ArticlePDF Available

A New Species of Ponyfish (Teleostei: Leiognathidae: Photoplagios) from the Philippines

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

A new species of ponyfish in the genus Photoplagios is described from material collected in the Philippines. Photoplagios laterofenestra, new species, is distinguished from congeners by the presence in males of an expansive translucent flank patch in the shape of a cornucopia. Additionally, both sexes of the new species can be distinguished from congeners by body shape, pigmentation pattern on the upper flank, and length of the second dorsal-fin spine. © 2007 by the American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists.
Content may be subject to copyright.
A New Species of Ponyfish (Teleostei: Leiognathidae: Photoplagios) from
the Philippines
JOHN S. SPARKS AND PROSANTA CHAKRABARTY
A new species of ponyfish in the genus Photoplagios is described from material
collected in the Philippines. Photoplagios laterofenestra, new species, is distinguished
from congeners by the presence in males of an expansive translucent flank patch in the
shape of a cornucopia. Additionally, both sexes of the new species can be distinguished
from congeners by body shape, pigmentation pattern on the upper flank, and length of
the second dorsal-fin spine.
P
HOTOPLAGIOS comprises eight species: P.
rivulatus, P. leuciscus, P. elongatus, P. klunzingeri,
P. stercorarius, P. moretoniensis, P. antongil, and a new
species described herein. Members of Photoplagios
are markedly sexually dimorphic. Males are distin-
guished from all other members of Leiognathidae
externally by the presence of an expansive, trans-
lucent lateral flank patch or stripe. Internally, males
are distinguished by dorsolateral lobes of the light
organ that are hypertrophied and that extend
slightly to extensively into the gas bladder, and by
expansive lateral clearing of the silvery, guanine-
covered gas-bladder lining (Sparks et al., 2005).
Clearing of the reflective gas-bladder lining is
directly correlated in placement to the species-
specific translucent lateral flank patches or stripes.
Gas bladder clearing facilitates the lateral emission
of bacterially-generated luminescence via the flank
patches (Sparks et al., 2005). Males of all species of
Photoplagios are easily distinguished from each other
by size, shape, and placement of the translucent
lateral flank patch or stripe (Fig. 1). Species of
Photoplagios have dorsolateral lobes of the light
organ that extend to some extent into the gas
bladder and by lateral clearing of the gas-bladder
lining; however, both of these features are far less
pronounced in females than in males (Sparks et al.,
2005). Photoplagios adults generally have shallower
bodies than other leiognathid genera, but the
presence of a shallow body is not unique to the
genus.
In the present study, a new species belong-
ing to the genus Photoplagios is described from
material collected from the Samar Sea in the
Philippines. Placement of the new species
within Photoplagios is discussed with reference
to homologous features of the light-organ
system, which includes the circumesophageal
light organ and associated structures (e.g.,
clearing of the gas-bladder lining, transparent
flank, opercular, and gular patches) that facili-
tate the transmission of bacterially-generated
luminescence.
M
ATERIALS AND METHODS
Osteological features of the new species and
related taxa were examined using radiographs
and specimens cleared and stained (CS) for bone
and cartilage (following Taylor and Van Dyke,
1985). Light organs were examined in situ or
isolated to permit detailed morphological com-
parisons. Morphometric measurements were
recorded to the nearest 0.1 mm using dial
calipers. Standard length (SL) is used through-
out. Vertebral counts exclude the ural centrum
(5last half-centrum). The first caudal vertebra is
here defined as the first vertebra bearing
a definite hemal spine (Hubbs and Lagler,
1949). Vertebral and fin-spine/ray counts were
obtained from radiographs. The terminal dorsal-
fin and anal-fin rays, which are branched to the
base of the fin, are counted as a single element.
Pored scales in the lateral line are counted in
series from the dorsal margin of the gill opening
to the caudal flexure. Scale counts should be
interpreted as approximations, due to high
intraspecific variability, irregular arrangement,
the deciduous nature of ponyfish scales in
preservation, and because small scale size and
the degree to which scales are embedded make
accurate counts problematic. Institutional abbre-
viations follow Leviton et al. (1985).
A principal components analysis (PCA) was
conducted to identify shape-related differences
between the new species and congeners. Digital
images were taken from the left side of each
specimen. Only specimens that were preserved
unbent and of adult size were used in this
analysis. Landmarks (putatively homologous
points on anatomical structures) were chosen in
order to best represent the external shape of the
body (Fig. 2). The software tpsDIG2 (version
2.05, Rohlf, 2006, http://life.bio.sunysb.edu/
morph/) was used to digitize the landmarks on
the images. Generalized least squares (GLS)
Procrustes superimposition was performed to
Copeia, 2007(3), pp. 622–629
#
2007 by the American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists
Fig. 1. Photographs of Photoplagios males, showing differences in shape of translucent flank patch: (A)
Photoplagios elongatus (UMMZ uncat. [PVD 82-06/19a LE], 76.4 mm SL). (B) P. rivulatus (UMMZ uncat.
[PVD 82-06/19a LR], 70.2 mm SL). (C) P. leuciscus (AMS I.22978004, 95.8 mm SL). (D) P. klunzingeri
(NMW 68280, syntype, 75.0 mm SL).
SPARKS AND CHAKRABARTY—NEW SPECIES OF PHOTOPLAGIOS 623
remove size from the data. In the optimal
superimposition, the distance minimized is the
Procrustes distance, calculated as the square root
of the summed squared distances between
homologous landmarks (Rohlf and Slice, 1990;
Goodall, 1991). This superimposition, and the
PCA, was performed using PCAgen (Sheets, 2001,
http://www2.canisius.edu/,sheets/morphsoft.
html).
Photoplagios laterofenestra, new species
Figures 3–4, Table 1
Holotype.—USNM 387899, 115.2 mm SL, adult
male, Philippines, Samar Sea, Carigara Bay, 0–
86 m depth, 11u559 420N, 124u289480 Eto
11u539480N, 124u299060E, 30 April 1980, C. Ferraris.
Paratypes.—AMNH 238682, 2, 115.3–121.0 mm
SL, data as for holotype; USNM 228508, 4, 115.9–
127.9 mm SL, data as for holotype.
Diagnosis.—Males of Photoplagios laterofenestra are
distinguished from all congeners by the presence
of an expansive cornucopia-shaped translucent
lateral flank patch. Both sexes of the new species
can be further distinguished from P. elongatus and
P. rivulatus, each of which possess a more or less
bullet-shaped flank patch, by a deeper body (34.4–
39.2 vs. 12.5–29.7% of SL in P. elongatus and P.
rivulatus) and pigmentation pattern on the upper
flank (vermiculate, with thin wavy lines forming
semi-circles and oval shapes vs. larger rounded
blotches in P. elongatus and P. rivulatus). Males and
females of the new species can be further
distinguished from P. leuciscus and P. klunzingeri,
both of which possess a triangular flank patch, by
the lack of a markedly elongate second dorsal-fin
spine and the pigmentation pattern on the upper
flank (vermiculate, with thin wavy lines forming
semi-circles and oval shapes vs. speckled in P.
leuciscus and P. klunzingeri). Adults of both sexes of
the new species also grow to a larger size than
congeners, except P. leuciscus.
Description.—Selected proportional measure-
ments and meristic data presented in Table 1.
A comparatively large, shallow bodied, and
laterally compressed species of ponyfish. Dorsal
profile slightly more convex than ventral. Deep-
Fig. 2. Landmarks used for Principal Components Analysis: (1) rostral tip of premaxilla, (2) posterior
end of nuchal spine, (3) anterior insertion of dorsal fin, (4) posterior insertion of dorsal fin, (5) dorsal
insertion of caudal fin, (6) midpoint of caudal border of hypural plate, (7) ventral insertion of caudal fin,
(8) posterior insertion of anal fin, (9) anterior insertion of anal fin, (10) dorsal base of pelvic fin, (11)
ventral end of lower jaw articulation, (12) posterior end of maxilla, (13) anterior margin through midline of
orbit, (14) posterior margin through midline of orbit, (15) dorsal end of opercle, (16) dorsal base of
pectoral fin. Base figure modified from Nelson (2006).
624 COPEIA, 2007, NO. 3
est part of body at vertical from dorsal-fin origin
to pelvic-fin origin. Lateral snout outline nearly
straight. Slight concavity present dorsal to orbit.
Concavity much less pronounced than in more
deep-bodied species. Concavity created by con-
vergence of left and right supraorbital ridges
dorsal to orbit, followed posteriorly by exposed
rising dorsal aspect of supraoccipital crest (nu-
chal spine).
Dorsal-fin origin slightly posterior to vertical
through pelvic-fin origin. Anal-fin origin near
vertical through midpoint of body: approximate-
ly at vertical between last dorsal-fin spine and first
dorsal-fin ray. Caudal peduncle slender and
shallow. Mouth small and terminal, and directed
slightly downward when protruded. Lips some-
what fleshy. Posterior margin of maxilla exposed
and reaching vertical through anterior part of
pupil as well as dorsal portion of lower jaw
articulation. Eye large and circular (29–34% of
head length [HL]). Sensory pores around eye
moderately well developed. One canal on ven-
trocaudal aspect of orbit elongated and reaching
preopercle. Nasal pores closely apposed and
separated by only small bridge of tissue. Both
nasal pores oval; anterior pore roughly half size
of posterior pore. Preopercular margin weakly to
moderately serrated; serrations concentrated
along ventral and ventrocaudal margins. Cerato-
branchial 1 with 13 elongate, triangular, and
heavily denticulated gill rakers. Vertebral count
23 (10 precaudal + 13 caudal). Single supra-
neural present. Supraneural large and robust as
observed through radiographs. Dorsal aspect of
supraneural spine about equal in length to radius
of orbit, whereas vertical (elongate) aspect about
equal to diameter of orbit.
Dorsal fin with eight spines and 16 rays. First
dorsal-fin spine very short (9–11% of length of
second spine). Second dorsal-fin spine longest,
but not considerably longer than third or fourth
spines (Fig. 3). Second, third, and fourth spines
relatively robust, with third and fourth possessing
serrations along their anterior margins that
facilitates interlocking with preceding spines
when fin erect. Remaining spines (V–VIII) more
feeble and shorter. Anal fin with three spines and
14 rays. First anal-fin spine very short (8–10% of
length of second spine). Second and third anal-
fin spines robust, and second only slightly longer
than third. Third anal-fin spine possesses serra-
tions on anterior margin that facilitates inter-
locking with second spine when fin erect. Bases
of spinous portions of both dorsal and anal fins
covered by ridges of tissue lacking scales. Pelvic
fin short and not reaching origin of anal fin
when adducted. Gap between posterior margin
of adducted pelvic-fin and anal-fin origin about
equal to length of pelvic fin. Caudal fin deeply
forked.
Oral teeth long and villiform, and arrayed in
narrow band of four to five rows. Teeth in lower
jaw slightly recurved; those in upper jaw strongly
recurved, almost parallel with roof of mouth.
All specimens comprising type series have lost
most scales in preservation and following ob-
servations should be considered speculative.
Chest, fins, and suborbital series appear asqua-
mate. Scales present in nuchal region and below
dorsal-fin origin in only some specimens. Lateral
Fig. 3. Illustration of holotype of Photoplagios laterofenestra, USNM 387899, adult male, 115.2 mm SL,
Philippines. Pectoral fin not illustrated in order to reveal lateral flank patch. Drawing by Annemarie Noe¨l.
SPARKS AND CHAKRABARTY—NEW SPECIES OF PHOTOPLAGIOS 625
line complete, extending from opercle to poste-
rior margin of caudal peduncle, and comprising
about 60 scales. Lateral line arches only slightly.
Pores of lateral line well developed.
Sexual dimorphism.—Single male specimen, holo-
type, with large translucent patch (guanine-free
region) on anterior flank in shape of cornucopia
(Figs. 3–4). Translucent patch abuts pectoral-fin
base. Translucent patch peppered with aggregat-
ed melanophores and extending longitudinally
from pectoral-fin origin to midpoint of flank.
Ventrally, patch extends to slightly below hori-
zontal through ventral aspect of dentary. Trans-
lucent flank patch lacking entirely in females.
Pigmentation in preservative.—Body generally light
brown above midline. Ventral half of body, from
slightly above midline, covered in silvery guanine.
Gill covers and suborbital region silvery with
guanine extending up to vertical through ante-
rior margin of orbit. Most of area anterior to
vertical through rostral margin of orbit lacks
silvery guanine, except for scattered patches
posteriorly on lower jaw. Dorsal markings ver-
miculate, usually comprising short irregular
patterns; sometimes forming oval shapes dorsally
and anteriorly (Fig. 4). Curved lines present near
lateral line, occasionally appearing as oval
shapes. Dark line present along entire base of
dorsal fin and sometimes extending onto dorsal
margin of caudal peduncle. Dark blotch, due to
concentration of melanophores, present above
upper lip (and sometimes includes upper lip)
ventral to nasal pores, and extending posteriorly
to exposed portion of maxilla. Distinct dark spot
present on prefrontal region posterior to nasal
pores and anterior to orbit. Concentration of
Fig. 4. Photoplagios laterofenestra. (A) Holotype, USNM 387899, adult male, 115.2 mm SL, Philippines.
(B) Paratype, USNM 228508, adult female, 127.9 mm SL, Philippines.
626 COPEIA, 2007, NO. 3
melanophores also present in pectoral-fin axil.
All fins, lips, and interorbital and gular regions
otherwise a pale, opaque gray.
Distribution.—Known only from single lot of
specimens (originally catalogued as USNM
228508) collected from Carigara Bay, Samar
Sea, Philippines.
Etymology.—Named in reference to expansive
translucent lateral flank patch in males (from
the Latin lateralis 5 lateral/side, and fenestra 5
window). Specific epithet, laterofenestra,tobe
treated as a noun in apposition.
D
ISCUSSION
Photoplagios laterofenestra is most similar in
external appearance, including both overall
body shape and pigmentation pattern, to P.
leuciscus and P. klunzingeri. The new species is
distinguished from both P. leuciscus and P.
klunzingeri by a shorter second dorsal-fin spine,
pigmentation pattern on the upper flank (ver-
miculate, with thin wavy lines forming semi-
circles and oval shapes vs. speckled in P. leuciscus
and P. klunzingeri), and the presence of an
expansive cornucopia-shaped translucent flank
patch in males (vs. a triangular patch resem-
bling an inverted pyramid in P. leuciscus and P.
klunzingeri). This translucent patch abuts the
pectoral-fin base broadly (vs. not abutting the
pectoral-fin base in P. leuciscus,orabuttingthe
pectoral-fin base only at the anterior angle of
the triangle in P. klunzingeri; Fig. 1). In addition
to differences in the shape and extent of the
translucent flank patch (Figs. 1, 3–4), P. later-
ofenestra is easily distinguished from both P.
elongatus and P. rivulatus by a deeper body
(34.4–39.2 vs. 12.5–29.7% SL in P. elongatus and
P. rivulatus) and pigmentation pattern on the
upper flank (vermiculate with thin wavy lines
forming semi-circles and oval shapes vs. larger
rounded blotches in P. elongatus and P. rivulatus;
Figs. 1, 3).
A PCA of shape resulted in a PC1 that
accounted for 67% of the variation among the
five species of Photoplagios in which males are
characterized by translucent flank patches. Prin-
cipal component 2 and PC3 accounted for 10%
and 7% of this variation, respectively. The new
species formed a distinct group from all other
species on the plot of PC1 vs. PC2, with the
exception of P. leuciscus for which there was
a slight overlap (Fig. 5). Principal component 1
accounted for much of the variation among
specimens in body depth between the nuchal
area and the anal-fin origin. Principal compo-
nent 1 also accounted for variation in relative
body length among specimens. Principal compo-
nent 2 accounts for some of the variation due to
shortening of the nuchal, snout, and head
TABLE 1. MORPHOMETRIC DATA FOR Photoplagios laterofenestra (n 5 7).
Character Holotype Range Mean SD
Standard length (mm) 115.2 115.2–127.9 120.0
Percentage of SL
Head length 27.4 26.5–29.0 28.2 0.90
Body depth 37.8 34.4–39.2 37.1 1.82
Predorsal length 43.3 42.9–45.5 43.9 0.79
Preanal length 54.9 54.6–59.4 56.3 1.78
Prepelvic length 37.0 37.0–39.4 38.3 0.94
Head width (max.) 13.5 13.2–14.2 13.5 0.36
Caudal peduncle length 8.8 6.1–8.9 8.2 0.95
Caudal peduncle width 3.0 3.0–4.2 3.5 0.39
Caudal peduncle depth 5.5 4.7–6.0 5.2 0.47
Pectoral-fin length 20.1 17.2–20.1 18.3 0.94
Pelvic-fin length 12.3 10.5–13.2 11.6 0.94
Percentage of HL
Snout length 36.4 31.9–37.0 34.7 1.81
Orbit diameter 31.3 28.7–33.7 31.4 1.78
Upper jaw length 43.0 38.7–45.1 40.9 2.61
Lower jaw length 52.8 48.0–58.5 51.0 3.72
Interorbital width 34.8 30.3–38.9 33.5 2.80
Caudal peduncle length/depth 1.6 1.3–1.7 1.58 0.15
Caudal peduncle length/width 2.8 1.5–2.9 2.38 0.48
SPARKS AND CHAKRABARTY—NEW SPECIES OF PHOTOPLAGIOS 627
regions relative to the rest of the body. This
assemblage of five species (including the new
species) is monophyletic and recovered as the
sister taxon to members of the genus in which
males are characterized by a translucent mid-
lateral stripe that is either continuous or com-
prised of numerous discrete windows (Sparks et
al., 2005; Sparks, 2006).
M
ATERIAL EXAMINED
Specimens are listed alphabetically by genus
and species. For each species, type specimens are
listed first (including number in lot), followed
alphabetically by museum abbreviation and in-
cluding number of CS individuals in lot.
Photoplagios elongatus: BMNH 1872.4.6.105,
holotype; CAS 52602; LACM 42993-1; LACM
43584-1; SIO 83-55; USNM 55613; UMMZ
226771; UMMZ 240145, 2 ex. CS; UMMZ uncat.
(PVD 82-06/19a LE).
Photoplagios klunzingeri: NMW 68277, syntypes,
4 ex.; NMW 68280, syntypes, 2 ex.; NMW 76008,
syntypes, 4 ex.; NMW 76009, syntypes, 4 ex.;
AMNH 44488; AMNH 44491; AMNH 44493;
AMNH 44496, 4 ex. CS.
Photoplagios leuciscus: BMNH 1858.4.21.243,
holotype; AMNH 237149; AMS I.22967001; AMS
I.22978004; AMS I.34365015; ANSP 27525, holo-
type of Leiognathus vermiculatus; UMMZ 240125;
USNM 76609; USNM 191979; USNM 191991;
USNM 307917; USNM 373280.
Photoplagios moretoniensis: QM I.1583, syntype, 1
ex.; AMS I.21700001; AMS I.22983001.
Photoplagios rivulatus: RMNH 1438, holotype;
AMNH 34850; UMMZ 182938; UMMZ 240144, 2
ex. CS; UMMZ uncat. (PVD 82-06/19a LR).
Photoplagios stercorarius: USNM 55906, holo-
type; USNM 126395, paratype, 1 ex.; ANSP
33289, paratype, 1 ex.; CAS 42171, paratype, 1
ex.; CAS 17678; CAS-SU 20004, paratype; UMMZ
240138, 2 ex. CS; USNM 191996.
?Photoplagios (Leiognathus) oblonga: MNHN A-
6754, holotype.
?Photoplagios (Leiognathus) parviceps: MNHN A-
0580, syntype, 1 ex.
?Photoplagios sp.: MNHN 1988-0327.
A
CKNOWLEDGMENTS
Thanks to S. Jewett, L. Palmer, K. Murphy, L.
Parenti, and J. Williams (USNM), J. Leis, M.
McGrouther, and T. Trnski (AMS), J. Johnson
(QM), E. Mikschi (NMW), D. Nelson and P.
Dunlap (UMMZ), M. Sabaj and J. Lundberg
(ANSP),H.Walker(SIO),M.vanOijen
(RMNH), and D. Catania and W. Eschmeyer
(CAS) for the loan of specimens in their care. D.
Nelson was extremely helpful with the loan of
material and the curation of specimens deposit-
ed at UMMZ. Thanks to M. Stiassny (AMNH) for
Fig. 5. Principal component analysis of species of Photoplagios in which males are characterized by
a translucent flank patch (plot of PC1 vs. PC2). Photoplagios elongatus specimens are represented by black
dots, P. rivulatus by squares, P. leuciscus by hexagons, P. klunzingeri by triangles, and P. laterofenestra
by diamonds.
628 COPEIA, 2007, NO. 3
providing specimens and to B. Brown, R.
Arrindell, and D. Rodrı´guez (AMNH) for assis-
tance with loans and radiographs. Thanks to M.
Dorsey and A. Nzeribe for assistance with the
collection of morphometric data. We are grateful
to A. Noe¨l for producing the original drawing of
the holotype. This work was supported by a grant
(DEB-0444842) from the National Science Foun-
dation.
L
ITERATURE CITED
GOODALL,C.1991.Procrustesmethodsinthe
statistical analysis of shape. Journal of the Royal
Statistical Society, Series B (Methodological)
53:285–339.
H
UBBS, C. L., AND K. F. LAGLER. 1949. Fishes of the
Great Lakes region. Cranbrook Institute of Science
Bulletin 26:1–186.
L
EVITON, A. E., R. H. GIBBS,JR., E. HEAL, AND C. E.
D
AWSON. 1985. Standards in herpetology and
ichthyology: part I. Standard symbolic codes for
institutional resource collections in herpetology
and ichthyology. Copeia 1985:802–832.
R
OHLF, F. J., AND D. E. SLICE. 1990. Extensions of the
Procrustes method for the optimal superimposi-
tion of landmarks. Systematic Zoology 39:40–59.
S
PARKS, J. S. 2006. A new species of ponyfish
(Teleostei: Leiognathidae: Photoplagios) from Mad-
agascar, with a phylogeny for Photoplagios and
comments on the status of Equula lineolata Valen-
ciennes. American Museum Novitates 3526:1–21.
S
PARKS, J. S., P. V. DUNLAP, AND W. L. SMITH. 2005.
Evolution and diversification of a sexually dimor-
phic luminescent system in ponyfishes (Teleostei:
Leiognathidae), including diagnoses for two new
genera. Cladistics 21:305–327.
T
AYLOR, W. R., AND G. C. VAN DYKE. 1985. Revised
procedures for staining and clearing small fishes
and other vertebrates for bone and cartilage study.
Cybium 9:107–119.
DEPARTMENT OF ICHTHYOLOGY,DIVISION OF VERTE-
BRATE
ZOOLOGY,AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL
HISTORY,NEW YORK,NEW YORK 10024 . E-mail:
( JSS) jsparks@amnh.org; and (PC) prosanta@
amnh.org. Send reprint requests to JSS.
Submitted: 14 Sept. 2006. Accepted: 31 Jan.
2007. Section editor: C. J. Ferraris.
SPARKS AND CHAKRABARTY—NEW SPECIES OF PHOTOPLAGIOS 629
... To achieve a monophyletic taxonomy for Leiognathidae in light of these new phylogenetic hypotheses, and as a result of extensive Indo-Pacific faunal surveys (e.g., Chakrabarty et al., 2009Chakrabarty et al., , 2010a conducted by our group that have resulted in the discovery and description of several new species (Sparks, 2006a(Sparks, , 2006bSparks and Chakrabarty, 2007;Chakrabarty and Sparks, 2007;Chakrabarty et al., 2010b;Baldwin and Sparks, 2011), a number of new ponyfish genera have recently been described or resurrected from synonymy with the historically poorly diagnosed, catch-all genus Leiognathus. Herein we discuss the current generic-level composition of Leiognathidae and describe a new genus on the basis of apomorphic features of the sexually-dimorphic light-organ system. ...
... Institutional abbreviations are as listed in Leviton et al. (1985) and Sabaj Pérez (2012). (Figures 2-4A,B) Photoplagios in part: Sparks et al., 2005;Sparks, 2006b;Sparks and Chakrabarty, 2007 Equulites in part: Kimura et al., 2008a;Chakrabarty et al., 2011aChakrabarty et al., , 2011b Type species: Photolateralis stercorarius (Evermann & Seale, 1907) abbreviations: es = esophagus, g = gut, gb = gas bladder, lo = circumesophageal light organ, mls = translucent midlateral stripe. Stippled region on posterolateral region of gas bladder corresponds to clearing of silvery guanine lining in region internal to translucent mid-lateral stripe. ...
... Photolateralis shares the presence of translucent lateral flank regions with its sister genus Equulites (Figs. 2-4). In Photolateralis, however, these translucent areas form a mid-lateral stripe, either continuous or comprised of discrete "windows" (Figs 2 and 3), whereas in Equulites, comprising E. elongatus, E. rivulatus, E. leuciscus, E. klunzingeri, E. laterofenestra, and E. absconditus, males are characterized by the presence of a species-specific triangular, translucent lateral flank patch ( Fig. 4; Sparks and Chakrabarty, 2007: Fig. 1). Although Equula lineolata Valenciennes, in Cuvier and Valenciennes, 1835 is placed within Equulites (Eschmeyer, 2015), with the new placement attributed to Kimura et al. (2008a), in fact Kimura et al. (2008a) never mention Equula lineolata. ...
Article
Full-text available
In order to recognize a monophyletic taxonomy for Leiognathidae based on unique features of the bacterially mediated light-organ system, we describe a new sexually-dimorphic genus of elongate, shallow-bodied ponyfishes within the tribe Equulitini, which itself is recovered within the subfamily Gazzinae. Photolateralis, new genus, is unique among pony- fishes in possessing a translucent mid-lateral flank stripe, which depending on the species, may be either a composite “stripe” comprised of numerous independent translucent windows (P. stercorarius and P. moretoniensis), or a continuous translucent lateral stripe (P. antongil). This translucent lateral stripe is either lacking entirely in females, or is considerably less well developed. In contrast, males in its sister taxon, Equulites, are characterized by the presence of an expansive, triangular, translucent lateral flank patch that also exhibits species-specific morphology. Internally, in Photolateralis the light organ system is characterized by a moderately enlarged, donut-shaped, and conspicuously spotted light organ in males that extends only slightly posteriorly into the gas bladder. In contrast, in members of Equulites the dorsolateral lobes of the light organ in males are greatly enlarged, heavily pigmented, and extend posteriorly well into the gas bladder. In addition, internally male members of Photolateralis exhibit lateral clearing of the silvery gas bladder lining posteriorly, corresponding in extent to the external translucent lateral stripe or windows on the flank. Including the new genus de- scribed herein, we now recognize 10 monophyletic genera of extant ponyfishes.
... Ponyfish were separated from the bulk of the bycatch sample in the lab. All ponyfish samples were identified to the species level by reference to the most recent taxonomic works available (Chakrabarty et al., 2009(Chakrabarty et al., , 2011Chakrabarty & Sparks, 2008;Sparks, 2006;Sparks & Chakrabarty, 2007Sparks et al., 2005;Woodland et al., 2001). ...
Article
Full-text available
Ponyfish (Perciformes: Leiognathidae) are a diverse group of mainly small, planktivorous fishes that comprise much of the teleost component found in the by-catch of trawlers in Thai waters. The generic taxonomy of ponyfish has been revised many times, which has resulted in confusion in the historical records of fishing data. Moreover, since two monsoon seasons affect the different coasts of Thailand at different times of the year, their effects are likely to have separate impacts on marine fish diversity in Thailand according to the time of year. By-catch samples totaling 25,439 ponyfish were collected from commercial fishing vessels during three sampling episodes in each of two Andaman Sea provinces and three provinces in the Gulf of Thailand. Ponyfish samples were identified to the species level and taxonomical ambiguity was dealt with by DNA sequencing against GenBank to identify the specie. From these data, the spatial and temporal community diversity and abundance were calculated. Richness and total abundance were significantly different between seasons but not between the two sides of the Thai peninsula. Diversity of ponyfish in bycatch was least during the monsoon transition period or the dry season. Morphological variation of Photopectoralis bindus has been a source of taxonomic confusion in the past, but here, the use of DNA sequencing in addition to body ratio data analysis reinforces taxonomic clarity and suggests population-level structuring that may explain these issues. These findings indicate the role of seasonal fluctuations in biodiversity maintenance for fisheries management in Thailand.
... Equulites has been considered to include the following seven valid species, which are distributed in the tropical to temperate areas of the Indo-West Pacific (Kimura et al. 2008;Sparks and Chakrabarty 2015): Equulites absconditus Chakrabarty and Sparks in Chakrabarty et al. 2010, Equulites elongatus (Günther 1874), Equulites klunzingeri (Steindachner 1898), Equulites laterofenestra (Sparks and Chakrabarty 2007), Equulites leuciscus (Günther 1860), Equulites oblongus (Valenciennes in Cuvier and Valenciennes 1835) and Equulites rivulatus (Temminck and Schlegel 1845). Although the phylogenetic relationships and evolution of the light-organ system of the genus have recently been investigated (Chakrabarty et al. 2011), the taxonomy and identification of each species remain deeply confused due to the similar body appearance of members of the genus and the fragile tips of their diagnostically important dorsal-fin spines. ...
Article
Taxonomic analysis of a group of morphologically similar and phylogenetically related ponyfishes (Perciformes: Leiognathidae) establishes the Equulites elongatus species group comprising three valid species: Equulites aethopos sp. nov., currently known only from southern Red Sea; Equulites elongatus (Günther 1874), known from northern Australia, Indonesia and Myanmar; and Equulites popei (Whitley 1932), known from Japan, Philippines, Malaysia (Sabah), Thailand (Gulf of Thailand), Oman, the Red Sea, and Mozambique. Although E. popei has previously been regarded as a junior synonym of E. elongatus, the present mitochondrial DNA analysis revealed that these two nominal species are different and that they constitute a monophyletic group separate from other species of Equulites. The E. elongatus species group can be defined by the following of characters: slender body (20–30% in standard length), deeply incised posterior margin of the adipose eyelid, and ventral surface of breast completely scaly. Equulites aethopos sp. nov. differs from the other two species in having smaller eyes (eye diameter 53–68% of postorbital head length vs. 78–137%) and tips of neural and hemal spines of the fourth preural centrum distinctly expanding (vs. slightly expanding). Equulites elongatus is distinguished from E. popei by: scales above and below the lateral line 5–9 and 9–14, respectively (vs. 8–13 and 12–19), anus anteriorly located (distance from the pelvic-fin insertion to the center of anus 30–42% of the distance from the pelvic-fin insertion to the anal-fin origin vs. 35–50%), and more numerous dorsolateral dark marks (1–9 ring marks and 0–14 dark spots smaller than a half of pupil diameter vs. 0–2 and 0–5).
... Species identification and systematic position of the fishes was done primarily using monographs and identification manuals (Cuvier and Valenciennes, 1828;Gunther, 1859Gunther, -1970Day, 1878;Day, 1888;Hamilton, 1822;Weber anddeBeaufort, 1913-1940;Munro, 1955;Fischer and Whitehead, 1974;Jones and Kumaran, 1980;Talwar and Kacker, 1984;Smith and Heemstra, 1986;Talwar and Jhingran, 1991;Allen et al., 1997;Carpenter and Niem, 1998;Eschmeyer, 1998). The taxonomic reviews and recent publications of Chen et al. (1994: Anguilliformes); Roberts and Vidthayanon (1991: Siluriformes); Becker (1968: Myctophids); Kawaguchi and Shimizu (1978: Myctophidae); Kotlyar (1987;1996: Bercyformes); Cressey (1981: Synodontidae); Randall and Greenfield (1996: Holocentridae); Markle and Olney (1990: Carapidae); Heemstra (1980: Zeidae); Dawson (1985: Pipe fishes); Lourie et al. (1999: Sea horses); Imamura (1996: Platycephalidae); Knapp (1996: Platycephalidae); Anderson (1970: Lutjanidae); Heemstra and Randall (1993: Serranidae); Katayama (1960;Serranidae); Randall and Baldwin (1997: Serranidae); Randall and Heemstra (1991: Serranidae); Randall and McCosker (1992: Serranidae); Gon (1993: Apogonidae); Randall et al. (1985: Apogonidae); McKay (1992: Sillaginidae); Dooley (1978: Branchiostegidae and Malacanthidae); Randall et al. (1987: Pinjalo); Allen (1985: Lutjanidae);Carpenter (1987;1988: Caesionidae), Carpenter and Allen (1989: Lethrinidae); Russell (1990: Nemipteridae); Trewavas (1977: Sciaenidae); Lal Mohan (1981: Sciaenidae); Thomas (1969: Goat fishes); James (1985: Silverbellies); Abraham et al. (2011:Silverbellies); James (1967: Ribbon fishes); Allen (1979: Butterfly and Angelfishes); Vari (1978: Teraponidae); Senon (1988: Mugilidae); Thomson (1997: Mugilidae); Allen (1991: Damsel fishes); Randall (1982: Hologymnosus); Bellwood (1994: Scaridae); Choat and Randall (1986: Scaridae); Starnes (1988: Priacanthidae); Springer (1971: Blennidae); Springer and William (1994: Blennidae); Hoese and Larson (1994: Valencienna); Murdy and Hoeses (1985: Gobiidae); Murdy (1989: Gobiidae); Kishimoto et al. (1988: Platax); Woodland (1990: Siganidae); Lin and Shao (1987: Sphyraenidae); Nakamura and Parin (1993: Snake Mackerel); Collette and Nauen (1983: Scombridae); Menon (1977: Cynoglossidae); Munroe and Marsh (1997: Symphurus); Leis (1978: Diodontidae); Sparks and Chakrabarty, 2007); Chakrabarty and Sparks (2007;2008: Silverbellies);2011;Joshi et al., 2012b, Abraham et al., 2011Manisseri et al., 2012;Zacharia and Kannan, 2012). Although these works added to the fish diversity of the GOM, a totality of species inventory is lacking and is causing problems for the conservation and management of this very important Marine Biosphere Reserve of the first of this kind in Tamil Nadu, India. ...
... Species identification and systematic position of the fishes was done primarily using monographs and identification manuals (Cuvier and Valenciennes, 1828;Gunther, 1859Gunther, -1970Day, 1878;Day, 1888;Hamilton, 1822;Weber anddeBeaufort, 1913-1940;Munro, 1955;Fischer and Whitehead, 1974;Jones and Kumaran, 1980;Talwar and Kacker, 1984;Smith and Heemstra, 1986;Talwar and Jhingran, 1991;Allen et al., 1997;Carpenter and Niem, 1998;Eschmeyer, 1998). The taxonomic reviews and recent publications of Chen et al. (1994: Anguilliformes); Roberts and Vidthayanon (1991: Siluriformes); Becker (1968: Myctophids); Kawaguchi and Shimizu (1978: Myctophidae); Kotlyar (1987;1996: Bercyformes); Cressey (1981: Synodontidae); Randall and Greenfield (1996: Holocentridae); Markle and Olney (1990: Carapidae); Heemstra (1980: Zeidae); Dawson (1985: Pipe fishes); Lourie et al. (1999: Sea horses); Imamura (1996: Platycephalidae); Knapp (1996: Platycephalidae); Anderson (1970: Lutjanidae); Heemstra and Randall (1993: Serranidae); Katayama (1960;Serranidae); Randall and Baldwin (1997: Serranidae); Randall and Heemstra (1991: Serranidae); Randall and McCosker (1992: Serranidae); Gon (1993: Apogonidae); Randall et al. (1985: Apogonidae); McKay (1992: Sillaginidae); Dooley (1978: Branchiostegidae and Malacanthidae); Randall et al. (1987: Pinjalo); Allen (1985: Lutjanidae);Carpenter (1987;1988: Caesionidae), Carpenter and Allen (1989: Lethrinidae); Russell (1990: Nemipteridae); Trewavas (1977: Sciaenidae); Lal Mohan (1981: Sciaenidae); Thomas (1969: Goat fishes); James (1985: Silverbellies); Abraham et al. (2011:Silverbellies); James (1967: Ribbon fishes); Allen (1979: Butterfly and Angelfishes); Vari (1978: Teraponidae); Senon (1988: Mugilidae); Thomson (1997: Mugilidae); Allen (1991: Damsel fishes); Randall (1982: Hologymnosus); Bellwood (1994: Scaridae); Choat and Randall (1986: Scaridae); Starnes (1988: Priacanthidae); Springer (1971: Blennidae); Springer and William (1994: Blennidae); Hoese and Larson (1994: Valencienna); Murdy and Hoeses (1985: Gobiidae); Murdy (1989: Gobiidae); Kishimoto et al. (1988: Platax); Woodland (1990: Siganidae); Lin and Shao (1987: Sphyraenidae); Nakamura and Parin (1993: Snake Mackerel); Collette and Nauen (1983: Scombridae); Menon (1977: Cynoglossidae); Munroe and Marsh (1997: Symphurus); Leis (1978: Diodontidae); Sparks and Chakrabarty, 2007); Chakrabarty and Sparks (2007;2008: Silverbellies);2011;Joshi et al., 2012b, Abraham et al., 2011Manisseri et al., 2012;Zacharia and Kannan, 2012). Although these works added to the fish diversity of the GOM, a totality of species inventory is lacking and is causing problems for the conservation and management of this very important Marine Biosphere Reserve of the first of this kind in Tamil Nadu, India. ...
... Species identification and systematic position of the fishes was done primarily using monographs and identification manuals (Cuvier and Valenciennes, 1828;Gunther, 1859Gunther, -1970Day, 1878;Day, 1888;Hamilton, 1822;Weber anddeBeaufort, 1913-1940;Munro, 1955;Fischer and Whitehead, 1974;Jones and Kumaran, 1980;Talwar and Kacker, 1984;Smith and Heemstra, 1986;Talwar and Jhingran, 1991;Allen et al., 1997;Carpenter and Niem, 1998;Eschmeyer, 1998). The taxonomic reviews and recent publications of Chen et al. (1994: Anguilliformes); Roberts and Vidthayanon (1991: Siluriformes); Becker (1968: Myctophids); Kawaguchi and Shimizu (1978: Myctophidae); Kotlyar (1987;1996: Bercyformes); Cressey (1981: Synodontidae); Randall and Greenfield (1996: Holocentridae); Markle and Olney (1990: Carapidae); Heemstra (1980: Zeidae); Dawson (1985: Pipe fishes); Lourie et al. (1999: Sea horses); Imamura (1996: Platycephalidae); Knapp (1996: Platycephalidae); Anderson (1970: Lutjanidae); Heemstra and Randall (1993: Serranidae); Katayama (1960;Serranidae); Randall and Baldwin (1997: Serranidae); Randall and Heemstra (1991: Serranidae); Randall and McCosker (1992: Serranidae); Gon (1993: Apogonidae); Randall et al. (1985: Apogonidae); McKay (1992: Sillaginidae); Dooley (1978: Branchiostegidae and Malacanthidae); Randall et al. (1987: Pinjalo); Allen (1985: Lutjanidae);Carpenter (1987;1988: Caesionidae), Carpenter and Allen (1989: Lethrinidae); Russell (1990: Nemipteridae); Trewavas (1977: Sciaenidae); Lal Mohan (1981: Sciaenidae); Thomas (1969: Goat fishes); James (1985: Silverbellies); Abraham et al. (2011:Silverbellies); James (1967: Ribbon fishes); Allen (1979: Butterfly and Angelfishes); Vari (1978: Teraponidae); Senon (1988: Mugilidae); Thomson (1997: Mugilidae); Allen (1991: Damsel fishes); Randall (1982: Hologymnosus); Bellwood (1994: Scaridae); Choat and Randall (1986: Scaridae); Starnes (1988: Priacanthidae); Springer (1971: Blennidae); Springer and William (1994: Blennidae); Hoese and Larson (1994: Valencienna); Murdy and Hoeses (1985: Gobiidae); Murdy (1989: Gobiidae); Kishimoto et al. (1988: Platax); Woodland (1990: Siganidae); Lin and Shao (1987: Sphyraenidae); Nakamura and Parin (1993: Snake Mackerel); Collette and Nauen (1983: Scombridae); Menon (1977: Cynoglossidae); Munroe and Marsh (1997: Symphurus); Leis (1978: Diodontidae); Sparks and Chakrabarty, 2007); Chakrabarty and Sparks (2007;2008: Silverbellies);2011;Joshi et al., 2012b, Abraham et al., 2011Manisseri et al., 2012;Zacharia and Kannan, 2012). Although these works added to the fish diversity of the GOM, a totality of species inventory is lacking and is causing problems for the conservation and management of this very important Marine Biosphere Reserve of the first of this kind in Tamil Nadu, India. ...
Article
Full-text available
Gulf of Mannar Ecosystem (GOME) covers an area spread over Rameswaram and Kanyakumari for about 19000 km 2 and lies between 78°11'E and 79°15' E longitude and 8°49' N and 9°15'N latitude. The 21 coral islands form a network of habitats for different kinds of fishes and marine organisms. Fish samples were collected during April 2005 to March 2010 from different centers viz.,
Article
This study is a taxonomic review of the ponyfish genus Equulites Fowler 1904 (Leiognathidae), which is diagnosed by the following combination of characters: downward projecting mouth; small teeth forming a narrow band on jaws; a dark blotch on neither nape nor spinous dorsal fin; clearing of the guanine-lined gas bladder extending to the full length of the bladder, not restricted posteriorly, a triangular or trapezoid translucent patch ventrolaterally on body in males; dark vermiculation, broad oblong ring markings and/or short oblique lines on the dorsolateral body. Ten species are herein recognized: three species of the Equulites elongatus species group [Equulites aethopos Suzuki and Kimura 2017—restricted to the southern Red Sea; Equulites elongatus (Günther 1874)—Myanmar, Indonesia and northern Australia; Equulites popei (Whitley 1932)—the Red Sea, Mozambique, Oman, Gulf of Thailand, Malaysia, Philippines and Japan, Mediterranean by Lessepian migration]; Equulites berbis (Valenciennes in Cuvier and Valenciennes 1835) (neotype designated herein)—widely distributed in the Indo-West Pacific, from the Red Sea and eastern coast of Africa to Indonesia, north to Japan, Mediterranean by Lessepian migration; Equulites laterofenestra (Sparks and Chakrabarty 2007)—Malaysia, Philippines, Indonesia and northern Australia; Equulites leuciscus (Günther 1860)—Seychelles, Myanmar, Thailand, Malaysia, Philippines, Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, northern Australia, Taiwan, and Japan; Equulites macrolepis sp. nov. Suzuki, Osmany and Kimura—Pakistan and western coast of Thailand; Equulites oblongus (Valenciennes in Cuvier and Valenciennes 1835) (lectotype designated herein)—India, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Malaysia, Philippines, Indonesia and Timor Island, north to Japan; Equulites rivulatus (Temminck and Schlegel 1845)—China, Taiwan, Korea and Japan; Equulites ryukyuensis sp. nov. Kimura and Suzuki—restricted to Okinawa, Japan. Diagnoses and descriptions (except for the Equulites elongatus species group) are provided for each species. The taxonomical status of Equula lineolata Valenciennes in Cuvier and Valenciennes 1835 is discussed.
Article
Full-text available
A total of 16 species of the family Leiognathidae have been collected from the commercial landings from Cochin and Neendakara on the western coast of India from 1998-2000. Detailed morphometric data have been collected and all 16 species are redescribed with live color photographs here. Various relationships in the morphometric characteristics have been studied and regression equations fitted to enable comparison of the populations of these species from Kerala with those from other regions. Of the 16 species collected and described in the present work, five species, Nuchequula nuchalis, Equulites absconditus, Equulites leuciscus, Aurigequula longispina, and Gazza achlamys, are reported for the first time from the entire western coast of India.
Article
Full-text available
Superimposition methods for comparing configurations of landmarks in two or more specimens are reviewed. These methods show differences in shape among specimens as residuals after rotation, translation, and scaling them so that they align as well as possible. A new method is presented that generalizes Siegel and Benson's (1982) resistant-fit theta-rho analysis so that more than two objects can be compared at the same time. Both least-squares and resistant-fit approaches are generalized to allow for affine transformations (uniform shape change). The methods are compared, using artificial data and data on 18 landmarks on the wings of 127 species of North American mosquitoes. Graphical techniques are also presented to help summarize the patterns of differences in shape among the objects being compared.
Article
Two geometrical figures, X and Y, in RK, each consisting of N landmark points, have the same shape if they differ by at most a rotation, a translation and isotropic scaling. This paper presents a model‐based Procrustes approach to analysing sets of shapes. With few exceptions, the metric geometry of shape spaces is quite complicated. We develop a basic understanding through the familiar QR and singular value decompositions of multivariate analysis. The strategy underlying the use of Procrustes methods is to work directly with the N x K co‐ordinate matrix, while allowing for an arbitrary similarity transformation at all stages of model formulation, estimation and inference. A Gaussian model for landmark data is defined for a single population and generalized to two‐sample, analysis‐of‐variance and regression models. Maximum likelihood estimation is by least squares superimposition of the figures; we describe generalizations of Procrustes techniques to allow non‐isotropic errors at and between landmarks. Inference is based on an N x K linear multivariate Procrustes statistic that, in a double‐rotated co‐ordinate system, is a simple but singular linear transformation of the errors at landmarks. However, the superimposition metric used for fitting, and the model metric, or covariance, used for testing, may not coincide. Estimates of means are consistent for many reasonable choices of superimposition metric. The estimates are efficient (maximum likelihood estimates) when the metrics coincide. F‐ratio and Hotelling's R2‐tests for shape differences in one‐ and two‐sample data are derived from the distribution of the Procrustes statistic. The techniques are applied to the shapes associated with hydrocephaly and nutritional differences in young rats.
Article
Two geometrical figures, X and Y, in RK, each consisting of N landmark points, have the same shape if they differ by at most a rotation, a translation and isotropic scaling. This paper presents a model-based Procrustes approach to analysing sets of shapes. With few exceptions, the metric geometry of shape spaces is quite complicated. We develop a basic understanding through the familiar QR and singular value decompositions of multivariate analysis. The strategy underlying the use of Procrustes methods is to work directly with the N × K co-ordinate matrix, while allowing for an arbitrary similarity transformation at all stages of model formulation, estimation and inference. A Gaussian model for landmark data is defined for a single population and generalized to two-sample, analysis-of-variance and regression models. Maximum likelihood estimation is by least squares superimposition of the figures; we describe generalizations of Procrustes techniques to allow non-isotropic errors at and between landmarks. Inference is based on an N × K linear multivariate Procrustes statistic that, in a double-rotated co-ordinate system, is a simple but singular linear transformation of the errors at landmarks. However, the superimposition metric used for fitting, and the model metric, or covariance, used for testing, may not coincide. Estimates of means are consistent for many reasonable choices of superimposition metric. The estimates are efficient (maximum likelihood estimates) when the metrics coincide. F-ratio and Hotelling's T2-tests for shape differences in one- and two-sample data are derived from the distribution of the Procrustes statistic. The techniques are applied to the shapes associated with hydrocephaly and nutritional differences in young rats.
Article
A new species of ponyfish in the genus Photoplagios is described from material collected in coastal waters of northeastern Madagascar. Photoplagios antongil, new species, is distinguished from congeners by the presence of a broad midlateral stripe and two darkly pigmented flank patches located ventral to the lateral midline, which are presumably translucent in life but darkly pigmented in preservative due to a concentration of melanophores. The new species is further distinguished from P. leuciscus, the only externally similar species occurring in the region, by the absence of a large translucent triangular patch on the flanks, a much shorter second dorsal-fin spine, a straight predorsal profile, pigmentation pattern on the upper flanks, absence of black pigment in the pectoral-fin axil, and exposed conical oral dentition in two distinct rows. A phylogeny for Photoplagios is provided based on the simultaneous analysis of anatomical features of the light-organ system and nucleotide characters. The taxonomic statu so fEquula lineolata Valenciennes, in Cuvier and Valenciennes, 1835 is discussed, and the species is herein concluded to be a nomen dubium of uncertain placement beyond the family level.
Article
A phylogeny was generated for Leiognathidae, an assemblage of bioluminescent, Indo-Pacific schooling fishes, using 6175 characters derived from seven mitochondrial genes (16S, COI, ND4, ND5, tRNA-His, tRNA-Ser, tRNA-Leu), two nuclear genes (28S, histone H3), and 15 morphological transformations corresponding to features of the fishes' sexually dimorphic light-organ system (LOS; e.g., circumesophageal light organ, lateral lining of the gas bladder, transparent flank and opercular patches). Leiognathidae comprises three genera, Gazza, Leiognathus, and Secutor. Our results demonstrate that Leiognathidae, Gazza, and Secutor are monophyletic, whereas Leiognathus is not. The recovered pattern of relationships reveals that a structurally complex, strongly sexually dimorphic and highly variable species-specific light organ is derived from a comparatively simple non-dimorphic structure, and that evolution of other sexually dimorphic internal and external features of the male LOS are closely linked with these light-organ modifications. Our results demonstrate the utility of LOS features, both for recovering phylogeny and resolving taxonomic issues in a clade whose members otherwise exhibit little morphological variation. We diagnose two new leiognathid genera, Photopectoralis and Photoplagios, on the basis of these apomorphic LOS features and also present derived features of the LOS to diagnose several additional leiognathid clades, including Gazza and Secutor. Furthermore, we show that five distinct and highly specialized morphologies for male-specific lateral luminescence signaling, which exhibit species-specific variation in structure, have evolved in these otherwise outwardly conservative fishes. Leiognathids inhabit turbid coastal waters with poor visibility and are often captured in mixed assemblages of several species. We hypothesize that the species-specific, sexually dimorphic internal and external modifications of the leiognathid LOS provide compelling evidence for an assortative mating scheme in which males use species-specific patterns of lateral luminescence signaling to attract mates, and that this system functions to maintain reproductive isolation in these turbid coastal environments.© The Willi Hennig Society 2005.