Glypturus Stimpson, 1866

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 : 109

Genus Glypturus Stimpson, 1866

Type species. Glypturus acanthochirus Stimpson, 1866 , by monotypy.

Included species. (M = modern, F = fossil). Glypturus acanthochirus Stimpson, 1866 (M + F); G. armatus (A. Milne-Edwards, 1870) (= G. motupore Poore & Suchanek, 1988 ) (M + F); G. laurae (de Saint Laurent in de Vaugelas & de Saint Laurent, 1984) (M); Glypturus sp. (= Glypturus rabalaisae sensu Sakai, 2005 ) (M); G. berryi ( Rathbun, 1935) (F); G. fraasi ( Noetling, 1885) (F); G. munieri ( Brocchi, 1883) (F); G. panamacanalensis sp. nov. (F); G. persicus Hy̆ zńy et al., 2013 (F); G. pugnax (Bohm, 1922) (F); G. sikesi sp. nov. (F); G. spinosus (Ló́renthey, 1897) (F); G. toulai ( Rathbun, 1919) (F).

Diagnosis. Carapace with rostral spine (anterior margin of carapace with three spines, median extending to cornea). Cornea dorsal, subterminal, disk-shaped. Al peduncle not longer and stouter than A2 peduncle. Mxp 3 without exopod, ischium-merus subpediform; merus not projecting beyond articulation with carpus. Chelipeds unequal, major without meral hook; [propodus usually with three distally directed spines near or on upper margin; lower margins of carpus and merus with spines; upper margin of merus with spines; keel present on outer side merus; tubercles usually present on outer side propodus and merus.] Plp l slender and uniramous, Plp 2 slender and biramous, Plp 3 — 5 foliaceous and biramous in both sexes; appendices intemae finger-like on Plp 2 in both sexes, stubby, projecting from endopod of Plp 3 — 5 in both sexes (modified from Manning & Felder 1991, p. 778). [changes and/or additions in brackets]

Remarks. Manning & Felder (1991) provided a useful diagnosis that can be applied especially to modern species. However, other criteria are useful for palaeontologists and have been added here including tuberculation, spination, and a keel on the merus. Manning & Felder (1991, p. 778) stated “palm [= manus] with 3 spines on upper margin.” This was modified as Hy̆zńy & Muller (2012) mentioned exceptions (2 — 5 spines), and we found a specimen with only one spine ( UF 248037, G. sikesi sp. nov.).

Until this study, the extent of tuberculation on the outer and inner sides of the propodus were sufficient to distinguish species of Glypturus (Hy̆zńy & Muller 2012; Hy̆zńy et al. 2013), and this character remains useful. However, as shown in Figures 8 and 9 the extent of the tuberculation on the propodus is not sufficient to distinguish between the new species, but other criteria clearly show they must be considered different taxa (see above).

The tubercular pattern of Glypturus sp. (= G. rabalaisae sensu Sakai, 2005 ) was neither figured nor described and, thus, cannot be compared to the new species below. A search did not result in locating the type material: the only specimen number mentioned in Rabalais et al. (1981) is USNM 172310, but this number does not correspond to a specimen of Glypturus in the USNM collection (http://collections.nmnh.si.edu/search/; Rafael Lemaitre, pers. comm. 22 January 2014). Moreover, the same database does not yield specimens of Glypturus from the type locality as defined in Sakai (2005, 2011). An attempt to locate the un-numbered specimens including the types, probably stored in the University of Texas Marine Science Institute, was unsuccessful.