Discrimination of snipefish Macroramphosus species and boarfish Capros aper morphotypes through multivariate analysis of body shape
The existence of two species of the genus Macroramphosus Lacepède 1803, has been discussed based on morphometric characters, diet composition and depth distribution. Another species, the boarfish Capros aper (Linnaeus 1758), caugth along the Portuguese coast, shows two different morphotypes, one type with smaller eyes and a deeper body than the other, occurring with intermediate forms. In both snipefish and boarfish no sexual dimorphism was found with respect to shape and length relationships. However, females in both genera were on average bigger than males. A multidimensional scaling analysis was performed using Procrustes distances, in order to check if shape geometry was effective in distinguishing the species of snipefish as well as the morphotypes of boarfish. A multivariate discriminant analysis using morphometric characters of snipefish and boarfish was carried out to validate the visual criteria for a distinction of species and morphotypes, respectively. Morphometric characters revealed a great discriminatory power to distinguish morphotypes. Both snipefish and boarfish are very abundant in Portuguese waters, showing two well-defined morphologies and intermediate forms. This study suggests that there may be two different species in each genus and that further studies on these fish should be carried out to investigate if there is reproductive isolation between the morphotypes of boarfish and to validate the species of snipefish.
KeywordsMorphometrics Capros aper Macroramphosus
Lo Bianco (1909, in D‘Ancona 1933) was the first author who refuted the separation of those two species. He reported an experiment where small M. gracilis with 20 mm when grown up to 75 mm of total length, acquired a body morphology typical of M. scolopax. Based on these results D‘Ancona (1933) concluded that M. scolopax and M. gracilis in the Mediterranean belong to the same species, the latter being a juvenile of the former. Also Ehrich (1976) considered M. gracilis as a juvenile of M. scolopax, based mainly on the existence of intermediate forms. However, several studies on morphometrics, growth and feeding ecology of snipefish carried out in different areas support the distinction between M. gracilis and M. scolopax (Brêthes 1979 for the Moroccan coast; Clarke 1984 for the southeast Australia; Assis 1993 and Borges 2000 for the Portuguese coast; Kuranaga and Sasaki 2000 and Miyazaky et al. 2004 for Japan; Matthiessen et al. 2003 and Matthiessen and Fock 2004 for the Great Meteor seamount).
Morphometrics is a very useful tool in systematics, describing populational structures, identifying fish stocks and providing knowledge on the degree of intraspecific variation. The analysis of morphometric characteristics is used in this study to validate in a quantitative way the criteria used to distinguish snipefish species and boarfish morphotypes and to check whether the magnitude of the differences between the snipefish species is comparable to that between boarfish morphotypes. Given that the distinction of two species of Macroramphosus only on morphological evidence is valid, a similar degree of morphological differences between morphotypes of Capros would suggest the existence of two different species in these genus, too.
Chi-square tests of 2×2 contingency tables (Zar 1996) were performed to check if there was independence between shape types and sex (in which case a separate analysis should be done for each sex), and between sex and length class. Length classes were defined as ≤115 and ≥130 mm for snipefish and ≤95 and ≥100 mm for boarfish. In these tests, individuals with shape characteristics considered as intermediate were not included.
To investigate the morphological differences within each genus, the two-dimensional configurations of all individuals, given by their landmarks coordinates, were centered at the origin and scaled to the same size. Then, a least-squares Procrustes method (Rohlf 1990) was applied and a mean configuration was calculated for each morphotype. A reference individual was then chosen for snipefish and another for boarfish, and a Procrustes distance was calculated between each individual and the reference one. A multidimensional scaling (MDS) analysis was performed using the Procrustes distances in order to visually verify the aggregation of the individuals of the same type.
Distances corresponding to the visual criteria used to classify specimens of snipefish and boarfish in the laboratory
Dorsal spine length
Between first dorsal fin and tail fin
The length distributions of the snipefish sample (Fig. 4) revealed similar length ranges for M. scolopax and M. gracilis, whereas within the genus Capros, the deeper type presented a wide length range, compared with slender and intermediate types. The Chi-squared tests showed that the morphotypes of both genera were independent of sex (snipefish: P=0.51, 1 df; boarfish: P=0.20, 1 df). For this reason, males and females were not analysed separately. However, in both genera, sex was not independent of length class, with females being, on average, bigger than males (snipefish: P=0, 1 df; boarfish: P=0.004, 1 df).
Number and percentage of individuals allocated to each group, in the validation of the discriminant analysis for the morphometric data of snipefish and boarfish
The results of the present paper suggest the existence of two distinct morphotypes of boarfish. It was also shown that the discrimination between these types, either by visual or morphometrical criteria, reveal a pattern that can be comparable to the distinction between snipefish species based on the same criteria. The existence of distinct forms of boarfish has never been reported before, which is an odd situation, given that this is a common species with a wide distribution (Heemstra 1986), and that thousands of boarfish individuals have been sampled along the Portuguese coast in the last 20 years during bottom-trawl surveys. This situation is probably due to the fact that boarfish in a certain haul belong mostly to the same morphotype, as observed during this study.
The length distribution of the snipefish sample (Fig. 4) revealed that the hypothesis of M. gracilis individuals being juveniles of M. scolopax must be rejected, since both species showed similar length ranges, as concluded by Borges (2000). The same can be seen for boarfish types, with the deeper type showing both the biggest and smallest individuals. Previous studies have reported differences between snipefish species regarding body shape (Clarke 1984; Assis 1993; Matthiessen et al. 2003), larval morphology (Kuranaga and Sasaki 2000; Miyazaki et al. 2004), diet composition (Clarke 1984; Matthiessen et al. 2003; Matthiessen and Fock 2004) and depth distribution (Villegas and Brêthes 1976; Clarke 1984). Some studies related the diet of the species with their bathymetrical distribution, as M. gracilis is a more pelagic species than M. scolopax (Clarke 1984; Matthiessen et al. 2003).
Body shape is determined by several factors such as the genetic pool, developmental constraints and responses to environmental conditions (Hanken and Wake 1991 in Valentin et al. 2002). Morphological changes often reflect environmental influences on embryonic and larval development and natural selection on adults (Cock 1966). The typological species concept uses the degree of morphological differences as a criterion to separate species, as it is the case with the genus Macroramphosus. However, this concept has been rejected (Mayr and Ashlock 1991) in favour of the biological species concept which holds that two groups of individuals are separate species when they are reproductively isolated (Mayr and Ashlock 1991).
The existence of individuals with intermediate morphological characters among both snipefish and boarfish raises some doubt that there is reproductive isolation. If snipefish species and boarfish morphotypes correspond to different species each, the intermediate forms may be hybrids or, if not, may have been subjected to particular environmental conditions at a certain stage in life. Assis (1993), by microscopic analysis of gonadal slices of snipefish individuals with intermediate characteristics, concluded that these individuals are fertile, although presenting lighter gonads and a lower gonadossomatic index (GSI) than M. scolopax and M. gracilis in a period close to the reproductive season. These findings disprove the hypothesis of the intermediate individuals being hybrids but do not give information about the validity of two different species and the origin of intermediate forms.
As in the case of snipefish, there is no genetic or other biological information on boarfish at the moment suggesting the existence of separate species. However, the situation in boarfish is strikingly similar to that in snipefish: individuals can be classified into two distinct morphotypes which seem to occur aggregated in separate shoals. Following the arguments which suggest the existence of two different species of snipefish on the basis of morphometric data, the existence of different species should also be considered provisionally for Capros aper until biological evidence is available to confirm or reject this hypothesis (Mayr and Ashlock 1991).
The authors thank Mrs. Conceição Almeida for the scientific drawings. The first author was supported by a grant from PRODEP. This work was carried out within project “Pelágicos” funded by the Portuguese “Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia”.
- Albuquerque RM (1956) Peixes de Portugal e ilhas adjacentes. Chaves para a sua identificação. Portug Acta Biol (B) 5:525–528Google Scholar
- Assis CA (1993) On the systematics of Macrorhamphosus scolopax (Linnaeus, 1758) and Macrorhamphosus gracilis (Lowe, 1839). II - Multivariate morphometric analysis. Arq Mus Bocage (new series) 22:383–402Google Scholar
- Brêthes JC (1979) Contribution à l‘étude des populations de Macrorhamphosus scolopax (L. 1758) et Macrorhamphosus gracilis (Lowe, 1839) des côtes Atlantiques Marocaines. Bull Inst Pêches Marit 24:1–62Google Scholar
- D‘Ancona U (1933) Famiglia Macrorhamphosidae. In: D’Ancona U (ed) Fauna e flora del Golfo di Napoli. Monograf, Roma, pp 299–306Google Scholar
- Ehrich S (1976) Zur Taxonomie, Oekologie und Wachstum von Macroramphosus scolopax (Linnaeus, 1758) (Pisces, Syngnathiformes) aus dem subtropischen Nordostatlantik. Ber Wiss Kommn Meeresforsch 24:251–266Google Scholar
- Ehrich S (1986) Macroramphosidae. In: Whitehead PJP, Bauchot ML, Hureau JC, Nielsen J, Tortonese E (eds) Fishes of the North-eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean II. UNESCO, ParisGoogle Scholar
- Heemstra PC (1986) Caproidae. In: Smith M, Heemstra PC (eds) Smith’s Sea Fishes. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 506–507Google Scholar
- Johnson RA, Wichern DW (ed) (1992) Applied multivariate statistical analysis, 3rd edn. Prentice-Hall, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
- Matthiessen B, Fock HO (2004) A null model for the analysis of dietary overlap in Macroramphosus spp. at the Great Meteor Seamount (subtropical North-east Atlantic). Arch Fish Mar Res 51:294–304Google Scholar
- Matthiessen B, Fock HO, Westernhagen Hv (2003) Evidence for two sympatric species of snipefishes Macroramphosus spp. (Syngnathiformes, Centriscidae) on Great Meteor Seamount. Helgoland Mar Res 57:63-72Google Scholar
- Mayr E, Ashlock PD (1991) Principles of systematic zoology, 2nd edn. McGraw Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Ricker WE (1973) Linear regressions in fishery research. J Fish Res Board Can 30:409–434Google Scholar
- Robins CR, Ray GC (1986) A field guide to Atlantic coast fishes of North America. Houghton Mifflin Company, BostonGoogle Scholar
- Rohlf FJ (1990) Rotational fit (Procrustes) Methods. In: Rohlf FJ, Bookstein FL (eds) Proceedings of the Michigan Morphometrics Workshop. University of Michigan Museum of Zoology, Michigan, pp 227–236Google Scholar
- Valentin A, Sévigni JM, Chanut JP (2002) Geometric morphometrics reveals body shape differences between sympatric redfish Sebastes mentella, Sebastes fasciatus and their hybrids in the Gulf of St Lawrence. J Fish Biol 60:857–871Google Scholar
- Villegas L, Brêthes JC (1976) Distribution et abondance relative de la Becasse dans l’Atlantique Marocain. Trav Doc Dév Pêches Maroc 17:1–19Google Scholar
- Zar JH (ed) (1996) Biostatistical analysis, 3rd edn. Prentice-Hall, New JerseyGoogle Scholar