Superfamily
Xanthoidea
View in CoL
The male gonopore is coxal.
Xanthidae
does not show a coxo-sternal condition, which is linked to a weak carcinistation (no posterior widening), and a small sternite 8 is only exposed in a few genera ( Guinot 1968a; 1979a: figs. 47A, 48; Lai et al. 2011: fig. 8g, h). In contrast, a coxo-sternal condition may be present in
Panopeidae
and
Pseudorhombilidae
.
The
Panopeidae
View in CoL
exhibits character mutistates from a coxal to a coxo-sternal condition, resulting in a characteristically long penis in
Eucratopsinae
( Fig. 8J
View FIGURE 8
; Guinot 1969a: 24). For example,
Prionoplax spinicarpus
View in CoL
exhibits an exceptionally long and completely concealed penis ( Figs. 8K
View FIGURE 8
, 14
View FIGURE 14
; see Modalities of penis protection: Coxo-sternal penial tube). The panopeid sternal pattern includes complete sutures 6/7 and 7/8 ( Fig. 56
View FIGURE 56
) but a variously developed median line, along sternites 6–8 in
Panopeus africanus
View in CoL
and
P. chilensis H. Milne Edwards & Lucas, 1843
View in CoL
, sternites 4–8 in
Eurypanopeus transversus (Stimpson, 1860)
View in CoL
, and sternites 7, 8 in
Rhithropanopeus harrisii (Gould, 1841)
View in CoL
and
Prionoplax spinicarpus
View in CoL
(the three later with a small triangle at the suture 6/7 level). The peculiar disposition of
Rhithropanopeus Rathbun, 1898
View in CoL
, was described by Bouvier (1940: 259, fig. 167, as
Heteropanope tridentatus
).
The
Pseudorhombilidae Alcock, 1900
View in CoL
, shows a tendency towards a coxo-sternal condition, with a fully developed protection in some species. Transitional patterns are observed in
Pseudorhombilinae Alcock, 1900
, from a plesiomorphic condition in
Bathyrhombila Hendrickx, 1998
View in CoL
( Hendrickx 1998: fig. 2B),
Chacellus Guinot, 1969
View in CoL
(Guinot 1969c: fig. 138),
Euphrosynoplax Guinot, 1969
View in CoL
(Guinot 1969c: fig. 139), and
Nanoplax Guinot, 1967
View in CoL
(considered primitive “catometopous stages” in Hendrickx 1998: 639) to a coxo-sternal condition in
Pseudorhombila H. Milne Edwards, 1837
View in CoL
,
Oediplax Rathbun, 1897
View in CoL
( Hendrickx 1998: 641, 642), and
Trapezioplax Guinot, 1969
View in CoL
(Guinot 1969c: fig. 142). According to Hendrickx (1998: 638), the condition varies within
Pseudorhombila
View in CoL
itself, depending on the degree of connection between sternites 7 and 8, which are not completely joined in
P. xanthiformis Garth, 1940
View in CoL
( Hendrickx 1995: fig. 1C) but completely joined in
P. octodentata (Rathbun, 1906)
View in CoL
(Guinot 1969c: 113; Hendrickx 1995: fig. 1A),
P. quadridentata (Latreille, 1828)
View in CoL
, and
P. ometlanti Vázquez-Bader & Gracia, 1995
View in CoL
.
P. quadridentata (Latreille, 1828)
View in CoL
shows two marked triangles at the level of sutures 6/7 and 7/8, and a median line along sternites 7 and 8 corresponding to a high median plate, plus an anterior trace of median line corresponding to a corneous median plate. The pattern is similar in
Oediplax granulata Rathbun, 1894
View in CoL
, and
Chacellus filiformis Guinot, 1969
View in CoL
.
Speocarcinus
View in CoL
shows a coxo-sternal condition similar to that of
Pseudorhombilidae
View in CoL
, with a short dorsal junction of sternites 7 and 8 (Guinot 1969c: fig. 120). The taxonomic status of
Speocarcinus
View in CoL
has been uncertain for a long (Guinot 1969c; Ng 1987a), with a previous inclusion in
Goneplacidae
View in CoL
( Rathbun 1918; Melo 1996; Williams 1984; D'Incao & Silva 1991; Rieger et al. 2003), and then as the onomatophore (type genus) of
Speocarcinidae Števčić, 2005
, erected within
Xanthoidea ( Števčić 2005: 54)
View in CoL
. The
Speocarcininae Števčić, 2005
, considered a subfamily of
Xanthidae
View in CoL
( Ng, Guinot & Davie 2008: 201, 208; De Grave et al. 2009: 43; Schweitzer et al. 2010: 127; Brandão et al. 2010, 2012; Lai et al. 2011), is transferred here to
Pseudorhombilidae
View in CoL
, see below. The large genus
Speocarcinus
View in CoL
as reviewed by Brandão et al. (2012: figs. 1 – 9) is probably polyphyletic as evidenced by the variation of the thoracic sternal sutures (sternites 4/5 to 7/8 apparently all incomplete, or suture 6/7 complete and suture 7/8 apparently varying; varying shape of the first sternites), the size and curvature of the G1s, and the location and orientation of the vulvae on sternite 6.
Ng, Guinot & Davie (2008) restricted
Xanthoidea
View in CoL
to three families,
Xanthidae
View in CoL
,
Panopeidae
View in CoL
and
Pseudorhombilidae
View in CoL
. A molecular phylogeny using five loci ( Thoma & Felder 2009) supported the monophyly of
Xanthoidea
View in CoL
but recovered a paraphyletic
Xanthidae
View in CoL
and, in addition, indicated the xanthid subfamilies as polyphyletic (see also Felder & Thoma 2010: fig. 5). A multi-gene approach by Lai et al. (2011) supported
Panopeidae
View in CoL
as a monophyletic group, suggesting that it was nested within the
Xanthidae
View in CoL
and should be recognised as a subfamily, i.e.,
Panopeinae Ortmann, 1893
, within
Xanthidae
View in CoL
. It also supported the assignment of
Speocarcininae
to
Pseudorhombilidae
View in CoL
, the more parsimonious hypothesis leading to recognise
Pseudorhombilidae
View in CoL
as a subfamily (
Pseudorhombilinae Alcock, 1900
) within
Xanthidae
View in CoL
, Speocarcininae consequently becoming a junior synonym of
Pseudorhombilinae
. These results corroborated those of Thoma et al. (2009).