important biological data of

1. Priacanthus hamrur

2.  Commonly called as moontail bulls’s eye, lunar tail
big eye or goggle eye
 Major non-conventional fishery resource
 Emerging demersal fishery resource in commercial
landings
 High nutritive value
 Good export potential as considered excellent food
fish in Japan and other south east Asian countries

3. SYSTEMATICS
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Actinopterigii
Order: Perciformes
Family: Priacanthidae
Genus: Priacanthus
Species: Priacanthus hamrur
(Forsskal,1775)

4.  Body relatively deep and compressed
 Eyes very large; mouth large and oblique
 Gill rackers on lower limb of first arch 18-24
 Soft portions of dorsal and anal fins rounded each with
13-15 rays
 Pelvic fin shorter than head
 Caudal fin emarginated
 Scales small; ctenoid 73-93 on lateral line

5. DISTRIBUTION
 Priacanthus hamrur caught for first time in the
Mediterranean within Tunisian waters
(Abdelmouleh,1981)
 Fish comes from Red sea & represents a new element
 surveys conducted along Indian EEZ have revealed
higher concentrations of bull’s eye along the west
coast than the east coast (James and Pillai,1989;
Sivakami,1989; Sudarshan,1993)

6.  More in 40-100 m depth range along the south west
coast and 100-200 m depth range along the north west
coast (Sudarsan et al .1988;Banded al.1989;
Sivakami, 1989,98; Premaletha,1997)

7. FISHERY
 Coast wise the resource is landed more in west coast (20-
150 m) than in east coast (10-80 m)
 Seasonally more abundant during October – March
along the north west coast and August – October along
the south west coast
 Caught using handlines and gillnets
 Most of the catch comes as bycatch from shrimp trawls (
Chakraboty and Vidyasagar,1996)
 Occasionally taken by trawls and by hook and line in
moderate numbers ( Starnes,1988)

8. LANDING
 In south west coast,
-7.2% of total catch [1994-95]
-17.2% [1996] - 10% increase
 Max landings during April (57%)
 Second peak in August (17%)
( Premaletha, 1997 )

9.  Along Indian coast ( Sivakami et al,2001)
[1996-97]
 Bombay – 742.927 t during 1998-99
 All other centres had decline during 1997-98 and
1998-99
 Percentage contribution to total marine landings was
low [ 00.13% - 2.27% ]
CENTRES LANDING IN TONNES
Cochin 290.784
Beypore 817.683
Puthiappa 732.693
Bombay 237.245
Veraval 522.242

10.  Along west coast ,
- Avg annual prdn (2000-04) - 16871 t
-4 % of total demersal landing
- prdn indicated fluctuating trends in all states
( Sivakami et al 2005 )

11.  Significant change observed during 2016
 From a mere 40691 tonnes in 2015, escalated to six
times high of 1.3 lakh tonnes
 Emerged as major source with high production in
west coast where Karnataka contributed the
maximum
[source: CMFRI estimate of marine fish landings in
India 2016]

12. BIOLOGICAL ASPECTS
 Food and Feeding Habits
 In Mangalore waters- less feeding activity in May;
highly carnivorous ( squids, lizard fish and Therapon
spp ). Also feeds on prawns and crustaceans (
Zacharia et al, 1991)
 In upper east coast of India- carnivore feeding mainly
on crustaceans, teleost fishes and occasionally
cephalopods, polychaetes and gastropods (Philip,
1994,98)

13.  In S-W coast- highly carnivorous and no preferential
feeding; anchovies’ small crustaceans and parts of
cephalopods were the commonly found food items (
Premaletha,1997)
 Along Indian coast- mainly a carnivore feeding on
pelagic crustaceans followed by fishes and smaller
molluscs ( Sivakami et al, 2001 )
 From Kerala qualitative and quantitative analysis
indicated deep sea prawns, prawn tissues, bristles of
annelids, invertebrate eggs and some miscellaneous
items. ( Tessy and Inasu, 1999,2003 )

14.  Size at first maturity
- males: 181- 190 mm
- females: 191-200 mm
 Fecundity ranges from 155800 to 722313 ( avg:
380071)
( Sivakami et al, 2001)

15.  Breeding Biology
 Gonads bilobed united in middle and opening out
through a common duct behind the anus
 7 maturity stages have been identified for both
ovaries as well as testis
 GSI of both males and females indicated an
extended spawning with peak in June during April-
July and a minor peak in October
 Evaluation of sex ratio showed dominance of female
except during April, July and December

16. GROWTH PARAMETERS
 Age and Growth
 Growth is an important parameter that determines
the dynamics of fish population ( Ricker, 1975)
 Reported to show slow growth and extended life
span ( Quasim,1966)
 Life span estimated to be 8 yrs ( Philip and
Mathew,1996)
 Grows to 193, 283, 323 mm at end of 1, 2 and 3 yrs
respectively ( Chakraborthy,1994)

17.  Avg : 355.5 mm
AREA L∞
Bombay waters 360 mm ( Chakraborthy,1994)
Bombay waters 345 mm ( Chakraborthy et al,1994)
NW coast 360 mm ( Chakraborthy and Vidyasagar, 1996)
NW coast 374 mm ( Bhargava et al,2004 )
NE coast 284 mm ( Philip and Mathew,1996 )
West coast 410 mm ( Sivakami et al,2005 )
• As per Von Bertalanffy’s growth parameters in
length is as follows:

18.  t0 = 0.009116 yrs ( Chakraborthy, 1994 )
 Length at first capture off NW coast = 230-239 mm ;
corresponding tc = 1.4 yrs
 Length at first capture in SW coast = 210-219 mm ;
corresponding tc = 1.2 yrs
AREA K VALUE
Bombay waters 0.736 ( Chakraborthy,1994 )
Bombay waters 0.66 ( Chakraborthy et.al,1994 )
NW Coast 0.66 ( Chakraborthy and
Vidyasagar,1996 )
NW Coast 0.66 ( Bhargava et.al,2004 )

19.  tr = 0.53 yrs/ 6.4 months
 NW Coast, Z = 5.09
 SW Coast, Z = 4.25
( Sivakami et.al,2005 )

20.  Length – Weight Relationship
 b value differed at 5% level of significance
( Philip,1994 )
 Also indicated fish grew stouter with increased
length which was different for fish captured from
beyond 250 m
 b value showed significant difference between
males and females ( Philip and Mathew,1996 )
 Kn values steadily increased upto about 100 mm;
remained static upto about 150 mm; thereafter
showed fluctuations

21. AREA
LENGTH-WEIGHT RELATIONSHIP
MALES FEMALES
Mangalore waters
W= 0.00000638 L3.1133 W= 0.00000811 L3.0685
( Philip and Mathew,1996 )
NW Coast
W= 0.03766 L2.6258 W= 0.01780 L2.8803
( Varghese,1998 )
Indian coast
W= 0.0000493 L2.7438 W= 0.0000922 L2.6260
( Sivakami et.al,2001 )
South coast of Karnataka
W=0.017 L2.905 W= 0.02 L2.787
( Abdurahiman et.al,2004 )
West coast
W= 0.017498 L2.856
( Thomas et.al,2003 )

22. BIOMASS AND MSY
AREA LATITUDE DEPTH BIOMASS MSY
Off NW Coast
150-230 N Upto 300 m 65415 t 45791 t
150-220 N Upto 200 m 63960 t 44772 t
( John and Sudarsan,1988 )
Off NW Coast
in EEZ
150-220 N 50-200 m 88560 t 25000 t
( Bridar,1988 )
West Coast 24104.59 t 29598 t
( Vijayakumaran and Naik,1989 )
SW Coast 14692 t 10620 t
( Sivakami et.al,2005 )

23. EXPLOITATION STATUS
AREA Exploitation Ratio E Exploitation Rate U
Bombay waters
0.506 0.482
( Chakraborthy,1994 )
NE Coast
0.6271 0.5758
( Philip and Mathew,1996 )
Off SW Coast
0.73 0.77
( Sivakami et.al,2005 )
Off NW Coast
0.78
(Sivakami et.al,2005 )
•Exploitation ratios indicate that the resource is
optimally exploited

24. MANAGEMENT
 Two decades ago considered non conventional
resource
 Not gained marketability and acceptance due to
lack of information regarding nutritive value
 Because of deep water habitat, not available to
commercial trawlers except during movement
towards inshore waters
 Necessary to popularize this item both in fresh
condition and as by products

25. REFERENCE
 Sivakami, S and Vivekanandan, E and Raje, S G and
Kizhakudan, Shoba Joe (2003) Lizardfishes, Pomfrets
and Bullseye. In: Status of Exploited Marine Fishery
Resources of India. CMFRI, Cochin, pp. 141-157.
 Sivakami, S.G Raje, K.V.S Nair, P.P Manoj Kumar and
K. Ramani,2005: Fishery Potential of Bullseye Along
the West Coast of India. CMFRI
 B. Madhusoodana Kurup and S. Venu,2006: Length-
Weight Relationship of Priacanthus hamrur (Forsskal)
Inhabiting the Continental Slopes Beyond 300m
Depth Along the West Coast of India. School of
Industrial Fisheries Cochin University of Science and
Technology, Fine Arts Avenue, Cochin-628 016,

26.  SHOBA JOE KIZHAKUDAN AND M.S. ZALA,2006 :
Dynamics of Priacanthus hamrur (Forsskal)exploited off
Saurashtra coast. Regional Centre of Central Marine
Fisheries Research Institute, Veraval, Gujarat - 362 269
 S. SIVAKAMI, S.G.RAJE, M. FEROZ KHAN, J.K.
SHOBHA, E. VIVEKANANDAN AND U. RAJ KUMAR,
2001: Fishery and biology of Priacanthus hamrur
(Forsskal) along the Indian coast. Central Marine
Fisheries Research Institute, Kochi - 682 014.
 H.N. ANJANAYAPPA, M.F.Sc.,2007: STUDIES ON THE
FISHERY, BIOLOGY AND POPULATION DYNAMICS
OF PRIACANTHUS HAMRUR (FORSSKAL) OFF
MANGALORE COAST. Thesis submitted to the
Karnataka Veterinary, Animal and Fisheries Sciences
University, Bidar,

27.  Venu. S,2009: THE SYSTEMATICS, DISTRIBUTION
AND BIONOMICS OF DEEP SEA FISHES BEYOND
DEPTH 200M ALONG THE SOUTH WEST COAST
OF INDIA. THESIS SUBMITTED TO COCHIN
UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

28. THANK YOU FOR
LISTENING