also shown by Brauer, (1906, p. 241, fig. 158), and below that origin in T. microchir, as 

 described, without figure, by Gilbert (1913, p. 101-103). In a total of 150 specimens from the 

 southeastern Pacific and the Indo-Pacific area and South China Sea, I found no PO4 above the 

 level of the pectoral origin; in fact, many were below the level of the bases of lower pectoral 

 rays, or between there and the first ray. Nafpaktitis and Nafpaktitis (1968, p. 57, fig. 70, as T. 

 microchir) showed the PO^ to be no higher than the pectoral origin. 



Another species, T. micropterus , placed in the genus Triphoturus by Fraser-Brunner 

 (1949), may also be discussed here. It was described and figured by Brauer (1906, p. 239-240, 

 fig. 157) as M. (Lampanyctus) micropterum). Brauer's study material was from the Atlantic 

 Ocean (Gulf of Guinea) and the Indian Ocean (from near Sumatra to near the Seychelles). 

 Brauer gave some body proportions for two specimens, for example 3.1 and 7.2 cm "korper- 

 lange," and stated that the largest specimen was 7.4 cm and the smallest 1.5 cm. It is quite 

 probable that Brauer based his species on a mixed material, for of the large material of the 

 genus Triphoturus before me (excluding species of the rnexicanus complex) the largest speci- 

 men is but 4.0 cm SL. Also, the genus Triphoturus has not been since reported from the 

 Atlantic Ocean. Bolin (1959) did not list the genus from the large Michael Sars collection from 

 the North Atlantic, nor did Becker ( 1967a) from the large material gathered by the R/V PETR 

 LEVEDEV from throughout the Atlantic Ocean. 



Bolin (unpublished notes) examined a 15.2-mm specimen (Berlin Mus. no. 19375), deter- 

 mined by Brauer to be micropterum, and stated that the specimen differed in several respects 

 from Brauer's figure and description, notably in having only "13 V2" anal rays. Other differ- 

 ences listed by Bolin are: the AOa forms a light arc anteriorly; there are 4 Pre in an even arc 

 with the last interspace markedly enlarged; the AOa-Prc interspace is equal to about half the 

 depth of the caudal peduncle; and there are 5 dorsal and 5 ventral luminous scales before 

 procurrent caudal rays. Bolin further stated that the specimen was in poor condition, and he 

 added a note that the broadness of the pectoral base indicated that it might possibly be a 

 somewhat aberrant juvenile {Lampanyctus) macropterus . 



In view of Bolin's findings, and the quite large size of at least two specimens of Brauer's 

 type material (72-74 mm), the species micropterus is in some doubt. Holotypes of Gilbert's T. 

 microchir and Brauer's T. nigrescens and T. micropterus must be compared before the 

 taxonomy of these forms is fully understood. 



Meanwhile it seems best to apply the name nigrescens to at least eastern Pacific material. 



Lampanyctus Bonaparte, 1840 



Upper jaw long, slender, slightly but abruptly expanded posteriorly. No Dn; Vn small; 

 PVOi always well below PVO^. Five PO, the fourth elevated. 4 VO, the second elevated in 

 some species. Two Pol. Four PrC. Scale-like luminous glands on both dorsal and ventral sur- 

 faces of caudal peduncle; some species bear a few similar scales on base of adipose fin. No 

 luminous scales at bases of dorsal, anal, or pectoral fins. One or more primary photophores on 

 cheeks and minute secondary ones on head and body in some species. 



In the eastern Pacific Ocean, the genus Lampanyctus is reasonably well understood, 

 except for a few troublesome species groups. One group involves L. tenuiformis (Brauer, 1906), 

 L. festivus Taning, 1928, and possibly L. steinbecki Bolin, 1939; the first two species were 

 described respectively from the Indian and Atlantic oceans, but study material is scant and 

 very few specimens have been reported on in detail. L. steinbecki, described from off southern 

 California, is well represented in collections and is herein considered a valid species; however, 

 adequate material of the first two species must be compared with the latter before firm conclu- 

 sions as to synonymy are warranted. A second group involves L. niger (Giinther, 1887) and L. 

 ater Taning, 1928; these species are very similar and are poorly understood in the world 

 oceans. Also, L. achirus Andriashev is quite variable and involves two or more species. 



167 



