Advertisement

Environmental Biology of Fishes

, Volume 41, Issue 1–4, pp 147–170 | Cite as

Geographical variation of some taxonomically important characters in fishes: the case of the bitterlingRhodeus sericeus

  • Juraj Holčík
  • Ladislav Jedlička
Article

Synopsis

Geographical variation of three meristic characters, the number of pored scales in lateral line (LL), the number of branchial spines on the first gill arch (SPBR) and the number of transverse scale rows (SQU), were studied in the cyprinid fishRhodeus sericeus and their validity for subspecific discrimination was tested. Counts investigated were taken from population samples at 23 localities covering an area of about 68° geographical longitude (2°40 W – 49°30 E and 128°00 E – 143°00 E), and about 15° geographical latitude (37°30 N – 52°00 N). All three characters manifested a distinct clinal variation. LL, SQU and SPBR closely followed the species' essentially longitudinal distribution. The number of segments was also related to latitude, elevation, mean annual air temperature and fish size. Bergmann's rule was fully demonstrated for fishes and at the species level. Local regional differences were found within particular regions, indicating the existence ofsubclines. Variation of truly isolated populations seems to be predictable and dependent on the clines found in adjacent populations. None of the counts investigated, including a key character (number of pored scales in LL), can be used to distinguishamarus fromsericeus. Owing to sufficient evidence that meristic and morphometric characters used to distinguish fish subspecies succumb to the clinal variation controlled by various factors, the concept of subspecies and trinomial nomenclature is inefficient, superfluous and misleading, and should be excluded from taxonomy, nomenclature and ecology.

Key words

Meristic characters Clines Geographical coordinates Altitude Temperature Fish size Subspecies Bergmann's rule Ostariophysi Cyprinidae 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References cited

  1. Abdurakhmanov, Yu.A. 1962. Freshwater fishes of Azerbaijan. Izd. Akademii Nauk Azerb.SSR, Baku. 406 pp. (in Russian).Google Scholar
  2. Aref'ev, V.A. 1988. Karyotypes of two species of cyprinid fish — aspAspius aspius (L.) and bitterlingRhodeus sericeus amarus (Bloch). Buyll. Mosk. Obshch. Isp. Prin, otd.biol. 93: 57–61. (in Russian).Google Scholar
  3. Barlow, G.W. 1961. Causes and significance of morphological variation in fishes. Syst. Zool. 10: 105–117.Google Scholar
  4. Berg, L.S. 1949. Freshwater fishes of the USSR and adjacent countries. Vol. 2, 3. 469–925; 926–1382. Izd. Akademii Nauk SSSR, Moskva-Leningrad (in Russian).Google Scholar
  5. Bloch, M. 1782. Oekonomische Naturgeschichte der Fishee Deutschlands. Hesse, Berlin. 234 pp.Google Scholar
  6. Bozhko, S.I., A. Horváth & B. Mészáros. 1976. Karyological examinations of four species of Cyprinidae from Hungary. Acta Biol. Debrecina 13: 237–256.Google Scholar
  7. Canestrini, G. 1866. Prospetto critico dei pesci d'acqua dolce d'Italia. Arch. Zool. Nat. 4,1895, Fasc.1.141 pp.Google Scholar
  8. Čihař J. (Chigarzh, J.) 1958. Notes to the systematics of the crucian carp (Carassius carassius). Voprosy Ikhtiologii (11): 136–141. (in Russian).Google Scholar
  9. Dillon, Jr., R.T. 1984. Geographic distance, environmental difference and divergence between isolated populations. Syst. Zool. 33: 69–82.Google Scholar
  10. Dogel', V.D. 1954. Oligomerization of the homologous organs. Izd. Leningradskogo universiteta, Leningrad. 368 pp. (in Russian).Google Scholar
  11. Gosline, W.A. 1954. Further thoughts on subspecies and trinomials. Syst. Zool. 3: 83–93.Google Scholar
  12. Hafez, R., R. Labat & R. Quillier, 1978. Étude cytogénétique chez quelquez especes de cyprinides de la region Midi-Pyrenees. Bull. Soc. d'Hist. Natur. Toulouse 114: 122–159.Google Scholar
  13. Himberg, K.J.M. 1970. A systematic and zoogeographic study of some north European coregonids. pp. 19–250.In: C.C. Lindsey & C.S. Woods (ed.) Biology of Coregonid Fishes, University of Manitoba Press, Winnipeg.Google Scholar
  14. Hoestland, H.1991 (ed.). Clupeidae, Anguillidae. The freshwater fishes of Europe, Vol. 2, AULA-Verlag, Wiesbaden. 448 pp.Google Scholar
  15. Holčík, J.(Golchik, Yu.) 1959. Systematic status of the European bitterling,Rhodeus sericeus amarus (Bloch,1783). Voprosy Ikhtiologii (13): 39–50. (in Russian).Google Scholar
  16. Holčík J. 1983.Rhodeus sericeus (Pallas, 1776).In:O. Oliva & V. Baruš (ed.) Fauna ČSSR, Fishes. Academia, Praha. (in press).Google Scholar
  17. Holč J. 1993.Rhodeus sericeus (Pallas,1776).In: P. Banarescu (ed.) The Freshwater Fishes of Europe, Vol. 5, Cyprinidae, AULA-Verlag, Wiesbaden. (in press).Google Scholar
  18. Holčík J., P. Banarescu & D. Evans.1989. General introduction to fishes. pp. 18–147.In: J. Holč (ed.) The Freshwater Fishes of Europe, Vol. 1, part II, AULA-Verlag, Wiesbaden.Google Scholar
  19. Holčík, J. & J.J. Duyvend de Wit. 1964. Systematic status of the bitterling from Asia Minor and notes on the geographical variability ofRhodeus sericeus (Pallas, 1776) in the area of its distribution. Zeitschr. f. Wissenschaft. Zoologie 169: 396–412.Google Scholar
  20. Holčík J., K. Hensel, J. Nieslanik & L. Skácel. 1988. The Eurasian huchen,Hucho hucho, largest salmon of the world. Dr W Junk Publishers, Dordrecht. 239 pp.Google Scholar
  21. Holčík J. & S. Nagy. 1987. Burbot (Lota lota [Linnaeus,1758]) from the Turiec River. Folia Zoologica 36: 85–96.Google Scholar
  22. Holč J. & V. Skořepa. 1971. Revision of the roach,Rutilus rutilus (Linnaeus, 1758), with regard to its subspecies. Annot. Zool. et Bot. 64. 60 pp.Google Scholar
  23. Hong, V., M. Zhou & T. Zhou. 1983. Studies on the karyotypes of Chinese cyprinid fishes. III. Comparative analysis of the chromosomes of seven species of acheilognathid fishes. J. Wuhan Univ. (Nat. Sci.) 1983 (2): 96–102. (in Chinese).Google Scholar
  24. Hubbs, C.L. 1922. Variations in the number of vertebrae and other meristic characters of fishes correlated with the temperature of water during development. Amer. Nat. 56: 360–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hubbs, C.L. 1925. Racial and seasonal variation in the Pacific herring, California sardine and California anchovy. Fish. Bull. (California) 8.25 pp. 107.Google Scholar
  26. Hubbs, C.L. 1943. Criteria for subspecies, species and genera, as determined by researches on fishes. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 44: 109–121.Google Scholar
  27. Huntsman, A.G. 1919. Variation of fishes according to latitude. Science 50: 592.Google Scholar
  28. Ivanović, B.M. 1973. Ichthyofauna of Skadar Lake. Biological Station. Titograd. 146 pp.Google Scholar
  29. Jordan, D.S. 1891. Relations of temperature to vertebrae among fishes. Proc. Nat. Mus. 14 (815): 107–120.Google Scholar
  30. Karaman, St. 1924. Pisces Macedoniae. Split. 90 pp.Google Scholar
  31. Karaman, St. 1955. Die Fische der Strumica (Struma-System). Acta Mus. Maced. Scient. Nat. 3: 181–207.Google Scholar
  32. Kazancheev, E.N. 1981. Fishes of the Caspian Sea. Legkaya i Pishchevaya Promyshlennost', Moskva. 183 pp (in Russian).Google Scholar
  33. Kim, I.S. 1982. A taxonomic study of the Acheilognathinae fishes (Cyprinidae) in Korea. Ann. Rep. of Biol. Research 3: 1–18. (in Korean).Google Scholar
  34. Lindberg, G.U. 1955. The Quaternary in the light of biogeographic data. Izd. Nauka, Moskva-Leningrad. 334 pp. (in Russian).Google Scholar
  35. Lindberg, G.U. 1972. Great fluctuations of the world ocean in the Quaternary. Izd. Nauka, Leningrad. 548 pp (in Russian).Google Scholar
  36. Lindsey, C.C. 1953. Variation in anal fin ray count of the redside shinerRichardsonius balteatus (Richardson). Can. J. Zool. 31: 211–222.Google Scholar
  37. Lindsey, C.C. 1966. Body sizes of poikilotherm vertebrates at different latitudes. Evolution 20: 456–465.Google Scholar
  38. Mayr, E. 1954. Notes on nomenclature and classification. Syst. Zool. 3: 86–89.Google Scholar
  39. Mayr, E. 1963. Animal species and evolution. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge. 797 pp.Google Scholar
  40. Mayr, E., E.G. Linsley & R.L. Usinger. 1953. Methods and principles of systematic zoology. McGraw-Hill, New York. 385 pp.Google Scholar
  41. Minkoff, E.C. 1984. Evolutionary biology. Addison-Wesley Publ. Comp., Reading. 627 pp.Google Scholar
  42. Moenkhaus, W.J. 1895. Variation of North American fishes. II. Variation ofEtheostoma caprodes Rafinesque in Turkey Lake and Tippecanoe Lake. Proc. Indiana Acad. Sci. 1895: 278–296.Google Scholar
  43. Moenkhaus, W.J. 1898. Material for the study of the variation ofEtheostoma caprodes Rafinesque andEtheostoma nigrum Rafinesque in Turkey Lake and Tippecanoe Lake. Proc. Indiana Acad. Sci. 1897: 207–228.Google Scholar
  44. Nikol'skii, G.V. 1956. Fishes of the Amur River. Izd. Akademii nauk SSSR, Moskva. 551 pp (in Russian).Google Scholar
  45. Pallas, P.S. 1776. Reise durch verschiedene Provinzen des Russischen Reichs. 3. Academia Scient., St. Petersburg. 19 + 760 + 25 pp.Google Scholar
  46. Pivnička, K. 1970. Morphological variation in the burbot (Lota lota) and recognition of the subspecies: a review. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 27: 1757–1765.Google Scholar
  47. Reshetnikov, Yu.S. 1961. On connection between the number of gill rakers and the diet characteristics in charrs of the genusSalvelinus. Zoologicheskii Zhurnal 40: 1574–1577. (in Russian).Google Scholar
  48. Schlesinger, D.A. & H.A. Regier. 1982. Climatic and morphoedaphic indices of fish yield from natural lakes. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 111: 141–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Schmidt, J. 1921. Racial investigations. VII. Annual fluctuations of racial characters inZoarces viviparus L. Comptes-Rendus Trav. Lab. Carlsberg 14, 14 pp.Google Scholar
  50. Starret, A. 1958. What is the subspecies problem? Syst. Zool. 7: 111–113.Google Scholar
  51. Svetovidov, A.N. 1932. On the dependence between the diet characteristics and the number of pyloric caeca in clupeids. Doklady Akademii Nauk SSSR (Ser. A) (8):202–204. (in Russian).Google Scholar
  52. Svetovidov, A.N. & G.K. Eremeev. 1935. On the European and Amur bitterling (Rhodeus sericeus). Doklady Akademii Nauk SSSR (1): 582–587.Google Scholar
  53. Svoboda, J. (ed.) 1983. Encyclopaedic dictionary of the geological sciences. 2 vols. Academia, Praha. 917 +852 pp. (in Czech).Google Scholar
  54. Taning, A.V. 1952. Experimental study of meristic characters of fishes. Biol. Reviews 27: 169–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Tatarko, K.I. 1968. The effect of temperature on the meristic characters of fishes. Voprosy Ikhtiologii 8: 425–439. (in Russian).Google Scholar
  56. Terent'ev, P.V. 1957. The ‘subspecies’ concept's utility in study of the intraspecific variation. Vestnik Leningradskogo Universiteta (21): 75–80. (in Russian).Google Scholar
  57. Vasil'ev, V.P. 1985. Evolutionary karyology of fishes. Izd. Nauka, Moskva. 300 pp (in Russian).Google Scholar
  58. Vladykov, V.D. 1934. Environmental and taxonomic characters of fishes. Trans. Royal Canad. Inst. 20 (Part 1): 99–140.Google Scholar
  59. Walter, E. 1913. Einführung in die Fishkunde unserer Binnengewässern. Quelle and Mezer, Leipzig. 364 pp.Google Scholar
  60. Wernstedt, F.L. 1972. World climatic data. Climatic Data Press, Lemont. 552 pp.Google Scholar
  61. Wilson, E.O. & W.L. Brown, Jr. 1953. The subspecies concept and its taxonomic application. Syst. Zool. 2: 97–111.Google Scholar
  62. Zhukov, P.I. 1965. Fishes of Belorussia. Izd. Nauka i Tekhnika, Minsk. 416 pp (in Russian).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Juraj Holčík
    • 1
  • Ladislav Jedlička
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute of Zoology and EcosozologySlovak Academy of SciencesBratislavaSlovakia
  2. 2.Department of ZoologyComenius UniversityBratislavaSlovakia

Personalised recommendations