October, 1999 
SCAMIT Newsletter 
Vol. 18, No. 6 
about the right proportions to be Zaolutus. 
Tony took them back to the lab for further 
work up and will either confirm or refute this 
ID. 
With cnidarians completed (for the time being) 
nemerteans were next on the list. Megan Lilly 
(CSDMWWD) brought forth a small 
nemertean that looked very similar to 
Carinoma mutablis with the exception that it 
was a creamy fleshy-pink color instead of the 
typical white. However, those present assured 
her that even with this color difference it was 
still C. mutablis. She then brought forth three 
very thin, long, white, non-descript looking 
nemerteans which upon clearing revealed one 
pair of small red eyes. A distinctive brown/ 
grey area existed in all three just behind the 
eyes. It was confirmed that these animals were 
Cryptonemertes actinophila. The second pair 
of eyes did indeed exist, but needed to be 
viewed under a compound scope. The brown/ 
grey area is the “brain” and is quite distinctive. 
Carol Paquette brought out some specimens 
that seemed to be Paranemertes californica, 
but were not typical of the species. After 
examining the animals and discussing the 
variability of the taxon, it was the consensus of 
those present that her specimens were within 
the range of variation normally seen in P. 
calif ornica. 
The afternoon started off with Mollusca. The 
first question was that of Solen rostiformis vs 
Solen sicarius. Megan Lilly had been 
examining some of the Solen from the bay 
(Mission and San Diego) samples and was 
wondering if they were potentially different 
from the off-shore Solen that the City of San 
Diego identifies as Solen rostiformis. This is 
the species we used to call S. rosaceus locally, 
but which was first put forward as a separate 
taxon, then identified as a senior synonym by 
Coan and Scott. Some bay specimens were 
examined and Don Cadien, John Ljubenkov 
and Tony Phillips all agreed that they were 
Solen sicarius based on the shape of the shell. 
After some discussion, however, it was 
revealed that these agencies/people only see 
Solen sicarius in their samples, whereas the 
City of San Diego had only identified 
rostiformis up to this point. As the bay animals 
didn’t differ greatly from the off-shore 
specimens, it remains to be seen if we are 
dealing with both species, or only one 
identified in two different ways. This question 
will be answered during the B’98 QC as, if we 
have different assumptions or ID protocols 
between agencies, it should be apparent during 
the specimen exchange. 
Next, some small Asthenothaerus were 
examined. It was originally assumed they were 
Asthenothaerus diegensis, but the animals were 
from off Orange County in 40 m of water. 
They will need to be examined further before a 
species ID can be assigned. They bore a 
remarkable resemblance to Periploma discus 
juveniles, but lacked an external ligament. A 
small “ Macoma - like” clam roused some 
excitement. No one present seemed able to 
identify it to species and there was even some 
question initially as to its genus. It was 
suggested to be not a Macoma , but a Cumingia. 
This was doubted because the shell lacked the 
concentric sculpture of that genus, which is 
evident even in juveniles. It was opened and 
confirmed to be Macoma but was left at genus 
as there was only one juvenile specimen, and 
there were several possible species to which it 
might belong. 
Don Cadien then did a “show and tell” with his 
recently encountered shell-less cephalaspid 
slug Runcina macfarlandi, found among 
filamentous red algae from a shallow station in 
the San Gabriel river tidal prism. The animal is 
small and offers few characters. There are no 
head appendages, the mouth is obscure, eyes 
are buried and only visible in the groove which 
separates the back from the foot. At the 
posterior end of the animal the centrally placed 
anus is flanked by two paddle shaped gill 
lamellae. These are smooth plates without 
secondary lamellae. The animal is a dark 
maroon in life, but fades to a dull tan in 
8 
