Everyone can see the coordinates unless the taxon is threatened.
Obscured
Public coordinates shown as a random point within 10KM of the true coordinates. True coordinates are only visible to you and the curators of projects to which you add the observation.
private
Coordinates completely hidden from public maps, true coordinates only visible to you and the curators of projects to which you add the observation. Observations with private coordinates will still be used to verify place check lists.
They do overlap in this area and the easiest way to tell them apart is by the number of plates. S. cariosus has 6 and T. rubescens has 4. Unfortunately, this can't be fully determined by the photo. My feeling though is that this resembles cariosus more than rubescencs, which tends to have a sharper point and smaller opening at the top. You could also be right though...
Can cariosus have that reddish coloration (assuming it's not an encrusting coralline)? I've always assumed cariosus is only white or gray, but I'm not a barnacle person so my perceptions might very well be wrong.
So Light's describes Semibalanus cariosus as having "outer surface white," which makes me think all my pink "thatched barnacles" have been Tetraclita. Have you guys ever confirmed a pink Semibalanus cariosus?
Hmmm... no, not "confirmed," only assumed that pink thatched ones were Tetraclita and white/gray thatched ones were S. cariosus. I could shoot an email to our barnacle guy here at the Academy and ask him, if that would be useful.
OK, after looking back through some of my notes, I've decided to change my ID to T. rubescens. I have seem some cariosus with a pinkish color, but I think Alison is right that it is due to algal cover. It wouldn't get this deep red color.
Great catch, Alison! If you talk to Bob, tell him I said hi. He was one of my first taxonomy teachers.
I only noticed it when I was suggesting S. cariosus on a different ID and when I saw the little thumbnail I was like "wait... that looks like Tetraclita..." and decided to track down the photo, which led me to this observation. Thanks for the good barnacle discussion... I've been trying to study up on them for our Pillar Point surveys next week. And I will say hi to Bob for you Chris!
The data quality assessment is a summary of an observation's accuracy. All
observations start as "casual" grade, and achieve
"research" grade when
the iNat community agrees with the observer's ID, where an "agreeing"
identification is one that matches exactly or is of a child taxon of the
observer's ID. For example, if Scott says it's a mammal and Ken-ichi
says it's Homo sapiens, then Ken-ichi agrees with Scott.
the observation has a date
the observation is georeferenced (i.e. has lat/lon coordinates)
the observation has a photo
Observations will revert to "casual" grade if the above conditions aren't met or
the community agrees the location doesn't looks accurate (e.g. monkeys in the middle of the ocean, hippos in office buildings, etc.)
the community agrees the organism isn't wild/naturalized (e.g. captive or cultivated by humans or intelligent space aliens)
iNaturalist.org shares licensed observation data with
several data partners so your data can be more accessible to
scientists and other researchers.
If you'd like us to share your observations with data partners, make
sure you've chosen to license your observations with a Creative
Commons license.
External Links
This observation has been incorporated into the following external websites:
some rights reserved
Comments & Identifications
What makes this S. cariosus and not Tetraclita rubescens? Usually when I see a pink volcano-looking barnacle I assume it's T. rubescens.
They do overlap in this area and the easiest way to tell them apart is by the number of plates. S. cariosus has 6 and T. rubescens has 4. Unfortunately, this can't be fully determined by the photo. My feeling though is that this resembles cariosus more than rubescencs, which tends to have a sharper point and smaller opening at the top. You could also be right though...
Can cariosus have that reddish coloration (assuming it's not an encrusting coralline)? I've always assumed cariosus is only white or gray, but I'm not a barnacle person so my perceptions might very well be wrong.
So Light's describes Semibalanus cariosus as having "outer surface white," which makes me think all my pink "thatched barnacles" have been Tetraclita. Have you guys ever confirmed a pink Semibalanus cariosus?
Hmmm... no, not "confirmed," only assumed that pink thatched ones were Tetraclita and white/gray thatched ones were S. cariosus. I could shoot an email to our barnacle guy here at the Academy and ask him, if that would be useful.
OK, after looking back through some of my notes, I've decided to change my ID to T. rubescens. I have seem some cariosus with a pinkish color, but I think Alison is right that it is due to algal cover. It wouldn't get this deep red color.
Great catch, Alison! If you talk to Bob, tell him I said hi. He was one of my first taxonomy teachers.
I only noticed it when I was suggesting S. cariosus on a different ID and when I saw the little thumbnail I was like "wait... that looks like Tetraclita..." and decided to track down the photo, which led me to this observation. Thanks for the good barnacle discussion... I've been trying to study up on them for our Pillar Point surveys next week. And I will say hi to Bob for you Chris!
Add a comment
Add an identification