Tetrapturus Rafinesque 



Tetrapturus Rafinesque, 1810: 54-55 (T belone, type species by 



monotypy). 

 Skeponopodus Nardo, 1832: 99 (nomen nudum); 1833: 415-419 



(S. typus, [ - T. belone Rafinesque], type species by virtue of 



the name typus). 

 Tetrapterurus Bonaparte, 1841: 19 (emended spelling). 

 Tetrapterus Agassiz, 1843: 7, 89-92, table E (emended spelling). 

 Tetrapturus Verany, 1847: 492-494 (misprint for Tetrapturus?). 

 Scheponopodus Canestrini, 1872: 112 (emended spelling). 

 Tetraperus Radcliffe, 1926: 112 (misprint for Tetrapturus). 

 Martina Grey, 1928: 47 {Tetrapturus mitsukurii Jordan and 



Snyder, ] = T. Audax Philippi], type species by monotypy; 



the use of Martina at the generic level is probably a slip). 

 Kajikia Hirasaka and Nakamura, 1947: 13-14 (Kajikia for- 



mosana, ] = Tetrapturus audax Philippi], type species by 



monotypy). 

 Pseudohistwphorus de Buen, 1950: 171 (Tetrapturus illingworthi 



Jordan and Everymann ] = T. angustirostris Tanaka], type 



species by original designation). 

 Lamontella Smith, 1956: 32 (Tetrapturus albida [sic] Poey, 



type species by original designation and monotypy). 



and p. 402-404: 



Relationships. — The limits of the genus Tetrapturus are ill- 

 defined in current literature, perhaps due in part to the prior lack 

 of information about the type species belone. Nakamura (1949 

 and English translation, 1952) divided the Istiophoridae into two 

 subfamilies Tetrapturinae and "Marlinae" ( = Makairinae). 

 Other workers either overlooked or failed to follow this lead. 

 Makaira, as currently constituted, bridges this break and is un- 

 natural; its species are in part assigned to Tetrapturus below. We 

 agree with the basic dichotomy suggested by Nakamura although 

 the divisions need not be designated subfamilies. To the 

 definitions of Nakamura (1938, 1949) we add the character of 

 negative allometry of the bill in the "Tetrapturinae" versus 

 positive allometry in the "Makairinae." Also the "Tetrap- 

 turinae" are small species, generally much less than 300 lbs. 

 while the two members of the "Makairinae" reach about 2000 lbs. 

 The world-record "striped marlin," a 692 lb. individual taken off 

 Balboa, California, August 18, 1931, is a blue marlin, M. 

 nigricans. 



LaMonte (1955:325) separated Tetrapturus from Makaira 

 largely on the basis of the length of the pectoral fin. As already 

 noted, the pectoral fin shows marked allometry in the spearfish. 

 Also, Tetrapturus, as here constituted, includes one species 

 (angustirostris) that apparently has a short pectoral and several 

 species with very long pectorals; therefore this feature will not aid 

 generic definition. . . . 



The relationships of Tetrapturus are with Istiophorus rather 

 than Makaira as here restricted. Our concept of the phylogeny of 

 the Istiophoridae is diagrammed in Figure 5. The species of 

 Istiophorus are poorly known but it already appears that few 

 species are represented. The only characters separating 

 Istiophorus from Tetrapturus are the form of the dorsal fin and 

 the nature of the pelvic fins. Even the character of the dorsal fin 

 breaks down for when all species are considered T. belone and T. 

 angustirostris are somewhat intermediate. Moreover the young of 

 all included species have high dorsal fins, but this feature is ex- 

 treme in Istiophorus . The structure of the pelvic fin has been in- 

 sufficently investigated. We choose to retain Istiophorus and 

 Tetrapturus as genera but a case could be made for ranking them 

 as subgenera. 



Figure 5 of Robins and de Sylva (1960) is repro- 

 duced here as Figure 2. 



sliroslrs belone olbidus oudo* several species?/ indica nigricans 



"isliompax" "Makaira' 



Figure 2.— Phylogenetic relationships of fishes of the family 

 Istiophoridae. Names in quotations are not employed by the 

 present writers. (From Robins and de Sylva, 1960, Fig. 5 and 

 caption.) 



After examining Mediterranean material, Robins 

 and de Sylva (1963) assigned the western Atlantic 

 specimens, which they had described as T. belone 

 Rafinesque in their 1961 paper to a new species, T. 

 pfluegeri Robins and de Sylva, and redescribed T. 

 belone Rafinesque on the basis of the Mediterranean 

 material which they had examined. Further 

 statements on the species of Tetrapturus and the 

 relationship of this genus to the genera Istiophorus 

 and Makaira transcribed from Robins and de Sylva, 

 1963, p. 100-102, follow: 



. . . Aside from the 12 caudal and 12 precaudal vertebrae that 

 all share, the important characters of the species of Tetrapturus 

 involve the number of dorsal spines, shape and pigmentation of 

 the spinous dorsal fin, height and shape of the anal fin, length of 

 the pectoral fin in the adult, position of anus, shape of dorsal 

 profile from the base of the bill to the spinous dorsal, and bill 

 length .... 



In their delineation of Tetrapturus and placement of it with 

 Istiophorus on one branch of the istiophorid dendrogram, Robins 

 and de Sylva (1961: 402) referred to Nakamura (1949). 

 Nakamura (1938), though recording the vertebral differences, 

 neither defined nor suggested such a subdivision of the 

 Istiophoridae. This dichotomy actually dates from the work of 

 Hirasaka and Nakamura (1947). These subdivisions are natural, 

 but need not be accorded subfamily rank, although some 

 ichthyologists will choose to do so. It was not our intent in our 

 earlier paper to suggest such ranking for in small families like the 

 Istiophoridae subfamilies are unnecessary and serve no impor- 

 tant purpose. These subdivisions are defined as follows (in each 

 instance the first condition applies to that containing Tetrap- 

 turus and Istiophorus, the second to that containing Makaira.) 1. 

 Precaudal vertebrae 12, caudal vertebrae 12 vs. precaudal 



56 



