THE RAFFLES BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGY 2002 An updated classification of the recent Crustacea. Martin, J. W. & G. E. Davis, 2001. Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County Science Series 39, 124 pp. ISSN 1-891276-27-1.U S $20. Orders to K. Victoria Brown, Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, 900 Exposition Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90007,U SA; e-mail: vbrownnhm.org. When JoelW . Martin and GeorgeE . Davis decidedt o newly arrange the crustaceanc ollection of the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County Museum, they did not do it the easy way, which would have been to base their arrangemento n the most recent published overview of crustaceanfa milies from Bowman & Abele (1982). Instead,t hey undertooka major (and courageoust)a sk: they decidedt o gather all the available knowledge on higher crustacean systematicsa nd compile it afreshi n "an updatedc lassificationo f the recent Crustacea",F or this purpose,t hey confronted 102 specialists of different crustacean taxa with several drafts of a revised classification, and collected and assimilated their opinions (whenever possible) into a complete document. Not only will the crustaceanc ollection of the Los Angeles Museum benefit from this exhaustive work, but the entire crustaceans cientific community should acknowledget his effort. It is no surprise that after 20 years of worldwide taxonomic and systematic research,a nd with new molecular methods being implemented in systematics, a large number of new insights and systematic changes have been introduced to crustacean classification since Bowman & Abele's (1982) key compilation. However,a s alreadyp ointed out by the authors, the crustaceansa re a very diverse group and most taxonomistsw orking on them are only specialists for small selectedg roups. Therefore, most of them are not aware of the changest hat have occurred in other crustacean groups, and a review of the classification in the form of the presents tudy was much needed.A s a result, almost 200 more families appeari n this work than in Bowman & Abele's (1982) classification,g iving us an overall total of 849 extant crustaceanfa milies. The title of the book is somewhato verstatedi n that the "updatedc lassificationo f the recentC rustacea"d oes not include all taxonomic levels of the Crustacea.T he classificationd oes not go below the level of family for any of the taxa included. This, however,i s understandablec, onsideringt hat most previous revisions were also restricted to the supragenericl evel and higher. Thus including more detailed taxonomic treatmentsw ould have meant starting from scratchf or most of the groups.W e also have to keep in mind that in all revisions,a uthorsm ust draw a line somewherei n ordert o completet he task without getting lost in too much detail and getting mired in ongoing developments.T he inclusion of all subfamilies and generaw ould have increasedt he necessarya mounto f work (as well as the controversiesa mong specialists)e xponentiallya nd madea publication unrealistic. With 124 pages, this compilation is already much more extensive than Bowman & Abele's (1982), which consistedo f only 27 pages.F inally, the acceptancea nd successo f a systematics chemew ill always dependo n its scientific longevity, and it is evident that all systematic classifications are much less stable at the generic level than at higher taxonomic levels. After a general introduction, the authors define their methods and dedicate a few paragraphst o some of the methods that have contributed to the new insights used for the updated classification of Crustacea:c ladistics, molecular systematics,s permm orphology,l arval morphology,a nd the fossil record. The "Rationale" starts with a discussiono f generalq uestionsc oncerningt he monophyly of the Crustaceat,h e total numbero f classesa nd their relationships. However, its main purpose is to introduce briefly the higher crustaceant axa, the most important problems concerning their classification,a nd diverging opinions on their systematicsT. his is the sectionw herein the authors justify why they selectedt he classifications that they present in the following section, and what possiblea lternativec lassificationsc ould be considered.N aturally, there are different opinions on the classification of almost all crustaceant axa. Therefore, in many cases the authors had to compromise between different specialists'o pinions,h aving beena ccusedb y someo f favouring different systematicp hilosophiesa nd approaches 279 THE RAFFLES BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGY 2002 as noted in their concluding remarks( p. 57). We should not forget, however,t hat higher systematicsm ust still be regarded a theoretical science and is mostly meant as a framework for presenting assumed phylogenetic relationships.A s long as we do not have a full understandingo f thesep hylogenetic relationships( i.e., always), everyoneh as the right to proposea nd employ different higher classification systems,w hich after all are little more than subjective "working hypotheses"o r "models" based on the available knowledge. Consequently,M artin & Davis also had to review a vast number of systematict heories and findings in order to finally propose "their" classification on the basis of synthesis,c onsensusa, nd judgement calls. While no one should begrudge these authors for the decisions they had to make,t he nature of thesec ircumstancesa re such that many specialistsw ill have some major or minor objections to varied aspectso f the classification as presentedi n this study. Martin & Davis at very leastd o justice to diverging opinions by dedicatinga specialc hapter( Appendix I) of their paper for publication of varied opinions by colleagues,e ach opinion classified by taxonomic group. This is a very fair and useful strategyt hat allows one to recognizew here some of the disagreementsc enter in the ongoing searchf or the bests ystematics ystem. Unfortunately,t hesec ommentsr efer to only a penultimate draft of the classification,a nd therefore it is not always immediately clear whethert he concernso f the contributors have been met and whether their views have beena dopted. The third appendixi s dedicatedt o a list of other crustaceanr esources,w hich includes journals, newsletters,a nd specialisedw eb sites.T his is certainly of greatu se for everyonew ho would like to follow new results and insights of crustaceanr esearcha s well as to keep up with future discussionsc oncerning crustaceans ystematicsa nd classification. The cited literature of approximately9 00 referencesi s very much up to date, often also including unpublishedr esults from recent scientific meetings.I n one case,t he anticipatedt axonomic changee venp redated the official publication. The descriptiono f the GlyptograpsidaeS chubart,F elder& Cuestaw as published in 2002 and not in 2001 as stated in Martin & Davis. However, since their first official mention of the taxon does not include a description, the name used in the classification is a nomen nudum, and only becomesv alid with the original description by Schubart et al. (2002). Overall, this classification will turn out to be extremely useful to all those working with crustaceansn, ot only in systematics,b ut also in all other fields of biological sciences.A ll researchersa nd readerso f scientific studies should be informed about the current knowledge concerning the systematic placemento f the organisms under study. The authors deserve much credit for gathering all this information, and for providing us with such an important tool for future studies.O f course,t here will soonb e more new evidencea nd ensuingt axonomic change that will outdate some of the classifications as presented,b ut for the momentw e have a new basis on which to build and add future insights. I hope that not longer than in another2 0 years time, a similarly motivated team of researchersw ill provide us with the next updatedc lassificationo f the Crustacea. LITERATURE CITED BowmanT, . E. & L. G. Abele,1 982.C lassificatioonf the RecenCt rustaceaIn. : AbeleL, . G. (ed.),S ystematicths,e f ossil record, andb iogeographvyo, l. I of Bliss,D . E. (ed.),T heB iology ofC rustaceaN. ewY ork,A cademiPc ressp. p. 1-27. I, SchubarCt,. D.,J . A. Cuesta& D. L. Felder2, 002.G lyptograpsidaae n, ewb rachyurafna mily fromc entraAl merica:la rvala nd adultm orphologya,n da m oleculapr hylogenyo f theg rapsoideJao. urnal ofC rustaceaBni ology2, 2(1):2 8-44. Christoph D. Schubart I Biology 1 University of Regensburg 93040 RegensburgG, ermany. .w bc