thijnnus orientalis (table 5). All throo, however, are 

 much larger tlian the largest roliahly identified T. 

 7naccoijn{\, 7 48 mm.; Iwai and Nakamura, lU()4b: 2). 

 It is entirely possible that the two best external 

 diagnostic chai-acters — color of caudal keel and 

 length of pectoral fin — may no longer l)e distinct at 

 large sizes. At the present time only examination 

 of vertebral characters can offer assurance of their 

 identity. 



We examined the skull and vertebral column of 

 the specimen from 37°11' S., 114°41' W. The skull 

 (L'90 mm.) is laiger than any we have examined of 

 T. maccoyii and has the alisphenoids fused to the 

 parasphenoids, a condition we have found only in 

 large specimens of T. thijnnus. The first ventrally 

 directed parapophyses are on tiie eighth vertebra 

 and the first closed haemal arch is on the tenth 

 vertebra as in T. Ihijnnufi. Three other vertebral 

 characters useful in distinguishing T. tlu/nnu.^ from 

 T. maccoijii have the following values: 9th vertebra: 

 parapoi)hysis height divided by least distance apart 

 — 4.2; 10th vertebra: canal height divided by least 

 width of processes — 2.9; and 10th vertebra: canal 

 height divided by canal width — 1.8. The first and 

 third are higher and the second is well below the 

 range we have found for T. macroi/n, and all agree 

 well with our data for T. I. orientalis (table 5). 

 I 'nfortvmately, skeletons of the suspect Indian Ocean 

 specimens are not available, bvit specimens from 

 this region, observed by us in the Yaizu market, 

 appeared to have the dorsal bulge of the body cavity 

 as in T. thynnus. 



THVNNUS TONGGOL (Bleeker, 1851) 

 LONGTAIL TUNA 



Thynnus tonggol Bleeker, 1851 : 356-357 (original 

 description; Batavia Sea). Giinther, 1860: 364. 



Thunnus rarus Kishinouye, 1915: 28 (original de- 

 scription; Tokyo market), pi. 1, fig. 13. 



Neothunnus rarus, Kishinouye, 1923:448-450 (anat- 

 omy), figs. 24-48,64. Herre, 1940:39 (Malaya). 

 Nichols and La Monte, 1941: 32 (synonymy in 

 part). 



Kishinoella rara, Jordan and Hubbs, 1925: 219 

 (placed in the new genus Kishinoella). Jordan 

 and Evcrmann, 1926: 26 (description). Herre, 

 1945: 148 (Zamboanga, Philippines). 



.Veo//iimni/A/o/i(/^o/, .Jordan and Kvermann, 1926: 22. 



Thunnus nicolsoni Whitley, 1936: 30-31 (original 

 description; Queensland), fig. 2. 



Thunnus tonggol, Tortonese, 1939: 326 (Java Sea). 



Fraser-Brunner, 1950: 142 (key to Thunnus), 145- 

 146 (synonymy), fig. 8. de Beaufort, 1951: 225- 

 226 (synonymy; description; Bleeker's types 

 checked). Iwai and Nakamura, 1964: 6, fig. 31 

 (olfactory rosettes) . Jones and Silas, 1 964 : 38-40 

 (Indian Ocean). Iwai et al., 1965: 16-17 (syno- 

 nymy), 39-40 (description), fig. 23. Nakamura, 

 ]9()5: 24, figs. 3(i, 12, 13A (osteology). Nakamura 

 and Kikawa, 19()() (infracentral grooves). 

 Kishinoella tonggol, Serventy, 1941: 33-38 (descrip- 

 tion; Australia), figs. 6-9, pi. 2. Serventy, 1942 

 (descrii)tion, anatomy, synonymy; Australia), fig. 

 1, pis. 3-5. Serventy, 1956b (counts, distribu- 

 tion; Australia). Munro, 1958: 111 (Australia.) 

 Jones and Silas, 1960: 384-385 (west coast of 

 India), fig. 11. Ranade, 1961 (description; Ara- 

 bian Sea). Jones, 1963 (biology; Indian Ocean). 

 Jones and Silas, 1963: 1792-1793 (Indian Ocean). 



Misidentifications 



Munro (1957) reported a specimen of tuna as 

 Parathunnus mebachi from southern Queensland. 

 Rivas (1961) considered this specimen to be the 

 same as his T. argentivittalus, but as we have shown 

 under the account of T. albacares, Rivas' account 

 and that of Schaefer and Walford (1950) is based on 

 a specimen of T. tonggol. Judging from the low 

 number of gill rakers (7 -f 16 = 23), pectoral length, 

 and distance from snout to second dorsal origin 

 rei)orted by Alunro (1957), his specimen was also 

 T. tonggol. His later account (Munro, 1958) con- 

 firms this opinion. Serventy (1942, 1956b), Fraser- 

 lirunner (1950), and others have considered Kishi- 

 noella zacalles Jordan and Evermann (1926) as close 

 to or a synonym of T. tonggol. but zacallrs is a syno- 

 nym of T. albacares, as we show under the account 

 of that species. 



Types of Nominal Species 



Thynnus tonggol Bleeker, 1851. No type speci- 

 mens known to us. The designation of a neotype by 

 Bocseman (1964; was not in accordance with the 

 International Code of Zoological Nomenclature 

 (1964, .\rticle 75), which .states, among other things, 

 that a neotype is to be designated only in connection 

 with revisionary work, and that the designator of a 

 neotype must give his reasons for believing all origi- 

 nal type material to be lost or destroyed and the 

 steps that have been taken to trace it. Since desig- 

 nation of a neotype would .solve no nomendatorial 

 problems, and since we have not exhaustively sought 



120 



U.S. FISH AND ■WILDLIFE SF.RVICE 



