Fish Fauna of Johnston Is. — GOSLINE 
479 
The Johnston fish fauna is made up of four 
components (Fig. 4): endemics; fishes that 
have made Johnston a stopping point on their 
migrations from the south; fishes that have 
found Johnston as a way point in their south- 
ward travels; and pelagic fishes to whom 
Johnston is of little or no significahce. The 
last category, which undoubtedly merges into 
the second and third, has been excluded from 
consideration in the present paper. The first 
is made up of only two species which may 
simply have been as yet unrecorded elsewhere; 
in any case, there is very little endemism at 
Johnston. Species that must have come in 
from the south, since they are as yet un- 
recorded in Hawaii and those known to have 
come in from the north, the "Hawaiian en- 
demics,” are represented in Johnston in about 
equal number. In terms of percentages, how- 
ever, the proportion of the Hawaiian endemic 
fauna that reached Johnston is far higher than 
the proportion of the Central Pacific fauna 
that reached Johnston but not Hawaii. For 
this reason it is preferable to consider John- 
ston as an outlier of the Hawaiian faunal area 
rather than as a peripheral component of the 
Central Pacific faunal area. 
There is no known intergradation between 
Hawaiian endemics and their Central Pacific 
counterparts at Johnston. If the Central Pa- 
cific form is represented at Johnston it is 
there in its pure form and the Hawaiian 
counterpart is absent, and vice versa. 
Since many "Hawaiian endemics” are pres- 
ent at Johnston, it is certain that some species 
at least have traveled from Hawaii to Johnston. 
It is, however, not proven that any Johnston 
fishes ever got to Hawaii; nor is it proven 
that they did not. Consequently, the role that 
Johnston may have played in the development 
of the Hawaiian fish fauna remains in doubt. 
If, however, one rejects Johnston as the step- 
ping stone by means of which the Hawaiian 
fishes arrived, then one is driven back on 
immigration routes that, at the present time, 
are at least equally implausible and unproven. 
REFERENCES 
Aoyagi, H. 1941. The damsel fishes found 
in the waters of Japan. Biogeog. [. Biogeog . 
Soc. Japan , Trans.], 4: 157-279, 49 figs., 
13 pis. 
Bennett, E. T. 1828. Observations on the 
fishes contained in the collection of the 
Zoological Society. On some fishes from 
the Sandwich Islands. Zool. Jour. 4: 31-43. 
Brock, V. E., and Y. Yamaguchi. 1954. 
The identity of the parrotfish Scarus ahula, 
the female of Scarus perspicillatus . Copeia 
1954: 154-155. 
Chapman, W. M., and L. P. Schultz. 1952. 
Review of the fishes of the blennioid genus 
Ecsenius, with descriptions of five new 
species. U. S. Natl. Mus., Proc. 102: 507- 
528, figs. 90-96. 
Edmondson, C. H. 1951. Some Central Pa- 
cific crustaceans. Bernice P. Bishop Mus., 
Occas. Papers 22: 183-243, 38 figs. 
Fowler, H. W. 1928. The fishes of Oceania. 
Bernice P. Bishop Mus., Mem. 10: iii + 540, 
80 figs., 49 pis. 
1949. The fishes of Oceania— Supple- 
ment 3. Bernice P. Bishop Mus., Mem. 12: 
37-186. 
Fowler, H. W ., and S. C. Ball. 1925. Fishes 
of Hawaii, Johnston Island, and Wake Is- 
land. Bernice P. Bishop Mus., Bui. 26: 1-31. 
Fraser-Brunner, A. 1935. Notes on the 
plectognath fishes.— 1. A synopsis of the 
genera of the family Balistidae. Ann. and 
Mag. Nat. Hist. X, 15: 658-663. 
Gilbert, C. H. 1905. The aquatic resources 
of the Hawaiian Islands. Part II. Sec- 
tion II.— The deep-sea fishes. U. S. Fish 
Commis., Bui. 23: xi + 577-713, figs. 230- 
27 6, pis. 66-101. 
Gosline, W. A. 1950. The osteology and 
relationships of the echelid eel, Kaupichthys 
diodontus. Pacific Sci. 4: 309-314, 7 figs. 
— 1952. The osteology and classification 
of the ophichthid eels of the Hawaiian 
Islands. Pacific Sci. 5: 298-320, 18 figs. 
