4.0 Article

Results of the Rumphius Biohistorical Expedition to Ambon (1990). Part 16. The Nudibranchia-Dendronotina, Arminina, Aeolidina, and Doridina (Mollusca: Gastropoda: Heterobranchia)

期刊

ARCHIV FUR MOLLUSKENKUNDE
卷 146, 期 1, 页码 135-172

出版社

E SCHWEIZERBARTSCHE VERLAGSBUCHHANDLUNG
DOI: 10.1127/arch.moll/146/135-172

关键词

Aeolidina; Arminina; Dendronotina; Doridina; Indonesia; taxonomy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This is the penultimate publication describing the sea slug heterobranchs collected by the Rumphius Biohistorical Expedition on and around the Indonesian island of Ambon. This report deals with the outstanding nudibranchs, the orders Dendronotina, Arminina, and Aeolidina not touched upon in the previous reports, and the remaining Doridina which were not included in the previous papers for various reasons. Thirty-eight species belonging to 22 genera are identified from Ambon and nearby localities. Ten species, Bornella anguilla, Bornella dotoides, Bornella stellifera, Gymnodoris citrina, Carminodoris grand fora, Montereina cf. coerulescens, Peltodoris murrea, Sebadoris fragilis, Doriopsis pecten, and Dendrodoris fumata are recorded from Indonesia for the first time, and 4 species, Bornella dotoides, Phyllodesmium kabiranum, Phyllodesmium undulatum, and Carminodoris fiammea are recorded for the first time in the scientific literature since their original descriptions. New species of Dermatobranchus and Gymnodoris are described but not named due to lack of material. Notes relating to the following taxa highlight some changes in names and/or dates of publication: the family names Arminidae Iredale & O'Donoghue, 1923 and Tethydidae Rafinesque, 1815; the genus names Doriopsis Pease, 1860 restored (from synonymy under Doris Linnaeus, 1758) and Carminodoris Bergh, 1889 restored (separated from Hoplodoris Bergh, 1880); and the species names Bornella stellifera (A. Adams & Reeve in A. Adams, 1848) (gender agreement) and Dendrodoris fumata (Riippell & Leuckart, 1830) (date correction).

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

4.0
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