Table of Contents Chapter 2. Alaska Arctic Marine Fish Inventory By Lyman K. Thorsteinson .............................................................................................................. 23 Chapter 3 Alaska Arctic Marine Fish Species By Milton S. Love, Mancy Elder, Catherine W. Mecklenburg Lyman K. Thorsteinson, and T. Anthony Mecklenburg .................................................................. 41 Pacific and Arctic Lamprey ............................................................................................................. 49 Pacific Lamprey………………………………………………………………………………….…………………………49 Arctic Lamprey…………………………………………………………………………………….……………………….55 Spotted Spiny Dogfish to Bering Cisco ……………………………………..…………………….…………………………60 Spotted Spiney Dogfish………………………………………………………………………………………………..60 Arctic Skate………………………………….……………………………………………………………………………….66 Pacific Herring……………………………….……………………………………………………………………………..70 Pond Smelt……………………………………….………………………………………………………………………….78 Pacific Capelin…………………………….………………………………………………………………………………..83 Arctic Smelt………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….91 Chapter 2. Alaska Arctic Marine Fish Inventory By Lyman K. Thorsteinson1 Abstract Introduction Several other marine fishery investigations, including A large number of Arctic fisheries studies were efforts for Arctic data recovery and regional analyses of range started following the publication of the Fishes of Alaska extensions, were ongoing concurrent to this study. These (Mecklenburg and others, 2002). Although the results of included Bureau of Ocean Energy Management-sponsored many of these efforts are not yet available, those involving research in the Chukchi Sea and nearshore and transboundary field sampling are important new sources of biodiversity surveys in the Beaufort Sea. New collections in the Chukchi information including voucher specimens and genetic Sea and Chukchi Borderland also were being obtained confirmation of a species existence and phylogenetic through National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s relationships. The addition of new morphological data and multidisciplinary Russian-American Long-term Census of the genetic analyses is important because despite many efforts, Arctic (RUSALCA) program. These were major exploratory systematic sampling in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas has efforts and represented potential sources of new marine been logistically difficult due to ice, storms, and platform species information. Building on the “Fishes of Alaska,” an limitations. Further variations in research missions and updated checklist was constructed of known and probable sampling methods have hampered regional assessments of marine fishes with catch data obtained in these studies. There diversity, relative abundance, and habitat importance because are 109 known species from 24 families of marine fish from the resulting database is sparse and fragmented in time and the United States High Arctic, with 97 species reported space. Quantitative evaluations of abundance based on catch from the Chukchi Sea and 83 from the Beaufort Sea. As this data are difficult, although local variability and persistent hot synthesis was being done, changes in the confirmation process, spots are known to exist. This chapter builds on the species based on morphological and genetic analysis, were captured inventory established by the Fishes of Alaska by incorporating as information became available in scientific publications. new species information obtained primarily in Bureau of The known species are reviewed with respect to taxonomic, Ocean Energy Management (BOEM)-sponsored (appendix A) geographic, and large-scale abundance considerations. and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Each species’ zoogeographic pattern with respect to our (NOAA) Russian-American Long-term Census of the Arctic understanding of broadly defined evolutionary origins is noted. (RUSALCA) surveys (Mecklenburg and Steinke, 2015). Changes in species nomenclature are described as they relate This information is complemented with a uniformly applied to newly described standards. assessment of relative abundance and qualitative analysis of population viability based on present day understanding of endemism. 1U.S. Geological Survey. 24 Alaska Arctic Marine Fish Ecology Catalog Checklist of Marine Fish disagreement occurs. In this report, the marine fish inventory presented in table 2.1 reflects the editors’ understanding of The updated checklist of confirmed occurrences is the classification and nomenclature of marine Arctic fishes. significant because it incorporates the new knowledge gained In most instances, the scientific and common names are those since the publication of the Fishes of Alaska (Mecklenburg and listed by Page and others (2013) and Eschmeyer and others others, 2002). It includes the most recent information from the (2015). However, in several instances where differences exist, Pacific Arctic Region including the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas we relied on the work of contemporary Arctic specialists and from Mecklenburg and Steinke (2015). Unlike Mecklenburg note areas of transitional change with respect to common and Steinke (2015), this checklist includes diadromous species names for species. from the family Salmonidae as these species spend significant The nomenclature of a small number of fish species from portions of their lives in the marine environment and have four families (Squalidae, Gadidae, Liparidae, and Zoarcidae) great importance in subsistence lifestyles. Even though this list are in transition and reflect areas where we disagree with the represents a significant advance, many uncertainties remain AFS nomenclature (Page and others, 2013). For purposes of about the true composition of the marine fish assemblage. this report, we decided to agree with the AFS nomenclature For this reason, information about probable occurrences of for Boreogadus saida due to the species’ significance to the marine fishes is included in this chapter. The uncertainties region’s marine ecology. Although, we acknowledge that result in part because the taxonomy of Arctic fishes was Polar Cod is emerging as the widely accepted common name still in its infancy at the turn of the 21st century, with many for B. saida, we decided to use Arctic Cod (as recommended species misidentified in historical literature and others not by Page and others [2013]) to avoid any confusion with recognized from the region due to sampling inadequacies new and historical Alaska literature. In contrast, we decided (Mecklenburg and others, 2011). The scientific improvements to use Ice Cod, not Polar Cod, as the common name for in knowledge about the Arctic region’s biodiversity reflect Arctogadus glacialis. This decision was made to avoid any new data collection and, importantly, advances in taxonomic potential ambiguity and confusion with B. saida. The use of and zoogeographic understanding that have resulted from Ice Cod is emerging nomenclature in scientific literature (for genetic resolution of issues that morphological studies failed to example, Arctic Council’s Conservation of Arctic Flora and notice or resolve (for example, Mecklenburg and others, 2011; Fauna) and clarification of the vernacular name is supported Lynghammar and others, 2012; Mecklenburg and Steinke, by genetic analysis (Nelson and Bouchard, 2013). Regarding 2015). The Arctic marine fish inventory, presented intable 2.1, other families and species, we recognize (1) Spotted Spiny is a major biodiversity achievement, which documents Dogfish instead of Pacific Spiny Dogfish as the common known (verified) marine fish species from the Chukchi and name for Squalus suckleyi (Squalidae, see Lynghammar and Beaufort Seas. others [2012]); (2) Estuarine Eelpout, not Polar Eelpout as Although advances have been significant in recent years, the common name for L. turneri (Mecklenburg and others, the taxonomy, including naming of Arctic marine fishes 2002); and (3) Arctic Sand Lance for Ammodytes hexapterus remains a source of inconsistency and confusion between following Orr and others (2015) and Mecklenburg and others leading authorities such as the American Fisheries Society (2016). Other more recent changes (for example, Mecklenburg (AFS), California Academy of Sciences Catalog of Fishes, and others, 2016) include changes in the scientific names for Integrated Taxonomic Information Systems, and World Capelin (now Mallotus catervarius) and Arctic Flounder (now Register of Marine Fishes, for members of several families. Liopsetta glacialis). In every case, the scientific name of a fish This is especially true for common names associated with is conclusive for the species being described. different languages (Mecklenburg and others, 2013). Changes One hundred nine (109) species from 24 families are in nomenclature are not uncommon in the classification confirmed with 97 verified occurrences from the Chukchi process, especially for lesser-studied species, and can Sea and 83 from the Beaufort Sea (table 2.1). Mecklenburg affect the regional use of scientific and common names in and others (2002) suggested other species (<20) also might literature (Eschmeyer and others, 2010). Thus, in creating be present and it remains likely that the total number will checklists, it is important to cite the authority used and change with additional field sampling, examination of existing rationale for inclusion or naming of a particular species where voucher specimens, and with shifts in range due to climate warming. Mecklenburg