27. Hemilepidotus jordani Bean 



In our collection are young examples (to 145 mm . long) from Natalsky Bay 

 and from SW part of Anadyr Gulf. Schultz and Welander (1934)1/ found differences 

 between H. hemilepidotus TiL and H. Jordani Bean by comparing the total number 

 of rays in the 2nd D, anal and both pectoral fitns . The former has an average of 

 65.46 (in 89 examples)and a range of 63 to 68, whereas in H. jordam the nuhiber is 

 higher, 73 . 32 (in 133 examples) with a range of 71 to 78 . In our collection of 5 

 examples this mean value checks, our variation is 72 to 74£/ which agrees with the 

 data given by the aforementioned authors . 



28. Enophrys diceraus (Pallas) 



A single example of this species was discovered by the KRASNOARMEIETZ 

 (1933) off Gape Olytorsky. 



D VIII, 14 A 12 P 17 Li 36 



In this species the preopercular spine is long, 21 .6% of the SL and in 

 addition has four large hooks. The nasal ridges are high and compressed, their 

 length 9.0% SL, not including the tublercles. Distance from posterior edge of 

 pupil to posterior end of nasal ridge 19.8%. 



Interorbital narrow and deep, its width 6.3%. The two preorbital spines 

 not sharp as in typical E. diceraus (Pallas) from Avacha Bay. The spine -shields 

 between the soft dorsal and body row of tubercles covered with fine sparce 

 spines. Color is interesting _f/ Across the body no dark bars . Entire body 

 an intense red-purple, with a milk white reticulated design. Unpaired fins 

 light and weakly pigmented. 



TL is 132 mm. SL is 111 mm. In many characteristics approaching E. 

 lucasi Jordan & Gilberti^ from the Eastern Bering Sea and to some extent appears 

 intermediate between it and E. diceraus (Pallas). 



1/ 

 2/ 



3/ 



4/ 



Journ. Pan -Pacific Res. Inst. 9, no. 2, 1934, p. 5. 



The last split ray of 2nd D and A counted as one according to Gilbert & 

 Burke (1912). 



The colors from a waterpolor sketch by N. N. Kondakov. 



Evermann & Goldsborough (Bull. Bur. Fish, 25, 1907, p. 305). E. lucasi and 

 E. diceraus are similar, however, later authors (Gilbert & Burke, 1912, p. 56; 

 Rendahl, Ark. f. Zool., 1931, no. 18, p. 39) have compared the forms and find 

 sufficient reason to maintain them as distinct. On the contrary the large 

 differences found in the Japanese E. namiyei Jordan & Starks are thou^t to 

 male sexual characters (cf. Rendahl, 1931, no. 18, p. 46). 



20 



