established the vaHdity of the "swim bladder and 

 fontanelle" character, while other workers pub- 

 licized equally stable characters in the morid 

 caudal complex (Rosen and Patterson, 1969) and 

 the sagittal otoliths (Schmidt, 1968; Karrer, 

 1971). 



In spite of such common knowledge, the va- 

 lidity of characters used for distinguishing ge- 

 nera has not been demonstrated, and any esti- 

 mate of speciation would be wild at best. 

 Perusal of available literature indicates that 

 perhaps 20 morid genera are recognized from 

 among the 25 or so available names. Since about 

 half of these genera are monospecific, it seems 



FISHERY BULLETIN: VOL. 70, NO. 3 



highly probable that a critical study would re- 

 sult in a substantial reduction. 



We limited our research to those morids in- 

 habiting the eastern North Pacific for three 

 reasons: (i) it is the faunal region of greatest 

 immediate concern to West Coast fishery biol- 

 ogists and ichthyologists, (ii) study material 

 was readily available, and (iii) the problems 

 appeared to be solvable in the time we were able 

 to budget for the study. Our work with morid 

 otoliths and the fossil record stems from a long- 

 seated interest in these two subjects, and knowl- 

 edge of the otoliths and the caudal complex was 

 needed in order to interpret the fossil record. 



KEY TO GENERA AND SPECIES OF MORIDAE IN THE EASTERN NORTH PACIFIC 



1. Snout projecting well beyond mouth as a flat, pointed rostrum; first ray of first dorsal fila- 

 mentous, longer than head; 57 to 58 vertebrae; 36 to 38 caudal rays; a small oval patch 

 of teeth on head of vomer Antimora microlepis 



Mouth terminal, snout not flattened nor projecting; first ray of first dorsal not produced, 

 equal to less than one-half head length; 43 or fewer vertebrae; 32 or fewer caudal rays; 

 vomerine teeth absent or forming a single row, never in clumps or patches 2 



2. Pelvic rays 2; vomerine teeth in a single row across head of vomer; 39 to 42 rays in second 

 dorsal; 39 to 42 rays in anal; 44 to 46 vertebrae; no black fossa (luminous area) on belly 

 between and behind pelvic fin bases Microlepidium verecunduvi 



Pelvic rays 6 or 7; no teeth on vomer; 52 to 67 rays in second dorsal; 56 to 67 rays in anal; 

 52 to 55 vertebrae; a black fossa on midline of belly behind pelvic fin bases 3 



3. Pelvic rays 6; gill rakers 16 to 19, 12 to 14 on lower limb; caudal rays 22 to 25 ; black fossa 

 on belly round, width equal to length or nearly so; chin and throat densely scaled, rough to 

 touch Physiculus nematopus 



Pelvic rays 7; gill rakers 26 to 30, 18 to 22 on lower limb; caudal rays 27 to 32; black fossa 

 on belly over twice as long as wide; chin and throat naked or with a few embedded scales, 

 smooth to touch Physiculus rastrelliger 



SPECIES ACCOUNTS 



Antimora microlepis Bean, 1890 



D. 4(4-5),^ 50(50-55)'; A. 37 (39-42) ^ C. 37; 

 P. 20; P2. 6(6-7)^ Br. 7; rakers on first gill 

 arch 5 + 15 = 20; posterior rakers on first 

 gill arch 3 + 12 = 15; vertebrae including hy- 

 pural 24-25 + 33 = 57-58. 



' Counts in parentheses are from Clemens and Wilby 

 (1961). 



There is a small round patch of teeth on the 

 head of the vomer; those in the jaws are villi- 

 form and in several rows. The broad depressed 

 snout forms a spadelike rostrum with sharp lat- 

 eral margins. The mouth is inferior. The 

 elongate barbel at the tip of the lower jaw is 

 conspicuous. The filamentous first ray of the 

 first dorsal fin is more than twice as long as 

 the next longest ray. The second dorsal and anal 

 fins are deeply indented posteriorly and termi- 

 nate adjacent to the ninth from last vertebra, 

 including the hypural. The caudal rays com- 



566 



