Advertisement

Morphometric Pattern and Feeding Mode in Emperor Fishes (Lethrinidae, Perciformes)

  • Kent E. Carpenter
Chapter
Part of the NATO ASI Series book series (NSSA, volume 284)

Abstract

The relationship between body shape and tooth type is examined for the 28 species of emperor fishes in the genus Lethrinus by means of shape coordinates and thin-plate splines. Both methods delineate two major groups within the genus. One group consists of low-bodied species with conically shaped lateral teeth. The other group consists of high-bodied species with both molariform, conical and intermediate lateral tooth types. Uniform shape components appear to account for much of the inferred evolutionary shape changes in these fishes. The primary nonuniform component of shape difference among fishes describes an arching of the body upwards and downwards, which may reflect a preservation artifact.

Keywords

Body Shape Shape Difference Centroid Size Canonical Variate Analysis Lateral Tooth 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Akazaki, M. 1962. Studies on the spariform fishes—anatomy, phylogeny, ecology, and taxonomy. Misaki Marine Biology Institute, Kyoto University. Special Report 1: 1–368 (In Japanese with English summary).Google Scholar
  2. Alexander, R. McN. 1974. Functional design in fishes, 3rd edition. Hutchinson: London.Google Scholar
  3. Bookstein, F. L. 1991. Morphometric tools for landmark data: Geometry and biology. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.Google Scholar
  4. Carpenter, K. E. and G. R. Allen. 1989. FAO species catalogue volume 9. Emperor fishes and large-eye breams of the world. An annotated and illustrated catalogue of lethrinid species known to date. FAO: Rome.Google Scholar
  5. Corti, M. 1992. Data analysis in systematics: A workshop and a manual to introduce geometric morphometrics. University of Rome. Privately Published.Google Scholar
  6. Johnson, G. D. 1981. The limits and relationships of the Lutjanidae and associated families. Bulletin of the Scripps Institute of Oceanography 24: 1–114.Google Scholar
  7. Rohlf, F. J. and F. L. Bookstein. (eds.) 1990. Proceedings of the Michigan morphometric workshop. University of Michigan Museum of Zoology Special Publication 2.Google Scholar
  8. Rohlf, F. J. 1993a. NTSYS-pc: Numerical taxonomy and multivariate analysis system, version 1. 8. Exeter Software: Setauket, New York.Google Scholar
  9. Rohlf, F. J. 1993b. Relative warp analysis and an example of its application to mosquito wings. Pages 131–159 in L. F. Marcus, E. Bello, and A. García-Valdecasas, (eds.), Contributions to morphometrics. Monografias del Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales 8, Madrid.Google Scholar
  10. SAS (Statistical Analysis Systems). 1988. Statistical Analysis System for Personal Computers. version 6. 03. SAS Institute: Cary, North Carolina.Google Scholar
  11. Slice, D. E. 1993. GRF-ND Generalized rotational fitting of N-dimensional landmark data. Department of Ecology and Evolution,. State University of New York, Stony Brook, New York 11794.Google Scholar
  12. Strauss, R. E., and F. L. Bookstein. 1982. The truss: Body form reconstruction in morphometrics. Systematic Zoology 31 (2): 113–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kent E. Carpenter
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Biological SciencesOld Dominion UniversityNorfolkUSA

Personalised recommendations