Research Article
Print
Research Article
Cyphastrea salae, a new species of hard coral from Lord Howe Island, Australia (Scleractinia, Merulinidae)
expand article infoAndrew H. Baird‡, Mia O. Hoogenboom‡, Danwei Huang§
‡ RC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia
§ National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore

Corresponding author: Andrew H. Baird ( hamiltonmahal@gmail.com )

Academic editor: Bert W. Hoeksema
© 2017 Andrew H. Baird, Mia O. Hoogenboom, Danwei Huang.
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Citation: Baird AH, Hoogenboom MO, Huang D (2017) Cyphastrea salae, a new species of hard coral from Lord Howe Island, Australia (Scleractinia, Merulinidae). ZooKeys 662: 49-66. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.662.11454
ZooBank: urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:3D0FA793-868F-4069-BDFE-1E3E1DA0A13D
Open Access

Abstract

A new zooxanthellate reef-dwelling scleractinian coral species, Cyphastrea salae sp. n. (Scleractinia, Merulinidae), is described from Lord Howe Island Australia. The new species can be distinguished morphologically from the only other congeneric species on Lord Howe Island, C. microphthalma, by the number of primary septa (12 vs. 10) and the much taller corallites (mean ± SE: 1.0 ± 0.07 mm v 0.4 ± 0.04 mm). The relationship of C. salae to four of the other eleven currently accepted species in the genus was explored through analyses of nuclear (28S rDNA) and mitochondrial (noncoding intergenic region) gene sequences. Cyphastrea salae sp. n. forms a strongly supported clade that is distinct from a clade containing three species found commonly in Australia, C. chalcidicum, C. serailia, and C. microphthalma. One specimen was also found in the Solitary Islands, another high latitude location in south-eastern Australia. The discovery of a new species in the genus Cyphastrea on high latitude reefs in south-eastern Australia suggests that other new species might be found among more diverse genera represented here and that the scleractinian fauna of these isolated locations is more distinct than previously recognised.

Keywords

Biodiversity, biogeography, cnidarian, coral reefs, phylogenetics

Introduction

The Indo-Pacific scleractinian genus Cyphastrea Milne Edwards & Haime, 1848, is one of the most distinctive genera in the recently revised family Merulinidae Verrill, 1865 (Huang et al. 2014). Unlike many other genera in the family Merulinidae, Cyphastrea has emerged with the same species composition (Huang et al. 2014), motivating more detailed work at the species level (e.g. Bouwmeester et al. 2015, Arrigoni et al. 2017). The World Register of Marine Species lists 24 nominal species in the genus Cyphastrea, of which 11 are considered valid (Hoeksema 2015). The genus was established by Milne Edwards and Haime (1848) for three species, Cyphastrea microphthalma, C. savignyi and C. bottae, distinguished by a compact coenosteum from species in the Indo-Pacific genera Astrea Lamark, 1801, Plesiastrea, Milne Edwards & Haime, 1848 and the West-Atlantic Solenastrea Milne Edwards & Haime, 1848. Astrea has been placed within Merulinidae, but is phylogenetically distant from Cyphastrea (Huang et al. 2014). Plesiastrea, represented by its type species P. versipora (Lamarck, 1816), is most closely related to the azooxanthallate corals Trochocyathus efateensis Cairns, 1999 and Cyathelia axillaris (Ellis & Solander, 1786), all of which are nested within clade XIV (sensuFukami et al. 2008) and not in the Merulinidae (Kitahara et al. 2010, 2016, Huang et al. 2011, Huang and Roy 2013, 2015). Similarly, Solenastrea has been placed in clade XIII (sensuFukami et al. 2008) along with several previously unaffiliated coral taxa such as Oculina Lamarck, 1816 (Fukami et al. 2008, Kitahara et al. 2010, 2016, Huang 2012). Nevertheless, Cyphastrea is the sister group to Orbicella, an Atlantic genus, and is therefore distinct among Indo-Pacific corals.

Lord Howe Island is a World Heritage-listed marine protected area in the Tasman Sea with highly distinctive marine fauna including nine endemic fish species (Francis 1993) and 47 endemic species of algae (MPA 2010). Over 100 scleractinian species have been recorded at Lord Howe Island, however, there is very little agreement as to which species are present. Veron and Done (1979) listed 61 species, Harriott et al. (1995) listed 59 species and Noreen (2010) listed 77 species, but only 37 of these species are common to all three studies. Such divergence in the taxonomic composition among different studies suggests that our understanding of this fauna remains incomplete. Lord Howe Island lies over 900 km south of the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) and coral populations are highly isolated (Ayre and Hughes 2004, Noreen et al. 2013). Such isolation creates potential for speciation, however, to date, no endemic scleractinian species have been described from Lord Howe Island. The Solitary Islands are a group of continental islands off the east coast of Australia and are of biogeographical interest due to the co-occurrence of subtropical species and tropical species at the limit of their southern range edges (Veron 1995; Mizerek et al. 2016). Approximately 70 corals species have been recorded in the Solitary Islands (Veron et al. 1974: Harriott et al. 1994).

The aim of this paper is to describe a new species, Cyphastrea salae sp n. and also to determine the number of species within the genus on Lord Howe Island. A total of three Cyphastrea spp. has been reported from Lord Howe Island: Veron (1974) listed only C. serailia, Veron and Done (1979) added C. microphthalma, and Harriott et al. (1995) added C. chalcidium.

Materials and methods

Sampling. Specimens of Cyphastrea species were sampled using snorkel or SCUBA diving during several trips to Lord Howe Island and the Solitary Islands in eastern Australia (Appendix 2). Digital images of living colonies were taken, and then using a hammer and chisel, a sample of each colony was collected from which an approximate 1 cm2 subsample was preserved in absolute ethanol for molecular analysis. The rest of each specimen was placed in sodium hypochlorite for up to 48 h to remove all coral tissue, rinsed in fresh water and sun-dried.

The holotype and two paratypes of Cyphastrea salae sp. n. have been deposited at the Australian Museum (AM) in Sydney, Australia, along with four voucher specimens of C. microphthalma from the same area (Appendix 2).

Imaging and measurements. Images of skeletons were taken with a Canon G12. In addition, a small fragment of clean skeleton was chosen from representative specimens and mounted on a stub using double-sided carbon tape, sputter-coated with a 3nm layer of conductive gold-palladium (AuPd) film and examined using a Jeol JSM5410LVscanning electron microscope at the Advanced Analytical Centre at James Cook University.

To visualise the cross-sectional microstructure of the coralla, corallites were cut from each specimen transversely and then impregnated with epoxy and sectioned to a thickness of ~30 μm following Budd and Stolarski (2009, 2011). The resulting thin sections were examined under stereo or light microscope at magnifications of up to 100x. Images were taken of whole corallites as well as rapid accretion deposits and thickening deposits or fibres within the wall, septa and columella following Stolarski and Roniewicz (2001).

Morphometric measurements. The following variables were measured under a dissecting light microscope with an eyepiece micrometre at 20x magnification on five haphazardly selected corallites from each colony sample; corallite maximum diameter (maximum diameter from outer wall to outer wall), calyx maximum diameter (maximum diameter from the inner wall to inner wall), columella maximum diameter, corallite maximum height above the coenosteum (Appendix 2). In addition, the number of septal cycles and the number of primary septa were also recorded for each of the five replicate corallites per colony (Appendix 2). Finally, five replicate measures of polyp density were made for each colony sample by counting the number of corallites in five haphazardly placed 1-cm2 quadrats (Appendix 2). Differences in the mean of all continuous variables between the species where compared with t-tests with an adjusted alpha of 0.013.

DNA extraction and molecular analyses. Genomic DNA was extracted from each sample using the Qiagen DNeasy kit (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany) following the manufacturer’s instructions. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) protocols followed Huang et al. (2011) to amplify two molecular markers, the nuclear 28S rDNA (Cuif et al. 2003) and mitochondrial noncoding intergenic region (IGR; between cytochrome oxidase subunit I and the formylmethionine transfer RNA gene) (Fukami et al. 2004). New sequences were deposited in GenBank under accession numbers KY630443-KY630465 (28S) and KY653212-KY653236 (IGR)

Sequences were organised into two separate data matrices using Mesquite 3.03 (Maddison and Maddison 2015), and supplemented with data of C. chalcidicum, C. microphthalma and C. serailia from previously-published analyses (Huang et al. 2011, 2014). A sample from Fiji identified as C. cf. decadia Moll & Best, 1984, and the outgroups Paramontastraea salebrosa (Nemenzo, 1955) and Echinopora lamellosa (Esper, 1795) (subclade XVII-I sensuBudd and Stolarski 2011; Huang et al. 2014) were also included. Alignments were carried out using the E-INS-i option in MAFFT 7.205 (Katoh et al. 2002, 2009, Katoh and Toh 2008, Katoh and Standley 2013) under default parameters.

Three optimality criteria were used to reconstruct phylogeny separately for each molecular marker. First, the maximum likelihood tree under the GTRGAMMA model was inferred using RAxML 8.0.9 (Stamatakis 2006, Stamatakis et al. 2008) and 50 random starting trees, with 1000 bootstrap replicates. Second, for Bayesian inference, we determined the most suitable model of molecular evolution using jModelTest 2.1.4 (Guindon and Gascuel 2003, Posada 2008, Darriba et al. 2012), testing for 24 models and choosing the best model based on the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC). Bayesian analyses were carried out in MrBayes 3.2.2 (Huelsenbeck and Ronquist 2001, Ronquist and Huelsenbeck 2003, Ronquist et al. 2012). Four Markov chains of 8 million iterations were generated in two runs, logging one tree per 100 generations. MCMC convergence among runs was assessed using Tracer 1.6 (Rambaut et al. 2014), and the first 10001 trees were discarded as burn-in. Third, maximum parsimony trees were inferred using tree searches performed in TNT 1.1 (Goloboff 1999, Nixon 1999, Goloboff et al. 2008) with 10000 random addition sequences, each employing 100 cycles of sectorial searches, ratcheting, drifting and tree fusing. Resampling was carried out through 1000 bootstrap replicates. Gaps were treated as missing data.

Taxonomic account

Cyphastrea , Milne Edwards & Haime, 1848

Genus characters

Corals are colonial by extracalicular budding. The coenosteum is typically spinose and corallites are small (< 4 mm diameter) with low relief (< 3 mm). Septa are in at most three cycles and paliform lobes are usually present. Septal teeth are multiaxial, low (< 0.3 mm) and closely set (< 0.3 mm). Walls are formed primarily by septotheca. Costa and septum centre clusters are weak, there is between 0.3–0.6 mm between costa clusters and < 0.3 mm between septum clusters.

Cyphastrea salae sp. n.

http://zoobank.org/E9B09DB8-0F21-4721-983C-42E5FE9DA607

Material examined

Holotype: Australian Museum AM 81_1530 South Flat, Lord Howe Island (LHI), Australia (-31.5611; 159.0741) 1 m depth. Paratypes: AM 81_1822 Malabar, LHI (-31.5115; 159.0575); AM 81_4749 Malabar West, LHI (-31.5118; 159.0508) and see Appendix 2.

Diagnosis

Cyphastrea salae is found on Lord Howe Island and in the Solitary Islands, where it is the only Cyphastrae species with 12 primary septa.

Skeletal characteristics of the holotype

The holotype is part of a hillocky colony approximately 50 cm width by 50 cm deep by 50 cm height of a tan colour (Fig. 1A). The most prominent feature of the species in the field are the exsert corallites (Figure 1B). The fragment of the holotype is 10 cm long by 5 cm wide and 4 cm thick (Fig. 1C). Most measured features were uniform: the maximum diameter of the corallites ranged from 2.5 to 2.8 mm, the maximum calyx diameter ranged from 2.0 to 2.4 mm and the maximum diameter of the columella ranged from 0.7 to 0.8 mm. All corallites had two septal cycles and 12 primary septa. In contrast, corallite height was more variable, ranging from 0.4 to 3.3 mm as was the density of corallites which ranged from 5 to 9 cm-2. The holotype has regular free septa and a compact columella (Figure 1D). Septal teeth with multiaxial tips are low (~0.2 mm in height) and narrowly spaced (0.1–0.2 mm), with 7–9 teeth per septum (Figure 1E). Strong pointed or club-shaped granules are scattered on the septal face (Figure 1E). The inter-area on the septa is smooth. Corallite walls are formed by dominant septotheca (Figure 1F). Thickening deposits are fibrous (Figure 1F). Costa and septum centre clusters are weak with approximately 0.3 mm between clusters in the costa and <0.2 mm in the septum. Medial lines are also weak (Figure 1F). Perpendicular crosses absent (Figure 1F). Columella centres are clustered (Figure 1F).

Figure 1. 

Cyphastrea salae sp. n. A habit photo of the holotype (G.18222) in situ B close up of holotype in situ C holotype D SEM of corallite E SEM of septa F transverse thin section.

Instraspecific variation

The most common morphology of colonies in the lagoon at Lord Howe Island is hillocky like the holotype, however, some coralla are massive (e.g. 81_1414; Figure 2A, B) or submassive (e.g. 81_3953; Figure 2C, D); and at depth the corolla can be encrusting (e.g. 81_1822; Fig. 2E, F and 79_4749; Figure 4G, H). The colour of the colony ranges from tan to green to blue. Corallite diameter ranges from 1.7 to 3.2 mm; calyx diameter ranges from 1.4 to 2.7 mm; columella diameter ranges from 0.6 to 1.0 mm; corallite height ranges from 0.4 to 3.5 mm; number of corallites per cm ranges from 5.0 to 14.0 cm-2; and the number of primary septa ranges from 10 in very small corallites to 17 in the largest (Table 1). Corallite density was noticeably reduced in specimens from greater depths on Lord Howe Island (Appendix 2; Figure 2E, F).

Figure 2. 

Cyphastrea salae in situ. A, BAM 81-1414 C, DAM 81_3953 E, FAM 81_1822 G, HAM 79_4749.

Comparison with C. micropthalma

In general, there were few differences in the measured features of the corallites of C. salae and C. microphthalma. In particular, corallite and calyx diameter were remarkably similar between the two species (Table 1). Corallites were significantly taller (t = 3.43, p = 0.001) and the columella was larger (t = 7.12, p < 0.001) in C. salae (Table 1). In addition, corallites were significantly more crowded in C. microphthalma which had 11.4 corallites per cm2 compared with 9.6 per cm2, on average, for C. salae (t = -3.86, p < 0.001; Table 1).

Table 1.
Download as
CSV
XLSX

Summary statistics of morphological variables for Cyphastrea salae (n = 55) and C. microphthalma (n = 40). Measurements in mm.

Variable Cyphastrea salae Cyphastrea microphthalma
Mean (se) Maximum Minimum Mean (se) Maximum Minimum
Corallite diameter 2.3 (0.05) 3.2 1.7 2.2 (0.05) 3.0 1.7
Calyx diameter 1.8 (0.04) 2.7 1.4 1.7 (0.04) 2.5 1.3
Columella diameter 0.6 (0.02) 1.0 0.4 0.5 (0.02) 1.0 0.4
Corallite height 1.0 (0.07) 3.5 0.4 0.4 (0.04) 0.8 0.0
Corallites per cm2 9.6 (0.30) 14.0 5.0 11.4 (0.35) 16.0 7.0
Number of primary septa 12.0 (0.15) 17 10 10.0 (0.12) 12 7

The two species are difficult to distinguish in the field based on gross morphology. Cyphastrea microphthalma most frequently forms hillocky colonies (Figure 3 A, B), however, it can also occasionally form massive colonies (Figure 3C). Nonetheless, the species can readily be distinguished in the field and the lab on the basis of the number of primary septa which is generally 12 in C. salae (Figure 1C, D) vs. 10 in C. microphthalama (Figure 3D–F). Nonetheless, the modal number of septa in the five corallites counted correctly identified the molecular clade identity in 100% of colonies (Appendix 2).

Figure 3. 

Cyphastrea microphthalma. A, BAM 81-1612 CAM 81_1681 DAM 81-1612 EAM 81-1660 FAM 81-1612.

Phylogenetic analysis

Molecular analyses revealed a monophyletic Cyphastrea with two major clades (Figure 4). One clade contained new sequences from all the C. microphthalma specimens collected from Lord Howe Island, nested within GenBank sequences of C. microphthalma from Singapore and the C. chalcidicium/serailia complex. The second clade comprised all of the sequences from C. salae from Lord Howe Island and the Solitary Islands, as well as C. cf. decadia from Fiji. The first clade was generally unsupported under all optimality criteria for 28S rDNA, but descendent nodes grouping C. microphthalma from Lord Howe Island with other C. chalcidicum/serailia and C. microphthalma sequences had moderate to high supports. The second clade containing C. salae was well-supported under all analyses, and is, although the sister relationship to the branching C. cf. decadia is only strongly supported by IGR (Figure 4).

Cyphastrea salae and C. microphthalma originated from two distinct lineages. Cyphastrea salae formed a well-supported monophyletic group under all analyses, and is sister group to the branching C. cf. decadia (Figure 4). All the IGR sequences of C. microphthalma clustered strongly as a clade, including the representative from Singapore, but the group is split weakly into two with the 28S rDNA marker. The relationships between C. microphthalma and its closely related congeners remained unresolved due to low support by the less variable 28S rDNA (Figure 4).

Figure 4. 

Maximum likelihood phylogenies based on the nuclear 28S rDNA (left) and mitochondrial noncoding intergenic region (right). Taxa in grey are outgroups. Cyphastrea salae sp. n. and C. microphthalma in red and blue respectively. Numbers adjacent to each branch represent support values (maximum likelihood bootstrap ≥ 50; Bayesian posterior probability ≥ 0.85; maximum parsimony bootstrap ≥ 50).

Etymology

The species is named after Dr Sally Keith and Ms Sallyann Gudge, who have both made significant contributions to understanding and protecting the coral reefs of Lord Howe Island.

Distribution and frequency

Cyphastrea salae is common in the lagoon at Lord Howe Island where it commonly co-occurs with C. microphthalma. It has been recorded to 18 m depth outside the lagoon. One colony has been positively identified using the molecular markers from Solitary Islands, where it is sympatric with C. microphthalma. Cyphastrea salae has yet to be recorded in extensive sampling on the Great Barrier Reef and no sequences are present in GenBank.

Discussion

Cyphastrea salae sp. n. is genetically distinct from all other Cyphastrea sampled to date, forming a well-supported clade possibly closely related to C. cf. decadia from Fiji. All 18 specimens of Cyphastrea from Lord Howe Island fell into one of two clades suggesting that there are only two species on Lord Howe Island. Cyphastrea salae is also morphologically distinct from C. microphthalma on Lord Howe Island; in particular, the corallites are taller and the modal number of septa is 12 in C. salae vs. 10 in C. microphthalma (Table 1).

Amidst the polyphyly of C. chalcidicum and the poor support of 28S rDNA for C. microphthalma, the strong cohesion of C. salae is remarkable. The recovery of the massive C. salae as sister group to a branching specimen identified as C. cf. decadia from Fiji further highlights recent work demonstrating that morphology is a poor indicator of phylogeny (Arrigoni et al. 2016a, 2016b, Terraneo et al. 2016). Cyphastrea is a poorly sampled genus, with only six of the 11 currently accepted species sequenced for phylogenetic studies to date. More work is needed in this C. salae + C. cf. decadia clade, which is recovered here for the first time. We expect more comprehensive analyses of this distinct clade to reveal yet more interesting evolutionary patterns.

The number of primary septa is a highly reliable character for distinguishing between these two species on Lord Howe Island. The modal number of primary septa in a random sample of five polyps per colony correctly places all colonies in each molecular clade. Following Veron (2000), C. salae keys to C. serailia on the basis of its massive growth form, equal costae and 12 primary septa that are not irregularly exsert. Cyphastrea salae can be distinguished from C. serailia by the fact that corallites are mostly one size vs. mixed in C. serailia.

The spawning times also indicate a potential reproductive barrier to cross-fertilization between the species on Lord Howe Island. Five colonies of C. microphthalma released bundles of sperm and eggs on 19 January 2012 at 21:10 h and one colony of C. salae sp. n. released bundles of sperm and eggs on 20 January at 20:30 h (Baird et al. 2015).

The global distribution of C. salae remains uncertain. One specimen has been identified in collections from the Solitary Islands (Table 1; Figure 2G, H) and none to date from extensive sampling on the Great Barrier Reef or other sequences listed at GenBank. It is highly likely, therefore, that C. salae is a high-latitude endemic. When considered with the recent discovery of another high-latitude endemic, Pocillopora aliciae (Schmidt-Roach et al., 2012), this suggests that sub-tropical locations have a much higher level of endemism than previously recognised. This finding greatly increases the recognition of the conservation significance of high-latitude coral reef regions.

Acknowledgements

We thank Ann F. Budd for laboratory support and advice, Matthew Wortel (Petrographic Facilities, University of Iowa) for preparing the thin sections, Margerite Jean-Jean and Vivian Cumbo for preparing samples for SEM and for collecting much of the morphometric data, the Advanced Analytical Centre at JCU for assistance with the SEM, Sally Keith and Erika Woolsey for assistance in the field, Sallyann Gudge, Ian Kerr and the Lord Howe Island Board for logistical support on Lord Howe Island and Roberto Arrigoni and one anonymous reviewer for advice on improving the manuscript. Funds were provided by the US National Science Foundation grant DEB-1145043-1145408, National University of Singapore Start-up Grant R-154-000-698-651, and the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence programme.

References

  • Arrigoni R, Berumen ML, Huang D, Terraneo TI, Benzoni F (2017) Cyphastrea (Cnidaria: Scleractinia: Merulinidae) in the Red Sea: phylogeny and a new reef coral species. Invertebrate Systematics: in press.
  • Arrigoni R, Berumen ML, Chen CA, Terraneo TI, Baird AH, Payri C, Benzoni F (2016a) Species delimitation in the reef coral genera Echinophyllia and Oxypora (Scleractinia, Lobophylliidae) with a description of two new species. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 105: 146–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2016.08.023
  • Arrigoni R, Benzoni F, Huang D, Fukami H, Chen CA, Berumen ML, Hoogenboom M, Thomson DP, Hoeksema BW, Budd AF, Terraneo TI, Kitano YF, Baird AH (2016b) When forms meet genes: revision of the scleractinian genera Micromussa and Homophyllia (Lobophylliidae) with a description of two new species and one new genus. Contributions to Zoology 85: 387–422.
  • Baird AH, Cumbo VR, Gudge S, Keith SA, Maynard JA, Tan C-H, Woolsey ES (2015) Coral reproduction on the world’s southernmost reef at Lord Howe Island, Australia. Aquatic Biology 23: 275–284. https://doi.org/10.3354/ab00627
  • Bouwmeester J, Benzoni F, Baird AH, Berumen ML (2015) Cyphastrea kausti sp. n. (Cnidaria, Anthozoa, Scleractinia), a new species of reef coral from the Red Sea. ZooKeys 496: 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.496.9433
  • Budd AF, Stolarski J (2009) Searching for new morphological characters in the systematics of scleractinian reef corals: comparison of septal teeth and granules between Atlantic and Pacific Mussidae. Acta Zoologica 90: 142–165. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1463-6395.2008.00345.x
  • Budd AF, Stolarski J (2011) Corallite wall and septal microstructure in scleractinian reef corals: comparison of molecular clades within the family Faviidae. Journal of Morphology 272: 66–88. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmor.10899
  • Cairns SD (1999) CnidariaAnthozoa: Deep-Water azooxanthellate Scleractinia from Vanuatu and Wallis and Futuna Islands. Mémoires du Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris, 180: 31–167.
  • Cuif J-P, Lecointre G, Perrin C, Tillier A, Tillier S (2003) Patterns of septal biomineralization in Scleractinia compared with their 28S rRNA phylogeny: a dual approach for a new taxonomic framework. Zoologica Scripta 32: 459–473. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1463-6409.2003.00133.x
  • Darriba D, Taboada GL, Doallo R, Posada D (2012) jModelTest 2: more models, new heuristics and parallel computing. Nature Methods 9: 772. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.2109
  • Ellis J, Solander D (1786) The Natural History of many curious and uncommon Zoophytes, collected from various parts of the Globe. Systematically arranged and described by the late Daniel Solander. Benjamin White & Son, London, 206 pp. [pls. 1–63] https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.64985
  • Esper EJC (1793–1795) Die Planzenthiere: Fortsetzungen 1, Raspischen Buchhandlung, Nurnberg, 230 pp. [Abbildungen I: Madrepora pls. 1–87]
  • Francis MP (1993) Checklist of the coastal fishes of Lord Howe, Norfolk, and Kermadec Islands, Southwest Pacific Ocean. Pacific Science 47: 136–170.
  • Fukami H, Chen CA, Budd AF, Collins AG, Wallace CC, Chuang Y-Y, Dai C-F, Iwao K, Sheppard CRC, Knowlton N (2008) Mitochondrial and nuclear genes suggest that stony corals are monophyletic but most families of stony corals are not (Order Scleractinia, Class Anthozoa, Phylum Cnidaria). PLoS ONE 3: e3222. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0003222
  • Harriott VJ, Smith SDA, Harrison PL (1994) Patterns of coral community structure of subtropical reefs in the Solitary-Islands Marine Reserve, eastern Australia. Marine Ecology Progress Series 109: 67–76. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps109067
  • Harriott VJ, Harrison PL, Banks SA (1995) The coral communities of Lord Howe Island. Marine and Freshwater Research 46: 457–465. https://doi.org/10.1071/MF9950457
  • Huang D, Roy K (2013) Anthropogenic extinction threats and future loss of evolutionary history in reef corals. Ecology and Evolution 3: 1184–1193. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.527
  • Huang D, Roy K (2015) The future of evolutionary diversity in reef corals. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences 370: 20140010. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2014.0010
  • Huang D, Licuanan WY, Baird AH, Fukami H (2011) Cleaning up the ‘Bigmessidae’: Molecular phylogeny of scleractinian corals from Faviidae, Merulinidae, Pectiniidae and Trachyphylliidae. BMC Evolutionary Biology 11: 37. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2148-11–37
  • Huang D, Benzoni F, Fukami H, Knowlton N, Smith ND, Budd AF (2014) Taxonomic classification of the reef coral families Merulinidae, Montastraeidae, and Diploastraeidae (Cnidaria: Anthozoa: Scleractinia). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 171: 277–355. https://doi.org/10.1111/zoj.12140
  • Katoh K, Standley DM (2013) MAFFT multiple sequence alignment software version 7: improvements in performance and usability. Molecular Biology and Evolution 30: 772–780. https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/mst010
  • Katoh K, Toh H (2008) Recent developments in the MAFFT multiple sequence alignment program. Briefings in Bioinformatics 9: 286–298. https://doi.org/10.1093/bib/bbn013
  • Katoh K, Misawa K, Kuma K, Miyata T (2002) MAFFT: a novel method for rapid multiple sequence alignment based on fast Fourier transform. Nucleic Acids Research 30: 3059–3066. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkf436
  • Katoh K, Asimenos G, Toh H (2009) Multiple alignment of DNA sequences with MAFFT. In: Posada D (Ed.) Bioinformatics for DNA Sequence Analysis.Humana Press, New York, 39–63. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-59745-251-9_3
  • Kitahara MV, Cairns SD, Stolarski J, Blair D, Miller DJ (2010) A comprehensive phylogenetic analysis of the Scleractinia (Cnidaria, Anthozoa) based on mitochondrial CO1 sequence data. PLoS ONE 5: e11490. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0011490
  • Kitahara MV, Fukami H, Benzoni F, Huang D (2016) The new systematics of Scleractinia: integrating molecular and morphological evidence. In: Goffredo S, Dubinsky Z (Eds) The Cnidaria, Past, Present and Future.Springer International Publishing, Cham, 41–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31305-4_4
  • Lamarck JB (1801) Système des animaux sans vertèbres, ou tableau général des classes, des ordres et des genres de ces animaux; Présentant leurs caractères essentiels et leur distribution, d’après la considération de leurs rapports naturelles et de leur organisation, et suivant l’arrangement établi dans les galeries du Muséum d’Histoire Naturelle, parmi leurs dépouilles conservées; Précédé du discours d’ouverture du Cours de Zoologie, donné dans le Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle l’an 8 de la République. Published by the authour and Deterville, Paris, 432 pp.
  • Lamarck JBM de (1816) Histoire naturelle des animaux sans vertèbres. Tome deuxième. Paris, Verdière, 568 pp.
  • Milne Edwards M, Haime J (1848) Recherches sur les polypiers, 4eme mémoire. Monographie des Astréides. Annales des Sciences Naturelles 10: 209–320.
  • Mizerek TL, Baird AH, Beaumont LJ, Madin JS (2016) Environmental tolerance governs the presence of reef corals at latitudes beyond reef growth. Global Ecology and Biogeography 25: 979–987. https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.12459
  • Moll H, Best MB (1984) New scleractinian corals (Anthozoa: Scleractinia) from the Spermonde Archipelago, South Sulawesi, Indonesia. Zoologische Mededelingen 58: 47–58.
  • MPA (2010) Lord Howe Island Marine Park: zoning plan review report, NSW Department of Environment and Climate Change, Sydney, 132 pp.
  • Nemenzo F (1959) Systematic studies on Philippine shallow water scleractinians: II. Suborder Faviida. Natural and Applied Science Bulletin, University of the Philippines 16: 73–135. [pls. 1–24]
  • Noreen AME, Harrison PL, Van Oppen MJH (2009) Genetic diversity and connectivity in a brooding reef coral at the limit of its distribution. Proceedings of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences 276: 3927–3935. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2009.1050
  • Ronquist F, Teslenko M, van der Mark P, Ayres DL, Darling A, Höhna S, Larget B, Liu L, Suchard MA, Huelsenbeck JP (2012) MrBayes 3.2: Efficient Bayesian phylogenetic inference and model choice across a large model space. Systematic Biology 61: 539–542. https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/sys029
  • Schmidt-Roach S, Miller KJ, Andreakis N (2013) Pocillopora aliciae: a new species of scleractinian coral (Scleractinia, Pocilloporidae) from subtropical Eastern Australia. Zootaxa 3626: 576–582. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.3626.4.11
  • Stolarski J, Roniewicz E (2001) Towards a new synthesis of evolutionary relationships and classification of Scleractinia. Journal of Paleontology 75: 1090–1108. doi 10.1017/S0022336000017157
  • Terraneo TI, Benzoni F, Arrigoni R, Berumen ML (2016) Species delimitation in the coral genus Goniopora (Scleractinia, Poritidae) from the Saudi Arabian Red Sea. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 102: 278–294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2016.06.003
  • Veron JEN (1974) Southern geographic limits to the distribution of Great Barrier Reef hermatypic corals. Proceedings of the 2nd International Coral Reef Symposium 1: 465–473.
  • Veron JEN, How RA, Done TJ, Zell LD, Dodkin MJ, O’Farrell AF (1974) Corals of the Solitary Islands, Central New South Wales. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 25: 193–208. https://doi.org/10.1071/MF9740193
  • Veron JEN (1993) A biogeographic database of hermatypic corals. Australian Institute of Marine Science Monograph Series 10: 1–433.
  • Veron JEN (1995) Corals in space and time. Southwood Press, Sydney, 321 pp.
  • Veron JEN, Done TJ (1979) Corals and coral communities of Lord Howe Island. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 30: 203–236. https://doi.org/10.1071/MF9790203
  • Verrill AE (1865) Classification of polyps (extract condensed from Synopsis of the Polyps and Corals of the North Pacific Exploring Expedition under Commodore C. Ringgold and Captain John Rodgers, U.S.N.). Communications of the Essex Institute 4: 145–152.

Appendix 1

Table S1.
Download as
CSV
XLSX

Specimens sampled. All specimens were collected by AHB.

Specimen Species Location Site Latitude / Longitude Depth_m Date Type Aust_Mus_accession number
81_1605 Cyphastrea microphthalma Lord Howe Island North Bay -31.5214, 159.0468 1 12/01/2012
81_1612 Cyphastrea microphthalma Lord Howe Island North Bay -31.5214, 159.0468 1 21/01/2012 voucher G.18226
81_1641 Cyphastrea microphthalma Lord Howe Island North Bay -31.5214, 159.0468 1 21/01/2012
81_1657 Cyphastrea microphthalma Lord Howe Island North Bay -31.5214, 159.0468 1 21/01/2012
81_1660 Cyphastrea microphthalma Lord Howe Island North Bay -31.5214, 159.0468 1 21/01/2012 voucher G.18225
81_1681 Cyphastrea microphthalma Lord Howe Island North Bay -31.5214, 159.0468 1 21/01/2012
81_1757 Cyphastrea microphthalma Lord Howe Island Horseshoe Reef -31.5371, 159.0649 1 22/01/2012 voucher G.18227
81_1762 Cyphastrea microphthalma Lord Howe Island Horseshoe Reef -31.5371, 159.0649 1 22/01/2012
81_1772 Cyphastrea microphthalma Lord Howe Island Horseshoe Reef -31.5371, 159.0649 1 22/01/2012
81_1530 Cyphastrea salae Lord Howe Island South Flat -31.5611, 159.0741 1 20/01/2012 holotype G.18222
81_1625 Cyphastrea salae Lord Howe Island North Bay -31.5214, 159.0468 1 21/01/2012
81_1629 Cyphastrea salae Lord Howe Island North Bay -31.5214, 159.0468 1 21/01/2012
81_1638 Cyphastrea salae Lord Howe Island North Bay -31.5214, 159.0468 1 21/01/2012
81_1765 Cyphastrea salae Lord Howe Island Horseshoe Reef -31.5371, 159.0649 1 22/01/2012
81_1822 Cyphastrea salae Lord Howe Island Malabar -31.5115, 159.0575 8 22/01/2012 paratype G.18223
81_4749 Cyphastrea salae Lord Howe Island Malabar West -31.5118, 159.0508 10 20/03/2013 paratype G.18224
81_1406 Cyphastrea salae Lord Howe Island North Bay -31.5214, 159.0468 1 21/01/2012
81_1409 Cyphastrea salae Lord Howe Island North Bay -31.5214, 159.0468 1 21/01/2012
81_1414 Cyphastrea salae Lord Howe Island North Bay -31.5214, 159.0468 1 21/01/2012
79_3953 Cyphastrea salae South Solitary Island Buchanen’s Wall -30.2063, 153.2657 8 6/03/2013 voucher G.18221

Appendix 2

Table S2.
Download as
CSV
XLSX

Trait matrix

colony species_molecular corallite_number corallite_diameter mm calyx_diameter mm columella_diameter mm corallite_height speta_no_primary corallitescm-2 septal_cycles
81_1605 Cyphastrea microphthalma 1 2.4 1.7 0.5 0.5 10 11 2
81_1605 Cyphastrea microphthalma 2 2.0 1.4 0.5 0.8 10 9 2
81_1605 Cyphastrea microphthalma 3 2.0 1.7 0.6 0.1 10 12 2
81_1605 Cyphastrea microphthalma 4 2.0 1.7 0.6 0.3 10 10 2
81_1605 Cyphastrea microphthalma 5 2.3 1.5 0.5 0.4 10 11 2
81_1612 Cyphastrea microphthalma 1 2.2 2.0 0.9 0.5 11 14 2
81_1612 Cyphastrea microphthalma 2 2.5 2.0 0.6 0.1 10 12 2
81_1612 Cyphastrea microphthalma 3 2.4 2.0 0.6 0.4 10 14 2
81_1612 Cyphastrea microphthalma 4 3.0 2.5 1.0 0.7 18 12 3
81_1612 Cyphastrea microphthalma 5 2.5 1.9 0.6 0.8 10 11 2
81_1657 Cyphastrea microphthalma 1 2.5 1.7 0.6 0.8 10 10 2
81_1657 Cyphastrea microphthalma 2 2.2 1.8 0.5 0.4 10 10 2
81_1657 Cyphastrea microphthalma 3 2.5 1.7 0.5 0.5 11 8 2
81_1657 Cyphastrea microphthalma 4 2.0 1.7 0.5 0.0 10 8 2
81_1657 Cyphastrea microphthalma 5 2.2 1.7 0.5 0.3 10 10 2
81_1660 Cyphastrea microphthalma 1 2.0 1.5 0.4 0.3 9 10 2
81_1660 Cyphastrea microphthalma 2 2.2 1.7 0.4 0.3 10 12 2
81_1660 Cyphastrea microphthalma 3 2.2 1.5 0.6 0.4 10 10 2
81_1660 Cyphastrea microphthalma 4 2.2 1.8 0.5 0.3 10 7 2
81_1660 Cyphastrea microphthalma 5 2.0 1.6 0.5 0.2 7 13 2
81_1681 Cyphastrea microphthalma 1 1.7 1.3 0.5 0.0 10 16 2
81_1681 Cyphastrea microphthalma 2 1.7 1.3 0.4 0.2 10 15 2
81_1681 Cyphastrea microphthalma 3 1.7 1.5 0.5 0.0 9 11 2
81_1681 Cyphastrea microphthalma 4 1.7 1.3 0.4 0.2 9 13 2
81_1681 Cyphastrea microphthalma 5 2.4 1.5 0.5 0.2 10 12 2
81_1757 Cyphastrea microphthalma 1 2.6 1.9 0.5 0.5 12 10 2
81_1757 Cyphastrea microphthalma 2 2.5 2.1 0.5 0.0 11 15 2
81_1757 Cyphastrea microphthalma 3 2.4 1.9 0.4 0.2 10 16 2
81_1757 Cyphastrea microphthalma 4 2.5 2.2 0.6 0.3 10 11 2
81_1757 Cyphastrea microphthalma 5 2.2 1.7 0.4 0.5 10 13 2
81_1762 Cyphastrea microphthalma 1 2.5 1.8 0.5 0.4 10 8 2
81_1762 Cyphastrea microphthalma 2 2.2 1.8 0.4 0.3 10 14 2
81_1762 Cyphastrea microphthalma 3 1.7 1.4 0.4 0.2 10 10 2
81_1762 Cyphastrea microphthalma 4 2.4 1.8 0.4 0.8 11 10 2
81_1762 Cyphastrea microphthalma 5 2.4 1.7 0.5 0.8 10 13 2
81_1772 Cyphastrea microphthalma 1 2.3 2.0 0.6 0.3 11 10 2
81_1772 Cyphastrea microphthalma 2 2.4 1.7 0.5 0.6 9 10 2
81_1772 Cyphastrea microphthalma 3 2.5 1.8 0.6 0.3 10 9 2
81_1772 Cyphastrea microphthalma 4 2.3 1.8 0.6 0.2 10 13 2
81_1772 Cyphastrea microphthalma 5 2.4 1.9 0.6 0.3 10 12 2
79_3953 Cyphastrea salae 1 2.2 1.8 0.7 1.2 11 14 2
79_3953 Cyphastrea salae 2 2.5 2.0 0.7 1.0 12 10 2
79_3953 Cyphastrea salae 3 3.0 2.4 0.8 1.0 15 11 3
79_3953 Cyphastrea salae 4 2.2 1.8 0.5 1.3 12 11 2
79_3953 Cyphastrea salae 5 2.3 1.7 0.7 0.8 12 14 2
81_1406 Cyphastrea salae 1 2.7 2.0 0.7 0.8 13 9 2
81_1406 Cyphastrea salae 2 2.8 2.1 0.8 1.2 12 7 2
81_1406 Cyphastrea salae 3 2.5 2.2 0.8 1.7 12 10 2
81_1406 Cyphastrea salae 4 2.3 1.5 0.6 0.6 11 8 2
81_1406 Cyphastrea salae 5 2.2 2.0 0.7 0.8 11 7 2
81_1409 Cyphastrea salae 1 3.2 2.7 0.7 0.8 17 10 3
81_1409 Cyphastrea salae 2 2.4 1.8 0.5 1.5 11 9 2
81_1409 Cyphastrea salae 3 2.8 2.3 0.7 0.5 16 14 3
81_1409 Cyphastrea salae 4 2.4 1.4 0.6 1.6 11 8 2
81_1409 Cyphastrea salae 5 2.4 1.4 0.6 1.2 11 11 2
81_1414 Cyphastrea salae 1 2.4 1.7 0.6 0.5 11 10 2
81_1414 Cyphastrea salae 2 2.3 1.7 0.5 0.6 12 13 2
81_1414 Cyphastrea salae 3 2.2 1.8 0.7 0.6 12 9 2
81_1414 Cyphastrea salae 4 2.2 1.7 0.5 0.8 12 10 2
81_1414 Cyphastrea salae 5 2.1 1.5 0.5 0.8 11 12 2
81_1530 Cyphastrea salae 1 2.7 2.3 0.8 0.4 12 5 2
81_1530 Cyphastrea salae 2 2.7 2.3 0.8 1.5 12 7 2
81_1530 Cyphastrea salae 3 2.5 2.0 0.7 1.2 12 9 2
81_1530 Cyphastrea salae 4 2.8 2.4 0.7 3.5 12 5 2
81_1530 Cyphastrea salae 5 2.8 2.0 0.7 2.0 12 8 2
81_1597 Cyphastrea salae 1 3.0 2.3 0.8 0.7 12 9 2
81_1597 Cyphastrea salae 2 2.8 2.5 0.8 1.2 12 8 2
81_1597 Cyphastrea salae 3 3.2 2.7 0.8 0.6 15 7 2
81_1597 Cyphastrea salae 4 2.7 2.2 0.7 0.8 12 10 2
81_1597 Cyphastrea salae 5 2.2 1.8 0.6 0.5 11 10 2
81_1601 Cyphastrea salae 1 2.4 2.0 0.4 0.4 10 11 2
81_1601 Cyphastrea salae 2 2.4 1.7 0.4 1.0 10 8 2
81_1601 Cyphastrea salae 3 2.5 2.0 0.6 0.2 10 12 2
81_1601 Cyphastrea salae 4 2.5 1.9 0.4 0.2 10 14 2
81_1601 Cyphastrea salae 5 2.2 1.8 0.4 0.2 10 10 2
81_1625 Cyphastrea salae 1 2.2 1.7 0.5 0.7 12 8 2
81_1625 Cyphastrea salae 2 2.2 1.8 0.6 0.7 13 9 2
81_1625 Cyphastrea salae 3 2.5 1.9 0.6 1.2 13 11 2
81_1625 Cyphastrea salae 4 2.3 1.7 0.5 1.3 12 9 2
81_1625 Cyphastrea salae 5 2.0 1.7 0.5 0.4 11 10 2
81_1629 Cyphastrea salae 1 2.2 1.7 0.5 1.0 12 10 2
81_1629 Cyphastrea salae 2 2.0 1.7 1.0 1.4 12 9 2
81_1629 Cyphastrea salae 3 2.0 1.7 0.7 1.0 12 10 2
81_1629 Cyphastrea salae 4 2.2 1.9 0.6 0.8 12 9 2
81_1629 Cyphastrea salae 5 1.8 1.4 0.5 1.0 12 8 2
81_1638 Cyphastrea salae 1 2.7 2.0 0.7 1.2 12 8 2
81_1638 Cyphastrea salae 2 2.5 2.1 0.6 1.5 12 10 2
81_1638 Cyphastrea salae 3 2.6 1.8 0.7 1.2 12 10 2
81_1638 Cyphastrea salae 4 2.4 1.9 0.7 0.6 12 12 2
81_1638 Cyphastrea salae 5 2.0 1.5 0.6 0.5 10 13 2
81_1765 Cyphastrea salae 1 2.1 1.8 0.7 0.8 12 12 2
81_1765 Cyphastrea salae 2 2.0 1.5 0.6 1.2 12 14 2
81_1765 Cyphastrea salae 3 2.2 1.7 0.7 1.0 12 11 2
81_1765 Cyphastrea salae 4 1.8 1.5 0.6 1.2 12 14 2
81_1765 Cyphastrea salae 5 1.9 1.5 0.6 0.4 12 11 2
81_1822 Cyphastrea salae 1 2.2 1.6 0.4 1.0 12 6 2
81_1822 Cyphastrea salae 2 2.0 1.6 0.5 1.2 12 9 2
81_1822 Cyphastrea salae 3 2.0 1.6 0.5 0.9 11 7 2
81_1822 Cyphastrea salae 4 1.8 1.4 0.4 1.0 11 9 2
81_1822 Cyphastrea salae 5 1.8 1.5 0.4 1.2 12 7 2
81_4749 Cyphastrea salae 1 2.0 1.8 0.6 0.5 12 9 2
81_4749 Cyphastrea salae 2 1.7 1.5 0.5 0.4 12 8 2
81_4749 Cyphastrea salae 3 2.2 1.8 0.7 1.5 12 10 2
81_4749 Cyphastrea salae 4 1.8 1.5 0.6 1.2 12 7 2
81_4749 Cyphastrea salae 5 2.0 1.5 0.6 1.0 12 8 2
login to comment