SUBJECT: Problem Polychaete Soulutions

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

DATE: Monday, 21 September 1998

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

LOCATION: Worm LabNatural History Museum of Los Angeles County900 Exposistion Blvd.Los Angeles, CA

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.

August, 1998 Vol. 17, No. 4SCAMIT Newsletter

Terebellides reishi Willam, 1984(Original drawing by Kathy Langan-CranfordCSDMWWD )

There was no August SCAMIT Meeting. At theSeptember meeting, and after two months toponder the nature of the problems covered in Julyand their possible solutions, a second problempolychaete discussion will be held. Since thiswill be the “prove it” meeting, please bring anysupporting references, data, specimens, etc. to aidin resolving contentious taxonomic issues. TheMeeting will be held at the Natural HistoryMuseum with Hartman’s types just down the hallfor consultation if necessary.

2

August, 1998 Vol. 17, No.4SCAMIT Newsletter

NEW LITERATURE

Two more landmark volumes have beenreleased by the U.S. Government PrintingOffice (Voss et al 1998). They deal with thesystematics and distribution of cephalopodsworld wide, and are symposium volumes withmultiply authored individual contributions.Both volumes are dedicated to Gil Voss andWilliam Adam, two fallen giants in the field ofcephalopod systematics and biology. Theyresulted from the International Workshop onSystematics and Biogeography of Cephalopodsheld 10 years ago in Washington, and arecompanion volumes to an earlier publicationdealing with larval and juvenile cephalopods(Sweeney et al 1992). These three volumestogether constitute an extremely valuablesummary of the current state of mostcephalopod systematics worldwide. We mustremember that not all of the contributions arecompletely up to date, and a great deal ofrevisionary work on cephalopods has beenpublished recently. There are some areas leftuntouched as well - including the octopods ofthe eastern Pacific. We assume this is becausework was not complete at the time ofpublication on some of the subject taxa and orareas. As with all Smithsonian Contributions,it is likely that copies can be obtained from theauthors (in this case the editors). Once theirsupply is exhausted it will probably beavailable from the USGPO for awhile, and maybe reprinted if demand is sufficiently high.Anyone working with cephalopods can onlybenefit from many of the articles presented inthese volumes, even those only peripherallyrelated to our local fauna.

Another largely pelagic group is discussed in arecently released popular article (Nadis 1998).The siphonophores are mentioned as a majorresearch area for MBARI (Monterey BayAquarium Research Institute) and their newdeep-diving ROV the Tiburon. Although oflittle use to us taxonomically, the articlepresents interesting information on thedistribution and activities of some of our local

siphonophore species, including one reaching alength of up to 40m!! Unfortunately the articledoes not discuss our one benthic siphonophore,Dromalia alexandri.

A new journal is being launched - BiologicalInvasions. As one might expect from hisprominence in the field, the Editor-in-chief isJames T. Carlton. This journal represents thefirst stab at concentrating information in a peer-reviewed journal on all aspects of biologicalinvasions. The subject has been increasinglyreported in recent years because of man’s rolein the process. The announcement contains acall for papers, and a description of the journal,along with a subscription form. Individualsubscriptions are $100/yr (four issues), andinstitutional subscriptions are $252.50.Contributing authors will not be subject to pagecharges, and are provided 75 offprints at nocharge. Contact Kluwer Academic PublishersOrder Dept., P. O. Box 358 Accord Station,Highham, MA 02018-0358; or via e-mail atkluwer@wkap.com or on the web at http://www.wkap.nl. Manuscripts should besubmitted to the Kluwer Academic PublishersJournals Editorial Office - BiologicalInvasions, P. O. Box 990, 3300AZ Dordrecht,The Netherlands.

SLUGFEST

The saga of California Philine species has beenoften addressed in the NL. There are, however,many other worthwhile discussions of thecurrent status of California species to be had.One of the most informative, and contentious,is the ongoing discussion on the Sea SlugForum run by Dr. William Rudman at theAustralian Museum. He has had severalcorrespondents from California who havecontacted him concerning the putativeintroduction of Philine auriformis intoCalifornia waters. He has been sent, and hasdissected several specimens originally thoughtto be P. auriformis from intertidal collections inBodega Bay. Michelle Chow, who has anumber of students who are investigating the

3

August, 1998 Vol. 17, No.4SCAMIT Newsletter

locally abundant and conspicuous Philine inthe bay, supplied Dr. Rudman with photos andspecimens for his examination. Since he hasexamined and reported on P. auriformis fromits home waters in New Zealand, this was quitevaluable.

The results of his dissections were, however,very surprising. He determined that there weretwo species in the material sent, and thatneither of them was P. auriformis. He hastermed them Philine sp. 1 and Philine sp. 2from California. Both are very large animals,pure white, with large gizzard plates. InPhiline sp. 1 there are two asymmetricalmirror-image plates of the same size, and onesmaller plate. In Philine sp. 2 all three platesare symmetrical and of equal size. Bothspecies have pits on the outside surface of thegizzard plates at their thickest point. Thereappear to be differences in radula as well, anddissections of the reproductive system haveshown differing reproductive anatomy. In theinitial dissection a broken duct lead to anerroneous evaluation of the structure in his sp.2, but further dissections have remedied thisproblem.

Dr. Rudman still feels that Philine sp. 2 is whatwe have called P. auriformis, but that thedifferences in the reproductive system and theradula make that ID untenable. Terry Goslinerhas also been tracking this exchange, andmaintains that the animal is P. auriformis.Rudman feels that it is more likely to be an eastAsian species from Chinese or Japanesewaters. Philine sp.1 appears likely to bePhiline orientalis from China, although thereare some differences in fine structure of thedenticles on the radular teeth, and the shelldiffers slightly in its anterior conformation.

We clearly have two species involved inCalifornia, at least in Bodega Bay there aretwo. I have examined specimens from othermore southern locations, and have found themall to correspond to Rudman’s Type 2. They allhave the uniform spindle shaped gizzard plates,

and a finely sculptured shell. The question ofwhether or not these are P. auriformis remains.The differences in reproductive and radularmorphology pointed out by Rudman may ormay not be contained within the variation of asingle species. In particular the size of theradula may vary between populations in thenative range, and in an invading population inresponse to differences in prey size andidentity.

As part of the Quality Control on the Bight ‘98sampling a series of large Philine wereexamined from sites around Catalina Island,and on the mainland. Although completedissections were not performed, the gizzardplates of all specimens were examined. Nonehad the reduced third plate which characterizesthe introduced Philine No. 1 of Rudman fromBodega Bay. At least so far there is noevidence that this species (whether P. orientalisor another form) occurs in the SouthernCalifornia Bight. We will continue to call theseanimals P. auriformis (following Gosliner)until their identity is established beyondquestion. Rudman’s concern over thedifferences between the archival animals hedissected from New Zealand and Californiaspecimens from Bodega Bay (differences inradular size and reproductive tract proportions)is well founded, but neither seems sufficient toestablish that our animal is not the same.

In his Seaslug Forum discussions Rudmanraises again the specter of Philine bakeri.Forget it; P. bakeri is not the large animalfigured by Behrens, Abbott, and (original basisof the faux-pas) MacFarland. The animal theycall P. bakeri is P. alba. This animal, whilescarce in recent years, is still around. Severalspecimens were taken around Catalina and thenorthern Channel Islands during the Bight ‘98sampling. Philine bakeri is a much smaller andmore cylindrical species which we took in theSCBPP in limited numbers. The shell isdistinctive, with deeply incised spiral sculpturewhich forms crenelations at the margin. It alsohas a sulcus where the posterior end of the

4

August, 1998 Vol. 17, No.4SCAMIT Newsletter

outer lip joins the spire. Maximum size ofthese animals (based on those few seen to date)is probably 15mm. Although the species wasdescribed by Dall based on shell only, theshells of our animals are dead ringers for Dall’stype (based on inspection at the Smithsonianby D. Cadien in 1992).

Gosliner (1996) correctly deals with P. alba vs.bakeri, but then suggests that P. bakeri, P.polystrigma (which he redescribes) and P.californica are all “similar” and require furtherstudy. The implication being that they might besynonymous. While further study would bebeneficial, separation of these three species isquite simple, particularly P. californica, whichhas sculpture unlike that of any other westcoast Philine (raised into prickles at theintersections of the radial and spiral sculpture).He mentions Philine sp A of SCAMIT,referring to it as Philine sp. 1 and providing abrief description. He also briefly describesBullomorpha sp. A of SCAMIT as Philine sp.2. Given the overlap of name usage it isprobably beneficial to take stock and provideequivalencies between authors. In the followinglist the SCAMIT usage is provided first,followed by that of other authors. If thespecies is not on the SCAMIT list and has nousage indicated then there is no default ID andthose of other authors are provided withattribution.

Philine alba = P. bakeri of Abbott 1974,MacFarland 1966, and Behrens 1991

Philine auriformis = Philine No 2 of RudmanPhiline bakeriPhiline californicaPhiline orientalis? of Rudman = Philine No. 1

of Rudman = Philine auriformis ofMichelle Chow [in part]

Philine polystrigma of Gosliner =P. nr.quadrataof SAIC, 1986

Philine sp. A = Philine sp. 1 of GoslinerPhiline sp. B [newly introduced by John

Ljubenkov for animals from OCSDsampling]

Philine sp. 2 of Gosliner = Bullomorpha sp. Aof SCAMIT

This yields a list of eight different forms fromCalifornia waters. Gosliner has identified twoother forms of modified philinids which heincludes in the genus, but no descriptions areavailable, and it is unknown what these animalsare at present. One reputedly lacks both a shelland gizzard plates (and thus might be aphilinoglossacean), while the other lacksgizzard plates.

Anyone wishing to participate in the debate, orcontact the contending factions can reachMichelle Chow at mbond@ucdavis.edu; Dr.Terry Gosliner at tgosliner@calacademy.organd the Sea Slug Forum at http://www.austmus.gov.au/science/division/invert/mal/forum/index.htm.

CONFERENCES

Early next year (24-27 January) a NationalConference on Marine Bioinvasions will beheld at MIT in Cambridge Maine. Thefollowing general topic areas are scheduled tobe addressed: Transport Vectors, Ballast Water,Patterns of Invasions, Ecological and GeneticConsequences of Invasions, Status of ControlFactors and Predictive Models, and EconomicImpacts of Invasions. You can contact theorganizers at http://massbay.mit.edu/exoticspecies/conference.html for furtherninformation. Abstracts are due 30 September.

The Call for Papers has been received forCoastal Zone 99, to be held in San Diego July24-30. Such a diverse series of subjects will beaddressed that they cannot be listed here. Wedirect interested parties to the Coastal Zone 99website omega.cc.umb.edu/~cz99 or the CZ99Secretariat, University of Massachusetts -Boston, Urban Harbors Institute, 100Morrissey Boulevard, Boston, MA, 02125-3393.

5

August, 1998 Vol. 17, No.4SCAMIT Newsletter

BIGHT ‘98 SAMPLING

Member Tim Stebbins recently posed aquestion regarding counting of trawl specimensassociated with algae on the Taxonomic ListSever. We repeat them here for those who donot receive that material.

“To Record or Not to Record — That is theQuestion!

I recently sent a memo regarding the presenceof Synidotea harfordi at Bight ‘98 trawl station2416. I recommended that these isopods berecorded since: (1) they (the genus) areconsidered benthic; and (2) they were largeenough (>1cm) to meet trawl catch criteria.They were also significant (at least to me) inthat they represent a “new” species for theSCAMIT list. I still stand by thisrecommendation. The reason that I’mreaddressing the issue is that I just had theopportunity to examine some other isopods thatDean gave me from a trawl. As luck wouldhave it, these specimens also came from station2416. They were not recorded since theysupposedly came up with some kelp (probablyEgregia). Should they be recorded in the Bight‘98 data? All of the specimens were largeenough (i.e., > 1cm in length). Although theywere most likely associated with the Egregia,who knows for sure? And if they werecollected in a grab (perhaps hanging out ondrift algae) they would be recorded. I wouldprobably record them here, but then I’m biased— I have a feeling others would not. Ofcourse, an additional problem is that they wereprobably not all collected.”

The algal associated isopods he was discussingshould be recorded if they meet the sizecriterion for inclusion in trawl sampling. Manysmaller individuals were probably lost throughthe mesh, but they would not be countableanyway. Association with algae, either drift orattached does not make an organism asampling artifact and unreportable.

During recent trawling for Bight ‘98 little ofinterest was seen by CSDLAC staff. Nearly allour sampling sites were in shallow water andover fine sand bottoms. Catches were small(by our standards) to normal (by most otherstandards). Few unusual species were taken,although the lump-tail sea-robin proved to benot uncommon in our trawls this time.

Invertebrate novelties were virtually non-existent. The only interesting catches werefrom abandoned trawls where hard bottom hadripped up the net. Even the large penaeidshrimp we expected to see on shallower sandybottoms were sparse; only three Penaeuscaliforniensis were encountered in our Bight‘98 trawls. Target shrimp, Metapenaeopsis,and the recently arriving and somewhat deeperliving Plesionika and Pantomus species wereabsent from the Bight ‘98 trawls. We did,however, continue to see the penaoidSolenocera mutator [several adult males] , andtwo pandalids Plesionika trispinus (includingmore gravid females) and Pantomus affinis intows along the Palos Verdes Peninsula at ourregular monitoring stations. We hit oneastonishing catch of Pantomus affinis at a depthof 137m which contained 1132 individuals,about 17% of which were gravid females! Wealso took all three off-shore Octopus speciesthis time; Octopus californicus, O. rubescens,and O. veligero.

Only three species were taken which wereadditions to our cumulative species list; thesponge Dysidea amblia, the galatheid crabMunida quadrispina, and the bysally attachedclam Pteria sterna. This latter species wasencountered in an abandoned trawl, and wastaken from Muricea californica, generally nearthe attachment of the gorgonian colony.

The situation around Catalina Island was quitedifferent. Don Cadien (CSDLAC) met withKaren Wisenbaker (WIES) for several days togo over the vouchers and FID specimens theytook during Bight ‘98 trawls around the island.A number of interesting specimens were

6

August, 1998 Vol. 17, No.4SCAMIT Newsletter

obtained, including several whose identity isstill uncertain. Newly taken in these trawlswere the muricid snail Scabarotrophon grovesi,and the crabs Cryptodromidiopsis laraburreiand Stenorhynchus debilis. The later two havebeen recently cited as part of the El Niñoevidence - both appearing in numbers in theSan Diego area.. The Cryptodromidiopsisspecimen taken was a gravid female, soperhaps we will be seeing more of these smallcryptic sponge-carrying crabs. It was includedin Ed. 3 based on a single record.

Other noteworthy organisms were a series ofthe sea star Hippasteria spinosa, someAstropecten ornatissimus, and a specimen ofPsolus squamatus. A young specimen of theinfrequently encountered Cancellaria cooperiwas taken, as was a large specimen of Berthellacalifornica.

A series of sponges were taken in the trawlsaround Catalina. These included Tetheaaurantia, Leucilla nuttingi, Poecilastratenuilaminaris, and Rhabdocalyptus dawsoni.The latter has a layer of very long surfacetetracts/pentacts which protrude above thesponge surface and intertwine to form a sort ofouter coarse filter. Underneath this were aseries of small ophiuroids, all Ophiopholisbakeri, along with two species of worms, acaprellid, and a pectinid. All these associatesderive some benefit from lodging under thefence of spicules which cover them, while thesponge seemed to be unharmed. Two of theOphiopholis had their own associates, tinywhite parasitic copepods attached to the oralfield of the ophiuroid.

Both the large Laqueus californicus and thesomewhat smaller Terebratulina crossei weretaken in samples from “Brachiopod bottoms”.Sea-pens were common in the trawls, withAcanthoptilum spp. being the most common,followed by Stylatula elongata, Thesea sp B,and Stachyptilum superbum. Both species ofVirgularia commonly encountered on themainland coast V. bromleyi and V. galapagana

were absent from the materials returned forFID. A large specimen of what is probably the‘brown tent anemone’ was taken on cobble offthe east end of the island.

Another interesting cnidarian is much morecharacteristic of hard bottoms, andundoubtedly was swept off a low lying rock. Itis a still unidentified gorgonian octocoral in thefamily Primnoidae. It is very close inappearance to what is called Plumarellalongispina in Nuttall 1909. The animal doesnot have the characters of the genus Plumarellaas provided by Bayer 1991, and seems to be aParastenella instead based on details of thespicules.

MY LIFE AS A BIOLOGIST

By Donald J. Reish

Chapter 9—The Hartman Years, Part 1

I remember three things about my final mastersoral. I had many questions about the honey beeand the lymphatic system—both of which Iknew only slightly. Dr. Pratt told me later thatthey terminated my oral exam early because Idrank so much of the water that they provided,they were afraid that I would have an“accident”! I taught one-half of the invertcourse and Dr. Pratt taught the other halfduring the fourth summer at OIMB [OregonInstitute of Marine Biology]. I expanded myefforts at collecting syllids from the Oregoncoast during the last summer.

I had written Dr. Hartman while in Oregon.Her replies were encouraging. She wrote thatthe Hancock Foundation offered fellowships. Iapplied for and received one of them. I alsohad TA offers at Northwestern and Hawaii. Atthe end of the summer of 1948 I spent a coupleof weeks with my mother who had moved toLA during WWII. I went to the USC campusand to the Hancock Foundation to meet Dr.Hartman. I learned that she only came to thecampus on Saturday, and I would be back inOregon by then. The receptionist at the desk

7

August, 1998 Vol. 17, No.4SCAMIT Newsletter

called Dr. Hartman at home, and I talked withher briefly; I heard a baby crying in thebackground. I was amazed when I saw theworm stacks in Room 30. Back in Oregon Imade arrangements to meet Dr. Hartman inJanuary 1949. We spent about two hourstalking polychaetes. She gave me copies of herreprints. I decided then that I wanted to workon my PhD at USC. I applied at the other twoabove mentioned places plus others because Ineeded financial support.

On the way back to Oregon I stopped atStanford to visit my friends Bob and Paul(more about him in a later chapter) who wereworking on advanced degrees. I went to theBiology Dept, but I really didn’t talk to anyone;I did see G. M. Smith working in his office; hewrote many botany texts. I stopped at Berkeleywhere I met Cadet Hand and Don Abbott bothof whom were working on their PhDs.

On the return trip to southern California Istopped at Hopkins Marine Station at theinvitation of W. K. Fisher, who had retired asdirector. I had sent him sipunculids andechiuroids from Oregon which he used in hismonographs of these two groups. I slept in thelab and was awakened by the seals in themorning. I met Ralph Smith who was workingon the life history of Neanthes lighti. PeteRiser and Don Abbott were also there. Icollected more syllids.

I arrived in LA in August 1949. I lived withmy mother; she put me up in her garage (nocar) since her main source of income wasrenting out rooms. At my first meeting withDr. Hartman I told her that I wanted to work onthe syllids of Pacific Coast for my PhD. Shesaid no. She didn’t think it was appropriate fora dissertation. I then decided to work on thelife history of Typosyllis. Since Dr. Hartmandid not have an academic appointment, shecould not be on my committee; however,unofficially she was my chair. I’m sure thatshe could have flunked me out if she thoughtthat I was unworthy. My committee consisted

of Martin, Moore, Dawson (He never had agrad student; I was the closest to one), Sheldonand Buchanan. The latter two died and werereplaced by Garth and Mayer. I will discussmy doctoral research in a later chapter.

What was it like to be the first person to workwith Dr. Hartman? The environment wasformal. She always called me Mr. Reish and Ialways called her Dr. Hartman. Aftercompletion of my doctorate, she called me Donbut never Dr. Reish. She was, and always willbe, Dr. Hartman to me. My first job as aHancock fellow was to type the list ofpolychaete genera which was used in hercatalog of the polychaetes. I then checked thealcohol in all the vials in the stacks. These 2jobs took me 2 years. I then started sortingsamples for her. As a Hancock Fellow, I had towork 12 hours a week. They paid my $100.00a month and tuition.

I was amazed by her library and especially hercatalog to all the reference to polychaetes. Icopied the syllid catalog (which I later gave toFred Piltz) and later the nereid catalog. Youcould set your clock by her work schedule.She came in a 7 AM and left at 11:30 AM. Ithen had Room 30 to myself until 9:45 PMwhen the doors of Hancock were locked.Hancock was open to noon on Saturday andnever on Sunday. Dr. Hartman never took abreak. She looked at worms for about 2-3hours and typed (very fast) for the rest of thetime. She never told me what she was doing orwhenever she completed a MS. She was veryreceptive of my questions and the discussionusually ended up with my carrying a pile ofreferences to my desk. However, sometime sheeither did not hear my question or was thinkingabout something else; her reply was unrelatedto my question. I could not get her back ontrack so I walked away and asked the questionlater. One day she showed me a fancy sliderule that she had bought. She asked me toteach her how to use it. I had taught others in

8

August, 1998 Vol. 17, No.4SCAMIT Newsletter

years past how to use a slide rule. She wantedto solve her long problem then and there. Shecould not wait to learn the basics. She neverlearned how to use it.

[Next time: Chapter 10—The Hartman Years,Part 2]

AMPHIPOD CHATSHOP

Following the International CrustaceanConference in Amsterdam an informal 4 daymeeting was held in Germany by worldamphipod workers. A brief synopsis of thatgathering was provided on the crustL listserver. It is reprinted here with the authors’permission for the information of those not inattendance.

“IXth International Meeting on the Amphipoda(Amphipod Chatshop) Kronenburg (Germany)26-30 July 1998

[by] Wim Vader, Adam Baldinger & TraudlKrapp-Schickel

This amphipod meeting directly followed theIVth International Crustacean Congress inAmsterdam. The small village of Kronenburgin the Eifel mountains of W. Germany formed anice contrast to Amsterdam, where mostparticipants had been the week prior. Thirty-five scientists from twelve countries on fourcontinents took part in the amphipod meetings,some accompanied by their families whosepresence increased the family atmosphere evenmore. The Amphipod Chatshop, was organizedby Traudl Krapp Schickel (Bonn) and WimVader (Tromsø). The unpretentious titlechatshop was chosen because no officiallectures or contributed papers were given,instead the meeting concentrated on a series ofmoderated discussions on topics of commoninterest.

The discussions held were as follows:

27 July morning: “Cladistic tools in amphipodtaxonomy,” moderated by Jørgen Berge(Tromsø). Cladistic analyses are rapidlybecoming a vital part in amphipod taxonomy,but many workers are still unfamiliar with thetheory and methods of this discipline. Bergeintroduced this topic based upon his ownstudies. This resulted in a lively discussion,that included the peculiar problems posed bythe mosaic-like evolution of the Amphipoda,coupled to their almost total absence from thefossil record. Virtually no agreement on whatconstitutes apomorphic characters impedes thesearch for suitable outgroups. Numerousingroup taxa and only a few representativeoutgroup taxa, results in analyses that maybecome skewed, because the many closelyrelated ingroup-taxa more or less swamp thecharacter traits in the few outgroup taxa. Therole of molecular studies and how to integratesuch results into cladistic analyses currentlygenerated mostly by morphological characterswas also discussed.

27 July afternoon: “What should a taxonomicdescription look like?” moderated by OliverColeman (Berlin). Several years ago, Ollidistributed a circular letter with the same title,asking for as complete illustrations as possible,and suggesting that written text concentrate onpoints insufficient for illustration. Hemaintained that “it is easier to understand aillustration than to visualize a writtendescription.” There was general agreement onthe importance of complete and detailedillustrations, but many colleagues also stressedthe significance of written descriptions,particularly to explain species variation. Aresearcher should discern between publicationsthat involve new species descriptions and/orgeneric or family level revisions from thetaxonomic keys produced for the generalbiologist or ecologists. Both types are of vitalimportance, but it was agreed upon that thesepublications can not easily be combined in onepaper.

9

August, 1998 Vol. 17, No.4SCAMIT Newsletter

28 July morning. “Amphipod information inan electronic age,” moderated by Alan Myers(Cork). A number of possibilities to distributeelectronic information was discussed andincluded i.e: the development of an amphipodwebsite, that could serve as a gateway for theAmphipod Newsletter, now temporarily stalled;deposition of and easy access to regional taxaand their distribution lists; type specimens andtheir museum location; and illustratedinteractive keys (hopefully in DELTA-format).

A sizable number of technical problems andpitfalls was noted: Such a website requiresconstant service by an expert, a significantamount of time for a dedicated and altruisticresearcher (several younger colleagues werenamed) and it will require resources. Aproblem with an easily accessible list is qualitycontrol, i.e: who decides which entries arereliable, and will monitor and edit thetaxonomic and distributional data?

Stefan Koenemann (Norfolk, VA) promised todevelop an amphipod homepage. Les Watlingwill scan Amphipod Newsletters 2-20 and WimVader has produced AN 21; all should beavailable soon to download on the web page.

28 July afternoon. “Whither amphipod family-level taxonomy?” This discussion wasintroduced by Les Watling (Maine), who gavehis views on the plesiomorphic amphipod andon the position of the Amphipoda among thePeracarida. Currently the classification of theAmphipoda is still in a state of flux; theschedules of Jerry Barnard and Ed Bousfield,often not very compatible and neither of thembased on cladistic analyses, are still prevalent.Discussions revolved around the bush-likeevolution of the Amphipoda and enviouscomparisons to the Isopoda where the generalclassification appears clearer. Notunexpectedly, the classification problems of theAmphipoda were not solved! However, it wassuggested that a cladistic analysis of the

amphipod families should have high priority,simply to give a general idea of the overallrelationships, and to generate topics for furtherstudies.

29 July morning. “Uniformity of terminology,”moderated by Oliver Coleman. The primaryquestion of this session was whether thisdiscussion is necessary at all in such that “weshould not try to stifle colleagues by forcingeverybody to use exactly the sameterminology,” a thesis forcefully defended.However, descriptions should be unequivocaland unambiguous. As an example, theterminology of setae, spines and teeth wasdiscussed. Les Watling announced that aworkshop on this topic will be held in Maine inthe summer of 1999.

29 July afternoon. “Illustrations in taxonomicdescriptions.” This discussion was based on anote contributed by Kathy Conlan and EdHendrycks (Ottawa), with examples of goodand poor illustrations, and a set of guidelinesthat illustrations should adhere to. Theseguidelines were generally accepted asimportant, although it was pointed out that theywere a bit “idealistic” and difficult to adhere towith increasing publication costs. Among thepoints mentioned often inadequately defined inpresent illustrations (and descriptions!) werethe pleopods, the oostegites (form andnumber), and the characteristics of immatureand juvenile animals.

“Next amphipod meeting: when and where?”moderated by Wim Vader (Tromsø). The nextInternational Crustacean Congress will be heldin Melbourne in 2001, and many participantsvoted for an amphipod meeting or anamphipod-isopod consortium prior to or afterthe Congress (Tasmania and Sydney werementioned). The next European CrustaceanConference will be in Lodz, Poland in 2002.

Most of the participants expressed interest inhaving an amphipod meeting prior to theMelbourne Congress. Wanda Plaitis (Kreta)offered a preliminary invitation to hold the next

10

August, 1998 Vol. 17, No.4SCAMIT Newsletter

amphipod meeting on Kreta in the summer of1999. It was decided to have next amphipodmeeting in 1999 and it should be in a regularformat with contributed papers and invitedlectures and posters. Wanda Plaitis, Wim Vaderand Adam Baldinger are in the process ofdeveloping this proposal (PLEASE SEEBELOW).

In addition to the “chatshops,” ICC contributedposters were arranged at the Eifelhaus, andmagnificent photographs of Antarctic and LakeBaikal amphipods were shown by GauthierChapelle (Brussel). Also shown was afascinating video on the biology of someamphipod species contributed by Les Watling.Ichiro Takeuchi (Japan) showed photographsfrom his Antarctic diving exploits. Anevaluation of the chatshop format showed thatmost participants were satisfied with thisinformal meeting, especially when it is helddirectly following a large conference.

Addresses:

(WV) Tromsø Museum, Zool. Avd., N-9037Tromsø, Norway (wim@imv.uit.no)

(AB) Museum of Comparative Zoology, 26Oxford Street, Cambridge, MA 02138 USA(abaldinger@oeb.harvard.edu)

(TK-S) Museum A. Koenig, Adenauerrallee150, D-53113 Bonn, Germany(Traudl.Krapp@uni-bonn.de)

THE NEXT AMPHIPOD MEETING?

We are proposing to have the next amphipodconference at Heraklion, Kreta (Crete, Kriti),Greece. To organize the meeting, we ask yourinput in the following:

1. If you’re interested in attending this meetingin Kreta, when would you prefer it to takeplace? August 1999, September 1999, Spring2000. Please indicate why or give anothersuggestion.

2. Do you plan (now) to contribute a paper orposter at this meeting?

3. Please give suggest topics and/or symposiayou would be interested in.

Thank you.

Please respond to Adam Baldinger(abaldinger@oeb.harvard.edu)”

Attachments

Kathy Langan, CSDMWWD, has graciouslyprovided two useful attachments to thismonth’s Newsletter. The first is a “taxonomicprotocols” table resulting from the “problempolychaete” meeting in July. It attempts tostandardize the taxonomic approach for dealingwith problematic polychaete identificationsduring the Bight’98 project. The second is akey to the Trichobranchidae of Point Loma, asreferenced in the above mentioned table.

August, 1998 Vol. 17, No.4SCAMIT Newsletter

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ABBOTT, R. TUCKER 1974. American Seashells (Ed. 2), The Marine Mollusca of the Atlanticand Pacific Coasts of North America. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York.663pp.

BEHRENS, DAVID. 1991. Pacific coast nudibranchs (Ed. 2). Sea Challengers, Monterey, Ca.107pp.

GOSLINER, TERRENCE M. 1996. The Opisthobranchia. Pp. 161-213 IN: Scott, Paul H.,James A. Blake, & Andrew L. Lissner (eds.) Taxonomic Atlas of the Benthic Fauna of thesanta Maria Basin and Western Santa Barbara Channel. Volume 9 - The Mollusca Part 2,the Gastropoda. Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, Santa Barbara, Cal. 228pp.

MacFARLAND, FRANCE MACE. 1966. Studies of Opisthobranchiate Mollusks of the PacificCoast of North America. Memoirs of the California Academy of Sciences VI:1-546.

NADIS, STEVE. 1998. Creatures of the Twilight Zone. Popular Science 252(3):50-55.SWEENEY, MICHAEL J., Clyde F. E. Roper, Katharina M. Mangold, Malcolm R. Clarke, &

Sigurd V. Boletzky (eds.). 1992. “Larval” and Juvenile Cephalopods: A Manual forTheir Identification. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 513:1-282.

VOSS, NANCY A., Michael Vecchione, Ronald B. Toll, & Michael J. Sweeney (eds.). 1998.Systematics and Biogeography of Cephalopods. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology586 (2 vols.):1-599.

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 rgv@mwharbor.sannet.govVice-President Don Cadien (310)830-2400 ext. 403 dcadien@lacsd.orgSecretary Megan Lilly (619)692-4901 msl@mwharbor.sannet.govTreasurer Ann Dalkey (310)648-5544 cam@san.ci.la.ca.usBack 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

Big

ht ‘9

8: Id

entif

icat

ion

Pro

toco

ls fo

r S

elec

ted

Pol

ycha

ete

Tax

a

axaT

slocotorP

atatipacalletipa

Cxelp

moc.snoitacifitnedi

nisegnahc

oN

sutsamoide

Mps

yfitnedIsutuca.

Msa

seicepsrehto

llayfitnedI

.sutsa

moideM

sliatedrof

gniteem

TIM

ACS

02yluJ

fosetuni

meeS(

.ps.)noissucsid

fosutsa

maceD

pses

Usilicarg.

D.ytilibairav

rofkoo

L.

sutsamoto

Nps

rof9691

saltA

s’namtra

Hes

U.seiceps

otyfitnedI

sudopimeh.

N.

sutcorpolateP

ps.ps

sayfitnedI

allellixarP

ps.tsilaiceps

otsne

micepsdra

wroFarusso

Cps

.)noissucsidfo

sliatedrof

gniteem

TIM

ACS

02yluJ

fosetuni

meeS(

.seicepsot

yfitnedIallebar

Aps

.snemiceps

etelpmoc

niateR

.pssa

yfitnedI

sierenolirD

pssliated

rofgnitee

mTI

MA

CS02

yluJfo

setunim

eeS(.11.o

N41.lo

V,rettelswe

NTI

MA

CSni

yeks’sirra

Heilse

Les

U.sne

micepseritne

evaS.)noissucsid

foahcortoyrhp

Oxelp

mocC/

B/A

.C

ro,B,

Aot

yfitnedIsinrocignol

)sogniremotsihcS(

aellivroD

.noitacifitnedisiht

yfirevot

5991gibli

Hes

Uasyhpra

Mps

yfitnedIatcnujsid.

Mdna

M.

Aps.

sirenirbmu

Lps

.tsilaicepsot

snemiceps

drawroF

sihpunoerooM

pps.)seiceps

suoiravrof

trahcyra

mmus

agniraperp

sie

woR

kciR(

.seicepsot

yfitnedIsnecsediri

sihpunO

xelpmoc

.seicepsot

yfitnedIsispoilevua

Fps

.)noissucsidfo

sliatedrof

gniteem

TIM

ACS

02yluJ

fosetuni

meeS(

.1891kcocna

Hdna

dlahcuaFni

yekes

Uregi

mrasolpolocS

xelpmoc

.noitacifitnedini

segnahco

Nari

mcA

ps.yek

eadinoraPwen

s’kciwra

Bnivle

Kdna

llevoL

yrraL

esU

.seicepsot

yfitnedIaso

maraill

Asa

yfitnedIaill

A(aedicir

A.egnahc

eman

asi

sihT

.6991TI

MA

CSA

ps)

inalon.fcaill

Asa

yfitnedIyeltrah

)aillA(

aedicirA

.egnahce

mana

sisih

T.i

ainesniveL

psfo

sliatedrof

gniteem

TIM

ACS

02yluJ

fosetuni

meeS(

.yeka

gniraperpsi

llevoL

yrraL

.seicepsot

yfitnedI.yek

eadinoraPwen

s’kciwra

Bnivle

Kdna

llevoL

yrraL

esU

.)noissucsidelehcoiry

Mps

.seicepsot

yfitnedIatidorhp

Aps

yfitnedIadiglufer.

Adna

arefimra.

A.ps.

Asa

seicepsrehto

yfitnedi;

enoetE

psyfitnedI

atatnemgip.

E,setotpel.E,idlahcuaf.

E.stsi

monoxateteahcylop

rehtoyfiton

dnaps

saseiceps

rehtoyfitnedi

;ailalu

Eps

.seicepsot

yfitnedIecodollyh

Pps

.seicepsot

yfitnedIecodollyh

Pps

.seicepsot

yfitnedIailadnara

Pps

.stsimonoxat

eteahcyloprehto

yfiton,seicepstnereffid

ateg

uoyfi

;ilevuaf.PyfitnedI

sialenehtSpps

sliatedrof

gniteem

TIM

ACS

02yluJ

fosetuni

meeS(

.gniteem

TIM

ACS.tpeS

ehtrof

esehtno

gnikrow

siedrale

Vno

R.)noissucsid

fops

sutylotuA

.sdillysrof

yeka

gniraperpsi

noR

sillysonoiP

ps.sdillys

rofyek

agniraperp

sino

Raearecor

Pps

.sdillysrof

yeka

gniraperpsi

noR

sillysoreahpSps

.sdillysrof

yeka

gniraperpsi

noR

)sillysopyT(

sillySpps

.sdillysrof

yeka

gniraperpsi

noR

enohC

xelpmoc

.seicepsot

yfitnedI

axaT

slocotorP

enohcuE

ps.seiceps

otyfitnedI

suretpoteahcoseM

ps.seiceps

otyfitnedI

anillecitnoM/ateahcolehp

Axelp

mocekal

Bdna,8991

hcraM

fosteehs

noitacifitnedis’e

woR

kciR,steehs

rehcuovs’pillihP

ynoT

gnisuseiceps

otyfitnedI

.6991asotes

enozoteahC

xelpmoc

.etadretal

ata

puorgsiht

tisiv-erlli

we

W.tuo

yekot

tpmetta

dna6991

ekalB

esU

sulutarriC

ps.tuo

yekot

tpmetta

dna6991

ekalB

esU

aimrofirri

Cps

.etaicepsot

6991ekal

Bni

yekes

U

anolegaM

ppsdna

)anolegaM

tsaoC

tseW

otye

K(1991.vo

Nfo

yeks’oksaP

naeD

gnisuseiceps

otyfitnedI

anolegaM

rehcuov01

DS.teehs

alleizzaraC

ps.)6991.tpeS(

5.oN

51.loV,rettels

weN

TIM

ACS

nistne

mmoc

otrefer

dna6991

ekalB

esU

arodyloP

psdna

arodyloProf

sretcarahccitsongaid

foselba

T(6991.tc

Ofo

elbats’yeltnar

Blyreh

Cgnisu

seicepsot

yfitnedI.6991

ekalB

dna)ainrofila

Cfo

arodylopiD

oipsonoirP

xelpmoc

B/A

.aibud.Pro

atabujoipsonoirP

otyfitnedI

ithgiloipsonoir

P.seiceps

otyfitnedI

sipelelocSpps

morfeadinoipS

dirodylop-noneht

otye

K(5991.vo

Nfo

yeks’oksaP

naeD

dnallevo

Lyrra

Lgnisu

seicepsot

yfitnedI.6991

ekalB

dna)ainrofila

CnrehtuoS

oipSps

morfeadinoipS

dirodylop-noneht

otye

K(5991.vo

Nfo

yeks’oksaP

naeD

dnallevo

Lyrra

Lgnisu

seicepsot

yfitnedI.6991

ekalB

dna)ainrofila

CnrehtuoS

sisnenoissim

senahpoipSsa

yfitnedIxelpud

.S.egnahc

eman

asi

sihT

.eppisy

Lps

sayfitnedI

eppisyL

roA

psL

.B

ps.silatnedicco

enasoS.seiceps

otyfitnedI

assanaL

pstrahc

s’ewo

Rkci

Rdna

)2991(11.o

N01.lo

V,rettelswe

NTI

MA

CSeht

niyek

s’sirraH

eilseL

gnisuseiceps

otyfitnedI

.)amo

L.tPfo

eadillebereT

eanitirtihpm

Aetaihcnarba

ehtgnitarapeS(

5991.voN

fosurricylo

Pps

.puorgsiht

tisiv-erlli

we

Wa

mosolbertSps

.seicepsot

yfitnedI

sedillebereT

psni

dedulcnisi

ypocA(

.)amo

LtnioP

foeadihcnarbohcir

T(7991.gu

Afo

yeks’nagna

Lyhta

Kgnisu

seicepsot

yfitnedI.)noissucsid

fosliated

rofgnitee

mTI

MA

CS02

yluJfo

setunim

eeS.rettels

wensiht

Bib

liogr

aphy

BLA

KE

, JA

ME

S A

. 19

96.

Cha

pter

4.

Fam

ily S

pion

idae

Gru

be, 1

850.

Pp.

81-

223

IN: B

lake

, Jam

es A

., B

rigitt

e H

ilbig

, and

Pau

l H. S

cott

(eds

). T

axon

omic

Atla

s of

the

Ben

thic

Fau

na o

f the

San

ta M

aria

Bas

in a

nd W

este

rn S

anta

Bar

bara

Cha

nnel

. Vo

l. 6,

The

Ann

elid

a P

art 3

. P

olyc

haet

a: O

rbin

iid

ae to

Cos

surid

ae.

418p

p.B

LAK

E, J

AM

ES

A.

1996

. C

hapt

er 8

. F

amily

Cirr

atu

lidae

Ryc

khol

dt, 1

851.

Pp.

263

-384

IN

: Bla

ke, J

ames

A.,

Brig

itte

Hilb

ig, a

nd P

aul H

. Sco

tt (e

ds).

Tax

onom

icA

tlas

of th

e B

enth

ic F

auna

of t

he S

anta

Mar

ia B

asin

and

Wes

tern

San

ta B

arba

ra C

hann

el.

Vol.

6, T

he A

nnel

ida

Par

t 3.

Pol

ycha

eta:

Orb

iniid

ae to

Cos

surid

ae.

418p

p.FA

UC

HA

LD, K

RIS

TIA

N a

nd D

anil

R. H

anco

ck.

1981

. D

eep-

wat

er p

olyc

haet

es fr

om a

tran

sect

off

cent

ral O

rego

n. A

llan

Han

cock

Fou

nda

tion

Mon

ogra

ph N

o.11

, pp

37-3

8.H

AR

TM

AN

, OLG

A.

1969

. A

tlas

of th

e S

eden

taria

te P

olyc

haet

ous

Ann

elid

s fr

om C

alifo

rnia

. A

llan

Han

cock

Fou

ndat

ion,

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sou

ther

n C

alifo

rnia

, Los

Ang

eles

, 812

pp.

HIL

BIG

, BR

IGIT

TE

. 19

95.

Cha

pter

13.

Fam

ily D

orvi

lleid

ae C

ham

berli

n, 1

919.

Pp.

341

-364

IN

: B

lake

, Jam

es A

., B

rigitt

e H

ilbig

, and

Pau

l H. S

cott

(eds

).Ta

xono

mic

Atla

s of

the

Ben

thic

Fau

na o

f the

San

ta M

aria

Bas

in a

nd W

este

rn S

anta

Bar

bara

Cha

nnel

. Vo

l. 5,

The

Ann

elid

a P

art 2

. P

olyc

haet

a: P

hyllo

doci

da(S

yllid

ae a

nd S

cale

-Bea

ring

Fam

ilies

), A

mph

inom

ida,

and

Eun

icid

a. 3

78pp

.

Big

ht ‘9

8: Id

entif

icat

ion

Pro

toco

ls fo

r S

elec

ted

Pol

ycha

ete

Tax

a (c

ontin

ued)

Not

oset

ae o

f set

iger

1 c

lear

ly lo

nger

than

not

oset

ae o

f fol

low

ing

seti

gers

Not

oset

ae o

f set

iger

1 s

ubeq

ual t

o no

tose

tae

of fo

llow

ing

seti

gers

TR

ICH

OB

RA

NC

HID

AE

OF

PO

INT

LO

MA

Illu

stra

tion

from

Will

iam

s 19

84

Illu

stra

tion

from

Will

iam

s 19

84

Tere

belli

des c

alifo

rnic

a W

illia

ms

1984

o

ther

cha

ract

ers:

•

set

iger

1 n

otop

od p

rolo

nged

Tere

belli

des r

eish

i Will

iam

s 19

84

oth

er c

hara

cter

s:

• s

etig

er 1

not

opod

not

pro

long

ed

Abd

omin

al s

etig

ers

num

ber

40-5

5A

bdom

inal

set

iger

s nu

mbe

r27

-35

Are

a of

gla

ndul

ar e

xpan

sion

is la

ckin

g on

set

iger

3;

seti

ger

3 is

sam

e w

idth

as

seti

ger

2 an

d se

tige

r 4

Are

a of

gla

ndul

ar e

xpan

sion

is p

rese

nt o

n se

tige

r 3;

seti

ger

3 is

wid

er t

han

seti

ger

2 an

d se

tige

r 4

Post

erio

r en

d m

issi

ng

Tere

belli

des s

p

Illu

stra

tion

mod

ified

from

Ter

ebel

lides

kob

ei I

maj

ima

and

Will

iam

s 19

85

Tere

belli

des s

p Ty

pe D

Will

iam

s 19

84

oth

er c

hara

cter

s:

• s

etig

er 1

not

opod

slig

htly

pro

long

ed

• n

umbe

r of

abd

omin

al s

etig

ers

= 30

-35

Tere

belli

des s

p Ty

pe C

Will

iam

s 19

84

oth

er c

hara

cter

s:

• s

etig

er 1

not

opod

not

pro

long

ed

• n

umbe

r of

abd

omin

al s

etig

ers

= 27

-31

(Che

ck b

oth

side

s of

ani

mal

)

Tric

hobr

anch

idae

K. L

anga

n 8

/1/9

7