Fish Fauna of Johnston Is. — Gosline 
461 
This specimen has been reported on pre- 
viously (Gosline, 1953). 
MUGILIDAE 
Neomyxus chaptalii (Eydoux and Souleyet) 
1 spec., 286 mm., 1951. Fowler and Ball, 
1925, 5 specs. 
Forty-four scales in a longitudinal series. 
SPHYRAENIDAE 
*Sphyraena japonica (Cuvier) 
Fowler and Ball, 1925, 3 specs. 
POLYNEMIDAE 
*Polydactylus sexfilis (Cuvier and 
Valenciennes) 
As Polynemus kuru , Smith and Swain, 1882, 
1 spec. 
SCORPAENIDAE 
Scorpaenids seem to be rare around John- 
ston, and the only two species taken are the 
two that are perhaps commonest around Ha- 
waii. They are not difficult to separate but 
they have been badly confused. Nomencla- 
torially the difficulty starts at the generic level. 
Jordan and Evermann (1905) have placed the 
two in Sebastapistes . Schultz (1943), for reasons 
which are not clear, divides the members of 
Sebastapistes between Scorpaenopsis and Scot- 
paena. Matsubara (1943), who will be fol- 
lowed here, places all of Sebastapistes back 
under Scorpaena. 
At the specific level a nomenclatorial prob- 
lem also arises. The oldest name for any 
Hawaiian species is Scorpaena asperella Ben- 
nett (1828). The description of this species, 
based on a single specimen 2 inches long, 
gives almost no morphological characters of 
any value, and the coloration does not agree 
very well with anything subsequently found 
in the Hawaiian Islands. The type, according 
to Gunther (1873: 80), has been lost. The 
name Scorpaena asperella has been applied in 
various ways. Gunther (I860: 107) considered 
the species unrecognizable. Jordan and Ever- 
mann (1905) thought that the description 
applied to some Hawaiian species that they 
did not have. This seems rather unlikely, for 
of the 11 Hawaiian species described by Ben- 
nett 9 of the names have subsequently been 
identified among the most common of small 
inshore fishes and the other 2 have never been 
identified very satisfactorily with anything. 
One suspects that the difficulty with these 2 
lies not in the rarity of the species described 
but in the nature of Bennett’s descriptions. 
In 1943 Schultz (p. 172) applied the name to 
a species from Samoa. 
I have repeatedly compared Bennett’s de- 
scription with small scorpaenids from Hawaii 
and can only conclude that it checks about 
as well (or as badly) with one as with another. 
Under the circumstances it seems best to 
follow Gunther’s usage in considering the 
name unrecognizable. 
The following tabulation of characteristics 
will serve to distinguish the two species of 
Scorpaena collected at Johnston: 
Eight spines on the top of the head above 
and behind the orbital rim, the front four 
in a transverse row; pectoral base without 
scaly sheath; cheek and opercle naked; 
pectoral with 4 branched rays; suborbital 
with a single blunt, backwardly projecting 
knob; no distinct, small dark spots; a black 
blotch usually present on the posterior part 
of the spinous dorsal in specimens more 
than 3 inches long; last dorsal ray attached 
for most of its length to the caudal pe- 
duncle by means of a membrane 
S. ballieui 
Six spines on the top of the head above and 
behind the orbital rim; pectoral with a scaly 
sheath at base that extends well out onto 
the pectoral fin; cheek and opercle scaled; 
pectoral with 5 branched rays; suborbital 
with two divergent, backwardly projecting 
points; small, distinct dark spots on and 
below the base of the dorsal fin, on the 
head, and in the pectoral axil; no black 
