Pacific by Ahlstrom (1971, 1972) nor in the western Indian Ocean 
by Nellen (1973). Houde et al. (footnote 4) captured five 
specimens in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. 
Identification.—Moser and Ahlstrom (1972, 1974). 
Ceratoscopelus-Lepidophanes complex.—Larvae of these 
species were second in abundance to Diaphus and were 
distributed abundantly throughout the area (Table 10). As noted 
in Table 10, some of the Ceratoscopelus were identified to the 
species level, but Lepidophanes were not identified to species. 
Reasons for considering these as a single complex are given in the 
identification remarks below. In the eastern tropical Pacific, 
Ahlstrom (1971, 1972) found these larvae to be common. Nellen 
(1973) collected representatives of both genera in the western In- 
dian Ocean. Nafpaktitis et al. (1977) found Ceratoscopelus warm- 
ingi and L. guentheri to be abundant in this area and L. gaussi to 
occur infrequently in the area. Houde et al. (footnote 4) found C. 
warmingi to be common and also collected 169 specimens of 
Lepidophanes in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. 
Identification.—This group presented two serious problems, 
prompting me now to consider them as a single complex. First, a 
significant number of larvae were identified as C. maderensis 
following the description by Taning (1918) and Moser and 
Ahlstrom (1972). Additionally, both Moser and Ahlstrom per- 
sonally examined many of my specimens and agreed that they 
were typical C. maderensis. Nafpaktitis et al. (1977), despite ex- 
tensive collecting, have not recorded the presence of this easily 
identified species in the Gulf of Mexico or Caribbean. Until this 
problem is resolved, I do not wish to place too much emphasis on 
this identification. Second, small larvae of Ceratoscopelus and 
Lepidophanes are very similar in appearance, and I was not confi- 
dent of many of my identifications. Even though Moser and 
Ahlstrom (1972,1974) have identified both species of 
Lepidophanes and stated that C. warmingi is an unpigmented 
form similar to C. townsendi of the eastern Pacific, I believe addi- 
tional work is needed, especially on the smaller sizes. Houde et al. 
(footnote 4) found no C. maderensis-type larvae in the eastern 
Gulf of Mexico, which greatly facilitated the identification of the 
Ceratoscopelus-Lepidophanes types. The presence of C. 
maderensis larvae, if correctly identified, would indicate that the 
range of this species is greatly extended into tropical waters. 
Hygophum complex (68 occurrences, 178 larvae) Larvae of 
this genus ranked fourth in abundance, and H. faaningi was the 
most abundant myctophid larvae identified to species. Only a few 
specimens could not be identified to species (Table 10). Of the five 
species known from this area, all but one were taken (Nafpaktitis 
et al. 1977). Houde et al. (footnote 4) found Hygophum to be 
common but did not identify many to species in the eastern Gulf 
of Mexico. They only identified H. reinhardti and H. benoiti (the 
only species not found by me in the Caribbean). This genus is well 
represented in the eastern tropical Pacific, but the two regions 
have only H. reinhardti in common (Ahlstrom 1971, 1972). 
Hygophum is also a common type found in the western Indian 
Ocean (Nellen 1973). 
Hygophum hygomi (3 occurrences, 4 larvae).— This species was 
taken in the Yucatan Channel and north of Hispaniola. Adults are 
uncommon in this area, as this species is considered to have a tem- 
perate-semisubtropical distribution by Nafpaktitis et al. (1977). 
16 
Identification.—T aning (1918) and Moser and Ahlstrom (1974). 
Hygophum reinhardti (14 occurrences, 15 larvae).—This species 
was widely distributed, but not abundant throughout the area. 
Houde et al. (footnote 4) collected 66 specimens in the eastern 
Gulf of Mexico. Adults are commonly found in the area (Naf- 
paktitis et al. 1977). Ahlstrom (1971, 1972) took H. reinhardti only 
at the southernmost stations on EASTROPAC I and none on 
EASTROPAC II because the coverage was not as extensive. 
Identification.—Moser and Ahlstrom (1970). 
Hygophum macrochir (14 occurrences, 28 larvae).—This 
species was widely distributed throughout the area (Table 10), and 
was found more abundant in winter than in summer. It was ab- 
sent from the western Caribbean, although there are adult records 
from there (Nafpaktitis et al. 1977). 
Identification—Moser and Ahlstrom (1974) and Shiganova 
(1975). 
Hygophum taaningi (53 occurrences, 126 larvae).—This species 
was the most abundant myctophid taxon identified to the species 
level and occurred abundantly throughout the area (Table 10, Fig. 
7). Adults of this tropical species are abundant in this area (Naf- 
paktitis et al. 1977). 
Identification —Moser and Ahlstrom (1974). 
Centrobranchus nigroocellatus (6 occurrences, 7 larvae).—This 
species was taken at only one location (north of Cuba) in the sum- 
mer and was rare in the winter collection (Table 10). Houde et al. 
(footnote 4) collected this species during all seasons in the eastern 
Gulf of Mexico. Centrobranchus nigroocellatus adults are known 
from the area (Nafpaktitis et al. 1977), and few Centrobranchus 
were found in the eastern tropical Pacific (Ahlstrom 1971, 1972). 
Nellen (1973) collected 69 specimens in the western Indian Ocean. 
Identification—My specimens were identical to the Pacific C. 
choerocephalus, as described by Moser and Ahlstrom (1970, 1974). 
Natoscopelus resplendens (4 occurrences, 4 larvae).—This 
species was rare in this area (Table 10). Houde et al. (footnote 4) 
collected a few specimens of this species in the eastern Gulf of 
Mexico. Larvae of this species were taken in the eastern tropical 
Pacific (Ahlstrom 1971, 1972), and Nafpaktitis et al. (1977) found 
it abundant in this area. Nellen (1973) did not report any 
Notoscopelus in the western Indian Ocean. 
Identification —Moser and Ahlstrom (1972, 1974). 
Notoscopelus caudispinosus (3 occurrences, 8 larvae).—This 
species was rare during the winter cruise and was not taken during 
the summer cruise (Table 10). Houde et al. (footnote 4) found this 
species only during winter cruises in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. It 
was found throughout this area, though not abundantly, by Naf- 
paktitis et al. (1977). 
Identification —Notoscopelus caudispinosus larvae are very 
similar to larvae of N. resplendens but differ in number of dorsal 
fin rays (25-27) as compared with N. resplendens (21-24). Its 
pigmentation is similar to N. resplendens, but it lacks the distinct 
melanophores on the dorsal surface of the trunk. 
