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

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!

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, are ubiquitous in all ecosystems, and the importance of understanding their broader ecological context has been demonstrated many times. Indirect effects of mutualisms may have important implications for surrounding ecosystems through changes in density, species composition, or behavior; however, the latter has been difficult to quantify. In fish cleaning mutualisms, cleaners benefit by removing and consuming ectoparasites from clients, whereas clients benefit from a reduction in parasite load. Cleaner fish are also thought to benefit from immunity to predation and use tactile stimulation as a preconflict management strategy to manipulate partners' decisions and to avoid being eaten by piscivorous client fish. Here we show, using a laboratory experiment, that the presence of cleaner fish resulted in nearby fish not involved in the cleaner–client mutualism experiencing less aggression (chases) from predatory clients. In addition, the rate that piscivorous clients chased prey was negatively correlated with the amount of tactile stimulation given to the predator by the cleaner. These data suggest that, in the laboratory, the risk of aggression from predators toward nearby prey fish was greatly reduced as a by-product of cleaner fish presence and tactile stimulation of predators by cleaner fish. These results raise the question of whether cleaning stations act as safe havens from predator aggression.

COLLETTE’S REEF BASSLET

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.

© Scott W. Michael

NEW WOBBIES IN WESTERN AUSTRALIA!

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

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?

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!

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

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.

© Scott W. Michael

A NEW REEF BASSLET?

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?

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.