No abstract

Molecular phylogenetic analysis on nine of the ten genera in the caridean family Oplophoridae Dana, 1852, as well as 14 other caridean families using mitochondrial 16S and nuclear 18S rRNA genes, does not support the monophyletic status of Oplophoridae. Two disparate groups of oplophorids are revealed, with different morphological characters and ecology. It is proposed that the family Oplophoridae is restricted to the three genera Oplophorus, Systellaspis and Janicella. These three genera tend to be distributed in shallower water than the other oplophorid genera, and can also be distinguished from them by certain morphological characters. They have a thicker integument, superficial cuticular photophores and larger eyes, and the molar process of their mandibles is greatly reduced or bears a deep channel. The family Acanthephyridae Bate, 1888 is resurrected for the other seven genera, which are generally distributed in deeper water and are characterised by red soft integument, no cuticular photophores, smaller eyes and well-developed molar process of the mandibles without a deep channel. The relationships between these two families and other caridean families could not be clearly resolved in this study.

The systematic positions of the caridean families Gnathophyllidae and Hymenoceridae are inferred based on analyses of nuclear 18S rRNA and 28S rRNA genes. The phylogenetic trees based on 18S rRNA and 28S rRNA from selected species of one genus of the family Gnathophyllidae, two genera of the family Hymenoceridae, one genus of the family Anchistioididae, eight genera of the subfamily Pontoniinae and five genera of the subfamily Palaemoninae show a close relationship between Hymenoceridae, Gnathophyllidae and Pontoniinae, with the last group constituting a paraphyletic assemblage. This result concurs with the morphology of maxilla in the first zoea, but not the shape of the third maxilliped in adults, based on which Gnathophyllidae and Hymenoceridae are treated as families. Molecular analysis supports the similarities in larval morphology between Hymenoceridae, Gnathophyllidae and Pontoniinae and therefore draws into question the familial status of the former two groups.