identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
03CDBE74930AB52ACD91FF38FDFDFD08.text	03CDBE74930AB52ACD91FF38FDFDFD08.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Dorippe frascone (Herbst 1785)	<div><p>Dorippe frascone (Herbst, 1785) .</p><p>Philippines • 1 ♂ 29.7 × 31.0 mm, 1 prepubertal ♀ 23.3 × 24.4 mm; Philippines, Panglao Island; stn D12;Exp. PANGLAO 2004; 28.VI.2004; T.Naruse det. D. quadridens; 11.IX.2008; ZRC 2008.0076 . Papua New Guinea • 1 juvenile; Kavieng Lagoon; N coast of Manne I., silty coral slope to mud near mangrove; KAVIENG Exp. 2014; stn KR36; 02°40.8’S, 150°42.7’E; 1-11 m; 8.VIII.2014; MNHN coll.; L. Corbari det. 2014; MNHN-IU-2014-2247 • 1 ♀ juvenile 15.8 × 16.4 mm; Kavieng Lagoon, Nusa Channel, patch reed; KAVIENG Exp 2014; stn KD26; 02°39.4’S, 150°40.3’E; 8-12 m; 14.VI.2014; MNHN coll.; L. Corbari det. 2014; MNHN-IU-2014-2486 • 2 juveniles; Kavieng Lagoon, N coast of Manne I., sand with Caulerpa; KAVIENG Exp. 2014; stn KD11; 02°40.6’S, 150°42.5’E; 15 m; 8.VI.2014; MNHN coll.; G. Poore &amp; L. Corbari det. 2014; MNHN-IU- 2016-1010 and MNHN-IU-2016-1011 .</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03CDBE74930AB52ACD91FF38FDFDFD08	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	Guinot, Danièle (2023): 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. Zoosystema 45 (9): 225-372, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2023v45a9
03CDBE74930AB52ACD8EFD36FF7BFC97.text	03CDBE74930AB52ACD8EFD36FF7BFC97.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Dorippe glabra : Manning 1993	<div><p>Dorippe glabra Manning, 1993 .</p><p>Holotype. Australia • 1 ovigerous ♀ 24.3 × 26.7 mm; Chambers Bay, NT; 12°13’S, 131°35’E; Otter trawl; 38 m; A. A. Racek; 7.XI.1959; AM P13363.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03CDBE74930AB52ACD8EFD36FF7BFC97	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	Guinot, Danièle (2023): 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. Zoosystema 45 (9): 225-372, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2023v45a9
03CDBE74930AB52ACD8EFCB6FEA3FBF7.text	03CDBE74930AB52ACD8EFCB6FEA3FBF7.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Dorippe irrorata Manning & Holthuis 1986	<div><p>Dorippe irrorata Manning &amp; Holthuis, 1986 .</p><p>Holotype. Andaman Sea • ♂ 21.5 × 22.0 mm; south of Mergui Archipelago; 9°54’N, 97°42’E; International Indian Ocean Expedition, Anton Bruun Cruise 1; stn AB-21; 73 m; 24.III.1963; USNM 172495 .</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03CDBE74930AB52ACD8EFCB6FEA3FBF7	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	Guinot, Danièle (2023): 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. Zoosystema 45 (9): 225-372, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2023v45a9
03CDBE74930AB52ACD8EFBD5FD04F8F4.text	03CDBE74930AB52ACD8EFBD5FD04F8F4.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Dorippe quadridens (Fabricius 1793)	<div><p>Dorippe quadridens (Fabricius, 1793) .</p><p>Egypt • 2 ♂, dry condition; Timsah Lake; Chen det. Dorippe frascone; Guinot det. D. quadridens 19.IV.2023; MNHN-IU-2000-19818 (=MNHN-B19818) . Madagascar • 5 specimens (including 1 ♀ 29.5 × 30 mm); NW Madagascar, Ambaro Bay, N.O. Vauban; A. Crosnier coll.; II.1959; trawling; 5 m; mud; Chen det. D. frascone; Manning redet. D. quadridens; MNHN-IU- 2018-5193 (= MNHN-B18279) • 5 ♂, 1 ♀, 4 ovigerous ♀ (including ovigerous ♀ 30.0 × 31.0 mm); NW Madagascar, Ambaro Bay; trawling; 24.III.1965; R. Plante coll.; Manning det. 1984; revid. Chen H. 1987; MNHN-IU-2018-5198 (MNHN-B11172) . Vietnam (= Indochine) • 3 ♂ (including 1 ♂ 33.0 × 33.5 mm), 1 ♀, 1 ovigerous ♀; Campagne du de Lanessan 1925-1929, N°116: Don A. Krempf 1930; Entry MNHN 7-1930; initially Dorippe dorsipes, Manning 1984 det. D. quadridens; MNHN-IU-2021-8757 (= MNHN-B11177) . South China Sea • 1 ♂, 4 ♀ (including ♀ 38.1 × 33.7 mm); about 30 miles from Horsburgh Lighthouse; Hee Huat det. D. frascone, redet. D. quadridens; ZRC 1984.6307 • 1 ♂ 36.3 × 38.1 mm; near Singapore, Hee Huat; 16.IX.1983; det. D. frascone, redet. D. quadridens, ZRC 1984.6308 . Thailand • 2 ♂ 39.0 × 41.4 mm, 34.5 × 38.9 mm; Pattani Province, Movig Chik District, Bang Tawa crab fishing village (DY 03- 04); DCJ Yeo et al.; 20.II.2003; ZRC 2003.0126 .</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03CDBE74930AB52ACD8EFBD5FD04F8F4	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	Guinot, Danièle (2023): 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. Zoosystema 45 (9): 225-372, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2023v45a9
03CDBE74930AB52ACD8EF8D2FBB1FD08.text	03CDBE74930AB52ACD8EF8D2FBB1FD08.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Dorippe sinica : Chen 1980	<div><p>Dorippe sinica Chen, 1980 .</p><p>China • 1 ♂ 36.2 × 39.5 mm, 1 ♀ 34.8 × 38.9 mm; Guangdong, Nanao Island, Y Cai &amp; NK Ng; 12.XI.1998; ZRC 1999.0470 . Japan • 1 ♂ 36.6 × 38.6 mm; Kochi, Shikoku, Tosa Bay, Netzabfahl von Fischern; 150-200 m; K. Sakai coll. and ded.; SMF 57855 • 1 ♂; Kochi, Shikoku, Tosa Bucht; 33°29.049’N, 133°35.707’E; leg. K. Sakai; ded. K. Sakai Dorippidae indet.; K. Sakai coll.; D. Guinot det. XII.2021; SMF 57856 • 1 ♂; Kochi, Usa, Kenoura; 33°26.316’N, 133°28.003’E; 18.X.1984; leg. K. Sakai; ded. K. Sakai Dorippidae indet.; K. Sakai coll.; D. Guinot det. XII.2021; SMF 57856 • 2 ♂; Kochi, Shikoku, Tosa Bucht; 33°29.049’N, 133°35.707’E; R.V. Toyohata-maru; leg. K. Sakai; XII.2005; ded. K. Sakai Dorippidae indet.; K. Sakai coll.; D. Guinot det. XII.2021; SMF 57856 • 9 specimens; Wakayama, Tanabe-Bay; 33°43.001’N, 135°19.103’E; 40 m; 26-27.X.1988; leg. K. Sakai; ded. K. Sakai; XI.2005; Dorippidae indet.; K. Sakai coll.; D. Guinot det. XII.2021; SMF 57856a (tissues extracted from 1♂ and 1 ♀ for genetic analysis) • 1 ♂; Wakayama,Tanabe-Bay; 33°43.001’N, 135°19.103’E; 26.X.1988; leg. K. Sakai; ded. K. Sakai; XI.2005; Dorippidae indet.; K. Sakai coll.; D. Guinot det. XII.2021; SMF 57856 • 1 ♂; Kagoshima, Nagashima; XI.1963; leg. K. Sakai; ded. K. Sakai Dorippidae indet.; K. Sakai coll.; D. Guinot det. XII.2021; SMF 57856 .</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03CDBE74930AB52ACD8EF8D2FBB1FD08	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	Guinot, Danièle (2023): 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. Zoosystema 45 (9): 225-372, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2023v45a9
03CDBE74930AB52ACE56FD36FC34FB16.text	03CDBE74930AB52ACE56FD36FC34FB16.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Dorippe tenuipes : Chen 1980	<div><p>Dorippe tenuipes Chen, 1980 .</p><p>Vietnam • ♂ 19.0 × 20.0 mm, holotype of Dorippe miersi Serène, 1982; Nhatrang Bay; collect 2541, trawlers catches, 15-20 m, muddy shell sand, Nguyen, Van Luom coll.; 24.VII.1969; MNHN-IU-2008-12890 (= MNHN-B7279) • 2 paratypes of Dorippe miersi Serène, 1982, 1 ♀ 23.0 × 25.0 mm; same data as for holotype; 24.VII.1969;MNHN-IU-2008-10599 (= MNHN-B7280) • 1 ♀ 24.0 × 26.0 mm; same data as for holotype; MNHN-IU- 2008-10600 (= MNHN-B11180) . South China Sea • 1 ♀ 24.0 × 26.0 mm, paratype of Dorippe miersi Serène, 1982 (as. 48.927); same data; MNHN-IU-2008-10600 • 1♂ 21.0 × 25.0 mm; 20°30’N, 113°00’E; 68 m; Chen H. coll.; 18.IV.1960; MNHN-IU-2018-5192 (= MNHN-B8937) • 1♂ 13.2 × 14.2 mm, 1 ovigerous ♀ 17.3 × 19.6 mm; 21°00’N, 113°00’E; mud-sand; coll. Qi; 10.II.1960; ZRC 1999.0009 .</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03CDBE74930AB52ACE56FD36FC34FB16	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	Guinot, Danièle (2023): 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. Zoosystema 45 (9): 225-372, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2023v45a9
03CDBE74930AB52ACE56FB34FAB7FA95.text	03CDBE74930AB52ACE56FB34FAB7FA95.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Dorippe trilobata : Manning 1993	<div><p>Dorippe trilobata Manning, 1993 .</p><p>Holotype. Australia • ♂ 20.5 × 21.1 mm; <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=126.75&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=-13.866667" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 126.75/lat -13.866667)">off Mitchell River</a>, Admiralty Gulf, Western Australia; 13°52’S, 126°45’E; Otter trawl over silty bottom; 18 m; C. O’Connor; 18.IV.1978; AM P27124.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03CDBE74930AB52ACE56FB34FAB7FA95	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	Guinot, Danièle (2023): 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. Zoosystema 45 (9): 225-372, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2023v45a9
03CDBE74930AB52ACE56FAB3FB71F974.text	03CDBE74930AB52ACE56FAB3FB71F974.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Dorippoides facchino (Herbst 1785)	<div><p>Dorippoides facchino (Herbst, 1785) .</p><p>India • 8 ♂, 6 ♀ (including 1 postpubertal ♀ 19.0 × 22.0 mm); Pondicherry Bay; Maindron coll.1882; Chen det.1987; MNHN-IU-2018-5199 (= MNHN-B19817) . South China Sea • 1 ovigerous ♀ 21 × 25 mm; trawl; 37 m; Chen leg.1987; MNHN-IU-2018-5195 (= MNHN-B18802) • 1 ovigerous ♀ 20.3 × 26.2 mm; c. 150 miles, off Singapore, Hee Huat; 28.VIII.1983; ZRC 1984.5347 • 1 ♂ 25.3 × 32 mm; Malaysia, Johore, Pontian; CM Yang; 31.III.1991; ZRC 1991.6672 .</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03CDBE74930AB52ACE56FAB3FB71F974	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	Guinot, Danièle (2023): 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. Zoosystema 45 (9): 225-372, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2023v45a9
03CDBE74930AB52ACE56F952FC71F813.text	03CDBE74930AB52ACE56F952FC71F813.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Dorippoides nudipes : Manning & Holthuis 1986	<div><p>Dorippoides nudipes Manning &amp; Holthuis, 1986 .</p><p>Madagascar • 1 ♂ 18.0 × 20.0 mm; Ambaro Bay; trawling; 3 m; zone d’herbier; A. Crosnier coll.; XI.1959; Chen H. det. 1986; MNHN-IU-2018-5200 (MNHN-B18276) . Iran • 1♂ 16.2 × 19.4 mm; M. Safael; V.2020; ZRC 2017.1227 . South Africa • 1 ♀ 21.6 × 29.5 mm; vicinity of Tugela river mouth; trawled 15-35 m; coll. S. Fennesy; 27-31.V.2006; ZRC 2009.0885 . India • 1 ♂ 12.2 × 13.5 × mm, 1 ♀ 15.8 × 18.1 mm; Muttom fish port; shallow water trawlers; Tamil Nadu, southwestern India; coll. and det. PKL Ng, III.2017; ZRC 2017.0874 .</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03CDBE74930AB52ACE56F952FC71F813	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	Guinot, Danièle (2023): 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. Zoosystema 45 (9): 225-372, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2023v45a9
03CDBE74930BB52BCD8EFF17FC9CFB77.text	03CDBE74930BB52BCD8EFF17FC9CFB77.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Heikeopsis japonica (von Siebold 1824)	<div><p>Heikeopsis japonica (von Siebold, 1824) .</p><p>Japan • 1 ♂ 25.0 × 27.3 mm, ♀ 23.5 × 26.7 mm; Chaffanjon coll. &amp; leg.; entry MNHN 174-1896; E.-L. Bouvier det. 1899 Dorippe japonica; dry condition; MNHN-IU-2000-4091 (= MNHN-B4091) • 1 ♀ 16.8 mm; dry condition; Japan Sea; MNHN-IU-2000-34 (= MNHN-B34) • 5♂, 2 ♀;Tokushima,Yoshinogawa; 34°3.489’N, 134°38.697’E; vend. Iuchi, K. Sakai coll.; det. Heikea japonica (Von Siebold, 1824), D. Guinot verif., XII.2021; SMF 57849 • 8 ♂, 5 ♀;Tokushima, Komatsujima; 6.XI.2001; leg. K. Sakai; ded. K. Sakai Dorippidae indet.; K. Sakai coll.; D. Guinot det. XII.2021; SMF 57856 • 15♂ (22.5 × 24.3 mm, 24.2 × 25.4 mm), 8 ♀; Tokushima, off Okrnose, Tsuda-Tokushima; 14.II.2002; leg. Iuchi; ded. K. Sakai Dorippidae indet.; K. Sakai coll.; D. Guinot det. XII.2021; SMF 57856 • 8♂, 10 ♀ (some damaged); Hiroshima, Honshu, Inland See, Onomichi bei, Fukuyama; 34°25’N, 135°26’E- 34°25’N, 135°26’E; 10 m; VI.1979 - VIII.1979; N. Wasaki det. Heikea japonica von Siebold (1824); D. Guinot verif. XII.2021; SMF 57856 and ex 15130 • 1 small specimen; Wakayama, Tanabe-Bay; 33°43.001’N, 135°19.103’E; 40 m; 26-27.X.1988; leg.K. Sakai; ded. K. Sakai XI.2005, Dorippidae indet.; K. Sakai coll., D. Guinot det. XII.2021; SMF 57856 (tissue extracted for genetic analysis) • 4 specimens; Tokushima, Komatsu-Jima; 9.VI.1991; leg. K. Sakai; ded. K. Sakai Dorippidae indet., K. Sakai coll.; D. Guinot det. XII.2021; SMF 57864b • 3 ♂; no further information; leg. K. Sakai; ded. K. Sakai Dorippidae indet.; K. Sakai coll. D. Guinot det. XII.2021; SMF 57856 • 1 ovigerous ♀; Wakayama, Honshu, Halbinsel Kii, Minabe, Sakai (Village), Shrimp-Net; V.1951; ded. Kohno Dorippidae indet.; K. Sakai coll.; D. Guinot det. XII.2021; SMF 57856 .</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03CDBE74930BB52BCD8EFF17FC9CFB77	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	Guinot, Danièle (2023): 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. Zoosystema 45 (9): 225-372, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2023v45a9
03CDBE74930BB52BCD8FFB54FE53FA95.text	03CDBE74930BB52BCD8FFB54FE53FA95.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Heikeopsis japonica (von Siebold 1824)	<div><p>? Heikeopsis aff. japonica (von Siebold, 1824) .</p><p>North China Sea • 1 ♂ 29.0 × 30.3 mm, 1 ovigerous ♀ 24.4 × 26.5 mm; coll. 10.XII.1959; H. Chen det. Dorippe japonica and leg.; MNHN-IU-2018-5197 (= MNHN-B18801) . China • 1 ♂ 21.9 × 24 mm, 1 ♀ 23.4 × 26.4 mm; seas off Qingdao, Tuanda, Fishermen, via P. K. L. Ng; 23-25.VIII.2002, det. H. japonica; ZRC 2002.0491 .</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03CDBE74930BB52BCD8FFB54FE53FA95	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	Guinot, Danièle (2023): 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. Zoosystema 45 (9): 225-372, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2023v45a9
03CDBE74930BB52BCE56FE97FA35FC17.text	03CDBE74930BB52BCE56FE97FA35FC17.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Medorippe crosnieri Chen 1988	<div><p>? Medorippe crosnieri Chen, 1988 .</p><p>Holotype. Madagascar • ♂ 15.7 × 19.9 mm; N. W. Madagascar; Campagne CREVETTIERE 1972; <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=46.2&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=-15.333333" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 46.2/lat -15.333333)">N.O. Vauban; Stn CH47</a>; 15°20’S, 46°12’E; 245-250 m; low-calcareous sandy silt; A. Crosnier coll.; 7.XI.1972; MNHN-IU-2009-1995 (= MNHN-B18269, erroneously B 18219 in Chen 1988) . Paratypes. Madagascar • 2 ♂ 10.0 × 12.0 mm, 13.0 × 15.8 mm; Campagne <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=46.016666&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=-15.433333" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 46.016666/lat -15.433333)">CREVETTIERE</a> 1972, N.O. Vauban; Stn CH44; 15°26’S, 46°01’E; 200-210 m moderately calcareous sands; A. Crosnier coll.; 7.XI.1972; MNHN-IU-2009-1996 (= MNHN-B18358) • 1 ♀ 9.9 × 12.0 mm; Campagne <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=46.2&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=-15.35" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 46.2/lat -15.35)">CREVETTIERE</a> 1972, N.O. Vauban; Stn CH52; 15°21’S, 46°12’E; 150 m; sandy silt moderately calcareous; A. Crosnier coll.; 8.XI.1972; MNHN-IU-2009-1997 (= MNHN-B18365) • 1 ♂ 21.1 × 25.9 mm; Mozambique Channel, Maputo transect; MAINBAZA Expedition; R.V. Vizconde de Eza; CP 3132; 25°11’S, 35°02’E, 101-102 m; Bouchet, Rosado &amp; Strong coll.; 10.IV.2009; MNHN-IU-2009-1998 • 1♂ young 12.0 × 15.0 mm; Maputo transect; MAINBAZA Expedition; R.V. Vizconde de Eza; CP 3130; 25°53’S, 33°07’E; 112-127m; Bouchet, Rosado &amp; Strong coll.; 09.IV.2009; Guinot det., MNHN-IU-2009-1999.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03CDBE74930BB52BCE56FE97FA35FC17	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	Guinot, Danièle (2023): 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. Zoosystema 45 (9): 225-372, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2023v45a9
03CDBE74930BB52BCD8EFAB3FA89FEA9.text	03CDBE74930BB52BCD8EFAB3FA89FEA9.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Medorippe lanata (Linnaeus 1767)	<div><p>Medorippe lanata (Linnaeus, 1767) .</p><p>Benin • 7 ♂, 3 ♀, 3 ovigerous ♀ (including 1 ♀ 22.4 × 28.6 mm); Dahomey Coasts; Stn CH40; 6°11’N, 2°12’E; 40-45 m; 21.VII.1964; A. Crosnier coll. et det. Dorippe armata; MNHN-IU-2018-5196 (= MNHN-B16380, pro parte) • 1 ♂ 18.5 × 23.2 mm; Dahomey Coasts; 6°11’N, 2°12’E; 40-45 m; A. Crosnier coll.; IV.2009; Guinot det. M. lanata; ZRC 2009.0411 (ex MNHN) . Senegal • 5 specimens (including 1 ♂ 26.0 × 32.0 mm); off Joal, Gérard Tréca; V.1949, Cremoux coll., Monod Th. 1952 det.; MNHN-IU-2009-2000 (= MNHN-B21493) . Republic of Congo • 3 specimens (including 2 ♂ 26.0 × 30.0 mm and cw 27.5mm, damaged); north of mouth of Congo River; R.O.C.); 20-30 m; VIII.1963; MNHN-IU-2009-2001 (= MNHN-B13583) . Morocco • 8 specimens (including 1 ♀ 18.0 × 24.0 mm); Vanneau; Stn 70; 30°25’N, 09°51’W; 85 m; 24.VIII.1925; MNHN-IU-2009-2002 (= MNHN-B26115) . No data • 1 ♂ 23.2 × 28.9 mm, 1 ♀ 23.2 × 28.9 mm; no data; ZRC 2009.0412 (ex MNHN) . Israel • 1 ovigerous ♀ 21.2 × 27.7 mm; Haifa Bay; 43 m; Galil; V.1997; ZRC 1999.0632 . ? Mediterranean Sea • dissected 3 ♂, 2 ♀ (including 1 ♀ 17.8 × 23.0 mm); dehydrated specimens for skeletal preparation by Sylvie Secretan (MNHN-IU-2021-8745) • 5 ♂ and 10 ♀ (incomplete), in alcohol; specimens for skeletal preparation by Sylvie Secretan (MNHN-IU-2021-8746) .</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03CDBE74930BB52BCD8EFAB3FA89FEA9	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	Guinot, Danièle (2023): 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. Zoosystema 45 (9): 225-372, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2023v45a9
03CDBE74930BB52BCE56FC34FA01FA56.text	03CDBE74930BB52BCE56FC34FA01FA56.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Neodorippe callida (Fabricius 1795)	<div><p>Neodorippe callida (Fabricius, 1795) .</p><p>China • 2 ♀, dry condition; Amoy, N°70; VII.1932; Entry MHNH 1-1937, MNHN-IU- 2000-28984 (= MNHN-B28984) • 5 ♂, 3 ♀ (including 1 ♂ 12.0 × 12.0 mm, 1 ♀ 13.5 × 14.3 mm); Amoy, C. F. Wang coll.; VII.1925; Manning det.; MNHN-IU-2021-8738 (= MNHN-B11170) . Singapore • 1 ♂ cl 11 mm, 1 ♀; Ng P.K. L. coll.; 30.V.1991; det. et leg.;MNHN-IU-2021-8739 (= MNHN-B29083) . Thailand • 1 ♂ 13.5 × 14 mm, 1 ♀ 14.0 × 15.0 mm; Andaman Sea, Phuket, S. Chaitiamuong et al. coll.; XII.1998, P. Ng det. and leg.; MNHN-IU-2016-10754 (ex ZRC 1998.1116) . Malaysia • 1 ♂ 15.6 × 14.1 mm, 1 ♀ 16.1 × 15.8 mm; off Kuala Lumpur; ZRC 1993.386-391 . Singapore • 1 young ♂ 10.1 × 10.3 mm, 1 ♀ 11.2 × 11.5 mm; Changi Point Beach; HH Tan et al.; 8.III.2001; ZRC 2018.0445 .</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03CDBE74930BB52BCE56FC34FA01FA56	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	Guinot, Danièle (2023): 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. Zoosystema 45 (9): 225-372, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2023v45a9
03CDBE74930BB52BCE56FA73FB83F9D5.text	03CDBE74930BB52BCE56FA73FB83F9D5.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Neodorippe simplex : Ng & Rahayu 2002	<div><p>Neodorippe simplex Ng &amp; Rahayu, 2002 .</p><p>Paratypes • Indonesia • 1♂, 1 ♀; Irian Jaya, Freeport,Timika; Stn EM870;Trawled; 16.XII.1997; ENU workers coll.; MNHN-IU-2014-11222 (ex ZRC 2001.2272).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03CDBE74930BB52BCE56FA73FB83F9D5	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	Guinot, Danièle (2023): 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. Zoosystema 45 (9): 225-372, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2023v45a9
03CDBE74930BB52BCE56F9F2FB4DF915.text	03CDBE74930BB52BCE56F9F2FB4DF915.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Nobilum histrio (Nobili 1903)	<div><p>Nobilum histrio (Nobili, 1903) .</p><p>China • 1 ovigerous ♀ 24.0 × 27.0 mm; Amoy; Wang C. F. coll.; VII.1925; MNHN-IU- 2021-8740 (= MNHN-B11171) . Malaysia • 1 ♂ 21.0 × 22.4 mm, 1 ovigerous ♀ 22.1 × 24.7 mm; Johore, Pontian; CM Yang; 31.III.1991; ZRC 2002.0491 • 1 ♂ 23.4 × 23.7 mm; Johore; Pontian; ZRC 1984.57445747 .</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03CDBE74930BB52BCE56F9F2FB4DF915	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	Guinot, Danièle (2023): 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. Zoosystema 45 (9): 225-372, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2023v45a9
03CDBE74930BB534CE56F932FC93FC68.text	03CDBE74930BB534CE56F932FC93FC68.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Paradorippe granulata (De Haan 1841)	<div><p>Paradorippe granulata (De Haan, 1841) .</p><p>China • 1 ♂, 1 ♀ 22.7 ×24, 7mm;Tuandao, off Quingdao; fishermen coll.; 23-25. VIII.2002; P. Ng det.; 25.VIII.2002; MNHN-IU-2016-10753, ex ZRC 2002.0492 . Japan • 1 ♂ 11.0 × 11.0 mm; vicinity of Tokyo; Harmand J. coll.; 1906; MNHN-IU-2021-8743 (= MNHN-B11181) • 2 damaged specimens(♀ cw 17.0 mm); Boucard coll.et leg.; entry MNHN 83-1898, MNHN-IU-2021-8744 (= MNHN-B19825) . Taiwan • 1 ♂ 23.6 × 27.3 mm; NE Taiwan, I-Lan county, Tahsi; K. X. Lee; 2000; ZRC 2001.0014 • 1 ♂; NE coast of Taiwan, off Suao; Fishing boat Rih-Jheng 101 Taiwan 2004; CP263; 101-106 m; 24°31.45’N, 121°53.34’E; Chan &amp; Cosel leg.; 1.IX.2004; MNHN-IU-2016-5224 . Japan • 1 ovigerous ♀; 23.2 × 25.7 mm, off Hota, Uchibo coast off Boso Peninsula; T. Komai; 22.VIII.1997; ZRC 1999.0082 • 2♂, 15 ♀; Kochi, Shikoku,Tosa Bucht vor Mimase,Trawl, 60- 70 m; 23.X.1979; M. Türkay leg. and det. Heikea japonica, D. Guinot det. X.2021; SMF 57856 • 7 specimens; Tokushima, Komatsu-Jima; 9.VII.1991; leg. K. Sakai, K. Sakai coll.; ded. Dorippidae indet.; D. Guinot det. XII.2021; SMF 57856 • 1♀ (large, without pleon); Wakayama, Honshu, Halbinsel Kii, Minabe, Sakai (Village), Shrimp-Net; V.1951; ded. Kohno Dorippidae indet.; K. Sakai coll.; D. Guinot det. XII.2021; SMF 57856 • 3♂, 2 ♀, 2 ovigerous ♀; Kochi, Shikoku, Tosa Bucht; 33°29.049’N, 133°35.707’E; leg. K. Sakai; ded. K. Sakai Dorippidae indet.; K. Sakai coll.; D. Guinot det. XII.2021; SMF 57856 • 2♂, 1♀, 1 ovigerous ♀; Mie,Toba, leg.Yamashita; ded. K. Sakai Dorippidae indet.; K. Sakai coll.; D. Guinot det. XII.2021; SMF 57860 • 1 ♂; no further information; 30 m; 5.II.1986; R.V. Toyohata-maru; ded. K. Sakai Dorippidae indet.; K. Sakai coll.; D. Guinot det. XII.2021; SMF 57856 .</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03CDBE74930BB534CE56F932FC93FC68	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	Guinot, Danièle (2023): 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. Zoosystema 45 (9): 225-372, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2023v45a9
03CDBE749314B534CD8EFC55FD9BFB16.text	03CDBE749314B534CD8EFC55FD9BFB16.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Philippidorippe philippinensis : Chen 1986	<div><p>Philippidorippe philippinensis Chen, 1986 .</p><p>Philippines • Holotype. ♂ 25.2 × 30.0 mm; between Luçon &amp; Lubang; Campagne MUSORSTOM 2; N.O. Coriolis; Stn CP06; 13°56’N, 120°22’E; 136-152 m; Bouchet coll.; 20.XI.1980; MNHN-IU-2008-10971 (= MNHN-B18190) • 1 ♂, 1 ♀ 26.0 × 33.0 mm; W Luçon; Campagne MUSORSTOM 3, N.O. Coriolis; stn CP101; 14°00’N, 120°18’E; 194-196 m; Bouchet &amp; Triclot coll.; 1.VI.1985; MNHN-IU-2018-5201 (= MNHN-B18913) • 1 ♂ 23.0 × 29.3 mm; 1 ovigerous ♀ 25.2 × 33.2 mm; Bohol Province, NW of Panglao Island; J. Arbasto; 2006; ZRC 2016.0240 .</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03CDBE749314B534CD8EFC55FD9BFB16	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	Guinot, Danièle (2023): 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. Zoosystema 45 (9): 225-372, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2023v45a9
03CDBE749314B534CD8EFB33FC9FF914.text	03CDBE749314B534CD8EFB33FC9FF914.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Phyllodorippe armata (Miers 1881)	<div><p>Phyllodorippe armata (Miers, 1881) .</p><p>Côte d’Ivoire • 42 specimens (including 1 ♀ 13.0 × 19.0 mm); Guinean Trawling Survey II; La Rafale, Dr 8; 5°09’N, 4°39’W; 15 m; 31.III.1964; MNHN-IU-2021-8731 (= MNHN-B24199) . Benin • 2 ♂ (including 1 ♂ 20.0 × 25.5 mm), 1 ♀; Dahomey (= Benin); Stn CH40; 6°11’N, 2°12’E; 40-45 m; A. Crosnier coll. et det.; 21.VII.1964; MNHN-IU-2009-2004 (= MNHN-B16380 pro parte) . Sierra Leone • 1 ♂ 15 × 21 mm; Gulf of Guinea, Sherbro Island; Calypso 1956 Expedition; N.O. Calypso, St. CH 11; 7°20’N, 12°39’W; 30-34 m; Marche-Marchad coll.; 19.V.1956; MNHN-IU-2009-2006 (= MNHN-B13555) . Republic of Congo • 1 ovigerous ♀ 15.0 × 22.8 mm; Congo, off Pointe Noire; Crosnier coll.; Guinot det.; MNHN-IU-2009-2005 (= MNHN-B16385) . Guinea • 1 ♂ 12.3 × 16.2 mm, 1 ovigerous ♀ 11.9 × 16.6 mm; Guinean Trawling Survey, Guinea II; 15 m; La Rafale; 3.IV.1964; ZRC 2009.0413 (ex MNHN-B24202) .</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03CDBE749314B534CD8EFB33FC9FF914	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	Guinot, Danièle (2023): 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. Zoosystema 45 (9): 225-372, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2023v45a9
03CDBE74931FB53FCE41FC34FB28F9B5.text	03CDBE74931FB53FCE41FC34FB28F9B5.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Dorippoidea H. Milne Edwards 1837	<div><p>Superfamily DORIPPOIDEA H. Milne Edwards, 1837</p><p>Dorypiens H. Milne Edwards, 1837: 99.</p><p>Dorippiens H. Milne Edwards, 1837: 151, 153 pro parte.</p><p>Dorippina – MacLeay 1838: 69.</p><p>Dorippidea – De Haan 1841: 120; 1849: xvii (incorrect spelling [Opinion 688]).</p><p>Dorippoidea – Glaessner 1969: R492. — Guinot 1978: 245. — Guinot &amp; Bouchard 1998: 673. — Ng et al. 2008: 59. — Guinot et al. 2013: 10; 2019: 288. — Davie et al. 2015b: 941; 2015c: 1076. — Emmerson 2016: 329. — Sasaki 2019: 7769.</p><p>REMARKS The superfamily encompasses two families, Dorippidae and Ethusidae (as Ethusinae in 2005 Castro’s revison) in the extant fauna. The family Orithyiidae Dana, 1852 is sometimes regarded as a third potential member (see Relationships between Dorippidae and Orithyiidae, p. 292).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03CDBE74931FB53FCE41FC34FB28F9B5	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	Guinot, Danièle (2023): 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. Zoosystema 45 (9): 225-372, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2023v45a9
03CDBE74931FB538CE6CF952FC65FD68.text	03CDBE74931FB538CE6CF952FC65FD68.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Dorippidae H. Milne Edwards 1837	<div><p>Family DORIPPIDAE H. Milne Edwards, 1837</p><p>Dorippiens H. Milne Edwards, 1837: 151, 153 pro parte.</p><p>Dorippidae – Dana 1852: 390, 398; 1853: 1427 pro parte. — Miers 1886: 326 pro parte. — Ortmann 1892: 553 pro parte. — Bouvier 1897a: 784 pro parte; 1897b: 54-70 pro parte; 1898: 103-105 pro parte; 1940: 195 pro parte. — A. Milne-Edwards &amp; Bouvier 1902: 35-39 pro parte. — Gordon 1963: 55; 1966: 353. — Serène &amp; Romimohtarto 1969: 1-35. — Kim 1973: 287, 290 pro parte. — Guinot 1978: 247; 1979a: 101, 130, 139, 171, 176, 195, 241, 260, tables 3, 5; 1979b: 45, table 1. — Chen 1993: 316. — Dai &amp; Yang 1991: 50. — Guinot &amp; Bouchard 1998: 649. — Ng et al. 2008: 59; 2017: 35. — Guinot et al. 2013: 10; 2019: 300. — Davie et al. 2015c: 1077. — Luque 2015: 253. — Emmerson 2016: 330. — Sasaki 2019: 7770.</p><p>Dorippinae – Alcock 1896: 136, 273, 275-286 pro parte. — Ihle 1916: 137 pro parte. — Rathbun 1937: 75 pro parte. — Balss 1957: 1609. — Manning &amp; Holthuis 1981: 28. — Chen 1986a: 181; 1986b: 119. — Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: 1-151. — Chen &amp; Xu 1991: 57. — Guinot &amp; Bouchard 1998: 649. — Chen &amp; Sun 2002: 208.</p><p>Dorippidae – Dorippinae – A. Milne-Edwards &amp; Bouvier 1900: 21.</p><p>RECOGNITION OF SEVEN SUBFAMILIES</p><p>WITHIN THE DORIPPIDAE</p><p>The species of Dorippidae, before 1969 all assigned to the single genus Doripp e Weber, 1795, were subsequently distributed into three new genera and two new subgenera (Serène &amp; Romimohtarto 1969) and two further new genera (Manning &amp; Holthuis 1981, as Dorippinae). Finally, a total of nine genera, including a new genus, were recognised by Holthuis &amp; Manning (1990) in a comprehensive revision resolving a great number of previous misidentifications and confusions, which contributed considerably to a better understanding of the group. These authors were probably conscious of the differentiation within the group (at the time Dorippinae) as they provided a separate key to the genera based on the G1s that highlighted their extreme diversity. Since then, two new Dorippe species from Australia have been added (Manning 1993) and one species of Neodorippe described (Ng &amp; Rahayu 2002); no new dorippid taxa have been established recently. Currently, the family contains a total of only nine genera and 27 species (Ng et al. 2008).</p><p>Although a small group with apparently similar general facies, the Dorippidae, on closer examination, displays great diversity in body form. The extent of variation and the occurrence of significant divergence patterns within the family have never led to the formal recognition of subfamilies, however. A tentative grouping of genera into a new taxonomic arrangement is proposed here, based on a re-evaluation of morphological characters, including the cephalic appendages, the configuration of the thoracic sternum, the male genital area, the gonopod structure, the vulvae, and the female reproductive system. Seven subfamilies are recognised: Dorippinae H. Milne Edwards, 1837 n. stat., Dorippoidinae n. subfam., Medorippinae n. subfam., Heikeopsinae n. subfam., Paradorippinae n. subfam., Philippidorippinae n. subfam., and Phyllodorippinae n. subfam.</p><p>Our results are congruent with known recovered molecular data. A first molecular analysis based on 16S rRNA gene sequence data from five species and four genera supported the recognition of the Dorippidae as a monophyletic family, consisting of two main clades, with the genus Dorippe appearing basal (Fan et al. 2004: figs 1, 2). A more complete phylogenetic tree inferred from three mitochondrial genes (16S rRNA, 12S rRNA, and COI) (Sin et al. 2009) showed several distinct clades, consistent with previous groupings based on overall carapace morphology and other traits, including G1 structure. The results were as follows: two main groups were supported, one with Dorippe, Dorippoides, Medorippe, and the other with Heikeopsis, Neodorippe and Nobilum; Philippidorippe, somewhat ambiguous, could be associated with the preceding three genera, however with relatively low branch support; the species of Paradorippe also formed a distinct clade, with a high intra-generic divergence, and could be a sister to Heikeopsis / Neodorippe .</p><p>Dorippids are characterised by simultaneous carrying behaviour using reduced, mobile, dorsally carried and subchelate P4 and P5 to hold various materials), forward locomotion (mixed with movements in all directions, including sideways) and fast forward burying: they can be categorised as ‘forwardburiers’ by relying on their bodies to penetrate soft substrates rapidly (see below).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03CDBE74931FB538CE6CF952FC65FD68	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	Guinot, Danièle (2023): 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. Zoosystema 45 (9): 225-372, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2023v45a9
03CDBE749318B507CE72FD15FEEAF8F4.text	03CDBE749318B507CE72FD15FEEAF8F4.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Dorippinae H. Milne Edwards 1837	<div><p>Subfamily DORIPPINAE H. Milne Edwards, 1837 n. status</p><p>TYPE GENUS. — Dorippe Weber, 1795 (type species by subsequent designation by Holthuis [1962]: Cancer quadridens Fabricius, 1793; the type species of Dorippe Fabricius, 1798 is Cancer quadridens Fabricius, 1793 by subsequent selection by Latreille [1810], see Holthuis [1962]: 54; Holthuis &amp; Manning [1990]: 7). Other included species: Cancer frascone Herbst, 1785; Dorippe glabra Manning, 1993; Dorippe irrorata Manning &amp; Holthuis, 1986; Dorippe sinica Chen, 1980; Dorippe tenuipes Chen, 1980; Dorippe trilobata Manning, 1993 .</p><p>DESCRIPTION</p><p>Carapace (Figs 10; 12A; 14A, E, H; 15A, C, E, F)</p><p>Carapace wider than long, being much wider than long in larger individuals, but always narrowing distinctly forward. Dorsal surface strongly sculptured, subdivided into several regions, rough, uneven, with distinct tubercles, often with setae obscuring surface ornamentation; meso-, meta- and urogastric regions well recognisable. Precervical groove irregular, indistinct. Cervical groove distinct, wide. Branchiocardiac groove deep, clearly defined. A pair of small branchial lobes. At base of meso-metagastric region, two small, oblique, hardly distinct submedian gastric pits. Between base of outer orbital tooth and cervical groove, anterolateral margin of carapace long, with a few or many tubercles or denticles, otherwise smooth. Posterior margin of orbit with fissure. Outer orbital tooth triangular, slender and pointed, reaching beyond frontal teeth. Epibranchial angle marked, may be with spine. Front consisting of two closely spaced triangular submedian teeth, separated by more or less deep V-shaped emargination. Inner orbital teeth about as large as frontal teeth, reaching less far forward. Lower orbital margin with spines on outer margin of inner suborbital tooth. Carapace rim extending along posterolateral margin, lined posteriorly by narrow, straight strip, similar in both sexes.</p><p>Illustrations: Dorippe glabra: Manning 1993: fig. 1a, b. D. frascone: Herbst 1785: pl. 11, fig. 70 (reproduced by Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: fig. 3); Serène &amp; Romimohtarto 1969: figs 1, 5, 10, 15A, B, pl. 1, figs A, B, pl. 3, figs A-C, as Dorippe (Dorippe) frascone); Chen 1980: fig. 3.2, pl. 2, figs 1, 6, as D. (D.) frascone; Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: fig. 2a. D. irrorata: Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: fig. 4a-c. D. quadridens: Latreille 1818: pl. 306, fig. 1; Guérin?1831-1833: pl. 13, fig. 2, as D. nodulosa (reproduced by Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: fig. 10A); Griffith &amp; Pidgeon 1833: pl. 13, fig. 2, as D. nodulosa (reproduced by Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: fig. 10B); De Haan 1839: pl. 31, fig. 3, as D. quadridens (reproduced by Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: fig. 15); Borradaile 1903: pl. 22, fig. 1, as D. dorsipes (reproduced by Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: fig. 11b); Shen 1931: fig. 5 (reproduced by Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: fig. 11a; by Sin et al. 2009: fig 3A); Chen 1980: fig. 2a, b (reproduced by Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: fig. 12a); Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: figs 5a, 7a, 8, 9; Chen &amp; Sun 2002: fig. 89.3, pl. 2.3; Naruse et al. 2014: fig. 2c; Takeda et al. 2019: 13, pl. 3E, F; Wong et al. 2021: fig. 8a, pl. 2B. D. sinica: Chen 1980: fig. 1.2 (reproduced by Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: fig. 16a), pl. 1, figs 1, 3, 5, as D. (D.) sinica; Miyake 1983: pl. 6, fig. 2; Takeda 1983: 231, fig. p. 121, as D. frascone; Quintana 1987: fig. 20A, as D. frascone; Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: figs 13a, 15; Yamaguchi &amp; Baba 1993: fig. 89A, B; Chen &amp; Sun 2002: fig. 90.1; Wong et al. 2021: fig. 9a, pl. 2C. D. tenuipes: Serène 1982: pl. 1, fig. 1, pl. 2, fig. 1, as Dorippe miersi; Chen 1980: fig. 2.1, as D. (D.) tenuipes (reproduced by Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: fig. 18a); Chen 1986a: figs 1, 2a; Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: fig.17a; Chen &amp; Sun 2002: fig. 91.1; Takeda &amp; Manuel-Santos 2006: fig. 6B. D. trilobata: Manning 1993: fig. 2a, b.</p><p>Cephalic structures (Figs 12B; 14B, F; 15G)</p><p>Eyestalk elongated, slender, pointed; cornea ventrolateral. Antennule folded or incompletely folded into fossa. Antenna: article 2 + 3 long and immobile, wedged in narrow fossa, partially visible; articles 4 and 5 widened, very setose, directed forward; flagellum slightly bent outwards. Lower orbital margin with cluster of several spines.</p><p>Illustrations: Dorippe frascone: Chen 1980: fig. 3.1, as D. (D.) frascone; Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: fig. 3. Dorippe glabra: Manning 1993: fig. 1b. D. quadridens: Ihle 1916: figs 41, 45, as D. dorsipes; Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: figs 6b, c, 12a; Chen &amp; Sun 2002: fig. 89.1; Wong et al. 2021: fig. 8b. D. sinica: Chen 1980: fig. 1b (reproduced by Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: fig. 16b); Quintana 1987: fig. 20A-a, as D. frascone; Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: fig. 13b, c; Chen &amp; Sun 2002: fig. 90.1; Wong et al. 2021: fig. 9b. D. tenuipes: Chen 1980: fig. 2.2, as D. (D.) tenuipes (reproduced by Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: fig. 18b); Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: fig. 17b, c. D. trilobata: Manning 1993: fig. 2b.</p><p>Oxystomatous disposition (Figs 12B; 14B; 15G)</p><p>Openings of exhalant channels not visible in dorsal view.</p><p>Illustrations: Dorippe frascone: Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: fig. 3. D. quadridens: Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: figs 8, 10, 11; Wong et al. 2021: fig. 8b. D. sinica: Quintana 1987: fig. 20a, as D. frascone; Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: fig. 15; Wong et al. 2021: fig. 9b.</p><p>Pereiopods (Figs 10; 12A; 14A, B, E, F; 15A, B, E, H, I) Chelipeds equal in females and small males, but heterochely usually in large males. Carpus either smooth and naked or with distinct granules or tubercles and short hairs. Major cheliped with palm smooth or variously granulated, swollen, higher than long dorsally; lower margin convex, lacking teeth or tubercles. Minor cheliped with fingers 2-3 times longer than palm; both fingers with two grooves separated by ridge; cutting edges with 12-16 subequal triangular teeth, regularly distributed over edge.</p><p>Illustrations: Dorippe glabra: Manning 1993: fig. 1c. D. irrorata Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: fig. 4d. D. frascone: Chen 1980: fig. 3.3, pl. 2, figs 1, 2, 4, 6, as D. (D.) frascone; Chen 1986a: fig. 1c, as D. tenuipes; Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: fig. 2b. D. quadridens: Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: figs 5d, 6d; Wong et al. 2021: fig. 8c, d. D. sinica: Chen 1980: fig. 1.3, as D. (D.) sinica (reproduced by Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: fig. 16c), pl. 1; Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: fig. 13d; Chen &amp; Sun 2002: fig. 90.2. D. tenuipes: Chen 1980: fig. 2.3 (reproduced by Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: fig. 18c), pl. 2, figs 3, 5, 7, 8, as D. (D.) tenuipes; Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: fig. 17d; Chen &amp; Sun 2002: fig. 91.2. D. trilobata: Manning 1993: fig. 2c.</p><p>P2, P3 long or very long, P3 longest. Meri of P2 and P3 either nearly cylindrical or compressed, setose or glabrous, without dorsal spines or spinules, with numerous more or less acute granules in D. tenuipes . Sexual dimorphism of P2, P3 meri setation slight in D. frascone, with naked meri in males, hairy in females (Fig. 14A, B and E, F, respectively), much more pronounced in D. sinica with merus of adult males (Fig. 10C) covered by dense pubescence but almost completely naked in females (Fig.10D). Propodi and dactyli entirely naked; dactyli of P2, P3 without hair fringes, naked or nearly so. P4, P5 reduced, with subcheliform apparatus.</p><p>Illustrations: Dorippe glabra: Manning 1993: fig. 1d. D. irrorata Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: fig. 4 e, f. D. frascone: Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: fig. 2c, d. D. quadridens: Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: figs 5e, f (reproduced by Sin et al. 2009: fig. 4A), 6e, f, 7b; Wong et al. 2021: fig. 8e, f. D. sinica: Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: fig. 13e, f; Wong et al. 2021: fig.9c. D. tenuipes: Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: fig. 17e, f. D. trilobata: Manning 1993: fig. 2d.</p><p>Thoracic sternum (Figs 11; 12 B-E; 13; 14B, C, F; 15B, D, G) Thoracic sternum strongly sculptured in both sexes; thickened laterally at distal part of sternites 4 and especially 5, 6. Sternites 1 and 2 as pentagonal, raised shield: sternite 1 with small visible pointed portion; sternite 2 narrow, demarcated from sternite 3 by thick ridge; sternite 3 lowered, developed, separated from sternite 4 by short lateral suture (suture 3/4) that may or may not end in small boutonniere; sternite 4 with two strong curved submedian elevations or complete ridge; sternite 5 crossed by strong ridge; sternite 6 crossed by two elevations. Sutures 4/5-7/8 interrupted; 5/6 to 7/8 obliquely oriented; suture 5/6 strongly curved backwards, with press-button in curve. Female thoracic sternum extremely tilted backwards at level of ridge crossing entire sternite 6.</p><p>Pleon and telson (Figs 8C; 9A, C, D; 10; 11B; 12A, C; 13A, C; 14B, C, F, I; 15 A-H)</p><p>Male pleon with all somites free; somite 1 trapezoidal, widening slightly posteriorly; somites 2, 3 each with transverse row of three strong teeth ( Dorippe frascone, D. quadridens, D. sima, D. trilobata) or blunt granular elevations ( D. irrorata, D. tenuipes); somite 4 narrower, narrowing posteriorly, with single median tooth ( D. frascone, D. quadridens, D. sima, D. trilobata) or with granular elevations ( D. irrorata, D. tenuipes); somite 5 laterally constricted; somite 6 posteriorly narrowing, with more or less produced posterolateral angles enclosing base of telson; telson triangular, with rounded apex, tip exceeding level of suture 5/6.</p><p>Illustrations: D. irrorata: Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: fig. 4g, h. D. frascone: Chen 1980: fig. 3.4, pl. 2, figs 1, 2, as D. (D.) frascone; Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: fig. 2e, f. D. quadridens: Chen 1980: fig. 2b, as D. (D.) frascone (reproduced by Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: fig. 12b); Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: figs 5g-i, 7c, d (reproduced by Davie et al. 2015a: fig. 71-2.22J); Chen &amp; Sun 2002: fig. 89.2. D. sinica: Chen 1980: fig. 1.4, as D. (D.) sinica (reproduced by Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: fig. 16d), pl. 1, figs 2, 6; Miyake 1983: pl. 6, fig. 2; Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: fig. 14c, d, e, f; Chen &amp; Sun 2002: fig. 90.3. D. tenuipes: Chen 1980: fig. 2.4 (reproduced by Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: fig. 18d), pl. 2, figs 3, 5, as D. (D.) tenuipes; Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: fig. 17g, h; Chen &amp; Sun 2002: fig. 90.3. D trilobata: Manning 1993: fig. 2e, f.</p><p>Female pleon narrow in immature individuals, widening greatly in adults. Somites 3-5 with conspicuous transverse ridges; ridges on somites 3, 4, each with a median and two lateral teeth or low elevations, occasionally with small denticles; telson a little longer than wide, apex rounded (see below, Female pleonal-retention mechanism) (the triangular female pleon of D. frascone figured Fig. 14F belongs to a prepubertal female).</p><p>Illustrations. Dorippe glabra: Manning 1993: fig. 1e. D. frascone: Chen 1980: pl. 2, figs 4, 6, as D. (D.) frascone . D. quadridens: Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: fig. 6h. D. sinica: Chen 1980: pl. 1, figs 3, 4, as D. (D.) sinica; Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: fig. 14a, b.</p><p>Pleonal-locking mechanism by press-button (Figs 11C, D; 12D, E; 13B, D; 14B, C, F, I; 15B, D, G, H)</p><p>Press-button as small spine in curve of sternal suture 5/ 6 in both sexes.</p><p>Additional female pleonal-retention mechanism (Figs 8C; 9C, 10B, D; 12A; 15E, F)</p><p>In females, strong retention by wide process of dorsally exposed portion of sternite 8 overhanging pleonal somite 2. Small telson engaged between raised edges of sterno-pleonal cavity at level of sternite 5 (Figs 12; 13C; 15G, H).</p><p>Male gonopore and penis</p><p>Male gonopore coxal. Coxo-sternal condition. Penis markedly angled, with membrane between inclined and vertical portions; penial bulb thick, sclerotised; exposed proximal penial portion sclerotised; next portion covered by pleon. Sternites 7 and 8 expanded over penis, very close to each other for short distance, then not completely joined in some cases; sternite 8 with bifid process over P5 coxo-sternal condyle, partially covering penial bulb, overhanging inclined portion of penis.</p><p>Illustrations: Dorippe quadridens: Guinot et al. 2013: 102, fig. 16A-C. D. tenuipes: Guinot et al. 2013: fig. 17A, B.</p><p>Gonopods (Figs 11C, D; 13B; 14D; 31A)</p><p>G1 relatively simple, rather straight, short, gradually tapering to single apex; subdistal setae; with narrow tongue-shaped corneous distal process; tip bluntly rounded; basal lobe present, covered with small denticles and with cluster of pappose setae at tip.</p><p>Illustrations: Dorippe frascone: Chen 1980, fig. 3.5, as Dorippe (Dorippe) frascone; Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: fig. 2g; Dai &amp; Yang 1991: fig. 25.1, as D. (D.) frascone . D. irrorata: Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: fig. 4i, j. D. quadridens: Stephensen 1946: fig. 4A, as D. dorsipes; Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: fig. 7e, f (reproduced by Sin et al. 2009: fig. 4A); Guinot et al. 2013: 102, fig. 16C, D; Chen &amp; Sun 2002: fig. 89.4; Davie et al. 2015a: fig. 71-2.22J. D. sinica: Chen 1980: fig. 1.5, as D. (D.) sinica (reproduced by Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: fig. 16e, f); Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: fig. 13g; Dai &amp; Yang 1991: fig. 25.2, as D. (D.) sinica; Chen &amp; Sun 2002: fig. 90.4, 5; Hayer et al. 2016a: figs 2, 3A; Vehof 2020: fig. 10A-C. D. tenuipes: Chen 1980: fig. 2.5, as D. (D.) tenuipes (reproduced by Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: fig. 18e); Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: fig. 17i; Dai &amp; Yang 1991: fig. 26, as D. (Dorippe) tenuipes; Chen &amp; Sun 2002: fig. 91.4. D. trilobata: Manning 1993: fig. 2g.</p><p>Illustrations: Dorippe quadridens: Stephensen 1946: fig. 4B, as D. dorsipes; Guinot et al. 2013: 102, fig. 16E.</p><p>G2 straight.</p><p>Illustrations: D. quadridens: Guinot et al. 2013: fig. 16E; D. sinica: Vehof 2020: fig. 10D.</p><p>Vulvae (Figs 12D, E; 13D; 14G; 32A)</p><p>Vulva at the summit of elevated portion of sternite 6 and at extremity of setose raised sternal ridge; opening quite large, rounded, not recessed, well exposed, covered by operculum leaving inverted V-shaped opening.</p><p>Illustrations: Dorippe glabra: Manning 1993: fig. 1f. Dorippe quadridens: Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: fig. 6g. Dorippe sinica: Hayer et al. 2016a: figs 1, 2, 3A; Vehof et al. 2017: fig. 1D, E. Dorippe quadridens and D. sinica: Vehof et al. 2017: fig. 2A.</p><p>Female reproductive system</p><p>Studied in Dorippe quadridens by Vehof et al. (2017) and in D. sinica by Hayer et al. (2016a), Vehof et al. (2017) and Vehof (2020). See Figs 35A, B; 36B; 37 and below, The female reproductive system in Brachyura, its evolution and unique disposition in Dorippidae .</p><p>Callosities</p><p>In both sexes, dorsal part of P3 coxa bearing a callosity, variously developed according to the species: a simple thickening and elongated calcified bulge in Dorippe quadridens (Fig. 33C); or in the form of a hemicircular structure in D. sinica (Figs 9C; 10C, D; 33D, E), D. frascone (Fig. 33F), D. trilobata (Fig. 15A, C, J), D. glabra (Fig. 15E, F, I); or more complex and taking the form of a double calcified bulge with a central part showing a special texture in D. tenuipes (Figs 9D; 33G, H). The callosity, partially concealed by the P5, is visible in the photograph by Takeda &amp; Manuel-Santos (2006: fig. 6B). It was not possible to detect whether a callosity is present in D. irrorata (Fig. 14H).</p><p>DISTRIBUTION AND HABITAT</p><p>Dorippe quadridens is the most widely distributed dorippid in the Indo-West Pacific. It is a Lessespian species introduced into the Mediterranean Sea through the Suez Canal (Monod 1937, as D. dorsipes), in Egyptian waters (Timsah Lake and Port Said), along the coasts of Israel (Galil 2005, 2011; Galil &amp; Shlagman 2010; Brockerhoff &amp; McLay 2011), perhaps Syria (Hasan 2008). Its range extends from the Red Sea, Persian Gulf (Apel 2001), Gulf of Aden (Zarenkov 1971), Gulf of Oman, the Seychelles, southeast Africa to the west and east coasts of India (Dev Roy &amp; Nandi 2007, 2008; Dev Roy 2008; Dev Roy &amp; Bhadra 2011: 117; Varadharajan &amp; Soundarapandian 2014; Dev Roy &amp; Rath 2017; Vidhya et al. 2017; Beleem et al. 2019: 20, fig. 1a; Gosavi et al. 2021: table 3), the Andaman and Nicobar Islands (Venkataraman et al. 2004: 312, as Dorippe dorsipes), the Philippines, Singapore, Indonesia, Vietnam (André 1931: 638, as Dorippe dorsipes), Peninsular Malysia (Razak et al. 2022: fig. 6.11), Thailand, China and Hong Kong (Chen &amp; Sun 2002; Wong et al. 2021), Taiwan (Wang et al. 2017; Ng et al. 2017), Australia, and also southern Japan (Takeda et al. 2019: 13, pl. 3, fig. E, F). Many records of Dorippe quadridens with its synonyms cannot reliably be referred to this species, and all Japanese records probably refer to D. sinica; the ranges of the two species (both often incorrectly identified as Dorippe frascone in early publications) overlap over most of southern China and probably Taiwan (Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990; Ng et al. 2017). Recent data on the distribution and ecology of D. quadridens and D. sinica have been provided by Osman et al. (2015); Ng et al. (2001, 2017); Ng &amp; Davie (2002); Thoma (2007); Beleem et al. (2019); also Zairion et al. (2018). The depth from which D. quadridens has been reported varies from 1 to 73 m, with most records between 1 and 30 m. It is found on rather flat bottoms of mud and/or sand, sometimes with weeds, corals, or sponges; it has also been reported on coral reefs and oyster beds (Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990).</p><p>Recent records of Dorippe quadridens in the Middle East do not reliably refer to this species. It appears that the carapaces of D. quadridens and Dorippoides nudipes (both previously cited in the “Annotated checklist of the decapod crustaceans of the Gulf of Oman ” by Naderloo et al. 2015: table 2) studied and represented in the Atlas of crabs of the Persian Gulf by Naderloo (2017: figs 7.1 and 7.3, respectively) were mistakenly interchanged, whereas the keys to both species, the figures of the G1s and the distribution maps (Naderloo 2017: 47, fig. 4.2.e and 4.2.f, respectively, and fig. 7.2) are correct. Subsequently, crabs from the northwestern Persian Gulf, Iraq, identified as Dorippe quadridens by Yasser &amp; Naser (2019: fig. 2) and Al-Khafaji et al. (2019: fig. 2a, table 2) are Dorippoides nudipes instead of Dorippe quadridens (see under Dorippoides nudipes).</p><p>Most of the specimens reported in the literature as Dorippe frascone are either not recognisable from the available data or belong to D. quadridens or to D. sinica . Dorippe frascone is known with certainty only from the Philippines, Indonesia and Papua New Guinea (present paper), at depths between 1-10 m on a sandy bottom, and questionably from southern China (Dai &amp; Yang 1991, as Dorippe (Dorippe) frascone). Records of D. frascone by Jeyabaskaran et al. (2000: 46, pl. 31c, as D. (D.) frascone) from India in the Gulf of Mannar, by Venkataraman et al. (2004: 312) in Tamil Nadu, and by Krishnamoorthy (2007: 90) on the Chennai Coast probably correspond to D. quadridens . So far, Dorippe sinica reported from East Asia (Chen &amp; Sun 2002; Ng et al. 2017; Wong et al. 2021) is the only species of the genus known with certainty from Japan (Minemizu 2000: 189; Takeda et al. 2006, 2011, 2019); the ranges of D. sinica and D. quadridens overlap in southern China. Dorippe sinica is probably present in Taiwan (Ng et al. 2017; Wong et al. 2021). The species is reported from the shoreline, on the tidal flat (Yamaguchi et al. 1987) and at depths between 15-50 and 118 m; specimens are collected from mud, sand bottoms, and from “volcanic sand, shells, and rock” (Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990).</p><p>Dorippe tenuipes is known from Vietnam, the Philippines (including Balicasag Island, Bohol, see Takeda &amp; Manuel-Santos 2006: fig.6B), eastern Indonesia and southern China, at depths ranging from 15-20 m (Serène 1982), 52-92 m (Chen 1980), 76- 70 m (Serène &amp; Vadon 1981), 49-53 m (Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990) and 33-128 m (Chen 1986b), and is found on muddy sand, sand and shell bottoms. According to Trivedi et al. (2018), as D. tenuipes is known with certainty only from the abovementioned regions, the report of D. tenuipes from the Gulf of Mannar region, southeast coast of India by Vidhya et al. (2017) is most likely a misidentification with another Dorippe species.</p><p>Three species of Dorippe are so far only known from their type locality and have never been found since. Two are endemic to Australia: D. glabra from the Northern Territory on the north coast at 38 m, and D. trilobata from Western Australia (Admiralty Gulf) at 18 m depth (Manning 1993; Davie 2002). The third is Dorippe irrorata from the east Andaman Sea, at depths of 62 and 73 m (see below, Remarks).</p><p>CARRYING BEHAVIOUR</p><p>Dorippe quadridens has been observed carrying a sponge (Borradaile 1903: 439), the scutellid sea urchin Echinodiscus Leske, 1778 (Macnae &amp; Kalk 1958; 1969: 44, 71; Kalk 1995) and starfish (McNeill 1923), pieces of shell or debris (Ng 1987: 15), broken or intact valves of lamellibranchs (Ng &amp; Tan 1986), and accumulated amounts of silt and detritus (Guinot et al. 1995). The sculptured carapace with its different microstructures and dense setae likely assists the species to acquire a massive coat of detritus (Osman et al. 2021). According to Holthuis &amp; Manning (1990: 33), it is not clear whether the species camouflaged under the umbrella of a jellyfish reported as D. quadridens by Estampador (1937: 514; 1959: 65, footnote) is really this species or rather represents D. frascone instead, since these authors reported a D. frascone from the Philippines “taken from a jellyfish”. Several online field videos show amazing images of a crab on the sea floor holding the toxic ‘fire urchin’ Asthenosoma varium Grube, 1868 with its P4 and P5, running on the bottom and then burying forward until most of the body is covered by the sediment. The crab in situ, called ‘sea urchin carrier crab’ and alternatively identified with D. frascone or D. quadridens, is probably the latter because of the tuberculate carpus of the cheliped recognisable on the videos. Laboratory experiments on D. quadridens collected in Thailand (Rayong Province) and tested by Wisespongpand et al. (2014) provide some summary data: about 45% of the crabs tested selected the green urchin Salmacis sphaeroides (Linnaeus, 1758) as the first item for carrying, whereas 60% selected the majoid Chlorinoides sp. as the first item from five crab species. According to Sakai (1937: 74, as D. dorsipes), Dorippe sinica was protected by a dead shell, but there is no other record of the species carrying a mollusc. According to Quintana (1987: 285, figs 3B-F, 5L, M, m, 7F, G, 24A, as Dorippe frascone), both the megalopa and the first crab stages of D. sinica observed in the laboratory normally used their P4 and P5 to carry small objects dorsally over the carapace, so they were not active swimmers.</p><p>REMARKS</p><p>The subfamily Dorippinae n. stat. is monotypic, with the genus Dorippe known from seven species, of which three, very poorly known, are photographed here for the first time (see below).</p><p>Dorippe callida of White (1847: 54) (not Fabricius 1798), based on two specimens from the Philippine Islands, was assigned to D. dorsipes, actually D. quadridens, by Miers (1884: 258) despite the elongated legs and weakly sculptured carapace surface that distinguish it. Serène (1982: 1128, figs 1-3, pl. 1, figs 1, 2, pl. 2, figs 1-4) regarded this species as new and established it as Dorippe miersi (type locality: Vietnam, Nhatrang), unaware that Chen (1980: 156. fig. 2, pl. 2, figs 3, 5, 7, 8) had described one year earlier Dorippe tenuipes (type locality: South China Sea, off Guangdong Province), a specific name meaning ‘thin-legged’. Comparison of the descriptions provided by these two authors and examination of their type material convinced Holthuis &amp; Manning (1990: 47) of their synonymy. They consider that D. tenuipes “is distinguished from all other species of Dorippe by the very long and slender legs” (a character already noted by Serène: “length of the merus of P2 six times its width”) and by the sculpture of the body surface, especially that of the pleon “far less pronounced” than in most other species of the genus. Serène (1982: 1129) speculated that D. miersi (in fact D. tenuipes) might be a much smaller species than D. quadridens (which he named D. frascone) and in which the shape of the adult cheliped would appear at a smaller size, e.g. 28 × 30 mm, with the conclusion that D. miersi in relation to D. quadridens seemed to be “in a similar situation to that of Neodorippe taiwanensis in relation to Neodorippe japonica ”. Dorippe tenuipes is distinguished from all other Dorippe by the most developed callosity (Figs 9D; 33G, H).</p><p>The female of Dorippe frascone measuring 23.3 × 24.4 mm figured here (Fig. 14E, F) is prepubertal, as evidenced by its not yet enlarged triangular pleon (Fig. 14F), compared to the one shown by Chen (1980: pl. 2, fig. 4): the latter is characterised by the shape of somites 4-6 that differs from that of other Dorippe .</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03CDBE749318B507CE72FD15FEEAF8F4	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	Guinot, Danièle (2023): 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. Zoosystema 45 (9): 225-372, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2023v45a9
03CDBE749327B507CD91F8F2FA11FAD5.text	03CDBE749327B507CD91F8F2FA11FAD5.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Dorippe irrorata Manning & Holthuis 1986	<div><p>REMARKS ON DORIPPE IRRORATA MANNING &amp; HOLTHUIS, 1986</p><p>Dorippe irrorata, which has never been found since its description in the eastern Andaman Sea, is known from only two specimens (Manning &amp; Holthuis 1986: 363, fig. 1a, b; Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: 9, 15-17, fig. 4), that are currently fragile: a male 21.5 × 22.0 mm, the holotype (Fig. 14H, I) (Andaman Sea, south of Mergui Archipelago; 09°54’N, 97°42’E, International Indian Ocean Expedition, Anton Bruun Cruise 1, stn AB-21, 73 m, 24.III.1963, USNM 172495); and a transparent female 17.0 × 17.5 mm, W of the Moscos Islands, 14°07’N, 97°05’E, Anton Bruun Cruise 1, stn AB-38, 62 m, 30 Mar 1963, USNM) that was incorrectly indicated as being a paratype (see Subsequent erroneous designation of paratypes by Holthuis &amp; Manning [1990]). Both authors considered the species close to D. quadridens (Figs 10A, B; 11 A-C) and D. tenuipes (Fig. 9D) but with some differences. Thanks to the photographs of the holotype kindly sent to us by Karen Reed and, before that, of the supposed ‘paratype’ by Rafael Lemaitre, we can confirm at least that the teeth of somites 2 and 3 of the male pleon are very low and distinctly granular in D. irrorata (Fig. 14H, I) (versus strong, acute and smooth in D. quadridens) and that the palm of the cheliped is granulated (versus smooth in D. quadridens).</p><p>The resemblance of Dorippe irrorata to D. tenuipes (Fig. 9D) is obvious. Dorippe irrorata (Fig. 14H, I) has a male pleon with only elevations on somites 2 and 3 (though much lower in D. irrorata), but the major cheliped has a granulated palm in D. irrorata, smooth in D. tenuipes . The main difference mentioned by Holthuis &amp; Manning (1990: 17),i.e., the “far less elongated” P2 and P 3 in D. irrorata, should be taken with caution as leg length is a highly variable character in some dorippids, such as Heikeopsis japonica . Nevertheless, the frontal teeth are slightly different in the two species. The major character that would have allowed us to settle the matter, namely the callosity on P3, which is highly developed in D. tenuipes (Figs 9D; 33G, H) and only as an elongated and thickened bulge in D. quadridens (Figs 10A; 33C), is unfortunately not detectable in the photographs of D. irrorata provided by the USNM (Fig. 14H). Not being able to make a clear decision, we consider D. irrorata to be valid, at least provisionally.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03CDBE749327B507CD91F8F2FA11FAD5	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	Guinot, Danièle (2023): 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. Zoosystema 45 (9): 225-372, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2023v45a9
03CDBE749327B502CE38FA94FEE9F813.text	03CDBE749327B502CE38FA94FEE9F813.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Dorippe trilobata : Manning 1993	<div><p>REMARKS ON DORIPPE TRILOBATA MANNING, 1993 AND DORIPPE GLABRA MANNING, 1993</p><p>Two Doripp e from Australia described by Manning (1993; see Davie 2002: 156), each known only by its type specimen and thus by a single sex, and never reported since, are problematic. The characters used to distinguish them from other known species are tenuous and mainly concern the more or less marked ornamentation and especially the setation and size of the legs. Previously, only two dorippids were known from Australia: Dorippe quadridens and Paradorippe australiensis . Thanks to photographs of the types of each of these species deposited in the AM, kindly sent to us by Shane Ahyong, some remarks can be provided.</p><p>Dorippe trilobata (Manning 1993: 3, 4, fig. 4; cited by Davie 2002: 156), described from Western Autralia (Admiralty Gulf) on the basis of the single holotype, a male 20.5 × 21.1 mm, was considered to be close to D. tenuipes Chen, 1980 . Both species were regarded as “different from all other species of Dorippe in having elongate P2 and P3, with the P3 merus six or more times longer than high”, although to a lesser degree in D. tenuipes . In D. trilobata the P2 and P3 (Fig. 15A, B) are longer and thinner than those of most Doripp e (Fig. 10), thus quite similar to those of D. tenuipes (Fig. 9D) but not as thin and elongated as in the latter. The long meri of P2 and P3 of D. trilobata are naked and the dactyli of P2 and especially P3 are enlarged. A characteristic feature of D. trilobata, namely the pleonal somites 2 and 3 with three sharp teeth, is not found in D. tenuipes where there are only low rounded and granular elevations. In D. trilobata, the anterolateral margin is unarmed anterior to epibranchial region and then shows low tubercles, whereas in D. tenuipes it bears numerous denticles. Most significantly, the callosity of D. trilobata is simply hemicircular (Fig. 15A, C, J), contrasting with the complex callosity in the form of a double calcified bulge with a whitish central area in D. tenuipes (Figs 9D; 33G, H).The anterolateral margin of the carapace without spines, tubercles or denticles in front of the epibranchial region is as in D. sinica (Fig. 10C, D); but the three detached spines on the lower margin of the orbit contrast with the cluster in D. sinica and the higher number of teeth there in D. quadridens (Fig. 12B) and may approximate the 3-5 teeth of D. frascone (Fig. 14 A-D). Dorippe trilobata (Fig. 15 A-D) differs from all other species of Dorippe in having a short, triangular and straight-edged pleon, instead of the longer and irregular-edged pleon of other Dorippe; in addition, the three sharp tubercles on pleonal somites 2 and 3 are much more acute than in D. quadridens (Figs 10A; 11B), D. sinica (Figs 10C; 13A) and D. frascone (Fig. 14 A-D). The relatively small size 20.5 × 21.1 mm of the holotype of D. trilobata cannot account for these differences, so until more material is available this species can be considered valid.</p><p>Dorippe glabra (see Manning 1993: 1, fig. 1; cited by Davie 2002: 156), from the north of the Northern Territory, known only by an ovigerous female measuring 24.3 × 26.7 mm (deposited in the AM, see Springthorpe &amp; Lowry 1994) and found mixed in a large collection identified as D. quadridens, “could be distinguished on sight from all of the other specimens in that lot by the naked meri of its P2 and P3”, the most significant feature according to Manning (1993: 2, 4). In photographs of the holotype, a male, the meri of the attached left P2, detached left P3 and detached right P3 are naked, but the merus of the detached right P2 (Fig. 15E) is covered with dense setae on the posterior margin. In D. sinica the meri of P2 and P3 are naked or barely pubescent in females (Fig. 10D) and setose in males (Fig. 10C), whereas they are covered with setae in both sexes of D. quadridens (Figs 10A, B; 12A). The P2, P3 of D. glabra (female) are sligthly longer and thinner than in most Dorippe, but not so elongated and thin than those of D. trilobata (Fig. 15A, B), and those of D. tenuipes (Fig. 9D) that are granular. In D. glabra the merus and carpus of the cheliped (Fig. 15E) is covered with dense granules, which eliminates D. frascone with a smooth carpus. In D. glabra the coxa of P3 is flanked by a high hemicircular calcified callosity (Fig. 15E, F, I) similar to that of D. sinica (Figs 9C; 10C, D; 33D, E), quite distinct from the double callosity of D. tenuipes (Figs 9D; 33G, H). A direct comparison between D. glabra and the other Dorippe would be most useful.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03CDBE749327B502CE38FA94FEE9F813	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	Guinot, Danièle (2023): 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. Zoosystema 45 (9): 225-372, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2023v45a9
03CDBE749322B50FCEB4FF17FDCAF813.text	03CDBE749322B50FCEB4FF17FDCAF813.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Dorippoidinae Guinot 2023	<div><p>Subfamily DORIPPOIDINAE n. subfam.</p><p>TYPE GENUS. — Dorippoides Serène &amp; Romimohtarto, 1969 (type species by original designation and monotypy: Cancer facchino Herbst, 1785). Other included species: Dorippoides nudipes Manning &amp; Holthuis, 1986 .</p><p>DESCRIPTION</p><p>Carapace (Fig. 16)</p><p>Carapace wider than long, convex posteriorly, flattened anteriorly, appearing flatter in large individuals. Dorsal surface weakly sculptured, rather smooth, covered with pubescence; ‘human face’ distinctly delineated. Only a few grooves: precervical groove continuous, distinct in small specimens, with extreme lateral part behind orbit vaguely distinct, or not indicated at all medially in adult males; indistinct, medially interrupted in females; cervical and branchiocardiac grooves deep. Median area (urogastric region) circular or oval, flanked by large, rounded, convex branchial lobes. Meso-metagastric region with two small, oblique submedian gastric pits at the base. Front consisting of two distinct triangular teeth directed forward, or of blunter teeth directed outward, separated by rather deep emargination. Inner orbital angle triangular or blunt. Outer orbital tooth sharp, pointed, reaching as far forwards as or slightly beyond frontal teeth. Antero- and posterolateral margins devoid of spine or tooth, only demarcated by very faint angle. Exposed pleurites 5-7 as granulous sclerites; exposed pleurite 6 rather narrow, granular, separated from P3 coxa by thick, whitish membrane. Carapace posterior rim not extending laterally at all along inflated posterolateral margin and lined posteriorly by nearly rectangular strip, thinner medially in male Dorippoides facchino (Fig. 16A) and D. nudipes (Fig. 16C); strip with two developed lateral extensions and thus appearing much more hollowed medially in female D. facchino (Fig. 16B) and D. nudipes (Fig. 16D).</p><p>Illustrations: Dorippoides facchino: Herbst 1785: pl. 11, fig. 68, as Cancer facchino (reproduced by Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: fig. 23); H. Milne Edwards 1837: pl. 20, fig. 11, as Dorippe sima (reproduced by Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: fig. 24); Verrill 1869a: pl. 2, fig. 1, as Dorippe facchino (reproduced by Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: fig. 25a); Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: figs 19a-d, 22 (male syntype of Dorippe astuta Fabricius, 1785), 19b (reproduced by Sin et al. 2009: fig. 3B), 25b; Chen &amp; Sun 2002: fig. 92.1; Naruse et al. 2014: fig. 2d; Wong et al. 2021: fig. 10a, pl. 2D. Dorippoides nudipes: Chen 1988: fig. 1a, pl. 1B, C; Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: fig. 26a-c.</p><p>Cephalic structures (Fig. 17A)</p><p>Eyestalk inclined, well protected in rather deep orbital hollow and along outer orbital tooth. Antennule almost entirely folded into fossa. Antenna: basal article exposed; articles 2+3 very developed, moveable, with salient setose external part; other articles directed forward; flagellum curved outwards.</p><p>Oxystomatous disposition</p><p>Opening of exhalant channels perceptible in dorsal view between rostral teeth, hardly visible in Dorippoides nudipes . Pereiopods (Figs 16; 17A; 18C)</p><p>Chelipeds of females and most males of same size and shape; heterochely only in large adult males: major chela swollen, short, with short fingers; minor chela with slender and downwardly curved fingers, forming slight angle with axis of palm.</p><p>Illustrations: Dorippoides facchino: Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: fig. 19e; Chen &amp; Sun 2002: fig. 92.2, 3; Wong et al. 2021: fig. 10b. Dorippoides nudipes: Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: fig. 26d.</p><p>P2 and P3 not very long, P3 longest, all articles rather short and wide, flattened, unarmed. Meri without spines on dorsal margins; sexual dimorphism of setation in D. facchino (Fig. 16A, B): males with dense setae only on posterior margins and females with entirely naked margins; dimorphism not marked in D. nudipes, with naked margins in both sexes (Fig. 16C, D). Dactyli flattened, twisted, without fringes of hair. P3 ischium of females with spur-like process on anterior margin; process may be present on ischium of P2 but smaller (Figs 9A; 18A, B); these processes completely absent in males.</p><p>Illustrations: Dorippoides facchino: Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: fig. 20. Dorippoides nudipes: Manning &amp; Holthuis 1986: fig. 1c; Chen 1988: fig. 1d, e; Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: figs 26e, f, 27f; Chen &amp; Sun 2002: fig. 92.2, 3; Wong et al. 2021: fig. 10c.</p><p>Thoracic sternum (Figs 17; 18)</p><p>Thoracic sternum almost smooth in males, minutely granular and eroded in females.Sternite 1 pointed; sternite 2 pentagonal, high, separated from sternite 3 by broad depression; sternite 3 large, extended laterally; sternite 4 with two raised submedian prominences protruding from pubescence; sternites 4 and 5 lacking sharp ridges, only with blunt, naked transverse ridge. Suture 3/4 rather long, ending in deep depression in males. In males, interruption points of sutures very close to each other at bottom of deep sterno-pleonal cavity, which may give the false impression of a median line. Female thoracic sternum extremely tilted backwards at level of ridge running through entire sternite 6.</p><p>Pleon and telson (Figs 17B; 18D)</p><p>Sterno-pleonal cavity very narrow and deep. On pleon no tubercles or spines, only low, blunt transverse elevations or indistinct grooves. Male pleon with articular membranes situated between all somites and across entire breadth of each somite. In males, somite 1 long, trapezoidal, widening posteriorly, with posterior margin deeply concave in middle; somite 2 long, widening posteriorly, lacking erect tubercles or spines; somite 4 short, wide; somite 5 distinctly narrowing; somite 6 elongate, very narrow, with concave lateral margins and produced posterolateral angles; telson triangular, with constricted base, its tip far exceeding level of suture 5/6.</p><p>Illustrations: Dorippoides facchino: Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: fig. 21g, f. Dorippoides nudipes: Chen 1988: fig. 1b, c.</p><p>Female pleon (Fig. 18A, E) wide and rounded, without tubercles or teeth; somites 2-5 with blunt but distinct transverse carina; somite 5 widest; somites 5 and 6 longest; telson small, with semicircular posterior margin.</p><p>Pleonal-locking mechanism by press-button (Figs 17C, D; 18B, C, F),</p><p>Press-button in deep curve of thoracic sternal suture 5/6.</p><p>Additional female pleonal-retention mechanism</p><p>In females of D. facchino (Fig. 16B), dorsally exposed part of sternite 8 with very small prominence that does not overhang pleonal somite 2 and seems not functional; in females of D. nudipes (Fig. 16C), the process of sternite 8 is quite developed but seems too distant to be able to overhang pleonal somite 2, thus also nonfunctional. Small telson engaged between raised slopes of sterno-pleonal cavity at level of sternite 5 (Fig. 18A, E).</p><p>Male gonopore and penis</p><p>Gonopore coxal; coxo-sternal condition with penial tube consisting of inclined portion, then vertical portion, without visible membrane between the two (sternites 7 and 8 in contact over very short distance); bulb more or less long.</p><p>Illustrations: Dorippoides facchino: Guinot et al. 2013: fig.18A, B. Dorippoides nudipes: Guinot et al. 2013: fig. 19A, B.</p><p>Gonopods (Figs 17C; 31B)</p><p>G1 short, stubby, with very elongated coxa and well-developed basis encircling most of endopodite. Apical process twisted, ending in slender simple point, rolled-up in a spiral, triangular ( D. facchino) or produced into long, thin whip-like appendage ( D. nudipes); subdistal cluster of setae. Basal lobe rounded, covered with several setae.</p><p>Illustrations: Dorippoides facchino: Chen 1986a: fig. 4a, b; Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: fig. 21a-e (reproduced by Sin et al. 2009: fig. 4B); Dai &amp; Yang 1991: fig. 22, as Dorippe (Dorippoides) facchino; Chen &amp; Sun 2002: fig. 92.4; Guinot et al. 2013: fig. 18C, D; Vehof 2020: fig.12. Dorippoides nudipes: Stephensen 1946: fig. 4C, as Dorippe facchino ?; Chen 1988: fig. 1f-h; Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: fig. 26g, h.</p><p>G2 shorter than G1, straight, with indistinct flagellum.</p><p>Illustrations: Dorippoides nudipes: Stephensen 1946: fig. 4D, as Dorippe facchino ?; Chen 1988: fig. 1i; Dorippoides facchino: Vehof 2020: fig. 12A.</p><p>Vulvae (Figs 17D; 18B, C, F; 32B)</p><p>Vulvae on clearly raised, well delimited, globose, papillaelike whitish prominences on sternite 6, each very close to the other, almost joining on median axis, in prolongation of raised oblique setose ridge; opening relatively large, not recessed, near external margin of prominence. In the diagnosis of Dorippoides by Holthuis &amp; Manning (1990: 48) the statement that the ‘female gonopore’ is on the third sternite is erroneous (a confusion with sternite of P3).</p><p>Illustrations: Dorippoides facchino: Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: fig. 21h, i; Vehof 2020: fig. 7A-C.</p><p>Female reproductive system</p><p>Studied in Dorippoides facchino by Vehof (2020: 55, figs 7E-G, 17, 20, 22). See Figure 37 and below, The female reproductive system in Brachyura, its evolution and unique disposition in Dorippidae .</p><p>Callosities</p><p>In both sexes of Dorippoides facchino (Fig. 33A), on dorsal part of P3, between the coxa and the widely exposed pleurite 6, a large thick, movable, whitish membrane lined on pleural side by narrow calcified strip: structure considered here as a ‘simple’ callosity. A similar structure observed in females of D. nudipes but seemingly lacking in males (Fig. 33B).</p><p>DISTRIBUTION AND HABITAT</p><p>Dorippoides facchino is known from Sri Lanka and India (? Pillai &amp; Nair 1970, 1976, as Dorippe astuta; Dev Roy 2008; Dev Roy &amp; Nandi 2001, 2008; Venkataraman et al. 2004; Ravichandran &amp; Kannupandi 2007; Vidhya et al. 2017; Trivedi et al. 2018: table 1; Bhat et al. 2021: table 1) eastward to Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam (André 1931: 639), Thailand, southern China, Hong Kong (Chen &amp; Sun 2002; Wong et al. 2021), at depths between 2 and 80 m, most often between 10 and 30 m, usually in sandy mud, but also in soft clay, soft gray mud, and in stones and sand (Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990; Ng &amp; Davie 2002); there are no definite records from either Japan or the Philippines.</p><p>Dorippoides nudipes is known from various parts of the eastern Indian Ocean, including the southern Red Sea, the Persian Gulf (Apel 2001), the Gulf of Oman (Naderloo et al. 2015: table 2), Iran (Stephensen 1946), southern Madagascar, and probably reaches South Africa (Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990; Chen 1988). And also from the western Indian Ocean: India (Devi &amp; Kumar 2017: fig. 1E, F; Trivedi et al. 2018: table 1; Gosavi et al. 2021: table 3) and western Thailand (Davie et al. 2002; Ng &amp; Davie 2002). Recent records of Dorippoides nudipes in the Middle East need to be reviewed. In Naderloo’s 2017 Atlas of crabs of the Persian Gulf, although the keys to Dorippe quadridens and Dorippoides nudipes, their figures of the G1 and distribution maps (Naderloo 2017: 47, fig. 4.2.e and 4.2.f, respectively) are correct, the carapace assumed to be that of Dorippoides nudipes (Naderloo 2017: fig. 7.3) is actually that of Dorippe quadridens . In our opinion, the figures for the two species have been accidentally mixed. The correct representation of the carapace of Dorippoides nudipes is shown under Dorippe quadridens (Naderloo 2017: fig. 7.2). Subsequently, crabs from the northwestern Persian Gulf, Iraq, identified as Dorippe quadridens by the records of Yasser &amp; Naser (2019: fig. 2) and Al-Khafaji et al. (2019: fig. 2a, table 2) are likewise Dorippoides nudipes and not Dorippe quadridens (see under D. quadridens).</p><p>CARRYING BEHAVIOUR</p><p>The association of Dorippoides facchino, the ‘porter crab’ or ‘anemone-carrying crab’, with another organism, in fact with a sea anemone, has long been recognised (Herbst 1796: 215, as Cancer facchino; Stimpson 1855: 37, as Dorippe facchino; Verrill 1869a: 58-60; 1869b: 249-250, pl. 2, fig. 1, as D. facchino [reproduced by Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: fig. 25a]; Henderson 1893: 405, as D. facchino; Alcock 1896: 279, as D. granulata; Lanchester 1900: 769; 1902: 55, as D. facchino; Shelford 1916: 299-300, as D. facchino; Hornell 1922: 934- 935, fig. 5, as D. dorsipes; Verrill 1928: 16, as D. facchino; Hose 1929: 31, as D. facchino; Shen 1931: 101, as D. facchino; Gravely 1941: 81, as D. facchino; Chopra 1935, as D. facchino; Serène &amp; Romimohtarto 1969: 11; Morton &amp; Morton 1983: 187, fig. 10.4, 7, as D. granulata; Tan &amp; Ng 1988: 149, unnumbered fig.; 1992: 149; Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: 60, 63, fig. 25a, b; Manning 1993: 114, fig. 3a, b; Guinot et al. 1995: fig. 4A, pl. 1B; Guinot &amp; Wicksten 2015: 599, fig. 71-11.8B; Fautin et al. 2015: 47, fig. 5). The symbiosis between Dorippoides facchino and the actinid Cancrisocia expansa Stimpson, 1856 is very close and obligatory, with the young crab carrying a very small shell and holding with its P4 and P5 dactyli an ovoid to kidney-shaped platform on which the actinian is sitting and will grow. Most platforms consist of an eccentrically positioned bivalve shell around which the anemone had secreted chitinous material as it grows; in some cases, the shell extends the edge of the platform and gives the crab greater coverage (Fautin et al. 2015).</p><p>The carrying behaviour of D. nudipes, a species closely related to D. facchino, has not been documented (Manning &amp; Holthuis 1986: 364, fig. 1c; Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: 70; Davie et al. 2002: 315; Devi &amp; Kumar 2017: fig. 1E, F).</p><p>REMARKS</p><p>The species known as Medorippe lanata in the Adriatic was actually described by James Plancus (Latinisation of Simon Giovanni Bianchi, 1693-1775), who gave it the Italian vernacular name ‘facchino’, which means ‘porter’, to the inhabitants of his hometown, Rimini, a famous city on the Adriatic coast of northern Italy. According to Holthuis &amp; Manning (1990: 52), Plancus only referred to the fact that the carapace of this crab resembles an ugly human face, as supposedly often found among members of the porter profession, and without mentioning the possibility that the crabs can carry objects with their last two pairs of legs. The point is that, in originally establishing and figuring Cancer facchino for material from the East India, Herbst (1785) erroneously included in the description a reference to the description and figure by Plancus (1739, 1760) of the Mediterranean crab now known as Medorippe lanata, thus incorrectly assuming that Cancer facchino occurred in the Mediterranean. The specific name facchino is thus the result of the misidentification by Herbst (1785) of the pre-Linnean ‘ Cancer hirsutus personatus maris Superi, vulgo Facchino Ariminensibus dictus’ by Plancus (1739; 1760: 36-38, pl. 5, fig. 1) with Dorippoides facchino . Plancus’ specimen thus becomes a syntype of the Herbst’s Cancer facchino . As Herbst’s Cancer facchino was a composite species, Serène &amp; Romimohtarto (1969: 4) selected as the lectotype the specimen represented by Herbst (1785: pl. 11, fig. 68) (reproduced by Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: fig. 23), thereby fixing the identity of Herbst’s species and making facchino its valid name. Through this lectotype selection, the specific name facchino is now definitively linked to the Indo-West Pacific species of Dorippoides rather than to the Mediterranean Medorippe lanata (Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: 51-52, 63-64).</p><p>Dorippe astuta Fabricius, 1798, is actually a junior synonym of Dorippoides facchino (Ng et al. 2008: 59) .</p><p>Dorippoides nudipes was established by Manning &amp; Holthuis (1986: 364, fig. 1c) on a single male specimen, the holotype 17.0 × 19.0 mm, from Massawa, Ethiopia, Red Sea, and on the basis of the more granular carapace and the dactyli of P2 and P3 broadest in the distal fourth rather than at midlength, in contrast to the only other species of the genus, D. facchino . Later, Holthuis &amp; Manning (1990: 66-68) designated as paratypes several specimens from the Red Sea and various samples from the Gulf of Aden, Gulf of Oman, Persian Gulf and Madagascar, deposited in various institutions. This was an unjustified act, and these paratypes are invalid (see above, Subsequent erroneous designation of paratypes by Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990). Although Holthuis &amp; Manning (1990: 49 key, 69, 70, fig. 26) have listed the characters distinguishing D. nudipes from D. facchino, it is useful to restate them here. In D. nudipes, the general granulation is more marked, as for example on the anterolateral margin behind the outer orbital tooth; the fingers of chelae are shorter in young males as well in males with inflated palm; the P2 and P3 are cylindrical, with longer and slender articles with naked margins, and with paddle-like dactyli (in D. facchino merus and propodus stout and wider, with a fringe of setae on posterior border in adult males, dactylus tapering distally.</p><p>When Chen (1988: 678, fig. 1, pl. 1B, C) assigned some specimens from Madagascar to D. nudipes, she found that the main differences between the two were related to the length and setation of P2 and P3. According to Devi &amp; Kumar (2017: 626, fig. 1E, F), their specimen from southern India fits well with the characters previously mentioned for D. nudipes, and some of the older records of D. facchino may well refer to D. nudipes due to their close similarity. The sexual dimorphism of the setation of P2 and P3 meri is marked in D. facchino, with thick fringe of setae on the posterior margins in males instead of margins naked in females (Fig. 16A, B, respectively), but not marked in D. nudipes with naked margins in both sexes (Fig. 16C, D).</p><p>The Dorippoidinae n. subfam. is monotypic, with the genus Dorippoides, only known from two species.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03CDBE749322B50FCEB4FF17FDCAF813	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	Guinot, Danièle (2023): 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. Zoosystema 45 (9): 225-372, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2023v45a9
03CDBE74932FB516CEBCFF17FD0EFD88.text	03CDBE74932FB516CEBCFF17FD0EFD88.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Heikeopsinae Guinot 2023	<div><p>Subfamily HEIKEOPSINAE n. subfam.</p><p>TYPE GENUS. — Heikeopsis Ng, Guinot &amp; Davie, 2008 (replacement name for Heikea Holthuis &amp; Manning, 1990; type species by original designation: Dorippe japonica von Siebold, 1824). Other included species: Nobilum arachnoides Manning &amp; Holthuis, 1986 .</p><p>OTHER INCLUDED GENERA. — Neodorippe Serène &amp; Romimohtarto, 1969 (type species by subsequent designation by ICZN plenary powers: Dorippe callida Fabricius, 1798). Other included species: Neodorippe simplex Ng &amp; Rahayu, 2002 . Nobilum Serène &amp; Romimohtarto, 1969 (type species by original designation: Dorippe histrio Nobili, 1903), monotypic.</p><p>DESCRIPTION</p><p>Carapace (Figs 1; 5C, D; 19A, B, E, F; 20A, B; 21A) Carapace slightly or distinctly longer than wide and appearing elongated ( Neodorippe), or slightly wider than long ( Heikeopsis, Nobilum); convex ( Heikeopsis, Nobilum) or flattened ( Neodorippe). Dorsal surface moderately or deeply sculptured, with delineated human facies ( Heikeopsis); smooth and bare ( Heikeopsis, Neodorippe) or with some tubercles ( Nobilum). Gastric regions more or less marked; branchial lobes variously developed or absent. Only a few grooves: precervical groove distinct (but shallow, just discernible in Neodorippe simplex); cervical and branchiocardiac grooves deep. Antero- and posterolateral margins not demarcated, lacking lateral branchial spine. Front consisting of two broad or sharply pointed triangular teeth separated by shallow, rather wide U-shaped emargination, and extending to or reaching slightly or well beyond outer orbital teeth. Inner orbital teeth practically absent, only as low lobes. Orbital fissure closed ( Heikeopsis, Neodorippe) or open ( Nobilum). Inner suborbital tooth or lobe far shorter than front. Outer orbital tooth extending to anterior margin of inner orbital lobe, falling far short of front. Exposed pleurite 6 rather narrow, separated from P3 coxa by thick, whitish membrane. Carapace posterior rim not at all extending at all laterally sideways along posterolateral margin and lined posteriorly by narrow strip, thinner medially than laterally, thus slightly concave, in males as in females.</p><p>Illustrations: Heikeopsis arachnoides: Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: figs 27a-d, 28a, b, as Heikea arachnoides; Ng &amp; Huang 1997: fig. 3E, as Heikea arachnoides; Chen &amp; Sun 2002: fig. 93.1, pl. 1.4, as Heikea arachnoides; Wong et al. 2021: fig. 11a, pl. 2E. Heikeopsis japonica: De Haan 1839: pl. 31, fig. 1, as Dorippe callida, but with the specific name of japonica in the Index p. 237 (reproduced by Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: fig. 34); Shen 1932: fig. 6 (reproduced by Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: fig. 35; by Sin et al. 2009: fig. 3D); Hothuis &amp; Sakai 1970: 116, 309, pl. 8, fig. 3, as Dorippe japonica; Takeda 1983: 303, fig. p. 121, as Neodorippe japonica; Chen 1986b: fig. 5.23, as Nobilum japonicum; Quintana 1987: fig. 20B, as Nobilum japonicum japonicum; Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: figs 29a, 30a, b, 31a, b, 33a, as Heikea japonica; Ng &amp; Huang 1997: fig. 3F, as Heikea japonica; Chen &amp; Sun 2002: fig. 94.1, as Heikea japonica; Ng et al. 2017: fig 3a, as Heikea japonicum; Wong et al. 2021: fig. 12a, pl. 2F; Neodorippe callida: Chen 1986b: fig. 4.17; Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: figs 39 (reproduced by Sin et al. 2009: fig. 3E), 40, 41a, 42a-c; Chen &amp; Sun 2002: fig. 95.1; Wong et al. 2021: fig. 13a, pl. 3A. Neodorippe simplex: Ng &amp; Rahayu 2002: figs 1, 2, 3A. Nobilum histrio: Chen 1986b: fig. 4.20; Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: fig. 43a (reproduced by Sin et al. 2009: fig. 3F); Chen &amp; Sun 2002: fig. 96.1.</p><p>Cephalic structures (Figs 20F; 21B)</p><p>Eyes short and stout, widening distally; cornea ventrolateral. Antennule entirely folded into fossa, except in Nobilum in which distal part of article protrudes from fossa; in Neodorippe callida, antennule and antenna directed forwards. Antenna: article 2+ 3 quadrate, hardly moveable; article 4 short, bent outwards; article 5 only slightly longer than preceding, bent outwards; both articles 4 and 5 widened and lying nearly horizontally on eyestalk; flagellum long.</p><p>Illustrations: Heikeopsis arachnoides: Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: figs 27b-d, 28b, as Heikea arachnoides . Heikeopsis japonica: Quintana 1987: fig. 20B-b, as Nobilum japonicum japonicum . Neodorippe callida: Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: fig. 42b, c. Neodorippe simplex: Ng &amp; Rahayu 2002: fig. 3B.</p><p>Oxystomatous disposition (Figs 20F; 21B)</p><p>Openings of exhalant channels scarcely ( Heikeopsis spp.) or not at all ( Neodorippe, Nobilum) visible in dorsal view.</p><p>Pereiopods (Figs 1; 19; 20A, B, C, F, G; 21A, B)</p><p>Distinct heterochely in adult males: major chela much inflated, with short fingers; minor chela slender, with very long fingers bearing numerous teeth on cutting edges; dorsal margin of palm and proximal part of dactylus with fringe of hairs; male major chela greatly inflated, smooth, even as polished, with swollen lobe ventrally near base of fixed finger.</p><p>Illustrations: Heikeopsis arachnoides: Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: figs 27e, 28c, 29b, 30c, as Heikea arachnoides; Chen &amp; Sun 2002: fig. 93.2, as Heikea arachnoides; Wong et al. 2021: fig. 11b, pl. 2E. Heikeopsis japonica: Chen 1986b: fig. 5.24, as Nobilum japonicum; Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: fig. 33b, c, as Heikea japonica; Chen &amp; Sun 2002: fig. 94.2, 3, as Heikea japonica; Wong et al. 2021: fig. 12b, pl. 2E. Neodorippe callida: Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: figs 39, 42d; Chen &amp; Sun 2002: fig. 95.2; Wong et al. 2021: fig. 13b. Neodorippe simplex: Ng &amp; Rahayu 2002: fig. 3D, E. Nobilum histrio: Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: fig. 43b; Chen &amp; Sun 2002: fig. 96.2, 3.</p><p>P2 and P3 varying from proportionally short and stout to long and slender, P3 longest; articles flattened, unarmed, with fringes of long setae ( Heikeopsis, Neodorippe) or fringes of short setae ( Nobilum); upper and lower margins of dactyli with fringe of setae, either long ( Heikeopsis, Neodorippe) or short ( Nobilum).</p><p>Illustrations: Heikeopsis arachnoides: Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: figs 27f, 28d, as Heikea arachnoides; Chen &amp; Sun 2002: fig. 93.3, as Heikea arachnoides; Wong et al. 2021: fig. 11c, pl. 2E. Heikeopsis japonica: Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: figs 29c, 30d, e, 31c, 33d, as Heikea japonica; Wong et al. 2021: fig.12c, pl. 2E. Neodorippe callida: Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: fig. 42d; Wong et al. 2021: fig. 13c. Neodorippe simplex: Ng &amp; Rahayu 2002: fig. 3F. Nobilum histrio: Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: fig. 43c, d.</p><p>P4, P5 reduced (Chen &amp; Sun 2002: fig. 96.4).</p><p>Thoracic sternum (Figs 19C, D; 20 C-H; 21B-F)</p><p>Thoracic sternum moderately wide.Sternite 1with small portion may be dorsally visible.Sternite 2 salient, with marked external angles; sternite 3 extended, consisting of deep, smooth depression and salient curved margins. Sutures 4/5-7/8 interrupted. Suture 3/4 ending in closed boutonniere. Sternite 7 exposed as long, oblique plate along each side of pleon; suture 4/5 and 5/6 with short interruption points. Suture 5/6 slightly curved backwards. Suture 6/7 interrupted in males, but each end linked by low bridge; in females, interrupted and each end linked by sulcus, sometimes membranous. Female thoracic sternum progressively tilted backwards at level of weak ridge of sternite 6 ( Heikeopsis, Nobilum) or only weakly tilted ( Neodorippe); in females, sternite 8 (its fused portion) with erect axial spine ( Heikeopsis),long and recurved ( Neodorippe), or with tubercule ( Nobilum).</p><p>Illustrations: Heikeopsis japonica: Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: fig. 29e, f, as Heikea japonica . Neodorippe callida: Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: fig. 41b. Nobilum histrio: Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: fig 43h, i.</p><p>Pleon and telson (Figs 19C, D; 20C, D; 21C, E, F)</p><p>Male pleon with somites 1, 2 and part of 3 dorsal; female pleon with somites 1-3 and part of 4 dorsaly exposed. All somites free ( Heikeopsis) except in Neodorippe simplex with somites 3-5 fused, immovable but sutures still visible (according to Ng &amp; Rahayu 2002: fig. 3C). Somite 1 trapezoidal, widening posteriorly, with longitudinal groove on either side; somite 2 with wide and blunt transverse ridge or protuberance; somite 3 with two large, blunt lateral swellings and one median less elevated ( Heikeopsis), or trilobed ( Neodorippe, Nobilum), lodging bulged protopodite of G1s; somite 4 small, narrowing posteriorly, smooth ( Heikeopsis, Neodoripp e), with tooth-like dorsal elevation in middle ( Nobilum); somites 5, 6 smooth ( Heikeopsis) or with elevations ( Nobilum, Neodorippe); telson triangular, apex rounded, tip of telson not very far from suture 4/5.</p><p>Illustrations: Heikeopsis arachnoides: Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: figs 27g-i, 28e, f, as Heikea arachnoides; Chen &amp; Sun 2002: fig. 93.4, as Heikea arachnoides; Ng et al. 2017. Heikeopsis japonica: Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: figs 29c, 30f, 31e, f, as Heikea japonica . Neodorippe callida: Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: fig. 42f. Neodorippe s implex Ng &amp; Rahayu 2002: fig. 3C. Nobilum histrio: Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: fig. 43e; Chen &amp; Sun 2002: fig. 96.5.</p><p>Female pleon with all somites free, somites increasingly broader posteriorly; somites 2-5 smooth, without sharp teeth or spines, each somite crossed by smooth submedian ridge; telson subtriangular to semicircular, tip of telson exceeding level of suture 5/6. (See below, Additional female pleonal-retention mechanism).</p><p>Illustrations: Heikeopsis japonica: Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: figs 29d, 31d, g, as Heikea japonica . Neodorippe s implex: Ng &amp; Rahayu 2002: 747.</p><p>Pleonal locking mechanism by press-button (Figs 20 E-H; 21D-F)</p><p>Locking buttons on posterior margins of sternite 5. Also effective in females as in all dorippids, locking prominences lying very close to vulvae. Despite thickness of egg mass and long pleopodal setae, locking mechanism remaining efficient: for example, firm closing with highly effective buttons and sockets found in ovigerous females of Neodorippe from Australia.</p><p>Additional female pleonal-retention mechanism (Figs 19B, F; 21E, F)</p><p>In females, strong retention by wide process of sternite 8 overhanging pleonal somite 2 in Heikeopsis and Nobilum, whereas only a small non-functional tubercle in Neodorippe callida (Fig. 20B), and nothing in N. simplex . In addition, small telson engaged between raised slopes of sterno-pleonal cavity at level of sternite 5.</p><p>Male gonopore and penis</p><p>Male gonopore coxal.Coxo-sternal condition, the most elaborate of all dorippids and similar to that of ethusids. Sternites 7 and 8 close to one another for long distance (much longer than in any other dorippid), so penis very long, with elongated bulb prolonging into penis without clear demarcation, then long exposed inclined portion and shorter vertical portion covered by well-developed G1 protopodite; in Heikeopis and Nobilum penial bulb and proximal inclined portion of penis clearly visisible dorsally between sternite 7 and widely exposed sternite 8; similar arrangement but less easy to see in Neodorippe .</p><p>Illustrations: Neodorippe callida: Guinot et al. 2013: 104, fig. 19 (reproduced by Davie et al. 2015a: 41, fig. 72-2.19H).</p><p>Gonopods (Figs 20E; 21D; 31 D-F)</p><p>G1 without basal lobe; inverted C-shaped (in situ), stout proximally, then slender and elongated, strongly bent and largely curved outward; apex tapering in single process ( Neodorippe simplex) or more elaborate and ending in rounded lobe plus two sharp unequal distal processes ( N. callida), or in three short, broad, rounded subequal processes ( Nobilum), or in two elongate, blunt-toped unequal lobes plus two subdistal processes ( Heikeopsis).</p><p>Illustrations: Heikeopsis arachnoides: Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: fig. 28g, h, as Heikea arachnoides; Dai &amp; Yang 1991: fig. 24.1, as Dorippe (Neodorippe) japonica; Ng &amp; Huang 1997: fig. 4A, as Heikea arachnoides; Chen &amp; Sun 2002: fig. 93.5, as Heikea arachnoides . Heikeopsis japonica: Chen 1986b: fig. 5.25-27, as Nobilum japonicum; Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: figs 32, 33e-g (reproduced by Sin et al. 2009: fig. 4D; by Davie et al. 2015a: fig. 71- 2.31E), as Heikea japonica; Ng &amp; Huang 1997: fig. 4B, as Heikea japonica; Chen &amp; Sun 2002: fig. 94.4.5, as Heikea japonica; Vehof 2020: fig. 11A, C, D. Neodorippe callida: Chen 1986b: fig. 4.19; Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: fig. 42g, h (reproduced by Sin et al. 2009: fig. 4E); Dai &amp; Yang 1991: fig. 24.2, as Dorippe (Neodorippe) callida; Chen &amp; Sun 2002: fig. 95.3. Neodorippe s implex Ng &amp; Rahayu 2002: fig. 3G-I. Nobilum histrio: Chen 1986b: fig. 4.21, 22; Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: fig. 43d, g (reproduced by Sin et al. 2009: fig. 4F); Chen &amp; Sun 2002: fig. 96.6.</p><p>G2 folded, bent ( Heikeopsis japonica: Vehof 2020: fig. 11B. Neodorippe simplex: Ng &amp; Rahayu 2002: fig. 3J); also bent in Nobilum .</p><p>Vulvae (Figs 20 F-H; 21E, F; 32D-F)</p><p>In Heikeopsis and Nobilum vulva at internal part of conspicuous sternal prominence close to sternal bulge of sternite 6, showing as long, extremely narrow, curved, vertically oriented slits, overhung by prominence; opening not entirely exposed or slightly obliquely directed on submedian area of sternite 6. In Neodorippe vulva suboval, shorter, not sunken, completely exposed.</p><p>Illustrations: Heikeopsis japonica: Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: fig. 29e, f, as Heikea japonica . Neodorippe callida: Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: fig. 41b, c; Vehof 2020: fig. 5B, C. Nobilum histrio: Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: fig 43h, i; Chen &amp; Sun 2002: fig. 96.6; Vehof 2020: fig. 5D.</p><p>Female reproductive system</p><p>Studied in Heikeopsis japonica, Neodorippe callida and Nobilum histrio by Vehof (2020: 52, fig. 6) the reproductive system is similar in the species of the three genera. Here, on each side of the body there is a single sperm storage organ, as in Medorippinae n. subfam. (Figs 35C; 37) and other Eubrachyura. See Figures 35E; 37 and below, The female reproductive system in Brachyura, its evolution and unique disposition in Dorippidae .</p><p>DISTRIBUTION AND HABITAT</p><p>Heikeopsis japonica, native to Japan and abundant in the Inland Sea and also in Ariake Bay (Yokoya 1933, as D. japonica; Sakai 1937: 72, pl. 10, fig. 1, as D. japonica, material from 130 m; Sakai 1976, as D. japonica; Horikoshi et al. 1982, as D. japonica), is thought to inhabit the western Pacific: Korea (it is common on the Yellow Sea side) (Kim 1973; Koh &amp; Lee 2013; Lee et al. 2021), north to south China (Shen 1937a, 1937b, as D. japonica; Dai &amp; Song 1986, as D. japonica; Dai et al. 1986, as D. japonica; Dai &amp; Yang 1991, as D. japonica; Chen &amp; Sun 2002: 222; Wong et al. 2021: 11, fig. 12, pl. 2F), Taiwan (Ng et al. 2001, as Heikea japonicum; Ng et al. 2017, as Heikeopsis japonicum), and Nhatrang, Vietnam (Serène &amp; Romimohtarto 1969, as Dorippe japonica). Other records of Heikeopsis japonica are: Doflein 1904: 292, as D. japonica; Chou et al. 1999, as D. japonica). But it is likely that two species are confused under the specific name of japonica: the typical Heikeopsis japonica, with rather long and slender P2 and P3, and another form with shorter and stouter P2 and P3, see below, Status of non-Japanese Heikeopsis japonica, H. taiwanensis (Serène &amp; Romimohtarto, 1969), and H. arachnoides (Manning &amp; Holthuis, 1986): a major problem.</p><p>The status of two other Heikeopsis with long and slim legs is also a problem: 1) Neodorippe (Neodorippe) japonica var. taiwanensis established by Serène &amp; Romimohtarto (1969) and whose holotype is preserved in ZRC (Yang 1979: 3, as Neodorippe (Neodorippe) japonica var. taiwanensis), but judjed as falling within the range of variation of H. japonica by Holthuis &amp; Manning (1990: 87); 2) Heikeopsis arachnoides, assumed to inhabit only the Inland Sea of Japan according to Holthuis &amp; Manning (1990: 74, as Heikea arachnoides; see Miers 1886: L, 327, 328, as Dorippe japonica), but reported from China by Chen &amp; Sun (2002: 220, fig. 94) and from Hong Kong by Wong et al. (2021: 11, fig. 12, pl. 2E), and also recorded from northeastern Taiwan (Ng &amp; Huang 1997, as Heikea arachnoides; Ng et al. 2001, as H. arachnoides; Ng et al. 2017). According to Ng &amp; Huang (1997: 267), “Whether any of the old records also represent H. arachnoides cannot be ascertained”. Holthuis &amp; Manning (1990: 72 and 75, respectively, as Heikea arachnoides and H. japonica) recognised two species: Heikeopsis arachnoides and H. japonica . See below, Status of non-Japanese Heikeopsis japonica, H. taiwanensis (Serène &amp; Romimohtarto, 1969), and H. arachnoides (Manning &amp; Holthuis, 1986): a major problem.</p><p>Neodorippe callida shows a wide distribution, ranging from Red Sea (Herklots 1861, as Dorippe astuta) to Southeast Asia and China and having been also reported from Pakistan, India and Bangladesh (Alcock 1896, as Dorippe astuta; Venkataraman et al. 2004, as Dorippe astuta; Dev Roy 2008; Roy &amp; Nandi 2008; Trivedi et al. 2018: table 1; Akash et al. 2020), the Philippines, Vietnam (Dai &amp; Song 1986, as Dorippe astuta), Singapore (Ng &amp; Tan 1986; Tan &amp; Ng 1988, as Neodorippe (Neodorippe) astuta); Vietnam (Do Van Nhuong et al. 2021, as Neodorippe callida); Malaysia (Zakirah et al. 2022), western Indonesia, Thailand (Ng &amp; Davie 2002) and South China (Chen 1986b; Chen &amp; Sun 2002; Wong et al. 2021). For more references, see Holthuis &amp; Manning (1990: 95-103). The species has been recorded in tide pools and shallow waters at depths from 3.6 to 46 m and is found on mud or sandy mud bottoms, being very common in mangrove swamps (Serène &amp; Romimohtarto 1969, as Neodorippe (Neodorippe) callida; Ng 1987, as Neodorippe (Neodorippe) callida).</p><p>Neodorippe simplex is known from the shallow waters of the continental shelf of Irian Jaya and northern Australia (Ng &amp; Rahayu 2002). The identity of the N. callida from the western continental margin of Australia (McEnnulty et al. 2011) would be interesting to check.</p><p>Nobilum histrio is only known from Malaysian and Singapore waters (Nobili 1903, as Dorippe histrio; Serène &amp; Romimohtarto 1969, as Neodorippe (Nobilum) histrio; Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: 106), Vietnam (Dawydoff 1952, as ‘ Doryppe histrix ’), and China (Chen 1986b; Chen &amp; Sun 2002). Its habitat and biology are not documented.</p><p>CARRYING BEHAVIOUR</p><p>All species of Heikeopsinae n. subfam. have reduced and subcheliform P4 and P5 but the carrying behaviour is only well documented in Heikeopsis and Neodorippe; almost nothing is known of the habitat or biology of H. arachnoides (if valid) and Nobilum histrio .</p><p>Heikeopsis japonica uses dead shell or other material such a sand dollar and is sometimes associated with a sea anemone or wooden-piece (Sakai 1937: 73; 1976: 61, as Dorippe japonica; Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: 86, as Heikea japonica) and with sea pens (Itani &amp; Fujihara 2001). Laboratory experiments showed that both megalopa and first crab stages of H. japonica virtually do not swim and carry fragments of shells or rocks dorsally by using P4 and P5 (Quintana 1987: 253, figs 8, 10E, F, 12F, G, 24C, as Nobilum japonicum japonicum).</p><p>Species of Neodorippe, which are primarily inhabitants of mangrove area, differ from all other dorippids in having a leaf carrying habit. The association of N. callida, the ‘leaf-porter crab’, with mangrove leaves is very close and not just temporary (Rathbun 1910; Guinot et al. 1995; Guinot &amp; Wicksten 2015: fig. 71-11.8C). Observations of Neodorippe callida in Singapore (Ng &amp; Tan 1986: 45-46, fig. 1, table 1, as Neodorippe (Neodorippe) callida; Ng 1987: 14-15; Tan &amp; Ng 1992: 102 as Neodorippe (Neodorippe) callida; Lim et al. 1994: 108, 127) point to a unique pattern of behaviour. “Even during the day when the individual is buried in the mud, it holds a leaf; at night, it is a slow but competent swimmer, reversing its orientation with the ventral sternal plate facing the water surface and the leaf downward” (Ng 1987: 14-15). The P4 and P5 grasp the four different corners of the leaf, the point of articulation between the carpus and propodus being equipped with opposable tufts of hairs providing an excellent hold to grip the leaf with the hooked dactylus (P. K. L. Ng, pers. comm.; see his sketch in Guinot &amp; Wicksten 2015: fig. 71-11.9H, I). In the aquarium, individuals of Neodorippe simplex “carry leaves on their backs and swim upside down, with the leaf, when disturbed” (Ng &amp; Rahayu 2002: 757, fig. 1). For further references, see Holthuis &amp; Manning (1990: 101-103). The use of seaweeds as camouflage in brachyuran crabs with the legs is not very common, being observed occasionally only in some podotremes (dromiids, cyclodorippids, latreilliids) and eubrachyurans (palicids with their P5). In a completely different way, it is widespread in majoids, which use specialised setae on the body and legs (Guinot &amp; Wicksten 2015; McLay 2020).</p><p>REMARKS</p><p>Dorippe japonica, collected in Japan by local fishermen for Ph. F. von Siebold in 1823 and described byvon Siebold (1824: 15, as Doripe [sic] japonica; 1826: 18; 1850: xiii), was studied and represented by De Haan in Fauna Japonica (1839: pl. 31, fig. 1, as Dorippe callida; 1841: 122 and in Index p. 227, as Dorippe . japonica) (Fig. 1A). In the collections of pictures of crabs and shrimps (Kai-ka Rui Siya-sin), prepared by the well-known naturalist Kurimoto Suiken (1756-1834) and donated to Von Siebold in 1826, figures 41 and 42 of plate 6 of volume 1 show a long-legged crab (dorsal and ventral views) with two vernacular names: ‘Kimen-gani’, i.e., ogre-faced crab, and ‘Heike-gani’ in reference to the famous Japanese legend that crabs of this species are the spirits of deceased members of the Heike family with human traits engraved on their carapaces (Figs 2; 39; Appendix 1). They are accompanied by two mentions: Von Siebold’s name in ink: Dorippe japonica n. sp., and De Haan’s name in pencil: Dorippe japonica F. J., by reference to Fauna Japonica (Yamaguchi &amp; Holthuis 2001: 30, 31). Von Siebold (1824: 14; 1850: xiii, footnote) and De Haan (1841: 122), who quotes the figures of Suiken, gave Dorippe japonica the vernacular names ‘Heike-gani’, ‘Heike-Kani’ and ‘Feike-Gani’. In fact, ‘Heike-gani’ is the only vernacular name that corresponds with certainty to the Japanese crab of von Siebold and De Haan. Much later, the genus was given the name Heikea by Holthuis &amp; Manning (1990), replaced by Heikeopsis by Ng et al. (2008: 59, 60).</p><p>A total of 31 specimens had been collected and deposited at the RMNH (RMNH.CRUS.D.822) (see Fransen et al. 1997: 83, as Heikea japonica). A lectotype (see Fig. 1B) and several paralectotypes were designated from the type series by Yamaguchi &amp; Baba (1993: 300, figs 90a.a-1, a-2, b, d-f, 90- B, as Heikea japonica). The type locality mentioned by Von Siebold (1824) is Shimonoseki, the one in the Fauna Japonica is Nagasaki, but according to Yamaguchi &amp; Baba (1993: 300, as Heikea japonica) such a locality record is absent from the labels of all the type series material. Holthuis &amp; Manning (1990: 77) considered the provenance to be more likely from “near Nagasaki ”. A dry specimen deposited at the MNHN, MNHN-IU-2000-34 (= MNHN-B34), considered non-type according to Yamaguchi &amp; Baba (1993: fig. 90B.g, as Heikea japonica), could be part of the type series. Another Japanese sample from the historical collection, with a male and a female in dry condition MNHN-IU-2000-4091 (= MNHN-B4091), probably belongs to the type series (Fig. 1C).</p><p>Nobilum and Heikeopsis are closely related genera but differ primarily in the G1, with three petaloid lobes in Nobilum, with two subdistal processes and two elongated, unequal distal lobes in Heikea, and by a spine on the orbital margin in Nobilum, absent in Heikea . Note that the G1 of Neodorippe callida ends in two processes, one sharp, one rounded, and that of Neodorippe simplex is simple, with a single tapering process.</p><p>In Neodoripp e the elongation and shape of the penis as well as other features, such as the small size and the smooth, flattened and elongated carapace (Figs 5D; 20A, B), are somewhat suggestive of an ethusid, but it is a true dorippid.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03CDBE74932FB516CEBCFF17FD0EFD88	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	Guinot, Danièle (2023): 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. Zoosystema 45 (9): 225-372, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2023v45a9
03CDBE749336B517CD91FD56FC90FBD6.text	03CDBE749336B517CD91FD56FC90FBD6.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Heikeopsis japonica , H. taiwanensis (Serene & Romimohtarto 1969	<div><p>STATUS OF NON- JAPANESE HEIKEOPSIS JAPONICA, H. TAIWANENSIS (SERÈNE &amp; ROMIMOHTARTO, 1969), AND H. ARACHNOIDES (MANNING &amp; HOLTHUIS, 1986):</p><p>A MAJOR PROBLEM</p><p>While the present revision was in progress, we noted that the syntype specimen of Dorippe japonica described by De Haan (1839: pl. 31, fig. 1; 1841: 122; reproduced by Holthuis &amp; Sakai 1970: pl. 8 fig. 3, and by Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: fig. 34, as Heikea japonica), and the crabs of the type series figured by Yamaguchi &amp; Baba (1993: 304, fig. 90A, B, as Heikea japonica), have all invariably very long and thin P2 and P3. A long-legged crab is also shown in the picture of Dorippe japonica represented by Suiken (pl. 6, figs 41, 42), see above. De Haan’s illustration (Fig. 1A) indeed shows very long and slender legs in accordance with the text (Pedes secundi 3” 4”’, tertii 3” 8”’ vix quater thorace longiores, i.e., “legs barely four times as long as carapace”). Likewise, the three dry specimens from Japan in the MNHN historical collection (Fig. 1C) have very slim and long P2 and P3. Typical japonica was depicted by Miyake (1983: 17, pl. 6, fig. 1, as Nobilum japonicum japonicum) and by Takeda (1983: fig. p. 121, as Neodorippe japonica). The crabs figured as japonica by Takeda (1982b: 93, coloured fig., as Neodorippe japonica) are typical Heikeopsis japonica . There is no figure in Yamaguchi et al. (1976: 34, as Neodorippe (Neodorippe) japonica), whereas the crab from the Amakusa Islands in Yamaguchi et al. (1987: 8, pl. 1, fig. 10, as Nobilum japonicum) is a typical Heikea japonica . Note that figures in various papers of Sakai show either a crab with long, slender P2, P3 (e.g. Sakai 1937: 72, pl. 10, fig. 1, as Dorippe japonica, from Omoniti), or others that are not significant (Sakai 1976: 61, pl. 22, fig. 1, as Neodorippe (Neodorippe) japonica), but this can be attributed to a bias. Sakai (1956: 6, 24, fig. 7, as Dorippe japonica) reproduces De Haan’s figure of Dorippe japonica .</p><p>In his key paper ‘Heike-gani, its Prosperity and Fossils’, Sakai (1985: 330, as Neodorippe japonica) reproduces in his fig. 1 a typical Heikea japonica with long, slender P2 and P3; his fig. 2 shows the carapace of ‘Heikegani’ in Japan: from top left to right, Dorippe frascone, Paradorippe granulata, Heikeopsis japonica, and below Ethusa izuensis, E. minuta, E. quadrata, and Tymolus japonicus . His fig. 3 reproduces at the top a sketch taken from Shen (1932: fig. 6, as Dorippe japonica; the indicated date 1835 is erroneous) and showing a crab with short, stout P2 and P3, from northern China: Sakai was thus quite conscious that this was a species distinct from the typical japonica; the middle photo is listed as representing Dorippe polita from Shen (1932: fig. 4) (T. Naruse, pers. comm.).</p><p>Holthuis &amp; Manning (1990: 80) note in their specific description of Heikeopsis japonica “Second and third legs slender, long, both reaching beyond front [of carapace] with distal end of merus” but, at the same time, they do not distinguish between the Japanese syntype specimen of De Haan (1839: pl. 31, fig. 1) and a North Chinese specimen with short, robust P2 and P3 by Shen (1932: fig. 6), whose figure they reproduce (Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: fig. 35). In fact, the Heikea japonica of Holthuis &amp; Manning (1990) indiscriminately includes crabs from Japan, China, Korea, Vietnam, Paracels Islands and Taiwan, whether long- or short- legged.</p><p>Yet, earlier, Serène &amp; Romimohtarto (1969: 13, as Neodorippe (Neodorippe) japonica) had recognised Chen’s Chinese crab as a doubtful japonica, arguing that its P3 was less than 3 times the carapace length, unlike their specimens from Nagasaki and Vietnam that have the merus of P3 much longer than the carapace length, and just like the Japanese specimens with ‘slender legs’ “more than 3.4 times the length of the carapace” of Sakai (1937: 72, pl. 10, fig. 1, as Dorippe japonica). Consequently, Serène &amp; Romimohtarto (1969: 14, figs 21, 22, pI. 5A, B, D) established a variety of japonic a as Neodorippe (Neodorippe) japonica var. taiwanensis, based on two specimens from Keelung, Taiwan, with the P3 having a total length (coxa and basis-ischium excluded) 3.2 times the carapace length, thus much longer and slimmer than the japonica from China and almost similar to the typical japonica from Japan. However, Holthuis &amp; Manning (1990: 87) concluded that the features used to distinguish H. japonica taiwanensis from H. japonica fell within the range of variation of this character in H. japonica, including Chinese representatives, and that the two species were synonymous. Furthermore, it is rather incomprehensible that Manning &amp; Holthuis (1986: 364, fig. 1d, as Nobilum arachnoides) at the same time described a new species, now Heikeopsis arachnoides, collected by the Challenger in 1875 from the same provenance (Japan, Inland Sea) as H. japonica, and characterised by very long legs. Holthuis &amp; Manning (1990: 72, figs 27, 28, as Heikea arachnoides) continued in the same vein, separating the two species only by the size of P2 and P3 without mentioning any other substantial distinguishing features. H. arachnoides is clearly synonymous with H. japonica .</p><p>Subsequent carcinologists followed suit, but with some variations. Ng &amp; Huang (1997: 267, figs 3E, 4A) identify a male from northeastern Taiwan as H. arachnoides, but regard three males and two females collected at the same site as H. japonica on the basis of a lower length of P3. In their Fauna Sinica, Chen &amp; Sun (2002) distinguish two species: Heikea japonica (Chen &amp; Sun 2002: 222, fig. 94), with taiwanensis as synonym; and Heikea arachnoides (Chen &amp; Sun 2002: 220, fig. 93, pl. 1.4). In the Catalogue of crabs from Taiwan, Ng et al. (2017: 36), as previously in 2001 (p. 8), list two species: H. arachnoides and H. japonicum [sic], the latter being considered a senior synonym of Neodorippe (Neodorippe) japonica var. taiwanensis, all with long, slender legs and none with short, stout legs. In Hong Kong seas two species are recognised: one, along the Tolo Channel, identified with Heikeopsis arachnoides by its ambulatory legs with long meri, notably P3 meri 6.6 to 7.3 times longer than high; and a second, in western waters, as H. japonica, with shorter P3 meri, less than 6.3 times longer than high (Wong et al. 2021: 10, fig. 11, pl. 2E and fig. 12, pl. 2F, respectively). The Heikeopsis japonica from Korea in Koh &amp; Lee (2013: 19, pls 10-12) has P2 and P3 that are more or less long and slender.</p><p>The discrepancies in the use of ambulatory leg length by Holthuis &amp; Manning (1990) is an issue that will require detailed study, also taking into account changes during the growth and possible sexual dimorphism. The use of the ambulatory leg length has been followed by other reserchers since then, but there are clearly problems. We have examined a large number of range specimens as well as the types, and it is clear that all specimens from Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Vietnam have long to very long P2 and P3. However, those from northern mainland China (Shen 1932: 11, figs. 6, 7a-e, as Dorippe japonica; Chen 1986b: 123, fig. 5. 23-27, as Nobilum japonicum) (see? Heikeopsis aff. japonica in our Material examined) have consistently shorter legs, but comparisons of their carapaces, pereopods and gonopods have so far not uncovered any significant differences; and initial genetic studies also do not show any patterns. The issue will have to be addressed separately (Guinot D., Ng P. K. L. &amp; Naruse T., in progress).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03CDBE749336B517CD91FD56FC90FBD6	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	Guinot, Danièle (2023): 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. Zoosystema 45 (9): 225-372, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2023v45a9
03CDBE749337B512CDE8FBB4FC36FAD5.text	03CDBE749337B512CDE8FBB4FC36FAD5.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Medorippinae Guinot 2023	<div><p>Subfamily MEDORIPPINAE n. subfam.</p><p>TYPE GENUS. — Medorippe Manning &amp; Holthuis, 1981 (type species by original designation: Cancer lanatus Linnaeus, 1767). Other included species:? Medorippe crosnieri Chen, 1988 (see Remarks about the validity of Medorippe crosnieri Chen, 1988 and Fig. 23A, B, D).</p><p>DESCRIPTION</p><p>Carapace (Figs 22A, B; 23A, B)</p><p>Carapace wider than long, hexagonal. Dorsal surface without large tubercles or spines, and only with numerous small tubercles and relatively low ridges. Meso-, meta-, urogastric regions clearly defined. Cardiac region usually with distinct V-or Y-shaped ridge. Precervical groove indistinct; cervical groove more marked but shallow; branchiocardiac groove moderately deep. Gastric pits as two quite distant small slits on depression separating meso-meta gastric regions from urogastric regions. Antero- and posterolateral margins demarcated by distinct but short epibranchial tooth. Front narrow, bidentate, consisting of two very close triangular teeth, separated by narrow emargination. Inner orbital teeth very low, at a much lower level. Superior margin of orbit with fissure. Lower infraorbital margin smooth. Inner suborbital tooth slender, reaching to level of outer orbital tooth. Supraorbital lobe present. Exposure of pleurites 5-7, with smooth texture; margin of carapace lying in small gutter at this level. Carapace posterior rim extending laterally sideways along posterolateral margin, passing behind exposed pleurite 6, and tapering further to reach arthrodial cavity of P2; lined posteriorly by thin strip that is slightly thicker on each lateral side, more concave and elongated in females.</p><p>Illustrations: Medorippe lanata: Monod 1933b: 39, fig. 5A, as Dorippe lanata (reproduced by Monod 1956: fig. 103, erroneously as D. armata; by Manning &amp; Holthuis 1981: fig. 4a; by Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: fig. 36; by Sin et al. 2009: fig. 3c); Zariquiey Alvarez 1968: fig. 106d, as D. lanata; Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: fig. 37a; Henriksen 2009: fig. 11; Guinot et al. 2013: 219, figs 46A, B, 47A, B; Emmerson 2016: 332.? M. crosnieri Chen, 1988: fig. 2a (reproduced by Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: fig. 38a), pl. 1D.</p><p>Cephalic structures (Figs 22 A-C; 23A, B)</p><p>Eyestalks elongated but stout and not reaching beyond outer orbital teeth. Antennule not completely folded into fossa. Antenna entirely directed anteriorly: articles 2+3 rather wide, moveable, with external portion elevated; following articles setose; article 4 short, bent inwards; article 5 slightly elongate.</p><p>Illustrations: Medorippe lanata: Bouvier 1940: 199, fig. 140, as Dorippe lanata; Zariquiey Alvarez 1968: fig. 2f, as D. lanata; Guinot et al. 2013: figs 42C, 46A, 47A, B.</p><p>Oxystomatous disposition (Figs 4; 22C)</p><p>Exposed portion of mxp1 endopod protruding beyond extent of mxp3 being very long. Opening of exhalant channels clearly visible in dorsal view between rostral teeth.</p><p>Illustrations: Medorippe lanata: Bouvier 1940: 199, fig. 140, as Dorippe lanata; Guinot et al. 2013: fig. 42C (reproduced by Davie et al. 2015a: 41, fig. 72-2.14A).</p><p>Pereiopods (Figs 22A, B; 23A, B)</p><p>Left and right chelipeds equal, similar in both sexes and in young adult males; heterochely in large males (from 18 to 29 mm carapace width), with male major chela swollen and setiferous, remaining setiferous even when it becomes larger</p><p>Illustrations: Medorippe lanata: A. Milne-Edwards &amp; Bouvier 1900: 33, as Dorippe lanata; Mori 1986: 81, figs 3, 4; Rossetti et al. 2006: fig. 7.</p><p>P2, P3 meri with dorsal margin carrying row of spines ( M. lanata, see Figs22A, B; 23C) or unarmed if? M. crosnieri (see Fig. 23A, B, D) is confirmed as valid. Dactyli narrow and slightly twisted, mostly not fringed with setae. Both P4, P5 reduced and setose; P5 being much thinner and shorter than P4.</p><p>Illustrations: Medorippe lanata: Monod 1933b: figs 3C- E, as Dorippe lanata; Monod 1956: fig. 103, erroneously as D. armata; Manning &amp; Holthuis 1981: fig. 4a-f; Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: fig. 36.</p><p>Thoracic sternum (Figs 4; 22 C-F)</p><p>Thoracic sternum rather wide. Sternites 1 and 2 forming fairly pentagonal, broad shield, separated from sternite 3 by slight lateral notch, extending medially into depressed sulcus; sternite 1 visible dorsally as blunt tip but extending ventrally by large, concealed piece; sternite 3 broad, connected to pterygostome by wide extension; sternite 8 of female without median spine. Sutures 3/4 short but deep, ending in marked boutonniere; sutures 4/5-7/8 interrupted; suture 4/5 straight; suture 5/6 deep, abruptely curved backwards, with conspicuous curve lodging press-button; suture 6/7 oblique; suture 7/8 shorter. Female thoracic sternum extremely tilted backwards at level of ridge crossing whole sternite 6.</p><p>Illustrations: Medorippe lanata: Guinot 1979a: fig. 28A, as Dorippe lanata (reproduced by Davie et al. 2015a: fig. 71- 2.18A); Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: figs 37c; Guinot &amp; Bouchard 1998: figs 15C, D, 16A, B; Guinot et al. 2013: figs 46, 47A, B.</p><p>Pleon and telson</p><p>Male pleon (Fig. 22D, F) with all somites free and dorsal first somites; articular membranes being situated between all somites and on complete breadth of each somite; somite 1 trapezoidal, widening posteriorly, posterior margin concave; somite 2 longer and wider than somite 1; somite 3 widest of all and without teeth in both sexes; pleon regularly narrowing from somite 4 to telson; tip of telson exceeding level of suture 5/6.</p><p>Illustrations: Medorippe lanata: Guinot 1979a: fig. 28A, B, as Dorippe lanata; Guinot &amp; Bouchard 1998: figs 15D, 16B; Guinot et al. 2013: fig. 51G.</p><p>Female pleon (Fig. 22B) with dorsal first somites, very wide, unarmed, with conspicuous transverse ridges on somites 2-5; telson about as long as wide, suboval, with rounded apex.</p><p>Illustrations: Medorippe lanata (Guinot &amp; Bouchard 1998: fig. 16A).</p><p>Pleonal-locking mechanism by press-button (Figs 4; 22 C-E) Press-button located in abruptely curved sternal suture 5/6, effective in both sexes.</p><p>Illustrations: Medorippe lanata: Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: fig. 37c; Guinot &amp; Bouchard 1998: figs 15C, 16A, B.</p><p>Male gonopore and penis</p><p>Male gonopore coxal, oriented vertically and unprotected by thoracic sternum, i.e., nearly coxal condition. Penis lying on steep slope formed by sternite 7; sternites 7 and 8 laterally expanded at level of bulb, just leaving gap for penis passage, thus sternites 7 and 8 not joined proximally; bulb and small portion of penial tube (hidden by setae) being the only exposed portions; remaining portion being concealed by pleon.</p><p>Illustrations: Medorippe lanata: Guinot 1979a: figs 28, 46F; 1979b: fig. 2A, B1, B2, as Dorippe lanata; Guinot et al. 2013: fig. 15A.</p><p>Gonopods (Figs 4A; 22D, E; 31C)</p><p>G1 short, stout, abruptly turned outward, setiferous, with long, very acute, sharp apex, angled at nearly 90°; basal lobe with pappose setae and small denticles.</p><p>Illustrations: Medorippe lanata: Brocchi 1875: 102, fig. 194, as Dorippe lanata; Monod 1933b: fig. 3F, as D. lanata (reproduced by Manning &amp; Holthuis 1981: fig. 4j; by Sin et al. 2009: fig. 4C; by Davie et al. 2015a: fig. 71-2.31B); Zariquiey Alvarez 1968: fig. 14b, as D. lanata; Guinot et al. 2013: fig. 15B, D; Vehof 2020: fig. 9.</p><p>G2 rather long, straight, with indistinct partition (Guinot et al. 2013: fig. 15B, C; Vehof 2020: fig. 9A).</p><p>Illustrations: Medorippe lanata: Brocchi 1875: 102, fig. 195, as Dorippe lanata; Guinot et al. 2013: fig. 15C.</p><p>Vulvae (Figs 4A; 32C)</p><p>Vulva placed anteriorly and medially on sternite 6, recessed at internal margin of very salient sternal prominence in prolongation of sternal ridge; opening small, of oval shape, partially roofed by anterolateral sternal projection; histologically, opening enclosed by protruding parts of vagina. Operculum stiff. Numerous and very small eggs.</p><p>Illustrations: Medorippe lanata: Hartnoll 1968: 293, as Dorippe lanata; Mori 1986: 78; Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: 89, fig. 37c, d; Guinot et al. 2013: fig. 42C; Vehof et al. 2017: figs 1B-E, 2B.</p><p>Female reproductive system</p><p>Studied in Medorippe lanata by Vehof et al. (2017) and Vehof (2020) (Figs 35C; 37). See below, The female reproductive system in Brachyura, its evolution and unique disposition in Dorippidae .</p><p>DISTRIBUTION AND HABITAT</p><p>Medorippe lanata inhabits the Eastern Atlantic, from Portugal to Angola (Crosnier 1970; Muñoz et al. 2012) and South Africa, and the Mediterranean Sea (Modena et al. 2001; Abelló et al. 2002; Biagi et al. 2002; Pipitone &amp; Arculeo 2003; Zenetos et al. 2005; Fanelli et al. 2007; El Lakhrach et al. 2012), including the Israel Coast (Galil &amp; Shlagman 2010) and the Adriatic Sea (d’Udekem d’Acoz 1994; Artüz 2007; Çelik et al. 2007; Kocataş &amp; Katağan 2007, Ungaro et al. 2005). It is a neritic species that may be found in rather deep waters to about 100 m, even 112 m in Mauritania (De Matos-Pita et al. 2017), the depth of 952-1038 m off Morocco given by Türkay (1976: 36) being far in excess (Manning &amp; Holthuis 1981: 34); preferently on soft sandy bottoms (Balss 1921: 49; Monod 1956: 92; Manning &amp; Holthuis 1981: 34; Forest &amp; Guinot 1966: 50; d’Udekem d’Acoz 1999: 203; Mori 1986: 78; Rossetti et al. 2006: 21); a wide bathymetrical distribution over muddy bottoms, but with peak abundance on the shelf off the Catalan coast (North-West Mediterranean) (Abelló et al. 1988: 47, tables 2, 3, 5). In the western Mediterranean, M. lanata is one of the most abundant and frequent brachyurans on the West coast of Central Italy, with a depth range of 15-306 m (Fanelli et al. 2007).</p><p>Medorippe lanata cohabits with Phyllodorippe armata along the West-African coast, in Dahomey (Crosnier coll. et det., MNHN-IU-2009-2004 (= MNHN-B16380), Ghana (in the same station 24, see Forest &amp; Guinot 1966: 36, 50), Gulf of Guinea (Henriksen 2009), Sierra Leone, and Ivory Coast (Forest &amp; Guinot 1966: 36, 50; Manning &amp; Holthuis 1981: 36).</p><p>CARRYING BEHAVIOUR</p><p>Medorippe lanata carries living organisms, but studies on its biology do not mention the carried objects. Marine experiments in Mediterranean aquaria showed that M. lanata preferred large tunicates (Pesta 1918; Mori 1986; Bedini et al. 2003: figs 2, 7; Rossetti et al. 2006).</p><p>REMARKS</p><p>Dorippe facchino, originally described by Herbst (1785) while including a reference to the Mediterranean Dorippe lanata of Plancus (1739), is now definitely related to the Indo-West Pacific Dorippoides facchino rather than the Mediterranean Medorippe lanata (see Remarks under Dorippoides facchino).</p><p>As Phyllodorippe armata cohabits with Medorippe lanata in some places, their main distinguishing characteristics, which are also those that separate the two subfamilies Phyllodorippinae n. subfam. and Medorippinae n. subfam., are listed below: in Phyllodorippe, carapace dorsal surface without V-shaped ridge (present on cardiac region in Medorippe); distinct, sometimes strong epibranchial tooth (variably marked in Medorippe but never as long); no supra-orbital lobe (present in Medorippe); short exposed portion of mxp1 endopod exceeding extent of mxp3 (long in Medorippe), thus opening of exhalant channels barely visible in dorsal view (clearly visible in Medorippe); antennule partially folded, distal part of antennular article out the fossa (unable to be retracted into fossa and directed anteriorly as antenna in Medorippe); male pleon with low, blunt elevations (more pronounced in Medorippe); articular membranes between pleonal somites very poorly developed or even absent (present between all pleonal somites in Medorippe, see Guinot et al. 2013: fig. 51G); telson short (longer in Medorippe); dorsal exposure of a large part of sternite 8 (of a smaller part in Medorippe); G1 long, very slender, S-shaped, with two short, lobiform distal appendages, and ending in narrow corneous point (short, stout, subdistally abruptly turned outward, setiferous, with long, acute, sharp apex in Medorippe); vulva submedian and elongate (recessed on external border of salient bulge in Medorippe); females with erect median spine on sternite 8 (without sternal spine in Medorippe); suture 6/7 practically continuous medially (interrupted in Medorippe); marked sexual dimorphism, strong heterochely, with palm of right cheliped strongly swollen and glabrous in males, even in young adults 20 mm width (right chela becoming larger only in large-sized males, about over 30 mm width, but palm never as swollen as in M. lanata; palm surface setiferous in M. lanata, even when the right chela becomes larger).</p><p>The question of the validity of Medorippe crosnieri described from Madagascar and synonymised with Medorippe lanata by Holthuis &amp; Manning (1990: 89, 93, fig. 38) is not resolved (see below).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03CDBE749337B512CDE8FBB4FC36FAD5	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	Guinot, Danièle (2023): 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. Zoosystema 45 (9): 225-372, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2023v45a9
03CDBE749332B51CCE38FA94FEC4FE89.text	03CDBE749332B51CCE38FA94FEC4FE89.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Medorippe crosnieri Chen 1988	<div><p>REMARKS ABOUT THE VALIDITY OF MEDORIPPE CROSNIERI CHEN, 1988</p><p>A few years ago around 2010-2012, we had a project with J. C. Y. Lai (ZRC) to revise the status of Medorippe crosnieri Chen, 1988 by re-examining the Malagasy Chen’s type material: holotype: MNHN-IU-2009-1995 (= MNHN-B18269); paratypes: MNHN-IU-2009-1996 (= MNHN-B18269) and MNHN-IU-2009-1997 (= MNHN-B18365). The main issue was to compare it with specimens in the MNHN and ZRC collections assigned to M. lanata but collected outside of its typical occurrence (the Mediterranean Sea and the West African coast), for example in the Mozambique Channel and in South Africa, by also including records in the literature. To test the hypothesis based on morphological characters that M. crosnieri could be a valid species, molecular analyses of COI gene of dorippids from West Africa and the Indian Ocean were undertaken. Unfortunately, this study could not be carried out due to inconclusive gene sequence results, awaiting further molecular analyses. The data summarised below are from an advanced draft in collaboration with J. C. Y Lai but is currently on hold.</p><p>A second species of Medorippe, M. crosnieri, from the north-west coast of Madagascar, was established by Chen (1988: 681, fig. 2, pl. 1D, E, table 2; paper often erroneously reported from 1987), based mainly on the smooth dorsal margins of P2 and P3 meri, as opposed to the spinulated margins in M. lanata . But M. crosnieri was immediately synonymised with M. lanata by Holthuis &amp; Manning (1990: 89, 93), who argued that Chen’s description was “based upon juveniles” and who reproduced (1990: fig. 38) all Chen’s (1988) figures as M. lanata . Examination of the Chen’s material, deposited in the MNHN, shows that the male holotype MNHN-IU-2009-1995 of M. crosnieri is a pre-adult with full-grown but slender gonopods and still symmetrical chelipeds; the two young paratype males MNHN-IU-2009-1997 (instead of females as mentioned by Chen [1988]) both have undifferentiated gonopods; another paratype MNHN-IU-2009-1996 is an immature female without opened vulvae. All these specimens have cylindrical, slender and rather long P2 and P3 meri, and evidently smooth (Chen 1988: fig. 2c, pl. 1D, E).</p><p>While the stout G1 ending in triangular apex in the Chen’s species is similar to that of M. lanata, the main distinguishing feature of M. crosnieri was related to the smooth dorsal margins of the P2 and P3 meri, except for a few low teeth on the basal part of the P2 merus and one or two on the P3 merus (Fig. 23A, B, D), instead of the distinctly spinulated meri of M. lanata (Figs 22A, B; 23C). Additional differences were: in M. crosnieri body with short thin hairs (versus with club hairs in M. lanata); carapace surface with less prominent granules and tubercles in M. crosnieri than in M. lanata; and the surface of the male pleon not densely covered with short hairs (versus densely covered with rather long hairs in M. lanata).</p><p>Two specimens of Medorippe from the Mozambique Channel were collected by the MAINBAZA Expedition in 2009 (MNHN-IU-2016-1335 and MNHN-IU-2016-1336), a male 21.1 × 25.9 mm with dimorphic chelipeds and a young male 12.0 × 15.0 mm with symmetrical chelipeds, both having smooth meri on P2 and P3, which are long and cylindrical in the young (Fig.23B), shorter and more robust in the adult (Fig. 23A). Both are related to M. crosnieri by their smooth P2 and P3 meri. Our Figure 23C, D seems to show that the merus is proportionally more elongated in M. lanata than in M. crosnieri but this criterion must be used with prudence as the size of the merus varies with age, becoming wider and stouter when the individual grows. It seemed possible that this material from Mozambique belonged to M. crosnieri and that the refutation by Holthuis &amp; Manning (1990) of the characters used by Chen (1988) to distinguish it from M. lanata needs to be re-evaluated.</p><p>It should be noted that Holthuis &amp; Manning (1990: 89, fig. 37b) assigned to M. lanata a male from Mozambique and several South African specimens, the latter being figured with spinulated meri. Chen (1988) added as possible synonyms of her M. crosnieri some Dorippe lanata of the literature, including that of Barnard (1950: 389, fig. 73d; 1955: 4) from South Africa (Natal). The material from Spanish Sahara, Sierra Leone, Gabon, Cabinda and Congo reported by Capart (1951b: fig. 6, as Dorippe lanata) has spines on the P2, P3 meri, a V-shaped cardiac region, and a G1 distally curved at right angle. As the southern limit of Medorippe lanata along the West African coast includes Angola with a reasonable certainty (Crosnier 1970), it is relevant to consider the material recorded in South Atlantic waters. Barnard (1950: 389) does indicate that P2 and P3 have spinulose meri. We have examined a few specimens from South Africa (ZRC 2012.0158 and MNHN-IU-2016-1336): they have spinulose meri and are most likely M. lanata .</p><p>Dorippoides nudipes Manning &amp; Holthuis, 1986 (Manning &amp; Holthuis 1986: 364, fig. 1c; Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: 66, fig. 26) is another dorippid with unarmed P2 and P3 meri, which occurs in South Africa (see under Dorippoidinae n. subfam.): it cannot be confused with a Medorippe species on account of its short G1 ending in horn-coloured projection with a twisted whip-like appendage, the carapace margin lacking epibranchial spine and the cardiac region without a V-shaped ridge (Fig. 16C, D). Similarly, Medorippe crosnieri cannot be confused with the West-African Phyllodorippe armata, known from the Spanish Sahara to Angola and never recorded further south, which also has unarmed P2 and P3 meri (Fig. 29A, B) and a slender, S-shaped G1 ending in a prominent subdistal lobe (Fig. 30C, D) (Monod 1933b: fig. 3H; Manning &amp; Holthuis 1981: fig. 4k, l), contrasting with the typical short, stout G1 of Medorippe, abruptly turned outward and ending in a long, sharp setiferous apex (Chen 1988: fig. 2f; reproduced by Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: fig. 38g).</p><p>It proved difficult to conclude the value of the small differences reported by Chen (1988: table 2) due to insufficient material in hand assignable to M. crosnieri . In addition, examination of M. lanata revealed a range of morphological variation (variations that also exist in the Mediterranean form), including spinulation of meri P2 and P3 that was more pronounced in smaller individuals and tended to decrease in larger adult males, particularly in the proximal half of the merus. Spinulation may also occasionally be missing completely, e.g. in a sample from the north of mouth of Congo River, MNHN-IU-2009-2001 (= MNHN-B13583), a large male 26.0 × 30.0 mm (with markedly asymmetrical chelae) that has abnormally smooth meri P2, P3; in contrast, another adult male of 28.2 mm cw (with less asymmetrical chelas) has spinulated meri, both specimens showing the typical G1 of Medorippe . For more details on the spinulation of P2, P3 meri of M. lanata, see Monod (1933b: fig.3C, D; 1956: 84, fig.103, as D. armata); Manning &amp; Holthuis (1981: 32, figs 4a, c-f, table 1) and Holthuis &amp; Manning (1990: 89, figs 36, 37).</p><p>An ovigerous female collected in southern Madagascar - thus in proximity to Chen’s (1988) type series – by the ATIMO VATAE expedition in 2010 (MNHN-IU-2010-4307), which we had not previously examined, shows smooth meri P2, P3, which undermines Holthuis &amp; Manning’s (1990) argument that the smoothness of P2 and P3 is a juvenile character, and leads us to believe that M. crosnieri is a valid species.</p><p>Molecular analyses based on the COI carried on by J. C. Y. Lai were inconclusive, showing that the M. lanata from South Africa, with spinulated meri, was genetically almost identical to the M. crosnieri of the MAINBAZA Expedition in 2009, with smooth meri. The genetic evidence supported that M. lanata and M. crosnieri were closely related with little divergence (&lt;3% divergence), insufficient to revalidate M. crosnieri, so the planned paper was not published, pending further research.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03CDBE749332B51CCE38FA94FEC4FE89	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	Guinot, Danièle (2023): 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. Zoosystema 45 (9): 225-372, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2023v45a9
03CDBE74933CB519CDE1FE76FAAAF813.text	03CDBE74933CB519CDE1FE76FAAAF813.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Paradorippinae Guinot 2023	<div><p>Subfamily PARADORIPPINAE n. subfam.</p><p>TYPE GENUS. — Paradorippe Serène &amp; Romimohtarto, 1969 (type species by original designation: Dorippe granulata De Haan, 1841). Other included species by Holthuis &amp; Manning (1990: 108, 109): Dorippe australiensis Miers, 1884; Paradorippe cathayana Manning &amp; Holthuis, 1986; Dorippe polita Alcock &amp; Anderson, 1894 .</p><p>PRELIMINARY NOTE</p><p>We were able to examine only the type species Paradorippe granulata (De Haan, 1841), so in this paper all our following descriptions, figures and mentions refer only to this one species. We believe that the genus Paradorippe sensu Holthuis &amp; Manning (1990) and subsequent authors may not be monophyletic, with at least two groups of species (with possibly misidentified species): one, i.e., the genus Paradorippe sensu stricto, with P. granulata and P. australiensis, namely with a G1 bearing unequal processes, one being longer and hammer-shaped, and with a wide vulva on a slightly marked prominence; a second, i.e., a new genus, with P. polita (and probably also P. cathayana), with a G1 bearing shorter processes of equal length and with a smaller, possibly recessed vulva. Genetic analyses of two of the four known species of Paradorippe, P. granulata and P. polita, support such a distinction as they indicate that they form a distinct clade “with high bootstrap and posterior probability support, with intrageneric divergence being 12.5% in 16S”, the latter being the highest recorded in the study of seven genera and 12 dorippid species by Sin et al. (2009: 229, tables 1; 2) (see our Figure 10). This problem still needs to be improved. However, the presumed distinctive generic characters do not affect the recognition of the subfamily Paradorippinae n. subfam.</p><p>DESCRIPTION (BASED ON PARADORIPPE GRANULATA ONLY) Carapace (Fig. 24A, B)</p><p>Carapace wider than long in adults, widening considerably in posterior part, flat. Dorsal surface sparsely sculptured but with distinct grooves and visible human facies, often naked, only with low, rare pubescence, lacking erect spines, coarsely granular or appearing smooth, at most slightly granular on magnification. Regions with well-delinated mesogastric region; metagastric region indistinct, urogastric region defined; generally, branchial lobes relatively large. Precervical and cervical grooves more or less distinct, maybe shallow across midline; precervical groove may be deeper than cervical, deepest at lateral margins; branchiocardiac groove quite distinct. A pair of oblique submedian gastric pits visible just at base of meso-metagastric region. Antero- and posterolateral margins not demarcated, epibranchial spine absent. Front consisting of two sharp or bluntly triangular teeth, not extending beyond outer orbital spines and separated by broadly U-shaped emargination revealing exhalant channels. Inner orbital teeth low and blunt or as rounded, lobes scarcely marked. Orbit small. Orbital fissure narrow, closed or open anteriorly. Inner suborbital tooth short, much smaller than outer orbital tooth, sometimes rudimentary. Carapace posterior rim not extending laterally at all along posterolateral margin, thus interrupted on each side, and lined posteriorly by well-defined strip, much more delineated in females (Fig. 24B) than in males where it is straight (Fig. 24A), often even appearing as separate sclerite.</p><p>Illustrations: Paradorippe australiensis: Miers 1884: pl. 26, fig. D, as Dorippe australiensis (reproduced by Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: fig. 44; by Davie et al. 2015a: fig. 71-2.2D); Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: fig. 45a; Davie 2002: fig. p. 154; Poore 2004: fig. 95. P. cathayana: Shen 1932: fig. 4, as Dorippe polita (reproduced by Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: fig. 46; by Sin et al. 2009: fig. 3G), pl. 1, fig. 11; Chen 1986b: fig. 7.33, as P. polita; Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: fig. 47a; Chen &amp; Sun 2002: fig. 98.1. P. granulata: De Haan 1839: pl. 3, fig. 2, as Dorippe granulata (reproduced by Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: fig. 48); Shen 1931: pl. 6, fig. 3, as D. granulata; 1932: fig. 8, as D. granulata (reproduced by Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: fig. 49), pl. 1, fig. 12; Takeda 1982b: pl. p. 94; Takeda 1983: 247, fig. p. 121; Miyake 1983: pl. 6, fig. 3; Chen 1986b: fig. 6.28; Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: fig. 50a; Chen &amp; Sun 2002: fig. 97.1; Ng et al. 2008: fig. 44; Wong et al. 2021: fig. 14a, pl. 3B. P. polita: Alcock &amp; Anderson 1894: pl. 24, fig. 4, as D. polita (reproduced by Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: fig. 53); Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: figs 54a, 55a-c, 56.</p><p>Cephalic structures (Figs 24A, B; 25A; 26A)</p><p>Eyes short, distally tapering; cornea ventrolateral; eye slightly extruded from orbit. Antennula retractable into fossa, directed anteriorly like antenna. Antenna well developed: articles 2+3 quadrangular; article 4 short but wide; article 5 much developed, foliaceous, fringed with dense setae, bent outwards nearly horizontally, extending along most of orbit and lying along eyestalk; flagellum bent inwards.</p><p>Illustrations: Paradorippe cathayana: Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: fig. 46. P. granulata: Quintana 1987: fig. 20C-c; Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: fig. 49. P. polita: Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: figs 53, 54.</p><p>Oxystomatous disposition (Fig. 26A)</p><p>Large development of endostomal roof, thus opening of exhalant channels clearly visible in dorsal view between rostral teeth.</p><p>Illustrations: Paradorippe cathayana: Shen 1932: fig. 5a, b, as D. polita; Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: fig. 46. P. granulata: Shen 1932: fig. 9a, as D. granulata; Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: figs 48, 49. P. polita: Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: figs 53, 54.</p><p>Pereiopods (Figs 24; 25A)</p><p>Chelipeds of females and non-adult males of same size and shape; marked heterochely in adult males, with globular palm having bulbous ventral protuberance, and short fingers. Carpus and merus smooth or granular, often with larger granules on upper and lower margins. Outer surface of palm smooth, punctate, or granular, with or without short hairs; dorsal margin of palm and proximal part of dactylus with fringe of long hairs; lower margin of palm, except in inflated chelae, variously fringed; lower margin of fixed finger without setae. In smaller specimens fingers very long, bent downwards, with teeth of equal size, more pointed and triangular at smaller size.</p><p>Illustrations: Paradorippe australiensis: Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: figs 44, 45b, c. P. cathayana: Manning 1986: fig. 1e; Chen 1986b: fig. 7.34, as P. polita; Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: figs 46, 47; Chen &amp; Sun 2002: fig. 98.2, 3. P.granulata: Chen 1986b: fig. 6.29; Yamaguchi et al. 1987: pl. 1, fig. 8; Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: figs 48, 49; Chen &amp; Sun 2002: fig. 97.2, 3; Wong et al. 2021: fig. 14c. P. polita: Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: fig. 53.</p><p>P2, P3 not very long and may be rather stout in both males and females, or longer and slender. P3 slightly longer, with flattened unarmed articles, smooth or granular; dactyli flattened, slightly twisted, with well-developed carinae on anterior and posterior surfaces and with at least a sparse layer of short setae in both sexes. Both P4, P5 reduced, with subeheliform apparatus.</p><p>Illustrations: Paradorippe australiensis: Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: figs 44, 45d, e. P. cathayana: Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: figs 46, 47c; Chen &amp; Sun 2002: fig. 98.4. P. granulata: Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: figs 48, 49, 50c; Wong et al. 2021: fig. 14b. P. polita: Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: figs 53, 54, 55f, g, 56c.</p><p>Thoracic sternum (Figs 25; 26)</p><p>Thoracic sternum narrow, narrowing distinctly posteriorly, finely or coarsely granular. Sternite 1 with only a small portion visible dorsally; sternite 2 forming short, rectangular, sharply delineated shield with thick vertical margins, separated from sternite 3 by well-marked, straight depression. Lateral margin of sternite 2 straight, directed vertically, with slightly pointed anterior angles; lateral margin of sternite 4 slightly concave, directed obliquely; lateral margin of sternite 5 almost straight, directed vertically; lateral margin of sternite 6 clearly concave. Suture 3/4 short, curved into closed boutonniere in both sexes. Sternite 3 with distinct quadrate process bearing gynglyme for articulation of mxp3 sterno-coxal condyle close to edge of Milne Edwards opening; sternite 4 thickened on each side, with longitudinal median depression; sternites 4 and 5 with narrow extensions, i.e., laterally expanded between P1/P2 and P2/P3. Sutures 4/5-7/8 interrupted. Suture 4/5 horizontal, almost parallel to suture 5/6, only slightly oblique and weakly curved posteriorly; both sutures 4/5 and 5/6 with short interruption points; suture 6/7 interrupted in males but variable in females, being medially interrupted. Female thoracic sternum tilted backwards at level of raised ridge crossing whole sternite 6; sternite 8 lacking axial spine.</p><p>Illustrations: Paradorippe australiensis: Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: fig. 45i. P. granulata: Shen 1931: pl. 6, fig. 2; Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: fig. 50h; Vehof et al. 2018b: fig. 2A; 3. P. polita: Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: fig. 56i.</p><p>Pleon and telson (Figs 24A; 25B)</p><p>Male pleon with all somites free; with articular membranes, especially at sutures 4/5 and 5/6; surface without strong tubercles or spines but often with distinctly granular ridges and bumps. Somites 1, 2 exposed dorsally in males; somites 1-3 and part of 4 exposed dorsally in adult females. Somite 1 trapezoidal, widening posteriorly, posterior margin excavated in middle; somite 2 widening posteriorly, with low transverse ridge, often appearing trilobed in dorsal view; somite 3 with swollen lateral parts; somites 4 and 5 short, each with low, transverse ridge; somite 6 with posterolateral angles produced; telson triangulary blunt, telson extending over much of sternite 5, with tip far exceeding level of suture 5/6.</p><p>Illustrations: Paradorippe australiensis: Serène &amp; Rohmimohtarto 1969: fig. 14. P. cathayana: Shen 1932: fig. 5d, as D. polita; Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: fig. 47d; Chen &amp; Sun 2002: fig.98.5. P.granulata: Shen 1932: fig. 9b, as D. granulata; Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: figs 48, 50e. P.polita: Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: figs 53, 54a, 56d.</p><p>Female pleon wide and rounded, smooth or variously granular. Somites 2-5 usually with blunt but distinct transverse carina; somites 4 and 5 widest, 5 and 6 longest; telson small, with semicircular or subtriangular posterior margin (Figs 24B; 26B).</p><p>Illustrations: Paradorippe cathayana: Shen 1932: fig. 5e, as D. polita; Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: fig. 47e. P. granulata: Shen 1932: fig. 9c, as D. granulata; Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: figs 48, 50d. P. polita: Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: figs 53, 54a, 55h.</p><p>Pleonal locking mechanism by press-button</p><p>(Figs 25 C-E; 26B-D)</p><p>Press-button quite large, located on suture 5/6 weakly curved backwards and situated far from G1 tip in males, very close (almost contiguous) to vulvae. Location of sockets clearly discernible dorsally on pleonal somite 6 by swollen lateral areas. No additional pleonal retention in females, unlike many other dorippids (see below). Sternite 8 only slightly enlarged posteriorly and, together with narrow sternite 7, only flanking the base of the pleon.</p><p>Additional female pleonal-retention mechanism</p><p>Unlike some genera ( Dorippe, Heikeopsis, Nobilum, Philippidorippe and Phyllodorippe), in females the process emanating from the dorsally exposed sternite 8 not actually overhanging the pleonal somite 2. Here, sternite 8 only slightly enlarged posteriorly, with a square projection that just abuts the edge of the female pleon and, together with narrow sternite 7, merely flanking the base of the pleon (Fig. 24B).</p><p>Male gonopore and penis</p><p>Coxo-sternal condition: penis overhung over a rather long distance by sternites 7 and 8, close or not in contact; penis with inclined portion weakly sclerotised; vertical portion rather short, with long soft papilla.</p><p>Illustrations: Paradorippe granulata: Guinot et al. 2013: fig. 17C; Vehof et al. 2018a: fig. 1B, G.</p><p>Gonopods (Figs 25 C-E; 31G)</p><p>G1 stout throughout, short, filling most of sterno-pleonal cavity; shaft strongly swollen, abruptly constricted and angularly bent at obtuse angle towards about three-quarters of its length; bent portion wider, possibly flattened dorso-ventrally; terminal part swollen, elaborate with two distinct bulbs bearing several apical processes; these processes rather elongated, one of which being longer and hammer-shaped; no basal lobe.</p><p>Illustrations: Paradorippe australiensis: Serène &amp; Romimohtarto 1969: figs 26-28; Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: fig. 45f, g. P. cathayana: Chen 1986b: fig. 7.35, as P. polita; Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: fig. 47f, g (reproduced by Sin et al. 2009: fig. 4G); Chen &amp; Sun 2002: fig. 98.6. P. granulata Serène &amp; Romimohtarto 1969: figs 23-25; Chen 1986b: fig. 6.30, 31; Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: fig. 50f, g (reproduced by Davie et al. 2015a: fig. 71-2.22D); Dai &amp; Yang 1991: fig. 23.1, as Dorippe (Paradorippe) granulata; Chen &amp; Sun 2002: fig. 97.4-6; Vehof et al. 2018a: fig. 1. P. polita: Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: fig. 56e-h; Dai &amp; Yang 1991: fig. 23.2, as Dorippe (Paradorippe) polita .</p><p>G2 straight, rather long</p><p>Illustrations: Paradorippe granulata: Chen 1986b: fig. 6.32; Serène &amp; Romimohtarto 1969: fig. 29; Chen &amp; Sun 2002: fig. 97.7; Vehof et al. 2018a: fig. 1.</p><p>Vulvae (Figs 26 B-D; 32C)</p><p>Vulvae not juxtaposed, close to suture 5/6, and near distal part of raised ridge; opening large to very large, rounded, surrounded by numerous setae, clusters of setae projecting to some extent above vulva opening; vulva located on more or less prominent part of sternite 6; wider and on slightly marked prominence. Histologically, lateral margin bulging in median direction, forming a muscle-operated vulvar cover that partially roofs vulva opening, so that the opening actually visible externally is crescent-shaped.</p><p>Illustrations: Paradorippe australiensis: Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: fig. 45h, i. P. granulata: Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: fig. 50h, i; Vehof et al. 2018a: fig. 2. P. polita: Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: figs 55i, 56i-k.</p><p>Female reproductive system</p><p>Studied in Paradorippe granulata by Vehof et al. (2018a: 68; 2018b: 82, figs 1-5; Vehof 2020: 78, 86, figs 17, 20, 22) (Figs 35D; 37). See below, The female reproductive system in Brachyura, its evolution and unique disposition in Dorippidae .</p><p>DISTRIBUTION AND HABITAT</p><p>(see Preliminary note, p. 279)</p><p>Paradorippe australiensis, known from Australia (Western Australia, Queensland), is a shallow water species, caught under stones on reef flat at 22 m, on mud at 18 m, on sand and occasional sponges and corals at 15 m (Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990; McEnnulty et al. 2011).</p><p>Paradorippe cathayana is known mainly from many localities in China (Shen 1932, 1937a, 1940b, as Dorippe polita; Yang 1986, as D. polita; Chen 1986b, as P. polita; Chen &amp; Sun 2002); found in tidepools on sandy beaches (Shen 1932, as D. polita) and shallow pools of clear water, along sand beach (Shen 1937a, as D. polita), Gulf of Tonkin (Dai &amp; Song 1986, as D. polita) and from Vietnam (Serène 1937, as D. polita); also from India, Gulf of Mannar (Rajan et al. 2017: 3, 11; Zoological Survey of India 2018 fig. p. 73).</p><p>Paradorippe granulata lives much further north than any of the Indo-West Pacific dorippids, occurring as far east in Russia as Vladivostock and Peter the Great Gulf, as well as in the Sakhalin Island (Balss 1922; Urita 1942; Kobjakova 1955, 1966; Vinogradov 1950; Levin 1976, all as Dorippe granulata). It is abundant in many localities of Japan (De Haan 1841; Herklots 1861; Bouvier 1899; Parisi 1914; Sakai c. 1930, 1936, 1940, 1956; Nishimura &amp; Suzuki 1971; Yang 1986, all as Dorippe granulata; Sakai 1976, 1985; Takeda 1975, 1982 a, b, 1983; Yamaguchi et al. 1976; Muraoka 1982; Miyake 1983; Sakai et al. 1983; K. Sakai &amp; Nakano 1983; Minemizu 2000); of Korea (Kim 1970, as D. granulata; Kim 1973; Koh &amp; Lee 2013; Lee et al. 2021); and of China, Hong Kong (Shen 1932, 1940a, b, as D. granulata; Takeda &amp; Miyake 1970; Huang 1994; Chen 1986b; Dai et al. 1986; Chen &amp; Sun 2002; Wang 2005, 2009; Wong et al. 2021) and Taiwan (Ng et al. 2017). For complete and recent distribution of P. granulata, see Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990; Wang et al. 2013, 2017; Ng et al. 2001, 2017.</p><p>Paradorippe polita is known from a few localities: southeast India (Alcock &amp; Anderson 1894; Alcock 1896; Sankarankutty 1966; all as Dorippe polita; Dev Roy 2008; Venkataraman et al. 2004, as D. polita; Krishnamoorthy 2007: 90, as Paradorippe granulata; Trivedi et al. 2018: table 1) and Malaysia (Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990). The figure by Jeyabaskaran et al. (2000: pl. 32a) of a P. granulata from the Gulf of Mannar is too small to be sure that it is P. polita instead of P. granulata . The Paradorippe polita from the Gulf of Tonkin (Zarenkov 1972: 250) should be confirmed.</p><p>CARRYING BEHAVIOUR</p><p>Paradorippine crabs are known to exclusively select valves of bivalve molluscs, often intimately associated with sea anemones in cases of symbioses (Castro 2015). This longrecognised behaviour has been widely documented (for full literature, see Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990). Nevertheless, the question of how and to what extent the P4 and P5 subcheliform device is specialised to grasp the valve of lamellibranchs rather than a sponge or leaf like in other dorippids has apparently not been studied. A small male of Paradorippe australiensis was found carrying on its back a 16 mm long valve of the venerid genus Antigona Schumacher, 1819 (Rathbun 1924: 27, as Dorippe australiensis). Paradorippe cathayana is always found carrying a bivalve shell, which is thrown away when it buries itself (André 1937, as Dorippe polita; Shen 1937a, as D. polita). For P. granulata (see Döderlein 1883: 109, as D. sima; Patton 1967, as Dorippe; Levin 1976: fig. 106a, as D. granulata), the carried shells seem to belong mainly to the tellinid lamellibranch genus Macoma Leach, 1819, on which one and sometimes two or three sea anemones are fastened; a dead shell of Macoma with three longitudinally striped anemones of the actinarian Carcinactis ichikawai Uchida, 1960 has been found carried (Uchida 1960: 595, pl. 1, fig. 1, as Dorippe granulata); the crab disappears completely under the shell (Kobjakova 1966: pl. 49: fig. 1a; Minemizu 2000: fig. p. 189; Koh &amp; Lee 2013: pl. 15). According to Quintana (1987: figs 15C-H, 17E, F, 19F, 24B), in laboratory the megalopa and first crab stages of P. granulata did not swim, had benthic habits like adults, and carried dorsally over the carapace fragments of shells or small rocks provided in rearing vessels: the dorippid early-carrying behaviour is the unique case known within the Brachyura (the homolid megalopa has a P5 that may be held in a dorsal position and bears a recurved ending with long setae corresponding to a ‘feeler’, not functional for carrying; see Rice 1964: figs 4, 8f; Williamson 1965: fig. 2).</p><p>Illustrations and data: Paradorippe australiensis: Rathbun 1924: 27, as Dorippe australiensis; Davie 2002: 156; Thoma 2007: 301. Paradorippe cathayana: Shen 1932: 11; 1937a: 171, as D.polita; André 1937: 79, as D. polita . P.granulata: Döderlein 1883: 109, as D. sima; Sakai 1956: 26, fig. 9, as D. granulata; Uchida 1960: 595, 600, pl. 1, fig. 1, as D. granulata; Kobjakova 1955: 155, pl. 49, fig. 1a, as D. granulata (reproduced by Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: fig. 51); 1966: pl. 49, fig. 1a, as D. granulata; Patton 1967: 1232, as Dorippe; Burton 1969: fig. p. 64, as Japanese crab (redrawn by Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: fig. 62); Levin 1976: fig. 106a, as D. granulata; Sakai et al. 1983: fig. p. 29; Tan &amp; Ng 1988; 1992: 149; Guinot et al. 1995: fig. 5B; Ng et al. 2008: fig. 44; Guinot &amp; Wicksten 2015: 599, fig. 77-11.9.J.</p><p>REMARKS</p><p>Von Siebold had collected a total of 38 specimens of Dorippe granulata, described a little later in the Fauna Japonica by De Haan (1839: pl. 31, fig. 2; 1841: 122) and which became the type species of Paradorippe Serène &amp; Romimohtarto, 1969 . The holotype and many paralectotypes are deposited at RMNH (Fransen et al. 1997), and a dry paralectotype is deposited at MNHN (MNHN-IU-2000-11383, ex MNHNB11383) (Yamaguchi &amp; Baba 1993: 304, fig. 90A, B; Yamaguchi 1993: 586).</p><p>Paradorippinae n. subfam. is monotypic, with the genus Paradorippe known from four species (see Preliminary note p. 279). We agree with Alcock &amp; Anderson (1894) that the flattish, smooth and naked carapace of P. polita resembles more that of an ethusid than that of a dorippid.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03CDBE74933CB519CDE1FE76FAAAF813	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	Guinot, Danièle (2023): 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. Zoosystema 45 (9): 225-372, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2023v45a9
03CDBE74933AB565CDF1FF17FDAEF833.text	03CDBE74933AB565CDF1FF17FDAEF833.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Philippidorippinae Guinot 2023	<div><p>Subfamily PHILIPPIDORIPPINAE n. subfam.</p><p>TYPE GENUS. — Philippidorippe Chen, 1986 (type species by original designation: P. philippinensis Chen, 1986 (Chen 1986a: 183, fig. 3a-g, pl. 1, fig 3, pl. 2, fig. 4). Genus monotypic.</p><p>DESCRIPTION</p><p>Carapace (Fig. 27A, B)</p><p>Carapace wider than long, greatly enlarged and swollen at level of branchial regions. Dorsal surface slightly inflated, finely granular, especially on prominences, without spines. Regions well defined, especially proto-, meso- and urogastric regions. Precervical groove distinct but irregular; cervical groove deep. Branchial lobes low, convex. Gastric pits as two slits just at limit between meso-metagastric and urogastric regions (thus not on cervical groove as indicated by Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: 132). Front with two pointed submedian teeth separated by narrow, V-shaped median emargination, exposing exhalant channels. Posterior margin of orbit with fissure. Outer orbital tooth triangular, slender, acute, very long and overreaching frontal teeth. Lower orbital margin unarmed, deeply depressed. Inner suborbital tooth large, sharp, not overreaching outer suborbital tooth. Carapace posterior rim thin, rather narrow, not extending sideways along posterolateral margins and lined by weakly developed strip, only thickened laterally, especially in females.</p><p>Illustrations: Philippidorippe philippinensis: Chen 1986a: pl. 1, fig. 3, pl. 2, fig. 4; Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: fig. 57a (reproduced by Sin et al. 2009: fig. 3H); Chen &amp; Xu 1991: fig. 8.1; Chen &amp; Sun 2002: fig. 99.1, pl. 2, fig. 2; Takeda &amp; Manuel-Santos 2006: 96, fig. 6A; Ng et al. 2008: fig. 45.</p><p>Cephalic structures (Figs 27A, B; 28A, B)</p><p>Eyes short and stout, cornea ventrolateral. Antennule obliquely folded and may be completely retracted into fossa; articles short. Antenna entirely directed forward, all along fringed with dense setae: articles 2+3 quadrangular; article 4 short; article 5 slitghly longer; flagellum long.</p><p>Illustrations: Philippidorippe philippinensis: Chen 1986a: fig. 3a (reproduced by Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: fig. 58a); Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: fig. 57b; Chen &amp; Xu 1991: fig. 8.1; Chen &amp; Sun 2002: fig. 99.1.</p><p>Oxystomatous disposition (Fig. 28 A-C)</p><p>Opening of exhalant channels visible in dorsal view between rostral teeth. Mxp3 narrow (especially merus) and long, reaching level of eyes.</p><p>Illustrations: Philippidorippe philippinensis: Chen 1986a: fig. 3a (reproduced by Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: fig. 58a); Chen &amp; Xu 1991: fig. 8.1; Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: fig. 57c; Chen &amp; Sun 2002: fig. 99.1.</p><p>Pereiopods (Figs 27A, B; 28A, B, E)</p><p>Chelipeds of females and young males equal in size and shape; marked heterochely in adult males, with smooth outer surface of palm inflated; dorsal margin and outer surface covered with granules and fringed with short hairs.</p><p>Illustrations: Philippidorippe philippinensis: Chen 1986a: fig. 3b (reproduced by Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: fig. 58b, c), pl. 1, fig. 3, pl. 2, fig. 4; Chen &amp; Xu 1991: fig. 8.2; Chen &amp; Sun 2002: fig. 99.2, 3.</p><p>P2, P3 of males extra-long, P2 longest, slender; meri very long, longer on P2, flattened, with distal spine basally erect; dactyli without fringes of hair. P2, P3 shorter and proportionally stouter in females. P4, P5 very slender; P5 with very long ischio-merus; both ischio-merus and merus of P5 clearly curved, applying on convex sides of carapace.</p><p>Illustrations: Philippidorippe philippinensis: Chen 1986a: pl. 1, fig. 3, pl. 2, fig. 4; Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: fig. 57e.</p><p>Thoracic sternum (Figs. 27C, D; 28)</p><p>Thoracic sternum wide, granular, tomentose. Sternites 1 and 2 forming a regular triangle (instead of pentagonal shield); very small portion of sternite 1 visible dorsally; sternite 2 separated from sternite 3 by depression; suture 3/4 short, not ending in boutonniere. Sutures 4/5-7/8 interrupted; median longitudinal furrow at level of sternite 4; suture 5/6 moderately curved backwards. Sternal extensions between P2/ P3, P3/P4, shorter betwen P4/P5. Female thoracic sternum only obliquely tilted backwards from middle of sternite 6 (Fig. 27C, D).</p><p>Illustrations: Philippidorippe philippinensis: Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: fig. 57f.</p><p>Pleon and telson (Figs 27; 28)</p><p>Male pleon short, not completely filling sterno-pleonal cavity; all somites free, without strong tubercles or spines, only with granules on some somites. Somites 1-3 exposed dorsally; somite 1 rather broad and short, widening slightly posteriorly, posterior margin excavated in middle; somite 2 widening posteriorly; somite 3 with distinctly swollen lateral parts highly visible in dorsal view; somites 4-6 regularly narrowing; telson short, bluntly triangular, slightly exceeding suture 5/6.</p><p>Illustrations: Philippidorippe philippinensis: Chen 1986a: fig. 3c (reproduced by Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: fig. 58d); Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: fig. 57d; Chen &amp; Xu 1991: fig. 8.3; Chen &amp; Sun 2002: fig. 99.4.</p><p>Female pleon very wide, with tomentose, granular surface. In adult females somites 1-3 and part of 4 exposed dorsally (Fig. 27 B-D) (see below, Additional female pleonal-retention mechanism).</p><p>Pleonal-locking mechanism by press-button</p><p>(Figs 27C, D; 28D, E)</p><p>Press-button located on moderately curved backwards suture 5/6.</p><p>Additional female pleonal-retention mechanism (Fig. 27B)</p><p>In females, strong retention by wide, quadrate process of sternite 8 overhanging pleonal somite 2; small telson engaged between slightly raised slopes of sterno-pleonal cavity at level of sternite 5.</p><p>Male gonopore and penis</p><p>Coxo sternal condition. Sternites 7 and 8 expanded over penis for quite long distance, close together but not completely joined, thus a condition similar to that of Dorippe quadridens, but penial bulb shorter, poorly demarcated from thick, long, sclerotised subsequent portion that is exposed between sternites 7 and 8.</p><p>Illustrations: Philippidorippe philippinensis: Guinot et al. 2013: 102, fig. 17D.</p><p>Gonopods (Figs 28D, E; 31H)</p><p>G1 short, extremely stout, tapering distally; basal half very thick and broad, with rounded basal lobe at outer margin; distal third curved outwards, tip with two auricular processes.</p><p>Illustrations: Philippidorippe philippinensis: Chen 1986a: fig. 3d, e (reproduced by Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: fig. 58eh; by Sin et al. 2009: fig. 4H); Chen &amp; Xu 1991: fig. 8.4; Chen &amp; Sun 2002: fig. 99.5, 6.</p><p>G2 straight.</p><p>Illustrations: Philippidorippe philippinensis: Chen 1986a: fig 3f, g.</p><p>Vulvae (Figs 27D; 32H)</p><p>Vulva rather distant from distal part of sternal ridge, not located on sternal prominence but situated on obliquely directed flank of flared sterno-pleonal cavity; opening not recessed, quite large, elongated, crescent-shaped.</p><p>Illustrations: Philippidorippe philippinensis: Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: fig. 57f, g; Vehof 2020: fig. 8A.</p><p>Female reproductive system</p><p>Studied in Philippidorippe philippinensis by Vehof (2020: 51, 57, 70, 73, 86, figs 4, 8, 17, tables 2, 5), unfortunately on a specimen in a very poor state of preservation so that the histological results are fragmentary. See Figure 37 and below, The female reproductive system in Brachyura, its evolution and unique disposition in Dorippidae .</p><p>DISTRIBUTION AND HABITAT</p><p>Known only from localities in and around the Philippine Islands and from South China Sea (Chen &amp; Sun 2002). Found at depths betwen 96-107 m and 193-200 m, Philippidorippe philippinensis is the only deep-sea dorippid species (Chen 1986a; Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990; Chen &amp; Xu 1991; Chen &amp; Sun 2002; Takeda &amp; Manuel-Santos 2006: 96).</p><p>CARRYING BEHAVIOUR</p><p>Unknown.</p><p>REMARKS</p><p>The genus Philippidorippe is a deep-water genus and the only dorippid in this case. In a combined analysis using three genes, it has been interpreted as basal in the clade Dorippe - Dorippoides - Medorippe (Sin et al. 2009) .</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03CDBE74933AB565CDF1FF17FDAEF833	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	Guinot, Danièle (2023): 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. Zoosystema 45 (9): 225-372, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2023v45a9
03CDBE749345B560CE9BFF17FBB3FE89.text	03CDBE749345B560CE9BFF17FBB3FE89.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Phyllodorippinae Guinot 2023	<div><p>Subfamily PHYLLODORIPPINAE n. subfam.</p><p>TYPE GENUS. — Phyllodorippe Manning &amp; Holthuis, 1981 (type species by original designation: Dorippe armata Miers, 1881). Monotypic.</p><p>DESCRIPTION</p><p>Carapace (Fig. 29A, B)</p><p>Carapace short, clearly wider than long. Dorsal surface without large tubercles, spines or elevations (only granules), but with raised tripartite ridge on swollen branchial region. Meso-, meta-, urogastric regions weakly demarcated. Precervical groove shallow; cervical groove well defined; branchiocardiac groove moderately deep. Antero- and posterolateral margins delimited by marked epibranchial tooth, very developed in large specimens. Front bidentate, consisting of two low obtuse teeth; median emargination wide, flat. No inner orbital teeth or lobes. Outer orbital teeth reaching slightly further forward than front. Lower margin of orbit between extra- and infraorbital teeth smooth, large U-shaped. Superior margin of orbit with fissure. Partial and weak exposure of pleurites 5-7 with smooth texture; margin of carapace lying in small guter at this level. Carapace posterior rim not extending laterally along posterolateral margin and lined posteriorly by narrow, straight, integrated strip in males and females.</p><p>Illustrations: Phyllodorippe armata: Monod 1933b: fig. 4A, as Dorippe armata (reproduced by Manning &amp; Holthuis 1981: fig. 4j); Capart 1951b, as D. armata; Monod 1956: fig. 102, erroneously as D. lanata (reproduced by Manning &amp; Holthuis 1981: fig. 4i; by Sin et al. 2009: fig. 3I); Capart 1951b: fig. 7, as D. armata .</p><p>Cephalic structures (Figs 29A; 30A)</p><p>Eyestalks rather short, not reaching beyond outer orbital teeth. Antennule partly folded, distal part of antennular article being out fossa. Antenna directed entirely forward; articles 2+3 rather narrow; article 4 slightly enlarged; article 5 elongate; flagellum rather long.</p><p>Oxystomatous disposition (Fig. 30 A-C)</p><p>Exposed portion of mxp1 endopod beyond extent of mxp3 short. Opening of exhalant channels barely reaching frontal margin, thus not visible in dorsal view.</p><p>Illustrations: Phyllodorippe armata: Monod 1933b: fig. 4A, B, as Dorippe armata; 1956: figs 102, erroneously as D. lanata (reproduced by Manning &amp; Holthuis 1981: fig. 4i), 104.</p><p>Pereiopods (Figs 29A, B; 30A,C)</p><p>Left and right chelipeds equal and similar in both sexes at small size; strong sexual dimorphism: pronounced heterochely in young adult males of 20 mm carapace width, with glabrous major chela becoming enormous.</p><p>Illustrations: Phyllodorippe armata: Miers 1881: fig. 4, 4a, as Dorippe armata; Monod 1956: fig. 105, as D. armata; Manning &amp; Holthuis 1981: fig. 4a.</p><p>P2, P3 meri without spines on dorsal margin, only with several striated rows on raised ridges, resulting in a keeled appearance; dactyli narrow and slightly twisted, fringed with short hairs in basal half of upper margin in both sexes.</p><p>Both P4, P5 reduced, narrow and much setose; P5 thinner and shorter than P4.</p><p>Illustrations: Phyllodorippe armata: Monod 1933b: fig. 3A, B, as Dorippe armata .</p><p>Thoracic sternum (Figs 29C, D; 30)</p><p>Thoracic sternum extremely wide. Sternites 1 and 2 forming short pentagonal shield, with thickened lateral margins; sternite 1 with small blunt median portion visible dorsally, remaining part passing under mxp3 and being concealed; sternite 2 separated from sternite 3 by lateral notch and median depression; sternite 3 very broad, with two extended lateral portions: a foliaceous lobe connected to pterygostome, the other extending along arthrodial cavity of P1; sternite 4 with thick oblique ridge on each part. Sutures 4/5-7/8 interrupted; suture 3/4 only lateral, deep, ending in marked boutonniere; sutures 4/5 and 5/6 with short interruption points; suture 5/6 abruptely curved backwards, with narrow curve accommodating press-button. Female thoracic sternum almost vertically tilted backwards at level of ridge crossing whole sternite 6, which marks delimitation between the two distinct parts of thoracic sternum; sternite 8 with erect axial spine (Fig. 29D).</p><p>Pleon and telson (Figs 29 A-C; 30B)</p><p>Sterno-pleonal cavity short and very narrow. Male pleon with all somites free, first three somites exposed dorsally; first three and part of 4 exposed in females; surface with only low, very blunt elevations especially on male somite 3; somites 2 and 3 granular; telson very short, exceeding suture 5/6. Female pleon as on Figure 29C, D.</p><p>Illustrations: Phyllodorippe armata: Monod 1933b: 36, as Dorippe armata; 1956: figs 106, 107, as D. armata .</p><p>Pleonal-locking mechanism by press-button (Figs 29C, D; 30C, D)</p><p>Press-button prominent, located in abruptely curved sternal suture 5/6, effective in both sexes, even in mature females.</p><p>Additional female pleonal-retention mechanism (Fig. 29B)</p><p>In females, strong retention by small spine of exposed dorsal portion of sternite 8 overhanging pleonal somite 2; small telson wedged between abrupt slopes of sterno-pleonal cavity at level of sternite 5.</p><p>Male gonopore and penis</p><p>Male gonopore coxal. Penis rather short (Monod 1933b: fig. 5C, as Dorippe armata). Note that the penial region figured by Guinot et al. (2013: fig. 15E) was based on a misidentified specimen and thus represents the condition of Medorippe lanata as shown in fig. 15B, D of the same paper.</p><p>Gonopods (Figs 30C, D; 31H)</p><p>G1 long, basally twisted, very slender, S-curved, second half horny-looking, with large, lobiform inverted triangular subdistal appendage, and ending in narrow acute point; no basal lobe.</p><p>Illustrations: Phyllodorippe armata: Monod 1933b: fig. 3H, as Dorippe armata (reproduced by Manning &amp; Holthuis 1981: fig. 4k-l; by Sin et al. 2009: fig. 4I).</p><p>G2 rather long, straight, with indistinct partition.</p><p>Vulvae (Figs 29C, D; 32I)</p><p>Females already ovigerous at size of 7.0 × 10.0 mm. Vulvae (hitherto unknown and shown here for the first time) rather distant from distal part of setose sternal ridge, situated on raised slopes of narrow sterno-pleonal cavity, rather close to each other, in the shape of narrow slit.</p><p>Female reproductive system</p><p>Not known.</p><p>DISTRIBUTION AND HABITAT</p><p>Phyllodorippe armata lives in shallow waters on sand, mud or shell bottoms (Zariquiey Alvarez 1968: 313, as Dorippe armata; Monod 1956: 96; Manning &amp; Holthuis 1981: 34, 35), being able to tolerate low salinities (Balss 1921: 48; Voss 1966: 37; Sourie 1954, all as D. armata). Tropical and subtropical eastern Atlantic, off West Africa, from many localities between Spanish Sahara and Angola (Capart 1951b, as D. armata; Le Loeuff et al. 2000); from Cape Verde Islands (A. Milne-Edwards &amp; Bouvier 1900, as D. armata; Gonzáles 2018: 421, table 3), the Canary Islands (García-Isarch &amp; Muñoz 2015) and islands off the Gulf of Guinea, São Tomé and Principe (Forest &amp; Guinot 1966: 50, as D. armata). Also off Nigeria and Gabon (Henriksen 2009: 38; Dessouassi et al. 2018). Phyllodorippe armata cohabits with Medorippe lanata along the West-African coast, in Dahomey (Crosnier coll. et det., MNHN-IU-2018-5196 (= MNHN-B16380 pro parte), Ghana (in the same station 24, see Forest &amp; Guinot 1966: 36, 50, as Dorippe armata), Sierra Leone, off the Ivory Coast (Forest &amp; Guinot 1966: 50, as D. armata; Manning &amp; Holthuis 1981: 36, 338; Le Loeuff &amp; Intès 1999: 547), Nigeria (Manning &amp; Holthuis 1981: 36) and Angola (Guinot &amp; Ribeiro 1962, as D. armata). The Phyllodorippe armata from Dahomey recorded as Dorippe armata by Crosnier (1964: 32, 38) actually contains both species M. lanata and P. armata [fig. on pl. A is M. lanata, apparently taken from Monod (1956)].</p><p>CARRYING BEHAVIOUR</p><p>The carrying behaviour of a dorippid that is probably Phyllodorippe armata is only documented by the report of a crab from the mangrove of Crique Banjia, Gabon, described with a leaf held on its back with the last legs (Pechüel-Loesche 1882: 288), a habit somewhat similat to that found in Neodorippe Serène &amp; Romimohtarto, 1969 .</p><p>REMARKS</p><p>Examination of numerous specimens in the MNHN, which holds large number of both Medorippe lanata ( Medorippinae n. subfam.) and Phyllodorippe armata ( Phyllodorippinae n. subfam.), confirms that P. armata is a much smaller species than M. lanata: it reaches only a small size, with an ovigerous female 10 mm in width (A. Milne-Edwards &amp; Bouvier 1900: 33, as Dorippe armata).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03CDBE749345B560CE9BFF17FBB3FE89	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	Guinot, Danièle (2023): 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. Zoosystema 45 (9): 225-372, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2023v45a9
03CDBE749363B54CCC8DFF18FAF9FE79.text	03CDBE749363B54CCC8DFF18FAF9FE79.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Dorippidae H. Milne Edwards 1837	<div><p>KEY TO DORIPPID SUBFAMILIES BASED ON MORPHOLOGICAL CHARACTERS OTHER THAN G1 AND VULVA</p><p>1. Surface of carapace more or less sculptured; cardiac region with a V- or Y-shaped median ridge. Long rim extending laterally along posterolateral margins and bordered medially by straight, narrow or even indistinct strip .... 2</p><p>— Surface of carapace weakly or not sculptured, without V- or Y-shaped median ridge. Long rim not extending laterally along posterolateral margins and bordered medially by distinct strip ............................................... 3</p><p>2. Carapace longer than wide, much sculptured; dorsal surface rough, uneven and with strong tubercules. Pleon of male with distinct teeth on somites 2-4. Base of P3 with distinct callosity. .................... Dorippinae n. stat.</p><p>— Carapace wider than long; dorsal surface only with some low elevations. Pleon of male without teeth. Base of P3 without callosity ................................................................................................ Medorippinae n. subfam.</p><p>3. Carapace weakly sculptured, with distinct epibranchial spine; dorsal surface only with granules and with raised tripartite ridge on swollen branchial region ....................................................... Phyllodorippinae n. subfam.</p><p>— Carapace with only two main grooves, without distinct epibranchial spine. ................................................. 4</p><p>4. P3 with a calcified band forming a simple callosity at its base. Dorsal surface rather smooth and even. ........... .............................................................................................................................. Dorippoidinae n. subfam.</p><p>— P3 without any callosity at its base. ............................................................................................................. 5</p><p>5. Front consisting of two closely spaced triangular median teeth separated by a narrow emargination; opening of exhalant channels visible dorsally. Carapace inflated; dorsal surface naked and finely granular......................... ........................................................................................................................ Philippidorippinae n. subfam.</p><p>— Front consisting of two triangular teeth separated by wide, shallow emargination. ........................................ 6</p><p>6. Carapace longer than wide; dorsal surface smooth and bare ( Heikeopsis, Neodorippe) or with some anterior tubercles ( Nobilum). Openings of exhalant channels not at all visible in dorsal view ( Neodorippe, Nobilum) or scarcely visible ( Heikeopsis spp.). Erect axial spine present medially on sternite 8 in females. A process on dorsal sternite 8 overhanging pleonal somite 2 in females (pleonal retention) ..................... Heikeopsinae n. subfam.</p><p>— Carapace wider than long; dorsal surface either completely smooth or completely or partially granulated. Opening of exhalant channels clearly visible in dorsal view between rostral teeth. No erect axial spine medially on sternite 8. No process on dorsal sternite 2 in females.............................................. Paradorippinae n. subfam.</p><p>KEY TO DORIPPID SUBFAMILIES BASED ON G1 AND VULVA</p><p>1. G1 short, stout, abruptly constricted in midpart, then regularly bent; second part swollen, elaborate with distinct bulbs bearing several apical processes. Vulva situated on a more or less marked prominent portion of sternite 6 or may be recessed; opening large or very large, rounded or crescent-shaped, visible on surface and less largely exposed ................................................................................................................. Paradorippinae n. subfam.</p><p>— G1 rather long, without swollen portion, not abruptly constricted. Vulva on prominences or on elevated portion of sternite 6; opening small, rounded or recessed as a slit ...................................................................... 2</p><p>2. G1 variously curved. Vulva on inner part of sternal prominence or situated on raised flanks of sterno-pleonal cavity ........................................................................................................................................................... 3</p><p>— G1 straight. Vulva on elevated portion of sternite 6 or on clearly delimited, globular prominence, at end of setose raised sternal ridge .............................................................................................................................. 4</p><p>3. G1 strongly curved midpart, C-shaped, ending in lobes, consisting either of three blunt petaloid lobes ( Nobilum) or several slender, unequal subdistal and distal processes ( Heikeopsis, Neodorippe). Vulva at inner part of sternal prominence, either elongate, suboval and not sunken or as vertically oriented, recessed curved slit ................. ................................................................................................................................ Heikeopsinae n. subfam.</p><p>— G1 regularly curved or S-shaped. Vulva situated on raised flanks of sterno-pleonal cavity ............................. 5</p><p>4. G1 straight, gradually tapering to single apex, with subdistal setae, and ending in tongue-shaped horny process. Vulva at summit of elevated portion of sternite 6; opening rather large, rounded, not recessed ....................... .......................................................................................................................................... Dorippinae n. stat.</p><p>— G1 straight, with distal triangular setose tip directed sideways. Vulva at outer margin of salient sternal prominence; opening very small, recessed ......................................................................... Medorippinae n. subfam.</p><p>— G1 straight, with a simple apical process, ending either in slender, long, spiral-shaped point ( D. facchino) or in flattened, rectangular, horn-coloured projection, produced into narrow whip-like appendage ( D. nudipes). Vulva on clearly delimited, globular prominence; opening relatively large, not recessed, near outer margin of prominence ........................................................................................................... Dorippoidinae n. subfam.</p><p>5. G1 with basal lobe; regularly curved, with tip ending in two auricular lobes. Vulva situated on obliquely directed flanks of sterno-pleonal cavity; opening not recessed, quite large, elongated, crescent-shaped ......................... ......................................................................................................................... Philippidorippinae n. subfam.</p><p>— G1 without basal lobe; basally twisted, thin, S-shapedly curved; second half horn-coloured, with rather large, inverted subdistal lobe and recurved distal tip. Vulva situated on raised flanks of sterno-pleonal cavity; opening narrow, slit-shaped ............................................................................................ Phyllodorippinae n. subfam.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03CDBE749363B54CCC8DFF18FAF9FE79	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	Guinot, Danièle (2023): 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. Zoosystema 45 (9): 225-372, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2023v45a9
03CDBE749383B5A3CDF2FD55FE1BFA95.text	03CDBE749383B5A3CDF2FD55FE1BFA95.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Archaeocypoda veronensis Secretan 1975	<div><p>Archaeocypoda veronensis Secretan, 1975</p><p>Archaeocypoda veronensis Secretan, 1975: 363, figs 21, 22, pl. 23, fig. 2, pls 24, 25.</p><p>REMARKS</p><p>The status of this species from the Early Eocene of Bolca Fossil-Lagerstätten, Italy (Secretan 1975: 363-369, figs 21, 22, pl. 23, fig. 2, pls 24, 25) (see De Angeli &amp; Garassino 2006: 79), has been fully revised with numerous figures by Pasini et al. (2019b: 253, fig. 12). Casadío et al. (2005: 175) stated that it was not an ocypodid and suggested that it might be a member of the Dorippidae . Subsequently Schweitzer et al. (2010: 79) and Schweitzer et al. (2021: 1, fig. 1.2) included it in the Dorippidae, while Pasini et al. (2019b: 255) preferred to consider it as a ‘doubtful dorippid’. Figures of the holotype and paratypes (Giusberti et al. 2014: fig. 6d; Pasini et al. 2019b: fig. 12; Schweitzer et al. 2021: fig. 1.2) show crabs with an unreduced P4 and a poorly or not at all reduced P5, which excludes Archaeocypoda veronensis from being a dorippid. The hypothesis that at least part of this material could be an ethusid (only P5 reduced) is to be considered. See literature in Sasaki (2019: 7771).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03CDBE749383B5A3CDF2FD55FE1BFA95	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	Guinot, Danièle (2023): 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. Zoosystema 45 (9): 225-372, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2023v45a9
03CDBE749383B5A3CDC6FA72FB8BFE29.text	03CDBE749383B5A3CDC6FA72FB8BFE29.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Bartethusa hepatica Quayle & Collins 1981	<div><p>Bartethusa hepatica Quayle &amp; Collins, 1981</p><p>Bartethusa hepatica Quayle &amp; Collins, 1981: 738, pl. 104, fig. 4. — De Grave et al. 2009: 31. — Schweitzer et al. 2010: 79. — Sasaki 2019: 7771. — Collins et al. 2020: 42, fig. 8A. — Van Bakel et al. 2020: fig. 10.24 — Schweitzer et al. 2021: 3, fig. 1.3.</p><p>REMARKS</p><p>This species, from the Middle Eocene (Bartonian) of the Isle of Wight, considered a dorippid and not an ethusid by their authors (despite its genus name), does indeed have the appearance of a representative of the Dorippidae . The short, wide carapace is subquadrate, with several recognisable regions on the dorsal surface, including a large hepatic region, and prominent grooves, the anterior called ‘hepatic’ corresponding to the precervical groove (see Interpretation of grooves on the carapace dorsal surface in Dorippidae). The slightly concave posterior border is ‘bounded by a thin ridge’ (Quayle &amp; Collins 1981: 739). The front is divided into four equidistant triangular teeth of wich the innermost, separated by a deep V-shaped emargination, are the largest. The subquadrate carapace, the deeply grooved and weakly ornamented surface are more like that of Dorippoidinae n. subfam. and other genera with a similar facies (Fig. 3).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03CDBE749383B5A3CDC6FA72FB8BFE29	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	Guinot, Danièle (2023): 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. Zoosystema 45 (9): 225-372, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2023v45a9
03CDBE749383B5A3CEA6FDD6FB89FC97.text	03CDBE749383B5A3CEA6FDD6FB89FC97.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Dorippe astuta Van Straelen 1938	<div><p>Dorippe astuta Van Straelen, 1938</p><p>Dorippe astuta Van Straelen, 1938: 91 . — Guinot et al. 2013: 187.</p><p>Dorippoides facchino – Van Bakel et al. 2020: fig. 10.36.</p><p>REMARKS The remains of a species from the Pliocene of Indonesia (Java) were recorded but not figured by Van Straelen (1938) as Dorippe astuta Fabricius, 1798, a species placed in the synonymy of Dorippoides facchino by Holthuis &amp; Manning (1990) (Fig. 16A, B).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03CDBE749383B5A3CEA6FDD6FB89FC97	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	Guinot, Danièle (2023): 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. Zoosystema 45 (9): 225-372, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2023v45a9
03CDBE749383B5ACCEA1FC75FE9FFEA9.text	03CDBE749383B5ACCEA1FC75FE9FFEA9.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Dorippe carpathica Forster 1979	<div><p>Dorippe? carpathica Förster, 1979</p><p>Dorippe? carpathica Förster, 1979: 91, fig. 3, pl. 2, fig. 3. — Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: 7</p><p>? Dorippe carpathica – Müller 1984a: 66, 100.</p><p>Neodorippe? carpathica – Müller 1996: 9. — Schweitzer et al. 2010: 79. — Sasaki 2019: 7796.</p><p>“ Dorippe ” carpathica – Müller 2006: 42.</p><p>Medorippe carpathica – Karasawa 2000: 811.</p><p>Neodorippe carpathica – Hyžný 2016: table 1. — Van Bakel et al. 2020: fig. 10.25.</p><p>REMARKS</p><p>This species, known from the Miocene of the Carpathians by an internal mould with a diagenetically deformed and laterally compressed carapace, has been considered to bear some resemblance to extant Cymonomus A. Milne-Edwards, 1880 and even Tymolus Stimpson, 1858 or to homoloids (Müller 1984a: 66, 100, respectively). It may also be noted that transversely aligned ridges cross the branchial regions in Eocene Cymonomidae (De Angeli 2016) . Currently, D. carpathica is regarded as a dorippid, tentatively assigned to either Dorippe (Förster 1979) or Neodoripp e (Müller 1996; Schweitzer et al. 2010; Hyžný 2016) or Medorippe (Karaswa 2000); it has also been assumed to be an ethusid (Müller 2006). The posterior margin is ‘bilobated’ (Förster 1979: 92, fig. 3, pl. 2, fig. 3) and concave. In Förster’s sketch and photograph (1979: 92, fig. 3, pl. 2, fig. 3), the carapace dorsal surface bears three parallel lines on each branchial region, the posterior line corresponding to an oblique ‘prominent ridge’. The deep groove that reaches the orbital border is much stronger than that of extant dorippids. It is difficult to assign this species to an existing genus, at least not to Dorippe, Medorippe or Neodorippe .? Dorippe carpathica is somewhat reminiscent of Ethusa popognensis De Angeli, Garassino &amp; Pasini, 2009, which bears two granulated ridges on each branchial region (see below).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03CDBE749383B5ACCEA1FC75FE9FFEA9	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	Guinot, Danièle (2023): 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. Zoosystema 45 (9): 225-372, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2023v45a9
03CDBE74938CB5ACCC18FE56FDEAFB77.text	03CDBE74938CB5ACCC18FE56FDEAFB77.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Dorippe fankhauseri Studer 1892	<div><p>Dorippe fankhauseri Studer, 1892</p><p>Dorippe Fankhauseri Studer, 1892: 6, pl. 1, figs 1-4.</p><p>D. Frankhauseri [sic] – Glaessner 1929: 137.</p><p>Dorippe fankhauseri – Bachmayer &amp; Rutsch 1962: 677, pl. 2, fig. 1. — Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: 7. — Müller 2006: 42. — Fraaije et al. 2010: 2, 5. — Schweitzer et al. 2010: 79. — Hyžný 2016: table 1. — Sasaki 2019: 7773. — Van Bakel et al. 2020: fig. 10.28.</p><p>REMARKS</p><p>The species, with a partially preserved carapace, is originating from the Miocene of Switzerland. Considering several inaccuracies in Studer’s illustrations, Bachmayer &amp; Rutsch (1962: pl. 2, fig. 1) reproduced the holotype, which has a well-delineated ‘human face’. The sculptured and apparently rounded carapace shows the two main grooves typical of Dorippidae, e.g. the deep precervical and cervical grooves, and a rather straight, prominent posterior rim. The carapace dorsal surface exhibits an ornamented and coarsely granular cardiac region and a tripartite ridge on the branchial region. It is a true dorippid, but not a species of Dorippe and Dorippinae n. status (Fig. 3A) and could more likely belong to Phyllodorippinae n. subfam. (Fig. 3I) despite the absence of a lateral spine on the margins of the carapace.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03CDBE74938CB5ACCC18FE56FDEAFB77	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	Guinot, Danièle (2023): 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. Zoosystema 45 (9): 225-372, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2023v45a9
03CDBE74938CB5ACCC3EFB14FD40F813.text	03CDBE74938CB5ACCC3EFB14FD40F813.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Dorippe judicis Gripp 1964	<div><p>Dorippe judicis Gripp, 1964</p><p>Dorippe judicis Gripp, 1964: 105, 106, pl. 17, fig. 7a, b. — Sasaki 2019: 7774.</p><p>REMARKS</p><p>Dorippe judicis, from the Lower Miocene of northern Germany, represented by a carapace and a partially dorsally exposed pleon, is a poorly known species as most palaeontologists have not treated it (e.g. not listed by Schweitzer et al. 2010, 2021), with the exception of Polkowsky (2014: 125). The wider than long and short carapace, without lateral spine, the wide front, the two deep main grooves, easily identifiable with the precervical and cervical grooves of Recent Dorippidae (see Interpretation of grooves on the carapace dorsal surface in Dorippidae), leading to a strongly subdivided dorsal surface with a prominent, three-ridged cardiac region, the absence of tubercles or granules, and the first dorsally exposed pleonal somites are typical dorippid characters (Fig. 40A). We would not agree with Müller (2006: 42) followed by Jagt et al. (2015) that it could be an ethusid. It cannot be a species of Dorippe or a representative of Dorippinae n. stat. (Fig. 3A). Gripp (1964: 106, as Dorippe lanata) compared it with the extant Medorippe lanata (Fig. 3C) and with the Miocene Dorippe fankhauseri (see above). The genus needs to be clarified.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03CDBE74938CB5ACCC3EFB14FD40F813	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	Guinot, Danièle (2023): 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. Zoosystema 45 (9): 225-372, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2023v45a9
03CDBE74938CB5ACCEA4FF17FB3EFEA9.text	03CDBE74938CB5ACCEA4FF17FB3EFEA9.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Dorippe lanata Gemmellaro 1914	<div><p>Dorippe lanata Gemmellaro, 1914</p><p>REMARK</p><p>See below under Medorippe lanata .</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03CDBE74938CB5ACCEA4FF17FB3EFEA9	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	Guinot, Danièle (2023): 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. Zoosystema 45 (9): 225-372, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2023v45a9
03CDBE74938CB5ACCEEAFE56FB42FDC8.text	03CDBE74938CB5ACCEEAFE56FB42FDC8.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Dorippe margaretha Lorenthey 1929	<div><p>Dorippe margaretha (Lőrenthey in Lőrenthey &amp; Beurlen, 1929)</p><p>REMARK</p><p>See below under Medorippe margaretha .</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03CDBE74938CB5ACCEEAFE56FB42FDC8	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	Guinot, Danièle (2023): 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. Zoosystema 45 (9): 225-372, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2023v45a9
03CDBE74938CB5ACCEA0FDB6FAB2FB36.text	03CDBE74938CB5ACCEA0FDB6FAB2FB36.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Dorippe ornatissima Muller 2006	<div><p>Dorippe ornatissima Müller, 2006</p><p>Dorippe ornatissima Müller, 2006: 41, pl. 1, fig. 1. — Schweitzer et al. 2010: 79. — Hyžný 2016: table 1. — Sasaki 2019: 7775. — Van Bakel et al. 2020: fig. 10.29. — Hyžný &amp; Dulai 2021: 167, fig. 62.6.</p><p>REMARKS</p><p>Dorippe ornatissima, from the Middle Miocene (Upper Badenian) marine layers of the Budapest area (Hungary), characterised by a wide carapace, slightly elongated anteriorly, with a rimmed posterior margin, a heavily ornamented dorsal surface, without deep grooves, with the branchial and cardiac regions covered with a set of tubercles of various sizes, could belong to those dorippids with a sculptured and ornamented carapace like the members of the Dorippinae n. stat .. The photograph of the holotype by Hyžný &amp; Dulai (1921: 167, fig. 62.6a) might convince us that it could be a Dorippinae n. stat., with a prominent posterior margin and a distinct strip, but the much rounder carapace makes us somewhat doubtful of this attribution.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03CDBE74938CB5ACCEA0FDB6FAB2FB36	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	Guinot, Danièle (2023): 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. Zoosystema 45 (9): 225-372, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2023v45a9
03CDBE74938CB5ACCEA6FAD3FAE6F814.text	03CDBE74938CB5ACCEA6FAD3FAE6F814.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Dorippe rissoana Desmarest 1817	<div><p>Dorippe rissoana Desmarest, 1817</p><p>Dorippe Rissoana A.-G. Desmarest, 1817: 509; 1822: 119, pl. 10, figs 1-3. — H. Milne Edwards 1837: 158.</p><p>Dorippe quadridens – Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: 18, 34-35. — Schweitzer et al. 2021: 1.</p><p>REMARKS</p><p>A.-G. Desmarest (1817; 1822) introduced and depicted a new fossil species of unknown origin as Dorippe rissoana . Defrance (1819) provided a slightly modified version of the Desmarest’s original (1817) description. According to Desmarest himself (1822: 121), it was a dubious fossil since, although brown and shiny like most East Indian fossil crabs, it was much lighter in colour, more friable and less strongly embedded in clay than the true fossils. Desmarest pointed out that this species was similar to the Dorippe nodosa A.-G. Desmarest (nomen nudum) collected by Péron (= D. quadridens) and could not be distinguished from it. Glaessner (1929: 137), who considered Desmarest’s specimen a subfossil, treated D. rissoana as a synonym of D. quadridens (Fabricius, 1793) (Fig. 10A, B), an action followed by Holthuis &amp; Manning (1990: 18, 34-35). This species belongs to the Dorippinae n. stat ..</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03CDBE74938CB5ACCEA6FAD3FAE6F814	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	Guinot, Danièle (2023): 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. Zoosystema 45 (9): 225-372, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2023v45a9
03CDBE74938DB5ADCC27FF17FC9DFD28.text	03CDBE74938DB5ADCC27FF17FC9DFD28.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Dorippe sinica : Chen 1980	<div><p>Dorippe sinica Chen, 1980</p><p>Dorippe (Dorippe) sinica Chen, 1980: 154, fig. 1, pl. 1.</p><p>Dorippe sinica – Karasawa et al. 2021: 139, 146, pl. 2, fig. 20. — Ando et al. 2022: 132, pl. 2, fig. A.</p><p>REMARKS</p><p>Two carapace fragments allocated to the Recent species Dorippe sinica are shown in the Illustrated catalogue of Decapoda from the Middle Pleistocene Atsumi Group, Japan by Karasawa et al. (2021). The strongly tuberculated carapace, although it appears longer and too narrow anteriorly, is reminiscent of the extant Dorippe sinica (Fig. 10C, D), very common in Japan. Dorippe sinica was recently found in Holocene deposits in the Shimizu Port, Shizuoka City, Japan (Ando et al. 2022: 132, pl. 2, fig. A). The species belongs to the Dorippinae n. stat ..</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03CDBE74938DB5ADCC27FF17FC9DFD28	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	Guinot, Danièle (2023): 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. Zoosystema 45 (9): 225-372, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2023v45a9
03CDBE74938DB5ADCDF9FCD5FE49FA75.text	03CDBE74938DB5ADCDF9FCD5FE49FA75.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Heikeopsis japonica (von Siebold 1824)	<div><p>Heikeopsis japonica (von Siebold, 1824)</p><p>Dorippe Japonica von Siebold, 1824: 14 .</p><p>Dorippe japonica – De Haan 1841: 12. — Kaneko 1958: 331, 332, 336, pl. 15, fig. 10.</p><p>Neodorippe (Neodorippe) japonica – Morita 1977: 16, pl. 2, figs 1-4.</p><p>Heikea japonica – Umemoto &amp; Karasawa 1998: 11, fig. 7. — Sasaki 2019: 7788.</p><p>REMARKS</p><p>Well-sculpted carapaces similar to that of the extant and iconic Heikeopsis japonica (Figs 1; 19 A-D) have been recorded from the Holocene of the Umeda Formation, Osaka City (Kaneko 1958), of the ‘Reclaimed Sand’ around the Nagoya Port, Aichi Prefecture (Morita 1977) or Nanyo Formation, Aichi Prefecture (Umemoto &amp; Karasawa 1998). It is a pity that none of the pereiopods 2 or 3 of these crabs have been preserved to check if they are long and thin as in the typical H. japonica in the living fauna.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03CDBE74938DB5ADCDF9FCD5FE49FA75	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	Guinot, Danièle (2023): 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. Zoosystema 45 (9): 225-372, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2023v45a9
03CDBE74938DB5ADCDABFA12FB2CFAF5.text	03CDBE74938DB5ADCDABFA12FB2CFAF5.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Heikeopsis tuberculata (Morris & Collins 1991)	<div><p>Heikeopsis tuberculata (Morris &amp; Collins, 1991)</p><p>Dorippe (Dorippe) frascone tuberculata Morris &amp; Collins, 1991: 5, fig. 1a, b.</p><p>Dorippe frascone tuberculata – Karasawa 2000: table 1.</p><p>Heikea tuberculata – Collins et al. 2003: 200, pl. 1, fig. 5.</p><p>Heikeopsi s tuberculata – Schweitzer et al. 2010: 79. — Guinot et al. 2013: 187; 2019: 300. — Sasaki 2019: 7790. — Van Bakel et al. 2020: fig. 10.27. — Schweitzer et al. 2021: 2, fig. 1.5a, b.</p><p>REMARKS</p><p>Heikeopsis tuberculata, from the Lower Miocene Miri Formation of Sarawak, established without knowledge of the contemporary work of Holthuis &amp; Manning (1990), is one of the few fossil dorippids with a well-preserved ventral part (Morris &amp; Collins 1991: 5, fig. 1a, 1b). Based on examination of the type series (holotype and two paratypes) and better preserved specimens, the new description and figures of Collins et al. (2003: 200, pl. 1, fig. 5a-d, as Heikea japonica) confirm all the characteristic features of the family Dorippidae, e.g. the clearly recognisable Milne Edwards openings and the curvature of the sternal suture 5/6 including the press-button for pleonal locking. This crab is undeniably a dorippid, with the two typical main carapace grooves: a ‘hepatic furrow’ that corresponds to the precervical groove; and a ‘wide, fairly deep, and broadly V-shaped’ cervical groove (see Interpretation of grooves on the carapace dorsal surface in Dorippidae). The well-marked posterior rim, described as ‘a broad ridge [that] bounds the deeply sinuous, not concave posterior margin’, is similar to that of the extant Heikeopsis . The thoracic sternum, depicted upside down by Morris &amp; Collins (1991) but correctly oriented by Collins et al. (2003) (see Guinot et al. 2013: 187), was shown by Schweitzer et al. (2021: 2, fig. 1.5b). The shape of the carapace, the sculpted and ornamented dorsal surface and the ridged thoracic sternum are not reminiscent of Heikeopsis japonica (Figs 1; 19 A-D), just as the posterolateral tubercle that becomes a sharp spine in some large adults casts doubt on this generic identification. Furthermore, as the present distribution of H. japonica most probably includes only Japan and the nearby region, it may be preferable to assign it to another genus and species. The holotype of Heikeopsis tuberculata represented by Schweitzer et al. (2021: 2, fig. 1.5a, b), with the correct registration number (NHMUK In. 61853), has a sculptured carapace and ridged thoracic sternum that do not conform to the material assigned to H. japonica by Morris &amp; Collins (1991) and Collins et al. (2003), and thus clearly correspond to another genus, most likely in Dorippinae n. subfam. (if the anterior part of the carapace is proven to be narrowed).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03CDBE74938DB5ADCDABFA12FB2CFAF5	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	Guinot, Danièle (2023): 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. Zoosystema 45 (9): 225-372, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2023v45a9
03CDBE74938DB5AEC91BF8D1FE05FBD6.text	03CDBE74938DB5AEC91BF8D1FE05FBD6.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Medorippe ampla Garassino, De Angeli, Gallo & Pasini 2004	<div><p>Medorippe ampla Garassino, De Angeli, Gallo &amp; Pasini, 2004</p><p>Medorippe ampla Garassino, De Angeli, Gallo &amp; Pasini, 2004: 260, figs 5, 6a, b. — De Angeli &amp; Garassino 2006: 40. — De Angeli et al. 2009: 174, fig. 6; 2019: 47, 51. — Schweitzer et al. 2010: 79. — Jagt et al. 2015: 882. — Pasini et al. 2019a: 29, fig. 2B. — Van Bakel et al. 2020: fig. 10.33. — Schweitzer et al. 2021: 3.</p><p>Medorippe cf. M. ampla – Garassino et al. 2012: 27. — Sasaki 2019: 7791.</p><p>REMARKS</p><p>Medorippe ampla, described for two specimens from the Messinian (Late Miocene) of Piedmont, northern Italy (Garassino et al. 2004), was subsequently reported from the Messinian of Livorno in Tuscany (central Italy) (De Angeli et al. 2009: 174), and from the Early-Middle Messinian (Late Miocene) of the Romagna Apennines, Emilia-Romagna (Pasini et al. 2019a). The first record from the Early Pliocene of Italy is recent (Garassino et al. 2012: 27). The species, remarkably represented by a sketch in Garassino et al. (2004: fig. 5) and a photograph in De Angeli et al. (2009: 175, fig. 6), shows the characteristics of the Recent Medorippe lanata (Figs 3C; 22A, B), e.g. an enlarged carapace with a lateral spine, a narrow front with two short teeth, two branchial lobes and a Y-shaped cardiac ornament, but differs in having a wider carapace, with a shorter anterolateral margin and granular ridges on the supraorbital, hepatic and branchial regions. The sharp lateral spine could also be reminiscent of Phyllodorippe armata (Figs 3I; 29A, B), an extant species from West Africa, but without a Y-shaped ridge on the cardiac region and with a tripartite ridge on the branchial region. Failing to belong with certainty to the genus Medorippe, this species could be assigned to the Medorippinae n. subfam.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03CDBE74938DB5AEC91BF8D1FE05FBD6	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	Guinot, Danièle (2023): 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. Zoosystema 45 (9): 225-372, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2023v45a9
03CDBE74938EB5AECC16FBB3FEEFF813.text	03CDBE74938EB5AECC16FBB3FEEFF813.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Medorippe lanata (Linnaeus 1767)	<div><p>Medorippe lanata (Linnaeus, 1767)</p><p>Cancer lanatus Linnaeus, 1767: 1044 .</p><p>? Dorippe lanata – Gemmellaro 1914: 78, pl. 1, fig. 2 (nec Cancer lanatus Linnaeus, 1767); see Garassino et al. 2004: 262 (as Medorippe lanata).</p><p>Dorippe lanata – Glaessner 1929: 137.</p><p>Medorippe lanata – Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: 7. — Schweitzer et al. 2010: 79. — Garassino et al. 2014b: 124, fig. 2C. — De Angeli et al. 2019: 58. — Sasaki 2019: 7792. — Van Bakel et al. 2020: fig. 10.35. — Schweitzer et al. 2021: 3.</p><p>REMARKS</p><p>Gemmellaro (1914, as Dorippe lanata) was the first to report some specimens from the Late Pleistocene of Sicily. The second fossil report in the Mediterranean area is from Garassino et al. (2014b: fig. 2C) for a well-preserved male specimen (carapace and ventral surface) from the Late Pleistocene of Calabria (southern Italy): all its features seem to indicate a Medorippe lanata (Figs 3C; 22A, B), with its lateral spine, the two main carapace grooves, the rather straight posterior margin of the carapace. The cardiac region is ornamented, but the Y-shaped ridge characteristic of the extant species is not clearly distinct. Anyway, the species belongs to the Medorippinae n. subfam.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03CDBE74938EB5AECC16FBB3FEEFF813	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	Guinot, Danièle (2023): 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. Zoosystema 45 (9): 225-372, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2023v45a9
03CDBE74938EB5AECEE4FF17FBB8F9B5.text	03CDBE74938EB5AECEE4FF17FBB8F9B5.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Medorippe margaretha (Lőrenthey in Lőrenthey & Beurlen 1929) Lőrenthey 1929	<div><p>Medorippe margaretha (Lőrenthey in Lőrenthey &amp; Beurlen, 1929)</p><p>Dorippe margaretha Lőrenthey in Lőrenthey &amp; Beurlen, 1929: 135, pl. 6, fig. 1a-c. — Lőrenthey 1911: 528 (nomen nudum); 1913: 326 (nomen nudum). — Glaessner 1929: 137; 1969: R492, fig. 304.8. — Müller 1978: 279, 287, pl. 13, fig. 4; 1984a: 66, pl. 34, figs 1-5. — Holthuis &amp; Manning 1990: 7.</p><p>Medorippe Margaretha – Karasawa 2000: 811, 812, table 1.</p><p>Dorippe (Medorippe) margaretha – Müller 2006: 42.</p><p>Dorippe margaretha – Schweitzer et al. 2010: 79. — Hyžný 2016: table 1. — Sasaki 2019: 7774. — Hyžný &amp; Dulai 2021: fig. 62.1-5.</p><p>Medorippe margaretha – Guinot et al. 2013: 187. — Jagt et al. 2015: 882. — Van Bakel et al. 2020: fig. 10.34.</p><p>Dorippe sp. aff. margaretha – Polkowsky 2014: 123, pl. 125, figs 1-4.</p><p>REMARKS</p><p>By its outline, its anterolateral spine in the figre of Lőrenthey &amp; Beurlen (1929: pl. 6, fig. 1a), its two closely spaced triangular frontal teeth, the carapace of this species, from the Miocene of Hungary, Portugal, Germany (Upper Miocene) and Hungary (Middle Miocene), indeed resembles that of extant species Medorippe lanata . In Polkowsky’s (2014: pl. 125, figs 1-4) four good figures of several Schleswig-Holstein specimens, the cardiac region does not show the characteristic Y-shaped ridge of the extant Medorippe lanata (Fig. 22A, B), and the strong tripatite branchial ridge is more reminiscent of Phyllodorippe armata (Fig. 29A, B); but the shape of the carapace, the strong lobulation, the spaced frontal teeth, the absence of a lateral spine (possibly lost) are not typical of this genus. But most importantly, the valuable figures of the holotype and other specimens provided by Hyžný &amp; Dulai (2021: fig. 62.1-5) show the characteristic Y-shaped ridge on the cardiac region, a small spine on the carapace lateral margin, all of which are characters in favour of belonging to Medorippe, if not, at least, to the subfamily Medorippinae n.subfam. It should be noted that a second species of Medorippe, under the name of M. crosnieri (Fig. 23A, B, D), with a similar facies, including the cardiac region, probably exists, but with a still questionable status (see Remarks about Medorippe crosnieri Chen, 1988).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03CDBE74938EB5AECEE4FF17FBB8F9B5	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	Guinot, Danièle (2023): 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. Zoosystema 45 (9): 225-372, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2023v45a9
03CDBE74938EB5AECEBBF952FB5CF813.text	03CDBE74938EB5AECEBBF952FB5CF813.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Medorippe tanabei Karasawa 2000	<div><p>Medorippe tanabei Karasawa, 2000</p><p>Medorippe tanabei Karasawa, 2000: 811, fig. 2. — Schweitzer et al. 2010: 79; 2021: 3. — Jagt et al. 2015: 882. — Van Bakel et al. 2020: fig. 10.31.</p><p>REMARKS</p><p>According to Guinot et al. (2013: 18), the generic status of Medorippe tanabei, known only by a carapace from the Miocene of Japan, is not certain, but its attribution to the Medorippinae n. subfam. is plausible.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03CDBE74938EB5AECEBBF952FB5CF813	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	Guinot, Danièle (2023): 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. Zoosystema 45 (9): 225-372, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2023v45a9
03CDBE74938FB5AFCC1CFF17FDAAFD17.text	03CDBE74938FB5AFCC1CFF17FDAAFD17.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Nobilum wenchii Hu & Tao 1996	<div><p>Nobilum wenchii Hu &amp; Tao, 1996</p><p>Nobilum wenchii Hu &amp; Tao, 1996: 65, pl. 11, fig. 9. — Karasawa 2000: table 1. — Müller 2006: 42. — Schweitzer et al. 2010: 80. — Guinot et al. 2013: 187. — Sasaki 2019: 7797. — Van Bakel et al. 2020: fig. 10.26.</p><p>REMARKS</p><p>The carapace of Nobilum wenchii, from the Miocene of Taiwan, is longer and narrower than that of the extant N. histrio (Figs 3F; 21A) and this shape more resembles a Neodorippe, except that in the latter the carapace is smooth (Figs 3E; 20A, B). In addition, the posterior border of the carapace is described as “similar to a lip, protruded medially and inwardly”, which is not the case in Neodorippe where the rim is faint and the strip very narrow. It is however possible that the species belongs to the Heikeopsinae n. subfam.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03CDBE74938FB5AFCC1CFF17FDAAFD17	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	Guinot, Danièle (2023): 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. Zoosystema 45 (9): 225-372, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2023v45a9
03CDBE74938FB5AFCE7CFA93FA3AF954.text	03CDBE74938FB5AFCE7CFA93FA3AF954.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Titanodorippe eocenica Blow & Manning 1996	<div><p>Titanodorippe eocenica Blow &amp; Manning, 1996</p><p>Titanodorippe eocenica Blow &amp; Manning, 1996: 6, pl. 2, fig. 2. — Müller 2006: 42. — Schweitzer et al. 2010: 80; 2021: 3, fig. 2.7a, b. — Sasaki 2019: 7772.</p><p>REMARKS The subfamilial identity of this Middle Eocene species from the Carolinas, USA, known only from a single large and granular cheliped propodus, cannot be determined. Note that dorippids are not present in the living fauna of the New World.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03CDBE74938FB5AFCE7CFA93FA3AF954	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	Guinot, Danièle (2023): 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. Zoosystema 45 (9): 225-372, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2023v45a9
03CDBE749388B5A8CC60FE97FF77FB56.text	03CDBE749388B5A8CC60FE97FF77FB56.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Dorippidae sp.	<div><p>Dorippidae sp.</p><p>Dorippidae sp. – Artal &amp; Gilles 2007: 8, fig. 3C.</p><p>Medorippe sensu Artal &amp; Gilles 2007 – Van Bakel et al. 2020: fig.10.30.</p><p>REMARKS</p><p>The crab found in the Miocene of Pignan (southeastern France), attributed to the Dorippidae by Artal &amp; Gilles (2007: 8, fig. 3C), with a possible assignment to Medorippe, indicated as ‘ Medorippe sp. sensu Artal &amp; Gilles 2007 ’ by Van Bakel et al. (2020: fig. 10.30), is not a dorippid. The narrow carapace with parallel lateral margins, the simple and spatulate rostrum and the sinuous entire orbital margin are like those of a retroplumid. Generally, the carapace of Retroplumidae is wide, rectangular and has several transverse ridges, therefore this unnamed species with a subquadrate carapace and an apparently lobulated and granulated dorsal surface would represent a rare form in this family. Bacapluma aragonensis Ortega, Fernández, Ferratges, Kwekel, Laguna, Maza &amp; Méndez, 2013, from the Eocene of Huesca (Aragon, Spain) (not cited in Schweitzer &amp; Feldmann (2018), could be the closest form. A comparison with the many species of Archaeopus Rathbun, 1908, where there is a wide range of carapace morphology, from quadrate to subquadrate and in which transveres ridges are replaced by swellings or linear tubercles over defined regions (Nyborg et al. 2019b), would be useful.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03CDBE749388B5A8CC60FE97FF77FB56	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	Guinot, Danièle (2023): 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. Zoosystema 45 (9): 225-372, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2023v45a9
03CDBE749388B5A8CDF7FAD3FECEF8B3.text	03CDBE749388B5A8CDF7FAD3FECEF8B3.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Ethusa berica De Angeli & Beschin 2008	<div><p>Ethusa berica De Angeli &amp; Beschin, 2008</p><p>Ethusa berica De Angeli &amp; Beschin, 2008: 22, fig. 5, pl. 2, figs 1, 2. — Schweitzer et al. 2010: 80; 2021: 3. — De Angeli et al. 2010: 154, fig. 7; 2019: 23. — Beschin et al. 2019: 96, fig. 57. — Sasaki 2019: 7812. — Van Bakel et al. 2020: fig. 10.16. — De Angeli &amp; Garassino 2021: 21.</p><p>REMARKS</p><p>Ethusa berica, a true ethusid from the Lower Oligocene of Vicentina (De Angeli &amp; Beschin 2008; De Angeli et al. 2010) and the Upper Eocene of Parona di Verona, Italy (Beschin et al. 2019), has a fairly long carapace, a smooth dorsal surface, with well-defined grooves, and four frontal spines, the inner ones protruding and close together, only separated by a V-shaped sinus, as revealed in the figure of a more complete and more recent specimen (De Angeli et al. 2010: fig. 7). The posterior rim is marked, wide; the presence of a strip should be checked.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03CDBE749388B5A8CDF7FAD3FECEF8B3	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	Guinot, Danièle (2023): 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. Zoosystema 45 (9): 225-372, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2023v45a9
03CDBE749388B5A8CEDEFE36FA3FFC37.text	03CDBE749388B5A8CEDEFE36FA3FFC37.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Ethusa chibai Karasawa 1993	<div><p>Ethusa chibai Karasawa, 1993</p><p>Ethusa chibai Karasawa, 1993: 44, fig. 4, pl. 8, fig. 12; 1999: fig. 6. — Karasawa &amp; Kato 2001: Database. — Schweitzer et al. 2010: 80; 2021: 3. — Sasaki 2019: 7812. — Van Bakel et al. 2020: fig. 10.21.</p><p>REMARKS</p><p>In this crab from the Lower Pliocene of southwestern Japan, the “inflated branchial region”, the two epibranchial lobes “divided into two by a shallow, oblique groove”, which are not very visible in the figure, are somewhat reminiscent of the ridged branchial region of Ethusa popognensis (see below). According to De Angeli et al. (2009: 176), E. chibai can be distinguished from E. popognensis by “a carapace longer, dorsal surface smoother, and shallow branchiocardiac groove”.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03CDBE749388B5A8CEDEFE36FA3FFC37	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	Guinot, Danièle (2023): 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. Zoosystema 45 (9): 225-372, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2023v45a9
03CDBE749388B5A8CEBCFBD4FA34F9F5.text	03CDBE749388B5A8CEBCFBD4FA34F9F5.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Ethusa evae Muller & Collins 1991	<div><p>Ethusa evae Müller &amp; Collins, 1991</p><p>Ethusa evae Müller &amp; Collins, 1991: 66, fig. 3h, pl. 4, figs 1, 2. — Pálfy et al. 2008: Catalogue. — De Angeli et al. 2010: 176. — Schweitzer et al. 2010: 80; 2021: 3. — Baldanza et al. 2017: 52. — Beschin et al. 2019: table 1. — Sasaki 2019: 7814. — Van Bakel et al. 2020: fig. 10.15.</p><p>REMARKS</p><p>Ethusa evae, from the Upper Eocene (Priabonian), Hungary, has a subsquare carapace, well-developed outer orbital spines and fairly wide orbits. These characters are not typical of either Ethusa or an ethusid and we agree with Müller &amp; Collins (1991: 67) that the outline of E. evae is somewhat reminiscent of Binkhorstia ubaghsi (Van Binkhorst, 1857) from the Late Cretaceous (Maastrichtian). The identification of this species, in any case not a dorippoid, should be carefully reconsidered.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03CDBE749388B5A8CEBCFBD4FA34F9F5	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	Guinot, Danièle (2023): 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. Zoosystema 45 (9): 225-372, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2023v45a9
03CDBE749388B5A8CE86F992FB6EF813.text	03CDBE749388B5A8CE86F992FB6EF813.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Ethusa mascarone (Herbst 1785) sensu Muller 1984	<div><p>Ethusa aff. mascarone sensu Müller 1984</p><p>Cancer mascarone Herbst, 1785: 191, pl. 11, fig. 69.</p><p>REMARKS</p><p>Müller (1984b: 26) and Via Boada (1988) reported specimens from the Miocene (Messinian) of Santa Pola (Alicante, Spain) that are regarded as a probable new subspecies of E. mascarone by De Angeli et al. (2009: 176), with no subsequent record or discussion (De Angeli &amp; Garassino 2021: 19), see Van Bakel et al. 2020: fig. 10.19. The type species of Ethusa, E. mascarone (Herbst, 1785), is shown by Schweitzer et al. (2021: 3, fig. 3) from a Holocene specimen from Portugal.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03CDBE749388B5A8CE86F992FB6EF813	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	Guinot, Danièle (2023): 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. Zoosystema 45 (9): 225-372, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2023v45a9
03CDBE749388B5A8CC49F851FAD7FE48.text	03CDBE749388B5A8CC49F851FAD7FE48.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Ethusa undetermined	<div><p>Ethusa cf. E. berica</p><p>Ethusa cf. E. berica – De Angeli &amp; Garassino 2021: 20, fig. 4A, B.</p><p>REMARKS</p><p>This specimen, from the Late Eocene (Priabonian) of San Feliciano hill, Vicenza (NE Italy), differs from Ethusa berica in its smaller size, the dorsal regions more strongly marked by deep grooves, and the presence of developed cardiac tubercles. As in Ethusa berica, there is a wide, slightly concave and marked posterior rim, perhaps bordered by a strip.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03CDBE749388B5A8CC49F851FAD7FE48	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	Guinot, Danièle (2023): 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. Zoosystema 45 (9): 225-372, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2023v45a9
03CDBE749389B5A9CC51FF17FD99FD88.text	03CDBE749389B5A9CC51FF17FD99FD88.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Ethusa	<div><p>Ethusa cf. E. mascarone</p><p>Cancer mascarone Herbst, 1785: 191, pl. 11, fig. 69.</p><p>Ethusa cf. E. mascarone – Baldanza et al. 2017: 52, fig. 9E. — Van Bakel et al. 2020: fig. 10.23. — Pasini et al. 2022: 146, fig. 3F.</p><p>REMARKS</p><p>This crab, from the Early Pleistocene of Poggi Gialli (Tuscany), with an oval, pear-shaped carapace and indistinct regions, has been tentatively ascribed to the Mediterranean Ethusa mascarone, the type species of Ethusa . An incomplete carapace from the Lower Pleistocene of Tuscany (Italy) is similarly ascribed by Pasini et al. (2022: 149, fig. 3F).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03CDBE749389B5A9CC51FF17FD99FD88	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	Guinot, Danièle (2023): 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. Zoosystema 45 (9): 225-372, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2023v45a9
03CDBE749389B5A9CC03FD75FE21FB96.text	03CDBE749389B5A9CC03FD75FE21FB96.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Ethusa octospinosa Muller 2006	<div><p>Ethusa octospinosa Müller, 2006</p><p>Ethusa octospinosa Müller, 2006: 42, pl. 1, figs 2, 3. — Schweitzer et al. 2010: 80; 2021: 3. — Van Bakel et al. 2020: fig. 10.18. — Hyžný &amp; Dulai 2021: 165, fig. 61.1-2.</p><p>REMARKS</p><p>This species from the Miocene (Upper Badenian) of Hungary has well-developed frontal and outer orbital teeth as well as shallow grooves on carapace dorsal surface that are in favour of a true ethusid. It shares carapace proportions and ornamentation with the extant Ethusa mascarone, but E. octospinosa has a more protruding front (Hyžný &amp; Dulai 2021: 165, figs 61.1-2 and 61.1-3a, b, respectively).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03CDBE749389B5A9CC03FD75FE21FB96	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	Guinot, Danièle (2023): 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. Zoosystema 45 (9): 225-372, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2023v45a9
03CDBE749389B5A9CDA9FB73FE78F994.text	03CDBE749389B5A9CDA9FB73FE78F994.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Ethusa orgianensis De Angeli & Garassino 2021	<div><p>Ethusa orgianensis De Angeli &amp; Garassino, 2021</p><p>Ethusa orgianensis De Angeli &amp; Garassino, 2021: fig. 3.</p><p>REMARKS</p><p>Ethusa orgianensis, based on two carapaces from the late Eocene of Monti Berici, Vicenza, San Feliciano hill (NE Italy), is an ethusid, having – as well discussed by the authors – a carapace much longer than wide, a straight and rimmed posterior margin, a dorsal surface without deep grooves but with very distinct regions, four almost subequal frontal teeth and developed outer orbital teeth that are thin, acute and directed outwards. The well-marked regions and posterior rim are typical of fossil ethusids.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03CDBE749389B5A9CDA9FB73FE78F994	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	Guinot, Danièle (2023): 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. Zoosystema 45 (9): 225-372, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2023v45a9
03CDBE749389B5A9CD87F971FBACFE09.text	03CDBE749389B5A9CD87F971FBACFE09.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Ethusa popognensis De Angeli, Garassino & Pasini 2009	<div><p>Ethusa popognensis De Angeli, Garassino &amp; Pasini, 2009</p><p>Ethusa popognensis De Angeli, Garassino &amp; Pasini, 2009: 175, fig. 7A, B. — Schweitzer et al. 2010: 80; 2021: 3. — Jagt et al. 2015: 882. — De Angeli 2019: 51. — Sasaki 2019: 7829. — Van Bakel et al. 2020: fig. 10.20.</p><p>REMARKS</p><p>This species from the Upper Miocene (Messinian) of Livorno, Italy, is charaterised by the characters as follows:carapace longitudinally oval and posteriorly wider; dorsal surface sculptured, regions distinct, finely tuberculate in the median part of the gastric, cardiac, hepatic and branchial areas; front produced, with two pairs of triangular teeth separated by a V-shaped depression; anterolateral margins elongated and divergent; posterior margin concave and with a clearly thickened rim. Ethusa popognensis is distinguished mainly by well-developed branchial regions crossed transversely by two granulated ridges, a character shared with ‘ Dorippe ? carpathica ’ (see above) and some other fossil Ethusa .</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03CDBE749389B5A9CD87F971FBACFE09	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	Guinot, Danièle (2023): 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. Zoosystema 45 (9): 225-372, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2023v45a9
