Lepidophthalmus Holmes 1904

Abstract

<i>Lepidophthalmus</i> Holmes, 1904 <p> <b>Type species:</b> <i>Lepidophthalmus eiseni</i> Holmes, 1904, by monotypy, gender masculine. = <i>Lepidophthalmoides</i> Sakai, 2011.</p> <p> = <i>Thailandcallichirus</i> Sakai, 2011.</p> <p> <b>Emended diagnosis.</b> Carapace with rostral spine. Cornea dorsal, subterminal, disk-shaped. Antenna 1 peduncle longer and stouter than antenna 2 peduncle. Maxilliped 3 exopod minute or absent, ischium-merus rectangularly elongate, broadly subpediform; merus not projecting beyond articulation with carpus; propodus subovate, inferior margin broadly lobiform. Chelipeds unequal, major with meral hook, major chela heavy. Pleon dorsally lacking strong surface pattern of grooves and integumental glands on pleomeres 3–5. Pleopod 1 slender and uniramous, pleopod 2 slender and biramous, pleopods 3–5 foliaceous and biramous in both sexes; appendix interna of pleopod 2 distal in both sexes, digitiform in female, digitiform or obscurely fused with broad appendix masculina in male as part of single subspatulate appendix, stubby, embedded in margin of endopod in both sexes on pleopods 3–5; uropodal endopod subtrapezoid, terminally angular; telson wider than long, terminally weakly convex, subtruncate, or trilobate.</p> <p> <b>Included species.</b> <i>Lepidophthalmus bocourti</i> (A. Milne-Edwards, 1870) [<i>Callianassa</i>]; <i>Lepidophthalmus eiseni</i> Holmes, 1904; <i>Lepidophthalmus grandidieri</i> (Coutière, 1899) [<i>Callianassa</i>]; <i>Lepidophthalmus jamaicense</i> (Schmitt, 1935) [= <i>Callianassa jamaicense jamaicense</i> Schmitt, 1935]; <i>Lepidophthalmus louisianensis</i> (Schmitt, 1935) [= <i>Callianassa jamaicense louisianensis</i> Schmitt, 1935]; <i>Lepidophthalmus manningi</i> Felder & Staton, 2000; <i>Lepidophthalmus rafai</i> Felder & Manning, 1998; <i>Lepidophthalmus ranongensis</i> (Sakai, 1983) [<i>Callianassa</i>] [= <i>Thailandacallichirus ranongensis</i>]; <i>Lepidophthalmus richardi</i> Felder & Manning, 1997; <i>Lepidophthalmus rosae</i> (Nobili, 1904) [<i>Callianassa</i>]; <i>Lepidophthalmus siriboia</i> Felder & Rodrigues, 1993; <i>Lepidophthalmus sinuensis</i> Lemaitre & Rodrigues, 1991; <i>Lepidophthalmus socotrensis</i> Sakai & Apel, 2002; <i>Lepidophthalmus tridentatus</i> (von Martens, 1868) [<i>Callianassa</i>]; <i>Lepidophthalmus turneranus</i> (White, 1861) [<i>Callianassa</i>]; <i>Lepidophthalmus statoni</i> Felder, 2015; <i>Lepidophthalmus natesi</i> Felder & Robles, 2015; <i>Lepidophthalmus panamensis</i> Felder & Robles, 2015.</p> <p> <b>Remarks.</b> Membership of the genus <i>Lepidophthalmus</i> is herewith revised to include 18 described species. Fifteen of these taxa were represented in the preceding molecular phylogenetic analysis (absent only <i>L. ranongensis</i>, <i>L. rafai</i>, and <i>L. socotrensis</i> of the known species) and joined in a highly-supported clade, comprehensively represented in the present analyses, and partially represented in previous analyses (Felder <i>et al</i>. 2003; Felder & Robles 2009). Segregation of any subclade within this group for recognition as an independent genus is avoided, as the levels of separation (by branch length or concatenated tree support values) are not comparable to those generally accorded generic status in topology of the Callichirinae (see Robles <i>et al</i>. 2009). Even at minor branch levels within the genus, <i>L. eiseni</i>, which was proposed type species of a separate genus <i>Lepidophthalmoides</i> Sakai, 2011, shares a minor supported clade with <i>Lepidophthalmus bocourti</i>, type species of <i>Lepidophthalmus</i>. This places into synonymy the genus <i>Lepidophthalmoides</i> proposed by Sakai (2011), which was apparently based on some misunderstanding of previous descriptions, illustrations, and maturational variation in the gonopod (see above). Furthermore, it nullifies a lapsus by Sakai (2011) in proposing <i>L. eiseni</i> as the type species of a new genus, when it is already the type species of the genus <i>Lepidophthalmus</i>. We also herewith continue to include <i>Lepidophthalmus ranongensis</i> in the genus as was the case in a morphologically based phylogenetic analysis of Tudge <i>et al</i>. (2000), rather than adopting its reassignment to a separate monotypic genus as proposed by Sakai (2011). The described muddy habitat of this species (Sakai 1983) and diagnostic morphology appear to rather closely conform to those of congeners. Lacking sequence-quality specimens for molecular study, and in the absence of comparative morphological analyses to contradict the findings of Tudge <i>et al</i>. (2000), we place <i>Thailandcallichirus</i> into the synonymy of <i>Lepidophthalmus</i>.</p>Published as part of <i>Robles, Rafael & Felder, Darryl L., 2015, Molecular phylogeny of the genus Lepidophthalmus (Decapoda, Callianassidae), with re-examination of its species composition, pp. 453-472 in Zootaxa 4020 (3)</i> on pages 467-468, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4020.3.3, <a href="http://zenodo.org/record/244865">http://zenodo.org/record/244865</a&gt