94 
Bleekeria appear to be the only forms with 3 
distinct upper pharnygeals on each side; Hypo- 
ptychus has separate upper pharyngeals on arches 
2 and 3, but appears to have none on arch 4. 
Parapercis and Crystallodytes also have two 
pairs of upper pharyngeals, but the posterior 
pair seems to represent a combination of 
pharyngobranchials 3 and 4. Tripterygion ap- 
pears to have only a single set of upper pharyn- 
geals. 
FINS, FIN SUPPORTS, AND AXIAL SKELETON 
ANAL FIN: In the six fishes under considera- 
tion there is never more than a single unseg- 
mented ray at the front of the anal fin, and even 
this is lacking in Crystallodytes and Ammodytes. 
All of the remaining anal rays are branched in 
Parapercis, some in Hypoptychus, only the last 
in Tripterygion, and none in Crystallodytes, 
Bleekeria, and Ammodytes. 
Unlike the other three fishes, there is in the 
three ammodytoids a well-developed caudal 
peduncle behind the base of the last anal (and 
dorsal) ray; this is supported by about five 
vertebrae with bladelike neural and hemal 
arches. 
DORSAL FIN: Parapercis and T rip ter y gion 
are the only fishes under consideration that have 
spinous dorsals. Furthermore, in these two the 
dorsal fins commence farther forward (over the 
3rd vertebra in Parapercis, Fig. 3 a, the rear 
of the skull in Tripterygion, Fig. 5b) than in 
the others (over the 5th vertebra in Bleekeria, 
and still farther back in the remaining forms). 
Structurally the spinous dorsal fin differs con- 
siderably in Parapercis and Tripterygion. In 
Parapercis it appears that the spinous dorsal 
has undergone some condensation, possibly as 
a result of forward movement of the soft dorsal, 
for the pterygiophores of the five spines in- 
terdigitate between neural arches 2 and 5 (Fig. 
5a) \ one supraneural remains (rather than the 
three usually found in the lower percoids). In 
Tripterygion there are two spinous dorsals, the 
first of 3 spines and the second of 14; it appears 
very much as if the anterior 3 have appropriated 
the usual percoid supraneurals as their support- 
ing bases. In the structure of the pterygiophores 
supporting the dorsal spines, Parapercis is con- 
siderably more generalized than Tripterygion. 
PACIFIC SCIENCE, Vol. XVII, January 1963 
Fig. 5 . Anterior vertebrae, ribs, dorsal rays and 
their supports in a, Parapercis schauinslandi, and b, 
Tripterygion atriceps. dr, Dorsal soft ray; ds, dorsal 
spine; ep, epipleural rib; na, neural arch; ns, neural 
spine; pb, pleural rib; pg, pterygiophore; sh, supra- 
neural; so, supraoccipital. 
In Parapercis the pterygiophores of the spines 
(except that of the first 2) retain their basic 
bisegmental structure (Fig. 5a) \ whereas in 
Tripterygion each pterygiophore is a fused 
monolithic unit (Fig. 5b). 
In the soft dorsal, as in the anal, all the rays 
are branched in Parapercis, some in Hypopty- 
chus, only the last in Tripterygion, and none in 
Crystallodytes, Bleekeria, and Ammodytes. In 
soft dorsal structure, there are again certain dif- 
ferences between Parapercis and Tripterygion 
on the one hand, and Crystallodytes and the 
ammodytoids on the other. In the first place, 
Parapercis and Tripterygion have the last dorsal 
(and anal) ray cleft to the base; Crystallodytes 
and the ammodytoids do not. Second, the ptery- 
giophore of each soft dorsal ray in Parapercis 
and Tripterygion interdigitates deeply between 
a pair of neural spines (Fig. 5a), and there 
is an exact correspondence between vertebrae 
and soft dorsal rays. In Crystallodytes and the 
ammodytoids the pterygiophores of the soft 
dorsal ( and anal ) rays are short, weak structures 
