FISHERY BULLETIN: VOL. 84, NO. 2 



% 

 80 



60 



40 



20 





 120 



100 



80 



60 



40 



20 



••• 



• • 



* ••< 



•: •* 



• •• . .• * • 

 . •••• 





i i i t ' i ' ' ' L 





IT? ' 



oMv 



••if*. • 



i i i i i 



j i i_ 



_i i i_ 



5 7 9 II 



BODY LENGTH 



13 



15 mm 



Figure 2.— Relationships between changes of proportion of second 

 dorsal spine (A) and third ventral fin ray (B) and body length (NL) 

 of Lophius gastrophysus. 



it becomes the position anterior to the eyes (Fig. 

 IF). 



DISCUSSION 



Based on a study of world-wide collections, Caruso 

 (1981, 1983) recently concluded that the Lophiidae 

 is represented by 4 genera and 25 species, of which 

 only 2 species inhabit the western Atlantic: Lophius 

 americanus in the western North Atlantic and L. 

 gastrophysus in the western Central and South 

 Atlantic. The geographic ranges of the two species 

 overlap between Cape Hatteras, NC, and Florida. 

 The two western Atlantic species are very similar, 

 but they can be easily distinguished by differences 

 in dorsal and anal fin ray counts, size of the third 

 and fourth dorsal spines, and differences in pigment 

 pattern (Caruso 1983). 



It is well known that lophiid anglerfishes spawn 

 over deep water producing large gelatinous ribbons 

 of spawn which often contain more than a million 



eggs (Berrill 1929). Spawning behavior is not known, 

 but some authors have suggested that it may occur 

 at or near the bottom (Taning 1923; Dahlgren 1928). 

 After hatching, the larvae emerge from the gela- 

 tinous capsules and pass a long planktonic stage. 

 Upon attaining a length of about 60 mm TL, young 

 fish probably take to the bottom (Connolly 1922; 

 Taning 1923; Bigelow and Schroeder 1953). 



As shown previously, Lophius larvae can be easily 

 distinguished from those of other species. Because 

 there is only one species in the western South Atlan- 

 tic, there is no doubt about the identification of our 

 larvae as L. gastrophysus. Therefore, we have 

 documented morphological differences in early 

 developmental stages of our specimens and com- 

 pared them with those of other well-known species 

 (Table 2). 



Meristic characters and adult forms of L. ameri- 

 canus and L. piscatorius are very similar, but their 

 larval forms are quite different (Taning 1923). The 

 most remarkable difference is the presence of three 

 large pigment bars on the trunk and caudal region 

 in L. americanus from the yolk-sac stage. He also 

 pointed out that the larval development of L. ameri- 

 canus was more rapid than that of L. piscatorius. 



The larvae of L. gastrophysus are very similar to 

 that of L. americanus. Both species have three large 

 pigment bars on the trunk and caudal region from 

 the very earliest stages. Larval development of L. 

 gastrophysus is more rapid than that of L. ameri- 

 canus, e.g., formation of the bases of the second dor- 

 sal and anal fins and the five dorsal spines occurs 

 at sizes 8.1 mm, 8.5 mm, and 11.5 mm, respective- 

 ly, for L. gastrophysus, L. americanus, and L. 

 piscatorius. In the same way, the first appearance 

 of canine teeth on both jaws occurs at sizes of 4.2 

 mm, 6.5 mm, and 9.8 mm, respectively, in the same 

 order for the three species. 



Another difference is in the position of the mela- 

 nophore of the ventral fin, present on the distal part 

 of this fin in larvae of L. americanus and L. pisca- 

 torius, but at three-fourths the length of the fin in 

 L. gastrophysus larvae. The presence of pigmenta- 

 tion in the preopercular and suborbital regions is 

 also peculiar to L. gastrophysus larvae. 



ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 



The authors wish to thank Edward D. Houde 

 of the University of Maryland for revision and 

 critical reading of the manuscript. 



They are also grateful to June Ferraz Dias and 

 Kazuko Suzuki for sorting and drawing the larvae. 



The financial support of this work came from the 



434 



