a 

 m 



"1 r 



SAN DIEGO(*) 

 ht=460 



MAZATLAN (o) 

 N=449 



140 160 180 }00 



EYE-FORK LENGTH (cm) 



Figure 7. — Weight as a function of eye-fork length of 

 striped marlin from the eastern North Pacific. 



1.5 



o 



I- 

 u 



12 



1.0 



O 

 o 



0.5 



66 



327 



223 343 j^ 



\ t 'I 



' fir. ,o^ '21 



106 



67 



1 



12 



29 90 182 



IS 



oBUENA VISTA 

 • MAZATLAN 

 A SAN DIEGO 



_L 



JL 



_L 



_L 



_L 



79 



L 



_L 



_L 



Feb. Mar. Apr. May June Jtriy Aug.Sept.Oct. Nov. Dec. 

 MONTH 



'20|- 



X 



"T ! T" 



SAN DIEGO I*) 

 N-405 



MAZATLAN I o, 

 N>180 



-J I I I 1 



-J I I 1 1_ 



BUENA V(STA|«) 

 N-567 



r I I I I I 



MAZATLAN o 

 N=254 



LENGTH OF 



PELVIC FIN 



BUENA vista; •) 

 N-475 



SAN DIEGO 

 N-3g7 



BUENA VISTA' •) 

 N-4B7 

 V 



SNOUT TO 

 MANDIBLE LENGTH 



MAZATLAN o 

 N=124 



MAZATLAN o 



N-111 



DORSAL HEIGHT 



\»^- 



BUENA VISTA • 

 N = &62 



SAN DIEGO * 



N = 34 



-J 1 I I I I I L 



_J 1 I I 



_l I I I I I 



200 220 



EYE-FORK LENGTH (cm) 



Figure 8. — Morphometric characters as a function of 

 eye-fork length of striped marlin from the eastern North 

 Pacific. 



Figure 9. — Average condition factor by month for striped 

 marlin from the eastern North Pacific. One standard de- 

 viation on each side of the mean and the sample size 

 shown. Condition factor=Wx 10^/L^ where W = whole 

 fish weight in kg and L=eye-fork length in cm. 



This difference is also evident in the relation of 

 maximum body depth on eye-fork length (Fig. 8); 

 body depth is larger in San Diego fish. It was uncer- 

 tain whether this difference was a seasonal 

 phenomenon since San Diego samples were ob- 

 tained only from August to October, months of the 

 year when there were almost no samples from 

 Buena Vista or Mazatlan (Table 1). Plots of condi- 

 tion factors by month for the three areas (Fig. 9), 

 however, show that seasonal variation is unlikely to 

 be the cause. 



Some other relations are shown in Figure 8. They 

 indicate that there is much overlap in the data. It 

 thus appears that characters, other than perhaps 

 weight, maximum body depth, and pectoral fin 

 length, are not different enough to be useful as 

 single diagnostic characters for separating striped 

 marUn into location of capture. 



Comparison with Other Studies 



Kamimura and Honma (1958) examined five 

 morphometric characters of striped marlin caught in 

 the Pacific by the Japanese longline fleet. They dis- 



118 



