FIERSTINE ET AL.: CATALOG OF NEOGENE BONY FISHES OF CALIFORNIA 
7 
Introduction 
Background 
Although California is favored with Neogene 1 strata containing abundant bony fish remains, study of the 
specimens has resulted in surprisingly few publications. Initially, David Starr Jordan (often with his coworker 
James Z. Gilbert) published 14 papers on the California fauna in the early 1900s (see references in Literature 
Cited), followed by a more modem synopsis of the California fauna by Lore David in 1943 (a study introduced 
in two abstracts published in 1939 [see references in Literature Cited]). Most of Jordan’s specimens were 
deposited at Stanford University, a collection that later was transferred to the Geology Department of the 
California Academy of Sciences (Firby 1972). Jordan’s papers are very important, but probably because of his 
time-consuming administrative duties and immersion in studies of Recent fishes, his articles on fossil fishes 
have errors (e.g., mislabeled figures, questionable identifications of poorly preserved specimens, and inaccu¬ 
rate locality data, both geographical and geological). Unfortunately, the whereabouts of many of his specimens 
are unknown. David (1943) examined Jordan’s specimens and numerous others in the collection of the 
California Institute of Technology (CIT). In 1957, the CIT collection was sold to the Natural History Museum 
of Los Angeles County (LACM). Although David’s treatise contained fewer errors than Jordan’s papers, she 
also included data from uncatalogued specimens, many of which were from private collections that now are 
lost from scientific scmtiny. Her 1943 synopsis contained six parts, each written at different times, but pub¬ 
lished together as a single unit. Sometimes an identification in one part differed from an identification in anoth¬ 
er part. 
From 1943 to the present, there have been approximately 75 published accounts, mostly based on newly 
collected specimens belonging to taxa new to the California Neogene. Two recent areas of research are espe¬ 
cially notable. As part of a study of the evolution of Great Basin fishes, Robert R. Miller, usually with coau¬ 
thors, gave the first meaningful insight into fishes inhabiting the freshwater environments of California during 
the Neogene (e.g., Miller 1945, Uyeno and Miller 1962 and 1963, Miller and Smith 1967, 1981; see addition¬ 
al references in Literature Cited). In the second area of research, John Fitch and coauthors (see references in 
Literature Cited) identified numerous taxa on the basis of fossil otoliths and demonstrated that many of these 
fishes are extant. Unfortunately, Fitch often failed to give locality numbers, never gave specimen numbers, and 
in some cases described sites as Pliocene that are now considered Pleistocene. His untimely death in 1982 left 
various unfinished projects. His otolith collection, manuscripts, library, and correspondance were donated to 
LACM (Fitch and Lavenberg 1983). Fitch’s otolith collection is housed in two departments at LACM, the 
recent specimens in Ichthyology and Herpetology and the fossil specimens in Vertebrate Paleontology. 
Purpose 
The present catalog provides a systematic inventory of all known published accounts of the Neogene bony 
fishes of California. Our goal is to furnish a single source to reduce the clerical effort and detective work for 
future workers (references, locality and specimen numbers, disposition of the specimens, etc.). Each taxon is 
based on information presented by the last reviser. We have not attempted to reidentify any of the specimens. 
For each named species, the catalog lists current museum number(s) for specimens assigned to that species 
(some of the numbers have changed), a brief description of the gross morphology, and the most accurate local¬ 
ity data available (number, geographical setting, formation, and age). In some cases, especially for specimens 
studied by Jordan and collaborators, no locality numbers were ever assigned and we only list the locality name 
(e.g., Lompoc). 
Because the catalog focuses on published accounts and avoids making systematic revisions, we follow the 
same philosophy for stratigraphic units. However, acceptance of a particular unit may vary among geologists, 
paleontologists, and locality databases, and this lack of unanimity forces us to make a choice. The Fernando 
Formation in the Los Angeles Basin and vicinity is an excellent example of this confusion (see discussion in 
Durham and Yerkes 1964). In the downtown Los Angeles area, Dibblee (1989,1991) recognized a marine clay- 
1 We follow the International Commission on Stratigraphy (2011) and define the Neogene as a geologic period or system that is sub¬ 
divided into two epochs, the Miocene (ca. 23-5.3 Ma) and Pliocene (ca. 5.3-2.6 Ma). 
