Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Hybridization between Catosfollw.s and Xyrallclwll 'l15 <br /> <br />vary little in proportions throughout its range, the graphs for ~hat <br />genus are based on specimens from all parts of the Colorado Rlv~r <br />system. The data for Catostomus latipinnis were taken from speCI- <br />mens from the upper Colorado River system in Colorado (mostly) <br />and in northern Utah, at and near the places where the hybrids were <br /> <br />TABLE V <br /> <br />MEASUREMENTS OF CATos'rOMUS LATtPINNIS, HYBRIDS, AND XYUAUCHEN TEXAN US <br /> <br />Actual measurements are given for the eight hybrids, along with the average <br />measurements of. the parental species at the same sizes, determined graphically (Figs. <br />1-2). The hybrids and most of the specimens of both parental species were measured <br />by Hubbs; most measurements of the young of Xyrauchen texanus were taken by <br />Miller. We followed the methods recommended by Hubbs and LagleI' (1947 pp. <br />13-15, figs. 2-5). Precision dial calipers were used in measuring the smaller pa;ts. <br /> <br />Measurement <br /> <br />Standard length ........ 101. 7 256 <br /> <br />Dimension, in mm. <br /> <br />385' <br /> <br />186 391 442 <br />-- -.- - <br />6.0 77.0 85.6 <br />8.2 78.0 92.8 <br />1.3 102.5 103.6 <br />.t.8 65.5 74.1 <br />ij.7 70.0 78.3 <br />'7.5 88.6 100.0 <br />7.4 27.7 31.4 <br />L.9 29.6 33.7 <br />1.9 34.3 38.7 <br />r .3 38.0 45.0 <br />1.4 3.1. B 33.2 <br />),2 20.6 24.4 <br />..5 19.8 23.3 <br />1.4 22,4 24.9 <br />.8 25.3 29.2 <br />..81 1.82 2.1 <br />.46 2.65 . 2.56 <br />i.62 6.75 8.1 <br />,.76 5.90 6.69 <br />.04 6.UO 7.54 <br />;.28 6.38 7.2 <br />1.2 68.9 77.8 <br />.1 74.7 87.2 <br />1.1 81.9 91.0 <br />.'.0 17.3 .. . t <br />1.7 13. ~l . .. <br />1.5 18.75 .. . <br />52 52 52 <br />70 64 75 <br />23 128 120 <br /> <br />collected. The actual measurements of the hybrids are plotted on <br />the same graphs. The growth lines for the parental species were <br />drawn by inspection. Several types of curves} some not readily <br />subject to conventional analysis through logarithmic transformations, <br />are obviously represented. <br /> <br />Body depth <br />C. latipinnis. ......... 22.0 <br />Hy brid .............. 24.7 <br />X.texanus ...........28.6 <br />Depth through pectoral in- <br />sertion <br />C. latipinnis. . . . . . . . . . <br />Hybrid .............. <br />X. texanua ........... <br />Caudal-peduncle depth <br />C. latipinnis. . . . . . . . . . <br />Hybrid .............. <br />X. texanus ........... <br />Lips, overnlllcngth (A)* <br />C. llliipinnia. . . . . . . . . . <br />lTybrid .............. <br />X. ieXllnllS ........... <br />Gape width (B) <br />C. llltipinnis. . . . . . . . . . <br />Hybrid .............. <br />X. texanlls ........... <br />Separation, lower lipst <br />C. latipinnis. . . . . . . . . . <br />Hybrid .............. <br />X. texanus ........... <br />Gillraker, length of longest <br />C. latipinnis. . . . . . . . . . <br />Hybrid .............. <br />X. texanU8 ........... <br />Dorsal fin, length of base <br />C. latipinnis. . . . . . . . . . <br />Hybrid .............. <br />X. texanus ........... <br />Interpelvic space <br />C. latipinnis. . . . . . . . . . <br />Hybrid .............. <br />X. texanU8 " . . . . .. . . . <br />Ratio, B/ A (Fig, 8) <br />C.latipinnis. ......... <br />Hybrid .............. <br />X. texanus ............ <br /> <br />53.0 <br />61.3 <br />70.7 <br /> <br />379 <br /> <br />384 <br /> <br /> <br />64.4 64.6 <br />71.7 71.4 <br />87.0 87.2 <br />27.2 27.3 <br />30.1 30.3 <br />33.7 33.8 <br />37.0 87.2 <br />32.2 31.7 <br />20.0 20.1 <br />19.4 19.5 <br />23.8 19.2 <br />24.6 24.7 <br />1.80 1.81 <br />2.55 8.63 <br />6.58 6.60 <br /> <br />5.74 <br />5.80 <br />6.24 <br /> <br />67.8 <br />73.1 <br />80.7 <br /> <br />16.9 <br />14.1 <br />18.4 <br /> <br />52 <br />74 <br />123 <br /> <br />-9 <br /> <br />75.0 75.7 75.8 7 <br />92.3 82.5 87.5 8 <br />99.7 100.7 101.0 10 <br /> <br />-8 <br /> <br />214 <br /> <br />LENGTH OF <br />7- LONGEST <br /> <br />6 <br />7 <br />8 <br /> <br />2' <br />3 <br />3: <br /> <br />5 <br /> <br />17.3 43.8 63.6 <br />19.9 47.65 77.8 <br />22.5 57.7 85.8 <br />6.65 17.8 26.9 <br />8.2 20.3 28.9 <br />9.1 22.7 33.3 <br />7.1 21.7 36.8 <br />6.4 18.6 28.4 <br />5.2 12.4 19.7 <br />4.9 12.2 19.1 <br />6.0 13.15 19.7 <br />6.1 15.2 24.2 <br />0.46 1.16 1.77 <br />0.54 ~.80 4.75 <br />1.14 3.80 6.44 <br />1.26 3.56 5.66 <br />1.42 3.66 5.75 <br />1.69 4.33 6.16 <br />18.8 45.6 67.0 <br />22.2 54.3 78.1 <br />26.1 57.1 79.8 <br />2.6 9.3 16.5 <br />3.2 12.45 12.8 <br />4.1 11.8 18.1 <br />69 56 53 <br />94 71 84 <br />117 123 122 <br /> <br />3' <br />3: <br />2( <br /> <br />--4--- <br /> <br />19 <br />2: <br />24 <br /> <br />1 <br />1 <br />( <br /> <br />o <br /> <br />2 <br /> <br />f' <br /> <br />FIG. 1. Relative growth of four parts in Catostomlls latipinnis (circles) and Xyrauchen <br />texanus (solid dots) and corresponding measurements of the eight hybrids (crosses). <br />The specimens of C. latipinnis came from the upper Colorado River system in <br />Colorado (mostly) and northern Utah at or near the places where the hybrids <br />were obtained. Those of X. texanus are from all parts of the range of the species. <br />The measurements were made by Hubbs. The growth curves were drawn from <br />inspection. Measurements of four additional specimens of X. texanU8 from the <br />Colorado River Mesa County, Colorado (U.S.N.M., Nos. 132468 and 132469), <br />made after Fi~res 1 and 2 were prepared, confirm essentially the position of the <br />lines for that species at lengths of 320 to 398 mm., except for the length of the <br />longest gillraker (as noted in the text). <br /> <br />5.76 <br />6.60 <br />6.!W <br /> <br />68.0 <br />81.6 <br />81.0 <br /> <br />7 <br />( <br /> <br />4 <br /> <br />6f <br />77 <br />8 <br /> <br />1 <br />2 <br />1 <br /> <br />17.0 <br />20.8 <br />18.5 <br /> <br />52 <br />61 <br />123 <br /> <br />* Distance from front of upper lip to line joining posterior tips of lobes of lower <br />lip. <br />t Least distance between papillae at extreme base of lobes of lower lip, but dis- <br />regarding papillae at isthmus that clearly arise between the lobes. <br />t Values not entered, since at this length the parental species seem not to differ <br />in this character. <br />