102 
Fishery Bulletin 96(1 ), 1998 
Figure 49 
Geographic distribution of Symphurus jenynsi based on 
material examined (discussion of geographic distribution 
appears in species account). 
(17-190 m), it is most frequently taken on mud sub- 
strates between 10 and 60 m (Menezes and Ben- 
vegnu, 1976; Haimovici et al., 1996). The majority of 
specimens examined in this study (46/51, 90%) were 
captured between 12 and 50 m (Table 10). Menezes 
and Benvegnu (1976) found both small (16-30 mm) 
and adult specimens inhabiting similar depths on 
the inner continental shelf. Larvae are sometimes 
transported into coastal lagoons; Muelbert and Weiss 
(1991) reported that about 0.02% of the ichthyo- 
plankton in Patos Lagoon, Brazil, was larval S. 
jenynsi. Juveniles and small adults have also been 
collected in channel areas in estuarine and coastal 
lagoon systems (Chao et al., 1982; Volcker and 
Andreata, 1982; Chao et al., 1985). 
Ecology Polychaetes are the primary food item of 
S. jenynsi, but other benthic prey, including 
gammaridean amphipods, cumaceans, and mysids 
are also eaten (Kawakami, 1976, Kawakami and 
Amaral, 1983). Wakabara et al. ( 1982) reported that 
S. jenynsi consumed eight different species of 
epibenthic and infaunal amphipods. They categorized 
this species as a “smell and touch” type of predator, 
noting a lack of preference among epi- or infaunal 
amphipod prey items consumed. Little else is known 
concerning the ecology of this species. 
Remarks Jenyns (1840-42:140) provided only a 
brief description of a tonguefish, Plagusia sp. (BMNH 
1933.2.28:4), collected by the Beagle from off San 
Bias, Patagonia. He compared his specimen with the 
description of Plagusia brasiliensis ( =Symphurus 
tessellatus, this study) but did not formally name the 
species. The specimen (ca. 165 mm) has a 1-4-3 ID pat- 
tern, 59 total vertebrae, and approximately 10 caudal-, 
113 dorsal-, and 96 anal-fin rays (from a radiograph), 
agreeing with those counts for S. jenynsi. 
Several discrepancies exist between meristic and 
morphological characters reported in Evermann and 
Kendall’s (1907) original description of S. jenynsi and 
measurements that I made on the holotype. Ever- 
mann and Kendall listed the counts for the holotype 
as follows: dorsal-fin rays 108; anal-fin rays 93; cau- 
dal-fin rays 12. Counts taken from a radiograph of 
the holotype are dorsal-fin rays 110, anal-fin rays 
95, and caudal-fin rays 10. In the original descrip- 
tion, the longitudinal scale count was listed as ap- 
proximately 120, but there was no indication of how 
that count was made. Examination of the holotype 
reveals ca. 115 longitudinal scales, ca. 45 transverse 
scales, and 21 head scales. Menezes and Benvegnu 
(1976) reported 106-124 longitudinal scale rows in 
their specimens of S. jenynsi. Although Evermann 
and Kendall also stated that teeth were absent on 
the ocular-side upper jaw of the holotype, a small 
patch of teeth is present on the anterior margin of 
the ocular-side premaxilla. 
In 1916, Thompson described S. bergi from the 
Montevideo region with features similar to those 
found in S. jenynsi. In his description of S. bergi he 
stated that in comparing the specimens at hand with 
the description of Symphurus jenynsi Evermann and 
Kendall from the same locality, the following differ- 
ences are found: only in a single case does the num- 
ber of dorsal-fin rays fall as low as 109, none being 
108; the scales in longitudinal series vary from 100 
to 114, and in no case reach 120; there are, distinctly, 
teeth on the margin of the ocular-side upper jaw, 
which is stated by Evermann and Kendall to be with- 
out teeth; the eyes are far from being “on the same 
line,” the lower beginning below the end of the ante- 
rior third of the upper, instead of “slightly advanced”; 
and finally, there are not 12, but 10 caudal-fin rays. 
The differences are obviously great, although “the 
general appearances are similar.” Apparently, Thomp- 
son did not actually examine the holotype of S. 
jenynsi. 
Ginsburg (1951) examined types of both nominal 
species and concluded that they were conspecific. 
Subsequent authors (Menezes and Benvegnu, 1976; 
Lema et al., 1980; Lucena and Lucena, 1982) have 
also considered there to be only one species among 
material identified as S. jenynsi and S. bergi. Ex- 
amination of radiographs of specimens, including 
holotypes of both nominal species as well as the en- 
tire paratype series of S. bergi, did not reveal any 
osteological differences, and the specimens have simi- 
