Pyreneites fandielloensis Ferratges, Domínguez & Ossó, 2026, n. sp.

Pyreneites fandielloensis n. sp. (Fig. 3) urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act: 52084AC5-590A-4694-8BC7-5D62EE6495B8 ETYMOLOGY. — From Fandiello, Aragonese name of Fanlillo, the locality that has yielded the specimens TYPE MATERIAL. — Holotype. Spain • 1 specimen (near-complete dorsal carapace, well-preserved but partially decorticated); Fanlillo, Yebra de Basa, Huesca, Spain; Late Eocene, early Priabonian, Pamplona Marls Formation; MPZ 2025/465; Dimensions length = 8.1 mm, width = 10.2 mm. Paratype. Spain • 1 specimen (dorsal carapace preserving partially the cuticle); Fanlillo, Yebra de Basa, Huesca, Spain; Late Eocene, early Priabonian, Pamplona Marls Formation; MPZ 2025/466; Dimensions: length = 5.7 mm, width = 7.8 mm. TYPE LOCALITY. — Fanlillo, Yebra de Basa, Huesca Province, Spain. TYPE AGE. — Late Eocene,early Priabonian (Pamplona Marls Formation). DIAGNOSIS. — As for the genus DESCRIPTION Carapace small, subhexagonal, wider than long, moderately vaulted in both longitudinal and transverse directions. Maximum width at the level of the last anterolateral spine, located slightly anterior to mid-length; length-to-width ratio approximately 0.70. Regions moderately defined; axial regions distinctly marked and bounded by well-developed grooves. Cuticle partially preserved, covered with fine, regular granules. Frontal margin slightly projected, bearing four subtriangular spines including the inner orbital spine, with a median V-shaped notch; frontal width about 30% of carapace width. Orbits relatively broad; supraorbital margin gently sinuous, divided into three lobes by two deep notches. Inner orbital spine triangular, separated from the frontal margin by a notch; outer orbital spine acute, subtriangular. Fronto-orbital margin approximately 74% of carapace width. Anterolateral margins broadly arched, longer than posterolateral margins, armed with five forward-directed, subtriangular spines with long outer and short inner edges (outer orbital spine included). The first three spines are subequal in size, the fourth nearly twice the size of the third, and the fifth distinctly smaller. Posterolateral margins short, slightly concave, and posteriorly convergent. Posterior margin straight, approximately 35% of carapace width, rimmed, with slightly rounded corners. Posterolateral corners exhibit a strong re-entrant accommodating the fifth pereopod. Gastric process well defined. Epigastric lobes moderately marked; protogastric lobes large, swollen, and sharply delimited by deep grooves. Mesogastric region broadly subpentagonal posteriorly and narrowing anteriorly into a slender extension. Metagastric region not clearly differentiated from the posterior mesogastric lobe. Urogastric lobe narrow and transversely elongate, separated anteriorly from the meso- and metagastric regions by the cervical groove, which bears two medial gastric pits, and separated from the cardiac region by a depressed transverse groove. Cardiac region broad, inverted subpentagonal, divided into two lobes by an axial groove. Intestinal region flattened and poorly differentiated from the cardiac region. Hepatic regions flattened, clearly delimited from the branchial regions by the cervical groove and faintly from the gastric regions by the gastro-hepatic groove. Branchial regions defined by a well-developed, strongly arched, sigmoidal epibranchial ridge extending to the last anterolateral spine. Meso- and metabranchial regions with two reniform lobes adjacent to the meso- and urogastric lobes, separated from them by a deep branchiocardiac groove, and a long, longitudinal lobe forming a distinct branchial ridge. Sternopleonal features and appendages not preserved. REMARKS Domínguez & Ossó (2016a: fig. 21) reported a single specimen of Pyreneites fandielloensis n. gen., n. sp., examined herein, as “ Portunites cf. P. sylviae / P. eocaenica ”, based on superficial similarities in dorsal morphology with both taxa. Nevertheless, detailed morphological examination reveals dorsal differences among Portunites eocaenica Lőrenthey in Lőrenthey & Beurlen, 1929, P. sylviae Quayle & Collins, 1981, and Pyreneites fandielloensis n. gen., n. sp. For instance, the holotype of Portunites eocaenica illustrated in Lőrenthey & Beurlen (1929: pl. 15, fig. 2), as well as the specimens attributed to that species figured in De Angeli & Beschin (2014: fig. 2), display a different outline of the anterolateral carapace margin, characterized by more acute, forward-directed anterolateral spines of similar size. In contrast, in Pyreneites fandielloensis n. gen., n. sp., the fourth anterolateral spine is approximately twice the size of the third. The same condition is observed in Portunites sylviae, as illustrated by Quayle & Collins (1981: pl. 105, fig. 4). Moreover, the generic attribution of Portunites eocaenica and P. sylviae to Portunites Bell, 1858 warrants re-evaluation, given the markedly different morphology of the anterolateral margins, particularly the last anterolateral spine, which is reduced in size and not laterally directed. This condition contrasts with that observed in Portunites stricto sensu, in which the last anterolateral spine is the largest and longest and is directed laterally (cf. Bell 1858: pl. 3, fig. 2; Quayle 1984: pl. 1, figs 1, 4, 6).