188 



ONTOGENY AND SYSTEMATICS OF FISHES-AHLSTROM SYMPOSIUM 



Table 51. Photophore DrsTRiBUTiON in Certain Stomtiform Genera. Refer to text and Table 50 for definition of codes. 



summary of several meristic characters for genera is given in 

 Table 48. The position of the dorsal and anal fins is also a helpful 

 aid, but caution must be used since their positions relative to 

 other structures may change with growth. Also, the presence or 

 absence of the adipose fin is helpful, but again, caution is in 

 order because this fin is fragile and often damaged or lost due 

 to contact with a net. These fin features are given in Table 49. 

 Of special importance in identifying lai^ae and adults is the 

 distribution and patterns of the photophores. This includes the 

 number in each series, the patterns of their distribution in re- 

 lation to each other, and especially the sequence of development 

 which Ahlstrom (1974) stressed. Some confusion appears in the 

 literature because more than one alphanumeric code has been 

 developed to indicate, in some cases, the same sets of photo- 

 phores in different stomiiform groups. A further complication 

 is that the deep-bodied stemoptychids have a different code 

 because of their altered body shape as adults and homologies 

 were considered uncertain. Weitzman (1974:461), because he 

 united the "maurolicin" and deep-bodied stomiiforms as one 

 family considered the different termmologies "artificial" and as 

 obscuring homologies. He therefore discussed and presented a 

 synonymy of stomiiform photophores. We have defined the 

 alphabetical codes in Table 50 and included what we believe 

 are equivalent photophores in stomiiforms. In this code, par- 

 enthetical numbers indicate photophores found in common 

 glands whereas non-parenthetical numbers indicate that the 

 photophores are single. The distribution of photophores for each 



genus is given in Table 51. Table 52 provides sequences of 

 photophore formation for Bonapartia, Margrethia, and Gon- 

 ostoma. Table 53 provides similar information for Araiophos. 

 Maurolicus, Danaphos, Valenciennellus. and Argyripnus; while 

 Table 54 provides similar data for Polyipnus. Argyropelecus, 

 and Siernoptyx. Diagnostic pigmentation and morphometric 

 characters are summarized in Table 55. Illustrations (Figs. 98 

 to 104) are provided for the genera for which larvae are known 

 and for many of the known species. In addition, the following 

 authors provide specific information which will aid in larval 

 identifications: Jespersen and TSnmg (1919, 1926), Sanzo 

 (193 Id), Ahlstrom and Counts (1958), Ahlstrom and Moser 

 (1969), Ozawa (1976), Grey ( 1 964), Badcock and Merrett (1972), 

 Kawaguchi and Marumo (1967), Okiyama (1971), Badcock 

 ( 1 982), Rudometkina (1981), Gorbunova (1981), Mukhacheva 

 (1964), and Ahlstrom (1974). 



Relationships 



There has been a dichotomy of opinions about the interre- 

 lationships of the genera and the use of family names based on 

 the use of larval versus adult morphological characters. Ahl- 

 strom (1974:670-672) presented his views on this group based 

 on larval characters, principally the mode of photophore for- 

 mation. The suggested relationships resulting from his analysis 

 contrasted in part with those of Weitzman (1974:472), whose 

 views were based on study of adult osteology and soft anatomy. 

 Both Ahlstrom and Weitzman in addition to their own data, 



