Hello, dear Community. It’s that time of year again! Do you want to help decide which photos will be in next year’s WILD calendar?
The calendar is aimed at creating awareness and positive action for the mysterious and fragile life hidden in the cold, dark, northeast Pacific Ocean.”
I enjoy, and learn, a great deal from your input. And the voting is meant to be fun for you too. 💙 You can select up to 13 of your favourites by May 11, 2026.
Your votes will count heavily in determining which images will be included in the calendar. Please know that I will also have to reflect on the diversity represented in the calendar so that there is balanced colour and species representation, e.g. the images in the calendar can’t all be marine mammals, kelp, fish or nudibranchs! There should also be at least one photo of a Humpback Whale (considering I have the privilege of studying them).
There are 36 images to choose from. I have tracked which photos you have responded to the most strongly over the last ~year. ☺️ This is meant to be fun for you, and I truly enjoy and learn a lot from your input.
Feel free to indicate in the comments if there is a photo you would like to see on the front cover or back cover. Note that the back cover image will ONLY be on the back cover.
All photos are from northeast Vancouver Island, taken in the traditional territories of the Kwakwa̱ka̱’wakw (the Kwak̕wala-speaking Peoples) by yours truly, Jackie Hildering, The Marine Detective.
There are two ways you can vote:
Via the surveyat this link. You don’t need to submit any personal information or have an account.
The following photos from my dive yesterday near northeast Vancouver Island are of a new, “undescribed” species of sea star. I documented three different individuals of this species on our dive yesterday, and you will note the colour variation.
I am sharing this with you because it is AGAIN evidence of how little we know about marine species, even in the shadows. May this add to having the appropriate humility and precaution in what we think we know and how we treat the ocean.
One of the individuals with a Northern Kelp Crab.
New? This means that previously, humans did not realize it was a distinct species.
Undescribed? This means it is an organism recognized by scientists to be distinct but research has not yet been conducted and published describing how the species is distinct and naming it.
Neil confirmed that it is a “Solaster” (genus) and is, for now, referencing it as Solaster sp. A.
How do I know the three I photographed yesterday are this “new” species? Because I misidentified one in an email to Neil McDaniel. Who let me know the following:
“I believe this is the undescribed species of Solaster found on our coast. In Lambert (2000), it is described as Solaster paxillatus, but my understanding is that is a NW Pacific (Japan) species, not NE Pacific . . . This Solaster usually has between 8 to 10 rays with a rather rough-looking aboral surface due to the conspicuous pseudopaxillae. Colour ranges from yellowish through a deeper orange. It is never bicoloured like stimpsoni [Striped Sun Star]. The rays can be fairly slim or quite puffy-looking. Unlikely to be confused with Solaster dawsoni [Morning Sun Star], which usually has more rays (12 is common), or Solaster endeca [Purple Sun Star], which has a similar number of rays, but much shorter and stouter”. (Neil McDaniel, pers.comm.)
Is it rare? Likely not! More likely is that it has been misidentified, even in Lambert (2000). Neil references it as likely hiding in plain sight. Because who is looking? These three were near a dock, which, like so many docks on our coast, had debris of human origin nearby.
Do you think you have photographed one? If yes, it’s best to upload your photos to iNaturalist to add to the collective knowledge about the species.
Dive buddy Janice Crook near one of the Solaster sp. A. on our dive yesterday. Buddy John Congden was also on this dive.
This large species of Solaster has not been described. It reaches 40 cm in diameter and has 9-11 rays, most often 10″ and “This star was once thought to be Solaster paxillatus, (which is found in the NW Pacific), but specimens collected from Knight Inlet were confirmed to be an undescribed species of Solaster (Chris Mah, pers. comm.).”
Screenshot of Neil McDaniel’s entry about this species on iNaturalist.
It’s b-earthday, April 22nd. That’s a combination of Earth Day and my birthday.
Here’s my gift to you – information and imagery about the “Common Sea Butterfly” (Limacina helicina), also known as the “Helicid Pteropod”.
Imagine the awe of being surrounded by these tiny, winged, shelled animals. The largest are only 1.5 cm. Most are smaller. They appear as fragile as they do wondrous. Indeed, their very thin shells are heavily impacted by ocean acidification.
Their motion is transfixing, rhythmic – their “wings” clapping and flinging in a figure-of-eight pattern to create lift. Where other slugs and snails crawl, the foot of sea butterflies evolved into swimming structures, the parapodia. They use their feet as wings – living as plankton, never to crawl, only to fly.
I want to be able to use my feet as wings! I also want to be able to cast a mucus net like they do! Read on.
My dive group and the God’s Pocket Team, April 2026. Photo by Petra Meijer.
Background on the images:
The images in this blog were taken on the recent trip I organized to God’s Pocket. I have never noticed this species of sea butterfly before, and certainly not in such numbers. That’s right, the so-called COMMON Sea Butterfly is not common in this area at all. Despite the abundance of these planktonic marvels during this trip, I initially did not notice them when most of the other divers on my trip did. I had to laugh at myself when I did the next dive and saw just how abundant they were in the shallows. With the camera setup I had, I was literally focusing on bigger life.
I am very grateful to Olivia’s Reef Diving for sharing her stunning footage. Believe me, it is NOT easy to get these small swimming slugs in focus while also contending with current. It’s no small feat to get such good video of a sea slug flying with its feet!
Classification:
Sea butterfly species are flying gastropods (snails/slugs) belonging to the Pteropoda (clade). Ptero = winged and poda = foot. As described in Nudibranchs and Sea Slugs of Eastern Pacific, the pteropods are “graceful, pelagic sea slugs that resemble transparent gelatinous butterflies”.
Common Sea Butterfly. Yeah, I managed to get photos which are ALMOST fully in focus!
Not all Pteropoda are sea butterflies and include species that I have blogged about previously:
Note that Great-Winged Sea Slugs, while also a sea slug (Heterobranchia) that flaps “wings”, they are not pteropods.
There, don’t you feel better now that that’s sorted out? I am here to bring order to your life. See what I did there?
Sea Angel (Clione limacina) – predator of sea butterflies. Photographed during the same dive trip.
Morphology:
Most sea butterflies (Thecosomata) have shells.
The shell and parapodia of the Common Sea Butterfly (Limacina helicina). Source: Wikipedia.
The very thin shells of sea butterfly species like Limacina helicina are made of aragonite, which is a form of calcium carbonate that dissolves very easily, especially in colder waters. This makes them very vulnerable to ocean acidification resulting from climate change.
The ocean absorbs about one-third of human-produced carbon dioxide, which lowers pH, reduces the availability of calcium carbonate needed to build shells, and weakens and dissolves shells.
Research confirms that the sea butterflies cannot build and maintain their shells under more acidic conditions. Because their shells are essential to protection, buoyancy, and vertical movement, reduced shell integrity has direct consequences for survival. Since sea butterflies are an essential part of marine food webs, they are a key indicator species for ocean acidification, providing an early warning of broader ecosystem change – particularly in the Arctic.
Locomotion:
From the abstract of “Underwater flight by the planktonic sea butterfly” (Murphy et al., 2016):
“In a remarkable example of convergent evolution, we show that the zooplanktonic sea butterfly Limacina helicina ‘flies’ underwater in the same way that very small insects fly in the air. Both sea butterflies and flying insects stroke their wings in a characteristic figure-of-eight pattern to produce lift, and both generate extra lift by peeling their wings apart at the beginning of the power stroke (the well-known Weis-Fogh ‘clap-and-fling’ mechanism). It is highly surprising to find a zooplankter ‘mimicking’ insect flight as almost all zooplankton swim . . . using their appendages as paddles rather than wings. The sea butterfly is also unique in that it accomplishes its insect-like figure-of-eight wing stroke by extreme rotation of its body (what we call ‘hyper-pitching’), a paradigm that has implications for micro aerial vehicle (MAV) design. No other animal, to our knowledge, pitches to this extent under normal locomotion.”
Feeding:
Reportedly, sea butterfly species produce a mucous web, many times bigger than they are (said to be up to 6 cm for the Common Sea Butterfly). When they have “cast” their net, they slowly sink, and plankton and organic particles get trapped in the net! They are thought to feed when they are not actively swimming.
What a huge b-earthday gift it would be if someone could find a picture or graphic of the net! Believe me, I searched!
Sea butterfly species and other pteropods are sometimes referenced as the “potato chips of the sea” because they are fed on by so many other species and therefore have great importance in the marine food web. Predators include Sea Angels, fish, birds, and there is also some cannibalism.
Summary from Wikipedia. “They produce large mucus webs to filter-feed on phytoplankton but also small zooplankton. They eat the web with the captured prey . . . The web is large and spherical and it is difficult to see during the day because of diffuse reflection. Webs are easier to see at night. Limacina helicina is easily disturbed (like all other Thecosomata); when disturbed, it retracts into its shell and destroys its web.“
Range / Habitat:
Sea butterfly species spend their whole lives as plankton (are holoplanktonic). They are most commonly reported where water temperature is in the range of – 0.4 °C to + 4.0 °C. They are said to rarely be in areas with temperatures up to 7 °C, but that was the approximate temperature when we saw them.
From Earthling Nature: The habitat of the common sea butterfly includes the cold waters of the Arctic region, including the Arctic Ocean and neighboring areas of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. In the Pacific, it can occur southward to Japan and the northern parts of the United States. Larger specimens tend to inhabit deeper waters, up to 150 m deep, while smaller ones live closer to the surface, up to 50 m down. Until very recently, the Common Sea Butterfly was thought to inhabit Antarctic waters as well but molecular studies revealed that the populations around Antarctica belong to a different species, Limacina antarctica.
Smaller Limacina helicina (from 0.2 to 0.4 mm) are said to be more often in shallower waters (0 m to 50 m). Larger individuals can also be in the shallows but are more likely to be deeper, to 150 m.
Reproduction / Life Cycle:
Sea butterflies all start their lives as males and, when larger than ~5 mm, they change into females = they are protandric hermaphrodites. Egg ribbons are laid mainly in summer.
Said to live about ~1 year or up to 2 years in colder waters.
What a gift it is that we share the earth with such organisms. May we care more, and do more, knowing our connection to such winged wonder. Happy b-earthday.
Photos below: Another, much bigger local sea butterfly species – the Spectacular Corolla (Corolla spectabilis). Dive buddy is Natasha Dickinson.
Döring, M. (2022). Limacina helicina (Phipps, 1774). In English Wikipedia – Species Pages. Wikimedia Foundation. Retrieved April 21, 2026, via GBIF: https://www.gbif.org/species/165475365
GBIF Secretariat. (n.d.). Limacina helicina (Phipps, 1774). Global Biodiversity Information Facility. Retrieved April 22, 2026, from https://www.gbif.org/species/165475365
Rudman, W. B. (2002, December 12). Corolla spectabilis Dall, 1871. In Sea Slug Forum. Australian Museum. Retrieved April 22, 2026, from http://www.seaslugforum.net/find/corospec
It brought a lump to my throat to see both these species at the same time. The Pacific Spiny Lumpsucker because this species is so cryptic and extraordinarily adapted (please read more about them in my blog “Pacific Spiny Lumpsucker – the fish, the disc, the marvel”). The Sunflower Stars because they are in such trouble due to Sea Star Wasting Disease. Sunflower Stars (Pycnopodia helianthoides) are the biggest sea star species in the world at up to 1 metre across.
But, somehow the conditions are such at this location that some adults appear to be surviving. I regularly document “waves” of juveniles but have seen so very few large ones since the onset of Sea Star Wasting Disease (SSWD) in 2013. I report all Sunflower Star sightings to researchers.
We would document thirteen Sunflower Stars during this dive – four at around seven cm across and nine at over 20 cm across.
And with that lump in my throat, I thought of sharing the photos of the Sunflower Stars with you and what the reaction might be. When I share photos of Sunflower Stars, some reactions suggest that I am diluting concern about them rather than educating about their plight and how this is believed to be related to a changing climate (which means there are common, and well known solutions that benefit life on earth).
Yes, there is hope. There certainly is. But, as I find myself stating and feeling so often, hope without action is paralysis. I recently came across the following quote which captures this so powerfully:
“People speak of hope as if it is this delicate, ephemeral thing made of whispers and spider’s webs. It’s not. Hope has dirt on her face, blood on her knuckles, the grit of the cobblestones in her hair, and just spat out a tooth as she rises for another go.” Source Matthew @CrowsFault on X
So here’s to the action that is Hope in all her power – for the stars, the lumpsuckers, and for all of us too.
The photos below show more Sunflower Stars documented on this dive, and how shallow some were. Please see the additional text below for details about the plight of Sunflower Stars.
The text below is from my December 31, 2025 blog “Survivors” providing detail about the plight of Sunflower Stars and why, tragically, it is has become exceptional to see them (especially large individuals). The Sunflower Stars documented in the photos are from the same location as those in the above photos. Yes, some of them may be the same individuals. 💙
This Sunflower Star is ~1 metre across, December 30, 2025. Dive buddy is Janice Crook.Believed to be the same Sunflower Star in the exact same spot on January 3rd, 2026. Another two large Sunflower Stars on the same dive on December 30, 2025. There was a third on the other side of the cement block.
Why Does It Matter?
Sunflower Stars are the world’s largest sea star species at up to 1 metre across (Pycnopodia helianthoides). Before 2013, were you to look down from a dock in BC and Washington, you would likely see them . . . icons of our coast, common giants, and often what children would draw in seascapes.
That is no more.
What happened to 20 sea star species in the Northeast Pacific Ocean has been referenced as “the largest epidemic ever recorded in a wild marine species.” Sunflower Stars were the most impacted and there are far-reaching impacts due to their ecological role.
Still many people do not know about their plight despite over 12 years of disease (and a horrific progression of symptoms). You can bet that if a whole lot of Sea Otters (which have similar ecological roles) died there would have been almighty public outcry. But this happened below the surface, in the dark, to species without eyes and fur.
What Happened?
Sea Star Wasting Disease (SSWD) began in 2013 and yes, recently Canadian researchers concluded what the pathogen / causative agent is. It’s the bacterium Vibrio pectenicida. But of course this does not mean that Wasting Disease is “solved”.
Why would this bacterium be able to have the impact it has? What changed?
From the research by Prentice et al. (2025) “Vibrio spp. have been coined ‘the microbial barometer of climate change’, because of the increasing prevalence of pathogenic species associated with warming water temperatures. Given that existing evidence indicates a relationship between increasing seawater temperature and SSWD incidence . . . ”
Where Are Things at Now?
In May 2025, the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) recommended to the Government of Canada that Sunflower Stars be protected as an endangered species under Canada’s Species at Risk Act. It can be years before there is a decision.
This is not only important in Canada but the survivors in BC might be a reservoir for Washington State too where things appear to be even worse for the species.
Another large Sunflower Star on December 30, 2025. You can see how shallow some of them were, indicated here by the presence of the Eelgrass and being able to see the surface of the water.
What To Do?
Celebrate survivors – yes. Know that the plight of Sunflower Stars is not an additional problem. SSWD is a symptom of the same changes that impact our own species which means, there are common solutions regarding energy use, how we vote, and consumerism generally.
If you have read to this point in the blog, you are particularly important. You clearly care about life below the surface, in the dark. Help others know the importance of this coast. Help work against “ocean blindness” where the cold, dark waters full of plankton are devalued because it is more difficult to see the life living there. (Warm, clear waters are often perceived to be “better” because you can see far more easily see below the surface. But, if you can see through the water, there is far, far less plankton – the fuel of the marine food web.)
Children should know Sunflower Stars and their place on this glorious coast.
Since the onset of SSWD in 2013, I have tracked research and developments at this link. Includes where to report sightings.
Sunflower Stars eat Green Urchins which graze on kelp. With fewer Sunflower Stars, there is more grazing on kelp by Green Urchins. Research suggests that Sunflower Stars can be 15 metres away and still help with deterring urchins (red urchins in the research by Mancuso et al., 2025).
I feel compelled to share this new research by Lancaster et al., 2025 with you because: 1. It is about a non-destructive / non-invasive way to study fish. Using Passive Acoustic Monitoring (PAM) to determine wild fish presence in the same way one would identify birds by their calls.
2. It is yet another example of how little we know about even common marine species. Among the eight species of fish near Vancouver Island for which vocalizations were documented by the researchers, this is the first time ever that the sounds of Canary and Vermillion Rockfish have been identified.
3. The title of the research paper is so clever: “Knock knock, who’s there? Identifying wild species-specific fish sounds with passive acoustic localization and random forest models”.
4. I know you want to see the video below and listen to the sounds!
“University of Victoria (UVic) biologists have discovered that even closely related fish species make unique and distinctive sounds and determined that it’s possible to differentiate between the sounds of different species. The discovery opens the door to identifying fish based on sound alone.
Using passive acoustics, the researchers identified unique sounds for eight different Vancouver Island fish species in their natural habitats. They then developed a machine learning model that can predict which sounds belonged to which species with up to 88 per cent accuracy. This could have positive implications for marine conservation efforts and allow scientists to monitor specific fish species using acoustics, says Darienne Lancaster, a PhD candidate in biology who led the project.
The research, published in the Journal of Fish Biology, is part of the larger fish sounds project run out of the Juanes Lab at UVic…
While researchers have been identifying fish sounds for years, these sounds were typically recorded in a laboratory setting, rather than in the wild and whether different species made unique sounds had never been tested.
Lancaster identified unique sounds for eight different species of fish commonly found on the coast of British Columbia: the black rockfish, quillback rockfish, copper rockfish, lingcod, canary rockfish, vermillion rockfish, kelp greenling and pile perch. This was the first time, in the lab or the wild, that sounds had been identified for the canary and vermillion rockfish.
“It has been exciting to see how many different species of fish make sounds and the behaviours that go along with these calls,” says Lancaster. “Some fish, like the quillback rockfish, make rapid grunting sounds when they’re being chased by other fish, so it’s likely a defensive mechanism. Other times, fish, like copper rockfish, will repeatedly make knocking sounds as they chase prey along the ocean floor.”
The black rockfish make a long, growling sound similar to a frog croak and the quillback rockfish make a series of short knocks and grunts…
Lancaster used a technique called passive acoustic monitoring to identify the fish sounds. She collected underwater audio and video using a sound localization array designed by former UVic PhD student and project collaborator, Xavier Mouy, and then used sound characteristics to identify differences in species calls.
Her machine learning model used a set of 47 different sound features, such as duration and frequency, to detect small differences in each species’ sounds that can be used to tell them apart. The model used these small differences in sound features to group species calls together.
“The ability of passive acoustics to identify specific fish by sound could be an important new tool for conservationists and fisheries managers,” says Francis Juanes, UVic biology professor and principal investigator on the project. “Passive acoustics could allow us to estimate population size, monitor activity, and assess the overall health of a fish population in a way that is minimally invasive to vulnerable marine animals.”
Figure 2 in the research paper: “Localization array with visualization of copper rockfish (Sebastes caurinus) calling near hydrophones. (images, Shane Gross; graphics, Darienne Lancaster).”Table 2 from the research paper: “Summary of knock features (mean and standard deviation) for each species. Note: Only sounds with an ID confidence of 1 (high) were included for most species. Sounds with ID confidence 2 (moderate) were included for lingcod as no high confidence knocks were recorded. Kelp greenling (Hexagrammos decagrammus) knocks were not included as ID confidence for all knocks was low. Full species scientific names: black rockfish (Sebastes melanops), canary rockfish (Sebastes pinniger), copper rockfish (Sebastes caurinus), lingcod (Ophiodon elongatus), pile perch (Rhacochilus vacca), quillback rockfish (Sebastes maliger), vermillion rockfish (Sebastes miniatus).”
Excerpts from the research paper’s discussion: “We documented knocks and/or grunts for eight species of rocky reef fish. Two species—canary and vermillion rockfish—have never been documented as soniferous, and pile perch sounds have not been documented since 1966 (Meldrim & Walker, 1966). Black rockfish sounds have never been described or presented in spectrogram form (Fletcher, 1969). We provide summaries of species sound features in Tables S3–S5 and audio of species sounds are available on our data repository. We also demonstrate the importance of analysing field rather than aquarium recordings to determine if fish are soniferous and to characterize species calls. Aquarium-based studies can struggle to determine sonifery and the range of sounds in fishes’ repertoires. For example, an aquarium study by Nichols (2005) failed to elicit sounds from canary, black, and vermillion rockfish through prodding, but our study in fish habitat found that all three species are soniferous…
It was not possible to determine if kelp greenling are soniferous during this study. Kelp greenling were frequently present in videos, and we identified 25 possible kelp greenling calls with low ID confidence. Kelp greenling were typically interacting with other soniferous fish during calling activities so it was impossible to confidently determine which fish was calling. Further studies on kelp greenling calling would be useful to determine if they are soniferous.
Copper and quillback rockfish showed similar sound feature characteristics and were sometimes misclassified in the random forest knock model. This similarity is unsurprising as these two species can hybridize (Schwenke et al., 2018). However, quillback rockfish knocks and grunts had higher peak frequencies than copper rockfish sounds. We are unsure if this is a species-specific trait or an artefact of size differences across species. Higher frequency sounds often occur in smaller conspecifics (Kasumyan, 2008; Mann & Lobel, 1995; Myreberg et al., 1993; Rountree & Juanes, 2020), and larger copper rockfish are typically found at the same depth range as smaller quillback rockfish (Love et al., 2002). Future work will use our stereo-camera length information to examine size impacts on call characteristics.
This study expands the utility of PAM for assessing species richness and presence/absence, which are cornerstones of conservation and fisheries monitoring. We outline a novel method for collecting wild fish sounds and identifying species-specific sound features for use in fish sound detectors. Our study results can be used to detect the presence of specific fish species based on our documented sound parameters, which provide much greater precision than acoustic indices like ADI (Dimoff et al., 2021; Minello et al., 2021). Our work also contributes to the growing library of marine fish sounds required for PAM abundance estimation, but more localization studies are required to document the diversity of soniferous fish sounds. Future research should focus on localizing sounds for more species as well as collecting additional sound samples for underrepresented species. Further research into regional differences in species-specific calls is also recommended to determine the transferability of sound characteristics.”
You could be lucky enough to get BC researchers to provide education on fish bioacoustics: “FishSounds Educate is a free educational program that aims to use the topic of bioacoustics (biological sounds) to encourage future conservation leaders and enhance ocean literacy across Canada.” See this link.
Lancaster, D., Mouy, X., Haggarty, D., & Juanes, F. (2025). Knock knock, who’s there? Identifying wild species-specific fish sounds with passive acoustic localization and random forest models. Journal of Fish Biology, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfb.70294
Note: I will try to get/find the sound samples of the Canary and Vermillion Rockfish. They have not yet been uploaded to Fishsounds.net. From that resource I did find the samples of the vocals of these species referenced in the research:
And for more vocals from fish (and other species) go to the “Discovery of Sounds in the Sea (DOSITS)” website. You do NOT want to miss the sounds of the Plainfin Midshipman, another common species off our coast. Then also go to this Nature of Things clip featuring this species with expert input from Sarika Cullis-Suzuki who did her PhD research on Plainfin Midshipman.
The following is what I posted on my social media channels just before 2025 turned into 2026. The post has resonated with so many that I considered if I should share the content in a blog too. The deal I made with myself is that if the “reach” on social media was over 15,000, I would dare to do so. It’s well over that now so, here goes.
What you read below is what I shared on the cusp of January 1, 2026. May the words land where they affirm, heal, and fortify.
“I hurt. Maybe you hurt too. I believe in good, and truth. Maybe you believe too.
As it goes with such posts where I have to dig deep, I need to write this for myself. But, I anticipate I do not hurt alone. So, here goes in the belief that these words will be of use to others too.
In these final hours of 2025, I can’t bring myself to just post a pretty picture and type the words “Happy New Year!” for you. That somehow feels dishonest and as if I am contributing to blind hope. Yo, shake the dice and maybe rolling from December 31 to January 1 will somehow bring better order to the world.
It’s going to take more than that.
Many of us are acutely aware of the forces aimed solidly and so effectively at increasing overwhelm, fear, disengagement, and distortion of reality. The game plan is for it to be “too much”.
But are we aware of our reaction to it all? Are we among the fallen? Have we shut down, gone dark, or numb? Do we “hope” without action? Do we have to carry the weight of it all?
I rawly know the answer to that last question. We can’t carry the weight of it all nor dizzy ourselves with the details of all the insanity and inhumanity. Again, that’s the game plan… bury them.
But, I do need to have my eyes open enough to feel my way forward among the assaults on truth, facts, integrity, and equality. To know these assaults are aided by the misuse of artificial intelligence, reduced scientific literacy, conspiracy theories, the manufacturing of divisiveness, the erosion of journalistic integrity and the capacity for fact-checking, etc.
The chaos over our border has fed patriotism that favours short-term economic gain over potential long-term devastation. I think something broke in me when the rhetoric began anew about pipelines and tankers. We’ve been here before.
How to have a Happy New Year? How will I have a Happy New Year? Stand for truth. Put good into the world. Know the good and beauty around you. And protect the good in yourself, and others.
Onward.
It feels vulnerable as hell to hit “post” on this. May the words land where they may be of use.”
This Sunflower Star is ~1 metre across. It’s the same sea star in the above two images. Dive buddy is Janice Crook.
I screamed underwater in sheer euphoria the other day upon seeing the Sunflower Star in the above two images. It’s the largest one I have seen in years. Dive buddy Janice Crook and I found a total of seven relatively large Sunflower Stars and one juvenile during this dive. These sightings have been reported to researchers.
Why Euphoria?
Because Sunflower Stars are in terrible trouble and somehow at this site conditions are such that some adults are surviving. I regularly document “waves” of juveniles but have seen so very few large ones. To see seven relatively large ones at one shallow site in British Columbia is truly exceptional.
Another two large Sunflower Stars on the same dive. There was a third on the other side of the cement block.
Why Does It Matter?
Sunflower Stars are the world’s largest sea star species at up to 1 metre across (Pycnopodia helianthoides). Before 2013, were you to look down from a dock in BC and Washington, you would likely see them . . . icons of our coast, common giants, and often what children would draw in seascapes.
That is no more.
What happened to 20 sea star species in the Northeast Pacific Ocean has been referenced as “the largest epidemic ever recorded in a wild marine species.” Sunflower Stars were the most impacted and there are far-reaching impacts due to their ecological role.
Still many people do not know about their plight despite over 12 years of disease (and a horrific progression of symptoms). You can bet that if a whole lot of Sea Otters (which have similar ecological roles) died there would have been almighty public outcry. But this happened below the surface, in the dark, to species without eyes and fur.
What Happened?
Sea Star Wasting Disease (SSWD) began in 2013 and yes, recently Canadian researchers concluded what the pathogen / causative agent is. It’s the bacterium Vibrio pectenicida. But of course this does not mean that Wasting Disease is “solved”.
Why would this bacterium be able to have the impact it has? What changed?
From the research by Prentice et al. (2025) “Vibrio spp. have been coined ‘the microbial barometer of climate change’, because of the increasing prevalence of pathogenic species associated with warming water temperatures. Given that existing evidence indicates a relationship between increasing seawater temperature and SSWD incidence . . . ”
Where Are Things at Now?
In May 2025, the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) recommended to the Government of Canada that Sunflower Stars be protected as an endangered species under Canada’s Species at Risk Act. It can be years before there is a decision.
This is not only important in Canada but the survivors in BC might be a reservoir for Washington State too where things appear to be even worse for the species.
Another large Sunflower Star – you can see how shallow some of them were, indicated here by the presence of the Eelgrass and being able to see the surface of the water
What To Do?
Celebrate survivors – yes. Know that the plight of Sunflower Stars is not an additional problem. SSWD is a symptom of the same changes that impact our own species which means, there are common solutions regarding energy use, how we vote, and consumerism generally.
If you have read to this point in the blog, you are particularly important. You clearly care about life below the surface, in the dark. Help others know the importance of this coast. Help work against “ocean blindness” where the cold, dark waters full of plankton are devalued because it is more difficult to see the life living there. (Warm, clear waters are often perceived to be “better” because you can see far more easily see below the surface. But, if you can see through the water, there is far, far less plankton – the fuel of the marine food web.)
Children should know Sunflower Stars and their place on this glorious coast.
_________
Since the onset of SSWD in 2013, I have tracked research and developments at this link. Includes where to report sightings.
Sunflower Stars eat Green Urchins which graze on kelp. With fewer Sunflower Stars, there is more grazing on kelp by Green Urchins. Research suggests that Sunflower Stars can be 15 metres away and still help with deterring urchins (red urchins in the research by Mancuso et al., 2025).
Ever feel like you want to drift away for a while? Here you go, a slideshow featuring my photos of kelp and other seaweeds/algae.
Maybe watch it while listening to your favourite calming songs?
I put this slideshow together for an upcoming workshop on seaweed. It’s full, but you can sign up for alerts about future workshops.
Photos are from near northeast Vancouver Island taken by yours truly in the Traditional Territories of the Kwakwa̱ka̱’wakw (the Kwak̕wala-speaking Peoples). Final photo of me photographing kelp is by dive buddy, Don Gordon.
The Importance of Algae The Ocean’s algae, from the microscopic to the giant kelps:
The algae / seaweeds are producers, converting sunlight to food to fuel the food web. They offer we humans so much nutrition too.
Kelps are habitat for hundreds of species.
Kelp in Trouble Where every species lives is, of course, because the conditions are right. For example, the temperature is not too cold. It’s not too hot. It’s just right. Yes, this is referenced as the Goldilocks Principle. Changing temperatures are impacting the health of kelp forests, as are other variables involved with climate change such as more frequent and stronger winds ripping away more kelp.
Also, there are far fewer Sunflower Stars due to Sea Star Wasting Disease which is believed to be associated with climate change. Sunflower Stars are predators of Green Urchins. Green Urchins graze on kelp. With less Sunflower Stars, there are more Green Urchins. More urchins leads to more grazing on kelp. In the extreme, this leads to “urchin barrens” where the kelp forest has been grazed away. This is not the urchins’ fault, of course. It’s due to human activity.
Less kelp = less food, oxygen, habitat and buffering of carbon dioxide.
Common Solutions: This is not an additional problem! There are common solutions for many socio/environmental problems. What is going on with kelp is another symptom of the same negative forces – disconnect, a focus on short-term economies, and a culture that perpetuates fear, misinformation, overwhelm and reduced empowerment. Whatever you do to reduce carbon dioxide (from your energy use, consumerism, to how you vote) will help the kelp and all that depends on them. 💙
Can a 2 cm stalked jelly make you feel small? Yes. Can it fill you with awe, wonder, affirmation, purpose, and drive? Yes. Does it make it feel like all the immersion, the cold, and the learning from this little bit of the planet, somehow makes a positive difference? In a quiet voice, I say . . . yes.
It has been confirmed by Claudia Mills that I have the identification of this stalked jelly correct as Haliclystus californiensis. Note that:
It has only been recognized as a distinct species in 2010 (Kahn et al., 2010). At the time of that publication, only 10 individuals had been found and only “from southern to northern California in coastal waters” (hence the species name “californiensis“).
This would be only the 25th global documentation to be included on the Global Biodiversity Information Facility, which, since the research of Kahn et al. in 2010, includes findings of the species in Sweden and Denmark. Note that there is doubt about whether the individuals documented in the Atlantic are indeed the same species.
Are they deep-dwelling? No. In the research I reference above, it is stated that they are known from depths of 10 to 30 metres. I found this one at about 6 metres depth.
What are stalked jellies? They never become free-swimming, bell-shaped medusae like other jellies. They attach by their sticky stalk and have 8 arms with pom-pom-like clusters of tentacles at the ends. These tentacles have stinging cells to catch small crustaceans, which are then moved to the mouth at the centre of the 8 arms. If detached, stalked jellies can grip a surface with their tentacles and quickly reattach their stalk.
Above image from Kahn et al., 2010. Their description includes: martini glass shaped; 2.1 cm tall; 15.5 mm wide; 8 arms with 60 to 80 capitate secondary tentacles, and the red structures are gonadal sacs.
How did I find this one? There was fortuitousness involved. But also, I was looking when many would not. I was looking because of what I have been able to learn previously.
The sighting was on October 30, 2025, when diving with a group I organized to go to God’s Pocket Resort. It was our last dive of the trip and the last dive for the God’s Pocket Team for 2025. It had already been an astounding morning, which included documenting Humpbacks and Bigg’s Killer Whales while on the boat. Captain Bryan had been considering another dive site in Browning Pass, but the current and the potential for him to get more opportunistic whale IDs (with telephoto lens) while we were diving, led him to choose this location.
We had dived this site earlier in the week, and then too I had rushed to the “end” where I know there is a little patch of Eelgrass. I was looking for another species of Haliclystus I have found there before, for which a species name has NOT been assigned. This does not mean in any way that I discovered it, but rather that researchers have not yet published the research describing how it is morphologically and genetically distinct. See photo below.
This is the unnamed / undescribed species of Oval-anchored Stalked Jelly I have found at this site previously (and in a multitude of other locations around northeastern Vancouver Island).
I reached the Eelgrass bed and watched a school of Tubesnout (fish) swim around. Then, I focused on the Eelgrass to see if, maybe this time, I could find the undescribed species. Later, my photos would reveal just how intent I had been. See below for a photo of the school of fish with the flipper of a mature Steller Sea Lion in the frame. I had noticed he had passed so close to me. Yes, I can find 2 cm stalked jellies, and miss a ~3 m, 1,000 kg Steller Sea Lion.
And then, there it was. My brain started screaming immediately, knowing this was a unique species. Does it matter? It does to me. And maybe, it does to you.
May this add to wonder, appreciation, and the appropriate humility that we humans know so little about even the marine species that live in the shallows. May that foster care, and actions that benefit all of us connected by water and air on this ocean planet.
Photo gives you a better sense of how small this species is.
Mills, Claudia (pers comms 2025-11-03) about known past documentations of this species:
Southernmost is Santa Cruz Island (1950, Gwilliam).
Four in central California noted by Kahn (2010).
One in Depoe Bay, Oregon.
One near Calvert Island on the Central Coast of British Columbia on August 1st, 2017 as a result of a collaboration including the Smithsonian Institution’s Marine Global Earth Observatory and the Hakai Institute.
One near Bamfield, southwest Vancouver Island, British Columbia, by Ron Larson, October 1983.
Photos above and below: Divers and crew on my October 2025 trip with God’s Pocket Resort.
What’s a “Giant Black Cucumaria”? It’s an extraordinary species of sea cucumber that has a football-shaped body and can be up to 30 cm long. Below I have a video of one feeding.
The Giant Black Cucumaria I documented for 4 months. Photographer here with my dive buddy, Natasha Dickinson.
I had never seen one before January of this year. I was able to document that one it in the same place over a period of 4 months. I never saw that individual with its feeding tentacles out.
But then, in April, I chanced upon another individual in a different location near northeast Vancouver Island. This one was feeding! In my video below, see how the Giant Black Cucumaria collects plankton on 10 bushy tentacles, sticks one in its mouth, and scrapes off food. Then, repeat with another tentacle. Yum!
This is also how some other species of sea cucumber feed e.g. Orange Sea Cucumbers (Cucumaria miniata).
More about Giant Black Cucumaria:
The two individuals I documented were near northeast Vancouver Island.
The Giant Black Cucumaria has been assigned the scientific name “Cucumaria frondosa japonica” but its species status is not resolved. It’s believe to be closely related to Cucumaria japonica found near Japan.
The individual I documented for 4 months. May have been there longer. But when I returned after 5 months, it was no longer there.
The Marine Detective 