I •*■ 



GENERIC NOMENCLATURE , 

 Status oi Pseudageneiosus and Davalla 



The genus Pseudageneiosus was first proposed by Bleeker (1862, 1863) to 

 distinguish y4. brevifilis Valenciennes on the basis of its fleshy maxillary barbel, 

 edentulate dorsal fin spine, and reduced, encapsulated swimbladder. In his original 

 type designation, Bleeker (1862) only briefly listed these characters, along with 

 counts of branchiostegal rays and fin rays, and did not present his rationale for 

 recognizing a new genus. However, he subsequently gave a detailed morphological 

 description of brevifilis, and indicated his reasons for considering the distinctive 

 characters of the species as sufficient to warrant placement in a separate genus 

 (Bleeker 1864). Apparently, he based his description oi Pseudageneiosus in part on 

 the inconclusive statements of Valenciennes (in Cuvier and Valenciennes 1840) and 

 Kner (1858a) regarding sexual dimorphism (for a more detailed discussion see 

 section on reproductive biology). In essence, Bleeker diagnosed Pseudageneiosus 

 almost solely on the alleged absence of toothed maxillary barbels. 



A few authors have adopted the use oi Pseudageneiosus at the generic level 

 (e.g., Pozzi 1945, Achenbach and Bonetto 1957), but most others continued to place 

 brevifilis in Ageneiosus (e.g., Giinther 1864, Eigenmann and Eigenmann 1890, 

 Eigenmann 1912, Gosline 1945, Stigchel 1947, and Fowler 1951). Even fewer 

 authors considered Pseudageneiosus as a subgenus (Berg 1897, Eigenmann 1909, 

 Eigenmaim and Allen 1942). 



25 



