Based on the original diagnosis of Pseudageneiosus, I elect not to recognize 

 this genus as vaHd for the following reasons. Bleeker (1864) cleariy indicated that 

 he regarded the absence of toothed maxillary barbels as sufficient evidence to 

 consider brevifilis as distinct fromyl. militaris Valenciennes {= A. valendennesi 

 Bleeker) and Silurus militaris Bloch. Like most other authors, Bleeker had 

 inadequate material of nuptial males, and thus he erroneously assumed that 

 specimens of brevifilis never exhibited the secondary sexual characteristics present in 

 other species. However, as observed in the present study and by other authors, 

 males of brevifilis at the peak of their reproductive cycle have well developed nuptial 

 structures similar to those of all other Ageneiosus, i.e., ossified maxillary barbels with 

 recurved odontodes, an elongate serrated dorsal fin spine, and a gonopodium 

 formed by modified anal fin rays. In this context, Pseudageneiosus represents an 

 uimatural, paraphyletic taxon and therefore is regarded herein as a junior subjective 

 synonym oi Ageneiosus. Moreover, Bleeker seemed to repetitively propose 

 replacement generic names based on previously described species (Boeseman 1972), 

 an action which, if arbitrary, caimot be construed as sufficient grounds for 

 recognition of new taxa. Bleeker's designation oi Pseudageneiosus is somewhat 

 enigmatic, considering the fact that he was familiar with the illustration of a nuptial 

 male brevifilis by Bloch (1794: fig. 362), which clearly illustrated the external sexually 

 dimorphic features of the dorsal fin and maxillary barbels. Apparently, Bleeker 

 failed to recognize other diagnostic features of brevifilis and assumed that nuptial 

 structures were characteristic oiA. militaris Valenciennes, with which he 

 synonymizedyl. ucayalensis Castelnau. According to Boeseman (1972), neither 

 Bleeker (1864) nor Stigchel (1947) were cognizant of the fact that the larger of two 

 specimens (RMNH 2975) oi Pseudageneiosus brevifilis that they recorded probably 

 represented the holotj^e oiA. brevifilis Valenciennes. Both authors may have been 



