be addressed here; suffice it to say, he presents a large number of characters that 

 suggest most of these other genera are not intimately related to this tribe. 



Ferraris ( 1988) placed ageneiosids in an unresolved trichotomy with 

 Trachefyopterus and what he called the "Auchenipterus group", which includes 

 Auchenipterus, Entomocorus, and Epapterus (Table 4, Fig. 33). As delimited by 

 Ferraris (1988), the only other genus of the tribe is Trachefyichthys\ he presented 

 very Uttle mformation about the morphology of this genus, and only remarked that it 

 possesses characters of the Auchenipteridae and Auchenipterini. Inclusion of 

 Trachefyichthys in the tribe Auchenipterini is somewhat enigmatic, however, 

 inasmuch as Ferraris (1988:109-110) excluded the genus from his diagnosis of the 

 tribe, which was defined on the basis of the following derived characters: enlarged 

 basisphenoid process of parasphenoid that forms both optic foramen and anterior 

 and ventral walls of trigeminofacialis complex fissure; anteriorly expanded palatine 

 in nuptial males; distal ossification of elastin core of maxillary barbel; papillose 

 dorsal surface of ossified barbel of nuptial males; hyperossification of dorsal-fin 

 spine, with the development of basally and distally clustered serrae on the anterior 

 margin of the spine; and the ability of males to hyperextend the dorsal-fin spine 

 anterodorsally. Since I have not studied the morphology of Trachefyichthys, I cannot 

 comment on its inclusion by Ferraris with the remaining genera of his 

 Auchenipterini. The only four apomorphies of Trachefyichthys that Ferraris 

 included on his cladogram were homoplasious with other doradoids (three involved 

 modifications of the caudal skeleton associated with a truncate fin). 



The three clades that form an unresolved trichotomy within Ferraris' (1988) 

 Auchenipterini seem to be relatively well-defined groups. Ferraris presented a 

 strong argument for monophyly of the "Ageneiosm group", discussed below and 

 extensively througout the anatomical descriptions in this study. Problems of 

 relationships within Trachefyopterus are alluded to above, but in general the taxa in 



