Remarks on Cottid Fishes Occasioned by the Capture of Two Species New to California

Systematics of sculpins of the genus Radulinopsis (Scorpaeniformes: Cottidae), with the description of a new species from northern Japan and the Russian Far East

“…However, the presence of two pairs of upper pharyngeal tooth-plates (pharyngobranchials II and III) is usually regarded as plesiomorphic among cottids (Yabe, 1981(Yabe, , 1985Yabe and Uyeno, 1996). In Bolin's (1950) (Matsubara, 1955;Washington et al, 1984;Lindberg and Krasyukova, 1987;Eschmeyer and Bailey, 1990;Eschmeyer, 1998).…”

“…Therefore, both Bolin's (1950) genus Radulinus, including the subgenus Radulinopsis, and Taranetz's (1941) subfamily Radulinae, including only Radulinus and Radulinopsis, are polyphyletic and thus invalid. We concluded that Radulinopsis, containing R. derjavini and R. taranetzi, is a valid genus.…”

“…Radulinopsis was defined as having lateral line scales bearing strong serrations, body above lateral line covered with small serrated scales, teeth absent on the prevomer and palatines, pelvic fin with a spine and three soft rays, long filamentous cirri on the ventral surface of the body, and a long urogenital papilla in males. However, the two species of Radulinopsis described to date have at no time been adequately characterized, owing to the type specimens of both having been lost and a paucity of records since their original descriptions (Taranetz, 1937;Bolin, 1950;Matsubara, 1955;Lindberg and Krasyukova, 1987).…”

“…Moreover, the validity of this generic taxon has at no time been clear, although Bolin (1950) included Radulinopsis as one of three subgenera within the eastern North Pacific genus Radulinus. The availability of considerable additional specimens of Radulinopsis and related taxa at the present time has enabled the following review of the systematics of the genus, with the description of a new species, and verification of the validity of the generic taxon based on a cladistic analysis of morphological features.…”

“…Although the type specimens of both have been lost (V.V. Fedorov, personal communication, June 1996), Bolin (1950) and Lindberg and Krasyukova (1987) presented some supposedly distinguishing characters between them (e.g., basal length of the first dorsal fin, distance between the spinous and soft dorsal fins, caudal peduncle length, and condition of scales above the lateral line). Apparently these characters were taken mainly from the figures in the original description (Soldatov and Lindberg 1930;Figs.…”