Mullet watch 2005

[n4lly]

Jim, See here.

 

Caught in a net unfortunatly

think its a Mugil cephalus

 

http://outdoorsbest.zeroforum.com/zerothread?id=290443

[Jim Gibbinson]

Thanks, n4lly.

 

I'm not familiar with Mugil cephalus (striped Mullet), but the Hamlyn Guide to Freshwater Fishes of Britain and Europe (Peter S. Maitland)gives the maximum size as about 12kg. So it's a biggie!

 

Currently, they come as far north as Bay of Biscay and southern Britanny - so who knows, a bit more of this global warming we hear so much about and maybe we'll see them reaching our south coast?

 

Let's all get out there and squirt those aerosols into the atmosphere!

[Guest sslatter]

Jim Gibbinson:

They're a fine pair of thins you had season before last - and with someone of your experience there's no doubt regarding identification.

I wrongly transcribed the weights: they were 5-4 and 5-0.. as regards the identification, well..

 

At the time, I'd just caught what I thought was a thick, I weighed it, measured it, and was putting it back when my fishing pal (who's been mulleting for 40-odd years) suddenly said that it was a thin. So we both had a good look inside the mouth, and there was the strip of skin with the small tubercles, a bit like those on a lamprey's sucker. No mistake. That was the 5-4, which I'd have missed had it not been for my friend. After that, I checked each and every one I caught. The 5-0 was later that year, again identified by that inner strip..

 

..which is the way I've always used..

 

..but..

 

Using Fishbase for research only further confuses the identification. Fin ray counts and lateral line are all too similar across the three species (thin, thick, flathead) to make a definitive i.d. possible. The Genetics are confusing as well, with similarities/differences across the studies undertaken, that make me think that some of the researchers didn't properly identify the fish before they undertook the studies..

 

..or that all the "different" mullet are the same species.. because the researchers' genetic info doesn't agree.

 

Which led me to have a thought.. you remember how trout used to be classified? All those different "species" that turned out to be one?

 

I voiced that thought to another friend of mine, to which he replied:

 

"If thins and thicks are one and the same, why do "thins" fight much less than "thicks"?"

 

There is that.. does he have a point..? It doesn't help my confusion.

 

[ 29. March 2005, 09:59 PM: Message edited by: Graham. X ]

[james richards]

old old was the boy because i was talking to a boy of about the same age of me(15), and he caught a little dab about the size of an adult palm and he argeed even though i was saying nothing..that it was 5lb...hard to tell.

[Vagabond]

Jim Gibbinson:

... Mugil cephalus (striped Mullet).... they come as far north as Bay of Biscay and southern Britanny - so who knows, a bit more of this global warming we hear so much about and maybe we'll see them reaching our south coast?

I've fly-fished for both Flathead Mullet - Mugil cephalus ashanteensis (in the Canaries) and Striped Mullet - Mugil cephalus cephalus (in Texas) and although I only had them to about 3 lb, both subspecies seem to come to the fly more readily than our British mullets.

 

Did not try bait for either, nor did I see anything bigger than about 5 lb. However, they were pretty numerous - worth a pop if you are in their area.

[Jim Gibbinson]

Graham, it wasn't so long ago (70s; 80s maybe) that grey mullet were just, well, grey mullet! Most of us knew little of thicks and thins.

 

I'm not familiar with the strip of skin inside the mouth, to which you refer. I use the lips as identification - notably the thick, papillae-covered lip on the thicklip, also the jugular interspace, and the spacing between the two dorsal fins. I understand the length of the pectoral fin in relation to the eye can be used too, but I find this too ambiguous to be useful.

 

Interesting thought that thicks and thins may be one and the same. Certainly we have only the one genus in Europe (represented by half-a-dozen species), and it would seem that all the world's 100 or so mullets (Mugilidae) originate from one form (unless it's a case of convergent evolution), but I'm happy that thins and thicks are different species. Apart from their physical differences, they exhibit different behaviour patterns, too.

 

[ 30. March 2005, 08:22 AM: Message edited by: Jim Gibbinson ]

[Jim Gibbinson]

P.S. Vagabond, Fly fishing sounds great! I know thicks and thins are taken occasionally on fly tackle, but it strikes me as an enthusiast's activity rather than one that is a truly efficient way of fishing (I'm excluding maggot-flies/rotting-seaweed from that generalisation).

 

Be great to have a few thousand Mugils swimming up my local estuary!

[Tony U]

Ive caught thin lips on the fly on the Ebro delta, the fish were in really skinny water 20 -40cms deep and easily spooked. Fly seemed to be the most efficient way of getting them, fishing california coachman or a dry white sedge in amongst floating bread.

[south coastie]

has anyone spotted any thicklips yet?

[Jim Roper]

The biggest Mullet I've heard of from the Fleet was 'just over 7 Kilos' (netted).

The biggest Bass I've heard of from the Fleet was 'nearly 8½ Kilos' (speared).