Tshudy et al.—New Oligocene lobster from Hungary APPENDIX 1
Alphabetical list of species of Homarus and Hoploparia. Homarus – two Recent (R) and six fossil (F) species
1R. Homarus americanus H. Milne Edwards, 1837.
2R. H. gammarus (Linnaeus, 1758). Schweitzer et al. (2010) listed this species as H. vulgaris H. Milne Edwards, 1837; this is a junior synonym of H. gammarus.
1F. H. benedeni Pelseneer, 1886 (Albian, France). Schweitzer et al. (2010) listed this as Hoploparia benedeni. Tshudy (1993, p. 65) maintained Pelseneer’s (1886) assignment to Homarus as based on very Homarus-like line drawings in the latter paper.
2F. H. hungaricus n. sp. (Oligocene, Hungary).
3F. H. klebsi (Noetling, 1885) (Eocene-Oligocene, northwest Europe). Schweitzer et al. (2010) listed this as Hoploparia klebsi, but Tshudy (1993, p. 68-69) assigned it to Homarus, albeit with reservation. Homarus klebsi is known from beauti- fully preserved and illustrated specimens (drawings in Noetling, 1885). Generic placement is a tough call; claws are like those of
Recent Homarus, but cephalothorax and pleon have aspects fitting either Homarus or Hoploparia (Tshudy, 1993, p. 68). Like Homarus: (1) absence of antennal carina; (2) absence of postantennal spines; (3) lack of sculpture on pleonal terga and pleura; (4) general lack of granulation on exoskeleton. Like Hoploparia: (1) distinct ventral extension of branchiocardiac groove; (2) long, subdorsal carina. Most workers have retained the species in Hoploparia
(Glaessner, 1929; Bachmayer and Mundlos, 1968; Eichbaum, 1971; Förster and Mundlos, 1982; Freess, 1992; Verheyden, 2002; Polkowsky, 2014). Van Straelen (1936) transferred it to Homarus (as did one of us, DT), but he believed there was no difference between Homarus and Hoploparia. Moths and Braasch (2005) referred the species to Homarus, noting the long-standing confusion of the genera but not explaining their generic assignment. Homarus klebsi is a gigantic lobster, possibly synonymous
with Homarus percyi. Reference is made to Moths and Braasch (2005) for a list of synonyms. At least, the coincidence of great size (very unusual among fossil nephropids), claw morphology, and stratigraphic and geographic occurrence indicate that Homarus klebsi and H. percyi are very closely related. Ver- heyden (2002, p. 181-182) found no differences between the claws of the two species.
4F. H. lehmanni (Oligocene, Germany). This species is known by a fragmentary carpus and fragmentary merus (Haas, 1889). Van Straelen (1936) and Verheyden (2002) considered H. lehmanni to be a synonym ofH. percyi. Tshudy (1993, p. 69) maintained Haas’ identification but did not examine the original material. Schweitzer et al. (2010) erroneously had the species double listed, under Homarus and Hoploparia.
5F. H. morrisi (Eocene, southern England). In 1990, one of us, DT, examined type and non-type specimens and supported Quayle’s removal of several specimens from Hoploparia
181
gammaroides from the London Clay of southeast England, based on the general absence of granulation of the exoskeleton, absence of a supraorbital carina, antennal carina, and post- antennal spines, the lack of sculpture on the pleonal terga and pleura, and the very robust morphology of the claws (Tshudy, 1993, p. 70). The species does, however, resemble Hoploparia in having a ventral extension of the branchiocardiac groove.
6F. Homarus percyi (Oligocene, Europe). Schweitzer et al. (2010) listed this as Hoploparia, but Tshudy (1993, p. 71) maintained Van Beneden’s (1872) original placement in Homarus, as did other workers (Delheid, 1895; Van Straelen, 1920, 1936; Geys and Marquet, 1983; Verheyden, 2002); none to our knowledge has moved species percyi to Hoploparia. Reference is made to Verheyden (2002, p. 179) for list of synonyms and possible synonyms. The species is known mostly by its chelipeds, which, being very robust, are better referred to Homarus than Hoploparia. This species is very similar to H. klebsi; the two are unique among all nephropids for their gigantic size and their claw morphology. One Homarus percyi claw is 0.4 meters in length (Van Beneden, 1872).
Hoploparia – 58 fossil species Eocene (n = 6), Oligocene (n = 0), and Miocene (n = 1)
occurrences are indicated because they are most relevant for morphological comparisons to Oligocene Homarus hungaricus n. sp.
1. Hoploparia albertaensis Tshudy, Donaldson, Collom, Feldmann and Schweitzer, 2005
2. H. alpinus (Van Straelen, 1936) – Eocene 3. H. antarctica Wilckens, 1907 4. H. arbei Aguirre-Urreta, 1989 5. H. aspera Harbort, 1905 6. H. bearpawensis Feldmann, in Feldmann, Bishop and Kammer, 1977
7. H. bennetti Woodward, 1900 8. H. beyrichi (Schlüter, 1862) 9. H. biserialis Fritsch, 1887
10. H. blossomana Rathbun, 1935 11. H. brittonestris (Stenzel, 1945). Feldmann et al. (2007) and Schweitzer et al. (2010) listed this as Homarus, but one of us (DT) had referred it to Hoploparia (Tshudy, 1993, p. 103) as based on ornamentation of the cephalothorax and the shape and ornamentation of the claws. We (this paper) agree with Feldmann et al. (2007, p. 702-703) that the species is Homarus-like in lacking a ventral extension of the bran- chiocardiac groove.
12. H. buntingi (Feldmann and Holland Jr, 1971) 13. H. catalunica Garassino, Artal and Pasini, 2009 14. H. collignoni (Van Straelen, 1949) 15. H. columbiana Beurlen, 1938 16. H. corneti Van Straelen, 1921 – Eocene 17. H. davisi (Stenzel, 1945). Feldmann et al. (2007) and Schweitzer et al. (2010) listed this as Homarus, but one of us (DT) had referred it to Hoploparia as based on orna- mentation of the cephalothorax (Tshudy, 1993, p. 109). We agree with Feldmann et al. (2007, p. 702-703), who said that
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
