Laserfiche WebLink
McELROY AND DOUGLAS-MORPHOLOGICAL VARIATION IN GILA 637 <br />neous and represented distinct evolutionary lin- <br />eages, although they considered the status of G. <br />cypha somewhat ambiguous. Using a combina- <br />tion of morphometric and meristic characters, <br />Smith et al. (1979) were able to differentiate <br />museum specimens of G. robusta, G. cypha, and <br />G. elegans in multivariate space. Three studies <br />have been carried out using nondestructive <br />sampling methods. Douglas et al. (1989) dem- <br />onstrated the utility of a qualitative approach <br />to classify individual G. robusta and G. cypha col- <br />lected from the Yampa River, as well as the <br />difficulty in separating these specimens on the <br />basis of eight quantitative characters scored in <br />the field. Using a different set of morphometric <br />characters, Kaeding et al. (1990) found good <br />concordance between taxonomic assignments <br />made in the field and results of quantitative <br />analyses of G. robusta and G. cypha from the <br />upper Colorado River at Black Rocks. Douglas <br />(1993) applied video image acquisition tech- <br />niques to test sexual dimorphism in G. cypha and <br />rejected the hypothesis (Holden, 1991) that the <br />pronounced nuchal hump in this species rep- <br />resents a male secondary sexual characteristic. <br />Here we extend the use of video imaging to <br />a consideration of morphological variation <br />within and among populations of G. robusta ro- <br />busta (hereafter designated G. robusta) and G. <br />cypha in the upper Colorado River basin and the <br />Grand Canyon. Using canonical discriminant <br />and cluster analyses, we examine patterns of <br />variation at three levels of biological organi- <br />zation. Specifically, we ask three questions. First, <br />is there evidence of significant divergence <br />among populations of G. robusta or G. cypha, and <br />is there a geographic component to any patterns <br />that may exist? Second, do specimens identified <br />as G. robusta and G. cypha represent distinct mor- <br />phologies, or does the pattern of variation rep- <br />resent a continuum across putative species <br />boundaries? Third, what are the phenetic re- <br />lationships among geographic populations of G. <br />robusta and G. cypha.; that is, do conspecific pop- <br />ulations cluster together, or is there evidence <br />of a locality effect on the similarity of groups? <br />We discuss our findings in light of both conser- <br />vation and evolutionary implications and iden- <br />tify avenues for future research. <br />MATERIALS AND METHODS <br />Field sampling.-Three hundred sixty-three <br />adult G. robusta (n = 215) and G. cypha (n = 148) <br />were collected with hoop and trammel nets and/ <br />or electroshocking from eight localities in the <br />upper Colorado River basin and the Grand Can- <br />yon between May 1991 and Oct. 1992 (Fig. 1; <br />WYOMING <br />Yampa River <br />Green River\ Y -C o,ado Fiver <br />D QR <br />UTAH B COLORADO <br />W <br />C <br />lake P-11 <br />\Gien Cary- D- <br />G <br />/UWe Colorado River <br />ARIZONA NEW MEXICO <br />Fig. 1. Collection localities for samples of Gila ro- <br />busta and G. cypher taken from the upper Colorado <br />River basin. Population labels are identified in Table <br />1. <br />Table 1). Specimens ranged in size from 187- <br />433 mm TL. Fish were sexed according to de- <br />velopment of the urogenital papillus (Suttkus <br />and Clemmer, 1977) and assigned to species by <br />MED based on overall appearance, body pro- <br />portions, fin-ray counts, and squamation <br />(Minckley, 1973; Douglas, 1993; Douglas et al., <br />1989). <br />Sagittal views of each individual were col- <br />lected on videotape following the procedures <br />of Douglas (1993). Briefly, specimens were an- <br />aesthetized in MS-222 and placed against a neu- <br />tral background with a 10-cm rule to provide <br />scale. Background material contained a shallow <br />depression; positioning fish in this depression <br />minimized error associated with two-dimen- <br />sional projection of a three-dimensional object <br />(Schaefer, 1991). Dorsal and anal fins were <br />spread, and several critical anatomical land- <br />marks that are difficult to locate from video <br />images were identified with insect pins. Fish were <br />videotaped perpendicular to the midsagittal <br />plane for approximately 10 sec using either a <br />Sony CCD-V701 8mm or General Electric <br />9-9808 SE 16mm camcorder. To balance the <br />need for image resolution against the potential <br />for image distortion through spherical aberra- <br />tion, the working distance of the camera was <br />adjusted such that each specimen filled the cen- <br />ter two-thirds of a frame. Following videore- <br />cording, fish were placed in 19 liters of fresh <br />river water, allowed to fully revive, and re- <br />leased.