324 
Fishery Bulletin 108(3) 
reported for adult C. cornutus (Robins and Ray, 1986; 
Munroe, 2003; McEachran and Fechhelm, 2005). 
Gutherz (1967) described the range as the continen- 
tal shelf from off Georgia throughout warm-temperate 
and tropical regions of the western Atlantic to Brazil. 
Several earlier reports (Goode, 1880; Goode and Bean, 
1895; Fowler, 1952), however, had already documented 
occurrences of C. cornutus (as C. unicornis) from more 
northern localities including those as far north as the 
outer continental shelf off New Jersey (see also Fahay, 
2007). These earlier reports of C. unicornis ( =C . cornu- 
tus) from more northern locales were overlooked in most 
recent studies where information has been compiled for 
this species (with exception of Fahay, 2007). 
More information is available on the life history and 
distribution of C. gymnorhinus, which reportedly reach- 
es a maximum size of about 55 mm SL (Gutherz and 
Blackman, 1970; Topp and Hoff, 1972). Citharichthys 
gymnorhinus is one of the smallest species of the genus 
and is also among the smallest of flatfishes (Munroe, 
2005). It is found on the mid- to outer continental shelf 
at depths of 35-201 m, but has been collected most fre- 
quently between 30 and 90 m (Gutherz and Blackman, 
1970; Topp and Hoff, 1972; Walsh et al., 2006). Cithar- 
ichthys gymnorhinus inhabits subtropical and tropical 
regions of the western North Atlantic Ocean (Gutherz 
and Blackman, 1970; Topp and Hoff, 1972) from North 
Carolina (Quattrini and Ross, 2006) to Guyana (Topp 
and Hoff, 1972). 
Although not rare, C. gymnorhinus has been captured 
less frequently than C. cornutus, and seldom has it 
been taken in abundance, especially on the continental 
shelf off the eastern United States. No summaries of 
biological information exist for C. gymnorhinus found 
off the east coast of the United States, and information 
from this region is restricted to limited geographic and 
bathymetric data based on few specimens — the data 
appearing in tables and appendices of various reports 
(see below). Most biological and ecological data for this 
species, including observations on habitat, depth of 
occurrence, size, size at maturity, and geographical 
distribution, are based on 47 specimens collected from 
the Florida Keys to Guyana, and the majority of these 
specimens were taken on the west Florida shelf during 
cruises of the RV Hourglass (Topp and Hoff, 1972). Re- 
cent summaries of information on adult C. gymnorhinus 
are based almost entirely on data originally presented 
in Gutherz and Blackman (1970) and Topp and Hoff 
(1972) and indicate a northernmost geographical limit 
for adults, either as the Bahamas (Robins and Ray, 
1986; McEachran and Fechhelm, 2005; Lyczkowski- 
Shultz and Bond, 2006), Florida (Fahay, 2007), the 
Florida Keys (Robins and Ray, 1986; McEachran and 
Fechhelm, 2005), or perhaps the continental shelf as 
far north as off North Carolina (Munroe, 2003). As- 
sessment of distributional information in these recent 
reviews indicated that the northernmost limits in the 
geographic range reported for C. gymnorhinus were 
inaccurate. Earlier published records of adult C. gym- 
norhinus from waters north of the Florida Keys and 
Bahamas, including those from off Georgia (Tucker, 
1982) and South Carolina (Wenner et al., 1979a), were 
overlooked in these recent summaries. Recently, Walsh 
et al. (2006) again collected juveniles and adults of 
this species off Georgia, and Quattrini and Ross (2006) 
reported catching adults on the continental shelf off 
North Carolina, thereby documenting the northernmost 
latitude known for adult C. gymnorhinus. Although the 
captures in Quattrini and Ross (2006) are the first pub- 
lished records for C. gymnorhinus as far north as North 
Carolina, our examination of museum lots uncovered a 
specimen taken off North Carolina during the first part 
of the 20th century (see below). 
The objectives of this study are to update and aug- 
ment biological and distributional information for these 
two diminutive flatfish species. Data were gleaned from 
three sources: 1) specimens in fish collections, including 
specimens for which some information may have already 
appeared in published and gray literature, and includ- 
ing some specimens that we re-identified; 2) specimens 
in fish collections not previously reported; and 3) from 
recently collected specimens of both species captured 
off the southeastern United States. Additional informa- 
tion from other specimens reported in the literature, 
although not examined by us but where identifications 
were deemed reliable, is also included in the data sum- 
maries. The cumulative contributions of information 
from the above sources allowed us to note obscure dis- 
tributional records for both species and also to compile 
more accurate summaries of life history, and ecological 
and distributional information for these flatfishes. In 
summarizing such data, we were able to correct long- 
standing inaccuracies in the reported distributions of 
these species and to evaluate this new distributional 
information in relation to contemporary hypotheses 
regarding shifts in ranges of continental shelf fishes 
due to effects of climate change. 
Materials and methods 
This study was initiated with the collection of both C. 
gymnorhinus and C. cornutus from the continental shelf 
off North Carolina (Quattrini and Ross, 2006; Ross, 
unpubl. data). Recognizing that captures of both species 
off North Carolina represent significant contributions to 
our knowledge of the distribution and ecology of these 
species, we initiated a complete review of available 
information on these fishes. Pertinent literature was 
examined to identify and validate published records of 
both C. gymnorhinus and C. cornutus (including records 
for type specimens of C. unicornis Goode, a junior sub- 
jective synonym of C. cornutus', see Norman, 1934) from 
localities off the eastern United States and adjacent 
areas in the Bahamas and northeastern Caribbean Sea. 
Major fish collections likely to have holdings of these 
species from this region were also surveyed and speci- 
mens were examined (Appendices 1 and 2), or data were 
taken from internet databases where identifications were 
deemed reliable. Details for institutional fish collections 
