Deep-Sea Fishes of the Bermuda Oceanographic Expeditions. Family Melanostomiatidae

Abstract

Genus Bathophilus Giglioli 196 B. brevis Regan & Trewavas 199 B. altipinnis Beebe 203 B. metallicus (Welsh) 205 B. longipinnis (Pappenheim) 208 B. chironema Regan & Trewavas 209 Genus Eustomias Vaillant 210 E. obscurus Vaillant 217 E. bibulbosus Parr 219 E. simplex Regan & Trewavas 221 E. dubius Parr 222 E. lipochirus Regan & Trewavas 224 E. bigelowi Welsh 225 E. silvescens Regan & Trewavas 228 E. schmidti Regan & Trewavas 230 E. fissibarbis Pappenheim 232 IV. Bibliography 233 Introduction.For detailed data in regard to nets, locality, dates, etc., concerning the capture of the deep-sea fishes treated in this monograph, refer to Zoologica,

Review of the genus Eustomias (Stomiiformes: Stomiidae: Melanostomiinae) of Taiwan, with descriptions of three new species

“…Within these subgenera, most of the species are distinguished by the structure and proportion of their barbels, whereas other morphologic and meristic values rarely are able to differentiate the species. Prior to Beebe & Crane (1939), most species were known from type specimens, lack any additional records, and almost every variation in features of the barbels was considered a separate species. Beebe & Crane (1939), based on only a few more specimens of certain forms, concluded that many differences in barbel structure were either sexual or ontogenetic variations, and reassigned several earlier forms to synonymies.…”

“…Prior to Beebe & Crane (1939), most species were known from type specimens, lack any additional records, and almost every variation in features of the barbels was considered a separate species. Beebe & Crane (1939), based on only a few more specimens of certain forms, concluded that many differences in barbel structure were either sexual or ontogenetic variations, and reassigned several earlier forms to synonymies. This concept was accepted and followed by Morrow & Gibbs (1964), which was based on rather few additional specimens.…”