Watersipora Neviani, 1895

Ryland, John S., Blauwe, Hans De, Lord, Richard & Mackie, Joshua A., 2009, Recent discoveries of alien Watersipora (Bryozoa) in Western Europe, with redescriptions of species, Zootaxa 2093, pp. 43-59 : 52-54

Genus Watersipora Neviani, 1895 ( Cheilostomatida : Smittoidea: Watersiporidae )

Diagnosis. Colonies encrusting, uni- to multilaminar, or suberect to erect, bilaminar; autozooids with an evenly perforated, often transparent, frontal shield with the compensation sac (ascus) below it ( Hyman 1959, figure 120D, E); a pair of small areolar septula, each multiporous, positioned beside the orifice, also appear to be a generic character; vertical walls perforated by large, multiporous rosette plates (septula). Primary orifice often sinusoid, with prominent condyles (cardellae); no spines. Opercula with straight or curving, lengthwise sclerites, often darkly pigmented (especially between the sclerites); sometimes with a pair of internal proximobasal knobs showing from above as translucent spots (lucidae). No avicularia. No external ovicells; each embryo brooded in a distally situated internal embryo sac ( Waters 1909, pl. 15, 4). Ancestrula oval in outline, with the form of later zooids.

Type species. Lepralia cucullata Busk, 1854 .

2.0 1.9 R2

K35

) R3

2 S17 1.8

1000 M25 K9 K44 S5 (area 1.7 M15 S M 1 35 K3 S7 orifice 1.6 M68 K18 S11 S3 M5 S8 Log S6 M65 S12 R1 S10 S4 S9

S2 M70 S14

1.5 R4 S13 S15

M55 S16

1.4 S 18 Remarks: There is a long-standing problem with the usage of the name W. subovoidea . This problem stems from Harmer (1957), who observed that “ Cellepora ovoidea Audouin, 1826 [renamed Cellepora subovoidea by d’Orbigny (1852) because C. ovoidea was a preoccupied name], seems to be a synonym of the species commonly described as Lepralia cucullata [Busk, 1854]”. Evidently applying the Principle of Priority (International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature [ ICZN] 1999), Harmer reverted to the earlier name. This was unfortunate for, although workers had muddled the identity of L. cucullata , Busk’s species could be clearly established by his Aegean Sea type specimen, whereas Audouin’s species is unrecognizable. It was described by Audouin from a picture by Savigny (1817, pl. 8, fig. 1, no text), which has subsequently been reproduced by Soule (1976) and more recently by d’Hondt (2006). It may reasonably be assumed to represent a Watersipora but is too stylized to allow association with any particular species. Its undisclosed locality is presumably the Egyptian coast of either the eastern Mediterranean or the Red Sea (then, of course, not connected by the Suez Canal).

The identity of Busk’s L. cucullata is, as explained, clear, following the account of Hastings (1930), irrespective of possible misidentifications in other parts of the world. The species is the one common throughout the entire Mediterranean basin ( Gautier 1962, unillustrated; Ryland 1965, with line drawings; Zabala 1986, including Ryland’s fig. 33d; Zabala & Maluquer 1988, unillustrated; Hayward & McKinney 2002, with SEMs). These authors have accepted Harmer’s (1957) synonymy and have used W. subovoidea in the sense of W. cucullata (Busk) . In the interests of nomenclatural stability we believe that the best solution is to designate Busk’s Aegean Sea specimen, NHM 1854.11.15.189, as the neotype of W. subovoidea (d’Orbigny) in accordance with Article 75.3 of the International Code ( ICZN 1999). W. cucullata and W. subovoidea thus become objective synonyms and priority dictates that the latter should be the name used. Existing usage of the name subovoidea is thereby stabilized and the designation ‘ W. subovoidea sensu Ryland (1974) ’ becomes un-necessary.

Lepralia complanata Norman (1864) , currently placed in Watersipora ( Hayward & Ryland 1999) , with a campanulate orifice, does not appear obviously congeneric with the arcuata / subovoidea / subtorquata group, to which the type species belongs.