March, 2000 
SCAMIT Newsletter 
Vol. 18, No. 11 
brought a strange looking Tellinid. The shape 
was more reminiscent of a Macoma, but its 
color pattern and over all gestalt pointed to 
Tellina carpenteri. 
A Turbonilla from B’98 station 2519, Santa 
Cruz Island, 7-23-98, 66m, was also brought 
by Tony. It was compared to many of the City 
of San Diego’s provisional species of 
Turbonilla , but was, in the end, considered 
distinct. For now it is being called Turbonilla 
sp Hyp 1. 
In the afternoon we examined a series of 
crustacean specimens. Dean Pasko 
(CSDMWWD) distributed several summary 
sheets he had assembled concerning problem 
animals. The first concerned one of our targets 
for the day; separation of the amphipods 
Ampelisca cristata cristata from A. cristata 
microdentata. There is some difference of 
opinion among members regarding the 
retention of microdentata as only a subspecific 
form. Several members feel that the differences 
warrant full specific recognition. At a recent 
Bight’98 conflict resolution meeting the 
question of separating the two had arisen again 
as a practical matter, with different taxonomists 
seeing the same specimens differently. Of 
particular interest was Dean’s use of a 
perceived dichotomy between the two 
involving either a single or double crest on the 
last pereonite. Doug Diener 
(MEC) [unfortunately unable to attend] 
circulated an e-mail providing data which 
indicated that this character was not reliable for 
separation of the two taxa. In the materials 
Dean provided at the meeting he recognized 
that the character had become unreliable, based 
on new material collected from the Pt. Loma 
area. He modified the information provided by 
Diener, adding additional characters of the 
head, gills, and epimeron 2. The result is 
assembled in an attached table (A). 
Dean then moved on to a second Ampelisca 
problem; separation of A. brevisimulata from 
the nearly allied provisional form A. cf 
brevisimulata. Although the latter, originally 
recognized by Carol Paquette (MBC) in the 
mid 80’s, has been a SCAMIT species since 
1995, it has not achieved wide recognition. 
Dean finds both in his sampling area, and felt 
that the lack of reports from others stemmed 
from a lack of side-by-side comparison. He 
prepared another table directly comparing the 
character states of the two forms with regard to 
coxa 1,2nd pleonal epimeron, and 3rd uropod 
configuration (B). With this aid in hand 
perhaps more of us will be able to detect A. cf 
brevisimulata in our samples. Once data from a 
wider area is available ecological differences 
between the two forms may become apparent. 
We then visited another ampeliscid genus, 
Byblis, to examine the B. veleronis vs. B. millsi 
question. Some agencies report both, some 
only one. Dean finds both in his area, with a 
bathymetric separation between the two. He 
compares characters of the coxae, uropods 1 & 
2, and size as well as bathymetric distribution 
in another distributed table (C). 
Ischyrocerus pelagops was very briefly 
considered. Dean was concerned that its status 
had not been addressed in the revision of the 
group that removed several species to a new 
genus Neoischyrocerus (Conian 1995). 
Currently it is apparently retained in 
Ischyrocerus , although this status may change 
with further work on the group. It continues to 
be a valid species. 
We reviewed the methods of separating 
Majoxiphalus major from Foxiphalus 
obtusidens. The former was originally 
described as a subspecies of the latter, then 
raised to specific status, and finally made the 
type of a new genus by Jarrett & Bousfield 
1994. Dean had a specimen he thought was M. 
major , and upon review at the meeting this was 
confirmed. Dean uses primarily the relative 
position of the plumose setae on the telson to 
8 
