identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
20528B6EFFD6FFA5D8E5FA0BFBA4F99E.text	20528B6EFFD6FFA5D8E5FA0BFBA4F99E.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Dynomenidae Ortmann 1892	<div><p>Family Dynomenidae Ortmann, 1892</p><p>Dynomenidae Ortmann, 1892: 541; Alcock 1900: 127, 133; 1901: 34; Rathbun 1937: 51; Glaessner 1960: 46, fig. 22; 1969: R487; 1980: 190, fig. 22; Wright &amp; Wright 1950: 26, fig. 13; Wright &amp; Collins 1972: 48; Jamieson et al. 1993: 311 –322, fig. 3; 1995: 274; Guinot 1978: 231; 1993a: 1226; 1995: 186; Guinot et al. 1994: fig. 7; 1998: 78, 92, 93, fig. 8; Guinot &amp; Bouchard 1998: 629, 674, 681; Collins et al. 1995: 177; Ng 1998: 1065; McLay 1999: 427 –569; 2001b: 809; McLay &amp; Ng 2004: 1 –24; McLay &amp; Ng 2005: 15; Martin &amp; Davis 2001: 74; Davie 2002: 167; Schweitzer et al. 2003: 18; Schweitzer &amp; Feldmann 2005: 21, 22, tables 1, 4; Guinot &amp; Tavares 2001: 525, 529, 531; 2003: 112, 115, 120; Guinot &amp; Quenette 2005: 282; Poore 2004: 308; Števċiċ 2005: 18; De Angeli &amp; Garassino 2006: 29; Beschin et al. 2007: 20; Ng et al. 2008: 37.</p><p>Dynomeninae A. Milne-Edwards &amp; Bouvier 1902 pro parte: 22.</p><p>Remarks. McLay’s (1999) diagnosis of the family is accurate in most points. However, some aspects need modification or elaboration, and new characters described in this study should be added. For instance, the abdomen, instead of being “folded loosely under the thorax” (McLay 1999: 468), is actually firmly held in Acanthodromia by coxal structures on mxp3 and P1–P3. In Acanthodromia, the abdominal somites are not “freely movable” (McLay 1999: 536), but there is fusion of somites 3–6. Admittedly, it is difficult to determine the degree of abdominal fusion. Although traces of sutures are still visible in places, they are concealed by numerous spines. In any case, somites are functionally ankylosed in the specimens examined so far. To this effect, I follow Ng et al. (2008: 14) in that “we here regard fusion as segments which are immobile and cannot articulate with each other, regardless of whether the sutures are visible” at varying degrees.</p><p>Some characters are redefined and added.</p><p>Orbits either elongate, deep, obliquely arranged or shorter, shallower, more transversal. Frontal margin variously projecting. Posterior margin of carapace rather concave. Mxp3 more or less opercular; basis and ischium of endopod fused but suture distinct, either complete or not. Narrow shield formed by sternites 1 and 2 or 1–3; following thoracic sternites either completely included between coxae of pereopods or with narrow lateral portion intercalated between abdomen and pereopods; sternum forms a plate that regularly declines posteriorly; sternite 8 tilted, located in another plane than preceding ones. Anterior sternites 1, 2 small, fused into a narrow shield, either pentagonal, onion-shaped or, more rarely, triangular; stacking up of anterior sternites may be recognised by location of gynglymes for articulation of mxp1–mxp3 along thick margin of shield (Figure 4A). Sternite 3 either clearly distinct, visible (plesiomorphy), or represented at base of shield by short band, of about same width as sternite 4 in its anterior part (apomorphy); suture 3/4 indicated by change of level, straight or convex, or marked by denticulate crest. Sternites 4–7 (except episternites) fused into undivided plate, with parallel margins, medially forming flat area, varying from moderately wide to wide. Sternal sutures 4/5–6/7 hardly visible, hidden by borders of sterno-coxal depressions; suture 4/ 5 may be medially replaced by convex line; suture 7/8 present, even in males, relatively short in both sexes. Sterno-abdominal depression deep, completely covered by male abdomen over entire length and width, or shallow, not well defined, always with medial flat floor. Deep sterno-coxal depressions present at level of P2–P4 (Figures 2 A, B, 4A). Male abdomen either long, narrow, completely accommodated in sterno-abdominal depression, or shorter, relatively broad even in males, flexible; telson reaching base of mxp3 or level of mid-sternite 4; lateral margins of abdomen (uropod margin included) may be slightly modified ( Acanthodromiinae n. subfam., Paradynomeninae n. subfam.), and not modified in the two other subfamilies. Abdomen with somites 1–6 free or with somites 3–6 fused in both sexes (at least in Acanthodromia margarita), sutures still partially visible. Abdominal holding either firm in both sexes and involving coxae of mxp3 and P1–P3 ( Acanthodromiinae n. subfam.), or less so but still fairly tight ( Paradynomeninae n. subfam.), or loose and performed by a structure which is either coxal (Metaynomeninae n. subfam.) or sternal ( Dynomeninae). Sexual dimorphism of abdominal somite 6 correlated with sexual dimorphism of uropod. Vestigial pleopods present on male somites 3–5, biramous (two rami either equal or, more often, unequal, exopodite being longer than endopodite); exceptionally ( Dynomene praedator A. Milne-Edwards, 1879), pleopods 3–5 uniramous; thus pleopodal formula complete (Figure 3 B). Uropods as dorsal plates (Figure 5), varying from small, slightly mobile to well developed, immobile (even at so great extent that penultimate abdominal somite excluded from reaching abdominal lateral margin), usually not prominent in males (slightly prominent in Paradynomeninae n. subfam.), may be sexually dimorphic (larger in females). Apertures of spermathecae ending well apart from each other, slightly behind female gonopore on P3 coxa. Chelipeds usually equal, may be unequal at least in males, and homomorphic, slightly dimorphic sexually (however with marked growth and modifications in large males of Dynomene praedator). P5 strongly reduced, not movable, directed obliquely between posterolateral margin of carapace and P4; basis-ischium free or fused to merus; subchelate mechanism involving dactylus opposed to distal extension of propodus, sexually dimorphic, more developed, more spinous in females. P5 coxa modified in males, extended in long projection enclosing most of penis (Figure 4 C–F). Endophragmal skeleton with junction between phragmae formed by fusion; skeletal parts variously layered (cf. Secretan 2002). Gills (cf. McLay 1999) usually 19 (including 6 podobranchs) + 7 epipods, with basically phyllobranchiate structure, but plates very variable in shape and number of epibranchial lobes.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/20528B6EFFD6FFA5D8E5FA0BFBA4F99E	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Guinot, Danièle	Guinot, Danièle (2008): A re-evaluation of the Dynomenidae Ortmann, 1892 (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura, Podotremata), with the recognition of four subfamilies. Zootaxa 1850: 1-26, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.183391
20528B6EFFD0FFA7D8E5F93EFE6DF9B6.text	20528B6EFFD0FFA7D8E5F93EFE6DF9B6.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Acanthodromiinae	<div><p>Acanthodromiinae n. subfam.</p><p>(Figures 1 A, 2, 5O–P)</p><p>Dynomeninae A. Milne-Edwards &amp; Bouvier 1899 pro parte: 9; Alcock, 1900 pro parte: 127, 133; 1901 pro parte: 34, 74; A. Milne-Edwards &amp; Bouvier 1902 pro parte: 22.</p><p>Type genus. Acanthodromia A. Milne-Edwards, 1880 (type species by monotypy: A. erinacea A. Milne- Edwards, 1880).</p><p>Diagnosis. Carapace longer than wide, oblong; dorsal surface convex, ornamented with close-set spines. Cervical, branchial grooves not well visible, branchiocardiac groove crescent- shaped. Anterolateral margins poorly defined, joining corners of buccal cavity, obscured by numerous spines. Posterior margin markedly concave. Frontal margin forming narrow projection; supraorbital margin oblique, continuous above orbits, eave-like, rimmed, not notched, spinous, prolonged in straight groove delineating subhepatic region; infraorbital margin concave, ornamented with spines. Orbits obliquely located, elongated, clearly visible from dorsal view; eyestalks short. Antenna with urinal article extended transversely, not medially beaked; second article with firmly fixed exopod. Proepistome short. Epistome narrow. Anteroventrally, front, inflated subhepatic pterygostomial portion forming together with merus of mxp3 a weak “face”. Anterior border of endostome forming raised wall, laterally notched by exhalant orifices. Mxp3 operculiform, angled; basis separated from ischium by nearly complete suture; ischium narrow at base, merus not extended laterally, narrow. Pleural line as wide, decalcified zone; branchiostegite of normal texture. Thoracic sternum extremely narrow, entirely (apart from sternites 1, 2) covered by male abdomen, abdominal margins close to P2, P3 coxae. Sternites 1, 2 fused into small, narrow shield, inserted between bases of mxp3; sternite 3 distinct but short, expanded laterally, delimited posteriorly by convex crest, corresponding to suture 3/4; sternites 3–8 not exposed laterally when abdomen closed; sternite 8 tilted. Sterno-coxal depressions very deep. Female sutures 7/8 ending well apart, along internal border of P3 sterno-coxal depression; spermathecal aperture small, slightly behind level of female gonopore. Sterno-abdominal depression narrow, deep, with steep sides, medially a flat floor. Abdomen broad, curved, extending over entire sternum (sternites 3–8) and reaching mxp3; first somite dorsal, with same concave curvature as posterior margin of carapace in which it is inserted; subsequent somites narrow, subequal in width; telson long, broadly triangular, slightly wider at base; somite 4 with a prominent, pearlshaped double tubercule. Abdominal somites 3–6 fused in males, probably also in females; sutures obscured by spines, only partially visible; suture between somites 5, 6 absent in males, more clearly visible in females (at least in Acanthodromia margarita); in females somites 3–5 each with lateral portions produced as flanges overlapping following somites; flange of somite 6 more pronounced, raised. Male uropod small, showing as narrow transverse plate, slightly mobile. Abdomen tightly locked in both sexes by mechanism involving coxae of 4 thoracopods: coxa of mxp3 with spinules overhanging posterior part of telson; coxae of P1–P3 with several spinules or granules overhanging telson at P1, P2 levels, somite 6 with uropods, and somite 5 at P3 level (in Acanthodromia margarita all spinules better developed in females than in males). Chelipeds equal, more robust than P2; dactylus strongly curved downwards; fixed finger almost straight; both fingers spoon-tipped. P2–P4 ornamented with spines; dactyli curved, bearing numerous spines; 4 or 5 spines on inferior margin. P5 conspicuously reduced, sexually dimorphic; basis-ischium fused to merus, basis-ischiummerus proportionally thicker than distal articles; dactylus rudimentary ending in subchelate mechanism, obsolete in males, more noticeable in females. P5 coxa of males modified, extended to enclose penis. Pl1 vestigial in females. Vestigial pleopods on somites 3–5 in males. Gonopod 1 stout, forming half-rolled tube. G2 needlelike, with row of small distal spines.</p><p>Remarks. The subfamily is monotypic, and Acanthodromia comprises only two species (Table 1). The morphology is masked by the spines which cover the whole body, so the precise outline and the grooves on the dorsal surface of carapace are not evident, which implies that potentially related fossil taxa are not easily assigned to this subfamily. The initial assignment of Acanthodromia to the Dromiidae (A. Milne-Edwards 1880; Alcock 1899) and subsequent transfer to the Prosopidae, subfamily Pithonotinae Glaessner, 1933 (Wright &amp; Collins 1972), illustrates well the “curious mixture” (McLay 1999: 534) of characters, already pointed out by A. Milne-Edwards &amp; Bouvier (1902). The present study has shown that there is strong support for the interpretation that the Recent Acanthodromia retains ancestral characters and is the most primitive of all extant dynomenids.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/20528B6EFFD0FFA7D8E5F93EFE6DF9B6	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Guinot, Danièle	Guinot, Danièle (2008): A re-evaluation of the Dynomenidae Ortmann, 1892 (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura, Podotremata), with the recognition of four subfamilies. Zootaxa 1850: 1-26, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.183391
20528B6EFFD2FFA9D8E5F946FE31FADE.text	20528B6EFFD2FFA9D8E5F946FE31FADE.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Dynomeninae Ortmann 1892	<div><p>Dynomeninae Ortmann, 1892</p><p>(Figures 1 D, 3C, D, 4A–C, E, 5A–H)</p><p>Type genus. Dynomene Desmarest, 1823 ( Cancer hispida Latreille, 1812: type species by monotypy by subsequent designation of H. Milne Edwards, 1837: 180; ICZN 1999, Art. 67.2.2).</p><p>The authorship of Dynomene hispida, usually credited to Guérin or Guérin-Méneville (1832), is incorrect, the first author to describe this species was actually Latreille (in Milbert 1812) (see Cleva et al. 2007: 246, fig. 14C; Ng et al. 2008: 37).</p><p>Other genus included. Hirsutodynomene McLay, 1999 (type species by original designation: Dynomene spinosa Rathbun, 1917).</p><p>Diagnosis. Carapace wider or much wider than long, broadly rounded in outline, with “xanthoid” facies; dorsal surface moderately convex, may be areolate, smooth or granulate, may be laterally spiny, sparsely covered with short or long setae. Cervical groove as broad V, usually pronounced, never reaching, thus not forming notch with lateral carapace margin, interrupted between elongated gastric pits, or not interrupted; branchial groove faint, generally indistinct laterally or, rarely, joining lateral border of carapace; branchiocardiac variously marked. Anterolateral margin beginning slightly below infraorbital border, well defined, armed with distinct teeth, rarely by granules only. Posterior margin concave. Frontal margin broadly triangular, continuous above orbit; supraorbital margin gently oblique, may be notched, usually ornamented; infraorbital margin usually irregular, may be toothed, granular, notched. Orbits well defined, directed more or less obliquely; eyestalks rather short. Antenna with narrow urinal article beaked medially; second article with exopod firmly fixed. Proepistome very narrow. Anterior border of endostome not prominently raised. Mxp3 not firmly operculiform; basis separated from ischium by incomplete suture. Branchiostegite decalcified. Thoracic sternum slightly tilted posteriorly, wide, not entirely covered laterally by abdomen at level of P2–P3 coxae, a small portion of episternites 5, 6 remaining exposed when male abdomen folded. Sternites 1, 2 fused as pentagonal shield, variously pointed at anterior end; sternite 3 represented by narrow band at base of shield, delimited posteriorly by change in level (Figure 3 C, 4A); suture 4/5 indistinct but limit between sternites 4, 5 marked transversely by setiferous, convex, line, may be salient, ornamented; sternites 4–8 mostly fused into single wide plate. Sterno-coxal depressions deep. Female sutures 7/8 ending well apart, inserted in ridged groove along internal border of sterno-coxal depression for P3; spermathecal aperture slightly posterior to coxal female gonopore, tiny, below prominence. Sterno-abdominal depression wide, shallow. Male abdomen with all somites free, wide, not entirely filling sterno-abdominal depression, leaving exposed thoracic sternites 1–3, mostly (Figure 3 C) or totally (Figure 3 D) sternite 4, and episternites 5, 6; first abdominal somite dorsally visible, narrow, slightly wider than somite 2. Somites 3–5 of males with vestigial, rudimentary pleopods, biramous, rarely uniramous. Pl1 vestigial in females. Uropods sexually dimorphic, immobile, rather large, occupying variable length of abdominal somite 6, not filling whole length of somite 6 in males and females (Figure 5 A, C–H) in contrast to females in some species (Figure 5 B). Abdominal holding structure sternal (but only restricting lateral movements of abdomen); in males a small tubercle on episternite 5 facing either uropod margin or abdomen margin (location dependent on size of uropod and its extension along somite 6); tubercle lost in mature females. Chelipeds equal, either stout or slender; fingers largely gaping at base, dactylus strongly curved. P2–P4 conspicuously ornamented with spines or granules; dactyli with 4–6 spines on inferior margin. P5 sexually dimorphic, reduced; basis and ischium free, not fused to merus; dactylus rudimentary, with obsolete subchelate mechanism. Coxa of P5 modified in males, extended to enclose penis. Gonopod 1 stout, forming half-rolled tube, with apical plate. G2 needle-like, with varying number of subterminal spines.</p><p>Remarks. The subfamily comprises only two genera: Dynomene, with McLay (2001b) recently describing two new species from Guam, and Hirsutodynomene, with McLay &amp; Ng (2005) adding one new species from the Philippines (Table 1).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/20528B6EFFD2FFA9D8E5F946FE31FADE	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Guinot, Danièle	Guinot, Danièle (2008): A re-evaluation of the Dynomenidae Ortmann, 1892 (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura, Podotremata), with the recognition of four subfamilies. Zootaxa 1850: 1-26, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.183391
20528B6EFFDCFFAAD8E5FA7EFB42FADE.text	20528B6EFFDCFFAAD8E5FA7EFB42FADE.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Metadynomeninae	<div><p>Metadynomeninae n. subfam.</p><p>(Figures 1 C, 3A, B, 4F, 5I –L)</p><p>Type genus. Metadynomene McLay, 1999 (type species by original designation: Dynomene devaney i Takeda, 1977).</p><p>Diagnosis. Carapace as wide as long, or only slightly wider than long, subcircular, rather thick; dorsal surface convex, densely covered by short tomentum giving surface uneven undulating appearance with transverse troughs. Cervical groove well defined, complete (sulcus, however, interrupted between rounded gastric pits), crossing whole carapace, forming notch with lateral carapace margin; branchial groove absent medially, but well developed laterally, parallel to cervical groove, prolonging onto ventral side; branchiocardiac groove well marked. Anterolateral margin long, beginning at postorbital angle, well defined, notched or armed with few teeth. Posterior margin concave. Frontal margin broadly triangular, V-shaped, continuous above orbit; proepistome wide, moderately long, may be short; supraorbital margin oblique, smooth, not notched, not ornamented; infraorbital margin not toothed or notched, projecting, shelf-like, clearly visible from dorsal view. Orbits deep, long, oblique, clearly exposed dorsally; eyestalks well protected. Antenna with urinal article long, relatively narrow, suboval transversely, beaked medially; second article with exopod firmly fixed. Anterior border of endostome not markedly raised. Mxp3 not strongly operculiform; basis separated from ischium by incomplete suture. Branchiostegite may be decalcified. Thoracic sternum tilted posteriorly, rather wide, filled laterally by male abdomen when folded; episternites 5, 6 not visible dorsally, except for small external extensions inserted between P2–P3 and P3–P4 coxae. Sternites 1, 2 fused into pentagonal, narrow shield, which may be slightly pointed; sternite 3 as short band, of same width as sternite 4 in anterior portion, delimited posteriorly by deep depression (Figure 3 A); most portions of sternites 4–8 fused into single wide plate; limit between sternites 4, 5 marked by transverse convex setiferous line (more salient, serrated in males); limit between sternites 5–6 indicated by membranous, translucent band across sternum. Sterno-coxal depressions very deep. Female sutures 7/ 8 in shallow groove, below prominent ridge; spermathecal aperture slightly posterior to level of female gonopore on P3 coxa, small but clearly visible. Sterno-abdominal depression slightly excavated, either shallow or with more oblique external sides. Male abdomen with all somites free, not entirely filling sterno-abdominal depression when folded, wide, in contact with P3–P5 coxae, leaving exposed thoracic sternites 1–3, major portion of sternite 4, and very small lateral portions of episternites 5 and 6; first somite dorsally visible, extended laterally, much wider than narrow somite 2. Male abdominal somites 3–5 with biramous (two equal rami) vestigial pleopods. Pl1 vestigial in females. Uropods not sexually dimorphic, being very large in both sexes, immobile; in males and females, uropod filling entire length of abdominal somite 6, excluding it from reaching lateral margin of abdomen. Abdominal holding by coxal structures in males, one developed on P2 coxa close to the uropod margin or base of telson, a smaller one on P3 coxa; these coxal structures only restrict lateral movements of abdomen in males, are absent in females. Chelipeds unequal (at least in males), stouter than P2–P4; with a small gap between fingers, prehensile borders of fingers touching for most of their length, dactylus barely curved. P2–P4 without spines, weakly ornamented with granules; dactyli with 2–4 spines on inferior margin. P5 sexually dimorphic, reduced; basis-ischium free, not fused to merus; dactylus rudimentary. P5 c oxa modified in males, extended to enclose penis. Gonopod 1 stout, forming semi-rolled tube, with apical plate. G2 needle-like, row of curved spines on anterior surface.</p><p>Remarks. The subfamily is monotypic. Metadynomene, which contains only three extant species, forms a remarkably homogeneous group (Table 1). That the Metadynomeninae n. subfam. and the Sphaerodromiinae (see McLay &amp; Crosnier 1991) appear related is due to a number of comparable plesiomorphic features, as has already been noted by McLay (1991: 465, table 1), who illustrated the similarities between M. devaneyi and the species of Sphaerodromia (see also discussion and key in Guinot &amp; Tavares 2003).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/20528B6EFFDCFFAAD8E5FA7EFB42FADE	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Guinot, Danièle	Guinot, Danièle (2008): A re-evaluation of the Dynomenidae Ortmann, 1892 (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura, Podotremata), with the recognition of four subfamilies. Zootaxa 1850: 1-26, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.183391
20528B6EFFDFFFACD8E5FA7EFC86FC36.text	20528B6EFFDFFFACD8E5FA7EFC86FC36.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Paradynomeninae	<div><p>Paradynomeninae n. subfam.</p><p>(Figures 1 B, E, 4D, 5M, N)</p><p>Type genus. Paradynomene Sakai, 1963 (type species by monotypy: P. tuberculata Sakai, 1963).</p><p>Diagnosis. Body thick, uniformly covered with tubercles, granules and/or spines. Carapace longer than wide or as long as wide, sometimes slightly wider than long, subquadrangular, may be suboval; dorsal surface convex, distinctly areolated, often with swellings or bosses, usually densely ornamented. Cervical groove entire, not reaching lateral carapace margin; frontal, cervical, branchial, branchiocardiac grooves pronounced. Anterolateral margins subparallel or slightly convex, distinctly joining corners of buccal cavity, armed with 4– 6 irregular salient teeth or prominences. Posterolateral margin with produced and elongated subdistal tooth; a tooth present posteriorly, variously salient. Posterior region of carapace recessed; posterior margin strongly concave. Frontal margin usually distinctly projecting, tridentate, rarely bidentate; supraorbital margin with small tubercles, notch; infraorbital margin with granules, teeth, notches. Orbits oblique, clearly visible from dorsal view; eyestalks short. Antenna with suboval urinal article, beaked medially; second article with firmly fixed exopod. Proepistome wide. Presence of a produced ventral anterior area, forming “face” with projecting front, inflated subhepatic, pterygostomial portions and merus of mxp3; when retracted, chelipeds with fingers resting next to mxp3 exopod and flat portion of pterygostomial region. Anterior border of endostome forming raised wall, laterally notched by exhalant orifices. Mxp3 operculiform, sharply angled; basis long, separated from ischium by incomplete suture; ischium, merus almost at right angles, ischium narrow basally, merus trigonal, laterally extended. Pleural line partially indistinct; branchiostegite of normal texture. Thoracic sternum narrow, completely covered laterally by abdomen, except for external portion of episternite 5 and small extension of episternite 6 which remain exposed when abdomen closed; external margin of abdomen close to P2, P3 coxae. Sternites 1 and 2 fused into triangular or cordiform shield; sternite 3 represented by short, narrow band at base of shield, delimited posteriorly by change in level and denticulate crest; no other marks on successive sternites. Most part of sternites 4–8 fused into single wide plate; sternite 8 tilted. Sterno-coxal depressions deep. Female sutures 7/8 ending well apart, mostly hidden by internal border of P3 sterno-coxal depression; spermathecal aperture extremely small, opening slightly behind level of coxal female gonopore. Sterno-abdominal depression moderately excavated, with oblique slopes in males, and with flat median floor. Male abdomen with all somites free, wide, long, extending onto sternum up to base of anterior shield; first somite dorsal, in prolongation of carapace, proximal portion inserted into concave posterior margin of carapace; somite 2 slightly narrower, other abdominal somites wider, increasing in width; telson broadly triangular. In males rudimentary biramous pleopods on somites 3–5. Male uropod moderately developed, occupying about half length of lateral margin of abdominal somite 6, slightly mobile. Movements of abdomen restricted in both sexes because of sets of granules on P2, to a lesser extent on P3 coxae. Chelipeds equal, more robust than P2–P4; fingers closed for about half or to most of their length, dactylus not curved or moderately curved; fixed finger almost straight. P2 to P4 relatively stout, ornamented with prominences, blunt teeth or spines; dactyli with 4 or 5 spines on lower margins. P5 reduced, sexually dimorphic; basis-ischium fused to merus, forming a single article; rudimentary ending (dactylus as long as propodal extension) forming a subchelate mechanism in females only. Coxa of P5 modified in males to enclose penis, extension narrow, elongated. Pl1 vestigial in females. Gonopod 1 stout, forming semi-rolled tube, with apical oval lobe surrounded by dense fringe of long setae. G2 needle-like, with linear row of tiny distal spines.</p><p>Remarks. The. subfamily is monotypic. Paradynomene, which until recently was monospecific, now comprises six extant species (McLay &amp; Ng 2004; Table 1).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/20528B6EFFDFFFACD8E5FA7EFC86FC36	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Guinot, Danièle	Guinot, Danièle (2008): A re-evaluation of the Dynomenidae Ortmann, 1892 (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura, Podotremata), with the recognition of four subfamilies. Zootaxa 1850: 1-26, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.183391
20528B6EFFC6FFB5D8E5FA86FAB6FCEE.text	20528B6EFFC6FFB5D8E5FA86FAB6FCEE.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Dynomenidae	<div><p>Fossil Dynomenidae (preliminary remarks)</p><p>Ancestral dynomenids are believed to have been Tethyan crabs (McLay 1999). Extant dynomenids are survivors from the Jurassic, having endured Cretaceous/Paleogene perturbations (Wright &amp; Wright 1950; Schweitzer &amp; Feldmann 2005). It is evident that the diversity of their morphological features, exhibiting different states of transformation, is linked to early diversification and a long evolutionary history. Ten fossil dynomenid genera were listed by McLay (1999: 434), who suggested that extinct species traditionally assigned to Dynomene could in fact belong to other genera. Schweitzer et al. (2003: 20, 21) recognised 13 fossil dynomenid genera. The assignment of some fossil genera to the Dynomenidae needs to be corroborated, however. Fortunately, dorsal carapace features tentatively suffice to assign dynomenid species to a particular subfamily. The Acanthodromiinae n. subfam. perhaps is an exception because of its spinose ornament which masks the grooves and sutures.</p><p>Diaulax Bell, 1863 (type species: D. carteriana Bell, 1863, Lower Cretaceous), alternatively considered to be a prosopid (Wright &amp; Wright 1950: 24) or a dynomenid (Glaessner 1969: R488), is now the type genus of the Diaulacidae Wright &amp; Collins, 1972 (see Bishop 1983: 45; 1986: 133), and thus affiliated to the Podotremata (Guinot &amp; Tavares 2001). The Diaulacidae was synonymised with the Dynomenidae by Schweitzer et al. (2003). Bell (1863: 7, pl. 1, figs. 14–16) described the basal portions of the pereopods preserved in D. carteriana and indicated that “the last pair are placed on a much higher level than the others”. Wright &amp; Collins (1972: 58, pl. 9, figs. 6–8, pl. 10, fig. 1a, b) described the sternum as twice as long as wide, anteriorly with “an acute point”, the abdominal somites as “short, flat and rectangular”, and the telson as “bluntly triangular, wider than long (in a supposed male)”. According to Bell’s original and subsequent descriptions of the type material (Carter 1898: 19; Wright &amp; Wright 1950: 24, pl. 1, fig. 9a, b; Wright &amp; Collins 1972: 57), there are two parallel transversal grooves that cross the dorsal carapace. The cervical one is continuous, with “a slight interruption on the middle line, on either side of which is a small pit” [i.e., herein gastric pit] (Wright &amp; Collins 1972: 57), and probably notches the lateral margin; the branchial one is not so pronounced. In the absence of any significant illustration, it is difficult to assign Diaulax carteriana with certainty. This observation is of importance because the Diaulacinae could admittedly constitute a senior synonym of one of the subfamilies erected herein. Synonymy with the Acanthodromiinae n. subfam. or the Paradynomeninae n. subfam. may be reasonably excluded as they are so different morphologically. A possible relationship with the Metadynomeninae n. subfam. is also questionable. According to Glaessner (1931: 4; 1969: R488), Diaulax originated during the Late Jurassic (see also Wright &amp; Wright 1950: fig. 13; Wright &amp; Collins 1972: 56; Fraaye 1996: fig. 3), and this could imply (in the case of a genuinely close relationship between Diaulax and the Metadynomeninae n. subfam.) an early appearance of the metadynomenine lineage, together with the diaulacine one.</p><p>Some fossil genera appear to conform to the new diagnostic subfamilial definitions and may be more easily assigned. A good example is the Paleocene Kierionopsis Davidson, 1966 (type species. K. nodosa Davidson, 1966: 211 –213, figs. 1, 2), which was originally (Davidson, 1966: 211) and subsequently (Schweitzer &amp; Feldmann 2008: 122) attributed to the Dromiidae, as possibly related to Dromilites americana Rathbun, 1935, or regarded as “enigmatic” (Schweitzer et al. 2002: 41, fig. 29, table 4) within the Dynomenidae (Schweitzer et al. 2003: 21; Schweitzer &amp; Feldmann 2005: 22), and clearly belongs to the Paradynomeninae n. subfam. as defined here. In K. nodosa, the carapace is subrectangular, the dorsal surface is ornamented by 12 elevated granular bosses, the posterolateral border bears an elongated subdistal tooth, the intestinal region is recessed, and there is an orbital eave, all characters found in the extant Paradynomeninae n. subfam. Apart from the front, slightly bidentate in K. nodosa, distinctly bidentate or tridentate in extant Paradynomene, the resemblance is amazing.</p><p>The Paleocene Dromilites americana Rathbun not only “differs significantly from the type of the genus” Dromilites H. Milne Edwards, 1837, D. bucklandii (H. Milne Edwards, 1837) (see Schweitzer et al. 2003: 21) but, moreover, the thoracic sternum figured by Rathbun (1935: pl. 17, fig. 2) does not correspond to that of a dromiacean crab and probably does not represent a podotreme condition. Consequently, the assignment of Dromilites americana to Dromilites and its attribution to the Dynomenidae, with a possible link to Kierionopsis, are not recognised here. Dromilites should be assigned to the Dromiinae (Dromiidae) .</p><p>Similar to Kierionopsis, Kromtitis Müller, 1984 (type species: Dromilites koberi Bachmayer &amp; Tollmann, 1953), assigned to the Dromiidae (Müller 1984: 64, pl. 31, figs. 1–4; Müller &amp; Collins 1991: 63, fig. 3e, pl. 3, figs. 4, 5, 8; Portell &amp; Collins 2004: 111; Beschin et al. 2002: 12; Donovan et al. 2003: 106) or to the Dynomenidae in close proximity of Paradynomene (Beschin et al. 2007: 26, 27; see also Beschin et al. 2004), can be confidently included in the Paradynomeninae n. subfam. In Kromtitis, as in Kierionopsis, the subrectangular carapace, the pronounced subdistal posterolateral teeth, the lobate and ornamented dorsal surface closely matches those of species of Paradynomene species recently described by McLay &amp; Ng (2004). At least, in dorsal carapace features, there has scarcely been any divergence between these fossil genera and extant Paradynomeninae n. subfam. All species of Kromtitis, from the Eocene to the Miocene, are coral associates (Beschin et al. 2007: 27), as are extant species of Paradynomene . Modern Paradynomeninae n. subfam. clearly are barely modified relicts.</p><p>A number of fossils, known solely from their dorsal carapaces and which conform to the general pattern of the Dynomenidae, appear as possible metadynomenines. Such is the case, for instance, of species of Dromiopsis Reuss, 1859 (type species: Brachyurites rugosus von Schlotheim, 1820) as D. elegans Reuss, 1859, with a rounded carapace, complete and deep cervical groove and lateral branchial groove, both grooves reaching and forming notches with the lateral border of the carapace. However, the genus Dromiopsis, supposed to be a dynomenid genus, is probably not monophyletic.</p><p>It is premature and beyond the scope of the present paper to assign podotreme fossils to a dynomenid subfamily, the preliminary task being to attempt to include extinct genera in their appropriate family, i.e., either in the Dromiidae (and possibly in its constituent subfamilies) or Homolodromiidae or Dynomenidae, without excluding extinct families such as the Diaulacidae and also the Prosopidae which are the ancestors of the Homolodromioidea. Any affiliation based on the carapace shows only similarities and thus remains speculative at best. The nature of fossil dromiacean genera, even those that are known from a number of characters, remains questionable. For example the familial status of Basinotopus M’Coy, 1849 (type species: Inachus lamarckii Desmarest, 1822), traditionally assigned to the Dromiidae (P4 and P5 reduced and dorsal), is puzzling, despite the availability of both male and female abdomens with their uropods (M’Coy 1849; Bell 1858; see Guinot &amp; Tavares 2001). Recent discoveries of more complete specimens of the Eocene Basinotopus tricornis Collins &amp; Jakobsen, 2004, which in particular reveal sternal characters (Collins &amp; Jakobsen 2004: 69, fig. 3, pl. 2, figs. 1–7), require a new interpretation based on all known data in accordance with phylogeny.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/20528B6EFFC6FFB5D8E5FA86FAB6FCEE	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Guinot, Danièle	Guinot, Danièle (2008): A re-evaluation of the Dynomenidae Ortmann, 1892 (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura, Podotremata), with the recognition of four subfamilies. Zootaxa 1850: 1-26, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.183391
20528B6EFFC0FFB6D8E5FC8EFA5AFE46.text	20528B6EFFC0FFB6D8E5FC8EFA5AFE46.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Dynomenidae	<div><p>Key to the subfamilies of extant Dynomenidae</p><p>1. Carapace longer than wide or as long as wide (exceptionally slightly wider than long); dorsal surface much ornamented. Male abdomen long, entirely filling sterno-abdominal depression in length and width. Uropods relatively small..............................................................................................................................2</p><p>- Carapace wider than long, may be as wide as long; dorsal surface weakly ornamented; cervical and branchial grooves well visible. Male abdomen not completely filling entire length of sterno-abdominal depression, leaving exposed anterior portion of sternite 4. Uropods large to very large......................................3</p><p>2. Carapace elongated, oblong, covered by dense spines, obscuring cervical and branchial grooves, as well as areolation. Carapace lateral margins poorly defined, obscured. Sternites 1 and 2 fused into small, extremely narrow shield; sternite 3 distinct, albeit short, expanded laterally. Male abdomen reaching base of mxp3 and tightly locked in deep, narrow sterno-abdominal depression by ornaments on mxp3, and P1, P2 and P3. Uropods as narrow plates. .......................................................... Acanthodromiinae n. subfam.</p><p>- Carapace subquadrangular; areolation, cervical and branchial grooves clearly visible. Carapace lateral margins subparallel; 2 posterolateral teeth, one marking each posterior corner. Ventral anterior area, produced, forming a “face” with projecting front, inflated subhepatic and pterygostomial portions, and merus of mxp3. Sternites 1 and 2 fused into triangular or cordiform shield. Male abdomen extending on thoracic sternum until base of anterior shield, movements restricted in both sexes due to sets of granules on P2 and, to a lesser extent, of P3 coxae. Uropods as moderately developed dorsal plates, occupying about half length of lateral margin of abdominal somite 6............................................. Paradynomeninae n. subfam.</p><p>3. Carapace ovoid, densely covered by short tomentum giving to surface an uneven undulating appearance with transverse troughs; dorsal surface smooth. Cervical groove complete, deep, branchial groove absent medially but well developed laterally, both grooves subparallel, forming notches with lateral margins. Sternites 1 and 2 fused into pentagonal, narrow shield, which may be slightly pointed. Male abdomen filling laterally entire width of sterno-abdominal depression. A tubercle on P2 coxa, only restricting lateral movements of abdomen. Uropods showing as large dorsal plates occupying all length of lateral margin of abdominal somite 6 in both sexes................................................................. Metadynomeninae n. subfam.</p><p>- Carapace broadly rounded, with “xanthoid” facies; dorsal surface areolate or not, smooth or granulate, may be laterally spiny, more or less sparsely covered with short or long setae; anterolateral margin armed with teeth, rarely by granules only. Cervical groove present, broad, V-shaped, incomplete, not forming notch with lateral margin of carapace. Branchial groove faint, either indistinct laterally or, more rarely, joining lateral margin of carapace. Sternites 1 and 2 fused into pentagonal shield, more or less pointed at tip. Male abdomen leaving thoracic sternum laterally exposed. A small sternal tubercle (on episternite 5) facing either uropodial margin or abdominal margin, only restricting lateral movements of abdomen. Uropods showing as dorsal plates occupying variable length of abdominal somite 6, never filling whole length of somite 6, at least in males. ............................................................. Dynomeninae Ortmann, 1892</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/20528B6EFFC0FFB6D8E5FC8EFA5AFE46	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Guinot, Danièle	Guinot, Danièle (2008): A re-evaluation of the Dynomenidae Ortmann, 1892 (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura, Podotremata), with the recognition of four subfamilies. Zootaxa 1850: 1-26, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.183391
