DEPARTMENT OF ICHTHYOLOGY Rhodes University, Grahamstown

ICHTHYOLOGICAL BULLETIN No. 2

ISSUED APRIL, 1956.

SWORDFISH, and

IN SOUTH AND EAST AFRICA

By

Professor J. L. B. SMITH

S.A. Council for Scientific and Industrial Research Fellow in Ichthyology.

(Published by the Department of Ichthyology, Rhodes University, Grahamstown,

South Africa.)

H. J. SOLE, GRAHAMSTOWN. PLATE 1. A.—125 lb. Marlin, ( herschelii) Durban, December 1954. B.—115 1b. Marlin. (Makaira herschelii) Algoa Bay, January 1956. C.—42 1b. Marlin, (Makaira herschelii) Durban. March 1956. D.—45 1b. Marlin, (Makaira herschelii) Durban, March 1956. E.—45 1b. Marlin (Makaira herschelii) Durban, March 1956. F.—Marlin, (Makaira herschelii) East London, 121" total length. G.—Marlina audax, Mossel Bay, 108", February 1956. H.—168 1b. Marlin, Mauritius, February 1956. (Type of jauffreti n. sp.). I.—Orthocraeros bermudae, type, 121". (After Mowbray). J.—Sailfish, Durban, 85 lbs. K.—Skull of 10 ft. . (Makaira herschelii) Port Alfred. L.—Beak of fish, Figure B. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The main funds for this work were provided by the South African Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, who also made a special grant in February 1956 to cover considerable travelling that numerous Marlin catches rendered necessary.

We acknowledge with thanks assistance and information furnished by Messrs. Eric von Puttkamer and A. R. Thorpe of Durban; Messrs. W. Basson, C. P. Horne, S. Newman, E. M. Taylor, the “Cape Times” and “ Die Burger” of Cape Town; Messrs. W. J. Beckmann and A. Moller of Mossel Bay; Miss M. Courtenay-Latimer of East London; Messrs. A. E. Dore, H. G. Phelps, J. Low Ah Kee and the staff of the “ Eastern Province Herald,” of Port Elizabeth. To the Union Castle Company and to Messrs. Irvin & Johnson we are indebted for valuable assistance.

For many of the illustrations I am indebted to Margaret M. Smith. , Marlin and Sailfish in South and East Africa ( with Plates 1 & 2 ) by Professor J. L. B. Smith, S.A. Council for Scientific and Industrial Research Fellow in Ichthyology, Rhodes University, Grahamstown, South Africa. CHIEFLY arising from their sporting potentialities in big game angling, the large “Bill-fishes”, or Marlin, and Sword-fishes have attracted considerable attention in recent times. Commercial fishermen of Japan and anglers of the United States have been most ardent in the pursuit of these peculiar creatures. While a good deal has been learnt about them, there still remains much to discover. In the case of the , for example, hardly anything is known of their reproduction, of the larval or postlarval early forms, and even those who have studied these fishes from ample material over a wide area are as yet uncertain of the absolute identity of the species, and are often unable to identify with any certainty the rare occasional reasonably small specimens that are encountered. In South Africa shore angling is so good throughout virtually the entire year that there has been little incentive to explore the possibilities further out, especially as quiet seas are a rare condition. Quite recently, however, big game angling at sea has developed almost explosively and increasingly large fishes are being captured. During our extensive travels in the tropical Western Indian Ocean it became obvious that great numbers of the larger angling fishes were present, including those treated here. Although that area is windy and storm-lashed for much of the year, remote from facilities, and barren, its potentialities are relatively unexplored, but are clearly so great that it will not be long before it becomes recognised as one of the chief big game angling areas of the world. These fishes are at present placed in the families Xiphiidae and Istiophoridae. The latter embraces the , the Marlins and the Spearfishes, usually granted distinction by only generic rank. In my opinion, however, they merit at least sub-family rank, as is given here. A. No pelvics. One keel on caudal. No scales on adult. Bill flattened...... XIPHIIDAE Genus Xiphias, Swordfish. B. Pelvics present. Bill rod-like. Two keels each side of caudal. Adult scaled. ISTIOPHORIDAE 1. Tip of lower jaw about twice as far from eye as from tip of upper jaw. Pectorals at most l¼ times postorbital. Front lobe of first dorsal not m uch higher than rest of fin...... Tetrapturinae 2. Tip of lower jaw little if at all further from eye than tip of lower jaw, usually nearer eye. Pectoral in adult at least 1½ times postorbital. Front lobe of dorsal in adults at least twice as high as mid and posterior rays; or, fin greatly elevated without front lobe. (a) Area of first dorsal fin much less than that of body below ...... Makairinae (b) F irst dorsal sail-like, its area g reater than th at of body below ...... Istiophorinae FAMILY XIPHIIDAE Genus Xiphias Linn, 1758. Swordfish. A single widespread species, attaining a considerable size. Little has been known of its occurrence in Southern African waters. We have in this Department a broken “Sword”, 3 ft. in length and 4 inches across the base, found on the shore near East London. A few years ago a large Swordfish was washed ashore some miles east of Algoa Bay. By the time it was reported to me, natives had hacked it badly and removed most of the flesh, but the person who examined it at my request stated that it was about 14 ft. overall in length, the sword being broken. In 1949 I found the dried remains of a Swordfish estimated at about 12 ft. overall in length, partly buried in the sand near Ponte Abril, a few miles south of Inhaca Island, Delagoa Bay. In 1948 a Durban angler told me, shortly after the event, that while fishing about a mile from shore, a Scomberomorus commerson Lacepede, about 4 ft. long, leapt from the water close to his boat, followed almost instantly by a large “Swordfish”, which overtook the smaller fish in the air and cut it clean in two with a sideway slash of the sword. The two halves fell into the water and the Swordfish swirled back to seize the tail part in clear sight, leaving the other, which the angler retrieved. It may be accepted that Xiphias is not uncommon in South African seas. I have as yet had evidence of its occurrence further north only from native fishermen of Mozambique. FAMILY ISTIOPHORIDAE Sub-family Tetrapturinae Genus Rafinesque, 1810. Spearfishes. The spear short, not much longer than lower jaw. Apparently only two species, both rare; T. belone 25 Rafinesque, 1910, the genotype, has been reported in the northeastern Atlantic, the Mediterranean, and the Western Atlantic about Florida. T. angustirostris Tanaka, 1914 has been reported from Japan and Hawaii. I have had no evidence of the occurrence of a species of Tetrapturus, as here defined, in the seas of South Africa or anywhere in the Western Indian Ocean, but expect that one may well occur there. Sub-family Makairinae The Marlins. The Marlins are generally placed in the single genus Makaira Lacepede, 1803 but the characters of the main lines of cleavage justify full generic distinction, as is adopted here. A. Lateral line obscure. Lobe of dorsal apically acute. Size large, maximum far exceeding 200 lbs. 1. Dorsal fin not twice postorbital part of head. Depth of body less than one-fourth of standard length. (a) Anal fin inserted almost exactly midway between origin of upper caudal lobe and hind margin of head, or slightly more anterior. Dorsal fin never more than body depth, and at most barely longer than the distance between the origins of the second dorsal and the upper caudal lobe, usually less...... Makaira (b) Anal fin inserted distinctly nearer origin of upper caudal lobe than hind margin of head. Dorsal fin never less than body depth, and always clearly longer than the distance between the origins of the second dorsal and the upper caudal lobe. Second anal always in advance of second dorsal...... Marlina 2. Dorsal fin more than twice postorbital part of head. Depth of body (stated to be) 4 in length...... Orthocraeros nov. B. Lateral line distinct. Lobe of dorsal apically rounded. Size not exceeding 200 lbs., Atlantic only...... Lamontella nov. Genus Makaira Lacepede, 1803. Genotype generally stated as Makaira nigricans Lacepede, (Hist. Nat. Poiss. 1803. IV, p.689, PI.13, fig. 3) based on a fish 330 cm. in length, weight 365 kgm., i.e. 803 lbs., washed ashore at La Rochelle, France. In their obvious inaccuracy both description and figure are typical, but the quoted length (330 cm.) and the statement that the lower jaw was not half as long as the upper, make it unlikely that the fish was a Tetrapturus, as the peculiar illustration (loc. cit above) might indicate. As LaMonte 1955 has indicated, there are grounds for accepting Lacepede’s genus Makaira, even though the species is not yet identifiable. Only the Blue Marlin, generally known as ampla Poey, has so far been recorded from French waters. Lacepede’s fish is not beyond the reputed weight limit for the “Blue” Marlin, though that weight, 365 kgms. (800 lbs.) is double the recorded average for an “ampla” of 330 cm. total length. It is possible that Lacepede’s correspondent wrote “Kilogrammes” instead of “Livres” (1.1 lb.), which would bring the fish into the “ampla” class. LaMonte 1955 possibly did not realise the full implication of this weight-length relationship, although she stated: “As far as length-weight proportions go, M. nigricans Lacepede, appears to agree most closely with the Pacific species M. mazara, but M. nigricans was an Atlantic fish.” Most American workers appear to believe that the Pacific mazara (Black) is a “heavier-bodied” fish than the Atlantic ampla (Blue), but that view is not supported by available data (see fig. 1), according to which an average 800 lb. Black Marlin from the Pacific would be about 395 cm. (13 ft.) in length, at least 2 ft. longer than Lacepede’s fish. There must thus remain an element of doubt about the identity of Lacepede’s fish. If its weight was 400 lbs., then it falls clearly into the “ampla” class. At 800 lbs. it was much heavier for its length than any Marlin for which reliable figures are available. Had Lacepede given no weight, there would have been less reason for rejecting his species, since the evidence otherwise points to “ampla.” There does, however, remain some element of doubt, for there is at least a possibility that it was a specimen of the fish described as bermudae (vide infra), and if that could be established Makaira should not be used for any but that species. Marlins are not at all uncommon in the tropical area of the Western Indian Ocean. Although tropical, they penetrate well beyond the 20° isotherm, and it is not abnormal that they should occur off Southern Africa. They are certainly much more plentiful there than has been supposed. There are mounted specimens in most of our Museums. Fish are repeatedly stranded, and on the shores from the Cape eastwards we have constantly found remnants of these fishes. During the 1939-45 war bales of rubber from torpedoed ships were cast ashore from Kenya to near the Cape. In every one I found at least one tip of a Marlin spear, broken off when charged by the pugnacious Marlin. A chunk of beeswax found near East London had an embedded spear tip. Deep-sea fishermen at many points often see large Marlin, and in recent months (March 1956) Marlin are becoming quite a common catch in South African seas, so that I have been able to examine a number, and numerous photographs as well. Most of these Marlins fall in the 9—12 ft. length range, of weight less than 500 lbs., and all the larger have been the “Black” Marlin as here defined, without doubt identical with those from the Pacific. Still larger fishes are present. In October 1955 a Marlin, 15 ft. total

26 length, came ashore near East London, but was destroyed by natives before data could be got. In March 1956 line fishermen near Mossel Bay fought a large Marlin but it broke away. Several times close to them, it was seen to be a good 15 ft. in length. On the 14th March 1956 an angler hooked a large “Blue coloured” Marlin six miles off Algoa Bay, which he played for three hours before it cut the line below the boat. It “tailwalked” 35 times. (Plate II). In clear view close to the boat it was clearly well over 400 lbs. weight. Recently (April 1956) anglers have caught Black Marlins of 368 lbs. and 435 lbs. respectively at Mossel Bay. Natives of Kenya said that big Marlin charge canoes, and we heard of a fisherman being skewered by a hooked Marlin. At Seychelles a large fishing pirogue anchored in 10 fathoms was suddenly towed by the anchor cable. On pulling this, the crew found a large Marlin with the cable firmly clamped in its beak, and being unable to dislodge this, managed to kill the fish, the cable still fixed in its jaws when they reached land. It was measured and recorded as “more than five metres long” by a European manager. As here restricted, in Makaira Lacepede, fall only Marlins with dorsal fin height less than body depth, and with anal fin about midway between base of caudal and head. Most anglers and American scientists today maintain that there are two species, the “Black” Marlin of the Indo-Pacific (mazara Jordan & Snyder, 1901) and the “Blue” Marlin, (ampla Poey, 1860) the latter until recently regarded as confined to the Atlantic, but now said to occur also in the Pacific. There is also the problem of the “Silver” Marlin, Makaira mazara tahitiensis (Nichols & LaMonte), 1935 although LaMonte indicates (1955) less belief in the validity of that species. A photograph of a Silver Marlin is shown on Plate 10 in Lamonte 1955. But for the colour, it resembles the “Blue” Marlin. While large adults of the “Black” and “Blue” forms are mostly distinguishable, present evidence does not appear to justify their recognition as distinct species. Most scientists refuse to accept that the marked secondary structural differences between a negro and a European prove them to be distinct species, but those differences are far more pronounced and constant than those held to distinguish the Black and the Blue Marlins. On the other hand the differential picture between the Atlantic “Blue” and the “Black” Marlin must have been obscured, for the presence in the Pacific of a “Blue” type has only recently been recognised, and data from such specimens has doubtless been included in those of the “Black.” I suspect that No. 8 on p.447 in Gregory and Conrad 1939, listed as a “Black” Marlin, was in reality a “Blue.” In so far as may be deduced from specimens, photographs and available literature, the “Blue” and the “Black,” while in general dimensional relationships showing almost complete intergrading, as large adults appear to be distinguishable by the following characters : The “Black” Marlin is blue-black, without sharply defined lateral zones and without light cross-bars. Its dorsal fin is short, not or barely longer than the head without snout, not as long as the supra-pectoral height of the body. The anal fin rarely exceeds ten percent of the standard length (spear tip to caudal base). The second dorsal is almost always slightly but clearly in advance of the second anal. Anglers aver that in this species the pectoral fin is set rigidly at right angles to the body and cannot be folded flat against the side. The spear is usually rather short and notably stout, especially in big fishes. The “Blue” Marlin is said to be distinguished from the “Black” by its brighter colour, the back to midline being blue, abruptly lighter below, often with distinct light cross-bars, especially on the front of the body. The dorsal fin is higher than in the Black, equal to or more than the supra-pectoral height of body, and more than head without snout. The anal fin is always more (12-14) than ten percent of the standard length, and the second dorsal and anal are about opposite, the anal sometimes even in advance. The pectoral fin is said to have a flexible joint and may always be folded flat against the body. The spear appears to be longer and more slender than that of the “Black” Marlin, especially noticeable in big fishes. Both forms clearly occur about Australia, for Istiompax australis Whitley 1931, illustrated also in Fowler 1934, is clearly the “Black,” whereas Istiompax howardi Whitley, 1954 accords better with the “Blue.” Of numerous South and East African specimens examined those of 9 ft. length and over have all been unquestionable “Black” Marlins, including the one of 12 ft. 6 in. length, in the Albany Museum, as Makaira herschelii figured in my Sea Fishes 1949. I have not seen a single undoubted “Blue” Marlin. A 125 lb. 98 inch specimen (Plate 1, A) caught off Durban in December 1954 had the following characters: blue above, sharply defined along the middle of the side from the lighter part below; with distinct light cross-bars. The dorsal lobe 1.33 in body depth, less than supra-pectoral depth. The second dorsal slightly in advance of second anal. Anal fin origin exactly midway between caudal base and hind margin of head, its height 12 percent of stand­ ard length. The pectoral fin was set rigidly out from the body. The spear rather short and stout. This cuts right across the differentiation between the “Black” and the “Blue.” The angler concerned claimed and received from an Angling Union a certificate for a record “.” One glance at its photograph disposes of the latter, but the characters of this fish do not support the distinction between “Black” and “Blue.” A 90" 115 lb. fish (Plate 1, B) from Algoa Bay in January 1956 has the dorsal fin equal to the supra­ pectoral height. The anal is 12 percent of the standard length. The second dorsal is in advance of the second anal. One pectoral was rigid, the other foldable. The beak was moderate but markedly stout, (Plate I, L). The colour was almost uniform blackish without any sign of cross-bars. This fish is almost the exact counter­ part of a 116 lb. specimen taken off New Zealand in April 1955, with rigid pectorals, identified there as a “Black” Marlin, but in this latter fish the anal fin is barely ten percent of the standard length. In February 1956 I received two Marlins, one 67" and 42 lbs., the other 71" and 45 lbs., (Plate I, C & D) from Durban. These both have the dorsal about equal to the suprapectoral height, non-rigid pectoral, and 27 slender spears as in the “Blue” Marlin. But the second dorsal is in advance of the second anal, the anal fin is only 10 percent of standard length, while the colour is blackish without any sign of cross bars. They could be either “Black” or “Blue.” A 70" specimen from Durban (Plate 1, Fig. E), weight unknown, but about 45 lbs., is more certainly a “Black” Marlin, and it has the rigid pectoral on which protagonists of this feature will seize. (See Table I below). The “Black” Marlin is said to attain greater size than the “Blue,” the latter recorded as attaining 800 lbs. in the Atlantic. Roughley 1951 (Plate 70) shows a photograph of a “Black” Marlin from Eden, N.S.W., Australia, of weight 1226 lbs. This fish, with its high dorsal and anal and long spear, would in the Atlantic have been accepted without question as a “Blue” Marlin. The difference in maximum size between the two forms may well be due only to insufficient data. To test whether the Black Marlin is a more “heavy-bodied” fish than the Blue Marlin of the Atlantic, using available data, weight-length relationships for these two forms have been plotted as shown in Fig. 1. In order to eliminate the artificial element of the spear and to compare the body data, the diagram shows the relation between the weight and the length taken from the tip of the lower jaw to caudal base. This diagram reveals no appreciable difference between the Black and the Blue at any stage. Indeed so far from being more “heavy-bodied,” the type of marlina Jordan & Evermann, 1926 (the “Black” Marlin) falls far on the wrong side. (I am • inclined to suspect the validity of the stated length of the type of marlina, viz. 13' 6". In the photograph of the type, J & E, 1926 the fish is 2.1 times as long as the men. Allowing for distortion, this • makes the men at least 6' 5" tall. Had the fish been 12' 6" in length, this would put the men at about 5' 11", and the fish would fall exactly on the curve as shown in fig. 1. Morrow 1954 records a specimen of “Makaira nigricans marlina (J & E )”, caught near Pemba island, “2151 mm. standard length and weight 259 lbs.” The average Black Marlin of this standard length weighs about 160 lbs. At 259 lbs. Morrow’s fish is much heavier than any other recorded Marlin of its length; at 159 lbs. it would have been about average. It may, however, be recorded that recent Black Marlin from South Africa appear heavier than those of equivalent length from the Pacific whose records are avail­ able). The one strong point in favour of recognising the “Black” and the “Blue” Marlins as distinct species is that while both forms occur in the Indo-Pacific, no undoubted Black Marlin has ever been recorded from the Atlantic. Here again I am inclined to suspect faulty data and shall not be surprised if the Black Marlin is recognised in the Atlantic as well. One of the points not yet settled is the type that critically defines the “Black” Marlin, which some American workers consider to be mazara Jordan & Snyder, 1901. The matter is complicated. The earliest name of reasonable certainty for a Marlin of the Indo-Pacific is indicus Fig. 1. Length-weight relationships of Marlin, weight in pounds and Valenciennes, 1831 which is based on a length in mm. measured from tip of lower jaw to base of caudal. sketch of a specimen from Sumatra, 9 ft. long, stated to have the snout one-fifth of

28 the length, and the dorsal lobe three-fourths of the depth of the bo*dy below. (This follows a description and figure of Tetrapturus belone Rafinesque, 1810). If the Black and the Blue Marlins are accepted as distinct, the data of indicus do not settle which it is, and Valenciennes’ name is therefore inadmissible. The next available nam e is herschelii Gray, 1835, and here the data clearly diagnose the “Black” Marlin, and not the “Blue.” I have no doubt that the origin of this fish was Indo-Pacific and not Atlantic. It was thrown up in Table Bay, which LaMonte 1955 regards as “the other side of Africa” from East London, which is in the Indian Ocean on the Southeast coast of South Africa. Owing to the peculiar oceanic conditions of Southern Africa, however, Table Bay, although nominally in the Atlantic, is in reality far more closely connected with the tropical Indian Ocean than with any comparable parts of the Atlantic Ocean, for the warm Mozam­ bique current normally reaches to and even northwest of Cape Agulhas, carrying fishes to the Cape that are nowhere else found in such latitudes. M. herschelii clearly came from the east, rounded the Cape, and was killed by the cold water. I have a photograph, (too faded for reproduction) of an 11 ft. undoubted Black Marlin that was found in Table Bay in 1923. A Marlin of comparable size was recently found floating dead near False Bay, Cape. Tropical and sub-tropical fishes of the Indian Ocean do round the Cape at times, for I once found an Indian Ocean species of Chaetodon in the Atlantic far north of Table Bay, and a tropical Indianic Pomadasys species has several times been caught in Southern Angola. On the other hand, the northward set of the current and a wide belt of cold sea keep tropical Atlantic fishes remote from Southwest Africa, and it is significant that not a single Marlin has ever been reported anywhere in an enormous area of the eastern Atlantic eastwards of St. Helena bordered on the east by the coast of Africa, certainly never in the Southern hemisphere. If any occur in that area they must be rare*, possibly only occasional migrants from the Indian Ocean hastening northwards by instinct implanted in earlier times, when there was free passage past the Cape (see Smith 1950). (It is almost certainly this present condition of the Cape seas which results in the concentration of Atlantic Tunny in Angolan waters, and it was these conditions which led me to predict that Tunny and other large tropical fishes of the Indo-Pacific, still attempting the ancient passage to the Atlantic, but unable to pass the Cape in any number, should occur freely in the seas of the South­ western Cape, certainly in summer, as has proved the case). Equally valid is brevirostris Playfair, 1866. This fish was examined under stress, but the author fortun­ ately gave not only a dimensional account of the original fish, but recorded actual measurements on it. The illustration is that of the stuffed skin. I have made a careful detailed analysis of ail the data given in Playfair’s account, which is surprisingly full, and from this have prepared an outline which agrees with his description and with the data taken from the original fish. The only uncertain feature is the height of the anal fin, for which he gives no dimension but the illustration. It is clear that in the mounted fish the body from hind margin of head to tail base suffered an elongation of just about one-fourth, (somewhat in herschelii also). The data with the reconstructed outline shown here (Fig. 2), leave no doubt whatever that Playfair’s fish was a “Black” Marlin, and brevirostris Playfair, 1866 must therefore stand as a synonym of any prior name for the “Black” Marlin, and is of unquestionable validity if it has priority. It is significant that the types of herschelii and of brevirostris fall in the length class of unquestioned “Black” Marlins that is most commonly caught in South and Southeast African seas, running to about 300 lbs. in weight. In Plate 1, K is shown a skull from a Marlin, about 10 ft. 6 ins. total length, thrown ashore at 27° 3' E, near Port Alfred, that was of this type, and unquestionably a “Black” Marlin.

Fig. 2. Outline of Playfair’s 1866 Zanzibar Marlin as reconstructed from all his data. Total length 124". There is a mounted specimen in the East London Museum that is almost the exact counterpart of Playfair’s fish. It is 10 ft. total length and the dimensions agree with those of Playfair to fractions of an inch. This fish, an undoubted “Black” Marlin, (see Fig. F, Plate 1) is exactly like the reconstructed outline of Playfair’s fish shown in Fig. 2. The name at present commonly applied to the Black Marlin, namely mazara Jordan & Snyder 1901 is, apart from priority, of scarcely greater validity than indica Valenciennes, for there is no figure, no type, * I have recently received a photograph of a Marlin, damaged by sharks, thrown ashore at Lobito Bay, Angola. Dimensions deduced are: Total length 12 ft. Dorsal height 17". Depth body 22". Head 42". Spear before eye 28", stout. No further details are available. 29 and the brief account is not altogether in agreement with the diagnosis of the “Black” Marlin as at present accepted. (Jordan & Snyder, 1901 and Jordan and Evermann, 1926 in describing mazara both state “spinous dorsal 1 2/5 in length of body without head”, on which LaMonte 1955 comments: “This is probably an error for 5½”, but in my opinion it is clearly an error for “1 2/5 in depth of body”). That at least the senior, Jordan, of both pairs of authors cited above was not certain of mazara, his own species, is indicated by the fact that in Jordan & Evermann 1926, on Plate 11, fig. 1, part of the body of a specimen, clearly Marlina audax (Phillipi), is named mazara, and another mutilated specimen, almost certainly the same species, is named Tetrapturus ectenes new species (i.e. in Jordan & Everm ann 1926). There seems no justification for accepting mazara as valid over indica Valenciennes, for the data do not clearly indicate “Black” or “Blue.” It cannot be accepted over herschelii Gray, 1838 nor brevirostris Playfair, 1866. In the case of marlina Jordan & Evermann, 1926 there is a better description, and this is clearly the Black Marlin. However, herschelii Gray, 1838 and brevirostris Playfair, 1866 are in my opinion each as clearly valid as marlina, and have priority over that name. The complex nomenclatorial picture of the Marlins does not appear to have received more than super­ ficial attention. The nomenclature will depend on whether bermudae Mowbray, proves to be valid, and whether research may show this to be identical with Lacepede’s nigricans (the possibility of which is sug­ gested here). We then have the following alternatives :— A. berm udae = nigricans, w hen M akaira Lacepede, is no longer available for the low dorsal forms. The next available valid genus is Istiompax Whitley, 1931, and there are two alternatives de­ pending upon whether it can be shown that: 1. The Black and the Blue are distinct species. 2. (As in my view), the Black and the Blue are not yet distinct species, but subspecific or racial. B. E ither bermudae is not valid, or does not prove = nigricans; w hen Makaira Lacepede, remains available for low dorsal forms. As before there are two alternatives : 1. The Black and Blue distinct species. 2. The Black and Blue not yet distinct. A. 1. The Black and the Blue are shown to be distinct species : nigricans is not available and indicus Valenciennes is not determinable. The “Black” becomes Istiompax herschelii (Gray), and the “Blue” Istiompax ampla (Poey). 2. The “Black” and the “Blue” are not distinct species, but racial or varietal groups. The young, mostly not assignable to either group, become: Istiompax indica (Val.): The adult “Black” Marlin becomes Istiompax indica herschelii (Gray); the “Blue” Marlin of the Atlantic Istiompax indica ampla (Poey); the “Blue” of the Indo-Pacific either the same, or, more likely, either Istiompax indica tenuirostrata (Deraniyagala), or I. indica howardi (Whitley), or if neither of these be accepted, I. indica glauca nov, the type of the latter a photograph of a specimen 1226 lbs. in weight, from Eden, N.S. Wales, Australia, shown on Plate 70 in Roughley 1951. B. Makaira Lacepede, remains available for low dorsal forms. 1. The Black and the Blue are distinct species : neither nigricans Lac, nor indicus Val, are determinable. The Black becomes Makaira herschelii (Gray); the Blue Makaira ampla (Poey). 2. The “Black” and the “Blue” are not proved to be distinct species : nigricans Lacepede becomes valid and the indeterminable young become Makaira nigricans Lacepede, the Black M. nigricans herschelii (Gray); the “Blue” of the Atlantic M. n. ampla (Poey), and the Blue of the Indo-Pacific, (if it be different), M. n. tenuirostrata (Deran.) or M. n. howardi (Whitley) or possibly M. n. glauca nov., as in B. 2 above. If for any reason nigricans becomes inadmissible, it is replaced by indicus Valenciennes. In so far as South African specimens are concerned, on the evidence at present available they are in my opinion best named either Makaira herschelii or M. nigricans herschelii. The evidence from Indian Ocean material and from available literature inclines me to suspect that there was originally only one species of Makaira in all oceans, probably more like the Blue than the Black Marlin. When the populations were isloated by the last closure of Panama, that in the Indo-Pacific developed into two racial groups, which they probably still are, the one still much like, but probably not exactly like, the Blue Marlin of the Atlantic, the other in the adult form recognisable as the Black Marlin. In my view, in the Indo-Pacific these two forms are not yet acceptable at full specific rank, for the divergence appears to occur only quite late in development. If the present complete isolation continues this divergence will likely develop back to the earliest stages, and there will almost certainly emerge three distinct species, for it still remains to be proved that the “Blue” of the Indo-Pacific is absolutely identical with the “Blue” of the Atlantic, specifically if not racially. Even if adult Black or Blue Marlins tend to congregate for breeding, since these two forms are as yet probably not at full specific divergence, there is a possibility that the differential picture in the Indo-Pacific is being further obscured by a complex series of miscegenations or hybridisations. There will probably never be any better opportunity of studying a situation of this type, and the fullest possible records should be compiled for the future. There is certainly ample scope for exhaustive research. Genus Marlina Grey, 1928 G enotype Tetrapturus mitsukurii Jordan & Snyder, 1901. The origin of the anal fin markedly nearer caudal base than head. The dorsal normally slightly more than depth of body, and distinctly longer than 30 the distance between the origins of the second dorsal and the upper caudal lobe. The second anal appears always to be markedly in advance of the second dorsal. The spear is long and slender. Body often with cross-bars. Hirasaka and Nakamura, 1947 is probably a synonym. A single species, Marlina audax (Phillipi), 1887 commonly known as the Striped Marlin, up to recently not certainly reported outside the Pacific, one of the most famous game fishes there. By most American workers at least this species is named M. mitsukurii Jordan & Snyder, 1901 which is regrettable in view of the un­ questionable validity and priority of audax. LaMonte 1955 records mitsukurii (= audax) from Ceylon on the basis of Tetrapturus tenuirostrata Deraniyagala, 1951 (and 1952) which she identifies as mitsukurii J & S (i.e. audax). She states (1955, p . 336): “The photograph given is of a Ceylon specimen, freshly caught. The dorsal fin is being held so that one cannot see the height of the lobe.” In audax, however, the dorsal lobe, especially in the young, is only exceptionally at most a trifle less than the body depth, usually longer. In the photograph cited the end of the dorsal fin lobe is concealed in the hand of the holder, but if it were only as high as the body depth it would project beyond the holder’s hand. It is clearly markedly less than the depth of the body, so that this fish is not certainly identifiable as audax. Deraniyagala does not state the length of the specimen, but from the photograph it is plainly a young fish. Deraniyagala 1952 Atlas (PI. 27), however, shows a fish as Tetrapturus tenuirostratus, which cannot be the type, as it is shown as having an overall length of 140 inches. If Deraniyagala’s figure is accurate and a confirmatory specimen is available, this fish merits close attention. It is shown as having a distinct lateral line, much like that of Lamontella, the anal insertion is much nearer caudal base than head, and the dorsal though considerably less than body depth, is much longer than the distance between the origins of the second dorsal and the dorsal lobe of the tail. In these important characters it agrees with no known species, certainly not with mitsukurii (= audax) as LaMonte suggests. Morrow 1954 reports having seen Makaira mitsukurii (J & S) in the water off Mombasa and Pemba. Even though the recent catch of audax in South Africa makes it more likely that his observation was correct, striped “ampla” may be present in East African waters. Moreover, Morrow goes on to say “Histiophorus brevirostris Playfair is a Marlin and quite likely belongs to this species” (i.e. audax), which it emphatically does not. As has already been reported in the press, on the 5th February 1956 an angler caught a 9 ft. 1631b. Striped Marlin (audax) at Mossel Bay (34° 10'S x 22° 12'E), where Marlins are being taken in increasing numbers. This was no isolated stray, as two more were hooked the following week. On the 30th February 1956, a trawler reported having seen a Striped Marlin of four or five hundred pounds, (at about 30° 20'S x 24° 30' E), that was in clear view for some time only 30 yards away. (LaMonte 1955 quotes 8' 8" as the maxi­ mum recorded length for audax. This is doubtless an erroneous carry-over of this length for albida). The Mossel Bay specimen, (Plate 1, G), which I examined closely and of which a full dimensional record has been made, (Table 1), appears to agree in every respect with Pacific specimens. This is a noteworthy addition to the African marine fauna. It has recently been learnt that this species occurs at Mauritius from where I have now (April 1956) received confirmatory photographs. A 168 lb. fish, (Fig. H, Plate 1), taken at Mauritius in February 1956, has the general appearance of a Striped Marlin. The photograph is not clear in all essential details, but as far as it is possible to judge, the origin of the anal fin is barely nearer caudal base than head, the second dorsal and anal are relatively remote from caudal base, while the lower jaw appears as shorter and the spear stouter than in a typical audax; they are in fact indicative of the “Blue” Marlin. In favour of its identity as audax are the stripes, the second anal is clearly in advance of the second dorsal, the pelvics are fairly short, the dorsal fin is almost as deep as the body, and distinctly but not much longer than the distance between the origins of the second dorsal and the upper caudal lobe. This fish may have softened in the heat, so that the body below the dorsal is probably bulged out, and the caudal peduncle unduly elongated. The discrepancies from typical audax are heightened by the contrasted white hind border of the dorsal, which the captor notes was distinct. There are also unusual white patches on the body. An examination of the actual specimen would doubt­ less clear up all doubts, but meanwhile I propose to name this Marlina jauffreti n.sp. (after its captor, M. M. Jauffret of Mauritius, who states that audax is well known there, and that this fish is different, another specimen having been caught there). Genus Orthocraeros nov. G enotype Makaira bermudae Mowbray, 1931 (Plate 1, Fig. 1) The dorsal fin lobe enormous, height more than twice postorbital part of head. The depth of the body four in length. The only known specimen, 10' 1" in length, weight unknown, was harpooned inshore in fairly shallow water at Castle Harbour. Bermuda. After hastily taking some measurements, notes and a photograph, despite its obvious unique character, Mowbray most regrettably permitted the fish to be destroyed. The depth was 4.1 in body length, deeper than length of pectoral, and as this appears to have been measured with the fish flat on its belly, the actual depth in life would have been even more. The dorsal fin lobe was greatly elevated, one-third higher than body depth, and probably longer than the upper caudal lobe (Mow­ bray stated “upper lobe of caudal 85 in snout”— possibly 0.85 of snout? Also “pectoral nearly 2.5 in snout.” From the photograph the pectoral is about 1.5 in snout, and “2.5” is probably a printer’s error, for the figure 2.5 is printed exactly above in the previous line). The head is stated as 2.5 in body length, and the spear before the eye comes to somewhat more than 27 per cent of standard length, significantly longer than that of any 31 other Marlin of comparable size recorded from the Atlantic. Despite all this positive evidence LaMonte 1955 lists bermudae provisionally as ampla, stating that “The photograph by Mowbray is much distorted.” On the contrary, although the fish is taken at an oblique angle, the photograph is perfectly clear. It reveals a fish that, unless it is a freak, unquestionably merits full generic distinction from all others yet described. Its body is deeper and the dorsal about twice as high as any yet observed in any Atlantic fish. It is far higher than that of the Pacific audax Phillipi. If bermudae be a freak specimen of the Atlantic “ampla” it is an unusual type of freak. Fins are often abnormal, but in my experience, the other way, i.e. they can be much lower than normal, but not higher. This fish cannot be dismissed. It may well be a rare species which does not take lures or baits now used by anglers, a character observed in other fishes, and which can vary within one genus. In my view, bermudae must receive recognition as a valid species. If no further specimen appears within say a century, then only may it be suspected that this was a freak. A count of vertebrae would have been interesting. There are certain aspects of Lacepede’s nigricans which incline me to suspect that it may have been the same as the fish described above. With its deep body bermudae must have been a heavy fish, falling well away from the average for indicus, as Lacepede’s nigricans does at 800 lbs. (see Fig. 1). I would assess the weight of the 10' 1" specim en of bermudae as about 1.7—2 times that of a normal “ampla” (see Fig. 1). The dorsal fin of Lacepede’s fish is stated to be about one-fifth of the total length, about the same order as in bermudae. TABLE 1. Dimensions of Marlins recently captured in South African seas between Durban and Mossel Bay. Makaira nigricans herschelii Marlina audax 1. W eight in lbs...... 42 45 115 166 208 368 252 160 2. Total length (All in inches) ...... 67 71 90 105 n o 114 107 108 3. Snout Tip to Caudal base ...... 56.4 60 78 89 97 97.5 91 89 4. Snout Tip to Origin 2nd Dorsal...... 48.5 51 67 77 82.7 83.5 77 78.4 5. Snout Tip to Origin 2nd A nal...... 49 51.3 68 78 84.5 85 78 77.5 6. Snout Tip to Anal Origin ...... 39 41 54 62.5 66.5 64.5 62 61.5 7. Snout Tip to Dorsal O rigin ...... 18.4 19.3 26 29.5 29.5 26.5 28.7 29 8. Snout Tip to Pectoral Origin ...... 21 21.5 29 32.5 34 29.7 31.5 33.2 9. Snout Tip to Pelvic Origin ...... 21.5 22.2 30.5 33 35 32.5 33 33.5 10. Snout Tip to Hind Margin H ead ...... 21 21.8 28.5 33 34.3 32.5 33 33.7 11. Snout Tip to Hind End M axilla ...... 16.2 16.8 21.8 25.7 26.6 24.3 24 24.4 12. Snout Tip to Front of E ye ...... 14 14.7 20 22.2 23 20 22 21 13. Snout Tip to Tip Low er Jaw ...... 7.8 8 10.6 13.5 12 9.7 11 9.7 14. D epth Body ...... 9 9.3 14.5 15.5 17 20.4 18 13.4 15. 1st Dorsal H eight ...... 7.5 8 11.0 11.5 11.8 13.5 12 18 16. Mid Dorsal r a y s ...... 3.8 4.4 3.2 2.5 2.5 3.3 — 4 17. 2nd Dorsal height ...... 2 2 2.4 3 3 3.6 3 4.7 18. 2nd Dorsal base ...... 2.6 3.0 4.1 4 4.8 4.7 3.5 5.1 19. A nal height ...... 5.8 5.5 8.8 9.5 9.5 10.5 9 11 20. A nal base ...... 6.4 6.7 8.4 9.7 11.5 13.8 9 5.5 21. 2nd A nal height ...... 1.7 1.7 2.1 2.5 2 2.8 2.8 3.5 22. 2nd A nal base ...... 2.2 2.7 4.0 3.5 4.2 4.8 3 3.5 23. U pper Caudal lobe ...... 14.8 14.7 20.5 20 24 24.5 22 25 24. Lower Caudal lobe ...... 13.8 13.5 19.5 20 23 23.3 21 23.4 25. Tail Spread ...... 20 19.5 27 31.5 35 40 30.5 34.5 26. D epth peduncle ...... 2.3 2.2 3.3 3.3 3.6 4.2 3.6 3.5 27. Eye diam eter ...... 1.4 1.5 1.8 2 2 2.3 1.5 2.2 28. Width spear tip lower jaw ...... 0.8 0.8 1.4 1.5 1.6 2.0 1.3 1.2 29. Width spear near tip ...... 0.4 0.3 0.7 1.0 0.8 0.8 — 0.4 30. Depth spear tip lower jaw ...... 0.5 0.6 0.8 0.8 1.2 1.3 1.2 0.6 31. Pectoral length ...... 10 9.8 17 18 20.8 20.3 16.5 20.7 32. Pectoral Rigid ...... No No One No One One Yes No 33. Pectoral across base ...... 1.6 1.5 2.8 3 3.5 3.5 2.9 3 34. Pelvic ...... 9.8 10.5 9 10 — 10 9 14.5 35. W idth body below 1st Dorsal ...... 3.8 5.5 7 — 9.5 10 9 8.2 36. W idth In tero rb ital ...... 3.4 3.5 5.5 6 7 7.5 7.5 6.2 37. Suprapectoral depth ...... 7.5 8 11 13.5 14 16 14 — LOCALITY :— Durban Durban Algoa Algoa M ossel M ossel E ast M ossel Bay Bay B ay B ay London B ay Genus Lamontella nov. G enotype Tetrapturus albida Poey, 1860. Distinct lateral line, anteriorly curved. The dorsal lobe never less than height of body and apically rounded. The smallest of the Marlins, not yet found anywhere near Africa south of the Equator. This fish merits full generic distinction from all others. The genus is named in recognition of Francesca LaMonte’s able and untiring work in this difficult group. 32 Subfamily Istiophorinae Genus Istiophorus Lacepede, 1803 Sailfishes. (Plate 1, J) Found in all tropical seas, penetrating to temperate waters, but with a more restricted temperature range than Xiphias or Makaira. The relations between species and distribution is an almost exact replica of that of the Marlins, and the number of species recognised ranges from one to the nine of Jordan and Evermann, 1926. I have had few opportunities of examining complete specimens, but study of available data and photographs indicates a position much like that of Black-Blue in Makaira. I have found the remains of a specimen estimated at about 7 ft. long on the shore at about 32°S, but Sailfishes do not appear to penetrate much below 30°S in South African seas. They are caught occasionally at Durban, (30°S), more often in Mozambique, and are quite common at certain seasons over most of the suitable areas of the Western Indian Ocean, mostly where there is deep water close to shore. According to native fishermen they attain a considerable size. On the market at Mozambique island I saw a great chunk cut from below the dorsal of one fish, and unless body proportions change considerably in larger fishes, it could scarcely have come from one less than 15 ft. total length.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

LACEPEDE 1803, Hist. Nat. Poiss. Vol. 4. RAFINESQUE 1810, Carat. Al. Nov. Ge. Sicily. VALENCIENNES 1831, Hist. Nat. Poiss. Vol. 8. GRAY 1838, Ann. & Mag. Nat. Hist. Vol. 1. POEY 1860, Mem. Sob. Hist. Nat. Cuba. Vol. 2. PLAYFAIR 1866, Fishes Zanzibar. PHILLIPI 1887, An. Univ. Chile. Sec. 1. Vol. 71. JORDAN & SNYDER 1901, Journ. Coll. Sci. Imp. Univ. Tokyo. Vol. 15. TANAKA 1915, Fishes of Japan, Vol. 19. JORDAN & HILL 1926, Occ. Pap. Calif. Acad. Sci. Vol. 12. JORDAN & EVERMANN 1926, Occ. Pap. Calif. Acad. Sci. Vol. 12. MOWBRAY 1931, Fauna Berm udensis, No. 1. FOWLER 1934, Fishes Oceania. Supp. 2. NICHOLS & LAMONTE 1935, Am. Mus. Nov. 807. CONRAD & LAMONTE 1937, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist. Vol. 74. Art 4. GREGORY & CONRAD 1939, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist. Vol. 76. Art 8. HIRASAKA & NAKAMURA 1947, Bull. Oceanogr. 1st. Taiwan. No. 3. SMITH 1949, Sea Fishes S.A. SMITH 1950, Ann. & Mag. Nat. Hist. (12), Vol. 3. de BUEN 1950, Publ. Cien. Serv. Ocean. Pesca Montevideo No. 5. ROUGHLEY 1951, Fish & Fisheries of Australia, (Sydney). DERANIYAGALA 1951, Spolea. Zeyl. Vol. 26. DERANIYAGALA 1952, Col. Atlas. Vert. Ceylon. Nat. Mus. Colombo. MORROW 1954, Ann. & Mag. Nat. Hist. (12), Vol. 7. WHITLEY 1954, Austral. Zool. Vol. 12. LAMONTE 1955, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist. Vol. 107. Art 3.

33 INDEX.

Page albida, Lamontella ...... 31, 32 am pla, Istiom pax ...... 30 „ M akaira ...... 26, 27, 30, 32 audax, Marlina ...... 30, 31 berm udae, Orthocraeros ...... 26, 30 brevirostris, Tetrapturus ...... 29 H istiophorus brevirostris ...... 31 indica, M akaira ...... 29, 30 indicus, (Makaira) ...... 28, 32 Istiom pax am pla ...... 30 Istiom pax a u s tr a lis...... 27 „ glauca ...... 30 „ herschelii ...... 30 „ howardi ...... 27, 30 „ indica ...... 30 „ tenuirostrata ...... 30 Istiophoridae ...... 25, 26 Istiophorinae ...... 25, 33 Istiophorus ...... 33 K ajikia ...... 31 Lamontella ...... 26, 3132 Makaira ...... 26, 27, 30, 32 Makaira ampla ...... 26, 27, 30, 32 „ bermudae ...... 31. 32 „ brevirostris ...... 29, 30 „ herschelii ...... 27, 29, 30 „ indica ...... 28, 29, 30, 32 „ mazara ...... 26, 27, 29, 30 „ mazara tahitiensis ...... 27 „ m itsukurii ...... 31 „ nigricans ...... 26, 30, 32 „ nigricans am pla ...... 30 „ nigricans glauca ...... 30 „ nigricans herschelii ...... 30 „ nigricans how ardi ...... 30 „ nigricans marlina ...... 28 „ nigricans tenuirostrata ...... 30 Makairinae ...... 25, 26 mitsukurii, Makaira ...... 31 M arlina ...... 26, 30 Marlina audax ...... 30, 31 M arlina ja u ffr e ti...... 31 marlina, M a k a ira ...... 28 nigricans, Makaira ...... 26, 30, 32 Orthocraeros ...... 26, 31 „ berm udae ...... 26, 30, 31 Scom berom orus ...... 25 Tetrapturus ...... 25 Tetrapturus albida ...... 32 „ angustirostris ...... 26 „ belone ...... 25, 29 „ mitsukurii ...... 30, 31 „ tenuirostratus ...... 31 Tetrapturinae ...... 25 X iphias ...... 25 X iphiidae ...... 25 P L A T E 2. Left; 3681b. Black Marlin taken at Mossel Bay, Cape, February 1956. (courtesy Mr. A. Moller.) Top, righ t : Marlin estimated at 4-500 lbs. in play, later lost, off Algoa Bay, February 1956. (courtesy Mr. J. Low All Kee.) Bight, below : 435 lb. Black Marlin taken at Mossel Bay, April 1956. (courtesy Mr. E. M. Taylor.)