Armina californica, (COOPER, 1863), 1961

Gosliner, Terrence M. & Fahey, Shireen J., 2011, Previously undocumented diversity and abundance of cryptic species: a phylogenetic analysis of Indo-Pacific Arminidae Rafinesque, 1814 (Mollusca: Nudibranchia) with descriptions of 20 new species of Dermatobranchus, Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 161 (2), pp. 245-356 : 252-253

ARMINA CALIFORNICA ( COOPER, 1863)

Pleurophyllidia californica Cooper, 1863: 203 .

Armina californica ( Cooper, 1863) Marcus, 1961: 41 , pl. 8, figures 147–150.

Armina columbiana O’Donoghue, 1924: 11 , pl. 2, figures 13–17. Marcus, 1961: 43, pl. 8, figures 151– 154. Steinberg, 1963; 64

Armina vancouverensis (Bergh, 1876) Steinberg, 1963: 64 .

Armina digueti Pruvot-Fol, 1956: 464 , figures 8–10. Steinberg, 1963: 64.

Material examined: CASIZ 171955 , one specimen, 50 mm, dissected, Gulf of Alaska, 223 m depth, collected 22.vi.2001 by K. Palenscar .

Geographical distribution: This species is known from the west coast of America, from the Gulf of Alaska to Panama.

External morphology: The external morphology matches the description by Cooper (1863). That is, the body shape is ovate, rounded in front with approximately 15 elevated, parallel notal ridges.

Buccal armature: The jaws are large and thickly cuticularized, with a thick masticatory margin and multiple rows of triangular, pointed denticles. The radular formula is 38 ¥ 58.1.1.1.58. The rachidian teeth are broadly triangular in shape, with five large, pointed denticles lengthening towards the sixth, central denticle. The first lateral tooth is bicuspid. The next 58 teeth are elongate hooks having narrow, feathery denticles near the tip. The last three to four of these are smaller than the others.

Reproductive system: As described and drawn by Marcus (1961) for A.columbiana .

Remarks: The ridges or ‘stripes’ that Cooper described do not interconnect at regular intervals on our specimens. O’Donoghue (1924) stated that the arrangement of the notal ridges is a distinguishing feature of A. californica . He thought that the ridges ‘start at middle, passing outwards and backwards at an acute angle with the mid-dorsal line’. However, the dorsal ridges of the specimens we examined lie parallel to the midline and mantle edge. Marcus (1961) thought that, because Bergh in his original description (1890) of A. californica did not mention oblique dorsal ridges, then this was not a distinguishing feature of this species. Marcus thought that O’Donoghue actually examined specimens of A. columbiana . The specimen we examined from the Gulf of Alaska matches the descriptions by Cooper (1863) and Marcus (1961) except for one notable difference. The Alaskan specimen has none of the ‘claw-like’ type of radular teeth that Marcus noted. The ‘brush-like’ lateral teeth are present, however. Marcus (1961) thought that the specimens examined by Bergh (1904) were actually A. columbiana O’Donoghue, 1924 because of the predominance of brush-like denticles. The presence of brush-like or claw-like denticles varies within this species and A. columbiana should remain as a synonym of A. californica .