Category: Marine biology

Gastropods x3

Posted on by Allison J. Gong

This past Monday I did something rare for me: I returned to the same intertidal site I had visited the previous day. I enjoyed myself so much the first time that I wasn’t able to refuse an invitation to go out there again. The site, Pigeon Point, is one of my favorites, especially in all of its spring glory as it is now. It has always been a hotspot especially for macroalgal diversity, and so far this year appears to be living up to its reputation. The day before I collected several reds that I got to spend the next two days trying to identify.

Three intertidal gastropods at Pigeon Point. Top circular object: Thylacodes squamigerus; yellow elongated object in middle: Doriopsilla albopunctata; bottom purplish-black snail: Tegula funebralis.
1 May 2017
© Allison J. Gong

On Monday I was less overwhelmed by obsessed with algae and able to focus more on the animals, and was delighted to find a small cluster of Thylacodes squamigerus, the strange and fascinating vermetid snail. Nearby one of the vermetid snails was a yellow nudibranch (Doriopsilla albopunctata) and one of the common turban snails (Tegula funebralis). The chance proximity of three different gastropods brought to mind the incredible diversity of this group of molluscs.

The Gastropoda are the largest group within the phylum Mollusca, and can claim a fossil record that dates back to the early Cambrian, some 540 million years ago. They have been extremely successful throughout that long time and are the only molluscan group to have established lineages in both freshwater and on land (of the other molluscs, only the bivalves have made it into freshwater, with the remaining groups restricted to the sea). As you might expect, this evolutionary history has given rise to a mind-boggling array of body types and lifestyles. Let’s investigate this diversity by taking a closer look at the three gastropods in the photo above.

Gastropod #1 (Thylacodes squamigerus): Very few people, on seeing this animal for the first time, would guess that it’s a snail. Most would say that it’s a serpulid worm. The tube is calcareous, as it is for serpulid worms, and winds around over rocks in the intertidal.

Tube of the vermetid snail Thylacodes squamigerus at Pigeon Point
1 May 2017
© Allison J. Gong

A close look at the opening of the tube, however, reveals snail-like rather than worm-like features. Thylacodes even has a snail’s face, although I’ll admit it isn’t easy to see if you don’t know to look for it. And despite crawling under a ledge with my camera, I didn’t get the best view of a face. In this photo, however, you can at least see one of the cephalic tentacles:

View into the tube of Thylacodes squamigerus at Pigeon Point
1 May 2017
© Allison J. Gong

Living in a tube cemented onto a rock means that Thylacodes can’t go out and find food. It must instead catch food and bring it in. Thylacodes does so by spinning threads of sticky mucus that are splayed out into the water, where they capture plankton and suspended detritus. The threads are then reeled in and everything–mucus and food–is eaten by the snail. Thylacodes tends to occur in groups, and individuals within an aggregation contribute threads to a communal feeding net, which presumably can catch more food than the sum total of all the snails’ individual efforts.

Pretty unexpected for a snail, isn’t it?

Gastropod #2 (Tegula funebralis): The black turban snail is probably one of the most common and commonly overlooked animals in the intertidal. People don’t see them because these snails are, literally, everywhere from the high- down into the mid-intertidal. They are routinely stepped over as visitors rush to the lower intertidal, and ignored again as these same visitors leave the seashore. I love them. I keep them in the lab as portable lawnmowers for the seawater tables. They are incredibly efficient grazers, keeping the algal growth down. Plus, I think they’re cute!

If there’s such thing as a ‘typical’ marine snail, T. funebralis may very well be it. This little snail exemplifies several of the traits we use to define the Gastropoda: it lives in a coiled shell, it uses a radula for scraping algal film off rocks (yum!) and is torted. The shell is easy enough to understand, as everyone has seen a snail at some point, even if it was a terrestrial snail. The radula and torsion, however, may take a little explaining.

A congregation of Tegula funebralis at Mitchell’s Cove
8 June 2016
© Allison J. Gong

Many molluscs have a radula, a file-like ribbon of teeth that can be stuck out of the mouth and used for feeding. In gastropods the radula can be a scraping organ (as in Tegula and other herbivores such as limpets), a drill (as in the predatory moon snails, which drill holes into unsuspecting clams and then slurp out their soft gooey bodies), or a poison dart (as in the venomous cone snails). The radula of a grazer such as Tegula bears many transverse rows of sharp teeth, which are regularly replaced in a conveyor belt fashion as they are worn down. This assures that the teeth being used are always nice and sharp. Remember the radula marks made by the owl limpet (Lottia gigantea)?

An owl limpet (L. gigantea) in her farm at Natural Bridges
7 March 2017
© Allison J. Gong
Tegula funebralis clearing real estate in my seawater table
27 January 2017
© Allison J. Gong

Those zig-zaggy marks are made by the scraping of the radula as the limpet crawls over her farm. Tegula funebralis makes the same type of pattern in my seawater tables. All of that white territory is area that had been scraped clean of algae in about a day. Tegula is a very industrious little snail! And they’re not shy, either. I don’t have to wait a day or so for them to get acclimated when I bring the back to the lab. I can move them around from table to table and after a few seconds they poke their heads out and start cruising around. I’ve learned from watching them over the years that they seem to have an entrained response to the rising and falling of the tides, even after I bring them into the lab. For the first few weeks of captivity, every morning when I first get to the lab I find that several Tegula have climbed up the walls. I think they’re crawling up when the tide is high. I really should look at that more carefully. They never go too far, but sometimes they do drop onto the floor and I find them by stepping on them. Fortunately they are hardy creatures and the floor is always wet with seawater so as long as I find them within a day and plunk them back into the table they’re fine.

Now on to torsion. Torsion is difficult to explain, but let me try. The word ‘torsion’ refers to the twisting of the nerve cord and some internal organs that occurs during larval development of gastropods. Here’s how it works. Imagine a closed loop, like a long piece of string with the ends tied together. Lay the loop down on a table and it is just a simple loop. Pick up one end of the loop, twist it counterclockwise 180°, and lay it down again. Now you have a figure-8, right? That’s not exactly what happens in the living snail, but you get the picture.

Tegula and other snails have an elongated body that is coiled and crammed to fit inside the shell. If you could take Tegula’s body and stretch it out without breaking it (impossible to do, BTW), you’d see the figure-8 configuration of the nerve cord. Other internal organs are re-arranged by torsion, too. As a result, both the gill(s) and the anus now open into the mantle cavity which has been relocated over the head. This arrangement is ideal for keeping the gill(s) irrigated, but not so good for hygienic reasons. Fortunately, the mantle cavity itself is angled so that water flows through it in a more-or-less unidirectional manner, passing over the gill before the anus. Tegula and other marine snails undergo torsion while in the larval stage, and remain torted as adults. This is not the case in other gastropods, as we’ll see next.

Gastropod #3 (Doriopsilla albopunctata): Everybody loves the nudibranchs, because their brilliant colors make them easy to love. Unlike the oft-undetected Thylacodes squamigerus and the ignored Tegula funebralis, many of the nudibranchs are somewhat easy to spot in the field because of their flamboyance. This is a crappy picture, but you get the point.

Doriopsilla albopunctata at Point Piños
9 May 2015
© Allison J. Gong

Doriopsilla albopunctata is one of several species of yellow dorid nudibranchs lumped together under the common name ‘sea lemon’. Instead of the long fingerlike processes (cerata) that adorn the backs of the aeolid nudibranchs such as Hermissenda spp., the dorids have smooth or papillated backs that may be decorated with rings or spots. Dorids also have a set of branchial plumes on the posterior end of the dorsum; the number and color of these gills can often be used to distinguish similar species. Doriopsilla albopunctata has a smooth yellow back with little white spots, hence the species epithet (L: ‘albopunctata’ = ‘white pointed’), and white branchial plumes.

Doriopsilla albopunctata at Franklin Point
17 July 2015
© Allison J. Gong

Nudibranchs are gastropods, although in a different group from Thylacodes and Tegula. The marine slugs, of which the nudibranchs are the most commonly encountered, are in a group called the Opisthobranchia, whose name means ‘gill on back’ and refers equally to the cerata of aeolids and the branchial plume of dorids. In fact, these animals lack the typical molluscan gill that the snails have. They do have a radula, however, and crawl around on a single foot exactly like Tegula does.

An adult nudibranch’s body is elongated, unlike the coiled body of Tegula, and has no apparent signs of having undergone torsion. However, examination of larval nudibranchs shows that they do undergo torsion just like any other respectable gastropod. The weird thing is that some time during the transition from pelagic larva to benthic juvenile they de-tort, or untwist their innards so that their internal anatomy matches their external shape. Instead of having to poop on their own heads, nudibranchs have an anus that is sensibly located at the rear (no pun intended) of the body.

Torsion is one of those biological curiosities whose evolutionary origin is shrouded in mystery. How did such anatomical contortions evolve? Why do gastropods, and only gastropods, undergo torsion? And why do some gastropods tort as larvae, only to detort as they become adults? There are scientific hypotheses about the benefits of torsion, particularly to the larval stages, but nobody knows for sure. After all, none of use were there to watch when it happened.

This is just a tiny taste of the diversity of the Gastropoda. I think it’s cool to see three such different gastropods in a small spot of the intertidal. And no doubt there were more that I didn’t see. That’s one of the joys of working in the intertidal: that I so often see things I wasn’t even trying to find.

Different strokes

Posted on by Allison J. Gong

When it comes to the natural world, I have always found myself drawn to things that are unfamiliar and strange. I think that’s why I gravitated towards the marine invertebrates: they are the animals most unlike us in just about every way imaginable. Even so, some of them have bodies at least that are recognizable as being both: (1) alive; and (2) animal-ish. Think, for example, of a lobster and a snail. Each has a head and the familiar bilateral symmetry that we have. Obviously they are animals, right? I, of course, am most fascinated not by these easy-to-understand (not really, but you know what I mean) animals, but to the cnidarians and the echinoderms. And for different reasons. The cnidarians astound me because they combine morphological simplicity with life cycle complexities that boggle the mind. I hope to write about that some day. Today’s post is about my other favorite phylum, the Echinodermata.

For years now I’ve been spawning sea urchins, to study their larval development and demonstrate to students how this type of work is done. I have a pretty good idea of what to expect in urchin larvae and can claim a decent track record of raising them through metamorphosis successfully. Urchins are easy. To contrast, I have much less experience working with sea stars. I have found that some species are easy to work with, while others are much more problematic. Bat stars (Patiria miniata), for instance, are easy to spawn and raise through larval development into post-larval life. Ochre stars (Pisaster ochraceus), on the other hand, go through larval development beautifully, but then all die as juveniles because nobody has figured out what to feed them. I’ve already chronicled my and Scott’s attempts in 2015 to raise juvenile ochre stars in a series of posts starting here.

Sea urchins and sea stars have long been model organisms for the study of embryonic development in animals, for a few reasons. First, many species of both kinds of animals are broadcast spawners, which in nature would simply throw their gametes out into the water. This means that development occurs outside the mother’s body, so biologists can raise the larvae in the lab and observe what happens. Second, spawning can be induced by subjecting the parents to nonlethal chemical or environment stresses. Third, the larvae themselves are often quite happy to grow in jars and eat what we feed them. Fourth, the larvae of the planktotrophic species are often beautifully transparent, allowing the observer to see details of internal anatomy. Lucky me, I’ve been able to do this several times. And it never gets old.

All that said, there are differences between urchins and stars that force the biologist to treat them differently if we want them to spawn. For the species I work with, spawning occurs after I inject a certain magic juice into the animals’ central body cavity–urchins get a simple salt solution (KCl, or potassium chloride) and stars get a more complex molecule (1-MA, or 1-methyladenine). The fact that you can’t use the same magic juice for urchins and stars reflects a fundamental difference in gametogenesis and spawning in these groups of animals.

Female (left) and male (right) spawning purple sea urchins (Strongylocentrotus purpuratus)
20 January 2015
© Allison J. Gong

Sea urchins will spawn only if they have fully developed gametes. In other words, gametogenesis must be complete before gametes can be released to the outside. You can inject as much KCl into a sea urchin as you want, but if it’s the wrong time of year or the urchin doesn’t have mature gonads (due to poor food conditions, perhaps), it won’t spawn. I’ve never investigated the mechanism by which KCl induces spawning in ripe urchins, but here’s what I think happens.

When students dissect animals in my invertebrate zoology class, we use magnesium chloride (MgCl2) to narcotize the animals first. A 7.5% solution of this simple salt is remarkably effective at putting many animals gently to sleep, especially molluscs and echinoderms. Placing the animals in a bowl of MgCl2 and seawater causes them to relax and gradually become unresponsive. A longer bath in the MgCl2 puts them to sleep for good.

Given the relaxation effects of MgCl2 on urchins, I suspect that injecting a solution of KCl into the body cavity relaxes the sphincter muscles surrounding the gonopores. This relaxation opens the gonopore, and if the gonads are ripe the mature gametes are released to the outside. As I said above, I don’t know for certain if this is how it works, but the hypothesis makes sense to me. It also explains why that I can shoot up a dozen urchins and get none of them to spawn: the KCl might be doing what it normally does (i.e., opening the gonopores) but if the gonads aren’t ripe there are no gametes to be released.

For completely different reasons, injecting a star with KCl does absolutely nothing at all except probably make the animal a bit uncomfortable. The KCl may very well open gonopores as it does in urchins, but a star will never have mature gametes, especially eggs, to release in response to this muscle relaxant. This is because at least in female stars, meiosis (the process that produces haploid gametes) isn’t complete until the eggs have been spawned to the outside. What, then, is the magic juice used to induce spawning in stars, and what exactly does it do?

The magic juice is 1-methyladenine, a molecule related to the nucleobase adenine, most commonly known as one of the four bases that make up DNA. The nomenclature indicates that the difference between the two molecules is the addition of a methyl group (–CH3) to the #1 position on an adenine molecule:

Chemistry aside, what I’m interested in is the action of 1-MA on the eggs of sea stars. Meiosis, the process that produces gametes, has two divisions called Meiosis I and II. Meiosis I starts with a diploid cell (i.e., containing two sets of chromosomes) and produces two diploid daughter cells; these daughter cells may not be genetically identical to each other because of recombination events such as crossing over. It isn’t until Meiosis II, the so-called reduction division, that the ploidy number is halved, so each daughter cell is now haploid (i.e., containing a single set of chromosomes) and can take part in a fertilization event. In a nutshell, the end products of meiosis are haploid cells, all of which ultimately result from a single diploid parent cell.

In female sea urchins, the entire meiotic process is completed before the eggs are spawned, which is why the relaxation effects KCl can induce spawning.

In females of many other animal species, meiosis is arrested for some period of time after the Meiosis I division. For example, this happens in humans: baby girls are born with all of the eggs they will ever produce, maintained in a state of suspended animation after Meiosis I. It isn’t until puberty that eggs begin to complete meiosis, one egg becoming mature and being ovulated approximately monthly for the rest of the woman’s reproductive life. Sea stars are sort of like this, with the notable exception that a female star will ripen and produce thousands of eggs in any spawning event rather than doling them out one at a time.

One of the really cool things about working with sea star embryology is that I get to see the completion of meiosis after the eggs have been spawned. I know that the gonads have to reach a certain level of ripeness before 1-MA will induce spawning. Reviewing my notes from a course I took in comparative invertebrate embryology when I was in graduate school, I came across the mention of ‘polar bodies,’ tiny blobs that I remember seeing in just-fertilized sea star eggs but which I have never seen in sea urchin embryos. Then I needed to remind myself what polar bodies are all about.

Remember how there are two cell divisions in meiosis? Well, despite what’s shown in the diagram above, each of the divisions is asymmetrical. In other words, each division of meiosis produces one big cell and one tiny cell. The tiny cells are the polar bodies. They are too small to either divide or be fertilized, and generally die on their own. Here’s a chronology of what happens. First, a cell divides, producing a large cell and a tiny polar body:

I’ve x’d out the polar body in red because it cannot divide or be fertilized and will soon die. Then the large cell divides to produce the final egg and a second polar body:

It turns out that in sea stars things get even more complicated. 1-MA acts as a maturation-inducing substance in these animals, effectively jump-starting the eggs that have been sitting around in an arrested state after undergoing Meiosis I. This initiates the continued maturation of the eggs to the stage when they can be spawned. Even now, though, meiosis doesn’t complete until an egg has been fertilized, at which point the second polar body is produced. The production of that second polar body is the signal that Meiosis II has occurred, and the now-fertilized egg can begin its embryonic development.

Here’s a freshly fertilized egg of Pisaster ochraceus, with the two polar bodies smushed into the narrow perivitelline space between the surface of the zygote and the fertilization envelope:

Zygotes of the ochre star Pisaster ochraceus, showing two polar bodies
25 April 2017
© Allison J. Gong

Sea urchins, remember, do not have polar bodies when I spawn them. That’s because meiosis is complete by the time the eggs can be spawned, so the polar bodies have already died or been resorbed by the final mature egg. The photo of the P. ochraceus zygotes was taken within a few minutes of fertilization. Let’s contrast that with a photo of a brand new urchin zygote:

Egg of purple sea urchin (Strongylocentrotus purpuratus) fertilized by sperm from a red urchin (Mesocentrotus franciscanus)
30 December 2016
© Allison J. Gong

See? No polar bodies!

All of this is to explain why we can’t use the same magic juice to spawn both urchins and stars. Kinda cool when the madness in our method has a biological context, isn’t it?

Ghosts

Posted on by Allison J. Gong

I seem to have a need to keep investigating seastar wasting syndrome (SSWS) and trying to make sense of what I and others see in the field. I think it parallels my morbid fascination with the medieval Black Death. In any case, I’ve devised a plan to continue experimenting with one aspect of the potential recovery of one species, the ochre star, Pisaster ochraceus.

The first step of this plan was to collect a few more stars, which I did back in early March. For the past year or so the stars had been becoming more abundant at certain sites, leading to hope that the populations were beginning to recover and speculation as to whether these individuals were pre-SSWS survivors or post-SSWS recruits. I think they are survivors, because it seems highly unlikely that a star can grow from teensy (a few millimeters in diameter) to hand-sized on a few years. This is what I want to address experimentally in the lab.

The three stars that I collected seemed to adjust well to life in the lab. They all ate well and were crawling around in their tank. Then, last Friday (31 March 2017, to be exact) I checked on the stars as I usually do and was horrified to see this:

Dismembered bits of an ochre star (Pisaster ochraceus)
31 March 2017
© Allison J. Gong

Knowing from experience how quickly this can happen, I’d guess this star had begun ripping itself into pieces in the previous 24 hours. And meantime, its tankmates had stuck themselves to the underside of the cover of the tank. This is not unusual behavior and once I poked them both to make sure they weren’t getting mush I decided not to worry about them for the time being. The important thing was to remove the not-dead-yet pieces of the exploded star and bleach the tank before returning the apparently healthy stars to it.

One of the most horrific aspects of SSWS is that it is both blindingly fast and agonizingly slow. It appears to strike out of the blue, by which I mean that stars can look absolutely fine one afternoon and be torn to bits the next morning. And it’s slow because the individual pieces can live for hours or even days before finally dying.

31 March 2017
© Allison J. Gong

This star broke itself into five pieces. The three pieces of arm had started getting mushy but still responded by sticking harder when I picked them up. That larger section with two arms and the madreporite was actually walking around the bowl. The torn-off pieces were all oozing sperm into the water, so at least I know this individual was a male. Small comfort, that, when I had to bag up the pieces and throw them in the trash.

Being confronted with the specter of SSWS, I wondered exactly what it meant. I’ve never been under the illusion that SSWS goes away entirely. I suspect that it is always present in the wild, possibly at low enough levels that we don’t notice it for decades at a time. Seeing one dead star, which presumably was infected in the field before I brought it into the lab. . . does it mean the plague is rearing its ugly head again? Or is this a one-off that I just happened to catch? There’s only one way to find out, and that is to see if there are more sick stars in the field. So that’s what I did the following two days. I had planned to visit three intertidal sites where I expect Pisaster ochraceus to live, but my concussed brain allowed me to drive to only the two nearest sites.

I went to Natural Bridges on Saturday, where I’d been seeing lots of ochre stars over the past several months. I hadn’t seen a sick star there for years, although at the outbreak of the plague in 2013 the ochre stars disappeared suddenly. In the past couple of years I’d been happy to see lots of healthy hand-sized stars there. Last weekend it seemed I saw fewer stars than I had gotten used to seeing, but none of them were sick. Whew!

Pair of healthy Pisaster ochraceus at Natural Bridges
1 April 2017
© Allison J. Gong

The next day I went to Mitchell’s Cove, where I’d collected those three stars back in March. I did see lots of great-looking stars, some as small as ~6 cm in diameter and others bigger than my outstretched hand.

Trio of healthy Pisaster ochraceus at Mitchell’s Cove
2 April 2017
© Allison J. Gong

But I also saw this:

Arm of a P. ochraceus that was killed by SSWS at Mitchell’s Cove
2 April 2017
© Allison J. Gong

This is all that remains of an ochre star that apparently succumbed to SSWS. No other body parts are visible in the vicinity, and this arm bit was barely hanging on to the rock. Given how quickly stars can disintegrate when SSWS hits, this one probably began showing symptoms the previous day, while the tide was in and nobody would have seen it. And who knows how many other stars got sick and died without anybody noticing.

The take-home message is that I need to not let SSWS fall off my mental radar. I hope to god that my six remaining P. ochraceus in the lab remain healthy and that I can spawn them in a couple of weeks. I’ve obtained from a friend some small dishes seeded with food that tiny juvenile stars may be able to eat. I’m not too worried about getting through the larval development stage, although I probably shouldn’t get too cocky about that. In any case, it’s the post-larval juvenile survivorship that I’m really interested in. This year I don’t have Scott to help me with the husbandry and data collection. I will instead be working with another colleague, Betsy. We have a spawning date at the end of April, when the next phase of my ongoing SSWS investigation will begin.

They deserve a prettier name than “rockweed”

Posted on by Allison J. Gong

As spring arrives in full force, the algae are starting to come back in the intertidal. The past two mornings I went out on the low tides to look for something very specific (which I did find–more on that later) and noticed the resurrection of the more common red algae. So early in the season the algal thalli are nice and clean, not yet having been fouled or munched. And, like all babies, they’re pretty dang cute.

Here’s a little clump of Endocladia muricata, a red alga with the common name ‘scouring pad alga.’ I’ve also heard it referred to as ‘pubic hair alga,’ by a former instructor of marine botany who shall remain nameless.

Endocladia muricata growing on the test of the large barnacle Tetraclita rubescens, at Natural Bridges
1 April 2017
© Allison J. Gong

What I tried, and failed, to capture in this photo is that the strands have little thornlike extensions that give them the texture of . . . a scouring pad. Here’s a better picture of a larger clump, and if you squint you might be able to see what I’m talking about.

Endocladia muricata
1 April 2017
© Allison J. Gong

And here’s another baby red, this gorgeous little piece of Plocamium. When they’re young like this the branching structure is easier to see. And isn’t that color splendid? Especially with the green of the fresh young surfgrass.

A baby Plocamium, growing among the surfgrass Phyllospadix scouleri
1 April 2017
© Allison J. Gong

What I was really thinking about this morning were the morphological similarities that can make it very difficult to distinguish between different species. For example, there are three species of rockweeds that are common around here: Fucus distichus, Silvetia compressa, and Pelvetiopsis limitata. Rockweeds are brown algae but are usually olive-green in color, and live in the high mid-intertidal above the mussel zone. In some places all three species occur together. Fucus (see below) is easy to recognize because its blades are wider and somewhat straplike, with prominent midribs. When Fucus is reproductive the tips of the blades become swollen and full of a gooey mucilage, which contains the gametes. There are other interesting things about sex in Fucus, and at some point I may address those in a later post.

Fucus distichus, a rockweed, at Franklin Point
17 July 2017
© Allison J. Gong

The other rockweeds, Silvetia and Pelvetiopsis, are a lot more difficult to distinguish. They both have less straplike blades. They share a generalized dichotomous branching pattern, but in neither is it as consistent as it is in Fucus.

Pelvetiopsis limitata at Mitchell’s Cove
2 April 2017
© Allison J. Gong
Silvetia compressa at Mitchell’s Cove
2 April 2017
© Allison J. Gong

This morning these two specimens were growing side by side. In terms of scale the overall length of Silvetia is about twice that of Pelvetiopsis. Keeping that in mind, what you can’t tell from these photos is that Silvetia is also coarser and stiffer, like pasta that is about a minute short of being cooked al dente–not hard, but still more firm that you’d probably like it to be. Pelvetiopsis, on the other hand, is rather soft and much more flexible.

If I were to ask you to contrast these organisms based solely on the photos above, you might say that Silvetia looks somewhat less orderly than Pelvetiopsis. And you would be right! The almost-but-not-quite-dichotomous branching in Silvetia doesn’t always occur in the same plane, resulting in a thallus that doesn’t lie flat. Look at this:

Silvetia compressa at Mitchell’s Cove
2 April 2017
© Allison J. Gong

See how those branches, especially the terminal branches, don’t all come off in the same direction? That’s what I mean. A cross-section of Silvetia‘s blades would be somewhere between flat and cylindrical, also contributing to the tendency of this thallus not to lie flat. This means that when you press it it does get a little mashed looking.

Pelvetiopsis, on the other hand, is a much more regular beast. The blades are distinctly linear in cross-section and generally branch in one plane. One other thing to note is that in Pelvetiopsis the terminal branch tips are very short relative to the overall thallus length compared to those of Silvetia.

Blade tips of Pelvetiopsis limitata
2 April 2017
© Allison J. Gong

A fair question to ask is: How can you tell the difference between a baby Silvetia and a full-grown Pelvetiopsis? Absolute size might not be a useful characteristic, but the other morphological traits are. The branching orientations and overall blade shapes are fairly consistent throughout the size range for each species. Consistent enough, at least, to make a good gut-level first ID guess.

I wanted to write about this because I saw the organisms, checked them off in my head, and then backed up a bit. I found myself second-guessing my instincts when it came to identifying these specimens. I mean, I know these organisms. Or, I think I do. It’s frustrating to look at the creatures I see regularly in the intertidal, organisms whose names I learned many years ago (even through the inevitable taxonomic name changes), and say to myself, “Wait a minute; is that right?” This led me to seriously consider these two rockweed species and evaluate what I really know about each of them. How do I know that one specimen is Pelvetiopsis, when it looks a hell of a lot like a baby Silvetia? I think this unusual self-doubt has to do with post-concussion syndrome. For the past several months I’ve known that words fly out of my mind as I’m trying to recall them. Why not names as well? At this stage in my recovery I’m supposed to be slowly challenging my brain as well as continuing to rest it. Finding that balance has been tricky. In a few weeks I will have my early morning low tides back. It will be easier for me to drive to intertidal sites then, and I’m going to use tidepooling as therapy. It has been good for my soul in the past, and I hope that it will also be good for my brain in the near future.

Complexity in small packages

Posted on by Allison J. Gong

Last week I went up to Davenport to do some collecting in the intertidal. The tide was low enough to allow access to a particular area with two pools where I have had luck in the past finding hydroids and other cool stuff. These pools are great because they are shallow and surrounded by flat-ish rocks, so I can lie down on my stomach and really get close to where the action is. At this time of year the algae and surfgrasses are starting to regrow; the surface of the pools was covered by leaves of Phyllospadix torreyi, the narrow-leafed surfgrass.

Parting the curtain of Phyllospadix leaves to gaze into the first pool I was pleasantly surprised to find this. What does it look like to you?

Aglaophenia latirostris at Davenport Landing
8 March 2017
© Allison J. Gong

There are actually two very different organisms acting as main subjects in this photo. The pink stuff is a coralline alga, a type of red alga that secretes CaCO3 in its cell walls. Coralline algae come in two different forms: one is a crust that grows over surfaces and the other, like this, grows upright and branching. Because they sequester CaCO3, corallines are likely to be affected by the projected increase of the ocean’s acidity due to the continued burning of fossil fuels. Ocean acidification is one of the sexy issues in science these days, and although it is very interesting and pertinent to today’s world it is not the topic for this post. Suffice it to say that changes in ocean chemistry are making it more difficult for any organisms to precipitate CaCO3 out of seawater to build things like shells or calcified cell walls.

It’s the tannish featherlike stuff in the photo that I was particularly interested in. At first glance the tan thing looks like a clump of a very fine, fernlike plant. It is, however, an animal. To be more specific, it is a type of colonial cnidarian called a hydroid. I love hydroids for their hidden beauty, not always visible to the naked eye, and the fact that at first glance they so closely resemble plants. In fact, many hydroid colonies grow in ways very similar to those of plants, which has often made me think that in some cases the differences between plants and animals aren’t as great as you might assume. But that’s a matter for a separate essay.

I collected this piece of hydroid and brought it back to the lab. The next day I took some photos. To give you an idea of how big the colony is, the finger bowl is about 12 cm in diameter and the longest of these fronds is about 3 cm long.

Colony of the hydroid Aglaophenia latirostris
9 March 2017
© Allison J. Gong

And here’s a closer view through the dissecting scope.

The colonial hydroid Aglaophenia latirorostris
9 March 2017
© Allison J. Gong

Each of the fronds has a structure that we describe as pinnate, or featherlike–consisting of a central rachis with smaller branches on each side. This level of complexity can be seen with the naked eye. Zooming in under the scope brings into view more of the intricacy of this body plan:

Close-up view of a single frond of Aglaophenia latirostris, showing feeding polyps and two gonangia
9 March 2017
© Allison J. Gong

At this level of magnification you can see the anatomical details that cause us to describe this animal’s structure as modular. In this context the term ‘modular’ refers to a body that is constructed of potentially independent units. A colony like this is built of several different types of modules called zooids, some of which are familiarly referred to as polyps. Each zooid has a specific job and is specialized for that job; for example, gastrozooids are the feeders, while gonozooids take care of the sexual reproduction of the colony. In this colony of Aglaophenia each of these side branches consists of several stacked gastrozooids, which you can see as the very small polyps bearing typical cnidarian feeding tentacles. Aglaophenia is a thecate hydroid; this means that each gastrozooid sits inside a tiny cup, called a theca, into which it can withdraw for protection. Those larger structures with pinkish blobs inside are called gonangia. A gonangium is a modified gonozooid, found in only thecate hydroid colonies, that contains either medusa buds or other reproductive structures called gonophores.

Pretty complicated, isn’t it? Who would expect such a small animal to have this much anatomical complexity?

In the second pool I found an entirely different type of hydroid. At first glance this one looks more animal-like than Aglaophenia does, although it is still a strange kind of animal. This is Sarsia, one of the athecate hydroids whose gastrozooids do not have a protective theca. It might be easier to think of these and other athecate hydroids (such as Ectopleura, which I wrote about here and here) as naked, with the polyps not having anywhere to hide.

Colony of the athecate hydroid Sarsia sp.
9 March 2017
© Allison J. Gong

Each of these polyps is about 1 cm tall. The mouth is located on the very end of the stalk. The tentacles, not quite conforming to the general rule of cnidarian polyp morphology, do not form a ring around the mouth. Instead, they are scattered over the end of the stalk.

Here’s a closer view:

Colony of the athecate hydroid Sarsia sp.
9 March 2017
© Allison J. Gong

In the hydroid version of Sarsia, the reproductive gonozooids are reduced to small buds that contain medusae. You can see a few round pink blobs in the lower right of the colony above; those are the medusa buds.  The medusae are fairly common in the local plankton, indicating that the hydroid stage is likewise abundant. Here’s a picture of a Sarsia medusa that I found in a plankton tow in May 2015.

Medusa of the genus Sarsia
1 May 2015
© Allison J. Gong

The medusa of Sarsia is about 1 mm in diameter and has four tentacles, which usually get retracted when the animal is dragged into a plankton net. Sometimes, if the medusa isn’t too beat up, it will relax and start swimming. I recorded some swimming behavior in a little medusa that I put into a small drop of water on a depression slide. It refused to let its tentacles down but you might be able to distinguish four tentacle bulbs.

There’s a lot more that I could say about hydroids and other cnidarians. They really are among the most intriguing animals I’ve had the pleasure to observe, both in the field and in the lab. I’ve always been fascinated by their biphasic life cycle, with its implications for the animals’ evolutionary past and ecological present. Perhaps I’ll write about that some time, too.

Metamorphosis

Posted on by Allison J. Gong

It has been a few weeks since I posted about my most recent batches of urchin larvae. Some strange things have been happening, and I’m not yet sure what to make of them. It would be great if animals cooperated and did what I expect; somehow that never seems to be the case. The upshot of all this uncertainty is that there is always something new to learn. I, for one, am not going to complain about that.

One noteworthy thing to report is that my hybrids all died, very quickly and unexpectedly. They had been racing through development and on the dreaded Day 24 they looked great.

Hybrid larvae of purple urchin (Strongylocentrotus purpuratus) eggs fertilized by red urchin (Mesocentrotus franciscanus) sperm, age 24 days.
23 January 2017
© Allison J. Gong

And the next time I changed their water, they were all dead. So much for the hybrid vigor I had written about earlier. Teach me to get cocky and think I know what’s going on.

Fast forward to Day 52, and some of the cultures are still going strong. I originally set up four matings, and at least some individuals from each are alive. One thing that seems to happen when I start multiple batches of larvae at the same time is that the batch with the fewest numbers does the best. This time my F3xM1 mating was always the least dense culture, but some of them have already begun and completed metamorphosis. And the ones that are metamorphosing are the ones being fed what I expected to be the less desirable food source. As I said, not much of this whole experience is making sense.

The good thing is that I have an opportunity to observe these larveniles in action. As long as they don’t get arrested in this neither-here-nor-there stage, they should soon join their siblings as permanent inhabitants of the benthos.

This video contains short clips of three different larveniles. I’ve arranged the clips from earlier to later stages of metamorphosis. Although these are three separate individuals, you can imagine that each one goes all of these stages.

Having both tube feet (for crawling around the benthos) and ciliated bands (for swimming in the plankton) make these animals unsuited for either habitat. They have gotten very heavy and sink to the bottom, but it doesn’t take much water movement to knock them off their five little tube feet. It always amazes me that teensy critters like this, so fragile and easily killed, manage somehow to stick in the intertidal and survive long enough to be grown-up urchins on their own. And yet some of them will. I’ve seen it happen.

A few days make all the difference

Posted on by Allison J. Gong

Almost a week ago, my sculpin eggs were doing great. The embryos had eyes and beating hearts and were actively squirming around inside their eggs. A few of them had died but overall they seemed to be developing well. I had high hopes that they would continue to do so, and began to think of what I’d need to do once they hatched.

Today the egg mass is 19 days old, and things aren’t going so well.

Bald sculpin (Clinocottus recalvus) egg mass, age 19 days.
18 February 2017
© Allison J. Gong

Many of the embryos on the outer edges have died, and all that remains of them are the tattered remnants of their eggs. Those opaque white eggs have been dead for a while and the pale pink shredded eggs died more recently, in the last day or so. I took a quick peek at the egg mass yesterday, and it looked much healthier than it does today. I’d guess that all told about 30% of the embryos have died since development began.

Bald sculpin (Clinocottus recalvus) egg mass, age 19 days.
18 February 2017
© Allison J. Gong

The embryos that are still alive seem to be fine. Their eyes can now move around independently but I still don’t know what, if anything, they can see. Their bodies continue to grow and now they have spots on their tails as well. I can make out where the heart is because I can see it beating, but I can’t discern any of the other internal organs. If the lighting is just right I think I can see pectoral fins on some of the embryos, which are too faint and indistinct to photograph. The baby fish are still swimming around inside their eggs, too.

Question of the Day: What caused the eggs’ condition to deteriorate so rapidly?

Well, I can think of a couple of explanations.

Survivorship curves
Source: Wikimedia Commons, 2017

Explanation #1: Not everybody survives long enough to hatch. Sculpins and other fishes that lay large numbers of eggs are generally described as having a Type III survivorship curve (see right). These organisms have lots of babies, few of which survive to adulthood; probability of death is highest in the youngest age classes. Individuals that do make it to adulthood experience much lower mortality and have a decent chance of surviving into old age. In an egg mass like this, each egg has a very small probability of eventual survival to adulthood. To paraphrase an old saying, if they all survived then the world would be covered in bald sculpins. Obviously that’s not the case–and that’s a good thing!–so most of these eggs are not going to make it in the long run even in the best of circumstances.

Explanation #2: Crappy water quality. A very strong storm blasted through the area yesterday, complete with wind gusts to about 50 m.p.h. and 1-2 inches of rain, depending on location. All of this rain generates a lot of surface runoff, which carries mud and debris (think bushes and trees as well as garbage) into Monterey Bay. Plus, the high winds and turbulent swell stir up the bottom in shallow areas, resulting in brown, turbid water. This is the water that we use in the lab, and it’s our only source of seawater. Today the water was visibly cloudy. At least it seems to be just sediment, though, and not another phytoplankton bloom.

Poor water quality could affect the sculpin eggs if the sediment settles out on the surface of the egg mass, impeding gas exchange between the eggs and the surrounding water. In the field these eggs would be subjected to strong turbulence from the bashing waves, which would keep them clean and the water highly oxygenated. Some species of fish guard their egg masses and blow water on them to clear them of both sediment and fouling organisms. I hadn’t seen the parents of my sculpin eggs caring for their offspring at all, but I have been rinsing off the egg mass every day. Maybe I haven’t been able to keep the eggs clean enough. It does seem to be the eggs on the outside of the mass that are dying, so cruddiness might very well be part of the problem.

I’ll look at them again tomorrow and see if anything has changed. The news could be either good or bad, and I honestly don’t know what to expect.

Have a heart

Posted on by Allison J. Gong

Back in mid-December I collected a couple of small intertidal fishes and brought them back to the lab for observation and identification. Then the female laid a batch of eggs, which I’ve been watching ever since. Today the eggs are 15 days old. They are developing pretty quickly, I think, at ambient seawater temperatures of 12-13.5°C. Some of the changes can be seen with the naked eye, while others are visible only with some magnification.

Here’s a timeline of development for the first couple of weeks in the earliest life of bald sculpins.

Day 4: The egg mass is clean and the eggs are clear and pink. The very young embryo can be faintly seen as a paler pink strip lying on top of the darker pink yolk, which fills most of the internal volume of the egg. There are also some oil droplets associated with but not part of the yolk.

Eggs of the bald sculpin (Clinocottus recalvus)
3 February 2017
© Allison J. Gong

It wasn’t until this day that I was convinced the eggs were alive. Until then they looked like undifferentiated pink blobs with not a lot going on.

Day 7: Today they had eyes! And they were swimming around inside their eggs!

Eyed larvae of the bald sculpin (Clinocottus recalvus)
6 February 2017
© Allison J. Gong

Day 10: Today the eyes look more like fish eyes and are taking on a silvery sheen. Black pigment spots are forming along the dorsal surface of the embryos, and the yolk is noticeably smaller. The eggs are starting to look dirty to the naked eye, due to the darkening eyes and pigment spots.

Larvae of the bald sculpin (Clinocottus recalvus), age 11 days
10 February 2017
© Allison J. Gong

Today was the first day I could see their heartbeats! It was surprisingly difficult to capture the beating hearts with the camera.

Day 15: Some of the eggs have died, becoming opaque and hard. A few have broken open and are empty. The overall color of the egg mass is paler, as the larvae are consuming their yolks. The black pigment spots are becoming more prominent and seem to be concentrated on the top of the head.

Larvae of the bald sculpin (Clinocottus recalvus), age 15 days
14 February 2017
© Allison J. Gong

They look like baby fish now! They’re still flipping around inside their eggs and I think may be responding to light. They don’t seem to like it when I shine the light on them.

I’ve put together a short video of the eggs at various stages of development so far.

Let me know what you think!

Eggs of a different sort

Posted on by Allison J. Gong

Back in mid-December I collected some urchins at Davenport Landing. Some of these urchins are the parents of the larvae that I’m culturing and observing now. Towards the end of the trip I flipped over some surfgrass (Phyllospadix torreyi) and saw two fish, obviously sculpins, huddled together; they had been hiding in the Phyllospadix and waiting to be submerged when the water returned with the high tide. I have a probably inordinate fondness for intertidal fishes, and love catching sculpins. These were too big to be fluffies (Oligocottus snyderi) but I couldn’t pin down an ID any closer than that. I brought them back so I could take a closer look at them in the lab.

Trying to key out the intertidal sculpins in California is an activity fraught with danger. There are about a dozen species that are likely, plus more that are occasionally encountered in the intertidal. When identifying fishes ichthyologists use meristics, or counts of things such as scales along the lateral line or hard spines in the dorsal fin, to differentiate species. Since you can’t very easily count the number of spines in the dorsal fin while observing a fish thrashing around in a ziploc bag, I needed to get them under the dissecting scope.

Here is a picture that I took of the fish this morning. This is the same posture they had when I first saw them in the field. I think the male (paler fish on the right) is guarding the darker female. Oh, and while I’m at it, I should say that skin color is an unreliable characteristic to use when IDing sculpins. Their skin color can and does change very rapidly, depending on the surroundings and the fish’s emotional state.

3 February 2017
© Allison J. Gong

See those little tufts on the top of the head of the fish on the left? Those are called cirri. When I was keying out these guys I narrowed down the options to either bald sculpin or mosshead sculpin, and the distribution of the cephalic cirri was the final determining factor. Mosshead sculpins (Clinocottus globiceps) have cirri densely scattered over the entire head, while in balds (Clinocottus recalvus) the cirri extend forward only to just behind the eyes; in other words, bald sculpins have no cirri between the eyes or anywhere anterior to the eyes. In my fish the cirri clearly do not extend forward of the eyes, making these bald sculpins.

Bald sculpin (Clinocottus recalvus) peering at the camera with justifiable suspicion.
3 February 2017
© Allison J. Gong
Bald sculpin egg mass
3 February 2017
© Allison J. Gong

It usually takes animals a week or two to settle in after being collected from the field. After a couple of weeks the fish were eating regularly and hungrily. Sculpins don’t have an air bladder, which helps keep them from getting washed out of their home pools as the tide moves in and out, and tend to sink if they aren’t swimming. They can, however, swim very well. Once they got used to the idea of food coming at them from above they would start looking up when I removed the lid to their tank. When they’re really hungry they will swim up and attack the food, ripping it from my forceps. Otherwise I dangle food in front of their faces and they take it a little more gently. Now they are both eating well.

One of the sculpins went off its feed last week and then surprised me by producing a mass of pink eggs. She had deposited the eggs on the underside of the cover instead of on the surfgrass I have in the tank. No wonder she hadn’t been eating; with all those eggs inside her there would be no room for food! I decided to keep the eggs and see what, if anything, would happen with them.

Eggs of the bald sculpin (Clinocottus recalvus)
3 February 2017
© Allison J. Gong

Each of the eggs is about 1mm in diameter, and they are indeed pink. They are stuck together in a pretty firm mass. I peeled it off the cover of the tank and the whole mass remained intact. I can easily pick up the mass and put it into a bowl for viewing under the dissecting microscope. At first I could see that the eggs contained a large yolk and some smaller oil droplets but I couldn’t tell whether or not they were alive. I cleaned them off to remove any dirt or scuzz, then returned them to the tank, hoping the parents wouldn’t eat them. Over the first several days I couldn’t see any change in the eggs except some of them became opaque and white, obviously dead. And it looked like maybe the stuff inside the eggs was shifting around a bit, but I wasn’t sure if that was something good going on or the beginning of decomposition. The egg mass continued to stick together, though, which I took as a positive sign.

Then yesterday when I looked at the eggs I was able to convince myself that, yes, something is happening inside them. I saw tiny little fish bodies, complete with bulbous rudimentary heads, developing on the yolks!

Developing bald sculpin (C. recalvus) embryos
3 February 2017
© Allison J. Gong

Each egg is a pale pink sphere containing a darker pink yolk. At this early stage of development the yolk takes up most of the interior space of the egg. Lying across the yolk, with a swelling at one end, is the developing fish embryo. The swelling is the head. Even at this stage the three body axes (anterior-posterior, dorsal-ventral, and left-right) have been established for quite a while. The yolk will shrink as the energy stores within it are consumed by the developing embryo. I don’t know if sculpins hatch as larvae (i.e., with a yolk sac still attached) or as juveniles (after the yolk sac has been completely consumed). I hope I get to watch these eggs and see!

Beginnings and leavings

Posted on by Allison J. Gong

A few days ago I was in the intertidal with my friend Brenna. This most recent low tide series followed on the heels of some magnificently large swells and it was iffy whether or not we’d be able to get out to where we wanted to do some collecting. Our first day we went up to Pistachio Beach, just north of Pigeon Point, where the rocky intertidal is bouldery and protected by some large rock outcrops.

Pigeon Point lighthouse, viewed from Pistachio Beach.
27 January 2017
© Allison J. Gong
27 January 2017
© Allison J. Gong

So while the swell was indeed really big, we were pretty well protected in the intertidal. The Seymour Center has a standing order for slugs, hermit crabs, and algae. I was easily able to grab my limit (35) of hermit crabs over the course of the afternoon, and while it’s too early in the season for the algae to do much I had my sluggy friend with me to take care of finding nudibranchs, which left me free to let my attention wander as it would.

Codium setchellii at Pistachio Beach.
27 January 2017
© Allison J. Gong

The very first thing to catch my eye as we go out there was the coenocytic green alga Codium setchellii, which I wrote about last time. I’ve seen and collected C. setchellii from this site before, but don’t remember seeing it in such large conspicuous patches. I need to review what I learned about the phenology of various intertidal algae, but here’s a thought. Maybe Codium is an early-season species that gets outcompeted by the plethora of fast-growing red algae later in the spring. Red algae were present at Pistachio Beach but not in the lush (and slippery!) abundance that I’ll see in, say, June. I’m willing to bet that Codium will be less abundant in the next few months.

Leptasterias sp. at Pigeon Point.
24 April 2016
© Allison J. Gong

In my experience, the six-armed stars of the genus Leptasterias have always been the most abundant sea stars on the stretch of coastline between Franklin Point and Pescadero. Even though they are small–a monstrously ginormous one would be as large as the palm of my hand–they are very numerous in the low-mid intertidal. I’ve seen them in all sorts of pinks and grays with varying amounts of mottling. Alas, I don’t know of any really reliable marks for identifying them to species in the field.

Unlike other familiar stars, such as the various Pisaster species and the common Patiria miniata (bat stars), which reproduce by broadcast spawning their gametes into the water, Leptasterias is a brooder. Males release sperm that is somehow acquired by neighboring females and used to fertilize their eggs. There isn’t any space inside a star’s body to brood developing embryos, so a Leptasterias female tucks her babies underneath her oral surface and then humps up over them. Leptasterias also humps up when preying on small snails and such, so that particular posture could indicate either feeding or brooding.

Here’s a Leptasterias humped up on a rock, photographed last spring:

Leptasterias sp. at Pigeon Point.
5 May 2016
© Allison J. Gong

The only way to tell if a Leptasterias star is feeding or brooding is to pick it up and look at the underside. I did that the other day and saw this:

Brooding Leptasterias sp. star at Pistachio Beach.
27 January 2017
© Allison J. Gong

Those little orange roundish things are developing embryos. While the mother is brooding she cannot feed, and can use only the tips of her arms to hang onto rocks. Don’t worry, I replaced this star where I found her and made sure she had attached herself as firmly as possible before I left her. In a few weeks her babies will be big enough to crawl away and she’ll be able to feed again.

Looks like the reproductive season for Leptasterias has begun.

The next day Brenna and I went to Davenport, again hoping to get lucky despite another not-so-low tide and big swell.

Davenport Landing Beach and adjacent rocky areas.
© Google Earth

Davenport Landing Beach is a popular sandy beach, with rocky areas to the north and south. The topography of the north end is quite variable, with some large shallow pools and lots of vertical real estate to make the biota very diverse and interesting. The big rocks also provide shelter from the wind, a big plus for the intrepid marine biologist who insists on going out even when it’s crazy windy. The southern rocky area is very different, consisting of flat benches that slope gently towards the ocean, with comparatively little vertical terrain. The southern end of the beach is always more easily accessible, which is why I almost always go to the north. But this day the north wasn’t going to happen. The winter storms had washed away at least a vertical meter of sand between the rock outcrops. That and the not-so-low tide combined for conditions that made even getting out to the intended collecting site a pretty dodgy affair. So Brenna and I trudged across the beach to the south.

28 January 2017
© Allison J. Gong

Along the way we saw lots of these thumb-sized objects on the beach. At first glance they look like pieces of plastic, but after you see a few of them you realize that they are clearly (ha!) gelatinous things of biological origin. They are slipper-shaped and you can stick them over the ends of your fingers. They have a bumpy texture on the outside and are smooth on the inside.

Any guesses as to what they are?

Pseudoconch of Corolla spectabilis, washed up on Davenport Landing Beach.
28 January 2017
© Allison J. Gong

These funny little things are the pseudoconchs of a pelagic gastropod named Corolla spectabilis. What is a pseudoconch, you ask? If we break down the word into its Greek roots we have ‘pseudo-‘ which means ‘false’ and ‘conch’ which means shell. Thus a pseudoconch is a false shell. In this case, ‘false’ refers to the fact that this shell is both internal (as opposed to external) and uncalcified.

The animal that made these pseudoconchs, Corolla spectabilis, is a type of gastropod called a pteropod (Gk: ‘wing-foot’). Pteropods are pelagic relatives of nudibranchs, sea hares, and other marine slugs. They are indeed entirely pelagic, swimming with the elongated lateral edges of their foot. Like almost all pelagic animals, Corolla has a transparent gelatinous body. Even their shell is gelatinous, rather flimsier than most shells, but it serves to provide support for the animal’s body as it swims.

You can read more about Corolla spectabilis and see pictures and video here.

Why, you may be wondering, do the pseudoconchs of C. spectabilis end up on the beach, and where is the rest of the animal? The body of Corolla and other pteropods is soft and fragile. When strong storms and heavy swells seep through the area, the water gets churned up and pteropods (and other pelagic animals) get tossed about and shredded. This leaves their pseudoconchs to float on currents until they are either themselves demolished by turbulence or cast upon the beach. Corolla is commonly seen in Monterey Bay, and it is not unusual to find their pseudoconchs on the beaches after a series of severe storms.

Brenna and I were wondering if we could preserve the pseudoconchs somehow. I took several back to the lab and tried to dry them, thinking that they might behave like Velella velella does when dried. Unfortunately, the next day they had shriveled into unrecognizable little blobs of dried snot, and the day after that they had disintegrated completely into piles of dust. Maybe drying them more slowly would work. Something to consider the next time I run across pseudoconchs in the sand.