The Covert World of Fish Biofluorescence: A
Phylogenetically Widespread and Phenotypically
John S. Sparks
, Robert C. Schelly
, W. Leo Smith
, Matthew P. Davis
, Dan Tchernov
Vincent A. Pieribone
, David F. Gruber
1Department of Ichthyology, American Museum of Natural History, Division of Vertebrate Zoology, New York, New York United States of America, 2Sackler Institute for
Comparative Genomics, American Museum of Natural History, New York, New York, United States of America, 3Biodiversity Institute, University of Kansas, Lawrence,
Kansas, United States of America, 4Marine Biology Department, The Leon H. Charney School of Marine Sciences, University of Haifa, Mount Carmel, Haifa, Israel,
5Department of Cellular and Molecular Physiology, The John B. Pierce Laboratory, Inc., Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, United States of America, 6Department
of Natural Sciences, Baruch College, City University of New York, New York, New York, United States of America
The discovery of fluorescent proteins has revolutionized experimental biology. Whereas the majority of fluorescent proteins
have been identified from cnidarians, recently several fluorescent proteins have been isolated across the animal tree of life.
Here we show that biofluorescence is not only phylogenetically widespread, but is also phenotypically variable across both
cartilaginous and bony fishes, highlighting its evolutionary history and the possibility for discovery of numerous novel
fluorescent proteins. Fish biofluorescence is especially common and morphologically variable in cryptically patterned coral-
reef lineages. We identified 16 orders, 50 families, 105 genera, and more than 180 species of biofluorescent fishes. We have
also reconstructed our current understanding of the phylogenetic distribution of biofluorescence for ray-finned fishes. The
presence of yellow long-pass intraocular filters in many biofluorescent fish lineages and the substantive color vision
capabilities of coral-reef fishes suggest that they are capable of detecting fluoresced light. We present species-specific
emission patterns among closely related species, indicating that biofluorescence potentially functions in intraspecific
communication and evidence that fluorescence can be used for camouflage. This research provides insight into the
distribution, evolution, and phenotypic variability of biofluorescence in marine lineages and examines the role this variation
Citation: Sparks JS, Schelly RC, Smith WL, Davis MP, Tchernov D, et al. (2014) The Covert World of Fish Biofluorescence: A Phylogenetically Widespread and
Phenotypically Variable Phenomenon. PLoS ONE 9(1): e83259. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0083259
Editor: Diego Fontaneto, Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche (CNR), Italy
Received September 28, 2013; Accepted October 31, 2013; Published January 8, 2014
Copyright: ß2014 Sparks et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits
unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Funding: This work was supported by the American Museum of Natural History, City University of New York, National Science Foundation grants DEB-0444842,
IOS-0749943, and DEB-1258141 to JSS, MCB-0920572 and DRL-1007747 to DFG, DEB-0732642 and DEB-1060869 to WLS, DEB-1257555 and DEB-1258141 to MPD,
WLS, and JSS, National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants U24NS057631 and R01NS083875 to VAP and National Geographic Waitt Grants #W101-10 to DFG and
#W214-12 to JSS. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
* E-mail: email@example.com (JSS); firstname.lastname@example.org (DFG)
.These authors contributed equally to this work.
The primarily monochromatic blue spectrum that characterizes
large areas of the photic ocean provides a unique filtered-light
environment for visual organisms. Compared to the terrestrial
environment, marine organisms reside in a spectrally restricted
visual domain. The red, orange, yellow, and green components of
sunlight are selectively removed with depth resulting in a narrow,
near-monochromatic, band of blue light between 470 and 480 nm
. Spectrally restricted illumination in the ocean provides unique
lighting conditions for organisms to exploit fluorescence to
produce visual contrast and patterns. In the marine environment,
biofluorescence is highly prevalent in cnidarians (particularly
Anthozoans) , and also in a ctenophore , copepods ,
mantis shrimp , amphioxus  and some fishes . In addition,
the photosynthetic apparatus associated with chlorophyll fluoresc-
es red and provides a background of biofluorescence in areas of
high algal growth on coral reefs.
Biofluorescence results from the absorption of electromagnetic
radiation at one wavelength by an organism, followed by its
reemission at a longer and lower energy wavelength, visually
resulting in green, orange, and red emission coloration in marine
organisms. Biofluorescence signaling has previously been reported
in butterflies , parrots , spiders , and flowers , as well
as a deep-sea siphonophore . In scleractinian corals, biofluor-
escence has been suggested to function in photoprotection ,
antioxidation , regulation of symbiotic dinoflagellates ,
photoacclimation , visual contrast , and coral health .
Whereas insight into the evolution and function of biofluores-
cence has greatly enhanced our knowledge of coral biology, little
to nothing is known regarding the impact of biofluorescence on
other organisms that thrive in coral-reef habitats, particularly
those with advanced visual systems that could readily exploit
fluorescent coloration and contrast. Investigating the evolution of
biofluorescence across marine fishes is particularly appealing
PLOS ONE | www.plosone.org 1 January 2014 | Volume 9 | Issue 1 | e83259
because they are visual animals, many of which possess yellow
intraocular (lenses or cornea) filters , which function as long-
pass filters and could enable enhanced perception of biofluores-
cence in the ocean. Worldwide, there are more than 8,000 species
of fishes that inhabit coral reefs. Many reef fish species are known
for their striking color patterns, whereas many others are
cryptically patterned and appear well camouflaged. However,
nearly nothing is known regarding the evolution or function of
fluorescence in fishes. Only recently has a fluorescent protein, a
novel fatty-acid-binding protein, been isolated from a vertebrate, a
Japanese eel .
Here we report, for the first time, that biofluorescence is
widespread throughout the tree of life for fishes, and it appears
particularly common and phenotypically variable in marine
lineages, especially cryptically patterned, well camouflaged coral-
reef lineages. Our findings identify a widespread and previously
unrecognized evolutionary phenomenon that provides new
insights into the evolution of marine fishes and the function of
light and visual systems in a marine environment, as well as
providing a framework for the discovery of additional novel
Research, collecting and export permits were obtained from the
government of the Bahamas, from the Ministry of Fisheries and
Ministry of Environment, Honiara, Solomon Islands, and from the
Department of Environment, Cayman Islands Government. This
study was carried out in strict accordance with the recommenda-
tions in the Guidelines for the Use of Fishes in Research of the
American Fisheries Society and the American Museum of Natural
History’s Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC).
Fishes were collected via SCUBA, using both standard open
circuit systems and closed circuit rebreathers, via the application of
rotenone and quinaldine to a targeted variety of shallow to deep
(mesophotic) habitats in each sampling location where collecting
Taxonomic field surveys of biofluorescence in marine fishes
were conducted during the following expeditions: Little Cayman
Island, January 2011, working out of the Central Caribbean
Marine Institute; the Exumas, Bahamas, May 2011 and December
2011, at the Perry Institute for Marine Science on Lee Stocking
Island; and a taxonomically comprehensive survey conducted at
numerous localities in the Solomon Islands (June–July, 2012 and
September 2013). In addition, we have supplemented these field
studies with specimens available in the aquarium trade and by
imaging specimens at aquariums after hours (e.g., Mystic
Aquarium and Institute for Exploration, Mystic, CT; Birch
Aquarium, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, La Jolla, CA).
All collected specimens were placed on ice to preserve
coloration and digitally imaged upon return to shore using Nikon
D300s, D7000, or D800 DSLR cameras affixed with either a 60 or
105 mm Nikkor macro lens under white light. Fishes were
subsequently scanned for fluorescence using bright LED light
sources equipped with excitation filters and observed using
emission filter glasses/goggles. All fluorescent fishes were then
imaged (Fig. 1) using the ‘‘Fluorescent Macro Photography’’
protocol outlined below.
The list and phylogenetic distribution of biofluorescence across
cartilaginous and bony fishes presented in Figure 2 and Table S1
are the result of this survey work, and they also include data from
 that specifically examined red fluorescence in some shallow,
reef-associated fishes. In addition, we have summarized other
accounts of biofluorescence in fishes from the popular literature
(underwater photography magazines and websites) and available
on the internet.
Emission spectra were collected using an Ocean Optics
USB2000+miniature spectrometer (Dunedin, FL) equipped with
a hand-held fiber optic probe (Ocean Optics ZFQ-12135).
Excitation spectra were achieved during illumination with a
band-pass filter (450–500 nm, Omega Optical, Inc., Brattleboro,
VT, or Semrock, Inc., Rochester, NY). Emission spectra were
recorded by applying the fiber optic probe to specific anatomical
parts of the individual fish specimen exhibiting biofluorescence.
This was repeated several times for each specimen to ensure the
accuracy of measurements.
Fluorescent Macro Photography
Individual fish specimens were placed in a narrow photographic
tank and held flat against a thin plate glass front. Fluorescent
macro images [736064912 (Nikon D800); 492863264 (Nikon
D7000); 218061800 pixel (Nikon D300S)] were produced in a
dark room by covering the flash (Nikon SB 600, SB 800, or SB910)
with interference bandpass excitation filters (Omega Optical, Inc.,
Brattleboro, VT; Semrock, Inc., Rochester, NY). Longpass (LP)
and bandpass (BP) emission filters (Semrock) were attached to the
front of the camera lens. A variety of excitation/emission filter
pairs were tested on each sample to elicit the strongest fluorescence
emission: excitation 450–500 nm, emission 514 LP; excitation
500–550 nm, emission 561 LP.
A majority of the DNA sequence data used in this study is from
, but additional sequences were obtained from many studies
[21–84]; the GenBank accession numbers for these sequences as
well as our added GenBank accession numbers (KF768155-
KF768177) can be found in Table S2. Mitochondrial and nuclear
genes were aligned using the program MAFFT v6.0 with default
parameters . The phylogenetic analysis presented herein had a
total of 5,238 base pairs including: one mitochondrial gene
(cytochrome oxidase I, 812 bps), and five protein-coding genes
(glycosyltransferase gene, 732 bps; myosin heavy chain 6 alpha
gene, 737 bps; pleiomorphic adenoma protein-like 2-like gene,
659 bps; recombination activating gene 1, 1403 bps; zic family
member protein, 890 bps). For each maximum likelihood analysis,
the dataset was partitioned by individual gene fragments. A model
of molecular evolution was chosen by the program jMODELT-
EST v.2.1  with the best fitting model under the Akaike
information criteria (AIC) for each individual gene partition
assigned, including: cytochrome oxidase I (GTR+I+C), glycosyl-
transferase (GTR+C), myosin heavy chain 6 alpha (GTR+I+C),
pleiomorphic adenoma protein-like 2-like gene (GTR+I+C),
recombination activating gene 1 (SYM+I+C), and zic family
member protein (GTR+I+C). Maximum likelihood analyses were
performed in GARLI v2.0 . Ten separate analyses were
conducted, and the tree having the best likelihood score is
presented here (Fig. S1, Fig. 2) to evaluate evolutionary
The results presented in this study are based upon ichthyofaunal
surveys conducted during multiple expeditions to the Caribbean
and tropical Western Pacific (2011–2013), analysis of living
aquarium collections, and previous observations of biofluorescence
from the literature. Biofluorescence is phylogenetically widespread
PLOS ONE | www.plosone.org 2 January 2014 | Volume 9 | Issue 1 | e83259
PLOS ONE | www.plosone.org 3 January 2014 | Volume 9 | Issue 1 | e83259
and phenotypically variable in both cartilaginous (Chondrichthyes:
sharks and rays) and bony (ray-finned: e.g, eels, lizardfishes,
gobies, flatfishes) fishes (Figs. 1, 2, Table S1). We find biofluor-
escence to be most common and morphologically variable in
cryptically pigmented and patterned marine lineages, including
true eels (Anguilliformes), lizardfishes (Aulopiformes), scorpion-
fishes (Scorpaenoidei), blennies (Blennioidei), gobies (Gobioidei),
and flatfishes (Pleuronectiformes) (Figs. 1, 2), groups that generally
appear well camouflaged in the reef environment. With our initial
surveys, we have already identified 16 orders, 50 families, 105
genera, and more than 180 species of biofluorescent fishes, and we
have reconstructed our current understanding of the phylogenetic
distribution of biofluorescence for ray-finned fishes (Fig. 2, Table
We show that besides red fluorescence previously reported in
shallow reef-associated fishes (e.g., [7,88]), marine fishes also
commonly exhibit green fluorescence, or combinations of green
and red or orange fluorescence in unique, species-specific patterns
(Figs. 1, 3). Biofluorescent patterning in fishes ranges from simple
red, orange or green eye rings to striking, complex, species-specific
patterns of interspersed fluorescent elements, frequently compris-
ing multiple colors, on the head, jaws, fins, flank, and ventrum—
and even bright fluorescence of the entire body (e.g., chlopsid eels;
Fig. 1). Considerable interspecific variation in fluorescent emission
patterns are recorded for members of the lizardfish genus Synodus
(Fig. 3) and the goby genus Eviota (Fig. 1L, M), even among closely
related species that appear nearly identical under white light
(Fig. 3A, B).
We find biofluorescence to be widespread across cartilaginous
and bony fishes, and we show that this evolutionary phenomenon
is most common and phenotypically variable in cryptically colored
and patterned marine fishes, such as eels, lizardfishes, blennies,
scorpionfishes, gobies, and flatfishes (Figs. 1, 2). The repeated
evolution of biofluorescence combined with phenotypically vari-
able coloration (green, orange, red) and patterns in fishes may
suggest a previously unrecognized role in communication,
including mating behavior as has been observed in parrots .
Fluorescence may be exploited in fishes to produce visual contrast
and patterns in otherwise cryptically patterned or camouflaged
species that blend in well on the reef in shallow sunlit waters.
A few instances of green biofluorescence have also been
reported in deepwater (500–600 m) catsharks (Scyliorhinidae),
lizardfishes (Aulopiformes: Chlorophthalmidae), and an unidenti-
fied ceriantharian (Cnidaria) [88–89]. The presence of biofluor-
escence in these deepwater taxa that spend their lives primarily in
the dark, beyond the reach of the high-energy blue light necessary
for excitation of fluorescence, is curious from a functional
perspective. Biofluorescence in these taxa potentially represents
the ancestral condition in lineages whose shallower water relatives
Figure 1. Diversity of fluorescent patterns and colors in marine fishes. A, swell shark (Cephaloscyllium ventriosum); B, ray (Urobatis
jamaicensis); C, sole (Soleichthys heterorhinos); D, flathead (Cociella hutchinsi); E, lizardfish (Synodus dermatogenys); F, frogfish (Antennarius maculatus);
G, false stonefish (Scorpaenopsis diabolus); H, false moray eel (Kaupichthys brachychirus); I, false moray eel (Kaupichthys nuchalis); J, pipefish
(Corythoichthys haematopterus); K, sand stargazer (Gillellus uranidea); L, goby (Eviota sp.); M, goby (Eviota atriventris); N, surgeonfish (Acanthurus
coeruleus, larval); O, threadfin bream (Scolopsis bilineata).
Figure 2. Observed occurrences of green and red fluorescent emissions indicate the evolution of biofluorescence is widespread
across the evolutionary history of ray-finned fishes (Actinopterygii). Family-level tree showing evolutionary relationships of ray-finned
fishes inferred from maximum likelihood analysis of 221 species and six (one mitochondrial, five nuclear) genes. Note: Not all biofluorescent lineages
are shown due to sampling limitations (see Table S1, Fig. S1).
PLOS ONE | www.plosone.org 4 January 2014 | Volume 9 | Issue 1 | e83259
also exhibit biofluorescence (Figs. 1, 2). Some bioluminescent
(production and emission of light through a chemical reaction)
deep-sea organisms have previously been shown to exhibit
biofluorescence through a coupling of both bioluminescent and
biofluorescent systems. A heavily studied example is the crystal
jellyfish (Aequorea victoria) in which the bioluminescent system
(aequorin) produces blue light that directly excites green fluores-
cent protein (GFP) to emit green light , likely via a Fo¨rster
energy transfer process . In another example, the deep-sea
loose-jaw dragonfish (Malacosteus) emits red light through biofluor-
escence via the absorption of blue bioluminescent light produced
by the fish, which is reemitted by a chlorophyll-like compound as
red light and is hypothesized to aid in predation . In addition,
some deep-sea siphonophores also utilize bioluminescent light to
excite red biofluorescence .
Shallow water bony fishes generally exhibit good color vision
[93–94], a result of living in a visually complex environment; in
contrast, fishes occurring in deeper water exhibit limited color
vision due to a simpler (blue-shifted) visual environment. Recent
evidence indicates that sharks and rays also exhibit color vision
[95–96]. Many of the fishes we find to exhibit biofluorescence
(Figs. 1, 2), such as sharks, lizardfishes, scorpionfishes, labrids
(wrasses), and flatfishes, also possess yellow intraocular filters .
Yellow intraocular filters in the lenses and corneas of certain fishes
function as long-pass filters, thus enabling the species that possess
them to visualize and potentially exploit fluorescence to enhance
visual contrast and patterns that are unseen to other fishes and
predators that lack this visual specialization.
It has been hypothesized that some polarization sensitive
cephalopods communicate via ‘‘private’’ polarized light signals
that allow them to simultaneously remain camouflaged to
predators  and exploit a ‘‘hidden’’ communication mechanism
between conspecifics . Cephalopods possess a rhabdomeric
visual system that enables detection of linearly polarized light and
they are able to produce polarized skin patterns using iridophores
, whereas many of their predators (marine mammals and some
fishes) are not sensitive to the polarization of light . Likewise,
fishes that possess the necessary yellow intraocular filters for
visualizing biofluorescence could be exploiting a similar ‘‘hidden’’
light signal for a similar functional role. We found that
biofluorescent patterning was especially prominent in cryptically
patterned fishes, and that many of these lineages also possess
yellow long-pass intraocular filters that could enable visualization
of such patterns (Figs. 1, 2).
In recent years, biofluorescence has also been found in patchy
occurrences in some copepods  and mantis shrimp (phylum
Arthropoda) , amphioxus (phylum Chordata) , and a species
of comb jelly (phylum Ctenophora) . Biofluorescence has been
shown to enhance signaling in the mantis shrimp, Lysiosquillina
glabriuscula, a species identified to have a complex system of color
visualization . Additionally, there have been reports of
fluorescence signaling in butterflies , parrots , spiders ,
and flowers , as well as in a deep-sea siphonophore .
The phylogeny presented in Figure 1 indicates that biofluores-
cence is phylogenetically widespread and phenotypically variable
across ray-finned fishes (Actinopterygii) in terms of the diversity of
patterns observed (Figs. 1, 3), emission spectra (Fig. 4), and
intensity. We observed distinct variation among lineages and
pronounced interspecific variation in emission patterns in closely
related taxa that otherwise look nearly identical under white light.
For example, closely related lizardfish species within the genus
Synodus exhibit fluorescence patterns that are notably more distinct
than their pigmentation patterns appear under daylight/white
light (Fig. 3). Considerable interspecific fluorescent pattern
variation is also observed across species in the goby genus Eviota
(Fig. 1L, M) and for chlopsid eels (Anguilliformes: Chlopsidae;
Fig. 1H, I). Our observations indicate that flatfishes exhibit
distinctly different fluorescent patterns on their sighted and blind
surfaces (fluorescence on the sighted side being primarily red
(Fig. 1B), whereas the blind side generally fluoresces green), which
is intriguing given that flatfishes are well known to flash their blind
sides to each other during mating rituals. Individuals of some other
species were found to exhibit both alternating red and green
fluorescent patterns (e.g., Fig. 1K), whereas in other lineages, only
the larval forms were observed to fluoresce (e.g., Fig. 1N,
acanthurids). Such observations in combination with pronounced
Figure 3. Top panel: Interspecific variation in fluorescent emission pattern (from top: lateral, ventral, and dorsal views) in two congeneric and
sympatric members of the lizardfish genus Synodus.A,S. synodus.B,S. saurus. Bottom panel: Interspecific variation in coloration and pigmentation
pattern under white light (top: lateral; bottom: dorsal) in same two congeneric and sympatric members of the lizardfish genus Synodus.A,S. synodus.
B, S. saurus.
PLOS ONE | www.plosone.org 5 January 2014 | Volume 9 | Issue 1 | e83259
interspecific variability in fluorescence emission pattern in
otherwise similarly patterned taxa suggest that intraspecific
communication is a function of biofluorescence in marine fishes,
as has been shown in other organisms with complex visual systems
(e.g., ). In addition, certain marine fishes (e.g., [101,102]) spawn
synchronously surrounding the full moon. Moonlight illumination
in shallow ocean waters could potentially provide the appropriate
excitation energy for green and red biofluorescence in fishes, and
as a result, species-specific biofluorescent patterning may provide
an added layer of species recognition during the spawning phase,
when fishes are particularly vulnerable to predation.
In addition, we present evidence that some fish lineages might
be utilizing fluorescence as a means of camouflage in specific
marine environments (Fig. 5; Videos S1, S2). Red and far-red
biofluorescence is a ubiquitous feature of photosynthetic organisms
due to the properties of chlorophyll and other photosynthetic
pigment complexes. The photosynthetic apparatus associated with
chlorophyll fluoresces red and provides a background of biofluor-
escence in areas of algal growth. Apart from photosynthetic
organisms, red biofluorescence also occurs due to fluorescent
proteins . In two species of red biofluorescent scorpionfishes
that we imaged, individuals were observed residing on top of a
patch of red fluorescing algae (Fig. 5A). We also recorded a bream
(Scolopsis) with green fluorescent patterns on its nape swimming
within a green fluorescing Acropora coral outcrop (Fig. 5B). It would
appear that under fluorescent conditions, these species are
particularly well camouflaged in the specific environments in
which they were imaged.
In summary, the widespread nature of biofluorescence in both
cartilaginous and bony, ray-finned marine fishes, coupled with the
presence of yellow intraocular filters in many biofluorescent
lineages that would permit the visualization of fluorescent
emissions, is intriguing. Biofluorescence is most prominent and
phenotypically variable in cryptically patterned, well-camouflaged
lineages (Figs. 1, 2) that otherwise blend in with their surroundings.
Coupled with observations of notably distinct fluorescent emission
patterns among closely related species (including sister species) that
otherwise strongly resemble each other under white light/daylight
(Figs. 2, 3), suggests a intraspecific communication/species
recognition function. Conversely, we observed species that appear
to blend in with their surroundings under fluorescent lighting
conditions (Fig. 5), and that could theoretically exploit biofluor-
escence as a means of camouflage to either avoid being detected by
potential prey or to elude predators. Based on these data, the
possibility exists that marine fishes are using biofluorescence for a
variety of functions, including communication (species recognition,
mating), predator avoidance, and potentially even prey attraction/
predation. The broad phylogenetic distribution of biofluorescence
across bony fishes is consistent with its repeated independent
evolution, and its importance in the diversification of marine fishes
remains to be explored. As Johnsen  justly notes, the field of
biofluorescence is wide open for study and there have been far too
few studies to date, most of which have focused on cnidarians.
With the recent discovery of a novel fluorescent protein from a
vertebrate , we expect that biofluorescence in marine fishes
will be the subjects of many future studies, from the level of
proteins to whole organisms in their environment.
Figure S1 Maximum likelihood topology of the evolutionary
relationships of ray-finned fishes inferred from the analysis of 221
species (representing more than 145 families), with six gene
fragments (one mitochondrial, five nuclear).
Table S1 Biofluorescent fishes known to date. Taxa are listed
alphabetically by Order (column 1), Family (column 2), and
Figure 4. Plot of emission spectra for representative green and
red fluorescing marine fishes, also showing the spectra for
enhanced green fluorescent protein (eGFP) for comparison. Key
to species sampled: Ray (family Urotrygonidae, genus Urobatis); Eel
(family Chlopsidae, genus Kaupichthys); Scorpionfish (family Scorpaeni-
dae, genus Scorpeana); Goby (family Gobiidae, genus Eviota).
Figure 5. Images of reef fishes fluorescing in their natural
habitat captured with a Red Epic video camera at night in the
Solomon Islands. (A) A red fluorescing scorpionfish, Scorpaenopsis
papuensis, perched on red fluorescing algae. (B) A green fluorescing
nemipterid (bream), Scolopsis bilineata,nearagreenfluorescing
Acropora sp. coralhead.
PLOS ONE | www.plosone.org 6 January 2014 | Volume 9 | Issue 1 | e83259
Species (column 3). Columns 4 (red) and 5 (green) contain filled
circles corresponding to the observed color of fluoresced light.
Column 6 gives AMNH catalog numbers. Taxa indicated with an
* are not included in the phylogenetic reconstruction (Fig. 2).
Table S2 GenBank accession numbers and sources for DNA
sequences utilized in the phylogenetic reconstruction shown in
Fig. 2 and Fig. S1.
Video S1 Supplementary video to accompany Fig. 5A showing a
red fluorescing scorpionfish, Scorpaenopsis papuensis, perched on red
fluorescing algae in its natural habitat. Video captured with a Red
Epic video camera at night in the Solomon Islands.
Video S2 Supplementary video to accompany Fig. 5B showing a
green fluorescing nemipterid (bream), Scolopsis bilineata, swimming
near a green fluorescing Acropora sp. coralhead. Video captured
with a Red Epic video camera at night in the Solomon Islands.
We are grateful to Ray and Barbara Dalio and the Dalio Family
Foundation, Fabio Amador and Dominique Rissolo of the National
Geographic Society/Waitt Program, Zipolo Habu Resort and Dive Gizo,
Solomon Islands, Perry Institute for Marine Science, Lee Stocking Island,
and Central Caribbean Marine Institute, Little Cayman Island, for
providing facilities, boats, submersibles, and logistical support. Research,
collecting and export permits were obtained from the government of the
Bahamas, from the Ministry of Fisheries and Ministry of Environment,
Honiara, Solomon Islands, and from the Department of Environment,
Cayman Islands Government. Thanks also to D. Harrington and T.
Romano at Mystic Aquarium and N. Hillgarth and R. Elkus at Birch
Aquarium (UCSD) for access to their collections; to M. Lombardi and J.
Godfrey for deep diving assistance; and to the J.B. Pierce Lab machine
shop for equipment design.
Conceived and designed the experiments: JSS RCS WLS MPD DT VAP
DFG. Performed the experiments: JSS RCS WLS MPD DT VAP DFG.
Analyzed the data: JSS RCS WLS MPD VAP DFG. Contributed
reagents/materials/analysis tools: JSS RCS WLS MPD VAP DFG. Wrote
the paper: JSS RCS WLS MPD VAP DFG.
1. Jerlov NG (1968) Optical Oceanography. New York: American Elsevier Publ.
Co. 194 p.
2. Gruber DF, Kao HT, Janoschka S, Tsai J, Pieribone VA (2008) Patterns of
fluorescent protein expression in scleractinian corals. Biol Bull 215: 143–154.
3. Haddock SHD, Mastroianni N, Christianson LM (2010) A photoactivatable
green-fluorescent protein from the phylum Ctenophora. Proc Roy Soc of Lond,
Ser B 277: 1155–1160.
4. Shagin DA, Barsova EV, Yanushevich YG, Fradkov AF, Lukyanov KA, et al.
(2004) GFP-like proteins as ubiquitous metazoan superfamily: Evolution of
functional features and structural complexity. Mol Biol Evol 21: 841–850.
5. Mazel CM, Cronin TW, Caldwell RL, Marshall NJ (2004) Fluorescent
enhancement of signaling in a mantis shrimp. Science 303: 51.
6. Deheyn DD, Kubokawa K, McCarthy JK, Murakami A, Porrachia M, et al.
(2007) Endogenous green fluorescent protein (GFP) in amphioxus. Biol Bull
7. Michiels NK, Anthes N, Hart NS, Herler J, Meixner AJ, et al. (2008) Red
fluorescence in reef fish: A novel signalling mechanism? BMC Ecol 8:16.
8. Vukusic P, Hooper I (2005) Directionally controlled fluorescence emission in
butterflies. Science 310: 1151.
9. Arnold KE, Owens IPF, Marshall NJ (2002) Fluorescent signaling in parrots.
Science 295: 92.
10. Andrews K, Reed SM, Masta SE (2007) Spiders fluoresce variably across many
taxa. Biol Lett 3: 265–267.
´a-Herrero F, Garcı
´a-Carmona F, Escribano J (2005) Botany: Floral
fluorescence effect. Nature 437: 334.
12. Haddock SHD, Dunn CW, Pugh PR, Schnitzler CE (2005) Bioluminescent
and red-fluorescent lures in a deep-sea siphonophore. Science 309: 263.
13. Salih A, Larkum A, Cox G, Ku¨ hl M, Hoegh-Guldberg O (2000) Fluorescent
pigments in corals are photoprotective. Nature 408: 850–853.
14. Bou-Abdallah F, Chasteen ND, Lesser MP (2006) Quenching of superoxide
radicals by green fluorescent protein. Biochim Biophys Acta 1760: 1690–1695.
15. Field SF, Bulina MY, Kelmanson IV, Bielawski JP, Matz MV (2006) Adaptive
evolution of multicolored fluorescent proteins in reef-building corals. J Mol
Evol 62: 332–339.
16. Roth MS, Latz MI, Goericke R, Deheyn DD (2010) Green fluorescent protein
regulation in the coral Acropora yongei during photoacclimation. (2010) J Exp Biol
17. Roth MS, Deheyn DD (2013) Effects of cold stress and heat stress on coral
fluorescence in reef-building corals, Sci Rep 3: 1421.
18. Heinermann PH (1984) Yellow intraocular filters in fishes. Exp Biol 43: 127–
19. Kumagai A, Ando R, Miyatake H, Greimel P, Kobayashi T, et al. (2013) A
bilirubin-inducible fluorescent protein from eel muscle. Cell 153: 1602–1611.
20. Near TJ, Eytan RI, Dornburg A, Kuhn KL, Moore JA, et al. (2012) Resolution
of ray-finned fish phylogeny and timing of diversification. Proc Natl Acad
Sci U S A 109: 13698–13703.
21. Wainwright PC, Smith WL, Price SA, Tang KL, Sparks JS, et al. (2012) The
evolution of pharyngognathy: A phylogenetic and functional appraisal of the
pharyngeal jaw key innovation in labroid fishes and beyond. Syst Biol 61:
22. April J, Mayden RL, Hanner RH, Bernatchez L (2011) Genetic calibration of
species diversity among North America’s freshwater fishes. Proc Natl Acad
Sci U S A 108: 10602–10607.
23. Aquilino SVL, Tango JM, Fontanilla IKC, Pagulayan RC, Basiao ZU, et al.
(2011) DNA barcoding of the ichthyofauna of Taal Lake, Philippines. Mol Ecol
Res 11: 612–619.
24. Arnold RJ and Pietsch TW (2012) Evolutionary history of frogfishes (Teleostei:
Lophiiformes: Antennariidae): A molecular approach. Mol Phylogenet Evol 62:
25. Asgharian H, Sahafi HH, Ardalan AA, Shekarriz S, Elahi E (2011)
Cytochrome c Oxidase Subunit 1 barcode data of fish of the Nayband
National Park in the Persian Gulf and analysis using meta-data flag several
cryptic species. Mol Ecol Res 11: 461–472.
26. Quenouille B, Bermingham E, Planes S (2004) Molecular systematics of the
damselfishes (Teleostei: Pomacentridae): Bayesian phylogenetic analyses of
mitochondrial and nuclear DNA sequences. Mol Phylogenet Evol 31: 66–88.
27. Costa FO, Landi M, Martins R, Costa MH, Costa ME, et al. (2012) A ranking
system for reference libraries of DNA barcodes: Application to marine fish
species from Portugal. PloS One 7: e35858.
28. Creˆ te-Lafrenie`re A, Weir LK, Bernatchez L (2012) Framing the Salmonidae
family phylogenetic portrait: A more complete picture from increased taxon
sampling. PloS One 7: e46662.
29. Ward RD, Zemlak TS, Innes BH, Last PR, Hebert PD (2005) DNA barcoding
Australia’s fish species. Phil Trans Roy Soc London B, Biol Sci 360: 1847–
30. Davis MP (2010) Evolutionary relationships of the Aulopiformes (Euteleostei:
Cyclosquamata): A molecular and total evidence approach. In: J. S. . Nelson,
H.-P. . Schultze and M. V. H. . Wilson, editors. Origin and Phylogenetic
Interrelationships of Teleosts. Mu¨ nchen: Verlag Dr. F. Pfeil. pp. 431–470.
31. Dunlap PV, Ast JC, Kimura S, Fukui A, Yoshino T, et al. (2007) Phylogenetic
analysis of host-symbiont specificity and codivergence in bioluminescent
symbioses. Cladistics 23: 507–532.
32. Espin˜ eira M, Gonza´ lez-Lavı
´n N, Vieites JM, Santaclara FJ (2008) Authenti-
cation of anglerfish species (Lophius spp) by means of polymerase chain reaction-
restriction frag ment length polymorphism (PCR-RFLP) and forensic ally
informative nucleotide sequencing (FINS) methodologies. J Agricult Food
Chem 56: 10594–10599.
33. Santini F, Sorenson L, Marcroft T, Dornburg A, Alfaro ME (2013) A
multilocus molecular phylogeny of boxfishes (Aracanidae, Ostraciidae;
Tetraodontiformes). Mol Phylogenet Evol 66: 153–160.
34. Fu C, Guo L, Xia R, Li J, Lei G (2012) A multilocus phylogeny of Asian
noodlefishes Salangidae (Teleostei: Osmeriformes) with a revised classification
of the family. Mol Phylogenet Evol 62: 848–855.
35. Guo L, Li J, Wang Z, Fu C (2011) Phylogenetic relationships of noodle-fishes
(Osmeriformes: Salangidae) based on four mitochondrial genes. Acta Hydro-
biol Sinica 35: 449–459.
36. Holcroft NI (2004) A molecular test of alternative hypotheses of tetraodonti-
form (Acanthomorpha: Tetraodontiformes) sister group relationships using data
from the RAG1 gene. Molecular Mol Phylogenet Evol 32: 749–760.
37. Holcroft NI, Wiley EO (2008) Acanthuroid relationships revisited: a new
nuclear gene-based analysis that incorporates tetraodontiform representatives.
Ichthyol Res 55: 274–283.
38. Hubert N, Hanner R, Holm E, Mandrak NE, Taylor E, et al. (2008)
Identifying Canadian freshwater fishes through DNA barcodes. PLoS One 3:
PLOS ONE | www.plosone.org 7 January 2014 | Volume 9 | Issue 1 | e83259
39. Hubert N, Meyer CP, Bruggemann HJ, Guerin F, Komeno RJL, et al. (2012)
Cryptic diversity in Indo-Pacific coral-reef fishes revealed by DNA-barcoding
provides new support to the centre-of-overlap hypothesis. PLoS One 7: e28987.
40. Ilves KL, Taylor EB (2007) Are Hypomesus chishimaensis and H. nipponensis
(Osmeridae) distinct species? A molecular assessmen t using comparative
sequence data from five genes. Copeia 2007: 180–185.
41. Inoue JG, Miya M, Tsukamoto K, Nishida M (2003) Evolution of the deep-sea
gulper eel mitochondrial genomes: Large-scale gene rearrangements originated
within the eels. Mol Biol Evol 20: 1917–1924.
42. Inoue JG, Miya M, Tsukamoto K, Nishida M (2003) Basal actinopterygian
relationships: A mitogenomic perspective on the phylogeny of the ‘‘ancient
fish’’. Mol Phylogenet Evol 26: 110–120.
43. Inoue JG, Miya M, Tsukamoto K, Nishida M (2004) Mitogenomic evidence for
the monophyly of elopomorph fishes (Teleostei) and the evolutionary origin of
the leptocephalus larva. Mol Phylogenet Evol 32: 274–286.
44. Ishiguro N, Miya M, Nishida M (2001) Complete mitochondrial DNA
sequence of Ayu Plecoglossus altivelis. Fish Sci 67: 474–481.
45. Ishiguro NB, Miya M, Nishida M (2003) Basal euteleostean relationships: a
mitogenomic perspective on the phylogenetic reality of the ‘‘Protacanthopter-
ygii’’. Mol Phylogenet Evol 27: 476–488.
46. Jaafar TNAM, Taylor MI, Nor SAM, de Bruyn M, Carvalho GR (2012) DNA
barcoding reveals cryptic diversity within commercially exploited Indo-Malay
Carangidae (Teleostei: Perciformes). PloS One 7: e49623.
47. Kaeding AJ, Ast JC, Pearce MM, Urbanczyk H, Kimura S, et al. (2007)
Phylogenetic diversity and cosymbiosis in the bioluminescent symbioses of
‘‘Photobacterium mandapamensis’’. App Environ Microbiol 73: 3173–3182.
48. Lakra WS, Verma MS, Goswami M, Lal KK, Mohindra V, et al. (2011) DNA
barcoding Indian marine fishes. Mol Ecol Res 11: 60–71.
49. Lavoue´ S, Miya M, Inoue JG, Saitoh K, Ishiguro NB, et al. (2005) Molecular
systematics of the gonorynchiform fishes (Teleostei) based on whole
mitogenome sequences: Implications for higher-level relationships within the
Otocephala. Mol Phylogenet Evol 37: 165–177.
50. Lavoue´ S, Miya M, Moritz T, Nishida M (2012) A molecular timescale for the
evolution of the African freshwater fish family Kneriidae (Teleostei:
Gonorynchiformes). Ichthyol Res 59: 104–112.
51. Lavoue´ S, Miya M, Poulsen JY, Møller PR, Nishida M (2008) Monophyly,
phylogenetic position and inter-familial relationships of the Alepocephaliformes
(Teleostei) based on whole mitogenome sequences. Mol Phylogenet Evol 47:
52. Li C, Ortı
´G (2007) Molecular phylogeny of Clupeiformes (Actinopterygii)
inferred from nuclear and mitochondrial DNA sequences. Mol Phylogenet Evol
53. Li C, Ortı
´G, Zhang G, Lu G (2007) A practical approach to phylogenomics:
The phylogeny of ray-finned fish (Actinopterygii) as a case study. BMC Evol
Biol 7: 44.
54. Li C, Ricardo B-R, Smith WL, Ortı
´G (2011) Monophyly and interrelation-
ships of Snook and Barramundi (Centropomidae sensu Greenwood) and five
new markers for fish phylogenetics. Mol Phylogenet Evol 60: 463–471.
55. Lo´ pez JA, Chen W-J, Ortı
´G (2004) Esociform phylogeny. Copeia 2004.
56. Marie AD, Van Herwerden L, Choat JH, Hobbs JA (2007) Hybridization of
reef fishes at the Indo-Pacific biogeographic barrier: A case study. Coral Reefs
57. Mecklenburg CW, Møller PR, Steinke D (2011) Biodiversity of arctic marine
fishes: taxonomy and zoogeography. Mar Biodivers 41: 109–140.
58. Miya M, Holcroft NI, Satoh TP, Yamaguchi M, Nishida M, et al. (2007)
Mitochondrial genome and a nuclear gene indicate a novel phylogenetic
position of deep-sea tube-eye fish (Stylephoridae). Ichthyol Res 54: 323–332.
59. Miya M, Kawaguchi A, Nishida M (2001) Mitogenomic exploration of higher
teleostean phylogenies: A case study for moderate-scale evolutionary genomics
with 38 newly determined complete mitochondrial DNA sequences. Mol Biol
and Evol 18: 1993–2009.
60. Moritz T, Britz R, Linsenmair KE (2006) Cromeria nilotica and C. occidentalis,two
valid species of the African freshwater fish family Kneriidae (Teleostei:
Gonorynchiformes). Ichythol Explor Freshwater 17: 65–72.
61. Hubert N, Delrieu-Trottin E, Irisson JO, Meyer C, Planes S (2010) Identifying
coral reef fish larvae through DNA barcoding: A test case with the families
Acanthuridae and Holocentridae. Mol Phylogenet Evol 55: 1195–1203.
62. Near TJ, Dornburg A, Eytan RI, Keck BP, Smith WL, et al. (2013) Phylogeny
and tempo of diversification in the superradiation of spiny-rayed fishes. Proc
Natl Acad Sci U S A 110: 12738–12743.
63. Near TJ, Dornburg A, Kuhn KL, Eastman JT, Pennington JN, et al. (2012)
Ancient climate change, antifreeze, and the evolutionary diversification of
Antarctic fishes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 109: 3434–3439.
64. Near TJ, Sandel M, Kuhn KL, Unmack PJ, Wainwright PC, et al. (2012)
Nuclear gene-inferred phylogenies resolve the relationships of the enigmatic
Pygmy Sunfishes, Elassoma (Teleostei: Percomorpha). Mol Phylogenet Evol 63:
65. Niemiller ML, Near TJ, Fitzpatrick BM (2012) Delimiting species using
multilocus data: Diagnosing cryptic dive rsity in the southern cavefish ,
Typhlichthys subterraneus (Teleostei: Amblyopsidae). Evol 66: 846–866.
66. Ribeiro AO, Caires RA, Mariguela TC, Pereira LH, Hanner R, et al. (2012)
DNA barcodes identify marine fishes of Sa˜ o Paulo State, Brazil. Mol Ecol Res
67. Roa-Varo´ n A, Ortı
´G (2009) Phylogenetic relationships among families of
Gadiformes (Teleostei, Paracanthopterygii) based on nuclear and mitochon-
drial data. Mol Phylogenet Evol 52: 688–704.
68. Saitoh K, Miya M, Inoue JG, Ishiguro NB, Nishida M (2003) Mitochondrial
genomics of ostariophysan fishes: Perspectives on phylogeny and biogeography.
J Mol Evol 56: 464–472.
69. Saitoh K, Sado T, Mayden RL, Hanzawa N, Nakamura K, et al. (2006)
Mitogenomic evolution and interrelationships of the Cypriniformes (Actinop-
terygii: Ostariophysi): The first evidence toward resolution of higher-level
relationships of the world’s largest freshwater fish clade based on 59 whole
mitogenome sequences. J Mol Evol 63: 826–841.
70. Smith PJ, Steinke D, Dettai A, McMillan P, Welsford D, et al. (2012) DNA
barcodes and species identifications in Ross Sea and Southern Ocean fishes.
Polar Biol 35: 1297–1310.
71. Sparks JS (2003) Taxonomic status of the Malagasy cichlid Ptychochromis
grandidieri (Teleostei: Cichlidae), including a molecular phylogenetic analysis of
the ptychochromine cichlids. Ichthyol Explor Freshwaters 14: 317–328.
72. Sparks JS, Dunlap PV, Smith WL (2005) Evolution and diversification of a
sexually dimorphic luminescent system in ponyfishes (Teleostei: Leiognathidae),
including diagnoses for two new genera. Cladistics 21: 305–327.
73. Sparks JS, Smith WL (2004) Phylogeny and biogeography of cichlid fishes
(Teleostei: Perciformes: Cichlidae). Cladistics 20: 501–517.
74. Sparks JS, Smith WL (2004) Phylogeny and biogeography of the Malagasy and
Australasian rainbowfishes (Teleostei: Melanotaenioidei): Gondwanan vicari-
ance and evolution in freshwater. Mol Phylogenet Evol 33: 719–734.
75. Steinke D, Zemlak TS, Hebert PDN (2009) Barcoding Nemo: DNA-based
identifications for the ornamental fish trade. PLoS One 4: e6300.
76. Thacker CE (2009) Phylogeny of Gobioidei and placement within Acantho-
morpha, with a new classification and investigation of diversification and
character evolution. Copeia 2009: 93–104.
77. Thacker CE, Hardman MA (2005) Molecular phylogeny of basal gobioid
fishes: Rhyacichthyidae, Odontobutidae, Xenisthmidae, Eleotridae (Teleostei:
Perciformes: Gobioidei). Mol Phylogenet Evol 37: 858–871.
78. Varela AI, Ritchie PA, Smith PJ (2012) Low levels of global genetic
differentiation and population expansion in the deep-sea teleost Hoplostethus
atlanticus revealed by mitochondrial DNA sequences. Mar Biol 159: 1049–1060.
79. Ward RD, Costa FO, Holmes BH, Steinke D (2008) DNA barcoding of shared
fish species from the North Atlantic and Australasia: Minimal divergence for
most taxa, but Zeus faber and Lepidopus caudatus each probably constitute two
species. Aquat Biol 3: 71–78.
80. Weigt LA, Baldwin CC, Driskell A, Smith DG, Ormos A, et al. (2012) Using
DNA barcoding to assess Caribbean reef fish biodiversity: Expanding
taxonomic and geographic coverage. PloS One 7: e41059.
81. Yamanoue Y, Miya M, Matsuura K, Katoh M, Sakai H, et al. (2004)
Mitochondrial genomes and phylogeny of the ocean sunfishes (Tetraodonti-
formes: Molidae). Ichthyol Res 51: 269–273.
82. Yamanoue Y, Miya M, Matsuura K, Yagishita N, Mabuchi K, et al. (2007)
Phylogenetic position of tetraodontiform fishes within the higher teleosts:
Bayesian inferences based on 44 whole mitochondrial genome sequences. Mol
Phylogenet Evol 45: 89–101.
83. Zhang J, Hanner R (2011) DNA barcoding is a useful tool for the identification
of marine fishes from Japan. Biochem Syst Ecol 39: 31–42.
84. Zhang J, Hanner R (2012) Molecular approach to the identification of fish in
the South China Sea. PloS One 7: e30621.
85. Katoh T (2008) Recent developments in the MAFFT multiple sequence
alignment program. Brief Bioinform 9: 286–298.
86. Posada D (2008) Jmodeltest: Phylogenetic model averaging. Mol Biol Evol 25:
87. Zwickl DJ (2006) Genetic algorithm approaches for the phylogenetic analysis of
large biological sequence datasets under the maximum likelihood criterion,
PhD Thesis, University of Texas, Austin.
88. Wucherer MF, Michiels NK (2012) A fluorescent chromatophore changes the
level of fluorescence in a reef fish. PLoS One 7(6), e37913
89. Vogt A, D’Angelo C, Oswald F, Denzel A, Mazel CH, et al. (2008) A green
fluorescent protein with photoswitchable emission from the deep sea. PLoS
One 3(11): e3766.
90. Shimomura O, Johnson FJ, Saiga Y (1962) Extraction, purification and
properties of aequorin, a bioluminescent protein from the luminous hydro-
medusan, Aequorea. J Cell Comp Physiol 59: 223–239.
91. Morin JG, Hastings JW (1971) Energy transfer in a bioluminescent system.
J Cell Physiol 77: 313–318.
92. Douglas RH, Partridge JC, Dulai K, Hunt D, Mullineaux CW, et al. (1998)
Dragon fish see using chlorophyll. Nature 393: 423–424.
93. Losey GS, McFarland WN, Loew ER, Zamzow JP, Nelson PA, et al. (2003)
Visual biology of Hawaiian coral reef fishes. I. Ocular transmission and retinal
sensitivity. Copeia 2003: 433–454.
94. Siebeck UE, Wallis GM, Litherland L (2008) Colour vision in coral reef fish.
J Exp Biol 211: 354–360.
95. Theiss SM, Lisney TJ, Collin SP, Hart NS (2007) Colour vision and visual
ecology of the blue-spotted maskray, Dasyatis kuhlii Mu¨ ller & Henle, 1814.
J Comp Phys, Ser A 193: 67–79.
96. Van-Eyk SM, Siebeck UE, Champ CM, Marshall J, H art NS (2011)
Behavioural evidence for colour vision in an elasmobranch. J Exp Biol 214:
PLOS ONE | www.plosone.org 8 January 2014 | Volume 9 | Issue 1 | e83259
97. Ma¨ thger LM, Shashar N, Hanlon RT (2009) Do cephalopods communicate
using polarized light reflections from their skin? J Exp Biol 212: 2133–2140.
98. Marshall NJ (1999) Behavioural evidence for polarization vision in stomatopods
reveals a potential channel for communication. Curr Biol 9: 755–758.
99. Shashar N, Hanlon RT (1997) Squids (Loligo pealei and Euprymna scolopes) can
exhibit polarized light patterns produced by their skin. Biol Bull 193: 207–208.
100. Hawryshyn CW (1992) Polarization vision in fish. Am Sci 80: 164–75.
101. Lobel PS (1978) Diel, lunar, and seasonal periodicity in the reproductive
behavior of the pomacanthid fish, Centropyge potteri, and some other reef fishes in
Hawaii. Pac Sci 32: 193–207.
102. Takemura A, Rahman MdS, Nakamura S, Park YJ Takano K (2004), Lunar
cycles and reproductive activity in reef fishes with particular attention to
rabbitfishes. Fish and Fisheries: 5: 317–328.
103. Johnsen S (2012) The Optics of Life: A Biologist’s Guide to Light in Nature.
Princeton: Princeton University Press. 360 p.
PLOS ONE | www.plosone.org 9 January 2014 | Volume 9 | Issue 1 | e83259