scamit newsletter vol. 18 no. 6 1999 october

SUBJECT: B’98 Non-polychaete problem taxa

GUEST SPEAKER: none

DATE: November 15, 1999

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

LOCATION: City of San Diego Marine Biology Lab4918 N. Harbor Dr. # 201San Diego, CA 92106

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.

October, 1999 Vol. 18, No. 6SCAMIT Newsletter

The first of the November meetings will takeplace at the San Diego lab on Monday, the 15th.It will be devoted to Crustacea, and probablyfinish our series of meetings on the problemnon-polychaete taxa taken in the Bight’98benthic program. The second meeting, dealingwith polychaete taxa, will take place in theWorm Lab of the Natural History Museum ofLos Angeles County on Monday the 29th.

LAST ONE OF THE MILLENNIUM

With January 1 rapidly approaching, it is timeto schedule our year-end events. Among thoseis the 1999 SCAMIT Christmas Party. Ourmillennium-ending gathering will be held onceagain in the Cabrillo Marine Aquarium. As inthe past we will have the facilities to ourselves,a delightful experience, and one to betreasured. Attendees should plan on bringingsome dish (it is, after all, a pot-luck), and ifpast parties are any guide, a feast should result.SCAMIT will provide a main dish of eitherturkey or ham, and will provide beverages.

Chaetoderma mavinelliCSD A10(1), 1/12/93, 154 ftPhoto by K. Barwick 8/97

2


Those with a taste for a particular beverage canalso bring that for their own consumption.Contact Vice-President Leslie Harris(<[email protected]>) to coordinatedishes; although chili-mac is very tasty, 20different editions is not a good thing. This is aMembers Only event [non-member wwwreaders - sorry], but family and a limitednumber of guests are welcome.

We will try to arrange for Santa to be inattendance for the kids. This has usually beenthe case in the past. The combination of season,location, occasion, and congenial friendsshould once again guarantee a memorableexperience. If Saturday, the 11th of December,is an option for you, please plan to attend. LetLeslie know how many will be in your party,and how many kids are involved. Festivitieswill start at 6 p.m. and continue till themuseum staffer who will be assisting us says itis time to close the doors. As in past yearsarrangements will be made to have the GiftShop open for our perusal and topicalChristmas shopping. Bring a list and find someunique items for friends and family. This is ourlast party before 2000, so let’s all get togetherfor a big one. Hope you can make it!

FIRST ONE OF THE NEXT

SCUM, Southern California UnitedMalacologists, will be holding their 4th AnnualMeeting on 15 January 2000 at the IGPPBuilding at Scripps Institution ofOceanography in La Jolla. With the flurry ofyear-end activities this year we need to markour calendars early so that we won’t forget toattend this get-together. It’s a great opportunityto meet and mingle with others interested inand studying mollusks in our area. Attend ifyou can, you’ll enjoy yourself and make newcontacts. Larry Lovell ( [email protected] )can provide more information. He will beassisting in his capacity as Curator of the SIOInvertebrate Collections.

NEW LITERATURE

Further evidence of the relationship of thePorifera to other metazoan phyla was providedby Watkins & Beckenbach (1999) using a 2550base pair sequence from the mitochondrialgenome. They found a surprising level ofcorrespondence between the genome of thesequenced sponge, Tetilla sp (T. spinosa/villosa) and that of Metridium senile. Thiswould seem to make the positioning of thePorifera in a separate and distinct subkingdomas recommended by Willmer (1990)inadvisable.

Hox genes provide evidence to help resolvesome of the earliest divergences of the majorphyla. As reported by de Rosa et al (1999),their recent sequencing of Hox genes from apriapulid and a brachiopod lend support to thetripartite division of the Bilateria intoDeuterostomia, Ecdysiozoa, andLophotrochozoa. Hox complement seems wellsuited to recording this high level divergence,which is believed to have taken place prior tothe formation of the major “crown” phylabefore or at the beginning of the Cambrian.The Hox data match the phylum positioning ofHalanych et al (1995), based on 18S ribosomalDNA analyses, and place the Brachiopodafirmly among the Lophotrochozoa, and not inthe more traditional deuterostome position.

Phylogeny within the holothurians wasinvestigated by Kerr & Kim (1999). Theirresults, based both on molecular data and onmorphological evaluation, suggest that thecurrent organization within the class isincorrect. The authors do not present anexplicit hierarchy differing from that currentlyaccepted, but do present the data which causesthem to think that arrangement faulty. Theirreticence is based on a degree of incongruencebetween the molecular and morphological data-sets. Hopefully the discrepancies can beresolved, and a clear and more correcthierarchy subsequently proposed either bythese or other authors . They also consider the

3

October, 1999 Vol. 18, No.6SCAMIT Newsletter

evolution of larval forms within the group, andsuggest that the auricularia larva has evolvedmore than once. The symmetry of the title (bi-penta-bi-decaradial) is actually theevolutionary “track” taken by one group, theRhopalodinidae. These animals have adecaradial symmetry derived from a biradialprecursor, which in turn was derived from thetypical pentaradial symmetry of the phylum.The phylum symmetry was derived from abilateral base. This pathway yields a symmetryhistory of biradial, pentaradial, biradial, andlastly decaradial for this highly modifiedholothurian group.

On a smaller scale Heupel and Bennett (1999)discuss the association of the praniza larvae ofgnathiid isopods with sharks. Although theadults of these isopods are free-living in thebenthos, the larvae are fish parasites. Theindividual parasites could be found at a varietyof locations on the host (in this case theepaulette shark, Hemiscyllium ocellatum), butmost were found attached to the gill filaments.It is not currently known if any of our localGnathia species are associated with particularfish hosts, or which hosts are involved.

In recent years the impacts of trawlingactivities, particularly those of the largecommercial trawling operations, have beenincreasingly recognized. With trawl sampling astandard part of NPDES monitoring for largeragencies, one must also wonder about theeffects of the trawling associated withmonitoring studies. While Prena et al (1999)used a large gear rather than the smaller ottertrawl used locally, their experimental data canalso shed light on our situation. They did reportimpacts of trawling on the epifauna. Thickshelled mollusks were the least damaged of theconsidered taxa, with crustaceans sustainingintermediate levels of damage, and relativelyexposed and slow moving echinoderms themost affected. Biomass within experimentallytrawled areas was about 25% less than that inreference areas upon re-trawl.

Samples taken in Bight ‘98 from around thenorthern Channel Islands were frequentlyfound to consist primarily of biogenicsediments. These bottoms have, in addition tosome fine particles, large amounts of bryozoandebris, foraminiferal tests, barnacle platefragments, mollusk shell fragments,echinoderm spine and test fragments, and othercalcareous constituents. These bottoms are inmany respects analogous to coral/corallinealgal sediments in more tropical areas. Santa-Isabel et al (1998) report on the polychaetes ofsuch a biogenic sand bottom off Brazil, andprovide data with which Bight’98 biogenicsand samples can be compared.

Ballast water transport of NIS (non-indigenousspecies) between widely separated areas indifferent parts of the world ocean is now welldocumented. After introduction into a newpotential range, however, a successful invaderneeds to expand it’s initial beachhead. Lavoieet al (1999) discuss this aspect of speciesintroductions, emphasizing the role that ballastwater continues to play in dispersal ofintroduced species along a continental coast-line.

While becoming established, an invadingspecies can manifest impacts on existingpopulations as it elbows its way into the localecosystem. Crooks and Khim (1999)experimentally investigate the nature of theimpact of the introduced mytilid clamMusculista senhousia on the community it hasinvaded. Since Musculista is a nest buildingclam living in aggregations, it can have aprofound effect on associated organisms just init’s physical habitat modification. It also hasthe potential of biologically modifying thehabitat by its activities of respiration, filtration,particle fixation (as mucous bound fecalstrings), and larval predation. By usingartificial mats simulating the physicaldisturbance of a Musculista surface nestaggregation, the authors teased out the physical

4


effect from the combined physical andbiological effects. They found that the physicaleffect was consistently larger that thebiological effects.

Reise et al (1999) report on the status of NISalong the North Sea coasts. Invasions seemedto peak in the 1970’s, and over 80 species arebelieved to have been introduced. NIS nowform between 6 and 20% of the fauna,depending on habitat (the numbers higher inestuaries and brackish environments). Theauthors data shows that in most cases theindigenous community could accommodate theinvaders, suffering little as a result. Theycaution, however, that steps should be taken toreduce the number of new invaders, as each hasthe potential for serious disruption of the localbiota.

Armonies and Reise (1999) focus on a singlespecies that fits the general trend noted in thelast paper, the establishment of a NIS withoutserious damage or displacement of the existingcommunity. In this case the clam Ensisamericanus, introduced from the westernAtlantic, has settled in to a coarse sand habitatnot completely exploited previously. Theunder-exploited niche they occupy is that ofsubtidal/intertidal sands subjected to strongcurrents. Even though there is little evidence tosuggest negative effects at present, the situationmust be monitored. The authors note that thefeeding activity of the new immigrants fixesfine particulates from the overlying water inthe form of fecal material. While most of thisis exported from the immediate vicinity of itsproduction, in areas of high clam density thereis a tendency for some to become incorporatedin local sediments. This is gradually changingthe grain size and organic content of thebottom, perhaps to the ultimate detriment ofthe indigenous community.

27 SEPTEMBER MEETING

The meeting was held in the worm lab of theLA Natural History Museum. Attending wereTom Parker, Ron Velarde, Larry Lovell, TonyPhillips, Cheryl Brantley, Rick Rowe, Leslie

Harris (off and on since she was setting up hercomputer data base of invertebrate images),and Dot Norris. Before the meeting Leslieextended an offer to the members from the SanFrancisco Laboratory who attend meetings inLos Angeles in future. If they fly intoBurbank, she will pick them up before themeeting and if they need a place to stay, shehas offered accommodation at her home inPasadena. If you want to make such anarrangement contact her at<[email protected]>.

The business portion of the meeting included acirculation of the treasurer’s report, adiscussion of the status of the Bight project,new publications including a new species ofEunoe from Russia (Rzhavsky & Shabad1999), and the scheduling of future meetings.The title page of the Eunoe paper can beviewed at http://www.fortunecity.com/marina/customhouse/60/rzsh99_17.gif).

Other announcements included Larry Lovell’sdiscovery of a plastics firm (MGM plastics inSan Marcos, 760-744-8909) which will makesorting trays for $16/tray. The bottom of thetray is scored into a grid of 1 cm squares andlooks well crafted.

The conversation turned to the problem Bightanimals, but before the discussion got tooinvolved we asked Larry to look at someproblem Pholoe from San Francisco collections( they look like P. minuta but have a facialtubercle). Larry took a number of specimensof this form for examination and will render hisopinion at a future meeting. A question wasalso raised about Eumida sp. B (whether it isactually E. longicornuta). The memberspresent agreed that it is indeed E. longicornuta.Larry said that we should be cautious of ourLumbrineris luti identifications (he suspectsthat some may be Scoletoma tetaura) and onecharacter we should check is which setiger thehooks start on. It was also agreed that thegenus for the species luti should be Scoletoma.

5


The discussion of Bight animals turned up anew Chone from Sta. 2330 off Ventura. It hasa staining pattern similar to C. albocincta butno staining in the abdomen, and a relativelylarge dorsal separation of the collar.

Ron introduced a Pherusa with ‘spindleyspines’ and a Piromus from San Diego andMission Bay. Leslie didn’t know the Pherusaand the Piromus she thought was probably P.capillata.

Other specimens from Mission Bay includedan acrocirrid, a large Cossura sp., a Neanthes(?acuminata) and a Hemipodus sp. Generalobservation from Ron was that Mission Baystations were extremely variable in theirpolychaete communities. Rick will put out avoucher sheet for the new Hemipodus. Ronalso introduced a Eulalia sp (small withdistinct ciliated bands starting on the 13thsegment).

Then someone brought out a cirratulid (theycouldn’t be avoided any longer) and allsemblance of order was shot. Chaetozonesetosa specimens were agreed to represent acomplex of species, but with the confusion inthe literature (Blake’s name was used in vain)and absence of type specimens (again his namewas used), they decided to leave all specimensfitting the general description as Chaetozonesetosa. These are defined as all Chaetozonewithout a separation between cinctures in theposterior segments.

Tony introduced some Chaetozone spinosa? -characters included large extended head spinesstarting on setiger 35. There was somediscussion that these specimens may be C. sp.1. Other Chaetozone were C. sp. SD3 - (aharbor species with a defined staining pattern,dark setae, slight inflation at about setiger 20,long tapering prostomium and a dorsal ridgeand small eyes, spines start at about setiger 40,the 3rd setiger separated from the 2nd at 1/2

the length of the separation between the 1st and2nd) and C. senticosa (even staining pattern onthe lateral sides of the peristomium and hasfew spines).

The Aphelochaeta/Monticellina discussionuncovered controversy as to what is meantby“fimbriated” vs. “serrated” neurosetae. Bothare visually similar at magnification 40X , butare the key characteristics for defining thegenera. Distinction of the two genera on thebasis of variable interpretation of these setalcharacters, often within the work of a singleauthor, renders their use problematic. This is acentral difficulty within this group, andSCAMIT needs to address it before anymeaningful consensus on the definition of localcirratulid taxa can be obtained. This will comeup with a vengeance during the B’98 QCsample exchange. Until it is resolved, thelikelihood of having identical species inAphelochaeta and Monticellina separated onlyby the interpretation of the marginal structureof the neurosetae is high. Such a separation/duplication is unlikely to reflect reality. Thepresumption, in the case of such species pairs,is that definition of the setal character issuspect, and must be closely reconsidered.Rick suggested an easier character would bethe relative length of the neurosetae to thenotosetae (much shorter and sickle shaped inMonticellina, mostly). This, and othercharacters less problematic than the“fimbriated/serrated setae” need to be sought.The problems in cirratulids will not beresolvable until a character suite that can bemore objectively used is developed.

Some problems with the staining pattern ofAphelochaeta petersoni were discussed. Rick’sdescription and Blake’s MMS description donot match and both types are being observed inthe samples. Consensus was that both typeswould be called A. petersoni. Aphelochaeta?multifilis ‘fimbriated’ neurosetae wereobserved under the compound scope. At 40xthese setae resemble the serrated setae of a

6


Monticellina. Rick again suggested takinginto account the relative size of the neurosetaecompared to the notosetae and neurosetae’sgeneral shape in the determination of genera.

Monticellina sp SD 6 was suggested to be M.serratiseta. The main difference wasdetermined to be that M. serratiseta had wideventral grooves and M. sp. SD 6 had deepgrooves. Monticellina sp 1 from Lovell andPhillips was the same as M. sp. SD 4. Tonyintroduced a M. cryptica with a stain variationsimilar to Aphelochaeta sp SD2.

The last worms discussed were a nephtyid withlarge dorsal lamellae and a Plakosyllis sp LA 1from Catalina Island brought by MBC lab.Characters included a flat body, and dorsalglobular cirri; it was close to Eurysyllisspicum. Larry will bring a copy of the E.spicum voucher sheet for the next meeting.

Leslie had a good suggestion of using o-ringsealed plastic micro-centrifuge tubes withscrew caps for transporting small preservedspecimens. These can be ordered from VWRand most other scientific supply houses. Shegave everyone a tube to check out. The tubesare polyethylene and can be used with eitherformalin solutions or with alcohol solutions.She also informed us of, and circulated, aspecial supplemental issue to Volume 42 of theIsrael Journal of Zoology (1999) which dealswith the ecology and taxonomy of lancelets.Although the status of our only local species,Branchiostoma californiense is not changed inthese pages, the authorship of the taxon iscorrected from J. G. Cooper 1893 to (Andrews1893)(this correction will be made in Edition 4of the SCAMIT list).

18 OCTOBER MEETING

The meeting started off with Ron Velardediscussing the 13 October meeting at SCCWRPfor QC and synoptic review of B’98 trawldata. Ron and Don Cadien (who also attended)were surprised at the number of errors made ineverything from procedures to identifications.

Even so the data was much cleaner and moreuniform than in the SCBPP in 1994. The datafor the invertebrates was cleaned up by thegroup, every agency was also given a copy ofthe original data set prior to “cleaning”, so theinitial data-set could be reconstructed if thechanges were later found to be unwarranted.Larry Cooper, SCCWRP data manager for theproject, is also keeping a paper trail log of allmodifications to the submitted data.

Changes implemented at the meeting were: 1)those which resulted from inclusion of taxafrom non-target communities (benthic infaunaland holopelagic taxa), 2) taxa judged too smallto meet the minimum size criterion for datainclusion, 3) uncorrected field ID’s for whichFID or voucher specimens had been examined- and new IDs generated, or 4) detected field ordata entry errors. For instance, one databaserecord of 185 Ascidiacea turned out, based onexamination of the field sheets, to be a pull-down list data entry error, where Ascidiaceawas grabbed instead of Allocentrotus fragilis. Aset of secondary analytical data-set changesproposed by Dave Montagne and Don Cadienwas circulated to the participants, but not actedupon. Changes of this second type would notbe made to the base data-set, but only to theanalytic data-set derived from it. Theserecommendations, if accepted by the analysts,would only be acted on later in the process.Fish data were also addressed at the samemeeting.

Ron then voiced his opinion/desire that mostpeople should soon be finishing up their B’98samples and the Re-ID process should beginfairly soon. A few of the QC exchange sampleshave already been distributed, but most are stillawaiting action.

John Ljubenkov proudly passed around a bookhe recently purchased off the web. It wasBritish Sea Anemones and Corals by P.H.Gosse, 1860. The book was quite impressivewith beautiful hand-painted color plates all

7


throughout its pages. John maintains that thiswork, although nearly 140 years old, remainsone of the best and most thoroughexaminations of a fauna in this group.

He also passed around an interesting series ofpublications by Ernest Libby entitled “InternalStructure of Sea Shells”, which contained x-rayphotos of many of the more popular andbeautiful shells in three folios. If you’ve neverseen the results of an x-ray photo of a shell,you should see this publication. Internalstructures are characteristic for various groups,and emphasize the geometric nature ofgastropod coiling.

Hydroids were the animals to start the day.The first problem animals were smallindividuals in the family Corymorphidae fromstation 2229 in San Diego Bay at a depth of11.5 m. The animals threw us all for a loop asthey had capitate/moniliform oral tentacles butlong, thin villiform aboral tentacles. Noevidence of hydromedusae or budding of anykind was evident and neither were growthbuds. It was decided to call the animalCorymorphidae sp SD 1 for the time being. Asit turns out Dean Pasko also had a specimen ofthis same animal that he’d brought to themeeting. It was from station 2227, also in SanDiego Bay, at a depth of 8.8 m.

John Ljubenkov then brought forth a newhydroid, Euphysa sp C, that he’d found insamples from Willapa Bay Washington andNewport, Oregon (Yaquina Bay). Normally, inthis area, one sees Euphysa ruthii. Euphysa spC differs from E. ruthii in a number of ways.For one the stem in sp C is not nearly as longas that found on ruthii. Secondly, from whathe’s seen at this point, E. sp C seems to havenumerous individuals sharing a commonperisarc, while E. ruthii is solitary. He needs tosee more of these animals to further clarify thecharacters which separate them from E. ruthii.Both species seem to reproduce asexually with

frustules, ball like bodies which form at thebase of the polyp in E. sp C, and at the base ofthe stem in E. ruthii. These develop into budswhich form new polyps.

Next up was a rather bizarre situation. Apolychaete, Poecilochaetus johnsoni had smallhydroids attached to its body wall betweenconsecutive parapods. The hydroids werediscovered anterior to setiger 14, where thegills for this worm would start, so they werenot being confused with such structures. Thehydroids were so tiny as to discourage anyattempt at definitive ID. The questionremained as to whether these animals wereactually parasitizing the polychaete or wereacting as commensals and just “going along forthe ride”. For those of you interested inparasite/host or commensal/host interactions,this would be an interesting one to study.

John Ljubenkov then showed an in situ slide ofthe anemone Bunodeopsis. The animal isquite distinctive and shouldn’t be difficult torecognize. There are no tentacles on the oralface itself which is almost volcano-like withthe mouth being the “rim”. The tentacles aretypically curled and covered with white spotswhich upon closer examination arenematocysts. These animals are found in baysand estuaries living on or near eel grass beds.They like long, stringy substrate upon which toattach themselves and could also be found onfrayed lines, etc. The stings from theirnematocysts are not powerful enough to causegreat agony, but if one stays in the water withthem long enough a numbness around the faceor potentially other exposed areas can beexperienced.

Anthozoa sp Hyp1 brought by Tony Phillips(Hyperion) was the next mystery beast. Thespecimens were found in 66 m of water atSanta Cruz Island. After some examination itwas suggested that they could possibly beZaolutus actius. They had the characteristicgrey/purple pigment spot in the tentacles andthe columns were appropriately wrinkled, and

8


about the right proportions to be Zaolutus.Tony took them back to the lab for furtherwork up and will either confirm or refute thisID.

With cnidarians completed (for the time being)nemerteans were next on the list. Megan Lilly(CSDMWWD) brought forth a smallnemertean that looked very similar toCarinoma mutablis with the exception that itwas a creamy fleshy-pink color instead of thetypical white. However, those present assuredher that even with this color difference it wasstill C. mutablis. She then brought forth threevery thin, long, white, non-descript lookingnemerteans which upon clearing revealed onepair of small red eyes. A distinctive brown/grey area existed in all three just behind theeyes. It was confirmed that these animals wereCryptonemertes actinophila. The second pairof eyes did indeed exist, but needed to beviewed under a compound scope. The brown/grey area is the “brain” and is quite distinctive.Carol Paquette brought out some specimensthat seemed to be Paranemertes californica,but were not typical of the species. Afterexamining the animals and discussing thevariability of the taxon, it was the consensus ofthose present that her specimens were withinthe range of variation normally seen in P.californica.

The afternoon started off with Mollusca. Thefirst question was that of Solen rostiformis vsSolen sicarius. Megan Lilly had beenexamining some of the Solen from the bay(Mission and San Diego) samples and waswondering if they were potentially differentfrom the off-shore Solen that the City of SanDiego identifies as Solen rostiformis. This isthe species we used to call S. rosaceus locally,but which was first put forward as a separatetaxon, then identified as a senior synonym byCoan and Scott. Some bay specimens wereexamined and Don Cadien, John Ljubenkovand Tony Phillips all agreed that they wereSolen sicarius based on the shape of the shell.After some discussion, however, it was

revealed that these agencies/people only seeSolen sicarius in their samples, whereas theCity of San Diego had only identifiedrostiformis up to this point. As the bay animalsdidn’t differ greatly from the off-shorespecimens, it remains to be seen if we aredealing with both species, or only oneidentified in two different ways. This questionwill be answered during the B’98 QC as, if wehave different assumptions or ID protocolsbetween agencies, it should be apparent duringthe specimen exchange.

Next, some small Asthenothaerus wereexamined. It was originally assumed they wereAsthenothaerus diegensis, but the animals werefrom off Orange County in 40 m of water.They will need to be examined further before aspecies ID can be assigned. They bore aremarkable resemblance to Periploma discusjuveniles, but lacked an external ligament. Asmall “Macoma - like” clam roused someexcitement. No one present seemed able toidentify it to species and there was even somequestion initially as to its genus. It wassuggested to be not a Macoma, but a Cumingia.This was doubted because the shell lacked theconcentric sculpture of that genus, which isevident even in juveniles. It was opened andconfirmed to be Macoma but was left at genusas there was only one juvenile specimen, andthere were several possible species to which itmight belong.

Don Cadien then did a “show and tell” with hisrecently encountered shell-less cephalaspidslug Runcina macfarlandi, found amongfilamentous red algae from a shallow station inthe San Gabriel river tidal prism. The animal issmall and offers few characters. There are nohead appendages, the mouth is obscure, eyesare buried and only visible in the groove whichseparates the back from the foot. At theposterior end of the animal the centrally placedanus is flanked by two paddle shaped gilllamellae. These are smooth plates withoutsecondary lamellae. The animal is a darkmaroon in life, but fades to a dull tan in

9


preservation. A second species of runcinid,Runcinida sp., has been taken in intertidal andsubtidal coralline algal scrapings from SanClemente Island. It can easily be differentiatedfrom R. macfarlandi by the nature of the gills.In Runcinida there are five gills which archover the anus. Each has both a primarylamellus and secondary lamellae. The animalsare otherwise similar in size and generalappearance.

A different species of small aeolid, Cuthona spA, was found at the same station. It isprobably introduced, perhaps from Japan (Donwill continue to try and tract it down). Thissmall animal was characterized by conservative(remaining after preservation) dark pigmentpatches in the ceratal cores, and on the sides ofthe body, which do not match any of thespecies in the genus reported locally. It alsodisplays the rounded head, thin finger-likeanterior foot corners, and long simplerhinophores usually seen in these animals. Theradula was unlike that of any other localCuthona as well, having accessory spikes alongthe lateral edge of the tooth just above the base(one on each side). The radular formula is 0-1-0, as it should be for a Cuthona, and each toothhas 5-7 lateral denticles(depending on positionin the ribbon), and a pair of smaller accessorydenticles flanking the central cusp, which isslightly shorter than the laterals. Ron thoughtthat it had also been seen in San Diego Bay, butwould have to check.

The pending, heavy problem of the afternoonfinally surfaced when it could no longer beavoided - Mytilus. In the past we have beenable to avoid this issue since mussels of thisgenus did not occur in our benthic samplesfrom offshore. When B’98 samples fromwithin harbors were processed however, wewere confronted with specimens forcing us toaddress the question of mussel speciation. JohnLjubenkov started with a review of the threespecies that could potentially be found locally,M. trossulus, M. galloprovincialis, M.californianus and briefly covered the

morphological differences he thought could beused to separate them. Mytilus californianuscan be separated from the other two based onit’s surface ribbing. John and Don Cadien hadprevious examined a series of small specimensfrom offshore platform legs, and thought theyhad a method of separating them into twodiscrete taxa. However, John found inexamining another fraction of the same samplethat as the animals got larger the character linesbetween presumptive M. trossulus and M.galloprovincialis started to blur. He hadbrought a large size range of animals collectedfrom the legs of an oil platform off SantaBarbara, CA., and although some animalslooked somewhat different it would have beendifficult to separate them reliably andconsistently. We are not the first group tostumble across this problem and did notactually come up with any definitive answersor solutions at this meeting. The problem waslaid before us as food for thought and will re-surface at another meeting, perhaps onedevoted entirely to that subject.

At this point it was late in the afternoon andattention spans were drifting. Unfortunately,crustaceans had not been covered and there isplenty of material in that phyla that needs to beaddressed, therefore it was decided that thenext non-polychaete meeting will be devoted tocrustaceans. The meeting is scheduled forNovember 15 and will be at the City of SanDiego.

WWW NEWS

The SCAMIT web-site is cruising along nicely,thank you. After our remodeling earlier thisyear we have settled in to the new look and feelof our site with little ado. Fortunately, othershave noticed the improvements, and oneappreciative visitor sent the following toWebmaster Jay Shrake:... “Dear Jay, I havebrowsed your SCAMIT web site today andagree with you that it should be linked into theNBII Biodiversity, Systematics and Collectionsweb site. Yours is a very nice web site, easily

10


navigable, highly aesthetic, and rich in qualityscientific content. As “content” manager forthis section of the NBII, I will be adding yourlink to our website soon. I have also passedyour URL to the taxonomists associated withthe Integrated Taxonomic Information System(ITIS) which is working on a somewhat similarstandardized taxonomic database for biota ofNorth America. I invite your group to learnmore about ITIS at its main web site <http://www.itis.usda.gov/plantproj/itis/index.html>.ITIS is currently initiating a web site redesignproject and your web site provides a niceexample of how technical scientificinformation can be provided in a pleasing andeffective manner.Thanks for your message and I invite you tolink back to NBII or ITIS if you find thatappropriate.Best regards,Gary Waggoner, NBII BiodiversityCoordinator, USGS, Denver, CO”

I hope webmaster Jay takes this positivefeedback to heart. We can never thank himenough for all he does for SCAMIT inmaintaining our website, and constantlyworking to improve it. Members might followDr. Waggoner’s suggestion concerning the ITISdatabase and the NBII, both of which areamong the links on our webpage.

My Life as a Biologistby Donald J. ReishChapter 16. I go to Europe

I made the first of many trips to Europe in1962. I was asked to discuss a polychaetetoxicological test at the First InternationalWater Pollution Conference in London. I alsopresented a paper on the offshore State ofCalifornia pollution study of 1955-59. Theauthors, Tibby and Barnard, could not make thetrip. I took a 707 to Copenhagen with amidnight stop in Greenland. Wheeler Northintroduced me to the underground subwaysystem in London. In those days you had tospend 2 weeks overseas otherwise the air fare

was much higher. I made a trip to Plymouthand renewed by acquaintance with D. P.Wilson. I spent the week end with Robert andMary Clark in Bristol. I also went toGothenburg to visit some American friends.The conference was next to the WestministerAbbey and I walked through it each day on theway to the conference. I was startled to see thegrave site of Sir Isaac Newton. I flew back toCopenhagen and went to the marine lab whereI spent some time with Gunnar Thorson.

My second trip was 4 years later. I was askedto present my D.O. studies with thepolychaetes that I had used as pollutionindicators to the 3rd International WaterPollution Conference in Munich. I flew toParis, saw some of the sights before flying toMarseille where I Met Gerard Bellan and hiswife Denise Bellan-Santini. I went onto MonteCarlo and lost a few francs at the casino.Gerard Bellan was in Munich for theconference, and he discussed my presentationwith me. After the conference I went toAmsterdam. As strange as it seems, the air fareto Europe today is about the same as it wasthen.

Trip number 3 was my first of severalassociations with FAO, the Food andAgriculture Organization of the UnitedNations. They sponsored an internationalpollution conference in Rome. I was alsoinvolved in a work shop associated with theconference. I presented a paper there on theuse of polychaetes as indicators of marinepollution. The Bellans were there also. Theyhad spent the summer before in Long Beachwith me. I made my first of 3 runs on theCircus Maximus, the chariot track of RomanDays. I never managed to complete a lap in anytry.

My 4th trip to Europe in 1973 was a very busyone. I attended an invertebrate developmentconference in the former Yugoslavia organizedby John Costlow (Duke University). I tookliving Neanthes, Capitella and Ctenodrilus


with me to demonstrate the larvae. I then wentto another Yugoslavian city to present a paperand chair a session at the MedicalOceanographic Conference. I was elected VicePresident of the group. Next stop was Pariswhere I participated in a work shop inpreparation for a meeting the next year. I hadflown to Marseille where I met the Bellans.We then traveled to Cherbourg where hisparents lived. I saw the door to the lab whereHerpin studied the early development ofNeanthes and other polychaetes, but didn’t goinside.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Armonies, W. & Karsten Reise. 1998. On the population development of the introduced razorclam Ensis americanus near the island of Sylt (North Sea). HelgolanderMeeresuntersuchungen 52(3-4):291-300.

Crooks, Jeffrey A. & Hugh S. Khim. 1999. Architectural vs. biological effects of a habitat-altering, exotic mussel, Musculista senhousia. Journal of Experimental Marine Biologyand Ecology 240(1):53-75.

de Rosa, Renaud, Jennifer K. Grenier, Tatiana Andreeva, Charles E. Cook, André Adoutte,Michael Akam, Sean B. Carroll, & Guillaume Balavoine. 1999. Hox genes inbrachiopods and priapulids and protostome evolution. Nature 399(6738):772-776.

Halanych, K. M., et al. 1995. Evidence from 18S ribosomal DNA that the lophophorates areprotostome animals. Science 267: 1641-1643.

Heupel, M. R. & M. B. Bennett. 1999. The occurrence, distribution and pathology associatedwith gnathiid isopod larvae infecting the epaulette shark, Hemiscyllium ocellatum.International Journal for Parasitology 29(2):321-330.

Kerr, Alex M. & J. Kim. 1999. Bi-penta-bi-decaradial symmetry: A review of evolutionary anddevelopmental trends in holothuroidea (Echinodermata). Journal of ExperimentalZoology 285(2):93-103.

Lavoie, Derek M., L. D. Smith, & G. M. Ruiz. 1999. The potential for intracoastal transfer ofnon-indigenous species in the ballast water of ships. Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Science48(5):551-564.

Prena, Jens, Peter Schwinghamer, Terence W. Rowell, Donald C. Gordon Jr., Kent D. Gilkinson,W. Peter Vass, & David L. McKeown. 1999. Experimental otter trawling on a sandybottom ecosystem of the Grand Banks of Newfoundland: analysis of trawl bycatch andeffects on epifauna. Marine Ecology Progress Series 181:107-124.

There were many more trips to Europe in the1970s, mostly to France, Italy and Yugoslavia.In 1975 Janice, the boys, and my mother wentwith me to Rome where I had anotherworkshop. We then drove through northernItaly, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, andthen to England before coming home. Thelongest trip was the one with my family; fourweeks. The shortest was to Gothenburg,Sweden, to participate in an FAO workshop (itlasted only 2 days). Nearly all my trips toEurope have been paid by some organizationand I think the primary reason was related tomy studies with polychaetes and pollution.Gerard Bellan was about the only other personin the world who realized the importance ofpolychaetes in environmental studies at thattime. [Next: Research Grants.]


Reise, Karsten, S. Gollasch, & W. J. Wolff. 1998. Introduced marine species of the North Seacoasts. Helgolander Meeresuntersuchungen 52(3-4):219-234.

Rzhavsky, A. V. & L. V. Shabad. 1999. A new species of scaleworm, Eunoe hydroidopapillata,collected off the eastern coast of Kamchatka (Polychaete: Polynoidae: Harmothoinae).Zoosystematica Rossica 8(1):17-20.

Santa-Isabel, Lêda Maria de , Marlene Campos Peso-Aguiar, Ana Clara Silva de Jesus,Francisco Kelmo, & Leo Ximenes Cabral Dutra. 1998. Biodiversity and spatialdistribution of Polychaeta (Annelida) communities in coral-algal buildup sediment,Bahia, Brazil. Revista de Biologia Tropical 46:111-120.

Watkins, Russell F. & Andrew T. Beckenbach. 1999. Partial sequence of a sponge mitochondrialgenome reveals sequence similarity to cnidaria in cytochrome oxidase subunit II and thelarge ribosomal RNA subunit. Journal of Molecular Evolution 48(5):542-554.

Willmer, Patricia. 1990. Invertebrate relationships: patterns in animal evolution. CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge, England.


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] Leslie Harris (213)763-3234 [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

scamit newsletter vol. 18 no. 6 1999 october

Documents