New descriptive data of
JMBA2 - Biodiversity RecordsPublished on-line
2weight relationship was described by the following equation:W = 0.019*L
=0.8925) (Figure 2)
The range of counts is followed by the mean ±SD inparentheses. D: 80–88 (84.7 ±1.9); A: 64–72 (68.3 ±1.9); P: 10–13(10.5 ±0.8); V: 6; C: 16; gillrakers in rst arch: 4–6+11–12=15–18;branchiostegal rays: 7. The number of scales in lateral line werevery difcult to count and therefore undetermined.The percentage range of lengths in standard length (SL) isfollowed by the mean ±SD in parentheses: head length 26.2–36.4(30.7 ±2.4); mouth length: 8.8–13.6 (10.7 ±1.4); preorbital length:5.9–11.5 (7.5 ±1.1); postorbital length: 13.1–20.5 (16.3 ±1.5);eye length: 5.3–9.4 (6.9 ±1.1); rst dorsal n ray length. 9.3–15.6(11.6 ±1.5); predorsal length: 3.4–11.7 (6.5 ±1.6); dorsal baselength: 82.6–95.5 (90.6 ±2.9); preanal length: 12.9–25.0 (18.5±3.1); anal base length: 72.1–86.3 (80.1 ±3.6); pectoral length:15.5–20.4 (17.3 ±1.3); blotch diameter: 5.6–9.6 (7.6 ±1.0); bodydepth: 45.2–57.3 (52.7 ±3.3) and body width: 6.3–14.0 (10.5 ±1.5).
Body oval and compressed, body depth about two times in SL; small head; deep notch in front of the upper eye; snout about as long as eye; mouth terminal, oblique, with a little knob on lower jaw;eyes oval, protruding, closely set, separated by a little prominent interorbital ridge; lower eye slightlyin advance of upper; maxillary extending to middle part of eye, rst dorsal n ray free, thickened,elongated and branched, appearing frayed or fringe-like, normally divided to medium height or lessin two main branches subdivided into secondary branches of different heights with 2 to 5 lamentsdistally (Figure 3) [Two abnormal specimens had more than one elongated rays in the dorsal n: afemale specimen of 110 mm SL had the rst four elongated rays decreasing posteriorly in length anda female of 105 mm SL had the two rst elongated rays of similar length]; body and rays scaled; smalland heavily toothed scales on ocular side, with 4–7 smaller teeth on the free edge of each scale,giving a rough surface; ctenoid scales on blind side; terminal rays of dorsal and anal ns divided toits base on the underside of body forming lobes, all other rays divided at their extremities; ventraln small with the last ray double; pectoral and caudal ns with marginal n rays simple, all other raysbranched; only one distinct round blotch towards tail-end of the lateral line.Colour on ocular side brownish with irregular dusky, reddish spots and blotches on head andbody; dorsal and anal ns with a series of dark blotches; distinctive circular blotch towards tail-end,reddish inside with a black ring externally; blind side white.
The at morphology, relatively small size and low abundance of this species probably explainstheir low gear catchability. These facts, together with their minor commercial interest, could explainthe scarcity of biological data and limited knowledge on
. In the eastern Atlantic,the main literature dealing with
relates to specimens from the British Isles area (Day,1880–1884; Norman, 1934; Wheeler, 1969) with very little information from either French (Cazaux& Labourg, 1973; Quéro et al., 1989) or Spanish areas (Lozano y Rey, 1960).The results exhibited sexual dimorphism, with females reaching a larger size than males, aspreviously noted in other atsh species (Nash & Geffen, 2005). The maximum TL found in thecurrent study was 22 cm, similar to that previously reported; 20 cm SL (Nielsen, 1986).The main diagnosis of the current specimens agreed with those previously reported by other
authors but there were some differences and inaccuracies.
The number of dorsal and anal n rays was higher than previously described. Dorsal n raycounts ranged from 80 to 88 in Galician specimens compared with 70 to 80 previously reported inthe literature, while anal n ray counts ranged from 64 to 72 compared with 60 to 68 in previouspapers. Prior to the current study, the greatest number of dorsal (70
80) and anal (60
68) n raycounts were reported by Norman (1934) apparently based on the examination of 14 specimensfrom several locations in the Mediterranean and Atlantic. The higher number of specimensexamined in the current study (23) from a more restricted area might explain these differences.Furthermore, regional differences in dorsal and anal n ray counts may indicate the presence of different populations as noted in other Scophthalmid species (Bagge & Nielsen, 1993; Chanet et al.2003).
Detail of rst elongated dorsal n ray of