Pyreneites Ferratges, Domínguez & Ossó, 2026, n. gen.

Genus Pyreneites n. gen. (Fig. 3) urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act: 9E6C444B-E121-4A3F-91AE-E38C28AC680C ETYMOLOGY. — From Pyrene, related to the origin of Pyrenees mountains in Greek mythology and ites, suffix used in palaeontology. TYPE SPECIES. — Pyreneites fandielloensis n. sp. by monotypy. DIAGNOSIS. — Carapace subhexagonal, wider than long; length-to-width ratio approximately 0.70. Maximum width at the level of the last anterolateral spine, located about halfway along the carapace length. Dorsal regions moderately defined, delimited by distinct grooves; surface ornamented with small granules. Frontal margin slightly projected, bearing four subtriangular spines and a median V-shaped notch; frontal width about 30% of carapace width. Orbits wide; fronto-orbital width about 60% of carapace width; supraorbital margin with two notches. Anterolateral margins arched, armed with five subtriangular spines with long outer and short inner edges (including outer orbital spine); fourth nearhly twice the size of the third. Posterolateral and posterior margins straight. Posterolateral corners with deep re-entrant accommodating the fifth pereopod. Epibranchial ridge well developed and strongly arched. Longitudinal branchial carinae appears distinct. REMARKS The dorsal features preserved in Pyreneites n. gen. are sufficient to determine its familial placement, including: 1) a subhexagonal carapace, broader than long; 2) a frontal margin with four spines; 3) a supraorbital margin with two notches; 4) defined dorsal regions; 5) broad anterolateral margins with five forward-directed spines, characterized by a long outer edge and a much shorter inner edge; 6) a straight posterolateral margin; and 7) a well-developed re-entrant for the P5. These features are consistent with the diagnosis of Polybiidae as outlined by Spiridonov et al. (2014: 422-423), Davie et al. (2015: 1102), and Poore & Ahyong (2023: 697-700, fig. 14.121), and support the inclusion of the studied specimens within Polybiidae. The presence of a well-preserved re-entrant of P5, indicative of a swimming leg, excludes their assignment to Carcinidae (see Spiridonov et al. 2014: 421, 422). To differentiate Pyreneites n. gen. from both fossil and extant genera formerly assigned to Polybiinae (currently Polybiidae, see above), we compare it with the diverse assemblage of genera listed by Schweitzer et al. (2021: 6-13 [following Feldmann et al. 2018: 2]), excluding several genera considered herein to not fit within Polybiidae. For instance, the morphology of Ophthalmoplax Rathbun, 1935, does not conform to that of Polybiidae (e.g. Vega et al. 2013: 118-119; Spiridonov 2020: 158). Coeloma A. Milne-Edwards, 1865, has recently been transferred to Geryonidae Colosi, 1924 (see Artal & Ossó 2024: 198-200). Faksecarcinus Schweitzer, Feldmann, Franţescu & Klompmaker, 2012 – whose species were previously assigned to Xanthosia Bell, 1863 (Etyidae Guinot & Tavares, 2001) – exhibits a dorsal morphology that does not correspond to that of Polybiidae and only doubtfully to Portunoidea, particularly due to the concave posterior margin, which is more characteristic of podotreme crabs than of eubrachyuran crabs (cf. Jakobsen & Collins 1997: pl. 2, figs 1-2; Klompmaker et al. 2011: text-fig. 3A-F). Finally, Pleolobites Rémy, 1960, and Rhachiosoma Woodward, 1871, were transferred to Portunoidea incertae sedis (see Ossó et al. 2022: 3, 5, 6). The genera Archaeogeryon Colosi, 1924, Falsiportunites Collins & Jakobsen, 2003, Megokkos Schweitzer & Feldmann, 2000, and Portunites Bell, 1858, clearly differ from Pyreneites n. gen. in having a bilobed or blunt spiny front, broader orbits, and a much shorter anterolateral margin usually bearing four spines, the last of which is typically the longest (see Colosi 1924: fig. 1; Collins & Jakobsen 2003: 72-74, fig. 5, pl. 4, figs 1-6; Schweitzer & Feldmann 2000: 640-641, fig. 5; Bell 1858: 21-22, pl. 3, fig. 2; Quayle 1984: 174, pl. 1, figs 1, 4, 6). Liocarcinus Stimpson, 1871, Macropipus Prestandrea, 1833, and Polybius Leach, 1820, three genera with dorsal features and general outlines similar to Pyreneites n. gen., differ by having smaller orbits and an uneven number of frontal spines (see Stimpson 1871: 10-11; Prestandrea 1833: 3-4; Leach 1820 in 1815-1875: pl. 9-B). Olicarcinus Beschin & Cecchi, 2018, appears morphologically very close to Pyreneites n. gen.; however, it differs in having smaller orbits, longer posterolateral margins, and a laterally directed epibranchial ridge (see Beschin & Cecchi 2018). Species of Bathynectes Stimpson, 1871, typically present a longer, laterally directed last anterolateral spine and a complete transverse carina connecting both spines, which clearly differs from the dorsal morphology of Pyreneites n. gen. (see Stimpson 1871: 145-147). Boschettia Busulini, Tessier, Beschin & De Angeli, 2003, has a shorter frontal margin, broader orbits, a strongly granulated dorsal surface, and a very long fourth anterolateral spine, all of which preclude a congeneric relationship with Pyreneites n. gen. (see Busulini et al. 2003: pl. 4, fig. 2). Bericocarcinus De Angeli, 2018, differs from Pyreneites n. gen. by its nearly subquadrate outline, extremely broad orbits, absence of branchial ridges, and the presence of only four anterolateral spines, whereas the new genus possesses five (see De Angeli 2018: 33-34, fig. 2. Lovaroides Beschin, De Angeli, Checchi & Zarantonello, 2016, originally placed within Goneplacoidea MacLeay, 1838, differs from Pyreneites n. gen. by its smoother dorsal carapace, bearing only four anterolateral lobes; by the absence of marked branchial and epibranchial ridges; and by the lack of the wellmarked P5 re-entrant that characterizes Pyreneites n. gen. (see Beschin et al. 2016: 64-65, fig. 57; pl. 12, figs 1, 2A, B, 3). Maeandricampus Schweitzer & Feldmann, 2002, shows a wider carapace, a longer and laterally directed last anterolateral spine, and less defined regions than Pyreneites n. gen., which rules out a congeneric relationship (see Rathbun 1926: 68, pl. 17, figs 3-6; Schweitzer & Feldmann 2002: 955). Minohellenus Karasawa, 1990, presents a wider carapace, poorly defined regions, six frontal spines, an anterolateral margin shorter than the posterolateral margin, and a laterally directed, pointed last anterolateral spine, features that exclude a congeneric relationship with Pyreneites n. gen. (see Karasawa 1990: 21-23, pl. 6, figs 7-8; Kato & Karasawa 1994: 53; Schweitzer et al. 2021: 11, fig. 5.2a-b). The genus Necora Holthuis, 1987, shows a frontal margin with six spines, an anterolateral margin shorter than the posterolateral margin, and a larger last anterolateral spine, all features that rule out a congeneric relationship with Pyreneites n. gen. (see Holthuis 1987: 3, fig. 1). Parathranites Miers, 1886, presents a similar dorsal aspect and outline to Pyreneites n. gen., but its subcircular orbits, acute and laterally directed last anterolateral spine, and the characteristic spine in the inner corner of the re-entrant distinguish it from the new genus (see Crosnier 2002). Pororaria Glaessner, 1980, differs from Pyreneites n. gen. in having a carapace as long as it is wide, shorter anterolateral margins armed with blunt granulate spines instead of subtriangular ones, and lacking a marked re-entrant (see Glaessner 1980: 187-188, figs 15, 15a, 16). Portufuria Collins, Schultz & Jakobsen, 2005, has a sharp rostrum and a short anterolateral margin with only four anterolateral spines, which precludes a congeneric relationship with Pyreneites n. gen. (see Collins et al. 2005: 20-21, pl. 1, figs 3a-b). Therefore, in view of the preceding comparisons, the erection of a new genus for the studied specimens within Polybiidae seems warranted.