Holothuria subrubra Quoy & Gaimard, 1833: 136; Hoffman, 1874: 55.
Bohadschia subrubra; Cherbonnier, 1952: 36, fig. 14A-J; Rowe, 1969: 130; Clark & Rowe, 1971; 176 ; Cherbonnier, 1988: 40, fig. 13A-K ; Rowe & Richmond, 1997: 302 ; Massin et al., 1999, 166, figs3A-G, 4A-P, 5A-G, pl. 1A, C, D; Conand, 1999: 19, 20; Samyn, 2000: 15; Samyn & Vanden Berghe, 2000: 4, 17, 20; Marshall et al., 2001 : 46; Flamang et al., 2002: 1109; Samyn, 2003: 24, fig. 10A-D; Rasolofonirina et al., 2004: 137; Thandar & Samyn, 2004: 255; Pouget, 2005: 23; Samyn et al., 2005: 15; Conand et al., 2005: 20.
Bohadschia sp.; Rowe & Richmond, 1997: 302 (text).
Bohadschia aff. subrubra; Conand, 1999 : pl. 2.
Bohadschia cf. subrubra; Conand, 1999 : 12, 39.
Type data: EcHh 3283; Ilôt des Cerf (Mauritius); coll. Quoy et Gaimard (Expedition d’Urville), 1829; unknown depth; poorly preserved; poorly relaxed; eviscerated; ventro-longitudinal dissection.
Anatomical description: measurements could not be taken reliably; curvature of body could not be assessed; position of mouth and anus could not longer be determoined; tentacles light brown; dorsal body wall brownish; ventral body wall white-beige; dorsal appendage brown; ventral tube feet beige; arrangement of dorsal appendages could not be determined; ventral tube feet spread regularily over trivium; bivium and trivium not separated by lateral fringe of appendages; body wall thickness could not be assessed; rugosity of body wall could not be determined; size, structure and number of tentacles could not be determined; structure of calcareous ring impossible to assess; number and size of tentace ampullae, polian vesicle(s) and stone canal(s) impossible to asses; gonad not observed; longitudinal muscles appear narrow; Cuvierian tubules not observed
Ossicle description: ossicles could not be described, as the tissue sampled during our visit is lost.
Known distribution: Mauritius, Kenya, Tanzania, Madagascar (Tuléar); Comoros Archipelago (Mayotte, Grande Comore), South Africa.
Taxonomic decision: valid species.
Remarks: the specimen is in such a poor state that it was virtually impossible to provide a redescription. Such is available in Massin et al. (1999).
For original description click here.
{morfeo 61}