{"id":15798,"date":"2014-10-13T19:26:03","date_gmt":"2014-10-13T17:26:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/opistobranquis.info\/?page_id=15798"},"modified":"2025-04-10T16:14:33","modified_gmt":"2025-04-10T14:14:33","slug":"catriona-aurantia","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/opistobranquis.info\/en\/guia\/nudibranchia\/fionoidea\/catriona-aurantia\/","title":{"rendered":"Catriona aurantia"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/p>\n

Catriona aurantia <\/em>(Alder & Hancock, 1842)<\/h3>\n

\"Catriona<\/div>
Catriona aurantia<\/em> by Klas Malmberg<\/center><\/span>

<\/p>

WoRMS Taxonomic Information<\/h3>
Current accepted name: Catriona aurantia<\/em> (Alder & Hancock, 1842)<\/strong><\/div>

Current classification<\/h4>
Superdomain<\/th>Biota<\/a><\/td><\/tr>
Kingdom<\/th>Animalia<\/a><\/td><\/tr>
Phylum<\/th>Mollusca<\/a><\/td><\/tr>
Class<\/th>Gastropoda<\/a><\/td><\/tr>
Subclass<\/th>Heterobranchia<\/a><\/td><\/tr>
Infraclass<\/th>Euthyneura<\/a><\/td><\/tr>
Subterclass<\/th>Ringipleura<\/a><\/td><\/tr>
Superorder<\/th>Nudipleura<\/a><\/td><\/tr>
Order<\/th>Nudibranchia<\/a><\/td><\/tr>
Suborder<\/th>Aeolidina<\/a><\/td><\/tr>
Superfamily<\/th>Fionoidea<\/a><\/td><\/tr>
Family<\/th>Trinchesiidae<\/a><\/td><\/tr>
Genus<\/th>Catriona<\/em><\/a><\/td><\/tr>
Species<\/th>Catriona aurantia<\/em> (Alder & Hancock, 1842)<\/a><\/td><\/tr><\/table>

Classification provided by the World Register of Marine Species (WoRMS). [156699<\/a>]<\/p><\/div>

Taxonomic note<\/strong>: The phylogenetic analyses performed by Cella et al. (2016) revealed that the traditional Tergipedidae family is polyphyletic and belongs to a larger monophyletic clade including members of the traditional families Eubranchidae, Fionidae and Calmidae; this was an unexpected result, since the validity of these taxa and their distinctness from the Tergipedidae was never questioned before. They proposed to join the families Tergipedidae, Eubranchidae, Calmidae and Fionidae under the name of Fionidae. Within Fionidae, obtained results demonstrated the need of developing a new classification as previous classifications (for instance, separating Catriona<\/i>, Cuthona<\/i> and Trinchesia<\/i> as distinct taxa) were inconsistent with the resulting phylogeny. Analyses also recover a clade (Tenellia<\/i>) that includes all members of the genera Tenellia<\/i>, Trinchesia<\/i>, Phestilla<\/i>, Catriona<\/i> and the majority of described and undescribed Cuthona<\/i> species. New genera Rubramoena<\/i>, Abronica<\/i> and Tergiposacca<\/i> are proposed to group other species. This molecular study also suggests that Fionidae is rich in cryptic species complexes, difficult to separate by traditional taxonomic characters, and a great previously undetected species diversity.
A few months later Korshunova et al. (2017) take up the study of the phylogeny of the Tergipedidae and using not only molecular data but also morphological and ontogenetic data they severely criticise the work by Cella et al. (2016), proposing to reinstate the families Calmidae, Eubranchidae, Fionidae, Tergipedidae, Cuthonidae, Cuthonellidae and Trinchesiidae, the latter being the most abundant in specific taxa. They also reinstate the genera Catriona<\/i>, Diaphoreolis<\/i>, Phestilla<\/i> and Trinchesia<\/i> that in the paper by Cella et al. (2016) had been included in the genus Tenellia<\/i>. Korshunova et al. also describe a new genus, Zelentia<\/i> that includes Z. pustulata<\/i> (type species Eolis pustulata<\/i>Alder & Hancock, 1854), Z. fulgens<\/i> (MacFarland, 1966) and a new species from the Barents Sea, Z. ninel<\/i>, indicating important p-distances among the three species (between 10.49% and 13.83%). All previous genera, Korshunova et al. (2017) consider them within the family Trinchesiidae. They also question the validity of the Rubramoena<\/i> genus of Cella et al.
The position of WoRMS is conservative, maintaining the families Cuthonidae, Calmidae, Cuthonellidae, Eubranchidae, Fionidae, Pseudovermidae, Tergipedidae and Trinchesiidae within the superfamily Fionoidea. The European species that, until recently, were considered as Cuthona<\/i>, WoRMS considers them within the genus Trinchesia<\/i>, as T.albopunctata<\/i>, T.caerulea<\/i>, T.foliata<\/i>, T.genovae<\/i>, T.granosa<\/i>, T.ilonae<\/i>, T.miniostriata<\/i> and T.ocellata<\/i>. Rubramoena<\/i> is also considered a valid genus in WoRMS. These opinions are those that we accept in OPK while no other more conclusive data are available.<\/p>Schmekel & Portmann (1982) and Thompson & Brown (1984) incorrectly classed Catriona aurantia<\/em> as a synonym of Catriona gymnota<\/em> (Couthouy, 1838), which lives in the NW Atlantic from Cape Cod to Newfoundland. Other authors subsequently repeated this error. Molecular sequencing showed them to be distinct separate species (Korshunova et al., 2017)..<\/p>\n

Synonyms<\/strong><\/p>\n