Superfamily ANTHUROIDEA Leach, 1814

Museums

Regional Maps

• Anthuroidea Leach, W.E. 1814. Crustaceology. pp. 383-437 in Brewster, D. Sir (ed.). The Edinburgh Encyclopaedia. Edinburgh : John Murray Baldwin & Cradocle Vol. 7 (2).

Introduction

Anthuroids, for many years treated as the suborder Anthuridea of Isopoda, are recognisable initially from their elongate cylindrical bodies. This general form is combined with the attitude of the uropodal exopod variously elevated and sitting over or alongside the pleotelson. Only one exception, Leipanthura casuarina Poore, 2009, has more typical flat posteriorly directed uropodal rami. Some anthuroid families have compact mouthparts but others have the mandible, maxillula and maxilliped produced as interacting stylets. These particularly are micropredators feeding by sucking fluids and tissue from their prey (Wägele, 1982, 1985). Anthuroids are protogynous hermaphrodites in which the terminal phase is a male with large eyes, extended swimming limbs and more numerous aesthetascs on the antennulae.The basis for systematics of the groups was established almost 100 years ago (Barnard, 1925). Wägele (1981) undertook a thorough review of the phylogeny and systematics of the group with many insights into its biology. The most recent synthetic review of the taxonomy of all families was by Poore (2001); few genera and species have been added since.

There has never been any doubt about the monophyly of this group, long recognised as the Suborder Anthuridea erected by Monod (1922) for a group of isopods now including more than 620 species described in 62 genera and six families. Poore (2000) listed species then known but WoRMS maintains an up-to-date list.

Norman & Stebbing (1886) recognised two sections within the Anthuridae, section A for those species with "biting" mouthparts and section B for those with "piercing" mouthparts. This division was followed by Barnard (1925) in the first major synthesis of the group which he considered "a preliminary study only". He discussed morphology at length and provided keys to 24 genera. He diagnosed all the species then known, adding 21 new ones and seven new genera. Barnard (1925) was unable to unambiguously define sections A and B on characters other than the general form of the mouthparts but he generalised about the statocyst, unguis of pereopod 1, the relative size of pereopods 1 and 2-3, and the telson. Menzies & Glynn (1968) elevated Norman & Stebbing's sections A and B to family rank, Anthuridae and Paranthuridae respectively.

Wägele (1981) reported on many observations of living animals and correlated feeding strategies and habitats with internal and external anatomy. His evolutionary analysis derived anthurideans from the flabelliferan isopods, from a hypothetical cirolanid-like ancestor. In this work he proposed the new family Hyssuridae. A fourth family, Antheluridae, was erected for members of three genera by Poore & Lew Ton (1988). Wägele (1989) revisited the phylogeny of the "Anthuridea" as part of a study of the Isopoda as a whole. His views that the Anthuridea were a highly derived group of flabelliferans was confirmed by Brusca & Wilson (1991).

Poore (2001) presented a new classification of the families and genera based on phylogenetic principles. Two new families, Leptanthuridae and Expanathuridae, were erected based on an evolutionary scenario hypothesised in cladistic analyses of genera and families. All families and 57 genera were diagnosed and illustrated dichotomous keys for their identification were given. The described species were listed.

Diagnosis

Freeliving, predators or ectoparasitic on fishes or invertebrates. Body elongate, cylindrical. Antennula, antenna well developed. Mandibular molar absent or reduced; lacinia mobilis and spine row more or less fused into a lamina dentata; incisor process blunt or acute. Maxilla absent, fused into hypopharynx. Pereopods 1 or 1–3 more or less prehensile; pereopodal coxal plates without free ventrolateral margin. Pleopod 1 exopod operculiform, pleopods 2–4 rami lamellate, or pleopods 1–5 biramous, rami lamellate (Hyssuridae only). Uropodal endopod terminal; exopod more or less dorsally and proximally displaced, sometimes mesially directed or erect (except Leipanthura).

General References

Barnard, K.H. 1925. A revision of the family Anthuridae (Crustacea, Isopoda), with remarks on certain morphological peculiarities. Journal of the Linnean Society of London, Zoology 36: 109-160

Brusca, R.C. & Wilson, G.D.F. 1991. A phylogenetic analysis of the Isopoda with some classificatory recommendations. Memoirs of the Queensland Museum 31: 143-204

Menzies, R.J. & Glynn, P.W. 1968. The common marine isopod Crustacea of Puerto Rico. A handbook for marine biologists. Uitgaven van de Natuurwetenschappelijke Studiekring voor Suriname en de Nederlandse Antillen 51: 1-133

Monod, T. 1922. Sur un essai de classification rationelle des isopodes. Bulletin de la Société Zoologique de France 47: 134-140

Norman, A.M. & Stebbing, T.R.R. 1886. On the Crustacea of the "Lighting", "Porcupine" and "Valorous" Expeditions. Transactions of the Zoological Society of London 12: 77-141

Poore, G.C.B. 2001. Families and genera of Isopoda Anthuridea. Crustacean Issues 13: 63-173

Poore, G.C.B. 2002. Crustacea: Malacostraca: Syncarida, Peracarida: Isopoda, Tanaidacea, Mictacea, Thermosbaenacea, Spelaeogriphacea. In Houston, W.W.K. & Beesley, P.L. (eds) Zoological Catalogue of Australia. Vol. 19.2A. Melbourne : CSIRO Publishing, Australia. xii 434 pp.

Poore, G.C.B. & Lew Ton, H.M. 1988. A generic review of the Hyssuridae (Crustacea: Isopoda) with a new genus and new species from Australia. Memoirs of Museum Victoria 49: 169-193

Wägele, J.W. 1981. Zur phylogenie der Anthuridea (Crustacea, Isopoda) mit Beiträgen zur Lebensweise, Morphologie, Anatomie und Taxonomie. Zoologica (Stuttgart) 132: 1-127

Wägele, J.W. 1989. Evolution und phylogenetisches System der Isopoda. Stand der Forschung und neue Erkenntnisse. Zoologica (Stuttgart) 140: 1-262

History of changes