DOCSLIB.ORG

Heterandria Formosa

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Heterandria Formosa Faculty of Life Sciences Albrecht Daniel Thaer-Institute of Agricultural and Horticultural Sciences Food-dependent development of behavioural types in Heterandria formosa M.Sc. thesis in the study program: Fishery Science and Aquaculture submitted by: Theis, Sebastian 1st Examiner (Supervisor): Prof. Dr. Arlinghaus, Robert Division of or Institution: Human dimensions and bio-economics of recreational fisheries, inter- and transdisciplinary fisheries research, fish and fisher behavioural ecology. Leibniz-Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries (IGB) Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin (HU) 2nd Examiner: Dr. Schröder, Arne Division of or Institution: The ecological consequences of the joint individual variation in size-specific life histories and behavioural types. Leibniz-Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries (IGB) Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin (HU) Berlin, June 23, 2017 i Content List of Figures ..................................................................................................................................... iii List of Tables ....................................................................................................................................... iv List of Abbreviations ........................................................................................................................... vi List of Utilized software ...................................................................................................................... vi Abstract ............................................................................................................................................... 1 Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................. 1 1 Animal behaviour ............................................................................................................................. 2 1.1 What is animal behaviour ......................................................................................................... 2 1.2 What is animal personality? – Behavioural types .................................................................... 4 1.2.1 Development of behavioural types ................................................................................... 6 1.2.2 Ecological and evolutionary consequences of behavioural differences ........................... 7 1.3 Hypotheses of the thesis ........................................................................................................... 9 2 Methods .......................................................................................................................................... 12 2.1 Study organism – Heterandria formosa .................................................................................. 12 2.2 Experimental fish and their housing ....................................................................................... 13 2.3 Rearing treatments .................................................................................................................. 15 2.4 Life history measurements ..................................................................................................... 15 2.5 The open field test and behavioural assessment ..................................................................... 16 2.5.1 What is measured? .......................................................................................................... 17 2.5.2 Arena setup and behavioural assays ............................................................................... 19 3 Analysis .......................................................................................................................................... 21 3.1 EthoVision XT ....................................................................................................................... 22 3.2 Analysis in R .......................................................................................................................... 22 3.2.1 Repeatability and behaviour analysis in R ..................................................................... 23 3.2.2 Linear mixed effect model in R and model simplification ............................................. 25 3.2.3 Specific growth rates ...................................................................................................... 25 3.2.4 Life history data analysis in R ........................................................................................ 26 4 Results ............................................................................................................................................ 26 4.1 Repeatability and variance components for swimming distance ............................................ 27 4.1.1 Stage, sex and food effects on mean swimming distance .............................................. 28 4.2 Repeatability and variance components for moving time ..................................................... 30 4.2.1 Analysis of variance and lsmeans comparison for time spent moving ........................... 31 4.3 Repeatability and variance components for actual velocity ................................................... 32 4.3.1 Analysis of variance and lsmeans comparison for actual velocity ................................. 33 ii 4.4 Repeatability and variance components for time spent in outer area ..................................... 35 4.4.1 Analysis of variance and lsmeans comparison for time spent in outer area ................... 36 4.5 Life history data ...................................................................................................................... 38 4.5.1 Growth rates ................................................................................................................... 38 4.5.2 Reproduction and offspring ............................................................................................ 40 5 Discussion ...................................................................................................................................... 42 5.1 Discussion of first hypothesis – life history effects of food ................................................... 42 5.2 Discussion of second hypothesis ............................................................................................ 43 5.2.1 Swimming distance .......................................................................................................... 44 5.2.2 Moving time .................................................................................................................... 47 5.2.3 Actual velocity ................................................................................................................. 49 5.2.4 Time spent in outer area .................................................................................................. 51 5.3 Discussion of third hypothesis................................................................................................ 53 5.4 Summary and implications of the thesis ................................................................................. 57 Appendix ........................................................................................................................................... 59 Experiment tables and calendars ....................................................................................................... 59 Feeding recipe ................................................................................................................................... 68 List of cited Literature ....................................................................................................................... 70 Images ............................................................................................................................................... 70 Literature ........................................................................................................................................... 71 iii List of Figures Figure 1. Tinbergen's four questions, divided by Proximate und Ultimate Causes. Figure 2. Between-individual and among-individual differences in behaviour across situations. Figure 3. Consequences for individual specimen due to different behavioural types. Figure 4. LESTER-model visualizing changes in energetic investment between growth and reproduction. Figure 5. Train of thought for the hypotheses and their linkage. Figure 6. Extant and extinct distribution of Heterandria formosa. Figure 7. Heterandria formosa and the expressed sexual dimorphism between the larger female and the smaller male specimen. Figure 8. Experimental housing setup of the individual test fish. Figure 9. Weekly length measurement of an individuum with a small petri dish. Figure 10. Plastic arena for behavioural assessments. Figure 11. The two stages of each behavioural trial phase. Figure 12. Repeatability as the variation proportion due to among-individual variation. Figure 13. Linear mixed effect model approach used for whole model repeatability calculations. Figure 14. Linear model used for single Age:Food:Sex combination calculation of repeatability. Figure 15. Formula for specific growth rate calculations. Figure 16. Repeatability, within and among-individual variance scores and confidence intervals for swimming distance and the factors sex, food and stage. Figure 17. Mean swimming distance with standard errors over all Stage:Sex:Food
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Strong Reproductive Skew Among Males in the Multiply Mated Swordtail Xiphophorus Multilineatus (Teleostei)
    Journal of Heredity 2005:96(4):346–355 ª The American Genetic Association. 2005. All rights reserved. doi:10.1093/jhered/esi042 For Permissions, please email: [email protected]. Advance Access publication March 2, 2005 Strong Reproductive Skew Among Males in the Multiply Mated Swordtail Xiphophorus multilineatus (Teleostei) J. LUO,M.SANETRA,M.SCHARTL, AND A. MEYER From Fachbereich Biologie, Universita¨t Konstanz, 78457 Konstanz, Germany (Luo, Sanetra, and Meyer); and Physiologische Chemie I, Biozentrum der Universita¨t, Am Hubland, 97074 Wu¨rzburg, Germany (Schartl). Address correspondence to Axel Meyer, Fachbereich Biologie, Universita¨t Konstanz, Fach M617, Universita¨tsstrasse 10, 78457 Konstanz, Germany, or e-mail: [email protected]. Abstract Male swordtails in the genus Xiphophorus display a conspicuous ventral elongation of the caudal fin, the sword, which arose through sexual selection due to female preference. Females mate regularly and are able to store sperm for at least 6 months. If multiple mating is frequent, this would raise the intriguing question about the role of female choice and male-male competition in shaping the mating system of these fishes. Size-dependent alternate mating strategies occur in Xiphophorus; one such strategy is courtship with a sigmoid display by large dominant males, while the other is gonopodial thrusting, in which small subordinate males sneak copulations. Using microsatellite markers, we observed a frequency of multiple paternity in wild-caught Xiphophorus multilineatus in 28% of families analyzed, but the actual frequency of multiple mating suggested by the correction factor PrDM was 33%. The number of fathers contributing genetically to the brood ranged from one to three.
    [Show full text]
  • Summary Report of Freshwater Nonindigenous Aquatic Species in U.S
    Summary Report of Freshwater Nonindigenous Aquatic Species in U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 4—An Update April 2013 Prepared by: Pam L. Fuller, Amy J. Benson, and Matthew J. Cannister U.S. Geological Survey Southeast Ecological Science Center Gainesville, Florida Prepared for: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Southeast Region Atlanta, Georgia Cover Photos: Silver Carp, Hypophthalmichthys molitrix – Auburn University Giant Applesnail, Pomacea maculata – David Knott Straightedge Crayfish, Procambarus hayi – U.S. Forest Service i Table of Contents Table of Contents ...................................................................................................................................... ii List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................ v List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................ vi INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 1 Overview of Region 4 Introductions Since 2000 ....................................................................................... 1 Format of Species Accounts ...................................................................................................................... 2 Explanation of Maps ................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • THROWTRAP FISH ID GUIDE.V5 Loftusedits
    Fish Identification Guide For Throw trap Samples Florida International University Aquatic Ecology Lab April 2007 Prepared by Tish Robertson, Brooke Sargeant, and Raúl Urgellés Table of Contents Basic fish morphology diagrams………………………………………..3 Fish species by family…………………………………………………...4-31 Gar…..………………………………………………………….... 4 Bowfin………….………………………………..………………...4 Tarpon…...……………………………………………………….. 5 American Eel…………………..………………………………….5 Bay Anchovy…..……..…………………………………………...6 Pickerels...………………………………………………………...6-7 Shiners and Minnows…………………………...……………….7-9 Bullhead Catfishes……..………………………………………...9-10 Madtom Catfish…………………………………………………..10 Airbreathing Catfish …………………………………………….11 Brown Hoplo…...………………………………………………….11 Orinoco Sailfin Catfish……………………………..……………12 Pirate Perch…….………………………………………………...12 Topminnows ……………….……………………….……………13-16 Livebearers……………….……………………………….…….. 17-18 Pupfishes…………………………………………………………19-20 Silversides..………………………………………………..……..20-21 Snook……………………………………………………………...21 Sunfishes and Basses……………….……………………....….22-25 Swamp Darter…………………………………………………….26 Mojarra……...…………………………………………………….26 Everglades pygmy sunfish……………………………………...27 Cichlids………………………….….………………………….....28-30 American Soles…………………………………………………..31 Key to juvenile sunfish..………………………………………………...32 Key to cichlids………....………………………………………………...33-38 Note for Reader/References…………………………………………...39 2 Basic Fish Morphology Diagrams Figures from Page and Burr (1991). 3 FAMILY: Lepisosteidae (gars) SPECIES: Lepisosteus platyrhincus COMMON NAME: Florida gar ENP CODE: 17 GENUS-SPECIES
    [Show full text]
  • ERSS-African Jewelfish (Hemichromis Letourneuxi)
    African Jewelfish (Hemichromis letourneuxi) Ecological Risk Screening Summary U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, February 2011 Revised, February 2018, July 2018 Web Version, 7/30/2018 Photo: Noel M. Burkhead – USGS. Available: https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?SpeciesID=457. (February 2018). 1 Native Range and Status in the United States Native Range From Froese and Pauly (2018): “Africa: Nile to Senegal and from North Africa to Côte d'Ivoire [Central African Republic, Chad, Egypt, Ethiopia, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Ivory Coast, Kenya, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Sudan, Sudan; questionable in Algeria].” From Nico et al. (2018): “Tropical Africa. Widespread in northern, central, and west Africa (Loiselle 1979, 1992; Linke and Staeck 1994) in savannah and oasis habitats.” CABI (2018) reports H. letourneuxi as widespread and native in the following countries: Algeria, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chad, Egypt, Ethiopia, Gambia, Ghana, Ivory Coast, Kenya, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Sudan, and Uganda. 1 Status in the United States From Eschmeyer et al. (2018): “[…] established in Florida, U.S.A.” From Nico et al. (2018): “Established in Florida. Prior to 1972, found only in Miami Canal and canals on western side of Miami International Airport (Hogg 1976a). Species is now abundant and spreading westward and northward.” “The species was first documented as occurring in south Florida in the Hialeah Canal-Miami River Canal system, Miami area, by Rivas (1965). It is now established and abundant in many canals in and around Miami-Dade County, and also in parts of the Everglades freshwater wetlands and tidal habitats (Courtenay et al. 1974; Hogg 1976a, b; Loftus and Kushlan 1987; Loftus et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Pre- and Post-Copulatory Sexual Selection in the Least Killifish, Heterandria Formosa
    Pre- and post-copulatory sexual selection in the least killifish, Heterandria formosa Outi Ala-Honkola Department of Biological and Environmental Sciences Faculty of Biosciences University of Helsinki Finland Academic dissertation To be presented for public examination with the permission of the Faculty of Biosciences of the University of Helsinki in the Auditorium 2041 of Biocenter 2, Viikinkaari 5, on October 30th at 12 o’clock noon. Helsinki 2009 Supervisor: Prof. Kai Lindström, Åbo Akademi University, Finland Pre-examiners: Prof. Arja Kaitala, University of Oulu, Finland Dr. Jonathan Evans, University of Western Australia, Australia Opponent: Dr. Tommaso Pizzari, University of Oxford, United Kingdom Custos: Prof. Liselotte Sundström, University of Helsinki, Finland Author’s address: Outi Ala-Honkola Department of Biological and Environmental Sciences P.O.Box 65 (Viikinkaari 1) FI-00014 University of Helsinki Finland e-mail: [email protected] ISBN 978-952-92-6211-3 (paperback) ISBN 978-952-10-5785-4 (pdf) http://ethesis.helsinki.fi Yliopistopaino Helsinki 2009 Typically, the scientific paper or monograph presents an immaculate appearance, which reproduces little or nothing of the intuitive leaps, false starts, mistakes, loose ends, and happy accidents that actually cluttered up the inquiry. (Merton, 1968) Contents Summary .............................................................................................................. 7 1. Introduction .................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Drainage Basin Checklists and Dichotomous Keys for Inland Fishes of Texas
    A peer-reviewed open-access journal ZooKeys 874: 31–45Drainage (2019) basin checklists and dichotomous keys for inland fishes of Texas 31 doi: 10.3897/zookeys.874.35618 CHECKLIST http://zookeys.pensoft.net Launched to accelerate biodiversity research Drainage basin checklists and dichotomous keys for inland fishes of Texas Cody Andrew Craig1, Timothy Hallman Bonner1 1 Department of Biology/Aquatic Station, Texas State University, San Marcos, Texas 78666, USA Corresponding author: Cody A. Craig ([email protected]) Academic editor: Kyle Piller | Received 22 April 2019 | Accepted 23 July 2019 | Published 2 September 2019 http://zoobank.org/B4110086-4AF6-4E76-BDAC-EA710AF766E6 Citation: Craig CA, Bonner TH (2019) Drainage basin checklists and dichotomous keys for inland fishes of Texas. ZooKeys 874: 31–45. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.874.35618 Abstract Species checklists and dichotomous keys are valuable tools that provide many services for ecological stud- ies and management through tracking native and non-native species through time. We developed nine drainage basin checklists and dichotomous keys for 196 inland fishes of Texas, consisting of 171 native fishes and 25 non-native fishes. Our checklists were updated from previous checklists and revised using reports of new established native and non-native fishes in Texas, reports of new fish occurrences among drainages, and changes in species taxonomic nomenclature. We provided the first dichotomous keys for major drainage basins in Texas. Among the 171 native inland fishes, 6 species are considered extinct or extirpated, 13 species are listed as threatened or endangered by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and 59 spe- cies are listed as Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) by the state of Texas.
    [Show full text]
  • Life History Variation Along a Salinity Gradient in Coastal Marshes
    Vol. 8: 15–28, 2009 AQUATIC BIOLOGY Published online December 29 doi: 10.3354/ab00203 Aquat Biol OPENPEN ACCESSCCESS Life history variation along a salinity gradient in coastal marshes Shannon B. Martin1, 2,*, Alan T. Hitch1, 3, Kevin M. Purcell1, 4, Paul L. Klerks1, Paul L. Leberg1 1Department of Biology, University of Louisiana at Lafayette, Lafayette, Louisiana 70504, USA 2Present address: Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Fish and Wildlife Research Institute, Apalachicola Field Laboratory, Eastpoint, Florida 32328, USA 3Present address: School of Forestry and Wildlife Sciences, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama 36849, USA 4Present address: Department of Biological Sciences, North Dakota State University, Fargo, North Dakota 58105, USA ABSTRACT: Coastal habitats are susceptible to changes in the environment associated with alter- ations in salinity. A field study was conducted on natural populations of the sailfin molly Poecilia latipinna, the western mosquitofish Gambusia affinis and the least killifish Heterandria formosa col- lected from coastal marsh sites along a salinity gradient, to investigate the influence of salinity on body condition and reproductive life history traits. In brackish marsh sites male P. latipinna had the best body conditions, while females had similar body conditions across all 3 marsh types. Female P. latipinna had greater reproductive allotment and fecundity in brackish marshes, where this fish was most abundant. Specimens of G. affinis collected from fresh marsh sites had less favorable body condition, and females had lower reproductive allotment and fecundity than those collected from higher salinities. While G. affinis was more abundant in freshwater marshes than in higher salinity marshes, this higher abundance did not correspond with a better body condition or higher reproduc- tive effort, suggesting that G.
    [Show full text]
  • Fishes of Savannas Preserve State Park
    FISHES OF SAVANNAS PRESERVE STATE PARK by Kristy McKee A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of The Wilkes Honors College in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Bachelor of Arts in Liberal Arts and Sciences with a Concentration in Marine Biology Wilkes Honors College of Florida Atlantic University Jupiter, Florida August 2007 FISHES OF SAVANNAS PRESERVE STATE PARK by Kristy McKee This thesis was prepared under the direction of the candidate’s thesis advisor, Dr. Jon Moore, and has been approved by the members of her/his supervisory committee. It was submitted to the faculty of The Honors College and was accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Arts in Liberal Arts and Sciences. SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE: ____________________________ Dr. Jon Moore ____________________________ Dr. William O’Brien ______________________________ Dean, Wilkes Honors College ____________ Date ii Acknowledgements I would like to thank Dr. Jon Moore, Andrea Gagaoudakis, Janny Peña, Kelley McKee, Scott Moore, Carrie Goethel, Diego Arenas, Tony Uhl, Leslie Jacobson, and the Port St. Lucie High School Science Club members for their assistance in the field and in the laboratory; Kasey McKee for helping making the map; Dr. Jon Moore and Dr. William O’Brien for their helpful comments and suggestions during the writing process; Hank Smith for allowing me to embark on this project, assistance with acquiring permits, past collecting information, and general information about Savannas Preserve State Park; Greg Kaufman and Savannas Preserve State Park for passing on information about exotics collected in the park; and the Florida Museum of Natural History and Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institution for preserved specimens and catalog information from past collections.
    [Show full text]
  • Justin C. Bagley
    Justin C. Bagley Contact Department of Biology Phone: (314) 516-5125 Information University of Missouri{St. Louis Fax: (314) 516-6233 1 University Blvd., 223 Research Building E-mail: [email protected] St. Louis, MO 63121-4400, USA Website: https://justinbagley.org/ Professional University of Missouri{St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri, USA Appointments Postdoctoral Research Associate, Department of Biology (2018 { present) { Advisor: Nathan Muchhala (Funding: NSF DEB) Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia, USA Affiliate Researcher, Department of Biology (2018 { present) Postdoctoral Scholar, Department of Biology (2017 { 2018) { Advisor: Andrew J. Eckert (Funding: NSF Macrosystems Biology) Universidade de Bras´ılia, Bras´ılia,Distrito Federal, Brazil Senior Research Associate, Departamento de Zoologia (2015 { 2018) Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP), S~aoJose do Rio Preto, S~aoPaulo, Brazil Young Talent Fellow Postdoc, Departamento de Zoologia e Bot^anica(2015 { 2017) { Director: Kiko Langeani; Coordinator: Guarino R. Colli (Funding: CNPq) Utah Valley University, Orem, Utah, USA Adjunct Instructor of Ecology, Department of Biology (Summer 2014) Education Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, USA Ph.D. in Integrative Biology (December 2014) { Advisor: Jerald B. Johnson The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama, USA M.Sc. in Biology (August 2008) { Advisor: Phillip M. Harris B.Sc. in Biology (December 2004) { Advisor: Stephen M. Secor Shelton State Community College, Tuscaloosa, Alabama, USA A.S. in General Studies (May 2002) Languages Spoken: English (native), Spanish (near fluent, 9 yrs), Portuguese (functional, 2.5 yrs) Programming & Markup: bash/shell, R, Python, git, Swift, Markdown, LATEX Research phylogeography, phylogenomics, population genomics, speciation, adaptation, Interests gene flow (hybridization), species delimitation, integrative taxonomy, ecological niche modeling, phylogenetic comparative methods Justin C.
    [Show full text]
  • NC-Livebearer-And-Identification-Key
    Livebearer (Family Poeciliidae) Diversity in North Carolina By the NCFishes.com Team North Carolina is home to four species of livebearers (Table 1) (Tracy et al. 2020). [Please note: Tracy et al. (2020) may be downloaded for free at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/sfcproceedings/vol1/iss60/1.] The common name of the family – Livebearers – stems from the fact that a female gives birth to live young, rather than depositing or scattering her eggs externally. A male fish impregnates the female using specialized anal fin rays termed a gonopodium. The family is as well-known to most lay people as are Goldfish (Family Cyprinidae). Pet shops are literally swimming with tanks of colorful guppies, mollies, and swordtails – all livebearers. Often the whole family is referred to simply as guppies or mosquitofish. But the American Fisheries Society has officially accepted common names (Page et al. 2013) (Table 1) and each of their scientific (Latin) name actually means something (please refer to The Meanings of the Scientific Names of Livebearers, page 7). Table 1. Species of livebearers found in North Carolina. Scientific Name American Fisheries Society Accepted Common Name Gambusia affinis Western Mosquitofish Gambusia holbrooki Eastern Mosquitofish Heterandria formosa Least Killifish Poecilia latipinna Sailfin Molly In North Carolina, livebearers may be found from near Murphy in Cherokee County to Cape Hatteras in Dare County (Maps 1-4). [Note: see Supplemental Maps 1-3, page 8, showing North Carolina’s 100 counties, 21 river basins, and 4 physiographic regions.]. Eastern Mosquitofish, our most widely distributed and commonly collected species, is indigenous (native) in all river basins east of the Mountains, except for the Savannah (Map 2).
    [Show full text]
  • Scoring Criteria for the Index of Biotic
    Part III: Scoring Criteria for the Index of Biotic Integrity to Monitor Fish Communities in Wadeable Streams in the Apalachicola and Atlantic Slope Drainage Basins of the Southeastern Plains Ecoregion of Georgia Georgia Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Resources Division Fisheries Management Section 2020 Table of Contents Introduction………………………………………………………………… ………Pg. 1 Map of Southeastern Plains Ecoregion………………………………..…………… Pg. 3 Table 1. State Listed Fish in the Southeastern Plains Ecoregion………………….. Pg. 4 Table 2. IBI Metrics and Scoring Criteria………………………………………….Pg. 5 References………………………………………………….. ………………………Pg. 7 Appendix 1…………………………………………………………………………. Pg. 8 Apalachicola Basin Group (ACF) MSR Graphs…………………………… Pg. 9 Atlantic Slope Basins Group (AS) MSR Graphs…………………………... Pg. 17 Southeastern Plains Ecoregion Fish List……………………………………Pg. 25 i Introduction The Southeastern Plains ecoregion (SEP) is the largest of the six Level III ecoregions found in Georgia (Part I, Figure 1). It covers most of the southern portion of Georgia, bordering the Piedmont ecoregion to the north and the Southern Coastal Plain ecoregion to the southeast. It includes all or portions of 80 counties (Figure 1), covering a land area of over 25,000 square miles (United States Census Bureau 2000). Major drainage basins found within the (SEP) include the Chattahoochee, Flint, Ocmulgee, Oconee, Altamaha, Ogeechee, Savannah, Satilla, Suwannee, and Ochlockonee. The biotic index developed by the GAWRD is based on Level III ecoregion delineations (Griffith et al. 2001). The metrics and scoring criteria were developed from biomonitoring samples collected in the Chattahoochee, Flint, Ocmulgee, Oconee, Altamaha, Ogeechee, and the Savannah Drainage Basins. Based on similarities in species richness and composition, these seven drainages were aligned into two groups: the Apalachicola Drainage Basin (ACF), including the Chattahoochee and Flint drainage basins, and the Atlantic Slope Drainage Basin (AS), including the Altamaha, Ocmulgee, Oconee, Ogeechee, and Savannah Drainage Basins.
    [Show full text]
  • Osteology Identifies Fundulus Capensis Garman, 1895 As a Killifish in the Family Fundulidae (Atherinomorpha: Cyprinodontiformes)
    Osteology Identifies Fundulus capensis Garman, 1895 as a Killifish in the Family Fundulidae (Atherinomorpha: Cyprinodontiformes) Lynne R. Parenti1 and Karsten E. Hartel2 Copeia 2011, No. 2, 242–250 Osteology Identifies Fundulus capensis Garman, 1895 as a Killifish in the Family Fundulidae (Atherinomorpha: Cyprinodontiformes) Lynne R. Parenti1 and Karsten E. Hartel2 Fundulus capensis Garman, 1895 was described from the unique holotype said to be from False Bay, Cape of Good Hope, South Africa. Largely ignored by killifish taxonomists, its classification has remained ambiguous for over a century. Radiography and computed tomography of the holotype reveal skeletal details that have been used in modern phylogenetic hypotheses of cyprinodontiform lineages. Osteological synapomorphies confirm it is a cyprinodontiform killifish and allow us to identify it to species. The first pleural rib on the second vertebra and a symmetrical caudal fin with hypural elements fused into a fan-shaped hypural plate corroborate its classification in the cyprinodontiform suborder Cyprinodontoidei. The twisted maxilla with an anterior hook and the premaxilla with an elongate ascending process both place it in the family Fundulidae. The pointed neurapophyses of the first vertebra that do not meet in the midline and do not form a spine exclude it from the family Poeciliidae. Presence of discrete exoccipital condyles excludes it from the subfamily Poeciliinae. Overall shape, position of fins, and meristic data agree well with those of the well-known North American killifish, F. heteroclitus. Fundulus capensis Garman, 1895, redescribed herein, is considered a subjective synonym of Fundulus heteroclitus (Linnaeus, 1766). Provenance of the specimen remains a mystery. UNDULUS capensis Garman, 1895 was described described from the Cape of Good Hope, is obscure’’ and it is from one specimen said to be from False Bay, Cape (Griffith, 1972:261) ‘‘ .
    [Show full text]