Mugil cephalus Linnaeus, 1758

Dataset
GBIF Backbone Taxonomy: Rank
SPECIES: Published in
Linnaeus, C. (1758). Systema Naturae per regna tria naturae, secundum classes, ordines, genera, species, cum characteribus, differentiis, synonymis, locis. Editio decima, reformata [10th revised edition], vol. 1: 824 pp. Laurentius Salvius: Holmiae.

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

Classification

kingdom
Animalia: phylum
Chordata: class
Actinopterygii: order
Mugiliformes: family
Mugilidae: genus
Mugil: species
Mugil cephalus

materials_examined

Mediterranean Sea: 18000 - 765 (3 spc.), 29.04.2005, Samandagi, cast net, C. Dalyan. Inland water: 18000 - 352 (3 spc.), 28.03.1972, Kuecuekcekmece Lagoon, Istanbul, N. Meric.

Mugil cephalus

Diagnostic characters of Mugil cephalus

The morphometric data obtained are shown in Table 1 . Adults have a thick layer of adipose tissue around the eye, covering most of pupil; hind edge of preorbital does not extend beyond the corner of the mouth. Preorbital extends almost to the end of the maxilla ( Figure 2 ). Both the second dorsal and anal fins have small scales on the basal parts. Anal fin has 3 spines and 8 soft rays in adults (the first spine is very short, and may be hidden under the overlapping scales). Juvenile fish, especially those ≤ 30 mm standard length, usually have 2 spines and 9 soft rays. Pectoral fin with 1 spine and 15 to 16 (rarely 17 ) soft rays; its length does not reach the origin of the first dorsal fin. The number of scales of the longitudinal series is generally 38–43 (mean 40 ) for the samples analyzed (reported range worldwide is 36 to 44 ), and from 12 to 15 in the transverse series ( Table 1 ). The number of gill rakers on the first gill arch is 53–89 , showing a positive relationship with standard length.

FIGURE 2.Mugil cephalus , Madre Lagoon , Tamaulipas, Mexico 376 mm total length.

Dorsally, specimens are gray-olive or grayish brown colored. Flanks are silver and the abdomen is whitish; 7 to 10 dark longitudinal stripes are visible along the sides. Dorsal and caudal fins are dark; pelvic and anal fins are pale. The pectoral fins have a dark spot at the origin ( Figure 2 ).

Interspecific comparison

The morphometric measures of M. cephalus and M. liza are shown in Table 1 . The mean values of all measurements are similar between the two species except the distance from the snout to the origin of the dorsal fin, which is much larger for M. liza . In this case, the beginning of the dorsal fin is located towards the distal zone while in M. cephalus the beginning of the dorsal fin has an anterior location. Also, the body width is greater in M. liza than in M. cephalus , which appears more robust. This fact has also been recognized by Harrison ( 2002 ) who mentions that the ratio of body depth to standard length in M. liza ranges from 17 to 23 % while values of 24 to 28 % are common in M. cephalus . Even if the majority of the mean values of the morphometric variables are similar, ranges are generally wider in M. cephalus . In M. liza , adipose tissue around eye is almost absent and the hind edge of the preorbital extends beyond the corner of the mouth. The preorbital ends before the end of maxilla ( Figure 3 ). The second dorsal and the anal fin of M. liza have no scales in the basal parts. Anal fin has 3 spines and 8 soft rays in adults; usually 2 spines and 9 soft rays in juveniles about 30 mm or less in standard length in both species.

Although the number of transverse, circumpeduncular, and longitudinal scales overlap between the two species, it is possible to distinguish M. cephalus captured in the Gulf of Mexico from M. liza (according to Menezes et al. , 2010 ) using scale counts. Figures 4 to 6 show that, in general, M. cephalus has a higher number of scales that M. liza ; M. cephalus has between 12 and 15 transverse scales with a mode set at 13 , while the number of these scales in M. liza ranges from 11 to 14 . The number of scales on the circumpeduncular series of the flathead mullet goes from 18 to 23 with a mode at 20 , while in the longitudinal series counts range from 38 to 43 , with a mode of 40 . In M. liza , scales in the circumpeduncular series range from 16 to 20 and in the longitudinal series from 32 to 39 . There is almost no overlap between the number of scales in the longitudinal series of both species; only specimens of M. liza with 39 scales could be confused with M. cephalus .

TABLE 1. Morphometrics of Mugil liza and Mugil cephalus . Length expressed in mm; measurements through head length are percentage of standard length; last seven entries are percentages of head length. Data for M. liza were taken from Menezes et al. (2010).

155
132
156
Snout to pectoral-fin origin	156
156
156
156
155
155
155
155
155
153
155
155
155
155

In the species identification keys of Thomson ( 1997 ) and Harrison ( 2003 ) the criterion to differentiate between M. cephalus and M. liza is the number of scales in the longitudinal series, being 34 or fewer for M. liza ( Thomson, 1997 ) and greater than 34 for M. cephalus (Harrison, 2003 ) . Misidentification of these two species may be due to the fact that among the mullets of the Western Atlantic, these are the largest and attain similar sizes: M. cephalus reaches 120 cm and M. liza reaches 100 cm .

The number of transverse, circumpeduncular, and longitudinal scales of M. cephalus from the Mediterranean coincide with specimens from the Gulf of Mexico ( Menezes et al. , 2010 ). The exception is the upper limit of the range of the number of longitudinal scales, which is greater in individuals caught in the Mediterranean, reaching 38 to 46 ( Figures 4 to 6).

The number of gill rakers is similar between these two mullets. Within the same length range, the number of gill rakers of M. cephalus varies from 50 to 90 while for M. liza counts fall between 53 and 81 . The relationship between the number of gill rakers and standard length was linear, which differs from Menezes et al. ( 2010 ) because in this study small specimens of sizes between 10 and 100 mm , which have fewer gill rakers ( Figure 7 ), were analyzed.

Harrison ( 2003 ) illustrates the presence of M. cephalus in the Gulf of Mexico , which is supported by data presented here; Álvarez-Lajonchere (personal communication) does not accept that its distribution range reaches the Caribbean Sea. The presence of M. liza in the Caribbean has been shown by Álvarez-Lajonchere ( 1978 a ; 1978 b ), and its presence is confirmed in the Gulf of Mexico with specimens catalogued as CNPE-IBUNAM 757 captured in the coastal waters of Veracruz, Mexico , as well as other evidence documented by Castro-Aguirre et al. ( 1999 ) .

FIGURE 3. a) Mugil cephalus showing preorbital extending beyond corner of mouth and size of the scales. b and c) M. liza preorbital position and bigger size of the scales.

FIGURE 4. Comparative plots of number of transverse scale rows among Mugil cephalus from the Gulf of Mexico, Mugil cephalus and Mugil liza according to Menezes et al. (2010).

The meristic and morphometric measures of M. liza from the Gulf of Mexico are contained within the ranges showed by Menezes et al. ( 2010 ) . No comparison of Mexican samples was included in figures and tables here since only seven specimens were reviewed in the Gulf of Mexico and this could bias the information.

FIGURE 5. Comparative plots of number of circumpeduncular scale rows among Mugil cephalus from the Gulf of Mexico, Mugil cephalus and Mugil liza according to Menezes et al. (2010).

FIGURE 6. Comparative plots of number of longitudinal scale rows among Mugil cephalus from the Gulf of Mexico, Mugil cephalus and Mugil liza according to Menezes et al. (2010).

Variation in the number of scales ofMugil cephalus in the Gulf of Mexico

Morphometric measurements were not significantly in different individuals from different sites along the coast of the Gulf of Mexico . However, the number of scales of the transverse and longitudinal series (p < 0.05 ) was significantly different among sites. Although the median number of scales in the longitudinal series is identical in six of the seven sites, there is a pattern that emerges considering specimens obtained from sites in Florida (FL), Alabama (AL), and Mississippi (MS) and those caught in Louisiana (LA), Texas (TX), and Veracruz (VE). Differences seem to be determined geographically by the coastal areas east and west of the Mississippi River. The number of scales in the longitudinal series of specimens caught in Yucatan (YU) is different from the others ( Figure 8 ).

The number of scales in the transverse series shows differences in individuals obtained east and west of the Mississippi River. The most frequent number of scales in the transverse series for individuals from locations in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida was 13 scales, found in 62.8 to 79.2 % of the specimens analyzed. In the southern areas, such as Texas, Tamaulipas, and Veracruz, 14 transverse scales were counted in 77.2 %, 91.1 %, and 69.5 % of analyzed specimens. In individuals from Yucatán, 13 transverse scales were counted more frequently ( Table 2 ).

TABLE 2. Percentage frequency of transverse scale number for Mugil cephalus from the Gulf of Mexico. Higher values in bold.

164	3.0
20.8	0.0
37.0	0.0
19.0	0.0
114	2.6
Tamaulipas, MEX	8.9
3.7
0.0

FIGURE 7. Regression of number of gill rakers vs . standard length for Mugil cephalus specimens from the Gulf of Mexico.

According to our data, a pattern of variation exists in individuals obtained east and west of the mouth of the Mississippi. Those from Yucatan have unique characteristics relative from specimens obtained in other Gulf sites particularly when considering the number of scales in the longitudinal series. A microsatellite study conducted by Colin ( 2014 ) suggests that there is a trend in the genetic differentiation that supports the hypothesis that, within the Gulf of Mexico , this species is structured with at least three subgroups: the Mississippi, the Caribbean, and the Gulf, possibly separated by the prevailing circulation pattern. Zavala-Hidalgo et al. ( 2003 ) noted that there is a seasonal current from Louisiana and Texas towards Tamaulipas and Veracruz, which is well established from September to March; a reverse direction is observed from May to August. Different counts in the scales both of the longitudinal and transverse series were found in individuals from these two areas.

In conclusion, morphometric and meristic results are evidence of the presence of M. cephalus in the Gulf of Mexico and clarify doubts on its distribution in the northwest Atlantic. The sympatric presence of M. liza is confirmed although its abundance seems to be low.

materials_examined

Status at New Ireland. New record, based on specimens observed by Jeff Kinch during CFMDP Survey at Kavieng fish market in 2004 – 2005.

Mugil cephalus Linnaeus 1758

*□ Mugil cephalus Linnaeus, 1758

– Flathead grey mullet; Tainha-olhalvo ①, Tainha ③

Wirtz et al. (2008) consider this a very doubtful record for Madeira.

native range

Albania

native range

Algeria

native range

Angola

native range

Australia

native range

Bangladesh

native range

Brazil

native range

Bulgaria

native range

Cameroon

native range

Cape Verde

native range

Chagos Archipelago

native range

Chile Central

native range

China

native range

Christmas I.

native range

Colombia

native range

Cook Is.

native range

Costa Rica

Name

Synonyms: Mugil albula Linnaeus, 1766; Mugil ashanteensis Bleeker, 1863; Mugil berlandieri Girard, 1858; Mugil camptosiensis Castelnau, 1861; Mugil catalarum Whitley, 1951; Mugil cephalas Linnaeus, 1758; Mugil cephalotus Valenciennes, 1836; Mugil cephalus ashanteensis Bleeker, 1863; Mugil cephalus cephalus; Mugil cephalus rammelsbergi Tschudi, 1846; Mugil cephalus var. cestreo Rafinesque, 1810; Mugil cephalus var. chelone Rafinesque, 1810; Mugil cephalus var. myxone Rafinesque, 1810; Mugil ciliilabis Valenciennes, 1836; Mugil constantiae Valenciennes, 1836; Mugil crenilabis our Forsskål, 1775; Mugil dobula Günther, 1861; Mugil gelatinosus Klunzinger, 1872; Mugil grandis Castelnau, 1879; Mugil hypselosoma Ogilby, 1897
Homonyms: Mugil cephalus Linnaeus, 1758
Common names: Aalder in Dutch; Aarder in Dutch; Aguas in language.; Aguas in Tagalog; Agwas in Tagalog; Agwas in language.; Agwas in language.; Ain in Bengali; Aitam in language.; Albur in Spanish; Albur in Spanish; Aligasin in Tagalog; Ama'ama in language.; Anace in Fijian; Anae in language.; Anae in Tahitian; Andapong in Malay; Anding in Malay; Antafa in language.; Antendro in Malagasy; Anubah in Arabic; Araaby in Arabic; Asfatiya in Arabic; Asubi in Tagalog; Auaree in language.; Avrita balığı in Turkish; Babaš in Croatian; Balanak in language.; Balanak in language.; Balanak in language.; Balanak in language.; Baldigare in Italian; Banak in language.; Banak in language.; Banak in language.; Banak in Tagalog; Bayanak in language.; Belanak in Indonesian; Belanak in Malay; Beyah in Arabic; Beyah in Arabic; Bhomat in Gujarati; Biah in Arabic; Biah in Arabic; Biah Srpehn in Persian; Biyah in Arabic; Black mullet in English; Black mullet in English; Black true mullet in English; Black true mullet in English

Bibliographic References

Banks, R. C., R. W. McDiarmid, A. L. Gardner, and W. C. Starnes, 2003: null. Checklist of Vertebrates of the United States, the U.S. Territories, and Canada.
Claro, Rodolfo, and Lynne R. Parenti / Claro, Rodolfo, Kenyon C. Lindeman, and L. R. Parenti, eds., 2001: Chapter 2: The Marine Ichthyofauna of Cuba. Ecology of the Marine Fishes of Cuba. 21-57.
Fowler 1943, 1951, Mann 1954, Ebeling 1957, 1961, De Buen 1959a, Bahamonde & Pequeño 1975, Pequeño 1989, Chirichigno & Vélez 1998, Habit et al. 2006, Sielfeld et al. 2002, Reyes & Hüne 2012.
Fricke, R., Eschmeyer, W. N. & Van der Laan, R. (eds). (2019). Catalog of Fishes: Genera, Species, References. Electronic version accessed dd mmm 2019.
Froese, R. & D. Pauly (Editors). (2019). FishBase. World Wide Web electronic publication. version (12/2019).
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Direction 57 Addition to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology (a) of the specific names of Forty-seven species belonging to the classes Cyclostomata, Pisces, Amphibia and Reptilia, each of which is the type species of a genus, the name of which was placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology in the period up to the end of 1936 and (B) of the specific name of one species of the class Amphibia which is currently treated as a senior Subjective synonym of the name of such a species.Opinions and declarations rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1D(D.18), 365-388 (1956)
King, C.M.; Roberts, C.D.; Bell, B.D.; Fordyce, R.E.; Nicoll, R.S.; Worthy, T.H.; Paulin, C.D.; Hitchmough, R.A.; Keyes, I.W.; Baker, A.N.; Stewart, A.L.; Hiller, N.; McDowall, R.M.; Holdaway, R.N.; McPhee, R.P.; Schwarzhans, W.W.; Tennyson, A.J.D.; Rust, S.; Macadie, I. (2009). Phylum Chordata: lancelets, fishes, amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals. in: Gordon, D.P. (Ed.) (2009). New Zealand inventory of biodiversity: 1. Kingdom Animalia: Radiata, Lophotrochozoa, Deuterostomia. pp. 431-554.
Linnaeus, C. (1758). Systema Naturae per regna tria naturae, secundum classes, ordines, genera, species, cum characteribus, differentiis, synonymis, locis. Editio decima, reformata [10th revised edition], vol. 1: 824 pp. Laurentius Salvius: Holmiae.
Liu, J.Y. [Ruiyu] (ed.). (2008). Checklist of marine biota of China seas. China Science Press. 1267 pp.
McEachran, J. D. (2009). Fishes (Vertebrata: Pisces) of the Gulf of Mexico, Pp. 1223–1316 in: Felder, D.L. and D.K. Camp (eds.), Gulf of Mexico–Origins, Waters, and Biota. Biodiversity. Texas A&M Press, College Station, Texas.
Murdy, Edward O., Ray S. Birdsong, and John A. Musick, 1997: null. Fishes of Chesapeake Bay. xi + 324.
Nelson, Joseph S., Edwin J. Crossman, H. Espinosa-Pérez, L. T. Findley, C. R. Gilbert, et al., eds., 2004: Common and scientific names of fishes from the United States, Canada, and Mexico, Sixth Edition. American Fisheries Society Special Publication, no. 29. ix + 386.
Robins, Richard C., Reeve M. Bailey, Carl E. Bond, James R. Brooker, Ernest A. Lachner, et al., 1980: A List of Common and Scientific Names of Fishes from the United States and Canada, Fourth Edition. American Fisheries Society Special Publication, no. 12. 174.
Robins, Richard C., Reeve M. Bailey, Carl E. Bond, James R. Brooker, Ernest A. Lachner, et al., 1991: Common and Scientific Names of Fishes from the United States and Canada, Fifth Edition. American Fisheries Society Special Publication, no. 20. 183.
Scott, W.B.; Scott, M.G. (1988). Atlantic fishes of Canada. Canadian Bulletin of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. No. 219. 731 pp.
Shiino, Sueo M., 1976: List of Common Names of Fishes of the World, Those Prevailing among English-speaking Nations. Science Report of Shima Marineland, no. 4. 262.
Thompson, Bruce A. / Collette, Bruce B., and Grace Klein-MacPhee, 2002: Mullets: Family Mugilidae. Bigelow and Schroeder's Fishes of the Gulf of Maine, Third Edition. 277-280.
Welshman, D.; Kohler, S; Black, J.; and L. Van Guelpen. (2003). An atlas of distributions of Canadian Atlantic fishes.
van der Land, J.; Costello, M.J.; Zavodnik, D.; Santos, R.S.; Porteiro, F.M.; Bailly, N.; Eschmeyer, W.N.; Froese, R. (2001). Pisces, in: Costello, M.J. et al. (Ed.) (2001). European register of marine species: a check-list of the marine species in Europe and a bibliography of guides to their identification. Collection Patrimoines Naturels, 50: pp. 357-374