Fossil hymenosomatid crabs (Crustacea: Decapoda) from the Lower Cretaceous of NE Brazil

Mendes, Ighor Dienes; Santana, William; Carvalho, Ismar de Souza

doi:10.1016/j.cretres.2022.105174

Cited by 8 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 55 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The evolutionary history of the Dorippoidea has been documented by fossils since the Early Cretaceous, and this early occurrence had confirmed that they were, with the Majoidea, the earliest splitting brachyuran branches (Luque 2015; Guinot et al 2013, 2019; Charbonnier et al 2017; Guinot 2019; Vega et al 2019; Van Bakel et al 2020). Our view that Hymenosomatoidea is even more basal in Eubrachyura, with its relationship to Dorippoidea (Guinot 2011) apparently supported by consistent data sets, will be discussed in light of the recent discovery of even older hymenosomatoid fossil representatives, namely in the Barremian (Mendes et al 2022). We will review the fossil dorippid species in the light of the data from extant representatives and the extinct families attributed to the Dorippoidea.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 85%

“…marine, brackish, freshwater, mangrove, terrestrial, lakes, caves) and extreme ecological niches as well as adopting a wide variety of body forms and lifestyles, constitutes a group of great species richness (Lucas 1980; Ng et al 2008; Yeo et al 2008; Guinot 2011). Recent discoveries provide evidence for a longtime Mesozoic hymenosomatoid lineage, through the record of two new genera and three new species in the late Barremian (Early Cretaceous) of northeast Brazil (Mendes et al 2022). To what do we attribute these disparities, how to assess the time scale of diversification rates?…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The family Orithyiidae Dana, 1852, monogeneric with Orithyia Fabricius, 1798, monospecific with the commercially valuable O. sinica (Linnaeus, 1771), has sometimes been considered a potential third member of the Dorippoidea. Previously included in the Calappidae De Haan, 1833, it was given a familial status within the Calappinea De Haan, 1833 thanks to Ortmann (1892: 555, 559). Alcock (1896: 138) subdivided the Calappinae De Haan, 1833 into two alliances, Calappoida De Haan, 1833 and Orithyioida Dana, 1852.…”

Section: Relationships Between Dorippidae and Orithyiidaementioning

confidence: 99%

“…In our opinion, the two monotypic genera Withersella and Navarrara Klompmaker, 2013 must still be able to justify their inclusion in the Dorippoidea. Withersella crepitans and Personadorippe levashiensis , supposed to represent the oldest dorippoids, may well be among the oldest eubrachyurans currently known, with the possible exception of the Hymenosomatidae recently discovered from the Barremian of Brazil by Mendes et al (2022). It should be noted that Mendes et al (2022: fig.…”

Section: Appendix 1 — the Dorippids In Legend And Mythmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Withersella crepitans and Personadorippe levashiensis , supposed to represent the oldest dorippoids, may well be among the oldest eubrachyurans currently known, with the possible exception of the Hymenosomatidae recently discovered from the Barremian of Brazil by Mendes et al (2022). It should be noted that Mendes et al (2022: fig. 7) agreed with the inclusion of Withersella, Navarrara and Personadorippe into the Dorippoidea .…”

Section: Appendix 1 — the Dorippids In Legend And Mythmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

A new subfamily classification of the highly diversified Dorippidae H. Milne Edwards, 1837 (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura, Dorippoidea), using morphological, molecular and palaeotonlogical data, with special emphasis on its unique female reproductive system

Guinot

2023

Zoosystema

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A new and revised classification of the small family Dorippidae H. Milne Edwards, 1837, which previously comprised two distinct subfamilies (Dorippinae H. Milne Edwards, 1837 and Ethusinae Guinot, 1977), each of which was subsequently elevated to a familial rank supported by traditional data and genetic phylogenies, is presented on the basis of a morphological analysis involving a large number of characters. The family is in fact highly diverse, at all levels. Several features are described and depicted in detail here for the first time, e.g. the presence of a diversely developed strip along the protrudingly rimmed posterior margin of the carapace; on the dorsally exposed thoracic sternite 8, a process acting as an additional pleonal-retention mechanism in the females of three genera (Dorippe Weber, 1795; Philippidorippe Chen, 1986; Phyllodorippe Manning & Holthuis, 1981); a callosity at the base of the coxa of the third pereiopod, variously shaped, in two genera (Dorippe and Dorippoides Serène & Romimohtarto, 1969). The generic and specific taxonomy masterfully stabilised by Holthuis & Manning (1991) is undisputed and still valid, except for the composition of the genus Heikeopsis Ng, Guinot & Davie, 2008 that may well contain in northern China a form not entirely consistent with the typical Heikeopsis japonica (von Siebold, 1824) of Japan. A second exception concerns the genus Paradorippe Serène & Romimohtarto, 1969 sensu Holthuis & Manning (1991) that may not be monophyletic. The validity of Medorippe crosnieri Chen, 1988, questioned by Holthuis & Manning (1990), could not be confirmed here: its distinctive morphological characters from M. lanata (Linnaeus, 1767) suggest that it could be recognised one day. The synthesis of conventional and new characters allows the traditional taxonomic approach to be updated and modernised, more complete and robust diagnoses to be constructed, and groups of genera to be circumscribed. We propose a new subfamily classification whereby the family Dorippidae is recognised as monophyletic but with seven genera assigned to subfamily-level rank, leading to the recognition of seven distinct subfamilies: the Dorippinae H. Milne Edwards, 1837 n. stat. (Dorippe), Dorippoidinae n. subfam. (Dorippoides), Medorippinae n. subfam. (Medorippe Manning & Holthuis, 1981), Heikeopsinae n. subfam. (Heikeopsis, Neodorippe Serène & Romimohtarto, 1969, Nobilum Serène & Romimohtarto, 1969), Paradorippinae n. subfam. (Paradorippe), Philippidorippinae n. subfam. (Philippidorippe) and Phyllodorippinae n. subfam. (Phyllodorippe). There is a high degree of concordance between several elements of our proposal: 1) the main morphological patterns of the male gonopods lead to the recognition of seven subfamilies; 2) the main morphological patterns of the vulvae correspond to the seven observed gonopod types and lead to the recognition of the same seven subfamilies; 3) the recognition of several subfamilies is supported by the well-defined clades obtained by the molecular analyses; and 4) the female re...

show abstract