|
split into |
|
The descriptions sound right based on the paper, but I'm still having a hard time distinguishing the species (albopunctata vs fulva) many times, simply because I find individuals that seem to have characteristics of each species!
Maybe @lemurdillo wants to weigh in?
Yeah, I'm definitely seeing ones that look a bit intermediate in my past pics, but I think some are pretty clear. For example, I'm pretty sure the isolated dots on the tips of the tuburcles on this one indicate D. fulva:
And I suspect the two-sized spots, whiteish gill, and abundant visible tuburcles on this one indicate. D. albopunctata sensu stricto:
I guess I'll have to settle for a genus-level ID on ones that look intermediate
I would like to see a pic of the nearly-invisible tuburcles of D. davebehrensi, which theoretically isn't in the Bay Area, but who knows.
Looks good @kueda, and yes, those two photos illustrate the written descriptions well. I still find a lot of intermediates of D. fulva and D. albopuncata, but generally just leave those at genus level.
It'll be good to go back through old observations to try to sort these three species out... but then I also wonder how many Baptodoris get sucked up into Doriopsilla too. :)
Agree. I remember a few months ago @rebeccafay saying something along the line these Doriopsilla spp. were almost impossible to distinguish from photos alone so she would only confirm the genus.
Hello all,
I would agree. I think what I meant about them begin hard to tell apart is more along the lines of what Alison said. I think in some cases it is easy enough to tell species from each other, but there are things that I can not tell apart. Maybe someone else can, but I am not confident for some intermediaries.
Thanks for doing this, Ken-ichi
linking https://www.inaturalist.org/flags/451449 for reference
@mcduck, @rebeccafay, @kestrel: does this look like a reasonable assessment of this split?