Ommatocarcinus macgillivrayi White, 1852

Castro, Peter, 2007, A reappraisal of the family Goneplacidae MacLeay, 1838 (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura) and revision of the subfamily Goneplacinae, with the description of 10 new genera and 18 new species, Zoosystema 29 (4), pp. 609-774 : 735-736

Ommatocarcinus macgillivrayi White, 1852

Ommatocarcinus Mac-Gillivraii White, 1852: 393 , pl. 5, fig. 1 [ Australia].

Ommatocarcinus macgillivrayi – H. Milne Edwards 1852: 163. — Haswell 1882: 90 [ Australia]. — Filhol 1885b: 385 [discussion]. — Stebbing 1893: 92. — Guinot-Dumortier & Dumortier 1960: 120 [stridulating mechanism], fig. 3. — Guinot 1969b: 523 [discussion], figs 69, 70; 1971: 1081 [in list]. — Griffin & Campbell 1969: 151, figs 4, 6D [ Australia]. — Serène & Vadon 1981: 120, 122 [Philippine Is]. — Dai et al. 1986: 377 [in key], 377, fig. 199-1, pl. 55, fig. 2 [South China Sea]. — Dai & Yang 1991: 407 [in key], 407, fig. 199-1, pl. 55, fig. 2 (as O. macgillivaryi [sic]) [South China Sea]. — Karasawa & Kato 2003b: 130 [in list], 141 [in list]. — Poore 2004: 434 [in key], 438, fig. 141a [ Australia].

Not Ommatocarcinus macgillivrayi – Miers 1886: xxiii, xxxvii, xlviii, 247 [ New Zealand]. — Chilton 1911: 287 [in list], 292 [ New Zealand]. — Thompson 1912: 237 [in list] [ New Zealand]. — Thompson & Anderton 1921: 99, unnumb. figs [larvae] [ New Zealand]. — Chilton & Bennett 1929: 757 [ New Zealand]. — Richardson 1949: 36 [in key], fig. 21 [ New Zealand]. — Dell 1960: 5; 1963a: 48, unnumb. fig.; 1968a: 26 [in list]; 1968b: 232, 233, 238 [ New Zealand]. — Bennett 1964: 74, 88, figs 79-83 [ New Zealand] (= Neommatocarcinus huttoni (Filhol, 1885)) .

Not Ommatocarcinus macgillivrayi – Sakai 1934: 314, fig. 22; 1935: 187, fig. 96; 1939: 564, 722, pl. 102, fig. 5; 1956: 47 [in list]; 1965: 170, pl. 84, fig. 3 [colour]; 1976: 538, pl. 188, fig. 2 [colour] [ Japan]. — Kamita 1963: 23 [in list], 28, fig. 4 [ Japan]. — Miyake 1961: 21 [in list] [ Japan]; 1991: 149, 220 [in list], pl. 50, fig. 5 [colour] [ Japan]. — Takeda & Miyake 1969b: 174 [in list] [ Japan]. — Kikuchi & Miyake 1978: 42 [in list] [ Japan]. — Muraoka 1998: 47 [in list] [ Japan]. — Takeda 2001: 248, 251, 256, 257 [ Japan]. — Ikeda & Takeda 2006: 180, fig. 2G [colour] [in list] [ Japan]. — Takeda et al. 2006: 205 [in list] [ Japan] (= Ommatocarcinus pulcher Barnard, 1950 ).

Not Ommatocarcinus macgillivray [sic] – Miyake et al. 1962: 130 [in list] [ Japan] (= Ommatocarcinus pulcher Barnard, 1950 ).

? Not Ommatocarcinus macgillivrayi – Guinot 1979:fig. 54H (? = Neommatocarcinus huttoni (Filhol, 1885)) .

Not Ommatocarcinus macgillivrayi – Davie 2002: 200 [in list], unnumb. fig. after Ommatocarcinus sp. of Yokoya (1933: fig. 65) (? = Ommatocarcinus pulcher Barnard, 1950 ).

TYPE MATERIAL. — ♂ dry holotype, cl 23.8 mm, cw 56.8 mm ( BMNH 50.11).

TYPE LOCALITY. — Australia, Queensland, Port Curtis.

MATERIAL EXAMINED. — Australia. Queensland, Port Curtis, ♂ holotype ( BMNH 50.11).

New South Wales, Sow & Pig Shoal, Port Jackson, 33°50.3’S, 151°16.2’E, 9 m, Triton , 1 ♂ ( ZRC 2000.2378). — Port Jackson, 33°51’S, 151°16’E, E. S. Coles coll., 1 ♀ ( ZRC 2000.2379).

Unknown locality, 1 ♂ dry ( BMNH).

DISTRIBUTION. — Reliably known only from Australia (see Poore 2004); also recorded from the Philippine Is ( Serène & Vadon 1981), South China Sea ( Dai & Yang 1991), and questionably from Japan and New Zealand. Depth: subtidal to 100 m ( Poore 2004).

REMARKS

Ommatocarcinus macgillivrayi has often been confused with O. pulcher Barnard, 1950 (see Remarks for this species below), and many if not all records of O. macgillivrayi from Japan appear to be referable to O. pulcher . Illustrations and photographs given by Sakai (1935: fig. 96; 1939: pl. 102, fig. 5; 1976: pl. 188, fig. 5), Kamita (1963: fig. 4), Miyake (1991: pl. 50, fig. 5), and Ikeda & Takeda (2006: fig. 2G) show that the eye peduncle extends slightly beyond the outer orbital teeth (or should extend, in illustrations and photographs where the peduncles are extended anteriorly), a characteristic of O. pulcher . In contrast, only the distal margin of the eye itself slightly extends beyond the outer orbital teeth in O. macgillivrayi . The eye-peduncle length in relation to frontal length, however, is similar in both species, varying between 3.3 and 3.4 front width. A more reliable character is the acute tooth present on the distal portion of the meri of the ambulatory legs (P2- P5) that is diagnostic for O. macgillivrayi . It is absent in all of the Japanese specimens shown in the literature. The tooth is small, however, and it may not show in photographs. In some specimens it may be missing in some (but not in all) of the legs. Nevertheless, a Japanese specimen previously identified as O. macgillivrayi by T. Sakai (BMNH 1961.6.5.85) belongs indeed to O. pulcher . Other Japanese specimens, however, must be properly identified to settle the question.

The presence of O. macgillivrayi in New Zealand is also questionable. Neommatocarcinus huttoni ( Fig. 51 ), which is known only from New Zealand, has been confused with O. macgillivrayi so that the New Zealand records of this species where the specimens in question have not been examined are assumed to belong to N. huttoni . Differences between these two species are discussed in the Remarks section of N. huttoni (see below) and by Takeda & Miyake (1969b: 179).

Figures

FIG. 51. — Neommatocarcinus huttoni (Filhol, 1885),♀, dry holotype,cl 15.4 mm,cw 34.0 mm,Otago Harbour,New Zealand (MNHN-B 4608).