Zupolini Lucas L, Magalhães Tatiana, Pileggi Leonardo G, Mantelatto Fernando L
Laboratory of Bioecology and Crustacean Systematics (LBSC), Department of Biology, Faculty of Philosophy, Sciences and Letters at Ribeirão Preto (FFCLRP), University of São Paulo (USP), Av. Bandeirantes 3900, CEP 14040-901, Ribeirão Preto (SP), Brazil..
Zootaxa. 2017 Jun 6;4273(3):362-380. doi: 10.11646/zootaxa.4273.3.3.
The family Portunidae Rafinesque, 1815 presents a series of taxonomic problems such as paraphyletic groups, synonymizations, and unresolved complexes of cryptic species. Arenaeus Dana, 1851, encompasses only two species with mirrored distributions along the coasts of the Americas. Despite of comprising two widespread species, there is a scarcity of information on their biology and ecology and on the relationships with other genera in the family. Because of the lack of studies comprising both species and the imprecise or erroneous taxonomic descriptions for the species of Arenaeus, we conducted a thorough taxonomic revision of the genus and used data from fragments of the 16S rRNA and the cytochrome oxidase I (COI) genes to investigate the validity of Arenaeus cribrarius (Lamarck, 1818) and Arenaeus mexicanus (Gerstaecker, 1856). A range of easily discernible and objective characteristics distinguish the species, including the number of rostral teeth, the number of carpal spines, and the presence of a spine on the epistome region. This last feature, although never properly addressed in the literature, was diagnostic in discriminating the taxa. Results of molecular analyses also supported the separate identity of the two species. Assemblages generated in COI analyses reflected no geographic pattern or geographic partitioning, suggesting that dispersion and gene flow could be sufficiently high to hinder genetic differentiation through the extensive distribution range of the Atlantic species, A. cribrarius. Furthermore, molecular results and morphological analyses may indicate a closer relationship among particular groups of portunids and Arenaeus. Morphology of the carapace and of the first male gonopods may be the most prominent characteristics supporting such view. We have shed light on the status of the genus Arenaeus and its members, clarified some taxonomical issues, and provide an identification key for the species.
梭子蟹科(Rafinesque,1815年)存在一系列分类学问题,如并系群、同义词合并以及隐性物种的未解决复合体。1851年的砂蟹属(Arenaeus Dana)仅包含两个物种,它们沿美洲海岸呈镜像分布。尽管包含两个分布广泛的物种,但关于它们的生物学、生态学以及与该科其他属的关系的信息却很匮乏。由于缺乏对这两个物种的综合研究,且砂蟹属物种的分类描述不准确或有误,我们对该属进行了全面的分类修订,并利用16S rRNA和细胞色素氧化酶I(COI)基因片段的数据来研究砂筛豆蟹(Arenaeus cribrarius,拉马克,1818年)和墨西哥砂蟹(Arenaeus mexicanus,格斯特克尔,1856年)的有效性。一系列易于辨别和客观的特征可区分这两个物种,包括吻齿数量、腕刺数量以及口上区是否有刺。最后一个特征虽然在文献中从未得到恰当论述,但在区分分类单元时具有诊断价值。分子分析结果也支持这两个物种的独立身份。COI分析中生成的组合未反映出地理模式或地理划分,这表明扩散和基因流动可能足够高,从而阻碍了分布广泛的大西洋物种砂筛豆蟹的遗传分化。此外,分子结果和形态分析可能表明梭子蟹科的特定类群与砂蟹属之间存在更密切的关系。头胸甲和第一雄性生殖肢的形态可能是支持这一观点的最显著特征。我们阐明了砂蟹属及其成员的地位,澄清了一些分类学问题,并提供了物种鉴定检索表。