Lithopagurus Provenzano, 1968

Mclaughlin, Patsy A. & Lemaitre, Rafael, 2004, The discovery of two new species of Lithopagurus Provenzano, 1968 (Crustacea, Decapoda, Anomura, Paguroidea, Paguridae) and the first records of the genus in the western Pacific, Zoosystema 26 (3), pp. 483-494 : 485

Genus Lithopagurus Provenzano, 1968

Lithopagurus Provenzano, 1968: 629 . — McLaughlin & Lemaitre 1997: 112. — McLaughlin 2003a: 123 .

TYPE SPECIES. — Lithopagurus yucatanicus Provenzano, 1968 , by original designation ; gender masculine.

SPECIES INCLUDED. — Lithopagurus yucatanicus Provenzano, 1968 ; Lithopagurus boucheti n. sp.; Lithopagurus tribulomanus n. sp.

DISTRIBUTION. — Northern Caribbean Sea; Fiji and Kai Islands, southwestern Pacific Ocean.

DIAGNOSIS. — Thirteen pairs of biserial gills. Rostrum triangular. Ocular acicles simple or multifid. Crista dentata with one accessory tooth. Chelipeds grossly unequal; right chela operculate or semioperculate. Sternite of third pereopods with subquadrate, subtriangular or obsolete anterior lobe. Fourth pereopods semichelate; propodal rasp with several rows of corneous scales; no preungual process. Fifth pereopods minutely chelate. Male with second pleopods paired, modified; no unpaired pleopods. Female with unpaired left pleopods 2-4. Pleon somewhat to considerably reduced. Uropods symmetrical or nearly so. Telson without lateral indentations; terminal margin entire.

REMARKS

McLaughlin & Lemaitre (1997), in their discussion of male paired pleopods modified as gonopods, incorrectly reported that it was the first pleopods in Lithopagurus that were paired rather than the second. Provenzano (1968) had considered Lithopagurus to be part of de Saint Laurent- Dechancé’s (1966) Pylopaguropsis group, and most closely allied to Tomopaguroides Balss, 1912 , primarily because of the paired second pleopods, a character shared by species of both genera. Provenzano’s comparative information was taken from Balss’ (1912) description of the pair of known males of T. valdiviae (Balss, 1911) and unpublished information on the female provided by M. de Saint Laurent ( Provenzano 1968: 642). Although McLaughlin (2004) questioned the accuracy of M. de Saint Laurent’s identification, she concurred that the male paired second pleopods was a character shared only by species of those two genera.