Tropical western Pacific ("Aibukit")
Described by Bergh from a preserved animal as Nembrotha diaphana. Radula description shows it to be a species of Tambja. Most important part of his description is the line "Color animalis vivi?" - which I translate as "colour of live animal unknown". It is my opinion that such descriptions are worthless, as there is little important differences in the radular morphology of most species of the genus. The name should be treated as unidentifiable.
• Bergh, L.S.R. (1877). Malacologische Untersuchengen. In C.G. Semper, Reisen im Archipel der Philippinen, Wissenscaftliche Resultate, 11: 429-494, pls 54-57
Rudman, W.B., 1999 (February 3) Tambja diaphana (Bergh, 1877). [In] Sea Slug Forum. Australian Museum, Sydney. Available from http://www.seaslugforum.net/find/tambdiap
February 3, 1999
From: Francisco J. García
I would like to know if the species Nembrotha diaphana Bergh 1878 has been re-described or found later than its original description (Bergh 1878) and the posterior cite by Pruvot-Fol (1927), and I would be appreciated the reference.
Thank you very much
Francisco J. García
email@example.comGarcía, F.J., 1999 (Feb 3) Any information on Nembrotha diaphana?. [Message in] Sea Slug Forum. Australian Museum, Sydney. Available from http://www.seaslugforum.net/find/531
See my comment at the top of this page. Basically Bergh's species is unidentifiable as he had no information on the colour of the living animal. From his radula description, the species belongs to the genus Tambja rather than Nembrotha. Any subsequent use of the name, unless it refers to a study of Bergh's specimen, is also of little use because there is no way we can know that the animal referred to is the same as Bergh's.