Fig. 5. Ischnochiton (Lepidozona) clathratus (Reeve) 1847 § U-18
length 45.8 mm.
Fig. 6. Nuttalina sp. cf. allantophora
Dall 1919 § U-22
length, curled, 17.3 mm.
PHOTOS BY WILLIAM G. VESTAL
Fig. 1. Acanthochitona exquisita
(Pilsbry) 1893 § U-14
Fig. 2. Callistochiton infortunatus
Pilsbry 1893 § U-15
Fig. 3. Chaetopleura aff. lurida (Sowerby) 1832 § U-16
Fig. 4. Chiton virgulatus
Sowerby 1840 § U-17
Fig. 5. Ischnochiton (Radsiella) tridentatus Pilsbry 1892 § U-19
Fig. 6. Ischnochiton (Stenoplax) limaciformis (Sowerby) 1832 § U-20
Fig. 1. Siphonaria aequilirata Reeve. Digitate Pulmonate Limpet § S-323
PHOTO BY HARLAND L. SWIFT
Fig. 2. Spondylus sp. probably limbatus Sowerby. Thorny Oyster § S-234
Fig. 1. Mithtax areolatus § R-36
(Lockingtoo) 1876 (1877)
Fig. 2. Pachycheles panamensis Faxon 1895 § Q-23
Fig. 3. Petrolisthes hirtipes § Q-29
Lockington 1878 dorsal view
Fig. 4. Petrolisthes gracilis § Q-28
Stimpson 1859 (1862) dorsal view
Fig. 5. Petrolisthes nigrunguiculatus
Glassell 1936 dorsal view § Q-31
Fig. 6. Dissodactylus xantusi § R-63
Glassell 1936
PHOTOS BY HARLAND L. SWIFT
Fig.1. Diodon hystix or holocanthus. Pufferfish. Length about 6”. § W-20
Fig. 2. Fodiator acutus (Cuvier and Valenciennes) § W-22
Fig. 1. Cypselurus californicus (Cooper) § W-19
California Flying Fish
Fig. 2. Balistes polylepis Steindachner 1876 § W-18
Trigger Fish or Puerco
Fig. 1. Brachidontes multiformis Carpenter
Small Shore Mussel § S-237
Fig. 2. Barbatia reeveana § S-219 d‘Orbigny 1846
Fig. 3. Pinctada mazatlanica § S-230 (Hanley) 1855. The Gulf Pearl Oyster Length about 3½“
Fig. 4. Clavelina sp. § V-115
Semi-compound Tunicate
Fig. 5. amenta rathbunae § Q-43
Schmitt 1935
Fig. 6. Microphrys platysoma § R-39
(Stimpson) 1860
PHOTOS BY HARLAND L. SWIFT
Fig. 1. Chione sucancta § S-248
(Valenciennes) 1821. Hard-shell Cockle
Fig. 2. Carditamera afhnis californica
Deshayes 1852. Ruffled Clam § S-240
Fig. 3. Arca multicostata Sowerby 1833
The Cockle-like Area § S-217
Diagonal length 3¼“
Fig. 4. Volsella capax § S-239
(Conrad) 1837 The Horse Mussel
Length of larger specimen 3½‘
Fig. 5. Isogaomon anomioides § S-227
Reeve Paper-shell Clam
Fig. 6. Macrocallista (Paradione) squalida (Sowerby) 1835 § S-251
The Gulf Pismo Clam
PHOTOS BY FISHER
Fig. 1. Conus princeps § S-329
Linné 1758 Royal Cone
Fig. 2. Purpura patula Lamarck § S-357
Fig. 3. Acmaea discors § S-398
Philippi Eroded Limpet
Fig. 4. Diadora inequalis § S-410 (Sowerby) 1835
Asymmetrical Keyhole Limpet with tubes of serpulid worms §J-72 or 76
Fig. 5. Acmaea atrata § S-396
Carpenter Coolie-hat Limpet
Fig. 6. Acmaea dalliana § S-397
Pilsbry Dall’s Limpet
PHOTOS BY BEAUFORT FISHER
Fig. 1. Hipponix antiquatus § S-382
(Linné) Ancient Hoof-shell
Fig. 2. Nerita scabricostata § S-394 Lamarck Black and white Whorl-shell
Sowerby 1824 Onyx Slipper-shell
Fig. 4. Polinices reclusianus § S-390 (Deshayes) 1839
Recluz’s Moon-shell or Bull‘s-eye
Fig. 5. Natica chemnitzii § S-388 Pfeiffer Variegated Moon-shell, or Chemnitz’s Bull‘s-eye
Fig. 6. Crucibulum imbricatum § S-386 (Sowerby) 1824 Imbricated Cup and Saucer Limpet
PHOTOS BY BEAUFORT FISHER
Fig. 1. Ptychodera Nava § V-12
Eschscholtz, cf.
Fig. 2. Balanoglossus occidentalis Ritter (MS) § V-11
(Portion of anterior end)
Fig. 4. Axius (neaxius) vivesi § P-201 (Bouvier) 1895. La Paz Ghost Shrimp
Fig. 3. Gorgonia adamsi (Verrill) Sea-Fan (undetermined) not treated
Fig. 5. Strombus galeatus § S-371
Swainson 1823 Giant Conch
PHOTOS BY FISHER
Fig. 1. Acanthaster ellisii § K-117
(Gray) 1840
Fig. 2. Ostrea mexicana § S-232
Sowerby 1871 The Mangrove Oyster
Fig. 3. Tegula rugosa § S-407
A. Adams Variegated Turban
Fig. 4. Thais centriquadrata § S-363
Duclos Four-pronged Rock-shell
Fig. 5. Navicula pacifica Sowerby 1833. The Elongate Irregular Area § S-224
PHOTO BY FISHER
Fig. 1. Acanthina lugubris § S-351
(Sowerby) 1821 Gulf Unicorn-shell
Fig. 2. Engina ferruginosa § S-339
Reeve Rusty Engina
Figs. 3 and 4. Thais (Tribulus) § S-364 planospira Lamarck Masked Flat Snail
The annelid worm is: Eunice antennata § J-50
PHOTOS BY BBAUTORT FISHER
Fig. 1. Penaeus stylirostris § P-22
Stimpson 1871
Guaymas Edible Shrimp
Fig. 2. Chama mexicana § S-242
Carpenter The Mexican Rock Oyster
Fig. 3. Felaniella sericata § S-245
Fig. 4. Fossularca solida § S-220
Sowerby 1833 Garbanzo Clam
In typical specimens, the ribs have been worn smooth
PHOTOS BY BEAUFORT FISHER
Fig. 1. Myrichtbys tigrinus § W-25
Girard 1859 (spread about 4½“)
Fig. 2. Transparent Leptocephalus larva of Albula vulpes (Linn.)
Ladyfish. (length about 2½“) § W-17
Fig. 3. Fasciolaria princeps § S-336
Sowerby (about 11½" long in life)
Fig. 4. Cerithium sculptum § S-375
(Sowerby) 1855 Sculptured Cerithium
PHOTOS BY BEAUFORT FISHER
ISOTHERMS FOR MAY
ISOTHERMS FOR AUGUST
APPENDIX
Consisting of an annotated catalogue of the species encountered, a bibliography and resume of the literature, and a summary of the present state of our knowledge with regard to the littoral natural history of the Gulf of California, together comprising materials for a source book on the marine invertebrates of the Panamic Faunal Province.
Annotated Phyletic Catalogue and Bibliography
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
I:A
THE following acknowledgments, being first in importance, are given very gladly. We are indebted particularly to two of the institutions affiliated with the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de Mexico, for the free use of facilities extended to one of us during the summer of 1940, and for the warm and friendly personal co-operation which would seem to be a national characteristic of Mexico: First, the Institute of Biology in Chapul tepec Park and its director, Dr. I. Ochoterena, its professor of invertebrate zoology, Dr. Enrique Rioja, and its excellent library headed by Señor Crisóforo Vega. For its service to Mexico, and, more widely, for co-ordinating biological literature, both North and South American, in the Spanish language, this Institute and library merit the heartiest support of all United States scientific bodies. Second, to the more general scientific library of the Academia Nacional de Ciencias Antonio Alzate, which extended, equally freely, its not inconsiderable facilities
.
We are grateful also to the Hopkins Marine Station at Pacific Grove, California, and especially to its director, Professor W. K. Fisher, for assistances too numerous to specify, and for access to many rare items in his personal library which must have remained unavailable to us otherwise. Acknowledgments are due also to the following: to the U. S. National Museum, particularly to Dr. Waldo L. Schmitt; to the libraries of the University of California, and of Stanford University, especially to Librarian M. J. Abbott in Life Sciences at Berkeley for library privileges granted; to Virginia Scardigli, who was an efficient associate and a pleasant companion during some of the bibliographic research; but most of all to Toni Jackson who, in addition to manuscript revising and glossary constructing, transcribed the bulk of the difficult text, both journal and appendix, the latter phase involving that most vexing of all secretarial tasks—the editing of scientific copy interlarded with handwriting of a doubtful legibility.
The services of specialists in the various fields, which, as in a previous survey (Ricketts and Calvin 1939, § Y-3), have been willingly bestowed, are acknowledged in appropriate sections of the ensuing catalogue.
The drawings—and pictorially they are among the finest of this sort that we have ever seen—are, almost without exception, the work of Alberté Spratt of Carmel, California, who, with no specialized zoological knowledge, has nevertheless constructed painstakingly accurate illustrations, and who, with little spare time, has given abundantly of that little. For a group of color photographs, equally painstakingly done in perhaps a still more specialized field, we are indebted to Mr. Russell Cummings of Pacific Grove. The very welcome contribution of a color drawing of one of the holothurians by Dr. Fisher is acknowledged with thanks. Photographs have been contributed by Dr. Bullock of Yale University, and by Dr. MacFarland of the California Academy of Sciences. Other photographs are by specially trained professionals such as Mr. Beaufort Fisher of Pacific Grove, Mr. Harland L. Swift of West Los Angeles, and by Mr. William G. Vestal of Redlands, to all of whom much credit is due.
I:B
THIS is an attempt to bring order to a subject previously un-ordered, and to shed light onto a field that has been dark.
Before the publication of Johnson and Snook and of Ricketts and Calvin, it was difficult for students or travelers or even for scientists themselves to obtain any ready information on the animals of the Pacific shores of temperate America. A considerable amount of work had been done, but there were many gaps, and the literature was sparse, scattered, and unco-ordinated. This has proved to be the case even more seriously with reference to the western shores of tropical America.
In the citations, therefore, an attempt is being made to compile a fairly comprehensive bibliography of the marine invertebrates of the Panamic Faunal Province, particularly with reference to the Gulf of California. Occasional mentions of gulf invertebrates in large general taxonomic accounts, or in papers on the fauna of other regions, were not specifically investigated; there was merely a cursory examination of the literature prior to 1860 (when the standards were in any case less finely drawn than those at present; and in conchology the listing is confessedly fragmentary. But otherwise a serious effort has been made to search out, examine, and list, if apropos, all the large and important papers concerned with Panamic invertebrates.
We are heartily in accord with the p. 5 remarks of Keen 1937 (§ S-19): “Because a bibliography is the foundation upon which adequate organization of information rests, no small part of this paper is devoted to the listing of titles.” Too often, careful and original effort needed elsewhere has been expended on material worked over equally carefully years ago in another country and recorded in a publication not thought worthy of examination until pointed out.
Among contributions toward the toto-understanding of a given fauna, collation of the literature is at least as important as the field work—which should include the general collation of all groups of animals (1) in the field, (2) in the reporting of field notes, and (3) in the construction of the final report.
Interestingly, the most useful references have proved to be the very oldest and the very newest. Seventy to a hundred years ago the invertebrates of the Panamic Province were known as well as, or possibly better than they are today, and by a larger proportion of zoologists. And the examination and delineation of that fauna attracted a far greater quota of the total biological energy available then, than it attracts even now. So in constructing this report we have used frequently the 1867-71 coelenterate and echinoderm papers of Verrill, and those of Stimpson, Lockington, Streets, and others, on crustacea; the monographs of Lyman and Agassiz, the shell catalogues of Carpenter and Adams, and the reports of the Vettor Pisani and of other expeditions. From then until recently, except for work on the crabs and shells dredged by the Albatross, comparatively little has been added to our knowledge of the marine animals of this area. But since 1915, several modern investigations, notably those of Dr. Mortensen; of the steam yacht St. George; of the New York Zoological Society; and of the Hancock Pacific Expeditions, have again penetrated this long neglected field.
Aside from papers of the Smithsonian Institution and of the U. S. National Museum, the most frequently consulted periodical turned out to be no local nor even western hemisphere publication, strangely enough, but the Videnskabelige Meddelelser fra Dansk naturhistorisk Forening, published in Denmark. This contains, in addition to some of the descriptions of echinoderms, etc., collected almost a hundred years ago on the west coast of Central America, more than sixty papers issued thus far as a result of Dr. Th. Mortensen’s 1914-16 Pacific Expedition.
The publications of the Hancock Pacific Expeditions, now in progress, would seem to be the most important of all, despite their considerable cost, were it not for their unavailability in even the largest libraries. Some were on hand at the Institute of Biology in Mexico City, but the Hopkins Marine Station of Stanford University has no file of this Pacific coast series published only a few hundred miles away. Even at the libraries of the University of California, only Volume Two was available in the spring of 1941, and we were forced to purchase some of the most needed numbers and to consult others as separates wherever they might be seen, usually in the libraries of specialists. Publications of this sort, furthermore, are too expensive for the private worker to purchase—the separates comprising Volume Two, alone, come to $17.50. Though the publications are as costly as those of the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard, they lack the large-size page, the splendid lithographic illustrations, and, in some cases, the recognized scientific authority characteristic especially of the Memoir volumes of that series. Considering all this, the biologist who has to finance his own library may justly regret the advent of the rich man in science.
A really formidable list of references accrued during the construction of this bibliography. In selecting items to be included, we were guided by certain considerations which made the work more difficult than if we had listed indiscriminately all apropos citations, but our care has reduced the bulk to more usable proportions. Preference has been given to papers with comprehensive bibliographies of their own. By indicating in the annotation that a given citation is listed in the bibliography of an account which we cite, we have been able to avoid duplication and to conserve space, while at the same time mentioning all the important references. The original description of a species has not been cited necessarily, this ordinarily having been covered in the more monographic papers cited for the group. It has been considered more important to list references which have full descriptions and synonymies, and, most of all, which carry adequate photographs or drawings of the entire animal. The method of identification by pictures may be both superficial and primitive, but it still remains not only the most popular, but by far the fastest method for the layman, or even for the specialist out of his own field. For most minds, a lifetime is too short for studying more than a few of the many groups which the collector or ecologist will surely encounter even in the most delimited
area, and the non-specialist who has recourse to adequately illustrated literature for the identification of his catch saves time and energy for other considerations.
An incidental dissertation on the art and science of scientific writing would seem to be indicated at this point—a dissertation arising from the unusual circumstance of a non-specialist having had occasion to review rather carefully a large section of specialized literature.
The gulf between the general zoologist, the ecologist, or the layman and the specialist is very great and is becoming greater. The situation among polyclad-worm specialists is illustrative. They may be the opposite of the field naturalists. They needn’t be, and the only ones with whom we are acquainted definitely are not, but there is nothing in the nature of the work as such to prevent them from remaining far removed from the living material. Identifications of polyclad-worms are made from serial sections of preserved material—minute slices of tissue, so thin as to show clearly the cellular structure. In the case of polychaet worms, identifications are made chiefly from the detached bristles. And as a rule, the interest of the specialist remains in identification and nomenclature alone. Therefore, the illustrations in the specialized literature are usually drawings of the diagnostic anatomical details, often microscopic or at least highly magnified, and separated from the animal itself. Thus the average zoologist or the layman, consulting the special literature in order to identify a worm, finds the description and illustration so wrapped in technicalities and so unrecognizable that he is likely to become discouraged by its remoteness from the animal itself.