California. Dept. of Fish and Game.

California fish and game (Volume 49, no. 3) online

. (page 1 of 10)
Online LibraryCalifornia. Dept. of Fish and GameCalifornia fish and game (Volume 49, no. 3) → online text (page 1 of 10)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook



California Fish and Game is a journal devoted to the con-
servation of wildlife. Its contents may be reproduced elsewhere
provided credit is given the authors and the California Depart-
ment of Fish and Game.

The free mailing list is limited by budgetary considerations to
persons who can make professional use of the material and to
libraries, scientific institutions, and conservation agencies. Indi-
viduals must state their afRliation and position when submitting
their applications. Subscriptions must be renewed annually by
returning the postcard enclosed with each October issue. Sub-
scribers are asked to report changes in address without delay.

Please direct correspondence to:

State Fisheries Laboratory
51 1 Tuna Street
Terminal Island, California

Individuals and organizations who do not qualify for the free
mailing list may subscribe at a rate of $2 per year or obtain
individual issues for $0.75 per copy by placing their orders with
the Printing Division, Documents Section, Sacramento 14, Cali-
fornia. Money orders or checks should be made out to Printing
Division, Documents Section.




JULY 1963


Published Quarterly by






HUGO FISHER, Administrafor


JAMIE H. SMITH, President, Los Angeles


Redding San Diego


Stockton Sacramento



722 Copitol Avenue
Sacramento 14

Editorial Staff

JOHN E. FITCH, Editor-in-Chief Terminal Island

JAMES H. RYAN, Editor for Inland Fisheries Sacramento

ALBERT E. NAYLOR, Editor for Game Sacramento

JOHN L. BAXTER, Editor for Morine Resources Terminal Island

DONALD H. FRY, JR., Editor for Salmon and Steelhead Sacramento



A Dorafopsis larva of the squid family Chiroteuthidae in Califor-
iiiaii waters S. IStiUmun Borii 128

The sea turtle fishery of Baja Califoruia, Mexico -Dr/r/V/ K. Cdhlnu II 140

Trawling in the Monterey Bay area, with special reference to catch
composition Richard F. G. Ilcinunin ir)'2

Distribution of California angling effort in 19(U

Norman J. Ahi-anis-oji 174

California inland angling surveys for 1959 and 1 !)()()

Charles M. Sccley, Robert C. Tharratt, and Richard L. Johnson 183

Effect of ocean temperature on the seaward movements of stri])ed
bass, Roccus saxatilis, on the Pacific coast John Radovich V.)l


Grain preference of captive w^aterfowd

L. Z. McFartand, JIarr]i (reorge, and Harold McKinnic 207

A fantail sole. Xystreurys tiolepis, in Monterey Bav

V. B. Phillips 20!)

More giant squids from California Allyn G. Snillh 200

A second large catch of Pacific round herring

Joh7i G. Carlisle, Jr. 212

New northern records for ocean whitefish, Cattlolatiliis princeps
(Jenyns) Tom Jow 212

Greenland halibut, Reinhardtius hippoglossoides (AYalhaum),
added to Californian fauna E. A. Best 21"]

A second pinto lobster from California John JJ. Fitch 214

A record-size daggertooth taken off northern California Tom Jow 215

Reviews 217



Redlands, California


Animals of planktonie habit, whether during their larval or adult
stages, are notorious for their very weak speciation and their wide
geographical dissemination. The student with training and experience
principally with littoral or terrestrial, and particularh'- nesiotic faunas
meets with frustration almost amounting to disbelief when brought
face to face with a group where, for example, a form collected in
Californian offshore waters cannot be separated taxonomically from
one found in the North Atlantic, or perhaps in the China Sea. Thus
all living violet-snails (Jaiifhina), of which at least three occur at
times in Californian waters, were recently claimed by one writer to
fall into not more than five valid species. Such an estimate may seem
a bit over-conservative but it does serve to illustrate my point. Among
cephalopod mollusks, the present record will bring to at least four the
number of species belonging in this weakly-localized or oceanic cate-
gory, which have undergone so little differentiation we cannot divide
them even into clear-cut geographic races. These are :

Atlantic and
Californian Japanese equivalent

1. Aryonaiita piicifii-a Arc/otutuia orgo Argonaiita (irgo

2. Galifeuthis phi/Uura GaliieiiihiH ainiatci Galiieuthin aniiata

3. Ocyihoe tuherculaia Ocyfhoe inhen-iihtld Ocythoe fiiberculata

4. Ohiroteiifhis cf. rcrdiu/i __ Chirofeiithis rernni/i

In two instances the Californian forms have separate specific names.
Argonauta pacifica, the actual position of which is still to be estab-
lished, was named by Dall in 1871. It is not really rare, but so great
has been the demand from curio dealers and shell collectors that com-
plete specimens are apt to be ]iosted at exorbitant prices. Whatever
else their fate, not a single complete adidt example has been studied
and reported upon by a ciualified student of the group. We are still
without either an amplification of Ball's inconclusive description or a
critical comparison with any related forms from other regions. Origin-
ally Galitcuihis pliyllura was named (Berry, 1911: 592; 1912: 315)
because our knowledge of the old-world species was imperfect and it
did not seem quite safe to unite forms so widely sundered geographic-
ally (the Japanese representative was not known in 1912) without
sound supporting data. Since then, European students, with additional

1 Submitted for publication November 1962.



Atlantic and Mediterranean material have been practically unani-
mous ill their inability to discover valid differentiating features among
the aniiata-Wke forms. Possibly the capture and study of much more
material will eonfirm or refute their absolute conspecificity, but there
remains snuill doubt that anj- differentiation between the forms of the
two oceans iiiiist be slight at best.

Ocijthue iubcrculaia l\afines(iue is a spectacular pelagic animal which
is rather infre(|uently cneountered yet is widespread in the warmer
seas. As the only recognized species of its genus and group it stands
(piitc alone, its nearest affinity being with pa])er nautili (Argonauta) .
Berry (1955) gives an account of the west American occurrence of
OcytJwe for those interested.

The fourth species, hitherto unrecorded from (nir area, is the princi-
pal subject of this paper. A snudl, very elongate, transparent squid,
taken in ]~)laiil\ton sonunvhei-i" oft" southern California by collectors from
Scripps Institution for Biological Kesearch in 1916, was the first known
Pacific capture of the strange larval ' ' genus ' ' Doratopsis, or any mem-
ber of the family Chiroicuihidae from the west coast of North America.
It was of such interest and import that a note Avould have been pub-
lished long ago except that some of the staff then at the Institution
thought they had obtained and preserved a similar form in some num-
bers previously. In view of this, they thought it best to defer publica-
tion on the chance this supposed additional material might come to
light. Unhappily it never has. Thus, in spite of serious deterioration
of the original specimen, observations originally made upon it seem
valuable enough to exhume, revise, and place on record. I hope this
publication will alert collectors in a position to take them to detect
further examples and thus accomplish Avhat the long and ill-advised
wait has failed to do.


I am indebted to the authorities of the former Scripps Institution
for Biological Research (now Scripps Institution of Oceanography,
University of California) and especially to its then director, the late
William B. Bitter, for the gift of the unique specimen studied. Herbert
J. Powell, now of San Marino, California, drew the sketches which add
so greatly to this report. Carl Ij. Ilubbs kindly read the first draft of
the manuscript and made some valuable suggestions.


One of the most bizarre and strangely-formed of oceanic squids, the
species first was made known by Ferussac in 1885. It is characterized
by a short, conical mantle running to a point between large, cordate
fins. The head is large and subpyriform. Prom it spring the usual eight
slender arms (the ventral pair relatively very large and bearing a
string of conspicuous photophores) and a pair of exaggeratedly slender,
long-stalked tentacles with lanceolately expanded, many-suckered
clubs. This extraordinary creature was beautifully figured by its author
and named Loligopsis Veranii, but some years later Ferussac 's col-


league, Orbigny, (1845:377) signalized its unique position by estab-
lishing for it the genns Chiroteuthis.^

In 1844 a small, transparent, elongate sqnidlet of altogether different
appearance was obtained at Messina by Riippell and described as
Lolkjopsis vermicolaris. More fnlly described and figured by Verany
in 1851, it was made the type of a new genus, Doratopsis, by Roche-
brune in 1884. Specimens from the Bay of Naples were described in
greater detail by Jatta in 1896. Examples of varying age led Ficalbi
(1899) to advance the idea that Doratopsis vermicnlaris is not a mature
squid but a larval stage of Chiroteuthis veranyi, although he was unable
to demonstrate the actual transformation. In 1900 Ficalbi 's hypothesis
found a powerful opponent in the great German teuthologist, Pfeffer,
only to be reasserted (1902) by its propositor, who found an able sup-
porter in another German savant, Chun (1910:297-298). In rebuttal,
each answered seriatim the points made by Pfeffer. Pfeffer asserted his
position even more vigorously in 1912. More recently, fresh Mediter-
ranean material led the Italian zoologist, Issel (1920; 1927), to follow
Ficalbi and Chun. His additional evidence greatly strengthens their
case, and though the specimens so far captured may not completely
bridge the gap between the oldest known "Doratopsis" and the young-
est unquestionable Chiroteuthis, all present workers seem to agree upon
five points respecting their relationship :

1) No true "Doratopsis" found has been sexuaUy mature, the in-
ternal organs sharing the juvenile aspect of most of the external

2) Doratopsis and Chiroteuthis are enough alike in fundamental
morphology to be safely placed in the same family.

3) Relative to the remaining arms, both ventral ones attain a similar
enormous development.

4) Several described "species" of Doratopsis, notably D. vermicu-
laris and the curious little Leptoteuthis or Doratopsis diaphana (Ver-
rill), often show a series of conspicuous photogenic organs on the oral
a.spect of the ventral arms in a position corresponding to those in

5) There are paired intrapallial photophores in both forms in the
region of the ink-sac.

The evidence outlined, if not absolutely conclusive, is well integrated
and surely very strong as far as it goes.

AVhether all nominal species presently referred to "Doratopsis" are
strictly congeneric and juvenile representatives of corresponding species
of Chiroteuthis s. s. is quite another question and perhaps open to
some pardonable doubt. In any event, Doratopsis is taxonomically a
full genus or it is nothing, and the removal of its type-species into the
absolute synonymy of Chiroteuthis veranyi must necessarily leave these

'The date of first publication of tlie genus ChiroteutMs is usually given as 1839, a
year during which part of the plates of the "Histoire" were Issued including the
one carrying this name. This is upon the authority of d'Orbigny himself (1845:
375, 377), but it has never been shown beyond peradventure of doubt that this
issuance actually constituted valid publication within the meaning of the Interna-
tional Code. According to the data given by Winckworth (1942:34-36) the "Mol-
lusques vivants et fossiles" (1845) contains the earliest publication of the genus
which we can claim with certainty.


remaining' species ^\■itlloul any claim to I lie name. Nor can we revive
for them the cognate name HyaloteufJiis Pfeffer, for that was based
upon the same generitype as Doratopsis and must share the same fate.
Furthermore, both IInalotcKthis Pfeffer and Lfj)fnfeiitJiif< Verrill are
still-born homonyms (lloyle, 188():4;J). At present no other generic
name seems available for them. In view of the uncertainty which con-
tinues to enshroud the later stages of their life-history, it would be
clearly unwise to clutter the literature with yet another generic name,
especially since the definition of the larval "genus", Planctotcuthis
Pfeffer, possibly could be amplified sufficiently to harbor them as a
temporary expedient. I quite agree with Kobson that systematists
poorly serve science Avhen they encumber it by applying new generic or
specific names to known larval stages or doubtful juveniles.

Chirofeuthis veranyi (Ferussac 1835) Orbigny 1845


1S3.J. LoViyopsis Yi'vanii Ferus.sac, — Mag. do Zdol., (CI. 5) : pi. (kI.

184.J. Chirotetithis Veranyi Orbigny, — Moll. viv. et foss. : 877 ; pi. 24.

1S4S. LoJiiiopsis Yeriniii Orhigny, — Ceph. acet. ; Calinaret ( Jjolu/opsis ) pi. 2.

1S4S. Cliirofeiifhis Tcrdin/i Orl)igny, — id.: 325; LoUgopsh pi. 4, figs. 17-23

1851. Loligopsis Veranyi \6va\\y, — Coph. medit. : 120 ; pis. 38-39.

1888. Chiroteuthis Veranyi Weiss, — Quart, Jour. i\Iicr. Sci., 29 :77 ; pi. 8, figs. 4-8

1899. Chiroteuthis Veranyi Ficalhi,— Mouit. Zool. Ital., 10(4) : 93-118, pi. 1, figs.
4, 7, 10, 13-15.

1900. Chiroteuthis i-craiii/i I'feffer, — Syn. ocg. ("cph. :185.

1902. Chiroteuthis Veranyi Ficalhi,— Mouit. Zool. Ital., 13(2) : 37-39.
1908. Chiroteuthis reranyi Watkiusou, — Jena, Zeitschr. Naturw.. 44: .".04. 375, 377,
391, 393, text figs. 19, 20, 211, 35 (olfactory orgau).

1910. Chirotetithis Veranyi Chun,— Oegops. Valdivia Exp. : 240, 281 ; pi. 40, fig. 1 ;
42, fig. 5; 44, figs. 1,2,4, 5.

1912. Chiroteuthis Veranyi Veranyi Pfeffer, — Monogr. Oegops.: 543, 544, 547, 552,
.V.<>, 558. 559, 563, 569, 584, 588, 590, 591, 593, 59 //-606, 607, 608, 789, 794 ;
pis. 44-45.


"Doratopsis vermicularis" (Rijppeli 1844)

1844. LoJifiopsis Vermicolaris Riippell, — Gioru, C!ab. ^Messina, Auu. 3, T. 5 (F.
27-28) : 133 [5] (fes/e Ficalhi) .

1S51. Ijoliyopsis vermicularis Verany, — Ceph. uiedit. : 12."!, ])1. 40, figs, a, h.

1884. Doratopsis i-erniicularis Rochehrune, — P>ull. Soc. Philomath. Paris, ser. 7, 8 :
18, 19 [12, 13].

1884. Doratopsis Riippelli Knchcl)rune,— id.. 19 |i:'>|.

1884. Leptoteuthis rermicolaris Verrill, — Trans. Conn. xVc. Sc, 6(1) :143.

1884. Hyaloteuthis rermicularis I'feffer,-— Ahh. Nat. Yer. Hamburg, S (1) : 22, 28,

pi. 3, fig. 30.
1886. Doratopsis vermiiiihiris llnvle, — Ceph. Challenger Exp.; 43, footnote, 179,

189(i. Doratopsis rerinirularis .Tatta, — Ceph. viv. Colfo Xaiioli : 108, i)l. 7, fig. 22;

pi. 14, figs. 1-9.
1899. Doratopsis verinicuhiris Ficalhi. — ]\I()uit. Zool. Ital., 10 (3) : 80, 83 (after

Riippell ) .
1899. Chiroteuthis Veranyi, juv. Ficalhi,— id. (4) : 93-118, pi. 1, figs. 1-3, 5, 6, 8,



1900. Doiaiopsis vermiriiUuin Pt'effer, — Syn. oes- Ceph. : 184. 186.

1902. Chiroteiithis TeraHiji. jiiv., Ficalhi, — Moiiit. Zool. Ital., 13 (2) : 37.

1910. Doidioijsi.^ rennii-iihiri.s Chun, — Oej;ops. Valdivia Exp.: 28;"). 288, 29:>. pi. 47.
figs. 3-4.

1912. Chiroteiithis ( Doratopsis ) i-er»iici(l(iris Pfeft'er. — Moiiojir. Oegops. : 543, .■')47,
5.f,S-550, 551, 554, 555-569, 581, 789 ; pi. 46, fig.s. 1-5, 8-12.

1920. Chiroteiithis Yerani/i. inv.. Issel,— R. Com. Talass. Ital., Mem. 73: 9. pi.,
figs. 8-12.

1920. Chiroteiithis Venniyi. juv., Issel, — id., Mem. 76: 11, pi., fig. 9 (cephalic pig-
mentation) .

1925. Chiroteiithis (Doratopsis) verani/i, juv.. Degner, — Ceph. Dan. Oceanogr. Exp.,
2 ( Biol. ) . C. 1 : 48, 89.

1927. Chiroteiithis veriinyi (Doratopsis vermiciilaris) I-ssel, — Ann. Idrogr., 11 (2) :3,
5, 6, 8-9, 11, 13-15, 17; pi. 1. figs. 1-3. 5; pi. 2. figs. 8, 10.

1931. Toroteitthis reriniciilaris Tomlin, — Proc. Malac. Soc. London. 19 (4) : 175.


The mantle i.s membranous, elongate spindle-shaped (widest about
one-fifth of its length from the anterior margin ) and less than one-sixth
as wide as long. There is a gentle constriction just behind the anterior
margin, while more posteriorly there is a rapid tapering to the anterior
attachment of the fins, between which the mantle suffers such extreme
attenuation as to constitute little more than a bare covering for the
very long and slender gladius.

The fins are about two-fifths as long as the mantle and almost
perfectly circular with a conspicuous crescentic emargination in front
(Figures 1, 2) projecting the fin on either side into a prominent angular
lobe. The fleshy part of the fins shows a similar but s^raller and nar-
rower emargination posteriorly. Here the resulting embayment is partly
or entirely filled in by a thin transparent membrane. At its edges the
anterior emargination show^s some traces of the possible former presence
of a similar membrane. The gladius is produced posteriorly past the
fins for some distance as a narrow rod-like structure, but has evidently
been partly broken away in this example, so it is impossible to assert
the presence of a supplementary fin. However, the persisting stump
shows ragged traces of a narrow membrane along its sides.

The head (Figure 3), including the neck, is small, narrow, and ex-
traordinarily lengthened. It is divisible into three distinct sections: a
long, membranous, transparent, quite evenly tubular nuchal i)ortion.
somewhat narrower than the anterior part of the mantle, and showing
traces of a rather regular recurrent transverse constriction or pucker-
ing ; a narrower, short, opaque, true cephalic region, the anterior half
mainly composed of the small, lustrous, laterally directed eyes ; and a
gently tapering, anterior, snout-like extension (rather squarish in
transverse section), semitransparent, and showing outward traces of
a .somewhat alveolar internal structure.

The so-called olfactory organs, arising on either side of the ventral
surface of the head just back of the lower part of the eyeball, are
cylindrical, with elongate stalks terminating in opaque club-shaped
organs and show a tendency to bend back and in toward the cephalic



The arms (Figures 1, 2) are varyingiy developed, but have the
order 4, ."J, 2, 1 in relative lengtl). The dorsal pair are inimite and

FIGURE 1. Cbiroteuihis cf. veranyi (Ferussac): the "Dorafopsis" stage in dorsal view; x 1 Vi
[571]. Although the drawings give in general an excellent idea of the appearance of the
animal, the artist intended certain minor corrective changes which he never had an opportunity
to carry out. For example, the fins should probably be a little wider and rounder, and the
suckers on the tentacle club (Figure 5) should appear somewhat more crowded.

FIGURE 2. Cbiroieuthis cf. veranyi (Ferussac): the "Dorofopsis" stage in ventral view;

X 1'/2 [571].





FIGURE 3. Chirofeuthis cf. veranyi (Ferussac): cephalic and buccal region of "Dorofopsis"

stage, ventral aspect; x 6 [571].

FIGURE 4. Chirofeufhis cf. veronyi (Ferussac): oral aspect of right ventral arm of "Doratopsis"

stage; x 7 [571].

FIGURE 5. Chirofeuthis cf. verony; (Ferussac): oral aspect of sucker-bearing portion of right
tentacle of "Dora/opsis" stage and its club; x 15 [571].

FIGURE 6. Chiroteuthis cf. veranyi (Ferussac): hooded tip of right tentacle-club of "Dora-
topsis" stage, oral aspect; x ca. 50 [571].

slender, less than one-tenth as long as the body. The second arm-pair
is somewhat better developed, being half again as long as the dorsal
arms. The strongly keeled third pair is half again as long as the second.
The suckers of the dorsal and all lateral arms are fairly large and
closely ranked in two series. In most respects the ventral arms are
conspicuously different from am' of the others (Figure 4). They are
much more transparent and very long, fully three-fiftlis as long as the
mantle, thus even slightly exceeding the tentacles. While the actual


oral (sucker-bearing) face of the ventral arms is very narrow, their
aiiparent widtli is incroasod by the mnch wider aboral diameter, plus
a conspicuous, broad, Avcb-like keel on the outer margin of each arm.
Tiiis keel is as wide as the arm proper at its widest, and several times
as wide as the oral face at tiie same level. The helmet-shaped suckers
of the ventral arms are biseria], but are exceedingly minute and widely
si)aced. They are, however, appreciably closer together near the base
and again distally than on the central portion, Avitli about 18 pairs
present to tlie point of closer ranking and smaller size, or possibly 25
to 27 ]i<iirs ill all.

The tentacles (Figure 5) are cylindrical, fleshy, and opaque, a little
less than three-fifths as long as the mantle, but not quite as long as
the ventral arms. Tlic oral surface of the sucker-bearing portion is about
two-fiftlis of the total and is flattened and armed with a multitude of
minute, rather closely-placed suckers, arranged in four definite rows,
and numbering perhaps 55 quartets in all (the exact number difficult
to tally). The suckers are smallest distally, although there is little
change in size until the last 15 or 16 quartets are reached and the
tentacle-club becomes slightly expanded, its marginal webs better de-
veloped, and the suckers larger. This is particularly true of the ventro-
marginal series. Avhere the suckers gradually increase to a maximum
of ]i(M"haps 1^ times the diameter of those in the other series, then di-
minish again to the tip of the club. The suckers of the two dorsal series
are very nearly of a size, both within a given quartet and through the
series as a whole until the extreme tip of the club is attained. The
suckers of the ventro-marginal series increase a little more rapidly
than those just described until they attain a slightly greater diameter
than their more dorsal opposites, then diminish again toward the tip.
Finally the suckers become exceedingly minute, the last half-dozen
scarcely more than biserial. At the apex, a transparent hood-like mem-
brane (Figure 6) rises over the face of the club and shelters the two
or three terminal suckers as within the heel of a slipper.

No trace of photogenic organs was detected in this specimen.

Measurements Percenfage

of (lorsdl

mm Bodij-lengih

Total length 104 242

Length of body, dorsal mantle margin to posterior edge of fin 43 100

Length of body, ventral mantle margin to posterior edge of fin 41 95

Tip of fins to base of dorsal arms 64 149

Length of tail 9.2+ 21-f

Length of fins 17 40

Width of fin at widest point (ventral) 8.5 20

Width across fins at widest point 18 42

Width of body 7.5 17

Depth of body 6 14

Width of neck 5 12

Width of head eyes 4 9

Length of neck (dor.sal) 13.5 31

Length of head mediodorsally (dark portion) 2.5

Length of anterior prolongation of head 5.5 13

Length of funnel, median 4 9

Length of right dorsal ai'm 4 9

Length of left dorsal arm 4 9

Length of right second arm IJ


of dorsal
mm Body-length

Length of left second arm 6 14

Length of right third arm 9 21

Length of left third arm 9 21

Length of right ventral arm 26 60

Length of left ventral arm 26 60

Length of right tentacle 25 58

Length of right tentacle-clnb 3 7

Length of sncker-bearing area of right tentacle 10 23

Length of left tentacle 25 58

Length of left tentacle-clnb 3 7

Length of sucker-bearing area of left tentacle 10 23

Material Examined: The single immature specimen [SSB 571] de-
scribed was given to me about 1917 or 1918 by AVilliam E. Ritter who

1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Online LibraryCalifornia. Dept. of Fish and GameCalifornia fish and game (Volume 49, no. 3) → online text (page 1 of 10)