Chromodoris luteorosea & C. luteopunctata

February 5, 2001
From: J. Lucas Cervera

Dear Bill,
I was the first to collect C. luteopunctata after its original description by Gantes (1962) from specimens from Temara (Morocco). All my specimens were collected intertidally and the external appearance fits exactly the Gantes' description. In comparing the depth range of both species, I consider that Ch. luteorosea is more common in deeper water, while Ch. luteopunctata is found in shallower waters.

Ortea and Valdes (1992) described a "new" species, Ch. rodomaculata, based on 1 specimen from Canary Islands. However, I'm in agreement with Angel's recent message where he suggests that C. rodomaculata is a junior synonym of C. luteopunctata. Nevertheless, in their paper there is a good comparison between Ch. luteorosea and Ch. luteopunctata (unfortunately in Spanish). Ch. luteopunctata is distributed from the southern Iberian Peninsula, to Madeira and Canary Archipelagos and Moroccan coasts. The problem is that in this area Ch. luteorosea is also found, but its distribution is wider (from northern Iberian peninsula to Eastern Mediterranean, and also to Ghana. Most of the differences between both species are external, but consistent. C. luteorosea has rhinophores and gills lacking a white (bluish-white) puntuation on their surface and there are usually fewer gills than in Ch. luteopunctata. This last species has a branchial tuft with convoluted extremes (similar to Glossodoris) and in C. luteopunctata the tuft is circular.
The edge of the mantle is yellow in Ch. luteorosea. Ch luteopunctata has a similar band, but also an inner blue-sky (sometimes whitish in some areas) band along all the mantle.

The yellow and circular patches of Ch. luteorosea are always bigger and lesser that in Ch. luteopunctata, and allways surrounded by a thin opaque white band. The yellow spots of Ch. luteopunctata can be almost white in the smaller ones or even mix both colors, but never presents the arrangement seen in Ch. luteorosea. The bigger spots in Ch. luteopunctata can appear eroded in its inner part.

if we look at the internal anatomy, probably the most important differences between both specis is the shape of the rachidian tooth: in Ch. luteorosea is much more wide than in Ch. luteopunctata. The other differences stated in Ortea and Valdes' (1992) paper should be taken with careful to distinguish both species (in my view).

There is not much biological information knoen about either species. I think that all this, basically, agrees with the information supplied by Angel in his previous message.

Cheers.
Lucas.

lucas.cervera@uca.es

Cervera, J.L., 2001 (Feb 5) Chromodoris luteorosea & C. luteopunctata. [Message in] Sea Slug Forum. Australian Museum, Sydney. Available from http://www.seaslugforum.net/find/3679

Copyright © Australian Museum, 1998-2010