Next Article in Journal
Effect of the Inclusion of Natural Pigments on the Performance and Gene Expression of Immune Response and Oxidative Stress of Oreochromis niloticus Cultured in a Biofloc System
Previous Article in Journal
Quinolone Resistance and Prevalence of the Related Genes in Photobacterium damselae subsp. damselae Recovered from Diseased Fish in Eastern China
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Fishes
Volume 10
Issue 6
10.3390/fishes10060281
fishes-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Richness and Distribution of Mexican Pacific Cephalopods (Mollusca, Cephalopoda)

by
Brian Urbano
1,* and
Denise Arroyo-Lambaer
2
1
Posgrado en Ciencias Biológicas, Facultad de Ciencias, Cto. de los Posgrados S/N, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de Mexico, C.U., Coyoacán, Ciudad de Mexico 04510, Mexico
2
Instituto de Biología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de Mexico, Av. Universidad 3000, Coyoacán, Mexico City 04510, Mexico
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Fishes 2025, 10(6), 281; https://doi.org/10.3390/fishes10060281
Submission received: 22 April 2025 / Revised: 27 May 2025 / Accepted: 31 May 2025 / Published: 7 June 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Taxonomy, Evolution, and Biogeography)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Cephalopods have been widely studied around the globe. However, some areas are poorly understood. In Mexico, there is a significant lack of knowledge, particularly in the coastal zone of the eastern Pacific Ocean, where most studies have focused on commercial fisheries. An exhaustive review of documents (articles, books, theses, and regional reports) dealing with the cephalopods of the eastern Pacific in general and of Pacific Mexico in particular was undertaken along with an examination of malacological collections and databases available in Mexico and the USA. As a result, we obtained 3752 records corresponding to 3339 taxonomic records, featuring two superorders, six orders, 29 families, 60 genera, and 105 species. Of these, 89 species occurring in Mexican waters were confirmed, 76% pelagic, 21% in strictly benthic habitats, 2% benthopelagic, and 1% corresponding to demersal species. We proposed a modification for the distribution of 21 species and found 10 new records for Mexican waters.
Keywords:
squid; octopus; malacological collections; pelagic species; new records; Mexico
Key Contribution: This is the first comprehensive evidence-based review of cephalopod fauna within the Mexican Pacific Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). The observed richness values differ from both the maximum and minimum previously reported in the literature. Furthermore, all reported distributions are supported by physical specimens housed in scientific collections.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

Cephalopod species richness estimations vary between 700 and 1000 [1], with the Indo-Pacific being the richest area for this group [2]. The first global analysis of cephalopod diversity was conducted by Voss in 1973 [3]. This work became obsolete because of the discovery of new species. This urged Nesis (1982) to produce and update monographic work that was in turn updated by the FAO catalogues [1,4,5,6], currently considered the most complete report of worldwide cephalopods. A significant increase in the knowledge of cephalopod species richness, as shown by the aforementioned publications, is certainly related to increasing fisheries and interest in cephalopods as a fisheries resource [7].
In the Mexican Pacific, most studies of cephalopods have been related to fisheries [8,9,10] or limited to biological aspects of the Octopoda [11,12]. The vast majority of studies have been performed in the Gulf of California [13,14]. To complicate the matter, records provided by governmental agencies, i.e., the local fishery department, usually refer to them as a general resource without distinguishing species or even genera. As an example, fishery statistics for the recurso pulpo (octopus resource) include data for all species from the whole country within the same statistic [15]. This prevents any reliable analysis or conclusions regarding occurrence and distribution of species. Whenever more precise information is available, it is often unreliable due to misidentification [16,17]. The significant increase in cephalopod richness species knowledge shown in these publications is certainly related to the increase in fisheries activity and interest in cephalopod fisheries [7,18].
An earlier regional analysis of pelagic cephalopod fauna along the west coast of California [19] and a review of commercial species in the eastern central Pacific [20] serve as good starting points for synthesizing known information on Mexican cephalopods. The FAO catalogues are very useful, as they provide a large-scale view of species distribution. There is, however, a strong need for more precise, small-scale knowledge of this resource to improve our understanding of the species richness and distribution [21,22,23,24,25].
The aims of this study were threefold: firstly, to provide an exhaustive review of all records of western Mexico cephalopods; secondly, to give the first up-to-date checklist for the area; and thirdly, to provide a baseline for further studies of this ecologically important group of marine invertebrates. Due to the taxonomic complexity within some groups of cephalopods, the scarcity of material, and the wide distribution of several species, this study represents the first comprehensive evidence-based review within the Mexican Pacific Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).

2. Materials and Methods

Our compilation of records for the Mexican Pacific cephalopod species was based on four main sources: first, an extensive post-1983 bibliographic search (for information prior to 1983, we referred to FAO publications); second, gray literature (i.e., regional reports, graduation theses) available in local libraries and government offices; third, the taxonomic information sources ITIS (http://www.itis.gov (accessed on 30 August 2020)) and WoRMS (http://www.marinespecies.org (accessed on 28 March 2025)) TolWeb (http://tolweb.org/Cephalopoda/19386 (accessed on 5 April 2025)); and fourth, the cephalopod holdings in Mexican collections and the most relevant USA collections In several cases, we examined unidentified material. In cases where a collection could not be physically examined, we relied on verified records—specifically those based on expert identification—available in collection catalogues. In addition to adult specimens reported in these sources, when reliable, we also included indirect cephalopod records obtained from the stomach contents of marine mammals, birds, and fish and records of developmental stages.
For each species considered in the checklist, we provide the following information: (1) species name, authority, and year of description; (2) type locality, the name of the collection where the type is held, and the catalogue number if any; (3) prime synonym (PS) if distinct from the accepted name, junior (JS) synonyms if any, and common names (for species with no common name, we provide a new one based on criteria used in FAO publications [1,5,6] or considering the characteristics of the species); (4) geographic distribution worldwide and in Mexico; and (5) habitat, indicating ontogenic or seasonal changes in habitat if the information were available. When available, we added additional information into the remarks section.
Throughout the manuscript, we use the classification scheme proposed by Ponder and Lindberg [26], but have adjusted it to the Linnean classification used by Jereb et al. [6] and Jereb and Roper [1]. For some lower categories, we followed WoRMS (2025). These three classifications are generally compatible, with the exception of certain families and a few higher or lower taxonomic ranks. In these cases, we added an explanatory note to the text.

3. Results

During this study, we were able to find a total of 4132 records for species of cephalopods in the Mexican Pacific. However, in a sizable number of cases, records were not properly documented and were therefore omitted, leaving a final total of 3752 reliable records that corresponded to 3339 taxonomic records. Reliable records included material for two superorders (Decapodiformes and Octopodiformes), six orders (Myopsida, Oegopsida, Sepioidea, Octopoda, Vampyromorpha, and one undefined group including species of Bathyteuthis), 29 families, 60 genera, and 105 species. Of these 105 species, 16 are considered dubious and are included in a separate section (see Doubtful Records in Supplementary Materials S1). We found and examined specimens of 89 species in the collection holdings. Refer to Table 1 for additional information regarding the collection holdings and data sources.

Systematic Section

Class Cephalopoda Cuvier, 1797
Subclass Neocephalopoda Ponder & Lindberg 2020
Cohort Coleoidea Ponder & Lindberg 2020
Superorder Decabrachia Ponder & Lindberg 2020
Order Myopsida Naef, 1916
Family Loliginidae Lesueur, 1821
Genus Doryteuthis Naef, 1912
1. Doryteuthis (Amerigo) opalescens (Berry, 1911). Type locality. Puget Sound, Washington, USA, Pacific Ocean. Holotype at NMNH (214388). Synonym and common name. Loligo opalescens Berry, 1911 (PS). Opalescent inshore squid (FAO). Geographic distribution. South of Alaska, USA, to Los Cabos and Gulf of California, Mexico. In Mexico from 15°04′15″ N, 94°13′26″ W to 32°52′00″ N, 117°22′48″ W (Figure 1). Habitat. Neritic, mesopelagic. Migrate to surface.
Genus Lolliguncula Steenstrup, 1881
2. Lolliguncula (Lolliguncula) argus Brakoniecki & Roper, 1985. Type locality. La Plata Island, Ecuador, Pacific Ocean. Holotype at NMNH (815750). Synonym and common name. Lolliguncula argus Brakoniecki & Roper, 1985 (PS). Argus brief squid (FAO). Geographic distribution. Sonora, Mexico, to Ecuador. In Mexico from 29°57′48″ N, 114°28′00″ W to 18°12′00″ N, 103°04′00″ W (Figure 1). Habitat. Neritic, epipelagic.
3. Lolliguncula (Loliolopsis) diomedeae (Hoyle, 1904). Type locality. 16°47′30″ N, 99°59′30″ W, near Acapulco Bay, Mexico, Pacific Ocean. Holotype at NMNH (574847). Synonym and common name. Loligo diomedeae Hoyle, 1904 (PS). Dart squid (FAO). Geographic distribution. Baja California, Mexico, to Chile. In Mexico from 31°55′00″ N, 116° 48′60″ W to 14°52′00″ N, 93°00′52″ W (Figure 1). Habitat. Neritic, epipelagic.
4. Lolliguncula (Lolliguncula) panamensis Berry, 1911. Type locality. Panama Pacific coast. Holotype at CAS (TYX 39714). Synonym and common names. Lolliguncula panamensis Berry, 1911 (PS). Panama thumbstall squid (FAO), Panama brief squid (WoRMS). Geographic distribution. East coast of Baja California, Mexico, to Ecuador. In Mexico from 31°49′00″ N, 114°47′00″ W to 15°30′42″ N, 93°00′31″ W (Figure 1). Habitat. Neritic, epipelagic.
Genus Pickfordiateuthis Voss, 1953
5. Pickfordiateuthis vossi Brakoniecki, 1996. Type locality. 24.6° N, 112.1° W, Magdalena Bay, Baja California Sur, Mexico. Holotype at NMNH (884276). Common name. Voss′ grass squid (FAO). Geographic distribution. Tijuana, Baja California, to Sinaloa and Gulf of California, Mexico. In Mexico from 24°34′31″ N, 112°07′49″ W to 25°48′30″ N, 111°18′43″ W (Figure 1). Habitat. Neritic, epipelagic.
Order Oegopsida Orbigny, 1845
Family Ancistrocheiridae Pfeffer, 1912
Genus Ancistrocheirus Gray, 1849
6. Ancistrocheirus lesueurii (d′Orbigny, 1842). Type locality. Not designated. Holotype at MHNN (2-14-614). Synonym and common names. Enoploteuthis lesueurii d′Orbigny, 1842 (PS). Sharpear enope squid (FAO), jewel enope squid (WoRMS). Geographic distribution. Circumglobal anti-polar. In Mexico from 30°00′00″ N, 116°00′00″ W to 16°00′00″ N, 107°00′00″ W (Figure 2). Habitat. Oceanic, mesopelagic to bathypelagic.
Order Bathyteuthoidea
  • 1 Remarks. The position of this clade is uncertain. According to [1], it is part of the Oegopsida. Based on molecular analysis, Lindgren et al. [27] and Allcock et al. [28] mention that there is enough evidence supporting the classification scheme of Young et al. [29], which we have followed herein.
Family Bathyteuthidae Pfeffer, 1900
  • 2 Remarks. Members of the family Bathyteuthidae are anatomically well defined [30], but recent molecular studies could not assign this family a clear position within the Neocoleoidea [28,31,32].
Genus Bathyteuthis Hoyle, 1885
7. Bathyteuthis abyssicola Hoyle, 1885. Type locality. 46°16′ S, 48°27′ E, Indian Ocean. Holotype at BMNH (1890.1.24.15). Common names. Bathyal deep-sea squid (FAO), deep-sea squid (WoRMS). Geographic distribution. Circumglobal, more abundant in the Southern Hemisphere. In Mexico from 32°39′00″ N, 118°09′36″ W to 16°22′49″ N, 99°28′12″ W (Figure 2). Habitat. Epipelagic to bathypelagic.
8. Bathyteuthis berryi Roper, 1968. Type locality. 33°14′45″ N, 118°37′20″ W. Holotype at SBMNH (35007). Common name. We propose a new common name herein: berry deep-sea squid. Geographic distribution. N Pacific to Baja California, Mexico. In Mexico from 29°30′12″ N, 118°54′45″ W to 28°32′15″ N, 118°24′00″ W (Figure 2). Habitat. Bathypelagic, probably deeper.
Family Chiroteuthidae Gray, 1849
Genus Chiroteuthis Orbigny, 1841
9. Chiroteuthis calyx Young, 1972. Type locality. “Santa Catalina Basin?,” California, USA, Pacific Ocean. Holotype at SBMNH (34989). Common name. We propose a new common name herein: tentacle whip squid. Geographic distribution. Bering Strait, Alaska, USA, to 13°00′00″ N, 102°00′00″ W Pacific Ocean. In Mexico from 32°33′00″ N, 117°27′00″ W and 16°52′00″ N, 119°24′00″ W (Figure 3). Habitat. Oceanic, mesopelagic to bathypelagic; ontogenetic depth preferences.
10. Chiroteuthis mega (Joubin, 1932). Type locality. 25°50′ N, 76°55′ W, Bahamas, NW Atlantic Ocean. Holotype presumably at ZMUC. Synonym and common name. Chiropsis mega Joubin, 1932 (PS). We propose a new common name herein: mega-long-arm squid. Geographic distribution. NW Atlantic, SE Atlantic tropical to subtropical. In Mexico from 17°10′12″ N, 101°16′48″ W and 17°06′00″ N, 117°04′00″ W (Figure 3). Habitat. Oceanic, mesopelagic to bathypelagic.
  • 3 Remarks. This material represents the first record for the species in the Pacific Ocean.
Genus Grimaldotheuthis Joubin, 1898
11. Grimalditeuthis bonplandii (Vérany, 1839). Type locality. 29° N, 39° W, eastern central Atlantic Ocean. Holotype repository undetermined. Synonym and common name. Loligopsis bonplandii Vérany, 1839 (PS). Grimaldi′s chiroteuthid squid (FAO). Geographic distribution. Circumglobal, except boreal and polar. In Mexico from 32°11′32″ N, 117°59′00″ W to 14°49′00″ N, 119°32′00″ W (Figure 3). Habitat. Oceanic, mesopelagic to bathypelagic.
Genus Planctoteuthis Pfeffer, 1912
12. Planctoteuthis danae (Joubin, 1931). Type locality. 07°30′00″ N, 79°19′00″ W, Panama, eastern central Pacific Ocean. Holotype at ZMUC (uncatalogued). Synonym and common name. Valbyteuthis danae Joubin, 1931 (PS). We propose a new common name herein: long-tail squid. Geographic distribution. Circumglobal, except boreal and polar. In Mexico from 29°29′26″ N, 118°19′43″ W to 21°49′5″ N, 107°04′21″ W (Figure 3). Habitat. Oceanic, mostly bathypelagic.
13. Planctoteuthis oligobessa (R. E. Young, 1972). Type locality. 32°27′ N, 120°27′ W, eastern North Pacific Ocean. Holotype at SBNHM (34993). Synonym and common name. Valbyteuthis oligobessa Young, 1972 (PS). We propose a new common name herein: chubby deep squid. Geographic distribution. From Indonesia through North Pacific to California, USA. In Mexico from 32°01′46″ N, 117°50′14″ W to 29°18′19″ N, 118°06′20″ W (Figure 3). Habitat. Oceanic, bathypelagic.
Family Cranchiidae Prosch, 1847
Genus Bathothauma Chun, 1906
14. Bathothauma lyromma Chun, 1906. Type locality. 17°28′ N, 29°42′ W, west of Cape Verde Islands, Atlantic Ocean. Holotype at ZBM (1980384). Synonym and common name. Leucocranchia pfefferi Joubin, 1912 (JS). Lyre cranch squid (FAO). Geographic distribution. Circumglobal, tropical to temperate waters, except in the tropical Pacific. In Mexico, only one record of it, with no latitude/longitude data (this study). Habitat. Epi- to bathypelagic with ontogenetic migration to deep water.
Genus Cranchia Leach, 1817
15. Cranchia scabra Leach, 1817. Type locality. Congo, East Atlantic Ocean. Holotype at BMNH (1986265). Synonym and common name. Loligo cranchia Blainville, 1823 (JS). Rough cranch squid (FAO). Geographic distribution. Circumglobal, subtropical and temperate. In Mexico from 31°36′20″ N, 117°38′47″ W to 17°57′00″ N, 111°57′00″ W (Figure 4). Habitat. Paralarvae and juveniles epipelagic and mesopelagic; adults mesopelagic and bathypelagic.
Genus Galiteuthis Joubin, 1898
16. Galiteuthis pacifica (G. C. Robson, 1948). Type locality. Cocos Island, Costa Rica, Pacific Ocean. Syntypes at BMNH (1947.7.7.8.1-2 h). Synonym and common name. Taonidium pacificum Robson, 1948 (PS). We propose a new common name herein: Pacific galiteuthid. Geographic distribution. Indo-Pacific; California to Chile, Pacific. In Mexico, 27°39′19″ N, 118°04′57″ W (Figure 4). Habitat. Early forms epipelagic to mesopelagic; subadults and adults bathypelagic.
17. Galiteuthis phyllura S. S. Berry, 1911. Type locality. Point Piños, Monterey Bay, California, USA, Pacific Ocean. Holotype at NMNH (214325). Common name. We propose a new common name herein: giant galiteuthid. Geographic distribution. Bering Sea, Alaska, USA, to Baja California, except the Gulf of California, Mexico. In Mexico, from 32°26′21″ N, 117°53′10″ W to 16°00′00″ N, 107′00′00″ W (Figure 4). Habitat. Paralarvae epipelagic; juvenile and adults mesopelagic and bathypelagic
Genus Helicocranachia Massy, 1907
18. Helicocranchia pfefferi Massy, 1907. Type locality. 51°44′ N, 11°57′ W, off the southwestern Irish coast, temperate western North Atlantic Ocean. Holotype at BMNH (1890.1.24.10). Common names. Pfeffer′s cranch squid (FAO), piglet squid (WoRMS). Geographic distribution. Temperate, subtropical and tropical Atlantic; temperate and subtropical Indo-Pacific. In Mexico from 32°00′15″ N, 117°39′57″ W to 16°00′ N, 101°40′12″ W. (Figure 4). Habitat. Early forms epipelagic; adults mesopelagic and bathypelagic.
Genus Leachia Lesueur, 1821
19. Leachia danae (Joubin, 1931). Type locality. 06°40′ N, 80°47′ W, Gulf of Panama, eastern tropical Pacific. Holotype presumably lost. Synonym and common name. Drechselia danae Joubin, 1933 (PS). We propose a new common name herein: fat squid. Geographic distribution. Equatorial, Pacific Ocean. In Mexico from 22°42′24″ N, 105°44′45″ W to 20°41′43″ N, 106°16′03″ W (Figure 4). Habitat. Paralarvae and juvenile epipelagic; adults bathypelagic.
20. Leachia dislocata R. E. Young, 1972. Type locality. 32°35′ N, 118°06′ W, eastern North Pacific Ocean. Holotype at SBNHM (34999). Common name. We propose a new common name herein: broken squid. Geographic distribution. California Current, 45° N to 25° N, westwards to 160°. In Mexico only one record at 33°20′59″ N, 118°37′56″ W (Figure 4). Habitat. Juveniles epipelagic; older individuals bathypelagic.
21. Leachia pacifica (Issel, 1908). Type locality. 14°32′ S, 167°43′ W, between Tahiti Island and Pago Pago Island, Pacific Ocean. Holotype repository unresolved. Synonym and common name. Zygaenopsis pacifica Issel, 1908 (PS). We propose a new common name herein: Pacific leachia. Geographic distribution. Indo-Pacific and North Pacific. In Mexico, 28°45′48″ N, 117°18′07″ W (Figure 4). Habitat. Juveniles epipelagic; adults mesopelagic to bathypelagic.
Genus Liocranchia Pfeffer, 1884
22. Liocranchia reinhardtii (Steenstrup, 1856). Type locality. 15°19′ N, 24°54′ W and 23° N, 32° W, North Atlantic Ocean. Syntypes in the ZMUC (uncatalogued). Synonym and common name. Liocranchia reinhardtii Steenstrup, 1856 (PS). Reinhardt′s cranch squid (FAO). Geographic distribution. Circumglobal, except polar. Probably in NW Mexico (Figure 4). Habitat. Juveniles epipelagic; adults mesopelagic.
Genus Megalocranchia Pfeffer, 1884
23. Megalocranchia sp. Remarks. This genus contains only two species. Neither has been reported in the eastern Pacific. Megalocranchia maxima Pfeffer, 1884, is known in Japan, southern Africa, and the Pacific coast of South America, and M. oceanica (G. L. Voss, 1960) is an Atlantic species. The SIOPIC collection (Table 1 and Supplementary Materials S2, Table S1) contains one specimen identified as Megalocranchia sp., collected in June 1965 (27°07′48″ N, 114°16′48″ W) and closely resembling M. maxima. However, this material should be compared in detail with the two known species of the genus in order to confirm its presence in the eastern Pacific.
Genus Taonius Steenstrup, 1861
24. Taonius borealis (Nesis, 1972). Type locality. 44°07.8′ N, 150°26.7′ E, North Pacific Ocean. Holotype unknown. Synonym and common name. Belonella borealis Nesis, 1972 (PS). We propose a new common name herein: sad cranchid. Geographic distribution. Northern Pacific across Japan, Alaska to California, USA. In Mexico, 29°58′00″ N, 119°12′00″ W and 29°37′50″ N, 118°25′00″ W (Figure 4). Habitat. Paralarvae epipelagic; juveniles mesopelagic and adults bathypelagic.
  • 4 Remarks. Two specimens of T. borealis from Pacific Mexico were found in the SBNHM (9899-64 and 10842-65), both collected in the sixties. It would be useful, however, to more closely examine this material, particularly considering that Jorgensen [33] reported a third species, T. pavo (Lesueur, 1821), for the northern Pacific but its southernmost distribution limit is undefined.
Family Enoploteuthidae Pfeffer, 1900
Genus Abraliopsis Joubin, 1896
  • 5 Remarks. These taxa have been reviewed a couple of times since the eighties. Subgenera were not considered by Jereb et al. [6], while WoRMS, It is, and Tree of Life Web Project include the subgenera in an inconsistent way.
25. Abraliopsis affinis (Pfeffer, 1912). Type locality. 02°34′ N, 82°29′ W, Cape San Francisco; Mariato Point, 06°21′ N, 80°41′ W. Holotype repository not determined. Common name. We propose a new common name herein: keyhole abralia. Geographic distribution. Tropical eastern Pacific, southern Mexico to Ecuador (approximately 20° N to 30° N). In Mexico from 31°47′32″ N, 119°43′19″ W to 13°13′00″ N, 92°04′00″ W (Figure 5). Habitat. Mesopelagic; nocturnal migrations to epipelagic zone.
26. Abraliopsis falco R. E. Young, 1972. Type locality. 28°54′ N, 118°08′ W, eastern North Pacific Ocean. Holotype at SBMNH (34957). Common name. We propose a new common name herein: three-stripe abralia. Geographic distribution. Eastern tropical Pacific. In Mexico from 29°58′12″ N, 119°12′00″ W to 13°00′ 00″ N, 102°00′00″ W (Figure 5). Habitat. Epipelagic and mesopelagic.
27. Abraliopsis felis McGowan & Okutani, 1968. Type locality. 31°59′ N, 122°24′ W, Pacific Ocean. Holotype at NMNH (678792). Common name. We propose new common name herein: three-color squid. Geographic distribution. NW America (43° N to 27° N) and Japan. In Mexico from 32°10′56″ N, 120°18′35″ W to 15°56′60″ N, 95°01′12″ W (Figure 5). Habitat. Mesopelagic, migrating to depths of 300–500 m.
28. Abraliopsis hoylei (Pfeffer, 1884). Type locality. Mascarene Islands, southwestern Indian Ocean. Holotype at ZMN, presumably lost. Synonym and common name. Enoploteuthis hoylei Pfeffer, 1884 (PS). Hoyle′s enope squid (FAO). Geographic distribution. Indo-Pacific, including the northeastern Pacific. In Mexico 31°41′50″ N, 120°25′20″ W to 30°27′0″ N, 118°55′30″ W (Figure 5). Habitat. Mesopelagic to epipelagic migrant.
Genus Enoploteuthis d′Orbigny, 1844
29. Enoploteuthis obliqua L. A. Burgess, 1982. Type locality. 11°47′ N, 144°47′ W, central Pacific Ocean. Holotype at NMNH (729722). Common name. We propose a new common name herein: arrow striped squid. Geographic distribution. Eastern equatorial Pacific to Central America. In Mexico, 15°00′00″ N, 97°00′00″ W (this study, see remarks) (Figure 5). Habitat. Oceanic, mesopelagic to epipelagic.
  • 6 Remarks. Only one record of E. obliqua was located in the NMNH collection catalogue (Id. L.A. Burgess) and was apparently never published. This represents the first record for the Mexican Pacific.
Family Gonatide Hoyle, 1886
Genus Berryteuthis Naef, 1921
30. Berryteuthis magister (S. S. Berry, 1913). Type locality. 42°30′ N, 113°42′ E, Puget Sound, Washington, USA, Pacific Ocean. Holotype at CASIZ (017965). Synonym and common names. Gonatus magister Berry, 1913 (PS). Schneider and magister armhook squid (WoRMS), schoolmaster gonate squid (FAO). Geographic distribution. Alaska, USA, to Baja California, Mexico. In Mexico, 28°10′07″ N, 115°08′51″ W (Figure 6). Habitat. Mesopelagic to bathypelagic; demersal.
Genus Gonatopsis Sasaki, 1920
31. Gonatopsis borealis Sasaki, 1923. Type locality. Eastern Hokkaido Islands, Japan, Pacific Ocean. Syntypes presumably at FMHU. Common name. Boreopacific gonate squid (FAO). Geographic distribution. North Pacific, from Japan to Baja California, Mexico. In Mexico from 32°07′48″ N, 117°55′12″ W to 29°10′45″ N, 115°41′21″ W (Figure 6). Habitat. Mesopelagic, occasionally bathypelagic upper boundary.
Genus Gonatus Gray, 1849
32. Gonatus berryi Naef, 1923. Type locality. Monterey Bay, California, USA, Pacific Ocean. Syntypes at NMNH (214652 and 214658). Common name. Berry armhook squid (WoRMS). Geographic distribution. North Pacific, from Japan to Baja California, Mexico. In Mexico from 32°30′35″ N, 117°58′56″ W to 23°13′60″ N, 107°00′00″ W (Figure 6). Habitat. Mesopelagic and bathypelagic.
33. Gonatus californiensis R. E. Young, 1972. Type locality. 33°32′ N, 118°24′ W northeast Pacific Ocean. Holotype at SBNHM (34978). Common name. California armhook squid (WoRMS). Geographic distribution. Northeastern Atlantic, from Vancouver, Canada, to Baja California and the Gulf of California. In Mexico from 31°20′40″ N, 119°53′00″ W to 24°56′17″ N, 109°06′42″ W (Figure 6). Habitat. Neritic, oceanic; mesopelagic, bathypelagic.
34. Gonatus fabricii (Lichtenstein, 1818). Type locality. Amerloq Fjord, west Greenland. Neotype at ZMUC (uncatalogued). Synonym and common names. Onychoteuthis fabricii Lichtenstein, 1818 (PS). Boreoatlantic gonate squid (FAO), Boreoatlantic armhook squid (WoRMS). Geographic distribution. North Atlantic. In Mexico from 32°31′00″ N, 117°02′00″ W to 23° 03′00″ N, 109°07′12″ W (Figure 6). Habitat. Epipelagic to mesopelagic, occasionally bathypelagic.
35. Gonatus onyx R. E. Young, 1972. Type locality. 33°19′ N, 118°45′ W, northeast Pacific. Holotype at SBNHM (34969). Common name. Clawed armhook squid (WoRMS). Geographic distribution. Panboreal Pacific, from Japan to Baja California and Gulf of California (this study). In Mexico from 23°03′00″ N, 109°07′12″ W to 23°07′48″ N, 109°20′60″ W (Figure 6). Habitat. Early stages epipelagic; adults mesopelagic and bathypelagic.
36. Gonatus pyros R. E. Young, 1972. Type locality. 33°37′ N, 118°26′ W, northeastern Pacific. Holotype at SBNHM (34973). Common name. Fiery armhook squid (WoRMS). Geographic distribution. Northwestern Pacific, from the Bering Sea, USA, to Baja California, Mexico. In Mexico only in the Gulf of California (see Remarks). Habitat. Paralarvae rarely epipelagic; juvenile migrating to mesopelagic.
  • 7 Remarks. Paralarvae of this species have been found in the Gulf of California [34]. All the other records in the Mexican Pacific correspond to the stomach contents of fish [35,36] and birds [37].
Family Histioteuthidae A. E. Verrill, 1881
Genus Histioteuthis d′Orbigny, 1841
37. Histioteuthis pacifica (G. L. Voss, 1962). Type locality. Dammi Island, between Jolo and Tawi Tawi, Philippines, western Pacific Ocean. Holotype at NMNH (575453). Synonym and common name. Calliteuthis celetaria pacifica Voss, 1962 (PS). We propose a new common name herein: Pacific flashing squid. Geographic distribution. Indo-Pacific. In Mexico from 27°33′00″ N, 117°15′00″ W to 16°28′12″ N, 99°32′60″ W (Figure 7). Habitat. Mesopelagic to bathypelagic.
  • 8 Remarks. Species of Histioteuthis have been treated either as species or subspecies e.g., [1,29]. In this respect, we have followed Finn and Bouchet [38]. This is the first record of H. pacifica in the Mexican Pacific.
38. Histioteuthis berryi N. A. Voss, 1969. Type locality. 29°17′ N, 125°41′ W, North Pacific Ocean. Holotype at NMNH (576079). Synonym and common name. Histioteuthis corona berryi N. A. Voss, 1969 (PS). We propose a new common name herein: red flashing squid. Geographic distribution. California Current, from 37° N to 26° N. In Mexico, 29°16′48″ N, 125°40′48″ W (Figure 7). Habitat. Mesopelagic.
39. Histioteuthis heteropsis (S. S. Berry, 1913). Type locality. Santa Barbara, California, USA. Holotype at NMNH 214620 (nonextant). Synonym and common name. Calliteuthis heteropsis S. S. Berry, 1913 (PS). We propose a new common name herein: asymmetric red-eye squid. Geographic distribution. Western Pacific from California, USA, to Peru–Chile. In Mexico from 32°34′10″ N, 118°04′03″ W to 23°21′00″ N, 108°09′00″ W (Figure 7). Habitat. Mesopelagic.
40. Stigmatoteuthis hoylei (E. S. Goodrich, 1896). Type locality. Andaman Islands, India, St. 50B = 75/7, west Indo-Pacific. Holotype at NMWZ (1978.014.00422). Synonym and common name. Histiopsis hoylei E. S. Goodrich, 1896 (PS). Flowervase jewel squid (FAO). Geographic distribution. Anti-boreal throughout the Pacific. In Mexico from 31°53′24″ N, 120°29′06″ W to 29°18′44″ N, 119°17′18″ W (Figure 7). Habitat. Mesopelagic.
Family Magnapinnidae Vecchione & R.E. Young, 1998
Genus Magnapinna Vecchione & R.E. Young, 1998
41. Magnapinna pacifica Vecchione & R.E. Young, 1998. Type locality. 33°49′ N, 121°51′ W, Pacific. Holotype unknown. Common name. Pacific bigfin squid (FAO). Geographic distribution. Oregon, USA, to Guatemala and westwards to middle western Pacific. In Mexico, border limit with the USA. Habitat. Pelagic.
  • 9 Remarks. Magnapinna pacifica is an uncommon species. In a general distribution map of a FAO document, Jereb and Roper [1] included it in the west coast of Mexico. We were not able to locate any precise records of this species for Mexico in the literature or in any collection. Young et al. [29] consider only three localities in the eastern Pacific, one just on the border between the USA and Mexico.

4. Discussion

Based on this study, we report a total of 105 species of cephalopods living in the Mexican Pacific. Of these, only 89 could be reliably confirmed in the region based on the literature or specimen collections (Supplementary Materials S2, Table S1). This figure is still considerably higher than the estimation made by Castillo-Rodríguez [39] of 37 species for Mexican waters. This difference might be due to three main issues: (a) subsampling efforts in the area, (b) overestimation of the distributional range of the species, and (c) lack of consistent public record databases.
Regarding subsampling, our search represents 114 years of sampling and 100 cruises around the area. Hence, we believe subsampling can probably explain some cases, but not all of them. Several species have been reported very close to the USA–Mexico border and have a wide geographic distribution in the North Pacific, for example, Enteroctopus dofleini (Wülker, 1910), occurring from Japan to southern California. This species is therefore likely to occur off the northern part of the Baja California Peninsula or maybe even further south, but it was not included in the list for lack of Mexican records (Table 2). Another case is Chtenopteryx sicula (Vérany, 1851), a rare species. In spite of having few records for other parts of America, we did not find any records in our sources, and thus the subsampling argument must be considered. Other species have been registered off western Mexico, but at a considerable distance from shore and from the western limits of the exclusive economic zone. Eledone leucoderma (San Giovanni, 1829) is another good example. It was not recorded for western Mexico in the literature, but material examined at the SBNHM was collected at 12°49′08.04″ N, −103°56′39.12″ W, approximately 500 km off Mexico. Again, this rare species [40] might occur closer to shore.
One of the difficulties we faced was an overestimation of the distribution area described for many species. For instance, for Magnapinna pacifica, a circumtropical distribution is based on three specimens from the Pacific area [1] and one from the Atlantic side [46]. Nonetheless, most of the distribution patterns of cephalopods are estimated considering mainly bibliographical records (Norman, personal communication 2015 and Norman 2000). In our case, we assigned more importance to collection records than the literature to reduce misidentification probabilities and to offer the possibility of corroboration. Additionally, sometimes the records provide additional information that could help in obtaining niche maps, such as depth catch and abiotic parameters associated with the sampling [47].
Through this work, we also want to highlight the urgency of having an electronic version of the available material in all collections [48]. This is critical for the Mexican collections, where delays can be a significant issue. Nonetheless, even though many US collections are making concerted efforts and investments in updating their catalogues in terms of technology and number of specimens, there is still much to do in this respect. These must be supported and promoted by government, students, the scientific community, and more importantly society at large.
In our checklist, 15 species do not show any kind of record of their existence in the Mexican Pacific Ocean. It should be noted that we visited and reviewed data from the most important and representative collections for the zone. They represent more than 100 years of sampling in the whole territory and many depths and sampling gadgets. Therefore, it is our belief that it is reasonable to conclude that those species do not live in the Mexican EEZ or close to it (Table 2).
The poor state of the Mexican cephalopod collections must be quickly improved. It is paramount to increase, curate, and make public their specimen records (i.e., https://www.ibdata.abaco2.org/web/web-content/admin-queryfilter/queryfilter.php (10 April 2025). If we consider all the Mexican collections, they have specimens for only 33 species (almost one third) of the total of species recorded from the country. This gave us an idea of the current extent of knowledge on this class in the Mexican Pacific Ocean. Additionally, it is critical to mention that none of the Mexican materials in the Mexican collections belongs to any kind of type specimen. This seems to be incongruous and paradoxical, considering that Mexico has 16 type localities among the total species living there.
Filling the gaps in our knowledge of cephalopod distribution has been a considerable challenge for teuthologists, biogeographers, and fisheries. The vagility of these species, their paralarvae stage, and the scarcity of records for non-commercial species has compounded the problem. Additionally, we know of the existence of at least five to eight possible new species (to be described soon, personal communication, Erick Hochberg). Those species have similar diagnostic features to well-known ones, but the bathymetric records do not seem realistic (e.g., O. hubbsorum S. S. Berry, 1953 and O. rubescens S. S. Berry, 1953)). Furthermore, many of the Pacific Octopodiformes (especially members of the Octopus genus) that are treated as “species” by Jereb et al. [6] could be a complex species, probably containing more than one individual species. At the same time, considering the FAO reports, we can confirm the existence of Euaxoctopus panamensis G. L. Voss, 1971, which had a previous record [49]. Currently, we have enough evidence to extend their distribution to the Gulf of California and Oaxaca [34,50], as reported in this study. Species such as Octopus penicillifer S. S. Berry, 1954, O. pusillus A. Gould, 1852, O. micropyrsus S. S. Berry, 1953, Pinnoctopus ornatus (A. Gould, 1852), and Eledone leucoderma (San Giovanni, 1829), need their taxonomic status as a species clarified or a correction to any misidentification produced by errors in labeling and preserving their material.
As far as we know, this is the first formal checklist of the Cephalopoda class from the Mexican Pacific Ocean. Other efforts, such as FAO guides, have limitations imposed by their scale, the time dedicated to conduct the work, and/or the field of knowledge encompassed by the study [5]. Compared to the Gulf of Mexico [51,52,53,54] the Mexican Pacific Ocean has no regional studies, but countless local analyses [34,50,55]. Our results demonstrate that an exhaustive sampling is still pending, with special attention to be paid to the swallow octopuses in the deepwater and oceanic regions of the Mexican territory. It is also necessary to track the paralarvae stage, since this form does not always have the same distribution, richness, or abundance as the adults. We certainly included all stages of development in our study, and the general picture does indeed change when the paralarvae are included (personal communication, Dra. Roxana De Silva Davila 2015), especially in terms of richness.
As with every checklist, this is also a partial contribution. However, we are confident that our efforts may greatly contribute to an outstanding comprehension of cephalopods in the Mexican Pacific Ocean, a baseline for other studies in the near future. Our knowledge of cephalopod richness and distributions is far from complete. We urge institutions holding zoological collections to further improve their cephalopod sections and to create new electronic databases for their records.

5. Conclusions

The Mexican cephalopod fauna had not been thoroughly analyzed for many years. Our work presents the first comprehensive evidence-based review, including the literature, collections, and systematized samples, covering almost all the Mexican EEZ. This effort has allowed us to construct a more accurate picture of the richness and diversity of this group in the region. The new distributional updates and first records included are essential for advancing our understanding of the biogeography and systematics of cephalopods.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/fishes10060281/s1, Supplementary Material S1: Doubtful records. In this section, we include species for which distribution or taxonomic status are ill defined. Their presence in the Mexican Pacific needs to be confirmed, particularly if these are species occurring primarily in other regions of the world. Supplementary Material S2: Table S1. Cephalopods recorded in the Mexican Pacific Ocean based on review of literature and collection data.

Author Contributions

B.U. conceived the investigation and conducted species identification. B.U. and D.A.-L. equally contributed to the discussion and writing of the text. Both authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Secretaría de Ciencia, Humanidades, Tecnología e Innovación, grant number 175768.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article/Supplementary Materials. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

Brian Urbano is a doctoral student in the Posgrado en Ciencias Biológicas (UNAM) and is supported by CONACYT (Scholarship no. 175768, CVU: 17576). This study is presented as a requirement for the obtaining of Ph.D. in Biological Sciences of the first author. This study is presented as a requirement for the obtaining of Ph.D. in Biological Sciences of the first author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Jereb, P.; Roper, C.F.E. Cephalopods of the World. An Annotated and Illustrated Catalogue of Cephalopod Species Known to Date. Volume 3. Octopods and Vampire Squids; Jereb, P., Roper, C.F., Eds.; FAO: Roma, Italy, 2010; Volume 2. [Google Scholar]
  2. Anderson, F.E. Cephalopoda. The Molluscan Literature: Geographic and Taxonomic Works. In The Mollusks: A Guide to their Study, Collection and Preservation; Sturm, C.F., Pearce, T.A., Valdés, Á., Eds.; Universal Publishers: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2006; pp. 111–146. [Google Scholar]
  3. Voss, G.L. Cephalopod Resources of the World. FAO Fish. Circ. 1973, 149, 75. [Google Scholar]
  4. Roper, C.F.E.; Sweeney, M.J.; Nauen, C.E. FAO Species Catalogue. Cephalopods of the World. An Annotated and Illustrated Catalogue of Species of Interest to Fisheries; FAO: Roma, Italy, 1984; Volume 3. [Google Scholar]
  5. Jereb, P.; Roper, C.F.E. An Annotated and Illustrated Catalogue of Cephalopods; Jereb, P., Roper, C.F.E., Eds.; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2005; Volume 1. [Google Scholar]
  6. Jereb, P.; Roper, C.F.E.; Norman, M.D.; Finn, J. Cephalopods of the World. An Annotated and Illustrated Catalogue of Cephalopod Species Known to Date. Volume 3. Octopods and Vampire Squids; Jereb, P., Roper, C.F.E., Norman, M.D., Finn, J., Eds.; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  7. Arkhipkin, A.I.; Rodhouse, P.G.K.; Pierce, G.J.; Sauer, W.; Sakai, M.; Allcock, L.; Arguelles, J.; Bower, J.R.; Castillo, G.; Ceriola, L.; et al. World Squid Fisheries. Rev. Fish. Sci. Aquac. 2015, 23, 92–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Sánchez, P. Cephalopods from off the Pacific Coast of Mexico: Biological Aspects of the Most Abundant Species. Sci. Mar. 2003, 67, 81–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Gilly, W.F.; Zeidberg, L.D.; Booth, J.A.T.; Stewart, J.S.; Marshall, G.; Abernathy, K.; Bell, L.E. Locomotion and Behavior of Humboldt Squid, Dosidicus gigas, in Relation to Natural Hypoxia in the Gulf of California, Mexico. J. Exp. Biol. 2012, 215, 3175–3190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Rosa, R.; Yamashiro, C.; Markaida, U.; Rodhouse, P.G.K.; Waluda, C.M.; Salinas-Zavala, C.A.; Keyl, F.; O’Dor, R.; Stewart, J.S.; Gilly, W.F. Dosidicus gigas, Humboldt Squid. In Advances in Squid Biology, Ecology and Fisheries. Part II—Oegopsid Squids; Rosa, R., Pierce, G.J., O’Dor, R.K., Eds.; Nova Publisher: New York, NY, USA, 2013; pp. 169–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Alejo-Plata, M.C.; Herrera-Alejo, S. First Description of Eggs and Paralarvae of Green Cctopus Octopus hubbsorum (Cephalopoda: Octopodidae) under Laboratory Conditions. Am. Malacol. Bull. 2014, 32, 132–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Pliego-Cárdenas, R.; Hochberg, F.G.; De León, F.J.G.; Barriga-Sosa, I.D.L.A. Close Genetic Relationships between Two American Octopuses: Octopus hubbsorum Berry, 1953, and Octopus mimus Gould, 1852. J. Shellfish Res. 2014, 33, 293–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. De Silva-Dávila, R.; Hochberg, F.G.; Lindgren, A.R.; del C. Franco-Gordo, M. Paralarval Development, Abundance, and Distribution of Pterygioteuthis hoylei (Cephalopoda: Oegopsida: Pyroteuthidae) in the Gulf of California, México. Molluscan Res. 2013, 33, 50–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Granados-Amores, J.; García-Rodríguez, F.J.; Hochberg, F.G.; Salinas-Zavala, C.A. The Taxonomy and Morphometry of Squids in the Family Loliginidae (Cephalopoda: Myopsida) from the Pacific Coast of Mexico. Am. Malacol. Bull. 2014, 32, 198–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Diario Oficial de La Federación. Acuerdo por el Que Se da a Conocer la Actualización de la Carta Nacional Pesquera; Secretaria De Agricultura, Ganaderia, Desarrollo Rural, Pesca y Alimentación: Anáhuac, México, 2012; pp. 21–128. [Google Scholar]
  16. López-Uriarte, E.; Ríos-Jara, E. Reproductive Biology of Octopus hubbsorum (Mollusca: Cephalopoda) along the Central Mexican Pacific Coast. Bull. Mar. Sci. 2009, 84, 109–121. [Google Scholar]
  17. López-Uriarte, E.; Ríos-Jara, E.; Pérez-Peña, M. Range Extension for Octopus hubbsorum (Mollusca: Octopodidae) in the Mexican Pacific. Bull. Mar. Sci. 2005, 77, 171–175. [Google Scholar]
  18. Vecchione, M.; Jorgensen, E.M.; Sakurai, Y. Editorial: Recent Advances in the Knowledge of Cephalopod Biodiversity. Mar. Biodivers. 2017, 47, 619–620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Young, R.E. The Systematics and Areal Distribution of Pelagic Cephalopods from the Seas off Southern California. Smithson. Contrib. Zool. 1972, 97, 1–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Roper, C.F.E.; Sweeney, M.J.; Hochberg, F.G. Cefalopodos. In Guia FAO Para la Identificación de Especies Para los Fines de la Pesca. Pacifico Centro Oriental; Fischer, W., Kreep, F., Schneider, W., Sommer, C., Caspenter, K., Niem, V., Eds.; FAO: Roma, Italy, 1995; Volume I, pp. 306–353. [Google Scholar]
  21. Norman, M.D.; Lu, C.C. Preliminary Checklist of the Cephalopds of the South China Sea. Raffles Bull. Zool. 2000, 8, 539–567. [Google Scholar]
  22. Nateewathana, A.; Siriraksophon, S.; Munprasit, A. The Systematics and Distribution of Oceanic Cephalopods in the South China Sea, Area IV: Vietnamese Waters. In Proceedings of the SEAFDEC Seminar on Fisheries Resources in the South, Bangkok, Thailand, 18–20 September 2001; Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center: Bangkok, Thailand, 2001; pp. 169–180. [Google Scholar]
  23. Amor, M.D.; Norman, M.D.; Cameron, H.E.; Strugnell, J.M. Allopatric Speciation within a Cryptic Species Complex of Australasian Octopuses. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e98982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Poore, G.C.B.; Avery, L.; Magda, B.; Browne, J.; Staples, D.; Syme, A.; Taylor, J.; Walker-smith, G.; Warne, M. Invertebrate Diversity of the Unexplored Marine Western Margin of Australia: Taxonomy and Implications for Global Biodiversity. Mar. Biodivers. 2014, 45, 271–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Vecchione, M.; Roper, C.F.E.; Sweeney, M.J. Marine Flora and Fauna of the Eastern United States Mollusca: Cephalopoda; NOAA Technical Report 73; National Marine Fisheries Service: Silver Spring, MD, USA, 1989; p. 30. [Google Scholar]
  26. Ponder, W.F.; Lindberg, D.R. The Cephalopoda. In Biology and Evolution of the Mollusca; Ponder, W.F., Lindberg, D.R., Ponder, J.M., Eds.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2020; p. 94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Lindgren, A.R.; Pankey, M.S.; Hochberg, F.G.; Oakley, T.H. A Multi-Gene Phylogeny of Cephalopoda Supports Convergent Morphological Evolution in Association with Multiple Habitat Shifts in the Marine Environment. BMC Evol. Biol. 2012, 12, 129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Allcock, A.L.; Lindgren, A.; Strugnell, J.M. The Contribution of Molecular Data to Our Understanding of Cephalopod Evolution and Systematics: A Review. J. Nat. Hist. 2015, 49, 1373–1421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Young, R.E. Cephalopoda Cuvier. 1797. Available online: http://tolweb.org/Cephalopoda/19386/2016.02.27 (accessed on 18 April 2025).
  30. Young, R.E.; Roper, C.F.E. A Monograph of the Cephalopoda of the North Atlantic: The Family Cycloteuthidae. Smithson. Contrib. Zool. 1969, 5, 1–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Kawashima, Y.; Nishihara, H.; Akasaki, T.; Nikaido, M.; Tsuchiya, K.; Segawa, S.; Okada, N. The Complete Mitochondrial Genomes of Deep-Sea Squid (Bathyteuthis abyssicola), Bob-Tail Squid (Semirossia patagonica) and Four Giant Cuttlefish (Sepia apama, S. latimanus, S. lycidas and S. pharaonis), and Their Application To. Mol. Phylogenetics Evol. 2013, 69, 980–993. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Strugnell, J.; Nishiguchi, M.K. Molecular Phylogeny of Coleoid Cephalopods (Mollusca: Cephalopoda) Inferred from Three Mitochondrial and Six Nuclear Loci: A Comparison of Alignment, Implied Alignment and Analysis Methods. J. Molluscan Stud. 2007, 73, 399–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Jorgensen, E.M. Field Guide to Squids and Octopuses of the Eastern North Pacific and Bearing Sea; NOAA-Sea Grant: Fairbanks, AK, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  34. De Silva-Dávila, R.; Franco-Gordo, C.; Hochberg, F.F.G.; Godínez-Domínguez, E.; Avendaño-Ibarra, R.; Gómez-Gutiérrez, J.; Robinson, C.J.; De Silva-Dávila, R.; Franco-Gordo, C.; Hochberg, F.F.G.; et al. Cephalopod Paralarval Assemblages in the Gulf of California during 2004–2007. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 2015, 520, 123–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Markaida, U.; Sosa-Nishizaki, O. Food and Feeding Habits of the Blue Shark Prionace Glauca Caught off Ensenada, Baja California, Mexico, with a Review on Its Feeding. J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. United Kingd. 2010, 90, 977–994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Markaida, U.; Hochberg, F.G. Cephalopods in the Diet of Swordfish (Xiphias gladius) Caught off the West Coast of Baja California, Mexico. Pac. Sci. 2005, 59, 25–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Pitman, R.L.; Walker, W.A.; Everett, W.T.; Pablo, J.; Reynoso, G. Population Status, Foods and Foraging of Laysan Albatrosses Phoebastria Immutabilis Nesting on Guadalupe Island, Mexico. Mar. Ornithol. 2004, 32, 159–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Finn, J.; Bouchet, P. Histioteuthidae Verril, 1881. World Register of Marine Species. 2016. Available online: https://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=11749 (accessed on 1 January 2020).
  39. Castillo-Rodríguez, Z.G. Biodiversidad de Moluscos Marinos En México. Rev. Mex. Biodivers. 2014, 85, 419–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Norman, M.D.; Hochberg, F.G. The Current State of Octopus Taxonomy. Phuket Mar. Biol. Cent. Res. Bull. 2005, 66, 127–154. [Google Scholar]
  41. Wolff, G.A. Identification and Estimation of Size from the Beaks of 18 Species of Cephalopods from the Pacific Ocean; NOAA Technical Report 17; National Marine Fisheries Service: Silver Spring, MD, USA, 1984. [Google Scholar]
  42. Okutani, T.; McGowan, J.A. Systematics, Distribution, and Abundance of the Epiplanktonic Squid (Cephalopoda, Decapoda) Larvae of the California Current, April, 1954–March, 1957. Bull. Scripps Inst. Oceanogr. 1969, 14, 1–90. [Google Scholar]
  43. Hedgepeth, J.B. Annotated References to Technlques Capable of Assessing the Roles of Cephalopods in the Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean, with Emphasis on Pelagic Squids; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest Fisherie: Silver Spring, MD, USA, 1983. [Google Scholar]
  44. Hochberg, F.G. Preliminary Key to the Benthic Cephalopods of the Eastern Pacific; Santa Barbara Natural History Museum: Santa Barbara, CA, USA, 1984. [Google Scholar]
  45. Pablo-Rodríguez, N.; Aurioles-Gamboa, D.; Montero-Muñoz, J.L. Niche Overlap and Habitat Use at Distinct Temporal Scales among the California Sea Lions (Zalophus Californianus) and Guadalupe Fur Seals (Arctocephalus Philippii Townsendi). Mar. Mammal Sci. 2016, 32, 466–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Vecchione, M.; Young, R.E. Magnapinna pacifica Vecchione and Young, 1998. Pacific Bigfin Squid. Available online: http://tolweb.org/Magnapinna_pacifica/19449/2007.02.08 (accessed on 20 October 2020).
  47. Soberón, J.; Peterson, T. Biodiversity Informatics: Managing and Applying Primary Biodiversity Data. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London. Ser. B Biol. Sci. 2004, 359, 689–698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Graham, C.H.; Ferrier, S.; Huettman, F.; Moritz, C.; Peterson, A.T. New Developments in Museum-Based Informatics and Applications in Biodiversity Analysis. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2004, 19, 497–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Salcedo-Vargas, M.A.; Jaime-Rivera, M. The Octopod Euaxoctopus panamensis (Octopodidae: Cephatopoda) in Mexican Waters. Rev. Biol. Trop. 1999, 47, 1139. [Google Scholar]
  50. Alejo-Plata, M.C.; Salgado-Ugarte, I.; Herrera-Galindo, J.; Meraz-Hernando, J. Cephalopod Biodiversity at Gulf of Tehuantepec, Mexico, Determinate from Direct Sampling and Diet Analysis on Large Pelagic-Fishes Predators. Hidrobiología 2014, 24, 57–68. [Google Scholar]
  51. Judkins, H.L.; Vecchione, M.; Roper, C.F.E.; Torres, J. Cephalopod Species Richness in the Wider Caribbean Region. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 2010, 67, 1392–1400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Salcedo-Vargas, M.A. Checklist of the Cephalopods from the Gulf of Mexico. Bull. Mar. Sci. 1991, 49, 216–220. [Google Scholar]
  53. Voss, G.L. The Cephalopods Collected by the R/V Atlantis during the West Indian Cruise of 1954. Bull. Mar. Sci. 1956, 8, 369–389. [Google Scholar]
  54. Voss, G.L. Biological Results of the University of Miami Deep-Sea Expeditions. 115. Euaxoctopus pillsburyae New Species Mollusca Cephalopoda from the Southern Caribbean and Surinam. Bull. Mar. Sci. 1975, 25, 346–352. [Google Scholar]
  55. De Silva-Dávila, R.; Avendaño-Ibarra, A.; Franco-Gordo, M.C. Calamares y Pulpos de La Costa Sur de Jalisco y Colima. In Inventario de Biodiversidad de la Costa sur de Jalisco y Colima. Volumen 1; Franco-Gordo, C., Ed.; Universidad de Guadalajara: Guadalajara, Mexico, 2013; pp. 43–56. [Google Scholar]
Fishes 10 00281 g001
Figure 1. Distribution of the Loliginidae family in the Mexican Pacific Ocean.
Figure 1. Distribution of the Loliginidae family in the Mexican Pacific Ocean.
Fishes 10 00281 g001
Fishes 10 00281 g002
Figure 2. Distribution of the Ancistrocheridae, Bathyteuthidae, Mastigoteuthidae, and Neoteuthidae species in the Mexican Pacific Ocean.
Figure 2. Distribution of the Ancistrocheridae, Bathyteuthidae, Mastigoteuthidae, and Neoteuthidae species in the Mexican Pacific Ocean.
Fishes 10 00281 g002
Fishes 10 00281 g003
Figure 3. Distribution of the Chirioteuthae family in the Mexican Pacific Ocean.
Figure 3. Distribution of the Chirioteuthae family in the Mexican Pacific Ocean.
Fishes 10 00281 g003
Fishes 10 00281 g004
Figure 4. Distribution of the Cranchidae family in the Mexican Pacific Ocean.
Figure 4. Distribution of the Cranchidae family in the Mexican Pacific Ocean.
Fishes 10 00281 g004
Fishes 10 00281 g005
Figure 5. Distribution of the Enoploteuthidae family in the Mexican Pacific Ocean.
Figure 5. Distribution of the Enoploteuthidae family in the Mexican Pacific Ocean.
Fishes 10 00281 g005
Fishes 10 00281 g006
Figure 6. Distribution of the Gonatidae family in the Mexican Pacific Ocean.
Figure 6. Distribution of the Gonatidae family in the Mexican Pacific Ocean.
Fishes 10 00281 g006
Fishes 10 00281 g007
Figure 7. Distribution of the Histioteuthidae family in the Mexican Pacific Ocean.
Figure 7. Distribution of the Histioteuthidae family in the Mexican Pacific Ocean.
Fishes 10 00281 g007
Table 1. Data sources used during this study. Percentages reviewed in each collection or database are indicated, together (in parentheses) with the number of records available at the time of our visit or consultation and, if any, the records added after reviewing unidentified material. ND, no data.
Table 1. Data sources used during this study. Percentages reviewed in each collection or database are indicated, together (in parentheses) with the number of records available at the time of our visit or consultation and, if any, the records added after reviewing unidentified material. ND, no data.
InstitutionCollection Name (Acronym)/CuratorAction/Year% Reviewed (Records in Database/Records Added)
Instituto de Biología, UNAMColección Nacional de Moluscos (CNMO)/Edna NaranjoPhysical/2013100 (0/38)
Instituto de Ciencias del Mar y Limnología, UNAMColección Malacológica “Antonio García-Cubas” (COMA)/Martha RegueroPhysical/2013100 (0/13)
Instituto de Ciencias del Mar y Limnología, Unidad Mazatlán, UNAMColección Regional de Invertebrados Marinos (EMU)/Michel E. HendrickxPhysical/2012–2015100 (29/108)
Instituto Politécnico Nacional, Escuela Nacional de Ciencias BiológicasColección “Maria Guadalupe López Magallón” (CLEMGLM)Physical/201325 (ND/34)
Universidad Autónoma de Guadalajara, Centro Universitario de Ciencias Biológicas y Agropecuarias (CUCBA)Colección de Invertebrados del CUCBA (CUCBA)/Eduardo Ríos JaraVerbal consultationNo formal cephalopod collection
Universidad del MarColección de Cefalópodos de la Universidad del Mar (UdM)/Carmen Alejo Plata.Verbal consultationCollection in process. Most specimens belong to Octopus hubbsorum
Natural History Museum of Los AngelesMalacology Section (LACM)/Lyndsey T. GrovesPhysical/2013100 (0/112)
Santa Barbara Natural History MuseumMalacology Collection (SBMNH)/Richard Hochberg & Daniel GeigerElectronic and physical/2013About 65 (166/2518)
California Academy of SciencesMalacology Collection (CAS)/Christina PiotrowskiPhysical and electronic/2013100 (187/0) 12 new identifications
Scripps Institution of Oceanography (SIO)Pelagic Invertebrate Collections (SIO-PIC)/Mark D. OhmanPhysical and electronic/2013ND (423/333)
Scripps Institution of Oceanography (SIO)Benthonic Invertebrate Collection (SIO-BIC)/Greg RousePhysical and electronic/201385 (ND/193)
University of California, Museum of PaleontologyUSGS Invertebrate Collections (USGS)/Erica ClitesPhysical (most of the collection moved to CAS)/2013100 (1/1)
Smithsonian Natural History MuseumMalacology Collection (USNM)/Michael VeccioneElectronic/2015100 (354/0)
Chicago Field MuseumDepartment of Zoology, Invertebrate Collection (FMNH)/Janeen JonesElectronic/2013100 (5/0)
Harvard University, Museum of Comparative ZoologyZoological Collection (MCZ)/Gonzalo GiribetElectronic/2012100 (12/0)
Arizona-Sonora Desert MuseumGulf of California Invertebrate database/Richard C Brusca & Michel E HendrickxElectronic/2014100 (20/0)
Table 2. Species previously reported for western Mexico with no physical record found in electronic databases or among material reviewed in collections (see list in Table 1).
Table 2. Species previously reported for western Mexico with no physical record found in electronic databases or among material reviewed in collections (see list in Table 1).
SpeciesHabitatGeographic DistributionRecorded by
Enteroctopus dofleini (Wülker, 1910)Neritic to oceanicPanboreal in Pacific, from Japan to Baja California, Mexico. In Mexico only a marginal part of Baja CaliforniaWolff [41]; Young [19]
Rossia pacifica pacifica S.S. Berry, 1911Neritic, mesopelagic to epipelagicFrom Japan to Baja California, MexicoOkutani and McGowan [42]; Young [19]; Hedgepeth [43], Hochberg [44], Pablo-Rodríguez et al. [45]
Taningia danae Joubin, 1931Epipelagic, oceanicCircumglobal except polesJereb and Roper [1]
Octopoteuthis sicula Rüppell, 1844Meso to bathypelagicCircumglobal, antiborealJereb and Roper [1]
Octopoteuthis nielseni G. C. Robson, 1948Meso to bathypelagicTropical and subtropical PacificJereb and Roper [1]
Octopoteuthis megaptera (A. E. Verrill, 1885)Meso to bathypelagicCosmopolitanJereb and Roper [1]
Magnapinna pacifica Vecchione & R. E. Young, 1998PelagicOregon, USA, to Guatemala and westwards to middle western PacificJereb and Roper [1]
Joubiniteuthis portieri (Joubin, 1916)Meso to bathypelagicCircumglobal, except borealJereb and Roper [1]
Abralia astrosticta S. S. Berry, 1909MesopelagicCentral and western Pacific OceanJereb and Roper [1]
Abralia andamanica E. S. Goodrich, 1896MesopelagicIndian and western PacificJereb and Roper [1]
Sandalops melancholicus Chun, 1906Epi to bathypelagicCircumglobal except polesJereb and Roper [1]
Liguriella podophthalma Issel, 1908Epi to bathypelagicCircumglobal, except boreal and equatorialJereb and Roper [1]
Helicocranchia joubini (G. L. Voss, 1962)Meso to bathypelagicTropical and subtropical Atlantic, SW PacificJereb and Roper [1]
Egea inermis Joubin, 1933Epi to bathypelagicCircumglobal, except polesJereb and Roper [1]
Brachioteuthis picta Chun, 1910Epi to mesopelagicCircumglobal, tropical and subtropicalJereb and Roper [1]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Urbano, B.; Arroyo-Lambaer, D. Richness and Distribution of Mexican Pacific Cephalopods (Mollusca, Cephalopoda). Fishes 2025, 10, 281. https://doi.org/10.3390/fishes10060281

AMA Style

Urbano B, Arroyo-Lambaer D. Richness and Distribution of Mexican Pacific Cephalopods (Mollusca, Cephalopoda). Fishes. 2025; 10(6):281. https://doi.org/10.3390/fishes10060281

Chicago/Turabian Style

Urbano, Brian, and Denise Arroyo-Lambaer. 2025. "Richness and Distribution of Mexican Pacific Cephalopods (Mollusca, Cephalopoda)" Fishes 10, no. 6: 281. https://doi.org/10.3390/fishes10060281

APA Style

Urbano, B., & Arroyo-Lambaer, D. (2025). Richness and Distribution of Mexican Pacific Cephalopods (Mollusca, Cephalopoda). Fishes, 10(6), 281. https://doi.org/10.3390/fishes10060281

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop