Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Artigo Acesso aberto Produção Nacional Revisado por pares

BIBTEX RIS

A new superfamily classification of the Caridea (Crustacea: Pleocyemata) based on phylogenetic pattern

2009; Wiley; Volume: 28; Issue: 2 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1111/j.1439-0469.1990.tb00369.x

1439-0469

Martín Lindsey Christoffersen,

Environmental and Biological Research in Conflict Zones

Present groupings of Caridea are notoriously unsatisfactory at the superfamily level. Principles of phylogenetic systematics are used to reconstruct 14 monophyletic subgroups of Caridea, based on 19 synaomorphies of adults. The following sequenced phylogenetic classification is provided (main diagnostic character for each superfamily within brackets): 1. Atyoidea (distal lash of Mxp, reduced); Oplophoridae; Atyidae; Pasiphaidae; Agostocarididae; Alvinocarididae; Bresiliidae; Psalidopodidae; Disciadidae; 2. Stylodactyloidea (mandibular palp with 2 segments or absent); Stylodactylidea; Campylonotidae; 3. Eugonatonotoidea (abdominal somite III with dorsal carina bifurcate); Eugonatonotidae; 4. Palaemonoidea (basal segment of antennular peduncle with distolateral tooth); Rhynchocinetidae; Palaemonidae; 5. Nematocarcinoidea (ventral lobe of scaphognathite narrowly triangular); Nematocarcinidae; 6. Pandaloidea (P1 with chela microscoic or absent); Pandalidae; "Plesionikidae"; Heterocarpidae; Heterocarpoididae; Dorodoteidae; Thalassocarididae; Physetocarididae; 7. Crangonoidea (incisor process of mandible absent); Barbouriidae; Lysmatidae; Merguiidae, fam. n.; Processidae; Glyphocrangonidae; Crangonidae; 8. Alpheoidea (carpus of P2 with less than 17 segments); Merhippolytidae, fam. n.; Nauticarididae; Alopidae; Bythocarididae; Thoridae; Hippolytidae; Pterocarididae, fam. n.; Ogyrididae; Alpheidae. The monotypic hippolytid taxon Thorellinae, subfam. n., has been formally diagnosed. A survey of the lower Caridea has furnished 276 enera and 2418 species and subspecies. The new superfamily system is simpler, genealogically informative and more precisely diagnosed than previous schemes. These have failed as general reference systems because they were based on the wrong premises that similarities indicate phylogenetic relationships or can be used to construct a single acceptable hierarchy.