Hexabranchus sanguineus
Creators: name: Valdés, Ángel
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2002
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Mollusca
Gastropoda
Nudibranchia
Hexabranchidae
Hexabranchus
Hexabranchus sanguineus

description: HEXABRANCHUS SANGUINEUS (CUVIER, 1804)
(FIGS 13, 14)
Doris lacera Cuvier, 1804: 452, 453–465, 473, pl. 73, figs 1–3 (nomen oblitum).
Doris sanguinea Rüppell & Leuckart, 1830: 30–31, pl. 1, fig. 1 (nomen protectum).
Hexabranchus praetextus Ehrenberg, 1828 –31 [1831]: 30–31, pl. 1, fig. 1A–C.
Heptabranchus burnettii A. Adams, 1848: 494.
Aethedoris indica Abraham, 1877: 237.
Albania formosa Collingwood, 1881: 133, pl. 10, figs 1– 5.
Only the type species of synonyms of Hexabranchus are listed here; for a complete list of synonyms see Thompson (1972).
Type material
Doris lacera Cuvier, SYNTYPES: Indian Ocean (= Mer des Indes), date and exact locality unknown, two specimens, 30 and 76 mm preserved length, dissected (MNHN). Hexabranchus praetextus Ehrenberg, SYNTYPE: El Tûr (= Tor), Egypt, date unknown, one specimen, 125 mm preserved length (MNHB 566). SYNTYPE: El Tûr (= Tor), Egypt, date unknown, one specimen, 110 mm preserved length, partially dissected (MNHB 567). The holotypes of Heptabranchus burnettii (originally collected from Borneo), Aethedoris indica (originally collected from Madras, India) and Albania formosa (originally collected from Ke-lung, Formosa) could not be located at BMNH and are probably lost. The type material of other synonyms of Hexabranchus has not been traced.
Additional material
Reef near Hotel Coelacanth, North end of Moroni, Grand Comore Island, Mozambique Channel, 6 March 1975, one specimen, 104 mm preserved length, leg. S. Earle and A. Giddings (CASIZ 068296). Tire Reef, 2 km north of Mora Mora Village, Madagascar, 9 April 1989, two specimens, 94–100 mm preserved length, leg. T. M. Gosliner (CASIZ 071897).
External morphology
The external morphology and behaviour of this species have been widely described. Thompson (1972) and Gohar & Soliman (1963) found wide chromatic variation.
The general colour of the living animals is very variable. It normally varies from pale orange to bright red. In some specimens there is a number of small white or yellowish dots on some areas or on the entire dorsum. Other specimens have large bright red or pinkish spots, or a pale concentric band. Sometimes the mantle margin is surrounded by a yellow line. The rhinophores are red to yellowish, with white spots in some specimens. The gill has normally the same colour as the dorsum, with the rachises of the branchial leaves white or yellowish. The dorsum is smooth. There are 7–9 tripinnate, non-retractile branchial leaves. The anal papilla is prominent, situated in the centre of the branchial circle of leaves. The rhinophores are elongate, having 45 lamellae in a 100-mm preserved length specimen.
Ventrally there are two large, flattened and lobate oral tentacles (Fig. 13F). The anterior border of the foot is simple.
Anatomy
The posterior end of the glandular portion of the oral tube has 18 strong retractor muscles (Fig. 13E) which attach to the body wall. The oval, muscular buccal bulb has several additional muscles attached together; two long and wide salivary glands connect with it at each side of the oesophageal junction. The buccal bulb is three times longer than the glandular portion of the oral tube. The labial cuticle is completely covered with simple rodlets (Fig. 14D). The radular formula is 36 ¥ 77.0. 77 in a 100-mm long specimen. Rachidian teeth are absent. The lateral teeth are narrow and elongate, having a single cusp and lacking denticles (Fig. 14A). The teeth from the middle portion of the half-row are larger than those closer to the medial portion of the radula (Fig. 14B). The outermost teeth are smaller and also lack denticles (Fig. 14C).
The ampulla is very long and convoluted. It branches into a short oviduct and the prostatic portion of the deferent duct (Fig. 13C). The oviduct enters the female gland mass near to its centre. There is no differentiated prostate, but a long, folded and tubular deferent duct (Fig. 13B). The prostatic region of the deferent duct expands into the huge ejaculatory portion, which opens into a short common atrium with the vagina. The vagina is long and wide. Near to its proximal end it joins the bursa copulatrix. From the bursa copulatrix leads another duct that connects to the uterine duct and the seminal receptacle. The bursa copulatrix is rounded in shape and several times larger than the elongate seminal receptacle (Fig. 13B).
In the central nervous system (Fig. 13D) the cerebral and pleural ganglia are fused and distinct from the pedal ganglia. The cerebral and pleural ganglia are entirely covered with large ganglionic tubercles. There are three cerebral nerves leading from each cerebral ganglion and two pleural nerves leading from each pleural ganglion. There is no separate abdominal ganglion on the right side of the visceral loop. The buccal ganglia are near to the rest of the central nervous system, joined to the cerebral ganglia by two relatively short nerves. Gastro-oesophageal, rhinophoral and optical ganglia are present. The pedal ganglia are clearly separated, having four nerves leading from each one. The pedal and parapedal commissures are enveloped together with the visceral loop.
The circulatory system (Fig. 13A) consists of a large heart and a single large blood gland situated beneath the central nervous system.
Remarks
First Eliot (1910) and then Thompson (1972) considered that most of the nominal species assigned to the genus Hexabranchus are synonyms. Only the Atlantic Hexabranchus mormosus Marcus & Marcus, 1962 was dubiously regarded as a different species for biogeographical reasons. The arguments of Eliot and Thompson are convincing, but despite the latter’s suggestion that Doris sanguinea Rüppell & Leuckart, 1830 has priority over other synonyms, the name Doris lacera Cuvier, 1804 is much older and must be the valid name for the Indo-Pacific species of Hexabranchus. A re-examination of the syntypes of Doris lacera confirmed they are conspecific with Hexabranchus sanguineus. Doris lacera has been ignored by all authors dealing with Hexabranchus. According to Article 23.9.1 (ICZN, 1999), if a senior synonym has not been used as a valid name since 1899, and its junior synonym has been used for the same species in at least 25 papers, published by at least 10 authors in the immediately preceding 50 years and encompassing a span not less than 10 years, the usage of the junior synonym must be maintained. The name D. lacera has only been used as valid in its original description in 1804, whereas the name H. sanguineus is in constant usage in the literature. More than 30 papers, books and field guides using the name H. sanguineus as valid have been published during the last 20 years by more than 15 authors. Therefore, the name H. sanguineus is here conserved (nomen protectum) and H. lacer is regarded as invalid (nomen oblitum).
The type species of other synonymous generic names: Hexabranchus praetextus Ehrenberg, 1828, Heptabranchus burnettii A. Adams, 1848 and Aethedoris indica Abraham, 1877, are also regarded as synonyms of Hexabranchus sanguineus.
description: Published as part of Valdés, Ángel, 2002, A phylogenetic analysis and systematic revision of the cryptobranch dorids (Mollusca, Nudibranchia, Anthobranchia), pp. 535-636 in Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 136 (4) on pages 561-562, DOI: 10.1046/j.1096-3642.2002.00039.x, http://zenodo.org/record/4634200