Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-lrblm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-06T10:54:44.972Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rochinia confusa, a junior synonym of R. umbonata (Crustacea: Brachyura: Epialtidae) as revealed by ontogenetic changes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 October 2015

Marcos Tavares ,
William Santana  and
Renata Pettan
Marcos Tavares
Affiliation:
Museum of Zoology, University of São Paulo, Ave. Nazareth 481, Ipiranga 04263-000, São Paulo, SP, Brazil
William Santana*
Affiliation:
Laboratório de Sistemática Zoológica, Pró-Reitoria de Pesquisa e Pós-Graduação, Universidade Sagrado Coração – USC, Rua Irmã Arminda, 10-50, Jd. Brasil, 17011-160, Bauru, SP, Brazil
Renata Pettan
Affiliation:
Grupo de Pesquisa em Biologia de Crustáceos - CRUSTA, UNESP - Campus Experimental do Litoral Paulista, Praça Infante Dom Henrique, s/n - Parque Bitaru – São Vicente, SP, Brazil
*
Correspondence should be addressed to:W. Santana, Laboratório de Sistemática Zoológica, Pró-Reitoria de Pesquisa e Pós-Graduação, Universidade Sagrado Coração – USC, Rua Irmã Arminda, 10-50, Jd. Brasil, 17011-160, Bauru, SP, Brazil email: william_santana@yahoo.com.br
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The carapace and chelipeds ornamentation of the deep-water spider crab Rochinia umbonata (Stimpson, 1871), from the Western Atlantic undergo very dramatic ontogenetic changes. Since the also deep-water spider crab Rochinia confusa Tavares, 1991 is differentiated from R. umbonata mostly on the basis of these characters, R. confusa is regarded herein as an ontogenetic stage and, therefore, a junior subjective synonym of R. umbonata.

Keywords

Ontogenysynonymspider crabsMajoideadeep-waterBrazil
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom , Volume 96 , Issue 5 , August 2016 , pp. 1065 - 1071
Copyright
Copyright © Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 2015 

INTRODUCTION

The proliferation of benthic surveys in Brazilian deep-waters in recent years has yielded a wealth of decapod crustacean material, whose study is gradually helping to improve our understanding of the taxonomic composition of the south-western Atlantic benthic fauna, and particularly its relationship with areas further north in the Caribbean Sea and Gulf of Mexico.

The Brazilian deep-water spider crab Rochinia confusa Tavares, Reference Tavares1991 (Majoidea: Epialtidae) has long been regarded as the southern counterpart of Rochinia umbonata (Stimpson, Reference Stimpson1871), a species for many years only known from the east coast of the USA, Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea, and recently reported from Brazil (Amapá, Pará, Pernambuco, Bahia, Espírito Santo, Rio de Janeiro) (Coelho et al., Reference Coelho, Almeida and Bezerra2008 and references therein). However, we have since studied a large series of specimens of Rochinia umbonata of different ontogenetic stages and we can now show that R. confusa is just an ontogenetic stage and, therefore, a junior subjective synonym of R. umbonata. The substantial morphological changes of the carapace and chelipeds over ontogeny are herein described and illustrated, and the synonymy between R. confusa and R. umbonata discussed.

The material used for this study is housed in the crustacean collections of the Museu de Oceanografia ‘Dr Petrônio Alves Coelho’ (MOUFPE), Museu Nacional, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (MNRJ), Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle, Paris (MNHN), Museu de Zoologia da Universidade de São Paulo (MZUSP), and National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington DC (USNM). Standard measurements (in mm) are cl, carapace length (rostrum not included) and cw, carapace maximum width.

SYSTEMATICS

Infraorder BRACHYURA Linnaeus, 1758
Superfamily MAJOIDEA Samouelle, 1819
Family EPIALTIDAE MacLeay, 1838
Genus Rochinia A. Milne-Edwards, 1875
Rochinia umbonata (Stimpson, Reference Stimpson1871)
(Figures 1–6)

Fig. 1. Dorsal view of cephalothorax of Rochinia umbonata (Stimpson, Reference Stimpson1871), cheliped and pereopods electronically removed. (A) male cl 30 mm, cw 23 mm (MZUSP 15725); (B) male cl 32 mm, cw 23 mm (MZUSP 17424); (C) male cl 42 mm, cw 31 mm (USNM 1000819); (D) male cl 57 mm, cw 43 mm (MZUSP 16228). Scale bar: 20 mm.

Fig. 2. Ventral view of cephalothorax of Rochinia umbonata (Stimpson, Reference Stimpson1871), cheliped and pereopods electronically removed. (A) male cl 30 mm, cw 23 mm (MZUSP 15725); (B) male cl 32 mm, cw 23 mm (MZUSP 17424); (C) male cl 42 mm, cw 31 mm (USNM 1000819); (D) male cl 57 mm, cw 43 mm (MZUSP 16228). Scale bar: 20 mm.

Fig. 3. Lateral view of cephalothorax and right cheliped of Rochinia umbonata (Stimpson, Reference Stimpson1871), cheliped and pereopods electronically removed. (A, E) male cl 30 mm, cw 23 mm (MZUSP 15725); (B, F) male cl 32 mm, cw 23 mm (MZUSP 17424); (C, G) male cl 42 mm, cw 31 mm (USNM 1000819); (D, H) male cl 57 mm, cw 43 mm (MZUSP 16228). Scale bars: A–D, 20 mm; E–H, 10 mm.

Fig. 4. Dorsal view of cephalothorax of Rochinia umbonata (Stimpson, Reference Stimpson1871), cheliped and pereopods electronically removed. (A) female holotype of Rochinia confusa Tavares, Reference Tavares1991, cl 32 mm, cw 23 mm (MNRJ 1581); (B) female cl 36 mm, cw 27 mm (MZUSP 17424); (C) female cl 49.5 mm, cw 37 mm (USNM 1000819); (D) female cl 48 mm, cw 38 mm (MZUSP 16228). Scale bar: 20 mm.

Fig. 5. Ventral view of cephalothorax of Rochinia umbonata (Stimpson, Reference Stimpson1871), cheliped and pereopods electronically removed. (A) female holotype of Rochinia confusa Tavares, Reference Tavares1991, cl 32 mm, cw 23 mm (MNRJ 1581); (B) female cl 36 mm, cw 27 mm (MZUSP 17424); (C) female cl 49.5 mm, cw 37 mm (USNM 1000819); (D) female cl 48 mm, cw 38 mm (MZUSP 16228). Scale bar: 20 mm.

Fig. 6. Lateral view of cephalothorax of Rochinia umbonata (Stimpson, Reference Stimpson1871), cheliped and pereopods electronically removed. (A) female holotype of Rochinia confusa Tavares, Reference Tavares1991, cl 32 mm, cw 23 mm (MNRJ 1581); (B) female cl 36 mm, cw 27 mm (MZUSP 17424); (C) female cl 49.5 mm, cw 37 mm (USNM 1000819); (D) female cl 48 mm, cw 38 mm (MZUSP 16228). Scale bar: 20 mm.

Scyra umbonata Stimpson, Reference Stimpson1871, p. 115.

Scyra umbonata — A. Milne-Edwards, 1875, p. 87; 1879: pl. 31, Figures 5, 5a, 5b; Reference Milne-Edwards1880a, p. 2; Sars, Reference Sars1885, p. 6, 7 e 274; Smith, Reference Smith1886, p. 625.

Scyramathia umbonata — Milne-Edwards, Reference Milne-Edwards1880b, p. 356; Milne-Edwards & Bouvier, Reference Milne-Edwards and Bouvier1923, p. 381.

Amathia modesta Stimpson, Reference Stimpson1871, p. 124.

Amathia modesta — A. Milne-Edwards 1878, p. 135; Miers, Reference Miers and Murray1886, p. 26.

Anamathia modesta — Smith, Reference Smith1885, p. 493; Faxon, Reference Faxon1895, p. 10.

Anamathia umbonata — Rathbun, Reference Rathbun1894, p. 61, pl. 1, Figures 1–3; Faxon, Reference Faxon1895, p. 10.

Rochinia umbonata — Rathbun, Reference Rathbun1925, p. 222, text-figure 85, pl. 72, pl. 73, figure 1; Chace, Reference Chace1940, p. 63; Bullis & Thompson, Reference Bullis and Thompson1965, p. 12; Williams et al., Reference Williams, McCloskey and Gray1968, p. 61, Figure 16; Pequegnat, Reference Pequegnat, Pequegnat and Chace1970, p. 183; Powers, Reference Powers1977, p. 67; Takeda, Reference Takeda, Takeda and Okutani1983, p. 135, 1 fig; Williams, Reference Williams1984, p. 323, figure 258, 260c; Abele & Kim, Reference Abele and Kim1986, p. 42; Griffin & Tranter, Reference Griffin and Tranter1986, p. 175; Soto, Reference Soto1991, p. 628, table 2; Paulmier, Reference Paulmier1993, p. 26, pl. 30, Figure 1; Poupin, Reference Poupin1994, p. 43, pl. 4g; Silva et al., Reference Silva, Ramos-Porto, Cintra and Viana1999, p. 171; Reference Silva, Ramos-Porto and Cintra2001, p. 97; Reference Silva, Ramos-Porto, Cintra, Muniz and Silva2002, p. 102; Viana et al., Reference Viana, Ramos-Porto, Torres, Santos, Cabral and Acioli2002, p. 17; Reference Viana, Ramos-Porto, Santos, Silva, Cintra, Cabral, Torres and Acioli2003, p. 17; Nizinski, Reference Nizinski2003, p. 128; Lalana et al., Reference Lalana, Ortiz, Varela and Tariche2004, p. 8; McLaughlin et al., Reference McLaughlin, Camp, Angel, Bousfield, Brunel, Brusca, Cadien, Cohen, Conlan, Eldredge, Felder, Goy, Haney, Hann, Heard, Hendrycks, Hobbs, Holsinger, Kensley, Laubitz, LeCroy, Lemaitre, Maddocks, Martin, Mikkelsen, Nelson, Newman, Overstreet, Poly, Price, Reid, Robertson, Rogers, Ross, Schotte, Schram, Shih, Watling, Wilson and Turgeon2005, p. 253, 315; Casadío et al., Reference Casadío, Feldmann, Parras and Schweitzer2005, p. 159; Wicksten & Packard, Reference Wicksten and Packard2005, p. 1762; Ng & De Forges, Reference Ng and De Forges2007, p. 63; Serejo et al., Reference Serejo, Young, Cardoso, Tavares, Rodrigues, Almeida, Costa, Olavo and Martins2007, p. 141; Coelho et al., Reference Coelho, Almeida and Bezerra2008, p. 17; Ng et al., Reference Ng, Guinot and Davie2008, p. 106; Felder et al., Reference Felder, Álvarez, Goy, Lemaitre, Tunnell, Felder and Earle2009, p. 1078.

Rochinia confusa Tavares, Reference Tavares1991, p. 162.

Rochinia confusa — Melo, Reference Melo1996, p. 266; 1998, p. 468; Viana et al., Reference Viana, Ramos-Porto, Torres, Santos, Cabral and Acioli2002, p. 12; Reference Viana, Ramos-Porto, Santos, Silva, Cintra, Cabral, Torres and Acioli2003, p. 15; Casadío et al., Reference Casadío, Feldmann, Parras and Schweitzer2005, p. 158; Ng & De Forges, Reference Ng and De Forges2007, p. 63; Coelho et al., Reference Coelho, Almeida and Bezerra2008, p. 17; Ng et al., Reference Ng, Guinot and Davie2008, p. 105.

Type material. Not extant, presumably lost in the Great Chicago fire of 1871.

Type locality. Off Sand Key, Florida, 261 m.

COMPARATIVE MATERIAL EXAMINED

Gulf of Mexico: United States of America, Alabama, RV ‘Oregon II’, station 11580, 29°11′N 87°55′W, 10 March 1971, W. Santana det., 640 m depth, 1 ovigerous female (USNM 1191773). Louisiana, south-west of Mississippi River delta, RV ‘Oregon’, station 4702, 27°83′N 90°55′W, 22 February 1964, 732 m depth, 1 adult male (USNM1184631). Louisiana, Grand Island, RV ‘Citation’, station WC-6, 27°42′44″N 91°32′55″W, 10 June 1985, 543–783 m depth, 1 male cl 42 mm, cw 31 mm; 1 male cl 11.1 mm, cw 7.5 mm; 1 female cl 49.5 mm, cw 37 mm; 1 female cl 22.4 mm, cw 15.6 mm; 1 female cl 17.4 mm, cw 11.3 mm (USNM 1000819). Caribbean Sea: Guadeloupe, Basse Terre, fishing traps, D. Lamy col., M. Tavares det., 500–600 m depth, 1 male cl 28 mm, cw 21 mm (MZUSP 24569). Nicaragua, RV ‘Oregon’, station 1926, 15°55′N 82°10′W, 549 m, 3 September 1957: 2 adult females (USNM uncatalogued). Brazil: Amapá, REVIZEE Norte, Prospecção III, Lance 2, 03°43′N 48°53′W, 15 November 1996, 186 m depth, 1 male (MOUFPE 15448). Recife, REVIZEE Nordeste, Cruzeiro V, station 117, 08°13.2′S 34°33.3′W, 19 November 1999, 575 m depth, 1 ovigerous female (MOUFPE 15449). REVIZEE, Cruzeiro V/00, station 14: 1 male (MOUFPE 15469). Espírito Santo, REVIZEE Pesca, station D-0503, 19°39.943′S 38°30.435′W, 29 June 1999, 808 m depth, 1 male, 6 females (MNRJ 13694). Espírito Santo, RV ‘Marion Dufresne’, TAAF MD/Brazil 1987, station 54 CB93, 19°36′S 38°53′W, 02 June 1987, 707–733 m depth, male paratype of Rochinia confusa, cl 12 mm, cw 8 mm (MNHN-B 24570). Rio de Janeiro, RV ‘Marion Dufresne’, TAAF MD/Brazil 1987, station 64 CB 105, 23°46′S 42°09′W, 2 June 1987, 592–610 m depth, female holotype of Rochinia confusa, cl 32 mm, cw 23 mm (MNRJ 1581). Rio de Janeiro, PADCT, station 6623, 24°13′30″S 43°10′60″W, fish trap [no depth]: 1 male, cl 30 mm, cw 23 mm (MZUSP 15275). 1 male cl 32 mm, cw 23 mm; 1 female cl 36 mm, cw 27 mm (MZUSP 17424). Brazil, [no exact locality or depth], RV ‘Kinpo Maru’, station 123, trawling, E. Severino-Rodrigues leg.: 1 male cl 57 mm, cw 43 mm; 1 male cl 49 mm, cw 39 mm; 1 female cl 48 mm, cw 38 mm (MZUSP 16228).

DISTRIBUTION

United States (from North Carolina to Gulf of Mexico), Nicaragua, West Indies and Brazil (Amapá, Pará, Pernambuco, Bahia, Espírito Santo and Rio de Janeiro), between 161 and 900 m. Rochinia umbonata has been mistakenly recorded from São Paulo (as R. confusa) by Coelho et al. (Reference Coelho, Almeida and Bezerra2008).

REMARKS

Changes over ontogeny in R. umbonata have only been occasionally recorded in the literature. Rathbun (Reference Rathbun1894, p. 62), referring to four specimens of R. umbonata from off Georgia (USA), considered the morphological differences between an ovigerous female and smaller specimens sufficient to make the ovigerous female a distinct species, were it not for a specimen intermediate in form between the ovigerous female and the younger specimens. Williams (Reference Williams1984, p. 324) remarked that R. umbonata is ‘Extremely variable in ornamentation. The slender legs become extremely so in large individuals.’

In Rochinia umbonata, the morphology of the carapace indeed undergoes very strong modifications over ontogeny regardless of sex (Figures 1–6). In fully developed specimens (e.g. cl 48 mm, cw 38 mm or larger) the rostral spines are slightly shorter and less divergent (Figures 1, 2, 4 & 5); the carapace supraorbital, preorbital, hepatic, mesogastric, proto-, meso- and metabranchial, cardiac, and intestinal tubercles become very large, flat-topped, leaf-like plates whose circumferences are broader than the stem (Figures 1D, 3D, 4D & 6D); the lateral and mesial margins of the antennal articles 2 + 3 are distinctly expanded into lobes (Figures 2C, D, 3C, D, 5C, D & 6C, D); the pterygostomial teeth are coalescent at the base, rather indistinct distally forming a prominent pterygostomial ridge; and the carapace regions are distinctly more swollen. In contrast, in developing specimens (e.g. cl 12 mm, cw 8 mm or smaller), the carapace supraorbital, hepatic, metabranchial and intestinal protuberances show as strong, sharp spines (Figures 1A, B, 3A, B, 4A, B & 6A, B), whereas the mesogastric, proto-, mesobranchial and cardiac are flattened small nodosities (Figures 1A, B, 3A, B, 4A, B & 6A, B), the antennal articles 2 + 3 are only slightly expanded mesially and laterally (Figures 2A, B, 3A, B, 5A, B & 6A, B), the pterygostomial teeth are much less coalescent at the base, rather distinct distally, forming a lower pterygostomial ridge; and the carapace regions are distinctly less swollen. In contrast to fully developed specimens in which the circumference of the scutellate preorbital protuberance is much broader than the stem, in developing specimens the preorbital protuberance is already scutellate but its circumference is not, or only slightly, broader than the stem. In both fully developed and developing specimens the preorbital and hepatic scutellate plates are fused to each other, but only in fully developed specimens is the preorbital scutellate plate and the hepatic boletate ornamentation fused together to form a very large leaf-like plate whose circumference is much broader than the stem. In developing specimens, the scutellate preorbital plate is fused to a hepatic sharp spine (Figures 3 & 6).

Whereas the male abdomen does not change during ontogeny (Figure 2), that of mature females becomes dome-like, almost circular in outline, extremely broad, completely covering the thoracic sternum (Figures 5 & 6); the vulvae have much larger openings. In immature females the abdomen is flattened, remarkably longer than large, leaving the thoracic sternum exposed laterally; the vulvae are narrow and slit-like.

The chelipeds also undergo morphological modifications over ontogeny; being more evident in males (Figures 3A–H). In fully developed specimens (e.g. cl 49 mm, cw 39 mm or larger), the cutting edges of the cheliped fingers are provided with teeth distinctly dissimilar in size and shape (Figure 3H). The dactylus has two strong, submolariform teeth fitting each into a low hiatus on the cutting margin of the fixed finger, one very strong, subproximal tooth, and one much smaller tooth at the midlength of the dactylus. The submolariform teeth of the dactylus are probably the result of coalescent serrated teeth. The fixed finger has one low, rounded, massive tooth at its midlength that fits into a low hiatus on the cutting margin of the movable finger. The cutting edges of the dactylus and the fixed finger are provided with serrated teeth at their distal third. The cheliped is longer than the first pereopod and the dorsal surface of the cheliped merus is strongly laterally compressed, forming a distinct edge along its entire length. However, in developing specimens the cheliped fingers have small, serrated, similar in size juxtaposed teeth along the cutting margins; the dactylus is provided with a low subproximal tooth fitting into a low hiatus of fixed finger (the fixed finger lacks the submolariform tooth); the movable and fixed fingers slightly gap subproximally when closed (Figures 3E–G). The cheliped is shorter than the first pereopod and the cheliped merus dorsal surface is only very slightly laterally compressed.

The female holotype (cl 32 mm, cw 23 mm) (Figures 4A, 5A & 6A) and the male paratype (cl 12 mm, cw 8 mm) of Rochinia confusa show all the morphological characteristics of an ontogenetic stage (cf. supra) of R. umbonata and, therefore, they are herein regarded as conspecific with R. umbonata. Indeed, Tavares (Reference Tavares1991, p. 164) had already remarked the resemblance between R. confusa and R. umbonata: ‘Par les traits généraux de la carapace, Rochinia confusa sp. nov. se rapproche de R. umbonata (Stimpson, Reference Stimpson1871), de la mer des Caraïbes, mais elle diverge fortement de cette dernière par P2 et P3 beacoup plus longs que les chélipèdes. Chez Rochinia confusa sp. nov., l’épine hépatique de la carapace est aussi nettement plus développée que chez R. umbonata. As more specimens from Brazilian deep-waters have become available, it is now clear that the strong morphological differences between R. confusa and fully developed specimens of R. umbonata can be attributed to ontogeny. True to its name, R. confusa should therefore be considered as a junior subjective synonym of R. umbonata and the geographic records of R. confusa to Brazil subsequent to those in the original description (Espírito Santo and Rio de Janeiro by Tavares, Reference Tavares1991), should all now be referred to R. umbonata Stimpson, Reference Stimpson1871 (from Amapá, Maranhão, Pernambuco and Bahia by Silva et al., Reference Silva, Ramos-Porto and Cintra2001; Viana et al., Reference Viana, Ramos-Porto, Torres, Santos, Cabral and Acioli2002; Serejo et al., Reference Serejo, Young, Cardoso, Tavares, Rodrigues, Almeida, Costa, Olavo and Martins2007). None of these authors, however, have suggested the synonymy between R. confusa and R. umbonata.

Feres et al. (Reference Feres, Santos and Lopes2008) attributed to Rochinia confusa one ovigerous female obtained from the intertidal of Panaquatira beach, Maranhão (02°28′13″S 44°03′19″W) of which a low-quality photograph was provided. In their work, the authors never mentioned if their specimen was found alive or stranded dead along the beach. Judging from their photograph it is highly improbable that that female is identical with R. confusa (=R. umbonata). In any case, there are no intertidal species of Rochinia known so far.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We gratefully thank Cristiana Serejo (MNRJ), Danièle Guinot (MNHN), Jesser S. de Souza Filho (MOUFPE) and Rafael Lemaitre (USNM) for access to the collections under their responsibility and for providing working space. Thanks also to Joana d'Arc, Manuel Pedraza (MZUSP), Karen Reed (USNM) and Jéssica Colavite (Universidade Regional do Cariri, CE) for their kind assistance throughout the execution of this work. The input from two anonymous referees is gratefully acknowledged.

FINANCIAL SUPPORT

This work was supported by the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico – CNPq (M.T., grant number 301806/2010–1); PETROBRAS (M.T., grant number 4600224970); and Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo – FAPESP (W.S., grant numbers 2008/11280-6, 2013/01201-0 and 2014/15549-0).

References

REFERENCES

Abele, L.G. and Kim, W. (1986) An illustrated guide to the marine decapod crustaceans of Florida. Tallahassee, State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, Technical Series 8, 1–760.Google Scholar
Bullis, H.R. and Thompson, J.R. (1965) Collection by the exploratory fishing vessels Oregon, Silver Bay, Combat, and Pelican made during 1956–1960 in the southwestern North Atlantic. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Special Scientific Report—Fisheries 510, 1–130.Google Scholar
Casadío, S., Feldmann, R.M., Parras, A. and Schweitzer, C.E. (2005) Miocene fossil Decapoda (Crustacea: Brachyura) from Patagonia, Argentina, and their paleoecological setting. Annals of Carnegie Museum 74, 151–188.Google Scholar
Chace, F.A. Jr. (1940) Reports on the scientific results of the Atlantis expeditions to the West Indies, under the joint auspices of the University of Havana and Harvard University. The brachyuran crabs. Torreia 4, 3–67.Google Scholar
Coelho, P.A., Almeida, A.O. and Bezerra, L.E. (2008) Checklist of the marine and estuarine Brachyura (Crustacea: Decapoda) of northern and northeastern Brazil. Zootaxa 1956, 1–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faxon, W. (1895) Reports on an exploration off the west coasts of Mexico, Central and South America, and off the Galapagos Islands, in charge of Alexander Agassiz, by the U.S. Fish Commission steamer “Albatross,” during 1891, Lieut.-Commander Z.L. Tanner, U.S.N. commanding. XV. The stalk-eyed Crustacea. Memoirs of the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College 18, 1–292.Google Scholar
Felder, D.L., Álvarez, F., Goy, J.W. and Lemaitre, R. (2009) Decapoda (Crustacea) of the Gulf of Mexico, with comments on the Amphionidacea. Chapter 59. In Tunnell, J.W. Jr., Felder, D.L. and Earle, S.A. (eds) Gulf of Mexico origin, waters and biota, vol. 1. Biodiversity. Houston: Texas A&M University Press, College Station, pp. 1019–1104.Google Scholar
Feres, S.J.C., Santos, L.A. and Lopes, A.T.L. (2008) Primeiro registro de Rochinia confusa Tavares, 1991 (Crustacea: Decapoda: Majidae) para o litoral maranhense. Boletim do Laboratório de Hidrobiologia 21, 103–106.Google Scholar
Griffin, D.J.G. and Tranter, H.A. (1986) The Decapoda Brachyura of the Siboga Expedition. Part VIII: Majidae. Siboga-Expeditie 39(C4), 1–335, 22 plates.Google Scholar
Lalana, R., Ortiz, M., Varela, C. and Tariche, N. (2004) Compilación sobre los invertebrados colectados en las expediciones del “Atlantis” en el archipiélago cubano. Revista de Investigaciones Marinas 25, 3–14.Google Scholar
McLaughlin, P.A., Camp, D.K., Angel, M.V., Bousfield, E.L., Brunel, P., Brusca, R.C., Cadien, D., Cohen, A.C., Conlan, K., Eldredge, L.G., Felder, D.L., Goy, J.W., Haney, T., Hann, B., Heard, R.W., Hendrycks, E.A., Hobbs, H.H., Holsinger, J.R., Kensley, B., Laubitz, D.R., LeCroy, S.E., Lemaitre, R., Maddocks, R.F., Martin, J.W., Mikkelsen, P., Nelson, E., Newman, W.A., Overstreet, R.M., Poly, W.J., Price, W.W., Reid, J.W., Robertson, A., Rogers, D.C., Ross, A., Schotte, M., Schram, F.R., Shih, C-T., Watling, L., Wilson, G.D.F. and Turgeon, D.D. (2005) Common and scientific names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: Crustaceans (with CD-ROM). American Fisheries Society Special Publication 31, 1–545.Google Scholar
Melo, G.A.S. (1996) Manual de Identificação dos Brachyura (Caranguejos e Siris) do Litoral Brasileiro. São Paulo: Plêiade.Google Scholar
Miers, E.J. (1886) Report on the Brachyura collected by H.M.S. Challenger during the years 1873–1876. In Murray, J. (ed.) Zoology. Report on the scientific results of the voyage of H.M.S. Challenger during the years 1873–76 under the command of Captain George S. Nares, R.N., F.R.S. and the Late Captain Frank Tourle Thomson, Volume 17. Edinburgh: Neill and Company, pp. 1–362, 29 plates.Google Scholar
Milne-Edwards, A. (1873–1880) Études sur les xiphosures et les crustacés de la région mexicaine. Mission scientifique au Mexique et dans l'Amérique centrale, ouvrage publié par ordre du Ministre de l'Instruction publique. Recherches zoologiques pour servir à l'histoire de la faune de l'Amérique central et du Mexique, publiées sous la direction de M.H. Milne Edwards, membre de l'Institut. Cinquième partie. Tome premier. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale.Google Scholar
Milne-Edwards, A. (1880a) Reports on the results of dredging, under the supervision of Alexander Agassiz, in the Gulf of Mexico, and in the Caribbean Sea, 1877, 78, 79, by the United States Coast Survey Steamer “Blake,” Lieut.-Commander C.D. Sigsbee, U.S.N., and Commander J.R. Bartlett, U.S.N., commanding. VIII. Études préliminaires sur les crustacés. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College 8, 1–68, 1–2 plates.Google Scholar
Milne-Edwards, A. (1880b) Compte rendu sommaire d'une exploration zoologique faite dans e golfe de Gascogne à bord du navire de l'Etat le Travailleur. Comptes Rendus des Scéances de l'Aacadémie des Sciences 91, 355–360.Google Scholar
Milne-Edwards, A. and Bouvier, E.L. (1923) Reports on the results of dredging. Under the supervision of Alexander Agassiz, in the Gulf of Mexico (1877–78), in the Caribbean Sea (1878–79), and along the Atlantic coast of the United States (1880), by the U.S. Coast Survey steamer “Blake.” Lieut.-Com. C.D. Sigsbee, U.S.N., and Commander J.R. Bartlett, U.S.N., commanding. XLVII: Les Porcellanides et des Brachyures. Memoirs of the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College 47, 283–395.Google Scholar
Ng, P.K.L. and De Forges, B.R. (2007) A new species of deep-water spider crab of the genus Rochinia A. Milne-Edwards, 1875, from Guam (Crustacea: Brachyura: Majidae). Zootaxa 1610, 61–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ng, P.K.L., Guinot, D. and Davie, P.J.F. (2008) Systema Brachyorum: Part I. An annotated checklist of extant brachyuran crabs of the world. Raffles Bulletin of Zoology 17, 1–286.Google Scholar
Nizinski, M.S. (2003) Annotated checklist of decapod crustaceans of Atlantic coastal and continental shelf waters of the United States. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 116, 96–157.Google Scholar
Paulmier, G. (1993) Crustacés profonds capturés aux casiers aux Antilles Françaises. Rapport IFREMER, Laboratoire du Robert, La Martinique, et Station de l'Houmeau, Neuil/Mer, 34 pp., 34 pl.Google Scholar
Pequegnat, L.H. (1970) Deep-water Brachyuran crabs. In Pequegnat, W.E. and Chace, F.A. Jr. (eds) Contributions on biology of the Gulf of Mexico. Houston: Texas A&M University Oceanographic Studies, pp. 171–204.Google Scholar
Poupin, J. (1994) Faune marine profonde des Antilles françaises: récoltes du navire “Polka” faites en 1993. Paris: ORSTOM Editions (Etudes et Thèses).Google Scholar
Powers, L.W. (1977) A catalogue and bibliography to the crabs (Brachyura) of the Gulf of Mexico. Contributions in Marine Science 20, 1–190.Google Scholar
Rathbun, M.J. (1894) Notes on the crabs of the family Inachidæ in the United States National Museum. Proceedings of the United States National Museum 17, 43–75.Google Scholar
Rathbun, M.J. (1925) The spider crabs of America. Bulletin of the United States National Museum 129, 1–613.Google Scholar
Sars, G.O. (1885) Crustacea I. The Norwegian North Atlantic Expedition 1876–1878: Zoology = Den Norske Nordhavns-Expedition 1876–1878: Zoologi. Christiana: Grøndahl and Søn.Google Scholar
Serejo, C.S., Young, P.S., Cardoso, I.C., Tavares, C., Rodrigues, C. and Almeida, T.C. (2007) Abundância, diversidade e zonação dos crustáceos no talude da costa central do Brasil (11°–22°S) coletados pelo programa REVIZEE/Score Central: Prospecção pesqueira. In Costa, R.A.S., Olavo, G. and Martins, A.S. (eds) Biodiversidade da fauna marinha profunda na costa central brasileira. Rio de Janeiro: Museu Nacional (Série Livros no. 24), pp. 133–162.Google Scholar
Silva, K.C.A., Ramos-Porto, M. and Cintra, I.H.A. (2001) Caranguejos capturados durante pescarias experimentais para o programa REVIZEE/Norte (Crustacea: Decapoda: Brachyura). Boletim Técnico-Científico do CEPNOR 1, 77–102.Google Scholar
Silva, K.C.A., Ramos-Porto, M., Cintra, I.H.A., Muniz, A.P.M. and Silva, M.C.N. (2002) Crustáceos capturados durante o Programa REVIZEE na costa norte brasileira. Boletim Técnico-Científico do CEPNOR 2, 97–108.Google Scholar
Silva, K.C.A., Ramos-Porto, M., Cintra, I.H.A. and Viana, G.F.S. (1999) Ocorrência de Rochinia umbonata (Stimpson, 1871) na plataforma continental dos Estados do Amapá e Pará/REVIZEE-NORTE (Crustacea: Decapoda: Brachyura: Majidae). Trabalhos Ocenográficos da Universidade Federal de Pernambuco 27, 169–173.Google Scholar
Smith, S.I. (1885) On some new or little known decapod Crustacea, from recent Fish Commission dredgings off the east coast of the United States. Proceedings of the United States National Museum 7, 493–511.Google Scholar
Smith, S. I. (1886) Report on the decapod Crustacea of the “Albatross” dredgings off the East-coast of the United States during the Summer and Autumn of 1884. Report of the United States Fish Commission 13, 605–705.Google Scholar
Soto, L.A. (1991) Faunal zonation of the deep-water brachyuran crabs in the Straits of Florida. Bulletin of Marine Science 49, 623–637.Google Scholar
Stimpson, W. (1871) Preliminary report on the Crustacea dredged in the Gulf Stream in the Straits of Florida by L.F. de Pourtales, Assist. U. S. Coast Survey. Part I. Brachyura. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College 2, 109–160.Google Scholar
Takeda, M. (1983) Crustaceans. In Takeda, M. and Okutani, T. (eds) Crustaceans and Mollusks trawled off Suriname and French Guiana. Tokyo: Japan Marine Fishery Resource Research Center, pp. 19–180.Google Scholar
Tavares, M. (1991) The cruise of the “Marion Dufresne” off the Brazilian coast: account of the scientific results and list of stations. Zoosystema 21, 597–605.Google Scholar
Viana, G.F.S., Ramos-Porto, M., Santos, M.C.F., Silva, K.C.A., Cintra, I.H.A., Cabral, E., Torres, M.F.A. and Acioli, F.D. (2003) Caranguejos coletados no norte e nordeste do Brasil durante o Programa REVIZEE (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura). Boletim Técnico-Científico do CEPNOR 11(1), 117–144.Google Scholar
Viana, G.F.S., Ramos-Porto, M., Torres, M.F.A., Santos, M.C.F., Cabral, E. and Acioli, F.D. (2002) Espécies de Rochinia A. Milne-Edwards, 1875 (Decapoda: Brachyura: Majidae) coletadas em águas do nordeste brasileiro. Boletim Técnico-Científico do CEPENE 10, 85–96.Google Scholar
Wicksten, M.K. and Packard, J.M. (2005) A qualitative zoogeographic analysis of decapod crustaceans of the continental slopes and abyssal plain of the Gulf of Mexico. Deep-Sea Research I 52, 1745–1765.Google Scholar
Williams, A.B. (1984) Shrimps, lobsters and crabs of the Atlantic Coast of the Eastern United States, Maine to Florida. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.Google Scholar
Williams, A.B., McCloskey, L. and Gray, J. (1968) New records of Brachyuran decapod Crustacea from the continental shelf of North Carolina, USA. Crustaceana 15, 41–66.Google Scholar
Figure 0

Fig. 1. Dorsal view of cephalothorax of Rochinia umbonata (Stimpson, 1871), cheliped and pereopods electronically removed. (A) male cl 30 mm, cw 23 mm (MZUSP 15725); (B) male cl 32 mm, cw 23 mm (MZUSP 17424); (C) male cl 42 mm, cw 31 mm (USNM 1000819); (D) male cl 57 mm, cw 43 mm (MZUSP 16228). Scale bar: 20 mm.

Figure 1

Fig. 2. Ventral view of cephalothorax of Rochinia umbonata (Stimpson, 1871), cheliped and pereopods electronically removed. (A) male cl 30 mm, cw 23 mm (MZUSP 15725); (B) male cl 32 mm, cw 23 mm (MZUSP 17424); (C) male cl 42 mm, cw 31 mm (USNM 1000819); (D) male cl 57 mm, cw 43 mm (MZUSP 16228). Scale bar: 20 mm.

Figure 2

Fig. 3. Lateral view of cephalothorax and right cheliped of Rochinia umbonata (Stimpson, 1871), cheliped and pereopods electronically removed. (A, E) male cl 30 mm, cw 23 mm (MZUSP 15725); (B, F) male cl 32 mm, cw 23 mm (MZUSP 17424); (C, G) male cl 42 mm, cw 31 mm (USNM 1000819); (D, H) male cl 57 mm, cw 43 mm (MZUSP 16228). Scale bars: A–D, 20 mm; E–H, 10 mm.

Figure 3

Fig. 4. Dorsal view of cephalothorax of Rochinia umbonata (Stimpson, 1871), cheliped and pereopods electronically removed. (A) female holotype of Rochinia confusa Tavares, 1991, cl 32 mm, cw 23 mm (MNRJ 1581); (B) female cl 36 mm, cw 27 mm (MZUSP 17424); (C) female cl 49.5 mm, cw 37 mm (USNM 1000819); (D) female cl 48 mm, cw 38 mm (MZUSP 16228). Scale bar: 20 mm.

Figure 4

Fig. 5. Ventral view of cephalothorax of Rochinia umbonata (Stimpson, 1871), cheliped and pereopods electronically removed. (A) female holotype of Rochinia confusa Tavares, 1991, cl 32 mm, cw 23 mm (MNRJ 1581); (B) female cl 36 mm, cw 27 mm (MZUSP 17424); (C) female cl 49.5 mm, cw 37 mm (USNM 1000819); (D) female cl 48 mm, cw 38 mm (MZUSP 16228). Scale bar: 20 mm.

Figure 5

Fig. 6. Lateral view of cephalothorax of Rochinia umbonata (Stimpson, 1871), cheliped and pereopods electronically removed. (A) female holotype of Rochinia confusa Tavares, 1991, cl 32 mm, cw 23 mm (MNRJ 1581); (B) female cl 36 mm, cw 27 mm (MZUSP 17424); (C) female cl 49.5 mm, cw 37 mm (USNM 1000819); (D) female cl 48 mm, cw 38 mm (MZUSP 16228). Scale bar: 20 mm.