DOCSLIB.ORG

Native Piscifauna of Utah Lake A. Gaylon Cook

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Native Piscifauna of Utah Lake A. Gaylon Cook NATIVE PISCIFAUNA OF UTAH LAKE A. GAYLON COOK BIOCONSERVATION INTERNATIONAL 3306 N CANYON RD PROVO UT 84604-4548 Running Head: NATIVE PISCIFAUNA OF UTAH LAKE NATIVE PISCIFAUNA OF UTAH LAKE A. Gaylon Cook' ABSTRACT.— A thorough search of the descriptive and systematic ichthyological literature disclosed the piscine specimens from Utah Lake, and manifested an elaborate web of supposed synonyms for which there were nomenclatural as well as species-assignment errors. In this review, the characteristics of piscine examples from Utah Lake, and forms that have been considered to be their conspecifics, are delineated and contrasted; deductions about valid synonyms are made. A careful comparison of the morphologic descriptions of exemplars of Utah lake forms and their putative conspecifics requires that the synonymies of several taxa be pared. By providing a comprehensive bibliography, and furnishing winnowed synonymies of Utah Lake forms that signal which forms to reexamine, this paper establishes a basis for needed chemical taxonomic analyses such as DNA-DNA hybridization tests. Also, the detailed descriptions of taxa available herein constitute a resource that can be used for such purposes as distinguishing species in periodic ichthyological surveys of Utah Lake or identifying taxa (e.g., suckers) during endangered species recovery-plan activities. Key Words: piscifauna, ichthyofauna, Utah Lake, fish, fishes, taxonomy, systematics, synonymy, native. Utah Lake, closely bordered by the city of Provo, is a 38,800-ha body of fresh water in central Utah measuring 23.5 by 38.0 km (Carter 1969: 2, Radant and Sakaguchi 1981: derived from Fig. 1). It has an average depth of 2.9 m and a maximal depth of 4.2 m (Radant and Sakaguchi 1981: 2). Formerly it collected a flow of 740 million m3/yr (Arnold 1960: 11-17). Jordan and Gilbert (1881) provided the first report on the ichthyofauna of Utah Lake; 1 form collected near Evanston, Wyoming was included. Although Jordan (1891) furnished an account of the fishes of Salt Lake Valley and Utah Valley, whose combined areas he considered to constitute "Salt Lake Basin", the next treatise specifically treating the piscifauna of Utah Lake was Hatton's (1932) review. The most recent document on this subject was an article by Heckmann et al. (1981) whose cursory treatment of native fishes consisted principally of an unreferenced annotated list. La 'Bioconservation International, Provo, Utah 84604-4548. GREAT BASIN NATURALIST 2 Rivers' (1962) reference contains synonymic lists for most of the ichthyofauna of Utah Lake. No work has comprehensively characterized these fishes or unsnarled and expounded their synonymies. Many publications (see below) have treated 1 piscine taxon from Utah Lake. In totality, they evince multiple nomenclatural errors, and remarkably extensive synonymies for most taxa due partially to age-related differential morphologies. Herein, the chronologies and explanations of reported (and often inordinate) synonymies, are based on a perusal of a plethora of descriptive or taxonomic documents pertaining to native Utah Lake fishes or putative synonyms. All were scrutinized and compared to reveal corroborations, or discrepancies and contradictions. Piscine taxonomy has been affected most by the massive lumping of species by Jordan and Evermann (1896a,b, 1898a,b). That action's impact persists. Of the 11 piscine forms from Utah Lake that were considered to be species by Robins et al. (1991), 8 were regarded as polytypic by Mayden et al. (1992: table 1). Ignorance about the phylogenetic relationships of Utah Lake fishes is underscored by the dispute about the number of sucker species present (see below). Significantly, it is not known whether certain piscine taxa of Utah Lake constitute endemic species or subspecies that would be worthy of endangered status. The principal aim of this review is to establish a sound basis for defining and delimiting as precisely as possible the native piscifauna of Utah Lake. It is hoped that it will lay the groundwork for further systematic investigations. Taxonomic studies employing DNA-DNA hybridization analyses, as well as those that might utilize biochemistry, immunology, serology, protein sequencing, or comparative anatomy, need to be performed on Utah Lake's native fishes and their putative conspecifics. Besides being quick, DNA hybridization offers the most precise quantitative comparisons (Sibley and Alquist 1990: 3). It is also anticipated that the characterizations that are presented here will assist ichthyologists in identifying Utah Lake fishes. For example, descriptive data on catostomids can be used by field biologists with the Utah Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife Resources in their effort to identify endangered adult June Suckers (Chasmistes Bow), and distinguish them from Webug Suckers (Chasmistes fecundus) and Utah Suckers (Catostomus ardens) during spawning-season sampling and reproductive facilitation in lower Provo River. Suckers are frequently misidentified by these biologists during reproductive surveys that are NATIVE PISCIFAUNA OF UTAH LAKE 3 performed as a part of the June Sucker recovery plan (Charles W. Thompson, personal communication). The temporally-related comparative incidence of the fishes of Utah Lake will be treated in a future paper. Textual and tabular notes of the Utah Lake Fish Management Advisory Team (1994: 16, table 1) indicating that Cope and Yarrow (1876) identified examples of 4 piscine species from Utah Lake, and that 1 of them was Gila nigrescens, are in error. ANNOTATED SYNONYMIES AND DESCRIPTIONS OF TAXA CLASS OSTEICHTHYES ORDER CYPRINIFORMES Family Cyprinidae Leatherside Chub Gila copei (Cope's Gila: Gila is a river near the border of USA and Mexico; copei refers to Professor Edward Drinker Cope, who as a leader of the Wheeler Survey, collected and identified many animals in the western USA in the 1870s). The description of Tigoma gracilis, taken at 41° N latitude (Girard 1857a: 26, c: 166, 206-207, 1858b: 293), has been interpreted (Jordan 1891, Jordan and Evermann 1896a: 236, Jordan et al. 1930: 119, Hayes 1935: 67) to indicate that this form was a synonym. Girard (1858b) did not equate his T. gracilis with Gila gracilis of Baird and Girard (1854a) but Cope and Yarrow (1876: 665) and Jordan (1878a: 424) later did. Jordan (1887b: 818-819) considered G. gracilis and Phoxinus (=Tigoma) gracilis to be separate. Jordan and Evermann (1896a: 227-228) and Jordan et al. (1930: 114) synonymized G. gracilis, which had a short, deep body and dorsal and anal fins bearing 3 rudimentary spiny rays, with Gila robusta. In contrast to G. gracilis, the Leatherside Chub from Utah's Provo and Spanish Fork Rivers had next to the slenderest body (body depth / body length [BD/BL] = 22.4 ± 1.5% [± 1 SD from the mean]; n = 55) and next to the slimmest caudal peduncle (depth = 11.0 ± 0.5% of BL En = 54]; length = 23.3 ± 1.2% of BL = 551) (see Girard 1857a,c, 1858b, Jordan and Gilbert 1882: 238-239, Jouy 1882, and Jordan and Evermann 1896a: 236) of the 6 cyprinids of Utah Lake and its affluents (Hayes 1935: derived from tables 2, 17-20, 22-23, 27-30, 35, 37). Jordan (1891) reported that the 2 types of the vaguely described T. gracilis had been lost; Jordan et al. (1930: 119) noted that this form was unidentifiable. GREAT BASIN NATURALIST 4 There is no evidence to support Jordan's (1887a) report that Platygobio gracilis exists in Salt Lake Basin. Jordan and Gilbert (1881) described examples of Squalius copei from tributaries of Bear River near Evanston, Wyoming, affirming that Hybopsis egregius of Cope (1872a) and Gila egregia of Cope and Yarrow (1876: 662) were synonyms of it but that Tigoma egregia of Girard (1857a: 25, 1858b: 291-292) was not because the number of scales along its lateral line (Su = 66) (see also Jordan 1891; Jordan and Gilbert [1882: 236] indicated that Su = 65) was too low. However, Cope (1872a) had regarded H. egregius and T. egregia as synonymous. Accordingly, Jordan and Gilbert (1882: 238-239) did not include the sketchily described H. egregius as a synonym of S. copei either. Jordan (1887b: 819) regarded Phoxinus (= Tigoma) egregius and Phoxinus (= Squalius) copei as distinct forms. Jordan (1891) excluded Cope and Yarrow's (1876) G. egregia from "Loma, Rio Grande, Colo" as a synonym of Leuciscus copei, while including G. egregia from Utah's Beaver River. Other synonyms of the Leatherside Chub are Alburnellus? sp. from Utah Lake (Cope 1876) and Squalius aliciae (Phoxinus aliciae of Jordan [1887b]) from Utah Lake (Jordan and Gilbert 1882: 238, Jouy 1882) or Provo River near that lake (Jordan and Evermann 1896a: 236, b: 248). Although Jordan and Evermann (1896a) revealed with a list of 3 synonyms that copei had priority (the types of T. gracilis had been lost and gracilis was preoccupied in Leuciscus), they named the species L. aliciae after the wife of a biologist with whom Jordan coauthored a work (Jordan and Jouy 1882) rather than after Cope, but then reversed themselves (Jordan et al. 1930: 119), calling the taxon Cheonda copei. Later, it was referenced as Richardsonius copei (Hayes 1935: 67, Tanner 1936), Snyderichthys copei (Bailey et al. 1960: 17), and finally Gila copei (Sigler and Miller 1963: 74-76, Robins et al. 1991: 20). This species had a rounded snout, equal jaws, and a rather small, low, terminal, and oblique mouth with irregular, uncinate teeth (Jordan and Gilbert 1882: 238-239, Jouy 1882, Jordan and Evermann 1896a: 236, Hayes 1935: 68). Maxillae extended caudad to a point ventrad to the rostral border of the eyes (Girard 1857a: 26, 1858b: 293, Jordan and Gilbert 1882, Jouy 1882, Hayes 1935). Jordan and Evermann's (1896a) statement that maxillae continued slightly beyond that point was not grounded in evidence. The broad head (width f.-- 56-60% of length) had a slightly convex interorbital span which in S. aliciae (Jordan and Gilbert NATIVE PISCIFAUNA OF UTAH LAKE 5 1882, Jouy 1882) = 8.2% of BL, and in R.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Fisheries and Aquatic Ecosystems Technical Report
    Draft Fisheries and Aquatic Ecosystems Technical Report Shasta Lake Water Resources Investigation Prepared by: United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Mid-Pacific Region U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation June 2013 Contents Contents Chapter 1 Affected Environment .................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Environmental Setting ............................................................................................... 1-1 1.1.1 Aquatic Habitat ................................................................................................. 1-1 1.1.2 Fisheries Resources......................................................................................... 1-13 1.1.3 Aquatic Macroinvertebrates ............................................................................ 1-48 Chapter 2 Impact Assessment .......................................................................................... 2-1 Chapter 3 References ........................................................................................................ 3-1 3.1 Printed Sources .......................................................................................................... 3-1 3.2 Personal Communications ....................................................................................... 3-14 Tables Table 1-1. Fish Species Known to Occur in Primary Study Area ............................................. 1-13 Table 1-2. Central Valley Fish Species Potentially Affected
    [Show full text]
  • Roundtail Chub (Gila Robusta Robusta): a Technical Conservation Assessment
    Roundtail Chub (Gila robusta robusta): A Technical Conservation Assessment Prepared for the USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Species Conservation Project May 3, 2005 David E. Rees, Jonathan A. Ptacek, and William J. Miller Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 1113 Stoney Hill Drive, Suite A Fort Collins, Colorado 80525-1275 Peer Review Administered by American Fisheries Society Rees, D.E., J.A. Ptacek, and W.J. Miller. (2005, May 3). Roundtail Chub (Gila robusta robusta): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http:// www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/roundtailchub.pdf [date of access]. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We would like to thank those people who promoted, assisted, and supported this species assessment for the Region 2 USDA Forest Service. Ryan Carr and Kellie Richardson conducted preliminary literature reviews and were valuable in the determination of important or usable literature. Laura Hillger provided assistance with report preparation and dissemination. Numerous individuals from Region 2 national forests were willing to discuss the status and management of this species. Thanks go to Greg Eaglin (Medicine Bow National Forest), Dave Gerhardt (San Juan National Forest), Kathy Foster (Routt National Forest), Clay Spease and Chris James (Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forest), Christine Hirsch (White River National Forest), as well as Gary Patton and Joy Bartlett from the Regional Office. Dan Brauh, Lory Martin, Tom Nesler, Kevin Rogers, and Allen Zincush, all of the Colorado Division of Wildlife, provided information on species distribution, management, and current regulations. AUTHORS’ BIOGRAPHIES David E. Rees studied fishery biology, aquatic ecology, and ecotoxicology at Colorado State University where he received his B.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Information on the NCWRC's Scientific Council of Fishes Rare
    A Summary of the 2010 Reevaluation of Status Listings for Jeopardized Freshwater Fishes in North Carolina Submitted by Bryn H. Tracy North Carolina Division of Water Resources North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Raleigh, NC On behalf of the NCWRC’s Scientific Council of Fishes November 01, 2014 Bigeye Jumprock, Scartomyzon (Moxostoma) ariommum, State Threatened Photograph by Noel Burkhead and Robert Jenkins, courtesy of the Virginia Division of Game and Inland Fisheries and the Southeastern Fishes Council (http://www.sefishescouncil.org/). Table of Contents Page Introduction......................................................................................................................................... 3 2010 Reevaluation of Status Listings for Jeopardized Freshwater Fishes In North Carolina ........... 4 Summaries from the 2010 Reevaluation of Status Listings for Jeopardized Freshwater Fishes in North Carolina .......................................................................................................................... 12 Recent Activities of NCWRC’s Scientific Council of Fishes .................................................. 13 North Carolina’s Imperiled Fish Fauna, Part I, Ohio Lamprey .............................................. 14 North Carolina’s Imperiled Fish Fauna, Part II, “Atlantic” Highfin Carpsucker ...................... 17 North Carolina’s Imperiled Fish Fauna, Part III, Tennessee Darter ...................................... 20 North Carolina’s Imperiled Fish Fauna, Part
    [Show full text]
  • Endangered Species
    FEATURE: ENDANGERED SPECIES Conservation Status of Imperiled North American Freshwater and Diadromous Fishes ABSTRACT: This is the third compilation of imperiled (i.e., endangered, threatened, vulnerable) plus extinct freshwater and diadromous fishes of North America prepared by the American Fisheries Society’s Endangered Species Committee. Since the last revision in 1989, imperilment of inland fishes has increased substantially. This list includes 700 extant taxa representing 133 genera and 36 families, a 92% increase over the 364 listed in 1989. The increase reflects the addition of distinct populations, previously non-imperiled fishes, and recently described or discovered taxa. Approximately 39% of described fish species of the continent are imperiled. There are 230 vulnerable, 190 threatened, and 280 endangered extant taxa, and 61 taxa presumed extinct or extirpated from nature. Of those that were imperiled in 1989, most (89%) are the same or worse in conservation status; only 6% have improved in status, and 5% were delisted for various reasons. Habitat degradation and nonindigenous species are the main threats to at-risk fishes, many of which are restricted to small ranges. Documenting the diversity and status of rare fishes is a critical step in identifying and implementing appropriate actions necessary for their protection and management. Howard L. Jelks, Frank McCormick, Stephen J. Walsh, Joseph S. Nelson, Noel M. Burkhead, Steven P. Platania, Salvador Contreras-Balderas, Brady A. Porter, Edmundo Díaz-Pardo, Claude B. Renaud, Dean A. Hendrickson, Juan Jacobo Schmitter-Soto, John Lyons, Eric B. Taylor, and Nicholas E. Mandrak, Melvin L. Warren, Jr. Jelks, Walsh, and Burkhead are research McCormick is a biologist with the biologists with the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Endangered and Threatened Animals of Utah
    Endangered and Threatened Animals of Utah Quinney Professorship for Wildlife Conflict Management Jack H. Berryman Institute U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Utah Department of Natural Resources Division of Wildlife Resources Utah State University Extension Service Endangered and Threatened Animals of Utah 1998 Acknowledgments This publication was produced by Utah State University Extension Service Department of Fisheries and Wildlife The Jack H. Berryman Institute Utah Division of Wildlife U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Office of Extension and Publications Contributing Authors Purpose and Introduction Terry Messmer Marilet Zablan Mammals Boyde Blackwell Athena Menses Birds Frank Howe Fishes Leo Lentsch Terry Messmer Richard Drake Reptiles and Invertebrates Terry Messmer Richard Drake Utah Sensitive Species List Frank Howe Editors Terry Messmer Richard Drake Audrey McElrone Publication Publication Assistance by Remani Rajagopal Layout and design by Gail Christensen USU Publication Design and Production Quinney Professorship for Wildlife Conflict Management This bulletin was developed under the auspices of the Quinney Professorship for Wildlife Conflict Management through the sponsorship of the S. J. and Jessie E. Quinney Foundation in partnership with the College of Natural Resources, Jack H. Berryman Institute for Wild- life Damage Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Utah Department of Natural Resources, and Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. i Contents Purpose of this Guide . iii Introduction . v What are endangered and threatened species? . vi Why some species become endangered or threatened? . vi Why protect endangered species? . vi The Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) . viii Mammals Black-footed Ferret . 1 Grizzly Bear . 5 Gray Wolf . 9 Utah Prairie Dog . 13 Birds Bald Eagle .
    [Show full text]
  • Kansas Stream Fishes
    A POCKET GUIDE TO Kansas Stream Fishes ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ By Jessica Mounts Illustrations © Joseph Tomelleri Sponsored by Chickadee Checkoff, Westar Energy Green Team, Kansas Department of Wildlife, Parks and Tourism, Kansas Alliance for Wetlands & Streams, and Kansas Chapter of the American Fisheries Society Published by the Friends of the Great Plains Nature Center Table of Contents • Introduction • 2 • Fish Anatomy • 3 • Species Accounts: Sturgeons (Family Acipenseridae) • 4 ■ Shovelnose Sturgeon • 5 ■ Pallid Sturgeon • 6 Minnows (Family Cyprinidae) • 7 ■ Southern Redbelly Dace • 8 ■ Western Blacknose Dace • 9 ©Ryan Waters ■ Bluntface Shiner • 10 ■ Red Shiner • 10 ■ Spotfin Shiner • 11 ■ Central Stoneroller • 12 ■ Creek Chub • 12 ■ Peppered Chub / Shoal Chub • 13 Plains Minnow ■ Silver Chub • 14 ■ Hornyhead Chub / Redspot Chub • 15 ■ Gravel Chub • 16 ■ Brassy Minnow • 17 ■ Plains Minnow / Western Silvery Minnow • 18 ■ Cardinal Shiner • 19 ■ Common Shiner • 20 ■ Bigmouth Shiner • 21 ■ • 21 Redfin Shiner Cover Photo: Photo by Ryan ■ Carmine Shiner • 22 Waters. KDWPT Stream ■ Golden Shiner • 22 Survey and Assessment ■ Program collected these Topeka Shiner • 23 male Orangespotted Sunfish ■ Bluntnose Minnow • 24 from Buckner Creek in Hodgeman County, Kansas. ■ Bigeye Shiner • 25 The fish were catalogued ■ Emerald Shiner • 26 and returned to the stream ■ Sand Shiner • 26 after the photograph. ■ Bullhead Minnow • 27 ■ Fathead Minnow • 27 ■ Slim Minnow • 28 ■ Suckermouth Minnow • 28 Suckers (Family Catostomidae) • 29 ■ River Carpsucker •
    [Show full text]
  • Molecular Systematics of Western North American Cyprinids (Cypriniformes: Cyprinidae)
    Zootaxa 3586: 281–303 (2012) ISSN 1175-5326 (print edition) www.mapress.com/zootaxa/ ZOOTAXA Copyright © 2012 · Magnolia Press Article ISSN 1175-5334 (online edition) urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:0EFA9728-D4BB-467E-A0E0-0DA89E7E30AD Molecular systematics of western North American cyprinids (Cypriniformes: Cyprinidae) SUSANA SCHÖNHUTH 1, DENNIS K. SHIOZAWA 2, THOMAS E. DOWLING 3 & RICHARD L. MAYDEN 1 1 Department of Biology, Saint Louis University, 3507 Laclede Avenue, St. Louis, MO 63103, USA. E-mail S.S: [email protected] ; E-mail RLM: [email protected] 2 Department of Biology and Curator of Fishes, Monte L. Bean Life Science Museum, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT 84602, USA. E-mail: [email protected] 3 School of Life Sciences, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-4501, USA. E-mail: [email protected] Abstract The phylogenetic or evolutionary relationships of species of Cypriniformes, as well as their classification, is in a era of flux. For the first time ever, the Order, and constituent Families are being examined for relationships within a phylogenetic context. Relevant findings as to sister-group relationships are largely being inferred from analyses of both mitochondrial and nuclear DNA sequences. Like the vast majority of Cypriniformes, due to an overall lack of any phylogenetic investigation of these fishes since Hennig’s transformation of the discipline, changes in hypotheses of relationships and a natural classification of the species should not be of surprise to anyone. Basically, for most taxa no properly supported phylogenetic hypothesis has ever been done; and this includes relationships with reasonable taxon and character sampling of even families and subfamilies.
    [Show full text]
  • Extinction Rates in North American Freshwater Fishes, 1900–2010 Author(S): Noel M
    Extinction Rates in North American Freshwater Fishes, 1900–2010 Author(s): Noel M. Burkhead Source: BioScience, 62(9):798-808. 2012. Published By: American Institute of Biological Sciences URL: http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.1525/bio.2012.62.9.5 BioOne (www.bioone.org) is a nonprofit, online aggregation of core research in the biological, ecological, and environmental sciences. BioOne provides a sustainable online platform for over 170 journals and books published by nonprofit societies, associations, museums, institutions, and presses. Your use of this PDF, the BioOne Web site, and all posted and associated content indicates your acceptance of BioOne’s Terms of Use, available at www.bioone.org/page/terms_of_use. Usage of BioOne content is strictly limited to personal, educational, and non-commercial use. Commercial inquiries or rights and permissions requests should be directed to the individual publisher as copyright holder. BioOne sees sustainable scholarly publishing as an inherently collaborative enterprise connecting authors, nonprofit publishers, academic institutions, research libraries, and research funders in the common goal of maximizing access to critical research. Articles Extinction Rates in North American Freshwater Fishes, 1900–2010 NOEL M. BURKHEAD Widespread evidence shows that the modern rates of extinction in many plants and animals exceed background rates in the fossil record. In the present article, I investigate this issue with regard to North American freshwater fishes. From 1898 to 2006, 57 taxa became extinct, and three distinct populations were extirpated from the continent. Since 1989, the numbers of extinct North American fishes have increased by 25%. From the end of the nineteenth century to the present, modern extinctions varied by decade but significantly increased after 1950 (post-1950s mean = 7.5 extinct taxa per decade).
    [Show full text]
  • 1994 IUCN Red List of Threatened Animals
    The lUCN Species Survival Commission 1994 lUCN Red List of Threatened Animals Compiled by the World Conservation Monitoring Centre PADU - MGs COPY DO NOT REMOVE lUCN The World Conservation Union lo-^2^ 1994 lUCN Red List of Threatened Animals lUCN WORLD CONSERVATION Tile World Conservation Union species susvival commission monitoring centre WWF i Suftanate of Oman 1NYZ5 TTieWlLDUFE CONSERVATION SOCIET'' PEOPLE'S TRISr BirdLife 9h: KX ENIUNGMEDSPEaES INTERNATIONAL fdreningen Chicago Zoulog k.J SnuicTy lUCN - The World Conservation Union lUCN - The World Conservation Union brings together States, government agencies and a diverse range of non-governmental organisations in a unique world partnership: some 770 members in all, spread across 123 countries. - As a union, I UCN exists to serve its members to represent their views on the world stage and to provide them with the concepts, strategies and technical support they need to achieve their goals. Through its six Commissions, lUCN draws together over 5000 expert volunteers in project teams and action groups. A central secretariat coordinates the lUCN Programme and leads initiatives on the conservation and sustainable use of the world's biological diversity and the management of habitats and natural resources, as well as providing a range of services. The Union has helped many countries to prepare National Conservation Strategies, and demonstrates the application of its knowledge through the field projects it supervises. Operations are increasingly decentralised and are carried forward by an expanding network of regional and country offices, located principally in developing countries. I UCN - The World Conservation Union seeks above all to work with its members to achieve development that is sustainable and that provides a lasting Improvement in the quality of life for people all over the world.
    [Show full text]
  • 5Th Indo-Pacific Fish Conference
    )tn Judo - Pacifi~ Fish Conference oun a - e II denia ( vernb ~ 3 - t 1997 A ST ACTS Organized by Under the aegis of L'Institut français Société de recherche scientifique Française pour le développement d'Ichtyologie en coopération ' FI Fish Conference Nouméa - New Caledonia November 3 - 8 th, 1997 ABSTRACTS LATE ARRIVAL ZOOLOGICAL CATALOG OF AUSTRALIAN FISHES HOESE D.F., PAXTON J. & G. ALLEN Australian Museum, Sydney, Australia Currently over 4000 species of fishes are known from Australia. An analysis ofdistribution patterns of 3800 species is presented. Over 20% of the species are endemic to Australia, with endemic species occuiring primarily in southern Australia. There is also a small component of the fauna which is found only in the southwestern Pacific (New Caledonia, Lord Howe Island, Norfolk Island and New Zealand). The majority of the other species are widely distributed in the western Pacific Ocean. AGE AND GROWTH OF TROPICAL TUNAS FROM THE WESTERN CENTRAL PACIFIC OCEAN, AS INDICATED BY DAILY GROWm INCREMENTS AND TAGGING DATA. LEROY B. South Pacific Commission, Nouméa, New Caledonia The Oceanic Fisheries Programme of the South Pacific Commission is currently pursuing a research project on age and growth of two tropical tuna species, yellowfm tuna (Thunnus albacares) and bigeye tuna (Thunnus obesus). The daily periodicity of microincrements forrned with the sagittal otoliths of these two spceies has been validated by oxytetracycline marking in previous studies. These validation studies have come from fishes within three regions of the Pacific (eastem, central and western tropical Pacific). Otolith microincrements are counted along transverse section with a light microscope.
    [Show full text]
  • Phylogenetic Relationships of Eurasian and American Cyprinids Using Cytochrome B Sequences
    Journal of Fish Biology (2002) 61, 929–944 doi:10.1006/jfbi.2002.2105, available online at http://www.idealibrary.com on Phylogenetic relationships of Eurasian and American cyprinids using cytochrome b sequences C. C*, N. M*, T. E. D†, A. G‡ M. M. C*§ *Centro de Biologia Ambiental, Departamento de Zoologia e Antropologia, Faculdade de Cieˆncia de Lisboa, Campo Grande, Bloco C2, 3 Piso. 1749-016 Lisboa, Portugal, †Department of Biology, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona 85287-1501, U.S.A. and ‡Laboratoire d’Hydrobiology, Universite´ de Provence, 1 Place Victor Hugo, 1331 Marseille, France (Received 30 January 2002, Accepted 6 August 2002) Neighbour-joining and parsimony analyses identified five lineages of cyprinids: (1) European leuciscins (including Notemigonus)+North American phoxinins (including Phoxinus phoxinus); (2) European gobionins+Pseudorasbora; (3) primarily Asian groups [cultrins+acheilognathins+ gobionins (excluding Abbotina)+xenocyprinins]; (4) Abbottina+Sinocyclocheilus+Acrossocheilus; (5) cyprinins [excluding Sinocyclocheilus and Acrossocheilus]+barbins+labeonins. Relationships among these lineages and the enigmatic taxa Rhodeus were not well-resolved. Tests of mono- phyly of subfamilies and previously proposed relationships were examined by constraining cytochrome b sequences data to fit previous hypotheses. The analysis of constrained trees indicated that sequence data were not consistent with most previously proposed relationships. Inconsistency was largely attributable to Asian taxa, such as Xenocypris and Xenocyprioides. Improved understanding of historical and taxonomic relationships in Cyprinidae will require further morphological and molecular studies on Asian cyprinids and taxa representative of the diversity found in Africa. 2002 The Fisheries Society of the British Isles. Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. Key words: Cyprinidae; molecular phylogeny; cytochrome b; monophyly of subfamilies.
    [Show full text]
  • Annotated Key to the Fishes of Indiana
    IF ANNOTATED KEY TO THE FISHES OF INDIANA Joseph S. Nelson and Shelby D. Gerking Department of Zoology, Indiana University, Bloomington Indiana Aquatic Research Unit Project Number 342-303-815 March, 1968 INN MN UM OM MI NMI 11111111 MI IIIIII NMI OM MS ill MI NM NM NM OM it Draft Copy ANNOTATED KEY TO THE FISHES OF INDIANA Joseph S. Nelson and Shelby D. Gerking Introduction This annotated key provides a means of identifying fishes presently occurring or known to have occurred in Indiana and gives a rough indication of their range and distribution within the state. Recent changes in nomenclature, additional diagnostic characters, and distributional changes are combined with information from the detailed analyses of Indiana fishes by Gerking (1945, 1955). Geography The state of Indiana covers 36,291 square miles. It extends 265 miles 1 in a north-south direction between the extremes of 41046t and 37°46 N latitude and 160 miles in an east-west direction between the extremes of 84°47' and 88°061 W longitude. Its northern border includes the southern tip of Lake Michigan and extends along part of the southern border of Michigan state. Ohio lies along most of the eastern border, the Ohio River, with Kentucky to the south,comprises the southern border, while Illinois lies along the western border. Approximately the northern sixth of Indiana lies in the Lake Michigan- Lake Erie watershed; the remainder is in the Mississippi drainage, composed primarily of the Wabash and Ohio rivers and their tributaries (Fig. 1). The elevation of the state is highest in the east central portion with the highest ° 1 point at 1257 feet in the northeastern corner of Wayne County, 40 00 N; 84°51' W.
    [Show full text]