On seeing things that "shouldn't be there"
A word of advice I once received on bird-watching.... don't be a slave to the
range-maps in a bird guide - pay more attention to the bird itself.  You would
be surprised how many birds are not found within their usual range.  I suspect
that more would be found if more people trusted their eyes and not a book that
might be out of date or just plain wrong.  Some birds ranges change even in our
lifetimes - blue jays were rare here in Calgary a decade ago and now they are
common.
A few years ago a herd (band?) of killer whales was located in the Caribbean
near Belize.  Hard to confuse them with anything else - I guess they forgot to
ask permission from us to go there ; - )
NOW FOR MY SHELL-RELATED QUESTION ( to put the above into practice):
I have been very studiously IDing my BC-collected shells (thanks Peter for the
lead on the Kozloff book- couldn't have got so far without it) -
I picked up many dead small olivellas in beach-drift that must be either
Olivella baetica or Olivella pycna.  I also collected the much larger O.
biplicata in the same spot. O. pycna is not supposed to be anywhere this far
north but the description matches Kozloff's in "Invertebrates of the Pacific NW"
and Abbott's in "American Seashell's exactly right down to the width/height
ratios and the zigzag lines.  Am I right?  Or must it be baetica in spite of the
differing description?

Nora
Calgary, Alberta


ferreter wrote:

> Good question (and no i would never refer to our northern visitors as
> misplaced.
> Yea the cuttle bone deliamea has me stumped also . maybe it was a freak
> orphan of sorts or maybe it was a wayward escapee? but i know what i saw and
> i'm stick'n to it. like i said before, got too close , in great visablity to
> misidentify such a strange creature , plus the fact off the shifting colors
> and patterns , this is a charactoristic of the most evolved cephlapods like
> octopi and cuttlefish. I also remember that most gastropods , cephlaods and
> even bivalia still can't read our reference books and are found outside
> there respective realms . ferret, the tanacious weasel.
>
> From: Monfils, Paul <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Thursday, November 11, 1999 7:19 PM
> Subject: Re: Cuttlefish
>
> >Mark,
> >I hope that "misplaced creature" comment doesn't include New Englanders
> >visiting Florida!!
> >Seriously though, if cuttlefish do inhabit Florida/Caribbean waters, surely
> >the "cuttlebone" (the internal "shell" of the creature) would be found on
> >the beaches.  Cuttlefish are typically shallow water animals, as far as I
> >know.  The cuttlebone is rather large (4 to 6 inches in length) and white,
> >and would be fairly hard to miss, though some folks might not know what it
> >was if they found it - they might mistake it for a piece of styrofoam.  (If
> >you don't know what it looks like, check the bird section of your pet
> store.
> >Cuttlebone is sold as a calcium source for birds - though they are often
> >trimmed to fit into the package.).  Also, cuttlebone is less dense than
> >water, so it would rise to the surface and float ashore after being
> released
> >from the decaying body of a dead specimen (just the way Spirula shells are
> >released).  So, I find it hard to imagine that these animals would be
> >inhabiting a particular area without the evidence washing ashore at least
> >occasionally.  Has anyone ever found a cuttlebone in the Florida/Caribbean
> >area?
> >Regards,
> >Paul M.
> >