Journal of Ichthyology

, Volume 47, Issue 9, pp 715–725

Osteology of Florenciella lugubris (Percoidei: Epigonidae)

Article
  • 76 Downloads

Abstract

The osteology of Florenciella lugubris is described. F. lugubris is attributed to the family Epigonidae on the basis of specific characters of structure of orbital bones, skull, jaws and hyoid, presence of three principal spines on operculum, contact of pterygiophores of dorsal fins, 10 + 15 vertebrae, extension of the lateral line onto the caudal fin, structure of the first hemapophysis and interhaemale, caudal skeleton, etc. At the same time, Florenciella is more advanced in comparison with Epigonus having such characters as presence of enlarged, directed to sides and/or forward symphyseal teeth in jaws, of finely and densely denticulatd edges of infraorbitalia 2–8 and of the orbiral edge of frontale, and fontanelle in bulla otica and having specific traits of denticulation of opercular bones, having no separated distal element in the free pterygiophore between the first and second dorsal fins, having modified scales, etc. The related genera Florenciella and Rosenblattia may be synonyms.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    E. H. Ahlstrom, J. L. Butler, and B. Y. Sumida, “Pelagic Stromateoid Fishes (Pisces, Perciformes) of the Eastern Pacific: Kinds, Distribution and Early Life Histories and Observations on Five of These from the Northwest Atlantic,” Bull. Mar. Sci. 26(3), 285–402 (1976).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    B. I. Fedoryako, “Materials on Systematics and Distribution of ‘Oceanic Cheilodipteridae’,” Tr. Inst. Okeanol. Akad. Nauk SSSR 104, 156–190 (1976).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    T. H. Fraser, “Comparative Osteology of the Shallow Water Cardinal Fishes (Perciformes: Apogonidae) with Reference to the Systematics and Evolution of the Family,” Ichthyol. Bull. J.L.B. Smith Inst. Ichthyol., No. 34 (1972).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    G. D. Johnson, “Percoidei: Development and Relationships,” Ontogeny and Systematics of Fishes,″ Am. Soc. Ichthyol. Herpetol. Spec. Publ., No. 1, 464–498 (1984).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    G. D. Johnson, “Percomorph Phylogeny: Progress and Problems,” Bull. Mar. Sci. 52(1), 3–28 (1993).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    G. W. Mead and J. E. De Falla, “New Oceanic Cheilodipterid Fishes from the Indian Ocean,” Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool. 134(7), 261–274 (1965).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    A. M. Prokofiev, Morphology of Howella sherborni (Perciformes, Percoidei) with Comparative Remarks on Families Acropomatidae, Epigonidae, and Apogonidae (Sputnik+, Moscow, 2006) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    A. M. Prokofiev, “Osteology and Some Other Morphological Characters of Howella sherborni with a Discussion of the Systematic Position of the Genus (Perciformes, Percoidei),” Vopr. Ikhtiol. 47(4), 437–450 (2007a) [J. Ichthyol. 47 (6), 413–426 (2007a)].Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    A. M. Prokofiev, “Osteology of Bathysphyraenops simplex and Diagnosis of the Family Howellidae Perciformes: Percoidei),” Vopr. Ikhtiol. 47(5).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Pleiades Publishing, Ltd. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Ecology and EvolutionRussian Academy of SciencesMoscowRussia

Personalised recommendations