Cinetorhynchus hawaiiensis

Ryanskiy Andrey Cinetorhynchus hawaiiensis on my picture? I added link with example photo http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/reefs/guamimg/crustacea/caridea/Pages/Image4.html

Ryanskiy Andrey I understand that it is impossible - to meet Cinetorhynchus hawaiiensis in Maldives. "Distribution, known only from the Hawaiian Islands" And I know it is very similar to C.reticulatus. But "Two color characters easily distinguish one species from the other: C. hawaiiensis has a distinct dark spot on the lateral junction of the second and third abdominal somites and it completely lacks the red and white reticulations present on the abdominal somites of C.reticulatus - And I see both on my picture:)! http://decapoda.nhm.org/pdfs/20786/20786.pdf - look p.37 picture A

Ryanskiy Andrey Ops, Isee Cinetorhynchus hawaiiensis in the Coleman's Marine Life of the Maldives :)

Boomer William Wing Had a bunch of stuff for you Ryan and deleted all...lol. Although I was more or less saying recticulus but that spot just throws a wrench into it. After like 50 pics of recticulus , zero have that spot. If yours did not have that spot, rect. So, with you on haw...

Ryanskiy Andrey I saw in my notification, Boomer William Wing, that you wrote "hands down you have recticulus. Go to your PDF you posted and look a A,B & C. A&B = hawaiiensis-overall dark and weakly mottled, legs not stripped or poorly stripped. C = recticulus- overall, very mottled and legs distinctly stripped. Go on the net and look up both and you will see the same" And I think that it is C.hawaiiensis. But not pure blood. I have some questions to Grand Mother of this shrimp about stripped legs :) It is understandable, taking into account a lot of C.reticulatus around. And it was a strange place, where picture was taken - like Crusta paradise :)

Boomer William Wing Yup, could easily be a cross breed. OH forgot, could also be a gene trait, like recessive gene = stripped legs :)

Arthur Anker you guys can talk as much as you want here, there's no specimen for a positive ID, and that means "Cinetorhynchus sp." that's it ... ;)

Ryanskiy Andrey Thank you, Arthur, it is easy way to finish any talk in this group :). And a good reason not to begin any. No specimen - no ID. Let us - great scientists - study under microscope crab male's gonopods. Do not show us your pictures! And it is not a problem that we cannot ID by good photo big 12+ cm bright colored crab, found everywhere in the Indo-Pacific. No specimen - no ID. May be people like Randall, Allen - they are not real scientists ;)? Because they made thousands of dives, tons of excellent photos in situ, and every diver can identify almost all fishes in the Indo-Pacific thanks to very good illustrated books by this authors and their colleagues! It would be much more pure-blood scientifically safe to sit in the room, saying with a smile - no specimen - no ID ;)!

Arthur Anker well, turn and spin it the way you want, but the reality remains no specimen no positive ID, beyond the genus in this case, and I told you already not to compare shrimps with fishes, doesn't make a lot of sense .. we do our best here to help you guys, but you seem not to understand that .. btw, Coleman's book is not a good reference for crustacean IDs