FAMILY MULLIDAE — LACHNER 31 



brilliant irridescent blue; head olivaceus, with an olivaceus area 

 extending back from the head a short distance on the bod}^; occasional 

 olivaceus spots on body, especially posteriorly; a concentration of 

 olivaceus blotches dorsally on caudal peduncle; these definitely not 

 appearing as yellow in life, in the water or out; bright blue lines 

 radiating from red eye; dorsal, anal, and caudal fins yellowish with 

 lengthwise bright blue lines. 



Range. — This species has an extensive geographical range, having 

 been commonly reported as far west as the Red Sea and East Africa. 

 Our material was taken from the East Indies eastward to the Hawaiian 

 Islands. 



Remarks. — This species represents one of the most complex specific 

 problems among the Mullidae, owing to ontogenetic changes in certain 

 morphological structures, such as the length of snout and the size and 

 location of the eye, and to the probable color forms. The length of the 

 snout and the size of the eye show the greatest change with increase in 

 body length, the snout becoming relatively longer and the eye smaller 

 (table 77). The larger specimens thus look quite different. The 

 light spot, or saddle, just posterior to the soft dorsal fin is variable 

 in its size and intensity of development in the adults, and sometimes 

 it is not discernible. Certain specimens from the same locality also 

 may represent two color forms, one having a darker body (bluish in 

 life) and another having a light body (yellowish in life) . Consequently 

 the six nominal species in the above synonymy may represent different 

 growth stages or different color forms of one stage. 



The possibility that more than one of the nominal forms may 

 represent a species is not yet satisfactorily ascertained, since suflScient 

 comparative material was not available from some of the critical 

 areas of the Indo-Pacific, such as the Indian Ocean and Madagascar. 

 Additional data from living specimens are also needed from all areas 

 of the Indo-Pacific to determine exact color and color patterns, so 

 that possible specific differences may be detected. 



The Uterature referring to this problem is confusing, because the 

 names of two or more of the nominal species have been freely inter- 

 changed, the descriptive accounts are not critical, the illustrations are 

 often poorly drawn, and few attempts have been made to develop a 

 concept of the probable mode of differentiation. Interesting dis- 

 cussions concerning various nominal species have been presented by 

 Giinther (1873, p. 60), Weber and deBeaufort (1931, p. 406), and 

 Fowler (1933, p. 306). 



LacepMe (1802) originally described two of the most controversial 

 nominal species, cyclostomus and chryserydros. Subsequent interpre- 

 tations of these forms, coupled with the descriptions of additional ones, 

 has lead to a confusion in the interpretation of possible vaUd species. 



