identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
03871F323B57FE1323901D24292986E0.text	03871F323B57FE1323901D24292986E0.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Cardisoma armatum Herklots 1851	<div><p>Cardisoma armatum Herklots, 1851</p><p>Benin • 1 ♂ 51.6 × 65.2 mm; Ekp. market; Dr D. Rondelaud coll. and leg.; 1998; Guinot det. 1998; MNHN-IU-2017-11710 (= MNHN-B21986).</p><p>Sénégal • 1 ♀ 55.3 × 68.7 mm; “ Petite côte de Nianing ”; Gruvel coll.; 1907; Bouvier det.; MNHN-IU-2018-5237.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03871F323B57FE1323901D24292986E0	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.		Plazi	Paula, Danièle Guinot;Rodríguez Moreno, Paula A.	Paula, Danièle Guinot, Rodríguez Moreno, Paula A. (2026): Formal establishment of Gecarcinoidea H. Milne Edwards, 1837 n. stat. (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura), with recognition of two families, Cardisomatidae n. fam. and Gecarcinidae restrict., and new insights on Epigrapsidae Watabe, 2007. Zoosystema 48 (8): 211-271, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2026v48a8, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19370640
03871F323B57FE1323901DE42AA181A0.text	03871F323B57FE1323901DE42AA181A0.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Cardisoma carnifex (Herbst 1796)	<div><p>Cardisoma carnifex (Herbst, 1796)</p><p>French Polynesia • 1♂ 71.2× 88.0 mm; Society Islands; Tupai Atoll; Exp. SMCB; 13.V.1991; J. Poupin det.; MNHN-IU-2013-14798.</p><p>Wallis and Futuna • 1 ♀ 56.5 × 66.3 mm; <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-176.21693&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=-13.349166" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -176.21693/lat -13.349166)">Wallis I.</a>; WALLIS &amp; FUTUNA Exp., stn 24; 13°20’57’’S, 176°13’01’’W; 0-1 m; 23.X.2007; Poupin coll.; MNHN-IU-2013-2201.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03871F323B57FE1323901DE42AA181A0	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.		Plazi	Paula, Danièle Guinot;Rodríguez Moreno, Paula A.	Paula, Danièle Guinot, Rodríguez Moreno, Paula A. (2026): Formal establishment of Gecarcinoidea H. Milne Edwards, 1837 n. stat. (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura), with recognition of two families, Cardisomatidae n. fam. and Gecarcinidae restrict., and new insights on Epigrapsidae Watabe, 2007. Zoosystema 48 (8): 211-271, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2026v48a8, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19370640
03871F323B57FE1323901AA429A780CF.text	03871F323B57FE1323901AA429A780CF.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Cardisoma guanhumi Latreille	<div><p>Cardisoma guanhumi Latreille, in Latreille, Le Peletier, Serville &amp; Guérin, 1828</p><p>Guadeloupe • 1♂ 56.5× 68.0 mm; M.Türkay vid. VI.1972; MNHN-IU-2013-14983 (= MNHN-B12270). • 1 ♀ 59.4 × 74.3 mm; Pointe à lambi (<a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-61.544724&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=16.304443" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -61.544724/lat 16.304443)">Le Moule</a>), herbier à Thalassia; Exp. KARUBENTHOS 2012; stn GM15; 16°18’16”N, 61°32’41”W; 1 m; 14.V.2012; MNHN-LPR coll.; Poupin det.; MNHN-IU-2013-4463 • 1 ♂ 35.6 × 43.8 mm, 1 ♀ 28.2 × 35.5; <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-61.766945&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=16.090557" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -61.766945/lat 16.090557)">Anse à la Barque</a>; Exp. KARUBENTHOS 2012; stn GM09; 16°5’26”N, 61°46’1”W; 1 m; MNHN-LPR coll.; MNHN-IU-2013-4461 • 1 ♀ 60.0 × 75.6 mm; îles des Saintes, <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-61.578335&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=15.876667" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -61.578335/lat 15.876667)">Terrede-Haut</a>; KARUBENTHOS 3; stn IGM 1; 15°52.6’N, 61°34.7’W; 7.X.2024; MNHN-ARBig-LPRig coll.; MNHN-IU-2024-4621.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03871F323B57FE1323901AA429A780CF	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.		Plazi	Paula, Danièle Guinot;Rodríguez Moreno, Paula A.	Paula, Danièle Guinot, Rodríguez Moreno, Paula A. (2026): Formal establishment of Gecarcinoidea H. Milne Edwards, 1837 n. stat. (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura), with recognition of two families, Cardisomatidae n. fam. and Gecarcinidae restrict., and new insights on Epigrapsidae Watabe, 2007. Zoosystema 48 (8): 211-271, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2026v48a8, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19370640
03871F323B57FE13239018042A008215.text	03871F323B57FE13239018042A008215.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Discoplax gracilipes Ng & Guinot 2001	<div><p>Discoplax gracilipes Ng &amp; Guinot, 2001</p><p>Philippines • paratypes, 2 ♂ 30.9 × 35.6 mm, 40.6 × 46.9 mm; Panglao Island; Bohol; local villagers coll.; 18.XII.2000; MNHN-IU-2014-11218 (= MNHN-B27771). • paratypes, 1 ♂ 26.3 × 29.6 mm, 1♀ 19.9 × 22.7 mm; Tawala Cave; Panglao Island; Bohol; L. Liao coll. (not Y. Cai et al., according to Ng &amp; Guinot 2001); 17.XII.2000; MNHN-IU-2014-11217 (= MNHN-B27770) • paratype ♀ 22.1 × 25.7 mm; Panglao Islands; Bohol; Tuala Cave; stn 85-062; T. M. Iliffe coll.; 3.IV.1985; MNHN-IU-2014-11214 (= MNHN-B26950).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03871F323B57FE13239018042A008215	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.		Plazi	Paula, Danièle Guinot;Rodríguez Moreno, Paula A.	Paula, Danièle Guinot, Rodríguez Moreno, Paula A. (2026): Formal establishment of Gecarcinoidea H. Milne Edwards, 1837 n. stat. (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura), with recognition of two families, Cardisomatidae n. fam. and Gecarcinidae restrict., and new insights on Epigrapsidae Watabe, 2007. Zoosystema 48 (8): 211-271, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2026v48a8, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19370640
03871F323B57FE132390195F2F588411.text	03871F323B57FE132390195F2F588411.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Discoplax longipes A. Milne Edwards 1867	<div><p>Discoplax longipes A. Milne Edwards, 1867</p><p>New Caledonia • holotype ♂ 54.0 × 55.0 mm; dry; MNHN-IU-2000-3763 (= MNHN-B3763).</p><p>Loyalty Islands • 1♀ 32.5× 36.7 mm; Lifou; Inegoj Cave; 12.VIII.95; Guinot &amp; Ng det. 1999; MNHN-IU-2017-8405 (= MNHN-B26944) • 1 ♂ 32.4 × 37.2 mm, 1 ♀ 32.6 × 37 mm; Loyalty Islands, Lifou, at the back of Inegoj Cave, near the lake, freshwater, at hand; B. Séret coll.; 2.IX.1993; D. Guinot det. 1993; MNHN-IU-2008-11402 (= MNHN-B24815).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03871F323B57FE132390195F2F588411	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.		Plazi	Paula, Danièle Guinot;Rodríguez Moreno, Paula A.	Paula, Danièle Guinot, Rodríguez Moreno, Paula A. (2026): Formal establishment of Gecarcinoidea H. Milne Edwards, 1837 n. stat. (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura), with recognition of two families, Cardisomatidae n. fam. and Gecarcinidae restrict., and new insights on Epigrapsidae Watabe, 2007. Zoosystema 48 (8): 211-271, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2026v48a8, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19370640
03871F323B57FE1C20391F4B29D08440.text	03871F323B57FE1C20391F4B29D08440.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Gecarcinus ruricola (Linnaeus 1758)	<div><p>Gecarcinus ruricola (Linnaeus, 1758)</p><p>Cuba • Neotype (see Guinot et al. 2025: 270); ♂ 55.0 × 76.0 mm; de Boury coll. 1914; Bouvier det. Gecarcinus ruricola; M.Türkay vid. VI.1972; MNHN-IU-2017-8392 (= MNHN-B13155) • 1 ♂ 66.2 × 93.3 mm; dry; M. Gundlach [coll]; as Gecarcinus ruricola; MNHN-IU-2000-10955 (= MNHNB10955) • 1 ♂ 57.7 × 81.4 mm; dry; M. Gundlach [coll]; as Gecarcinus r uricola; MNHN-IU-2000-3764 (= MNHN-B3764) • 1♂ 61.7 × 91.6 mm; as Gecarcinus ruricola; MNHN-IU-2000-3766 (= MNHN-B3766) • 1 ♀ 60.5 × 83.8 mm; dry; as Gecarcinus ruricola; MNHN-IU-2000-10754 (= MNHNB10754) • 1 young ♂ 17.7 × 23.7 mm; same data as neoype; MNHN-IU-2018-5229 (= MNHN-B13155) • 1 ovigerous ♀ 52.8 × 69.9 mm; M. Chaper det. Gecarcinus; MNHN-IU-2024-6554 • 1♂ 71.0 × 53.0 mm; Playa Larga; III.2004; as Gecarcinus ruricola; ZMH-K65343 • 1 ♂ 21.2 × 27.0 mm, 3 ♀ 17.9 × 22.2 mm, 44.3 × 59.2 mm, one damaged; off Cape San Antonio, <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-84.95&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=21.866667" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -84.95/lat 21.866667)">Ensenada de Cajon</a>; 21°52’00”N, 84°57’00”W; <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-84.95&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=21.866667" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -84.95/lat 21.866667)">Tomas Barrera Exp.</a>, Henderson &amp; Bartsch coll.; 22.V.1914; Rathbun det.; R. B. Manning redet.; USNM 48405 • 1 ♂ 51.5 × 71.5 mm, Cabanas, 22°58’32”N, 82°55’00”W; <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-82.916664&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=22.975555" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -82.916664/lat 22.975555)">Tomas Barrera Exp.</a>; st. 16 (nec depth 4-22 m); Henderson, Brooks &amp; Bartsch coll.; 8/ 9.VI.1914; USNM 48402 • 3 ♂ 52.4 × 73.5 mm, 54.0 × 75.0 mm, 55.9 × 75.5 mm; 4♀ cl 52.5 mm, 42.7 × 55.9 mm, 40.9 × 54.7 mm, 53.3 × 71.4 mm; P. Bartsch coll.; 1930; R. B. Manning det.; USNM 71242.</p><p>Cayman Islands • 1 ♂ 61.2 × 88.0 mm, Cayman Expedition 1938; English Sound, stn 31; Coll. &amp; Pres. Oxford University; 11.V.1938; NHM 2024.353.</p><p>Little Cayman • 3♂ 56.0 × 78.1 mm 2.7 × 87.7 mm (yellow morph), 58.2 × 82.6 mm (red morph), 1 ♀ 68.0 × 95.2 mm (red morph); Cayman Expedition 1938; in bush and plantation; 1952.1.17.4-6; Coll. Oxford University; 11.V.1938; NHM 2024.353 [1 ♂ 29.3 × 37.0 mm of this sample is Hartnollius lateralis].</p><p>Jamaica • 1 ♂ 56.8 × 80.2 mm; Clydesdale; Coll. W. Lynn; 1.VI.1936; alt. 1067 m; Rathbun det.; USNM 72785.</p><p>Haiti • 1 ♂ 25.4 × 32.0, 1 ♀ 29.0 × 35.6 mm; Coll. D. F. Weinland; MCZ n°1613, USNM 1513693.</p><p>Near Haiti, Navassa Island ( Isle de la Fortune) • 6 ♂ (60.0 × 82, 9 mm, Cr 63, 55.6 × 76.6 mm, Cr 64, 55.9 × 75.9 mm, Cr 65, 60.0 × 82.7 mm, Cr 66, 55.4 × 77.0 mm, Cr 67, 54.0 × 76.2 mm, Cr 68; I. Sanderson; 16.XII.1937; A. C. Evans det.; NHM 1967.7.1.80-85.</p><p>St Kitts • 1 ♂ (many legs detached) 66.6 × 93.8 mm (red morph); 1912.VI.18.1; J. J. Quelch; NHM 1888.26.</p><p>Antilles • 1 ♀ 59.8 × 82.2 mm; dry; as Gecarcinus ruricola; MNHN-IU-2000-3765 (= MNHN-B3765).</p><p>Guadeloupe • 1 ♂ 74.8 × 109.2 mm; dry; as Gecarcinus ruricola; MNHN-IU-2000-10876 (= MNHN-B10876) • 1 ♂ 32.7 × 43.4 mm (red morph); Îles des Saintes; KARUBENTHOS 3; stn IGM4, 15°52.44’N, 61°34.8’W; 28.IX.2024; MNHN-ARBig-LPRig coll.; Parasram det.; MNHN-IU-2024-4640 • 1 ♀ 41.2 × 54.2 mm, ‘red morph’; <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-61.22167&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=15.953333" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -61.22167/lat 15.953333)">Marie-Galante I.</a>; Capesterre-de-Marie-Galante; KARUBENTHOS 3; Stn MPA-OG-09; 15°57.2’N, 61°13.3’W; alt. 189m; Forêt sèche sur calcaire; 24.X.2024, Gargomini O., Tercerie S., MNHN-ARBig-LPRig coll.; Parasram det.; MNHN-IU-2024-7258.</p><p>Dominica • 1 ♂ 65.6 × 91.0 mm; near mouth of Layou River, along road at night; H. H. Hobbs Jr coll. and det.; 14.II.1966; USNM12693 • 1♂ 67.3 × 91.3 mm, 1 ♀ 68.0 × 93.6 mm; on cliff above S. shore of mouth of Layou River; H. H. Hobbs Jr &amp; F. A. Chace coll. and det.; 9.III.1964; USNM 126937 • 1 ovigorous ♀ 67.2 × 92.5 mm; Coll. J. G. Ramage; 1888.26; NHM 1888.26.</p><p>Barbados • 1♂ 60.0 × 85.4 mm, 1 ♀ 63.2 × 86.6 mm (dark red morphs); Crane Hotel, St. Philip; coastal cliffs; 13°10’25.96”N, 59°44’65.73”W; 28.09.2019; Parasram coll. and det.; BLSZ 059.</p><p>Curaçao • 1♂ 37.8 × 51.4 mm; Caracas Bay, Hato [Hato caves]; 28.IV.1920; C. van der Horst; USNM 56879.</p><p>Colombia, Isla de la Providencia • 4 ♀ 63.4 × 83.9 mm, 66.7 × 89.8 mm, 60.0 × 80.6 mm, 55.2 × 71.5 mm; R/V Albatross; S. I. Smith det.; USNM 7343.</p><p>Bahamas • 1 ♀ 59.0 × 81.0 mm; dry, damaged; as Gecarcinus ruricola; MNHN-IU-2000-12496 (= MNHN-B12496).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03871F323B57FE1C20391F4B29D08440	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.		Plazi	Paula, Danièle Guinot;Rodríguez Moreno, Paula A.	Paula, Danièle Guinot, Rodríguez Moreno, Paula A. (2026): Formal establishment of Gecarcinoidea H. Milne Edwards, 1837 n. stat. (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura), with recognition of two families, Cardisomatidae n. fam. and Gecarcinidae restrict., and new insights on Epigrapsidae Watabe, 2007. Zoosystema 48 (8): 211-271, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2026v48a8, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19370640
03871F323B58FE1C23901F8A2851870A.text	03871F323B58FE1C23901F8A2851870A.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Gecarcoidea humei (Wood-Mason 1874)	<div><p>Gecarcoidea humei (Wood-Mason, 1874); see Ng et al. 2008.</p><p>Papua New Guinea • 1 ♂ ca 50.0 × 67.4 mm (carapace damaged); N. Borneo, Sabah, Pulau Kalampunian Damit, underneath rock crevices; Laenyanti coll.; 6.V.1987; P. K.L. Ng det. IV 1991; MNHN-IU-2025-8004 (= MNHN B22189, ex ZRC 1987.871).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03871F323B58FE1C23901F8A2851870A	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.		Plazi	Paula, Danièle Guinot;Rodríguez Moreno, Paula A.	Paula, Danièle Guinot, Rodríguez Moreno, Paula A. (2026): Formal establishment of Gecarcinoidea H. Milne Edwards, 1837 n. stat. (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura), with recognition of two families, Cardisomatidae n. fam. and Gecarcinidae restrict., and new insights on Epigrapsidae Watabe, 2007. Zoosystema 48 (8): 211-271, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2026v48a8, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19370640
03871F323B58FE1C23901C68291D86C4.text	03871F323B58FE1C23901C68291D86C4.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Gecarcoidea lalandii H. Milne Edwards 1837	<div><p>Gecarcoidea lalandii H. Milne Edwards, 1837</p><p>Papua New Guinea • 1 ♂ 52.0 × 73.3 mm; Wonad I., Exp. PAPUA NIUGUINI, stn PM43; 29.XI.2012; MNHN-IU-2013-13254.</p><p>Vietnam • 2 ♂ 44.3 × 59.6 mm, 39.0 × 51.7 mm; Golfe de Siam; A.Krempf; coll.1921 (n° 2.200); E.-L. Bouvier det. Gecarcoidea lalandei (sic) = Pelocarcinus humei (Wood Mason); MNHN-IU-2017-8404 (= MNHN-B29590).</p><p>Papua New Guinea • 1 ♂ 50.5 × 72.0 mm; <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=145.82138&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=-5.1355553" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 145.82138/lat -5.1355553)">Wonad Island</a>, night tide, sandy beach and intertidal rocks; <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=145.82138&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=-5.1355553" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 145.82138/lat -5.1355553)">Exp. PAPUA NIUGUINI</a>; stn PM43; 5°08’08” S, 145°49’17” E; 0-1m; 29.XI.2012; MNHN-LPR coll.; MNHN-IU-2013-13254 • 1♀ 41.0 × 53.9 mm; Yabob village, <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=145.7775&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=-5.255" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 145.7775/lat -5.255)">Gum River</a>, intertidal rocks and logs; <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=145.7775&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=-5.255" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 145.7775/lat -5.255)">Exp. PAPUA NIUGUINI</a>; stn PM08; 5°15’18”S, 145°46’39”E; 0-1m; 12.XI.2012; MNHN-LPR coll.; P. K. L. Ng det.; MNHN-IU-2013-454.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03871F323B58FE1C23901C68291D86C4	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.		Plazi	Paula, Danièle Guinot;Rodríguez Moreno, Paula A.	Paula, Danièle Guinot, Rodríguez Moreno, Paula A. (2026): Formal establishment of Gecarcinoidea H. Milne Edwards, 1837 n. stat. (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura), with recognition of two families, Cardisomatidae n. fam. and Gecarcinidae restrict., and new insights on Epigrapsidae Watabe, 2007. Zoosystema 48 (8): 211-271, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2026v48a8, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19370640
03871F323B58FE1C23901A0C29078190.text	03871F323B58FE1C23901A0C29078190.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Gecarcoidea natalis (Pockock 1888)	<div><p>Gecarcoidea natalis (Pockock, 1888)</p><p>Christmas Island ( Eastern Indian Ocean, Australian Territory) • 1♂ 67.3 × 92.6 mm, 1 ♀ 58.2 × 78.7 mm; Hosnie’s Spring; RMBR Christmas Island Expedition coll.; 24.I.2010; P. K. L. Ng det. 2010; MNHN-IU-2025-8001 (= ex ZRC 2012.0177).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03871F323B58FE1C23901A0C29078190	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.		Plazi	Paula, Danièle Guinot;Rodríguez Moreno, Paula A.	Paula, Danièle Guinot, Rodríguez Moreno, Paula A. (2026): Formal establishment of Gecarcinoidea H. Milne Edwards, 1837 n. stat. (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura), with recognition of two families, Cardisomatidae n. fam. and Gecarcinidae restrict., and new insights on Epigrapsidae Watabe, 2007. Zoosystema 48 (8): 211-271, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2026v48a8, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19370640
03871F323B58FE1C23901AF32EF684FE.text	03871F323B58FE1C23901AF32EF684FE.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Hartnollius lateralis (Fréminville in Guérin 1832)	<div><p>Hartnollius lateralis (Fréminville in Guérin, 1832)</p><p>Guadeloupe • neotype (designation by N. K. Ng et al. 2019: fig. 2F) ♂ 36.7 × 47.2 mm; dry; Beaupertuis coll.; as Gecarcinus lateralis; MNHN-IU-2000-3758 (= MNHN-B3758). • 1 ♂ (damaged), 1♀ 23.9 × 27.6 mm; dry; M. Beaupertuis coll.; as Gecarcinus lateralis; MNHN-IU-2000-3757 (= MNHN-B3757) • 22 ♂ 40.5 × 55.7 mm (photo), 40.4 × 54.3 mm, 32.8 × 40.7 mm, 32.6 × 41.6 mm, 30.0 × 36.6 mm, 28.0 × 35.0 mm, 25.9 × 32.7 mm, 24.7 × 30.6 mm, 22.2 × 27.4 mm, 21.4 × 26.0 mm, 21.0 × 26.2 mm, 20.5 × 24.7 mm, 18.5 × 22.6 mm, 15.8 × 18.8 mm, 15.3 × 18.7 mm, 16.7 × 20.6 mm, 16.5 × 20.3 mm, 13.2 × 15.8 mm, 13.0 × 15.7 mm, 12.0 × 14.8 mm, 11.8 × 13.8 mm; 12♀: 32.6 × 41.8 mm (photo), 27.5 × 34.2 mm, 27.4 × 35.4 mm, 26.4 × 33.0 mm, 22.4 × 27.7 mm, 20.4 × 25.7 mm, 17.9 × 21.6 mm, 17.6 × 21.7 mm, 16.2 × 19.7 mm, 13.4 × 16.4 mm, 13.2 × 16.3 mm; Côte sud de Grande Terre, Anse Vinaigri, stn 131; Muséum Antilles 1978; 9.VI.1978; as Gecarcinus lateralis; MNHN-IU-2017-8390 (= MNHN-B24656) • 1 ♂ 28.2 × 36.3 mm; Iles des Saintes, Terrede-Haut; <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-61.578335&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=15.876667" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -61.578335/lat 15.876667)">KARUBENTHOS 3</a>; stn IGM 1; 15 ° 52.6’N, 61 ° 34.7’W; 8.X.2024; MNHN-ARBig-LPRig coll.; MNHN-IU-2024-5132 • 1 ♀ 29.3 × 35.9 mm; Guadeloupe, Marie-Galante; <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-61.22167&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=15.888333" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -61.22167/lat 15.888333)">KARUBENTHOS 3</a>, stn IGM25, 15 ° 53.3’N, 61 ° 13.3’W; 16.X.2024; MNHN-ARBig-LPRig coll.; MNHN-IU-2024-5551.</p><p>Martinique • 1 ♂ 27.8 × 34.6 mm; dry; M. B é langer; as Gecarcinus lateralis; MNHN-IU-2000-10768 (= MNHN-B10768) • 1 ♂ 28.8 × 35.5, 1 ♀ 28.0 × 35.0; dry; M. Bélanger; as Gecarcinus lateralis; MNHN-IU-2000-3755 (= MNHN-B3755) • 1♂ cl 26.2 mm ca damaged; dry; as Gecarcinus lateralis; MNHN-IU-2000-3756 (= MNHN-B3756).</p><p>Cayman Islands, Little Cayman • 1 ♂ 29.0 × 37.0 mm; Cayman Expedition, 1938; in bush and plantation; Coll. Oxford University, 1952; 1.17.4-6; det. Gecarcinus ruricola; NHM.</p><p>Bahamas • 1♂ 43.6 × 57.4 mm; dry; as Gecarcinus ruricola; MNHN-IU-2000-10933 (= MNHN-B10933).</p><p>Panama • 1 ♂ 44.7 × 56.7 mm; Naos Island; Panama Survey; 4.V.1971; C. A. Child det. Gecarcinus ruricola; USNM 155253.</p><p>Gulf of Mexico, Florida • 2 ♂ 31.0 × 39.9 mm, 32.3 × 40.5 mm, 2 ♀ 38.3 × 47.2 mm, 31.6 × 38.8 mm; Florida Keys; Loggerhead Key, N. End; 30.VII.1926; Rathbun det. Gecarcinus ruricola; USNM 71219 .</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03871F323B58FE1C23901AF32EF684FE	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.		Plazi	Paula, Danièle Guinot;Rodríguez Moreno, Paula A.	Paula, Danièle Guinot, Rodríguez Moreno, Paula A. (2026): Formal establishment of Gecarcinoidea H. Milne Edwards, 1837 n. stat. (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura), with recognition of two families, Cardisomatidae n. fam. and Gecarcinidae restrict., and new insights on Epigrapsidae Watabe, 2007. Zoosystema 48 (8): 211-271, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2026v48a8, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19370640
03871F323B58FE1C20391FEC2F5887B2.text	03871F323B58FE1C20391FEC2F5887B2.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Hartnollius nobilii (Perger & Wall 2014)	<div><p>Hartnollius nobilii (Perger &amp; Wall, 2014)</p><p>Ecuador • paratype ♀ 36.6 × 44.3 mm; St Helena; Festa coll. Original label: “ Gecarcinus Festae Nob. (cotype), Nobili 1901, Muséum Paris”; Perger &amp; Wall, 2014 det. Gecarcinus nobilii; MNHN-IU-2014-11211 (= MNHN-B12314).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03871F323B58FE1C20391FEC2F5887B2	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.		Plazi	Paula, Danièle Guinot;Rodríguez Moreno, Paula A.	Paula, Danièle Guinot, Rodríguez Moreno, Paula A. (2026): Formal establishment of Gecarcinoidea H. Milne Edwards, 1837 n. stat. (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura), with recognition of two families, Cardisomatidae n. fam. and Gecarcinidae restrict., and new insights on Epigrapsidae Watabe, 2007. Zoosystema 48 (8): 211-271, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2026v48a8, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19370640
03871F323B58FE1C20391CD02EE98177.text	03871F323B58FE1C20391CD02EE98177.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Hartnollius quadratus (Saussure 1853)	<div><p>Hartnollius quadratus (Saussure, 1853)</p><p>Mexico • syntype ♂ cl 39.7 mm; Mazatlán [ M. Verreaux]; ANSP CA3741; Perhaps another ♂ syntype of which only a small cheliped is preserved.</p><p>Mexico • 1 ♀ 39.4 × 49.7 mm; dry; Oaxaca; revis. M. Türkay VI.1972 det. Gecarcinu s (Gecarcinus) lateralis; MNHN-IU-2000-3759 (= MNHN-B3759) • 2♀ 40.0 × 51.0 mm, 40.6 × 53.0 mm; dry; MNHN-IU-2000-3761 (= MNHN-B3761) • 1 ♂ 50.0 × 64.0 mm; Estero El Verde Camacho, Sinaloa; 12.VII.1972; M. Hendrickx det. 1998 Gecarcinus quadratus; MNHN-IU-2017-8391 (= MNHN-B20900).</p><p>Unknown location ( Gabon ?:incorrect location) • 1 ♂ 47.0 × 62.7mm, 1 ♀ 42.4 × 52.7 mm; dry; M. Verreaux det. Gecarcinus quadratus; Türkay revis. VI.1972 Gecarcinus lateralis; Guinot et al. 2025 det. Gecarcinus quadratus; MNHN-IU-2000-3762 (= MNHN-B3762).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03871F323B58FE1C20391CD02EE98177	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.		Plazi	Paula, Danièle Guinot;Rodríguez Moreno, Paula A.	Paula, Danièle Guinot, Rodríguez Moreno, Paula A. (2026): Formal establishment of Gecarcinoidea H. Milne Edwards, 1837 n. stat. (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura), with recognition of two families, Cardisomatidae n. fam. and Gecarcinidae restrict., and new insights on Epigrapsidae Watabe, 2007. Zoosystema 48 (8): 211-271, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2026v48a8, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19370640
03871F323B58FE1C20391A632EE981C2.text	03871F323B58FE1C20391A632EE981C2.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Johngarthia lagostoma (H. Milne Edwards 1837)	<div><p>Johngarthia lagostoma (H. Milne Edwards, 1837)</p><p>Southern Atlantic • lectotype (designated by Türkay 1973: 96); ♂ 63.7 × 82.4 mm (measurements by Türkay 63 × 81 mm); coll. Quoy &amp; Gaimard;?Australasia (inaccurate locality: in fact, Brazil; see N. K. Ng et al. 2019; MNHN-IU-2000-3750 (= MNHN-B3750).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03871F323B58FE1C20391A632EE981C2	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.		Plazi	Paula, Danièle Guinot;Rodríguez Moreno, Paula A.	Paula, Danièle Guinot, Rodríguez Moreno, Paula A. (2026): Formal establishment of Gecarcinoidea H. Milne Edwards, 1837 n. stat. (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura), with recognition of two families, Cardisomatidae n. fam. and Gecarcinidae restrict., and new insights on Epigrapsidae Watabe, 2007. Zoosystema 48 (8): 211-271, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2026v48a8, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19370640
03871F323B58FE1C20391B272EE98349.text	03871F323B58FE1C20391B272EE98349.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Johngarthia oceanica Perger 2019	<div><p>Johngarthia oceanica Perger, 2019</p><p>Clipperton • 1 ♂ 50.9 × 66.0 mm; South West coast; Centre de Recherches du Service de Santé des Armées, Division de Bio-Ecologie coll.; D. Guinot det. 1969 Gecarcinus planatus, M. Türkay VI.1972 revis. Gecarcinus (Johngarthia) planata; MNHN-IU-2011-5165 (= MNHN-B13156) • 1 ♂, same data, MNHN-IU-2011-5234 (= MNHN-B13156) • 1♀ 54.6 × 69.1 mm; J.-L. Etienne coll.; V.2004; D. Guinot det. 19.V.2005 Johngarthia planata • 1 ♀ 54.6 × 69.1 mm; J.-L. Etienne coll.; V.2004; D. Guinot det. 19.V.2005 Johngarthia planata; MNHN-IU-2025-8003 (= MNHN-B28823) • 1♂ 29.7 × 35.6 mm; Exp. Clipperton 2005; J.-M. Bouchard coll. and det. 2005 Gecarcinus planatus; MNHN-IU-2016-10760 (= MNHN-B29848).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03871F323B58FE1C20391B272EE98349	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.		Plazi	Paula, Danièle Guinot;Rodríguez Moreno, Paula A.	Paula, Danièle Guinot, Rodríguez Moreno, Paula A. (2026): Formal establishment of Gecarcinoidea H. Milne Edwards, 1837 n. stat. (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura), with recognition of two families, Cardisomatidae n. fam. and Gecarcinidae restrict., and new insights on Epigrapsidae Watabe, 2007. Zoosystema 48 (8): 211-271, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2026v48a8, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19370640
03871F323B58FE1C203F188C2EF78213.text	03871F323B58FE1C203F188C2EF78213.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Johngarthia planata (Stimpson 1860)	<div><p>Johngarthia planata (Stimpson, 1860)</p><p>Baja California • holotype of Gecarcinus digueti Bouvier, 1895; ♂ 46.3 × 69.0 mm; coll. M. Diguet; E.-L. Bouvier det. (Original label: “ Gecarcinus planatus Stimpson, Basse-Californie, M. Diguet (1898), E.-L. Bouvier det.”), MNHN-IU-2000-10951 (= MNHN-B10951).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03871F323B58FE1C203F188C2EF78213	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.		Plazi	Paula, Danièle Guinot;Rodríguez Moreno, Paula A.	Paula, Danièle Guinot, Rodríguez Moreno, Paula A. (2026): Formal establishment of Gecarcinoidea H. Milne Edwards, 1837 n. stat. (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura), with recognition of two families, Cardisomatidae n. fam. and Gecarcinidae restrict., and new insights on Epigrapsidae Watabe, 2007. Zoosystema 48 (8): 211-271, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2026v48a8, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19370640
03871F323B58FE1C203919702FAB82DE.text	03871F323B58FE1C203919702FAB82DE.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Johngarthia weileri (Sendler 1912)	<div><p>Johngarthia weileri (Sendler, 1912)</p><p>Gulf of Guinea • ♂ 54.5 × 71.4 mm, 1 ♀ 32.7 × 40.0 mm; Principe Island, îlot Caroço; Calypso 1956 Exp.; stn 87 on land; 26.VI.1956; Forest &amp; Guinot 1966 det. Gecarcinus lagostoma; Turkay revis. 1972; MNHN-IU-2018-5230 (= MNHN-B13151) .</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03871F323B58FE1C203919702FAB82DE	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.		Plazi	Paula, Danièle Guinot;Rodríguez Moreno, Paula A.	Paula, Danièle Guinot, Rodríguez Moreno, Paula A. (2026): Formal establishment of Gecarcinoidea H. Milne Edwards, 1837 n. stat. (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura), with recognition of two families, Cardisomatidae n. fam. and Gecarcinidae restrict., and new insights on Epigrapsidae Watabe, 2007. Zoosystema 48 (8): 211-271, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2026v48a8, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19370640
03871F323B59FE1D23901CE62AAB864C.text	03871F323B59FE1D23901CE62AAB864C.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Tuerkayana celeste (Ng & Davie 2012)	<div><p>Tuerkayana celeste (Ng &amp; Davie, 2012)</p><p>Christmas Island • paratypes 1 ♂ 79.9 × 101.0 mm, 1 ♀ 67.3 × 82.0 mm; stn CI 11; Hosnie’s Springs (freshwater); uplifted Bruguiera patch; coll. RMBR-CI 2010 Expedition; 24.I.2010; MNHN-IU-2018-5238 (ex ZRC 2012.0015).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03871F323B59FE1D23901CE62AAB864C	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.		Plazi	Paula, Danièle Guinot;Rodríguez Moreno, Paula A.	Paula, Danièle Guinot, Rodríguez Moreno, Paula A. (2026): Formal establishment of Gecarcinoidea H. Milne Edwards, 1837 n. stat. (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura), with recognition of two families, Cardisomatidae n. fam. and Gecarcinidae restrict., and new insights on Epigrapsidae Watabe, 2007. Zoosystema 48 (8): 211-271, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2026v48a8, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19370640
03871F323B59FE1D23901A47291481E8.text	03871F323B59FE1D23901A47291481E8.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Tuerkayana hirtipes (Dana 1851) See Guinot et al. 2018	<div><p>Tuerkayana aff. hirtipes (Dana, 1851) See Guinot et al. 2018, appendix: 602, 603.</p><p>Loyalty Islands • 1 ♂ 61.0 × 79.0 mm; Lifou Island; We Cave; Richer de Forges coll. and det. Discoplax hirtipes; 14.VII.1993; MNHN-IU-2017-8397 (= MNHN-B24811).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03871F323B59FE1D23901A47291481E8	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.		Plazi	Paula, Danièle Guinot;Rodríguez Moreno, Paula A.	Paula, Danièle Guinot, Rodríguez Moreno, Paula A. (2026): Formal establishment of Gecarcinoidea H. Milne Edwards, 1837 n. stat. (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura), with recognition of two families, Cardisomatidae n. fam. and Gecarcinidae restrict., and new insights on Epigrapsidae Watabe, 2007. Zoosystema 48 (8): 211-271, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2026v48a8, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19370640
03871F323B59FE1D23901DA62A428128.text	03871F323B59FE1D23901DA62A428128.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Tuerkayana latens Ng & Shih 2023	<div><p>Tuerkayana latens Ng &amp; Shih, 2023</p><p>French Polynesia • holotype ♂ 42.7 × 52.8 mm; Tuamotu, Niau Atoll; 2006; J. F. Butaud coll. and det. Discoplax rotunda; MNHN-IU-2011-5594.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03871F323B59FE1D23901DA62A428128	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.		Plazi	Paula, Danièle Guinot;Rodríguez Moreno, Paula A.	Paula, Danièle Guinot, Rodríguez Moreno, Paula A. (2026): Formal establishment of Gecarcinoidea H. Milne Edwards, 1837 n. stat. (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura), with recognition of two families, Cardisomatidae n. fam. and Gecarcinidae restrict., and new insights on Epigrapsidae Watabe, 2007. Zoosystema 48 (8): 211-271, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2026v48a8, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19370640
03871F323B59FE1D23901EC42AAB846E.text	03871F323B59FE1D23901EC42AAB846E.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Tuerkayana magnum (Ng & Shih 2014)	<div><p>Tuerkayana magnum (Ng &amp; Shih, 2014)</p><p>Indonesia • 1 ♂ 52.8 × 64.9 mm; Java, purchased from dealer; J. C. Y. Lai det. Discoplax magna 14.XII.2017; MNHN-IU-2018-5239 (ex ZRC 2017.1393) • 1 ♂ 50.2 × 60.0 mm; same data; MNHN-IU-2018-5240 (ex ZRC 2017.1391).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03871F323B59FE1D23901EC42AAB846E	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.		Plazi	Paula, Danièle Guinot;Rodríguez Moreno, Paula A.	Paula, Danièle Guinot, Rodríguez Moreno, Paula A. (2026): Formal establishment of Gecarcinoidea H. Milne Edwards, 1837 n. stat. (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura), with recognition of two families, Cardisomatidae n. fam. and Gecarcinidae restrict., and new insights on Epigrapsidae Watabe, 2007. Zoosystema 48 (8): 211-271, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2026v48a8, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19370640
03871F323B59FE1D23901F852BBB878C.text	03871F323B59FE1D23901F852BBB878C.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Tuerkayana rotundum (Quoy & Gaimard 1824)	<div><p>Tuerkayana rotundum (Quoy &amp; Gaimard, 1824)</p><p>Oceania • syntype ♂ 50.0 × 63.0 mm; M. Gu é rin coll.; Quoy &amp; Gaimard det. Thelphusa rotunda; M. Türkay vid. VI.1972 and det. Cardisoma rotundum; dry; MNHN-IU-2000-3745 (= MNHNB3745).</p><p>Loyalty Islands • 1 ♀ 32.7× 40.1 mm, 1 ♀; Caillot 1886; MNHN-IU-2017-11711 (= MNHN-B13141), erroneously cited as MNHN-IU- 2013-3740 in Guinot et al. 2018: fig. 4G • 1♂ 28.5 × 36.0 mm; Lifou Island, Easo Cave; 17 m; Richer de Forges coll. and det. Discoplax rotundum; 20.VIII.1993; MNHN-IU-2017-8393 (= MNHNB24813).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03871F323B59FE1D23901F852BBB878C	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.		Plazi	Paula, Danièle Guinot;Rodríguez Moreno, Paula A.	Paula, Danièle Guinot, Rodríguez Moreno, Paula A. (2026): Formal establishment of Gecarcinoidea H. Milne Edwards, 1837 n. stat. (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura), with recognition of two families, Cardisomatidae n. fam. and Gecarcinidae restrict., and new insights on Epigrapsidae Watabe, 2007. Zoosystema 48 (8): 211-271, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2026v48a8, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19370640
03871F323B59FE1F223C1BA02F8887FA.text	03871F323B59FE1F223C1BA02F8887FA.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Gecarcinoidea H. Milne Edwards 1837	<div><p>Superfamily GECARCINOIDEA H. Milne Edwards, 1837 n. stat.</p><p>(Table 1)</p><p>Gécarciniens H. Milne Edwards, 1837: 7 in table, 16-27 pro parte.</p><p>Gecarcinidae MacLeay, 1838: 63, in key.</p><p>Geocarcinidae Miers 1886: xiv, 216, 346 219 [invalid emendation of Gecarcinidae], pro parte.</p><p>Gecarcinoidea Guinot 1977a: 406; 1977b: 1050; 1978: 287. — Glaessner 1980: fig. 22. — Jamieson &amp; Tudge 2000: table 7. — Sternberg &amp; Cumberlidge 2001b: 38. — Guinot et al. 2018: 561-570, figs 4-7, 11A, table 1; 2025: 266.</p><p>INCLUDED FAMILIES. — Gecarcinidae restrict. and Cardisomatidae n. fam. The family Epigrapsidae Watabe, 2007, is not included, see below, New insights on the family Epigrapsidae Watabe, 2007 .</p><p>SUPERFAMILIAL DIAGNOSIS (see Table 1)</p><p>Carapace wider than long, widest in anterior half, generally transversally ovate or subquadrate, varying from not inflated to inflated and even vaultlike (Fig. 1). Dorsal surface with regions hardly, weakly or distinctly demarcated. Lateral striae distinct, numerous ( Gecarcinidae restrict.) or, if present, faint, and more often absent ( Cardisomatidae n. fam.). In Cardisomatidae n. fam., presence of a stridulatory apparatus only in Discoplax, with granular suborbital crest acting as pars stridens and thickened ridge on cheliped merus acting as plectrum. In Gecarcinidae restrict., subhepatic and pterygostomial striae, one possibly acting as pars stridens (with inner surface of palm of chelae as plectrum): stridulation at least reported in Hartnollius lateralis but possible in other genera, which have similar striae. Carapace dorsal surface without grooves or with only a few grooves; cervical groove indistinct, shallow or deep; H-shaped depression; branchial regions more or less swollen, sometimes greatly swollen. Anterolateral margins strongly arched, convex, unarmed or granular, possibly with a single postorbital tooth or notch. Supra- and infraorbital margins not fusing or meeting along their outer edges. Orbits either proportionally very small, or small and deep, compared to carapace size (Figs 2 D-F; 3B, C) ( Gecarcinidae restrict.), or larger, transversally elongated (Figs 2 A-C; 3A) ( Cardisomatidae n. fam.). Fronto-orbital border more than half width of carapace ( Cardisomatidae n. fam.) or half or less than half width of carapace ( Gecarcinidae restrict.). Front entire, either relatively wide and weakly deflexed ( Cardisomatidae n. fam.) or relatively narrow and strongly deflexed ( Gecarcinidae restrict.). Antennular fossae linear, narrow or higher. Antennulae folded nearly transversally to slightly obliquely. Proepistome either prominently dome-shaped at various extent ( Cardisomatidae n. fam.), or small and narrow, covered or not by subfrontal plate ( Gecarcinidae restrict.). Antennae very small, nearly longitudinal; flagellum bent. Buccal frame either elongate-subquadrate, well delineated laterally, with wide, thick, straight anterior margin joining anterior border of epistome (Figs 2 A-C; 3A) ( Cardisomatidae n. fam.), or quadrate, subcircular or rhomboid, not delineated laterally, with its anterior border being the anterior limit of epistome (Figs 2 D-F; 3B, C) ( Gecarcinidae restrict.). Epistome with anterior margin either as two concave edges joining medially ( Cardisomatidae n. fam.), or linear ( Gecarcinidae restrict.). Mxp3, when closed, leaving rhomboidal gap, so food can still enter the mouth and be processed by mandibles; ischium and merus typically very wide; merus constricted at the point of its articulation with ischium; palp either articulating at antero-external angle of merus and normal, i.e., with three mobile articles visible externally (Figs 2 A-C; 3A) ( Cardisomatidae n. fam.), or articulating in middle of anterior border of merus and with first article fused to merus internal surface, the two mobile distal articles being concealed, not visible (Figs 2F; 3C) ( Gecarcinus, Hartnollius), or more or less visible (Figs 2 E-F; 3B) (other genera of Gecarcinidae restrict.). Mxp3 exopod either exposed and provided witht flagellum (concealed) (Figs 2A, B; 3A; 4A) ( Cardisomatidae n. fam.), or conspicuously reduced in size, entirely concealed and without flagellum (Figs 2E; 3B, C; 4B) ( Gecarcinidae restrict.). Pterygostomial region either as a broad densely setose area (Figs 2 A-C; 3A) ( Cardisomatidae n. fam.), or glabrous, naked (Figs 2D, F; 3B, C) ( Gecarcinidae restrict.). Pereopods 2-5 robust, unarmed (except dactyli); meri and dactyli rather long, with longitudinal setal ridges, often provided with spine-like stiff setae ( Cardisomatidae n. fam.), variously armed with teeth and chitinous spines on dactylus ( Gecarcinidae restrict.). Male pleon consisting of six free somites plus telson, entirely covering space between last pairs of legs; very long, its extremity ending either very close to suture 2/3 and even beyond it, or very slightly away. Male and female pleons bordered by thick fringe of setae along margins ( Cardisomatidae n. fam.), or bordered by narrow fringe of setae along margins ( Gecarcinidae restrict.). Female pleon either narrow, oval, and, thanks its dense fringe of setae on margins, completely filling thoracic sternum except for episternites, and leaving only a reduced lateral portion exposed; telson small and narrow, reaching more or less sternite 3 and mxp3 (Fig. 8) ( Cardisomatidae n. fam.); or much wider, discoid, leaving laterally and especially anteriorly a sternal portion exposed in addtion to the episternites; telson in the shape of a large triangle (Fig. 9) ( Gecarcinidae restrict.) (see Female pleon and pleopods). Ridge on sternite 4 from more or less marked to very thick, surrounding telson and also extending partially along pleonal somite 6 ( Cardisomatidae n. fam.) or surrounding telson only ( Gecarcinidae restrict.). Pleonal somite 6 longest. Two main positions of sternal gonopore and penis: (1) in Cardisomatidae n. fam., gonopore very close to P5 coxa (but without perforating it), and penis emerging from gonopore either at a relatively short distance from thoracic sternal suture 7/8 (Figs 5C, E; 7B: Cardisoma, Tuerkayana) or emerging at a longer distance, far from thoracic sternal suture 7/8, in posteriormost location ( Discoplax) (see Guinot et al. 2018: fig. 5C, 5F, 5I, 5L, 5O: D. longipes, C. guanhumi, Tuerkayana aff. hirtipes, T. celeste and T. magnum respectively); (2) in Gecarcinidae restrict., gonopore quite far from P5 coxa, and penis emerging at a longer distance in more sternal position, just below thoracic sternal suture 7/8 (Figs 5D; 7C, D: Gecarcoidea, Johngarthia). Median line deep, either along sternites 8 and 7, reappearing sometimes on sternite 6 after median bridge ( Cardisoma) ( Cardisomatidae n. fam.) or along sternite 7, sometimes slightly extending on sternite 6 ( Gecarcoidea) ( Gecarcinidae restrict.). Locking structures either obscure, even absent ( Cardisomatidae n. fam.) or present in Gecarcinidae restrict. as more or less developed sternal prominence or crest, or as a button more or less close to suture 4/5 ( Hartnollius); but pleonal sockets not delimited, so pleonal locking no longer functional in the two families (Guinot &amp; Bouchard 1998). G1 long, slender, tip reaching thoracic sternal suture 4/5 or not reaching it completely (Figs 5E; 7B) ( Cardisomatidae n. fam.) or short, thick calcified part reaching about middle part of sternite 6 ( Gecarcinus, Hartnollius), slightly behind ( Gecarcoidea, Johngarthia) (Figs 5F; 7D) ( Gecarcinidae restrict.). G2 very small, spatuliform, without flagellum. Vulvae normally occluded by immobile, rigidly shut, calcified operculum (see below, Vulvae in Gecarcinoidea n. stat.). No setal tufts of hydrophilic setae along first pleonal somites and setae on posterior margin of sternite 7 ( Cardisomatidae n. fam.), or setal tufts of hydrophilic setae along first pleonal somites; setae on posterior margin of sternite 7, slightly on P5 coxae ( Gecarcinidae restrict.).</p><p>REMARKS</p><p>There are a series of degrees of terrestrial adaptations among brachyuran crabs, and it is difficult to determine the characteristics of habit and behaviour that make a crab a ‘land crab’ (Bliss 1968). All species of Gecarcinoidea n. stat., ‘land crabs’ par excellence, reside in the supratidal zone or more often out of water, active in air, generally nocturnal, cryptic and more often in burrows. Species belonging to the ‘grade T3’ of Hartnoll (1988a: 10; Alexander &amp; Mantel 1969), such as Cardisoma species ( Cardisomatidae n. fam.) that seem the least tolerant of dry conditions, require regular access to water, either by going to the sea where they immerse themselves or by drawing from other sources or by reaching the groundwater at the bottom of their burrows.Conversely, in Gecarcinidae restrict., species such as Gecarcinus ruricola (‘grade T4’), do not require to immerse themselves regularly in water, obtaining water through food, by drinking dew or running water or by uptake from damp substrates. All gecarcinoids are entirely dependent on marine water for their pelagic life (spawning and egg release, larval stages). External evidence of their terrestriality is demonstrated by the inflated carapace, which accommodate the branchial region, more strongly modified in species of Gecarcinidae restrict. than in Cardisomatidae n. fam.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03871F323B59FE1F223C1BA02F8887FA	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.		Plazi	Paula, Danièle Guinot;Rodríguez Moreno, Paula A.	Paula, Danièle Guinot, Rodríguez Moreno, Paula A. (2026): Formal establishment of Gecarcinoidea H. Milne Edwards, 1837 n. stat. (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura), with recognition of two families, Cardisomatidae n. fam. and Gecarcinidae restrict., and new insights on Epigrapsidae Watabe, 2007. Zoosystema 48 (8): 211-271, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2026v48a8, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19370640
03871F323B5BFE1A20A81D062AD680D8.text	03871F323B5BFE1A20A81D062AD680D8.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Cardisomatidae	<div><p>Family CARDISOMATIDAE n. fam.</p><p>(Figs 1 A-C; 2A-C; 3A; 4A; 5A, C, E; 6A, B; 7A, B; Table 1)</p><p>urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act: 96AA0018-1941-4815-9F88-935213756DFD</p><p>Cardisomaceen Nauck, 1880: 27, 65. See Remarks.</p><p>Cardisomidae Ehrhardt, 1968b: 6: nomen nudum. See Remarks.</p><p>First gecarcinid subclade in Guinot et al. 2018: 561, table 1.</p><p>TYPE GENUS. — Cardisoma Latreille, 1828 . (Etymology: from cor, coeur, and soma, body, i.e., heart-shaped body). Gender neuter.</p><p>OTHER GENERA INCLUDED. — Discoplax A. Milne Edwards, 1867 (see The case of the genus Discoplax A. Milne Edwards, 1867); Tuerkayana Guinot, N. K. Ng &amp; Rodríguez Moreno, 2018 .</p><p>NOMENCLATURAL AND TAXONOMIC REMARKS</p><p>The name Cardisoma, ending in - soma, a Greek noun transliterated unchanged into Latin, is part of the name (ICZN, Art. 30.1.2). The genitive singular of soma, namely, is somatis, and the grammatical stem is thus somat- (see International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, ICZN 1964: 129), so that the familial name must be based on the entire generic nomen, with the suffix – tidae.</p><p>The nomen ‘Cardisomaceen’ used by Nauck (1880: 27, 65), a plural German vernacular noun referring only to the genus Cardisoma, is not clearly used as a scientific name to denote a suprageneric taxon: it therefore cannot become a family-group name. The family name ‘Cardisomidae’ used by Ehhardt (1968b: 6) only once in passing and without including a diagnosis, should be considered a nomen nudum.</p><p>Guinot et al. (2018) have profoundly modified the composition of the gecarcinoid genera: the two species traditionally assigned to Cardisoma, C. hirtipes Dana, 1851 and C. rotundum (Quoy &amp; Gaimard, 1824), have been assigned to Tuerkayana, to which have been added Discoplax celeste Ng &amp; Davie, 2012 and D. magna Ng &amp; Shih, 2014 . A new species, from Polynesia, Tuerkayana latens Ng &amp; Shih, 2023, has been added (Ng &amp; Shih 2023).</p><p>FAMILIAL DESCRIPTION</p><p>Carapace (Fig. 1 A-C)</p><p>Carapace wider than long, transversally oval, cordate or subquadrate, convex fore and aft, inflated and globulose ( Cardisoma), or moderately inflated ( Tuerkayana), or not inflated ( Discoplax). Dorsal surface with regions weakly or barely demarcated ( Cardisoma), or clearly marked ( Discoplax, Tuerkayana); grooves more or less marked; posterolateral striae distinct ( Discoplax), more or less weak ( Tuerkayana), or absent ( Cardisoma). Anterolateral borders tumid and strongly arched, distinctly marked or more or less marked, unarmed or with a single small postorbital tooth or notch. Fronto-orbital border more than half the width of carapace. Front relatively wide, not much deflexed; its margin nearly straight ( Cardisoma, Discoplax), or slightly convex ( Tuerkayana). Subhepatic, subbranchial and posterolateral regions heavily striated ( Discoplax), or subhepatic and subbranchial areas without striae ( Cardisoma, Tuerkayana). Posterolateral striae absent ( Cardisoma) or more or less faint but distinct, sometimes disappearing in largest adults ( Tuerkayana).</p><p>Cephalic structures (Figs 2 A-C; 3A)</p><p>Antennular fossae moderately wide; antennules small, entirely visible. Antenna relatively small, in orbital hiatus. Orbits relatively developed, transversally elongated ( Cardisoma), either closed laterally by right-angled margin ( Cardisoma, Tuerkayana) or with a wide lateral gap closed by oblique margin ( Discoplax); exorbital angle marked, with small notch ( Tuerkayana) or indentation. Eyestalks elongated, entirely filling orbits ( Cardisoma, Tuerkayana) or not ( Discoplax).</p><p>Stridulatory apparatus</p><p>Absent, no suborbital ridge ( Cardisoma, Tuerkayana), or present, the suborbital ridge forming the pars stridens; plectrum on inner margin of cheliped merus ( Discoplax).</p><p>Proepistome (Figs 2 A-C; 3A)</p><p>Proepistome more or less prominently and variously sized dome-shaped ( Cardisoma), or low and recessed ( Discoplax, Tuerkayana), encircled or not by subfrontal projections.</p><p>Buccal frame, epistome, mxp3 and pterygostome</p><p>(Figs 2 A-C; 3A; 4A)</p><p>Buccal cavity elongate-subquadrate, delineated laterally, with wide, thick, straight anterior margin joining anterior border of epistome made of two concave edges joining medially. Mxp3 relatively long, gaping, leaving rhomboidal gape when closed; anterior margin of merus emarginate; palp normal, with three mobile articles externally visible; articulating either at antero-external angle of anterior border of merus, or slightly further, so that first article may be partially hidden behind merus (Tavares 1989: figs 3, 12a, C. guanhumi). Exopod exposed, slender, and equipped with flagellum, concealed. Broad pterygostomial area densely setose.</p><p>Chelipeds</p><p>In males, heterochely and heterodonty either strong, increasing at largest sizes, with major chela very stout and fingers markedly gaping; or heterochely moderate, with major chela moderately developed but becoming very stout in large adult males ( Tuerkayana); or heterochely and heterodonty weak, with male chelipeds only slightly subequal ( Discoplax).</p><p>Ambulatory legs</p><p>Variously shaped: relatively robust, short, especially merus and propodus, with small spines and well-developed setae; or long, relatively slender, especially merus and propodus finely spinose ( Discoplax).</p><p>Sterno-pleonal cavity and male pleon</p><p>(Figs 5A, C, E; 6A, B; 7A, B)</p><p>Sterno-pleonal cavity long, its tip fairly close to suture 2/3, deep, very wide ( Discoplax) or narrower ( Cardisoma, Tuerkayana), with developed lateral slopes; ridge on sternite 4 either marked (e.g. Cardisoma, Tuerkayana) or faint ( Discoplax), surrounding telson only or also extending along pleonal somite 6, when pleon is applied against sternal surface. Male pleon with all somites free, plus telson; narrow and triangular ( Cardisoma, Tuerkayana) or distinctly wider ( Discoplax); somite 6 conspicuously elongated, narrow ( Cardisoma), shorter and broader ( Tuerkayana), very short and rounded ( Discoplax), with oblique ( Cardisoma) or slightly convex margins ( Discoplax, Tuerkayana). Telson elongated ( Cardisoma), or short ( Tuerkayana), or very short, bluntly tipped ( Discoplax). Male pleon bordered by thick fringe of setae along margins. Absence or strong reduction of hydrophilic setal tufts along first pleonal somites; setae only on posterior margin of sternite 7.</p><p>Female pleon (Fig. 8)</p><p>Female pleon relatively narrow, oval, with dense fringe of setae on margins, entirely filling thoracic sternum except for the episternites; telson small and narrow, reaching more or less sternite 3 and mxp3, and thus leaving only a reduced sternal part exposed.</p><p>Thoracic sternum, locking pleonal structures and setal tufts</p><p>(Figs 5A, C, E; 6A, B; 7A, B)</p><p>Thoracic sternum proportionally wide ( Discoplax), or narrow; strongly restricted at level of sternite 4 ( Cardisoma). Sternites 1-2 fused; sternite 1 as small triangular piece at lower level, not separated from sternite 2 by suture; sternite 2 with thick lateral borders, semi-oval, developed or reduced; suture 2/3 present,possibly attenuated medially; suture 3/4 absent, without lateral traces; sternites 3 + 4 completely fused, with more less concave margins, therefore strongly or moderately restricted at level of P1; thoracic sternal sutures 4/5 to 7/8 interrupted; sternites 5-6 similarly shaped, sutures well defined; sternite 7 extending posteriorly near sternal gonopore; suture 7/8 rather short ( Cardisoma, Discoplax), or slightly longer ( Tuerkayana); sternite 8 rather developed, almost or completely hidden when pleon is folded; posterior emargination reaching sternite 7 at level of very narrow median bridge at suture 7/8; median line deep, either along sternites 8 and 7, interrupted by transverse bridge at level of suture 6/7, and reappearing on sternite 6 ( Cardisoma); or median line on sternite 8 and extending only on sternite 7 below median bridge, and not extending on sternite 6 ( Discoplax, Tuerkayana).</p><p>Locking structures obscure or absent, non-functional.</p><p>Male gonopore and penis (Figs 3C, E; 7B)</p><p>Male gonopore sternal, very close to P5 coxo-sternal condyle and membrane lining arthrodial cavity; penis emerging from gonopore either at a relatively short distance from thoracic sternal suture 7/8 ( Cardisoma, Tuerkayana) or emerging at a longer distance, far from thoracic sternal suture 7/8, in middle of sternite 8, in posteriormost location ( Discoplax); narrow proximal portion of penis concealed under setae of pleonal margins, wedged in small space between P5 coxo-sternal condyle and episternite 7, then followed by thick, sclerotised sheath; ending in large, contorted papilla.</p><p>G1 (Figs 5E; 7B)</p><p>G1 proportionally long, slender, tip reaching sternal suture 4/5 or not quite reaching it.</p><p>Vulvae</p><p>Vulvae on sternite 6. Vulva developed, almost oriented vertically, operculum salient, sternal cover all around ( Cardisoma); vulva very small, operculum moderately salient ( Discoplax); vulva relatively small, operculum salient, sternal cover obscure (Tuerkeyana).</p><p>REMARKS (Figs 5C, D; 7 B-D)</p><p>The male gonopore very close to the P5 coxo-sternal condyle but without perforation of the P5 coxa by the ejaculatory duct (throracotreme configuration), with the penis emerging close to P5 coxa is the most significant character distinguishing the Cardisomatidae n. fam. from the Gecarcinidae restrict. The cardisomatid condition represents the most basal condition found in Gecarcinoidea n. stat., whereas the Gecarcinidae restrict., with the male gonopore emerging in a more completely sternal location, represents a more derived thoracotreme condition. In Cardisomatidae n. fam., although the penis is always very close to the P5 coxo-sternal condyle, it emerges either a short distance from the thoracic sternal suture 7/8 ( Cardisoma, Tuerkayna) or further from the P5 coxa, in a posteriormost location ( Discoplax). Other basal characters of Cardisomatidae n. fam. are the rather developed and horizontal eyes, the configuration of the buccal frame that is well delimited anteriorly and laterally, and the mxp3 with a fully visible palp and typical exopod with flagellum. Sternal locking structures are absent in Cardisomatidae n. fam. but present in Gecarcinidae restrict., however without the complementary pleonal sockets, therefore resulting in a non-functional pleonal locking apparatus. Within the Cardisomatidae n. fam., Discoplax is divergent by a number of characters, see The case of the genus Discoplax A. Milne Edwards, 1867 .</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03871F323B5BFE1A20A81D062AD680D8	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.		Plazi	Paula, Danièle Guinot;Rodríguez Moreno, Paula A.	Paula, Danièle Guinot, Rodríguez Moreno, Paula A. (2026): Formal establishment of Gecarcinoidea H. Milne Edwards, 1837 n. stat. (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura), with recognition of two families, Cardisomatidae n. fam. and Gecarcinidae restrict., and new insights on Epigrapsidae Watabe, 2007. Zoosystema 48 (8): 211-271, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2026v48a8, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19370640
03871F323B5EFE0523FF1820291584C5.text	03871F323B5EFE0523FF1820291584C5.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Cardisoma Latreille 1828	<div><p>Genus Cardisoma Latreille, 1828 restrict .</p><p>Cardisoma Latreille, 1828: 685 .</p><p>Cardiosoma Agassiz, 1846 (incorrect spelling for Cardisoma Latreille, in Latreille, Le Peletier, Serville &amp; Guérin, 1828).</p><p>Perigrapsus Heller, 1862 (type species: Perigrapsus excelsus Heller, 1862, by monotypy; see Ng et al. 2008: 214).</p><p>TYPE SPECIES. — Cardisoma guanhumi Latreille, in Latreille, Le Peletier, Serville &amp; Guérin, 1828.</p><p>OTHER SPECIES INCLUDED. — For Cardisoma, Berthold (1827: 254, footnote) mentioned two species: Cancer Guanhumi of Marcgrave and Cancer carnifex of Herbst, names available under Articles 11 and 12 of the Code but suppressed (as nomina oblita) according to Articles 23.9.1 and 23.9.2 of the Code (see Ng et al. 2008: 23, 24). Cardisoma armatum Herklots, 1851; C. carnifex (Herbst, 1796) (see N. K. Ng et al. 2019: C. urvillei H. Milne Edwards, 1854 (for the date, see Clark 2025) is a junior subjective synonym of the latter); C. crassum Smith, 1870.</p><p>The two species Cardisoma hirtipes Dana, 1851 and C. rotundum (Quoy &amp; Gaimard, 1824), traditionally referred to Cardisoma, are now members of the genus Tuerkayana (Guinot et al. 2018) .</p><p>DIAGNOSIS</p><p>Carapace (Figs 1A; 15 A-F)</p><p>Carapace inflated and thick (Guinot et al. 2018: fig. 4A-C, Cardisoma guanhumi, C. carnifex, C. armatum, respectively; Bouchard et al. 2013: fig. 12C, C. carnifex), reaching up to 130 mm cw in C. guanhumi (Türkay 1970; Hartnoll et al. 2006). Dorsal surface with regions weakly or hardly demarcated, smooth (Muñoz et al. 2025b: fig. 1, C. armatum). Fronto-orbital border more than half width of carapace. Front relatively wide, not much deflexed. Anterolateral margin not delimited, unarmed, except for one notch just behind the exorbital angle in C. guanhumi (Rathbun 1918: pl. 106, C. guanhumi; Türkay 1970: fig. 8a, C. guanhumi; Türkay 1973a: fig. 7, C. armatum; Türkay 1974a: fig. 11, C. carnifex; Tavares 1989: fig. 3, C. guanhumi; Bouchard et al. 2013: fig. 12C, C. carnifex; Rathbun 1918: pl. 108, C. crassum; Diez &amp; Capote 2015: fig. 7K, C. guanhumi; Toledano-Carrasco 2016: pl. 25A). Subhepatic and subbranchial areas not striated (Guinot et al. 2018: fig. 6B, C. guanhumi).</p><p>Cephalic structures (Fig. 3A)</p><p>Antennular fossae linear. Antennule folded obliquely, with short basal article and two flagellae, equipped with numerous aesthetascs, 84 in C. armatum (Krieger et al. 2015: figs 3B, 4B, 5B). Antenna as in Krieger et al. (2015: figs 3, 6B). Orbits developed, transversally elongated, completely filled by eyestalks, closed laterally by right-angled margin (Delfosse 1999: fig. p. 15, Cardisoma armatum). Suborbital margin entirely joining exorbital tooth.</p><p>Stridulatory apparatus</p><p>Absent; no suborbital crest (Guinot et al. 2018: fig. 6B, Cardisoma guanhumi).</p><p>Proepistome (Fig. 3A)</p><p>Proepistome wide, prominently dome-shaped (Tavares 1989: fig. 3; Guinot et al. 2018: fig. 6B, Cardisoma guanhumi).</p><p>Buccal frame, epistome, mxp3 and pterygostome (Fig. 3A) Buccal frame elongate-subquadrate, well circumscribed laterally and anteriorly, with wide, thick, straight anterior margin joining anterior border of epistome as two concave edges joining medially (Kobayashi &amp; Naruse 2023: fig. 6B, Cardisoma carnifex). Mxp3 long, filling buccal cavity, leaving between them large rhomboidal gap; palp normal, with three mobile articles entirely exposed. Exopod exposed, slender, with flagellum concealed under merus (Hartnoll 1988b: fig. 2.4.B: Guinot et al. 2018: fig. 6b, C. guanhumi; Ng &amp; Guinot 2001: fig. 1b and 1c, C. carnifex, C. armatum, respectively; Ho 2003: fig. p. 28, C. carnifex). Pterygostomial area setose, usually narrow.</p><p>Chelipeds (Fig. 15D, F)</p><p>Male chelipeds with strong heterochely and heterodonty: major chela remarkably stout; fingers elongated, widely gaping, with one main tooth on both prehensile margins; minor chela narrow, long; fingers slightly gaping (Monod 1956: fig. 618, C. crassum; Türkay 1970: figs 8a, b and 9b, c, Cardisoma guanhumi, C. crassum, respectively; Holthuis 1959: pl. 12, C. guanhumi; Elegbede et al. 2015: fig. 2, C. guanhumi; Krieger et al. 2015: fig. 2F, C. armatum; Ng &amp; Ng 2021: figs 1 and 2-4A, B and 4D, C. carnifex, C. armatum, C. crassum, respectively; Ho 2003: fig. p. 28, C. carnifex).</p><p>Sterno-pleonal cavity and male pleon (Fig. 5A, C) Sterno-pleonal cavity deep, moderately wide, ending far from suture 2/3, with developed lateral slopes. Male pleon elongated, may reach sternite 3; somite 6 narrow and conspicuously elongated; ridge on sternite 4 marked, surrounding telson and also extending partially along pleonal somite 6, when pleon is applied against sternal surface (Rathbun 1918: pl. 109, Cardisoma crassum; Gmittner &amp; Wotton 1953: fig. 10, C. guanhumi; Türkay 1970: fig. 8b, C. guanhumi; 1973: figs 8 and 10, C. carnifex, C. armatum, respectively; Ng &amp; Guinot 2001: fig. 3A and 3C, C. guanhumi, C. armatum, respectively; Guinot et al. 2018: fig. 5D, C. guanhumi).</p><p>Female pleon (Figs 8A, B)</p><p>See below, Female pleon and pleopods.</p><p>Thoracic sternum, locking pleonal structures and setal tufts (Fig. 5A, C)</p><p>Thoracic sternum posteriorly inclined, proportionally narrow, especially at level of sternite 4 that is restricted between the P1 (Gmittner &amp; Wotton 1953: fig. 10, C. guanhumi; Guinot et al. 2018: fig. 5D-F, C. guanhumi). Anterior sternites forming proportionally developed plate; sternite 2 semi-oval, bluntly triangular; suture 3/4 absent, without lateral traces; sternite 4 anteriorly narrow and long, with more or less concave margins (Türkay 1970: fig. 8b, C. guanhumi; 1973: fig. 8, C. armatum; 1974a:fig. 11, C. carnifex); ridge on sternite 4 thick, surrounding telson only; a thick bridge at level of suture 6/7 (Ng &amp; Guinot 2001: fig. 3A, C. carnifex); suture 7/8 rather short; sternite 8 rather large, developed medially, no visible portion when pleon is folded. Median line on sternites 8, 7 and reappearing on entire sternite 6 in front of median bridge at level of suture 6/7 (Ng &amp; Guinot 2001: fig. 3A, C. guanhumi; fig. 3B, C. carnifex; fig. 3C, C. armatum; Guinot et al. 2018: fig. 5D-F, C. guanhumi); correspondingly, a median septum at level of sternite 6, higher at level of sternite 7, visible after dissection of C. carnifex .</p><p>Locking structures absent: no press-button (Guinot 1979: fig. 23F, C. carnifex; Guinot &amp; Bouchard 1998: 170; Köhnk et al. 2017: fig. 20a, C. carnifex; Guinot et al. 2018: fig. 5E, C. guanhumi); only some remnants of pleonal socket discernible in C. carnifex according to Köhnk et al. (2017: fig. 20a, b).</p><p>Pleon bordered by thick fringe of setae along its margins. Absence or strong reduction of hydrophilic setal tufts in other locations.</p><p>Male gonopore and penis (Fig. 5C)</p><p>Male gonopore close to P5 coxo-sternal condyle but penis emerging at a relatively short distance from thoracic sternal suture 7/8; penis proximally narrow, then more expanded (Guinot 1979: fig. 54A-C; Guinot et al. 2013: fig. 23A, C. carnifex; Guinot et al. 2018: fig. 5F, C. guanhumi).</p><p>G1</p><p>G1 proportionally short, tip just reaching sternal suture 4/5 or slightly beyond ( C. guanhumi, see Türkay 1970: fig. 8b; Chace &amp; Hobbs 1969: fig. 67a-c; C. carnifex, see Türkay 1973a: fig. 4a, b; 1974a: fig. 11; Türkay &amp; Sakai 1976: fig. 4a, b; Tavares 1989: fig. 17a; C. crassum, see Türkay 1973a: fig. 5; Ng &amp; Ng 2021: fig. 6A, B and 6D, E and 6F, C. carnifex, C. armatum, C. crassum, respectively).</p><p>Vulvae</p><p>Vulvae on sternite 6 below suture 5/6; oriented almost vertically; operculum rather developed, salient; sternal cover all around ( C. guanhumi, C. crassum, see Türkay 1970: figs 8E, 9E, respectively; C. carnifex, see Türkay 1973a: 9, fig. 11; Türkay &amp; Sakai 1976: fig. 1; C. guanhumi, see Souza et al. 2013: fig. 1; Souza et al. 2017: fig. 1A).</p><p>Axial skeleton</p><p>C. guanhumi, see Oliveira 2014: fig. 19A, B.</p><p>BIOLOGY</p><p>Most species of Cardisomatidae n. fam. are highly dependent on water. Cardisoma species only enter the sea for egg hatching and for planktonic larval life. There are, however, a few exceptions that require regular immersion in seawater: for example, C. guanhumi has been observed at some distance off the coast of Florida (Gifford 1962) as has C. carnifex in Aldabra Island (Alexander 1976). Cardisoma guanhumi and C. carnifex regularly immerse themselves in the water of their burrows, about two hours per day in C. guanhumi (Gifford 1962; Herreid &amp; Gifford 1963; Camaron 1981); they also drink shallow water in using their chelae with a spooning motion.</p><p>The ‘blue land crab’ Cardisoma guanhumi (Fig. 15 D-F), which can reach 130 mm cw (see Türkay 1970) and has a longevity of at least 20 years (Burggren &amp; McMahon 1988; Linton &amp; Greenaway 2007; Vogt 2012), is widely distributed in the tropical and subtropical estuarine regions of the western central Atlantic, ranging from southeastern Florida, Central America and Bermuda to Brazil. It generally prefers to live in mangroves and is confined to within 5 km of the sea (e.g. in Jamaica, see Hartnoll 1988b). In southern Florida, crabs use both light and sound receptors to locate food from a distance, reacting immediately to the sight or the sound of the fruit or leaves falling to the ground. This causes them to emerge from their burrows, pick up the fallen items and carry them into their burrows, holding several in each chelipeds and in the mouth (Herreid II 1963). The bluish and white adults (juveniles are pink or orange) of C. guanhumi, the species most frequently observed in Dominica (Caribbean Sea), are not always confined to their burrows; they are also found in pools of water in drainage ditches (Chace &amp; Hobbs 1969). A certain degree of site fidelity has been observed in C. guanhumi in Porto Rico, at least a return to the same areas as before they departure for mating (Forsee &amp; Albrecht 2012). On Bimini, British Virgin Islands, crabs dig down to the water table to extract water by capillary suction (Bliss 1968: fig. 1). Following an assessment of the genetic diversity (Mitochondrial DNA variation) and population structure across the geographical range of C.guanhumi, two genetically distinct groups, based on two predefined populations from the Caribbean, were detected (Gomes et al. 2019; Amaral et al. 2024). In Costa Rica, C. guanhumi, which lives in open fields, forests, mangroves, along rivers banks and constructs deep, multi-chambered burrows, exhibits similar behaviour (Bright 1966: figs 4I, 4J, 7). C. guanhumi is also found in Cuba (Diez Garcia 2014), Venezuela (Carmona-Suárez 2011, 2015; Carmona-Suárez &amp; Guerra-Castro 2018) and in Panama (Fig. 15 A-F).</p><p>In Cardisoma guanhumi from northeastern Brazil, the four identified colour patterns are clearly linked to development stage (growth size) and sexual maturity: the smallest individuals are bright orange while sexually mature adults exhibit colours ranging from brown to blue (Silva et al. 2014). It is also possible that these colour patterns vary according to the season and the individual’s state (stress, endogenous rhythms, or temperature variations). In semi-terrestrial crabs and marine crabs, these colour patterns could also be related to osmoregulatory and respiratory physiology, desiccation, the moult cycle and mating behaviour (Reid et al. 1997; Silbiger &amp; Munguia 2008).</p><p>According to Oliveira-Neto et al. (2008) and Amaral et al. (2024), C. guanhumi exhibits low genetic differentiation along its coast range in Brazil and does not appear to encounter obstacles to gene flow, thanks to the presence of incomplete oceanographic barriers to the larval transport and dispersal, thus facilitating gene flow along the Brazilian coastline. However, the existence of C. guanhumi structured populational stocks has been detected by interpopulation morphological analyses along the northeastern coast of Brazil within a very restricted area of less than 100 km (Duarte et al. 2008). The geographical structure of the genetic diversity of C. guanhumi was demonstrated by Gomes et al. (2019), notably by a high genetic differentiation between the two populations in Florida and Porto Rico, due to oceanic barriers that restrict gene flow between these two regions. In south-central Veracruz, on the Gulf Coast of Mexico (in the Alvarado Lagoon System), the C. guanhumi population exhibits high genetic diversity, with significant gene flow between the studied sites, and has expanded during the recent evolutionary past. This suggests that the sizes of crab populations in the lagoon system has not been significantly affected by past exploitation (RendónHernández et al. 2021).</p><p>A detailed study of Cardisoma guanhumi in North Colombia was led by Henning (1975).Today, in Colombia, C. guanhumi proliferates in croplands and urban systems at various spatial scales: crab populations are more abundant and composed of larger animals in urban areas and croplands than those in natural habitats, suggesting that human-disturbed systems are stepping stones to extend the geographic range. A longterm reduction in maximum body size, exacerbated by land use changes, likely reflects exploitation regimes consistently targeting larger crabs; and despite its status as a threatened species, the long history of human exploitation combined with livestock farming practices may explain the proliferation C. guanhhumi in human-dominated systems, which emphasizes the need to consider conservation in human-dominated systems (Riascos et al. 2023).</p><p>Cardisoma guanhumi is currently listed as a threatened species by the IUCN in Colombia (Vulnerable; Ardila et al. 2002) and in Venezuela (Vulnerable; Carmona-Suárez 2015). In Brazil, the species is classified as ‘critically endangered’ (SIBBr 2021).</p><p>Cardisoma carnifex, found from East Africa and the Red Sea across the Indo-Pacific to the Tuamotu Archipelago, is one of the most common land crabs in the western Indo-Pacific (Holthuis 1977). It typically digs burrows in soils where groundwater is available in the dry season (Bright &amp; Hogue 1972). On Aldabra Island, it inhabits areas where the burrows are generally flooded, at least at high tide (Alexander 1976, 1979). In the three-atoll Tokelau Islands, C. carnifex cohabits with Tuerkayana rotundum (Yaldwyn &amp; Wodzicki 1979, as C. rotundum). It digs burrows near the mangroves in Southern Luzon, Balayan, Batangas (Masagca 2020). Doi et al. (2022: figs 1, 2), who observed mating of C. carnifex on Iriomote-jima Island, Japan, reported that the males exhibited no courtship behaviour other than drumming on the surface sediment. Larger than the females, males could not enter the female’s burrows due to the small size of their entrances and therefore waited for the female to emerge; mating then took place near the female’s burrow entrance. After mating, males guarded their mate’s burrow and plugged the entrance from the outside, whereas resident crabs sometimes plugged their burrows from the inside. The plugging of the burrow by C. carnifex males is similar to the post-copulatory guarding by brachyuran males, which prevents multiple matings in females. A common mating pattern is observed in gecarcinoids, with a hard-female mating and a generally brief courtship. The sperm of Cardisoma carnifex, studied by Jamieson et al. (1996), does not display the grapsid synapomorphy, namely the loss of the thickened ring.</p><p>Cardisoma armatum, the ‘tricolour crab’, also known as the ‘rainbow crab’ (in Africa), ‘moon crab’ or ‘patriot crab’ (in Nigeria), or ’lagoon land crab’, is a tropical species ranging from Senegal to Angola, including the Cape Verde Islands and the Gulf of Guinea (Monod 1956). It is an important fishery resource (Manning &amp; Holthuis 1981). In Ivory Coast, the crab population faces a serious problem of recruitment due to habitat degradation and heavy harvesting pressures, highlighting the need to develop management and protection strategies (Etchian et al. 2016).</p><p>Cardisoma crassum, the ‘blue crab’ or ‘mouthless crab’ (Fig. 15 A-C), is a common inhabitant of the mangrove ecosystems of the Panamanian Pacific, from Baja California to Peru;it occurs in Cocos Island, Costa Rica (Gomez 1977) but is absent from Clipperton, Revillagigedo and Malpelo Islands (Perger et al. 2011). It constructs burrows that descend to groundwater or burrows in moist soils (Gifford 1962; Herreid &amp; Gifford 1963) and shows higher burrow fidelity during the dry season (Lombardo &amp; Rojas 2022).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03871F323B5EFE0523FF1820291584C5	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.		Plazi	Paula, Danièle Guinot;Rodríguez Moreno, Paula A.	Paula, Danièle Guinot, Rodríguez Moreno, Paula A. (2026): Formal establishment of Gecarcinoidea H. Milne Edwards, 1837 n. stat. (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura), with recognition of two families, Cardisomatidae n. fam. and Gecarcinidae restrict., and new insights on Epigrapsidae Watabe, 2007. Zoosystema 48 (8): 211-271, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2026v48a8, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19370640
03871F323B41FE0723F01C252E078745.text	03871F323B41FE0723F01C252E078745.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Discoplax A. Milne Edwards, 1867 A. Milne Edwards 1867	<div><p>Genus Discoplax A. Milne Edwards, 1867</p><p>Discoplax A. Milne Edwards, 1867: 284 .</p><p>TYPE SPECIES. — Discoplax longipes A. Milne Edwards, 1867 .</p><p>OTHER SPECIES INCLUDED. — Discoplax gracilipes Ng &amp; Guinot, 2001, pro parte (not the material of Guam that was added by the first author and is in fact D. michalis); D. michalis Ng &amp; Shih, 2015 . See The case of the genus Discoplax A. Milne Edwards, 1867 .</p><p>DIAGNOSIS</p><p>Carapace (Fig. 1B)</p><p>Carapace more or less rounded, not inflated (Guinot et al. 2018: fig. 4D, E; N. K. Ng et al. 2019: fig. 2B and 2C, Discoplax longipes, D. gracilipes, respectively; Kobayashi &amp; Naruse 2023: fig. 1A, D. gracilipes), with the maximum recorded size being 61.7-71.9 mm for D. longipes . Dorsal surface with regions distinctly marked, covered with granules. Fronto-orbital border more than half width of carapace. Front relatively wide, not much deflexed. Anterolateral margin well delimited, with a marked cleft (in the diagnosis of Gecarcinidae sensu lato by Davie et al. 2015c: 1117, “anterolateral margins unarmed” must be corrected). Subhepatic and subbranchial areas heavily striated (Ng &amp; Shih 2015: fig. 7A-D and G, H, D. longipes and D. michalis, respectively; Guinot et al. 2018: fig. 6A, D. longipes); posterolateral regions with pronounced striae (Ng &amp; Shih 2015: figs 1-3, 6A-C, D. longipes; 4A, B, 5, 6D-F, D. michalis).</p><p>Cephalic structures (Fig. 2A)</p><p>Orbits developed but not completely filled by eyestalks, not closed laterally. Suborbital area conspicuously granulated (Ng &amp; Guinot 2001: figs 5B and 9C, D. longipes, D. gracilipes, respectively; Ng &amp; Shih 2015: figs 4C, 7G, H and 7A, B, D. michalis, D. longipes, respectively); with suborbital stridulatory crest, see below.</p><p>Stridulatory apparatus (Fig. 2A)</p><p>Suborbital crest long, forming stridulatory pars stridens consisting of very small, tightly packed granules (Ng &amp; Guinot 2001: figs 5B and 9C, Discoplax longipes, D. gracilipes, respectively; Ng &amp; Shih 2015: fig. 7A, B and 7G, H, D. longipes, D. michalis, respectively; Guinot et al. 2018: fig. 6A, D. longipes; Kobayashi &amp; Naruse 2023: fig. 3A, B, D. gracilipes). Plectrum consisting of thickened ridge located on inner margin of P1 merus (Guinot et al. 2018: fig. 11A, D. longipes), present in both sexes.</p><p>Proepistome (Fig. 2A)</p><p>Proepistome small, narrow, subquadrate, low, recessed.</p><p>Buccal frame, epistome, mxp3 and pterygostome (Fig. 2A)</p><p>Buccal frame elongate-subquadrate, circumscribed laterally, with wide, thick, straight anterior margin joining anterior border of epistome as two concave edges joining medially. Mxp3 relatively long, leaving wide rhomboidal gap between them; merus with emargination on anterior border; palp normal, with three mobile articles externally visible. Exopod exposed, with concealed flagellum (Ng &amp; Shih 2015: figs 1C, G, 7A, B and 4D, 7G, H, Discoplax longipes, D. michalis, respectively). Pterygostomial area setose (Kobayashi &amp; Naruse 2023: fig. 1B).</p><p>Chelipeds</p><p>Male chelipeds sometimes only slightly subequal; heterochely very weak (Ng &amp; Shih 2015: figs 1A, B, E and 3C, 4A, B, 5, Discoplax longipes, D. michalis, respectively; Kobayashi &amp; Naruse 2023: figs 2, 3B, D. gracilipes).</p><p>Ambulatory legs</p><p>P2, P3 elongated and slender, especially in D. gracilipes (Kobayashi &amp; Naruse 2023: fig. 1), covered with distinct granules and/or striae, appearing very rugose; dorsal margin of merus granular; only lateral margins of propodus and dactylus equipped with short stiff spines or setae (Ng &amp; Shih 2015: fig. 10A, B, G and 10E, F, K, L, Discoplax longipes, D. michalis, respectively).</p><p>Sterno-pleonal cavity and male pleon (Figs 6A; 7A)</p><p>Sterno-pleonal cavity deep, wide. Male pleon very wide (resembling a female pleon), long, reaching almost suture 2/3. Somite 6 very short, particularly broad and rounded, with convex margins; telson short, rounded; ridge on sternite 4 faint, surrounding telson only (Ng &amp; Shih 2015: figs 1D, G, 8A-F and 4D, 9, D. longipes, D. michalis, respectively; Guinot et al. 2018: fig. 5B, D. longipes).</p><p>Female pleon (Fig. 8D)</p><p>Relatively narrow, without strong sexual dimorphic. See below, Female pleon and pleopods and The case of the genus Discoplax A. Milne Edwards, 1867 .</p><p>Thoracic sternum, locking pleonal structures and setal tufts</p><p>(Figs 6A; 7A)</p><p>Thoracic sternum wide, especially at level of sternite 4 (Ng &amp; Shih 2015: figs 1D, G, 8A-E and 4D, 9, Discoplax longipes, D. michalis, respectively; Guinot et al. 2018: fig. 5A, B, D. longipes); sternites 1-3 forming low plate; sternite 1 triangular, separated from sternite 2 by thick ridge anteriorly lined with granules (suture 1/2); sternite 2 very short, flattened, separated from sternite 3 by thin, straight, complete sulcus (suture 2/3); no suture 3/4, without lateral traces; sternite 4 short and wide, with weakly concave lateral margins, thus only weakly restricted between the P1; faint rim delineating margin of sterno-pleonal cavity at level of telson; episternites 4-6 narrow, longitudinally directed; posterior sternites on same plane as preceding sternites; suture 7/8 rather short (Guinot et al. 2018: fig. 5B, C, D. longipes); sternite 8 short but developed medially, the posterior emargination being far from reaching sternite 7; no visible portion of sternite 8 when pleon is folded. Median line on sternites 8 and 7, and reappearing on sternite 6 in front of thick and wide median bridge at level of suture 6/7 (Guinot et al. 2018: fig. 5B, C, D. longipes).</p><p>Press buttons on sternite 5 acute, close to suture 4/5, observed in D. longipes (Guinot et al. 2018: fig. 5B) and D. gracilipes (character not mentioned in the description of D. michalis), however barely visible due to dense setal cover (a trace in a female D. longipes 32.6 × 37.0 mm) (Köhnk et al. 2017: fig. 19a); socket on pleonal somite 6 not easily noticeable, except for small cuticular border (Köhnk et al. 2017: fig. 19b), thus pleonal locking perhaps no longer functional, at least over certain size.</p><p>Pleon bordered by thick fringe of setae along its margins; absence or strong reduction of hydrophilic setal tufts in other locations.</p><p>Male gonopore and penis (Fig. 7A)</p><p>Male gonopore close to P5 coxo-sternal condyle but penis emerging in middle of sternite 8 thus far from thoracic sternal suture 7/8; penis proximally narrow, then more expanded (Guinot et al. 2018: fig. 5C, D. longipes).</p><p>G1 and G2</p><p>G1 proportionally short, stout, almost straight, tip reaching sternal suture 4/5 (Ng &amp; Shih 2015: figs 11, 14A-D, 15A, B, 16A, B and 14E-H, 15C, D, 16C, D, D. longipes, D. michalis, respectively; Kobayashi &amp; Naruse 2023: figs 4A-D and E, F and G, H, D, D. gracilipes, D. longipes, D. michalis, respectively). G2 short, spatulate, with pointed tip (see Ng &amp; Shih 2015: fig. 11A, D. longipes; Kobayashi &amp; Naruse 2023: 181).</p><p>Vulvae</p><p>Vulvae small, operculum moderately salient.</p><p>BIOLOGY</p><p>The genus Discoplax is exclusively Indo-Pacific and all species are found in caves.</p><p>Discoplax longipes was regarded as ‘very rare’ by A. Milne Edwards (1867) in New Caledonia, with the holotype simply labelled as from “ New Caledonia ”, without any other indication. The presence of D. longipes on the main island of New Caledonia is uncertain. It seems likely that the original specimen on which A. Milne Edwards based his description was actually collected in the nearby Loyalty Islands, where D. longipes is not uncommon (Figs 1B; 6A; 7A) (Ng &amp; Guinot 2001: fig. 5; see also Ng &amp; Shih 2015: figs 1, 2). In the Loyalty islands, the caves from which the crabs were collected are completely isolated, without a real communication with the sea (B. Séret, pers. comm.): eggs are laid and incubated in the caves where they live, and the females with ripe eggs migrate to the sea, probably by passing through crevices. According to Ng &amp; Shih (2015), the specimens collected from Fiji and Cook Islands reported by Türkay (1974a) and McLay &amp; Ryan (1990), as well as those from Makatea, Tuamotu and French Polynesia (Poupin 1996; Poupin &amp; Juncker 2010), are probably D. longipes . Hypothesis to be verified.</p><p>Discoplax gracilipes was previously known only from the Central Philippines, in and around the island of Panglao (a relatively low limestone island with numerous anchialine sinkholes and caves) and in neighbouring islands, Balicasag Island in Bohol, Siquijor (Takeda 2000, as D. aff. longipes) and in the anchialine environments in Siquijor (Bucol &amp; Alcala 2013: fig. 4). Discoplax gracilipes has also been found in Bat Cave, on the eastern side of Samal Islands just south of Davao: in a limestone body, with the entrance at about 100 m away from the sea, the Bat cave appears to connect to the sea because dim light is visible from the water at the innermost part of the cave (Husana et al. 2010). Discoplax gracilipes was recently collected from an anchialine pool in a cave on Hateruma Island, southern Ryukyu Archipelago, southwestern Japan (Kobayashi &amp; Naruse 2023: fig. 1), which extends the northern limit of the species distributional range by about 1400 km. D. gracilipes is characterised by the second and third ambulatory legs markedly elongated, at least 4-5 times carapace length, and, as such, it is best adapted to cave life than D. longipes .</p><p>D. michalis Ng &amp; Shih, 2015 (Ng &amp; Shih 2015: figs 4, 5, 6E, F, 7G, H, 9, 10E, F, K, L, 14E-H, 15C-H, 16C, D) is a pseudocryptic species only known from limestone caves in Guam.</p><p>The morphometrics for the three Discoplax species are presented by Kobayashi &amp; Naruse (2023: table 2). See below, The Case of the genus Discoplax A. Milne Edwards, 1867 .</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03871F323B41FE0723F01C252E078745	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.		Plazi	Paula, Danièle Guinot;Rodríguez Moreno, Paula A.	Paula, Danièle Guinot, Rodríguez Moreno, Paula A. (2026): Formal establishment of Gecarcinoidea H. Milne Edwards, 1837 n. stat. (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura), with recognition of two families, Cardisomatidae n. fam. and Gecarcinidae restrict., and new insights on Epigrapsidae Watabe, 2007. Zoosystema 48 (8): 211-271, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2026v48a8, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19370640
03871F323B43FE01271F1CA52E6184A4.text	03871F323B43FE01271F1CA52E6184A4.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Tuerkayana Guinot, N. K. Ng & Rodriguez Moreno 2018	<div><p>Genus Tuerkayana Guinot, N. K. Ng &amp; Rodríguez Moreno, 2018</p><p>Tuerkayana Guinot, N. K. Ng &amp; Rodríguez Moreno, 2018: 564 .</p><p>TYPE SPECIES. — Thelphusa rotunda Quoy &amp; Gaimard, 1824 (see N. K. Ng et al. 2019: 101, fig. 3B).</p><p>OTHER SPECIES INCLUDED. — Tuerkayana celeste (Ng &amp; Davie, 2012); T. hirtipes (Dana, 1851); T. magnum (Ng &amp; Shih, 2014); T. latens Ng &amp; Shih, 2023 .</p><p>Ng (2017: figs 2, 3) has found the lectotype of Cardisoma hirtipes Dana, 1851, a dried male specimen, in the NMNH: it should be considered as the lectotype of Tuerkayana hirtipes (see also Ng &amp; Clark 2014, as Cardisoma hirtipes).</p><p>About Tuerkayana aff. hirtipes, see Guinot et al. 2018 (appendix: 602, 603).</p><p>DIAGNOSIS</p><p>Carapace (Fig. 1C)</p><p>Carapace moderately inflated, convex tranversely and longitudinally ( Tuerkayana rotundum, T. hirtipes, respectively: Ho 2003: figs p. 18 and 29, as Discoplax rotunda, D. hirtipes; T. hirtipes, T. rotundum respectively: Fujita 2017b: fig. 5A, as D. hirtipes; p. 100, fig. 5b, as D. rotunda). Dorsal surface with poorly or well demarcated regions, smooth or granulated along anterolateral borders (Ng &amp; Davie 2012: figs 1, 2, 3A, 4, 5A, B, as D. celeste; Ng &amp; Shih 2014: fig. 6A-C, as D. celeste; Guinot et al. 2018: fig. 4F-I, Tuerkayana aff. hirtipes, T. rotundum, T. celeste, T. magnum, respectively); posterolateral striae weak but distinct, sometimes disappearing in largest adults (Ng 2017: fig. 2A, as lectotype of Cardisoma hirtipes, i.e., lectotype of T. hirtipes; Guinot et al. 2018: fig. 4F, T. aff. hirtipes; Ng &amp; Shih 2023: fig. 3A, B, T. latens). Fronto-orbital border more than half width of carapace. Front relatively wide, not much deflexed. Anterolateral margin delimited by row of fine granules (Guinot et al. 2018: fig. 4H, I, T. celeste, T. magnum, respectively) or by continuous, long row of distinct granules (Guinot et al. 2018: fig. 4G, T. rotundum; Ng &amp; Shih 2023: figs 1, 2, 5, T. rotundum), or anterolateral margin strongly convex, rounded (Guinot et al. 2018: fig. 4F, T. aff. hirtipes); just behind exorbital angle, a small notch or an indentation with small tooth (Guinot et al. 2018: fig. 4G-I, T. rotundum, T. celeste, T. magnum, respectively; Ng 2017: fig. 2A, B, as lectotype of Cardisoma hirtipes, i.e., lectotype of T. hirtipes). Subhepatic and subbranchial areas not striated (Ng &amp; Shih 2014: fig. 9A-D, as Discoplax hirtipes, D. celeste, D. magna, respectively).</p><p>Cephalic structures (Fig. 2B, C)</p><p>Orbits developed, transversally elongated; with lateral gap closed by obliquous margin. Eyestalks elongated, completely filling orbits.</p><p>Stridulatory apparatus</p><p>Absent; no suborbital crest (Guinot et al. 2018: fig. 6C-E, Tuerkayana aff. hirtipes, T. celeste, T. magnum, respectively).</p><p>Proepistome (Fig. 2B, C)</p><p>Proepistome dome-shaped, rather wide but rather low, recessed ( Tuerkayana hirtipes, see Tavares 1989: fig. 4, as Cardisoma hirtipes; Ng &amp; Davie 2012: figs 3B, 5C, as D. celeste; Guinot et al. 2018: fig. 6C-E, T. aff. hirtipes, T. celeste, T. magnum; Ng 2017: fig. 2B, as lectotype of C. hirtipes, i.e., lectotype of T. hirtipes).</p><p>Buccal frame, epistome, mxp3 and pterygostome (Fig. 2B, C)</p><p>Buccal frame elongate-subquadrate, circumscribed laterally, with wide, thick, straight anterior margin joining anterior border of epistome; anterior border of epistome as two concave edges joining medially (Kobayashi &amp; Naruse 2023: fig. 6E and 6F, Tuerkayana hirtipes, T. rotundum, respectively). Mxp3 long; palp normal, with three mobile articles externally visible. Exopod exposed, with concealed flagellum (Ng &amp; Davie 2012: figs 3B, 5C, as D. celeste; Ng &amp; Shih 2023: figs 6, 7A and 7C, T. rotundum, T. latens, respectively). Broad pterygostomial area setose ( T. hirtipes, D. celeste, D. magna, see Ng &amp; Shih 2014: fig. 9A, B, and 9C and 9D, as Discoplax hirtipes, D. celeste, D. magnum; T. latens, T. rotundum, see Ng &amp; Shih 2023: figs 3C, 6, respectively; T. hirtipes, see Ho 2003: fig. p. 29).</p><p>Chelipeds</p><p>Male chelipeds without marked heterochely: major chela moderately developed but becoming very stout in large adult males, fingers elongated (Ng &amp; Davie 2012: figs 1, 3C, 4, 5, as D. celeste; Ng &amp; Shih 2014: fig. 6A-C, as Discoplax celeste; Fujita 2017a: fig. 1, as Discoplax rotunda; Ng 2017: fig. 3A, B, as lectotype of Cardisoma hirtipes, i.e., lectotype of T. hirtipes), or swollen and with relatively short fingers (Ng &amp; Shih 2023: fig. 9A-C and 9D, T. rotundum, T. latens, respectively); chela of large adult males of T. magnum, not especially enlarged in proportion with long fingers; fingers elongated, partially flattened laterally, sometimes appearing almost blade-like, widely gaping. Pereiopods variously shaped: short, relatively slender, especially merus and propodus (Ng 2017: fig. 3C-H, lectotype of Cardisoma hirtipes, i.e., lectotype of T. hirtipes) or relatively stout, short, especially merus and propodus ( T. celeste), or relatively stout, short to slender ( T. magnum). Chelipeds in females, see Ho (2003: fig. p. 7).</p><p>Ambulatory legs</p><p>See Ng &amp; Shih 2023: fig. 10A-C, F, G and D, H, Tuerkayana rotundum and T. latens, respectively.</p><p>Sterno-pleonal cavity and male pleon (Figs 5E; 6B; 7B)</p><p>Pleon very elongated, reaching sternite 3; somite 6 broad, variously sized and variously shaped, varying from moderately long to very long (Ng &amp; Davie 2012: fig. 6C, D, as Discoplax celeste; Ng &amp; Shih 2015: figs 8 and 9, Discoplax longipes and D. michalis, respectively; Guinot et al. 2018: fig. 5G, J and M, Tuerkeyana aff. hirtipes, T. celeste, T. magnum, respectively); telson short, bluntly tipped; ridge on sternite 4 marked, surrounding telson and also extending partially along pleonal somite 6 (Ng 2017: fig. 2E, F, lectotype of Cardisoma hirtipes, i.e., lectotype of T. hirtipes; Guinot et al. 2018: fig. 5G, T. aff. hirtipes; fig. 5J, T. celeste; fig. 5M, T. magum; Ng &amp; Shih 2023: fig. 8A-E and 8F, T. rotundum, T. latens, respectively).</p><p>Female pleon (Fig. 8C)</p><p>See below, Female pleon and pleopods.</p><p>Thoracic sternum, locking pleonal structures and setal tufts</p><p>(Figs 5E; 6B; 7B)</p><p>Thoracic sternum tilted posteriorly, proportionally wide, especially at level of sternite 4 that is not much restricted between P1 ( Tuerkayana rotundum, see Türkay 1973a: fig. 14, as Cardisoma rotundum; Guinot et al. 2018: fig. 5G-I, and J-L, and M-O, Tuerkeyana aff. hirtipes, T. celeste, T. magnum, respectively). Sternite 1 small, triangular; sternite 2 broad, dome-shaped; suture 1/2 as more or less arcuate, granulated thick ridge; suture 2/3 complete, straight; no suture 3/4, without lateral traces; sternite 4 proportionally wide and short; ridge on sternite 4 surrounding telson and also extending at various extent along pleonal somite 6; thick, wide bridge at level of suture 6/7 ( Tuerkeyana hirtipes, see Ng &amp; Guinot 2001: fig. 4C, as Discoplax hirtipes); sternite 7 large, developed medially and plunging steeply; suture 7/8 rather short; no visible portion of sternite 8 when pleon is folded. Posterior emargination reaching sternite 7 at level of median bridge on suture 7/8. Median line present on sternite 7, not extending on sternite 6 (Ng 2017: fig. 2D, E, lectotype of Cardisoma hirtipes, i.e., lectotype of T. hirtipes; Guinot et al. 2018: fig. 5H, I, T. aff. hirtipes; fig. 5K, L, T. celeste; fig. 5N, O, T. magnum).</p><p>Locking pleonal structures absent: no button on setose or glabrous sternite 5; may be a minute button on suture 4/5 for example in holotype male 42.7 × 52.8 mm of T. latens (MNHN-IU-2011-5594).</p><p>Pleon with thick fringe of long setae along its margins, supplemented by setae on sternites 5 to 8; setae denser at extremity of telson; reduction of hydrophilic setal tufts in other locations.</p><p>Male gonopore and penis (Figs 5E; 7B)</p><p>Male gonopore close to P5 coxo-sternal condyle but penis emerging at a short distance from thoracic sternal; suture 7/8; penis with narrow proximal portion, continuing by calcified cylindrical tube, then developing into large papilla, sometimes not exposed due to a short fusion of sternites 7 and 8 (Guinot et al. 2018: fig. 5I, Tuerkeyana aff. hirtipes; fig. 5L, T. celeste; fig. 5O, T. magnum).</p><p>G1 and G2 (Figs 5E; 7B)</p><p>Long, slender, tip reaching sternal suture 4/5 or not quite reaching it ( Tuerkeyana rotundum, T. hirtipes, see Türkay &amp; Sakai 1976: figs 5 and 6, as Cardisoma rotundum, C. hirtipes, respectively; T. celeste, see Ng &amp; Davie 2012: fig. 7F-J, as Discoplax celeste; T. hirtipes, T. celeste, T. magna, see Ng &amp; Shih 2014: fig. 13A-E and F-J and K-O, as Discoplax hirtipes, D. celeste, D. magnum, respectively; Ng &amp; Shih 2023: fig. 11A-C, E-G, I-K and 11D, H, L, Tuerkeyana rotundum, T. latens, respectively).</p><p>Vulvae</p><p>Vulvae on sternite 6 below suture 5/6; practically oriented vertically, seemingly relatively smaller than in Cardisoma species; operculum salient; sternal cover all around or obscure ( Tuerkeyana rotundum, see Türkay 1973a: fig. 12, as Cardisoma rotundum; Türkay &amp; Sakai 1976: fig. 3, as C. rotundum; T. hirtipes, see Türkay 1974a: fig. 13, as C. hirtipes; Türkay &amp; Sakai 1976: fig. 2, as C. hirtipes).</p><p>BIOLOGY</p><p>Species of Cardisomatidae n. fam., at least most of them, are highly dependent on water. They are herbiverous crabs (Greenaway &amp; Raghaven 1998) that only emerge in darkness or in wet weather (Gibson-Hill 1947, as Cardisoma hirtipes). Tuerkeyana hirtipes is confined to wetlands near freshwater, and its burrows reach the water table. T. hirtipes and C. carnifex are found in karstic beaches in Gunungkidul, in the Special Territory of Yogyakarta in the middle of Java, Indonesia (Hartono et al. 2025: table 1, as C. carnifex and Discoplax hirtipes . Tuerkeyana celeste, the ‘Blue crab’ endemic to Christmas Island, formerly known as Discoplax celeste, is an aquatic crab confined to areas of the island where freshwater reaches the surface (Hicks et al. 1984, as Cardisoma hirtipes). Extensively harvested by local people for consumption in the 1950s, it has been fully protected since 1980 (Hicks et al. 1984, as Cardisoma hirtipes). For conservation purposes, on Christmas Island T. celeste can be considered a single management unit (Turner et al. 2013, as Discoplax celeste). The live colour of T. celeste varies with maturity, but it generally remains homogeneous within each size class: in small individuals, the carapace is invariably brown or purplish-brown, with yellow or orange chelae; when the carapace width reaches 41-51 mm, it remains purplish-brown, but the chelipeds become white; and at a width of 46-52 mm, the carapace and chelipeds are already bluishwhite to light blue; larger specimens are always entirely white or blue (Ng &amp; Davie 2012: figs 1, 2A-D, H, as Discoplax celeste). There is only one population of Tuerkeyana celeste on Christmas Island, this lack of population differentiation probably being explained by oceanic dispersal of the larvae rather than by terrestrial migration.</p><p>Tuerkeyana rotundum is less dependent on water. On Aldabra Island, it occurs in rather dry areas (Alexander 1976, as Cardisoma rotundum). In Japan, it is observed in the vegetation (Fujita 2017d: 19, fig. 1B). It has been found in an anchialine pool in a cave on Hateruma Island in the southern Ryukyu Archipelago, Japan (Kobayashi &amp; Naruse 2023).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03871F323B43FE01271F1CA52E6184A4	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.		Plazi	Paula, Danièle Guinot;Rodríguez Moreno, Paula A.	Paula, Danièle Guinot, Rodríguez Moreno, Paula A. (2026): Formal establishment of Gecarcinoidea H. Milne Edwards, 1837 n. stat. (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura), with recognition of two families, Cardisomatidae n. fam. and Gecarcinidae restrict., and new insights on Epigrapsidae Watabe, 2007. Zoosystema 48 (8): 211-271, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2026v48a8, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19370640
03871F323B45FE0D20551FC529D181BB.text	03871F323B45FE0D20551FC529D181BB.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Gecarcinidae H. Milne Edwards 1837	<div><p>Family GECARCINIDAE H. Milne Edwards, 1837 restrict .</p><p>(Figs 1 D-F; 2D-F; 3B, C; 4B; 5B, D, F; 6C, D; 7C, D; Table 1)</p><p>Gécarciniens H. Milne Edwards, 1837: 16, 20, pro parte.</p><p>Gecarcinidae MacLeay, 1838: 63, pro parte.</p><p>Geocarcinidae Miers 1886: xiv, 216-219 [invalid emendation of Gecarcinidae], pro parte.</p><p>Second gecarcinid subclade in Guinot et al. 2018: 658.</p><p>TYPE GENUS. — Gecarcinus Leach, 1814 (Etymology: from ge, earth and carcinus, crabe).</p><p>OTHER GENERA INCLUDED. — Gecarcoidea H. Milne Edwards, 1837; Hartnollius Guinot, Rodríguez Moreno &amp; Toledano-Carrasco, 2025; Johngarthia Türkay, 1970 .</p><p>FAMILIAL DESCRIPTION</p><p>Carapace (Figs 1 D-F; 14A, B)</p><p>Carapace transversally ovate, strongly longitudinally and transversally convex, widest in anterior half. Dorsal surface more or less flat, with certain regions well-delineated, such as gastric and cardiac regions; branchial regions usually greatly swollen, even vaulted-like expanded (Gecarcinu s); protogastric area and branchial regions becoming conspicuously swollen in large individuals (e.g. Johngarthia cocoensis); all grooves similar or certain grooves more pronounced, in particular cervical groove deep or moderately developed, ending anteriorly in a pit near orbital angle; median (or urogastric) groove deep; longitudinal mesogastric groove very deep, rising more or less towards frontal margin. Fronto-orbital border half or less than half width of carapace. Antero-lateral borders rounded, either not well delimitated, with only a marginal line on anterior part not distinctly joining orbital border ( Gecarcinus, Gecarcoidea, Hartnollius, and Johngarthia pro parte) or lined by 6-16 teeth ( Johngarthia cocoensis, see Perger et al. 2011: figs 2, 3A), more marked in females (Perger et al. 2011: fig. 3B). Front long or short, more or less narrow, usually nearly straight or slightly arcuate, variously produced and deflexed.</p><p>Cephalic structures (Figs 2 D-F; 3B, C)</p><p>Antennular fossae narrow (see Tavares 1989: fig. 7, Gecarcoidea lalandii). Antennules very small, folded obliquely, hidden under the front. Antenna very small, visible but markedly recessed ( Gecarcinus) or completely exposed (Hartnolliu s), in orbital hiatus ( Gecarcoidea humei only) or not ( Gecarcinus, Gecarcoidea, Hartnollius, Johngarthia). Orbits small and deep, englobed in carapace ( Gecarcinus) or small and more or less oblique; outer angle usually obtuse and not prominent, or with tooth ( Johngarthia cocoensis, see Perger et al. 2011: figs 2, 3). Eyestalks small, more or less curved.</p><p>Stridulatory apparatus</p><p>Absent. No suborbital crest acting as pars stridens. Subhepatic and pterygostomial striae acting as pars stridens and inner surface of palm of chelae used as stridulatory plectrum, at least in Hartnollius species, probably also in Gecarcinus that has similar striae. Not documented in other gecarcinid species.</p><p>Proepistome (Figs 2 D-F; 3B, C)</p><p>Proepistome very small, not completely covered by subfrontal plate, thus visible ( Gecarcinus, see Guinot et al. 2025: fig. 2C), or completely covered by subfrontal plate, thus hardly discernible ( Hartnollius, see Guinot et al. 2025: figs 10B, C, 12A-C; Gecarcoidea, see Tavares 1989: figs 7, 8; Johngarthia, see Tavares 1989: fig. 9, as Gecarcinus lagostoma).</p><p>Buccal frame, epistome, mxp3 and pterygostome</p><p>(Figs 2 D-F; 3B, C; 4B)</p><p>Buccal frame short, quadrate, subcircular or rhomboid, not delineated laterally, with its anterior border being the anterior limit of linear margin of epistome. Mxp3 relatively short, reaching front or antennular fossae ( Gecarcinus) or just about reaching epistome ( Johngarthia pro parte) or not reaching epistome ( Hartnollius), even very far from setose epistome ( Gecarcoidea, see Tavares 1989: fig. 7), from until leaving gap between lateral borders of buccal frame and exposing epistomial tooth ( Johngarthia cocoensis); mxp3 leaving between them rhomboidal gap, either proportionally narrow ( Gecarcinus, Hartnolliu s), or more or less wide ( Gecarcoidea, Johngarthia pro parte), or very wide (e.g. Johngarthia cocoensis), in which mandibles are exposed. Ischium and merus either subequal ( Gecarcinus, Johngarthia) or merus shorter than ischium ( Gecarcoidea). Anterior margin of merus usually emarginate, sometimes deeply fissured, or with V-shaped emargination ( Johngarthia cocoensis, see Perger et al. 2011: fig. 3), or not emarginate ( Gecarcinus, see Guinot et al. 2025: figs 2B-D, 6). Palp with first article fused to merus internal surface and with only two distal articles being mobile; palp either completely concealed ( Gecarcinus), or with last two mobile articles more or less externally visible (other genera); meri of both sides joining medially ( Gecarcinus, Johngarthia pro parte). Exopod completely concealed, as narrow plate, proportionally short or long, its apex reaching or not ischium-merus articulation; without flagellum. Pterygostomial area not setose, glabrous.</p><p>Chelipeds</p><p>Adult male chelipeds rather massive but not conspicuously enlarged, equal or slightly to moderately subequal, possibly distinctly unequal in large individuals; narrowly gaping; heterochely and heterodonty usually slightly marked or not marked (Fig. 14A, B), more marked in old males ( Hartnollius).</p><p>Sterno-pleonal cavity and male pleon</p><p>(Figs 5B, D; 6C, D; 7C, D)</p><p>Sterno-pleonal cavity relatively shallow, long, its apex rather close to suture 2/3 ( Gecarcinus), or short and not close to sternal suture 2/3 ( Hartnollius, Gecarcoidea, Johngarthia); ridge on sternite 4 marked, surrounding telson only. Male pleon long, with all somites free plus telson; somite 6 with convex margins ( Hartnollius lateralis, Johngarthia cocoensis); bordered by narrow fringe of setae along margins.</p><p>Female pleon (Fig. 9 A-E)</p><p>Female pleon very wide (narrower only in Johngarthia, fig.9B), discoid, with telson in the form of broad triangle, leaving laterally and further forward, a sternal portion visible in addition to the episternites; bordered by narrow fringe of setae along margins. See below, Female pleon and pleopods.</p><p>Thoracic sternum, locking pleonal structures and setal tufts (Figs 5B, D; 6C, D; 7C, D)</p><p>Thoracic sternum wide, wider (especially at level of somite 5) in Gecarcoidea than in Gecarcinus and Johngarthia . Sternite 1 as small triangular tooth, not separated by suture from sternite 2, not recessed; sternite 2 semi-ovate or trapezoidal; suture 2/3 present, straigh or slighly concave ( Hartnollius) or V-shaped ( Gecarcinus); suture 3/4 absent, without lateral traces; sternites 3 + 4 completely fused, margins straight more or less sinuous ( Gecarcoidea, Johngarthia pro parte), sligthly convex ( J. cocoensis, see Perger et al. 2011: fig. 4C), obliquely directed ( Gecarcinus), or concave ( Hartnollius); sutures 4/5 to 7/8 interrupted; sternites 5-7 similarly shaped, sutures well defined; suture 7/8 rather short; sternite 8 not developed medially, totally hidden when pleon is folded; posterior emargination reaching sternite 7 at level of narrow median bridge at level of suture 7/8; deep median line along sternite 7 in all genera (Guinot et al. 2018: fig. 7B, C; Guinot et al. 2025: fig. 3D, Gecarcinus), except in Gecarcoidea lalandii (Guinot et al. 2018: fig. 7F, G), where it slightly extends on sternite 6, and in G. humei .</p><p>Locking structure as relatively small glabrous prominence ( Gecarcinus), or as thickened oblique prominence covered by setae (present all along slopes of the cavity) ( Hartnollius lateralis, H. quadratus), or as less prominent crest ( Gecarcoidea lalandii, Johngarthia planata) but pleonal sockets not delineated, so pleonal locking non-functional.</p><p>Setal tufts of more or less dense hydrophilic setae located along first somites margins of pleon, at its junction with carapace, on posterior margin of sternite 7, and slightly on P5 coxae ( Hartnollius lateralis, see Bliss 1963: fig. 20; 1968: fig. 14; 1979: fig. 4, as Gecarcinus lateralis).</p><p>Male gonopore and penis (Figs 5D; 7C, D)</p><p>Male gonopore widely sternal; penis emerging rather far from P5 coxo-sternal condyle, very close to thoracic sternal suture 7/8 ( Johngarthia planata, see Guinot 1979: fig. 54D, as Gecarcinus planatus; Guinot &amp; Bouchard 1998: fig. 25A, as Gecarcinus planatus; Johngarthia weileri, see N. K. Ng et al. 2007: 246, fig. 4H, as Gecarcinus weileri).</p><p>G1 and G2 (Figs 5F; 7D)</p><p>G1 varying from relatively short to longer and from straight to gently curved.With very long, narrow horny tube, either completely rolled up on itself (Tavares 1989: fig. 18d, Gecarcinus; Guinot et al. 2025: fig. 3E, F, Gecarcinus) or not folded and open all along (Tavares 1989: fig. 18e, as Gecarcinus lateralis; Guinot et al. 2025: fig. 13A and 13C, Hartnollius lateralis, H. quadratus, respectively). Pectinate distal part either bent c. 75-80° from vertical (Lai et al. 2017: fig. 8A, Gecarcoidea lalandii) or bent c. 45° from vertical (Tavares 1989: fig. 17c, G. natalis; Lai et al. 2017: fig. 8C and 8B, D, G. humei, G. natalis, respectively). Caudal process shorter than prominently developed mesial process, with end piece at level of terminal setae (Perger et al. 2011: fig. 4A, B, Johngarthia cocoensis).</p><p>Vulvae</p><p>On sternite 5, protruding, more or less close to suture 5/6, normally occluded by rigid calcified, immobile operculum. Slightly obliquely directed ( Gecarcinus, see Hartnoll 1968; Guinot et al. 2025: fig. 3G), or oriented nearly horizontally (Guinot et al. 2025: fig 13B, Hartnollius). Sternal cover narrow on inner margin ( Gecarcoidea, Johngarthia).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03871F323B45FE0D20551FC529D181BB	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.		Plazi	Paula, Danièle Guinot;Rodríguez Moreno, Paula A.	Paula, Danièle Guinot, Rodríguez Moreno, Paula A. (2026): Formal establishment of Gecarcinoidea H. Milne Edwards, 1837 n. stat. (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura), with recognition of two families, Cardisomatidae n. fam. and Gecarcinidae restrict., and new insights on Epigrapsidae Watabe, 2007. Zoosystema 48 (8): 211-271, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2026v48a8, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19370640
03871F323B49FE0E22351AC72EF68704.text	03871F323B49FE0E22351AC72EF68704.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Gecarcinus Leach 1814	<div><p>Genus Gecarcinus Leach, 1814</p><p>Gecarcinus Leach, 1814: 427 .</p><p>TYPE SPECIES. — Cancer ruricola Linnaeus, 1758 .</p><p>Neotype of Gecarcinus ruricola, a male from Cuba, MNHN-IU-2017-8392 (= MNHNB13155), designated by Guinot et al. (2018). Monogeneric.</p><p>DIAGNOSIS</p><p>Carapace (Fig. 1D)</p><p>Carapace much broader than long, globular, with hepatic, subhepatic and branchial regions markedly inflated, even vaultlike; widest part of carapace considerably ahead of anterolateral angles of mesogastric region; area lateral to orbits proportionally very large, with fronto-orbital distance in adults about two-fifths carapace width (near half the carapace width in half-grown individuals) (Guinot et al. 2025: figs 1, 4A-G). Dorsal surface with well-pronounced grooves: cervical groove very deep, terminating anteriorly in a pit near orbital angle; median (or urogastric) groove very deep; longitudinal mesogastric groove very deep, rising towards frontal margin, making certain regions well defined, such as e.g. the gastric and cardiac regions. Numerous striae along lateral margins of carapace (Guinot et al. 2025: figs 1, 2A). Fronto-orbital border half or less than half width of carapace. Front long, proportionally narrow and slightly widening underneath, strongly produced and deflexed, with concave lateral margins and upturned lower margin. Mesial lobe of infraorbital margin elongated, curved around ventrolateral edge of front, covered by front edge (Guinot et al. 2025: fig. 2B-D). Antero-lateral margins rounded; proximally with a short row of more or less marked granules, well pronounced in small and medium-sized male individuals and in females, then tending to largely disappear in very large-sized individuals; and so then margins smooth (Guinot et al. 2025: figs 1, 2A).</p><p>Cephalic structures (Fig. 3C)</p><p>Antennules very small, folded obliquely. Antenna very short, visible but markedly recessed.Orbits small and deep, englobed in carapace; outer angle not marked. Eyestalks relatively short, curved (Guinot et al. 2025: figs 2B-D, 6).</p><p>Proepistome (Fig. 3C)</p><p>Proepistome small, not completely covered by triangular median process of subfrontal plate, thus visible. Subhepatic region with many striae; pterygostomial region glabrous, naked (Guinot et al. 2025: figs 2B-D, 6).</p><p>Buccal frame, epistome, mxp3 and pterygostome (Figs 3C; 4B) Buccal frame rhomboid to subcircular, not circumscribed laterally, with anterior border being the anterior limit of linear margin of epistome (Guinot et al. 2025: fig. 6C). Mxp3 short; when applied well against buccal cavity, with anterior margin of merus reaching only epistome or advancing either to level of antennules or to frontal margin, thus showing phenotypic variations (Guinot et al. 2025: fig. 6); leaving between them narrow rhomboid gap, in which mandibles are exposed. Ischium and merus very unequal, their articulation clearly oblique; ischium smaller, merus elongated, both strongly directed obliquely; with marked longitudinal groove. Merus triangular, narrowing anteriorly, with anterior margin entire, not emarginate; meri of both sides more or less joining medially; palp with first article fused to merus internal surface and two mobile distal articles concealed, not visible (Guinot et al. 2025: figs 2B-D, 4D, 6). Exopod conspicuously reduced to more or less narrow suboval plate, entirely concealed; apex not reaching ischium-merus articulation, with lateral dense setae; without flagellum (Tavares 1989: fig. 14f; Guinot et al. 2025: fig. 11A). Subhepatic region with many striae; pterygostomial region glabrous, naked (Guinot et al. 2025: figs 2B-D, 6).</p><p>Chelipeds</p><p>Adult male chelipeds massive but not extraordinarily enlarged (Guinot et al. 2025: figs 1, 3A, B, 4B, Gecarcinus ruricola), equal or slightly to moderately subequal, possibly distinctly unequal in large individuals; narrowly gaping; heterochely and heterodonty usually not or slightly marked, possibly occasionally pronounced (Guinot et al. 2025: fig. 1B); occlusal margins of fingers with small, spaced teeth on both sides; in the rare cases of greatly uneven chelipeds (heterochely), a more pronounced gap and pronounced heterodonty (Guinot et al. 2025: fig. 1B). Merus with curved internal surface and with marked denticles on inner lower margin; carpus with conspicuous denticles on upper margin. Sexual dimorphism moderate.</p><p>Ambulatory legs</p><p>Very spiny. P3 propodus with lateral carinae bearing four rows of prominently and similarly developed spines; dactylus with lateral carinae bearing six rows of prominently and similarly developed spines (Guinot et al. 2025: fig. 1, Gecarcinus ruricola).</p><p>Sterno-pleonal cavity and male pleon (Fig. 5B, D)</p><p>Sterno-pleonal cavity long, its extremity ending either very close to suture 2/3 and even almost exceeding it, or slightly distant; relatively shallow, completely glabrous; ridge on sternite 4 marked, surrounding telson only (Guinot et al. 2025: fig. 2E). Male pleon rather long, with all somites free plus telson; margins only with sparse setae; somite 6 with convex margins (Guinot et al. 2025: fig. 3C).</p><p>Female pleon (Fig. 9A)</p><p>See below, Female pleon and pleopods.</p><p>Thoracic sternum, locking pleonal structures and setal tufts (Fig. 5B, D)</p><p>Thoracic sternum wide (especially at level of somite 5); sternite1 as small triangular tooth, not separated by suture from sternite 2, not recessed; sternite 2 semi-ovate with convex margins; suture 2/3 present, V-shaped; suture 3/4 absent, without lateral traces; sternites 3 + 4 completely fused, with convex, obliquely directed margins, thus not restricted at level of P1; sutures 4/5 to 7/8 interrupted; sternites 5-7 similarly shaped, sutures well defined; suture 7/8 rather short; sternite 8 not developed medially, totally hidden when pleon is folded; posterior emargination reaching sternite 7 at level of narrow median bridge at level of suture 7/8; another weak median bridge at level of suture 6/7; deep median line only along sternite 7 (Guinot et al. 2025: fig. 2E).</p><p>Locking pleonal structure as rather large prominence about in middle of sternite 5, but pleonal sockets not delineated, so no longer functional.</p><p>Setal tufts of more or less dense hydrophilic setae located along first pleonal somites margins and at junction of pleon with carapace (Guinot et al. 2025: fig. 3C).</p><p>Male gonopore and penis (Fig. 5D)</p><p>Male gonopore widely sternal and penis emerging rather far from P5 coxo-sternal condyle, just below thoracic sternal suture 7/8 (Guinot et al. 2025: fig. 3D).</p><p>G1 and G2</p><p>G1 relatively short, thick then tapering, with unequal setae at its tip; apex rather long (called ‘palp’, see Türkay 1970: 336, fig. 1a-f); laterally, a very long, narrow horny tube (called ‘Terminalanhang’ by Türkay 1970: 334, or appendix) completely rolled up on itself, with the opening displaced towards its distal extremity, and clearly exceeding G1 tip; several horny setae at its base; horny tube reaching suture 5/6 (Tavares 1989: fig. 18d; Guinot et al. 2025: fig. 3E, F).</p><p>G2 tiny, without flagellum.</p><p>Vulvae</p><p>Protruding, obliquely directed, normally occluded by a rigid calcified immobile operculum (see Hartnoll 1968; Guinot et al. 2025: fig. 3G).</p><p>BIOLOGY</p><p>For the biology of Gecarcinus ruricola, see Guinot et al. (2025).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03871F323B49FE0E22351AC72EF68704	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.		Plazi	Paula, Danièle Guinot;Rodríguez Moreno, Paula A.	Paula, Danièle Guinot, Rodríguez Moreno, Paula A. (2026): Formal establishment of Gecarcinoidea H. Milne Edwards, 1837 n. stat. (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura), with recognition of two families, Cardisomatidae n. fam. and Gecarcinidae restrict., and new insights on Epigrapsidae Watabe, 2007. Zoosystema 48 (8): 211-271, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2026v48a8, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19370640
03871F323B4AFE08206A1C652EFA82DE.text	03871F323B4AFE08206A1C652EFA82DE.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Gecarcoidea H. Milne Edwards 1837	<div><p>Genus Gecarcoidea H. Milne Edwards, 1837</p><p>Gecarcoidea H. Milne Edwards, 1837: 25 .</p><p>Pelocarcinus H. Milne Edwards, 1853: 203 (unnecessary replacement name for Gecarcoidea H. Milne Edwards, 1837).</p><p>Hylaeocarcinus Wood-Mason, 1874: 187 (type species: Hylaeocarcinus humei Wood-Mason, 1874, by monotypy).</p><p>Limnocarcinus De Man, 1879: 65 (type species: Limnocarcinus intermedius De Man, 1879, by monotypy), see Ng et al. 2008.</p><p>TYPE SPECIES. — Gecarcoidea lalandii H. Milne Edwards, 1837 (see N. K. Ng et al. 2019: figs 2H and 3A: Pelocarcinus cailloti A. Milne Edwards, 1890 and P. marchei A. Milne Edwards, 1890, respectively, both being junior subjective synonyms of G. lalandii).</p><p>OTHER SPECIES INCLUDED. — Gecarcoidea humei (Wood-Mason, 1874); G. natalis (Pocock, 1889) .</p><p>DIAGNOSIS</p><p>Carapace</p><p>Carapace in adults either transversally subquadrate, with posterolateral margins converging towards posterior carapace margin ( G. humei), or more or less transversally subovate ( G. lalandii, see Fujita 2017b: fig. 5D; N. K. Ng et al. 2019: fig. 3A, as Pelocarcinus marchei; G. natalis, see Lai et al. 2017: fig. 5I, J). Dorsal surface of adult carapace either with distinct depressed markings on metagastric and urograstric areas (Lai et al. 2017: figs 5I, J, 9G, G. natalis), or without distinct depressed markings on metagastric and urograstric areas (Fujita 2017b: 102, fig. 5G; Lai et al. 2017: figs 5A-F and 9A-F, G. lalandii, G. humei, respectively). Fronto-orbital border about half or less than half the greatest width of carapace. Front relatively narrow, deflexed (Ho 2003: fig. p. 27, G. lalandii). Mesial lobe of infraorbital margin variable: joining or not joining frontal orbital edge, thus leaving or not a gap (Lai et al. 2017: fig. 6A-F, all species; Tavares 1989: figs 7, 8, G. lalandii; Guinot et al. 2018: fig. 7H, G. lalandii).</p><p>Cephalic structures (Figs 2D; 3B)</p><p>Antennular fossae varying from narrow ( G. lalandii) to wide ( G. humei). Antennules folded more or less slightly obliquely, with long basal article and two flagellae ( G. natalis, see Krieger et al. 2015: figs 4B, 5B). Antenna (Krieger et al. 2015: figs 4B. 6B) with basal article and article 4 exposed, and flagellum directed backwards ( G. lalandii) or with several articles exposed and flagellum in orbital hiatus ( G. humei). Orbits small, deep. Eyestalks short and curved.</p><p>Proepistome (Figs 2D; 3B)</p><p>Proepistome as small plate inserted under lower frontal margin, completely covered by subfrontal plate, thus hardly visible (all species, see Tavares 1989: figs 7, 8; G. lalandii; Lai et al. 2017: fig. 6A-F, G. lalandii; Guinot et al. 2018: fig. 7H, G. lalandii).</p><p>Buccal frame, epistome, mxp3 and pterygostome</p><p>(Figs 2D; 3B)</p><p>Buccal cavity short, subcircular or rhomboidal, not circumscribed laterally, with its anterior border being the anterior limit of linear anterior margin of epistome (Kobayashi &amp; Naruse 2023: fig. 6A, G. lalandii). Mxp3 rather small, short, not reaching epistome by far, leaving between them wide rhomboidal gap. Merus as long as broad (Lai et al. 2017: fig. 6A, B, G. humei) or longer than broad (Lai et al. 2017: fig. 6C, D and 6E, F, G. lalandii, G. natalis, respectively), with V-shaped emargination (Guinot et al. 2018: fig. 7F, G. lalandii). Palp inserted in the middle of anterior border of merus; first article fused to merus internal surface; two other mobile articles visible. Exopod conspicuously reduced to more or less narrow and completely concealed plate; as narrow plate not projecting beyond mxp3 ischium-merus articulation; devoid of flagellum (Tavares 1989: figs 7 and 11c, 12c, G. lalandii, G. natalis, respectively). Subhepatic region with numerous oblique rows of tubercles and striae; pterygostomial area glabrous.</p><p>Chelipeds</p><p>Heterochely and heterodonty varying from not well marked to more marked (e.g. in G. natalis). With a proportion of left-handed individuals, G. lalandii is an aggressive predator of dextral and sinistral snails (Sipman 2015).</p><p>Ambulatory legs</p><p>Ambulatory legs either relatively short, stout (notably P2 and P3), especially with regards to proportions of merus and propodus (Lai et al. 2017: fig. 6G, H, G. humei), or relatively longer, slender (notably P2 and P3), especially with regards to proportions of merus and propodus (Tavares 1989: fig. 16c, G. natalis; Lai et al. 2017: fig. 6K, L and 6I, J, G. natalis and G. lalandii, respectively).</p><p>Sterno-pleonal cavity and male pleon (Figs 6C; 7C)</p><p>Sterno-pleonal cavity deep, shallow, ending not close from sternal suture 2/3; ridge on sternite 4 marked, surrounding telson only when pleon is applied against sternal surface (Guinot et al. 2018: fig. 7F, G. lalandii). Male pleon triangular, with all somites free plus telson. Somite 6 broader than long, with lateral margins usually gently convex (Lai et al. 2017: fig. 7C, D and 7E, F, G. lalandii, G. natalis, respectively; Guinot et al. 2018: fig. 7E, G. lalandii), or distinctly convex (Lai et al. 2017: fig. 7A, B, G. humei).</p><p>Female pleon (Fig. 9E)</p><p>See below, Female pleon and pleopods.</p><p>Thoracic sternum, locking pleonal structures and setal tufts (Figs 6C; 7C)</p><p>Thoracic sternum wide (Guinot et al. 2018: fig. 7E-G, G. lalandii). Sternite 1 as very small narrow tooth, not separated by suture from sternite 2; sternite 2 developed, semi-ovate; suture 2/3 V-shaped; no suture 3/4, no lateral traces; sternites 3 + 4 completely fused, with straight, obliquely directed lateral margins, thus not restricted at level of P1; sternite 8 not developed medially, the triangular posterior emargination reaching sternite 7 at level of thick median bridge at level of suture 7/8; suture 7/8 short. Median line only on sternite 7 with its distal part bumping at level of suture 6/7 into weak median bridge that superficially units both sides of sternal plate (Guinot et al. 2018: fig. 7E-G, G. lalandii); no portion of sternite 8 dorsally exposed when pleon is folded.</p><p>Locking button as large prominence occupying most part of sternite 5 (Guinot et al. 2018: fig. 7F, G. lalandi), surrounded by setae. No delineated pleonal socket, thus locking system not efficient.</p><p>Setal tufts of more or less dense hydrophilic setae located along margins of pleonal somites 1-3, on basal part of sternite 7 and on P5 coxae ( G. lalandii, see Guinot et al. 2018: fig. 7E-G).</p><p>Male gonopore and penis (Fig. 7C)</p><p>Male gonopore emerging far from P5 coxo-sternal condyle, just below suture 7/8 (Guinot et al. 2018: fig. 7G), thus in advanced sternal location.</p><p>G1</p><p>G1 relatively short and very stout, far from reaching suture 5/6, or proportionately longer and more slender; relatively straight ( G. lalandii) or more gently curved ( G. humei, G. natalis); with pectinate distal part bent c. 75-80° from vertical (Türkay &amp; Sakai 1976: fig. 7a, b; Lai et al. 2017: fig. 8A, Gecarcoidea lalandii) or bent c. 45° from vertical (Tavares 1989: fig. 17c, G. natalis; Lai et al. 2017: fig. 8C and 8B, D, G. humei, G. natalis, respectively).</p><p>Vulvae</p><p>On sternite 6, more or less close to suture 5/6. Protruding, nearly horizontally directed, occluded by rigid calcified immobile operculum. Sternal cover narrow, all around except on inner margin.</p><p>BIOLOGY</p><p>Gecarcoidea natalis, known as ‘Red Land Crab’, which exceeds 120 mm cw (Green 1997) and lives for 13 years (Burggren &amp; McMahon 1988; Adamczewska &amp; Morris 2000b; Linton &amp; Greenaway 2007; Vogt 2012), is very abundant on Christmas Island (Indian Ocean). It is found wherever primary rain forest is still intact and where it can excavate a burrow. It retreats there during dry periods and quickly emerges with the arrival of rain. It is mainly herbivorous and frugiforous (Greenaway &amp; Raghaven 1998). In the 1990s, the island-wide adult population numbered at least 100 million individuals, and biomass estimates for the species alone far exceeded those of all tropical rainforest fauna combined (Green 1997). The burrows are shallow and do not reach the water table. Red crabs drink by sucking up droplets of stagnant water with the tips of their chelae, using both alternately (Gibson-Hill 1947, as G. humei natalis). They accumulate litter around their burrow entrances and create nutrient-rich zones in the soil around these entrances and intermittently plug their burrows throughout the year with leaf mounds or soil (Green 2004a, b). Adult crabs moult in sealed burrows, without access to open water and consume their old exuvia almost immediately (Green 1997). They only enter the sea for egg hatching and larval development. The life cycle of this species, with its annual reproductive migration, is remarkable: eggs are laid and hatch instantly upon contact with water; larval stages (five or six zoeal stages) are spent in the sea; the crabs return to shore as megalopae, with their congregation painting the tideline red; the megalopae transform into young crabs, with millions of ‘baby crabs’ forming a pink carpet (Hicks et al. 1984). This annual breeding migration has been described as one of the ten living wonders of the planet (see Ng &amp; Davie 2012). Massive recruitment is observed in the insular G. natalis, but in other gecarcinids recruits are generally few in number and exhibit cryptic behaviour (Pinheiro et al. 2024). On Christmas Island, the sympatric G. natalis and Tuerkayana hirtipes share a similar diet and range: the former shows no preference for different leaf types and feeds chiefly on brown and decaying leaf litter, while T. hirtipes prefers green leaves to yellow or brown ones (Greenaway &amp; Raghaven 1998, as Cardisoma hirtipes).</p><p>In the Marshall Islands, Gecarcoidea lalandii occurs in holes in mixed forest and at the edges of plantations (Holthuis 1953). It is generally found where water keeps the soil moist (Bright &amp; Hogue 1972) but it can also be present in higher, drier areas of Palaos Islands (Cameron 1981). In southern Taiwan, G. lalandii exhibits unusual larval release behaviour: ovigerous females cling to vertical rock faces and deposit egg masses into the water without actually entering it (Liu &amp; Jeng 2007). This is probably an adaptation to terrestrial life aimed at reducing mortality.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03871F323B4AFE08206A1C652EFA82DE	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.		Plazi	Paula, Danièle Guinot;Rodríguez Moreno, Paula A.	Paula, Danièle Guinot, Rodríguez Moreno, Paula A. (2026): Formal establishment of Gecarcinoidea H. Milne Edwards, 1837 n. stat. (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura), with recognition of two families, Cardisomatidae n. fam. and Gecarcinidae restrict., and new insights on Epigrapsidae Watabe, 2007. Zoosystema 48 (8): 211-271, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2026v48a8, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19370640
03871F323B4DFE0A23A81B802E6D82D9.text	03871F323B4DFE0A23A81B802E6D82D9.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Hartnollius Guinot, Rodriguez Moreno & Toledano-Carrasco 2025	<div><p>Genus Hartnollius Guinot, Rodríguez Moreno &amp; Toledano-Carrasco, 2025</p><p>Hartnollius Guinot, Rodríguez Moreno &amp;Toledano-Carrasco, 2025: 284 .</p><p>TYPE SPECIES. — Gecarcinus lateralis (Fréminville in Guérin, 1832) (see N. K. Ng et al. 2019).</p><p>OTHER SPECIES INCLUDED. — Hartnollius nobilii (Perger &amp; Wall, 2014) (see N. K. Ng et al. 2019); H. quadratus (Saussure, 1853) . See key of species in Perger &amp; Wall (2014, as Gecarcinus).</p><p>DIAGNOSIS</p><p>Carapace (Figs 1E; 14A, B)</p><p>Carapace broader than long, flat, with hepatic, subhepatic and branchial regions not markedly inflated, widest part of carapace being more or less in line with antero-lateral angles of mesogastric region. Fronto-orbital distance about half of maximum carapace width in adults. Dorsal surface with shallow grooves: cervical groove terminating anteriorly in a pit near orbital angle; median (or urogastric) groove well-defined but shallow; longitudinal mesogastric groove well-defined but shallow, rising towards frontal margin. Fronto-orbital border half or less than half width of carapace. Front short, narrow, produced and deflexed, with straight lateral margins and upturned lower margin. Mesial lobe of infraorbital margin angular, just joining front edge, completely exposed ( Hartnollius lateralis, see Toledano-Carrasco 2016: pl. 22, as Gecarcinus lateralis). Antero-lateral margins rounded, not delimitated in males; marked by granular margin in females (Guinot et al. 2025: figs 9 A, 9 B, 15 A, H. lateralis, H. quadratus, H. nobilii, respectively). Numerous striae along lateral margins of the carapace. Subhepatic striae used as stridulatory pars stridens (see below).</p><p>Cephalic structures (Fig. 2F)</p><p>Antennules very small, folded obliquely. Antennae very short, completely exposed, visible. Orbits small, with marked outer angle. Eyestalks relatively short, curved ( H. lateralis, see Toledano-Carrasco 2016: pl. 23, as Gecarcinus lateralis; Guinot et al. 2025: fig. 10 B and 10 C, H. lateralis, H. quadtatus, respectively). Proepistome (Fig. 2F)</p><p>Proepistome small, covered by subfrontal plate, thus not visible.</p><p>Buccal frame, epistome, mxp3 and pterygostome (Fig. 2F) Buccal frame short, subcircular to rhomboid, not circumscribed laterally, with its anterior border being the anterior limit of linear anterior margin of epistome. Mxp3 rather small, short, not reaching epistome (except in H. quadratus, see Guinot et al. 2025: figs 10 C, 14 A), leaving between them a narrow rhomboid gap, in which mandibles are exposed. Ischium in longitudinal position and merus only slightly obliquely directed, their articulation nearly horizontal. Ischium barely smaller than merus, without longitudinal groove (only a small trace); merus directed slightly obliquely, with anterior margin emarginate but variably,sometimes only slightly, barely concave ( H. quadratus, see Guinot et al. 2025: figs 10 C, 14 A) or with distinct notch ( H. lateralis, see Guinot et al. 2025: figs 10 B, 12 A, B; H. nobilii, see Guinot et al. 2025: fig. 15B-D); meri of both sides not joining medially (except in H. quadratus); palp inserted below merus: its first article fused to merus internal surface and only small portion of last mobile article exposed. Mxp3 exopod completely concealed, as narrow, proportionnally short, conspicuously reduced plate, its apex not reaching ischium-merus articulation; without flagellum ( H. lateralis and H. quadratus, see Tavares 1989: figs 13g, 14g and 13e, 14e, as G. lateralis, G. quadratus, respectively; Guinot et al. 2025: fig. 11 B and 11 C, H. lateralis, H. quadratus, respectively). Subhepatic area with many striae, pterygostomial areas glabrous, naked.</p><p>Chelipeds</p><p>Male chelipeds massive but not extraordinarily enlarged, very unequal, especially in old males; heterochely and heterodonty usually not or only slightly marked (Fig. 14A, B); in rare cases of greatly uneven chelipeds (heterochelic chelae), a more pronounced gap and pronounced heterodonty. No genetic predisposition for right-handedness. Merus smooth ( H. lateralis) or with only small granules on inner lower margin ( H. quadratus, H. nobilii); carpus smooth ( H. lateralis, H. quadratus) or with denticles ( H. nobilii) on inner upper margin; occlusal margins of fingers with small, spaced teeth on both sides. Sexual dimorphism moderate.</p><p>Ambulatory legs</p><p>P 3 moderately spiny.Propodus with unequally developed lateral carinae bearing four rows of weakly developed spines.Dactylus with four rows of small equal spines ( H. lateralis, H. nobilii) or with six rows of small, unequal spines ( H. quadratus).</p><p>Sterno-pleonal cavity and male pleon</p><p>Sterno-pleonal cavity shallow, short, not close to thoracic sternal suture 2/3, moderately setose; ridge on sternite 4 marked, surrounding telson only when pleon is applied against sternal surface. Male pleon moderately long, with all somites free plus telson; somite 6 with more or less convex lateral margins; pleonal margins only with fringe of setae (Guinot et al. 2025: figs 12D and 14 C, H. lateralis, H. quadratus, respectively).</p><p>Female pleon (Fig. 9C, D).</p><p>See below, Female pleon and pleopods.</p><p>Thoracic sternum, locking pleonal structures and setal tufts Thoracic sternum wide, narrowing at level of somite 5, thus restricted at level of P 1. Sternite 1 as small triangular tooth, not separated by suture from sternite 2, not recessed; sternite 2 semi-ovate with convex margins; suture 2/3 present, practically straight or barely concave, in open V-shaped ( H. lateralis); suture 3/4 absent, without lateral trace; sternites 3 + 4 completely fused, with gently concave or nearly straight margins; sutures 4/5 to 7/8 interrupted; sternites 5-7 similarly shaped, sutures well defined; suture 7/8 rather short; sternite 8 not developed medially, totally hidden when pleon is folded; posterior emargination reaching sternite 7 at level of narrow median bridge at level of suture 7/8; another weak median bridge at level of suture 6/7. Deep median line along sternite 7, apparently slightly extending on proximal region of sternite 6 (Guinot et al. 2025: figs 12D and 14 C, H. lateralis, H. quadratus, respectively).</p><p>Locking pleonal structure as prominence rather close to suture 4/5, covered by setae; pleonal sockets not delineated, so pleonal locking non-functional.</p><p>Patches of more or less dense hydrophilic setae located along first pleonal somites margins of pleon and at its junction with carapace.</p><p>Male gonopore and penis</p><p>Male gonopore close to P 5 coxo-sternal condyle, but penis emerging rather far and just below thoracic sternal suture 7/8 (Guinot et al. 2025: fig. 13 A, H. lateralis).</p><p>G 1 and G 2 (Fig. 5F)</p><p>G 1 short, thick, slightly tapering at extremity, with unequal setae at its tip; apex short; laterally, a very long, narrow, horny, more or less curved tube, not folded and open all along, and exceeding G 1 tip; apex reaching suture 4/6 or exceeding it ( Hartnollius lateralis and H. quadratus, see Tavares 1989: figs 18e, 19b, as Gecarcinus lateralis; fig. 19a, as G. quadratus; H. lateralis, H. quadratus, see Toledano-Carrasco et al. 2021: fig. 3 A, B, as G. lateralis, G. quadratus, respectively; H. lateralis, see Toledano-Carrasco 2016: pl. 20, as G. lateralis; Guinot et al. 2025: fig. 13 A and 13 C, H. lateralis, H. quadratus, respectively); several horny setae at its base.</p><p>G 2 very small, without flagellum (Guinot et al. 2025: fig. 13 A and 13 C, H. lateralis, H. quadratus, respectively).</p><p>Vulvae</p><p>Protruding, oriented nearly horizontally, normally occluded by rigid calcified immobile operculum ( H. lateralis, see Tavares 1989: fig. 18e, as Gecarcinus lateralis; Guinot et al. 2025: figs 13 B and 15 E, H. lateralis, H. nobilii, respectively).</p><p>BIOLOGY</p><p>For Hartnollius species, see Guinot et al. (2025).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03871F323B4DFE0A23A81B802E6D82D9	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.		Plazi	Paula, Danièle Guinot;Rodríguez Moreno, Paula A.	Paula, Danièle Guinot, Rodríguez Moreno, Paula A. (2026): Formal establishment of Gecarcinoidea H. Milne Edwards, 1837 n. stat. (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura), with recognition of two families, Cardisomatidae n. fam. and Gecarcinidae restrict., and new insights on Epigrapsidae Watabe, 2007. Zoosystema 48 (8): 211-271, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2026v48a8, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19370640
03871F323B4FFE3722031EC42AF382DE.text	03871F323B4FFE3722031EC42AF382DE.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Johngarthia Turkay 1970	<div><p>Genus Johngarthia Türkay, 1970</p><p>Gecercinus ( Johngarthia) Türkay, 1970: 343.</p><p>TYPE SPECIES. — Gecarcinus planatus Stimpson, 1860 (see the neotype of Johngarthia planata designated by Perger 2019: 288, fig. 1A-C; see N. K. Ng et al. 2019: fig. 2D: Gecarcinus digueti Bouvier, 1895, which is a junior subjective synonym of J. planata).</p><p>OTHER SPECIES INCLUDED. — Johngarthia cocoensis Perger, Vargas &amp; Wall, 2011; J. lagostoma (H. Milne Edwards, 1837) (see N. K. Ng et al. 2019: fig. 2E, as Gecarcinus lagostoma); J. malpilenis (Faxon, 1893); J. oceanica Perger, 2019; J. weileri (Sendler, 1912) .</p><p>It should be noted that the Johngarthia lagostoma of certain authors (e.g. Capart 1951: fig. 80; Forest &amp; Guinot 1966: 94, all as Gecarcinus) are in fact J. weileri (Manning &amp; Holthuis 1981) .</p><p>DIAGNOSIS</p><p>Carapace (Fig. 1F)</p><p>Carapace broader than long, may be transversally ovate, moderately convex, possibly distinctly depressed in frontal and lateral views ( J. oceanica, see Perger 2019), with hepatic, subhepatic and branchial regions not moderarely inflated or more swollen ( J. lagostoma, see N. K. Ng et al. 2019: fig. 2E, as Gecarcinus lagostoma; J. oceanica, see Perger 2019). Dorsal surface with marked grooves ( J. weileri, see Ng et al. 2008: fig. 159): median, cervical, urogastric grooves very pronounced; cervical groove more or less terminating anteriorly in a pit near orbital angle; gastric region particularly well defined; median groove or mesogastric groove well-defined, continuing in very deep epigastric longitudinal groove. Gastric, cardiac and intestinal regions well maked. Fronto-orbital border about half or less than half the greatest width of the carapace. Front relatively narrow, much deflexed downwards, ventrolateral edge projecting, more or less straight, lined with mesial lobe of infraorbital margin, narrow, subtriangular, evenly tapering in distal direction or broad, subrectangular, may be curved ( J. lagostoma, see Tavares 1989, fig. 10, as Gecarcinus). Anterolateral margins well marked, may be serrated or lined by more or less granules or sharp teeth ( J. cocoensis), especially in females. Subhepatic region with many striae.</p><p>Cephalic structures (Fig. 2E)</p><p>Antennules very small, folded horizontally. Antenna very short, completely exposed. Orbits typical, outer angle marked. Eyestalks relatively short.</p><p>Proepistome (Fig. 2E)</p><p>Proepistome small, covered by subfrontal plate, hardly or not visible ( J. weileri, see N. K. Ng et al. 2007: fig. 6G, as Gecarcinus weileri; J. lagostoma, see Tavares &amp; Mendonça Jr 2022: fig. 47A).</p><p>Buccal frame, epistome, mxp3 and pterygostome (Fig. 2E)</p><p>Buccal cavity rhomboid, not circumscribed laterally, with its anterior border being the anterior limit of linear anterior margin of epistome. Mxp3 short, leaving between them rather wide rhomboid gap, and (when applied well against buccal cavity) anterior margin of merus not reaching epistome ( J. oceanica, see Perger 2019), or reaching only the epistome, or advancing either to the level of the antennules or to the frontal margin ( J.lagostoma, see Türkay 1970: fig.5c, as Gecarcinus (Johngarthia) lagostoma; Tavares 1989: fig. 9, as Gecarcinus lagostoma; Perger et al. 2011: fig 5D). Merus obliquely directed, with emargination either on inner lateral margin ( J. lagostoma, see Türkay 1970: fig. 6C; 1973: fig. 18, as Gecarcinus (Johngarthia) lagostoma; Tavares 1989: fig. 9, as Gecarcinus lagostoma; Tavares &amp; Mendonça Jr 2022: fig. 47A) or on obliquely directed anterior margin ( J. weileri, see Türkay 1973a: fig. 17, as Gecarcinus (Johngarthia) weileri; N. K. Ng et al. 2007: fig.7H, as Gecarcinus weileri; J. oceanica, see Perger 2019: fig. 4C; J. malpilensis see Perger et al. 2011: figs 5C, 6G-I; J. cocoensis Perger et al. 2011: fig. 5B; Perger et al. 2011: fig. 6D-F; J. planata, see Perger et al. 2011: fig. 6B, C; Perger 2019: fig.4A). Meri of both sides more or less joining medially. Palp with first article fused to merus internal surface and with two mobile distal articles either concealed, not visible ( J. lagostoma and J. malpilensis, see Tavares 1989: figs 9, 11d, 13a and 13d, 14d as Gecarcinus lagostoma, G. malpilensis, respectively) or more or less visible ( J. natalis, see Tavares 1989: figs 11c, 12c, as G. natalis; J. cocoensis, see Perger et al. 2011: fig. 3; J. planata and J. oceanica, see Perger 2019: fig. 4A and 4C, respectively). Exopod concealed, as narrow plate either proportionally long, its setae extending beyond ischium-merus joint ( J. lagostoma, J. planata, J. malpilenis, see Tavares 1989: fig. 14a-d, as Gecarcinus lagostoma, G. planatus, G. malpilenis, respectively), or short, its setae not extending beyond ischium-merus joint ( J. oceanica, see Perger 2019); flagellum absent. Pterygostomial areas glabrous, naked.</p><p>Chelipeds</p><p>Adult male chelipeds usually elongated, not massive, not enlarged, slightly subequal; not gaping; heterochely and heterodonty more usually not marked, or more noticeable in J. oceanica (see Perger 2019: 289, figs 1, 2); fingers elongated, their occlusal margins with small, spaced teeth on both sides. Merus with curved internal surface and with marked denticles or teeth on margins; carpus with conspicuous denticles on inner margin. Sexual dimorphism moderate.</p><p>Sterno-pleonal cavity and male pleon (Figs 6D; 7D)</p><p>Sterno-pleonal cavity long, shallow, completely glabrous; its extremity ending either very close to suture 2/3 and even almost exceeding it, sometimes slightly distant ( J. weileri, see Türkay 1973a: fig.16, as Gecarcinus (Johngarthia) weileri); ridge on sternite 4 marked, surrounding telson only when pleon is applied against sternal surface ( J. lagostoma, see Tavares &amp; Mendonça Jr 2022: fig. 47A). Male pleon rather long, with all somites free plus telson; margins only with sparse setae; somite 6 with convex margins.</p><p>Female pleon (Fig. 9B)</p><p>See below, Female pleon and pleopods.</p><p>Thoracic sternum, locking pleonal structures and setal tufts (Figs 6D; 7D)</p><p>Thoracic sternum rather wide; sternite 1 as small triangular tooth, not separated by suture from sternite 2, not recessed; sternite 2 semi-ovate with convex margins; suture 2/3 present, straight or slightly concave; suture 3/4 absent, without lateral traces; sternites 3 + 4 completely fused, with sinuous obliquely directed margins, thus not restricted at level of P1 ( J. malpilensis, see Türkay 1970, as Gecarcinus (Johngarthia) malpilensis; J. weileri, see Türkay 1973a: fig. 16, as Gecarcinus (Johngarthia) weileri); sutures 4/5 to 7/8 interrupted; sutures 4/5 and 6/7 well defined; suture 7/8 rather short; sternites 5 and 6 similarly shaped, sternite 7 narrower and elongated; sternite 8 not developed medially, totally hidden when pleon is folded; posterior emargination reaching sternite 7 at level of narrow median bridge at level of suture 6/7. Deep median line along sternite 7 and very sligthly extending on basal part of sternite 6.</p><p>Locking pleonal structure as rather large prominence about in middle of setose sternite 5 but pleonal sockets not delineated, so locking non-functional ( J. planata, see Guinot &amp; Bouchard 1998: fig. 25A, B, as Gecarcinus planatus).</p><p>Setal tufts of more or less dense hydrophilic setae located along second pleonal somite margins and exposed basal part of sternite 7.</p><p>Male gonopore and penis (Fig. 7D)</p><p>Male gonopore close to P5 coxo-sternal condyle, but penis emerging rather far from P5 coxa, just below thoracic sternal suture 7/8 ( J. oceanica, see Guinot 1979: fig. 54D, as Gecarcinus; J. planata, see Guinot &amp; Bouchard 1998: fig. 25A, as Gecarcinus planatus; J. weileri N. K. Ng et al. 2007: fig. 4H, as Gecarcinus weileri). G1 and G2 (Fig. 7D)</p><p>G1 short, thick. Mesial process prominently developed, protruding beyond caudal process, endpiece longer than wide, convex, not protruding beyond terminal setae; aperture external, subterminal ( Johngarthia lagostoma, see Chace &amp; Hobbs 1969: fig. 67d, as Gecarcinus lagostoma; Türkay 1970: fig. 5D, as Gecarcinus (Johngarthia) lagostoma; Tavares 1989: figs 17d, 18a, as Gecarcinus lagostoma; Tavares &amp; Mendonça Jr 2022: fig. 47G; J. planata, see Türkay 1970: fig. 6D as Gecarcinus (Johngarthia) planatus; J. oceanica, see Tavares 1989: fig. 18b, as G. planatus; J. malpilensis, see Tavares 1989: fig. 18c, as Gecarcinus malpilensis; J. cocoensis, see Perger et al. 2011: fig. 4A, B).</p><p>G2 tiny, without flagellum.</p><p>Vulvae</p><p>On sternite 6, more or less close to suture 5/6. Protruding, nearly horizontally directed, occluded by rigid calcified immobile operculum. Sternal cover narrow, all around except on inner margin.</p><p>Axial skeleton</p><p>Johngarthia lagostoma, see Oliveira 2014: fig. 19C, D.</p><p>BIOLOGY</p><p>Johngarthia lagostoma (H. Milne Edwards, 1837), which is close to this upper size with a recorded cw of about 100 mm, is endemic to a limited number of oceanic islands in the south Atlantic Ocean. In the central South Atlantic, on Ascension Island, and the Brazilian oceanic islands (Trindade, Martin Vaz, Atol das Rocas, Fernando de Noronha, see Hartnoll et al. 2010: fig. 2, upper map) where the species occurs, Johngarthia lagostoma is generally restricted to altitudes above 200 m, the only area of the Ascension Island with substantial vegetation. The population comprises several colour morphs: crabs with carapace smaller than 40 mm cw are all dark, and colour variation towards yellow, purple and intermediate morphs appear between 40-50 mm cw. The overall colour distribution of the population is 85% yellow, 5% intermediate, and 10% purple; with the predominance of yellow morphs, possibly an adaptation to reduce heat stress. Males predominate in permanent residential areas located at higher elevations. The intensity of migration varies from year to year and is not obviously related to rainfall. Migrations are dominated by females (on the shore, 80% of crabs are females), and migrants must cross arid and baren lowlands, resulting in significant mortality. A few females mate and lay eggs in upland residential areas; more do so on the migration route, but the majority only after reaching the shore. During the migration season, crabs of both sexes have been found in burrows along the migration routes; these burrows are deserted outside the breeding season. Fecundity averaged 72 000 eggs at 94 mm cw (Hartnoll et al. 2010: fig. 2; see also Hartnoll et al. 2009). In Gecarcinus ruricola, by contrast, a crab of that size would have a calculated fecundity of 199 000 eggs (Hartnoll et al. 2007), a disparity that is predominantly accounted for by the larger egg size in J. lagostoma .</p><p>On Ascension Island, in crabs above about 100 mm cw, around half of the males retained chelae of very similar size and shape, while the other half had strong heterochely in length, and marked differences in chelar morphology; these two morphs occurred in both colour forms, and with either handedness (Hartnoll et al. 2017: fig. 1, see also Musick et al. 2010).</p><p>Johngarthia lagostoma from Trindade Island (Brazil) is well documented. The population is well-established on this island compared to Ascension Island. According to Tavares &amp; Mendonça Jr (2022: figs 46A, 46C, 47A-C), J. lagostoma is found from upland habitats up to 600 m altitude. Crabs retreat in their burrows for protection during the heat hours. Many traits, such as the buccal frame entirely covered by the long and broadly operculiform mxp3, with the merus extending anteriorly as far as to cover the antennae and antennules, the reduction of the mxp3 palp and exopod (concealed, and devoid of flagellum), as well as the second and first maxillipeds exopod also devoid of flagellae, limit water loss to a minimum. On Trindade Island, yellow individuals (96.4%) were found predominant, and their chromatic pattern differed from that of other populations (Entringer Jr &amp; Srbek-Araujo 2023). In fact, there are three colour types (black, purple and yellow), with colouration varying according to the individual size, sex and ecological processes related to differential occupation of available habitats (Jão et al. 2023). On the same island, J. lagostoma recruits inhabit burrows of their congeners that have been abandoned or occupied by adult crabs. Cohabiting recruits reach a maximum size of cw 7.3 mm, after which they are likely to be detected by adults and possibly cannibalised or they leave the burrows naturally (Pinheiro et al. 2024).</p><p>The male and female reproductive systems of Johngarthia lagostoma from Trindade Island (Brazil) described by Mosna et al. (2025b: figs 1-6, 8) follow the basic pattern previously described for Thoracotremata.In females, a voluminous seminal receptacle is filled with free spermatozoa; spermatophore plugs and spermatophore packages are absent (Mosna et al. 2025a). The average fecundity (mean fecundity 82 938 eggs) recorded for J. lagostoma females on Trindade Island closely resembles that of females on Ascension Island (mean fecundity 71 800 eggs) quoted by Hartnoll et al. (2010). The male reproductive system (Mosna et al. 2025b: fig. 1) exhibits bilateral symmetry with an ‘H’-shape. It consists of a pair of testes, located on the upper margin of the cephalothorax and connected to the vasa deferentia, which extend longitudinally over the hepatopancreas, ending at the posterior region of the body. The testis is highly convoluted; the vas deferens is divided into three distinct regions: anterior (a highly convoluted, slender tubular structure), median (long, slightly convoluted), and posterior (appearing as a single slender tube, slightly convoluted and smooth).</p><p>On the four Brazilian islands where Johngarthia lagostoma is present, mitochondrial DNA sequence analyses of genetic structure and diversity have shown great differentiation indicating that three discrete and significant land crab evolutionary units should be considered, without implying taxonomic changes (Rodríguez-Rey et al. 2016). Johngarthia lagostoma is classified as endangered (EN) in Brazilian territory according to IUCN criteria (Mosna et al. 2025a).</p><p>Johngarthia weileri (Fig. 14 C-F) is a terrestrial species from West Africa, largely restricted to the offshore islands of the Gulf of Guinea, but also known from the mainland in Cameroon (Monod 1956; Manning &amp; Holthuis 1981).</p><p>Johngarthia malpilensis, considered endemic to Malpelo, an oceanic island of the Colombian Pacific, is distributed all over the main island except in very steep sectors. It shows high mobility, with crabs covering distances over 450 m in a few days on highly irregular surfaces. Omnivorous and opportunistic, it consumes every available resource. On the basis of average density and weight and distribution of crabs, the estimated total biomass of J. malpilensis on Malpelo Island is nearly 30 tons. By removing the algal cover and eating, in practice, every type of organism, the Malpelo crab is the major transformer as a recycler of organic matter in the trophic network of the island (López-Victoria &amp; Werding 2008).</p><p>The population of Johngarthia planata is restricted to inshore islands and the continental mainland coast of the tropical and subtropical Pacific coast of America.</p><p>The species Johngarthia oceanica, previously confused with J. planata, has recently been described for the extensive populations found on the oceanic islands of Clipperton and Socorro (Perger 2019). Studied during the French multidisciplinary scientific CLIPPERTON expedition, from December 2004 to April 2005 (Bouchard &amp; Poupin 2009, as Gecarcinus planatus), the population was estimated at 1.25 million individuals, a decrease from 1968 when a previous census had indicated 11 million individuals, a decrease attributed to a reduction of the herbaceous covering on the atoll and perhaps to predation by rats accidentally introduced at the end of the 1990s. Crabs dig many burrows on sandy expanses by the sea. The distribution of the crabs on the atoll is heterogeneous: they are mostly located near the lagoon or in bunches of coconut trees; they make short-range displacements of about 30 m around their burrows, mostly for food that consists of seaweed, vegetation and also carrion. For water intake they rely mostly on food, and specialised hydrophilic setae to extract water from the most humid parts of their burrows. The sex ratio is slightly biased in favor of males, with about eight females for 10 males. Crabs frequently visit the brackish water of the lagoon, also walk along the foam fringe of the strandline and enter the sea water for the pelagic life (Niaussat &amp; Ehrhardt 1968: figs 4-9, as Gecarcinus planatus; Ehrhardt 1968a, b; 1973: fig. 2, as Gecarcinus planatus).</p><p>REMARKS</p><p>According to Perger et al. (2011: fig. 7), the possible relationship between Gecarcoidea lalandii and Johngarthia cocoensis is supported by the possibility of long-distance dispersal of larvae from a common ancestor, between the western Pacific and the tropical eastern Pacific region. However, Gecarcoidea differs from Johngarthia in that the male first gonopod endpiece is significantly wider than long ( G. lalandii, see Türkay 1974a: fig. 5a, b) and by differences in orbital structures ( G. lalandii, see Tavares 1989: figs 7, 8).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03871F323B4FFE3722031EC42AF382DE	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.		Plazi	Paula, Danièle Guinot;Rodríguez Moreno, Paula A.	Paula, Danièle Guinot, Rodríguez Moreno, Paula A. (2026): Formal establishment of Gecarcinoidea H. Milne Edwards, 1837 n. stat. (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura), with recognition of two families, Cardisomatidae n. fam. and Gecarcinidae restrict., and new insights on Epigrapsidae Watabe, 2007. Zoosystema 48 (8): 211-271, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2026v48a8, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19370640
03871F323B73FE3320391EC42A8983D9.text	03871F323B73FE3320391EC42A8983D9.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Cardisomatidae	<div><p>COMPARISONS BETWEEN CARDISOMATIDAE N. FAM. AND GECARCINIDAE RESTRICT .</p><p>The Cardisomatidae n. fam. (with its three genera: Cardisoma, Discoplax and Tuerkayana) and Gecarcinidae restrict. (with its four genera: Gecarcinus, Gecarcoidea, Hartnollius and Johngarthia) are distinguished by a number of morphological characters (Table 1). The most important is the location of the male gonopore. The plesiomorphic condition is presented by the Cardisomatidae n. fam., in which the gonopore is very close to the P5 coxo-sternal condyle and the membrane lining the arthrodial cavity; the penis emerges at a short distance ( Cardisoma, Tuerkayana) or at a greater distance ( Discoplax) from the P5 coxa and thoracic sternal suture 7/8 (Figs 5C; 7A, B) ( Discoplax longipes, Cardisoma guanhumi, Tuerkayana aff. hirtipes, T. celeste and T. magnum, see Guinot et al. 2018: fig. 5C, 5F, 5I, 5L, 5O, respectively). The derived condition is presented by the Gecarcinidae restrict., in which the penis emerges far from the P5 coxo-sternal condyle, just below the thoracic sternal suture 7/8 (Figs 5D; 7C, D) ( Gecarcinus ruricola, see Guinot et al. 2025: fig 4K, L; Johngarthia planata, see Guinot 1979: fig. 54D, as G. (Johngarthia) planatus; Guinot &amp; Bouchard 1998: fig. 25A, as G. planatus; J. weileri, see N. K. Ng et al. 2007: fig. 4H, as G. weileri).</p><p>With regard to the emergence of the penis at a relatively short distance from the P5 coxa and relatively far from the thoracic sternal suture 7/8, the condition in Cardisomatidae n. fam. resembles that observed in Grapsidae (at least Grapsinae MacLeay, 1838), which may explain why Gecarcinidae sensu lato and Grapsidae are currently grouped together in Grapsoidea by all authors. However, among other dissimilarities, Grapsus Lamarck, 1801 differs from Cardisoma, Discoplax and Tuerkayana ( Cardisomatidae n. fam.) in that the penis is not basally wedged above the P5 coxo-sternal condyle ( G. tenuicrustatus (Herbst, 1783), see Guinot 1979: fig. 52A; Karasawa &amp; Kato 2001: fig. 2.19; N. K. Ng et al. 2007: fig. 4D; Grapsus grapsus (Linnaeus, 1758), see Guinot et al. 2013: fig. 23D).</p><p>In Cardisomatidae n. fam., locking pleonal structures are obscure, even absent, while they are present in Gecarcinidae restrict. as more or less developed sternal prominence or crest, or as a button. But, since the complementary pleonal sockets are not delimitated on somite 6, there is not a functional locking apparatus in the most terrestrial land crabs, Gecarcinus ruricola .</p><p>Gecarcinid genera are uniform in selected characters (see Table 1), notably: a fronto-orbital border representing half or less than half of the width of the carapace; a front narrow and markedly deflexed; an epistome inserted below the lower margin of the front, and therefore more or less discernible; orbits small and deep; eyestalks short; sterno-pleonal cavity shallow, with ridge on sternite 4 marked, surrounding telson only; G1 short and thick.</p><p>An important distinguishing character between the two families is the female pleon. In most Cardisomatidae n. fam. (Fig. 8 A-C), it is narrow, bordered by a dense fringe of setae, and covers practically the entire width and length of the thoracic sternum; Discoplax (Fig. 8D) is an exception (see The case of the genus Discoplax A. Milne Edwards,1867). In Gecarcinidae restrict. (Fig. 9 A-E), the female pleon is wider and discoid, bears only a few scattered setae on its margins, and leaves part of the thoracic sternum exposed laterally and especially anteriorly.</p><p>Members of Cardisomatidae n. fam. are less modified from the typical brachyuran facies than members of Gecarcinidae restrict., with a plesiomorphy more particularly concerning the buccal region. Cardisomatidae n. fam. has a delimited buccal frame, a developed anterior border of the epistome, a mxp3 with a normal exposed palp and an exposed exopod with a flagellum (Figs 2 A-C; 3A; 4A), Conversely, Gecarcinidae restrict. has several synapomorphies, namely a short, subcircular or rhomboidal, poorly delimited buccal frame, a linear anterior border of the epistome, a mxp3 palp with the first article fused to the merus internal surface, an exopod conspicuously reduced to a narrow and completely concealed plate, and the loss of its flagellum (Figs 2 D-F; 3B, C; 4B). In fact, these disparities in the buccal parts are linked to a different water requirement of Gecarcinidae restrict. than in Cardisomatidae n. fam., namely proximity to the sea; deep burrows reaching water level.</p><p>The four genera of Gecarcinidae restrict., which constitute the most terrestrial group, with Gecarcinus ruricola being the most land-adapted (Hartnoll 1988a, 1988b; Wolcott 1988: fig. 3.1; Richardson &amp; Araujo 2015: fig. 12.2), exhibit several adaptations to reduce water loss: e.g. the buccal frame almost entirely covered by the mxp3 leaving a narrow rhomboid gap ( G. ruricola, see Guinot et al. 2025: figs 2C, D, 6), the reduction of the mxp3 palp and exopod in all genera (Fig. 2B) (and the absence of a flagellum in the exopod of mxp1 and mxp 2 in Johngarthia lagostoma, see Tavares &amp; Mendonça Jr 2022: fig. 47A-E). This applies not only to adults but also to the post-larval stage, the megalopa that is the landward migration stage of Gecarcinus ruricola (Hartnoll et al. 2014) and Johngarthia lagostoma (Santana et al. 2025) . The megalopa of G. ruricola occupies the most terrestrial habitat, furthest from the sea; thanks to its long locomotion on land, it is the best-adapted terrestrial megalopa described to date. In Gecarcoidea, the first crab represents the returning homing stage (Hartnoll &amp; Clark 2006). Other biological aspects show the same divergent trend, with, for example, a longer breeding season in Cardisoma species than in other gecarcinoids (Liu &amp; Jeng 2007). In Gecarcinus ruricola, migrating crabs are predominantly female, with a predominance of ovigerous females: some females mate and lay eggs on the landward side, others on the seaward side (Hartnoll et al. 2007). Tuerkayana celeste migrates upstream as a megalopa and only emerges on land as the first crab. In Gecarcoidea natalis, males and females migrate to the sea in similar numbers; the courtship and subsequent mating only take place afterwards (Hicks 1985; Hartnoll et al. 2010). In Johngarthia lagostoma, mating and egg-laying occur at all phases of migration, and the proportion of males migrating towards the sea decreases with distance. In terms of the overall pattern of breeding migrations, Discoplax longipes, a cave-dwelling species, represents the opposite end of the spectrum: eggs are laid and incubated in caves where the adults live, and females carrying ripe eggs migrate directly to the sea; no males migrate (see Ng &amp; Guinot 2001).</p><p>The phylogenetic tree of Toledano-Carrasco (2019) and in Guinot et al. (2025: 298, tables 2, 3, fig. 16) recovered the two major groups of gecarcinoids proposed here, based on the consistency of morphological, larval and genetic data. On the one hand, the clade of crabs with less terrestrial habits ( Cardisoma, Discopla x, and Tuerkayana), namely the Cardisomatidae n. fam.; and on the other hand, the clade with distinctly terrestrial habits ( Gecarcinus, Johngarthia and Hartnollius), namely the Gecarcinidae restrict. Gecarcinus was identified as the probable sister taxon to Hartnollius while, within the Cardisomatidae n. fam., Discopla x and Tuerkayana formed sister groups, collectively maintaining a close evolutionary relationship with Cardisoma .</p><p>Larval data</p><p>The complete larval stage from the first zoeal stage to the megalopa, obtained under laboratory conditions, has been described for three species of Cardisoma: C. guanhumi by Costlow &amp; Bookhout (1968), C. carnifex by Kannupandi et al. (1980) (Flores et al. 2003 for the first zoeal stages), C. armatum by Cuesta &amp; Anger (2005); and for Tuerkayana hirtipes by Shokita &amp; Shikatani (1990, as Cardisoma hirtipes). For C. crassum only the first zoeal stage is known (VázquezLópes et al. 2017). Among the Gecarcinidae restrict., larval development is known in Hartnollius lateralis (Cabrera 1966, as Gecarcinus lateralis; Willems 1982, as Gecarcinus lateralis lateralis; Cuesta et al. 2007, as Gecarcinus lateralis); in Johngarthia oceanica (Ehrhardt &amp; Niaussat 1968, as G. planatus), and in J. lagostoma (Lira et al. 2021) . It was studied in Gecarcoidea lalandii by Cuesta et al. (2002) who reviewed the zoeal morphology of the Gecarcinidae sensu lato, taking into account all previous descriptions and analysing the relationships. The megalopa of Gecarcinus ruricola was described by Hartnoll &amp; Clark (2006). Rice (1980), based solely on the five zoeal stages of C. guanhumi, was of the opinion that its characters taken together suggested an evolutionary level for the Gecarcinidae sensu lato similar to that of the more basal Grapsidae and Ocypodidae .</p><p>Based on the complete larval stages of Hartnollius lateralis, Willems (1982, as Gecarcinus lateralis) recognised the heterogeneity of the Gecarcinidae sensu lato. According to Cuesta et al. (2002), the zoeal morphology of the same species, namely the setation of the maxillar endopodite, supports the recognition of two major groups: on the one hand, Epigrapsus, Gecarcinus and Gecarcoidea (our Gecarcinidae restrict., without Epigrapsus), and on the other hand Cardisoma and Discoplax (our Cardisomatidae n. fam.). In a re-evaluation of the gecarcinid larval features, Cuesta et al. (2007: tables 5, 6) again distinguished the same two groups: a first group comprising Cardisoma and Discoplax, characterised by 2, 3 setae on the endopod of the maxilla in zoeae, and in megalopae by the presence of ischial spines on the cheliped (except in Discoplax), the absence of setae on the proximal segment of the uropods, and a two-segmented exopod on the mxp3; and a second group comprising Epigrapsus, Gecarcinus, Gecarcoidea, and Johngarthia, characterised by setae on the endopod of the maxilla in zoeae, and in the megalopa by the absence of ischial spines on the cheliped, the presence of two setae on the proximal segment of the uropods, and a reduced and unsegmented mxp3 exopod (no data about megalopae of Epigrapsus and Gecarcoidea). According to Cuesta &amp; Anger (2005) and Cuesta et al. (2007: tables 5, 6), zoeal features again support the existence of two major groups. Thanks to the description of the megalopa of Gecarcinus ruricola, Hartnoll &amp; Clark (2006: table 2) confirmed the existence of the same two groups: one comprising the Cardisoma species and the other with Gecarcinus, to which Johngarthia was added. According to Lira et al. (2021: table 2), Cardisoma and Tuerkayana differ from Gecarcinus, Gecarcoidea and Johngarthia in their zoeal characters. In conclusion, the larval data corroborate our separation of the Gecarcinoidea n. stat. into two families.</p><p>Genetic data</p><p>Schubart et al. (2000a: fig. 1; 2000b: fig. 1; 2002), who presented the first molecular phylogeny of Grapsoidea based on North American species, recovered a mitochondrial 16S rRNA gene tree with the Gecarcinidae sensu lato closely related to the subfamilies Grapsinae, Plagusiinae, Sesarminae, and Varuninae, and ‘gave evidence’ for a close relationship between grapsid and gecarcinid crabs, even suggesting that Gecarcinidae sensu lato evolved within Grapsidae; the monophyly of Gecarcinidae sensu lato was not questioned. Subsequent genetic studies by Schubart et al. (2006: fig. 1) resolved Cardisoma as basal, followed by Gecarcoidea - Gecarcinus, but did not support the monophyly of the family, suggesting a paraphyletic taxon. N. K. Ng et al. (2007: fig. 8), noting that the orbital structure and the gonopore position were extremely variable, recovered two groups: Cardisoma ( C. carnifex, C. crassum) + Discoplax (including D. hirtipes and D. rotundum, now in Tuerkayana), and Gecarcinus + Gecarcoidea . According to Schubart &amp; Cuesta (2010), the phylogenetic status of the Gecarcinidae sensu lato as well as the basal relationships among the families of Thoracotremata remain unresolved. However, a combined molecular and larval analysis by Cuesta et al. (2002) showed that the status of Gecarcinidae sensu lato remained apparently paraphyletic and still unresolved, with Cardisoma and Discoplax forming a sister group to Gecarcinus and Gecarcoidea . L. M. Tsang et al. (2014: fig. 1; 2018: fig. 2) recognised a Gecarcoidea clade ( G. natalis + G. lalandii) and a sister Tuerkayana (a s Discoplax) – Cardisoma clade. Using molecular data from three markers (mitochondrial 12S and 16S rRNAs, and nuclear histone H3), covering a total of 15 thoracotreme families, L. M. Tsang et al. (2022: fig. 1) assigned the Gecarcinidae sensu lato to the Grapsoidea, confirmed the polyphyly of Grapsoidea, Ocypodoidea Rafinesque, 1815 and Pinnotheroidea (as L. M. Tsang et al. 2018: fig. 2), and recognised two gecarcinid clades in the Grapsoidea: a Gecarcoidea clade ( G. lalandii and G. natalis) and a Cardisoma and Tuerkayana (a s Discoplax) clade. According to Q. Wang et al. (2021: fig. 3), Cardisoma and Gecarcoidea clustered separately, and Gecarcinidae sensu lato formed a sister group with Xenograpsidae N. K. Ng, Davie, Schubart &amp; Ng, 2007, Ocypodidae, Dotillidae Stimpson, 1858 and Sesarmidae . The 16S gene trees of Van der Meij &amp; Schubart (2014) recovered two groups: Cardisoma carnifex + Discoplax hirtipes and Gecarcinus lateralis + Gecarcoidea lalandii, not clustering together.According to Sun et al. (2022), Epigrapsus + Gecarcinus + Gecarcoidea and Cardisoma + Discoplax + Tuerkayana were not recovered clustering together. However, they were recovered by C. T. T. Tsang et al. (2022) in a monophyletic Gecarcinidae sensu lato, with their deep divergence being able to justify a subfamily status for each (corresponding to what is proposed here, at the familial level). According to these authors, Gecarcinidae and Sesarmidae, two families containing many terrestrial brachyuran species, originated along with the warm climates during the Late Paleocene and Early Eocene (c. 60-50 MYA). The ‘Clade V’ (‘New Superfamily 1, unnamed) of C. T. T. Tsang et al. (2022: supplementary fig. 1), consists mainly of families with a high degree of terrestrial adaptation, i.e., the Gecarcinidae sensu lato, Leptograpsodidae, and Sesarmidae, to which are added two less speciose marine families ( Plagusiidae Dana, 1851 and Xenograpsidae) and one freshwater family ( Glyptograpsidae Schubart, Cuesta &amp; Felder, 2002). The results of Pan et al. (2024) did not support the Clade V of Tsang et al. (2022) ( Gecarcinidae + Leptograpsodidae + Sesarmidae + Xenograpsidae + Glyptograpsidae), and, instead, they showed that the Plagusiidae + Gecarcinidae and Grapsidae formed a lineage with strong nodal support, while Sesarmidae and Xenograpsidae were more closely related to Varunidae, with moderate nodal support.The morphological characters shared by most members of these families generally include: gaping third maxillipeds, stout male first gonopods with apertures surrounded by stiff setae, and the ability to breathe air in various ways.</p><p>Sun et al. (2022: figs 1, 3, 5), in a mitogenomic tree, presented all recent hypotheses on relationships within the families and superfamilies of Thoracotremata. The monophyly of Gecarcinidae sensu lato was confirmed in the tree obtained by Maximum Likelihood analysis, but with a low support value. However, in the tree derived from Bayesian inference analyses, Gecarcoidea lalandii did not cluster with its relatives such as Cardisoma carnifex (Herbst, 1796) and was more closely related to the Sesarmidae . Note that genetic results of Kobayashi et al. (2023) were similar, with G. lalandii not clustering with other gecarcinid species but rather with monophyletic Sesarmidae .These results are not confirmed by morphological characters. Q. Wang et al. (2021: 725: fig. 3), who used four genes, tRNAs, rRNAs, PCGs, and control regions (CR) for the Gecarnidae, found that Cardisoma (with C. carnifex and C. armatum) and Gecarcoidea (with G. lalandii and G. natalis) clustered separately, which corresponds to Cardisomatidae n. fam. and Gecarcinidae restrict.</p><p>The very thorough analysis by Z. Wang et al. (2023: fig. 3), who sequenced the complete mitochondrial genomes of four gecarcinoid species and compared them with the existing dataset of 202 mitochondrial genomes of crabs, obtained results that were consistent with the data acquired by our morphological studies. It supported the division of genera established by Guinot et al. (2018), namely the two closely related genera Cardisoma, and Tuerkayana, plus Discoplax, with each branch being monophyletic, and highlighted the monophyly of Gecarcinidae sensu lato. Their tree showed the close relationship of the three genera that constitute the Cardisomatidae n. fam. The ‘target’ species in the paper of Z. Wang et al. (2023: 1) was Tuerkayana, i.e., the results in Guinot et al. (2018) based on the morphology alone: that is why we particularly appreciate the recognition of the value of taxonomy based on morphological data as evidenced by their sentence on p. 12 “This consequence is consistent with the results of morphological studies, which support Tuerkayana as an independent genus”. We agree with the conclusions of Z. Wang et al. (2023: 14), who ‘tentatively support the monophyly of Gecarcinoidea’, that, morphologically, species of Gecarcinoidea can be distinguished from other Grapsoidea by the unique characteristics of their zoea larvae (antennal and telson morphology, and setation of the second maxilliped endopod, see Cuesta et al. 2002; Ng et al. 2008) and that the geographical distribution and unique behaviour of Gecarcinidae and Sesarmidae are not comparable. However, the presence of polyphyly in the N-tree raised the possibility of homology and a close relationship between Gecarcinidae and Sesarmidae . The mitochondrial genome structure of the Gecarcinidae sensu lato was found structurally stable, probably on account of common origin or derived from adaptations to a similar terrestrial environment; the figure S10 of Z. Wang et al. (2023) showed that all the species in the Gecarcinidae sensu lato have the same gene order pattern as the ancestors of Brachyura .</p><p>Given the contradictory results of genetic data and often considerable phylogenetic inconsistencies between morphological and phylogenomic data concerning the deep evolution of animals, it should be emphasised that, in the case of Gecarcinidae sensu lato, the results obtained from morphology, both larval (several articles by Cuesta et al.) and adult (Guinot et al. 2018), have prevailed over the latter and have only recently been confirmed by molecular studies. This finding contrasts with the classical view in phylogenomics that genome-scale datasets tend to undermine the credibility of morphological inferences; it effectively challenges the frequent underestimation of traditional taxonomy and the common assumption that genomic data automatically supersede morphological evidence. It should be noted that the numerous and diverse studies on Gecarcinoidea n. stat. and their relatives have provided evidence for a strongly recovered and monophyletic Thoracotremata (L. M. Tsang et al. 2008; Chu et al. 2015; Chen et al. 2018; T. T. Tsang et al. 2022; Sun et al. 2022; Xu et al. 2023; Pan et al. 2024).</p><p>Palaeontological data</p><p>Palaeontological analyses can be informative in assessing the continuity of phenotypes over time and geographical areas, but they are limited by the availability of fossils. Members of Gecarcinoidea n. stat. are very rare in the fossil record and consist only of remains of the chelae and almost fingers. Practically nothing is known about fossil or subfossil records from Gecarcinus . Fossil crab chelae attributed to Gecarcinus cf. ruricola reported by Donovan &amp; Dixon (1998: 825) from the Pleistocene of Jamaica were later recognised as belonging to a species of Sesarma Say, 1817 (see Luque 2017; Luque et al. 2017). The Late Holocene remains of Gecarcinus sp. reported from Antigua by Pregill et al. (1988) would be conspecific with Hartnollius lateralis n. comb. (Luque 2017: fig. 1H-J, table 1, as Gecarcinus lateralis). A Gecarcinus sp. from the late Pleistocene of Bermuda (Crystal Cave) is reported by Luque (2017: table 1). A total of 1400 identifiable Holocene remains of the two co-occurring species G. ruricola and H. lateralis have been found through field surveys along the northern coast of San Salvador Island and in the Bahamas, with various levels of disarticulation suggesting a low preservation potential (Locatelli 2013: 867, figs 2-7, table 1). Schweitzer et al. (2023) reported G. ruricola from the Holocene in the Caribbean Sea and Mexico. Remains of chelipeds of Pleistocene Cardisoma guanhumi were recorded by Schweitzer et al. (2008). Luque et al. (2018) found remains of chelipeds of Cardisoma aff. crassum from the Pacific coast of Panama. Fossilised burrows of Cardisoma guanhumi have been recorded on Aldabra by Sparacio (2018). Türkay (1978) interpreted fixed fingers from the Pliocene of Costa Rica as potential Cardisoma guanhumi . According to the molecular phylogeny of Thoracotremata by Tsang et al. (2022: 5), the family Gecarcinidae (with also the Sesarmidae) originated along with the warm climates during the Late Paleocene and Early Eocene (c. 60-50 MYA).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03871F323B73FE3320391EC42A8983D9	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.		Plazi	Paula, Danièle Guinot;Rodríguez Moreno, Paula A.	Paula, Danièle Guinot, Rodríguez Moreno, Paula A. (2026): Formal establishment of Gecarcinoidea H. Milne Edwards, 1837 n. stat. (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura), with recognition of two families, Cardisomatidae n. fam. and Gecarcinidae restrict., and new insights on Epigrapsidae Watabe, 2007. Zoosystema 48 (8): 211-271, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2026v48a8, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19370640
03871F323B77FE3D23901901291F86BA.text	03871F323B77FE3D23901901291F86BA.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Johngarthia Turkay 1970	<div><p>Johngarthia versus Gecarcinus</p><p>Several species initially assigned to Gecarcinus were separated by Türkay (1970), who created the subgenus Johngarthia for them, subsequently elevated to genus rank (Türkay 1987). Tavares (1989, 1991) found no synapomorphies to support the monophyly of Johngarthia . Colavite et al. (2021), who studied the morphology of the first zoeal stage of J. lagostoma, endemic to the Atlantic oceanic islands of Ascencion, Trindade and Martin Vaz, Fernando de Noronha and the Rocas Atoll, suggested that the uncommon large eyes of the first zoea could be an autapomorphy of the species, but ultimately found that this character was actually more widespread within Johngarthia . Colavite et al. (2021) concluded that no characters of the first zoeal stage could be set forth as diagnostic for this genus to date and again questioned the validity of Johngarthia in relation to Gecarcinus . Nevertheless, the genus is used by Tavares &amp; Mendonça Jr (2022).</p><p>In the phylogenetic tree of Toledano-Carrasco et al. (2021) and Guinot et al. (2025: tables 2, 3, fig. 16), which indicated a high divergence between Gecarcinus and Hartnollius (with values comparable to the divergence between species of different genera, such as those of Discoplax longipes with Tuerkayana latens), the genetic distance between Gecarcinus and Johngarthia was lower than that between Gecarcinus and Hartnollius . Morphologically, species of Johngarthia also show similarities with Gecarcinus, such as the locking pleonal structures in the form of a setose and more or less marked prominence ( Gecarcinus ruricola, see Guinot et al. 2025: fig. 2E; G. quadratus, see Köhnk et al. 2017: fig. 19c, d; Johngarthia, see Guinot &amp; Bouchard 1998: fig. 25A, as G. planatus). Gecarcinus ruricola, in particular, bears a striking resemblance to J. lagostoma in terms of its globular carapace, eyes englobed within the carapace, a recessed antenna, and a mxp3 with a long, obliquely directed merus that reaches almost to the front ( G. ruricola, see Guinot et al. 2025: figs 2d, 6; J. lagostoma, see Türkay 1970: fig. 5b, c; Tavares &amp; Mendonça Jr 2022: fig. 47A).</p><p>However, there are many distinctive characters between Johngarthia and Gecarcinus: in the former, the mxp3 merus has a slit-shaped fissure approximately on the inner margin ( J. weileri, see Fig.2E; J . lagostoma, see Tavares 1989: fig. 9, as Gearcinus lagostoma; Tavares &amp; Mendonça Jr 2022: fig.47A-C); the exopod is reduced to a plate fused to the internal face of the ischium, with setae extending beyond the ischium-merus articulation, in J. weileri as in J.lagostoma (see Tavares &amp; Mendonça Jr 2022: fig. 47B, C); and the G1 is thick, short, and its tip lacks projecting distal setae ( J. lagostoma, see Tavares 1989: fig. 17d, as Gecarcinus lagostoma; Tavares &amp; Mendonça Jr 2022: fig. 47G).</p><p>Johngarthia differs from Gecarcinus in the adult features already mentioned (Türkay 1970; Perger et al. 2011), but also in its larval characters. Cuesta et al. (2007) showed that the difference in the mxp3 exopod seen in adults of Gecarcinus and Johngarthia is also observable in megalopa.</p><p>The case of the genus Discoplax A. Milne Edwards, 1867</p><p>A. Milne Edwards (1867; 1873) considered Discoplax to be ‘among the grapses’, but the genus was very quickly assigned to the Gecarcinidae sensu lato. Many authors (Ortmann 1894; Alcock 1900; see also Balss 1934; Türkay 1974b) have regarded Discoplax as a junior synonym of Cardisoma, and the type species was therefore named Cardisoma longipes . But Guinot (1988, 1994) considered Discoplax a distinct genus, a position adopted by Türkay (1987), Ng (1998) and Ng et al. (2001), as well as by subsequent authors. The inclusion of Discoplax, with its three cave-dwelling species, among the land crabs of the family Gecarcinidae sensu lato has apparently never been questioned.</p><p>Our morphological examination of the three species of Discoplax, D. longipes (Figs 1B; 2A; 6A; 7A; 8D), D. gracilipes and D. michalis, clearly highlights the numerous characters that diverge significantly from those of the Gecarcinoidea n. stat. and the Cardisomatidae n. fam. The main differences are the location of the penis (emerging a short distance from the P5 coxa), the slightly sexually dimorphic chelipeds, the morphology of the male and female pleons and their slight sexual dimorphism (Figs 6A; 8D: male and female pleons of D. longipes, respectively), the vulvae, the flat carapace with numerous striae, the presence of a stridulatory apparatus (see Table 1 and Diagnosis of Cardisomatidae n. fam.). Are these differences related to the cave-dwelling habits of all the species in the genus? Apparently not, since adaptations to cave life usually include long legs (only D. gracilipes has very long legs), reduced eyes, light body, and depigmentation, all features absent in Discoplax . In Discoplax longipes, eggs are laid and incubated in the caves where the adults live, and females carrying ripe eggs migrate directly to the sea; the species does not appear to carry out organised spawning migrations (Türkay 1987).</p><p>The type species Discoplax longipes is known only from the Loyalty islands, an isolated archipelago of three main islands (Ouvéa, Lifou and Maré) located northeast of the New Caledonian mainland of Grande Terre. The islands are essentially old coral atolls, whose current topography is the result of sea-level fluctuations and erosion. This has led to a karst landscape dotted with numerous caves.Today, many of these caves are flooded and exhibit a wide diversity of sizes, shapes and depths, ranging from a few metres deep to several kilometres in length. The waters in these caves are invariably fresh, although they may be brackish in deeper parts due to seawater percolation through the porous rocks. In Xodre Cave on Lifou Island, where several specimens have been collected by hand, the underground lake is located 400 m from the entrance. The crabs were collected deep in caves, which are sometimes several hundred metres from the sea, therefore completely isolated and without any real communication with the sea (B. Séret, pers. comm.). Despite its normal habitus is D. longipes a troglobite?</p><p>It should also be noted that there are reasonable doubts regarding the conspecific status of some specimens with D. longipes from the Loyalty Islands: for example, ofTürkay (1974a, as Cardisoma longipes) from many islands in the western Pacific (e.g. Fiji and the Cook Islands), of Yaldwyn (1970, as Cardisoma longipes) from Niue, of Sendler (1923) and Poupin &amp; Juncker (2010) from French Polynesia. Even though a Niue specimen clustered with the Loyalty Island material during a molecular analysis performed by Ng &amp; Shih (2015: fig. 17).</p><p>The ecology of D. michalis in Guam was described in detail by Ng &amp; Guinot (2001: fig. 8A, as D. longipes): it is frequently observed in the water, sometimes as deep as two metres; it also shelters in deep crevices and cracks; there is no indication that it digs permanent burrows, and none have been observed. According to Gustav Paulay, who collected a good series of specimens of D. michalis (as D. longipes) in Guam and Niue, in the central Pacifc, the species is not a true cave crab, but rather a species closely associated with karst environments, using caves whenever possible. In Niue, it is also found in deep crevices outside caves during the day, with locals catching it at night or on full moon nights for food. On this same island, ovigerous female of D. michalis reach the sea by using the karst formations, which corresponds to the migration of the females for the reproduction and the release of the eggs into the sea. In Guam, ovigerous specimens have been observed climbing down the karst cliff face from just outside Tumon Bay, and a male specimen was even collected near the University of Guam Marine Biology Laboratory, in areas where no caves are known to exist nearby. Presumably, D. michalis is also present in the deep crevices and uneven terrain of the karst forest, emerging out to forage only at night. In summary of all these informations, D. michalis may well be a troglophile.</p><p>The third species of Discoplax, D. gracilipes, has been found only in the Philippines, on and around Panglao Island. Located about a kilometre southwest of the island of Bohol, this large and predominantly limestone island has numerous anchialine sinkholes and caves. Specimens of D. gracilipes have generally been collected from anchialine pools in water at a depth of one metre, either by hand or using baited traps (Ng &amp; Guinot 2001). Virata Cave, in the southermost part of Panglao, is only about 100 m from the sea, with its entrance opening onto degraded secondary forest. Water is present at the bottom of the deep cave only during the wet season. According the local villagers, D. gracilipes hides in the caves during the day but forages near the entrance and nearby forest at night. The gecarcinid Gecarcoidea lalandii has also been observed in the cave, but it is also relatively common outside. D. gracilipes is regularly caught by the locals for food, especially during the wet season when fishing in the open sea is impossible. These crabs are also more easier to catch when they wander further from the caves in search of food. (Ng &amp; Guinot 2001). It is worth noting that, just outside the cave, Tuerkayana hirtipes and T. rotundum are also present, even deep inside the caves, according to the locals. These are stygophilic species.</p><p>A crucial question arises: are crabs of the genus Discoplax that live in caves with specific temperatures and humidity levels truly land crabs, like other species Gecarcinoidea n. stat. ? The latter are terrestrial, live on land in regions with high ambient temperatures, and their major challenge is avoiding desiccation (note that some cardisomatids are stygophilic, see above). In the book Biology of the Land Crabs (Burggren &amp; McMahon 1988), Discoplax is only mentioned as Cardisoma longipes in a list and on a map (Hartnoll 1988a: 21, fig. 2.5). The Discoplax species do not fit into any of the five grades (T1 to T5) of terrestrial adaptations categorised by Hartnoll (1988a) and, to our knowledge, are not known to possess any of the multiple adaptations that would allow increasing levels of autonomy from the aquatic environment.</p><p>It is clear that the karstic and anchialine species of Discoplax, which spend part of their time (or even perhaps permanently) in water and part of their time out of water, and which even venture far from caves, are not true terrestrial crabs. Phylogenetically, Discoplax belongs to the Gecarcinoidea n. stat. Genetic data (e.g. Ng &amp; Shih 2015; L. M. Tsang et al. 2014) do not contradict the relationships between Discoplax and Gecarcinidae sensu lato and even recognise a Discoplax - Cardisoma sister clade (see Genetic data). However, from an ecological perspective, Discoplax consitutes a unique lineage that did not completely colonise terrestrial habitats. They did not acquire the multiple morphological adaptations for the two lifestyles, i.e., no changes, neither for terrestrial environments nor for life in dark caves. This explains why Discoplax is not modified and exhibits significant morphological differences (see Table 1). Brachyuran crabs that have emerged from the sea onto land have several times colonised the semi-terrestrial and terrestrial habitats. In any case, some would have ventured into subterranean habitats. Or is the hypothesis of a secondary return to an aquatic freshwater habitat by these terrestrial crabs more plausible? Determining the appropriate history and transition for Discoplax will require further research.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03871F323B77FE3D23901901291F86BA	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.		Plazi	Paula, Danièle Guinot;Rodríguez Moreno, Paula A.	Paula, Danièle Guinot, Rodríguez Moreno, Paula A. (2026): Formal establishment of Gecarcinoidea H. Milne Edwards, 1837 n. stat. (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura), with recognition of two families, Cardisomatidae n. fam. and Gecarcinidae restrict., and new insights on Epigrapsidae Watabe, 2007. Zoosystema 48 (8): 211-271, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2026v48a8, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19370640
03871F323B79FE3F23901DA62927865A.text	03871F323B79FE3F23901DA62927865A.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Gecarcinoidea	<div><p>DISTINCTIVE CHARACTERS OF GECARCINOIDEA N. STAT.</p><p>Vulvae</p><p>In Gecarcinoidea n. stat., the vulva is normally occluded by an immobile, rigidly shut, and calcified operculum (Hartnoll 1968). This immobile operculum “decalcifies for only a short period to allow mating, followed quickly by egg laying” (Hartnoll et al. 2010: 89, Johngarthia lagostoma). Türkay (1973a: figs 2, 3, 11, 12; 1974a: figs 10, 13) hypothesised that females must actively open the genital duct to copulate: this must therefore be preceded by decalcification. The short period of opercular decalcification allows the operculum to remain mobile for several days, and the timing of copulation and egg-laying by the female, thus signalling the opportunity for mating (see Hartnoll et al. 2007). Mating and egg laying are therefore closely linked, with the duration of opercular decalcification probably being short (presumably a few days), as in other thoracotremes (Henmi &amp; Murai 1999). The short duration of the decalcification period determines a short window of opportunity for mating and limits the migratory pattern of males (Hartnoll 2010).</p><p>Pleonal attachment</p><p>With regard to the locking of the male pleon, the gecarcinoid species, all terrestrial, can have on the thoracic sternite 5 a button, as in Hartnollius, or sometimes a quite developed prominence, as in Gecarcinus ruricola (Fig. 5D), most often covered with setae. But there is no complementary socket on the pleonal somite 6, making the apparatus non-functional (Guinot &amp; Bouchard 1998: fig. 25A, B). In Cardisomatidae n. fam. (Figs 5C; 7A), the locking structures are obscure or absent. It is curious that crabs such as the gecarcinids that perform long migrations by walking are devoid of an very efficient locking system by button-pression or snap-lock system. The pleon is not fixed, but nevertheless remains applied against the sternal plate in the sterno-pleonal cavity. In Thoracotremata, the lock is very efficient in various groups (e.g. Grapsidae, Plagusiidae, Camptandriidae Stimpson, 1858), but it is reduced, obsolete and non-functional in others (e.g. Sesarmidae, Varunidae), and is even absent completely in the most derived taxa (mainly in Ocypodidae). Conversely, it is worth noting that species of Epigrapsus sensu lato (see below), which are less terrestrial in habitat than gecarcinoids, possess a strong and effective locking apparatus (Figs 8F; 9C; 10C).</p><p>Female pleon and pleopods</p><p>In a remarkable article on primary freshwater crabs, Cumberlidge et al. (2021) highlighted the importance of a set of characters that have received little attention from taxonomists and were presumed thought to be uninformative: the female pleon, telson, pleopods, and the egg attachment sites. In mature primary freshwater females (with the exception of Trichodactyloidae H. Milne Edwards, 1853), outside the reproductive period, the pleon almost entirely covers the thoracic sternum, sometimes leaving a small anterior portion exposed (Cumberlidge et al. 2021: fig. 4). Depending on the species, juveniles of primary freshwater crabs remain in a brood pouch for a period ranging from 10 days to several weeks (Vogt 2016). The k-selected reproductive strategy (see Pianka 1970) of freshwater crabs involves laying a few large eggs that develop directly into juveniles, which benefit from extensive maternal protection. This contrasts sharply with the r-selected reproductive strategy of most marine crabs characterised by the production of a large number of smalldiameter eggs that develop in the sea via a series of pelagic larval stages, and receive no parental care.</p><p>A comparative analysis of a female of Cardisoma armatum by Cumberlidge et al. (2021: 9, fig. 5A) shows that the female pleon, bordered by fringe of setae (such as the male pleon), covers almost the entire thoracic sternum, particularly somite 6, which spans the entire width between coxae of the chelipeds and P2; the telson is small and triangular. In contrast, in the species of two heterotreme families, namely Doclea ovis (Fabricius, 1787) ( Epialtidae MacLeay, 1838) and Callinectes sapidus Rathbun, 1896 ( Portunidae Rafinesque, 1815) studied by Cumberlidge et al. (2021: fig. 3A, B, respectively), the female pleon covered only a more or less small portion of the thoracic sternum, sometimes only a small part.</p><p>Following Cumberlidge et al. (2021), we investigated the relationship between the female pleon and the thoracic sternum in Gecarcinoidea n. stat. This character proved to be of great taxonomic importance for differentiating Cardisomatidae n. fam. from Gecarcinidae restrict. In Cardisomatidae n. fam. (Fig. 8 A-D), the female pleon is relatively narrow, oval, and, thanks to dense fringe of setae on the margins, completely fills the thoracic sternum except for the episternites; the telson, small and narrow, reaches more or less the sternite 3 and the mxp3, leaving only a reduced lateral portion exposed. This arrangement is similar in the cardisomatid species Cardisoma guanhumi, C. carnifex and Tuerkayana celeste (Fig. 8 A-C, respectively). However, the genus Discoplax (Fig. 8D) is an exception: the narrow female pleon leaves a fairly substantial space between it and the coxae, and the telson only reaches the sternite 4 (see above, The case of the genus Discoplax A. Milne Edwards, 1867).</p><p>In Gecarcinidae restrict., the female pleon is much wider, discoid, with the telson in the shape of a large triangle.It leaves laterally and especially anteriorly a sternal portion exposed, in addtion to the episternites. The arrangement is similar in all gecarcinid species, namely Gecarcinus ruricola, Johngarthia oceanica, Hartnollius lateralis, H. nobilii and Gecarcoidea natalis (Fig. 9 A-E, respectively), as well as in Gecarcoidea lalandii (not shown). The narrowest pleon and telson are those of Johngarthia (Fig. 9B). In our photographs (Fig. 9A, B, see arrows), the setae that are visible on each side along the margins of the pleon and telson belong to the setose displaced pleopods that protrude anteriorly and laterally, giving the false impression that setae are present on the margins of the pleon, which in fact are only very weakly setose.</p><p>The arrangement in Gecarcinoidea n. stat. seems rather similar to that of the primary freshwater crabs of the four families studied by Cumberlidge et al. (2021: fig. 4A-D),, where the pleon covers the width of the thoracic sternum (except for the episternites), and leaving or not a small anterior portion exposed.</p><p>According to the illustrations of the thoracotreme families by Cumberlidge et al. (2021: fig. 5B), in the Grapsidae exemplified by Goniopsis peli (Herklots, 1851), somites 1-6 cover the thoracic sternum (taking into account the fringe of setae bordering the pleon as well as the episternites that remain exposed). In contrast, in the Varunidae exemplified by Eriocheir sinensis H. Milne Edwards 1853, and in the Sesarmidae exemplified by Labuanium politum (De Man, 1888), the pleon is shorter and does not cover the anterior part of the thoracic sternum, thus leaving a sternal portion exposed at the level of the chelipeds and the legs P2 and P3 (Cumberlidge et al. 2021: fig. 5D, C, respectively).</p><p>In Brachyura, in general, the growth of female pleon shows strong positive allometry before puberty, a marked size increase at puberty, but a reduced positive allometry thereafter (Hartnoll 1974: table 2; 1982). In the Gecarcinoidea n. stat., the characteristic changes in the pleon and pleopods of sexually mature females, described for Hartnollius lateralis by Bliss et al. (1978, as Gecarcinus lateralis) and for G. guanhumi by Henning (1975) did “not made clear whether a distinct puberty molt occurs, though the changes in the pleonal width are substantial” (Hartnoll 1988b: 199). Liu &amp; Jeng (2007) found that pleon morphology in Gecarcoidea lalandii was not a reliable character to determine the maturity of females. Sexual maturity in female Cardisoma crassum (Fig. 15 A-C) from Panama ranges about from 49.60 to 56.00 mm cw (Gonzáles 2025); that of Gecarcoidea natalis is at about 45 mm cw (Hicks 1985). On Clipperton, Johngarthia oceanica, where the mean carapace size is c. 45 × 56 mm for males and c. 41 × 48 mm for females, the size at maturity of the females is c. 16 × 19 mm (Bouchard &amp; Poupin 2009, as Gecarcinus planatus). The size of female sexual maturity of Gecarcinus ruricola is around 50 mm cw (see Hartnoll et al. 2007).</p><p>We have examined an ovigerous female of Gecarcinus ruricola 52.8 × 69.9 mm, from Cuba (MNHN-IU-2024-6554), carrying tiny eggs: the pleon (Fig. 9A) is not particularly enlarged compared to that of the larger female 60.5 × 83.8 mm, also from Cuba, in dry condition (MNHN-IU-2000-10754 = MNHN-B10754): in the latter, the pleon is significantly wider, however with the same arrangement as in the smaller female and without undergoing any alteration in general shape.</p><p>The pleopods of a female Cardisoma armatum studied by Cumberlidge et al. (2021: fig. 13), all highly setose, are located on somites 2-5 and are composed of an inner exopod (the only one serving as an egg attachment site) and an outer exopod, with the following characters: exopod length of PL 2 markedly reduced, about ¼ that of the corresponding endopod, compared to that of PL 2-5; ischium of PL 2 broad and robust, ending distally in prominent ischial/meral sulcus, and distinctly setose on the external margin; its length remaining constant in PL 2-5 (Cumberlidge et al. 2021: 9, fig. 13). The pleopods of all the gecarcinoid females at our disposal that we briefly examined (Fig. 10) seem consistent with those of C. armatum, without apparent differences, suggesting that the Gecarcinidae restrict. and the Cardisomatidae n. fam. share a similar arrangement.</p><p>This pattern is roughly similar to that of the Grapsidae, Sesarmidae, and Varunidae, but there are nevertheless distinctive features related to the respective lengths and shape of the ischia and general setosity (Cumberlidge et al. 2021: figs 14-16).</p><p>Hydrophilic setae</p><p>Among the many attempts to adapt to life on land is the search for a way to escape dessication, a major challenge for crabs that live in regions with high ambient temperatures. Watson-Zink et al. (2024) studied in three gecarcinids the osmoregulatory genes that are differentially expressed in the antennal glands and posterior gills in response to desiccation stress. The key structure involved in water storage is the pericardial sac, a paired pouchlike organ that extends far into the branchial chambers, which is globular, e. g. in Cardisoma guanhumi and in Hartnollius lateralis (Diaz &amp; Rodríguez 1997: fig. 1a-c, and 1d, e, as Gecarcinus lateralis). These pericardial sacs are particulary large in land crabs (Hartnoll 1988b: fig. 6.1.A, B). In the Gecarcinidae restrict., the ability to absorb water from the substrate is well developed in Gecarcoidea natalis and H. lateralis, in which setal tufts extend along the first three pleonal somites and on the P5 coxa to establish a connection with the pericardial sacs (Bliss 1963; 1968: fig. 14A; Greenaway 1988: fig. 7.2.A). In H. lateralis, the posterior extension fringed with setae of each pericardial sac terminates near the ventral surface of the crab body, at the thorax/pleon junction, and, at this point, the external ventral hydrophylic setae as well as a contiguous setae-lined channel conduct moisture drops by capillarity to the posterior ventral extension of each pericardial sac (Bliss 1979, as Gecarcinus lateralis). In Gecarcinus ruricola and Gecarcoidea lalandii, the posterior margins of sternites 7 and 8 are lined with dense hydrophilic setae that come into contact with the tufts of setae on P5 coxa and on pleonal somites 2-3 (Figs 5B; 7C). Pericardial sacs are present in other land crabs such as Cardisoma guanhumi and C. carnifex, where there is a setae-fringed posterior extension of the sac, and, in close proximity, external ventral setae that probably use setal suction to extract water (Greenaway 1988). The external setae serve to collect water from the substrate by capillarity, and, again by capillarity, the setae conduct this water to the posterior extension of the pericardial sacs (Bliss 1963, 1968, 1979).</p><p>In Cardisomatidae n. fam., there are no setal tufts of hydrophilic setae along the first pleonal somites, whereas in Gecarcinidae restrict. setal tufts of hydrophilic setae are present along the first pleonal somites. In both families, setae are present on the posterior margin of sternite 7, slightly on the P5 coxae in Gecarcinidae restrict.</p><p>All cardisomatids and gecarcinids lack the Müller’s channel, a complex channel to which the setal tufts of Grapsoidea and Ocypodoidea are attached (see Oliveira 2014), but it seems that a Müller’s channel exists in Epigrapsidae, at least in Grapsodes Heller, 1865 (Fig. 9D, see below).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03871F323B79FE3F23901DA62927865A	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.		Plazi	Paula, Danièle Guinot;Rodríguez Moreno, Paula A.	Paula, Danièle Guinot, Rodríguez Moreno, Paula A. (2026): Formal establishment of Gecarcinoidea H. Milne Edwards, 1837 n. stat. (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura), with recognition of two families, Cardisomatidae n. fam. and Gecarcinidae restrict., and new insights on Epigrapsidae Watabe, 2007. Zoosystema 48 (8): 211-271, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2026v48a8, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19370640
03871F323B7BFE3823901DA62A2B87DA.text	03871F323B7BFE3823901DA62A2B87DA.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Epigrapsidae Watabe 2007	<div><p>NEW INSIGHTS ON THE FAMILY EPIGRAPSIDAE WATABE, 2007</p><p>A family Epigrapsidae, currently represented only by a single genus and type genus Epigrapsus Heller, 1862, was established by Watabe (2007: 55, 56, table IV.1) as the first application case of the Autopoiesis Theory (derived from cognitive neuroscience) to crustacean taxonomy, in the words “The Family Epigrapsidae (new establishment, diagnosis followed Sakai 1976), represented only by the genus Epigrapsus, is placed as the morphologically simplest (primitive) potamid taxon”. This family name is considered valid because it explicitly refers to the diagnostic characters listed by Sakai (1976: 677 in key), but it seems that it has never been used since. Epigrapsus is not a freshwater crab of the family Potamidae Ortmann, 1896, as Watabe (2007) believed.</p><p>The genus Epigrapsus was traditionally considered to belong to the Gecarcinidae sensu lato (Ng et al. 1998, 2000; Cuesta et al. 2002; Cuesta &amp; Anger 2005; Naruse et al. 2018), either in a rather isolated position (Tavares 1991: fig. 1) or forming a third group (Türkay 1987) or regarded as phylogenetically distinct (Ng et al. 2008; pers. comm. 2025). The two species assigned to the family Epigrapsidae are semi-terrestrial or intertidal, whereas crabs of the Gecarcinoidea n. stat. are terrestrial, the land crabs by excellence with a very high degree of terrestriality in Gecarcinidae restrict., less marked in Cardisomatidae n. fam. Their larvae live in the sea, while the adults have a terrestrial lifestyle like the gecarcinoids, but, as they live short distance from the shore, they do not undertake long and intense migrations to the sea for reproduce, unlike the gecarcinoids.</p><p>The relatively poorly known genus Epigrapsus currently comprises two often co-occurring species, both unusual compared to gecarcinoids with respect to their relatively small size and flatter carapaces, their morphology, and, in part, their habits. The taxonomy of the genus and its members has been discussed by Alcock (1900), Tesch (1918), Türkay (1974a, b; 1977), Ng et al. (1998, 2000) and Naruse et al. (2018). The taxonomy of E. notatus has been rather confused, with three junior subjective synonyms. Genetically, C. T. T. Tsang et al. (2022) recognised two sister clades, Epigrapsus + Gecarcinus + Gecarcoidea and Cardisoma + Discoplax + Tuerkayana . Epigrapsus was not included in the genetic studies on Gecarcinidae sensu lato by Z. Wang et al. (2023) or more extensive (Xu et al. 2023).</p><p>The two species currently assigned to Epigrapsu s are E. politus Heller, 1862 (type species) and E. notatus (Heller, 1865, as Grapsodes notatus). Heller (1862, 1865) actually recognised the two species under three different names: Epigrapsus politus Heller, 1862 (Heller 1862), with E. politus as type species, and Nectograpsus Heller, 1865 (Heller 1865) with N. politus (Heller 1865: pl. 5, fig. 3) as type species, from Tahiti. The two genera are synonyms because they are based on the same species. On the other hand, Heller (1865: 58) established Grapsodes Heller, 1865, with G. notatus as type species, from the Nicobar Islands. The binomen Grapsodes notatus was used by many authors, and Grapsodes was considered either as a genus, e.g. by Alcock (1900) that the adult morphology and Tesch (1918), or as a subgenus of Epigrapsus (see Türkay 1974a). Serène (1968), in a checklist, therefore without any explanation, abandoned the binomen Grapsodes notatus, and replaced it with Epigrapsus notatus . Since then, notatus has reverted to its generic name Epigrapsus . Türkay (1973b; 1974a) synonymised Epigrapsus (Grapsodes) wolfi Sendler, 1923 and Epigrapsus (Grapsodes) notatus punctatus Sendler, 1923 with E. notatus after comparing their types. Mystacocarcinus crenidens Hilgendorf, 1888 is also a junior subjective synonym of E. notatus (Türkay 1977) . A third species, E. villosus Ng, 2003, described only from a small male (8.9 × 9.4 mm), from a cave in Guam, was considered a junior synonym of E. notatus by Naruse et al. (2018), who demonstrated that E. notatus undergoes dramatic morphological changes during growth (see also Fujita 2017a: 20, fig. 2). Ng et al. (1998: table 1) carefully compared Epigrapsus politus with its congener E. notatus, both from Taiwan, and listed their distinguishing characters while concluding that the carapace and pleonal shape of E. notatus changed considerably with growth, hence a source of confusion for identification.</p><p>The MNHN collection contains only one sample of Epigrapsus politus from Sumatra (Atjeh), whereas all other specimens, formerly identified as E. politus and revised by Türkay in the early 1970s, turn out to be in fact E. notatus . The remarks on Epigrapsus by Guinot et al. (2018: 570), based only on few misidentified specimens are incorrect and should not be fully taken into account. The recent donation from the ZRC of two specimens of Epigrapsus notatus from Taiwan allows us to compare the two species and to propose the result of their examination, as part of the present study on Gecarcinoidea n. stat. This yielded a completely unexpected result, even though many researchers (Ng et al. 2000, 2008) had clearly listed their numerous and significant differences: Epigrapsus is not monophyletic, as the differences between the two species are not specific but generic, or even broader. Consequently, we recognise two genera: Epigrapsus Heller, 1862, with E. politus Heller, 1862 as type species and sole species; and Grapsodes Heller, 1865, a valid genus that we are resurrecting with G. notatus Heller, 1865 as the type species and sole species.</p><p>A new diagnosis of Epigrapsus restrict . and of Grapsodes is provided, accompanied by a table (Table 2) listing the morphological differences between Epigrapsus politus Heller, 1862 and Grapsodes notatus Heller, 1865 . We have incorporated many of the differences identified by Ng et al. (1998: table 1), who examined a large number of specimens of each species and were able to account for variation. Some fundamental characters are added to those previously employed, such as the antennules, antennae, anterior margin of the epistome, and thoracic sternites.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03871F323B7BFE3823901DA62A2B87DA	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.		Plazi	Paula, Danièle Guinot;Rodríguez Moreno, Paula A.	Paula, Danièle Guinot, Rodríguez Moreno, Paula A. (2026): Formal establishment of Gecarcinoidea H. Milne Edwards, 1837 n. stat. (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura), with recognition of two families, Cardisomatidae n. fam. and Gecarcinidae restrict., and new insights on Epigrapsidae Watabe, 2007. Zoosystema 48 (8): 211-271, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2026v48a8, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19370640
03871F323B7CFE3823EC1D262904815F.text	03871F323B7CFE3823EC1D262904815F.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Epigrapsus Heller 1862	<div><p>Genus Epigrapsus Heller, 1862 restrict .</p><p>Epigrapsus Heller, 1862: 522 . — Alcock 1900: 443. — Tesch 1918: 132 pro parte. — Türkay 1974a: 248, pro parte. — Ng et al. 1998: 71; 2000: 379, pro parte. — Fujita 2017a: 22 (only E. politus). — Hartnoll et al. 2017: 951, pro parte. — Naruse et al. 2018: 208-216 (only E. politus). — Doi et al. 2019: 145 pro parte (only E. politus).</p><p>Nectograpsus Heller, 1865: 56 .</p><p>TYPE SPECIES. — Epigrapsus politus Heller, 1962 .</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03871F323B7CFE3823EC1D262904815F	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.		Plazi	Paula, Danièle Guinot;Rodríguez Moreno, Paula A.	Paula, Danièle Guinot, Rodríguez Moreno, Paula A. (2026): Formal establishment of Gecarcinoidea H. Milne Edwards, 1837 n. stat. (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura), with recognition of two families, Cardisomatidae n. fam. and Gecarcinidae restrict., and new insights on Epigrapsidae Watabe, 2007. Zoosystema 48 (8): 211-271, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2026v48a8, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19370640
03871F323B7CFE3A22081AA72BB8865A.text	03871F323B7CFE3A22081AA72BB8865A.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Epigrapsus politus Heller 1862	<div><p>Epigrapsus politus Heller, 1862</p><p>(Fig. 11; Table 2)</p><p>Epigrapsus politus Heller, 1862: 522 . — Türkay 1974a: 248, figs 7a, b, 18. — Ng et al. 1998: 78, fig. 6; 2000: 379-381. — Cuesta et al. 2002: 1675, figs 4A-C, 5A-D, 6A-C. — Fujita 2017a: 22, figs 2, 3; 2017b: 102, fig. 5C. — Hartnoll et al. 2017: 942, fig. 5. — Doi et al. 2019: 145-157, figs 1-7; 2020: 200-208, figs 1-7.</p><p>Nectograpsus politus Heller, 1865: 57, pl. 5 fig. 3, 3a.</p><p>MATERIAL EXAMINED. — Indonesia • 1♂ 23.0 × 29.1 mm; Sumatra; Atjeh; det. De Man; revis. Türkay Epîgrapsus politus; VI.1972; MNHN-IU-2017-10018 (= MNHN-B12585) .</p><p>DIAGNOSIS</p><p>Carapace, transversally ovate, not variable. Dorsal surface gently convex and swollen; grooves shallow. Anterolateral margins arcuate, with one very low indistinct epibranchial tooth (often absent, thus margin appearing entire); when discernible, separated from exorbital tooth by very small notch. Posterolateral margins distinctly converging towards posterior carapace margin. Fronto-orbital border more than half width of carapace. Front almost entire, not much deflexed, thick. Antennules obliquely folded; basal article well developed and exposed, article 2 obliquely folded, entirely visible. Antenna with basal article (2 +3) J-shaped, bearing article 4 on short inner side; article 5 well visible; short flagellum bent; no orbital hiatus. Proepistome wide, rectangular, with median process. Orbits delimitated, sheltering most part of podophtalmite. Suborbital ridge thick, tuberculate, possibly acting as pars stridens (inner margin of P1 with ridge, possibly acting as plectrum). Buccal frame elongate-rectangular, delineated laterally.Epistome with anterior margin straight, thick, tuberculate. Mxp3 rectangular, distinctly longer than broad, with merus distinctly longer than ischium, leaving distinct rhomboidal median gap when closed; ischium with slight lateral sulcus, bordered by setose ridge; merus with very deep oblique depression all along, bordered by setose ridge; palp inserted near latero-external angle of merus; palp short, with three mobile articles externally visible, first article encroaching on margin of epistome; exopod exposed, slender, with flagellum. Pterygostomial area not setose, possibly with dense velvety setae; subhepatic area sligthly setose. Pereiopods relatively stout and short with merus and dactylus relatively more slender and proportionately longer; anterior margin of rugose squamate to gently serrate; dactylus with scattered spines; surfaces with few or no setae; dactylus with only scattered setae. Chelipeds unequal in males; major chela strongly inflated; in adults, fingers shorter than smooth palm, gaping proximally. Sterno-pleonal cavity shallow, its extremity distant from suture 2/3; ridge on sternite 4 faint, surrounding telson only. Male pleon with all somites free, relatively short; somite 6 wide, with margins straight proximally, convex distally; telson short, bluntly rounded. Thoracic sternum: sternite 1 as a spine in continuity with sternite 2; sternite 2 as large, dome-shaped plate, with convex margins; sternites 3 and 4 fused, with slightly sinuous lateral margins. Median line along sternites 8 and 7. Locking structure only as a small button in anterior third of sternite 5; apparatus non-functional.Male gonopore sternal, distant from P5 coxa; penis emerging distinctly far from suture 7/8, on middle of sternite 8, crossed by sulcus joining P5 coxo-sternal condyle. G1 relatively elongate, stout; distal part almost straight to distinctly bent inwards (towards median longitudinal suture of thoracic sternum). G2 minute, slightly bent. Short setae on P2 and P3 and on P3 and P4 coxae, forming two small setal pouches between P2/P3 and P3/P4.</p><p>GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION</p><p>Tahiti (type locality), Tuamotu, Caroline Islands, Bertrand Island (Papua-New Guinea), northern Sumatra, Taiwan, Japan.</p><p>BIOLOGY</p><p>Epigrapsus politus resides in habitats nearer the seacoast and closer to the waterline than does Grapsodes notatus, also preferring more rocky/sandy areas than does the latter species. It has few terrestrial adaptations, compared to Gecarcinidae sensu lato, and is more vulnerable to overheating and desiccation. Its small size facilitates its cryptic lifestyle. In Japan (Ishigaki Island), it inhabits the supralittoral zone, under small partially embedded stones in sandy areas, covered partially by coastal vegetation (Ng et al. 1998; 2000). The species, recently studied on a sandy beach along a small subtropical bay in Japan, on Iriomote-jima Island, was found only above the extreme high water of spring tide, where more cobbles and pebbles were piled by the waves. E. politus is characterised by a relative smaller-sized body and smaller size at sexual maturity, compared to that of Gecarcinidae sensu lato, by adult males showing progressive polymorphism in chelae, and the proportion of heterochelous males, with the size difference between major and minor chelae increasing with growth (Doi et al. 2019). Its reproductive period is shorter and occurs in a cooler season than that of Gecarcinidae sensu lato inhabiting the subtropical islands of the northwest Pacific (Doi et al. 2020).</p><p>According to Ng (pers. comm.), Epigrapsus politus is somewhat similar to the species of Cyclograpsus H. Milne Edwards, 1837 ( Cyclograpsinae H. Milne Edwards, 1853, in Varunidae (in which a new subfamily has recently been recognised, see Muñoz et al. 2025a). They share a water-channelling oblique setose ridge on the ischium and merus of the mxp3, and the presence of setal pouches between the coxae of P2/P3 and P3/P4 (Fig. 11E), but can be distinguished, inter alia, by the epistome (Fig. 11B) and the G1 (Fig. 11D), among other features.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03871F323B7CFE3A22081AA72BB8865A	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.		Plazi	Paula, Danièle Guinot;Rodríguez Moreno, Paula A.	Paula, Danièle Guinot, Rodríguez Moreno, Paula A. (2026): Formal establishment of Gecarcinoidea H. Milne Edwards, 1837 n. stat. (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura), with recognition of two families, Cardisomatidae n. fam. and Gecarcinidae restrict., and new insights on Epigrapsidae Watabe, 2007. Zoosystema 48 (8): 211-271, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2026v48a8, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19370640
03871F323B7EFE3A22311DA62F448399.text	03871F323B7EFE3A22311DA62F448399.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Grapsodes Heller 1865	<div><p>Genus Grapsodes Heller, 1865</p><p>Grapsodes Heller, 1865: 58 . — Kingsley 1880: 188, 197. — Alcock 1900: 440 (key p. 441).</p><p>Mystacocarcinus Hilgendorf, 1888: 26-29 .</p><p>Epigrapsus (Grapsodes) Sendler, 1923: 27 .</p><p>Epigrapsus — Tesch 1918: 132 pro parte. — Türkay 1974a: 248 pro parte. — Ng et al. 1998: 71; 2000: 379 pro parte. — Fujita 2017a: 20, only. — Hartnoll et al. 2017: 939, fig. 3. — Naruse et al. 2018: 208 pro parte.</p><p>TYPE SPECIES. — Grapsodes notatus Heller, 1865 .</p><p>DIAGNOSIS</p><p>Carapace squarish to distinctly wider than long, transversally ovate (larger specimens). Females with more quadrate carapaces. Dorsal surface gently convex to strongly convex, with fairly distinct grooves on large specimens; epigastric cristae prominent and sharp in small specimens, weak and rounded in much larger specimens. In males, tufts of short black setae in small and medium-sized individuals, lost in larger individuals, resulting in a glabrous surface. Anterolateral margins gently convex to strongly arcuate (larger specimens); with three teeth: one external orbital tooth and two epibranchial teeth, variously developed and variably arranged, depending on the size. Posterolateral margins subparallel to more or less converging towards posterior carapace margin (larger specimens). Fronto-orbital border more than half width of carapace. Front entire, deflexed, with two developed inner subfrontal lobes; outer lobes shorter. Antennules folded tranversely; basal article exposed, squarish; article 2 small, only partly visible. Antenna with basal article (2 + 3) squarish; article 4 almost invisible; flagellum bent downwards in orbital hiatus. Proepistome small, dome-shaped; encircled by developed inner frontal lobes. Orbit only basally delimitated, sheltering proximal part of podophtalmite; a pointed tooth at inner angle. External orbital tooth acutely triangular, distinctly separated from anterolateral margin by small but distinct cleft; first epibranchial tooth small but distinct; second epibranchial tooth often low or almost undiscernible (more prominent in smaller specimens). Suborbital margin entire, subparallel to frontal margin, not connected to orbit, inner margin with very low tooth, outer edge ending abruptly. Suborbital ridge long, thin, smooth. Epistome with anterior margin formed by thin concave edges joining medially.Buccal cavity relatively short, almost as broad as long and squarish, not delineated laterally. Mxp3 rather short, leaving distinct rhomboidal median gap when closed; ischium and merus with slight short sulcus, without setose ridge; palp inserted near middle of anterior margin of merus; palp short, with three mobile articles visible externally, all included in the buccal cavity; exopod exposed, slender, with vestigial flagellum. Pterygostomial area very setose, subhepatic area not setose. Pereiopods with tufts of setae in youngs and adults, glabrous in larger individuals. Chelipeds subequal in adult males, chela strongly inflated; fingers slightly shorter than smooth palm, both gaping; dactylus with small proximal tooth; fixed finger with distal tooth. Ambulatory legs relatively slender, second and third legs longest. Sterno-pleonal cavity very deep; its extremity not far from suture 2/3; ridge on sternite 4 faint, surrounding telson only. Male pleon with all somites free, long, edged with thin setae; somite 6 with straight margins; telson long, acutely triangular. Thoracic sternum: sternite 1 spine-like at lower level than sternite 2, with scattered short pubescence not obscuring surface; other sternites glabrous; sternite 2 narrower, with straight margins; sternites 3 and 4 fused, with slightly concave lateral margins; sternite 7 without sulcus. Median line along sternites 8 and 7. Locking structure as largely developed and salient rugose prominence, quite close to suture 4/5 and pleonal socket with calcified border, therefore an apparently functional apparatus. Male gonopore sternal, not very distant from P5. Soft and long setae on P3 and P4 coxae, forming a large setal pouch between P3/P4. G1 relatively elongate, slender; distal part almost straight to distinctly bent inwards (towards median line of thoracic sternum) and with numerous long setae; pectinated part spatuliform, subtruncate. G2 very small, bent. Vulva big, rounded, close to suture 5/6, with salient cover and operculum.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03871F323B7EFE3A22311DA62F448399	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.		Plazi	Paula, Danièle Guinot;Rodríguez Moreno, Paula A.	Paula, Danièle Guinot, Rodríguez Moreno, Paula A. (2026): Formal establishment of Gecarcinoidea H. Milne Edwards, 1837 n. stat. (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura), with recognition of two families, Cardisomatidae n. fam. and Gecarcinidae restrict., and new insights on Epigrapsidae Watabe, 2007. Zoosystema 48 (8): 211-271, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2026v48a8, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19370640
03871F323B7EFE2620AF18E22E7782DE.text	03871F323B7EFE2620AF18E22E7782DE.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Grapsodes notatus (Heller 1865)	<div><p>Grapsodes notatus (Heller, 1865)</p><p>(Figs 3D; 4C; 9C; 12; 13; Table 2)</p><p>Grapsodes notatus Heller, 1865: 58, pl. 5 fig. 2, 2a.</p><p>Mystacocarcinus crenidens Hilgendorf, 1888: 26-29 .</p><p>Epigrapsus notatus punctatus Sendler, 1923: 28 .</p><p>Epigrapsus (Grapsodes) wolfi Sendler, 1923: 28, fig. 3, pl. 21 fig. 4.</p><p>Epigrapsus villosus Ng, 2003: 1219-1227, figs 1-3.</p><p>Epigrapsus notatus — Tesch 1918: 13, pl. 6 fig. 3. — Türkay 1974a: 251, figs 6a, b, 9, 19 (complete synonymy). — Tavares 1989: figs 5, 6. — Ng et al. 1998: 72, figs 1-5. — Cuesta et al. 2002: 1680, fig. 7A, B. — Fujita 2017a: 20, fig. 2; 2017c: 336. — Naruse 2005: 220. — Naruse et al. 2018: 208-216, figs 1-4.</p><p>Epigrapsus politus Guinot et al. 2018: 55 (misidentification). — Huet &amp; Poupin 2020: 661-670, fig. 2 (misidentification).</p><p>MATERIAL EXAMINED. — Upolu • 1♂ (dry; damaged); A. Milne Edwards det. Epigrapsus politus; erroneously indicated as ’Type’ on label; Guinot &amp; Rodríguez Moreno det. Grapsodes notatus; MNHN-IU-2000-10869 (= MNHN-B10869).</p><p>Taiwan • 1♂ 22.7 × 26.9 mm, 1 ♀ 18.1 × 21.8 mm; Hsiang-Chiao-Wan; Checheng; Pingtung County; P. K. L. Ng coll. et det.; X.2012; MNHN-IU-2018-5241 (ex ZRC 2013.0039) .</p><p>Reunion Island • 1 ♂ 13.7 × 16.2 mm, 1♀ 15.3 × 18.7 mm; Manapany-Les-Bains; N. Huet coll.; XI. 2019; N. Huet &amp; J. Poupin det. Epigrapsus politus et leg.; XI.2020; Guinot &amp; Rodríguez Moreno redet. Grapsodes notatus; MNHN-IU-2013-7280 .</p><p>Indonesia • 3♂ 8.2 × 10.2 mm, 9.1 × 11.2 mm, 10.6 × 13.2 mm, 1 ovigerous ♀ 10.7 × 12.9 mm, 1♀ 10.2 × 12.2 mm; Sumatra, Atjeh; De Man det. Epigrapsus politus; revis. Türkay VI.1972; Guinot &amp; Rodríguez Moreno redet. Grapsodes notatus; MNHN-IU-2017-8252 (= MNHN-B12585) .</p><p>Polynesia • 1♀ 13.5 × 17.2 mm; Hikueru; revis. Türkay VI.1972 Epigrapsus politus; Guinot &amp; Rodríguez Moreno redet. Grapsodes notatus; MNHN-IU-2013-19845 (= MNHN-B12584).</p><p>Hawaiian Islands • 2 ♂ (dry), “iles Sandwich ”; A. Milne Edwards det. ‘ Epigrapsus crassus manuscrit’, thus a nomen nudum; Guinot &amp; Rodríguez Moreno det. Grapsodes notatus; MNHN-IU-2000-10872 (= MNHN-B10872).</p><p>DIAGNOSIS</p><p>As for the genus.</p><p>REMARK</p><p>In Grapsodes notatus (Fig. 9F), the female pleon is very wide, as in Gecarcinidae restrict., the telson also, and both leave laterally and more importantly anteriorly a significant sternal space, corresponding to sternite 4. The fringe of setae is moderate, therefore intermediate between the Gecarcinidae restrict. and the Cardisomatidae n. fam.</p><p>GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION</p><p>Nicobar Islands (type locality), Talaut Islands (Moluccas), Papua-New Guinea (Bertrand Island), Solomon Islands, Bismarck Archipelago, Admiral Islands, Bonin (= Ogasawara) Islands, Hachijo Islands (Japan), southern Taiwan, Samoa, Tahiti (type locality), Tuamotu, Caroline Islands, northern Sumatra, Reunion Island, Japan, Christmas Island.</p><p>BIOLOGY</p><p>Grapsodes notatus has totally lost its swimming ability and is a land crab: like members of Gecarcinoidea n. stat., the adults are terrestrial in habit, whereas the larval life takes place in the sea.</p><p>Adult Grapsodes notatus lead a cryptic life. According to Ng et al. (1998, as Epigrapsus notatus), the crabs inhabit sheltered forests with numerous limestone rocks. Three gecarcinid species may be found in the same area, namely Cardisoma hirtipes, Turkayana rotundum and Gecarcoidea lalandii . G. notatus is found in the supralittoral zone, from vegetated sandy shores to sheltered coastal forests, often under large objects (e.g., rocks, wood, etc.) on soft substrates, or in and around burrows under forest cover. The species is not encountered in open fields and is rarely observed outside the forest, even on rainy nights; crabs emerge from their burrows at night or at daytime just after a rain to scavenge leaves and carry them in their burrows; they do not wander far from their burrows, sometimes foraging during the day; ovigerous females prefer to release their larvae inside surge channels where the effects of wave action are weaker than on the exposed shore (Ng et al. 1998; Ho 2003; Liu &amp; Jeng 2005; Shih 2013, as Epigrapsus notatus). The migration of ovigerous females to the sea to release larvae can be as short as the distance from the fringe of the coastal forest to the surf, or as long as several hundred metres. The reproductive season is limited to two lunar months in September and October, a relative short time in comparison with gecarcinoid crabs, and the female shows an unusual larval release behaviour: she shakes her whole body laterally very quickly, without any fanning motion of the pleon, a posture which could reduce the chances of being swept away by waves. Grapsodes notatus is abundant in Japan, where it lives in the crevices or the rock, not far from the beach, where the freshwater is dropping down (Sakai 1954; Ng et al. 2000; Shih 2012; Fujita 2017c, all as Epigrapsus notatus).</p><p>Grapsodes notatus has been discovered in rather unusual environments (Naruse et al. 2018, as Epigrapsus notatus): the small male holotype of Epigrapsus villosus Ng, 2003 (synonymised with G. notatus) came from the entrance of a cave in Guam, situated about 100-200 metres from the shoreline; in northern South China Sea, a young individual has been found under driftwood in the supralittoral zone of Dongsha Island (Shih 2012). In the southern Ryukyus, young and adult forms have been collected from the lower supralittoral zone, under rubble substratum, occasionally splashed with seawater by wave action (Fujita 2017a, as Epigrapsus notatus).</p><p>The setal pouches of Grapsodes notatus (Figs 9F; 12D; 13C), with dense, long tufts of hydrophilic setae, are located at the level of P3/P4 coxae and are attached to the opening of the Müller’s channel (situated between P3 and P4): they function to transport water into the branchial chamber. In contrast, in Epigrapsus politus, there are two setal pouches between P2/P3 and P3/P4, consisting of short setae. These pouches, which are related to semi-terrestrial life, are found in diverse thoracotremes (Wolcott 1984: fig. 2; Greenaway 1988: fig. 7.2B-D in species of Geograpsus Stimpson, 1858; Hartnoll 1988a). Such setal pouches are not found in gecarcinoid land crabs, which are completely terrestrial. Crabs of the family Cardisomatidae n. fam. lack setal tufts (Fig. 5A, C), whereas in Gecarcinidae restrict. crabs have tufts of hydrophilic setae but they are located along the margins of the pleon and at its junction with the carapace (Fig. 5B; Table 1) (Rathbun 1918: figs 163, 165; Greenaway 1988: fig. 7.2.A; Guinot et al. 2025). In species of Gecarcinidae restrict., the most terrestrial, water moves from the substrat to the setal tufts, onto the surface of the pericardial sacs and then to the gills. A Müller’s channel does not exist in this family nor in Cardisomatidae n. fam. (see above, Hydrophilic setae in Gecarcinoidea n. stat.). Instead, in Grapsodes notatus, the presence of a coxal setal pouch between P3/P4 (Figs 12D; 13C), indicating the presence of a Müller’s channel to which the setae of the pouch are attached, is also present in a location similar to the other semi-terrestrial crabs Grapsoidea and Ocypodoidea (see Oliveira 2014): setal pouches at the level of P3/P4 coxae, in Grapsinae such as Geograpsus (see Guinot et al. 2018, Terrestrial adaptation of grapsoids) or in Ocypodinae Rafinesque, 1815, such as Ocypode quadrata (Fabricius, 1787) .</p><p>Grapsodes notatus as well as Epigrapsus politus are not known to stridulate. Yet, there is little doubt that the tuberculated suborbital crest of E. politus, not externally connected to the orbit, could act as a pars stridens, and that the ridge on inner margin of P1 merus could represent a plectrum.</p><p>REMARKS</p><p>The family Epigrapsidae is represented only by Epigrapsus politus and is now monogeneric.</p><p>The genus Grapsodes, which now comprises only G. notatus, is therefore monotypic. It is considered here incertae sedis within Grapsoidea sensu lato. Several morphological characters distinguish E. politus and G. notatus from the Cardisomatidae n. fam. and the Gecarcinidae restrict. (see Tables 1; 2). These taxa should be assigned to the Grapsoidea sensu lato.</p><p>The identification of Epigrapsus politus on the one hand and of Grapsodes notatus on the other exceeds the scope of the present article devoted to the Gecarcinoidea n. stat., and only more in-depth studies will enable their position in the appropriate taxonomic unit to be hypothesized.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03871F323B7EFE2620AF18E22E7782DE	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.		Plazi	Paula, Danièle Guinot;Rodríguez Moreno, Paula A.	Paula, Danièle Guinot, Rodríguez Moreno, Paula A. (2026): Formal establishment of Gecarcinoidea H. Milne Edwards, 1837 n. stat. (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura), with recognition of two families, Cardisomatidae n. fam. and Gecarcinidae restrict., and new insights on Epigrapsidae Watabe, 2007. Zoosystema 48 (8): 211-271, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2026v48a8, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19370640
