Dear Nancy, unfortunately it's difficult to tell looking at optical images only. Do you have an SEM available by any chance? If yes, bleach one piece for a few seconds so that the frontal membrane is gone and one can see the skeleton. Even then it may be difficult to precisely identify the species but we will have more information concerning its generic placement.

Did you recognize any morphological differences in the distal zooidal walls, which could indicate the absence/presence of ovicells?

Regards, Bjorn

Dear Nancy, unfortunately it's difficult to tell looking at optical images only. Do you have an SEM available by any chance? If yes, bleach one piece for a few seconds so that the frontal membrane is gone and one can see the skeleton. Even then it may be difficult to precisely identify the species but we will have more information concerning its generic placement.

Did you recognize any morphological differences in the distal zooidal walls, which could indicate the absence/presence of ovicells?

Regards, Bjorn

Dear Nancy,

I would have to agree with Bjoern that it's difficult to identify it unambiguously without and SEM image. However, looking at the images you posted, it could be a strong contender for Securiflustra securifrons, although the fronds in that species tend to be more square at the tips. Looking at the distribution of S. securifrons, it's common in northern Europe (although it is also reported from the western Mediterranean), but is suspected to have a circumpolar distribution (see Hayward & Ryland; Synopses of the British Fauna; Cheilostome Bryozoa, Part I).

Best wishes,

Andrea

Dear Nancy.You must contact with Dr.Juán José Lopez Gappa.He works at Museo Argentino de Ciencias Naturales "Bernardino Rivadavia".Buenos Aires.Argentina.His mail is [email protected].

He is specialist in Briozoa and maybe he can help you.

Hello!

Pictures with higher magnification would be most welcome.  Also more information on pores. How many pores per pore plate and how many plates are there in distal and lateral walls? Are there tiny spines, or am I seeing things?

From what we've got here, it looks like Flustridae, not Membraniporidae, probably some species of Flustra. Unfortunately my best key is for boreal to polar fauna, so no sense in going deeper. Still, hope it might help.

Dear Nancy, although details are not visible in your photos; there is a species of very similar appearance: Chartella papyracea (Ellis & Solander, 1786) on the other side of the Atlantic (European coast). Chartella elongata Cook, 1968, was described from the American Atlantic coast, but I´ve never seen this species. Regards

Thank you, everyone, for responding.  The Chartella papyracea looks similar, but the macro-morphology is a bit different;  the Ilwaco bryozoan has tapering ends on the fronds, and they are usually bifurcated (only two points to each frond). Several bryozoan specialists have looked at the specimen and they report no spines. Surprisingly, there was another species growing at the base of this one that had little spines around the opening. I have passed on the information here to my colleagues, and I will look up the references suggested.  I will try to get some better photos to post. 

Thank you! 

Nancy 

This species looks different from Membraniporopsis tubigera. I agree with Bjorn and SEMs images are welcome to try give a identification for this species.

Leandro

Hello Et al:

Here are some amazing SEM's of this specimen taken by Matthew H. Dick at Hokkaido University. Hopefully they will answer some of your questions and help with determining its identity.  Several people have looked over these photos, and suggested it is similar to Membranipora chesapeakensis, (Conopeum). 

Nancy  

Yep, that thing is definitely similar to C. chesapeakensis (I've attached the original paper). Question is, what does it do in Washington State then? And as it's a membraniporid it's also possible that it is similar to M. lingdingensis but to be honest: I have no idea what that species looks like...

Bjorn

What vectors might have brought this bryozoan.  One of the likely pathways are vessels.  The slow moving craft can carry quite large burdens of well developed fouling communities, such as towed barges and oil platforms on the hull, or structure immersed surfaces.  The other possibility is that the cyphonautes can be carried in ballast water.  In my experience cyphonautes have regularly been carried in ballast water and I have found this stage in discharges on the west coast of North America.  There is also the possibility that leisure craft might act as a vector.  A further option is transmission on anthropogenic floating materials as in the case of tsunami debris that has been recently crossing the Pacific .  A recent account on hydroids has been published on such a transmission.

Should the species be from the Atlantic then ballast water is a possibility.  Defining the pathway and its vector in an NIS transmission should take account of whether there is 1) direct evidence, 2) very likely (i.e. where no other pathway is operating in this locality) 3) possible pathway transmissions which may involve more than one mode of transmission.  In this case, unless you have better information, the status is possible.  There is also unknown which may also be an answer but this is usually for cryptogens.

Thank you for all your answers...so far lingdingensis is still the best contender......the genetics will give us some answers, we hope!

Nancy