208 



Fishery Bulletin 105(2) 



are logistically difficult. Color photographs of Caranx 

 hippos provided by the International Game Fish As- 

 sociation and numerous colleagues indicate that adults 

 of this species are relatively common locally, especially 

 during October to February. We urge fishery biologists 

 and others who have the opportunity to obtain adults 

 of fishes that mature at relatively large sizes to help 

 ensure that at least a few such specimens are available 

 in major research collections. 



Figure 1 



The Caranx hippos species complex: (A) longfin crevalle jack ( C. fiscli- 

 eri). 358 mm FL, BMNH 1927.12.7.49, Ascension Island; (B) crevalle jack 

 (C. hippos), 390 mm FL, USNM 33247, Florida, Dixie Co., Swannee River; 

 (C) Pacific crevalle jack (C. caninus), 359 mm FL, USNM 127918, Peru, Lobes 

 de Tierra Island. Illustrations by Tracy D. Pedersen. 



Taxonomic history 



The genus Caranx was established by Lacepede (1801, 

 p. 57) and the type-species Caranx carangua Lacepede 

 was apparently first designated by Desmarest (1856, 

 p. 242) as Caranx carougus [sic] Bloch, which is a 

 junior synonym of Scomber hippos Linnaeus. Two other 

 generic or subgeneric names have been applied to these 

 species (Tricropterus Rafinesque, 1810 and Carangus 

 Girard, 1858), but both are junior 

 synonyms of Caranx because the 

 type species of these nominal taxa 

 is also Scomber carangus Bloch. 



Caranx hippos was first de- 

 scribed (Linnaeus, 1766) from 

 Carolina as Scomber hippos. The 

 putative holotype, a right half- 

 skin (Wheeler, 1985), was includ- 

 ed in one of the last shipments 

 of dried fish specimens sent to 

 Linnaeus by the colonial physi- 

 cian Alexander Garden (Sanders, 

 1997). Synonyms of Caranx hippos 

 (see species account) are either 

 unnecessary replacement names 

 or Linnaeus's original descrip- 

 tion was not considered. Nichols 

 (1920), because his superficial de- 

 scription of his new Brazilian sub- 

 species, Caranx hippos tropicus, 

 was based on too few specimens, 

 failed to appreciate the range of 

 variation in the species, and other 

 workers have correctly disregard- 

 ed this trinominal. In his descrip- 

 tion of the eastern Pacific Caranx 

 caninus, Giinther (1867, 1868) did 

 not compare this species with any 

 other species. Jordan and Gilbert 

 (1883), Jordan (1895), and Gilbert 

 and Starks (1904) all concluded 

 that this nominal species was in- 

 distinguishable from the western 

 Atlantic C. hippos. In their ma- 

 jor work on the fishes of Panama, 

 Meek and Hildebrand (1925) also 

 did not recognize C. caninus as 

 a valid species, stating "a care- 

 ful comparison of our large series 

 from the two coasts discloses no 

 differences of importance." Hil- 

 debrand (1946) continued to rec- 

 ognize fish from both oceans as 

 conspecific. Berry (1974) stated 

 that eastern Pacific and western 

 Atlantic specimens of Cairinx hip- 

 pos are essentially identical. Es- 

 chmeyer and Herald (1983) stated 

 that C. caninus might not be a 

 valid species. Eschmeyer (1998) 





