Revision of the family Acidopsidae Števčić, 2005, and the systematic position of Typhlocarcinodes Alcock, 1900, Caecopilumnus Borradaile, 1902, and Raoulia Ng, 1987, with descriptions of two new genera and five new species (Crustacea: Brachyura: Goneplacoidea) Author Ng, Peter K. L. dbsngkl@nus.edu.sg Author Rahayu, Dwi Listyo dbsngkl@nus.edu.sg text Zootaxa 2014 2014-03-03 3773 1 1 63 journal article 5890 10.11646/zootaxa.3773.1.1 6da85b06-8386-41bc-9b34-b16eba941eab 1175-5326 4909796 19F28753-B2D0-4D1F-9D47-88886F7333FD Raoulia piroculata ( Rathbun, 1911 ) ( Figs. 4A, B , 5D , 17 , 19A–E ) Typhlocarcinops piroculata Rathbun, 1911: 239 , pl. 20 figs. 1, 2. Typhlocarcinodes piroculatus — Barnard 1955: 35 , fig. 16.— Serène 1968: 92 (part). Caecopilumnus piroculatus — Ng 1987: 93 .— Ng et al. 2008: 143 . Material examined . Lectotype female (here designated) (7.3 × 5.5 mm ) ( USNM 41359 a), Amirante Is. , Indian Ocean , station E9, 34 fms ( 62.2 m ), coll. J.S. Gardiner , H.M.S. Sealark , 9 October 1905 . Paralectotype female (5.9 × 4.5 mm ) ( USNM 41359 b), same data as lectotype . Diagnosis . Carapace width 1.3 times length ( Fig. 17A ). Junction between frontal, supraorbital margins appears gently curved in frontal view ( Fig. 17C ). Third maxilliped merus about 0.7 length of ischium; ischium rectangular, 1.3 times as long as broad ( Fig. 5D ). Ambulatory legs relatively longer; merus of last ambulatory leg about 3.1 times as long as broad ( Fig. 17A ). Male unknown. Remarks . Raoulia limosa and R. piroculata closely resemble each other. Raoulia piroculata , however, can easily be separated from R. limosa by its longer pereopods ( Fig. 17A ; Figs. 13A , 14A , 15A for R. limosa ), having proportionately the longest ambulatory legs in the genus. In addition, R. piroculata has a relatively longer ischium of the third maxilliped ( Fig. 5D ; Figs. 5C , 16B for R. limosa ); and the junction of the frontal and supraorbital margin is gently curved ( Fig. 17C ) rather than at right angles in frontal view ( Figs. 13D , 14C for R. limosa ). Barnard (1955: 35 , fig. 16) described a male (11.0 × 8.5 mm ) and a female (9.0 × 7.0 mm) from Delagoa Bay in South Africa . His figures (present Fig 19A–E ) leave no doubt this is also a species of Raoulia . Ng (1987) provisionally referred this record to R. limosa , but this is doubtful in view of the present revision of the genus. In terms of its distribution (western Indian Ocean), these specimens are more likely to be the real R. piroculata . The carapace width to length proportions of Barnard’s two specimens is about 1.3, the same to that observed for R. piroculata s. str. but the conditions of the diagnostic third maxillipeds and ambulatory legs are not known. The G1 figured by Barnard (see Fig. 19D, E ) seems to have the distal slender part relatively longer than the other congeners now recognised (notably R. limosa and R. galea sp. nov. ). Colour . Not known. Distribution . Amirante Island and South Africa , western Indian Ocean; 62 m .