Heads up: Some or all of the identifications affected by this split may have been replaced with identifications of Doriopsilla. This happens when we can't automatically assign an identification to one of the output taxa. Review identifications of Doriopsilla albopunctata 47768

Taxonomic Split 12545 (Committed on 2017-01-20)

Hoover et al. (2015) split D. albopunctata and D. gemela into several "pseudocryptic" species based on molecular data from specimens across the ranges of both organisms, but were able to find morphological differences upon re-examining the specimens. A summary of the new descriptions follows, but keep in mind these slugs can be very difficult to impossible to separate in the field, so a genus-level ID is always the safest bet. The following description doesn't even consider lookalikes in other genera like Baptodoris.

Doriopsilla albopunctata (WoRMS)

Tuburcles with large white dots at tips, surrounded by smaller white dots. Gills usually white, though sometimes yellow. Rhinophores with 16–18 lamellae. Mendocino to San Diego, possible extending into Baja.

Doriopsilla fulva (WoRMS)

Tuburcles with large white dots at tips, with no surrounding smaller white dots, separating it from D. albopunctata. Generally lighter color than D. albopunctata. Humboldt to San Diego.

Doriopsilla davebehrensi (WoRMS)

Many tiny white dots, mostly between tuburcles, not at the tips. Tuburcles much smaller than others in the species complex, almost invisible, except for a few scattered big ones. Gill generally yellow to off-white, rhinophores light-tipped. Range unclear, definitely at Newport Bay, possible extending up to Monterey. Given the comments at https://www.flickr.com/photos/30314434@N06/27798147532/, though, we probably need to consider slugs with this spot morphology to be unidentifiable to species from photos, so if you have a slug that looks like this, just ID to genus.

FWIW, here's a comparison shot by Gary McDonald showing how D. albopunctata sensu stricto and D. fulva differ under ideal conditions:

D. gemela was also split in this paper. While organisms formerly identified as D. albopunctata should not technically be affected by the D. gemela split, all these slugs are very similar and difficult to ID from photos, so these should be considered when deciding how to transition your data. D. gemela sensu lato differs from D. albopunctata sensu lato in having a narrower mantle margin, a consistently yellow gill (varies from yellow to white in D. albopunctata), and only 8-9 lamellae on the rhinophores, vs. 10-18 lamellae in D. albopunctata sensu lato.

Doriopsilla gemela (WoRMS)

Compared with the D. albopunctata group, both species in the D. gemela group have a narrow mantle margin and gill that is always yellow. Larger white dots tip the tuburcles in D. gemela sensu stricto, with smaller ones in between. Baja California Sur, probably to Monterey.

Doriopsilla bertschi (WoRMS)

No clear distinction between white spot size or placement. Very large gill with branchial leaves oriented toward the posterior. Only known from the northern Sea of Cortez.

World Register of Marine Species (WoRMS) (Citation)
Added by kueda on September 30, 2015 07:10 PM | Committed by kueda on January 20, 2017
split into

Comments

@mcduck, @rebeccafay, @kestrel: does this look like a reasonable assessment of this split?

Posted by kueda over 8 years ago

The descriptions sound right based on the paper, but I'm still having a hard time distinguishing the species (albopunctata vs fulva) many times, simply because I find individuals that seem to have characteristics of each species!

Maybe @lemurdillo wants to weigh in?

Posted by kestrel over 8 years ago

Yeah, I'm definitely seeing ones that look a bit intermediate in my past pics, but I think some are pretty clear. For example, I'm pretty sure the isolated dots on the tips of the tuburcles on this one indicate D. fulva:

And I suspect the two-sized spots, whiteish gill, and abundant visible tuburcles on this one indicate. D. albopunctata sensu stricto:

I guess I'll have to settle for a genus-level ID on ones that look intermediate

I would like to see a pic of the nearly-invisible tuburcles of D. davebehrensi, which theoretically isn't in the Bay Area, but who knows.

Posted by kueda over 8 years ago

Oh jeez, I guess I never committed this one. @jpsilva and @kestrel, want to take a quick look to make sure it's still ok? Will leave a lot of D. albopunctata obs in the lurch, I'm afraid, though they could probably all use some increased scrutiny anyway.

Posted by kueda about 7 years ago

Looks good @kueda, and yes, those two photos illustrate the written descriptions well. I still find a lot of intermediates of D. fulva and D. albopuncata, but generally just leave those at genus level.

It'll be good to go back through old observations to try to sort these three species out... but then I also wonder how many Baptodoris get sucked up into Doriopsilla too. :)

Posted by kestrel about 7 years ago

Agree. I remember a few months ago @rebeccafay saying something along the line these Doriopsilla spp. were almost impossible to distinguish from photos alone so she would only confirm the genus.

Posted by jpsilva about 7 years ago

Thanks, all. I updated the description a little bit with WoRMS links and an image by Gary, and committed.

Posted by kueda about 7 years ago

Hello all,
I would agree. I think what I meant about them begin hard to tell apart is more along the lines of what Alison said. I think in some cases it is easy enough to tell species from each other, but there are things that I can not tell apart. Maybe someone else can, but I am not confident for some intermediaries.
Thanks for doing this, Ken-ichi

Posted by rebeccafay about 7 years ago
Posted by bouteloua over 1 year ago

Add a Comment

Sign In or Sign Up to add comments