SCAMIT Newsletter Vol. 17 No. 2 1998 June · PDF fileSCAMIT Newsletter in not deemed to be valid publication for formal taxonomic purposes. June, ... differences in identification

SUBJECT: Definition of Polychaete problems for Bight ‘98sampling

GUEST SPEAKER: None - Ron Velarde (CSDMWWD) Discussion Leader

DATE: Monday, 20 July 1998

TIME: 9:30 a.m. to 3:30 p. m.

LOCATION: Library, MEC Analytical Services2433 Impala DriveCarlsbad, California

FUNDS FOR THIS PUBLICATION PROVIDED, IN PART BYTHE ARCO FOUNDATION, CHEVRON, USA, AND TEXACO INC.

SCAMIT Newsletter in not deemed to be valid publication for formal taxonomic purposes.

June, 1998 Vol. 17, No.2SCAMIT Newsletter

20 JULY MEETING

Our July meeting will be the first of a pair ofmeetings devoted to identifying and resolvingdifferences in identification procedure in aseries of polychaete worm genera. The generalisted below proved to be unequally treated byparticipants in the 1994 SCBPP. If we canagree on a standardized approach prior toBight’98 sample analysis, our data will beimproved. This first meeting will concentrateon determining where the problems lie, andhow bad they are. The September meeting willattempt to provide solutions.

Genera to be considered are Levinsenia spp.,Protocirrineris spp., Cossura spp.,Mediomastus spp., Ophelina spp., Sthenelaisspp., Driloneris spp., Fauveliopsis spp.,Terebellides spp., and Demonax spp.

Protocirrineris sp B SCAMIT, 1995, AnteriorDorsal View. From Santa Monica Bay, 60 m.Identified by C .A. Phillips. (Image by RickRowe CSDMWWD 7Jul98)

2


SCAMIT ED. 3

The third edition of the SCAMIT TaxonomicListing of Soft Bottom Macro- andMegainvertebrates is now available. It was astruggle to get the final problems ironed out,but we now have it ready to distribute. The 3rd

Edition expands on the 2nd by the addition ofnewly reported taxa, emendations resultingfrom recent nomenclatural changes, and theinclusion of an abbreviated synonymy. Theindex has also been expanded to allow locationof taxa by subgeneric names and specificnames (including synonyms). At 167 pages,the 3rd Edition is approximately twice the sizeof its predecessor.

The document is in Portable Document Format(PDF) and is downloadable as a self-extractingzip file. The downloadable file isapproximately 2.4Meg. Once extracted, thepfd document may be viewed, searched and/orprinted using the Adobe® Acrobat® Reader.The reader is distributed by Adobe free ofcharge and may be downloaded from their website (www.adobe.com). It is approximately3.2Meg.

SCAMIT members will each receive a comb-bound, two-sided copy of the 3rd Edition.

If you are a non-member, but are interested inobtaining a printed copy you must first join us.This is one of the benefits of membership. Weare happy to have anyone, member or non-member, avail themselves of the on-line PDFversion. Edition 4 is expected to arrive abouttwo years from now, in mid-2000.

TRAWL INTERCALIBRATION

On the 16th of June an intercalibration exercisewas held in preparation for the upcomingBight’98 sampling. Representatives of nearlyall the agencies who will participate in the fieldsampling met onboard the CSDLACmonitoring vessel ‘Ocean Sentinel’ and spentthe day pooling their information on fieldidentification of fishes and invertebrates. The

purpose of the exercise was to allowinterchange of information and standardizationof ID approach prior to the beginning of trawlsampling at the end of July. We opted forintercalibration under actual field conditions,where the animals had more natural appearance(and color and shape clues) lost afterpreservation.

The effort was coordinated and led by Dr. JimAllen (SCCWRP) who took charge of the fishgroup. He was assisted by April Ford(CSDLAC) in demonstration of the collectedfishes. A series of nine trawls were taken;seven offshore on the San Pedro Sea Shelf(200, 140, 80, 60, 40, 30, 20m) and two inouter Los Angeles Harbor. As each trawl cameon board the fish were removed and given tothe fish folk for their examination while theinvertebrate group handled the remainder of thecatch. We were trawling over fairly level sandybottom with occasional hard outcrops outsidethe harbor, and in very muddy conditionsinside the harbor. The fish catch was ratherboring, with no really unusual species beingencountered. One of the few noteworthyelements was Pacific Sand Dabs, which wereHUGE in the trawl at 140m.

Invertebrates were separately handled by agroup led by Dave Montagne and his assistantDon Cadien (CSDLAC). Most of the catchwas rather routine; exactly what we werelooking for. A few items of interest weretaken, but most of the invertebrates werecommonly taken members of the megafauna.This gave us all a chance to compare notes onthe common animals we expect to encountermost during the actual field effort.

One surprise was the relative abundance ofAstropecten ornatissimus on the shelf. This (inour experience) rare starfish occurred in everytrawl between 200 and 80m, often with severalspecimens in each trawl. All were similar sizedand rather pale golden orange, the color seen inthis area on the few specimens taken in theSCBPP in 1994. A color photograph provided

3


by Dean Pasko (CSDMWWD) showed a largerindividual from their area sporting a muchmore intense, almost scarlet, coloration. Ourcatch about tripled the number of specimensknown from this portion of the Bight. We alsogot representatives of another more commonstarfish (Mediaster aequalis) in all trawlsbetween 200 and 40m. At 200m a singleindividual of the uncommon Hippasteriaspinosa was taken. There are actually twospecies in this genus locally, although our fieldliterature only mentions one. The identity wasverified in the laboratory. Comparative fieldmaterial was available for all three localspecies of Astropecten, and side by sidecomparisons proved useful. Only two of thethree Luidia species were taken, no specimensof L. armatus being seen. We were thus notable to directly consider the methods ofseparating these close species with livematerial. Representatives of Sylasterias forreriand Sclerasterias heteropaes were also lacking.These two species are occasionally confused bysome workers.

Non-asteroid echinoderms were also routine.The only holothuroid taken on soft-bottom wasParastichopus californicus, but Cucumariasalma were removed from rocks at 30m. Wetook the one local crinoid species Florometraserratissima at 200m. The irregular echinoidsBrisaster latifrons and Spatangus californicuswere represented, but Brissopsis pacifica wasnot. In shallow water Lovenia cordiformis wastaken. Regular echinoids found wereAllocentrotus fragilis, Strongylocentrotuspurpuratus, and Lytechinus pictus. Specimensof three ophiuroids were taken; Ophiuraluetkenii, Ophiopterus papillosa, andOphiothrix spiculata. The appearance of theOphiopterus was noteworthy. Although theanimals displayed the typical pattern ofalternating bands of tan and pale chocolatebrown on the arms, the lengths of the armspines were atypical. This animal is usuallycharacterized by having the arm spines longestat mid arm, and shorter both proximally anddistally. This imparts a characteristic

appearance to the arms which was lacking inall the individuals taken and examined in thesetrawls. Structure of each arm spine,ornamentation of the aboral disc, and oralpapillae were all normal for the species.

The shrimp catch was small and little varied.Numerous Sicyonia ingentis were taken (evenin the harbor trawls), but no Sicyoniapenicillata. Hippolytids were absent, as werepandalids, and other penaeoids. Two species ofcrangonids were taken; Neocrangon zacae (asseparated by CSDLAC) offshore, and Crangonnigromaculata inshore. Crangon alaskensis,Neocrangon communis, N. resima,Metacrangon spinosissima, and Mesocrangonspp. were all lacking.

Crabs were sparse, but varied. A fewPlatymera gaudichaudii were seen, pelagic redcrabs Pleuroncodes planipes were takenintermittently in low numbers, Pyromaiatuberculata and Portunus xantusii were takenin low numbers in harbor trawls, and singlespecimens of Podochela lobifrons,Loxorhynchus grandis, and L. crispatus werecaught. Both Loxorhynchus specimens werejuveniles, providing a good opportunity todemonstrate the field method of separatingthese two species. If the crab is grabbed by thesides of the carapace just behind the rostralarea, the sharp hepatic spines can be plainlyfelt. Loxorhynchus crispatus has but onehepatic spine, while L. grandis has two; oneabove and slightly in front of the other. Thedifference is easily felt, and using thistechnique eliminates the need for extensivecleaning of the animal to reveal the spinesamong a mass of hairs and attacheddecorations. Other methods are available, butless definitive and more time consuming.

Hermit crabs taken in this series of trawls werePaguristes ulreyi, Pagurus spilocarpus, andPhimochirus californiensis. Although fieldidentifications were attempted, all hermit crabswere returned to the laboratory forconfirmatory examination. Several young

4


specimens of Munida quadrispina were pulledfrom cavities in a rock taken at 30m. Theseranged from 9-11mm in carapace length, andeach bore two blue spots on the carapace; oneat the posterio-medial corner of the cardiacregion on each side. This is the shallowestrecord of the species , previously known fromdepths of 145-500m. If the cavity occupyingbehavior of these juveniles is typical, the youngof this species may be common in relativelyshallow water, just very difficult to sampleremotely.

Few cnidarians were taken, but Acanthoptilumsp., and Virgularia galapagensis, and Stylatulaelongata were sparsely represented. The onlyunusual cnidarian was an Urticina columbianataken at 200m. Several large Metridium alsocame up in one trawl. At 80m we crossed overa patch of Ptilosarcus gurneyi, and brought upone intact individual, and the plumes of fourmore. The prostrate gorgonian Thesea sp B wastaken in small numbers.

Mollusks were poorly represented, with noopisthobranchs taken at all except for a singleNavanax in one of the harbor trawls and thenear ubiquitous Philine auriformis. Even thisrobust invader was not much in evidence, withonly a few taken offshore. In one of the harbortrawls they were quite common, but small. Onesmall Kelletia kelletii was taken, and oneNeverita recluziana. Only one Octopusrubescens was encountered, and it was oddlymarked (presumably as a result of net damageand stress) with a number of large whiteblotches on the body and web. Only a singleRossia pacifica was caught, and no Loligoopalescens.

The most interesting catch of the day were twolarge rocks taken in the 30m trawl. They werevery heavy, and resulted in a torn net andlargely unproductive station. The rocksthemselves were heavily bored by lithophagidclams, and supported a number of interestingsmall animals in the bore holes. A smallAphrodita japonica was found in one, several

juvenile galatheids in others, and a variety ofsponges, ectoprocts and tunicates on the rocksurfaces. One flabelligerid polychaete wasmuch in evidence, with it’s cephalic setal cageextending out of small holes in the rock.Several of these were collected, and are beingidentified. Nearly all these rock-associatedspecies were too small for recording, and, aspart of the epifauna, would not be reportableorganisms under Bight’98 protocols (but theywere fun).

Although the encountered fauna was notspectacularly interesting, those on-boardgenerally felt that the effort was worthwhile,and should be repeated in future (dissentingopinions welcome and solicited - contact theeditor or Jim Allen).

NEW LITERATURE

Apropos of our trawling activity, the impact oftrawling on a benthic community wasinvestigated by Tuck et al (1998). Theyexperimentally trawled in an area closed tofishing for over 25 years, and so essentiallyundisturbed (although truly long-term residualimpacts of pre-closure activity may haveremained). They found that the disturbanceincreased the numbers of both species andindividuals, but diversity measures dropped.They identify groups which were sensitive tothe disturbance, and others which wereresistant to it. The interaction of these relativeeffects shifted the structure of the benthos overtime as a result of the trawling disturbance.They tracked these changes over an 18 monthstudy, with some effects still visible at the endof their observations.

A rather interesting paper on fresh-waterspecies bears consideration by marine workersas well. Sickel (1998) reports observations thattissues of the larvae of Corbicula flumineaprovoke uncontrolled gorging (to worm death)by predatory rhabdocoel worms. He proposesthat this is a defense mechanism, with thealtruistic loss of the consumed larvae leading tonet population benefit through elimination of

5


predators. Well, nobody said flatworms weresmart, but I never suspected that such amechanism could be subject to evolutionarycontrol. Comments?

Several other papers on the results of recentinvestigations in Costa Rica have beenmentioned in previous Newsletters. NowCortés (1997) reports on the cnidarian fauna ofboth coasts. In these days of translocation ofsouthern species by ENSO current movement,knowledge of Central and even SouthAmerican species becomes relevant. Nearly130 species of cnidarians are reported from thePacific coast of Costa Rica, including bothbenthic and pelagic forms. The list offers briefcomments on distribution.

The pelagic red crab, Pleuroncodes planipes,has been extensively investigated, recently by aseries of Mexican scientists. The latestcontribution to this effort (Gómez-Gutiérrez &Sánchez-Ortíz 1997) synthesizes the availabledata on the population off Baja California, andproposes a conceptual model of the species’complex life history. Most of the reports to datehave dealt with the adults of the species, eitherin their benthic or pelagic phases. Informationon the larval distributions, developments, andecology is largely taken from Gómez-Gutiérrez& Sánchez-Ortíz (1995). All of us should tryto keep up with the continuing advances in theunderstanding of the population biology of thisspecies, which makes such a majorcontribution to the secondary production ofEastern Pacific nearshore waters. During ElNiño periods the subject becomes more timely,but it never loses its relevance.

Three oedicerotid amphipods; Perioculodeslongimanus, Pontocrates arcticus, andSynchelidium maculatum have their lifehistories examined by Beare & Moore (1998).Although none of these species occur locally,they do contribute to the slender existing baseof information on oedicerotid biology (mainlybehavioral observations by Enequist 1950).

What to do with the scaphopods!! Steiner(1992, 1996) analyzed the groupphylogeneticly and proposed that both theDentaliida and Gadilida were monophyleticgroups using a number of anatomicalcharacters of the animals as well as the fewshell characters available. Now Reynolds(1997) suggests that the data needreinterpretation, and more rigorous applicationof parsimony. He also suggests that data isincomplete in a number of areas which affectthe analysis. His reanalysis andreconsideration of scaphopod phylogenysuggests that monophyly of the Dentaliida isnot supported. Steiner has responded (Steiner1998) to Reynolds comments in another articleand another hard fought campaign like thosethat have previously graced the pages ofZoologica Scripta seems to have beenlaunched. This controversy promises to get tothe meat of methodological differences, muchas the ongoing discussions of the Rouse &Fauchald polychaete phylogeny papers in thesame journal do. The journal seems to havemade an editorial decision to foster and offer aforum for such battles, as waged by informedand committed partisans of the variousfactional groups. This not only provides aservice to the systematic communitybut…controversy always generates heat, andinterest.

Hopefully another recent article from the pagesof Zoologica Scripta (Pleijel 1998) will proveless controversial. Fred Pleijel has added to hispile of comprehensive reexaminations ofpolychaete groups, this time taking on thehesionids. He provides a full literature review(including a listing of all reported hesionid taxaand pertinent references for them), andcladistic analysis of the family reexamining allknown genera. Another paper is in pressdiscussing out-group relationships of thehesionids, and lower level papers discussingthe species in individual genera are in progress.

6


Two of our local species Hesionellamccullochae and Microphthalmus hystrix areremoved from the family, but are considered ofuncertain affinity. No familial placement issuggested for these animals. One other changeof note; Podarke is dropped down to a juniorobjective synonym of Ophiodromus.Hartman’s designation of type for Podarke hasno force, since one had already beendesignated previously. That type proves to be asynonym of the type species of Ophiodromus(Q.E.D.).

The information supporting the limits of theHesionidae as defined by outgroups is not inthe present paper, but is in press. It will beinteresting to see what happens to Hesionellaand Microphthalmus down the line, as of nowthey are Incertae Sedis. As has been standard inpast Pleijel papers, the present one is chock fullof spectacularly defined SEM photos of thesesmall animals. Too bad they don’t look likethat under our dissecting microscopes! By theway, some of the illustrated animals were thefruits of labor in our local waters when Dr.Pleijel was through here (and spoke with us) in1996.

MINUTES OF 26 JUNE MEETING

The agenda of the June 26 SCAMIT meetingwas to standardize the taxonomic informationused in the identification of Photis spp. A keywas created by Dean Pasko (CSDMWWD),and once finalized it will be the only key usedfor Photis during the Bight ‘98 project. In thisfashion, it is hoped identifications will bestandardized.

President Ron Velarde (CSDMWWD) led usthrough a short business meeting. It beganwith a brief discussion of Jimmy Laughlin’srecent inquiries concerning hierarchicalgroupings within taxonomic databases. He wasinquiring as to our ability to sort and organizedata at higher taxonomic levels (i.e., order,family) as an aid to analysis. Ron Velardeexplained to those present the City of SanDiego’s method of assigning fixed numerical

species codes and alphabetical taxa codes,which do not vary with name changes (at thespecies level). The name of the species formsan alpha code for the organism in CSDLACdata, and so is not insulated from the effects ofname changes. This is handled through amechanism which allows global modificationsthroughout the existing database if a namechange becomes necessary. This, use of thename-as-code seems to form one end of theaxis of practice, while a fully hierarchicalnumeric code such as NODC forms the otherend. The CSDMWWD method fallssomewhere in-between these two extremes.

Next, it was mentioned that Philip Lambertheard through the “grape vine”[actuallymember Charlie Low] of our difficulty inacquiring copies of his new sea cucumber book( Lambert, P. 1997. Sea Cucumbers of BritishColumbia, Puget Sound and Southeast Alaska.Vancouver: Royal BC Museum and Universityof BC Press). He personally sent a fax withinformation on how to obtain copies of theaforementioned publication. If there issufficient interest among SCAMIT members inobtaining this publication, we can attempt to doa group order. If you are interested in thisoption, contact Don Cadien, who willcoordinate. For those not interested in a grouporder, the author can be reached [email protected] the web at http://rbcm1.rbcm.gov.bc.ca; byphone at (250) 387-6513; or fax at (250) 387-5360.

Ron then passed around a brief but interestingdiscussion from the Conchologists of Americaweb page entitled “Mollusk vs Mollusc”, byGary Rosenberg. It discussed the historicalusage of the two spellings and hypothesizedwhich of the two was the “more correct”, withRosenberg favoring “Mollusk”. You canexamine this on-line at http://coa.acnatsci.org/conchnet/mollusck.html. Note that Gary hashedged his bets in the construction of the URLname, accommodating all points of viewsimultaneously.

7


Don Cadien passed around a draft copy of thejust released third edition of the SCAMITspecies list. Members present were muchimpressed with the synonymy listings andvoiced their appreciation for this impressiveand useful publication. Don stated that asmany copies as possible will be hand-deliveredat future meetings to save on the cost ofmailings. This will unofficially be known as“the hard-boiled egg edition” due to the choiceof paper colors adopted.

The upcoming Bight ‘98 project was touchedupon, mostly to state that things seem to befalling into place. It has been decided by theSteering Committee that biomass will bemeasured for benthic and trawl samplesfollowing existing protocols. Perhaps a furtherdemonstration of the inappropriateness forbenthos of the blotted wet weight biomassmethod will come from Bight ‘98 data whichwill prove more persuasive than that producedfrom SCBPP data. We can at least hope thatthis will be the last time data of this nature isgathered, and that in future this effort can bereallocated more productively. The field indexperiod remains much the same, but wasextended one week further into September.

The potential for an upcoming La Niña effectwas discussed. It was felt that we will see areturn of the normal fish/benthic communitystructure, and possibly fall back into anotherseven year drought. The El Niño/La Niñasystem is of concern to us all, and not only inthe way it affects our nearshore waters. It isbut one manifestation of global atmosphere/ocean system oscillations which have profoundeffects on the ecosphere. Some havespeculated that the most severe human disastersof recent centuries (ie. influenza outbreakskilling millions, the Irish potato famine, theblack death in Europe) are all at least partiallya result of weather anomalies related to thissystem! Even more subtle links have been

suggested between social phenomena such asthe French Revolution and ENSO related cropfailures. Maybe it’s not just media hype afterall (see websites listed later in this NL).

Reports have been coming in from up north(Megan Lilly, CSDMWWD, persn. comm.withDr. Van Bonn, Upstream Associates) of marinemammal deaths due to ingestion of the diatomtoxin domoic acid, a toxicant closely monitoredby the California Dept. Of Health Services (fordetails see http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/)They test concentrations of the diatoms whichsecrete the toxin (formerly Nitzschia pungens,now considered several species and referred toas Pseudo-nitzschia spp) in nearshore waters,and test directly for domic acid in the tissues ofsentinel organisms. Normally concentrationsin our area are not high enough to be ofconcern. In central and northern Californiawaters, however, there have been several alertsand consumption bans as a result of this toxicagent (see Drum et al 1993, and Langlois et al1993). One recent newsletter from the CDOHSindicated that an offshore bivalve sample fromthe Santa Barbara area tested positive forelevated domoic acid. This toxicant has beenlinked with deaths and neural damage tomussel consumers in western Atlantic waters(see Subba Rao et al 1988, Bates et al 1991,Wohlgeschaffen et al 1992). Interested partiescan consult a domoic acid website with a muchlarger bibliography at:

http://www.mar.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/science/mesd/he/toxins/index.html

Finally, member Carol Paquette (MBC) hasbeen observing Black Crowned Night Heronsand mentioned that the colony numbers seemlow. She has been examining scat andregurgitate and finding little evidence of thenormal fish diet. She suspects northernanchovy and other fish normally utilized by thebirds are diminished due to El Niño, and isseeking data to confirm or reject this

8


hypothesis. Interestingly she has been findingcrayfish remains in heron regurgitate, evidencethey are going inland to feed in fresh watersdistant from seaside nesting areas.

The meeting was turned over to Dean Pasko(CSDMWWD) who distributed his most recentdraft of keys to both male and female Photisspecies from the Southern California Bight.These were accompanied by a figure pagemeant to be distributed with the keys whichillustrated a series of key character states.Dean also passed out to those in attendance aseries of pages produced by the labs imagesystem providing photomicrographs of a seriesof species. Several previously unillustratedprovisional species were among those covered,facilitating the resulting discussion. Dean isalso preparing a series of SCAMIT vouchersheets for local Photis provisionals which havenot previously had sheets available.

Those present worked through the keys,looking for problems. We attempted to runspecimens of several species less familiar toDean through the keys, among them lotslabeled Photis conchicola and P. viuda. About4 lots identified as P. conchicola wereexamined. Several of them proved to bemixed. One, collected intertidally in 1979 atPoint Loma, contained representatives of P.parvidons, but did not seem to have any P.conchicola. Authentic male and female P.conchicola were finally located in a lot fromshallow water off Oxnard. These were stillassociated with their nests (see Carter 1982 fora discussion of shell use in this species), andthe shells containing the nests were alsoretained in the sample. The key did seem tocorrectly place these specimens, but it becameclear that the specific wording of the coupletswas very important. The key characters of thepalmar margin and inner margin of thegnathopod dactyls must be described withextreme caution as the differences can be quite

subtle. The draft keys needed a bit ofrefinement in how the nature of the dactyls wasexpressed. It was clear to Dean, but less so toothers attempting to use the keys.

Description of the bulges, sinuosities, teeth,knobs, etc. which line the inner dactylar marginare particularly troublesome since they undergoontogenic change. One of the major benefits ofDean’s keys are that they incorporate specificsize information for species where suchontogenic changes occur. Juveniles and adultswill often key separately as a result. Similartypes of change also affect the palmar marginsof the gnathopods, with size and shape of teethand sinuses changing with growth. Given theexaggeration of the mature male gnathopods,such change is an unavoidable function of thespecies’ sexual dimorphism. Since juvenilemales usually resemble females more closelythan they do adult males, major changes ingnathopod morphology must occur.Fortunately the developmental trends are allparallel. In all cases existing structures of thejuvenile become larger and more accentuatedin the adult. Sinuses become larger (generallyboth deeper and broader), and teeth becomelarger in later molts.

We also tested the keys with several adult maleP. viuda taken during the SCBPP program.They also keyed appropriately. Dean willdissect and mount individuals of both P.conchicola and P. viuda, and collect images ofthem for the CSDMWWD image database. Wealso discussed the value of completeparallelism in the character descriptions in eachhalf of a single couplet. Although Dean wasaware of this, a few non-parallel areas wereidentified and will be modified in the final key.

This was scheduled as a workshop, but severalimportant participants were unable to attend atthe last minute. In their absence the meetingbecame Dean’s one-man-show, with RonVelarde, Carol Paquette and Don Cadienserving as beta testers for Dean’s extensiveefforts. Any success of the resulting keys will

9


be entirely his doing. We all owe him a debt ofthanks for the work he did in preparation forthe meeting, and in the ongoing modificationsof the keys leading to a final version. Oncecompleted in final form the keys will bedistributed both through Bight ‘98 meetings,and through posting to the SCAMIT website inthe Tools area. Identifications intended for theBight’98 database will need to be generatedfrom these keys. All other taxonomic aids andkeys can be used as usual, but the final nameusage must be in conformance with the newkeys to achieve the standardization necessary.

MY LIFE AS A BIOLOGIST

by Donald J. ReishChapter 8: I become a polychaetologist!

When I arrived at OIMB [Oregon Institute ofMarine Biology], one of the first things Dr.Pratt asked me was what group of animals wasI going work on. I do not know to this daywhy I said polychaetes. Maybe it was seeingthat large Neanthes brandti the year before;maybe I liked the challenge. I really do notknow. People have asked how it happened, andof course, my decision to follow polychaeteshas since influenced many others.

I signed up for research, seminar andinvertebrate embryology. I gave the firstseminar which was on the polychaetes of CoosBay. There wasn’t much of a library: a fewpapers by Moore, none by Hartman. I usedLights manual to identify the worms (keywritten by Hartman). This was the firstpublished manual which was mimeographedand had a green soft cover. Invert embryo wasexciting. It was strictly a lecture course; wedid have a lab, but nobody really accomplishedanything. We discovered a large burrowinganimal inhabiting the beach flats by thebarracks. We didn’t know what phylum itbelong to. I went to work on it and determinedthat it was an apodous holothurian—thencalled Caudina chilensis. I chose this animalto do my lab work for invert embryo. I didn’treally see any development—it was too late in

the season. However, I decided to do mymasters on the seasonal reproduction of thisholothurian. I started sending off for reprints; Ireceived my last batch during my early years atCSULB. I made my collections and aSeptember collection and started makingslides. I had become frustrated withidentification of polychaetes.

Coos Bay is about 125-150 miles fromCorvallis and I didn’t have a car. At the sametime Dr. Pratt learned that S.F. Light had died,and there was no attempt to reissue the book(this was before Ralph Smith’s time). Dr. Pratthad a meeting with his graduate students (6 or7) and informed us that we were going to writea manual for Oregon. He told me “Don, youare going to do the polychaetes since you knowmore about them than any of us”. I then madea decision: since I did not have a car and sinceI have been assigned to write a key to thepolychaetes of Coos Bay, I might as well do itfor my masters degree research. Thus, you cansee how seemingly unrelated events cometogether—had I had a car or had Light not diedor had Dr Pratt not decided for us to write amanual, I may never taken up polychaetes.Who knows? We completed the manual andmimeographed it. Dr. Pratt used it in his class,but it was never published nor revised. I stillhave a copy. Dr. Pratt later went back toparasitology, his chosen field.

I started on my masters the fall of 1947 atOregon State. I started working up theliterature on polychaetes and I wrote my firstletter to Hartman. She wrote a veryencouraging letter back. I also wrote theBerkeleys, and Moore; Treadwell had just died.I also wrote Fauvel; he replied in English on apostcard. I returned to OIMB the summer of1948. I was a TA in invert zool for Dr. Pratt; infact I had my friend John as a student. The restof the time I was busy collecting polychaetes. Idid most of my identification that fall atOregon State. I had difficulty identifying oneparticular worm. Finally in desperation, Iturned the worm around and used the posterior

10


end as the head. No problem, it was amaldanid! Later I was reading one of Fauvel’spapers and he commented that many peoplehad problems identifying this worm because itstail looks so much like a head. I didn’t feel sofoolish then. It was exciting to write to peoplefar way and find them to be very encouragingto me in my studies on polychaetes.

The fall semester of 1948 I was a TA in invertzool and in the spring I was a TA inparasitology. I visited Hartman, but I will writeabout that in the next chapter. I took advancedparasitology and as my project, I studied theparasites of sea gulls. As I went to check thegall bladder, my partner said no parasite wouldlive there. I found several. They were new hostand distributional records, and formed thesubject of my first publication. I also found anacanthocephalan which was identified by VanCleve, the authority on this group. Thatsummer I found larval stages in a sand crab. Ifed them to mice. My friend said how stupid;trying to implant a marine parasite in aterrestrial mammal. It developed into theacanthocephalan. I repeated the experimentand it also took. This was another paper forme.

I learned from these two happenings not toaccept preconceived ideas or thoughts. Both ofthese fellow students said that I was “lucky”. Ido not think so; I tried doing things rather thanaccepting the conventional wisdom that “itwon’t work”. This experience lead me todevelop my own trial and error science. Iwould rather attempt to try something thanthink about it. If I had not pursued this idea oftrial and error science, I never would have hadmuch luck in culturing polychaetes. I foundthat students like to get their hands wet anddirty and do things.

Next Time in Chapter 9: I complete mymasters and head south: beginning of theHartman years.

MATERIEL FOR AN E-MAIL

I am offering glass ware, reprints, etc. for freeto interested parties. I have thousands of shellvials measuring from 0.5 to 4.0 drams with 1.5dram being the most abundant. Many are new.I also have many, many 500 ml Erlenmeyerflasks. Some aquarium supplies such as ganglines and substage filters. Please indicate to me(see below) what you are interested in and Iwill get back to you.

I am disposing of my reprints with theexception of polychaetes and Barnard’s papers(this latter for sentimental reasons). If you areinterested, please indicate to me (see below)the animal or plant group (s) you are interestedin. It will take me a month or two to sortthrough my reprints.

You can contact me by phone at (562) 985-4846 (you an leave a message on the machineif I am not present), FAX at 562-985-8878 oremail me at [email protected]. No, I am notquitting science; I’m just trying to get some ofclutter out of my scientific life.

— Dr. Donald Reish

YEAR OF THE OCEAN

Its now the middle of 1998, and we have yet tomention in the Newsletter that officialrecognition of that 70% of the earth’s surfaceand well over 90% of the habitat volume of ourglobe known as the ocean has finally takenplace. This is OFFICIALLY the Year of theOcean. What this means, other than as aphoto-op for our leaders in Santa Monica Bay,remains to be seen. It has resulted, so far, in abit of good PR for salty liquids, more mediaattention (debatably a good thing), and a fewuseful articles. One of the most recent of these(Carlson 1998) just appeared in ScientificAmerican, and draws attention to theincreasing involvement (and value) of amateurobservations in the marine environment. It alsomentions something that we, as invert folks, areonly peripherally involved in; fish. Although I

11


generally view these animals either as potentialpredators of the interesting marine species, oras hapless victims of clever invertebrateparasites, they do have considerable influenceover most marine environments.

This is a round-about way of bringing up theNOAA Great American Fish Count, due to takeplace the first two weeks of July. I have neverparticipated in this effort, although some of youprobably have. One of the areas ofconcentration is in the Channel Islands, an areawhere SCAMIT members may be able to helpout. Any of you who are divers, and would liketo get involved with a marine equivalent of theAudubon Society’s Christmas Bird Countshould contact Christy Pattengill at 800-862-3260 or visit their website at:

www.fishcount.org.

Hopefully the main thrust of the Year of theOcean will be educational. I assume thatschools throughout the country are takingadvantage of official support to increase theinformation on the oceans offered theirstudents. Also hopefully, the accuracy of theprovided information will be improved byofficial support. Increased public awareness isonly of value when supplemented by accurateinformation. Heightened concern is of greatvalue, but when such concern is misdirectedinto unproductive byways by misinformationall positive value is lost, and harm may bedone.

I expect that, as usual, little of the informationor debate arising from the Year of the Oceanprograms will deal with invertebrates, althoughlocally the potential for a disastrous crash ofthe Loligo population (and fishery) may garnersome attention. You would think that the recentfuror over the zebra mussel might spread toother note-worthy invertebrates, but this seemsnot to be happening in any broad sense. Well,SCAMIT folk can rest assured that yourNewsletter will carry whatever marineinvertebrate information is brought to attention

of the NL staff. That is your job. If you havenews or notes please contact Don Cadien orMegan Lilly so that your comments can beincluded in future.

WEATHER (OR NOT)

On a related note, we have begun to hearreferences in the media to signs of La Niña.Although there has been (according to thevarious sites on the web dealing with thesephenomena) a decrease in the intensity of ElNiño expression in recent months, we are stillin an ENSO event. For those interested inhearing it directly from the knowledgeablesources the following list (selected - there aremany more)of information sources on the webis provided:

http://www.elnino.noaa.govhttp://www.ceres.ca.gov/elnino/http://www.wmo.ch/nino/nonoi.htmlhttp://www.pfeg.noaa.gov/products/

upwell.htmlhttp://pmel.noaa.gov/toga-tao/el-nino/

measurements.htmlhttp://oar.noaa.gov/enrelease2.html

Unfortunately few of these sites provide anybiological information to supplement theremote sensing of temperature and/or oceanheight anomaly which generally forms theinformation base of ENSO forecasting andtracking. We have attempted, and will continueto attempt, to fill this gap for the SouthernCalifornia Bight area. If you have additionalcomments on unusual animal occurrences inyour area you would like to contribute to theNL please contact Don Cadien or Megan Lilly.

A preliminary indication of a water massdislocation off California, perhaps acontinuation of ENSO disturbance or abeginning signal of La Niña flow, is the recentcatch of several unusually pelagic cephalopodsnearshore. The first was a specimen of thesquid Gonatopsis borealis at 305m off PalosVerdes on 21 May 1998 during routine trawlsampling. This small individual (ML about

12


35mm) had us scratching our heads for a whilebefore we finally were able to match it to thedescription of the young of the species inYoung (1972). Initial attempts using the key tojuveniles in Sweeney et al. 1992 wereunproductive. Although the species is knownfrom the area, it is normally confined tooffshore waters outside the channel islands,and doesn’t come in near shore.

A second specimen came from the OrangeCounty Marine Institute, taken recently in 60mof water. This was just a bit larger than theGonatopsis specimen (at 45mm ML) and wasalso assumed to be a sub-adult individual. Itproved to be a fully mature specimen ofAbraliopsis felis. This animal is covered inphotophores both dorsally and ventrally, andhas large hooks on the tentacles and along thearms. It also has enlarged photophores, largedark ovals, at the end of the ventral pair ofarms. Anytime you see a squid with these itwill be one of the two species of Abraliopsiswhich occur in our area.

Both of these species have the third pair ofarms expanded into a lateral keel to facilitatemidwater cruising by the squid. While suchmidwater animals occasionally make it into ourtrawl catches, they should be excluded fromour benthic trawl database. It is useful toremember, however, that the two bottomassociated squids we do take and report -Rossia pacifica and Loligo opalescens are notthe only squids in our area.. Young (1972) list36 species of pelagic cephalopods reportedfrom waters in or near the Southern CaliforniaBight. Their list did not include Rossia,Loligo, or two other squids which aresometimes seen in numbers nearshore - thejumbo squid Dosidicus gigas, and Moroteuthisrobustus. They also did not mention two otherswimming octopods, Opisthoteuthiscalifornicus and Opisthoteuthis sp A. Adding tothis the six or seven species of Octopus whichoccur in the area, we have a total of 48-49species of cephalopods which might occur inour trawl nets. A sobering statistic; and one

which dictates that if a trawl caught specimenlooks even remotely different or out of theordinary, it should be returned to the laboratoryfor identification or for confirmation of fieldidentification.

CRABS: SWIMMING & PINCHING

A report was received from Carol Paquette(MBC Applied Environmental Sciences) thatCalifornia Department of Fish and Gamepersonnel had been fielding complaints fromboaters and bathers in Newport Bay of attacksby crabs. Apparently most of the attacks tookplace in the vicinity of the Dunes recreationarea in mid-bay, and not in the upper or lowerbay. Bathers and barefoot kayak and smallboat launchers were aggressively approachedas they stood in shallow water just off thebeach. Investigation by John Scholl of CDF&G soon revealed that the reports were true. Hetook several specimens of an agile swimmingcrab to MBC for identification. They proved tobe Callinectes arctuatus, a southern species(south to Chile) reaching its northern rangelimit in southern California (at Los AngelesHarbor). Chuck Mitchell (MBC) visited thesite several days later and found densities ofabout 2/m2. He reported that although none ofthe observed females were berried, severalpairs in amplexus were seen. Ovigerousfemales have been reported from Marchthrough September in the past.

Nearly all of the swimming crabs taken inSouthern California Bight waters over the yearshave been Portunus xantusii, but on occasionother species have been observed. In additionto Callinectes arctuatus, its congener C.bellicosus may be taken in the San Diego area(Garth & Stephenson 1966), and offshoreEuphylax dovii has been rarely encountered(Word 1976).

In a follow-up to last months report onStenorhynchus debilis in southern California,Carol also passed on a record from a diver whoobserved and photographed them in early Juneoff Corona del Mar in about 30' of water. No

13


specimens were returned, but the photographleaves no doubt as to the identity of the animal.This is the most northward report of the specieson the mainland to date.

THE MALE IS WRONG

Member Tim Stebbins (CSDMWWD) recentlysent an e-mail noting differences between thespecimens he (and Dean Pasko) had beenobserving and the published description ofCampylaspis canaliculata Zimmer 1928. Nomale was available for Zimmer’s originaldescription, and the male remainedundescribed in the literature until the recentreport of Watling & McCann (1997).Unfortunately, the male put forward by Watling& McCann as C. canaliculata is not. It appearsto be a related species, but is not the male of C.canaliculata as known here in the Bight. Ourlocal specimens of C. canaliculata displaycharacteristically narrow and deep lateralcarapace sulci in BOTH sexes. The maleattributed to the species by Watling & McCannlacks this sulcus in the provided illustrations(Figure 2.24a, b), and is also described in thetext as lacking a sulcus. In most otherparticulars the animal is similar to the sulcatemale taken locally along with females. It alsolacks, however, the sternal tooth found on thefirst three abdominal segments of C.canaliculata males. Presumptive males of thespecies should be examined for these teeth;they occur in an area not normally examined inthe process of identification, and consequentlyare not often noted. They are clearly absent inFigure 2.24b of Watling & McCann, a lateralview of an entire male specimen.

Tim and Dean also noted a difference in theuropodal setation of their specimens from thatreported by Watling & McCann. In the key totreated Campylaspis provided by those authors( pg. 160-161) they state that the uropodalexopod lacks lateral setation in C. canaliculata,and use this as a key character in separationfrom C. biplicata. Our specimens do not bearthis out. Both the San Diego specimens and

those from off Palos Verdes have two to threesetae distally on the exopod lateral margin.The count is usually two, but a thirdsubterminal seta occurs with some frequency.Despite the assertion in the text and in the keythat these are lacking in C. canaliculata,Zimmer’s original description makes no suchstatement. Zimmer gave little detail in hisdescription of the uropods, and did not mentionarmature of either the lateral or mesial marginsof the exopod. His illustration does not showthe setae, but is not very large.

Both the San Diego and Palos Verdesspecimens are from much closer to the typelocation of the species (off Corona del Mar)than are the specimens examined by Watlingand McCann from off central California. Someclinal variation might be expected, and thismay be represented in their concept of thespecies. Their statement that the species waspreviously known from only two specimensreflects reliance on the literature, and lack oflocal experience. Most agencies sampling inthe Bight take this species routinely, andhundreds of specimens have been examinedfrom local waters.

ALIEN ALERT

Member Mary Wicksten (TAMU) recentlynotified the editor via e-mail of a potentialincursion by a southern shrimp species into ourwaters. The species, normally found inPanamanian waters, may extend northwardduring the present strong ENSO event, and weshould be on the watch for it. It is anundescribed species of the hippolytid genusLysmata, which Mary describes as “The otherLysmata is smaller than L. californica, has adistinct accessory branch to one flagellum ofthe first antenna and is colored red with distinctlines of silver spots.” Anyone finding thisanimal should collect the specimens and notifyMary ([email protected]). I’m sure shewould appreciate both the record and anyavailable specimens.

14


BIBLIOGRAPHY

BATES, S. S., A. S. W. de Freitas, J. E. Milley, R. Pocklington, M. A. Quilliam, J. C. Smith, andJ. Worms. 1991. Controls on domoic acid production by the diatom Nitzschia pugens f.multiseries in culture: nutrients and irradiance. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and AquaticSciences 48:1136-1144.

CARLSON, SHAWN. 1998. A year for the oceans. Scientific American 279(1):108-109.CARTER, JOHN W. 1982. Natural history observations on the gastropod shell-using amphipod

Photis conchicola Alderman, 1936. Journal of Crustacean Biology 2(3):328-341.CORTES, JORGE. 1997. Costa Rican marine biodiversity: Phylum Cnidaria. Revista de Biologia

Tropical 45(1B):323-334.DRUM, ANN S., T. L. Siebens, E. A. Crecelius, and R. A. Elston. 1993. Domoic acid in the

Pacific razor clam Siliqua patula (Dixon, 1789). Journal of Shellfish Research 12(2):443-450.

ENEQUIST, PAUL. 1949. Studies on the soft-bottom amphipods of the Skagerak. ZoologischeBidrag fran Uppsala 28:297-492.

GARTH, JOHN S., and W. Stephenson. 1966. Brachyura of the Pacific Coast of America.Brachyrhyncha: Portunidae. Allan Hancock Monographs in Marine Biology (1):1-154.

GOMEZ-GUTIERREZ, JAIME, and Carlos A Sanchez-Ortiz. 1995. Capitulo 3. Centros deeclosion y deriva larval y postlarval de la Langostilla, Pleuroncodes planipes (Crustacea:Galatheidae), en la costa occidentale de Baja California Sur. Pp.35-57. Aurioles-Gamboa, D., and E. F. Balart La Langostilla: Biologia, Ecologia y Aprovechamiento.

—. 1997. Larval drift and population structure of the pelagic phase of Pleuroncodes planipes(Stimpson) (Crustacea: Galatheidae) off the southwest coast of Baja California, Mexico.Bulletin of Marine Science 61(2):305-325.

LANGLOIS, GREGG W., K. W. Kizer, K. H. Hansgen, R. Howell, and S. M. Loscutoff. 1993. Anote on domoic acid in California coastal molluscs and crabs. Journal of ShellfishResearch 12(2):467-468.

PLEIJEL, FREDERIK. 1998. Phylogeny and classification of Hesionidae (Polychaeta). ZoologicaScripta 27(2):89-163.

REYNOLDS, PATRICK D. 1997. The phylogeny and classification of Scaphopoda (Mollusca):an assessment of current resolution and cladistic reanalysis. Zoologica Scripta 26(1):13-21.

SICKEL, JAMES B. 1998. Gluttonous feeding behavior in the Rhabdocoel, Macrostomum sp,induced by larvae of the Asiatic clam, Corbicula fluminea. Journal of Freshwater Ecology13(1): 135-137.

STEINER, GERHARDT. 1992. Phylogeny and classification of Scaphopoda. Journal ofMolluscan Studies 58:385-400.

—. 1996. Suprageneric phylogeny in Scaphopoda. Pp.329-335. Taylor, J. Origin and evolutionaryradiation of the Mollusca.

SUBBA RAO, D. V., M. A. Quilliam, and R. Pocklington. 1988. Domoic acid- a neurotoxicamino acid produced by the marine diatom Nitzschia pungens in culture. CanadianJournal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 45:2076-2079.

SWEENEY, MICHAEL J., Clyde F. E. Roper, Katharina M. Mangold, Malcolm R. Clarke, andSigurd V. Boletzky. 1992. ‘Larval’ and juvenile cephalopods: a manual for theiridentification. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 513:1-218.

TUCK, IAN D., Stephen J. Hall, Mike R. Robertson, Eric Armstrong, &David J. Basford.1998.Effects of physical trawling disturbance in a previously unfished sheltered Scottish sealoch. Marine Ecology Progress Series 162:227-242.

WATLING, LES, and Linda D. McCann. 1997. Chapter 2: Cumacea. Pp. 121-180 IN: Blake,James A. & Paul H. Scott (eds.). Taxonomic Atlas of the Benthic Fauna of the SantaMaria Basin and Western Santa Barbara Channel. Volume 11: The Crustacea Part 2 - TheIsopoda, Cumacea and Tanaidacea. Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, SantaBarbara, California. 278pp..

WOHLGESCHAFFEN, G. D., K. H. Mann, D. V. S. Rao, and R. Pocklington. 1992. Dynamics ofthe phycotoxin domoic acid - accumulation and excretion in 2 commercially importantbivalves. Journal of Applied Phycology 4(4):297-310.

WORD, JACK Q. 1976. A swimming crab, Euphylax dovii Stimpson 1860, new to the marinefauna of California. California Fish and Game 62(2):161-162.

YOUNG, RICHARD EDWARD. 1972. The systematics and areal distribution of pelagiccephalopods from the seas off southern California. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology(97):1-159.

ZIMMER, CARL. 1936. California Crustacea of the order Cumacea. Proceedings of the UnitedStates National Museum 83(2992):423- 439.

SCAMIT OFFICERS:

If you need any other information concerning SCAMIT please feel free to contact any of theofficers e-mail addressPresident Ron Velarde (619)692-4903 [email protected] Don Cadien (310)830-2400 ext. 403 [email protected] Megan Lilly (619)692-4901 [email protected] Ann Dalkey (310)648-5544 [email protected] issues of the newsletter are available. Prices are as follows:

Volumes 1 - 4 (compilation)................................. $ 30.00Volumes 5 - 7 (compilation)................................. $ 15.00Volumes 8 - 15 ................................................ $ 20.00/vol.

Single back issues are also available at cost.

Please visit the SCAMIT Website at: http://www.scamit.org


Documents

SCAMIT Newsletter Vol. 17 No. 2 1998 June · PDF fileSCAMIT Newsletter in not deemed to be valid publication for formal taxonomic purposes. June, ... differences in identification