Glypturus laurae de Saint Laurent

Poore, Gary C. B., 2023, New records and one new species of Callichiridae (Crustacea, Axiidea) from the Indo-West Pacific, with keys to species of Corallianassa, Lepidophthalmus and Neocallichirus, Memoirs of Museum Victoria (Mem. Mus. Vic.) 82, pp. 71-95 : 74

Glypturus laurae de Saint Laurent in Vaugelas and de Saint Laurent, 1984

Figure 2

Callichirus laurae de Saint Laurent in de Vaugelas and de Saint Laurent, 1984: 147 , pl. 1A–D.

Glypturus laurae .— Poore and Suchanek, 1988: 201, fig. 4c.— Dworschak, 1992: 209.— Tudge et al., 2000: 144.— Robles et al., 2009: 317. — Poore et al., 2019: 144.— Robles et al., 2020: figs 1, 4, 7, tables S1, S2. — Dworschak, 2022: 255–256.

Glypturus armatus .— Sakai, 2011: 432–433 (part).

Material examined. Saudi Arabia, Al Lith , 20.167155° N, 40.223307° E, near mangroves, 1–2 m, UF 37164 (female, 12 mm) .

Distribution. Red Sea and Gulf of Aden; Sunda Shelf ( Jordan [type locality: Aqaba]; Saudi Arabia; Singapore).

Remarks. The single small individual was identified more on the basis of its proximity to the type locality in the Red Sea than morphology. Contrary to Poore and Suchanek’s (1988) assertion, the shape of the uropod seems not to be a reliable difference between the species now recognised ( Komai et al., 2015). The uropodal exopod is more tapered in this specimen than in adults of 35 mm carapace length (fig. 2). Nor does it possess the tubercles on the distolateral face of the cheliped said by Komai et al. (2015) to differentiate it from G. armatus and seen on a topotypic specimen ( NMV J11514). Molecular analysis found G. laurae and G. armatus to differ widely ( Robles et al., 2020), contradicting Sakai’s (2011) synonymy. Dworschak (2022) found the species in Singapore, far from its type locality.