One of my favorite papers of all time, illustrating the playfulness of scientists, is by the famous ecologist Stuart Hurlbert.  The paper in itself tackles a serious and major statistical issue of quantifying aspects of a species geographic range.  To illustrate the statistical shortcoming of current methods, Hurlbert models a fictitious species, the montane unicorn, yielding the title “Spatial Distribution of the Montane Unicorn.”

Acknowledgements of a paper are also a special place to glimpse the people behind the science. Take this paper.

We thank C. Ancell for the excellent preparation; F. Jackson, M. Brown, Dead Lizard Society (MSU), M. Gardner and M. Ivie for their helpful comments and discussion; L. Hall for the illustration; M. Drool for inspiration; and M. Holland, R. Kambic, J. Li, E. Morchhauser, C. Wong and Project Exploration.

A secret acknowledgment to beer occurs in the acknowledgements, M. Drool is Moose Drool brewed in Montana.

We also have this acknowledgement from a paper on personality in primates.

We thank Baboon Teams 2009, 2010 and 2011 for putting up with AJC standing around and swearing at baboons a lot.

In determining the authorship of paper, Sir Robert May noted this in a footnote in this paper.

The order of authorship was determined from a twenty-five-game croquet series held at Imperial College Field Station during summer 1973.

If you want a true view of scientist’s adoration, one needs to look at the naming of new species.  From the description of new species of sponge, Cladorhiza evae, by my friend and colleague Lonny Lundsten,

Named in honor of Eve Lundsten, beautiful wife of the first author whose commitment and support have endured through the years. Eve’s love for the Gulf of California also inspired this naming as the type specimen was collected in the deep sea, east Cabo Pulmo, Baja California Sur, Mexico, near where we honeymooned in 2006.

Beautiful.

I was equally moved when Michelle Taylor mentioned on Facebook that she had named a new species of coral, Narella valentine, after her mother and sister.

Etymology: Named in honour of Dr. Taylor’s mother, Valerie, after her secret spy name, Valentine. And in honour of Dr. Taylor’s sister, Claire, who was born on Valentine’s Day.

Another coral species, Narella candidae, was named after the coauthor’s, Alex Rodgers, wife.

Etymology: Named after Dr. Candida Rogers, wife of Prof. Alex Rogers, and suitably also Latin for ‘white’ and ‘radiant’.

When I asked Dr. Taylor why she honored her mother with the species name, she responded,

I thought it only appropriate, given the long suffering status of scientific families, that my Mum and sister had a coral named after them; it is truly above and beyond any duty, for anything in life, to have heard me say the words “I should be writing”, “I didn’t get the grant” 

How did Dr. Taylor’s mum respond?

My mum is chuffed  to bits [Northern UK slang for very happy], although a little worried her spy name is now public knowledge. Her standard operating procedure on covert operations will have to change…

The post The humanity within the pages of scientific manuscripts first appeared on Deep Sea News.

Another year of science closes, giving us pause to review those new species of sharks described in the scientific literature, bringing the total number of known shark species to 512. Perhaps it’s a hollow victory to have so many different species known at a time when sharks populations worldwide are either in decline or in a complete population tailspin. But as taxonomists continue to kick ass and give names, our knowledge of shark evolution, biogeography, and ecology continue to get richer. Meet the new sharks of 2015:

Ginglymostoma unami, the Pacific Nurse Shark
This isn’t really the brand-spankin’ new species you might think, but it has been known for well over a century. The Nurse Shark (Ginglymostoma cirratum) had a disjunct distribution between the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico and the eastern central Pacific oceans, meaning their range was divided into two separate populations. Like some nooks in the Ozarks, land barriers prevented gene flow, so the populations were both physically and genetically separated by a small spit of land called Central America. This team didn’t use genetic methods to test if the populations were distinct enough to be considered different species, but relied on a meristics, the process of compiling detailed measurements of the shark’s anatomy and comparing these values between the populations.  However, a 2012 paper on populations genetics of G. cirratum showed that the Pacific population was genetically quite unique, and divergent from any of the Atlantic populations. Since these two nurse shark populations had been separated by three million years, a few things can happen, like speciation. Indeed, their analysis showed that these two species are morphologically different enough to warrant giving the Pacific population its own scientific name. This name, G. unami, is an acronym of their alma mater, the Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico.

Moral-Flores, L.F.D., E. Ramirez-Antonio, A. Angulo, and G. Perez-Ponce de Leon. 2015. Ginglymostoma unami sp. nov. (Chondrichthyes: Orectolobiformes: Ginglymostomatidae): una especie nueva de tiburón gata del Pacífico oriental tropical. Revista Mexicana de Biodiversidad 86 (2015) 48-58.

Scyliorhinus ugoi, Dark Speckled Catshark
Way down among Brazilians sharks once swam there in the millions, but overfishing took surely took a hefty toll, yet there are still new shark species to be found. Case in point: a new catshark that had long been swimming along most of the Brazilian coast but had been confused as other known species. Catsharks are a widespread, diverse, and somewhat confusing group of sharks. Differences in color, morphological changes between juveniles & adults, and sexual differences between males & females create difficulties in sorting out just how many species there are. Here, the authors use detailed meristic analysis to extract out a species that had been there all along, but the morphological features that delineate the species had not yet been defined.

SOARES, K.D.A. & GADIG, O.F.B. & GOMES, U.L. 2015. Scyliorhinus ugoi, a new species of catshark from Brazil (Chondrichthyes: Carcharhiniformes: Scyliorhinidae). Zootaxa, 3937 (2): 347-361.

Atelomycterus erdmanni, Spotted-belly Catshark

This sexy beast is one of the more colorful species of catsharks, and is one of several new species discovered from a larger taxonomic mess called the coral catsharks.  Using meristics, genetics, and biogeographical analyses, it turns out that the “coral catshark” represents several species, with this species as the newest. They don’t live in coral, so much as they crawl on and among coral reefs of Indonesia, using their pectoral and pelvic fins like tiny feet and walking like a more limber and agile salamander. Named after Mark Erdmann, a fish taxonomist who collected most of the known specimens, and was rewarded with this li’l shark bearing his name.

Fahmi & White, W.T.  2015. Atelomycterus erdmanni, a new species of catshark (Scyliorhinidae: Carcharhiniformes) from Indonesia. Journal of the Ocean Science Foundation 14: 14-27.

Bythaelurus tenuicephalus, Narrow-head Catshark
2015 also brought us two more catsharks, from the same genus, and both from the depths of the southwestern Indian Ocean. Hailing from the outer continental shelf of Mozambique and Tanzania comes the Narrow-headed catshark. The vast majority of sharks in recent years have been from the more remote pockets of Earth’s oceans, and in particular, from the deep oceans that have barely been explored. This species of Bythaelurus is a “dwarf”, a species that is sexually mature at a much smaller size than most other species in its genus.  The advantage of dwarfism might allow this species to breed at a younger age, thus increasing their overall lifetime reproductive output. Or it could be that being smaller simply means eating smaller prey that larger species of catsharks might miss. This sort of niche-partitioning may explain why there are so many different species of catsharks. The species name tenuicephalus means “narrow head”, a little less imaginative than some names, but descriptive nonetheless.

KASCHNER, C.J. & WEIGMANN, S. & THIEL, R. 2015. Bythaelurus tenuicephalus n. sp., a new deep-water catshark (Carcharhiniformes, Scyliorhinidae) from the western Indian Ocean. Zootaxa, 4013 (1): 120–138.

Bythaelurus naylori, Dusky Snout Catshark
Another year, another catshark on the list.  This species however, has quite an interesting story behind its capture.  Massive trawlers, towing huge nets and pulling up tons of fish aren’t new, but what is new is the trend for these huge vessels to move from depleted fishing grounds in the shallows, and into the relatively untapped fishery resources of the deep sea. In addition to the targeted commercial species that will earn them great sums of money when they return to port, these nets also catch and kill tons of other non-marketable species.  This is what ecologists call ‘by-catch’, but there is a sunny side to such needless destruction.  Commercial vessels are often the first to explore deep-sea zones, well ahead of research cruises that are difficult to fund and even more impossible to sustain over time. If you can get onto one of these factory trawlers, the bounty of the bycatch is yours, and what a paradise this is to shark researchers. Dave Ebert & Paul Clerkin of the Pacific Shark Research Center at Moss Landing Marine Lab got the invite to board one of these vessels as it sailed south from Mauritius, but with a small catch: they had to stay for the entire three month trawling season. If you haven’t ever had the displeasure of sailing the wild waves and howling winds where the Indian Ocean meets the Southern Ocean, then you wouldn’t know that it makes The Deadliest Catch look like a Honolulu harbor cruise. Already hardened by the seas of the Gulf of Alaska, Paul made three of these cruises, collecting more than a dozen new species of skates, rays, sharks, and chimeras that will be published in future years. The species name naylori honors Gavin Naylor of the College of Charleston who, through genetic analysis, is compiling a more complete evolutionary history of extant shark species.

EBERT, D.A. & CLERKIN, P.J. 2015. A new species of deep-sea catshark (Scyliorhinidae: Bythaelurus) from the southwestern Indian Ocean. Journal of the Ocean Science Foundation 15:53-63.

And lastly….
Etmopterus benchleyi, Ninja Lanternshark
If you haven’t already seen this sassy new deepsea shark that went viral late last year, check it out here, and here, and here. That makes six new sharks for 2015, but new species will be discovered and described in 2016, so check back next year.
VÁSQUEZ, V.E. & EBERT, D.A. & LONG, D.J. 2015. Etmopterus benchleyi n. sp., a new lanternshark (Squaliformes: Etmopteridae) from the central eastern Pacific Ocean: Journal of the Ocean Science Foundation; 17: 43-55.

The post Meet the New Sharks of 2015 first appeared on Deep Sea News.

Everyone knows I despise charismatic megafauna (especially dolphins). I will now secretly admit that I also don’t care much for charismatic invertebrates. I mean, Yeti crabs are pretty much the Lindsay Lohan of marine creatures – they’re just too damn attention-seeking with their bristly claws and all. And they’re everywhere…

What I do love are cryptic species – nondescript, gooey specimens that all look the same, but have surprisingly distinct genomes. Candlelight and soul forever, I dream of myself and them together!

Looking at the DNA of microscopic animals is full of mystery and intrigue – it feels a bit like solving a crime (albeit a PG-13, Nancy Drew type of crime). Traditional taxonomy just doesn’t have that thill for me – it is slow and steady, requires hours under the microscope, and has an unsettling degree of subjectivity. DNA, on the other hand, is extremely objective – you can’t argue* with good data sequenced from a trustworthy spot in the genome. Those ATCGs just don’t lie.

But that doesn’t mean DNA is a magic bullet. DNA provides a new type of evidence for making decisions about species, but that evidence still has to be robustly analyzed and interpreted in the context of historical knowledge (taxonomic classifications and anatomical features of specimens).

A recent paper by Jörger et al. (2012) displays the power of DNA to differentiate amongst gelatinous blobs. The authors analyzed molecular evidence alongside body features to investigate sea slug species in the genus Pontohedyle, a group which taxonomists thought they had described LIKE A BOSS. Anatomy didn’t tell much of an exiting story – specimens could be lumped into two different groups based on appearance, and both these species were presumed to live pretty much anywhere in the ocean. [Sidenote: this is a pretty common assumption for microscopic animals and is known as the “meiofaunal paradox”. Victorian scientists would think “Oh, they all look the same, so lets describe these as the same species.” because they didn’t have any badass knowledge about DNA, and they didn’t have a time machine. But nowadays, this thinking is in direct conflict with our knowledge about these species–microscopic animals have been shown to have limited ability to move around, even during larval stages. They pretty much get stuck in the marine neighborhood where they grew up, so how can they spread their sweet DNA all around the world?]

The researchers started to look a little bit closer, baby, and study how sea slugs get it on, get it on. Because…

Uncovering putative cryptic lineages is fundamental not only for our advances in understanding speciation processes in meiofaunal taxa [microscopic multicellular animals <1mm long, such as nematodes, copepods, and tardigrades], but also to understanding historical biogeography.

Jörger et al. analyzed the sea slug DNA in every way they could think of. First off, they looked at the story from three different genes: Cytocrhome c Oxidase subunit 1 (the “barcoding” locus in the mitochondrial genome), 16S rRNA (a gene encoding a ribosome subunit in the mitochondria), and 28S rRNA (a ribosome subunit gene in the nuclear genome).

All three genes told the same story. The results of different data analysis methods were consistent. And wow, they sure threw all the data analysis acronyms they could think of at that DNA:

…we apply four independent methods of molecular based species delineation: General Mixed Yule Coalescent model (GMYC), statistical parsimony, Bayesian Species Delineation (BPP) and Automatic Barcode Gap Discovery (ABGD). The secondary species hypothesis (SSH) is gained by relying only on uncontradicted results of the different approaches (‘minimum consensus approach’).

In the end, 2 morphological species became 12 cryptic species (each color in the this tree below representing a different cryptic species):

The power of antatomical features was, er, not so powerful after all.

Previously used external morphological characters such as the shape of oral tentacles, body length and width, or color of the digestive gland (e.g., [68]) depend highly on the stage of contraction and nutrition, and are variable through time for each individual [40,41] and therefore inappropriate for species delineation.

The color of the digestive gland?! Really, guys?

So think about what this means for our understanding of biodiversity on earth. This is just one study, from one genus out of thousands in the taxonomic classification of animals (and there’s still a lot of microscopic critters we haven’t even described). Evidence like this comes out all the time. For example, a study focused on the nematode Pellioditis marina (a well known estuarine species living in Northern Europe) found that this “species” is actually a complex of at least 4 genetically distinct cryptic species. Just when we think we’re making good progress on taxonomy, DNA is routinely telling us that we probably have to split every known microbial eukaryote species into 3-4 cryptic entities.

And on top of that, Jörger et al. remind us of how little of the earth’s surface we’ve actually sampled:

Although we present the first study on meiofaunal slugs with representative worldwide taxon sampling, we know our dataset is likely to represent only a fragment of the hidden diversity in the genus because a) tropical sands still are largely unsampled, b) suitable habitats are patchy and disjunct, and c) the indication of accumulated diversity in geographically small areas (e.g., three distinct genetic Pontohedyle lineages on the island of Moorea).

Scientists–and humans–are on an eternal quest to talk about species. It helps us organize our knowledge of the world, and helps us to understand historical processes which have influenced how things evolve and how they are distributed geographically. There’s always a lot of press surrounding the latest paper claiming the official and absolute estimate of the number of species on earth (here’s one hyped up example). Personally, I don’t take much stock in these, because I don’t think we have nearly enough information to even make ballpark guesses. We have NO genetic information about most microscopic animals on earth. Hell, the Guinea Worm can’t even get its genome sequenced. For small non-parasitic wormy things, we’re just lumping similar-looking blobs into categories after a quick peek down the microscope. Its like saying all blonde haired people belong to one species, and all redheads belong to another – a.k.a, surface appearances take precedence, end of story.

Next time you hear a “global species estimate”, don’t say you believe it, please don’t say you believe it!

*Ok, well you can argue, and people do. But that is another blog post for another day. Just work with me here, people.

Reference:
Jörger KM, Norenburg JL, Wilson NG, Schrödl M. (2012) Barcoding against a paradox? Combined molecular species delineations reveal multiple cryptic lineages in elusive meiofaunal sea slugs. BMC Evol Biol,12(1):245.

The post When 2 becomes 12: Cryptic species need some love like they’ve never needed love before first appeared on Deep Sea News.

Only…I don’t work with actual animals. I work with DNA sequences. I spent my PhD sitting under the microscope, where I vowed never again! Now I work with gigabyte-sized text files listing millions of gene sequences.

However! That will not stop be from pontificating on the Top 10 scariest species that I encounter in my daily life as a (computational) marine biologist. Be warned…you might not be able to sleep tonight.

5. “Environmental” species

Stop the presses. Big news. There are species. And they live in the environment. WHOA! This is news to me. I had no idea – someone needs to call the president! “Environmental species” are petrifying because you have no idea what they are. I mean I could have just sequenced Godzilla from my deep-sea mud (maybe I sampled next to his undersea lair?).

For anyone that works with DNA, it is common knowledge that database sequences are 100% trustworthy and researchers make every effort to put informative names on any data they submit. No scientist would be so cavalier as to dump thousands of unnamed sequences into GenBank. And GenBank certainly would never get clogged up with said type of sequences. So you see, I am still left scratching my head at my “environmental species” result.

4. “No Match” Species

These species have no good match to ANY DNA sequence listed in public databases. You should be terrified. What if we live in the Matrix, and DNA from these species has been conveniently erased from the reality construct? Or what if its Aliens?! The government might not want me to find a match for these bits of DNA.

You all know that we’ve done an amazing job counting and describing all the species that existed ever, so much so that scientists have now extensively characterized pretty much all the biodiversity on earth. The appearance of new species is practically unheard of. We’ve named all the worms and bacteria, and the thought of a new mammal species makes me roll over with laughter. Given our current state, I am left shaking in terror at my enigmatic “no match” DNA results.

3. Homo sapiens

Holy Crap, look at all that human DNA! There’s no ambiguity about what species I found, because this sequence has a 100% match to Homo sapiens. And it isn’t just one sequence. There are hundreds! This is frightening. What if my marine mud sample was collected on the EXACT SPOT where Jimmy Hoffa’s body is buried. All that human DNA I found could be evidence in a murder scene.

At least I can be sure that this is not routine contamination from the lab, because that never happens and all my data is 100% most certainly trustworthy. Should I call the police?

2. Command line error species

OMG I tried to process data and I discovered something I’ve NEVER SEEN BEFORE. And then I searched Google! The only person that has ever seen this before is Joe Programmer who asked about the SAME THING on a biology newsgroup back in 1996. But this thing I found is unknown in the scientific literature. Its like I stumbled upon a mythical creature that had been lurking amongst us all along. Soon the world will build statues!

I pressed a button and did everything the software tutorial said, so these results must be right. I’m the best computer user in the world! More so, all computer programs automatically know how to process our DNA data – because the biology is so simple!

My new species is scary because I don’t know if people will understand. What if they react badly to the news that I’ve just described use of uninitialized value $ncbi_name in concatenation (.) or string from the deep sea?

1. Tyrannosaurus rex

You heard me. Dinosaurs lurk amongst us. How do I know? Because the DNA TOLD ME SO. When processing my deep sea data, I found a sequence whose best match was to the T. rex sequence listed in GenBank. Either there are dinosaurs walking the earth (whereby I collected my sample in a fresh T. rex footprint), or T. rex DNA is so indestructible that it survived floating around in the dirt for millions of years. Either way I’m shaking in my boots.

There’s no way that that the information I got from GenBank is wrong. Because who would ever confuse DNA from common soil bacteria with DNA from a T-Rex fossil?! And there are three T. Rex protein sequences in the database. No one would mess that up multiple times. Which means I have to go find an underground bunker, because I have a sinking feeling that Jurassic Park was actually a documentary…

The post Top 5 scariest species…from, er, DNA? first appeared on Deep Sea News.

The post So big I could pet it first appeared on Deep Sea News.

How many nematodes species are there out there unknown to science?  Some estimate upwards of 1,000,000.  However, authors have placed  the undiscovered deep-sea nematode diversity at 1,000,000 by itself.  Of course these extrapolations are fraught with uncertainty and more realistic assumptions of deep-sea nematode diversity are nearer to 10,000.

If we assume that 10,000 is the cap for global nematode diversity, how many species do we have to still describe?  About 9400.  In a recent study, a group of nematode biologists conducted a comprehensive review of the literature and discovered that 638 valid species of deep-sea nematodes belonging to 175 genera and 44 families are described.

However, many, many more are waiting description whether you believe the 10,000 or 1,000,000 estimate.  Consider this all we know about all deep-sea nematodes is based on a meager 473 samples that cover a bottom area of 60-70 meters square, about the area covered by a small house.

What is alarming is not the meager amount of deep-sea sampled, although a concerted effort is needed for exploration, but rather that the number of papers describing new species is actually half what it was decade ago and a third of decade before that.

With technological advancements and continued exploration of the deep, why is the description of new species not increasing?

Because fewer and fewer scientists are interested in describing species.

The biological sciences have devalued taxonomy as field and as such few positions are available for doing this kind of work.  We have entered a positive feedback loop, where the end result is that we are actually retarding science.  Species are going extinct before we can describe them and ultimately we are culpable.

We are ass deep in a biodiversity crisis and we are getting it in both ends.

Miljutin, D., Gad, G., Miljutina, M., Mokievsky, V., Fonseca-Genevois, V., & Esteves, A. (2010). The state of knowledge on deep-sea nematode taxonomy: how many valid species are known down there? Marine Biodiversity, 40 (3), 143-159 DOI: 10.1007/s12526-010-0041-4

Lambshead, P., & Boucher, G. (2003). Marine nematode deep-sea biodiversity – hyperdiverse or hype? Journal of Biogeography, 30 (4), 475-485 DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2699.2003.00843.x

The post How Many Deep-Sea Nematodes Are There & Why We Many Never Know first appeared on Deep Sea News.

This week’s rant centers on a flurry of media, e.g. CBC, on the “discovery” of “new” species from underwater canyon called the Gully, the Flemish Cap and the Orphan Knoll in the North Atlantic.

Dr. M: The issue here is that many of these purported new species are actually described.  Indeed, a well-known expert on some of these organisms stated in an email to us that at least two of these species are known to science.  This is not the first time I have seen press releases immediately after an expedition exclaiming  the findings of “new species”.  The problem is, and I am sure KZ will articulate this well below, is that describing an animal as a bonafide new species requires many years of work.  I am leery of any press release or news article about a new species at the end of research cruise. I would also be leery of any scientific claim immediately following field work without vetting through the peer-reviewed publication process.  Describing a new species is no different.  Note to scientists: please be cautious about statements concerning new species.  Often the press might not understand nor want to understand the difference between

1. This is the first time we have ever seen this species at this specific place!
2. Hey look! This is an unusual species only recently known to science and this represents an increase in our knowledge!
3. Hey look at the biodiversity of this area!
4. Holy Shit!!! This is a totally new species and I know that exactly because I spent countless years in the lab running genetics tests, looking over dusty old papers on all the species that look similar to this one, countless hours over a microscope looking at all the wee little bits that define this species,  doing everything again to make sure I didn’t screw anything up the first time, writing up the paper, suffering through peer review, and years later actually publishing a new species name!

I am worried that when we claim to the media or the media interprets our statements of new species findings that we devalue taxonomists who actually do #4.

Kevin Z: While discovery of new species can be accelerated by a focused attention at the end of a research cruise, it often takes quite a long time between study and publication of the species names. Let me give you an example from my own work. In 2009, I published with my colleague a new species description of a shrimp from a hydrothermal vent habitat. This discovery really starts way back in 2005 though. I’ll spare you the details, they are are in the post I linked to above for those who are interested. But the short story is determined to be new species in Summer 2006, described by November 2006, Paper written and submitted by January 2007… crickets…. accepted with revision September 2007, revision submitted November 2007…. crickets… Final acceptance April 2008… crickets…. more crickets… sound of my telomeres shortening… published online March 2009, available in print edition April/May 2009. My point is that scientists don’t know if something is new fresh off the cruise. We were already to go to press with a what we thought was a new worm species once. Turns out after doing some genetics and scouring the literature, Japanese researchers described it 2 years before from a totally different location. Another example is the press releases of new stauromedusae species from vent sites at the East Pacific Rise a couple years ago. That was made by geologists on cruise while they were still out at sea. As someone who saw the very first vent stauromedusa (an upside down, stalked jellyfish) get collected in 2003, I could tell these were the same, the only difference being orange in color. Well it turns out they were orange because they were packed with gonad ready to spawn.

Dr. M has a good point that should be standard procedure for scientists coming off an expedition talking to the press. There are two interesting discussions though coming off from this in my opinion. The first being where is the line between relaying the excitement of discovery and not misleading the press and public. This is a tough call and certainly open to debate. But after a million-dollar taxpayer-funded cruise, there better something cool to talk talk about right? Something better be mind-blowing right? I’m sure there will be great science from every expedition in some form, but we might not know the interesting tidbits until well-after the cruise, or maybe not until there is a follow-up cruise.

The second being what is the appropriate message for the press to get out there. It is not strange nor unusual to find new species in the deep-sea. According to a PLoS collection on marine biodiversity that was just released today, for every species known 4 are undiscovered. “NEW SPECIES DISCOVERED” is not an interesting headline or topic, it tells no story and does not engage the reader or make the reader think. Being able to quantify what we do and do not know is a better story and instills a better sense of appreciation for the work of scientists. Sentences like “Many of the species collected are so new to science that they have yet to be named” are just plain retarded – a species being new to science by definition means we have not yet named them – and do not do any justice to the work of scientists in the field and the taxonomists who be studying whether or not these guys are, after all, new to science (and will appropriately append names to them).

The post Bull Patrol: NEW SPECIES DISCOVERED zOMG! first appeared on Deep Sea News.

(All images courtesy of David Shale)

I was lucky enough to sail aboard the penultimate ECOMAR cruise last year, so I’ll let you in on a few trade secrets.

First of all, whenever you see these types of press shots you’re not looking at some wild, free-range deep-sea creature in its natural habitat. Nope, these pictures are taken in a fish tank (albeit a rather sophisticated-looking one) onboard the ship, using a huge macro lens. Most deep-sea things tend to be a lot smaller in real life. (The exception, of course, is giant isopods—those things are freakin’ humongous.)

Secondly, all those pretty animals are dead as a doornail. Think about it—pulling up highly adapted species from the deep-sea is like rocketing a person into space without a spacesuit. The physiological toll is just too damaging to survive. To counter this problem, I have heard rumors of BBC people using creative solutions to make deep-sea fish appear more animated on film (methods involving glue and toothpicks?!?) but I can’t vouch for the validity of such speculations.

Don’t get me wrong—I absolutely adore these pictures and have great respect for deep-sea photographers. Very few people have the opportunity to get on a scientific research cruise, and these press images instill a serious sense of awe and wonder. Plus, they look much cooler than my amateur photos that show random gelatinous blobs strewn out on a lab table.

The post Revealing life at the Ridge first appeared on Deep Sea News.

You might have noticed that my posting frequency is down recently.  Why?

1. Kevin Z convinced me to start Tweeting.  There seems to be an inverse relationship to my writing for DSN and posting Tweets.  Previous attempts to integrate our Twitter content into DSN were rocky at best and met with many complaints.  Suggestions on how to integrate the two meaningfully are welcomed. You can follow me at DrCraigMc

2. I am working on a review of this book for American Scientist.

3. I am also writing a feature article for American Scientist following on the theme of my talk last year at Sigma Xi.

4. Isopocaplyse 2010 consumed a bit of my time.  If you didn’t catch it already check out GlassBox Design and National Geographic’s coverage.  I am delightfully snarky!

5. I worked with the spectacularly talented Robin Smith to put together a press release and video for my recent paper in Ecology.  That was met with a fair amount of cricket chirping.  O’ well Bora, Science360, and I think its cool.

6. Multiple scientific papers in the works right now on deep-sea biogeography, source-sink dynamics in the deep sea, the evolution of body size in deep-sea bivalves, what drives the evolution of size on islands, describing the new species above, changes in energy consumption of snails through geologic time, changes in seamount diversity with increasing depth, and how microhabitat diversity in the deep sea drives biodiversity.  Whew!

7.  My day job.

8.  The fact there is only 24 hours in a day.

So what would I like to blog on but haven’t found time?

1. The discovery of the world’s deepest hydrothermal vent. It’s really hot and deep!

2. What will likely be the coolest discovery of the year and decade…anaerobic multicellular organisms in the deep sea.  This one is so cool I just decided to stay up late to write about it.  While I grab another Ardbeg and you wait for the next couple hours, check out Susan Milius’s spectacular write up.

3. Larvae from afar colonize deep-sea hydrothermal vents after a catastrophic eruption

Any other papers or news I should add to this list?

The post What’s New With the Dr. M and the Oceans? first appeared on Deep Sea News.

Or perhaps more appropriately have the bomb.  Osborn et al. report in Science seven previously unknown species (0.7 to 3.6 inches) of annelid worms hailing from the deep pelagic (>1800m).  All the new species form a distinctive group within the Cirratuliformia, a recently proposed higher taxonomic group that encompases seven other groups currently recognized as families.  The species here fall in the currently described Acrocirridae but appear to be fairly genetically distinct from other known cirratuliforms.

One of the really cool findings, in addition to the distinctive morphological adaptations of the group described below, is this would represent a third, and independent, invasion of the typically benthic, i.e. living in the mood ooze of the seefloor, cirratuliforms into the nice, clean pelagic realm.

It is not just taxonomy and genes that make this group special.  Scratch that.  It is all taxonomy and genes that make this group special!  Five of these species have pairs of oval-shaped organs evolved from branchaie, i.e. gills, that serve as green “bioluminescent bombs”.  These bombs can be dropped like depth charges, releasing brilliant flashes, and speculated to ward off encroaching predators. The presence of smaller B-Bombs are thought to imply that these species can regenerate them as needed.

Note we here at DSN also are deeply offended by the statement of Oregon Environmental News that “Worms usually aren’t that flamboyant.”.  Apparently someone has never taken a real look at the polychaetes (here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here) .  Video of these species are below the fold.

Osborn, K., Haddock, S., Pleijel, F., Madin, L., & Rouse, G. (2009). Deep-Sea, Swimming Worms with Luminescent “Bombs” Science, 325 (5943), 964-964 DOI: 10.1126/science.1172488

Hat tip to Ed Yong who apparently has some professional-science-writer-back-door-access combined with I-have an-award-winning-smile that allows him to scoop us on this story and have access to video

The post DeepC Wormz R Da Bomb first appeared on Deep Sea News.