Advertisement

An electrophoretic analysis of the Etheostoma variatum complex (Percidae: Etheostomatini), with associated zoogeographic considerations

  • Paul E. McKeown
  • Charles H. Hocutt
  • Raymond P. MorganII
  • James H. Howard
Chapter
  • 50 Downloads
Part of the Developments in environmental biology of fishes book series (DEBF, volume 4)

Synopsis

The Etheostoma variatum complex is comprised of five species (E. euzonum, E. kanawhae, E. osburni, E. tetrazonum, E. variatum) distributed from the Allegheny River, New York, to the White River, Arkansas. Electrophoretic data provide evidence of a division of the complex into two geographic units: E. variatum, E. kanawhae, and E. osburni in the Appalachian region, and E. euzonum and E. tetrazonum in the Ozarks. Genic variation exists also between the Sac and Big river populations of E. tetrazonum. Genic variation and present faunal distributions suggest that an ancestral stock was widely distributed in Teays and Old Mississippi rivers but separated by a Pleistocene ice advance. Some populations survived in an Ozarkian refugium, while more eastern populations, such as the precursor to E. variatum, may have evolved in a southern refuge of the developing Ohio River. The Teays (New) River gorge, including Kanawha Falls, has prevented E. variatum from invading territory occupied by E. osburni and E. kanawhae.

Keywords

Faunal distribution Genic variation Pleistocene glaciation Relict populations 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References cited

  1. Avise, J.C. 1974. Systematic value of electrophoretic data. Syst. Zool. 23:1–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Briggs, J.C. 1983. Introduction to the zoogeography of North American freshwater fishes. In: C.H. Hocutt (ed.) Zoogeography of North American Freshwater Fishes, J. Wiley & Sons, New York (in press)Google Scholar
  3. Cashner, R.C. & R.D. Suttkus. 1977. Ambloplites constellatus, a new species of rock bass from the Ozark Upland of Arkansas and Missouri with a review of western rock bass populations. Amer. Midl. Nat. 98:147–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cross, F.B. 1970. Pleistocene and recent environments of the central Great Plains. In: W. Dort, Jr. & J.K. Jones, Jr. (ed.) Pleistocene and Recent Environments of the Great Plains, Department of Geology, University of Kansas, Special Publication 3Google Scholar
  5. Farris, J.S. 1972. Estimating phylogenetic trees from distance matrices. Amer. Nat. 106: 645–668CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fitch, W.M. & E. Margoliash. 1967. Construction of phylogenetic trees. Science 155: 279–284PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gilbert, C.R. 1980. Etheostoma variatum (Kirtland), the variegate darter, p. 706. In: D.S. Lee, C.R. Gilbert, C.H. Hocutt, R.E. Jenkins, D.E. McAllister & J.R. Stauffer, Jr. (ed.) Atlas of North American Freshwater Fishes, N.C. State Mus. Nat. Hist., RaleighGoogle Scholar
  8. Hocutt, C.H. 1979. Drainage evolution and fish dispersal in the central Appalachians. Geol. Soc. Amer. Bull. Part II, 90: 197–234Google Scholar
  9. Hocutt, C.H., R.F. Denoncourt & J.R. Stauffer, Jr. 1978. Fishes of the Greenbrier River, West Virginia, with drainage history of the central Appalachians. J. Biogeog. 5: 59–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hocutt, C.H., R.F. Denoncourt & J.R. Stauffer, Jr. 1979. Fishes of the Gauley River, West Virginia. Brimleyana 1: 47–80Google Scholar
  11. Hocutt, C.H., R.E. Jenkins & J.R. Stauffer, Jr. 1980a. Etheostoma osburni (Hubbs and Trautman), the finescaled saddled darter, p. 678. In: D.S. Lee, C.R. Gilbert, C.H. Hocutt, R.E. Jenkins, D.E. McAllister & J.R. Stauffer, Jr. (ed.) Atlas of North American Freshwater Fishes, N.C. State Mus. Nat. Hist., RaleighGoogle Scholar
  12. Hocutt, C.H., R.E. Jenkins & J.R. Stauffer, Jr. 1980b. Etheostoma kanawhae (Raney), the Kanawha darter, p. 659. In: D. S. Lee, C. R. Gilbert, C. H. Hocutt, R. E. Jenkins, D. E. McAllister, J. R. Stauffer, Jr. (ed.), Atlas of North American Freshwater Fishes, N.C. State Mus. Nat. Hist., RaleighGoogle Scholar
  13. Hubbs, C.L. & V.D. Black. 1940. Percid fishes related to Poecilichthys variatus, with descriptions of three new forms. Occ. Pap. Mus. Zool. Univ. Mich. 416:1–30Google Scholar
  14. Hubbs, C.L. & M.B. Trautman. 1932. Poecilichthys osburni, a new darter from the upper Kanawha River system in Virginia and West Virginia. Ohio J. Sci. 32: 31–38Google Scholar
  15. Jenkins, R.E., E.A. Lachner & F.J. Schwartz. 1972. Fishes of the central Appalachian drainages, their distribution and dispersal. pp. 43–117. In: P.C. Holt, R.A. Paterson & J.P. Hubbard (ed.) The Distributional History of the Biota of the Southern Appalachians, Part III: Vertebrates, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Resources Division Monograph 4Google Scholar
  16. Lachner, E.A. & R.E. Jenkins. 1971. Systematics, distribution and evolution of the chub genus Nocomis Girard (Pisces, Cyprinidae) of eastern United States, with descriptions of new species. Smith. Contrib. Zool. 85:1–97Google Scholar
  17. May, B. 1975. Electrophoretic variation in the genus Oncorhynchus: The methodology, genetic basis, and practical applications of research and management. M. Sc. Thesis. Washington State University, Pullman. 96 ppGoogle Scholar
  18. Miller, R.V. 1968. A systematic study of the greenside darter Etheostoma blennioides Rafinesque (Pisces: Percidae). Copeia 1968: 1–40Google Scholar
  19. Nei, M. 1972. Genetic distance between populations. Amer. Nat. 106: 283–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Nei, M. 1973. Analysis of gene diversity in subdivided populations. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S. 70: 3320–3323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Page, L.M. 1981. The genera and subgenera of darters (Percidae, Etheostomatini). Occ. Pap. Mus. Nat. Hist. Univ. Kansas 90:1–69Google Scholar
  22. Pflieger, W.L. 1971. A distributional study of Missouri fishes. Univ. Kans. Publ. Mus. Nat. Hist. 20: 225–570Google Scholar
  23. Prager, E.M. & A.C. Wilson. 1976. Congruency of phylogenies derived from different proteins. A molecular analysis of the phylogenetic position of cracid birds. J. Mol. Evol. 9: 45–57PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Raney, E.C. 1941. Poecilichthys kanawhae, a new darter from the upper New River system in North Carolina and Virginia. Occ. Pap. Mus. Zool. Univ. Mich. 434:1–16Google Scholar
  25. Ross, R.D. & B.D. Perkins. 1959. Drainage evolution and distribution of fishes of the New (Upper Kanawha) River system in Virginia, Part III, records of fishes of the New River. Virginia Agr. Exp. Sta. Tech. Bull. 145:1–34Google Scholar
  26. Selander, R.K., M.H. Smith, S.Y. Yang, W.E. Johnson & J.B. Gentry. 1971. Biochemical polymorphism and systematics in the genus Peromyscus sp. I. Variation in the old field mouse (Peromyscuspolionotus). Studies in Genetics IV. Univ. Tex. Publ. 7103: 49–90Google Scholar
  27. Sneath, P.H.A. & R.R. Sokal. 1973. Numerical Taxonomy. W.H. Freeman, San Francisco. 573 ppGoogle Scholar
  28. Stauffer, J.R., Jr., C.H. Hocutt & C.R. Gilbert. 1980. Etheostoma euzonum (Hubbs & Black), Arkansas saddled darter, p. 645. In: D.S. Lee, C.R. Gilbert, C.H. Hocutt, R.E. Jenkins, D.E. McAllister & J.R. Stauffer, Jr. (ed.) Atlas of North American Freshwater Fishes, N.C. State Mus. Nat. Hist., RaleighGoogle Scholar
  29. Swofford, D.L. 1981. On the utility of the distance Wagner procedure, pp. 25–43. In: V.A. Funk & D.R. Brooks (ed.) Advances in Cladistics: Proc. First Meeting Willi Hennig Soc., N. Y. Botanical Garden, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  30. Wright, S. 1978. Evolution and genetics of populations. Vol. 4. Variability within and among natural populations. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. 580 ppGoogle Scholar
  31. Wright, S. 1982. Character change, speciation, and the higher taxa. Evol. 36: 427–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Dr W. Junk Publishers, The Hague 1984

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paul E. McKeown
    • 1
  • Charles H. Hocutt
    • 2
  • Raymond P. MorganII
    • 1
  • James H. Howard
    • 3
  1. 1.Appalachian Environmental LaboratoryUniversity of Maryland, Center for Environmental and Estuarine StudiesFrostburgUSA
  2. 2.Horn Point Environmental LaboratoriesUniversity of Maryland, Center for Environmental and Estuarine StudiesCambridgeUSA
  3. 3.Biology DepartmentFrostburg State CollegeFrostburgUSA

Personalised recommendations