International Journal of Marine Science, 2016, Vol.6, No.16 1
-
8
2
2
Taxonomic History
The genus
Montipora
was established by H. Blainville
in 1830 (Blainville, 1830) though the description
appeared in 1833 (Quoy and Gaimard, 1833). J. Dana
(1846) discussed such corals under the name
Manopora
.
He included 29 species in this genus, 16 of which were
new ones. M. Edwards and J. Haime again revised
Montipora
, restored its status, and included species of
other genera, especially that of
Porites
(Edwards and
Haime, 1849, 1850). H. Bernard (1897), discussing the
confusion with identification of
Montipora
type species,
came to the conclusion that
Montipora obtusata
Quelch,
1866 can be identified as the type of the genus. He
studied the
Montipora
collection of the British Museum
(presumably 135 species), described it in detail,
re-described and systematized it. Describing
Montipora
species, Bernard divided them into five main groups
according to the morphology of their colonies: glabrous,
glabro-foveolate, foveolate, papillae, and tuberculate.
The latter three had further subdivisions. Bernard
described and re-described 89 nominal
Montipora
species, which make up 75% of all species of this genus.
After Bernard, issues of nomenclature of some species
and partially revision of the genus
Montipora
were
dealt with by T. Vaughan (1918), C. Crossland (1952),
J. Wells (1954, 1956), and F. Nemenzo (1967).
Nevertheless, corals of this genus, which is the second
most diverse genus, were described mainly based on a
small number of specimens without the study of their
variability in natural conditions. That is why the
majority of them retained their unexplained problems
of synonymy, problems of geographic and genetic
variability in the given region.
J. Veron and C. Wallace (1984) re-considered the
majority of type specimens (holotypes, syntypes) of
Montipora
. Based on the data they obtained, and
investigating variability of these corals on the basis of
facts of their own observations on the Great Barrier
Reef, these researchers made a revision of most of the
nominal species names. After Bernard, these authors
subdivided morphologically all
Montipora
into five types.
When describing
Montipora
, they used new terms –
papillae and tuberculae – for the series of structures
formed on cenosteume. Veron and Wallace described 36
species of
Montipora
from the Great Barrier Reef, two of
which were new ones. Numerous other names were
placed in synonymy with these 36 species
Anacropora
was distinguished as an individual genus
by S. Ridley in 1884 (Ridley, 1884). Nine nominal
species are known, and four of them are synonymous
by their type specimens with
Anacropora forbesi
Ridley, 1884 (Veron and Wallace, 1984). The rest of
the species can be differentiated clearly enough
systematically. Veron and Wallace, describing
Anacropora
of the Eastern Australia, briefly
considered taxonomic problems of all known species
of this genus, and showed synonymy of some species
with respect to the others (Veron and Wallace. 1984).
Perhaps
Acropora
is one of the most important coral
groups among scleractinian having the largest number
of species and the greatest importance in
reef-formation of the reefs of the Pacific and Indian
Oceans. No, wonder that genus
Acropora
has the
greatest number of taxonomic problems of any genus
of corals. Due to their wide polymorphism,
extraordinary diversity of variations of colony shapes
(forms) even within the same biotope, not to mention
geographical variability and variability due to
environmental fluctuations,
Acropora
species are one
of the most difficult to identify. Suffice it to say that
the status of genus
Acropora
Oken, 1815 was restored
by the International Committee on Zoological
Nomenclature only in the second half of the XX
century (Boschma, 1961; China, 1963). Though many
researchers after A. Verrill (1902), who provided
grounds for restoration of replacement of
Madrepora
by
Acropora
, applied the latter genus mane.
Early investigations of
Madrepora
corals were more
descriptive than taxonomic. It was the process of
accumulation of isolated data, and the first attempts to
interpret and classify the materials. The first
monographic investigation of
Madrepora
was
conducted by G. Brook at the end of the XIX century
(1893). He critically examined the schemes of the
