Crocydocinus crosnieri (Griffin & Tranter, 1986) Lee & Forges & Ng, 2019

Lee, Bee Yan, Forges, Bertrand Richer De & Ng, Peter K. L., 2019, Deep-sea spider crabs of the family Epialtidae MacLeay, 1838, from Papua New Guinea, with a redefinition of Tunepugettia Ng, Komai & Sato, 2017, and descriptions of two new genera (Crustacea: Decapoda: Brachyura: Majoidea), Zootaxa 4619 (1), pp. 1-44 : 29

publication ID	https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.4619.1.1
publication LSID	lsid:zoobank.org:pub:CA6AEB18-2F97-449C-AE34-E1509DFFC841
DOI	https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3510442
persistent identifier	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03C9AC69-1E72-FFB6-649F-FEABB63CEA42
treatment provided by	Plazi
scientific name	Crocydocinus crosnieri (Griffin & Tranter, 1986)
status	comb. nov.

Treatment

Crocydocinus crosnieri (Griffin & Tranter, 1986) View in CoL comb. nov.

( Figs. 13C View FIGURE 13 , 15C View FIGURE 15 , 17C View FIGURE 17 , 18 View FIGURE 18 G–J)

Hyastenus View in CoL sp.— Crosnier 1976: 242, pl. 2.

Rochinia crosnieri Griffin & Tranter, 1986: 176 View in CoL (key), 179, fig. 57a, b (type locality: Réunion, St. Paul).

Rochinia View in CoL crosnieri— Tavares, 1991: 161 (list).— Casadío et al. 2005: 159 (list). – Ng & Richer de Forges 2007: 62 View Cited Treatment (list).— Ng et al. 2008: 105 (list).

Material examined. Holotype: female (20.1 × 13.9 mm) (MNHN-IU-2014-19835 [ MNHN-B16073 ]), Réunion Island , St. Paul , 580–680 m, coll. P. Guézé, March 1973. Others: Réunion: 1 ovigerous female (24.7 × 16.8 mm) (MNHN-IU-2016-9523), Réunion Island , Casiers, 350–500 m, coll. 2 February 1974. Seychelles: 2 males (30.3 × 21.7 mm, 28.1 × 20.9 mm), 1 ovigerous female (24.4 × 17.1 mm), 1 female (with Sacculina ; 25.0 × 18.2 mm) (MNHN-IU-2016-9524), stn 4.22, Seychelles Islands, Pêches au Casier, 04°46.5’S 56°38.4’E, 420–430 m, coll. 23 October 1987. GoogleMaps

Diagnosis. Carapace pyriform, covered with layer of setae and long tufts of setae on pseudorostral spines, edge of gastric region and lateral margin of carapace. Pseudorostral spines straight, diverging in V. Supraorbital eave fused with carapace; pre-orbital angle forms sharp spine; postorbital lobe slender. Carapace with regions defined; epibranchial region slightly swollen ( Fig. 13C View FIGURE 13 ). Antennal flagellum longer than pseudorostral spines. Basal antennal article longer than broad, distal angel rounded, margin slightly constricted. Buccal frame covered by third maxilliped, distal angle of frame slightly protruded. Pterygostomial region with 3 granules on outer margin ( Fig. 15C View FIGURE 15 ). Chelipeds slender, covered with setae except on fingers.Ambulatory legs slender, covered with layer of setae except on dactylus. Adult female pleon rounded covered with thick layer of setae, with all somites and telson free ( Fig. 15C View FIGURE 15 ). G1 straight, distal tip sharp, slight constriction near distal region ( Fig. 18 View FIGURE 18 G–I).

Remarks. Three female specimens were examined and identified by Crosnier (1976) as Hyastenus sp., and compared with Rochinia brevirostris . Griffin & Tranter (1986) examined one of these female specimens and designated it as the holotype of Rochinia crosnieri Griffin & Tranter, 1986 .

Crocydocinus crosnieri comb. nov. has all the other morphological characteristics of Crocydocinus n. gen.: smooth and cylindrical pseudorostral spines ( Fig. 13C View FIGURE 13 ), straight with slightly constricted outer margin of the basal antennal article ( Fig. 15C View FIGURE 15 ), and the absence of carina on the ambulatory legs ( Fig. 13C View FIGURE 13 ). As such, it is here transferred to Crocydocinus n. gen. Carapace with regions well defined and no distinct strong large granules on C. crosnieri comb. nov. ( Fig. 13C View FIGURE 13 ) (versus carapace with regions well defined with strong large granules on the other species in the genus; Fig. 13A, B, D View FIGURE 13 , 14 View FIGURE 14 ); lack of lateral branchial spines on the carapace, similar to C. decipata ( Fig. 13D View FIGURE 13 ) (versus presence of weak or distinct lateral branchial spines on the other species in the genus; Fig. 13A, B View FIGURE 13 , 14 View FIGURE 14 ); and the hepatic spine not swollen basally ( Fig. 17C View FIGURE 17 ) (versus hepatic spine swollen basally on other species in the genus; Fig. 17A, B View FIGURE 17 , D–G).