Gobies to Grizzlies

2008 KATMAI BEAR TRIP REPORT: PART 5 (GEOGRAPHIC HARBOUR - INDIVIDUAL BEARS)

2009-03-16T17:58:00.000-07:00

Al (a.k.a. Scarface) - the alpha boar in Geographic during our stay in 2008.

One of the big stars of Geographic was a big, heavily scarred male that we called “Al” (as in Al Pacino - Scarface). He appeared to be the dominant bear, as all other bruins in the area gave him wide berth. While we never saw any bears fighting at Geographic, the evidence of some serious combat was obvious.

A boar with a serious flesh wound. Injuries like this typically heal very quickly.

On one of our last days in Katmai, we observed a large boar with a flap of flesh peeled back from a large, open wound on its hind quarters. Every adult boar had war wounds. In most cases, these were gashed on the forelegs or wounds around the neck area. One bear had a gash on its head that almost reached the eye (at first we thought the eye had been damaged). While everything seemed fairly copasetic during our stay, the area was no doubt an arena from some terrific bruin battles.

A large boar bearing wounds on the forelegs and around the neck - war wounds from intense bruin battling!

Grizzly Aggression

Stonorov and Stokes (1972) found that there were four situations in which aggression most often occurs in brown bear aggregations. They were: 1. when one bear moves too close to another bear (invades personal space) 2. when one bear loses a challenge but then redirects its aggression toward a nearby bear (displacement aggression) 3. when two bears compete for a preferred fishing site 4. when two strange bears meet.

Stonorov and Stokes describes what happen during an intense, aggressive encounter between two bears that are similar in social ranking. The first thing that occurs is the bears confront one another – the two brown bears face each other with the front legs stiffened, the heads are lowered slightly and the movements occur in slow motion, the ears are laid back, both have their mouths wide open (this exposes the canines) and there is excess saliva production.

One of two things may happen at this point – one of the bears may back down or one or both bears may charge one another. When charging occurs one or both bears run at each other, the head is lowered and the ears are back and the mouth is open slightly. If neither bear breaks off the charge and retreats at this point, the big bears will come to blows. The bruins may swipe at each other with their fore paws, bite each other (usually on the neck) or lock jaws.

When one bear has had enough, it will drop its head even lower than its opponent and begin to slowly back away. At some point, the subordinate may walk or run away. During much of the encounter, there will be lots of vocalizations.

References:

Stonorov D. and A. W. Stokes. 1972. Social behavior of the Alaska brown bear. Int. Assoc Bear Res. & Mang. 23: 232-242.

© Scott W. Michael

"PSYCHEDELIC" FISH PICTURE: New Species Bounces on Reef

2009-03-06T15:10:00.001-08:00

Photograph copyright David Hall/seaphotos.com

February 25, 2009—A recently discovered "psychedelic" fish (shown in a January 2008 picture) is bouncing into the books as a new species, a new study says.

With a swirl of beige and peach stripes stretching from its blue eyes to its tail, the newly named Histiophryne psychedelica was initially discovered by scuba diving instructors working for a tour operator a year ago in shallow waters off Indonesia.

The operator contacted Ted Pietsch, lead author of a paper published in this month's edition of the journal Copeia, who submitted DNA work identifying the psychedelic fish as a new species.

Like other frogfish—a subset of anglerfish—H. psychedelica has leglike fins on both sides of its body.

But it has several traits not previously known among frogfish, wrote Pietsch, of the University of Washington.

Each time the fish strike the seabed, for instance, they push off with their fins and expel water from tiny gill openings to jet themselves forward. That and an off-centered tail cause them to bounce around in a bizarre, chaotic manner.

Mark Erdman, a senior adviser to the Conservation International's marine program, said, "I think people thought frogfishes were relatively well known, and to get a new one like this is really quite spectacular. ... It's a stunning animal."

The fish, which has a gelatinous, fist-size body covered with thick folds of skin that protect it from sharp-edged corals, also has a flat face with eyes directed forward, like humans, and a huge, yawning mouth.

—Robin McDowell in Jakarta, Indonesia (Associated Press)

Click here to see some amazing video clips of this wonderful frogfish.

French surfer killed in New Caledonia shark attack

2009-03-06T15:06:00.000-08:00

From correspondents in Noumea/ Agence France-Presse
March 06, 2009 07:33pm

A YOUNG French man has died after he was attacked by sharks while surfing in New Caledonia, police say.

The 19-year-old student's arm was ripped off and his leg bitten when he was attacked "apparently by several sharks" while trying to get back onto a boat with his friend on Friday, police said.

The man's friend managed to get him to shore, but he was dead by the time emergency workers reached him.

The incident took place in an area popular with surfers and was the first fatal shark attack in the French Pacific territory since September 2007, when a young nurse was killed.

The victim was from northwest France but was studying in the New Caledonia capital, Noumea.

BROWN BEARS: HANDLING AND INGESTING FISH PREY

2009-03-06T06:33:00.000-08:00

A large boar gives its salmon prey a hug before "processing" it for ingestion.

Grizzlies use a number of different handling techniques when feeding on salmon. In most cases, the savvy “fisherbear” will grasp its prize in its jaws and carry it from the waterway to the shore, a gravel bar or surrounding grassy meadow/woodland (subordinate grizzlies, in the presence of conspecifics, are often more likely to move farther from the capture site than larger, more dominant bears). They then place their catch on the ground and stand on it with the fore paws. How the prey fish is processed may vary from one individual to the next or from one location to another. In many cases the first thing a bear will do is bite down on the posterior region of the fish and remove the tail section. Another body tissue targeted early in the handling process is the skin. To skin its quarry, the bear will grasp the skin with the incisors and pull upward, peeling the integument from the salmon’s body.

If food is in short supply (e.g., it is early in the salmon run or if fish numbers are down) the bear will consume the entire fish. If food is abundant, the bruin may select the choicest parts of the fish and leave much of its behind for scavenging birds, other mammals or even other bears (e.g., subordinate individuals or those that are poor at fishing). As mentioned in other posts, the skin is preferred as are the brains, but rather than ingesting the entire head, the bear often bites through the top of the cranium and laps out the brain or plucks them out with its incisors (see video footage below).

Not all bears take the time to leave the stream to eat their prize. It is not uncommon to see a bear, standing in knee deep water, clamping the fish against the front foreleg with the opposite paw (some bears employ this technique when eating fish on shore). The bear then rips the fish apart, one bite at a time. If the water where a fish is captured is shallow enough, some bears will pin the fish to the stream bed, while in a state of repose, and then stick their head underwater and rip pieces from their piscine prize (the bear will raise its head to masticate and then submerge to take another bite).

I have noticed that in many cases the fish rarely struggle much after being trapped in the bear’s jaws. They seem to go limp. They may flop about if the bear should drop them on the shore before pinning them down to eat, but otherwise they resist very little while in the jaws of the bruin. (I did see occasions where they fish would struggle if a bear bit down on the upper back.)

In the video featured below, you will see various fishing methods and some of these handling methods employed by a number of different Katmai brown bears. A few things to look for: there is a sequence of video that shows a big brown bear deftly removing the brain from a fish. There is a scarred, big boar diving into a deep river pool from the shoreline and submerging in an attempt to capture its slippery quarry (he finally succeeds in capturing a "spent" fish in the video and stands on its hind feet as it tears the fish apart). Toward the end of the video, you will see a large boar launching some of its great bulk from the river and plunging back into the water with fore legs outstretched. At one point, it has herded a big school of salmon along the river bank and appears to be trying to push some of the fish onto the shoreline. Turn up the sound and enjoy!

© Scott W. Michael

2008 KATMAI BEAR TRIP REPORT: PART 4 (GEOGRAPHIC HARBOUR - INDIVIDUAL BEARS)

2008-10-16T09:27:00.000-07:00

A sow with her older cubs attempts to teach them to fish, although they prefer to play and loot their mother's catch.

Geographic’s fishing grounds were also home to a vivacious family unit, consisting of a sow and a pair of ~ 2 1/2 year olds. The mother was an efficacious “fisherbear,” while her cubs did little fishing. Instead, they spent much of their time grappling with each other like hairy Sumo wrestlers! When they were not playing, they were shadowing their mom and stealing any fish that she hauled in. Most of the time she would let them take off with her catch, although she did occasionally attempt to wolf down some of her piscine prey before she was looted by her greedy brood. On one occasion she lost her patience and cuffed one of her overzealous offspring before giving in and letting go of her fish (see video below). Occasionally, the two hooligans attempted to include mom in their frolicsome behavior. She complied a couple of times, jawing at her young assailants.

A trio of grizzlies: a sow with her two offspring (these to youngsters are probably 32 months old). Note how she does all of the fishing, while they benefit from the fruits of her labor! Compare these two laggards with the adolescent fishing machine below.

In contrast to these impish, 2.5-year olds, we observed an amazing young bear that was a fishing machine! This bruin was a ~ 1.5 year old (usually referred to as a yearling) with a light colored (nearly blonde) mother. The pair initially made their presence known when the mother, with the cub trailing behind, were observed chasing another bear. They gave up their half-hearted chase and began to slowly meander toward the prime fishing area. Once they arrived at the river bank, it was not long before the yearling was chasing and even catching salmon! (There were few other bears in the area at the time.) The mother bear seemed to lag behind the young bear, keeping close enough to protect its progeny if the need arised, but yet far enough away to allow it to learn some life skills. The young bear was such an enthusiastic piscator that at one point it had a fish in its mouth, while it attempted to capture a second salmonid (see the video below)!

The fishing exploits of an ~ 1.5-year old (yearling) bear - this young bruin was a very effective fisherman, as you will see in the video above.

2008 KATMAI BEAR TRIP REPORT: PART 3 (GEOGRAPHIC HARBOUR - INDIVIDUAL BEARS)

2008-10-13T13:53:00.000-07:00

A sow with a first (spring) cub. Bother were very flighty. At one point, the cub ran into the tall grass and it took the nervous mother 20 to 30 seconds to relocate her progeny.

During our stay at Geographic Harbour, we spotted one sow with a first year (spring) cub, both of which were quite flighty. The sow had large, white fringed ears and her cub looked very healthy (it was quite chubby!). The first time we saw them, they made a brief appearance at the river when four or five other big bears were around. Their stay was brief, being cut short when the nervous cub was startled and dashed into the tall grass. Mother gave chase and after 20 to 30 anxious seconds was able to relocate her frightened offspring. The pair disappeared after that, apparently in search of safer pastures in which to feed.

On our last day at Katmai, this sow and her cub reappeared. The mother’s desire to increase her nutrient intake apparently overcame her concern about exposing her cub to conspecifics. The mother succeeded in catching a few fish, with the cub trailing right behind her (this includes venturing into the rapid moving water in the center of the stream). The cub also ate some its mother’s catch. It is sad to think that this tubby little bear has about a 40 % chance of surviving to adulthood.

Ginger Bear - a young bear, possibly chased off early from its mother. This is one of many pink salmon this little bear was able to capture.

On our second day at Geographic, we observed a small bear that cautiously made its way to the river. It appeared to be a young bear – possibly a runty three-year old. We speculated that it may have been run off by its mother prematurely or possibly it had somehow lost its maternal parent? It came to the river to fish and was successful in its efforts. Rather than eating it near the stream bank, the little bear grabbed its salmon by the tail and sought solitude in the tall grass. When fishing, it was very aware of its larger ursid neighbors, no doubt cognizant of its greater vulnerability because of its small size. This bear had a very distinct appearance – it was rather skinny and had large ears (it almost had a fox-like look about it). We dubbed it Ginger Bear because of its lighter pelage. We were to encounter ginger bear on a couple of occasions (more on this bear later).

2008 KATMAI TRIP REPORT: PART 2 (GEOGRAPHIC HARBOUR)

2008-10-10T16:26:00.000-07:00

Geographic Harbour (Amalik Bay) is picturesque, sheltered and infested with brown bears!

On previous trips to Katmai, most of our bear-viewing had taken place at Hallo and Kukak Bays. On our 2008 trip, we didn’t get to either of these sites as bear numbers were sparse at the time. Instead, we spent much of our adventure in Geographic Harbour, a picturesque site at the head of Amalik Bay. Like the rest of Katmai, the scenery is magnificent and bears are ubiquitous - there are usually at least two or three bears fishing in the main stream that flows into the bay. The harbour is surrounded by a high profile landscape that provides natural protection from the inclement weather that rushes across the Gulf of Alaska. It provides an ideal anchorage and a calm landing “strip” for float planes.

The downside of Geographic, is that on a clear day you are likely to share the prime bear-viewing spots with a number of “day-trippers” (these bear-viewers arrive by floatplane and remain in Geographic for two to four hours before being whisked back to Homer or Kodiak). During our stay, there were times where we were in close proximity to at least 30 other bear-viewers. While it certainly takes away some of the “wilderness feel” of the experience, this “bear paparazzi” did not seem to bother the bears that frequent Geographic Harbour (mind you, there may be other bears that would come and fish here but do not while the viewers are present). Also, in the early mornings and from mid-afternoon on, we were the only people among the bears.

A rotund sow (possibly a barren female - see notes in text below) exhibiting the typical Geographic Harbour dark pelage.

Interestingly enough, the bears that frequent Geographic Harbour tend to be darker in color than their Hallo Bay “cousins.” While you see some darker bears in Hallo, almost all the bears at Geographic are chocolate brown. While I am sure it varies from year to year, there were fewer bears at any one time on the Geographic stream than we had seen in early to mid-August at Hallo (we saw as many as 23 bears at once during one of our previous Hallo Bay visits, while the most Ursus arctos in view at any one time in Geographic was less than 10). This may be due to the fact that the prime fishing spots (at least those in view of the bear-viewing areas) in Geographic are not as abundant so there is less space for bears to fish comfortably around one another (fishing spots are more abundant when the tide is out).

In Geographic, there is high grass meadow (Calamagrostis spp.) that grows right up to the edge of some portions of the river. It was not uncommon to see subordinate bears, standing on their back legs, peering above the grass to make sure it was safe to take up a position along the water way. At low tide we would take-up a station on the intertidal flats, where bears fished in the dendritic tributaries that branched out from the main river channel. There is also a viewing pad, consisting of a flat, slightly raised bank situated along the edge of the stream that can be used at both low and high tide. It was not uncommon for bears working the stream edge to come within 15 to 20 feet of this viewing area.

While the area was never overrun with bears, there was often good fishing action in Geographic, especially at and around low tide. We saw numerous salmon pulled from the water by subadults, and both adult boars and sows (although the latter were slightly more abundant in the area). There were some fat, beautiful sows around the river, several of which were very effective at catching fish. One of these females was huge! Brad Josephs, brown bear expert, speculated that this was possibly a barren female, as they have a propensity to become very rotund.

2008 KATMAI BEAR TRIP REPORT: PART 1

2008-10-09T14:13:00.000-07:00

In late August of 2008, Janine and I were joined by five other photographers/naturalists on a trip to Katmai National Park. This included Larry Jackson, Debbie Titus, David Salmanowitz, and Larry and Nancy Peterson*. I had been to Katmai in 2006 and 2007 and was excited to get back, as well as share this very special place with great friends. Based on their reactions, I think they too have caught the bear bug - at least three of the five have expressed an interest to go back next year!

We were the guests of bear-viewing guru John Rogers (Katmai Coastal Bear Tours). He runs a number of boats along the Katmai coast and he, and his guides, know the area and the bears like no one else. I had been with John on my two previous trips and once again, John and company came through with a truly amazing wildlife experience!

Katmai Notes

In my past two visits to Katmai, I did my bear-viewing in early to mid-August. This year, we arrived in the land of the great bear a little later in the season (from August 22 until August 31st). We hoped to see more corpulent bears (as a result of a few more weeks at the “salmon buffet,” which is available from July into September) as well as some different behaviors. It was highly likely there would be more fishing activity as at least three and possibly four species of salmon (chum, pink, sockeye, and possibly silver) could be “running” at that time. I also wanted to document bears feeding on moribund and/or dying salmon, as this food source is an important part of the diet of hyperphagic bears.

It turned out the fish were present in large numbers. In fact, in certain parts of the Alaskan Peninsula (e.g., Bristol Bay), there were reports of huge fish runs. I certainly observed bears catching more fish during this trip than I had seen on previous visits (in the past two years I had seen relatively small runs when I visited). We observed pink (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha), chum (O. keta) and sock-eye salmon (O. nerka) being plucked from Katmai’s rivulets. While there were definitely more fish, we saw fewer bears than we had on our past trips. Some locals speculated that the reduction in fishing bear numbers was a function of an abundant berry crop – many of the bears were in the ”bush” gorging on salmon berries. Even though Ursus arctos numbers were down, there were still more than enough bears to keep us in a constant state of awe.

First Stop Kodiak

We began our trip in Kodiak – the jumping off site to Katmai (i.e., you take a float plane from Kodiak to the Katmai coast to meet the “bear boat”). We arrived at Kodiak about five days before our Katmai trip was to commence. Katmai Coastal Bear Tours recommends that you show-up in Kodiak at least a couple days before your scheduled departure, just in case it is necessary to make an early trip to Katmai. If inclement weather is forecast for the day you are scheduled to travel to Katmai, John may have you fly out to the boat one or even two days earlier in an attempt to ensure you get to spend the time you paid for with the bears.

Spending some time on Kodiak is a treat in and of itself! It is one of the most beautiful places I have ever seen, especially when viewed from the air. There are valleys, mountains, rocky coastlines replete with tide pools, clear streams and lakes and lush vegetation (the latter is a function of the high precipitation levels [average annual rainfall of 173 cm, average snowfall 198 cm]). And, of course, it also has a large population of brown bears (a.k.a. Kodiak bears). How many Comfort Inns in the world have a sign posted on the door suggesting that guests be very careful while moving about the parking lot after dark as a curious bear has been sighted lurking around the hotel! During our stay, there were a couple reports of Kodiak bear being sighted fishing in local streams. While we did not see any bears on Kodiak, we did visit a beached humpback whale carcass in hopes of seeing some scavenging brown bears. We also did lots of hiking, learned about spatterdock (Nuphar luteu) (thanks to Larry, our amateur botanist), enjoyed some amazing scenery and found some great intertidal, invertebrate life.

Fortunately, the weather was good while we were on the island (although we arrived on a blustery, rainy night) and we were able to get off to Katmai on schedule. In the next post, we will take a look at our first bear-viewing stop, Geographic Harbour.

URSIDOPHILES 2008

* Larry and David are great dive buddies and accomplished photographers - Janine and I have spent many hours with them in the Western Pacific, both above and below the water! This was the first time we had traveled with Debbie - she was a delight to have on the trip and an accomplished photographer in her own right. Larry and Nancy are good friends from Lincoln, Nebraska (where we reside) that are passionate about wildlife. We want to thank these five great travel companions for sharing this wonderful ursid-rich experience with us!

UNDESCRIBED SEA BASS FROM EASTERN ATLANTIC

2008-10-07T09:25:00.000-07:00

Undescribed Serranus sp. from Western Africa.

An example of this same fish in the aquarium. The banded color pattern is displayed when the fish is stressed/frightened.

The Central and Eastern Atlantic is home to a number of reef fish species, some of which are very similar to more familiar fishes found in the Western Atlantic. For example, you have the Marcella butterflyfish (Prognathodes marcellae), which is similar to the bank (P. aya) and threeband butterflyfish (P. guyanensis) of the Western Atlantic. Then there is the ever-popular resplendent angelfish (Centropyge resplendens), known from Ascension Island (in the Central Atlantic), which is similar to its Western Atlantic counterpart, the cherubfish (C. argi) and flameback pygmy angelfish (C. aurantonotus) (Note: Wirtz et al. have recently collected a specimen of the later species from the Gulf of Guinea). The lesser known West African coral hind (Cephalopholis taeniops), which is very similar to its Western cousin, the coney (C. fulvus) and the African Creole wrasse (Clepticus africanus) that is a sister species of the Creole wrasse (C. parrae).

Recently, a lovely little serranid has been imported from Western Africa. It is a handsome little fish that, thanks to the efforts of Joe Russo, has become quite readily available (e.g., www.liveaquarium.com usually has one or more available). According to Joe, they are collected in fairly deep water (greater than 35 m). Dr. Peter Wirtz, an expert on the fish communities of this region, tells me that he has seen this fish at depths of 50 cm (these were juveniles) to at least 30 m. He also reports that it is a solitary species. Wirtz et al. (2007) report that this fish is common on hard and soft bottoms at São Tomé and Príncipe (Gulf of Guinea). It is somewhat variable in color, as you can see in the two photos included with this post.

At first blush, it exhibits anatomical similarities to some of the wonderful aquarium serranids from the tropical Western Atlantic. One of my favorites is the semi-social chalk bass (Serranus tortugarum). While related, the Serranus sp. from Africa differs greatly from the chalk bass in disposition. The undescribed Eastern Atlantic serranid is a true hellion! It is both aggressive and highly predatory (it appears to relish any fish or crustacean small enough to swallow whole). So, while you may be tempted to plop one of these beauties into your moderately-peaceful community aquarium, you may want to think again! Sanjay Joshi has one in a huge tank (500 gallons) and it has caused him much consternation attacking and eating its tankmates. While a maximum length has yet to be established, it can get at least 7 cm in total length.

There are other lovely fish from this region that Joe is bringing in to the US market. I hope to feature some more of these in upcoming posts.

References

Wirtz, P., C. Eduardo, L. Ferreira, S. R. Floeter, R. Fricke, J. L. Gasparini, T. Iwamoto, L. Rocha, C. L. S. Sampaio and U.K. Schliewen. 2007. Coastal Fishes of São Tomé and Príncipe islands, Gulf of Guinea (Eastern Atlantic Ocean)—an update. Zootaxa 1523: 1–48.

© Scott W. Michael

COLOR FORMS OF NEMATELEOTRIS HELFRICHI – IS THERE MORE THAN ONE SPECIES HERE?

2008-09-23T07:03:00.000-07:00

The best known color form of Nemateleotris helfrichi from Micronesia.

Micronesian color form of N. helfrichi. Compare with Cook Island color form below.

Cook Island color form of N. helfrichi - compare the head coloration with that of the two specimens from Micronesia above.

A head shot of the same specimen from the Cook Islands.

There are probably a lot of you out there that encountered their first Nemateleotris helfrichi within the pages of Helmut Debelius’ FISHES FOR THE INVERTEBRATE AQUARIUM? I received a copy of this book in the mid-1980’s and was blown away by Helfrich’s dart or firefish! While the fish was new to me, it certainly was not new to science, having been described by Dr. Jack Randall and Dr. Gerald Allen all the way back in 1973.

This lovely fish is known to occur around the Ryuku and Ogasawara Islands, in Micronesia and Polynesia (the type locality being Tahiti). This fish started making its way into aquarium stores (to the best of my recollection) in around 1991 or 1992. The first specimens I was able to buy were from Micronesia. They had the characteristic coloration of the fish pictured in Debelius’ book. This same color form appears in John Randall’s FISHES OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC. He describes the coloration of the fish as follows:

“..lavender, gradually shading posteriorly nearly to white and anteriorly on head to bright yellow; top of head from interorbital to origin of first dorsal fin with a narrowing band of bright magenta, merging with violet on dorso-anterior quadrant of iris; elevated anterior part of first dorsal fin orange and back with a broad, pale blue leading edge; rays of second dorsal and anal fins tipped with yellow or orange caudal fin pale yellow.”

This certainly describes the populations of N. helfrichi from Micronesia and Japan "to a T." But it turns out that the population of N. helfrichi from Polynesia is quite different chromatically. I had seen photos of N. helfrichi from this region before and knew the color differed. But recently my good friend Kevin Kohen was able to acquire some live specimens from the Cook Islands. While very expensive, I wanted to see this “color form” of N. helfrichi first hand and take photos of it.

As you can see from the photos above, the Cook Island fish differs rather dramatically from its Japanese/Micronesian cousin. Note for example the differences in the color of the head, the metallic blue on the “face,” the black line over the upper jaw and the subtle differences in coloration of the anal fin.

The holotype for the species N. helfrichi is a specimen from Tahiti (Randall and Allen 1973). Not surprisingly, the holotype is the same color as the Cook Island fish. That would suggest that the Polynesian fish are actually N. helfrichi, while the Micronesian/Japanese populations MAY represent an undescribed species. DNA analysis will be needed to emphatically answer this question. More to come on this one in the future.

© Scott W. Michael

CHILLING-OUT AT THE CLEANING STATION!

2008-09-22T12:40:00.000-07:00

Cleaner fish cause predators to reduce aggression toward bystanders at cleaning stations

Karen L. Cheney^a, Redouan Bshary^b and Alexandra S. Grutter^a

Behavioral Ecology 2008 19(5):1063-1067

Mutualisms, in which both participants gain a net benefit, areubiquitous in all ecosystems, and the importance of understandingtheir broader ecological context has been demonstrated manytimes. Indirect effects of mutualisms may have important implicationsfor surrounding ecosystems through changes in density, speciescomposition, or behavior; however, the latter has been difficultto quantify. In fish cleaning mutualisms, cleaners benefit byremoving and consuming ectoparasites from clients, whereas clientsbenefit from a reduction in parasite load. Cleaner fish arealso thought to benefit from immunity to predation and use tactilestimulation as a preconflict management strategy to manipulatepartners' decisions and to avoid being eaten by piscivorousclient fish. Here we show, using a laboratory experiment, thatthe presence of cleaner fish resulted in nearby fish not involvedin the cleaner–client mutualism experiencing less aggression(chases) from predatory clients. In addition, the rate thatpiscivorous clients chased prey was negatively correlated withthe amount of tactile stimulation given to the predator by thecleaner. These data suggest that, in the laboratory, the riskof aggression from predators toward nearby prey fish was greatlyreduced as a by-product of cleaner fish presence and tactilestimulation of predators by cleaner fish. These results raisethe question of whether cleaning stations act as safe havensfrom predator aggression.

COLLETTE’S REEF BASSLET

2008-09-21T16:11:00.000-07:00

A specimen of Liopropoma collettei from the Philippines (at least that is where I think it was collected!).

Holotype of Liopropoma collettei from the Hawaiian Islands.

In past posts we have been looking at some of the different reef basslets (genus Liopropoma). In one of my last posts on the genus a comment was made about L. collettei and how it was more attractive than L. susumi – well what do you think? The specimen above is an individual I recently acquired from Kevin Kohen (ww.liveaquaria.com). Liopropoma collettei is known from Papua New Guinea, the Philippines and the Hawaiian Islands. It has been collected on coral reef at depths of 6 to 34 m among stony corals, like Porites compressa and P. lobata. This species attains a maximum length of 8 cm (individuals from Hawaii are larger than those from other locations).

Randall and Taylor (1988) reported in their revision of the genus that Hawaiian specimens of what they call L. collettei differs from those from the Western Pacific in having 15 or 16 instead of 14 or 15 pectoral rays, no enlarged pore anterior to the posterior nostrils and in the total length (as mentioned above the Hawaiian specimens are larger). They decided to lump the two populations together as the same species based on similarities in body proportions and "especially in color pattern.." But, these researchers had never seen a live specimen from the Western Pacific. While the members of the two populations are similar in overall color, there are some subtle differences, as you can see in the photos included above. For example, in Hawaiian specimens the stripes on the body are dark brown (those on the fish from the Philippines are obviously reddish brown). While the Western Pacific population may not represent a distinct species, it certainly might (DNA analysis will be one way to determine if this is the case.)

I have been keeping one other specimen of L. colletti and have found it to be quite cryptic. In my experiences, the Liopropoma are all secretive, but some (e.g., L. swalesi) are more reclusive than others (e.g., L. carmabi is not as shy). I would say that L. collettei is a more reclusive species, maybe not quite as bad as L. swalesi, but close. My first specimen is in a nano-reef and is rarely seen. The only time I observe it is when it moves from one interstice to another or I occasionally see it peering out from under a ledge when only the actinics are on. If you invest in one of these beauties, do not expect it to parade back and forth along the front of the tank. That is why I recommend the members of this genus for nano-reef aquariums - if you contain them in a smaller area, you will be able to observe them with greater ease.

References:

Randall, J. E. and L. Taylor. 1988. Review of the Indo-Pacific fishes of the Serranid genus Liopropoma with descriptions of seven new species. Indo-Pacific Fishes 16, 47 pp.

NEW WOBBIES IN WESTERN AUSTRALIA!

2008-09-21T13:22:00.000-07:00

WEST COAST ALIVE WITH UNIQUE SHARKS
The West.com.au
Georgia Loney
21st September 2008, 6:00 WST

Scientists have identified 46 new species of sharks in WA, 24 of which are thought to exist nowhere else.

The CSIRO’s 18-month project was to classify new sharks found in Australian waters.

Fish expert William White said a fascinating find was a one-of-a-kind carpet shark, found in the stomach of a school shark near Chatham Island, off Walpole.

While it was found almost 20 years ago, scientists were unable to state definitively whether it was a unique species, Dr White said.

“This one was a lot more elongated, it had a real ‘snake’ look,” he said.

“Even though it was obviously a new species, when you’ve got something that has come out of a gut of a shark, it’s lost colour and has had quite a few bite marks.

“The reason it took so long to classify was that we assumed we’d find other specimens and we never did.”

WA had also proved to have a fascinating array of unique Wobbegong sharks. “It’s almost like Western Australia was the centre of biodiversity for that group,” Dr White said. “There’s not many species known worldwide — only about 10 — but six or seven of them occur in Western Australia. “There’s been four new species described in Western Australia in the last couple of years.” Analysis of DNA sequences was used to differentiate closely related species of sharks, some of which scientists had thought were the same as those found outside Australia.

Other new species included the northern freshwater whipray and northern river shark, which are found in the top half of Australia.

Dr White said whiprays and northern river sharks could grow up to two metres long and were found in the Fitzroy River.

“It was originally thought to be a species which occurs throughout Asia, but it’s been found to be a separate species which is endemic to Australia,” Dr White said.

The new classifications would help manage marine ecosystems.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Hundred New Sharks and Rays Classified

September 18th, 2008
Source: CSIRO

Australian scientists have completed an ambitious 18-month project to name and describe more than 100 new species of sharks and rays. Conducted by scientists working under the auspices of CSIRO's Wealth From Oceans National Research Flagship, the project named a third of Australia's - and about a tenth of the world's - shark and ray species.

Team leader, CSIRO's Dr Peter Last, says analysis of DNA sequences was used to clarify the identity of closely related species.

'Additional taxonomic information like this is critical to managing sharks and rays, which reproduce relatively slowly and are extremely vulnerable to over-fishing and other human impacts,' he says. 'Their populations are also sensitive to small-scale events and can be an indicator of environmental change.'

CSIRO's Dr William White says sharks and rays also play a vital ecosystem role as apex predators. 'Take them away and what does it mean for the rest of the ecosystem?' Dr White says. 'We can't understand possible implications unless we know what species we're dealing with.'

The new species include:

The endemic, Northern Freshwater Whipray and the Northern River Shark, which grow to over two metres in length, and are among the largest freshwater animals in Australia. Until recently these were confused with similar marine species.

The Endangered Maugean Skate which has an extremely narrow distribution. It is closely related Gondwanan ancestor which lived off southern Australia some 80 million years ago, and the present day species clings to life at the south-western tip of Tasmania.

A Critically Endangered gulper shark, the Southern Dogfish, which is endemic to the continental slope off southern Australia. It has suffered severe population declines in the past few decades.

More than 90 of the new species were identified but undescribed in the 1994 book; Sharks and Rays of Australia, by Dr Last and CSIRO's Dr John Stevens. The new names and descriptions will feature in a revised edition of the book in 2009. Specimens of many of the new species are in the Australian National Fish Collection at CSIRO Hobart - the largest collection of preserved sharks and rays in the Southern Hemisphere.

A workshop focusing on the project's findings will be held at Sydney's Australian Museum on 22 September during the 2nd Annual Meeting of the Oceania Chondrichthyan Society. Involving some of the world's leading experts in the field, the WWF-Australia-sponsored workshop also will assess priority areas of future research and management of sharks in Australian waters.

GREAT WHITES HOLIDAY ON THE REEF

2008-09-17T15:46:00.002-07:00

Tuesday, 09 September 2008
NIWA

Another tagged New Zealand great white shark has migrated to the Great Barrier Reef off Australia – one of nine sharks to be satellite tagged this year.

The three and a half metre shark, nicknamed ‘Thomas,’ was tagged with a popup archival satellite tag. The tag records information on light levels (from which approximate daily latitude and longitude can be estimated) as well as water depth and temperature so that the shark’s movements can be tracked.

After a predetermined time (six months for this shark) the tag pops off the shark, floats to the surface and transmits the data to a satellite that emails the information back.

‘Thomas’ was tagged by Department of Conservation (DOC) scientist, Clinton Duffy, off Ruapuke Island in Foveaux Strait, in February. The satellite tag popped up at Swain Reefs, off Rockhampton, late in August.

"This is only 100 kilometres from where another tag popped up last year from a shark tagged at Stewart Island after having travelled over 3000 kilometres," says Mr Duffy.

The shark tagging project, which began in 2005, is an international collaborative programme being run by the National Institute for Water & Atmospheric Research (NIWA), DOC, and Dr Ramon Bonfil from Shark Tracker/NABU (Germany).

NIWA fisheries scientist Dr Malcolm Francis says this has been a bumper year for white shark tagging.

“Until this year we’ve only been able to tag six white sharks in three seasons of field work. This year has greatly added to our tally with three more being tagged at Stewart Island and six more at Chatham Islands. Two tags have failed but we still have six more tagged sharks in the water which are due to report back between October and January, offering us an amazing insight into the secret lives of these apex predators.”

Once all the data has been transmitted from the latest shark, the project team will be able to determine the route the shark took, how deep it dived, and the water temperatures it experienced.

“Previous tagged white sharks have dived as deep as 1000 metres and encountered temperatures ranging from 3 degrees in deep water to 24 degrees in shallow tropical waters. This huge range in temperature is very unusual among fishes,” Dr Francis says.

Other tags have popped up in New Caledonia, Vanuatu, and half-way to Tonga.

“Previously we thought great whites were cold water, coastal sharks but we now know that many make trans-oceanic migrations to tropical waters. The reason for their winter tropical holiday is still unknown but we think they may be searching for newborn humpback whale calves, because all tags have surfaced in or near known humpback calving sites.”

WHAT IS THE MYSTERY FROGFISH?

2008-09-17T15:46:00.001-07:00

Here it is - the frogfish that took the breath away from every antennariidophile on the planet! WHAT A FISH! But what is it? Is it a new species? A new genus? AAAAA! Photo by Marty Snyderman (www.starknakedfish.com).

“I can say that in my 40 or so years studying frogfishes and anglerfishes in general, I have never seen one like this. Very striking is the highly unusual, flat face that allows the eyes to be directed forward, perhaps providing for binocular vision. The dorsal, anal, and caudal fins appear to be highly fleshy, covered by loose skin. Also, looking closely at the forehead, in the pictures sent earlier, I can’t see any trace of a luring apparatus. If I had to say what it’s closest living relative might be, I’d suggest the genus Histiophryne, but this taxon differs in a host of other ways. In summary, it’s quite unlike any antennarioid I’ve ever seen and most likely represents a genus new to science.”

The statement above was made by Dr. Theodore Pietsch, the frogfish guru and co-author of Frogfishes of the World. This quote appeared in a number of web articles that introduced this wonderful fish from the Island of Ambon, Indonesia to the world. Those articles appeared earlier in 2008, but what has transpired regarding the identity of this amazing Antennariid since its first appearance on the web?

The fish definitely appears to be a member of the genus Histiophryne (which currently contains two described species). Here is how the genus is described by Pietsch and Grobecker (1987) - the most distinguishing characteristic is that the second and third dorsal spines are firmly attached to the surface of the cranium by skin, which makes them very inconspicuous (all that is visible is a bump on the head and nape). They also have dorsal and anal fins that extend past the base of the caudal fin and are attached to this fin. (The frogfish from Ambon appears to share these characteristics with the two described species in the genus.) The Histiophryne have a relatively short rod (illicium) and a lure that can be oval or lanceolate (in some cases it has skin folds). The angling gear is laid on the head rest in a narrow channel and may be hidden in some species by a fold of skin. The two described species (Histiophyrne bougainvilli and H. cryptacanthus are distinguished by the length of the illicium [it is longer in H. bougainvilli] and the rod and lure of the former is hidden in a groove on the head by folds of tissue.)

A pair of Histiophryne cryptacanthus in my home aquarium. This species was available on rare occasions, but because of their lack of color the market dried up fairly quickly!

One of the most unique things about the Histiophryne is their reproductive mode. These fish lay a relatively small number of large eggs, which remain in a cluster. The male wraps his body around, creating a pocket, which the eggs are hidden in.

A spotted color form of H. cryptacanthus from South Australia perched near a large tunicate.

As frogfish go, these Histiophryne are really quite homely! Their heads and bodies are often devoid of scabs, bumps, tassels or other adornment, the features that make many of the frogfishes more interesting (Histiophryne cryptacanthus sometimes has patches of scab like growths). They often appear smooth skinned. While the base color of these frogfishes is usually not that striking (for example, they are not cherry red, bubble-gum pink, screaming yellow or bright orange like some other froggies), some do sport interesting color patterns. That is, of course, what makes the proposed new species from Ambon so gob-smacking! The intricate network of white lines all over the head and body are particularly striking. The cryptic frogfish (H. cryptacanthus) sometimes has reddish-brown spots, with white borders, all over the head and body. However, some specimens are light colored overall (tan or light gray) with patches of khaki green and white and brown scabby growths.

Roger Steene's mystery Histiophryne from the Raja Ampats, West Papua. Is it a color form of H. cryptacanthus or something completely different?

Roger Steene has also photographed an interesting member of the genus from the Raja Ampats that has an intricate maze of narrow white lines (narrower than those on the Ambon species) that he and Dr. Gerald Allen call H. cryptacanthus in their book Reef Fish Identification - Tropical Pacific. But I am not confident in that identification. While it can be difficult to separate frogfish species on the basis of photos, I would bet this is something else. (Then again, it could be an unusual color form of H. cryptacanthus? Who knows without specimens.)

Another color form of H. cryptacanthus (it looks like a moldy chicken McNugget) - not as attractive as his Ambon cousin. This individual was photographed a Edithburgh Pier, South Australia.

So what about that proposed new species – the mysterious Ambon frogfish. This fish, which no doubt occurs in other parts of Indonesia as well, is probably new, but it is very likely a member of the genus Histiophryne. We will wait for the description to come out and I will certainly let you know when that happens.

©2008 Scott W. Michael

NEW DOTTYBACK? THE VERDICT IS IN!

2008-09-17T15:46:00.000-07:00

You may remember the post a couple months ago titled DOTTYBACK DILEMMA (click here to read) where we examined a Pictichromis paccagnellae-like fish from Central Sulawesi. The dilemma was, is it a new species or just a variant of its more common cousin? Well the verdict is in. I sent specimens to Dr. Jack Randall, as did the ichthyophile, Kenn Hyltoft, who originally noticed the differences in this fish and P. paccagnellae. After some molecular analysis, it has been determined IT IS A NEW SPECIES! I am waiting to hear more about possible morphological differences (more prognathus lower jaw? coloration?) that hobbyists can use to separate the two species. I will pass these on to you when I hear what they are.

MARINE MAMMALS ON THE MENU

2008-09-16T12:15:00.000-07:00

A veritable brown bear buffet! Photo taken by Scott W. Michael.

It looked like a big, white amorphous blob at first glance, but after further investigation one could make out the mouth-end of the beast, the flukes and flippers. It was a humpback whale that had washed up on the shore of Fort Abercrombie State Historical Park, Kodiak (Alaska) about a week before we searched it out. We had heard reports that the whale had been deposited by winds and waves on the Kodiak coast, but finding the rotting blubber-laden beast was to prove a bit of a challenge. When we visited the local rangers station, they didn’t seem too eager to tell us where it was. After further probing, they finally shared the approximate location. As we left the office, a ranger mumbled “Watch out for bears.” We concluded this is why they were hesitant to share the cetacean’s resting place - they did not want to have to deal with a problems that can occur when people and food hoarding bears cross-paths.

It turns out that dead whales are a favorite of coastal brown bears in parts of coastal and insular Alaska. The tons of rotting blubber, flesh and whale organs can produce an olfactory beacon that can reach the nasal epithelium of a brown bear many miles away (there are anecdotal accounts of bears smelling putrid whale from 20 miles away). The culinary tastes of a brown bear are not that refined, and besides whale flesh has lots of nutrients that can help a bear lay down fat for the denning period. The only drawback to eating a dead whale is the flesh can be hard to handle. The skin is so tough that even a massive brown bear can have a difficult time tearing a chunk free and masticating it. (The blubber layer of a whale’s flesh can be as thick as 43 to 50 cm!)

A whale carcass can attract many bears, as was the case on the California coast centuries ago. In the book “California Grizzly” (1955) the authors share the following:

Those (ed. grizzly bears) living near the seacoast were attracted to the bonanza supply where ever a whale washed ashore – and the one-time abundance of whales in our coastal waters probably made this a not uncommon event. The first reports of bears eating this food was by the Vizcaíno party at Monterey in 1602; a very large whale had gone ashore, “ and the bears came by night to dine on it” (Wagner, 1929). Revere (1849) wrote that the carcass of a whale, thrown upon the beach, will attract a “regiment of bears” – and Kotzebue (1921) used the term countless “troops.”

On the shores of Kodiak Island and along the Katmai coast, groups of brown bears feed on moribund whales, while on the Kenai Peninsula, bears of various age classes are reported to move to Bristol Bay to scavenge on dead gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus) (Glenn and Miller, 1980). In the Yukon, grizzly bears have been observed to scavenging on Beluga (Delphinapterus leucas) carcasses. Troyer (2005) reports seeing 12 bears feeding on a gray whale carcass at the same time (there were 18 bears in the immediate vicinity). He states that all of the bears worked over the carcass, only occasionally engaging in brief altercations during the feast. Some bears would leave, only to have their place taken over by another bear. Bear continued feeding on it for a week, at which time the remains of the carcass were carried away by the tide. There are reports of observers seeing brown bears entering or appearing from a hole in a large whale carcass. Apparently, the bears entered the bloated whale to feed on the internal organs or chew at the muscle from the inside. After gorging themselves with whale flesh, brown bears may roll on the odoriferous carcass. The function of this behavior (which, unfortunately, is also a habit they share in common in domestic canines) is not known.

Brown bears occasionally capture live pinnipeds, like these harbor seals. Photo by Scott W. Michael

Not only are moribund marine mammals consumed, brown bears have actually been known to captured and kill pinnipeds. Of course, polar bears are well known form their seal-eating habits. They have developed hunting strategies and physical adaptations to effectively exploit this resource. Grizzlies, on the other hand, feed on these animal opportunistically. If a hungry bear encounters a hauled out seal that it can get to before the latter can reach the water, it may attempt to subdue it. For example, grizzlies have been known to eat harbor seals (Phoca vitulina) along the Alaskan Peninsula and in the Northwest Territories of Canada. They are more susceptible to bear attack than some other pinnipeds (e.g., sea lions) because they are much more cumbersome and would have a more difficult time escaping if they are too far from the water’s edge. Seals are also more likely to be found along sandy shorelines, where bears sometimes hunt. That said, in most cases, seals haul out on small islets along the shore – habitats that are not often visited by grizzlies. There are also rare reports of big coastal brown bears taking on walruses (this has been reported on the Kenai Peninsula) (Glenn and Miller, 1980).

(Unfortunately, it turned out we never did encounter any bears on the Fort Abercrombie humpback carcasses the day we visited it, but I would not be surprised if it was eventually located and fed upon by opportunistic brown bears.)

References:

Glenn, L. P. and L. H. Miller. 1980. Seasonal movements of an Alaska Peninsula brown bear population. Int. Conf. Bear Res. And Manage. 4:307-312.

Check out these videos of brown bears feeding on dead whales:

A mother brown bear and her offspring feed on a whale carcass in Japan. Click here.

A group of brown bears feeding on a whale carcass on coast of Kodiak Island, includes wallowing on dead cetacean (please pardon the silly commentary). Click here.

A NEW REEF BASSLET?

2008-09-16T09:45:00.000-07:00

A possible new species closely related to Liopropoma swalesi. I call this fish Reynold's reef basslet.

Swale's or Swalesi reef basslet (Liopropoma swalesi). While it will typically do well in the home aquarium, don't expect to see if very often as they are prone to hiding incessantly. A nano-reef with a cave is a good venue for this fish. Compare color to possible new species above.

Here is another lovely reef basslet. It may be a color form of Liopropoma swalesi, but I am hopeful it is a new species. While similar to Swale’s reef basslet, you can see by comparing the photos of the two fish above, there are distinct differences in the color. Two type specimens of the fish were sent to Richard Pyle at the Bishop Museum. He is the process of naming a number of Liopropoma spp., including the yellow-tailed reef basslet - a deep water species that has been making its way in the trade with some regularity. (A word of warning about the yellow-tailed Liopropoma; everyone that I have obtained [three specimens] had decompression related issues – they would eventually start floating, tail-up, until they perished.) I am hoping the fish above will be named after the person that brought it to my attention, fish-monger, Dennis Reynolds.

LIPSTICK ON A PIG? HOW ABOUT "LIPPY" ON A BEAR?

2008-09-15T13:52:00.000-07:00

A female brown bear from Geographic Harbor, Katmai National Park, sporting red "stick." The red pigment is actually from the blood of a pink salmon the bear just consumed.

IGNORANT "BEARANOIA" COLUMN AND INTELLIGENT RESPONSE!

2008-09-15T13:44:00.000-07:00

Bear attacks hit record high in Alaska
by Karl Vick - Aug. 17, 2008 10:01 AM
The Washington Post

EAGLE RIVER, Alaska - Most times, in Alaska, the bear eats you.

But this summer, in a record year for maulings, Devon Rees managed a draw with the grizzly that leapt onto him as he sauntered home between a stream brimming with salmon and the busiest highway in the state.

"Bear comes flying out, gets its fight on," said Rees, 18, nursing his wounds on the couch of his grandmother's trailer perhaps 60 yards from the scene of the Aug. 4 battle. Bandages covered puncture wounds on the inside of both his thighs, and blood seeped through the gauze around one elbow. His jeans lay in shreds on the floor. His left eye was puffy from the swat of a massive paw.

"She was moving around like a dog will when it's fighting," said the 5-foot-11-inch, 215-pound Rees, who had been at a friend's house until 2 a.m. watching a movie called "Never Back Down." "It was fist to claw."

In a typical year, Rees would stand out as the Anchorage area's one and only mauling victim. These days, he's just a face in a crowd of them, notable chiefly for defying expert advice that playing dead is the best way to survive after spooking a grizzly.

At least eight Alaskans have been battered by bears this year, with three maulings in five days in early August. And though no human fatalities have been recorded, the summer of the bear is testing Alaskans' carefully calibrated relationship with wildlife, an evolving attitude that differs from views in the Lower 48, where grizzlies run half as large.

"Most places in Alaska don't have a persistent problem with bear or moose, because if it's anywhere near the village, they shoot it, no questions asked," said Rick Sinnott, the Alaska Fish and Game Department biologist charged with reconciling the 350,000 humans who reside around Alaska's biggest city with the wildlife who live there, too. "It's the Last Frontier mentality: You don't tolerate any risk from wild animals."

But at least until this summer, Anchorage residents were more inclined to live and let live, many residents being from "outside" and intrigued by the sight of moose wandering through the city - as well as by the predators that stalk them.

"The joke used to be, Anchorage isn't too bad because it's only two hours from Alaska," said Sean Farley, a bear biologist with the Fish and Game Department. "The truth is, Alaska is right here. We've got bears. We got moose. We got wolves. You name it."

And this summer, a poor season for salmon has made the bears loiter longer at Anchorage streams and be less tolerant of interruption.

"If you don't get enough to eat, you get cranky," Farley said.

The first attack, on June 29, was one of the worst. Petra Davis, 15, was cycling in a marathon bike race at 1 a.m. on a trail beside a salmon stream in the city's Far North Bicentennial Park. In the darkness, with the wind whipping the cottonwood trees, she may have careened broadside into a mama grizzly. It chewed through her bike helmet, crushed her trachea and cut into her shoulder, torso, buttocks and thigh.

"She was on the ground, sitting up, bloody, her cellphone out," said Sinnott, who heard a recording of the call Davis managed to place to 911. "She was apologizing because she had a hard time talking."

She got out the word "bear." Another rider directed paramedics.

Suspicion centered on a grizzly sow with two cubs that had been the subject of a half-dozen reports in the area over a six-week period. One jogger said he discovered the sow running behind him and pulled himself forward as its jaws snapped shut an inch from his rear end.
The next attack came July 23, a few yards from the front door of the Kenai Princess Wilderness Lodge, 100 miles south of Anchorage. Abi Sisk, 21, had just stepped onto a trail in the 11 p.m. twilight. She was bending to look at flowers when a grizzly lunged.

"She heard growling, and all of a sudden it was on her," said Dan Michels, the lodge manager. A guest heard "what he thought was laughing," from the parking lot and saw the bear with Sisk's head in its mouth.

The beast ran off after the man ran toward it, waving his arms and shouting. Sisk, a housekeeper, survived, partially scalped and with a broken jaw. Since May, a dozen bears have been shot on the Kenai Peninsula after threatening humans.

"The idea of bears is so predominant and so much bigger than the animals themselves," said Sherry Simpson, a University of Alaska professor and author of a book on bears and humans.
Farley, the biologist, has worked with grizzlies weighing 1,000 pounds, and he laughed aloud at Rees' vainglory. For appreciating the overpowering strength of Ursus arctos horribilis, Farley recommended a video shot five days before Rees's encounter, in the same town, by a woman who at first mistook for her baby's cries the sounds of a moose being killed by a grizzly.

"They got to do something about these bears," said Scott Simpson, a shipping executive, pausing at the scene of the Rees attack and voicing an opinion heard more and more often around Anchorage. "I've been all over the backwoods here and never seen it like this. The prevalence this summer is just staggering."

The sense of crisis took hold on Aug. 8, four days after Rees's encounter, when at 5 p.m. Clivia Feliz jogged onto Rover's Run, the city park trail where Davis was attacked. She had run 800 feet when the ears of her border collie, Sky, went straight up. Two grizzly cubs were 30 feet ahead on the trail, sniffing the ground.

"I'm thinking, Where's the sow?' " Feliz said from her Anchorage hospital bed. Not seeing one, she turned and ran back down the trail. The cubs gave chase. Feliz veered into the woods, figuring that "if I disappear from sight, maybe the cubs will just forget, like kids."

"But they were still coming."

Before she saw the mother bear, she heard it, first on the trail, then crashing through the brush. Feliz, 51, lay down behind some dead trees. The cubs "blew right by me," but the sow veered her way.

"I could see her nose go up. She scented me."

The bear was on her in seconds. There was no growling or clicking of teeth. It just stared at Feliz, huffing, then lunged at her head and "chomped right down" on the arm Feliz brought up reflexively.

For a few seconds, the bear simply held her captive, pushing Feliz's head and shoulders with its paws and mouth but not biting.

"She was just staring at me," said Feliz, a massage therapist. "And I was thinking I should protect my vital organs, because if she bites me in the stomach, you know, a lot of blood there. I drew my legs up. There was another huff. She bit down, but she bit down very deliberately this time.

"I could feel the ribs cracking. I knew she had bit into something, like an organ." Four ribs snapped, partially collapsing a lung.

Her screams of pain did not faze the bear, which held her down a few more moments, then left the way the cubs had gone. Feliz waited a few minutes before staggering back to the trail, her right arm hanging useless, with a crushed brachial artery, her left arm held against her bleeding torso. Sky reappeared, and when they reached a road Feliz flagged down a passing car.
"I know about bears. I've lived here 12 years," she said. "I'm not blaming anybody else. The bear was the bear and did what bears do."

That sensibility remains common across a state where fishermen routinely carry guns.
"I don't see it any different than New York in rush hour: You just have to pay attention. Our cars just have hair and teeth," said Don Smith, a telephone technician packing a .45 along with his fly rods as he prepared to float the Russian River, not far from the Kenai Princess Lodge.
Grizzlies routinely fish the bright teal waters alongside humans in what "feels like joint custody," said Sherry Simpson, the professor.

In Anchorage, trails placed beside streams are used both by bears and by people who often forget that a city can also be part of the wild. Analyzing the DNA from fur collected from thistles and wires, Farley found that 20 different bears passed near the stream where Davis and Feliz were mauled. Radio-collar tracking indicated that when salmon are running, bears are almost always within 100 yards of the stream and, therefore, the trail.

"There's the problem of enhancing salmon streams that run through cities," said Simpson: "Ring the dinner bell."

_________________________________________________

Outside reporter needs to do homework on bears
by Craig Medred - August 30th, 2008
Anchorage Daily News/OUTDOORS

Let's not mince words here: Washington Post staff writer Karl Vick is an ursine illiterate.

This is not name calling, of which I generally disapprove, but a simple statement of fact.
Here is what Vick "reported" in the Sunday, Aug. 17 edition of one of America's great newspapers:

"EAGLE RIVER, Alaska -- Most times, in Alaska, the bear eats you."

In how many ways is this wrong?

Number one: Most times, in Alaska, bears and humans coexist without any thought to that old cliche that cautions "sometimes you eat the bear, and sometimes the bear eats you." Generally, people and bears meet, look at each other, mutually go "oh-oh,'' and then retreat, or flee, in opposite directions. This happens thousands, possibly tens of thousands of times per year in this state.

Despite a widespread, paranoid belief that grizzlies are big, brown, hairy people-eaters, they are not. A whole business has been built around people viewing huge, wild grizzly bears along the Katmai Coast. It would have been gone long ago if the threat of those bears eating people was significant.

Number two: When bears do attack -- a rare event in and of itself -- they almost never eat anyone. They apparently don't consider us very good prey. Bears bite people, and then they flee. Most bears are like heavyweight boxer Mike Tyson, not Kiwi cannibals. Sometimes the injuries from bear bites are severe, but the flesh is usually still all there.

Some years back I was attacked by a grizzly bear. It had my ankle in its mouth when I shot it. It was biting, not eating.

When the attack happened, I was doing the most dangerous thing you can do in grizzly country -- sneaking quietly through the woods on the hunt for moose. I am confident that if I'd been making lots of noise I never would have gotten close enough to a whole family of grizzlies for things to get messy. They would have been long gone because it is the general policy of bears to avoid us.

They flee us, because they fear us. They fear us, because they have good reason.

Even the bears seem to understand that Vick got the first paragraph of his story 180 degrees wrong:

Most times, in Alaska the people eat the bear, or at least kill it.

ODDS FAVOR HUMANS

Not counting bears shot in defense of life and property or run down by cars in this state every year, humans kill 1,000 to 1,500 grizzly bears and about twice as many black bears. Most of the grizzlies become rugs or trophy mounts. Few people eat grizzly flesh; it's pretty rancid. But a good share of the 2,500 to 3,000 black bears reported taken by hunters each year are eaten as food.

Given these numbers, the odds are at least 100 times greater that people will get the bear than that the bear will get them.

Was Vick's claim to the contrary the end of the nonsense (or even if I thought he'd simply made a bad try at humor), I might have been able to restrain myself from calling him out on this story, but he goes on to hype the situation unjustifiably.

"But this summer,'' he writes, "in a record year for maulings....''

Says who?

The story doesn't say. It just throws the observation out there. I frankly don't know if the claim is true or not. There is no clearinghouse for bear maulings in Alaska.

Tom Smith, a former U.S. Geological Survey biologist here and now a professor at Brigham Young University in Utah, struggled to pull together a database on past maulings some years back. He admits he probably didn't get a perfect count on the number of Alaska attacks, but he got the best one out there.

It shows attacks averaging about 10 to 20 per year with peaks of 26 in the late 1990s. Have there been more than 26 people attacked by bears so far this year in Alaska?

If so, it's news to me.

This is, indeed, a record year for bear attacks in the Anchorage area, what with two unprecedented maulings at Far North Bicentennial Park within sight of downtown, and another at Eagle River. But Anchorage is not "Alaska," even if the half-million-acre Chugach State Park in the center of our broadly drawn "municipality" can provide a real taste of that fabled place.
I doubt, however, that Vick has any idea of the scope of the municipality or how much wilderness it includes back behind the strip-mall urban edge. Like so many Outside writers who buzz through town, he appears clueless to the scope and variety of the 49th state. I'm frankly tired of it. Some basic reporting might help some of these people, although even that doesn't appear to work for Vick.

"...The summer of the bear is testing Alaskans' carefully calibrated relationship with wildlife, an evolving attitude that differs from views in the Lower 48, where grizzlies run half as large,'' he writes.

I've lived here more than 30 years, and I have no idea what "Alaskans' carefully calibrated relationship with wildlife'' is, but that's not the problem.

MONSTER BEARS

The problem is the idea that Alaska is filled with monster bears twice the size of any elsewhere. The weight of grizzly bears in the American West is in the range of 400 to 600 pounds for males and 250 to 350 pounds for females. Interior Alaska grizzlies are about the same or slightly smaller, and the farther north you go in the state, the smaller, in general, the bears get.

The full-grown grizzly that killed Richard and Katherine Huffman on the Hula Hula River in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in 2005 weighed only 300 pounds. Coastal Alaska bears are different. They are so much larger than Interior bears that Alaska bears were long divided into two categories -- grizzlies and coastal brown bears. That was until taxonomists finally figured out that a coastal brown bear is just a really well fed grizzly. The bears are now referred to in many circles as brown/grizzly bears.

Along the Katmai coast, big boars will indeed get to 1,200 pounds, maybe even more. Locally, here on the inland coast, a 900-pounder would be considered a big boy. That is only about a third again as large as one of those Lower 48 males. But, more importantly, weight tells the least important part of the story.

Those huge coastal grizzlies are animals that get that way by stuffing themselves with salmon. It would be an overstatement to describe these bears as "fat and happy" for most of the summer, but at least they don't come running from miles away as Interior and Arctic bears sometimes will, to check you out as a potential meal.

Let's not forget, Timothy Treadwell spent 13 summers engaging in his bear-fondling goofiness with the Katmai bears without a problem. He didn't get killed and, oddly enough, eaten until he ran into an unruly October bear -- a 28-year-old bear with broken teeth; a big, old bear needing calories to maintain its overgrown, 1,000-pound body size, a bear that scientists might describe as "food stressed."

Not to mention there's no telling what Treadwell might have done to provoke an attack. Bear biologists generally agree that if Treadwell had tried to get up close and personal with Denali National Park bears or Arctic refuge bears the way he did with Katmai bears, he wouldn't have lasted a summer.

BASIC FACTS WRONG

But I guess it could be as easy to overlook these differences among Alaska bears as it is to get other things simply confused. Vick again:

"...Don Smith, a telephone technician packing a .45 along with his fly rods as he prepared to float the Russian River, not far from the Kenai Princess Lodge.

"Grizzlies routinely fish the bright teal waters alongside humans in what 'feels like joint custody,' said Sherry Simpson, the professor."

Hmmm.

Carcass-eating bears routinely "fish" alongside anglers on the Russian but not the Kenai. The Russian, however, has crystal clear water. The teal water is in the Kenai River which runs past the Princess Lodge. The Kenai also has several places for floaters to put in and take out boats. There are no put ins or take outs on the Russian, but I guess Smith could have been dragging a boat through the Russian River Campground to the river.

I've always kind of wanted to float the Russian myself just to see the reactions of the anglers who line both banks in places.

The only thing stopping me is that I'm chicken.

The Russian is only about half-a-cast wide, and I've always feared that if you went floating through the middle of the salmon an angler or two might try to snag you in the nose with a fly or bounce a big old chunk of lead off your head.

Maybe Vick should go do this float. In his case, having a sinker bounced off his noggin might be a good thing.

LIOPROPOMA SUSUMI: FULL BODY SHOT.

2008-09-13T13:25:00.000-07:00

I had a request from a fellow ichthyophile (Adam Blundell) to show a full body shot of this fish, which I featured in a past post (I showed the head-on perspective - to see original post, click here). So Adam, here is a shot of the whole fish, in all of its radiant glory! I am fairly positive at this point that it is a color form of Liopropoma susumi.

THE ANYPERODON GROUPERS

2008-09-11T20:20:00.000-07:00

An unusual color form of the whitelined grouper. It lacks white stripes and sports a series of orange spots. This individual may be an adolescent on the way from changing from a juvenile to an adult, however, it does not look like the transforming subadult below. Instead, it could be that this species exhibits a different coloration as a juvenile in the Indian Ocean because it is mimicking Halichoeres timorensis, which has orange spots rather than orange stripes! I photographed this fish in the Maldives.

The family Serranidae is one of the largest teleost families represented on coral reefs with around 450 species. Most groupers are easily identified, exhibiting somewhat of a stereotypical fish shape. Most are not brightly colored, sporting “reef tone” attire to help them blend in with their surroundings. (Many are ambush predators that rely on going unnoticed to catch their prey.) The only described grouper in the genus Anyperodon, the whitelined grouper (Anyperodon leucogrammicus), is somewhat atypical for a serranid. It is more elongate, with a sharper snout.

The juvenile whitelined grouper mimics certain initial phased Halichoeres wrasses, which aids them in capturing small fishes. The mimic even has the ocelli, characteristic of the model (see the model below). Photographed in West Papua.

The model - an initial phase Halichoeres melanurus. Photographed in West Papua.

As a juvenile, this grouper is an aggressive mimic, resembling the initial phase color form of a variety of Halichoeres wrasses (e.g., Halichoeres melanurus). (The resemblance is truly remarkable, as you can see from the accompanying photographs.) The young grouper has different diet than the wrasses it resembles - the former eats small fishes and crustaceans, while the labrids ingest small, benthic invertebrates. As a result, prey items that would not be concerned with the approach of the labrid may fall prey to the larger-mouthed “wolf in sheep’s clothing” (that is, the juvenile A. leucogrammicus)! The young whitelined grouper will actually associate with the model and has been observed to capture small damsels that ventured to close. As the whitelined grouper grows larger, the coloration undergoes a metamorphosis. The adult has white stripes that running along the body and orange spots all over the head and body.

A subadult whitelined grouper - it still has the orange stripes of the juvenile, but also has the white stripes of the adult. The ocelli have also disappeared. Photographed in Papua New Guinea.

The adult whitelined grouper - note the elongated body, sharp snout and characteristic coloration. Photographed in Lembeh Strait, Sulawesi.

A number of years ago, a friend of mine, Jim Walters (Old Town Aquarium), sent me an even more amazing fish. It was obviously an Anyperodon sp., but it was metallic blue! It also had black stripes, a white stripe and white blotches along the flanks. There were spots on the rear base of the dorsal fin and a black bar at the base of the caudal fin.

The amazing metallic blue grouper, a species only known from Saudi Arabia, still awaits formal description.

The fish, which I refer to as the metallic blue grouper, was collected in Saudi Arabia in deep water (I was told it was captured at a depth of around 60 m). I have not seen a specimen since Jim sent me that fish (this individual went into formalin and was shipped to the Bishop Museum), but recently I received a very interesting email from a fellow grouper fan, Ivan Alfonso. He was able to get a hold of three specimens and sent me photos. They looked similar to the individual pictured here, except the bar at the base of the caudal fin had broken up into three spots bordered in white in one fish. Ivan tells me that the species can get at least 24 cm in total length. It may be that the blue becomes less intense as the fish grows larger. I am hoping to get another specimen so DNA analysis can be conducted to compare it with A. leucogrammicus.

If you have a large enough tank, the Anyperodon groupers make wonderful aquarium pets. They are quite secretive when first added to the tank, so provide a nice cave or overhang as a shelter site. But as time goes on, and they begin to recognize you as a food source, they will become more tame. You may need to use gut-packed ghost/glass shrimp or mollies to initiate a feeding response. They can be aggressive toward other groupers (including members of their own kind), if space and hiding places are limited. They might also be the target of an aggressive confamilial. In most cases, size and prior residency will determine which serranid is boss of the tank. Feed your Anyperodon to satiation several times a week. Of course, any fish or crustacean that can be swallowed whole will be, so select tankmates carefully.

©2008 Scott W. Michael

BACK IN THE SADDLE AGAIN!

2008-09-11T19:22:00.000-07:00

Well, I am back from another amazing trip to Alaska! Loads of brown bears and lots of fun times spent with good friends. (You can see the trip details here) Janine and I went with Larry Jackson, Debbie Titus, David Salmanowitz and Nancy and Larry Peterson to Katmai National Park, where we spent 10 days observing and photographing grizzly/brown bears. (I think many of our traveling companions caught the bear bug and will be making return trips to Katmai to hang with the ursids!) I will be sharing more details, photos and video of some of the amazing behavior we witnessed in future posts. I will also be adding regular reef fish news, so keep an eye on the blog for lots of new info. Thanks for your patience!

Scott

CHERRY BLOSSOM BASSLET

2008-08-12T13:06:00.000-07:00

This beautiful photo taken by Toshio Tsubota shows the cherry blossom basslet in its natural habitat off of Osezaki. It typically is not encountered on these reef slopes until you reach a depth of 30 m and is not common until you reach much greater depths.

The cherry blossom basslet (Sacura margaritacea) is a member of the family Serranidae and the subfamily Anthiinae. It is deeper-bodied member of the anthias group and have thread-like filaments that extent from the dorsal and the caudal fins (these are especially elongate in male specimens). It reaches a maximum length of about 15 cm.

The cherry blossom basslet is distributed from southern Japan to south to Taiwan. If you look at its range, you can see that it is found in more northern regions than most of the coral reef fishes we see at the local aquarium stores. I have seen many of these fish on rocky reefs off Osezaki, Japan. Here it is found at depths of 13 to over 50 m on current-prone, rocky reef slopes. It often moves among or above long whip corals or can also be found hanging under overhangs or at the mouth of caves (juveniles are more likely to be found in caves). Adults of this species are often found at depths of 40 m. It tends to occur in shoals, consisting of many females and a single male. It sometimes forms mixed groups with other anthias (e.g., elongate anthias [Pseudanthias elongatus] and the anthias [P. fasciatus]). Like other anthias, S. margaritacea feeds on zooplankton. To catch their prey, these fish move high into the water column to feed. Like other members of the subfamily, they are protogynous hermaphrodites. That is, males result from female sex change. The males are the most dominant individuals in the shoal.

The male cherry blossom basslet is a spectacular fish that is becoming more available in the aquarium trade, although it still commands a high price.

I have reliable information from Japanese aquarist (namely aquarist Hiroyuki Tanaka) and from Kevin Kohen (the fish expert and manager at liveaquaria.com - see link to right) who also has experience with Sacura, that this fish is quite hardy. It is also often seen on display in Japanese public aquariums because of its beautiful appearance, as well as its hardiness.

First thing to consider is temperature of the aquarium. As mentioned above, this fish is typically found at cooler water temperatures. At Osezaki, the summer time temperature at a depth from the surface to about 30 m is from 22 to 26 degrees Celsius. There is a sharp thermocline below 30 m, where water temperature drops to as cold as 16 C in the summer and 11 degrees Celsius in the winter! As far as aquarium temperature is concerned, S. margaritacea should be kept at 18 to 25 degrees Celsius (Japanese aquarists prefer to keep them at the lower end of this range).
All anthias should be fed frequently, as they spend most of their day in the water column picking off zooplanktors. If you find your Sacura is a bit finicky, try feeding it young livebearers (e.g., guppies, mollies) or live ghost shrimp. They will usually take foods like frozen mysid, chopped table shrimp or bite-sized pieces of marine fish flesh. Kevin tells me that a male cherry blossom basslet may become dominant over smaller fish tankmates, occasionally nudging them to assert their position in the hierarchy. But they are rarely so aggressive toward heterospecifics that they cause them harm. It will eat fish that are small enough to swallow whole. Adults should be housed in a tank of at least 135 gallons and may acclimate more readily if kept in a dimly-lit aquarium. Also, avoid placing more than one male in the same tank.

Female cherry blossom basslet. A lovely aquarium fish that does best at lower water temperatures.

This fish commands a high price for two main reasons. First of all, not that many fish are imported from Japan to the US (or any other country for that matter). They are also found at moderate depths and require special handling techniques to help avoid problems with decompression. So, unavailability and the greater time required to capture this fish means more money per fish.

©2008 Scott W. Michael

A BEAR SHANGRI-LA

2008-08-09T18:33:00.000-07:00

Hallo Bay, Katmai National Park.

Scott W. Michael and Janine Cairns-Michael

The great bear quest was conceived on a warm September night in our Nebraska home. A week before, my wife, Janine, and I had been roaming through rain forest on the Olympic Peninsula, Washington. While hiking the mountain trails, I was intrigued with the possibility that we may see black bears (much to my dismay and Janine’s relief, we did not see one). But I had caught the “bear bug.” After our return from this lush national park, I went to the local library and checked out every book they had on the Ursidae (the scientific designation for the family that contains all eight known bear species). One of the books I found was particularly mesmerizing – it was on the brown (grizzly) bears of Katmai National Park, Alaska. I was unfamiliar with this national treasure and the idea of observing these mighty creatures on their turf was very intriguing. Before long, I made the following proclamation to my beloved – “We are going on a trip to Alaska to walk among the grizzly bears.” Janine responded in her now-Americanized Kiwi accent, “Yes Dear, that would be nice.” She was not concerned about my proposal, assuming that like some of my obsessions before it, that it too would pass after a few weeks.

Ten months later, Janine and I were on a small skiff that was ferrying us (and a handful of other bear fanatics) from a converted crab boat, dubbed the “MV Kittiwake,” to the sandy shore that fringes portions of Katmai National Park. While I was sure that this was going to be a unique and exciting adventure, I had no idea how profoundly the next six days would impact my life.

A female brown bear in repose watches us as we set-up our photo equipment.

We arrived in Hallo Bay that afternoon on a Cessna floatplane. It was a beautiful, sunny afternoon and a magnificent flight from Kodiak. Rugged mountains, islets and sheltered bays rolled out beneath us as we made our way to the Shelikof Strait. By the time we reached the Strait, we could see the magnificent Aleutian Range and Katmai National Park. Our gracious pilot, Dean Andrews, made a high pass over the sedge flats where we were able to see numerous brown bears sleeping and grazing in the green expanse! After our smooth landing in Hallo Bay, we were immediately whisked by skiff to the “Kittiwake” to meet the rest of the bear-viewing party and prepare for our first bruin encounter. As soon as we were able to get our camera gear ready and our field gear on, we were on our way to the intertidal flats. At this point, my skin was literally tingling!

Not only were we “buzzing” at the possibility of seeing the second largest land carnivore, the setting that surrounded us was truly awe-inspiring. Even Janine (a citizen of New Zealand, one of the most “scenically-gifted” places on earth), was overwhelmed by the vista that spread out before us as we motored to the estuarine sand flat. At this point, it was evident to both of us that this was going to be a very special trip. We reached the drift-wood littered beach and we were immediately aware that the beasts we had come to admire were nearby – there were bear paw prints, of varying size, impressed into the sand.

On our way to the beach, Brad Josephs (bear expert and guide) gave us a briefing on how we should behave in order to both ensure our safety and to have the least amount of impact on the bears. We bunched-up and moved along the shoreline until we reached a tributary that held great promise. Before us, there were two light colored sows (i.e., female) that were standing in the middle of the water way. They were very vigilant, scanning the water’s surface for any turbulence that may indicate the presence of a piscine prize.

An older female dubbed Nana - although she is small, few bears mess with Nana.

We set-up our camera equipment near the water’s edge, leaving enough room for any bear following the meandering stream contour to safely pass in front of us. Within minutes, camera motor drives were whirring as the two bears began running up and down the stream, being provoked into action by ripples generated by a salmonid back or tail.

This was the beginning of the salmon run, when these anadromous “super-fish” smell their way back to their place of “birth” and re-enact the process of procreation that has occurred for millions of years. Soon after releasing their sexual products, the adult fish die, leaving a virtual “scavengers buffet” that is utilized by bears, eagles, gulls, foxes and wolves. During our six day stay, chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta) were in the process of re-acclimating to a riverine environment. While the salmon were present, they were by no means as easy to come by or catch as they would be later in the season. We were amazed at how much energy the bruins used loping to and fro as they attempted to find and capture the illusive fish.

One thing that seemed obvious from the get-go was that these bears were oblivious to our presence. They continued to move up and down the river and on a couple of occasions plodded along the bank very near to our group. Janine, who prior to arrival in Alaska, had expressed some consternation about how she would respond when she encountered Ursus arctos at close quarters, was not overcome by panic, but overwhelmed by a wave of veneration.

A grizzly bear stampede!

Both bears tired of pursuing their illusive quarry and eventually left the area, so Brad decided we would move further down the stream to see what we could see. We crossed a portion of the sedge meadow, where we saw moose and wolf sign, as well as two medium-sized female “brownies’ (slang for brown bear) grazing on the plenteous sedge, but even more amazing was the sight that greeted us upon rounding the bend. There were eight more brown bears of varying shapes and sizes. Several of the bruins were bounding through the water, while others were sitting or in repose on the bank, seemingly content to observe the frenetic behavior of their kin. Suddenly, five of the beasts were up and running our direction - it was a bruin stampede! The sleuth of bears, apparently in response to a noise or movement observed in the water adjacent to our group, ran past us, coming with 30 feet of our astonished gang. Once again, it was obvious that they could care less about us - they were only interested in the possibility of securing a salmonid meal.

As the bears past, a couple stopped and adopted a bipedal stance in order to better spy any stirring at the water’s surface. A large female past by with a yearly youngster in tow. She was the only bear that may have been agitated by our presence because as she past she engaged in a threatening vocalization known as jaw-popping (a unique utterance that is made by knocking the teeth together). It was impossible to tell if our group elicited this behavior or if it was the activity of the other bears around her. (We came to find out she was a rather nervous mother that would often jaw-pop if other bruins moved past.) The female and her offspring eventually moved down the bank a short distance and plopped down with their backs towards us. We watched these bears for some time before they disbanded and moved off. It was time to make our way back to the boat.

Snaggle-tooth looks more like a big shaggy cow, as he grazes on sedge, than a predatory bruin.

We took a different course back to the “Kittiwake,” opting to transverse the luxuriant sedge meadow. While in route, Brad spotted one of his old buddies – a huge male that had been appropriately dubbed “Snaggle-tooth.” This battle-scarred old warrior was once one of the dominant males in this area. His jaw has been broken during "mouth-to-mouth" combat and as a result his right canine tooth protruded from his mandible. As we approached, Brad informed us that he was a very “human-habituated” bear and even though he was approaching 1,000 pounds and had been at the top of the pecking order during his prime, “Snaggle-tooth” had never caused problems with any of Brad’s bear-viewers. We sat and watched this gentle-giant as he jerked mouthfuls of sedge from the earth and masticated it like a big, shaggy cow. What an impressive beast he was! Although not universally known to the general public, brown bears feed heavily on plant matter. Along the southwestern Alaskan coast, sedge grass, as well as a miscellany of other botanical species, make up an important food item in the diet of U. arctos.

A little further along the edge of the sedge meadow we encountered another massive old boar named “Flop-ear.” Steve Stringham, a bear expert that had come to greet and briefly joined our group, suggested that he was probably over 25 years of age and that he once instilled trepidation into the other male bruins that fished this bay. His immense frame was not as well-muscled as the younger males that now ruled the Hallo region. He was scarred and even sported a relatively fresh wound on his left flank. Later during our stay, we were happy to see both “Flop-ear” and “Snaggle-tooth” catch a number of fish. Hopefully, they were able to put on enough fat to see them through another winter dormancy.

Flop-ear was once a dominant boar in the region, but now he no longer elicits trepidation in the younger males that are in their prime.

John Rogers, the skipper and owner of Katmai Coastal Bear Tours, met us with the skiff to ferry us back to the "Kittiwake." I had spoken with John a number of times during the 10 months prior to this day and he assured me that I would be blown away by the trip. I could tell he was waiting for a response when we returned to the skiff, but we were gob-smacked! Janine and I were overwhelmed with what we had experienced in our first several hours of being bear voyeurs and did not know how to express our amazement in words. (After several minutes looking at him and shaking my head in disbelief, I simply grabbed his hand and began uttering “Wow” over and over.)

These were our first hours exploring Hallo Bay. There were to be many more amazing days of bear-viewing in Hallo, as well as Kukak, Kuliak and Kaflia Bays. Throughout our stay, I was impressed with Brad Josephs and his wildlife-viewing philosophy. He went to extreme lengths to ensure that our presence did not deleteriously impact the bruins. As a couple interested in the welfare of the animals we are taking photos of, we try to consider the impact our behavior has on our photographic subjects. With Brad and Katmai Coastal Bear Tours, I never felt as though I was “crossing-the-line” when it came to the well-being of the bears.

As I mentioned above, this trip really did change our lives. Upon returning home, I began gathering up as much literature on bear biology as I could find and I am currently trying to figure out a way that I can spend more time in the field photographing and studying these amazing mammals. Janine no longer suffers from “bear-phobia.” Her fear of bears has been replaced with a healthy respect and she is looking forward to upcoming bruin encounters in Alaska, Canada and the lower 48 states. But more than anything, we have both been overwhelmed by the magnificence that is Ursus arctos. We now feel that we must be advocates for the bear and teach others just how important and special these creatures are and how wanting the North American wilderness would be without them.

For more on bear-viewing in Katmai go to www.katmaibears.com!

©2008 Scott W. Michael

OFTEN OVERLOOKED NANO-REEF FISHES

2008-08-08T14:44:00.000-07:00

The tailspot blenny is a wonderful aquarium resident that can be housed in a nano-reef. This individual was photographed in West Papua, where it is quite common.

Here is a wonderful little fish that has only been making its way into the aquarium trade for approximately 5 years. It is the tailspot blenny (Ecsenius stigmatura) (a.k.a. tailspot comical blenny). If you do not own one of these fish, shame on you! It is a fascinating fish to watch, is attractive, and tends to get along with its tankmates.

The tailspot blenny is easily recognized by the black spot at the base of the caudal fin, that is trimmed in white. There is also a black patch on the mid-belly and an orange rim around the eye and a blue line under the eye. This diminutive little fish (it reaches around 5 cm in total length) is a resident of West Papua, the Moluccas and the Philippines (the individuals in the aquarium trade come from Cebu). It is found on reef faces and fore-reef slopes at depths of 2 to 30 m. It is typically a solitary species, although it is sometimes found in small groups.

The tailspot blenny is a wonderful fish! It exhibits and interesting color pattern, including orange and blue eye liners, and spends more time in the water swimming about than many other blennies. It can be housed in a nano-reef as small as 15 gallons. Provide plenty of hiding places, preferably small holes that it can back into, in the live rock. You can use a ¼ to ½ inch drill bit to create some of these in the rock. Feed meaty and herbivore foods at least twice a day.

Ecsenius stigmatura is very neighborly. It rarely bothers fish tankmates, including other smaller blennies. If it has been in a tank for a while, it will assert its dominance over newly introduced members of the same genus (especially in a smaller tank). It is more likely to be picked on by dottybacks, more aggressive damsels, and hawkfishes. You can keep more than one in a tank of 75 gallons or larger (a known heterosexual pair can even be housed in a smaller tank, but sexing them is difficult). It rarely bothers clams or corals.

The tailspot blenny spends almost an equal amount of time resting in its favorite hiding hole and swimming about the aquarium looking for food. It does not appear to be a big algae eater, like some others in the family. It may leap out of an open aquarium.

©2008 Scott W. Michael

EARTH-EATING – GEOPHAGY IN BROWN BEARS

2008-08-07T18:13:00.000-07:00

Grizzly bears intentionally ingest earth, which may serve several different functions.

In a famous quote about the food habits of the grizzly, naturalist John Muir states that these bears “eat everything but granite.” It turns out that Muir’s statement is not quite right, as while they have not been documented to eat rocks, they will eat earth! Some of the soil found in grizzly scat is not doubt ingested unintentionally along with their normal foods, like roots and ground squirrels. But grizzlies also intentionally eat soil and river sediment.

There are a few anecdotal accounts of brown bears diving down in the river ways in which they fish to take mouthfuls of mud from the river bottom. It has been suggested that they do this to clean their alimentary tracts of internal parasites. At Katmai National Park, we found brown bear scat that was comprised of fine sediment. The fecal material also contained numerous worms (I cannot be sure of the identification of the parasites involved, but they looked like a type of nematode).

In Yellowstone National Park, Mattson et al. (1999a) found 12 sites where grizzlies consume soil and found earth in some scat samples. These areas were free of vegetation due to thermal activity. Geophagy was most common between March and May and again from August to October – these correspond to times when ungulate and mushroom eating was also common. The researchers concluded the soil consumption may have several functions. Like ungulates, grizzlies may eat earth to detoxify secondary compounds present in the foliage they consume and to supplement their diet with potassium. In the areas where grizzlies ingested soil, the earth has very high in potassium, magnesium and sulphur. The authors also suggest that that by consuming these soils, the bears may prevent diarrhea by helping to get rid of some parasites and bacteria in the alimentary tract.

References:

Mattson, D.J., G.I. Green and R. Swalley. 1999. Geophagy by Yellowstone grizzly bears.
Ursus 11:109-116.

BROWN BEAR FISHING BEHAVIOR: PREY SELECTION

2008-08-05T19:03:00.000-07:00

A big brown bear with a big salmon. There is more to the fishing behavior of Ursus arctos than meets the eye! Photo by Scott W. Michael.

“In small backwaters where the fish collect in shoals and where the fins of the fish are visible while they move against the current. The bears either enter the water attempting to drive the fish into the shallows, or stand in the water, lowering the head to the surface while waiting for the fish and catching it rapidly with the paws.... The catching of fish is easier in spawning places with calm water, where the fish are less cautious and strong. When the fish are numerous the bear eats mainly the head and part of the back, when fish are scarce, they are eaten completely. The stomach of a large bear may contain 20 kg of fish. However, plants and berries are always found together with fish.” Yu. V Averin (1948) describing the feeding behavior of the Russian brown bears in the Kronoki reserve (in Stroganov 1969)

As far back as 1889, bear-watchers reported that bears selectively ate parts but not all the salmon they caught. A. M. Nikol’skii (in Stroganov 1969) stated that when fish are abundant, Russian brown bears eat only the head and roe of the salmon, leaving the body. When the fish are scarce, they consume their entire catch. Yu Averin, in the 1948 quote above, also reported on this phenomenon.

Most salmonids are anadromous. That is, they hatch in freshwater, move into the sea, and return to the freshwater streams where they hatched to spawn themselves. While it varies from one species to the next, in many parts of Alaska, three different species of salmon spawn during the months of July through early October. The salmon enter their spawning grounds and typically live in freshwater for 5 to 25 days (depending on the species and location) until they die of senescence. Many die before this time as a result of bear predation. In one study, of 1,933 salmon tagged by researchers as they entered three different Alaskan streams, 64 % of the tagged fish were killed by bears, 33 % died of senescence, and 2.6 % died from other causes (like stranding on the beach or were killed by other predators).

When a salmon makes its way into freshwater, it stops feeding and expends incredible amounts of energy on reproduction and the act of swimming upstream – as a result, from this point forward the nutrient value of a fish will drop as they burn stored fat and protein. Researchers Hendry and Berg (1999) found that the total energy content of a salmon drops from 40 to 50 % and the lipid content plummets as much as 80 to 95 % from the time the fish enter a stream and the time when they die of senescence. It would make sense then that brown bears would attempt to capture and consume those fish that have spent less time in Alaska’s streams and that the fish that the bears find least attractive would be those that are reproductively spent and in the process of dying.

But how could a bear determine the nutrient value of a fish (e.g., how long it had been in freshwater)? In some salmon species there are very overt signs of senescence. For example, male red or sock-eye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) develop hooked jaws during the spawning period. Salmonid energy stores are depleted and the immune system begins to suffer, as a result of stress and malnutrition, the skin becomes discolored and patches of fungus appear. The longer a salmon is in freshwater engaging in the spawning process, it picks-up more wounds on the body from fighting and frayed fins as a result of nest digging. So, it maybe that these outward signs of a salmon’s physical condition (potential energy content) could be used by grizzlies to help select the most valuable prey.

Researchers have examined if brown bears target those fish that have been in freshwater for a shorter period of time (“younger” fish) and thus have greater nutrient content. They found that in streams where bears can easily capture salmon that they do select younger salmon. In one such stream, the bruins fed most heavily on fish that have been in the stream for three days or less, while they totally ignored fish that had been in freshwater for over 12 days. However, in streams that were wider, had deep pools and/or lots of structure (e.g., sunken limbs and overhanging banks) brown bears fed more on “older” fish (individuals that have been in the stream for over 12 days). In these streams, the salmon that have recently entered freshwater are more energetic and better able to elude the bears, while “older” fish that have expended lots of energy and are “on their last fin” are easier to catch. While the “younger” fish may have more nutrients, the bears will expend more time and energy to catch them. Therefore, in these streams, going after the less elusive, but less nutrient-rich fish, is a better strategy.

Other factors that will impact brown bear foraging strategies are the density of fishes in a particular stream and the weather. When the streams are chock-a-block with amorous fish, the bears can be more selective, while if the fish are few and far between, they cannot afford to be as particular. Likewise, if the streams are breaking their banks and the water is turbid as a result of excessive rain, bears are not as selective. It is get what you can, when you can! There are also individual bears that apparently develop a taste for rotting salmon carcasses. Bledsoe (1987) tells of a bear named “Zubin” at McNeil Falls that would leave a good fishing spot to go scavenge for dead fish.

Food handling in brown bears sometimes changes as the fishing season goes on. At first, the bears will consume the entire salmon, but as the season goes on, on if it has been a good salmon run, the bruins become more selective, restricting their feeding efforts to the more nutritious bits. They peel off the skin, they nibble out the brains, and tear open the abdomen to gain access to the roe. It is not uncommon to see a grizzly step on a fish, causing a stream of orange, nutritious eggs to spew forth. The bears use their tongue to lap-up the eggs.

References:

Bledsoe, T. 1987. Brown Bear Summer: Life Among Alaska's Giants. New York, New York, E P Dutton. 249 Pp.

Hendry, A. P. and O.K. Berg. 1999. Secondary sexual characters, energy use, senescence, and the cost of reproduction in sockeye salmon. Can. J. Zool. 77:1663-1675.

Quinn, T.P., S.M. Gende, G.T. Ruggerone, and D.E. Rogers. 2003. Density-dependent predation by brown bears (Ursus arctos) on sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka). Can. J. Aquat. Sci. 60:553-562.

©2008 Scott W. Michael

FOOD HABITS OF PHYLLOGNATHIA CERATOPHTHALMA

2008-08-05T14:41:00.000-07:00

Everyone knows the harlequin shrimp (Hymenocera elegans or H. pictus). It is one of the most ornate invertebrates on the planet and has the somewhat ghoulish habit of slowly eating sea stars. But do you know about the harlequin’s kin, Phyllognathia ceratophthalma (both shrimps are in the family Hymenoceridae).

This odd shrimp, which is known in the aquarium trade as the Bongo bumblebee shrimp or the spiny tiger shrimp, is rarely seen in the wild or in the aquarium trade. I have only seen three of these shrimp during years of diving in locations where they are known to occur (the Western Pacific from Okinawa south to Queensland, Australia). This is because it is very small, reaching a maximum length of around 2.5 cm, and very cryptic. Like Hymenocera, it also does not appear to be a very common creature. Because of these factors, very little else is known about this shrimp species.

In steps Kevin Kohen, livestock manager of www.liveaquaria.com. Kevin is one of the most knowledgeable guys in this industry and has been a great help to me (he has assisted my efforts so much that I dedicated REEF FISHES Volume 5 to him and two other labrid lovers). He is not only astute, but he is still hardcore crazy about fishes and inverts, even after decades of being in the hobby. If he has access to something unusual, it is just as likely to go in one of his office tanks (if he has room) as onto the website for sale.

Kevin has been keeping specimens of P. ceratophthalma for several months now and has observed some very interesting things about its natural history. Up until now, data on the feeding habits of this little crustacean were not available. It has been assumed that they are echinoderm-eaters only because of their relationship with Hymenocera, but I have not found any direct observations of their food habits published in the literature. Thanks to Kevin, we now know that they eat asteroid sea stars as well as ophuroids! Don’t believe me, check out Kevin’s video at the link below.

Kevin's Bongo Bumblebee shrimp video (click here)

Here is what Kevin reports on his captive P. ceratophthalma:

“Well it turns out that this little guy loves to kill and eat mini white brittle sea stars. They are now going after tiny blue Asterina sea stars as well and are using their claws to pry them over from a flat bottomed specimen container. The behavior of the crustacean is very similar to Hymenocera elegans. It seems to use its two front spike like maxillipeds to constantly pierce the sea star until it surrenders, then starts consuming the brittle legs and all.”

If you have had any experience with this shrimp I would be eager to hear your stories!

WARTY FROGFISH SLIDESHOW

2008-08-03T21:16:00.001-07:00

FLASHING A FLASHER

2008-08-03T16:02:00.000-07:00

Probably the most difficult fish to photograph during its courtship display, the blue flasher wrasse (Paracheilinus cyaneus). Photo by Scott W. Michael.

Sorry folks. One more wrasse entry and then I will talk about another group of fishes. You have to realize I am still glowing in the aftermath of Volume 5, which is about 380 pages of wrasses. So, here goes another labrid topic…..

I was recently flipping through a book by Michael Aw when the name “Roger Steene” jumped off the page. Roger and I are good friends and I am always curious to see what people write about him, as he is truly a one-of-a-kind character (if you have ever been with Roger in the field, than you know what I mean!)! I started at the beginning of the paragraph that contained the Steene moniker and read on. This section of Michael’s book was talking about challenging photo subjects. He was quoting Roger, who has long said that the most difficult fish species to photograph are the flasher wrasses (genus Paracheilinus). Michael took up Roger’s challenge and presented the results at the top of the page – there was a good photo of a McCosker’s flasher (Paracheilinus mccoskeri) .

I love flasher wrasses and have been trying to take photos of them in the field for over a decade now. I have been somewhat successful after spending hours attempting to snap shots of Paracheilinus in full “flash” (definition: when fish has all fish spread and its colors flashing). Much of this is simply being lucky, but I have also learned a few techniques that I thought I would share.

One a recent trip to West Papua (the Raja Ampat Islands) as a guest of Max Ammer and Sorido Bay Resort, I had the opportunity to once again hone my flasher photography skills. Roger and I found a small group of blue flasher wrasse (Paracheilinus cyaneus) on the fringing house reef. I hate to tell you this Michael, but even within the genus, there are some species that are more difficult to shoot than others. The Paracheilinus in Michael’s book is one of the easier flashers to photograph. Roger, Gerry Allen and myself, all agree that the blue flasher and a newly described species from Triton Bay, West Papua (Paracheilinus nursalim), are the most demanding fishes to nail. This has to do with their behavior. Some flashers will hesitate momentarily when in full flash, so if you are ready, it is possible to get stellar shots with relatively little effort. But the blue flasher is not that kind of “cat!” It is always dashing about, dashing through the water like a kite in a hurricane!

Here is how I was able to get some good shots of P. cyaneus:

Reconnoiter Flasher Habitat . You will need to be prepared to scuttle around the seafloor like a nervous fiddler crab. Fortunately, flashers are most often found on rubble slopes so you don’t have to be as concerned about fins and hands damaging coral colonies. Before I go into flasher photo mode I scour the area for scorpionfish (at least big, none cryptic varieties) as it is very easy to accidentally get stung when you are moving with your eye pressed up to the viewfinder. Most of the flasher’s activities are usually limited to a relatively small area so it is possible to survey the location before getting into hunting mode. So get the lay of the land before you begin stalking your quarry.

Go flasher stalking in the late afternoon. Timing is everything! Male flashing tends to reach its apex at dusk, when these fishes spawn. Males begin courting females around an hour before the sun goes down, although less frequent flashing may occur at any time of the day.

Observe before attempting to photograph. If you watch the fish long enough, they normally have a fairly consistent routine. They may dash down to one section of rubble where some females are hanging out and flash at them for several minutes. Then they may leave this area and dash to another location where potential mates lurk near rubble recesses. It is often best to wait in one location (where there are females) and wait for the male to come soaring through.

Pre-focus and “swim the fish into focus.” Forget about using auto focus! The fish moves too quickly and the light levels are often too low to use it effectively. Instead, pre-focus the camera on something that is similar in size to the male flasher. It may be a piece of rubble or coral. Pretend that this non-moving object is the flasher wrasse and preset the focus so that the fish fills the appropriate amount of frame. (The more fish in the frame, the more difficult the shot will be to get.) I try and fill at least ½ the length of the frame with the fish, but you can back off if you want too (it is easier to shot them from a slightly greater distance). When the fish frenetically parades past, find him in the viewfinder and begin to follow his movements through the lens. When he comes into focus, quickly squeeze off a shot. The key is to keep following him with the camera and keep firing away anytime he appears to be in focus. The more shots you take, the more likelihood that you will get a real winner.

While it may sound difficult (and it is!), the more you practice it, the more likely you are to have real success. Roger and I were both very confident that we had nailed the fish you see above (we both use film so we had to wait and see our results when we got home). You can just tell when everything is right – at least when the fish and the focus are spot on. Exposure and potential flashback (back scatter) is another matter. Roger always underexposes his flasher shots by about ½ stop (using exposure compensation) to prevent possible overexposure by the flashes TTL. I don’t, but instead always shoot at smaller apertures (usually just at the limit of the TTL capacity). Of course, not only does more light to the film plan mean more likelihood of overexposing the subject, it also means more backscatter in the picture.

CLAM-DIGGING BROWN BEARS

2008-08-01T08:45:00.000-07:00

A female brown bear nimbly uses her large claws to separate the valves of a razor clam and get to the juicy morsels within. See slide show below for more on this bear. Photo by Scott W. Michael.

When it comes to food, brown bears are very opportunistic. As discussed in past posts, they are also very intelligent. Consequently, they’re always looking for new food sources that they can exploit. Along the coast of Alaska, brown bears congregate in salt marshes in spring and early summer. They feed on sedges, grasses and forbs as they wait for migrating salmon to arrive in nearby estuaries. Some bears move out of the marshes and sedge flats and feed on animals that inhabit shore habitats. Along the Katmai coast, there are large tides that expose an expansive intertidal flat that is exposed for three to five hours a day. Certain bears utilize this habitat, hunting for mussels, isopods, barnacles, marine worms (polychaetes and peanut worms) and small intertidal fishes (blennies and sand lances). While it may seem that burrowing clams would be impervious to brown bear attack, there are some bruins that have learned how to locate, capture and handle these infaunal mollusks.

The intertidal zone along the Katmai coast is home to a handful of clam species. The four species that are known to be eaten by brown bears are the soft-shelled clam (Mya arenaria), the razor clam (Siliqua patula), Nuttall’s cockle (Clinodcardium nuttallii) and the Alaska surf clam (Spisula polynyma). These mollusks spend most of their lives below the sand surface, taking in fresh seawater and planktonic food through tube like siphons. The siphons extends from the clam up to the sand surface. (Those species with a shorter siphon remain near the sand surface in order to respire and feed, while those with a longer siphon can burrow to greater depths.) Many of the burrowing clams are adapted to living in the intertidal zone. When the tide goes out, they remain buried in their wet, sandy sanctuary and await the rising tide to bring back life giving oxygen and food.

Clam-hunting Techniques

At low tide along the Katmai coast, you may see an individual brown bear, or a bruin family (sow a cubs), slowly meandering across the tidal flat with nose skimming the sand surface. Somehow the bears detect the buried clams (possibly by using their keen olfactory senses). When they do, the ursid will stop and begin digging at a leisurely pace. The mollusk-hunting bear will lean on one front paw and use the other as a shovel. It will methodically lift the substrate from the hole and push it back behind the excavation. If the clam is deeper in the sand, the bear might lean on its elbow, laying its head on the foreleg, in order to thrust the digging paw deeper into the substrate. When it reaches the bivalve, it will extract it by lifting it out with its claws/paw or by shoving its head into the hole and grasping the clam in its jaws. Troyer (2005) reports that like fishing, bears vary in their clam-digging prowess. Some bears are very effective “clamers,” while others are inept. If a bear’s digging activity never or rarely results in positive reinforcement, they give up this activity after a time. Troyer also notes that when it comes to clam-digging, some bears are exclusively “right-pawed,” while others only use their left paw.

In a study conducted on Katmai bears, it was found that the average harvest rate for clamming bears was 0.69 ± 0.46 clams per minute (Smith et al. 2004). The percentage of excavations that yielded clams was 63%. When it comes to the number of clams ingested, Troyer (2005) reported seeing individual brown bears dig up as many as 50 to 100 clams in one cycle of the ebb-tide. In one four hour period, I watched a female with cubs dig between 180 to 200 holes (it was impossible to determine how many clams the bear ate during this period).

Once they extract the mollusk from its subterranean refuge, the bear has to get to the meat that is housed within the clam’s calcareous armor. In the case of the soft-shelled and razor clams, the valves (which are the two parts that make-up the shell) are not that hard. A bear’s clam-handling technique can vary from one individual to the next. After pulling a clam from the substrate, some bears nimbly use the claws to pull the valves apart (see slide show below). Some bears place the bivalve on the beach and then stomp on it or roll it under their massive paw. This results in the valves breaking apart, which enables the bruin to extract the meat with their lips and tongue. In the case of soft-shell clams, the bear may take the entire bivalve into its mouth and masticate it. This resulted in their swallowing a considerable amount of shell material as well as the clam flesh (along the Katmai coast it is not unusual to see scat that contains clam shell fragments).

Clams Eaten

Katmai Brown bears do not feed on the various clams species in equal numbers. Smith et al. (2004) found that 77% of the time bears dug-up soft-shelled clams (Mya arenaria), 18% of the time they pulled out razor clams (Siliqua patula) and 2% of the time they excavated other clam species (namely Nuttall’s cockle [Clinodcardium nuttallii] and the Alaska surf clam [Spisula polynyma]). Clam species selection is thought to be more a function of species availability rather than preferences related to a species nutritional value. For example, the bears apparently feed more on the soft-shelled clams because they are found closer to shore and thus are available to foraging bears for longer period of time. There is not a difference in the bear’s harvest rate or success rate between soft-shelled and razor clams, even though the razor clam have what appeared to be a more effective anti-predation strategy – that is, when disturbed they pull themselves deeper into the substrate.

Who Digs Clams?

When it comes to a proclivity to dig clams, there are differences between the sexes. Smith et al. (2004) reported that of 233 clamming bouts observed, less than 1% of the clam-diggers were adult males, 44% were females with cubs and 55% were single bears of undetermined sex. How does the overall population of bears in this area compare with those observed clamming? The researchers found that of 16,738 bear (or bear family groups) encounters (over two years), 13% were large adult males, 8% were females with cubs-of-the-year (spring cubs), 17% were females with dependent young and 62% were single bears. It is obvious that females with cubs are overrepresented on the intertidal flats (44% of total population vs. 25% of bears observed clamming), while adult males are greatly underrepresented (13% vs. 1%). During focal sampling of bears working the intertidal zone (that is, where they followed individual bears and recorded their behavior), large adult males spent 0.1% of their time clamming, while females with dependent young invested 4.7% of their time digging mollusks (the single unsexed bears spent 1.4% of their time). The conclusion: females with young cubs most often feed on clams on the intertidal flats.

Benefits to Clam-digging

So what are the benefits for the bruins that dig clams? First of all, clams are a good source of digestible protein. Those brown bears that supplement their diets with these nutritional mollusks, are able to spend much less time munching on vegetation in order to meet their springtime energy requirements. Smith et al. (2004) predicted that a 160-kg brown bear that consumed razor clams for two hours a day could cut down total foraging time by 27% (compared to bears that only consumed vegetation). There is another advantage for clam-digging females that have cubs in tow. Because adult males are rarely seen on the intertidal flats, females with dependent young can forage in this habitat without exposing their offspring to potentially dangerous males. Less time spent feeding and less dangerous for young ones – a definite twofold advantage to hunting clams.

References

Smith, T.S. and S.T. Partridge. 2004. Dynamics of intertidal foraging by coastal brown bears in southwestern Alaska. Jour. Wildlife Manag. 68(20):233-240.

Troyer, W. Into Brown Bear Country. Univ. Alaska Press, Fairbanks, 130 Pp.

Copyright (2008) Scott W. Michael

The slide show below documents the clamming behavior of a female brown bear, with three spring cubs (the latter are not seen in the slideshow).

A NEW FLASHER WRASSE (PARACHEILINUS)?

2008-07-30T09:04:00.000-07:00

Paracheilinus sp. (not flashing) from Lembeh Strait, Sulawesi, Indonesia.

Paracheilinus filamentosus (not flashing), Milne Bay, Papua New Guinea.

The top photo above shows a flasher wrasse that I photographed on the “house reef” at Kungkugan Bay Resort, Lembeh Strait, Sulawesi. When I first took the shot I thought it was simply a filamented flasher wrasse (Paracheilinus filamentosus). (It is not actually flashing, but has its fins spread as it is being cleaned by a juvenile tubelip wrasse [Labropsis].) While it is no doubt similar to P. filamentosus (it has the lunate tail, has multiple dorsal fin filaments and the color pattern is similar overall), after further analysis I am convinced it is an undescribed species.

Why do I say that? Compare the size of the dorsal and anal fins of the two species above. In the Lembeh fish these fins are much deeper than those of the "true" Papua New Guinea P. filamentosus. Also, note the dorsal filaments and how close some of them are together – they almost appear to be paired, while those of the "true" P. filamentosus are more randomly distributed along the fin edge. There are similarities in the general coloration, but yet there are certainly differences. Neither individual in the photos above are exhibiting their “flashing” colors. Note the red on the dorsal and anal fins of the male Lembeh flasher. Also note the ventral coloration – the "true" P. filamentosus has a pinkish-white belly, while that of the Lembeh flasher is orangish yellow. It will take the collection of the Lembeh fish and some closer examination, as well as DNA analysis. What do you think? Different or color morphs of the same fish?

Copyright (2008) Scott W. Michael

PSEUDOCHEILINUS OCELLATUS WALLPAPER

2008-07-28T15:17:00.001-07:00

OK loyal gobies to grizzlies purveyors - how about some wallpaper? I have been using this one on my own monitor for a while and really love this fish! Just click on the photo above and set it as desk top background. (Please - use it for your computer or send it to a friend.)

It is, of course, Pseudocheilinus ocellatus, the whitebarred, tailspot or mystery wrasse. The first one of these beautiful fish that I saw was in a holding tank in Hawaii in 1991. Richard Pyle had collected it for his girlfriend (now wife's) father while diving in Japan. I was mesmerized by the colors of this then undescribed labrid. It was not until 1999 that Dr. John Randall described the beautiful little beast. The color is somewhat variable. Some are more pink overall, while others exhibit a purple base color. The presence or boldness of the white bars on the body is also variable. The whitebarred wrasse has been reported from Cocos Keeling Islands, the Great Barrier Reef, the Fiji Islands, Japan, the Marshall Islands, Cook Islands, Pitcairn Island and Johnston Atoll. It tends to prefer greater water depths than its congeners, having been reported at depths of 20 to 58 m (65 to 189 ft.).

If you have a chance to get one of these beautiful fish for your reef tank, I would. You can even place one of these fish on its own in a larger nano-reef (e.g., 20-gallons). There is only one downside with P. ocellatus. As with others in the genus, it can be a bit of a bully. It is especially hard on smaller fishes added to a tank after it - larger P. ocellatus are especially prone to thuggery. On the other hand, I have had whitebarred wrasse that were the recipient of heterospecific-labrid aggression. For example, I had a medium-sized individual that was incessantly chased by a crescenttail hogfish (Bodianus sepiacaudus). The hogfish did not bother any of the other fishes in the tank, including fairy wrasses and a small pinkstreaked wrasse (Pseudocheilinops ataenia), but for some reason, the hogfish “hated” the P. ocellatus!

Provide this fish with plenty of overhangs and caves for refuging. But, it will usually acclimate to the aquarium quickly and begin spending much of its time in full view. I have had P. ocellatus leap out of an open aquarium when they were being harassed by other fish. They might also jump out of the aquarium when the lights are turned-off. The whitebarred wrasse will scan live rock as it searched for smaller prey items. It is a minimal threat to ornamental invertebrates, including crustaceans. I have kept it with several different species of cleaner shrimps without incident. That said, I should point out that larger P. ocellatus might eat ornamental shrimps and crabs, especially when these crustaceans are molting.

Copyright (2008) Scott W. Michael

A NEW FAIRY WRASSE RISES FROM THE CONFUSION

2008-07-27T17:12:00.000-07:00

Cirrhilabrus beauperryi (male): a newly described species once confused with C. punctatus. Photo taken in Milne Bay, PNG. Scott W. Michael.

Cirrhilabrus beauperryi (male): the same specimen seen above exhibiting temporary spawning colors. Scott W. Michael.

Cirrhilabrus punctatus (male): from Vanuatu. Scott W. Michael.

Cirrhilabrus punctatus (male): from Savu Savu, Fiji. Scott W. Michael.

Cirrhilabrus punctatus (female): from Beqa, Fiji. Scott W. Michael.

There are species within the genus Cirrhilabrus that are highly variable. So variable in fact, that some ichthyophiles have suggested that more than one species may be lumped under a common binomial. Are these geographical variants or a true species? The “lumpers” would say there is only one species, while the “splitters” would argue there are two or more. Molecular analysis has enabled ichthyologists to solve some of these taxonomic quandaries once and for all. Such is the case with Cirrhilabrus punctatus - the finespotted fairy wrasse.

For a number of years it was thought that C. punctatus was simply a highly variable fish. It was originally described (in 1989) from Fiji, Tonga, New Caledonia, eastern Australia and southern Papua New Guinea (PNG). Many authors extended its range to include the northeastern coast of PNG and the Solomon Islands. Even though the color of the fish in this area differed from the original description of C. punctatus, it did have the characteristic dots on the head and body and was considered by many to simply be a color variant.

Enter the intrepid Lord of the Reef Fishes, Dr. Gerald Allen. Recently, Dr. Allen has discovered that the fish that occurs on reefs off of Milne Bay Province (Papua New Guinea), Madang (PNG), Bismarck Archipelago, and the Solomon Islands (which has often been lumped with C. punctatus) is actually a distinct species that has been dubbed Cirrhilabrus beauperryi.

Dr. Allen states the following regarding their chromatic differences:

“The two species are clearly separable on the basis of colour pattern. Terminal-phase individuals of C. beauperryi are generally purplish grading to blue ventrally and greenish or yellowish brown dorsally with a broad purple stripe along the basal half of the otherwise pale yellow dorsal fin. In contrast, terminal-phase C. punctatus are generally reddish brown to dark grey on the upper two-thirds of the head and body and abruptly white below with broad black stripes along the base of mainly red dorsal and anal fins. They also differ noticeably with respect to the colouration on the base of the pectoral fins: in C. beauperryi it is mainly violet with a narrow, inconspicuous purple bar; that of C. punctatus is prominently marked with a broad black bar. The pectoral-base marking is also useful for distinguishing initial-phase fish. The terminal phase of C. beauperryi also exhibits a unique median head profile characterized by a rounded forehead and concave interorbital region. DNA analysis reveals the two species are genetically distinct.”

This new species brings the number of fairy wrasses up to 45. It is the second most speciose group in the family Labridae behind the genus Halichoeres, which includes around 80 species.

References:

Allen, G. R., J. Drew and P. Barber. 2008. Cirrhilabrus beauperryi, a new wrasse (Pisces: Labridae) from Melanesia. Aqua –International Journal of Ichthyology, 14: 129-140.

Copyright (2008) Scott W. Michael

GRIZZLY BEAR PREDATION ON MUSKOX

2008-07-27T15:07:00.000-07:00

Ovibos moschatus is a formidable beast that is sometimes preyed upon by grizzly bears.Photo Credit:US Fish and Wildlife Service.

The muskox (Ovibos moschatus) is a large ungulate (the average male weight is from 273 to 364 kg [600 to 800 pounds]) equipped with curved horns and a shaggy pelage which can be up to 10 cm (4 inches) thick. It is a close relative of the sheep or goats (subfamily Caprinae) and is able to withstand incredibly frigid, arctic conditions (down to at least – 70 ºF). Muskox tend to live in herds and are famous for their defensive posturing – they often form a defensive circle with their heads (i.e., armament) facing outward toward the potential threat. Youngsters often hide amongst the adults for protection.

The barren-ground grizzly bears and muskox overlap in their distribution in northern Canada and Alaska. This shaggy beast would appear to be fairly impervious to grizzly attack. But, this is not the case. Grizzlies were originally reported feeding on muskox by early explorers and with recent reintroduction of these ungulates in parts of the Arctic, there have been a number of papers written on the predator-prey relationship of U. arctos and O. moschatus. Below I have reviewed what is known about the barren-ground grizzly predation on muskox.

Multiple Hunting Strategy

In the Thelon Game Sanctuary, grizzlies and muskox coexist, but the relationship is not always copasetic. Near the Thelon River, bears may use thick willow stands along the waterway to ambush muskox feeding on sedge in nearby clearings. Willows also attract muskox, as it is a preferred food of this beast. Gunn and Miller (1982) report finding a bear on a freshly killed, bull O. moschatus. They were able to scare the adult bear off and examine its kill and concluded that the bear had dispatched the big ungulate by first grasping its nose (crushing the nasal turbine bones and tearing off the nose in the process) and then inflicting a crippling bite to its skull. By grasping the nose, the bear may have prevented the muskox from bringing its horns to bear and also may have been more effective at throwing the animal to the ground.

In another study carried out in the northeastern Arctic slopes of Alaska, 92 grizzly-muskox interactions were observed (Reynolds et al. 2002). Fifty percent of these were known kills, 40 % were possible kills or scavenging events, and 10 % were incidents where a grizzly was seen chasing muskox. It was estimated that 16-39 % of muskox mortality was the result of bear predation. During the study period (1982-2001) the number of muskox killed by grizzly bears was zero to two deaths per year before 1993, one to four musk ox per year from 1994-1997 and five to ten deaths per year from 1998-2001. This increase in kill numbers was a function of an increase in the size of musk ox herds. An increase in kills may also be indicative of the bears learning how to better attack and take down these big, formidable animals. While solitary adult bears were most often seen attacking muskox (69 occasions), pairs or trios of adult bears were seen chasing, killing or eating these animals (three episodes). Sows with cubs or yearlings were seen interacting with muskox on three occasions.

Surplus Killing

Grizzly bears sometimes engage in surplus killing of muskox. In the study carried out by Reynolds et al. (2002) there were ten episodes where one to three bears killed from two to four adult muskox. On several occasions even more muskox were dispatched during a single hunting bout. For example, in one case five individuals (two adult females, a yearling and unsexed adult musk ox) were incapacitated by a single bear. In another case, a grizzly killed four calves and in another incident the victims were one adult female, one two-year old male and one yearling. In most cases, solitary bears were involved in these killing sprees, but in one case three grizzlies instigated the melee.

Clarkson et al. (1993) reported a fascinating case of surplus killing of muskox calves by a heterosexual pair of adult grizzlies. Within a distance of about two km, the two bears took down five young musk ox. By doing a little forensic work, the researchers were able to put together a likely picture of what had happened. Rather than form a defensive circle to try and parry the bear attacks, this herd of musk ox tried to out run the grizzlies. The researchers postulated that the calves trailed behind the adults and, therefore, were more vulnerable. The two bears chased the herd, which consisted of 40 to 50 muskox (with a minimum of eight calves). They killed the first calf and ate 90 % of the carcass. They then chased the herd down again and about 1.5-2.0 km from the first kill dispatched a second young musk ox. They ate 60 % of this second calve and began the hunt again. They killed the third calf about 300 m from the second. The third calf was about 30 % consumed by the bears and a wolverine (Gulo gulo) that was feeding on the carcass when the researchers arrived on the scene. The fourth calve was killed 400 m from the third. A golden eagle had just begun to feed on calf four when the researchers arrived. The final calf was killed about 200 m from the fourth – this last young muskox was not eaten either.

References:

Clarkson, P. L. and I. Sarma Liepins. 1993. Grizzly bear, Ursus arctos, predation on muskox, Ovibos moschatus, calves near the Horton River, Northwest Territories. Canadian Field Nat. 107:100-102.

Gunn, A. and F. L. Miller. 1982. Muskox bull killed by a barren-ground grizzly bear, Thelon Game Sanctuary, N.W.T. Arctic 35:545-546.

Reynolds, P. E., H. V. Reynolds and R. T. Shideler. 2002. Predation and multiple kills of muskoxen by grizzly bears. Ursus 13:79-84.

Copyright (2008) Scott W. Michael

ANOTHER NEW FIJIAN ANEMONEFISH

2008-07-26T15:02:00.000-07:00

Amphiprion barberi: Beqa, Fiji. Scott W. Michael.

Amphiprion melanopus: Milne Bay, Papua New Guinea. Scott W. Michael.

Amphiprion frenatus: pair (male in foreground), Aniloa, Philippines. Janine Cairns-Michael.

In the past month, another anemonefish has been described from Fiji. It has been given the name Amphiprion barberi. This fish has long been considered a color form of Amphiprion melanopus, an anemonefish that is known to range from Bali to the Society Islands, north to the Marianas, and south to the Great Barrier Reef and New Caledonia. But after further investigation by pomacentrid-guru, Dr. Gerald Allen, this supposed variant has been raised to species status. Here is the abstract from the publication:

Amphiprion barberi, a new species of anemonefish fish, is described from 46 specimens, 16.3-85.8 mm SL, collected at depths of 2-10 m from coral reefs of Fiji, Tonga, and Samoa. It is closely allied to A. melanopus, which is widely distributed in the western Pacific. The two species exhibit significant colour-pattern differences, including a mainly reddish orange body in A. barberi and dark brown or blackish body in A. melanopus. Adults of the new species also possess fewer spinules (11-19 versus 19-26) in the upper-opercular series than A. melanopus. Genetic data presented here confirms the separation of these species.

Reference:

Gerald R. Allen, Joshua Drew and Les Kaufman: Amphiprion barberi, a new species of anemonefish (Pomacentridae) from Fiji, Tonga, and Samoa. Aqua – International Journal of Ichthyology. 14 (3): 105-114

Photos copyright Scott W. Michael.

More on Kamchatka Brown Bears

2008-07-25T14:21:00.000-07:00

The Kamchatka brown bears have been hungry. (Photo: kamchatsky-krai.ru)

New York Times, July 24, 2008,

A Bear Menace in Russia, Where They Are Revered

By Michael Schwirtz

Russia’s bears have traditionally been a national symbol of pride and potency, mythologized in fairy tales and depicted in advertisements and on the flag of Russia’s top political party. They are as hallowed in Russia as the bald eagle is in the United States.

Today, however, Russia’s bears are on the attack.

Some thirty gigantic and ravenously hungry Kamchatka brown bears have already killed and eaten two men at a platinum mine in Russia’s Far Eastern Kamchatka region and appear to be hunting for more. People in the region have been forced to cower in their homes waiting for hunters to dispose of the animals, which can stand 10 feet tall and weigh up to 1,500 pounds.

Local officials have considered exterminating the creatures, and a group of hunters has already been dispatched to the region where most of the bears have gathered. Hunters killed at least 300 bears last year and poachers shot about 600 more illegally, the Guardian reported.
“These predators have to be destroyed,” Viktor Leushkin, a village official, told Itar-Tass. “Once they kill a human, they will do it again and again.”

The Kamchatka brown bears are massive, weighing up to 1,500 pounds, but they typically shy away from humans. Yet a sharp decline in salmon, their traditional food, due to poaching has forced them to seek out other food sources, as more and more unfortunate people have come to discover.

The wilds of Kamchatka, an ethereal region of active volcanoes and hot springs, is not the only place in Russia facing attacks by hungry bears. The Times Online reports that three people have died this year from bear attacks on near-by Sakhalin Island. Another woman was found mauled to death in Petropavlovsk-Kamchatski, the capital of the Kamchatka region.

REEF FISHES VOLUME 5 ON THE HORIZON!

2008-07-25T12:29:00.000-07:00

Front and back cover of Volume 5.

Example of a couple of pages from the Paracheilinus, flasher wrasse, section.

OK, I admit it. I have been a bad blogger. For over a month I did not contribute to my incoherent musings. I am sorry, but I think I have a good excuse. I have been diligently working on the latest Reef Fishes volume – this one on the wrasses (family Labridae). Yes, scarids (parrotfishes) are also included in the title, but they shouldn’t be as they do not get equal coverage in this volume. I apologize to you parrotfish fans from the get go. Unfortunately, because of space limitations, I could not include comprehensive coverage of both the scarids and the labrids. Since the later group is more important to the aquarium community, and I find them more interesting, I decided to invest the bulk of the book into the wrasses. The book is actually larger than it was supposed to be. It is 400 pages (the pomacentrids book was 256 pages). Of course, the labrid family is a big one – over 600 species – so I suspected that the publishers would be willing to devote a few more pages to them. But I exceeded the proposed size by at least 50 pages. The book should be available in a couple of months - I will certainly let you know on this blog. I hope you like it. Be assured, I will be adding to the blog more regularly until the next book is nearing the due date!

Starving Bears Eat Two Men at Russian Mines

2008-07-24T15:04:00.000-07:00

MOSCOW — A pack of enormous bears searching for food killed and ate two men at mines in Russia's Pacific Kamchatka region and have kept hundreds of geologists and miners from reaching the mine, news agencies reported Wednesday.

A pack of up to 30 Kamchatka bears—which are similar to grizzlies—prowled around two mines of a local platinum mining company where they killed the two guards on Thursday, local officials were quoted by the Russian ITAR-Tass news agency as saying.

About 400 company workers have refused to return to the mines for fear of the bears, which stand 10 feet tall on their hind legs and weigh up to 1,500 pounds, Interfax reported.

About 10 bears have also been seen near the village of Khailino sniffing fish remains and other garbage.

Village official Viktor Leushkin was quoted by ITAR-Tass as saying that a team of hunters will be dispatched to shoot or chase off the bears.

"These predators have to be destroyed," Leushkin was quoted as saying. "Once they kill a human, they will do it again and again."

Rampant fish poaching in the Kamchatka tundra often forces the bears to seek other sources of food, such as garbage. Bears frequently attack humans in the scarcely populated peninsula region.”

________________________________________________________

The article above appeared on a news website on July 24th, 2008. It characterizes the “if it bleeds, it leads” sensationalism that is common in the media, especially when it comes to large predatory animals like grizzly/brown bears.

How dangerous are the Kamchatka brown bears? If you only read the article above, and the other half-truths spewed by the media about bears, you would think the Russian bruins are naturally inclined to include Homo sapiens on their menu. But is this really the case?

Introduction to Kamchatka

The Kamchatka Peninsula, which is located in far east Russia, is 1,250 kilometers long, with an area of about 470,000 square kilometers. Human density on the peninsula is very low (just over 400,000 people), with over half of the population dwelling in two cities. As far as its geology and ecology, it is very similar to parts of Alaska (e.g., Alaskan Peninsula), boasting many volcanoes, tundra, boreal forests, sedge meadows and large rivers running to the sea – the latter serve as spawning grounds for salmonids. There are also areas on the peninsula that yield large berry crops.

The berries and the fish are an important food source for the most noteworthy member of the Kamchatka fauna - the brown bear. This animal is the same species/subspecies as the North American brown or grizzly bear. It was once referred to as Ursus arctos piscator, but has since been lumped under the U. arctos arctos subspecies moniker.

The area has one of the largest brown bear populations on earth. Estimates of population density vary. Current figures range from 3-5 bears/ per 100 square kilometers. In 1992, it was estimated that the Kamchatka region was home to 8,000 to 10,000 brown bears (Revenko, 1992).

While part of the peninsula is now classified as a nature preserve (Kronotsky Nature Preserve), poachers have killed many bears in this area to “harvest” their gall bladders. Trophy hunters also come from all around the world, and pay big money, to legally hunt these bears. One author reported that the true giants that once roamed the area are now few and far between due to legal hunting (hunters want to shoot the biggest boars) and poaching. There are a number of other external pressures impacting the Kamchatka bear population, including agricultural development, mining and road construction.

So how Dangerous?

So, back to our original question: how dangerous is the Kamchatka brown bear? Let's look at the scientific literature and what it says about these animals. Stroganov (1969) says the following about Russia’s brown bears: “The bears in the Ussuri territory and Kamchatka are usually very peaceful, and attack humans only when wounded and not always even then.” Does this sound like the bears described in the news story above, roaming in packs, hunting humans?

The late Russian bear researcher Vitaly Nikolayenko wrote the following about Kamchatka bears, “A bear instinctively fears man... A bear has two alternatives – either run away or charge you. Most often the bear runs away. Bears prefer to avoid each other because if they choose to fight, they run the risk of injury. All bears, including dominant males, avoid humans.”

Kistchinski (1972) says of the Kamchatka bears, “The brown bears in the near-Pacific regions are very peaceable and present hardly any danger to man. Apparently, their reflex to attack an animal of their own size is not developed. Only single cases of unprovoked attacks are known (mainly by bears active in winter). During the rutting time in uninhabited areas male bears are very unwary and sometimes come up straight to man or a caravan of pack horses.”

Revenko (1994) concludes that the Kamchatka brown bear “is usually a peaceful animal.” He quantified his 270 encounters with these bears and found that 70 % of the time the bear ran off, 14 % of the time the bear watched him and then walked away, 12 % of the time they were indifferent, 3 % of the time they exhibited threat behavior and in one case a sow with cub actually attacked him after he accidentally disturbed the young bear. He lists 13 “attacks” on humans: in five cases the person was killed, in three the person was injured and in five cases, the assaulted individual sustained no injuries. In his report, he breaks the data down further: in four cases the bear was suddenly encountered at a short distance, in three cases the bear had been injured by hunters, in two cases it was a sow defending its young, in one case a bear had pursued a hunting dog which ran to its owner which the bear then attacked, and in a final case a bear entered a village and killed a man in the springtime (probably the only case where the ursid was predating on a Homo sapien).

In recent times, there have been two well documented attacks in Kamchatka. In 1997, Michio Hoshino, a well-known nature photographer, was attacked and killed by a brown bear that had been exhibiting aberrant behavior (it has broken into a cabin and a helicopter to get at human food). Although the warning signs of a potentially dangerous brown bear were there and noted, Hoshino decided that he would continue to camp in a tent in an area where the ursid had been spotted rather than slumbering in a crowded cabin with other photographers. His poor judgment cost him his life.

Vitaly Nikolayenko, the Russian naturalist mentioned above, had been studying the bears in this region for over 35 years and was killed by a large, bellicose boar that he followed into thick bushes. The brown bear cuffed the Russian ursidophile once in the head, killing him, before fleeing. Vitaly’s familiarity with bears had led to reckless behavior. Notes that Vitaly had written down during his final summer of bear observation (in 2003) told of a large male brown bear (apparently the one that killed him) that had lunged at him and jaw popped when Nikolayenko moved near. He said of this bear “He is vicious and dangerous.” Even so, he kept pressing the bear just to see if he could win it over.

So, while there is no doubt that the Kamchatka brown bear must be respected and has been implicated in attacks on human, before you believe everything said in the report above about marauding packs of brown bears in the Kamchatka mines, remember that the media see the great bear through blood covered glasses!

References:

"Кроноцкий государственный биосферный заповедник, Долина Гейзеров. Туры по Камчатке с камчатской туристической компанией". www.kamchatkatravel.net. 2008.

Kistchinski, A. A. 1972. Life History of the Brown Bear (Ursus arctos L.) in North-East Siberia. In: Bears: Their Biology and Management, Vol. 2, A Selection of Papers from the Second International Conference on Bear Research and Management, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 6-9 November 1970. IUCN Publications New Series no. 23 (1972), pp. 67-73

Revenko, I. A. 1994. Brown Bear (Ursus arctos piscator) Reaction to Humans on Kamchatka. In: Bears: Their Biology and Management, Vol. 9, Part 1: A Selection of Papers from the Ninth International Conference on Bear Research and Management, Missoula, Montana, February 23-28, 1992 (1994), pp. 107-108

GLORIOUS FAIRY WRASSE!

2008-06-10T05:38:00.000-07:00

A large male Cirrhilabrus roseafascia - the redtripe fairy wrasse - displaying at a rival. Photo Scott W. Michael.

The splendid fairy wrasse is certainly worthy of its name! Scott W. Michael.

How about that for an amazing fairy wrasse! This is a large male Cirrhilabrus roseafascia Randall & Lubbock, 1982, which is known commonly as the redstripe, roseband or pink-banded fairy wrasse. It gets around 20 cm in length and is known from New Caledonia, Vanuatu, Tonga, Fiji, Samoa, Palau and the Philippines. (Most of those in the aquarium trade are coming from Vanuatu and Tonga.) This large, beautiful fairy wrasse is found on deep reef slopes and drop-offs. It has been reported from 30 to 113 m, although juveniles may occur at lesser depths. It is a spectacular display animal (as you can see from the photograph).

The redstripe fairy wrasse tends to acclimate readily, but may acclimate more quickly if housed in a deepwater reef or dimly lit aquarium. They are not particularly aggressive, but because they tend to be larger than most congeners, they are usually the dominant fairy wrasse in the tank. It is a good jumper. Mostly females and small to medium-sized males found in the trade. The large males are ostentatious! Male C. roseafascia tend to be pink overall with an orange line along the back, often with a yellow dorsal and anal fin. It is distinguished by close relatives by the pelvic fins, with have a blue and or black and blue patch. The male in the photo above is displaying toward another fish.

There is another, closely related form that sometimes comes into the aquarium trade. It is apparently undescribed and is commonly known as the splendid or pintail fairy wrasse (Cirrhilabrus sp.). It differs from C. roseafascia in that is has a lanceolate caudal fin (a pointed tail). This species is also known from the Izu and Ryuku Islands, Taiwan, and the Philippines and reaches a maximum length of 12 cm. It has been reported from deepwater (32 to 40 m).While it has been referred to as Cirrhilabrus cf. lanceolatus in the past (Kuiter 2002), it is no doubt a distinct species. It makes it into the aquarium trade on rare occasions and does well in captivity. I have seen it available at www.liveaquaria.com on rare occasions. In fact, the specimen in the photo above was in the tank of the manager of liveaquaria.com, my fish buddy, Kevin Kohen. You can regularly find C. roseafascia at this website (click on the link on the right side of the page), although large males are less frequently available.

Copyright (2008) Scott W. Michael
FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com

GRIZZLY OR BROWN BEAR?

2008-06-09T12:41:00.001-07:00

This series of photos is intended to demonstrate just how variable the brown bear is in a single population - all of these bears were photographed last year in early August along the Katmai coast. A young adult brown bear is shown above (sex unknown). Photo by Scott W. Michael.

An adult female known as Ms. Hook (she had two spring cubs at this time). Photo by Scott W. Michael.

Queenie, an elderly sow. Photo by Scott W. Michael.

A young adult male. Photo by Scott W. Michael.

Adult boar named Mickey. Photo by Scott W. Michael.

A large boar (in his prime) dubbed Pythagoras. Photo by Scott W. Michael.

A very large, older boar. Dripping saliva is visible resulting from jaw injury. Scott W. Michael.

Although sporting some nicks and cuts, this boar is in his prime - this is Tank. Scott W. Michael.

Ursus arctos is one of the most revered and feared beasts on earth. This mammal has been given numerous appellations, including grizzly, brown, coastal brown, Alaska brown and Kodiak bear. As a neophyte to bear classification, I found myself very confused by the common vernacular, as well as the scientific nomenclature applied to this bruin. How many species or subspecies are there and do these common names represent disparate populations?

It turns out that all of these common names refer to a single species - Ursus arctos. Typically, the term brown bear (as well as coastal and Alaskan brown bear) is applied to U. arctos populations that live in coastal Alaska, while Kodiak bear is used for “brownie” populations that live in the Kodiak Island archipelago (this includes the islands of Kodiak, Afognak, and Shuyak). Grizzly is usually reserved for U. arctos populations in the interior of Alaska, in Canada and the lower 48 states. While you can call them whatever common name you wish, they are all Ursus arctos.

OK - HOW MANY SUBSPECIES?

So they all fall under the single binomial Ursus arctos - but are brown and grizzly bears different enough to warrant distinct subspecies status? And how about the Kodiak bear – doesn’t it represent a different subspecies? (OK, I know many of you are starting to suffer from brain fog because of taxonomic overload, but I enjoy this stuff, so bear with me!)

Traditionally, subspecies have been defined as populations that differ slightly from one another, but that are not disparate enough to be elevated to the level of distinct species. In most cases, a subspecies represents a group of individuals that has been isolated from the main population long enough to exhibit some degree of change, but yet if they breed with members of the original population they will still produce viable offspring.

There has been much debate about how many subspecies of U. arctos actually exist in North America. In the early twentieth century (1918 to be exact) it was proposed that there were 86 subspecies of U. arctos in North America alone! This classification scheme was soon shot to pieces by the taxonomically-inclined, leading bruin biologists to recognize only two subspecies: the mainland populations, which were recognized as Ursus arctos horribilis, and the bear population of the Kodiak Island archipelago, which were referred to as U. a. middendorffi.

So, everything appeared to be as clear as mud until DNA analysis came on the scene. DNA has a biochemical signature that enables scientists to distinguish species and study their degree of relatedness. Recently, using mitochondrial DNA, researchers struck a body blow to the widely accepted North American-Ursus arctos classification scheme. These molecular surveys indicate that there is actually only one subspecies of brown bear in all of North America – this subspecies should be called Ursus arctos arctos (no more horribilis or middendorffi).

In a nutshell, this means that the grizzly bear, Kodiak bear and brown bear are all the same beast. It is a wide-ranging subspecies that does not only roam throughout North America, it is also found over much of Eurasia as well. That’s right, U. arctos arctos is a circum-global species, having been reported from the Balkans, Caucasus, Carpathians, Pyrenees, Italy (Abruzzo and the Benta Mountains), the Baltic States, Scandinavia (excluding Denmark), Greece, Syria, Russia and the countries of the Tibetan plateau (China, Tibet and Nepal). That said, there are a number of other valid subspecies on the European and Asian continents. (A side note: another very odd conclusion the molecule purveyors came to is that certain populations of brown bears are more closely related to the polar bear [Ursus maritimus] then they are to other brown bears! Now my head hurts!)

AMAZING VARIABILITY

While it may be that brown and grizzly bears are not distinct on the molecular level, some bear buffs still insist that the inland grizzly and coastal brown bears are different animals. There is no doubt, that some individuals from coastal regions do not look like their inland kin. A male coastal brown bear often has a more elongated neck, longer legs, and more protuberant face than its landlocked “cousin,” while inland boars are often more compact, with a shorter neck, shorter appendages and more concave face. But when it comes to physical appearances, there are no hard fast rules that can be consistently used to separate the coastal and inland populations.

This incredible variability in U. arctos populations is acutely demonstrated by the studies of Dr. Ian Sterling and Andrew DeRocher. These researchers examined a set of male U. arctos skulls from the Caucus Mountains, Russia. They noted that while some skulls looked like those of a “classic” brown bear, there was also a skull that resembled a panda (with short face and high profile) and another that looked more like a wolf cranium (i.e., it was more elongate and slender)!

Above, I mentioned that in 1918, a researcher described 86 different “species” of brown and grizzly bears in North America. Most of his research was based on the examination of skulls at the National Museum (sometimes only a single specimen of a particular “species”). Another researcher came-up with an even more elaborate classification scheme – he concluded that the skeletons of extinct and modern day brown bears he examined represented 232 distinct ursid species. In actual fact they all belonged to the highly variable U. arctos!

You only have to look at the photos of the brown bears in this blog (I have included a number of shots above) to see that most grizzlies do not look exactly alike. In fact, individuals are often so unique in appearance that bear-viewers regularly name them and readily recognize them from one year to the next. Some individuals have big ears; in others the ears are relatively petite. The bodies of some are long and lanky, while those of others are short and squat. Some have a long, prominent snout; others have the “classic” grizzly “dish” (concave) face. Some of these characteristics also change from spring to fall (e.g., bears get girthy as they pile on weight for the winter) and as the bears age (e.g., subadult males tend to be more gracile and finely built than males in their prime). The color of the pelage is not a constant either -there are blond, brunette, black furred and, on rare occasions, even white brown bears! In conclusion, while there may be differences between some individuals in coastal and inland population, you cannot consistently distinguish between the different populations.

Copyright (2008) Scott W. Michael
FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com

DEEPWATER HOGFISH

2008-06-07T14:00:00.000-07:00

A captive fivestripe hogfish smiles for the camera - actually, he is attacking his reflection in the aquarium glass! Photo by Scott W. Michael.

How about a cool hogfish – more exactly the fivestripe hogfish (Bodianus paraleucosticticus). It was recently described in a revision of the genus based on research done by Dr. Martin Gomon. This hogfish is a member of a group that includes a number of species which Gomon (2006) places in the subgenus Peneverreo. This includes three other species that tend to occur in deep water (usually depths of around 50 m or more) and have very scattered geographic distributions. The species in this subgenus all have narrow red or orange stripes along the body with a back spot on the base of the pectoral fin in juveniles and initial phase individuals.

It is a little known species that has been reported from Papua New Guinea, Bali, Palau, New Caledonia, Vanuatu, and the Cook Islands. It no doubt has a wider distribution than this, as it is a deepwater species that is just not captured or seen very often. Gomon (2006) reports that it occurs at depths of about 45 to at least 100 m (probably much deeper than this) on reef walls with numerous caves and ledges.

Very few of these fish have been imported for the aquarium trade. I have kept a single specimen which proved to be fairly hardy. It was quite frenetic when first added to the tank, dashing back and forth until it was so worn out it would stop, lay on its side for several minutes, and pant! It was not too aggressive and quickly learned to feed on frozen mysid shrimp. It was quite shy for some time, retreating to a cave or behind the rock work when there was activity near the tank. But after a while, it became more brazen. This B. paraleucosticticus would also display at and attack its reflection in the aquarium glass.

I would not add it to a tank with potential aggressors, like larger hogfish, other large wrasses, big damsels, or pugnacious triggerfishes. If my specimen was indicative of the species, they may hide constantly if they are picked on. Because it occurs at greater depths, it may prefer cooler water temperatures. I would suggest an optimal temperature range of 72 to 78 º Fahrenheit. So, where do you get one? I was sent the specimen I kept from Kevin Kohen at www. liveaquaria.com (see link to the right) – that is only place I have seen this available.

Copyright (2008) Scott W. Michael
FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com

LOVE THEM LIOPROPOMA!

2008-06-06T18:20:00.000-07:00

Check out this new Liopropoma sent to me by my fish buddy, Kevin Kohen at www.liveaquaria .com (go see the fish they have for sale by clicking the link on the right side of the page). At first I thought it was the pinstripe reef basslet (Liopropoma susumi), but after closer inspection I have concluded it may be something different. The nostril and head pore pattern (you can see them in the accompanying photo), the pectoral ray count (14 rather than the 15 or 16 present in L. susumi) and the color don’t quite match-up with the pinstripe reef basslet. According to Kev, my fish came from Indonesia. Like others in the genus, it is proving to be quite secretive, although he just arrived last night and is already coming out to accept mysid shrimp (he makes very quick forays into the open to snag the food items and then dashes back to cover). I am a huge fan of the reef basslets, although they are too secretive for some aquarists. To me, a fish that occasionally pops out to make its presence known (or at least to snap up a morsel), makes a fascinating and mysterious addition to the reef tank. Thanks for this one Kev!

(In a future post, I will present photos of some closely related Liopropoma to aid those interested in telling them apart.)

Copyright (2008) Scott W. MichaelFREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com

BIRD FOOD (AVIAN-EATING BEARS)

2008-06-06T17:25:00.000-07:00

Puffins on Ninagiak Island - brown bears will swim to the island from the Katmai coast in order to take exploit ground nesting sea birds. Photo by Scott W. Michael.

Birds are not staple fare in most grizzly bear diets. But being the opportunists that they are, these bruins will sometimes feed on the eggs and chicks of ground nesting birds. The first report of bird-eating I could find in the literature comes from a paper on the brown bears of Kamchatka (Bergman 1936). This naturalist reports that Russian U. arctos enter marshy areas before the salmon run to raid the nests of water fowl (i.e., “wild ducks”).

In a more recent reports, grizzlies in the Canadian Arctic Region (Tuktoyaktuk Peninsula) were observed eating the eggs of snow geese (Chen caerulescens) and adult ptarmigan (Lagopus spp.) (the latter is a rare event), while coastal brown bears, along the Katmai coast, have been observed capturing seagulls that were attempting to share a fish meal. In the “lower 48,” Gunther and Renkin (1989) observed Yellowstone grizzlies attempting to capture ducks (Anatidae), Canadian geese (Branta canadensis) and sandhill cranes (Grus canadensis). This occurred on rare occasions and the bears were never seen to successfully capture avian prey. Even so, there is no doubt that they do occasionally capture and eat these birds.

Campbell (1991) found that brown bears invaded the nests of the dusky Canada goose (Branta canadensis occidentalis) on the Copper River Delta, Alaska. About 50 % of the nests in this area succumb to predator activity and subadult and female brown bears with young were implicated in over half of all nests destroyed (males and solitary females rarely enter the nesting area). The bears would enter the nesting areas as soon as the geese began nesting until mid to late summer, at which time they moved to salmon streams.

Brown bears greatly impact the distribution of certain seabirds on the islands along the Katmai coast. Here, U. arctos has been observed swimming relatively long distances to gain access to ground nesting birds. For example, in Hallo Bay, Katmai National Park, brown bears will swim the 3.2 km (2 mi.) to Ninagiak Island to feed on the eggs of glaucous-winged gulls (Larus glaucescens) and puffins (Fratercula corniculata and F. cirrhata). Bailey and Faust (1984) reported the following at another island in the area:

“A sizeable tufted puffin colony…was destroyed by a brown bear. When we visited this island.. only about 100 puffins were milling about the grassy, burrow-ridden headlands, and a bear was systematically excavating burrows around the island’s perimeter. Entire slopes were dug up to the depths of nest chambers, and eggs shells and feathers were common.”

Puffins often nest in colonies. They dig burrows that are usually around 1 to 1.2 m (3 or 4 ft.) deep (there are reports of tufted puffins digging burrows as deep as 2.75 m [9 ft.]). In some areas, like Ninagiak Island, the burrows are dug on hillsides among scattered rocks and boulders. Brown bears use their long claws and massive shoulder muscles to displace rocks and earth in order to penetrate the nesting chamber. Both Alaskan species of puffin lay a single egg that hatches in 42 to 47 days. The chicks fledge for another 45 to 55 days, remaining in the burrow this entire time. While one parent takes care of the egg or chick, the other goes out to fish for food. Eggs and young puffins are available as bear food from at least June to August or September. On islands frequented by bears, puffins are rare.

Gull populations can also be impacted by the presence of coastal brown bears. Bailey and Faust (1984) report that gull nests were often found destroyed by bears and that bruins limit where these bird’s reproduce. They conclude that:

“The ubiquitous bears probably are largely responsible for the fact that fewer seabirds nest between Kamishak and Amber Bays than along any similar length of coastline on the Alaska Peninsula.”

The glaucous-winged gull, which is targeted by brown bears on Ninagiak Island, usually scrapes its nest in the ground and fills it with bits of grass, weed, moss, roots, twigs, turf, seaweed, etc. To give you some idea how profitable gulls can be as a food source for bears, consider this. Glaucous-winged gulls form nesting colonies which can number from 10 to as many as 10,000 pairs. Sometimes other gulls also form part of these large nesting aggregations. From 1 to 3 eggs are laid. They hatch in mid- to late June and are raised within the nesting territory.

During their study, Bailey and Faust (1984) observed 40 brown bears on or swimming between islands. They reported that many of these were sows and their cubs. It is advantageous for a mother bear to take her offspring to one of these offshore islands, not only because of the ready supply of “bird-food,” but also the island is likely to provide a safer refuge away from marauding male conspecifics. It is likely that cubs that were taken to an island by their mother, will return with their out young in time.

References:

Bailey, E. P. and N. H. Faust. 1984. Distribution and abundance of marine birds breeding between Amber and Kamishak Bays, Alaska, with notes on interactions with bears. Western Birds 15:161-174.

Campbell, B. H. 1991. Activities of Brown Bears on the Copper River Delta, Alaska and Their Impact on Nesting Dusky Canada Geese. Northwestern Naturalist, 72:92-99

COMING CLEAN ABOUT CLEANERS!

2008-06-04T14:41:00.000-07:00

A Kidako moray (Gymnothorax kidako) sporitng a Labroides mustache! A young bluestreak cleaner wrasse works over the eel, grazing on slime and ectoparasites. But how do these wrasses do in captivity? Scott W. Michael.

The cleaner wrasse genus Labroides is comprised of five very species that rely almost entirely on cleaning to obtain nutrients as both juveniles and adults. Cleaning behavior is defined as a mutualistic relationship that exists between certain parasite-picking fishes and their piscine neighbors (the client or host species). The cleaner wrasse removes parasites, and also some slime and scales, from the client fish. This benefit to the client is that it hosts fewer annoying parasites.

Although the cleaner wrasses vary somewhat in their aquarium suitability, most members of this genus are considered difficult to maintain long-term in the home aquarium. There may be one exception to this – it is the bluestreak cleaner wrasse (Labroides dimidiatus). Although we have long considered it difficult to keep this species in North America, unless it was held with numerous fishes on which to “graze,” the Europeans consider it a good beginners fish! It is so popular there, that in 2002 it was one of the top ten species exported to the European Union. The Europeans report some encouraging longevity records. For example, the Nancy Aquarium, France has kept L. dimidiatus for over 11 years, while a lifespan of over six years has been reported to me by several European reef-keepers.

The biggest problem with the Labroides involves feeding. With the possible exception of L. dimidiatus, most species reject captive fare. As a result, they rely totally on the ectoparasites and slime present on their fish tankmates to meet their nutritional needs. This may not be as big of a problem if you have a large tank that has lots of potential clients, the cleaner wrasse may be able to acquire enough nutrients by grazing slime, and the occasional parasite. But if there is relatively little grazing surface (i.e., fish bodies), then the cleaner will not get enough food to stay alive. Not all potential hosts are as valuable a food source as others (that is, those species that produce more slime are more desirable). Therefore, the types of fishes you keep the cleaner with may impact its chances of survival as well. Those species of cleaner wrasses (e.g., L. phthirophagus) that rely heavily on fish slime as a nutrient source, will usually perish in quick order in most home aquariums. There is an occasional cleaner wrasse (usually individual L. dimidiatus) that will accept foods like finely chopped shrimp, mysid shrimp, frozen brine, freeze-dried tubifex worms, or even frozen prepared foods, and flake foods. One way to induce a finicky cleaner to feed is to present them with a live or fresh mussel that has had the valves forced open so that they can pick at the “meat” within.

Cleaner Wrasse Pros and Cons

Unfortunately for the aquarist, cleaner wrasses do not consume the most problematic aquarium parasites - the protozoa and dinoflagellates. Therefore, cleaners are not recommended as a means of biological control of for ich (Cryptocaryon irritans) or velvet (Amyloodinium ocellatum) outbreaks. But cleaner wrasses will control another group of parasites that frequently infect our fishes. It has been shown that the cleaning behavior of the bluestreak cleaner wrasse can reduce the number of the monogenetic flatworms (Benedenia lolo) in aquarium-held fishes. (Food choice studies have shown that when given a choice of four different foods [mucus, parasitic monogenean flatworms, gnathiid isopods, and a control] the bluestreak cleaner wrasse fed more on mucus and monogeneans.) While the L. dimidiatus did not eliminate all of the flatworms, they did help keep their numbers in check. There is also evidence that indicates these wrasses will pick off the cyst-phase of the flatworm (Paravortex sp.), which is commonly referred to as black ich (a.k.a. yellow tang disease). As a result, the Labroides spp. may also aid in controlling the outbreak of this ectoparasite in a closed system. Finally, bluestreak cleaner wrasse will remove the cauliflower-like growths associated with the viral infection Lymphocystis.

But adding a cleaner wrasse to a tank of fishes also has a downside. There are some “costs” associated with visiting a cleaner wrasse. The Labroides feed on host mucus, scales, and skin, especially when ectoparasites are in short supply. Because most of the parasites on the cleaners bill-of-fare are in short supply in the home aquarium, the captive Labroides will ingest larger quantities of fish slime and scales in order to survive. Because of a loss of its external protection, a “captive client” is likely to be more susceptible to bacterial infections and infections by protozoa and dinoflagellate parasites. It is only logical that a cleaner is going to be more of a menace in a smaller tank that contains fewer potential clients to feed off of. Therefore, if you are going to keep a Labroides, it would be wise to house it in a larger tank with a relatively large fish community. In a large tank it will also be easier for potential clients to avoid the attentions of a cleaner wrasse.

A client fish that gets nipped by a cheating Labroides may retaliate by chasing it off. This behavior is commonly seen in the aquarium and can be problematic for the cleaner, as certain tankmates may persistently attack it anytime it comes near. On rare occasions, a exasperated fish may turn on the cleaner and kill it. For example, triggerfishes have been known to dispatch an annoying cleaner wrasse. On the other hand, Labroides will sometimes hound less maneuverable species, like puffers, trunkfishes, and porcupinefishes, causing them great duress. This pestering may even elicit an Ostracion trunkfish to emit its deadly toxins and wipe out a whole captive community. A confused cleaner might persistently attempt to nip at and chase fishes with small spots. In some cases, it appears that the cleaner is attempting to feed on the “parasite-like” markings.

Copyright (2008) Scott W. Michael

FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com

GROLAR BEAR NEWS

2008-06-04T12:45:00.001-07:00

News about the grolar bear - the grizzly - polar bear hybrid. Click here for more info.

JAW SLINGER! A NEW SPECIES OF EPIBULUS.

2008-06-03T10:57:00.000-07:00

A male Epibulus brevis, the dwarf slingjaw wrasse, photographed in the Raja Ampat Islands, West Papua. Photo by Scott W. Michael.

The yellow color form of the female Epibulus brevis photographed in Lembeh Strait, Sulawesi. Note the black coloration on the pectoral fins. Photo by Scott W. Michael.

The brown color form of the female Epibulus brevis photographed in Lembeh Strait, Sulawesi. Note the yellow spot on the dorsum. Photo by Scott W. Michael.

The slingjaw wrasse (Epibulus insidiator) is a well known member of Indo-Pacific reef fish communities. It has also been recognized for some time that a strange, smaller slingjaw wrasse was lurking around coral reefs of the Western Pacific. (Some of us thought it was simply a color variant of E. insidiator.) It took ichthyologist, Dr. Bruce Carlson, to solve the Epibulus mystery, once and for all. Bruce, along with the god of reef fish taxonomy, Dr. John Randall, and molecular biologist, Michael Dawson, described Epibulus brevis, commonly known as the dwarf slingjaw wrasse, earlier this year.

Carlson et al. (2008) report E. brevis from Palau, the Philippines, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Sulawesi, Bali, Lombok, and Flores in Indonesia. I recently observed this fish in West Papua as well. It differs from E. insidiator in color. The males of this species are all brown with yellow on the throat area, on the caudal fin and a yellow marking at the opercular flap. Females vary in color from dark to light brown to yellow or almost white. The pectoral fins of the female almost always have black on the pectoral fins. The dwarf slingjaw also has longer pectoral fins than E. insidiator and there are also genetically distinct.

What is refreshing about this paper, is that it not only deals with taxonomy issues, but also compares the biology of the two known Epibulus spp. For example, the authors examined the stomach contents of both slingjaw species. The stomach contents of 20 E. brevis consisted mostly of crustaceans (crabs and shrimps), with only one larger individual (17.2 cm [6.8 in.]) containing both fishes and crabs. They also examined the “gut” contents of 31 E. insidiator and observed that the stomachs yielded more fish than E. brevis, but also crabs, shrimps, and polychaete worms. The authors suggest that the larger size of the E. insidiator may explain their proclivity to ingest more fish (likewise, smaller E. insidiator tended to contain more crustaceans than larger conspecifics). In both species, prey was highly masticated as a result of the actions of the pharyngeal teeth.

There are also some subtle differences between the behavior of the two species. Male E. insidiator will patrol high in the water column. When patrolling, the dorsal and anal fins are contracted, while the caudal fin is spread open extended. Most of male E. insidiator activity occurs over prominent reef features such as coral promontories and large boulders, which apparently serve as sites where the fish rendezvous with potential mates. Females hover or swim slowly about these sites and occasionally bob up and down as they move near a male. According to Colin and Bell (in Carlson et al. 2008), E. brevis spawns at sunset. Males do swim around a territory and occasionally rise into the water column, but they engage in less flagrant displays than E. insidiator and usually remain nearer the sea floor. When attempting to entice a female to spawn, a male E. brevis will swim around his potential mate with all his fins collapsed. However, the median fins are spread as the pair rise into the water column to spawn. There may even be differences in habitat preferences. Epibulus insidiator tends to occur in clear, outer reef habitats, while E. brevis is more common in protected areas.

There are many more reef fishes that have long been known to reef fish taxonomists that await formal descriptions. But, I for one, and very happy that the new Epibulus has finally been given a moniker.

References

Carlson, B. A., J. E. Randall, and M. N. Dawson. 2008. A New Species of Epibulus (Perciformes: Labridae) from the West Pacific. Copiea 2008 (2): 476-483.

Copyright (2008) Scott W. Michael

FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com

MALEVOLENT MOTHERS AND BRUIN BABYSITTING: PART 2

2008-06-03T09:05:00.000-07:00

The brown bear sow (Ms. Hook) that trusted us to babysit her two spring cubs for approximately 20 minutes.

The spring cubs occasionally look back to observe us, but for the most part seemed completely comfortable with being "cached" with Homo sapiens. All photos by Scott W. Michael.

In the last bear post (click here to read), we looked at how mother bears will utilize the presence of human groups to increase their level of security while nursing their young – a indicator of their ability to learn and their behavioral plasticity. Last year (2007) in Katmai, our group was able to witness an even more amazing phenomenon, related to sows and dependent cubs. This behavior has been dubbed as “cub-caching.” During this behavior, instead of moving close to human groups to nurse, the sow will approach a hominid cluster with her cubs, and then leave her offspring with the humans while she goes off to fish among the other bears. That’s right, they employ our species to babysit their youngsters! Quite a contrast to the mother bear described in my last posting that attacked the two hikers in Glacier National Park, eh (click here)? Once again, the root cause is the fact that some large boars have an aversion to us and at least some sows have learned to take advantage of it. By leaving their young cubs near a group of people, the sows can go fish without putting their offspring at risk of being attacked by other bears.

During my stay at Katmai National Park, our group experienced cub caching on three separate occasions. Our first experience with this behavior went something like this: mother bear (dubbed Ms. Hook) came sauntering along a tributary that snaked from the river mouth to the sea, with two small shapes trotting along some distance behind her. The two cubs were lagging behind, occasionally stopping to sniff the sand and to pick-up bits of debris (e.g., shells) in their mouths. When the sow was adjacent to our little clump of humanity (about 4 m away) she stopped and waited for her kinder to catch-up. When they did, she abruptly vocalized and the two cubs plopped down on the wet sand. I assume the vocalization was their cue that we were in charge for while. Mother bear then proceeded to head for the prime fishing area, 60 to 80 yards further along and into the estuary, and join the other bears that were already chasing and jumping on their illusive quarry. So there we were, 3 to 4 m from two winsome spring cubs that were not at all concerned about the gawking band of two-legged, one-eyed anthropoids (that one- eye was the lenses protruding from the camera that are faces were pressed up against)! The cubs simply sat on their haunches and watched their mother leave, they turned to check us out, one laid back in repose, they checked out debris in the sand – in short, they were ideal little charges!

After five minutes or so, they moved along in front of us (much to the delight of the photographers as they had originally parked themselves between us and the sun) and sat down side-by-side with their backs facing us. They remained there until a big pulse of salmon entered the estuary mouth and all hell broke loose with the adult bears chasing fish in various directions. The sudden commotion startled the little bears, which ran past us and took up a position behind our group. They remained there for a little while longer until mom came back to pick them up.

I could not believe what I had just witnessed - I had read about it, but to actually see it happen was mind altering! To have this powerful, often misunderstood mother, entrust us with her seven month old offspring while she went off to catch her supper! The photos above were all shot during our first baby-sitting (cub-caching) encounter. That 20 minute period was worth the cost of the entire trip and was no doubt my most memorable wildlife encounter!

Copyright (2008) Scott W. Michael

FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com

UNARMED PERCHLET (PLECTRANTHIAS INERMIS)

2008-06-02T11:53:00.000-07:00

Do you have an unarmed perchlet in your tank yet? WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR?? Photo by Scott W. Michael.

There are over 40 species in the genus, many of which would make fascinating aquarium inhabitants. This is one of the most spectacular members of the genus, Pelicer's perchlet (Plectranthias pelicieri). It is rarely collected and those specimens that are go to the Japanese ornamental fish trade. Photo by Tsuyoshi Kawamoto.

There are a number of fish species that have become quite common in the aquarium trade in the last six years. One of these, that I am most excited about, is an aberrant member of the subfamily Anthiinae. That’s right – it, and its kin (i.e., other members of the genus Plectranthias), are freaks of the subfamily. Most of the anthias spend the daylight hours in the water column, snapping up zooplanktors. But the freaky little perchlets behave more like hawkfishes (family Cirrhitidae) than their anthias relatives (so much is their likeness to a cirrhitid, that P. inermis is often sold in the aquarium hobby as the “geometric hawkfish.”) Rather than soaring about, high in the water column, they spend their time in repose on the seafloor. The are very cryptic, hiding among coral rubble or among stony coral branches during the day. These little fishes are often most active at dusk and dawn, or in dimly-lit microhabitats, like on rubble-covered cave bottoms or in the shadow of reef overhangs.

The unarmed perchlet (Plectranthias inermis) is a small fish, attaining about 5 cm in total length, that is ideal for the nano-reef aquarium. It is a threat to small ornamental shrimp (e.g., anemone shrimp), but otherwise, your prized invertebrates will be safe in the perchlet tank. It is also a threat to small gobies (e.g., Eviota, Trimma, Trimmatom). As far as its piscine neighbors are concerned, P. inermis is best housed with small, passive fish species (smaller cardinalfishes, small wrasses, blennies, dragonets, gobies, dartfishes). Its diminutive stature also means it a potential meal for large fish-eaters and a target of benthic bullies (e.g., dottybacks, hawkfishes).

More than one unarmed perchlet can be kept in a medium to large aquarium. However, males may fight (males, in general, are larger than females). Before making its approach toward a conspecific, P. inermis will raises and lower its elongated dorsal spine. If aggression escalates, the assailing perchlet will skim over the bottom as it approaches its adversary, with its tail slightly higher than its head. It undulates its tail, apparently to move itself forward, and spreads its gill covers (primarily the lower portion of the buccal area). All the fins are spread. I have noticed that as these fish grow, the pectoral fins become larger in proportion to the body size. Although studies are lacking, it is likely the Plectranthias spp. are protogynous hermaphrodites like other members of their subfamily.

The unarmed perchlet can be quite secretive, but will spend more time in the open in an aquarium that contains dither fish species such as Chromis, flasher wrasses, forktail blennies. It is prone to jumping, especially from tanks without adequate shelter and hiding places. Remember, is natural tendency is to lurk within rocky hiding places, resting at the entrance of a shelter and making a brief forays into the open. Provide it with nooks, crannies and caves.

This is the only member of the genus that I have encountered in the trade, although I continue to hunt!

Want a perchlet? Just click on the link below and go to the Diver's Den!

Copyright (2008) Scott W. Michael

FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com