This is the entity page showing aggregated messages and images for the named entity.
Gosliner & R.F. Johnson, 1999
Harald Schottner Roy Arthur David Lontoh Hypselodoris bollandi?
Ning Chang OMG!! Where did you find this guy!!!
Harald Schottner @Ning, did it on the philippines in the bay of puerto galera. Mindoro OR Island. Shot with canon eos 5d, macor 100, 2.8 L IS in hugyphot housing with 2 ikelite 160 ds substrobes
Ning Chang Nice!!gotta check this place out soon...
Ken Thongpila Cute Nudi and nice shot Harald Schottner
Sven Kahlbrock some Hypselodoris spec. very nice one
Harald Schottner thanks for the complements guys
Erwin Koehler Yes, this is
Hypselodoris bollandi.
Orietta Rivolta Risbecia pulchella ???
Kilifi,Kenya
April 2012
Jeff Rosenfeld I'm thinking it's
Hypselodoris bollandi Gosliner & Johnson, 1999. See http://www.nudipixel.net/photo/00011986/
Ashley Missen Looks like one
Orietta Rivolta Thanks Jeff
Ashley Missen Still Reckon it
Risbecia pulchella as the Risbecia has more gill branches like this one the Hypselodoris tend to have less and are more stuck out from the body at the base of the gills -- How big was it
Gary Cobb Definitely
Risbecia pulchella (Ruppell & Leuckart, 1828)
Orietta Rivolta Thanks for the explanation __B- )
Ashley Missen Your welcome
Gary Cobb Hey Ash don't get too carried away with morphology...in the new paper this species is moved to Hypselodoris!! In our opinion the paper is incomplete and there are a lot of errors. This being the case, I will not change anything until all the species are valid. The new Nudibranch ID Australia / New Zealand App is uploaded to iTunes and is awaiting review!
Jeff Rosenfeld Gary, I'm curious as to what in their paper you consider to be in error.
Blogie Robillo Me too
Gary Cobb Hi guys I'm glad you asked!
In my opinion and from what I have heard from other acedmics is that when the paper was 'completed' a more thorough proof reading should have been done! Please don't get me wrong, this work is very important and a first. It is helping to right a lot of wrongs in our nudibranch taxonomy. However with a paper of this magnitude, all the work should have been completed before submitting.
Firstly, there are a few species with the wrong author and date in Table 2. And I can't understand why the authors of this paper would 'hypothesize' all the species they did, they are to be changed or they aren't. Guessing is not a good enough reason to make changes.
Another issue I have is the use of single 'quotes' are they valid changes or not? And if not why include them in this paper?
There have been changes to the species side of the names as well, due to gender. I was under the impression that this could not be done. Once a name has been given to a new species it must stay, or so I thought!
Keep in mind that this paper presents alot of work to authors of Apps, books and websites. If half the genus changes are not valid and real why have them.
As for me, I have 3 Nudibranch ID Apps that will need to be revised and a website as well. Before I do this huge amount of work I want to be convinced these changes are real! I will wait until all the work is verified, corrected and accepted by all the taxonomy world. After all we do need this however it has to be right.
Gary Cobb Comments are most welcome to this discussion. Thanks all!
Ashley Missen I Agree Gary - start to have a read today - I think it raised more questions for me
Orietta Rivolta Well done guys,keep it up,I learn a lot from your discussion! Thanks
