133 



or removed prior to Kner's study of it. In spite of the problems with Kner's 

 ageneiosid accounts, his study was a significant contribution, inasmuch as it was the 

 first to provide detailed gross descriptions of the gonads. 



Bleeker (1864) also recognized taxonomic problems associated with sexual 

 dimorphism in ageneiosids, but, Uke Kner, he failed to interpret correctly the nature 

 of these differences. Based on a large nuptial male that he considered to belong to 

 the same species as figured by Bloch (1794: pi. 362, i.e., Sihirus militaris), Bleeker 

 (1864:82) suggested ihdXA. militaris Valenciennes differed in details of the dorsal 

 spine and maxillary barbels, and represented a separate species, for which he 

 proposed the name^l. valenciennesi. Subsequently, Bleeker (1864:83) stated that 

 the development of hooks on the barbels and spines was apparently a character 

 present only in male Ageneiosus, and he suggested that Castelnau (1855) based his 

 description of ^4. ucaydensis on females of ^. militaris (from his text it is unclear 

 whether Bleeker was referring to^. militaris Valenciennes or 5. militaris Bloch). By 

 apparently adopting the conclusion of Kner, Bleeker (1864) proposed as new the 

 genus Pseudageneiosus for the putative "form" lacking ossified, serrated barbels (see 

 section on status oi Pseudageneiosus). ;; , 



Eigenmann and Bean (1907) also recognized sexual differences in 

 Ageneiosus. They concluded that the name^l. valenciennesi Bleeker was based on 

 male specimens that represented conspecifics of females of A. ucayalensis 

 Castelnau. It is unclear whether they based their conclusion in part on the paper by 

 Bleeker (1864), but judging from their synonymy it appears that Eigenmann and 

 Bean (1907) failed to understand a taxonomic distinction of the taxa involved. They 

 clearly indicated saUent dimorphic characters oiA. ucayalensis, but in their 

 synonymy they included names that I place in the synonymies of two different 

 allopatric species. Like previous authors, Eigenmann and Bean (1907) noted sexual 

 differences in the maxillary barbels and dorsal spine, but they also commented on 



