302 



FISHERY BULLETIN OF THE FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 



66; dorsal 82. Pectoral with 1-2 rays, not quite 

 but almost reaching to lateral line on eyed side, 

 considerably short of lateral line on right side. 

 Origin of doreal slightly in front of anterior 

 margin of eye. Maxillary reaching a vertical 

 slightly past posterior margin of eye. Depth 43, 

 head 26, maxillary 13, interorbital 2.3, eye 4.4, 

 snout 6.9, left pectoral 13.1, right pectoral 10.7. 

 Sinistral. The single specimen studied irregularly 

 shaded, not showing any definite color pattern. 



S-pecimen eTcimined and geographic distribu- 

 tion. — The preceding account is based on a single 

 specimen collected in Uruguay by Dr. Waldo L. 

 Schmitt (87778). Eecords in the literature give 

 a range for this species extending from Monte- 

 video, Uruguay, to Bahia Blanca, Argentina. If 

 the uncertain locality. Fort Famine, given by 

 Giinther for his specimen is correct, and the speci- 

 men in fact belongs to the present species, it would 

 extend its range far to the south, to Magellan 

 Strait. Also, if Paralichthys hicyclopJioi^'S Mi- 

 randa Ribeiro is in fact a synonym, the range of 

 the species would extend northward to the coast 

 of Brazil. 



Size. — ^The specimen examined, 410 mm. (16 

 inches), evidently must stand for the j^n'esent as 

 the record size to which the species attains. 



Distinctive characters and relatiorhships. — This 

 is the only species of the typical subgenus which 

 is now known from the Atlantic coast, and it may 

 be separated from all other species of Paralichthys 

 found in the Atlantic by its ctenoid scales on the 

 eyed side. From Pseudorhomhvs isosceles which 

 occurs in the same region with it, the present spe- 

 cies is easily separable by the cycloid scales on the 

 blind side and its smaller scales. 



Synonymy and identification. — P. hicyclo- 

 phom-s is based on two specimens 330 mm. long 

 from the Rio de Janeiro market. The pertinent 

 specific characters given in the original account 

 are: Scales ciliated (not stated whether only on 

 one or on both sides) ; 68. Accessory scales pres- 

 ent. Gill rakers 2 + 11 ; A. 65 ; D. 84. Maxillaiy 

 nearly attaining to under posterior border of eye. 

 Two prominent ocellated spots, one in the approx- 

 imate position occupied by the prepeduncular spot 

 in related species, the other and somewhat larger 

 spot under the posterior bend in the lateral line. 



In their original description of patagonicus 

 Jordan and Goss state : ". . . dorsal rays 7C) ; anal 



rays 60 . . . gill rakers 3 + 11". These counts 

 and those given for hicyclophorus may fall within 

 the range of variation of a single species, judging 

 by all the species in which the frequency distribu- 

 tion has been determined. The authors of pat<i- 

 gonicxi-s fail to mention the structure of the scales, 

 an important character in Paralichthys. William 

 C. Schroeder kindly examined the three cotypes 

 at my request and found the scales to be ctenoid 

 on the eyed side and cycloid on the blind side, in 

 82 rows over the straight paft of the lateral line 

 wJiich also agrees or nearly agrees with the types 

 of hicyclophorus. 



Mr. Schroeder describes in a letter the color of 

 the types as follows: "Although faded, the 187 

 mm. specimen shows an ocellated spot about the 

 size of the eye on lateral line, about four-fifths the 

 distance from eye to hypural. The 160 mm. speci- 

 men shows the same and, in addition, several other 

 obscure spots, one of them opposite the origin of 

 the pectoral and below the lateral line where the 

 arch joins the straight part. The 165 mm. speci- 

 men is too faded to show any spots." These notes 

 when compared with the photograph published 

 by Miranda Ribeiro of his P. hicyclophonis 

 strongly suggest the possibility that the types of 

 patagonicus originally had the same two prom- 

 inent spots as Miranda Ribeiro's fish. The types 

 of patagonicus and hicyclophorm-s are thus in ap- 

 parent agreement in all the more important 

 cliaracters which differentiate the species of Para- 

 lichthys and the two names are most probably 

 synonymous. 



The specimen forming the basis of this account 

 agrees almost perfectly with the types of hi- 

 cyclophorus in its structural characters and it 

 apparently also belongs to the same species. How- 

 ever, there is a discordant note with respect to the 

 color. This specimen does not have the two prom- 

 inent spots present in tlie types of hicycloph.or^is 

 and apparently also in those of patagonicus. This 

 specimen is larger than the five types discussed 

 above and it is possible that, as in other species 

 of Paralichthys, the prominent spots disappear 

 with age. On tlie other hand, there is the possi- 

 bility that the types of patago^iicus, those of 

 hicyclophorus and the specimen examined repre- 

 sent more than one species. A definite solution of 

 this question must wait until more abundant ma- 

 terial is examined. 



