Yamato shrimp is now Caridina multidentata

[hwchoy]

In the paper just published, Cai Y.X. et al has established that Caridina japonica is a junior synonym of Caridina multidentata Stimpson, 1860.


JOURNAL OF CRUSTACEAN BIOLOGY, 26(3): 392–419, 2006

ON THE SPECIES OF JAPANESE ATYID SHRIMPS (DECAPODA: CARIDEA) DESCRIBED BY WILLIAM STIMPSON (1860)
Yixiong Cai, Peter K. L. Ng, Shigemitsu Shokita, and Kiyoshi Satake

ABSTRACT

The taxonomic status of the six Japanese species of Caridina described by W. Stimpson (1860) is clarified on the basis of fresh specimens from the type localities. Caridina grandirostris, which has long been synonymized under C. longirostris H. Milne Edwards, 1837, is shown to be a distinct species; C. leucosticta is redescribed; C. multidentata is the senior synonym of C. japonica De Man, 1892; C. acuminata and C. brevirostris are regarded as junior synonyms of Atyoida pilipes (Newport, 1847); and C. exilirostris is synonymized with C. typus H. Milne Edwards, 1837. Neotypes for the six species are designated to stabilize their taxonomy, all of which are redescribed and figured. The various nomenclatural problems associated with these species are discussed.

[hwchoy]

here's an english translation courtesy of James APSA:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[the species names should be in italics, but I'm being lazy]
Caridina grandirostris ("big nose") has been called C. longirostris for a long time. The two are now considered separate species.

C. leucosticta (btw "sticta" means "spotted"; leuco- usually means yellowish) has been given a new coat of paint (redescribed means the old description of what determined the species was a little wishy-washy and has been tidied up and made more detailed and diagnostic).

They decided that C. multidentata ("many-toothed" proably referring to the rostrum) and C. japonica (from japan) were actually the same species. Because C. multidentata is the older name, it gets kept whilst the younger (junior) name becomes a synonym, leaving, for the moment, C. multidentata as the correct name.

C. acuminata ("pointy" or "sharp"), C. brevirostris ("short nose") and Atyoida pilipes are considered to be all the same species; the oldest name is Atyoida pilipes, so they are now called that.

C. exilirostris and C. typus are considered to be the same species, and will be called C. typus.

A neotype is a new specimen designated to "carry the name" - if in the future, someone comes along and thinks they have found two (or more) species in one of the previous ones, they can examine these type specimens to determine which of the two forms should be called by the existing name and which one gets a new name (or resurrects an old one). Neotypes are only designated when there is no known type material or the types have been lost. types of types.

Taxonomy is quite dynamic at times, which surprises people.

Hope that was understandable

[stormhawk]

Okay, so the bugger had a name change. That's about it right?

[hobbit6003]

I dunno all these nomenclature thingy, but one thing that bugs me, is the relevance of the name given in this case:

Multidentata tells me nothing of ht eshrimp except that it has many teeth? Or for this matter, just the rostrum? Don't other shrimps have the same anatomy?

Japonica at least tells us that it comes from Japan, which to me, adds more relevance , isn't it?

Sorry for my rambling, guess it's the non-stop rain here in Singapore that's driving me nuts, and getting me to grit my multidentatas even harder.

Kenny

[budak]

A simple reason why japonica isn't very useful a name is that there are probably dozens if not hundreds of Caridina shrimp species in the country... another thing is a lot of these shrimps look almost alike to most of us (e.g. it took an expert to point out that one animal in a LFS was not C. multidentatat but C. typus) and so taxonomists rely more on less obvious but (hopefully) unique anatomical features (shrimp rostrums are often used due to their distinctiveness when examined closely).

[hwchoy]

I dunno all these nomenclature thingy, but one thing that bugs me, is the relevance of the name given in this case:

Multidentata tells me nothing of ht eshrimp except that it has many teeth? Or for this matter, just the rostrum? Don't other shrimps have the same anatomy?

Japonica at least tells us that it comes from Japan, which to me, adds more relevance , isn't it?

Sorry for my rambling, guess it's the non-stop rain here in Singapore that's driving me nuts, and getting me to grit my multidentatas even harder.

Kenny

the rules are as established in the ICZN, it says nothing about relevance although it would be nice. in any case as budak has pointed out, no one feature is really unique to an organism.

it any case it is at least no worst than names given to honour other people, eg. the various axelrodi are most likely not to have even been collected by the man himself, how relevant is that? this is akin to the island nation of Palau issuing stamps showing Elvis Presley

[hobbit6003]

Hi Marcus and Choy,

Thanks for the lesson and reminder on taxonomy.

Now that the rain has been reduced somewhat, guess I'll just get back to the dentatas of my patients.

Kenny