DE SYLVA: SPHYRAENOIDEI 

 Table 128. Extended. 



537 



s s 



horealis puuditla 



S. 

 sphyraena 



S 



vthdensts 



S S 



guachancho putnamtae 



S. lello 



S. genie 



S- afra 



S 



barracuda 



115-130 110-120 120-135 137-140 108-116 108-110 129-131 130-140 120-130 122-140 80-90 1 



450 400 1,370 540 470 600 873 1,250 1.150 1.720 1,650 2 



+ 



+ 



+ 



+ 



+ 



: 1 



6 



} 7 



10 



second dorsal fin, and then the pectoral and anal fins (de Sylva, 

 1963). By 6.6 mm, the second dorsal, artal, and pectoral fins are 

 fully ossified (Fig. 286). By 1 1.9 mm the first dorsal and pelvic 

 fins have developed. Middorsal and midventral pigmentation 

 is well developed at 9 mm, and is useful in differentiating among 

 larval stages. 



Juveniles of most species are unknown, and characters used 

 to separate adult species would be expected to be the most useful, 

 especially pigment patterns. 



Relationships 



Most sphyraenids in museums have been misidentified. The 

 revision of the family in the Indian Ocean by Williams (1959) 

 has greatly clarified the identification of several important Indo- 

 Pacific species whose identification rests largely upon the pattern 

 of vertical bars or chevrons, festoons (Figs. 288-289), gill raker 

 characteristics, relative eye size, or upon the relative position 

 of the first dorsal fin (de Sylva, 1975). The lack of any analysis 

 of the family based upon osteology, scale morphology (see Bleek- 

 er, 1854-1857), or internal anatomy precludes an exhaustive 

 analysis of this family. Electrophoresis and functional enzymic 



evolution has related the phylogeny of four eastern Pacific sphy- 

 raenids to evolutionary temperatures (Graves and Somero, 1982) 

 and offers much promise for analysis of other fishes. As pre- 

 viously mentioned, fossil sphyraenids are so incompletely de- 

 scribed that they shed little light on phyletic affinities. 



Because the larvae of only 5 of the 20 species have been 

 described, almost nothing can be deduced about the phylogeny 

 of the family based on larval characters. 



Sphyraenids were placed by Starks ( 1 900) in the subqrder 

 Percesoces, together with the Mugilidae and the Atherinidae. 

 This is based essentially upon their widely separated dorsal fins, 

 elevated pectoral fins, and the decided branching of the epiotic 

 crests. Hollister (1937) pointed out that while the mugiloid- 

 sphyraenoid skeleton superficially resembles that of atherinoids, 

 there was an important difference in the development of the 

 hypural plates. Rosen (1964) placed the Atherinoidae in a sep- 

 arate order, the Atheriniformes. Greenwood et al. (1966) rec- 

 ognized the Atheriniformes as a superorder, the Atherinomor- 

 pha, based upon distinctive habits or morphological peculiarities, 

 and placed in the superorder Acanthopterygii the suborders Mu- 

 giloidei, Sphyraenoidei, and Polynemoidei. 



