Marine Biology

, Volume 127, Issue 1, pp 97–104 | Cite as

Biochemical genetic evidence supporting the taxonomic separation ofLoligo edulis andLoligo chinensis (Cephalopoda: Teuthoidea) from the genusLoligo

  • A. S. Brierley
  • A. L. Allcock
  • J. P. Thorpe
  • M. R. Clarke


Confusion abounds regarding the relative generic status of many member species of the squid family Loliginidae. A taxonomie reorganisation within the family has been proposed in whichLoligo species from the Indo-Pacific possessing photophores on the ink sac, includingLogligo edulis andLoligo chinensis, are removed to the newly created genusPhotololigo. This system of classification has not however gained general acceptance, and some authors have continued to refer to these species asLoligo. Here biochemical genetic data gathered using allozyme electrophoresis are presented supporting the assertion thatL. edulis andL. chinensis should indeed be positioned in a genus distinct from that characterised by the type speciesLoligo vulgaris vulgaris. Cluster analysis of allele frequency data from 22 putative enzyme-coding loci suggests thatL. edulis andL. chinensis are as genetically distant fromL. vulgaris vulgaris as are members of the confamilial generaAlloteuthis, Uroteuthis andSepioteuthis, and as such warrant separate generic status. We conclude that the genusPhotololigo is valid.


Electrophoresis Cluster Analysis Allele Frequency Generic Status Genetic Data 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Alexeyev DO (1991a) Taxonomical system, phylogeny, distribution, biology and perspectives of fishery of squids of the suborder Myopsida. Unpublished thesis. Institute of Oeeanology, MoscowGoogle Scholar
  2. Alexeyev DO (1991b) Systematics and phylogeny of bioluminescent Loliginidae. Bull mar Sci 49: p 660Google Scholar
  3. Alexeyev DO (1992) The systematic position of bioluminescent squids of family Loliginidae (Cephalopoda, Myopsida). Zool Zh 71: 12–23 [in Russian with English abstract]Google Scholar
  4. Augustyn CJ, Grant WS (1988) Biochemical and morphologieal systematics ofLoligo vulgaris vulgaris Lamarck andLoligo vulgaris reynaudi D'Orbigny Nov. Comb. (Cephalopoda: Myopsida). Malacologia 29: 215–233Google Scholar
  5. Avise JC (1974) Systematic value of electrophoresic data. Syst Zool 23: 465–481Google Scholar
  6. Ayala FJ (1983) Enzymes as taxonomie characters. In: Oxford GS, Rolinson D (eds) Protein polymorphism: adaptive and taxonomic significance. Academic Press, London, pp 103–130Google Scholar
  7. Brakoniecki TF (1986) A genetic revision of the family Loliginidae (Cephalopoda: Myopsida) based primarily on the comparative morphology of the hectocotylus. Unpublished thesis. University of Miami, Miami, FloridaGoogle Scholar
  8. Brierley AS (1992) Aspects of genetic diversity and population structure in squid. Unpublished thesis. University of Liverpool, Port Erin, Isle of ManGoogle Scholar
  9. Brierley AS, Clarke MR, Thorpe JP (1996)Ctenopteryx sicula, a bathypelagic loliginid? Am malac Bull 12: 37–143Google Scholar
  10. Brierley AS, Rodhouse PG, Thorpe JP, Clarke MR (1993a) Genetic evidence of population heterogeneity and cryptic speciation in the ommastrephid squidMartialia hyadesi from the Patagonian Shelf and Antarctic Polar Frontal Zone. Mar Biol 116:593–602Google Scholar
  11. Brierley AS, Thorpe JP (1994) Biochemical genetic evidente supporting the taxonomie separation ofLoligo gahi from the genusLoligo. Antarctic Sci 6: 143–148Google Scholar
  12. Brierley AS, Thorpe JP, Clarke MR, Martins HR (1993b) A preliminary Biochemical genetic investigation of the population structure ofLoligo forbesi Steenstrup, 1856 from the British Isles and the Azores. In: Okutani T, O'Dor RK, Kubodera T (eds) Récent advances in cephalopod fisheries biology. Tokai University Press; Tokyo, pp 61–69Google Scholar
  13. Brierley AS, Thorpe JP, Pierce GJ, Clarke MR, Boyle PR (1995) Genetic variation in the neritic squidLoligo forbesi (Myopsida: Loliginidae) in the northeast Atlantic Ocean. Mar Biol 122: 79–86Google Scholar
  14. Carvalho GR, Thompson A, Stoner AL (1992) Genetic diversity and population differentiation in the shortfin squid (Illex argentinus) in the south-west Atlantic. J exp mar Biol Ecol 158: 105–121Google Scholar
  15. Eldredge N, Cracraft J (1980) Phylogenetic patterns and the evolutionary process. Method and theory in comparative biology Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. Garthwaite RL, Berg CJ Jr, Harrigan J (1989) Population genetics of the common squidLoligo pealei Le Sueur, 1821, from Cape Cod to Cape Hatteras. Biol Bull mar biol Lab, Woods Hole 177: 287–294Google Scholar
  17. Hatfield EMC (1982) Recruitment, demography and growth of the Patagonian squidLoligo gahi (D'orbigny, 1835) in Falkland Island waters. Unpublished thesis, Council for National Academic Awards, British Antarctic Survey, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  18. Hatfield EMC, Rodhouse PG (1994) Distribution and abundance of juvenileLoligo gahi in Falkland Island waters. Mar Biol 121: 267–272Google Scholar
  19. Jackson G (1993) Seasonal variation in reproductive investment in thé tropical loliginid squid Loligo chinensis and the small sepioidIdiosepius pygmaeus. Fish Bull, US 91: 260–270Google Scholar
  20. Jackson G (1994) Application and future potential of statolith increment analysis in squids and sepioids. Can J Fish aquat Sciences 51: 2612–2625Google Scholar
  21. May B (1992) Starch gel electrophoresis of allozymes. In: Hoelzel AR (ed) Molecular genetic analysis of populations. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 1–18Google Scholar
  22. Moltschaniwskyj NA (1994) Muscle-tissue growth and muscle-fiber dynamics in the tropical loliginid squidPhotololigo sp. (Cephalopoda, Loliginidae). Can J Fish aquat Sciences 51: 830–883Google Scholar
  23. Murphy RW, Sites JW Jr, Buth DG, Haufler CH (1990) Proteins. I. Isozyme electrophoresis. In: Hillis DM, Moritz C (eds) Molecular systematics. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts, pp 45–126Google Scholar
  24. Naef A (1923) Cephalopoda (systematics). Fauna and flora of the Bay of Naples 35. Translated by Israel Program for Scientific Translations, Jerusalem, 1972Google Scholar
  25. Natsukari Y (1984) Taxonomical and morphological studies on the loliginid squids. IV. Two new genera of thé family Loliginidae. Venus, Jap J Malac 43: 229–239Google Scholar
  26. Nei M (1972) Genetic distance between populations. Am Nat 106: 283–292Google Scholar
  27. Nei M (1978) Estimation of average heterozygosity and genetic distance from a small number of individuals. Genetics 89: 583–590Google Scholar
  28. Nei M, Roychoudhury AK (1974) Sampling variances of heterozygosity and genetic distance. Genetics 76: 379–390Google Scholar
  29. Nesis KN (1987) Cephalopods of the world. TFH Publications, Neptune City, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  30. Nevo E, Beiles A, Ben-Schlomo R (1984) The evolutionary significance of genetic diversity: ecological, demographic and life history correlates. In: Mani GS (ed) Evolutionary dynamics of genetic diversity. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, pp 13–213Google Scholar
  31. Richardson BJ, Baverstock PR, Adams M (1986) Allozyme electrophoresis - a handbook for animal systematics and population studies. Academic Press, SydneyGoogle Scholar
  32. Ridley M (1986) Evolution and classification. The reformation of cladism. Longman, LondonGoogle Scholar
  33. Roper CFE (1983) An overview of cephalopod systematics: status, problems and recommendations. Mem natn Mus Vict 44: 12–27Google Scholar
  34. Roper CFE, Young RE, Voss GL (1969) An illustrated key to the families of the Order Teuthoidea (Cephalopoda). Smithson Contr Zool 13: 1–32Google Scholar
  35. Smith PJ, Roberts PE, Hurst RJ (1981) Evidence for two species of arrow squid in the New Zealand fishery. NZ JI mar Freshwat Res 15: 247–253Google Scholar
  36. Sneath PHA, Sokal RR (1973) Numerical taxonomy. The principles and practise of numerical classification. Freeman, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  37. Swofford DL, Selander RB (1981) BIOSYS-1: a FORTRAN program for thé compréhensive analysis of electrophoretic data in population genetics and systematics. J Hered 72: 281–283Google Scholar
  38. Thorpe JP (1979) Enzyme variation and taxonomy; the estimation of sampling errors in measurement of interspecific genetic similarity. Biol J Linn Soc 11: 369–386Google Scholar
  39. Thrope JP (1982) The molecular Glock hypothesis: biochemical evolution, genetic differentiation and systematics. A Rev Ecol Syst 13: 139–168Google Scholar
  40. Thorpe JP (1983) Enzyme variation, genetic distance and evolutionary divergence in relation to levels of taxonomie separation. In: Oxford GS, Rolinson D (eds) Protein polymorphism: adaptive and taxonomie significance. Academic Press, London, pp 131–152Google Scholar
  41. Thorpe JP, Solé-Cava AM (1994) The use of allozyme electrophoresis in invertebrate systematics. Zool Scr 23: 3–18Google Scholar
  42. Voss GL (1977) Present status and new trends in cephalopod systematics. Symp zool Soc Lond 38: 49–60Google Scholar
  43. Yeatman J, Benzie JAH (1993) Cryptic speciation inLoligo from northern Australia. In: Okutani T, O'Dor RK, Kubodera T (eds) Recent advances in cephalopod fisheries biology. Tokai University Press, Tokyo, pp 641–652Google Scholar
  44. Yeatman J, Benzie JAH (1994) Genetic structure and distribution ofPhotololigo spp. in Australia. Mar Biol 118: 79–87Google Scholar
  45. Yokawa K (1994) Allozyme differentiation of sixteen species of ommastrephid squid (Mollusca, Cephalopoda). Antarctic Sci 6: 201–204Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. S. Brierley
    • 1
  • A. L. Allcock
    • 1
  • J. P. Thorpe
    • 1
  • M. R. Clarke
    • 1
  1. 1.Port Erin Marine Laboratory, Department of Environmental and Evolutionary BiologyUniversity of LiverpoolIsle of ManBritish Isles

Personalised recommendations