Molecular phylogeny of hinge-beak shrimps (Decapoda: Caridea: Rhynchocinetes and Cinetorhynchus) and allies: a formal test of familiar and generic monophyly using a multilocus phylogeny Baeza, J. Antonio Bauer, Raymond T. Okuno, Junji Thiel, Martin Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 2014 2014-10-31 172 2 426 450 9CJDY SENSU YALDWYN (1960) IS NOT A sensu Yaldwyn 1960 Malacostraca Rhynchocinetidae GBIF Animalia Decapoda 18 444 Arthropoda family   Yaldwyn (1960)proposed that the species of  Rhynchocinetes,  Lipkius, and  Eugonatonotuscomprised the family Rhynchocinetidae. Bowman & Abele (1982)then established the superfamily Rhynchocinetoidea, comprising three families, Bresiliidae Calman, 1896, Eugonatonotidae, and Rhynchocinetidae. These authors provided no explanation for the estab- lishment of the Rhynchocinetoideaand their proposal has been rejected by most taxonomists in recent decades. Later, Christoffersen (1990)transferred the genus  Lipkiusto the family Nematocarcinidae(see above). Most recently, Holthuis (1995)and Okuno (1997) suggested that only the species of  Rhynchocinetes(and  Cinetorhynchus) should be placed in the Rhynchocinetidae, separately from the genus  Lipkius. This latter genus was included, amongst others, in the family Nematocarcinidae. In turn, the genus  Eugonatonotuswas placed in its own family, the Eugonatonotidae. Traits that define the Rhynchocinetidae sensu Holthuis (1995)and Okuno (1997) include, amongst others, a rostrum that is usually incompletely fused with the remainder of the carapace that has two or three teeth on the median carina, no supraorbital spine, and one spine at the posterolateral margin of the fifth abdominal somite (Okuno, 1997). The various analyses used in this study do not support either Yaldwyn’s (1960)grouping of the genera  Rhynchocinetes,  Lipkius, and  Eugonatonotusin a single clade, or monophyly of his Rhynchocinetidae. Notably, the genera  Rhynchocinetesand  Cinetorhynchusclustered together, forming a single, well-supported monophyletic clade. Altogether, the above information implies that the Rhynchocinetidaerepresent a natural clade, as suggested by Okuno (1997). Our results are also in line with those of Li et al. (2011), who found no support for the monophyly of Rhynchocinetidae sensu Yaldwyn (1960)using five different nuclear gene fragments but a smaller number of representatives from this family than in the present study. THE GENERA  RHYNCHOCINETESAND  CINETORHYNCHUSARENATURAL ENTITIES: THE