[Coral-List] Re: coral nomenclature

[Judith Lang/Lynton Land]

Dear Vladimir,
No one doubts that the taxonomy of many groups, including 
scleractinians is challenging, and our collective understanding varies 
greatly over time. Airing differences of opinion and interpretation, 
sometimes based on different field experiences, is good.
This is because, in addition to the intra-colony and inter-colony 
variability described below that occur at any given locality, some 
genera show considerable biogeographic variation for a number of traits 
around the Western Atlantic.

However, implying that in the Atlantic  controversial species names are 
all based on publications in the popular literature or personal 
opinions, and therefore invalid, is simply not correct. Our colleagues 
commonly publish their taxonomic interpretations in refereed journals 
like Bulletins of American Paleontology, Bulletin of Marine Science, 
Courier Forschungsinstitut Senckenberg,  Journal of Paleontology, 
Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington and Smithsonian 
Contributions to Zoology.

My long-held opinion is that if we can make a distinction, we should, 
because later on we can always merge files that are distinct; but we 
can never split them if they are merged from the start. For your 
monitoring purposes, I can image that it doesn't matter if columnar, 
small-polyped colonies of Montastraea are called just that, or M. 
annularis f. annularis, or M. annularis (sensu Weil and Knowlton, 
1994). And if, for example, they are transitional between columns and 
tiny plates evocative of M. franksi, they can also be scored to record 
this information. In other words, regardless of what you think of their 
specific status, you don't have to try to force all your colonies into 
one of the described three morphs.

Best wishes,
Judy


On Jan 29, 2004, at 12:52 PM, Kosmynin, Vladimir wrote:

> Dear Listers,
>
> I think this is the time to talk about nomenclature of at least 
> Atlantic reef
> scleractinians, since it is not related to Stephanocoenia only.  I 
> think Dr.
> Vassil Zlatarski made very valuable point about inter-colonial 
> variability
> and transitional forms between two obvious forms - S. michelinii and
> S.intersepta.  From my field and museum experience I can confirm that 
> along
> with distinctive forms there are numerous transitions.  The very same 
> thing I
> can tell about Montastraea  annularis forms.  For some strong 
> believers of
> three species in Montastraea annularis "complex" I could show 
> transitions
> both inter-colonially and intra-colonially during field work in 
> Florida Keys
> and Cuba.  The very same problem we have with Mycetophyllia species, 
> where
> along with distinctive forms of M. aliciae and M. ferox we have all
> transitional forms too.  I wish Deborah Danaher will speak for that, 
> she
> invested considerable effort to figure out the borders between these 
> two
> species of Mycetophyllia.
>
> At the same time there are at least three different forms in 
> Montastraea
> cavernosa, which I cannot recall somebody discussed. But fortunately, 
> nobody
> calls them species.
>
> Coral taxonomy is not in favor now and is not really supported by 
> funds; but
> we have to realize that this is not just a problem of what to call this
> particular coral "species" or "form".  It is more than just what to 
> call it
> when we are talking to public and bureaucracy about number of lost and
> endangered species. It is a problem for management circles too.  For 
> example,
> I have received anger question why we are going to do monitoring "just 
> on
> Montastraea annularis, not also on M. faveolata and M. franksii". 
> Well, just
> because there are no such a thing as "species complex" in the 
> International
> Code of Zoological Nomenclature, and M. faveolata and M. franksii are 
> not
> appropriately established separate species.  I think we have to follow
> correct existing names according to the International Code of 
> Zoological
> Nomenclature.  Neither publication of "species" in popular books, photo
> albums and reports, nor personal opinions of well-known scientists 
> cannot be
> used as a reference.  Unfortunately, in our list we see often these 
> "species"
> in use,  and it is something that confuses those who are not a 
> taxonomist,
> but working on corals.  To resolve questions about species we need 
> further
> work with each particular species, but until it is not resolved like 
> it was
> done by Australian scientists with genera Platygyra in the Pacific, 
> species
> must stay like they are according to the International Code of 
> Zoological
> Nomenclature and correctly done revisions.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Vladimir N. Kosmynin, Ph.D.
> Environmental Consultant
> Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems
> Department of Environmental Protection
> 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard
> Mail Station 300
> Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
> e-mail: vladimir.kosmynin at dep.state.fl.us
> Tel: (850)487-4471 Ext. 121
> SunCom: 277-4471 Ext. 121
> Fax: (850)921-6459
>
>
>
>
> Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 11:15:33 -0800 (PST)
> From: vassil zlatarski <vzlatarski at yahoo.com>
>
> [Coral List] coral nomenclature/taxonomy Stephanocoenia
>
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> The Stephanocoenia nomenclature question went to taxonomy, so permit me
> to touch both areas.
>
> The Cuban and Yucatan scleractinians offered invaluable information
> about the variability of this genus.  In the book on Cuban Scleractinia
> (1980 - Russian and 1982 - French) the taxonomic decision was based on
> underwater observations and laboratory study of 164 colonies.  Their
> variability was described and illustrated (1982: p.132-136, pl. 46, 
> 47).
>   The Cuban material contains not only plocoid and subcerioid, but even
> cerioid (Idem. pl. 47, fig.3) colonies and many gradual transitions
> between them.  What is more intriguing is that there are colonies
> showing in their different parts more than one of these morphologies.
> For example, specimen #681, station 162, transect 6, Km.14, Matanzas,
> depth 18-20m. is both, plocoid and cerioid.  For such cases of
> intra-colonial variability was introduced the term bimorphic colony
> (1982, Chapter 3 - Variabilite et taxonomie, p. 16). On the other hand
> concerning the inter-colonial variability, the series of coralla 
> showing
> gradual morphological transition between two taxa were called
> morphological bridges (Idem. p.18).  I am kindly offering all this
> detailed information, because the Cuban material was not only described
> and illustrated, but fortunately after three decades preserved.  One
> inventory last year showed that 80% of all collection, object of the
> mentioned book, is curated in Instituto de Oceanologia, Havana.  The
> specimen #681 was present.  I agree that it is easier to approach
> typologically and identify only what is possible with the described
> species.  By doing this we operate with only part of the existing
> morphologies and use the "clear"or "good" specimens.  Unfortunately,
> many colonies do not "fit" in the "drawers" of the named taxa.  How to
> deal with them?  Closing the eyes we are ignoring the variability and
> our species recede further and further from the reality.
>
> About the synonimization of  S. michelinii.  It was done before 1987,
> which year was mentioned previously in the Coral-List.  In the book of
> 1980 and 1982 five species, including michelinii, entered in the
> synonymy of S. intersepta.
>
> My struggle to understand a little bit better the nature of the
> scleractinian species began in 1955 with fossil corals.  Presently I am
> trying to catch up with the existing worldwide literature on coral
> species and update my notion by using a holistic approach.  It is
> exiting issue, but we have to recognize that the nomenclature and the
> taxonomy of the Caribbean scleractinians are not doing well and they 
> are
> strongly appealing for updated studies, working with all existing
> knowledge and material, for discussions and intercolleguial efforts.
> The Coral List is good place to start.  I will be very glad to dedicate
> efforts for efficient coordinated work.
>
> Vassil Zlatarski
>
> 131 Fales Rd,
>
> Bristol, RI 02809, USA
>
> Phone: +1 401 254 5121
>
> e-mail: vzlatarski at yahoo.com
>
>
>
> 131 Fales Rd., Bristol, RI 02809, USA;  tel.: +1-401-254-5121
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 15:39:47 -0500
> From: Judith Lang/Lynton Land <JandL at rivnet.net>
> Subject: Re: [Coral-List] Coral nomenclature
> To: coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> Cc: Vassil Zlatarski <vzlatarski at yahoo.com>
> Message-ID: <1CE93812-51D2-11D8-97E2-0003933D6930 at rivnet.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; format=flowed
>
> Thanks to Dr. Vassil Zlatarski for his contribution to this discussion.
>
> For those of us behind the scenes who have been saying it is time for a
> bright student to reconsider Stephanocoenia with skeletal
> morphometrics, molecules, soft tissues and ecology (including
> transplantations), etc., this is a good reminder to remember to include
> the "intermediates."
>
> Judy
>
> On Jan 28, 2004, at 2:45 PM, Louis Florit wrote:
>
>> Message forwarded from Mr. Vassil Zlatarski.  Please send comments or
>> suggestions to him at vzlatarski at yahoo.com
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: Posting
>> Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 11:15:33 -0800 (PST)
>> From: vassil zlatarski <vzlatarski at yahoo.com>
>>
>> [Coral List] coral nomenclature/taxonomy Stephanocoenia
>>
>> Dear Colleagues,
>>
>> The Stephanocoenia nomenclature question went to taxonomy, so permit
>> me to touch both areas.
>>
>> The Cuban and Yucatan scleractinians offered invaluable information
>> about the variability of this genus.  In the book on Cuban
>> Scleractinia (1980 - Russian and 1982 - French) the taxonomic decision
>> was based on underwater observations and laboratory study of 164
>> colonies.  Their variability was described and illustrated (1982:
>> p.132-136, pl. 46, 47).  The Cuban material contains not only plocoid
>> and subcerioid, but even cerioid (Idem. pl. 47, fig.3) colonies and
>> many gradual transitions between them.  What is more intriguing is
>> that there are colonies showing in their different parts more than one
>> of these morphologies. For example, specimen #681, station 162,
>> transect 6, Km.14, Matanzas, depth 18-20m. is both, plocoid and
>> cerioid.  For such cases of intra-colonial variability was introduced
>> the term bimorphic colony (1982, Chapter 3 - Variabilite et taxonomie,
>> p. 16). On the other hand concerning the inter-colonial variability,
>> the series of coralla showing gradual morphological transition between
>> two taxa were called morphological bridges (Idem. p.18).  I am kindly
>> offering all this detailed information, because the Cuban material was
>> not only described and illustrated, but fortunately after three
>> decades preserved.  One inventory last year showed that 80% of all
>> collection, object of the mentioned book, is curated in Instituto de
>> Oceanologia, Havana.  The specimen #681 was present.  I agree that it
>> is easier to approach typologically and identify only what is possible
>> with the described species.  By doing this we operate with only part
>> of the existing morphologies and use the "clear"or "good" specimens.
>> Unfortunately, many colonies do not "fit" in the "drawers" of the
>> named taxa.  How to deal with them?  Closing the eyes we are ignoring
>> the variability and our species recede further and further from the
>> reality.
>>
>> About the synonimization of  S. michelinii.  It was done before 1987,
>> which year was mentioned previously in the Coral-List.  In the book of
>> 1980 and 1982 five species, including michelinii, entered in the
>> synonymy of S. intersepta.
>>
>> My struggle to understand a little bit better the nature of the
>> scleractinian species began in 1955 with fossil corals.  Presently I
>> am trying to catch up with the existing worldwide literature on coral
>> species and update my notion by using a holistic approach.  It is
>> exiting issue, but we have to recognize that the nomenclature and the
>> taxonomy of the Caribbean scleractinians are not doing well and they
>> are strongly appealing for updated studies, working with all existing
>> knowledge and material, for discussions and intercolleguial efforts.
>> The Coral List is good place to start.  I will be very glad to
>> dedicate efforts for efficient coordinated work.
>>
>> Vassil Zlatarski
>>
>> 131 Fales Rd,
>>
>> Bristol, RI 02809, USA
>>
>> Phone: +1 401 254 5121
>>
>> e-mail: vzlatarski at yahoo.com
>>
>>
>>
>> 131 Fales Rd., Bristol, RI 02809, USA;  tel.: +1-401-254-5121
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Coral-List mailing list
>> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
>> http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Coral-List mailing list
> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
>
>
> End of Coral-List Digest, Vol 7, Issue 26
> *****************************************
>