Taxonomic status of ribbonfishes of the genus Trachypterus (Trachipteridae) from the northern part of the Pacific Ocean

A taxonomic review of the family Trachipteridae (Acanthomorpha: Lampridiformes), with an emphasis on taxa distributed in the western Pacific Ocean

“…10, a photograph of the type specimen) with the caudal-fin ray count of 9 + 4, and a pectoral-fin ray count of 1 + 13, both of which are greater than values reported in the literature for T. ishikawae. Both counts are also greater than the range commonly reported for T. trachypterus, which Savinykh & Baitalyuk (2011) recognize as the senior synonym of T. ishikawae. The holotype of T. ishikawae shares with the holotype of T. jacksonensis similar pectoral-fin ray counts (1+13), and tubercles arranged in vertical rows along the dorsal-fin pterygiophores.…”

“…True adult specimens (vs. large juveniles) have rarely been examined and reported in the literature. Savinykh & Baitalyuk (2011) completed a limited morphological examination of 20 large specimens of Trachipterus from the northern Pacific Ocean. These authors list a maximum size for the genus as 2900 mm SL (this is mistakenly listed as 290 mm, rather than cm, in Savinykh & Baitalyuk 2011: table 3) but only report meristic and morphometric data for specimens ranging in size from 910-1790 mm SL.…”

“…The most comprehensive examinations of Trachipterus from the Indo-West Pacific are those reviews by Ogilby (1898) for Australia's Pacific coast, by Hamilton (1916) for New Zealand waters and, most extensively, by Scott (1983) for Tasmanian waters. Savinykh & Baitalyuk (2011) addressed the taxonomic status of "Trachypterus" [sic] from the northern Pacific Ocean. Hayashi (2002) presented a key to the species of Trachipterus in Japan, including both juvenile and adult characters.…”

“…The authors also demoted T. ishikawae and T. altivelis to junior synonyms of T. trachypterus based on their inability to delimit the species with meristic characters (Savinykh & Baitalyuk 2011: table 1; see note in Methods). There is no indication in the Savinykh & Baitalyuk (2011) study that holotypes were examined for accuracy and comparative purposes, which potentially confounds their results. In the type description for T. ishikawae, Jordan & Snyder (1901) did not provide meristic information for the pectoral fin (the caudal lobe is broken and the pelvic fins are reduced).…”

“…The authors noted that the caudal lobe was broken and therefore provided no counts for caudal-fin rays. Subsequent authors have typically used data from: 1) a later paper by Jordan & Snyder (1904), which was based on non-type specimens and provided no certainty regarding whether or not they were conspecific with the type (e.g., Smith 1956); 2) from Nishimura (1964) working in the Sea of Japan, a non-type locality (Savinykh & Baitalyuk 2011); 3) or Masuda et al (1984) working throughout the Japanese Archipelago and synthesizing numerous locales and non-type specimens (Savinykh & Baitalyuk 2011). This has resulted in a wide range of values in characters associated with the name T. ishikawae without reference to the type specimen (Savinykh & Baitalyuk 2011: table 1).…”