, • ['■ ;/ _■",:; : > ^ "' " • . .^ , .. 154 



nomenclatural problem at present involves the infrafamilial classification of 

 auchenipterids and ageneiosids. 



Mrafamilial Relation ships of the Auchenipteridae and Ageneiosidae 



Relationships among genera of the Auchenipteridae are still rather pooriy 

 known, although three studies have attempted to define lineages within the family 

 (Britski 1972, Ferraris 1988, Curran 1989). An exhaustive survey of the results of 

 these studies is irrelevant to my objective of resolving the taxonomy and elucidating 

 relationships among ageneiosids. Nevertheless, some comments are necessary 

 because of their implications to my phylogenetic comparisons among ageneiosid 

 species and family-group nomenclature adopted herein. 



Britski (1972) surveyed the morphology of a number of auchenipterids and 

 ageneiosids, and presented a provisional dendrogram of relationships among them. 

 He recognized four subfamilies of the Auchenipteridae (for 13 genera), and placed 

 the Ageneiosidae as a separate Uneage on his tree. He included Tetranematichthys 

 with Ageneiosus. Britski's (1972) grouping of genera was based, in part, on 

 symplesiomorphies among taxa, as explicitly noted by Ferraris (1988). Some of the 

 currently accepted genera of auchenipterids were either unavailable to Britski or 

 undescribed at the time of his study. Nevertheless, Britski (1972) recognized 

 phyletic affinities between some of the same genera that Ferraris (1988) lumped 

 together. 



Ferraris' (1988) cladistic analysis of the Auchenipteridae and Ageneiosidae is 

 the most rigorous study to date of interrelationships among these taxa. He provided 

 detailed comparisons of character states, and explicitly stated his interpretation of 

 their role in providing evidence of the shared evolutionary histories of various taxa. 

 Many of Ferraris' (1988) conclusions about polarities of anatomical characters have 



