gramandy's picture

Stalked Jellyfish

Observed: 23rd June 2013 By: gramandy
Kent Wildlife TrustThanet Coast ProjectWildwood Trust
gramandy’s reputation in Invertebratesgramandy’s reputation in Invertebratesgramandy’s reputation in Invertebratesgramandy’s reputation in Invertebrates
Stalked Jellyfish
IMG_2501a
IMG_2488a
IMG_2490a
Description:

Again these pics were hard work as these were in fast flowing wind rippled water. Approx 5-6 of these stalked jellyfish were found on the lowest part of the sublittoral zone. Here I show 2 examples. All appeared to be same sp. New to me here. One of the reasons for this part of North East Kent becoming one of the first 13 MCZs.

Identifications
Species interactions

No interactions present.

Comments

ChrisMcA's picture

Suggest Haliclystus salpinx,

Suggest Haliclystus salpinx, based on size of anchors & presence of white spots, & if so a remarkable find

wildaboutnature's picture

A fantastic observation.

A fantastic observation.

Clare Flynn

gramandy's picture

Hi Chris...

From your zootaxa ref:

H.salpinx has a long stalk longer than the height of the calyx and trumpet-shaped anchors.

These guys have the distinctive coffee bean shaped anchors and similar stalk:calyx size and white nematocyst clusters either present in both perradii and interradii or completely absent - I'm still firmly fixed with auricula as reported around here :)

What I will do is send off to mba and see what they come back with. Haliclystus octoradiatus is not out of the question I suppose apart from geographical distribution, ther's always a first for everything. Like our Manila clams appearing round here.

ChrisMcA's picture

octoradiatus does look good,

ChrisMcA's picture

but the ref says no white

but the ref says no white spots
Found (on googling Haliclystus salpinx, on about page 4) a pacific site, [Zootaxa, Haliclystus californiensis, a “new” species of stauromedusa ...] (NB I clicked the cached PDF versn instead of bitstream) describing in detail a new species H.californiensis, which also gives a key to the other 10 Haliclystus sp's in the world on P.9
[10. Lacking white nematocyst clusters. With 30–200 gonadal sacs in each gonad. Anchors coffee bean-shaped, longer than wide. Usually more than 100 secondary tentacles, but as little as 30, in each tentacle cluster. N Atlantic and N
Pacific ......... Haliclystus auricula] Only auricula is specified as without white spots
And where's the evidence of H. auricula with white spots?

gramandy's picture

Hi Chris...

....Handbook of the Marine Fauna of North-West Europe - p69/70 Hayward and Ryland - H.auricula with white spots - what do you think? also H.salpinx not on british coasts (but then 1995 published - reprint 2010 - not necessarily updated I guess) - stalked jellyfish expert opinion still awaited.

Kent wildlife guys not sure but they think probably auricula.

Graham

ChrisMcA's picture

Anyway, very interesting.

Anyway, very interesting.

Nick Upton's picture

Stalked jellyfish

I was very interested to see this record as I just took a bunch of shots of a stalked jellyfish in a Cornish rock pool which I just posted http://www.ispotnature.org/node/443932 I was able to ID mine as Lucernariopsis campanulata with reasonable confidence thanks to this site: http://www.stauromedusae.co.uk and am sure yours is a Haliclystus species as it has clear sucker like "anchors" or primary tentacles on the membrane between arms, and I reckon it's most likely to be Haliclystus octoradiatus based on the presence of clear nematocysts and body shape: see http://www.stauromedusae.co.uk/species_account_haliclystus_octoradiatus.... It seems the usual reference sites such as Marlin (which doesn't include this species) and Worms (doesn't record this as a UK species) need updating. Fenwick lists this species as among the 4 "commonest" in UK waters: http://www.stauromedusae.co.uk/images/anatomy/guide_most%20common.jpg None are really common, though and both your species and mine (if I've got the IDs right) are on the UK BAP protection list.

Nick Upton, naturalist and photographer.

gramandy's picture

I have had info.....

....back now from the stalked jellyfish expert. He has IDed the first 2 pics as H.octoradiatus (this a first in this area) and the second 2 he wasn't sure about but not H.octoradiatus. He suggested could be a new sp but the 2 examples are definitely different. I can sort of see what he means, they do look slightly different on reflection. What do you guys think? This is obviously quite exciting for us here to have 2 distinct types of stalked jellyfish plus the Kaleidoscope H.auricola which has been previously IDed originally for the MCZ criteria. Gives us a triple whammy for our MCZ credentials here on the Thanet Coast.

Should I be splitting these? My thoughts are not to, as this could be a guide to others for ID purpose. Shame I couldn't have got pics of all 3 together, so the one which we were expecting to find, wasn't seen on this trip. I need to get back to get more and better pics if possible.

Nick Upton's picture

Stalked jellies

Very interesting. As my previous comment concluded I thought your pics showed H. octoradiatus, based largely on the first 2 with the nematocysts visible. I'd assumed the next two were the same individual or at least species, just from another angle. If your expert thinks it's something different, I won't argue (these creatures are new to me), but doubt the image is clear enough to get much further. I don't know who your expert was, but you could try emailing the pics to the guy who runs the stalked jellyfish site I gave a link to (and the APHOTO site) as I think he asks for interesting pics on the site / extra pics of some species.. If they help get your patch Marine Conservation Zone status, that's great news!

Nick Upton, naturalist and photographer.

gramandy's picture

I posted...

...these pics also believing them to be the same sp as they were only 2 - 5m apart. I also thought they were the Kaleidoscope which is what we expected to find from previous visits to this site. As H.octoradiatus hes never been found on this side of the coast, you tend to be quite sceptical about suggesting something that has never been seen before. Perhaps we should learn to be bolder about new sp in an area. Need better pics but I'm not sure my cameras up to underwater ripple tide photography - over to you Derek.

Nick Upton's picture

Under reporting

I bet these things get missed most of the time…. I'll be looking harder in future and risking my camera in a dodgy housing (I trashed one already…).

Nick Upton, naturalist and photographer.

ChrisMcA's picture

Very good news & great to

Very good news & great to hear from the source, David!

A-P-H-O-T-O's picture

Haliclystus and Stauromedusae

Hoping that if I post here then other people will see it and I'll be able to accurately verify records, I already verify stauromedusae records for iRecord; and many SW records. I can be contacted through Stauromedusae UK, www.stauromedusae.co.uk

Thanks for plugging the websites Nick. Gramandy if you ever want to e-mail me any images for rMCZ verification I'll gladly help. I'm working on Mounts Bay rMCZ at the moment which is just a couple of miles from me. Fairly large stauromedusae populations here so quite a task. Have also trained up local Natural England officers. I haven't a clue yet who'll be verifying stauromedusae records for the rMCZs, a bit of a dilemma for me really as I spend most of my time with them and I expect if it isn't me that's looking at the evidence then quite a bit will get rejected. That said, hard enough to get the evidence in the first place which is wrong, I may verify for iRecord but for the purposes of the MCZ Network I'm not what is called an expert recorder (NE staff are expert recorders), thus I still have to provide photographic evidence with GPS and time referenced data. Have found only time for about 50-60 records each tide, so if 2,000 stauromedusae are about then 1,950 will not get recorded and there will be no evidence for them. I had this issue earlier in the year, in April, when there was a bloom of thousands of Lucernariopsis cruxmelitensis, after the Valentine Storm.

Lots of other issues re. recording. Haliclystus salpinx was only included in Hayward and Ryland because it is common off Norway and it was thought it might be found here. There has only been one UK record near John O'Groats. Thus for the purpose of recording Haliclystus octoradiatus or Haliclystus auricula, which if small, might not be easily separated in the field, then all is needed is evidence of anchors for Haliclystus sp.. I have asked DEFRA through Natural England to accept Haliclystus sp. as a valid FOCI species record for rMCZ recording.

Re. Haliclystus octoradiatus, before 2014, the species was not a valid species in the UK, this in error, the Natural History Museum have added the species to the UK Checklist on my request this year. For the purposes of the UKBAP, now S41, under the NERC Act 2006; Haliclystus octoradiatus is accepted under Haliclystus auricula as records for H. octoradiatus could not be separated from it. Indeed, H. octoradiatus does seem quite a common species in the UK, but even if common, its numbers would still have dropped significantly, hence the UKBAP, which covers it. Of course much confusion here because all were recorded as H. auricula, and of the thousands of Haliclystus I've seen in Cornwall, not one has been H. auricula; despite it being recorded from Brittany in France, it is quite likely a more northern species, but certainly one in serious decline globally.

Re. Any 'new species'; I can deal with these, but any potentially new species needs to be photographed or drawn accurately, then only when that is done, placed in 99% ethanol for DNA analysis, which will be done if it is thought 'by consensus' that there is a need. Always wiling to advise on this.

APHOTO Wildlife Image Libraries
www.a-p-h-o-t-o.com

gramandy's picture

will be in touch..

...when future visits to site are done - to try to get the H.auricola for verification as this may have been misIDed from your comments.

dejayM's picture

another

The same problem,of an unacceptable Scientific name, has occurred again here http://www.ispotnature.org/node/814700.
ðJ