trudy-russell's picture

???

Observed: 23rd June 2013 By: trudy-russelltrudy-russell’s reputation in Invertebratestrudy-russell’s reputation in Invertebratestrudy-russell’s reputation in Invertebrates
IMGP0786
Description:

This animal was attached to a rock in the extreme lower shore zone it was attached by a brown/cream attachment 'tube' that was below the white spheres you can see in the picture. Total length 25mm.

Identifications
Species interactions

No interactions present.

Comments

ChrisMcA's picture

http://eol.org/data_objects/1

http://eol.org/data_objects/11744768 =Pelagia noctiluca. (best guess)

ChrisMcA's picture

I know my ID here is

I know my ID here is tentative, but thought you might be interested in a clear case (when seen in high magnification) still mis-ID'd as moon jellyfish at http://www.ispot.org.uk/node/290168

trudy-russell's picture

Thanks chris, I have agreed

Thanks chris, I have agreed with your ID in the other case. But im fairly sure its not a jelly (unless its a juvenile stage) it was very small see the spiral worms next to it for scale. Also it was attached to the rock and the white balls round the base were attached. ???

Trudy Russell
Marine Advisor
Natural England

To find out about what's going on in the south west check out http://www.ispot.org.uk/forum/8409

ChrisMcA's picture

I agree it's most mysterious,

I agree it's most mysterious, as are the white balls

ChrisMcA's picture

links

http://nature22.com/estran22/ctenaires_cnidaires/cnidaires0.html & scroll down
http://www.aphotomarine.com/hydrozoa_candelabrum_cocksii.html is particularly good, especially no.6
(also http://www.marinespecies.org/photogallery.php?album=674&pic=5649 )
the few examples of C.phrygium differ http://www.andrewjmartinez.com/image.pl/309/Hydroid_.html , http://www.rsba.ca/recherche_espece/fiche_espece.php?recordID=429 (2 pictures) [EDIT but on reading the 2006 review on hydroids I found cocksii's tentacles were quite extensible so this may not be significant]
Whilst Hayward's handbook & nhm chose different 'sole uk species' NBN gateway shows both, but cocksii with no records & phrygium with 9, so I might be wrong or they might be 1 species
Handbook of the Marine Fauna of NW Europe (Hayward etc) P.78 :-"upper part covered in 200 or more minute club-tipped tentacles" +illustration.

ChrisMcA's picture

Marbef's ERMS database(

Marbef's ERMS database( EuropeanMarineSpecies) has both Candelabrum species also [+ verrucosum of Norway & Greenland +serpentaria, a deepwater form "not in European fauna"];
for cocksii , http://www.marbef.org/data/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=117417 it says "common in the western English Channel coast of Great Britain and France"!!! ..also w'n England etc & occurence MAP just 2 dots,both on england (last update 2014)
For Phrygium, http://www.marbef.org/data/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=117420 the MAP has 8 dots all in uk & Ireland (+ 1 midatlantic).
But Marbef also gives the link to it's source, the 2006 hydroid review in the biodiversity library
http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/128494#page/116/mode/1up where the key page is page 341 with it's key to N Atlantic candelabrum sp's 2b...deep water/Arctic form C.phrygium & 3a...boreal shallow water form C. cocksii
From this it's clear our species is C.cocksii

dejayM's picture

Good work

Interesting (as always) that the ID panel did not complete. None of the known synonyms are in the UKSI Dictionary (nor CoL nor incidentally SANBI) - I tried them all. WoRMS is happy and Wiki France has enough to agree - http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candelabrum_cocksii - see the Galerie at the bottom
It's clearly described in >>Fish&Fish<<
3 records here http://www.gbif.org/species/5185663 none in NBN
Good work again Chris.
Time for a Title change Trudy?

Tony Rebelo's picture

Dictionary updates

in ZA we have a dictionary forum - http://www.ispot.org.za/forum/7268 - there must be one here as well: will look.

But unless you bring these to the attention of the dictionary compilers they will not be fixed in a hurry (yes in the fullness of time but by taxonomical standards that might be 300 years!).

Tony Rebelo's picture

yes you do

ChrisMcA's picture

Thanks for your interest.

Thanks for your interest. I've already emailed the details (as given here) to the Nat'l Hist Museum site & got a very speedy reply that the nhm website's well out of date, (& Candelabrum's had "a lot of additions since"),& as NHM's busy 'setting & modifying' a new version sometime next year they've been slow to update data on the current database.

Tony Rebelo's picture

ah yes

The difference between iSpot UK is that the Natural History Museum maintains the species dictionary, whereas in southern Africa iSpot does so itself - with iSpotters contributing massively to the national list and especially keeping it up to date: for many groups it would be true to say that without iSpot South Africa would not (yet?) have a species list.

(the problem of South versus southern is vexing: southern Africa is the natural biogeographical unit, but of course each country abrogates responsibility beyond its borders. Fortunately some field guide publishers view the broader market, but for really biodiverse areas (like the Cape Peninsula, with more plant species than the UK) having their own field guides - so we have 10 regional Botanical Society field guides for the country, which only cover about 60% of the country (and 20% of the most-common, most-pretty species, although we do have comprehensive guides for some charismatic groups: e.g. trees, proteas, aloes, cycads, etc.).

Chile is using CoL which is everything on earth: they also do not have national species lists except for larger vertebrates. Which makes working with the species dictionary very daunting: at least in s Afr and UK we are 90% sure that things on the list occur in the region and 80% of the "wild" species in the region are on the list.

JoC's picture

Candelabrum species

Candelabrum: a hydroid
Devid Fenwick’s photos http://www.aphotomarine.com/hydrozoa_candelabrum_cocksii.html are a good match.
I think the white spheres are interesting.
The white spheres are described as sporosacs, containing the gametes in http://www.marbef.org/data/aphia.php?p=image&pic=5649
In H&R (handbook) C. cocksii is described as having pinkish gonophores supported by pinkish-horn branched processes.
Fish & Fish say “C. phrygium is a sublittoral Artic species which lacks clasper tentacles” which I take to be the supporting branches of H&R.
Eales (1939 edition) describes it under the name of Myriothela cocksii, (and suggesting con-specificity with M. phrygia) : “the hydranth is shaped like the spadix of an arum* lily. White, pink or brown. Attached at the base by rooting processes, above which are fixed numerous sporosacs on short branches. On stones.” * an earlier synonym is Arum cocksi, which WoRMS gives as a synonym for C. cocksii.

The diagram in Fish & Fish for C. cocksii is labelled ‘after Hincks, 1868’ though Eales says Hincks calls it M. phrygia; WoRMS now puts M. phrygia as C. phrygium.

The BHL reference given by Chris is of a paper by Schuchert, P. 2006.
“Sporosacs spherical, white, female ones larger than male ones, females initially with numerous small oogonia but ultimately only one egg matures. Mature or fertilized eggs leave sporosac but are then grasped by two to five clasper tentacles. isn’t that amazing? Clasper tentacles thin, straight, of variable length …”

I cannot see these clasper tentacles in this iSpot post, but that’s not to say they are absent. Schuchert is convinced that C. phrygium is “an Arctic, deepwater species penetrating into boreal regions”. So, based on habitat, I have agreed.

There is a more recent ref to a re-description: Schuchert, P. 2012. North-West European Athecate Hydroids and their Medusae. Synopses of the British Fauna (New Series) 59. The Linnean Society of London, London, pp. i-viii, 1-364. However, I cannot access it!

Jo

Tony Rebelo's picture

more

We have them in southern Africa: http://www.ispot.org.za/species_dictionary/Candelabrum - there are two species in our region. We also have the related genus Monocoryne, but dont have any examples on iSpot yet.
Ours are called Dreadlocks Hydroids.

dejayM's picture

Summaries

Yes, utterly amazing; and how nice to see a detailed summary of your (JoC and Chris's) work.
For the record (at £55) http://www.field-studies-council.org/publications/pubs/athecate-hydroids...
If it's as demanding as the FREE ones, I won't bother!
http://www.ville-ge.ch/mhng/hydrozoa/pdf/schuchert2009.pdf
http://www.ville-ge.ch/mhng/hydrozoa/pdf/schuchert2010.pdf
But I must say, if you have a moment, DO look through them both, if only for the wonderful illustrations (specially the 2010 one).
And this -
In another post, way back, I linked to this book - >>A Practical Guide to the Marine Animals of Northeastern North America<< I am certain it will make me very wise. Does anyone have something to say (about the book please!)

JoC's picture

Southern African Candelabrum

i don't usually use non-latin names (I recall a long discussion elsewhere about what to call the names which are not the latin one) but Dreadlocks Hydroids is certainly an appropriate moniker; thanks for the link to ispot.za, Tony. I have joined you but have not yet posted anything.

Jo

Tony Rebelo's picture

"joined me"??

Help. What does this mean?

JoC's picture

don't be afraid

I only meant that I had joined ispot.za

Jo

Tony Rebelo's picture

OK

I am busy on the Chile Community at present - see http://www.ispotnature.org/projects/trchileperu2014

Will be there for about a month?