RICHARDSON: CURRENT KNOWLEDGE OF SCULPIN LARVAE 



knowledge. Group 5 shares derived character 

 states of a very elongate, slender body form and 

 reduced prominence of preopercular spines; it also 

 exhibits relative constancy in pigment pattern 

 suggesting relationships between the genera. The 

 relatively large hatching size (>7 mm NL) of lar- 

 vae in Group 6 represents another specialization 

 indicative of relationship; such a large size is not 

 known in any of the other genera except Hemitrip- 

 terus whose larvae are ca. 12-14 mm NL at 

 hatching. Group 6 genera share a somewhat 

 elongate form and constancy of pigmentation, i.e., 

 lack of lateral pigment, although these characters 

 alone do not provide strong evidence of relation- 

 ship. That the six ungrouped genera did not share 

 a set of derived characters suggests that they bear 

 no close relationship with one another. 



In summary, this preliminary examination of 

 larval characters within 25 genera of cottids has 

 provided some new insights into cottid systemat- 

 ics. Larval evidence seems to support current 

 concepts of generic limits in most instances (e.g., 

 Enophrys, Hemitripterus , Hemilepidotus) and 

 has indicated a potentially new northeast Pacific 

 genus represented by "Cottoid Type A." Larval 

 characters offer support for the distinctiveness of 

 some genera (e.g., Rhamphocottus) and strong 

 relationships among others (e.g., the Artedius 

 group). Some of the larval groupings discussed 

 here tend to support previously implied relation- 

 ships within the cottids (compare Tables 2 and 3) 

 but some important differences seem apparent 

 [e.g., the distinctiveness of Group 1 demonstrated 

 herein; the separation o{ Artedius and Icelus, once 

 considered closely related (Jordan 1923); the rela- 

 tionship of Paricelinus , generally considered a 

 primitive and rather distinct form (Bolin 1947; 

 Sandercock and Wilimovsky 1968), with other 

 members of Group 2; the apparent relationship of 

 Icelus to other genera in Group 2 and its question- 

 able placement in a separate family (Jordan 1923; 

 Greenwood et al. 1966); the distinctiveness of 

 Radulinus , previously considered related to Chi- 

 tonotus and Icelinus (Bolin 1947)]. Because of the 

 wide diversity of form among cottid larvae, they 

 offer great potential for helping to clarify relation- 

 ships and evolutionary trends within this difficult 

 group of fishes. However, larvae of many species 

 remain to be described (rearing may be the best 

 approach), generic limits of larval characters 

 must be defined, and developmental sequences 

 including osteology need to be examined before 

 that potential can be fully realized. 



ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 



Many who helped make this paper possible were 

 acknowledged by Richardson and Washington 

 (1980). In addition, larvae for illustration were 

 provided as follows: Dasycottus setiger, J. R. Dunn 

 (Northwest and Alaska Fisheries Center, Nation- 

 al Marine Fisheries Service, NCAA); Psychrolutes 

 paradoxus, Gilbertidia sigalutes, J. Blackburn 

 (Alaska Department of Fish and Game); IMala- 

 cocottus zonurus, P. Wagner and G. Mueller (Uni- 

 versity of Alaska); Blepsias cirrhosus, Myoxo- 

 cephalus polyacanthocephalus , A. Lamb (Pacific 

 Environment Institute, British Columbia) and 

 C. Moffett (Bellingham, Wash.). B. Washington 

 illustrated these specimens and provided tech- 

 nical assistance. N. Y. Khan granted permission 

 to reproduce a figure of Gymnocanthus tricuspis 

 from his dissertation. J. L. Laroche (Oregon State 

 University) provided information on preopercular 

 spines and pigmentation on Myoxocephalus . Con- 

 versations on cottid systematics with K. Howe 

 (Oregon State University) were particularly in- 

 formative and stimulating. K. Howe and B. Wash- 

 ington read the manuscript and made helpful 

 comments. 



LITERATURE CITED 



AHLSTROM, E. H. 



1974. The diverse patterns of metamorphosis in gonosto- 

 matid fishes - an aid to classification. In J. H. S. Blaxter 

 (editor), The early life history offish, p. 659-674. Springer- 

 Verlag,N.Y. 

 AHLSTROM, E. H., AND H. G. MOSER. 



1976. Eggs and larvae of fishes and their role in systematic 

 investigations and in fisheries. Rev. Trav Inst. Peches 

 Marit. 40:379-398. 

 BAILEY, R. M., J. E. FITCH, E. S. HERALD, E. A. LACHNER, C. C. 

 LINDSEY, C. R. ROBINS, AND W. B. SCOTT. 



1970. A list of common and scientific names of fishes from 

 the United States and Canada. 3d ed. Am. Fish. Soc. 

 Spec. Publ. 6, 149 p. 

 BERG, L. S. 



1940. A classification offishes, both recent and fossil. Tr. 



Zool. Inst. Akad. Nauk SSSR 5(2):87-517. 

 BERTELSEN, E. 



1941. The Ceratioid fishes. Ontogeny, taxonomy, distribu- 

 tion and biology Dana-Rep., Carlsberg Found. 39, 276 p. 



BIGELOW, H. B., AND W. C. SCHROEDER. 



1953. Fishes of the Gulf of Maine. First Revision. U.S. 

 Fish Wildl. Serv., Fish. Bull. 53, 577 p. 

 BLACKBURN, J. E. 



1973. A survey of the abundance, distribution, and factors 

 affecting distribution of ichthyoplankton in Skagit Bay. 

 M.S. Thesis, Univ Washington, Seattle, 136 p. 

 BOLIN, R. L. 



1941. Embryonic and early larval stages of the cottid 



119 



