My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
7345
CWCB
>
UCREFRP
>
Public
>
7345
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/11/2009 11:32:56 AM
Creation date
8/10/2009 3:23:53 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
UCREFRP
UCREFRP Catalog Number
7345
Author
Wick, E. J.
USFW Year
1975.
Copyright Material
NO
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
16
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />TAXONOMY <br />DIST] NGUISHING CHARACTERISTICS: <br />Characteristics which most typify G. cypha are; <br />1. An abrupt nuchal hump in the occiput region. <br />2. A fleshy snout projecting well beyond the jaw <br />with subterminal mouth. <br />3. The caudal peduncle thickness and upper jaw length <br />intermediate between the three species. <br />ti- <br />4. A significantly smaller eye diameter of 6.0-7.1, mm. <br />The more pronounced the nuchal hump and the more closely <br />specimens resemble key characteristics, the purer the species. <br />We must continually keep in mind that distinction between 17, ry-ha <br />and G. elegans is not clear due to introg?ressive ryrridi:.at: m. <br />However, it is generally agreed that the two species, G. cyrha, <br />and G. elerans, are two valid species (personal conversat.ior with <br />Dr. Behnke). G. cypha perhaps evolved from G. elerAns a' n earlier <br />time, became isolated by past environmental- conditions, and a6apt.ed <br />to torrential canyon areas of the Colorado River. More recently, <br />because of changing habitat and reduced numbers, hybridization has <br />taken place. <br />SPK17*1,1S' TAXONO:?IC CHARACTERISTICS: <br />Of the four key characters, our specimen qualifies as Gila <br />cypha on all measurements and characteristics (see Tab.1) ;,s <br />noted in Table I, snout length was of some concern. As shown in. <br />photograph, Figure 3 (page 7), the snout is somewhat shcrter and <br />head depth in posterior region was thicker iiu?ltoe specimer-,., figures <br />I and II. Specimen's abrupt hump could be considered intermediate <br />between two top specimens in Figure IT. <br />r
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.