32 

 30 

 28 

 26 

 24 

 22 

 20 

 I 8 

 I 6 

 - 14 



E 

 (J 



34 



A 

 O 



MALE 



^ 



a 



A 

 A 8 



8 



A 



- A 



O 



J I I I i_ 



X 



o 32 

 ^ 30 

 28 

 26 

 24^- 

 22 

 20 

 I 8 - 

 I 6- 



A 



O 



FEMALE 



A 

 09 



8 



a^ 



A 

 A g 



9 



»- 



s 



A 

 O 



4 5 6 7 8 9 10 

 AGE (years ) 



I 12 13 



Figure 3.-Age-length comparison for yellowfin sole taken in the 

 eastern Bering Sea in 1961 (open triangles); 1963 (closed circles, 

 Maeda 1969); and 1965-66 (open circles, Hatanaka 1968). 



comparable age average 10% greater in length 

 (Figure 4). 



No age-length information has been reported 

 for Alaska plaice except that by Mosher (1954). 

 The otolith observations by Mosher in 1949, though 

 not separated by sex, indicate a markedly slower 

 growth rate for younger fishes than that observed 

 in our 1961 samples (Figure 5). Mosher (1954) 

 comments that in his sample of Alaska plaice the 

 first three to seven annular rings on each otolith 

 were compressed and that beyond this zone, the 

 an null were farther apart. We noticed this same 

 growth pattern in some of the otoliths from our 

 collection, but it was not consistent. 



In reflecting on the significance of similarities 



6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 

 AGE (years) 



Figure 4. -Age-length comparison for rock sole taken in the 

 eastern Bering Sea in 1961 (open triangles, female; closed 

 triangles, male), and in 1963 (open circles, female; closed circles, 

 male; from Levings 1967). 



42 

 401- 



38 

 g 361- 

 X34 



w 321- 



_j 



30 

 28 - 

 26 - 



24 



O 



O 



o 



o 



o 



o 



o 



_L 



_L 



_L 



J- 



9 10 II 12 

 AGE ( years) 



Figure 5. -Age-length composition (average length of combined 

 sexes) for Alaska plaice taken in the eastern Bering Sea in 1949 

 (closed circles, from Mosher 1954) and 1961 (open circles). 



or differences between our results and those ob- 

 tained by other authors, we feel that a number of 

 points should be considered. First, we recognize 

 that our samples were collected from the southern 

 part of the distribution of these species in the 

 eastern Bering Sea, and some of the specimens 

 with which we make comparisons were taken in 

 another part of the range and may represent 

 another population. It was determined by Fadeev 

 (1970) that the yellowfin sole of the southeastern 



923 



