Ul 



* 



BUENA 



VISTA (•) 



N=I073 



J I I I L 



MAZATLAN (o) 

 N=449 



I I I I I 



100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 



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- 

 o 

 < 



1.0 



o 



Q 



Z 



o 

 o 



0.5 



"i r 



"i — r 



67 



66 



327 



2 ? 3 3 1 3 264 



39 



1 J„ ,--, '21 



29 90 182 



106 



o, 



15 



o BUENA VISTA 

 • MAZATLAN 

 a SAN DIEGO 



J_ 



JL 



_L 



_L 



_L 



_L 



12 79 



_L 



_L 



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

 MONTH 



E 



X JO 



a 



z 



UJ 



~i 1 1 1 1 1 1 r~ 



SAN DIEGO (•) 



\ N-405 . tj_.--K 



r 



MAZATLAN i. o.' 



~i 1 1 1 ! r 



BUENA VISTA [•) 

 N-567 



_l I I I I L_ 



MAZATLAN o 



\ N=254 



BUENA VISTA • 

 N-475 



J I I I I l_ 



_ SAN DIEGO * 

 N-397 



x&?£&r 



BUENA VISTA • 

 N-487 



L 



SNOUT TO 

 MANDIBLE LENGTH 



MAZATLAN o 

 N=124 



-I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I l_ 



MAZATLAN o 

 N-111 



DORSAL HEIGHT 



BUENA VISTA • 

 N-562 



J I I I 1_ 



III'' 



200 220 240 



EYE-FORK LENGTH (cm) 



260 2S0 



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 5 /L 3 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 

 marlin 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 



