Gill Arches of Teleostean Fishes of the Order Anguillif ormes 1, 2 
Gareth J. Nelson 1 2 3 
The gill arches of eels have required a broad, 
comparative study since Cope (1871) erected a 
separate order for the morays chiefly on the 
basis of their highly specialized gill arch skele- 
ton. The work reported herein was undertaken 
to provide such a study, with the hope that it 
might contribute to the solution of some of the 
problems in eel systematics. 
SOURCES OF MATERIAL AND 
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 
Much of the study material, present in the 
collections of the Department of Zoology, Uni- 
versity of Hawaii, was originally obtained from 
rotenone poisonings in shallow water around 
Oahu. Additional material was obtained 
through the courtesy of the following persons: 
Dr. H. Asano, Kinki University, Japan; Dr. 
P. Castle, Victoria University of Wellington, 
N. Z. ; Mr. H. Compton and Mr. E. Simmons, 
Parks and Wildlife Dept., Rockport, Texas; Dr. 
W. Freihofer, Stanford University; Mr. R. 
Jones and Mr. R. Snider, University of Hawaii; 
Dr. S. Jones, Central Marine Fisheries Research 
Institute, Mandapam Camp, South India; Dr. 
K. Matsubara, Kyoto University, Japan; Dr. J. 
Randall, University of Puerto Rico ; Dr. R. 
Rosenblatt, Scripps Institution of Oceanog- 
raphy ; Mr. L. Woods, Chicago Natural History 
Museum. 
The author is grateful to the following per- 
sons, who read and criticized an earlier draft of 
this manuscript: Dr. J. Bohlke, Philadelphia 
1 This paper is part of a thesis submitted to the 
Graduate Division of the University of Hawaii in 
partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctor 
of Philosophy degree. 
2 Contribution No. 249, Hawaii, Institute of Marine 
Biology, University of Hawaii. Manuscript received 
November 1, 1965. 
3 Department of Zoology, University of Hawaii, 
Honolulu. Present address: Palaeozoological Depart- 
ment, Swedish Museum of Natural History, Stockholm 
50, Sweden. 
Academy of Natural Sciences; Dr. P. Castle; 
Dr. W. Gosline, University of Hawaii; and 
Dr. R. Rosenblatt. 
This study was performed while the author 
held a predoctoral fellowship from the Bureau 
of Commercial Fisheries, U. S. Fish and Wild- 
life Service. 
METHODS AND MATERIALS 
In general, the gill arches were removed as a 
unit from a given specimen, stained with aliza- 
rin in an aqueous solution of 2% potassium 
hydroxide, cleaned, and examined under a dis- 
secting microscope. Drawings of the bones were 
executed freehand or, in some cases, with the 
aid of retouched photographs. 
Specimens, usually young adults, of the fol- 
lowing species were available for study: 
Congridae: Anago anago, Art o soma bow erst, 
Conger marginatus, Congrina aequorea, Ja- 
panoconger sivicolus 
Heterocongridae : Gorgasia punctata, Gorgasia 
sp. 
Derichthyidae : Derichthys serpentinus 
Nettastomidae: Metapomycter denticulatus 
Muraenesocidae : Muraenesox cinereus, Oxy con- 
ger leptognathus 
Ophichthidae: Ahlia egmontis, Echelus myrus, 
Leptenchelys labialis, Muraenichthys cookei, 
M. gymnotus, M. laticaudata, M. macrop- 
terus, M. schnitzel, Myrophis punctatus, M. 
uropterus, Neenchelys buitendijki, Schultzi- 
dia johnstonensis, Bascanichthys teres, 
Br achy somo phis henshawi, Caecula platy- 
rhyncha, Callechelys melanotaenia, Cirrhi- 
muraena macgregori, Lei nr anus semicinctus, 
Letharchus velijer, Machaerenchelys phoe- 
nixensis, Myrichthys maculosus, Mystriophis 
intertinctus, Ophichthus polyophthalmus, 
Phyllophichthus xenodontus 
Synaphobranchidae : Synaphobranchus affinis 
Simenchelidae: Simenchelys parasiticus 
391 
