84 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM vol. 122 



which denotes Bleeker questioned his action. In the 1878 paper 

 Bleeker repeated this same questioned synonymy. I have been 

 unable to locate the holotype of S. arenatus and it seems quite possible 

 that it was lost even in Bleeker's day. From the description it is 

 not possible to positively place S. arenatus in the synonymy of E. 

 striatum. The main discrepancy I find is that Bleeker stated that his 

 specimen had a black humeral spot "regione suprascapulari macula 

 nigricante," whereas none of the 16 specimens I have examined from 

 the Cocos Islands had such a mark. This may be a minor matter 

 as occasional specimens with humeral blotches have been foimd in 

 collections of specimens of E. striatus, where specimens with such 

 blotches were uncommon. The only other species from the Indian 

 Ocean with which S. arenatws might be identified is Entomacrodus 

 e/palzeocheilus (Sleeker , \Sb^) . The described presence of a humeral 

 spot on the body of S. fraenatus probably excludes it from synonymy 

 with E. epalzeocheUus , which lacks such a mark. 



Entomacrodus wolffi was described from a single specimen and 

 differentiated from E. striatum by lacking nuchal cirri, by lacking 

 canines in the lower jaw, in having filaments on both sides of the main 

 supraorbital cirrus, and in having a black pectoral fin axilla. I have 

 examined the holotype and have no reservations about including 

 E. wolffi in the synonymy of E. striatum. Nuchal cirri are occasionally 

 lacking in specimens of Entomacrodus striatus as are also canines in 

 the lower jaw. The disposition of the lateral and mesial cirri on the 

 main supraorbital cirrus is quite variable within a population (see 

 discussion of variation above). The pectoral axilla of the holotype 

 is not actually black. The blackness is due to the transparency of 

 the skin of the axilla. Below the skin is a hollow which appears 

 dark through the skin. This condition prevails in many specimens 

 of E. striatus and depends to some extent on preservation. 



Entomacrodus plurifilis was differentiated from E. striatus and 

 E. arenatus by lacking cirri on the lateral margin of the main supra- 

 orbital cirrus and by lacking a humeral blotch. The invalidity of 

 these two characters for species recognition within E. striatus, as 

 considered here, has been discussed above. Entomacrodus p. plurifilis 

 was separated from E. p. marshallensis because "about 71 percent 

 of the specimens of E. p. marshallensis have 15 soft dorsal rays and 

 about 51 percent have 16 soft anal rays, whereas E. p. plurifilis, 

 respectively, have 70 percent with 16 soft dorsal and 8.3)3 percent 

 with 17 soft anal rays" (Schultz and Chapman, 1960). The variability 

 of dorsal and anal fin ray counts that I have found in populations of 

 E. striatus convinces me that the differences noted are insufficient for 

 subspecies recognition. 



Relationships. — Entomacrodwi striatus is most closely related 

 to a group of Indo-Pacific species {E. striatus species group): E. 



