RICHARDS: GONORYNCHIFORMES 



139 



progresses, the melanophores collect along the dorsal and ven- 

 tral midlines of the trunk. In larvae 10-15 mm SL (Fig. 71) 

 pigmentation is variable with melanophores on the dorsal mid- 

 line varying from one to many and melanophores on the lateral 

 line varying from none to many. The ventral midline has a 

 continuous streak of melanophores in sharp contrast to clupeids 

 and engraulids which have melanophores laterally on each side 

 of the gut thus presenting two parallel streaks in ventral view. 

 The anal fin of Chanos originates beneath the dorsal fin as in 

 engraulids. In Hawaiian waters meristics separate Chanos from 

 Gonorynchiis and other clupeids and engraulids. Chanos has 

 40-46 vertebrae [44-46 according to Miller et al. (1979) and 

 40-45 according to Senta and Kumagai (1977)]. Dorsal rays are 

 14-16, anal rays 8-11, pectoral rays 17 and pelvic rays 10-12 

 (Miller et al., 1979). 



Much less is known about the early life history stages of Gon- 

 orynchus. Furukawa (1951) described the larvae of G. ahbrev- 

 latus and illustrated 18 and 23 mm specimens. He based his 

 identification on dorsal (1 1-1 2) and anal (7-8) fin rays, vertebral 

 counts (55) and the posterior position of the dorsal and anal 

 fins. Hattori (1964) illustrated and briefly described a series of 

 G. ahbreviatus from 8.6 to 90.5 mm. He noted that the positions 

 of the dorsal and anal fins do not shift during development. 

 Mito (1966) illustrates two larval G. ahbreviatus. I examined a 

 series of G. abbreviatus specimens and one is illustrated here 

 (Fig. 7 1 ). The larvae resemble clupeids with the wide separation 

 of the dorsal and anal fin. Pigment occurs dorsally and ventrally 



on the caudal peduncle and extends posteriad into the bases of 

 the procurrenl caudal rays. Internal pigment occurs above the 

 hindgut and behind the brain. A few external melanophores 

 are present on the top of the head. Additional external mela- 

 nophores appear with growth. These include a series which de- 

 velops as lateral spots increasing in number with growth. In a 

 few specimens examined a 15.9 mm larva had one spot and 

 these increased in number to 18. At 23 mm SL pigment also 

 appeared on the opercle and ventral rim of the orbit. The pelvic 

 fin is discernible as a bud in small larvae but fin rays are not 

 defined until 18 mm SL. A swimbladder is not discernible on 

 any of the specimens as it is in clupeids and Chanos. 



Relationships 



The relationships of the Gonorynchiformes have been dis- 

 cussed most recently by Fink and Fink (1981). They conclude 

 that this order is the sister group of the Otophysi (the taxon 

 which includes fishes with the Weberian apparatus). Chanos 

 and Gonorynchiis larvae more closely and superficially resemble 

 clupeoid larvae than any other group. This matter should be 

 thoroughly investigated when early life history aspects of the 

 freshwater species become better known. It will be interesting 

 to see if those larvae resemble the marine species or freshwater 

 Otophysi. 



National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries 

 Center, 75 Virginia Beach Drive, Miami, Florida 33149. 



Salmoniforms: Introduction 



W. L. Fink 



ORIGINALLY a major portion of the Protacanthopterygii 

 of Greenwood, et al. (1966), the order Salmoniformes is 

 now the only portion left in that group, and the former term 

 has ceased to have a useful function. This erosion of the Pro- 

 tacanthoptergyii has resulted from the search for and taxonomic 

 recognition of natural groups of primitive euteleosts, a practice 

 that has and is continuing to have profound effects on fish clas- 

 sification at all levels. This part of the symposium, concentrating 

 on the "salmoniforms," places its participants in the middle of 

 a continually changing set of problems, some of which have 

 been longstanding. One of the questions we address here is 

 whether the Salmoniformes as conceived by Greenwood et al. 

 is itself useful any more, and if not, what are the relationships 

 of the formerly included groups. In the years since it was delin- 

 eated, the Salmoniformes has undergone attrition, most notably 

 at the hands of Rosen (1973). Of particular concern to us is 

 whether there is one large monophyletic unit which can be called 

 Salmoniformes, as maintained by Rosen (1974), or whether 

 there are several units, as suggested by Fink and Weitzman 

 (1982), thus reciuiring us to modify our conclusions and clas- 

 sifications. The basic questions are these; (1) What are the re- 

 lationships of the Esocoidei (sensu Rosen, 1974), both to one 

 another and to other primitive euteleosts? (2) What are the 

 relationships of the Ostariophysi, (sensu Rosen and Greenwood, 



1970)? Do these fishes lie above or below the Esocoidei in the 

 phylogeny? (3) What is the pattern of relationships among the 

 traditionally recognized "salmoniform" taxa, exclusive of the 

 Esocoidei and Ostariophysi? Is this a natural division? (4) What 

 are the phylogenetic relationships of and within the Argenti- 

 noidei (sensu Greenwood and Rosen, 1971)? (5) What are the 

 phylogenetic relationships of and within the Osmeroidei? (6) 

 What are the phylogenetic relationships of and within the Sal- 

 monidae? (7) Where does Lepidogalaxias belong? (8) What are 

 the interrelationships within the stomiiform fishes? (9) What of 

 the Myclophoidei, as recognized by Greenwood, et al. (1966)? 

 This "group" has been most recently addressed by Rosen (1973) 

 in his discussion on the Eurypterygii and Neoteleostei. Parts 

 of these groups overlap into areas covered by this particular 

 part of the symposium, such as placement of giganturids, and 

 other parts into non-"salmoniform" portions such as that on 

 myctophi forms. 



In many ways this symposium is a report on the state of the 

 science of fish classification, will summarize current ideas of 

 relationships and, especially, will point to where the greatest 

 need for further research lies. 



Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 

 Michigan 48109. 



