You are on page 1of 12

Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand

ISSN: 0303-6758 (Print) 1175-8899 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tnzr20

Harriotta raleighana, a long-nosed chimaera


(Family Rhinochimaeridae), in New Zealand waters

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

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03036758.1971.10423312

Published online: 16 Jan 2012.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 153

View related articles

Citing articles: 5 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at


http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tnzr20

Download by: [158.140.172.21] Date: 17 October 2017, At: 16:35


Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand, 1971, Vol. 1, No. 3/4, pp. 203-213, 1 fig.

Harriotta a Long-nosed Chimaera (Family


raleighana,
Rhinochimaeridae), in New Zealand Waters

J. A. F. GARRICK

Zoology Department, Victoria University of Wellington

[Received by the Editor, 8 April 1971]

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).

GENERIC FEATURES OF H arriotta


Features which in combination separate H arriotta from N eoharriotta and
Rhinochimaera are tabulated below:
Harriotta N eoharriotta Rhinochimaera
anal fin absent present absent
tritors (knobs and
ridges) on dental
plates present present absent
dermal denticles
on upper margin
of caudal fin absent absent present on adult
males and some
females
204 JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF NEW ZEALAND

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.

NOMINAL SPECIES OF Harriotta


Three nominal species which can be referred to H arriotta have been described.
These are: H. raleighana Goode and Bean, 1895, from the North Atlantic;
Downloaded by [158.140.172.21] at 16:35 17 October 2017

Anteliochimaera chaetirhamphus Tanaka, 1909, from Japan; and H. curtissjamesi


Townsend and Nichols, 1925, from Lower California.
H arriotta raleighana was first described from four specimens from the western
North Atlantic. For reasons given below the smallest of these syntypes (USNM
35520) appears aberrant and should be excluded from comparison with other
specimens of H. raleighana. Later accounts of Atlantic H. raleighana record another
41 specimens (for summary of these see Bigelow and Schroeder, 1954, p. 81, plus
Krefft, 1963, p. 176) including three from the eastern North Atlantic (Koefoed,
1927, p. 29). Depths of capture range from 622-2603 metres (340-1423 fathoms).
A West African record by Rodriguez-Roda (1961, p. 79) should be disregarded
since his specimen had an anal fin and hence is attributable to N eoharriotta. Despite
this large number of specimens, detailed descriptions including proportional
measurements are few, and have been provided only by Goode and Bean (1895,
p. 471; repeated in 1896, p. 32), Garman (1904, p. 263), Koefoed (1927, p. 29),
Roule and Angel (1933, p. 75) and Bigelow and Schroeder (1953, p. 551).
The two nominal species from the Pacific are known only from the holotype in
each case, and there has been no subsequent redescription of either. The Japanese
species, Anteliochimaera chaetirhamphus, was taken in about 732 metres (400
fathoms). The Californian H. curtissjamesi was captured in 1180 metres (645
fathoms) .
Views on the relationship of the two Pacific species to the earlier described
Atlantic H. raleighana have not been unanimous but have nevertheless tended
towards the recognition of only one species in both oceans. Tanaka (1909, p. 7),
when describing- chaetirhamphus as a new species in a new genus Anteliochimaera,
compared it only with the genus Rhinochimaera. Bean and Weed (1910, p. 662)
recognised Anteliochimaera as a synonym of H arriotta but regarded chaetirhamphus
as a distinct species differing from raleighana in having a longer snout and fewer
tritors on the dental plates. Koefoed (1927, p. 29) similarly treated chaetirhamphus
as distinct because of its long-er snout, although he did note that the number of tritors
was variable. Fowler (1941, p. 505) assigned chaetirhamphus to raleighana, but
did not comment on this action. Tmvnsend and Nichols (1925, p. 6) compared
their new species, curtissjamesi, only with raleighana. They noted that their small
holotype resembled the three larger syntypes of raleigh ana, but differed markedly in
eye-size from the smallest syntype-which latter specimen I treat here (p. 210) as
Flhprr.,~,. Bigelow and Schroeder (1953, p. 551) in their revision of :\t!antic
chimaeroids noted the strong similarities between chaetirhamphus, curtissjamesi and
raleighana but through insufficient information could not come to any firm con-
clusion as to the status of these nominal species.
GARRICK-A Long-nosed Chimaera from New Zealand 205

DESCRIPTION OF NEW ZEALAND SPECIMEN OF Harriotta


Proportional dimensions are shown in Table 1 together with those of nine other
specimens representing the three nominal species of H arriotta. Dimensions are
expressed as percentages of body length, i.e., length from gill-opening to origin of
upper caudal fin. The reason for selecting body length as a base-rather than the
more commonly used length from snout tip to upper caudal origin-is to accentuate
allometric differences, particularly those of the head and the body. Such allometry
has been described for species of N eoharriotta by Poll (1951, p. 147) and Bullis and
Carpenter (1966, p. 447), and Koefoed (1927, p. 31) tabulated analogous data for
If arriotta.
OM A 70-1, male, 895mm total length, trawled from 366-549 metres (200-300 fathoms),
80 miles east of Timaru, by the "Moray Rose".
Trunk slender, compressed, only slightly deeper at pectoral origin than at pelvic origin,
unifonnly tapered behind pelvics and terminating in a long slender caudal filament; snout
markedly attenuate, depressed, its tip filamentous. Skin smooth except for some small hard
wart-like structures near tip of snout, and prickles and hooks associated with frontal and
Downloaded by [158.140.172.21] at 16:35 17 October 2017

prepelvic tenacula and claspers.


Lateral line canal, and associated mucous canals on head, in the fonn of narrow slits,
their edges slightly upraised from surface of body. Pattern of head canals (Fig. 1) slightly
different on the two sides of head; aural canal paired on left side but single on right; suborbital
canal with a short break under middle of eye on left side but complete on right side; and
angular (maxillary) canal also broken on left side at origin of angular loop but complete on
right. Main lateral line canal originates at junction of occipital and orbital canals; from its
origin it extends slightly upwards and backwards towards first dorsal fin spine then bends
down again at a shallow angle before straightening out and running more or less parallel to
dorsal profile of trunk; except for slight waviness it is essentially straight along most of trunk
but it bends down abruptly at anterior third of upper lobe of caudal fin and continues
posteriorly along lower margin of caudal axis.
Ventral surface of snout with numerous minute pores; most appear randomly arranged
but there is a transverse series just behind the angular loop; larger pores are present in
irregular series or in clumps, particularly on the ventral and lateral surfaces of the snout, but
there is also a prominent group lateral to the base of the frontal tenaculum, and another
prominent group of 6-8 pores further posterior, in the loop formed by the junction of the
occipital and orbital canals (these pores are not shown in Fig. 1).
Snout depressed, much wider than high, and with thin flange-like lateral margins along the
proximal three-quarters of its length; distally the snout becomes amost round in cross-section
and tapers to a sharp tip; mucous canals of head extend almost but not quite to tip of snout,
and their termination is marked by a noticeable decrease in diameter of the snout at that
level (Fig. IE); anterior to that levei the snout tip (one-tenth of snout length) is a ~mooth fila-
ment with no obvious surface features; posterior to that level and along about one quarter of the
snout length there are four rows of small, rounded or pointed wart-like structures, gristly or firm
to the touch; two of the rows are on the ventral surface, and there is one row on each lateral
surface. Eye very large, ovoid, longer than high, its posterior margin less than half an eye-length
anterior to level of gill-opening. Exposed nostrils rectangular-ovoid, placed near to mouth and
close together, the distance between their inner margins about one quarter of an eye-length;
distance between posterior margin of nostril and edge of upper lip about equal to length of
exposed nacal aperture. Mouth small, transverse, placed just forward of anterior margin of
eyes. Gill opening on each side slit-like, rather short, its length just less than distance across
throat between inner ends of both gill-openings.
Dental plates shaped as in Fig. IF, G. Each vomerine plate beak-like, with a sharp
anterior cutting edge formed by a row of 10-11 hard, white knobs set in a grey matrix; in
anterior view the knobs can be seen to be the free ends of beaded longitudinal ridges. Each
palatine plate with a longitudinal groove along its medial margin and an ovoid swollen area
centrally; the swollen area is white in colour, and has numerous pits on its surface; other
parts of the palatine plate are grey except for six longitudinal rows of white knobs; three of
these rows, each with three knobs, are anterior and medial to the swollen area; another row,
with four knobs, is anterior and lateral to the swollen area; and the fifth and sixth rows, each
with three knobs, are lateral to the swoller. area. Each mandibular plate similar to the
palatine plate but broader and with a wider medial groove plus a lateral groove; central
swollen area as in palatine plate; immediately anterior to swollen area is a longitudinal row
of three white knobs; lateral to swollen area are two other rows, one with six knobs, the other
with three knobs, and there is also a single knob further lateral again; free anterior edge of
mandibular plate bordered by a row of about seven single knobs.
First dorsal spine erectile, its origin above middle of pectoral base, its tip reaching
slightly beyond apex of dorsal fin; distal two-thirds of spine free from fin; spine triangular in
206 JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL SoCIETY OF NEW ZEALAND

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.

STATUS OF NEW ZEALAND SPECIMEN AND NOMINAL SPECIES OF Harriotta

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

upturned in Pacific males.


Proportional dimensions of the New Zealand male together with those of the
holotypes of the two Pacific nominal species and seven specimens of Atlantic
raleighana are shown in Table 1. Pacific specimens are tabulated separately from
Atlantic, and in each group the specimens are arranged according to size, i.e.,
length. Inspection of Table 1 reveals considerable variation in proportions but the
data are too few to allow any meaningful interpretation of this variation. Some
variation can probably be ascribed to allometric growth, and in this respect if the
three Pacific specimens are considered together they provide a consistent pattern of
relative increase with growth in, for example, the length of snout tip to eye, snout tip
to gill-opening and snout tip to pectoral origin. Such a pattern agrees with the
findings of Poll (1951, p. 147) for the related N eoharriotta pin nata. However, the
seven Atlantic raleighana do not show the same clear trends in these proportions as
do the Pacific ones. Conversely, the Atlantic specimens show a relative decrease
in eye-diameter and in distance from gill-opening to pelvic origin, whereas the
Pacific specimens show no obvious pattern in these features. Only in a few
proportions, such as decreasing lengths of pectoral and pelvic fins, do the Pacific
and Atlantic specimens agree in trends not only with each other but also with what
has been reported for Neoharriotta pinnata by Poll and for N. carri by Bullis and
Carpenter (1966, p. 447).
I do not believe that the above discrepancies between the Pacific and Atlantic
specimens are necessarily indicative of populational differences. They may well
reflect intraspecific variation in one widespread species for which we so far have
insufficient data. The several sources of the available data also allow the possibility
of some apparent variation being due to differing methods of measuring specimens.
The proposals by Bean and Wood (1910, p. 662) and by Koefoed (1927, p. 29)
that the Japanese chaetirhamphus differs from Atlantic raleigh ana in having a longer
snout are borne out by the data in Table 1, and supported further by the New
Zealand specimen which agrees with the holotype of chaetirhamphus in its length of
snout. However, if this is a valid specific difference it follows that two species must
be recognised in the Pacific material since the Californian curtissjamesi has a much
shorter snout than either the Japanese or New Zealand specimens or any of the
Atlantic specimens (see Table 1). I do not think that such action is justified at
this stage of our knowledge and in view of (i) the otherwise close correspondence
of the proportions of the three Pacific specimens, and (ii) the marked variation in
the proportions of Atlantic raleighana. If one were to use as a criterion of specific
distinction the trenchant differences found by Bullis and Carpenter (1966, p. 448)
between N eoharriotta carri and N. pin nata, then it could safely be said that
208 JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF NEW ZEALAND

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

Total length (rom) 153 800 895 160


Length snout tip to
upper caudal origin
(rom) 105 530 545 105
Body length (rom) 64 315 325 64

Snout tip to
nostrils 52.2 43.2
Downloaded by [158.140.172.21] at 16:35 17 October 2017

eye 39.6 52.2 54.1 44.4


mouth 47.1 53.3 42.1
gill-opening 63.7 65.2 67.8 63.9
pectoral origin 67.0 68.9 70.5 67.7

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

i~outh : width 5.4 7.0

Gill-opening: length 5.5 5.5


;:;ye :
horizontal diameter 12.1 7.3 11.1 11.6
1st dorsal :
length base 22.0 18.3 22.2 22.8
length s~ine 30.7 27.4 29.3

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

*1. Holotype of llarriotta curtissjamesi. Measurements taken from illustration in Townsend


and Nichols (1925, fig. 2).
*2. Holotype J of Anteliochimaera chaetirhamphus. Measurements from Tanaka (1909, p. 10)
supplemented by some from his illustration (oL 1)
GARRICK-A Long-nosed Chimaera from New Zealand 209
TABLE (cont. )
*3 *4 *3 *4 *5
MCZ 37614 i'iCZ 37023 I1CZ 37022
~ ~ d" ~ if ~
NW Atlantic NE Atlantic NW Atlantic NE Atlantic NW Atlantic NW Atlantic

251 740 860 990

134 469 545 554 558 653


80 284 341 342 342 421

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

68.5 65.0 59.5 62.0 63.1 54.9


70.4 61. 9 65.6

10.7 5.3 7.8 7.6 5.1 7.8


32.0 32.7 32.5 28.2 30.7 28.9
49.5 44.5 37.7

92.3 93.1 90.6

3.8 2.9 2.9

8.0 7.0 6.5

5.0

11.9 9.2 9.1 10.0 8.3 6.4

19.5 23.3 16.9 21.4 18.1 18.2


28.8 31. 4 29.0 30.6 30.2 25.6

67.7 59.4 53.9 63.9 53.2 55.7


11. 3 6.6

60.8 48.8 41. 3 45.9 42.5 43.8

28.4 22.9 20.6 19.0

71.5 48.3 49.1


4.1
77 .3 67.8 62.3
6.8 7.6

25.2 26.7 21. 5 28.2 22.3

47.7 54.5 45.6 48.8 45.2

*3. Measurements from Koefoed (1927, p. 30).


*4. Measurements from Bigelow and Schroeder (1953, p. 552). These authors do not give
measurements from snout tip to gill-opening, hence to get proportions based on body
len'gth the gill-opening is regarded as being anterior to pectoral origin by a distance equal
to 1.5 percent of length from snout tip to upper caudal origin (this value of 1.5 percent
is an average for specimens of H. raleighana in other accounts).
*5. Measurements from Roule and Angel (1933, p. 77).
210 JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL SoCIETY OF NEW ZEALAND

equivalent differences have not yet been clearly demonstrated in material of


Harriotta.
On the basis of the above discussion, the New Zealand specimen and the three
nominal species of H arriotta are provisionally regarded as conspecific and identified
as Harriotta raleigh ana Goode and Bean, 1895.

COMMENTS ON Two" ABERRANT" SPECIMENS OF H. raleighana


Goode and Bean (1895, 1896) illustrated two of their four syntypes of H.
raleigh ana. Both specimens illustrated were males, the larger (USNM 35631) about
152mm body length, the smaller (USNM 35520) about 53mm. The illustration of
the larger specimen agrees well with subsequent accounts and illustrations of H.
raleighana. The illustration of the smaller specimen differs notably from the larger
one not only in overall appearance but also in proportions (very short snout; small
eye; short tail), in the relative positions of some of the fins (pelvic relative to
pectoral and second dorsal; lower caudal fin origin relative to upper caudal fin
Downloaded by [158.140.172.21] at 16:35 17 October 2017

origin) and in the shape of the first dorsal fin.


Some of these differences can, perhaps, be attributed to allometry, because the
small specimen is very youthful and at about the size at which hatching from the
egg-capsule could be expected to occur. Alternatively some of the differences might
simply reflect damage to the specimen when it was captured, as suggested by
Garman (1904, p. 266) who examined the specimen and noted "Apparently it
has lost the tip of the snout and the caudal filament. The lower fin of the tail is
rather indistinct anteriorly, but evidently it originates some distance further forward
than the upper. Probably the specimen was torn from the egg and mutilated in
the dredge." Acceptance of the specimen as merely a very young and damaged
H. raleigh ana would thus appear to be a reasonable action in the light of Garman's
further comment on its teeth which have an " apparent lack of tritors" but" close
examination discloses, even in this comparatively undeveloped stage, indications of
the molar-like tritors in these ridges ".
Despite the reasonableness of the above explanation, doubt arises as to its
validity from an account by Koefoed (1927) of three specimens of H. raleighana
from the eastern North Atlantic. Two of Koefoed's specimens were adults but one
was a juvenile male of 88mm body length. Koefoed's illustration of his juvenile
is remarkably similar to that of Goode and Bean's, sharing with it many of the
" aberrant" features noted above. Therefore, unless Koefoed, when preparing his
illustration, drew heavily on the features of the illustration in Goode and Bean, one
is forced either to the conclusion that Koefoed's specimen was similarly damaged in
capture (which seems unlikely) or to the view that these juveniles are not, in fact,
H. raleighana. Support is lent to the latter proposal by Townsend and Nichols'
(1925) illustration of their juvenile holotype of H. curtissjamesi which although only
64mm in body length (hence intermediate in size between Goode and Bean's and
Koefoed's specimens) shows none of these aberrant features but instead is a
miniature replica of adult H. raleighanan.
If the illustrated juveniles are not H. raleighana, then the only known rhino-
chimaerid with which they could be compared is Rhinochimaera atlantica which,
like H. raleigh ana, also lacks an anal fin. No illustrations of juvenile R. atlantica
have been published, but through the courtesy of Mrs Myvanwy M. Dick, Museum
of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, I have been able to examine a
newly hatched male (MCZ 38256) of 69mm body length. This specimen shows
many similarities to the "aberrant" juveniles. In particular, it is, like them,
relatively small-eyed, and has a comparably shaped first dorsal fin (which with growth
would expand basally to give the "normal" adult fin). The relative positions of
the upper and lower caudal fin origins, however, are not like those of the
GARRICK-A Long-nosed Chimaera from New Zealand 211

" 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.

TABLE 3.-Horizontal Diameter of Eye as a Percentage of Body Length

Total Body Eye


length length diameter
(mm) (mm) (%)
H arriotta raleighana
USNM 87552 (holotype of H. curtissjamesi) 153 64 12.1
MC,z 37026 160 64 11.6
MCZ 37614 251 80 11.9
Aberrant syntype of H. raleighana
USNM 35520 104 53 10.41
Downloaded by [158.140.172.21] at 16:35 17 October 2017

Aberrant H. raleigh ana in Koefoed (1927) 265 88 8.0'


Rhinochimaera atlantica
MCZ 38256 155 + 69 9.2

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

I am grateful of Dr R. R. Forster, Director of the Otago Museum, Dunedin, for permitting


me to report on the present specimen; to Mrs Myvanwy M. Dick, Museum of Comparative
Zoology, Harvard University, and Mr Stewart Springer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Smithsonian Institution, for lending and/or examining specimens; and to Dr J. Paxton,
Australian Museum, for assisting with literature.

REFERENCES

BEAN, B. A. and WEED, A. C. 1910. Notes on Anteliochimaera and related genera of


chimaeroid fishes. Proceedings of the U.S. National Museum 10: 661-63, pIs. 38-39.
BIGELOW, H. B. and SCHROEDER, W. C. 1953. Fishes of the Western North Atlantic. Memoirs
Sears Foundation for Marine Research 1 (2): xv +
588 pp., 127 figs.
1954. Deep-water elasmobranchs and chimaeroids from the northwestern Atlantic
slope. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard 112(2): 37-87,
7 figs.
BULLIS, H. R. and CARPENTER, J. S. 1966. N eoharriotta carri-a new species of Rhino-
chimaeridae from the southern Caribbean Sea. Copeia 1966 (3): 443-50,5 text-figs.
GARRICK-A Long-nosed Chimaera from New Zealand 213

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

You might also like