identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
416887E48616E3148EB4FD15FD9E914E.text	416887E48616E3148EB4FD15FD9E914E.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Colimene Ng & Ng 2025	<div><p>Colimene gen. nov.</p><p>Type species. Dynomene pugnatrix De Man, 1889, by present designation.</p><p>Species included. Dynomene pugnatrix De Man, 1889, D. guamensis McLay, 2001, D. kroppi McLay, 2001</p><p>Comparative material examined. Dynomene hispida (Latreille, in Milbert, 1812): 1 male (9.9 × 8.2 mm), 1 female (11.2 × 8.6 mm) (ZRC 2013.0113), in coral reef, Taitung, Taiwan, coll. P.-H. Ho, 20 April 1992 . Dynomene pilumnoides Alcock, 1900: 1 male (9.3 × 8.1 mm) (ZRC 2022.0084), Sumbawa, Moluccas, Indonesia, coll. 5 June 2003 . Dynomene praedator A. Milne-Edwards, 1878: 1 male (9.7 × 7.4 mm) (ZRC 2000.0744), Guam, coll. G. Paulay, April 2000 . Hirsutodynomene spinosa (Rathbun, 1911): 1 female (36.1 × 26.9 mm) (ZRC), near Turtle Island, off Tahsi port, Ilan County, northeastern Taiwan, coll. K.-H. Lee, April 2002 ; 1 juvenile male (7.5 × 5.8 mm) (ZRC), in rubble, Luminao Reef, Guam, 30 m, coll. B. Henke, April 2001 . Hirsutodynomene vespertilio McLay &amp; Ng, 2005: 1 male (18.4 × 15.5 mm) (ZRC 2008.1475), northwest of Panglao, Bohol, Visayas, Philippines, in tangle nets, 120–160 m, coll. J.C.E. Mendoza &amp; J. Arbasto, 21 December 2007 .</p><p>Diagnosis. Carapace wider than long, subquadrate; posterolateral margin gently converging; dorsal surface smooth, regions not defined except for epigastric area; setation comprises mostly of simple setae of varying lengths present on carapace and legs; setae on carapace scattered, not obscuring surface, longer, denser on legs (including P5). Infraorbital margin distinctly projecting anteriorly, clearly visible in dorsal view; antennal flagellum long,&gt; 0.5 times CW; subhepatic region gently swollen, tuberculate or granulate; pterygostomial region gently swollen with granules or tubercles. Chelipeds (particularly basis-ischium, meri, carpus, palm and fingers) elongate, clearly unable to appress against carapace, proximal part of inner surface with prominent median tooth; surfaces largely smooth; palm distinctly longer than fingers in large male specimens; pollex unarmed.Ambulatory legs relatively elongate, P4 merus ≥ 0.5 times CW. Male thoracic sternites 1–3 completely fused, relatively wide, forming pentagonal structure; male pleon distinctly broad, pleonal somites distinctly broadening posteriorly towards telson; male telson broad, almost semicircular.</p><p>Etymology. The name is derived from the Latin name for Colin, “Colinus”, in arbitrary combination with the genus name Dynomene, in honour of Colin McLay. It remembers an old friend who in his day, was one of the foremost experts on the Dynomenidae and Dromiidae . Gender of genus feminine.</p><p>Remarks. Dynomenid species are chiefly separated by their external morphology due to the general uniformity in form of the G1 and G2. The suite of characters provided in the diagnosis are consistent for the three species placed here in Colimene gen. nov. and allow them to be readily distinguishable within the family. Colimene gen. nov. is most similar to Dynomene, with both genera lacking the obvious carapace and setal modifications seen in other dynomenid genera (e.g., dense cover of short setae in Metadynomene McLay, 1999; long setae with spiny, areolate carapace in Hirsutodynomene McLay, 1999).</p><p>Colimene gen. nov. differs from Dynomene s. str. in having a more subquadrate carapace with the infraorbital margin projecting anteriorly into a low shelf and is clearly visible in dorsal view (Figs. 1A, 4D, I, 10C, G; McLay 1999: fig. 22a; McLay 2001: figs. 1a, 2a, 3) (versus carapace more subcircular, with infraorbital margin not projecting anteriorly in dorsal view in Dynomene s. str.; Fig. 1B; McLay 2009: figs. 18a, 19a, 20a, 21a); posterolateral margins are only weakly converging (Figs. 2A, B, 3A, 4A, F, 6A; McLay 1999: fig. 22a; McLay 2001: figs. 1a, 2a, 3) (versus posterolateral margins strongly converging in Dynomene s. str.; McLay 1999: figs. 18a, 19a, 20a, 21a); subhepatic region is gently swollen and tuberculate or granulate (Figs. 1D, 4E, J, 5A; McLay 1999: fig. 22b) (versus subhepatic region not swollen, smooth in Dynomene s. str.; Fig. 1E; McLay 1999: figs. 18b, 19b, 20b, 21b); carapace setation comprises mostly of simple setae and some serrulate setae (Figs. 1A, 3A, 4A, D, E, F, I, J, 7A, C, D) (versus dense mixture of long and short serrulate and plumose setae, with the latter often arranged in dense setule tufts in Dynomene s. str.; cf. McLay 1999: figs. 3a–e, 17a–d); simple, serrulate, serrate and plumose setae on the ambulatory legs and sparsely so on the chelipeds (Figs. 4, 9, 10, 11A–C) (versus typically shorter and denser setae of various types on the ambulatory legs and chelipeds in Dynomene s. str.; cf. McLay 1999: figs. 17a–d); antennal flagellum is long, being&gt; 0.5 times CW (Figs. 2A, B, 3A, 4A, F) (versus antennal flagellum shorter than 0.5 times CW in Dynomene s. str.; McLay 1999: figs. 18a, b, 19a, b, 20a, b, 21a, b); cheliped meri, carpi, palm and fingers are distinctly elongate with the outer surface of the palm smooth and distinctly longer than fingers in large male specimens, the proximal part of the inner surface of the chela has a prominent median tooth, the pollex is completely smooth, with small notches terminally (Figs. 2D–F, 3C, D, 4B, C, G, H, 5D; McLay 1999: fig. 22 c, d; McLay 2001: figs. 1b, c, 2b, c, 3) (versus cheliped segments not elongate, surface of palm typically spiny or tuberculate, palm roughly equal to fingers (except D. filholi), the proximal part of inner surface only has a low tubercle and the pollex has a tooth or ridge in Dynomene s. str.; Fig. 1I, J; McLay 1999 figs. 18c, d, 19c, d, 20c, d, 21c, d); ambulatory legs are relatively long, with the P4 merus ≥ 0.5 times CW (Figs. 2A, G, 3E–I, 4A, F, 6A) (versus ambulatory legs clearly shorter, with P4 merus &lt;0.5 times CW in Dynomene s. str.; cf. McLay 1999: figs. 18e, 19e, 20e, 21e); fused male thoracic sternites 2 and 3 relatively broad, forming a distinctly wide pentagonal structure (Figs. 1D, 5E) (versus fused thoracic sternites 2 and 3 relatively narrow, forming a more quadrate structure in Dynomene s. str.; Fig. 1E); and the male pleon is relatively broad, with the somites distinctly widening posteriorly towards the telson (Fig. 1G) (versus male pleon relatively narrower, vaguely tongue-shaped, with somites subequal in width in Dynomene s. str.; Fig. 1H).</p><p>The setae for several dynomenid species were imaged in McLay (1999), who noted that they were either short or long, and divided variously into bare and setule-bearing regions, giving them a coarse appearance. Although he did not formally categorise the various kinds of setae observed (McLay 1999: 441), in the descriptive part of his text for the various taxa, he referred to some as plumose (which has numerous setules on the shaft and can be feather-like to bushy) and others as filiform (with few or no setules on the shaft). De Man (1889), in describing D. pugnatrix, also noticed and illustrated the plumose setae present on the ambulatory dactylus (Figs. 2J, K, 7A, B; De Man 1889: pl. 10 fig. 13f) but he also figured a kind of setae that is comb-like (Fig. 2K). A close examination of the setal types for species of Dynomene and Colimene gen. nov. and using the setal terminology of Garm (2004), showed that the setae do vary substantially in form, but in general, can largely be broadly divided into four major types: (1) simple (= acuminate) seta with surfaces smooth and an infracuticular articulation; (2) plumose seta, with long setules arranged in two rows and an supracuticular articulation; (3) serrulate seta, with short to very short setules arranged unevenly over surface and an infracuticular articulation; and (4) serrate seta, with one or two rows of denticles that get progressively smaller towards tip and an infracuticular articulation. The plumose seta figured by De Man (1889) (present Fig. 2J) is accurately depicted; but his comb-like seta (present Fig. 2K) is likely to be a serrulate one with somewhat longer setules.</p><p>The higher density of simple setae on the carapace and pereopods of species of Colimene gen. nov. (Fig. 7A, D), is here considered to be taxonomically significant for the genus. In C. pugnatrix comb. nov., most of the setae on the carapace are simple (Fig. 1A), with some serrulate, the setules on them being short to very short (Fig. 7C, D). The setae on the pereopods are also predominantly simple (Fig. 7A) but there are generally more serrulate setae present of varying lengths with the setules ranging from short to very short (Fig. 7C, D); and plumose setae are also present though relatively short (Fig. 7D). Noteworthy is that serrate setae, with the characteristic denticles, are only present on the proximal surface of the flexor margin of the ambulatory dactylus (Fig. 7B). These serrate setae are relatively short, and the denticles on the margin are simple, becoming smaller towards the tip (Fig. 7B).</p><p>The chelipeds in Colimene gen. nov. are notable, apart from the characters listed in the diagnosis, in that they are variable in length and appear to be more sexually dimorphic compared to Dynomene . In the two smaller male specimens of C. pugnatrix comb. nov. (holotype, 9.8 × 7.2 mm, SMF 4857; and the recent specimen, 10.0 × 8.3 mm, ZRC 2021.0722), their chelipeds are relatively shorter (Figs. 2D–F, 3C, D, 4B, C) but in the largest specimen of C. pugnatrix comb. nov. (10.9 × 9.5 mm, ZRC 2021.0781), the merus and palm are distinctly longer (Fig. 4G, H). This is probably associated with size. The cheliped proportions of the largest male of C. pugnatrix comb. nov. are similar to those of C. guamensis comb. nov. and C. kroppi comb. nov. whose holotypes are also relatively large. There is distinct sexual dimorphism in the form of the chelae. In the adult females of two species, the cheliped is clearly shorter (being subequal in length to the P2), the tooth on the cutting edge of the dactylar finger is distinctly smaller, and the cutting edge of the pollex has small denticles (Figs. 6A, B, 11A–C, 12B). This is in contrast to the longer chelipeds of the male (being slightly to prominently longer than the P2), the tooth on the cutting edge of the dactylar finger is large and the cutting edge of the pollex is unarmed (Figs. 2D–F, 3C, D, 4B, C, G, H, 5D, 10A, B, E, F). Another character that separates Colimene gen. nov. is that on the proximal part of the inner surface of the chela, just adjacent to the carpus, there is a prominent median tooth or spine (Fig. 5D) that is positioned perpendicular to the surface. This means that the chela cannot completely be retracted against the merus. The difference in length and slenderness of the chelipeds as well as the presence of a prominent tooth on the inner surface of the chela of Colimene gen. nov. means that the chelipeds cannot be appressed closely against the carapace like in Dynomene or Hirsutodynomene . In Dynomene and Hirsutodynomene, with much shorter and stouter chelipeds, there is only a low tubercle on the inner surface of the chela in the part adjacent to the carpus (Fig. 1J); and as such, the chelipeds can easily tightly appress against the merus.</p><p>In addition to the observed differences in cheliped morphology between males and females, there is also sexual dimorphism in the form of the P5. Males of C. pugnatrix comb. nov. and C. kroppi comb. nov. have a proportionately shorter P5 propodus (Fig. 12E–H, K, L) compared to females (Fig. 12C, I, J). It must be noted that the form of subchelate process is also different between sexes. The male P5 dactylus is generally short, with a pronounced clawlike chitinous distal part (Fig. 12E–H, K, L); in females, the dactylus is distinctly longer and more finger-like (Fig. 12C, I, J). The distal part of the male P5 propodus protrudes and forms a short finger-like structure that is tipped with one or two chitinous spines (Figs. 2I, 12E–H, K, L). For females, the propodal extension is more developed and functions more like a fully developed pollex with a well-defined chitinous tip (Fig. 12I, J), although the distal part may be bispinate as well (Fig. 12C). In males, the occluding margins are always unarmed (Fig. 12E–H, K, L); whereas in females (at least in C. pugnatrix and C. kroppi), the occluding margin of the dactylus possesses with five or six short to long spinules (Fig. 12C, I, J). The marked sexual dimorphism in the structure of the P5 subchelate process suggests its primary role may be for reproduction rather than cleaning or carrying objects for camouflage.</p><p>The male telson of Colimene gen. nov. is very wide and almost semicircular in shape (Fig. 1G) and is similar to that of Hirsutodynomene (Fig. 1F), but quite different from the broadly triangular structure with convex lateral margins in Dynomene (Fig. 1H)</p><p>The external sexual dimorphism in Dynomene (apart from the pleonal shapes) is less obvious, with only slight differences in cheliped size between sexes, although the chelipeds of large males of D. praedator are known to be stouter (Guinot 2008).</p><p>McLay (1999: 504, fig. 5d) also observed that “The structure of the gills of Dynomene pugnatrix differs from that found in D. hispida only in that there is a single row of epibranchial lobes between the plates.” This appears to be an interesting character distinguishing Colimene gen. nov. but has not been used previously for podotreme taxonomy, and how variable it may be will need to be studied in greater detail.</p><p>The differences between Colimene gen. nov. and Dynomene are also mostly applicable to Hirsutodynomene (cf. Fig. 1C, F). The diagnostic characters for the three genera are summarized in Table 1.</p><p>Colimene gen. nov. fits into Dynomeninae as defined by Guinot (2008: 9–10) comfortably. The broad pleon, proportions of the male and female pleonal uropods, presence of a simple sternal holding mechanism for the pleon, relatively shallow coxo-sternal depressions (for sternites 5 and 6) and calcified penis all fit into this definition easily. The tubercle on thoracic episternite 5 (Fig. 5G) appears to be a press-button of sorts but it actually just gently clings the side of the uropod and is not a strong holding mechanism; there is also no concavity on the ventral surface of the uropod (Fig. 5H) that functions like a socket for the sternal tubercle. There are no other structures on the ambulatory coxa or sternum that are present to hold and/or lock the pleon. Like other dynomenines, the female uropods are relatively larger and longer, almost reaching to the distal edge of somite 6 (Figs. 6C, 12D) compared to the smaller male uropods (Figs. 1G, 2L, M, 3B).</p><p>Key to species in Colimene gen. nov.</p><p>1. Infraorbital margin distinctly protruding anteriorly with rounded tubercles and sharp spines; flexor margins of P2–P4 dactylus with 9–12 corneous spinules...................................... Colimene pugnatrix (De Man, 1889) comb. nov.</p><p>– Infraorbital margin with low to very granules, no sharp granules or spines; flexor margins of P2–P4 dactylus with 5 or 6 corneous spinules..................................................................................... 2</p><p>2. Ratio of carapace width to length &lt;1.2; epigastric region prominent; hepatic region with 2 distinct tubercles; infraorbital margin unarmed; anterolateral carapace margin with 5 distinct spines/ or teeth; cheliped merus with spines on outer surface; P2–P4 meri, carpi and propodi with sharp tubercles and spines; extensor margins of P2–P4 meri, carpi and propodi armed with prominent acute tubercles; flexor margins of P2–P4 merus with prominent spines................................................................................................ .. Colimene guamensis (McLay, 2001) comb. nov.</p><p>– Ratio of carapace width to length&gt;1.2; epigastric region low, just visible; hepatic region smooth; infraorbital margin unarmed; anterolateral carapace margin with 6 distinct spines, teeth or tubercles; cheliped merus with subacute tubercles on outer surface; P2–P4 meri, carpi and propodi with low tubercles; extensor margins of P2–P4 meri, carpi and propodi armed with small rounded tubercles; flexor margins of P2–P4 merus with low tubercles....... .... Colimene kroppi (McLay, 2001) comb. nov.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/416887E48616E3148EB4FD15FD9E914E	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Ng, Peter K. L.;Ng, Paul Y. C.	Ng, Peter K. L., Ng, Paul Y. C. (2025): Colimene, a new genus for three species previously assigned to Dynomene Desmarest, 1823 (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura, Dynomenidae). Zootaxa 5737 (3): 349-371, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5737.3.3, URL: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5737.3.3
416887E48611E3198EB4FF78FC7B9186.text	416887E48611E3198EB4FF78FC7B9186.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Colimene pugnatrix (De Man 1889) Ng & Ng 2025	<div><p>Colimene pugnatrix (De Man, 1889) comb. nov.</p><p>(Figures 1A, D, G, 2–9, 12A–H)</p><p>Dynomene pugnatrix De Man, 1889: 444, pl. 10 fig. 13— Alcock 1901: 75 (list)— Ihle 1913: 92 (list)— Guinot 1967: 242 (list)— Serène 1968: 36 (list)— Takeda 1977: 35 (list)— Ng et al. 2008: 37 (list)— McLay 1999: 500, figs. 5d, 11, 22a–g— Takeda 2024: 2, figs. 1A–E, 2.</p><p>Dynomene pugnatrix brevimana Rathbun, 1911: 196 — Guinot 1967: 242 (list)— Serène 1968: 37 (list).</p><p>Material examined. Holotype: male (9.8 × 7.2 mm) (SMF 4857), Mauritius, no other data [photographs examined]. Others: 1 ovigerous female (6.3 × 4.8 mm) (USNM 41047) [holotype of Dynomene pugnatrix brevimana Rathbun, 1911], station D4, Providence Island, north of Madagascar, 9°l4.00'S 51°02.00'E, 90–140 m, coll. RIV " Sealark ", Percy Sladen Trust Expedition, 4 October 1905 ; 1 male (10.0 × 8.3 mm) (ZRC 2021.0722), Bali, Indonesia, coll aquarium dealers, from P.Y.C. Ng, 8 October 2021; 1 male (10.9 × 9.5 mm) (ZRC 2021.0781), Bali, Indonesia, coll. aquarium dealers, from P.Y.C. Ng, 13 November 2021 ; 1 male (6.5 × 6.4 mm) (NSMT Cr 32800), lava tube, on muddy sand, <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-155.88567&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=19.3185" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -155.88567/lat 19.3185)">Gustav’s Cave</a>, <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-155.88567&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=19.3185" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -155.88567/lat 19.3185)">Kona coast</a>, <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-155.88567&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=19.3185" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -155.88567/lat 19.3185)">Hawai’i Island</a>, <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-155.88567&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=19.3185" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -155.88567/lat 19.3185)">Hawaiian Islands</a>, 19°19'06.6″N 155°53'08.4″W, 6- 8.5 m depth, coll. Ohashi, Kinjo, G. Paulay, Y. Kano &amp; T. Kase, 30 October 1997.</p><p>Diagnosis. Ratio of carapace width to length&gt;1.2; epigastric region prominent; hepatic region smooth; infraorbital margin prominently lined with numerous sharp tubercles and spines; anterolateral carapace margin with 6 or more distinct spines/teeth/tubercles; subhepatic region with numerous small granules, covering entire surface (Figs. 1A, 2A–C, 3A, 4A, D, E, F, I, J, 5A); cheliped merus with subacute tubercles and/or spines on outer surface (Figs. 1D, 2A, 3C, D, 5D); P2–P4 meri, carpi and propodi with numerous sharp tubercles and spines (Figs. 2A, G, 3E–I); dorsal margin of female chela with 4 low spines (Fig. 6A); extensor margins of P2–P4 meri, carpi and propodi armed with prominent acute tubercles; flexor margins of P2–P4 merus with prominent spines; flexor margins of P2–P4 dactylus with 9 or 10 corneous spinules (Figs. 2A, G, H, 3E–I).</p><p>Description of male. (Modified from McLay 1999). Carapace wider than long, with-to-length ratio 1.14– 1.31; subquadrate or almost so; dorsal surface gently convex, smooth. regions poorly demarcated, cervical and gastrocardiac grooves shallow but distinct (Figs. 2A, B, 3A, 4A, D, F, I, 6A, 9A, D). Setation primarily comprised of simple filiform setae of varying lengths on carapace and pereopods; simple setae on carapace scattered, not obscuring surface, longer and denser on legs (including P5) but also not obscuring surfaces (Figs. 1A, 2J, K, 4A, D–F, I, J, 7, 9A, B, D, E). Frontal margin distinctly bilobed with deep median V-shaped cleft; margin smooth but submarginally lined with prominent low granules reaching to supraorbital margin; inner angle of supraorbital margin with about 3 low but distinct tubercles, separated from rest of margin by low, wide notch, remainder of margin entire without fissures (Figs. 1A, 2A, B, 3A, 4A, D, F, I). Orbit short, ovate; ocular peduncle short, stout, with small patch of median granules; cornea large, rounded, pigmented (Figs. 1A, 2B, C, 3A, 4A, D, E, F, I, H, 5A). Infraorbital margin distinctly protruding anteriorly, clearly visible in dorsal view with eyes retracted, with 3 or 4 rounded tubercles on inner part and 3 larger sharper spines on outer part, the largest spine being external orbital tooth, below level of orbit (Figs. 2C, 4E, J, 5A). Anterolateral carapace margin with 4 spines (excluding external orbital spine), first more dentiform, largest, subsequent ones spiniform, progressively smaller (Figs. 1A, 2A, B, 3A, 4A, D, F, I). Posterolateral margins gently convex, gently converging towards posterior margin, with small curved spine at proximal part, rest of margin unarmed (Figs. 2A, B, 3A, 4A, F, 5C). Posterior carapace margin slightly recessed, almost straight (Figs. 2A, B, 3A, 4A, F, 5C). Basal article of antennule large, trapezoid, filling up space at base of orbit; distal margin obliquely angled, not continuous with distal margin of second article; flagellum setose (Figs. 2C, 4E, J, 5A). First article of antenna moveable, wider than long, medially beaked, inferior tooth distinct, blunt, superior tooth above opening of antennal gland smaller; second article wider than long, distal margin widest, with exopod curving over ocular peduncle, becoming broader, distal part blunt; third article longer than wide; fourth antennal article small, as long as wide; remaining articles slender, extending beyond external orbital spine; length of antennal flagella to carapace width ca. 0.7 (Figs. 2A–C, 4A, D–F, I, J, 5A). Epistome broadly triangular, surface slightly concave; lateral margins sinuous; posterior margin bilobed, with median fissure, margin concave (Figs. 2C, 4E, J, 5A). Subhepatic and suborbital regions gently convex, covered with numerous small granules; pterygostomial region almost smooth (Figs. 1D, 2C, 3B, 4E, J, 5A).</p><p>Third maxillipeds operculiform; ischium subrectangular with no visible median sulcus, crista dentata on distal part, with 4–6 small, blunt, chitinous teeth; merus subtrapezoidal; palp (dactylus, propodus and carpus) longer than merus; exopod very wide, more than half width of ischium, tip reaching to median part of merus, with long flagellum (Fig. 5B).</p><p>Cheliped slender, elongate; basis-ischium long, flexor margin with 4 tubercles, distal angle appears bifurcated, with 1 projection and 1 sharp spine (Figs. 1D, 2E, 3C, D). Merus long, trigonal in cross-section, unable to appress against carapace, extensor margin with 8 tubercles, flexor margin with 7 or 8 sharp tubercles, unevenly arranged, distal part unarmed (Figs. 1D, 2A, E, 3C, D, 5D). Outer face of carpus convex, smooth, inner superior border with a distomedially directed, sharp tooth which abuts against distinct rounded spine on medio-proximal part of chela, restricting closure of cheliped against frontal area (Figs. 2A, D–F, 3C, D, 5D). Chela smooth on inner and outer surfaces; fixed finger gently curved; dactylus strongly curved with a single, blunt proximal tooth; both fingers relatively thick, tips excavated, with several low notches (Figs. 2D–F, 3C, D, 4B, C, G, H, 5D). Cheliped arthrobranch (in cross section), anterior and posterior margins notched, divided into hypobranchial and epibranchial plates, tips blunt; epibranchial plate on anterior margin larger, with single row of short elongate lobes between plates.</p><p>P3 longest, P2 and P4 subequal in length (Figs. 2A, G, 3E–I, 4A, F). Ischium with short, sharp recurved tooth on dorsal margin (Fig. 3E–I). P2 armature: merus extensor margin with 5–7 spines (including distal one), with row of 8 or 9 sharp granules adjacent on outer surface, flexor surface with 7 spines on outer margin, 7 spines on inner margin; carpus with 5 or 6 spines on extensor margin, outer submedian longitudinal row of 2 sharp tubercles, subflexor margin with 2 or 3 sharp tubercles; propodus extensor margin with 3 or 4 spines, outer submedian longitudinal row of 3 sharp tubercles; dactylus with 9–11 corneous spinules on flexor margin (Fig. 3E, H). P3 armature: merus extensor margin with 8 spines (including distal one), with row of 6 or 7 sharp granules adjacent on outer surface, flexor surface with 7 or 8 spines on outer margin, 8 spines on inner margin; carpus with 7 spines on extensor margin, outer submedian longitudinal row of 3 or 4 sharp tubercles, subflexor margin with 2 sharp tubercles; propodus extensor margin with 3 spines, outer submedian longitudinal row of 4 sharp tubercles; dactylus with 10–12 corneous spinules on flexor margin (Fig. 3F). P4 armature: merus extensor margin with 8 or 9 spines (including distal one), with row of 9 or 10 sharp granules adjacent on outer surface, flexor surface with 4 spines on outer margin, 6 spines on inner margin; carpus with 5–7 spines on extensor margin, outer submedian longitudinal row of 3 sharp tubercles, subflexor margin with 2 sharp tubercles; propodus extensor margin with 3 spines, outer submedian longitudinal row of 4 sharp tubercles; dactylus with 9 or 10 corneous spinules on flexor margin (Figs. 2G, H, 3G, I). P5 greatly reduced, with long setae distally, reaching to 1/3 along P4 merus; basis-ischium with distal spine on extensor margin, other articles unarmed, subchelate, dactylus short, propodeal extension developed with 1 or 2 distal spines, occluding margins of both fingers unarmed (Figs. 2I, 5C, 12E–H).</p><p>Thoracic sternites 1–3 completely fused, forming pentagonal structure, anterolateral margin convex, with several small tubercles; separated from sternite 4 by deep, setae-lined suture; sternite 4 wide, separated from sternite 5 by shallow depression; sternites 5 and 6 subrectangular, separated by shallow depressions; sternite 8 just under sternite 7, not clearly visible in ventral view (Figs. 1D, 5E). Coxo-sternal depressions for sternites 5–7 relatively shallow (Fig. 5E). Tubercle present on thoracic episternite 5 which gently fits to side of uropod forming weak pleonal holding mechanism; no concavity on ventral surface of uropod (Fig. 5G, H). Penial tube conical, strongly calcified, on inner angle of P5 coxa (Fig. 5F).</p><p>Pleon relatively long, extends to near bases of third maxillipeds (Fig. 3B). All somites and telson of pleon freely moveable, surface smooth, margins unarmed but fringed with setae (Figs. 1G, 2L, M, 3B). Pleonal somite 1 longitudinally narrow, visible dorsally, sits in depression of posterior carapace margin; somite 2 narrowest, subrectangular, distal margin sinuous, lateral margins gently convex, edges partially produced as flange which overlaps posterior margin of somite 1; somites 3–5 subtrapezoidal, increasing in length and width distally, not overlapping with preceding somites, lateral margin gently convex; somite 6 trapezoidal, with large uropod plates filling ¾ of space between somite and telson; telson semicircular, much wider than long, anterior margin angled to accommodate uropod, posterior margin broadly rounded (Figs. 1G, 2L, M, 5C).</p><p>G1 resembles semi-rolled tube, stout; basal article elongate, rectangular; distal article longer, basally widest, angled inwards, narrowing at midpoint towards membranous, finger-like distal part, apically rounded (Fig. 8A–E). G2 with distal half needle-like, almost straight, with exopod on basis, 7 tiny spinules near tip, including single terminal one (Fig. 8F, G).</p><p>Female. Female sternal sutures 7/8 short, ending wide apart on low tubercles just behind bases of P3; gonopore round, on basal half of coxa (Fig. 6D). Fused thoracic sternites 1–3 of female less pentagonal in shape with sides not parallel but sloping posteriorly, relatively broad (Fig. 6D) (cf. Figs. 1D, 5E). Five pairs of pleopods in female, first pair vestigial, remainder biramous. Chelipeds and P5 structures sexually dimorphic. Female chela relatively short, with 4 low spines on dorsal surface of palm, cutting edge of dactylus with a low tooth and denticles on cutting edge of pollex (Figs. 6B, 12B). Female P5 propodus distinctly longer than male, propodal extension rather short with 2 prominent spines distally, and 6 spinules on occluding margin of dactylus (Fig. 12C) (see discussion for genus). Female uropods relatively larger, longer, almost reaching to distal edge of somite 6 (Figs. 6C, 12D).</p><p>Single female of C. pugnatrix comb. nov. more similar in form to smaller male, with specimens having relatively smaller chelae (Figs. 4A–C, 6A, B). Cervical and gastrocardiac grooves in female slightly shallower and less obvious (Fig. 6A) compared to males (Figs. 2A, B, 3A, 4A, F). Cutting edges of female chela possess low teeth on cutting edge of the pollex, with 2 larger ones on submedian part and 3 small ones basally (Figs. 6B, 12B) but smooth in males (Figs. 2D, E, 3D, 4B, C, G, H); and dorsal margin of palm with 4 low sharp spines (Figs. 6B, 12B) but smooth in males (Figs. 2D–F, 3C, 4B, C, G, H). Some variation in number and shape of spines on ambulatory legs for both sexes, but not significant.</p><p>Variation. Specimens of different sizes vary slightly in the number and shape of the anterolateral spines, and shape of the infraorbital region. Among the three male specimens of C. pugnatrix comb. nov. examined (including the holotype), the largest specimen (10.9 × 9.5 mm, ZRC 2021.0781) differs in having distinctly more elongate chelipeds and having the spines on the anterolateral margin less acute (Fig. 4F–J). In the holotype, the first anterolateral tooth is also missing on the left side. The row of tubercles on the infraorbital margin is also less distinct compared to the two smaller specimens (Figs. 2B, C, 3A, B, 4A, D, E, 5A vs. Figs. 4F, I, J). The largest male (10.9 × 9.5 mm, ZRC 2021.0781) has the dactylus relatively smaller, being more rounded in shape (Fig. 12E, F) when compared to the smaller male (10.0 × 8.3 mm, ZRC 2021.0722) which has the dactylus more elongate (Fig. 12G, H). Whether this difference is due to ontogenetic changes cannot be determined. The number of spines at the tip of the male P5 propodal extension varies between one and two (Figs. 2I, 12E–H) (see discussion for genus).</p><p>Colour. The species is a uniform orange overall, with the tips of the cheliped fingers white (Fig. 9).</p><p>Remarks. De Man (1889: 444) reported that the type and only specimen he had was a female. As noted by McLay (1999: 504), the type is actually a male. Colimene pugnatrix comb. nov. can be separated from C. guamensis comb. nov. in having the epigastric region low (Figs. 1A, 2B, 3A, 4D, I) (versus epigastric region prominent and high in C. guamensis comb. nov.; Fig. 10A, C; McLay 2001: figs. 2A, 3B); the carapace hepatic region is without additional tubercles (Figs. 1A, 2B, 3A, 4D, I) (versus carapace surface with a pair of hepatic tubercles in C. guamensis comb. nov.; Fig. 10A, C; McLay 2001: figs. 1A, 3B); the P2–P4 carpi and propodi have numerous sharp spines (Figs. 2G, 3E–I) (versus P2–P4 carpi and propodi are tuberculate in C. guamensis comb. nov.; Fig. 10A, B; McLay 2001: fig. 3B). It can be distinguished from C. kroppi comb. nov. in having all the anterolateral spines acute (Figs. 1A, 2B, 3A, 4D, I) (versus most anterolateral spines blunt in C. kroppi comb. nov.; Fig. 10E, F; McLay 2001: figs. 1A, 3A); and the P2–P4 articles (apart from dactylus) possess numerous sharp spines (Figs. 2G, 3E–I) (versus articles largely smooth with scattered small granules in C. kroppi comb. nov.; Fig. 10E, F; McLay 2001: fig. 3A).</p><p>Additionally, the cervical groove in C. pugnatrix comb. nov. is relatively more distinct compared to C. guamensis comb. nov. and C. kroppi comb. nov. It is also worth noting that in McLay (2001) the description of C. kroppi comb. nov. mentions “sub-orbital margin not projecting (just visible dorsally) and unarmed.” The drawings and photograph of the holotype of C. kroppi comb. nov. suggest that the infraorbital margin does project forward slightly (McLay 2001: fig. 1A), which is confirmed in our examination of the holotype (Fig. 10G). The number and shape of the anterolateral carapace spines, and the shape and tuberculation of the infraorbital region may also be useful for distinguishing species, but only in specimens of the same sex and similar size range (see “Variation”).</p><p>McLay (1999: 502) observed that for C. pugnatrix comb. nov., the “female with well developed distal extension of propodus which opposes dactyl; male with only weakly developed propodal extension”. In the present males of C. pugnatrix comb. nov., the P5 subchelate process is well-developed with the propodal extension distinctly finger-like (Fig. 12E–H) with the condition reported by McLay (1999) probably due to damage as the type male is in poor condition. The same is true for the female (type of Dynomene pugnatrix brevimana) examined by McLay (1999) who reported the propodal extension as short; it is not – it is actually well-developed (Fig. 12C).</p><p>This species was redescribed and discussed in detail by McLay (1999) based on the types. It was known from only three specimens, and last collected more than a century ago, until Takeda (2024) reported a small male (6.5 × 6.4 mm) from a submarine cave in Hawai’i. Takeda (2024: 2) lists the specimen as a female in his material examined but as a male in his captions to the figures; we examined the specimen, and it is a small male. The specimen has the infraorbital margin spinate and the subhepatic region strongly granulose (Takeda 2024: fig. 1D, E); the P2–P5 meri are strongly spinate (Takeda 2024: figs. 1A, 2B, C), and there are no hepatic granules (Takeda 2024: figs. 1A, B, D, 2A); it agrees with C. pugnatrix comb. nov. very well.</p><p>The present specimens agree well with the type, and though their exact collection locality cannot be ascertained, it is likely they were obtained from relatively shallow waters in the Indo-Pacific. The two recent specimens were purchased from an aquarium dealer in Singapore, and was imported from Bali along with common, commercially desirable species such as Liomera spp. and Neoliomera spp. (e.g., N. ovata Tweedie, 1950) [ Xanthidae], but also rare and poorly known species such as Catoptrus cf. lavicolus Naruse &amp; Uyeno, 2021 [ Portunidae] and Haemocinus elatus (A. Milne-Edwards, 1873) [ Planopilumnidae]. The majority of animals collected in Indonesia for the marine aquarium trade are exported from Bali (Akmal et al. 2020), and while a significant number of animals are collected around the island itself, it is also possible they were collected elsewhere in Indonesia. It seems likely that C. pugnatrix comb. nov. occupies a similar habitat to its congeners in Guam, dwelling in coral rubble.</p><p>Not much is known about the ecology of C. pugnatrix comb. nov. . There was no ecological data with the holotype, but the holotype of D. pugnatrix brevimana was collected from a depth of 90–140 m (Rathbun, 1911). The most recent specimen reported by Takeda (2024) was collected from inside a submarine cave at a depth of 6.0– 8.5 m. The two recent specimens from Bali were collected without any available data (see notes for C. guamensis comb. nov.). In the aquarium, both specimens did not burrow and did not exhibit any carrying behaviour.</p><p>Distribution. Colimene pugnatrix comb. nov. has a very wide distribution from Mauritius and Seychelles in the western Indian Ocean to Bali and Hawai'i in the central Pacific. Interestingly, the present two specimens are from Bali, a location exactly between the eastern Indian Ocean and Hawai'i. Such a wide distribution is also known for a number of dynomenid species, notably Hirsutodynomene spinosa which also occurs over the same range; although the latter has been more frequently reported (see Ng et al. 2003).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/416887E48611E3198EB4FF78FC7B9186	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Ng, Peter K. L.;Ng, Paul Y. C.	Ng, Peter K. L., Ng, Paul Y. C. (2025): Colimene, a new genus for three species previously assigned to Dynomene Desmarest, 1823 (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura, Dynomenidae). Zootaxa 5737 (3): 349-371, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5737.3.3, URL: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5737.3.3
416887E48607E3068EB4FA66FD6597B6.text	416887E48607E3068EB4FA66FD6597B6.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Colimene guamensis (McLay 2001) Ng & Ng 2025	<div><p>Colimene guamensis (McLay, 2001) comb. nov.</p><p>(Figure 10A–D)</p><p>Dynomene guamensis McLay, 2001: 814, figs. 2, 3B— Ng et al. 2008: 37 — Guinot 2008: table 1.</p><p>Material examined. Holotype male (11.0 × 9.7 mm) (MNHN-B26476, ex MNHN-IU-2008-11604), among dead coral, <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=144.78334&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=13.45" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 144.78334/lat 13.45)">Piti Lagoon</a>, Guam, 13°27’N, 144°47’E, 1.0– 3.5 m, coll. H.T. Conley, March 1997.</p><p>Diagnosis. Ratio of carapace width to length &lt;1.2; epigastric region prominent; hepatic region with 2 distinct tubercles; infraorbital margin with low to very granules, no sharp granules or spines; anterolateral carapace margin with 5 distinct spines or teeth; subhepatic region with scattered small granules (Fig. 10A C, D); cheliped merus with spines on outer surface (Fig. 10A, B); P2–P4 meri, carpi and propodi with sharp tubercles and spines (10A, B); female chela not known; extensor margins of P2–P4 meri, carpi and propodi armed with prominent acute tubercles; flexor margins of P2–P4 merus with prominent spines; flexor margins of P2–P4 dactylus with 5 or 6 corneous spinules (Fig. 10A, B).</p><p>Remarks. No females are known for C. guamensis comb. nov.</p><p>The material collected by the late Harry Conley, including C. kroppi comb. nov., are significant as most were obtained in deep coral rubble, a neglected habitat in reefs and whose fauna is poorly known (see Dennis &amp; Aldhous 2004). The method of digging deep into coral rubble was pioneered by Conley (Paulay et al. 2003) and has led to the discovery of many unusual brachyurans (e.g., Ng 2002; Ng &amp; Ng 2003; Ng &amp; Takeda 2003; Mendoza &amp; Ng 2017). The discovery of the two species of Colimene gen. nov. in Guam by McLay (2001) adds to this fauna. Rubble species have also been reported in submarine cave systems or on the surface of reefs at night (see Ng &amp; Takeda 2003; Takeda 2010; Fujita et al. 2013; Fujita &amp; Mizuyama 2016; Barathieu et al. 2019). Nothing is known about the ecology of C. pugnatrix comb. nov., although it is likely to have similar habits as its congeners.</p><p>Distribution. Only known from Guam so far.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/416887E48607E3068EB4FA66FD6597B6	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Ng, Peter K. L.;Ng, Paul Y. C.	Ng, Peter K. L., Ng, Paul Y. C. (2025): Colimene, a new genus for three species previously assigned to Dynomene Desmarest, 1823 (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura, Dynomenidae). Zootaxa 5737 (3): 349-371, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5737.3.3, URL: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5737.3.3
416887E48605E3038EB4F96FFD6594BB.text	416887E48605E3038EB4F96FFD6594BB.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Colimene kroppi (McLay 2001) Ng & Ng 2025	<div><p>Colimene kroppi (McLay, 2001) comb. nov.</p><p>(Figures 10E–H, 11, 12I–L)</p><p>Dynomene kroppi McLay, 2001: 811, figs. 1, 3A— Ng et al. 2008: 37 — Guinot 2008: 2.</p><p>Material examined. Holotype: male (11.9 × 9.7 mm) (MNHN-B26474, ex MNHN-IU-2008-11602), station GUM300, Piti Reef, Guam, coll. H. T. Conley . Paratypes: 1 female (9.5 × 7.5 mm) (MNHN-B26475 ex MNHN-IU-2008-11603), station GUM300, Piti Lagoon, Guam, coll. H. T. Conley. Others : 2 males (7.1 × 6.5 mm, 9.2 × 7.3 mm [badly damaged, soft) (USNM 291443), station GUM300, among rocks, Piti Reef, Guam, 0.3–1.3 m, coll. H. T. Conley, 1 August 1993 ; 1 ovigerous female (10.8 × 9.5 mm) (USNM 291444), station GUM298, among rocks, Piti Reef, Guam, 0.5–2.0 m, coll. H. T. Conley, August 1993 .</p><p>Diagnosis. Ratio of carapace width to length&gt;1.2; epigastric region low, just visible; hepatic region smooth; infraorbital margin with low to very granules, no sharp granules or spines; anterolateral carapace margin with 6 distinct spines, teeth or tubercles; subhepatic region with scattered small granules (Fig. 10E, G, H); cheliped merus with subacute tubercles on outer surface (Fig. 10E, F); P2–P4 meri, carpi and propodi with low tubercles (Fig. 10E, F); dorsal margin of female chela smooth (Fig. 11A, C); extensor margins of P2–P4 meri, carpi and propodi armed with small rounded tubercles; flexor margins of P2–P4 merus with low tubercles; flexor margins of P2–P4 dactylus with 5 or 6 corneous spinules (Fig. 10E, F).</p><p>Remarks. The P5 of one specimen, an ovigerous female (10.8 × 9.5 mm, USNM 291444) was asymmetrical, with the right propodus (Fig. 12J) distinctly longer than that of the left, with the fingers also relatively more slender (Fig. 12I). Whether this was due to previous damage and regrowth is not known. The P5s of the other specimens are normally proportioned.</p><p>Nothing is known about the biology of C. kroppi comb. nov. other than it is associated with coral rubble in shallow reef habitats (see notes for C. guamensis comb. nov.).</p><p>Distribution. Only known from Guam so far.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/416887E48605E3038EB4F96FFD6594BB	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Ng, Peter K. L.;Ng, Paul Y. C.	Ng, Peter K. L., Ng, Paul Y. C. (2025): Colimene, a new genus for three species previously assigned to Dynomene Desmarest, 1823 (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura, Dynomenidae). Zootaxa 5737 (3): 349-371, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5737.3.3, URL: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5737.3.3
