The Osteology and Classification of the Ophichthid Eels of 
the Hawaiian Islands^ 
William A. Gosline^ 
INTRODUCTION 
The classification of the eels of the family 
Ophichthidae is, as Myers and Storey (1939: 
156) put it, in the utmost confusion. Their 
suggested solution, with which I heartily 
concur, is a sound anatomical study of all the 
included genera. This cannot be undertaken 
in the present paper as the family is of circum- 
tropical distribution and many of the genera 
are unavailable to me. Nevertheless, a rather 
large and representative group of these eels is 
present in the Hawaiian Islands. The oste- 
ology of the most divergent of these has been 
investigated in the hope of providing at least 
a basis for work on ophichthid relationships. 
The results of this study and of two others 
already completed (Gosline, 1950, and in 
press) have borne out the necessity for the 
entire realignment of the Ophichthidae which 
Myers and Storey (1939: 157) predicted. 
The taxonomic section of this paper deals 
with all species of ophichthid eels recorded 
from the Hawaiian Islands (including John- 
ston Island). One new genus, one new sub- 
genus, and two new species are described, and 
a substitute specific name is proposed. These 
are as follows. 
Genus : Phyllophichthus 
Subgenus: Schultzidia 
Species : Phyllophichthus xenodontus 
Caecula {Sphagehranchus) platy- 
rhyncha 
Myrichthys bleekeri (to replace 
M. semicinctus) 
The paper is concluded with a brief discussion 
of the distribution of Hawaiian ophichthids. 
^ Contribution No. 6, Hawaii Marine Laboratory. 
2 Department of Zoology, University of Hawaii. 
Manuscript received September 29, 1950. 
However, before dealing with these matters, 
the use of the name Ophichthidae for this 
family needs explanation. The genus Ophich- 
thus (Thunberg and Ahl, 1789: 5) was cor- 
rected by nineteenth- century classicists to 
Ophichthys, and the family was called Ophich- 
thyidae. In recent years ichthyologists have 
returned to the original spelling of the 
generic name but have retained the emended 
form of family name. This is illogical and 
nomenclatorially incorrect. A more serious 
difficulty arises from the fact that the first 
family name proposed for the group is 
Ophisuridae (M’Clelland, 1844: 211). How- 
ever, whether or not Ophisurus is a valid genus 
is a moot nomenclatorial question. Conse- 
quently I prefer not to use for this family, at 
the present time, the little-known and possi- 
bly invalid name Ophisuridae. 
Acknoivledgments: I wish to acknowledge 
assistance received from several persons. To 
the staff of the Pacific Oceanic Fishery Inves- 
tigations I am indebted for the use of their 
X-ray equipment and for permission to go to 
sea on the fishery research ship "Hugh M. 
Smith." To my shipmates aboard this vessel 
I am under obligation for help in collecting 
fishes at various points in the Hawaiian and 
Phoenix Islands. I am grateful to Dr. C. H. 
Edmondson and Mr. C. J. Lathrop for per- 
mission to examine the ophichthids in the 
Bishop Museum. Mr. J. Bohlke has kindly 
looked up literature regarding the name 
Ophisurus. The duplicate series of fishes from 
Bikini sent me by Dr. L. P. Schultz has been 
used for comparative purposes. Dr. E. J. 
Britten has made photomicrographs of the 
tails of two specimens for me, and Mr. E. L. 
Gillespie has shaded several of my illus- 
trations. 
[ 298 } 
