134 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM ^"^- ^^^ 



Giinther (1864, pp. 278, 281-288) added the genus Corynopoma 

 to Valenciennes' family grouping. This genus originally was con- 

 sidered by Gill (1958, pp. 422-428) to have affinities with the Chara- 

 cinae. Regan (1906, p. 382; 1911, p. 16) has shown good reasons for 

 not placing Corynopoma with the genera Hoplias, Erythrinus, and 

 Hoplerythrinus . 



Gill (1858, pp. 410-413) estabhshed the family Erythrinidae for 

 Pyrrhvlina, Erythrinus, and Lebiasina. Eigenmann and Eigenmann 

 (1889, pp. 100-115) followed Giinther (1864) in including Corynopoma 

 in what otherwise essentially equals GiU's family Erythrinidae. 

 Neither Giinther nor Eigenmann and Eigenmann had seen examples 

 of GiU's Corynopoma. The Eigenmanns, however, chose to give the 

 group subfamily rank (Erythrininae) within the Characidae. The 

 Eigenmanns listed characters for the Erythrininae as foUows: 



Adipose fin none. Gill opening wide, the membranes slightly united, free 

 from the isthmus. Nares approximated. Teeth well developed, at least 

 in the jaws; pharyngeal teeth villiform. Cheeks covered by the suborbital 

 bones. Brain case entirely closed above. Body elongate, slender, fusiform 

 or subfusiform. Back not greatly arched, belly rounded. Dorsal short, of 

 8 to 15 rays. Intestine short. Carnivorous. 



This definition does not exclude aU members of the Characinae or 

 members of some of the other subfamiUes of characids. 



Regan (1911) included all the members of Gill's Erythrinidae 

 in his Characidae; however, he separated Pyrrhvlina widely from 

 Lebiasina and Piabucina because he found that Pyrrhulina lacked 

 ectopterygoid teeth while Lebiasina and Piabucina possessed them. 

 Examination of many characids indicates that the presence or absence 

 of ectopterygoid teeth is of minor importance because, in some species 

 that normally possess them, they may be unilaterally or bilaterally 

 absent in a few specimens. They may also be present in one species 

 but absent in otherwise closely related species, e.g., Charax and its 

 relatives.' 



Regan (1911) maintained Erythrinus, Hoplerythrinus, and Hoplias 

 in the subfamily Erythrininae and the genera Lebiasina and Piabucina 

 in the subfamily Lebiasininae. He placed Nannostomus and Poecilo- 

 brycon in his Hemiodontidae because their premaxillaries are movable, 

 because he thought they had no ectopterygoid teeth, and because he 

 misinterpreted the palatine arch. 



* The establishment of the family Acestrorhynchidae by Fernandez- Yepez 

 (1955, p. 450) and the genus Charaxodon by Fernandez- Yepez (1947, p. 1), based 

 principally, if not whoUj^, on the presence or absence of ectopterygoid teeth 

 (= the teeth of the "palatine" of Fernandez- Yepez) should be reviewed with a 

 more critical approach. Bohlke (1958, p. 70) considered Charaxodon to be a 

 synonym of Morallesia. 



