Enoplometopus pictus A. Milne Edwards, 1862

Poupin, Joseph, 2003, Reef lobsters Enoplometopus A. Milne Edwards, 1862 from French Polynesia, with a brief revision of the genus (Crustacea, Decapoda, Enoplometopidae), Zoosystema 25 (4), pp. 643-664 : 659

Enoplometopus pictus A. Milne Edwards, 1862

Enoplometopus pictus A. Milne Edwards, 1862 : F-15, pl. 19 (type locality: “île Bourbon” = La Réunion).

Enoplometopus pictus – Bouvier 1915: 182 [5] (type specimen). — Ward 1942: 61 ( Mauritius). — Holthuis 1946: 79 (text). — de Saint Laurent 1988: 61 (list). — Chan & Yu 1998: 190 (key).

Non Enoplometopus pictus – Miers 1880: 380 (= E. occidentalis ( Randall, 1840)) .

Some additional references can be found in Holthuis (1946).

MATERIAL EXAMINED. — West Indian Ocean. La Réunion, coll. E. Maillard, 1 Ƌ holotype cl 40 mm (dry and broken, with some legs and telson preserved in alcohol, MNHN As 182).

DISTRIBUTION. — West Indian Ocean: La Réunion and perhaps Mauritius where Ward (1942) records the species with this indication: “The modern interpretation of this species makes it a synonym of E. occidentalis (Randall) from the Hawaiian Islands, but until I can compare the Mauritian example with one from Hawaii I prefer only to refer to A. Milne Edward’s original description and figure”. Vertical distribution unknown. DIAGNOSIS. — Rostrum with three or four spines on lateral margin. Carapace with five median, two intermediate, one supraocular, and three lateral spines; postcervical spines absent. Chela broad and compressed; upper and lower face of palm with many tubercles arranged in longitudinal lines, those of medi- an line larger; outer margin of dactyl with spines disposed over full length. Dactyl of second pereopod short, less than 0.3 times as long as propodus. Pleura of abdominal somites II-V rounded or bluntly point- ed. Lateral margin of telson with one median and three distal spines.

COLORATION

Ground color of body purplish, with tip of tailfan bluish; carapace and abdomen with white spots circled by blue (A. Milne Edwards 1862; Bouvier 1915).

REMARKS

The status of Enoplometopus pictus still remains unclear. The species was formerly considered as a junior synonym of E. occidentalis ( Randall, 1840) until Bouvier (1915) clearly indicated the differences between the two species. The most conclusive characters used by Bouvier are the absence of the postcervical spine and the presence of white spots circled by blue in E. pictus , whereas there is one postcervical spine and no blue coloration in E. occidentalis . Other characters used by Bouvier are: 1) aspect of outer margin of dactyl of chela, armed on its whole length in E. pictus , distally only in E. occidentalis ; 2) aspect of upper face of palm of chela, with tubercles larger in E. pictus than in E. occidentalis ; and 3) distoventral spine on the carpus of ambulatory legs, absent in E. pictus , present in E. occidentalis . However, on the basis of the variation observed for that study (see Remarks under E. callistus , E. crosnieri , E. gracilipes and E. occidentalis ) these three characters are less convincing for the species distinction. Therefore, it appears that the status of E. pictus still needs to be confirmed by capture of more specimens from the western Indian Ocean.