Munroe: Systematics of western Atlantic Symphurus 
1 13 
Table 3 1 
Geographic variation in selected meristic features of 
Symphurus plagiusa. Abbreviations: NEUS = northeast- 
ern United States (Delaware to Cape Hatteras, NC); SEUS 
= southeastern United States; EGMX = eastern Gulf of 
Mexico; WGMX = western Gulf of Mexico; MEX = Mexico, 
including Yucatan shelf region; BAH = Bahamas; n = no. 
of specimens measured. 
Character 
Area 
n 
Mean 
Range 
SD 
Dorsal rays 
NEUS 
29 
87.96 
86-90 
1.118 
SEUS 
32 
88.41 
87-91 
1.103 
EGMX 
13 
87.23 
85-89 
1.301 
WGMX 
26 
88.27 
86-91 
1.079 
MEX 
28 
85.96 
83-91 
2.202 
BAH 
5 
84.80 
81-90 
3.271 
Cuba 
1 
87 
— 
— 
Anal rays 
NEUS 
29 
72.38 
68-75 
1.613 
SEUS 
32 
72.53 
71-74 
0.983 
EGMX 
13 
71.31 
69-73 
1.182 
WGMX 
30 
72.03 
70-75 
1.299 
MEX 
28 
69.93 
67-75 
2.234 
BAH 
5 
69.00 
66-73 
2.550 
Cuba 
1 
71 
— 
— 
Vertebrae 
NEUS 
29 
47.21 
46-48 
0.560 
SEUS 
32 
47.16 
46-48 
0.677 
EGMX 
13 
46.46 
45-48 
0.776 
WGMX 
31 
47.03 
46-49 
0.658 
MEX 
28 
45.89 
45-48 
1.031 
BAH 
5 
45.40 
44-47 
1.140 
Cuba 
1 
46 
— 
— 
northern Gulf of Mexico had the highest average 
counts, fishes from Key West to Tampa had the low- 
est, and those from the southeastern Atlantic coast 
were intermediate between average values found for 
tonguefishes from other regions. 
Remarks Pleuronectes ( =Symphurus ) plagiusa is 
the oldest available name for a species of tonguefish, 
and is based on the holotype skin (LS 124) described 
by Linnaeus in 1766 from a specimen sent to him 
from South Carolina by Alexander Garden. Writing 
on the label is upside down in relation to the fish 
(see Wheeler, 1985:71), and when the label is held in 
correct position for reading, the fish appears to be 
that of a dextral species of flatfish, which it is not. 
The inverted label apparently confused several in- 
vestigators beginning with Linnaeus ( 1766:455), who 
incorrectly placed this species in the group of dex- 
tral flatfishes assigned to Pleuronectes. Gunther 
(1862:490) was also confused by the position of the 
writing on the label because he tentatively suggested 
placing Pleuronectes plagiusa among the dextral flat- 
fishes, perhaps to be included in the dextral soleid 
(=achirid) genus Apionich thys. 
Confusion among American authors concerning the 
identity and placement of Linnaeus’ species began 
in the late 1880’s with Goode and Bean’s paper 
( 1885a) on Linnaean types of American fishes. After 
taking measurements and counting scales on the 
holotype skin of Pleuronectes plagiusa, Goode and 
Bean concluded ( 1885a: 196) that the Linnaean speci- 
men was considerably more slender than any speci- 
men of tonguefish from the coastal United States, 
and the scale count ( 77 ) was substantially lower than 
counts observed and reported for western Atlantic 
tonguefishes. In addition, they examined correspon- 
dence between Linneaus and Garden and noted that 
specimen No. 27 of the 1763 consignment in the Lin- 
naean collection was an exotic, not an American spe- 
cies. From these observations, they deduced that this 
specimen was not conspecific with the common spe- 
cies of tonguefish found in American waters, nor did 
it appear that Pleuronectes plagiusa L. belonged to 
any other species of tonguefish occurring in Ameri- 
can waters. Instead, they concluded that this speci- 
men was probably the type of a flatfish species oc- 
curring off Africa or in waters of the Indian Ocean. 
With respect to the common tonguefish species oc- 
curring off the eastern and Gulf of Mexico coasts of 
the United States, Goode and Bean suggested that 
the proper name for this species should b e Aphoristia 
ornata (Lacepede), which was a new combination 
based on Achirus ornatus Lacepede. 
Jordan (1885:395) basically agreed with findings 
reported in Goode and Bean’s study and also rejected 
the Linnaean specimen as the holotype for the com- 
mon American species of tonguefish. However, Jor- 
dan disagreed with the nomenclature proposed by 
Goode and Bean. Instead, he rejected Achirus ornatus 
Lacepede as the next available name for the com- 
mon American tonguefish and, alternatively, sug- 
gested that Aphoristia fasciata (Holbrook), a name 
based on an unpublished figure of Plagusia fasciata 
Holbrook and discussed briefly in DeKay ( 1842:304), 
was the appropriate name next available for this 
species. Jordan rejected Aphoristia ornata (Lacepede) 
as an available name for the American species be- 
cause he believed Lacepede’s species came from the 
West Indies and that this nominal species was dis- 
tinct from the tonguefish species commonly occur- 
ring on the Atlantic and Gulf coasts of the United 
States. However, in this same paper, Jordan equivo- 
cated when he stated that “it [meaning Lacepede’s 
tonguefish] may be that this ornata is the original 
plagiusa." This equivocation led to further confusion 
and also resulted in a nomenclatural entanglement 
for the tonguefish species described by Linnaeus from 
the southeastern and Gulf Coasts of the United 
States and for the nominal West Indian species, pur- 
