Table 5. — Regression of morphometric character on eye-fork length (cm) for blue marlin 

 from the eastern Pacific. Weight-length relation is based on log transformed data (log Y = a 

 + blogX); all other relations are based on untransformed data (Y = a + bX). Data are for 

 females. (* = 5% significance level; ** = 1% significance level). 





a 



b 



Range 







Character 



X 



Y 



N 



Buena Vista 















Weight (kg) 



-5.960 



3.433 



154.0-265.1 



40.9-244.9 



35 



Maximum body depth (cm) 



-5.887 



0.245** 



154.0-239.8 



32.2- 



53.6 



14 



Length of pectoral fin (cm) 



18.594** 



0.163** 



154.0-265.1 



40.7- 



62.0 



35 



Length of pelvic fin (cm) 



37.244** 



0.003 



154.0-239.8 



32.1- 



45.3 



14 



Dorsal fin height (cm) 



20.966** 



0.084** 



154.0-265.1 



31.0- 



49.4 



34 



Length of maxillary (cm) 



15.236** 



0.090** 



154.0-265.1 



25.9- 



40.2 



34 



Number of dorsal fin rays 



6.468** 



0.001 



154.0-265.1 



6-7 



33 



Number of anal fm rays 



5.286 



0.008** 



154.0-265.1 



6-8 



33 



Mazatlan 















Weight (kg) 



-4.972 



3.011 



171.4-242.2 



46.7-171.5 



22 



Length of pelvic fin (cm) 



57.859** 



0.096* 



171.4-242.2 



30.1- 



45.3 



22 



Dorsal fin height (cm) 



7.560 



0.150** 



171.4-242.2 



32.2- 



45.9 



22 



Length of maxillary (cm) 



4.014 



0.140** 



171.4-242.2 



26.5- 



40.2 



21 



SAILFISH 



90 



1 1 1 



1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 



1 1 1 1 1 1 



I 1 1 1 



80 









- 



70 

 60 





Mazatlan 



// \ : F 



N X " 

 341 171.2 

 371 175.4 " 



SO 



- 







- 



10 



- 





\ •. 



- 



5 M 



z 



UJ 



3 20 

 O 

 UJ 

 ff ,0 









j"'"f-t...i 



20 



_ 









15 





Buena Vista 



/ '*: — M 

 : • F 



N X 

 28 168.0 

 71 1794 



10 









- 



5 



I 1 p 



i i l-'Tvj — /i '■<••' c i 





r-*j i i 





i i i i i i 



100 110 120 130 HO ISO 160 170 ISO 190 200 210 

 10S IIS 125 135 145 155 165 175 185 195 205 215 



EYE-FORK LENGTH (cm) 



Figure 2. — Length frequency of sailfish sampled in this 

 study. 



1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r 



t — i — i — i 1 — r 



FEMALES My' 



»=**'■ MALES (o) 



N-366 



_l I I I I I L 



_l I l^ 1_ 



DORSAL HEIGHT 



FEMALES (•) 

 N-274 







100 120 



200 220 240 260 



EYE-FORK LENGTH (cm) 



Figure 3. — Weight and dorsal height as a function of eye- 

 fork length of sailfish from the eastern North Pacific. 



Samples from both locations consisted of only 

 females. We have no adequate explanation for this 

 phenomenon; however, we note that in the central 

 Pacific, which is west of our sampling area, more 

 males than females are generally caught in the sport 

 fishery (Strasburg, 1969). In the longline fishery sex 

 ratios vary greatly both temporally and spatially 

 (Kume and Joseph, 1969). 



Regressions of each of the characters as a func- 

 tion of eye-fork length are shown in Table 5. Ex- 



112 



