ART. 10 NOTES ON MYCTOPHINE FISHES PARR 11 



Known from the waters around Hawaii, from the Indo-Australian 

 Archipelago and from Japan. 



MYCTOPHUM AFFINE Lutken, 1892 



Scopelus affinis Lutken, 1892. 



MyctopJmm afline Goods and Bean, 1895; Jordan and Evermann, 1896; 

 Brauer, 1904 and 1906 ; Lonnberg, 1905 ; Gilbert, 1908, 1911, 1913, and 

 1915; Zugmayer, 1911; Fowler, 1912, not Fowler, 1928; Weber, 1913; 

 Webek and Beaufort. 1913 ; Pappenheim, 1914 ; Jordan and Jordan, 

 1922; Fowler and Ball, 1925; Taaning, 1928; Parr, 1928. 



Myctophum opalinum Goode and Bela.n, 1895 ; Jordan and Evermann, 1896, 

 Waitb, 1903 ; Breder, 1927. 



Myctophum nitidulum Garman, 1899. 



Rhinoscopelus oceanicus Jordan and Eveiimann, 1903. 



Myctophum margaritatum Gilbert, 1905. 



Material investigated. Type specimen of Rhinoscopelus oceanicus 

 Jordan and Evermann, 1902, No. 50622, Hawaii. Type specimen of 

 Myctophum margaritatum Gilbert, 1905, No. 51536, Hawaii. 



An inspection of the above mentioned types can only serve to 

 verify in every respect the identity of these two nominal species with 

 the cosmopolitan M. a-fflne Lutken, as already made out by Brauer, 

 1906 (p. 190) and by Gilbert, 1908 (p. 217) and 1913 (p. 77). 



Fowler, 1928 (p. 69), figures a young specimen (of about 30 mm. 

 length without caudal fin),^^ and describes another, of 72 mm. length, 

 referring both to M. affine. These specimens do, however, neither 

 seem identical with each other nor can either one of them be iden- 

 tified with Liitken's M. aifi^ie^ unless the description and figure 

 should be very inaccurate and misleading. The illustration shows 

 a specimen with prominent snout, 6 PO^ If. VO, SAO in a straight 

 series, 10+5 AO, only one single Pre, anal origin under the anterior 

 part of the base of dorsal fin, the ventrals inserted far in advance of 

 the origin of dorsal fin, and no lateral line. If these features are 

 accurately shown in the drawing the specimen certainly must repre- 

 sent an entirely new species most closely related to the group of M. 

 coccoi Cocco, M. nigro-ocellatuni Giinther and M. andreae Liitken, 

 but has no relationship at all to M. affile Liitken. The larger speci- 

 men is on the other hand described as having a " very short " snout, 

 only 6 + 4 AO, 2 Pre, and a lateral line. That these two specimens 

 can not be identical if figure and description are both reliable, is 

 obvious without further discussion. That the larger specimen can 

 not either be identical with Liitken's M. affine is indicated by the 

 following features. The specimen is described as having " 4 pec- 

 torals " ; "2 anterolaterals " ; "5 thoracic " ; and " ventrals appar- 

 ently 3." The fact that there are 5 " thoracics " in addition to the 

 4 " pectorals " shows that there must be one photophore more on the 



"According to the scale of tbe illusti-ation, fig. 13, in his Fishes of Oceania. 



