Trinity College Trinity College Digital Repository Faculty Scholarship 2-2013 Second addendum to the synoptic review of red algal genera Craig W. Schneider Trinity College, [email protected] Michael J. Wynne University of Michigan - Ann Arbor Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalrepository.trincoll.edu/facpub Part of the Biology Commons DOI 10.1515/bot-2012-0235 Botanica Marina 2013; 56(2): 111–118 Review Craig W. Schneider * and Michael J. Wynne Second addendum to the synoptic review of red algal genera Abstract: A second addendum to Schneider and Wynne ’ s The flood of new data coming in from the gene-sequence (Schneider, C.W. and M.J. Wynne. 2007. A synoptic review analyses is not only revealing the cases where some genera of the classification of red algal genera a half a century need to be split up and where others were cases of cryptic- after Kylin’s “Die Gattungen der Rhodophyceen”. Bot. speciation but also where some genera and even families Mar. 50: 197–249.) “ Synoptic review ” of red algal genera have been placed in orders where they clearly no longer and their classification is presented, with an updating of belong. The red algal tree of life depicted by Verbruggen names of new taxa at the generic level and higher. In the et al. (2010 , figure 2), reconstructed using the Bayesian past few years, the hierarchy of some genera has changed phylogenetic inference of DNA data mined from GenBank, due to new subfamilies, which are cited and referenced reveals a contemporary view of our current understand- below. There have also been the descriptions of some ing of the classification in the red algae at the class, sub- higher taxa in the past few years. class, order, and family levels. Their tree includes some taxa ( Atractophora , Calosiphoniaceae, Inkyuleeaceae, and Keywords: classification; genera; Kylin; red algae; Peyssonneliaceae), in which their traditional assignments Rhodoplantae. are not supported by the present gene-sequence data. With regard to the current realignment and descrip- tions of the many red algal genera due to molecular phy- *Corresponding author : Craig W. Schneider , Department of Biology , logenetics, it is worthwhile to refer to the ongoing discus- Trinity College, Hartford, CT 16106, USA, e-mail: [email protected] Michael J. Wynne: Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology sion of the reliability of obtaining a DNA sequence data and Herbarium , University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA from the “ archival ” red algae. On one hand, some workers have questioned how successful the DNA extraction and sequencing can be for specimens older than about a dozen years (Saunders and McDevit 2012 ). On the other hand, Introduction other workers claim that the protocols have been suc- cessfully devised for the sequencing of the genes from the Gene sequencing and the resulting construction of phy- specimens going back into the early 19 th century (Hughey logenetic trees continue to add to our knowledge of red and Gabrielson 2012 ). Confirmation of the results from the algal genera and the classification of the Rhodophyta. archival specimens with the DNA obtained from the recent Such molecular-based phylogenies often have shown the collections from the same type localities should assist in need to recognize segregate entities, at times necessitat- resolving these questions. ing the description of new genera or the resurrection of older generic names that had come to be treated as tax- onomic synonyms using criteria based on the classical morphology and reproduction. Following the publication Format of the list of Schneider and Wynne ’ s (2007) “ Synoptic review … of red algal genera, ” and our first addendum to it (Wynne The same format that was employed in the previous and Schneider 2010 ), additional changes have appeared, synoptic review and the first addendum (Schneider and leading us to issue this second addendum. Furthermore, Wynne 2007 , Wynne and Schneider 2010 ) is followed in we continue to find obscure valid names that we had over- this second addendum. All the genera established after looked in the synoptic review. We will periodically provide Kylin (1956) and added here have the authorities who further addenda as sufficient new published information described them, as well as the year and page of the pro- on red algal genera and classification appears. tolog printed in bold face along with the proper names. Brought to you by | Trinity College Hartford Authenticated | 157.252.133.51 Download Date | 10/7/13 10:21 AM 112 C.W. Schneider and M.J. Wynne: Synopsis addendum 2 The “ References ” section contains the literature cited for Family Erythrotrichiaceae the protologs of the genera since Wynne and Schneider Erythrotrichia Aresch. 1850: 435. nom. cons. (2010) , as well as that not covered by Kylin (1956) and Note: Zuccarello et al. (2011) showed that Erythrotrichia Schneider and Wynne (2007) . sensu lato comprised at least seven well-supported infra- generic lineages, and the authors recognized the difficulty Kingdom Plantae of linking these genetic groupings with the more than Phylum Rhodophyta two dozen species names currently associated with the Subphylum Rhodellophytina genus. They observed that the morphology and, at times, Class Rhodellophyceae overlapping geographic locations of their isolates were Order Dixoniellales not useful in tying these cryptic species to the historical Family Dixoniellaceae binomials. Two species of Erythrotrichia were transferred Note: Wynne and Schneider (2010) considered this family to Porphyrostromium . a synonym of the Glaucosphaeraceae based upon the rule of nomenclatural priority. Since then, however, the Subphylum Eurhodophytina Glaucosphaeraceae was emended by Scott et al. (2011 , Class Bangiophyceae 2012) to include only Glaucosphaera and transferred to Order Bangiales the new order Glaucosphaerales [below]. This realign- Family Bangiaceae ment of the Glaucosphaeraceae excluded Dixoniella and P o r p h y r a C. Agardh 1824: xxxii, 190. nom. cons. Neorhodella from the family, allowing the resurrection Note: Several genera have, over the years, been subsumed of the Dixoniellaceae to accommodate them (Scott et al. under the speciose Porphyra (Schneider and Wynne 2007 , 2011 , 2012). Wynne and Schneider 2010 ). With the advances of molec- ular genetics in taxonomy, the workers have begun to find distinctions of the species at the generic level, and two Bulboplastis Kushibiki, A. Yokoyama, M. Iwataki, J.A. genera (see below) with a large number of taxa have been West e t Y. Hara 2012: 116. resurrected for the genetic groupings that segregate them Note: Bulboplastis was considered a member of the Dixo- from Porphyra (Sutherland et al. 2011 ). niellaceae when described by Kushibiki et al. (2012) , and it would remain there given its phylogenetic association Boreophyllum S.C. Lindstr., N. Kikuchi, M. Miyata et with Dixoniella and Neorhodella despite Glaucosphaera Neefus in Sutherland et al. 2011 : 1140. being segregated into its own order (Scott et al. 2012 ). Clymene W.A. Nelson in Sutherland et al. 2011 : 1138. Order Glaucosphaerales E.C. Yang, J.L. Scott, S.Y. Yoon Fuscifolium S.C. Lindstr. in Sutherland et al. 2011 : e t J.A. West 2012: 71. 1139. Note: The initial proposal by Yang et al. in Scott et al. Lysithea W.A. Nelson in Sutherland et al. 2011 : 1139. (2011) to establish this order was not valid due to the lack of the Latin diagnosis and designation of the type family. Miuraea N. Kikuchi, S. Arai, G. Yoshida, J.A. Shin et The requirement for a Latin diagnosis lapsed beginning M. Miyata in Sutherland et al. 2011 : 1137. January 1, 2012, and so Yang et al. in Scott et al. (2012) , Pyropia J. Agardh 1899: 149. with a diagnosis in English, later validated the name of Note: Formerly considered a taxonomic synonym of the order and designated the type family to be the Glau- Porphyra (Wynne and Schneider 2010 ), this genus was cosphaeraceae Skuja (1954). resurrected for more than 75 species, leaving it as the most speciose genus in the Bangiales (Sutherland et al. Class Porphyridiophyceae 2011 ). Order Porphyridiales Family Porphyridiaceae Wildemania G. De Toni 1890: 144, 148. Timspurckia E.C. Yang, J.L. Scott e t J.A. West 2010: 606. Synonym: Diploderma Kjellm. (1893) nom. illeg. (non Link 1816) Subphylum Metarhodophytina Note: Wildemania was resurrected by Sutherland et al. Class Compsopogonophyceae (2011) from Porphyra where it was considered a taxonomic Order Erythropeltidales synonym (Schneider and Wynne 2007 ). Brought to you by | Trinity College Hartford Authenticated | 157.252.133.51 Download Date | 10/7/13 10:21 AM C.W. Schneider and M.J. Wynne: Synopsis addendum 2 113 Class Florideophyceae between Art. 60.1, which states that “ The original spell- Subcl ass Hildenbrandiophycidae ing of a name or epithet is to be retained, ” and Recom- Order Nemaliales mendation 60B.1(a), which states that for a generic name Family Liagoraceae derived from a surname ending in a vowel, the letter “ -a ” Neoizziella S.-M. Lin, S.-Y. Yuan et Huisman 2011: 253. is added, except for a name ending in “ -a, ” in which case “ -ea ” is added. We accede to the Article rather than the Macrocarpus S.-M. Lin, S.-Y. Yuan et Huisman 2011: Recommendation and, thus, accept Segawa ’ s (1955) origi- 258. nal spelling. Note: Lin et al. (2011) based Macrocarpus on Liagora per- ennis I.A. Abbott. Ellisolandia K. Hind et G.W. Saunders 2013: 109. Note: This segregate genus was based on Corallina elon- Sinocladia C.K. Tseng et W. Li 2005: 53 [Chinese], 163 gata J. Ellis et Solander (Hind and Saunders 2013 ). [Latin]. Note: Zeng (Tseng) et al. (2005) placed their new genus Johansenia K. Hind et G.W. Saunders 2013: 111. in the Dermonemataceae, a family considered by most Note: This segregate genus was based on Serraticardia workers as a synonym of the Liagoraceae (Huisman 2006 ). macmillanii (Yendo) P.C.