518 
Fishery Bulletin 96(3), 1998 
Table 1 
Morphological measurements for Myxine glutinosa in the eastern and western North Atlantic. Asterisks indicate values signifi- 
cantly different (PcO.OOOl) from the Eastern Atlantic population. 
Character 
Mean 
SD 
Range 
%TL ; 
SD 
Range 
n 
Eastern North Atlantic group (ENA) 
Total length (mm) 
299 
31 
227-387 
100 
179 
Prebranchial (snout:pcd) 
82 
8 
61-101 
27.4 
1.1 
24-31 
179 
Trunk 
174 
20 
133-227 
58.2 
1.5 
54-62 
179 
Tail 
44 
5 
33-59 
14.9 
0.9 
12-18 
179 
Width 
14 
2 
10-21 
4.9 
0.5 
3-6 
179 
Depth (trunk) 
18 
3 
13-26 
6.1 
0.6 
5-8 
179 
Depth (cloaca) 
14 
2 
10-20 
4.7 
0.5 
4-7 
179 
Depth (tail) 
15 
2 
12-20 
5.1 
0.4 
4-6 
179 
Inner Gulf of Maine group (IGM) 
Total length (mm) 2 
524* 
102 
170-950 
100 
1478 
Prebranchial (snout:pcd) 
135 
27 
54-200 
26.7* 
1.6 
24-37 
143 
Trunk 
311 
72 
28-459 
61.4 
5.9 
42-83 
143 
Tail 
64 
14 
25-106 
12.6* 
1.2 
9-17 
143 
Width 
14 
7 
4-35 
2.7* 
1.1 
2-6 
91 
Depth (trunk) 
22 
7 
8-35 
4.2* 
0.7 
2-7 
87 
Depth (cloaca) 
19 
5 
6-28 
3.7* 
0.5 
2-5 
198 
Depth (tail) 
20 
5 
8-30 
4.0* 
0.5 
2-5 
97 
1 %TL = Percentage of total length. Values were log-transformed before comparison. 
2 Combined data, from Martini et al., 1997a, and Kuenstner, 1996. 
collection sites fell into four groups: 1 ) mid-Atlantic 
coast (MAC), from the latitude of Charleston, South 
Carolina, to the southern coast of New England 
(n=51, with data on total length, slime pore counts, 
and cusp counts), 2) the outer Gulf of Maine (OGM), 
from the area of Brown’s Bank (>z = 13, with data on 
total length, slime pore counts, and cusp counts), 3) 
the northwestern Atlantic (NWA) off Labrador, in- 
cluding Davis Strait (n= 9, with data on total length, 
slime pore counts, and cusp counts), and 4) the east- 
ern North Atlantic (ENA), from the Skaggerrack, 
between Sweden and Denmark (n = 179, data on to- 
tal length, proportional lengths, slime pore counts, 
and cusp counts). Our data set comprised a separate 
group, 5) the inner Gulf of Maine (IGM), represented 
by samples from within 80 km of the shoreline (n=1478 
for total lengths, n=143 for proportional measurements, 
n =94-97 for slime pore counts and cusp counts). 
Comparisons of morphometric data for the ENA 
and IGM populations, the two groups for which the 
greatest number of measurements were available, 
showed differences in total length and proportional 
measurements (Table 1). Table 2 presents data on 
cusp counts and slime pore counts for all groups 
(NWA, IGM, OGM, MAC, and ENA). The propor- 
tional measurements expressed as %TL and %TP 
were log-transformed before analysis and retrans- 
formed for presentation in the tables. Figure 2 illus- 
trates the results of the post-hoc multiple compari- 
son tests (Scheffe F-test) at the 5% level of signifi- 
cance. Table 3 details these results. Table 4 compares 
the data on total length for the sampled populations. 
These results can be briefly summarized as follows: 
1 The NWA sample, closest geographically to the 
ENA population, can be distinguished from the 
ENA only in terms of the trunk slime pores as a 
percentage of the total slime pore count. The to- 
tal length data for the NWA and ENA groups are 
not significantly different. 
2 The NWA sample is distinct from the OGM sample 
in terms of the total slime pore count and differs 
from the IGM sample with regard to prebranchial, 
trunk, and total slime pore counts as well as the 
total cusp count. The differences in regional slime 
pore count between the NWA and IGM samples 
were not significant when compared as percent- 
ages of the total slime pore count. 
3 The OGM sample differs from the ENA sample 
in terms of the total slime pore count, and from 
the IGM sample in terms of the trunk slime pore 
count (as a value, not as a percentage of total slime 
pores) and in the total slime pore count. The to- 
tal length data for the OGM and ENA groups were 
not significantly different, but the OGM animals 
were significantly smaller than those of the IGM. 
4 The mid-Atlantic coastal group (MAC) has charac- 
ters that overlap those of other groups. The MAC 
