FAMILY 3MULLIDAE — LACHNER 11 



3&. Second dorsal spine not flexible, pungent; gill rakers numerous, 36; barbel 

 short, almost extends to posterior margin of eye; 8 or 9 narrow dark 

 horizontal stripes on body; light post-dorsal fin saddle very faint; 

 body deep, depth in standard length about 2.6 in adults; faint traces 

 of 5dark dorsal blotches on body;plate 78,E__P. orientalis* (Fowler) 

 3c. Second dorsal spine flexible near tip, not pungent; gill rakers range from 

 31 to 33; barbel of average length, extends beyond posterior margin 

 of eye, almost reaching margin of preopercle; a conspicuous black 

 horizontal stripe from snout through eye to dorsolateral portion of 

 caudal peduncle; a distinct round spot dorsolaterally on caudal 

 peduncle, about >^ diameter of eye, the lateral line just touching its 

 lower margin; a light, post-dorsal fin saddle sometimes visible, 

 followed by a small faint brown saddle; body depth in standard 



length about 3.4 to 3.8 in adults P. macronemus ^° (LacepMe) 



16. Body with wide, moderate to intensely developed, dark vertical bands or 



saddlelike bars, sometimes encircling body; gill rakers numerous, range 



from 34 to 42. 



4a. Three widely spaced blackish transverse bands over dorsal portion of body 



and extending ventrally to belly but not encircling it; anterior band 



extends from about the anterior half of the base of the spinous dorsal 



fin, middle band passes through base of soft dorsal fin, and posterior 



band passes over caudal peduncle just anterior to procurrent rays of 



caudal fin P. bifasciatus (Lacepfede) 



4&. Four blackish transverse bands nearly encircling the body ; first, and anterior- 

 most, widest, passes over body dorsally between occiput and origin of 

 spinous dorsal fin and extends ventrally through base of pectoral fin; 

 second is separated from third by a scale or two and passes between the 

 spinous and soft dorsal fins; third passes through anterior half of soft 



» Pseudupeneus orientatis Fowler, U. S. Nat. Mus. Bull. 100, vol. 12, p. 294, Hg, 23, 1933 (type locality, 

 Cooks Bay, Easter Island). 

 Pseudupeneus multifasciatus Kendall and Goldsborough, Mem. Mus. Comp. Zool., vol. 35, p. 122, 1912 



(based on holotype of P. ortentalis). 

 Upeneus multifasciatus Fowler, Mem. Bishop Mus., vol. 19, p. 228, 1928 (that portion based on Kendall 

 and Goldsborough, 1912). 

 This species is known by the holotype, USNM 65639, taken by theAlbaiross at Cooks Bay, Easter Island. 



ii> Mullus macronemus Lacepede, Histolre naturelle des poissons, vol. 3, pp. 383 and 404, 1802 (type locality 

 not given). 



Mullus auriflamma LacepSde, Histolre naturelle des poissons, vol. 3, p. 400, 1802. 

 Upeneus lateristriga Cuvier and Valenciennes, Histolre naturelle des poissons, vol. 3, p. 463, 1829. 

 Upeneus lateristriata Valenciennes, in Cuvier, Eegene animal . . ., ed. 4, page opp. pi. 19, 1838. (spelling 



error). 

 Upeneus lateristriga Valenciennes, in Cuvier, ESgne animal . . ., ed. 4, pi. 19, fig. 3, 1836. 

 Parupeneus macronema Bleaker, Verb. Akad. Wet. Amsterdam, p. 24, 1875; Atlas ichthyologique . . ., vol. 



9, pi. 391, fig. 3, 1878. 

 Apogon amherstinus Day, Fishes of India, pt. 1, p. 124, 1878 (a manuscript name; = barberinusl). 



Eight specimens (USNM 47602, 49329, 147537, and 147538) from the Red Sea were examined. 



Although this species has been reported from the Red Sea to the Hawaiian Islands, I cast doubt on its 

 presence east of the East Indies and Philippine Islands. Fowler (Copeia, No. 112, p. 83, 1922) merely listed 

 it from Hawaii. No one has since reported on this material. Poorly preserved specimens of this species 

 may easily be confused with P. barberinus. Vaillant (Bull. Soc. Philomath., Paris, ser. 7, vol. 11, p. 59, 

 1866) reported macronemus from Tahiti, but his description is also inadequate and he may have had one of 

 several species. 



Day's (1878, p. 124, pi. 31, fig. 1) description and illustration of macronemus lacks the necessary details to 

 determine with assurance what he had. His fig. 1 resembles barberinus not macronemus. His confusion is 

 illustrated by his statement, "The similarity between this species [barberinus] and U. macronemus is so great 

 that I have not considered it necessary to figure both." Thus, Apogon amherstinus on his page 124, probably 

 a manuscript name of Blyth's, may either represent macronemus or barberinus. 



