Acanthophyllia deshayesiana ( Michelin , 1850 ) Coral Species Is Not Synonym With Cynarina lacrymalis ( Milne Edwards & Haime , 1848 )

Acanthophyllia deshayesiana has a different habitat with Cynarina lacrymalis in the nature, but they have same character on living forms, diameter, and height of corallite. Both of these species are considered synonym, thus it needs verification study to describe whether it is synonym species or not based on morphological data. Eleven descriptive characters and seven morphometric characters were used to verify the synonym species of these coral. Descriptive data were performed by scoring method, while morphometric data were obtained from morphometric. Morphometric data were analyzed by Correspondence Analysis of Principal Coordinates (CAP) and Agglomerative Hierarchical Cluster (AHC), while descriptive data were analyzed by UPGMA (Unweight Pair Group Method with Arithmetic Mean). The result showed that both of these coral can not differentiate based on morphometric measurement. It can differentiate significantly based on descriptive characters, so both of these coral are not synonym.


Introduction
Generally, morphological pattern of organisms were influenced by genetic factors which are inherited from the parent.Heritable genetic information does not always provide significant influences, because there is environmental component that can influence the morphological pattern.The environmental response of each organism is different and can cause genetic mutations or slow growth.Organism will adapt to respond environmental changes.
One of organisms that have more responses to environmental changes is coral.High response of coral to environmental changes (Wolstenholme et al., 2003;Marti-Puig et al., 2014) have an impact on morphological pattern of the coral diversity, so it classified in a high plasticity organisms (Stefani et al., 2008;Huang et al., 2009;Schmidt-Roach et al., 2012).The diversity of coral morphology gives a trouble to identify live coral and classification system in the coral taxonomy.
Classification and systematic of coral was done using traditional classification that is morphology of the skeleton (Wolstenholme et al., 2003;Schmidt-Roach et al., 2012;Arrigoni et al., 2014b) and purposed to know their relationship and evolution (Stobart, 2000;Flot et al., 2008;Casebolt, 2011).However, the observation and measurement of coral using skeleton showed intra species variation and a high plasticity (Stefani et al., 2008).Therefore, there were many studies on the coral systematics by combining the morphological and molecular approach.
Morphological diversity causes difficulties on coral dead to be classified into one group and given the same name (Flot et al., 2008;Schmidt-Roach et al., 2012).For example coral Cynarina lacrymalis were usually considered as a synonym of Acanthophyllia deshayesiana.It was described by Best and Hoeksema (1987) in which had a same variation with C. lacrymalis.The similarities were solitary life, had a diameter of corallite 10 cm, calice relief 8 cm, tooth high in primary septal is 15 mm, epitheca well developed, and the corallum was strongly dentated.The holotype of C. lacrymalis is in MNHN (Muse´um National d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France) with Philliphines as local type of it.
The synonym problem of species would impact on the trade regulation of ornamental coral and lead to legality.This study aimed to verify suspected synonym of two species, i.e. (A.deshayesiana and C. lacrymalis) based on morphological characters.Morphological characters used two characters in this study, consist of descriptive and morphometric characters.Those characters were assumed to be able differ and could be character identifier in the cladogram.

Materials and Methods
Seven corals of C. lacrymalis taken from Kalimantan and eight corals of A. deshayesiana taken from Makassar were used this study from Family Mussidae (Figure 1).Coral specimens were bleached in sodium hyplocorite, rinsed with freshwater, and air-dried for morphological analysis.Morphological analysis were consist of morphometric and descriptive characters (Oppen et al., 2000;Wolstenholme et al., 2003;Stefani et al., 2008;Filatov et al., 2013;Kitano et al., 2014).Coral specimens were selected by the same size (the colony diameter range 4-8 cm).
Clade 2 was grouped by Calice Relief (CR) (Figure 3).Calice relief of these five corals were more related and had relatively same value was 18,770 mm to 22,650 mm.Calice relief on C. lacrymalis was classified to a very high category which was > 10 mm (Budd and Stolarski, 2009).Calice form is influenced by calice width, which the wider a calice, then the smaller its relief (Kongjandtre et al., 2012;Huang et al., 2014).
Clade 3 consisted of ACT12 and CYN55 which were grouped based on individual size (IS) (Figure 3).The CAP showed that position of ACT12 was a bit far from the group, however the AHC was in one group with an equal value of 99,77% (Figure 4).Individual size is directly proportional to the calice and valley width.In addition, individual size is strongly influenced by the age and growth of coral.
The age and growth of coral that are more mature, it will have a wide valley and calice.
Clade 4 was CYN45 with a character grouping by wall thickness (WT).Wall thickness value of CYN45 was almost same with another specimen, however, the other morphometric characters did not influence the grouping of another specimen.Based on AHC result, CYN45 grouped itself because the value of the Calice Width (CW), Valley Width (VW), Tooth Height (TH), and Individual Size (IS) was very small, so that the level of similarity was low (98,5%).These conditions were almost same with clade 5 consisted of CYN59 with a character grouping were Tooth Height (TH) and Tooth Spacing (TS) on the first order septa.CYN59 had the same TH and TS value reltively in the amount of 5,342 mm and 5,624 mm.The TS value was measured at the highest tooth (first septa peak).The TS value of A. deshayesiana and C. lacrymalis had a range from 0,3 mm to 0,6 mm in the first septa (Figure 6).Both of these values had similar results obtained by Budd and Stolarski (2009) that value of distance between the teeth of C. lacrymalis was < 6 mm.The AHC result verified that CYN59 became monophiletic from clade 1, although this clade had an ancestor of CYN45.This result showed that morphometric characters could classify coral spesimens, although the clades were still unclear (Figure 3 and Figure 4).Because morphometric characters had a high plasticity and were influenced by environmental factors (Stefani et al., 2008;Huang et al., 2009;Schmidt-Roach et al., 2012).Paz-García et al. (2015) reported that Pocillopora damicornis change into P. inflata, coincided with a storm of high and low turbidity.Corals could modify their morphology to cope with environmental change with variation between habitats over time (Prada et al., 2008).Environmental changes in the sea (such as light, current patterns, sediment transport), force marine organisms to adapt with it (Hilbish, 1985;Doebeli and Dieckmann, 2003).

Descriptive characters
Descriptive character that differentiate between coral C. lacrymalis and A. deshayesiana were Septal Teeth (ST), Septa or Paliform Lobes (SPL), and Costae dentation (CD) (Table 3).Septal teeth (ST) on all of coral A. deshayesiana were big and point shaped, while C. lacrymalis finer and smaller (Figure 6).ACT21 had different shape,  Septal teeth in each genus is different to distinguish morphometric characters of Family Faviidae (Budd and Stolarski, 2011).Septal teeth differences were also found in Family Faviidae between the Atlantic and Pacific (Budd and Stolarski, 2009;Budd and Stolarski, 2011), so it is possible a different location is able to give changes on coral morphology.Existence of SPL also differ between coral C. lacrymalis with A. deshayesiana.A. deshayesiana had pali which develops into septa, while C. lacrymalis has very clearly formed pali.Exceptions were found in CYN39 which the pali developed into septa.Budd and Stolarski (2009) showed that septa and pali on coral C. lacrymalis well developed.
The UPGMA results demonstrated a cladogram which forms the big and small groups.Phylogeny tree divides into 2 groups, namely group of C. lacrymalis and A. deshayesiana (Figure 5).Each coral had a different descriptive character, especially in C. lacrymalis which had a larger and blunt teeth shape, compared to A. deshayesiana with a thin and more pointed theeth shape (Figure 6).Acantophyllia deshayesiana with C. lacrymalis based on the descriptive character was able to distinguish clearly.

Conclusion
The study concludes that the groupings based on morphometric characters could not differentiate C. lacrymalis with A. deshayesiana, while the descriptive character grouping can already distinguish them separately.

Figure 1 .
Figure 1.Grouping coral C. lacrymalis and A. deshayesiana based on morphometric characters using Correspondent Analysis of Principal Coordinates (CAP)

Table 1 .
Morphometric characters which were used to measure corallite features

Table 3 .
Difference of descriptive characters between C. lacrymalis with A. deshayesiana