Neocallichirus karumba (Poore & Griffin, 1979)

Dworschak, Peter C., 2008, Neocallichirus Kempi Sakai, 1999, A Junior Synonym Of Callianassa Karumba Poore & Griffin, 1979 (Decapoda: Callianassidae), Raffles Bulletin of Zoology 56 (1), pp. 75-84 : 76-83

publication ID	https://doi.org/ 10.5281/zenodo.4508135
persistent identifier	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/214C0874-FFBA-FF8C-FF46-3A57FC563CE0
treatment provided by	Carolina
scientific name	Neocallichirus karumba (Poore & Griffin, 1979)
status

Treatment

( Figs. 1–6 View Fig View Fig View Fig View Fig View Fig View Fig )

Callianassa (Callichirus) maxima – Kemp, 1915: 252, Pl. 13 Figs. 1–5 View Fig View Fig View Fig View Fig View Fig ; de Man, 1928: 29, 92, 112 [new synonymy][not Callianassa maxima A. Milne-Edwards, 1870 ]

Callianassa maxima – Pillai, 1954: 23–26; Daniel, 1981: 193, Pl. 6, textfig. 1, 2 (larvae); Tudge et al., 2000: 143 (list).

Callianassa karumba Poore & Griffin, 1979: 266 , Figs. 30, 31.

Glypturus karumba – Sakai, 1988: 61; Tudge et al., 2000: 137, Fig. 3 View Fig (tree), 144 (list); Davie, 2002: 460.

Neocallichirus karumba – Sakai, 1999: 101; 2005: 180.

Neocallichirus kempi Sakai, 1999: 101 , Fig. 24a–e; 2005: 180 [new synonymy].

Material examined. – Holotype (of Callianassa karumba Poore & Griffin, 1979 ): male (tl 34, cl 8.6) ( AM P24678), Norman River at Karumba [17º19'S 140º50'E], Queensland, Australia, Gulf of Carpentaria prawn survey, beam trawl, CSIRO Fisheries coll. 10 Feb.1964. GoogleMaps

Others: 1 ovigerous female (tl 73, cl 18.6, poor condition), 1 female abdomen ( ZRC 2001.1173 View Materials ), Singapore, no further data, coll. 1960s ; 1 female (tl 90, cl 22.0, carapace damaged ( ZRC 2002.0274 View Materials ), Singapore, Lim Chu Kang, A. Anker et al. coll. with yabby pump 14 Jan.2002 ; 1 male (tl 66, cl 17.4) ( ZRC 2002.0275 View Materials ), same data as ZRC 2002.0274 ; 1 male (tl 39, cl 10.0, left major cheliped missing), 1 female (tl 32, cl 8.8) ( ZRC 2002.0276 View Materials ), same data as ZRC 2002.0274 ; 1 female (tl 30, cl 9.0) ( NHMW 21897 View Materials ), same data as ZRC 2002.0274 ; 1 male (tl 63, cl 17.8) ( QM W10245), Papua New Guinea, estuary near Lea [9º16'60"S, 146º58'60"E], N. Quinn coll. 23 Sep.1981 GoogleMaps ; 1 male (tl 50, cl 14.5, right major cheliped missing) ( QM W10240), Papua New Guinea, estuary near Lea, N. Quinn coll. 2 Nov.1981 ; 1 female (tl 100, cl 24), 1 female (tl 56, cl 15.5, major cheliped missing) ( MNHN Th-1511), western coast of central Taiwan, coll. 4 Feb.1992 ; 1 female (tl 100, cl 24.5), 1 female (tl 76, cl 19.8, both cheliped missing), 1 male (tl 55, cl 14.8), 1 female (tl 38, cl 11.2), 1 male (tl 36, cl 11.5, both chelipeds missing), 1 male (tl 37, cl 10, both cheliped missing), 1 male (tl 32, cl 8.8) ( MNHN Th-1512), western coast of central Taiwan, coll. 20 Jan.1992 , det. (as Callichirus cf. maximus ) M. de Saint Laurent; 1 male (tl ca 90, cl 21.4, damaged, minor cheliped missing) ( NHMW 21936 View Materials ex NTOU 00014 View Materials ), Taiwan, Changhua County, Lugang , [24.06ºN 120.43ºE], sand, M.S. Hung coll. 1 Dec.1991 GoogleMaps ; 1 female (tl 90, cl 22.3) (part of NTOU 00089 View Materials ), Taiwan, Changhua County, Shengang , [24.15ºN 120.51ºE], sand, F.J. Lin coll. 20 Jan.1998 GoogleMaps ; 1 male (tl 30, cl 8.2), 1 male (tl 88, cl 22.4) ( NHMW 21937 View Materials ), Taiwan, Changhua County, Shengang , [24.15ºN 120.51ºE], S. H. Peng. coll. 11 May 1999 GoogleMaps ; 1 female (cl 26, abdomen from 4th abdominal somite on missing) ( NHMW 21938 View Materials ex NTOU 00159 View Materials ), Taiwan, Changhua County, Shengang , [24.15ºN 120.51ºE], S. H. Peng. coll. 1 Dec.2000 GoogleMaps ; 1 male (tl 65, cl 17.6), 1 female (tl 64, cl 17.4), 1 male (tl 48, cl 13.1), 1 male (tl 42, cl 12.8) ( MNHN Th-

500), Bangkok ( Siam) [ Thailand], M. Harmand coll. 1882, det. (as

Callichirus maximus ) M. de Saint Laurent, 1976.

Diagnosis. – Dorsally, carapace as long as abdominal somites 1 and 2 combined ( Figs. 1a View Fig , 3a View Fig ). Rostrum triangular and acute, reaching from 1/4 to 1/2 visible length of eyestalks ( Figs. 1a, b View Fig , 2a, b, m, n View Fig , 3a, b, j View Fig , 4a, f, g View Fig , 5a, b, i, j View Fig , 6a, f, g View Fig ). Lateral projections of carapace obsolete. Carapace lacking cardiac prominence and dorsal carina; dorsal oval distinctly marked posteriorly by deep transverse cardiac furrow, the latter extending anteroventrally to either side above linea thalassinica as shallow groove marking posterior half of dorsal oval. Frontal margin of carapace continued ventrolaterally beyond intersection with linea thalassinica as thickened oblique ridge ending anteriorly at prominent hepatic boss. Subantennular region of epistome bearing dense tuft of long setae.

Eyestalks reaching to or beyond basal antennal article; shape and size of cornea variable (see below).

Antennular peduncle thicker, but only 0.8 to 0.9 times as long as antennal peduncle (i.e. Fig. 1a View Fig , 6f View Fig ); second article slightly longer than basal article; terminal article 1.5 times as long as second.

Antennal peduncle with basal article with dorsolateral carina forming lip above excretory pore; second article ventrally with large suture; third article elongate, as long as basal and second article combined; fourth article narrower, 1.3 times as long as third article.

Third maxilliped ( Figs. 1g View Fig , 2g, q View Fig , 3f View Fig , 4j View Fig , 5 f View Fig ) with small, naked, rudimentary exopod and large endopod; one welldeveloped and one reduced arthrobranch; endopodal ischium 1.4 times as long as broad, mesial surface with row of teeth (crista dentata); merus subtriangular, as long as broad; carpus longer than broad; propodus ovoid, slightly broader than long; dactylus narrow, arcuate.

Major cheliped ( Figs. 1c, d View Fig , 2e, f, o, p View Fig , 3c, d, k, l View Fig , 4 b, c, h, i View Fig , 5c, d, k, l View Fig , 6b, c View Fig ) located on either right or left side of body, shape and ornamentation variable depending on size and slightly sexually dimorphic (see below). Ischium 2.6 times as long as broad, inferior margin with row of teeth; merus with strong teeth, largest proximally on inferior margin; carpus with straight superior and convex inferior margin; propodus with low keel in proximal 2/3 of superior margin, inferior margin of palm serrated; fixed finger slightly curved, large triangular tooth with denticulated upper margin proximally below articulation of dactylus; dactylus curved, about as long as fixed finger.

Minor cheliped ( Figs. 1f View Fig , 3e, m View Fig , 5e View Fig , 6d View Fig ) sparsely armed, ischium with row of minute denticles on inferior margin; merus unarmed, with rounded superior and inferior margins; carpus more than twice as long as high; palm of propodus 0.5 time length of carpus, fixed finger as long as palm, triangular; dactylus slightly curved; cutting edges of fixed finger and dactylus with small round corneous denticles. Tips of both fixed fingers and dactylus corneous.

THE RAFFLES BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGY 2008 THE RAFFLES BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGY 2008

THE RAFFLES BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGY 2008

Third pereopod ( Figs. 1h View Fig , 2h, r View Fig , 3g, n View Fig , 5 m View Fig , 6 e, h View Fig ) propodus rhomboidal, heeled.

Abdomen 2.5 times as long as carapace ( Figs. 1a View Fig , 2m View Fig , 3a View Fig ); dorsal length ratio (along midline) of first to sixth abdominal somites 1.0: 1.45: 0.85: 0.8: 0.8: 1.2 [holotype].

Male first pleopod consisting of two articles ( Figs. 1i View Fig , 3h View Fig , 4d, k View Fig , 5n View Fig , 6i View Fig ); second article 0.5 times length of first, with a deep notch at the end of the mesially curved apex. Female first pleopod simple ( Figs. 2i, s, t View Fig , 3o View Fig , 5g View Fig ), consisting of two articles; terminal article with shoulder at midlength.

Male second pleopod biramous ( Fig. 4l View Fig ), well-demarcated appendix masculina reaching beyond distal part of endopod, small appendix interna mesially on appendix masculina ( Figs. 1j View Fig , 3i View Fig , 4e View Fig , 5o View Fig , 6j View Fig ). Female second pleopod biramous ( Figs. 2j, u View Fig , 3p, q View Fig ), endopod with appendix interna ( Fig. 5h View Fig ).

Third to fifth pleopods with appendix interna embedded in mesial margin of endopod ( Fig. 2k, l View Fig ).

Telson ( Figs. 1a View Fig , 3a View Fig ) 1.5 times as broad as long, broadest proximally, lateral and posterior margins continuous. Uropodal endopod twice as long as telson, lanceolate, about twice as long as wide. Uropodal exopod longer than endopod, with anterodorsal plate.

Embryos between 1.09 and 1.23 mm in diameter.

Variations. – This species shows some variable characters which appear related to growth. In small specimens the eyestalks are triangular in dorsal and lateral view, the cornea situated dorsomesially, occupying 0.5 to 0.75 times eyestalk width ( Figs. 1a View Fig , 2n View Fig , 3j View Fig , 6a, f View Fig ); in large specimens the eyestalks are widened proximally, forming a lateral ridge, tapering distally, sometimes with a tubercle dorsally near the tip, the cornea is situated dorsally, occupying only 0.2 to 0.3 times eyestalk width ( Figs. 2c, d View Fig , 3a, b View Fig , 4a View Fig , 5a, j View Fig ). The relatively large cornea in a small specimen (tl 15 mm) compared to the small cornea in a large specimen (tl 80 mm) was also noted for materials from India ( Kemp, 1915: 256).

In large animals the dorsal oval has a distinct tubercle on each side of anterior third ( Figs. 2a, b View Fig , 3a, j View Fig , 4a View Fig ); these are missing in small specimens ( Figs. 1a, b View Fig , 2m View Fig , 4f, g View Fig ). The propodus of P3 is 1.8 to 2.4 times as long as high in small specimens ( Figs. 1h View Fig , 2r View Fig , 3n View Fig , 6h View Fig ); in large specimens this ratio ranges between 2.6 and 3.6 ( Figs. 2h View Fig , 3g View Fig , 5m View Fig , 6e View Fig ). The propodus thus appears more heeled in large specimens than in small ones.

Generally, major chelipeds of small specimens (tl <40) have the merus about two times as long as high; the carpus is as long as high; all surfaces are smooth except for a few low tubercles on the lateral face of the propodus below the articulation with the dactylus; the cutting edges of both the fixed finger and the dactylus have a row of corneous teeth and the tips are corneous ( Figs. 1c, d View Fig , 2o, p View Fig , 3k, l View Fig , 4h, i View Fig ). In large specimens (tl> 40), the major cheliped has a merus which is 2 to 3 times as long as high, the proximal tooth on the inferior margin pronounced and bi- to trifid; the carpus is 1.4 to 2.2 times as high as long, undulated on the posterior margin; the palm of the propodus is between 2 and 3 times as long as the carpus and as high as long, the fixed finger and the dactylus show corneous teeth only on the proximal 1/3 of the cutting edges ( Figs. 2e, f View Fig , 3d, c View Fig ) or are completely missing ( Figs. 4b, c View Fig , 5c, d, k, l View Fig , 6b, c View Fig ). In small specimens, cheliped size does not differ very much between sexes (compare Fig. 2o, p View Fig with Fig. 4h, i View Fig ). In large specimens (cl> 20), male chelipeds have a longer and higher propodus

THE RAFFLES BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGY 2008

than females of the same size (compare Fig. 5c, d View Fig with 5k, l). The lateral surfaces of ischium and merus show tuberculated ridges with low tubercles near the inferior margins; the propodus has numerous low tubercles proximally to the fixed finger and near the inferior margin, and the dactylus a few tubercles proximally ( Figs. 2e View Fig , 3c View Fig , 4b View Fig , 5 c, k View Fig , 6b View Fig ). The mesial surfaces of merus, carpus and propodus are tuberculated in a variable density and pattern ( Figs. 2f View Fig , 3d View Fig , 4c View Fig , 5d, l View Fig , 6c View Fig ). The cutting edge of the dactylus is either straight and minutely denticulated ( Figs. 3c, d View Fig , 5c, d View Fig ) or shows two larger round tooth, for example in the largest males ( Figs. 4b, c View Fig , 5k, l View Fig ). Only these males show also a deep incision in the propodus below the dactylus articulation.

The pleopods are also variable. Plp 1 in females is quite simple in small specimens ( Fig. 3o View Fig ); a prominent shoulder on the distal article is visible only in large females (i.e. Fig. 2i View Fig ). The Plp2 of females are quite uniform, except for the ovigerous one (ZRC 2001.1173), where the basis was expanded mesially ( Fig. 3q View Fig ). In males, the Plp1 of small individuals (tl <40) shows a bifid terminal article ( Figs. 1i View Fig , 4k View Fig ), whereas this article has a deep notch at the end of the mesially-curved apex in large specimens ( Figs. 3h View Fig , 4d View Fig ). The Plp2 of males shows an appendix masculina with a clearly demarcated appendix interna throughout the entire size range. In small males, the appendix masculina is situated distally on the endopod and distally bears the appendix interna ( Fig. 1j View Fig ), whereas in large males the appendix masculina is situated distomesially on the endopod and the appendix interna mesially on the appendix masculina ( Figs. 3i View Fig , 4e View Fig ).

Size. – Materials studied here range in size from tl 30 to 100 and cl 8.2 to 26. Reports from the literature are from tl 15 ( Kemp, 1915) to tl 131/cl 30 ( Sakai, 1999).

Habitat. – In Singapore, the specimens were collected from firm sand near the mangrove system of Lim Chu Kang. Burrow openings were characterised by a small mound or a simple hole, often surrounded by lighter sediment (A. Anker, pers. comm.). In Taiwan, the specimens were found in small numbers in muddy-sandy tidal flats dominated by the upogebiid Austinogebia edulis (Ngoc-Ho & Chan, 1992)(T.-Y. Chan, pers. comm.). In India, this species has been found in soft muddy sand at salinities between 15 and 36 ppm ( Kemp, 1915). Daniel (1981) reported this species as a pest in saltpans in India.

Distribution. – Australia, Norman River, Karumba, Queensland (type locality of C. karumba Poore & Griffin, 1979 ); Papua New Guinea, estuary near Lea (this study); Taiwan, Changhua County, Shengang and Lugang (this study); Singapore, Lim Chu Kang (this study); Bangka, Indonesia (type locality of N. kempi Sakai, 1999 ); Bangkok, Thailand (this study); Voyalur, Chingleput District, Tamil Nadu and Manginapudi, Krishna District, Andra Pradesh, India ( Daniel, 1981); Nalbano Island and Barhampur Island, Chilka Lake and near Madras, India ( Kemp, 1915); Kayamkulam Lake, Central Travancore, India ( Pillai, 1954); N. Parur, Travancore, India ( Sakai, 1999).

Remarks. – The description of C. karumba by Poore & Griffin (1979) is brief but sufficient to recognise the species. It is not surprising that these authors described a new species for a juvenile specimen of what Kemp (1915) at that time considered as C. maxima . The chelipeds of the latter have been figured based only on large specimens, although Kemp (1915: 256) mentioned in the text that the cheliped of the juvenile specimen (tl 15) has a longer than broad carpus and that “the surface of the entire limb is smooth and polished”. In addition, all authors before Sakai (1999) did not mention the vestigial exopod on Mxp3. Comparison of the type of C. karumba ( Fig. 1 View Fig ) with small specimens from Taiwan and Singapore ( Figs. 2 View Fig m–u, 3j–p, 4f–l) clearly shows that they represent the same species.

In Sakai’s (1999: 94) key to the species of Indo-Pacific members of Neocallichirus , both species key out at couplet 17. The further distinction is rather arbitrary: for N. kempi numerous characters are listed, among others “chela of larger cheliped...broadly concave at proximal corner of fixed finger”, while for N. karumba the chela of the larger cheliped is said to be “narrowly concave”. In view of the highly variable shape of the chelipeds within the Callianassidae , such a character is certainly not suitable to differentiate between species.

The major cheliped of the holotype, however, is damaged either due to an earlier intraspecific encounter, to collection or to an unsuccessful attempt to open the claw of the preserved animal. The dactylus is squeezed at midlength and thus distorted, crossing with the fixed finger laterally ( Fig. 1e View Fig ) instead of mesially as in all other major chelipeds studied. The cutting edges have been abraded, but traces of the corneous teeth are still detectable at higher magnification.

There is some confusion with respect to the generic placement of this species (see synonymy above). It does not fit the description of Glypturus Stimpson, 1856 (sensu Manning, 1987) because the front of the carapace lacks the lateral spines marked by a noncalcified membrane proximally and both major and minor chelipeds lack the spines on the upper border of the propodus. It also has some similarities with Lepidophthalmus (sensu Manning & Felder, 1991) with its rostral projection, a minute exopod on Mxp3 and the shape of the uropods, but differs in that: 1) the A1 peduncles are shorter than those of A2; 2) the major P 1 in males lacks a meral hook; and 3) it lacks the bilobed propodus of P3 characteristic for all species of that genus (pers. obs.). The genus Neocallichirus Sakai, 1988 was originally defined – and later amended – by a Mxp3 without exopod. Sakai (1999, 2005), however, placed both species ( N. kempi and N. karumba ) possessing an exopod on Mxp3 into Neocallichirus . This generic placement is tentatively followed here.