Bugulina cf. fulva ( Ryland, 1960 ) Cryptogenic

Ruiz-Velasco, Sofía, Ros, Macarena, Guerra-García, José M. & López-Fé, Carlos M., 2025, Fouling bryozoans in recreational marinas of the Canary Islands (North-Eastern Atlantic) with new records of non-indigenous and cryptogenic species, Zootaxa 5656 (1), pp. 1-63 : 16-17

Bugulina cf. fulva ( Ryland, 1960) Cryptogenic

( Fig. 5 ; Table 5)

Bugula fulva Ryland, 1960: 86 , pls 1D, 2B, figs 1D, 2H, 10A, B; Prenant & Bobin 1966: 511, figs 158, 160, 171, 172; Ryland & Hayward 1977: 160, fig. 77; Hayward & Ryland 1998: 218, fig. 67; Vieira et al. 2012: 5, fig. 3E–F.

Bugulina fulva : Fehlauer-Ale et al. 2015: 8; Ramalhosa et al. 2017: 8, fig. 4.

Figured material. Big Canary Sports Dock (27/06/23) (1C on rope) ( MNCN 25.03/4453).

Description. Colony erect and branching. Branches biserial, turning quadriserial near dichotomies ( Fig. 5A ). Autozooids rectangular or slightly narrow proximally, with the frontal membrane occupying almost the entire frontal surface ( Fig. 5B ). Distal outer margin with three spines, inner margin with two ( Fig. 5C ). Avicularia pedunculate, attached distally below the spines or laterally at autozooid mid-length, beak downcurved, nearly as wide as the autozooid, being smaller in the inner zooids near the dichotomies ( Fig. 5D ). Ooecia not observed.

Remarks. Arístegui (1984b) highlighted a notable variability of this species in the material sampled from the Canary Islands. This author mentioned that the material retrieved from Gran Canaria identified as Bugula sp. 1 in Cook (1968) might be B. fulva . However, Cook’s material shows a 4:3 formula in the spines, and she describes her samples as having “smaller dimensions and shorter, wider ovicells” in comparison to B. fulva . It should also be mentioned that the avicularia in our material are longer than this species material from Ramalhosa et al. (2017) (0.102 –0.168 mm in their specimens), being slightly longer than the autozooid length in our case (0.15–0.19 mm, see Table 5). This characteristic is very similar to Bugulina avicularia ( Linnaeus, 1758) , where the avicularia length exceeds the width of an autozooid ( Hayward & Ryland 1998). Although our material for this species is too scarce to discern the presence of a spiralling pattern or not, spine pattern does not match (2: 1 in B. avicularia ) ( Ryland & Hayward 1991). Unfortunately, some avicularia were broken in our samples and intact ones seem not as rectangular as those in Ramalhosa et al. (2017) and De Blauwe (2009), showing some resemblance to those in Bugulina foliolata Vieira, Winston & Fehlauer-Ale, 2012 ( Vieira et al. 2012), that have an almost subtriangular profile and long rostrum. However, B. foliolata material in Vieira et al. (2012) is described as showing wider branches (2–9 autozooids in width), and having longer (0.598 –0.736 mm) and narrower autozooids (0.138 –0.166 mm) in comparison to B. fulva .

Distribution and status. Bugulina fulva was described from European waters, where it shows a patchy distribution mainly restricted to highly anthropized habitats from the North-Eastern Atlantic ( Ryland 1960; Ryland et al. 2011) and the Mediterranean Sea ( Spagnolo et al. 2019; Carmona-Rodríguez et al. 2023). In contrast, the consistent distribution of this species in the North-Western Atlantic ( Ryland & Hayward 1991; Trott 2004) suggests this species is native to that area ( Hayward & McKinney 2002). It has also been observed in the Pacific coast of the United States, in addition to the South-Western Atlantic ( Barros-Pestana et al. 2017). In Macaronesia, it has been observed in the Azores ( Morton et al. 2000), in Madeira ( Ramalhosa et al. 2017), and the Canary Islands ( Arístegui 1984b, 1987; Castro et al. 2023).

The status of this species is conflicted in Macaronesia. While several studies have considered this species as cryptogenic in this area ( Micael et al. 2019; Castro et al. 2023; Png-Gonzalez et al. 2023; AquaNIS 2024), it is regarded as NIS in NEMESIS (2024). Although this species has been commonly recorded in port environments in European waters ( Ryland et al. 2011), it seems not to be restricted to that habitat in the Canary Islands, where it occurs on shells (mainly Pinna sp. ) and stones in the infralittoral ( Arístegui 1987). Nevertheless, considering the uncertainties related to its native origin area and its ecology in the Canarian archipelago, we consider it cryptogenic to the study area, as in other regions of Macaronesia (e.g. Micael et al. 2019).

Figures

FIGURE 5. Bugulina cf. fulva (Ryland, 1960) (MNCN 25.03/4453). A. View of the colony through SEM. B. Autozooids. C. Outer and inner spines. D. Avicularium. Scale bars: A, B = 200 µm; C, D = 40 µm.