Anyone besides me bothered by how little we know about sea life?

[ryan115]

puffer... check out reef.org
This may be just the kind of think you are looking for.
There are also several scientific studies that are being conducted to collect data to help estabblishing community structure, species occurence and range, and indicies of abundance. look up some information on SEAMAP

 

[billmackbarnes]

We got to dive with Ned and Anna last night. We were looking for a pregnant striated Frog Fish, but Ned found a Juvy Short Bigeye (a deep water fish) in about 10 feet of water. So, yes, they are still working on constanting updating the Reef information. Anna found an eel that may not yet have been identified.

Yes, we are still just starting to scratch the surface!

Bill

 

[drbill]

As a marine biologist of course I am "worried" about this although it presents an awesome opportunity for us to do more research. However, I'm much MORE worried about how little we know about a system constructed entirely by humans... the economic system. There seem to be so many conflicting theories and approaches. If we knew how to make it work efficiently and effectively for all citizens, maybe there would be more $$$ available for marine research instead of for making bombs, warplanes are the like.

 

[Puffer Fish]

Bill, Your example demonstrates the issue.

I have dozens of images of Short Bigeye taken in rather normal water depths. Had someone asked would have been happy to point out they don't just live in deep water.

I understand the desire to "make the discovery", but there are lots of divers that know pieces of the story, if one wanted to just ask.

 

[Puffer Fish]

Thanks Ryan

puffer... check out reef.org
This may be just the kind of think you are looking for.
There are also several scientific studies that are being conducted to collect data to help estabblishing community structure, species occurence and range, and indicies of abundance. look up some information on SEAMAP

 

[archman]

We know a ton about (shallow water) marine life. Biologists publish most of their information in journals and reports that are not easily or directly accessible to the general public. Most of the language that organismal biologists use in such publications is written for peers in the same narrow sub-field of study (like mysid shrimps of the east pacific), so even if we had a need to make the material more accessible, no one would (or could!) read it anyway. Heck, I put out a paper about deep-sea anemones a few years back that was written in a VERY simplistic format, yet most of my undergraduate marine biology students at the time had trouble understanding it.

The natural history stuff that the general public is typically interested is rarely studied much anymore, as much of that work was finished prior to 1970. The information from the early-mid 20th century regarding shallow water marine life is mostly quite accurate and extremely informative... one just has to track down those old dusty tomes. Government libraries are a gold mine for much of this "grey literature". Heh, I must have about 100 pounds of these reports and papers for critters and habitats I'm interested in.

Underwater photographers who take a penchant to natural history (like Humann) are invaluable. They fill in the accessibility/communication hole that exists between academic or industry scientists and the general public. The field guides they put out are wonderful in supplying basic, (somewhat) current information.

Regarding the OP's pics, those are all cnidarians. Hardly anyone works on these things anymore. I know of TWO taxonomic anemone specialists in the United States.

 

[Puffer Fish]

Archman, I believe we know a ton about the micro aspects of a great number of marine organisms. We seem to be missing a huge chunk of knowledge about the Macro aspects.

The northern gulf coast between Pensacola and Panama City is essentially a flat, limestone surface, covered with some sand and new sediment, with some oasis of wrecks and ledges. There are no major currents. It is the ocean equivalent of a Desert, roughly 30 miles wide, and a bit over 120 miles long, with an average depth of around 100 ft.

The last three years have had no major storms, and yet we have fairly frequent events, where thousands of a species will just show up for a while and then leave. A few years back it was Hexabranchus morsomus. This spring it was Dendrodoris Warta. Adults and juveniles. I counted over 20 on one dive. They covered an area just over 50 miles wide and stayed for around 5 weeks (give or take a week) and then all of them left. A month later and we suddenly have Scorpaena plumieri all over the place. In over 40 years of diving here, the first one I saw was three weeks ago, when I took a picture of what I thought was the common Scorpaena brasiliensis (which are very common here). To my surprise, it was plumieri..since then, I've seen more plumieri than our common one. Even more surprising to me, is that they range from juveniles to adults. (Don't know where brasiliensis breeds, but there are no juveniles in the areas I dive).

I happen to be here the year that Rhomboplites aurorubens showed up in this area by the hundreds of thousands, and are still here today.

I find our knowledge of Taxonomy to be very good, our knowledge of marine life populations and movements to suck... just me.

 

[archman]

Ah, range extensions. The thing about range extensions is that every Tom, Dick, and Harry report these all the time. Fishermen, scuba divers, schoolteachers, graduate students, etc. are constantly barraging taxonomists with sightings and photographs. Assuming a report makes its way to the (appropriate) taxonomist, there are a great many verification steps required for the range extension to be validated. Physical specimens for positive ID are the standard for most invertebrates (and many fishes). Precise collection information (location, time, collector) must come with those specimens. Often, the taxonomist needs to physically collect or observe specimens firsthand in their native environment.

One small secret about reported marine life distributions is that they are very, very detailed within immediate proximity of operating marine laboratories. The people who can verify the specimens either work there or have colleagues that work there. The Gulf of Mexico has few marine laboratories and qualified marine scientists, compared to the Atlantic or Pacific coasts. The work backlog of specimens may take years to get through... if ever.

All that said, I can say for a fact that much species distribution for critters in the Gulf of Mexico is in much better shape than is normally accessible from the internet or field guides. The grey literature from federal and state monitoring studies (as well as graduate theses and dissertations) often contains species lists containing all sorts of wacky critters and potential range extensions. One just has to track down all that stuff and sift through it. Great fun.

There is little/zero interest in today's universities to support (or even hire) "natural history" biologists. That ship sailed in the early 1980's. Similarly, natural history museum curatorial staffing is severely depleted. Historically, these are the people that have been responsible for filtering and publishing natural history information to the general public. With most of these specialists gone, the monitoring agency biologists (NMFS, NPS, etc.) are the only game in town. These folks (may) operate as regional "parataxonomists", but their job duties are very specific to fulfilling agency directives. Thus, if you want to find out what they know, you have to either contact them directly, or sift through their monitoring reports.

The northern Gulf of Mexico transitions between two maritime biogeographic provinces between winter and summer. It is one enormous ecotone with massive species flux. Rapid climate change and exotic species make their mark on regional habitat structure as well. One might argue that areas like this are "ripe" for study, as one is always seeing weird/new stuff. The argument can also be made that expensive university monitoring programs are pointless and a waste of money to operate in such areas, due to the inherent ecological dynamicism of the region. Politicians have tended to prefer the latter argument...

I am not a fish person, but I would recommend that Dan Pauly's FishBase would be a good place to seek out (or supply) fish-related life history info. I am not sure if the website is still in full operation, I am currently getting some downed service links.

 

[drbill]

There is little/zero interest in today's universities to support (or even hire) "natural history" biologists. That ship sailed in the early 1980's. Similarly, natural history museum curatorial staffing is severely depleted. Historically, these are the people that have been responsible for filtering and publishing natural history information to the general public. With most of these specialists gone, the monitoring agency biologists (NMFS, NPS, etc.) are the only game in town. These folks (may) operate as regional "parataxonomists", but their job duties are very specific to fulfilling agency directives. Thus, if you want to find out what they know, you have to either contact them directly, or sift through their monitoring reports.

So true, unfortunately. Much of the work done today is in the area of molecular biology... and economic uses of marine species. Of course the DNA studies are helpful in refining taxonomy in many groups. I do worry about the scientists being trained today in areas of specialty where they do not have a good understanding of the entire organism or the ecological context. Environmental work, which would further the interest in ecosystems level studies, has been underfunded in previous years. Such a shame.

 

[Rick Murchison]

begin

...If we knew how to make it work...

But we do... we just don't believe the evidence, or trust folks to do it on their own. Secure borders, limited government, low taxes, and get out of the way. "Guard the coast, carry the mail & leave us alone." Our economic problems all come from folks who refuse to learn the lessons of history and believe they can make fatally flawed economic systems like socialism or Keynesian principles work because they're smarter than all those who've tried and failed in the past. But they aren't. And "central planning" still won't work. Ever.
end

Rick