Laserfiche WebLink
<br />upon visual consideration of the nuchal hump and caudal <br /> <br />peduncle, but plotted as described above. <br /> <br />DISCUSSION <br /> <br />Significant character loadings indicate that chubs are distin- <br /> <br />guished by differences in two general body regions: <br /> <br />the head and <br /> <br />mid-body. <br /> <br />The two regions had different loading signs, indica- <br /> <br />ting op~osite variational trends. <br /> <br />Mid-body measurements are - <br /> <br />dete~minants of body depth. <br /> <br />Similarly, signTficant PC2 scores <br /> <br />for head-region characters tended to be depth measurements. As <br /> <br />body depth increases, the depth of the head decreases. <br /> <br />Signifi- <br /> <br />cant PC3 loadings for head characters entail horizontal shifting <br /> <br />in the relative positions of pOints defining these measurements, <br /> <br />i.e., these cistance measures were elongated or contracted <br /> <br />dependent on the specimen. <br /> <br />The large nuchal hump found in ~ertain Colorado River chubs is <br /> <br />~onsidered important in chub taxonomy (Miller, 1946). <br /> <br />Aspects of <br /> <br />hump size or shape have been quantified for species identifica- <br /> <br />tions (Smith et al., 1979), although measurements of this <br /> <br />structure have not resulted in clear discriminations (Valdez ~nd <br /> <br />Clemmer, 1982). <br /> <br />Measurements in this study did not directly <br /> <br />irvclve the problematical hump. <br /> <br />Rdther, it entailed those mostly <br /> <br />derived from constructing measurement trusses. <br /> <br />The hump appears <br /> <br />correlated with some of these measurements since peA I03dirgs for <br /> <br />1 0 <br />