identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
B26DA91C6D261701E0ECF951D384F89D.text	B26DA91C6D261701E0ECF951D384F89D.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Mussidae , Ortmann 1890	<div><p>FAMILY MUSSIDAE ORTMANN, 1890: 315</p> <p>Type genus: Mussa Oken, 1815</p></div> 	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/B26DA91C6D261701E0ECF951D384F89D	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Budd, Ann F.;Fukami, Hironobu;Smith, Nathan D.;Knowlton, Nancy	Budd, Ann F., Fukami, Hironobu, Smith, Nathan D., Knowlton, Nancy (2012): Taxonomic classification of the reef coral family Mussidae (Cnidaria: Anthozoa: Scleractinia). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 166 (3): 465-529, DOI: 10.1111/j.1096-3642.2012.00855.x, URL: https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article-lookup/doi/10.1111/j.1096-3642.2012.00855.x
B26DA91C6D24173EE002FCBDD5D0F8D2.text	B26DA91C6D24173EE002FCBDD5D0F8D2.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Mussinae Ortmann 1890	<div><p>SUBFAMILY MUSSINAE ORTMANN, 1890: 315</p> <p>Type genus: Mussa Oken, 1815</p> <p>Original description: ‘Von der Basis der Koralle erhebt sich keine Ringfalte, die eine echte Mauer abscheidet... Die Septen verbinden sich durch seitliche Verschmelzung zu einer falschen Mauer... Koloniebildung durch Theilung. Vorwiegend acrogenes Wachstum mit reichlicher Traversenbildung.’ (Ortmann, 1890: 314–315).</p> <p>Diagnosis: Macromorphology: solitary or colonial; corallites discrete, or arranged in uniserial or multiserial valleys formed by circumoral budding (includes meandroid and phaceloid forms); coenosteum usually absent (except Isophyllia); medium to large calices with high relief (&gt; 6 mm); widely spaced septa (&lt;six per 5 mm); relatively small trabecular columella, with either lamellar or trabecular centre linkage; reduced epitheca; well-developed endotheca (Fig. 2).</p> <p>Micromorphology: regular, tall (&gt; 0.6 mm), widely spaced (1–2 mm), spine-shaped septal teeth, with circular bases; interarea of teeth consisting of horizontal bands; weak, aligned septal granules consisting of diffuse spikes (Figs 3, 4).</p> <p>Microstructure: mostly parathecal corallite walls, containing trabeculothecal elements; clusters of centres of calcification within the costosepta and columella well developed, widely separated (&gt; 0.6 mm), and connected by medial lines (Figs 5, 6).</p> <p>Genera included:</p> <p>Mussa Oken, 1815</p> <p>Isophyllia Milne Edwards &amp; Haime, 1851a Mycetophyllia Milne Edwards &amp; Haime, 1848 Scolymia Haime, 1852</p> <p>Remarks: As explained by Vaughan &amp; Wells (1943: 191), ‘the most marked feature of the group is the large, multi-trabecular septal dentations marking the most complex type of faviid septum’. Both traditional Atlantic and Indo-Pacific ‘mussids’ have spine-shaped or triangular teeth. However, the teeth of traditional Indo-Pacific ‘mussids’ are orientated parallel to the septal plane, whereas the teeth of traditional Atlantic ‘mussids’ are transverse, sometimes forming carinae. Moreover, the septal granulation of traditional Indo-Pacific ‘mussids’ consists of rounded knobs, whereas the granules of traditional Atlantic ‘mussids’ consist of spikes. The walls of traditional Indo-Pacific ‘mussids’ are thickened extensively by stereome (see description in Budd &amp; Stolarski, 2009).</p> <p>The subfamily Mussinae is monophyletic (Fig. 7) and distinguished from the subfamily Faviinae on the basis of: greater distances (&gt; 0.6 mm) between costoseptal clusters of calcification centres in the Mussinae, teeth with circular bases and weak granules in the Mussinae, and circumoral budding with wide septal spacing (&lt;six septa per cm) in the Mussinae.</p> <p>Distribution: Atlantic only.</p> <p>GENUS MUSSA OKEN, 1815: 73 (FIGS 9A, B, 12A, B, 18A–C, 22A–C)</p> <p>[all taxa in Oken, 1815 rejected by ICZN opinion 417 (September 1956; ICZN Commission, 1956); but Mussa Oken, 1815 conserved by ICZN opinion 2061 (March 2004; ICZN Commission, 2004)].</p> <p>Synonyms: Lithodendron Schweigger, 1819, tab. vi [type species: Madrepora angulosa Pallas, 1766: 299– 300, as listed by Schweigger, 1820: 415–416 (see Wells, 1936: 116).]</p> <p>Type species: Madrepora angulosa Pallas, 1766: 299– 300; by subsequent designation, Vaughan, 1918: 122. Holotype is lost (Matthai, 1928). We herein designate specimen YPM9035 (Fig. 9A, B) collected by J. C. Lang at Lime Cay off Port Royal, Jamaica as the neotype of Mussa angulosa (Pallas).</p> <p>Original type species locality: ‘Mare Americanum’ (Pallas, 1766: 300) [Recent].</p> <p>Early descriptions:</p> <p>1. ‘Sterne vertieft am End, meist gedrückt, weiter als Stamm, einzel oder wenige.’ (Oken, 1815: 73).</p> <p>2. ‘Large Astraeidae, segregate, also explanatoglomerate; tentacles numerous, unequal, the inner tumid. Coralla calicularly branched or explanatoglomerate; calicles very stout, subturbinate, with orbiculate or lobed cells, sometimes very broadly compressed with the cells long meandering; exterior stoutly lamello-striate and echinato-dentate; lamellae coarsely dentate or gashed-toothed, unequally exsert.’ (Dana, 1846: 173).</p> <p>3. ‘Le polpier est composé, élevé, plus ou moins cespiteux; les polypiérites sont libres entre eux ou unis en séries toujours simples et toujours libres latéralement. Les murailles sont nues ou ne présentent qu’une épithèque rudimentaire; elles sont striées longitudinalement et garnies d’épines plus ou moins nombreuses. Les calices sont plus ou moines déformés; ils ont une fossette bien distincte et même assez profonde; la columelle est spongieuse et plus or moins développée. Les systèmes cloisonnaires sont en général inégaux et irréguliers, mais on reconnaît ordinairement dans l’appareil septal des traces manifested du type hexaméral. On trouve toujours des cloisons nombreuses, débordantes, très-peu granulées et fortement dentées; leurs dents sont longues, mais inégales, les extérieures étant beaucoup plus fortes que les autres et spiniformes. Les loges interseptales sont médiocrement profondes; le tissu endothécal est bien développé.’ (Milne Edwards, 1857: 328–329).</p> <p>Subsequent morphological descriptions (Matthai, 1928 and later): Matthai (1928: 202–208); Wells (1936: 120–121; 1956); Vaughan &amp; Wells (1943: 192, 195; F418); Walton Smith (1971: 92); Zlatarski &amp; Estalella (1982: 165–177); Veron (2000: vol. 3: 64–65).</p> <p>Diagnosis: Macromorphology: colonial; intracalicular budding. Phaceloid, with short series (usually one to three centres per series, but occasionally up to five); large calices (2.5–4.5 cm) with high relief (&gt; 6 mm), four septal cycles, slightly unequal; thin, curved septa, with wide septal spacing; continuous, spongy (&gt; three threads) columella with trabecular linkage; reduced epitheca; no septal or paliform lobes; abundant endotheca (Figs 9A, B, 12A, B).</p> <p>Micromorphology: high (&gt; 0.6 mm), widely spaced (1–2 mm), spine-shaped, pointed teeth, regularly arranged; layered (banded) interarea of septal teeth; teeth in major and minor septal cycles similar in size; spongy columella, with columellar teeth differing in size and shape from septal teeth; spiky, aligned granules (Fig. 18A–C).</p> <p>Microstructure: parathecal wall with trabeculothecal elements. Widely separated (&gt; 1.2 mm), welldeveloped clusters of calcification centres that cross medial lines; reduced thickening deposits (Fig. 22A–C).</p> <p>Included species [monotypic genus]: Mussa angulosa (Pallas, 1766: 299). [Holotype is from ‘Mare Americanum’ and is lost; neotype (herein designated) = YPM9035, Fig. 9A, B, Port Royal, Jamaica.]</p> <p>Remarks: Concepts of the genus have progressively narrowed through time. In Vaughan &amp; Wells (1943) and Wells (1956), the genus was broadly defined to include solitary forms [e.g. Scolymia (= Lithophyllia)] in addition to the phaceloid colonial form Mussa angulosa. Later Wells (1964), followed by Walton Smith (1971), separated solitary Scolymia from colonial Mussa.</p> <p>In the classification system of Vaughan &amp; Wells (1943) and Wells (1956), the genus Mussa is distinguished by having a phaceloid colony form, regular septal dentation, and corallite centres with trabecular linkage (Vaughan &amp; Wells, 1943: 192, 195). Our observations show further that, like other members of the subfamily Mussinae, it has a predominantly parathecal corallite wall; centres of calcification within the costosepta and columella that form a medial line crossed by well-developed clusters of centres; spine-shaped septal teeth; and septal granules consisting of aligned spikes. In addition to colony form, this genus differs from the meandroid members of the subfamily Mussinae by having four septal cycles and a spongy columella. Atlantic Mussa is superficially similar in growth form to Indo-Pacific Lobophyllia, but differs by having trabecular linkage (not lamellar) between corallite centres, better developed septal granules, and limited thickening deposits (e.g. thin septa).</p> <p>The genus Mussa is recognized as monotypic by Walton Smith (1971); Zlatarski &amp; Estalella (1982); Cairns, Hoeksema &amp; Land (1999); and Veron (2000).</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/B26DA91C6D24173EE002FCBDD5D0F8D2	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Budd, Ann F.;Fukami, Hironobu;Smith, Nathan D.;Knowlton, Nancy	Budd, Ann F., Fukami, Hironobu, Smith, Nathan D., Knowlton, Nancy (2012): Taxonomic classification of the reef coral family Mussidae (Cnidaria: Anthozoa: Scleractinia). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 166 (3): 465-529, DOI: 10.1111/j.1096-3642.2012.00855.x, URL: https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article-lookup/doi/10.1111/j.1096-3642.2012.00855.x
B26DA91C6D191734E029FA7DD209FC65.text	B26DA91C6D191734E029FA7DD209FC65.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Isophyllia Milne Edwards & Haime 1851	<div><p>GENUS ISOPHYLLIA MILNE EDWARDS &amp; HAIME, 1851 A: 87 (FIGS 9C, D, 13A–F, 19A–F, 23A–F)</p> <p>Synonyms: Isophyllastrea Matthai, 1928: 262 [type species: Astraea rigida Dana, 1846: 237; pl. 12, fig. 8a–d (by original designation).]</p> <p>Type species: Oulophyllia ? spinosa Milne Edwards &amp; Haime, 1849: 269, holotype = MNHN-Scle866 (Fig. 9C, D) [= Madrepora sinuosa Ellis &amp; Solander, 1786: 160]; by original designation.</p> <p>Type species locality: ‘Patrie inconnue’ (Milne Edwards &amp; Haime, 1849: 269) [Recent].</p> <p>Early descriptions:</p> <p>1. ‘Polypier massif; multiplication par fissiparité; polypiérites à centres distincts, restant confondus en séries courtes qui sont soudées entre elles latéralement; cloisons fortement dentées, et dont les dents sont subégales; columelle rudimentaire; endothèque très-abondante; épithèque distincte.’ (Milne Edwards &amp; Haime, 1851a: 87).</p> <p>2. Original description, Isophyllastrea: ‘Corallum. Massive. Corallites mostly with mono- and di-stomodaeal polyps, those with monostomodaeal ones 10–12 mm in diameter. Colline somewhat thick, faintly grooved above or ridged. Septa thickening towards wall, comparatively narrow, slightly sloping or almost vertical. Septal margins with teeth more or less resembling those in Isophyllia, sides of septa rough or spinulose. Septa meeting in groove on colline or continuous over ridged colline, exsert ends toothed. Columella feebly developed, consisting of loosely interlocking septal trabeculae.’ (Matthai, 1928: 262).</p> <p>Subsequent morphological descriptions (Matthai, 1928 and later): Matthai (1928: 235–248, 262–268); Vaughan &amp; Wells (1943: 192–193, 195–196); Wells (1956: F418, F419); Walton Smith (1971: 92–94);</p> <p>Zlatarski &amp; Estalella (1982: 177–182); Veron (2000: vol. 3: 36–37).</p> <p>Diagnosis: Macromorphology: colonial. Intracalicular budding; initially circumoral. Meandroid (uniserial), usually short series (&lt;five centres per series); medium calices (2.5–5 cm) with high relief (&gt; 6 mm); three or more septal cycles, equal; thin, costate coenosteum; costae not confluent; weak continuous columella with trabecular linkage; reduced epitheca; no septal or paliform lobes; abundant endotheca (Figs 9C, D, 13A–F).</p> <p>Microstructure: parathecal wall with trabeculothecal elements. Well-developed clusters of calcification centres encircled by concentric rings of fibrous thickening deposits; clusters cross medial lines; reduced thickening deposits (Fig. 23A–F).</p> <p>Micromorphology: high (&gt; 0.6 mm), widely spaced (1–2 mm), spine-shaped, pointed teeth, regularly arranged; layered (banded) interarea of septal teeth; teeth in major and minor septal cycles similar in size; compact columella, with columellar teeth differing in size and shape from septal teeth; spiky, aligned granules (Fig. 19A–F).</p> <p>Included species: Isophyllia sinuosa (Ellis &amp; Solander, 1786: 160) [holotype is from ‘Oceano Indie occidentalis’, and is lost; neotype (herein designated) = SUI102759 (FA1134), Fig. 13A, B, Key Largo, Florida].</p> <p>Isophyllia multiflora (Verrill, 1901: 125) [holotype = YPM4009, Fig. 13C, D, Bermuda].</p> <p>Isophyllastrea rigida (Dana, 1846: 237, pl. 12, fig. 8a–d) [holotype = YPM4297, Fig. 13E, F, West Indies].</p> <p>Remarks: Milne Edwards &amp; Haime (1849) originally designated Oulophyllia ? spinosa as the type species of Isophyllia based on a specimen in their collection (MNHN-Scle866). As indicated in Matthai (1928: 237), this species has subsequently been synonymized with Isophyllia sinuosa (Ellis &amp; Solander), the type specimen of which is lost. A neotype (SUI102759, collected in Key Largo, Florida) has been therefore designated for Isophyllia sinuosa.</p> <p>In the classification system of Vaughan &amp; Wells (1943) and Wells (1956), the genus Isophyllia is distinguished by having a meandroid colony form, and centres with trabecular linkage; colonies form initially by circumoral budding (Vaughan &amp; Wells, 1943: 192). These authors point out that Isophyllia differs from Symphyllia (its superficially similar Indo-Pacific counterpart), in that Symphyllia has longer series and ·</p> <p>centres with lamellar linkage. Our observations show Isophyllia differs from Mycetophyllia, in that Mycetophyllia lacks coenosteum and has confluent costosepta, centres with lamellar linkage, and paliform lobes. Isophyllia differs from Indo-Pacific Symphyllia in Isophyllia ’s possession of an epitheca, the shape of their septal teeth and granules, and the fact that teeth in major and minor septal cycles in Symphyllia differ in size and shape.</p> <p>In the classification system of Vaughan &amp; Wells (1943) and Wells (1956), the monotypic genus Isophyllastrea is similar to Isophyllia in having similarly shaped, large teeth (regular, pointed with circular bases); colonies that form initially by circumoral budding; and short series with trabecular linkage. It is distinguished by having a cerioid colony form and feeble columella (Vaughan &amp; Wells, 1943: 193, 195– 196). However, our observations show that Isophylllastrea is not truly cerioid because it has coenosteum, like Isophyllia, and columellae in the two taxa are equally developed (Fig. 23A, B, D, E). Moreover, molecular data (cyt b and COI) show that Isophyllia sinuosa and Isophyllastrea rigida are identical (H. Fukami, unpubl. data). Nevertheless Isophyllastrea rigida is distinguished from Isophyllia sinuosa on the basis of microstructure (well-developed concentric rings associated with septal teeth, Fig. 23D–F), and micromorphology (smooth interarea of teeth, Fig. 19D–F). We feel that the similarities outweigh the differences, and synonymize the genus Isophyllastrea with Isophyllia, as in Zlatarski &amp; Estalella (1982) and Veron (2000) but not Walton Smith (1971) and not Cairns, Hoeksema &amp; Land (1999). We consider the two species to be distinct.</p> <p>Following Matthai (1928), Walton Smith (1971) recognized three species of Isophyllia + Isophyllastrea (Isophyllia sinuosa, Isophyllia multiflora, Isophyllastrea rigida); whereas Zlatarski &amp; Estalella (1982) recognized only one species (Isophyllia sinuosa), and Cairns, Hoeksema &amp; Land (1999) recognized two species (Isophyllia sinuosa, Isophyllastrea rigida). Veron (2000) recognized Isophyllia sinuosa and Isophyllastrea rigida. The three possible species of Isophyllia recognized herein (I. sinuosa, I. multiflora, I. rigida) are distinguished on the basis of number of centres per series, calice width, and number of septa per cm (Fig. 13). Isophyllia sinuosa and I. multiflora form series (valleys with two or more centres), whereas I. rigida is usually monocentric. Valley widths in I. sinuosa average 20–25 mm, in I. multiflora 12–15 mm, and in I. rigida 10–12 mm. Number of septa per cm range from seven to nine in I. sinuosa, and 11–12 in I. multiflora. I. rigida has 25–30 septa per corallite (more than three septal cycles).</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/B26DA91C6D191734E029FA7DD209FC65	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Budd, Ann F.;Fukami, Hironobu;Smith, Nathan D.;Knowlton, Nancy	Budd, Ann F., Fukami, Hironobu, Smith, Nathan D., Knowlton, Nancy (2012): Taxonomic classification of the reef coral family Mussidae (Cnidaria: Anthozoa: Scleractinia). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 166 (3): 465-529, DOI: 10.1111/j.1096-3642.2012.00855.x, URL: https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article-lookup/doi/10.1111/j.1096-3642.2012.00855.x
B26DA91C6D13172EE045FBB8D2AAFE6D.text	B26DA91C6D13172EE045FBB8D2AAFE6D.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Mycetophyllia Milne Edwards & Haime 1848	<div><p>GENUS MYCETOPHYLLIA MILNE EDWARDS &amp; HAIME, 1848: 491–492 (FIGS 9E, F, 14A–J, 19G–O, 23G–O)</p> <p>Synonyms: None.</p> <p>Type species: Mycetophyllia lamarckiana Milne Edwards &amp; Haime, 1849: 258, holotype = MNHN- Scle910 (Fig. 9E, F); by subsequent designation, Milne Edwards &amp; Haime, 1849: 258.</p> <p>Type species locality: ‘Patrie inconnue’ (Milne Edwards &amp; Haime, 1849: 258) [Recent].</p> <p>Original description: ’Très-voisin des Symphyllies, mais n’offrant pas de columelle et ayant les calices très-peu profonds. Murailles peu marqués, et cloisons en petit nombre.’ (Milne Edwards &amp; Haime, 1848: 491).</p> <p>Subsequent morphological descriptions (Matthai, 1928 and later): Matthai, 1928: 249–255; Vaughan &amp; Wells (1943: 193, 196); Wells (1956: F419); Wells (1973: 34–43); Walton Smith (1971: 93–94); Zlatarski &amp; Estalella (1982: 182–224); Veron (2000: vol. 3: 72–79).</p> <p>Diagnosis: Macromorphology: colonial. Intracalicular and/or circumoral budding. Meandroid (uniserial and multiserial), with and without collines; centres spaced 5–15 mm apart; &lt;three septal cycles, equal; limited ·</p> <p>coenosteum and incomplete corallite walls, mostly confluent septa; absent or feeble discontinuous columella with lamellar linkage; reduced epitheca; paliform lobes; abundant endotheca (Figs 9E, F, 14A–J).</p> <p>Micromorphology: high (&gt; 0.6 mm), widely spaced (1–2 mm), spine-shaped teeth, regularly arranged, with spiked tips resembling a Medieval spiked mace weapon; layered (banded) interarea of septal teeth; feeble or absent columella; paliform lobes; fine granules along the sides of teeth (Fig. 19G–O).</p> <p>Microstructure: parathecal wall with trabeculothecal elements. Well-developed clusters of calcification centres encircled by concentric rings of fibrous thickening deposits; clusters cross medial lines; reduced thickening deposits (Fig. 23G–O).</p> <p>Included species: Mycetophyllia lamarckiana Milne Edwards &amp; Haime, 1849: 258 [holotype = MNHN- Scle910, Fig. 9E, F, unknown locality].</p> <p>Mycetophyllia aliciae Wells, 1973: 41, figs 25–28 [holotype = USNM53496, Fig. 14C, D, Discovery Bay, Jamaica].</p> <p>Mycetophyllia danaana Milne Edwards &amp; Haime, 1849: 259 [holotype is from an unknown locality, and is lost (A Andouche, pers. comm., 2007). We herein designate specimen SUI102772 (FA1003) (Fig. 14E, F) collected by H. Fukami at Bocas del Toro, Panama as the neotype.].</p> <p>Mycetophyllia ferox Wells, 1973: 40, figs 22–24 [holotype = USNM53494, Fig. 14G, H, Eaton Hall, Jamaica].</p> <p>Mycetophyllia reesi Wells, 1973: 36, figs 19–21 [holotype = USNM53493, Fig. 14I, J, West Bull, Jamaica]</p> <p>Remarks: In the classification system of Vaughan &amp; Wells (1943) and Wells (1956), the genus Mycetophyllia is distinguished by having a meandroid colony form, long series, centres with lamellar linkage, discontinuous collines enclosing one or more continuous series, and a reduced or absent columella; colonies form initially by circumoral budding (Vaughan &amp; Wells, 1943: 193, 196). Our observations indicate that it also has paliform lobes. Mycetophyllia is generally similar to Isophyllia in microstructure and micromorphology. Isophyllia differs from Mycetophyllia in that Mycetophyllia lacks a coenosteum, and has confluent costosepta, centres with lamellar linkage, and paliform lobes, as described above.</p> <p>Following Wells (1973), Cairns, Hoeksema &amp; Land (1999) and Veron (2000) recognized five species of Mycetophyllia, whereas Zlatarski &amp; Estalella (1982) recognized two (Mycetophyllia lamarckiana, Mycetophyllia ? reesi), the latter one of which was only questionably assigned to Mycetophyllia. Lang’s (1973) experimental studies of aggressive interactions found that Mycetophyllia ferox was the most aggressively superior, followed by Mycetophyllia reesi, but there was no interaction amongst Mycetophyllia lamarckiana, Mycetophyllia aliciae, and Mycetophyllia danaana. The five species of Mycetophyllia are distinguished primarily on the basis of colony form, which may be highly variable within species. Mycetophyllia reesi is distinguished by circumoral budding and no collines (Fig. 14I, J); and Mycetophyllia ferox by intracalicular budding and narrow (~ 10 mm), meandering, sometimes discontinuous valleys with continuous forked collines (Fig. 14G, H). Mycetophyllia aliciae, Mycetophyllia danaana, and Mycetophyllia lamarckiana all initially have circumoral budding (less pronounced in Mycetophyllia danaana), followed by intracalicular budding, and straight, continuous valleys. The valleys in Mycetophyllia aliciae are multiserial and the collines discontinuous (Fig. 14C, D), whereas the valleys in Mycetophyllia danaana and Mycetophyllia lamarckiana are uniserial. Mycetophyllia danaana and Mycetophyllia lamarckiana also tend to have less pronounced paliform lobes than the other three species (J. Lang, pers. comm.). Mycetophyllia danaana has deep valleys (10–12 mm), sometimes forming monticules (superficial ‘hydnophoroid pillars’ sensu Wells, 1973), discontinuous collines, and more septa (12–16 per cm; Fig. 14E, F); whereas Mycetophyllia lamarckiana has broad, shallow (&lt;10 mm) valleys, continuous collines, and fewer septa (six to seven per cm; Fig. 14A, B). Danaher (1998) interpreted Mycetophyllia lamarckiana and Mycetophyllia danaana as being synonymous based on analyses of skeletal variation caused by environmental gradients related to energy and nutrient acquisition (functional plasticity).</p> <p>GENUS SCOLYMIA HAIME, 1852: 279 (FIGS 9G, H, 12A, B, 18A–C, 22A–C)</p> <p>Synonyms: Lithophyllia Milne Edwards, 1857: 290 [type species = Madrepora lacera Pallas, 1766, by subsequent designation (Felix, 1925: 100)].</p> <p>Type species: Madrepora lacera Pallas, 1766: 298; by subsequent designation, Vaughan, 1901: 6. Holotype is lost. We herein designate specimen YPM 9036 collected by J. C. Lang in 1968 at Rio Bueno, Jamaica, as the neotype.</p> <p>Original type species locality: ‘Mare Americanum’ (Pallas, 1766: 298) [Recent].</p> <p>Original descriptions:</p> <p>1. ‘Je propose donc de laisser le nom de Caryophyllia à tous les polypiers qui présentent les caractères reconnus en 1828 par M. Stokes, et que M. Ehrenberg et nous-mêmes avons décrits depuis celui de Cyathina, en assígnant au genre Caryophyllia, Milne Edw. et J. Haime (Compt. rend. de l’Ac. des sc., t. XXVII: 491, 1848 – non Stokes), si tant est qui cette division mérite d’être conservée la dénomination de Scolymia que lui donne M. Jourdan dans la collection du Musée de Lyon. Cette restauration est d’autant plus importante, qu’il n’y a pour ainsi dire pas deux auteurs qui aient attribué la même un terme à cette regrettable confusion.’ (Haime, 1852: 279)</p> <p>2. ‘Coral cylindro-turbinate, cylindrical, or almost prismatical, in all ages attached to the ground by an expanded base, without a distinct epitheca. Costae prominent, roughly spinose, the uppermost spines being the strongest. Calicle shallow, circular, rarely oblong, rectangular or lobate. Septa of first and second cycles with their free edges lacerodentate, the teeth increasing in size from within outwards. Columella oblong in outline, consisting of thin trabeculae, its surface finely papillose or imbricate.’ (Brüggemann, 1877: 301)</p> <p>Subsequent morphological descriptions (Matthai, 1928, and later): = Mussa in Matthai (1928: 202–208); = Mussa in Vaughan &amp; Wells (1943: 195); = Mussa in Wells (1956: F418); Wells (1964: 375–384); Laborel (1969: 217–222); Lang (1971: 952–959); Wells (1971: 960–962); Walton Smith (1971: 92); Zlatarski &amp; Estalella (1982: 157–165); Veron (2000: vol. 3: 66–71); Neves et al. (2006: 45–54).</p> <p>Diagnosis: Macromorphology: solitary, with rare intracalicular budding; large calices (&gt; 4 cm), more than four septal cycles, unequal; well-developed, spongy (&gt; three threads) columella with lamellar linkage; reduced epitheca; no septal or paliform lobes; abundant endotheca (Figs 9G–H, 12C–H).</p> <p>Micromorphology: high (&gt; 0.6 mm), widely spaced (1–2 mm), spine-shaped, pointed teeth, regularly arranged; smooth interarea of septal teeth; teeth in major and minor septal cycles differ in size; spongy columella, with columellar teeth differing in size and shape from septal teeth; spiky, aligned granules (Fig. 18D–L).</p> <p>Microstructure: parathecal wall with trabeculothecal elements. Widely separated (&gt; 1.2 mm), welldeveloped clusters of calcification centres encircled by concentric rings of fibrous thickening deposits; clusters cross weak medial lines; moderate thickening deposits (Fig. 22D–L).</p> <p>Included species: Scolymia lacera (Pallas, 1766: 298) [holotype is from ‘Mare Americanum’, and is lost; neotype (herein designated) = YPM9036, Fig. 9G, H, Rio Bueno, Jamaica].</p> <p>Scolymia cubensis (Milne Edwards &amp; Haime, 1849: 238) [holotype is from Cuba, and is lost (A. Andouche, pers. comm., 2009); neotype (herein designated) = YPM7569, Fig. 12E, F, Runaway Bay, Jamaica].</p> <p>Scolymia wellsi (Laborel, 1967: 107, figs 1–3) (holotype = MNHN-Scle20175, Fig. 12G, H, Abrolhos Archipelago, Brazil).</p> <p>Remarks: Following Zlatarski &amp; Estalella (1982), Veron (2000) synonymized Scolymia lacera (Pallas) with Mussa angulosa (Pallas), and redesignated Scolymia cubensis (Milne Edwards &amp; Haime, 1849) as the type species of Scolymia. Our observations indicate that Scolymia lacera and Mussa angulosa are distinct. Scolymia differs from Mussa in its colony form, more extensive thickening deposits, more closely spaced clusters of calcification centres (&lt;1.8 mm), smooth interarea of septal teeth, and distinctive paddle-shaped columellar teeth. When budding, it also has lamellar linkage, in contrast to trabecular linkage in Mussa. We therefore retain Madrepora lacera Pallas, 1766, as the type species of Scolymia.</p> <p>As described by Wells (1964: 375–376), the genus Scolymia is characterized by wholly dentate septal margins, dentations four to six (per) cm on larger septa, large calices (&gt; 4 cm), centres with trabecular linkage, and sparse septal granules. Scolymia is distinguished from the genus Homophyllia [type species = Homophyllia australis (Milne Edwards &amp; Haime, 1849)] on the basis of number of dentations [ten to 12 (per) cm in Homophyllia] and calice size (&lt;4 cm in Homophyllia). Scolymia is distinguished from the genus Parascolymia [type species = Parascolymia vitiensis (Brüggemann, 1877)] on the basis of septal granulation (more numerous and thicker in Parascolymia). Wells (1964) also indicates that Scolymia has trabecular linkage amongst centres, as opposed to Parascolymia. However, our observations show that linkage in Scolymia is indeed lamellar. Veron (2000: vol. 3: 66–71) later assigned Homophyllia australis and Parascolymia vitiensis to the genus Scolymia, presumably because of their monocentric colony form, and their ‘large, regular, blunt teeth’. Following the molecular results of Fukami et al. (2004), we restrict the definition of the genus to include only Atlantic taxa. The genus, therefore, does not include the following species described in Veron (2000): Scolymia australis (Milne Edwards &amp; Haime, 1849: 310) [= Homophyllia Brüggemann, 1877]; Scolymia vitiensis Brüggemann, 1877: 304–305 [= Parascolymia Wells, 1964].</p> <p>Wells (1971) recognized two species of Scolymia (Scolymia lacera, Scolymia cubensis), which were supported by Lang’s (1971) experiments on aggressive interactions. Laborel (1967) described a third species, Scolymia wellsi from Brazil. Although Zlatarski &amp; Estalella (1982) synonymized the three species, Cairns, Hoeksema &amp; Land (1999) and Neves et al. (2006) recognized them as being distinct. As described by Neves et al. (2006), the three species can be distinguished on the basis of septal dentation. Scolymia wellsi has irregular teeth that are sometimes fused forming porous septa (Fig. 12G, H); Scolymia cubensis has long and slim teeth (&gt; five per cm) that are awl-shaped (Fig. 12E, F); Scolymia lacera has large and stout teeth (&lt;five per cm) that are subtriangular (Fig. 12C, D). Wells (1971) and Lang (1971) further noted that differences between lower and higher cycle septa are more pronounced in Scolymia lacera, its calices are more concave, and its maximum calice diameters are larger (15 cm as opposed to 10 cm in Scolymia cubensis). The corallum of Scolymia wellsi is similar to Scolymia cubensis, although even smaller (&lt;6 cm). Given the morphological similarities amongst the three species, we have designated neotypes for Scolymia lacera and Scolymia cubensis using material collected and studied by Lang (1971).</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/B26DA91C6D13172EE045FBB8D2AAFE6D	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Budd, Ann F.;Fukami, Hironobu;Smith, Nathan D.;Knowlton, Nancy	Budd, Ann F., Fukami, Hironobu, Smith, Nathan D., Knowlton, Nancy (2012): Taxonomic classification of the reef coral family Mussidae (Cnidaria: Anthozoa: Scleractinia). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 166 (3): 465-529, DOI: 10.1111/j.1096-3642.2012.00855.x, URL: https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article-lookup/doi/10.1111/j.1096-3642.2012.00855.x
B26DA91C6D091729E00AFDB0D2B5F9C5.text	B26DA91C6D091729E00AFDB0D2B5F9C5.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Faviinae Gregory 1900	<div><p>SUBFAMILY FAVIINAE GREGORY, 1900: 29.</p> <p>Type genus: Favia Milne Edwards, 1857</p> <p>Original description: ‘Compound Aporosa in which the corallum is massive or dendroid; the septa are numerous, imperforate, radial and usually hexameral. The endotheca is dissepimental. Growth is in the main by fission.’ (Gregory, 1900: 29).</p> <p>Diagnosis: Macromorphology: colonial only; corallites discrete or arranged in uniaxial series (includes plocoid, meandroid, and phaceloid forms); coenosteum usually present, although limited; costosepta not confluent; epitheca reduced or well developed; septal lobes (except Mussismilia) (Fig. 2).</p> <p>Micromorphology: regular, narrowly spaced (&lt;1 mm), tricorne or fan-shaped septal teeth (never spine-shaped or triangular), with elliptical bases orientated transverse to the septal plane; interarea of teeth smooth or consisting of horizontal bands; septal granules strong and aligned (Figs 3, 4).</p> <p>Microstructure: septothecal or parathecal corallite walls, containing occasional trabeculothecal elements; clusters of centres of calcification within the costosepta and columella weakly developed (except Mussismilia), narrowly separated (&lt;0.6 mm), and connected by medial lines; carinae usually well developed (Figs 5, 6).</p> <p>Genera included:</p> <p>Favia Milne Edwards, 1857</p> <p>Colpophyllia Milne Edwards &amp; Haime, 1848 Diploria Milne Edwards &amp; Haime, 1848</p> <p>Manicina Ehrenberg, 1834</p> <p>Mussismilia Ortmann, 1890</p> <p>Pseudodiploria Fukami, Budd &amp; Knowlton gen. nov.</p> <p>Remarks: In the classification system of Vaughan &amp; Wells (1943: 153) and Wells (1956: F400), the family Faviidae is distinguished by having a septothecal or parathecal wall; simple trabeculae, in one or two fan systems; dentate septal margins; dissepiments; and relatively small corallites (&lt;10 mm in diameter). As herein defined, the subfamily Faviinae is monophyletic (Fig. 7) and restricted to taxa whose septal teeth are regular and narrowly spaced, with elliptical bases orientated transverse to the septal plane (i.e. paddleshaped), and whose septal granules are strong, spiky, and aligned.</p> <p>Unlike the subfamily Mussinae, which possesses spine-shaped or triangular teeth and diffuse granulation, the septal teeth of the Faviinae are tricorne or fan-shaped (elliptical bases); and septal granulation is well developed (evenly scattered or organized in lines).</p> <p>Traditional Atlantic ‘faviids’ (including Montastraea cavernosa and the Orbicella annularis complex) are also distinguished from traditional Indo-Pacific ‘faviids’ on the basis of tooth shape. Indo-Pacific taxa have irregular spine-shaped or multidirectional teeth (often lacerate); whereas Atlantic taxa (excluding the Orbicella annularis complex) have regular, blocky teeth that are often paddle-shaped (see description in Budd &amp; Stolarski, 2011).</p> <p>Distribution: Atlantic only.</p> <p>GENUS FAVIA MILNE EDWARDS, 1857: 426</p> <p>(FIGS 10A–D, 15A–D, 20A–F, 24A–F)</p> <p>[not Oken, 1815: 67, because all taxa in Oken book rejected by ICZN opinion 417 (ICZN Commission, 1956)]</p> <p>Synonyms: None.</p> <p>Type species: Madrepora fragum Esper, 1795: 79, pl. 64, figs 1, 2 [= Madrepora ananas Pallas, 1766]; by subsequent designation, Verrill, 1901: 88–91. Holotype is lost (Scheer, 1990; Cuif &amp; Perrin, 1999). We herein designate specimen MNHN-scleFAV560 collected by Mr Ricord in Haiti (Cuif &amp; Perrin, 1999) as the neotype (Fig. 10C, D).</p> <p>Original type species locality: ‘südlichen Americanischen Meeren’ (Esper, 1795: 80) [Recent].</p> <p>Original descriptions:</p> <p>1. ‘Röhren (=walls) in einem kitt, öffnen sich oben gleich hoch, laufen in leinen gemeinschaftlichen Stamm zusammen.’ (Oken, 1815: 67).</p> <p>2. ‘Le polypier se compose de polypiérites unis entre eux par des côtes plus ou moins développées et une exothèque celluleuse. Les calices coservant des bords libres, soit subcirculaires, soit ovalaires. La columelle est spongieuse. Les cloisons sont débordantes; leurs dents internes sont les plus grandes et souvent même simulent des palis. L’endothèque est bien développée.’ (Milne Edwards, 1857: 426–427).</p> <p>Subsequent morphological descriptions (Matthai, 1928 and later): Not in Matthai, 1928 (but see Matthai, 1919); Vaughan &amp; Wells (1943: 163, 166); Wells (1956: 402); Laborel (1969: 191–198); Cuif &amp; Perrin (1999: 137–156); Walton Smith (1971: 79–80); Zlatarski &amp; Estalella (1982: 61–66); Veron (2000: vol. 3: 100–131).</p> <p>Diagnosis: Macromorphology: plocoid; discrete (one to three centres per series); costate coenosteum; small calices (&lt;4 mm) with three or more septal cycles; continuous, compact trabecular columella; well-developed epitheca; moderate endotheca; small septal lobes (Figs 10A–D, 15A–D).</p> <p>Micromorphology: distinctive paddle-shaped teeth, occasionally tricorne, with elliptical bases orientated transverse to the septal plane; smooth interarea of teeth; spiked granules organized in lines; teeth in major and minor septal cycles differ slightly in size (Fig. 20A–F).</p> <p>Microstructure: septothecal wall; small (&lt;0.6 mm), well-defined clusters of calcification centres within costosepta, forming carinae orientated transverse to the septal plane; layered fibrous thickening deposits (Fig. 24A–F).</p> <p>Species included: Favia fragum (Esper, 1795: 79, pl. 64, figs 1, 2). Holotype is from ‘südlichen Americanischen Meeren’, and is lost; neotype (herein designated) = MNHN-scleFAV560, Figure 10C, D, Haiti.</p> <p>Favia gravida Verrill, 1868: 354 [syntypes = YPM1465A, B; Fig. 15C, D, Abrolhos Archipelago, Brazil] (= Favia conferta Verrill, 1868: 355) [syntypes = YPM1466A, B; YPM8268, Abrolhos Archipelago, Brazil].</p> <p>Remarks: The genus Favia was originally described by Oken (1815: 67), who listed ‘ Favia ananas ’ first as belonging to the genus. However, according to ICZN opinion 417 (ICZN Commission, 1956), the names originally proposed by Oken (1815) are rejected. Therefore authorship is based on subsequent use of the name. Ehrenberg (1834) was the second to use the name, but assigned an assortment of species to the genus, all of which have been subsequently assigned to other genera. Cuif &amp; Perrin (1999) indicate ‘Milne-Edwards, 1857’ as the author of Favia, after Verrill (1901). This usage is followed here.</p> <p>In the classification system of Vaughan &amp; Wells (1943) and Wells (1956), the genus Favia is distinguished by having a plocoid colony form; a costate coenosteum; a parietal (= trabecular) columella; and intracalicular budding. Septal margins are strongly dentate; trabeculae are usually simple, in one or two fan systems; and corallites are relatively small (&lt;10 mm) (Vaughan &amp; Wells, 1943: 153–154, 163, 166). As discussed above, it is distinguished from Indo-Pacific ‘ Favia ’, herein referred to as Dipsastraea de Blainville, 1830, on the basis of its paddle-shaped septal teeth and septothecal corallite wall structure.</p> <p>Our work shows that species traditionally assigned to the genus vary considerably in corallite wall structure (including parathecal, septothecal, and trabeculothecal walls) and in the shape of their septal teeth. We hereby restrict the definition of the genus to species with septothecal walls and multicentred paddleshaped teeth orientated transverse to the septal plane, three characters that the genus Favia shares with Manicina as defined below. Favia is distinguished from Manicina on the basis of its short corallite series (= valleys), small calice width (&lt;4 mm) with low relief, its regular minor septa, and its compact (one to three threads) columella. In addition, the corallite walls of Favia are exclusively septothecal, whereas those of Manicina contain trabeculothecal elements.</p> <p>Following Laborel (1969), Cairns, Hoeksema &amp; Land (1999) listed two species of Favia (Favia fragum, Favia gravida) with septothecal walls from the Caribbean and Brazil; however, both Zlatarski &amp; Estalella (1982) and Veron (2000) synonymized the two species. Walton Smith (1971) recognized F. fragum as distinct, and further split F. gravida into two species (F. gravida, F. conferta). Here we list and illustrate two species of Favia (F. fragum, F. gravida) following Nunes et al. (2008), who showed F. fragum and F. gravida to be genetically distinct. Favia gravida (Fig. 15C, D) is distinguished from F. fragum (Fig. 15A, B) on the basis of its more numerous septa (four complete septal cycles), somewhat longer series, higher calice elevation, and taller, more widely spaced septal teeth.</p> <p>Following the molecular results of Fukami et al. (2004, 2008), we restrict the definition of the genus Favia to include only Atlantic taxa. The emended genus does not include the following species, which were assigned to it by Veron (2000) and are herein assigned to the genus Dipsastraea de Blainville, 1830 [type species: Madrepora favus Forskål, 1775 (SD: Wells, 1936)].</p> <p>Species Assigned to Dipsastraea:</p> <p>1. Favia favus (Forskål, 1775: 132) [lectotype = ZMK28, unknown locality]; not seen but illustrated in Veron et al., 1977: 26 (fig. 28).</p> <p>2. Favia albida Veron, 2000 (3): 112 [‘Holotype’ in Veron, 2002: 140 = G55788 (MTQ), Sharm al-Sheikh, Sinai Peninsula, Egypt], seen.</p> <p>3. Favia danai (Milne Edwards, 1857: 442) [holotype = USNM00032, Tonga-Tabou], seen.</p> <p>4. Favia helianthoides Wells, 1954: 458 [holotype = USNM44980, Bikini Atoll], seen.</p> <p>5. Favia lacuna Veron, Turak &amp; DeVantier; in Veron, 2000 (3): 111 [‘holotype’ in Veron, 2002: 139 = G55836 (MTQ), northern Red Sea coast of Saudi Arabia], seen.</p> <p>6. Favia laxa (Klunzinger, 1879: 49) [holotype = ZMB-Cni2193, Red Sea]; seen.</p> <p>7. Favia lizardensis Veron &amp; Pichon; in Veron et al. (1977: 45 [holotype = BM (NH)1977.1.1.2, MacGillivray, eastern Australia], seen.</p> <p>8. Favia maritima (Nemenzo, 1971: 169) [syntypes = UP C-859, C-861, Puerto Princesca Bay, Palawan, Philippines]; not seen.</p> <p>9. Favia marshae Veron, 2000 (3): 122 [‘holotype’ in Veron, 2002: 145 = WAM Z12910], Ashomore Reef, north-west Australia, not seen.</p> <p>10. Favia matthaii Vaughan, 1918: 109 [holotype = USNM38381, Indian Ocean], seen.</p> <p>11. Favia maxima Veron &amp; Pichon; in Veron et al. (1977): 43 [holotype = BM (NH)1977.1.1.1, Hook Island, Whitsunday Islands, Great Barrier Reef], seen.</p> <p>12. Favia pallida (Dana, 1846: 224) [syntype = USNM00076, ‘Feejee Islands’], seen.</p> <p>13. Favia rosaria Veron, 2000 (3): 119 [‘holotype’ in Veron, 2002: 143 = G55822 (MTQ), Milne Bay, eastern Papua New Guinea], seen.</p> <p>14. Favia rotumana (Gardiner, 1899: 750) [Neotype = ZMA Coel. 5686, Rotumana, Fiji], not seen but illustrated in Wijsman-Best, 1972: pl. 3, fig. 2.</p> <p>15. Favia rotundata (Veron &amp; Pichon); in Veron et al. (1977): 64 [holotype = BM (NH)1977.1.1.6, southwest Swain Reefs, eastern Australia], not seen.</p> <p>16. Favia speciosa Dana, 1846: 220 [syntype = USNM00037, ‘ East Indies’], seen.</p> <p>17. Favia stelligera (Dana, 1846: 216) [syntype = USNM00055, ‘Feejee Islands’], seen.</p> <p>18. Favia truncata Veron, 2000 (3): 113 [‘holotype’ in Veron, 2002: 142 = G55836 (MTQ), Milne Bay, eastern Papua New Guinea], seen.</p> <p>19. Favia veroni Moll &amp; Borel Best, 1984: 48 [holotype = RMNH 15209, Kudigareng Keke, Spermonde Archipelago, Indonesia], seen.</p> <p>20. Favia vietnamensis Veron, 2000 (3): 127 [‘holotype’ in Veron, 2002: 146 = G55859 (MTQ), Nha Trang, Vietnam], seen.</p> <p>Note: Following ICZN Commission (2011: 162–166), the species named in Veron, (2000) are valid. However, the type specimens designated in Veron (2002) are not valid.</p> <p>The Atlantic species Favia leptophylla Verrill, 1868: 353 [holotype = YPM1517, Abrolhos Archipelago, Brazil] is transferred for the first time to the genus Mussismilia, as described below under Mussismilia.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/B26DA91C6D091729E00AFDB0D2B5F9C5	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Budd, Ann F.;Fukami, Hironobu;Smith, Nathan D.;Knowlton, Nancy	Budd, Ann F., Fukami, Hironobu, Smith, Nathan D., Knowlton, Nancy (2012): Taxonomic classification of the reef coral family Mussidae (Cnidaria: Anthozoa: Scleractinia). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 166 (3): 465-529, DOI: 10.1111/j.1096-3642.2012.00855.x, URL: https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article-lookup/doi/10.1111/j.1096-3642.2012.00855.x
B26DA91C6D0E172BE028F900D34FF8D2.text	B26DA91C6D0E172BE028F900D34FF8D2.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Colpophyllia Milne Edwards & Haime 1848	<div><p>GENUS COLPOPHYLLIA MILNE EDWARDS &amp; HAIME, 1848: 492 (FIGS 10E, F, 15E–J, 21A–C, 25A–C)</p> <p>Synonyms: None.</p> <p>Type species: Meandrina gyrosa de Lamarck, 1816: 247 [= Madrepora natans Houttuyn, 1772: 124]; by original designation. The holotype MNHN-scle105 is lost (A. Andouche, pers. comm., 2009). Also lost are (1) Milne Edwards &amp; Haime’s specimen of ‘ Colpophyllia fragilis Dana’, which was described and illustrated by Matthai (1928: 103–104) (A. Andouche, pers. comm. 2009); and (2) Esper’s (1795) figured specimen of Madrepora natans, which Matthai (1928: 102, pl. 67, figs 1, 2) designated as the ‘type’ of Colpophyllia natans (Müller, 1775) (Scheer, 1990). We herein designate specimen SUI 130588 (Carlon #828), collected by D. B. Carlon in 2007 at Crawl Cay, Bocas del Toro, Panama, as the neotype of Colpophyllia natans (Houttuyn, 1772) (Fig. 10E, F).</p> <p>Original type species locality: Unknown [Recent].</p> <p>Original description: ‘Polypier composé, massif. Les séries de polypiérites étant intimement soudées entre elles par les côtes. Columelle rudimentaire ou nulle. Cloisons serrées, excessivement minces, à bord trèsfinement deniculé et faiblement échancré dans son milieu, de manière à simuler inférieurement un lobe peu marqué. Endothèque vésiculaire très-abondante’ (Milne Edwards &amp; Haime, 1848: 492).</p> <p>Subsequent morphological descriptions (Matthai, 1928 and later): Matthai (1928: 99–109); Vaughan &amp; Wells (1943: 171); Wells (1956: F403); Walton Smith (1971: 82–83); Zlatarski &amp; Estalella (1982: 83–85); Veron (2000: vol. 3: 210–211).</p> <p>Diagnosis: Macromorphology: meandroid (uniserial), with large valleys (&gt; 15 mm); limited costate coenosteum forming a distinctive ‘double wall’; discontinuous, compact trabecular columella with lamellar linkage between centres; reduced epitheca; abundant vesicular endotheca; septal lobes (Figs 10E–F, 15E–J).</p> <p>Micromorphology: regular fan-shaped septal teeth with elliptical bases orientated transverse to the septal plane; spiky septal granules organized in lines; interarea of teeth along a septum is distinctively horizontally layered (banded); teeth in different septal cycles and along individual septa similar in size and shape (Fig. 21A–C).</p> <p>Microstructure: parathecal corallite wall; centres of calcification within costosepta and columella form a well-developed medial line crossed by carinae; limited thickening deposits (Fig. 25A–C).</p> <p>Species included: Colpophyllia natans (Houttuyn, 1772) [holotype is from an unknown locality, and is lost; neotype (herein designated) = SUI130588 (Carlon #828), Fig. 10E, F, Bocos del Toro, Panama].</p> <p>Colpophyllia amaranthus (Houttuyn, 1772) [holotype is from an unknown locality, and is lost (Matthai, 1928); neotype (herein designated) = USNM100498, Fig. 15G, H, Venezuela].</p> <p>Colpohyllia breviserialis Milne Edwards &amp; Haime, 1849 [holotype = BM (NH)18.40.5.29.6, Fig. 15I, unknown locality].</p> <p>Remarks: As explained by Wells (1936), there are two different species that have been assigned the name ‘gyrosa’: (1) Madrepora natans Houttuyn, 1772 = Madrepora gyrosa Ellis &amp; Solander, 1786 = Meandrina gyrosa de Lamarck, 1816 = Colpophyllia natans Matthai, 1928; (2) Manicina gyrosa Ehrenberg, 1834 = Manicina gyrosa Matthai, 1928 = Manicina mayori Wells, 1936. The first is the type species of Colpophyllia, and its type specimen is lost. A neotype (SUI130588) has been therefore designated for Colpophyllia natans. Wells (1936: 105) proposed the name Manicina mayori to replace the second species, Manicina gyrosa Ehrenberg, because Ellis &amp; Solander (1786) had already named the first species Madrepora gyrosa.</p> <p>In the classification system of Vaughan &amp; Wells (1943) and Wells (1956), the genus Colpophyllia is distinguished by having a meandroid colony form; a ‘double’ wall; small septal lobes; discontinuous series and collines; centres linked by lamellae; a spongy, parietal (= trabecular) columella. Septal margins are strongly dentate; trabeculae are usually simple, in one or two fan systems (Vaughan &amp; Wells, 1943: 153, 154, 163, 171). Our observations agree. In addition, the genus has a distinctive parathecal wall (dissepimental), and centres of calcification in the costosepta and columella form well-defined medial lines that are crossed by distinct carinae (or short transverse lines). Septal teeth are small and fan-shaped, orientated transverse to the plane of the septum. The genus Colpophyllia is distinguished from Mussismilia by its meandroid colony form, lamellar centre linkage, septal lobes, and smaller septal teeth. It is distinguished from Favia, Diploria, and Manicina by its lamellar linkage, reduced epitheca, abundant vesicular endotheca, and parathecal wall. Colpophyllia is distinguished from its meandroid Indo-Pacific counterpart, Oulophyllia Milne Edwards &amp; Haime, 1848, on the basis of its double wall, lamellar linkage, and septal lobes; its parathecal walls (trabeculothecal in Oulophyllia), its regular tricorne septal teeth with elliptical-perpendicular bases (irregular multiaxial in Oulophyllia); and its strong, aligned granules.</p> <p>Cairns, Hoeksema &amp; Land (1999) recognized three species of Colpophyllia (Colpophyllia natans, Colpophyllia amaranthus, Colpophyllia breviserialis), which differ in valley length, depth, and numbers of septa per cm. Colpophyllia amaranthus (Fig. 15G, H) is characterized by deep discontinuous valleys (up to 30 mm) and more numerous septa (ten to 12 centres per cm). Colpophyllia breviserialis (Fig. 15I, J) is characterized by short valleys having fewer than five centres. Colpophyllia natans (Figs 10E, F, 15E, F) is characterized by longer and more continuous valleys, a distinctive double wall, and eight to nine septa per cm. Both Zlatarski &amp; Estalella (1982) and Veron (2000) synonymized the three species; Walton Smith (1971) recognized only Colpophyllia natans and Colpophyllia amaranthus.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/B26DA91C6D0E172BE028F900D34FF8D2	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Budd, Ann F.;Fukami, Hironobu;Smith, Nathan D.;Knowlton, Nancy	Budd, Ann F., Fukami, Hironobu, Smith, Nathan D., Knowlton, Nancy (2012): Taxonomic classification of the reef coral family Mussidae (Cnidaria: Anthozoa: Scleractinia). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 166 (3): 465-529, DOI: 10.1111/j.1096-3642.2012.00855.x, URL: https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article-lookup/doi/10.1111/j.1096-3642.2012.00855.x
B26DA91C6D031727E3F8FF71D51AF924.text	B26DA91C6D031727E3F8FF71D51AF924.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Diploria Milne Edwards & Haime 1848	<div><p>GENUS DIPLORIA MILNE EDWARDS &amp; HAIME, 1848: 493 (FIGS 10G, H, 16A, B, 20G–I, 24G–I)</p> <p>Type species: Meandrina cerebriformis de Lamarck, 1816: 246, holotype = MNHN-Scle102 [= Madrepora labyrinthiformis Linnaeus, 1758: 794–795]; by original designation.</p> <p>Type species locality: ‘Habite les mers d’Amérique’ (de Lamarck, 1816: 246) [Recent].</p> <p>Original description: ‘Les séries de polypiérites soudées entres elles par les côtes et l’exothèque qui sont très-développées. Collines doubles et très-larges. Cloisons serrées, très-débordantes et dont les dents supérieures sont les plus fortes.’ (Milne Edwards &amp; Haime, 1848: 493)</p> <p>Subsequent morphological descriptions (Matthai, 1928 and later): Matthai (1928: 50–54); Wells (1936: 118–119, 1956); Vaughan &amp; Wells (1943: 163–164, 166, 171: F402-403); Zlatarski &amp; Estalella (1982: 66–83); Walton Smith (1971: 80–82); Veron (2000: vol. 3: 206–209).</p> <p>Diagnosis: Macromorphology: meandroid (uniserial), with medium valleys (4–15 mm); well-developed costate coenosteum; continuous, trabecular columella; well-developed epitheca; moderately developed tabular endotheca; small septal lobes (Figs 10G, H, 16A, B).</p> <p>Micromorphology: regular tricorne teeth with pointed tips and elliptical bases orientated transverse to the septal plane; smooth interarea of teeth; spiked granules organized in lines; teeth in different septal cycles and across individual septa similar in size and shape (Fig. 20G–I).</p> <p>Microstructure: septothecal wall; moderately welldeveloped clusters of calcification centres within costosepta, which are connected by faint or absent medial lines; no carinae; fibrous thickening deposits containing layers (Fig. 24G–I).</p> <p>Species included: [monotypic genus]: Diploria labyrinthiformis (Linnaeus, 1758) [holotype is from an unknown locality, and is lost (Matthai, 1928); neotype (herein designated) = SUI1228814 (FA1078) collected by H. Fukami in Boca del Toro, Panama, Fig. 16A, B].</p> <p>Remarks: Milne Edwards &amp; Haime (1849) originally designated Meandrina cerebriformis as the type species of Diploria based on a specimen in the Lamarck collection (MNHN-Scle102). As indicated in Matthai (1928: 63), this species has subsequently been synonymized with Diploria labyrinthiformis (Linnaeus), the type specimen of which is lost. A neotype (SUI 1228814) has been therefore designated for Diploria labyrinthiformis.</p> <p>In the classification system of Vaughan &amp; Wells (1943) and Wells (1956), the genus Diploria is distinguished by having a meandroid colony form; long sinuous series; a continuous parietal (= trabecular) columella, and a septothecal corallite wall. Septal margins are strongly dentate; trabeculae are usually simple, in one or two fan systems (Vaughan &amp; Wells, 1943: 153–154, 163, 166). It is distinguished from its meandroid Indo-Pacific counterpart, Platygyra Ehrenberg, 1834, on the basis of its well-developed columella, septal lobes, septothecal walls (trabeculothecal in Platygyra), its regular tricorne septal teeth with elliptical-perpendicular bases (irregular multiaxial in Platygyra), and its well-developed aligned granules.</p> <p>Cairns, Hoeksema &amp; Land (1999), Zlatarski &amp; Estalella (1982), Walton Smith (1971), and Veron (2000) all recognized three species of Diploria (Diploria labyrinthiformis, Diploria strigosa, Diploria clivosa), which differ in valley width, numbers of septal cycles, and development of coenosteum. Diploria labyrinthiformis is distinguished by a welldeveloped coenosteum with a distinctive grooved ambulacrum, valley widths of ~ 5 mm, and 14–17 septa per cm (Fig. 16A, B). Diploria strigosa has limited coenosteum, valley widths of ~ 6 mm, and 15–20 septa per cm (Fig. 16C, D). Diploria clivosa has no coenosteum, valley widths of ~ 3.75 mm, and 30–40 septa per cm (Fig. 16E, F). However, the molecular analyses (nuclear b- tubulin exon and intron; mitochondrial cox1-trnM intergenic region) of Nunes et al. (2008) show that Diploria labyrinthiformis is more closely related to Manicina areolata than to the other two species. Mitochondrial data show Diploria strigosa and Diploria clivosa as grouping together in the same genus-level clade, but nuclear data do not. We therefore separate the three traditional species of Diploria into two genera: one (Diploria) containing labyrinthiformis and the other (Pseudodiploria) containing strigosa and clivosa. The two genera can be distinguished on the basis of the development of coenosteum, wall structure, and the distinctiveness of medial lines.</p> <p>GENUS MANICINA EHRENBERG, 1834: 325</p> <p>(FIGS 11A, B, 16G–J, 21D–F, 25D–F)</p> <p>Synonyms: Podasteria Ehrenberg, 1834: 326 [type species = Manicina mayori Wells, 1936 (= Manicina gyrosa Ehrenberg, 1834)]; see Wells, 1936: 125–126.</p> <p>Type species: Madrepora areolata Linnaeus, 1758: 795; by subsequent designation, Milne Edwards &amp; Haime, 1848: 493. Holotype is lost (Matthai, 1928). We herein designate specimen ZMB-Cni673 from St. Thomas, US Virgin Islands, in the Ehrenberg collection (Berlin Museum) as the neotype. This specimen was identified by Ehrenberg (1834: 324) as ‘ Manicina areolata Enhrenberg’.</p> <p>Original type species locality: ‘O. Asiatico’ (Linnaeus, 1758) [Recent].</p> <p>Original descriptions:</p> <p>1. ‘Manshetten-Coralle’ (Ehrenberg, 1834: 325);</p> <p>2. ‘Se distingue du précédent par son épithèque incomplète et pars ses cloisons (= septa) trèsfortement granulées latéralement, qui offrent près de la columelle un lobe paliforme.’ (Milne Edwards &amp; Haime, 1848: 493).</p> <p>Subsequent morphological descriptions (Matthai, 1928 and later): Matthai (1928: 78–95); Wells (1936: 118–119, 1956); Vaughan &amp; Wells (1943: 163–164, 166, 171: F402-403); Walton Smith (1971: 83–84); Zlatarski &amp; Estalella (1982: 85–92); Veron (2000: vol. 3: 99).</p> <p>Diagnosis: Macromorphology: meandroid (uniserial), with large valleys (12–15 mm); continuous, spongy trabecular columella; reduced epitheca; tabular endotheca; well-developed septal lobes; sometimes free-living (Figs 11A, B, 16G–H).</p> <p>Micromorphology: tricorne teeth orientated transverse to the septal plane; smooth interarea of teeth; spiked granules organized in lines; columellar teeth similar in size and shape to septal teeth (Fig. 21D–F).</p> <p>Microstructure: septothecal wall with trabeculothecal elements; well-defined clusters of calcification centres within costosepta, which are connected by medial lines; carinae; fibrous thickening deposits containing layers (Fig. 25D–F).</p> <p>Species included: Manicina areolata (Linnaeus, 1758: 795) [holotype is from an unknown locality, and is lost (Matthai, 1928); neotype (herein designated) = ZMB- Cni 673, Fig. 11A, B, St. Thomas, US Virgin Islands].</p> <p>Manicina mayori Wells, 1936 (= Manicina gyrosa Ehrenberg, 1834: 326); holotype = ZMB-Cni2859, unknown locality), Fig. 16I, J (also figured by Matthai, 1928: pl. 63, fig. 6).</p> <p>Not Madrepora gyrosa Ellis &amp; Solander, 1786 [= Colpophyllia natans (Houttuyn, 1772)].</p> <p>Remarks: In the classification system of Vaughan &amp; Wells (1943) and Wells (1956), the genus Manicina is distinguished by ‘reduced epitheca, broader and more open corallum, longer series, usually continuous, with ambulacra. Inner septal lobes small and narrow’ (Vaughan &amp; Wells, 1943: 171). The genus Diploria is ‘meandroid..., forming massive or subencrusting colonies with long series and thick collines with narrow or broad ambulacra. Septa of some species with small internal lobes. Columella continuous, parietal’ (Vaughan &amp; Wells, 1943: 166). In the key to genera (Vaughan &amp; Wells, 1943: 162), the two genera are distinguished by the presence of internal lobes (Manicina: present; Diploria: absent) and by corallite wall structure (Manicina: ‘parathecal’; Diploria: septothecal). Contrary to these distinctions, our examination showed that Diploria labyrinthiformis and the two species of Pseudodiploria (Pseudodiploria strigosa, Pseudodiploria clivosa) sometimes have small septal lobes (like Manicina) and the wall of the two Pseudodiploria species is partially trabeculothecal (like Manicina). Both characters are therefore highly variable, as are other characters that have been cited as diagnostic, including valley width and development of epitheca. Similar macromorphological characters include (1) uniserial, meandroid form; (2) continuous, trabecular columella; and (3) tabular endotheca. Our study of microstructural and micromorphological characters shows that Manicina, Diploria, and Pseudodiploria have similar septal teeth and interareas between teeth. However, in contrast to Diploria and to a lesser extent Pseudodiploria, Manicina forms distinct clusters of calcification centres that are connected by medial lines, carinae are present, septal teeth are especially well developed, and the columella is spongy.</p> <p>Cairns, Hoeksema &amp; Land (1999), Zlatarski &amp; Estalella (1982), and Veron (2000) only recognized one species of Manicina, Manicina areolata; whereas Walton Smith (1971), following Matthai (1928) and Wells (1936), recognized two species, Manicina areolata and Manicina mayori, which are distinguished on the basis of colony form. Manicina areolata forms small, free-living colonies composed of one continuous valley (Fig. 16G, H), whereas Manicina mayori has larger, attached colonies with many discontinuous valleys (Fig. 16I, J).</p> <p>GENUS MUSSISMILIA ORTMANN, 1890: 292</p> <p>(FIGS 11C–F, 17A–H, 21G–O, 25G–O)</p> <p>Synonyms: Protomussa Matthai, 1928: 268 [type species = Acanthastraea braziliensis Verrill, 1868: 355].</p> <p>Type species: Mussa harttii Verrill, 1868: 357, syntypes = YPM1468 A-C, 1469; by original designation. We herein designate YPM1468 A collected by C. F. Hartt (1867) on Abrolhos Reef in Brazil, as the lectotype of Mussismilia hartti (Verrill).</p> <p>Type species locality: Abrolhos Reef, Abrolhos Archipelago, Brazil [Recent].</p> <p>Original description: ‘Dieses Verhalten macht es nothwendig, die Mussa harti von der Gattung Mussa zu trennen and dieselbe den folgenden Formen anzuschiessen. Wegen der eigenthümlichen, stark bedornten Rippen wird sie wohl eine eigene Gattung bilden müssen, für die ich die Namen Mussismilia vorschlagen möchte’ (Ortmann, 1890: 292).</p> <p>Subsequent morphological descriptions (Matthai, 1928 and later): = Protomussa in Matthai (1928: 268– 272); Vaughan &amp; Wells (1943: 192–193); Wells (1956: F417); Laborel (1969: 195–198); Veron (2000: vol. 3: 118); Walton Smith (1971: 80).</p> <p>Diagnosis: Macromorphology: short series (one to three centres per series); discontinuous columella with trabecular linkage; abundant vesicular endotheca; no paliform lobes (Figs 11C–F, 17A–H).</p> <p>Micromorphology: regular lacerate (twisted threads; multicentred, multidirectional) teeth; evenly scattered, spine-shaped septal granulation; porous septa; teeth in major and minor septal cycles are equal in size and shape; spongy columella, with columellar teeth different in size and shape from septal teeth (Fig. 21G–O).</p> <p>Microstructure: parathecal (dissepiments only) corallite wall, sometimes containing trabeculothecal elements; centres of calcification within the wall, septa, and columella form a medial line broken by distinct clusters of centres; fibrous thickening deposits containing layers (Fig. 25G–O).</p> <p>Included species: Mussismilia hartti (Verrill, 1868: 357) [lectotype = YPM1468 A, Fig. 11C–F, Abrolhos, Brazil].</p> <p>Mussismilia braziliensis (Verrill, 1868: 355) [holotype = YPM1467, Fig. 17C, D, Abrolhos, Brazil].</p> <p>Mussismilia hispida (Verrill, 1901: 127) [holotype = YPM4287, Fig. 17E, F, Abrolhos, Brazil].</p> <p>Mussismilia leptophylla (Verrill, 1868: 353) [holotype = YPM1517 A, Fig. 17G, H, Abrolhos, Brazil] (= Heliastraea aperta Verrill, 1868: 356) [holotype = YPM1518, Abrolhos, Brazil].</p> <p>Remarks: In the classification system of Vaughan &amp; Wells (1943) and Wells (1956), the genus Mussismilia was placed within the family Mussidae because of its ‘ragged’ septal dentations and because its septa are formed by several (&gt; two) trabecular fan systems. Our examination of micromorphology shows that the shape of its septal teeth is indeed unique. The teeth are medium to high and formed by multiple twisted threads, which are uniform in arrangement but vary in size and orientation. The septa are usually thin and often porous near the columella. In addition, the genus differs from Manicina and Favia in its abundant vesicular endotheca, its parathecal (dissepiments only) wall, its costoseptal microstructure (welldeveloped clusters of calcification centres), and its interarea of septal teeth (horizontally banded). The genus is currently restricted to Brazil, but was common across the Caribbean region during the Miocene and Pliocene (Budd, Stemann &amp; Johnson 1994; Budd, Petersen &amp; McNeill, 1998; Budd et al., 1999).</p> <p>In the classification system of Vaughan &amp; Wells (1943) and Wells (1956), the species Mussismilia leptophylla was placed in the genus Favia, presumably because of the lack of multiple trabecular fan systems. However, our observations indicate that Mussismilia leptophylla also has more than one fan system (Fig. 21M–O). In addition, its parathecal wall structure, septal microstructure, and the shape of its septal teeth and granules are similar to those of Mussismilia. Moreover, based on nuclear and mitochondrial markers, Nunes et al. (2008) found that Mussismilia leptophylla groups more closely with the three Mussismilia species than it does with Favia fragum or Favia gravida. We therefore transfer Mussismilia leptophylla for the first time to the genus Mussismilia.</p> <p>Cairns, Hoeksema &amp; Land (1999) and Veron (2000) recognized three species of Mussismilia, which differ in colony form, calice size, and septal thickness (as does Mussismilia leptophylla, per our observations). Mussismilia hartti has a phaceloid colony form, calice diameters of 12–30 mm, 12–14 septa per cm, and thin septa (Fig. 17A, B); whereas Mussismilia hispida, Mussismilia braziliensis, and Mussismilia leptophylla are all subplocoid. Mussismilia hispida has calice diameters of 14–15 mm, more than four septal cycles, thin septa, and a well-developed columella (Fig. 17E, F); Mussismilia braziliensis has calice diameters of 8–10 mm, fewer than four septal cycles, thick septa, and a weak columella (Fig. 17C, D); and Mussismilia eptophylla has calice diameters of ~ 6 mm, fewer than four septal cycles, thin septa, and a well-developed columella (Fig. 17G, H).</p> <p>GENUS PSEUDODIPLORIA FUKAMI, BUDD &amp; KNOWLTON GEN. NOV. (FIGS 11G, H, 16C–F, 20J–O, 24J–O)</p> <p>Synonyms: Maeandrina Link, 1807, sensu Matthai, 1928: 50–54;</p> <p>Type species: Meandrina strigosa Dana, 1846: 257–258; pl. 14, fig. 4a–b; holotype = USNM00005 (= Meandrina cerebrum Ellis &amp; Solander, 1786: 163; Matthai, 1928: 55–63).</p> <p>Type species locality: ‘ West Indies’ (Dana, 1846) [Recent].</p> <p>Diagnosis: Macromorphology: meandroid (uniserial), with medium valleys (4–15 mm); little or no coenosteum; continuous, trabecular columella; welldeveloped epitheca; moderately developed tabular endotheca; small septal lobes (Fig. 11G, H, 16C–F).</p> <p>Micromorphology: regular tricorne teeth with pointed tips and elliptical bases orientated transverse to the septal plane; smooth interarea of teeth; spiked granules organized in lines; teeth in different septal cycles and across individual septa similar in size and shape (Fig. 20J–O).</p> <p>Microstructure: septothecal wall with trabeculothecal elements; weak clusters of calcification centres within costosepta, which are connected by medial lines; no carinae; fibrous thickening deposits containing layers (Fig. 24J–O).</p> <p>Species included: Pseudodiploria strigosa (Dana, 1846: 257–258; pl. 14, fig. 4a–b) [holotype = USNM00005, Fig. 11G, H, West Indies] [= Maeandrina cerebrum (Ellis &amp; Solander) of Matthai, 1928].</p> <p>Pseudodiploria clivosa (Ellis &amp; Solander, 1786: 163) [holotype is from ‘Oceano Indiae occidentalis’, and is lost (Matthai, 1928); neotype (herein designated) = SUI122811, Fig. 16E, F, Bocas del Toro, Panama].</p> <p>Remarks: Matthai (1928) indicated that Maeandrina cerebrum (Ellis &amp; Solander) is the type species of Maeandrina Link, 1807. However, given that Meandrina de Lamarck, 1801 predates Maeandrina Link, 1807 and is a valid genus name (Table 1, Family Meandrinidae), we herein name a new genus, Pseudodiploria.</p> <p>As explained above under Diploria, Pseudodiploria can be distinguished from Diploria by its limited or absent coenosteum, the presence of trabeculothecal elements in the otherwise septothecal corallite wall, and its often well-developed medial lines. The two species of Pseudodiploria (Fig. 16C–F) differ in the presence of coenosteum (Pseudodiploria strigosa has limited coenosteum but Pseudodiploria clivosa has no coenosteum), valley width (Pseudodiploria strigosa has valley widths of ~ 6 mm but Pseudodiploria clivosa has valley widths of ~ 3.75 mm), and number of septa per cm (Pseudodiploria strigosa has 15–20 but P. clivosa has 30–40 septa per cm).</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/B26DA91C6D031727E3F8FF71D51AF924	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Budd, Ann F.;Fukami, Hironobu;Smith, Nathan D.;Knowlton, Nancy	Budd, Ann F., Fukami, Hironobu, Smith, Nathan D., Knowlton, Nancy (2012): Taxonomic classification of the reef coral family Mussidae (Cnidaria: Anthozoa: Scleractinia). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 166 (3): 465-529, DOI: 10.1111/j.1096-3642.2012.00855.x, URL: https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article-lookup/doi/10.1111/j.1096-3642.2012.00855.x
