Distribution data supplied by the Ocean Biodiversity Information System (OBIS). To interrogate UK data visit the NBN Atlas.Map Help
Researched by | Angus Jackson & Dr Keith Hiscock | Refereed by | Prof. Daphne Fautin |
Authority | (Linnaeus, 1761) | ||
Other common names | - | Synonyms | Tealia felina (Linnaeus, 1761) |
- none -
Phylum | Cnidaria | Sea anemones, corals, sea firs & jellyfish |
Class | Anthozoa | Sea anemones, soft & cup corals, sea pens & sea pansies |
Order | Actiniaria | |
Family | Actiniidae | |
Genus | Urticina | |
Authority | (Linnaeus, 1761) | |
Recent Synonyms | Tealia felina (Linnaeus, 1761) |
Typical abundance | Moderate density | ||
Male size range | up to 150mm | ||
Male size at maturity | |||
Female size range | Medium(11-20 cm) | ||
Female size at maturity | |||
Growth form | Globose | ||
Growth rate | Data deficient | ||
Body flexibility | High (greater than 45 degrees) | ||
Mobility | |||
Characteristic feeding method | Non-feeding, Predator | ||
Diet/food source | |||
Typically feeds on | See Additional Information. | ||
Sociability | No information | ||
Environmental position | Epibenthic | ||
Dependency | No information found. | ||
Supports | No information | ||
Is the species harmful? | Yes The stinging nematocysts in the anemones tentacles are used to trap and paralyse prey. The nematocysts can also provoke itching and blistering of the skin in humans but the effects vary considerably between individual humans. |
Physiographic preferences | Open coast, Offshore seabed, Strait / sound, Sea loch / Sea lough, Ria / Voe, Estuary |
Biological zone preferences | Lower circalittoral, Lower eulittoral, Lower infralittoral, Sublittoral fringe, Upper circalittoral, Upper infralittoral |
Substratum / habitat preferences | Bedrock, Crevices / fissures, Large to very large boulders, Other species, Small boulders |
Tidal strength preferences | Moderately Strong 1 to 3 knots (0.5-1.5 m/sec.), Strong 3 to 6 knots (1.5-3 m/sec.), Very Strong > 6 knots (>3 m/sec.), Weak < 1 knot (<0.5 m/sec.) |
Wave exposure preferences | Exposed, Extremely exposed, Moderately exposed, Sheltered, Very exposed |
Salinity preferences | Full (30-40 psu), Low (<18 psu), Reduced (18-30 psu), Variable (18-40 psu) |
Depth range | down to at least 100m |
Other preferences | No text entered |
Migration Pattern | Non-migratory / resident |
Reproductive type | Gonochoristic (dioecious) | |
Reproductive frequency | Annual protracted | |
Fecundity (number of eggs) | No information | |
Generation time | Insufficient information | |
Age at maturity | See additional information | |
Season | April - June | |
Life span | See additional information |
Larval/propagule type | - |
Larval/juvenile development | Lecithotrophic |
Duration of larval stage | See additional information |
Larval dispersal potential | See additional information |
Larval settlement period | Insufficient information |
The MarLIN sensitivity assessment approach used below has been superseded by the MarESA (Marine Evidence-based Sensitivity Assessment) approach (see menu). The MarLIN approach was used for assessments from 1999-2010. The MarESA approach reflects the recent conservation imperatives and terminology and is used for sensitivity assessments from 2014 onwards.
Intolerance | Recoverability | Sensitivity | Evidence/Confidence | |
High | Moderate | Moderate | Moderate | |
Urticina felina anemones adhere strongly to the substratum. Substratum loss would result in mortality. Some individuals might, however, be left behind as they typically live in fissures. Recruitment to replace lost individuals is likely to be slow (see 'Additional Information' below). | ||||
Low | Very high | Very Low | High | |
Urticina felina anemones adhere strongly to the substratum and would be entirely covered by smothering material. However, Urticina felina lives in situations where it may be covered from time-to-time by sediment, especially coarser substrata which suggests some ability to survive. For example, Holme & Wilson (1985) observed Urticina felina attached to pebbles, cobbles or rock subject to sand scour or periodic smothering by sand at 50-55m depth, offshore, in the western English Channel. The tidal streams in the central parts of the Channel may reach 125 cm/s during neaps and 166 cm/s on springs. Therefore, he suggested that Urticina felina was tolerant of sand scour or periodic smothering by < ca. 5cm of sand, being able to extend its column to maintain its disc above the sand surface (Holme & Wilson, 1985). Thus the species is considered to have low intolerance to smothering. As the species is able to maintain its disc above the smothering material recovery is very rapid. Adults can also detach from the substratum and relocate but locomotive ability is very limited. | ||||
Low | Very high | Very Low | Moderate | |
Being an epibenthic species, Urticina felina would be exposed to changes in siltation. Increases in siltation may begin to cover the anemone or interfere with feeding. An energetic cost will result from efforts to clean off the silt particles, e.g. through mucus production and sloughing. Repeated energetic expenditure in cleaning off silt particles may cause loss of condition. Recovery of condition may take several months. | ||||
Tolerant* | Not relevant | Not sensitive* | High | |
Reduction of the need to keep the anemone surface clear of silt will mean less energy expenditure and mucus production and therefore likely benefit to the anemone. | ||||
Intermediate | Moderate | Moderate | Low | |
The species is found on the lower shore as well as subtidally. Small individuals have been recorded as high as the mid tide line (Manuel, 1988). Decreases in desiccation will have no effect. The anemone is able to detach from the substratum and relocate in order to find better or avoid unfavourable conditions. Increases in desiccation may cause part of an intertidal population to die before suitable relocation can occur. Recruitment to replace lost individuals is likely to be slow (see 'Additional Information' below). A precautionary assessment of 'moderate' recoverability is made but with a low confidence. | ||||
Intermediate | Moderate | Moderate | Low | |
Increase in emergence is likely to result in exposure to desiccation and a decreased opportunity for feeding. Increased emergence may have no effect for anemones in damp fissures or pools. Assuming that desiccation or heat stress (see 'Increase in temperature' below) occurs, intolerance and recoverability will be as desiccation. Recruitment to replace lost individuals is likely to be slow (see 'Additional Information' below). A precautionary assessment of 'moderate' recoverability is made but with a low confidence. | ||||
Tolerant* | Not relevant | Not sensitive* | High | |
Urticina felina is predominantly a subtidal species so that decrease in emergence is likely to lead to more habitats for colonization becoming available. | ||||
Tolerant | Not relevant | Not sensitive | Moderate | |
The species favours areas with strong tidal currents (Holme & Wilson, 1985; Migné & Davoult, 1997) although it is also found in more calm and sheltered areas as well as deep water. The anemone is very firmly attached and, although there may be some inhibition of feeding in very strong flows, increases in water flow rate are not likely to have a significant effect on Urticina felina. | ||||
Intermediate | Moderate | Moderate | Moderate | |
In the absence of wave action, water flow is likely to be very important in preventing siltation and stagnation and in bringing food. Therefore, in conditions where water flow rates fall to very low levels, anemones may be adversely affected, lose condition and, especially if some stagnation occurs, some may die. Although recolonization is likely to occur from nearby populations, frequency and success of recruitment is unclear and a precautionary assessment of 'Moderate' is made (see 'Additional Information' below). | ||||
Intermediate | High | Low | Low | |
The species distribution extends to the north and south of the British Isles (Manuel, 1988) and so the species is unlikely to be affected by an increase in open water temperatures. Gosse (1860) observed that Urticina felina (as Actinia crassicornis) was "one of the most difficult [anemones] to keep in an aquarium" and that "the heat of the summer is generally fatal to our captive specimens". It is therefore likely that local warming may adversely affect individuals and that some mortality might occur. Although recolonization is likely to occur from nearby populations, frequency and success of recruitment is unclear and a precautionary assessment of 'Moderate' is made (see 'Additional Information' below). | ||||
Intermediate | High | Low | Low | |
The species distribution extends to the north and south of the British Isles (Manuel, 1988) and so the species is unlikely to be affected by a decrease in open water temperatures. Although Urticina felina was apparently unaffected by the extremely cold winter of 1962/3 (Crisp, 1964), Gosse (1860) observed that "after the intense and protracted frost of February 1855, the shores of South Devon were strewn with dead and dying anemones, principally of this species". Bearing in mind the equivocal observations from two cold winters, it is suggested that at least some individuals might be killed by extreme cold. Although recolonization is likely to occur from nearby populations, frequency and success of recruitment is unclear and a precautionary assessment of 'Moderate' is made (see 'Additional Information' below). | ||||
Tolerant | Not relevant | Not sensitive | Low | |
Urticina felina occurs in clear to highly turbid waters and occurs down to depths of at least 100m (Manuel, 1988) where light levels are low. The anemone is not known to contain symbiotic algae and is likely to tolerate changes in turbidity or the resulting change in light attenuation. | ||||
Tolerant | Not relevant | Not sensitive | High | |
Urticina felina occurs in clear to highly turbid waters and occurs down to depths of at least 100m (Manuel, 1988) where light levels are low. The anemone is not known to contain symbiotic algae and is unlikely to be sensitive to changes in turbidity or the resulting change in light attenuation. | ||||
Tolerant | Not relevant | Not sensitive | Low | |
The species favours areas with strong wave action (Manuel, 1988) and strong tidal currents (Migné & Davoult, 1997) although it is also found in more calm and sheltered areas as well as deep water. | ||||
Intermediate | High | Low | Moderate | |
In the absence of tidal streams, wave action is likely to be very important in preventing siltation and stagnation and in bringing food. Therefore, in conditions where wave action falls to very low levels, anemones may be adversely affected, lose condition and, especially if some stagnation occurs, some may die. Assuming that some individuals survive, local recruitment is likely to occur within a few years. | ||||
Tolerant | Not relevant | Not sensitive | Low | |
Urticina felina is likely to have poor ability for detection of noise vibrations and as such is unlikely to be sensitive to noise. | ||||
Tolerant | Not relevant | Not sensitive | High | |
Urticina felina has very limited, if any, ability for visual perception. The anemone is unlikely to be sensitive to visual presence. | ||||
Intermediate | Moderate | Moderate | Low | |
The species occurs frequently in areas with strong tidal currents and coarse sediments and so may be exposed to and tolerant of particle scour. The anemone is also soft, flexible and can reform its attachment to the substratum. The anemone lives in fissures, which may be protected from abrasive forces. However, physical impact is likely to cause damage and mortality to exposed individuals. It is therefore suggested that some individuals may be killed by a physical disturbance event. Although recolonization is likely to occur from nearby populations, frequency, and success of recruitment is unclear and a precautionary assessment of 'Moderate' is made (see additional information below). | ||||
Low | Immediate | Not sensitive | Low | |
Although Urticina felina adheres strongly to the substratum, it does not form a permanent attachment. The anemones can move around to re-attach in a better position. Displacement may result in loss of a good position or hinder feeding but will only have serious consequences if the basal tissue is damaged - as often happens when anemones are collected for the aquarium. The assessment made here assumes no damage to the tissue. Relocation to a suitable area will be accompanied by recovery. |
Intolerance | Recoverability | Sensitivity | Evidence/Confidence | |
Intermediate | Moderate | Moderate | Low | |
Very little information has been found. Hoare & Hiscock (1974) observed that Urticina felina survived near to an acidified halogenated effluent discharge in a 'transition' zone where many other species were unable to survive, suggesting a tolerance to chemical contamination. However, Urticina felina was absent from stations closest to the effluent which were dominated by pollution tolerant species particularly polychaetes. Those specimens closest to the effluent discharge appeared generally unhealthy. Because it appears that Urticina was unable to tolerate the most polluted conditions, intolerance has been assessed as intermediate. Although recolonization is likely to occur from nearby populations, frequency and success of recruitment is unclear and a precautionary assessment of 'Moderate' is made (see 'Additional Information' below). | ||||
No information | No information | No information | Not relevant | |
Insufficient information. | ||||
Low | Very high | Very Low | Moderate | |
One month after the Torrey Canyon oil spill the dahlia anemone, Urticina felina, was found to be one of the most resistant animals on the shore, being commonly found alive in pools between the tide-marks which appeared to be devoid of all other animals (Smith, 1968). Intolerance is, therefore, assessed as low for dispersed or liquid oil. 'Condition' would be likely to return to normal once the oil is removed. However, the species may be susceptible to smothering effects and, in the case of thick oil, mortality seems likely. | ||||
No information | No information | No information | Not relevant | |
Insufficient information | ||||
No information | No information | No information | Not relevant | |
Insufficient information | ||||
Not relevant | Not relevant | Not relevant | Not relevant | |
Urticina felina lives in full salinity situations and the factor is assessed as Not Relevant. | ||||
Low | Very high | Very Low | Moderate | |
Although Urticina felina is predominantly marine, the species does penetrate into estuaries (e.g. the Thames estuary at Mucking (NMMP, 2001) and the River Blackwater estuary (Davis, 1967). Braber & Borghouts (1977) found that Urticina (as Tealia) felina penetrated to about the 11ppt Chlorinity (about 20psu) isohaline at mid tide during average water discharge in the Westerschelde estuary suggesting that, during high river flow, it would be tolerant of reduced salinity conditions. Intertidal and rock pool individuals will also be subject to variations in salinity because of precipitation on the shore; albeit for short periods on the lower shore. Therefore, the species seems to have a high tolerance to reduction in salinity but may have to retract tentacles and suffer reduced opportunity to feed. Intolerance has therefore been assessed as low suggesting that individuals are unlikely to be killed by changes at the level of the benchmark. Recovery is in terms of condition and is therefor very high. | ||||
Intermediate | High | Low | Low | |
There is no information about Urticina felina tolerance to changes in oxygenation but Cole et al., (1999) suggest possible adverse effects on marine species below 4 mg/l and probable adverse effects below 2mg/l. The large size and slow growth rate of this anemone suggests that it is quite long lived. Although recolonization is likely to occur from nearby populations, frequency and success of recruitment is unclear and a precautionary assessment of 'Moderate' is made (see 'Additional Information' below). |
Intolerance | Recoverability | Sensitivity | Evidence/Confidence | |
No information | No information | No information | Not relevant | |
Insufficient information | ||||
No information | No information | No information | Not relevant | |
No known non-native species compete with Urticina felina. | ||||
High | Moderate | Moderate | Moderate | |
Urticina felina is not currently subject to extraction. However if a cold water marine aquarium trade were to take-off, this species is likely to be collected. Although Urticina felina probably breeds every year there is no information regarding fecundity. Although recolonization is likely to occur from nearby populations, frequency and success of recruitment is unclear and a precautionary assessment of 'Moderate' is made. See 'Additional Information' below. | ||||
Tolerant | Not relevant | Not sensitive | Low | |
Urticina felina has no known obligate relationships so removal of other species is unlikely to have any direct effect. The incidental physical effects of removal of other species can be assessed under the relevant factors. |
- no data -
National (GB) importance | - | Global red list (IUCN) category | - |
Native | - | ||
Origin | - | Date Arrived | - |
Braber, L. & Borghouts, C.H., 1977. Distribution and ecology of Anthozoa in the estuarine region of the rivers Rhine, Meuse and Scheldt. Hydrobiologia, 52, 15-21.
Bruce, J.R., Colman, J.S. & Jones, N.S., 1963. Marine fauna of the Isle of Man. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.
Chia, F.S. & Spaulding, J.G., 1972. Development and juvenile growth of the sea anemone Tealia crassicornis. Biological Bulletin, Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole, 142, 206-218.
Cole, S., Codling, I.D., Parr, W. & Zabel, T., 1999. Guidelines for managing water quality impacts within UK European Marine sites. Natura 2000 report prepared for the UK Marine SACs Project. 441 pp., Swindon: Water Research Council on behalf of EN, SNH, CCW, JNCC, SAMS and EHS. [UK Marine SACs Project.]. Available from: http://ukmpa.marinebiodiversity.org/uk_sacs/pdfs/water_quality.pdf
Crisp, D.J. (ed.), 1964. The effects of the severe winter of 1962-63 on marine life in Britain. Journal of Animal Ecology, 33, 165-210.
Davis, D.S., 1967. The marine fauna of the Blackwater Estuary and adjacent waters. Essex Naturalist, 32, 1-60.
Elliott, J., 1992. The role of sea anemones as refuges and feeding habitats for the temperate fish Oxylebius pictus. Environmental Biology of Fishes, 35, 381-400.
Eno, N.C., Clark, R.A. & Sanderson, W.G. (ed.) 1997. Non-native marine species in British waters: a review and directory. Peterborough: Joint Nature Conservation Committee.
George, J.D., Tittley, I., Price, J.H., & Fincham, A.A., 1988. The macrobenthos of chalk shores in North Norfolk and around Flamborough Headland (North Humberside). Nature Conservancy Council CSD Rep. 833 149p., Peterborough: Nature Conservancy Council
Gosse, P.H., 1853. A naturalist's rambles on the Devonshire coast. London: Van Voorst.
Gosse, P.H., 1860. Actinologia Britannica: a history of British sea anemones and corals. London: Van Voorst.
Hand, C., 1955b. The sea anemones of central California. Part II. The endomyarian and mesomyarian anemones. The Wassmann Journal of Biology, 13, 37-99.
Hayward, P., Nelson-Smith, T. & Shields, C. 1996. Collins pocket guide. Sea shore of Britain and northern Europe. London: HarperCollins.
Hoare, R. & Hiscock, K., 1974. An ecological survey of the rocky coast adjacent to the effluent of a bromine extraction plant. Estuarine and Coastal Marine Science, 2 (4), 329-348.
Holme, N.A. & Wilson, J.B., 1985. Faunas associated with longitudinal furrows and sand ribbons in a tide-swept area in the English Channel. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 65, 1051-1072.
Houtman, R., Paul, L.R., Ungemach, R.V., & Ydenberg, R.C., 1997. Feeding and predator avoidance in the rose anemone Urticina piscivora. Marine Biology, 128, 225-229.
Howson, C.M. & Picton, B.E., 1997. The species directory of the marine fauna and flora of the British Isles and surrounding seas. Belfast: Ulster Museum. [Ulster Museum publication, no. 276.]
JNCC (Joint Nature Conservation Committee), 1999. Marine Environment Resource Mapping And Information Database (MERMAID): Marine Nature Conservation Review Survey Database. [on-line] http://www.jncc.gov.uk/mermaid
Manuel, R.L., 1988. British Anthozoa. Synopses of the British Fauna (New Series) (ed. D.M. Kermack & R.S.K. Barnes). The Linnean Society of London [Synopses of the British Fauna No. 18.]. DOI https://doi.org/10.1002/iroh.19810660505
MBA (Marine Biological Association), 1957. Plymouth Marine Fauna. Plymouth: Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom.
Meyling, A.W. Gmelig, 1998. Zeedahlia - Urticina felina (Linnaeus, 1761) http://wiebrand.www.cistron.nl/anemonen/urtfel.htm, 2000-09-01
Migné, A., & Davoult, D., 1995. Role des organismes suspensivores dans les transferts pélago-benthiques d'une zone de fort hydrodynamisme: approche expérimentale. Journal de Recherche Oceanographique, 20, 9-14.
Migné, A., & Davoult, D., 1997a. Ammonium excretion in two benthic cnidarians: Alcyonium digitatum (Linnaeus, 1758) and Urticina felina (Linnaeus, 1767). Journal of Sea Research, 37, 101-107.
Moen, F.E., 1996. Urticina felina Fjaeresjorose.
NMMP, 2001. National Marine Monitoring Programme (NMMP). http://www.marlin.ac.uk, 2001-01-17
Picton, B.E. & Costello, M.J., 1998. BioMar biotope viewer: a guide to marine habitats, fauna and flora of Britain and Ireland. [CD-ROM] Environmental Sciences Unit, Trinity College, Dublin.
Rasmussen, E., 1973. Systematics and ecology of the Isefjord marine fauna (Denmark). Ophelia, 11, 1-507.
Reidy, S. 1996. Comparison of associations of the nudibranch Aeolidia papillosa with two sea anemones Urticina crassicornis and Metridium senile. In Proceedings of the 24th Annual Benthic Ecology Meeting, Columbia, South Carolina, March 7-10, 1996 (ed. S.A. Woodin et al.), pp. 68.
Smith, J.E. (ed.), 1968. 'Torrey Canyon'. Pollution and marine life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Solé-Cava, A.M. & Thorpe, J.P., 1992. Genetic divergence between colour morphs in populations of the common intertidal sea anemones Actinia equina and A. prasina (Anthozoa: Actiniaria). Marine Biology, 112, 243-252.
Solé-Cava, A.M., Thorpe, J.P. & Kay, J.G., 1985. Reproductive isolation with little genetic divergence between Urticina (= Tealia) felina and U. eques (Anthozoa: Actiniaria). Marine Biology, 85, 279-284.
Solé-Cava, A.M., Thorpe, J.P. & Todd, C.D., 1994. High genetic similarity between geographically distant populations in a sea anemone with low dispersal capabilities. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 74, 895-902.
Spaulding, J.G., 1974. Embryonic and larval development in sea anemones (Anthozoa: Actiniaria). American Zoologist, 14, 511-520.
Stephenson, T.A., 1935. The British Sea Anemones, vol. 2. London: Ray Society.
Wedi, S.E., & Dunn, D.F., 1983. Gametogenesis and reproductive periodicity of the subtidal sea anemone Urticina lofotensis (Coelenterata: Actiniaria) in California. Biological Bulletin, Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole, 165, 458-472.
Bristol Regional Environmental Records Centre, 2017. BRERC species records recorded over 15 years ago. Occurrence dataset: https://doi.org/10.15468/h1ln5p accessed via GBIF.org on 2018-09-25.
Bristol Regional Environmental Records Centre, 2017. BRERC species records within last 15 years. Occurrence dataset: https://doi.org/10.15468/vntgox accessed via GBIF.org on 2018-09-25.
Centre for Environmental Data and Recording, 2018. IBIS Project Data. Occurrence dataset: https://www.nmni.com/CEDaR/CEDaR-Centre-for-Environmental-Data-and-Recording.aspx accessed via NBNAtlas.org on 2018-09-25.
Centre for Environmental Data and Recording, 2018. Ulster Museum Marine Surveys of Northern Ireland Coastal Waters. Occurrence dataset https://www.nmni.com/CEDaR/CEDaR-Centre-for-Environmental-Data-and-Recording.aspx accessed via NBNAtlas.org on 2018-09-25.
Cofnod – North Wales Environmental Information Service, 2018. Miscellaneous records held on the Cofnod database. Occurrence dataset: https://doi.org/10.15468/hcgqsi accessed via GBIF.org on 2018-09-25.
Environmental Records Information Centre North East, 2018. ERIC NE Combined dataset to 2017. Occurrence dataset: http://www.ericnortheast.org.ukl accessed via NBNAtlas.org on 2018-09-38
Fenwick, 2018. Aphotomarine. Occurrence dataset http://www.aphotomarine.com/index.html Accessed via NBNAtlas.org on 2018-10-01
Fife Nature Records Centre, 2018. St Andrews BioBlitz 2014. Occurrence dataset: https://doi.org/10.15468/erweal accessed via GBIF.org on 2018-09-27.
Fife Nature Records Centre, 2018. St Andrews BioBlitz 2015. Occurrence dataset: https://doi.org/10.15468/xtrbvy accessed via GBIF.org on 2018-09-27.
Fife Nature Records Centre, 2018. St Andrews BioBlitz 2016. Occurrence dataset: https://doi.org/10.15468/146yiz accessed via GBIF.org on 2018-09-27.
Isle of Wight Local Records Centre, 2017. IOW Natural History & Archaeological Society Marine Invertebrate Records 1853- 2011. Occurrence dataset: https://doi.org/10.15468/d9amhg accessed via GBIF.org on 2018-09-27.
Kent Wildlife Trust, 2018. Kent Wildlife Trust Shoresearch Intertidal Survey 2004 onwards. Occurrence dataset: https://www.kentwildlifetrust.org.uk/ accessed via NBNAtlas.org on 2018-10-01.
Manx Biological Recording Partnership, 2017. Isle of Man wildlife records from 01/01/2000 to 13/02/2017. Occurrence dataset: https://doi.org/10.15468/mopwow accessed via GBIF.org on 2018-10-01.
Manx Biological Recording Partnership, 2018. Isle of Man historical wildlife records 1990 to 1994. Occurrence dataset: https://doi.org/10.15468/aru16v accessed via GBIF.org on 2018-10-01.
Manx Biological Recording Partnership, 2018. Isle of Man historical wildlife records 1990 to 1994. Occurrence dataset:https://doi.org/10.15468/aru16v accessed via GBIF.org on 2018-10-01.
Manx Biological Recording Partnership, 2018. Isle of Man historical wildlife records 1995 to 1999. Occurrence dataset: https://doi.org/10.15468/lo2tge accessed via GBIF.org on 2018-10-01.
National Trust, 2017. National Trust Species Records. Occurrence dataset: https://doi.org/10.15468/opc6g1 accessed via GBIF.org on 2018-10-01.
NBN (National Biodiversity Network) Atlas. Available from: https://www.nbnatlas.org.
North East Scotland Biological Records Centre, 2017. NE Scotland other invertebrate records 1800-2010. Occurrence dataset: https://doi.org/10.15468/ifjfxz accessed via GBIF.org on 2018-10-01.
OBIS (Ocean Biodiversity Information System), 2023. Global map of species distribution using gridded data. Available from: Ocean Biogeographic Information System. www.iobis.org. Accessed: 2023-06-05
Outer Hebrides Biological Recording, 2018. Invertebrates (except insects), Outer Hebrides. Occurrence dataset: https://doi.org/10.15468/hpavud accessed via GBIF.org on 2018-10-01.
South East Wales Biodiversity Records Centre, 2018. SEWBReC Marine and other Aquatic Invertebrates (South East Wales). Occurrence dataset:https://doi.org/10.15468/zxy1n6 accessed via GBIF.org on 2018-10-02.
South East Wales Biodiversity Records Centre, 2018. Dr Mary Gillham Archive Project. Occurance dataset: http://www.sewbrec.org.uk/ accessed via NBNAtlas.org on 2018-10-02
The Wildlife Information Centre, 2018. TWIC Biodiversity Field Trip Data (1995-present). Occurrence dataset: https://doi.org/10.15468/ljc0ke accessed via GBIF.org on 2018-10-02.
Yorkshire Wildlife Trust, 2018. Yorkshire Wildlife Trust Shoresearch. Occurrence dataset: https://doi.org/10.15468/1nw3ch accessed via GBIF.org on 2018-10-02.
This review can be cited as:
Last Updated: 29/04/2008