|Abstract: ||鯛科魚類為台灣重要之經濟物種，其分類關係長期存在爭議。早期研究主要以傳統形態特徵分類及新種描述為主，隨科技進步則趨向於分子生物鑑定分類。學者們採用不同的分子標記方法和傳統分類法結果出現分歧，鯛科魚類的系統發育關係仍待進一步研究。目前以骨骼形態分類的研究較少，多為成長發育之研究，故本文將探討骨骼形態學是否能分類臺灣的鯛科魚類。目前已採集6屬10種鯛科魚類，以及1種金線魚科魚類作為外系群，並挑選出14塊骨骼28項骨骼形態特徵以二態法進行相似度聚類分析。結果顯示骨骼形態特徵可作為臺灣鯛科魚類分類依據，但單以二態法較難描述構造複雜的骨骼，且棘鯛屬的物種間骨骼形態相似，需較詳細的描述方能區別骨骼特徵差異。本文藉由腦顱、鋤骨可明顯區分Argyrops、Evynnis和Pagrus三屬，認為三屬不應該合併為一屬。其中在採集樣本中發現兩種Evynnis屬的物種E. sp. 1和E. sp. 2，有別於現今記載之Evynnis屬有效物種，推斷應為新種，由於樣本數不足難以鑑定，但仍提供其標本照，及骨骼描述供後續研究使用。另外在翻閱文獻時發現，二長棘鯛Parargyrops edita Tanaka記載多為紅鋤齒鯛之誤鑑，但許多文獻卻接續引用，導致多數文件記錄之物種鑑定有誤，本文認為二長棘鯛需要重新檢視其定義。最後本文提供研究樣本之標本照，及骨骼形態特徵描繪及影像記錄，提供鯛科分類研究使用。|
The porgies (Sparidae) are important economic species in Taiwan, but its classification has long been controversial. Early research focused on the classification of traditional morphological features or the description of new species. With the advancement of science and technology, molecular biology is often used for classification. However, scholars have different opinions on the results of different molecular markers and traditional taxonomy. The phylogenetic relationship of the porgies remains to be further studied. At present, there are few studies on the classification of bone morphology, mostly for the study of growth and development, so this study will explore whether bone morphology can classify Taiwan's porgies. We have been collected 6 genera and 10 species of porgies, and 1 species of threadfin breams (Nemipteridae) for outgroup, and 28 bone morphological features of 14 skeletons are selected to make data matrix by two-state method, and similarity clustering analysis is carried out. The results showed that the morphological characteristics of the skeleton can be used as the basis for the classification of the porgies in Taiwan. However, it is difficult to describe the complex skeleton by the two-state method, and the skeletal morphology of the same genus is similar.The skeletal feature details must be described in detail to distinguish species of the same genus. This study can distinguish the three genera of Argyrops, Evynnis and Pagrus by neurocranium and vomer, that the three genera should not be combined into one genera. Among them, E. sp. 1 and E. sp. 2 are two of the Evynnis were found in the collected samples, which is different from species of the Evynnis currently recorded. It is inferred that it should be a new species. Because the sample is insufficient, it is still difficult to identify, but the specimen photo and bone description are still provided. For subsequent research use. In addition, when I read the literature,I found that the records of Parargyrops edita Tanaka were mostly misidentifications of Evynnis cardinalis (Lacepède), but many documents were cited continuously, which led to the misidentification of most document records. The P. edita needs to revisit its definition and literature. The specimen needs to be re-examined. Finally, this document provides a specimen photograph of the study samples, as well as a description of the morphological features of the bones, hand-painted and photo records, which are provided for subsequent classification studies.