Skip to main content
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences logoLink to Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
. 2000 Sep 29;355(1401):1285–1288. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2000.0685

Acoustic communication and the evolution of hearing in fishes.

F Ladich 1
PMCID: PMC1692861  PMID: 11079416

Abstract

Fishes have evolved a diversity of sound-generating organs and acoustic signals of various temporal and spectral content. Additionally, representatives of many teleost families such as otophysines, anabantoids, mormyrids and holocentrids possess accessory structures that enhance hearing abilities by acoustically coupling air-filled cavities to the inner ear. Contrary to the accessory hearing structures such as Weberian ossicles in otophysines and suprabranchial chambers in anabantoids, sonic organs do not occur in all members of these taxa. Comparison of audiograms among nine representatives of seven otophysan families from four orders revealed major differences in auditory sensitivity, especially at higher frequencies (> 1 kHz) where thresholds differed by up to 50 dB. These differences showed no apparent correspondence to the ability to produce sounds (vocal versus non-vocal species) or to the spectral content of species-specific sounds. In anabantoids, the lowest auditory thresholds were found in the blue gourami Trichogaster trichopterus, a species not thought to be vocal. Dominant frequencies of sounds corresponded with optimal hearing bandwidth in two out of three vocalizing species. Based on these results, it is concluded that the selective pressures involved in the evolution of accessory hearing structures and in the design of vocal signals were other than those serving to optimize acoustic communication.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (181.3 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Cohen M. J., Winn H. E. Electrophysiological observations on hearing and sound production in the fish, Porichthys notatus. J Exp Zool. 1967 Aug;165(3):355–369. doi: 10.1002/jez.1401650305. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Ladich F., Bass A. H. Sonic/vocal motor pathways in catfishes: comparisons with other teleosts. Brain Behav Evol. 1998;51(6):315–330. doi: 10.1159/000006545. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Ladich F. Did auditory sensitivity and vocalization evolve independently in otophysan fishes? Brain Behav Evol. 1999 May-Jun;53(5-6):288–304. doi: 10.1159/000006600. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Ladich F., Yan H. Y. Correlation between auditory sensitivity and vocalization in anabantoid fishes. J Comp Physiol A. 1998 Jun;182(6):737–746. doi: 10.1007/s003590050218. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences are provided here courtesy of The Royal Society

RESOURCES