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