August, 1999 
SCAMIT Newsletter 
Vol. 18, No. 4 
fascicularis complex. This was a single species 
whose variability of radular morphology 
suggested that it might contain more than a 
single taxon. Shell characters which might 
suggest a second sibling species within 
Notoacmea fascicularis were, however, never 
identified. A third line of evidence from 
Cytochrome c Oxidase subunit I was gathered 
from specimens exhibiting differing radular 
morphologies. The results coincide with the 
lack of variation in shell morphology, and 
suggest that there is a single taxon, Notoacmea 
fascicularis , which is clinally variable in 
radular morphology. Molecular data provided 
evidence, not of additional hidden taxa as in 
previous cases, but of considerable variability 
in a character of a single taxon. 
MINUTES OF 16 AUGUST MEETING 
First order of business was to pass around a 
picture of Susan Hamilton’s 3 year old nephew 
wearing a tiny SCAMIT t-shirt. A discussion 
ensued as to whether we still had SCAMIT t- 
shirts, and if so, where would they be located. 
I, (Megan Lilly), for one, would be interested 
in owning such a shirt, perhaps in a slightly 
larger size than the one pictured. It has been a 
number of years since SCAMIT has had “stuff” 
available for sale. Our supply of coffee mugs 
and hats is long since exhausted, and shirts, if 
any remain, are limited to sizes suitable for 3- 
year-old nephews [sorry Megan]. Let’s hear 
from the membership and/or NL readers 
concerning this. Are you interested in such 
paraphernalia? Should be make an attempt to 
recreate the old versions or do something 
different [tote-bags, mouse pads, cocktail 
napkins, anoraks]? All opinions welcome. 
Contact any of the officers, or send comments 
to Don Cadien for inclusion in the NL [end of 
digression]. 
We were fortunate to have Dot Norris from the 
City and County of San Francisco joining us 
for the day. She passed along a request that the 
SCAMIT meetings, when and where possible, 
be scheduled and announced six weeks in 
advance. It takes approximately this long for 
the paper work to be processed to allow CCSF 
workers to attend meetings in Southern 
California. There is a strong interest by our 
northern members to join us periodically, an 
interest we should do what we can to foster. 
Don Cadien then shared a story concerning a 
friend, nudibranchs and the Lacey Act. We 
have discussed the impact of the Lacey Act 
previously in the NL, but perhaps a brief 
review is in order. The act requires than any 
biological specimens entering the United States 
be demonstrably collected legally under the 
laws of the country of origin. That is, if you 
don’t have the appropriate paperwork from the 
source country you are in violation of U.S. law 
if you bring in specimens. This applies even if 
the country of origin has, but does not bother to 
enforce laws about the taking of biota. 
This was the case in the incident reported at the 
meeting. It stemmed from a trip into central 
west Mexico in January and early February, in 
which the participants did not attempt to obtain 
the appropriate permits. Previous experiences 
of themselves and others indicated that the 
average time to get permits was several years, 
and that they would only be issued for known 
quantities of particular species. The trip was 
intended to sample the fauna, so no such permit 
could reasonably be obtained. As in past years 
a series of living nudibranchs were returned for 
more refined photography and to be maintained 
until they produced nidosomes [eggmasses] 
which would in their turn be photographed as 
would the veliger larvae which hatched from 
them. While crossing the border, however, the 
customs agents decided that the animals 
required a consult from the Department of Fish 
and Wildlife. They in turn decided that this was 
potentially a violation of both the Lacey Act 
and of the CITES treaty. The animals were 
inventoried [as well as could be since roughly 
2/3 of the taxa were undescribed] and released 
into the custody of the person carrying them 
4 
