Dardanus sanguinocarpus Degener, 1925

Asakura, Akira, 2006, Dardanus sanguinocarpus Degener, 1925 (Crustacea: Decapoda: Anomura: Diogenidae) species complex: a redescription of D. sanguinocarpus and descriptions of three new species, Zootaxa 1230, pp. 1-54 : 3-15

publication ID	https://doi.org/ 10.5281/zenodo.172729
DOI	https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6259123
persistent identifier	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/039D87E1-C411-1F48-4B5C-FEC3D86BFE23
treatment provided by	Plazi
scientific name	Dardanus sanguinocarpus Degener, 1925
status

Treatment

Dardanus sanguinocarpus Degener, 1925 View in CoL

( Figs. 1–7 View FIGURE 1 View FIGURE 2 View FIGURE 3 View FIGURE 4 View FIGURE 5 View FIGURE 6 View FIGURE 7 , 32 View FIGURE 32 )

Dardanus sanguinocarpus Degener View in CoL in Edmondson, 1925: 24, fig. 5a, b, plate II A. — Edmondson, 1946: 264. — Hoover, 1998: 260, two unnumbered photos.

Not Dardanus sanguinocarpus View in CoL . — Poupin, 1998: 38; 2004(= D. cf. longior View in CoL ).

Material examined

1♂, SL 10.9 mm, Hawaii, coll. Otto Degener, USNM 265329 (syntype on label); 2Ψ, SL 3.6, 5.2 mm, Makapuu Point, Oahu, Hawaii, Mar. 1926, coll. Otto Degener, JF 0 672, USNM 1012619; 1♂, SL 3.9 mm, Honolulu, Oahu, Hawaii, 22 Feb. 1920?, coll. J. M. O., JF 0 580, USNM 1012618; 1 juvenile, SL 1.8 mm, 1♂, SL 5.1 mm, 2Ψ, SL 1.9, 3.5 mm, Haleiva, Oahu, Hawaii, coll. Otto Degener, July 1923, JF 0 677, USNM 1012617; 1Ψ, SL 7.5 mm, Makapuu Point, Oahu, Hawaii, BPBM S10746 View Materials ; 1Ψ, SL 5.9 mm, Makapuu Point, Oahu, Hawaii, BPBM S107745; 1♂, SL 6.0 mm, 29 m, off Ewa, Oahu, Hawaii, 20 Apr. 1949, coll. Spencer Tinker, BPBM 5437; 1Ψ, SL 11.3 mm, Tanager Expedition, 1923", French Frigate Shoals, Hawaii, BPBM 1814; 1♂, SL 8.6 mm, Waimanalo Dranga, Oahu, Hawaii, BPBM 2164; 1Ψ, SL 9.0 mm, Midway Atoll, Hawaii, 21 Sept. 2002, coll. Scott Godwin, Mid19, BPBMS 12874; 1♂, SL 7.8 mm, French Frigate Shoals, Hawaii, 12 Sept. 2002, coll. Scott Godwin, FFS26, BPBMS 12870; 1♂, SL 10.2 mm, Midway Atoll, Hawaii, 26 Sept. 2002, coll. Scott Godwin, MidR01, BPBMS 12875; 1 ov.Ψ, SL 8.4 mm, French Frigate Shoals, Hawaii, 12 Sept. 2002, coll. Scott Godwin, FFS29, BPBMS 12871; 1♂, SL 6.4 mm, French Frigate Shoals, Hawaii, Sept. 2002, coll. Scott Godwin, FFS21, BPBMS 12872; 1♂, SL 6.1 mm, Gardner Pinnacle, Hawaii, 14 Sept. 2002, coll. Scott Godwin, GARR02, BPBMS 12873.

Description

Shield ( Fig. 1 View FIGURE 1 A) as long as broad; anterior margin between rostral lobe and lateral projections very shallowly concave; lateral margins convex, somewhat irregular, with rows of long setae. Dorsal surface of shield with short rows or tufts of setae; weaklycalcified Yshaped linea present posteriorly; gastric pits distinct. Rostral lobe indistinct. Lateral projections large, bluntly triangular, produced. Posterior carapace lateral elements well calcified, unarmed. Branchiostegites unarmed.

Ocular peduncles ( Fig. 1 View FIGURE 1 A) 0.7–0.8 length of shield, subcylindrical, only very slightly inflated distally; corneas only very slightly dilated. Ocular acicles ( Fig. 1 View FIGURE 1 A, B) broad; distal margins each with 3–5 spines, tips often corneous. Interocular plate ( Fig. 1 View FIGURE 1 A) with pair of small protrusions.

Antennular peduncles ( Fig. 1 View FIGURE 1 A) slender; when fully extended, distal margins of ultimate segments exceeding ocular peduncles by 0.1–0.4 own length; ultimate and penultimate segments unarmed; basal segment with ventromesial distal angle bearing small spine.

Antennal peduncles ( Fig. 1 View FIGURE 1 A, B), when fully extended, slightly overreaching bases of corneas to reaching distal margins of corneas; tips of spines on segments and acicles sometimes corneous; fifth and fourth segments unarmed; third segment projecting ventrodistally; second segment with dorsomesial distal angle bearing spine, dorsolateral distal angle also with spine; first segment with ventrolateral distal angle with spine. Antennal acicle ( Fig. 1 View FIGURE 1 B) terminating in bifid spine; dorsomesial margin with 3–5 small spines; dorsolateral margin unarmed. Antennal flagella sparsely setose.

Third maxilliped ( Fig. 1 View FIGURE 1 C) with welldeveloped crista dentata ( Fig. 1 View FIGURE 1 D); basis with 1 or 2 corneous teeth ( Fig. 1 View FIGURE 1 D).

Chelipeds vastly unequal, left larger. Left cheliped ( Fig. 2 View FIGURE 2 ) very stout, proportion and armature generally similar in all males and females examined. Dactyl terminating in large corneous claw; cutting edge with 8–11 variouslysized calcareous teeth; upper and outer faces with numerous prominent corneous, or sometimes corneoustipped, spines and short stiff setae. Fixed finger terminating in large corneous claw; cutting edge with 7–11 variouslysized calcareous teeth. Palm and fixed finger with outer face bearing numerous prominent corneoustipped, conical spines and stiff setae of short to medium length; lower portion of outer face deeply concave; lower margin and lower portion of inner face with numerous flattened, triangularlyshaped corneous spines; upper face of palm with irregular row of prominent corneoustipped, conical spines. Carpus with upper margin bearing 1 or 2 irregular rows of prominent corneoustipped conical spines; outer face with several prominent, corneoustipped conical spines near upper margin and numerous small corneous spines on outer surface. Merus with distal margin of lateral face bearing several corneoustipped spines; dorsal face with short transverse subdistal row of corneoustipped spines; ventromesial margin with few spines. Ischium unarmed.

Right cheliped moderately slender ( Fig. 3 View FIGURE 3 A–C), generally setose. Dactyl terminating in large corneous claw; cutting edge with 8–11 variouslysized calcareous teeth; upper and outer faces with numerous corneous, or sometimes corneoustipped, spines. Fixed finger terminating in large corneous claw; cutting edge with 5–7 variouslysized calcareous teeth. Palm and fixed finger with outer face bearing numerous flattened, triangularlyshaped corneous spines; lower face with numerous flattened, triangularlyshaped corneous spines in rows; upper margin of palm with generally 1 but rarely 2 irregular rows of prominent corneoustipped conical spines. Carpus with upper margin bearing 1 or 2 irregular rows of large corneoustipped, conical spines; outer face with several large corneoustipped, conical spines near upper margin. Merus with distal margin of lateral face bearing several corneous or corneoustipped spines. Ischium unarmed.

Second ( Fig. 3 View FIGURE 3 DH) and right third ( Fig. 6 View FIGURE 6 A–C) pereopods generally similar, but armament of dactyls, propodi and carpi somewhat different between second pair and right third; second pair more slender than right third; of second pair, left slightly shorter than right. Small corneous spines on dactyls and propodi flattened, triangularlyshaped. Dactyls 1.1–1.2 (second) or 1.2–1.3 (right third) length of propodi, each terminating in strong corneous claw; dorsal surfaces each with 1 or 2 irregular rows of small corneous spines and rows of tufts of stiff setae; lateral and mesial faces each with longitudinal row of tufts of stiff setae in midline and 1 or 2 irregular dorsal rows of small corneous spines accompanied by row of tufts of stiff setae; ventral margins each with 1–4 (second, Fig. 3 View FIGURE 3 E, F) or 3–6 (third, Fig. 6 View FIGURE 6 B) strong corneous spines distally and rows of tufts of stiff setae. Propodi 1.7–1.8 (second) or 1.6–1.7 (right third) length of carpi; dorsal faces flat and very broad (second) or comparatively narrower (right third), armed with numerous (second) or comparatively fewer numbers (right third) of small corneous spines, dorsodistal margins armed with small corneous spines; lateral faces with numerous (second, Fig. 3 View FIGURE 3 G) or only several (right third, Fig. 6 View FIGURE 6 C) small corneous spines and few longitudinal rows of tufts of stiff setae. Carpi 0.5–0.6 (second) or 0.7–0.8 (right third) length of meri; lateral faces flat (second) or moderately convex (right third); dorsal margins each with several, distal large corneoustipped spines laterally (second), or with distal large corneoustipped spine accompanied with few small corneous spines laterally (right third). Meri with dorsal and ventral margins bearing rows of stiff setae, ventral margins each with row of several calcareous spines or tubercles. Ischia unarmed.

Left third pereopod ( Figs. 4 View FIGURE 4 , 5 View FIGURE 5 ) generally very stout. Small corneous spines on mesial faces of dactyl and propodus flattened, triangularlyshaped. Dactyl ( Figs. 4 View FIGURE 4 A, B, 5A, B) 1.1–1.2 length of propodus, very broad, terminating in strong corneous claw; dorsal margin with series of furrows producing row of lobes, dorsolateral margin of each lobe with 1 or 2 prominent truncate corneous spines ( Fig. 4 View FIGURE 4 Ba) and dorsomesial surface of each lobe with dense setae obscuring sculptures ( Fig. 5 View FIGURE 5 B); lateral surface ( Fig. 4 View FIGURE 4 B) with dorsal half bearing deep longitudinal concavity ( Fig. 4 View FIGURE 4 Bb) with scattered, truncate corneous spines often in row, ventral half of lateral face flat, with 1–3 irregular rows of truncate corneous spines ( Fig. 4 View FIGURE 4 Bc); ventral margin, except for distal 0.3–0.4, with series of deep furrows producing row of large lobes, lateral face of each lobe with 1 or 2 truncate corneous spines ( Fig. 4 View FIGURE 4 Bd), ventrolateral margin of each lobe with dense stiff setae, ventromesial margin of each lobe armed with 1 or 2 very large, conical corneous spines ( Fig. 5 View FIGURE 5 A); mesial face ( Fig. 5 View FIGURE 5 A, B) strongly convex, with rows of tufts of long stiff setae on midline ( Fig. 5 View FIGURE 5 Aa, Ba) and dorsally ( Fig. 5 View FIGURE 5 Ab, Bb) and 2–5 irregular rows of small corneous spines dorsally ( Fig. 5 View FIGURE 5 Ac, Bc); distal 0.3–0.4 of ventral margin ( Fig. 5 View FIGURE 5 A) with row of corneous spines and rows of stiff setae. Propodus 1.5–1.6 length of carpus, very broad; dorsal margin with series of furrows producing row of lobes, lateral face of each lobe armed middistally with strong truncate corneous spine ( Fig. 4 View FIGURE 4 Ca), and dorsomesial surface of each lobe with 1–3 strong spines and dense setae ( Fig. 5 View FIGURE 5 B); lateral face ( Fig. 4 View FIGURE 4 C) with dorsal half bearing very deep longitudinal concavity ( Fig. 4 View FIGURE 4 Cb) with generally 1 but rarely 2 or more irregular rows of large protuberances each armed distally with 1 or 2 large truncate corneous spines, separated by medial longitudinal elevation ( Fig. 4 View FIGURE 4 Cc) armed with irregular row of large protuberances each distally with 1–3 truncate corneous spines, from ventral 0.3–0.4 pronouncedly convex ( Fig. 4 View FIGURE 4 Cd), with generally 1 but rarely up to 3 irregular rows of large protuberances each bearing 13 truncate corneous spines distally ( Fig. 4 View FIGURE 4 Cd); ventral margin with series of deep furrows producing row of large lobes, lateral face of each armed ventrodistally with 1–3 strong truncate corneous spines and with stiff setae ( Fig. 4 View FIGURE 4 Ce), ventromesial margin of each lobe armed with 1–4 very large, conical corneous spines ( Fig. 5 View FIGURE 5 A); mesial face ( Fig. 5 View FIGURE 5 A, B) strongly convex, with row of tufts of short stiff setae ventrally, rows of tufts of long stiff setae in midline ( Fig. 5 View FIGURE 5 Ad, Bd) and dorsally ( Fig. 5 View FIGURE 5 Ae, Be), numerous small corneous spines dorsally ( Fig. 5 View FIGURE 5 Af, Bf) and irregular, short transverse or oblique row of stiff setae near dorsal margin, dorsodistal margin armed with row of small corneous spines and stiff setae. Carpus 0.7–0.8 length of merus. Armament and setation of carpus and merus similar to those of right third.

Sternite of third pereopods with anterior lobe ( Fig. 1 View FIGURE 1 F) rectangular, with pair of short transverse rows of stiff setae.

Fourth pereopod ( Fig. 1 View FIGURE 1 E) semichelate; dactyl with 3 or 4 short corneous spines on lateral face ventrally; propodal rasp well developed; carpus with sharp dorsodistal spine.

Fifth pereopod chelate; rasps of dactyl and propodus well developed.

Male pleon ( Fig. 6 View FIGURE 6 D) with second to fifth left pleopods, fringed with long setae, each with welldeveloped exopod; single, elongate fleshy membranous protuberance covered with long setae present between fourth and fifth pleopods. Female pleon ( Fig. 6 View FIGURE 6 E) with second to fifth left pleopods, fringed with long setae; second to fourth large, triramous; fifth small, with slender exopod; single, elongate, fleshy membranous protuberance fringed with long setae present between fourth and fifth pleopods.

Uropods ( Fig. 6 View FIGURE 6 D, E) markedly asymmetrical, left larger than right; endopods and exopods with welldeveloped rasps.

Telson ( Fig. 1 View FIGURE 1 G, H) with lateral constrictions; marginal area partially calcified; posterior lobes separated by median cleft, left larger than right, each with 3–5 (right) or 5–8 (left) corneous spines on terminal margin ventrally, terminal margins fringed with long setae.

Color in life

[Color description by Degener (1925), color photos by Hoover (1998: 260) and Fig. 7 View FIGURE 7 ]. Dorsal surface of shield pinkish, with anterior, mid purplishslate area, appearing almost black, somewhat deltoid in shape extending laterally little beyond levels of bases of ocular peduncles; bright red area present either posterolateral side of this dark area. Ocular peduncles yellow, yellowish orange or purplish yellow, lighter distally and almost clear yellow just behind corneas. Antennules and antennas yellow. Chelipeds and ambulatory pereopods generally brownish, reddish, or pinkish gray, setae black tipped with greenish yellow; chelipeds with carpi and meri bearing bright red and purple splotches, spines in these splotches purple; ambulatory pereopods with carpi each bearing large black, darkreddish, or purplishslate spot; these splotches and spots faint or nearly absent in specimens living on sand or rubble bottoms in shallow waters.

Remarks

Dardanus sanguinocarpus was described in a somewhat irregular way. The description for the species by Otto Degener was included in Edmondson’s (1925) report on crustaceans collected during Tanager Expedition to Hawaii and neighbouring islands. Edmondson (1925) stated in his "Introduction" (p. 4, fourth paragraph) "Included in the systematic part of this paper is the description of a new species of hermit crab by Otto Degener, the type locality of which is the island of Oahu, but which also appeared in the area covered by the Tanager Expedition".

In the original account of this species, the first sentence states " Type specimen, total length 32 mm; length of carapace 19 mm; type locality, Oahu, on the reef. Bishop Museum collections No. 1813". So, this specimen is the holotype.

In the last paragraph of the type account, it was stated that "The type specimen was taken in shallow water near Diamond Head, Oahu, in April 1923. A second specimen, also an ovigerous female, was collected in the same locality the following month. It is deposited in the United States National Museum. Another specimen is recorded from Waikiki reef, Honolulu, and several immature specimens were collected near Haleiwa, Oahu. One specimen was collected during the Tanager Expedition at French Frigate Shoals". Significantly, the status of the specimens other than "the type specimen", whether types or not was not mentioned.

Under Article 72. 4. 5 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN 1999: 77), "When an author designates a holotype [Art. 73. 1], then the other specimens are paratypes ". The problem at hand is whether or not the abovementioned specimens other than the holotype should be regarded as paratypes. Regarding this problem, Dr. P. A. McLaughlin offered the following opinion with which I concur"It is difficult to know precisely without seeing Degener’s actual manuscript just which part of the description and comments are Degener’s and which are Edmondson’s. But it is my impression that those additional specimens were seen and referred to by Edmondson, not Degener. In his Bibliography for that paper, Edmondson cited (9) "Degener, Otto. Description of Dardanus sanguinocarpus , manuscript in Bishop Museum". Therefore, other than the holotype, the specimens of D. sanguinocarpus mentioned in Edmondson (1925) are not regarded as types.

My search for the holotype of D. sanguinocarpus in the BPBM was without success. Regarding other specimens, the Haleiwa specimens (USNM 1012617) and the Tanager Expedition specimen (BPBM 1814) are extant, but the Waikiki specimen was not found.

Currently, the USNM houses one " syntype " specimen of this species collected by Degener. However, two discrepancies pertain to this specimen. Firstly, it is apparent from the abovementioned discussion that there are no syntype specimens for this species. It is most likely that, when the USNM received the specimen, all of the specimens mentioned in Edmondson (1925) were regarded as the syntypes. Second, although Edmondson (1925) stated that an ovigerous female was sent to USNM, this " syntype " specimen is a male. The reason is unknown.

This study has shown that the French Polynesian record of this species by Poupin (2004) is not for D. sanguinocarpus but for the species herein reported as Dardanus cf. longior .