(Fig. 28F)

Ranina loevis Latreille, 1825: 268.

CURRENT STATUS. — Raninoides laevis (Latreille, 1825).

LECTOTYPE (by present designation). — MNHN-B4648, without mention of origin, previously labelled “ R. dorsipes Lamk. ” on the back of the ancient box, examined by M. Tavares in 2004, ♀ 31 mm length, dry and in rather bad condition, carapace broken, part of abdomen and several legs missing.

REMARKS

The original description of Ranina loevis by Latreille (1825:268) does not imply that his material, without origin, consisted of a single specimen. The specimen MNHN-B4648, which corresponds to the carapace length “14 lignes” indicated by H. Milne Edwards (1837: 197, as Raninoides levis), is considered as the lectotype herein. In his handwritten catalogue (1814), Latreille wrote that Ranina dorsipes Lamarck “n’est ni l’ Albunea dorsipes de Fabricius ni le Cancer dorsipes de Linné. Il faudra changer le nom spécifique en R. lisse, R. laevis Lam. ”. See also A. Milne-Edwards & Bouvier (1923: 299, as Raninoides laevis); Rathbun 1937: 8; Dawson & Yaldwyn 1994 (Raninoides loevis).

Raninoides crosnieri Ribes, 1989 (Fig. 28D)

Raninoides crosnieri Ribes, 1989: 908, fig. 1a-h, pl. 2A-D.

HOLOTYPE (by original designation). — MNHN-B18966, Madagascar, Vauban, stn 44, 15°25.7’S, 46°01’E, trawl, 200-210 m, 7.XI.1972, A. Crosnier coll., ♀ 22.8 × 14.3 mm, abdomen partially detached.

PARATYPES. — MNHN-B20650, same data as holotype, 1 ♀, abdomen detached and carapace broken, missing posteriorly. — MNHN-B18965, Madagascar, Morombé, FAO 60, stn 73/90, 21°51’S, 43°10’E, trawl, 160 m, 9.VIII.1973, 1 ov. ♀, some legs detached.

Raninoides fossor A. Milne-Edwards in A. Milne-Edwards & Bouvier, 1923 (Fig. 28E)

Raninoides fossor A. Milne-Edwards in A. Milne-Edwards & Bouvier, 1923: 300, pl. 1, fig. 10, pl. 2, figs 2, 3.

CURRENT STATUS. — Notosceles chimmonis Bourne, 1922.

HOLOTYPE (by monotypy). — MNHN-B218 (holotype indicated by Tavares on a label in Sept. 2004), without mention of origin, Manning 1974 det. Notosceles chimmonis, sex unknown, about 16.0 × 10.0 mm, dry, badly damaged, carapace broken, many appendages detached or missing.

REMARKS

Rathbun (1937:16) and Manning (1975: 295) correctly considered this single individual as the holotype, on which A. Milne-Edwards & Bouvier (1923) based their description.Tavares (pers. comm. 2004) compared this specimen to the lectotype of Notosceles chimmonis. Also see Dawson & Yaldwyn (1994).