PIETSCH and VAN DUZER: SYSTEMATICS AND DISTRIBUTION OF ANGLERFISHES 



Comments. — Melanocetus vorax Brauer (1902) 

 was tentatively synonymized with M. murrayi by 

 Regan (1926). This decision was confirmed by 

 Regan and Trewavas (1932) and later by Bertelsen 

 (1951). Melanocetus tumidus Parr 1927 (not men- 

 tioned by Bertelsen 1951) was based on a single 

 metamorphosing female (15 mm) that fits well 

 within the larval and metamorphosing material of 

 M. murrayi (Bertelsen 1951) in lacking pigment 

 on the caudal peduncle and having a faintly pig- 

 mented gill cover. This nominal form is hereby 

 synonymized with M. murrayi. 



Species Incertae Sedis 



The following two nominal species based on 

 males are distinguished from other Melanocetus 

 males in having the posterior nostril well sepa- 

 rated from the eye. They are probably not spe- 

 cifically distinct from each other and are most 

 likely the males of one of the above recognized 

 species based on females (Bertelsen 1951, fig. 20). 



Melanocetus longtrostris (Regan and Trewavas 

 1932) Incertae Sedis 



Xenoceratias longirostris Regan and Trewavas 

 1932:54, 55, fig. 80 (original description, single 

 specimen, holotype ZMUC P9259, 21 mm, Dana 

 stn. 3751(7), north of New Guinea, 3°40' N, 

 137°53' E, 3,000 m wire, 1240 h, 12 July 1929); 

 Fowler 1936:1346 (after Regan and Trewavas 

 1932; type species designation). 



Melanocetus longirostris, Bertelsen 1951:42-44, 

 54 (new combination, comparison with all 

 known material, in key); Grey 1956:238 

 (synonymy, distribution after Bertelsen 1951). 



Melanocetus tiudus (Beebe and Crane 1947) 

 Incertae Sedis 



Xenoceratias nudus Beebe and Crane 1947:155, 

 text fig. 2 (original description, single specimen, 

 holotype CAS-SU 46495 [originally NYZS 

 28402J, 21.5 mm. Eastern Pacific Zaca Expedi- 

 tion stn. 210T-8, south of Cape Blanco, Costa 

 Rica, 9°12' N, 85°10' W, 915 m, 27 February 

 1938). 



Melanocetus nudus Bertelsen 1951:43-44, 54, fig. 

 20 (new combination, description of one addi- 

 tional specimen, comparison with all known 

 material, in key); Grey 1956:238 (synonymy, 

 distribution after Bertelsen 1951). 



Melanocetus species 



The following females, all considered to be part 

 of the original type material of M. niger (see 

 Comments, p. 79), are so poorly preserved that 

 they cannot be referred to any described species of 

 the genus: BMNH 1925.8.11.31, 14 mm; ZMUC 

 P9255, 13.5 mm; BMNH 1925.8.11.28, 43 mm (il- 

 licium absent). 



The following males cannot be satisfactorily 

 identified to species based on females. Variation in 

 the number of denticular teeth and pectoral fin 

 rays and in the subdermal pigmentation (Ber- 

 telsen 1951) is considerably greater than previ- 

 ously thought (see Diagnosis of family above): 

 LACM, 73 (11.5-24 mm) (66 from Hawaii at lat. 

 21°20-30' N, long. 158° 20-30' W; 3 from the Banda 

 Sea; 2 from the Mid- American Trench at approxi- 

 mately lat. 18° N, long. 104° W; and 2 from the 

 Equator at about long. 170° E and 145° W). 



DISTRIBUTION 



The family Melanocetidae is widely distributed 

 throughout all three major oceans of the world in a 

 broad belt limited by the Arctic and Antarctic 

 Polar Fronts, with northern and southernmost 

 records at approximately lat. 62° N and 46° S. It is 

 present in the Gulf of Mexico, but has not been 

 collected in the Gulf of California or the Med- 

 iterranean Sea (Figure 30). 



Two of the five species of the family are wide 

 ranging forms: M.johnsoni occurs throughout the 

 Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Oceans; M. murrayi 

 is found throughout the Atlantic and Pacific 

 Oceans but has so far not been recorded from the 

 Indian Ocean. Two lesser known species, M. 

 polyactis and M. niger, are restricted to the east- 

 ern tropical Pacific Ocean. Melanocetus eustalus is 

 represented by a single specimen collected in the 

 eastern Pacific off Mazatlan, Sinaloa, Mexico. 



Since the majority of collections of melanocetids 

 were made with nonclosing nets, the actual depth 

 of capture is unknown. Furthermore, because 

 sample sizes are small a statistical treatment of 

 the nonclosing net data is impossible. Assuming, 

 however, that most specimens were caught at 

 depths where gear is fished for the longest period 

 of time, vertical distributions may be roughly es- 

 timated by referring to the maximum depth 

 reached by gear for each capture. On this assump- 

 tion, members of the Melanocetidae may be taken 

 anywhere between 250 m and some unknown 



83 



