Orr and Matarese Revison of the genus Lepidopsetta Gill, 1862 



557 



Figure 8 



Distribution of adults of Lepidopsetta polyxystra n. sp. based on material examined. Each symbol may repre- 

 sent mo."e than one capture. 



Figure 9 



Records of Lepidopsetta from the National Marine Fisheries Service, Alaska Fisheries 

 Science Center. Resource Assessment and Conservation Engineering survey database 

 1948-1997. 



[19961: Berendzen, 11998); Cooper and Chapleau 11998]) 

 and have refuted the monophyly of Pleiironectes sensu 

 Sakamoto (Rass [19961; Cooper and Chapleau [1998]). 

 Cooper and Chapleau (1998) recently conducted a cladis- 

 tic analysis and resurrected these genera from synonymy 

 with Pleiironectes. We follow the consensus among most 

 current scientists (Nelson. 1994; Cooper and Chapleau, 



1996, 1998; Rass, 1996) and recognize each of these genera 

 as distinct.'' 



We do not recognize two other generic nomenclatural changes 

 recommended by Cooper and Chapleau ( 1998) and have chosen 

 to retain Embassichthys and Athercsthes as separate genera, 

 distinct from Microstomus and Remlnirdtius, respectively. 



