AbstractIn this review, stock identification methods used, resulting stock numbers and boundaries, and assessment and management context were explored for all 25 species managed by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC). This included invertebrates and vertebrates distributed between Maine and Florida, with a few species ranging across all these states and some ranging into the Gulf of Mexico and the Canadian Maritimes. The effects of larval dispersal or mixing of adults in the marine environment were evident. Marine and catadromous spawners were recognized and treated as a unit stock (e.g., northern shrimp Pandalus borealis, American Eel Anguilla rostrata, Atlantic menhaden Brevoortia tyrannus, Bluefish Pomatomus saltatrix, Tautog Tautoga onitis), a metapopulation (American lobster Homarus americanus, Atlantic Herring Clupea harengus), or two stocks, north and south of Cape Hatteras, a major biogeographic boundary, (Black Sea Bass Centropristis striata, Scup Stenotomus chrysops, Red Drum Sciaenops ocellatus, Summer Flounder Paralichthys dentatus). Estuarine and anadromous spawners were structured and managed at a finer spatial scale (horseshoe crab Limulus polyphemus, Atlantic Sturgeon Acipenser oxyrinchus, American Shad Alosa sapidissima and the river herrings Blueback Herring A. aestivalis and Alewife A. pseudoharengus, and Spotted Seatrout Cynoscion nebulosus). A broad suite of stock identification methods have been applied to ASMFC species and reviewed here in five categories: life history traits, other phenotypic traits, genetic traits, natural marks, and applied marks. An interdisciplinary mix of methods has been achieved for a few species (Striped Bass Morone saxatilis, Winter Flounder Pseudopleuronectes americanus), but only a few or no stock identification methods have been applied to others (Spiny Dogfish Squalus acanthias, Hickory Shad A. mediocris, Spot Leiostomus xanthurus, Spanish Mackerel Scomberomorus maculatus). Clinal phenotypic variation has contributed to several long‐standing debates about stock structure; some of these have been recently reevaluated as a unit stock (Atlantic Croaker Micropogonias undulatus, Weakfish Cynoscion regalis), and others are still debated. For some ASMFC species, other priorities (e.g., bycatch) dominate the uncertainty of the assessment or management process. Otherwise, stock identification remains a research priority for most of these species. Continued research of this subject should consider (1) research priorities tabulated by ASMFC review panels, (2) strategic use of interdisciplinary stock identification methods, (3) use of experiments or reaction norms to separate phenotypes from genotypes, (4) genetic surveys at a seascape scale, (5) demonstration of contingent (nongenetic) structure and its implications for management, and (6) simulation modeling. Obstacles to adopting finer‐scale structure into assessments or management of ASMFC fisheries include: (1) multiple stock units are apparent but boundaries are not clear, (2) monitoring requirements for smaller areas or for mixed‐stock catches are not cost effective, or (3) mixing rates within a metapopulation or across biogeographic boundaries are poorly described.Received May 8, 2013; accepted March 3, 2014