20 PEOCEEDIlSrGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM vol. 82 



genus is rendered in order to align the species with our present-day 

 knowledge of the gobies. 



Definition. — Ventrals free, completely united; interspinal mem- 

 brane present, well developed. Body moderately elongate, scaled. 

 Back in front of dorsal fully scaled, with scales extending to within a 

 short distance back of eyes. Scales of medium size; ctenoid on body 

 as well as on nape and occiput. Opercle and cheek naked. No bar- 

 bels. Teeth entire, in a single row in upper jaw, in a band in lower 

 jaw. No canines (in female). Shoulder girdle with fleshy papillae. 

 Mouth moderate, maxillary not extending beyond posterior margin of 

 eye. Tongue not emarginate. Pectoral rays all united by membrane. 

 Caudal rounded. The two dorsal fins well separated; the first with 

 six flexible spines, none being filamentous. Second dorsal and anal 

 with an equal and moderate number of rays. No sharp crest nor 

 well-defined keel in front of dorsal. Transverse and lengthwise rows 

 of cutaneous papillae on cheek. Mucous canals present. Anal 

 papilla of female rather large, blunt, subquadrate in preserved 

 specimen, its distal margin finely fimbriate. 



Remarks. — This genus is very close to Awaous. It is tentatively 

 separated from the latter by the character of the dentition in the 

 upper jaw, the type specimen showing but a single row of teeth in 

 the upper jaw, whereas the species of Awaous are generally described 

 as having smaller teeth behind the outer row. However, the avail- 

 ability of this character for generic division in this group of gobies is 

 open to question. Very little is known regarding the variability of 

 the smaller teeth beliind the outer row of enlarged teeth in the upper 

 jaw. In some of the species the smaller teeth are very close behind 

 the outer row and being also covered by a thick mucous membrane 

 are hard to observe. Sometimes, in descriptions that appear to refer 

 to the same species, one author may state that the teeth are in one 

 row, while another says they are in more than one row. Such con- 

 flicting statements are no doubt mostly due to errors of observation 

 because of the difficulty of the subject matter, as stated; but in some 

 cases it may be due to variability with individual fishes. This ques- 

 tion can be settled only by a complete revision of the group and a 

 thorough study of that character. Pending such study it seems best 

 to maintain Euctenogobius as a genus distinct from Awaous. Even- 

 tually, however, it may be found necessary to merge these two genera. 



In view of the close relationship and even possible identity of these 

 two genera, a word may be said in regard to the status of the name 

 Awaous. Some writers prefer to use the later name Chonophorus in 

 place of Awaous, contending that the earher name was originally pro- 

 posed in the French form and hence unacceptable under the code.^^ 



" See Poey, Memorias sobre la historia natural de la Isla de Cuba, vol. 2, p. 275, 1860; and Jordan and 

 Eigenmann, Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., vol. 9, p. 499, 1886. 



