identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
87178784FFA6FFD31956FD83FC3C6227.text	87178784FFA6FFD31956FD83FC3C6227.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Camarocarcinus Holland & Cvancara 1958	<div><p>Genus Camarocarcinus Holland &amp; Cvancara, 1958</p> <p>Remarks</p> <p>This genus comprises three Paleocene species: C.arnesoni Holland &amp; Cvancara, 1958 (Holland &amp; Cvancara 1958: 499, figs 2, 3, pl. 74, figs 1-14), the type species, from Paleocene of North Dakota; C. obtusus Jakobsen &amp;Collins, 1979 (Jakobsen &amp;Collins 1979: 63, pl. 1, figs 3-5), from upper Paleocene of eastern Denmark, and C. quinquetuberculatus Collins &amp; Wienberg Rasmussen, 1992 (Collins &amp; Wienberg Rasmussen 1992: 33, fig. 19), from middle Paleocene of West Greenland. The genus, first described as a raninid (Holland &amp; Cvancara 1958: 499, 502), was placed within the Calappidae (Glaessner 1969: R494; Collins &amp; Wienberg Rasmussen 1992: 33; Schweitzer &amp; Feldmann 2000: 241, 246 key, fig. 3; see also Schweitzer 2001: 810), and then tentatively assigned to the Leucosiidae by Schweitzer et al. (2003a: 34). Affinities between Camarocarcinus and Necrocarcinus have been pointed out (Glaessner 1960: 46), in particular with “ N. ” pierrensis (Bishop&amp; Williams 1991:458; Collins&amp;Wienberg Rasmussen1992:38; Fraaye 1994: fig. 1; Fraaije 2002: 914). Fortunately, the venter is preserved in C. arnesoni (Holland &amp; Cvancara 1958: pl. 74, figs 5, 13) and in C. quinquetuberculatus (Collins &amp; Wienberg Rasmussen 1992: fig. 19B) and shows extremely deep orbits; a large branchiostegite, bearing an oblique ridge which is markedly raised from the base of buccal frame to at least level of the P3, i.e. the “pterygostomian rim” of Holland &amp; Cvancara (1958: 501, pl. 74, figs 5, 9, 11); elongate “oxystomian” mxp3; and a nearly complete thoracic sternum, last sternite excepted (see</p> <p>Guinot &amp; Breton 2007: 617).</p> <p>Cenomanocarcinidae n. fam. (Crustacea, Decapoda) from Cretaceous</p> <p>sternites 2-4. Scale bars: A-E, 10 mm; F, 5 mm.</p> <p>Guinot D. et al.</p> <p>Thanks to a cast of the holotype of the thickshelled C. quinquetuberculatus (MGUH 21609; courtesy of S. L. Jakobsen), probably a male (Fig.9B, D), the good original description by Collins &amp; Wienberg Rasmussen (1992: 35, 36, fig. 19b) may be completed herein. The sternal plate has a narrow, flat and deeply recessed bottom showing as an undivided plate, lacking a median line (“median furrow” of Collins &amp; Wienberg Rasmussen 1992: 36) and with almost vertical flanges. The anterior sternites are slightly shield-shaped. Sternites 4 to 7 have about the same width along the whole sternal plate; the gynglymes for the articulation of P2 and P3 are visible at the top of the raised lateral flanges of their corresponding sternites (5 and 6), indicating that P2 and P3 (and probably also P4) were close to each other above the median depression; in ventral view, the articular condyles of P2 and P3 coxae on the sternal plate are located well above the level of the median depression. Sternite 4 is markedly overhung by the preserved coxae of the chelipeds (displaced to one side) which effectively are close to each other. The sternal sutures are distinct only on the sides. Such a thoracic sternum (Fig. 9D) differs markedly from the wide and largely exposed thoracic sternum in leucosiids (see Guinot &amp; Bouchard 1998: fig. 19).</p> <p>The thoracic sternum of the Paleocene Camarocarcinus does not correspond to any known configuration in Recent Brachyura and obviously represents the structure of an extinct family. Since we have no data on the venter of Necrocarcinus labeschii, the question is whether the Camarocarcinus sternum represents the necrocarcinid disposition or not. The partially preserved sternum of “ N.” wrighti, with a similar undivided, deep median depression bordered by lateral portions of sternites 4 and 5 (see Feldmann et al. 1993: fig. 29.5), is not substantially different. However, the sternum of Camarocarcinus (Fig. 9D) and presumably of “ N.” wrighti is different from that found in Cenomanocarcinus (Figs 3D, E; 6A). The only known thoracic sternum which may be comparable to that of Camarocarcinus is found in the Palaeocorystidae (see Discussion).Thus, the tentative assignment of Camarocarcinus to the Raninoidea, close to the Palaeocorystidae, by Holland &amp; Cvancara</p> <p>(1958: 502, 503), proves to be correct.</p> <p>REMARKS ON OTHER GENERA ASSIGNED TO THE NECROCARCINIDAE</p></div> 	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/87178784FFA6FFD31956FD83FC3C6227	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Guinot, Danièle;Vega, Francisco J.;Van Bakel, Barry W. M.	Guinot, Danièle, Vega, Francisco J., Van Bakel, Barry W. M. (2008): Cenomanocarcinidae n. fam., a new Cretaceous podotreme family (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura, Raninoidia), with comments on related families. Geodiversitas 30 (4): 681-719, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.4651166
87178784FFA1FFDA1935FF24FC086005.text	87178784FFA1FFDA1935FF24FC086005.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Campylostoma pierrence	<div><p>Campylostoma pierrence (sic) var. multituberculatus Joleaud &amp; Hsu, 1935</p> <p>Remarks</p> <p>Campylostoma pierrence var. multituberculatus Joleaud &amp; Hsu, 1935 (Joleaud &amp; Hsu 1935: 107, fig. 10), Upper Cretaceous of Tanout (Niger), regarded of uncertain status (Larghi 2004: 534) or referred to as Cenomanocarcinus multituberculatus by Schweitzer et al. (2003a: 36), shows a concave gastric ridge and three tuberculate longitudinal ridges, resulting in an H-shaped pattern; it lacks an epibranchial ridge but shows a small epibranchial tooth and a smaller subdistal tooth on the posterolateral margin. It is not possible to be more precise about its attribution.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/87178784FFA1FFDA1935FF24FC086005	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Guinot, Danièle;Vega, Francisco J.;Van Bakel, Barry W. M.	Guinot, Danièle, Vega, Francisco J., Van Bakel, Barry W. M. (2008): Cenomanocarcinidae n. fam., a new Cretaceous podotreme family (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura, Raninoidia), with comments on related families. Geodiversitas 30 (4): 681-719, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.4651166
87178784FFB2FFCE1AC3FCE3FDF76781.text	87178784FFB2FFCE1AC3FCE3FDF76781.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Cenomanocarcinidae Guinot & Vega & Van Bakel 2008	<div><p>Family CENOMANOCARCINIDAE n. fam.</p> <p>“Uncertain family” – Vega et al. 2007: 410, 412.</p> <p>TYPE GENUS. — Cenomanocarcinus Van Straelen, 1936 by present designation.</p> <p>INCLUDED GENERA. — Cenomanocarcinus. With reservation Campylostoma Bell, 1858.</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — Large size (for C. aff. vanstraeleni estimated maximum length of carapace: 160 mm); females probably larger than males. Carapace subhexagonal to subcircular. Anterolateral margin convex, long, with four to six teeth, the last epibranchial (often broken), may be extremely produced. Posterolateral margins markedly convergent posteriorly and with two teeth, the subdistal (at the extremity of the lateral ridge) may be marked, spiniform. Posterior margin clearly concave. Cervical and branchiocardiac grooves shallow. Three prominent longitudinal ridges (carinae) may bear strong tubercles: one axial (axial ridge) and two branchial (branchial ridges), generally forming a characteristic H with the imaginary horizontal line crossing the cardiac region; an oblique ridge (epibranchial ridge) may be present, ending in the epibranchial tooth. Two transverse ridges, one on protogastric regions and a less marked one on hepatic regions. Front narrow, trilobed. Orbits rounded; supraorbital margin with two notches. Branchiostegite joining the coxae of the pereiopods, thus no exposure of the pleurites. Mxp3 extremely elongate (reaching half carapace length), pediform, with coxae not closely approximated; endopodite: ischium long and developed, subrectangular longitudinally; merus ovate, approximately half the length of ischium; exopodite very</p> <p>broad and longer than endopodite ischium.</p> <p>Thoracic sternum relatively narrow, entirely covered laterally by male abdomen, therefore in contact with coxae of pereiopods, and leaving most of anterior sternum exposed between tip of telson and base of mxp3. Sternite 1 elongated between the bases of mxp3, sternites 2 and 3 showing as small, narrow plate (may be crown-shaped) intercalated between mxp3 coxae; sternite 4 long, well developed, with concave borders; sternites 5 and 6 wider and showing fairly expanded lateral flanges. Sternal sutures 4/5 and 5/6 short, forming lateral grooves, curved forwards where they are markedly deeper. Presence of a pair of prominences on sternite 5, being part of abdominal holding system. Sternites 7 and 8 unknown (see Addenda). Presence of a spermatheca (see Addenda). Medially an undivided portion, without median line. Male and female abdomens with all segments free, first segments dorsal, segment 6 much longer. Male abdomen fairly long and broad, completely filling laterally sterno-abdominal depression. Sexual dimorphism not well marked, the abdomen being only slightly narrower in males than in females. Surface of segments may bear several small tuberculate transverse ridges in both sexes.</p> <p>Chelipeds robust and long, showing homochely and homodonty; fingers elongated, gaping in adult males.Sexual dimorphism including in females smaller, more slender and spinose chelipeds, with propodus much longer than in males and prehensile margins of fingers appressed.</p> <p>P2-P4 rather long, markedly dissymmetric in both sexes. P2 slender and long; propodus moderately enlarged and flattened. P3 with propodus more developed and flattened, and styliform dactylus. P4 more robust than P3; merus shorter and thick; propodus extremely wide, ovate, and flattened; dactylus semi-ovoid. P5 very dissimilar in position, size and shape, markedly reduced, however rather long, thin, subdorsal, carried horizontally; merus subrectangular, one-third the length of P4 merus; carpus rectangular, two-thirds the length of merus; propodus subtriangular; dactylus nearly as long as propodus, simply curved, without terminal prehensile apparatus.</p> <p>STRATIGRAPHIC RANGE. — Upper Albian-Santonian and upper Campanian of the Tethyan Province.?Early Eocene (Ypresian) for Campylostoma tentatively assigned herein to the Cenomanocarcinidae n. fam.</p> <p>Remarks</p> <p>In the Cenomanocarcinidae n. fam. the relationship between thoracic sternum and abdomen, i.e. the male abdomen filling laterally the sterno-abdominal depression and in contact with the coxae of the legs, conforms to the podotreme organization as</p> <p>defined by Guinot (1977) and Guinot &amp; Tavares (2001). However, the podotreme condition can only be confirmed by the female gonopore on P3 coxa (and spermatheca at the extremity of suture 7/8; see Addenda) or absence of vulva on sternite 6 in females.</p> <p>The thoracic sternum described here is based principally on a Cenomanocarcinus sp. from the upper Albian of Colombia (Fig. 3E, sternum associated with carapace) (Vega et al. in study) and on a very large female C. aff. vanstraeleni from the Coniacian (according to labelling with the specimen) of Colombia, lacking the dorsal carapace (Fig. 6). The pair of prominences on sternite 5 is assumed to lock the abdomen.</p> <p>Assignment of the Cenomanocarcinidae n. fam. to the subsection Raninoidia (see Discussion) is supported by several features, as follows: cheliped shape, in particular the fixed finger markedly bent; P3 and P4 with enlarged and flattened articles (P3 propodus quadrangular; P4 propodus ovate and P4 dactylus semi-ovoid); P5 reduced, subdorsal, and directed obliquely;mxp3 developed, elongate, with wide exopodite.However, the carapace of cenomanocarcinids differs to such an extent from that of Recent raninoids, that it requires major discussion. Placement of the Cenomanocarcinidae n. fam. in the vicinity of the most primitive raninoids, the Palaeocorystidae, the probable rootstock of the Raninoidea, is tentative (see Discussion).</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/87178784FFB2FFCE1AC3FCE3FDF76781	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Guinot, Danièle;Vega, Francisco J.;Van Bakel, Barry W. M.	Guinot, Danièle, Vega, Francisco J., Van Bakel, Barry W. M. (2008): Cenomanocarcinidae n. fam., a new Cretaceous podotreme family (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura, Raninoidia), with comments on related families. Geodiversitas 30 (4): 681-719, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.4651166
87178784FFBFFFC51945FBECFE9C6269.text	87178784FFBFFFC51945FBECFE9C6269.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Cenomanocarcinus beardi Schweitzer, Feldmann, Fam, Hessin, Hetrick, Nyborg & Ross 2003	<div><p>Cenomanocarcinus beardi Schweitzer, Feldmann, Fam, Hessin, Hetrick, Nyborg &amp; Ross, 2003</p> <p>OCCURRENCE. — Late Turonian-Coniacian of British Columbia.</p> <p>Remarks</p> <p>Cenomanocarcinus beardi was established on the basis of a “needle-like” and “extremely long spine at the anterolateral corner”, and “very well-developed transverse ridges forming an ‘H’ pattern” (Schweitzer et al. 2003a: 38, 39, fig. 12.1-12.3). As these features are also present in C. inflatus (Fig. 1B, E) and C. vanstraeleni (Fig. 5D), we agree with the generic assignment. The specific characters of C. beardi may be the much longer epibranchial tooth and the stronger tubercles on the dorsal carapace.</p> <p>The close similarity of C. inflatus, C. vanstraeleni,</p> <p>C. oklahomensis and C. beardi is so remarkable that a</p> <p>Guinot D. et al.</p> <p>direct comparison of all these species is highly desirable, especially in view of the intraspecific variation observed in Stenzel’s type series of C. vanstraeleni (see Addenda).</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/87178784FFBFFFC51945FBECFE9C6269	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Guinot, Danièle;Vega, Francisco J.;Van Bakel, Barry W. M.	Guinot, Danièle, Vega, Francisco J., Van Bakel, Barry W. M. (2008): Cenomanocarcinidae n. fam., a new Cretaceous podotreme family (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura, Raninoidia), with comments on related families. Geodiversitas 30 (4): 681-719, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.4651166
87178784FFBEFFC51AC4FE65FBDA62E7.text	87178784FFBEFFC51AC4FE65FBDA62E7.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Cenomanocarcinus cristatus (Jux 1971)	<div><p>Cenomanocarcinus cristatus (Jux, 1971) (Fig. 7)</p> <p>MATERIAL EXAMINED. — Afghanistan, upper Campanian: holotype, female 47 × 46 mm (without lateral spines); the specimen was squeezed transversely and deformed, as shown by the asymmetrical carapace (GIK 538) (GIK 536 in Jux 1971).</p> <p>Remarks</p> <p>Jux (1971: 157, fig. 2, pl. 17) established a new genus, Hasaracancer (type species H. cristatus Jux, 1971) from the upper Campanian of Afghanistan, described as a raninid and thus assumed to be a podotreme crab. It was transferred to the Necrocarcinidae by Schweitzer et al. (2003a: 32, 33; 2004: 90, table 1) and Schweitzer &amp; Feldmann (2005: tables 4, 5, 7), a heterotreme family according to those authors. The elongate and narrow carapace (Fig. 7B) is obviously deformed, without lateral spines preserved. The dorsal surface bears an axial ridge with fairly large tubercles and two long lateral ridges lined by small, close-set tubercles; the orbits are small, closely spaced. The superficial resemblance in carapace outline and ornamentation between H. cristatus and Necrocarcinus renfroae Stenzel, 1945 (Stenzel 1945: pl. 41, fig. 13) (Fig. 8B, D) is likely due to a similar style of deformation. The mxp3 and sternum are absent in H. cristatus while the abdomen (Fig. 7A) apart from the telson is entirely preserved. The abdomen is extremely wide (even for a female) and unfolded (at least somites 1 to 4 in line with the carapace, thus dorsal; only a slight folding posteriorly; with somites 1-6 of the same width, 2-5 being conspicuously inclined laterally; somite 1 very short, somite 6 strongly developed). The curved lateral parts were compared to pleurae by Jux (1971: 161), who placed Hasaracancer with the Raninoidea, close to Notopocorystes McCoy, 1849. The incompletely folded</p> <p>and partially dorsal abdomen of H. cristatus is the possible product of the holotype being an exuvia, rather than a corpse. The abdomen is interpreted to have been normally folded underneath the carapace, as in other species of Cenomanocarcinus. Despite the presence of a near complete cervical groove which distinctly delineates the anterior part of the carapace in H. cristatus, Hasaracancer is referred herein to Cenomanocarcinus.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/87178784FFBEFFC51AC4FE65FBDA62E7	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Guinot, Danièle;Vega, Francisco J.;Van Bakel, Barry W. M.	Guinot, Danièle, Vega, Francisco J., Van Bakel, Barry W. M. (2008): Cenomanocarcinidae n. fam., a new Cretaceous podotreme family (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura, Raninoidia), with comments on related families. Geodiversitas 30 (4): 681-719, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.4651166
87178784FFB4FFCF1AA9FCAEFCB46022.text	87178784FFB4FFCF1AA9FCAEFCB46022.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Cenomanocarcinus inflatus Van Straelen 1936	<div><p>Cenomanocarcinus inflatus Van Straelen, 1936 (Fig. 1A, B, E, F)</p> <p>MATERIAL EXAMINED. — Upper Cenomanian, Le Mans, Butte de Gazonfier, lectotype (Van Straelen 1936: pl. 4, fig. 8), dorsal carapace (ex. Hébert Colln, MNHN J08587); paralectotype (Fig. 1A, B), dorsal carapace (44 × 52 mm), width measured exclusive of both long epibranchial spines (broken) (MNHN R05504); dorsal carapace (MHN LM 3804); dorsal carapace (27 × 38 mm), with partially preserved epibranchial spines (estimated width at least 40 mm inclusive of complete epibranchial spines) (MHN LM 3806) (Breton &amp; Collins 2007: fig. 5) (Fig. 1E, F).</p> <p>OCCURRENCE. — Upper Cenomanian.</p> <p>Remarks</p> <p>The manuscript name Necrocarcinus inflatus A. Milne-Edwards quoted by Guillier (1886: 244), consequently a nomen nudum, appeared only with a figure in Boule &amp; Piveteau (1935: 392, fig. 670); published after 1930 and not being accompanied by a description, it is not an available name (ICZN 1999: Article 13.1.1). The species name was validly introduced by Van Straelen (1936: 37- 39, pl. 4, fig. 8), who established the new genus Cenomanocarcinus Van Straelen, 1936, with C. in-</p> <p>flatus as type species.</p> <p>Breton &amp; Collins (2007: 18) have recently designated as lectotype of C. inflatus the specimen figured by Van Straelen (1936: pl. 4, fig. 8) and labelled “La Butte de Gazonfier au Mans” (ex. Hébert Colln, MNHN J08587). A smaller, more complete individual (Fig. 1E, F) from the same locality, preserves teeth of the carapace margin (generally broken in fossils) (Breton &amp; Collins 2007: fig. 5) and a trilobed front (Fig. 1F). Cenomanocarcinus inflatus, supposed to have a rounded carapace (as in paralectotype MNHN R05504) (Fig. 1B), in fact possesses a long epibranchial tooth, followed by two posterolateral teeth including subdistal ones at the extremity of the branchial ridge (Fig. 1E).</p> <p>The ventral surface and walking pereiopods of C. inflatus are unknown; the cheliped of the paralectotype was figured by Breton &amp; Collins (2007: fig. 4).</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/87178784FFB4FFCF1AA9FCAEFCB46022	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Guinot, Danièle;Vega, Francisco J.;Van Bakel, Barry W. M.	Guinot, Danièle, Vega, Francisco J., Van Bakel, Barry W. M. (2008): Cenomanocarcinidae n. fam., a new Cretaceous podotreme family (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura, Raninoidia), with comments on related families. Geodiversitas 30 (4): 681-719, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.4651166
87178784FFBFFFC4192EFE45FC2B60E0.text	87178784FFBFFFC4192EFE45FC2B60E0.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Cenomanocarcinus oklahomensis (Rathbun 1935)	<div><p>Cenomanocarcinus oklahomensis (Rathbun, 1935)</p> <p>Remarks</p> <p>Necrocarcinus oklahomensis Rathbun, 1935 (Rathbun 1935: 44, pl. 11, fig. 9; see also Fraaije 2002: 913), upper Albian of the Western Interior (USA), was transferred to Cenomanocarcinus by Van Straelen (1936: 39), Stenzel (1945: 449), then by Förster (1968: 169, 176), Schweitzer et al. (2003a: 36), and Vega et al. (2007: 412, 417). The species is known by the holotype only, with a carapace characterized by marked longitudinal and epibranchial ridges, and not preserving any spines on lateral margins. Despite the fact that Stenzel (1945: table p. 449) indicated on the dorsal ridges of C. oklahomensis the same number of tubercles as in C. inflatus, he did not synonymise the two species (see under C. beardi, below).</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/87178784FFBFFFC4192EFE45FC2B60E0	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Guinot, Danièle;Vega, Francisco J.;Van Bakel, Barry W. M.	Guinot, Danièle, Vega, Francisco J., Van Bakel, Barry W. M. (2008): Cenomanocarcinidae n. fam., a new Cretaceous podotreme family (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura, Raninoidia), with comments on related families. Geodiversitas 30 (4): 681-719, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.4651166
87178784FFA1FFDA1AC7FBCCFB6D6394.text	87178784FFA1FFDA1AC7FBCCFB6D6394.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Cenomanocarcinus simplex Remy 1960	<div><p>Cenomanocarcinus simplex Remy, 1960</p> <p>MATERIAL EXAMINED. — Eocene (probably), Fresco cliffs, Kraïebouén, Ivory Coast, Tessier coll., holotype, dorsal carapace (MNHN R03849).</p> <p>Remarks</p> <p>Cenomanocarcinus simplex Remy, 1960 (Remy 1960: 56, 63, fig. 1, pl. 3, fig. 3), Eocene (probably) of Ivory Coast, differs from C. inflatus, C. vanstraeleni and C. oklahomensis by the carapace having a very low number of tubercles and lacking the characteristic ridges of Cenomanocarcinus, in particular the epibranchial ridge, and by showing only two elongate, very raised axial (gastric and cardiac) tubercles. In addition, the orbits are widely separated by a broad rostrum. These morphological differences lead us to exclude C. simplex from Cenomanocarcinus, as well from the Cenomanocarcinidae n. fam. and the Podotremata. Its affinities are with calappoids such as Mursia</p> <p>Desmarest, 1823 or related genera.</p> <p>Cenomanocarcinidae n. fam. (Crustacea, Decapoda) from Cretaceous</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/87178784FFA1FFDA1AC7FBCCFB6D6394	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Guinot, Danièle;Vega, Francisco J.;Van Bakel, Barry W. M.	Guinot, Danièle, Vega, Francisco J., Van Bakel, Barry W. M. (2008): Cenomanocarcinidae n. fam., a new Cretaceous podotreme family (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura, Raninoidia), with comments on related families. Geodiversitas 30 (4): 681-719, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.4651166
87178784FFB5FFCF1ABDFB0DFED66022.text	87178784FFB5FFCF1ABDFB0DFED66022.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Cenomanocarcinus Van Straelen 1936	<div><p>Genus Cenomanocarcinus Van Straelen, 1936</p> <p>Cenomanocarcinus Van Straelen, 1936: 37. — Stenzel 1945: 447; 1952: 214. — Remy &amp; Avnimelech 1955: 314. — Remy 1960: 57, 63. — Avnimelech 1961: 1. — Förster 1968: 175, 188, 190. — Glaessner 1969: R494. — Wright &amp; Collins 1972: 62. — Feldmann et al. 1976: 985, 988. — Kues 1980: 862. — Bishop 1986: 135, table 2. — Bishop &amp; Williams 1991: 452. — Bishop et al. 1992: 419. — Feldmann 1993: 208. — Fraaije 2002: 913, 914. — Larghi 2004: 530, 534, 535. — Schweitzer &amp; Feldmann 2000: 241, 246 (key), fig. 1, table 1; 2005: tables 4, 5, 7. — Schweitzer et al. 2002: 37, fig. 29, table 4; 2003a: 36. — Crawford et al. 2006: 5. — Breton &amp; Collins 2007: 18. — Vega et al. 2007: 412.</p> <p>Necrocarcinus (Cenomanocarcinus) – Bishop 1985: 618,</p> <p>621. — Toolson &amp; Kues 1996: 114, 115.</p> <p>Cenomanocarcinidae n. fam. (Crustacea, Decapoda) from Cretaceous</p> <p>TYPE SPECIES. — Cenomanocarcinus inflatus Van Straelen, 1936 by original designation.</p> <p>SPECIES INCLUDED. — Cenomanocarcinus beardi Schweitzer, Feldmann, Fam, Hessin, Hetrick, Nyborg &amp; Ross, 2003; Hasaracancer cristatus Jux, 1971; Necrocarcinus oklahomensis Rathbun 1935; C. vanstraeleni Stenzel, 1945.</p> <p>STRATIGRAPHIC RANGE. — Upper Albian (Colombia), Cenomanian and Turonian (France, Germany, Texas, North Dakota, Mexico and Colombia) to Coniacian- Santonian (British Columbia, Canada). In the Tethyan Province.</p> <p>Remarks</p> <p>Cenomanocarcinus was considered invalid by Stenzel (1945: 447) and renamed “ Cenomanocarcinus Van Straelen, 1936 in Stenzel 1945 ” (Stenzel 1952: 214), but Förster (1968: 175) correctly re-assigned it to Van Straelen, 1936. First included in the Calappidae De Haan, 1833 (Van Straelen 1936; Stenzel 1945, 1952; Feldmann 1993), it was transferred, as a valid genus, to the Necrocarcininae Förster, 1968 (Förster 1968: 175). Subsequently, Cenomanocarcinus was synonymised with Necrocarcinus Bell, 1863 (eventually with Orithopsis Carter, 1872) (Wright &amp; Collins 1972: 62; Feldmann et al. 1976: 986; Kues 1980: 862; Fraaije 2002: 913), or, alternatively, considered a subgenus of Necrocarcinus (Bishop 1985: 618, 621; Toolson &amp; Kues 1996: 114, 115). It was finally rehabilitated as a member of the Necrocarcinidae (Bishop &amp; Williams 1991: 452; Schweitzer et al. 2002: table 8, fig. 29; Schweitzer et al. 2003a: 36; Schweitzer &amp; Feldmann 2005: 34). By removing the Necrocarcinidae (including Cenomanocarcinus) from the Calappoidea De Haan, 1833 to refer it to the Dorippoidea MacLeay, 1838, Schweitzer et al. (2003a: 32) considered Cenomanocarcinus to be a heterotreme representative.</p> <p>In contrast, the hypothesis that Cenomanocarcinus could be podotreme was put forward by Larghi (2004: 530) and Guinot &amp; Breton (2006: 616). Vega et al. (2007: 412) included the genus in the Podotremata. Breton &amp; Collins (2007: 17) have recently documented the type species, C. inflatus, well on the basis of a near-complete topotypical specimen.The carapace outline of Cenomanocarcinus, traditionally based on specimens with broken spines,</p> <p>is not rounded as assumed, its anterolateral border</p> <p>Guinot D. et al.</p> <p>prolonginginto a well-developed epibranchial tooth. A long and more or less thick epibranchial tooth, similar to that described for C. beardi (Schweitzer et al. 2003a: fig. 12), is a diagnostic feature of the genus.</p> <p>Cenomanocarcinus, a “carinate genus” (Bishop &amp; Williams 1991), is characterized dorsally by the following features: extremely thin carapace cuticle, dorsal carapace surface without marked grooves and with three strong, tuberculate longitudinal ridges (H-shape) and a tuberculate epibranchial ridge ending in a long epibranchial tooth; presence of a subdistal posterolateral tooth (see diagnosis of Cenomanocarcinidae n. fam. and under C. vanstraeleni). According to Vega et al. (2007) the flattened appendages (of C. vanstraeleni) suggest a burrowing (in point of fact, burying) habit and/ or active swimming.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/87178784FFB5FFCF1ABDFB0DFED66022	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Guinot, Danièle;Vega, Francisco J.;Van Bakel, Barry W. M.	Guinot, Danièle, Vega, Francisco J., Van Bakel, Barry W. M. (2008): Cenomanocarcinidae n. fam., a new Cretaceous podotreme family (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura, Raninoidia), with comments on related families. Geodiversitas 30 (4): 681-719, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.4651166
87178784FFB4FFC418D0FCAEFB2B6249.text	87178784FFB4FFC418D0FCAEFB2B6249.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Cenomanocarcinus vanstraeleni Stenzel 1945	<div><p>Cenomanocarcinus vanstraeleni Stenzel, 1945 (Figs 2; 3 A-D, F; 4; 5)</p> <p>MATERIAL EXAMINED. — Late Cenomanian, Eagle Ford Group, Britton Formation, California Crossing, Dallas County, Texas, 9 syntypes; Stenzel’s syntype 3 (BEG- 21098) is designated here as lectotype, all others become paralectotypes: males (BEG-21079-2, BEG-21079-6, BEG-21079-12, BEG-21088, BEG-21090, BEG-21092), females (BEG-21079-1, BEG-21091). — Middle Turonian, Mancos Shale, 50 km northwest of Albuquerque, 1 specimen, possibly a female (UNM-3938). — Turonian, Eagle Ford Group, Mexico, Múzquiz, Coahuila, 11 specimens, males (MUZ-212, MUZ-215, MUZ-226, IGM-7655), females (MUZ-201, MUZ-204, MUZ-208, MUZ-209, MUZ-211, MUZ-216, MUZ-246).— Lower to middle Turonian, Colombia, San Rafael Formation, 1 male (UN-DG-CR004), 2 females (INGEOMINAS- NZ4b-03, INGEOMINAS-B4V/6). — Coniacian (according to label with the specimen), Colombia, Apulo, 1 female, 160 × 150 mm (estimated carapace measurements, exclusive of lateral spines), Cenomanocarcinus aff. vanstraeleni Stenzel, 1945 (RGM M902).</p> <p>OCCURRENCE. — Cenomanian-Turonian of New Mexico, Texas, Mexico (Eagle Ford Group) and Colombia.</p> <p>ECOLOGY AND BIOLOGY. — The Cenomanocarcinidae n. fam. as exemplified by the large-sized C. vanstraeleni exhibit extremely thin carapace cuticle, overall construction being strengthened by elevations (the H-shape), and</p> <p>lightweight. The carapace which bears strong epibranchial</p> <p>Cenomanocarcinidae n. fam. (Crustacea, Decapoda) from Cretaceous</p> <p>carapace; F, detail of the front. Scale bars: A-E, 10 mm; F, 5 mm.</p> <p>Guinot D. et al.</p> <p>spines which would have deterred possible predators. The chelae are armed with strong fingers, and the tips of fingers with hooks to catch or clamp, whereas the molariform teeth of the fingers may have been used to crush objects. The morphology is perfectly suited to catch and crush (swimming) molluscs such as ammonites. The flattened propodi of P3 and P4, to increase surface area, are modified for swimming and burying.</p> <p>Cenomanocarcinidae n. fam. (Crustacea, Decapoda) from Cretaceous</p> <p>Remarks</p> <p>Cenomanocarcinus vanstraeleni Stenzel, 1945 (Sten-</p> <p>zel 1945: 447, fig. 15, pl. 44) was established for nine specimens, all syntypes, from Texas. Recent biostratigraphic researches on the Britton For-</p> <p>mation of the Eagle Ford Group indicate a late</p> <p>Guinot D. et al.</p> <p>Cenomanian age for the stratigraphic unit that includes this species (Kennedy 1988; Friedman 2002; Jacobs et al. 2005). In the type series, syntype 3 with a well-preserved venter, figured by Stenzel (1945: pl. 44, fig. 3), is designated here as lectotype (all other specimens becoming paralectotypes; see Material examined).</p> <p>It was interpreted by Stenzel (1945) as a female probably because of the width of the abdomen (Fig. 5A, B). This wide abdomen may also be that of a male since even in males the space between the legs (i.e. the sterno-abdominal depression) is entirely filled laterally by a relatively wide abdomen. A portion of the sternum is visible anteriorly, as indicated by Stenzel (1945: pl. 44, fig. 4; see also</p> <p>Stenzel 1952: 215, pl. 59, figs 9, 10).</p> <p>Cenomanocarcinidae n. fam. (Crustacea, Decapoda) from Cretaceous</p> <p>coxae; C, paralectotype,?male (BEG-21090), ventral view, abdomen (telson lost) and anterior sternum; D, paralectotype (syntype 4 of Stenzel 1945) (BEG-21079-12), dorsal view of carapace; E, paralectotype (syntype 6 of Stenzel 1945) (BEG-21092), right chela and</p> <p>part of left chela. Scale bars: 10 mm.</p> <p>Guinot D. et al.</p> <p>Scale bar: 50 mm.</p> <p>Cenomanocarcinidae n. fam. (Crustacea, Decapoda) from Cretaceous</p> <p>bar: 10 mm.</p> <p>Guinot D. et al.</p> <p>The relationships thoracic sternum/abdomen evoke a typical podotreme organization following Guinot &amp; Bouchard (1998) and Guinot &amp; Tavares (2001). Such a condition led Larghi (2004) and Vega et al. (2007) to include C. vanstraeleni in the Podotremata, a view similarly envisaged by Guinot &amp; Quenette (2005: 329) and Guinot &amp; Breton (2006: 616). Cenomanocarcinus vanstraeleni, the commonest crustacean species in the Múzquiz deposits of Mexico, was documented in detail by Vega et al. (2007): it is among the largest crabs known from the Cretaceous (see also Finsley 1989: 98, 99, pl. 78, photographs 307, 308).</p> <p>Important material of C. vanstraeleni from several localities in Mexico, Colombia, and Texas has been examined and compared for the present study. Virtually all parts (with the exception of eyes, cephalic appendages and pleopods) of C.vanstraeleni are now known: carapace (Figs 2B; 5D), chelae (Figs 2; 3A; 5E), P2-P5 (Figs 2; 4; 5A), mxp3 (Figs 2; 3A, B; 5A), thoracic sternum (Figs 3A, C, F; 5A-C), and male and female abdomens (Fig. 3A, C, F). The male abdomen is only slightly narrower than the female one; it seems to have a wider segment 6 than in the female; the telson is short and semi-circular in males, more elongate and triangular in females. In both sexes, there are three small transverse ridges on each abdominal segment, not aligned on segment 6 (one on the median part, and two at the lower margin). Two marked tubercles are present medially on the long sternite 4 of several Mexican and Colombian specimens. The reduced and thin P5 is preserved in a number of specimens (Figs 2B; 4E, F).</p> <p>According to Stenzel (1945), characters distinguishing C. vanstraeleni from C. inflatus concern only the number of tubercles on the longitudinal rows of the dorsal carapace. As that number is not constant between specimens of C. vanstraeleni (from Texas, for example) and in the absence of more complete material of C. inflatus, the idea that all this material could belong to a single widely distributed species (with records from France, Germany, Israel, Texas, Mexico and Colombia) during the Albian-Turonian cannot be ignored. Nevertheless, C. inflatus and</p> <p>C. vanstraeleni show some differences in the dorsal tubercles and curvature of the epibranchial ridge; in addition, the front seems to be less produced in C. vanstraeleni.</p> <p>A huge and three-dimensionally-preserved female specimen (carapace 160 × 150 mm, estimated measurements, not including spines) from Colombia, known by chelae, subhepatic and pterygostomian regions, partially exposed thoracic sternum, and wide, unfolded abdomen (Fig. 6A, B), is herein referred as Cenomanocarcinus aff. vanstraeleni. Sternite 6 is devoid of a vulva, which confirms its status as a non-eubrachyuran crab. Similarly, other isolated sterna interpreted to presumably belong to females do not show vulvae on sternite 6. Each episternite 5 shows a pair of prominences which is blunt, weathered, but well preserved and recognisable on left side (crab seen by ventral view). This pair of prominences is assumed to be a part of the abdominal holding system.</p> <p>The sternum (associated with a carapace) of a smaller Cenomanocarcinus from the upper Albian of Colombia (Vega et al. in study) shows a crownshaped plate (at least sternites 2 and 3), long sternite 4, and deep, curved sutures 4/5 (Fig. 3E).</p> <p>Both abundance and completeness of the fossils available for the present study provide critical information and ample evidence to erect a new family.</p> <p>SPECIES POSSIBLY SYNONYMOUS WITH</p> <p>EITHER CENOMANOCARCINUS VANSTRAELENI</p> <p>OR C. INFLATUS</p> <p>Ophthalmoplax spinosus Feldmann, Villamil &amp; Kauffman, 1999 (Feldmann et al. 1999: 96, figs 3, 4) From the upper lower Turonian of Colombia, assigned to the Carcineretidae Beurlen, 1930 (see Vega et al. 2001: 323; Feldmann &amp; Villamil 2002: 718), O. spinosus has recently been placed by Vega et al. (2007: 412, 414) in the synonymy of C. vanstraeleni. We agree that O. spinosus may be a species of Cenomanocarcinus, notably in respect to its thoracic sternum being completely filled by the abdomen, and the enlarged propodi of P3-P4. New material (two deformed specimens) from Colombia found at the same locality and stratigraphic unit (San Rafael Formation) examined by one of us (FV) shows</p> <p>mxp3, P4 and sternum to be similar to those found in specimens of C. vanstraeleni from Mexico (Vega et al. 2007: figs 8.10, 8.11). However, with only the two deformed specimens available, it is not possible to verify the precise status of O. spinosus.</p> <p>Contrary to the Cenomanocarcinidae n. fam., the extinct eubrachyuran (heterotreme) family Carcineretidae – in referring only to the ventral features – shows a wide thoracic sternum and a deep sterno-abdominal cavity laterally bordered by a broad sternal portion, as in Carcineretes planetarius Vega, Feldmann, Ocampo &amp; Pope, 1997 (Vega et al. 1997: 320, figs 2-5), Ophthalmoplax triambonatus Feldmann &amp; Villamil, 2002 (Feldmann &amp; Villamil 2002: fig.4.2), or as in O. stephensoni Rathbun, 1935 (Schweitzer et al. 2007: fig. 1b, g). In all these species, P5 are not reduced and exhibit ovate articles; articles of both P4 and P5 are modified, P4 with a flattened carpus and merus, P5 with paddle-like propodi and dactyli (Schweitzer et al. 2007: 19). Modification of P3 as in Cenomanocarcinus vanstraeleni (Figs 2; 4; 6A) is not yet known.</p> <p>Carcineretes sp. (Neumann &amp; Jagt 2003: 162, fig. 1) From the lower Turonian of Germany, attributed to Carcineretes with a query, it shows actually, posteriorly to the huge chelipeds, only three pairs of long appendages, here interpreted as P2 to P4. The specimen thus appears to belong to a species of Cenomanocarcinus despite the merus, carpus, propodus and dactylus of P5 (in reality P4) having been described as flabelliform.</p> <p>Cenomanocarcinus hierosolymitanus Avnimelech, 1961 (Avnimelech 1961: 1-3, figs 3, 4)</p> <p>From the upper Cenomanian (Neolobites horizon) of Jerusalem, Israel, represented by an incomplete carapace, C. hierosolymitanus was previously identified as C. cf. vanstraeleni by Remy &amp; Avnimelech (1955: 314) on the basis of an incomplete specimen. The carapace is subcircular in outline and lacks a “hepatic” (?epibranchial) ridge. The differences used to introduce a new species fall within the intraspecific variation of C. inflatus. The species was attributed provisionally (Larghi 2004: 534) to Corazzatocarcinus Larghi, 2004 (type species:</p> <p>Geryon hadjoulae Roger, 1946), a genus suspected</p> <p>Cenomanocarcinidae n. fam. (Crustacea, Decapoda) from Cretaceous</p> <p>to have podotreme affinities (Roger 1946; Larghi 2004: 530; Vega et al. 2007: 412, 417). The precise status of Corazzatocarcinus is problematic.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/87178784FFB4FFC418D0FCAEFB2B6249	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Guinot, Danièle;Vega, Francisco J.;Van Bakel, Barry W. M.	Guinot, Danièle, Vega, Francisco J., Van Bakel, Barry W. M. (2008): Cenomanocarcinidae n. fam., a new Cretaceous podotreme family (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura, Raninoidia), with comments on related families. Geodiversitas 30 (4): 681-719, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.4651166
87178784FFA5FFDF1926FBCFFE876394.text	87178784FFA5FFDF1926FBCFFE876394.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Necrocarcinus Bell 1863	<div><p>Genus Necrocarcinus Bell, 1863</p> <p>Necrocarcinus Bell, 1863: 19. — Carter 1872: 532. — Beurlen 1930: 364, 412. — Rathbun 1935: 43. — Mertin 1941: 239. — Stenzel 1945: 441; 1952: 214. — Glaessner 1960: 46; 1969: R495. — Förster 1968: 173; 1970: 141. — Wright &amp; Collins 1972: 62. — Feldmann et al. 1976: 985, 988; 1993: 35, 37. — Kues 1980: 862. — Bishop 1981: table 13.2; 1985: 618; 1986: 135, tables 2, 6. — Bishop &amp; Williams 1991: 451. — Feldmann 1993: 208. — Fraaye 1994: 262; Fraaije 2002: 913, 914. — Collins &amp; Jakobsen: 1995: 39. — Toolson &amp; Kues 1996: 115. — Collins 1997: 84. — Ilyin &amp; Alekseev 1998: 592. — Jagt et al. 2000: 40. — Larghi &amp; Garassino 2000: 54. — Schweitzer &amp; Feldmann 2000: 241, 246 (key), fig. 1, table 1; 2002: 961; 2005: 34. — Schweitzer 2001: fig. 7. — Schweitzer et al. 2003a: 32, table 3. — Larghi 2004: 530. — Crawford et al. 2006: 5. — Feldmann &amp; Schweitzer 2006: 89, 90. — Breton &amp; Collins 2007: 18. — Vega et al. 2007: 412.</p> <p>TYPE SPECIES. — Orithyia labeschii Deslongchamps, 1835: 40, pl. 1, figs 7, 8 by subsequent designation of Withers (1928: 456), not of Glaessner (1929a: 261; see Wright &amp;</p> <p>Collins 1972: 62).</p> <p>Guinot D. et al.</p></div> 	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/87178784FFA5FFDF1926FBCFFE876394	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Guinot, Danièle;Vega, Francisco J.;Van Bakel, Barry W. M.	Guinot, Danièle, Vega, Francisco J., Van Bakel, Barry W. M. (2008): Cenomanocarcinidae n. fam., a new Cretaceous podotreme family (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura, Raninoidia), with comments on related families. Geodiversitas 30 (4): 681-719, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.4651166
87178784FFA4FFDD1B29FF24FB0A6107.text	87178784FFA4FFDD1B29FF24FB0A6107.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Necrocarcinus labeschii (Deslongchamps 1835)	<div><p>Necrocarcinus labeschii (Deslongchamps, 1835) (Fig. 8E, F)</p> <p>Orithyia labeschii Deslongchamps, 1835: 40, pl. 1, figs 7, 8.</p> <p>MATERIAL EXAMINED. — Cenomanian, Le Mans, Sables du Perche Formation, 1 specimen (carapace length 19 mm; width 24 mm) (MHN LM 3808, Guéranger Colln) (see Breton &amp; Collins 2007). — Albian, Cambridge, 5 carapaces (MNHN). — Lower Cenomanian, Mantelliceras dixoni Zone, France, Normandy, Seine- Maritime, Pétreval, at Annouville-Vilmesnil, 1 carapace, G. Breton coll. (G. Breton Colln). — Middle Albian, top of Dimorphoplites niobe Zone, France, Pas-de- Calais, Wissant, P. Destombes coll., J. S. H. Collins det. 10.IX. 1981, 2 carapaces (G. Breton Colln).</p> <p>OCCURRENCE. — Cretaceous (Albian-Cenomanian) (Glaessner 1929a, 1969; Wright &amp; Collins 1972; Ilyin &amp; Alekseev 1998; Breton &amp; Collins 2007). The earliest known N. labeschii is from the lower Albian, basal zone, Cauville, Seine-Maritime, France (G.Breton pers. comm.).</p> <p>Remarks</p> <p>Necrocarcinus labeschii, from the Cenomanian of Normandy,has been described and figured by many authors including Bell (1858: 20, pl. 4, figs 4-8), Carter (1898: 27, pl. 1, fig. 9), Glaessner (1969: R495, fig. 306.3), Wright &amp; Collins (1972: 63, pl. 11, figs 1-8, pl. 22, fig. 8a-c), Förster (1968: 173, fig. 3, pl. 13, figs 7, 8; 1970: 136, 142, figs 5b, 6b), Ilyin &amp; Alekseev (1998: fig. 2a), Breton &amp; Collins (2007: 18, fig. 6). No illustrations, however, show the sternum or legs. The male abdomen was described but not figured (Carter 1898: 27, 28; Wright &amp; Collins 1972: 64), there is however some doubt whether or not it was attached to a carapace. The female specimen with abdomen preserved, figured by Carter (1898: pl. 1, fig. 9), “has not been traced” according to Wright &amp; Collins (1972: 63).</p> <p>Necrocarcinus bodrakensis Levitski, 1974, upper Albian of Crimea, has been synonymised with N. labeschii (Ilyin &amp; Alekseev 1998: 594).</p> <p>REMARKS ON THE STATUS OF SEVERAL SPECIES PREVIOUSLY ASSIGNED TO NECROCARCINUS</p> <p>The status of several necrocarcinid species is reevalu-</p> <p>ated herein, based generally on carapace characters</p> <p>only and in comparison to N. labeschii (supposed to be a podotreme crab), and generally in the absence of any ventral characters.</p> <p>Necrocarcinus woodwardii Bell, 1863 (Bell 1863: 20, pl. 4, figs 1-3)</p> <p>From the upper Albian to the lower Cenomanian of England, northern France and Germany (Carter 1898: 29, pl. 2, fig. 1; Lőrenthey 1929: 300, fig. 22a; Förster 1968: 175; Wright &amp; Collins, 1972: 65, pl. 12, figs 1, 2; Feldmann et al. 1993: 36; Fraaye 1994: 264, fig. 1; Schweitzer et al. 2003a: table 3), it can be assigned to Necrocarcinus.</p> <p>Necrocarcinus undecimtuberculatus Takeda &amp; Fujiyama, 1983 (Takeda &amp; Fujiyama 1983: 133, fig. 3, pl. 1, figs 1, 2)</p> <p>From the upper Aptian of northern Japan (Fraaye 1994: 264; Schweitzer et al. 2003a: 33, table 3), N. undecimtuberculatus differs from N. labeschii by lacking tubercles on the mesogastric and urogastric regions. This species, which would be better assigned to Paranecrocarcinus Van Straelen, 1936, is the oldest known necrocarcinid.</p> <p>Necrocarcinus texensis Rathbun, 1935 (Rathbun 1935: 45, pl. 11, figs 20-22)</p> <p>From the upper Albian of Texas (Beurlen 1958: fig.1a; Förster 1968: 174; Bishop &amp; Williams 1991: 458, fig. 6A; Schweitzer et al. 2003a: table 3), with three longitudinal ridges surrounded by a few large tubercles, it is a possible Necrocarcinus.</p> <p>Necrocarcinus tauricus Ilyin &amp; Alekseev, 1998 (Ilyin &amp; Alekseev 1998: 592, figs 1a, 2b)</p> <p>From the upper Albian of southwest Crimea, N. tauricus is very close to N. labeschii, and its status is not in doubt (see also Ilyin 2005: 201).</p> <p>Necrocarcinus olsonorum Bishop &amp; Williams, 1991 (Bishop &amp; Williams 1991: 452, figs 1-5, 6B) From the Turonian of the Western Interior (USA), N. olsonorum is distinguished by its highly arched carapace, dorsal surface with rounded boss-like spines and small granules, and lateral margins bearing five projecting bosses (see Fraaye 1994:</p> <p>264, fig. 1; Schweitzer et al. 2003a: table 3). Its</p> <p>configuration indicates necrocarcinid affinities as stated by Bishop &amp; Williams (1991: 458).</p> <p>Necrocarcinus carinatus Feldmann, Tshudy &amp; Thomson, 1993 (Feldmann et al. 1993: 36,</p> <p>fig. 29.6)</p> <p>From the lower Campanian of James Ross Basin, Antarctica (Fraaye 1994: 264, fig. 1; Schweitzer et al. 2003a: table 3), with its well-developed axial keel and spinous lateral keels, N. carinatus is fairly close to N. tricarinatus according to Feldmann et al. (1993: 37) but differs by outline and ornamentation of the gastric and epibranchial regions. Schweitzer et al. (2003a: 39, table 3), by listing N. carinatus among the Necrocarcinus species, regarded it as a necrocarcinid, whereas they recognised Orithopsis tricarinata as a dorippoid. We suggest placement in Orithopsis (see under Orithopsis).</p> <p>Necrocarcinidae gen. et sp. indet (Schweitzer et al.</p> <p>2003b: 889, fig. 1, as indeterminate genus and species)</p> <p>The unnamed mangrove-dwelling crab from the Cenomanian of Egypt assigned to the Necrocarcinidae, thus assumed to be a dorippoid by Schweitzer et al. (2003b), has two extremely elongate pereiopods (probably P2 and P3), a much shorter P1, with a stout chela. Despite the absence of other informations concerning P4 and P5 and the venter, we agree with the hypothesis that this fossil could belong to the Dorippoidea.</p> <p>Necrocarcinus bispinosus Segerberg, 1900 (Segerberg 1900: 372, pl. 9, fig. 7)</p> <p>From the Danian of Denmark and Sweden, N. bispinosus was considered to belong to Campylostoma (Fraaije 2002: 913) (see under Campylostoma).</p> <p>Necrocarcinus rathbunae Roberts, 1962 (Roberts 1962: 181, pl. 85, fig. 12, pl. 87, figs 1, 2) From the lower Campanian of New Jersey (Bishop&amp; Williams1991:452, fig.6E; Schweitzer et al. 2003a:33, 39, table 3), N. rathbunae was considered of uncertain position according to Fraaye (1994: 264, fig. 1).</p> <p>Necrocarcinus senonensis Schlüter, 1868 (in von</p> <p>der Marck &amp; Schlüter 1868: 297, pl. 44, fig. 3)</p> <p>Cenomanocarcinidae n. fam. (Crustacea, Decapoda) from Cretaceous</p> <p>(senior synonym of N. insignis Segerberg, 1900: 372, pl. 9, figs 1, 6)</p> <p>From the Danian of Sweden, Denmark and central Poland (Segerberg 1900:26, pl. 9, figs 2, 3, 5; Förster 1968: 175, pl. 13, fig. 4; Fraaye 1994: 262, fig. 1, pl. 1; Fraaije 2002: 913, 914; Schweitzer et al. 2003a: table 3; van Bakel et al. 2005: 286), N. senonensis is now better known thanks to a specimen from the middle Danian of Fakse, Denmark, figured by Collins &amp; Jakobsen (1995: 39, pl. 10, fig. 11). It shows a strong epibranchial spine (partially broken), a pointed subdistal posterolateral tooth (well visible in Segerberg 1900: 372, pl. 9, fig. 6), and ornament of rather large tubercles. The same Danish specimen figured here (Fig. 9A), which is a reconstruction, shows on the lateral margins two long and subequal spines, a unique configuration which does not conform to Necrocarcinus. The species needs to be re-evaluated, and a re-examination of material of “ Necrocarcinus ” senonensis and “ N.” cf. senonensis of Mertin (1941: 239, fig. 27) from the Santonian- Campanian of Germany is called for.</p> <p>Necrocarcinus angelicus Fraaije, 2002 (Fraaije 2002: 914, figs 1.1, 2)</p> <p>From the upper Maastrichtian of the Netherlands, N. angelicus is closely related to Orithopsis tricarinata, and we propose to include it in that genus as O. angelica (see under Orithopsis, below).</p> <p>Necrocarcinus pierrensis Rathbun, 1917 (Rathbun 1917: 389, pl. 33, figs 4, 5, as Campylostoma)</p> <p>From the upper Campanian-lower Maastrichtian of the Western Interior (USA) (Rathbun 1935: 45, pl. 12, fig. 5; Bishop 1981: 387, 388, 391, fig.13.4B; 1984: figs 8, 13; 1985: 621, figs 11, 12.1; 1986: 135, fig. 9B; Bishop &amp; Williams 1991: 452, 458, fig. 6D; Fraaye 1994: 263, fig. 1; Fraaije 2002: 914; Schweitzer et al. 2003a: 33, 34, 36, table 3).</p> <p>Necrocarcinus davisi Bishop, 1985 (Bishop 1985: 619, figs 3.6, 10-12)</p> <p>Necrocarcinus davisi comes from the lower-middle Campanian of South Dakota (Bishop 1986: 135, fig.9I; Bishop &amp; Williams 1991:fig.6C; Fraaye 1994:</p> <p>263, fig. 1; Schweitzer et al. 2003a: table 3).</p> <p>Guinot D. et al.</p> <p>Necrocarcinus pierrensis and N. davisi are close by having an elongate carapace, with spiniform lateral borders (very strong, complete spines in N. pierrensis), a concave posterior border, and spinous dorsal ornamentation. It should be noted that N. pierrensis and N. davisi, known only by their dorsal carapaces, evoke the Recent Orithyia Fabricius, 1798. This monotypical, primitive heterotreme genus (type species: Orithyia sinica (Linnaeus, 1771); see Hartnoll 1971: fig. 2A, pl. 1, fig. c), which deserves its own family, the Orithyiidae Dana, 1852, has been the subject of a long debate, and is often referred to the Dorippoidea, or considered to be related (Guinot, Tavares &amp; Castro in study).</p> <p>With respect to its keeled spines on both the antero- and posterolateral margins, “ N. ” pierrensis (as well as N. davisi, probably) is distinct from Necrocarcinus emend. According to Schweitzer et al. (2003a: 33) the apparent similarity between “ N. ” pierrensis and Camarocarcinus Holland &amp; Cvancara, 1958 (and Cristella Collins &amp; Wienberg Rasmussen, 1992) has led to independent speculation that the later genera may be derived from “ N. ” pierrensis (Bishop &amp; Williams 1991: 458; Collins &amp; Wienberg Rasmussen 1992: 38; Fraaye 1994: fig. 1; Fraaije 2002: 914) (see under Camarocarcinus).</p> <p>Necrocarcinus wrighti Feldmann, Tshudy &amp; Thomson, 1993 (Feldmann et al. 1993: 35,</p> <p>figs 29.1-29.5, 30; see Fraaye 1994: 264, fig. 1; Schweitzer et al. 2003a: table 3)</p> <p>From the lower Campanian-Maastrichtian of Antarctica, N. wrighti shows developed rostral spines, an elongate ischium and wide mxp3 exopod, which match Necrocarcinus emend. In N. wrighti, the rostrum which consists of three teeth (the median one with only a shallow sulcus), the longer and more slen- der postorbital spine, and smaller and more numerous spines on the gastric region are distinctive from N. labeschii. Fronto-orbital spines are reminiscent of Orithopsis (see under Orithopsis). The generic status of “ N. ” wrighti needs to be reevaluated.</p> <p>The partially preserved and slightly displaced thoracic sternum of “ N. ” wrighti shows anterior sternites (damaged) as a reversed V-shaped plate, sternite 4 as a long and wider plate, sternite 5 as a wider plate,</p> <p>sternites 4 and partly 5 hollowed by a rather deep depression (Feldmann et al. 1993: 35-36, figs 29.4, 29.5), the sutures being only lateral. This rather deep and undivided median portion corresponds to a podotreme sterno-abdominal depression (rather than to a eubrachyuran sterno-abdominal cavity). Anyway, the sternal configuration of “ N.” wrighti does not match any known podotreme (or eubrachyuran) condition and represents the structure of an extinct family (see under Camarocarcinus).</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/87178784FFA4FFDD1B29FF24FB0A6107	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Guinot, Danièle;Vega, Francisco J.;Van Bakel, Barry W. M.	Guinot, Danièle, Vega, Francisco J., Van Bakel, Barry W. M. (2008): Cenomanocarcinidae n. fam., a new Cretaceous podotreme family (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura, Raninoidia), with comments on related families. Geodiversitas 30 (4): 681-719, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.4651166
87178784FFA0FFD91900FD40FE876394.text	87178784FFA0FFD91900FD40FE876394.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Necrocarcinus renfroae Stenzel 1945	<div><p>Necrocarcinus renfroae Stenzel, 1945 (Fig. 8 A-D)</p> <p>Necrocarcinus renfroae Stenzel, 1945: 443, fig. 15, pl. 41, fig. 13.</p> <p>Remarks</p> <p>Necrocarcinus renfroae, from upper Albian of Texas, was considered by Förster (1968: 176) as an intermediate between Cenomanocarcinus and Orithopsis tricarinata (Bell, 1863), and was referred to Cenomanocarcinus by Bishop (1986: table 2) and Schweitzer et al. (2003a: 36). The original material of N. renfroae comprises three carapaces which exhibit rather weak axial and branchial ridges, a deep branchiocardiac groove, and wide orbits. Examination of new photographs of two specimens in the type series (Fig. 8 A-D), in particular the holotype from Pawpaw Formation (Tarrant County, Texas), suggests that the carapaces are worn and incomplete, very likely with broken lateral and frontal spines. The wide orbits are reminiscent of the enormous ones of “ N. ” siouxensis. Some of the differences observed between N. renfroae and the species of Cenomanocarcinus, such as the more elongate carapace and weaker ridges on dorsal surface, are likely due to deformation. Nevertheless, the deep branchiocardiac groove, the larger orbits, and absence of an epibranchial ridge distinguish it from Cenomanocarcinus and the Cenomanocarcinidae n. fam. The unknown ventral surface of N. renfroae hampers the progress in re-evaluating</p> <p>the status of this taxon.</p> <p>Cenomanocarcinidae n. fam. (Crustacea, Decapoda) from Cretaceous</p> <p>bars: 10 mm.</p> <p>Guinot D. et al.</p></div> 	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/87178784FFA0FFD91900FD40FE876394	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Guinot, Danièle;Vega, Francisco J.;Van Bakel, Barry W. M.	Guinot, Danièle, Vega, Francisco J., Van Bakel, Barry W. M. (2008): Cenomanocarcinidae n. fam., a new Cretaceous podotreme family (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura, Raninoidia), with comments on related families. Geodiversitas 30 (4): 681-719, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.4651166
87178784FFA0FFDB1B13FE02FBF26144.text	87178784FFA0FFDB1B13FE02FBF26144.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Necrocarcinus siouxensis Feldmann, Awotua & Welshenbaugh 1976	<div><p>Necrocarcinus siouxensis Feldmann, Awotua &amp; Welshenbaugh, 1976</p> <p>Necrocarcinus siouxensis Feldmann, Awotua &amp; Welshenbaugh, 1976: 986, pl. 1.</p> <p>Remarks</p> <p>Necrocarcinus siouxensis, from the Maastrichtian of North Dakota, known from a unique specimen with a fairly well-preserved venter, illustrates the difficulty in placing crabs which have been included in the Necrocarcinidae. Necrocarcinus siouxensis was considered to be of uncertain position according to Fraaye (1994: 264, fig. 1), not referable to Necrocarcinus according to Bishop &amp; Williams (1991: 452), who suggested either a species of Cenomanocarcinus or of a new genus, and was finally assigned to Cenomanocarcinus by Schweitzer et al. (2003a: 36-39, table 1) and Crawford et al. (2006: 5). Possible affinities with the Podotremata were hinted at by Guinot &amp; Quenette (2005: 329) and Guinot &amp; Breton (2006: 616), but undeniable features are absent.</p> <p>The reconstruction of the venter by Feldmann et al. (1976: pl. 1, fig. 5) is puzzling. The region between the legs regarded as thoracic by Feldmann et al. (1976) does not fit with any known sternal plate (Guinot &amp; Quenette 2005: 329). It could, alternatively, represent a wide and long abdomen, which completely fills the sterno-abdominal depression and is maintained by the pereiopods. We interpret this venter to be a composite.The posterior two-thirds correspond to the (slightly displaced) abdomen, probably that of a female, which entirely covers the space between the coxae and is rather long (the telson reaching the level of the cheliped coxae); the anterior portion corresponds to the sternum (anterior sternites and triangle between the mxp3). Necrocarcinus siouxensis exhibits a tricarinate carapace</p> <p>with the characteristic “H”pattern, pediform mxp3 as in Cenomanocarcinus, and probably a similar venter. However, the shape of the longitudinal branchial ridges, the absence of a hepatic transverse ridge and the presence of huge orbits in N. siouxensis (60% of the maximum width of the carapace versus 30% in Cenomanocarcinus species according to Schweitzer et al. 2003a: 37, 38) warrant its separation from Cenomanocarcinus. We cannot determine its generic attribution at present. Placement with the raninoid stock is the most probable hypothesis; however, its family assignment remains doubtful.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/87178784FFA0FFDB1B13FE02FBF26144	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Guinot, Danièle;Vega, Francisco J.;Van Bakel, Barry W. M.	Guinot, Danièle, Vega, Francisco J., Van Bakel, Barry W. M. (2008): Cenomanocarcinidae n. fam., a new Cretaceous podotreme family (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura, Raninoidia), with comments on related families. Geodiversitas 30 (4): 681-719, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.4651166
87178784FFA8FFD018E5FA4BFDCD661F.text	87178784FFA8FFD018E5FA4BFDCD661F.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Paranecrocarcinus Van Straelen 1936	<div><p>Genus Paranecrocarcinus Van Straelen, 1936</p> <p>Paranecrocarcinus Van Straelen, 1936: 36.</p> <p>TYPE SPECIES. — Paranecrocarcinus hexagonalis Van Straelen, 1936 by monotypy  Van Straelen 1936: 36, pl. 4, figs 6, 7), Hauterivian of Yonne, France; see Förster 1970: figs 2A, 3A.</p> <p>SPECIES INCLUDED. — Paranecrocarcinus biscissus Wright &amp; Collins, 1972 (Wright &amp; Collins 1972: 71, fig. 10b,</p> <p>pl. 22, fig. 6) (lower Cenomanian of Devon, England), P. digitatus Wright &amp; Collins, 1972 (Wright &amp; Collins 1972: 69, fig. 10a, pl. 12, fig. 7a-c) (lower Cenomanian of Devon, England), P. foersteri Wright &amp; Collins, 1972 (Wright &amp; Collins 1972: 70, pl. 22, fig. 5a-c) (Cenomanian of Devon, England), P. gamma Roberts, 1962 (Roberts 1962: 182, pl. 85, figs 7, 8, 11) (lower Campanian, New Jersey), P. graysonensis (Rathbun, 1935: 45, pl. 11, figs 23-25 as Necrocarcinus) (upper Albian, Texas), P. libanoticus Förster, 1968 (as Paranecrocarcinus (Pseudonecrocarcinus)) (Cenomanian of Lebanon), P. moseleyi (Stenzel, 1945: 441, fig. 15, pl. 41, fig. 12 as Necrocarcinus) (upper Albian-Cenomanian, Texas), P. mozambiquensis Förster, 1970 (Förster 1970: figs 2b, 3b) (lower Cenomanian of southern Mozambique), and P. kennedyi Wright, 1997 (see below) (see Förster 1968: 169; 1970: 134, 138; Bishop 1986: 136; Bishop &amp; Williams 1991: 452; Wright 1997: 135, 137; Jagt et al. 2000: 40; Schweitzer &amp; Feldmann 2000: 241, 246 key, fig. 1, table 1; 2005: 34; Collins 2002: 85; Fraaije 2002: 913; Donovan et al. 2003: table 1; Schweitzer et al. 2003a: 32, 36; Collins &amp; Williams 2005: 33). Pseudonecrocarcinus stenzeli must be added to this list (see above).</p> <p>Remarks</p> <p>Presence of sterna has been mentioned in P. gamma by Bishop (1986: 136) but there is no description nor figure in Roberts (1962: 182, pl. 85, figs 7, 8, 11).</p> <p>The genus Paranecrocarcinus is under study (Fraaije et al.).</p> <p>The early Paranecrocarcinus kennedyi Wright, 1997 (Wright 1997: 135, figs 7, 13) (Barremian, Zululand, South Africa), which has a trapezoidal outline, and an ornament and groove system different from those of typical Necrocarcinidae, is here excluded from the Necrocarcinidae emend.</p></div> 	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/87178784FFA8FFD018E5FA4BFDCD661F	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Guinot, Danièle;Vega, Francisco J.;Van Bakel, Barry W. M.	Guinot, Danièle, Vega, Francisco J., Van Bakel, Barry W. M. (2008): Cenomanocarcinidae n. fam., a new Cretaceous podotreme family (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura, Raninoidia), with comments on related families. Geodiversitas 30 (4): 681-719, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.4651166
87178784FFABFFD01ADDFA8BFB6D6394.text	87178784FFABFFD01ADDFA8BFB6D6394.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Protonecrocarcinus Forster 1968	<div><p>Genus Protonecrocarcinus Förster, 1968</p> <p>Protonecrocarcinus Förster, 1968: 178; 1970: 143.</p> <p>TYPE SPECIES. — Necrocarcinus ovalis Stenzel, 1945 by monotypy (Stenzel 1945: 442, figs 14, 15, pl. 41, figs 7-9), upper Cenomanian or Turonian of Texas.</p> <p>Remarks</p> <p>Protonecrocarcinus was synonymised with Paranecrocarcinus by Wright &amp; Collins (1972: 69) but considered valid by Bishop (1986: 136; Fraaije 2002:</p> <p>916).</p> <p>Cenomanocarcinidae n. fam. (Crustacea, Decapoda) from Cretaceous</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/87178784FFABFFD01ADDFA8BFB6D6394	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Guinot, Danièle;Vega, Francisco J.;Van Bakel, Barry W. M.	Guinot, Danièle, Vega, Francisco J., Van Bakel, Barry W. M. (2008): Cenomanocarcinidae n. fam., a new Cretaceous podotreme family (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura, Raninoidia), with comments on related families. Geodiversitas 30 (4): 681-719, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.4651166
87178784FFA8FFD318F6FE84FC57665F.text	87178784FFA8FFD318F6FE84FC57665F.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Pseudonecrocarcinus Forster 1968	<div><p>Genus Pseudonecrocarcinus Förster, 1968</p> <p>Pseudonecrocarcinus Förster, 1968: 180. — Bishop 1986: 136. — Wright 1997: 135. — Schweitzer &amp; Feldmann 2000: 246 key, fig. 1; 2005: 34. — Larghi 2004: 530.</p> <p>Paranecrocarcinus (Pseudonecrocarcinus) – Wright &amp; Collins 1972: 71. — Collins et al. 1995: 195. — Collins 2002: 85.</p> <p>TYPE SPECIES. — Necrocarcinus quadriscissus Noetling, 1881 by monotypy  Noetling 1881: 368, pl. 20, fig. 4a, b); senior synonym of Dromiopsis ubaghsi Forir, 1889 (Forir 1889: 452, pl. 14, fig. 3); upper Maastrichtian of Maastricht.</p> <p>Remarks</p> <p>Wright (1997: 135) was “inclined to abandon the distinction of the two subgenera”, based on post-rostral slits found in the type species of both Paranecrocarcinus and Pseudonecrocarcinus, thus a not really distinctive feature of the latter. According to Fraaije (2002: 916) “ Pseudonecrocarcinus has thus lost its validity as a genus”, since it is a junior synonym of Paranecrocarcinus. Schweitzer et al. (2003a: 32, 36) misinterpreted Fraaije’s words and regarded them as separate genera considering that “the possession of these carapace slits is highly distinctive” without realising that both genera possess them. Concludingly Wright (1997), Fraaije (2002), and Schweitzer et al. (2003a) agreed on the synonymy.</p> <p>Thus Pseudonecrocarcinus stenzeli Bishop, 1983 (Bishop 1983a: 49, fig. 8B, pl. 1, figs 3-5; 1986: 136, table 1), lower Albian of Texas, has to be assigned to Paranecrocarcinus.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/87178784FFA8FFD318F6FE84FC57665F	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Guinot, Danièle;Vega, Francisco J.;Van Bakel, Barry W. M.	Guinot, Danièle, Vega, Francisco J., Van Bakel, Barry W. M. (2008): Cenomanocarcinidae n. fam., a new Cretaceous podotreme family (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura, Raninoidia), with comments on related families. Geodiversitas 30 (4): 681-719, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.4651166
87178784FFA1FFDB1913FC8EFECD6286.text	87178784FFA1FFDB1913FC8EFECD6286.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Raninella armata Rathbun 1935	<div><p>Raninella armata Rathbun, 1935</p> <p>Remarks</p> <p>Only known by an abdomen from the Albian of the Western Interior (USA), Raninella armata (Rathbun, 1935: 50, pl. 11, figs 32, 33) was first recognised as a possible representative of Raninella A. Milne-Edwards, 1862 (type species R. trigeri A. Milne-Edwards, 1862) and later referred to as Cenomanocarcinus (Stenzel 1945: 449; Bishop 1986: table 2; Schweitzer et al. 2003a: 36, 39). The abdomen, regarded as close to that of C. vanstraeleni by Stenzel (1945) and Larghi (2004: 534), differs by the conical median teeth on each abdominal segment rather than the three transverse ridges found on each abdominal segment in C. vanstraeleni (Figs 3A, C; 5A-C). On the other hand, the broad and long abdomen in R. armata, at least if it is a male abdomen, appears too developed to accompany a thoracic sternum such as that of R. trigeri (see Glaessner 1969: fig. 313.6b), a lyreidine according to Tucker (1998: 322, fig. 22). In the Lyreididae Guinot, 1993 the relatively short and narrow abdomen is maintained by a pair of strong projections from sternite 5 firmly fitting into a pair of sockets in the angles of abdominal segment 6 (Guinot 1993: figs 4, 6, 7; Guinot &amp;</p> <p>Bouchard 1998: fig. 11; Feldmann &amp; Schweitzer</p> <p>Guinot D. et al.</p> <p>2007: fig. 4). At present, despite some similarities in abdomen shape to C. vanstraeleni, we prefer to leave R. armata outside Cenomanocarcinus. The abdomen of R. armata could also represent that of a Notopocorystes.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/87178784FFA1FFDB1913FC8EFECD6286	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Guinot, Danièle;Vega, Francisco J.;Van Bakel, Barry W. M.	Guinot, Danièle, Vega, Francisco J., Van Bakel, Barry W. M. (2008): Cenomanocarcinidae n. fam., a new Cretaceous podotreme family (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura, Raninoidia), with comments on related families. Geodiversitas 30 (4): 681-719, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.4651166
87178784FFABFFD618FEFF27FC2467DE.text	87178784FFABFFD618FEFF27FC2467DE.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Shazella Collins & Williams 2005	<div><p>Genus Shazella Collins &amp; Williams, 2005</p> <p>Shazella Collins &amp; Williams, 2005: 33, fig. 1.</p> <p>TYPE SPECIES. — Shazella abbotsensis Collins &amp; Williams, 2005, Turonian of southern England.</p> <p>Remarks</p> <p>Shazella, included in the Necrocarcinidae by Collins &amp; Williams (2005), does not belong to the Cenomanocarcinidae n. fam. because the carapace is devoid of the characteristic tuberculate ridges and is traversed by a deep cervical groove. Collins &amp; Williams (2005: 34) concluded that Shazella differed from all other Necrocarcinidae by “the virtual absence of anterolateral spines, the marked constriction behind the orbitofrontal margin and the absence of median and lateral dorsal ridges”. Shazella is very close to Paranecrocarcinus, and better-preserved material is needed to verify the status and relationship of these two genera.</p> <p>REMARKS ON ORITHOPSIS TRICARINATA (BELL, 1863) AND ON THE FAMILY ORITHOPSIDAE SCHWEITZER, FELDMANN, FAM, HESSIN, HETRICK, NYBORG &amp; ROSS, 2003</p> <p>The type species of Orithopsis Carter, 1872 is not N. tricarinatus as indicated by Förster (1968: 177, 179; see also 1970: 141) but O. bonneyi Carter, 1872 by monotypy (see Glaessner 1969: R492, R627). However, as N. tricarinatus is the senior synonym of O. bonneyi (a hypothesis already put forward by Woodward 1877), the correct combination for the taxon is O. tricarinata (see Förster 1970: 141; Larghi &amp; Garassino 2000: 54; Collins 2002: 85). Because a generic name that ends in a Greek word transliterated into Latin, i.e. ending in - opsis, is feminine (ICZN 1999: Art. 30.1.2), the gender Orithopsis (derived from Orithyia from Greek mythology + the suffix - opsis) is feminine, hence O. tricarinata.</p> <p>Schweitzer &amp; Feldmann (2000: 246, fig.1) includ- ed Orithopsis in the Necrocarcinidae while Schweitzer et al. (2003a: 33, 39) excluded N. tricarinatus from Necrocarcinus listed in their table 3 and established the family Orithopsidae with Orithopsis as type genus. According to Schweitzer et al. (2003a) the</p> <p>family Orithopsidae contains six genera: Orithopsis,</p> <p>Guinot D. et al.</p> <p>Goniochele Bell, 1858, Cherpiocarcinus Marangon &amp; De Angeli, 1997, Silvacarcinus Collins &amp; Smith, 1993, Marycarcinus Schweitzer, Feldmann, Fam, Hessin, Hetrick, Nyborg &amp; Ross, 2003, and Paradoxicarcinus Schweitzer, Feldmann, Fam, Hessin, Hetrick, Nyborg &amp; Ross, 2003. Like Glaessner (1969: R492, fig. 304.3), who referred Orithopsis to the Dorippidae, Schweitzer et al. (2003a) associated the Orithopsidae with the Dorippoidea, next to the Necrocarcinidae and Dorippidae.</p> <p>In the diagnosis of the family Orithopsidae by Schweitzer et al. (2003a: 39), as well as in the congruent summary by Števčić (2005: 120), there is no mention of the venter or legs. Schweitzer et al. (2003a: 39, see also p. 32) indicate that Glaessner (1969) was “apparently based upon […] presence of female sternal gonopores”, but such a statement by Glaessner (1969) was likely only by inference to assignment to the Dorippoidea. As far as we know, with the exception of that of Silvacarcinus laurae Collins &amp; Smith, 1993, an orithopsid vulva has never been described nor figured. We have examined the original material of this species but no vulvae were found, so the eubrachyuran condition is not ascertained. It has also proved that the isolated sternum (Collins &amp; Smith 1993: pl. 2, fig. 3) is different from the sternum associated with the carapace of the male holotype of S. laurae (Collins &amp; Smith 1993: pl. 2, fig. 2) and does not belong to S. laurae. Preliminary data demonstrate that Silvacarcinus should be excluded from the Orithopsidae.</p> <p>Necrocarcinus tricarinatus Bell, 1863 (Bell 1863: 21, pl. 4, figs 9-11; see Beurlen 1958: fig.1b), regard- ed as a species of Orithopsis by Förster (1968: 177, 179), considered for a long time to be a Necrocarcinus (Carter 1898: 28, 29; Glaessner 1969: R627, addenda:fig.304.3; Wright &amp; Collins 1972: 66, pl.12, figs 3-6, pl. 13, figs 1-3; Bishop &amp; Williams 1991: 458; Feldmann et al. 1993: 37; Fraaye 1994: 264, fig. 1; Fraaije 2002: 916; Collins &amp; Jakobsen 1995: 39; Collins 2002: 85; Ilyin 2005: 201, pl. 9, fig. 5), was excluded from Necrocarcinus (see Woodward 1877) and again placed in Orithopsis by Larghi &amp; Garassino (2000: 54).</p> <p>Orithopsis tricarinata, a large-sized and thin-shelled species, is known principally by the photograph</p> <p>published by Wright &amp; Collins (1972: pl. 12, fig. 3, as Necrocarcinus tricarinatus) which shows the carapace of the holotype of O. bonneyi from the upper Greensand (upper Albian) of Lyme Regis. Additional photographs in Wright &amp; Collins (1972: pl. 12, figs 4-6, pl. 13, figs 1-3) illustrate other specimens. It should be noted that the diagrammatic figure of Orithopsis by Schweitzer &amp; Feldmann (2000: 246, fig. 1) is not accurate enough, whereas a new “line drawing of Orithopsis Carter, 1872 ” (Schweitzer et al. 2003a: fig. 13.5) does not represent Carter’s drawing (1872: pl. 13, fig. 1) of O. bonneyi nor that by Lőrenthey (1929: fig. 20a) but approximates the photograph of Wright &amp; Collins (1972: pl. 12, fig. 3). Wright &amp; Collins (1972) are specific in their caption: “unretouched photograph of specimen further prepared since the original illustration”.This explains why Carter (1872: pl. 13, fig. 1) incorrectly represented a front armed with four strong, unequal spines instead of the long, projected and bifid rostrum bordered by oblique spines characteristic of Orithopsis tricarinata. It is the same “prepared” specimen, i.e. the holotype of O. bonneyi, which is illustrated here (Fig. 9E).</p> <p>Anyway, Orithopsis tricarinata has remained an insufficiently known species and, moreover, lacks preserved ventral structures, except for the trituberculate (?male) abdominal segments described by Wright &amp; Collins (1972: 68). The long, slightly bifid and sulcate rostrum, the anterolateral margin and the front armed with numerous sharp spines, the medially interrupted cervical groove do not match the Cenomanocarcinidae n. fam. nor Necrocarcinidae emend. We have examined a specimen from the Cambridge Greensand (KBIN collections) which has a partially preserved sternum (Fig. 9F). Anterior sternites show as a small plate, separated by a distinct groove from sternite 4; sternite 4 is long; sternite 5 is incompletely preserved; the rather long and deep sterno-abdominal cavity reaches the level of sternite 3. A non-eubrachyuran condition is suspected.</p> <p>The monotypical Orithopsis is known to range from the upper Aptian to Cenomanian andTuronian in many countries, from England, Spain, Bohemia (Larghi &amp; Garassino 2000: 54; Ilyin 2005).</p> <p>The differences between Orithopsis and Necro-</p> <p>carcinus are:carapace polygonal and flattened (versus rounded or ovate and vaulted in Necrocarcinus), dorsal carapace ornament of tubercles and grooves weakly developed (better developed in Necrocarcinus), rostral and orbital spines markedly developed (weak in Necrocarcinus). The numerous differences between Orithopsis and Cenomanocarcinus concern principally the frontal, orbital and anterolateral borders (the epibranchial spine is much more developed in Cenomanocarcinus); the posterolateral border, unarmed in Orithopsis (with tubercles or two marked teeth in Cenomanocarcinus); the dorsal surface not ridged and showing a deep cervical groove in Orithopsis (tricarinate and with a faint cervical groove in Cenomanocarcinus).</p> <p>By including in the same family Orithopsis and Cherpiocarcinus (type species C. rostratus Marangon &amp; De Angeli, 1997: 100, fig. 2, pl. 1; see also De Angeli &amp; Marangon 2003: 101, fig.1.1), from the Oligocene of northwest Italy, Schweitzer et al. (2003a: 39, 40) recognised their affinities. The numerous, aligned frontal spines of C. rostratus appear different, and relationships of Cherpiocarcinus with the Dorippoidea are problematic.</p> <p>Necrocarcinus angelicus Fraaije, 2002 (Fraaije 2002: 914, figs 1.1, 2), upper Maastrichtian of the Netherlands, was noted by Fraaije (2002: 916) to be closely related to O. tricarinata, and it might be transferred to Orithopsis as O. angelica.</p> <p>Paradoxicarcinus Schweitzer, Feldmann, Fam, Hessin, Hetrick, Nyborg &amp; Ross, 2003 (type species: P. nimonoides Schweitzer, Feldmann, Fam, Hessin, Hetrick, Nyborg &amp; Ross, 2003: 43, fig. 14) was included in the Orithopsidae by Schweitzer et al. (2003a: 39, 42). Paradoxicarcinus nimonoides, from the Santonian of Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Canada, is armed with orbital and anterolateral spines. The holotype figured by Schweitzer et al. (2003a: fig. 14.3) shows a fully preserved spiniform ornament of the frontal and anterolateral margins, including a long epibranchial spine (“incredible preservation” according to the authors). These spines are thicker than those shown in the reconstruction (2003a: fig. 14.2); in the paratype (2003a: fig. 14.1) all spines are broken. The broad orbits of P. nimonoides recall the enormous ones of “ N.” siouxensis (see under this name) which species</p> <p>differs by having three tuberculate longitudinal ridges</p> <p>Cenomanocarcinidae n. fam. (Crustacea, Decapoda) from Cretaceous</p> <p>on dorsal carapace and lacking the deep cervical groove present in Paradoxicarcinus.</p> <p>In P. nimonoides the development of regions on the dorsal carapace delimited by marked grooves and the absence of strong longitudinal branchial and epibranchial ridges are distinct from cenomanocarcinids. The carapace shape, the long rostral and orbital spines, the broader front, the type of dorsal ornamentation are not necrocarcinid features either. The dorsal surface is somewhat similar to that of “ Necrocarcinus ” renfroae which has an incomplete carapace without any spines (Fig. 8B, D) (see un- der this name).</p> <p>Contrary to Orithopsis which is known solely from carapaces and a fragmentary anterior sternum, Goniochele (type species: G. angulata Bell, 1858) is documented by both male and female abdomens of G. angulata (Bell 1858: 27, pl. 4, figs 8, 9; Carter 1898: 23, pl. 1, fig. 6) and the thoracic sterna of G. angulata and G. madseni Collins &amp; Jakobsen, 2004 (Carter 1898: 23; Collins &amp; Jakobsen 2004: pl. 3, figs 2a, 4a). The dorsal position of both P4 and P 5 in G. angulata is evident from the disposition of their coxae in a figure in Bell (1858: pl. 4, fig. 5), which could ultimately support the attribution of Goniochele to the Dorippoidea. Known by several certain fossil records, the dorippoids are among the most primitive heterotreme crabs, and the morphology of Recent members attests to a long evolutionary history (Guinot, Tavares &amp; Castro in study).</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/87178784FFABFFD618FEFF27FC2467DE	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Guinot, Danièle;Vega, Francisco J.;Van Bakel, Barry W. M.	Guinot, Danièle, Vega, Francisco J., Van Bakel, Barry W. M. (2008): Cenomanocarcinidae n. fam., a new Cretaceous podotreme family (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura, Raninoidia), with comments on related families. Geodiversitas 30 (4): 681-719, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.4651166
