212 
MEMOIRS OF THE QUEENSLAND MUSEUM. 
Larva . — I have already described and figured a larval specimen, 8-8 mm. 
long, from Queensland ( loc . cit 1928). 
Localities and Distribution . — D’Entrecasteaux Islands, off south-eastern 
Papua (Andrew Goldie) ; holotype. Port Denison. Queensland (E. H. Rainford) ; 
2 specimens. Holbourne Island, Queensland (E. H. Rainford) ; larva. Bowen, 
Queensland (E. H. Rainford) ; 2 specimens in the Queensland Museum. 
Affinities. — Amphiprion papuensis appears to be a ” good ” species, but is 
evidently closely allied to several others from the Indo-Pacific region. The 
colouration of the fins, width of the bands, concave caudal margin, and scale-counts 
are diagnostic characters. 
Bory de Saint Vincent 8 figured a small West Australian Amphiprion as Spams 
milii which resembles A. papuensis but has broader stripes and a dark soft dorsal. 
Th i oilier e 9 has doubtfully recorded this species from Woodlark Island which is near 
the D’Entrecasteaux Group, and his remarks, based on a drawing, may refer to 
A. papuensis. 
The following nominal species may be grouped with A. papuensis , as they 
are evidently closely related to it, but further data regarding their variation are 
desirable before discussion as to their validity can be entered into : — Amphiprion 
bicinctus Rippell, 10 A. chrysogaster 0. & V., 11 A. xanthurus C. & V., 12 Anthias clarkii, 
Bennett, 13 Amphiprion japonicus Temminck & Scklegel, 14 A. chrysargyrus 
Richardson, 15 and A. rneianostolus Richardson. l<> Amphiprion boholensis Cartier 1 ' 
and A. snyderi Ishikawa 18 are also probably allied to A. papuensis. If colour 
differences prove too variable for use as diagnostic characters, it may be possible 
eventually to sort out the good ” species from the invalid ones by studying 
geographical distribution of the various forms. The tendency of modern writers, 
however, has been to “ lump ” species described from widely separated localities 
as synonyms of one well-known species, but later separation may prove necessary. 
Fowler & Bean 19 in their admirable work on the Philippine forms have united most 
of the species of Amphiprion mentioned above with A. polymnus. 
Amphiprion papuensis is closely allied to the species well figured as 
Amphiprion polymnus by Jordan & Seale 20 but the body-band is broader and there 
8 Bory de Saint Vincent, Diet. Classique d’Hist Nat. xvii. 1831, p. 130, pi. cxiii, fig. 2. 
Shark’s Bay, West Australia. (Not Mauritius as stated by Cuv. & Val., Hist. Nat. Poiss. v, July 
1830, p. 402, who confuse this species with Spurns mylio Lacepede.) 
9 ThiolJiere, Tchthyologie in Montrouzier, Essai Faun, lie Woodlark, 1857 (ex Ann. Soc. Imp. 
Hist, Nat, Lyon, 1856). p. 198. 
10 Riippell, Atlas zu Riippell, Reise (Senekenb. Nat. Ges?.), Fische, 1830-1831, p. 139, pi. 
xxxv, fig. 1. Tor & Massowah, Red Sea. 
11 Cuv. & Val., Hist. Nat. Poiss. v, July 1830, p. 400. Bourbon. 
12 Cuv. & Vat., Hist. Nat. Poiss. v, July 1830, p. 402. No loc. - East Indies. 
13 Bennett, Fish. Ceylon, 1830, pi. xxix. Ceylon. 
14 Temminck & Sclilegel, Faun. Japon. Poiss., 1843, p. 66. Japan. 
15 Richardson, Rept. 15th meet. Brit. Assn. Adv. Sci. 1845 (1846), p. 254. China. 
16 Richardson, Ann. Mag. Nat, Hist, ix, July 1, 1842, p. 390. Depuch I., W. Austr. 
17 Cartier, Verb. Ges. Wiirzb., 1873, p. 96. Bohol, Philippines. 
18 . Ishikawa, Proc. Tokyo Mus. i, 1904, p. 11, pk v. Japan. 
19 Fowler & Bean, Bull. U. S. Nat. Mus. 100, vii, 1928, p. 6. 
20 Jordan & Seale, Proc. Davenport Acad. Sci., x, 1905, p. 13, pi. vii. Hong Kong. 
