Mediomastus californiensis and non-indigenous species
JAMES A. BLAKE
jablake at ix.netcom.com
Fri Jan 31 00:37:17 EST 2003
I told David privately that the species name californicus was a typographic
error and mental lapse.
However, this post was based on his review of a manuscript that dealt with
introduced or non-indigenous species and this raises many issues.
There is of course the issue of the origin of Mediomastus californiensis.
Because the species was first described from California there is the usual
and immediate thought that when it occurs in Florida it must be non-
indigenous. This of course is ridiculous. The species has been reported
widely in North America and there is no evidence that it originated in
California, only that Hartman was the first to find it there.
In our work in New England, we identify M. californiensis routinely as the
dominant species of Mediomastus north of Cape Cod; the dominant species
south of Cape Cod is M. ambiseta, another species originally described from
Therefore, I don't think that David or anyone should immediately conclude
that either species of Mediomastus is non-indigenous anywhere in North
America at this time. My own feeling is that there are probably many, as yet
unrecognized sibling species involved and that introductions may not be an
I would welcome discussion on this topic. We have have not had many of
-- ANNELIDA LIST
Discuss = <annelida at net.bio.net> = talk to all members
Server = <biosci-server at net.bio.net> = un/subscribes
Archives = http://www.bio.net/hypermail/annelida/
Resources = http://www.annelida.net/
More information about the Annelida