 |
|
Diadema savignyi
(Michelin,
1845)
family Diadematidae
This urchin often has bright iridescent
blue lines on the upper surface of its test and is quite rare in
Hawai`i. I have never seen a live one here, or even a photo of one
taken in the Islands until Pauline Fiene photographed this one off
Mau in 2009. At first she thought it was a juvenile Diadema paucispinum,
because of its very long spines, but when she saw it again 3 months
later in the same location and noticed that it hadn't grown, she
began to wonder. Eventually she found a photo of savignyi
in Debelius and Kuiter's massive
marine invertebrate atlas and realized what it was.
|
 |
|
Centrostephanus
asteriscus Agassiz
and Clark, 1907 ???
family Diadematidae
I found this urchin under a slab off
the Lana`i Lookout, O`ahu, at about 40 ft. Sea urchin specialist
Dr. Richard Mooi of the California Academy of Sciences tentatively
identified it from a slide as possibly belonging to the genus Centrostephanus.
The Bishop
Museum species list lists Centrostephanus asteriscus
as the only member of the genus present in Hawai`i. Since it is
seen so infrequently at scuba diving depths it's possible that its
center of population lies in deep water. I saw another one once,
off Makua, at about 60 ft.. It had an urchin shrimp in it.
Cory Pittman
writes:
I was scanning
the recent entries on your site and noticed the photo of Centrostephanus
asteriscus. I've also seen it twice. Once was a lone individual
under rubble at Honolua bay (around 40-50 ft). The other time was
a pair in a hole in rubble that the black coral divers had knocked
off a freshly collected colony at the Lahaina docks. Presumably,
those came from around 200 ft which would support the suggestion
of a deeper distribution.
|
 |
|
Metalia
sternalis Lamarck,
1816
family Brissidae
This irregular urchin test was sitting on
the sand at about 50 ft. at Makua, O`ahu. It was larger than most
other Hawaiian species except the common Brissus latecarinatus,
but it appeared to be different. I sent the photo to Dr. Richard
Mooi at the California Academy of Sciences. He replied:
The
reason that the big urchin is different from B. latecarinatus
is that it seems to be a good match for Metalia sternalis.
Since some of the identification depends on things like pedicellariae
and pore-pair counts, it's a little difficult to wing it from the
photo. However, gross matching with sources other than Mortensen
(who has remarkably poor image coverage of this important echinoid)
strongly suggests M. sternalis (Lamarck, 1816).
|
|