Disclaimer:

The Nonindigenous Occurrences section of the NAS species profiles has a new structure. The section is now dynamically updated from the NAS database to ensure that it contains the most current and accurate information. Occurrences are summarized in Table 1, alphabetically by state, with years of earliest and most recent observations, and the tally and names of drainages where the species was observed. The table contains hyperlinks to collections tables of specimens based on the states, years, and drainages selected. References to specimens that were not obtained through sighting reports and personal communications are found through the hyperlink in the Table 1 caption or through the individual specimens linked in the collections tables.

---

Common name: Bonefish

Taxonomy: available through www.itis.gov

Identification: Miller and Lea (1972); Eschmeyer et al. (1983). Maximum size: 46 cm in eastern Pacific; 91 cm elsewhere in range (Eschmeyer et al. 1983). May actually be several different species (Nelson 1994). Maximum size: 46 cm in eastern Pacific; over 91 cm elsewhere (Eschmeyer et al. 1983).

Size: 46 cm in eastern Pacific; over 91 cm elsewhere (Eschmeyer et al. 1983).

Native Range: Marine; worldwide in tropical waters of the Atlantic and Pacific (Robins and Ray 1986). In the Pacific, San Francisco to Peru, uncommon north of Baja (Eschmeyer et al. 1983). In the western Atlantic, New Brunswick and Bermuda to southern Brazil; rare north of Florida and the Bahamas (Robins and Ray 1986).

Interactive maps: Point Distribution Maps

Means of Introduction: Intentionally stocked as a sport fish. This species was stocked twice; 29 fish were stocked in 1950, and 48 fish in 1951. Stock was obtained from San Felipe, Mexico (Walker 1961).

Status: The introduction failed to produce a viable population and the species is extirpated in the Salton Sea.

Impact of Introduction: The impacts of this species are currently unknown, as no studies have been done to determine how it has affected ecosystems in the invaded range. The absence of data does not equate to lack of effects. It does, however, mean that research is required to evaluate effects before conclusions can be made.

Remarks: None.

References: (click for full references)

Dill, W. A., and A. J. Cordone. 1997. History and status of introduced fishes in California, 1871--1996. Manuscript for Fish Bulletin of the California Department of Fish and Game 178.

Eschmeyer, W. N., E. S. Herald, and H. Hamann. 1983. A field guide to Pacific Coast fishes of North America. Peterson Field Guide Series. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, MA.

Miller, D. J., and R. N. Lea. 1972. Guide to the coastal marine fishes of California. Fish Bulletin of the California Department of Fish and Game 157:1--235.

Nelson, J. S. 1994. Fishes of the world, 3rd edition. John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY.

Robins, C. R., and G. C. Ray. 1986. A field guide to Atlantic Coast fishes of North America. The Peterson Guide Series, volume 32. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, MA.

Walker, B. W., R. R. Whitney, and G. W. Barlow. 1961. Fishes of the Salton Sea. Pages 77--92 in B. W. Walker, editor. The ecology of the Salton Sea, California, in relation to the sport fishery of California. Fish Bulletin of the California Department of Fish and Game 113.

Other Resources:

Author: Fuller, P.

Peer Review Date: 3/6/2011

This information is preliminary or provisional and is subject to revision. It is being provided to meet the need for timely best science. The information has not received final approval by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and is provided on the condition that neither the USGS nor the U.S. Government shall be held liable for any damages resulting from the authorized or unauthorized use of the information.