{"id":17585,"date":"2015-01-18T17:55:59","date_gmt":"2015-01-18T16:55:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/opistobranquis.info\/?page_id=17585"},"modified":"2019-01-04T12:55:08","modified_gmt":"2019-01-04T11:55:08","slug":"baenopsis-baetica","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/opistobranquis.info\/en\/guia\/nudibranchia\/aeolidioidea\/baenopsis-baetica\/","title":{"rendered":"Baenopsis baetica"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/p>\n

Baenopsis\u00a0<\/em>baetica<\/em>\u00a0(Garc\u00eda G\u00f3mez, 1984)<\/h3>\n

\"Baenopsis<\/div>
Baenopsis baetica @ Tarifa (Spain)<\/em> by Manuel Mart\u00ednez Chac\u00f3n<\/center><\/span>

<\/p>

WoRMS Taxonomic Information<\/h3>
Current accepted name: Baenopsis baetica<\/em> (Garc\u00eda-G\u00f3mez, 1984)<\/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>Flabellinopsidae<\/a><\/td><\/tr>
Genus<\/th>Baenopsis<\/em><\/a><\/td><\/tr>
Species<\/th>Baenopsis baetica<\/em> (Garc\u00eda-G\u00f3mez, 1984)<\/a><\/td><\/tr><\/table>

Classification provided by the World Register of Marine Species (WoRMS). [1047764<\/a>]<\/p><\/div>

Taxonomic note<\/strong>: The classification of the Flabellinidae had remained fairly stable until in 2017 a series of works appeared (Furfaro et al., 2017; Korshunova et al., 2017) that intended to clarify the status of the Flabellinidae family. The main objective of the paper by Furfaro et al. was to molecularly characterize the Mediterranean species while the paper by Korshunova et al. wanted to delve into the phylogenetic relationships between various members of the Flabellinidae family and the other families of aeolidaceans.
Both works were based on the combination of molecular and morphological techniques and, in fact, do not offer very different results, but differ on the size and origin of the studied samples and, mainly, on the interpretation of the results. After the appearance of the paper by Furfaro et al., many Mediterranean species of the genera Calmella<\/i>, Flabellina<\/i> and Piseinotecus<\/i> were grouped under the common genusFlabellina<\/i>, but had certain problems with some species that did not fit well with the proposed classification (e.g,Flabellina babai<\/i>) , discovered that the Mediterranean and Atlantic populations ofFlabellina ischitana<\/i> correspond to two different cryptic species, and noted the problems of the cryptic group formed by Calmella cavolini<\/i> \/ Flabellina confusa<\/i> \/ Piseinotecus gaditanus<\/i>, indicating the need for further studies to clarify their status.
Curiously, these studies were being carried out practically in parallel by the group of Korshunova et al. but on a much wider sample of species that included specimens from the Arctic, North Atlantic, Pacific and Indian Oceans. This second paper confirms the polyphily of the family Flabellinidae, but the interpretation of these results becomes a real revolution for the taxonomy of the aeolidaceans, especially for the family Flabellinidae.
Both papers show that there are two well differentiated clades (groups) in the Flabellinidae: species like Coryphella pedata <\/i>and similars, with cerata that come directly from the back, and species like Flabellina affinis <\/i>and similars, with cerata of each group coming from a stalk or pod. Although Furfaro et al. consider the species of both clades belonging to the genusFlabellina <\/i>within the family Flabellinidae, Korshunova et al. distinguishes two families: Coryphellidae and Flabellinidae sensu stricto, also creating many different genera in these families to include the species they study. Its taxonomic proposal, curiously, solves the problems found by Furfaro et al.
In a way, both papers complement to each other, although in the paper by Korshunova et al. it is evident the lack of studies on tropical flabellinid species and those from southern America and Africa, so the subject has not been settled. The proposal to create new genera to collect small groups of species, instead of multispecific genera, seems to be the trend in some of the phylogenetic works of recent years. A detailed discussion of this exciting controversy can be found at (https:\/\/opistobranquis.info\/en\/flabellinidae\/<\/a>).<\/p>This species was originally described with the name\u00a0Flabellina baetica<\/em>. The author (Garc\u00eda-G\u00f3mez, 1984) already indicates in the description of the species the unusual nature of the rhinophores for the genus, but due to other morphological and anatomical characters prefers to ascribe the species to the Flabellina<\/em> genus rather than creating a new one for it. In the phylogenetic tree provided by Furfaro et al. (2018, online September 2017) this species is well separated from the two clades in which the species of the genus Flabellina<\/em> are distributed, an indication that it may not be a species of this genus and neither belongs to the family Flabellinidae. Korshunova et al. (2017), based on molecular data, create a new family Flabellinopsidae to include the genus Flabellinopsis<\/em> MacFarland, 1966 with the species of the North Pacific F. iodinea<\/em>, and a new genus Baenopsis<\/em> in which they include the species Flabellina baetica<\/em>, which is now known as Baenopsis baetica<\/em> (Garc\u00eda-G\u00f3mez, 1984).<\/p>\n

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