Bonaparte [C. L.]
Lumpsuckers have a sucking disk composed of modified pelvic fin elements, short gill openings, no normal scales, and no head spines. They differ from their closest relatives the snailfishes (Liparidae) in having fewer vertebrae (23-29 versus 36-86), globose or nearly globose body, two short dorsal fins, and a short anal fin. Most lumpsuckers have spiny tubercles on the head and body. The number, structure, and arrangement of the tubercles are important taxonomic characters. First dorsal fin with 4-8 spines, second dorsal with 8-13 soft rays located opposite an anal fin with 7-13 soft rays. Dorsal and anal fins not confluent with caudal fin, a definite caudal peduncle present. Caudal fin large and slightly rounded. Pectoral fins with 19-29 rays, extending ventrally in front of pelvic disk. Nostrils tubular, two pairs. Cephalic lateral line canals well developed (occipital absent in <b><i>Aptocyclus </i></b> ); pores of operculomandibular canals extended externally as barbel-like tubes in some species. Trunk lateral line canal absent or short; superficial neuromasts, papillate in some species, present. Small, conical teeth on jaws arranged in a few rows or narrow bands. Gill opening entirely above pectoral fin base, except extending a little below upper corner of pectoral base in <b><i>Cyclopterus </i></b> . Branchiostegal rays 6. Swim bladder absent. Maximum lengths of 2 cm (less than 1 in) to 61 cm (24 in). Marine; most species benthic on continental shelf and upper slope. A few species are primarily pelagic in deeper waters. Some, maybe all, lumpsuckers spawn in shallow coastal waters, sometimes migrating hundreds of miles. After spawning, males guard the eggs. Diet in benthic environment includes polychaetes, crustaceans, and molluscs. Pelagic diet comprises slow-moving prey, mostly medusae and ctenophores. In what may be partly a defensive reaction, lumpsuckers inflate their bodies by swallowing air or water. <b><i>Cyclopterus lumpus </i></b> is the target of substantial fisheries in several western North Atlantic countries, which market roe as lumpfish caviar. Other species have no commercial value. Distributed in the Arctic Ocean and northern regions of the North Pacific and North Atlantic oceans. Most speciose in the North Pacific. Much work remains to be done on the taxonomy of the Cyclopteridae. The two most recent revisions of the family (Lindberg and Legeza 1955 [ref. 2785]$, Ueno 1970 [ref. 26199]), although still providing much critical information, are now largely outdated. The authors did not examine the types of most species, and owing to the lack of available material described some species from few specimens. For several years we have been studying cyclopterids from a wealth of accumulated museum specimens and freshly caught specimens, including type series, and in Mecklenburg et al. (2002 [ref. 25968]) summarized available descriptive information on the Bering Sea and eastern North Pacific species. In this checklist we present a classification reflecting our current thinking on the entire group. We provisionally treat 6 genera and 28 species as valid. Four species (<b><i>Cyclopteropsis inarmatus, C. popovi, C. lindbergi, Eumicrotremus phrynoides </i></b> ), or more, may be synonymous with other species. The distinction between <b><i>Cyclopteropsis </i></b> and <b><i>Eumicrotremus </i></b> is increasingly unclear. Redescription of some genera and species is necessary. Differences in appearance from juvenile to adult, which are not well documented for most species, are perhaps the greatest problem in identifying lumpsuckers. The appearance of inflated and uninflated specimens is so different it has caused confusion in taxonomy. Resolution of the status of several species is particularly problematic because the types have been lost, including specimens that were in the private collection of Prof. V. K. Soldatov in the Moscow College of Fisheries and disappeared after his death in 1941. Characters of potentially important taxonomic significance for Cyclopteridae have not been fully investigated. For example, descriptions of the mechanosenory lateral line system of cyclopterids (Ueno 1970 [ref. 26199], Mandrytsa 2001 [ref. 25636]) conflict and are not based on all genera and species. Some discrepancies may be due to differences in terminology and recent improvements in methods of study. The lateral line system has recently become a focus of vertebrate phylogenetic and functional studies (e.g., Webb 1989 [ref. 26844], 2000 [ref. 26845], Montgomery et al. 1995 [ref. 26843]), with resultant increased level of understanding and definition of characters of possible utility in taxonomy. Our work supports the existence of species “pairs,” with counterparts in the Pacific and Atlantic differing in few characteristics and geographically separate: <b><i>Eumicrotremus orbis </i></b> in the Pacific versus <b><i>E. spinosus </i></b> in the Atlantic, and <b><i>E. andriashevi </i></b> versus <b><i>E. terraenovae. </i></b> Possibly the pairs reflect division of unified populations by geological phenomena, such as closing of Bering Strait; the similarity between species of each pair reflects the short span of geological time over which differences could evolve. Similarly, there also appear to be species pairs with one member inhabiting the North Pacific and the other in Arctic seas; for example, <b><i>Cyclopteropsis brashnikowi </i></b> in the western North Pacific versus <b><i>C. mcalpini </i></b> in the Arctic, and <b><i>C. bergi </i></b> versus <b><i>C. jordani. </i></b> Evidence for the Pacific-Arctic pairs is not as strong as for the Pacific-Atlantic pairs, and the species in the Pacific-Arctic pairs may not be distinct. There has been no genetic study of relationships within Cyclopteridae. The earliest use of the name Cyclopteridae is attributed to Bonaparte (1831 [ref. 4978]), who grouped snailfishes, lumpsuckers, and other forms. In a classification of the mailcheeked fishes, Gill (1889 [ref. 1729]) recognized the liparids and cyclopterids as separate families but later authors again treated these groups as subfamilies in Cyclopteridae. Recent authors have classified the two taxa in separate families as sister groups while recognizing the monophyly of the combined entity by erecting a superfamily Cyclopteroidea, the sister group of the Cottoidea (Yabe 1985 [ref. 11522], Imamura and Yabe 2002 [ref. 26810]). We do not recognize subfamilies in Cyclopteridae, notwithstanding that Ueno (1970 [ref. 26199]) classified <b><i>Aptocyclus </i></b> and <b><i>Pelagocyclus </i></b> in a subfamily Aptocyclinae separate from the other forms in a subfamily Cyclopterinae. Some of the genera in the family are synonyms of other genera or may need to be redescribed. Maintaining a cyclopterid classification at the subfamily level is not justified at this time. Several nominal cyclopterid species belong to other cottoid families. <b><i>Cyclopterichthys amissus </i></b> Vaillant 1888, based on an unpublished sketch of a fish caught at Magellan Strait, may have been a psychrolutid and certainly was not a cyclopterid (Gill 1891:366 [ref. 26641], Stein et al. 1991:370 [ref. 19979]). <b><i>Liparoides beauchampi </i></b> Lloyd 1909 is a psychrolutid (Stein 1978 [ref. 26640], Nelson 1982:1500 [ref. 5470]), and <b><i>Cyclopterus gelatinosus </i></b> Pallas 1769 is a liparid (Chernova 1998:762 [ref. 24687]). <b><i>Lepus marinus </i></b> Steller in Pallas 1814 is an unavailable name published first in the synonymy of <b><i>Cyclopterus gelatinosus </i></b> Pallas 1769 and not considered available later by authors. [Footnote] $Caution is advised when using the English translation of Lindberg and Legeza’s (1955) review. Although for the most part accurate, it contains some significant mistakes. For example, in some places Barents Sea was translated to Bering Sea.</i></b>
This site works best when viewed in Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox.
Designed & Developed by Rebin Infotech