Windsor Amanda M, Mendoza Jose Christopher E, Deeds Jonathan R
United States Food and Drug Administration, Office of Regulatory Science, 5001 Campus Dr. College Park, MD 20740 United States Food and Drug Administration College Park United States of America.
Lee Kong Chian Natural History Museum, Faculty of Science, National University of Singapore, 2 Conservatory Drive, 117377 Singapore National University of Singapore Singapore Singapore.
Zookeys. 2019 Jul 1;858:11-43. doi: 10.3897/zookeys.858.33826. eCollection 2019.
The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has recently adopted DNA barcoding for the purpose of determining the species identity of commercial seafood products. This effort has revealed instances of incongruence between current scientifically accepted taxon names and those utilized by the seafood industry in product labelling. One such case is that of "", a name utilized by the seafood industry to label commercial products under the market name "red swimming crab." However, carcinologists currently regard as synonym of Fabricius, 1798, which itself is the subject of debate over whether it is a secondary homonym of Fabricius, 1793. Further complicating matters, DNA barcode sequences from commercial products match GenBank sequences identified as Stephenson, 1961. Here the complicated taxonomic history of the complex is reviewed and a resolution proposed based on combined morphological descriptions and molecular phylogenetic analyses. It is demonstrated that, given the provisions of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature and the current elevation of Gistel, 1848, to full genus rank, its type species, Fabricius, 1798, should be treated as a valid and available taxon name. It is also shown, upon examination and comparison of types and topotypic material that (Stimpson, 1858) is a distinct taxon from , and Stephenson, 1961, is a junior subjective synonym of (Stimpson, 1858). Furthermore, it is shown that crab meat sold in the US currently labeled as "" and/or "red swimming crab" is in fact using comparative analysis of DNA barcode sequences between museum-vouchered reference specimens, whole crabs provided directly by a seafood importer, and processed commercial products purchased at retail.
美国食品药品监督管理局（FDA）最近采用了DNA条形码技术来确定商业海鲜产品的物种身份。这项工作揭示了当前科学上认可的分类单元名称与海鲜行业在产品标签中使用的名称之间存在不一致的情况。其中一个例子是“”，这是海鲜行业用于以“红游蟹”这一市场名称标记商业产品的名称。然而，蟹类学家目前认为 是1798年法布里丘斯（Fabricius）的同义词，而1798年法布里丘斯本身是否是1793年法布里丘斯的次生同名异物存在争议。更复杂的是，商业产品的DNA条形码序列与GenBank中被鉴定为1961年斯蒂芬森（Stephenson）的序列相匹配。在此，回顾了 复合体复杂的分类历史，并基于形态学描述和分子系统发育分析相结合的方法提出了一个解决方案。结果表明，根据《国际动物命名法规》的规定以及目前1848年吉斯特尔（Gistel）被提升到完整属级别的情况，其模式种1798年法布里丘斯应被视为一个有效且可用的分类单元名称。通过对模式标本和地模标本的检查与比较还表明，（1858年斯廷普森（Stimpson））是一个与 不同的分类单元，1961年斯蒂芬森是（1858年斯廷普森）的次主观同义词。此外，通过对博物馆凭证参考标本、海鲜进口商直接提供的整只螃蟹以及零售购买的加工商业产品之间的DNA条形码序列进行比较分析表明，目前在美国销售的标记为“”和/或“红游蟹”的蟹肉实际上是 。
