Martini et ai.: A population profile for Myxine glutinosa 
519 
Table 2 
Tooth cusp counts and slime pore counts for populations of Myxine glutinosa L. in the eastern and western North Atlantic. 
Parenthetical values refer to the data expressed as a percentage of the total number of slime pores. 
Character 
Population 
Mean 
SD 
Range 
n 
Total cusp count 
NWA 
32 
1 
31-34 
9 
OGM 
35 
2 
33-39 
7 
IGM 
35 
2 
28-40 
97 
MAC 
35 
2 
30-38 
51 
ENA 
34 
1 
29-38 
101 
Total slime pore count 
NWA 
95 
2 
91-101 
9 
OGM 
106 
4 
100-113 
13 
IGM 
114 
7 
91-128 
94 
MAC 
100 
4 
91-108 
51 
ENA 
96 
5 
85-108 
143 
Prebranchial slime pores (%) 
NWA 
26 (27) 
3 (2) 
23-32 (25-29) 
9 
OGM 
31 (29) 
1 (1) 
28-32 (28-30) 
13 
IGM 
33 (29) 
4(3) 
20-45 (21-40) 
94 
MAC 
28 (28) 
2 (2) 
25-33 (25-33) 
51 
ENA 
27 (28) 
3 (2) 
20-36 (24-33) 
143 
Trunk slime pores (%) 
NWA 
58 (61) 
3 (1) 
56-66(59-62) 
9 
OGM 
63 (59) 
2 (1) 
59-67 (57-61) 
13 
IGM 
67 (59) 
4(3) 
51-77 (51-69) 
94 
MAC 
59 (59) 
2 (2) 
54-65 (55-64) 
51 
ENA 
56 (58) 
3 ( <0.5 ) 
50-63 (57-60) 
143 
Tail slime pores (%) 
NWA 
11(12) 
1 (2) 
8-13 (8-14) 
9 
OGM 
13 (12) 
1 (1) 
11-15(10-14) 
13 
IGM 
13(11) 
2 (1) 
8-19 (9-15) 
94 
MAC 
12 (12) 
1 (1) 
10-14 (10-14) 
51 
ENA 
12 (13) 
1 (1) 
8-15 (9-14) 
143 
data and the NWA sample differ significantly in the 
total cusp count. The MAC sample differs from the 
OGM sample in terms of the total slime pore count; 
it differs from the IGM sample in terms of pre- 
branchial, trunk, tail, and total slime pore counts; 
the regional differences are not significant when 
compared as percentages of the total slime pore 
count. The MAC sample differs from the ENA sample 
in the trunk slime pore count (as a value, not as a 
percentage of total slime pores) and total cusp count. 
The total length data for the MAC, OGM, and ENA 
groups are not significantly different; all are sig- 
nificantly smaller than the IGM animals. 
5 The IGM data is distinct from the ENA group for 
trunk, tail, and total slime pore and cusp count 
data. The IGM and ENA groups also differ sig- 
nificantly in prebranchial, trunk, and tail lengths, 
body width, body depth, tail depth, and cloacal 
depth (as percentages of total body length). 
6 Hagfish from the inner Gulf of Maine were sig- 
nificantly larger than hagfish collected in any 
other location (P<0.0001). The average lengths of 
the OGM and MAC samples (315 mm and 280 
mm respectively) were not significantly different 
from that of the ENA population (290 mm; see 
Tables 4 and 5). Further, we are unaware of any 
records for M. glutinosa larger than 450 mm out- 
side of the Gulf of Maine or the adjacent conti- 
nental slopes. Wisner and McMillan (1995) re- 
ported total lengths of 117-501 mm for their WNA 
sample (n= 78). With deletion of the 13 animals 
known to be from the outer Gulf of Maine, the 
size range becomes 117-446 mm. This range, 
which still includes 15 animals from the outer 
Gulf of Maine, 2 is within the size range reported 
for eastern North Atlantic M. glutinosa (maxi- 
mum size of 450 mm. It may also be significant 
that one of the OGM specimens, 350 mm in total 
length, contained fully mature eggs (SI075-689, 
from 42°40.5' N, 66°37'W; Wisner 1 ). This is above 
the size of sexual maturity for eastern North At- 
lantic M. glutinosa (200 mm) but below the ap- 
parent length at maturity for specimens in the 
IGM sample (400 mm; Martini et al., 1997a). The 
large maximum size and large size at maturity 
2 Data forms did not permit determination of individual sizes, 
only ranges for these collection sites. 
