Porcupine Newsletter Number 25, Winter 2008/09.

PORCUPINE MARINENATURAL HISTORY SOCIETYNEWSLETTERWinter 2008/09 Number 25ISSN 1466-0369

Porcupine Marine Natural History SocietyNewsletterNo. 25 Winter 2008/09Hon. TreasurerJon MooreTi CaraPoint LaneCoshestonPembroke DockPembrokeshireSA72 4UN01646 687946jon@ticara.co.ukMembershipSéamus WhyteThe CottageBack LaneIngoldsbyLincolnshireNG33 4EW01476 585496seamouse@ntlworld.comHon. EditorsFrances DipperThe Black Bull18 High StreetLandbeachCambridgeshireCB25 9FT01223 861836fdipper@sustenergy.co.ukPeter Tinsley4 Elm VillasNorth StreetWarehamDorsetBH20 4AE01929 556653ptinsley@dorsetwildlife.co.ukCOUNCIL MEMBERSFrances Dipper fdipper@sustenergy.co.ukJon Moore jon@ticara.co.ukTammy Horton txh@noc.soton.ac.ukPeter Tinsley ptinsley@dorsetwt.cix.co.ukSue Chambers s.chambers@nms.ac.ukRoger Bamber roger.bamber@jacobs.comAnne Bunker abunker@marineseen.comPaul Brazier p.brazier@ccw.gov.ukPeter Barfield peter@seanature.co.ukChairmanJulia NunnCherry Cottage11 Ballyhaft RdNewtonardsCo. Down BT 22 2AWjdn@cherrycottage.myzen.co.ukPorcupine MNHS welcomes new members- scientists,students, divers, naturalists and lay people. We arean informal society interested in marine naturalhistory and recording particularly in the NorthAtlantic and ‘Porcupine Bight’. Members receive 2newsletters a year which include proceedings fromscientific meetings.Individual £10 Student £5 www.pmnhs.co.ukJulia Nunn jdn@cherrycottage.myzen.co.ukSeamus Whyte seamouse@ntlworld.comVicki Howe viks@sun-fish.co.ukRoni Robbins roni.robbins@artoo.co.ukAndy Mackie Andrew.Mackie@nmgw.ac.ukSophie HendersonCover Image: This beautiful image of the Porcupine Bank was created by Bob Downie (Porcupine former council memberFrank Evan’s son-in-law) who is an oil sedimentologist

EditorialHaving completed 10 years as Hon. Editor and produced 25issues of the newsletter I will, with much regret, be steppingdown at the AGM in Plymouth in March. For the last fewyears Peter Tinsley has been helping with the Editorship andhas done a marvellous job of putting order into chaos withall the material I send him, adding cheerful photographs andgenerally making the newsletter happen! He has offered totake over from me and will I’m sure make an excellent job ofit, assuming the membership votes him in at the AGM. Gettingmaterial together for the newsletter is a time-consuming joband we rely on YOU, the membership, to send us copy. We areable and willing to publish short articles, accounts of fieldwork, observations, photographs and news from the membersand others, as well as the more formal papers from the Annualmeeting. So please use your newsletter as a forum for all thisand more. It’s a great way to let others know what you areworking on or to tell others about interesting records fromyour dives or shore rambles.If anyone out there is interested in helping with theeditorship in a more formal way or joining Council in any othercapacity then do please let us know so that your name can beput forward at the AGM.For the moment the newsletter will continue to beproduced twice a year, once in summer (around June) followingthe Annual meeting and once in winter around January. Itmay also be possible to produce extra ‘special issues’ if there isparticular interest from the membership on particular topics.Please let us have your ideas!I myself am hoping to make use of the ‘extra’ time I willhave, to start working through large numbers of photographsand specimens of sea fans and soft corals collected from theSemporna Islands over the last 10 years. I have been goingout there with Elizabeth Wood as a volunteer from the MarineConservation Society as part of a project that has includedbiodiversity work, reef monitoring and working with the localpopulation culminating in setting up a new Marine Park. If youwant to know more then visit www.sempornaislandsproject.com. And if anyone happens to have a high power microscopesuitable for peering at sclerites and spicules, that they wantto dispose of, please let me know!I can’t remember when I first joined Porcupine – sometimein the late 80s I think – but over the years I have made manyfriends and learned realms from field trips and meetings. It’sa friendly and welcoming Society open to all ages and walksof life, so please encourage your friends and acquaintancesto join. I shall certainly remain an ‘acitive Porcupiner’ for aslong as I am able!St Oswalds Bay, Dorset - P TinsleyCOPY DEADLINESApril 30 th for Summer issue; October 31 st for Winter issuePMNHS Newsletter No.25 Winter 2008/091

success, many photographs had been taken of arange of gobies (and other fish), and the qualitydigital images were certainly good enough foridentification. Those Council members whohad seen his report were unanimously wellimpressed.An account will be presented to theNewsletter, and a pdf will be linked onto thewebsite. (The photographs will also be used ina pending book on Welsh fish).Shelagh Smith – Molluscs from thePorcupine Abyssal Plain (PAP) (£300): Shelaghhas collected the numerous boxes of Discoverymolluscs from NOCS, and the project isprogressing well; two or three new species plusnew records have already been established.Her report will eventually appear in theNewsletter.Council unanimously felt that both projectswere a great success, and were encouraged bythe progress of these Porcupine grants; thankswere given to Tammy Horton and Jon More fortheir mediation and administration.Julia Nunn had received an enquiry forfunding for another project (of up to £3000).After discussion it was agreed that Juliawould inform the applicants that they mustsubmit for consideration to the next roundof Grants (next year), for which the deadlinewould be shortly after the 2009 Conference(e.g. mid-April), but that an individualgrant would not be as much as £3000. Anannouncement will appear in next issue of theNewsletter and on the Website.Council discussed whether existingmembers should be favoured, or even nonmembersexcluded, and whether such behaviourwas legal under our charitable status. Wordingin the announcement (applicants “should be” amember, even if not at the time of application)was considered to be acceptable.We will consider the option of topping-upthe grant-funds from another grant-awardingbody after one more year under present system(and assessment of its success).8. Membership:Séamus Whyte reported the total numberof members to be 238, including 196 activemembers, and 22 suspended pending review oftheir subscription arrears (these do not receivethe Newsletter); the next attempt to contactthese people will be in January. One memberis overpaying and will also be contacted.9. Newsletter:The next issue will be Frances Dipper’slast Newsletter as Hon. Editor. Owing to thecontinuing difficulties in obtaining sufficientcopy, it was proposed to produce one Winterand one Summer (June/July) Newsletter as amatter of routine. This will require a changeto the constitution (Rules of Procedure 11b).The next issue is likely to appear in February,owing partly to lack of copy. This should givetime for the reports from the field trips andfrom Paul Kay mentioned above. In futureCouncil would prefer the Winter issue to appearin January.There remains a problem about gettingcopy from speakers at the annual conference.Council agreed that speakers must be askedto submit an abstract by the time of themeeting (for publication if no full paper wasforthcoming) and that we strongly expect areport for the Newsletter.Options for the future of the Newsletter(design, colour, etc.) will be discussed afterthe new Hon. Editor has been in post.Séamus Whyte proposed the option ofhaving electronic copy of Newsletter instead;Frances Dipper thinks it is feasible as well(pdf – which would include colour) rather thaninstead. With a lack of consensus on this issue,it was left for future discussion after the newHon. Editor was in post.10. Web-Site:Tammy Horton produced some statisticsabout the web-site use (numbers of visits undervarious categories). Apologies were given againfor virus which had got in via a photo-gallery;this gallery has now been removed. Tammy willlook into a new gallery so that we can includephotographs. Electronic back copies of theNewsletter on the Web-Site will be up to fiveissues ago (only), together with contents listsonly of the more recent issues. The pendingCD will offer the whole back copy.PMNHS Newsletter No.25 Winter 2008/093

PORCUPINE 2009 Sea Shore to SeaFloorPMNHS Annual Meeting 27-29 March 2009As usual the meeting will be over threedays with the Friday and Saturday dedicated totalks and held in the University of Plymouth,Davy Building, Main Hall. On the Sunday inkeeping with tradition, we are planning divetrips and visits to local shores. Facilities forsorting and identification will be provided atCoxside Marine Centre in Plymouth, with accessto microscopes and running seawater.Registration/putting up posters/chattingwith mates will be from 9.30-10.00 Main HallDavy Building on Friday 27 March 2009 andthe meeting will continue from there.The following speakers are confirmed andothers have been approached: Roddy Williamson(Director of the Marine Institute, Universityof Plymouth), Alan Hughes (updating theclassification of deep sea sediment habitats,NOCS Southampton), Kerry Howell (updatingthe classification of deep sea hard bottomhabitats, University of Plymouth), Chris Proctor(describing sea cave sponges in SW England),Sally Sharrock (Devon Seasearch coordinator)and Fiona Crouch (Shore Thing Project Officer,Marine Biological Association).Please contact the local organisers; MariaCampbell (maria.campbell@plymouth.ac.uk),Fiona Crouch (ficr@MBA.ac.uk), Keith Hiscock(khis@MBA.ac.uk) and Jason Hall-Spencer(jhall-spencer@plymouth.ac.uk or call 00441752 232969 if you would like to attend andalso let us know if you would like to give a talkor a poster presentation at the meeting.OTHER MEETINGS15 th January to 27 th February.Environmental Photographer of theYear 2008 Exhibition. Apothecary Gallery,33 Greyhound Road, Hammersmith, London,W6 8NH. Please call ahead to arrange a viewingbetween 10 am and 6pm on 020 7381 5727or email info@londonapothecary.co.uk. Formore information, go to www.ciwem.org/arts/photographer25 th February 2009.Hidden worlds beneath the waves.Engaging people with undersea landscapes.Coastnet and the Wildlife Trusts. The Guildhall,Alfred Guelder St, Hull. Contact: TheresaRedding 01206 728644 CoastNet (Conferences),The Gatehouse, Rowhedge Wharf, High Street,Rowhedge, Essex CO5 7ET30 th March -3 rd April 2009.Improving the ecological status of fishcommunities in inland waters. University ofHull International Fisheries Institute. Contact:www.hull.ac.uk/hifi/EFI/ or email hifi@hull.ac.uk29 th -30 th April 2009.CIWEM annual conference. Water andthe global environment. Olympia conferencecentre, London. Contact: bob.earll@coastms.co.ukMEETINGSFurther details will be e-mailed to membersand others and posted on the website. Costswill be similar to previous meetings. Speakerswill not be charged the registration fee.PMNHS Newsletter No.25 Winter 2008/095

Proposed Constitution change toRules of Procedure section 11bPORCUPINE NEWS6Porcupine Marine Natural HistorySociety AGM 2009The Annual General Meeting of the Societywill be held at Plymouth University, Plymouth,Devon on Saturday March 28 th 2009 (duringthe Annual Conference).In accordance with the Constitution, atleast two ordinary Council Members must retireeach year, but may make themselves availablefor immediate re-election. Retiring membersthis year are Paul Brazier and Peter Barfield.Paul Brazier and Peter Barfield are bothavailable for re-election. In addition, JuliaNunn and Frances Dipper who have steppeddown as Officers for the Society have beenproposed as ordinary Council members.Any proposals for additional candidatesare very welcome, and names should be sent tothe Chairman Julia Nunn: jdn@cherrycottage.myzen.co.ukOffice-bearers retire annually and arenormally available for immediate re-election.This year office bearers available for electionare listed below.The Council proposes the following officebearersChairman: Andy MackieHon. Treasurer: Jon MooreHon. Editors: Peter TinsleyHon. Secretary: Roger BamberHon. Membership Secretary: SeamusWhyteHon. Records Conveners: Roni RobbinsHon. Web Site Officer: Tammy HortonAny proposals for additional candidatesfor officer posts should be sent to the ChairmanJulia Nunn: jdn@cherrycottage.myzen.co.ukVoting will take place at the AGM and willbe restricted to members present.PMNHS Newsletter No.25 Winter 2008/0911. Activities of the Society shallinclude:(b) A Newsletter normally publishedthree times a year, which shall, inaddition to other items, carry reportsof previous meetings.To be amended to (change underlined):11. Activities of the Society shallinclude:(b) A Newsletter normally publishedtwice a year, which shall, in additionto other items, carry reports ofprevious meetings.Porcupine Marine Natural HistorySociety Small Grant Scheme – 2 ndroundThe Porcupine Marine Natural HistorySociety is pleased to announce an opportunityto apply for funding for small research projects.A total fund of £3000 is available for smallprojects of one to three months duration.Applications will be considered for any smallproject which falls within the objectives ofthe Society.The object of this Society is to promoteinterest in the ecology and distribution ofmarine fauna and flora in the N.E. Atlantic andthe Mediterranean.Projects may be field based or pursued ina laboratory or museum. The projects couldvary from basic sorting and identification, tospecialist identification/study of a particulartaxon of interest.The purpose of any project would be tomake information more accessible to the widercommunity, and therefore at least a writtensummary (e.g. a report for the newsletterand website) of any work undertaken will berequired. Any publication of the findings fromwork undertaken using the PMNHS Small Grantmust acknowledge the Grant and the Society.The fund may be used for research costs only,

and applicants are expected to fund their ownliving costs.PMNHS Council would particularlyencourage applications to study the DiscoveryCollections. The Discovery Collections at theNational Oceanography Centre, Southampton(www.nocs.soton.ac.uk), house a great varietyof both sorted and unsorted samples from thePorcupine Seabight and Porcupine abyssal plain,and provide an exciting research opportunitythat could lead to the discovery of species newto science. The Discovery Collections differ fromother collections in that they are dedicatedsolely to samples from the open ocean andthe deep sea. They contain many unique andexotic animals. The Discovery Collections areused primarily for ecological research, and asa result the Collections are currently ordered sothat whole samples, and hence communities,may be examined, rather than ranked by taxon,as in most museums. The samples have beencollected using both quantitative and semiquantitativegear, such as multicorers, boxcorers and acoustically monitored epibenthicsledges, otter trawls and midwater nets. TheCollections provide important base-line dataon the deep-sea environment for measuringecosystem change and for studying local andregional biodiversity.These collections are available for study aspart of the Porcupine Marine Natural HistorySociety Small Grant Scheme. Samples wouldnormally be worked on at NOCS in Southampton,but may be studied in alternative approvedinstitutions on a loan basis. Please contact DrTammy Horton (Discovery Collections Manager– txh@noc.soton.ac.uk) for further details ifyou would like to submit a proposal to studythe collection.EligibilityApplications will be accepted fromstudents, researchers, or any person willingand able to carry out the necessary research,under appropriate supervision if that isdeemed necessary. Applicants should bemembers of the Porcupine Marine NaturalHistory Society (you do not have to be acurrent member, but must join the societyto be eligible). These grants are open to all,irrespective of status, whether professional oramateur marine biologist or environmentalist.Projects will be excluded which are part of theprofessional work of the applicant or are partof an undergraduate or post-graduate degreeprogramme.ApplicationThe application for grant should include:• a full description of the proposedproject• when and where the project will becarried out• the proposed time scale to completethe project• the expected outcomes which willresult from your project.• proposed publication plans for theresults of the project• a full CV of the applicant, togetherwith details of relevant experienceor training• detailed proposed expenditure for theprojectAll proposals will be assessed by apanel from the PMNHS Council, and the bestproposal(s) granted. The Council reservesthe right to not grant any projects in any oneround of applications.Applications must be submitted byThursday 30 th April 2009 – late applicationswill not be admitted.Please send applications to:Dr. Julia Nunn, Chairman, PorcupineMarine Natural History SocietyCherry Cottage, 11 Ballyhaft Road,Newtownards, Co. Down BT22 2AWPMNHS Newsletter No.25 Winter 2008/097

PORCUPINE PIECESNorthward spread of theimmigrant barnacle Elminiusmodestus on the British North SeacoastFrank Evans15 Thirlmere Avenue, North Shields NE30 3UQfrankevans@zooplankton.co.ukFollowing its discovery on test plates inChichester Harbour in 1946 (Bishop, 1947),the immigrant barnacle Elminius modestusspread rapidly along the south and east coastsof England, being recorded by 1948 in suitablelocations between Norfolk and Dorset (Crispand Chipperfield, 1948). Its first arrival inEngland from Australasia was clearly by shipand this type of remote dispersal resulted,as Crisp observed, in the species appearingat first in isolated places, in Holland, theIrish Sea and on the French coast. Later, in1977 a healthy but isolated population wasdiscovered by Hiscock et al. in Vidlin Voe inShetland (Hiscock et al., 1978). At the sametime, spreading up the east coast of England,it had reached the Humber by 1950, where itappeared for a time to halt (Crisp, 1958).But the advance of Elminius was not longinterrupted at the Humber for by 1960 Crisphad reported its presence at Saltburn (54º35’N) near the mouth of the Tees (Crisp, 1960).Following what was clearly a remote dispersalby ship, Elminius was found in the Firth ofForth, supposedly arriving at Rosyth around1958 (Jones, 1961). From there it appearsto have spread rapidly round the Fife coast,reaching Tayport (56º 27’N) on the southside of the Tay by 1961 but south eastwardsextending only as far as Dunbar (56º 00’N).Meanwhile, in 1958 I had discovered asingle colony at Newton-by-the-Sea (55º 31’N)in north Northumberland (Evans, 1958). Atthis time Elminius was present from Dunbarnorthwards and from Saltburn southwardsbut with this single discovery in between.On finding this colony I made a search at adozen sites along the Border coast for furtherexamples but specimens were found only asfar north of Saltburn as West Hartlepool andSeaham (54º 50’N). Apart from at Newton noother animals were discovered as far north asEyemouth (55º 52’N).However, by 1979 the coast betweenSeaham and Dunbar was widely colonised (seeEvans (2000) for Northumberland records)although my return visits from 1970 onwardsshowed that the species was by no means secureat individual sites, Elminius having almostdisappeared, for instance, at Newton. The siteof commonest occurrence in Northumberlandis on the causeway to Holy Island (55º 41’N),where it has been constantly found.In 1981 a visit to the Fife coast found thespecies to be common at a number of sitesbetween Aberdour (56º 03’N) and Tayport. Thebarnacle had by now succeeded in crossing theTay and in this year a few were to be found atBroughty Ferry (56º 28’N) on the north side.Further north, at Arbroath and at Montrose(56º 43’N) it appeared entirely absent.In 2008 a further examination of thecoastline north of the Tay showed a smallextension of the species range. Elminiuswas now present in very small numbers atMontrose. However, visits to Johnshaven (56º48’N) and Gourdon (56º 50’N), a little furthernorth, revealed no examples.Clearly, given its slow advance, the speciesis proceeding northwards under difficultyin the northern North Sea at what may benear the limit of its mainland range, but thefact that it continues to make slow progressindicates some adaptability. There are few sitesin eastern Scotland and northeast Englandwhere it is sufficiently common for significantreproduction to take place but its orderlymovement up the British North Sea coastsuggests nevertheless that new settlement islargely by development although ship dispersal8PMNHS Newsletter No.25 Winterer 2008/09

must not be overlooked. Crisp and Southwardhave discussed the difficulties this intertidalanimal has in crossing even fairly narrow seas(Crisp and Southward, 1953). Sites possiblyto be colonised in the future are Stonehavenand Aberdeen and a watch on these ports isdesirable.A list of sites I have examined, togetherwith dates, has been lodged with the PorcupineRecords Convenor. A more general description ofthe distribution of this barnacle around Britainhas been given by Southward (Southward,2008).ReferencesBishop, M. W. H. 1947. Establishment of animmigrant barnacle in British coastal waters.Nature 159: 260.Crisp, D. J. 1958. The spread of Elminiusmodestus Darwin in north-west Europe. Journalof the Marine Biological Association of the U.K. 37: 483-520.Crisp, D. J. 1960. Northern limits ofElminius modestus in Britain. Nature 188:681.Crisp, D. J. and Chipperfield, P. N. J. 1948.Occurrence of Elminius modestus (Darwin) inBritish waters. Nature 161: 64.Crisp, D. J. and Southward, A. J. 1953.Isolation of intertidal animals by sea barriers.Nature 172: 208-209.Evans, F. 1968. Isolated population ofElminius modestus (Crustacea: Cirripedia) inNorthumberland. Nature 220: 260.Evans, F. 2000. “The Marine Faunaand Flora of the Cullercoats District” Vol. 1.University of Newcastle upon Tyne: 213.Hiscock, K., Hiscock, S. and Baker, J. M.1978. The occurrence of the barnacle Elminiusmodestus in Shetland. Journal of the MarineBiological Association of the U. K. 58: 627-629.Jones, D. H. 1961. Elminius modestus onthe southeast coast of Scotland. Nature 190:103-104.Southward, A.J. 2008. Barnacles. Synopsesof the British Fauna (New Series) 57. FieldStudies Council. 140pp.The NMBAQC Scheme – Friend ofFoe to the Benthic Ecologist?The views expressed here are those of the author and notnedessarily those of PorcupineMyles O’ReillyScottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA)myles.oreilly@sepa.org.ukIn the Summer 2008 issue of Porcupine(No.24), Peter Garwood presented a PorcupinePiece expressing his personal view on theBEQUALM / NMBAQC Scheme. Peter hasalready made his views known to the NMBAQCcommittee who have responded in some detailon several occasions, providing explanationsand clarifications on all issues he has raised.As much of this discussion post-dates thesubmission of Peter’s article (in Jan 2008)it seems worthwhile to re-iterate somekey points here in order to put the recordstraight on factual matters and to dispel somemisconceptions about the scheme. (Detailedinformation about the origin, purpose, andscope of the scheme is available at www.nmbaqcs.org.uk ).I would like to offer a view of the schemefrom a broader perspective. I am a fellowPorcupiner, and share with Peter, a long heldenthusiasm for taxonomy of marine benthicinvertebrates. However, I also wear additionalhats as an NMBAQC participant, from itsinception 15 years ago, as a senior scientistemployed by the Scottish EnvironmentProtection Agency (SEPA) which is one of theCompetent Monitoring Authorities (CMAs) andalso as a member of the NMBAQC committee.With a foot in all these different camps, I canperhaps appreciate the scheme in its widercontext and espouse some of its positiveattributes.What and who is the NMBAQC Scheme for?The UK National Marine BiologicalAnalytical Quality Control (NMBAQC) Schemewas initially set up by the Department forEnvironment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA)in 1994 to provide a Quality Assurance (QA)scheme for government agencies collectingmarine macrobenthic data as part of theUK National Marine Monitoring Programme(NMMP). No appropriate scheme existedPMNHS Newsletter No.25 Winter 2008/099

10then and the NMBAQC still appears to bethe only such scheme in the UK. A similarscheme operates in Germany run by thefederal government for their labs. The variousagencies (now referred to as CMAs) include theEA, SEPA, NIEA, FRS, CEFAS, JNCC, and CCWand they are all required to participate fullyin the relevant auditing and training exercisesof the scheme.DEFRA policy now requires QA of alldata contributing to national, European,or international programmes, such as UKCSEMP (formerly NMMP), the European WFD(Water Framework Directive), or OSPAR(Oslo/Paris Commission) assessments. Withthe implementation of the WFD by variousUK CMAs, from 2007 any data utilised foran ecological quality assessment must bevalidated via a recognised national QA scheme(where such a scheme exists). Hence dataprovided by contractors or licensees to CMAs,including aquaculture assessment data, is nowtreated in a similar manner to any other CMAdata and the participation of contractors in aQA scheme is required to ensure an acceptablequality standard. While it may seem to somethat contractors are being “forced” the jointhe scheme, CMAs merely require the minimumlevel of participation (i.e. Own Samples audits)which is generally less onerous than thequality assurance undertaken within mostCMA laboratories. It seems reasonable whenawarding a contract to expect good qualityassurance and if the DEFRA have set up aunique UK scheme for that very purpose, italso seems logical that CMAs insist that theircontractors utilise that scheme. As we sayin Scotland “He who pays the piper calls thetune”!What the scheme is not.It is explicitly stated on the NMBAQCwebsite that it is not an accreditation schemeand has never been portrayed as such. Thescheme is not intended as a substitute forlaboratory accreditation or good internalquality control procedures but aims toaugment these. Performance within thescheme can be used as evidence of externalauditing or quality control for a laboratoryseeking accreditation from an authorised body,PMNHS Newsletter No.25 Winterer 2008/09or a CMA may legitimately use performance asa gauge of a contractor’s competence, eitherbefore or after awarding a contract. However,neither of these are the intended purpose ofthe scheme. The aim is to benefit the CMAs byproviding and reporting quality assurance fordata sets being produced for, or by, the CMAs,based on an independent selection of samplesfor audit.The “emerging monster”?In 2003 the NMBAQC Scheme was adoptedby BEQUALM (Biological Effects QualityAssurance in Monitoring Programmes) as amodel to progress its Community StructureAnalysis component. This involved offering theservices of the UK scheme to other Europeanlaboratories taking part in international ornational monitoring programmes. While thescheme is clearly appropriate to adjacentEuropean countries monitoring NE Atlanticwaters, actual take up by European labs hasso far has been rather piece-meal. Perhapswith the commencement of European WFDmonitoring from 2007 the QA mantra maybecome more deeply instilled in our continentalcolleagues.With the arrival of WFD the NMBAQC hasrecently begun to expand its remit from theMacrobenthic Invertebrate Component (andsupporting Particle Size Analysis) to cover allthe WFD Ecological Quality components formarine waters which includes invertebrates,phytoplankton, macroalgae, and fish.For the newer components of the scheme,the initial focus has been on training exercisesrather than sample auditing exercises. ManyCMA analysts are new to these fields andall need to achieve an equal and acceptablestandard. The training exercises act as apre-cursor to the subsequent development ofexercises which actually audit real samples (inas far as that will be possible). However, forthe Invertebrate Component which has becomewell established over the last 15 years, theemphasis is shifting from training to auditingexercises. The invertebrate Ring Test exercises,for example, which until recently, weremandatory for all, are no longer so – althoughthey are still very strongly recommended.Indeed, recent feedback from new participants

in the scheme indicated that they found thismodule more valuable than anticipated.Sitting in on NMBAQC meetings I see no“emerging monster” trying to take over marinemonitoring in the UK or Europe. Sure we wantthe quality mantra to spread, but we are not the“benthic police” – just a bunch of committedmarine ecologists arguing about how best todo things! Arguing about sampling equipmentand sampling techniques, about fixing andpreserving, about sieving and storing, aboutsorting and staining or about blotting andweighing. We have lengthy deliberationstoo on faunal identifications, on taxonomickeys and literature, on setting targets andstandards (not to mention keeping the schemefinancially viable) – all directed towards theend product – Quality Assured data! It shouldbe noted that all the committee members’costs are met by their respective CMA’s andnot by the scheme. This is even the case forthe contractor’s representative, who sits onthe committee to bring any issues raised bycontractors to the table.Scheme flexibility and costsThe methodologies utilised by the CMAsfor NMMP/CSEMP and WFD macrobenthicmonitoring programmes (i.e. 0.1m 2 Day orVan Veen Grabs, processed on 0.5 or 1.0mmsieves) are sufficiently similar for both tobe incorporated into the NMBAQC schemeInvertebrate Component. There has been somediscussion whether aquaculture monitoringprogrammes (which use smaller grab samples,0.02 or 0.025m 2 ) should be assessed in thesame manner, and at the same cost, as CSEMPor WFD samples. Evidence to date suggeststhat aquaculture macrofaunal samples areoften just as diverse (and just as costly toaudit) as the larger grab samples. Althoughthis may seem counter-intuitive it may berelated to a broader mix of sediment typesaround fish farms in shallower waters, includingcoarser grits or maerls with very rich infaunalcommunities. Hence the audit procedure hasbeen deemed appropriate for both CSEMP/WFDand aquaculture samples. The committee doreview the scheme’s scope and operation andit would be misleading, as has been suggested,that the Invertebrate Component is currentlybeing used to assess survey work for which itwas not designed.While it has been argued that sampleaudit costs within the scheme should reflectthe actual audit costs of individual samplesof varying size or type, this would presentconsiderable administrative difficulties as theInvertebrate Component is required to be costedand funded as a whole in advance. Therefore,the costing is based on the estimated averagecosts of sample processing plus reporting andthe administrative overheads of the exercisesof the schemes contractor. Provided the rangeof sample types is not too large then this isgenerally simpler and fairer. While the schemedoes aim to be flexible it also has to be costefficient. Conducting and reporting qualityassurance is expensive and analytical labsfrequently spend 20-25% of their budgets onquality control alone. Separating identifiedmacrofaunal taxa into individual vials, forexample, may be considered a tedious burdenby some analysts but is routine practice in manyCMA labs to facilitate internal and external QAprocedures. Such practices do have additionalcosts and may seem like extra hoops to jumpthough, but they are necessary for properauditing. There is little point in carrying outexpensive monitoring programmes if they don’tproduce good quality assured data. Qualityassurance is not something that should “beavoided” – it should pervade all the processesfrom beginning to end (O’Reilly, 2001). Thethoroughness of the QA procedures providesconsiderable added value to the data.While the costs of participation can bebudgeted for by CMAs they may representa significant burden to individual persons/analysts vying for CMA contracts. A sharedmembership option has been introduced tohelp alleviate this difficulty. Contractors canand do, of course, pass the costs back to theCMAs via elevated charges for sample analysis.Of course it might be better if DEFRA fundedthe scheme up front with a generous blockgrant. However, government departmentshave their own ways of funding operationswhich might seem arcane to us scientists and,try as we might, it is difficult for a committeeof marine ecologists to influence governmentfiscal policy.PMNHS Newsletter No.25 Winter 2008/0911

12Benefiting the benthic ecologistPutting aside all the in and outs of costsand charges, just how does participation in theInvertebrate Component benefit the marineecologist behind the microscope?Although sample auditing is at the coreof the scheme, it is very much more thanan auditing service. The scheme promotesbest practice for sampling and analyticalmethodologies and development of standardoperating procedures (see Cooper & Rees2002, Proudfoot et al. 2003). These are ofvital importance for quality, but are notalways appreciated by the practising marineecologist. I remember when quality assurancewas first mooted in our lab (perhaps 20years ago?) being initially horrified at thesuggestion we would actually have to reanalyse10% of our samples! The qualityconcept has come a long way since then. Thescheme also aims to improve standards anddevelop taxonomic/identification skills. Theexercises are designed to identify sources oferror in analytical processes and these arehighlighted in bulletins and reports. Therehave been numerous training workshops onfield techniques or taxonomic identificationof invertebrates run under the NMBAQCbanner. The taxonomic workshops may beset at a level for beginners introducing themto various groups, including some tricky onessuch as Oligochaetes that most beginners tryand avoid (see Worsfold, 2003). Alternativelythere are “expert workshops” for moreexperienced analysts, focused on particulardifficult invertebrate groups and led by arecognised expert in that group. Participantscan bring along their own problem taxa orview reference material brought along by theworkshop organiser.The Ring Test training exercises circulatespecimens of a wide range of invertebratefauna from the northern North Sea to watersoff the southern UK coast. These may includepoorly known species whose occurrence in UKwaters has been overlooked (i.e. missing fromstandard keys), new arrivals moving northwith global warming, or alien taxa spreadinginto new habitats. Targeted Ring Tests focuson difficult faunal groups, such as Cirratulids,Oligochaetes, or small Gastropods.PMNHS Newsletter No.25 Winterer 2008/09The Lab Ref. exercise encouragesparticipants to establish their own referencecollections by enabling them to get voucherspecimens verified, or alternatively they canuse the exercise as an “Identification Amnesty”and send in a collection of specimens ofwhich they are uncertain and the schemecontractor will try and establish the identities.Participants are encouraged to challenge thescheme contractor if they disagree with speciesdeterminations in any of the exercises. In suchcases the opinions of recognised experts may besought. Sharing knowledge gained from suchdiscussions is of benefit to all participants.While opinions of experts may vary, the“correct” answer is out there – though it mayrequire some revisions and re-descriptions fromexperts to clarify the matter. This is one waythat taxonomy moves forward, with ecologists,at the blunt end of monitoring, puzzling overtheir unusual finds and feeding informationand specimens to specialists!As a practising macrobenthic taxonomistworking in coastal waters of south-westScotland for over 25 years, you might expectthat I had seen it all by now, had honed myidentification skills to tiptop and was an expertin the invertebrate fauna of my local area.Not so! In recent years I have had to reviewmany of my determinations on Cirratulids,Maldanids, or Oligochaetes (to name just afew) in the light of new information receivedthrough the scheme exercises or workshops.In fact I am still turning up species new tomy own area, or even new to UK waters. Thescheme has very much been at the forefrontof this process. The provision of an up-todatesearchable literature guide for marineinvertebrate taxa around UK waters, along withnew or revised keys is a prerequisite to helpme keep abreast of taxonomic developments.The taxonomic guides produced for NMBAQCworkshops, eg. on Cirratulids (by Tim Worsfold,1996, 2006) or, more recently, on Maldanids(by Peter Garwood, 2007), are written to dealwith typical samples of preserved specimensof various sizes which are often incompleteor fragmented. These new guides representa huge advance on previous published keyswhich are rarely comprehensive, often outof date taxonomically, and tend to assume

all material is in perfect condition. Indeed,additional guides, funded by the NMBAQC havebeen published in Porcupine (Worsfold. T. M.2006, 2007). All in all, the scheme enablesthe ecologist, whether greenhorn or old-timer,to get hands-on experience of a broad rangeof marine invertebrates, sharing informationwith other ecologists on distributions, keyfeatures, problems or errors in existing keys,and new or obscure literature sources. In myexperience, over the last 15 years, the schemehas been instrumental in developing the fieldand analytical skills of its participants and hasbeen of enormous practical help to the benthicecologist at the lab bench.References: (available from www.nmbaqcs.org.uk, except Unicomarine, 1996 ).Cooper K.M. & Rees, H.L.,(2002). NationalMarine Biological Control Scheme (NMBAQC):Review of Standard Operating Procedures.NMBAQC/CEFAS Science Series, AquaticEnvironment Protection: Analytical MethodsNo.13. 57pp.Garwood, P.R. (2007). Maldanids: A guideto species in waters around the British Isles.32pp.O’Reilly, M. (2001). Implementing Qualityfrom Beach to Bench. Pp.23-27, in: Moore,P.G.(2001)(Ed.), Developing and sharing bestpractice in marine-related fieldwork. UniversityMarine Biological Station Millport, OccasionalPublication, No.8, 61 pp.Proudfoot,R.K., Elliott,M., Dyer,M.F.,Barnett,B.E., Allen, J.H., Proctor,N.L.,Cutts,N., Nikitik,C., Turner,G., Breen,J.,Hemmingway,K.L.,and Mackie,T. (2003).Proceedings of the Humber Benthic FieldMethods Workshop, Hull University 1997.Collection and Processing of macrobenthicsamples from soft sediments; a best practicereview. Environment Agency. R & D TechnicalReport E1 – 13/TR, 128pp.Unicomarine (1996). A guide to theFamily Cirratulidae, including a key to anteriorportions. Version 1.00 (RT09), Report toNMBAQC Committee, Sep. 1996, 44pp., 16figures.Worsfold, T. (2003). Introduction toOligochaetes. NMBAQC Workshop 2003,22pp.Worsfold. T. (2006). A provisional updateto the identification of UK Cirratulidae.BEQUALM/NMBAQC Taxonomic Workshop,Dove, Nov. 2006. 15pp.Worsfold. T. M. (2006). Identification Guidesfor the NMBAQC Scheme: 1. Scalibregmatidae(Polychaeta) from shallow seas around theBritish Isles. Porcupine Marine Natural HistorySociety Newsletter 20: 15-18.Worsfold. T. M. (2007). IdentificationGuides for the NMBAQC Scheme: 2. Goniadidae,with notes on Glyceridae (Polychaeta) fromshallow seas around the British Isles. PorcupineMarine Natural History Society Newsletter 22:19-23.Problems in taxonomy: areDodecaceria laddi and D. diceriathe same species?Peter GibsonInstitute of Evolutionary Biology, AshworthLaboratories, University of Edinburgh, King’sBuildings, Mayfield Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JRpeter.gibson@ed.ac.ukDodecaceria fimbriata (in the senseused by Gibson) found in the NorthernHemisphere and D. berkeleyi in the Southernare apparently morphologically identical.Their bipolar distributions appear to be anexample of convergent evolution (Gibson,2008) 1 . However, such evolution usually leavessmall morphological differences between thespecies, evolutionary legacies, and thesehave not been found in the two species. Analternative explanation for their similarity isthat they were separated by continental driftduring the Precambrian (Gibson, 2008). Thishowever supposes that the two species havenot evolved since their separation. Such stasiswould be possible if structures evolved to apoint where they could not be improved upon.That is, improvement would be metabolicallytoo costly. Other polychaetes that evolved inthe Cambrian or before may have reached asimilar evolutionary state.PMNHS Newsletter No.25 Winter 2008/0913

CrotchetsThe taxonomy of polychaetes depends ona subjective comparison of their morphologyand particularly the chaetae. In Dodecaceriacrotchets (hook-like structures) are particularlyimportant in this respect 2 . They have a slightserpentine profile and a subterminal tooth, araised region or ledge. The hook frequently hasa distal depression or spoon (Figure 1a).Dodecaceria diceria and D. laddiThe geographical range of D. diceriaextends northwards from about 25° N andis common in the North Atlantic (Gibson,1996). D. laddi is found between 35° N and35° S (Gibson, in preparation). Because thetwo species are so similar, if not identical,they could be the same species. Hartman firstdescribed Dodecaceria laddi from the MarshallIslands (Hartman, 1954) and D. diceria from offthe Florida Keys (Hartman, 1951) 3 . Since shedescribed both species she might have beenexpected to have noted their similarity. As shedid not, one should be cautious in saying thatthey are same species. Further sampling mayshow their ranges overlap.In addition to looking the same both havesome 40-50 chaetose segments. Therefore onbalance they may be thought to be the samespecies. If they were then the name D. diceriashould take priority.Figure 1. Drawings of the crotchets of Dodecaceria usinga X40 objective, a) D. fimbriata and D. berkeleyi and b)D. diceria and D. laddiIn D. fimbriata and D. berkeleyi thecrotchets appear to be the same as one another(Figure 1a). Again, in D. diceria and D. laddithey are apparently identical (Figure 1b) toeach other. In the second pair of species thedistal region, although hooked, does not havea depression and is without as marked a toothor raised region seen in the first pair of species.In D. diceria and D. laddi the base of the hookruns smoothly into the shaft. The lower regionof the hook is corrugated although this is onoccasions only visible with an oil immersionobjective. The corrugation can appear as lobesor blunt teeth.The problem in using a characteristiccrotchet for identification is that a speciesnormally also has many forms of crotchet andthese are found in other species in the genus.Therefore identification of a specimen dependson searching through the crotchets to find thedefining type.Convergent evolutionFor Dodecaceria fimbriata and D. berkeleyito show convergent evolution they musthave been subject to the same environmentalinfluences. However, the environment coulddirectly influence development. If this wereso, it must be limited since the crotchets of D.fimbriata and D. concharum (in sensu Gibson)differ, yet the species coexist in the samehabitat. To know whether such an apparentlyLamarckian effect is possible the developmentof crotchets has to be understood.Chaetal developmentChaetae are composed of closely packedtubules which are seen macroscopically asfibrils (Hausen, 2005). These fibres are tubulesor channels. They appear to be formed from amatrix secreted around microvilli at the base ofthe chaetae. The shape of a chaeta is probablydetermined by the length of the microvilli(Gibson & Stoddart, 2005). 4 That is, theamount of matrix and the time taken to secreteit. The growth of tubules may be constrainedby the growth of adjacent tubules in a mannersimilar to the arcing of a bimetallic strip whenheated (each having different coefficients ofexpansion). Faster growing tubules, thosewith more matrix, cause a chaeta to bend as14PMNHS Newsletter No.25 Winterer 2008/09

it grows 4 . The shape of chaetae will thereforedepend on the characteristics of the microvilli.A wave of secretory activity appears to passacross the microvilli. The nature of thewave, its mathematical characteristic, wouldmodulate growth.The polychaete crotchet and uncinusappear to have the same basic shape. Onecan be graphically converted to the otherusing a D’Arcy Thompson transformation(Gibson, 2002). That is, one type can be“morphed”, evolutionarily speaking, into theother by differential growth. This principleprobably applies to all types of chaetae. Theshape of chaetae, then, might, as mentionedabove, conform to a mathematic function(Gibson, Robson & Armitage, 1999). Thisfunction may to some degree be influencedby the environment as in developmentalcanalization, first postulated by Waddington(Calow, 1983).Chaetae grow sequentially and their shapevaries with their age. The form of the crotchetsof Dodecaceria varies within the fascicle of aparapoda, between neuropodia and notopodiaand along the body (Caullery & Mesnil, 1898).This, as noted, is the same for other species.In Arenicola, for example, the rostral teeth ofthe crotches become smaller and can disappear(Ashworth, 1912). Interaction betweenenvironment and gene control may thereforechange with age.Polychaete evolutionPolychaetes are best understood as anad hoc group. That is, their evolution is notclearly monophyletic with one group givingrise to another 5 . The structure of their chaetae,for example, is best seen in terms of functionrather than phylogeny. Dales based hisclassification on feeding structures (1963).Rouse & Pleijel (2001) were equivocal overmorphological evidence for a monophyleticorigin. Polychaetes could have polyphyleticorigin if they had a Precambrian planktonicorigin (Gibson, in preparation). Speciationcould have occurred within the planktonand species dispersed globally in surfacewaters. This might account for the apparentbipolar distributions of D. fimbriata and D.berkeleyi 6 . Planktonic dispersal obviates theneed to postulate continual drift. However,this origin supposes evolutionary stasis (orthat exactly the same changes have occurredin both species).NomenclatureThe distribution and naming of Dodecaceriafimbriata/D. berkeleyi and D. diceria/ D. laddihighlights a weakness in classical taxonomy.The use of priority in naming species has ledto confusion (Gibson & Heppell, 1995; Heppell& Gibson, 1995). The problem is not solved bycompelling authors to follow prescribed codesformulated by bodies such as the InternationalCommission on Zoological Nomenclature. Theseprocedures fail because they stultify taxonomy(Heppell, 1991). Systems must be flexibleenough to allow for changes in approach.Because morphological taxonomy dependson judgement it lacks rigor. This is particularlytrue for Dodecaceria where the species aremorphologically so similar. Computer imageanalysis of the shape of chaetae, a moreobjective method, was used in an attempt toseparate species in this genus (Gibson, Robson& Armitage, 1999; Gibson & Stoddart, 2005).Because the reproduction of the species ofDodecaceria is so varied another approach tothe taxonomy was to use differences in theirreproductive biology (Gibson, 1978). Othermethods that might help in separating speciescould be the use of ontology and ecology. Barcoding (Heppell, 1991) and DNA finger printingmight be effectively used in naming species.SummaryDodecaceria fimbriata and D. berkeleyi havea bipolar distribution even though they appearto be the same species. Continental drift canbe used to account for their distribution. Analternative explanation is that the ancestorsto polychaetes evolved in the Precambrianplankton and were distributed within surfacewaters. There is also the possibility ofconvergent evolution due to similarities inhabitats. However, the environment mayalso have a direct effect on chaetal structurethrough developmental canalization.Dodecaceria diceria and D. laddi arealso morphologically very similar. Theirdistributions although different may on furtherPMNHS Newsletter No.25 Winter 2008/0915

investigation be found to overlap. If they dothey are likely to be the same species.AcknowledgementI wish to thank Professor Mark Blaxter forhelpful comments.This figure was inadvertently omitted from thesummer Porcupine pieces (Peter Gibson, PMNHS NewsLetter No. 24, 2008, pp 31-33)Gibson, P. H. (1996) Distribution of thecirratulid polychaetes Dodecaceria fimbriata, D.concharum and D. diceria in European watersbetween latitudes 48° N and 70° N. Journal ofthe Marine Biological Association of the U.K.,76, 625-635Gibson, P. (2002) D’Arcy Thompsontransformation of crotchets to uncini and itsimplication for the phylogeny of polychaetes.Porcupine marine natural history society, Newsletter, No. 10, pp 10-11Gibson, P. (2008) Speciation of Dodecaceriafimbriata and D. berkeleyi: convergent evolutionor continental drift? Porcupine marine naturalhistory society, News letter, No, 24, No. 24,pp 31-33Gibson, P. H. & Heppell, D. (1995)Dodecaceria concharum Örsted, 1843 andHeterocirrus fimbriatus Verrill, 1879 (currentlyD. fimbriata) (Annelida, Polychaeta): proposedconservation of the specific names by thedesignation of a neotype for D. concharum.Case 2899. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature,52, 27-33Speculative positions of Gondwana, Laurentia and NewZealand 5000 million years agoReferencesAshworth, J. H. Catalogue of the chaetapodaof the British Museum. A - polychaete: Part 1 -Arenicolidae. British Museum, London, 1912,pp 39-55Calow, P. Evolutionary principles. Blackie,Glasgow & London, 1983, p. 68-80Caullery, M. & Mesnil, F. (1898) Lesforms épitoques et l’evolution de cirratuliens.Annales de l‘Université de Lyon, 39, 1-200Dales, R. P. Annelids, Hutchinson,University Press Library, London, 1963, pp64-76Gibson, P. H. (1978). Systematics ofDodecaceria (Annelida: Polychaeta) and itsrelationship to the reproduction of its species.Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 63,275-287Gibson, P., Robson, E. & Armitage, A.(1999) Computer-aided identification ofpolychaetes. Newsletter of the Porcupine MarineNatural History Society. No. 2, pp 49-53Gibson, P. & Stoddart, L. (2005) Furthercharacterisation of chaetae: Their structureand the use of computer neural networks.Porcupine marine natural history society, Newsletter, No. 18, pp 5-8Hartman, O. (1951) Littoral marine faunaof the Gulf of Mexico. Publication of theInstitute of Science and Technology, 2, 92-93Hartman, O. (1954) Marine annelids fromthe Northern Marshall Islands. U.S. Departmentof the Interior Geological Survey, OccasionalPapers, 260-Q, p 368Hausen, H. (2005) Chaetae andchaetogenesis in polychaetes (Annelida).In: Morphology, molecules, evolutionand phylogeny in Polychaeta and relatedtaxa. Bartolomaeus T. & Purschke G. (Eds.)Hydrobiologia 535/536, 27-52Heppell, D. Names without numbers?Improving the stability of names: needs and16PMNHS Newsletter No.25 Winterer 2008/09

options. (Ed., D. L. Hawksworth) (RegnumVegetabile, No. 123) Koeltz Scientific Books,Königstein, 1991, pp 191-196Heppell, D. & Gibson, P. H. (1995)Comment on the proposed conservation ofthe specific names of Dodecaceria concharumÖrsted, 1843 and D. fimbriata (Verrill, 1879)(Annelida, Polychaeta) by the designation ofa neotype for Dodecaceria concharum. Bulletinof Zoological Nomenclature, 52, 329-331Rouse G. W. & Pleijel F. (2001) Polychaetes.Oxford University Press, U.K. 2001, pp 11-14Endnotes1. Possibly Dodecaceria fimbriata was introducedfrom Europe to New Zealand on the bottomof boats or in bilge. Against this is the widedistribution of D. berkeleyi. D. berkeleyi found atKaiteriteri, South Island, was first described byKnox in 1970. This location is 2° N of nearestinternational harbour at Christchurch. Specimensare also found in New South Wales and elsewherein Australia. D. fimbriata, like D. berkeleyi, is asecondary rock borer and therefore unlikely tohave been carried on the bottom of boats.2.3.4.5.6.Similar crotchets are found in spionids,magalonids and the related capitellids,maldanids, arenicolids. These frequentlyhave beards, hoods, a brush or teeth alongthe crest.In Hartman’s 1954 paper does not give a keyand she does not mention D. diceria.Matrix precursor may be polymerised bymembrane enzymes of microvilli (Hausen,2005).Taxonomic order can be seen in some groups. Thecapitellids, maldanids, arenicolids, for example,form a monophyletic group. As a phylum,however, polychaetes are a disparate group.Dispersal of planktonic organisms will dependto some degree on Ferrell’s Law which accountsfor the directions of ocean currents, due tothe rotation of the earth, regardless of theconfiguration of continents.A planktonic explanation for theorigin of polychaetesPeter GibsonInstitute of Evolutionary Biology, AshworthLaboratories, University of Edinburgh, KingsBuildings, Mayfield Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JRpeter.gibson@ed.ac.ukThe polychaetes are a diverse group offamilies and appear to be polyphyletic 1 . Whichmetazoan group or groups they evolved fromis difficult to say (Clark, 1979). They areusually supposed to have arisen from a benthicplatyhelminth-like ancestor (Willmer, 1990).Alternatively they arose from a planktonicancestor which subsequently speciated.Precambrian evolutionPolychaete fossils such as Burgessochaetasetigera, Canadia spinosa and Stephenoscolexargutus belong to the Cambrian fauna of some500 million years ago (Rouse & Pleijel, 2001).However, these polychaete ancestors musthave evolved before this period and when thesea had an oxygen level of about 10% of itspresent level (Willmer, 1990). These ancestorsmay have been planktonic and lived in theeuphotic zone where oxygen levels would havebeen greatest. They may have been similarto present day polychaete trochophores. Aplanktonic origin was suggested by Davidsonet al. (1995) and others. These ancestors wouldhave lacked hard parts and therefore would nothave fossilised. The trochophores of today maybe their only legacy 2 .Planktonic ancestorsTrochophores, such as the mitraria larva,are small and maintain their position in theplankton by using long hair-like processes,chaetae. The same would have been so forplanktonic polychaete ancestors. There would,however, have been advantages in becominglarger since this would increase metabolismefficiency and fecundity. A resulting problemis that the organism would have tended tosink. Polychaete ancestors may therefore havebecome benthic, probably during the Vendian.The sea bed is rich in organic material whichPMNHS Newsletter No.25 Winter 2008/0917

drops from the plankton. The polychaeteancestors may have taken advantage of theseaccumulating nutrients and increased in sizethrough “budding” segments as trochophoresdo today. This metamorphosis and subsequentgrowth would have been accompanied bydelaying reproduction. Garstang, over acentury ago, pointed out that stages in thelife cycle, production of gametes for example,can be moved to take advantage of newenvironmental demands (De Beer, 1958).Larval speciationThe process by which a planktonicancestor metamorphosed into a demersalpolychaete is illustrated by the trochophoreof the archiannelid Polygordius, which showslarval speciation. The larvae of P. lacteus andP. neapolitanus are dissimilar whereas theadults are indistinguishable (Fig. 1). Similarlarval diversification is found in the marinelarva of the sponge Halichondria and the freshwater larvae of the flies Clux, Chironomus andCorethra.In P. neapotanus the reproductive adult isbudded from the lower end of the trochophore,and in P. lacteus the adult develops withinthe larva (Fig. 1). As development progressesthe trochophore sinks to the sea bed andmetamorphoses into the reproductive stage.Species such as Ophelia defer metamorphosisuntil a suitable substratum is found.Increasing fitnessBy becoming benthic, then, a planktonicpolychaete ancestor would increase reproductivefitness through increased fecundity: greaternumbers of offspring living long enoughto reproduce. In extant polychaetes thisevolutionary drive is achieved by eitherproducing large numbers of metabolicallycheap eggs or few metabolically expensiveones (Gibson, 2007). Inexpensive eggs haveless stored yolk than the expensive ones.This reproductive option would not have beenavailable to a planktonic ancestor due to thesmall size of the body cavity 3 .Allocation of recoursesSomatic growth and gamete production inpolychaetes and other animals are partitionedto maximise nutritional resources. Productionof eggs, especially those with much yolk, ismetabolically costly. Newly metamorphosedtrochophores therefore grow before reproducing:reproduction is deferred.Cell division, however, does not appearto be directly limited by the availability ofresources. For example, mitosis in the protistFrontonia can be initiated by surgicallyremoving cytoplasm (Carter, 1965), whichis a metabolic resource. In many organismsreduced resources appears to trigger meiosis,sexual reproduction. In polychaetes theutilisation of nutritional recourses within thebody appears to shift cell division in favour ofsexual reproduction once growth is complete.In some polychaetes this sequence of eventsis under the control of hormones produced bythe brain (Clark & Olive, 1973).18Fig. 1. Divergence in Polygordius, a) trochophoreof P. lacteus and P. neopolitanus, b) larva of P.lacteus, c) larva of P. neopolitanus and d) youngmetamorphosed worm and P. lacteus and P.neopolitanus (From De Beer, 1958)PMNHS Newsletter No.25 Winterer 2008/09Set aside cellsA universal biological necessity is theinvestment in the future of genes, and this isachieved by increasing reproductive fitness.Germ line cells are, as Davidson put it, “setaside” in the trochophore. They are the 4dcells of the blastula which give rise to thegametic primordial cells of the adult. Theyare seen in the primary embryonic mesoblastwhich, following metamorphosis, give rise tosegmental musculature. The argument for aplanktonic origin of polychaetes is supportedby the observation of precocious germ cells

in certain Serpulids (Olive & Clark, 1978).That is, they can appear early in trochophoredevelopment and suggests that they may wellhave been present in planktonic ancestors.Present day polychaetes, then, appear topostpone meiosis until after metamorphosis.Such a developmental shift, as noted byGarstang, may well have occurred with theplanktonic ancestors.SegmentationSegmentation in polychaetes, then,appears to be a means for increasing fecundity.However, the numbers of segments produced islimited within each species. Mitotic cell divisionoccurs in the blastema at the posterior end ofthe body and segments appear to be producedcyclically. Each segment is characteristicallyidentical to others: they have the same tissuetypes and structures. The inter-segmentalannuli may mark a temporarily slowing of thecycle 4 . In meiosis of the 4d cells, however,division is not restricted, and this may indicatea protozoan origin.Discussion and summaryThe suggestion that polychaetesevolved from a planktonic ancestor appearsat first to be a return to the theory ofrecapitulation proposed by Haeckel. That is,the trochophore is an “embryonic ancestor”through which polychaetes pass to becomeadult. Recapitulation was discredited by DeBeer and others and the trochophore is nowseen as a distributive phase inserted intothe life cycle. Neither of these explanationsappears to accurately describe the evolutionof polychaetes. The present day adult maysimply be “added onto” a planktonic ancestoras a means of increasing fitness. To achievethis, meiosis is delayed. Complete suppressionof meiosis results in parthenogenesis (Gibson,1981).An argument in favour of the radiation ofa polychaete ancestor within benthos claimsthat this environment is varied and offersnumerous niches, whereas the sea does not.This view underestimates the complexity ofthe marine environment. In reality the seais constantly changing and varies in salinity,temperature, light and currents (Raymont,1963). Intra-species competition for resourceswhich drives evolution must always have beenexacting within the plankton. The rich varietyof organisms seen today is evidence for this.Planktonic ancestors having settled on thesea bed would have diverged into burrowing,tube building, filter and deposit feeding andgave rise to the variety of extant species. To adegree this and movement between habitats,will have resulted in structures such as chaetaeadapting to the point where their lineage canno longer be traced. However, the explanationfor the diversity of structures may also be dueto polychaetes being polyphyletic. That is, thedifferent forms of chaetae are an expressionof their function as well as a planktonicancestry.AcknowledgementsI wish to thank Professor Mark Blaxter ofthe Institute of Evolutionary Biology for helpfulcomments.ReferencesCarter G. S., A general zoology of theinvertebrates. (Fourth edition), Sedgwick &Jackson, London, 1965Clark R. B., Composition and relationships.Physiology of annelids. (Ed., J. P. Mill),Academic Press, London, 1979, pp. 1-32Clark R. B. & Olive P. J. W. (1973) Recentadvances in polychaete endocrinology andreproductive biology. Oceanography & MarineBiology: Annual Review, 11: 175-222Davidson E. H., Peterson K. J. & CameronR. A. (1995) Origin of bilaterian bodyplans: evolution of developmental regulatorymechanisms. Science, 270: 1319-1325De Beer G. R., Embryos and ancestors.(Third edition), Clarendon Press, 1958Gibson P. H. (1981) Gametogenesis of thecirratulid polychaetes Dodecaceria concharumand D. caulleryi. Journal of Zoology, London,193: 355-370Gibson P. H. (2007) Is there a loss leaderprinciple in oligolecithal egg production?Porcupine Marine Natural History Society, 22:12-14PMNHS Newsletter No.25 Winter 2008/0919

Olive P. J. W. & Clark R. B., Physiology ofreproduction. Physiology of annelids. (Ed., J.P. Mill), Academic Press, London, 1978, pp.271-368Raymond J. E. G. Plankton productivity inthe oceans. Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1963Rouse G. W. & Pleijel F. Polychaetes. OxfordUniversity Press, UK, 2001, pp 11-14Willmer P., Invertebrate relationships.Cambridge University Press, UK, 1990(Endnotes)1. This term is used in its evolutionary sense forfamilies within a phylum cannot strictly bepolyphyletic.2. There are segmented planktonic polychaetesbut these probably evolved from benthicforms. Cambrian fossil polychaetes such asBurgessochaeta setigera had long chaetae andmay have been planktonic but they postdateany the putative trochophore-like ancestor.3. Eggs with much yolk would have increasedthe buoyancy of a planktonic ancestor.Increased body sizewould probably have beena disadvantage since these individuals wouldhave been more visible and therefore vulnerableto predation. The planktonic polychaeteTomopterous helgolandica is relatively large butis an active swimmer.4. Segmentation ultimately results in evolutionaryspecialisation of regions of the body. This,in conjunction with the coelome, appears tohave lead to the ability to burrow, as famouslydescribed by Clark.20PMNHS Newsletter No.25 Winterer 2008/09

Information Requests and ObservationsEndangered swordfish found onSouth Wales beachPress release from National Marine AquariumContact: Douglas Herdson, InformationOfficer, National Marine Aquarium, Rope Walk,Coxside, Plymouth PL4 0LF, UK Douglas.Herdson@national-aquarium.co.ukOr – Nadine Simpson, Marketing, Nadine.Simpson@national-aquarium.co.ukOn Thursday morning 3 rd July 2008, thebody of a large fish was found washed up onBarry Island beach, Vale of Glamorgan, SouthWales. It was a torpedo-shaped fish over sixfeet long, with a long snout, a crescent tail andcurved back fin. It was obviously a “billfish”one of the group containing swordfish andmarlins. Colin Smith of the Vale of GlamorganCouncil was soon on to it and contacted theMarine Conservation Society. They in turn puthim on to Doug Herdson at the National MarineAquarium in Plymouth, who manages the UKMarine Fish Recording Scheme. The recordsshow that while swordfish are rare, they doturn up from time to time in the waters aroundthe British Isles; but there have only ever beenthree marlins found in the UK.Photo - National Museum of WalesPhotographs of the fish were sent toPlymouth and from these it was possible toidentify it as a Swordfish Xiphias gladius(“Pysgodyn cleddyf” in Welsh) as expected.The fish has since been taken to the NationalMuseum Wales (Amgueddfa Cymru) whereit will enter the national collection. Onarrival, it was carefully examined by Dr PeterHowlett, the Curator of Lower Vertebrates,who confirmed the identification and foundit to be a young specimen 2.24 metres longand between 60 and 80 kg in weight. It hadbeen dead only a few days, but it had beenscavenged by other creatures and it was notpossible to determine the cause of death.Swordfish can grow to 4.6 metres (16 ft)and weigh over 600 kg, so this one was a tiddlerin global terms. They are often called a BroadbilledSwordfish, but there is only one speciesin the world. They are found throughout thetropical and temperate waters of the world butappear to prefer sea temperatures of 18°C to22°C, migrating to cooler waters to feed inthe summer. These oceanic fish chase herringand mackerel and are among the fastest fishreaching 90 km.h -1 (56 m.p.h.). This is in partdue to their being warm-blooded, which allowsnot only their muscles but also their brain andeyes to work more efficiently.By 1998 the swordfish population of theNorth Atlantic was thought to have declined,due to overfishing, to only 35% of its originalsize. Once mature a female can produce 30million eggs each year, giving the stock thecapability of rapid recovery. However thefemales do not mature until they reach 70kg, and the average size now landed is amere 40 kg. When the population was firstcommercially targeted in the early nineteenthcentury the average fish landed weighed over200 kg. Such a decline is a classic feature ofoverfishing. Drastic fisheries control measuresare now in force for swordfish in the NorthWest Atlantic, but it is disputed as to howeffective these have been and it is claimedthat the stock is still at only half the level ofa sustainable population.Unfortunately, with stocks at these levelsswordfish steak must now be on the “fish toavoid” list. It is to be hoped that effectivefisheries management can be enforced in boththe West and the East North Atlantic so thatwe can once again enjoy this delightful fish,both in the wild and on the plate.PORCUPINE PROBLEMSPMNHS Newsletter No.24 Summer 2008 21

In Europe the swordfish have probablydeclined even more, but they are still caughtin the Mediterranean and Atlantic. Vesselsfishing for tuna in the Bay of Biscay and tothe south and west of Ireland occasionallycatch swordfish which are sometimes landedat Newlyn, in Cornwall.They do occur as far north as Sweden,and there are scattered records of swordfisharound Britain since the first one at Margatein 1841. There are few Scottish records withonly four or five in the twentieth century.They are probably commonest on the south andwest coasts, but do turn up in the North Sea.Records held by the National Marine Aquariumshow that in 2006 one was photographednear Teignmouth, in Devon and another seenleaping off Dorset, while a small (26 kg) onewas caught off the Northumberland; while inAugust 2007 an even smaller one was caughtsouth of the Lizard.The first swordfish in Wales was offNewport back in 1905; while in 2003 one wasstranded at Rhossili on the Gower, but in spiteof efforts to rescue it, it died an hour later. Sothe present fish is the third that Mr Herdsonhas details of in Wales. The National MarineAquarium would welcome any other reports.Douglas Herdson, Information Officer atthe National Marine Aquarium in Plymouth,said “We have phenomenal life thriving inthe seas around the Britain, some of therichest areas being off the Welsh coast, westof Scotland and the South West. It is greatthat fish like the swordfish and sunfish arebeing seen along with the turtles, dolphinsand basking sharks. We have wonderfulmarine biodiversity and must celebrate andprotect it.”The UK Marine Fish Recording Schemewelcomes reports of any unusual marine orestuarine fish seen around the British Isles;‘phone 01752 275216 or email fishreports@national-aquarium.co.uk.Rare ocean travellerPress release from National Marine AquariumContact: Douglas Herdson, InformationOfficer, National Marine Aquarium, Rope Walk,Coxside, Plymouth PL4 0LF, UK Douglas.Herdson@national-aquarium.co.ukOr – Nadine Simpson, Marketing, Nadine.Simpson@national-aquarium.co.ukOut for an early morning walk on thesands of Saundersfoot, Pembrokeshire, with hisdog, on Wednesday 6 th August 2008, fishermanGavin Davies saw a strange shape rollingaround as the waves pushed up the beach.On closer inspection he saw it was a billfish.With the help of four friends and a Landroverhe got it pulled up the beach to where it couldbe examined.Photo - Gareth DaviesAt this time they could see it was a marlinand contacted South Wales Sea FisheriesCommittee Officer Mark Hamblin to check itout. Mark was able to determine that it was aBlue Marlin (Makaira nigricans), a fish virtuallyunknown in British and Irish waters and thefirst ever recorded from the Welsh coast. Thislarge fish with a spear-like snout can grow upto 5 metres long and weigh over 660 kilos. TheWelsh fish was 2.75 metres and weighed about190 kg. It is not known what caused its deathbut the large numbers of dolphins around thearea at that time might have attacked it, butit also appeared slightly emaciated indicatingthat it may have been unwell, or simply unableto feed in the cooler British waters. Oncestranded it was attacked by scavengers thatopened up its belly.There are 11 species of marlin and sailfishworldwide, five of which have been seen inthe North East Atlantic, three having turned22PMNHS Newsletter No.24 Summer 2008

up around the British Isles. Records from theUK Marine Fish Recording Scheme managedby the National Marine Aquarium in Plymouthshow that this is the second Blue Marlin tobe recorded from British and Irish waters andonly the fourth billfish (the first in Wales).The first UK Blue Marlin was a specimen of 3.7metres found dead on a beach on St Agnes inthe Isles of Scilly in March 1982. A 1.8 metrelong White Marlin was found alive but dying inMorecambe Bay in August 1983, and a Sailfishof 2.66 metres was washed up at the mouthof the River Yealm in South Devon back inAugust 1926.Douglas Herdson, Information Officerat the National Marine Aquarium, said “Thebillfish are incredible wanderers of the openoceans of the world, but prefer warmer watersthan ours. It is just the odd vagrant that straysinto our seas and comes to grief. They are veryunusual and it is a shame that this fish didnot go into a national collection such as thatof the National Museum of Wales.”“This is just a straggler and probably hasnothing to do with climate change, but in yearsto come if the sea temperatures continue toincrease they may become commoner aroundour shores, if the stocks have not been fisheddown to depletion.”The marlins and sailfish are powerfulwarm water ocean wanderers, migrating vastdistances each year, often favouring the blueclear waters. The warmer surface waters abovethe temperature change of the thermoclineare the normal hunting ground of the marlin,but they may dive to 350 metres in the searchfor prey. In the East Atlantic Blue Marlinnormally occurs as far north as southern Bayof Biscay.Sleek and muscular, they are the fastest offish reaching 100 kilometres per hour. Visualpredators that hunt by day they have evolveda wonderful anatomy that maintains the eyesand brain at a warm temperature so increasingtheir efficiency. The bill is an elongatedtoothless upper jaw whose purpose has longbeen debated, but recent studies have shownthat it is frequently used to slash, and evenspear, fish they feed on. They also target squidand octopus. They spawn in tropical regionsand move out to cooler latitudes in the hotterperiods of the year.Fishing pressures have reduced theirpopulations to a mere ten percent or less oftheir historic levels. Doug Herdson commented“The seas are a poorly known world of theirown and every so often they reveal some oftheir wonders. This just shows how muchwe should celebrate and protect our marinelife.”Note: Marlin are sometimes confused withSwordfish, which have a longer stouter bill.Swordfish are also “heavier” more rotund fishwith no pelvic fins and a single keel on theside of the tail base. Marlin have two keelson the side of the tail base and their pelvicfins are long and thin ones attached under the“throat”. The relative bulkiness and the depthof the body of the Welsh fish, in comparisonto the height of the dorsal (back) fin showsit to be a Makaira, a blue or black marlin, asopposed the more slender sailfish and whitemarlins. Opinion among experts varies as towhether there are one, two or three species ofMakaira. Hence it is difficult to distinguishbetween them from a photograph. The mostlikely one is the Blue Marlin Makaira nigricans,with an outside possibility of the Black MarlinMakaira indica.PMNHS Newsletter No.24 Summer 2008 23

PORCUPINE 200824PORCUPINE 2008BIODIVERSITY HOTSPOTS AND COLDSPOTSPapers and abstracts from the PMNHS meeting held at Bangor University from 21 st to 23 rdMarch 2008Towards a network of marineprotected areas in the UKBethany Stoker and Annabelle AishJoint Nature Conservation Committee,Peterborough, UKThe UK Government is committed to establishinga network of marine protected areas by 2012 thatwill ‘recover and protect the richness of our marinewildlife and environment through the developmentof a strong, ecologically coherent and well-managednetwork of marine protected areas (MPAs) that is wellunderstood and supported’ (Defra & WAG 2008). TheMarine and Coastal Access Bill (Defra 2008) providesfor a new mechanism of site designation, termedmarine conservation zones (MCZs). These sites can bedesignated for the purpose of conserving marine floraor fauna; marine habitats or types of marine habitat;and features of geological or geomorphologicalinterest. Marine conservation zones, in addition toEuropean Marine Sites (that is Special ProtectionAreas and Special Areas of Conservation) will formthe basis of a MPA network in the UK.The new site designation measures proposed underthe Marine and Coastal Access Bill will apply toEnglish and Welsh Territorial waters, and UK offshorewaters. For English territorial waters and adjacent UKoffshore waters Natural England and the Joint NatureConservation Committee (JNCC), in collaboration withDefra and other partners, are developing RegionalMCZ Projects. These Projects will contribute to theUK Government’s network of MPAs by identifyingand recommending MCZs that should be established;the objectives and levels of protection which will beafforded to each of these sites will also be identified.Through strong stakeholder engagement, the projectswill seek to design the network of MCZs so that socialand economic costs are minimised, and benefits tosociety are maximised. One of the Regional MCZProjects, Finding Sanctuary, in the south west hasalready been established and there are a further three(the Eastern English Channel, the North Sea and theIrish Sea) currently being set up (Figure 1).PMNHS Newsletter No.25 Winter 2008/09Figure 1 - Regional MCZ project areasIn Wales, the Welsh Assembly Government willuse the MCZ designation mechanism to establishHighly Protected Marine Reserves (HPMRs), and areembarking on a programme of collaborative workwith the Countryside Council for Wales to identifyappropriate sites by 2012. Northern Ireland willcontinue to focus on the marine Natura 2000 processover the next couple of years, but are considering adedicated Northern Ireland Marine Bill in the nearfuture.The Scottish Government recently publishedits ‘Sustainable Seas for All: a consultation onScotland’s first marine bill’ (Scottish Government2008) where it proposed that there should be anew flexible power for Scottish Ministers to identify,designate or recognise particular locations ofbiodiversity importance within Scottish territorialwaters. For UK offshore waters adjacent to Scotland,the Marine and Coastal Access Bill identifies ScottishMinisters as the appropriate authority for MCZdesignation, although MCZs will be known as MPAsin the Scottish offshore region.These new designation mechanisms will help the UKto build on its existing series of marine protectedsites. To date, approximately 1.8 million hectares ofUK waters have been designated as MPAs, coveringapproximately 2% of the UK Continental Shelf.These designated sites comprise of Special Areas ofConservation (SACs) and Special Protection Areas(SPAs).

JNCC will continue to lead in the identification ofSACs and SPAs in UK offshore waters; and last yearconsulted on their first seven proposals for SpecialAreas of Conservation. These seven SAC sites wererecommended for their Annex I habitats on thebasis of the selection criteria contained within theHabitats Directive Annex III, and EC Guidance onimplementation of the Natura 2000 network in themarine environment. Both Braemar Pockmarks andScanner Pockmarks were selected for the presenceof submarine structures made by leaking gases. HaigFras, Stanton Banks, Darwin Mounds and WyvilleThomson Ridge were selected for the presenceof Annex I reefs. North Norfolk Sandbanks andSaturn Reef were selected for the presence of bothsandbanks and reefs (Figure 2).ReferencesDefra & the Welsh Assembly Government (2008)Draft guidance on selection and designation ofMarine Conservation Zones. Available from: http://www.defra.gov.uk/marine/biodiversity/marine-bill/guidance.htmDefra (2008) Marine and Coastal Access Bill. Availablefrom: http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2008-09/marineandcoastalaccess.htmlScottish Government (2008) Sustainable SeasFor All: a consultation on Scotland’s first marinebill. Available from: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/231463/0063135.pdfAbstracts of papers presented atthe conference but not submittedfor publicationThe BAP spots of WalesAethne CookCCW, Pembroke Dock, Pembrokea.cooke@ccw.gov.ukFigure 2 - proposed offshore SACsFollowing the responses received through thepublic consultation five of these sites were formallysubmitted by the UK Government to the EuropeanCommission in September 2008 (Braemar Pockmarks,Scanner Pockmarks, Haig Fras, Stanton Banks andDarwin Mounds). These are the first UK offshore areasto go through the process, and they will link up withan international network of protected areas in thewaters of other countries in the European Union.JNCC are hoping to start the next round of offshoreSAC consultations, which will lead to the secondphase of offshore SACs, in early 2009. It is likely thatat least 6 and possibly up to 13 further SACs willneed to be identified to fully represent the differentAnnex I habitat types in the UK offshore marinearea. The aim is to complete the UK contributionto the network of sites by 2010, as required by theEuropean Commission.Further information on marine protected areas aroundthe UK and the various initiatives can be found at:www.jncc.gov.uk/marineprotectedsitesA UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) was published in1995 as one of the UK’s responses to the Conventionon Biological Diversity which was signed in 1992 bythe UK and other participating countries in Rio deJaneiro. A number of marine habitats and specieswere identified in 1999 for priority conservationaction in the UK through the BAP process. Followingan extensive revision of the UK BAP list of habitatsand species in 2007, the number of marine prioritieson the UK BAP list now stands at 24 habitats and88 species. The list of marine priorities identified atthe UK level has been used to establish a revisedWelsh BAP list, with the addition of a few ‘extras’to better reflect the habitats and species in need ofconservation action in Wales.As well as the primary objective of better management,the revision of marine BAP priorities brings with itthe added need for information on distribution andtrends for the habitats and species identified. TheBAP process, considered as a voluntary conservationmeasure, now has statutory underpinning throughthe Natural Environment and Rural Communities(NERC) Act 2006, which imparts a ‘biodiversity duty’to all public bodies (in England and Wales).PMNHS Newsletter No.25 Winter 2008/0925

26This talk covers:• the habitats and species on the revised marineBAP list,• a brief introduction to the statutory underpinningprovided for BAP priorities,• information gaps and needs of marine BAPpriority habitats and species.Horse mussel reefs – biodiversityhotspots feeling the heatW.G. Sanderson * , R.H.F. Holt*, E.I.S. Rees † &J.D. Bennell †*Countryside Council for Wales, Maes yFfynnon, Ffordd Penrhos, Bangor, LL57 2LQ, UK.†School of Ocean Sciences, University of WalesBangor, Menai Bridge, Ynys Mon, LL59 5EY, UK.Horse mussels (Modiolus modiolus) form intoclumping masses in our continental seas andthese complex matrices are known to build-up intobiodiverse reefs in some locations. In the Irish Seathere are five places where horse mussel reefs havebeen recorded. In the Pen Llŷn a’r Sarnau SAC innorth Wales we have used digital side-scan sonar,multibeam echosounder, RoxAnn acoustic grounddiscrimination systems, and a sub-bottom profilingsystem over the last nine years. We now know thatthe horse mussel reef has a distinctive, undulatingform with characteristic properties to the acousticreflections and this has meant that we are able todifferentiate the reef from other surrounding hardground habitats and therefore map its estimatedarea as 349 - 373 hectares. The undulations of thereef are up to 1 m high above the underlying gravelsand are perpendicular to the tide but, when ‘seen’acoustically they differ from typical sand or gravelwaves, which are smaller and more regular withstraighter continuous crests.When the reef has been investigated biologically bydivers and with towed cameras, the small-scale formof the undulations was also reflected in the animalsgrowing in and on the Modiolus modiolus reef. Thecommunities in the troughs were ‘reduced’ comparedto the ridges where the reef is more built-up. Animalswere almost three times more abundant on the ridgesand equated to about 22,000 individuals per metresquare. Some species were found to have significantassociations with the horse mussels themselves andoverall, the apparently high biodiversity of thisbenthic habitat seems due to the physical complexityof the biogenic habitat and in part to the enhanceddeposition caused by the mussels. Sediments of thePMNHS Newsletter No.25 Winter 2008/09reef, within the matrices contain higher proportionsof fine sand, very fine sand and silt/clay thanconsistent with ‘normal’ sediments in an area whereaverage spring tidal currents run at approximately 2knots or 100cms -1 .Our on-going monitoring at the Pen Llŷn a’r SarnauModious reef has now been linked with a reef in theIsle of Man. Early results from fixed quadrat stationsover the last five years in N. Wales, suggests thatsome areas of a reef may undergo localised decline.Two of the known horse mussel reefs in the Irish Seahave undergone catastrophic declined within the last50 years, probably as a result of disturbance by heavybenthic fishing gear. There is evidence that the reefwe studied has existed for at least 150 years but ourmost recent acoustic surveys have shown evidence ofillegal scallop dredging in the area. It is tempting tosuggest from the abundance in other places of shellaccumulations that these functionally importantreefs may once have been more widespread in theIrish Sea and that their future may not be secure.Lyme Bay - Marine ProtectedAreas (MPAs) to conserve amarine biodiversity hotspotHilmar Hinz 1 , Jan Hiddink and Michel J.Kaiser1Bangor University, oss604@bangor.ac.ukThe limestone reefs, located in the eastern part ofLyme Bay, harbour several species of conservationinterest such as the pink sea fan Eunicella verrucosa,the ross coral Pentapora fascialis and the Devon cupcoral Caryophyllia smithii. Scallop dredging, oneof the main fisheries within Lyme Bay, has beenidentified as one of the activities that could be indirect conflict with local conservation efforts. As aresult, four voluntary marine reserves were designatedover the reef area in September 2006 to exclude alltowed fishing gears. In March and in August 2007 thereefs were extensively surveyed using video and stillcamera tows. Areas that experienced different fishingintensities were compared inside and outside of thereserves. Abundance and mean size of four speciesof interest were assessed: pink seafans Eunicellaverrucosa, dead men’s fingers Alcyonium digitatum,ross coral Pentapora fascialis and king scallops Pectenmaximus. The survey among others had three aimsi) to establish if the right areas were identified forprotection ii) assess the effects of scallop dredgingon selected species and iii) to establish overallbaseline conditions of the reefs shortly after theclosure, to allow future monitoring of potentialbenthic recovery. Preliminary results from the first

survey showed that the highest abundances of thepink sea fan Eunicella verrucosa were found withinthe reserve boundaries. No significant difference washowever found between areas of different fishingintensities for this species. Alcyonium digitatum wasthe only species showing a significant response torecent trawling activities. The preliminary baselinedata demonstrated that the location of the reservesdid protect high density areas of pink sea fans,the species of main conservation interest. A clearrelationship between fishing and the presence orabsence of pink sea fans could, however, not bedemonstrated. The baseline data collected thus farshould be well suited to monitor any future changesin the benthic communities within and outside of thefour reserves following changes in the distributionof fishing effort from towed fishing gears.Deep-sea conservation for theUK: developing habitat-basedmanagement of deep-sea areasFinding Sanctuary – Developinga regional MPA network for southwest EnglandLouise LieberknechtSouth West Food and Drink, Dart Farm,Topsham, Devon EX30 Q17louise.lieberknecht@southwestfoodanddrink.comFinding Sanctuary is a regional partnership 2 projectwith the aim to design an MPA network around SouthWest England. The project covers a large area, some90,000 km 2 of sea from the high water mark outto the continental shelf limits off the south westpeninsula (see figure).Jason Hall-Spencer 1 , Maria Campbell 1 , TinaKerby 1 , Andrew Davies 2 , Murray Roberts 2 , AlanHughes 3 , Jon Moore 41Marine Institute, University of Plymouth;2Scottish Association of Marine Science; 3NationalOceanographic Centre Southampton; 4CALM (jon@ticara.co.uk)Major advances are being made in both thediscovery and protection of deep-water habitatsaround the UK. The Porcupine Marine NaturalHistory Society recently began coordinating aproject entitled ‘Deep-sea Conservation for the UK’(see www.deepseaconservation.org). This involvesa team of researchers based at the Universityof Plymouth, the Scottish Association of MarineScience and the National Oceanographic CentreSouthampton (see Moore et al., 2007). This talkwill describe the project and progress that hasbeen made so far in the following three areas:1. Large-scale habitat classification of the deepsearealm2. Predicting the occurrence of vulnerable deep-seahabitats and species3. Practical monitoring and management ofprotected deep-sea areasMoore J. et al. (2007) Porcupine Marine NaturalHistory Newsletter 23, 11-15.Finding Sanctuary project areaThe goal of the MPA network will be twofold:to safeguard and encourage recovery of marinebiodiversity, and to help ensure the long-termsustainability of marine resources in the region.Finding Sanctuary is going further than theidentification of biodiversity “hotspots”: We willexplore ways of configuring a network that willfunction as a whole to deliver the best results forregional marine biodiversity in its totality. Thatmeans a network that represents the full range ofregional marine biodiversity, including habitats thatare highly diverse, as well as those that are less so.We are taking a systematic, regional-scale approachto reserve planning, which is in line with currentthinking in conservation science. The use of decisionsupport tools such as Marxan and GIS are at the coreof our technical planning work.The application of sound science is important toachieve a positive outcome, but the project itself isnot a science project. Our planning approach combinesthe needs and views of stakeholders with science, todevelop an MPA network that can realistically deliverpositive results. Because areas of sea cannot bePMNHS Newsletter No.25 Winter 2008/0927

owned, fenced off, and actively managed in the sameway that terrestrial conservation areas can be, webelieve that understanding and support from peopleusing the sea is vital to a positive outcome. Wehave developed an iterative, participatory planningprocess, which is informed and underpinned by bestavailable science, but which is ultimately overseenby a steering group of stakeholder representativesto enable the development of a network that hasthe broadest possible support. This process will alsoenable us to identify areas of conflict early on, andplace effort on finding solutions that meet scientifictargets, but at the same time cause the least conflict.Furthermore, by engaging with stakeholders earlyin the process, we can gather and map knowledgethey have about the spatial distribution of humanactivities in the south west maritime region, thusimproving our information base for planning.2Project partners are: natural England, Joint NatureConservation Committee, RSPB, South West WildlifeTrusts, South West Food and Drink, the Nationaltrust, and the county councils of Devon, Dorset andCornwall.Offshore renewables andbiodiversity hot and coldspotsVictoria CopleySenior Specialist, Marine Operations, NaturalEngland, Slepe Farm, Arne, Wareham, Dorset BH205BNThe UK’s first round of offshore windfarm developmentbegan in 2001 against a backdrop of a blank canvaswhen it came to information on the marine naturalresources with which they might interact. Since then,often as a direct result of the survey work carriedout by the developers, sometimes as a result of othermapping projects underway, it has become apparentthat there are hotspots of marine biodiversity whichoverlap with some of the areas chosen for renewableenergy generation.A second round of offshore wind development is nowwell underway and we are learning much more aboutthe locations they are sited in and the complexity ofinteractions with a range of important marine speciesand habitats. We are discovering that, for somespecies, it is hard to locate hotspots even thoughwe know that they are there, just undetectable atsignificant levels.Experience to date has shown that for a large majorityof cases, there are ways in which offshore windfarmscan coexist with areas of high biodiversity. There arealso, perhaps surprisingly, mechanisms which need tobe employed to avoid impacts on areas which mightconceivably be described as coldspots.With a third, much larger scale, round of offshorewindfarms announced by government last Decemberwhich would bring the UK into the global lead inmarine renewable energy development, considerablepressure could be brought to bear on some hithertoundeveloped locations This presentation will takea closer look at the issues through a selection ofcase studies.Using volunteers to identifyhotspots: the Seasearch pipefishsurveyChris WoodSeasearch Coordinator, MCS, Unit 3, WolfBusiness Park, Alton Rd,Ross on Wye, HR9 5NB Seasearch@f2s.comSeasearch harnesses the skills and enthusiasm ofvolunteer divers in undertaking marine recording.An annual species focus has been established andthis talk will present the preliminary findings of the2007 survey of pipefish.Divers most commonly encounter the greaterpipefish, Syngnathus acus, and the snake pipefishEntelurus aequoreus. The results show an abundanceof snake pipefish in inshore waters along much ofthe North Sea coasts of England and Scotland withoccasional hotspots elsewhere. Greater pipefish wererecorded more often on southerly and westerly coastsand always in small numbers.The presentation will also introduce the Seasearchspecies focus for 2008, one of the new BiodiversityAction Plan species that has been much searched forby divers in the past, often for the wrong reason!Exploring concepts of marinebiodiversity hotspots: research forWWF-UK in 2006Keith HiscockMarine Biological Association, Citadel Hill,Plymouth PL1 2PB khis@mba.ac.uk28PMNHS Newsletter No.25 Winter 2008/09

Marine biodiversity hotspots are areas of highspecies and habitat richness that includerepresentative, rare and threatened features 1 .The idea of identifying biodiversity hotspots whereconservation effort can be concentrated to getbest ‘value for money’ is an attractive one that hasbeen extensively promoted for terrestrial habitats.In 2006, the Marine Biological Association wascommissioned by WWF-UK to explore how the conceptof biodiversity hotspots could be developed for themarine environment. The work involved a great dealof data analysis using a ‘snapshot’ of Marine Recorderfrom February 2006. The report 1 , by Keith Hiscock andMark Breckels, described how data from 120 areasaround the UK, that had adequate information tomake comparison a reasonable prospect, was usedto identify ‘hotspots’ for six measures of ‘richness’including for species, biotopes and for NationallyImportant Marine Features.Endemism is an important criterion to identifyhotspots on the land and in freshwater but is anunusual feature in the marine environment ofthe north-east Atlantic and there are no marinespecies believed endemic to anywhere in the UK.However, hotspots should include rare or threatenedspecies and habitats (which have been identified as‘Nationally Important Marine Features’ in the UK)and the more present at a particular location, thebetter ‘value for money’.For hotspot measures, we concluded that:The results of analysis broadly match the locationsthat are believed to be of high interest.The wide range of types of data maintained requires‘minimum standards’ to be applied to identifyacceptability.The measures developed (in which number of surveyevents at a location are taken into account inidentifying hotspot status) require more developmentas naturally rich areas tend to be downgraded ifthey are very well surveyed. To take account of thisproblem, a ‘weighting’ was applied to such sites.Some locations are naturally low in species andbiotope richness and their low scores need to beseen in that context.The identification of number of Nationally ImportantMarine Features in an area is an important measurebut the current list of Features needs to be furthermoderated to correct anomalies especially arisingfrom criteria-led selection.Hotspot measures are one of several tools forassessing marine natural heritage importance ofan area.The measures we tested should all be used to informthe site selection process and we demonstrated,in a series of dossiers for case study sites, howsuch scientific information can be used to supportproposals for protection and management.Issues of data ‘uneven-ness’ will be explored duringthe Porcupine MNHS meeting and, as always, theimportance of being able to access all survey datafor an area through, preferably, a single portal willbe addressed.1Hiscock, K ., Breckels, M., 2006. Marine BiodiversityHotspots in the UK: their identification andprotection. Godalming: WWF-UK. [Available from:http://www.wwf.org.uk/news/n_0000003424.asp.]Investigations into thecomposition of the bivalve faunaon the Porcupine BankPeter Barrypeter.barry@nuigalway.ieThe Porcupine Bank is an elliptical topographicfeature of the continental margin of Western Europe.Across a 10,000 km 2 area the bathymetry of thebank ranges from less than 150 to more than 3000metres off the western shelf and has a variety ofsubstrate types. It was previously believed that thebank supported upwards of 100 bivalve species, yetcompared to the surrounding Rockall Trough andPorcupine Seabight, investigation into the faunalcomposition had, until recently, been very limited.Throughout 2003 and 2004 the National University ofIreland, Galway conducted a series of surveys acrossthe bank which led to the compilation of the firstregister of bivalve species living on the bank to bemade available for more than 75 years. A total of 70species were recovered, including 22 new records forthe area and three new species. Many rare specieswere collected along the western slope which hadpreviously proved inaccessible due to the extremetopography. Vast aggregates of byssally attachedspecies were taken from the rocky boulder fields ofthe north of the bank, while carnivorous deep waterspecies dominated the assemblages of the steepwestern slope. The most speciose family found on thebank was the Thyasiridae with a total of 11 speciesrecovered in our samples. At least one representativeof this family was present in nearly every sampletaken on the bank, from the relatively shallowwater around the northern dome to the abyssalplains west of the bank. The significant results ofour investigations will be outlined along with apresentation of detailed images of the extraordinaryand less common species we encountered.PMNHS Newsletter No.25 Winter 2008/0929

Diversity of intertidal non-nativespecies in WalesKathryn BirchCountryside Council for Wales, Maes yFfynnon, Ffordd Penrhos, Bangor, LL57 2DWThis talk will look at the non-native species foundon the Welsh intertidal. Most of the informationwas gathered during the Welsh intertidal surveycarried out by CCW between 1996 & 2006 withsome additional information to bring the story upto date.Fourteen non-native species have been recordedon the Welsh intertidal spread across the differenttaxonomic groups: 5 algae, 4 molluscs, 1 polychaete,1 anemone, 1 ascidian, 1 barnacle and 1 crab asshown in table 1.Four of the more invasive species will be looked at inmore detail: Japanese wireweed Sargassum muticum,non-native oysters Crassostrea gigas and Tiostrealutaria cultivation and the recent introduction in2006 of America slipper limpet Crepidula fornicatainto the Menai Strait with mussel seed and subsequentaction taken to deal with the problem.A full write-up of the intertidal survey includinga section on non-native species can be found in‘Wyn, G., Brazier, P., Jones, M., Lough, N., Birch,K., Bunker, A. and Brunstrom, A. 2007. When thetide goes out: the biodiversity and conservationof the shores of Wales, CCW’.Table 1 Non-native species recorded on the Welsh intertidal.Species nameElminius modestusTypeBarnacleNo. sites197Codium fragile subsp. tomentosoides Green alga 30*Mya arenaria Mollusc 28Crepidula fornicata Mollusc 26Colpomenia peregrina Brown alga 24Sargassum muticum Brown alga 10Styela clava Ascidian 9Crassostrea gigas Mollusc 7Antithamnionella spirographidis Red alga 2Ficopomatus enigmaticus Polychaete 2Haliplanella lineata Anemone 1Solieria chordalis Red alga 1Tiostrea lutaria Mollusc 1Eriocheir sinensis Crab Not recorded in intertidal survey* Included records of the green algae Codium fragile and Codium fragile subsp. tomentosoides because not allspecimens were collected for subspecies identification.30PMNHS Newsletter No.25 Winter 2008/09

Instructions to AuthorsAlthough we can deal with most methods and styles of presentation, it would make our editoriallives easier if those wishing to contribute to the Newsletter could follow these guidelines. Pleasesubmit all material in electronic format if at all possible either by e-mail or disc/CD. Hard copy canalso be accepted provided it is not too long!TextPlease submit your paper, article, request for information etc. as a Word document.Fonts, spacing etc. - general text: Times New Roman 12 point, single spacingDo not include illustrations within the text (see below). You can insert placeholders toindicate how illustrations should be placed e.g. Insert Fig.1 hereDo not leave a space between paragraphs.Do not add page numbers or anything else as headers or footers.Illustrations (Figures and Plates)Photographic images should be supplied as greyscale or colour (RGB) JPGs with a resolution of 300pixels per inch and width of 7cm. Save at high quality.Line drawings, particularly maps, are best supplied as WMF files. If it is a detailed map which willneed the full page width, save it with a width of 15cm. Maps with complicated colouring schemeswill not reproduce well in black and white.Graphs, histograms etc are best supplied as Excel files – save each graph as a separate sheet.We can scan good quality photographs, transparencies and hard copies of drawings.For each illustration submitted provide the following information:Filename Caption Photographer (if appropriate)Please be aware of any copyright issuesReferencesDo not leave a line space between references. Please follow the examples below for format. Journaltitles should be cited in full.Brown, M. T. and Lamare, M. D. 1994. The distribution of Undaria pinnatifida (Harvey) Suringar withinTimaru Harbour, New Zealand. Japanese Journal of Phycology 42: 63-70.Dipper, F. A. 2001. Extraordinary Fish. BBC Worldwide Ltd. 96pp.If all this is thoroughly off-putting, just send whatever you have got and we will do our best withit!!

CONTENTSCOUNCIL MINUTES........................................................................2MEETINGS........................................................................................5PORCUPINE NEWS..........................................................................6PORCUPINE PIECES........................................................................8Northward spread of the immigrant barnacle Elminius modestus on theBritish North Sea coast Frank Evans......................................................8The NMBAQC Scheme – Friend of Foe to the Benthic Ecologist?Myles O’Reilly........................................................................................9Problems in taxonomy: are Dodecaceria laddi and D. diceria the samespecies? Peter Gibson.........................................................................13A planktonic explanation for the origin of polychaetes Peter Gibson......17PORCUPINE PROBLEMSInformation Requests and Observations...............................21Endangered swordfish found on South Wales beachNational Marine Aquarium....................................................................21Rare ocean traveller National Marine Aquarium.....................................22PORCUPINE 2008BIODIVERSITY HOTSPOTS AND COLDSPOTS............................24Towards a network of marine protected areas in the UK Bethany Stoker andAnnabelle Aish....................................................................................24Abstracts of papers presented at the conference but not submitted forpublication........................................................................................25Instructions to Authors......................................................................31