SERIES PUBLICATIONS OF THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION

Emphasis upon publication as a means of “diffusing knowledge” was expressed by the first Secretary of the Smithsonian. In his formal plan for the Institution, Joseph Henry outlined a program that included the following statement: “It is proposed to publish a series of reports, giving an account of the new discoveries in science, and of the changes made from year to year in all branches of knowledge.” This theme of basic research has been adhered to through the years by thousands of titles issued in series publications under the Smithsonian imprint, commencing with Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge in 1848 and continuing with the following active series:

Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology

Smithsonian Contributions to Astrophysics

Smithsonian Contributions to Botany

Smithsonian Contributions to the Earth Sciences

Smithsonian Contributions to Paleobiology

Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology

Smithsonian Studies in Air and Space

Smithsonian Studies in History and Technology

In these series, the Institution publishes small papers and full-scale monographs that report the research and collections of its various museums and bureaux or of professional colleagues in the world of science and scholarship. The publications are distributed by mailing lists to libraries, universities, and similar institutions throughout the world.

Papers or monographs submitted for series publication are received by the Smithsonian Institution Press, subject to its own review for format and style, only through departments of the various Smithsonian museums or bureaux, where the manuscripts are given substantive review. Press requirements for manuscript and art preparation are outlined on the inside back cover.

S. Dillon Ripley

Secretary

Smithsonian Institution

SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ZOOLOGY • NUMBER 270

Synonymization of the Family Oxudercidae, with Comments on the Identity of Apocryptes cantoris Day (Pisces: Gobiidae)

Victor G. Springer

SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION PRESS

City of Washington

1978

ABSTRACT

Springer, Victor G. Synonymization of the Family Oxudercidae, with Comments on the Identity of Apocryptes cantoris Day (Pisces: Gobiidae). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, number 270, 14 pages, 6 figures, 2 tables, 1978.—The holotype of Oxuderces dentatus Eydoux and Souleyet, 1842, type-genus and species (and only reported specimen) of the Family Oxudercidae, is an aberrant specimen lacking pelvic fins of a gobiid species normally having pelvic fins. Oxudercidae Günther, 1861, is a junior synonym of Gobiidae Cuvier, 1816. Oxudercidae, Amblyopina, and Trypauchenina (all Günther, 1861) are the next oldest family-group names available in the Gobiidae.

Normal specimens of Oxuderces dentatus have been described as Apocryptichthys sericus Herre, Apocryptes pellegrini Wu, and Apocryptichthys livingstoni Fowler, all of which are junior synonyms of O. dentatus. In current literature, normal specimens of O. dentatus are generally assigned to the genus Apocryptichthys Day, 1876 (type-species: Apocryptes cantoris Day, 1871) and often reported as Apocryptichthys cantoris. Subsequent to the original description of A. cantoris, Day changed his concept of the species and caused later workers much confusion. The number of species or specimens comprising Day's type material of Apocryptes cantoris is unknown, but only one specimen is extant. The specimen. which conforms to current concepts of the genus Boleophthalmus Valenciennes. 1837, is designated lectotype of Apocryptes cantoris.

OFFICIAL PUBLICATION DATE is handstamped in a limited number of initial copies and is recorded in the Instiution's annual report, Smithsonian Year. SERIES COVER DESIGN: The coral Montastrea cavernosa (Linnaeus).

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data

Springer, Victor Gruschka, 1928–

Synonymization of the family Oxudercidae, with comments on the identity of Apocryptes cantoris Day (Pisces, Gobiidae).

(Smithsonian contributions to zoology; no. 270)

Bibliography: p.

1. Gobiidae. 2. Boleophthalmus cantoris. 3. Fishes—Classification. I. Title. II. Oxudercidae, with comments on the identity of Apocryptes cantoris Day (Pisces, Gobiidae) III. Series: Smithsonian Institution. Smithsonian contributions to zoology; no. 270.

QL1.S54 no. 270 [QL638.G7] 591′.08s 77–12002 [597′.58]

Contents

Introduction

Acknowledgments

Historical Review

Identity and Redescription of Oxuderces dentatus

Oxuderces dentatus Eydoux and Souleyet

Identity of Apocryptichthys and Redescription of Apocryptes cantoris

Boleophthalmus cantoris (Day)

Literature Cited

Requirements for Smithsonian Series Publication

Synonymization of the Family Oxudercidae, with Comments on the Identity of Apocryptes cantoris Day (Pisces: Gobiidae)

Victor G. Springer

____________

Victor G. Springer, Division of Fishes, Department of Vetebrate Zoology, National Museum of Natural History, Washington, D. C. 20560.

Introduction

It is the purpose of this study to expose the systematic relationships of the monotypic fish family Oxudercidae and its type-genus and species, Oxuderces dentatus Eydoux and Souleyet (1842),[1] which was based on a single specimen. Since the original description of O. dentatus, no additional specimens have been reported, nor has anyone reported reexamining the holotype. The taxonomy of Oxuderces dentatus is intertwined with the taxonomy of Apocryptes cantoris Day (1871), type-species of Apocryptichthys Day (1876), and requires discussion of Day's taxa.

Abbreviations used in the text have become standard in ichthyological studies, but are defined in Springer and Gomon (1975).

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.—Specimens used in this study were generously provided by M.-L. Bauchot (MNHN), M. Boeseman (RMNH), E. Böhlke (ANSP), D. Hoese (AMS), P. Sonoda (CAS), and P. J. Whitehead (BMNH). A. E. Spreitzer (National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian) prepared the photographs. A draft of the manuscript was critically reviewed by R. S. Birdsong, R. H. Gibbs, Jr., E. A. Lachner, J. F. McKinney, and A. E. Spreitzer.

Historical Review

The following discussion reviews the classificatory history of Oxuderces and the Oxudercidae. Eydoux and Souleyet (1842) placed Oxuderces in the family Gobioides, which agrees with the family Gobioïdes (later emended to Gobiidae), first proposed by Cuvier (1816). Oxuderces was differentiated from all other gobies by lacking pelvic fins and having a peculiar gill opening: continuous across the isthmus and restricted to the ventral surface of the head. Although it was not commented on, the anal fin was reported to have six spines, which would be extraordinary for a gobiid.

Oxuderces was next treated by Günther (1861), who erected the family Oxudercidae for it. Günther united his Discobili, Gobiidae, and Oxudercidae in a Division Gobiiformes of the Acanthopterygii, but Gill (1872) isolated the Oxudercidae and excluded it, without comment, from the families included in his Gobioidea. Bleeker (1873), however, retained Oxuderces in his family Gobioidei, but omitted mention of Oxuderces in his important treatise (1874) on generic groupings in the family. Günther (1880) questionably included Oxuderces in the Gobiidae and made no mention of the Oxudercidae, which he had earlier proposed, but Gill (1893) recognized the Oxudercidae and Gobiidae as the only families in his Gobioidea.

Boulenger (1904) included Oxuderces in the Gobiidae, stating that Oxuderces appeared to differ from Trypauchen only in the absence of pelvic fins, a strange comment in view of the numerous other pecularities given in the original description of Oxuderces. Jordan (1905) also placed Oxuderces in the Gobiidae, stating that Oxuderces had very short dorsal and anal fins, facts belied by information in the original description. Jordan (1923), however, without comment, chose to recognize the Oxudercidae, and placed it in his order Jugulares under his series Percophidiformes, which also included such families as the Trichonotidae, Mugiloididae, and Percophididae, but not the Gobiidae. Reeves (1927) and Chu (1931) listed the Oxudercidae without comment.

Berg (1940, 1955) placed the Oxudercidae as incertae sedis in his superfamily Trachinoidae, and Fowler (1956), apparently following Berg, placed it in the superfamily Trachinicae. Schultz (1960) included Oxuderces, “for convenience,” in his key to the genera related to the families Trichonotidae and Percophididae, but made no mention of the Oxudercidae. Golvan (1962) allocated Oxuderces as “(Gobioid.) Gobiid.” but later (1965) placed it in the Oxudercidae, which he included in the suborder Trachinoidei. Breder and Rosen (1966) listed the Oxudercidae without comment, and Greenwood, et al. (1966) recognized the Oxudercidae in the suborder Trachinoidei. Gosline (1968) placed the Oxudercidae in the suborder Blennioidei, but McAllister (1968), following Berg (1940, 1955), included it as incertae sedis in the suborder Trachinoidei. Lindberg (1971) included the Oxudercidae in the superfamily Trachinoidea.

Wheeler (1975) wrote of the Oxudercidae, “Its standing as a family is open to serious doubt,” and of Oxuderces dentatus, “There seems to be considerable doubt as to whether it is a valid species, and if it is, where it should be placed in the systematic arrangement.” Finally, Nelson (1976) included the Oxudercidae in the infraorder Trachinoidea of the suborder Blennioidei.

Given the interest in, and doubt expressed about, the Oxudercidae and Oxuderces dentatus during the past 135 years, it is surprising that no one has reported reexamining the holotype of O. dentatus. M.-L. Bauchot (in litt.) does not believe that the holotype was ever loaned, and she located it only after a long search, “oublié sur un étagère a côté des Lophiidae,” in the collections of the Muséum in Paris. Nevertheless, accompanying the holotype (MNHN A.1822), which was lent me, was a tiny vial containing some stained (alizarin?) scales that appear to have been removed from the type, but by whose action for what purposes, I am unaware.

Identity and Redescription of Oxuderces dentatus

My examination of the holotype of O. dentatus, now in poor condition, confirms much of the information contained in the original description, which, in general, is very good, but there are some corrections that must be noted (Table 1), particularly the anal-fin formula. The absence of pelvic fins and the erroneous report of six anal-fin spines were undoubtedly the major sources of the classificatory confusion surrounding O. dentatus. To their credit, Eydoux and Souleyet correctly assigned Oxuderces to the Gobiidae. My immediate impression on first examining the holotype was that it was a malformed specimen of a gobiid species that normally has pelvic fins. The anomalous absence of pelvic fins occurs in a wide variety of fishes (see bibliographies of anomalies by Dawson, 1964, 1966, 1971, and Dawson and Heal, 1976), and although unreported in gobiids, should not be unexpected. A search of museum collections uncovered numerous specimens that appeared to be conspecific with O. dentatus. The specimens differed significantly from O. dentatus only in having pelvic fins and in having the gill openings restricted on each side of the head. One of these specimens (CAS SU61139) was obtained at the Macao fish market, a fortunate circumstance as the type-locality of O. dentatus is also Macao. My comparison of the holotype of O. dentatus with the fish market specimen convinces me that the two specimens are conspecific. The fish market specimen, under current taxonomic concepts, clearly belongs in the Gobiidae.

TABLE 1.—Comparison of certain characters given in the original description of Oxuderces dentatus with the same characters as observed on the holotype

Although Oxudercidae thus becomes a junior synonym of the Gobiidae, it is coequal in seniority with Amblyopina and Trypauchenina, all three names dating from Günther (1861), as the next oldest family-group names available in the Gobiidae. As such, Oxudercidae has priority over such well-known gobiid taxa as Apocryteinae, Periophthalminae, and Boleophthalminae (all Bleeker, 1874; see Miller, 1973, for a list and discussion of available family-group taxa of gobiids, except Oxudercidae), which heretofore have either included taxa synonymous with Oxuderces dentatus or closely enough related to O. dentatus to have included it also.

Many of the normal specimens of O. dentatus I located were registered in museum collections under the gobiid genus Apocryptichthys Day (1876;type-species: Apocryptes cantoris Day, 1871). A search of the literature educed four nominal species that appeared to refer to normal specimens: Apocryptes cantoris Day, Apocryptichthys sericus Herre (1927), Apocryptes pellegrini Wu (1931), and Apocryptichthys livingstoni Fowler (1935).

Before discussing Apocryptes cantoris, which is not particularly closely related to Oxuderces dentatus, it is easiest to dispense with Herre, Wu and Fowler's species. Apocryptichthys sericus Herre was described from four specimens, three from Amoy (Hsia-men) and one from Fuchow, China. The locality for the holotype was not given. The type material, deposited in the Philippine Bureau of Science collections, was destroyed during World War II; however, a specimen (CAS SU25524) is available from Amoy that was identified as A. sericus, apparently by Herre, which was collected in 1927, the same year in which Herre's description appeared (the specimen was collected by Johnson Chen, whereas Herre's types were collected by S. F. Light). Herre did not compare his species with any other except to state, “In general appearance this species is very close to Day's A. cantoris….” Apocryptichthys sericus is the oldest name available for a normal specimen of Oxuderces dentatus, but is, nevertheless, a junior synonym of that species. Herre's illustration of A. sericus is reproduced herein as Figure 1a.

Apocryptes pellegrini Wu was described from Foochow, China, based on a single specimen. The depository of the holotype was not specified. The species was stated to be “nearly related” to Apocryptes nexipinnis Cantor (1850), from which it was differentiated. It was also compared with other species of Apocryptes from China, but none of the compared species are synonymous with Oxuderces dentatus. Wu's (1931) description and illustration (here reproduced as Figure 1b) can be identified only with Oxuderces dentatus, and Wu (in Chen, 1934) acknowledged this identification implicitly by stating that his A. pellegrini was a synonym of Apocryptichthys sericus. (I believe that A. nexipinnis is the nearest relative of O. dentatus, from which A. nexipinnis differs most notably in having a pair of canines posterior to the dentary symphysis, the entire head and body scaled, and more dorsal, anal, and pectoral-fin rays, I hazard the opinion that A. nexipinnis will be assigned to Oxuderces when the genera of Gobiidae are better delimited. A cursory review of the literature indicates to me that there are probably several synonyms, both junior and senior, available for A. nexipinnis.)

Apocryptichthys livingstoni Fowler (holotype herein illustrated in Figures 2a, 3a, 4a) was described from three specimens from Paknam, Thailand. It was differentiated only from Day's A. cantoris. All the type specimens are available and are conspecific with A. sericus and, hence, Oxuderces dentatus.

FIGURE 1.—a, Apocryptichthys sericus (=Oxuderces dentatus) after Herre (1927); b, Apocryptes pellegrini (=Oxuderces dentatus), after Wu (1931); c, illustration accompanying Day's 1876 account of Apocryptichthys cantoris.

Oxuderces dentatus Eydoux and Souleyet

FIGURES 2b, 3b, 4b

Oxuderces dentatus Eydoux and Souleyet, 1842:182, pl. 8: fig. 2 [original description; Macao; holotype MNHN A.1822].—Günther, 1861:165 [description after original; placed in new family].—Bleeker, 1873:129 [included in Gobiidae].—Jordan, 1905:468 [listed, brief comment].—Jordan, 1919:213 [listed].—Reeves, 1927:14 [listed].—Chu, 1931:169 [listed].—Fowler, 1956:343, fig. 61 [description and figure after original].—Schultz, 1960: 274 [listed].—Lindberg, 1971:191, fig. 743 [figure after original].—Wheeler, 1975:275 [figure after original; validity questioned].—Nelson, 1976:265 [listed].

Apocryptichthys cantoris [not Day, 1871] Day, 1876:302 [in part; pl. 62: fig. 7 does not pertain; Madras].—Day, 1889:279 [in part; figure 94 does not pertain; Madras].—Smith, 1931: 189 [off mouth of Meklong. Gulf of Siam].—Koumans, 1932:16 [estuaries, eastern Java].—Koumans, 1941:276 [in part, description].—Smith, 1945:564 [comments; habitat].—Koumans, 1953:252, fig. 62 [description; distribution].

Apocryptichthys sericus Herre, 1927:264, pl. 21: fig. 1 [original description; Amoy and Fuchow; holotype, Philippine Bureau of Science 11009].—Chen, 1934:39 [Foochow; Apocryptes pellegrini synonymized].—Koumans, 1940:191 [reexamination of types].—Fowler, 1962:3, fig. 72 [description after original].—Chu and Wu, 1965: 133 and 134 [South and East China seas].

Apocryptes pellegrini Wu, 1931:48, fig. 8 [original description, Foochow].

Apocryptichthys livingstoni Fowler, 1935:162, figs. 131 and 132 [original description; Paknam, Siam; holotype, ANSP 63091].—Smith, 1945:564 [comparison].

Apocryptes cantoris [not Day, 1871].—Whitehead and Talwar, 1976: 161 [in part; location of Day's Madras specimen].

DESCRIPTION.—Dorsal fin VI, 25–27; terminal pterygiophore supporting two rays, posteriormost of which is greatly reduced (the two rays here tabulated as one ray, but tabulated separately for Madras specimen in Table 2); spinous dorsal-fin pterygiophore formula (Birdsong, 1975): 3(12210) (note: this particular formula typifies a large number of gobiids that are probably related to Oxuderces, including some that have only five dorsal-fin spines; the posteriormost spine, the sixth of the related forms, may be lacking, but its pterygiophore remains); base of sixth spine positioned about midway between bases of fifth spine and first segmented ray; first four interspinous spaces about equal; spinous and segmented-ray portions connected by membrane; separation between portions marked by broad, shallow depression in membrane margin; fifth spine is longest fin element, but only slightly exceeds longest segmented ray; however, spinous portion not higher than segmented-ray portion because of strong dorsoposterior arching of spines; insertion of last segmented ray anterior to caudal-fin base, but tips of depressed posterior rays extend posteriorly beyond base; last ray not connected by membrane to caudal-fin base; color pattern variably pale and dusky, not remarkable except for darkly pigmented membranes between last three or four rays, often appearing as dark blotch at end of fin.

FIGURE 2.—Oxuderces dentatus: a, ANSP 63091, holotype of Apocryptichthys livingstoni Fowler; b, MNHN A.1822, holotype of Oxuderces dentatus Eydoux and Souleyet.

FIGURE 3.—Oxuderces dentatus, lateral view of head region: a, ANSP 63091, holotype of Apocryptichthys livingstoni Fowler; b, MNHN A.1822, holotype of Oxuderces dentatus Eydoux and Souleyet.

FIGURE 4.—Oxuderces dentatus, ventral view of head region: a, ANSP 63091, holotype of Apocryptichthys livingstoni Fowler; b, MNHN A.1822, holotype of Oxuderces dentatus Eydoux and Souleyet.

Anal fin 24–27 (usually 25 or 26), all rays segmented and branched; terminal pterygiophore supporting two rays, posteriormost of which is greatly reduced (the two rays here tabulated as one ray, but tabulated separately for Madras specimen in Table 2); insertion of last ray below or anterior to vertical from base of penultimate dorsal-fin ray; tips of depressed posterior rays extend posteriorly beyond caudal-fin base; no membrane attaching last ray to caudal peduncle; color almost immaculate.

Pectoral fin 22–24, ventralmost rays shortest, finest, difficult to delineate; color mostly immaculate but fleshy base darkly dusky.

Pelvic fin 1, 5, joined by membrane with fin of opposite side to form cup; frenum well developed; color immaculate.

Caudal fin lanceolate, with 17 segmented rays, of which 15 or 16 are branched; dorsal and ventral procurrent rays each 5 or 6; parhypural, ventral hypural plate (composed of fused hypurals 1 and 2), hypural 5, and two epurals all autogenous; dorsal hypural plate (composed of fused hypurals 3 and 4) fused to urostylar complex; uroneurals not present; color dusky.

Vertebrae 10 + 16. Branchiostegals 5.

Scales cycloid, covering most of body, sparse and embedded or absent on sides of head, varying from an elongate patch on either side on top of head to covering top of head to level just posterior to eyes, absent on prepectoral and prepelvic areas, smallest anteriorly on head and body, largest on caudal peduncle and caudal fin basally; diameter of anterior body scales about one-sixth to one-fifth diameter of largest scales; diagonal scale rows irregular, impossible to count accurately, about 60–70 scales along line between pectoral-fin axil and caudal-fin base.

Gill opening restricted, extending dorsally from point somewhat dorsal to pelvic-fin origin to opposite level of about sixth to eighth from ventralmost pectoral-fin ray.

All teeth with obtuse tips; upper jaw with one or two prominent, elongate teeth (“canines”) on each side of premaxillary symphysis; canines extending ventrally beyond lower lip when mouth is closed; row of 3–19 (usually 12–14) much smaller teeth on each side of jaw posterior to canines; lower jaw with row of 7–14 (usually 10–14) more or less laterally projecting teeth on each side; lower jaw teeth shorter than canines, but longer than small teeth of upper jaw; no erect canine tooth on each side of symphysis internal to anterior margin of lower jaw; upper jaw teeth extending about half length upper jaw further posteriorly than lower jaw teeth; vomer and palatines edentate.

Gape relatively large; posterior tip of maxillary about two eye diameters posterior to vertical from posterior margin of eye, but rictus only one diameter posterior to vertical. Upper lip conspicuously dark dusky for most of length. Lower jaw spoon shaped, tongue adnate; posterior free edge of lower lip juts laterally, bears about six acutely to obtusely tipped crenulae. On each side of roof of mouth, just posterolateral to vomer, is a pendulous flap that questionably has a minute opening at its tip.

Eyes located dorsally on anterior third of head length; ventral eyelid absent. Small pore (posterior nostril?) just anterolateral to midanterior margin of eye; unpaired (common) opening located anteriorly in interorbital region, connected by internal canal on each side of head to large pore located midway between anterior edge of upper lip and anterior margin of eye. Lateral to large pore, above upper lip, a pendulous fleshy tube with minute pore (anterior nostril?) at tip overhangs lower jaw when mouth is closed; canal of tube leads to large, glandlike organ (nasal rosette?).

In many specimens, the color pattern, except for the dark spot posteriorly on the dorsal fin and the dark edge of the upper lip, was not noteworthy, but in other specimens the dorsal portions of the head and, anteriorly, the body exhibited an irregular pattern of small, dusky vermiculations. Herre (1927) illustrated a specimen with seven or eight barlike marks on the body (see Figure 1a). I have not seen these marks on any of the specimens I examined.

FIGURE 5.—Distribution of Oxuderces dentatus.

DISTRIBUTION.—See “Material Examined” and Figure 5.

MATERIAL EXAMINED.—INDIA: Madras, AMS B.8336 (47.2 mm SL). INDONESIA: Pulu Weh, NW Sumatra, RMNH 17382 (71.6); E Java, RMNH 12091 (3: ca. 68-ca. 80), RMNH 12092 (19: 62.5–79.5), RMNH 12433 (55.0); Surabaja, Java, RMNH 12570 (79.7). THAILAND: Paknam, ANSP 63091, (holotype of Apocryptichthys livingstoni, 73.4), ANSP 63092-3 (2: 73.7, 76.1); off mouth of Meklong, USNM 119547 (67.9). MACAO: MNHN A.1822 (holotype of Oxuderces dentatus, ca. 75; fish mkt, CAS SU61139 (76.7). CHINA: Foochow and vicinity, USNM 86378 (2: 56.7, 70.3), USNM 86954 (2: 80.5, 81.5); Fengsien (also Feng-hsien, near Shanghai, 2: ca. 81, ca. 93); Amoy, CAS SU25524 (65.6).

Identity of Apocryptichthys and Redescription of Apocryptes cantoris

All references to Apocryptichthys in keys to gobiid genera refer to Oxuderces, and the name Apocryptichthys cantoris is often assigned in the literature and in museum collections to specimens of Oxuderces dentatus. Neither of these names, however, is a strict synonym of Oxuderces or O. dentatus. The circumstances surrounding and following Day's (1871) description of Apocryptes cantoris have caused much confusion. Apocryptes cantoris was described in a paper on Andaman Island fishes, but Day mentioned that he included some fishes from the Nicobars as well. All of the new species descriptions, except that of A. cantoris, included in Day's paper specify the locality (Andamans or Nicobars) from where the species came. Because Day, in later publications, did not report A. cantoris as occurring in the Nicobars, we can assume that it came from the Andamans (a locality at which Oxuderces dentatus is not known to occur). Day also did not indicate the number or sizes of the specimens on which the species account was based, although it could have been based on only one specimen as no variation was mentioned. The species was not illustrated in the original description.

Day's next reference to Apocryptes cantoris was in 1876, at which time he erected the genus Apocryptichthys for it alone, expanded and changed the description of the species, included a figure (herein reproduced as Figure 1c), and gave the geographic range of the species as Andamans and Madras. The illustration conforms to no specimen or other species description of which I am aware. The 1876 description of A. cantoris, which agrees with the only other report of A. cantoris given by Day (1889), differs significantly from the 1871 description. A comparison of the important features of the 1871 and 1876 descriptions, together with the same features as taken from the only two specimens known to have been identified by Day as A. cantoris (one each from the Andamans and Madras) is given in Table 2. A supposed third specimen, from the Andamans, on which, according to Day, the 1876 figure is also supposedly based, is reported to be lost or destroyed (Whitehead and Talwar, 1976). Of the two extant specimens, the one from Madras, which has no status as a type, is a normal specimen of Oxuderces dentatus; the one from the Andamans is referable to the genus Boleophthalmus, as currently treated in the literature,[2] and I am unable to assign a species name other than cantoris to it.

One can readily conclude from the information in Table 2 and the above discussion that Day changed his concept of Apocryptes cantoris between 1871 and 1876 to conform more closely with normal specimens of Oxuderces dentatus, and that the original description of A. cantoris was either based on more than one species (and genus), or contained errors, or both. The simplest solution to the problem is to assign Day's species name to a specimen. Inasmuch as there is an extant specimen from the Andaman Islands that Day identified as Apocryptes cantoris (presented to the British Museum in 1870), and which largely agrees with his original description, it appears that this specimen was part of, if not entirely, Day's type material of A. cantoris. I, therefore, designate this specimen (BMNH 1870.5.12.23) lectotype of Apocryptes cantoris Day. As a result of my action, Apocryptichthys becomes, for the moment, a junior subjective synonym of Boleophthalmus Valenciennes.

Boleophthalmus cantoris (Day)

FIGURE 6

Apocryptes cantoris Day. 1871:693 [original description; Andamans].—Whitehead and Talwar, 1976:161 [in part: location of Day's type specimens].

TABLE 2.—Comparison of certain characters in Day's descriptions of Apocryptichthys cantoris with the same characters as exhibited by specimens identified as A. cantoris by Day

Apocryptichthys cantoris (Day).—Day, 1876:302 [in part; pl. 62: fig. 7 does not pertain; Andamans].—Day, 1889:279 [in part; figure 94 does not pertain; Andamans].—Koumans, 1931:132 [listed].—Koumans, 1941:276 [in part; description).

DESCRIPTION OF LECTOTYPE OF Apocryptes cantoris.—Dorsal fin V, 26; terminal pterygiophore supporting two subequal rays (the two rays here tabulated as one ray, but tabulated separately in Table 2); spinous dorsal-fin pterygiophore formula (Birdsong, 1975): 3(12210) (note: the posteriormost of these pterygiophores is not associated with an external element); interspinous spaces equal; spinous and segmented ray portions of fin well separated, not connected by membrane; fourth spine filamentous, by far the longest dorsal-fin element; insertion of last segmented ray anterior to caudal-fin base, but depressed last rays extending posteriorly well beyond caudal-fin origin; last ray connected by membrane to caudal fin basally; color pattern, spinous portion pale dusky except second spine dark dusky distally; segmented ray portion pale anteriorly, with dusky stripe gradually making appearance at about midlength of fin, grading into three dusky stripes at posterior end of fin.

FIGURE 6.—Lectotype of Apocryptes cantoris Day, BMNH 1870.5.18.23.

Anal fin 24, all rays segmented and branched; terminal pterygiophore supporting two subequal rays (the two rays here tabulated as one ray, but tabulated separately in Table 2); insertion of last ray below vertical from base of last dorsal-fin ray; tips of depressed posterior rays extend posteriorly beyond caudal-fin base; membrane attaches last ray for most of its length to caudal peduncle; color almost immaculate.

Pectoral fin (each) 19, ventralmost ray shortest, about equal to dorsalmost ray but much stouter; color variably dusky with one or two small, prominent, dark spots; fleshy base with two or four small, prominent, dark spots.

Pelvic fin, 1, 5, joined by membrane with fin of opposite side to form cup; frenum well developed; color mostly immaculate with faintly dusky pigment in membranes between three innermost rays.

Caudal fin lanceolate with 16 segmented rays, of which only dorsalmost is simple; dorsal procurrent rays 2, ventral procurrent rays 1; parhypural, ventral hypural plate (composed of fused hypurals 1 and 2), hypural 5, and two epurals all autogenous; dorsal hypural plate (composed of fused hypural 3 and 4) fused to urostylar complex; uroneurals not present; color pattern generally dark dusky, except immaculate over ventralmost three rays, and several dark-margined pale spots slightly distal to fin base.

Vertebrae 10 + 16. Branchiostegal number could not be determined without dissection.

Scales cycloid, tiny, subequal throughout, covering body and sides and top of head, absent from head ventrally and prepectoral and prepelvic areas; minutely tubercular or imbedded on head and anteriorly on body; diagonal rows impossible to count; more than 100 scales along line between pectoral-fin axil and caudal-fin base.

Gill opening restricted, extending dorsally from point slightly dorsal to pelvic-fin origin to opposite level of eighth or ninth from ventralmost pectoral-fin ray.

All teeth with acute tips; upper jaw teeth uniserial, composed of 14 large, subequal teeth anteriorly, followed posteriorly on each side by eight or nine much smaller teeth, about half length of large teeth; lower jaw with large erect canine internally on each side of symphysis and outer row anteriorly of 15 or 16 large teeth, equal in size to small teeth of upper jaw, followed posteriorly on each side by offset row of 4 or 6 much smaller teeth, about half size of anterior teeth, followed posteriorly by another offset row of 3 or 4 teeth equal in size to first offset row; total lower jaw teeth, excluding erect canines, 48; lower jaw teeth (except erect canines) inclined somewhat laterally; teeth extend posteriorly for same distance in both jaws; vomer and palentines edentate.

Gape moderate; posterior tip of maxillary failing to reach vertical from posterior margin of eye; upper lip minutely papillose posteriorly, not modified anteriorly; color dusky but unremarkable; lower lip not modified. Lower jaw rounded anteriorly, not remarkable; tongue adnate; roof of mouth with broad, fleshy flap on either side of vomer.

Eyes located dorsally on anterior third of head; ventral eyelid well developed; small pore (posterior nostril?) opening just anterolateral to midanterior margin of each eye; no openings in interorbital region (see description of Oxuderces dentatus); only other opening is minute pore (anterior nostril?) at end of short ventrally directed tube originating above upper lip anteriorly on each side; tube does not extend ventrally beyond ventral margin of upper lip.

Head dusky dorsally and laterally, with two dusky bands dorsoposteriorly; sides with sparse scattering of small dark spots limited to area posterior to snout. Body dusky, with fine peppering of dark melanophores (visible only under magnification); numerous faint, slender, pale bars on sides; bars most obvious in nape area and below spinous dorsal fin; venter pale.

DISTRIBUTION.—Known only from the lectotype from the Andaman Islands.

____________

[1] It is questionable whether the authorship of the new taxa appearing in Eydoux and Souleyet (1842) should be credited to them or to Valenciennes. The confusion results from a footnote in Eydoux and Souleyet that states that all the identifications of fishes that were figured on the plates accompanying the publication were owed to Valenciennes, and all the fishes Eydoux and Souleyet treated were so figured. It is not clear whether the descriptions and new names are also the work of Valenciennes or if he merely informed Eydoux and Souleyet that certain taxa were undescribed. Most authors credit Valenciennes with the new names. For convenience of citation, however, I credit Eydoux and Souleyet with the new taxa contained in “their” study.

[2] Valenciennes (in Cuvier and Valenciennes, 1837) cited page 130 of Osbeck (1757; reference unavailable to me) as the original source of the genus Apocryptes. Valenciennes also cited page 170 of the German translation (1765) of Osbeck as a second source for Apocryptes. The name Apocryptes does not appear in the German translation (nor in a later English translation). Even if Apocryptes is cited in the pre-Linnean original edition of Osbeck, it is not available from the date of that publication. Jordan (1917, 1919) reported that Boleophthalmus Valenciennes in Cuvier and Valenciennes (1837) possibly should be synonymized with Apocryptes Osbeck, German edition, which Jordan erroneously dated 1762. Jordan also erroneously cited page 130 of the German edition as containing the reference to Apocryptes (however, he accurately stated that Albula appeared on page 309). Koumans (1931) summarized Jordan's discussion of Apocryptes and Boleophthalmus and also gave 1762 as the date for the German translation. The Apocryptes-Boleophthalmus problem is nomenclaturally complex and decisions must rest with the first reviser. I follow Koumans (1931). who, for convenience, recognized both these genera as valid senior synonyms.

Literature Cited

Berg, L. S.

1940.    Classification of Fishes Both Recent and Fossil. Travaux de l'Institut Zoologique de l'Academie des Sciences de l'U.R.S.S., 5(2):87–345. [In Russian and English.]

1955.    Sistema Ryboobraznykh i Ryb, Nyne Zhivushchikh i Iskopaemykh. Trudy Zoologicheskogo Instituta, 20: 1–286. [In Russian; German translation 1958.]

Birdsong, R. S.

1975.    The Osteology of Microgobius signatus Poey (Pisces: Gobiidae), with Comments on Other Gobioid Fishes. Bulletin of the Florida State Museum, 19(3):135–187.

Bleeker, P.

1873.    Mémoire sur la Faune Ichthyologique de Chine. Nederlandsch Tijdschrift voor de Dierkunde, 4:113–154.

1874.    Esquisse d'un Système Naturel des Gobioïdes. Archives Néerlandaises des Sciences Exactes et Naturelles, 9:289–331.

Boulenger, G. A.

1904.    Teleostei. Pages 541–727 in volume 7 of The Cambridge Natural History.

Breder, C. M. Jr., and D. E. Rosen

1966.    Modes of Reproduction in Fishes. xv + 941 pages.

Cantor, T.

1850.    Catalog of Malayan Fishes. Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, 18(2):i–xii + 983–1443, plates 1–14.

Chen, J.T.F.

1934.    Note sur les Gobioides de la collection du Muséum Metropolitain de Nankin. Bulletin du Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris, series 2, 6(1): 36–39.

Chu, Y., and H. Wu

1965.    A Preliminary Study of the Zoogeography of the Gobioid Fishes of China. Oceanologia et Limnologia, 7(2):122–140. [In Chinese with English summary.]

Chu, Y. T.

1931.    Index Piscium Sinensium. Biological Bulletin of St. Johns University, 1:iv + 1–291.

Cuvier, G.L.F.C.D.

1816.    Le Règne Animal. Volume 2, xviii + 532 pages. [Dated 1817 on title page.]

Cuvier, G.F.L.C.D., and A. Valenciennes

1837.    Histoire Naturelles de Poissons. Volume 12, xiv + 508 pages, 19 plates.

Dawson, C. E.

1964.    A Bibliography of Anomalies of Fishes. Gulf Research Reports, 1(6):308–399.

1966.    A Bibliography of Anomalies of Fishes, Supplement 1. Gulf Research Reports, 2(2):169–176.

1971.    A Bibliography of Anomalies of Fishes, Supplement 2. Gulf Research Reports, 3(2):215–239.

Dawson, C. E., and E. Heal

1976.    A Bibliography of Anomalies of Fishes, Supplement 3. Gulf Research Reports, 5(2):35–41.

Day, F.

1871.    On the Fishes of the Andaman Islands. Proceedings of the Scientific Meetings of the Zoological Society of London for the Year 1870, pages 677–765.

1876.    The Fishes of India. Pages 169–368, plates xli–lxxi.

1889.    Fishes. The Fauna of British India, 2:xiv + 509 pages.

Eydoux, J. F. T., and F. L. A. Souleyet

1842.    Poissons. Pages 155–216 in Zoologie, volume 1, part 2, and plates 1–10 in Atlas in Voyage autour du Monde exécuté pendant les années 1836 et 1837 sur la corvette La Bonite, commandée par M. Vaillant.

Fowler, H. W.

1935.    Zoological Results of the Third DeSchauensee Siamese Expedition, Part VI: Fishes Obtained in 1934. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 87:89–163.

1956.    A Synopsis of the Fishes of China, Part VII. Quarterly Journal of the Taiwan Museum, 9(3–4):161–354.

1962.    A Synopsis of the Fishes of China, Part X. Quarterly Journal of the Taiwan Museum, 15(1–2):1–77.

Gill, T.

1872.    Arrangement of the Families of Fishes. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, 247:xlvi + 1–49.

1893.    Families and Subfamilies of Fishes. Memoirs of the National Academy of Sciences, 6:127–138.

Golvan, Y. J.

1962.    Répertoire systématique des noms de generes de Vertébrés (suite). Annales de Parasitologie Humaine et Comparée, 37(5–6):870–997.

1965.    Catalogue Systématique des Noms de Genres de Poissons Actuels. 227 pages.

Gosline, W. A.

1968.    The Suborders of Perciform Fishes. Proceedings of the United States National Museum, 124(3647):1–78.

Greenwood, P. H., D. E. Rosen, S. H. Weitzman, and G. S. Myers

1966.    Phyletic Studies of Teleostean Fishes, with a Provisional Classification of Living Forms. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 131(4): 341–455.

Günther, A.

1861.    Catalogue of the Acanthopterygian Fishes in the Collection of the British Museum. Volume 3, xxv + 586 + × pages.

1880.    An Introduction to the Study of Fishes. xvi + 720 pages.

Herre, A. W.

1927.    Gobies of the Philippines and the China Sea. Monographs of the Bureau of Science, Manila, Philippine Islands, 23:1–352, 26 plates.

Jordan, D. S.

1905.    A Guide to the Study of Fishes. Volume 2, xxiii + 599 pages.

1917.    The Genera of Fishes. Leland Stanford Junior University Publications, University Series, pages 1–161.

1919.    The Genera of Fishes, Part II. Leland Stanford Junior University Publications, University Series, pages i–ix + 163–284 + i–xiii.

1923.    A Classification of Fishes Including Families and Genera as Far as Known. Stanford University Publications. University Series, Biological Sciences, 3(2):77–243 + i–x.

Koumans, F. P.

1931.    A Preliminary Revision of the Genera of the Gobioid Fishes with United Ventral Fins. 174 pages.

1932.    Notes on Gobioid Fishes. Zoologische Mededeelingen, 15(1–2): 1–16.

1940.    Results of a Reexamination of Types and Specimens of Gobioid Fishes, with Notes on the Fish Fauna of the Surroundings of Batavia. Zoologische Mededeelingen, 22:121–210.

1941.    Gobioid Fishes of India. Memoires of the Indian Museum, 13(3):205–329.

1953.    Gobioidea. The Fishes of the Indo-Australian Archipelago, 10:xiii + 423 pages.

Lindberg, G. U.

1971.    Opredelitel i Kharakteristika Semeistu ryb Mirovoi Fauny. Akademiya Nauk SSSR Zoologicheskii Institut, 470 pages. [In Russian. English translation, Fishes of the World, 1974.]

McAllister, D. E.

1968.    Evolution of Branchiostegals and Associated Opercular, Gular, and Hyoid Bones and the Classification of Teleostome Fishes, Living and Fossil. National Museum of Canada Bulletin, 221:xiv + 239 pages, 3 charts.

Miller, P. J.

1973.    The Osteology and Adaptive Features of Rhyacichthys aspro (Teleostei: Gobiodei) and the Classification of Gobioid Fishes. Journal of Zoology, 171:397–434.

Nelson, J. S.

1976.    Fishes of the World. xvi + 416 pages.

Osbeck, P.

1765.    Reise nach Ostindien und China. xxvi + 578 pages, 13 plates. [Translated from Swedish by J. G. Georgi.

Reeves, C. D.

1927.    A Catalogue of the Fishes of Northeastern China and Korea. Journal of the Pan-Pacific Research Institution, 2(3):1–16.

Schultz, L. P.

1960.    Fishes of the Marshall and Marianas Islands: Family Trichonotidae. United States National Museum Bulletin, 202(2):273–281.

Smith, H. M.

1931.    Notes on Siamese Fishes. Journal of the Siam Society, Natural History Supplement, 8(3):177–190.

1945.    The Fresh-water Fishes of Siam, or Thailand. United States National Museum Bulletin, 188:xi + 622 pages

Springer, V. G., and M. F. Goman

1975.    Revision of the Blenniid Fish Genus Omobranchus with Descriptions of Three New Species and Notes on Other Species of the Tribe Omobranchini. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, 177:1–135.

Wheeler, A.

1975.    Fishes of the World. xv + 366 pages, 96 plates.

Whitehead, P. J. P., and P. K. Talwar

1976.    Francis Day (1829–1889) and His Collections of Indian Fishes. Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History), Historical Series, 5(1):1–189, 4 plates.

Wu, H.-W.

1931.    Notes on the Fishes from the Coast of Foochow Region and Ming River. Contributions from the Biological Society of China, Zoological Series, 7(1):1–64.

REQUIREMENTS FOR SMITHSONIAN SERIES PUBLICATION

Manuscripts intended for series publication receive substantive review within their originating Smithsonian museums or offices and are submitted to the Smithsonian Institution Press with approval of the appropriate museum authority on Form SI-36. Requests for special treatment—use of color, foldouts, casebound covers, etc.—require, on the same form, the added approval of designated committees or museum directors.

Review of manuscripts and art by the Press for requirements of series format and style, completeness and clarity of copy, and arrangement of all material, as outlined below, will govern, within the judgment of the Press, acceptance or rejection of the manuscripts and art.

Copy must be typewritten, double-spaced, on one side of standard white bond paper, with 1¼″ margins, submitted as ribbon copy (not carbon or xerox), in loose sheets (not stapled or bound), and accompanied by original art. Minimum acceptable length is 30 pages.

Front matter (preceding the text) should include: title page with only title and author and no other information, abstract page with author/title/series/etc., following the established format, table of contents with indents reflecting the heads and structure of the paper.

First page of text should carry the title and author at the top of the page and an unnumbered footnote at the bottom consisting of author's name and professional mailing address.

Center heads of whatever level should be typed with initial caps of major words, with extra space above and below the head, but with no other preparation (such as all caps or underline). Run-in paragraph heads should use period/dashes or colons as necessary.

Tabulations within text (lists of data, often in parallel columns) can be typed on the text page where they occur, but they should not contain rules or formal, numbered table heads.

Formal tables (numbered, with table heads, boxheads, stubs, rules) should be submitted as camera copy, but the author must contact the series section of the Press for editorial attention and preparation assistance before final typing of this matter.

Taxonomic keys in natural history papers should use the alined-couplet form in the zoology and paleobiology series and the multi-level indent form in the botany series. If cross-referencing is required between key and text, do not include page references within the key, but number the keyed-out taxa with their corresponding heads in the text.

Synonymy in the zoology and paleobiology series must use the short form (taxon, author, year:page), with a full reference at the end of the paper under “Literature Cited.” For the botany series, the long form (taxon, author, abbreviated journal or book title, volume, page, year, with no reference in the “Literature Cited”) is optional.

Footnotes, when few in number, whether annotative or bibliographic, should be typed at the bottom of the text page on which the reference occurs. Extensive notes must appear at the end of the text in a notes section. If bibliographic footnotes are required, use the short form (author/brief title/page) with the full reference in the bibliography.

Text-reference system (author/year/page within the text, with the full reference in a “Literature Cited” at the end of the text) must be used in place of bibliographic footnotes in all scientific series and is strongly recommended in the history and technology series: “(Jones, 1910:122)” or “…. Jones (1910:122).”

Bibliography, depending upon use, is termed “References,” “Selected References,” or “Literature Cited.” Spell out book, journal, and article titles, using initial caps in all major words. For capitalization of titles in foreign languages, follow the national practice of each language. Underline (for italics) book and journal titles. Use the colon-parentheses system for volume/number/page citations: “10(2):5–9.” For alinement and arrangement of elements, follow the format of the series for which the manuscript is intended.

Legends for illustrations must not be attached to the art nor included within the text but must be submitted at the end of the manuscript—with as many legends typed, double-spaced, to a page as convenient.

Illustrations must not be included within the manuscript but must be submitted sepa rately as original art (not copies). All illustrations (photographs, line drawings, maps, etc.) can be intermixed throughout the printed text. They should be termed Figures and should be numbered consecutively. If several “figures” are treated as components of a single larger figure, they should be designated by lowercase italic letters (underlined in copy) on the illustration, in the legend, and in text references: “Figure 9b.” If illustrations are intended to be printed separately on coated stock following the text, they should be termed Plates and any components should be lettered as in figures: “Plate 9b,” Keys to any symbols within an illustration should appear on the art and not in the legend.

A few points of style: (1) Do not use periods after such abbreviations as “mm, ft, yds, USNM, NNE, AM, BC.” (2) Use hyphens in spelled out fractions: “two thirds.” (3) Spell out numbers “one” through “nine” in expository text, but use numerals in all other cases if possible. (4) Use the metric system of measurement, where possible, instead of the English system. (5) Use the decimal system, where possible, in place of fractions. (6) Use day/month/year sequence for dates: “9 April 1976.” (7) For months in tabular listings or data sections, use three-letter abbreviations with no periods: “Jan, Mar, Jun,” etc.

Arrange and paginate sequentially EVERY sheet of manuscript—including ALL front matter and ALL legends, etc., at the back of the text—in the following order: (1) title page, (2) abstract, (3) table of contents, (4) foreword and/or preface, (5) text, (6) appendixes. (7) notes, (8) glossary, (9) bibliography, (10) index, (11) legends.