Indian Journal of Animal Research

  • Chief EditorK.M.L. Pathak

  • Print ISSN 0367-6722

  • Online ISSN 0976-0555

  • NAAS Rating 6.50

  • SJR 0.263

  • Impact Factor 0.4 (2024)

Frequency :
Monthly (January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November and December)
Indexing Services :
Science Citation Index Expanded, BIOSIS Preview, ISI Citation Index, Biological Abstracts, Scopus, AGRICOLA, Google Scholar, CrossRef, CAB Abstracting Journals, Chemical Abstracts, Indian Science Abstracts, EBSCO Indexing Services, Index Copernicus
Indian Journal of Animal Research, volume 58 issue 3 (march 2024) : 412-421

Comparative Osteology Study of Ariid Catfishes along the Coast of Gulf of Mannar and Wadge Bank, Tamil Nadu

Rajendran Bavithra1,*, Paulraj Jawahar2, Natarajan Jayakumar2, Panduranjan Padmavathy2, N.V. Sujathkumar2, R. Saravanan1, Chandran Sudhan2
1ICAR-Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Mandapam Regional Centre, Ramanathapuram-623 520, Tamil Nadu, India.
2Fisheries College and Research Institute, Thoothukudi-628 008, Tamil Nadu, India.
Cite article:- Bavithra Rajendran, Jawahar Paulraj, Jayakumar Natarajan, Padmavathy Panduranjan, Sujathkumar N.V., Saravanan R., Sudhan Chandran (2024). Comparative Osteology Study of Ariid Catfishes along the Coast of Gulf of Mannar and Wadge Bank, Tamil Nadu . Indian Journal of Animal Research. 58(3): 412-421. doi: 10.18805/IJAR.B-5020.
Background: Taxonomic ambiguity still exists in ariid catfish species identification. Morphological similarities occur in ariid catfishes which lead to misidentification of the species. To overcome this taxonomic ambiguity osteology is one of the effective integrated taxonomic tools for species discrimination. From this study, we provide an osteotaxonomic key for the field identification of ariid catfish species.

Methods: The fish samples were cleaned and washed with the freshwater put into the sample for 1% potassium hydroxide solution (KOH). Then fish samples were allowed for alkali digestion of muscle in the solution for 24-48 hours depending on the condition of the specimen. After the completion of the muscle digestion process, Alizarin S dye was used for staining the fish bones. 

Result: The present paper deals with a comparative study of the five Ariidae family species discussed, they are Arius arius (Hamilton, 1822), Plicofollis layardi (Gunther, 1866), Netuma thalassina (Ruppell, 1837), Nemapteryx caelata (Valenciennes, 1840) and Osteogeneiosus militaris (Linnaeus, 1758). The osteological portions used for this study like premaxillary, dentary, neurocranium, otolith, vertebral and caudal bone. The aforementioned osteological portions made the important primitive characters that will be used to differentiate the species.
Osteology is the study of bones, which helps in identifying fishes based on the size and shape of the skeleton structures (Dhanze, 1980). It is an important taxonomic tool for the identification of their systematic positions such as species, generic, family, or at higher levels. It is expected to understand their within and between species category using osteological characteristics for a better empathy of their taxonomic status. Osteology is advanced for the huge contribution to fish taxonomy for the reason that the bone structure arose from the fish quite peculiar which is not influenced by the environment (Shukla and Verma, 1973). In spite of using molecular techniques such as DNA sequencing and barcoding, osteology, plays a vital role in discriminating the fish species. At present most researchers used osteology as one of the important taxonomic tools for identification of the fish. A Group of the species was already identified earlier based on the morphological similarities, in which, some of the species identification are contradictory (Kumar et al., 2015). To overcome the taxonomic difficulties in species identification comparative osteology has been described as the best option (James, 1985).
 
The family Ariidae or fork-tailed catfishes are the most taxonomic problematic Siluriformes group attributable to the maximum resemblance of the morphological characteristics (Ferraris, 2007). There are over 200 species of Ariidae or sea catfishes worldwide. Only these Siluriform groups have such an enormous distribution extended in all regions. Although many revisions have been completed to define and reclassify ariids (Sullivan et al., 2006; Marceniuk and Menezes 2007; Betancur-R 2009; Marceniuk et al., 2012; Aguilera and Marceniuk 2018), species identification based on morphology purely still can be mystifying (Yu and Quilang 2014). To avoid the misidentification of ariid catfish integrative taxonomic tool is the best selection. Osteotaxonomy is an effective method to overcome species misidentification that is solely done by morphological observation of fish bones. The aim of the study is to provide osteological key characteristics to identify the ariid catfish species deprived of mistakes.
 
Sample collection
 
The present study of Ariid fish samples were collected from various fish landing centers along the Gulf of Mannar and Wadge bank fisheries  on the southeast coast of Tamil Nadu. The major sampling sites in the Gulf of Mannar region, are Thoothukudi (latitude 8.7945°N, longitude 78.1584°E)., Mandapam (latitude 9°16'14"N; longitude 79°7'10"E) and Pamban (Lat.13°04.53'N and Long. 80°27.69'E) whereas in the Wadge bank fishery the major sampling sites are  Chinnamuttom  (latitude 8.094345°N, longitude 77.561445°E),  Kolachal (latitude 8.1728°N, 77.2509°E) and Muttom JPR fishing harbour latitude (latitude 8.1246°N, latitude 77.3307°E). These fish samples were contributed mainly by commercial catches and bycatch of trawlers, gill net and hook and line. The collected fish samples were placed in an insulated box with ice packs and transported to the laboratory, where they were photographed. In the laboratory, the collected fish samples were frozen at -20°C.
 
Sample identification
 
The collected ariid fish samples were identified by FAO Fish Identification Sheets and several fish taxonomy guidelines were used to identify the collected fish samples (Dhanze and Jayaram 1982; Jayaram and Dhanze 1978a,1978b; Jayaram 1984; Alexandre and Menezes 2007; Kailola 1999; Kumar et al., 2015).
 
Osteology
 
In the Present osteological study parts of the Ariid fish samples were prepared by the methods of Hollister (1934) and Clothier (1950). The fish samples were cleaned and washed with the freshwater put into the sample for 1% potassium hydroxide solution (KOH). Then fish samples were allowed for alkali digestion of muscle in the solution for 24-48 hours (or more depending on the species and nature of the specimen: whether fresh or preserved). The preserved samples are become too hard, so they took more time for digestion compared with the fresh samples. After completed the digestion using hand gloves and forceps the samples were cleaned and wash with water. After the completion of the muscle digestion process, the samples are stained Using Alizarin S dye. In completion of the staining process the bones were washed with the water and dried in the sunlight. Finally, premaxillary bone, dentary bone, neurocranium, otolith, vertebral and caudal bone used for this study and labelled all the samples kept in a box.
The current study compared the premaxillary, dentary, neurocranium, otolith, vertebral and caudal bone for differentiating five ariid catfishes.
 
Premaxillary bone of ariid catfishes
 
It is a paired bone; the tooth is present only in the premaxillary bone so it is also called a toothed bone (Fig 2).
 
Arius arius
 
Feather shaped narrow sized bone, the caudal process is narrow with a blunt edge, Pair of premaxillary connected through the U shape bridge.
 
Osteogeneiosus militaries
 
The caudal process is short and sharp, the Pair of premaxillary connected through T shaped bridge and also a gap between two sides very less compared to Arius arius
 
Nemapteryx caelata
 
Caudal process is long and sharp, the premaxillary process also extended up to the edge of caudal process, it looks like a small spatula, Pair of premaxillary connected through the large hump like continued step, Ascending and Articular process parallel to each other.
 
Plicofollis layardi 
 
Fan feather shaped broader sized bone, Premaxillary process is short and broad, the Pair of premaxillary connected through cup or U shape bridge.
 
Netuma thalassina
 
Saw shaped, it also a short and sharp but lower side of the caudal process having minute innumerable blades. Pair of premaxillary connected through the small hump, the premaxillary process connected elevated structure.
 
Dentary bone of ariid catfishes
 
A pair of dentary forms the anterior part of the lower jaw (Fig 3).
 
Arius arius
 
A pair of dentaries forms the frontal part of the lower jaw. The size of the dentary bone is long and broad. The origin of the coronoid process and ventral process are the same, but the coronoid starts narrow it ends with a broad edge. The mental foramen is absent. meckelian fossa is broad. The length of the sensory canal is large.
 
Osteogeneiosus militaries
 
The size of the dentary bone is short and narrow. There are 3 numbers of mental foramen present. The length of the sensory canal is short. The coronoid process starts narrow it ends with a broad edge, but compared to Arius arius it is large, it formed the V shape.
 
Nemapteryx caelata
 
The size of the dentary bone is very long and broad. The mental foramen is absent. The length of the sensory canal is large.
 
Netuma thalassina
 
It is too sharp and narrow. There are 2 numbers of mental foramen present. The sensory canal is not clearly visible. Meckalian fossa short and straight. Mental foramen is absent.
 
Plicofollis layardi 
 
The size of the dentary bone is short and broad. Only one mental foramen present.
 
Neurocranium bone of ariid catfishes
 
The neurocranium comprises four parts constituting the major portion of the skull. Namely, they are the olfactory region, orbital region, Otic region and Occipital region (Fig 1-4) and (Table 1-7).

Fig 1: Full skeletal structure of ariid catfishes.



Fig 2: Premaxillary bone of ariid catfishes.



Fig 3: Dentary bone of Ariid catfishes.



Fig 4: Neurocranium (dorsal and ventral view) of ariid catfish.



Table 1: A comparison of the olfactory region of five ariid catfishes.



Table 2: A comparison of the orbital region of five ariid catfishes.



Table 3: A comparison of the otic region of five ariid catfishes.



Table 4: A comparison of the occipital region of five ariid catfishes



Table 5: A comparison of the orbital region (ventral side) of five ariid catfishes.



Table 6: A comparison of the otic region (ventral side) of five ariid catfishes.



Table 7: A comparison of the occipital region (ventral side) of five ariid catfishes.


 
The vertebral column of the Ariid catfishes
 
The number of vertebral bones present in the vertebral column is one of the significant osteological key characters to discriminate the catfish species (Fig 1 and 6).

Fig 5: The vertebral column of ariid catfish.



Fig 6: Stereomicroscopic images of otolith of Ariid catfishes front side view and backside view.


 
Arius arius 
 
There are forty-two numbers of vertebral bones present in the vertebral column of Arius arius among which 1st six ventral side bones are reduced. In the mid portion, six vertebral bones are bifurcated.
 
Plicofollis layardi
 
There are fifty-two numbers of vertebral bones present in the vertebral column of Plicofollis layardi among which the 6th to 10th ventral side bones are reduced. In the mid portion, dorsal side of the vertebral bone elongated, the ventral side was reduced and also the seven bones vertebral bones are bifurcated.
 
Netuma thalassina 
 
There are forty-five numbers of vertebral bones present in the vertebral column of Netuma thalassina among which 1st 5 bone ventral side bones are reduced. Posterior side eight numbers of vertebral bones are equally reduced. Nine numbers of vertebral bones are bifurcated in the mid portion of vertebral column.
 
Osteogenus military
 
There are forty-seven numbers of vertebral bones present in the vertebral columun of Osteogenus militaris among which only one ventral side bones are reduced. In the mid portion, five or six vertebral bones are bifurcated.
 
Nemapteryx caelata
 
There are fifty numbers of vertebral bones present in the vertebral columun of Nemapteryx cealata. No reduced bone. In the mid portion, five numbers of vertebral bones are bifurcated.
 
Caudal bone of the ariid catfishes 
 
The caudal bone comprises of uroneural, hypural, parlendural or parhypural or preural flange, neural spine and hemal spine. Among these uroneural, hypural and parlendural bones were mainly used as the primary character of differentiating the ariid catfishes (Fig 1-6).
 
Arius arius 
 
The Arius arius has three hypural bones, third hypural bones are shorter than the others. Parelandural bones are shortened and narrowed. Uroneural bones are Paired bones, they are connected to the hypural bones, size is large and somewhat broader bone.
 
Netuma thalassina 
 
The Netuma thalassina has three hypural bones, among these first and second bones are broader. Parelandural bones are narrowed. Uroneural are thin and shorter bone.
 
Nemapteryx caelata
 
The Nemapteryx cealata has three hypural bones, third hypural bones are broader than the others. Parelandural bones are broader compared to others except for Osteogeneiosus militaris. Uronerural are thick and larger bones.
 
Plicofollis layardi
 
The Plicofollis layardi has four hypural bones, third and four hypural bones are larger than the others. Parelandural bones are thin and medium sized. Uroneural are thin and larger bones.
 
Osteogeneiosus militaris 
 
The Osteogeneiosus militaris has three hypural bones, third hypural bones are broader than the others. There is no demarcation between the first and second hypural bones. Parelandural bones are large and broader. Uroneural are large and broader bones except for Nemapteryx cealata.
 
Otolith morphology study of ariid catfishes
 
Generally, ariid catfishes otoliths are circular, thick and bulbous in shape. All five different catfish species of otolith have similarities because they were from the same family but had enough differences to be distinguished from each other. The shape of the otolith is also used to differentiate catfishes from other groups of fishes.  It has been divided into 4 regions they are distal, dorsal, proximal and ventral among these regions distal and ventral portions are used for otolith morphological identification (Fig 6).

Arius arius
 
The distal portion is long and straight. The ventral portion is V-shaped.
 
Netuma thalassina  
 
The distal portion is short and straight. The ventral portion is broad and U shaped.
 
Plicofollis layardi 
 
The distal portion is long and slanting. The ventral portion is broad and circular shaped.
 
Nemapteryx caelata
 
The distal portion is larger in size and its end portion is hook-shaped. The ventral is half-moon shaped.
 
Osteogeneiosus militaris
                   
The distal portion is large in size. The ventral portion is bowl-shaped.

Catfish head skeleton one of the key character used for identification of marine catfishes (Arratia, 2003). Tilak (1965) described the Lateral ethmoid of A. bilineatus species are backside bulged which was helpful for eye protection. The head shield of A. dussumieri is generally the more rugose, having a broader, more granulated supraoccipital process than does A. bilineatus (Tilak, 1965). Kailola (1986) explained the count of free vertebrae in A. thalassinus and A. bilineatus is an important discriminating feature of the identification of species. Al-Hassan et al., (1988) enlightened that there are differences in the spines and neurocranium of Ariid catfish species. They also found that the snout of A. thalassinusis significantly sharper than that of the other Gulf catfish which is clearly viewed ventrally. Rodrigues et al., 2020 discovered that sequence of thoracic and caudal bone similar in all the order of siluriform, in which the differences were found in only the vertebral bone number in the vertebral column of the catfishes. The vertebral column plays a major role in swimming and propulsion (Laerm 1976; Lindsey 1978; Weihs 1989). Vertebral counts also aid in the identification of closely related taxa such as species of clupeids (Houde et al., 1974). The intraspecific variation in vertebral counts must be known when using this character to separate closely related taxa (Berry and Richards 1973). Weitzman (1962) also explained the total number of vertebrae varies according to the fish species which may be lower or higher than certain taxa. Licar-Rodrigues et al., (2020) demonstrated descriptions of the osteology of S. couma, which assisted to the area of taxonomy in fish. Bemvenuti (2005) explicated that Odontesthes bonariensis species having high number of precaudal bone than tail region. Serra and Langeani (2006) highlights the occurrence of hypural in the caudal fin that vary and such variation is detected in the caudal fin of S. couma. A high number of hypural bones is often taken as a primitive character (i.e., seven in Elops and salmonids); reduction is advanced (i.e., four in pleuronectids). The hypural bones may be variously fused, ultimately into a single plate in adults of some species, e.g., Coryphaena (Potthoff 1980). When fusion of hypural bones occurs, it may be observed in ontogeny in some fishes (e.g., Thunnus atlanticus, Potthoff 1975; Coryphaena, Potthoff 1980) but not in others (e.g., Ophichthus gomesi, Leiby (1979); Microgadus proximus, Matarese et al., (1981). Uroneurals, paired bones generally occurring dorso laterally to the ultimate vertebra, are often the first bones to ossify in the caudal complex. According to Patterson (1968), they are modified ural neural arches.

Javadzadeh et al., (2014) studied the otolith of A. dussumieri and A. thalassinus, different species from the same family can have similarities in appearance but have enough differences to be distinguished from each other. The otolith of sea catfish Bagre panamensis is a large, compressed, thick circle with a well-developed rostrum (Maldonado-Coyac et al.,  2021). The shapes of an otolith morphology from four species of catfishes are basically having similarities in their presence (Chen et al., 2010). The Goat fishes otolith morphology can be used to distinguish species and genera (Echreshavi et al., 2021).

However, the present study supports earlier osteological studies and describe a additional key characters for catfish identification. Ariid catfish species identified by using various osteological key characteristics such as premaxillary, dentary, neurocranium, otolith, vertebral and caudal bone. Each bone structure varies with different fish species which will help to contribute to osteology as one of the important taxonomic tools for discriminating the ariid catfishes.  
The comparative osteology of ariid catfishes was studied, premaxillary, dentary, neurocranium, otolith, vertebral and caudal bone were used to segregate Ariid catfishes. Osteology is one of the integrated taxonomy tools that helped for discriminate the catfishes. This study mainly assists in the accurate identification of the ariid fishes which leads to avoiding misidentification. There are many taxonomic tools available like morphometric, meristic, truss networking and DNA barcoding and sequencing compared to all osteology is a simple, cost-effective, eco-friendly technique favored by all taxonomic researchers. The catfish landings were decreased (CMFRI, 2015) to implement the conservative measures required for accurate field identification this will be further helped for conserved the exploited fishes.
All authors declared that they have no conflict of interest.

  1. Aguilera, O. and Marceniuk, A.P. (2018). Neogene tropical sea catfish (Siluriformes; Ariidae), with insights into paleo and modern diversity within north eastern South America. Journal of South American Earth Sciences. 82: 108-121.

  2. Alexandre, A.P. and Menezes, N.A. (2007). Systematics of the family Ariidae (Ostariophysi, Siluriformes), with a redefinition of the genera. Zootaxa. 1416(1): 1-126.

  3. Al-Hassan, J.M., Clayton, D.A., Thomson, M. and Criddle, R.S. (1988). Taxonomy and distribution of ariid catfishes from the Arabian Gulf. Journal of Natural History. 22(2): 473-487.

  4. Arratia, G. (2003). Catfish head skeleton. An overview. Catfishes. 1: 3-46.

  5. Bemvenuti, M.A. (2005). Osteologia comparada entre as espécies de peixes-rei Odontesthes Evermann and Kendall (Osteichthyes, Atherinopsidae) do sistema lagunar PatosMirim, no extremo sul do Brasil. Revista Brasileira de Zoologia. 22: 293-305.

  6. Berry, F.H. and Richards, W.1. (1973). Characters Useful to the Study of Larval Fishes. In: Proceedings of a Workshop on Egg, Larval and Juvenile Stages of Fis H in Atlamic Coast Estuaries. [Pacheco, A.L. (eds)], Tech. Publ. I, Middle Atl. Coastal Fish. Cent., Natl. Mar. Fish. Serv., NOAA, Highlands, NJ07732. pp 48-65.

  7. Betancur, R.R. (2009). Molecular phylogenetics and evolutionary history of ariid catfishes revisited: A comprehensive sampling. BMC Evolutionary Biology. 9: 175.

  8. Chen, W., Al-Husaini, M., Beech, M., Al-Enezi, K., Rajab, S. and Husain, H. (2010). Discriminant analysis as a tool to identify catfish (Ariidae) species of the excavated archaeological otoliths. Environmental Biology of Fishes. 90(3): 287-299.

  9. Clothier, C.R. (1950). A key to some Southern Californian fishes based on vertebral characters. Calif. Fish and Game, Fish. Bull. 19: 3-83.

  10. CMFRI, (2015). Annual Report 2014-15. Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Kochi. 277pp.

  11. Dhanze, J.R. and Jayaram, K.C. (1982). Some biometric studies of certain closely related species of the genus Arius (Pisces: Siiuriformes: Ariidae). Proceedings: Animal Sciences. 91(1): 79-98.

  12. Dhanze, R. (1980). Studies on the Cranial Osteomyology of Some Indian Perciform Fishes and Taxonomy of the Leognathids. Ph.D Thesis, Department of Zoology. University of Calcutta (WB.): 1-385.

  13. Echreshavi, S., Esmaeili, H.R., Teimori, A. and Safaie, M. (2021). Otolith morphology: A hidden tool in the taxonomic study of goatfishes (Teleostei: Perciformes: Mullidae). Zoological  Studies. 60.

  14. Ferraris, C.J. (2007). Checklist of catfishes, recent and fossil (Osteichthyes: Siluriformes) and catalog of siluriform primary types. Zootaxa. 1418: 628. 

  15. Hollister, G. (1934). Clearing and dyeing fish for bone study. Zoologica; Scientific Contributions of the New York Zoological Society. 12: 89-101.

  16. Houde, E.D.W.1., Richards and Saksena, V.P. (1974). Description of eggs and larvae of, scaled sardine. Harengula jaguana Fish. Bull. U.S 72: 1106-1122.

  17. James, P.S.B.R. (1985). Comparative Osteology of the fishes of the family Leiognathidae Part I: Osteology. Indian Journal of Fisheries. 32(3): 309-358.

  18. Javadzadeh, N., Taghi Azhir and M Mabudi, H. (2014). Investigation of otolith in some species of ariidae in persian gulf and Oman Sea. Journal of Biodiversity and Environmental Sciences. 5(4): 177-182.

  19. Jayaram, K.C. (1984). FAO Species Identification Sheets: Ariidae. In: FAO Species Identification Sheets for Fisheries Purposes: Western Indian Ocean. [Fischer, W. and Bianchi, G. (Eds)] Rome: FAO Fisheries Dept. Vol. 1. 

  20. Jayaram, K.C. and Dhanze, J.R. (1978a). Siluroid fishes of India, Burma and Ceylon. 19. A note on the systematic position of Tachysurus serratus (Day) (Ariidae). Bulletin Zoological Survey of India 1: 203-205. 

  21. Jayaram, K.C. and Dhanze, J.R. (1978b). Siluroid fishes of India, Burma and Ceylon. 22. A preliminary review of the genera of the family Ariidae (Pisces: Siluroidae). Matsya. 4: 42-51. 

  22. Kailola, P.J. (1986). Ariidae Systematics: Comparison of the Giant sea Catfishes Arius thalassinus and A. bilineatus of the Indo Pacific. In Proceedings of 2nd Fish Systematics Conference, Tokyo. Ichthyological Society of Japan. 540-549.

  23. Kailola, P.J. (1999). Order Siluriformes ariidae. Carpenter, K.E., Niem, V.H. The Living Marine Resources of the Western Central Pacific. 3(1): 1827-1879. 

  24. Kumar, R., Jaiswar, A.K., Chakraborty, S.K., Sarkar, U.K. and Lakra, W.S. (2015). Morphological differentiation of catfishes of the family Ariidae occurring along the west coast of India. Indian Journal of Fisheries. 62(4): 109-115.

  25. Laerm, J. (1976). The development, function and design of amphicoelous vertebrae in teleost fishes. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society. 58(3): 237-254.

  26. Leiby, M.M. (1979). Leptocephalus larvae of the eel family Ophichthidae. I. Ophichthus gomesi Castelnau. Bull Mar. SCI. 29: 329-343.

  27. Licar-Rodrigues, C.A., Ferreira-Costa, J., Oliveira-Chung, L.B., Santos-Espínola, N.B., Carvalho-Viana, D. and Iannacone,  J. (2020). Osteologia de sciades couma valenciennes, 1864 (Osteichthyes, siluriformes; ariidae). The Biologist (Lima). 1: 18.

  28. Lindsey, C.C. (1978). Form, Function and Locomotory Habits in Fish. In: Fish Physiology. [Hoar, W.S., Randall, D.J. (eds)]. New York: Academic Press. 1-100.

  29. Maldonado-Coyac, J.A., Sánchez-Cárdenas, R., Ramírez-Pérez, J.S., Guevara, L.A.S., Valdez-Núñez, K.P., Pérez-Centeno, A. and Maldonado-Amparo, M.D.L.A. (2021). Otoliths morphology and age-record in Bagre panamensis (Siluriformes: Ariidae) inhabiting at the southeast of Gulf of California. Latin American Journal of Aquatic Research. 49(3): 404-417.

  30. Marceniuk, A.P., Menezes, N.A. (2007). Systematics of the family Ariidae (Ostariophysi, Siluriformes), with a redefinition of the genera. Zootaxa. 1416: 1-126.

  31. Marceniuk, A.P., Menezes, N.A. and Brito, M.R. (2012). Phylogenetic analysis of the family Ariidae (Ostariophysi: Siluriformes), with a hypothesis on the monophyly and relationships of the genera. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society. 165: 534-669.

  32. Matarese, A.C., Richardson, L.S. and Dunn, J.R. (1981). Larval development of Pacific tomcod Microgadus proximus. In the northeast Pacific Ocean with comparative notes on larvae of walleye pollock Theragra chalcogramma. and Pacific cod, Cadus macrocephalus. Fish. Bull. U.S. 78: 923-940.

  33. Patterson, C. (1968). The caudal, skeleton in Lower Liassic pholidophorid fishes Bull. B Mus, (Nat. Hist). Geol. 16: 201-239.

  34. Potthoff, T. (1975). Development and structure of the caudal complex. the vertebra column and the pterygiophores in the blackfin tuna (Thunnus atlanticus, Scombridae) Bull Mar. SCI. 25: 205-231.

  35. Potthoff, T. (1980). Development and structure of fin and fin supports in dolphin fish Coryphaena hippurus and Coryphaena equiselis (Coryphaenidae). Fish Bull, U. 78: 277-312.

  36. Serra, J.P. and Langeani, F. (2006). Redescrição e osteologia de Bryconamericus exodon Eigenmann, 1907 (Ostariophysi, Characiformes, Characidae). Biota Neotropica. 6(3): 1- 14. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1676-06032006000300005.

  37. Shukla, G.R. and Verma, S.R. (1973). Appendicular skeleton of Colisa fasciatus and Glossogobius giuris with the remark of phylogenetic consideration. Gegenbaurs Morphologisches Jahrbuch Leipzig. 119(5): 696-711.

  38. Sullivan, J.P., Lundberg, J.G. and Hardman, M. (2006). A phylogenetic analysis of the major groups of catfishes (Teleostei: Siluriformes) using rag1 and rag2 nuclear gene sequences. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution. 41(3): 636-662.

  39. Tilak, R. (1965). The comparative morphology of the osteocranium and the Weberian apparatus of Tachysuridae (Pisces: Siluroidei). Journal of Zoology. 146: 150-174.

  40. Weihs, D. (1989). Design features and mechanics of axial locomotion in fish. American Zoologist. 24: 107-120.

  41. Weitzman, S.H. (1962). The osteology of Brycon mecki, a generalized  characid fish with an osteological definition of the family. Stanford Ichthyological Bulletin. 8: 3-77. 

  42. Yu, S.C.S. and Quilang, J.P. (2014). Molecular phylogeny of catfishes (Teleostei: Siluriformes) in the Philippines using the mitochondrial genes COI, Cyt b, 16S rRNA and the nuclear genes Rag1 and Rag2. Philippine Journal of Science. 143(2): 187-198.

Editorial Board

View all (0)