4.2 Article

The genus Lithophyllum in the north-western Indian Ocean, with description of L. yemenense sp nov., L-socotraense sp nov., L. subplicatum comb. et stat. nov., and the resumed L-affine, L-kaiseri, and L-subreduncum (Rhodophyta, Corallinales)

期刊

PHYTOTAXA
卷 208, 期 3, 页码 183-200

出版社

MAGNOLIA PRESS
DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.208.3.1

关键词

biodiversity; coralline algae; Foslie; Heydrich; Indo-Pacific Ocean; Red Sea; Arabian Sea; Persian Gulf; integrated taxonomy; Lithophylloideae; TRH

资金

  1. ATM 'Taxonomie moleculaire: DNA Barcode et gestion durable des collections'
  2. PhD programme of the Milan-Bicocca University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Based on literature, the genus Lithophyllum was represented in the whole Indian Ocean by 14 taxa, mostly in need of revision in a modern context. Molecular analyses integrated with morpho-anatomical comparisons between the recently revised type material of Lithophyllum kotschyanum Unger, and the related infraspecific taxa, lead to a resumption of L. affine, L. kaiseri, and L. subreduncum, and the description of L. socotraense sp. nov., L. yemenense sp. nov., and L. subplicatum comb. et stat. nov. Detailed accounts are provided for each species, including keys, along with information on synonymy, examined collections, distribution, habitat as well as sequence data of the 5' end of the LSU from the type specimens. The anatomical features of the tetrasporangial conceptacle that were considered collectively diagnostic for species identification are: the mean diameter of the tetrasporangial conceptacles, the length of the pore-canal in the tetrasporangial conceptacles (with the number of cells in roof filaments), the occurrence of a depression at the top of the conceptacle roof in relation to the pore opening, and the number of cells from the floor of the tetrasporangial conceptacle chamber to the thallus surface. This study provides evidence of a previously unsuspected diversity within the Red Sea and NW Indian Ocean species of Lithophyllum.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据