THE STATUS OF REMIPES TEST UDINARI US LATREILLE, AND DESIGNATION OF A NEOTYPE FOR HIPPA ADACTYLA J. C. FABRICIUS (DECAPODA, HIPPIDAE) 1) BY JANET HAIG Allan Hancock Foundation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, U.S.A. The anomuran crab family Hippidae contains three genera, currently recognized under the following names: Emerita Scopoli, 1777 (antennal flagella long, dactyl of first legs oval and lamellate); Hippa J. C. Fabricius, 1787 (antennal flagella short, dactyl of first legs subcylindrical and styliform); and Mastigochirus Miers, 1878 (antennal flagella short, dactyl of first legs multiarticulate). Due to an early invalid type-species designation the name Hippo was applied to the genus correctly known as Emerita, while the genus now known as Hippa was called by its junior synonym, Remipes Latreille, 1804. Rathbun (1900: 301) made a valid authors type selection and applied Hippa in the current sense, but at least 15 continued to use RemileJ after that date. The history of this nomenclatural pro- blem was discussed by Heegaard & Holthuis (1960: 180-182). Finally Emerita Scopoli, 1777, with Cancer emeritus Linnaeus as type-species, and Hippa Fabricius, 1787, with Hippa adactyla Fabricius as type-species, were placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology (International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, 1963: 1 8 ) . This action left untouched another problem: the identity of Hippa adactyla Fabricius, 1787. H. adactyla cannot be identified from the original description and there has always been uncertainty about its status, although it has most often been considered synonymous with Remipe.r testudinarius Latreille, 1806. The latter name in turn has been subject to different interpretations and this confusion still exists today. These two complex, interrelated problems came to my attention during studies on Australian Hippidea, and I realized that the status of both names should be clarified if possible. THE STATUS OF CANCER TESTUDINARIUSHERBST Herbst (1791: 8, pl. 22 fig. 4, not fig. 3 as stated in the text) applied the name Cancer testudinarius to a sand-living crustacean from Martinique. It is 1) Contribution No. 340 from the Allan Hancock Foundation. 289 clearly a member of genus Hi p pa, and the type-locality identifies it as the species currently known as Hippa cuben.ri.r (Saussure, 1857). Bosc (1801-2 : 12), citing Herbst, listed this species as Hippa te.rtudinaria. As far as I am aware, these are the only two instances where the name testudinarius was used in this sense. Cancer te.rtudinariu.r Herbst appears to be the oldest valid name for the one species of Hippa that inhabits the Atlantic Ocean; that species should therefore be called Hippa te.rtudinaria ( Herbst) instead of H. cuben.ri.r ( Saussure) . THE STATUS OF REMIPES TESTUDINARIUS LATREILLE Latreille (1804: 126) created the genus Remipe.r but did not name any species in connection with it, mentioning only a "crustace in6dit des mers orientales". Two years later (Latreille, 1806: 45) he published the original description of that species under the name Remipes testudinarius, with "in Oceano Australasiae" as the type-locality. The name, and references to earlier works, were presented as follows : 7. SPEC. 7.1. REMIPES TESTUDINARIUS. Renzipedefortue. Hippa adactyla. FAB. Suppl. entom..ry.rtem.,pag. 370? HERBST. Cane., tab. 22, fig. 4? It is not clear what Latreille meant by citing Fabricius and Herbst in this way. He may have believed Hippa adactyla Fabricius and Cancer testudinarius Herbst to be possibly synonymous with his own species Remipes te.rtudinariu.r. Or he may simply have been listing H. adactyla and C. te.rtudinariu.r, with the suggestion that they perhaps belonged in genus Remipes. In either case his use of the name testudinarius for his new species is puzzling, since he was evidently aware that it had already been used by Herbst. Another possible interpretation would be that Latreille was not creating a new species at all, but transferring Cancer testudinarius Herbst to genus Remipe.r (L. B. Holthuis, personal communication). In that case he would have considered the specimen (s) collected "in Oceano Australasiae" simply as additional material of Herbst's species. However, later works by Latreille clear up this confusion and show that he recognized his R. te.rtudinariu.r, described in 1806, as a distinct species. In one book (1817a: 28) he stated: "Ce genre [Remipes) a 6t6 6tabli sur une seule esp?ce, propre aux mers de la Nouvelle-Hollande". Two years later (1819: 141) he said more specifically: "Ce genre a ete etabli sur une espece, le REMIPEDE TORTUE, Remipe.r testudinarius, apportée des mers de la Nouvelle- Hollande [i.e. Australia] par Peron et M. Le Sueur... On trouve sur les cotes de la Martinique une autre esp?ce, et qui me paroit avoir ete figuree dans un ouvrage anglais sur l'histoire naturelle des Barbades". The name Remipe.r testudinarius Latreille, 1806 must be rejected as a junior secondary homonym of Cancer testudinarius Herbst, 1791. The name to be used as a substitute for it depends on the identity of Latreille's type-material. Un- there has fortunately always been disagreement on this point, and the specific .