2urn:lsid:arphahub.com:pub:45048D35-BB1D-5CE8-9668-537E44BD4C7Eurn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:91BD42D4-90F1-4B45-9350-EEF175B1727AZooKeysZK1313-29891313-2970Pensoft Publishers10.3897/zookeys.858.3382633826Research ArticleAnimaliaDecapodaPortunidaeMolecular systematicsNomenclaturePhylogenySystematicsTaxonomyAsiaAustraliaChina SeasIndian OceanJapanPacific OceanSingaporeTaiwanThailandVietnamWestern AustraliaResolution of the Portunusgladiator species complex: taxonomic status and identity of Monomiagladiator (Fabricius, 1798) and Monomiahaanii (Stimpson, 1858) (Brachyura, Decapoda, Portunidae)WindsorAmanda M.amanda.windsor@fda.govhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-5192-70471MendozaJose Christopher E.https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9729-57032DeedsJonathan R.1United States Food and Drug Administration, Office of Regulatory Science, 5001 Campus Dr. College Park, MD 20740United States Food and Drug AdministrationCollege ParkUnited States of AmericaLee Kong Chian Natural History Museum, Faculty of Science, National University of Singapore, 2 Conservatory Drive, 117377 SingaporeNational University of SingaporeSingaporeSingapore
Corresponding author: Amanda M. Windsor (amanda.windsor@fda.gov)
Academic editor: Sammy De Grave
20190107201985811439344152A-FFCB-1E21-FFC9-FFB7FFBCDD7832E15439-8D09-49E2-8DCC-94C0C3AC6F7F32735951202201905052019This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC0 Public Domain Dedication.http://zoobank.org/32E15439-8D09-49E2-8DCC-94C0C3AC6F7F
The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has recently adopted DNA barcoding for the purpose of determining the species identity of commercial seafood products. This effort has revealed instances of incongruence between current scientifically accepted taxon names and those utilized by the seafood industry in product labelling. One such case is that of “Portunushaanii”, a name utilized by the seafood industry to label commercial products under the market name “red swimming crab.” However, carcinologists currently regard P.haanii as synonym of Portunusgladiator Fabricius, 1798, which itself is the subject of debate over whether it is a secondary homonym of Cancer gladiator Fabricius, 1793. Further complicating matters, DNA barcode sequences from commercial products match GenBank sequences identified as Portunuspseudoargentatus Stephenson, 1961. Here the complicated taxonomic history of the Portunusgladiator complex is reviewed and a resolution proposed based on combined morphological descriptions and molecular phylogenetic analyses. It is demonstrated that, given the provisions of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature and the current elevation of Monomia Gistel, 1848, to full genus rank, its type species, Portunusgladiator Fabricius, 1798, should be treated as a valid and available taxon name. It is also shown, upon examination and comparison of types and topotypic material that Monomiahaanii (Stimpson, 1858) is a distinct taxon from M.gladiator, and Portunuspseudoargentatus Stephenson, 1961, is a junior subjective synonym of M.haanii (Stimpson, 1858). Furthermore, it is shown that crab meat sold in the US currently labeled as “Portunushaanii” and/or “red swimming crab” is in fact M.haanii using comparative analysis of DNA barcode sequences between museum-vouchered reference specimens, whole crabs provided directly by a seafood importer, and processed commercial products purchased at retail.
Windsor AM, Mendoza JCE, Deeds JR (2019) Resolution of the Portunus gladiator species complex: taxonomic status and identity of Monomia gladiator (Fabricius, 1798) and Monomia haanii (Stimpson, 1858) (Brachyura, Decapoda, Portunidae). ZooKeys 858: 11–43. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.858.33826
Introduction
The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has adopted DNA barcoding for the purpose of species identification to assure the accurate labelling of seafood products as well as to address issues with species substitution and fraud (Handy et al. 2011; Eischeid et al. 2016). This effort has identified instances of incongruence between currently accepted taxon names and the names utilized by industry in product labelling. At the same time that FDA was beginning to build its reference library of decapod crustacean DNA standards (Food and Drug Administration 2017), species substitution of brachyuran crabs was highlighted by a survey of crab cakes from restaurants in the Maryland / Washington, DC metropolitan area (Warner et al. 2015). DNA testing from that survey of products advertised by restaurants to contain crabmeat only from “local” Callinectessapidus Rathbun, 1896, revealed at least one of six species of substituted portunoid crab in 38% of the crab cakes tested (Warner et al. 2015). According to the report, the most commonly detected substitute species was Portunuspelagicus (Linnaeus, 1758) followed by P.pseudoargentatus Stephenson, 1961, and P.sanguinolentus (Herbst, 1783). The reported DNA match to P.pseudoargentatus was of particular interest to Warner et al. (2015) who noted that this species was, at the time, not included in the FDA Guide to Acceptable Market Names for Seafood Sold in Interstate Commerce (The Seafood List) (Food and Drug Administration 2012) nor in the FAO fishery species list (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations 2010–2018), raising concern that this species was unknown to regulators. As a result, in addition to the existing entry for P.haanii, P.pseudoargentatus was added to The Seafood List in 2015 (Food and Drug Administration 2015). Concerns over an unknown species that was apparently common in the US food supply led us to further investigate the identity of P.pseudoargentatus and its close relatives within the Portunusgladiator species complex to determine their relationship to what was currently being harvested and marketed as “P.haanii” and/or “red swimming crab.”
At the time of the study by Warner et al. (2015), only three sequences from three loci belonging to one specimen identified as “Portunuspseudoargentatus (ZMMU Ma 3368),” which was collected from Nhatrang Bay, Vietnam, had been deposited in GenBank (JX398121, JX398079, JX398094) (Spiridonov et al. 2014). Further complicating matters, there is a set of DNA barcode sequences (BOLD: AAO6694) identified as “Portunushaanii” from the Coral Sea in the Barcode of Life Database (BOLD), which led to more uncertainty about the true identity of crabs in the US seafood supply. The specimens in question, which are deposited in the Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle (MNHN) in Paris under the revised name of P.gladiator (MNHN-IU-2008-12570-77), have since been examined by one of the present authors (AMW) and confirmed to be neither P.gladiator nor P.pseudoargentatus, but morphologically and genetically closer to Monomialucida Koch and Ďuriš, 2017. Portunushaanii was included on the FDA Seafood List prior to this study without knowledge that P.haanii is currently an unaccepted species name, having been synonymized under P.gladiator Fabricius, 1798 (Stephenson and Cook 1973, Ng et al. 2008).
Within the seafood industry, Portunushaanii and/or “red swimming crab” is the species/market name used for crabs harvested extensively from China and Vietnam (Monterey Bay Aquarium Seafood Watch 2013; Fishsource 2016). Photographs identified as P.haanii on websites advertising “Portunushaanii” (e.g., Fishsource 2016; Alibaba.com 2018) bear a striking resemblance to the color photograph of “Portunuspseudoargentatus (ZMMU Ma 3368)” (Chertoprud et al. 2012: pl. 51 fig. H) and Stephenson’s (1961) original description of P.pseudoargentatus. The names Portunusgladiator and Portunuspseudoargentatus were not found associated with any specific crabmeat products in neither our on-line searches nor our discussions with industry representatives.
Taxonomic history
The taxonomy of the Portunusgladiator complex is so convoluted that it makes a chronologically arranged taxonomic history difficult to compile. Here, we present the significant taxonomic actions for P.gladiator, P.haanii, and P.pseudoargentatus.
Fabricius (1798) described a swimming crab collected from “Oceano Asiatico Dom. Daldorff” (probably Tranquebar, India; see Ng et al. 2008), which he named Portunusgladiator, based on an unspecified quantity of specimens. Fabricius (1798: 368) gave a brief description in Latin, stating: “P. thorace tomentoso utrinque novemdentato: dente postico maiore, minibus sanguineo maculatis. Habitat in Oceano Asiatico Dom. Daldorff. Praecedentibus affinis at minor. Thorax holosericeus, parum inaequalis, hine inde scaber. Chelae sanguineo maculatae digitis apice dentibusque albis.”
Previously, however, Fabricius (1793) had given the same specific epithet to a different species of swimming crab (from “Nova Hollandia” = Australia), Cancer gladiator. Fabricius (1793: 449) provided this description: “C. thorace laevi: lateribus octodentatis, postico maximo, minibus angulatis. Cancer hastatus. Mant. Ins. r. 319. 34. Habitat in Nova Hollandia Mus. Dom. Banks. Minutus pullo modo Cancer hastatus Linnaei. Palmae anticae bidentatae, chelae angulatae. Palmae posticae angulatae.”
Latreille (1825) in his treatment of Portunus, considered Cancer gladiator Fabricius, 1793, a junior synonym of Portunussanguinolentus (Herbst, 1783), and clearly also considered Portunusgladiator Fabricius, 1798, to be a distinct species. From this point on, it appears that the name “Portunusgladiator” has been almost exclusively associated with the species described in 1798. Stephenson and Cook (1973) would later accept Latreille’s (1825) synonymization and selected a male specimen of P.sanguinolentus from Queensland, Australia (QM W3683) to be the neotype of C.gladiator Fabricius, 1793, in order to stabilize its taxonomy.
De Haan (1833) then established the subgenus Portunus (Amphitrite), to which Miers (1886) subsequently designated Neptunus (Amphitrite) gladiator (Fabricius, 1798), as its type species. Prior to Miers’ action, however, Gistel (1848) had proposed a replacement name, Portunus (Monomia), for this subgenus as the name Amphitrite had been previously used for a polychaete annelid genus, viz. Amphitrite Müller, 1771. By virtue of these, Portunusgladiator Fabricius, 1798, is the type species of Portunus (Monomia) Gistel, 1848.
Stimpson (1858) gave the name Amphitritehaanii to a species from Tanegashima and Kagoshima, Japan and the ‘China Seas, above 23°N latitude,’ previously identified by De Haan (1833, 1835) as Portunus (Amphitrite) gladiator (Fabricius, 1798). Stimpson (1858: 38) wrote: “Amphitrite Haanii. A.gladiator, De Haan; loc. cit. p. 29, pl. i. f. 5. (v ix L.gladiator, M. Edwards.) In mari Sinensi, lat. bor. 23°; ad insulam ‘Tanegasima’; et in sinu ‘Kagosima’; in fundis arenosis prof. 12-20 org.”
As Stimpson (1858) had material from Japan and also referred to De Haan’s (1833) citations of the species as P. (A.) gladiator, all of Stimpson’s and De Haan’s specimens are effectively syntypes. Later, Stimpson (1907: 79) provided a slightly more detailed explanation, clearly opining that De Haan’s (1833, 1835) Japanese P.gladiator was a distinct species from H. Milne Edwards’ (1834)Lupeagladiator (= P.gladiator Fabricius, 1798) from the Indian Ocean. There are 53 extant syntypes of Amphitritehaanii in the collection of the Naturalis Biodiversity Center in Leiden as recorded by Yamaguchi and Baba (1993), and among these they selected a male specimen (RMNH 379, CW = 42 mm, CL = 24 mm, C. Fransen pers. comm.) to be the lectotype.
Stephenson (1961) described Portunuspseudoargentatus based on one male specimen from the Abrolhos Islands, off the western coast of Australia. He cited differences in the morphology of the male 6th pleomere and male gonopod 1 (G1) between P.gladiator and the new species. Crosnier (1962) in his treatment of the swimming crabs of Madagascar commented on the confusion in the identities of specimens from various localities labelled as “P.gladiator.” He highlighted the differences in the morphology of the male 6th pleomere and G1, wherein P.pseudoargentatus tends to have the male 6th pleomere with less sinuous lateral borders, and the G1 more greatly bent in the middle (midlength) compared to P.gladiator. He also referred to Japanese material that he examined to P.pseudoargentatus, apparently not considering Stimpson’s (1858, 1907) earlier reports on P.haanii.
Stephenson and Cook (1973) did an extensive study on the Portunusgladiator complex, and they argued that, with both being then classified in the genus Portunus, P.gladiator Fabricius, 1798, effectively became a secondary homonym of P.gladiator (Fabricius, 1793) (= P.sanguinolentus), and a replacement name was needed. They went on to suggest Amphitritehaanii Stimpson, 1858, as the earliest available replacement name, eliminating an earlier name, Cancer menestho Herbst, 1803, on the basis of a difference in colouration and in the armature of the cheliped merus in the illustration of the latter (viz. Herbst, 1803:pl. 55 fig. 3). They also considered Portunuspseudoargentatus Stephenson, 1961, as a junior synonym of Portunushaanii (Stimpson, 1858). Additionally, Stephenson and Cook (1973) described aberrant “forms” within P.haanii, on the basis of the G1 morphology (e.g., “normal” vs. “unusual” specimens; viz. Stephenson and Cook 1973: figs 6, 7). These “unusual” specimens were two crabs from the Bay of Jeddo, Japan, and the holotype of P.pseudoargentatus. They did not, however, take steps to formally distinguish these forms as separate species, subscribing instead to the concept of “Portunushaanii” as a morphologically variable species.
Ng et al. (2008: 156, 157) provided a detailed account on the nomenclature of Fabricius’ two species with the epithet gladiator, essentially stating that, contrary to Stephenson and Cook (1973), there is no secondary homonymy unless Cancer gladiator is considered a distinct species from Portunussanguinolentus: “… as Cancer gladiator Fabricius, 1793, is regarded as a junior synonym of Portunussanguinolentus (Herbst, 1783), the name ‘Portunusgladiator (Fabricius, 1793)’ has not been recognized or used anywhere. This being the case, there is no homonymy with Portunusgladiator Fabricius, 1798, and this name should remain available for use under the Code. The issue of secondary homonymy will only arise if Cancer gladiator Fabricius, 1793, is regarded as a valid species of Portunus distinct from Portunussanguinolentus (Herbst, 1783). If this were to happen (for example, if the widespread P.sanguinolentus was to prove to be a complex of several cryptic species), then the name Portunusgladiator Fabricius, 1798, would have to be replaced by the next available name…”. Ng et al. (2008), however, maintained the synonymy of Portunusgladiator and Amphitritehaanii, while still considering Portunuspseudoargentatus a valid species.
Chertoprud et al. (2012) in their report on the commercially valuable brachyuran species of Vietnam, commented that Stephenson and Cook’s (1973) mention of “Portunusgladiator (Fabricius, 1793)” was sufficient to activate Article 59 of the Code (ICZN 1999), which therefore necessitated the use of Portunushaanii (Stimpson, 1858) as a replacement name for Portunusgladiator Fabricius, 1798.
As things stand, the issue on the validity of the names “Portunusgladiator” and “Portunushaanii” has not been satisfactorily settled. Recent publications on the systematics of Portunidae have bolstered the concept of Monomia Gistel, 1848, as a valid genus-level taxon distinct from Portunus, but these have also shown that the problem with the taxonomy of the type species, M.gladiator (Fabricius, 1798), and its closely related congeners, M.haanii (Stimpson, 1859) and M.pseudoargentata (Stephenson, 1961), remains unresolved (Chertoprud et al. 2012; Spiridonov et al. 2014; Koch et al. 2017; Koch and Ďuriš 2018). This problem, unless addressed, is expected to have wide-ranging consequences on the taxonomy of Monomia. As such, the identities of M.gladiator, M.haanii, and M.pseudoargentata need to be firmly established.
An integrative approach with morphological and molecular phylogenetic analyses was undertaken to resolve and stabilise the taxonomy of the Portunusgladiator (=Monomiagladiator) complex. The molecular results of the morphologically verified and vouchered reference specimens, which included whole specimens from Asian fish ports and a seafood importer, were then used as standards to identify the contents of cans of pasteurized lump crabmeat labeled as “Portunushaanii” and/or “red swimming crab” through comparative analysis of DNA barcode sequences.
Materials and methodsTaxonomic methods
Materials examined are deposited at the US National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution (USNM); Florida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida (UF); Western Australian Museum (WAM); and Lee Kong Chian Natural History Museum, National University of Singapore (ZRC). These included the holotype of Portunuspseudoargentatus (WAM-C7506), as well as crabs purchased at fish ports in India, Thailand, and Taiwan, and whole crabs identified by a US seafood importer as “Portunushaanii.” Photographs of the type specimens of Portunusgladiator and Amphitritehaanii, housed at Zoological Museum at the University of Copenhagen (ZMUC) and Naturalis Biodiversity Center, Leiden (RMNH), respectively, were also examined. Details on all specimens utilized in morphological examinations are provided in the material examined subsection of the taxonomic account below. The morphological terminology largely follows Wee and Ng (1995) and Apel and Spiridonov (1998). The following abbreviations are used:
CL carapace length, taken along the dorsal midline from the tips of the frontal teeth to the posterior margin of the carapace;
CW carapace maximum width, taken at the level of its widest point;
P1–P5 first to fifth pereopods, respectively (P1, chelipeds; P2–P5, first to fourth ambulatory legs);
G1, G2 first and second male pleopods, respectively.
The term, pleomere (first to sixth), here refers to the six somites of the pleon. When possible, DNA was extracted from the specimens utilized for the morphological studies. Details on all specimens utilized in the molecular phylogenetic component of this study are given in Table 1, Nomenclatural decisions are based on the provisions of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, here referred to as “the Code” (ICZN 1999).
Material examined in molecular analyses with details on voucher identification numbers, sex, country in which the specimen was collected, the fish port or body of water, and pertinent GenBank Accession Numbers. Voucher ID abbreviations: IOM= Institute of Oceanology and Museum, Nha Trang; MNHN= Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris; NHMUK= The Natural History Museum, London; UF= University of Florida Natural History Museum, Gainesville; UO= University of Ostrava, Ostrava; USNM= United States National Museum, National Museum of Natural History, Washington, D.C.; WAM= Western Australian Museum, Perth; ZMMU= Zoological Museum of the Moscow University, Moscow; ZRC= Zoological Reference Collection, Lee Kong Chian Natural History Museum, Singapore.
Taxon name
Voucher ID
Sex
Country
Port/Body of Water
GenBank Accession Numbers
12S
16S
COI
Monomiagladiator
ZRC 2016.0145
M
India
Pazhayar Fish Landing, Bay of Bengal
MK270964
—
MK281257
Monomiagladiator
ZRC 2016.0149
F
India
Pondicherry, Bay of Bengal
MK270959
MK271060
MK281259
Monomiagladiator
WAM C61156
F
Australia
Pilbara Shelf, Indian Ocean
MK270957
MK271053
MK281253
Monomiagladiator
WAM C26459
M
Australia
Dampier Archipelago, Cape Brugieres
MK270956
MK271047
MK281247
Monomiagladiator
UF 36251
F
Singapore
Singapore Strait
MK270963
MK271029
MK281229
Monomiagladiator
USNM 127068
F
Thailand
Andaman Sea
MK270962
MK271030
MK281230
Monomiagladiator
ZRC 2000.0842
M
Thailand
Pichai Fish Port, Phuket, Andaman Sea
MK270958
—
MK281230
Monomiagladiator
ZRC 2003.0114
M
Thailand
Pattani Fish Port, Gulf of Thailand
MK270960
MK271055
Monomiagladiator
ZRC 2003.0197
M
Thailand
Saiburi Crab Landing, Gulf of Thailand
MK270961
MK271056
Monomiagladiator
ZRC 2002.0297
F
Thailand
Pichai Fish Port, Phuket, Andaman Sea
—
—
Monomiagladiator
MNHN-IU-2014-10087
Vietnam
Của Bé Fishing Port
—
KY5244661
—
Monomiagladiator
ZMMU Ma 3366
Vietnam
Của Bé Fishing Port
—
—
JX3980952
Monomiahaanii
ZRC 1999.0084
M
Japan
Pacific Ocean
MK270948
MK271054
MK281255
Monomiahaanii
WAM C61155
F
Australia
Pilbara Shelf
MK270946
MK271052
MK281252
Monomiahaanii
WAM C34767
F
Australia
Exmouth Gulf
MK270944
MK271048
MK281248
Monomiahaanii
WAM C34900
M
Australia
Exmouth Gulf
MK270945
MK271049
MK281249
Monomiahaanii
WAM C44737
F
Australia
Ningaloo Marine Park
MK270954
MK271051
MK281251
Monomiahaanii
WAM C34938
F
Australia
Shark Bay
MK270949
MK271050
MK281250
Monomiahaanii
WAM C55510
M
Australia
Shark Bay
MK270943
MK271045
MK281245
Monomiahaanii
WAM C7506*
M
Australia
Abrolhos Islands
MK270953
MK271046
MK281246
Monomiahaanii
USNM 1421161
M
China
South China Sea, FAO Fishing Area 61
MK270934
MK271033
MK281233
Monomiahaanii
USNM 1421181
M
China
South China Sea, FAO Fishing Area 61
MK270935
MK271034
MK281234
Monomiahaanii
USNM 1421182
M
China
South China Sea, FAO Fishing Area 61
MK270936
MK271035
MK281235
Monomiahaanii
USNM 1421185
M
China
South China Sea, FAO Fishing Area 61
MK270937
MK271036
MK281236
Monomiahaanii
USNM 1421187
M
China
South China Sea, FAO Fishing Area 61
MK270950
MK271037
MK281237
Monomiahaanii
USNM 1421191
M
China
South China Sea, FAO Fishing Area 61
MK270938
MK271038
MK281238
Monomiahaanii
USNM 1421194
M
China
South China Sea, FAO Fishing Area 61
MK270951
MK271039
MK281239
Monomiahaanii
USNM 1421195
M
China
South China Sea, FAO Fishing Area 61
MK270939
MK271040
MK281240
Monomiahaanii
USNM 1421196
M
China
South China Sea, FAO Fishing Area 61
MK270940
MK271041
MK281241
Monomiahaanii
USNM 1421202
M
China
South China Sea, FAO Fishing Area 61
MK270941
MK271042
MK281242
Monomiahaanii
USNM 1421204
M
China
South China Sea, FAO Fishing Area 61
MK270952
MK271043
MK281243
Monomiahaanii
USNM 1421206
M
China
South China Sea, FAO Fishing Area 61
MK270942
MK271044
MK281244
Monomiahaanii
USNM 1420827
F
Taiwan
Daxi Fishery Port
MK270933
MK271031
MK281231
Monomiahaanii
USNM 1420828
M
Taiwan
Daxi Fishery Port
MK270955
MK271032
MK281232
Monomiahaanii
UF 29509
F
Taiwan
Daxi Fishery Port
MK270930
MK271026
MK281227
Monomiahaanii
UF 29511
F
Taiwan
Daxi Fishery Port
MK270931
MK271027
MK281228
Monomiahaanii
UF 29512
F
Taiwan
Daxi Fishery Port
MK270932
MK271028
—
Monomiahaanii
ZRC 1998.0186
M
Taiwan
Daxi Fishery Port
MK270947
MK271059
MK281254
Monomiahaanii
MNHN-IU-2014-10086
Vietnam
Của Bé Fishing Port
—
KY5244631
—
Monomiahaanii
UO 12J-Vn12
Vietnam
Của Bé Fishing Port
—
KY5244641
—
Monomiahaanii
ZMMU Ma 3368
Vietnam
Của Bé Fishing Port
—
—
JX3980942
Monomiaargentata
MNHN-IU-2014-10076
Vietnam
Của Bé Fishing Port
—
KY5244801
—
Monomiaargentata
MNHN-IU-2014-10075
Vietnam
Của Bé Fishing Port
—
KY5244791
—
Monomiaargentata
IOM
Vietnam
Của Bé Fishing Port
—
KY5244781
—
Monomialucida
ZRC 2016.0150
M
Vanuatu
South Pacific Ocean
MK270965
MK271061
—
Monomialucida
ZMMU Ma 3365
Vietnam
Của Bé Fishing Port
—
—
JX3980962
Monomialucida
NHMUK 2017.402
Vietnam
Của Bé Fishing Port
—
MG5637923
—
Monomialucida
MNHN-IU-2014-10083
Vietnam
Của Bé Fishing Port
—
MG5637933
—
Monomialucida
MNHN-IU-2014-10085
Vietnam
Của Bé Fishing Port
—
MG5637943
—
Monomiapetrea
UF 188
Guam
Tepungan Channel
—
KT3656064
KT3657434
Outgroup Taxa
Portunussanguinolentus
ZRC 2016.0146
M
India
Pazhayar Fish Landing
MK270966
MK271057
—
Portunuspelagicus
ZRC 2016.0147
M
India
Porto Novo
MK270967
MK271058
MK281258
Sequences mined from GenBank are attributed to 1Koch and Ďuriš (2018), 2Spiridonov et al. (2014), 3Koch et al. (2017), and 4Evans (2018). *Holotype of Portunuspseudoargentatus Stephenson, 1961
Commercial products
Four cans (454 g each) of pasteurized lump crabmeat labeled as “Portunushaanii” were purchased from grocery stores in Maryland and Virginia in 2016 and 2017. Portions of 10 lumps (i.e., single piece of crabmeat reasonably expected to be from an individual crab), five from the top and five from the bottom, from each tub were sampled for DNA extraction (N=40). The DNA barcode region of the cytochrome oxidase subunit I (COI) was amplified and sequenced from samples following the methods described below.
Molecular methods
Genomic DNA was extracted from muscle tissue dissected from ethanol preserved or fresh specimens using the DNeasy Tissue Kit (Qiagen) according to the manufacturer’s animal tissue protocol. Portions of three mitochondrial genes were amplified: a 658 bp barcode region of the cytochrome c oxidase I gene using the primers JgLCO1490 and JgHCO2189 (Geller et al. 2013), a 531 bp region of the 16S ribosomal gene using the primers 16S-ar and 16S-br (Palumbi 1996), and a 375 bp region of the 12S ribosomal gene using the primers 12Sf (Mokady et al. 1994) and 12S1R (Shull et al. 2005). PCR was carried out for 35 cycles with an annealing temperature of 48 °C for COI and 52 °C for 12S and 16S using Promega GoTaq G2 hot start master mix (Promega M7432). PCR products were visualized by agarose gel electrophoresis (1.5% agarose) and purified with ExoSAP-IT (Affymetrix) prior to sequencing. Sequencing reactions were performed using 1 μL of purified PCR product in a 10 μL reaction containing 0.5 μL primer, 1.75 μL Big Dye buffer and 0.5 μL Big Dye (Life Technologies).
Geneious 9.1.7 (Biomatters) was used to visualize, trim, edit, and assemble contigs from forward and reverse sequences. All PCR, sequencing, and analytics were carried out at the Laboratories of Analytical Biology at USNM. Sequences have been deposited in GenBank (NCBI) with accession numbers listed in Table 1.
Partial sequences for each locus were also amplified from Portunuspelagicus (ZRC 2016.0147) and P.sanguinolentus (ZRC 2016.0146) to serve as outgroup taxa. Multiple sequence alignments were generated using the L-INS-i alignment strategy in MAFFT version 7 (Katoh and Standley 2013). The aligned sequences were then concatenated using Sequence Matrix (Vaidya et al. 2011). In the concatenated data set, positions 1–380 are 12S, 381–914 are 16S, and positions 915–1572 are COI.
A best-fit model of nucleotide sequence evolution compatible with MrBayes and partitioning arrangement for each locus was determined using Partition Finder 2 (Lanfear et al. 2016) with the greedy algorithm selected (Lanfear et al. 2012). The GTR+I+G model was chosen for all three loci. Phylogenetic analyses were performed on the concatenated dataset using maximum likelihood (ML) with RAxML (Stamatakis 2006) and Bayesian Inference (BI) performed with MrBayes 3.1.2 (Ronquist and Huelsenbeck 2003) on the FDA’s Raven2 high performance computing cluster. ML options for RAxML included the GTRCAT model of nucleotide evolution (-m), rapid bootstrap analysis, and search for best-scoring ML tree (-f a), and 1000 bootstrap replicates. BI analysis was carried out for 10 million generations with two independent runs, each with four chains, and with trees sampled every 1000th generation. Model parameters (tratio, statefreq, shape, pinvar) were unlinked among partitions, and the rate prior (prset ratepr) was set to “variable.” To calculate posterior probabilities, a “burn-in” of 25% of the total trees sampled per run adequately removed trees prior to convergence.
In addition to the concatenated dataset, a COI-only dataset which incorporated sequences from GenBank and BOLD was analysed to identify the species of crab found in four cans of pasteurized lump crabmeat labelled as “Portunushaanii.” For visualization purposes, a neighbour joining tree of the 658bp alignment was built using the Jukes-Cantor model in the Geneious Tree Builder. Patristic and K2P distances were calculated for each alignment using MEGA7 (Kumar et al. 2016).
ResultsMolecular phylogenetics
Molecular phylogenetic analyses of the concatenated dataset of three mitochondrial loci show that there is a well-supported (98/1) separation between M.gladiator and M.haanii. Monomiapetrea (Alcock, 1899) (UF188; KT365743, KT365606) is a strongly supported sister to both (95/1) (Fig. 5). Analysis also confirms that voucher specimens purchased at the Daxi Fishery Port in northern Taiwan as well as those supplied by U.S. seafood importer, Newport International, both under the name “P.haanii,” are the same species as the specimen of “M.pseudoargentata” (ZMMU 3368; JX398094) from Spiridonov et al. (2014). Furthermore, our specimens with color patterns similar to “M.haanii” in Chertoprud et al. (2012) (= M.gladiatorZMMU 3366 in Spiridonov et al. 2014; JX398095) are the same species: M.gladiators. str. (Fig. 5). Included in the clade of M.haanii is the holotype of Portunuspseudoargentatus (WAM-C7056). The topology of the ML phylogram is congruent with the morphological findings.
DNA barcode sequence analyses for species identification of products confirm that crabmeat sold as “Portunushaanii” is indeed what we have identified herein as Monomiahaaniis. str. (Fig. 6). The mean K2P distance between reference M.haanii and the 40 product samples is 0.72% compared to the 7.85% between M.gladiator and product samples. Similarly, COI sequences from M.haanii and M.gladiator reference samples have a mean K2P distance of 7.74% (Table 2) and is consistent with congeneric divergences observed in other decapods (Costa et al. 2007).
Mean K2P distances between specimens genetically identified as M.gladiator, M.haanii, and commercial products calculated from a neighbor-joining distance tree built in Geneious.
Monomiagladiator
Monomiahaanii
Monomiahaanii
7.74%
Commercial Products
7.85%
0.72%
Taxonomic accountsPortunoidea Rafinesque, 1815
Portunidae Rafinesque, 1815
Portuninae Rafinesque, 1815
Monomia Gistel, 1848
Type species.Portunusgladiator Fabricius, 1798, type species of Amphitrite De Haan, 1833, by subsequent designation (Miers, 1886); pre-occupied by Amphitrite Müller, 1771 [Polychaeta]; Monomia Gistel, 1848, replacement name for Amphitrite De Haan, 1833.
AnimaliaDecapodaPortunidae29087417-9E5A-5370-B092-99FBFE25EBFBMonomiagladiators. str. (Fabricius, 1798)Figs 1A–D, 3A–C, 4A–DPortunusgladiatorFabricius, 1798: 368; Latreille 1825: 189; Crosnier 1962 (in part): 51, figs 72, 76, 78, 82, 83, pl. 3 fig. 2; Stephenson and Rees 1967a: 14; 1967b: 25; 1968: 293 (in part); Stephenson 1972a: 16, 39 (in part); 1972b: 135 (in part); Bhadra 1998: 410; Dev Roy and Bhadra 2005: 425; 2011: 147.Cancermenestho Herbst, 1803: 34, pl. 55 fig. 3. Lupeagladiator, H. Milne Edwards 1834: 456.Neptunusgladiator, A. Milne-Edwards 1861: 330; Richters 1880: 152; Müller 1887: 475; De Man 1888: 69; Henderson 1893: 367.Neptunus (Amphitrite) gladiator, Miers, 1886: 177; Alcock 1899: 35, 36; Laurie 1906: 412.Callinectesgladiator, Stebbing 1915: 58. Non Callinectesgladiator Benedict, 1893 (fide Stephenson and Cook 1973).Monomiagladiator, Barnard 1950: 156; Fourmanoir 1954: 9; Spiridonov et al. 2014: table 1; Trivedi et al. 2018: 66, table 1.Portunus (Monomia) gladiator, Jeyabaskaran et al. 2000: 51, pl. 36c; Biju Kumar et al. 2007: 286; Ng et al. 2008: 151, 156, 157 (list and discussion).Portunus (Monomia) gladiator[sic], Krishnamoorthy 2009: 6 (list).Portunushaanii, Stephenson and Cook 1973: 429 (in part), figs 6A–E, 7A–E, 8A–E, 9A, 10A, C, D, G; Stephenson 1975: 178. Non Amphitritehaanii Stimpson, 1858.Monomiahaanii, Chertoprud et al. 2012: 314, pl. 51 fig. G. Non Amphitritehaanii Stimpson, 1859.Non Cancergladiator Fabricius, 1793: 449 (= Portunussanguinolentus (Herbst, 1783), fide Latreille 1825). Non Portunus (Amphitrite) gladiator, De Haan 1833: 65; 1835: pl. 18 fig. 1 (= Portunusorbitosinus Rathbun, 1911). Non Portunusgladiator, Stephenson and Campbell 1959: 110, Figs 2J, 3J, pl. 3 fig. 2, pl. 4 fig. J, pl. 5 fig. J (= Portunusaustraliensis Stephenson and Cook, 1973). Material examined.
INDIA: ZRC.2016.0145, 2 males, 1 female, Pazhayar Fish Landing, Nagapattinam District, Tamil Nadu, coll. NK Ng et al., 17 Sep. 2011; ZRC.2016.0149, 1 female, sandy beach, Pondicherry, Union Territory of Puducherry; ZRC.2018.1189, 5 males, Jeppiar Fishing Port, Muttom, Tamil Nadu, coll. PKL Ng et al., 19 Sep. 2016; USNM127069, 1 male, SW of Mumbai, IIOE Anton Bruun, 14 Nov. 1963.
AUSTRALIA: WAM-C26459, 2 males, Dampier Archipelago, Cape Brugieres, Western Australia, coll. Slack-Smith and Hewitt, 17 Jul. 1999; WAM-C61155, 2 females, WAM-C61156, 1 female, Pilbara Shelf, Western Australia, coll. E Morello et al. (CSIRO Pilbara Survey), 13 Jun. 2013.
THAILAND: USNM127068, 2 females, Andaman Sea, north of Phuket, IIOE Anton Bruun R/V, 31 July. 1963; ZRC.2000.0779, 3 males, 13 females, Phuket, Pichai Fish Port, coll. NK Ng et al., 17–20 Jan. 2000; ZRC.2000.0842, 2 males, Phuket, Pichai Fish Port (Andaman Sea), coll. PKL Ng et al., 3–6 May 2000; ZRC.2002.0297, 4 males, 1 female, Phuket, Pichai Fish Port, coll. JCY. Lai, 2–3 Sep. 2001; ZRC.2002.0298, 3 males, 1 female, Phuket, Pichai Fish Port, coll. JCY Lai, 2–3 Sep. 2001; ZRC.2003.0114, male, Pattani Fishing Port, Pattani Province; ZRC.2003.0197, 1 male, Saiburi Crab Landing, Pattani Province, coll. Z Jaafar et al., 8 Jun. 2003.
Diagnosis.
Carapace (Fig. 1A–D) transversally hexagonal, CW/CL ratio 1.79–1.83, with dorsal surface, except patches of granules, densely covered by short tomentum. Regions moderately defined; with discrete patches of granules on gastric, branchial, cardiac and intestinal regions. Front subdivided into four teeth with rounded apices, median pair distinctly smaller than lateral; median sulcus between teeth continuing ventrally to triangular projection appressed to median epistomial tooth. Epistome well defined, median tooth projecting beyond front. Supraorbital margin finely granulate, with two distinct notches; inner orbital angle tooth-like, with glabrous ventromesial ledge. Infraorbital margin with deep, V-shaped notch laterally; in antero-ventral view, mesial part of infraorbital margin granulate, ventrally a large triangular tooth projecting anteriorly, visible from dorsal view. Anterolateral margin armed with nine teeth, including external orbital angle, with granulate margins; first tooth larger than following teeth except 9th, with straight outer margin; 2nd–8th subequal in size, sharp, projecting outward, slightly curved anteriorly; 9th tooth largest, projecting laterally; just underneath anterolateral margin is thick coat of long soft setae which sometimes obscures teeth. Posterolateral margin concave, posterolateral angle rounded; posterior margin lined with small granules, straight to slightly convex; posterior margin with ventrally directed, smooth flange, lateral extremities of which coincide with posterolateral angle of carapace, each armed with small, lamelliform tooth.
Dorsal habitus of A lectotype of Portunusgladiator Fabricius, 1798, deposited in Copenhagen Museum (ZMUC-Cru 4705) BCancer menestho Herbst, 1803 (= Monomiagladiator), probably from Indian Ocean (color print from Herbst, 1803: pl. 55 fig. 3 CMonomiagladiator (Fabricius, 1798), fresh colouration, Phuket, Thailand (not collected), photo by Rueangrit Promdam DMonomiagladiator (Fabricius, 1798), fresh coloration, Jeppiar, Tamil Nadu, India (ZRC), photograph by PKL Ng; E “Neptunus (Amphitrite) gladiator” [sic] (=Monomiahaanii) from Sagami Bay, Japan (color print from Sakai, 1939: pl. 47 fig. 3) FMonomiahaanii (Stimpson, 1858), fresh colouration, South China Sea (USNM 1421161) shipped frozen by US seafood importer.
Monomiahaanii (Stimpson, 1858), lectotype, male (RMNH 379), Japan. A dorsal habitus B thoracic sternum and pleon, ventral view C sterno-pleonal cavity and G1s, ventral view. Photographs by CHIJ Fransen (RMNH). Scale bars: A, B 10 mm; C 3 mm.
https://binary.pensoft.net/fig/313922
Basal article of antennule completely filling antennular fossa, subsequent two articles slender. Basal article of antenna short, with broad, lateral projection entering but not obstructing orbital hiatus; flagellum long, exceeding well beyond orbit. Eyes with well-developed corneas, short, thick peduncles. Proepistome well developed, anterior tip with projecting conical tooth; epistome not extensively projecting posteriorly. Endostome with well-developed lateral ridges.
Third maxillipeds finely granulate on ischium, merus and exopod, setose on external surfaces, extensively pilose on mesial margins; ischium longer than wide, subrectangular, with deep, submesial sulcus; merus longer than wide, rhomboidal, anterolateral angle strongly projecting laterally; palp articles subcylindrical. Exopod stout, with subdistal triangular projection on inner medial border; flagellum well developed.
Male thoracic sternites covered with thick tomentum, thickest on exposed surfaces of sternites 5–8 (Fig. 3A–C); sternites 1–4 distinctly granulate, with granules becoming larger, coarser in large specimens; sternites 1, 2 fused, separated from sternite 3 by straight suture; sternites 3, 4 almost completely fused except for remnants of suture at lateral extremities, replaced mesially by smooth, setose groove; sternite 4 with narrow median groove on exposed surface, continuing posteriorly into sterno-pleonal cavity. Sutures 4/5, 5/6, and 6/7 present on exposed surface of thoracic sternum but interrupted within sterno-pleonal cavity; suture 7/8 present on most of exposed thoracic sternal surface, but disappearing just before sternopleonal cavity. Median longitudinal line evident at level of sternites 6, 7, 8, absent elsewhere. Press-button tubercle of sternopleonal locking mechanism located on posteromesial projection of sternite 5.
Chelipeds (P1), long, robust, surfaces tomentose; slightly heterochelous, major chela usually with modified cutting/crushing tooth proximally on cutting margin of dactylus. Merus long, with 4, sometimes 5, curved spines along flexor margin, and 2 distal spines on extensor margin; both margins densely setose. Carpus with sharp spine on inner angle, and flattened spine on external surface continuing as a strong carina, with additional, shorter carina above it. Dorsal surface of palm (propodus) with two straight, longitudinal granular crests, inner one distally ending distally in strong spine; small proximal spiniform tooth at articulation with carpus; two additional, curved granular crests on external surface of palm, first ending at level of articulation with dactylus, second, lower, ending near gape, creating cristate, proximo-ventral margin of palm; inner surface of palm with two wide, distinct rows of granules. Fingers generally straight except for curved, pointed tips; subequal in length to palm; with two granulate crests each on external and internal surfaces; lowest carina on fixed finger extending into palm; numerous teeth on cutting margins, arranged in groups so that each group has large central tooth flanked by smaller teeth of decreasing size, giving the cutting margins appearance of having three or more denticulate, triangular lobes.
First to third ambulatory legs (P2–P4), long, slender; decreasing in length and size, with P2 largest, P4 smallest; flexor margins of meri, carpi, propodi and dactyli heavily setose. Fifth ambulatory (natatory) leg (P5) with quadrate merus, pentagonal carpus, flat, subrectangular propodus, and flat, oval dactylus; margins of articles regularly setose; propodus with four raised glabrous longitudinal bands, including flexor and extensor margins, interspersed with tomentum; dactylus with five raised glabrous bands, including flexor and extensor margins, interspersed with tomentum, distal third with low median crest continuing proximally as narrow tomentose stripe; in fresh specimens, P5 propodus with white band on postero-distal margin, no purple spot, P5 dactylus with small white spot on distal end.
Male pleon (Fig. 3A–C) ‘inverted T’-shaped, external surfaces mostly tomentose, 3rd–5th pleomeres fused. First pleomere very thin, less wide, mostly obscured by flange of posterior margin of carapace. Second pleomere much wider than first, lateral edges resting on P5 coxa, with prominent transverse keel running along entire width. Third pleomere widest, formed like a wedge, visible from both dorsal and ventral view; strong transverse crest somewhat forming posterior margin of cephalothorax, with shallow notch medially, posterolateral angles sharp, acute; sulcus between fused 3rd and 4th pleomere moderately deep, glabrous. Fourth pleomere subrectangular, wider than long, lateral margins convex, central region with low transverse crest. Fifth pleomere subtrapezoidal, basal margin wider than anterior. Sixth pleomere subrectangular; median length about 1.2 times maximum width; width at maximum lateral convexity greater than basal width; anterior margin concave, basal margin straight, lateral margins convex anteriorly, concave posteriorly. Telson subtriangular, apex rounded, lateral margins slightly concave, basal margin convex; median length 1.2 times basal width, with rounded tip, broadly rounded posterior margin.
G1 (Figs 4A–D) with proximal half relatively wide, somewhat flattened, strongly bent medially, by at least 45° but much less than 90°, distal half very slender, filiform; apically slightly recurved, rounded; distal tip much narrowed to small unarmed aperture. G2 about half length of G1, slender, distal tip minutely bilobed. Penis long, slender, uncalcified; emerging from sternocoxal condyle of P5.
Male thoracic sternum and pleon. A–CMonomiagladiator (Fabricius, 1798), AZRC 2018.1189, Jeppiar, Tamil Nadu, India BZRC 2016.0145, Pazhayar Tamil Nadu, India; C) ZRC 2000.0842, Phuket, Thailand. D–FMonomiahaanii (Stimpson, 1858) DWAM-C7506, holotype of Portunuspseudoargentatus Stephenson, 1961, Abrolhos Is., Western Australia EZRC 1999.0084, Boso Peninsula, Japan FZRC 2016.0408, Daxi Fishery Port, Taiwan. Scale bar: 10 mm.
Left G1, sternal view (except D and E). A–DMonomiagladiator (Fabricius, 1798): A) ZRC 2018.1189, Jeppiar, Tamil Nadu, India BZRC 2016.0034, Tanintharyi coast, Myanmar CZRC 2016.0145, Pazhayar, Tamil Nadu, India DZRC 2000.0842, Phuket, Thailand (flipped right G1). E–HMonomiahaanii (Stimpson, 1858) EWAM-C7506, holotype of Portunuspseudoargentatus Stephenson, 1961, Abrolhos Is., Western Australia (flipped right G1) FZRC 1999.0084, Boso Peninsula, Japan GZRC 2016.0408, smaller male, Daxi Fishery Port, Taiwan HZRC 2016.0408, larger male, Daxi Fishery Port, Taiwan. Scale bar: 3 mm.
https://binary.pensoft.net/fig/313924Remarks.
Following the recognition of Monomia Gistel, 1848, as a genus distinct from Portunus Weber, 1795 (see Mantelatto and Robles 2007; Mantelatto et al. 2009; Schubart and Reuschel 2009; Chertoprud et al. 2012; Spiridonov et al. 2014), the taxonomy of its type species, Monomiagladiator (Fabricius, 1798), needs to be assessed.
Firstly, there are five specimens identified as syntypes of Portunusgladiator Fabricius, 1798, in the Zoological Museum of the University of Copenhagen (ZMUC) (see http://www.zmuc.dk/inverweb/invertebrater/Crustacea%20databases/Fabricius%20collection.htm). All are dry specimens with the catalog numbers ZMUC-CRU 4704 through 4708 (see Ng et al. 2008). Examination of their photographs (available online) show that one of them is clearly not conspecific nor even congeneric (viz. ZMUC-CRU 4707). Accompanying this specimen in the photograph is a handwritten label identifying it as “Achelous Whitei A. M. Edw.,” a name now considered a junior synonym of Lupocycloporusgracilimanus (Stimpson, 1858) (viz. Ng et al. 2008), a widespread species known from several localities in the Indo-West Pacific region; and a check with the available literature (e.g., Stimpson, 1907: pl. 10 fig. 3) confirms this identification. To stabilize the taxonomy of Portunusgladiator Fabricius, 1798, one of the other four syntypes, a male ZMUC-CRU 4705 (Fig. 1A), is hereby designated as the lectotype, and the other three specimens (ZMUC-CRU 4704, 4706 and 4708) become paralectotypes.
Secondly, we agree with Ng et al. (2008) that there is no secondary homonymy between Portunusgladiator Fabricius, 1798, and Cancer gladiator Fabricius, 1793, because the two species were originally described in different genera, and the name “Cancer gladiator Fabricius, 1793” is no longer available by virtue of its synonymization under Portunussanguinolentus (Herbst, 1783) (viz. Latreille 1825; Stephenson and Cook 1973). Although Chertoprud et al. (2012) cite the use of the name “Portunusgladiator (Fabricius, 1793)” by Stephenson and Cook (1973) as meeting the requirement of Article 59.1 of the Code, we view this as a misinterpretation of the Code’s provisions for homonymy. Furthermore, with the recognition of Monomia Gistel, 1848, as a full genus, thus absolutely eliminating any reservations concerning secondary homonymy, the species name Monomiagladiator (Fabricius, 1798) is, therefore, valid.
Thirdly, there is the matter of the confusion between M.gladiator and M.haanii. Stephenson and Cook (1973) proposed Amphitritehaanii Stimpson, 1858, as a replacement name for P.gladiator Fabricius, 1798, and this has led to the current confusion between the two names. As the following discussion will show, it is evident that Monomiagladiator and M.haanii (Stimpson, 1858) are distinct and valid species, and, therefore, the latter cannot be used as a replacement name for the former.
Monomiagladiator differs from M.haanii primarily in these three morphological characters: (1) in the fresh specimens of M.gladiator, there is a white band on the postero-distal margin of the P5 propodus, but no purple spot, and a small white spot on the distal tip of the P5 dactylus (Fig. 1C, D; also Chertoprud et al. 2012: pl. 51 fig. G) (vs. in M.haanii, there is a large purple spot on the distal tip of the P5 propodus, and the distal one-third of the P5 dactylus is colored purple; Fig. 1E, F; also Sakai, 1939: pl. 47 fig. 3; 1965: pl. 57, fig. 1; Chertoprud et al. 2012: pl. 51 fig. H); (2) the anterolateral margins of the male 6th pleomere are more flared out and rounded in M.gladiator, and at their widest extent exceed the basal width of the 6th pleomere (Fig. 3A–C; also Stephenson and Cook, 1973: fig.10A) (vs. straight, convergent anteriorly, and separated from concave posterolateral margin by an angular convexity in M.haanii, widest at base, Figs 2B, 3D–F); and (3) the G1 is bent at an angle of about 45° at mid-length and the distal tip is slender and relatively narrower in M.gladiator (Fig. 4A–D) (vs. G1 bent at or almost at 90°, and distal tip is somewhat wider than the immediate subdistal region in M.haanii (Figs 2C, 3E–H). Aside from these are some minor differences; for instance, the mesial part of the infraorbital margin of M.gladiator is granulate and there is no tooth on the mesial end as it abuts the basal article of the antenna, there is, however, a large tooth immediately ventral to this margin, which projects outward and is visible from dorsal view as if it were part of the infraorbital margin. In M.haanii, the mesial end of the infraorbital margin has a large tooth which abuts against the basal article of the antenna. Also, the spines on the flexor margin of the P1 merus of M.gladiator tend to be more projecting and recurved than those of M.haanii, which are relatively smaller and less curved. Examination of available fresh-color photographs (viz. Chertoprud et al. 2012: pl. 51 Figs G, H) also show that these meral spines tend to be entirely white in M.gladiator while they are red at the base and white at the tips in M.haanii.
Furthermore, the molecular phylogenetic analysis corroborates the morphological evidence, clearly showing two distinct and well-supported clades corresponding to the two species. Specimens identified as M.gladiator based on the characters described above, including a topotypic specimen from India (ZRC.2016.0149), form a well-supported clade distinct from another clade containing specimens with the morphological attributes of M.haanii, which also includes a topotypic specimen from Japan (ZRC.2000.0084). Furthermore, the same molecular phylogenetic analysis shows that the specimen referred to by Chertoprud et al. (2012) as “Monomiahaanii” (JX398095) falls within the M.gladiator clade, whereas the specimen referred to by Chertoprud et al. (2012) as “Monomiapseudoargentata” (JX398094) falls within the M.haanii clade. These specimens should now be identified as M.gladiator and M.haanii, respectively.
Finally, Lupeagladiator H. Milne Edwards, 1834 (Indian Ocean), is re-included in the synonymy of Monomiagladiator (Fabricius, 1898), and Cancer menestho Herbst, 1803 (probably from Indian Ocean) is hereby considered a junior subjective synonym of Monomiagladiator (Fabricius, 1798). We believe that Stephenson and Cook (1973) erred in removing these two names from the synonymy of gladiatorsensu Fabricius, 1798. In the case of H. Milne Edwards’ specimen, the error is due simply to their conflation of haanii with gladiator. In the case of Herbst’s species, we disagree with them that the illustration of Cancer menestho does not show 2 spines on the posterior margin of the cheliped merus. What they call a “non-protruding” spine is an artifact of perspective. We have seen in our photographs of M.gladiator, that this second spine can appear non-protruding when the merus is viewed from directly above and if the marginal setae obscure its entire outline. Once this so-called difference is eliminated, there is no compelling reason why C.menestho should also not be treated as a synonym of M.gladiator.
AnimaliaDecapodaPortunidae23C9CBE3-DB98-5874-85D6-644AB3577F33Monomiahaaniis. str. (Stimpson, 1858)Figs 1E, F, 2, 3D–F, 4E–HPortunus (Amphitrite) gladiator: De Haan 1833: 39; 1835: pl. 1 fig. 5, pl. A. Non Portunusgladiator Fabricius, 1798.AmphitritehaaniiStimpson, 1858: 38; 1907: 79; Ng et al. 2008: 151 (synonymy), 156 (discussion).Neptunus (Amphitrite) gladiator: Ortmann 1893: 73; Lanchester 1902: 544; Parisi 1916: 173; Balss 1922: 107; Sakai 1934: 303; 1936: 129, pl. 36 fig. 3; 1939: 390, fig. 5a, pl. 47 fig. 3; Shen 1937: 101, fig. 2; Lin 1949: 19. Non Portunusgladiator Fabricius, 1798.Portunusgladiator: Rathbun 1902: 26, Miyake 1961: 172; Sakai 1965: 118, pl. 57 fig. 1; 1976: 341, fig 180a, pl. 120 fig. 1; Stephenson and Rees 1967: 24; 1968: 293; Takeda and Miyake 1968: 551; Stephenson 1972a: 16, 39; 1972b: 135; Ko and Lee 2013: 40, pl.-fig. 34. Non Portunusgladiator Fabricius, 1798.Portunus (Achelous) gladiator; Rathbun 1910: 36 (from Gulf of Siam). Non Portunusgladiator Fabricius, 1798.PortunuspseudoargentatusStephenson, 1961: 109, Figs 2A, 3F, pl. 2 fig. 4, pl. 4 fig. F, pl. 5 fig. D; Stephenson and Rees 1967b: 25; 1968: 294; Yang and Dai1994: 137, fig. 13.Portunushaanii: Stephenson and Cook 1973 (in part): 429, figs 6F–H, 7F–H, 8F–H, 9B; Dai and Yang 1991: 223, fig. 120(2), pl. 27(4); Moosa 1996: 521; Apel and Spiridonov 1998 (in part): 291; Ng et al. 2001: 16 (list).Portunus (Monomia) gladiator: Sakai 1976: 341, fig. 180, pl.120 fig. 1; Kim and Chang 1985: 52. Not Portunusgladiator Fabricius, 1798.Portunushaanii: Miyake 1983: 85, pl. 29 fig. 2; Takeda 1989: 152Portunus (Monomia) haaniiYamaguchi & Baba, 1993: 396, figs 137A–C.Monomiapseudoargentata: Chertoprud et al. 2012: 315, pl. 51 fig. H; Spiridonov et al. 2014: 412, 427, fig. 3I, tab. 1.Monomiahaanii: Ng et al., 2017: 68 (list).Not Amphitritemedia Stimpson, 1858: 39; 1907: 79, pl. 10 fig. 1. Not Monomiahaanii, Chertoprud et al. 2012: 314, pl. 51 fig. G (=Monomiagladiator (Fabricius, 1798)). Material examined.
JAPAN: RMNH 379, lectotype, male, Japan, coll. P.F. von Siebold, 1823–1829 (photographs only); ZRC.1999.0084, 1 male, 1 female, off Hota, Uchibo, coast of Boso Peninsula, coll. T Komai, 22 Aug. 1997; USNM5255, 4 male, 1 female, coll. FC Dale and PL Jouy, Palos R/V; USNM26254, 1 male, 1 female, off Wakanoura, coll. DS Jordan and JO Snyder, 1900; USNM45882, 1 female, off Wakanoura, Kishu; USNM54519, 1 female, Yamagata Prefecture, coll. M Sasaki, Aug. 1917; USNM72540, 2 males, Enoshima, Bay of Jeddo, coll. ES Morse; USNM60250, 1 male, Toyama Bay, coll. M Sasaki, 1925; USNM112423, 1 male, Shimizu, Sugura, Albatross R/V, 14 Oct. 1906.
AUSTRALIA: WAM-C7506, 1 male (holotype of Portunuspseudoargentatus Stephenson, 1961), Abrolhos Islands, Western Australia, coll. RW George, 11 May 1960; WAM-C34767, 1 female, Exmouth Gulf, Western Australia , coll. S Morrison and P Unsworth, 5 Nov. 2004; WAMC34900, 1 female, Exmouth Gulf, Western Australia, coll. S Morrison and P Unsworth, 12 Mar. 2004; WAM-C34938, 1 gravid female, Shark Bay, Western Australia, coll. S Morrison et al., 4 Oct. 2002; WAM-C5510, 1 male, Shark Bay, Western Australia, coll. S Morrison et al., 5 Mar. 2003; WAM-C44737, 1 female, Ningaloo Marine Park, Western Australia, coll. MP Salotti and SM Slack-Smith, 1 Feb. 2008.
Similar to Monomiagladiator except in the following morphological characters. Infraorbital margin granulate, terminating mesially in small triangular tooth, in line with rest of margin. Sixth pleomere (Fig. 2B, 3D–F) longer than wide, maximum width at base; anterior half of lateral margins convergent anteriorly, posterior half concave to straight, anterior and posterior halves separated by angular convexity. G1 (Fig. 3C, 4E–H) bent at 90° at midlength, tapering distally toward a minutely spatulate tip, slightly broader than immediate subdistal area. In fresh specimens, P5 propodus with dark purple spot on distal tip, distal one-third of P5 dactylus colored dark purple as well (Fig. 1E, F).
Remarks.
The primary morphological differences between Monomiahaanii (Stimpson, 1858) and M.gladiator (Fabricius, 1798) have already been discussed in the Remarks for the latter species. Yamaguchi and Baba (1993) had previously reported on the type material of Amphitritehaanii Stimpson, 1858, listing several syntypes collected by P.F. von Siebold from Japan in the years 1823 to 1829, deposited in the then Rijkmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie (RMNH) in Leiden, and preserved either dry or in alcohol. From these they selected a lectotype, a young male (42 by 24 mm; RMNH 379) preserved in alcohol. No further or detailed descriptions of the material were provided. Although they did provide photographs of several specimens, the lectotype was photographed still inside the bottle (viz. Yamaguchi and Baba, 1993: fig. 137A) and no definitive or diagnostic features of its morphology could be discerned. The collections of the RMNH are now housed in the Naturalis Biodiversity Center, Leiden, and photographs of the lectotype (Fig. 2) were kindly provided to the authors by Dr. Charles Fransen. From these photographs, the diagnostic morphology of the 6th pleomere (Fig. 2B) and the 90-degree bend of the G1 (Fig. 2C) can already be observed even in such a young specimen. Furthermore, although the fresh coloration of this species was not recorded by either De Haan (1833) or Stimpson (1858), later observations of topotypic material show that the purple spots on the P5 propodus and dactylus, as well as the more profuse but scattered spotting on the dorsal carapace, and the dark colored spines on the anterior margin of the P1 merus are consistently observed (Fig. 1E, F; also Sakai, 1976: pl. 120 fig. 1; Miyake, 1983: pl. 29 fig. 1).
Stephenson and Cook (1973) had also previously synonymized Portunuspseudoargentatus Stephenson, 1961, under P.haanii on the basis of their similar morphology. We confirm that P.pseudoargentatus is a junior subjective synonym of Monomiahaanii (Stimpson, 1858) sensu stricto on the basis of similarities in the dentition of the infraorbital margin, the shape of the male 6th pleomere (Fig. 3D), and the ~90° angle of the bend of the G1 at midlength (Fig. 4E; also Stephenson, 1961: fig. 2A). In a photograph of the presumably newly preserved holotype, the pigmented spots on the left P5 propodus and dactylus are still there (Stephenson, 1961: pl. 2 fig. 4), although these have since faded and can no longer be seen during the present examination of the holotype.
Specimens morphologically identifiable as M.haanii comprise a highly-supported clade that includes specimens from Japan, the type locality of M.haanii, as well as the holotype of Portunuspseudoargentatus Stephenson, 1961, and the Vietnamese specimens referred to by Chertoprud et al. (2012) (JX398094) and by Koch et al. (2017) and Koch and Duris (2018) (KY524463, KY524464) as "Monomiapseudoargentata". Both morphological and molecular phylogenetic analyses support the recognition of Monomiahaanii as a full species. Molecular results also support a morphological basis for synonymy of P.pseudoargentatus Stephenson, 1961, under M.haanii.
Maximum likelihood phylogram of three mitochondrial loci showing genetic distinction between M.gladiator and M.haanii along with three other members of the genus Monomia. Abbreviations: IOM = Institute of Oceanology and Museum, Nha Trang; MNHN = Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris; NHM = The Natural History Museum, London; UF = University of Florida Natural History Museum, Gainesville; UO = University of Ostrava, Ostrava; USNM = United States National Museum, National Museum of Natural History, Washington, D.C.; WAM = Western Australian Museum, Perth; ZMMU = Zoological Museum of the Moscow University, Moscow; ZRC = Zoological Reference Collection, Lee Kong Chian Natural History Museum, Singapore; CN = China; IN = India; JP = Japan; SG = Singapore; TH = Thailand; TW = Taiwan; VN = Vietnam.
Neighbor joining phylogram of the barcode region of COI to visualize relationships between museum-vouchered reference specimens and 40 samples from four cans of pasteurized lump crabmeat (Product A–D) labeled “Portunushaanii” and/or “red swimming crab”
https://binary.pensoft.net/fig/313926Discussion
The need to address and resolve the Portunusgladiator species complex was brought about largely because of the incongruence in taxon names utilized by the scientific community and the seafood industry. This incongruence was highlighted by Warner et al. (2015) who matched sequences from crab cakes to a single sequence of “P.pseudoargentatus” and raised concerns that this was a species in the US food supply unknown to regulators. Subsequently, “P.pseudoargentatus” was added to The Seafood List (Food and Drug Administration 2015), based on that report. Pasteurized, lump crab meat labeled as “Portunushaanii” or “red swimming crab” is routinely imported into the United States; however, the species name P.haanii has been synonymised under P.gladiator for some time (Ng et al., 2008). As it turned out, this complex had a very complicated taxonomic past, but here we have used traditional morphological methods in concert with molecular phylogenetic analyses to establish the morphological and molecular boundaries between the two species we recognize herein, Monomiagladiator and Monomiahaanii.
Revising and describing the morphological differences between these two species was necessary to verify the identity of the individual specimens used to generate reference DNA sequences for identification of picked crab meat samples labelled as “Portunushaanii.” The morphological findings of two distinct species were corroborated in our multi-locus phylogenetic analysis that showed complete congruence between morphologically derived identity and genetic clade membership. This reciprocally informative approach has enabled us to confirm that the commercial products that we tested, that were labelled and sold as Portunushaanii, were in fact Monomiahaanii and should be labelled as such. Based on our findings, the FDA’s seafood labeling guidance to industry, The Seafood List, can be emended to reflect this current understanding of the species in question.
Commercially important species are often presumed to be well understood because they have tangible value, but in the case of decapod crustaceans molecular phylogenetic analyses are re-writing much of what carcinologists thought they knew about species-, genus-, and family-level relationships (Keenan et al. 1998; Ma et al. 2009; Lai et al. 2010; Bracken-Grissom et al. 2013; de Carvalho et al. 2013; Windsor and Felder 2014; Evans 2018; Tavares and Santana 2018). For example, Lai et al. (2010) determined that what was then known as Portunuspelagicus was actually a complex of four species; and the status of the genus Penaeus Fabricius, 1798, has been highly debated in the literature (Pérez Farfante and Kensley 1997; Lavery et al. 2004; Dall 2007; Flegel 2007; 2008; McLaughlin et al. 2008; Ma et al. 2009; Ma et al. 2011). These name changes are to be expected as new methods of DNA analysis are developed and applied to illuminate and clarify evolutionary relationships.
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to the following persons and institutions. Andrew Hosie and Diana Jones (WAM), Jørgen Olesen (NHMD), Peter KL Ng (ZRC), and Rueangrit Promdam (Prince of Songkhla University, Thailand) for providing crucial specimens and data/or from their reference collections. Charles Fransen (RMNH) for kindly providing photographs and measurements of the lectotype of Amphitritehaanii, despite the closure of the collection due to ongoing renovation work. Accession of specimens into the Crustacea Collections at USNM was facilitated by Rafael Lemaitre, Bill Moser, Karen Reed, and Courtney Wickel. We also thank Anish Chaudhuri and Anjan Tharakan (Newport International) for kindly donating commercially harvested specimens from the FAO fishing area 61. Kim Warner (Oceana) kindly shared data and sub-samples from her 2015 study. Lab space and technical support for molecular work was provided by Lee Weigt, Jeffery Hunt, and Janette Madera (Laboratories of Analytical Biology, USNM). We thank Peter KL Ng and Zdenĕk Ďuriš for their constructive and helpful comments which helped to improve this paper.
ReferencesAlcockA (1899) Materials for a carcinological fauna of India. No. 4. The Brachyura Cyclometopa. Part II. A revision of the Cyclometopa with an account of the families Portunidæ, Cancridæ and Corystidæ.68: 1–104.Alibaba.com (2018) Portunushaanii crab https://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/Frozen-Portunus-Haanii-Crab_700629462.html?spm=a2700.9099375.35.7.fcd648d42A9aYD [accessed 6 December 2018]ApakupakulKSiddallMEBurresonEM (1999) Higher level relationships of leeches (Annelida: Clitellata: Euhirudinea) based on morphology and gene sequences. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 12, 350–359.ApelMSpiridonovVA (1998) Taxonomy and zoogeography of the portunid crabs (Crustacea: Decapoda: Brachyura: Portunidae) of the Arabian Gulf and adjacent waters.17: 159–331.BalssH (1922) Ostasiatische Decapoden. IV. Die Brachyrhynchen (Cancridea).88(11): 94–166.BarnardKH (1950) Descriptive catalogue of South African decapod Crustacea (crabs and shrimps).38: 1–837.BenedictJE (1893) Notice of the crustaceans collected by the U.S. Scientific Expedition to West Africa.16(949): 535–541.BhadraS (1998) Crustacea: Decapoda: Portunidae. In: Fauna of West Bengal, Part 10.3: 405–415.Biju KumarASushil KumarMRaffiSMAjmal KhanS (2007) Diversity of brachyuran crabs associated with trawl by-catch in Kerala coast, India.54(3): 283–290.Bracken-GrissomHDCannonMECabezasPFeldmannRMSchweitzerCEAhyongSTFelderDLCrandallKA (2013) A comprehensive and integrative reconstruction of evolutionary history for Anomura (Crustacea: Decapoda).13: 128–156.CarvalhoFL dePileggiLGMantelattoFL (2013) Molecular data raise the possiblity of cryptic species in the Brazilian endemic prawn Macrobrachiumpotiuna (Decapoda, Palaemonidae).41: 707–717ChertoprudESSpiridonovVAPonomarevSAMokievskyVO (2012) Commercial crabs (CrustaceaDecapodaBrachyura) from Nhatrang Bay (Vietnam). In: BritayevTAPavlovDS (Eds) Benthic fauna of the Bay of Nhatrang, southern Vietnam., 296–344.ColganDJMcLauchlanAWilsonGDFLivingstonSPEdgecombeGDMacaranasJCassisGGrayMR (1998) Histone H3 and U2 snRNA DNA sequences and arthropod molecular evolution.46: 419–437.CostaFOdeWaardJRBoutillierJRatnasinghamSDoohRTHajibabaeiMHebertPDN (2007) Biological identifications through DNA barcodes: the case of the Crustacea.64: 272–295. https://doi.org/10.1139/f07-008CrosnierA (1962) Crustacés Décapodes. Portunidae.16: 1–154.DaiAYangS (1991) Crabs of the China Seas. China Ocean Press: Beijing, 682 pp.DallW (2007) Recent molecular research on Penaeussensu lato.27: 380–382. https://doi.org/10.1651/s-2803.1Dev RoyMKBhadraS (2005) Marine and estuarine crabs (Crustacea: Decapoda: Brachyura). In: Fauna of Andhra Pradesh (Part 5), Zoological Survey of India, State Fauna Series 5: 357–535.Dev RoyMKBhadraS (2011) Brachyuran crabs (Crustacea: Decapoda: Brachyura).17(2): 109–269.EischeidACStadigSRHandySMFryFSDeedsJ (2016) Optimization and evaluation of a method for the generation of DNA barcodes for the identification of crustaceans.73: 357–367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2016.06.033EvansN (2018) Molecular phylogenetics of swimming crabs (Portunoidea Rafinesque, 1815) supports a revised family-level classification and suggests a single derived origin of symbiotic taxa. PeerJ 6: e4260. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.4260FabriciusJC (1793) Entomologica Systematica Emendata et Aucta. Secundum. Classes, Ordines, Genera, Species. Adjectis. Synonimis, Locis, Observationibus, Descriptionibus. Tom. II. Hafniae Impensis Christ. Gottl. Proft. I–VIII, 1–519. https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.125869FabriciusJC (1798) Proft et Storch, Hafniae, 572 pp.Fishsource (2016) Warty Swimming Crab: China. https://www.fishsource.org/fishery_page/3725 [accessed 6 December 2018]FlegelTW (2007) The right to refuse revision in the genus Penaeus.264: 2–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2006.12.013FlegelTW (2008) Confirmation of the right to refuse revision in the genus Penaeus.280: 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2008.04.029Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2010-2018) FAO FishFinder: Aquatic Species Fact Sheets. http://www.fao.org/fishery/species/search/en [accessed 17 November 2018]Food and Drug Administration (2012) The Seafood List: FDA Guide to Acceptable Market Names for Food Fish Sold in Interstate Commerce. http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/GuidanceDocuments/Seafood/ucm113260 [accessed 08 November 2018]Food and Drug Administration (2015) The FDA Seafood List: Updates for 2015. https://wayback.archive-it.org/7993/20170404003109/https://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/Seafood/ucm453865.htm [accessed 10 December 2018]Food and Drug Administration (2017) Reference Standard Sequence Library (RSSL) for Seafood Identification. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/fdcc/?set=seafood_barcode_data [accessed 5 July 2018]FourmanoirP (1954) Crabes de la côte ouest de Madagascar.6: 2–16.GellerJMeyerCParkerMHawkH (2013) Redesign of PCR primers for mitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase subunit I for marine invertebrates and application in all-taxa biotic surveys.13: 851–861. https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.12138GistelJ (1848) Stuttgart, xvi, 216 pp., pls. 211–232.HaanW de (1833–1850) Crustacea. In: SieboldPFv (Ed.) Fauna Japonica sive Descriptio Animalium, Quae in Itinere per Japoniam, Jussu et Auspiciis Superiorum, qui Summum in India Batava Imperium Tenent, Suscepto, Annis 1823–1830 Collegit, Noitis, Observationibus et Adumbrationibus Illustravit., 1–243.HandySMDeedsJRIvanovaNVHerbertPDNHannerRHOrmosAWeigtLAMooreMMYancyHF (2011) A single-laboratory validated method for the generation of DNA barcodes for the identification of fish for regulatory compliance.94: 201–210.HendersonJR (1893) A contribution to Indian carcinology. Transactions of the Linnean Society of London, ser. 2, Zoology 5(10): 325–458, pls 36–40. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1096-3642.1893.tb00653.xHerbstJFW (1782–1804) Versuch einer Naturgeschichte der Krabben und Krebse nebst einer systematischen Beschreibung ihrer verschieden Arten. Berlin und Stralsund, 3 vols, 72 pls. https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.62813HuangJ-FYuH-P (1997) Illustrations of swimming crabs from Taiwan. National Museum of Marine Biology & Aquarium, 181 pp. (in Chinese).ICZN [International Commission for Zoological Nomenclature] (1999) International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, 4th ed. International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, London.JeyabaskaranRAjmal KhanSRamaiyanV. (2000) Brachyuran crabs of Gulf of Mannar. Biodiversity Project on Gulf of Mannar Biosphere Reserve. Parangipettai: Annamallai University, 99 pp. [78 pls]KatohKStandleyDM (2013) MAFFT multiple sequence alignment software version 7: improvements in performance and usability.30: 772–780. https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/mst010KeenanCPDaviePJFMannDL (1998) A revision of the genus Scylla de Haan, 1833 (Crustacea: Decapoda: Brachyura: Portunidae).46: 217–245.KimHSChangCY (1985) The brachyuran crabs of Cheju Island, Korea (Crustacea: Decapoda).1(1–2): 41–60.KoH-SLeeS-H (2013) Arthropoda: Malacostraca: Decapoda: Brachyura: Cancridae, Cheiragonidae, Dorippidae, Euryplacidae, Goneplacidae, Hymenosomatidae, Portunidae. Crabs and zoeas III.21(30): 1–76. [8 pls]KochMĎurišZ (2018) Monomialucida sp. nov., a new swimming crab (Crustacea: Decapoda: Portunidae) from the South China Sea.4387: 567–579. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4387.3.9KochMKamanliSACrimmenOLinC–WClarkPFĎurišZ (2017) The identity of Monomiaargentata (Crustacea : Brachyura : Portunidae) resolved by X-ray, computed tomography scanning and molecular comparisons.31: 797–811. https://doi.org/10.1071/IS16058KrishnamoorthyP (2009) Brachyuran crabs from the collections of the Marine Biological Centre.304: 1–46.KumarSStecherGTamuraK (2016) MEGA 7: Molecular Evolutionary Genetics Analysis version 7.0.33: 1870–1874. https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msw054LaiJCYNgPKLDavieP (2010) A revision of the Portunuspelagicus (Linnaeus, 1758) species complex (Crustacea: Brachyura: Portunidae), with the recognition of four species.58: 199–237.LanchesterWF (1902) On the Crustacea collected during the “Skeat” Exp[edition to the Malay Peninsula, together with a note on the genus Actaeopsis. Part I. Brachyura, Stomatopoda, and Macrura.1901(2): 534–574. [pls 33, 34] https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7998.1902.tb08187.xLanfearRCalcottBHoSYGuindonS (2012) Partitionfinder: combined selection of partitioning schemes and substitution models for phylogenetic analyses.29: 1695–1701. https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/mss020LanfearRFrandsenPBWrightAMSenfeldTCalcottB (2016) PartitionFinder 2: New Methods for selecting partitioned models of evolution for molecular and morphological phylogenetic analyses.34: 772–773. https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msw260LatreillePA (1825) Agasse Imprimeur-Libraire, Paris, 832 pp.LaurieRD (1906) Report on the Brachyura collected by Professor Herdman, at Ceylon, in 1902. In: HerdmanW. A. (ed.) Report to the Government of Ceylon on the Pearl Oyster Fisheries of the Gulf of Manaar with Supplementary Reports Upon the Marine Biology of Ceylon by Other Naturalists, Part 5, Suppl. Rep.40: 349–432. [pls 1, 2]LaverySChanT-YTamYKChuKH (2004) Phylogenetic relationships and evolutionary history of the shrimp genus Penaeus s.l. derived from mitochondrial DNA.31: 39–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2003.07.015LinCC (1949) A catalogue of brachyurous Crustacea of Taiwan.2(1): 10–33.MaKYChanT-YChuKH (2011) Refuting the six-genus classification of Penaeus s.l. (Dendrobranchiata, Penaeidae): a combined analysis of mitochondrial and nuclear genes.40: 498–508. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1463-6409.2011.00483.xMaKYChanT-YChuKH (2009) Phylogeny of penaeoid shrimps (Decapoda: Penaeoidea) inferred from nuclear protein-coding genes.53: 45–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2009.05.019ManJG De (1888) Report on the Podophthalmous Crustacea of the Mergui Archipelago, collected for the trustees of the Indian Museum, Calcutta, by Dr. John Anderson, F.R.S., Superintendent of the Museum.—Part IV.22(139): 177–240. [pls 13–15] https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1096-3642.1888.tb00031.xMantelattoFLRoblesR (2007) Molecular phylogeny of the western Atlantic species of the genus Portunus (Crustacea, Brachyura, Portunidae).150: 211–220. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1096-3642.2007.00298.xMantelattoFLRoblesRSchubartCDFelderDL (2009) Molecular phylogeny of the genus Cronius Stimpson, 1860, with reassignment of C.tumidulus and several American species of Portunus to the genus Achelous De Haan, 1833 (Brachyura: Portunidae). Decapod Crustacean Phylogenetics. CRC Press, 567–579. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781420092592-c29McLaughlinPALemaitreRFerrariFDFelderDLBauerRT (2008) A reply to T.W. Flegel.275: 370–373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2007.12.020MedlinLKElwoodHJSticklesSandSogin (1988) The characterization of enzymatically amplified eukaryotic 16S-like rRNA-coding regions.71: 491–499. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-1119(88)90066-2MiersEJ (1886) Neill and Company, Edinburgh, 362 pp.Milne-EdwardsA (1861) Etudes zoologiques sur les crustacés récents de la famille des portuniens.10: 309–421. [pls 28–38] https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.10629Milne-EdwardsH (1834) Histoire naturelle des Crustacés, comprenant l’anatomie, la physiologie et la classification de ces animaux. Roret, Paris, (1)468, (462)532, (463)638 pp. https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.39738MiyakeS (1961) A list of the decapod Crustacea of the Sea of Ariaké, Kyushu.5: 165–178.MiyakeS (1983) Japanese crustacean decapods and stomatopods in color. Vol. II. Brachyura (crabs), i–viii, 1–277, pls. 1–64. Hoikusha, Osaka. [in Japanese]MokadyORozenblattSGraurDLoyaY (1994) Coral-host specificity of red sea Lithophaga bivalves: interspecific and intraspecific variation in 12S mitochondrial ribosomal RNA.3: 158–164.Monterey Bay Aquarium Seafood Watch (2013) Blue and red swimming crab Portunuspelagicus and Portunushaanii. Indonesia, India, China, Viet Nam, Thailand. http://www.seafoodwatch.org/-/m/sfw/pdf/reports/c/mba_seafoodwatch_swimmercrab_report.pdf [accessed 05 December 2018]MoosaMK (1996) CrustaceaDecapoda: Deep-water swimming crabs from the South-West Pacific, particularly New Caledonia (Brachyura, Portunidae). In: CrosnierA (Ed.) Résultats des Campagnes MUSORSTOM, vol 15.168: 503–530.MullerF (1887) Zur Crustaceenfauna von Trincomali.8(2): 470–485. [pls IV, V] https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.part.19447MüllerOF (1771) Von Würmern des süssen und salzigen Wassers. Copenhagen, 200 pp. https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.14428NgPKLGuinotDDaviePJF (2008) Systema Brachyourum: Part I. An annotated checklist of extant brachyuran crabs of the world.17: 1–286.NgPKLShihH-THoP-HWangC-H (2017) An updated annotated checklist of brachyuran crabs from Taiwan (Crustacea: Decapoda). Journal of the National Taiwan Museum 70(3 & 4): 1–185.NgPKLWangC-HHoP-HShihH-T (2001) National Taiwan Museum, Taipei, 86 pp.OrtmannA (1893) Die Decapoden-Krebse des Strassburger Museums, mit besonderer Beriicksichtigung der von Herrn Dr. Döderlein bei Japan und bei Riu-Kiu Inseln gesammelten und zur Zeit im Strassburger Museum aufbewahrten Formen. VII. Brachyura. II. Cyclometopa.7: 411–495. [pl. 17] https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.part.24064PalumbiSR (1996) Nucleic acids II: the polymerase chain reaction. In: Hillis DM, Moritz C, Mable BK (Eds) Sinauer, Sunderland, 205-247.ParisiB (1916) I decapodi giapponesi del Museo di Milano. IV. Cyclometopa.55: 5–42. [pls 7–11]Pérez FarfanteIKensleyB (1997) Penaeoid and sergestoid shrimps and prawns of the world. Keys and diagnoses for the families and genera.175: 1–233.RathbunMJ (1896) The genus Callinectes.18: 349–375. https://doi.org/10.5479/si.00963801.18-1070.349RathbunMJ (1902) Japanese stalk-eyed crustaceans.26(1307): 23–55. https://doi.org/10.5479/si.00963801.26-1307.23RathbunMJ (1910) The Brachyura. The Danish Expedition to Siam, 1899–1900. V. Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskabs Skrifter, Kjøbenhavn (7) 5(4): 301–367. [pls 1, 2]RichtersF (1880) Decapoda. In: Möbius K (Ed.) Beiträge zur Meeresfauna der Insel Mauritius und der Seychellen bearbeitet von K. Möbius, F. Richters und E. von Martens nach Sammlungen, angelegt auf einer Reise nach Mauritius von K. Möbius. Berlin: Verlag der Gutmann’schen Buchhandlung.139–178. [pls 15–18]RonquistFHuelsenbeckJP (2003) MrBayes 3: Bayesian phylogenetic inference under mixed models.19: 1572–1574. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btg180SakaiT (1934) Brachyura from the coast of Kyushu, Japan. Scientific Reports of the Tokyo Bunrika Daigaku, sec.1: 281–330.SakaiT (1936) Crabs of Japan. Tokyo, 1–239, 1–12, pls 1–66, frontispiece. [in Japanese]SakaiT (1939) Studies on the Crabs of Japan IV. Brachygnatha, Brachyrhyncha. Vol. 3. Yokendo Co., Ltd, Tokyo, 365–741.SakaiT (1965) The Crabs of Sagami Bay: Collected by His Majesty the Emperor of Japan. Maruzen Co, Ltd, Tokyo, i–xvi, 1–206, 1–92, 1–32, pls 1–100.SakaiT (1976) Kodansha Ltd, Tokyo, 773 pp.SchubartCDReuschelS (2009) A proposal for a new classification of Portunoidea and Cancroidea (Brachyura: Heterotremata) based on two independent molecular phylogenies. In: MartinJWCrandallKAFelderDL (Eds) Decapod Crustacean Phylogenetics., 533–549. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781420092592-c27ShullHCPerez-LosadaMBlairDSewellKSinclairEALawlerSPonniahMCrandallKA (2005) Phylogeny and biogeography of the freshwater crayfish Euastacus (Decapoda: Parastacidae) based on nuclear and mitochondrial DNA.37: 249–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2005.04.034SpiridonovVANeretinaTVSchepetovD (2014) Morphological characterization and molecular phylogeny of Portunoidea Rafinesque, 1815 (CrustaceaBrachyura): Implications for understanding evolution of swimming capacity and revision of the family-level classification.253: 404–429. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcz.2014.03.003StamatakisA (2006) RAxML-VI-HPC: maximum likelihood-based phylogenetic analyses with thousands of taxa and mixed models.22: 2688–2690. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btl446StebbingTRR (1915) South African Crustacea (Part VIII of S. A. Crustacea, for the marine investigations in South Africa).15(2): 57–104. [pls 13-25] https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.part.22195StephensonW (1961) The Australian portunids (Crustacea: Portunidae) V. Recent collections.12: 98–128. https://doi.org/10.1071/MF9610092StephensonW (1972a) Portunid crabs from the Indo-West-Pacific and Western America in the Zoological Museum, Copenhagen (Decapoda, Brachyura, Portunidae).2(9): 127–156.StephensonW (1972b) An annotated check list and key to the Indo-West Pacific swimming crabs (Crustacea: Decapoda: Portunidae).10: 1–62.StephensonW (1975) Biological results of the Snellius Expedition, XXVI. The Portunidae (Decapoda - Brachyura) of the Snellius Expedition (Part II).49(14): 173–206.StephensonWCampbellBM (1959) The Australian portunids (Crustacea: Portunidae).10: 84–124. https://doi.org/10.1071/MF9590084StephensonWCookS (1973) Studies of Portunusgladiator complex and related species of Portunus (Crustacea: Decapoda).16: 415–434.StephensonWReesM (1967) Portunid crabs from the International Indian Ocean Expedition in the Smithsonian Collections (Crustacea: Portunidae).122(3599): 1–33. https://doi.org/10.5479/si.00963801.122-3599.1StephensonWReesM (1967b) Some portunid crabs from the Pacific and Indian Oceans in the collections of the Smithsonian Institution.120: 1–114. https://doi.org/10.5479/si.00963801.120-3556.1StephensonWReesM (1968) The Endeavour and other Australian Museum collections of portunid crabs (Crustacea, Decapoda, Portunidae).27(13): 285–298. https://doi.org/10.3853/j.0067-1975.27.1968.447StimpsonW (1858) Prodromus descriptionis animalium evertebratorum, quae in Expeditione ad Oceanum Pacificum Septentrionalem, a Republica Federata missa, Cadwaladaro Ringgold et Johanne Rodgers Ducibus, observavit et descripsit. Pars IV. CrustaceaCancroidea et Corystoidea.10: 31–40. https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.51447StimpsonW (1907) Report on the Crustacea (Brachyura and Anomura) Collected by the North Pacific Exploring Expedition, 1853–1856.49: 1–240. https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.51448TakedaM (1989) Shallow-water crabs from Oshima Passage between Amami-Oshima and Kakero-jima Islands, the Northern Ryukyu Islands.22: 135–184.TakedaMMiyakeS (1968) Crabs from the East China Sea, I. Corystoidea and Brachygnatha Brachyrhyncha.14(4): 541–582.TavaresMSantanaW (2018) Refining the genus Rochinia A. Milne-Edwards, 1875: reinstatement of Scyramathia A. Milne-Edwards, 1880 and Anamathia Smith, 1885, and a new genus for Amathiacrassa A. Milne-Edwards, 1879, with notes on its ontogeny (Crustacea: Brachyura: Epialtidae).4418: 201–227. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4418.3.1TrivediJNTrivediDJVachhrajaniKDNgPKL (2018) An annotated checklist of the marine brachyuran crabs (Crustacea: Decapoda: Brachyura) of India.4502(1): 1–83. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4502.1.1VaidyaGLohmanDJMeierR (2011) SequenceMatrix: concatenation software for the fast assembly of multi-gene datasets with character set and codon information.27: 171–180. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1096-0031.2010.00329.xWarnerKLowellBDislaCOrtenziKSavitsJHirshfieldM (2015) Oceana reveals mislabeling of iconic Chesapeake blue crab. Oceana, 1–15. https://oceana.org/sites/default/files/crab_testing_report_final_3.27.15.pdfWeeDPCNgPKL (1995) Swimming crabs of the genera Charybdis De Haan, 1833, and Thalamita Latreille, 1829 (Crustacea: Decapoda: Brachyura: Portunidae) from Peninsular Malaysia and Singapore. Raffles Bulletin of Zoology, Suppl.1: 1–128.WindsorAMFelderDL (2014) Molecular phylogenetics and taxonomic reanalysis of the family Mithracidae MacLeay (Decapoda: Brachyura: Majoidea).28: 145–173. https://doi.org/10.1071/is13011YamaguchiTBabaK (1993) Crustacean specimens collected in Japan by Ph. F. von Siebold an H. Bürger and held by the National Natuurhistorisch Museum in Leiden and other museums. In: YamaguchiT (Ed.) Ph F von Siebold and Natural History of Japan, Crustacea., 145–570.YangSDaiA (1994) Further notes on the crabs (BrachyuraCrustacea) from Nansha Islands and its adjacent waters. Marine Fauna and Flora and Biogeography of the Nansha Islands and Neighbouring Waters, 125–148. [in Chinese]Appendix 1
The types of Monomiagladiator (Fabricius, 1798) are currently deposited in the Natural History Museum of Denmark (NHMD) in Copenhagen. The lectotype (ZMUC-Cru 4705) has the corresponding catalog number, NHMD-82551. The paralectotypes (ZMUC-Cru 4704, 4706, and 4708) have the corresponding catalog numbers, NHMD-82550, -82552, and -82554, respectively (J. Olesen pers. comm.)