Proposta de classificação da família Xanthidae (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura) através da taxonomia numérica

Abstract

ABSTRACT. PROPOSAL OF CLASS IFICATlON OF THE FAMILY XANTHIDAE(CRUSTACEA,DECAPODA, BRACHYURA)BASEDON NUMERJCAL TAXONOMY. Severa! fami!ies were added in the past in order to constitute the Xanthidae , but the boundaries between Xanthidae , Parthenopidae and Goneplacidae were diluted , and the c1assification of some genera doubtful. By this reason was made the ana lysis of a typica! genus of each subfamily occurring in Brazi l. 50 characters were selected and coded as (O) for absence and (1) for presence. The data matrix was analysed by computer programs NTSYS and NMIX. The phenetic analysis shows the Xanthidae as a good family, but the c1adistic one (Wagner tree) split them in four families: Carpiliidae, Xanthidae (with the subfamilies Menippinae, Platyxanthinae, Xanthinae and Eucratopsinae), Eriphiidae and Pilumnidae (with the subfamiliesTrapeziinae and Pilumninae). Redescriptions and identifications keys for the proposed families and subfamiJies are presented . KEY WORDS. Brachyura, Xanthidae, systematic, numerical taxonomy A classificação dos Decapoda em geral, e dos Brachyura em particular, é uma tarefa difícil, acerca da qual os especialistas dificilmente estão de acordo. A família Xanthidae, tal como é adimitida tradicionalmente (BALLS, 1957), é uma das mais numerosas entre os Brachyura, ultrapassando os Majidae e compreende 928 espécies no mundo (CHACE, 1951 apud GUINOT, 1978 e cerca de 100 espécies no Brasil, porém são muito difíceis de identificar, tanto para os carcinólogos, como para os biólogos em geral. Com efeito, como são numerosas e abundantes as espécies existentes em ambientes facilmente acés-síveis, como os arrecifes e os estuários, ocorrendo desde a beira da praia até as maiores profundidades, seriam o objeto adequado para pesquisas fisiológicas, ecológicas, etc., porém as dificuldades na identificação são muito grandes, seja pela imprecisão das diagnoses dos gêneros e subfamílias, como pela falta de chaves atualizadas para as espécies.Os limites entre as famílias Xanthidae, Parthenopidae e Goneplacidae nunca ficaram bem caracterizados, sendo discutida, ~ posição sistemática de vários gêneros. Além disto, autoridades como ALCqQK (1893) e BORRA-

A new classification of the Xanthoidea sensu lato (Crustacea: Decapoda: Brachyura) based on phylogenetic analysis and traditional systematics and evaluation of all fossil Xanthoidea sensu lato

“…Hendrickx (1998) previously had noted that the relationship between the Pseudorhombilidae and Panopeidae was diffi cult to establish. A sister-group relationship between the Panopeidae and Xanthidae has been suggested by previous studies (Coelho and Coelho Filho, 1993;Von Sternberg et al, 1999), and our analysis supports this fi nding, suggesting the monophyly of the Panopeidae, containing the Eucratopsinae and Panopeinae and with the Panopeidae as a basal clade, followed by the more derived Pseudorhombilidae + Xanthidae sensu stricto clade.…”

“…This clade, with a Bremer support of 2, is united by six synapomorphies: the absence of upper orbital fi ssures (7-19), the absence of a posterior carapace carina (11-1), the antenna situated out of the supraorbital angle (14-1), an occlusal surface of the dactylus of the major cheliped with a molar basal tooth (49-1), cylindrical propodi of pereiopods 2-5 (53-0), and the absence of corneous tips of pereiopods 2-4 (54-1). The analysis strongly supports recognition of the Carpiliidae as a basal lineage within the Xanthoidea as suggested by Coelho and Coelho Filho (1993), Von Sternberg et al (1999), Von Sternberg and Cumberlidge (2001), and Wetzer et al (2003). Števčić (2005) had placed the Carpiliidae within the Eriphioidea and the Zanthopsidae and Palaeoxanthopsidae within the Xanthoidea sensu stricto, positions not supported by our analysis.…”

“…The good fossil record of all four families within Clade A, one of which extends into the Cretaceous (Palaeoxanthopsidae), one of which extends into the Paleocene (Zanthopsidae), and the remainder of which extend into the Eocene, supports the basal position of this clade. Guinot (1978) and Von Sternberg and Cumberlidge (2001) suggested a sister-group relationship between the Carpiliidae and Eriphiidae; however, the analysis rejects a Carpiliidae + Eriphiidae relationship, as Coelho and Coelho Filho (1993), Von Sternberg et al (1999), and Wetzer et al (2003) each suggested. The Carpiliidae is basal within Clade A, followed by the Zanthopsidae, and the most derived Palaeoxanthopsidae + Tumidocarcinidae.…”

“…Jamieson (1993) fi rst suggested that the Xanthoidea was paraphyletic based upon spermatological evidence. Coelho and Coelho Filho (1993) considered the Xanthidae sensu lato to be polyphyletic based upon phenetic and cladistic analysis and divided it into four families: Carpiliidae; Xanthidae including the Menippinae, Platyxanthinae, Xanthinae, and Eucratopsinae; Eriphiidae; and Pilumnidae including the Trapeziinae and Pilumninae. The monophyly of the Xanthoidea was further questioned based upon additional cladistic analyses using adult morphology (Von Sternberg et al, 1999;Von Sternberg and Cumberlidge, 2001;Castro et al, 2004), foregut ossicles (Brösing, 2002), and molecular data (Schubart et al, 2000;Wetzer et al, 2003).…”

Tertiary Xanthoidea (Crustacea: Decapoda: Brachyura) from the West Coast of North America

“…Many classification schemes have been proposed to cope with the diversity of forms embraced by the Xanthoidea (Guinot, 1977(Guinot, , 1978Serène, 1984;Coelho and Filho, 1993, among numerous others). Fossil taxa have traditionally been assigned to the Xanthidae s.l.…”