this genus are distinctive and apparently monophyletic. A relationship between 

 Epapterus andAuchenipterus was recognized earUer by Britski (1972), and Ferraris 

 provided additional characters to support this. Inclusion of Entomocorus within the 

 above clade, however, is problematical, as indicated by Ferraris himself. 

 Reproductive males of Entomocorus have a peculiar modification of the pelvic fins 

 (Mago-Leccia 1984), and the anal fin is not modified as in other members of the 

 tribe (i.e., there is no displacement of the gonopore onto the distal tips of the fin 

 rays). Furthermore, the epioccipital process is not bifurcated and does not contact 

 the expanded parapophyses of the complex centrum, and there is no laminar 

 basisphenoid process of the parasphenoid. Ferraris (1988) argued that reduction or 

 absence of the above characters represents secondary losses from the derived state 

 in other auchenipterins. He tentatively suggested that internal fertilization might be 

 absent in Entomocorus, or that insemination could involve the modified pelvic fin 

 rays; however, as with the situation in centromochlids (discussed above), statements 

 about mechanisms of fertilization in these fishes is entirely speculative at present. 

 Thus, even within the Auchenipterini, possible homoplasies have confounded 

 inferences about relationships among the genera. 



Results of Curran's (1989) cladistic analysis of auchenipterid relationships 

 conflicts in several ways with those presented by Ferraris (1988); however, these will 

 not be discussed in detail here. Curran's cladogram is presented in Fig. 34. Since 

 Curran did not consider ageneiosids to be a sister group to any of the auchenipterid 

 genera, his statements about the family-group names are biased by previous 

 classifications. Some of the characters that Curran used to define monophyly of the 

 auchenipterids are actually found in ageneiosids (reviewed above). In any case, his 

 omission of ageneiosids from the analysis does not affect consideration of the 

 characters or taxa he used. What is worth noting about Curran's cladogram, 

 however, is the relative position of the taxa placed in Ferraris' Auchenipterini. 



