Suttonia lineata — GOSLINE 
37 
Fig. 8. Caudal skeleton of Pseudo gramma; interos- 
seous spaces hatched. 
grammistids from related families are morpho- 
logically rather trivial, they are no more so than 
the features distinguishing many percoid fam- 
ilies. In the percoids, the only alternative to such 
a basis of separation would appear to be the 
lumping of thousands of species into one or 
a few unwieldy families. (3) The Serranidae 
is already such a family. Indeed Weber and 
de Beaufort (1936: 555-559) have found it 
necessary to separate out the Serranidae at 
seven different points in their key to the Indo- 
Australian percoid fishes. Any procedure that 
would remove one or more of the heterogeneous 
elements now contained in the Serranidae would 
make the serranids a more manageable and more 
meaningful group. (4) The genera here in- 
cluded in the Grammistidae represent a phylo- 
genetic lineage of respectable size. Recognition 
of the Grammistidae is therefore a somewhat 
different and, in the author’s opinion, a more 
worthy procedure than chipping off as separate 
families the most aberrant endpoints of line- 
ages. (5) From a purely practical standpoint, 
the retention of the grammistids, including the 
"pseudogrammid” genera, as a subfamily of the 
Serranidae would make it impossible to use the 
incomplete or interrupted lateral line as a basis 
for separating the serranids from the "pseudo- 
chromid” groups. 
Nevertheless, one very valid argument can be 
given for retaining subfamily rank for the gram- 
mistids: that changes in status of portions of 
the Serranidae should not be undertaken with- 
out a consideration of the family as a whole. 
The author gladly admits the point. He merely 
feels that waiting for anything like a compre- 
hensive review of the Serranidae is an imprac- 
tical procedure. 
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 
The author wishes to thank the members of 
the Fish Division of the Territory of Hawaii 
Board of Agriculture and Forestry for the facil- 
ities making possible the "deep water poison 
station” in which Suttonia lineata was collected. 
Comparative material in the U. S. National Mu- 
seum was examined through the kind permission 
of Dr. L. P. Schultz; travel to that institu- 
tion was defrayed by a Guggenheim Fellowship. 
Figures 1 and 4 were drawn by Miss Marian 
Adachi. 
REFERENCES 
Boulenger, G. A. 1895. Catalogue of the Fishes 
of the British Museum. 2nd ed. Vol. 1. 371 
pp., 15 pis., 26 figs. British Museum, London. 
Breder, C. M., Jr. 1927. Scientific results of 
the first Oceanographic Expedition of the 
"Pawnee,” 1925. Bull. Bingham Oceanogr. 
Coll. 1(1): 1-90, 36 figs. 
INGER, R. F. 1955. A revision of the fishes of the 
genus Plesiops Cuvier. Pacif. Sci. 9(3) : 259— 
27 6, 4 figs. 
Kamohara, T. 1957. List of fishes from Amami- 
Oshima and adjacent regions, Kagoshima Pre- 
fecture, Japan. Rep. U. S. Mar. Biol. Sta. 
4(1): 1-65, 38 figs. 
Kanazawa, R. H. 1952. More new species and 
new records of fishes from Bermuda. Fieldi- 
ana, Zool. 34: 71-100, 13 figs. 
Longley, W. H., and S. F. Hildebrand. 1940. 
New genera and species of fishes from Tor- 
tugas, Florida. Pap. Tortugas Lab. 32: 225— 
285, 1 pi, 28 figs. 
Norman, J. R. 1935. Coast fishes. Part I. The 
South Atlantic. 'Discovery’ Rep. 12: 1-58, 
15 figs. 
