WoRMS taxon details
Lobophylliidae Dai & Horng, 2009
739007 (urn:lsid:marinespecies.org:taxname:739007)
accepted
Family
Lobophyllia de Blainville, 1830 (type by original designation)
Lobophylliidae Fukami, Budd & Knowlton, 2012 · unaccepted > junior objective synonym (homonym)
- Genus Acanthastrea Milne Edwards & Haime, 1848
- Genus Acanthophyllia Wells, 1937
- Genus Australophyllia Benzoni & Arrigoni, 2016
- Genus Cynarina Brüggemann, 1877
- Genus Echinomorpha Veron, 2000
- Genus Echinophyllia Klunzinger, 1879
- Genus Homophyllia Brüggemann, 1877
- Genus Lobophyllia de Blainville, 1830
- Genus Micromussa Veron, 2000
- Genus Moseleya Quelch, 1884
- Genus Oxypora Saville Kent, 1871
- Genus Paraechinophyllia Arrigoni, Benzoni & Stolarski, 2019
- Genus Sclerophyllia Klunzinger, 1879
- Genus Acantastrea Milne Edwards & Haime, 1848 accepted as Acanthastrea Milne Edwards & Haime, 1848 (unaccepted > misspelling - incorrect subsequent spelling)
- Genus Acanthastraea Milne Edwards & Haime, 1848 accepted as Acanthastrea Milne Edwards & Haime, 1848 (unaccepted > misspelling - incorrect subsequent spelling)
- Genus Australomussa Veron, 1985 accepted as Lobophyllia de Blainville, 1830 (unaccepted > junior subjective synonym)
- Genus Lithophyllia Milne Edwards & Haime, 1857 accepted as Scolymia Haime, 1852 (unaccepted > junior subjective synonym)
- Genus Oxyphyllia Yabe & Eguchi, 1935 accepted as Echinophyllia Klunzinger, 1879 (unaccepted > junior subjective synonym)
- Genus Palauphyllia Yabe, Sugiyama & Eguchi, 1936 accepted as Lobophyllia de Blainville, 1830 (unaccepted > junior subjective synonym)
- Genus Parascolymia Wells, 1964 accepted as Lobophyllia de Blainville, 1830 (unaccepted > junior subjective synonym)
- Genus Protolobophyllia Yabe & Sugiyama, 1935 accepted as Cynarina Brüggemann, 1877 (unaccepted > junior subjective synonym)
- Genus Rhodocyathus Bourne, 1905 accepted as Cynarina Brüggemann, 1877 (unaccepted > junior subjective synonym)
- Genus Symphillia Milne Edwards & Haime, 1848 accepted as Lobophyllia de Blainville, 1830 (unaccepted > junior subjective synonym, misspelling)
- Genus Symphyllia Milne Edwards & Haime, 1848 accepted as Lobophyllia de Blainville, 1830 (unaccepted > junior subjective synonym)
- Genus Trachypora Verrill, 1864 accepted as Oxypora Saville Kent, 1871 (unaccepted > junior homonym)
marine, fresh, terrestrial
Dai CF, Horng S (2009) Scleractinia fauna of Taiwan. II. The robust group. National Taiwan University, Taipei, pp. 1-162. [details]
Status Lobophylliidae was established by Dai and Horng (2009: 59) for six of the 13 genera in Mussidae sensu Veron (2000) and two...
Status Lobophylliidae was established by Dai and Horng (2009: 59) for six of the 13 genera in Mussidae sensu Veron (2000) and two of the five genera in Pectiniidae sensu Veron (2000). Licuanan (2009: 135) followed this scheme for the corals of northwestern Philippines. These taxa constitute the molecular clades XVIII, XIX and XX designated by Fukami et al. (2008) (for a list of all available lobophylliid nomina, valid and synonymised). For Mussidae sensu Veron (2000; see also Vaughan and Wells, 1943; Wells, 1956), Dai and Horng (2009) dealt only with the fauna in Taiwan (i.e. Lobophyllia de Blainville, 1830: 321, Acanthastrea Milne Edwards and Haime, 1848a, vol. 27: 495, Australomussa Veron, 1985: 171, Cynarina Brüggemann, 1877: 305, Scolymia Haime, 1852: 279, and Symphyllia Milne Edwards and Haime, 1848a, vol. 27: 491), so the remaining seven genera were not included in the new family. The Atlantic taxa, represented by four of these seven genera, Mussa Oken, 1815: 73, Isophyllia Milne Edwards and Haime, 1851a, vol. 5: 87, Mussismilia Ortmann, 1890: 292, and Mycetophyllia Milne Edwards and Haime, 1848a, vol. 27: 491, were placed in Mussidae by Budd et al. (2012) owing to the deep divergence between the Atlantic (clade XXI sensu Fukami et al., 2008) and Indo-Pacific fauna (Fukami et al., 2004b, 2008), and the status of Mussa as type genus of Mussidae Ortmann, 1890: 315. Blastomussa Wells, 1968: 276, was placed in family incertae sedis (Budd et al., 2012) because it is genetically distinct from lobophylliids and mussids, and most closely related to Physogyra, Plerogyra and Nemenzophyllia (clade XIV; Fukami et al., 2008; Benzoni et al., 2014). Also in family incertae sedis is Indophyllia Gerth, 1921: 405, now considered an extinct genus after I. macassarensis Best and Hoeksema, 1987: 394, was transferred into Cynarina by Budd et al. (2012). Micromussa Veron, 2000, vol. 3: 8, the final Mussidae genus (sensu Veron, 2000), was placed in Lobophylliidae by Budd et al. (2012). Further actions influenced the final generic composition of Lobophylliidae prior to the present study. Scolymia, one of the six genera that initially defined the family (Dai and Horng, 2009), was moved into Mussidae because its type, Madrepora lacera Pallas, 1766: 298 (see Vaughan, 1901: 6), is an Atlantic species (Budd et al., 2012). Its two Indo-Pacific members were redistributed into Homophyllia Brüggemann, 1877: 310, and Parascolymia Wells, 1964: 379. The two Pectiniidae genera (sensu Veron, 2000) initially assigned to Lobophylliidae by Dai and Horng (2009), Echinophyllia Klunzinger, 1879: 69, and Oxypora Saville Kent, 1871: 283, were joined by Echinomorpha Veron, 2000, vol. 2: 333 (Budd et al., 2012). Moseleya Quelch, 1884: 292, formerly in Faviidae sensu Veron (2000) was also placed in Lobophylliidae (Huang et al., 2011; Budd et al., 2012). Sclerophyllia Klunzinger, 1879: 4, was resurrected based on new molecular and morphological data collected for Sclerophyllia margariticola Klunzinger, 1879: 4, whose sister congener is Acanthastrea maxima Sheppard and Salm, 1988: 276 (Arrigoni et al., 2015). Arrigoni et al. (2014b) found Australomussa and Parascolymia to be genetically indistinguishable, and therefore considered the former to be a junior synonym of the latter. Finally, based on a morpho-molecular approach Arrigoni et al. (2016a) formally revised Homophyllia and Micromussa with the inclusion of Homophyllia bowerbanki (Milne Edwards and Haime, 1857), Micromussa lordhowensis (Veron and Pichon, 1982), M. multipunctata (Hodgson, 1985), as well as the new species M. indiana Benzoni and Arrigoni, and M. pacifica Benzoni and Arrigoni. The authors also established Australophyllia Benzoni and Arrigoni, to accommodate the highly divergent H. wilsoni. Drawing upon morphological and molecular phylogenies inferred in this study (Fig. 2), as well as prior work carried out by Budd et al. (2012) and Arrigoni et al. (2012, 2014b, c, 2015, 2016a), we classify Lobophylliidae speci [details]
Hoeksema, B. W.; Cairns, S. (2024). World List of Scleractinia. Lobophylliidae Dai & Horng, 2009. Accessed through: World Register of Marine Species at: https://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=739007 on 2024-11-20
Date
action
by
The webpage text is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License
original description
Dai CF, Horng S (2009) Scleractinia fauna of Taiwan. II. The robust group. National Taiwan University, Taipei, pp. 1-162. [details]
original description (of Lobophylliidae Fukami, Budd & Knowlton, 2012) Budd AF, Fukami H, Smith ND, Knowlton N. (2012). Taxonomic classification of the reef coral family Mussidae (Cnidaria: Anthozoa: Scleractinia). <em>Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society.</em> 166 (3): 465-529., available online at https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1096-3642.2012.00855.x [details]
additional source Arrigoni R, Terraneo TI, Galli P, Benzoni F (2014) Lobophylliidae (Cnidaria, Scleractinia) reshuffled: Pervasive . non-monophyly at genus level. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 73: 60-64. [details]
additional source Huang D, Arrigoni R, Benzoni F, Fukami H, Knowlton N, Smith ND, Stolarski J, Chou LM, Budd AF. (2016). Taxonomic classification of the reef coral family Lobophylliidae (Cnidaria: Anthozoa: Scleractinia). <em>Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society.</em> 178(3): 436-481., available online at https://doi.org/10.1111/zoj.12391 [details]
additional source Budd AF, Fukami H, Smith ND, Knowlton N. (2012). Taxonomic classification of the reef coral family Mussidae (Cnidaria: Anthozoa: Scleractinia). <em>Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society.</em> 166 (3): 465-529., available online at https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1096-3642.2012.00855.x [details]
original description (of Lobophylliidae Fukami, Budd & Knowlton, 2012) Budd AF, Fukami H, Smith ND, Knowlton N. (2012). Taxonomic classification of the reef coral family Mussidae (Cnidaria: Anthozoa: Scleractinia). <em>Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society.</em> 166 (3): 465-529., available online at https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1096-3642.2012.00855.x [details]
additional source Arrigoni R, Terraneo TI, Galli P, Benzoni F (2014) Lobophylliidae (Cnidaria, Scleractinia) reshuffled: Pervasive . non-monophyly at genus level. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 73: 60-64. [details]
additional source Huang D, Arrigoni R, Benzoni F, Fukami H, Knowlton N, Smith ND, Stolarski J, Chou LM, Budd AF. (2016). Taxonomic classification of the reef coral family Lobophylliidae (Cnidaria: Anthozoa: Scleractinia). <em>Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society.</em> 178(3): 436-481., available online at https://doi.org/10.1111/zoj.12391 [details]
additional source Budd AF, Fukami H, Smith ND, Knowlton N. (2012). Taxonomic classification of the reef coral family Mussidae (Cnidaria: Anthozoa: Scleractinia). <em>Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society.</em> 166 (3): 465-529., available online at https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1096-3642.2012.00855.x [details]
Present Inaccurate Introduced: alien Containing type locality
From editor or global species database
Comparison There are five synapomorphies defining Lobophylliidae (bootstrap support of 95 and decay index of 5): (1) coenosteum spinose (likelihood of 1.00 based on the Mk1 model); (2) columellae discontinuous among adjacent corallites with lamellar linkage (likelihood 1.00); (3) tooth base at midcalice elliptical-parallel (likelihood 1.00); (4) tooth tip orientation parallel or forming multiaxial bulb (likelihood 1.00); and (5) thickening deposits in concentric rings with extensive stereome (likelihood 1.00). These comprise two macromorphological, two micromorphological and one microstructural features. All of these characters strongly support the monophyly of Lobophylliidae and are monomorphic within the clade. Furthermore, the subcorallite characters unequivocally distinguish Lobophylliidae from Merulinidae, which has circular tooth base at midcalice, tooth tip orientated perpendicular to the septum or as multiaxial threads, and thickening deposits that are thick fibrous. Mussidae (clade XXI) is an exclusively Atlantic clade, and in contrast to Lobophylliidae, has costate coenosteum, regular (pointed) midcalice tooth tip, transverse septal crosses (as clusters or carinae), and no extensive stereome thickening (Budd et al., 2012). [details]Diagnosis Colonial in nearly all species. Budding intracalicular, and may also be extracalicular. Corallites monomorphic or polymorphic; discrete, uniserial or organically united. Monticules mainly absent. Walls may be fused, separated to various degrees, or colonies may be phaceloid or flabello-meandroid. Coenosteum spinose if present. Calice width medium to large (≥ 4 mm), with varying relief. Costosepta may be confluent. Septa in varying cycles and abundances. Free septa irregular. Septa spaced ≤ 11 septa per 5 mm. Costosepta unequal in relative thickness. Columellae mainly trabecular and spongy (> three threads), of varying sizes, and discontinuous among adjacent corallites with lamellar linkage. Paliform (uniaxial) or septal (multiaxial) lobes may be weakly or moderately developed. Epitheca varies in development. Endotheca low-moderate (tabular) or abundant (vesicular). Tooth base at midcalice elliptical-parallel. Tooth tip at midcalice irregular; tip orientation parallel or forming multiaxial bulb. Tooth height medium to high (≥ 0.3 mm). Tooth spacing medium to wide (≥ 0.3 mm), with varying numbers of teeth per septum. Tooth shape may vary between first and third order septa. Tooth size may vary between wall and septum. Granules mainly scattered on septal face; weak (rounded), strong (pointed) or irregular. Interarea smooth or palisade. Walls formed by dominant paratheca and partial septotheca. Thickening deposits in concentric rings with extensive stereome. Costa centre clusters weak or strong; ≥ 0.3 mm between clusters; medial lines weak or strong. Septum centre clusters weak or strong; ≥ 0.3 mm between clusters; medial lines weak. Perpendicular crosses absent. Columella centres clustered. [details]
Remark Lobophylliidae was established by Dai and Horng (2009: 59) for six of the 13 genera in Mussidae sensu Veron (2000) and two of the five genera in Pectiniidae sensu Veron (2000). Licuanan (2009: 135) followed this scheme for the corals of northwestern Philippines. These taxa constitute the molecular clades XVIII, XIX and XX designated by Fukami et al. (2008) (for a list of all available lobophylliid nomina, valid and synonymised). For Mussidae sensu Veron (2000; see also Vaughan and Wells, 1943; Wells, 1956), Dai and Horng (2009) dealt only with the fauna in Taiwan (i.e. Lobophyllia de Blainville, 1830: 321, Acanthastrea Milne Edwards and Haime, 1848a, vol. 27: 495, Australomussa Veron, 1985: 171, Cynarina Brüggemann, 1877: 305, Scolymia Haime, 1852: 279, and Symphyllia Milne Edwards and Haime, 1848a, vol. 27: 491), so the remaining seven genera were not included in the new family. The Atlantic taxa, represented by four of these seven genera, Mussa Oken, 1815: 73, Isophyllia Milne Edwards and Haime, 1851a, vol. 5: 87, Mussismilia Ortmann, 1890: 292, and Mycetophyllia Milne Edwards and Haime, 1848a, vol. 27: 491, were placed in Mussidae by Budd et al. (2012) owing to the deep divergence between the Atlantic (clade XXI sensu Fukami et al., 2008) and Indo-Pacific fauna (Fukami et al., 2004b, 2008), and the status of Mussa as type genus of Mussidae Ortmann, 1890: 315. Blastomussa Wells, 1968: 276, was placed in family incertae sedis (Budd et al., 2012) because it is genetically distinct from lobophylliids and mussids, and most closely related to Physogyra, Plerogyra and Nemenzophyllia (clade XIV; Fukami et al., 2008; Benzoni et al., 2014). Also in family incertae sedis is Indophyllia Gerth, 1921: 405, now considered an extinct genus after I. macassarensis Best and Hoeksema, 1987: 394, was transferred into Cynarina by Budd et al. (2012). Micromussa Veron, 2000, vol. 3: 8, the final Mussidae genus (sensu Veron, 2000), was placed in Lobophylliidae by Budd et al. (2012). Further actions influenced the final generic composition of Lobophylliidae prior to the present study. Scolymia, one of the six genera that initially defined the family (Dai and Horng, 2009), was moved into Mussidae because its type, Madrepora lacera Pallas, 1766: 298 (see Vaughan, 1901: 6), is an Atlantic species (Budd et al., 2012). Its two Indo-Pacific members were redistributed into Homophyllia Brüggemann, 1877: 310, and Parascolymia Wells, 1964: 379. The two Pectiniidae genera (sensu Veron, 2000) initially assigned to Lobophylliidae by Dai and Horng (2009), Echinophyllia Klunzinger, 1879: 69, and Oxypora Saville Kent, 1871: 283, were joined by Echinomorpha Veron, 2000, vol. 2: 333 (Budd et al., 2012). Moseleya Quelch, 1884: 292, formerly in Faviidae sensu Veron (2000) was also placed in Lobophylliidae (Huang et al., 2011; Budd et al., 2012). Sclerophyllia Klunzinger, 1879: 4, was resurrected based on new molecular and morphological data collected for Sclerophyllia margariticola Klunzinger, 1879: 4, whose sister congener is Acanthastrea maxima Sheppard and Salm, 1988: 276 (Arrigoni et al., 2015). Arrigoni et al. (2014b) found Australomussa and Parascolymia to be genetically indistinguishable, and therefore considered the former to be a junior synonym of the latter. Finally, based on a morpho-molecular approach Arrigoni et al. (2016a) formally revised Homophyllia and Micromussa with the inclusion of Homophyllia bowerbanki (Milne Edwards and Haime, 1857), Micromussa lordhowensis (Veron and Pichon, 1982), M. multipunctata (Hodgson, 1985), as well as the new species M. indiana Benzoni and Arrigoni, and M. pacifica Benzoni and Arrigoni. The authors also established Australophyllia Benzoni and Arrigoni, to accommodate the highly divergent H. wilsoni. Drawing upon morphological and molecular phylogenies inferred in this study, as well as prior work carried out by Budd et al. (2012) and Arrigoni et al. (2012, 2014b, c, 2015, 2016a), we classify Lobophylliidae species into 1 [details]
Status Lobophylliidae was established by Dai and Horng (2009: 59) for six of the 13 genera in Mussidae sensu Veron (2000) and two of the five genera in Pectiniidae sensu Veron (2000). Licuanan (2009: 135) followed this scheme for the corals of northwestern Philippines. These taxa constitute the molecular clades XVIII, XIX and XX designated by Fukami et al. (2008) (for a list of all available lobophylliid nomina, valid and synonymised). For Mussidae sensu Veron (2000; see also Vaughan and Wells, 1943; Wells, 1956), Dai and Horng (2009) dealt only with the fauna in Taiwan (i.e. Lobophyllia de Blainville, 1830: 321, Acanthastrea Milne Edwards and Haime, 1848a, vol. 27: 495, Australomussa Veron, 1985: 171, Cynarina Brüggemann, 1877: 305, Scolymia Haime, 1852: 279, and Symphyllia Milne Edwards and Haime, 1848a, vol. 27: 491), so the remaining seven genera were not included in the new family. The Atlantic taxa, represented by four of these seven genera, Mussa Oken, 1815: 73, Isophyllia Milne Edwards and Haime, 1851a, vol. 5: 87, Mussismilia Ortmann, 1890: 292, and Mycetophyllia Milne Edwards and Haime, 1848a, vol. 27: 491, were placed in Mussidae by Budd et al. (2012) owing to the deep divergence between the Atlantic (clade XXI sensu Fukami et al., 2008) and Indo-Pacific fauna (Fukami et al., 2004b, 2008), and the status of Mussa as type genus of Mussidae Ortmann, 1890: 315. Blastomussa Wells, 1968: 276, was placed in family incertae sedis (Budd et al., 2012) because it is genetically distinct from lobophylliids and mussids, and most closely related to Physogyra, Plerogyra and Nemenzophyllia (clade XIV; Fukami et al., 2008; Benzoni et al., 2014). Also in family incertae sedis is Indophyllia Gerth, 1921: 405, now considered an extinct genus after I. macassarensis Best and Hoeksema, 1987: 394, was transferred into Cynarina by Budd et al. (2012). Micromussa Veron, 2000, vol. 3: 8, the final Mussidae genus (sensu Veron, 2000), was placed in Lobophylliidae by Budd et al. (2012). Further actions influenced the final generic composition of Lobophylliidae prior to the present study. Scolymia, one of the six genera that initially defined the family (Dai and Horng, 2009), was moved into Mussidae because its type, Madrepora lacera Pallas, 1766: 298 (see Vaughan, 1901: 6), is an Atlantic species (Budd et al., 2012). Its two Indo-Pacific members were redistributed into Homophyllia Brüggemann, 1877: 310, and Parascolymia Wells, 1964: 379. The two Pectiniidae genera (sensu Veron, 2000) initially assigned to Lobophylliidae by Dai and Horng (2009), Echinophyllia Klunzinger, 1879: 69, and Oxypora Saville Kent, 1871: 283, were joined by Echinomorpha Veron, 2000, vol. 2: 333 (Budd et al., 2012). Moseleya Quelch, 1884: 292, formerly in Faviidae sensu Veron (2000) was also placed in Lobophylliidae (Huang et al., 2011; Budd et al., 2012). Sclerophyllia Klunzinger, 1879: 4, was resurrected based on new molecular and morphological data collected for Sclerophyllia margariticola Klunzinger, 1879: 4, whose sister congener is Acanthastrea maxima Sheppard and Salm, 1988: 276 (Arrigoni et al., 2015). Arrigoni et al. (2014b) found Australomussa and Parascolymia to be genetically indistinguishable, and therefore considered the former to be a junior synonym of the latter. Finally, based on a morpho-molecular approach Arrigoni et al. (2016a) formally revised Homophyllia and Micromussa with the inclusion of Homophyllia bowerbanki (Milne Edwards and Haime, 1857), Micromussa lordhowensis (Veron and Pichon, 1982), M. multipunctata (Hodgson, 1985), as well as the new species M. indiana Benzoni and Arrigoni, and M. pacifica Benzoni and Arrigoni. The authors also established Australophyllia Benzoni and Arrigoni, to accommodate the highly divergent H. wilsoni. Drawing upon morphological and molecular phylogenies inferred in this study (Fig. 2), as well as prior work carried out by Budd et al. (2012) and Arrigoni et al. (2012, 2014b, c, 2015, 2016a), we classify Lobophylliidae speci [details]
| Language | Name | |
|---|---|---|
| Japanese | オオトゲサンゴ科オオトゲサンゴ [from synonym] | [details] |
