A new subfamily classification of the highly diversified Dorippidae H. Milne Edwards, 1837 (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura, Dorippoidea), using morphological, molecular and palaeotonlogical data, with special emphasis on its unique female reproductive system Author Guinot, Danièle Institut de Systématique, Évolution, Biodiversité (ISYEB), Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, CNRS, Sorbonne Université, EPHE, Université des Antilles, case postale 53, 57 rue Cuvier, F- 75231 Paris cedex 05 (France) daniele. guinot @ mnhn. fr Dedicated to the memory of my colleague and dearest friend Ngan Kee NG (1966 - 2022) guinot@mnhn.fr text Zoosystema 2023 2023-06-05 45 9 225 372 journal article 10.5252/zoosystema2023v45a9 1638-9387 8071253 urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:69C34731-8C25-4A1E-B336-B222CD3CBAC3 Archaeocypoda veronensis Secretan, 1975 Archaeocypoda veronensis Secretan, 1975: 363 , figs 21, 22, pl. 23, fig. 2, pls 24, 25. REMARKS The status of this species from the Early Eocene of Bolca Fossil-Lagerstätten, Italy (Secretan 1975: 363-369, figs 21, 22, pl. 23, fig. 2, pls 24, 25) (see De Angeli & Garassino 2006: 79), has been fully revised with numerous figures by Pasini et al. (2019b: 253, fig. 12). Casadío et al. (2005: 175) stated that it was not an ocypodid and suggested that it might be a member of the Dorippidae . Subsequently Schweitzer et al. (2010: 79) and Schweitzer et al. (2021: 1, fig. 1.2) included it in the Dorippidae , while Pasini et al. (2019b: 255) preferred to consider it as a ‘doubtful dorippid’. Figures of the holotype and paratypes (Giusberti et al. 2014: fig. 6d; Pasini et al. 2019b: fig. 12; Schweitzer et al. 2021: fig. 1.2) show crabs with an unreduced P4 and a poorly or not at all reduced P5, which excludes Archaeocypoda veronensis from being a dorippid. The hypothesis that at least part of this material could be an ethusid (only P5 reduced) is to be considered. See literature in Sasaki (2019: 7771).