Search

At present, approximately 1,402 species of tanaidaceans are recognized—a sizable number and of the same order of magnitude as Cumacea. Within Tanaidacea, a surprising amount of anatomical diversity appears, especially within species. For decades, they have been divided into Dikonophora and Monokonophora, based on whether there are one or two genital cones in the males. The order displays widespread progeny, with females remaining in their burrows to bear the young, which eventually bore out of the burrows to take up independent existence in their own burrows. After reproducing, the females molt to eventually become copulatory males, which then range about seeking suitable females. Tanaidacea lack a telson in favor of an anal somite.

The first species of syncarids described in 1847 were actually fossils from the Coal Age. More fossil species were described, but after 45 years, the first living syncarid was recognized in 1894. Molecule sequences revealed that mountain shrimp have little to do with bathynellaceans. They are classic caridoidans except for the lack of a carapace. Their biogeography indicates a Gondwana pattern—for example, Stygocaris has species in Victoria, New Zealand, and Chile. The fossil Anaspidacea (palaeocaridaceans), largely Carboniferous, were once thought of as a separate order, but recent cladistic analyses locate them within the living order. A Triassic species and a Cretaceous taxon provide a minuscule post-Carboniferous fossil record.

Currently, cumaceans authorities recognize approximately 1,606 species; most of the literature concerning the order focuses on α-taxonomy. Although the cumaceans have more species than the tanaidaceans, they are distributed among far fewer families. Cumaceans are benthic animals and, for the most part, marine in their habits, although some brackish and freshwater forms occur. They can be found from littoral to abyssal depths; their greatest diversity seems to be in the deep sea. A poor fossil record exists, with specimens generally so small that they lend themselves to study only with scanning electron microscopy. They prefer in-faunal benthic habitats. The females remain cryptic, while the males seek out the sequestered females—although one species is often taken in plankton tows. The cumaceans possess one of the most distinctive anatomical body plans among the peracaridans.

Most developmental biologists implicitly understand the focus of their research as the processes extending from a zygote to an adult condition, which include embryonic and larval development. Data are available from not only living species but also the fossil record (especially from the Cambrian Orsten faunas). Although the nauplius often occurs as the initial larval stage, an intimal nauplius is not universal, and several distinct nauplii are recognizable. One must distinguish between an orthonauplius and various types of metanauplii, as well as germ bands and egg nauplii. Ontogeny is a sequence of independent stages in which no one stage can predict what the next stage will look like, let alone what the final stage will look like. Each stage is autonomous. Care must be exercised in analyzing and interpreting biohistorical events.

Paleontologists long considered Bradoriida and Phosphatocopida as members of Ostracoda. New insights into their soft anatomy from unusually preserved fossils indicate their status is much more complicated. Both these groups are largely Cambrian in age, with only a few exceptions, and both exhibited completely encompassing bivalved and bilobed shells. Bradoriida had a head larva. They were at best stem forms of the pancrustaceans, but possibly better located closer to the root of the Mandibulata. Authorities have offered Phosphatocopida as a sister group to Crustacea sensu stricto, in what they call “Eucrustacea.” Phosphatocopes were generally tiny arthropods, less than 1mm to 2 mm, but sometimes up to 10 mm. Thousands of specimens are available for study; however, these so far are larval instars. Wide consensus seems to favor a sister status to all pancrustaceans. Without knowledge of the adults, caution must be exercised in this regard.

Stomatopoda constitute the largest radiation in cohort Hoplocarida, with the living mantis shrimp, Unipeltata, and a series of “stem forms,” archaeo- and palaeostomatopods. They exhibit a long list of autapomorphies, of which the most important are a series of subchelate maxillipeds (the second modified as a “ballistic,” either a spearing or a crushing terminus) and an elongate pleon with gills on the bases of the pleopod exopods. They are obligate carnivores with murderous habits, and they have remarkable optic systems to assist in hunting. The Paleozoic fossils clearly reveal the evolution of the ballistic maxillipeds and the distinctive shield-like telson.

Eumalacostraca is by far the largest and most diverse clade of Multicrustacea. Both cohorts, Caridoida and Hoplocarida, extend back to at least the middle of the Paleozoic. Others among these species eventually might be assigned to actual crown taxa when understanding of their anatomy becomes clearer, as indeed has happened in one case. However, many of the earliest fossils are incomplete in their preservation, and what is known of their anatomy requires that they be treated cautiously. Thus, they are best characterized as “stem forms” rather than being squeezed into some higher taxon. These groups do illustrate aspects of the earliest eumalacostracan radiation.

The clam shrimp, once thought to be a single order, are now viewed as three distinct orders within a cohort Diplostraca. Laevicaudata (or the lynceids) have ambiguous features such that they might be either closely related to Calmanostraca or stand as a sister group to a clade containing the rest of the Diplostraca. Lynceus has 11–13 limb-bearing somites in the thorax. Spinicaudata have 11–32 segments depending on the species, but the gonopores open on the 11th trunk somite. Cyclestheriida, however, is a sister taxon to the order Cladocera; it bears 16–18 pairs of trunk limbs in females and 15 pairs in males.

Pentastomids, or tongue worms, bear close relationships to Branchiura, although their body plan more resembles that of a worm. Sperm morphology as well as molecular sequences firmly ally them to the fish lice. Tongue worms are endoparasites in the respiratory systems of tetrapod vertebrates. Tongue worms lack special circulatory, respiratory, or excretory organs, but they do have a muscular suctorial pharynx. The brain appears restricted to a circumesophageal ring. The reproductive potential of pentastomidans is enormous. They are purported to have a Cambrian fossil record. Several such species are placed in Archaeopentastomida. However, alternative hypotheses for these fossils occur; they do resemble certain cyclopoid and/or siphonostome copepods.

The living Notostraca, ranging up to 10 cm in length, are a small group (approximately 11 species), but the larger assemblage of fossils (including Kazacharthra and the problematic Castrocollida) provides added depth and interest, thus facilitating the creation of a cohort Calmanostraca within infraclass Phyllopoda. The body bears a large, concave, shield-like carapace enveloping most of the anterior two-thirds of the body. The trunk consists of three regions: 11 anterior-most “thoracic” segments (thorax I), each with a single large pair of well-developed limbs; a second region in which the somites are fused into “rings” formed from 2 to 6 segments, with a number of limb pairs per ring (thorax II); and the most posterior region of a limbless abdomen terminating in an anal somite, or telson.

Pancrustacea is a misnomer; the overwhelming number of species are not crustaceans—they are insects (Hexapoda). But most of the anatomical disparity in this subphylum occurs among the crustaceans. The preferred name would have been Tetraconata, based on an actual diagnostic feature—the presence of four cone cells in their eye ommatidia. The “crustacean” paraphyletic components of the subphylum form the main focus in this book. These form three monophyletic clades. Members of one clade have their gonopores located mid-body, somewhere on the trunk segments 6–8: Malacostraca, Copepoda, Thecostraca, and the extinct Cyclida. Members of a second clade, the oligostracans, have gonopores closer to the posterior aspect of the head on trunk segment 4. These include the parasitic branchiurans and their sister group, the tongue worms (pentastomids); the mystacocarids along with the Cambrian skaracarids; and Ostracoda. A third clade contains three groups: the freshwater branchiopods, the xenocaridans (remipedes and cephalocarids), and Hexapoda (insects). None of the classic so-called diagnostic features apply to all pancrustacean clades. Nevertheless, a great disparity of bauplan is evident in the subphylum.

The production of phylogenies and taxonomies has long been based on personal interpretation rather than rigorous character analysis. The introduction of Hennig’s phylogenetic systematics (cladistics) has markedly improved the situation. However, not only is the amount of data derived from whatever sources (anatomy, development, and molecules) important but also the need to employ comprehensive taxon samples is critical. Any phylogeny represents one opinion (hypothesis) until tested against alternatives. A rigorous phylogeny can lead to more reliable classification schemes. Even so, phylogenies and taxonomies are only hypotheses that must remain open to consideration of alternative hypotheses. This chapter provides the framework for the structure of the rest of the book.

The unique early Devonian fossil, Lepidocaris rhyniensis, has often been linked with Anostraca in an infraclass Sarsostraca. This may or may not be so. The small size of the species, the fragmentary nature of the specimens, and difficulties of preparation all present challenges. Preserved in silicon nodules, the detail originally described was striking and includes larvae as well as adults. The thorax has 11 or 12 somites; this is followed by a limbless abdomen—a situation not unlike that of anostracans. The tubular caudal rami at the tail end resemble similar rami in cephalocaridans and remipedians (Xenocarida). Hence, there are multiple hypotheses regarding the affinities of order Lipostraca available for testing in future research.

Amphipoda, which lacks a manca stage, has had a tangled history in terms of suggested taxonomic affinities, abetted by the diversity of forms and habitats its members occupy. There is probably no greater “snake pit” in crustacean taxonomy than the classification of Amphipoda. Currently, there are approximately 10,160 species, and more are being described constantly. The Senticaudata are marked by incredible subtle diversity, with gammarideans as an example. Recently, the Ingolfiellida have been separated into their own order, and the subordinal organization of Amphipoda sensu stricto has been revamped into a series of hypotheses to be tested by future work. No fossils exist before the Eocene, yet many biogeographic analyses indicate the amphipods are a very ancient assemblage.

Remipedia, or fire shrimp, have a 6-segment head (maxilliped fused with the cephalon even in early stages of development) and extremely long trunks (up to 42 segments, with each segment bearing a pair of biramous limbs). Female gonopores are located on the 7th trunk segment, whereas the male gonopores sit on the 15th trunk segment. The sperm has apical acrosome with a large nucleus that surrounds what looks to be a central perferatorium (as in cephalocaridans). The trunk terminates in an anal somite bearing variably long caudal rami loaded with tegumental glands. The most apomorphic feature is a hypodermic maxillule connected to a venom gland producing the most complex cocktail of lethal secretions seen in arthropods, if not in all of the animal kingdom. Their biogeographic distribution exhibits a Tethyan pattern.

Do scientists search for enduring absolute Truth, or do they hold with relativism that science deals not with absolutes but merely organizes information from which many hypotheses can be derived and tested against each other? Historiographers can never know the past because the knowledge base is never complete. Although the hard data about the past are scientifically verifiable, the weaving of these into historical narratives involves fictions. It is the systematist who makes the story, the explanatory narrative, what Hayden White called “emplotment,” the act of telling a story that makes the past relevant and understandable. Scientists collect data, a process that can produce much noise. At some point, a scientist has to organize those data, extract pattern from the noise, and then formulate hypotheses that explain the data, while remaining open to alternative testable hypotheses. That job is never finished because it leads to a need for more data and the re-forming of hypotheses for further testing. Let others carry on.

Isopoda, with more than 10,600 species, exhibits the greatest disparity of forms amongst all the Peracarida. Like the amphipods and ingolfiellidans, isopods lack a carapace. Consideration of morphology as well as molecular sequencing has encouraged a striking alteration in their higher taxonomy. Isopoda, a very ancient group, has fossil phreatoicidans known from the Carboniferous. Suborder Phreatoicida have come to be viewed as a most primitive taxon based on morphology and molecules, but the suborder Scutocoxifera has the greatest disparity and diversity, as well as variety of reproductive habits. Isopoda, besides displaying great diversity and occupying habitats from the deep sea to dry terrestrial habitats, also manifest noteworthy parasitic forms.

The infraorder Caridea has figured under various names as an important component of natant decapods. But it was not until the 1980s that cladistic analyses of carideans appeared in print (Christoffersen), and that which lead to a series of cladistically framed revisions of the infraorder. With well over 3,000 species, the secret to their success most likely arises from their diverse modes of reproduction., They also possess multiple patterns of foregut ossicles, thus easily accommodating a wide variety of diets. Caridea, while conforming to a generalized natantian body type, is morphologically a rather diverse group in many subtle ways. It is difficult to provide exact numbers of taxa because this group is actively being worked on, with new species frequently being described.

In 1882, Bathynella natans was described, but the higher affinities presented problems. Calman offered that they were allied with an Australian shrimp, Anaspides, and placed both within superorder Syncarida, coequal with other eumalacostracan superorders. This was widely accepted until Serban placed Bathynella and allies into a separate superorder Podophallocarida. Recent cladistic analyses agree. Preferring groundwaters, aspects of their distribution clearly bear the marks of vicariance and indicate very ancient origins on Paleozoic paleocontinents. Either two or three families of bathynellaceans are recognized. The more primitive Bathynellidae have paragnaths, scaphocerites, untoothed labrum, prehensile mandibular palps one to three segments long, thoracic exopods always as a single segment, and only one or at most two pairs of pleopods. In contrast, Leptobathynellidae and Parabathynellidae have no paragnaths, no scaphocerite, a toothed or setose labrum, non-prehensile mandibular palps of a single segment, thoracic exopods with one or more segments, and pleopods absent or highly reduced.

Mictacea demonstrates the confusion that occurs when animals share so many primitive features. Modest Guţu in fact erected a number of orders to accommodate them, but these do not seem entirely justified. Although the two orders erected by Guţu currently do not have much support, in fairness it must be recognized that molecules, or information from yet-to-be-recognized mictacean taxa, could change the situation. In this case, Guţu’s Bochusacea and Cosinzeneacea might yet prove useful. They inhabit anchialine caves and the deep sea. The animals are small, slender, and subcylindrical in outline. The diagnosis of Guţu to the contrary, none of these animals appear particularly “flattened” in cross-section.

The diagnostic features that characterize Ostracoda, or seed shrimp, include distinctness of each pair of limbs from each other, body displaying little or no segmentation (although individual taxa can exhibit sclerite features that suggest possibly up to 11 trunk somites), an all-encompassing bivalved shell that lacks growth lines, and location of an adult male copulatory limb or organ just anterior to the caudal rami. The World Ostracoda Database indicates approximately 34,660 accepted species. The shell is typically calcareous, but in purely planktonic forms, calcium carbonate can be all but absent. The shell is often linked with a carapace, but this is not necessarily homolous with other pancrustacean carapaces. Once thought to be polyphyletic, the consensus, supported by molecule sequences, leans toward monophyly. The expression of the engrailed gene in Vargula hilgendorfii has allowed limb identifications. Initial hatching can happen at a variety of larval stages: three-segment nauplii, four-segment head larvae, or even longer segmental stages. Ostracods definitely occur in the Ordovician, but fossilized, ostracod-like limb fragments occur in the Cambrian. Sequencing of ostracods has helped reform the modern understanding of crustaceomorph evolution and taxonomy.

The Cambrian Period has yielded incredible specimens of arthropods from various sites throughout the world that have stimulated much phylogenetic speculation and analysis. Some members of the Cambrian microbiota have figured in important ways in commentaries on the possible origins of crustaceans. These fossils all seem to be larvae. Speculations about phylogeny universally depend on comparisons among adult forms. This leads to a serious problem—incompatible semaphoront status. When undertaking phylogenetic analyses, one should strive to compare only similar life stages—that is, adults to adults or nauplii to nauplii. This chapter reviews several of these taxa for completeness, but it cannot argue for or against these species as being ancestral or stem forms.

There are limits to the current understanding of arthropod segment formation, in large part linked with the superabundance of information from one particular model system, that of Drosophila, and a paucity of work on other arthropods. Segmentation exhibits multiple levels of genetic control. Various types of genes that control segment formation have been identified. Conceptual models or evolutionary scenarios have tried to make sense of this critical process: the naupliar/post-naupliar/merosegmental model, the arthropod pattern theory, the tagmosis model, and the idiosyncratic periodic table of articulata. These models are not hypotheses suitable for testing; rather, they form scenarios (stories) of evolution. None of these processes are effective toward generating explanatory scenarios, so the focus on producing testable hypotheses will continue.

Facetotecta is a strange, poorly understood group—one of the last true mysteries among the living crustaceomorphs. There are 12 known species of facetotectans, all of which are placed within the genus Hansenocaris. The recognition of Facetotecta, or Y-forms, is based completely on larval types—y-nauplii and y-cyprids. Molecule sequences confirm that the order resides somewhere within the Thecostraca, which has been suspected for some time. The discovery of the ypsigon stage indicates an endoparasitic adult stage. Currently, however, it is not known where that adult is located, what the adult phase might look like, or inside which animal (or plant?) it completes the life cycle.

The understanding of arthropod phylogeny and evolution in the past three decades has undergone major changes. These have arisen from new sources of data applicable across several fields of study. Developments within ontogenetic studies not only in regard to gross patterns of embryology but also regarding a revolution in the application of development genetics continue to generate remarkable insights into crustaceomorph evolution. Phylogeny techniques of analysis and new sources of data derived from molecular sequencing have forced consideration of new hypotheses concerning the interrelationships of all the pancrustaceans, both crustaceomorphs and Hexapoda. Furthermore, it is not uncommon that this multiplicity of sources for new data from opposing research teams can result in different hypotheses for phylogenetic relationships. This situation should not be treated as a defect, or an impediment, but rather as a source for multiple alternative hypotheses—the bases for further data gathering and analyses. Also, one should never view consideration of fossils as a vexing source of noise. Here, too, consideration of multiple hypotheses has proven useful. Often, fossils can produce deeper understanding of the paleodiversity of body plans. Nevertheless, some fossil groups still remain as enigmas, such as Thylacocephala. But even fossils incompletely understood can help fill in gaps in knowledge of paleobiodiversity that can prove useful, for example, in analyzing the the origin and early evolution of Hexapoda. Old ideas about pancrustacean evolution have served the field well, but results derived from all data inputs should be embraced.

Motivation for this comment Recently, the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) has sent around a letter, dated 21st April, 2020 to more than 300 palaeontological journals, signed by the President, Vice President and a former President of the society (Rayfield et al. 2020). The signatories of this letter request significant changes to the common practices in palaeontology. With our present, multi-authored comment, we aim to argue why these suggestions will not lead to improvement of both practice and ethics of palaeontological research but, conversely, hamper its further development. Although we disagree with most contents of the SVP letter, we appreciate this initiative to discuss scientific practices and the underlying ethics. Here, we consider different aspects of the suggestions by Rayfield et al. (2020) in which we see weaknesses and dangers. It is our intent to compile views from many different fields of palaeontology, as our discipline is (and should remain) pluralistic. This contribution deals with the aspects concerning Myanmar amber. Reference is made to Haug et al. (2020a) for another comment on aspects concerning amateur palaeontologists/ citizen scientists/private collectors.

The best-preserved Scottish species of a cyclidan is reinterpreted, based upon recent advances in cyclidan paleobiology. Americlus rankini (Woodward, 1868) is one of the best-preserved members of this crustacean group, and its morphology suggests that it and related forms exhibited a unique and distinct morphology within Multicrustacea. Paleoecological evidence suggests that the animal was most likely free living, possibly as a scavenger, in a marginal marine environment. Americlus lived in Laurentia during the Middle Mississippian (Visean) to Middle Pennsylvanian (Moscovian).

International audience

Tiny, pelagic arthropods from the Anisian Luoping Biota exposed in two quarries near Luoping, Yunnan Province, China, represent the numerically most abundant organisms in the assemblage. They form the basis for definition of two, and possibly three, species referred to the order Lophogastrida, family Eucopiidae.Yunnanocopia grandisnew genus new species andY.longicaudan. gen. new species represent the oldest occurrence of mysidaceans in the fossil record. Their anatomy allies them with the Ladinian speciesSchimperella acanthocercusTaylor, Schram, and Shen, 2001, from Guizhou Province, China, which previously was thought to be the oldest lophogastrid, and with extant species of Eucopiidae. Their appearance in the Anisian represents one additional element of the early faunal radiation within the Luoping Biota following the end-Permian extinction event. Presence of well-preserved oostegites, along with other morphological features, documents a conservative bauplan expressed in Eucopiidae.

Tealliocarid eumalacostracans, known from Late Devonian-Carboniferous marine, non-marine, and estuarine strata of North America, continental Europe, and the United Kingdom, are here transferred from Eucarida: Decapoda back to Peracarida: Pygocephalomorpha. Species included in Tealliocaris exhibit a suite of peracaridan and pygocephalomorphan synapomorphies, including the presence of an oostegite marsupium in females, a distinct terminal telson lobe, and a pair of lateral telson lobes. Purported decapodan characters, e.g. complete fusion of the carapace and thoracic tergites, and the presence of only five pereiopods, in Tealliocaris seem to be poorly supported. A phylogenetic analysis included herein fully supports inclusion of Tealliocaris in Peracarida and in Pygocephalomorpha.

A single specimen of a shrimp-like crustacean, Devonostenopus pennsylvaniensis, new genus and species is described from the Huntley Mountain Formation, which is Devonian–Carboniferous (Mississippian) in age. The specimen was collected in north-central Pennsylvania. Devonostenopus pennsylvaniensis is attributed to Stenopodidae. Co-occurrence of the specimen with pinnules of Archaeopteris halliana Goeppert, 1852, suggests that it is Devonian in age. Occurrence of a stenopodidean in the Devonian of North America is significant, as only three definitive decapods have been previously described from the Paleozoic and only two have been described from the Devonian. The earliest stenopodideans described to date are Cretaceous (Cenomanian and Santonian) in age. As such, Devonostenopus pennsylvaniensis extends the geologic range of Stenopodidea from Cretaceous to Late Devonian. Occurrence of a stenopodidean in the Devonian of North America, as well as the occurrence of the only two other known Devonian decapods in North America, suggests that Laurentia might have been a major area of endemism for Devonian decapods.

Thylacocephala are among the most problematic of arthropod fossils. Various authors have allied them with all manner of crustacean groups, including branchiopods, cirripedes, remipedes, and malacostracans. They have a very apomorphic body plan often marked by hypertrophy of the compound eyes, three pairs of large raptorial subchelate limbs, eight sets of well-developed phyllobranch gills, and from 8 to at least 16 posterior trunk somites bearing paddle-like limbs. They have been thought of as a distinct class composed of two orders, Concavicarida and Conchyliocarida, but membership within the orders varies according to authors, and no familial divisions have been proposed within the orders until now. This lack of taxonomic structure inhibits organization of available information concerning the paleoecology, paleogeography, and phylogenetic relationships of thylacocephalans. A working hypothesis for the higher taxonomy within the class is proposed here. This entails a redefinition of the two orders, and recognition of seven families, five of them new: Austriocarididae Glaessner, 1931, Clausocarididae Arduini, 1992 (new status), Concavicarididae n. fam., Dollocarididae, n. fam., Microcarididae n. fam., Ostenocarididae n. fam. and Protozoeidae n. fam.

Leaiais a special genus of extinct “conchostracan” branchiopods; its soft parts have not been known until now. The leaiid specimens with soft bodies reported in the present paper came from two localities: the Upper Carboniferous Canso Group of New Brunswick, Canada, and the Permian Mount Glossopteris Formation of the Ohio Range, Holick Mountains, Antarctica. They include head, biramous antennae, mandible, shell gland, male claspers, and digestive tube. These parts together fully demonstrate that the leaiid clam shrimp indeed should be attributed to the crustaceans, instead of Mollusca. Based on the ribbed valves and structure of soft parts it should be placed in the branchiopodan Diplostraca. We believe that this group, which went extinct at the end of the Permian, is quite different from those of Laevicaudata, Spinicaudata, and Cyclestheriida. Hence, it should have its own higher taxon, Leaiina. The well-developed and sharply pointed head, delicate and short biramous antennae, in concert with the radial ribs on the valves probably indicate a burrowing in-faunal habit.

We performed a phylogenetic analysis of the crustacean class Remipedia. For this purpose, we generated sequences of three different molecular markers, 16S rRNA (16S), histone 3 (H3), and cytochrome c oxidase subunit I (COI). The analyses included sequences from 20 of the 27 recent species of Remipedia, plus four still-undescribed species. The data matrix was complemented with sequences from online databases (The European Molecular Biology Laboratory and GenBank®). Campodea tillyardi (Diplura), Hutchinsoniella macracantha (Cephalocarida), Penaeus monodon (Malacostraca) and Branchinella occidentalis (Branchiopoda) served as out-groups. In addition to the classic computer-based alignment methods used for protein-coding markers (H3 and COI), an alternative approach combining structural alignment and manual optimization was used for 16S. The results of our analyses uncovered several inconsistencies with the current taxonomic classification of Remipedia. Godzilliidae and the genera Speleonectes and Lasionectes are polyphyletic, while Speleonectidae emerges as a paraphyletic group. We discuss current taxonomic diagnoses based on morphologic characters, and suggest a taxonomic revision that accords with the topologies of the phylogenetic analyses. Three new families (Kumongidae, Pleomothridae, and Cryptocorynetidae) as well as three new genera (Kumonga, Angirasu, and Xibalbanus) are erected. The family Morlockiidae and the genus Morlockia are removed from synonymy and returned to separate status.

Professor Gerhard Scholtz, Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin, Institut fur Biologie, Vergleichende Zoologie has received The Crustacean Society Excellence in Research Award for 2011. He began his studies at the Freie Universitat Berlin, graduating in Biology in 1982. For his doctoral studies, he moved to the Universitat Bremen, graduating in 1986, and afterwards returned to the Freie Universitat where he completed his Habilitation in Biology 1993. He was employed as Associate Professor 1986-1995 at FU before taking up a professorial chair in Comparative Zoology at the Humboldt-Universitat, Berlin. Gerhard’s research interests and accomplishments cover a broad range of invertebrates but has mainly focused on metazoan evolution, origin and phylogeny of arthropods, developmental biology of arthropods, the phylogenetic and evolutionary implications of developmental patterns (cell lineage, gene expression, morphogenesis), cladistic analyses using morphological and molecular data, the evolution and phylogeny of decapod crustaceans, and the biology and origins of freshwater crayfish. Emerging out the classical German mould into which he was born, Scholtz was always destined to become a carci

Cancer is one of the “oldest” names in carcinology, but like many old and familiar things it has fallen into use as a catch-all category, especially by non-taxonomists. Much taxonomic revision has occurred in Brachyura: Cancridae [Cancer] in recent years, and unfortunately, much of it has passed completely under the radar of biologists. A summary of that revisionary work is provided along with a list of currently accepted names for the living species of Cancridae. We offer this contribution in an effort to cut off the use of old, and in many cases invalid, binomina, and to encourage the use of a modern, up-to-date classification of cancrid crabs.

Papers within the broad designation of systematics have figured prominently in the pages of the Journal of Crustacean Biology in its first 30 years. The journal has had great continuity in its editorial policies and practices, having had only three General Editors in 30 years. Not only has the journal published taxonomic material, but also made available material in a variety of subjects that impinge on understanding the evolution and phylogeny of crustaceans, including cladistic phylogeny, biogeography, comparative anatomy, and issues of natural history. An overview of some highlights from the first 30 volumes of the journal is presented; some prognostications for the future are offered.

As The Crustacean Society completes its thirtieeth year of existence, it is time to reflect and appropriately commemorate this anniversary with an appreciation of Raymond B. Manning. This memorial augments the brief biographical sketch presented by Lemaitre and Reed (2000). On the day this issue of Journal of Crustacean Biology is being published, 11 October 2009, Ray would have been 75 and undoubly would have been proud of what the society has achieved in just three decades.

The study of biogeography was once a pillar of evolution science. Both Darwin and especially Wallace found great inspiration from the consideration of animal distributions. However, what is to happen to this discipline in a time of global trade, mass movement of people and goods, and the resulting globalization of the planet’s biota? Can we still hope to delve into the fine points of past geography as it affected animal and plant evolution? Maybe we can, but only with careful study of life forms that suffer minimal affects – at present – from globalization, viz., marginal faunas of quite inaccessible environments. Two examples taken from syncarid crustaceans illustrate this point. Bathynellacea provide insight into ancient patterns of distribution and possible modes of evolution of that group. Modern Anaspididae yield some surprising information concerning the timing of evolutionary events.

As a result of cladistic analyses involving fossil hoplocaridans, the palaeostomatopods emerge as paraphyletic. Consequently, the genus Archaeocaris requires a separate family, erected herein. A partir des resultats d'analyses cladistiques incluant les formes hoplocarides fossiles, les palaeostomatopodes emergent comme paraphyletiques. En consequence le genre Archaeocaris necessite la creation d'une famille separee, ce que nous faisonsici.

Marine crustaceans were not known as inclusions in amber from upper Aptian–middle Albian deposits in Northern Spain. The publication of a photograph of a purported fossil amphipod (Alonso et al., 2000) among many other arthropods promised to be of high interest because the fossil record of the amphipoda does not extend further than Upper Eocene (Schram, 1986; Coleman and Myers, 2000). The Museum of Natural Sciences of Alava in Vitoria-Gasteiz (AMNS), northern Spain, kindly sent us the material with the presumed amphipods, as our intention was to investigate its affinities to other fossil amphipods. The fossil crustaceans of this assemblage were found among 15 orders of insects, spiders, and mites—i.e., mainly terrestrial arthropods. Upon close investigation, however, we learned that the samples contained not amphipods but tanaids. This means that the fossil age of amphipods remains unchanged for the moment and other questions emerge, such as: how can a common looking, marine, subtidal tanaid end up in a 100–120 my piece of amber from a sedimentary environment in northern Spain? And how does it relate to the numerous insects and plant pollen enclosed in other pieces of amber from the same site? The sedimentary environment in the south of the Basque-Cantabrian Basin around Alava in Lower Cretaceous times was marked with distributary channels, crevasse splays, and interdistributary bays, evolving towards an open marine platform (Alonso et al., 2000; Portero and Ramirez del Pozo, 1979, personal commun. V. Pujalte). Where waters became stagnant in this environment and could no longer carry large particles in suspension, amber lumps of nearby forests were deposited. Flooding of the delta occurred from both marine incursions, as indicated by the presence of silt and dinoflagellate cysts in a coastal area, and fluvial influxes. It is under these floodplain conditions that tanaids, probably present …

During diving explorations of anchialine cave systems on Abaco Island, Bahamas, we collected five larvae that represent different developmental stages of remipede crustaceans. Based on four early naupliar stages and a post-naupliar larva, it is possible for the first time to reconstruct the postembryonic development of Remipedia some 25 years after their discovery. These specimens begin to fill in some critical gaps in our knowledge of this important group of crustaceans.