HORN: STROMATEOIDEI 



625 



Table 164. Characters and Character States Used in the Phylogenetic Analysis of Stromateoid Genera. 



 This character slate overlaps adjacent stale but occurs in only one taxon (Girellidae). 



ysis of stromateoid genera (Tables 1 64, 165; Fig. 335). The other 

 characters were not used because they are not known for all 

 genera or, if known, their values overlap and, therefore, cannot 

 be coded without ambiguity. 



The pharyngeal sac as a skeletal feature was a rich source of 

 characters in developing the phylogenetic hypothesis for stro- 

 mateoid genera. Five characters were used ranging from the 

 shape of the sac to the arrangement, location and position of 

 papillae within the sac (Tables 164, 165; Fig. 335). 



Pigmentation. — Differences in pigmentation are mainly of value 

 in distinguishing species within genera for which the larval and 

 juvenile stages are relatively well known. Ahlstrom et al. ( 1 976) 

 used pigmentation patterns to demonstrate differences among 

 species of oceanic stromateoid genera (see Figs. 333 and 334). 

 Adults tend to be more uniform in pigmentation and, hence, 

 offer fewer apparent taxonomic characters. 



Stromateoids vary both in the density and in the pattern of 

 their pigmentation. As larvae and early juveniles, some species, 

 e.g., Amarsipus carlshergi (Fig. 333A) are sparsely pigmented 

 whereas others are more heavily pigmented, e.g., Icichthys lock- 

 inglom (Fig. 333C). Certain larvae and juveniles are rather uni- 

 formly pigmented, e.g., Ciibiceps paiuiradiatus {Fig. 334A), 7et- 

 ragonunis atlanticiis (Fig. 334C) and Pepriliis simillimus (Fig. 

 334E) while others have their pigment concentrated into bands 

 or blotches, e.g., Schcdophilus huttoni (Fig. 333B). Numeus 



gronovii (¥{%. 333D). Psenes cyanophrys (Fig. 334B)and /lr/o«;- 

 ma sp. (Fig. 334D). Ahlstrom et al. (1976) used various detailed 

 patterns to distinguish the larvae, especially, and early juveniles 

 of species within certain stromateoid genera. In the present study, 

 uniform vs patterned pigmentation was the only pigmentation 

 character available that could be coded unambiguously for all 

 stromateoid genera (Tables 164, 165). 



Relationships 

 Relationships within the Stromateoidei 

 Haedrich's (1967) analysis continues to be the major system- 

 atic work on stromateoid fishes. He recognized five families and 

 two main lineages in the stromateoids. One lineage is composed 

 of the Centrolophidae and its derivative, the Stromateidae. The 

 other, a less compact assemblage, is comprised of the Nomeidae 

 and its two derivatives, the Ariommidae and the Tetragonuri- 

 dae. The Centrolophidae and the Nomeidae contain the basal 

 stocks with the centrolophids having the more primitive mem- 

 bers. Haedrich (1967) considered members of the centrolophid 

 genus Hyperoglyphe to be the most generalized fishes in the 

 suborder and probably not unlike the ancestral form. He viewed 

 the Stromateidae as the current zenith of stromateoid evolution 

 with Pampus as the most advanced stromateid genus. In his 

 interpretation of stromateoid relationships. Haedrich (1967) 

 recognized trends in the evolution of several characters includ- 



