wilson, 1996)<br />
argued for dividing <strong>the</strong> flabelliferan families into<br />
two somewhat smaller groups, <strong>the</strong> Cymothoida<br />
and Sphaeromatidea (see Wägele, 1989). Wägele<br />
would remove from <strong>the</strong> Flabellifera <strong>the</strong> family Atlantasellidae<br />
(which he considers an Aselloidea).<br />
The families Aegidae, <strong>An</strong>uropidae, Argathonidae,<br />
Cirolanidae, Corallanidae, Cymothoidae, and Tridentellidae<br />
would belong to his grouping Cymothoida<br />
Leach, 1814. The remaining families (Bathynataliidae,<br />
Hadromastacidae, Keuyphyliidae, Limnoriidae,<br />
Phoratopodidae, Plakarthriidae, Serolidae,<br />
Sphaeromatidae, and Tecticepitidae) he would<br />
place in <strong>the</strong> Sphaeromatoidea. Thus, <strong>the</strong> two most<br />
current and most ambitious schemes <strong>of</strong> isopod phylogeny,<br />
although agreeing in some respects, do not<br />
agree even closely on how to treat <strong>the</strong> former flabelliferan<br />
families (see also Brandt et al., 1999, for<br />
a comparison <strong>of</strong> phylogenetic hypo<strong>the</strong>ses <strong>of</strong> sphaeromatoid<br />
families in light <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> fossil family<br />
Schweglerellidae). Roman and Dalens (1999) recognize<br />
<strong>the</strong> Flabellifera, and divide it into three superfamilies:<br />
Cirolanoidea (seven families), Sphaeromatoidea<br />
(two families), and Seroloidea (two<br />
families). We have retained <strong>the</strong> Flabellifera for <strong>the</strong><br />
current classification, knowing that this assemblage<br />
cannot be considered monophyletic, and for now,<br />
we have avoided <strong>the</strong> use <strong>of</strong> superfamilies. <strong>Recent</strong><br />
fossil finds (see Brandt et al., 1999) have pushed<br />
back <strong>the</strong> origin <strong>of</strong> some former flabelliferan isopods,<br />
indicating that <strong>the</strong> sphaeromatoid isopods, at<br />
least, are <strong>of</strong> Late Jurassic ancestry or older.<br />
Within <strong>the</strong> Flabellifera, <strong>the</strong> following changes<br />
have been incorporated (listed alphabetically by<br />
family): <strong>An</strong>cinidae (elevated to family status by N.<br />
L. Bruce, 1993), Argathonidae (removed per R.<br />
Brusca, pers. comm.), Bathynomidae (removed per<br />
B. Kensley, pers. comm.), Excorallanidae (removed<br />
per B. Kensley, pers. comm.), Hadromastacidae (described<br />
by Bruce and Müller, 1991), Lynseiidae (described<br />
by Poore, 1987; removed per Cookson and<br />
Poore, 1994; see also Bruce, 1988), Protognathiidae<br />
(described by Wägele and Brandt, 1988; moved<br />
from Gnathiidea per R. Brusca and also G. Wilson,<br />
pers. comm.), Tecticepitidae (originally described as<br />
a subfamily by Iverson, 1982; elevated to family<br />
status by N. L. Bruce, 1993), and Tridentellidae<br />
(described by Bruce, 1984).<br />
N. L. Bruce (1993) presented a key to <strong>the</strong> known<br />
flabelliferan families, reappraised <strong>the</strong> family Sphaeromatidae<br />
Latreille (a family in ra<strong>the</strong>r dire need <strong>of</strong><br />
internal revision; see Harrison and Ellis, 1991), and<br />
recognized as families <strong>the</strong> <strong>An</strong>cinidae Dana and Tecticipitidae<br />
Iverson.<br />
G. Poore (pers. comm.) informs us that <strong>the</strong> Aegidae<br />
is correctly attributed to White (1850) ra<strong>the</strong>r<br />
than to Leach (<strong>the</strong>re are no families mentioned in<br />
<strong>the</strong> only paper that Leach published in 1815, <strong>the</strong><br />
date given in Bowman and Abele for this family).<br />
He also informs us that <strong>the</strong> families <strong>An</strong>cinidae, Cirolanidae,<br />
and Serolidae are correctly attributed to<br />
Dana (1852) instead <strong>of</strong> 1853 (as in Bowman and<br />
Abele, 1982).<br />
Bowman and Abele (1982) used <strong>the</strong> spelling <strong>An</strong>uropodidae<br />
for this isopod family, while noting<br />
(1982: 21) that <strong>the</strong> tanaid family <strong>An</strong>uropodidae Băcescu<br />
was a homonym <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> isopod family <strong>An</strong>uropodidae<br />
Stebbing. ICZN Opinion 1357 (ICZN,<br />
1985b) dictated that <strong>the</strong> spelling <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> isopod family<br />
should be <strong>An</strong>uropidae to remove <strong>the</strong> homonymy,<br />
and thus we use <strong>An</strong>uropidae as <strong>the</strong> correct<br />
spelling <strong>of</strong> this isopod family.<br />
The Plakarthriidae Hansen is, according to G.<br />
Poore (pers. comm.), ‘‘an effective replacement<br />
name for Chelonidiidae Pfeffer, 1887, but is conserved<br />
under ICZN article 40’’; Dr. Poore suggests<br />
that <strong>the</strong> date 1887 should follow Hansen, 1905, in<br />
paren<strong>the</strong>ses, as Plakarthriidae Hansen, 1905<br />
(1887).<br />
SUBORDER ASELLOTA<br />
According to G. Wilson and G. Poore (pers.<br />
comm.), <strong>the</strong> currently recognized superfamilies <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> Asellota are ei<strong>the</strong>r poly- or paraphyletic (see<br />
also Wilson, 1987) and will not stand <strong>the</strong> test <strong>of</strong><br />
time. Roman and Dalens (1999) treat <strong>the</strong> Asellota<br />
as being comprised <strong>of</strong> four superfamilies (down one<br />
from Bowman and Abele, 1982; <strong>the</strong> Protallocoxoidea<br />
and its single family, Protallocoxidae, have<br />
been removed). We have followed this arrangement<br />
here, recognizing <strong>the</strong> superfamilies Aselloidea, Stenetrioidea,<br />
Janiroidea, and Gnathostenetroidea.<br />
The superfamily Pseudojaniroidea, proposed by<br />
Wilson (1986), has been removed at his suggestion<br />
(G. Wilson, pers. comm.; see also Serov and Wilson,<br />
1999). Its former family, <strong>the</strong> Pseudojaniridae,<br />
has been transferred to <strong>the</strong> Stenetrioidea following<br />
<strong>the</strong> revision <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Pseudojaniridae by Serov and<br />
Wilson (1999).<br />
Contributions in Science, Number 39 Rationale � 39