Field notes
Encounter profile
Identified using iNaturalist WoRMS.
Species profile
Bornella anguilla
Identified using iNaturalist WoRMS.
Photographic identification review
2/3 exact media auditedBornella anguilla
Probable assessment across 2 exact media items. The archive is currently filed as Bornella anguilla; a reviewed hypothesis is evidence, not a silent relabelling.
Archive ecology
SNAP observations, not the species’ full biological range.
Depth basis: 0 recorded, 2 profile-estimated, 1 contextual.
An early signal
3 environment-linked observations are available so far. More encounters will show whether a repeatable pattern emerges.
Indicative archive pattern · 3 observations / 3 dives
Creature trail
Species field guide
Field notes
Identified using iNaturalist WoRMS.
Identification audit
2 assessments across 2 exact media items. Each records who reviewed the image, when, what they concluded, and why. These assessments remain separate from iNaturalist computer vision and from the current canonical Gallery label.

Latest audit record
Reviewed by Codex identification research on Aug 29, 2026 · 97% reviewer confidence.
Reasoning recorded at review
Alternatives considered
Why plausible: A widespread reticulate congener, but its more branched or bulbous processes and orange-reticulate body do not match the simple flattened striped flaps and dark mosaic here.
Comparison: A direct specimen comparison of process branching, radula and reproductive anatomy would resolve any residual overlap.
Why plausible: Retained as a named congener, although the published yellow-brown and black pattern conflicts with this cream-dark-orange mosaic.
Comparison: Internal anatomy and an unobstructed count of every dorsal process would provide definitive exclusion.
Why plausible: Other congeners can be mottled, but generally have more branched, less laterally flattened rhinophore sheaths and processes.
Comparison: Radular and penial-armature characters or DNA are required for specimen-level confirmation.

Latest audit record
Reviewed by Codex identification research on Aug 29, 2026 · 97% reviewer confidence.
Reasoning recorded at review
Alternatives considered
Why plausible: A widespread reticulate congener, but its more branched or bulbous processes and orange-reticulate body do not match the simple flattened striped flaps and dark mosaic here.
Comparison: A direct specimen comparison of process branching, radula and reproductive anatomy would resolve any residual overlap.
Why plausible: Retained as a named congener, although the published yellow-brown and black pattern conflicts with this cream-dark-orange mosaic.
Comparison: Internal anatomy and an unobstructed count of every dorsal process would provide definitive exclusion.
Why plausible: Other congeners can be mottled, but generally have more branched, less laterally flattened rhinophore sheaths and processes.
Comparison: Radular and penial-armature characters or DNA are required for specimen-level confirmation.
Archive
3 media items
Optional context
Continue exploring
Species photographed on the same dives come first, followed by close taxonomic neighbours.




