Superfamily
Pinnotheroidea
View in CoL
The male gonopore opens on the sternum ( Figs. 33B, C
View FIGURE 33
, 58C, D
View FIGURE 58
). Although very poorly documented, even unknown, in the various taxa of the group, the male gonopore is located rather far from the P5 coxa and close to or variously distant from suture 7/ 8 in pinnotherids, e.g.,
Ostracotheres tridacnae
,
Pinnotheres pisum
( Guinot 1979a: 212, figs. 24D, 53G),
Pinnixa transversalis
, and in aphanodactylids, e.g.,
Aphanodactylus loimiae
,
Gustavus mecognathus
(see Ahyong & Ng 2009a: figs. 1F, G, 4I) and
Uruma ourana
(see Naruse, Fujita & Ng 2009: 60, 66, fig. 2c), however apparently adjacent to suture 7/ 8 in
Aphanodactylus panglao
(see Ng & Naruse 2009: fig. 3c). It was described “with medially directed roof” in
Pinnixa lata Komatsu & Takeda, 2009
( Komatsu & Takeda 2009: 202). The male thoracic sternum is only exceptionally described among the more than 300 pinnotherid species, thus cannot be used in higher taxonomic ranks. The sternal plate seems to vary from moderately wide ( Fig. 33B
View FIGURE 33
) to widened ( Ahyong & Ng 2009a: figs. 1F, 2C, 4I, 5I), with all the sutures interrupted. The sternite 3 is hypertrophied in the typical taxa with highly modified mxp3 (see e.g.,
Parapinnixa glasselli Garth, 1939
, see Garth 1939: pl. 9, fig. 2) as well as in the family
Aphanodactylidae
, which, however, lacks this chief synapomorphy of
Pinnotheroidea
( Ahyong & Ng 2009a: 33, fig. 1F; Naruse & & Maenosono 2012: fig. 1b). The disposition of sternites 1, 2 needs to be studied in
Pinnotheroidea
. The P5 may be substantially reduced in
Pinnotheridae
, e.g., in
Pinnixa White, 1846
( Wicksten 2012: figs. 58, 59) and in some
Aphanodactylidae
( Ahyong & Ng 2009a: figs. 4A, H, 5A, H, 7; Naruse & Maenosono 2012: fig. 1a, c, d).
The
Pinnotheridae
View in CoL
, raised to suprafamilial status ( Ng, Guinot & Davie 2008: 247), traditionally seen as Catometopa and a thoracotreme family (e.g., Guinot 1978a; Števčić 1998; Martin & Davis 2001; Ng, Guinot & Davie 2008), was interpreted as having a coxo-sternal condition and thus assigned to Heterotremata by Guinot & Richer de Forges (1997: 496, table 1) and Guinot & Bouchard (1998: 654). According to Schubart (in Martin & Davis 2001: 55), Schubart, Neigel & Felder (2000a: 826, 827, fig. 1), and Wetzer et al. (2009: 486, fig. 1, as
Pinnotheridae
View in CoL
) the traditional thoracotreme condition of
Pinnotheroidea
was evident from DNA sequencing. The larval data, on the contrary, appears to show a close relationship with
Leucosiidae
View in CoL
( Lebour 1928b; Gurney 1938, 1942) and with the
Hymenosomatidae
View in CoL
( Aikawa 1937; Gurney 1938; Wear 1967, 1968; Lucas 1971; Wear & Fielder 1985) so that according to Rice (1980: 347) it seemed inconceivable that the similarities between them “could have evolved independently” (see discussion by Clark & Ng, 2010, about the actually superficial similarity of larvae in small crabs, as in the case of the first zoea of
Domecia glabra Alcock, 1899
View in CoL
, which is similar to that of
Pinnotheridae
View in CoL
). The alternative possibility, that of a possible close ancestor shared with
Hymenosomatoidea
View in CoL
as has been suggested by Gurney (1942), Scotto & Gore (1981) and Rice (1980), but finally discounted by Rice (1983), is discussed here (see Monophyletic Thoracotremata; Position of the
Cryptochiroidea
and
Pinnotheroidea
within the
Brachyura
). The gills of
Pinnotheridae
View in CoL
were considered close to those of Hymensomatidae ( Claus 1886).
A monophyletic
Pinnotheroidea
is not supported by adult morphology (e.g., Campos 1996), and study of combined sequence data has demonstrated its polyphyly ( Palacios-Theil et al. 2009, as
Pinnotheridae
View in CoL
). The suite of characters introduced by Bürger (1895), then traditionally used by taxonomists ( Ahyong & Ng 2007a, b), do not include the thoracic sternum of the rarely collected males. Uncertainties remain about the phylogenetic relationships of the group with other
Brachyura
View in CoL
despite numerous taxonomic studies (e.g., Marques & Pohle 1995, 1996a, b; Pohle & Marques 1998 a, b; Ng & Manning 2003; Bolaños et al. 2004, 2005; George & Boone 2003; Ahyong & Brown 2003a; Ahyong & Ng 2005, 2007a, b, 2009a; Thoma et al. 2009; Komatsu & Ohtsuk 2009; Campos 2009; Becker & Türkay 2010; Ocampo et al. 2010; Campos & Hernández-Ávila 2010; Ahyong 2010).