Time-Distance Analysis
133
species where, on one hand, there may still be taxonomie revisions and, on the
other hand, the distribution is not weIl known. For example, one of these worms,
1haryx dorsobranchialis was recently reported from the Mediterranean coast of
Sinai by Ben-Eliahu (1972d).
The graduallongshore advance of the Lessepsian migrants along the Asiatic
coast is well-documented. This can be seen if we compare the Lessepsian species
of Cyprus with those of Rhodes. Cyprus is much nearer to the outlet of the Suez
Canal at Port Said, but much more distant from the mainland, while Rhodes is
much farther from the Canal, but nearer to the mainland. There are 18 species
known from Cyprus and 11 species from Rhodes. The cold waters off the Cyprus
coast probably playa role (Gilat, 1974) in diminishing the Lessepsian fauna ofthis
islana whieh is situated offshore from the Levant coast with its wealth of Lessepsian migrants.
The 21 0.0.4 species are a somewhat odd mixture; 11 of them are also found
along the Anatolian coast (0.0.3). The fishes Leiognathus klunzingeri, Pranesus
pinguis, Siganus luridus, S.rivulatus, Holocentrus ruber, Sphyraena chrysotaenia,
Stephanolepis diaspros, and U peneus moluccensis, are among the most successful
migrants. Caulerpa racemosa and Pinctada radiata are possibly Pre-Lessepsian
settlers, the report of the cowrie Erronea caurica is of doubtful precision. Doubtful
are also some of the exc1usively 0.0.4 species, such as the molluscs Lophiotoma
indica, Quoyula madreporarum, Umbonium cf. vestiarium. The ascidian Metrocarpa nigrum is in Peres' (1967) opinion probably a Pre-Lessepsian settler in the
Mediterranean. That leaves three algae and the report of the fish Abudefduf saxatilis from the Bay of Naples. It seems, therefore, that only the eight species of
fishes are reliable migrants to the West, as they are found all over the areas ofthe
Eastern Medi~erranean whieh are influenced by Lessepsian migration. Needless
to say, there is no c1earcut case of a spec\es whieh went only westward along the
African coast.
The most successful 25 migrants in terms of area extension, from among the
High Probability Lessepsian Migrants (HPLM), are listed below:
Plants:
H ypnaea valentiae
Halophila stipulacea
Decapoda:
Charybdis longicollis
M etapenaeus monoceros
Myrafugax
Penaeus japonicus
Penaeus semisulcatus
Portunus pelagicus
1halamita poissoni
Trachypenaeus curvirostris
Mollusca:
Brachidontes variabilis
M alleus regula
Pisces:
Dussumiera acuta
H emiramphus far
H olocentrus ruber
Himantura uarnak
Leiognathus klunzingeri
Pranesus pinguis
Saurida undosquamis
Siganus luridus
Siganus rivulatus
Sphaeroides spadiceus
Sphyraena chrysotaenia
Stephanolepis diaspros
U peneus moluccensis
A possible addition:
Pinctada radiata (Mollusca)
133
species where, on one hand, there may still be taxonomie revisions and, on the
other hand, the distribution is not weIl known. For example, one of these worms,
1haryx dorsobranchialis was recently reported from the Mediterranean coast of
Sinai by Ben-Eliahu (1972d).
The graduallongshore advance of the Lessepsian migrants along the Asiatic
coast is well-documented. This can be seen if we compare the Lessepsian species
of Cyprus with those of Rhodes. Cyprus is much nearer to the outlet of the Suez
Canal at Port Said, but much more distant from the mainland, while Rhodes is
much farther from the Canal, but nearer to the mainland. There are 18 species
known from Cyprus and 11 species from Rhodes. The cold waters off the Cyprus
coast probably playa role (Gilat, 1974) in diminishing the Lessepsian fauna ofthis
islana whieh is situated offshore from the Levant coast with its wealth of Lessepsian migrants.
The 21 0.0.4 species are a somewhat odd mixture; 11 of them are also found
along the Anatolian coast (0.0.3). The fishes Leiognathus klunzingeri, Pranesus
pinguis, Siganus luridus, S.rivulatus, Holocentrus ruber, Sphyraena chrysotaenia,
Stephanolepis diaspros, and U peneus moluccensis, are among the most successful
migrants. Caulerpa racemosa and Pinctada radiata are possibly Pre-Lessepsian
settlers, the report of the cowrie Erronea caurica is of doubtful precision. Doubtful
are also some of the exc1usively 0.0.4 species, such as the molluscs Lophiotoma
indica, Quoyula madreporarum, Umbonium cf. vestiarium. The ascidian Metrocarpa nigrum is in Peres' (1967) opinion probably a Pre-Lessepsian settler in the
Mediterranean. That leaves three algae and the report of the fish Abudefduf saxatilis from the Bay of Naples. It seems, therefore, that only the eight species of
fishes are reliable migrants to the West, as they are found all over the areas ofthe
Eastern Medi~erranean whieh are influenced by Lessepsian migration. Needless
to say, there is no c1earcut case of a spec\es whieh went only westward along the
African coast.
The most successful 25 migrants in terms of area extension, from among the
High Probability Lessepsian Migrants (HPLM), are listed below:
Plants:
H ypnaea valentiae
Halophila stipulacea
Decapoda:
Charybdis longicollis
M etapenaeus monoceros
Myrafugax
Penaeus japonicus
Penaeus semisulcatus
Portunus pelagicus
1halamita poissoni
Trachypenaeus curvirostris
Mollusca:
Brachidontes variabilis
M alleus regula
Pisces:
Dussumiera acuta
H emiramphus far
H olocentrus ruber
Himantura uarnak
Leiognathus klunzingeri
Pranesus pinguis
Saurida undosquamis
Siganus luridus
Siganus rivulatus
Sphaeroides spadiceus
Sphyraena chrysotaenia
Stephanolepis diaspros
U peneus moluccensis
A possible addition:
Pinctada radiata (Mollusca)