Glypturus sp.

Klompmaker, A., Hy ̆ z, Matu ̆ s, , Roger W. Port & Kowalew, nd Michał, 2016, Growth, inter- and intraspecific variation, palaeobiogeography, taphonomy and systematics of the Cenozoic ghost shrimp Glypturus, Journal of Systematic Palaeontology 14 (2), pp. 99-126 : 116-119

Glypturus sp.

( Fig. 17)

1919 Callianassa anguillensis Rathbun : 164, pl. 1.1 — 1.7.

1919 Callianassa latidigata Rathbun : 165, pl. 9.10, 9.11.

1924 Callianassa anguillensis Rathbun ; Withers: 226, pl. 4.3 — 4.5.

2006 Neocallichirus? quisquellanus Schweitzer et al. : 115, fig. 3D.

non 2008? Neocallichirus? quisquellanus Schweitzer et al. ; Schweitzer et al.: 4, fig. 2.

Material. UF 222839 ( Fig. 17N — Q), 248031 ( Fig. 17R, S), 246508 ( Fig. 17T), 77426 ( Fig. 17U, V), 222383 (partial propodus, upper Pleistocene Jaimanitas Formation of Cuba, Caravela Road Fill Pit 01), 238826 (propodus, Pliocene Intracoastal Formation of Florida, Pickett Bay 01), 251883 (seven propodi, lower Miocene Chattahoochee Formation, Florida, Jim Woodruff Dam), 109960 & 109946 (propodus and two fixed fingers, lower Pleistocene Caloosahatchee Formation, Florida, De Soto Shell Pit 04), 35055 (fixed finger, upper Pliocene Tamiami Formation, lower Pinecrest beds, Florida, Macasphalt Shell Pit), 96809 (dactylus, Plio-Pleistocene, Florida, Macasphalt Shell Pit). MNHNCu-P5116 ( Fig. 17A). USNM MO166941 — 166943 (in part Fig. 17B, C), MO324470 ( Fig. 17D, E). NHM UK In 23770 — 23784 (in part Fig. 17F — M).

Remarks. Callianassa anguillensis Rathbun, 1919 , from the Miocene of Anguilla (see Supplemental Table 1 for details), shows tubercles near the lower margin of the outer side of the propodus ( Rathbun 1919, pl. 1.1, 1.3), tubercles in the centre of the inner side (pl. 1.2), and a spine is visible on the upper margin of the incompletely preserved holotype (pl. 1.4). Rathbun (1919, p. 164) mentioned that this spine (“tubercle”) is directed forward and noted another spine at the distal extremity. A third spine on the upper margin, as in the far majority of well-preserved specimens of Glypturus spp. , was not observed, but the upper margin is incomplete. A tubercle on the upper margin is also noted for an incompletely preserved paratype ( Rathbun 1919, pl. 1.2, 1.3). A finger appears to show a tooth (pl. 1.6). All these features suggest placement in Glypturus . Given the incomplete nature of the specimens, we refrain from a specific assignment, and refer the assemblage to Glypturus sp. Puzzling, however, are some of the tubercles shown near the upper margin of the outer side of the holotype (pl. 1.4), which would be unique for Glypturus . More specimens are needed to confirm whether or not this is an anomaly, but a paratype does not seem to show this feature (pl. 1.3). Five years later, Withers (1924) reported on 15 specimens (12 propodi, three dactyli) from a locality within a few kilometres of the type locality of the species (Crocus Bay), of which the best-preserved specimens are figured here ( Fig. 17F — M). He did not mention a lithostratigraphical unit, but these specimens are very likely to have also originated from the Miocene Anguilla Formation. This was also assumed by Collins et al. (2009) and supported by outcrops of this formation in that part of Anguilla (e.g. Christman 1953; Budd et al. 1995). None of the specimens is well preserved on both lateral sides, which makes comparisons with other species difficult. Tubercles near the upper margin were not observed on these specimens. Well-preserved material is needed to determine whether this is a separate species or can be synonymized with an existing species. However, some preliminary suggestions can be made. The specimens seem different from the late Miocene G. sikesi sp. nov., given the smaller tubercles in the latter, and appear different from the late Miocene G. toulai in that the tubercles on the inner side appear to extend to the lower proximal corner.

Rathbun (1919) also described Callianassa latidigata from the early Miocene of the Dominican Republic based on a fixed finger and a dactylus. The fixed finger shows a tooth and tubercles ( Rathbun 1919, pl. 9.11), consistent with Glypturus . Given the preservation and limited number of specimens we refer them to Glypturus sp. Withers (1924) suggested that this species resembled Callianassa anguillensis , but conclusive evidence cannot be provided.

Schweitzer et al. (2006) erected the species Neocallichirus? quisquellanus based on a Miocene specimen from the Dominican Republic (see also Supplemental Table 1 ). The presence of tubercles on the lower part of the outer side of the propodus, the tooth on the fixed finger and the presence of at least one spine on the upper margin ( Schweitzer et al. 2006, fig. 3D) allows it to be ascribed to Glypturus with confidence. Given the preservation and the single photo provided showing only the outer side, specific assignment is premature and could be better addressed with additional specimens. Therefore, we refer N.? quisquellanus to Glypturus sp. The holotype and sole type specimen (MNHNCu-P511) could not be located in the Museo Nacional de Historia Natural (Havana, Cuba) when requested and may be lost. Later, Schweitzer et al. (2008) questionably referred specimens from the Oligocene of Puerto Rico to N.? quisquellanus . The notch above the fixed finger is much larger than the type specimen of N.? quisquellanus . Moreover, there is no evidence of tubercles on one of the figured sides and no obvious evidence of spines on the upper margin are visible ( Schweitzer et al. 2008, fig. 2), which could also be related to the poor preservation. Nevertheless, given the major difference in the size of the notch, the specimen is unlikely to be conspecific to the Miocene specimen from the Dominican Republic and, thus, assignment to Glypturus is not favoured here.

We refrained from referring these three taxa to nomen dubium so that the names remain available in case betterpreserved material becomes available from the respective localities, which may justify or refute these species names.