Lepidopa deamae Benedict, 1903

Boyko, Christopher B., 2010, New records and taxonomic data for 14 species of sand crabs (Crustacea: Anomura: Albuneidae) from localities worldwide, Zootaxa 2555, pp. 49-61 : 51

Lepidopa deamae Benedict, 1903

Lepidopa cf. deamae . — Hendrickx, 1993a: 7 (list).

Lepidopa deamae . — Hendrickx, 1993b: 308 (list). — Hendrickx, 1995: 546 (list), fig. 2, unnumbered fig. on p. 548. — Boschi, 2000: 89 (list). — Boyko, 2002: 165 –172, figs. 54, 55 (full synonymy). — Hendrickx, 2005: 178 (distribution).

“ Albuneidae ”. — Hendrickx, 1995: unnumbered figure on pp. 540, 545.

Material examined. Mexico: Baja California, Oaxaca, Bay of Dulce, 5 Apr 1937, coll. W. Williams and F. E. Lewis On "Stranger": 1 male, 9.8 mm cl, 1 female 12.1 mm cl ( USNM 267786).

Distribution. Colima, Mexico, south to Mancora, Peru; depth range unknown ( Boyko 2002).

Remarks. These specimens agree in almost all characters with Lepidopa deamae ; the sole exception is that the indent of the dactylus of pereopod II is rounded rather than narrowly indented and slitlike. This character was given in the key of Boyko (2002) to distinguish between L. deamae (slit-like pereopod II indent) and L. benedicti Schmitt, 1935 (broad pereopod II indent), although the distribution and maximum sizes of L. deamae (Pacific, 35.9 mm cl) and L. benedicti (Atlantic, 25.3 mm cl) are also very different. As the two specimens cited above represent the smallest known specimens of L. deamae (the previous smallest known specimen was an 18.1 mm cl female; see Boyko 2002: 166), it is possible that the shape of the pereopod II dactylus indent changes with size and becomes more narrowed. The two specimens examined here appear to be mature, based on pleopod and telson development, although the female lacks eggs and reproductive competence cannot be explicitly demonstrated. Aside from the difference in pereopod II morphology, these specimens appear identical with L. deamae and occur within the known geographic range of that species. It is possible that these specimens represent a distinct species from L. deamae , and one that perhaps does not attain the large size of L. deamae . Further collection of specimens is required, ideally including a developmental series to show ontogeny of the pereopod II, in order to address this question. It is possible that the differences between these specimens and other L. deamae are the reason that Hendrickx (1993a) cited a record of L. cf. deamae from Sinaloa.