Phyllidiopsis krempfi Pruvot-Fol, 1957

Tibiriçá, Yara, Pola, Marta & Cervera, Juan Lucas, 2017, Astonishing diversity revealed: an annotated and illustrated inventory of Nudipleura (Gastropoda: Heterobranchia) from Mozambique, Zootaxa 4359 (1), pp. 1-133 : 63-64

Phyllidiopsis krempfi Pruvot-Fol, 1957

( Figures 21 D–I )

Material examined. Three specimens. ZMBN117040, ZGWS, 25 Jun. 2013, 20m, 80mm; MHN-YT1320, NHR, 0 5 Jun. 2014, 7m, 22mm; ZMBN119707, NFA, 27 Jul. 2016, 20m, 22mm, collected by J. Wright.

Habitats. Subtropical rocky reefs and tropical coral reefs.

Occurrences. Zavora and Nuarro.

Geographic distribution. Indo-west Pacific. Japan, Solomon Islands, Fiji, (Gosliner et al. 2008), Papua New Guinea ( Domínguez et al. 2007), Vietnam (Gosliner et al. 2008), Indonesia, Thailand, Andaman Sea ( Brunckhorst 1993), Sri Lanka, Maldives ( Yonow 2012), Comoros Islands, South Africa (Gosliner et al. 2008) and Mozambique.

Remarks. Phyllidiopsis krempfi is characterized by having at least two black lines on the dorsum extending around the rhinophores and meeting in front of them. However, it may have additional black lines resembling P. gemmata . Nevertheless, these two species differ in rhinophoral morphology. P. krempfi has pink rhinophores with only the dorsal part and the anterior top black, while P. gemmata has the base of the rhinophores pinkish but they are mostly black ( Brunckhorst 1993). Moreover, P. gemmata is more elongate than P. krempfi and the tubercles are simple compound while in P. krempfi the tubercles are multicompound ( Brunckhorst 1993). Based on these external characteristics, these specimens are likely to be P. krempfi . Only one specimen ( Fig. 21 D–F ) exhibits a solid light pink foot, which according to Brunckhorst (1993) is characteristic of P. krempfi . The remaining specimens had a whitish foot similar to the specimen found in Papua New Guinea by Domínguez et al. (2007) ( Fig. 21 H ). The specimen with the pink foot was the only one found in the subtropical region and it was much bigger than the other specimens. Thus, it is possible that the foot colour is an ontogenetic variation, or alternatively these morphotypes may represent a species complex which needs further morphological and molecular analyses.

Figures

FIGURE 21. A–C, Phyllidiopsis gemmata (ZMBN117082), dorsal, ventral view and detail of the rhinophores. D–F, Phyllidiopsis krempfi (ZMBN117040) dorsal, ventral view and detail of the rhinophores. G–I, Phyllidiopsis krempfi (ZMBN105093) dorsal,ventral view anddetail of the rhinophores.J–L,Phyllidiopsis shireenae (ZMBN119709) dorsal,ventral view and detail of the rhinophores.