Gobioid Fishes — Gosltne 
169 
bone is really the pterygoid, as no pterygoid 
is shown in Smith’s figure (1951: 522, fig. 1). 
Smith also shows (same fig.) the ceratohyal 
as a bone of even depth throughout, whereas 
in Microdesmus the ceratohyal is abruptly 
deepened posteriorly. Again in P. copley i there 
are, as mentioned above, no splint-like bones 
shown (Smith, 1951: 522, fig. IE) above and 
below the hypural fan, but this I suspect may 
be an omission. These differences are in no 
way significant, in my opinion. 
The family to which these genera belong 
may provisionally be called the Microdesmidae 
(following Regan, 1912; Reid, 1936; etc.). 
The peculiarities of the family within the 
suborder Gobioidei consist chiefly of the 
elongation of the body with the correlated 
increase in vertebral number and the contin- 
uous dorsal fin without distinction between 
spines and rays. In addition, however, it has 
a peculiar maxillary structure in that the max- 
illaries send out anterior prolongations which 
meet or nearly meet each other on the midline 
in front of the premixillary pedicels. 
The family thus defined seems to be of 
circumtropical distribution. The Microdis- 
midae, however, have been associated hitherto 
with temperate blennioid families. From these 
they can, I believe, be differentiated exter- 
nally by having two widely separated nostrils 
on each side of the head, one near the snout 
rim and the other just in front of the eye. 
Internally, they can be separated by any of 
the gobioid features listed above, and also by 
the complete absence of a circumorbital ring 
of bones. The elimination of the tropical 
microdesmids from the temperate series of 
blennioid families seems logical geographic- 
ally as well as phylogenetically. 
Among tropical groups the Microdesmidae 
may perhaps most easily be confused super- 
ficially with the Trichonotidae or certain of the 
tropical blennioid groups, e.g., the Pitroscir- 
tinae, Xiphasiidae, Congrogadidae, etc. From 
the Trichonotidae the Microdesmidae may be 
differentiated externally by the presence of 
small, round, somewhat embedded scales. 
From the blennioid groups the Microdes- 
midae may perhaps most easily be separated 
superficially by the fact that the anterior nos- 
tril lies about on the snout rim (well above 
the snout rim in blennies so far as I can 
determine) . 
REFERENCES 
Berg, L. S. 1940. Classification of fishes, both 
recent and fossil. Acad, des Sci. URSS, Inst. 
Zool. , Trav. 5(2): 87-517. 
Bleeker, P. 1858. Tiende bijdrage tot de 
kennis der vischfauna van Celebes. Soc. Sci. 
Indo-Neerl ., Acta 3: 1-16. 
Clark, H. W. 1936. The Templeton Crocker 
Expedition of the California Academy of 
Sciences, 1932. No. 29- New and note- 
worthy fishes. Calif. Acad. Sci., Proc. IV, 
21: 383-396. 
Fowler, H. W. 1938. The fishes of the George 
Vanderbilt South Pacific Expedition, 1937. 
Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., Monog. 2: 1-349, 
12 pis. 
— 1943. Descriptions and figures of new 
fishes obtained in Philippine seas and ad- 
jacent waters by the United States Bureau 
of Fisheries steamer " Albatross.” U. S. Natl. 
Mas., Bui. 100 14(2): 53-91. 
Gregory, W. K. 1933. Fish skulls: a study 
of the evolution of natural mechanisms. 
Amer. Phil. Soc., Trans. N. S. 23(2): 75-481. 
Gunther, A. W. 1864. On some new Central 
American fishes. Zool. Soc. London, Proc. 
1864: 23-27. 
— 1877. Andrew Garrett’s Fische der 
Siidsee. Heft VI. Mas. Godeffroy, Jour. 13: 
169-216, pis. 101-120. 
Hora, S. L. 1924. On a new genus of gobioid 
fishes (subfamily Trypaucheninae) with 
notes on related forms. Indian Mas., Rec. 
26: 155-163. 
Jordan, D. S. 1923. A classification of fishes 
including families and genera as far as 
known. Stanford Univ. Pubs., Univ. Ser., 
Biol. Sci. 3(2): 79-242. 
