Purple Octopus - using citizen science to discover marine interactions
This is the entity page showing aggregated messages and images for the named entity.


Bullina lineata

(Gray, 1825)


Andrew Wingate Are these bubbleshells classed as nudibranchs ?

Jirawat Chatcharkorn www.nudipixel.net/species/micromelo_undata/

정대위 It was in order Architectibranchia, But I can't find its reference of current data.

Deb Aston http://www.seaslugforum.net/find/bullline

Dewald Swanepoel Architectibranchia is not an order but a clade. At least, it was until the molecular analyses of Jörger et al. (2010) after which it has been omitted from literature and the Acteonidae superfamily (to which these bubble shells belong) has been moved to the clade "Lower Heterobranchia". Either way, they're not really nudibranchs though. Along with the nudibranchs they all form part of the higher clade "Heterobranchia" but that's about as close as their relationship goes.

João Pedro Silva Current classification of sea slugs has been subject to many changes... and many more are expected.

Dewald Swanepoel Even so, I don't think there's any reason to suspect bubble shells to be included under nudibranchs at any point?

João Pedro Silva Of course not, nor sea hares, sacoglossans, etc. What I meant was "sea slugs" are not monophyletic.

Gary Cobb All Sea slugs usually fall under the umbrella name of Nudibranch. This umbrella name has a more romantic feel then Sea slug.

Dewald Swanepoel That would be a very loose usage of the name "nudibranch" and certainly not in a correct scientific sense. From Wikipedia: "Nudibranchs are often casually called sea slugs, but many sea slugs belong to several taxonomic groups which are not closely related to nudibranchs. A number of these other sea slugs, such as the colorful Aglajidae, are often confused with nudibranchs."

João Pedro Silva I think there's nothing wrong with using "sea slugs". Calling nudibranch to all sea slugs is not only scientifically incorrect as it creates a future problem: when your average diver and casual slug observer becomes a real enthusiast you'll be forced to tell him/her "well, it's about time you know the truth". Every year I'm asked to lecture on portuguese nudibranchs in several places and for a variety of audiences (from universities to museums and dive centers, from divers to 6 years old kids from school or 80 years old from a local retirement home). I also show some "close relatives often mistaken by nudibranchs but not nudibranchs" (cephalaspideans, sea hares, sacoglossans, etc) otherwise the initial description I show (they have no shell, they all live in salt water, none are herbivores...) would not be valid and the audience would notice it. I also have a slide with flatworms and explain they are more closely related to tape worms.

Gary Cobb Naturally the umbrella term Nudibranch is not intended as a scientific term. Calling all known Marine Slugs - Nudibranchs is not a bad thing. All people around the World call these animals what they will. You "lump" them all or "split" them whatever makes your boat float!

Gary Cobb I too have conducted many talks on "Nudibranchs" and we talk about all kinds under the term Nudibranch. That term is widely accepted and until individuals are educated nudibranchs and sea slugs will continue to be the terms used. It's just simple. When the term Opisthobranch is said everyone goes "what?" In my opinion Keep it simple.

Gary Cobb Hey Andrew Wingate you can call Micromela undata what you wish. You have many choices and it all comes down to what you have learned and what you accept as right. Mean while enjoy the wonderful world of "Whatever they're called". End

Gary Cobb One more thing...I like using the umbrella term Nudibranch. It sounds nice and its easy and most people know what you're talking about. Cheers.

Dewald Swanepoel Of course you can call anything what you want, but that doesn't make it correct and the fact that it "sounds nice" might be the most flippant of reasons. You can call a cat a dog if you want (if you reckon it sounds nice), but that doesn't make it correct. Sure it's your prerogative but people who really know what a dog is and what a cat is will silently shake their heads in the back of room and you will probably not even know how well your talk is being received amongst those who know the subject. What I don't understand though is, why bother to scrutinise a slug in the minutest of detail to establish whether or not the viscera is visible through the slightly translucent body so that we can ID it down to species level when we couldn't be bothered to get the high level clade correct? In fact, if we're going to be that cavalier about nomenclature, we might as well just call all of these stuff "sea things" and not bother with any classification of fish, marine moluscs, echinoderms etc. I'm just saying, using a very scientific term such as "nudibranch" so very unscientifically just because it sounds nice, either makes a joke of the entire system of classification or it makes a joke of the person using it.

Andrew Wingate Why don't I just call them 'Nudislugs' and keep every one happy lol

João Pedro Silva My experience says that for a generic audience it doesn't really matter if you say nudibranch or opisthobranch they'll say "nudiwhat?" or "opisthowhat?" anyway.

Gary Cobb Dewald ... relax! ALL people on the street would know the difference between a cat and a dog, so your analogy is very childish. Those same people on the street would't know a Opisthobranch from an Echinoderm. When "common folk" are in a discussion on the subject on Nudibranchs, or what ever you want to call them, keeping it simple always works the best. Dispite what you say, using the term Nudibranch, does not make a joke of the entire system of classification nor makes a joke of the person using it. At least it has not happened to me in the past 11 years. For your information Dr. Richard Willan and I wrote a book on these animals and he insited on using the umbrella term 'Nudibranch'. ... chill.

Dewald Swanepoel I'm quite relaxed Gary, don't worry about that. I do disagree with you though. Using the term "nudibranch" when referring to a bubble shell, sacoglossan or echinoderm is not "keeping it simple". Quite the opposite in fact, it is adding to the confusion surrounding the topic. But the bottom line here is, when someone posts a question on a group called "Nudibase - sharing Nudibranch knowledge", specifically asking whether bubble shells are classed as nudibranchs, it is probably safe to assume that he is interested in the true classification, not the "hmmm, I know it's really a bat but it has wings so let's call it a bird anyway because it sounds nice" type of classification. By calling everything that looks like it could be a nudibranch a nudibranch, you are not sharing Nudibranch knowledge, you are promulgating incorrect usage that simply muddles the waters.

Gary Cobb Thank you Dewald for your analysis. You are entitled to your opinion. I have been helping people with Nudibranch information since this Groups inception. So...the answer to the original question is YES bubbleshells are also classed as nudibranchs.

David A Mullins This species is Bullina lineata and to answer Andrew's question, technically it is not a nudibranch but a cepalaspidean. In "technical" talk the word nudibranch would not even be used. In a forum of this nature participants are looking for straight forward answers that are not couched in technically terms. The discussion seems to have become sidetracked into semantics. In popularist publications (i.e. not scientific publications) most authors (even very respected scientific researchers) use the term nudibranchs. It sells books and everybody knows (or I thought everybody knows) that the term is used as an umbrella for the sea slugs in general. To quote Dr Richard Willan Senior Curator of Molluscs at the Museum and Art Gallery of The Northern Territory, Darwin in his very well received an authoritative book: "Nudibranchs of Heron Island, Great Barrier Reef" - "The Nudibranchia is the best known of all the orders because it contains the majority of species, has representatives attaining considerable size and many are brightly coloured. Like some other recent authors we have found it expedient to group the entire sub-class under the umbrella of 'nudibranchs' (for example Gosliner 1987; Behrens1991; Debelius 1996). Whilst such a grouping is technically incorrect, it gives exposure to the lesser orders which would otherwise be ignored and we have recognised this in the full title of our work." This to me seems a worthy reason and seems to continue to be promulgated by some pretty serious "nudibranch" authorities. Nobody is saying D O G = chicken.

Gary Cobb I love it.

Andrew Wingate A simple yes or no would have been quite adequate guys ! Thanks for all your effort anyway !

João Pedro Silva I feel confortable with discussing and disagreeing and still getting along and doing what we really want to do: show people these wonderful animals. Even for such an authority such as Richard Willan I think one can easily find some more authorities who would not agree. And it does depend a lot on the audience. For non divers, nudibranch is just as popular as opisthobranch or even Heterobranchia for that matter. And that may also depend on location and the popular activities developed there. If fishing is almost the single only (tautology intended) activity performed by the sea side, you'll find people couldn't care less for non edible "critters". So I still prefer to introduce these animals as "sea slugs" because "nudibranch" or "opisthobranch" would scare half of the audience away and open the door for further study for those who become more and more interested.

Gary Cobb Andrew this is merely a discussion and that is how science works. The answer to your original question still (in simple terms) is yes.

Patrik Good Bullina sp. or Bullina cf. lineata; Gold Coast Seaway; 9/10/2012; 15:12 hrs; size 10mm; depth 3 metres; 20 degrees water temperature; 2 metres visibility; we are finding lots and lots of Bullinas at the moment, some of them damaged with missing or crushed shell. They range in size from 2mm to 18mm. Whatever we are finding we are calling Bullina lineata or Bullina nobilis. Can I get opinions on wether this individual is an abnormality of one of these two species, lacking the horizontal bands or wether it is a different species all along?

Ajiex Dharma I haven't seen this nice Bulina..

Patrik Good What about Bullina aff. lineata? As far as I know the horizontal shell band is part of the description. So, it can't be B. cf. lineata, can it? What if - hypothetically - the radula were identical to B. lineata though? What if that was a 'once off' genetic mutation, just a colour variation or the critter is actually not fertile and able to produce offspring? Or stated differently: how can I tell the difference between a mere colour variation of a species and a distinctly different species? Do the radula (or mitochondrial DNA) make the decision alone or are they just important factors?

Patrik Good Found a similar but different individual at the same dive site @ 28/8/2012. It had no horizontal shell lines either. The red lines were almost straight.

Gary Cobb Everything externally matches Bullina lineata except the pattern of the red lines. I would call this Bullina cf. lineata. The shell anatomy has to be compared. The thickness of the shell and the shape of the spire are things that need to be compared. Collect an animal and I will preserve the animal to closely compare shells.

Gary Cobb There is no way "we" can compare radula without going through a huge expense. Comparing morphology as best we can and studying descriptions is the best "we" can do. Again if we find an animal we are not sure of BUT resembles another we tag it with cf until a positive ID can be made.

Gary Cobb In these primitive species careful observations of the shell structure are essential to ID. Here are descriptions are the Forum... Bullina nobilis Habe, 1950 Described on the basis of shell differences alone. Differs from Bullina lineata in having a heavier shell, with a low spire, and fewer, more prominent spiral grooves and ridges. The red axial [vertical] lines are thicker than in B. lineata and there are a pair of thick spiral red bands. Each of these thick bands can appear as 2 or 3 individual thinner lines, as in Haruo Kinoshita's accompanying photo. I have copied Habe's original shell description below: 'Shell large for the genus, ovately globose, rather thin, white, with two red bands which divide the body whorl into three subequal parts, and provided with irregularly spaced red longitudinal threads which are somewhat wavy or arcuated or irregular; these threads are interrupted by the bands stated above; spire low; protoconch about 1.5 whorls, smooth and polished; post-embryonal whorls 4, each strongly convex; suture deeply canaliculated; body whorl very large, sculpture with many regular, strongly punctured spiral grooves which are emphatical on the top and base; aperture large, widely lunate; outer lip arcuated and the margin simple and crenated; columellar lip somewhat dilated and slightly twisted on the lower end, covering umbilicus partly and narrowed by the reflection of it. Length: 18 mm, width: 13.2 mm. Distribution: Honshu (Wakayama and the Sagami Bay)' --- Bullina roseana Rudman, 1971 The shell is ovate, globose, umbilicate; pinkish white with two pink spiral lines dividing whorl into 3 parts, the middle one being twice the width of the outer two. A diffuse spiral band runs around the base of the shell. Axial red lines are not well marked except for short lines running down from the suture halfway to the upper pink spiral line. There are approximately 7 axial lines on body whorl. The spire is realtively low, approximately one ninth of shell height, the protoconch is large, whorls rounded. The shell is sculptured with wide smooth spiral ridges, separated by narrow punctate grooves, approximately one third to one quarter the width of ridges. The aperture large, narrowing at the upper end and slightly at the lower end; the outer lip is thin, joining body whorl just above upper red spiral line. Suture channelled. The columella is white, straight, broad, slightly truncated at base, free edge slightly recurved to form umbilical opening. The inner lip forms a calcified layer over the lower half of the shell aperture. This species differs from Bullina lineata in the shape of the shell, animal and radular morphology.

Patrik Good Interesting. Totally agree on the similarity with B. lineata. What bugged me though: all the descriptions mention the horizontal red bands as characteristic. My point was that if one important characteristic of the description doesn't match it can't be that species that was described, can it. Actually, the description might have been too restrictive. If I'd find an elephant with no spout I'd be tempted to not call it 'similar' to an elephant but as something 'similar but certainly not an elephant'. That's why I came up with B. aff. lineata. But maybe the bands are not that important after all and are within a scientifically defined margin of tolerance. As I see shell structure seems to be more crucial (and its description is pretty hard to understand). Thanks a lot, Gary. Will collect the next one I see.

Gary Cobb I often wonder if scientists who describe species 'see' and 'know' of all variations a particular. Species can be!!??

Gary Cobb Patrik check this link out http://www.nudipixel.net/photo/00029263/location/nelson_bay/

Patrik Good That's its brother :-) Ken Thongpila is such an outstanding photographer and naturalist. Did you get this individual IDed by Richard or anybody else, Ken? I also found a Bullina with only one red band on the Seaslug site, Gary (http://www.seaslugforum.net/find/21238). Bill Rudman wrote that he is unsure if it is actually B. lineata but this name should be used until somebody can have a look at its anatomy and radula. That was a few years ago.

Patrik Good Why would it be wrong to call this individual Bullinidae sp. 1? Naming critters is starting to become a very philosphical task, be it by its morphology, radula or mitochondrial DNA. Making distinctions means making a set of decisions. E.g. the elephant with the missing trunk might still have the same teeth structure, the same DNA on some level. In the end the names will be what we decide to name the critters and on what criteria we want to distinguish them from other critters. Who is 'we'? It is all about politics, never about real, pure science. Science is just a good selling proposition. Morphology to a certain extent was in the realm of the layman. It was relatively clear, easy but probably not very exact. Modern science made it more exact I reckon, with more refined methods and data sets. But most of all: the layman can see clear differences to how a species was described and she or he still has to question or speculate if it is a new species or not. Will science fall short of giving us clear, distinguishable criteria in the future, understandable and discernible criteria and not DNA sequences that is? The link of physical appearance and the critters name is the main constant that we hopefully all agree should never be lost or given up totally. A Bullina lineata without being 'lineata' does not make sense even if the radula and the mitochondrial DNA should turn out to be the same. Some part of their DNA has to be different, in order to manifest in these distinct phaenotypes. Isn't that the theory behind it? My point: discernible criteria are needed on what makes a species a species and on how we can weigh several criteria. Well, I probably should start on learning about discernible criteria on a family or clade level :-) Sorry for being boring. Just reflecting for myself really.

Gary Cobb In spite of it all I believe that it is very possible that when Gray described this species he might not have witnessed all the variations. As for me I keep it simple. Bullina cf. lineata is a good start until proven other wise. That's why preserved specimens are so important. Now a days the perfect way to start the process is 2 specimens dropped right into (alcohol) 96% ethanol for DNA analysis. 2 narcotized specimens placed in 30% fresh water/70% mentholated spirits for anatomical and radula work. I have ethanol. These specimens without the intersecting red lines are very interesting! My bet is that they are Bullina lineata.

Gary Cobb ...oh yes and one more thing...you can call it what ever you want. It's your list until proven otherwise!

Ken Thongpila Hi Patrik and Gary, It had been a while already and from I remembered. Around that time I always sent to Dr.Richard before I post to Nudipixel. I saw them so many time in Nelson Bay and everything is the same just different pattern on the shell only... Hope that help :-)

Ken Thongpila BTW thanks for very kind words Patrik :-) You gave me red face now :-)

Patrik Good Bullina lineata? Gold Coast Seaway, 28/8/2012, size 10mm, depth 2 metres, temperature about 20 C degrees. If this is Bullina lineata the markings are quite special. There were plenty, about 15 of these bubble shells around, the ones with the usual marking with vertical and horizontal stripes.

Deb Aston Is this Bullina lineata? 45mm in size, Gold Coast Seaway, 4m deep, 24 deg water temp

Patrik Good That's big and the water temperature is low too.

Deb Aston This is Bullina nobilis Habe, 1950 (Cephalaspidea: Bullinidae). It's the first record for Australia. This is an exciting find for the Gold Coast Seaway.

Patrik Good Congratulations, Deb. This is sensational. But who - apart from you - could have noticed the difference to Bullina lineata? Well done, expert brancher!

Patrik Good Placomapherus ceylonicus, size 25mm, depth 4 metres, Seaway Southport QLD, 10/3/2012, nightdive. This is another survivor striving in the changed conditions. Only spotted twice before personally, once only on a picture after the dive. They are well camouflaged and normally hard to see. But now, I found 5 different individuals at 5 different spots in one dive. Brown in brown but the red dots stick out in the boring surroundings. It's so sad not finding the old variety of nudis that I was tempted to give this guy a hug. At least he got a bit of attention by my torch and my camera flashlight. It's the second nudi species back at this site (not sure if I can count Scyllaea pelagica as the third and Bullina lineata as forth), two more species (probably Chromodoris geographica and Noumea simplex) were found further towards the open sea.

Patrik Good Bullina sp. or Bullina cf. lineata; Gold Coast Seaway; 9/10/2012; 15:12 hrs; size 10mm; depth 3 metres; 20 degrees water temperature; 2 metres visibility; we are finding lots and lots of Bullinas at the moment, some of them damaged with missing or crushed shell. They range in size from 2mm to 18mm. Whatever we are finding we are calling Bullina lineata or Bullina nobilis. Can I get opinions on wether this individual is an abnormality of one of these two species, lacking the horizontal bands or wether it is a different species all along?

Ajiex Dharma I haven't seen this nice Bulina..

Patrik Good What about Bullina aff. lineata? As far as I know the horizontal shell band is part of the description. So, it can't be B. cf. lineata, can it? What if - hypothetically - the radula were identical to B. lineata though? What if that was a 'once off' genetic mutation, just a colour variation or the critter is actually not fertile and able to produce offspring? Or stated differently: how can I tell the difference between a mere colour variation of a species and a distinctly different species? Do the radula (or mitochondrial DNA) make the decision alone or are they just important factors?

Patrik Good Found a similar but different individual at the same dive site @ 28/8/2012. It had no horizontal shell lines either. The red lines were almost straight.

Gary Cobb Everything externally matches Bullina lineata except the pattern of the red lines. I would call this Bullina cf. lineata. The shell anatomy has to be compared. The thickness of the shell and the shape of the spire are things that need to be compared. Collect an animal and I will preserve the animal to closely compare shells.

Gary Cobb There is no way "we" can compare radula without going through a huge expense. Comparing morphology as best we can and studying descriptions is the best "we" can do. Again if we find an animal we are not sure of BUT resembles another we tag it with cf until a positive ID can be made.

Gary Cobb In these primitive species careful observations of the shell structure are essential to ID. Here are descriptions are the Forum... Bullina nobilis Habe, 1950 Described on the basis of shell differences alone. Differs from Bullina lineata in having a heavier shell, with a low spire, and fewer, more prominent spiral grooves and ridges. The red axial [vertical] lines are thicker than in B. lineata and there are a pair of thick spiral red bands. Each of these thick bands can appear as 2 or 3 individual thinner lines, as in Haruo Kinoshita's accompanying photo. I have copied Habe's original shell description below: 'Shell large for the genus, ovately globose, rather thin, white, with two red bands which divide the body whorl into three subequal parts, and provided with irregularly spaced red longitudinal threads which are somewhat wavy or arcuated or irregular; these threads are interrupted by the bands stated above; spire low; protoconch about 1.5 whorls, smooth and polished; post-embryonal whorls 4, each strongly convex; suture deeply canaliculated; body whorl very large, sculpture with many regular, strongly punctured spiral grooves which are emphatical on the top and base; aperture large, widely lunate; outer lip arcuated and the margin simple and crenated; columellar lip somewhat dilated and slightly twisted on the lower end, covering umbilicus partly and narrowed by the reflection of it. Length: 18 mm, width: 13.2 mm. Distribution: Honshu (Wakayama and the Sagami Bay)' --- Bullina roseana Rudman, 1971 The shell is ovate, globose, umbilicate; pinkish white with two pink spiral lines dividing whorl into 3 parts, the middle one being twice the width of the outer two. A diffuse spiral band runs around the base of the shell. Axial red lines are not well marked except for short lines running down from the suture halfway to the upper pink spiral line. There are approximately 7 axial lines on body whorl. The spire is realtively low, approximately one ninth of shell height, the protoconch is large, whorls rounded. The shell is sculptured with wide smooth spiral ridges, separated by narrow punctate grooves, approximately one third to one quarter the width of ridges. The aperture large, narrowing at the upper end and slightly at the lower end; the outer lip is thin, joining body whorl just above upper red spiral line. Suture channelled. The columella is white, straight, broad, slightly truncated at base, free edge slightly recurved to form umbilical opening. The inner lip forms a calcified layer over the lower half of the shell aperture. This species differs from Bullina lineata in the shape of the shell, animal and radular morphology.

Patrik Good Interesting. Totally agree on the similarity with B. lineata. What bugged me though: all the descriptions mention the horizontal red bands as characteristic. My point was that if one important characteristic of the description doesn't match it can't be that species that was described, can it. Actually, the description might have been too restrictive. If I'd find an elephant with no spout I'd be tempted to not call it 'similar' to an elephant but as something 'similar but certainly not an elephant'. That's why I came up with B. aff. lineata. But maybe the bands are not that important after all and are within a scientifically defined margin of tolerance. As I see shell structure seems to be more crucial (and its description is pretty hard to understand). Thanks a lot, Gary. Will collect the next one I see.

Gary Cobb I often wonder if scientists who describe species 'see' and 'know' of all variations a particular. Species can be!!??

Gary Cobb Patrik check this link out http://www.nudipixel.net/photo/00029263/location/nelson_bay/

Patrik Good That's its brother :-) Ken Thongpila is such an outstanding photographer and naturalist. Did you get this individual IDed by Richard or anybody else, Ken? I also found a Bullina with only one red band on the Seaslug site, Gary (http://www.seaslugforum.net/find/21238). Bill Rudman wrote that he is unsure if it is actually B. lineata but this name should be used until somebody can have a look at its anatomy and radula. That was a few years ago.

Patrik Good Why would it be wrong to call this individual Bullinidae sp. 1? Naming critters is starting to become a very philosphical task, be it by its morphology, radula or mitochondrial DNA. Making distinctions means making a set of decisions. E.g. the elephant with the missing trunk might still have the same teeth structure, the same DNA on some level. In the end the names will be what we decide to name the critters and on what criteria we want to distinguish them from other critters. Who is 'we'? It is all about politics, never about real, pure science. Science is just a good selling proposition. Morphology to a certain extent was in the realm of the layman. It was relatively clear, easy but probably not very exact. Modern science made it more exact I reckon, with more refined methods and data sets. But most of all: the layman can see clear differences to how a species was described and she or he still has to question or speculate if it is a new species or not. Will science fall short of giving us clear, distinguishable criteria in the future, understandable and discernible criteria and not DNA sequences that is? The link of physical appearance and the critters name is the main constant that we hopefully all agree should never be lost or given up totally. A Bullina lineata without being 'lineata' does not make sense even if the radula and the mitochondrial DNA should turn out to be the same. Some part of their DNA has to be different, in order to manifest in these distinct phaenotypes. Isn't that the theory behind it? My point: discernible criteria are needed on what makes a species a species and on how we can weigh several criteria. Well, I probably should start on learning about discernible criteria on a family or clade level :-) Sorry for being boring. Just reflecting for myself really.

Gary Cobb In spite of it all I believe that it is very possible that when Gray described this species he might not have witnessed all the variations. As for me I keep it simple. Bullina cf. lineata is a good start until proven other wise. That's why preserved specimens are so important. Now a days the perfect way to start the process is 2 specimens dropped right into (alcohol) 96% ethanol for DNA analysis. 2 narcotized specimens placed in 30% fresh water/70% mentholated spirits for anatomical and radula work. I have ethanol. These specimens without the intersecting red lines are very interesting! My bet is that they are Bullina lineata.

Gary Cobb ...oh yes and one more thing...you can call it what ever you want. It's your list until proven otherwise!

Ken Thongpila Hi Patrik and Gary, It had been a while already and from I remembered. Around that time I always sent to Dr.Richard before I post to Nudipixel. I saw them so many time in Nelson Bay and everything is the same just different pattern on the shell only... Hope that help :-)

Ken Thongpila BTW thanks for very kind words Patrik :-) You gave me red face now :-)

Patrik Good Actually, I found 17 opisthobranch species on this dive. Here is the problem ID: Gold Coast Seaway, Australia, depth 2 metres, size 7mm. Any help appreciated. Sorry, no clear photo. But I collected it and it clearly shows black or dark brown rhinophores.

Patrik Good Doublecounted one. Here is the list @ 16/8/2012: Aeolidiella alba (7), Bullina lineata (4), Ceratosoma tenue (1), Elysia ? (1), Goniobranchus albonares (5), Goniobranchus decorus (10), Goniobranchus cf. reticulatus (1), Goniobranchus geometricus (10), Goniodoridella sp. 1 (10), Gymnodoris alba (1), Hydatina physis (1), Hypselodoris obscura (20), Micromelo undulata (1), Noumea simplex, two colour variations (5), Thorunna sp. (2), Trinchesia yamasui (1)

Erwin Koehler I' d like to do a guess on what I see: Elysia sp.

Gary Cobb Because of the quality of the photo I would say Elysia sp. too!

Patrik Good Thank you, Erwin and Gary. Certainly not easy to ID based on this photo.

Patrik Good Southport QLD, Seaway Nightdive, 1/6/2012, size 50mm, depth 2metres. This is a Philinopsis I have not seen at the Seaway before, not with these colours and markings. Is it Philinopsis speciosa?

Patrik Good Quite a few of these around, coming out of the sand at night. Well, that probably explains the empty Bullina lineata shell that I found the other day. Can someone please confirm the ID? There was a Philinopsis speciosa with different markings and coulours and considerably smaller than this one far away from this one crawling between rocks, out in the open and on its own.

Deb Aston Is this Bullina lineata? 45mm in size, Gold Coast Seaway, 4m deep, 24 deg water temp

Patrik Good That's big and the water temperature is low too.

Deb Aston This is Bullina nobilis Habe, 1950 (Cephalaspidea: Bullinidae). It's the first record for Australia. This is an exciting find for the Gold Coast Seaway.

Patrik Good Congratulations, Deb. This is sensational. But who - apart from you - could have noticed the difference to Bullina lineata? Well done, expert brancher!

Taxonomy
Animalia (Kingdom)
  Mollusca (Phylum)
    Gastropoda (Class)
      Heterobranchia (Subclass)
         Heterobranchia (Infraclass)
          Acteonoidea (Superfamily)
            Bullinidae (Family)
              Bullina (Genus)
                Bullina lineata (Species)
Associated Species