1991 Fiscal Year Final Research Report Summary
Systematics of the Pufferfish Genus Arothron
| Project/Area Number |
02640589
|
|---|
| Research Category |
Grant-in-Aid for General Scientific Research (C)
|
| Allocation Type | Single-year Grants |
|---|
| Research Field |
動物形態・分類学
|
|---|
| Research Institution | National Science Museum |
|---|
Principal Investigator |
MATSUURA Keiichi National Science Museum, Department of Zoology, Senior Curator, 動物研究部, 主任研究官 (70141984)
|
|---|
| Project Period (FY) |
1990 – 1991
|
| Keywords | Arothron / Systematics / New Species / Rare species / Distribution |
|---|
| Research Abstract |
This research was made to clarify the systematics of the pufferfish genus Arothron. Osteological examinations of representative of this genus showed that Arothron has distinct characters in its cranium when compared to the other genera of the family Tetraodontidae.
Many specimens of every species of this genus collected from the tropical regions of the Indo-Pacific were examined to study taxonomic problems. This research resulted in finding three new species. The first new species was taken from the seas around South Africa. This species is closely related to Arothron inconditus but distinguished from it by having no stripes or markings on the body. The second new species was collected from coral reefs in the Indo-Pacific from the western Indian Ocean eastward to the Marshall Islands. This species is similar to Arothron mappa in color, but it is different from the latter by having several dark encircling lines around the eye. Arothron mappa does not have these lines but possess many dark radiating lines around the eye. The third new species were collected from Okinawa. This species is relatively similar to Arothron hispidus and A. reticularis, but it differs from these two species in having many irregular white lines on the body.
Detailed studies were made to clarify taxonomic confusions in Arothron hispidus and A. reticularis. Previous researchers separated them by the proportional measurements of the length and depth of the caudal peduncle. However, the examination on many specimens of the two species showed that this character does not indicate a clear difference between them. The spine distribution and black blotch around the gill opening clearly differentiate the two species.
|
