PROC. BIOL. SOC. WASH. 103(1), 1990, pp. 100-102 ON THE STATUS OF ALPHEUS BARBARA LOCKINGTON (CRUSTACEA: : )

Mary K. Wicksten

Abstract. —Alpheus Barbara, described by Lockington (1878) based on a single specimen from California, has not been reported since its description. The type material has been lost. One of the major distinguishing features between A. barbara and A. clamator, the presence of a spine on the basicerite of the second antenna in the latter species, is inconsistent. Spines on alpheids may be lost, blunt or reduced in old or large individuals. Based on the evidence, A. barbara Lockington, 1878 is considered to be a junior subjective synonym of A. clamator Lockington, 1877.

In 1878, W. Lockington described a new line to the lower continental slopes—the Al­ species of snapping , Alpheus bar­ lan Hancock Foundation, University of bara, from Santa Barbara, California. The Southern California, has over 19,000 spec­ description was based on the unique type imens of decapod , and large col­ material, a specimen originally reported by lections also exist at Scripps Institution of J. Kingsley in 1878. Kingsley, however, re­ Oceanography, the California Academy of ported the specimen as Alpheus clamator Sciences and the National Museum of Nat­ Lockington, 1876. According to Lockington ural History, Smithsonian Institution. (1878), Kingsley's specimen differed from Decapod crustaceans have been collected A. clamator by the dissimilar proportions and studied by environmental agencies, the of the articles of the carpus of the second California Department of Fish and Game, pereopods and the absence of spines on the students and researchers from many insti­ basicerites of the second antennae and meri tutions, park personnel and divers. Despite of the posterior three pereopods. Neither all of this activity, no further material of A. writer figured the specimen. Both men­ barbara has been reported in the literature tioned that it was damaged, missing the ros­ or deposited in collections, nor has it been trum and frontal region of the carapace. found off western Mexico. The type specimen, "in the collections of It seems odd that a species in such a well- the Peabody Academy of Science at Salem, studied area as southern California would Massachusetts" or "the Peabody Museum not be found unless it lived in a very in­ of Yale College" (Kingsley 1878:189), ap­ accessible habitat or occurred in a fresh­ parently was lost. Neither Holmes (1900) water site that had been destroyed by hu­ nor Schmitt (1921) reported seeing speci­ man activity. Although exact collecting data mens of the species. No additional material was not provided, Alpheus barbara proba­ of the supposed species has been reported bly came from an intertidal or shallow sub- since the species was described. tidal rocky area. The collector, W. G. W. In an attempt to compile an accurate list Harford, collected other alpheids known to of decapod crustaceans of southern Califor­ live in such habitats (Kingsley 1878). Al­ nia, I checked records of all species reported though there is the remote possibility that in the area. Extensive collections have been the species became extinct, it seems unlike­ made in southern California from the shore­ ly. Most coastal environmental degradation I » VOLUME 103, NUMBER 1 101 W ' in southern California has occurred in bays, are known from southern California: A. cla­ estuaries and marshlands (Wicksten 1984a). mator, A. bellimanus Lockington and A. Kingsley originally referred his specimen californiensis Holmes (Wicksten 1984b). to A. clamator. This common species is well The major chelae of the latter two species represented in collections. To determine if differ greatly in the pattern of spines and A. barbara might be misidentified among sulci from those described by Kingsley for ! such material, I examined all of the speci­ his specimen, so it is unlikely that A. bar­ mens of A. clamator in the collections of the bara could have been confused with either Allan Hancock Foundation. These 1030 species. specimens have been taken throughout the The distinction between A. barbara and ' entire geographic and bathymetric range of A. clamator was based on three differences. the species, and include individuals of both The proportions of the segments of the car­ sexes and a wide range of sizes. pus of the second pereopod could have been When examining the specimens of A. cla­ misinterpreted without accurate measuring mator, I looked for the differences which devices: there is little difference between Lockington (1878) indicated as different be­ segments "equal" and one being 1.3 x as tween A. barbara and A. clamator. the pro­ long as the other. The spine on the basicerite portions of the articles of the carpus of the is missing in a low proportion of the pop­ second pereopod and absence of spines from ulation of A. clamator. In a "damaged" the basicerite and meri of the third-fifth pe- specimen, meral spines might be missing reopods. The proportions of the carpal ar­ from the posterior pereopods. ticles vary slightly and can be difficult to In the account by Lockington (1878) de­ measure exactly without a micrometer. scribing A. barbara, there is no evidence Supposedly, in A. barbara, the first two seg- that Lockington ever actually examined ' ments of the carpus of the second pereopod Kingsley's specimen. The short description are equal in size, while in A. clamator, the differentiates between A. clamator, A. bel­ first segment is 1.3 x as long as the second limanus and A. barbara, but provides no (Kim & Abele 1988). Such a slight difference description of the specimen except what was probably could be easily confused, and is reported by Kingsley. Lockington (p. 472) not a useful character for distinguishing be­ ended the description by stating, "As Kings- tween two species. ley had only an imperfect specimen, and ' Of the 1030 specimens ofA. clamator that does not describe the rostrum and front, I I examined, a spine was absent from at least cannot be sure that this species belongs to one basicerite in 14 specimens. In 10, the this section" (of alpheids). Based on the de­ spine was absent on the right but present on scription and the evidence of variability the left, and in four, it was absent on the within A. clamator, I suggest that Alpheus left but present on the right. In addition, in barbara Lockington is a junior subjective three specimens the spine was blunt or re­ synonym of A. clamator Lockington. duced on the right, and in another two it Snapping shrimp of the Alpheus are was blunt or reduced on the left. In all, about known to show considerable within-species 2% of individuals ofA. clamatorlack a spine variation. The major chelae of males and on the basicerite on at least one side. All females often differ in size and shape, as do individuals had spines on the meri of the those of juveniles from adults. Widespread posterior three pereopods, but these spines species also can have regional variants. (See, could be blunt in large individuals. for example, the discussion of A. floridanus that were regenerating appendages often had by Chace 1972:66; and the remarks on vari­ abnormally slender, spineless legs. ation in the genus Alpheus by Banner & Ban­ At present, three valid species of Alpheus ner 1982:21.) Such within-species variabil- 102 PROCEEDINGS OF THE BIOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF WASHINGTON ity has confused systematists working on the 1 species (Crustacea: : Natantia).— family and has resulted in many species Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 98:1-179. Holmes, S. J. 1900. Synopsis of California stalked- having extensive lists of synonyms. eyed Crustacea.—Occasional Papers of the Cal­ Kim & Abele (1988:21) treated A. bar- ifornia Academy of Sciences 7:1-262. bara as a valid species "because the absence Kim, W., & L. G. Abele. 1988. The snapping shrimp of a lateral spine on the basicerite is a quite genus Alpheus from the eastern Pacific (Decapo­ distinct and important character." From my da: Caridea: Alpheidae).—Smithsonian Contri­ butions to Zoology 454:1-119. study, it appears that the presence of the Kingsley, J. S. 1878. A synopsis of the North Amer­ spine of the basicerite usually, but not al­ ican species of the genus Alpheus.— Bulletin of ways, is consistent within a single species. the U.S. Geological and Geographical Survey of I have observed similar variation in spines the Territories, U.S. Department of the Interior on the carpal segments of the major chelae 4:189-199. Lockington, W. N. 1877. Description of seventeen of A. armillatus Milne Edwards and A. ca- new species of Crustacea.—Proceedings of the nalis Kim & Abele—most individuals of the California Academy of Sciences 7:41-48. population have distinct spines, but a few . 1878. Remarks on some new Alphei, with a very large (and probably old) individuals synopsis of the North American species.—An­ have small knobs or no spines at all. Anyone nals and Magazine of Natural History ser. 5, 1: 465-480. attempting to identify or describe alpheids Schmitt, W. L. 1921. The marine decapod Crustacea should be cautious about using presence or of California.—University of California Publi­ absence of spines alone as a distinguishing cations in Zoology 23:1-470. feature between species, especially when ex­ Wicksten, M. K. 1984a. Early twentieth century rec­ amining a large or old individual. ords of marine decapod crustaceans from Los Angeles and Orange counties, California.—Bul­ letin of the Southern California Academy of Sci­ Literature Cited ences 83(1): 12-42. . 1984b. New records of snapping Banner, D. M., & A. H. Banner. 1982. The alpheid (family Alpheidae) from California.—Proceed­ shrimp of Australia. Part III: The remaining al­ ings of the Biological Society of Washington 9 7: pheids, principally the genus Alpheus, and the 186-190. family Ogyrididae.—Records of the Australian Museum 34:1-357. Chace, F. A., Jr. 1972. The shrimps of the Smith- Department of Biology, Texas A&M Uni­ sonian-Bredin Caribbean expeditions with a versity, College Station, Texas 77843. summary of the West Indian shallow-water