Papers and Proceedings of the Royal Society of Tasmania, Volume 120, 1986 51 OBSERVATIONS ON SOME TASMANIAN FISHES: PART XXXI REVIEW OF GNATHANACANTHIDAE by the late E.O.G. Scott (with four tables, four text-figures and three plates) SCOTT, E.O.G ., 1986 (12:ix): Observations on some Tasmanian fishes: Part XXXI - Review of Gnathanacan­ thidae. Pap. Proc. R. Soc. Tasm. 120: 51-75, 3 pl. https://doi.org/10.26749/rstpp.120.51 ISSN 0080-4 703. Formerly Queen Victoria Muse um and Art Gallery, Launceston, Australia 7250. GNATHANACANTHIDAE. The sole representative of this family, Gnathanacamhus goetzeei Bleeker, 1855, specified in the last century as the type of three different genera by Dutch, English and Australian ichthyologists, with type locality Tasmania (twice), Victoria, and endemic to southern Australian waters, is here made the subject of detailed investigation based on 15 individuals. Fin spines and rays are specified by rectified exponential equations. Differential growth with age is recognized; consistent negative correlation of the lengths of fin spines and rays with overall length of fish occurs. Features not previously reported include: presence of a subrectangular fleshy intermandibular pad, not matched in other families of the suborder Scorpaenoidei; disposition of dermal papillae, known to be irregular on the head and body, in parallel rows on the fins; and intrusion beneath the upper margin of operculum of a slip of papillate integument. Key Words: Tasmania, fish, Gnathanacanthidae. Spinae capite nullae. Cristae occipitales sej untae INTRODUCTION ossa interspinosa amplectentes. Dentes maxillis This paper follows the general plan of others parvi pluriserali; vomerini palatinique nulli. Pinnae in the series. Linear dimensions are given through­ dorsalis et analis a caudali sejuntae, dorsalis vertice out in millimetres or as thousandths of standard insipiens, in parte spinosa profunde incisa. Radii length. The symbols Ls, Lt, TLs and TLt denote pinnis omnibus simplices, liberi nulli, ventrali I/ 5. standard length, total length, thousandths of Spinae anales 3. Membrana branchiostega radiis standard length and thousandths of total length, 7." He noted that the new genus is related to the respectively. Registration numbers are those of the genera Agriopus Cuvier, Blepsias Cuvier, Pero pus Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery, Laun­ Lay, Benn. [s ic; later in text Peropeas], Taeniotus ceston. Certain other conventions are noted in Cuvier and Sthenopus Richardson (genera referred earlier contributions. by Gunther (1880) to Scorpaenidae and Cottidae), and discussed some similarities and differences, features of the new genus cited including the FAMILY GNATHANACANTHIDAE unarmed head, the division of the dorsal and its In current Australian literature the remark­ disjunction from the caudal, the absence of able fish Gnathanacanthus goetzeei Bleeker, 1885, vomerine and palatine teeth, and the number of of which the River Derwent is the type locality, is branchiostegal rays. Bleeker originally referred accepted as the only species of its genus, which in Gnathanacanthus, in terms of the taxonomic turn is the sole representative of its family, the framework of the time, to the Cataphracti; sub­ Gnathanacanthidae, proposed in 1891 by Gill for sequently, as noted by Gill ( 1891 ), in several papers its accommodation. Its status at specific, at generic he referred it to the Scorpaenidae. Of two papers and at familial levels has involved considerable devoted to that group, the first, entitled "Generum debate and no little confusion, particularly in familial Scorpaenoideorum conspectus analytic us" respect of the higher taxa; the question of species (1876a), is stated in a footnote on the first page to being, with a single exception, restricted to that of be an extract from the more comprehensive Memoir type-species and hence to that extent coextensive (1876b ): the diagnosis of Gnathanacanthus remains with that of genus. consistent with the original version cited above, but In 1855 with the unique holotype of a new appears in a condensed form, given in French in the species before him Bleeker defined Gnathanacan­ Memoir, in Latin in the extract. These papers are thus as follows: "Caput corpusque compressa. relevant to Bleeker's assessment of the status of his 52 E. O. G. Scott TABLE 1 Comparative Morphological Features Some comparative morphological features characterizing Tasrnanian species of the six families of the suborder Scorpaenoidei (order Scorpaeniformes). Scaleless, not enclosed wholly or partly in bony scutes + +1 Skin with numerous small papillae; velvety + Pelvice absent Pelvic present, with fewer than 5 rays Pelvics attached to body by sheet of tissue + Anal spines 3 3 3 0 Dorsal attached by membrane to caudal Dorsal with well elevated crest on head Dorsal origin over or in advance of eye + Number of dorsal spines relative to dorsal rays < > >2x < Dorsal spines and rays, anal rays wholly enclosed in membrane + Lower pectoral rays separate, digitiform + Lower pectoral rays branched + Bony stay across cheek, usually with conspicuous spines + Pillow-like flap in front of isthmus + Subparallel lines of villi on parts of fins + Small intrusion of integument beneath upper operculum + lOne Tasmanian species, Gymnapistes marmoratus (Cuvier, 1829) scaleless. 2 Tasmanian species, Aetapcus maculosus (Gunther, 1861), A. armatus (Johnston, 1891). 3 One Tasmanian species only, Gymnapistes marmoratus (Cuvier, 1829). genus in thatthey provide his interpretation of the attention to differences in fin formulae between definitive features of genera to which in the 1855 those of a fish before him and Gunther's specifica­ paper it is noted as being allied. In the section on tion, commented: "Should it prove to be a distinct Pisces in the Zoologica:l Recordfor 1876, reviewing species I propose for it the name Holoxenus the second of these papers it was mistakenly stated Guntheri": by universal consent Johnston's pro­ the genus Gnathanacanthus, with type G. goetzi posal has lapsed. [sic], had not yet been described. Gunther, in The third generic name advanced, one un­ ignorance of Bleeker's work, established the new known to Johnston, was Beridia Castelnau (1878), genus and species, Holoxenus cutaneus. Concerning with type-species B. flava, founded on a specimen the status of this, "one of the most singular fishes of from Portland Bay, Victoria: the account includes the Tasmanian fauna", he remarked: "At first some errors (e.g.,two anal spines, a branched ray in glance the observer is inclined to refer it to the the pectoral). Ofifs flffinities Castelnau commented: Scorpaenidae or Pediculati; but there is no bony "This new genus belongs to the Triglidae, and its stay for the praeoperculum, which is not armed, spinous dorsal being rather less in length than the and the forelimb is not pediculated. Its nearest soft [the plate depicts the two fins as wholly allies are evidently the Cirrhitidae, although in this separate without the small interposed elem~nts], family it stands isolated on account of its,divided ought probably to be placed in the group Cattina, dorsal, small eye, slender pectoral rays, and almost but the general form is very different from all the scaleless [= scaleless] body. Placed at the'end ofthat other fishes of Triglidae, and is more like some family, it forms a passage to the Scorpaenidae." sorts of Gobiidae." The specific description gives A.9; but the generic In the first comprehensive catalogue of Aus­ diagnosis correctly notes ""threeal1aJspinestc'. In the tralian fishes Macleay (1881a: 438, species 138) same year Bleeker realized the icfentity,6f6unther"s listed Gunther's species under Scorpaenidae (with­ fish and his own. Holoxenus is the oFl'lylge'nus ofthe out notice of Bleeker's fish), also Castelnau's three established for the reception of the present (1881 b: 592, species 227); subsequently in the fish that has been provided with a species other supplement (1884: 19, species 299) noticing than the type-species. Johnston (1883), after calling Johnston's suggested H. guntheri [sic] among the Review of Gnathanacanthidae (Teleostei) 53 Scorpaenidae. (In his table Gill (1891: tines edentulous. The pectoral, ventral and anal 703) two page numbers for each of two entries reselnble those of Gnathanacanthus in size and for Macleay: the second number is the while the dorsal, like that of the number.) pa1tae,CldS, is continuous, with almost twice After having included in a brief summary of as numerous as rays. the progress of Vertebrate Zoology in 1878 a simple In Tasmania this fish has been referred to the statement that Beridia "is the same as Gnathana­ (,,"incl udes and Cottidae, canthidae, long before described Bleeker", Gill erected into families in recent works" (1879: 458) later (1891) devoted a whole paper to a J ohnston (Johnston 1891; valuable review of the nomenclatural problems two of Holoxenus Pataecidae (Lord associated with the present fish; the second bino­ 1923, and Gnathanacanthidae (Lord & men, goetzeei, is there unjustifiably emended to Scott 1924, Scott 1974b, et al. 1982, Last et goetzi, the name of the collector of the al. Family are not noted in a paper after whom the was named, being W.J. on Tasmanian fishes by (1897) that includes Goetzee. a good description of Gnathanacanthus goetzeei. As pointed out by Gill, Bleeker's and the convention, Castelnau's plates show characters quite different rec:ognu~ed locally, of the recogni­ from those manifest in any scorpaenids or cirritids. tion of