Professional Documents
Culture Documents
J. A. F. Garrick
To cite this article: J. A. F. Garrick (1971) Harriotta raleighana, a long-nosed chimaera (Family
Rhinochimaeridae), in New Zealand waters, Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand, 1:3-4,
203-213, DOI: 10.1080/03036758.1971.10423312
J. A. F. GARRICK
Abstract
Downloaded by [158.140.172.21] at 16:35 17 October 2017
ONE specimen of long-nosed chimaera taken in 366-549 metres off Timaru is described
and provisionally identified as the north Atlantic Harriotta raleighana. The Japanese
Anteliochimaera chaetirhamphus and the north-east Pacific H. curtissjamesi are also
tentatively referred to H. raleighana. The status of two aberrant Atlantic juveniles,
and their similarities to the genus Rhinochimaera, are discussed.
INTRODUCTION
IN this account a specimen of long-nosed chimaera taken off Timaru in 1967 is
described and provisionally identified as H arriotta raleighana Goode and Bean. The
specimen, presented to the Otago Museum by Mr J. Roberts, was reported by
Whitley (1968, p. 14) as" Gen. et sp. indet. Long-nosed Chimaera" in a check-
list of New Zealand fishes. Subsequently I wai et al. (1970, p. 4) recorded, by
name only, 10 specimens of Harriotta raleighana from 380-750m in the Chatham
Rise area, and also Rhinochimaera sp., another long-nosed chimaera which like
H. raleigh ana was unknown from the Australasian region.
Two further Holocephali have long been known from New Zealand, the Elephant
Fish, Callorhinchus milii Bory de St. Vincent (Family Callorhinchidae), and the
Ghost Shark or Chimaera, Hydrolagus novaezelandiae (Fowler) (Family
Chimaeridae) . The new records add, therefore, not only two further genera and
species but also another family, Rhinochimaeridae, to the New Zealand fauna.
Members of the family Rhinochimaeridae are widely distributed but com-
paratively rare deep-water chimaeras similar to the family Chimaeridae but differing
in their long pointed snouts, and in the case of males, simple rod-like claspers. A
recent and full account of the characters of the family and of the three included
genera, H arriotta, N eoharriotta and Rhinochimaera, was given in Bigelow and
Schroeder (1953, p. 548). Supplementary observations are in Bigelow and Schroeder
(1954, p. 71) and Bullis and Carpenter (1966, p. 443).
Although the above features leave no doubt about the generic status of the New
Zealand specimen described here, it should be noted that generic identification of
newly hatched or very small specimens of Harriotta and Rhinochimaera is by no
means clear-cut (Bigelow and Schroeder, 1954, p. 71). This is because on the one
hand the tritors of H arriotta are either absent or virtually so in newly hatched
specimens, while on the other hand dermal denticles are similarly absent from the
upper caudal fin margin of juvenile Rinochimaera. The significance of this to the
present study becomes apparent when comparing accounts of some Pacific and
Atlantic specimens ascribed to H arriotta.
100"""
B
Downloaded by [158.140.172.21] at 16:35 17 October 2017
FIG. l.-Harriotta raleighana, male, 895mm total length (OM A7G-l), from off Timaru,
New Zealand. A, B, lateral and ventral views; C, D, dorsal and lateral views of head;
E, ventral view of anterior part of snout; F, right upper dental plates comprising small
vomerine plate and larger palatine plate; G, right lower (mandibular) dental plate.
cross-section, its posterior face shallowly grooved; leading edge of spine keeled, and with some
irregularly shaped asperities along the keel towards the base though distally the keel is
smooth; posteriorly the two lateral edges of the spine bear regular and sharp serrations whose
points project downwards. First dorsal fin triangular, its apex acutely pointed, its distal margin
deeply concave; anterior two-thirds of fin supported by ceratotrichia, posterior one-third a
membranous web connecting to second dorsal fin; shape of second dorsal and caudal fins
as in Fig. lA; caudal filament elongate and tapered, its length measured from posterior end of
upper caudal lobe almost equal to distance from snout tip to posterior of eye. Pectoral fins
large, twice as long as broad; when adpressed to sides of trunk so that their anterior margins
are horizontal their tips fail to reach pelvic origins by a distance equal to about three-quarters
of an eye-length (Fig. lA shows them reaching a little too far back); pelvic fins almost twice
as long as broad, their tips reaching about halfway between origin of pel vies and lower lobe
of caudal.
Pelvic claspers rod-like, slender, slightly tapered, their tips turned obliquely upwards and
armed with small sharp prickles; openings of prepelvic pouches strongly oblique; prepelvic
tenacula flat, plate-like, concave ventrally, longer than wide, their posterior margins extended
as a flap-like membrane, their medial margins armed with five strong hooks which increase
in size from posterior to anterior; frontal tenaculum club-shaped, its anterior end curved down-
wards to fit into a pocket on the head, its base above anterior margin of eye, the undersurface
of its club-shaped head armed with numerous backwardly directed prickles.
Colour after preservation in alcohol is mid-brown above, paler below and almost white on
underside of head and snout; dorsal spine, pectoral and pelvic axils, claspers, prepelvic tenacula
and underside of frontal tenaculum white.
The foregoing description including the illustrations (Fig. 1) of the New Zealand
specimen of H arriotta conforms closely with published accounts of the two Pacific
and one Atlantic nominal species of Harriotta. I can find no significant differences
in morphology-possibly excluding here a few proportional dimensions discussed
below-which would provide justification for either regarding the New Zealand
species as distinct or for believing that more than one species is represented by the
three nominal species. One apparent difference between Pacific and Atlantic
GARRICK-A Long-nosed Chimaera from New Zealand 207
specimens does at first sight lie in a secondary sexual feature of the males. Bigelow
and Schroeder (1953, p. 554; 1954, p. 84) describe mature males from the Atlantic
(raleighana) as having snout tips sharply upturned and armed with low, hard,
rounded knobs which as illustrated (1953, fig. 125) are shown to be of considerable
size and rather irregularly spaced. The New Zealand specimen, and also Tanaka's
holotype of chaetirhamphus, are males only slightly shorter than that illustrated in
Bigelow and Schroeder, and judging by the claspers and tenacula are mature or
nearly so, yet their snout tips are straight or only very slightly curved upwards; low,
dermal, warty knobs are present on the snout tips but are more numerous, smaller
and more regularly arranged (Fig. 1E). However, according to Mrs Myvanwy M.
Dick (pers. comm.) who examined on my behalf Atlantic specimens studied by
Bigelow and Schroeder at the Museum of Comparative Zoology, one of the six
mature males of raleighana there has knobs like the New Zealand specimen, while
in the other five the size of the knobs increases with the size of the specimen. The
size and nature of the knobs does not, therefore, appear to have systematic value,
but the question still remains open as to whether the snout tips become sharply
Downloaded by [158.140.172.21] at 16:35 17 October 2017
TABLE l.-11arriotta spp., including the New Zealand Specimen OMA 70-1, J, and Repre-
sentatives of the Three Nominal Species.
Proportional dimensions in percent of body length (measured from gill-opening to origin of
upper caudal fin).
*1 *2
USN~1 87552 OM A 70-1 HCZ 37026
<f (?)
<f
California Japan ,\lew Zealanc. NW Atlantic
Snout tip to
nostrils 52.2 43.2
Downloaded by [158.140.172.21] at 16:35 17 October 2017
G~ll-opening to :
1st dorsal origin 5.5 6.1 9.5 9.4
2nd dorsal origin 37.3 31. 6 36.7 36.6
pelvic origin 48.3 45.4 53.7 51.4
lower caudal
origin 88.8 90.3 89.3 86.5
Nost:rils :
distance between 2.3 3.1
2nd Ciorsal :
length base 48.3 58.2 55.8 57.6
vertical height 7.2 5.8 5.7 5.0
Pectoral : length
anterior margin 63.8 41. 6 42.4 65.4
Pelvic : length
anterior margin 28.6 22.9 20.9 21. 8
Caudal :
lengtt, upper lobe 59.3 48.5 43.6
vertical height
uflper lobe 2.2 3.2 3.5
length lower lobe 63.8 61. 9 51. 6
vertical neight
lower lobe 8.0 6.5
Trunk at pectoral
origin : height 30.7 25.4 18.9 24.8
Distance origin to
origin: pectoral &
pelvis 46.2 41. 6 51.0 47.6
46.5
50.2 46.4 44.8 45.6 46.8 42.2
48.3 46.7 46.9 45.4 43.1
Downloaded by [158.140.172.21] at 16:35 17 October 2017
5.0
" aberrant" juveniles but instead are like those of adult H. raleigh ana or adult
R. atlantica.
Although comparison of the above features of the juvenile R. atlantica with the
illustrations of the "aberrant" H. raleigh ana does not yield an immediate and
unequivocal answer as to the identity of the latter, there are several other features
which merit comparison and consideration. Firstly, with regard to the shape of
the anterior portion of the lateral line canal (which originates at the junction of the
occipital and orbital canals), Bigelow and Schroeder (1954, p. 80) note that in
Rhinochimaera this "runs nearly straight rearward from its point of departure ...
or slopes slightly downward" whereas in H arriotta it "bows upward at first, then
turns downward". In Goode and Bean's illustration of their" aberrant" syntype,
the lateral line is bowed downwards, hence like that of a Rhinochimaera. That this
is not an artists' error was confirmed for me by Mr Stewart Springer who examined
the syntype (now in very poor condition) at the United States National Museum.
A second feature relates to the spine-like dermal denticles which in juveniles
Downloaded by [158.140.172.21] at 16:35 17 October 2017
of all three rhinochimaerid genera are visible in a row along each side of the
mid-dorsal line between the first and second dorsal fins, and second dorsal and
upper caudal fins. Bullis and Carpenter (1966, p. 449) have shown that in
Neoharriotta the number of denticles in these rows differs in the two species N. carri
and N. pinnata. No precise figures have so far been published on the numbers of
such denticles in H arriotta and Rhinochimaera, but from specimens lent to me by
Mrs Myvanwy M. Dick, and from other counts made by her, the following counts
can be tabulated (Table 2). Included in the table are counts for Goode and
Bean's" aberrant" syntype, made from their illustration, and counts likewise made
from the illustration of the juvenile holotype of H. curtissjamesi. According to
Koefoed (1927, p. 29) the" aberrant" specimen which he illustrated had no dermal
denticles.
TABLE 2.-Number of Dermal Denticies Along Each Side of Dorsal Midline
Total
Length D,-D 2 D.-Upp. Caud.
(mm) interspace interspace
Left-Right Left-Right
Specimens of: H arriotta raleighana
USNM 87552
(holotype of H. curtissjamesi) 153 at least 2 at least 4
MCZ 37026 160 3-3 4-4
MCZ 37614 251 4-4 4-6
MCZ 37589 285 4-3 5-4
MCZ 37647 295 3-3 5-5
MCZ 37647 330 3-3 5-5
Aberrant syntype of H. raleighana
USNM 35520 104- 5 or 6-at least 5 5 or 6-at least 6
Rhinochimaera atlantica
MCZ 38256 155 + 8-7 8-7
Data in the table are too few to provide a firm distinction between H arriotta
and Rhinochimaera but they do favour the possibility that Goode and Bean's
" aberrant" syntype is a Rhinochimaera.
In respect to eye-size, Bigelow and Schroeder (1954, p. 79) noted that the" eyes
of Rhinochimaera are noticeably smaller than those of H arriotta at all stages of
growth . . ." and as evidence of this presented data on the ratio of eye length to
distance from eye to base of dorsal spine. These data show no overlap between
the two genera, but to some extent are misleading since only adult Rhinochimaera
are represented whereas the sample of Harriotta included a range from juveniles to
adults. The ratio for the newly hatched R. atlantica lent to me by Mrs M. M. Dick
212 JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL SoCIETY OF NEW ZEALAND
is 2.00, hence well within the total range given for H arriotta but outside that for
Rhinochimaera. Table 3 gives data on eye-length relative to body length for
juveniles of both genera, including the two "aberrant" specimens, and further
favours the possibility that the " aberrant" specimens are Rhinochimaera.
1. As shown in Goode and Bean's illustration the left eye has a diameter of only 5.1 percent
of body length. However, according to Mr S. Springer who examined the syntype for me,
the small size of the left eye is an artifact because the eye is partly obscured by membranous
or gelatinous material. The right eye which is not so obscured has a diameter of 10.4
percent of body length.
2. Koefoed (1927, p. 30) remarked on the small eye of his juvenile and commented that
" contrary to what is generally the case, the eye ... comparatively smallest in the youngest
specimens". That such is not the fact in H. raleighana is shown by the data in Bigelow and
Schroeder (1954, p. 79) for their size-range of specimens.
In summary of the above features, it can be said that the" aberrant" juveniles
of H. raleigh ana illustrated in Goode and Bean and in Koefoed agree more with
Rhinochimaera than with Harriotta. However, opposing this identification is the
fact that both have been described as having incipient tritors on their dental plates,
which if correct would place them in H arriotta. Thus no firm decision is possible
except to suggest that until more information is available on juveniles of both
genera, these particular specimens should not be used as material to exemplify the
features of H. raleighana. It may be noted in passing that Goode and Bean's
illustration was used in a semipopular account by Idyll (1964).
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
REFERENCES
FOWLER, H. W. 1941. Contributions to the biology of the Philippine Archipelago and adjacent
regions. The fishes of the groups Elasmobranchii, Holocephali, Isospondyli and
Ostariophysi obtained by the United States Bureau of Fisheries steamer" Albatross"
in 1907 to 1910, chiefly in the Philippine Islands and adjacent seas. Bulletin U.S.
National Museum 100, vol. 13, x + 879 pp., 30 text-figs.
GARMAN, S. 1904. The chimaeroids (Chismopnea Raf., 1815; Holocephala Mull., 1834),
especially Rhinochimaera and its allies. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative
Zoology, Harvard 41 (2): 245-72, pis. 1-15.
GOODE, G. B. and BEAN, T. H. 1895. Scientific results of explorations by the U.S. Fish Com-
mission Steamer" Albatross". No. XXX. On Harriotta, a new type of chimaeroid
fish from the deeper waters of the northwestern Atlantic. Proceedings of the U.S.
National Museum 17: 471-73, pl. 19.
1896. Ocean ichthyology: a treatise on the deep-sea and pelagic fishes of the
world . . . U.S. National Museum Special Bulletin 2: xxxv + 529 pp., 123 pis.
IDYLL, C. P. 1964. Fishes of the Deep-Sea Floor. Sea Frontiers 10 (3): 172-79, figs.
IWAI, T., NAKAMURA, I., INADA, T., IKEDA, I., SATO, T. and HATANAKA, H. 1970. A study
of the classification of fishes in the new overseas fishing grounds. A taxonomic study
of the bottom fishes in the Chatham Rise area of New Zealand. Special Report,
Downloaded by [158.140.172.21] at 16:35 17 October 2017
Agricultural Dept., Kyoto University and Far Seas Fisheries Research Laboratory
pp. 1-29, pis. 1-4.
KOEFOED, E. 1927. Fishes from the sea-bottom. Report of Scientific Results" Michael Sars"
North Atlantic Deep-Sea Exped. 1910. 4 (1): 1-148,6 pis., 55 text-figs.
KREFFT, G. 1963. German observations of rare fish in 1964. Annales Biologiques 20; 175-78.
POLL, M. 1951. Poissons I.-Generalites II-Selaciens et Chimeres Exped oceanogra. BeIge
eaux cotieres Afric. Atlant. Sud. Result. Sci. 4 (1): 1-154, pl. 1-13, text-figs 1-67.
RODRIGUEZ-RoDA, J. 1961. Captura de un Harriotta raleighana Goode y Bean, 1894 en aguas
de Cabo Blanco (Africa Occidental) Investigacion Pesquera (Barcelona) 20:: 79-82,
2 figs.
ROULE, L. and ANGEL, F. 1933. Poissons provenant des camp agnes du Prince Albert IH de
Monaco Resultats des campagnes scientifiques accomplies par Ie Prince Albert I",
Monaco. fasc. 86, pp. 1-78, 4 pIs.
TANAKA, S. 1909. Descriptions of one new genus and ten new species of Japanese fishes.
Journal of the College of Science, Imperial University Tokyo 27(8): 1-27, 1 pl.
TOWNSEND, C. H. and NICHOLS, J. T. 1925. Deep sea fishes of the "Albatross" Lower
California expedition. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 52:
1-20, pIs. 1-4, 4 text-figs.
WHITLEY, G. P. 1968. A check-list of the fishes recorded from the New Zealand region.
Australian Zoologist 15(1): 1-102, :2 text-figs.
PROF. J. A. F. GARRICK
Zoology Department
Victoria University of Wellington
P.O. Box 196
Wellington, New Zealand