Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Table 7. Comparison of frontoparietal fontanelle size for selected length groups oflarval and juvenile catostomids <br />of the Upper Colorado River Basin. "N" is number of specimens examined. <br />Size group Catostomus Catostomus Catostomus Catostomus Catostomus Catostomus Xyrauchen <br />Character ardens catostomus commersoni discobo/us /atipinnis p/atyrhynchus texanus <br />17-19mmSL,n 2 2 2 4 3 0 3 <br />Width, mm 1.0-1.2 1.5-1.5 0.8-1.0 0.6-0.9 0.8-1.2 1.0-1.2 <br />Length, mm 2.0-2.2 1.8-2.1 2.0-2.2 1.4-1.8 1.2-2.0 1.7-1.9 <br />Width/length, % 45-60 71-83 40-45 41-50 50-67 59-63 <br />20-21 mm SL, n I 2 2 2 3 2 5 <br />Width, mm 0.9 1.5-1.7 0.6-0.8 0.5-0.9 0.6-0.7 0.6-0.8 1.0-1.3 <br />Length, mm 2.1 2.0-2.1 1.9-2.1 1.7-1.7 1.8-2.0 2.2-2.2 1.8-2.1 <br />Width/length, % 43 75-79 32-38 29-35 33-35 27-36 52-68 <br />22-25 mm SL, n 2 3 1 3 3 1 2 <br />Width, mm 0.9-0.9 0.9-1.5 0.8 0.5-0.8 0.8-0.8 0.7 1.0-1.3 <br />Length, mm 2.3-2.4 2.1-2.3 2.0 1.3-2.8 1.8-2.1 2.2 1.9-2.1 <br />Width/length, % 38-39 39-68 40 29-38 38-44 32 53-62 <br />26-34 mm SL, n 3 3 2 2 2 I 2 <br />Width, mm 1.0-1.0 1.1-1.4 0.8-0.8 0.6-0.7 0.7-0.8 0.5 0.9-1.3 <br />Length, mm 2.3-2.4 2.7-3.0 2.3-2.6 2.0-2.2 2.2-2.3 2.1 2.1-2.3 <br />Width/length, % 42-43 40-47 31-35 27-35 30-36 24 43-57 <br />35-46 mm SL, n 1 2 1 1 1 2 3 <br />Width, mm 1.1 1.1-1.4 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.4-0.5 1.1-1.7 <br />Length, mm 2.7 3.2-3.8 3.0 2.7 2.3 2.5-2.7 2.3-3.4 <br />Width/length, % 41 29-44 30 26 30 15-20 48-50 <br />All 22-46 mm SL, n 6 8 4 6 6 4 7 <br />Width, mm 0.9-1.1 0.9-1.5 0.8-0.9 0.5-0.8 0.7-0.8 0.4-0.7 0.9-1.7 <br />Length, mm 2.3-2.7 2.1-3.8 2.0-3.0 1.3-2.8 1.8-2.3 2.1-2.7 1.9-3.4 <br />Width/length, % 38-43 29-68 30-40 26-38 30-44 15-32 43-62 <br />47-75 mm SL, n 2 <br />Width, mm 1.1-1.4 <br />Length, rnm 3.8-4.5 <br />Widthllength, % 29-31 <br />76-81 mm SL, n 1 I 1 1 1 1 <br />Width, rnm 1.5 0.8 0.7 1.0 0.0 2.3 <br />Length, mm 4.8 3.1 3.7 4.0 0.0 5.1 <br />Width/length, % 31 26 19 25 0 45 <br /> <br />longnose and Utah suckers and least in bluehead sucker). Observations for Utah sucker may be <br />suspect due to poor culture conditions and growth rates (Appendix C, Snyder and Muth 1988). <br />Adult descriptions of the subject species reveal that the fontanelle is significantly reduced <br />or lost only in bluehead and mountain suckers. Smith (1966) reported that the fontanelle of <br />bluehead sucker is usually reduced in juveniles and closed in adults, whereas that of mountain <br />sucker adults is usually reduced to a narrow slit and only occasionally obliterated. To <br />preliminarily document changes in fontanelle shape and size toward the adult condition, we <br />cleared and stained one 76 to 81 mm SL yearling for each species except Utah sucker (specimen <br />not available). Based on these solitary observations (Table 7), the fontanelle continues to grow <br />in both length and width in razorback sucker and maintains its larger width-to-length ratio <br />(45%). The fontanelle increases significantly only in length for all other species except <br />mountain sucker, resulting in decreased width-to-length ratios (31 % for longnose sucker, <br />25-26% for white and flannelmouth suckers, and 19% for bluehead sucker). Only in mountain <br />sucker was the fontanelle closed. More yearling and older specimens must be examined to <br />determine if fontanelle closure is typical of mountain sucker populations in the UCRB. <br /> <br />34 <br />