taxonID	type	description	language	source
03C3878EFFFCCB7EFF4BE8F9FEBBEDE2.taxon	description	Dromiacea de Haan, 1833 pro parte: ix, x; 1839 pro parte: 102. Dromiens – H. Milne Edwards 1837 pro parte: 167, 168. Dromites – Lucas 1840 pro parte: 112.	en	Guinot, Danièle, Tavares, Marcos (2003): A new subfamilial arrangement for the Dromiidae de Haan, 1833, with diagnoses and descriptions of new genera and species (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura). Zoosystema 25 (1): 43-129, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5400392
03C3878EFFFCCB7EFF4BE8F9FEBBEDE2.taxon	materials_examined	TYPE GENUS. — Dromia Weber, 1795 (type species: Cancer personatus Linnaeus, 1758 by subsequent designation under the Plenary Powers of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, Opinion 688, see Holthuis 1962). Name 1568 on Official List. GENERA INCLUDED. — Ascidiophilus Richters, 1880; Alainodromia McLay, 1998; Austrodromidia McLay, 1993; Barnardromia McLay, 1993; Conchoecetes Stimpson, 1858; Cryptodromia Stimpson, 1858; Cryptodromiopsis Borradaile, 1903; Desmodromia McLay, 2001; Dromia Weber, 1795; Dromidia Stimpson, 1858; Dromidiopsis Borradaile, 1900; Epigodromia McLay, 1993; Epipedodromia André, 1932; Eudromidia Barnard, 1947; Exodromidia Stebbing, 1905; Fultodromia McLay, 1993; Haledromia McLay, 1993; Hemisphaerodromia Barnard, 1954; Homalodromia Miers, 1884; Lamarckdromia n. gen.; Lauridromia McLay, 1993; Lewindromia n. gen.; Mclaydromia n. gen.; Moreiradromia n. gen.; Paradromia Balss, 1921; Petalomera Stimpson, 1858; Platydromia Brocchi, 1877; Pseudodromia Stimpson, 1858; Speodromia Barnard, 1947; Stebbingdromia n. gen. (uncertain status); Sternodromia Forest, 1974; Stimdromia McLay, 1993; Takedromia McLay, 1993; Tunedromia McLay, 1993.	en	Guinot, Danièle, Tavares, Marcos (2003): A new subfamilial arrangement for the Dromiidae de Haan, 1833, with diagnoses and descriptions of new genera and species (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura). Zoosystema 25 (1): 43-129, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5400392
03C3878EFFFCCB7EFF4BE8F9FEBBEDE2.taxon	description	DESCRIPTION Carapace varying from longer than wide, as wide as long to much wider than long; convex, clearly subdivided into anterior and posterior portions; dorsal regions rather well-defined and variously ornamented; lateral margins usually rounded. Front variously shaped, often with median rostrum and two pseudorostral teeth, one at each side of rostrum. Supra- and infraorbital margins usually toothed and separated from each other by deep notch. Orbits small, rather circular, orient- ed more or less horizontally. Ocular stalk rather short, more or less thick, diversely shaped. Thoracic sternum narrow. Gynglymes of thoracic sternites 1 - 3 largely spaced from each other, situated at lower plane. Sternite 4 forming plate in contact with bases of the mxp 3 or separated from mxp 3 by sternite 3 when exposed. Episternites 4 and 5 more or less narrow, with gynglymes of P 1 and P 2 in almost terminal location. Female sternal sutures 7 / 8 long (except Stebbingdromia n. gen.), and apertures of spermathecae opening into thoracic sternum far beyond level of coxa of P 3 (except Stebbingdromia n. gen.), apart or together, on two tubercules or on central prominence; apertures usually showing as minute pores at extremities of sutures 7 / 8, exceptionally as slits (Sternodromia). Anterior part of thoracic sternite 4 and episternites 4 and 5 either completely covered or left diversely uncovered by male abdomen when folded. Deep sterno-coxal depressions usually present. Male abdomen length variable, when flexed attaining the coxa of mxp 3 or diverse levels of the P 1 coxa. Male abdomen generally narrow, often without pleural parts recognizable, or sometimes broader; all segments free (exceptionally segment 5 and 6 more or less fused), segment 6 not noticeably extended laterally. Male Pl 3 - Pl 5 usually absent, but sometimes vestigial. In males and immature females, uropods showing as salient calcified dorsal plates, often playing role in abdominal holding, or as ventral plates or lobes (see Patterns of uropods and vestigial male pleopods 3 - 5). Mature female uropods generally more horizontal, not so salient. Male telson usually short, variously shaped. Holding of male and immature female abdomens variable, usually efficient, a variable number of pereopods being involved. Chelipeds with or without epipod; podobranch absent. P 2 and P 3 often lobed or nodose; propodus short, lacking distal propodal spine (except Stebbingdromia n. gen.); dactylus curved and armed with spines on inner border. P 4 and P 5 reduced, similar in size and shape (rare exception: Conchoecetes), shorter than preceding ones, oriented subdorsally (P 4) or dorsally (P 5), prehensile; subcheliform apparatus present on propodus and dactylus and formed by variable number of spines, varying from multiple to only one, sometimes without opposing propodal spines. Male P 5 coxa unmodified; penis emerging as long and mobile calcified tube (“ penial tube ”) (see Patterns of P 5 coxa and penis). G 2 long, with long, styliform and needlelike flagellum (except Stebbingdromia n. gen.), without exopod. Carrying behaviour Sponges, compound or solitary ascidians, soft coral or actinians occasionally, bivalve shells rarely (see discussion under Shell-carrying behaviour), fragments of weed. Some dromiine members (Epigodromia, Takedromia), with small last pereopods, are not known to carry any camouflage (Wicksten 1986 a: 364; McLay 1993: 213, 216, 219, 224; 2001 b: 7; Guinot et al. 1995: 385, 401; Ng et al. 2000: 157).	en	Guinot, Danièle, Tavares, Marcos (2003): A new subfamilial arrangement for the Dromiidae de Haan, 1833, with diagnoses and descriptions of new genera and species (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura). Zoosystema 25 (1): 43-129, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5400392
03C3878EFFFCCB7EFF4BE8F9FEBBEDE2.taxon	discussion	REMARKS The following four dromiid genera have not been included in the Dromiinae n. status: Hypoconcha Guérin-Méneville, 1854 referred to Hypoconchinae n. subfam. (see Hypoconchinae n. subfam.); and Eodromia McLay, 1993 and Sphaerodromia Alcock, 1899, referred to Sphaerodromiinae n. subfam. (see Sphaerodromiinae n. subfam.); the subfamilial status of Frodromia McLay, 1993 needs a re-appreciation. A total of 34 genera are herein included in the subfamily Dromiinae. The present list of dromiid genera should be regarded as provisional, and further adjustements and emendations might be necessary. For example, the large genus Dromia, as currently defined (McLay 1993: 149, table 2), appears to be composite, and we regard it as Dromia s. l. We consider Sternodromia valid.	en	Guinot, Danièle, Tavares, Marcos (2003): A new subfamilial arrangement for the Dromiidae de Haan, 1833, with diagnoses and descriptions of new genera and species (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura). Zoosystema 25 (1): 43-129, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5400392
03C3878EFFFCCB7EFF4BE8F9FEBBEDE2.taxon	materials_examined	TYPE SPECIES. — Dromidia australis Rathbun, 1923 by original designation (McLay 1993: 185). Gender: feminine. SPECIES INCLUDED. — Dromidia australis Rathbun, 1923; Dromia octodentata Haswell, 1882.	en	Guinot, Danièle, Tavares, Marcos (2003): A new subfamilial arrangement for the Dromiidae de Haan, 1833, with diagnoses and descriptions of new genera and species (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura). Zoosystema 25 (1): 43-129, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5400392
03C3878EFFFCCB7EFF4BE8F9FEBBEDE2.taxon	description	DESCRIPTION Carapace slightly wider than long, convex; dorsal surface with regions not well-defined; branchial groove marked. Anterolateral margin beginning at orbital level, armed with several teeth; posterolateral margins toothed, not markedly convergent posteriorly. Front narrow, appearing tridentate, rostral tooth deflexed, two pseudorostral teeth; supraorbital, suborbital and exorbital teeth welldeveloped. Exopod of antennal basal article thickly developed, directed downwards, internal corner strongly produced. Mxp 3: coxae with u (A. australis) or without (A. octodentata) narrow gap between them. Thoracic sternites 1 - 3 clearly (A. australis, Fig. 1 A, B) or weakly (A. octodentata, Fig. 2 A, C) visible. Male thoracic sternite 4 markedly narrowing anteriorly, with anterior margin truncate. Female sternal sutures 7 / 8 rather long, ending at level of P 2; apertures of spermathecae wide apart between P 2, beneath very prominent episternites 4 (Fig. 2 C). Sternite 3 remaining exposed when male abdomen is applied against ventral surface; sternite 4 almost completely covered; episternite 4 and episternite 5 exposed. Male abdomen with all segments free, completely covering most of sterno-abdominal depression; telson bluntly triangular or rounded, almost reaching mxp 3, its base enlarged; pleural parts visible. Male segment 6 with external borders deeply hollowed (but not thickened) in anterior part, and broadly expanded in posterior part. Males without vestigial pleopods. Male uropods as ventral lobes, small and narrow (A. australis), or inconspicuous, or nearly obsolete (A. octodentata). Uropods not involved in holding of abdomen. Abdomen hold folded by sharp or cristiform prominence on P 2 coxa. Female uropods indistinct. Chelipeds without epipod. P 2 and P 3 short, not knobbed; propodus without distal spine; inner margin of dactylus armed with spines. P 4 and P 5 reduced; P 5 longer and slender, propodus short and broad; P 4 carrying terminal apparatus formed by two distal propodal spines opposing curved dactylus; P 5 terminal apparatus formed by one distal propodal spine opposing dactylus; a long spine on outer margin of dactylus. Male P 5 coxa with mobile penial tube (Figs 1 A; 2 A). Carrying behaviour Sponges, ascidians, “ marine growths, including two species of plants ”, “ fragments of weed or large shell ” (Hale 1925: 406, pl. 40 A; 1927: 108, 109); see discussion under Discussion, Shell-carrying behaviour.	en	Guinot, Danièle, Tavares, Marcos (2003): A new subfamilial arrangement for the Dromiidae de Haan, 1833, with diagnoses and descriptions of new genera and species (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura). Zoosystema 25 (1): 43-129, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5400392
03C3878EFFFCCB7EFF4BE8F9FEBBEDE2.taxon	discussion	REMARKS	en	Guinot, Danièle, Tavares, Marcos (2003): A new subfamilial arrangement for the Dromiidae de Haan, 1833, with diagnoses and descriptions of new genera and species (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura). Zoosystema 25 (1): 43-129, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5400392
03C3878EFFFCCB7EFF4BE8F9FEBBEDE2.taxon	materials_examined	TYPE SPECIES. — Dromia artificiosa Fabricius, 1798 by monotypy. Gender: masculine. SPECIES INCLUDED. — Conchoecetes andamanicus Alcock, 1900; Dromia artificiosa Fabricius, 1798; Conchoecetes intermedius Lewinsohn, 1984.	en	Guinot, Danièle, Tavares, Marcos (2003): A new subfamilial arrangement for the Dromiidae de Haan, 1833, with diagnoses and descriptions of new genera and species (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura). Zoosystema 25 (1): 43-129, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5400392
03C3878EFFFCCB7EFF4BE8F9FEBBEDE2.taxon	description	Conchoecetes canaliculatus Yang & Dai, 1994 was regarded as a probable junior synonym of C. intermedius by Ng et al. (2000).	en	Guinot, Danièle, Tavares, Marcos (2003): A new subfamilial arrangement for the Dromiidae de Haan, 1833, with diagnoses and descriptions of new genera and species (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura). Zoosystema 25 (1): 43-129, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5400392
03C3878EFFFCCB7EFF4BE8F9FEBBEDE2.taxon	distribution	DISTRIBUTION. — Indo-West Pacific.	en	Guinot, Danièle, Tavares, Marcos (2003): A new subfamilial arrangement for the Dromiidae de Haan, 1833, with diagnoses and descriptions of new genera and species (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura). Zoosystema 25 (1): 43-129, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5400392
03C3878EFFFCCB7EFF4BE8F9FEBBEDE2.taxon	description	DESCRIPTION Carapace as long as wide or slightly wider than long, subpentagonal. Dorsal surface flattened, sometimes partly membranous, with some regions defined; cervical and branchial grooves distinct. Anterolateral margin long, unarmed or with small teeth only; posterolateral margins with or without tooth, straight or convergent posteriorly. Front narrow, with three subequal teeth, the deflexed rostral tooth and two pseudorostral teeth; supraorbital tooth small; suborbital and exorbital teeth not marked. Antenna: urinal article relatively narrow, widening towards beak-like part; anterior part of beak narrow, acute, posterior part rounded; exopod of basal article welldeveloped, with internal corner acutely produced and curved. Orbits rounded; ocular stalks short, eyes large. Mxp 3: coxae closely approximated. Thoracic sternite 3 partly visible dorsally in both sexes (sternites 1 - 2 concealed) (Fig. 3 A, B). Thoracic sternite 4 broad, with anterior margin truncate. Female sternal sutures 7 / 8 separated wide apart; apertures of spermathecae ending apart on two raised tubercles placed between P 2 (Fig. 3 A). In males, sternite 4 and episternites 4 and 5 remaining exposed when male abdomen applied against ventral surface. Posterior sternites tilted backwards. Male abdomen with all segments free, not completely covering sterno-abdominal depression; telson rounded at tip. Male segment 6 with subparallel external borders. Vestigial pleopods absent in males (papillae on segment 3 may be present, to be verified) (Fig. 3 C). Uropods (Fig. 3 B, C) showing as salient dorsal plates, involved in holding of abdomen, and acting together with strong and ornamented prominence on P 2 coxa; episternite 5 with some granules; P 3 coxa with rounded tubercle matching notch on lateral margin of abdominal segment 5; granule on P 4 coxae similar to that on P 3, perhaps too small to be efficient. Chelipeds with epipod; P 1 - P 3 with some nodosities or tubercles. Propodus of P 2 and P 3 without distal spine. P 4 and P 5 very dissimilar in position, size and shape, and with grasping system to hold bivalve shell. P 4 noticeably heavy, ending in thick propodus and in long curved dactylus; posterior border of propodus bearing hollow, socketlike projection, with mobile process. P 5 small and ending in simple, upturned dactylus. Male P 5 coxa with mobile penial tube. Carrying behaviour Exclusively involving bivalve shells (Nishimura 1987: pl. M 4; Ng et al. 2000: fig. 1 b). See under Discussion, Shell-carrying behaviour.	en	Guinot, Danièle, Tavares, Marcos (2003): A new subfamilial arrangement for the Dromiidae de Haan, 1833, with diagnoses and descriptions of new genera and species (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura). Zoosystema 25 (1): 43-129, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5400392
03C3878EFFFCCB7EFF4BE8F9FEBBEDE2.taxon	discussion	REMARKS The case of Cancer mutus Linnaeus, 1758 (p. 625), described with a smooth and anteriorly truncated carapace and with a brown anterior border, and for which the indication “? Mediterranea ” could be erroneous, is interesting. The type specimen (s) is (are) no longer extant. The name was subsequently used by Herbst (1783: 116), who listed the species, but without any figure. The species was then forgotten until the name was used again by K. Sakai (1999), this time for a dromiid. Sakai (1999: pl. 4, fig. F) figured a specimen found in the Berlin Museum which had been identified and labelled by Herbst as “ Conchoecetes mutus Linnaeus, 1758 ”. The specimen figured by Sakai corresponds to a Conchoecetes species (C. intermedius), whereas the characters noted by Linnaeus are that of a trapeziid crab, probably Tetralia Dana, 1851 (or Tetraloides Galil, 1986) (P. Castro and P. K. L. Ng pers. comm.). McLay (1993, 2001 b) and McLay et al. (2001) argued for the close relationships between Conchoecetes and Hypoconcha, mostly based on the special condition of P 4 and P 5, the obligate shell-carrying behaviour, and the similarities in larval and postlarval development. For a comparison of the specialized morphological features that allow the two genera to grasp a shell, see Guinot & Tavares (2000: figs 4, 5). The systematic position of Conchoecetes is discussed under Hypoconchinae n. subfam. The precise condition of the vestigial pleopods, suspected to be absent, needs to be verified. The development of Conchoecetes only includes two zoeal stages and the megalopa (Sankolli & Shenoy 1968; see McLay et al. 2001: 740, 744, table 1). Genus Cryptodromiopsis Borradaile, 1903 sensu nobis (Fig. 4)	en	Guinot, Danièle, Tavares, Marcos (2003): A new subfamilial arrangement for the Dromiidae de Haan, 1833, with diagnoses and descriptions of new genera and species (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura). Zoosystema 25 (1): 43-129, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5400392
03C3878EFFFCCB7EFF4BE8F9FEBBEDE2.taxon	materials_examined	TYPE SPECIES. — Cryptodromiopsis tridens Borradaile, 1903 by monotypy (senior synonym of Dromidia fenestrata Lewinsohn, 1979). Gender: feminine. SPECIES INCLUDED. — Cryptodromiopsis tridens Borradaile, 1903.	en	Guinot, Danièle, Tavares, Marcos (2003): A new subfamilial arrangement for the Dromiidae de Haan, 1833, with diagnoses and descriptions of new genera and species (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura). Zoosystema 25 (1): 43-129, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5400392
03C3878EFFFCCB7EFF4BE8F9FEBBEDE2.taxon	distribution	DISTRIBUTION. — Indo-West Pacific.	en	Guinot, Danièle, Tavares, Marcos (2003): A new subfamilial arrangement for the Dromiidae de Haan, 1833, with diagnoses and descriptions of new genera and species (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura). Zoosystema 25 (1): 43-129, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5400392
03C3878EFFFCCB7EFF4BE8F9FEBBEDE2.taxon	description	DESCRIPTION Carapace distinctly wider than long, convex; dorsal surface with regions not well-defined; branchial groove quite distinct. Anterolateral margin toothed; posterolateral margins without tooth, and not markedly convergent posteriorly. Front narrow, appearing tridentate, rostral tooth long and deflexed, two pseudorostral teeth weak- er; border joining rostrum and supraorbital tooth, which is wide apart, uninterrupted, eavelike; suborbital and exorbital teeth well-developed. Proepistome developed, raised. Subhepatic area convex, prominent dorsally. Antenna: urinal article upturned, with urinal opening placed above axis of urinal article, and very narrow, widening towards beak-like part; basal article much enlarged and touching front on both corners; exopod very developed and with internal corner so produced that article 4 is completely or almost included. Mxp 3: coxae separated by gap. Thoracic sternite 1 - 2 discernible; sternite 3 visible dorsally as a short triangular plate. Male thoracic sternite 4 with external borders oblique. Female sternal sutures 7 / 8 long, separated wide apart proximally, but abruptly joined at level of P 2; apertures of spermathecae ending together on slight tubercle between chelipeds. When male abdomen applied against ventral surface, sternites 1 - 3 and extreme anterior part of sternite 4 (with episternite 4) remaining visible. Male abdomen with all segments free, not completely covering sterno-abdominal depression; no pleural parts discernible; telson broadly triangular. Male segment 6 with external borders subparallel on anterior half. No vestigial pleopods in males. Uropods showing as salient dorsal plates, obliquely oriented, very mobile. Abdominal holding by granulous crest on P 2 coxae, far from uropods (Fig. 4 A, B). Chelipeds without epipod, and of moderate size, knobbed; fingers gaping, prehensile margin of fixed finger markedly concave; both cutting margins without proximal teeth, only armed with interlocking distal teeth. P 2 and P 3 short, knobbed; propodus without distal spine; inner margin of dactylus armed with spines. P 4 and P 5 reduced, P 5 longer and more slender. P 4 and P 5 carrying terminal apparatus formed mostly by one distal propodal spine opposing curved dactylus which ends in horny spine; a stout outer propodal spine. P 5 dactylus with spine on outer margin. G 1 with setose apex, armed with sharp tubercle. G 2 with thin, needle-like, long flagellum, not overreaching sterno-abdominal depression. Male P 5 coxa with mobile penial tube (Fig. 4 B). Carrying behaviour Sponges, compound ascidians.	en	Guinot, Danièle, Tavares, Marcos (2003): A new subfamilial arrangement for the Dromiidae de Haan, 1833, with diagnoses and descriptions of new genera and species (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura). Zoosystema 25 (1): 43-129, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5400392
03C3878EFFFCCB7EFF4BE8F9FEBBEDE2.taxon	discussion	REMARKS Borradaile (1903 a: 299, 302; see 1903 b: 578) erected Cryptodromiopsis mostly to separate from Cryptodromia Stimpson, 1858 (type species: C. coronata Stimpson, 1858 by original designation) those species with female sternal sutures 7 / 8 ending together (i. e. converging), in contrast to wide apart in Cryptodromia. While studying specimens of Cryptodromiopsis tridens from French Polynesia, McLay (1991: 467 - 470, fig. 5) remarked that at that time the species included in Cryptodromiopsis did “ not make a natural group, having very little in common with each other ”. More recently, however, McLay (2001 a: 84) maintained that “ the genus contains six species for certain ”, which is the number of species included in his (McLay 1993: 187, table 6) previous definition of Cryptodromiopsis. The examination of several species presently included in Cryptodromiopsis led to the conclusion that the genus is indeed a composite one. The following species are now being removed from Cryptodromiopsis sensu nobis: 1) C. unidentata (Rüppell, 1830) transferred to Lewindromia n. gen.; 2) C. antillensis (Stimpson, 1858) and C. sarraburei (Rathbun, 1910) transferred to Moreiradromia n. gen.; and 3) C. plumosa (Lewinsohn, 1984) transferred to Stebbingdromia n. gen. For the time being, Dromia (Cryptodromia) bullifera Alcock, 1900 is perhaps better placed in Cryptodromia. The two Chinese species Cryptodromiopsis dubia Dai, Yang, Song & Chen, 1981 and C. planaria Dai, Yang, Song & Chen, 1981 were not examined. Their status was suggested as doubtful by McLay (1993: 187). The male abdomen of C. dubia figured by Chen & Haibao (2002: fig. 42.4) seems rather similar to that of C. tridens (Fig. 4 A). Thus, Cryptodromiopsis is herein reduced to the type species, C. tridens. Because of similarities between C. tridens and C. coronata Stimpson, 1858, the type species of Cryptodromia, McLay (1991: 470; 1993: 188) argued that Cryptodromiopsis is perhaps no longer necessary. Cryptodromiopsis tridens has been well illustrated by Lewinsohn (1979: fig. 1, as Dromidia fenestrata) and by McLay (1991: fig. 5). Its main resemblances with Cryptodromia coronata are as follows: 1) thoracic sternite 3 visible (Fig. 4); 2) episternite 4 uncovered when male abdomen is folded; 3) general shape of male abdomen and similar holding of abdomen; 4) G 2 needle-like but not much longer than G 1; and 5) similar shape of urinal article of antenna. The differences that enable to distinguish Cryptodromiopsis from Cryptodromia include: 1) apertures of spermathecae approximated on a median tubercle (wide apart in Cryptodromia); 2) front narrow, with weak pseudorostral teeth, and presence of a frontal eave (pseudorostral teeth developed and no eave in Cryptodromia); 3) antennal basal article broad and long, reaching front (not so developed in Cryptodromia); and 4) male thoracic sternite 4 with external borders oblique and anterior border somewhat triangular (external borders subparallel and anterior border squarely truncate in Cryptodromia). Even if these differences will in the future prove to be within the range of variation of the large genus Cryptodromia, one will have to consider that Cryptodromia s. l., as currently defined with some 20 species, is an heterogeneous assemblage. Cryptodromiopsis tridens is distinguished from all other dromiids by presence of two conspicuous smooth, naked areas at posterior angles of carapace (see Lewinsohn 1979: fig. 1 A, as Dromidia fenestrata).	en	Guinot, Danièle, Tavares, Marcos (2003): A new subfamilial arrangement for the Dromiidae de Haan, 1833, with diagnoses and descriptions of new genera and species (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura). Zoosystema 25 (1): 43-129, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5400392
03C3878EFFF5CB64FCF0EAD9FB87E942.taxon	materials_examined	TYPE SPECIES. — Desmodromia griffini McLay, 2001 by original designation. Gender: feminine. SPECIES INCLUDED. — Desmodromia griffini McLay, 2001; D. tranterae McLay, 2001.	en	Guinot, Danièle, Tavares, Marcos (2003): A new subfamilial arrangement for the Dromiidae de Haan, 1833, with diagnoses and descriptions of new genera and species (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura). Zoosystema 25 (1): 43-129, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5400392
03C3878EFFF5CB64FCF0EAD9FB87E942.taxon	distribution	DISTRIBUTION. — Australia.	en	Guinot, Danièle, Tavares, Marcos (2003): A new subfamilial arrangement for the Dromiidae de Haan, 1833, with diagnoses and descriptions of new genera and species (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura). Zoosystema 25 (1): 43-129, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5400392
03C3878EFFF5CB64FCF0EAD9FB87E942.taxon	description	DESCRIPTION See McLay 2001 b: 1 - 8, figs 1 - 3, table 1.	en	Guinot, Danièle, Tavares, Marcos (2003): A new subfamilial arrangement for the Dromiidae de Haan, 1833, with diagnoses and descriptions of new genera and species (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura). Zoosystema 25 (1): 43-129, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5400392
03C3878EFFF5CB64FCF0EAD9FB87E942.taxon	discussion	REMARKS The inclusion in the Dromiinae n. status of the presumably shell-carrying species of the genus Desmodromia (regarded as an “ unusual dromiid crab ” by McLay 2001 b: 1) is puzzling. The males of both species are unknown and the description of the females is incomplete. Important information on the two small Desmodromia species (not available during this study) is missing, such as: 1) organization of thoracic sternum; 2) shape of male abdomen; 3) male uropods (showing as well-developed dorsal plates in an immature female of D. tranterae); 4) complete male pleopodal formula; and 5) morphology of male P 5 coxa (presence or not of a differentiated mobile penial tube). Besides, it remains unclear whether the last legs are really dissimilar in size and shape (also their terminal grasping apparatus have not been figured in detail) and whether the female thoracic sternites 7 and 8 are tilted. The female sternal sutures 7 / 8 ending apart between P 2 (McLay 2001 b: 2) are typically dromiine. Despite some resemblance of the short and upturned dactyli of P 4 and P 5 to that of the shell-carrying Hypoconcha, McLay (2001 b: 8) separated Desmodromia in his key from the couplet Conchoecetes / Hypoconcha. As far as we can tell, Desmodromia and Conchoecetes (Fig. 3) share the following characters: 1) female sternal sutures 7 / 8 ending between P 2; and 2) abdomen hold folded by dorsal uropods and, mostly, by a structure on P 2 coxae. Besides their different carapaces, Desmodromia and Conchoecetes differ from each other in: 1) epipod absent on P 1 in Desmodromia (present in Conchoecetes); 2) P 4 and P 5 more or less similar, with same dactylus which is simply upturned and without opposing propodal spines (P 4 and P 5 markedly dissimilar in size and shape in Conchoecetes, with P 4 very stout and specialized subcheliform apparatus, P 5 filiform and ending in small upturned dactylus; see Guinot & Tavares 2000: fig. 4); and 3) abdominal holding by structure on P 2 coxa only (additional efficient structure on P 3 coxae and inefficient structure on P 4 coxae in Conchoecetes, Fig. 3 B; see Guinot & Bouchard 1998: 622, fig. 4 A). The carapace of Desmodromia, although not membranous on posterior half as in Hypoconcha, may be poorly calcified and flattened, and the eaves overhang eyes. The differences between Desmodromia and Hypoconcha consist of: 1) epipod absent on P 1 in Desmodromia (present in Hypoconcha); 2) uropods as dorsal plates (as minute ventral plates in Hypoconcha, Fig. 19 B, C); 3) female sternal sutures 7 / 8 ending between P 2 (more posteriorly in Hypoconcha, Fig. 19 A); 4) P 2 coxae and uropods functioning in abdominal holding (in Hypoconcha either a differentiation on P 1 coxa without involvement of uropods or only provided by strong natural flexion of abdomen, see Guinot & Bouchard 1998: fig. 1 C, D); and 5) P 4 and P 5 simply ending in upturned dactylus (with diverse specialized features in Hypoconcha, see under Hypoconchinae n. subfam., and Guinot & Tavares 2000: fig. 5). For a comparison of Desmodromia with Epipedodromia (Fig. 7 A) and Homalodromia (Fig. 9), in which the eyes and cephalic appendages are also ventrally located, see discussion of Homalodromia. Carrying behaviour Unknown, but supposedly bivalve shells (McLay 2001 b: 7, 8). For comments on shell-carrying in Dromiidae, see under Discussion, Shell-carrying behaviour.	en	Guinot, Danièle, Tavares, Marcos (2003): A new subfamilial arrangement for the Dromiidae de Haan, 1833, with diagnoses and descriptions of new genera and species (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura). Zoosystema 25 (1): 43-129, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5400392
03C3878EFFF5CB64FCF0EAD9FB87E942.taxon	materials_examined	TYPE SPECIES. — Dromia hirsutissima Lamarck, 1818 by original designation (Stimpson 1858: 225). Gender: feminine. Lamarck (1818: 264) stated that his Dromia hirsutissima came from Cape of Good Hope (“ Cap de Bonne- Espérance ”) and that it was deposited in the Paris Museum. H. Milne Edwards (1837: 176 as Dromia hirtissima, sic) seems to have examined the same material and also mentioned that it was housed in the Paris Museum. The only specimen of Dromidia hirsutissima (Lamarck, 1818) in the MNHN collections is a male (26.6 × 31 mm) labeled “ Cap de Bonne-Espérance ” (MNHN-B 22034), and without details on the label. This specimen, presently preserved in alcohol (at one time dry, and perhaps rehydrated), is presumed to be the type of Dromia hirsutissima and is selected here as the lectotype of the species. SPECIES INCLUDED. — Dromia hirsutissima Lamarck, 1818.	en	Guinot, Danièle, Tavares, Marcos (2003): A new subfamilial arrangement for the Dromiidae de Haan, 1833, with diagnoses and descriptions of new genera and species (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura). Zoosystema 25 (1): 43-129, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5400392
03C3878EFFF5CB64FCF0EAD9FB87E942.taxon	distribution	DISTRIBUTION. — South Africa.	en	Guinot, Danièle, Tavares, Marcos (2003): A new subfamilial arrangement for the Dromiidae de Haan, 1833, with diagnoses and descriptions of new genera and species (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura). Zoosystema 25 (1): 43-129, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5400392
03C3878EFFF5CB64FCF0EAD9FB87E942.taxon	description	DESCRIPTION Carapace wider than long, convex; dorsal surface only with low gibbosities; only branchial groove marked. Anterolateral margin long, with one tooth separated from exorbital angle by a deep concavity, and followed by a prominence; a blunt tooth behind branchial groove; posterolateral margins very short, markedly convergent posteriorly. Front inclined, narrow, with median rostral tooth directed downwards, and two pseudorostral teeth; supraorbital, suborbital and exorbital teeth present. Antenna: basal article with exopod more developed than internal angle which is hardly produced. Mxp 3: coxae separated by narrow gap. Thoracic sternite 3 hardly visible dorsally; sternite 4 forming plate weakly hollowed medially, with lateral borders oblique and anterior margin gently rounded (Fig. 5 A, B). Female sternal sutures 7 / 8 long, with apertures of spermathecae ending together on slight prominence between chelipeds. When male abdomen is applied against ventral surface, only a small part of sternite 4 and episternite 4 remaining exposed. Male abdomen long, wide, with distinct spaced pleural parts, and with all segments free; telson broadly triangular, ending in acute tip (Fig. 5 B, C). Male segment 6 with external borders parallel. Vestigial pleopods present in males, as elongated lobes on segments 3 - 5 (Fig. 5 C). Uropods showing as narrow ventral plates, deeply inserted ventrally, oblique, hardly visible dorsally. Uropods not involved in holding of abdomen. On P 2 coxa a strong spine, directed backwards, which may maintain abdominal segment 5 only when P 2 are moved backwards. Chelipeds long, without epipod. P 1, P 2 and P 3 thick, not nodose or ridged; propodus of P 2 and P 3 without distal spine; inner margin of dactylus armed with spines. P 4 and P 5 reduced, P 5 being more slender. Propodus of P 4 and P 5 with distal spine opposing dactylus, which is very long and ends in horny spine; a spine on external border of P 5 propodus. Male P 5 coxa with mobile penial tube (Fig. 5 A). Carrying behaviour Individuals carry a compound ascidian.	en	Guinot, Danièle, Tavares, Marcos (2003): A new subfamilial arrangement for the Dromiidae de Haan, 1833, with diagnoses and descriptions of new genera and species (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura). Zoosystema 25 (1): 43-129, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5400392
03C3878EFFF5CB64FCF0EAD9FB87E942.taxon	discussion	REMARKS McLay (1993: 183) stressed the confusion regarding the concept of Dromidia, for which “ no fewer than eight definitions have been published ”. The present new restricted description is based on the type species of the genus, D. hirsutissima, previously poorly known and endemic to South Africa (see Barnard 1950: 320, fig. 61 ac). Stimpson (1858: 225) clearly defined the genus by the female sternal sutures 7 / 8 (“ sulci ”) ending together between chelipeds, “ in tuberculum approximati ”. For Rathbun (1923 b: 67, 68) the Hawaiian Dromia hirsutissima of Dana (1852) and Edmondson (1922) belong to Dromia dormia (Linnaeus, 1763). The differences that enable to distinguish Dromidia from Austrodromidia (Figs 1; 2), both sharing ventral uropods, include: 1) uropods narrow, oblique, deeply inserted but developed and only slightly visible dorsally in Dromidia (very small plates, may be indistinct in Austrodromidia); 2) vestigial pleopods Pl 3 - Pl 5 present (absent in Austrodromidia); 3) apertures of spermathecae ending together on slight prominence between P 1 (ending wide apart between P 2 in Austrodromidia); 4) male segment 6 with external borders parallel (anteriorly concave and posteriorly expanded in Austrodromidia); 5) male telson ending in acute tip, leaving exposed anterior part of sternite 4 and episternite 4 (telson bluntly rounded at tip, almost completely recovering sternite 4, but episternites 4 and 5 exposed, in Austrodromidia); and 6) abdomen maintained folded by a strong P 2 coxal spine, directed backwards (a sharp prominence on P 2 coxa in Austrodromidia). The presence of uropods is not mentioned by Barnard (1947, 1950) in Dromidia aegibotus and Dromidiopsis cornuta, meaning perhaps that they are ventral. In both species, the apertures of spermathecae end on prominence between P 1. In Dromidiopsis aegibotus telson ends in sharp point and P 2 coxa bears a sharp spine directed backwards, as in Dromidia hirsutissima. The generic status of these two species and of D. dissothrix, only known by a female, remains uncertain.	en	Guinot, Danièle, Tavares, Marcos (2003): A new subfamilial arrangement for the Dromiidae de Haan, 1833, with diagnoses and descriptions of new genera and species (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura). Zoosystema 25 (1): 43-129, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5400392
03C3878EFFF5CB64FCF0EAD9FB87E942.taxon	materials_examined	TYPE SPECIES. — Dromia australiensis Haswell, 1882 by monotypy and subsequent designation (see Holthuis 1962: 56; McLay 1993: 135, 136, and below). Gender: feminine. SPECIES INCLUDED. — Dromia australiensis Haswell, 1882; Dromidiopsis edwardsi Rathbun, 1919; and Dromidiopsis tridentata Borradaile, 1903. Probably also Sphaerodromia lethrinusae Takeda & Kurata, 1976 included in Dromidiopsis by McLay (1993: 135, 139), see below. Two species assigned to Dromidiopsis by McLay (1993, 2001), D. globosa (Lamarck, 1818) and D. dubia Lewinsohn, 1984, are herein excluded from Dromidiopsis sensu nobis: D. globosa becomes the type species of Lamarckdromia n. gen., while D. dubia is included in Mclaydromia n. gen. The generic status of Dromidiopsis richeri McLay, 2001 remains doubtful.	en	Guinot, Danièle, Tavares, Marcos (2003): A new subfamilial arrangement for the Dromiidae de Haan, 1833, with diagnoses and descriptions of new genera and species (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura). Zoosystema 25 (1): 43-129, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5400392
03C3878EFFF5CB64FCF0EAD9FB87E942.taxon	distribution	DISTRIBUTION. — Indo-West Pacific.	en	Guinot, Danièle, Tavares, Marcos (2003): A new subfamilial arrangement for the Dromiidae de Haan, 1833, with diagnoses and descriptions of new genera and species (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura). Zoosystema 25 (1): 43-129, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5400392
03C3878EFFF5CB64FCF0EAD9FB87E942.taxon	description	DESCRIPTION Carapace longer than wide, strongly convex; dorsal surface smooth, with regions not defined; branchial groove poorly defined. Anterolateral margin entire or armed with several blunt (variable) teeth; only a small tooth behind branchial groove; posterolateral margin about as long as anterolateral margin. Front appearing almost entire, only bilobed or with two rounded very low pseudorostral teeth; rostrum strongly deflexed, not or hardly visible dorsally; no supraorbital and exorbital teeth; suborbital tooth faintly indicated. Antenna: urinal article thick, slightly wider than long, and with anterior part of beak very narrow; basal article with exopod well-developed and internal corner acutely produced. Mxp 3: coxae not completely approximated. Thoracic sternite 3 very slightly visible. Thoracic sternite 4 narrow, with anterior margin bluntly truncate. Female sternal sutures 7 / 8 getting progressively close to each other; apertures of spermathecae ending between P 1 or just behind them, together on central prominence. When male abdomen is applied against ventral surface, no part or only extreme anterior part of sternite 4, with small episternite 4, remaining visible (setae of telson anteriorly covering sternite 4); episternite 5 not visible. Male abdomen with segments 5 - 6 fused (sutures may be partly visible); telson long, ovate and rounded at tip. Male segment 5 with posterior angles expanded; segment 6 with external borders oblique and slightly thickened on edge. No vestigial pleopods in males. Uropods as dorsal plates narrow and oriented vertically in males, as horizontal plates in females. Uropods involved in holding of abdomen, provided by strong dentate crest on coxa of P 2; in addition, presence of a granular prominence on P 1 coxa, in contact with telson. Chelipeds with epipod. P 2 and P 3 short and stout, not knobbed or nodose; propodus of P 2 and P 3 without distal spine; inner margin of dactylus armed with spines. P 4 and P 5 reduced, but P 5 relatively long and, when extended forward, reaching as far as outer orbital angle. Propodus of P 4 only slightly longer than wide. P 5 much longer than P 4, merus and carpus elongated; propodus, clearly longer than wide, being noticeably longer than that of P 4. Subcheliform apparatus formed by one distal spine opposing dactylus; on P 5 one outer propodal spine and one outer dactylus spine. P 5 coxa with mobile penial tube. Male G 2 with needle-like flagellum almost reaching anterior margin of sternite 4 and completely covered by abdomen. Carrying behaviour Sponges, compound or solitary ascidians.	en	Guinot, Danièle, Tavares, Marcos (2003): A new subfamilial arrangement for the Dromiidae de Haan, 1833, with diagnoses and descriptions of new genera and species (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura). Zoosystema 25 (1): 43-129, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5400392
03C3878EFFF5CB64FCF0EAD9FB87E942.taxon	discussion	REMARKS	en	Guinot, Danièle, Tavares, Marcos (2003): A new subfamilial arrangement for the Dromiidae de Haan, 1833, with diagnoses and descriptions of new genera and species (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura). Zoosystema 25 (1): 43-129, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5400392
03C3878EFFF5CB64FCF0EAD9FB87E942.taxon	description	Dromidiopsis dubia, also excluded from Dromidiopsis sensu nobis, is herein attributed to Mclaydromia n. gen., whose male uropods show as salient dorsal plates that are obliquely oriented (Fig. 12 A, M. colini n. sp.). A male abdomen with all segments free is another difference between Mclaydromia n. gen. and Dromidiopsis sensu nobis. The generic status of Dromidiopsis richeri remains uncertain. McLay (2001 a: 82, figs 1, 4 A) indicat- ed in his key that D. richeri belonged to the third couplet, containing D. globosa. Dromidiopsis richeri is only known from two immature females (perhaps parasitized), in which the apertures of spermathecae lie between P 3 (probably more forward in sexually mature females), the uropods (present in the smallest specimen, absent in the largest) show as dorsal plates, vertically oriented, and the abdominal holding is still effective. D. globosa, on the other hand, is the type species of Lamarckdromia n. gen. (Fig. 10), characterized by uropods showing as ventral plates and by anterolateral border of carapace having a single tooth. Dromidiopsis globosa and D. richeri cannot be placed in the same genus.	en	Guinot, Danièle, Tavares, Marcos (2003): A new subfamilial arrangement for the Dromiidae de Haan, 1833, with diagnoses and descriptions of new genera and species (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura). Zoosystema 25 (1): 43-129, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5400392
03C3878EFFEFCB6AFCFEE819FD33EE23.taxon	description	(Fig. 7 A)	en	Guinot, Danièle, Tavares, Marcos (2003): A new subfamilial arrangement for the Dromiidae de Haan, 1833, with diagnoses and descriptions of new genera and species (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura). Zoosystema 25 (1): 43-129, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5400392
03C3878EFFEFCB6AFCFEE819FD33EE23.taxon	materials_examined	TYPE SPECIES. — Platydromia thomsoni Fulton & Grant, 1902 by monotypy. Gender: feminine. SPECIES INCLUDED. — Epipedodromia thomsoni (Fulton & Grant, 1902).	en	Guinot, Danièle, Tavares, Marcos (2003): A new subfamilial arrangement for the Dromiidae de Haan, 1833, with diagnoses and descriptions of new genera and species (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura). Zoosystema 25 (1): 43-129, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5400392
03C3878EFFEFCB6AFCFEE819FD33EE23.taxon	distribution	DISTRIBUTION. — Australia.	en	Guinot, Danièle, Tavares, Marcos (2003): A new subfamilial arrangement for the Dromiidae de Haan, 1833, with diagnoses and descriptions of new genera and species (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura). Zoosystema 25 (1): 43-129, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5400392
03C3878EFFEFCB6AFCFEE819FD33EE23.taxon	description	DESCRIPTION Males not examined by the authors. Carapace wider than long, subpentagonal; dorsal surface flattened, not membranous, with regions not defined; branchial groove indistinct, not marked by tooth. Prominent ledge present posterior to front, and limiting anterior margin of carapace, front and cephalic parts at lower plane and showing as “ false front ”, marked by hairy ridge and divided into four parts by deep grooves. When viewed from above, carapace quadrate. Lateral margin formed by anterior part (slightly convex and corresponding to lateral border of “ false front ”), by straight medial part (anteriorly delimitated by notch), and by concave border corresponding to posterolateral margin. Front partly visible dorsally, entire; rostrum truncate medially; pseudorostral teeth eave-like, turned upwards. Proepistome small but marked by raised ridge. Orbits deep; eyes small. No supraorbital and exorbital teeth; suborbital tooth forming thickening. Antenna: urinal article with anterior part of beak very narrow and posterior part shorter and rounded; basal article with exopod and internal corner similarly developed and produced. Mxp 3: coxae separated by gap. Pterygostomial region soft. Thoracic sternite 3 distinctly developed and completely visible. Thoracic sternite 4 forming raised piece, with medial part triangular and lateral parts largely expanded. In females, posterior sternites sharply and vertically tilted to form brood chamber; female sternal sutures 7 / 8 ending apart; apertures of spermathecae between P 1 and P 2, at level of episternite 4, and beneath raised medial ridge (Fig. 7 A). Male abdomen with all segments free, acutely triangular in shape but telson rounded, obtuse at tip. No vestigial pleopods in males (to be verified). Uropods absent (verified in ovigerous females only). Holding of abdomen by raised knob on P 2 coxae. Female abdomen welldeveloped, first three segments positioned dorsally. Chelipeds without epipod. P 2 and P 3 longer than chelipeds, smooth. P 4 and P 5 reduced; P 5 longer, its curved merus almost as long as lateral margin of carapace. Subcheliform apparatus formed by single distal propodal spine opposing dactylus. Carrying behaviour “ Unknown, but probably sponge ” (McLay 2001 b: 2, table 1).	en	Guinot, Danièle, Tavares, Marcos (2003): A new subfamilial arrangement for the Dromiidae de Haan, 1833, with diagnoses and descriptions of new genera and species (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura). Zoosystema 25 (1): 43-129, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5400392
03C3878EFFEFCB6AFCFEE819FD33EE23.taxon	discussion	REMARKS Epipedodromia thomsoni has the front and cephalic parts being at lower plane, that provides a somewhat similar appearance than in Desmodromia and Homalodromia and also in Hypoconcha, see under Homalodromia. 4 The examination of male of Epipedodromia thomsoni will show whether the uropods are missing (McLay 1993: 225, table 8; 2001 b: 2, table 1), or are simply reduced to small ventral plates. The species is characterized by the development of a brood chamber and by direct development. As Hale (1925: 412), we found very few large eggs in the pouch.	en	Guinot, Danièle, Tavares, Marcos (2003): A new subfamilial arrangement for the Dromiidae de Haan, 1833, with diagnoses and descriptions of new genera and species (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura). Zoosystema 25 (1): 43-129, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5400392
03C3878EFFEFCB6AFCFEE819FD33EE23.taxon	materials_examined	TYPE SPECIES. — Dromia nodipes Guérin-Méneville, 1832 by original designation (McLay 1993: 162). (Dromia nodipes Lamarck, 1818: 264 is a nomen nudum). Gender: feminine. A specimen of Dromia nodipes (female 22.5 × 23 mm, MNHN-B 15, rehydrated and now in alcohol) is regarded as the presumed type and selected here as the lectotype. It is not accompanied by any original label indicating the country of origin. This agrees to the question mark in the caption of the figure by Guérin- Méneville (1832: 11) and in the text of H. Milne Edwards (1837: 170). The mention “ Cap de Bonne- Espérance ” in the MNHN inventory register most probably results from a mistake of a subsequent transcription: it is perhaps useless to assign the reference for Port Esperance or Esperance Bay in South Australia (McLay 1993: 162). Therefore, the origin of the lectotype remains unknown. However, Fultodromia nodipes is most probably an Australian species, where it has been found by Baker (1907: 180, pl. 25, fig. 1, as Cryptodromia depressa), Hale (1927: 112, fig. 110, as Petalomera depressa) and Rathbun (1923 a: 154, as P. depressa). SPECIES INCLUDED. — Dromia nodipes Guérin- Méneville, 1832 (senior synonym of Cryptodromia tumida Stimpson, 1858; Petalomera depressa Baker, 1907, and Dromidiopsis michaelseni Balss, 1935); Cryptodromia tumida var. spinifera Montgomery, 1931.	en	Guinot, Danièle, Tavares, Marcos (2003): A new subfamilial arrangement for the Dromiidae de Haan, 1833, with diagnoses and descriptions of new genera and species (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura). Zoosystema 25 (1): 43-129, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5400392
03C3878EFFEFCB6AFCFEE819FD33EE23.taxon	distribution	DISTRIBUTION. — Australia.	en	Guinot, Danièle, Tavares, Marcos (2003): A new subfamilial arrangement for the Dromiidae de Haan, 1833, with diagnoses and descriptions of new genera and species (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura). Zoosystema 25 (1): 43-129, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5400392
03C3878EFFEFCB6AFCFEE819FD33EE23.taxon	description	DESCRIPTION Carapace almost as long as wide, convex; dorsal surface with regions not well-defined; branchial groove indistinct but a tooth just behind it. Anterolateral margin joining exorbital angle and armed with several developed blunt teeth; posterolateral margins nearly straight. Front with deflexed rostral tooth and two prominent pseudorostral teeth; supraorbital and exorbital teeth prominent; suborbital tooth may be developed. Antenna: urinal article with anterior part of beak longer and more acute than posterior ones; basal article with exopod very long and thickened and with internal corner produced, both enclosing two following articles. Mxp 3: coxae closely approximated. Thoracic sternite 3 not visible. Male thoracic sternite 4 with anterior margin bluntly triangular; episternites 4 and 5 narrow. Female sternal sutures 7 / 8 reaching forward to between coxae of P 1; apertures of spermathecae apart, but not separated by wide space. When male abdomen is applied against ventral surface, only a small part of sternite 4 exposed; episternite 4 not visible or only a minute part discernible; episternite 5 not visible. Male abdomen with all segments free, wide, and with characteristic blunt but developed prominences in latero-posterior angles; telson with base very enlarged and may be markedly concave at tip. Male segment 6 with external borders thickened on anterior half. No vestigial pleopods in males. Male uropods showing as much salient and mobile dorsal plates, with petaloid expansions similar to those of posterior angles of abdominal segments (Fig. 8). Holding of abdomen consisting of a strong serrated prominence on P 2 coxa, far from uropods. Chelipeds with epipod. All pereopods short and thick. P 2 and P 3 nodular; propodus without distal spine; inner margin of dactylus with spines. P 4 and P 5 reduced, with terminal apparatus formed by up to two distal propodal spines opposing dactylus; two or three other spines on outer propodal margin. Male P 5 coxa with long mobile penial tube. Carrying behaviour Sponges, compound ascidians.	en	Guinot, Danièle, Tavares, Marcos (2003): A new subfamilial arrangement for the Dromiidae de Haan, 1833, with diagnoses and descriptions of new genera and species (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura). Zoosystema 25 (1): 43-129, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5400392
03C3878EFFEFCB6AFCFEE819FD33EE23.taxon	discussion	REMARKS The female sternal sutures 7 / 8 end wide apart “ in a small mound ” in Fultodromia nodipes, and “ in a transverse ridge ” in F. spinifera (Montgomery 1931: 414, pl. 29, fig. 3 a).	en	Guinot, Danièle, Tavares, Marcos (2003): A new subfamilial arrangement for the Dromiidae de Haan, 1833, with diagnoses and descriptions of new genera and species (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura). Zoosystema 25 (1): 43-129, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5400392
03C3878EFFEFCB6AFCFEE819FD33EE23.taxon	materials_examined	TYPE SPECIES. — Cryptodromia monodus Stebbing, 1918 by monotypy (senior synonym of Hemisphaerodromia abellana Barnard, 1954). Gender: feminine. SPECIES INCLUDED. — Hemisphaerodromia monodus (Stebbing, 1918).	en	Guinot, Danièle, Tavares, Marcos (2003): A new subfamilial arrangement for the Dromiidae de Haan, 1833, with diagnoses and descriptions of new genera and species (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura). Zoosystema 25 (1): 43-129, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5400392
03C3878EFFEFCB6AFCFEE819FD33EE23.taxon	distribution	DISTRIBUTION. — Indian Ocean.	en	Guinot, Danièle, Tavares, Marcos (2003): A new subfamilial arrangement for the Dromiidae de Haan, 1833, with diagnoses and descriptions of new genera and species (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura). Zoosystema 25 (1): 43-129, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5400392
03C3878EFFEFCB6AFCFEE819FD33EE23.taxon	description	DESCRIPTION Carapace wider than long, rounded / pentagonal, strongly convex; dorsal surface smooth, with regions not well-defined; branchial groove distinct. Anterolateral margin with only blunt small teeth; posterolateral margins straight, with blunt tooth. Front entire and continuous to orbital margin, a small rostral tooth and two eave-like pseudorostral teeth; no suborbital nor exorbital teeth. Antenna: urinal article developed, with only anterior part of beak acute, posterior part being wide; basal article with exopod well developed and internal corner thickly produced, both enclosing two following articles. Mxp 3: coxae closely approximated. Thoracic sternite 3 not visible. Male thoracic sternite 4 with anterior margin truncate. Female sternal sutures 7 / 8 ending apart behind P 2; apertures of spermathecae wide apart on tubercule, at level of episternite 5 (Fig. 7 B). When male abdomen is applied against ventral surface, only anterior part of sternite 4 and narrow episternite 4 exposed. Male abdomen with all segments free, wide; telson with base enlarged and bluntly rounded at tip. Male segment 6 with external borders deeply hollowed and much thickened in anterior part. No vestigial pleopods in males. Male uropods showing as markedly salient and mobile dorsal plates. Uropods involved in holding of abdomen, which is particularly efficient, being provided with whole base of P 2 coxa which bears a serrated salient ridge, tightly encircled by depression on border of segment 6. Female uropods visible dorsally. Chelipeds with an epipod. All pereopods short and stout. P 2 and P 3 lobed; propodus without distal spine; inner margin of dactylus with few tiny spines. P 4 and P 5 reduced, with terminal apparatus formed by one distal propodal spine opposing dactylus; only one another very small spine on outer propodal margin. Male P 5 coxa with long mobile penial tube. Carrying behaviour Compound ascidians.	en	Guinot, Danièle, Tavares, Marcos (2003): A new subfamilial arrangement for the Dromiidae de Haan, 1833, with diagnoses and descriptions of new genera and species (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura). Zoosystema 25 (1): 43-129, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5400392
03C3878EFFEFCB6AFCFEE819FD33EE23.taxon	discussion	REMARKS As pointed out by Barnard (1954) and McLay (1993), Hemisphaerodromia resembles Sphaerodromia only by the shape of carapace, particularly the front. Nevertheless, Hemisphaerodromia is a typical dromiine, with salient dorsal uropods, male P 5 coxa bearing a long penial tube, female sternal sutures 7 / 8 ending behind P 2 and apertures of spermathecae rather far from female gonopores on P 3 (Fig. 7 B).	en	Guinot, Danièle, Tavares, Marcos (2003): A new subfamilial arrangement for the Dromiidae de Haan, 1833, with diagnoses and descriptions of new genera and species (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura). Zoosystema 25 (1): 43-129, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5400392
03C3878EFFEFCB6AFCFEE819FD33EE23.taxon	materials_examined	TYPE SPECIES. — Homalodromia coppingeri Miers, 1884 by monotypy. The replacement name Lasiodromia created by Alcock (1901) for Homalodromia Miers, 1884, because of the resemblance and possible confusion with Homolodromia A. Milne Edwards, 1880 (Homolodromiidae) was unnecessary (ICZN 1999: article 56.2). SPECIES INCLUDED. — Homalodromia coppingeri Miers, 1884, and perhaps another species, Homalodromia unidentata (Ihle, 1913) (see Takeda 1977: 73; McLay 1993: 227).	en	Guinot, Danièle, Tavares, Marcos (2003): A new subfamilial arrangement for the Dromiidae de Haan, 1833, with diagnoses and descriptions of new genera and species (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura). Zoosystema 25 (1): 43-129, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5400392
03C3878EFFEFCB6AFCFEE819FD33EE23.taxon	distribution	DISTRIBUTION. — Indo-West Pacific.	en	Guinot, Danièle, Tavares, Marcos (2003): A new subfamilial arrangement for the Dromiidae de Haan, 1833, with diagnoses and descriptions of new genera and species (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura). Zoosystema 25 (1): 43-129, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5400392
03C3878EFFEFCB6AFCFEE819FD33EE23.taxon	description	DESCRIPTION Carapace longer than wide, whole anterior part strongly deflected; rest of dorsal surface flattened, with regions not defined; branchial groove distinct, may be sometimes marked by tooth. Subhepatic area inflated. Eyes and cephalic appendages not visible dorsally. Anterolateral margin convex, may be sometimes with single small tooth oriented ventrally; posterolateral margins convergent. Front particular, at lower plane and appearing quadridentate in counting pseudorostral and supraorbital teeth; rostrum markedly deflexed, without tooth; each prominent acute pseudorostral tooth fused with similarly shaped supraorbital tooth, together forming broad, concave eave. Suborbital tooth acute, long, visible dorsally; exorbital tooth marked. Proepistome small but marked by raised ridge. Antenna: basal article much longer than wide, with enlarged exopod and internal corner similarly strongly produced; following articles well developed. Mxp 3: coxae closely approximated. Pterygostomial region soft. Thoracic sternite 3 not visible dorsally. Thoracic sternite 4 with anterior margin bluntly truncate, in contact with mxp 3 coxae. When male abdomen is applied against ventral surface, anterior part of sternite 4 and epsisternite 4 remaining visible. In females, posterior sternites obliquely tilted; female sternal sutures 7 / 8 ending apart, just at level of P 1; apertures of spermathecae at each extremity of tubular curved prominence forming bridge between P 1 coxae (Fig. 9 B). Male abdomen with all segments free, triangular in shape but with telson very long and obtuse at tip. No vestigial pleopods in males. Male uropods as elongated and mobile dorsal plates, vertically oriented, involved in holding of abdomen; uropods remaining rather developed in females. Abdominal holding provided by particularly high, cupuliform and denticulated prominence on coxa of P 2 (Fig. 9 A), which remains as a vestige in mature females (Fig. 9 B); on P 1 coxa, a small tuberculate prominence. Chelipeds without epipod, slightly more massive than P 2 and P 3, none of these verrucose or dilat- ed. P 2 and P 3 propodus without distal spine, and inner margin of dactylus armed with several small spines. P 4 and P 5 reduced but unequal; P 5 almost as long as P 2, merus not so long as lateral margin of carapace, however. Subcheliform apparatus formed by single distal propodal spine opposing the dactylus. Male P 5 coxa with mobile penial tube. Carrying behaviour Sponges.	en	Guinot, Danièle, Tavares, Marcos (2003): A new subfamilial arrangement for the Dromiidae de Haan, 1833, with diagnoses and descriptions of new genera and species (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura). Zoosystema 25 (1): 43-129, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5400392
03C3878EFFEFCB6AFCFEE819FD33EE23.taxon	discussion	REMARKS Despite an overall resemblance of the carapace (in particular the front), which permitted the assertion that Homalodromia is most closely relat- ed to Epipedodromia (McLay 1993: 225), several characters of the ventral surface of body separate the two genera, notably: 1) sternite 3 not visible in Homalodromia (Fig. 9) (well-developed and completely visible in Epipedodromia, Fig. 7 A); 2) uropods as elongated dorsal plates vertically oriented, constituting a full-lock system with uropods completely involved in abdominal holding (see Guinot & Bouchard 1998: fig. 3 B) (uropods absent, at least in ovigerous females, in Epipedodromia; their absence is to be verified in males); 3) apertures of spermathecae apart, each located at the extremity of tubular prominence forming a bridge just behind P 1 coxae (Fig. 9 B) (apart, beneath raised medial thickening between P 1 coxae in Epipedodromia, Fig. 7 A); and 4) female abdomen normally widened (largely expanded and forming a brood chamber in Epipedodromia). Homalodromia resembles Dromidiopsis sensu nobis (Fig. 6) by the shape of their male abdomen, presence of uropods shaped as elongat- ed dorsal plates, that are vertically oriented, and abdominal holding provided by crest on P 2 coxae. It differs from it by several features: 1) male abdomen with all segments free (segments 5 - 6 fused in Dromidiopsis); and 2) apertures of spermathecae apart and located at each extremity of tubular bridge just behind P 1 coxae (ending between P 1, together on central prominence, in Dromidiopsis). Several dromiid genera share with Homalodromia the ventral location of eyes and cephalic appendages: Epipedodromia, Desmodromia and Hypoconcha. McLay (2001 b: 2, table 1) compared the first three genera, but the morphology of thoracic sternum was not taken into account. Differences include: 1) the anterior sternites 3 and 4 (in Epipedodromia large sternite 3 present, sternite 4 raised and triangular, at least in females, Fig. 7 A; sternite 3 not exposed and sternite 4 bluntly truncate in Homalodromia, Fig. 9); and 2) the shape of uropods (narrow dorsal plates vertically oriented in Homalodromia, Fig. 9 A, said to be absent in Epipedodromia, described as dorsal in immature females of Desmodromia). In addition to the features of carapace and last pairs of pereopods, Hypoconcha is characterized by a peculiar thoracic sternum (Fig. 19 A), the presence of male vestigial pleopods (Fig. 19 B), the uropods showing only as minute ventral lobes (Fig. 19 B, C), a male abdomen that is short and usually flexed at right angles in the middle, sternal female sutures 7 / 8 which are relatively short and located on tilted surface of posterior part of sternum (Fig. 19 A), and by the presence of an epipod on P 1. All of these differences support the inclusion of Homalodromia, Epipedodromia and Desmodromia in the Dromiinae n. status, and the separation of Hypoconcha in the Hypoconchinae n. subfam.	en	Guinot, Danièle, Tavares, Marcos (2003): A new subfamilial arrangement for the Dromiidae de Haan, 1833, with diagnoses and descriptions of new genera and species (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura). Zoosystema 25 (1): 43-129, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5400392
03C3878EFFE1CB6EFF16EFF9FC01E942.taxon	description	(Fig. 10)	en	Guinot, Danièle, Tavares, Marcos (2003): A new subfamilial arrangement for the Dromiidae de Haan, 1833, with diagnoses and descriptions of new genera and species (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura). Zoosystema 25 (1): 43-129, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5400392
03C3878EFFE1CB6EFF16EFF9FC01E942.taxon	materials_examined	TYPE SPECIES. — Dromia globosa Lamarck, 1818 by present designation. SPECIES INCLUDED. — Dromia globosa Lamarck, 1818 (senior synonym of Dromidia excavata Stimpson, 1858). A damaged, dry specimen of a male, identified as Dromia globosa and without locality, deposited in the Historical Reference Collection (MNHN-B 22033), bearing the label “ it is probably the material studied by H. Milne Edwards (1837: 177) and sent to M. de Man (1888: 396, footnote, pl. 18, fig. 1) ”, is to be considered the type of the species and selected here as the lectotype.	en	Guinot, Danièle, Tavares, Marcos (2003): A new subfamilial arrangement for the Dromiidae de Haan, 1833, with diagnoses and descriptions of new genera and species (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura). Zoosystema 25 (1): 43-129, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5400392
03C3878EFFE1CB6EFF16EFF9FC01E942.taxon	etymology	ETYMOLOGY. — The genus Lamarckdromia n. gen. is dedicated to the eminent French naturalist Jean- Baptiste Pierre de Monet, chevalier de Lamarck (1744 - 1829), who described several dromiid species. Gender: feminine.	en	Guinot, Danièle, Tavares, Marcos (2003): A new subfamilial arrangement for the Dromiidae de Haan, 1833, with diagnoses and descriptions of new genera and species (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura). Zoosystema 25 (1): 43-129, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5400392
03C3878EFFE1CB6EFF16EFF9FC01E942.taxon	distribution	DISTRIBUTION. — Australia.	en	Guinot, Danièle, Tavares, Marcos (2003): A new subfamilial arrangement for the Dromiidae de Haan, 1833, with diagnoses and descriptions of new genera and species (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura). Zoosystema 25 (1): 43-129, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5400392
03C3878EFFE1CB6EFF16EFF9FC01E942.taxon	description	DESCRIPTION Carapace about as long as wide, convex; dorsal surface smooth, with regions not defined; subhepatic region hollowed; branchial groove marked and deeply notching external border. Anterolateral margin not joining orbit but reaching middle of pterygostomial border, and armed with only one blunt tooth; no tooth behind level of branchial groove; posterolateral margin short. Front narrow, appearing tridentate, with strongly deflexed rostrum and developed pseudorostral teeth; supraorbital tooth present; no suborbital and exorbital teeth. Orbits deep; eyes small. Antenna: urinal article with anterior part of beak raised; basal article with exopod developed and internal corner produced. Anterior margin of buccal frame formed by raised median wall and two acute lateral teeth. Mxp 3: coxae separated by small gap. Thoracic sternite 3 remaining exposed and visible dorsally, specially in males (sternites 1 - 2 at lower plane) (Fig. 10 A, D). Thoracic sternite 4 narrow, with triangular anterior margin. Female sternal sutures 7 / 8 long, with apertures of spermathecae ending between P 2, together on central prominence (Fig. 10 A). When male abdomen is applied against ventral surface, extreme anterior part of sternite 4 and small part of episternite 4 remaining visible. Male abdomen with all segments free; presence of extended pleural parts; telson much broader than long, rounded at tip. Male segment 6 slightly constricted in posterior part and rest of external borders subparallel. Vestigial pleopods absent in males. Uropods showing as ventral rounded / ovate plates, well inserted, relatively developed but completely concealed (Fig. 10 B, C). Uropods not involved in holding of abdomen. Abdominal holding provided by very sharp tuberculate prominence on P 2 coxa, overhanging base of segment 6 (Fig. 10 B, D). Chelipeds not knobbed. P 2 and P 3 not knobbed nor nodose; propodus of P 2 and P 3 without distal spine; inner margin of dactylus armed with spines. P 4 and P 5 reduced, but P 5 much longer than P 4 and, when extended forward, reaching as far as the anterolateral tooth; merus and carpus being noticeably much longer than that of P 4. P 4 very short and stout, propodus wider than long. Subcheliform apparatus of P 4 and P 5 formed by one distal spine opposing the curved dactylus; three developed and subequal outer propodal spines on P 4; on P 5, only one long outer propodal spine. Male P 5 coxa with mobile penial tube (Fig. 10 D). Carrying behaviour Sponges, compound ascidians.	en	Guinot, Danièle, Tavares, Marcos (2003): A new subfamilial arrangement for the Dromiidae de Haan, 1833, with diagnoses and descriptions of new genera and species (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura). Zoosystema 25 (1): 43-129, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5400392
03C3878EFFE1CB6EFF16EFF9FC01E942.taxon	discussion	REMARKS	en	Guinot, Danièle, Tavares, Marcos (2003): A new subfamilial arrangement for the Dromiidae de Haan, 1833, with diagnoses and descriptions of new genera and species (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura). Zoosystema 25 (1): 43-129, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5400392
03C3878EFFE1CB6EFF16EFF9FC01E942.taxon	description	1) Ascidiophilu s (type species: Ascidiophilus caphyraeformis Richters, 1880 by monotypy) and 10) Pseudodromia (type species: Pseudodromia latens Stimpson, 1858 by original designation). In Dromidiopsis globosa (Fig. 10): thoracic sternum “ normal ” (very narrow, specially sternite 4 showing as small piece in Ascidiophilu s and Pseudodromia); male telson wider than long and rounded at tip (longer than wide and tip pointed in Ascidiophilu s and Pseudodromia); holding of abdomen present, provided by sharp prominence on P 2 coxa (absent in Ascidiophilu s and Pseudodromia); when extended forward, P 5 reaching anterolateral tooth (reaching as far as orbital angle in Ascidiophilu s or even more elongated in Pseudodromia); and P 4 and P 5 propodus with distal spine opposing dactylus (no distal propodal spine opposing dactylus in Ascidiophilu s and Pseudodromia). Another main difference is that the uropods show as ventral plates in Lamarckdromia n. gen. such as in Pseudodromia, while they are completely absent in both sexes in Ascidiophilu s. 2) Austrodromidia sensu nobis (Figs 1; 2). In D. globosa: male abdominal segment 6 with external borders subparallel (deeply hollowed anteriorly and expanded posteriorly in Austrodromidia); telson with its base not particularly enlarged (enlarged in Austrodromidia); and female sternal sutures 7 / 8 ending together on central prominence between P 2 (ending wide apart at level of P 2 in Austrodromidia). 3) Barnardromia (type species: Cryptodromia hirsutimana Kensley & Buxton, 1984 by original designation), in which the sternal parts and abdomen are not figured (Kensley & Buxton 1984: 193, fig. 4). In D. globosa: apertures of spermathecae ending together on central prominence between P 2 (behind bases of P 1 in Barnardromia); and P 4 and P 5 propodus with one distal spine opposing dactylus and three outer propodal spines on P 4 and one outer propodal spine on P 5 (dactyli of P 4 and P 5 opposed by single distal propodal spine in Barnardromia, in McLay 1993: 180, table 5). 4) Dromidia sensu nobis. In D. globosa: male uropods showing as ventral plates totally concealed (Fig. 10 B, C) (ventral plates slightly visible dorsally in Dromidia, Fig. 5 B, C); vestigial pleopods absent (Fig. 10 C) (Pl 3 - Pl 5 present, in Dromidia, Fig. 5 C); male telson rounded at tip (Fig. 10 B, C) (ending as sharp spine in Dromidia, Fig. 5 B, C); abdominal holding provided by tuberculate, sharp prominence on P 2 coxa (Fig. 10 B, D) (a strong spine on P 2 coxa, directed backwards and partly overhanging abdomen in Dromidia, Fig. 5 A, B); and sternite 4 bluntly triangular (Fig. 10 A, D) (rounded at tip in Dromidia, Fig. 5 A, B). 5) Epipedodromia André, 1932 (type species: Platydromia thomsoni Fulton & Grant, 1902). In D. globosa: uropods present, showing as ventral plates in both sexes (absent in ovigerous females in Epipedodromia; absence to be verified in males); sternite 3 discernible (Fig. 10 A, D) (sternite 3 developed and completely visible in Epipedodromia, Fig. 7 A); in females, posterior sternites gently tilted (sharply and vertically tilt- ed, with formation of brood chamber in Epipedodromia); and apertures of spermathecae between P 2, together on central prominence (apart, beneath thick medial bridge just behind P 1, in Epipedodromia, Fig. 7 A). 6) Eudromidia (type species: Eudromia frontalis Henderson, 1888 by monotypy). In D. globosa: apertures of spermathecae ending between P 2, together on central prominence (between P 1, on a tubercle in Eudromidia); and P 4 and P 5 reduced, but P 5 reaching anterolateral tooth (P 4 and P 5 smaller, P 5 being filiform in Eudromidia, at least in E. frontalis). In Eudromidia the uropods, which have not been figured, are poorly known; McLay (1993: 179) refers to the uropods as “ very small, concealed ”. 7) Exodromidia (type species: Dromidia spinosa Studer, 1883 by monotypy). In D. globosa: male telson rounded at tip (ending in spine in Exodromidia); vestigial pleopods absent in males (Pl 3 - Pl 5 present in Exodromidia spinosa (Studer, 1883), or only Pl 5 present in E. bicornis (Studer, 1883) and E. spinosissima (Kensley, 1977 )); thoracic sternite 3 dorsally visible, only by very small part, specially in males (largely exposed in Exodromidia); and male sternite 4 not hollowed medially, almost completely covered by abdomen, and with triangular tip (deeply hollowed and remaining always partly visible when abdomen folded, and with truncate tip, in Exodromidia). The shape of ventral uropods, partly or totally concealed, also distinguishes the two genera: showing as rounded / ovate plates, not really movable in Lamarckdromia n. gen. (Fig. 10 B, C), as narrow and elongated plates in Exodromidia. 8) Haledromia (type species: Dromia bicavernosa Zietz, 1887 by monotypy). In D. globosa: apertures of spermathecae ending between P 2, together on central prominence (Fig. 10 A), while in Haledromia the apertures end as far forward as P 1, on large tubercle. 9) Platydromia (type species: Dromidia spongiosa Stimpson, 1858), which has also ventral and concealed uropods. In D. globosa: sternite 3 with a small part visible, particularly in males (Fig. 10 A, D) (largely exposed in both sexes of Platydromia, Figs 15 A; 16); sternite 4 triangular (Fig. 10 A, D) (wide and with convex lateral margins in both sexes of Platydromia); male telson rounded at tip (Fig. 10 B, C) (ending in acute tip in Platydromia, Fig. 15 B, C); and apertures of spermathecae ending together, on central prominence between P 2, Fig. 10 A (ending together, on slight prominence between chelipeds in Platydromia, Fig. 16). 11) Speodromia (type species: Dynomene platyarthrodes Stebbing, 1905 by monotypy). In D. globosa: female uropods not visible dorsally (visible beneath setae in Speodromia, after Stebbing 1905: 60, pl. 17, as Dynomene platyarthrode s; according to McLay 1993: 182, table 5, the uropods are not visible in both sexes); apertures of spermathecae between P 2 (between P 1 in Speodromia); and P 4 and P 5 reduced, with P 4 short and stout, P 5 much longer than P 4 and, when extended forward, reaching as far as anterolateral tooth (P 4 and P 5 dissimilar in size and shape in Speodromia: P 4 short, thick and three-sided; P 5 much more slen- der, specially last three articles). 12) Tunedromia (type species: Petalomera yamashitai Takeda & Miyake, 1970, by original designation). Tunedromia is now known from females and males (Takeda 2001). In D. globosa: uropods showing as ventral plates, relatively developed but completely concealed (absent in both sexes of Tunedromia); and P 5 propodus with one distal spine opposing the dactylus and one single long outer propodal spine (multiple propodal spines opposing the dactylus and several outer propodal spines in Tunedromia).	en	Guinot, Danièle, Tavares, Marcos (2003): A new subfamilial arrangement for the Dromiidae de Haan, 1833, with diagnoses and descriptions of new genera and species (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura). Zoosystema 25 (1): 43-129, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5400392
03C3878EFFE5CB52FCD6E819FD1AEF22.taxon	description	(Fig. 11)	en	Guinot, Danièle, Tavares, Marcos (2003): A new subfamilial arrangement for the Dromiidae de Haan, 1833, with diagnoses and descriptions of new genera and species (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura). Zoosystema 25 (1): 43-129, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5400392
03C3878EFFE5CB52FCD6E819FD1AEF22.taxon	materials_examined	TYPE SPECIES. — Cryptodromiopsis unidentata Rüppell, 1830 by present designation. Gender: feminine.	en	Guinot, Danièle, Tavares, Marcos (2003): A new subfamilial arrangement for the Dromiidae de Haan, 1833, with diagnoses and descriptions of new genera and species (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura). Zoosystema 25 (1): 43-129, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5400392
03C3878EFFE5CB52FCD6E819FD1AEF22.taxon	etymology	ETYMOLOGY. — The genus Lewindromia n. gen. is dedicated to Chanan Lewinsohn (1927 - 1983) in recognition for his contribution to the knowledge of the Indian Ocean dromiids. SPECIES INCLUDED. — Cryptodromiopsis unidentata Rüppell, 1830.	en	Guinot, Danièle, Tavares, Marcos (2003): A new subfamilial arrangement for the Dromiidae de Haan, 1833, with diagnoses and descriptions of new genera and species (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura). Zoosystema 25 (1): 43-129, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5400392
03C3878EFFE5CB52FCD6E819FD1AEF22.taxon	distribution	DISTRIBUTION. — Indo-West Pacific: Red Sea and Indian Ocean, including sea mounts of the western Indian Ocean (see Zarenkov 1994), with a large extension in the Pacific (Australia, Hawaii, Kermadec Islands, Easter Island, see Garth 1973: 316).	en	Guinot, Danièle, Tavares, Marcos (2003): A new subfamilial arrangement for the Dromiidae de Haan, 1833, with diagnoses and descriptions of new genera and species (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura). Zoosystema 25 (1): 43-129, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5400392
03C3878EFFE5CB52FCD6E819FD1AEF22.taxon	description	DESCRIPTION Carapace longer than wide, evenly convex; dorsal surface with regions poorly defined; branchial groove marked, deeply notching external border. Anterolateral margin not joining exorbital angle, long, convex, entire, only with a very blunt tooth behind level of branchial groove; posterolateral margins not noticeably convergent posteriorly. Front narrow, with rostrum very small and blunt, not visible dorsally, and two pseudorostral teeth; supraorbital, suborbital and exorbital teeth present. Antenna: urinal article noticeably developed and rather straight; basal article thick, with exopod strongly developed and internal corner slightly produced, much shorter than exopod; article 4 wide. Mxp 3: coxae closely approximated. Thoracic sternite 3 not visible. Sternite 4 very narrow, forming acute plate, ending in sharp tip in both sexes. In females, sternites 7 and 8 tilted, almost perpendicular in relation to precedent ones. Female sternal sutures 7 / 8 posteriorly wide apart, sharply close to each other at level of P 3 where they are marked by thick ridge; apertures of spermathecae ending together on slight prominence between P 2 (Fig. 11 C). No sternal parts (very small episternite 4 may be discernible) remaining visible when male abdomen applied against ventral surface. Male abdomen very long, without pleural parts, reaching mxp 3, completely covering narrow and deep sterno-abdominal depression, and with all segments free; telson very long, with large base and regularly tapering, pointed at tip. Telson of females semi-ovate. Male segment 6 with external borders oblique and modified on edges. No vestigial pleopods in males. Uropods as dorsal plates, vertically oriented in males (Fig. 11 B), welldeveloped in females. Uropods involved in holding of abdomen. A very efficient abdominal holding provided by long and prominent serrulated carina on P 2 coxa; presence of large blunt prominence on P 1 coxa. Chelipeds without epipod. P 1, P 2 and P 3 not knobbed nor nodose; propodus of P 2 and P 3 without distal spine; inner margin of dactylus armed with spines. P 4 and P 5 reduced, P 5 being much longer than P 4 and, when extended forward, reaching about mid-length of anterior margin of carapace. P 5 coxa very developed in both sexes. Propodus of P 4 and P 5 very short and thick, as wide as long, with one distal spine opposing dactylus which is not markedly curved and ends in long horny spine; two smaller outer propodal spines. Male P 5 coxa with mobile penial tube. Male G 2 much longer than G 1, thin and long flagellum overreaching sterno-abdominal depression. Carrying behaviour Individuals carry a wide range of camouflage material (sponges, soft coral, compound or solitary ascidians, actinians), and the cap is often very large, so that the crab is “ deeply embedded ” (McLay 2001 a: 84). Lewindromia unidentata n. comb. looks like “ a hairy ball that fits tightly into its piece of camouflage ” (McLay 2001 a: 84). See also Chen & Haibao 2002: pl. 5, fig. 2.	en	Guinot, Danièle, Tavares, Marcos (2003): A new subfamilial arrangement for the Dromiidae de Haan, 1833, with diagnoses and descriptions of new genera and species (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura). Zoosystema 25 (1): 43-129, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5400392
03C3878EFFE5CB52FCD6E819FD1AEF22.taxon	discussion	REMARKS	en	Guinot, Danièle, Tavares, Marcos (2003): A new subfamilial arrangement for the Dromiidae de Haan, 1833, with diagnoses and descriptions of new genera and species (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura). Zoosystema 25 (1): 43-129, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5400392
03C3878EFFE5CB52FCD6E819FD1AEF22.taxon	description	Lewindromia n. gen. is distinguished from Austrodromidia sensu nobis (Figs 1; 2) by the following characters: 1) uropods showing as dorsal plates, vertically oriented (markedly reduced or even obsolete ventral plates in Austrodromidia); 2) male segment 6 with external borders oblique (external borders anteriorly hollowed and posteriorly expanded in Austrodromidia); and 3) spermathecae ending together on central prominence between P 2 (ending wide apart between P 2 in Austrodromidia). The differences between Lewindromia n. gen. and Cryptodromia (type species: C. coronata Stimpson, 1858: 226, by original designation) include: 1) apertures of spermathecae closely approximated (situated wide apart in Cryptodromia; see the diagnosis by Stimpson 1858: 225: “ Foeminae sterni sulci remoti, ad segmentum pedum secundi paris tantum producti, terminis in tuberculis ”); 2) male telson much longer than wide (wider than long in Cryptodromia); 3) male thoracic sternite 3 not visible (visible dorsally in Cryptodromia); 4) male thoracic sternite 4 ending in acute tip (sternite 4 anteriorly truncated in Cryptodromia). Differences between Lewindromia n. gen. and Cryptodromiopsis sensu nobis (Fig. 4) include: 1) thoracic sternite 1 - 3 concealed in males (exposed in Cryptodromiopsis); 2) coxae of mxp 3 placed close together (separated by distinct gap in Cryptodromiopsis); 3) thoracic sternite 4 ending in acute tip in males (sternite 4 not pointed in Cryptodromiopsis); 4) male telson much longer than wide (wider than long in Cryptodromiopsis); and 5) apertures of spermathecae at level of P 2 (at level of P 1 in Cryptodromiopsis). Lewindromia n. gen. is distinguished from Dromidia sensu nobis (Fig. 5) by the following characters: 1) male abdominal segment 6 with external borders oblique and sinuous (external borders subparallel in Dromidia); 2) male telson much longer than wide, regularly tapering, and the tip becoming very narrow (telson wider than long, ending by sharp spine in Dromidia); 3) male uropods as dorsal plates, vertically oriented, exposed and completely visible dorsally (almost totally concealed ventral plates in Dromidia); 4) uropods involved in abdominal holding which consists of uropods fitting in front of serrulated carina on P 2 coxae; an additional strong, rounded prominence on P 1 coxa (uropods not involved at all in abdominal holding; a strong spine directed backwards, partly overhanging abdomen in Dromidia); and 5) thoracic sternite 4 tapering and ending in acute tip (sternite 4 broad, ending in rounded tip in Dromidia). Lewindromia n. gen. and Dromidiopsis sensu nobis (Fig. 6), both with uropods oriented vertically, differ from each other as follows: 1) all abdominal segments free (abdominal segments 5 and 6 fused together in Dromidiopsis); 2) pseudorostral teeth prominent, so that entire front is strongly produced forward (lateral frontal lobes extremely low so that entire front is produced forward only slightly in Dromidiopsis); 3) propodus of P 4 and P 5 subequal in size (of different size, that of P 5 much longer in Dromidiopsis); 4) when extended forward, P 5 reaching about mid-length of anterior margin of carapace (P 5 much long, reaching as far as outer orbital angle in Dromidiopsis); 5) female sternal sutures 7 / 8 sharply close to each other at level of P 3 where they are lined by thick ridge (separated wide apart, getting progressively close to each other in Dromidiopsis); 6) apertures of spermathecae at level of P 2 (at level of P 1 or just behind them in Dromidiopsis); and 7) thoracic sternite 4 ending in acute tip (sternite 4 truncated distally in Dromidiopsis). Lewindromia n. gen. and Homalodromia (Fig. 9), both with uropods vertically oriented, differ from each other, as follows: 1) apertures of spermathecae together on slight prominence between P 2 (Fig. 11 C) (apertures at each extremity of a tubular prominence forming bridge between P 1 coxae in Homalodromia); 2) sternite 4 forming acute plate, ending in sharp tip (Fig. 11 A, C) (bluntly truncate at tip in Homalodromia); and 3) no sternal parts remaining visible when male abdomen applied against ventral surface (Fig. 11 B); small episternite 4 hardly dicernible at lower plane or not visible (sternite 4 and episternite 4 remaining visible in Homalodromia). Lewindromia n. gen. and Lamarckdromia n. gen. share the thoracic sternite 4 showing as triangular acute plate, but narrower in Lewindromia n. gen. The following characters readily distinguish Lewindromia n. gen. from Lamarckdromia n. gen. (Fig. 10): 1) male abdominal segment 6 with external borders oblique and sinuous (external borders subparallel in Lewindromia n. gen.); 2) male telson much longer than wide, regularly tapering, the tip becoming narrow (telson wider than long, rounded at tip, in Lewindromia n. gen.); 3) male uropods plates exposed, vertically oriented, involved in abdominal holding (showing as totally concealed ventral plates, not involved, in Lewindromia); and 4) thoracic sternite 4 forming acute plate, ending in sharp tip (with anterior margin triangular in Lewindromia n. gen.).	en	Guinot, Danièle, Tavares, Marcos (2003): A new subfamilial arrangement for the Dromiidae de Haan, 1833, with diagnoses and descriptions of new genera and species (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura). Zoosystema 25 (1): 43-129, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5400392
03C3878EFFD9CB54FEE4EEF9FB6DE8E2.taxon	description	(Figs 12; 13)? Dromidiopsis – Lewinsohn 1984 pro parte: 102.	en	Guinot, Danièle, Tavares, Marcos (2003): A new subfamilial arrangement for the Dromiidae de Haan, 1833, with diagnoses and descriptions of new genera and species (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura). Zoosystema 25 (1): 43-129, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5400392
03C3878EFFD9CB54FEE4EEF9FB6DE8E2.taxon	materials_examined	TYPE SPECIES. — Mclaydromia colini n. gen., n. sp., by present designation. SPECIES INCLUDED. — Mclaydromia colini n. gen., n. sp.; Dromidiopsis dubia Lewinsohn, 1984.	en	Guinot, Danièle, Tavares, Marcos (2003): A new subfamilial arrangement for the Dromiidae de Haan, 1833, with diagnoses and descriptions of new genera and species (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura). Zoosystema 25 (1): 43-129, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5400392
03C3878EFFD9CB54FEE4EEF9FB6DE8E2.taxon	etymology	ETYMOLOGY. — We dedicate the new genus Mclaydromia n. gen. to our colleague Colin L. McLay (University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand), for greatly improving our view of the Dromiidae. Gender: feminine.	en	Guinot, Danièle, Tavares, Marcos (2003): A new subfamilial arrangement for the Dromiidae de Haan, 1833, with diagnoses and descriptions of new genera and species (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura). Zoosystema 25 (1): 43-129, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5400392
03C3878EFFD9CB54FEE4EEF9FB6DE8E2.taxon	distribution	DISTRIBUTION. — New Caledonia and Madagascar.	en	Guinot, Danièle, Tavares, Marcos (2003): A new subfamilial arrangement for the Dromiidae de Haan, 1833, with diagnoses and descriptions of new genera and species (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura). Zoosystema 25 (1): 43-129, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5400392
03C3878EFFD9CB54FEE4EEF9FB6DE8E2.taxon	description	DESCRIPTION Carapace distinctly longer than wide, convex. Dorsal surface with regions poorly defined; branchial groove defined and posteriorly marked by blunt tooth. Anterolateral margin of carapace not joining exorbital angle and armed with two or three teeth. Posterolateral margin slightly shorter than anterolateral margin and with blunt tooth just behind branchial groove. Front (Fig. 13) wide, obscurely tridentate: rostrum very small, directed downwards, and not visible dorsally; two pseudorostral teeth, more or less developed, sometimes eave-like. Supraorbital and suborbital teeth not well marked; exorbital angle not produced. Antenna: urinal article broader than long, with anterior part of beak small and downcurved; basal article with well-developed exopod; internal corner about as long as exopod; antennal article 4 long and fitted in between. Mxp 3: coxae closely approximated. Thoracic sternite 3 partly visible at lower plane (sternites 1 - 2 not exposed); sternite 4 narrow, with subparallel margins, anterior margin truncated (Fig. 12). Female sternal sutures 7 / 8 long, apertures of spermathecae placed apart, each on a tubercle, between coxae of P 2 (Fig. 12 B). When male abdomen folded against cephalothorax, sternite 3 (partly) and large part of sternite 4 remaining visible; a minute part of episternite 4 exposed; episternite 5 not visible. Male abdomen not completely covering sternoabdominal depression. All abdominal segments free in males and females. Male abdominal segment 6 abruptly constricted, edge markedly thickened. Telson rather long, with enlarged base and rounded anterior margin. No vestigial pleopods in males. Uropods showing as strongly salient dorsal plates in males, that are obliquely oriented. Uropods markedly involved in abdominal holding. Abdominal holding provided by curved, serrate, strong flange on P 2 coxa, which is in close contact with uropod and fits into excavation on lateral edge of abdominal segment 6; additionally, on coxa of P 1, few tiny tubercles placed closely together, or one more distinctly marked tubercle, without contact with telson. Chelipeds with an epipod. In both sexes cutting edges of fixed finger and dactylus of two chelipeds armed halfway with strong molariform tooth (may be bifid), which is directed backwards and followed by the usual interlocking distal teeth. P 2 and P 3 short and stout, not knobbed nor nodose; propodus of P 2 and P 3 without distal spine; inner margin of dactylus armed with spines. P 4 and P 5 reduced, P 5 longer than P 4; propodus of P 4 and P 5 very short, subequal in size. Subcheliform apparatus formed by one small distal spine opposing short and curved dactylus; an outer propodal spine may be present on P 5. Male P 5 coxa with mobile penial tube. Male G 2 with a needle-like flagellum, long but completely included in sterno-abdominal depression. Carrying behaviour Sponges (McLay 1993: 139, under Dromidiopsis dubia).	en	Guinot, Danièle, Tavares, Marcos (2003): A new subfamilial arrangement for the Dromiidae de Haan, 1833, with diagnoses and descriptions of new genera and species (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura). Zoosystema 25 (1): 43-129, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5400392
03C3878EFFD9CB54FEE4EEF9FB6DE8E2.taxon	discussion	REMARKS In assigning with doubt his new species D. dubia to Dromidiopsis, Lewinsohn (1984: 102, 104, fig. 2 b, c) stressed its peculiar features, particularly the fingers and dactyli of chelipeds. The presence of a molariform tooth on two cutting edges in Mclaydromia n. gen. appears unique amongst the Dromiidae (which is sometimes present in the Dynomenidae) and may indicate a specialized feeding habit (McLay 1993: 139). A proximal tooth may be present along the cutting edge of dactylus in a few dromiid genera (as in Epigodromia McLay, 1993), but the condition of Mclaydromia n. gen., with two molariform teeth halfway on prehensile margin of fixed finger and dactylus, is exceptional. Mclaydromia n. gen. can be readily distinguished from Dromidiopsis sensu nobis (Fig. 6) as follows: 1) abdominal segments free (abdominal segments 5 and 6 fused together in Dromidiopsis); 2) propodus of P 4 and P 5 subequal in size (dissimilar, much longer on P 5, in Dromidiopsis); 3) when extended forward, P 5 barely overreaching last lateral tooth of carapace (much long, reaching about outer orbital angle in Dromidiopsis); 4) female sutures 7 / 8 wide apart, oblique, getting progressively close to each other as they run forward over thoracic sternites (getting much closed to each other at level of P 3 and subparallel in Dromidiopsis); 5) apertures of spermathecae at level of P 2 and placed wide apart from each other, on tubercles (at level of P 1 or just behind and lying close together, on central prominence, in Dromidiopsis); and 6) male uropods showing as dorsal plates that are obliquely oriented (vertically oriented in Dromidiopsis). The following characters readily distinguish Mclaydromia n. gen. from Cryptodromiopsis sensu nobis (Fig. 4), which also has obliquely oriented dorsal uropods: 1) male segment 6 with external borders deeply hollowed and thickened (subparallel on anterior half in Cryptodromiopsis); 2) apertures of spermathecae apart, each on a tubercle, at level of P 2 (ending together on slight tubercle between chelipeds in Cryptodromiopsis); and 3) P 2 and P 3 not knobbed (knobbed in Cryptodromiopsis). Mclaydromia n. gen. is very close to Hemisphaerodromia on account of similarities on the frontal and orbital regions and of subcheliform nature of the P 4 and P 5. Additionally, they share a sternite 4 that is anteriorly truncated and with subparallel lateral borders; male abdominal segment 6 broad, and with external borders deeply hollowed and thickened to receive coxal prominence of P 2; dorsal uropods salient, that are obliquely oriented and completely involved in abdominal holding (Guinot & Bouchard 1998: fig. 3 C, D, H. monodus); apertures of spermathecae apart, at about the level of P 2 (see Fig. 7 B for H. monodus, and Fig. 12 B for M. colini n. gen., n. sp.). The following characters distinguish the two genera: 1) thoracic sternite 3 not exposed in Hemisphaerodromia (partly visible at lower plane in Mclaydromia n. gen., sternites 1 - 2 not exposed, however); 2) apertures of spermathecae located at level of episternites 5 in Hemisphaerodromia (apertures forward, between P 2, in Mclaydromia n. gen.); and 3) fingers of chelipeds normally toothed along prehensile margin in Hemisphaerodromia (molariform teeth on fixed finger and dactylus in Mclaydromia n. gen.). The following characters readily distinguish Mclaydromia n. gen. from Lewindromia n. gen. (Fig. 11), with vertically oriented dorsal uropods: 1) sternite 4 with anterior margin truncated (acutely produced in Lewindromia n. gen.); 2) male abdominal segment 6 abruptly constrict- ed (with external borders sinuous, oblique, in Lewindromia n. gen.); 3) male telson not longer than wide and rounded at tip (very long and pointed in Lewindromia n. gen.); and 4) propodus of P 4 and P 5 not much different in size, a distal spine opposing the curved dactylus, and an outer propodal spine may be present on P 5 (P 5 much longer than P 4 and, when extended forward, reaching about mid-length of anterior margin of carapace, a propodal distal spine opposing the dactylus which is not strongly curved, and two outer propodal spines in Lewindromia n. gen.).	en	Guinot, Danièle, Tavares, Marcos (2003): A new subfamilial arrangement for the Dromiidae de Haan, 1833, with diagnoses and descriptions of new genera and species (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura). Zoosystema 25 (1): 43-129, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5400392
03C3878EFFDFCB56FCA0E9B9FC0BEAC2.taxon	description	(Figs 12; 13)	en	Guinot, Danièle, Tavares, Marcos (2003): A new subfamilial arrangement for the Dromiidae de Haan, 1833, with diagnoses and descriptions of new genera and species (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura). Zoosystema 25 (1): 43-129, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5400392
03C3878EFFDFCB56FCA0E9B9FC0BEAC2.taxon	materials_examined	TYPE MATERIAL. — New Caledonia. LAGON, stn 619, 22 ° 3.2 ’ S, 166 ° 54.2 ’ E, 27 - 42 m, 06. VIII. 1986, holotype 16.2 × 13.2 mm (MNHN-B 22546); stn 111, 22 ° 24.30 ’ S, 166 ° 47.70 ’ E, 25 m, 22. VIII. 1984, paratype 10.4 × 9.1 mm (MNHN-B 26282); stn 569, 22 ° 48.80 ’ S, 166 ° 58.90 ’ E, 62 m, 17. VII. 1985, paratype ovigerous 9.4 × 8.6 mm (MNHN-B 26289); stn 215, 21 ° 52.90 ’ S, 165 ° 49.90 ’ E, 14 m, 21. IX. 1984, paratype ovigerous 12.0 × 10.3 mm (MNHN-B 26284); stn 303, 22 ° 38 ’ S, 166 ° 49.10 ’ E, 30 - 35 m, 27. XI. 1984, paratype 11.3 × 9.7 mm (MNHN-B 26280); stn 104, 22 ° 26 ’ S, 166 ° 40.40 ’ E, 24 m, 22. VIII. 1984, paratype ovigerous 9.6 × 8.5 mm (MNHN-B 26281). Although we have examined all the material from New Caledonia referred by McLay (1993), only the specimens selected for the type series are given herein. For the locality details of remaining specimens see McLay (1993: 138). ETYMOLOGY. — The present species is dedicated to Colin L. McLay (University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand). TYPE LOCALITY. — New Caledonia, 22 ° 3.2 ’ S, 166 ° 54.2 ’ E, 27 - 42 m.	en	Guinot, Danièle, Tavares, Marcos (2003): A new subfamilial arrangement for the Dromiidae de Haan, 1833, with diagnoses and descriptions of new genera and species (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura). Zoosystema 25 (1): 43-129, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5400392
03C3878EFFDFCB56FCA0E9B9FC0BEAC2.taxon	distribution	DISTRIBUTION. — Only known from New Caledonia.	en	Guinot, Danièle, Tavares, Marcos (2003): A new subfamilial arrangement for the Dromiidae de Haan, 1833, with diagnoses and descriptions of new genera and species (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura). Zoosystema 25 (1): 43-129, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5400392
03C3878EFFDFCB56FCA0E9B9FC0BEAC2.taxon	description	DESCRIPTION Carapace noticeably longer than wide, covered with a fine tomentum. Tomentum more developed on flanks of carapace, chelipeds, and legs. Cardiac region ill defined; branchial groove well recognizable, a blunt small tooth just behind; regions of carapace not defined. Front wide. Median frontal tooth (rostrum) small but well recognizable. Lateral frontal teeth (pseudorostral) prominent, blunt, so that entire front is produced forward. Supraorbital tooth quitely distinct. Exorbital angle without tooth. Orbital fissure very deep. Suborbital margin abruptly interrupt- ed, forming suborbital lobe, and leaving deep and broad hiatus between suborbital lobe and antenna. Two marked but blunt teeth on anterior half of anterolateral margin: first tooth lying about level of orbital fissure; second tooth much larger and placed at higher level than first; a smaller, rounded third anterolateral tooth visible. Subhepatic tubercle strong in adults, low but well recognizable in young. Carpus of cheliped ornamented with several tubercles on dorsal surface and with strong tubercle on external distal margin; remaining cheliped articles smooth. Cutting edge of dactylus with minute proximal teeth followed by molariform tooth backwards directed, opposed to similar tooth on cutting edge of fixed finger; distally, the usual interlocking teeth. Cheliped with welldeveloped epipodite. Rather dense tomentum covering P 2 to P 5, their margins fringed with closely placed plumose setae. P 2 and P 3 robust. Upper margin of merus with a rounded tubercle placed distally; upper surface of remaining articles smooth, no obvious tubercles or conspicuous elevations. Dactylus slightly shorter than propodus, inner margin armed with acute spines, claw strong; condyles of P 2 and P 3 very strong, rounded. P 5 longer than P 4. Dactylus of P 4 curved, opposed by small propodal spine; no spine on outer propodal margin. Dactylus of P 5 strongly curved, opposed by single spine propodal, stronger than on P 4; a minute spine on distal outer propodal margin. Abdomen composed of six free segments, plus telson. Male telson about as long as broad, rounded distally. Abdominal segment 2 with wing-like lateral expansion covering base of penial tube issued from P 5 coxa. Abdominal segment 6 abruptly constricted, considerably narrower than segment 5. Uropod plates salient, visible dorsally. Abdominal holding consisting of uropod plate fitting in front of curved serrate flange on base of P 2 coxa; additionally, on P 1 coxa a marked tubercle, may be a group of very small and closely approximated granules, without contact with telson.	en	Guinot, Danièle, Tavares, Marcos (2003): A new subfamilial arrangement for the Dromiidae de Haan, 1833, with diagnoses and descriptions of new genera and species (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura). Zoosystema 25 (1): 43-129, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5400392
03C3878EFFDFCB56FCA0E9B9FC0BEAC2.taxon	discussion	REMARKS Dromidiopsis dubia was described from a single male (the holotype) from Madagascar. The comparison of the holotype and two additional adult males from Madagascar with several individuals from New Caledonia, previously identified as D. dubia by McLay (1993: 138), has shown that the New Caledonian specimens should no longer be attributed to D. dubia. The material belongs to a new species, named herein Mclaydromia colini n. gen., n. sp. In addition to male holotype (10.5 × 9 mm) of D. dubia Lewinsohn, 1984, the following material has been examined:	en	Guinot, Danièle, Tavares, Marcos (2003): A new subfamilial arrangement for the Dromiidae de Haan, 1833, with diagnoses and descriptions of new genera and species (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura). Zoosystema 25 (1): 43-129, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5400392
03C3878EFFDFCB56FCA0E9B9FC0BEAC2.taxon	materials_examined	Madagascar. Near Tany Kely, 13 ° 27 ’ S, 48 ° 10 ’ E, 30 m, 13. VIII. 1971, A. Crosnier coll., holotype 10.5 × 9 mm (MNHN-B 6894). — Near Nosy-Bé, Tany Kely, north-west coast, 23 m, 30. IX. 1970, P. Laboute coll., 12.5 × 11.5 mm (MNHN-B 22592). — 13 ° 40.3 ’ S, 47 ° 48 ’ E, 32 m, 05. XII. 1972, A. Crosnier coll., 15 × 13 mm (MNHN-B 22593). Mclaydromia colini n. gen., n. sp. and M. dubia n. comb. can be differentiated as follows: 1) in M. colini n. gen., n. sp. the blunt lateral frontal teeth (pseudorostral teeth) are prominent, so that entire front is produced forward, while in M. dubia n. comb. the lateral frontal teeth are short and rounded so that entire front is produced only slightly forward; and 2) in M. colini n. gen., n. sp. the dorsal face of carpus of cheliped is ornamented with conspicuous tubercles, whereas in M. dubia n. comb. the dorsal surface of carpus is smooth. The above characters are constant throughout the material examined, regardless sex and age of the individuals examined. Full-grown individuals of Mclaydromia colini n. gen., n. sp. and M. dubia n. comb. can also be separated by the following additional characters: 1) in Mclaydromia colini n. gen., n. sp. suborbital margin abruptly interrupted, forming well individualized suborbital lobe and leaving deep and broad hiatus between suborbital lobe and antenna (suborbital margin gently interrupted, leaving only a narrow sinus between suborbital lobe and antenna in M. dubia n. comb.); 2) in M. colini n. gen., n. sp. a small, rounded but well visible third anterolateral tooth (only a small elevation behind second anterolateral tooth of carapace in M. dubia n. comb.); and 3) in M. colini n. gen., n. sp. subhepatic tubercle strong (very low in M. dubia n. comb.). The original description of Dromidiopsis dubia mentions the absence of subhepatic tubercle on carapace and the smooth cheliped, except two weakly developed tubercles on distal margin of carpus (Lewinsohn 1984: 102). We confirm these features in male holotype (10.5 × 9 mm) but, in a larger male (15 × 13 mm), a subhepatic tubercle is well recognizable although being very low, and the two teeth on carpus of cheliped are absent. The development of carapace teeth varies with age in both species. A colour photograph of a specimen from Maldive Islands is given by Debelius (1999: 249, as D. dubia). Two individuals of M. colini n. gen., n. sp. were carrying a sponge cap.	en	Guinot, Danièle, Tavares, Marcos (2003): A new subfamilial arrangement for the Dromiidae de Haan, 1833, with diagnoses and descriptions of new genera and species (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura). Zoosystema 25 (1): 43-129, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5400392
03C3878EFFDDCB5AFCDFEB99FCF2E902.taxon	description	(Figs 14; 28 H)	en	Guinot, Danièle, Tavares, Marcos (2003): A new subfamilial arrangement for the Dromiidae de Haan, 1833, with diagnoses and descriptions of new genera and species (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura). Zoosystema 25 (1): 43-129, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5400392
03C3878EFFDDCB5AFCDFEB99FCF2E902.taxon	materials_examined	TYPE SPECIES. — Dromidia antillensis Stimpson, 1858 by present designation. SPECIES INCLUDED. — Dromidia antillensis Stimpson, 1858; D. sarraburei Rathbun, 1910 (not larraburei; see Boyko 1998: 234).	en	Guinot, Danièle, Tavares, Marcos (2003): A new subfamilial arrangement for the Dromiidae de Haan, 1833, with diagnoses and descriptions of new genera and species (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura). Zoosystema 25 (1): 43-129, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5400392
03C3878EFFDDCB5AFCDFEB99FCF2E902.taxon	etymology	ETYMOLOGY. — The present new genus is named after Carlos Moreira (1869 - 1946) in recognition for his significant contributions to Brazilian carcinology. Gender: feminine.	en	Guinot, Danièle, Tavares, Marcos (2003): A new subfamilial arrangement for the Dromiidae de Haan, 1833, with diagnoses and descriptions of new genera and species (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura). Zoosystema 25 (1): 43-129, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5400392
03C3878EFFDDCB5AFCDFEB99FCF2E902.taxon	distribution	DISTRIBUTION. — Western Atlantic and Eastern Pacific regions.	en	Guinot, Danièle, Tavares, Marcos (2003): A new subfamilial arrangement for the Dromiidae de Haan, 1833, with diagnoses and descriptions of new genera and species (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura). Zoosystema 25 (1): 43-129, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5400392
03C3878EFFDDCB5AFCDFEB99FCF2E902.taxon	description	DESCRIPTION Carapace longer than wide or slightly wider than long, convex. Regions weakly defined, except for branchial groove. Front dentate, rostrum directed downward. Anterolateral margin toothed, teeth almost spiniform, a tooth just behind branchial groove. Subhepatic region with tooth, visible dorsally. Supra- and suborbital teeth present, exorbital absent; a deep fissure separating supra- and suborbital margins. Ocular stalk short and stout. Antenna: urinal article rather straight, so urinal opening aligned with horizontal axis of article; basal article with exopod noticeably developed, reaching antennal article 4, and internal angle weakly produced, much shorter than exopod. Mxp 3: coxae separated by gap. Thoracic sternites 1 - 2 visible at lower plane. Thoracic sternite 3 inserted between mxp 3 coxae, exposed but more or less covered by telson (M. antillensis n. comb., Fig. 14 A; M. sarraburei n. comb., Fig. 14 C). Sternite 4 narrowing distally, ending in gently rounded / truncate and raised tip (M. antillensis n. comb.), slightly concave and not raised (M. sarraburei n. comb.), so coxae of P 1 close to each other. Female sutures 7 / 8 extremely long, getting progressively close to each other as they run forward over thoracic sternites; apertures of spermathecae situated together and beyond articular condyle of P 1 on anterior part of sternite 4, raised (M. antillensis n. comb., Fig. 14 A) or not (M. sarraburei n. comb.). Male abdomen long, almost reaching mxp 3, leaving no parts of sternite 4 visible; all abdominal segments free. Male abdominal segment 6 long, length as much as three quarters of width; telson longer than wide, rounded and bluntly tipped. Male uropods showing as well-developed dorsal plates, visible in dorsal view of abdomen, obliquely oriented and very movable, not involved in holding of abdomen. Presence of vestigial pleopods in males (Fig. 14 B): Pl 3 - Pl 5 showing as vestigial buds, tiny and may be obsolete in larger individuals. Abdominal holding provided by main spine that projects from P 2 coxa and overhangs abdominal segment 6; base of P 2 coxa may bear other small and not efficient tubercles (M. sarraburei n. comb.); on coxae of P 1 (M. sarraburei n. comb.), P 3 and even P 4, presence of tubercles or granules, more or less conspicuous; epsiternite 5 with a few granules (M. sarraburei n. comb.). Chelipeds rather short and stout, without epipod. P 2 and P 3 rather slender, smooth, not nodose; no distal spine on propodus; inner margin of dactylus spinulated. P 4 and P 5 reduced, P 5 much longer than P 4, both with a subcheliform apparatus formed by two distal propodal spines opposing dactylus; an outer propodal spine, and one or two spines on margins of P 5 dactylus. Male P 5 coxa with mobile penial tube (Fig. 28 H). G 2 with a styliform, needle like flagellum. Carrying behaviour Sponges, zoanthoid polyps, compound ascidians, occasionally sea anemones.	en	Guinot, Danièle, Tavares, Marcos (2003): A new subfamilial arrangement for the Dromiidae de Haan, 1833, with diagnoses and descriptions of new genera and species (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura). Zoosystema 25 (1): 43-129, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5400392
03C3878EFFDDCB5AFCDFEB99FCF2E902.taxon	discussion	REMARKS As pointed out by Rathbun (1937), the description as a new genus and species, Evius ruber Moreira, 1912, was based on a megalopa stage. Recently Guinot & Tavares (2000) elucidated another case of a dromiid genus based on a megalopa, Conchoedromia Chopra, 1934. The description of dromiid genera based on the megalopa stage stems from the fact that the dromiid larvae were poorly known at that time. The only dromiid postlarvae known prior to 1934 were those of Austrodromidia octodentata (Haswell, 1882) and Stimdromia lateralis (Gray, 1831) (Guinot & Tavares 2000). Had the dromiid megalopa been better documented at that time, someone with Moreira’s or Chopra’s experience would certainly have recognized his material as a megalopa stage. According to Rathbun (1937: 31, pl. 8, figs 1, 2), Evius ruber is the megalopa of Dromia erythropus G. Edwards, 1771. A detailed study by Franco (1998) revealed, however, that E. ruber was actually described from a megalopa of Dromidia antillensis. Although the availability of the name Evius Moreira, 1912 is not affected by the fact that it was applied to a “ stage in the life cycle ” (ICZN 1999: article 17.3), Evius Moreira, 1912 is actually pre-occupied by Evius Walker, 1855 (type species: Phalaena hippia (Stoll, 1790), Lepidoptera). Consequently, a new name, Moreiradromia n. gen., is herein established to replace Evius Moreira, 1912. Originally described in Dromidia, the position of D. antillensis and D. sarraburei remained undisputed until McLay (1993: 187, 188) transferred both species to Cryptodromiopsis. He provided no morphological information to justify such a decision and limited himself to state that “ the Atlantic species formerly known as Dromidia antillensis Stimpson, 1858, as well as the closely related D. larraburei [sic] Rathbun, 1910, from the Pacific, should now be referred to as Cryptodromiopsis antillensis (Stimpson, 1858) and C. larraburei [sic] (Rathbun, 1910) ” (McLay 1993: 188). Nevertheless, we agree with McLay that the American species do not belong in Dromidia sensu nobis. A study of species assigned to Dromidia and Cryptodromiopsis (now restricted to their type species, Dromidia hirsutissima and Cryptodromiopsis tridens, respectively) showed that a new genus should be created for the American species antillensis (Western Atlantic) and sarraburei (Eastern Pacific). That new genus is herein referred as Moreiradromia n. gen. Several morphological features support the creation of Moreiradromia n. gen. and distinction from Dromidia sensu nobis: 1) male uropods showing as movable and well-developed dorsal plates in Moreiradromia n. gen. (as ventral plates, almost completely concealed in dorsal view, and almost immovabe in Dromidia, Fig. 5); 2) male abdomen narrow (relatively wide in Dromidia); 3) male abdomen when folded nearly reaching coxae of mxp 3, leaving no parts of sternite 4 visible (anterior portion of sternite 4 and episternite 4 visible in Dromidia); 4) male abdominal segment 6 long, with length as much as three quarters of width (short, length half the width, in Dromidia); 5) male telson longer than wide, rounded and bluntly tipped (telson much wider than long, ending in spine in Dromidia); 6) male Pl 3 - Pl 5 showing as vestigial buds (Fig. 14 B), always present but hard to locate due to their tiny size (Pl 3 - Pl 5 longer, easy to locate in Dromidia); 7) thoracic sternite 3 present, so a narrow gap between coxae of mxp 3 (sternite 3 not visible, coxae of mxp 3 closely approximated in Dromidia); and 8) P 4 and P 5 with two distal propodal spines opposing the dactylus (a single distal spine opposing the very long dactylus in Dromidia). The abdominal holdings are similar in both genera, being provided on the P 2 coxae by spine which overhangs abdomen. In Moreiradromia n. gen., however, the coxal spine is much smaller, other tubercles may be present on P 2 coxa and episternite 5 (M. sarraburei n. comb.), and tubercles or granules exist on P 1 coxae (M. sarraburei n. comb.), P 3 and even P 4 coxae (see Guinot & Bouchard 1998: 624, 628, fig. 4 C). The following characters distinguish Moreiradromia n. gen. from Cryptodromiopsis sensu nobis (Fig. 4): 1) male vestigial Pl 3 - Pl 5 present (absent in Cryptodromiopsis); 2) thoracic sternites 1 - 2 visible dorsally, thoracic sternite 3 exposed, remaining dorsally partly visible or almost completely covered by male abdomen, when folded, in M. sarraburei n. comb. (Fig. 14 C); sternite 4 always covered (sternites 1 - 3, anterior portion of sternite 4 and episternites 4 and 5 visible in Cryptodromiopsis); 3) holding of abdomen provided mostly by small spine on P 2 coxa, overhanging abdominal segment 6, without the involvement of uropods (a serrated granulous prominence on P 2 coxa in Cryptodromiopsis); 4) female sutures 7 / 8 getting progressively close to each other as they run forward over thoracic sternites and ending well beyond articular condyle of P 1 (separated wide apart, getting close to each other abruptly at level of P 2 and ending at level of articular condyle of P 1 in Cryptodromiopsis); 5) apertures of spermathecae and thoracic sternite 4 placed about at same plane (apertures and sternite 4 placed at different planes; sternite 4 directed downward, in Cryptodromiopsis); 6) female thoracic sternite 4 narrowing progressively forward, ending in gently rounded tip, so that P 1 coxae get close to each other (wider, noticeably truncated, so that P 1 coxae are separated from each other wide apart in Cryptodromiopsis); 7) urinal article of antenna rather straight, so that the urinal opening is aligned with horizontal axis of article (upturned urinal article, with opening placed above axis of urinal article in Cryptodromiopsis); 8) exopod of basal antennal article noticeably developed, reaching article 4, much longer than internal corner (exopod comparatively poorly developed, much shorter than internal corner which is produced, in Cryptodromiopsis); and 9) P 4 and P 5 with two distal propodal spines opposing the dactylus (only one distal propodal spine in Cryptodromiopsis). The following characters distinguish Moreiradromia n. gen. from Dromidiopsis sensu nobis: 1) uropods as dorsal plates obliquely oriented in Moreiradromia n. gen. (vertically oriented in Dromidiopsis, Fig. 6); 2) male abdomen with all segments free (segments 5 - 6 fused in Dromidiopsis); 3) sternite 4 completely covered, when male abdomen folded and reaching coxae of mxp 3 (extreme anterior part of sternite 4 and a small epsisternite 4 remaining uncovered in Dromidiopsis); 4) apertures of spermathecae on prominence placed well beyond articular condyle of P 1 (ending between P 1 or just behind them, together on central prominence, in Dromidiopsis); 5) P 4 and P 5 with two distal propodal spines opposing the dactylus (one distal spine opposing the dactylus in Dromidiopsis); 6) male vestigial Pl 3 - Pl 5 present in Moreiradromia n. gen. (absent in Dromidiopsis). Other differences between Moreiradromia n. gen. and Dromidiopsis are the abdominal holdings, provided in Dromidiopsis by strong dentate crest on P 2 coxae acting with uropods (Fig. 6 B), but by a spine on P 2 coxa which overhangs abdominal segment 6, without involvement of the uropods, in Moreiradromia n. gen. (Fig. 14 C). Carrying behaviour has been reported for both species currently included in Moreiradromia n. gen., M. antillensis n. comb. and M. sarraburei n. comb. Individuals of the two species cover themselves with sponges, zoanthoid polyps, compound ascidians, and occasionally sea anemones (Brusca 1980; Williams 1984; Hendrickx 1997). Only three dromiid genera are known from the Atlantic and Eastern Pacific: Dromia (Dromiinae n. status), Moreiradromia n. gen. (Dromiinae n. status), and Hypoconcha (Hypoconchinae n. subfam., see Figs 19; 20; 28 K). Nevertheless, this rather poor American dromiid fauna, with two endemic genera (Hypoconcha and Moreiradromia n. gen.), is unique. As currently defined, Dromia is composite, and the generic status of a number of species currently assigned to Dromia s. s., including the single Western Atlantic species in the genus (D. erythropus G. Edwards, 1771), deserves more attention. A colour photograph of Moreiradromia antillensis n. comb. showing a specimen from Dominica is given by Debelius (1999: 80 as Cryptodromiopsis antillensis).	en	Guinot, Danièle, Tavares, Marcos (2003): A new subfamilial arrangement for the Dromiidae de Haan, 1833, with diagnoses and descriptions of new genera and species (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura). Zoosystema 25 (1): 43-129, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5400392
03C3878EFFD1CB41FCF4E8D9FB95E823.taxon	description	(Figs 15; 16)	en	Guinot, Danièle, Tavares, Marcos (2003): A new subfamilial arrangement for the Dromiidae de Haan, 1833, with diagnoses and descriptions of new genera and species (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura). Zoosystema 25 (1): 43-129, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5400392
03C3878EFFD1CB41FCF4E8D9FB95E823.taxon	materials_examined	TYPE SPECIES. — Dromidia spongiosa Stimpson, 1858 which is a senior synonym of Platydromia depressa Brocchi, 1877, type species of Platydromia Brocchi, 1877 by monotypy. Gender: feminine. Several specimens of Platydromia depressa Brocchi, 1877, from Saint-Paul Island (M. de l’Isle coll., 600 - 1876) (MNHN-B 8739), may be considered syntypes. A lectotype, a male 9 × 10 mm, is selected herein (MNHN-B 27934); the remaining specimens are paralectotypes. Other specimens from the same expedition (see Vélain 1878) are labeled “ Saint-Paul Island, Vélain coll., 178 - 1875 ” (MNHN-B 12724). SPECIES INCLUDED. — Dromidia spongiosa Stimpson, 1858. Whether other species of Dromidia or Cryptodromiopsis should be transferred to Platydromia requires further investigation. For example, the status of C. lepidota Barnard, 1947, based on an immature specimen and assigned to Dromidia by McLay (1993: 183 - 185), is uncertain.	en	Guinot, Danièle, Tavares, Marcos (2003): A new subfamilial arrangement for the Dromiidae de Haan, 1833, with diagnoses and descriptions of new genera and species (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura). Zoosystema 25 (1): 43-129, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5400392
03C3878EFFD1CB41FCF4E8D9FB95E823.taxon	distribution	DISTRIBUTION. — South Africa and south western Indian Ocean.	en	Guinot, Danièle, Tavares, Marcos (2003): A new subfamilial arrangement for the Dromiidae de Haan, 1833, with diagnoses and descriptions of new genera and species (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura). Zoosystema 25 (1): 43-129, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5400392
03C3878EFFD1CB41FCF4E8D9FB95E823.taxon	description	DESCRIPTION Carapace wider than long, convex; dorsal surface with not well-defined regions; branchial groove weakly marked. Anterolateral margin long, strongly convex, entire, only undulated, with only blunt knob behind level of branchial groove; posterolateral margins very short, markedly convergent posteriorly. Front narrow, with rostrum in lower plane and deflexed, and two low pseudorostral lobes; only a slight supraorbital tooth, no suborbital and exorbital teeth. Antenna: urinal article noticeably developed, with anterior part of beak rounded, wider and shorter than posterior ones; basal article very short, with exopod thick; internal angle acutely produced. Mxp 3 with coxae not closely approximated. Thoracic sternites 1 and 2 narrrow and hardly visible; sternite 3 largely visible dorsally, at level not much lower than sternite 4. Thoracic sternite 4 broad, deeply medially hollowed in males, with lateral borders convex and anterior margin medially concave in both sexes (Figs 15 A; 16). In males, thoracic sternites 7 and 8 perpendicular in relation to preceding ones; in females, sternites 5 - 8 perpendicular in relation to sternite 4. Female sternal sutures 7 / 8 very long, with apertures of spermathecae ending together on slight prominence between chelipeds (Fig. 16). When male abdomen is applied against ventral surface, sternites 1 - 2 partly discernible, sternite 3 and anterior part of sternite 4 remaining visible, and no episternites exposed. Male abdomen very broad, with distinct pleural parts, not covering whole sterno-abdominal depression, and with all segments free; telson broadly triangular, ending in sharp tip (Fig. 15 B, C); telson of females without acute tip. Segment 6 with external borders parallel. In males, vestigial pleopods present on segments 3 - 5 (Pl 5 as small lobes and Pl 4 and Pl 3 as short papillae, difficult to see, Fig. 15 C). Uropods as ventral plates, not visible dorsally, oriented forward instead laterally; uropods not involved in holding of abdomen. No efficient holding of abdomen: at the more least, a very low prominence on coxa of P 2 just in contact with external margin of abdominal segment 6 which is not modified. Female gonopore on P 3 coxa relatively large. Chelipeds without epipod. P 1, P 2 and P 3 very short and stout, not knobbed nor nodose; propodus of P 2 and P 3 without distal spine; inner margin of dactylus armed with spines. P 4 and P 5 reduced, P 5 being slightly longer and more slen- der. Propodus of P 4 and P 5 short and with only one distal spine opposing dactylus which is short and ends in horny spine. Male P 5 coxa with mobile penial tube (Fig. 15 A). Carrying behaviour Compound ascidians.	en	Guinot, Danièle, Tavares, Marcos (2003): A new subfamilial arrangement for the Dromiidae de Haan, 1833, with diagnoses and descriptions of new genera and species (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura). Zoosystema 25 (1): 43-129, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5400392
03C3878EFFD1CB41FCF4E8D9FB95E823.taxon	discussion	REMARKS	en	Guinot, Danièle, Tavares, Marcos (2003): A new subfamilial arrangement for the Dromiidae de Haan, 1833, with diagnoses and descriptions of new genera and species (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura). Zoosystema 25 (1): 43-129, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5400392
03C3878EFFD1CB41FCF4E8D9FB95E823.taxon	description	We agree with McLay (1993: 184) who placed Pseudodromia inermis Macpherson, 1988 (p. 61, figs 6, 7) in the synonymy of his Dromidia spongiosa. McLay also synonymised with D. spongiosa Parasphaerodromia subglobosa Spiridonov, 1992 (p. 70, fig. 2 a-d), from the South Indian Ocean, indicated with reduced uropods (see below). Platydromia spongiosa n. comb. differs from Dromidia sensu nobis (Fig. 5) in particular by having the frontal, orbital and anterolateral margins without teeth, a thick, sponge-like tomentum, and no spine on P 2 coxa. Other characters which distinguish Platydromia from Dromidia sensu nobis are: 1) front lobate (tridentate in Dromidia); 2) sternite 3 visible (not visible dorsally in Dromidia); 3) male sternite 4 relatively wide, with convex lateral margins and medially cleft anterior margin (with oblique lateral margins and rounded tip in Dromidia); 4) male abdomen that leaves uncovered sternite 3 and part of sternite 4 (Figs 15 A; 16) (covering whole abdominal depression with exception of extreme anterior part of sternite 4 in Dromidia, Fig. 5 A, B); 5) uropods showing as small, totally concealed, ventral plates (Fig. 15 B, C) (oblique and intercalary ventral plates, almost entirely concealed in Dromidia, Fig. 5 B, C); and 6) no efficient abdominal holding (efficient holding by strong coxal spine on P 2 in Dromidia, Fig. 5 B). Platydromia is easily distinguishable from Cryptodromiopsis sensu nobis (Fig. 4) by a number of characters, chiefly: 1) round shape of carapace, longer than wide (distinctly wider than long in Cryptodromiopsis); 2) uropods showing as totally concealed ventral plates (salient dorsal plates in Cryptodromiopsis); 3) male telson ending in acute tip (triangular tip in Cryptodromiopsis); 4) male segment 6 broad (narrower in Cryptodromiopsis); 5) male sternite 4 broad, deeply hollowed medially (narrower, not hollowed medially in Cryptodromiopsis); and 6) an inconspicuous low prominence on P 2 coxa (a serrated prominence, and uropods not involved in Cryptodromiopsis). Platydromia and Lamarckdromia n. gen. (type species: Dromia globosa), both with ventral and concealed uropods, differ from each other by several features of the carapace and pereopods, and specially by: 1) sternite 3 largely visible in Platydromia (only a small part visible in male Lamarckdromia n. gen., Fig. 10 A, D); 2) sternite 4 wide, with convex lateral margins in both sexes (triangular in Lamarckdromia n. gen., Fig. 10 A, D); 3) male telson ending in acute tip (rounded at tip in Lamarckdromia n. gen., Fig. 10 B, C); and 4) apertures of spermathecae ending together on slight prominence between chelipeds (ending together on central prominence between P 2 in Lamarckdromia n. gen., Fig. 10 A). The carapace and legs of Platydromi a spongiosa are completely covered with “ a dense and firm envelope of pubescence, sponge-like in appearance ”, “ distinctly marked with shallow pits or depressions ” (Stimpson 1907: 171, as Dromidia spongiosa), or with “ a very short close and thick pile ” (Barnard 1950: 330, as Cryptodromiopsis spongiosa). By comparison, the carapace and legs of Dromidia hirsutissima are “ covered with short stiff pile, and long dense fibrous and shaggy brown or yellow hairs ” (Barnard 1950: 320), hence the name of hirsutissima given by Lamarck and the common name of “ shaggy sponge crab ” (Barnard 1950). The same common name was given to Cryptodromiopsis plumosa Lewinsohn, 1984 by Hoover (1998: 266, fig. n. n.; see below under Stebbingdromia plumosa n. comb.). In Lamarckdromia globosa n. comb. the whole body and legs are covered by a dense shaggy coat of hairs, and the deflexed front portion of carapace is concealed by transverse fringe of longer setae, giving it a characteristic appearance. The soft and areolated tomentum of Platydromia spongiosa n. comb. somewhat resembles that of “ Dromia ” wilsoni (Fulton & Grant, 1902 b: 61, as Cryptodromia wilsoni). The two species may be confused but differ by: 1) shape of carapace, rounded and not toothed laterally in P. spongiosa n. comb. (distinctly wider and armed laterally in D. wilsoni); 2) uropods, only ventral in P. spongiosa n. comb. (very salient dorsal plates in D. wilsoni). We agree with McLay in that the generic status of “ Dromia ” wilsoni needs a re-appreciation (see McLay 1991: 470, figs 7, 8, as Petalomera wilsoni; 2001 a: 84, as Dromia wilsoni; Ng et al. 2000: 160, fig. 2 b, as D. wilsoni; McLay et al. 2001: 742, table 1, as D. wilsoni). “ Dromia ” wilsoni differs from other Dromia species by several morphological features (in particular the abdominal holding with a coaptation by engagement between P 2 coxae and the modified edges of abdominal segment 6, and no involvement of uropods, see Bouchard 2000) and larval development (see McLay et al. 2001). Its worldwide geographical distribution includes all the three major oceans; it is found as deep as 520 m.	en	Guinot, Danièle, Tavares, Marcos (2003): A new subfamilial arrangement for the Dromiidae de Haan, 1833, with diagnoses and descriptions of new genera and species (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura). Zoosystema 25 (1): 43-129, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5400392
03C3878EFFD1CB41FCF4E8D9FB95E823.taxon	description	DESCRIPTION Carapace more or less longer than wide, extremely narrow anteriorly, convex; dorsal surface smooth, without defined regions; cervical groove not present, branchial groove strongly marked. Anterolateral margin very long, usually without tooth; posterolateral margin short. Front very narrow, tridentate, with rostrum markedly deflexed and hardly or not visible dorsally at all, may be elongated (P. trepidus) and with two pseudorostral teeth; supraorbital tooth marked or not; suborbital and exorbital teeth absent. Antenna: urinal article with anterior part of beak much shorter than posterior one and with broad tip; basal article with exopod enlarged and internal angle not elongated. Mxp 3 with coxae closely approximated. Thoracic sternite 3 not visible dorsally. Thoracic sternite 4 very narrow, deeply hollowed medially in males, with lateral borders convex and anterior margin pointed and deflexed. In females, thoracic sternites 7 and 8 very tilted in relation to preceding ones. Female sternal sutures 7 / 8 long, with apertures of spermathecae ending together on prominence between P 2. When male abdomen applied against ventral surface, anterior part of sternite 4 remaining visible and no episternites exposed. Sterno-coxal depressions absent. Male abdomen completely covering sternoabdominal depression and with all segments free; male telson relatively long, ending in sharp tip; telson of females without acute tip. Segment 6 becoming more or less narrow posteriorly. No vestigial pleopods present on segments 3 - 5 in males. Uropods as relatively small but distinct ventral plates, not visible dorsally (P. latens, P. trepidus) or hardly visible (P. rotunda). Absence of any efficient holding of abdomen. Chelipeds without epipod. P 1, P 2 and P 3 not knobbed nor nodose; propodus of P 2 and P 3 without distal spine; inner margin of dactylus with spines, longer distally. P 4 reduced, P 5 distinctly longer than P 4 and being about of same size than P 2. Propodus of P 4 and P 5 without spines opposing dactylus; outer propodal spines absent; presence of lateral propodal spines, one on P 4 and two on P 5; P 5 dactylus straight. Male P 5 coxa with mobile and very long penial tube. Carrying behaviour Compound ascidians.	en	Guinot, Danièle, Tavares, Marcos (2003): A new subfamilial arrangement for the Dromiidae de Haan, 1833, with diagnoses and descriptions of new genera and species (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura). Zoosystema 25 (1): 43-129, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5400392
03C3878EFFD1CB41FCF4E8D9FB95E823.taxon	discussion	REMARKS Pseudodromia is distinguished by having uropods that show as ventral plates, sometimes partly visible dorsally. This is the major difference from Ascidiophilus, since there are no vestigial pleopods in the males of both genera (Guinot 1995: 186). Pseudodromia differs from Austrodromidia sensu nobis (Figs 1; 2) as follows: 1) sternite 3 not visible dorsally (visible dorsally, clearly or slightly in Austrodromidia); 2) sternite 4 very narrow and hollowed medially in males (truncate at tip and not hollowed in Austrodromidia); 3) no episternites visible when male abdomen flexed (episternites 4 and 5 visible in Austrodromidia); 4) male telson ending in acute tip (bluntly triangular or rounded in Austrodromidia); 5) male segment 6 with external borders may be slightly concave (deeply hollowed laterally in Austrodromidia); 6) female sternal sutures 7 / 8 ending together at level of P 2 (apart in Austrodromidia); and 7) absence of an abdominal holding (abdominal holding by prominence on P 2 coxa in Austrodromidia).	en	Guinot, Danièle, Tavares, Marcos (2003): A new subfamilial arrangement for the Dromiidae de Haan, 1833, with diagnoses and descriptions of new genera and species (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura). Zoosystema 25 (1): 43-129, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5400392
03C3878EFFD1CB41FCF4E8D9FB95E823.taxon	description	In Pseudodromia (as well in Ascidiophilus) the absence of an abdominal holding system seems to be related to the complete protection by a host, the body being almost entirely enclosed by an ascidian (Guinot & Bouchard 1998). Using DNA sequence data, Stewart et al. (2001: 136) questioned the monophyly of Pseudodromia but confirmed the specific status of two close species, P. rotunda and P. latens.	en	Guinot, Danièle, Tavares, Marcos (2003): A new subfamilial arrangement for the Dromiidae de Haan, 1833, with diagnoses and descriptions of new genera and species (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura). Zoosystema 25 (1): 43-129, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5400392
03C3878EFFCACB30FCDAE9F9FBB7E883.taxon	description	(Figs 17; 18)	en	Guinot, Danièle, Tavares, Marcos (2003): A new subfamilial arrangement for the Dromiidae de Haan, 1833, with diagnoses and descriptions of new genera and species (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura). Zoosystema 25 (1): 43-129, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5400392
03C3878EFFCACB30FCDAE9F9FBB7E883.taxon	materials_examined	TYPE AND ONLY SPECIES. — Dromidiopsis plumosa Lewinsohn, 1984.	en	Guinot, Danièle, Tavares, Marcos (2003): A new subfamilial arrangement for the Dromiidae de Haan, 1833, with diagnoses and descriptions of new genera and species (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura). Zoosystema 25 (1): 43-129, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5400392
03C3878EFFCACB30FCDAE9F9FBB7E883.taxon	etymology	ETYMOLOGY. — The new genus is established in honnor of Thomas Roscoe Rede Stebbing (1835 - 1926) for his contributions to carcinology. Gender: feminine.	en	Guinot, Danièle, Tavares, Marcos (2003): A new subfamilial arrangement for the Dromiidae de Haan, 1833, with diagnoses and descriptions of new genera and species (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura). Zoosystema 25 (1): 43-129, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5400392
03C3878EFFCACB30FCDAE9F9FBB7E883.taxon	distribution	DISTRIBUTION. — Stebbingdromia plumosa n. comb., the only species in the genus, is found from the Seychelles Islands (type locality) to Chesterfield Islands, Guam and Hawaii.	en	Guinot, Danièle, Tavares, Marcos (2003): A new subfamilial arrangement for the Dromiidae de Haan, 1833, with diagnoses and descriptions of new genera and species (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura). Zoosystema 25 (1): 43-129, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5400392
03C3878EFFCACB30FCDAE9F9FBB7E883.taxon	description	DESCRIPTION Carapace distinctly wider than long; dorsal surface smooth, with regions not defined. Branchial groove marked and forming laterally very deep notch, but without tooth. Anterolateral margins subparallel except anteriorly, armed with two teeth behind exorbital tooth; posterolateral margin very short. Front projecting beyond orbits; rostrum acute, markedly deflexed but visible dorsally; two acute pseudorostral teeth. Orbital margin eave-like; supraorbital margin notched; supraorbital tooth absent or faintly marked; infraorbital tooth triangular, separated from exorbital angle and from inner infraorbital tooth by deep notches; exorbital tooth dentiform. Proepistome raised, in front of wide epistome. Orbits directed horizontally, deep. Ocular stalk very long and narrow, curved. Antenna: urinal article wider than long, with posterior part of beak broad; basal article with exopodal scale welldeveloped, enlarged; internal angle similarly developed and markedly produced, touching front; following article completely included between these two lateral extensions of basal article. Mxp 3 with coxae not completely approximated. Sternite 3 not visible anteriorly but discernible on each side of sternite 4; sternite 4 with triangular anterior part in contact with coxae of mxp 3. When male abdomen applied against ventral surface, sternite 4 completely covered except laterally, i. e. episternite 4; episternite 5 remaining exposed. In females, thoracic sternum regularly sloping backwards, posterior part more bent; in males, posterior sternites, i. e. posterior part of sternite 6, and sternites 7 and 8, abruptly tilted, so they are nearly perpendicular to preceding ones. Female sutures 7 / 8 short, with apertures of spermathecae apart on very slight prominence between P 3 (even in mature females, see McLay 2001 a: 85, 86), i. e. not far from gonopores on P 3; these apertures (hidden beneath sperm plug in the two examined females) completely exposed and perhaps relatively large. Abdomen long, reaching mxp 3, and relatively wide (probably with pleural parts), triangular in shape, with all segments free; telson rather developed, bluntly triangular. Segment 6 much wider than long, with external margins slightly concave. In males, pleopods present on somites 3 - 5, showing as uniramous vestiges, rather long and dissimilar. In males, uropods showing as elongated dorsal plates, always visible dorsally, deeply inserted medially between segment 6 and telson, horizontally oriented, relatively movable and slightly projecting beyond outline of abdomen. Abdominal holding by distinctly tuberculate crest on P 2 coxa; uropods weakly involved in holding; in addition, presence of rounded granular prominence on P 1 coxa. Chelipeds well-developed, with an epipod; sexual dimorphism marked: in males, fingers strongly downcurved, markedly gaping; dactylus with external surface concave and cutting edge armed with small, molariform proximal tooth; cutting edge of fixed finger armed with several pointed teeth (details not visible on the sketch by Lewinsohn 1984: fig. 3 c). P 2 and P 3 neither lobed nor nodose; propodus long and bearing a small distal propodal spine; inner margin of dactylus with several spines. P 4 and P 5 reduced, very short, practically similar in size, P 5 only slightly longer; dactylus strongly curved; subcheliform apparatus formed by multiple spines: three (P 4) or two (P 5) distal propodal spines opposing dactyli, and two (P 4) or three (P 5) spines on outer propodal margins; a large spine on outer dactylus margin on P 5; namely a total of six spines on P 5; P 4 and P 5 without spines on inner margin of dactylus. Male P 5 coxa with mobile penial tube. Male G 1 without apical plate, only with a setose blunt knob. G 2 without exopod, and unusual in the Dromiidae (verified in two males, from Seychelles, MNHN-B 8572 and Chesterfield Islands, MNHN-B 22562): very short, (shorter than G 1), stout, regularly tapering to pointed tip, without styliform, needle-like flagellum; third distal part corneous. Carrying behaviour Despite the long covering of plumose setae, pieces of sponge are used for camouflage (Hoover 1998: 266).	en	Guinot, Danièle, Tavares, Marcos (2003): A new subfamilial arrangement for the Dromiidae de Haan, 1833, with diagnoses and descriptions of new genera and species (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura). Zoosystema 25 (1): 43-129, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5400392
03C3878EFFCACB30FCDAE9F9FBB7E883.taxon	discussion	REMARKS Because Lewinsohn (1984: 106) was fully aware that the dromiid genera needed to be reviewed, he was uncertain of whether his new species A	en	Guinot, Danièle, Tavares, Marcos (2003): A new subfamilial arrangement for the Dromiidae de Haan, 1833, with diagnoses and descriptions of new genera and species (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura). Zoosystema 25 (1): 43-129, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5400392
03C3878EFFCACB30FCDAE9F9FBB7E883.taxon	description	In the description for the first time of a female of Stebbingdromia plumosa n. comb., an ovigerous one, McLay (2001 a: 86) remarked that female sternal sutures 7 / 8 “ end more posteriorly than in other species of the genus [Cryptodromiopsis]. This means that the ends of the sutures [apertures of spermathecae] are just below the female gonopores, only about 1 mm away ”. This may be regarded as an ancestral condition, such as the arrangement of spines on pereopods (distal propodal spine on P 2 and P 3; numerous spines on the subcheliform apparatus of P 4 and P 5). The apertures of spermathecae are not readily visible in the two available females of Stebbingdromia plumosa n. comb. (ovigerous female, 9.5 × 10.5 mm, Hawaii, Oahu, QM W 21890; female 6.8 × 7.2 mm, Guam, Apra Harbour, ZRC 2000.2112), as both individuals still carry sperm plugs (Fig. 17 C). We suspect that the spermathecal apertures are relatively large in Stebbingdromia plumosa n. comb., and, if confirmed, this will be another distinctive feature of the genus. The apertures of spermathecae show as very minute pores in the Dromiacea, with few exceptions: for example Sternodromia spinirostris (Miers, 1881) shows narrow oblique slits (see Forest 1974: fig. 6 C, pl. 4, fig. 3). The shapes of G 2 (thick) and spermathecal apertures (if large) might be regarded as an indication that both G 1 and G 2 are involved in the insemination process. Two characters of D. plumosa, female sternal sutures 7 / 8 ending between P 3 (versus ending more anteriorly, as far between or in front of P 1, in the other Dromiinae n. status) and male vestigial pleopods combined with intercalary dorsal uropods, make this species so different that none of the existing dromiid genera could accommodate it. Male vestigial pleopods combined with dorsal uropods are relatively rare in the subfamily Dromiinae n. status (Table 1). This condition occurs only in Moreiradromia n. gen. (Fig. 14 B, C, may be obsolete in larger individuals) and in Dromia pro parte. We observed a long Pl 5 and obscure Pl 4 and Pl 3 in D. personata (Linnaeus, 1758) (Fig. 27 A), more or less short Pl 3 - Pl 5 in D. bollorei Forest, 1974 (Fig. 27 B) and D. marmorea Forest, 1974, and Pl 3 - Pl 5 showing as short papillae in “ Dromia ” wilsoni (Fulton & Grant, 1902). An analogous condition as in Stebbingdromia n. gen. is found in the subfamily Sphaerodromiinae n. subfam. (see Fig. 22: but biramous vestigial Pl 3 - Pl 5). As presently redefined, neither Dromidiopsis sensu nobis, Cryptodromiopsis sensu nobis, nor Dromidia sensu nobis can receive D. plumosa. Stebbingdromia n. gen can be readily distinguished from Dromidiopsis sensu nobis (Fig. 6), as follows: 1) abdominal segments free (abdominal segments 5 and 6 fused together in Dromidiopsis); 2) when extended forward, P 5 reaching about mid-length of lateral margin of carapace (P 5 extremely long, reaching about outer orbital angle in Dromidiopsis); 3) male G 2 short and stout, without styliform flagellum (long and needle-like in Dromidiopsis); 4) Pl 3 - Pl 5 as vestiges in males (Pl 3 - Pl 5 absent in Dromidiopsis); 5) merus and carpus of P 2 and P 3 stout, noticeably high; propodus and dactylus long and thin (merus, carpus, propodus, and dactylus looking similar in Dromidiopsis); and 6) female sternal sutures 7 / 8 ending between P 3 (between P 1 or just behind them, together on central prominence in Dromidiopsis). In addition, the fronto-orbital region is dissimilar in the two genera. Differences between Stebbingdromia n. gen. and Cryptodromiopsis sensu nobis (Fig. 4) include: 1) thoracic sternite 3 medially concealed in Stebbingdromia n. gen. (exposed in Cryptodromiopsis); 2) coxae of mxp 3 almost approximated (a distinct gap between them in Cryptodromiopsis); 3) male thoracic sternite 4 ending in acute tip (truncate in Cryptodromiopsis); 4) uropods oriented horizontally and weakly involved in abdominal holding (more salient and oriented obliquely, far from prominence on P 2 coxa, in Cryptodromiopsis); 5) Pl 3 - Pl 5 as vestiges (Pl 3 - Pl 5 absent in Cryptodromiopsis); 6) female apertures of spermathecae between P 3 (together on slight tubercle between chelipeds in Cryptodromiopsis); and 7) male G 2 shorter than G 1 and without styliform flagellum (long and needle-like in Cryptodromiopsis). Differences, other than the carapace and legs, between Stebbingdromia n. gen. and Dromia s. s. include: 1) when folded, male abdomen covering whole sternite 4 (anterior part of sternite 4 exposed in Dromia); 2) telson longer than wide, triangular (wider than long, rounded / truncate at tip in Dromia); 3) dorsal uropods projecting only slightly beyond outline of abdomen (strongly salient and movable in Dromia, and with a characteristic small beak overhanging telson, this beak being probably used as stop system for their movement, see Bouchard 2000); 4) apertures of spermathecae apart, between P 3 (placed more anteriorly in Dromia); and 5) G 2 short and stout, not needle-like (with styliform flagellum in Dromia). Differences, other than the carapace and legs, between Stebbingdromia n. gen. and Moreiradromia n. gen. (Fig. 14) include: 1) thoracic sternite 3 weakly visible dorsally (exposed, may be partly covered by male abdomen, when folded, in Moreiradromia n. gen.); 2) sternite 4 anteriorly triangular (truncate in Moreiradromia n. gen.); 3) male abdominal segment 6 much wider than long (very long, length as much as three quarters of width in Moreiradromia n. gen.); 4) abdominal holding by tuberculate crest on P 2 coxa; presence of round prominence on P 1 coxa (provided with spine overhanging coxa of P 2, which may bear other smaller tubercles, and presence of tubercles or granules on P 1, P 3 and even P 4 coxae in Moreiradromia n. gen.); 5) apertures of spermathecae apart, between P 3 (together on prominence placed well beyond articular condyle of P 1 in Moreiradromia n. gen.); and 6) G 2 short, not needle-like (long and with a styliform flagellum in Moreiradromia n. gen.). Differences between Stebbingdromia n. gen. and Hemisphaerodromia (Fig. 7 B) include: 1) thoracic sternite 4 ending in acute tip in males and, when abdomen flexed, completely covered, except small episternite 4 (rounded, and anterior and episternal parts exposed in Hemisphaerodromia); 2) telson long, in contact with coxae of mxp 3 (shorter, remote from mxp 3 in Hemisphaerodromia); 3) male segment 6 with external margins slightly concave (deeply hollowed in Hemisphaerodromia); 4) male pleopods Pl 3 - Pl 5 present as uniramous vestiges, rather long, (absent in Hemisphaerodromia); 5) abdominal holding by tuberculate crest on P 2 coxa; uropods weakly involved; presence of an additional prominence on P 1 coxa (only a serrated prominence on P 2 coxa tigthly encircled in the space just behind uropods, markedly involved in abdominal holding, in Hemisphaerodromia); 6) female sternal sutures 7 / 8 ending apart on slight prominence between P 3 (ending together on slight tubercle behind P 2 in Hemisphaerodromia); and 7) male G 2 shorter than G 1 and without styliform flagellum (long and needle-like in Hemisphaerodromia). It is clear that Stebbingdromia n. gen. is quite unique. For instance, in all the families of Dromiacea, i. e. Homolodromiidae, Dynomenidae and Dromiidae (Dromiinae n. status, Hypoconchinae n. subfam., and Sphaerodromiinae n. subfam.), the apertures of spermathecae are minute, a condition that is always connected with a styliform and needle-like G 2. Stebbingdromia n. gen. is so far the only exception, and it is herein tentatively referred to the Dromiinae n. status. Stebbingdromia n. gen. shares (plesiomorphically?) the following features with the Sphaerodromiinae n. subfam.: 1) short female sternal sutures 7 / 8, ending between P 3, so that the apertures of spermathecae lie beside female gonopores (also found in other basal Podotremata, viz. the Homolodromiidae and Dynomenidae). In Stebbingdromia n. gen., the very visible female sutures 7 / 8 and the completely exposed apertures of spermathecae (Fig. 17 C) actually differ from those found in Sphaerodromia (Fig. 21 C) and Eodromia (Fig. 24 C), in which sutures 7 / 8 and the spermathecae are usually concealed under a lateral heightening of sternite 8; 2) uropods (Figs 17 B; 18 B) showing as dorsal plates, deeply inserted between abdominal segment 6 and telson, more or less included in outline of abdomen, and not markedly salient. In Sphaerodromia (Figs 21 A; 22) and Eodromia (Fig. 24 A, B), however, the uropods are immobile and inserted between telson and segment 6, while in Stebbingdromia n. gen. they remain independent and relatively movable. The uropods do not play role in the holding of abdomen in Sphaerodromia or Eodromia whereas in Stebbingdromia n. gen. the role of uropods in the abdominal holding is weak; 3) similar spinulation of walking legs, in particular the long propodi of P 2 and P 3, which are armed with one distal propodal spine (considered primitive by McLay 1993: 192 in Stebbingdromia plumosa n. comb. and Sphaerodromia spp.); dactyli of P 2 and P 3 with numerous spines regularly arranged on inner margin; 4) subcheliform apparatus of P 4 and P 5, which consists of a large number of propodal spines opposing the dactylus. In Stebbingdromia n. gen., however, the absence of spines on inner margin of P 4 and P 5 dactyli differs from Sphaerodromia and Eodromia, characterized by the presence of spines; and 5) complete male pleopodal formula (i. e., vestigial Pl 3 - Pl 5 combined with dorsal uropods, Fig. 18 C). The only other known Dromiidae with vestigial male pleopods combined with dorsal uropods are the dromiine genera Moreiradromia n. gen. (Fig. 14 B) and Dromia pro parte (see Patterns of uropods and vestigial male pleopods 3 - 5 Fig. 27; Table 1). Nevertheless, several features do not permit the assignation of Stebbingdromia n. gen. to the Sphaerodromiinae n. subfam. They are as follows: 1) thoracic sternum, in particular the shape of sternite 4; 2) male abdomen, in particular segment 6; 3) G 2 shorter than G 1 and not needlelike in Stebbingdromia n. gen.; 4) coxal structures of the pereopods for abdominal holding, with a tuberculate crest on P 2 coxa and a round prominence on P 1 coxa, relatively inefficient in Stebbingdromia n. gen. (Fig. 17 A, B) (versus a prominence on P 2 coxae involving telson in anterior part, and an inefficient prominence on P 3 coxae covered by abdomen in Sphaerodromia, Fig. 21 A, B); 5) male coxa of P 5 with long, independent penial tube in Stebbingdromia n. gen. (Figs 17 A; 18 A) (male P 5 coxa modified into hard process which encloses penis in Sphaerodromia, Figs 23 A; 28 E-G); and 6) mobile uropods (deeply inserted and immobile in Sphaerodromia). Other differences refer to orbits and eyes, antennae, front, proepistome, and chelipeds (in particular fingers). The chelipeds of Stebbingdromia n. gen. are peculiar for the Dromiinae n. status. They are markedly sexually dimorphic, with fingers strongly downcurved, very widely gaping, the cutting edge of dactylus concave and armed with several long teeth in males. They do not conform with the chelipeds found in the Hypoconchinae n. subfam. or the Sphaerodromiinae n. subfam. (see below). The identity of the Cryptodromidiopsis plumosa recorded by Chen & Haibao (2002: 102, fig. 41) could not be verified. Subfamily HYPOCONCHINAE n. subfam. (Figs 19; 20; 28 K)	en	Guinot, Danièle, Tavares, Marcos (2003): A new subfamilial arrangement for the Dromiidae de Haan, 1833, with diagnoses and descriptions of new genera and species (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura). Zoosystema 25 (1): 43-129, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5400392
03C3878EFFCACB30FCDAE9F9FBB7E883.taxon	materials_examined	TYPE GENUS. — Hypoconcha Guérin-Méneville, 1854 by present designation. Gender: feminine. GENUS INCLUDED. — Hypoconcha Guérin-Méneville, 1854 (type species: Cancer parasiticus Linnaeus, 1763, senior synonym of Cancer sabulosus Herbst, 1799, see Holthuis 1962).	en	Guinot, Danièle, Tavares, Marcos (2003): A new subfamilial arrangement for the Dromiidae de Haan, 1833, with diagnoses and descriptions of new genera and species (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura). Zoosystema 25 (1): 43-129, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5400392
03C3878EFFCACB30FCDAE9F9FBB7E883.taxon	description	DESCRIPTION Carapace generally rounded, hourglass-shaped; dorsal surface flattened, very thin and partly membranous; on each posterior side, large soft area with special texture; branchiostegal region usually soft and of different texture, perhaps constituting ecdysis area. Cervical groove well marked, on two median gastric pits; cardiac region completely delimitated by well-defined cardiac groove. Branchial groove deep and separating hard part of carapace from soft posterior part. Margin of anterior half of carapace usually hairy, appearing as “ ciliated ”; posterolateral bor- der often markedly concave. Front and lateral margins greatly expanded, covering all parts of head, except antennal flagella, and displacing eyes in ventral location. Front semicircular or slightly truncate in outline, markedly deflected in large triangular ventral plate connected with proepistome. Eyes, antennules, antennae and mouth parts deeply settled in depressions. Basal article of antennule well-developed. First article of antenna beak-like; basal article noticeably developed, exopodal scale relatively small and internal angle markedly produced; following article deeply inserted inside basal article; remaining articles very small; flagellum long, setose. Orbits small, concealed beneath body. Mxp 3 operculiform; coxa developed and closely approximated; merus subtriangular or trapezoidal; exopod noticeably wide, specially in proximal part; crista dentata (on ischium) with small number of corneous teeth. Ventral surface and legs solid, sometimes hairy (not in Hypoconcha parasitica (Linnaeus, 1763 )). Gynglymes of sternites 1 - 3 largely spaced and stepped at lower plane. Sternite 3 only hardly visible (only represented by a small median hollow) or not visible. Sternite 4 showing as well calcified, narrow and elongated plate, in close contact (except medially) with coxae of mxp 3, sometimes appearing fixed to them. Episternites 4 and 5 broad and well calcified. In both sexes, posterior thoracic sternites 7 and 8 tilted; in females, anterior sternites 4 and 5 forming horizontal plate, sternites 6 - 8 bent at right angles, so they are perpendicular to preceding ones; sternite 6 small, rejected laterally, its raised anterior part often surrounding apertures of spermathecae. Sternal suture 4 / 5 horizontal, well-marked laterally, its trace medially discernible; suture 5 / 6 oblique, clearly visible; sutures 6 / 7 and 7 / 8 very oblique. Female sutures 7 / 8 relatively short, only present on bent surface of posterior sternites, always ending apart. Apertures of spermathecae located only slightly beyond level of condyle of P 3, not very far from female gonopores on P 3 (Fig. 19 A). Sterno-abdominal depression not noticeably deep and located posteriorly. A large portion of thoracic sternite 4 not concealed by male abdomen, when flexed; episternite 4 greatly exposed. Abdomen with all segments free, usually short (never attaining coxae of mxp 3), broad, noticeably widened at level of segments 5 and 6, triangular shaped, and with first segments remaining dorsal, even in males; pleurae may be distinct. In both sexes abdomen bent at right angles about in the middle and disposed into two different planes, so that the posterior part of abdomen lies flat on ventral surface of cephalothorax. This abdominal curvature, less pronounced in males than in females, probably connected with the inclination of two last thoracic sternites, 7 and 8, with regard to preceding ones. Telson triangular, broader than long. Uropods showing as minute ventral plates in both sexes, never visible dorsally, very narrow, rather immovable in males, sexually dimorphic (showing as small and more setiferous lobes in females). Presence of uniramous vestigial male pleopods, varying along the species: Pl 3 - Pl 5 showing as elongated and asymmetrical lobes (H. californiensis Bouvier, 1898; Fig. 19 B), or only as short papillae (H. panamensis Smith, 1869), or indistinct, at least in small specimens (H. parasitica, H. arcuata Stimpson, 1858). Abdomen holding may be provided by structure on P 1 coxa, which bears a series of spinous tubercles, the strongest of which overhangs telson (H. californiensis); more often, theses structure are absent (H. arcuata, H. panamensis); accord- ingly to its curvature at right angles, abdomen flexed halfway and normally applied to thoracic sternum. Female abdomen becoming expanded in ovigerous specimens, with formation of brood chamber. Chelipeds stout, epipod present, podobranch lacking. Pereopods capable of being folded compactly against body and partly concealed by carapace, with a perfect complementarity of diverse parts. Fixed finger and dactylus of chelipeds armed on prehensile margin with complementary teeth and close along whole length. P 2 and P 3 not lobed nor nodose; propodus short, never armed with a distal spine; dactylus not strongly curved, without spines or with only very small spines on inner margin. P 4 and P 5 both reduced (but not coxae) and oriented in a different way than P 2 and P 3 i. e. directed subdorsally or dorsally, such as in the Dromiinae n. status, but each markedly dissimilar from the other. P 4 subdorsal, noticeably robust, much shorter than preceding legs and P 5; merus very stout. P 5 completely dorsal, much longer than P 4. In both P 4 and P 5, carpus relatively long; propodus short and stout. Dactylus of P 4 - P 5 with a peculiar dactylus, which is upturned, crescent and lunate, extremely mobile, placed in a deep notch of propodus, and ending in corneous hook. Male P 5 coxa with mobile penial tube (Figs 20 A; 28 K). G 1 not completely closed, without apical plate. G 2 very long, styliform, without exopod (Fig. 20 B). Carrying behaviour See under Remarks and under Discussion, Shellcarrying behaviour.	en	Guinot, Danièle, Tavares, Marcos (2003): A new subfamilial arrangement for the Dromiidae de Haan, 1833, with diagnoses and descriptions of new genera and species (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura). Zoosystema 25 (1): 43-129, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5400392
03C3878EFFCACB30FCDAE9F9FBB7E883.taxon	discussion	REMARKS This unusual crab has been known for a long time under the name “ Faux Bernard l’Hermite ”, given to H. parasitica (Linnaeus, 1763) by Nicolson (1776: 338, pl. 6, fig. 3) (see Rodriguez 1993: 44). Lamarck (1818: 264) considered this species new but did not describe it. The genus Hypoconcha was established by Guérin-Méneville (1854: 333 - 343, pl. 5, as H. sabulosa), when he gave a new key for the “ Dromiens ”, already welldefined by H. Milne Edwards (1837). Guérin- Méneville (1854) added Hypoconcha to the two other known dromiacean genera, Dromia and Dynomene. Hypoconcha was defined by the flattened carapace, with dorsal surface partly membranous and soft, and by posterior legs ending in crescent-shaped dactylus (carapace more or less inflated and calcified, and P 4 and P 5 reduced and subcheliform in Dromia, and only P 5 modified in Dynomene). The precise observations and figures of Hypoconcha by Guérin-Méneville (1854: pl. 5, fig. 4) referred to the abdomen longer than the carapace and halfway flexed, the uropods as ventral plates, and the crescent and “ retractile ” dactylus on P 4 and P 5 to firmly hold the shell. Members of the subfamily Hypoconchinae n. subfam. are easily recognized by a number of features: 1) carapace generally rounded, hourglass-shaped; dorsal surface flattened, very thin and partly membranous; ecdysis area probably represented by whole branchiostegal region, at least; 2) front and lateral margins greatly expand- ed, covering all parts of head, except antennal flagella, and displacing eyes in ventral location; front semicircular or slightly truncate in outline; 3) male abdomen widely triangular and flexed at right angles in mid-length; 4) male pleopodal formula complete: Pl 3 - Pl 5 generally as uniramous vestiges in males; 5) uropods showing always as ventral plates; 6) P 4 and P 5 very dissimilar, with peculiarly contorted and extremely mobile dactyli, which are fitted in deeply notched extremity of propodi (Guinot & Tavares 2000: 306, fig. 5); 7) condyle of propodi of P 4 and P 5 modified into prop-up plate, noticeably large, not concealed; gynglyme of propodi deeply notched in order to receive propodal condyle; the set prop-up plate / condyle blocking and preventing carpus from completely folding against merus; 8) female thoracic sternites 7 and 8 tilted drastically, perpendicular in relation to preceding thoracic sternites; and 9) obligate carrier of a lamellibranch shell. In the Hypoconchinae n. subfam. the female sternal sutures are not as extended forward as in the Dromiinae n. status; the apertures of spermathecae are located beyond level of condyle of P 3, not very far from female gonopores on P 3, however (Fig. 19 A). In the Hypoconchinae n. subfam. the uropods show as ventral plates (not visible dorsally in both males and females) and occur along with vestigial Pl 3 - Pl 5 in males. The male pleopodal formula is complete, such as in the Sphaerodromiinae n. subfam. (intercalary dorsal plates) and in the Dromiinae n. status pro parte (see Patterns of uropods and vestigial male pleopods 3 - 5; Table 1). A combination of characters similar to that found in the Hypoconchinae n. subfam., i. e. vestigial pleopods combined with ventral uropods, occurs (with certainty) in Dromidia, Exodromidia and Platydromia. In the Hypoconchinae n. subfam. neither the uropod nor any other apparent structure holds the abdomen folded beneath cephalothorax. In H. californiensis, however, the P 1 coxa bears a series of spiniform tubercules, the strongest one overhanging telson margin. As a result of being disposed onto two planes, the abdomen apparently has its posterior part remaining pressed against thoracic sternum in normal flexion. How the curious keels on P 1 - P 2 coxae of H. californiensis (Fig. 19 A) play role in holding of abdomen is unknown. As described in H. arcuata by Kircher (1970: figs 2 c, 12 e) and in H. parasitica, by Lang & Young (1980: 860, fig. 8 A, D, as H. sabulosa (Herbst, 1799 )), the megalopa of the Hypoconchinae n. subfam. is the only one in the family Dromiidae with a single, long, terminal setum on dactylus of P 5 (versus several feelers in the Dromiinae n. status, even in Conchoecetes, see Sankolly & Shenoy 1968; Franco 1998; Guinot & Tavares 2000). The single feeler on dactylus of P 5 may well prove to be another diagnostic character of the Hypoconchinae n. subfam. The larval and postlarval features (plesiomorphies?) shared by Hypoconcha and Conchoecetes (see McLay et al. 2001: 739, 744, table 2) are not exclusive to these genera and could not be regard- ed here as an indication of close relationship between Hypoconcha and Conchoecetes. Therefore, the two genera are kept in different subfamilies, Hypoconchinae n. subfam. and Dromiinae n. status, respectively. Spears et al. (1992: 457) obtained interesting results from sequence-divergence estimates and phylogenies inferred by maximum parsymony analyses of 18 S rRNA aligned sequences. As far as Hypoconcha [H. arcuata] is concerned, their results suggested that “ it seems unlikely that Dromidia [in fact Moreiradromia antillensis n. comb., Dromiinae n. status] and Hypoconcha [Hypoconchinae n. subfam.], the [only] two dromiid genera used in this study, are as closely related as previously thought ”. The uniqueness of Hypoconcha led McLay (1993: 229) to question whether it belongs or not to the Dromiidae. McLay (2001 b: 8) expressed the opinion that Hypoconcha and Conchoecetes shared a common ancestor and belonged to the same particular grouping, whereas Desmodromia was to be kept amongst the other dromiids. Hypoconcha and Conchoecetes share a shell-carrying behaviour, but each with a different method of grapsing the shell (see under Shell-carrying behaviour) and (perhaps) some larval features (McLay et al. 2001). They also share several characters that is: thin tegument of dorsal carapace (partly membranous in Hypoconcha), related to shell-carrying; strongly calcified and anteriorly truncated sternite 4. A closer examination of the morphology of Hypoconcha and Conchoecetes reveals, however, that overall similarities are probably superficial (Guinot & Tavares 2000) and that there is no reason to include Conchoecetes in the subfamily Hypoconchinae n. subfam. The shape of male abdomen, the male uropods (salient dorsal uropods in Conchoecetes, Fig. 3 B, C, narrow ventral plates in Hypoconcha, Fig. 19 B) and the condition of sternites 7 and 8 (bent at right angles and bordered laterally by sutures 7 / 8 in female Hypoconcha, Fig. 19 A), the sternite 3 visible dorsally in Conchoecetes (Fig. 3 A, B) (hardly or not visible dorsally in Hypoconcha, Fig. 19 A), the location of spermathecal apertures (not very far from gonopores on P 3 in Hypoconcha, Fig. 19 A, between P 2 in Conchoecetes, Fig. 3 A) clearly distinguish the two genera. A complete male 20 × 21 mm (MNHN-B 21597), coxa of P 5, with mobile penial tube; B, México, 27 × 28 mm (EMU 2941), G 2, without exopod. Abbreviations: cx 5, coxa of P 5; pt, penial tube. Scale bars: 1 mm. pleopodal formula is found in Hypoconcha (Fig. 19 B), but does not seem present in Conchoecetes (Fig. 3 C). The similarities of thoracic sternum in Hypoconcha and Conchoecetes are difficult to be appraised: they are probably in close relationship with the shell-carrying behaviour. In male Hypoconcha the well calcified, very flat sternite 4 (Fig. 19 A) and the short abdomen which only occupies a posterior location (Rathbun 1937: pl. 11, fig. 2) are different from the condition of Conchoecetes (Fig. 3 A, B). The taxonomic position of Desmodromia (not examined) is puzzling. As in Hypoconcha the carapace, although not membranous on posterior half, is poorly calcified and flattened; the eaves overhang the eyes; and P 4 - P 5 end in upturned dactylus which supposedly holds a shell. Hypoconcha and Desmodromia differ from one another as follows: 1) epipod present on P 1 (absent in Desmodromia); 2) narrow ventral uropods (dorsal and well-developed in immature female of D. tranterae McLay, 2001); 3) female sternal sutures 7 / 8 ending rather posteriorly in Hypoconcha (Fig. 19 A) (between P 2 in Desmodromia); and 4) abdominal holding never involving uropods and provided by structure on P 1 coxa, or, more usually, without coxal differentiation (provided by a differentiation of P 2 coxa involving uropods in Desmodromia). It is not known if in Desmodromia (such as in Hypoconcha) the female thoracic sternites 7 and 8 are tilted, and if the male pleopodal formula is complete and the P 5 coxa differentiated into penial mobile tube since males are unknown. The lack of information on the morphology of male abdomen and of details on the P 4 and P 5 grasping apparatus make it difficult to compare it with the very specialized Hypoconcha. Presently, the subfamily Hypoconchinae n. subfam. includes six species, all belonging to Hypoconcha Guérin-Méneville, 1854: H. arcuata Stimpson, 1858; H. californiensis Bouvier, 1898; H. lowei Rathbun, 1933; H. panamensis Smith, 1869; Cancer parasiticus Linnaeus, 1763; and H. spinosissima Rathbun, 1933. The larval development is only known for two species, H. parasitica (see Lang & Young 1980, as H. sabulosa) and H. arcuata (see Kircher 1970). It is abbreviated to only three zoeal stages and a megalopa. We examined an ovigerous female (6 mm length) of H. parasitica (MNHN-B 28279) with less than 40 rather large eggs.	en	Guinot, Danièle, Tavares, Marcos (2003): A new subfamilial arrangement for the Dromiidae de Haan, 1833, with diagnoses and descriptions of new genera and species (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura). Zoosystema 25 (1): 43-129, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5400392
03C3878EFFCACB30FCDAE9F9FBB7E883.taxon	description	DESCRIPTION Carapace longer than wide or as long as wide, subglobose. Lateral margins subparallel; anterolateral margin long, joining buccal cavern instead of exorbital angle, and separated from short posterolateral margin by deep notch. Dorsal surface with regions not defined or almost indistinct; subhepatic area more or less inflated. Branchial groove not marked. Front projecting well beyond orbits. Rostrum noticeably deflexed. Presence of two pseudorostral lobes extending uninterruptedly around supraorbital margin. Orbits oblique, deeply hollowed on lateral sides of carapace; supra- and infraorbital margins entire, forming a sort of eave, orbital border almost continuous. Proepistome widely triangular, in front of welldefined epistome. Ocular stalk short and thick. Antennules with basal article strongly developed. Antenna: first article beak-like; basal article with exopodal scale markedly developed, as long or longer than following article; internal angle weakly or not produced. Mxp 3 operculiform; coxae approximated. Thoracic sternum narrow. Gynglymes of thoracic sternites 1 - 3 largely spaced from each other, stepped at lower plane. Sternites 1 - 3 not visible; sternite 4 forming plate overhanging or just touching bases of mxp 3 (Fig. 21 A, B). Episternites 4 and 5 more or less elongated and wide, their gynglymes in almost terminal location. When male abdomen flexed against ventral surface, anterior portion of sternite 4 and lateral part (i. e. episternite 4) exposed, while episternite 5 is completely covered by uropod and hardly or not visible at all (Fig. 21 A). Sutures 4 / 5 and 5 / 6 very short, only lateral and not clearly visible; sutures 6 / 7 and 7 / 8 oblique. Female sternal sutures 7 / 8 short; apertures of spermathecae very minute, behind level of P 3 gonopore, located laterally, and either completely exposed (Sphaerodromia pro parte, for example S. lamellata Crosnier, 1994), or concealed under the lateral heightening and fold of sternite 8 (Sphaerodromia pro parte, for example S. ducoussoi McLay, 1991, Fig. 21 C; Eodromia, Fig. 24 C). Abdomen long but not reaching mxp 3, once folded; pleural parts well recognizable, all segments free; segment 6 noticeably expanded laterally (Sphaerodromia, Figs 21 A; 22; Eodromia, Fig. 24 A, B); telson long. Vestigial male pleopods 3 - 5 present, either biramous (Sphaerodromia, Fig. 22) or uniramous (Eodromia, Fig. 24 A). Male uropods as elongated dorsal plates, exposed but deeply inserted between abdominal segment 6 and telson (the base of which covering uropod), included in the outline of abdomen, viz. not really salient nor movable, occupying a relatively A B large portion of lateral margin of abdomen, playing no role in holding of abdomen (Sphaerodromia, Figs 21 A; 22; Eodromia, Fig. 24 A, B). Dimorphism of uropods marked. Female uropods deeply inserted, rather developed, occupying large part (Sphaerodromia) or whole part (Eodromia) of abdominal external margin posteriorly to telson, and well visible dorsally (Sphaerodromia and Eodromia). Holding of male abdomen not really efficient when provided by granulous prominence on P 2 coxae involving telson in its anterior part (Sphaerodromia, where the abdomen is loosely retained). Always, a prominence on P 3 coxae, covered by abdomen and inefficient (Fig. 21 B). Epipod present on chelipeds; podobranch either present (Sphaerodromia) or absent (Eodromia). P 2 and P 3 with epipods, with or without podobranchs (Sphaerodromia), or without epipods (Eodromia). Chelipeds stout, with fingers close along most of length; dactylus with a large proximal tooth and rest of prehensile margin very thin and smooth; fixed finger with marked proximal teeth and several smaller ones. P 2 and P 3, very long, neither lobed nor nodose; propodus very long, bearing distal propodal spine. P 4 and P 5 reduced, shorter than preceding ones, similar in size, oriented in a different way than P 2 and P 3, only P 5 dorsal; subcheliform apparatus formed by multiple distal propodal spines opposing dactyli, three to five; no spines on outer propodal margin; presence of spines on inner margin of P 4 and P 5 dactylus. P 5 without spines on outer dactylus margin. Male coxa of P 5 strongly modified, extended, without movable penial tube, in the two genera (Sphaerodromia, Figs 23 A; 28 E, F; Eodromia, Fig. 28 G). G 1 with well-developed apical plate. G 2 long, with styliform flagellum, exopod present but of variable length (Sphaerodromia, Fig. 23 B; presence to be verified in Eodromia). Carrying behaviour Large pieces of sponges for Sphaerodromia (McLay & Crosnier 1991; McLay 1991, 1993; Crosnier 1994); camouflage data not known in Eodromia.	en	Guinot, Danièle, Tavares, Marcos (2003): A new subfamilial arrangement for the Dromiidae de Haan, 1833, with diagnoses and descriptions of new genera and species (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura). Zoosystema 25 (1): 43-129, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5400392
03C3878EFFCACB30FCDAE9F9FBB7E883.taxon	discussion	REMARKS Differences between Sphaerodromia and other dromiids were already discussed (McLay & Crosnier 1991; McLay 1991, 1993). They concern the shape of carapace, the presence of podobranchs on pereopods, the presence of distal propodal spine on P 2 and P 3, and the arrangement of spines to form the subchelate mechanism of P 4 and P 5. The condition is similar in Eodromia, except that podobranchs and epipods on P 2 and P 3 are lost, an absence that must be regarded as a more advanced character state (McLay 1993: 131). A unique character of the Sphaerodromiinae n. subfam. is the long P 2 and P 3 propodus (with distal spine) and the not strongly curved dactylus. The propodus is shorter and without distal spine, and dactylus curved in the Dromiinae n. status. In the Sphaerodromiinae n. subfam. and Dromiinae n. status, the inner margin of dactylus on P 2 and P 3 bears several spines (whereas it is smooth, or nearly smooth, in the Hypoconchinae n. subfam.). The study in this review of morphological structures often neglected before revealed that the sphaerodromiine genera share a combination of characters found nowhere else within the Dromiidae. In Sphaerodromia and Eodromia, the coxa of P 5 is extended to form conical expansion in which the penis is completely enclosed. The coxa and penis thus form a single structure (Figs 23 A; 25 B, D; 28 E-G). In contrast, in the Dromiinae n. status (Fig. 28 H-J) and Hypoconchinae n. subfam. (Figs 20 A; 28 K) the male coxa of P 5 is not modified to enclose penis and there are two independent structures: the unmodified P 5 coxa and the long, sclerotized penis emanating from male gonopore. The dromiine and hypoconchine movable structures, here named “ penial tube ”, end in soft tip (see Patterns of P 5 coxa and penis; Fig. 28). The Sphaerodromiinae n. subfam. (Figs 21 C; 24 C) have short female sternal sutures 7 / 8, so the apertures of spermathecae lie, always laterally, in the vicinity of female gonopores on P 3, that is, behind level of P 3. In Sphaerodromia lamellata, the suture 7 / 8 is shorter than in S. ducoussoi (Fig. 21 C) or S. kendalli (Alcock & Anderson, 1894), and the spermathecal aperture lies posteriorly and is not concealed under raised part of sternite 8. Conversely, all the Dromiinae n. status show extremely long female sutures 7 / 8, so that the spermathecae open far beyond level of P 3, sometimes at level of P 1 or beyond. Therefore, in the dromiine females the sternites 7 and 8 occupy much of the ventral surface of cephalothorax, and the thoracic sternum appears dramatically distorted. The only exception is Stebbingdromia plumosa n. comb., where the spermathecae open between P 3 (Fig. 17 C). In the dromiine genera the spermathecae open apart or together, each spermathecal aperture being often positioned on more or less prominent tubercle; in a few genera the spermathecae open on a single tubercle. It is worth noting that the position of the apertures of spermathecae in relation to female gonopores on P 3 coxae and the kind of penial structure seem to be related. Thus, in considering the sphaerodromiine condition, the location of the apertures about level of coxae of P 3 seems to be connected with a short and non-articulated penis. Conversely, a spermathecal aperture positioned far beyond coxa of P 3 appears to be connected with a long, sclerotized and movable penis (penial tube). This condition is found in the Dromiinae n. status (again, the only exception is the atypical Stebbingdromia plumosa n. comb., which has short female sutures 7 / 8 and penial tube; Figs 17 A, C; 18 A).	en	Guinot, Danièle, Tavares, Marcos (2003): A new subfamilial arrangement for the Dromiidae de Haan, 1833, with diagnoses and descriptions of new genera and species (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura). Zoosystema 25 (1): 43-129, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5400392
03C3878EFFCACB30FCDAE9F9FBB7E883.taxon	description	The Hypoconchinae n. subfam. show a different combination: sternal sutures 7 / 8 relatively short (Fig. 19 A) and the presence of a penial tube (Figs 20 A; 28 K). In the Hypoconchinae n. subfam. the female sternal sutures 7 / 8 are slightly extended forward, more than in the Sphaerodromiinae n. subfam. (where they are behind level of P 3) but not so far forward as in the Dromiinae n. status. In this respect Dromiinae n. status and Hypoconchinae n. subfam. differ less from one another than from Sphaerodromiinae n. subfam. The Sphaerodromiinae n. subfam. also shares the absence of spines on outer margin of propodus of P 4 and on outer margin of dactylus of P 5. Within the Sphaerodromiinae n. subfam., Sphaerodromia and Eodromia seem to be very closely related to one another as they share a number of characters unique among the Dromiidae. The Sphaerodromia species are relatively large (width more than 65 mm in S. nux Alcock, 1899), while Eodromia denticulata McLay, 1993 is very small, with ovigerous females measuring only 4.5 mm width. In Sphaerodromia and Eodromia the basal antennal article bears a long exopodal scale, extending “ beyond joint of segments three or four ” (Mc Lay 1993: 127), and its internal corner is not or only weakly produced. In Sphaerodromia (Fig. 21 A, B) and Eodromia, the long male abdomen covers most part of thoracic sternum, except anterior part of sternite 4 which is in contact with mxp 3. In Sphaerodromia (Figs 21 A; 22) and Eodromia (Fig. 24 A, B), the male abdominal segment 6 is expanded laterally. In Sphaerodromia and Eodromia, no specialized structures are found for an efficient abdominal holding, so the male abdomen is rather loosely retained beneath cephalothorax (the granulous prominences found on P 2 and P 3 coxae are inefficient). Sphaerodromia and Eodromia share the subcheliform system formed by multiple distal propodal spines on the dactyli. The minute apertures of spermathecae, at level of P 3, are more or less concealed under fold of sternite 8. Vestigial pleopods are always present in male Sphaerodromiinae n. subfam.: they are biramous in Sphaerodromia (Fig. 22) and uniramous in Eodromia (Fig. 24 A). In male Sphaerodromiinae n. subfam. Pl 3 to Pl 5 occur with immovable uropods showing as intercalary dorsal plates. This combination of characters (Pl 3 - Pl 5 combined with dorsal uropods) is known from only a few genera and species of Dromiinae n. status: Dromia pro parte (Fig. 27), Moreiradromia n. gen. (Fig. 14 B) and Stebbingdromia n. gen. (Fig. 18 C; Table 1). The G 1 of Sphaerodromia is provided by apical plate, and the G 2 (Fig. 23 B) with exopod. McLay (1993: 132) indicated that the first pairs of pleopods of the male paratype of Eodromia denticulata (8.2 × 7.8 mm; MNHN-B 22545) were “ not properly developed ”. This specimen has several pairs of pleopods and a P 5 coxa not extended: it seems to be an abnormal individual. In a male specimen (4.5 mm width; MNHN-B 26327), the P 5 coxa is elongated and both G 1 and G 2 are developed; an apical plate is clearly present on G 1 as in Sphaerodromia, whereas an exopod is not discernible on the G 2, which is typically prolonged by styliform flagellum. Presently, the subfamily Sphaerodromiinae n. subfam. consist of six species including among two genera: 1) Sphaerodromia (Sphaerodromia brizops McLay & Crosnier, 1991; Sphaerodromia ducoussoi; Dromidia kendalli; Sphaerodromia lamellata; Sphaerodromia nux); 2) Eodromia (Eodromia denticulata). The close relationship between Sphaerodromia and Eodromia, both with many ancestral characteristics, was already noted by McLay (1993: 130, 228). McLay et al. (2001: 741, table 3) recently predicted that the larvae of these two genera should also have primitive features. McLay (1993: 131) noted that the absence of epipods on P 2 - P 3 and of podobranch on chelipeds must be regarded as the more advanced character states of Eodromia. Our investigation suggests that the Sphaerodromiinae n. subfam. is a basal group within the Dromiidae. Several sphaerodromiine plesiomorphic characters, that is, a male P 5 coxa modified and extended in a process (in contrast to a mobile penial tube in the Dromiinae n. status and Hypoconchinae n. subfam.), the male vestigial pleopods on abdominal segments 3 - 5, the short female sutures 7 / 8, and the apertures of spermathecae positioned near female gonopores on P 3 coxae, are also found in the two other families of Dromiacea, Homolodromiidae Alcock, 1900 and Dynomenidae Ortmann, 1892. An exopod present on G 2, sometimes well-developed (Sphaerodromia nux, Fig. 23 B) or shorter (S. brizops, S. lamellata), is shared with the Dynomenidae, but not with the Homolodromiidae. It is worth noting that the spermatozoal ultrastructure of Sphaerodromia (S. lamellata) allies the genus more closely to the dynomenid Metadynomene tanensis (Yokoya, 1933) than to the advanced dromiid (dromiine) Stimdromia lateralis (Gray, 1831) (Guinot et al. 1998: 91, 93, 94, fig. 8), which is in accordance to the plesiomorphic condition of the Sphaerodromiinae n. subfam. About the status of Sphaerodromia lethrinusae Takeda & Kurata, 1976, see under Dromidiopsis sensu nobis.	en	Guinot, Danièle, Tavares, Marcos (2003): A new subfamilial arrangement for the Dromiidae de Haan, 1833, with diagnoses and descriptions of new genera and species (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura). Zoosystema 25 (1): 43-129, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5400392
