292 



FISHERY BULLETIN OF THE FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 



No specimens are available for comparison and 

 the relation of this species to the other three de- 

 scribed above must remain somewhat doubtful for 

 the present. An important character, namely, 

 the number of gill rakers is omitted from the 

 original description. It apparently differs from 

 the other three species in that the ctenoid scales on 

 the blind side do not extend as far forward, being 

 present only on the posterior third of the body, and 

 in having a deeper body. It further differs from 

 stoDiuta in having a shorter maxillary. 



The taxonomic status of this species which is 

 the genotype of Hippoglossina is uncertain. The 

 u.se of the name macrops has an interesting history 

 which has a bearing on the status of tljA-Species, 

 and the different authors are discussed here in 

 chronological order, omitting the four references 

 cited in the synonymy which are based on Stein- 

 dachner's orginal account. The original speci- 

 mens were stated by Steindachner to have been 

 taken at Mazatlan, but later authors ascribed it 

 to the coast of Chile, apparently without compar- 

 ing their specimens with the types. 



Giinther (1881) merely lists this species from 

 Trinidad Channel without describing his speci- 

 mens. They were later described by Norman as 

 discussed below. 



Abbott (Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, 

 1899, p. 475, 1900) records a specimen from Val- 

 paraiso Harbor, Chile, which he states "agi-ees with 

 the description of H. macrops so exactly in every 

 detail as to leave no doubt whatever of its iden- 

 tity." This author concludes that the locality, 

 Mazatlan, given in the original description, is 

 an error. Abbott's specimen is dextral, has 6-f 11 

 gill rakers and a well developed, antrorse, preanal 

 spine. 



Lonnberg (Ergeb.. Hamburger Magalh., 

 Sammelr., Fische, p. li, 1907) records tvio speci- 

 mens under H. marrops without describing them, 

 one from Smyth Channel, Straits of Magellan, 

 and one from Coronel, Chile. Later, Norman 

 (1937, see below) cites Lonnberg's record, with a 

 query, under two species, evidently suggesting that 

 the two specimens mentioned possibly belong to 

 one or two species, myfttacmm and macrops. 



Norman (Monogr., p. 67, 1934) gives a descrip- 

 tion of two of Giinther's specimens under the name 

 of //. mart'ops. Later, Norman (Discovery Kept. 



vol. 16, p. 132, 1937) examined another specimen 

 from the coast of Chile which proved to differ 

 specifically from the two specimens he previously 

 (1934) referred to macrops. Norman now con- 

 cludes that the two specimens previously recorded 

 by him and by Giinther as macrops belong to 

 mystacium while his later specimen, taken at lat. 

 38°22', represents macrops. Its essential char- 

 acters are as follows: Scales about 51; ctenoid 

 scales on blind side only on posterior part of the 

 body. Gill rakers 12 on lower limb. A. 56; D. 

 69. Pectoral of eyed side with 12 rays. Maxil- 

 lary extending to below middle of eye. Head 

 about 33 ; depth 42. 



It is not possible to surmise what Abbott's and 

 Lonnberg's s]iecimens re]iresent. They must be 

 restuilied and their pertinent characters estab- 

 lished. As to Norman's specimen, it evidently is 

 different from any of the three species examined 

 by me; but whether it represents macrops is an- 

 other question. The fish fauna of Mazatlan, the 

 offshore fishes in particular, are not well enough 

 known to be sure that a certain species does not 

 occur there. Considering that stomata which 

 seems to be closely related, has been taken on the 

 Pacific Coast of Mexico, it is altogether within the 

 realm of possibility that a species corresponding to 

 the description of mjocrops will also be found to 

 exist on that coast, and that two closely related 

 species of the same genus live side by side. 

 Should this surmise prove to be true, the probabili- 

 ties are that none of the 4 specimens examined by 

 the last-named three authors represent macrops, 

 because nearly all of the species treated here have 

 a comparatively restricted geographic distribu- 

 tion. Another possibility is that the original ac- 

 count of macrops is not (juite accurate and that 

 the species here described as stomata repre- 

 sents Steindachner's macrops. This suggestion is 

 fortified by the fact that stomata is a common 

 species and that it has apparently been taken on 

 the Pacific coast of Mexico as recorded by Hiyama 

 p. 291). 



Hii>i)oglosf:ina macrops Steindachner, Sitzb. Ak. 

 Wiss. Wien 74 (1) : 161 (Ichth Beit. 5: 13), pi. 3, 1876 

 (Mazatlan, Mexico). — Jordan and Goss Rept. U. S. Comm. 

 Fish. 1886: 242, 1889 (aftPr Stinndachner ).— Jordan and 

 EvERMANN, Bull. U. S. Nat. Mus. 47 (3) : 2621. ISllS (after 

 Steindachner). — Jordan and others. Rep. U. S. Comui. 

 Pish. 1928: 223, 1930 (listed). 



