A. C. Wheeler and M. Boeseman informed me 

 that they could not find any specimens listed as 

 S. typus in the collections of the British Museum 

 (Natural History) (Wheeler, in litt, October 

 27, 1966) and Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke 

 Historie (Boeseman, in litt., August 7, 1967). 

 In addition, Boeseman wrote that he did not 

 find S. typus listed in Bleeker's Auction Cata- 

 logue, 1879. From the preceding it seems that if 

 type material of S. typus were sent to Bleeker, 

 it was sent on loan and later returned. All of 

 the type material of S. typus, then, should be at 

 Hamburg. 



Ladiges et al. (1958) listed a specimen (at 

 Hamburg) cataloged as ZSZM H 398 as the 

 "lectotype (holotype?)" of Symphysanodon 

 typus Bleeker, 1878. This is apparently the only 

 reference to a "lectotype" of this species, and, 

 although it was not clearly stated, I assume that 

 this was an attempt to designate ZSZM H 

 398 as the lectotype of S. typus. This attempt 

 was apparently based on the lack of a definite 

 statement by Bleeker (1878) as to the number 

 of .specimens he referred to in preparing his 

 original description. In a few places in the orig- 

 inal description of S. typus it appears as if 

 Bleeker had more than one specimen at hand, but 

 at the end of the description he gave the length 

 of the described specimen ("Longitudo speci- 

 minis de.scripti") as 151'" (which apparently 

 means 151 mm. total length). In view of his 

 mentioning the length of the described specimen, 

 I think that Bleeker based his description on 

 only one specimen. This position is .supported by 

 the facts that the Hamburg specimen (ZSZM H 

 398) appears to be almost equal in total length 

 (147 -f mm.) to Bleeker's specimen and it is 

 the only type specimen of S. typus known. I re- 

 gard this specimen (ZSZM H 398) as the holo- 

 type of S. typus. 



SVNONVMV 



Bleeker published two descriptions and two 

 iWuHlratiom of Symphynanodon typus (1878: 61, 

 pi. 3, fig. 1, and 1880: 28, pi. 5, fig. 2). The 

 descriptions are apparently of the same material. 

 The illustrations, although not identical, are so 

 similar that one may be a copy of the other, and 

 each is a good likeness of the holotype of S. typus 

 (ZSZM H 398), 



I examined the holotype of S. typus (ZSZM H 

 398), the two syn types of Propoma roseum 

 (BMNH 1879.5.14.164-5), and the holotype of 

 Rhyacanthias carlsmithi (USNM 84099), and 

 found that they are conspecific. 



Gunther (1880) did not clearly indicate the 

 number of specimens upon which he based his 

 original description of P. roseum. In two in- 

 stances he presented body proportions in a man- 

 ner implying that he had two specimens, whereas 

 he later stated "Length of specimen, 51/2 inches." 

 Because the two sjoitypes of P. roseum are al- 

 most the same length (105 and 107 mm. SL; at 

 least 51/2 inches total length), length cannot be 

 used as a criterion for determining which was in- 

 tended when Gunther gave length of specimen. 

 He described the spine at the angle of the pre- 

 opercle as flat and projecting. The syntype of 

 107 mm. SL has a spine at the angle of the left 

 preopercle similar to that described by GUnther, 

 but the one of 105 mm. SL lacks a projecting 

 spine at the angle of either preopercle. Except 

 for the caudal fin, the specimen of 107 mm. SL 

 is in better condition than the one of 105 mm. 

 SL. I, therefore, designate as the lectotype of 

 Propoma roseum the specimen of 107 mm. SL, 

 which retains BMNH 1879.5.14.164-5; the para- 

 lectotype, the specimen of 105 mm. SL, has been 

 assigned a new catalog number (BMNH 

 1968.8.1.2). 



SEXUAL DIMORPHISM 



External sexual dimorphism has not been re- 

 ported for Si/niphysanodon typus and did not 

 exist in the specimens of this species that I 

 examined. 



COMPARISONS 



Symphysanodon typus may be separated from 

 both S. octoactinus and S. katayamai by its more 

 slender body, from S. katayamai by its shorter 

 depressed anal fin, from S. maunalox by its pos- 

 session of more pored scales in the lateral line, 

 and from S. hcrryi by its usual possession of 

 more pored scales in the lateral line and by differ- 

 ences in certain body proportions (see keys). 

 The relation of numbers of total gill rakers on 

 the anterior gill arch to pored lateral-line scales 

 may be used to separate specimens of S. typua 

 from those of the other species of the genus 

 (table 1). 



332 



U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 



