Latreillopsis trispinosa, Forges & Ng, 2008

Forges, Bertrand Richer De & Ng, Peter K. L., 2008, New western Pacific records of Homolidae De Haan, 1839, with descriptions of new species of Homolochunia Doflein, 1904, and Latreillopsis Henderson, 1888 (Crustacea: Decapoda: Brachyura), Zootaxa 1967, pp. 1-35: 31-32

publication ID


persistent identifier

treatment provided by


scientific name

Latreillopsis trispinosa

n. sp.

Latreillopsis trispinosa   n. sp.

( Figs. 24A–C, 25A–C)

Latreillopsis bispinosa   forme trispinosa   — Guinot & Richer de Forges 1995: 398, fig. 35f–g, 41A, 43A.

Latreillopsis trispinosa   — Ng et al. 2008: 40.

Material examined. Philippines: eastern coast of Luzon : stn. DW 2759, 15°55.30’N 121°49.46’E, 122–139 m, 4 June 2007: 1 male holotype (7.2 x 4.9 mm) (NMCR). – AURORA 2007, CP 2654, 16°04.74’N 121°57.50’E, 98–107 m, 20 May 2007: 1 ovigerous female broken paratype (12.8 x 7.8 mm) (MNHN- B31306 View Materials ).— Stn. CP 2747, 15°54.51’N 121°42.03’E, 120–124 m, 2 June 2007: 1 damaged male paratype (7.6 x 5.8 mm) ( ZRC 2008.1001 View Materials ) GoogleMaps   .

Diagnosis. Small-size species (ovigerous female 12.8 mm carapace length, adult male holotype 7.2 mm carapace length). Carapace quadrangular, with several swellings, spines. Rostrum single, tip sharp, with 2 curved pseudorostral spines slightly longer than rostrum. Mesogastric region with median granule; cardiac region forming swelling smaller than gastric region. Subhepatic region inflated at anterolateral angle, with 3 spines, anterior longest, 2 others shorter, less sharp. Ocular peduncles long, thin. Antennae basal article with strong distal spine. Third maxilliped pediform. Cheliped long, slender: propodus long, longer than other articles; merus with 3 tubercles on internal border. Ambulatory legs long, slender; sharp spine on distal end of merus of P2-P4.

Remarks. This species was first recognised in the Philippines material collected by MUSORSTOM 1 (1976) but the authors intentionally did not describe it because of the poor quality of the specimens ( Guinot & Richer de Forges 1995: 398). They nevertheless provided a detailed discussion on the main differences with L. bispinosa   and L. tetraspinosa   as well as good figures of the taxon ( Guinot & Richer de Forges, 1995: figs. 35f–g, 43A, 41A). In their discussion they used the name “ Latreillopsis bispinosa Henderson, 1888   , forme trispinosa   ” ( Guinot & Richer de Forges 1995: 398) only as a point of reference but realized that according to International Code of Zoological Nomenclature the name was not available (ICZN, Art. 10.2, 15.2) even as a subspecies name. The name was also listed by Ng et al. (2008: 40) but it is a nomen nudum as it was not accompanied by any description or indication. The material originally listed in Guinot & Richer de Forges (1995: 398) from the Philippines as “ Latreillopsis bispinosa Henderson, 1888   , forme trispinosa   ” should also be regarded as paratypes.

We have again collected this species and the additional material on hand now gives us the confidence that we are in fact dealing with a distinct taxon and we now formally name it Latreillopsis trispinosa   n. sp. The differences between L. trispinosa   n. sp. and congeners have already been highlighted in some detail by Guinot & Richer de Forges (1995). All their comments also apply for the fresh material on hand. This species is found in relatively shallow depths ranging from only 96 to 139 m.














Latreillopsis trispinosa

Forges, Bertrand Richer De & Ng, Peter K. L. 2008

Latreillopsis trispinosa

Ng, P. K. L. & Guinot, D. & Davie, P. J. F. 2008: 40

Latreillopsis bispinosa

Guinot, D. & Richer de Forges, B. 1995: 398