Suborder GAMMARIDEA

Museums

Regional Maps

Introduction

The higher level classification of Gammaridea is unstable. The group itself is almost certainly paraphyletic. Bousfield & Shih (1994) summarised a superfamily classification for the whole of the Amphipoda. Although some of the gammaridean superfamilies, such as the Lysianassoidea or the Oedicerotoidea, appear to be monophyletic, few have been defined by synapomorphies and to date there is little phylogenetic evidence to show relationships within or between any of the groups (e.g., see Just 1988; Myers 1988; Lowry & Berents 1996; Koenemann, Vonk & Schram 1998; Koenemann & Holsinger 1999; Berge & Vader 2001). Martin & Davis (2001) listed the amphipod families in alphabetical order and at this stage this is appropriate.

Among gammarideans there is a great diversity of life styles: scavengers (mainly the lysianassids), predators (lysianassids such as Anonyx), mimics (pleustids), suspension-feeders (ampeliscids, many corophioids), detritous-feeders, herbivores (algal-feeders such as ampithoids, and wood-feeders such as chelurids), commensals (leucothoids), ectoparasites (trischizostomids, lafystiids) and farmers (paracalliopids, podocerids). Most of these groups are found in Australian waters.

The diagnostic descriptions of gammarideans are based on diagnoses generated from a DELTA (Dallwitz et al. 1993, 1998) database of Australian amphipod families. Each diagnosis contains the complete set of diagnostic characters for all gammaridean families. Characters in bold text refer to the unique combination of characters which will define each family. Unless indicated otherwise, the following attributes are implicit throughout these descriptions, except where the characters concerned are inapplicable.

Head exposed; rostrum present; eyes present, well developed or obsolescent. Body without setae. Antenna 1 peduncular articles 1–2 and 2–3 not geniculate; accessory flagellum present. Antenna 2 peduncular article 3 without hook-like process; flagellum longer than peduncle; calceoli absent. Mouthparts well developed. Accessory setal row without distal tuft; molar present, medium sized; palp present. Labium smooth. Maxilla 1 palp present, not clavate. Pereonites complete; sternal gills absent. Coxae 1–7 well developed. Coxa 1 not anteroventrally acuminate. Coxae 1–3 not successively smaller, none vestigial or reduced. Coxae 2–4 none immensely broadened. Gnathopod 1 merus and carpus not rotated; carpus/propodus not cantilevered; dactylus large. Gnathopod 2 merus not fused along posterior margin of carpus or produced away from it; carpus not produced along posterior margin of propodus; dactylus well developed. Pereopods heteropodous (3–4 directed posteriorly, 5–7 directed anteriorly), none prehensile; 3–4 not glandular. Pereopod 3 coxa well developed; dactylus well developed. Coxae 4 not acuminate; dactylus well developed. Pereopods 5–7 with few robust or slender setae. Pereopods 5 dactylus well developed. Pereopods 6 dactylus without setae. Pereopod 7 similar in structure to peraeopod 6; basis without dense slender setae. Pleonites 1–3 without transverse dorsal serrations, without lateral teeth or ridging, without dorsal carina; without slender or robust dorsal setae. Epimeron 1 well developed. Urosome not dorsoventrally flattened; urosomites 1 to 3 free, not carinate. Uropods 1–3 similar in structure and size. Uropod 1 peduncle without long plumose setae. Telson present.

 

General References

Berge, J. & Vader, W. 2001. Revision of the amphipod (Crustacea) family Stegocephalidae. Journal of the Linnean Society of London, Zoology 133: 531-592

Bousfield, E.L. 1982. Amphipoda, Gammaridea. pp. 255-285 in Parker, S.P. (ed.). Synopsis and Classification of Living Organisms. New York : McGraw-Hill

Bousfield, E.L. 1983. An updated phyletic classification and paleohistory of the Amphipoda. pp. 257-276 in Schram, F.R. (ed.). Crustacean Phylogeny. Rotterdam : A.A. Balkema

Bousfield, E.L. & Shih, C.T. 1994. The phyletic classification of amphipod crustaceans: Problems in resolution. Amphipacifica 1(3): 76-134

Bowman, T.E. & Gruner, H.E. 1973. The families and genera of Hyperiidea (Crustacea: Amphipoda). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 146: 1-64

Dallwitz, M.J., Paine, T.A. & Zurcher, E.J. 1993. (onwards). User's Guide to the DELTA System: a General System for Processing Taxonomic Descriptions. 4th edition. http://biodiversity.uno.edu/delta/

Dallwitz, M.J., Paine, T.A. & Zurcher, E.J. 1998. Interactive keys. pp. 201-212 in Bridge, P., Jeffries, P., Morse, D.R. & Scott, P.R. (eds). Information Technology, Plant Pathology and Biodiversity. Wallingford : CAB International

Just, J. 1988. Siphonoecetinae (Corophiidae) 6: a survey of phylogeny, distribution, and biology. Crustaceana Suppl. 13: 193-208

Kim, C.B. & Kim, W. 1993. Phylogenetic relationships among gammaridean families and amphipod suborders. 933-946 in Moore, P.G. & Watling, L. Amphipods, a noble obsession: Essays in memory of J. Laurens Barnard (1928–1991). Journal of Natural History 27(4): 723-988

Koenemann, S. & Holsinger, J.R. 1999. Phylogenetic analysis of the amphipod crustacean family Bogidiellidae, s. lat., and revision of taxa above the species level. Crustaceana 72(8): 781-816

Koenemann, S., Vonk, R. & Schram, F. 1998. Cladistic analysis of 37 Mediterranean Bogidiellidae (Amphipoda), including Bogidiella arista, new species, from Turkey. Journal of Crustacean Biology 18(2): 383-404

Lowry, J.K. & Berents, P.B. 1996. The Ericthonius group, a new perspective on an old problem (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Corophoidea). Records of the Australian Museum 48: 75-109

Martin, J.W. & Davis, G.E. 2001. An updated classification of the Recent Crustacea. Nat. Hist. Mus. Los Angeles Co., Sci. Ser 39. 1-124 pp. [in press]

Myers, A.A. 1988. A cladistic and biogeographic analysis of the Aorinae subfamily nov. Crustaceana Suppl. 13: 167-192