Tshudy et al.—New Oligocene lobster from Hungary
be referred to Hoploparia” (Tshudy and Sorhannus, 2003, p. 701; supporting details in their paper). 3. Hoploparia is paraphyletic. Cladistic results showed
other nephropid genera scattered throughout the Hoploparia results. To these points, we here add: 4. The range of variation in Hoploparia is inconsistent with
that in Recent genera (i.e., species of Hoploparia are morpho- logically more different from each other than are some other nephropid genera). For example, the modern Thymopides Burukovsky and Averin, 1977, and Thymops Holthuis, 1974 are, in external morphology, more closely similar to each other (seen best in a quick, comparative glance at each, but for details, see Tshudy, 1993) than many species of Hoploparia are to each other. The same is true for Homarus and Homarinus Kornfield, Williams, and Steneck, 1995 (likewise, and details in Tshudy, 1993), and especially Thaumastocheles Wood-Mason, 1874 and Thaumastochelopsis Bruce, 1988. Tshudy and Sorhannus (2003) did not propose a solution to
the problem (i.e., they did not present a revision of Hoploparia in that particular paper, but hoped to stimulate discussion and new characters and cladograms that would lead to a con- sensus and, subsequently, revision). Feldmann et al. (2007, p. 702–703) rebuffed the idea that Hoploparia was a waste- basket genus, noting that they were “struck by how similar the species currently referred to Hoploparia are to one another.” But they did not comment directly on the points (above) made by Tshudy and Sorhannus (2003). Thus, in our opinion, the definition and species composition of Hoploparia remain problematic. It would seem that a consensus from species-level
cladistic analyses would be a reasonable way of dividing the current contents of Hoploparia into smaller groups. We do not believe that a single published cladistic analysis or cluster analysis is a firm enough basis for disrupting the taxonomic stability of fossil lobsters. We cite, as an example of the apparent fallibility of computer analyses, a recently published (Schweitzer and Feldmann, 2014) cluster analysis of extant lobster genera. Among the curious results is that Thaumas- tocheles and Thaumastochelopsis are well separated, and each is paired with a lobster that looks much less like it than does its former family-mate (former family Thaumastocheli- dae). Indeed, Ahyong et al. (2007, p. 206–207) opined that the “differences between Thaumastocheles and Thaumas- tochelopsis are minor, and whether or not both genera should be recognized requires further study.” With results this strange, it seems unreasonable to make sweeping, formal changes to taxonomy on the basis of a single, computerized analysis.
Tshudy (1993) noted that, despite the range of variation
among species of Hoploparia, there were no obvious correla- tions between character states that would make subdividing the genus easy. In other words, he did not (and we do not) see certain spines associated with certain thoracic carinae, etc. Instead, each species of Hoploparia seems like a random sample from a grab bag of character states. Feldmann et al. (2007, p. 703) independently found the same. Comparison of the new species to Miocene (23.03–5.33 Myr) Hoploparia species.—Hoploparia gazdzicki Feldmann
175
and Crame, 1998, from the lower Miocene of Antarctica, is a good Hoploparia that differs from the new species in having a granulose cephalothorax, a much more distinct ventral extension of the branchiocardiac groove, and a pleon with the tergum-pleuron surface separated by a distinct ridge. Comparison of the new species to Eocene
(56–33.9 Myr) Hoploparia species.—Hoploparia alpinus (Van Straelen, 1936) from the lower Upper Eocene (‘Auversien’)of Switzerland is fairly complete and well preserved, and “clearly a Hoploparia” (Tshudy, 1993, p. 73), but we cannot verify species identification without having seen the actual specimen or at least a whitened photograph. Tshudy (1993) was unable to locate the holotype and sole specimen known. Van Straelen (1936) cited ‘Le Musée d’Histoire naturelle de la Ville de Neuchâtel’ as the repository. From the description and photocopied photographs in Van Straelen (1936, figs. 1, 2), Hoploparia alpinus has pleonal pleura 3–5 narrower near the terminations than those of the new species. Hoploparia alpinus also appears to have relatively smaller chelipeds than those on the new species. Chelipeds on the new species are approximately 1.5x longer, or more, than the cephalothorax. Hoploparia corneti Van Straelen, 1921, from the lower
Eocene (Ypresian) of Belgium, is assigned to Hoploparia, based on granulation of the skeleton and the ventral extension of the branchiocardiac groove (Tshudy, 1993, p. 109). Van Straelen (1921, p. 138) wrote that H. corneti most closely resembles H. gammaroides. Tshudy (1993) was unable to locate material during his dissertation work; H. corneti differs from the new species in having granulation and a distinct branchiocardiac groove.
Hoploparia gammaroides M’Coy, 1849, from the lower
Eocene of England and Belgium, is a good Hoploparia that differs from the new species in having a granulose cepha- lothorax and pleonal pleura that are more sickle-shaped/hook- like (see especially pleuron 3 [e.g., NHMUK 59127 and 59118] and with posterior margins more indented). Hoploparia groenlandica Ravn, 1903 has been
recorded from the lower Eocene of Greenland.We have exam- ined a latex cast; cephalothorax, pleon, and claws all support identification as Hoploparia. It differs from the new species in having a distinct ventral extension of the branchiocardiac groove, a carapace surface covered by slightly squamiform granulations, and perhaps a more distinct sculpture (grooves) on the pleon.
Hoploparia johnsoni Rathbun, 1935, from the Middle
Eocene of Alabama, U.S.A., is a good Hoploparia with a granular cephalothorax. It differs from the newspecies in having a granular cephalothorax, a better-defined ventral extension of the branchiocardiac groove, a hepatic spine, some spines on the postantennal region, and a better-defined sculpture (grooves) of the pleon.
Hoploparia wardi Quayle, 1987, from the lower Eocene of
southern England, also is a good Hoploparia with a granular cephalothorax; Quayle removed it from H. gammaroides. It can be differentiated from the new species in having a granular cephalothorax, a hepatic spine, spines on the antennal region, and a more distinct ventral extension of the branchiocardiac groove.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172 |
Page 173 |
Page 174 |
Page 175 |
Page 176 |
Page 177 |
Page 178 |
Page 179 |
Page 180 |
Page 181 |
Page 182 |
Page 183 |
Page 184 |
Page 185 |
Page 186 |
Page 187 |
Page 188 |
Page 189 |
Page 190 |
Page 191 |
Page 192 |
Page 193 |
Page 194 |
Page 195 |
Page 196 |
Page 197 |
Page 198 |
Page 199 |
Page 200 |
Page 201 |
Page 202 |
Page 203 |
Page 204
