SERIAL PUBLICATIONS OF THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION

The emphasis upon publications as a means of diffusing knowledge was expressed by the first Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution. In his formal plan for the Institution, Joseph Henry articulated 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 keynote of basic research has been adhered to over the years in the issuance of thousands of titles in serial publications under the Smithsonian imprint, commencing with Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge in 1848 and continuing with the following active series:

Smithsonian Annals of Flight

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 History and Technology

In these series, the Institution publishes original articles and monographs dealing with the research and collections of its several museums and offices and of professional colleagues at other institutions of learning. These papers report newly acquired facts, synoptic interpretations of data, or original theory in specialized fields. These publications are distributed by mailing lists to libraries, laboratories, and other interested institutions and specialists throughout the world. Individual copies may be obtained from the Smithsonian Institution Press as long as stocks are available.

S. DILLON RIPLEY       

Secretary                      

Smithsonian Institution

SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ZOOLOGY NUMBER 130

Synopsis of the Tribe Omobranchini with Descriptions of Three New Genera and Two New Species (Pisces: Blenniidae)

Victor G. Springer

SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION PRESS

CITY OF WASHINGTON

1972

ABSTRACT

Springer, Victor G. Synopsis of the Tribe Omobranchini with Descriptions of Three New Genera and Two New Species (Pisces: Blenniidae). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, number 130, 31 pages, l6 figures, 1972.–The blenniid tribe Omobranchini is characterized and a key is given to the six genera recognized in the tribe as well as to the species of all the genera except Omobranchus. Three new genera and two new species are described: Parenchelyurus (type-species: Enchelyurus hepburni Snyder), Omox biporos (monotypic, from the Gulf of Thailand, New Guinea, and Palau Island), and Haptogenys quadripora (monotypic, from the Gulf of Thailand). Distribution maps and illustrations of all the species except those of Omobranchus are provided. A list of all the nominal species of the Omobranchini with their present status and the location of primary type material is included.

______

Official publication date is handstamped in a limited number of initial copies and is recorded in the Institution’s annual report, Smithsonian Year.

_______

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publications Data

Springer, Victor Gruschka, 1928–

Synopsis of the tribe Omobranchini with descriptions of three new genera and two new species (Pisces: Blenniidae)

(Smithsonian contributions to zoology, no. 130)

Bibliography: p. 15

1. Blenniidae. I. Title. II. Series: Smithsonian Institution. Smithsonian contributions to zoology, no. 130.

QL1.S54 no. 130 [QL638.B6] 591′.08s [597′.58] 72-7069

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price 50 cents (paper cover)

Synopsis of the Tribe Omobranchini with Descriptions of Three New Genera and Two New Species (Pisces: Blenniidae)

Victor G. Springer

__________

Victor G. Springer, Department of Vertebrate Zoology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 20560.

The purpose of this paper is to synopsize the genera of the blenniid tribe Omobranchini (Springer, 1968) and revise those genera comprising small numbers of species. In effect, all the genera of the Omobranchini except the genus Omobranchus (with about 15–20 species) are revised. A revision of Omobranchus is in progress and for the sake of nomenclatural stability I have indicated (in the list of all nominal species of the Omobranchini) numerous synonyms that I have determined so far for several of the Omobranchus species.

The Omobranchini is about comparable in numbers of genera (6) and species (25–30) to the Nemophini (Smith-Vaniz, personal communication), much larger than the monotypic Phenablenniini, about a third the size of the Blenniini, and a fifth the size of the Salariini. Aside from the Phenablenniini, the Omobranchini is geographically the most restricted blenniid tribe, occurring only in the Indo-West Pacific area (excluding the apparently adventitious occurrence of the Indo-West Pacific species, Omobranchus punctatus, in the Caribbean Sea).

The tribe Omobranchini comprises small species: only one or two species of Omobranchus attain a standard length of 100 mm; all other Omobranchini do not exceed 75 mm. The species are all benthic, shallow-water inhabitants with few if any verified records of occurrences deeper than five meters. Some species are reported to occur in fresh water, but most come from brackish or marine habitats, and all occur around rocks, corals, and shells. In general, the Omobranchini seems to occupy the same ecological niche as the Blenniini, which is very poorly represented in the Indo-West Pacific.

Methods

Counts of fin spines and rays, vertebrae, and pleural and epipleural ribs were made as described by Smith-Vaniz and Springer (1971). Figure 1 presents the terminology used in recording sensory pore counts. Tooth counts are separated into incisors (Arabic numerals) and canines (Roman numerals) and presented as formulae–for example, I–30–I indicates that there is a canine on each side and 30 incisors in the jaw. Many of the meristic data are summarized in Tables 1–6.

Osteological terminology is that of Springer (1968). Number of circumorbital bones is a fairly constant feature for any species of blenniid; only one or two specimens of each species were examined for this character.

FIGURE 1.–Diagrammatic illustration of cephalic sensory pores of a hypothetical species of Omobranchini. Abbreviations: AN, anterior nostril; CO, circumorbital series; CP, common pore of mandibular and preopercular series (not included in mandibular pore counts, but included in supratemporal-preoperculo-mandibular counts); IO, interorbital series (both sides included in count: species have two to four IO pores); MP, mandibular series (species have either two or three MP pores); MS, median predorsal supratemporal pore (present or absent depending on species; MS included in supratemporal-preoperculo-mandibular pore counts); NP. nasal pores; PN, posterior nostril (absent only in some individuals of Enchelyurus species); PP, preopercular series; ST, supratemporal series.

Standard length (SL) was measured from the midtip of the upper lip to the midbase of the caudal fin.

Statistical data, except for covariance analysis, were computer analyzed according to formulae presented in Simpson, Roe, and Lewontin (1960) with computer programs given by J. A. Peters (1971). Covariance analysis was performed according to Snedecor (1956) from a computer program prepared by my colleague, B. B. Collette.

Synonymies include only references to original descriptions.

The following abbreviations have been used to denote the location of specimens mentioned in the study and the affiliations of persons named in the acknowledgments section: AMNH, American Museum of Natural History, New York City; AMS, Australian Museum, Sydney; ANSP, Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia; BMNH, British Museum (Natural History), London; BPBM, Bernice P. Bishop Museum, Honolulu; CAS, California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco; FBQ, Fisheries Branch, Department of Primary Industries, Queensland, Brisbane; GVF denotes station or register numbers of specimens formerly with the George Vanderbilt Foundation, Stanford University, but now with CAS; HUJ, Department of Zoology, Hebrew University, Jerusalem; KUMF, Kasetart University, Museum of Fisheries, Bangkok; MCZ, Museum of Comparative Zoology, Cambridge, Massachusetts; MM denotes catalog numbers of specimens formerly with the Macleay Museum, University of Sydney, but now with AMS; MNHN, Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris; MSNG, Museo Civicio di Storia Naturale, Genova; NFIS, Natur-Museum und Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt; NMV, Naturhistoriches Museum, Vienna; QMB, Queensland Museum, Brisbane; RMNH, Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden; RU, Rhodes University, J.L.B. Smith Institute of Ichthyology, Grahamstown, South Africa; SAM, South African Museum, Capetown; SU denotes catalog numbers of specimens formerly with the Division of Systematic Biology, Stanford University, but now with CAS; USNM, United States National Museum of Natural History; UTAI, University of Tel Aviv, Israel; WAM, Western Australian Museum, Perth; ZMA Zoologisch Museum, Universiteit van Amsterdam; ZMB, Institut für Spezielle Zoologie und Zoologisches Museum, Berlin (East); ZSI, Zoological Survey of India, Calcutta; ZSZM, Zoologisches Staatsinstitut und Zoologisches Museum, Hamburg.

Tribe OMOBRANCHINI Springer, 1968

TYPE-GENUS.–Omobranchus Ehrenberg.

DIAGNOSIS.–Dorsal fin VI-XIV, 15–27; anal fin II, 17–27; pectoral fin 12–17; pelvic fin I, 2 (spine hidden); interopercle with posteriorly projecting spur extending posterior to joint between interopercle and epihyal (Springer, 1968, fig. 16); dentaries united by suturing joint; premaxillaries not excavated; teeth firmly ankylosed to jaws; fewer than 50 incisor teeth in either jaw; enlarged canine tooth on each side of both upper and lower jaws (canines absent in mature females of Omobranchus fasciolatoceps); caudal fin rays unbranched (except abnormally); last anal fin ray bound by membrane to caudal peduncle or caudal fin; gill openings restricted ventrally, never extending ventrally much below ventral level of pectoral fin base; no cirri present on head, except present on nostrils of one species, Laiphognathus multimaculatus; pores in circumorbital and preoperculo-mandibular series simple (no horizontal pairs or multiples); dorsal fin notched only slightly, if at all, between spinous and rayed portions; precaudal vertebrae 9–12 (rarely 9 or 12 in any species); caudal vertebrae 23–32; total vertebrae 33–43; basisphenoid and intercalars present; pterosphenoids reduced, excluded from external surface of cranium; swimbladder absent.

RELATIONSHIPS.–The Omobranchini appear to be specialized offshoots of the Blenniini (Springer, 1968) and are most similar in appearance to the Phenablenniini, with which they can be easily confused. Superficially the Phenablenniini can be most easily distinguished from the Omobranchini in having three segmented rays in each pelvic fin and only 14 segmented dorsal fin rays. The Phenablenniini lack the posteriorly projecting spur on the interopercle, which is restricted to the Omobranchini in the Blenniidae (see Springer and Smith-Vaniz, 1972, for detailed comparisons of the blenniid fish tribes). An additional character for separating the Omobranchii and Phenablenniini that was not mentioned by Springer and Smith-Vaniz is the presence of 6 circumorbital pores in the Phenablenniini and 7–12 in the Omobranchini (one species of Omobranchini, Parenchelyurus hyena, may have 6 circumorbital pores on one side of the head as a variation).

Key to the Genera and Species (except those of Omobranchus) of the Tribe Omobranchini

Genus Enchelyurus Peters

Enchelyurus W. Peters, 1868, p. 268 [type-species: E. flavipes W. Peters, 1868, by monotypy].

DIAGNOSIS.–No cirri on head; dorsal and anal fins attached well out on caudal fin (except E. petersi); frontal bones fused in adults; 3 circumorbital bones; kinethmoid present; postcleithra reduced to one or two bony fragments, neither of which articulates with cleithrum; ventral hypural plate fused to urostylar centrum; 6–11 dorsal fin spines (11 in less than 1 percent of specimens); 13–17 (usually 14–16) pectoral fin rays; nasal bones separate; 7 sensory pores in circumorbital series; 3 sensory pores in mandibular series; 12 sensory pores in supratemporal-preoperculo-mandibular series; 3 interorbital sensory pores; posterior nostril reduced in size or absent; gill opening extending ventrally from opposite level of dorsalmost pectoral fin ray to opposite level just below ventralmost pectoral fin ray; shortest pelvic fin ray more than half length of longest.

RELATIONSHIPS.–Superficially Enchelyurus appears to be most similar to Parenchelyurus, particularly P. hepburni, but the osteological specializations of Enchelyurus are so distinctive as to obscure its relationships within the Omobranchini. These specializations include the fusion of the frontals (found elsewhere in the Blenniidae only in Plagiotremus of the Nemophini), reduction of the postcleithra to bony fragments (found elsewhere in the Blenniidae only in Ecsenius and Praealticus of the Salariini), reduction by fusion of the number of circumorbital bones, fusion of the ventral hypural plate to the urostylar centrum and ossification of the rostral cartilage to form a kinethmoid. In addition, most species have a reduced number of dorsal fin spines but an increased number of pectoral fin rays as compared to other Omobranchini. The reduction of the size of the posterior nostril, which is sometimes absent, is unique within the Blenniidae.

In the Omobranchini, Haptogenys is similar to Enchelyurus in having a kinethmoid (see frontal view of Enchelyurus kraussi skull in Springer, 1968, fig. 13) and Laiphognathus is similar in having the ventral hypural plate fused to the urostylar centrum. Among the Omobranchini, Parenchelyurus may have 3 or 4 circumorbital bones, Enchelyurus has 3 and all other genera have 4 or 5.

SEXUAL DIMORPHISM.–Males of Enchelyurus attain a larger size than conspecific females. Such sexual dimorphism is common in the Blenniidae.

Among all Enchelyurus species except E. petersi, males tend to have a proportionately longer pelvic fin. Males of E. flavipes tend to have a proportionately longer caudal fin than females (data on pelvic and caudal fins in personal files of VGS). Females of E. flavipes have a noticeable black area around the genital papilla (Figure 8) not exhibited by males or by either sex of the other species. Males of E. kraussi, E. ater, and E. brunneolus usually have a pattern of stripes, spots, or vermiculations on the head that is lacking in females. A few males of E. flavipes also show indications of such a pattern on the head. Males of Enchelyurus have a variable tendency to develop a striped pattern, particularly anteriorly, on the dorsal and anal fins. The anal fin rays of mature males tend to bear fleshy swellings subterminally (Figure 8). Similar structures are present in some species of Omobranchus and have also been reported in the Blenniini (Krejsa, 1960). They are also present in at least nuptial males of all Nemophini (Smith-Vaniz, personal communication).

DENTITION.–The species of Enchelyurus show significant differences in numbers of jaw teeth (Figures 2 and 3, Tables 5 and 6) both between species and between this genus and others in the Omobranchini, excluding possibly Omobranchus. There is no sexual dimorphism exhibited by numbers of teeth in Enchelyurus. As is typical of blenniids in general, numbers of teeth in Enchelyurus tend to increase with increase in standard length. On the basis of tooth numbers the species of Enchelyurus fall into three groups: (1) E. kraussi, E. ater, and E. brunneolus, (2) E. flavipes, and (3) E. petersi. These groups are correlated also with type of color pattern and other morphological characters. [The tables and graphs were constructed before a specimen of E. petersi (31.2 mm, total premaxillary teeth 23, total dentary teeth 23) was obtained. The tooth counts for this specimen would tend to lower the slope of the regression line for premaxillary teeth and raise the slope of the regression line for dentary teeth for this species.]

Enchelyurus ater (Günther)

FIGURE 6

Petroscirtes ater Günther. 1877, p. 199 [Tahiti, BMNH 1873, 8.1.35].

Hypleurochilus vaillanti Jordan and Seale, 1906, p. 420 [Pago Pago, Samoa, USNM 51788].

In the original description Hypleurochilus vaillanti was not compared with any other species of blenniid. The holotype is a typical juvenile (11.0 mm SL) of E. ater.

Enchelyurus ater is known only from Oceania south of the equator and east of 160° west longitude (Figure 5). Its distribution does not overlap that of any other species of Enchelyurus.

The markings on the heads of mature males are not so noticeable as they are in E. kraussi and E. brunneolus, the other two species in the same group with E. ater. The markings appear to be restricted to the larger males. Of 25 males, 25 mm or larger, available, nineteen (25.0–37.0 mm, average 29.8 mm) lacked markings on the head and six (33.7–14.3 mm, average 37.8 mm) had markings. In some specimens the markings appear as a reticular pattern of dark lines (Figure 6), in others as a scarcely noticeable dusky mottling. When present, the markings occur on the ventral surface of the head as well as on the sides.

MATERIAL EXAMINED.–New Caledonia: USNM 195789 (41.0), CAS 21691 (41.2). Tonga: BMNH 1877.12.10.44 (34.4). Fiji Islands: Viti Levu, CAS 24694 (22.8). Society Islands: Moorea, USNM 204516 (30.0); Tahiti, BMNH 1873.8.1.35 (31.5, holotype of Petroscirtes ater), CAS SU24628 (20.9). French Oceania: Maiao, CAS GVF1354 (4: 15.7–33.0). Samoan Islands: USNM 52251 (10: 19.4–29.7), Apia, USNM 52248 (10: 12.7–29.9, including one cleared and stained), Upolu, BMNH 1926.3.6.94 (23.4), Pago Pago, CAS SU8986 (17: 12.2–37.0), USNM 51799 (11.4, holotype of Hypleurochilus vaillanti). USNM 195715 (3: 25.0–30.6, probably from Samoa). Tuamotu Archipelago: Tikahau Island, USNM 204515 (4: 22.3–32.4); Raroia, CAS GVF82 (13: 21.2–29.2), CAS GVF61 (2: 29.2–30.4), CAS GVF96 (4: 18.5–33.7), CAS GVF77 (2: 22–27.3). Rapa: C. L. Smith field nos. AMNH S70–23 (2: 32.2 37.2), AMNH S70–34 (35.5), AMNH S70–35 (44.3).

Enchelyurus brunneolus (Jenkins)

FIGURE 7

Aspidontus brunneolus Jenkins, 1903, p. 510 [Honolulu, Oahu, Hawaii, USNM 50718].

Enchelyurus edmonsoni Fowler, 1923, p. 389 [Honomuni, Molokai, Hawaii, BPBM 3401].

Enchelyurus edmonsoni was described from a male and compared only with E. ater. The holotype of E. brunneolus is also a male. Strasburg (1956) discussed color pattern, sexual dimorphism, and relationships of E. brunneolus.

This species is the smallest in the Omobranchini. The largest specimen seen was 31.2 mm SL. Strasburg (1956) mentioned that it rarely exceeded 25 mm in length. E. brunneolus is known only from the Hawaiian Islands (Figure 5), where it is apparently quite common.

MATERIAL EXAMINED.–Hawaiian Islands: Molokai BPBM 3401 (26.0, holotype of Enchelyurus edmonsoni), BPBM 4982 (21.0), BPBM 4984 (18.0), USNM 161991 (11.9), USNM 160685 (2: 22.4–23.5): Oahu, BPBM 7866 (11: 15.1–25.3), BPBM 5315 (19.0), BPBM 4983 (4: 12.0–23.0), BPBM 4988 (3: 13.0–25.0), BPBM 6985 (29.0), BPBM 4985 (23.0), CAS SU7685 (40: 11.2–31.2), USNM 78056 (4: 12.4–23.0), USNM 111975 (8: 12.0–27.0), USNM 50718 (29.0, holotype of Aspidontus brunneolus): Maro Reef, CAS GVF Station 33 (15: 17.8–31.1); Laysan, CAS 51GVF15 (6: 12.9–27.6), CAS 51GVF26 (3: 20.3–24.2), CAS GVF Station 12 (4: 17.7–25.8), BPBM 4986 (12.0); Lisianski, BPBM 4987 (29.0).

Enchelyurus flavipes Peters

FIGURE 8

Enchelyurus flavipes W. Peters, 1868, p. 26 [Singapore, ZMB 5193].

Enchelyurus flavipes var. nigerrima Weber, 1913, p. 545 [Insel Barang bei Makassar; ZMB 5193].

Weber differentiated his variety, nigerrima, from the typical form only on the basis of the variety’s being darker. The two forms were synonymized by de Beaufort (in de Beaufort and Chapman, 1951) without comment. There is considerable variation in color pattern among specimens within a single collection and I do not believe any subspecific categories are merited. I am unable to place Gonto Soea, the locality on the label with the holotype of nigerrima, or to explain the discrepancy between the published locality (Insel Barang) for the holotype and that given on the label. Both places are cited as being near Makassar (Celebes).

Philippine specimens of E. flavipes have generally higher numbers of total dorsal and anal fin ray elements than do specimens from Singapore (Table 1).

E. flavipes is essentially an Indo-Malayan species, overlapping in distribution little if any that of E. kraussi, whose distribution, in general, surrounds that of E. flavipes (Figure 5).

MATERIAL EXAMINED.–Singapore: ZMB 5193 (2: 48.3–51.8, syntypes of E. flavipes), CAS 24692 (7: 32.9–13.8). Celebes: Gonto Soea (near Makassar), RMNH 20813 (17.6, holotype of E. flavipes variety nigerrima); Great Tobea Island, USNM 137864 (12: 27.1–44.6, including two cleared and stained). Sulu Islands: Tataan-Simalue Island, USNM 137862 (25.4), USNM 137863 (41.4); Sitankai, CAS SU35780 (24.8). Philippine Islands: Culion Island, CAS SU28441 (32.5).

Enchelyurus kraussi (Klunzinger)

FIGURE 9

Peteroscirtes kraussi Klunzinger, 1871, p. 497 [Kosseir, Egypt, ISZZ 8029, lectotype].

Enchelyurus analis H. M. Smith, 1934, p. 318 [Koh Tao, Gulf of Siam, KUMF 0175].

The syntypes of Petroscirtes kraussi comprise 5 specimens (NFIS 1662, two specimens in poor condition; ZMB 8029, two male specimens, 37.4–44.6 mm SL; and ZMB 10506, one female, 35.5 mm SL). I here designate the 37.4 mm male specimen of ZMB 8029 as lectotype. It has the following characters; dorsal fin VII, 23; anal fin II, 20; pectoral fins 15–15; vertebrae 10 + 25; I–30–I teeth in each jaw.

In the original description Enchelyurus analis was compared only with E. ater. I have not seen the holotype of E. analis but the illustration accompanying the description depicts a male E. kraussi, as evidenced by the pattern of stripes on the head and anal fin.

Aoyagi (1954) discussed Enchelyurus kraussi but used the name Enchelyurus ater. He gave an illustration of a male E. kraussi, but the illustration was captioned “Lepidoblennius marmoratus ishigakiensis n. subsp.” (Lepidoblennius is a genus of Tripterygiidae). For a figure of a tripterygiid in the same paper he gave the caption “Enchelyurus ater (Günther).” Obviously the figures and captions were switched. The specimen Aoyagi reported on from Okinawa represents the northernmost record for E. kraussi (this record is not included on Figure 5).

E. kraussi is known from the Red Sea, Indian Ocean, and western Pacific Ocean (Figure 5). There is a tendency for the number of dorsal fin spines to increase in an east to west direction (Table 1). The increase in the number of dorsal fin spines continues eastward into the contiguous populations of E. ater and from E. ater northward into E. brunneolus, the other members of the E. kraussi species group. One might interpret these three species as representing only populations of a single species, but sharp differences in the nature of the color pattern of mature males of the three species convinces me otherwise. In addition, E. brunneolus has fewer pectoral fin rays than the other two forms.

Specimens of E. kraussi from Guam and Saipan are distinguished from specimens from other localities in that the males lack stripes on the head. The Guam and Saipan populations are well separated geographically from the other populations of E. kraussi. Though the color pattern difference of the Guam and Saipan populations may indicate a species difference, I defer such recognition until more specimens from throughout the range of E. kraussi are available.

MATERIAL EXAMINED.–Gulf of Aqaba: Sinai coast, HUJ 642 (27.4), HUJ 687 (33.5), HUJ 686 (27.2), UTAI 5765 (13.0), UTAI 4544 (18.3), USNM 204538 (14.7), USNM 204537 (14.0). Egypt: Kosseir, ZMB 8029 (2: 37.4–44.6, smaller specimen herein designated lectotype of Petroscirtes kraussi), ZMB 10506 (35.5), NFIS 1662 (2, poor condition). Sudan: Port Sudan, BMNH 1968.11.27.14 (25.9). Gulf of Aden: Bay of Djibouti, MNHN 1940–318 (24.5); Berbera, BMNH 1954.4.26.219–220 (2: 29.3–33.5). Seychelles Islands: RU 2332 (3: 11.4–31.8), ZSZM 14779 (8: 22.2–31.3). Aldabra: RU 2331 (34.8). South Viet Nam: Hon Mien Island, CAS GVF2789 (28.6); Hon Lon Island, CAS 24695 (27.8). Gulf of Thailand: Goh Luem, CAS GVF2648 (21.0). Indonesia: Pulo Mega, Mentawei Islands, USNM 200609 (28.9); Moluccas, Tomahu Island, USNM 99367 (29.0). Taiwan: Southwest tip, USNM 204595 (6. 27.2–33.2). Philippine Islands: Canino Island, USNM 161422 (30.2). Marianas Islands: Guam, CAS GVF1874 (5: 24.5–27.1), CAS 24693 (23.2), CAS GVF1859 (20: 14.4–29.4); Saipan, CAS GVF790 (29.2), USNM 195812 (19.8). New Guinea: Kiriwina, Trobriand Islands, USNM 205708 (2: 20.0–28.5). Australia: Great Barrier Reef, One Tree Island, USNM 201831 (2: 36.0–41.0), USNM 204593 (31.3), USNM 204594 (31.6), USNM 204592 (9: 30.3–36.2, USNM 201840 (37.0), USNM 204082 (26.2), USNM 201370 (22: 23.0–36.0).

Enchelyurus petersi (Kossmann and Räuber)

FIGURE 10

Petroscirtes petersi Kossmann and Räuber, 1877, p. 21 [Red Sea; holotype lost].

The holotype of E. petersi is apparently lost (Klausewitz, personal communication). The illustration given with the description is readily recognizable as a relatively common species found in the shallow waters of the Gulf of Aqaba and Gulf of Suez. Kossmann and Räuber reported the type-locality as “Red Sea.” All other specimens known to me are from Eilat, Gulf of Aqaba, and Tor (also known as Et Tur) and Ras Massala, Gulf of Suez. Kossmann and Räuber reported that some of their collections came from Tor and, with the exception of a few sharks and echeneids, the remainder of their collections came from Massawa and the Dahlak Islands in the southern Red Sea. It would be desirable to know if E. petersi occurs in the Red Sea proper.

E. petersi is not only the most distinctive species of Enchelyurus but it is readily recognizable from all other species in the Omobranchini by its striped color pattern.

E. petersi is found primarily around rocks, in empty worm tubes, and around sea urchins (Diadema) very close to shore. The pale portions of the body vary from cream colored to bright yellow or yellow-green, and the species is quite visible in its habitat. In contrast, I have never seen E. kraussi (which is sympatric with E. petersi) in nature.

MATERIAL EXAMINED.–Gulf of Aqaba: Eilat, HUJ E61–9 (30.8), HUJ 60/90.34 (2: 33.0–36.6), USNM 204540 (6: 38.6–53.5, including one specimen cleared and stained). Gulf of Suez: ZSZM 14776 (44.7); Tor, USNM 204539 (2: 28.4–35.7), Ras Massala, HUJ SLR2908 (31.2).

Haptogenys, new genus

DIAGNOSIS.–No cirri on head; dorsal and anal fins not attached to caudal fin; frontal bones separate in adults; 4 circumorbital bones; kinethmoid present; postcleithra normal; 12 dorsal fin spines; 13 pectoral fin rays; nasal bones joined dorsomesially; 8 sensory pores in circumorbital series; 2 sensory pores in mandibular series; 13 sensory pores in supratemporal-preoperculo-mandibular series, 4 interorbital sensory pores; posterior nostril present, normal; gill opening extending ventrally to point opposite level of ventralmost pectral fin ray; shortest pelvic fin ray less than half length of longest.

RELATIONSHIP.–Haptogenys is unique in the Omobranchini in having large trabeculate nasal bones that meet dorsomesially (as opposed to separate, moderate-sized, slender nasals) and a ventral mouth similar to that found in the nemophinin genus Plagiotremus Gill (=Runula Jordan and Bollman). These characters are specializations superimposed on a basically Omobranchus-like body. The similarity of the head shape and jaws of Haptogenys to those of Plagiotremus apparently is the result of similar feeding habits. The stomach contents of the single known specimen of Haptogenys contained fin rays and membrane from fishes (other Omobranchini feed on small invertebrates). Plagiotremus feeds on the scales and epidermis of fishes.

ETYMOLOGY.–From the Greek hapto, “join,” and genys, “jaw,” in reference to the suturing joint of the dentary bones of the Omobranchini; gender feminine.

TYPE-SPECIES.–Haptogenys quadripora, new species.

Haptogenys quadripora, new species

FIGURE 11

HOLOTYPE (only known specimen).–USNM 119658, male, 61.6 mm SL, 62.5 mm SL when measured from midtip of snout; Koh Tao Island, Gulf of Thailand, lat. 10°03' N, 99°51′ E; collected by H.M. Smith, 3 January 1927; specimen now cleared and stained.

DESCRIPTION.–Dorsal fin XII, 18; anal fin II, 20; pectoral fins 13–13; pelvic fins I,2–I,2; caudal fin (dorsal procurrent rays + segmented rays + ventral procurrent rays) 7+13+7; hypural 5 absent; two epurals; vertebrae 10+28; pleural ribs on vertebrae 3–10; epipleural ribs on vertebrae 1–12; upper jaw teeth I–22–I; lower jaw teeth I–26–I.

Proportions as percent SL: snout tip to gill opening 21.0, fleshy interorbital width 7.3, upper jaw length 6.2, gill opening depth 7.6, body depth at anal fin origin 16.6, third dorsal fin spine length (DS3) 10.2, DS5 9.9, DS12 7.0, first dorsal ray length (DRI) 10.4, DR5 11.7, DR18 7.5; longest pectoral fin ray 14.5, longest pelvic fin ray 14.8, shortest pelvic fin ray 6.3, longest caudal fin ray 23.6, last dorsal fin ray to midcaudal fin base 11.4, last anal fin ray to midcaudal fin base 9.8.

Dorsal fin origin slightly in advance of level of gill opening, notched slightly above last spine. Tips of most caudal fin rays exserted beyond margin of interradial membrane. Lateral line absent on body; no midpredorsal supratemporal sensory pore. Color pattern, if present, now almost completely faded. The only markings present are a spot on the anterior dorsal fin spines and another, larger spot on the antepenultimate dorsal fin spine.

ETYMOLOGY.–An adjective derived from the Latin quadri-, “four,” and the Greek poros “holes,” and referring to the four interorbital sensory pores.

Genus Laiphognathus Smith

Laiphognathus J. L. B. Smith, 1955, p. 23 [type-species: L. multimaculatus J. L. B. Smith, 1955, by original designation].

DIAGNOSIS.–Cirri present on rims of anterior and posterior nostrils; dorsal and anal fins not attached to caudal fin; frontal bones separate in adults; 5 circumorbital bones; no kinethmoid; postcleithra normal; nasal bones separate; ventral hypural plate fused to urostylar centrum; 11 (rarely 10 or 12) dorsal fin spines; 13 (rarely 12 or 14) pectoral fin rays; 9–12 sensory pores in circumorbital series; 3 sensory pores in mandibular series; 14–20 sensory pores in supratemporal-preoperculo-mandibular series; 3 interorbital sensory pores; posterior nostril present, normal; gill opening restricted to area above level of fourth from dorsalmost pectoral fin ray; shortest pelvic fin ray more than half length of longest.

RELATIONSHIPS.–The presence of cirri and the high number of pores in the circumorbital and supratemporal-preoperculo-mandibular series distinguish Laiphognathus from the other Omobranchini. These characters appear to be either specializations imposed on a basically Ombranchus-like form or the characters are primitive for the tribe. In the latter case, loss of cirri and decrease in the number of pores would be almost all that would be necessary to derive Omobranchus from Laiphognathus. However, the fusion of the ventral hypural plate to the urostylar centrum of Laiphognathus is a specialization not found in Omobranchus.

Laiphognathus multimaculatus Smith

FIGURE 12

Laiphognathus multimaculatus J. L. B. Smith, 1955, p. 24 [Bazaruto Island, Mozambique, RU 237].

New records of this species have not been reported in the literature since the original description, despite the fact that it is relatively common in collections and widely distributed geographically (Figure 4).

Secondary sexual dimorphism is exhibited in this species by a relative increase in the size of the nasal cirri of males. Males also have a dark spot on the venter and an elongate dark spot on the underside of the lower jaw that are not present in females, which have an immaculate venter and some small, round, dark spots anteriorly on the underside of the jaw.

The cirri on the labial flap at the corner of the mouth are poorly developed in small specimens and are readily overlooked.

Fin ray and vertebral counts of specimens from the various localities indicate a somewhat clinal shift in both an easterly and westerly direction from the Gulf of Thailand (Tables 1 and 2). Other population differences were also noted. In all but the Ceylonese specimens there are two cirri on the rims of each anterior and posterior nostril, with one and three cirri as rare variants. All seven of the Ceylonese specimens have three cirri on each nostril. In the Ceylonese specimens the supratemporal-preoperculo-mandibular sensory pore count is 17–20, in the other specimens 14–15. The difference in pore counts occurs in the midpredorsal supratemporal canal position. At this position the canal gives rise to an anteriorly extending tube that opens by several pores in the Ceylonese specimens, but by only one or two pores in the other specimens. Cirri and pore differences are not correlated with the sizes of the specimens.

MATERIAL EXAMINED.–Tanzania: Pemba, RU uncataloged (25.8). Mozambique: Bazaruto Island, RU 237 (39.4, holotype of Laiphognathus multimaculatus); Inhaca Island, RU 1097 (5: 22.8–31.1), RU 1100 (24.5). Ceylon: Trincomalee, USNM 205857 (6: 14.6–23.7), USNM 205947 (24.0). Gulf of Thailand: Goh Samet Island, CAS GVF2185 (2: 21.6–21.9), CAS GVF2180 (22.9); Koh Kroi Island, CAS GVF2183 (21.1); Goh Maprao Island, CAS GVF2186 (2: 23.2–27.3); Goh Tao Island, CAS GVF1535 (20.6); Goh Raed Island, CAS GVF2651 (2: both 24.7); Goh Kram Island, CAS SU62088 (3: 13.9–25.7, including one specimen cleared and stained). Borneo: Palau Gaya, Darvel Bay, USNM 201461 (25.2). Solomon Islands: Florida Island, USNM 198962 (20.3).

Genus Omobranchus Ehrenberg

Omobranchus Ehrenberg, in Cuvier and Valenciennes, 1836, p. 287 [first appearance in synonymy, subsequently made available by Swainson, 1839, p. 274; type-species: O. fasciolatus Ehrenberg, in Cuvier and Valenciennes, 1836, by monotypy].

Graviceps Fowler, 1903, p. 170 [type-species: Petroscirtes elegans Steindachner, 1877, by original designation].

Cyneichthys Ogilby, 1910, p. 55 [type-species: Blennechis anolius Valenciennes, in Cuvier and Valenciennes, 1836, by original designation, in parentheses, and monotypy].

Poroalticus Fowler, 1931, p. 403 [type-species: P. sewalli Fowler, 1931, by monotypy].

Pauloscirtes Whitley, 1935, p. 351 [type-species: Petroscirtes obliquus Garman, 1903, by original designation].

Cruantus J. L. B. Smith, 1959, p. 234 [type-species: Omobranchus dealmeida J. L. B. Smith, 1949, by original designation].

DIAGNOSIS.–No cirri on head; dorsal and anal fins free or attached to caudal fin; frontal bones separate in adults; 4 or 5 circumorbital bones; no kinethmoid; postcleithra normal; ventral hypural plate autogenous; 11–14 dorsal fin spines, 12–14 (usually 13) pectoral fin rays; nasal bones separate; 7–8 (9 in exceptional individuals) sensory pores in circumorbital series; 3 sensory pores in mandibular series; 13 sensory pores in supratemporal-preoperculomandibular series; 2–4 interorbital sensory pores (4 in exceptional specimens only); posterior nostril present, normal; gill opening restricted to area above level of sixth from dorsalmost pectoral fin ray; shortest pelvic fin ray more than half length of longest.

Some species of Omobranchus have a thin, fleshy occipital crest, which is absent in all other genera of the Omobranchini. In those species with a crest, that of males is relatively larger than that of females.

RELATIONSHIP.–See relationships under Parenchelyurus.

REMARKS.–In the original description, Fowler (1903) compared Graviceps only with Aspidontus Quoy and Gaimard (tribe Nemophini). The only character Fowler gave to distinguish Graviceps was the presence of a short blunt snout, a character found in most blenniids, including Omobranchus.

There is some question as to what taxonomic rank Ogilby (1910) was intending for his new name Cyneichthys. The type-species, anolius, is referred to Petroskirtes (sic) in the discussion of the various species. At the end of the discussion Ogilby presented a key to the subdivisions of Petroscirtes (sic). Two type fonts are used for the scientific names in the key: caps and small caps and italics in parentheses. The italicized names appear in key couplets under the names in caps and small caps and are obviously meant to be subdivisions within these names. “Cyneichthys; nom nov.” appears in italics and in parentheses in a key couplet under Petroskirtes, in caps and small caps. All the names listed by Ogilby must be considered as generic group names. Of these, only Enchelyurus and Cyneichthys are referable to the Omobranchini. The characters Ogilby used to distinguish Cyneichthys were the presence of a fleshy occipital crest and some filamentous soft dorsal fin rays. A crest is present in several species of Omobranchus, but filamentous soft dorsal rays appear to be restricted to O. anolius. Other species of Omobranchus, particularly males, may have the tips of the dorsal rays extending slightly beyond the margin of the interradial membrane, and males of one species have the dorsal fin spines filamentous. I do not consider that the filamentous dorsal rays of O. anolius merit generic recognition.

In the original description Poroalticus was described by Fowler from the Caribbean and compared only with Blennius Linnaeus and Hypleurochilus Gill (both tribe Blenniini). Fowler did not recognize that his type-species, P. sewalli, was the same as the Indo-West Pacific species O. punctatus (see Springer, 1963, where the species is referred to as O. japonicus).

In the original description Pauloscirtes was compared with Omobranchus, Graviceps, and Cyneichthys (and some genera of the Nemophini). It was differentiated from Omobranchus in supposedly having larger canines, but no indication was given as to the actual size of the canines or what species of Omobranchus were being used for comparison. The relative size of the canines is quite variable in Omobranchus species and I do not consider this character alone as sufficient for generic recognition. Graviceps supposedly had about 30 teeth in each jaw as opposed to 18 in Pauloscirtes. My counts indicate that the teeth range from 17 to 28 in each jaw (depending on standard length) in the type-species of Graviceps, so the difference reported by Whitley probably is not valid. Although number of jaw teeth are of specific or generic importance in some genera of Omobranchini (see Figures 2 and 3), characters other than slight differences in number of teeth are distinctive of these genera. The type-species of Pauloscirtes shows no such important differences when compared with other Omobranchus. The crest and filamentous rays of Cyneichthys were used as the basis for distinguishing that genus from Pauloscirtes. The characters of Cyneichthys have been discussed above.

In the original description Cruantus was compared with Omobranchus, from which it presumably differed in having a sloping snout and the gill opening extending to below the upper edge of the pectoral fin base. Snout shape is variable in Omobranchus, as is depth of the gill opening, which may be slightly greater in the type-species of Cruantus than in other species of Omobranchus. The type-species of Cruantus, C. dealmeida (and its senior synonyms), does differ from all other species of Omobranchus that I have examined in having 4 circumorbital bones rather than 5. This difference and that of the gill opening depth may merit subgeneric recognition when the genus is revised.

Omobranchus is the most speciose genus of the Omobranchini. I estimate that there are 15–20 species in the genus. The species are all Indo-West Pacific in distribution, except that one species, O. punctatus (Valenciennes), has a disjunct distribution that includes the Caribbean, probably as the result of man’s activity. No other species of fish is known to have a similar distribution.

Omox, new genus

DIAGNOSIS.–No cirri on head; dorsal and anal fins not attached to caudal fin; frontal bones separate in adults; 4 circumorbital bones, kinethmoid present; postcleithra normal; ventral hypural plate autogenous; 12 dorsal fin spines; 13 pectoral fin rays; nasal bones separate; 8 (rarely 7 unilaterally) sensory pores in circumorbital series; 3 sensory pores in mandibular series; 13 sensory pores in supratemporal-preoperculo-mandibular series; 4 (rarely 3) interorbital sensory pores; posterior nostril present, normal; gill opening extending ventrally to opposite level of 8th to 11th from dorsalmost pectoral fin ray; shortest pelvic fin ray more than half length of longest.

RELATIONSHIPS.–Omox appears to be most similar to Omobranchus but differs from that genus primarily in the number and distribution of its sensory pores, larger gill opening, and presence of a kinethmoid. In these characters it most closely resembles Haptogenys but differs from that genus in having the nasal bones relatively tubelike and completely separate and in having terminal jaws.

Mature males of Omox have some of the caudal fin rays much elongated, a condition known only for Omox and some species of Omobranchus among the Omobranchini.

ETYMOLOGY.–The name Omox is an arbitrary combination of letters; gender masculine.

TYPE-SPECIES.–Omox biporos, new species.

Omox biporos, new species

FIGURES 13, 14

HOLOTYPE.–CAS 13520, male, 36.9 mm SL, shore of southeast bay of Goh Mak Island, southwest of Trat Bay, east coast of Gulf of Thailand, lat. 11°48′15″ N, 102°29′08″ E; collected by H.A. Fehlmann, et al., 30 October 1957.

PARATYPES.–CAS 13657, 2 specimens, 32.0–35.4 mm SL, and CAS 13656, 37.0 mm SL, cleared and stained, all three with same data as holotype; USNM 205698, 2 specimens, 30.6–45.8 mm SL, Madang Harbor, New Guinea, mangroves behind Nui Island; CAS 13521, 23.4 mm SL, Garayamo Island, Palau Islands.

DESCRIPTION (characters for holotype in parentheses).–Dorsal fin XII, 15–17 (16); anal fin II, 17–19 (19); pectoral fins 13; pelvic fins 1, 2; caudal fin (dorsal procurrent rays-segmented rays-ventral procurrent rays) 5 to 6–13–5 to 6 (6–13–6); vertebrae 10+ 24–26 (25); pleural ribs on vertebrae 3–10; epipleural ribs on vertebrae 1–12 or 13 (13); upper jaw teeth I–20–I to I–25–I (I–22–I); lower jaw teeth I–19–I to I–26–I (I–22–I).

Dorsal fin origin slightly in advance of level of gill opening, notched slightly above last one or two spines; tips of caudal fin rays and posterior dorsal fin rays filamentous in mature males only; lateral line absent on body; midpredorsal supratemporal pore present in only one of seven available specimens. (For other characters see generic diagnosis above.)

PRESERVED COLOR PATTERN.–Males: Pattern variable; in specimens with most-developed pattern, 11 dark, vertical bands present on body separated by broader, paler interspaces; bands darker at mid-level; head with three or four dusky bands separated by paler interspaces; dorsal and anal fins generally dusky; dark spot or two or three dusky stripes present at anterior end of dorsal fin; tips of anal rays pale (swollen in mature males); caudal fin dusky centrally; dark mark basally on pectoral fin separated by pale area from dusky fleshy pectoral fin base; pelvic fins dusky. In males with least-developed pattern the bands of the head and body are fewer in number and appear only as dark spots midlaterally on the body. Females: Similar to males, but dusky bands on body as broad or broader than pale interspaces; bands more distinctly developed than in males; no distinct marks on dorsal, pectoral, and caudal fins.

ETYMOLOGY.–An adjective derived from the Latin bi and the Greek poros, meaning two-holed, in reference to the two sensory pores that appear, one on each side, just anterior to the dorsal fin origin.

Parenchelyurus, new genus

DIAGNOSIS.–No cirri on head; dorsal and anal fins not attached to caudal fin; frontal bones separate in adults; 3–4 circumorbital bones; no kinethmoid; postcleithra normal; ventral hypural plate autogenous; 11–13 dorsal fin spines; 13 (rarely 14) pectoral fin rays; nasal bones separate; 6–8 (usually 7) sensory pores in circumorbital series; 3 sensory pores in mandibular series; 11–12 pores in supra-temporal-preoperulomandibular series; 3 interorbital sensory pores; posterior nostril present, normal; gill opening restricted to area above level of fifth from dorsalmost pectoral fin ray; shortest pelvic fin ray more than half length of longest.

RELATIONSHIP.–Parenchelyurus is most similar to Omobranchus (and vice versa), although one of the two species, P. hepburni, has been repeatedly referred to Enchelyurus, probably because of its overall dark color and small size. The other species, P. hyena, was placed in Graviceps (=Omobranchus) by Whitley (1953). Parenchelyurus differs from Omobranchus primarily in having one external pore at the anterior end of the dentary as opposed to two pores in Omobranchus. The single-pored condition is found also in Enchelyurus and Haptogenys, but these genera exhibit many characters not found in Parenchelyurus. Parenchelyurus has three or four circumorbital bones, and thus differs from all but one species of Omobranchus—O. kranjiensis (Herre), which has four circumorbital bones.

ETYMOLOGY.–Derived from the Greek par meaning near to, and Enchelyurus, a genus of Omobranchini; gender masculine.

TYPE-SPECIES.–Enchelyurus hepburni Snyder, 1908.

Parenchelyurus hepburni (Snyder)

FIGURE 15

Enchelyurus hepburni Snyder, 1908, p. 110 [Okinawa, USNM 62247].

?Hypleurochilus samoensis Seale, 1935, p. 374 [Pago Pago, Samoa; CAS 5515].

Enchelyurus caeruleo-punctatus Herre, 1939, p. 340 [Nasugbu, Batangas Province, Luzon, Philippine Islands, CAS SU 33023].

REMARKS.–In the original description, Enchelyurus caeruleopunctatus was compared only with Enchelyurus flavipes, which is a true Enchelyurus. The holotype of E. caeruleopunctatus is a male P. hepburni. In P. hepburni, spotting on the body and fins is found only in males. The spots, which are blue in life, fade rapidly in preservation and frequently are completely lost.

The types of Hypleurochilus samoensis are both postlarvae, as indicated by the fact that each has a spine at the lower angle of the preopercle. Based on fin formulae they could possibly be a species of Omobranchus. The pores, which might give a clue, are obscured, but the only Omobranchini so far known from Samoa are Parenchelyurus hepburni and Enchelyurus ater. The dorsal fin spine count of XII and pectoral fin ray count of 13 in both the holotype and paratype of H. samoensis exclude their identification with Enchelyurus, but not Parenchelyurus.

A specimen of P. hepburni as small as 11.0 mm SL did not bear the strong preopercular spines as found in the postlarval types of H. samoensis, 12.3–12.6 mm SL. This may indicate that there is a reduction in SL at the time of transformation. Unmetamorphosed postlarvae of the salariinine genus Ophioblennius Gill frequently are larger than metamorphosed individuals (Springer, 1962).

MATERIAL EXAMINED.–Okinawa: CAS SU21112 (2: 21.9–30.7); Naha, USNM 74554 (3: 21.0–32.1), USNM 62247 (34.9, holotype of Enchelyurus hepburni). Philippine Islands: Oriental Negros, Nagbak, CAS GVF1618 (28.2); Oriental Negros, Duamaguete, CAS SU38220 (35.8); Batangas, Nasugbu, CAS SU33023 (30.5, holotype of Enchelyurus caeruleopunctatus), CAS SU33024 (27.5); Oriental Negros, Siaton, CAS GVF2671 (3: 11.0–24.8). Gulf of Thailand: Hinson Chalam, CAS GVF1466 (2: 29.5–30.8), CAS SU6295 (32.5); Goh Samet Island, CAS GVF1572 (23.6), lat. 08°26′06″ N, 100°45′06″ E, CAS GVF2037 (7: 23.4–32.0). Marshall Islands: Eniwetok, USNM 204931 (24.2). Caroline Islands: Ponape, USNM 65883 (28.3). New Hebrides: AMS I.14320 (2: 29.6–32.0); Wala Island, CAS SU24068 (27.7). Australia: Great Barrier Reef, One Tree Island, USNM 204083 (31.0), USNM 204081 (5: 0–33.5, including one specimen cleared and stained). Solomon Islands: Guadalcanal, BPBM 8143 (16.3), BPBM 8144 (3: 24.7–28.8). Fiji Islands: Makalawa, BPBM 8145 (7: 21.6–32.7). Samoa: Apia, USNM 164989 (23.6), USNM 164990 (25.7); Pago Pago, CAS 5515 and CAS 5516 (2: 12.3–12.6, includes holotype of Hypleurochilus samoensis; holotype and paratype in same bottle, not separated).¹

Parenchelyurus hyena (Whitley)

FIGURE 16

Graviceps punctatus hyena Whitley, 1953, p. 137 [Palm Islands, Queensland: FBQ 1957].

I have not seen the holotype of G. p. hyena, but the illustration and description given by Whitley are sufficient for recognition of the species. The species is apparently rare in museum collections but of widespread distribution (Figure 3). The series of dark blotches on the head behind the eye, continuing on the body, is diagnostic of the species.

MATERIAL EXAMINED.–Philippine Islands: Canino Island (near Daet), USNM 99373 (30;0). New Guinea: Port Moresby, USNM 205700 (31.5). Australia: Great Barrier Reef, Little Hope Island, ANSP 109702 (3: 24.3–32.4), including one specimen cleared and stained).

List of Nominal Species, Tribe Omobranchini

Listed below are the nominal species, and subspecies, of the tribe Omobranchini. Included are the identification that I currently recognize for each species, the basis for the identification (A=holotype, lectotype, or syntypes seen; B=literature or other information), and the depository of the primary types (holotype, lectotype, or syntypes). Where “cotypes” are listed no other type material is known to me, and it is not known whether the cotypes represent syntypes or paratypes. The notation “coytypes” is usually found only in the bottle containing the specimens and is not found in the original description where the number of specimens is not indicated. The catalog numbers for the primary type material are given if known. Omobranchus is treated here on the basis of work in progress. Some species are listed merely as nominal species, others are placed in synonymy based on unpublished data.

Acknowledgments

I extend my appreciation to the following colleagues for providing loans of, or information on, specimens under their care: C. L. Smith, AMNH; J. Paxton, AMS; J. C. Tyler, ANSP; A. C. Wheeler, BMNH; J. E. Randall, BPBM; W. Eschmeyer, W. C. Freihofer, and P. Sonoda, CAS; I. Mydansky, HUJ; M. L. Bauchot, MNHN; W. Klausewitz, NFIS; P. Kähsbauer, NMV; M. Boeseman, RMNH; T. H. Fraser, RU; L. Fishelson, UTAI; H. Nijssen, ZMA; C. Karrer, ZMB; and W. Ladiges, ZSZM.

R. H. Goodyear, USNM, performed the computer analyses and prepared Figures 2 and 3. E. N. Gramblin and S. J. Karnella, USNM, rendered valuable curatorial assistance.

A draft of the manuscript was read and improved by B. B. Collette, National Marine Fisheries Service, R. H. Gibbs, Jr., Division of Fishes, USNM, and W. F. Smith-Vaniz, University of Miami, Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences.

Financial support for fieldwork associated with my study was derived from a Smithsonian Institution foreign currency grant (SFC–7–0062 (2)), Dr. W. Aron and the late Dr. H. Steinitz, principal investigators.

Literature Cited

Aoyagi, H.

1954. Additional Notes on the New and the Rare Fishes of the Family Blenniidae from the Riu-Kiu Islands. Dobutsugaku Zassi, 63(6):239–242. [Japanese with English summary.]

Bleeker, P.

1858. Vierde bijdrage tot de kennis der vischfauna van Biliton. Natuurkundig Tijdschrift voor Nederlandsch-Indië, 15:219–240.

1868. Description de deux espèces nouvelles de Blennioïdes de l’Inde Archipélagique. l’erslagen en Mededeelingen der Koninklikje Akademie van Wetenschappen, Letterkunde. en Schoone Kunsten te Amsterdam, series 2, 2:78–280.

1869. Neuvième Notice sur la faune ichthyologique du Japon. Verslagen en Mededeelingen der Koinklikje van Wetenschappen, Letterkunde, en Schoone Kunsten te Amsterdam, series 2, 3:237–252.

Borsieri, C.

1904. Contribuzione alla conoscenza della fauna ittiologica della colonia Eritrea. Annali del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Genova, series 3a, 1:187–220.

Castelnau, F, de

1875. Researches on the Fishes of Australia. In Official Record, Philadelphia Centennial Exhibition of 1876, Intercolonial Exhibition Essays, 1875–1876, 11:3–52.

1879. Essay on the Ichthyology of Port Jackson. Proceedings of the Linnean Society of New South Wales, 3(4):347–402.

Chaudhuri, B. L.

1916. Descriptions of Two New Fish from the Chilka Lake. Records of the Indian Museum, 12(3):105–108.

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

1836. Histoire naturelle des poissons. Volume 11, 506 pages. Paris.

Day, F.

1878. The Fishes of India…Burma and Ceylon. Volume 2, pages i–xx+321–778, plates 69–195. London.

1888. Observations on the Fishes of India. Part 1. Proceedings of the Scientific Meetings of the Zoological Society of London for the Year 1388, part 3, pages 258–265.

de Beaufort, L. F., and W. M. Chapman

1951. The Fishes of the Indo-Australian Archipelago. Volume 9, xi + 484 pages. Leiden: E. J. Brill.

DeVis, C. W.

1884a. On New Fish from Moreton Bay. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Queensland, 1(3):144–147.

1884b. New Fishes in the Queensland Museum. No. 4. Proceedings of the Linnean Society of New South Wales, 9(3):685–698.

1886. On a Lizard and Three Species of Salarias, &c. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Queensland, 1885, 2(2):56–60.

Fowler, H. W.

1903. Descriptions of Several Fishes from Zanzibar Island, Two of Which Are New. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 55:161–176.

1923. New or Little-known Hawaiian Fishes. Occasional Papers of the Bernice P. Bishop Museum, 8(7):375–392.

1931. Fishes Obtained by the Barber Asphalt Company in Trinidad and Venezuela in 1930. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 83:391–410.

1937. Zoological Results of the Third De Schauensee Siamese Expedition. Part 8. Fishes Obtained in 1936. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 89:125–264.

Fraser-Brunner, A.

1951. Some New Blennioid Fishes, with a Key to the Genus Antennablennius. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, series 12, 4(39):213–220.

Garman, S.

1903. Some Fishes from Australasia. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, 39(8):229–241.

Gilchrist, J. D. F., and W. W. Thompson

1908. The Blenniidae of South Africa. Annals of the South African Museum, 6(2):97–143.

Günther, A. C. L. G.

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

1877. Andrew Garrett’s Ficshe der Südsee. IV. Journal des Museum Godeffroy, 13:169–216.

Herre, A. W. C. T.

1927. Four New Fishes from Lake Taal (Bombon). Philippine Journal of Science, 34(3):273–280.

1934. Notes on New or Little Known Fishes from Southeastern China. Lingnan Science Journal, 13(2):285–296.

1935. Notes on Fishes in the Zoological Museum of Stanford University, VI. New and Rare Hong Kong Fishes Obtained in 1934. Hong Kong Naturalist, 6(3,4):285–293.

1939. The Philippine Blennies. Philippine Journal of Science, 70(4):315–373.

1940. New Species of Fishes from the Malay Peninsula and Borneo. Bulletin of the Raffles Museum, 16:5–26.

1942. Contributions from the Zoological Museum of Stanford University, California, IX. Two New Species of Petroscirtes and a Key to the Philippine Species. Copeia, 1942(2):111–116.

Jatzow, R., and H. Lenz

1898. Fische von Ost-Afrika, Madagaskar und Aldabra. Abhandlungen der Senckenbergischen naturforschenden Gesellschaft, 21(3):497–531.

Jenkins, O. P.

1903. Report on Collections of Fishes Made in the Hawaiian Islands, with Descriptions of New Species. Bulletin of the United States Fish Commission, 1902, 22:417–538.

Jordan, D. S., and A. Seale

1905. List of Fishes Collected by Dr. Bashford Dean on the Island of Negros, Philippines. Proceedings of the United States National Museum, 28:769–803.

1906. The Fishes of Samoa. Bulletin of the Bureau of Fisheries, 1905, 25:173–455.

Jordan, D. S., and J. O. Snyder

1902. A Review of the Blennioid Fishes of Japan. Proceedings of the United States National Museum, 25:441–504.

Jordan, D. S., and E. C. Starks

1906. List of Fishes Collected on Tanega and Yaku, Offshore Islands of Southern Japan, by Robert Van Vleck Anderson, with Descriptions of Seven New Species. Proceedings of the United States National Museum, 30:695–706.

Katayama, M.

1941. A New Blennoid Fish from Toyama Bay. The Zoological Magazine [Dobutsugaku Zasshi], 53(12):591–592.

Klunzinger, C. B.

1871. Synopsis der Fische des Rothen Meeres. Part 2. Verhandlungen der kaiserlich-königlichen zoologisch-botanischen Gesellschaft in Wien. 21:441–688.

Kner, R.

1868a. Uber neue Fische aus dem Museum der Herren Johann Cäsar Godeffroy und Sohn in Hamburg. Sitzungsberichte der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, 58(1–2), 1(7):26–31.

1868b. Folge neuer Fische aus dem Museum der Herren Joh. Cäs. Godeffroy und Sohn in Hamburg. Sitzungsberichte der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, 58(3–4), 1(8):293–356.

Kossman, R., and H. Räuber

1877. Pisces. Pages 1–34 in R. Kossman, Zoologische Ergebnisse einer in Auftrage der Königlichen Academie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin ausgefüihrten Reise in die Küstengebiete des Rothen Metres. [Each article individually paginated.]

Krejsa, R. J.

1960. The Eastern, Tropical Pacific Fishes of the Genus Blenniolus, Including a New Island Endemic. Copeia, 1960(4):322–336.

Macleay, W.

1881. Descriptive Catalogue of the Fishes of Australia. Part 3. Proceedings of the Linnean Society of New South Wales, 6(1):1–138.

1885. Notices on New Fishes. Proceedings of the Linnean Society of New South Wales, 9(1):170–172.

Ogilby, J. D.

1887. Catalogue of the Fishes of New South Wales, with Their Principal Synonyms. Appendix A of Report of the Commisisoners of Fisheries up to 31 December 1886, Department of Fisheries, New South Wales, 67 pages.

1910. On New or Insufficiently Described Fishes. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Queensland, 23:1–55.

Peters, J. A.

1971. Biostatistical Programs in BASIC Language for Time-Shared Computers. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, 69:1–46.

Peters, W.

1855a. Uebersicht der in Mossambique beobachten Fische. Archiv für Naturgeschichte, 1:234–282.

1855b. Übersicht der in Mossambique beobachteten Seefische. Monatsberichte der Königlich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, 1855:428–466.

1868. Über die von Hrn. Dr. F. Jagor in dem ostindischen Archipel gesammelten Fische. Monatsberichte der Königlich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, April 1868:254–281.

Regan, C. T.

1905. On Fishes from the Persian Gulf, the Sea of Oman, and Karachi, Collected by M. F. W. Townsend. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 18:318–333.

Richardson, J.

1846. Report on the Ichthyology of the Seas of China and Japan. Report of the Fifteenth Meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, pages 187–320.

Sauvage, H. E.

1880. Description de quelques Blennioïdes de la collection du Muséum d’Histoire Naturelle. Bulletin de la Société Philomantique de Paris, series 7, 4(1879–1880):215–220.

1883. Descriptions de quelques poissons de la collection du Muséum d’Histoire Naturelle. Bulletin de la Société Philomantique de Paris, series 7, 7:156–161.

Seale, A.

1935. The Templeton Crocker Expedition to Western Polynesian and Melanesian Islands, 1933. No. 27. Fishes. Proceedings of the California Academy of Sciences, series 4, 21(27):338–378.

Simpson, G. S.; A. Roe; and R. C. Lewontin

1960. Quantitative Zoology. Revised edition, 440 pages. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company.

Smith, H. M.

1934. The Blenniid Fishes of Siam, with Descriptions of New Species. Journal of the Siam Society, 9(3):315–323.

Smith, J. L. B.

1949. Forty-two Fishes New to South Africa with Notes on Others. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, series 12, 2:97–111.

1955. New Species and New Records of Fishes from Moçambique, Part 1. Memórias do Museu Dr. Alvaro de Castro, 1955(3):3–27.

1959. Fishes of the Families Blenniidae and Salariidae of the Western Indian Ocean. Rhodes University, Department of Ichthyology, Ichthyological Bulletin, 14:229–252.

Smith-Vaniz, W. F., and V. G. Springer

1971. Synopsis of the Tribe Salariini, with Descriptions of Five New Genera and Three New Species (Pisces: Blenniidae). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, 73:1–72.

Snedecor, G. W.

1956. Statistical Methods. 534 pages. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State College Press.

Snyder, J. O.

1908. Descriptions of Eighteen New Species and Two New Genera of Fishes from Japan and the Riu Kiu Islands. Proceedings of the United States National Museum, 35:93–111.

Springer, V. G.

1962. A Review of the Blenniid Fishes of the Genus Ophioblennius Gill. Copeia, 1962(2):426–433.

1963. Two Species of Indo-West Pacific Blenniid Fishes Erroneously Described from the Western Atlantic Ocean. Copeia, 1963(2):452–454.

1968. Osteology and Classification of the Fishes of the Family Blenniidae. United States National Museum Bulletin 284:1–85.

Springer, V. G., and W. F. Smith-Vaniz

1972. A New Tribe (Phenablenniini) and Genus (Phenablennius) of Blenniid Fishes Based on Petroscirtes heyligeri Bleeker. Copeia, 1972(1);64–71.

Steindachner, F.

1863. Ichthyologische Mittheilungen (VI). Verhandlungen der Zoologisch-Botanischen Gesellschaft in Wien, 13:1189–1192.

1876. Ichthyologische Beiträge (V). Sitzungsberichte der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, 74(1–2,1):49–240.

Strasburg, D. W.

1956. Notes on the Blennioid Fishes of Hawaii with Descriptions of Two New Species. Pacific Science, 10(3):241–267.

Swainson, W.

1839. The Natural History of Fishes, Amphibians, and Reptiles…. Volume 2, 452 pages. London.

Weber, M.

1908. Süsswasserfische von Neu-Guinea; ein Beitrag zur Frage nach dem früheren Zusammenhang von Neu-Guinea und Australien. Pages 201–267 in Nova Guinea. Résultats de l’expédition scientifique Néerlandaise a la Nouvelle-Guinée en 1903 sous les auspices de Arthur Wichmann, volume 5 (zoology), part 2.

1913. Die Fische der Siboga-Expedition. Siboga Expedidition Report, 57:1–710.

Whitley, G. P.

1935. Fishes from Princess Charlotte Bay, North Queensland. Records of the South Australian Museum, 5(3):345–365.

1945. New Sharks and Fishes from Western Australia. Part 2. Australian Zoologist, 11(1):1–45.

1953. Studies in Ichthyology No. 16. Records of the Australian Museum, 23(3):133–138.

1958. Descriptions and Records of Fishes. Proceedings of the Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales, 1956–1957:28–51.

1959. Ichthyological Snippets. Australian Zoologist, 12(4):310–323.

________

¹While this paper was in press I received one specimen of P. hepburni (USNM 207864) collected at the island of Mauritius by Dr. T. H. Fraser. This specimen represents the first record of the species from the Indian Ocean.

TABLE 1.–Frequency distributions for dorsal and anal fin ray elements in the tribe Omobranchini (except Omobranchus).

TABLE 2.–Frequency distributions for vertebrae and pectoral fin rays in the tribe Omobranchini (except Omobranchus).

TABLE 3.–Frequency distributions for number of lateral line tubes and posterior extent of tubes relative to dorsal fin elements in the tribe Omobranchini (except Omobranchus).

TABLE 4.–Frequency distributions for ventral extent of gill opening relative to level of pectoral fin rays (counting dorsally to ventrally; 0, gill opening restricted above pectoral fin base; 18, ventral to pectoral fin base) in the tribe Omobranchini (except Omobranchus).

TABLE 5.–Relationship of number of upper and lower jaw teeth to standard length in certain species of Omobranchini. See also Figures 3 and 4.

TABLE 6.–F values for covariance comparisons of regression equations of upper and lower jaw teeth in certain species of Omobranchini (*, significant at 95 percent level; NS, not significant). See Table 5.

FIGURE 2.–Regression lines for number of upper jaw incisor teeth versus standard length for species of Enchelyurus (E.), Haptogenys (H.), Laiphognathus (L.), Omox (O.), and Parenchelyurus (P.). See also Tables 5 and 6.

FIGURE 3.–Regression lines for number of lower jaw incisor teeth versus standard length for species of Enchelyurus (E.), Haptogenys (H.), Laiphognathus (L.), Omox (O.), and Parenchelyurus (P.). See also Tables 5 and 6.

FIGURE 4.–Distribution of the species of Haptogenys (H.), Laiphognathus (L.), Omox (O.), and Parenchelyurus (P.). For additional record of Parenchelyurus hepburni from Mauritius, Indian Ocean, see note, page 13.

FIGURE 5.–Distribution of the species of Enchelyurus.

FIGURE 6.–Enchelyurus ater, CAS 24691, male, 41.2 mm SL, New Caledonia. a, Lateral view; b, underside of head. (Drawn by J. R. Schroeder.)

FIGURE 7.–Enchelyurus brunneolus, CAS GVF station 33, male, 30.2 mm SL, Hawaiian Islands. a, Lateral view; b, underside of head. (Drawn by J. R. Schroeder.)

FIGURE 8.–Enchelyurus flavipes, CAS SU30660, Singapore. a, b, Male, 50.6 mm SL: a, lateral view; b, enlarged view of tips of anal fin rays. c, Female, enlarged ventral view of anus and genital papilla. (Drawn by J. R. Schroeder.)

FIGURE 9.–Enchelyurus kraussi, USNM 201831, male, 41.0 mm SL, Great Barrier Reef. (Drawn by S. L. Collum.)

FIGURE 10.–Enchelyurus petersi, USNM 204540, male, 48.0 mm SL, Gulf of Aqaba. (Drawn by K. H. Moore.)

FIGURE 11.–Haptogenys quadripora, USNM 119658, holotype, male, 61.6 mm SL, Gulf of Thailand. a, Lateral view; b, enlarged view of underside of head. (Drawn by J. R. Schroeder.)

FIGURE 12.–Laiphognathus multimaculatus, CAS GVF2186, Gulf of Thailand. a–d, Male, 27.3 mm SL: a, lateral view; b, enlarged view of nasal cirri; c, enlarged view of labial flap; d, ventral view of head and venter. e, Female, view of anus and genital region. (Drawn by J. R. Schroeder.)

FIGURE 13.–Omox biporos, CAS 13520, holotype, male, 36.9 mm SL, Gulf of Thailand. Trifurcate caudal ray is aberrant. (Drawn by J. R. Schroeder.)

FIGURE 14.–Omox biporos, USNM 205698, female, 30.6 mm SL, New Guinea. (Drawn by J. R. Schroeder.)

FIGURE 15.–Parenchelyurus hepburni, AMS 1.14320, male, 29.6 mm SL, New Hebrides. (Drawn by J. R. Schroeder.)

FIGURE 16.–Parenchelyurus hyena, ANSP 109702, female, 32.4 mm SL, Great Barrier Reef. Right pelvic fin is illustrated instead of damaged left pelvic fin. (Drawn by J. R. Schroeder.)

Publication in Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology

Manuscripts for serial publications are accepted by the Smithsonian Institution Press, subject to substantive review, only through departments of the various Smithsonian museums. Non-Smithsonian authors should address inquiries to the appropriate department. If submission is invited, the following format requirements of the Press will govern the preparation of copy.

Copy must be typewritten, double-spaced, on one side of standard white bond paper, with 1½″ top and left margins, submitted in ribbon copy with a carbon or duplicate, and accompanied by the original artwork. Duplicate copies of all material, including illustrations, should be retained by the author. There may be several paragraphs to a page, but each page should begin with a new paragraph. Number consecutively all pages, including title page, abstract, text, literature cited, legends, and tables. The minimum length is 30 pages, including typescript and illustrations.

The title should be complete and clear for easy indexing by abstracting services. Taxonomic titles will carry a final line indicating the higher categories to which the taxon is referable: “(Hymenoptera: Sphecidae).” Include an abstract as an introductory part of the text. Identify the author on the first page of text with an unnumbered footnote that includes his professional mailing address. A table of contents is optional. An index, if required, may be supplied by the author when he returns page proof.

Two headings are used: (1) text heads (boldface in print) for major sections and chapters and (2) paragraph sideheads (caps and small caps in print) for subdivisions. Further headings may be worked out with the editor.

In taxonomic keys, number only the first item of each couplet; if there is only one couplet, omit the number. For easy reference, number also the taxa and their corresponding headings throughout the text; do not incorporate page references in the key.

In synonymy, use the short form (taxon, author, date:page) with a full reference at the end of the paper under “Literature Cited.” Begin each taxon at the left margin with subsequent lines indented about three spaces. Within an entry, use a period-dash (.—) to separate each reference. Enclose with square brackets any annotation in, or at the end of, the entry. For references within the text, use the author-date system: “(Jones, 1910)” and “Jones (1910).” If the reference is expanded, abbreviate the data: “Jones (1910:122, pl. 20: fig. 1).”

Simple tabulations in the text (e.g., columns of data) may carry headings or not, but they should not contain rules. Formal tables must be submitted as pages separate from the text, and each table, no matter how large, should be pasted up as a single sheet of copy.

Use the metric system instead of, or in addition to, the English system. .

Illustrations (line drawings, maps, photographs, shaded drawings) can be intermixed throughout the printed text. They will be termed Figures and should be numbered consecutively; however, if a group of figures is treated as a single figure, the components should be indicated by lowercase italic letters on the illustration, in the legend, and in text references: “Figure 9b.” If illustrations (usually tone photographs) are printed separately from the text as full pages on a different stock of paper, they will be termed Plates, and individual components should be lettered (Plate 96) but may be numbered (Plate 9: figure 2). Never combine the numbering system of text illustrations with that of plate illustrations. Submit all legends on pages separate from the text and not attached to the artwork. An instruction booklet for the preparation of illustrations is available from the Press on request.

In the bibliography (usually called “Literature Cited”), spell out book, journal, and article titles, using initial caps with all words except minor terms such as “and, of, the.” For capitalization of titles in foreign languages, follow the national practice of each language. Underscore (for italics) book and journal titles. Use the colon-parentheses system for volume, number, and page citations: “10(2):5-9.” Spell out such words as “figures,” “plates,” “pages.”

For free copies of his own paper, a Smithsonian author should indicate his requirements on “Form 36” (submitted to the Press with the manuscript). A non-Smithsonian author will receive 50 free copies; order forms for quantities above this amount with instructions for payment will be supplied when page proof is forwarded.