105 to 165 mm. SL. Length of snout 6.1 to 8.2 

 (ca. 6.2). Horizontal diameter of fleshy orbit 8.1 

 to 12.0 (11.0)— ca. 11.1 to 12.0 in specimens 50 

 to 80 mm. SL, 8.1 to 11.0 in those 105 to 165 mm. 

 SL. Width of suborbital 0.7 to 1.3 (ca. 1.1). 

 Height of cheek 4.2 to 6.2 (5.4) . Length of upper 

 jaw 12.4 to 15.0 (14.2). Length of mandible 

 12.5 to 14.6 (14.4). Width of bony interorbital 

 6.6 to 8.7 (8.7). Depth of body 22.1 to 29.0 

 (27.0)— 22.1 to 26.5 in specimens 50 to 80 mm. 

 SL, 26.7 to 29.0 in those 105 to 165 mm. SL. 

 Least depth of caudal peduncle 9.9 to 12.1 (10.9) 

 — 9.9 to 10.7 in specimens of 50 to 80 mm. SL, 

 ca. 10.6 to 12.1 in those 105 to 165 mm. SL. 

 Pectoral fin usually reaching a vertical through 

 base of first or second dorsal soft ray ; length of 

 longer pectoral fin ca. 25.8 to ca. 29.7 (broken). 

 Pelvic fin not extending to anal fin, first pelvic 

 soft ray not greatly produced ; length of longer 

 pelvic fin ca. 22.3 to 25.4 (broken). Length of 

 base of anal fin 14.7 to 20.8 (15.9)— 14.7 to 16.4 

 in specimens 50 to 80 mm. SL, 15.6 to 20.8 in 

 those 105 to 165 mm. SL. Length of depressed 

 anal fin 26.6 to 32.6 (broken)— 27.7 to 30.2 in 

 specimens 50 to 80 mm. SL, 26.6 to 32.6 in those 

 105 to 165 mm. SL. Lengths of dorsal spines: 

 first 4.9 to 6.3 (— ),< second 9.3 to 10.5 (— ),* 

 third 10.8 to 13.6 {—),* fourth 11.2 to 14.6 

 (—),* longest (fifth or sixth) 11.9 to 15.7 

 (13.2), last 11.2 to 13.4 (—).•• Lengths of anal 

 spines : first 5.0 to 6.2 (6.0) , second 9.5 to > 10.8 

 (10.5), third 10.8 to 13.1 (12.0)— 12.3 to 13.1 

 in specimens 50 to 80 mm. SL, 10.8 to 12.0 in 

 those 105 to 165 mm. SL. Caudal fin deeply 

 forked, both lobes produced, but apparently never 

 produced into excessively long filaments. Length 

 of upper lobe of caudal fin ca. 36.5 to >42 

 (broken). Length of lower lobe of caudal fin ca. 

 35.8 to >48 (broken) — based on measurements 

 of three specimens only. 



Coloration 



Several color descriptions of Symphysanodon 

 typus have been published. Bleeker (1878 and 

 1880) stated ". . . colore corpore pinnisque dilute 

 roseo ; iride aurantiaco-flava ; caudali lobo super- 

 iore apice macula lata fusca." Giinther (1880) 

 remarked "Apparently rose coloured during life; 

 caudal fin yellowish. Lower parts silvery." Jor- 



* This measurement not taken on holotype. 



REVISION OF THE GENUS SYMPHYSANODON 



dan (1921) observed "Color uniform whitish 

 when received, probably rosy silvery in life, with 

 no markings or shades anywhere." Herre (1950) 

 stated "Our specimens were roseate in life, turn- 

 ing to dull reddish brown in preservative. Thinly 

 sprinkled over the sides are black circular dots. 

 The fins, evidently clear red in life, are colorless 

 to pale tan." Gosline and Brock (1960), presum- 

 ably describing S. typus, gave the color as plain 

 greenish. 



In alcohol, specimens more than 100 mm. SL 

 are straw colored — with some individuals show- 

 ing scattered flecks of dark pigment. Specimens 

 80 mm. SL or smaller are darker with consider- 

 able numbers of dark pigment spots — two rows 

 of spots on dorsal surface of caudal peduncle, 

 sides of body with numerous spots more or less 

 arranged in rows, many lighter punctulations 

 scattered among the more linearly arranged 

 larger spots (this particularly evident dorsally), 

 head usually with relatively few spots. The 

 caudal fin is mainly straw colored, other fins 

 mostly pale. (Pigment spots are not easily seen 

 without magnification.) 



COMMENTS ON THE HOLOTYPE OF 

 SYMPHYSANODON TYPUS 



Bleeker (1878) stated that he identified 118 

 species of fishes during a visit to the museum at 

 Hamburg. Three of these, including S. typus, 

 were described as new. In addition, Bleeker 

 (1878) included S. typus in a list of the species 

 examined in the museum at Hamburg. He also 

 wrote that "M. le docteur J. G. Fischer, direc- 

 teur de cet etablissement, a eu la complaisance de 

 m'adresser un premier envoi, compose de collec- 

 tions faites a la Nouvelle-Guinee, a Singapore, 

 au Japon, en Chine et a I'ile Maurice." (There is 

 no indication as to which species were sent to 

 Bleeker nor whether they were sent as a loan 

 or as a gift.) 



Whitehead, Boeseman, and Wheeler (1966) 

 stated ". . . there is no evidence that Bleeker 

 parted with specimens from his own personal 

 collection after his return to Holland in 1860, 

 except in the case of the British Museum sale. 

 Neither is there any evidence that he did so 

 before this date." They also noted that ". . . types 

 contained in material on loan from other institu- 

 tions were always stated by Bleeker to have been 

 returned." 



331 



