{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02255266418835192, 'fraction_numerical': 0.010408921933085501, 'mean_word_length': 4.866279069767442, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Systematic List of Fossil Decapod Crustacean Species

When I was in graduate school in the 1960s, I discovered the Dutch bookseller Antiquariaat Junk and made what I came to recognize as a most fortuitous purchase: three volumes of the Fossilium Catalogus that dealt with Malacostraca: Glaessner (1929), on Decapoda; van Straelen (1931), on Eumalacostraca excluding the decapods; and van Straelen and Schmitz (1934) on Phyllocarida. At the time I recall I was attracted by the price (a few dollars US each). The copies were “paperback” but in excellent condition, and because my initial outlay had been so little I could afford to have them bound in a handsome orange cover with gold lettering on the spine. I soon came to the realization that not only had I gotten quite a bargain, but also had acquired what became some of the most useful items in my library. The volumes listed all the genera and species of fossil malacostracans known at that time of publication, neatly catalogued along with indications of their stratigraphic horizon, country of origin, list of the publications that mentioned or dealt in detail with each species, tabular outlines of time horizons and geographic source, complete bibliography of the publications, and both the abbreviations and spelled out versions of the journal titles. This last proved extremely useful given that much of the literature in which fossil crustaceans had been described in the 19th and early 20th centuries was otherwise hidden away in obscure societal journals and academy proceedings. My newly bound treasure was a cornucopia of factoids, constantly consulted by me through the year to assist in tracing down old names and original publications. Even though these compendia are approaching or exceeding 80 years in age, I still find them useful. However, I recognized immediately that at the time of purchase these summaries were then some 40 years out of date. Nevertheless, in combination with the Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology volumes on crustaceans (Benson et al., 1961; Brooks et al., 1969) I felt lucky to have such summary guides to assist with my own research. Of course, through the years, as the Treatise also drifted into being out of date, I kept hoping someone would produce an updated compendium. Then several years ago, Prof. Rod Feldmann and Dr. Carrie Schweitzer at Kent State University in Ohio began to organize a revision of the decapod section of the Treatise (Glaessner, in Brooks et al., 1969); this effort is still underway but nearing completion, and it has become part of a larger project of the Tree of Life Initiative (see Martin et al., 2009). Nevertheless, there has long been a need for a taxonomic summary list to assist workers wading through the primary literature on the taxonomy of decapods. Very few journals today require authors to document taxonomic citations in Reference lists, thus in effect relegating Taxonomy to the status of an “invisible science” as far as citation indexes are concerned. This need is at least partially resolved with the publication of this volume. The authors list all fossil decapod genera and species and place them into a modern higher taxonomic framework. Much revisionary work has occurred over the last 80 years, and it would be senseless not to make the effort to update the higher affinities of these fossils regardless of where they might have been placed at the time of their description. Naturally, this includes a bibliography by which interested scholars can find their way into the primary literature describing these species. Nevertheless, there are two disconcerting things in this monograph. First, the old Fossilium Catalogus was at least organized in alphabetical order; hence, with some modest effort, one could find the species entries one sought. In Schweitzer et al., species are entered by higher taxonomic rank – but without an index. Thus, considerable effort has to be exerted in order to find a specific species’ entry. A partial higher taxonomy is encoded in the Table of