64 
Fishery Bulletin 11 6(1) 
Table 2 (cont.) 
Locus and species 
n 
«a 
range 
mean 
H e 
F is 
Elgrl3 
Chukchi Sea E. gracilis 
30 
12 
230-286 
251.1 (1.3) 
0.867 
0.007 
GOA E. gracilis 
41 
10 
226-286 
254.3 (1.4) 
0.805 
0.006 
E. nawaga 
81 
19 
214-286 
243.8 (1.3) 
0.926 
-0.009 
M. proximus 
22 
19 
242-338 
284.5 (3.7) 
0.909 
0.040 
G. macrocephalus 
14 
14 
250-346 
314.7 (4.3) 
1.000 
-0.093 
G. chalcogrammus 
6 
dna 
- 
- 
- 
- 
B. saida 
53 
12 
206-318 
250.8 (1.0) 
0.830 
-0.064 
Elgrl4 
Chukchi Sea E. gracilis 
30 
14 
322-378 
347.6 (1.7) 
0.800 
0.101 
GOA E. gracilis 
41 
9 
330-370 
345.7 (1.1) 
0.829 
-0.007 
E. nawaga 
81 
12 
318-362 
329.4 (0.7) 
0.790 
-0.010 
M. proximus 
22 
11 
326-370 
340.3 (1.6) 
0.682 
0.217 
G. macrocephalus 
14 
4 
314-346 
325.6 (0.9) 
0.143 
Q.667 b 
G. chalcogrammus 
6 
10 
330-418 
364.7 (7.2) 
1.000 
-0.035 
B. saida 
53 
19 
290-366 
325.5 (1.7) 
0.811 
0.121 
Elgr44 
Chukchi Sea E. gracilis 
30 
14 
212-264 
240.9 (1.7) 
0.867 
0.057 
GOA E. gracilis 
41 
7 
228-272 
247.1 (1.1) 
0.537 
0.16P 
E. nawaga 
81 
14 
216-268 
238.4 (1.1) 
0.840 
0.079 
M. proximus 
22 
dna 
- 
- 
- 
- 
G. macrocephalus 
14 
dna 
- 
- 
- 
- 
G. chalcogrammus 
6 
dna 
- 
- 
- 
- 
B. saida 
53 
dna 
- 
- 
- 
- 
Elgr45 
Chukchi Sea E. gracilis 
30 
13 
205-265 
218.8 (1.6) 
0.867 
0.0085 
GOA E. gracilis 
41 
4 
209-221 
213.0 (0.4) 
0.683 
0.0145 
E. nawaga 
81 
17 
189-269 
224.5 (1.2) 
0.864 
0.0471 
M. proximus 
22 
6 
197-217 
204.9 (0.8) 
0.955 
-0.0769 
G. macrocephalus 
14 
dna 
- 
- 
- 
- 
G. chalcogrammus 
6 
dna 
- 
- 
- 
- 
B. saida 
53 
dna 
- 
- 
- 
- 
Elgr23 
Chukchi Sea E. gracilis 
30 
15 
142-202 
170.5 (1.8) 
0.933 
-0.027 
GOA E. gracilis 
41 
4 
162-190 
168.1 (0.4) 
0.683 
-0.181 
E. nawaga 
81 
17 
138-214 
168.1 (1.1) 
0.926 
-0.019 
M. proxim us 
22 
13 
138-206 
161.6(2.4) 
0.909 
-0.044 
G. macrocephalus 
14 
17 
154-286 
215.0 (5.0) 
0.929 
0.034 
G. chalcogrammus 
6 
11 
186-318 
246.7 (12.6) 
1.000 
-0.017 
B. saida 
53 
23 
138-258 
191.6 (2.3) 
0.660 
0.309 c 
a P<0.05; b P<0.01; C P<0.001. 
plified reliably and had no apparent homozygote ex¬ 
cess in E. gracilis (Table 2; Suppl. Table 1) (online only). 
However, not all loci that were reliable in E. gracilis 
amplified consistently and produced just 1 or 2 bands 
in all sets of samples. Most notably, Elgr38 did not am¬ 
plify reliably in GOA samples of E. gracilis , nor was 
it reliable in E. nawaga. In addition, only 7 of the 9 
loci worked well in M. proximus and only 5 in either 
G. chalcogrammus or B. saida. Again, Elgr38 did not 
amplify reliably in the GOA samples of E. gracilis nor 
was it reliable in E. nawaga. In addition, only 7 of the 
loci worked well in M. proximus and only 5 in each of 
G. chalcogrammus and B. saida. Of the loci that did 
not amplify reliably for a species group, several did 
produce bands. Only the loci that could be interpreted 
reliably were analyzed in each species. 
Comparisons of gadid collections 
Differences in ranges of allele sizes differentiated spe¬ 
cies and species groups (Table 2, Suppl. Fig. 1) (online 
only). For example, alleles at Elgr38 were on average 
much larger for B. saida and G. chalcogrammus than 
for the other species; alleles at Elgr31 were larger on 
average for B. saida and alleles at Elgr23 were on av¬ 
erage larger for G. macrocephalus and G. chalcogram¬ 
mus. The divergences in allele frequency size ranges 
were reflected in values of D chord and G' st (Table 3), 
