(Guinot, Danièle 2008)
| Notice: | This page is derived from the original publication listed below, whose author(s) should always be credited. Further contributors may edit and improve the content of this page and, consequently, need to be credited as well (see page history). Any assessment of factual correctness requires a careful review of the original article as well as of subsequent contributions.
If you are uncertain whether your planned contribution is correct or not, we suggest that you use the associated discussion page instead of editing the page directly. This page should be cited as follows (rationale):
Citation formats to copy and paste
BibTeX: @article{Guinot2008Zootaxa1850, RIS/ Endnote: TY - JOUR Wikipedia/ Citizendium: <ref name="Guinot2008Zootaxa1850">{{Citation |
Ordo: Decapoda
Familia: Dynomenidae
Name
Dynomene Guinot, Danièle, 2008 – Wikispecies link – Pensoft Profile
- Dynomene Guinot, Danièle, 2008, Zootaxa 1850: 20-22.
Description
The Paleocene Dromilites americana Rathbun not only “differs significantly from the type of the genus” Dromilites H. Milne Edwards, 1837, D. bucklandii (H. Milne Edwards, 1837) (see Schweitzer et al. 2003: 21) but, moreover, the thoracic sternum figured by Rathbun (1935: pl. 17, fig. 2) does not correspond to that of a dromiacean crab and probably does not represent a podotreme condition. Consequently, the assignment of Dromilites americana to Dromilites and its attribution to the Dynomenidae, with a possible link to Kierionopsis, are not recognised here. Dromilites should be assigned to the Dromiinae (Dromiidae). Similar to Kierionopsis, Kromtitis Müller, 1984 (type species: Dromilites koberi Bachmayer & Tollmann, 1953), assigned to the Dromiidae (Müller 1984: 64, pl. 31, figs. 1–4; Müller & Collins 1991: 63, fig. 3 e, pl. 3, figs. 4, 5, 8; Portell & Collins 2004: 111; Beschin et al. 2002: 12; Donovan et al.2003: 106) or to the Dynomenidae in close proximity of Paradynomene (Beschin et al. 2007: 26, 27; see also Beschin et al. 2004), can be confidently included in the Paradynomeninae n. subfam. In Kromtitis, as in Kierionopsis, the subrectangular carapace, the pronounced subdistal posterolateral teeth, the lobate and ornamented dorsal surface closely matches those of species of Paradynomene species recently described by McLay & Ng (2004). At least, in dorsal carapace features, there has scarcely been any divergence between these fossil genera and extant Paradynomeninae n. subfam. All species of Kromtitis, from the Eocene to the Miocene, are coral associates (Beschin et al. 2007: 27), as are extant species of Paradynomene. Modern Paradynomeninae n. subfam. clearly are barely modified relicts. A number of fossils, known solely from their dorsal carapaces and which conform to the general pattern of the Dynomenidae, appear as possible metadynomenines. Such is the case, for instance, of species of Dromiopsis Reuss, 1859 (type species: Brachyurites rugosus von Schlotheim, 1820) as D. elegans Reuss, 1859, with a rounded carapace, complete and deep cervical groove and lateral branchial groove, both grooves reaching and forming notches with the lateral border of the carapace. However, the genus Dromiopsis, supposed to be a dynomenid genus, is probably not monophyletic. It is premature and beyond the scope of the present paper to assign podotreme fossils to a dynomenid subfamily, the preliminary task being to attempt to include extinct genera in their appropriate family, i.e., either in the Dromiidae (and possibly in its constituent subfamilies) or Homolodromiidae or Dynomenidae, without excluding extinct families such as the Diaulacidae and also the Prosopidae which are the ancestors of the Homolodromioidea. Any affiliation based on the carapace shows only similarities and thus remains speculative at best. The nature of fossil dromiacean genera, even those that are known from a number of characters, remains questionable. For example the familial status of Basinotopus M’Coy, 1849 (type species: Inachus lamarckii Desmarest, 1822), traditionally assigned to the Dromiidae (P 4 and P 5 reduced and dorsal), is puzzling, despite the availability of both male and female abdomens with their uropods (M’Coy 1849; Bell 1858; see Guinot & Tavares 2001). Recent discoveries of more complete specimens of the Eocene Basinotopus tricornis Collins & Jakobsen, 2004, which in particular reveal sternal characters (Collins & Jakobsen 2004: 69, fig. 3, pl. 2, figs. 1–7), require a new interpretation based on all known data in accordance with phylogeny.
Taxon Treatment
- Guinot, Danièle; 2008: A re-evaluation of the Dynomenidae Ortmann, 1892 (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura, Podotremata), with the recognition of four subfamilies, Zootaxa 1850: 20-22. doi
This treatment was originally uploaded by Plazi, compare this treatment on Plazi. Unless this treatment has been substantially changed on Species-ID, Plazi requests to maintain a link back to the original repository.
