identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
03CA87E1EA45FF8DFE35BC09FE39500D.text	03CA87E1EA45FF8DFE35BC09FE39500D.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Cocconeis mascarenica Riaux-Gobin & Compere. SV 2008	<div><p>COCCONEIS MASCARENICA COMPLEX AND COCCONEIS SP.</p><p>A small-sized taxon with strong similarities to Cocconeis mascarenica Riaux-Gobin &amp; Compère (2008, figs 33–40, 48–51), here listed as C. cf. mascarenica (Table 2), showed several morphs, i.e. with SV apical rows of areolae (Fig. 12), one apical and marginal row of longer SV areolae (Fig. 10 arrow), and dense (up to 6) and dash-like SV areolae with no particular arrangement (Figs 7, 9, 11). The above mentioned morphs have their valvocopulae devoid of true fimbriae (RVVC, Fig. 8 arrowhead; SVVC, Fig. 11 arrowhead). Note the presence of an RV marginal hyaline rim (Fig. 8 arrow). All these morphs have a largely elliptic valve shape and biometrics similar to what was originally observed (Table 3).</p><p>From a pearl oyster farm in Gatavake Bay (owner Michel Teakarotu), Cocconeis sp. (Table 3, Figs 13–15) was found as subtidal, epizoic on Pinctada margaritifera, also present on ropes lying at the same depth (i.e. 15 m, Rik15). This taxon had small dimensions, an oblong-elliptic to linear valve shape (Figs 13–14), blunt apices, measurements close to that in the C. mascarenica type (Table 3). Cocconeis sp. had short and dense dash-like SV areolae (up to 6 per stria, with no axial alignment), SV hymenes with marginal short slits (Fig. 15), and elliptic SV sternum. Valves measured 8.0–9.4 µm in length and 3.5–4.3 µm in width, with 32–36 SV striae in 10 µm, regularly spaced (no areolae on SV apex), and 39–45 RV striae in 10 µm, regularly spaced, with a marginal hyaline area and low with presence-absence, biotopes and location, presented as ‘supplementary material’.</p><p>Taxon acronym</p><p>Achnanthales</p><p>Achnanthes cf. brevipes Agardh acbre</p><p>Achnanthidium glyphos Riaux-Gobin, Compère &amp; Witkowski acgly</p><p>Achnanthidium glyphos morph acgly2</p><p>Achnanthidium pseudodelicatissimum Riaux-Gobin, Witkowski &amp; Compère acpse</p><p>Achnanthidium sp. aff. Achnanthes fogedii Håkansson acfog</p><p>Amphicocconeis clypeus Riaux-Gobin &amp; Witkowski amcly</p><p>Amphicocconeis cf. mascarenica Riaux-Gobin &amp; Compère ammas</p><p>Amphicocconeis rodriguensis Riaux-Gobin &amp; Al-Handal amrod</p><p>Amphicocconeis ruatara Riaux-Gobin amrua</p><p>Amphicocconeis sp. amsp</p><p>Astartiella sp. assp</p><p>Cocconeis angularipunctata Riaux-Gobin, Romero, Compère &amp; Al-Handal coang</p><p>Cocconeis cf. borbonica Riaux-Gobin &amp; Compère cobor</p><p>Cocconeis carinata Riaux-Gobin, Ector &amp; Witkowski cocar</p><p>Cocconeis coralliensis Riaux-Gobin &amp; Compère cocor</p><p>Cocconeis coronatoides Riaux-Gobin &amp; Romero ‘type’ cocid</p><p>Cocconeis coronatoides discoid morph cocid2</p><p>Cocconeis cupulifera Riaux-Gobin, Romero &amp; Al-Handal cocup</p><p>Cocconeis cf. delapunctata Hohn codel</p><p>Cocconeis cf. diaphana W.Smith codia</p><p>Cocconeis distans Gregory codis</p><p>Cocconeis guttata Hustedt &amp; Aleem cogut</p><p>Cocconeis cf. geometrica Riaux-Gobin, Romero, Compère &amp; Al-Handal cogeo</p><p>Cocconeis heteroidea Hantzsch cohet</p><p>Cocconeis margaritata Riaux-Gobin &amp; Al-Handal comar</p><p>Taxon acronym</p><p>Cocconeis mascarenica Riaux-Gobin &amp; Compère comas</p><p>Cocconeis mascarenica forma conew</p><p>Cocconeis cf. molesta Kützing comol</p><p>Cocconeis paucistriata Riaux-Gobin, Romero, Compère &amp; Al-Handal copau</p><p>Cocconeis peltoides Hustedt copel</p><p>Cocconeis peltoides var. archaeana Riaux-Gobin &amp; Compère coarc</p><p>Cocconeis placentula Ehrenberg complex copla</p><p>Cocconeis pseudodiruptoides Foged copsd</p><p>Cocconeis pseudograta Hustedt copsg</p><p>Cocconeis pseudomarginata Gregory copsm</p><p>Cocconeis santandrea Riaux-Gobin, Witkowski &amp; Bemiasa cosan</p><p>Coccconeis scutellum Ehrenberg coscu</p><p>Cocconeis sigillata Riaux-Gobin &amp; Al-Handal cosig</p><p>Cocconeis suzukii Riaux-Gobin, Compère, Coste, Straub &amp; Taxböck cosuz</p><p>Cocconeis sp. 5 (= sp. 4 in Riaux-Gobin et al. 2015 c) cosp5</p><p>Madinithidium flexuistriatum (Riaux-Gobin, Compère &amp; Witkowski) mafle</p><p>Madinithidium scalariforme (Riaux-Gobin, Compère &amp; Witkowski) masca</p><p>? Majewskaea Van de Vijver, Robert, Witkowski &amp; Bosak maj</p><p>Planothidium cf. delicatulum (Kützing) Round &amp; Bukhtiyarova pldel</p><p>Planothidium mathurinense Riaux-Gobin &amp; Al-Handal plmat</p><p>Planothidium rodriguense Riaux-Gobin &amp; Compère plrod</p><p>Planothidium sp1 oblong without fascia plsp1</p><p>Planothidium sp2 elliptic sternum pls2</p><p>Schizostauron citronella (Mann) Górecka, Riaux-Gobin &amp; Witkowski sccit</p><p>Olifantiella</p><p>Olifantiella cf. rodriguensis Riaux-Gobin olrod</p><p>Olifantiella pilosella Riaux-Gobin olpil</p><p>Olifantiella muscatinei (Reimer &amp; Lee) Van de Vijver, Ector &amp; Wetzel olmus helictoglossae. Figs 17–18 are possibly illustrating the RV of C. sp., with no RV central area, RVVC with undulated edge and no fimbria (Fig. 17 insert, twin arrowheads), but with the SVVC not observed. Cocconeis sp. was rare and observations on several characteristics are still lacking to finalize its exact taxonomic position. This taxon may pertain to the C. mascarenica complex, but with a subtidal ethology. One SV found in Hao (Fig. 16, intertidal locality) had some similarities with the SV of C. sp., but the adjoining RV was not found. There are some similarities between C. sp. and C. neothumensis var. marina De Stefano, Marino &amp; Mazella (De Stefano et al. 2000, Sar et al. 2003), but the latter is less linear, with more acute apices, and RV striae (26 to 32 in 10 µm, ref. cit.) denser than the SV striae (20 to 26 in 10 µm, ref. cit.). Also there are some similarities with the SV of C. coralliensis Riaux-Gobin &amp; Compère 2008, with lower stria density (36–40 in C. coralliensis versus 32–36 in C. sp.), round SV endings (versus sharp in C. coralliensis), a lower number of areolae per stria, no areolae on apices versus areolae perpendicular to the margin on apices in C. coralliensis, and a SV sternum slightly elliptical in C. sp., versus narrow and straight in C. coralliensis . Note that the RV of C. coralliensis has no marginal hyaline area (ref. cit.).</p><p>Remarks: Cocconeis mascarenica (Riaux-Gobin &amp; Compère 2008) was originally compared to C. neodiminuta Krammer &amp; Lange-Bertalot 1991 and to C. neothumensis Krammer 1990, but the RV of C. neothumensis (Krammer 1990, fig. 34) was also attributed to C. neodiminuta (Krammer &amp; Lange-Bertalot 1991, pl. 55, fig. 3). Furthermore, the shape of the SV areolae in C. mascarenica differs from that of C. neodiminuta (ref. cit., pl. 55, fig. 1) in being much shorter, and the SV sternum in C. mascarenica being narrow-straight in place of largely elliptical ones. Note that a picture illustrating C. neothumensis in Krammer (1990, fig. 39) was also used to illustrate C. neodiminuta by Krammer &amp; Lange-Bertalot (1991, pl. 55, fig. 1), causing taxonomic confusion between C. mascarenica and the two latter taxa. Furthermore, the freshwater taxa C. neodiminut a and C. neothumensis have dissimilar RV and SV stria densities, while C. mascarenica has the same stria density on both valves (see discussion in Riaux-Gobin et al. 2018). Also, there are some similarities with the later described C. neothumensis var. marina (De Stefano et al. 2000, figs 53–65), but with differences (see above remarks). In the original description of C. mascarenica off Mascarenes, the taxon demonstrated an obvious phenotypic plasticity, with two morphs described from Rodrigues (morphs 1 and 2 in Riaux-Gobin et al. 2011c). The Cocconeis mascarenica complex probably includes several species that can only be separated via genetics.</p><p>In addition, Cocconeis mascarenica and C. cf. mascarenica and all the above-mentioned morphs present in Mangareva (Tables 2–3, Figs 7–18) have some similarities with C. placentula sensu lato (as referred to by Potapova &amp; Spaulding 2013), but with overall smaller valve dimensions, higher stria densities on both valves, and valvocopulae without conspicuous fimbriae [ C. placentula sensu lato (see ref. cit. above) has 20–24 striae in 10 µm on RV, and 15–25 on SV]. Note that the bibliography of the C. placentula sensu lato complex is complicated, with several new taxa that can only be distinguished through SEM, such as the recently described C. fetscheriana Stancheva (2022, 128). The morphological plasticity in such taxa can also be pro parte imputed to the reproductive stages of the taxon (see Jahn et al. 2020), rendering cultures and genetics essential in definitively splitting taxa.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03CA87E1EA45FF8DFE35BC09FE39500D	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Riaux-Gobin, Catherine;Saenz-Agudelo, Pablo;Coste, Michel;Jordan, Richard W.;Criobe-Uar, René Galzin	Riaux-Gobin, Catherine, Saenz-Agudelo, Pablo, Coste, Michel, Jordan, Richard W., Criobe-Uar, René Galzin (2025): Marine Achnanthales and Olifantiella from the Gambier Archipelago (South Pacific). Micronesica 2025 (1): 1-33, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.16968387
03CA87E1EA48FF8CFECBBF79FE855213.text	03CA87E1EA48FF8CFECBBF79FE855213.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Cocconeis molesta Kutzing. SV 1844	<div><p>COCCONEIS MOLESTA KÜTZING COMPLEX AND COCCONEIS CF. DIAPHANA W. SMITH</p><p>A rare and small epiphytic taxon, with a round-elliptic shape and a reduced RV fascia (Figs 21– 22 twin arrowheads), is closely related to C. dirupta Gregory (see Kobayasi &amp; Nagumo 1985, fig. 19; Riaux-Gobin et al. 2016, figs 35–38), while lacking the characteristic bi-lanceolate large SV sternum, more delicate SV areolae, and denser SV and RV stria (Table 3). Note the strongly sigmoid RV in C. dirupta (refs cit.), while our taxon (Figs 19–22) has helictoglossae only slightly bent in the opposite direction, such as observed in the C. molesta type (Riaux-Gobin et al. 2016). The latter taxon from Mangareva (Figs 19–22) is here provisionally assigned to C. molesta Kützing.</p><p>An oblong-elliptic and relatively large taxon (Figs 23–30, Table 3), was common in the subtidal samples Rik13, Rik15 and Rik16, and characterized by its SV short areolae arranged in a regular decussate pattern, with apical rows arranged along a 135° grid-pattern (Fig. 27, white lines). The open SVVC (Fig. 29, ellipse) has a smooth edge (Fig. 30, arrowhead). The SV sternum is narrow, irregular, concave, with a reduced to absent central area (Fig. 27 arrowhead). SV striae are more or less parallel in median valve and abruptly radiate near the apices (Fig. 28 arrowhead). At the apices, a marginal row of SV areolae are perpendicular to the margin. The RVVC was not observed. The RV fascia is narrow and straight, reaching the margins, and central raphe endings are close to each other (Fig. 24). Helictoglossae slightly curved (Fig. 26). RV areolae present at the apices (Figs 23, 25–26). This taxon is provisionally assigned to C. cf. diaphana Smith 1853 (see Remarks).</p><p>Remarks: The latter taxon (Figs 23–30) has affinities with Cocconeis diaphana Smith var. diaphana, except for a RV fascia reaching both margins, and striae on both valves much denser than in the C. diaphana var. diaphana type (BM 23161, in Riaux-Gobin et al. 2016). We can also compare our images with those illustrating the iso-lectotype of C. diaphana Smith var. diaphana (mica labelled as Cocconeis diaphana n. sp., Jersey, Aug. 14 1852, deposited in the Van Heurck collection in Meise, in Riaux-Gobin et al. 2016, figs 21–26). In the latter taxon, the RV and SV stria densities are also dissimilar, being less dense than in the Mangareva taxon (Table 3). Furthermore, the SV and RV striae (in the iso-lectotype) are often marginally dichotomous while uniseriate until the margin in the Mangareva taxon. The latter also has some affinities with Cocconeis molesta, except for its larger dimensions, oblong shape, and RV fascia expanding up to both margins. Also, there are some affinities with C. molesta var. crucifera Grunow in Van Heurck (1880, pl. 30), as illustrated by Kobayasi &amp; Nagumo (1985, figs 1–12), and by De Stefano et al. (2000, figs 33–36), but in the latter taxon, the RV fascia is much shorter, and the valve shape is less oblong than in the Mangareva taxon. Note that C. molesta var. crucifera was proposed as a synonym of C. molesta (Riaux-Gobin et al. 2016) .</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03CA87E1EA48FF8CFECBBF79FE855213	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Riaux-Gobin, Catherine;Saenz-Agudelo, Pablo;Coste, Michel;Jordan, Richard W.;Criobe-Uar, René Galzin	Riaux-Gobin, Catherine, Saenz-Agudelo, Pablo, Coste, Michel, Jordan, Richard W., Criobe-Uar, René Galzin (2025): Marine Achnanthales and Olifantiella from the Gambier Archipelago (South Pacific). Micronesica 2025 (1): 1-33, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.16968387
03CA87E1EA49FF8CFDC0BD7EFB7B5346.text	03CA87E1EA49FF8CFDC0BD7EFB7B5346.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Planothidium Round & Bukhtiyarova 1996	<div><p>PLANOTHIDIUM ROUND &amp; BUKHTIYAROVA</p><p>Planothidium was the second most species-rich genus in the Achnanthales off Mangareva (Table 2), with two small taxa closely related to species first described from the Indian Ocean: P. mathurinense Riaux-Gobin &amp; Al-Handal (in Riaux-Gobin et al. 2012a) (Figs 31–34) and P. rodriguense Riaux-Gobin &amp; Compère (ref. cit.) (Figs 35–40). Planothidium delicatulum (Kützing) Round &amp; Bukhtiyarova 1996 (see also e.g. Witkowski et al. 2000, Bahls et al. 2018, Van de Vijver et al. 2018b) was rare in several samples. Several rare and small-sized taxa, also pertaining to Planothidium, were insufficiently documented to be definitively classified (Table 2).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03CA87E1EA49FF8CFDC0BD7EFB7B5346	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Riaux-Gobin, Catherine;Saenz-Agudelo, Pablo;Coste, Michel;Jordan, Richard W.;Criobe-Uar, René Galzin	Riaux-Gobin, Catherine, Saenz-Agudelo, Pablo, Coste, Michel, Jordan, Richard W., Criobe-Uar, René Galzin (2025): Marine Achnanthales and Olifantiella from the Gambier Archipelago (South Pacific). Micronesica 2025 (1): 1-33, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.16968387
03CA87E1EA49FF8EFDC8BCB3FD11511E.text	03CA87E1EA49FF8EFDC8BCB3FD11511E.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Olifantiella RIAUX-GOBIN & COMPERE	<div><p>OLIFANTIELLA RIAUX-GOBIN &amp; COMPÈRE</p><p>Olifantiella cf. rodriguensis Riaux-Gobin (in Riaux-Gobin &amp; Al-Handal 2012, Riaux-Gobin 2015) was present in Rik16 (east Mangareva), epizoic on Holothuria atra . The latter taxon was also present in Rik10 (same site, intertidal sand and macroalgae). Olifantiella cf. rodriguensis was rare, with no internal SEM view available to check for its buciniportula. A mucus thread was observed through the external opening of the buciniportula, confirming previous remarks on a possible physiological role for this process, in the relationships between the cell and the external environment (Riaux-Gobin &amp; Al-Handal 2012). A second taxon, O. pilosella Riaux-Gobin (in Riaux-Gobin &amp; Al-Handal 2012), with all original morphological characters, was found as epizoic in Rik16. A third taxon, Olifantiella muscatinei (Reimer &amp; Lee) Van de Vijver, Ector &amp; Wetzel (2018a, 1), was observed as an epiphyte in Rik4. Note that no Olifantiella specimens were observed in the holothurian scraping Rik5 (west Mangareva).</p><p>* From Mangareva (SEM), **,*** type [** Riaux-Gobin et al. 2016, *** Riaux-Gobin et al. 2008)]</p><p>Stria densities and axial rows in 10 µm, length &amp; width in µm.</p><p>Taxon Length Width L/l RV SV str. SV axial RV str. rows fascia * Cocconeis cf. mascarenica not (n=27) 7.2 4.1 1.76 37.8 40.6 always no *** Cocconeis mascarenica not (n=31) 6.7 3.8 ca.1.7 38 25-35 always no</p><p>* Cocconeis sp. (n=8) 7.8 3.8 2.08 38.8 37.2 no no decussate up</p><p>* Cocconeis cf. diaphana (n=12) 14.4 6.6 2.20 39.8 52.8 pattern margins half</p><p>* Cocconeis cf. molesta (n=5) 9.1 6.6 1.38 46.9 52.8 no valve in zig-</p><p>** Cocconeis molesta Kütz. BM ca. 30 zag 22- &lt;half</p><p>18381 (n=4) LM 16.4 9.7 1.96&gt;30 23 valve</p><p>** Cocconeis diaphana W.Sm. in zig-</p><p>var. diaphana BM 23161 zag ca. short,</p><p>(n=11) LM 33-42 21-26 1.65 25 26 23 elliptic</p><p>** Cocconeis diaphana W.Sm. short, Isolectotype SEM ca. 38 ca. 23 1.65 22 35 unclear elliptic</p><p>** Cocconeis dirupta W.Greg. ca. zig- &lt;half BM 1420 (n=16) LM 18-37 17-31 1.12 18.9 16.6 zag valve</p><p>EPIZOIC DIATOM ASSEMBLAGES</p><p>Rik5 and Rik16 were both cumulative scrapings of several individuals pertaining to a well circumscribed population of Holothuria atra collected in small areas (ca 3 m 2), 1) from Gatavake Bay (west Mangareva, Rik5), 2) from Rikitea nearshore (east Mangareva, Rik16). The two epizoic assemblages were highly dissimilar (Table 2), with a higher number of taxa in Rik16 (Table 2). Note that the assemblage in Rik7 (sediments close to the location of the holothurian scraping Rik5) and in Rik10 (sediments close to the holothurian scraping Rik16), are also highly different from what was found in each holothurian’s population. Some taxa present on the holothurians were absent from the nearby environment and vice versa, but the species richness is similar among epizoic and non-epizoic assemblages, being higher for Rik16–Rik10 (Rikitea environment) than for Rik5–Rik7 (Gatavake Bay). There were no diatom taxa unique to a particular epizoic population, or particularly dominant with regards to its abundance in the nearby substrates.</p><p>From a shallow and well-oxygenated zone (exposed intertidal zone), Rik9, a scraping of several living specimens of Rochia nilotica (Syn.: Trochus niloticus Linnaeus 1767), (ca. 5 cm in length, colonized by diminutive filamentous algae and encrusting red algae, probably pertaining to Corallinaceae, Maggy Nugges comm. pers.), was quantitatively diatom-poor, but with the presence of large diatoms such as Achnanthes cf. brevipes Agardh 1824 and Cocconeis pseudodiruptoides Foged (1975, 18). Note that the latter taxon was only observed in Rik9 (see supplementary material), possibly linked to the ethology of this mollusk migrating from intertidal to subtidal substrates, whereas the other studied samples (except for the pearl oyster farm samples) were strictly intertidal (&lt;50 cm deep).</p><p>The scraping of empty green-colored tubes of Teredo sp. (probably colonized by unicellular chlorophytes) was almost void of benthic diatoms. This driftwood was subjected to drastic conditions such as high light exposure and intermittent desiccation.</p><p>The scrapings of living two-year old Pinctada margaritifera (‘Black-lipped Pearl Oyster’), before grafting (before nucleus transplant) (Rik12–14, Table 2), as well as a one-year old individual (Rik14bis), were surprisingly diatom poor, quantitatively and qualitatively, whereas the macroalgae living on mooring ropes at the same depth (Rik15) were colonized by a diverse array of diatoms, apparently absent from the oyster’s fouling. This low diatom colonization may be related to the fact that the oysters were cleaned every 3 months (via a passage to kärcher, followed by scraping with a knife), which drastically lowers the biofouling potentially detrimental to the oyster growth. This biofouling was composed of macroalgae and small fauna (i.e. bryozoans, ascidians, sponges, see also Lacoste et al. 2021) potentially colonized by diatoms. Note that the subtidal assemblages from the pearl oyster farm (epizoic as well as epiphytic, Table 2) seem to be characterized by the presence of taxa absent in intertidal samples from the same bay, such as Schizostauron citronella (Mann) Górecka, Riaux-Gobin &amp; Witkowski (in Górecka et al. 2021, 1480), Cocconeis pseudomarginata Gregory (1857, 492) and Cocconeis peltoides var. archaeana Riaux-Gobin &amp; Compère (in Riaux-Gobin et al. 2011d, 330).</p><p>NMDS ANALYSES</p><p>In order to visualize the level of similarity among samples or groups of samples as a function of their diatom assemblages, an NMDS analysis was carried out. The full data are given as supplementary material. Note that the NMDS is testing the grouping of samples in relation to their assemblage compositions, and not whether a certain taxon is a reflection of a particular biotope or ethology. The analysis illustrated the relationships between samples (Fig. 41).</p><p>The epizoic assemblages (blue points in Fig. 41, upper diagram) slightly group (but not significantly, see PERMANOVA results below), while the other assemblages (epiphytic and epipsammic taxa) have no particular grouping (Fig. 11, upper diagram). Concurrently, the different locations and bathymetries appear to have a significant influence on the assemblages (see PERMANOVA results below) (Fig. 41, bottom diagram), with Hao atoll and Togegegie motu grouping together negatively, possibly due to the low species richness and particular calcic environment. The subtidal samples group positively on the left of the analysis (violet points, Fig. 41 bottom diagram) with a particular colonization in terms of species, as noted above in, for example Schizostauron citronella (Mann) Górecka, Riaux-Gobin &amp; Witkowski and also Cocconeis coronatoides Riaux-Gobin &amp; Romero ‘discoid morph’ (acronym cocid2, see supplementary material). The subtidal epizoic assemblage was slightly different from that growing as non-epizoic at the same depth (see supplementary material and violet point), but still grouping with the other subtidal samples. The samples from Gatavake Bay (red points, bottom diagram) group slightly differently from the samples from the Rikitea shore line (blue points).</p><p>The PERMANOVA results provide a statistical basis for the above remarks, and indicate that the biotope (upper diagram) did not have a significant effect on the community dissimilarity (Permanova R2 = 0.10, F = 1.14, 2df, p-value = 0.262). In contrast, the effect of the location (bottom diagram) was statistically significant (Permanova R2 = 0.42, F = 3.083, 2df, p-value = 0.001). Furthermore, results from an ad-hoc pairwise comparison among locations (excluding location H - Hao atoll- because of its small sample size), indicated that site S (subtidal samples, pearl oysters) was statistically significant from the rest (p-values &lt;0.01), site R (Rikitea) was statistically different from sites G (Gatavake Bay) and M (Totegegie motu) (p-value &lt;0.01), and sites G and R were also statistically different (p-value &lt;0.01).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03CA87E1EA49FF8EFDC8BCB3FD11511E	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Riaux-Gobin, Catherine;Saenz-Agudelo, Pablo;Coste, Michel;Jordan, Richard W.;Criobe-Uar, René Galzin	Riaux-Gobin, Catherine, Saenz-Agudelo, Pablo, Coste, Michel, Jordan, Richard W., Criobe-Uar, René Galzin (2025): Marine Achnanthales and Olifantiella from the Gambier Archipelago (South Pacific). Micronesica 2025 (1): 1-33, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.16968387
