612 
BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF FISHERIES 
THE HAKES OF THE GENUS UROPHYCIS 
The development and other life history data of four species of Urophycis, namely 
chuss, regius, floridanus, and earlli , 12 are discussed in the following pages. 
Some of the hakes are rather widely distributed. U. chuss has been recorded from 
the Gulf of St. Lawrence southward to Cape Henry, Va. The known range is now 
extended southward to the coast of North Carolina, on the basis of some small speci- 
mens at hand, taken by the Albatross at sea off Kitty Hawk. U. regius is known to 
range from Nova Scotia southward to South Carolina; U . floridanus from Beaufort, 
N. C., to Pensacola, Fla., and U. earlli from Beaufort, N. C., to Charleston, S. C. 
U. floridanus was first recorded from Beaufort by Hildebrand (1916, p. 306). 
Since that time, the young of this species, have been found to be common locally in 
shallow water during the winter and early spring, but the species apparently is absent 
there during the summer. U. regius is more common, the young being numerous 
during their first winter, but adults were rather rarely taken. It seems possible that 
these hakes, after spending the first several months in shallow water, live chiefly in 
deep water offshore where very little collecting has been done. The habitat of both 
the young and adults is discussed under the heading, “The distribution of the young.” 
According to our field records only four specimens of U. earlli were taken during 
the senior author’s connection with the biological station at Beaufort from 1914 to 1917 
and 1925 to 1931, notwithstanding that Smith (1907, p. 384) stated, “Tins 
hake * * * is not uncommon in the Beaufort and Cape Lookout regions. * * * 
On the adjacent shores the fish is common enough to have received a local name, 
‘Dickie,’ although it has no economic value as yet.” In view of the later, much 
more intensive collecting, one wonders if there was not confusion with one of the other 
more common species. 
The southern species of hake do not grow large. U. regius is reported to attain a 
maximum length of 16 inches. The largest individual seen at Beaufort was 13)( inches 
long. The largest specimen oi floridanus taken was only 8)£ inches long, and the largest 
one of earlli 15K inches, though one 18 inches long has been recorded. U. chuss is 
reported to reach a length of about 30 inches, or even 42 inches, if tenuis is not dis- 
tinguishable from that species, as suggested by Vladykov and McKenzie (1935, p. 71). 
The hakes as yet are of no commercial value in North Carolina. Small catches 
are made in Chesapeake Bay and off Cape Henry, Va. The catch for Virginia (not 
separated by species) for 1934 is given as 21,000 pounds in the statistical report of 
the Bureau of Fisheries. Northward the hakes increase in importance, the catch 
for New Jersey for 1934 being 22,171 pounds, and for New York 139,954 pounds. 
Large catches are made in Massachusetts and Maine, and smaller ones in the other 
New England States, the total catch for those states for 1934 being 15,319,692 pounds. 
The meat of the hakes is soft, but it is of good flavor, and generally sells readily. 
Adult hakes of the genus Urophycis, as here understood, are recognized by the 
elongate somewhat compressed body; subconical head; rather large, nearly horizontal 
mouth, with the maxillary generally reaching to or beyond the posterior margin of the 
eye; with unequal teeth on the jaws and vomer, none on the palatines; a small barbel 
i* Jordan, Evermann, and Clark (1930, pp. 212-213) place earlli in the older genus Phycis, leaving the other three species herein 
discussed in Urophycis. This classification does not seem justifiable, as earlli is closely related to floridanus, differing only in the 
smaller scales, rather longer dorsal and anal fins, and in color. In turn, floridanus differs in the same characters and in about the 
same degree from regius, the type of Urophycis. In addition, floridanus has a longer chin barbel, wherein it agrees with earlli. Cer- 
tainly earlli is more closely related to regius than to chuss with its low broad head, large eyes, and produced dorsal ray. Evidently 
a further study of the group is necessary to determine the status of Urophycis. Perhaps all the species herein discussed should be 
assigned to the genus Phycis. 
