这篇文章是长期珊瑚税法Liason Joseph Rowlett的来宾帖子。他的Indo-Pacific corals book是最好的,最新的参考文献之一,以了解有关珊瑚识别的更多信息。
Coelastreahad a troubled entrance into this world. The genus dates to an 1866 paper by the illustrious Addison Emery Verrill, in which he briefly describesC. tenuis基于从“三明治群岛?”收集的单个标本。今天,这些岛屿在我们今天众所周知,这是夏威夷,但是,可惜的是,该地区没有类似Verrill的标本的珊瑚。实际上,只有一个merulinid发生在那里,绝对不同Cyphastreaocellina。So, whither the tenuis?
由于这个名字的混乱,Coelastrea(发音为Seal-Ass-Tree-uh)在很大程度上被忽略了它的大部分存在,通常不被认为是Goniastrea—both genera possess lobes on the inner margin of the septa, forming a “crown” encircling the columella, a trait that separates these from similar merulinids, such asFavitesandPlatygyra。
但这在2014年修订后发生了变化,其中标本的标本GoniastreaasperaandG. palauensis被证明在遗传上更接近Dipsastraea(a genus comprising the Indo-Pacific species formerly in法维亚)。比较类型标本C. tenuisandG. asperarevealed that the two likely represented the same species, and thusCoelastreawas resurrected from the dead, taxonomically speaking, though it remains difficult to diagnose in terms of morphology.
同样,这个小组的多样化也存在很大的不确定性。如果我们要假设C. tenuisandC. asperaare truly one and the same, then it would seem there are only two members.C. asperA在安达曼 - 太平洋地区被认为是广泛的(尽管也有可疑的是印度洋的报道),并且它是迄今为止更常见的物种,通常发生在潮间带礁石上。
The other species,Coelastreapalauensis,从帕劳描述,最初被分类法维亚, due to the type specimen having weakly separated corallite walls (i.e. subcerioid). But since this species more often than not has fused corallite walls (i.e. cerioid), it was later shuffled intoFavites。。。而且由于周围还有一个突出的圆叶冠,它最终被重新分类为Goniastrea,在最终定居在当前的房屋之前Coelastrea。水产师将熟悉这种珊瑚,例如“ Prism Favia”(或者是Prism Favias之一,因为此商品名称随意地应用于各种多色Merulinids)。
这些物种的主要形态学区别是大小:C. asperahas corallites that average 4–8 mm in diameter, far smaller than inC. palauensis, whose corallites can reach upwards of 2 cm. Colonies ofC. palauensisare also much smaller, rarely with more than a few dozen polyps, whereasC. aspera形成具有数百个息肉的枕头菌落。着色也可以在某种程度上诊断出这些,因为“ Prism Favia”倾向于具有对比颜色的口腔盘和冠状墙,而C. asperais most often brown or mottled brown.
但是,读者当然并不是那么简单。在人群中已经注意到了生殖差异C. asperafrom Japan, and this was recently investigated in a study by Mitsuki et al. It has been shown that some colonies emit eggs and sperm separately, while other colonies release bundles of egg and sperm together, with these two groups spawning at different times. Lo and behold, genetic data confirms that these are indeed distinct species, occurring in sympatry throughout much of the West Pacific.
Morphologically, they are nearly indistinguishable, save for some very minor differences in the septal spines. Examination of the type specimens ofC. aspera, C. tenuis, and several other purported synonyms (equisepta, mantonae, spectabilis, incrustans), led to the recognition of the long-forgottenC. incrustansas a valid species for the bundled-gamete colonies.
Mitsuki的研究对他们的询问非常详尽,并利用育种研究来确认这些物种的交叉施肥很少成功。他们的分布相似,购买略有不同,C. aspera范围更有限,在Amami-Ishima群岛突然结束(因此没有延伸到日本大陆的凉爽礁石),而C. incrustansoccurs as far north as Wakayama, and also into the Andaman Sea, whereC. asperais apparently absent.
Our old friend Addison Emery Verrill describedGoniastreaaspera(in fact, it was published in the very same paper, on the very same page, describing the presumably conspecificC. tenuis),他也设法与该物种的起源造成了混乱。他的描述很清楚地表明,该类型是香港,但是标本本身标有标签,表明其出处是“厕所Choo”,因此在冲绳或附近的某个地方。做得好,艾迪生。
不知何故,这个属变得更加令人困惑!有遗传数据表明存在另一种几乎无法区分的物种,在沙特阿拉伯,泰国和日本发现了标本,日本检查的单个标本具有绿色的口腔盘,而阿拉伯材料则被暂时鉴定为两者兼而有之。C. asperaandC. palauensis,提示一定程度的表型可塑性。
关于令人讨厌的Addison Emery Verrill所描述的另一个物种也有一些关注。他的斐济人prionastraea spectabilisis a poor match for anything in Coelastrea. And it’s also quite possible that the specimens genetically sequenced for the Huang et al revision were misidentified, calling into question whetherC. palauensisis correctly classified—the material used in their study forC. asperaandC. palauensis所有这些都起源于新加坡,那里的“ Prism Favia”表型似乎不存在。使所有这些不确定性更加复杂,是形态学家的沉默
像查尔斯·维隆(Charles VeronPlatygyra”.
So where does this leave us?Coelastreatenuis可能是C. aspera, which isn’tC. incrustans, orC. palauensis,这可能会或可能不会被误分类……此外,还有其他物种需要得到认可,也许还有C. spectabilis。Merulinid taxonomy is not for the faint of heart. Avoid it at all costs.