November, 1999 
SCAMIT Newsletter 
Vol. 18, No.7 
species. Cancer antennarius appeared to 
recruit to the mussel masses on the platform 
legs as larvae, then remain as resident adults. 
Cancer anthonyi, in contrast, seemed to be 
attracted to the structure from adjacent areas, 
and did not recruit directly into the habitat. 
Cancer productus and Loxorhynchus grandis 
appeared to be merely visiting transients, with 
no long-term relationship to the structure. Their 
results point out the dangers of generalizing 
responses of groups of related organisms. The 
three species of Cancer considered each had its 
own response to the presence of the platform. 
An analysis based on Cancer spp. would have 
provided no useful information. Score one for 
careful taxonomy. 
OLD LITERATURE 
Much of our recent indecision and confusion 
regarding the identity of the amphipods 
Garosyrrhoe bigarra and G. disjuncta would 
have been avoided if we had not missed 
Barnard & Thomas 1989. This paper, while 
indicating in the title that it deals with 
Caribbean species, also has bearing on eastern 
Pacific amphipod taxonomy. In it the authors 
place G. disjuncta in the synonymy of G. 
bigarra , and state that the differences between 
the two are due to sexual dimorphism; G. 
disjuncta being the female and G. bigarra the 
male of a single species. Garosyrrhoe bigarra 
has a transisthmial distribution, occurring both 
in the Caribbean and in the temperate and 
tropical Eastern Pacific. 
We have recently discussed the amphipod 
genus Cerapus, and the status of west coast 
species. Description of a new genus by Lowry 
and Berents to accommodate some of the 
species currently in Cerapus was discussed as 
an upcoming event. Well, their publication 
actually came out several years back (Lowry & 
Berents 1996). They describe two new genera 
related to Cerapus , Bathypoma and Notopoma. 
Both these new genera have the expanded 
antennal basis forming a pseudo-operculum to 
close the anterior of the tube seen in our 
common California “Cerapus”. No mention is 
made, however, of the subrostral tooth, and 
complex frontal structure characteristic of our 
local species. It is not yet clear whether either 
of these new taxa can be stretched to accept the 
local animal as a member. Lor now it continues 
to be Cerapus sp. A SCAMIT. The authors also 
point out the constituents of the Ericthonius 
group are currently allocated to different 
families, with several genera being “non- 
aligned”. This points out the continuing 
difficulty in family definition in these 
corophioid taxa and calls for, at a minimum, a 
reexamination of the composition of the 
currently recognized families Ischyroceridae 
and Corophiidae. 
Although 2 years isn’t very “old” in the context 
of literature, J. D. Thomas’ monographic 
revision of the Anamixidae (Thomas, 1996) is 
another one that slipped by while we were 
looking elsewhere. The California amphipod 
fauna supports but one anamixid, Anamixis 
pacijica (Barnard 1955). Two taxa were 
described in that paper, Anamixis linsleyi, and 
Leucothoides pacijica. It was later discovered 
that the two were just different life stages of 
the same species. Since pacijica had page 
priority in the paper, the resulting taxon 
became Anamixis pacijica. Thomas’ paper 
provides much additional information on the 
family as a whole, and provides a comparison 
between the Californian species and others in 
the genus worldwide. Anamixids are generally 
symbiotically linked with invertebrate 
substrates, and as such, may be introduced 
along with their substrate to areas outside their 
normal range. We may eventually find more of 
the species described in this monograph are 
present in the area as either temporary or 
permanent introductions in the fouling 
community. The key and illustrations from the 
paper are present on Jim Thomas’ web site, and 
can be downloaded from there as a PDL file. 
9 
