A four-leaf clover represents just one kind of rareness. One might find a 4-leaf clover just about anywhere. Four-leaf clovers are not just restricted to Ireland. Four-leaf clovers are rare because at any given locality they occur in very minuscule numbers.

The idea of whether rareness imparts values has tormented philosophers, including Nietzsche. “Whatever can be common always has little value. In the end it must be as it is and always has been: great things remain for the great, abysses for the profound, nuances and shudders for the refined, and, in brief, all that is rare for the rare.” But of course, Nietzsche does not define rare. What does “all that is rare for the rare even mean?” Freakin’ Nietzsche.

We all feel we know what rare means. But contrast the case of four-leaf clovers with platinum. Platinum is special for me. For my 10th wedding anniversary, I had a custom wedding ring made of platinum for my wife. This platinum band was to replace one from our youth when I had more limited income and could afford a metal less “precious” and less “rare.” Yet, platinum represents another kind rarity, occurring in great abundance but only at a few locations. Locally abundant but geographically restricted.

In a classic 1981 paper, Dr. Deborah Rabinowitz, a professor at the University of Michigan, laid out the seven forms of rarity. What makes something rare depends on three characteristics; geographic range, habitat specificity, and local population size. First, is a species found globally or only at a single location? Two, is species seen at any given site in low numbers? Third, is the species only found in a specific type of habitat?

As Rabinowitz notes in elegant writing., “If each of these attributes is dichotomized, a 2 x 2 x 2 or eight-celled block emerges. Although creating the hazard of false reification – that is, converting an idea into an object – such a simple scheme can aid in focusing our thoughts, and this is my intention. The patina – a gloss or incrustation conferred by age – of monolithic rarity may have hindered our understanding of an exceedingly heterogeneous assemblage of organisms. Since the products of rarity are diverse, the causes of rarity and the genetic and population consequences of rarity are undoubtedly equally multiple.”

But obviously, 2x2x2 does not equal 7. One state is lost, a species found everywhere, in high numbers, and several different kinds of habitats. This species isn’t rare at all! You can think of the seven forms of rarity as three singe type cases (geographically limited/small numbers/habitat specialist), the three double type cases (geographically limited and small numbers/geographically limited and habitat specialist/small numbers and habitat specialist), and the last triple case (geographically limited and small numbers and habitat specialist).

The most uncommon form of rarity is a species found all over but in limited numbers at a single location. One such species is the exceptionally beautiful deep-sea snail Oocorys sulcata found in the eastern and western corridors fo the Atlantic and reaching will into the Indian Ocean and the western Pacific. Oocorys sulcata also show incredible depth tolerance found all the way from the shelf at 150 meters down to the deepest abyss over 5000 meters. Yet, despite this fantastic distribution, it is rarely found. A famous sampling effort off of New England did not capture a single individual in 41 samples. Another 24 samples later as part of later effort only yielded a single specimen. Indeed, based on some very rough calculations, you would probably only find about 15 every square kilometer or roughly 45 Manhattan city blocks.

Hydrothermal vents possess mollusks that are both unique and fascinating. A snail first described in 2003, the unusual snail Chrysomallon squamiferum, maybe the most exciting find thus far at a hydrothermal vent. I admit my bias here, as most of my interest lies with studying deep-sea snails. Nonetheless, the discovery of “gold-footed” snails a the Kairei vent field in the Indian Ocean is fascinating.

At this point, I should state that the foot of the snail is mineralized with pyrite and greigite. Many of you might note the misnomer here, as pyrite is only ‘Fool’s Gold,’ but in deciding on a temporary ordinary name Fool’s Gold-Footed Snail seemed a bit lengthy. I hope all will forgive the intentional misnomer for the sake of creative writing. Although other names due include the big-hearted iron snail (it also possesses an abnormally large heart for its size). And of course the scaly foot snail. So maybe the big-hearted, iron gold, scaly foot snail.

The scales, or sclerites, that cover the entire length of the snail’s foot can be up to 8mm long. The presence of mineralized scales is remarkable in itself, but the existence of iron sulfide as skeletal material is unknown from any other animal. The purity of sulfides, among other lines of evidence, suggest that the building of the scales is controlled by the gastropod itself. The sclerites are thought to have evolved recently and homologous to the operculum. It is believed they may serve as a defense against cone shells also occurring at the vent.

Chrysomallon squamiferum is rare, not only for the oddity of its features amongst the animal kingdom but because the snail is known from only three hydrothermal vents in the Indian Ocean. While abundant at any of these vents it is geographically restricted, like platinum. The scaly foot is actually a “double rare” case both geographically restricted and a habitat specialist. Given this potential habitat of only a few square meters, some of which endangered by deep mining interests, led a new paper by Dr. Sigwart and colleagues establishing Chrysomallon squamiferum as endangered on the IUCN RedList. This listing places the big-hearted, iron gold, scaly foot snail with 25 species all either bony fish, cartilaginous fish, or cephalopods all assessed to be either endangered or critically endangered.

Helen Macdonald writes in H is for Hawk “The rarer they get, the fewer meanings animals can have. Eventually rarity is all they are made of. The condor is an icon of extinction. There’s little else to it now but being the last of its kind. And in this lies the diminution of the world. How can you love something, how can you fight to protect it, if all it means is loss?”

I am hoping for future where Chrysomallon squamiferum I remember this elegant mollusk for the rarity of beauty, adaptation, and morphological marvel not the rarity of its existence.

Sigwart, J. D., Chen, C., Thomas, E. A., Allcock, A. L., Böhm, M., & Seddon, M. (2019). Red Listing can protect deep-sea biodiversity. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 1.

Rex, M.A., Stuart, C.T., Etter, R.J., & McClain, C.R. (2010). Biogeography of the deep-sea gastropod Oocorys sulcata Fischer 1884. Journal of Conchology, 40, 287.

Rabinowitz, Deborah. (1986). Seven forms of rarity and their frequency in the flora of the British Isles. Conservation Biology: The Science of Scarcity and Diversity 

Rabinowitz, Deborah. (1981) Seven forms of rarity. Biological Aspects of Rare Plant Conservation

The post The Beauty of Rarity first appeared on Deep Sea News.

The earliest sawfishes likely arose in the shallow Tethys Sea, that ocean surrounded by the ancient continents of Godwanda and Laurasia, during the Cretaceous period at least 60 million years ago. They are the sole survivors of an ancient bloodline. Only seven species exist today roaming muddy bottoms of coastal areas like bays and estuaries. All sawfishes can move easily between fresh and saltwater and often venture deep upstream into rivers.

The sawfish lifestyle puts both their size and saw near humans. All seven species are considered critically endangered by the IUCN. As much as we have impacted them, sawfish have also greatly influenced our culture. One of the most destructive German submarines of World War II, U-96, that sunk 27 Allied ships had as a mascot the sawfish. A laughing sawfish. The saw is used by some Asian shamans for exorcisms and other ceremonies to repel demons and disease.

The Aztecs heralded sawfish as an “earth monster”. However, the most intriguing are the ceremonial headdresses of the Ijaw (or Ijo), a group of 15 million indigenous peoples of southern Nigeria. The Ijaw rely heavily upon rivers and oceans for survival and many are fishers. This close connection with water permeates Ijaw religion.

Although up to 90% are now Christian many still observe elaborate traditional rituals. The traditional religion centers on water spirits who can affect everything from the crop and fishing harvests to prosperity of a marriage. Annually, festivals are held to honor the water spirits to ensure a great harvest of fin and flower. Part of these rituals is the wearing of large wooden headdresses.

According to an eyewitness account, in one Ijo community a sawfish headdress, worn by an athletic young male, was brought to the village downriver in a canoe. Having disembarked, the sawfish danced on land, where he was “hunted” by masqueraders representing fishermen.

Carvers take great pride in carving a shark, sawfish, crocodile, or other aquatic predator from single pieces of wood. The headdresses can be large. In the case of the sawfish headdress I witnessed, the length is just over 7 feet.

These stories bring me full turn to idea that I have been struggling with since last year. The oceans obviously are deeply embedded in our various cultures permeating our religions and art. Yet for in this place of reverence comes the destruction of oceans.

Sawfishes are arguably the most threatened family of marine fishes in the world. The global populations of all seven sawfish species have experienced historic declines greater than 90% due to fisheries overexploitation (directed and bycatch) and habitat loss, and are consequently listed on the IUCN Red List as Critically Endangered.

The post Exaltation to Extinction for Sawfishes first appeared on Deep Sea News.

• I’ll take my fish in oil please. PLoS One published an article by Fodrie and Heck concluding that immediate catastrophic loss of fish was avoided in the Gulf oil spill. They also found change in the species present from before and after.  Although this is tentatively good news that coastal fish populations are unscathed for now, I remain skeptical.  As the authors are quick to note, we know little of “the potential long-term impacts facing fishes as a result of chronic exposure and delayed, indirect effects.”
• How sharks make you money. Slate publishes a great article by Juliet Eilperin discussing how shark conservation also makes economic sense.  “A recent Australian study found that, over the course of its lifetime, a reef shark off Palau brings in $1.9 million to the nation’s economy, and shark tourism brings Palau $18 million annually.”
• I sure do miss those worms.  In 1978, an experimental dredging for polymetalic nodules occurred in the deep-sea floor of the tropical Eastern Pacific.  Milijutin and colleagues sampled this area twenty six years later. After nearly three decades of recovery time, the number and diversity of nematodes has still not recovered.
• No really geo-sequestration is great idea. A new study again in my favorite journal, PLoS One, demonstrates that the cockamamie geo-sequestration scheme of fertilizing the oceans with iron is bad for the deep sea. Iron enrichment near the Southern Indian Ocean lead to changes in the types of species that lived on the deep-sea floor.  Interestingly, the living communities began to take on one of the key characteristics of  polluted marine communities, a few species became really abundant and every other species became rare. The message from this and the last study seems to be leave metals where they are.
• Holy shit. Of course nothing has stirred deep-sea scientists recently like the paper by Kato et al. The group found that rare-earth elements and the metal yttrium used in electronics and green technologies are found in abundance on the deep Pacific seafloor.  From the paper, “We estimate that an area of just one square kilometre, surrounding one of the sampling sites, could provide one-fifth of the current annual world consumption of these elements.” Given China’s monopoly on rare-earth elements and the pressure to supplant this, you can see this presents a considerable conservation risk the deep sea.  Of course some think this is a pipe dream taking decades and billions of dollar to develop.  But given the economic and political pressure and the ingenuity of the Japanese, I would rather opt on the conservative side and have conservation in place.  Word on the wire is that the International Seabed Authority is promptly acting and the deep-sea scientific community moving to issue a statement.
• Double holy shit.  A new study calls for seven commercially valuable species to be placed on the IUCN Redlist. These include White and Blue Marlin, Spanish and Australian Spotted Mackrel, and Bigeye, Atlantic Bluefin, and Southern Bluefin Tuna.  The IUCN is expected to update their list in near future.  This will greatly bolster conservation efforts in EEZ’s but conservation in international waters will still remain a challenge.
• Crying myself to sleep again tonight.  A great new study that still makes me want to cry by my friend, Derek Tittensor with Boris Worm demonstrates that 9 of 13 species of tuna and billfish occupy less ocean now than they used to.  Atlantic Bluefin Tunn have seen almost a 50% reduction in their ocean range since 1960.
• Not getting my hopes up again. Taiwan is poised to ban fishermen from killing sharks for fins.  As Parasight says on Twitter “Believe it when i see it enforced”
• I’m really never getting out of bed again. Drilling is now approved off world heritage-listed Ningaloo Reef in Western Australia. “The approval to explore for gas allows Shell Australia to drill an exploration well 50km west of the boundary of the marine park.” What could go wrong? Thanks CK for bringing that to my attention.
• Thinking about a vacation.  Go ahead! Ecotourism may be our last hope.

The post Does Weeping Help? Recent Conservation News first appeared on Deep Sea News.

An Appeal to the Public to Not Visit Iceland Until Icelandic Whaling Stops

Online environmental activist and CEO of FISH4TRAVEL, INC., Robert Bennett, is asking thousands of people every day not to visit Iceland until the country stops killing whales. A website named rescuethewhales.org was created to raise awareness of Icelandic whaling and the fact that endangered whales are being killed and the meat is being sold to Japan, in defiance of the International Whaling Commission’s moratorium on commercial whaling.

The website is partnered with more than 100 travel websites that display thousands of advertisements to thousands of people every day stating “Iceland Kills Whales – I Will Not Visit Iceland”.

Resuethewhales.org [sic] finds irony in Iceland’s intractable actions which lie in their widespread attempts to attract tourism to their country for the purpo

se of whale sightings. The supporters of this campaign would like Iceland to understand that the public will not support Iceland’s whale sighting tourism while the country slaughters whales. With the support of well-known travel websites, such as pickatrail.com, the campaign aims to put an end to this cavalier attitude.

The public is encouraged to visit recuethewhales.org [sic] for more information regarding the killing of whales, and how the public can put a stop to these policies.

Two arguments against whaling exist. 1. Ethical–killing of any animal or more specifically a marine mammal is morally wrong. I won’t address this argument other than I find it hypocritical to protect whales for ethical reasons while simultaneously eating beef or pork. 2. Scientific–whales are endangered and takes of individuals are not only unsustainable but increase the risk of extinction.

From 1986-2007, Iceland took 562 whales (292 Fin, 70 Sei, and 200 Minke). Since 2003, Icelandic whale catches diminished considerably switching from Fin and Sei to Minke. For perspective, compare this to the reported 2,984 from the North Pacific and 9,409 from the Southern Hemisphere taken by Japanese from 1988-2009. Clearly, Japan and Iceland should be not be considered equals when it comes to whaling.

Of these three whales, Fin and Sei are endangered, occurring on the IUCN Red List. Minke are actually considered to separate species, Balaenoptera bonaerensis occurring in the Antarctic and Balaenoptera acutorostrata occurring globally. The Antarctic Minke are listed by the IUCN as Data Deficient, i.e. we do not have enough information on how many there are to make a statement about whether they are at risk. The other species, the ones taken by Iceland, are listed by the IUCN as least concern, i.e. not threatened. From IUCN…

There is no estimate of total global population size, but estimates from parts of the range in the Northern Hemisphere (totaling in excess of 100,000 individuals) show that it is well above the thresholds for a threatened category. While declines have been detected or inferred in some areas, there is no indication that the global population has declined to an extent that would qualify for a threatened category… The IWC recognizes four stocks of minke whales in the North Atlantic: Northeast Atlantic, Central North Atlantic, West Greenland, and Canadian East Coast. The last includes the US east coast. Population estimates were last reviewed by the IWC SC in 2003 (IWC 2004a), but a new estimate for West Greenland was accepted in 2006 (IWC 2007a). The best/most recent available estimates are listed in Table 1 in the linked PDF document (which constitutes an integral part of this assessment). These total about 182,000.

But here is key statement…

About 4,000 minke whales were taken off Iceland during 1941-85, but recent abundance estimates imply that this would have had no discernible effect on the population.

Nor would the current take of 20-50 per year. To summarize again, the North Atlantic stocks are well over 100,000 and a catch rate of one-two orders of magnitude higher than the current would be sustainable. Contrast this with the statement from above by RescueTheWhales

the fact that endangered whales are being killed

The problem here resides in the idea of passing an ethical argument off as a scientific one. I am for marine conservation but based on sound science not on morality. Conservation based on the later is weak and easily altered by our whims. Another issue also rises by confusing the two justifications for conservation. When people find out the actual truth, in this case that Minkes are not endangered, they target science as the culprit. The public starts to assume that science is inaccurate, capricious, or worse untruthful. When in actuality sound science was present throughout but ignored. You can see the danger in this first hand by looking at the post and comments section in Miriam’s recent piece.

Whether you choose to harvest or eat Fin or Sei is a scientific choice. We should not as both are endangered.

Whether you choose to harvest or eat Minke is an ethical question based on whether you choose to eat any animal, not just whales. And like I made the decision to eat domesticated cows or pigs or hunted animals like deer and rabbit, I so decided to eat Minke Whale on a recent trip to Iceland. Science says its ok.

The post From The Editor’s Desk: Is Icelandic Whaling Bad? first appeared on Deep Sea News.