FISHERY BULLETIN VOL 77, NO 1 



Antonogadus Wheeler 1969 was first introduced 

 in the combination Anionngaclus macrophthal- 

 mus (Giinther), unfortunately, in a key to species 

 rather than a treatment of genera. Subsequently, 

 another threebeard rockling, Gaidropsarus 

 megalokynodon (Kolombatovic 18941, was refer- 

 red to Antonogadus (Wheeler in Svetovidov 1973) 

 in a checklist. There is no way to tell if the original 

 key characters describing dentition, mouth size, 

 and color are diagnostic of the genus Antonogadus 

 or the species A. macropththalnius; however, we 

 assume that they apply to the genus. Color may be 

 discounted as a generic character as it is highly 

 variable among the species of Gakhvpsarus and 

 varies geographically in the single species of En- 

 chelyopus. Regarding mouth size, Wheeler (1969) 

 noted "mouth large, extending well past eye": 

 however, figures of macrophthalnius given by 

 Gunther [1867, pi. 5, fig. B and 1887, pi. 42, fig. D. 

 the latter as Onus carpenteri, a junior synonym of 

 mac!-ophthalmus according to Wheeler in 

 Svetovidov (1973)] show fish with small mouths. 

 The second species referred to Antonogadus. 

 megalokynodon, is figured by Soljan ( 1963) as hav- 

 ing a large and capacious mouth, but he shows the 

 same condition for several other species of 

 threebeard rocklings. So far as we can tell mouth 

 size is not a useful generic character. Carrying on 

 to dentition, Wheeler (1969) noted, "A pair of 

 large, fang-like, teeth (sometimes three or four) in 

 front of the upper jaw." If Antonogadus is recog- 

 nized on the basis of such a character then it would 

 be necessary to place the two species of Ciliata in 

 separate genera, as C. mustela, the type-species of 

 the genus has bands of equal-sized teeth in the 

 upper and lower jaws, while C. septcntrionalis has 

 in addition to these bands a much enlarged outer 

 row of teeth in the upper jaw and an enlarged 

 inner row in the lower jaw. 



It is by no means clear that number of barbels 

 alone divides the rocklings into natural species 

 assemblages; convergence may have occurred and 

 other groupings based on different characters may 

 produce a phyletically more correct classification. 

 Obviously, thorough study and a careful analysis 

 of characters is required. For the present there 

 seems insufficient information available to do 

 other than recognize on the basis of number of 

 barbels a single genus with three subgenera, or 

 three genera. We follow the latter course as it is 

 the most conservative in terms of the present 

 usage of names. We recommend therefore, that for 

 the present Onogadus be relegated once again to 



the synonymy of Gaidropsarus where it should be 

 joined by Antonogadus. 



THE CORRECT GENERIC NAME FOR 

 THE FOURBEARD ROCKLING 



Although differences at the species level have 

 not evolved in populations of the fourbeard rock- 

 ling on both sides of the North Atlantic, curiously 

 enough geographical isolation seems to have af- 

 fected the evolution of different generic names. 

 Rhinoncinus is used by European ichthyologists 

 (see, fore.xample, Svetovidov 1973); North Ameri- 

 can ichthyologists use Enrhelyopus (see, for 

 example, Leim and Scott 1966). Which is the cor- 

 rect name? 



Enchelyopus Gronovius 1760 was the first of the 

 two names proposed. Although only a brief color 

 description was given, reference was made to the 

 same author's pre-Linnean Museum Ichthyo- 

 logicum published in 1754, in which work 

 under the names Mustela vivipera and viviparous 

 eelpout is presented a recognizable description of 

 the species presently named Zoanvs viviparus 

 (Linnaeus). This identification is further verified 

 by a Gronovius specimen still extant in the British 

 Museum, which Wheeler ( 1958) has suggested is a 

 type-specimen of Blennius viviparus Linnaeus. 

 Use of Enchelyopus in Zoarcidae, where it is a 

 senior synonym of Zoarces Cuvier 1829 has 

 been accepted by Norman (1966) and noted as 

 being correct by Andriyashev (1973). Some 

 ichthyologists (Gill 1863b;Jordan 1917), however, 

 seem to have overlooked Gronovius ( 1760) and at- 

 tributed the name to Gronovius (1763) in his 

 Zoophylaceum, a work subsequently ruled on by 

 the International Commission on Zoological 

 Nomenclature (Opinion 89) as being unavailable 

 for purposes of zoological nomenclature. The 

 Commission noted in its ruling that combinations 

 used in the Zoophylaceum were "binary" though 

 not "binomial," which interpretation complied 

 with the then current edition of the Rules, and the 

 work was declared unavailable by suspension of 

 the Rules. 



Although Gronovius (1760) never has been 

 ruled on by the Commission it follows the same 

 system of nomenclature as does Gronovius (1763) 

 and clearly is not binominal. The same is true of 

 Gronovius (1762), which has been rejected (Opin- 

 ion 332). Under the provisions of the present Code 

 (Article 11(c)), names published in Gronovius 

 ( 1 760) are not available as the author did not con- 



100 



