FRESH-WATER FISHES OF SIAM, OR THAILAND 567 



SCAKTELAOS VIRIDIS (Hamilton) 



GoUus viridis Hamilton, 1822, p. 42, pi. 32, fig. 12 (Ganges). 

 Boleophthahnus viridis Johnstone, 1903, p. 3CK) (Patani). 



Scartelaos viridis Smith, 1931d, p. 190 (Southeastern Siam). — Fowler, 1935a, 

 p. 162 (Bangkok). 



Originally described from the Ganges, this fish has been found 

 to range from Eastern India to Malaya and China and to the East 

 Indies and Philippines. It is essentially a salt or brackish water 

 form, but may push up coastal streams into water that is nearly or 

 quite fresh. The fish is rare in Thailand waters. It was first taken 

 in a tidal ditch within the Chantabun Estuary at Lem Sing in March 

 1930; the single specimen was 6.1 cm. long. A second specimen, 

 recorded by Fowler from Bangkok, was 11 cm. long. 



Family GOBIOIDIDAE: Eellike Gobies 



Applying the principle of priority to the creation of family names, 

 as is done with generic and specific names, one may recognize the 

 family Gobioididae as established by Jordan (1923) rather than 

 Taenioididae as set up by Hora (1924a, p. 496) even though the name 

 Taenioides Lacepede has page priority over Gobioides Lacepede. Al- 

 though the International Eules of Zoological Nomenclature (Article 4) 

 provide that a family name is formed by adding the ending idae to the 

 stem of the name of the type genus, they leave the term "type genus" 

 undefined. The implication is that the person creating a new family 

 name may base it on the oldest valid generic name or on some other 

 generic name chosen without regard to priority. Hora's action was 

 no doubt influenced by his contention, based in part on the conclusions 

 of Weber (1913, p. 485), that Gobioides is not generically distinct 

 from Taenioides and is a synonym thereof. As to this point there is 

 room for difference of opinion. Gobioides is an American genus, the 

 type, broussonetii Lacepede, ranging from the Gulf of Mexico to 

 Brazil. Among the distinguishing characters of the genus are much 

 fewer dorsal and anal branched rays (15 to 17 as against 32 to 49 in 

 Taenioides) than in any species of the Oriental genus Taenioides^ and 

 the absence of the mental and mandibular barbels supposed to be 

 always present in Taenioides. Furthermore, there may be differences 

 in the dentition that would be brought out in a critical examination 

 of more adequate material than is now available. Koumans (1931) 

 said : "I think, the genera Taenioides and Gobioides are distinct enough 

 to keep them separated, differing e. g. in number of dorsal and anal 

 rays, in placing of teeth and, so far as I know, in presence or absence 

 of barbels." 



