172 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM vol. ue 



Diagnostic Characters 



The study of additional material, not available previously, has 

 enabled me to reconsider certain unsolved problems as well as to in- 

 vestigate new ones. My description of the bait as a ''non-filamentous 

 simple slender tentacle" has led to misinterpretation. This type of 

 bait is considered to be a simple or unbranched central stalk, varying 

 from a single slender threadlike tentacle to one that is somewhat 

 fleshy, as contrasted to a tuft of tentacles or a bulbous base with ten- 

 tacles. In addition, it should be understood that the bait is extensible 

 and, when contracted, may be fleshy in nature; yet it retains the single 

 central stalk. 



Further attention has been given to the evaluation of the presence 

 or absence of warts on the skin of frogfishes as a taxonomic character. 

 Two species with warts were described by Bleeker, Antennarius 

 phymatodes and A. oligospilos. During my examination of specimens 

 of A. moluccensis Bleeker in the collection of the University of Hawaii, 

 I encountered an abnormal specimen with "warts" — 'UH 403, collected 

 at Diamond Head, Oahu, measuring 87 mm. from tip of snout to base 

 of caudal fin. Dr. Victor G. Springer informed me that he investi- 

 gated "warts" on a large frogfish collected in the Gulf of Mexico and 

 that the warts were encysted nematodes. Thus, "warts" on the skin 

 of frogfishes may be of questionable value in distinguishing species. 



Briggs (Copeia, vol. 2, p. 440, 1962) distinguished Antennatus reticu- 

 laris from A. strigatus on supposed differences in the length of the 

 ilicium in relation to the length of the second dorsal spine and on the 

 characteristic that the esca is blunt and lobed instead of lanceolate. 



Rosenblatt (Copeia, vol. 2, pp. 462-464, 1963) investigated this 

 problem by measuring the length of the ilicium and the second dorsal 

 spine on 62 specimens, then analyzing his data statistically. He con- 

 cluded that "only one population was represented in the sample." 

 He compared the pectoral ray counts of A. strigatus and A. bigibbus 

 and concluded that the eastern Pacific population of A. strigatus was 

 distinct from the western Pacific population of A. bigibbus. This 

 leaves the two species as valid and in agreement with the conclusions 

 of Schultz (1957). 



The importance of fin ray counts in the identification of frogfishes 

 is evident when one studies table 1. I have added, therefore, the 

 new counts made on the specimens listed below to my table 1 published 

 in 1957. Additional counts are recorded from other specimens men- 

 tioned elsewhere in this paper as well as some furnished by Dr. Richard 

 Rosenblatt. 



Table 1 includes the nomenclatural changes discussed in this report. 



