A Revision of the Genus Parapercis, Family Mugiloididae 1 
George E, Cantwell 2 
This study describes the genus Parapercis 
Bleeker and its 26 species. The descriptions are 
based on anatomical studies, each structure hav- 
ing been analyzed statistically to determine its 
variation within a species and its value in iden- 
tification. An effort has been made to employ 
those characters with the least variation within 
species to establish possible affinities between 
species, to define species groups, and to deter- 
mine relationships among them. The geographic 
range has been determined from actual speci- 
mens and the literature. 
Over 80 nominal species have been described 
in or placed in the genus Parapercis, but no 
previous attempt has been made to compare the 
species on a world-wide basis or to determine 
the value of morphological characters in the 
identification of them. Studies of the genus by 
Cuvier and Valenciennes (1829) and by Gunther 
(I860) each included 13 nominal species. Sub- 
sequent reports have been made on a regional 
basis, the more important of which are listed 
below, along with the number of nominal spe- 
cies: Day (1876), India, 3; Jordan and Seale 
(1906), Samoa, 6; Jordan, Tanaka, and Snyder 
(1913), Japan, 7; McCulloch (1929), Aus- 
tralia, 14; Okada ( 1938), Japan, 12; Kamohara 
( 1950), Japan, 11; and Beaufort and Chapman 
(1951), Indo- Australian Archipelago, none. The 
only records of Parapercis from outside the In- 
dian and Pacific oceans are by Vaillant (1887) 
and Cadenat ( 1937 ) , from the Cape Verde 
Islands off the west coast of Africa, each based 
on a single specimen. Arambourg ( 1927 ) iden- 
tified a fossil from Oran as belonging to the 
genus. 
Since the completion of this study, Kamohara 
(I960) has described a new species Parapercis 
okamurai from Japan. No attempt has been 
made to incorporate P. okamurai in this study, 
as no material was available for examination. 
1 Manuscript received July 17, 1963. 
2 1 Greentree PL, Greenbelt, Md. 
MATERIAL STUDIED 
The author is grateful to the authorities of 
the following institutions for the use of speci- 
mens that form the basis of this study: Academy 
of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia (ANSP); 
Australian Museum, Sydney ( AM ) ; Bernice P. 
Bishop Museum, Honolulu (bpbm); British 
Museum (Natural History), London (bmnh) ; 
California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco 
(CAS); Chicago Natural History Museum 
(CNHM); Dominion Museum, Wellington (dm); 
George Vanderbilt Foundation, Stanford Uni- 
versity (GVF); Museum of Comparative Zoology, 
Harvard University ( MCZ ) ; Naturhistorisches 
Museum, Wien (nhmw); Rijksmuseum Nat- 
uurlijke Historie, Leiden (RVNH) ; Stanford 
Natural History Museum (snhm) ; Tokyo Uni- 
versity (TU); University of California, Los An- 
geles (UCLA) ; University of Michigan, Museum 
of Zoology, Ann Arbor (UMMZ); University 
of Washington, Seattle (uw); United States 
National Museum, Washington, D. C. (USNM); 
the Western Australian Museum, Perth ( WAM) . 
The author wishes to thank Dr. L. P. Schultz, 
Dr. E. A. Lachner, Dr. W. R. Taylor, Mr. R. 
Kanazawa of the U. S. National Museum, and 
Dr. G. W. Wharton of the University of Mary- 
land for their help and advice; Dr. C. M. Clifford, 
University of Maryland, for information on 
type specimens in the British Museum; Dr. K. A. 
Tabler, U.S. Department of Agriculture, for aid 
and advice on statistical analyses; and the staff 
of the Smithsonian Institution’s Photographic 
Laboratory for photographs. 
DEFINITION OF TERMS 
Measurements of body parts were made with 
dividers and the distances recorded to the near- 
est half millimeter. These measurements are 
expressed as thousandths of the standard length. 
Total length: the distance from the anterior 
tip of the upper lip to the tip of longest caudal 
fin ray ( except on one species, P. schauinslandi, 
239 
