Phylogeny of the Family Platycephalidae and Related Taxa (Pisces : Scorpaeniformes)

Abstract

The phylogenetic relationships of Platycephalidae and its related taxa were analyzed. Platycephaloidei and Scorpaenoidei form a monophyletic group supported by two synapomorphies: presence of a backwardly-directed opercular spine and an extrinsic muscle derived from the hypaxial. Platycephaloidei and Plectrogenium, the triglids and peristediids are monophyletic, characterized by a posterior pelvic fossa. Bembradium and Plectrogenium constitute a monophyletic group, which divided initially from remainder of the clade. Next Parabembras, followed by Bembras, branched off the latter. Platycephalidae and its sister group, including the triglids, peristediids and hoplichthyids, have 4 synapomorphies. The triglids, peristediids and hoplichthyids share 15 apomorphies. The peristediids and hoplichthyids constitute a monophyletic group supported by 8 synapomorphies. The newly-defined suborder Platycephaloidei includes the following 7 families: Plectrogeniidae, Parabembridae, Bembridae, Triglidae, Peristediidae, Hoplichthyidae and Platycephalidae. Platycephalidae is redefined, being a monophyletic group supported by 6 synapomorphies, and including 2 subfamilies and 17 genera, 3 of them new.

Silurus imberbis Gmelin 1789, a senior synonym of the platycephalid Inegocia japonica (Cuvier 1829), with a proposal to suppress the name

“…In contrast, representatives of the Siluridae lack scales, have a single dorsal fin and possess barbels (Burgess 1989). Although Houttuyn (1782) pointed out that the species has large eyes, which are close together as in the Uranoscopidae, it was also described as having the posterior margin of the gill membrane with two fine spines, a feature of platycephalids (Imamura 1996), but not uranoscopids (e.g., Pietsch 1989). The species was also described as having a reddish body and black and white spots on all fins.…”

“…Therefore, Silurus imberbis, the replacement name for S. inermis Houttuyn, has priority over I. japonica. However, S. imberbis does not appear to have been used as a valid name after 1899 and I. japonica has been regarded as valid in more than 25 publications by more than10 authors in the immediately proceeding 50 years and encompassing a span of not less than 10 years (e.g., Anonymous 1962;Masuda et al 1975;Knapp 1984Knapp , 1992Knapp , 1999Knapp , 2000Ochiai 1984;Gloerfelt-Tarp and Kailola 1984;Sainsbury et al 1985;Chen 1987, 1993;Paxton et al 1989Paxton et al , 2007Imamura 1996Imamura , 1997Imamura , 2005Imamura , 2010 We interpret Jordan and Evermann (1902) as recognizing Platycephalus inermis (Houttuyn) as a valid species of the family Platycephalidae, and P. crocodilus and P. guttatus as junior synonyms of P. inermis. Therefore, "Platycephalus inermis Jordan and Evermann 1902" is not an available name.…”

Taxonomic status of Hoplichthys regani Jordan 1908 (Scorpaeniformes: Hoplichthyidae), with comments on its authorship

“…Terminology for spines on the head is shown in Figure 2, following Jordan and Thompson (1913), Matsubara (1955b) and Imamura (1996). Institutional abbreviations follow Eschmeyer (1998), except for Hokkaido University Museum, Hakodate (HUMZ), Kagoshima University Museum, Kagoshima (KAUM) and National Museum of Nature and Science, Tsukuba (NSMT).…”

Taxonomic revision of the genus Ratabulus (Teleostei: Platycephalidae), with descriptions of two new species from Australia

“…As no-one has dealt with this discrepancy, we, as first revisers, consider Ratabulus to be the correct spelling, since it has been used by most subsequent authors (e.g. Matsubara and Ochiai, 1955;Paxton et al, 1989;Shao and Chen, 1993;Imamura, 1996;Kim et al, 2005;Knapp, 1999;Hoese et al, 2006). Rutabulus, therefore, is regarded as an incorrect spelling and an unavailable name (ICZN, 1999: Arts.…”