Novltates PUBLISHED by the AMERICAN MUSEUM of NATURAL HISTORY CENTRAL PARK WEST at 79TH STREET, NEW YORK, N.Y

AMERICAN MUSEUM Novltates PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY CENTRAL PARK WEST AT 79TH STREET, NEW YORK, N.Y. 10024 Number 2983, 57 pp., 50 figs., 1 table October 23, 1990 On Muller's and Cuvier's Concepts of Pharyngognath and Labyrinth Fishes and the Classification of Percomorph Fishes, with an Atlas of Percomorph Dorsal Gill Arches DONN E. ROSEN' AND COLIN PATTERSON2 Foreword (Colin Patterson) euteleosts whose objective was "to lay a foun- dation for future analysis of the Acanthop- Donn Rosen's ambition, during the last de- terygii" (Rosen, 1973: 398); and its conclu- cade and more of his life, was to crack the sion was that acanthopterygians may be problem ofthe Perciformes, by far the largest defined by two features ofthe dorsal gill arch- and most diverse "order" offishes. Humphry es, but that Perciformes possess no known Greenwood and I first asked him to tackle synapomorphies, and so may not be mono- the job back in 1970, for the "Interrelation- phyletic. ships of Fishes" meeting held in London in During the rest of the 1970s, Donn was 1972. Donn took some persuading, but at occupied with other things, notably the rev- length agreed ("from now on, it's spines in olution in biogeography (Rosen, 1975, 1978, the chowder"-letter, 1971). The work for 1979; Nelson and Rosen, 1981), but by early that paper led him for the first time into the 1981 he was ready for another frontal assault anatomy of the dorsal part of the pharynx, on the perciforms, and had an NSF grant "to and of the dorsal gill arches in particular. As convert my office into a percomorph factory" might have been predicted, the problem of (letter, April 1981). Within a year, "the per- the Acanthopterygii, and the Perciformes in comorph problem has re-expanded into the particular, turned out to involve all or most neoteleost problem once again, so I'm look- of the Euteleostei. So Donn's paper on acan- ing at all paracanthopts, beryciforms, and thopterygians became a study of higher myctophids in addition" (letter, March 1982). ' Curator, deceased 1986, Department of Ichthyology, American Museum of Natural History. 2 Research Associate, Department of Ichthyology, American Museum ofNatural History; Department of Palaeon- tology, British Museum (Natural History), London SW7 5BD. Copyright ©) American Museum of Natural History 1990 ISSN 0003-0082 / Price $7.00 2 AMERICAN MUSEUM NOVITATES NO. 2983 Out of this grew another review of higher pound, figures. There seemed to me to have euteleosteans (Rosen, 1985), a revision of been two principal impulses behind the work. paracanthopts (Patterson and Rosen, 1989), The first is an idea characteristic of the de- and one effort to tackle the perciforms by velopment of pattern cladism: that preevo- attrition rather than frontal assault (Rosen, lutionary systematists such as Muller and Cu- 1984). vier, unrestricted by theory, might have had In the spring of 1983, he underwent his a better insight into broad patterns of rela- first bout ofbrain surgery. His recovery from tionship than Donn's contemporaries. The that seemed excellent, and within a year he second is the belief that those contemporar- visited London to continue our joint work ies, particularly recent contributors on La- on paracanthopts. But he did not fully re- broidei ; Muller's Pharyngognathi acan- cover the use of his left hand, which meant thopterygii), tended to be too narrowly that he could no longer easily carry out the focused in their view of a problem and not microdissections ofcleared-and-stained fish- ready enough to cast the net of investigation es in the glycerin dish which for him "was more widely. But Donn would have been the crucible in which truth had to leave its ready to admit that his own approach to the residues" (Nelson et al., 1987). He was not problems was limited in different ways, prin- short of material, however, for in the "per- cipally by his physical handicap, which made comorph factory" in the two years before his not only dissections but his character and illness he had assembled a large collection of literature surveys more casual than they would pencil drawings, of dorsal gill arches in par- once have been. ticular, and as Nelson et al. (1987) said, Since Donn died, there have been a num- "Typically, he would accumulate the draw- ber of important contributions to the perci- ings and then write the manuscript to fit form problem, and to pharyngognaths in par- them." The following paper was begun in that ticular. Most notable is Stiassny and Jensen's way in summer 1985, after his recovery from (1987) review of labroid interrelationships, the first surgery, and was taken up again after which was dedicated to Donn's memory and the second operation, which occurred in the in which his manuscript was acknowledged fall of 1985, a year before his death. In those as a thought-provoking impetus. Sadly, I circumstances, it is not surprising that he felt found that this work had removed much of the need for the other characteristic of his the stuffing from Donn's manuscript, for one working method noted in Nelson and other's ofhis principal conclusions, in turn the step- obituary: "by nature he preferred collabora- ping-stone for further speculation, was that tion." He turned to two of his oldest collab- the Labroidei of Kaufman and Liem (1982) orators, Humphry Greenwood and myself, and Stiassny and Jensen (1987) (Cichlidae, and to one ofhis youngest, Melanie Stiassny, Embiotocidae, Pomacentridae, Labridae, now his successor at the AMNH; each of us Odacidae, Scaridae) might not be monophy- was shown drafts ofthe work in progress, and letic. In particular, Donn argued that certain was asked to join him. Working with Donn "percoid" groups (Girellidae, Kyphosidae, in those days, in late 1985 and 1986, was no Scorpididae) are more closely related to em- picnic, and perhaps we may each be forgiven biotocids than to other labroids, and he also for not accepting Donn's request for help with suspected that the Sparoidea and Haemuloi- the total commitment that he gave to this dea ofJohnson (1980), together with the Ger- project during what remained of his life. I reidae, might be more closely related to the spent two periods with him in early 1986, in Labridae, Odacidae, and Scaridae than are February and in April, and it was clear that cichlids, embiotocids, and pomacentrids. As he held on to the project as his lifeline back he would surely have acknowledged, his po- to scientific well-being during those last dif- tential apomorphies favoring those views are ficult months. thin on the ground and I was unable further The manuscript, as Donn left it, consisted to substantiate them, whereas Stiassny and of about 80 pages of typescript and almost Jensen's (1987) survey of labroid characters, 150 drawings, arranged in 47, mostly com- although it does not close the book on the 1990 ROSEN AND PATTERSON: PHARYNGOGNATH AND LABYRINTH FISHES 3 matter, leaves little room for Donn's hy- sen's (1987) comment, I have not added any potheses. With them removed, the substance reference to it. In a revision ofthis sort, there of his manuscript was much reduced, but I is a problem with the first person singular in have included his accounts of the character statements like "I have found," "I conclude," complexes which he thought bore on the or "my own studies": these are left as written, problem. The paper also included a general with the implication that the "I" or "me" cladogram covering the Acanthomorpha. This concerned in the main text is Donn Rosen. I incorporated a number of novel ideas, most have also left the bulk of the figures as they notably that myctophids, polymixiids, par- were, in the belief that the paper will have acanthopts, and atherinomorphs are more lasting value as an atlas of osteology, partic- closely related to higher perciforms than are ularly ofthe dorsal gill arches, in a wide range holocentrids and basal percoids. These ideas of perciforms. As it now stands, the paper is were not convincingly supported by charac- less the radical reorganization that Donn ters, whereas they are contradicted by char- planned, and more a critique of recent work acters cited by Johnson (1984), Stiassny on various perciform groups; it points out (1986), and others. I therefore omitted the incongruent or questionable characters, rath- cladogram and the text referring to it, but er than presenting a new synapomorphy have deposited it, together with a copy ofthe scheme. Nevertheless, I believe it deserves a manuscript as Donn left it, in the Dean Li- place in the literature. brary of the Department of Ichthyology in For help and hospitality during the work, the American Museum of Natural History. I am grateful to all the members of the De- In reworking the manuscript for publica- partment of Ichthyology in the American tion, I have incorporated references to more Museum of Natural History, in particular to recent work, have rewritten the historical sur- Gareth Nelson and Melanie Stiassny, also to veys, rewritten, reorganized or omitted major Stan Blum in the Department of Vertebrate parts ofthe main text, and added a few figures Paleontology, and above all to Donn's wid- and observations based on my work. In the ow, Mel Rosen, whose fortitude and dedi- original manuscript there was no mention of cation are beyond my praise. In London, Pholidichthys leucotaenia Bleeker, the only Humphry Greenwood and Gordon Howes member of the Pholidichthyidae. Pholidich- have been generous with time and advice. thys is a superficially blennylike fish which is Finally, I thank Dave Johnson for a most remarkably similar to the labroids in a num- thorough and sensitive review of the manu- ber offeatures ofgill-arch structure (Springer script.

Load more