Menticirrhus littoralis ( Holbrook, 1847 )

Marceniuk, Alexandre Pires, Caires, Rodrigo Antunes, Rotundo, Matheus Marcos, Cerqueira, Najila Nolie Catarine Dantas, Siccha-Ramirez, Raquel, Wosiacki, Wolmar Benjamin & Oliveira, Claudio, 2020, Taxonomic revision of the Menticirrhus americanus (Linnaeus, 1758) and M littoralis (Holbrook, 1847) (Percomorphacea: Sciaenidae) species complexes from the western Atlantic, Zootaxa 4822 (3), pp. 301-333 : 325-326

Menticirrhus littoralis ( Holbrook, 1847)

Figure 2 , Tables 3, 4

Umbrina littoralis Holbrook 1847: 10 , pl. 1 (original description; type locality: South Carolina, U.S.A. Holotype: ANSP 11576).— Holbrook 1855: 142 (fishes of South Carolina; short description).— Günther 1860: 276 (Catalog of fishes of the British Museum; short description).— Böhlke 1984:152 (type catalog).

Menticirrhus littoralis Jordan & Gilbert 1879: 378 (Beaufort; listed).— Bean 1880: 93 (Florida; listed).— Jordan & Gilbert 1882: 283 (Pensacola, Galveston; listed).— Jordan & Gilbert 1882: 606 (Charleston; listed).— Jordan & Gilbert 1883: 933 (synopsis North American fishes; listed).— Jordan 1885: (name only).— Jordan & Evermann 1896: 1474 (fishes of North America; description; synonymy).— Chao 1977: 29 (in part; FAO fact sheets; description).— Chao 1978: 31 (in part; basis for classifying western Atlantic sciaenids; description).— Chao 2003:1627 (in part; FAO species identification guide; central Western Atlantic; description).— Robins & Ray 1986: 187 (Atlantic coast fishes; list, short description, illustration).— Boschung 1992: 146 (catalog of fishes of Alabama; listed).— Murdy et al. 1997:196 (fishes of Chesapeake Bay; listed, short description).— Castro-Aguirre et al. 1999: 371 (ichthyofauna of Mexico; listed).— Nelson et al. 2004: 147 (common and scientific names of the fishes from the United States, Canada, Mexico; listed).— McEachran & Fechhelm 2005: 432 (fishes of the Gulf of Mexico; description; illustration).— Page et al. 2013: 152 (common and scientific names of the fishes from the United States, Canada, Mexico; listed).— Raz-Guzmán et al. 2018:346.

Material examined. Holotype: ANSP 11576 (1, 195 mm SL), South Carolina, United States . Non-type specimens: ANSP 151380 (8), Charleston Co., South Carolina, United States ; ANSP 151385 (4), Charleston Co., South Carolina, United States ; ANSP 151386 (15), Charleston Co., South Carolina, United States ; USNM 203280 (3), Brunswick , Georgia, United States ; MZUSP 69846 (4, 96- 113 mm SL), Charlotte Co., Gasparilla , Florida, United States ; ANSP 79851 (3), Boca Grande , Florida, United States ; ANSP 79852 (1), Broward Co., Florida , United States ; ANSP 79853 (2), Gulf back at Englewood, Florida, United States ; USNM 126784 (4), Boca Grande , Florida, United States ; USNM 30815 (1), Pensacola , Florida, United States ; USNM 30837 (1), Pensacola , Florida, United States ; USNM 127347 (1), Grand Terre , Louisiana, United States ; USNM 125775 (1), Corpus Christi , Texas, United States ; USNM 31048 (1), Galveston , Texas, United States ; USNM 61229 (1), Progreso , Mexico .

Diagnosis. Menticirrhus littoralis , which is found in the United States and the Gulf of Mexico, can be differentiated readily from its congeners due to the black blotch or hue on the tip of the upper caudal lobe in live or fresh specimens (vs. caudal fin without dark hue, Fig 2 ) M. littoralis can also be differentiated from M. americanus , which is found in the United States and the Gulf of Mexico, by pectoral-fin tip barely reaching tip of depressed pelvic fin tip of depressed pelvic fin (vs. surpassing tip of pelvic fin, Fig. 2 ), body without dark bars (vs. with irregular dark bars, Fig. 2 ); from M. gracilis , which is found on the southern and southeastern coasts of Brazil, by having 22–25 dorsal-fin rays (vs. 18–21, Table 3); from M. martinicensis , which is found in the Caribbean and Atlantic South America, by pectoral-fin tip barely reaching tip of depressed pelvic fin (vs. surpassing tip of pelvic fin, Fig. 2 ), body without dark bars (vs. with irregular dark bars, Fig. 2 ), and from M. saxatilis , which is found in the United States and the Gulf of Mexico, by pectoral-fin tip barely reaching tip of depressed pelvic fin (vs. surpassing tip of pelvic fin, Fig. 2 ), body without dark bars (vs. with irregular dark bars, Fig. 2 ).

Menticirrhus littoralis can also be distinguished from its congeners in the eastern Pacific as follows: from M. elongatus , which occurs from the Gulf of California to Peru, by having 12–15 gill rakers in the first arches (vs. 7–10, Table 3), pectoral-fin tip barely reaching tip of depressed pelvic fin (vs. surpassing tip of pelvic fin, Fig. 2 ); from M. nasus , ranging from the Gulf of California to Peru, by having 12–15 gill rakers in the first arches (vs. 4–9, Table 3), pectoral-fin tip barely reaching tip of depressed pelvic fin (vs. surpassing tip of pelvic fin, Fig. 2 ); from M. ophicephalus , ranging from Ecuador to Chile, by having 50–60 scales with pores along lateral line to caudal-fin base (vs. 63–66), 12–15 gill rakers in the first arches (vs. 6–9, Table 3), S-shaped posterior margin of the caudal fin (vs. concave), scales present along base of soft dorsal fin (vs. soft dorsal fin naked); from M. paitensis , ranging from the Gulf of California to Peru, by having 50–60 scales with pores along lateral line to caudal-fin base (vs. 76–98), 18–20 pectoral-fin rays (vs. 21–23, Table 3), and 12–15 gill rakers in the first arches (vs. 6–9, Table 2), scales present along base of soft dorsal fin (vs. soft dorsal fin naked), pectoral-fin tip barely reaching tip of depressed pelvic fin (vs. surpassing tip of pelvic fin, Fig. 2 ); from M. panamensis , ranging from the Gulf of California to Chile, by having seven anal-fin rays (vs. eight or nine), 12–15 gill rakers in the first arches (vs. 3–8, Table 3), scales present along base of soft dorsal fin (vs. soft dorsal fin naked); from M. undulatus , which is found in California, United States, by having seven anal-fin rays (vs. eight or nine), scales along base of soft dorsal (vs. soft dorsal fin naked).

Description: D. X+22–25; A. I+7; P. 18–19; C. 17; GR 12–15; LL. 50–60; SA 8–9; SB. 11–18 ( Tables 3, 4). Body slender in lateral view, not compressed, ventral profile flat; maximum depth at first dorsal-fin origin. Dorsal profile ascending steeply from snout to eye-level, ascending, nearly straight, over eye, gently convex to first dorsal-fin base, straight, slightly descending along second dorsal-fin base, concave in caudal peduncle. Ventral profile convex on snout, nearly straight on head to anal fin origin, ascending, nearly concave, along anal-fin base to caudal-fin base. Snout deep, with blunt to pug-nosed tip, triangular in lateral view. Mouth subterminal, upper jaw slender, rear tip slightly surpassing a vertical line through middle of eye. Premaxilla with 4–7 rows of acicular teeth, external most (about 20–30) larger, caniniform; dentary with 4–7 tooth rows. Eye slightly oval, nearly two times snout length, not adjoining dorsal profile. Interorbital space smaller than orbital diameter, convex, covered with large ctenoid scales. Nostrils small, anterior nearly round, posterior larger, oval, nearly on horizontal line through ventral pupil border. Head with five sensory pores on snout, in semicircle around mouth angle, followed by larger central pore, lower jaw with four pores, two on each side encircling mental barbel, pores otherwise absent; mental barbel short, rigid, with blunt tip without pore. Lateral line slightly arched to second dorsal-fin origin, then straight, descending to caudal peduncle, nearly horizontal elsewhere to caudal-fin tip. Preopercle margin rough, with about ten subtle spines. Opercle tip fleshy, blunt, over vertical line that passes through pectoral-fin base. Gill rakers short. Ctenoid scales on trunk, belly, pectoral-fin base, opercle, preopercle, infraorbital, and interorbital region to snout, cycloid in gular area and encircling nostrils. Dorsal fins without scales on interradial membranes, second dorsal fin with basal sheath of scales (one row); pectoral-fin base densely covered by small ctenoid scales, rows of cycloid scales along upper pectoral-fin rays (pectoral tip naked), caudal-fin base covered with large ctenoid scales, rows of cycloid scales along rays, except at tip. Spinous dorsal fin short, first spine shortest, second and third spines longest; second dorsal fin adjoining first one. Origin of second dorsal fin in front of vertical line through pectoral-fin tip, second dorsal soft rays as long as longest dorsal spines. Anal-fin origin on vertical line passing through sixty-seventh rays of the second dorsal fin; first spine very slender. Pectoral fin very large, falcate, reaching pelvic fin tip. Pelvic-fin origin behind pectoral-fin base, shorter than pectoral fin. Caudal peduncle short, deep, depth larger than orbital diameter. Caudal fin short, truncate.

Color in alcohol. Type material with straw-beige pigmentation, mostly faded due to the age of the specimens. Other specimens: dorsal and anal fins beige, slender dark line along distal margin of spines and rays; pectoral fins beige, caudal fin straw-colored, dark area in distal region, more conspicuous on upper rays ( Fig. 2A ).

Color of fresh material. Background color silvery gray dorsally, silvery white ventrally; head silver to silver gray, fainter below eyes, darker dorsally. First dorsal fin plain gray to dusky, tip of longest spines sometimes darkened; second dorsal fin rusty gray, lighter distally; anal fin light gray to dusky. Pectoral fin dusky, a darkened line along upper half; pelvic fin gray to dusky, sometimes with a dark hue along spine and neighboring two rays. Caudal fin plain gray or dusky, a dark area at base and lower rays; evident black spot on upper caudal-fin lobe tip, over 3–4 upper rays ( Figs. 2B, C ).

Distribution and habitat. Western North Atlantic from North Carolina to the Gulf of Mexico ( Fig. 4 ). Common in shallow waters, mainly in the vicinity of estuaries and in the surf zone, over sandy bottoms.

Remarks. Umbrina littoralis was described by Holbrook (1847) from the holotype, ANSP 11576 ( Fig. 2A ), collected in South Carolina, in the United States. Menticirrhus littoralis is recognized here as being closely related to M. cuiaranensis and M. gracilis , but can be differentiated from these species based on its geographic range, the number of rays in the pectoral and dorsal fins, as well as the black blotch or hue on the tip of the upper caudal lobe ( Figs. 2B, C ). It is important to note that, while Irwin (1971) reported that “the upper tip of the caudal fin is black in most specimens longer than 100 mm ”, he did not attribute any taxonomic significance to this trait in the species definition.

Figures

FIGURE 2. Menticirrhus littoralis in lateral view. A. Holotype, ANSP 11576, 195 mm SL, South Carolina, United States. B. Live specimen captured in the Gulf of Mexico by Luiz Malabarba. C. Fresh specimen, Mexico, photographed by Eduardo Perusquia. Scale bar equals 10 mm.

FIGURE 4. The Atlantic coast of North, Central, and South America showing geographic distribution. A. Menticirrhus americanus (red) and M. martinicensis (green). B. M. littoralis (yellow), M. cuiaranensis (light blue) and M. gracilis (dark blue). Some symbols represent more than one locality or a large number of specimens.