ANNALES DU MUSEUM D'HISTOIRE NATURELLE DE NICE Tome V, 1977, pp. 37-88. THE MEDITERRANEAN DECAPOD AND STOMATOPOD CRUSTACEA IN A. RISSO'S PUBLISHED WORKS AND MANUSCRIPTS by L. B. HOLTHUIS Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, Netherlands CONTENTS Risso's 1841 and 1844 guides, which contain a simple unannotated list of Crustacea found near Nice. 1. Introduction 37 Most of Risso's descriptions are quite satisfactory 2. The importance and quality of Risso's carcino- and several species were figured by him. This caused logical work 38 that most of his names were immediately accepted by 3. List of Decapod and Stomatopod species in Risso's his contemporaries and a great number of them is dealt publications and manuscripts 40 with in handbooks like H. Milne Edwards (1834-1840) Penaeidea 40 "Histoire naturelle des Crustaces", and Heller's (1863) Stenopodidea 46 "Die Crustaceen des siidlichen Europa". This made that Caridea 46 Risso's names at present are widely accepted, and that Macrura Reptantia 55 his works are fundamental for a study of Mediterranean Anomura 58 Brachyura 62 Decapods. Stomatopoda 76 Although most of Risso's descriptions are readily 4. New genera proposed by Risso (published and recognizable, there is a number that have caused later unpublished) 76 authors much difficulty. In these cases the descriptions 5. List of Risso's manuscripts dealing with Decapod were not sufficiently complete or partly erroneous, and Stomatopod Crustacea 77 the names given by Risso were either interpreted in 6. Literature 7S different ways and so caused confusion, or were entirely ignored. It is a very fortunate circumstance that many of 1. — INTRODUCTION Risso's manuscripts and notes, at least a great part of them, are still preserved and are held by the library The Crustacea of the Mediterranean are among the of the Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle in Paris. first ever that have been scientifically studied. Aristotle's It was Monod (1931) who first directed the attention to researches on the Decapoda of the eastern Mediterra­ these manuscripts. Thanks to the help of Dr Th. Monod nean for a long time (until far into the Middle Ages) and the late Dr M. Andre, both of the Paris Museum, formed the basis of the knowledge of that group. The I was able to obtain photocopies of all of the pages first printed works dealing with Crustacea (Belon, 1553, of these manuscripts dealing with Crustacea. Many 1555; Rondelet, 1554; Aldrovandus, 1606, etc.) mainly illustrations are present, among them several showing dealt with Mediterranean species. But it was not until species that had been insufficiently described by Risso. A. Risso in 1816 published his "Histoire Naturelle des In several instances they enabled the identification of Crustaces des environs de Nice" that the knowledge the dubious species. of the Mediterranean Crustacea obtained a firm basis. In the present paper I have listed all species of After the publication of Linnaeus's Systema Naturae and before 1816, it is true, several publications appeared in Decapod and Stomatopod Crustacea dealt with by Risso which Mediterranean Crustacea were dealt with (Briin- in his various publications and in his manuscripts. These nich, 1768; Olivi, 1792; Tilesius, 1796; Rafinesque, species are placed in the order adopted by most modern 1814, etc.), but these works as a rule also covered other carcinologists and the names used for them are the groups and the Crustacea are usually treated rather nomenclaturally valid ones. Under each species refe­ superficially or haphazardly. rences are given to [1] the places where Risso treated these species in his publications, with the names that he In two large and two small publications, Risso (1816, used there for them, and [2] the manuscripts in which 1822, 1827, 1827a) gave a thorough account of the the species are mentioned, with the indication of whether western Mediterranean Crustacea and described a wealth their names are just listed, a description is given, or a of new taxa. To these four publications may be added figure is provided; the manuscripts are here indicated 38 by the lettering given to them in the list in par. 5. Where whatever as to the species meant by these authors, but the species were mentioned by Hope (1851), or by also because they had a rather wide distribution. Unfor­ Monod (1931), references to those papers are included, tunately, neither the Costa's nor Roux finished their as are also references to papers listing or dealing with publications and only a part of the Decapoda that they Risso's nomina nuda, nomina dubia, or unpublished intended to treat were published. names. The first author to list unpublished manuscript It is Risso's great merit that in both his 1816 and names by Risso is Hope (1851), who inserted them in 1827 publications he covered the entire group of Deca­ his list of Mediterranean Crustacea, without, however, poda known from the Nice area and in doing so he giving any details of the species; the names therefore provided a handbook for the zoologists working in the remain nomina nuda and are unavailable; their identity western Mediterranean. Also his contacts with zoologists is only interesting for historical purposes. Monod (1931) like P. Roux and W.E. Leach, as well as with the carci- extensively dealt with Risso's manuscripts, giving a nologists of the Museum d'Histoire naturelle in Paris, complete inventory of them. In Monod's paper also several of Risso's manuscript names are published for made that more attention was paid to his writings than the first time, or some of the names listed by Hope to those by several other, perhaps more competent, carci- were again mentioned. More important, Monod repro­ nologists of the time. duced several of Risso's unpublished Crustacea illustra­ All this does not mean that his contemporaries were tions in his paper. not critical of Risso's work and that all regarded it to be of a very high standard. On the contrary, so Bour- Apart from the species dealt with by Risso, the new guignat (1861:6) characterized Risso as follows: « Ecri- genera of Decapoda proposed by that author are likewise vain fecond, mais sans jugement, innovateur infatigable, treated here (par. 4). mais absurde, Risso a embrasse dans ses ecrits presque The treatment of the various species in the present toutes les branches de l'histoire naturelle, sans en avoir paper is rather heterogeneous as much more attention bien traite une seule». Latreille (1819, Nouv. Diet. is given to the little known species and those that so far Hist. Nat., ed. 2 vol. 30, pp. 69, 70), less extreme, re­ were considered dubious, than to those that have always marked: « M. Risso..., dans son ouvrage sur les crus­ been correctly identified by subsequent authors. taces de la riviere de Nice, a decrit un assez grand I wish to express my deep gratitude to Dr. Th. nombre d'especes inedites de salicoques. Mais en ren- Monod, who, already a long time ago, awakened my dant justice a son zele et a ses travaux, nous ne pouvons nous empecher de dire qu'il n'a pas assez approfondi interest in Risso and the identity of the Crustacea son sujet; que sou- [p. 70 :] vent l'on cherche en vain, described by him. Dr. Monod generously placed all his dans ses descriptions, des connoissances relatives aux notes on Risso's Crustacea at my disposal, brought some principaux organes sur lesquels repose la classification; overlooked publications (e.g. Risso, 1844) to my atten­ que plusieurs de ces especes sont mal placees, et que tion, and greatly assisted me in the present study. The leur determination, a raison de ces lacunes, embarrassera late Dr. Marc Andre was kind enough to help me in souvent les naturalistes. La science est si avancee et em­ obtaining the microfilm of the greater part of Risso's brasse aujourd'hui tant de details, que des descriptions manuscripts. incompletes ne font qu'accroitre ce chaos designe sous le nom d'hwertae sedis. » The archives of the Rijksmu- seum van Natuurlijke Historie at Leiden contain letters 2. — THE IMPORTANCE AND QUALITY of the well known Belgian malacologist F.J. Cantraine, who from 1827 to 1833 collected for the Leiden Mu­ OF RISSO's CARCINOLOGICAL WORK seum in Italy and the nearby Mediterranean area. In a letter of 30 September 1827 Cantraine wrote that Risso's new book (i.e. Histoire naturelle de l'Europe meridio- In Risso's time, the first half of the 19th century, nale) was recently published and that it was « beaucoup several authors devoted their attention to the fauna of plus complet et aussi inexact dit-on» than his 1816 the western Mediterranean area. Most of these, like Crustaces des environs de Nice. Also A.G. Desmarest Risso, were amateurs and worked in southern France and H. Milne Edwards were quite critical of several of (e.g., A. Risso and J.B. Verany in Nice, Polydore Roux Risso's species and treated these as synonyms, species in Marseilles) and southern Italy (e.g., A. and O.G. inquirenda or entirely ignored them. Desmarest (1825: Costa in Naples, C.S. Rafinesque, A. Cocco, G. de 421-425), for instance, in a separate appendix to his Natale, N. Prestandrea and A. Rizza in Sicily). Of all well known « Considerations... » listed those species of these authors, Risso was the most influential, even Crustacea described by Risso (among which 17 species though not the most accomplished. Some of his descrip­ of Decapoda), which he (Desmarest) could not defini­ tions are incomplete, lack mention of important details, tely assign to their correct genera: he had « des doutes or are inaccurate in places, while not all new species are sur l'exactitude de la determination des genres auxquels figured; hereby a, be it relatively small, number of his ont ete rapportes la plupart d'entr'elles ».