Respected readers, authors and reviewers, you can add comments to this page on any questions about the contribution, review, editing and publication of this journal. We will give you an answer as soon as possible. Thank you for your support!
GUO Ming-lan, SU Yong-quan, CHEN Xiao-feng, DING Shao-xiong, WANG Jun. Comparative studies on morphology of Epinephelus moara and E.bruneus[J]. Haiyang Xuebao, 2008, 30(6): 106-114.
Citation:
GUO Ming-lan, SU Yong-quan, CHEN Xiao-feng, DING Shao-xiong, WANG Jun. Comparative studies on morphology of Epinephelus moara and E.bruneus[J]. Haiyang Xuebao, 2008, 30(6): 106-114.
GUO Ming-lan, SU Yong-quan, CHEN Xiao-feng, DING Shao-xiong, WANG Jun. Comparative studies on morphology of Epinephelus moara and E.bruneus[J]. Haiyang Xuebao, 2008, 30(6): 106-114.
Citation:
GUO Ming-lan, SU Yong-quan, CHEN Xiao-feng, DING Shao-xiong, WANG Jun. Comparative studies on morphology of Epinephelus moara and E.bruneus[J]. Haiyang Xuebao, 2008, 30(6): 106-114.
To identify the animal species accurately is very important for both biologist and farmer.Groupers are of considerable importance in the commercial and artisanal fisheries in tropical and subtropical seas.It presents certain difficulties and confusions in the identification of the species.For example, whether E.moara and E.bruneus, with the closely similarity in outer shape and distribution belong to one species or not, has being existed the argument for a long time.The int erspecific differences between them were mainly identified on the basis of the skeleton system as well as the meristic and morphometric characters.The results revealed as the follow ings: (1) Although their outer shape, color and bands were very similar, the bars on the body were different.By means of the Fisher Discrim inant Function Analysis, statistically significant difference would be found to exist between E.moara and E.bruneus (p < 0.001) in meristic and morphometric characters, such as the ratios of body length/snout-vent length, dorsal fin coxal length/anal fin coxal length and head length/diameter of eyes, the numbers of dorsal fin rays, gill rakers and pyloric caeca; (2) They were basically homologous on the configuration and composition of neurocranium, splanchnocranium, vertebrate, rib and appendicular skeleton, but there were many remarkably differences: Preorbital, Post-orbital, Preoperculare, Urohyal, Predorsal interneural spine and the connection of Hypurals and Caudal spine and so on.As we known, these skeletons could also be used as the important characters to identify genera or species in fishes.Accordingly, we considered that E.moara and E.bruneus were different species in the same genus.
MIKE S,RTSCH G,WESTON J,et al.Fisher discriminant analysis with kernels[M]∥HU Y-H LARSEN J,WILSON E,et al.Neural Networks for Signal Processing,Ⅸ[M].New York:IEEE Press,1999:41-48.
BERG L S.Classification of Fishes both Resent and Fossil,2ed[M].Trav Inst Zool.Acad Sci U R S S,1955,20:1-286.
BALDWIN C C,JOHNSON G D.Phylogeny of the Epinephelinae(Teleostei:Serranidae)[J].Bull.Mar.Sci.1993,52(1):240-283.