“… Figure 2 Morphological landmarks points for ( A ) typical pure Clarias gariepinus /Clarias-like Clariothalmus ( B ) Panga-like Clariothalmus ( C ) typical Pangapinus/ Pangasianodon hypophthalmus . Landmark points are; Snout 1 , origin of dorsal fin 2 , posterior end of the dorsal fin 3 , dorsal attachment of the caudal fin to the tail 4 , ventral attachment of the caudal fin to the tail 5 , posterior end of the anal fin 6 , origin of the anal fin 7 , origin of the pelvic fin 8 , origin of the pectoral fin 9 and the posterior point of the eye 10 . …”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Hybrid identification is a problem linked to natural resources management because fertile hybrids could interbreed with pure species leading to genetic introgression. Despite the reliability of genetic approach, morphological characterization is still widely exploited due to its rapidity and the ease of field applicability 3 , 4 .…”
Twenty-five traditional and thirty-four geometric morphometric comparisons were carried out on pure and reciprocal crosses of Pangasianodon hypophthalmus (Sauvage, 1878) and Clarias gariepinus (Burchell, 1822). Thirty fish samples each of the C. gariepinus (CH), P. hypophthalmus (PH), Pangapinus (♀PH × ♂CG) and the two distinct morphotypes of the Clariothalmus (♀CG × ♂PH) (Clarias-like and Panga-like) between the ages of four and six months were used for this study. Phenotypically, the Clarias-like Clariothalmus and the Pangapinus progenies were indistinguishable from their maternal parents while the Panga-like Clariothalmus was a phenotypic intermediary of the putative parents but looks more closely to the paternal parent. Hence, both univariate proportion and multivariate analysis of the collected data successfully separated the different fishes into three multivariate spaces. The analysis of the dendrogram with complete linkage and Euclidean distance further showed the close relationship of the isolated Panga-like Clariothalmus progenies to the paternal parent, however, Clarias-like Clariothalmus and the Pangapinus were completely intermingled with their maternal parents. The most important index of discrimination of these fishes into different multivariate spaces was the fin characteristic which showed 100% exclusive ranges for the individual groups in many cases.
“… Figure 2 Morphological landmarks points for ( A ) typical pure Clarias gariepinus /Clarias-like Clariothalmus ( B ) Panga-like Clariothalmus ( C ) typical Pangapinus/ Pangasianodon hypophthalmus . Landmark points are; Snout 1 , origin of dorsal fin 2 , posterior end of the dorsal fin 3 , dorsal attachment of the caudal fin to the tail 4 , ventral attachment of the caudal fin to the tail 5 , posterior end of the anal fin 6 , origin of the anal fin 7 , origin of the pelvic fin 8 , origin of the pectoral fin 9 and the posterior point of the eye 10 . …”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Hybrid identification is a problem linked to natural resources management because fertile hybrids could interbreed with pure species leading to genetic introgression. Despite the reliability of genetic approach, morphological characterization is still widely exploited due to its rapidity and the ease of field applicability 3 , 4 .…”
Twenty-five traditional and thirty-four geometric morphometric comparisons were carried out on pure and reciprocal crosses of Pangasianodon hypophthalmus (Sauvage, 1878) and Clarias gariepinus (Burchell, 1822). Thirty fish samples each of the C. gariepinus (CH), P. hypophthalmus (PH), Pangapinus (♀PH × ♂CG) and the two distinct morphotypes of the Clariothalmus (♀CG × ♂PH) (Clarias-like and Panga-like) between the ages of four and six months were used for this study. Phenotypically, the Clarias-like Clariothalmus and the Pangapinus progenies were indistinguishable from their maternal parents while the Panga-like Clariothalmus was a phenotypic intermediary of the putative parents but looks more closely to the paternal parent. Hence, both univariate proportion and multivariate analysis of the collected data successfully separated the different fishes into three multivariate spaces. The analysis of the dendrogram with complete linkage and Euclidean distance further showed the close relationship of the isolated Panga-like Clariothalmus progenies to the paternal parent, however, Clarias-like Clariothalmus and the Pangapinus were completely intermingled with their maternal parents. The most important index of discrimination of these fishes into different multivariate spaces was the fin characteristic which showed 100% exclusive ranges for the individual groups in many cases.
“…Biometric analysis of meristic and morphometric characters has been adopted by many authors to identify and relate different fish races or populations (Mekkawy et al 2002, Turan 2004, Ali and McNoon 2010. This trend in biometric analysis reflects its validity in stock identification in different fisheries of the world.…”
Thirty-nine morphometric and five meristic comparisons were carried out on 12-month-old interspecific and intergeneric hybrids of the African clariid catfishes Heterobranchus longifilis, Clarias gariepinus and Clarias anguillaris from experimental earthen ponds in Nigeria. Canonical discriminant analysis accounted for 89.4% of the variations, with eigenvalues of 151.69 and 9.06, respectively, the highest loading in the two axes coming from only 12 variables. A re-analysis based on those 12 variables revealed four major groups among the nine genetic combinations from a plot of axes 1 and 2, which accounted for 95.2% of the variations. The Mahalanobis square distance (D 2 ) between the offspring of the various mating combinations also revealed the varying levels of relationship between them based on their morphometric and meristic characters. The interspecific hybrids showed some level of heterosis only in the inheritance of the length of the frontal fontanelles compared to that of the putative Clarias species. The study shows the level of similarities in many of the morphometric and merisitic features, especially among the hybrids, and the distinguishing features that can be used to identify the hybrids from their putative parents.
“…Morphometric indices of fishes were found to be of taxonomic importance in sex, race and species identification by many authors (e.g. Khan et al, 2002;Basmidi, 2004;Myers et al, 2004;Turan, 2004;Cadrin, 2005;Cheng et al, 2005;Ali and McNoon, 2010;Lawson, 2010;Simon et al, 2010;Elamin et al, 2011;Mekkawy and Mohammad, 2011;Mazlan et al, 2012;Deepti et al, 2013;Sajina et al, 2013;Jawad, 2015;Masood et al, 2015;Zubia et al, 2015 ;Sley et al, 2016;Mahmoud et al, 2016Mahmoud et al, & 2017.…”
In the present study, 120 fish samples (64 male and 56 female) of fivelined snapper, Lutjanus quinquelineatus of variable sizes were used for demonstration the morphometric and meristic characteristics of this species in the Egyptian Red Sea, Hurghada fishing area. The total length varied from 15.3 to 28.7 cm in males and from 16.0 to 31.7 cm in females while their weights ranged between 44 and 378 g in males and between 48 and 512 g in females. Statistical interpretation of morphometric data indicated that there is direct relationship between total body length with different morphometric indices. The meristic characters like dorsal fin rays, pectoral fin rays, caudal fin rays, lateral line scales and total number of gill rakers were counted. The results revealed that there is no sexual dimorphism in L. quinquelineatus from Hurghada fishing area. 1-Total length (TL) 2-Standard length (SL) 3-Body depth (BD) 4-Caudal peduncle depth (CPD) 5-Head length (HL) 6-Predorsal fin length (PRDFL) 7-Head depth (HD) 8-Preventral fin length (PRVFL) 9-Distance between ventral and dorsal fins origin (VDOL) 10-Distance between anal and dorsal fin ends (ADFEL) 11-Dorsal fin base length (DFBL) 12-Distance between the ventral fin origin and the end of anal fin (VOAEFL) 13-Distance between the first spine of the dorsal fin and the end of anal fin (SPDAEFL) 14-Distance between dorsal fin end and ventral fin origin (DEVOFL) 15-Distance between the ventral fin and the end fin origin (VEADFL) 16-Distance between dorsal fin end and dorsal caudal fin origin (DEDCF) 17-Distance between anal fin end and ventral caudal fin origin (AEVCFL) 18-Eye diameter (ED) Meristics: Certain meristic counts of 64 males and 56 females of L. quinquelineatus were considered. The following meristic counts were recorded: 1-Number of the dorsal fin spines (DFS) 2-Number of the dorsal fin soft rays (DFSR) 3-Number of the pectoral fin rays (PFSR) 4-Number of the anal fin rays (AFR)
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
