A whatsit for Greg

[Dusty2]

Saw this little guy last night at Redondo. Size 2" Depth 85 FSW

[Chevayea]

Cool, is he a very young english sole or is it something else?

[nwscubamom]

Well, I realize I'm not Greg, and my flatfish book has gone walkabout after yesterday's class (!) but I'm thinking it could be an Arrowtooth Flounder. Here's why:

- Right eyed flounder
- Long thin body
- Long caudal peduncle (the part before the tail fin)
- Back edge of tail is pretty straight

It's hard to see all the details in the photo, do you have any other views or shots of it - especially the mouth?
(my other guess is a Slender Sole, but it appears to have a rounded tail)

BTW, I came across some really gross photos of an Arrowtooth Flounder with eye parasites....
http://www.afsc.noaa.gov/race/media/pho ... fparas.jpg

- Janna :-)

[Dusty2]

EEwww that is gross! Of course it's OK for you to answer Even if you aren't Greg.

I only took two shots of the little guy cause my computer was telling me I was close to deco. They are pretty much the same angle

Here is the full size enhanced as much as possible.

[Scott G]

not knowing much about the ID without them in hand, it looks more like a slender than an arrowtooth to me.

both those have not much of a bump on their lateral line and are not wide bodied as in the photo... but it seems shallow for an arrowtooth.

you didn't count upper gill rakers did you? flash back to the kamchatca flounder ID.

i'm not sure what other right eyes are choices at that depth? Sand sole?

nice find.

Scott

[Greg Jensen]

Hmm. Baby flatfish are tough, as their eyes are disproportionately larger at that age and often haven't fully migrated to their final position. The shape of the tail would seem to rule out slender sole. And English aren't that skinny when they're little- they're proportionately wider than the adults. I've never seen an arrowtooth this small so I'm just guessing, but that seems to be the best fit.
Whatever it is, it sure has a lot of parasites on it.

[Biodiversity_Guy]

Goooo Janna!

[rjarnold]

The flatfish expert in my lab says L. exilis because the tail is truncate - 'definitely not Atheresthes'.

[Greg Jensen]

But exilis (at least as an adult) has a rounded tail, not truncate. I've never seen an exilis this small- is he/she saying that small ones have a truncate tail?

[rjarnold]

But exilis (at least as an adult) has a rounded tail, not truncate. I've never seen an exilis this small- is he/she saying that small ones have a truncate tail?

Sorry, I misinterpreted what she said. L. exilis does not have a truncate tail, but all the other characters fit very well. The only other one that she thought it could be was Glyptocephalus, but it doesn't appear to have a long pectoral fin. There are several characters that don't fit for an arrowtooth, including the size of the mouth and position of the eyes. It could also possibly be some sort of hybrid, but her bet is on L. exilis.

[Greg Jensen]

Due to the color and shape, exilis was my first thought until I looked at the tail. Rex have an even more rounded tail and the scales and color are wrong.
I'll see if the UW fish collection has any this size- I'd like to know if the truncate tail is an anomaly or if that's normal for a little one.

[rjarnold]

Due to the color and shape, exilis was my first thought until I looked at the tail. Rex have an even more rounded tail and the scales and color are wrong.
I'll see if the UW fish collection has any this size- I'd like to know if the truncate tail is an anomaly or if that's normal for a little one.

She says we have a bunch that size but they're not ID'd past Pleuronectidae.

[nwscubamom]

For what it's worth - my flatfish book says it's now Eopsetta exilis - not Lyopsetta exilis.

(Northeast Pacific Flatfishes, Alaska Sea Grant)

- Janna

[rjarnold]

Due to the color and shape, exilis was my first thought until I looked at the tail. Rex have an even more rounded tail and the scales and color are wrong.
I'll see if the UW fish collection has any this size- I'd like to know if the truncate tail is an anomaly or if that's normal for a little one.

She'll be around today if you want to stop by!

[rjarnold]

For what it's worth - my flatfish book says it's now Eopsetta exilis - not Lyopsetta exilis.

(Northeast Pacific Flatfishes, Alaska Sea Grant)

- Janna

Yeah, they were elevated in 1998, but the taxonomic history for this group is incredibly messy. Things have been thrown in and out of genera over the years, it's pretty crazy. However, the DNA coming out of this lab also says they're 'special', so they probably do deserve their own genus.

[Dusty2]

Uh, me just padowan learner. I got lost when you started speaking in tongues!

[Scott G]

Was this ever settled?

I looked at this photo with friend who has as much fish ID skills as anyone i know and a couple of books and we came up with English sole... what precluded that earlier?

the tail and lack of prominent ridge between eyes are enough for me to think it can't be a slender.

Scott

[Biodiversity_Guy]

Yep, this is a fun thread. Had me getting my reference books up to track down the latin names so I could follow the conversation.

I think it is pretty exciting that we are still figuring out the field marks for good underwater /live photo ID. If this had been a bird about 1,000+ folks would be able to give a definitive answer (...that is a glaucous gull in 3rd year plumage...). Instead, here we are as a community discussing and developing a database of experience and images for future reference.

[rjarnold]

I don't remember why the flatfish expert said it wasn't an English sole, and I don't think I'll bother her again since I'll get another earful about how there are no descriptions of flatfishes at this stage :P Feel free to come in and talk to her yourself though! She said that it fits the slender in all other ways, including key characters, and that we don't know when the juveniles get all of their adult characteristics. And flatfishes seem to hybridize more than most species.