Phylogeny of the genus Pinnixa White, 1846 (Crustacea, Brachyura, Pinnotheridae) and allies inferred from mitochondrial and nuclear molecular markers, with generic reassignment of twenty-one species

Theil, Emma Palacios, Felder, Darryl L. (2020): Phylogeny of the genus Pinnixa White, 1846 (Crustacea, Brachyura, Pinnotheridae) and allies inferred from mitochondrial and nuclear molecular markers, with generic reassignment of twenty-one species. Zoosystema 42 (6): 85-103, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2020v42a

FIG. 2 in Phylogeny of the genus Pinnixa White, 1846 (Crustacea, Brachyura, Pinnotheridae) and allies inferred from mitochondrial and nuclear molecular markers, with generic reassignment of twenty-one species

FIG. 2. — Morphological characters of the type species of Pinnixa White, 1846 s.s., P. cylindrica (Say, 1818), along with those for five molecularly segregated genera formerly treated in Pinnixa s.l.: A-D, Pinnixa cylindrica: A, male dorsal view; B, male cheliped; C, third maxilliped (adapted from Rathbun 1918:160 fig. 99a); D, male pleon; E-G: Glassella costaricana (Wicksten, 1982): E, female holotype dorsal view; F, female cheliped; G, third maxilliped (adapted from Campos & Wicksten 1997: fig. 1, fig. 2c, a, with permission from Allen Press); H, I, Glassella faxoni (Rathbun, 1918) n. comb.: H, third maxilliped; I, male pleon (adapted from Rathbun 1918:133 fig. 77b, a); J-M: Rathbunixa sayana (Stimpson, 1960) n. comb.: J, male dorsal view; K, male cheliped; L, third maxilliped; M, male pleon (L, M adapted from Rathbun 1918:158 fig. 98a, b); N-Q: Sayixa monodactyla (Say, 1818) n. comb., male (ULLZ 8713, Fort Pierce, FL, USA); N, dorsal view; O, cheliped; P, third maxilliped; Q, pleon; R, T, U, Scleroplax granulata Rathbun, 1893; R, female carapace and pereopods 2-5; T, third maxilliped; U, male pleon (R, T adapted from Campos 2006:fig. 1a-c, with permission from Magnolia Press; U, adapted from Rathbun 1918:171 fig. 109a); S, Scleroplax littoralis (Holmes, 1894) n. comb., female and male chelipeds (adapted from Rathbun 1918:146 fig. 89a, b); V-Y, Tubicolixa chaetopterana (Stimpson, 1860) n. comb.: V, male dorsal view; W, female and male chelipeds; X, third maxilliped; Y, male pleon (X, Y, adapted from Rathbun 1918:152 fig. 94a, b).Published as part of <i>Theil, Emma Palacios & Felder, Darryl L., 2020, Phylogeny of the genus Pinnixa White, 1846 (Crustacea, Brachyura, Pinnotheridae) and allies inferred from mitochondrial and nuclear molecular markers, with generic reassignment of twenty-one species, pp. 85-103 in Zoosystema 42 (6)</i> on page 93, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2020v42a6, <a href="http://zenodo.org/record/3695831">http://zenodo.org/record/3695831</a&gt

Phylogeny of the genus Austinixa Heard & Manning, 1997, inferred from mitochondrial and nuclear molecular markers, with descriptions of three new species and redescription of Austinixa felipensis (Glassell, 1935) (Decapoda: Brachyura: Pinnotheridae)

Theil, Emma Palacios, Felder, Darryl L. (2020): Phylogeny of the genus Austinixa Heard & Manning, 1997, inferred from mitochondrial and nuclear molecular markers, with descriptions of three new species and redescription of Austinixa felipensis (Glassell, 1935) (Decapoda: Brachyura: Pinnotheridae). Zootaxa 4778 (1): 101-134, DOI: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4778.1.

Molecular evidence for non-monophyly of the pinnotheroid crabs (Crustacea : Brachyura : Pinnotheroidea), warranting taxonomic reappraisal

The crabs of the family Pinnotheridae are well known as commensals or parasites, mainly of molluscs and tubeworms. The phylogeny of the group, however, is poorly understood, with preliminary morphological and molecular studies questioning its monophyly. Here we used molecular genetic markers (16S, 12S mitochondrial; histone 3 nuclear) to infer a phylogeny for the family Pinnotheridae De Haan, 1833 to reevaluate the phylogeny and systematics at the level of its subfamilies and genera. Our molecular phylogeny indicated that Parapinnixa cortesi Thoma, Heard, & Vargas, 2005, Parapinnixa hendersoni Rathbun, 1918, Pinnotherelia laevigata H. Milne Edwards & Lucas, 1844, Sakaina yokoyai (Glassell, 1933), Tetrias fischerii (A. Milne-Edwards, 1867) and Tetrias scabripes Rathbun, 1898 should be removed from the family Pinnotheridae, while composition of the present subfamilies, Pinnotherinae De Haan, 1833 and Pinnothereliinae Alcock, 1900, must be revised. At generic level, Clypeasterophilus Campos, 1990, Dissodactylus Smith, 1870, Fabia Dana, 1851, Nepinnotheres Manning, 1993 and Pinnixa White, 1846 were not monophyletic in our analyses. With the exclusion of Pinnotherelia from Pinnotheridae, remaining species of Pinnothereliinae are assigned to Pinnixinae Števčić, 2005, a new subfamily based upon revision and elevation of rank for the tribe Pinnixini Števčić, 2005. In addition, we restructure membership of the subfamily Pinnotherinae and propose Pinnixulalinae, subfam. nov. to accommodate species that were excluded by molecular analyses from the other two subfamilies. These have a firm, wider-than-long carapace with clearly defined regions, strong legs that are usually tuberculate and very setose, and a third maxilliped with an elongate ischiomerus in which the ischium and merus may or may not be indistinguishably fused. Our analyses included 169 pinnotherid exemplars, representing almost half of the genera and about a quarter of the species presently recognised for the family. The relationships within and among some taxa are resolved to greater or lesser extent and the phylogenetic biodiversity of pinnotherid crabs is revealed. However, future publications will most likely result in a further increase in the number of taxa.Peer reviewe

A new rare case of parental care in decapods

5 páginas, 1 figura.Parental and extended parental care are known behaviours in decapod crustaceans (see Thiel, 2000, 2003). Some cases have been documented in brachyuran crabs (i.e., Diesel, 1989, 1997; Diesel & Horst, 1995; Ng et al., 1995), in astacids (Hazlett, 1983; Figler et al., 1997; Johnston & Fiegel, 1997; Vogt & Tolley, 2004), in caridean shrimps (Duffy, 1996), and only one in anomurans (Calado et al., 2006). However, decapods carrying their offspring in body structures during larval development, as in abdominal brood pouches, are exceptional. Thus far, there has only one case been reported, viz., a marine pinnotherid, Tunicotheres moseri (Rathbun, 1918), the larval development of which (two zoeal stages and a megalopa) takes place within a brooding enclosure of the parental female, formed by flexure of the broad abdomen against the sternum (Bolaños et al., 2004). The present work reports a similar case of parental care, the first one in the Caridea, for Dugastella valentina (Ferrer Galdiano, 1924), a freshwater atyid shrimp endemic in the area of the Gulf of Valencia, on the eastern part of the Iberian Peninsula (Sanz & Gómez, 1984; Sanz Santos & Sanz, 1994).Research was funded by the Spanish “Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia, Plan Nacional I+D” and the European FEDER funds through project CGL2004-01083.Peer reviewe