318 
PACIFIC SCIENCE, Vol. V, October, 1951 
little that is already known of fish distribution 
in these islands. The predominance of records 
from Oahu simply reflects the overwhelming 
proportion of collecting done there. The 
question remains unsolved whether the Ha- 
waiian fish fauna arrived originally in the low 
leeward islands and moved from there into 
the high windward islands after they arose (as 
postulated for much of the terrestrial biota by 
Zimmerman, 1948) or whether the present 
fish fauna came directly to these high islands. 
That Johnston Island has been a way point in 
the immigration, and perhaps the emigration, 
of much, at least of the Hawaiian, fish fauna 
is indicated by the Ophichthidae, as well as 
by numerous other groups. The relationship, 
if any, between the ophichthid eels (and 
other fish groups) of the Hawaiian chain and 
those of Wake, as demonstrated by Edmond- 
son ( 1925 ) for Crustacea, remains unknown. 
The known distribution of Hawaiian 
ophichthids is shown in Table 4. Such a table 
may be very misleading for two reasons. (1) 
It is strongly weighted by the incidence of 
collecting in the various areas. The low num- 
ber of recorded species from the leeward 
Hawaiian Islands, for example, is undoubted- 
ly due to inadequate collecting. Actually, for 
the areas listed, collecting has probably been 
done most adequately on the high Hawaiian 
Islands, less so on the Phoenix and Line Is- 
lands, even less on Johnston Island, and least 
adequately on the leeward Hawaiian group. 
(2) Such a table may well reflect an author’s 
predilection for "splitting” or "lumping.” Of 
the species listed in Table 4, Callechelys luteus 
and Muraenichthys cooket have been and could 
well be considered synonyms of more wide- 
ranging species. On the other hand, the Ha- 
waiian specimens of the species here called 
Ophichthus polyophthalmus, described from the 
East Indies, may well be a distinct species. 
Nevertheless, the table does bring out j 
several points. (1) The fact that 7 out of 13 j 
species (and one genus) of Ophichthidae S 
known from the Hawaiian Islands have not I 
been recorded elsewhere indicates the high j 
degree of differentiation of the Hawaiian fish | 
fauna. A similar but probably somewhat jj 
lower degree of endemism holds for other ji 
fish groups. (2) The species endemic to Ha- J 
waii have not yet been taken at Johnston Is- 
land. Two species taken at Johnston have not | 
yet been taken elsewhere in the Hawaiian i 
group, but all four species recorded from 
Johnston are widely distributed in the Indo- 
West Pacific. This would point — insecurely j 
to be sure — to Johnston Island as a portal for |! 
the immigration into Hawaii of wide-ranging | 
Pacific species, but not as a portal for emigra- I 
TABLE 4 
Distribution of Hawaiian Ophichthids 
SPECIES 
HAWAIIAN ISLANDS 
PHOENIX 
AND LINE 
ISLANDS 
ELSEWHERE 
HIGH 
LEEWARD 
JOHNSTON 
1. Muraenichthys johnstonensis . . . . 
X 
X 
X 
Bikini 
2. Muraenichthys schultzei 
X 
X 
Red Sea to Ellice Islands 
3 . Muraenichthys cookei 
X 
X 
, 
4. Caecula flavicauda 
X 
5. Caecula platyrhyncha 
X 
6. Callechelys luteus 
X 
7. Myrichthys maculosus 
X 
X 
X 
X 
Red Sea to Oceania | 
8 . Myrichthys hleekeri 
X 
X 
East Indies ^ 
9 . Cirrhimuraena macgregori 
X 
10. Phyllophichthus xenodontus 
X 
1 
*12. Leiuranus semicinctus 
X 
X 
Xt 
Southern Africa to Sam.oa 
13 . Ophichthus polyophthalmus 
X 
East Indies and .^Society Islands 
14. Brachysomophis henshawi 
X 
* For reference to eleventh species, still unnamed, see key, page 309. 
t Taken by the author at Hull Island. 
