Ophichthid Eels — GOSLINE 
307 
Ophichthyidae [ = Ophichthinae], as Ophich- 
thus is probably the most specialized.”) 
Cirrhimuraena, except for the fringed lip, 
seems to be a rather generalized type of 
ophichthid, possessing, among other things, 
a better- developed pectoral than any of the 
other genera examined. Ophichthus^ as already 
mentioned, is probably on the evolutionary 
road to Brachysomophu\ whether this is a 
primitive road for ophichthids is undeter- 
minable. 
TAXONOMY 
Although internal structures must be taken 
into account in the basic classification of any 
group, particularly one as secondarily simpli- 
fied as the eels, the identification and delimi- 
tation of genera and species in the group are 
normally based on external characters. This 
is particularly necessary in eels, in which the 
species are all too apt to be represented by 
unique specimens that cannot well be dis- 
sected. 
The Ophichthidae in Hawaii may be recog- 
nized superficially by the fact that the fin and 
fin rays around the tip of the tail are either 
totally absent, or are much reduced as com- 
pared with the dorsal and anal fin rays im- 
mediately preceding them. In addition, the 
posterior nostril lies more or less below the 
eye, either on the inside or outside of the 
upper lip. The family is divided (Gosline, 
1950, and this paper, above) into two sub- 
families — the Myrophinae, with small rays 
visible externally around the tip of the tail, 
and the Ophichthinae, with the tail protrud- 
ing as a finless fleshy point beyond the dorsal 
and anal. Inasmuch as I have no evidence that 
either of the two subfamilies is polyphyletic, 
the taxonomy of each will be discussed 
separately. 
MYROPHINAE. The genera of Myrophinae have 
been dealt with briefly by Myers and Storey 
(1939) and by Schultz and Woods (1949). 
However, I have recently shown (Gosline, 
1950, and in press) that among the genera 
mentioned in both of these papers there are 
representatives of two quite different families. 
Thus, Kaupichthys and Chilorhinus (and pre- 
sumably Echelus and Garmanichthys) belong in 
a family which has little except superficial 
similarity in common with the Myrophinae. 
Of the remaining genera probably belonging 
to the Myrophinae, Myers and Storey (1939: 
157) list seven, but Schultz and Woods (1949: 
170) reduce this number to two — Myrophis 
and Muraenichthys. I have already pointed out 
(Gosline, 1950) that Garmanichthys hicollaris 
Myers and Wade must almost certainly be 
removed from the genus Muraenichthys, as 
interpreted by Schultz and Woods. But even 
with G. hicollaris removed, some question 
arises as to whether these authors have not 
too broadly interpreted the limits of Myrophis 
and Muraenichthys. It appears to me that 
Muraenichthys of Schultz and Woods should 
at least be divided into subgenera, one of 
which — Schultzidia — is described below. 
The circumtropical subfamily includes 
some 25 described species of small eels. 
OPHICHTHINAE. The Ophichthinae comprises 
one of the largest of eel groups. The genera 
and species of the subfamily have never been 
adequately revised. 
Difficulties of two main sorts have dis- 
couraged recent ichthyologists from revising 
the subfamily as. a whole. First, the group is 
of circumtropical distribution, but is very 
inadequately represented in collections. Many 
of the species and a good number of genera 
have been based on unique specimens 
scattered among the museums of the world, 
and many of the species undoubtedly remain 
uncollected. Second, most of the characters 
by which more normal fishes are distinguished 
are lacking in some or all of the Ophichthinae, 
e. g., fins, scales, and gill rakers. This has 
resulted in many hopelessly inadequate de- 
scriptions which would have to be properly 
allocated by anyone reviewing the subfamily. 
Each of the three most recent treatments of 
the subfamily in toto is more than 80 years old. 
Kaup (1856), in his synopsis of the apodal 
fishes, recognized and described a plethora of 
