Caribbean and reported a total of 433 species. Ophiuroidea was the richest class
with 148 species, followed by Asteroidea (116 species). Mexico and Colombia
were the richest countries with 182 and 180 species, respectively. In terms of
Caribbean ecoregions, the Southwestern Caribbean was richest (283 species),
followed by the Western Caribbean (268 species), the Greater Antilles (248 species), the Southern Caribbean (151 species), and lastly the Eastern Caribbean (79
species).
Miloslavich et al. (2011) analyzed the marine biodiversity of South America
(including the Pacific coast of Costa Rica and Panama, and excluding the Caribbean coast from Colombia and Venezuela). The best known groups in the region
are fish, mollusks, crustaceans, echinoderms, cnidarians, and macroalgae. They
divided the region into five subregions: (1) Eastern Tropical Pacific (223 species of
echinoderms, 3.3 % of the total species, 4.4 spp./100 km of the coast, 51 % spp. in
OBIS–Ocean Biogeographic Information System), (2) Humbolt Current-Chile and
Peru (364 species of echinoderms, 3.6 % of the total species, 5.0 spp./100 km of
the coast, 38 % spp. in OBIS), (3) Patagonian shelf-Uruguay and Argentina (207
species of echinoderms, 5.5 % of the total species, 3.7 spp./100 km of the coast,
76 % spp. in OBIS), (4) North, South and East Brazilian shelves (254 species of
echinoderms, 2.8 % of the total species, 3.4 spp./100 km of the coast, 60 % spp. in
OBIS) and (5) tropical west Atlantic-Venezuelan Atlantic, Guyana, Suriname and
French Guyana (107 species of echinoderms, 3.9 % of the total species, 5.7 spp./
100 km of the coast, 84 % spp. in OBIS). According to their analysis with the
OBIS database, echinoderms have a low level of endemism (3.6 %) and seem to
have reached a relatively stable number with few new additions. This could be the
result of the lack of taxonomic expertise, limited funding for research, lack of
collecting effort, and limited access to sampling sites.
Sthör et al. (2012) presented a global biodiversity analysis of the class
Ophiuroidea, reporting 2,064 species. They divided Latin America into three
regions: East Pacific (EP), South America (SA) and West Atlantic (WA). West
Atlantic was the richest region with 335 species with 60.6% of them endemic to
the region, followed by EP with 186 species and 62.9 % endemics, and SA with
124 species and 24.2 % endemics. Moreover, according to their depth strata, the
bathyal stratum (depths between 200 and 3,500 m) was the richest in the three
regions (229 species in WA, 111 species in EP and 102 species in SA), followed
by the shelf stratum (depths between 0 and 200 m) (217 spp. in WA, 92 spp. in EP
and 79 spp. in SA). The abyssal (depths between 3,500 and 6,000 m) (16 spp. in
WA, 28 spp. in EP and 17 spp. in SA) and the hadal strata (depths [ 6,500 m) (0
sp. in WA, 1 sp. in EP and SA) were less rich.
On this chapter we analyze the database presented in the appendix of this book.
We investigate the current patterns of diversity by country and by class of echinoderms. In addition, we analyze their biogeographical, depth, and habitat or
substratum affinities.
518
A. Pérez-Ruzafa et al.
with 148 species, followed by Asteroidea (116 species). Mexico and Colombia
were the richest countries with 182 and 180 species, respectively. In terms of
Caribbean ecoregions, the Southwestern Caribbean was richest (283 species),
followed by the Western Caribbean (268 species), the Greater Antilles (248 species), the Southern Caribbean (151 species), and lastly the Eastern Caribbean (79
species).
Miloslavich et al. (2011) analyzed the marine biodiversity of South America
(including the Pacific coast of Costa Rica and Panama, and excluding the Caribbean coast from Colombia and Venezuela). The best known groups in the region
are fish, mollusks, crustaceans, echinoderms, cnidarians, and macroalgae. They
divided the region into five subregions: (1) Eastern Tropical Pacific (223 species of
echinoderms, 3.3 % of the total species, 4.4 spp./100 km of the coast, 51 % spp. in
OBIS–Ocean Biogeographic Information System), (2) Humbolt Current-Chile and
Peru (364 species of echinoderms, 3.6 % of the total species, 5.0 spp./100 km of
the coast, 38 % spp. in OBIS), (3) Patagonian shelf-Uruguay and Argentina (207
species of echinoderms, 5.5 % of the total species, 3.7 spp./100 km of the coast,
76 % spp. in OBIS), (4) North, South and East Brazilian shelves (254 species of
echinoderms, 2.8 % of the total species, 3.4 spp./100 km of the coast, 60 % spp. in
OBIS) and (5) tropical west Atlantic-Venezuelan Atlantic, Guyana, Suriname and
French Guyana (107 species of echinoderms, 3.9 % of the total species, 5.7 spp./
100 km of the coast, 84 % spp. in OBIS). According to their analysis with the
OBIS database, echinoderms have a low level of endemism (3.6 %) and seem to
have reached a relatively stable number with few new additions. This could be the
result of the lack of taxonomic expertise, limited funding for research, lack of
collecting effort, and limited access to sampling sites.
Sthör et al. (2012) presented a global biodiversity analysis of the class
Ophiuroidea, reporting 2,064 species. They divided Latin America into three
regions: East Pacific (EP), South America (SA) and West Atlantic (WA). West
Atlantic was the richest region with 335 species with 60.6% of them endemic to
the region, followed by EP with 186 species and 62.9 % endemics, and SA with
124 species and 24.2 % endemics. Moreover, according to their depth strata, the
bathyal stratum (depths between 200 and 3,500 m) was the richest in the three
regions (229 species in WA, 111 species in EP and 102 species in SA), followed
by the shelf stratum (depths between 0 and 200 m) (217 spp. in WA, 92 spp. in EP
and 79 spp. in SA). The abyssal (depths between 3,500 and 6,000 m) (16 spp. in
WA, 28 spp. in EP and 17 spp. in SA) and the hadal strata (depths [ 6,500 m) (0
sp. in WA, 1 sp. in EP and SA) were less rich.
On this chapter we analyze the database presented in the appendix of this book.
We investigate the current patterns of diversity by country and by class of echinoderms. In addition, we analyze their biogeographical, depth, and habitat or
substratum affinities.
518
A. Pérez-Ruzafa et al.