September-December, 2012 
SCAMIT Newsletter 
Vol. 31 Nos. 3-4 
separated by those present. It was deeided that these three taxa would be joined under one name 
as a speeies eomplex. Kelvin agreed to produee a voueher sheet and ehoose a name. [K. Barwick 
note June 24, 2016: To date this has not been done.]. The remaining SCAMIT 2012 taxa (L. 
paganicum and L. fetellum) were determined to be valid forms eonsistent with published literature 
and eould be reliably separated by those present. L. calenum (a single reeord from B’08, 510m) 
was also retained despite the laek of any published images. Dali reeords that it was found off 
“San Luis Obispo Bay, in 252 fathoms”. It was eompared to an image provided by J. MeLean 
(unpublished manuseript) of a deep water form (400m) from off Palos Verdes. In addition, the 
previously unreported taxon, L. purpureum (Carpenter, 1864), was proposed to be added to the 
next edition of the speeies list (Edition 8). This was agreed upon by all those present. 
With that Kelvin moved on to seaphopods, speeifieally, deeper water Gadiliforms. In 2007, 
Kelvin aequired a eopy of Pilsbry and Sharp (1897-1898) in eleetronie form. With this new to him 
information, he began to wonder if he had been eonfusing Cadulus californicus Pilsbry & Sharp 
1898 and Gadila tolmiei (Dali 1897). This led to a more thorough investigation of the literature 
and later, a review of speeimens provided by most of the partieipating ageneies, eontraetors and 
individuals. 
First the literature: Pilsbry and Sharp eontains the original deseription of Cadulus calif ornicus 
(Figure 3) as well as a re-deseription with figures for Gadila tolmiei (Figure 4). Also ineluded is 
a deseription of Cadulus (tolmiei var?) newcombei (Figure 5) as a new variant, however Steiner 
and Kabat (2004) eonsider it a synonym of G. tolmiei. It appears that based on the reported 
relative lengths, Pilsbry and Sharp illustrated a different speeimen of G. tolmiei than Dall (Figure 
6) in his original deseription (type loeality: “Near Vietoria, Vaneouver Island, 60 fins.”). In their 
deseription of C. californicus they state that the apieal aperture had “irregular breakage, but 
possibly two lateral nieks may be normally present.” No sueh “nieks” were reported by either 
Dali (1897) or Pilsbry and Sharp (1897-1898). Furthermore, the latter authors state that G. tolmiei 
was less inflated than C. californicus. Bureh (1945) suspeeted that these were the same speeies 
noting that “If the tip of a speeimen of Cadulus californicus were broken off, it would answer 
the deseription of Cadulus tolm[i\er. He aeknowledged that there has been a lot of eonfusion 
around the identity of these two speeies. Shimek (1998) states that C. tolmiei is less inflated at 
its widest point than C. californicus. He deseribes C. tolmiei with an apieal aperture possessing 2 
to 7 lobes. He did not deseribe or illustrate his eoneept of C. californicus. And Anally, SCAMIT 
(1996) reported that after reviewing NHMFAC lots of both speeies “it was apparent that what 
was being reeorded as G californicus by FA County was aetually G. tolmiei.'" It was reported that 
C. californicus was “more slender” than G. tolmiei. 
A review of speeimens was eondueted. Results presented at the meeting showed that most 
workers are eonsistent. In general, the wider speeimens with or without (broken?) apieal lobes 
were reeorded as G. tomiei and relatively narrower speeimens with or without lobes were 
referred to G. californicus. This seems to indieate that the two speeies are being reversed when 
eompared to their original deseriptions as Kelvin suspeeted. However, it is his opinion that there 
remains enough eonfusion in literature that, until whieh time a more thorough investigation ean 
be undertaken, no ehanges are warranted. [K. Barwick note June 24, 2016: At the time of the 
meeting Kelvin stated that he would draft voucher sheets for these two species. Upon further 
reflection he believes this is premature, pending further study.] 
7 
Publication Date: 6 July 2016 
