176 GOBIES OF THE PHILIPPINES 



Genus 36. RHINOGOBIUS Gill 



Rhinogobius GILL, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila. (1859) 145. 

 Drombus JORDAN and SEALE, Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus. 28 (1905) 797. 



This genus seems to be a convenient catchall for a heteroge- 

 neous assemblage of small to medium-sized gobies not 

 conveniently placed elsewhere, and not having any decided 

 characters in common for convenient generic distinction. 



Dorsal VI, 1-8 to 11; anal I, 7 to 9; scales in longitudinal 

 series 23 to 38. 



The body may be slender and elongate or bulky and subcy- 

 lindrical anteriorly, laterally compressed, the head always rather 

 large, 3 to 4 times in length, convex above; the body covered 

 with ctenoid scales, largest posteriorly, the nape entirely naked 

 or partly scaled, or scaled to eyes, and the anterior scales very 

 small; the preopercles may be entirely naked and smooth, or 

 may have two to several longitudinal lines of minute papillae, 

 which may be connected by one to many crosslines and with few 

 or many radiating down and back from eye; the opercles are 

 naked and may also be lined as the preopercles sometimes are, 

 and may have a small patch of minute scales along upper margin'; 

 the base of pectoral and breast scaled ; the mouth small to moder- 

 ate, oblique, the jaws equal or lower jaw projecting; the teeth 

 in bands of three to nine rows in eaoh jaw, those of outer row 

 enlarged and fixed; the lower jaw usually has a posterior pair 

 of canines and may have a pair at the center of the outer row ; 

 the tip of the tongue rounded or truncate ; the spines of first 

 dorsal may or may not have elongated threadlike tips; the dor- 

 sals close together, the second dorsal and anal short ; the pecto- 

 rals without silky rays above; the caudal varies from truncate 

 to round pointed, shorter than, equal to, or slightly more than 

 head. 



The genus, as here defined, includes species which are un- 

 doubtedly widely divergent and which would seem to fall readily 

 into different genera ; but the numerous intergrading characters 

 prevent any real division according to any plan I can devise or 

 have found in the literature. Those with the body naked before 

 the first dorsal link with those scaled to the eyes, and the pres- 

 ence or absence of canines fails as a dividing character. Rhi- 

 nogobius neophytus may represent a divergent group, but even 

 that is doubtful. 



The authors of Drombus stated "this genus differs from Rhi- 

 nogobius in the presence of mucus channels bearing cross lines 

 of minute cirri as in Gobiomorphus." Unfortunately, this char- 



