Red tides and associated fisheries damage caused by the harmful raphidophyte Chattonella were reassessed based on the documented local records for 50 years to understand the distribution and economic impacts of the harmful species in the Western Pacific. Blooms of Chattonella with fisheries damage have been recorded in East Asia since 1969, whereas they have been only recorded in Southeast Asia since the 1980s. Occurrences of Chattonella have been documented from six Southeast Asian countries, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Viet Nam, with mass mortalities mainly of farmed shrimp in 1980-1990s, and farmed fish in 2000-2010s. These occurrences have been reported with the names of C. antiqua, C. marina, C. ovata, C. subsalsa and Chattonella sp., owing to the difficulty of microscopic species identification, and many were not supported with molecular data. To determine the distribution of C. marina complex and C. subsalsa in Southeast Asia, molecular phylogeny and microscopic observation were also carried out for cultures obtained from Indonesia, Malaysia, Japan, Philippines, Russia, Singapore and Thailand. The results revealed that only the genotype of C. marina complex has been detected from East Asia (China, Japan, Korea and Russia), whereas both C. marina complex (Indonesia and Malaysia) and C. subsalsa (Philippines, Singapore and Thailand) were found in Southeast Asia. Ejection of mucocysts has been recognized as a diagnostic character of C. subsalsa, but it was also observed in our cultures of C. marina isolated from Indonesia, Malaysia, Japan, and Russia. Meanwhile, the co-occurrences of the two harmful Chattonella species in Southeast Asia, which are difficult to distinguish solely based on their morphology, suggest the importance of molecular identification of Chattonella genotypes for further understanding of their distribution and negative impacts.
A recently published study analyzed the phylogenetic relationship between the genera Centrodinium and Alexandrium, confirming an earlier publication showing the genus Alexandrium as paraphyletic. This most recent manuscript retained the genus Alexandrium, introduced a new genus Episemicolon, resurrected two genera, Gessnerium and Protogonyaulax, and stated that: "The polyphyly [sic] of Alexandrium is solved with the split into four genera". However, these reintroduced taxa were not based on monophyletic groups. Therefore this work, if accepted, would result in replacing a single paraphyletic taxon with several non-monophyletic ones. The morphological data presented for genus characterization also do not convincingly support taxa delimitations. The combination of weak molecular phylogenetics and the lack of diagnostic traits (i.e., autapomorphies) render the applicability of the concept of limited use. The proposal to split the genus Alexandrium on the basis of our current knowledge is rejected herein. The aim here is not to present an alternative analysis and revision, but to maintain Alexandrium. A better constructed and more phylogenetically accurate revision can and should wait until more complete evidence becomes available and there is a strong reason to revise the genus Alexandrium. The reasons are explained in detail by a review of the available molecular and morphological data for species of the genera Alexandrium and Centrodinium. In addition, cyst morphology and chemotaxonomy are discussed, and the need for integrative taxonomy is highlighted.