6. SOUND PRODUCTION AND DETECTION
137
Porichthys, and Hardenberg ( 1934) on Therapon. In addition, structures
such as stridulating teeth, fin spines, and other hard parts were found
to be involved in sound production in many species (Sgrensen, 1894;
Burkenroad, 1930, 1931 ) . Among small aquarium species, the croaking
gourami, Trichopsis vittatus, is probably the best known sound producer
( Stampehl, 1931; Reickel, 1936; Meder, 1953; J. A. Marshall, 1963).
The behavioral significance of fish sounds also occupied the interest
of many investigators. Dufossk (1874) remarked on the possible communicative functions of these sounds. Most workers reported these
sounds to be a sign of alarm or fright (Greene, 1924; Burkenroad, 1930,
1931), although the fact that some fish sounds, notably of sciaenids, are
associated with the spawning season or with schooling had apparently
been known to fishermen since ancient times.
As is often the case, major scientific and technological advances occur
as a byproduct of the search for more efficient means of making war. The
field of marine bioacoustics serves as a good example. Motivated by a
concern for detection of submarines and other means of undersea warfare,
new and efficient mechanisms for detection of underwater sound were
developed during World War 11. Hydrophones and their associated
electronic and recording equipment also proved capable of detecting
sounds produced by undersea animals. Shortly after the war, reports were
made public that sounds produced by undersea animals often formed an
ambient, interfering noise (Loye and Proudfoot, 1946; Knudsen et al.,
1948). Some progress was made in identification of sonic species and their
seasonal occurrences (Dobrin, 1947, 1948), and in the use of sonics as a
tool in the study of marine ecology (Johnson, 1948).
An important contribution to this field is represented by the reports
of Fish et al. (1952) and Fish (1954). These publications described
sounds produced by a wide variety of marine fishes, representing many
families, and showed that sound production was much more common
than had been previously supposed. Most of the examples given were
recorded under artificial, aquarium conditions, and the sounds emitted
were often from animals under duress. Such reports demonstrated that
many fishes were potentially capable of producing sounds. Spectral
analyses of the sounds showed a significant amount of species distinctiveness.
In 1953, Kellogg published a bibliography of sounds of marine organisms. Although not complete, this listing included a large majority of
references available at that time. Over the past 15 years, the number of
relevant articles and books issued totals at least 10 times the 53 listed by
Kellogg. In addition, several reviews of the field have been published,
notably by Backus (1958), Maliukina and Protasov (1960), N. B.
137
Porichthys, and Hardenberg ( 1934) on Therapon. In addition, structures
such as stridulating teeth, fin spines, and other hard parts were found
to be involved in sound production in many species (Sgrensen, 1894;
Burkenroad, 1930, 1931 ) . Among small aquarium species, the croaking
gourami, Trichopsis vittatus, is probably the best known sound producer
( Stampehl, 1931; Reickel, 1936; Meder, 1953; J. A. Marshall, 1963).
The behavioral significance of fish sounds also occupied the interest
of many investigators. Dufossk (1874) remarked on the possible communicative functions of these sounds. Most workers reported these
sounds to be a sign of alarm or fright (Greene, 1924; Burkenroad, 1930,
1931), although the fact that some fish sounds, notably of sciaenids, are
associated with the spawning season or with schooling had apparently
been known to fishermen since ancient times.
As is often the case, major scientific and technological advances occur
as a byproduct of the search for more efficient means of making war. The
field of marine bioacoustics serves as a good example. Motivated by a
concern for detection of submarines and other means of undersea warfare,
new and efficient mechanisms for detection of underwater sound were
developed during World War 11. Hydrophones and their associated
electronic and recording equipment also proved capable of detecting
sounds produced by undersea animals. Shortly after the war, reports were
made public that sounds produced by undersea animals often formed an
ambient, interfering noise (Loye and Proudfoot, 1946; Knudsen et al.,
1948). Some progress was made in identification of sonic species and their
seasonal occurrences (Dobrin, 1947, 1948), and in the use of sonics as a
tool in the study of marine ecology (Johnson, 1948).
An important contribution to this field is represented by the reports
of Fish et al. (1952) and Fish (1954). These publications described
sounds produced by a wide variety of marine fishes, representing many
families, and showed that sound production was much more common
than had been previously supposed. Most of the examples given were
recorded under artificial, aquarium conditions, and the sounds emitted
were often from animals under duress. Such reports demonstrated that
many fishes were potentially capable of producing sounds. Spectral
analyses of the sounds showed a significant amount of species distinctiveness.
In 1953, Kellogg published a bibliography of sounds of marine organisms. Although not complete, this listing included a large majority of
references available at that time. Over the past 15 years, the number of
relevant articles and books issued totals at least 10 times the 53 listed by
Kellogg. In addition, several reviews of the field have been published,
notably by Backus (1958), Maliukina and Protasov (1960), N. B.