DYNOMENIDAE Ortmann, 1892

Cleva, Régis, Guinot, Danièle & Albenga, Laurent, 2007, Annotated catalogue of brachyuran type specimens (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura) deposited in the Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, Paris. Part I. Podotremata, Zoosystema 29 (2), pp. 229-279 : 246

Family DYNOMENIDAE Ortmann, 1892

Dynomene filholi Bouvier, 1894 (Fig. 14A)

Dynomene filholi Bouvier, 1894: 6 .

LECTOTYPE (by present designation). — MNHN- B22080bis, Cape Verde Islands , Branco Islet, 60 m, ♂ 12.0 × 14.6 mm, carapace, abdomen, right P1 and P4 detached, right P5 incomplete, left P5 missing.

REMARKS

Different lots are labelled as “ types ”: MNHN- B22080, 1 ♂, 2 ♀♀, original label: “Le ‘Talisman’ 1883, Dynomene Filholi E. - L. Bouvier, type figuré, juillet, 60 mètres, Ilot Branco , 4742-86” ; MNHN- B22078, 1 ♀, original label: “Le ‘Talisman’ 1883, 4742-86, Dynomene Filholi E. - L. Bouvier, type des couleurs, 23 juillet, 275- 150 m, Îles du Cap Vert , env. de la Praya, banc de Corail rouge, Nº 103” ; MNHN-B22081, 3 ♂♂, 4 ♀♀, 1 ov. ♀, 1 sp. (♂?) (6 ♂♂, 1 ♀, 1 ov. ♀ in McLay 1999: 488), original label: “le ‘Travailleur’ 1882, Dynomene Filholi E. - L. Bouvier, Type, 29 Juillet, 75 m, Canal de St Vincent à St Antoine par 16°56’ Lat. N., Nº 107 [ Cape Verde Islands ], 4742-86” .

The specimen dissected for the description of the gills by Bouvier (1894) was most probably lost. A neotype was selected by McLay (1999: 488, 489), who did not consider the specimens studied by A. Milne-Edwards & Bouvier (1900) as syntypes. Bouvier (1896) indicated that he did a complete study based on the specimens collected by the Talisman from Branco Island and Cape Verde Islands, which are believed herein to be syntypes. A. Milne- Edwards & Bouvier (1900) based their complete description on this same material. The largest male measuring 14.6 × 12.0 mm (from the lot MNHN- B22080) was the individual used for description and figured on plate 8 by A. Milne-Edwards & Bouvier (1900). The neotype of McLay is not valid ( ICZN 1999: Art. 75.1, existence of syntypes), therefore the specimen presently registered MNHN-B22080bis is designated as the lectotype.

The other syntypes MNHN-B22078, MNHN- B22080and MNHN-B22081 become paralectotypes. Th e sample MNHN-B22083, 2 ♂♂, original label: “I. du Cap Vert,Travailleur, Dynomene Filholi E. -L. Bouv., Type, 29 juillet 1882, Nº52, 75 m” was not listed in A. Milne-Edwards & Bouvier (1900: 9) and, even if “type” is mentioned on the label, it cannot be considered a component of the type series.

Dynomene guamensis McLay, 2001 (Fig. 14B)

Dynomene guamensis McLay, 2001b: 810 (in key), 814, figs 2, 3B.

HOLOTYPE (by original designation). — MNHN-B26476, Mariana Islands, Guam, Piti Lagoon , 13°27’N, 144°47’E, 1-3.5 m, among dead coral, III.1997, H. T. Conley coll., ♂ 9.7 × 11.0 mm, left P2 detached.

Dynomene hispida Guérin-Méneville, 1832 (Fig. 14C)

Dynomene hispida Guérin-Méneville, 1832: 11 , pl. 14, fig. 2.

LECTOTYPE. — MNHN-B24, Mauritius, designated as “type” on a label by R. Serène 27.III.1974, ♀ 11.5 × 14.0 mm, dry, still stuck on a piece of elder. — Original label: “ Dynomene hispida Latr., Île de France ”.

REMARKS

According to Peyrot-Clausade & Serène (1976: 1342) (label in the vial 27.III.1974), this specimen (in fact a female, and not a male) probably corresponds to the “ Dynomène hispide” (vernacular name) figured by Desmarest (1825: pl. 18, fig. 2; 1823: 133 footnote, 432, pl. 18, fig. 2), thereafter by Guérin-Méneville (1832: 11, pl. 14, fig. 2) who gave a latinized name to this crab from “Île de France ” (= Mauritius) figured on a plate. This specimen was designated as the “type” by Peyrot- Clausade & Serène (1976). McLay (1999: 475) erroneously concluded that this specimen “was probably considered the holotype by Desmarest” and designated it as holotype (also see Davie 2002: 168). At the same time McLay (1999: 474) quoted another specimen of D. hispida as “originally part of the collection of Guérin-Méneville” deposited at Philadelphia (ANSP-CA 3315), with many other decapods from the Guérin-Méneville’s collection (see Spamer & Bogan 1992, 1993a, b). Due to the subsequent misuse of the term “ holotype ” ( ICZN 1999: Art 74.6), this specimen is regarded as a lectotype.