Palythoa aff. tuberculosa (Esper, 1805)

Reimer, James D., Poliseno, Angelo & Hoeksema, Bert W., 2014, Shallow-water zoantharians (Cnidaria, Hexacorallia) from the Central Indo-Pacific, ZooKeys 444, pp. 1-57 : 12

Taxon classification Animalia Zoantharia Sphenopidae

9. Palythoa aff. tuberculosa (Esper, 1805) Figures 7, 9A

Specimens examined

(n=1). RMNH Coel 40521, Snellius Expedition, Pulau Haroekoe, east of Ambon, Ambon, Moluccas, collected on May 03-07, 1930.

Photographic records.

NA.

Description.

This specimen superficially resembles zooxanthellate Palythoa sp. yoron sensu Shiroma and Reimer (2010) with its very well developed coenenchyme and ‘intermediae–immersae’ morphology (Figure 9B). However, there are some differences between this specimen and Palythoa sp. yoron from Okinawa. The current specimen consists of two large portions of colonies consisting of>50 polyps, while Palythoa sp. yoron usually is found in very small colonies of <10 polyps. As well, Palythoa sp. yoron consists of a very well developed coenenchyme from which all individual polyps partially emerge, while the current specimen appears to consist more of large robust polyps that have merged together at many locations, but not at others, giving the specimen the appearance of Palythoa tuberculosa from the top, and often of Palythoa mutuki from side angles. On the other hand, Palythoa sp. yoron has an appearance, although intermediate between Palythoa tuberculosa and Palythoa mutuki , unique to and of itself. Polyps’ height (when not merged) is approximately 7.0 mm, and average width is 7.3 mm (n=10 polyps). Thus, for now, this specimen is identified as Palythoa aff. tuberculosa . For details on Palythoa tuberculosa , refer to the relevant species section below.

Distribution.

Regions recorded in this study (Figure 7): Moluccas (14).

Previous records: NA.

Remarks.

This specimen is unlike any other previous specimen observed in the field or museums by the first author. Unfortunately, as it was collected in 1930, attempts to acquire utilizable DNA sequences able to distinguish this specimen’s affinity were unsuccessful, and identification was made on gross morphology alone.