REVIEW OF THE HAWKFISHES — RANDALL 441 



isb, darkly marbled (his figure shows dark bars), the soft dorsal and 

 anal fins and caudal peduncle almost blackish, and the caudal fin 

 pale yellowish with a pink tinge at the base, dark posterior margin 

 and dark spots. 



Remarks. — Two specimens (MNHN 95.174-5), 57 mm. in standard 

 length, collected by M. Jousseaume at Obock, Red Sea, were examined 

 in Paris. Otherwise known only from the 2 original specimens, 64.5 

 and 84 mm. in standard length, taken at 15 to 30 fathoms off Muscat, 

 Gulf of Oman. These are cataloged in the British Museum under 

 No. 1904.5.25. 



C. calliurus is closely related to hleekeri and aureus (see "Remarks" 

 under hleekeri). 



Cirrhitichthys bleekeri Day 



Figure 32 



Cirrhitichthys hleekeri Day, 1873, Proc. Zool. Soc. London, p. 705 (type locality, 



Madras, India). 

 Cirrhitichthys aureus Day, 1875, (non Temminck and Schlegel), The fishes of 



India . . ., p. 145, pi. 35, fig. 5, (Madras, India). 



Diagnosis. — Dorsal rays X,12 or 13; anal rays 111,6 or 7; lower 6 or 

 7 pectoral rays unbranched; lateral-line scales 43 (given as 45 or 46 

 in original description); 3 rows of large scales above lateral line in 

 middle of body (4 to origin of dorsal fin); 12 scales below lateral line 

 to origin of anal fin. 



Depth of body about 2.4 in standard length; profile of head, 

 excluding eye, with a marked indentation above eye; preorbital 

 without scales; no mention of spines on hind margin of preorbital; 

 maxillary reaches to below first third of eye; first dorsal soft ray pro- 

 longed; pelvic fins do not reach anus; caudal fin slightly emarginate. 



Color rosy with light longitudinal lines and a large ill-defined 

 blotch below the soft portion of the dorsal fin extending half way 

 do^\^l the side; in some specimens 2 more descend from spinous portion 

 of dorsal fin; a small dark spot behind upper edge of preopercle; 

 dorsal and caudal fins more or less banded, the caudal with red spots; 

 soft portion of dorsal darker than spinous portion and having a light 

 outer edge. 



Remarks. — Day's original description (1873) differs from his account 

 of the species in his "Fishes of India" (1875-78, pp. 145-146) 

 which, in turn, does not correspond in all respects with the plate 

 (reproduced herein as fig. 32). Notable among the differences are the 

 lateral-line scale counts (given as 45 or 46 in original description 

 and as 43 in "Fishes of India"), size of the eye, and length of the snout 

 and of the longest dorsal spines. These differences are impossible 

 to resolve without seeing specimens. 



