International Journal of Marine Science, 2016, Vol.6, No.14, 1-10
2
same time, they distinguished several groups of related species, attributed to the genus
Favites
by modern
taxonomists, into the independent genera
Aphrastraea, Prinastraea
and
Metastraea
. In the opinion of Veron and
his co-authors (1977), such intraspecific subdivisions became possible only due to the fact that they were based on
a small number of skeletal characteristics of corals, which have been found to be highly variable only recently.
Most of the following investigators took into account the peculiarities of extratentacular division, but they
attributed a variety of meanings to this feature. Matthai (1914, 1918) and Crossland (1952) did not consider the
nomenclatural status of species groups described by them, but at the same time, they supported differences
between species with meandroid and non-meandroidal corallites. Vaughan (1918) held a different view: he raised
every of these coral groups up to the family level – Orbicelliidae and Faviidae. Later on Yabe and his co-authors
followed Vaughan (Yabe et al. 1936). In the 1940’s Vaughan together with Wells proposed an intermediate point of
view. They gave the status of Montastreinae (integrating
Ehinopora, Leptastrea, Cyphastrea, Montastrea
genera)
and Faviidae (
Plesiastrea, Favia, Favites, Goniastrea, Hydnophora, Platygyra, Leptoria, Oulophyllia, Caulastrea,
Moseleya, Trachyphyllia
genera) subfamilies to two groups of Faviidae (genera with extratentacular and genera
with intratentacular division in the sense of Edwards and Haime (1857). This statement was widely supported by
many researchers: Wells (1956), Nemenzo (1959), Eguchi (1968), Pillai (1972), Wijsman-Best (1972), Pillai and
Scheer (1974), and Scheer and Pillai (1974). But Chevalier (1971) came out with an opposite point of view,
considering them one group. Vaughan did not distinguish subfamilies within the Faviidae, based on the fact that
corals of these genera, reproducing by polyp fission (especially species of
Favia
genus), exhibit both intra- and
extra-tentacular reproduction. Veron and his co-authors (1977) supported this point of view, pointing out that
many genera and species have both reproduction modes, one of which usually prevails in one or the other species.
Supporting Chevalier’s opinion that the division of the family into of two separate subfamilies was groundless,
they list certain species as an example (
Favia taxa, Favites pentagona
, and
Montastrea valenciennesi
). They all
formally belong to the Faviinae subfamily (i.e. reproduce by intra-corallite division), whereas extratentacular
division is also typical for them.
Considering interrelations of taxa within Faviidae, Veron with co-authors noted that a number of genera did not
have well-defined limits because of their variation, leaving little or no gap between genera. Generic distinctions
are especially difficult in the group of species
Favia-Favites-Goniastrea
. Discrimination between
Favia
and
Favites
is made on the basis of colony morphology, which is placoid for
Favia
and cerioid for
Favites
. However,
some
Favites
species (they cite
F. rotundata
and
F. complanata
as examples) often display placoid-cerioid colony
forms. They write that this fact served as grounds for Matthai (1914, 1918) to unite
Favia
and
Favites
under the
common name of
Favia
. stressed Matthai.
The other groups of Faviidae species, in the opinion of Veron and his co-authors, can be subdivided comparatively
easily. These are
Leptoria, Diploastrea, Cyphastrea, Leptastrea
, and
Echinopora.
On the other hand, they consider
that
Montastrea
and
Plesiastrea
genera are in the center of this taxonomic debate. One of the reasons for this is the
fact that
Montastrea
has a complicated taxonomic history, including generic names of
Orbicella
Dana (1846),
Heliastrea
Edwards and Haime (1857), and
Favia
Oken (1815) together with some species belonging to them.
The other reason was the denial by Vaughan and Wells (1943, Wells, 1956) of the existence of
Montastrea
species
in Indo-Pacific. Because of this, there was confusion not only between these genera, but also between their species,
for a long time. It continued until Chevalier (1971) elucidated this problem, explaining that
Plesiastrea
have real
pali, consisting of multitrabecules of an independent diverging structure, and that they together with the obvious
absence of direct mesenteries with
Plesiastrea
polyps serve as important evidence of the difference between the
genera
Montastrea
and
Plesiastrea
.
When describing Australian Faviidae, Veron and his co-authors (Veron et al. 1977) actually revised all known
Faviidae. They re-studied all type material of the valid species, including synonyms, published in taxonomically
important works of the 20th century. Following Chevalier (1971), they showed that Faviidae should be united in
one Faviidae family without subdivision into taxa of a lower rank. These authors’ point of view on the taxonomy
