The set of skeletal characters of the Recent azooxanthellate coral Guynia annulata Duncan, 1872 is unique among extant scleractinians and encompasses: (a) undifferentiated septal calcification centers (in most extant scleractinians calcification centers are clearly separated); (b) completely smooth septal faces (septa of almost all extant scleractinians bear granular ornamentation); (c) deeply recessed septa in respect to the epithecal rim in the adult coralla (in adults of the majority of extant scleractinians the relationships between septa and wall are the reverse); and (d) an aseptal part of the initial ontogenetic stage, just above the basal plate (almost all known scleractinians have a septate initial coralla). Skeletal features of five other extant traditional guyniids are typical of other caryophylliines (and of Scleractinia). However, the wall types present in different species of traditional guyniids exceed limits traditionally attributed to one caryophylliine family: i.e., Stenocyathus and Truncatoguynia have a marginothecal wall like the Flabellidae, whereas Schizocyathus and Temnotrochus usually have an entirely epithecal wall, as in Gardineriidae (Volzeioidea). Moreover, Pourtalocyathus and Schizocyathus show intraspecific variation in distribution of septal calcification centers (separated vs. non-separated) and in wall types (epithecal vs. consisting of large spherulite-like bodies). These major differences in skeletal architecture form the basis for a new, threefold taxonomical subdivision of the traditional guyniids: (1) Guyniidae Hickson, 1910, containing only monospecific Guynia with an epithecal wall, and septa with non-separated calcification centers; (2) Schizocyathidae fam.n., groups Microsmilia Schizocyathus, Pourtalocyathus, Temnotrochus, which have an epithecal wall and septa with usually well-separated calcification centers; and (3) Stenocyathidae fam.n. with Stenocyathus and Truncatoguynia which have a marginothecal wall and septa with well-separated calcification centers. Despite differences in the basic architecture of the skeleton, all taxa attributed to these families have ‘thecal pores’ formed by selective dissolution of the skeleton. I propose two hypotheses for evolutionary relationships among Guyniidae, Schizocyathidae, and Stenocyathidae: (1) Hypothesis A: the three families are not phylogenetically related and ‘pores’ originated independently in different scleractinian lineages: e.g., Guyniidae may represent distant zardinophyllid or gigantostyliid descendants, Schizocyathidae may be a volzeioid offshoot, whereas Stenocyathidae may be a flabellid descendant; (2) Hypothesis B: the three families are phylogenetically related and ‘thecal pores’ are synapomorphic for the clade (superfamily Guynioidea). Additional approaches, such as anatomical observations, molecular studies on guyniid DNA sequences, and in-depth studies on scleractinian biomineralization will be necessary to test these hypotheses.
Read full abstract