ANDERSON: ZOARCIDAE 



A 



581 



Fig. 307. Zoarces viviparus. (A) egg and newly hatched embryo; (B) 

 developing embryo from mother's ovary; and (C) newly emerged young; 

 all from Soin (1968). 



angular in adults) and all neural arches were fused, as in adults. 

 In the caudal skeleton, all fin rays and plerygiophores were 

 present, as in adults, but the neural arches of the first ural and 

 first preural centra were poorly developed, with some sections 

 free of the urostyle. Typical of many zoarcids, the caudal of 

 Macrozoarces has two epural. four upper hypural and 3-4 lower 

 hypural fin rays. 



There are no specialized larval pigment patterns. The larvae 

 of Gymnelus viridis and Bolhrocara hollandi appear to be mono- 

 tone, as are most adults (Rass, 1949; Okiyama, 1982a). The 

 larva of Macrozoarces illustrated by White (1939) and those 

 examined by me bore the typical criss-cross pigment pattern of 

 older stages. 



Meristic characters ofA/arroroarcfi early juveniles examined 

 fit within the range reported for adults (Table I 50). However, 

 Soin (1968) and Kendall et al. (1983) showed that developing 

 embryos oi Zoarces viviparus and Bolhrocara sp. had myomere 

 counts well below that of adult populations. Although large 

 sample sizes of most zoarcid genera are lacking for satisfactory 

 statistical analysis of meristic characters, the important thing to 

 note is that myomere addition seems to be a slow process in 

 zoarcids and that the full adult complement may not be reached 

 until embryos are very close to hatching. Alternatively, zoarcid 

 embryos and larvae may have differentiated myomeres with the 

 adult counts, but their small size and tight packing, particularly 

 near the tail tip, may make it difficult to observe them with a 

 conventional light microscope. 



Fig. 308. Early stages of Zoarcidae. (A, B) Bolhrocara sp., after 

 Kendall et al. (1983); (C) Bolhrocara hollandi. after Okiyama (1982a); 

 (D) Gymnelus viridis. after Rass (1949); and (E) Macrozoarces ameri- 

 canus. after White (1939). 



Relationships 



The relationships of the zoarcids to other living fishes has 

 been confused in the literature. Greenwood et al. (1966) and 

 Rosen and Patterson (1969) allied the zoarcids to the gadiform- 

 ophidiiform lineages. Two of the four characters they used to 

 suggest this relationship, the presence of a basisphenoid bone 

 and free second ural centrum, both illustrated by Yarberry ( 1 965), 

 were shown to be erroneous by Anderson and Hubbs (1981). 

 Anderson (1984) suggested zoarcid relationships are within Gos- 

 line's (1968) Blennioidei, especially his superfamily Zoarceo- 

 idae. Eight of Gosline's 1 1 zoarceoid families were recognized 

 by Anderson (1984), with Lycodapodidae and Derepodichthyi- 

 dae synonymized under Zoarcidae and Stichaeidae expanded to 

 include Cryptacanthodidae and Neozoarcinae (see Makushok, 

 1 96 1 ; Peden and Anderson, 1978; Anderson and Hubbs, 1981). 



