Search

Centropomus irae Carvalho-Filho, Oliveira, Soares & Araripe, 2019 (Figure 12) Type. MPEG 30613, 326 mm SL (Fig. 12), loc.: Brazil, Amap��, Oiapoque, Ba��a do Oiapoque (Lat. 3.84/Long. - 51.82), ex coll.: A. Costa and J. Oliveira, 23 February 2014. Diagnosis. Centropomus irae has the highest number of scales in lateral line when compared to all congeners. In addition, it can also be differentiated from congeners as follows: Western Atlantic: from C. undecimalis, by having 79���96 scales on lateral line to caudal-fin base (vs 66���75), and 7���8 low limb gill rakers on first arch (vs 8���11); from C. parallelus, by having 79���96 scales on lateral line to caudalfin base (vs 64���70), 7���8 lower limb gill rakers on first arch (vs 10���13), 11���13 gill rakers on first arch (vs 13���18), the longest anal-fin spine when close to body (adpressed) not reaching caudal-fin base (vs longest anal-fin spine usually reaching caudal-fin base), pelvic fin not reaching the anus (vs pelvic fin reaching the anus), and a more elongate and low body, with a mean body height of 22.3% SL (vs less elongate and higher body, with a mean body height of 26.6% SL; from C. ensiferus, by having 79���96 scales on lateral line to caudal-fin base (vs 48���58), 7���8 lower limb gill rakers on first arch (vs 10���15), 11���13 gill rakers on first arch (vs 15���20), the longest anal-fin spine when close to body (adpressed) not reaching caudal-fin base (vs longest anal-fin spine reaching caudal-fin base), and a more elongate and lower body, with a mean body height of 22.3% SL (vs less elongate and higher body, with a mean body height of 25.9% SL); from C. pectinatus, by having 79���96 scales on lateral line to caudal-fin base (vs 47���52), 7���8 lower limb gill rakers on first arch (vs 14���16), by 11���13 gill rakers on first arch (vs 20���23), the longest anal-fin spine when close to body (adpressed) not reaching caudal-fin base (vs longest anal-fin spine usually reaching caudal-fin base), pelvic fin not reaching anus (vs pelvic fin reaching anus), a more elongated and lower body, with a mean body height of 22.3% SL (vs less elongate and higher body, with a mean body height of 26.6% SL), and anal fin with III,7 (vs III,8); from C. poeyi, by having 79���96 scales on lateral line to caudal-fin base (vs 69���74), 7���8 lower limb gill rakers on first arch (vs 9���12), 11���13 gill rakers on first arch (vs 15���18), and second dorsal fin with I,11 (vs I,9). Eastern Pacific: from C. nigrescens, by having 79���96 scales on lateral line to caudal-fin base (vs 68���76), and 7���8 lower limb gill rakers on first arch (vs 8���9); from C. viridis, by having 79���96 scales on lateral line to caudal-fin base (vs 67���75), 7���8 lower limb gill rakers on first arch (vs 9���12), 11���13 gill rakers on first arch (vs 14���15), and second dorsal fin with I,11 (vs I,9); from C. armatus, by having 79���96 scales on lateral line to caudal-fin base (vs 47���59), 7���8 lower limb gill rakers on first arch (vs 11���12), 11���13 gill rakers on first arch (vs 15���17), and the longest anal-fin spine when close to the body (adpressed) not reaching caudal-fin base (vs longest anal-fin spine reaching caudal-fin base); from C. robalito, by having 79���96 scales on lateral line to caudal-fin base (vs 47���59), 7���8 lower limb gill rakers on first arch (vs 14���17), 11���13 gill rakers on the first arch (vs 21���25), and the longest anal-fin spine when close to body (adpressed) not reaching caudal-fin base (vs longest anal-fin spine reaching caudal-fin base); from C. unionensis, by having 79���96 scales on lateral line to caudal-fin base (vs 46���52), 7���8 lower limb gill rakers on first arch (vs 10���14), 11���13 gill rakers on first arch (vs 15���20), and second dorsal fin with I,11 (vs I,9); from C. medius, by having 79���96 scales on lateral line to caudal-fin base (vs 53���65), 7���8 lower limb gill rakers on first arch (vs 14���16), 11���13 gill rakers on first arch (vs 18���23), and anal fin with III,7 (vs III,8). Molecular data. Specimens of C. irae form a strong supported cluster in the COI sequences analysis, with 100% bootstrap value (Figure 8). The genetic distance between this species to C. armatus is 0.187 and to C. ensiferus is 0.191 (Table 7). Centropomus irae is genetically the sister group of C. undecimalis. Description. Morphometrics and meristics data are summarized in Tables 8, 9 and 10 on the basis of 16 specimens, 171���330 mm TL (240 mm average). Body elongate, largest specimen measured 265 mm SL, head compressed and low, head height 20.4% SL (18.1%���22.0%); body very low, body height 22.3% SL (20.2%���23.9%). Head length comprising 37.7% (36.6%���40.0%) of SL. Lower jaw protractile, longer than upper jaw, extending beyond tip of snout. Snout narrow and long, snout length 12.0% SL (11.3%���12.7%); eye very small, mean orbital diameter 6.8% HL. Preoperculum serrated in adults; operculum smooth, without spines, bordered by a membrane that extends beyond origin of pectoral fin. Presence of small spines in dorsal part of operculum. Caudal peduncle long, mean caudal peduncle length 19.6% SL (18.3%���21.8%). Dorsal fins separated by a small gap, not connected by membrane, first dorsal fin VIII, second dorsal fin I,11. Pectoral fin with 13���15 rays, longest ray 16.1% SL (13.3%���17.7%), extending beyond origin of pelvic fin and first dorsal fin. Pelvic fin with I,5, longest ray not reaching anus. Anal fin with III,7���III,8, longest spine not reaching caudal-fin base when adpressed, longest spine of anal fin 18.3% (15.8%���23.3%) of SL. Caudal fin deeply forked. Dark lateral line, linear, with ctenoid scales extending onto caudal fin. Lateral line with 79���96 scales to caudal-fin base. Scale rows between lateral line and origin of second dorsal fin 8���9; scale rows between lateral line and origin of anal fin 10���12. 7���8 lower limb gill rakers on first arch; 4���5 upper limb gill rakers on first arch; 11���13 gill rakers on first arch, excluding rudiments; 12���20 gill rakers on second arch, including rudiments. Distribution. Centropomus irae is endemic to the north coast of Brazil, known from the state of Amap��, in Oiapoque river estuary, to Par��. Remarks. Oliveira et al. (2014) firstly suggested the existence of an undescribed species of Centropomus, similar to C. undecimalis, in the north coast of Brazil. This species was later described as Centropomus irae by Carvalho-Filho et al. (2019) based on morphological traits and a partial sequence of the mitochondrial 16S gene. However, the description of C. irae was mostly based on the characters proposed by Rivas (1986), such as color of lateral line, interorbital width, snout length, orbital diameter, mandible length, which are non-informative characters to differentiate species of Centropomus., Published as part of Figueiredo-Filho, Jess�� Miranda De, Marceniuk, Alexandre P., Feij��, Anderson, Siccha-Ramirez, Raquel, Ribeiro, Giovana S., Oliveira, Claudio & Rosa, Ricardo S., 2021, Taxonomy of Centropomus Lac��p��de, 1802 (Perciformes: Centropomidae), with focus on the Atlantic species of the genus, pp. 301-338 in Zootaxa 4942 (3) on pages 320-321, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4942.3.1, http://zenodo.org/record/4604256, {"references":["Carvalho-Filho, A., De Oliveira, J., Soares, C. & Araripe, J. (2019) A new species of snook, Centropomus (Teleostei: Centropomidae), from northern South America, with notes on the geographic distribution of other species of the genus. Zootaxa, 4671 (1), 81 - 92. https: // doi. org / 10.11646 / zootaxa. 4671.1.6","Oliveira, J. N., Gomes, G., do Rego, P. S., Moreira, S., Sampaio, I., Schneider, H. & Araripe, J. (2014) Molecular data indicate the presence of a novel species of Centropomus (Centropomidae-Perciformes) in the Western Atlantic. Molecular phylogenetics and evolution, 77, 275 - 280. https: // doi. org / 10.1016 / j. ympev. 2014.04.019","Rivas, L. R. (1986) Systematic review of the perciform fishes of the genus Centropomus. Copeia, 3, 579 - 611. https: // doi. org / 10.2307 / 1444940"]}

Centropomus poeyi Ch��vez, 1961 (Figure 16) Centropomus poeyi Ch��vez, 1961: 75 (original description; Mexico) Type. USNM 196622, 233 mm SL (Fig. 16), loc.: Mexico. The holotype determined by Ch��vez (1961) is a 230 mm SL specimen deposited in Estaci��n de Biologia Marina, Instituto Tecnologico de Veracruz, Mexico (EBMTV 235). However, the type specimen and 15 of 27 paratypes were lost (Rivas 1986). The neotype (USNM 196622) designated by Rivas (1986) is a 233 mm SL specimen from Mexico, deposited in the Mus��um national d���Histoire naturelle. Diagnosis. Centropomus poeyi differs from its congeners as follows: Western Atlantic: from C. undecimalis, by having 69���74 scales on lateral line to caudal-fin base (vs 66���75), 9���12 lower limb gill rakers on the first arc (vs 8���11), 15���18 gill rakers on first arch (vs 11���14), and second dorsal fin with I,9 (vs I,11); from C. irae, by having 69���74 scales on lateral line to caudal-fin base (vs 79���96), 9���12 lower limb gill rakers on the first arc (vs 7���8), 15���18 gill rakers on first arch (vs 11���13), and second dorsal fin with I,9 (vs I,11); from C. parallelus, by having 69���74 scales on lateral line to caudal-fin base (vs 64���70), 9���12 lower limb gill rakers on the first arc (vs 10���13), pelvic fin not reaching the anus (vs pelvic fin usually reaching the anus), and second dorsal fin with I,9 (vs I,11); from C. ensiferus, by having 69���74 scales on lateral line to caudal-fin base (vs 48���58), 9���12 lower limb gill rakers on the first arc (vs 10���15), and second dorsal fin with I,9 (vs I,11); from C. pectinatus, by having 69���74 scales on lateral line to caudal-fin base (vs 47���52), 9���12 lower limb gill rakers on first arc (vs 14���16), 15���18 gill rakers on first arch (vs 20���23), pelvic fin not reaching the anus (vs pelvic fin reaching the anus), second dorsal fin with I,9 (vs I,11), anal fin with III,7 (vs III,8). Eastern Pacific: from C. nigrescens, by having 9���12 lower limb gill rakers on first arch (vs 8���9); 15���18 gill rakers on first arch (vs 11���14), and second dorsal fin with I,9 (vs I,11); from C. viridis, by having 69���74 scales on lateral line to caudal-fin base (vs 67���75), and 15���18 gill rakers on first arch (vs 14���15); from C. armatus, by having 69���74 scales on lateral line to caudal-fin base (vs 47���59), 9���12 lower limb gill rakers on first arch (vs 11���12); the longest anal-fin spine not reaching caudal-fin base when adpressed (vs longest anal-fin spine reaching caudal-fin base), and second dorsal fin with I,9 (vs I,11); from C. robalito, by having 69���74 scales on lateral line to caudal-fin base (vs 47���59), 9���12 lower limb gill rakers on first arch (vs 14���17); 15���18 gill rakers on first arch (vs 21���25), the longest anal-fin spine not reaching caudal-fin base when adpressed (vs longest anal-fin spine reaching caudal-fin base), and second dorsal fin with I,9 (vs I,11); from C. unionensis, by having 69���74 scales on lateral line to caudal-fin base (vs 46���52), and 9���12 lower limb gill rakers on first arch (vs 10���14); from C. medius, by having 69���74 scales on lateral line to caudal-fin base (vs 53���65), 9���12 lower limb gill rakers on first arch (vs 14���16); 15���18 gill rakers on first arch (vs 18���23), anal fin with III,7 (vs III,8), and second dorsal fin with I,9 (vs I,11). Distribution. Centropomus poeyi occurs along the coast of Mexico, from Tampico (Tamaulipas) to Frontera (Tabasco). Centropomus poeyi and C. irae have the most restricted distributions when compared to Western Atlantic congeners. Remarks. No specimens of Centropomus poeyi were directly examined in the present study. Diagnosis and distribution were based on Ch��vez (1961) and Rivas (1986). ......continued on the next page Total length (TL); Standard length (SL); Body height (BH); Caudal peduncle height (CPH); Caudal peduncle length (CPL); Caudal peduncle width (CPW); Body width (BW); Distance from snout to pectoral fin (SPecF); Distance from snout to pelvic fin (SPelF); Distance from snout to dorsal fin (SDF1); Distance from snout to anal fin (SAF); Head length (HL); Head height (HH); Distance from snout to anterior orbit (SAO); Orbital diameter (OD); Orbital height (OH); Distance from orbit to gill membrane (OGM); First dorsal-fin base length (D1BL); Second dorsal-fin base length (D2BL); Total dorsal-fin base length (TDBL); Longest spine of first dorsal fin length (SDL); Pelvic fin length (PelL); Longest spine of pelvic fin length (SPL); Anal-fin base length (ABL); Longest spine of anal fin length (SBL); Pectoral fin length (PecL); Mouth width (MW); Upper jaw length (UJL); Lower jaw length (LJL); Distance from maxillary to center of mouth (MCM); Protractile membrane base height (PBH); Interorbital distance (ID). ......continued on the next page Total length (TL); Standard length (SL); Body height (BH); Caudal peduncle height (CPH); Caudal peduncle length (CPL); Caudal peduncle width (CPW); Body width (BW); Distance from snout to pectoral fin (SPecF); Distance from snout to pelvic fin (SPelF); Distance from snout to dorsal fin (SDF1); Distance from snout to anal fin (SAF); Head length (HL); Head height (HH); Distance from snout to anterior orbit (SAO); Orbital diameter (OD); Orbital height (OH); Distance from orbit to gill membrane (OGM); First dorsal-fin base length (D1BL); Second dorsal-fin base length (D2BL); Total dorsal-fin base length (TDBL); Longest spine of first dorsal fin length (SDL); Pelvic fin length (PelL); Longest spine of pelvic fin length (SPL); Anal-fin base length (ABL); Longest spine of anal fin length (SBL); Pectoral fin length (PecL); Mouth width (MW); Upper jaw length (UJL); Lower jaw length (LJL); Distance from maxillary to center of mouth (MCM); Protractile membrane base height (PBH); Interorbital distance (ID)., Published as part of Figueiredo-Filho, Jess�� Miranda De, Marceniuk, Alexandre P., Feij��, Anderson, Siccha-Ramirez, Raquel, Ribeiro, Giovana S., Oliveira, Claudio & Rosa, Ricardo S., 2021, Taxonomy of Centropomus Lac��p��de, 1802 (Perciformes: Centropomidae), with focus on the Atlantic species of the genus, pp. 301-338 in Zootaxa 4942 (3) on pages 327-331, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4942.3.1, http://zenodo.org/record/4604256, {"references":["Chavez, H. (1961) Estudio de una nueva especie de robalo del Golfo de Mexico y redescripcion de Centropomus undecimalis (Bloch) (Pisc., Centropom.). Ciencia, 21 (2), 75 - 83.","Rivas, L. R. (1986) Systematic review of the perciform fishes of the genus Centropomus. Copeia, 3, 579 - 611. https: // doi. org / 10.2307 / 1444940"]}

Centropomus ensiferus Poey, 1860 (Figure 14) Centropomus ensiferus Poey, 1860: 122 (original description; Cuba) Centropomus affinis Steindachner, 1864: 1 Centropomus scaber Bocourt, 1868: 90 Centropomus altus Regan, 1907: 53 Centropomus macrochirus Poey, 1955: 245 Type. MCZ 10299, 206 mm SL (Fig. 14), loc.: Cuba. Poey (1860) described C. ensiferus based on a single 205 mm TL specimen. However, Rivas (1986) stated that no specimen qualified as a holotype could be found in the MCZ, USNM, or any other museum. The neotype (MCZ 10299) is a specimen of 206 mm SL designated by Rivas (1986), from Cuba, sent from Poey to Agassiz as a representative specimen of C. ensiferus. Diagnosis. Centropomus ensiferus has the second anal-fin spine extremely long, extending far beyond the caudal fin origin when adpressed. Other characters that differ from congeners are: Western Atlantic: from C. undecimalis, by having 48���58 scales on lateral line to caudal-fin base (vs 66���75), 10���15 lower limb gill rakers on first arch (vs 8���11), 15���20 gill rakers on first arch (vs 11���14), the longest anal-fin spine reaching caudal-fin base when adpressed (vs longest anal-fin spine not reaching caudal-fin base), and a less elongate and higher body, with a mean body height of 25.9% SL (vs more elongate and lower body, with a mean body height of 22.9% SL); from C. irae, by having 48���58 scales on lateral line to caudal-fin base (vs 79���96), 10���15 lower limb gill rakers on first arch (vs 7���8), 15���20 gill rakers on first arch (vs 11���13), the longest anal-fin spine reaching caudal-fin base when adpressed (vs longest anal-fin spine not reaching caudal-fin base), and a less elongate and higher body, with a mean body height of 25.9% SL (vs more elongate and lower body, with a mean body height of 22.3% SL); from C. parallelus, by having 48���58 scales on lateral line to caudal-fin base (vs 64���70), 10���15 lower limb gill rakers on first arch (vs 10���13), 15���20 gill rakers on first arch (vs 13���18), and pelvic fin usually not reaching the anus (vs pelvic fin usually reaching anus); from C. pectinatus, by having 48���58 scales on lateral line to caudalfin base (vs 47���52), 10���15 lower limb gill rakers on first arch (vs 14���16), 15���20 gill rakers on first arch (vs 20���23), the second anal-fin spine longer than the third, and when adpressed, reaching caudal-fin base (vs third anal-fin spine longer than the second, reaching caudal-fin base), pelvic fin usually not reaching the anus (vs pelvic fin reaching anus), and anal fin with III,7 (vs III,8); from C. poeyi, by having 48���58 scales on lateral line to caudal-fin base (vs 69���74), 10���15 lower limb gill rakers on first arch (vs 9���12), and second dorsal fin with I,11 (vs I,9). Eastern Pacific: from C. nigrescens, by having 48���58 scales on lateral line to caudal-fin base (vs 68���76), 10���15 lower limb gill rakers on first arch (vs 8���9); 15���20 gill rakers on first arch (vs 11���14), and the longest anal-fin spine reaching caudal-fin base when adpressed (vs longest anal-fin spine not reaching caudal-fin base); from C. viridis, by having 48���58 scales on lateral line to caudal-fin base (vs 67���75), 10���15 lower limb gill rakers on first arch (vs 9���12); 15���20 gill rakers on first arch (vs 14���15), the longest anal-fin spine reaching caudal-fin base when adpressed (vs longest anal-fin spine not reaching caudal-fin base); and second dorsal fin with I,11 (vs I,9); from C. armatus, by having the second anal-fin spine extremely long, extending beyond caudal-fin base when adpressed (vs shorter second anal-fin spine, reaching caudal-fin base); from C. robalito, by having 10���15 lower limb gill rakers on first arch (vs 14���17); and 15���20 gill rakers on first arch (vs 21���25); from C. unionensis, by having 48���58 scales on lateral line to caudal-fin base (vs 46���52), the longest anal-fin spine reaching caudal-fin base when adpressed (vs longest analfin spine not reaching caudal-fin base), and second dorsal fin with I,11 (vs I,9); from C. medius, by having 48���58 scales on lateral line to caudal-fin base (vs 53���65), 10���15 lower limb gill rakers on first arch (vs 14���16); 15���20 gill rakers on first arch (vs 18���23), the longest anal-fin spine reaching caudal-fin base when adpressed (vs longest analfin spine not reaching caudal-fin base), and anal fin with III,7 (vs III,8). Molecular data. Specimens of C. ensiferus form a cluster with 100% bootstrap value in the COI sequences analysis (Figure 8). The genetic distance between C. ensiferus and C. armatus is 0.112 (Table 7). The genetic analyses indicate that C. ensiferus is the sister group of C. unionensis. Description. Morphometrics and meristics data are summarized in Tables 8, 9 and 10 on the basis of 10 specimens, 41.4���345.0 mm TL (193.4 mm average). Body slightly elongate, body height moderate, mean body height 25.9% SL (22.4%���28.6%); head moderately elongate, mean head length 38.0% SL (34.9%���41.5%); head moderately high, mean head height 23.5% SL (20.2%���28.4%); largest specimen measured 285 mm SL. Lower jaw protractile, longer than upper jaw, extending beyond tip of snout. Snout narrow and long, mean snout length 11.4% SL (10.4%���12.7%); eye relatively small, mean orbit diameter 12.3% HL. Preoperculum heavily serrated in adults; operculum smooth, without spines, bordered by a membrane that extends beyond origin of pectoral fin; 3���6 small spines in dorsal part of operculum. Dorsal fins separated by a small gap, not connected by membrane, first dorsal fin VIII, second dorsal fin I,11. Pectoral fin with 14���16 rays, longest ray extending beyond origin of pelvic fin. Pelvic fin I,5, longest ray usually not reaching anus. Anal fin III,7 (rarely III,8), second spine extremely long, longer than third spine, extending far beyond caudal fin origin when adpressed. Caudal fin deeply forked. Lateral line with ctenoid scales, extending onto caudal fin. Lateral line with 45���58 scales to caudal-fin base, usually 48���58; 48���62 scales extending onto end of caudal fin. Scale rows between lateral line and origin of second dorsal fin 7���10; scale rows between lateral line and origin of anal fin 10���11. 10���18 (usually 10���15) lower limb gill rakers on first arch; 15���26 (usually 15���20) gill rakers on first arch, excluding rudiments; 14���20 (usually 18���20) gill rakers on second arch, including rudiments. Distribution. Centropomus ensiferus occurs from south Florida, Gulf of Mexico, along the Antilles, to Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. The occurrence of C. ensiferus in S���o Paulo indicated by Carvalho-Filho et al. (2019) is erroneous, since the specimen in which that record was based (MZUSP 71557) was examined herein and identified as C. parallelus, based on the presence of 68 scales in the lateral line (C. ensiferus has 48���58 scales in the lateral line)., Published as part of Figueiredo-Filho, Jess�� Miranda De, Marceniuk, Alexandre P., Feij��, Anderson, Siccha-Ramirez, Raquel, Ribeiro, Giovana S., Oliveira, Claudio & Rosa, Ricardo S., 2021, Taxonomy of Centropomus Lac��p��de, 1802 (Perciformes: Centropomidae), with focus on the Atlantic species of the genus, pp. 301-338 in Zootaxa 4942 (3) on pages 323-324, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4942.3.1, http://zenodo.org/record/4604256, {"references":["Poey, F. (1860) Poissons de Cuba, especes nouvelles. In: Poey, F. (Ed.), Memorias sobre la historia natural de la Isla de Cuba. Vol. 2. Imprenta Barcina, Habana, pp. 115 - 427.","Steindachner, F. (1864) Ichthyologische Notizen Sitzungsberichte der kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 49, 200 - 214.","Bocourt, M. F. (1868) Note sur des poissons percoides appurtenant au genre Centropome. Annales des sciences naturelles Zoologie et biologie animale, 5 (9), 90 - 91.","Poey F. (1955) Ictiologia Cubana. Posthumous transcription of original unpublished manuscript (1884) by M. Sanchez Roig and F. Gomez de la Maza. Vol. 1. Ministerio de Educacion, Habana, 372 pp.","Rivas, L. R. (1986) Systematic review of the perciform fishes of the genus Centropomus. Copeia, 3, 579 - 611. https: // doi. org / 10.2307 / 1444940","Carvalho-Filho, A., De Oliveira, J., Soares, C. & Araripe, J. (2019) A new species of snook, Centropomus (Teleostei: Centropomidae), from northern South America, with notes on the geographic distribution of other species of the genus. Zootaxa, 4671 (1), 81 - 92. https: // doi. org / 10.11646 / zootaxa. 4671.1.6"]}

Centropomus parallelus Poey, 1860 (Figure 13) Centropomus parallelus Poey, 1860: 120 (original description; Cuba) Centropomus mexicanus Bocourt, 1868: 90 (original description; Oaxaca, Mexico) Centropomus constantinus Jordan & Starks in Jordan & Evermann, 1896: 1125 Centropomus heringi Fowler, 1906: 425 Centropomus gabbi Fowler, 1906: 423 Centropomus pellegrini Puyo, 1936: 213 Type. MCZ 10307, 228 mm SL (Fig. 13), loc.: Havana, Cuba, ex coll.: Poey. Poey (1860) described C. parallelus based on 150 mm TL specimen, collected off Cienfuegos, Cuba. Howell-Rivero (1938) proposed that a specimen deposited in the Museum of Comparative Zoology (MCZ 10271) was the holotype. Rivas (1986) rejected the specimen as holotype, due to discrepancies in characters of the original description. The neotype (MCZ 10307), designated by Rivas (1986), is a 228 mm SL specimen also from Cuba, which conforms to the original description of the species. Diagnosis. Centropomus parallelus differs from its congeners as follows: Western Atlantic: from C. undecimalis, by having 60���88 (usually 64���70) scales on lateral line to caudal-fin base (vs 61���79, usually 66���75), 10���13 lower limb gill rakers on first arch (vs 8���11), 13���18 gill rakers on first arch (vs 11���14), the longest anal-fin spine usually reaching caudal-fin base when adpressed (vs longest anal-fin spine not reaching caudal-fin base), pelvic fin usually reaching the anus (vs pelvic fin not reaching anus), and a less elongate and higher body, with a mean body height of 26.6% SL (vs more elongate and lower body, with a mean body height of 22.9% SL; from C. irae, by having 60���88 (usually 64���70) scales on lateral line to caudal-fin base (vs 79���96), 10���13 lower limb gill rakers on first arch (vs 7���8), 13���18 gill rakers on first arch (vs 11���13), the longest anal-fin spine usually reaching caudal-fin base when adpressed (vs longest anal-fin spine not reaching caudal-fin base), pelvic fin usually reaching the anus (vs pelvic fin not reaching the anus), and a less elongate and higher body, with a mean body height of 26.6% SL (vs more elongate and lower body, with a mean body height of 22.3% SL); from C. ensiferus, by having 60���88 (usually 64���70) scales on lateral line to caudal-fin base (vs 48���58), 10���13 lower limb gill rakers on first arch (vs 10���15), 13���18 gill rakers on first arch (vs 15���20), and pelvic fin usually reaching the anus (vs pelvic fin usually not reaching the anus); from C. pectinatus, by having 60���88 (usually 64���70) scales on lateral line to caudal-fin base (vs 47���52), 10���13 lower limb gill rakers on first arch (vs 14���16), 13���18 gill rakers on first arch (vs 20���23), and anal fin with III,7 (vs III,8); from C. poeyi, by having 60���88 (usually 64���70) scales on lateral line to caudal-fin base (vs 69���74), 10���13 lower limb gill rakers on first arch (vs 9���12), pelvic fin usually reaching the anus (vs pelvic fin not reaching anus), and second dorsal fin with I,11 (rarely I,10) (vs I,9). Eastern Pacific: from C. nigrescens, by having 60���88 (usually 64���70) scales on lateral line to caudal-fin base (vs 68���76), 10���13 lower limb gill rakers on first arch (vs 8���9), and the longest anal-fin spine usually reaching caudal-fin base when adpressed (vs longest anal-fin spine not reaching caudal-fin base); from C.viridis, by having 60���88 (usually 64���70) scales on lateral line to caudal-fin base (vs 67���75), the longest anal-fin spine usually reaching caudal-fin base when adpressed (vs longest anal-fin spine not reaching caudal-fin base), and second dorsal fin with I,11 (rarely I,10) (vs I,9); from C. armatus, by having 60���88 (usually 64���70) scales on lateral line to caudal-fin base (vs 47���59); from C. robalito, by having 60���88 (usually 64���70) scales on lateral line to caudal-fin base (vs 47���59), 10���13 lower limb gill rakers on first arch (vs 14���17), and 13���18 gill rakers on first arch (vs 21���25); from C. unionensis, by having 60���88 (usually 64���70) scales on lateral line to caudal-fin base (vs 46���52), 13���18 gill rakers on first arch (vs 15���20), the longest anal-fin spine usually reaching caudal-fin base when adpressed (vs longest anal-fin spine not reaching caudal-fin base), and second dorsal fin with I,11 (rarely I,10) (vs I,9); from C. medius, by having 60���88 (usually 64���70) scales on lateral line to caudal-fin base (vs 53���65), 10���13 lower limb gill rakers on first arch (vs 14���16), 13���18 gill rakers on first arch (vs 18���23), the longest anal-fin spine usually reaching caudal-fin base when adpressed (vs longest anal-fin spine not reaching caudal-fin base), and anal fin with III,7 (vs III,8). Molecular data. Specimens of C. undecimalis forms a distinct cluster in the COI sequences analysis, with 100% bootstrap value (Figure 8). The genetic distance between this species and other species of Centropomus ranged from 0.142 to 0.184 (Table 7). The C. paralleus clade is the sister group of a large clade that includes C. undecimalis, C. irae, C. nigrescens, C. viridis, C. pectinatus and C. medius. Description. Morphometrics and meristics data are summarized in Tables 8, 9 and 10 on the basis of 182 specimens, 44.4���432 mm TL (201.8 mm average). Body high, mean body height 26.6% SL (10.0%���31.0%); body slightly elongate, head moderately elongate, mean head length 37.6% SL (29.6%���71.3%); head moderately high, mean head height 24.2% SL (18.9%���28.4%); largest specimen measured 357 mm SL. Lower jaw protractile, slightly longer than upper jaw, extending beyond tip of snout. Snout narrow and long, mean snout length 11.4% SL (7.6%���22.5%); eye relatively small, mean orbital diameter 19.1% HL. Preoperculum heavily serrated in adults; operculum smooth, without spines, bordered by a membrane that extends beyond origin of pectoral fin; 3���8 small spines in dorsal part of operculum. Dorsal fins separated by a small gap, not connected by membrane, first dorsal fin VII���IX, second dorsal fin I,10���I,12. Pectoral fin with 13���16 rays, longest ray extending beyond origin of pelvic fin. Pelvic fin I,5, longest ray usually reaching anus. Anal fin III,7 (rarely III,6 or III,8), second spine usually longer than first spine; longest spine usually reaching caudal-fin base when adpressed. Caudal fin deeply forked. Lateral line slightly arched with ctenoid scales, extending onto caudal fin. Lateral line with 60���88 scales to caudal-fin base, usually 64���70; 64���90 scales extending onto end of caudal fin. Scale rows between lateral line and origin of second dorsal fin 8���14; scale rows between lateral line and origin of anal fin 10���15. 8���13 (usually 10���13) lower limb gill rakers on first arch; 12���18 (usually 13���18) gill rakers on first arch, excluding rudiments; 12���21 (usually 18���20) gill rakers on second arch, including rudiments. Distribution. Centropomus parallelus occurs between the southeastern portion of the Gulf of Mexico, the Antilles, and Santa Catarina, Brazil. The distribution of C. parallelus is in accordance with previous records in the literature (Meek & Hildebrand 1925; Cervig��n 1966; Figueiredo & Menezes 1980; Guitart 1985; Rivas 1986; Carvalho-Filho 1999). Remarks. Rivas (1986) stated that it is possible to differentiate C. parallelus from C. mexicanus based on scale counts in lateral line, above lateral line, below lateral line, and around the caudal peduncle, and that both species are sympatric in the Atlantic. However, as shown here, these characters exhibit high overlap and large variation within species and thus are non-informative for species diagnosis. Rivas (1986) also stated that the number of scales in the lateral line is the main character for separation between the two species, with C. parallelus having 79���92 scales and C. mexicanus 68���78 scales. This character is also presented in the description of their type specimens, C. parallelus with 85 scales and C. mexicanus with 67 scales, although Rivas (1986) noticed counting discrepancies between the original description of C. parallelus and its holotype (MCZ 10271). Previous studies indeed indicate a strong variation in the number of lateral line scales of C. parallelus (Meek & Hildebrand 1925 [77���90]; Cervig��n 1966 [80���86]; Figueiredo & Menezes 1980 [70���75]; Guitart 1985 [79���89]; Rivas 1986 [79���92]; Carvalho-Filho 1999 [79���92]); the number of lateral line scales of C. mexicanus, in turn, is only mentioned by Carvalho-Filho 1999 [68���79] and Rivas 1986 [68���78]. Specimens of C. parallelus and C. mexicanus are morphologically very similar and have largely overlapping geographic distributions. The character variation found here in previously identified specimens of both species are: lateral line scales (66���88 in C. parallelus vs 64���86 in C. mexicanus); scales above lateral line (9���12 in C. parallelus vs 10���11 in C. mexicanus); scales below lateral line (11���14 in C. parallelus vs 12���15 in C. mexicanus); lower limb gill rakers on first arch (10���13 in C. parallelus vs 11���12 in C. mexicanus); gill rakers on first arch (13���18 in C. parallelus vs 15���17 in C. mexicanus). It is clear that formely proposed diagnostic characters for the genus are highly overlapping between C. parallelus and C. mexicanus in this study and those presented by previous authors. Therefore, based on the molecular and morphological evidence retrieved here, C. mexicanus is herein proposed as a junior synonym of C. parallelus., Published as part of Figueiredo-Filho, Jess�� Miranda De, Marceniuk, Alexandre P., Feij��, Anderson, Siccha-Ramirez, Raquel, Ribeiro, Giovana S., Oliveira, Claudio & Rosa, Ricardo S., 2021, Taxonomy of Centropomus Lac��p��de, 1802 (Perciformes: Centropomidae), with focus on the Atlantic species of the genus, pp. 301-338 in Zootaxa 4942 (3) on pages 321-323, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4942.3.1, http://zenodo.org/record/4604256, {"references":["Poey, F. (1860) Poissons de Cuba, especes nouvelles. In: Poey, F. (Ed.), Memorias sobre la historia natural de la Isla de Cuba. Vol. 2. Imprenta Barcina, Habana, pp. 115 - 427.","Bocourt, M. F. (1868) Note sur des poissons percoides appurtenant au genre Centropome. Annales des sciences naturelles Zoologie et biologie animale, 5 (9), 90 - 91.","Jordan, D. S. & Evermann, B. W. (1896) The fishes of North and Middle America: a descriptive catalogue of the species of fishlike vertebrates found in the waters of North America, north of the Isthmus of Panama, Proceedings of the United States National Museum, 47, 1 - 1240. https: // doi. org / 10.5962 / bhl. title. 39714","Fowler, H. W. (1906) Descriptions of two new species of Centropomus. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 58, 423 - 428.","Puyo, J. (1936) Contribution a l'etude ichthyologique de la Guyane Francaise. Bulletin de la Societe d'histoire naturelle de Toulouse, 70, 5 - 258.","Rivas, L. R. (1986) Systematic review of the perciform fishes of the genus Centropomus. Copeia, 3, 579 - 611. https: // doi. org / 10.2307 / 1444940","Meek, S. E. & Hildebrand, S. F. (1925) The marine fishes of Panama, Part 2. Field Museum of Natural History. Zoological series, 15, 331 - 707.","Cervigon, F. (1966) Los peces marinos de Venezuela. Vol. 1. Fundacion La Salle de Ciencias Naturales, Caracas, 436 pp.","Figueiredo, J. L. & Menezes, N. A. (1980) Manual de Peixes Marinhos do Sudeste do Brasil, III, Telostei (2). Museu de Zoologia, Universidade de S \" o Paulo, S \" o Paulo, 90 pp.","Guitart, D. J. (1985) Sinopsis de los peces marinos de Cuba. Vol. 2. Editorial Cientifico Tecnica, Havana, 562 pp.","Carvalho-Filho, A. (1999) Peixes, Costa Brasileira. 3 rd Edition. Melro, S \" o Paulo, 320 pp."]}

Centropomus undecimalis (Bloch, 1792) (Figures 10 and 11) Sciaena undecimalis Bloch, 1792: 60 (original description; Jamaica) Centropomus undecimradiatus Lac��p��de, 1802: 248 (= Sciaena undecimalis Bloch, 1792) Perca loubina Lac��p��de, 1802: 397 Sphyraena aureoviridis Lac��p��de, 1803: 325 Centropomus appendiculatus Poey, 1860: 119 Centropomus argenteus Regan, 1904: 260 Type. ZMB 38, 160 mm SL (Fig. 10), loc.: West Indies; ex coll.: Bloch. Diagnosis. Centropomus undecimalis can be recognized and distinguished from other species by the following characters: Western Atlantic: from C. irae, by having 61���79 (usually 66���75) scales on lateral line to caudal-fin base (vs 79���96), and 8���11 gill rakers on first arch (vs 7���8); from C. parallelus, by having 61���79 (usually 66���75) scales on lateral line to caudal-fin base (vs 64���70), 8���11 lower limb gill rakers on first arch (vs 10���13), 11���14 gill rakers on first arch (vs 13���18), longest anal-fin spine, when close to body (adpressed), not reaching caudal-fin base (vs longest anal-fin spine usually reaching caudal-fin base), pelvic fin not reaching anus (vs pelvic fin reaching anus), and a more elongate and lower body (vs less elongate and higher body); from C. ensiferus, by having 61���79 (usually 66��� 75) scales on lateral line to caudal-fin base (vs 48���58), 8���11 lower limb gill rakers on first arch (vs 10���15), 11���14 gill rakers on first arch (vs 15���20), longest anal-fin spine, when close to body (adpressed) not reaching caudal-fin base (vs longest anal-fin spine reaching caudal-fin base), and a more elongate and lower body (vs less elongate and higher body); from C. pectinatus, by having 61���79 (usually 66���75) scales on lateral line to caudal-fin base (vs 47���52), 8���11 lower limb gill rakers on first arch (vs 14���16), 11���14 gill rakers on first arch (vs 20���23), longest analfin spine, when close to body (adpressed) not reaching caudal-fin base (vs longest anal-fin spine usually reaching caudal-fin base), pelvic fin not reaching anus (vs pelvic fin reaching anus), a more elongate and lower body, with a mean body height of 22.9% SL (vs less elongate and higher body, with a mean body height of 26.6% SL), and anal fin with III,7 (vs III,8); from C. poeyi, by having 61���79 (usually 66���75) scales on lateral line to caudal-fin base (vs 69���74), 8���11 lower limb gill rakers on first arch (vs 9���12), 11���14 gill rakers on first arch (vs 15���18), and second dorsal fin with I,11 (rarely I,10) (vs I,9). Eastern Pacific: from C. nigrescens, by having 61���79 (usually 66���75) scales on lateral line to caudal-fin base (vs 68���76, usually 71���74), and 8���11 lower limb gill rakers on first arch (vs 8���9); from C.viridis, by having 11���14 gill rakers on first arch (vs 14���15), second dorsal fin with I,11 (rarely I,10) (vs I,9); from C. armatus, by having 61���79 (usually 66���75) scales on lateral line to caudal-fin base (vs 47���59), 8���11 lower limb gill rakers on first arch (vs 11���12), 11���14 gill rakers on first arch (vs 15���17), and longest anal-fin spine, when close to body (adpressed) not reaching caudal-fin base (vs longest anal-fin spine reaching caudal-fin base); from C. robalito, by having 61���79 (usually 66���75) scales on lateral line to caudal-fin base (vs 47���59), 8���11 lower limb gill rakers on first arch (vs 14��� 17), 11���14 gill rakers on first arch (vs 21���25), longest anal-fin spine, when close to body (adpressed) not reaching caudal-fin base (vs longest spine of anal fin reaching caudal-fin base); from C. unionensis, by having 61���79 (usually 66���75) scales on lateral line to caudal-fin base (vs 46���52), 8���11 lower limb gill rakers on first arch (vs 10���14), 11���14 gill rakers on first arch (vs 15���20), and second dorsal fin with I,11 (rarely I,10) (vs I,9); from C. medius, by having 61���79 (usually 66���75) scales on lateral line to caudal-fin base (vs 53���65), 8���11 lower limb gill rakers on first arch (vs 14���16), 11���14 gill rakers on first arch (vs 18���23), and anal fin with III,7 (vs III,8). Molecular data. According to the COI sequences analysis, C. undecimalis forms a distinct cluster, with 99% bootstrap value (Figure 8). The genetic distance between this species and other species of Centropomus ranged from 0.064 to 0.201 (Table 7). C. undecimalis is genetically the sister group of C. irae. Description. Morphometrics and meristics data are summarized in Tables 8, 9 and 10 on the basis of 113 specimens, 77���755 mm TL (233.4 mm average). Body elongate, head moderately compressed, head height 20.4% SL (17.1%���28.7%); body relatively low, deepest body depth 22.9% SL (17.5%���30.0%); largest specimen measured 628 mm SL. Lower jaw protractile, longer than upper jaw, extending beyond tip of snout. Snout narrow and long comprising in average 11.8% (9.7%���14.4%) of SL; eye relatively small, preoperculum margin heavily serrated in adults; operculum margin smooth, without spines, bordered by a membrane that extends beyond origin of pectoral fin. 2���6 small spines in dorsal part of operculum. Dorsal fins separated by a small gap, not connected by membrane, first dorsal fin VII���VIII, second dorsal fin I,10���I,11. Pectoral fin with 14���16 rays, longest ray 18.3% SL (13.4%���25.4%), extending beyond origin of pelvic fin. Pelvic fin I,5, longest pelvic ray not reaching anus. Anal fin III,7 (rarely III,6 or III,8), longest spine, when adpressed, not reaching caudal-fin base. Caudal fin deeply forked; lateral line dark with ctenoid scales extending onto caudal fin. Lateral line with 61���79 scales to caudal-fin base, usually 66���75; 70���85 scales extending onto end of caudal fin. Scale rows between lateral line and origin of second dorsal fin 6���12, usually 9���11; scale rows between lateral line and origin of anal fin 8���15, usually 10���13. 7���14 (usually 8���11) lower limb gill rakers on first arch; 10���19 (usually 11���14) gill rakers on first arch, excluding rudiments; 11���20 (usually 17���19) gill rakers on second arch, including rudiments. Distribution. Centropomus undecimalis is the most widely distributed Atlantic species of the genus, occurring from North Carolina, USA, the Gulf of Mexico and Antilles, to Santa Catarina, occasionally reaching Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. This distribution is in accordance with most previous studies (Meek & Hildebrand 1925; Cervig��n 1966; Hoese & Moore 1977; Figueiredo & Menezes 1980; Guitart 1985; Rivas 1986; Carvalho-Filho 1999). Remarks. The characters presented in the original description (Bloch, 1792) are not diagnostic. However, the diagnostic traits defined herein are supported by detailed descriptions of the holotype in Cuvier & Valenciennes (1828), Ch��vez (1961), and Rivas (1986)., Published as part of Figueiredo-Filho, Jess�� Miranda De, Marceniuk, Alexandre P., Feij��, Anderson, Siccha-Ramirez, Raquel, Ribeiro, Giovana S., Oliveira, Claudio & Rosa, Ricardo S., 2021, Taxonomy of Centropomus Lac��p��de, 1802 (Perciformes: Centropomidae), with focus on the Atlantic species of the genus, pp. 301-338 in Zootaxa 4942 (3) on pages 318-320, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4942.3.1, http://zenodo.org/record/4604256, {"references":["Bloch, M. E. (1792) Naturgeschichte der auslandischen Fische. Vol. 6. Sechster Theil, Morino, Berlin, xii + 126 pp.","Lacepede, B. G. (1802) Histoire naturelle des Poissons. Vol. 4. Plassan, Paris, 728 pp.","Poey, F. (1860) Poissons de Cuba, especes nouvelles. In: Poey, F. (Ed.), Memorias sobre la historia natural de la Isla de Cuba. Vol. 2. Imprenta Barcina, Habana, pp. 115 - 427.","Regan, C. T. (1904) Descriptions of Holocentrum osculum Poey, and a new fish of the genus Centropomus. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, Series 7, 13 (76), 259 - 261. https: // doi. org / 10.1080 / 00222930409487066","Meek, S. E. & Hildebrand, S. F. (1925) The marine fishes of Panama, Part 2. Field Museum of Natural History. Zoological series, 15, 331 - 707.","Cervigon, F. (1966) Los peces marinos de Venezuela. Vol. 1. Fundacion La Salle de Ciencias Naturales, Caracas, 436 pp.","Hoese, H. D. & Moore, R. H. (1977) Fishes of the Gulf of Mexico, Texas, Louisiana, and adjacent waters. Texas A & M University, College Station, Texas, 327 pp. https: // doi. org / 10.2307 / 1443203","Figueiredo, J. L. & Menezes, N. A. (1980) Manual de Peixes Marinhos do Sudeste do Brasil, III, Telostei (2). Museu de Zoologia, Universidade de S \" o Paulo, S \" o Paulo, 90 pp.","Guitart, D. J. (1985) Sinopsis de los peces marinos de Cuba. Vol. 2. Editorial Cientifico Tecnica, Havana, 562 pp.","Rivas, L. R. (1986) Systematic review of the perciform fishes of the genus Centropomus. Copeia, 3, 579 - 611. https: // doi. org / 10.2307 / 1444940","Carvalho-Filho, A. (1999) Peixes, Costa Brasileira. 3 rd Edition. Melro, S \" o Paulo, 320 pp.","Cuvier, G. & Valenciennes, A. (1828) Histoire naturelle des poissons. Vol. 1. Levrault, Paris, 490 pp.","Chavez, H. (1961) Estudio de una nueva especie de robalo del Golfo de Mexico y redescripcion de Centropomus undecimalis (Bloch) (Pisc., Centropom.). Ciencia, 21 (2), 75 - 83."]}

Centropomus pectinatus Poey, 1860 (Figure 15) Centropomus pectinatus Poey, 1860: 121 (original description; Havana, Cuba) Centropomus pedimacula Poey, 1860: 122 Centropomus cuvieri Bocourt, 1868: 91 Type. CAS-SU 1602, 188 mm SL (Fig. 15), loc.: Havana, Cuba. The original description of C. pectinatus by Poey (1860) is based on a 310 mm TL specimen. However, Rivas (1986) stated that no specimen that agrees with the original description could be found in MCZ, USNM, or any other museum. The neotype (CAS-SU 1602) designated by Rivas (1986) is a specimen from Havana, Cuba, 188 mm SL, deposited in the California Academy of Sciences. Diagnosis. Centropomus pectinatus differs from its congeners as follows: Western Atlantic: from C. undecimalis, by having 47���52 scales on lateral line to caudal-fin base (vs 66���75), 14���16 lower limb gill rakers on first arch (vs 8���11), 20���23 gill rakers on first arch (vs 11���14), the longest anal-fin spine usually reaching caudal-fin base when adpressed (vs longest anal-fin spine not reaching caudal-fin base), pelvic fin reaching the anus (vs pelvic fin not reaching anus), a less elongate and higher body, with a mean body height of 26.6% SL (vs more elongate and lower body, mean body height 22.9% SL), and anal fin with III,8 (vs III,7); from C. irae, by having 47���52 scales on lateral line to caudal-fin base (vs 79���96), 14���16 lower limb gill rakers on first arch (vs 7���8), 20���23 gill rakers on first arch (vs 11���13), the longest anal-fin spine usually reaching caudal-fin base when adpressed (vs longest anal-fin spine not reaching caudal-fin base), pelvic fin reaching the anus (vs pelvic fin not reaching anus), a less elongate and higher body, with a mean body height of 26.6% SL (vs more elongate and lower body, mean body height 22.3% SL), and anal fin with III,8 (vs III,7); from C. parallelus, by having 47���52 scales on lateral line to caudal-fin base (vs 64���70), 14���16 lower limb gill rakers on first arch (vs 10���13), 20���23 gill rakers on first arch (vs 13���18), and anal fin with III,8 (vs III,7); from C. ensiferus, by having 47���52 scales on lateral line to caudal-fin base (vs 48���58), 14���16 lower limb gill rakers on first arch (vs 10���15), 20���23 gill rakers on first arch (vs 15���20), the third anal-fin spine longer than the second, reaching caudal-fin base when adpressed (vs second anal-fin spine longer than the third, reaching caudal-fin base), pelvic fin reaching the anus (vs pelvic fin usually not reaching anus), and anal fin with III,8 (vs III,7); from C. poeyi, by having 47���52 scales on lateral line to caudal-fin base (vs 69���74), 14���16 lower limb gill rakers on first arch (vs 9���12), 20���23 gill rakers on first arch (vs 15���18), pelvic fin reaching the anus (vs pelvic fin not reaching anus), anal fin with III,8 (vs III,7), and second dorsal fin with I,11 (vs I,9). Eastern Pacific: from C. nigrescens, by having 47���52 scales on lateral line to caudal-fin base (vs 68���76), 14���16 lower limb gill rakers on first arch (vs 8���9); 20���23 gill rakers on first arch (vs 11���14), the longest anal-fin spine usually reaching caudal-fin base when adpressed (vs longest anal-fin spine not reaching caudal-fin base), and anal fin with III,8 (vs III,7); from C. viridis, by having 47���52 scales on lateral line to caudal-fin base (vs 67���75), 14���16 lower limb gill rakers on first arch (vs 9���12); 20���23 gill rakers on first arch (vs 14���15), the longest anal-fin spine usually reaching caudal-fin base when adpressed (vs longest anal-fin spine not reaching caudal-fin base), anal fin with III,8 (vs III,7), and second dorsal fin with I,11 (vs I,9); from C. armatus, by having 47���52 scales on lateral line to caudal-fin base (vs 47���59), 14���16 lower limb gill rakers on first arch (vs 11���12); 20���23 gill rakers on first arch (vs 15���17), the third anal-fin spine longer than the second, reaching caudal-fin base when adpressed (vs second anal-fin spine longer than the third, reaching caudal-fin base), and anal fin with III,8 (vs III,7); from C. robalito, by having 47���52 scales on lateral line to caudal-fin base (vs 47���59), 20���23 gill rakers on first arch (vs 21���25), the third anal-fin spine longer than the second, reaching caudal-fin base when adpressed (vs second anal-fin spine longer than the third, reaching caudal-fin base), and anal fin with III,8 (vs III,7); from C. unionensis, by having 14���16 lower limb gill rakers on first arch (vs 10���14); 20���23 gill rakers on first arch (vs 15���20), the longest anal-fin spine usually reaching caudal-fin base when adpressed (vs longest anal-fin spine not reaching caudal-fin base), anal fin with III,8 (vs III,7), and second dorsal fin with I,11 (vs I,9); from C. medius, by having 47���52 scales on lateral line to caudal-fin base (vs 53���65), and the longest anal-fin spine usually reaching caudal-fin base when adpressed (vs longest anal-fin spine not reaching caudal-fin base). Molecular data. Specimens of C. pectinatus form a strongly supported cluster, with 100% bootstrap value, in the COI sequences analysis (Figure 8). The genetic distance between C. pectinatus and other species of Centropomus ranged from 0.047 to 0.190 (Table 7). The genetic analyses indicate that C. pectinatus is the sister group of C. medius. Description. Morphometrics and meristics data are summarized in Tables 8, 9 and 10 on the basis of 14 specimens, 63.7���259.9 mm TL (191.3 mm average). Body slightly elongate, body moderately high, mean body height 26.6% SL (24.4%���29.9%); head moderately long, mean head length 36.9% SL (34.2%���42.8%); head moderately high, mean head height 22.9% SL (19.3%���25.4%); largest specimen measured 196.5 mm SL. Lower jaw protractile, longer than upper jaw, extending beyond tip of snout. Snout narrow and long, mean snout length 12.0% SL (10.7%���13.3%); eye medium, mean orbital diameter 19.4% HL. Preoperculum heavily serrated in adults; operculum smooth, without spines, bordered by a membrane that extends beyond origin of pectoral fin; 3���5 small spines in dorsal part of operculum. Dorsal fins separated by a small gap, not connected by membrane, first dorsal fin always VIII, second dorsal fin I,11. Pectoral fin with 13���15 rays, longest ray extending beyond origin of pelvic fin. Pelvic fin I,5, longest ray usually reaching anus. Anal fin III,8, third spine longer than second spine, usually reaching caudal-fin base when close to body (adpressed). Caudal fin deeply forked. Lateral line with ctenoid scales, extending onto caudal fin. Lateral line with 47���52 scales to caudal-fin base, 50���56 scales extending onto end of caudal fin. Scale rows between lateral line and origin of second dorsal fin 8���10; scale rows between lateral line and origin of anal fin 9���12. 14���16 lower limb gill rakers on first arch; 20���23 gill rakers on first arch, excluding rudiments; 19���21 gill rakers on second arch, including rudiments. Distribution. Centropomus pectinatus occurs from south Florida, Gulf of Mexico, Antilles, to Paran��, Brazil. The record of C. pectinatus in the Pacific (CAS-SU 2952) is erroneous, since the material examined herein and literature records strongly indicate that the species is restricted to the Western Atlantic., Published as part of Figueiredo-Filho, Jess�� Miranda De, Marceniuk, Alexandre P., Feij��, Anderson, Siccha-Ramirez, Raquel, Ribeiro, Giovana S., Oliveira, Claudio & Rosa, Ricardo S., 2021, Taxonomy of Centropomus Lac��p��de, 1802 (Perciformes: Centropomidae), with focus on the Atlantic species of the genus, pp. 301-338 in Zootaxa 4942 (3) on pages 325-326, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4942.3.1, http://zenodo.org/record/4604256, {"references":["Poey, F. (1860) Poissons de Cuba, especes nouvelles. In: Poey, F. (Ed.), Memorias sobre la historia natural de la Isla de Cuba. Vol. 2. Imprenta Barcina, Habana, pp. 115 - 427.","Bocourt, M. F. (1868) Note sur des poissons percoides appurtenant au genre Centropome. Annales des sciences naturelles Zoologie et biologie animale, 5 (9), 90 - 91.","Rivas, L. R. (1986) Systematic review of the perciform fishes of the genus Centropomus. Copeia, 3, 579 - 611. https: // doi. org / 10.2307 / 1444940"]}

Menticirrhus americanus (Linnaeus, 1758) Figure 1, Tables 3, 4 Alburnus americanus).—Catesby 1736: 2, plate 12 (the Whiting; fishes of Carolina, United States; short description and illustration) Cyprinus americanus Linnaeus 1758: 321. (Nec. Linnaeus, 1766 = Notemigonus bosei Cuvier & Valenciennes, America). Perca alburnus. — Linnaeus 1766: 482 (South Carolina). Centropomus alburnus.— Lacépêde 1802: 249, 257 (description; without locality). Umbrina alburnus.—Cuvier in Cuvier & Valenciennes 1830: 180-186 (in part; description; New York; cited). Umbrina phalaena.— Girard 1858: 167 (type locality, Texas; syntypes, MCZ 482 [ex USNM 620] (1); USNM 619 (1, not found in 1993), 620 (orig. 4, now 1), 128273 [ex USNM 620] (2), USNM 154721 [ex USNM 620]) Menticirrhus alburnus.— Jordan & Gilbert 1883: 577 (synopsis; listed) Menticirrhus americanus).— Jordan & Eigenmann 1889: 430-431 (description; Chesapeake Bay to Texas).— Jordan & Evermann 1898: 1474 (fishes of North and Middle America; description).— Briggs, 1958: 281 (in part; formerly assigned from New York to Argentina).— Trewavas 1964: 116 (American sciaenids with single mental barbel; definition of Menticirrhus, species list).— Irwin 1971: 69-74 (revision; in part; formerly from Long Island to Argentina; unpublished data).— Chao 1977: 28 (in part; FAO identification sheet; Cape Cod to Buenos Aires).— Hoese & Moore 1977: 203-204 (in part; formerly assigned from New York to Argentina).— Chao 1978: 30, 53 (in part; basis for classifying western Atlantic sciaenids; formerly assigned from North Atlantic to Argentina).— Robins & Ray 1986:187 (Atlantic coast fishes; listed and short description).— Boschung 1992:145 (catalog of the fishes of Alabama; listed).— Murdy et al. 1997:198 (fishes of Chesapeake Bay; listed).— Castro-Aguirre et al. 1999: 372 (ichthyofauna of Mexico; listed).— Chao 2003:1626 (in part; FAO Species Identification Guide of fishes of the Western Central Atlantic; short description).— Nelson et al. 2004:147 (common names of the fishes from the United States and Canada; listed).— McEachran & Fechhelm 2005:431 (fishes of the Gulf of Mexico; list and description).— Page et al. 2013: 152 (common and scientific names of fishes from the United States, Canada and Mexico; listed).— Raz-Guzmán et al. 2018: 346 (checklist; Laguna de Tamiahua, Mexico).— Robins et al. 2018: 436 (guide to the fishes from Florida; listed). Material Examined. Neotype: USNM 196402 (1, 159 mm SL), Gulf of Mexico, Jackson County, Ocean Springs 3 miles north of Horn Island, Mississippi. Non-type specimens: ANSP 168780 (1), Savannah River Estuary, Jasper/ Chatham Co., Georgia / South Carolina, United States; ANSP 168781 (1), Savannah River Estuary, Jasper/ Chatham Co., Georgia / South Carolina, United States; ANSP 168782 (1), Savannah River Estuary, Jasper/ Chatham Co., Georgia / South Carolina, United States; ANSP 168783 (2), Savannah River Estuary, Jasper/ Chatham Co., Georgia / South Carolina, United States; ANSP 168784 (2), Savannah River Estuary, Jasper/ Chatham Co., Georgia / South Carolina, United States; ANSP 79853 (1), Gulf bay at Englewood, Florida, United States; USNM 158610 (1), bay at Clearwater, Florida, United States; MZUSP 69614 (2, 127- 140 mm SL), off Matanzas near St. Augustine, Florida, United States, USNM 22832 (1), Pensacola, Florida, United States; USNM 93594 (1), off Corpus Christi, Texas, United States; USNM 451060 (1, 154 mm SL) Gulf of Mexico, Jackson County, Ocean Springs 3 miles north of Horn Island, Mississippi; ANSP 70907 (2), Galveston, Texas, United States; USNM 155969 (2), New Orleans, Louisiana, United States; USNM 155972 (1), New Orleans, Louisiana, United States; ANSP 151465 (1), Puerto Rico, United States. Diagnosis. Menticirrhus americanus, which is found in the United States and the Gulf of Mexico, can be differentiated from its congeners in the western Atlantic as follows: from M. cuiaranensis, which is found on the northern, northeast and eastern coasts of Brazil, by having 19–23, rarely 19, pectoral-fin rays (vs. 16–19, Table 2), pectoral-fin tip surpassing tip of depressed pelvic fin (vs. barely reaching tip of pelvic fin, Figs. 1, 3), body with irregular dark bars (vs. without dark bars, Figs. 1, 3); from M. gracilis, which is found on the southeastern and southern coast of Brazil, by having 23–25 dorsal-fin rays (vs. 18–21, Table 2), and body with irregular dark bars (vs. without dark bars, Figs. 1, 4); from M. littoralis, which is found in the United States and the Gulf of Mexico, by a dusky caudal fin, with no distinctive dark spot on the dorsal lobe (vs. pale caudal fin, with a dark spot on the upper lobe, Figs. 1, 2), pectoral-fin tip surpassing tip of depressed pelvic fin (vs. barely reaching tip of pelvic fin, Figs. 1, 2), body with irregular dark bars (vs. without dark bars, Figs. 1, 2), and from M. saxatilis, which is found in the United States and the Gulf of Mexico, by having body usually with eight or nine diffuse dark bars, the second and third forming a “V” shape below the nape and spinous dorsal fin (vs. body with seven or eight distinct oblique bars, with the second and third bars forming a “V” shape below the spinous dorsal fin), no longitudinal stripe below lateral line (vs. stripe present, extending to the tip of the caudal fin), spinous dorsal fin low, not reaching to base of the second soft ray (vs. spinous dorsal fin high, its tip reaching beyond the base of the fourth soft ray of the dorsal fin, Fig. 1). The morphology of this species is virtually identical to M. martinicensis, which occurs from the Caribbean to South America, except that many M. americanus specimens present a small hump in the dorsal profile behind head (Fig. 1), whereas the dorsal profile of M. martinicensis is always steep and gently convex in this region (Fig. 5). These taxa are also separated by the molecular evidence (see Molecular Diagnosis). Menticirrhus americanus can also be distinguished from its congeners in the eastern Pacific as follows: from M. elongatus, ranging from the Gulf of California to Peru, by its body with irregular dark bars (vs. without dark bars, Fig. 1); from M. nasus, ranging from the Gulf of California to Peru, by having 10–11 gill rakers in the first arches (vs. 4–9, Table 2), scales present along base of soft dorsal fin (vs. soft dorsal fin naked), body with irregular dark bars (vs. without dark bars, Fig. 1); from M. ophicephalus, ranging from Ecuador to Chile, by 48–52 scales with pores along lateral line to caudal-fin base (vs. 63–66, Table 2), pectoral-fin tip surpassing tip of depressed pelvic fin (vs. barely reaching tip of pelvic fin, Fig. 1), S-shaped posterior margin of caudal fin (vs. concave), scales present along base of soft dorsal fin (vs. soft dorsal fin naked), body with irregular dark bars (vs. without dark bars, Fig. 1); from M. paitensis, ranging from the Gulf of California to Chile, by having 48–52 scales with pores along lateral line to caudal-fin base (vs. 76–98, Table 2), scales present along base of soft dorsal fin (vs. soft dorsal fin naked), body with irregular dark bars (vs. without dark bars, Fig. 1); from M. panamensis, ranging from the Gulf of California to Chile, by having 23–25 dorsal-fin rays (vs. 18–22, Table 2), 10–11 gill rakers in the first arches (vs. 3–8, Table 2), scales present along base of soft dorsal fin (vs. soft dorsal fin naked), body with irregular dark bars (vs. without dark bars, Fig. 1); from M. undulatus, which is found in California, in the United States, by having 20–23, rarely 19, pectoral-fin rays (vs. 17–19, Table 2), scales present along base of soft dorsal fin (vs. soft dorsal fin naked), pectoral-fin tip surpassing tip of depressed pelvic fin (vs. barely reaching tip of pelvic fin, Fig. 1). Description: D. X+23–25; A. I+6–8; P. 19–22; C. 17; GR. 11; LL. 50–52; SA. 8–9; SB. 12–13 (Tables 3, 4). Body slender in lateral view, not compressed, ventral profile flat; maximum depth at first dorsal-fin origin. Dorsal profile steeply ascending on snout to eye-level, convex over eye, ascending to first dorsal-fin base, frequently with “hump” over pectoral-fin base, convex along first dorsal-fin base, straight, descending along second dorsal-fin base, concave on caudal peduncle. Ventral profile descending from mouth to gular area, sometimes with slight concavity, convex in gular area, horizontal on belly, ascending, nearly concave, along anal-fin base to caudal-fin base. Snout much longer than eye, deep, with blunt tip. Mouth subterminal, upper jaw slender, rear tip barely reaching vertical line passing through middle of eye. Premaxilla with 4–7 rows of acicular teeth, those of external row (about 10–15 on each side) slightly larger, caniniform; dentary with 4–7 tooth rows. Eye slightly oval, nearly two times snout length, not adjoining dorsal profile, pupil slightly elongated dorsoventrally, teardrop shaped. Interorbital space smaller than orbital diameter, slightly convex, covered with ctenoid scales. Nostrils small, anterior nearly round, posterior larger, oval, nearly on horizontal line through ventral pupil border. Head with five sensory pores on snout, in semicircle around mouth corner, followed by larger central pore, lower jaw with four pores, two on each side encircling mental barbel, pores otherwise absent; mental barbel short, rigid, with blunt tip without pore. Lateral line slightly arched to second dorsal-fin origin, straight, descending to caudal peduncle, nearly horizontal elsewhere to caudal-fin tip. Preopercle margin rough, with about 10 subtle spines. Opercle extremity fleshy, blunt, well behind vertical line that passes through pectoral-fin base. Gill rakers short. Ctenoid scales on trunk, belly, pectoral-fin base, opercle, preopercle, infraorbital, and interorbital region to snout, cycloid on gular area and encircling nostrils. Dorsal fin without scales on interradial membranes, second dorsal with basal scale on each interradial membranes; pectoral-fin base covered by small ctenoid scales, rows of cycloid scales along pectoral-fin rays (outer third naked); caudal-fin base covered with large ctenoid scales, rows of cycloid scales along rays (tips naked). Spinous dorsal fin short, first spine shortest, second and third spines longest; second dorsal fin adjoining first one. Origin of second dorsal fin well behind vertical line through pectoral-fin tip, second dorsal soft rays much shorter than longest dorsal spines.Anal-fin origin at vertical line passing through sixth-seventh ray of second dorsal fin; first spine very slender. Pectoral fin falcate, reaching vertical line passing through two thirds of pelvic fin length. Pelvic-fin origin behind pectoral-fin base, as long as pectoral fin. Caudal peduncle short, deep, depth larger than orbital diameter. Caudal fin short, emarginated, lower lobe slightly longer and much stouter than upper lobe. Color in alcohol. Trunk beige or light brown, darker on dorsum, sometimes with dark patches on sides. Snout light brown, opercle and infraorbital region dark brown. First dorsal fin dark brown, dusky in distal third, second dorsal fin light brown, some ray tips lighter or beige. Anal fin dark brown, slightly darkened at tip. Pectoral fin brown, distal half darkened. Caudal fin darkened at the base (Fig. 1B). Color of fresh material. Silvery on head and flanks, grayish silvery dorsally; obscure dark areas on flanks and dorsum, often with irregular bars over the lateral line; nape with dusky bar; opercle and gill opening dusky. Dorsal and anal fins dusky, pectoral fin black with yellow hue on lower rays, lighter at base; pelvic fin yellow, with black line along pelvic spine. Dusky line on the ventral margin to the caudal peduncle (Fig. 1A). Distribution and habitat. Western North Atlantic from the east coast of the United States to the Gulf of Mexico (Fig. 4). This is a coastal species, typically found in estuaries at depths of up to 60 meters. Fishing. Targeted by artisanal fishermen and using castnets and fishing weir. Taken as food in some areas. Remarks. Linnaeus (1758) proposed Cyprinus americanus based on the figure and short account of Catesby (1743) in his description of the fish fauna of the “Carolinas”. Although the image presents certain inaccuracies in fin counts and other features, it clearly represents a Menticirrhus species, and based on Linnaeus’ description, it seems reasonable to conclude that this species is M. americanus from the western North Atlantic. Linnaeus (1766) provided additional information on C. americanus, but Wheeler (1985) concluded that this is different from the data provided by Catesby. In their review of the American sciaenids, Jordan & Eigenmann (1889) indicated that Menticirrhus americanus was distributed along the east coast of the United States, from Chesapeake Bay to Texas. They also synonymized two species with M. americanus, Perca alburnus Linnaeus 1886, based on the specimens Linnaeus received from Charleston, and Umbrina phalaena Girard 1858, based on the description of specimens obtained in Mexico. Jordan and Eigenmann also remarked that M. martinicensis, described originally from the Caribbean by Cuvier and Valenciennes (see notes on this species below) is remarkably similar to M. americanus. Jordan & Evermann (1898) provided a short description of M. americanus and regarded this species to be “exceedingly alike [M. martinicensis] distinguished perhaps by a slightly smaller number of rays in the dorsal fin” and that “Were it not that the Sciaenoid fauna of South America is chiefly different from that of North America, we should scarcely hesitate to place martinicensis in the synonymy of americanus.” The close similarity between these two taxa led Miranda Ribeiro (1915) to assume that Menticirrhus americanus is present in Brazil and included M. martinicensis as its junior synonym. Although some contemporary authors still recognized the validity of M. jamaicensis (e.g., Ihering 1897; Jordan & Evermann 1898; Gilbert 1900; Fowler 1941), the decision of Miranda Ribeiro (1915) was followed in most subsequent studies (e.g. Hoese & Moore 1977; Chao 1977, 1978). Here we consider M. americanus to be restricted to the Gulf of Mexico, based primarily on the genetic evidence, given that the meristic data broadly overlap with those of M. martinicensis from the Caribbean region and the western South Atlantic. One other trait that may be potentially useful for separation of these taxa is the tendency for the M. americanus specimens to have a small “hump” in the dorsal head profile, although this needs to be considered with caution, given that this feature is not depicted, for example, in McEachran and Fechhelm (2005). Menticirrhus americanus was originally described without support of biological material and, until now, no type specimens had been allocated. For this reason, we selected specimen USNM 196402, 159 mm SL, collected east of the Cape Hatteras National Seashore, North Carolina, in the United States, as the neotype of this species., Published as part of Marceniuk, Alexandre Pires, Caires, Rodrigo Antunes, Rotundo, Matheus Marcos, Cerqueira, Najila Nolie Catarine Dantas, Siccha-Ramirez, Raquel, Wosiacki, Wolmar Benjamin & Oliveira, Claudio, 2020, Taxonomic revision of the Menticirrhus americanus (Linnaeus, 1758) and M littoralis (Holbrook, 1847) (Percomorphacea: Sciaenidae) species complexes from the western Atlantic, pp. 301-333 in Zootaxa 4822 (3) on pages 315-317, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4822.3.1, http://zenodo.org/record/4401566, {"references":["Linnaeus, C. (1758) Systema naturae per regna tria naturae, secundum classes, ordines, genera, species, cum characteribus, differentiis, synonymis, locis. Tomus I. Editio Eecima, reformata. Impensis Direct. Laurentii Salvii, Holmiae, 824 pp. https: // doi. org / 10.5962 / bhl. title. 542","Linnaeus, C. (1766) Systema naturae sive regna tria naturae, secundum classes, ordines, genera, species, cum characteribus, differentiis, synonymis, locis. 12 (1). Laurentii Salvii, Holmiae, 532 pp. https: // doi. org / 10.5962 / bhl. title. 68927","Lacepede, B. G. E. (1802) Histoire naturelle des poissons. Vol. 4. Chez F. G. Levrault, Paris, 728 pp.","Cuvier, G. & Valenciennes, A. (1830) Histoire naturelle des poissons. Tome Cinquieme. Livre Cinquieme. Des Scienoides. Chez F. G. Levrault, Paris, 499 pp.","Girard, C. F. (1858) Notes upon various new genera and new species of fishes, in the museum of the Smithsonian Institution, and collected in connection with the United States and Mexican boundary survey: Major William Emory, Commissioner. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 10, 167 - 171.","Jordan, D. S. & Gilbert, C. H. (1883) Synopsis of the fishes of North America. Bulletin of the United States National Museum, 16, 1 - 1018. https: // doi. org / 10.5479 / si. 03629236.16. i","Jordan, D. S. & Eigenmann, C. H. (1889) A review of the Sciaenidae of America and Europe. United States Commission of Fish and Fisheries, Report of the Commissioner, 14 (3), 343 - 451.","Jordan, D. S. & Evermann, B. W. (1898) The fishes of North and Middle America: a descriptive catalogue of the species of fishlike vertebrates found in the waters of North America, north of the Isthmus of Panama. Part II. Bulletin of the United States National Museum, 47, 1241 - 2183. https: // doi. org / 10.5962 / bhl. title. 39717","Briggs, J. C. (1958) A list of Florida fishes and their distribution. Bulletin of the Florida State Museum Biological Sciences, 2 (8), 223 - 318.","Trewavas, E. (1964) The sciaenid fishes with a single mental barbel. Copeia, 1, 107 - 117. https: // doi. org / 10.2307 / 1440838","Irwin, R. J. (1971) Geographical variation systematics and general biology of shore fishes of the genus Menticirrhus, family Sciaendae. Ph. D. dissertation, Tulane University, New Orleans, Louisiana, 295 pp.","Chao, L. N. (1977) Sciaenidae. In: Fischer, W. (Ed.), Identification sheets of Central West Atlantic, fishing area 30 and 31. FAO, Rome, sheets 1 - 48.","Hoese, D. & Moore, R. H. (1977) Fishes of the Gulf of Mexico, Texas, Lousiana, and adjacent waters. Texas A & M University Press, College Station, Texas, 327 pp. https: // doi. org / 10.2307 / 1443203","Chao, L. N. (1978) A basis for classifying western Atlantic Sciaenidae (Teleostei: Perciformes). NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) Technical Report NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service) Circular, 415, 1 - 64.","Robins, C. R. & Ray, G. C. (1986) A field guide to Atlantic coast fishes of North America. The Peterson Field Guide Series, Boston, Massachusetts, 354 pp.","Boschung, H. T. (1992) Catalogue of freshwater and marine fishes of Alabama. Alabama Museum of Natural History Bulletin, 14, 1 - 266.","Murdy, E. O., Birdsong, R. S. & Musick, J. A. (1997) Fishes of Chesapeake Bay. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, 324 pp.","Castro-Aguirre, J. L., Espinosa, P. H. & Schmitter-Soto, J. J. (1999) Ictiofauna estuarino-lagunar y vicaria de Mexico. Noriega- Limusa, IPN. Mexico City, 711 pp.","Chao, L. N. (2003) Sciaenidae. In: Carpenter, K. E. (Ed.), The living marine resources of the Western Central Atlantic. Vol. 3. Bony fishes part 2. Opistognathidae to Molidae. FAO species identification guide for fishery purposes and American Society of Ichthyologist and Herpetologists Special Publication No. 5. FAO, Rome, pp. 1583 - 1653.","Nelson, J. S., Crossman, E. J., Espinosa Perez, H., Findley, L. T., Gilbert, C. R., Lea, R. N. & Williams, J. D. (2004) Common and scientific names of fishes from the United States, Canada, and Mexico. 6 th Edition. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 29. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland, 386 pp.","McEachran, J. D. & Fechhelm, J. D. (2005) F ishes of the Gulf of Mexico. Vol. 2. Scorpaeniformes to Tetraodontiformes. University of Texas Press, Austin, Texas, viii + 1004 pp.","Page, L. M., Espinosa-Perez, H., Findley, L. D., Gilbert, C. R., Lea, R. N., Mandrak, N. E., Mayden, R. L. & Nelson, J. S. (2013) Common and scientific names of fishes from the United States, Canada, and Mexico. 7 th Edition. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 34. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland, 384 pp.","Raz-Guzman, A., Huidobro, L. & Padilla, V. (2018) An updated checklist and characterisation of the ichthyofauna (Elasmobranchii and Actinopterygii) of the Laguna de Tamiahua, Veracruz, Mexico. Acta Ichthyologica et Piscatoria, 48 (4), 341 - 362. https: // doi. org / 10.3750 / AIEP / 02451","Robins, R. H., Page, L. M., Williams, J. D., Randall, Z. S. & Sheehy, E. G. (2018) Fishes in the Fresh Waters of Florida: an Identification Guide and Atlas. University of Florida Press, Gainesville, Florida, 468 pp. https: // doi. org / 10.2307 / j. ctvx 1 ht 6 s","Catesby, M. (1743) The natural history of Carolina, Florida, and the Bahama Islands; containing the figures of birds, beasts, fishes, serpents, insects, and plants: particularly the forest-trees, shrubs, and other plants, not hitherto described, or very incorrectly figured by authors: together with their descriptions in English and French, etc. 2 Vols. 3 rd Edition. Printed at the expence of the author, and sold by W. Innys and R. Manby, at the West End of St. Paul's, by Mr. Hauksbee, at the Royal Society House, and by the author, at Mr. Bacon's in Hoxton, London, 100 pp. & 20 pp.","Wheeler, A. C. (1985) The Linnaean fish collection in the Linnean Society of London. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 84, 1 - 76.","Ihering, H. V. (1897) Os peixes da costa do mar no Estado do Rio Grande do Sul. Revista do Museu Paulista, 2, 25 - 63.","Gilbert, C. H. (1900) Results of the Branner-Agassiz expedition to Brazil. 111. Fishes Proceedings Washington Academy of Sciences, 2, 161 - 183","Fowler, H. W. (1941) A collection of fresh-water fishes obtained in eastern Brazil by Dr. Rodolpho von Ihering. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 93, 123 - 199."]}

Marceniuk, Alexandre Pires, Caires, Rodrigo Antunes, Rotundo, Matheus Marcos, Cerqueira, Najila Nolie Catarine Dantas, Siccha-Ramirez, Raquel, Wosiacki, Wolmar Benjamin, Oliveira, Claudio (2020): Taxonomic revision of the Menticirrhus americanus (Linnaeus, 1758) and M littoralis (Holbrook, 1847) (Percomorphacea: Sciaenidae) species complexes from the western Atlantic. Zootaxa 4822 (3): 301-333, DOI: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4822.3.1

Menticirrhus martinicensis (Cuvier, 1830) Figure 3, Tables 3, 4 Umbrina martinicensis Cuvier in Cuvier & Valenciennes 1830: 186 (original description; type locality: Martinique Island. Syntypes: MNHN 7498 (1)).— Günther, 1860: 277 (catalog of fishes from the British Museum; Martinique; short description).— Bauchot & Desoutter 1987:20 (catalog of types of MNHN).— González Bencomo et al. 1997:159 (Ichthyofauna of San Carlos, Maracaibo Lake, Venezuela; listed). Umbrina januaria Steindachner 1876:170 (type locality: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Type material not yet found at NMW).— Jordan & Eigenmann 1899: 429 (synonymy with Menticirrhus martinicensis).— Jordan & Evermann 1896: 1474 (fishes of North America; synonymy with Menticirrhus martinicensis). Menticirrhus martinicensis.— Jordan 1887: 539 (type specimens of the species described by Cuvier & Valenciennes; two specimens from Martinique; short description).— Jordan & Eigenmann 1889: 429 (review of American Sciaenidae; West Indies to Patagonia).—Berg 1895: 56 (Argentina; listed).— Jordan & Evermann 1896: 1474 (fishes of North America; description; comparison with Menticirrhus americanus).— Ihering 1897: 40 (fishes of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil; listed).— Gilbert 1900: 172 (results of Branner-Agassiz expedition; Maceió, Brazil; listed).— Devincenzi 1924: 240 (Uruguay; listed).—Gliesch 1925: 33 (fish fauna; Torres, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil; listed).— Fowler 1941:168 (fishes of Brazil; listed).— Chiesa 1945: 73 (fishes of Buenos Aires; listed).— Buen 1950: 115 (fish fauna of Uruguay; listed); Santos 1952: 149 (marine fishes of Brazil; listed).—Pozzi & Bordale 1953: 168 (systematic summary of Argentinean fishes; listed).— Travassos & Paiva 1957: 141 (Brazilian sciaenids; identification key; listed).— Ringuelet & Aramburu 1960:66 (Argentinean fishes; list and description).— Barcellos 1962: 12 (fishes soled in Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil; listed).— Travassos & Rêgo-Barros 1971: 66 (Brazilian sciaenids; listed). Menticirrhus americanus (not of Linnaeus 1758).—Miranda Ribeiro 1915: 422 (Fauna Brasiliense; description; synonymy).— Carvalho 1941:65-66 (fish fauna; São Paulo, Brazil; listed).— Carvalho & Ramos 1941: 24 (fish fauna of Rio Ribeira de Iguape, Brazil; listed).— Vasconcelos 1945:115 (Brazilian sciaenids; listed).— Fowler,1951: 26 (fish collected during Wilkes Expedition; Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; listed).— Travassos & Paiva 1957: 141 (Brazilian sciaenids; identification key; listed).— Franco 1959: 59 (diet of Brazilian fishes; listed).— Nomura & Menezes, 1964: 369 (marine fishes; listed).—Iheing 1968: 502 (Dictionary of Animals; listed).— Menezes 1969: 55 (expeditions to Torres and Chuí, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil; listed).— Vazzoler 1969: 14 (fish fauna of Santos, São Paulo, Brazil; listed).— Irwin 1971: 69-74 (in part; unpublished thesis on Menticirrhus).— Travassos & Rêgo-Barros 1971: 66 (Brazilian sciaenids; listed).— Vazzoler & Motonaga 1971: 56 (exploratory fishing; Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil; listed).— Jardim 1973: 20-21 (Brazilian sciaenids; listed).— Benvegnú 1973: 496 (Brazil).— Benvegnú-Lé, 1978: 49 (fish fauna of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil; listed).— Chao 1977: 29 (in part; FAO fact sheets; description).— Chao 1978: 31 (in part; basis for classifying western Atlantic sciaenids; description).— Menezes & Figueiredo 1980: 44 (in part; guide of the fishes from southeastern Brazilian coast; short description).— Gomes et al. 1983: 187-191 (Cananeia, São Paulo, Brazil; karyotype).—Uyeno & Sato in Uyeno et al. 1983: 366 (fishes trawled off Suriname and French Guyana; short description, image).—Casatti & Menezes in Menezes et al. 2003: 87 (in part; catalog of marine fishes of Brazil; listed). Doubtful references to this species Umbrina arenata Cuvier in Cuvier & Valenciennes 1830: 190 (type locality: Brazil. Syntypes: Syntypes: MNHN 7472 (1, dry), 7500 (1)).— Jordan & Eigenmann 1899: 429 (synonymy with Menticirrhus martinicensis).— Jordan & Evermann, 1896: 1474 (fishes of North America; synonymy with Menticirrhus martinicensis).— Bauchot & Desoutter 1987:20 (catalog of types of MNHN). Material examined. Holotype: MNHN 7498, Martinique Island, West Indies. Non-type specimens: USNM 300466 (3, 152– 174 mm SL), 2.5 miles east of Dangriga, Belize; USNM 389992 (1), Bocas del Toro, Laguna de Chiriqui, Panama; MPEG 35218 (1, 254 mm SL), 01° 03’ N 47° 49’ W, Amapá, Brazil; MPEG 35090 (1, 301 mm SL), 01° 13’ N 48° 06’ W, Amapá, Brazil; MPEG 35100 (1, 269 mm SL), 01° 15’ N 48° 00’ W, Amapá, Brazil; MPEG 35206 (1, 258 mm SL), 01° 31’ N 48° 03’ W, Amapá, Brazil; AZUSC 5499 (1, 270 mm SL), continental shelf, Amapá, Brazil; AZUSC 5302 (2, 167– 305 mm SL), continental shelf, Pará, Brazil; MPEG 35093 (2, 232– 249 mm SL), 00° 59’ N 47° 49’ W, Pará, Brazil; MPEG 35241 (4, 123– 132 mm SL), Ajuruteua, Bragança, Pará, Brazil; MPEG 34419 (1, 276 mm SL), Ajuruteua, Bragança, Pará, Brazil; MPEG 34513 (1, 232 mm SL), Bragança, Pará, Brazil; MPEG 34527 (3, 284– 287 mm SL), Bragança, Pará, Brazil; MPEG 32957 (1, 175 mm SL), Furo da Ostra, Bragança, Pará, Brazil; MPEG 34649 (8), Canárias, Piauí, Brazil; LBP 20079 (2, 175– 176 mm SL), Fortaleza, Ceará, Brazil; LBP 20084 (4, 152– 175 mm SL), Fortaleza, Ceará, Brazil; MPEG 34285 (3, 126– 259 mm SL), Barra de Santo Antônio, Alagoas, Brazil; MPEG 34245 (1, 199 mm SL), Paripueira, Alagoas, Brazil; MPEG 34339 (1, 203 mm SL), Praia de Jatiúca, Maceió, Alagoas, Brazil; MPEG 34352 (2, 132- 167 mm SL), Jaraguá, Maceió, Alagoas, Brazil; MPEG 34362 (4, 119– 141 mm SL), Jaraguá, Maceió, Alagoas, Brazil; MPEG 34398 (2, 124 mm SL), Jaraguá, Maceió, Alagoas, Brazil; AZUSC 5934 (10, 129– 165 mm SL), mouth of the Rio Sergipe, Aracajú, Sergipe, Brazil; MZUSP 7956 (1, 204 mm SL), Aracajú, Sergipe, Brazil; LBP 22929 (3, 149– 193 mm SL), Porto Seguro, Bahia, Brazil; MZUSP 82215 (4, 118– 210 mm SL), Bahia, Brazil; MZUSP 61326 (1, 111 mm SL), Rio Caravelas, Caravelas, Bahia, Brazil; LBP 24080 (1, 169 mm SL), Guarapari, Espírito Santo, Brazil; AZUSC 4549 (8, 172– 214 mm SL), Vitória, Espirito Santo; LBP 10544 (3, 132– 146 mm SL), Macaé, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; LBP 21416 (2, 154– 204 mm SL), Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; MZUSP 7958 (1, 189 mm SL), Ubatuba, São Paulo, Brazil; AZUSC 421 (1, 189 mm SL), Bertioga, São Paulo, Brazil; LBP 10073 (1, 145 mm SL), Bertioga Channel, Bertioga, São Paulo, Brazil; MZUSP 47525 (1, 118 mm SL), Guarujá, São Paulo, Brazil; MZUSP 69620 (3, 156– 189 mm SL), Cananeia, São Paulo, Brazil; LBP 20752 (1, 170 mm SL), Peruibe, São Paulo, Brazil; AZUSC 1150 (4, 176– 276 mm SL), Florianópolis, Santa Catarina, Brazil; MZUSP 69617 (1, 140 mm SL), 31°15’S 50°07’ W, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil; MZUSP 69671 (1, 102 mm SL), 31°45’S 49°58’ W, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil; MZUSP 69674 (4, 136– 154 mm SL), 32°06’S 51°49’ W, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil; MZUSP 69796 (3, 170– 184 mm SL), 19°08’S 39°58’ W, Espírito Santo, Brazil; MZUSP 69799 (1, 127 mm SL), 28°07’S 48°09’ W, Santa Catarina, Brazil. Diagnosis. Menticirrhus martinicensis, which is found in the Caribbean and Atlantic South America, can be differentiated from its congeners in the Western Atlantic as follows: from M. cuiaranensis, which is found on the northern, northeast and eastern coasts of Brazil, by 19–24, rarely 19, pectoral-fin rays (vs. 16–19, Table 3), pectoralfin tip surpassing tip of depressed pelvic fin (vs. barely reaching tip of pelvic fin, Fig. 5), body with irregular dark bars (vs. without dark bars, Fig. 5); from M. gracilis, which is found on the southern and southeastern coasts of Brazil, by having 22–25 dorsal-fin rays (vs. 18–21, Table 3), body with irregular dark bars (vs. without dark bars, Fig. 5); from M. littoralis, which is found in the United States and the Gulf of Mexico, by a dusky caudal fin, without a distinctive dark spot on the dorsal lobe (vs. pale caudal fin, with a dark spot on the upper lobe, Fig. 5), pectoral-fin tip surpassing tip of depressed pelvic fin (vs. barely reaching tip of pelvic fin, Fig. 5), body with irregular dark bars (vs. without dark bars, Fig. 5), and from M. saxatilis, ranging from the United States to the Gulf of Mexico, by body with eight or nine diffused bars, with the second and third bars forming a faint V-shape below the nape and spinous dorsal fin (vs. body with seven or eight distinct oblique bars, second and third bars forming a V-shape below the spinous dorsal fin, and a longitudinal stripe below the lateral line, extending to the tip of the caudal fin, Fig. 5), spinous dorsal-fin lower, not reaching to base of the second soft ray (vs. spinous dorsal fin high, its tip reaching beyond the base of the fourth soft dorsal-fin ray). This species is virtually identical, morphologically, to M. americanus, which occurs from the western Atlantic, United States and Gulf of Mexico, except that many of the M. americanus specimens have a small hump in the dorsal profile (Fig. 1), behind head, whereas the dorsal profile of M. martinicensis is always steep and gently convex in this area (Fig. 5). These taxa were also differentiated conclusively by the molecular evidence (see Molecular Diagnosis). Menticirrhus martinicensis can also be distinguished from its congeners in the eastern Pacific as follows: from M. elongatus, which occurs from the Gulf of California to Peru, by body with irregular dark bars (vs. without dark bars, Fig. 5); from M. nasus, which occurs from the Gulf of California to Peru, by having scales present along base of soft dorsal fin (vs. soft dorsal fin naked), body with irregular dark bars (vs. without dark bars, Fig. 5); from M. ophicephalus, ranging from Ecuador to Chile, by 47–58 scales with pores along lateral line to caudal-fin base (vs. 63–66), pectoral-fin tip surpassing tip of depressed pelvic fin (vs. barely reaching tip of pelvic fin, Fig. 5), Sshaped posterior margin of the caudal fin (vs. concave), scales present along base of soft dorsal fin (vs. soft dorsal fin naked), body with irregular dark bars (vs. without dark bars, Fig. 5); from M. paitensis, ranging from the Gulf of California to Chile, by having 47–58 scales with pores along lateral line to caudal-fin base (vs. 76–98), scales present along base of soft dorsal fin (vs. soft dorsal fin naked), body with irregular dark bars (vs. without dark bars, Fig. 5); from M. panamensis, ranging from the Gulf of California to Chile, by having 23–25, rarely 22, dorsal-fin rays (vs. 18–22, Table 3), scales present along base of soft dorsal fin (vs. soft dorsal fin naked), body with irregular dark bars (vs. without dark bars, Fig. 5); from M. undulatus, which is found in California, United States, by having 20–24, rarely 19, pectoral-fin rays (vs. 17–19, Table 3), scales present along base of soft dorsal fin (vs. soft dorsal fin naked), pectoral-fin tip surpassing tip of depressed pelvic fin (vs. barely reaching tip of pelvic fin, Fig. 5). Description: D. IX-XII+22–25; A. I+6–8; P. 19–23; C. 17; GR. 7–15; LL. 48–56; SA. 7–11; SB. 12–18 (Tables 3, 4). Body slender in lateral view, not compressed, ventral profile flat; maximum depth at first dorsal fin origin. Dorsal profile convex at snout, nearly straight, ascending over eye-level, slightly convex to occipital region, convex to first dorsal fin, slightly convex from first dorsal-fin base to second dorsal fin, straight, descending to second dorsal-fin base, concave on caudal peduncle. Ventral profile nearly horizontal from mouth to gular region, convex to pelvic-fin origin, concave from pelvic fin base to vent, ascending, slightly concave at anal-fin base, nearly straight on caudal peduncle. Head moderately large, deep, stocky. Snout moderately long, very deep, with blunt tip. Mouth subterminal, upper jaw slender, rear tip on vertical line slightly behind vertical line passing through middle of eye. Teeth conical. Eye nearly 1.5 times snout, slightly oval, almost adjoining dorsal profile. Interorbital space smaller than orbital diameter, slightly convex, covered with ctenoid scales. Nostrils small, close together, anterior oval, posterior larger, slit-like, below horizontal line through border of ventral pupil. Lateral sensory canal on head visible in infraorbital, dentary, and preopercle; lower jaw with four pores, two on each side encircling mental barbel; mental barbel short, rigid, with blunt tip and no pore. Lateral line quite arched to second dorsal-fin origin, straight elsewhere to caudal-fin tip. Preopercle margin rough to serrated, with about 8 spines. Opercle tip blunt, not very evident, on vertical line that passes through pectoral-fin base. Gill rakers short, two or three in upper limb rudimentary. Scales present on trunk, belly, pectoral-fin base, opercle, preopercle, infraorbital to middle of eye (naked elsewhere), and interorbital region to snout; opercle with about eight vertical rows of scales. First dorsal fin without scales, membranes of second dorsal fin and anal fin with one or two series of 5–7 small cycloid scales. Pectoral fin unscaled in smaller specimens, with cycloid scales on basal fourth in larger ones. Caudal-fin base covered with large cycloid scales to one third its length. Spinous dorsal fin short, first spine shortest, second and third spines longest; notch between first and second dorsal fin. Origin of second dorsal fin behind vertical line through pectoral-fin tip, second dorsal soft rays much shorter than longest first dorsal spines. Anal-fin origin on vertical line passing through sixth-seventh ray of second dorsal fin; first spine very slender. Pectoral fin large, wide, reaching vertical line passing through last first dorsal spine and pelvic-fin tip. Pelvic fin origin slightly behind pectoral-fin base, shorter than pectoral fin. Caudal peduncle moderately long, deep, depth larger than orbital diameter. Caudal fin short, emarginated, rays on upper lobe longer than those on lower lobe. Color in alcohol. Background color light brown, darker on head, flanks sometimes with subtle dark brown blotches. Most fins dark brown, longest dorsal spines with black tips; second dorsal fin yellow, lighter along base; pectoral fin with extensive dark hue on lowest rays; pelvic fin yellow, with dense dark hue along pelvic spine. Caudal fin lighter to tip (Fig. 3B). Color of fresh material. Head dark brown, flanks gray with dark brown blotches dorsally, typically forming irregular oblique streaks. First dorsal fin dusky, second dorsal fin gray with two dark areas along base; anal fin dark, pectoral fin black, caudal fin rusty gray, with dark central area, more so at the tip of median rays (Fig. 3B). Distribution and habitat. Western Atlantic from the Caribbean region (Martinique and the West Indies) to Argentina (Fig. 4). Commonly found in coastal waters at depths of up to 60 meters, over muddy or sandy bottoms. Fishing. Targeted by artisanal fisheries and taken as bycatch in otter trawls and by other industrial fisheries. Remarks. Cuvier (Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1830) described Umbrina martinicensis based on a single specimen (MNHN 7498, Fig. 5A), collected from Martinique Island, in the West Indies. In their identification key for Brazilian sciaenids, Travassos & Paiva (1957) considered both Menticirrhus americanus and M. martinicensis to be valid species, contradicting the position of most contemporary authors, but supported their arrangement by showing that the two species can be differentiated by a number of features, such as the second dorsal-fin counts (24–25 rays in M. americanus vs. 22–23 in M. martinicensis), the shape of the mental barbel (the tip is rounded in M. americanus and pointed in M. martinicensis), and orbital diameter (greater in M. americanus). Travassos & Rêgo-Barros 1971, probably based on Travassos’ earlier work (and probably also unaware of Irwin’s work), upheld the validity of the two taxa, but assumed that they occur in practically the same geographic area (M. americanus from Chesapeake Bay to Patagonia and M. martinicensis from the West Indies to Patagonia). Many of the differences identified by Travassos & Paiva (1957) were not recovered in the present study. The meristic data on M. americanus and M. martinicensis broadly overlap, and the orbital diameter also varies with size. Umbrina arenata, which was also described by Cuvier (1830), was proposed based on specimens brought by Delalande from Brazil (Fig. 8A). Although meristic data give in the original description for this taxon are consistent with those of M. cuiaranensis in some features, such as the pectoral (18 rays) and second dorsal-fin counts (23–24 rays, based on Cuvier’s original description), the coloration is more similar to that observed in M. americanus and M. martinicensis, with six oblique dark bands dorsally, and the length of the pectoral fin, which extends beyond a vertical line passing through the tip of the pelvic fin. Jenyns (1842) provided further information on the specimens collected by Charles Darwin in Bahia Blanca and Maldonado (Argentina), which he identified as U. arenata. However, these specimens have more pectoral-fin rays (21) than described in Cuvier’s original description. Günther (1860) also presented data he attributed to U. arenata, based on two specimens he obtained from the Gulf of Mexico and Jamaica, which had 22–25 rays in the second dorsal fin, and 73–78 scales in the lateral line. This species was later synonymyzed with Menticirrhus martinicensis by Jordan & Eigenmann (1889), without details, and this decision was subsequently substantiated in Jordan & Evermann (1898). The authors concluded that the values provided by Günther on the number of scales in the lateral line were probably wrong, and concluded “We see no reason, therefore, for not placing arenata in the synonymy of martinicensis.” We also examined images of two syntypes of U. arenata: MNHN 7472 (Fig. 8B), which is a poorly-preserved stuffed specime, Published as part of Marceniuk, Alexandre Pires, Caires, Rodrigo Antunes, Rotundo, Matheus Marcos, Cerqueira, Najila Nolie Catarine Dantas, Siccha-Ramirez, Raquel, Wosiacki, Wolmar Benjamin & Oliveira, Claudio, 2020, Taxonomic revision of the Menticirrhus americanus (Linnaeus, 1758) and M littoralis (Holbrook, 1847) (Percomorphacea: Sciaenidae) species complexes from the western Atlantic, pp. 301-333 in Zootaxa 4822 (3) on pages 321-325, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4822.3.1, http://zenodo.org/record/4401566, {"references":["Cuvier, G. & Valenciennes, A. (1830) Histoire naturelle des poissons. Tome Cinquieme. Livre Cinquieme. Des Scienoides. Chez F. G. Levrault, Paris, 499 pp.","Gunther, A. (1860) Catalogue of the fishes in the British Museum. Catalogue of the acanthopterygian fishes in the collection of the British Museum. Squamipinnes, Cirrhitidae, Triglidae, Trachinidae, Sciaenidae, Polynemidae, Sphyraenidae, Trichiuridae, Scombridae, Carangidae, Xiphiidae. Vol. 2. British Museum, London, xxi + 548 pp.","Bauchot, M. L. & Desoutter, M. (1987) Catalogue critique des types de poissons du Museum national d'Histoire naturelle. (Suite) (Famille des Sciaenidae). Bulletin du Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle, 9 (3), 1 - 43.","Gonzalez Bencomo, E. J., Borjas, J. A. & Castillo, E. C. (1997) Ictiofauna del sector San Carlos del Lago de Maracaibo, Venezuela. Boletin del Centro de Investigaciones Biologicas / Universidad del Zulia, 31 (2), 151 - 179.","Steindachner, F. (1876) Ichthyologische Beitrage (IV) [With subtitles i-iv.]. Sitzungsberichte der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Classe, 72 (1), 551 - 616.","Jordan, D. S. (1887) Notes on typical specimens of fishes described by Cuvier and Valenciennes and preserved in the Musee d'Histoire Naturelle in Paris. Proceedings of the United States National Museum, 9 (593), 525 - 546. https: // doi. org / 10.5479 / si. 00963801.9 - 593.525","Jordan, D. S. & Eigenmann, C. H. (1889) A review of the Sciaenidae of America and Europe. United States Commission of Fish and Fisheries, Report of the Commissioner, 14 (3), 343 - 451.","Ihering, H. V. (1897) Os peixes da costa do mar no Estado do Rio Grande do Sul. Revista do Museu Paulista, 2, 25 - 63.","Gilbert, C. H. (1900) Results of the Branner-Agassiz expedition to Brazil. 111. Fishes Proceedings Washington Academy of Sciences, 2, 161 - 183","Devincenzi, G. J. (1924) Peces dei Uruguay. Anales del Museo Nacional de Montevideo, 11 (5), 139 - 283.","Fowler, H. W. (1941) A collection of fresh-water fishes obtained in eastern Brazil by Dr. Rodolpho von Ihering. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 93, 123 - 199.","Chiesa, J. A. L. (1945) Peces. Talleres Graficos Ferrari & Saccone, Buenos Aires, 308 pp.","Buen, F. (1950) EI mar de Solis y su fauna de peces dei Uruguay (2 a pt.). Publicaciones Cientificas, Servicio Oceanografico y de Pesca, Ministerio de Industrias y Trabajo, Montevideo, 1950, 46 - 144.","Santos, E. (1952) Nossos Peixes Marinhos. F. Briguiet & Cia, Rio de Janeiro, 267 pp.","Travassos, H. & Paiva, M. P. (1957) Lista dos Sciaenidae marinhos brasileiros contendo chave de identificacao e proposta de \" nomes vulgares oficiais \". Boletim Instituto Oceanografico, 8 (1 / 2), 139 - 165. https: // doi. org / 10.1590 / S 0373 - 55241957000100004","Ringuelet, R. & Aramburu, R. (1960) Peces marinos de la Republica Argentina. Agro Publicaciones Tecnica. No. 5. AGRO, Buenos Aires, 141 pp.","Barcellos, B. N. (1962) Classificacao economica dos peixes do Rio Grande do Sul. Boletim do Instituto de Ciencias Naturais, 14, 5 - 16.","Travassos, H. & Rego-Barros, R. (1971) Lista das especies brasileiras da familia Sciaenidae OWEN, 1846 (Perciformes, Percoidei). Arquivos de Ciencia do Mar, 11 (2), 59 - 71.","Linnaeus, C. (1758) Systema naturae per regna tria naturae, secundum classes, ordines, genera, species, cum characteribus, differentiis, synonymis, locis. Tomus I. Editio Eecima, reformata. Impensis Direct. Laurentii Salvii, Holmiae, 824 pp. https: // doi. org / 10.5962 / bhl. title. 542","Carvalho, J. P. C. & Ramos, F. A. (1941) Contribuicao para o conhecimento da fauna do rio Ribeira de Iguape. Boletim de Industria Animal, 4 (2), 16 - 35.","Vasconcelos, A. (1945) Nossos peixes, part III. Os Cienideos. Boletim da Secretaria de Agricultura, Industria e Comercio do Estado de Pernambuco, 12 (2), 113 - 118.","Fowler, H. (1951) The Brazilian and Patagonian fishes of the Wilkes expedition. Boletim do Instituto Oceanografico, 2 (1), 3 - 39. https: // doi. org / 10.1590 / S 0100 - 42391951000100001","Franco, G. T. (1959) Nota preliminar sobrea alimentacao de alguns peixes comerciais brasileiros. Anais Academia Brasileira de Ciencias, 31 (4), 589 - 593.","Nomura, H. & Menezes, N. (1964) Peixes marinhos. In: Historia Natural de Organismos aquaticos do Brasil. FAPESP, Sao Paulo, pp. 1 - 452.","Menezes, N. (1969) Primeira pesquisa oceanografica sistematica do Atlantico Sul entre Torres e Chui. Boletim do Instituto Oceanografico, 1, 60.","Vazzoler, A. E. M. (1969) Ictiofauna de la bahia de Santos. I. Sciaenidae (Percoidea, Percomorphi). Carpas Documentos Tecnicos, 15, 1 - 13 https: // doi. org / 10.1590 / S 0373 - 55241969000100002","Irwin, R. J. (1971) Geographical variation systematics and general biology of shore fishes of the genus Menticirrhus, family Sciaendae. Ph. D. dissertation, Tulane University, New Orleans, Louisiana, 295 pp.","Vazzoler, G. & Motonaga, I. (1971) Relatorio sobre prospeccao e pesca exploratoria na plataforma continental do Rio Grande do Sul. Contracoes Instituto Oceanografico, 25, 1 - 79. https: // doi. org / 10.1111 / j. 1096 - 3642.1985. tb 01716. x","Jardim, L. F. A. (1973) Sienideos marinhos da costa do Brasil sul (Acanthopterygii-Perciformes-Sciaenidae). Comunicacoes do Museu de Ciencias da PUCRGS, Serie Zoologia, 3, 1 - 64.","Benvegnu, G. Q. (1973) Relacao dos peixes teleosteos. In: Relatorio sobre a segunda pesquisa oceanografica e pesqueira do Atlantico Sul entre Torres e Maldonado. Publicacao Especial do Instituto Oceanografico, 3 (1), pp. 489 - 500.","Benvegnu-Le, G. Q. (1978) Distribuicao dos peixes teleosteos marinhos demersais na plataforma continental do Rio Grande do Sul. Tese de doutorado, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, 94 pp.","Chao, L. N. (1977) Sciaenidae. In: Fischer, W. (Ed.), Identification sheets of Central West Atlantic, fishing area 30 and 31. FAO, Rome, sheets 1 - 48.","Chao, L. N. (1978) A basis for classifying western Atlantic Sciaenidae (Teleostei: Perciformes). NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) Technical Report NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service) Circular, 415, 1 - 64.","Menezes, N. A. & Figueiredo, J. L. (1980) Manual de peixes marinhos do Sudeste do Brasil. IV. Teleostei (3). Museu de Zoologia da USP, Sao Paulo, 96 pp.","Gomes, V., Vazzoler, A. E. A. de M. & Phan, van N. (1983) Estudos cariotipicos de peixes da familia Sciaenidae (Teleostei, Perciformes) da regiao de Cananeia, SP, Brasil: 2. Sobre o cariotipo de Menticirrhus americanus (Linnaeus, 1758). Boletim dos Instituto Oceanografico, 32 (2), 187 - 191. https: // doi. org / 10.1590 / S 0373 - 55241983000200009","Uyeno, T., Matsuura, K. & Fujii, E. (1983) Fishes trawled off Suriname and French Guiana. Japan Marine Fishery Resource Research Center, Tokyo, 519 pp.","Jordan, D. S. & Evermann, B. W. (1898) The fishes of North and Middle America: a descriptive catalogue of the species of fishlike vertebrates found in the waters of North America, north of the Isthmus of Panama. Part II. Bulletin of the United States National Museum, 47, 1241 - 2183. https: // doi. org / 10.5962 / bhl. title. 39717"]}

Menticirrhus gracilis (Cuvier, 1830) Figure 6, Tables 3, 4 Umbrina gracilis Cuvier in Cuvier & Valenciennes 1830: 189 (Brazil. Lectotype drawn by Chao, 1978: MNHN 44; paralectotype: MNHN 9622).— Günther 1860: 277 (catalog of fishes of the British Museum; short description).— Bauchot & Desoutter 1987:19 (type catalog) Menticirrhus martinicensis (not of Cuvier 1830).— Jordan 1887: 539 (type specimens of the species described by Cuvier & Valenciennes; synonymy).— Jordan & Eigenmann 1899: 429 (review of the American sciaenids; synonymy).— Jordan & Evermann 1896: 1474 (fishes of North America; description; synonymy) Menticirrhus americanus (not of Linnaeus, 1758).—Miranda Ribeiro 1915: 422 (Fauna Brasiliense; description, synonymy).— Carvalho 1941: 65-66 (in part; fauna of São Paulo; listed).— Vasconcelos 1945:115 (in part; account of the sciaenids from Brazil; listed).— Fowler 1951: 26 (Brazil, Rio de Janeiro; listed).— Travassos & Paiva 1957: 142 (Brazilian sciaenids; identification key; listed).— Benvegnú-Lé 1978: 49 (fish fauna of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil; listed).— Chao 1977: 29 (in part; FAO fact sheets; description).— Chao 1978: 31 (in part; basis for classifying western Atlantic sciaenids; description).— Menezes & Figueiredo 1980: 44 (in part; guide to the fishes from southeastern Brazilian coast; short description).— Jardim 1988: 182 (in part; synopsis of Menticirrhus).—Casatti & Menezes in Menezes et al. 2003: 87 (in part; catalog of the marine fishes of Brazil; listed). Menticirrhus littoralis (not of Holbrook, 1847).— Menezes & Figueiredo 1980: 45 (in part; guide to the fishes from the southeastern Brazilian coast; short description).— Cassano & Levy 1990: 87-91 (biochemistry; Rio Grande do Sul; Brazil; as Menticirrhus littoralis). Doubtful reference to this species Menticirrhus littoralis (not of Holbrook 1847).— Nión et al. 2016: 49 (fishes of Uruguay, common names; listed). Material Examined. Lectotype: MNHN 44 (1), Brazil. Paralectotypes: MNHN 9622 (1), Brazil. Non-type specimens: MZUSP 69842 (1, 186 mm SL), Ubatuba, São Paulo, Brazil; MZUSP 121488 (1, 166 mm SL), Praia do Puruba, Ubatuba, São Paulo, Brazil; MZUSP 69832 (4, 86.6–104.4 mm SL), Ubatuba, São Paulo, Brazil; AZUSC 723 (3, 161– 222 mm SL), Bertioga, São Paulo, Brazil; AZUSC 1400 (1, 157 mm SL), Ilha do Arvoredo, Guarujá, São Paulo, Brazil; MZUSP 69834 (1, 136 mm SL), Guarujá, São Paulo, Brazil; MZUSP 69975 (1, 118 mm SL), Santos, São Paulo, Brazil; AZUSC 3171 (1, 153 mm SL), Forte de Itaipú, Praia Grande, São Paulo, Brazil; AZUSC 2587 (1, 140 mm SL), Cibratel, Itanhaém, São Paulo, Brazil; AZUSC 866 (2, 245- 300 mm SL), Praia dos Pescadores, Itahaém, São Paulo, Brazil; AZUSC 989 (2, 224- 228 mm SL), Praia dos Pescadores, Itahaém, São Paulo, Brazil; AZUSC 5716 (31, 64- 114 mm SL), Peruibe, São Paulo; MZUSP 69835 (3, 109- 122 mm SL), Tramandaí, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil; MZUSP 7961 (1, 82 mm SL), 29°09’S 50°13’W, Tramandaí, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil; MZUSP 70175 (1, 355 mm SL), 32°09’S 52°50’W, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil; MZUSP 70176 (1, 338 mm SL), 31°45’S 51°08’W, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil; MZUSP 7959 (1, 101 mm SL), Praia do Cassino, Rio Grande, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. Diagnosis. Menticirrhus gracilis, found on the southeastern and southern coasts of Brazil, can be differentiated from all its other western Atlantic congeners by having 18–21 dorsal-fin rays (vs. 22–27, rarely 21, Table 3). The species can further be differentiated from M. americanus, found in the United States and the Gulf of Mexico, by pectoral-fin tip barely reaching tip of depressed pelvic fin (vs. surpassing tip of pelvic fin, Fig. 6), body without dark bars (vs. with irregular dark bars, Fig. 6); from M. martinicensis, found in the Caribbean and South America, by pectoral-fin tip barely reaching tip of depressed pelvic fin (vs. surpassing tip of pelvic fin, Fig. 6), body without dark bars (vs. with irregular dark bars, Fig. 6); from M. littoralis, found in the United States and the Gulf of Mexico, by the pale caudal fin, without a distinctive dark spot on the dorsal lobe (vs. with a dark spot on upper lobe, Fig. 6), and from M. saxatilis, found in the United States and the Gulf of Mexico, by pectoral-fin tip barely reaching tip of depressed pelvic fin (vs. surpassing tip of pelvic fin, Fig. 6), body without dark bars (vs. with irregular dark bars, Fig. 6). Menticirrhus gracilis can also be distinguished from its congeners in the eastern Pacific as follows: from M. elongatus, ranging from the Gulf of California to Peru, by having 18–21 dorsal-fin rays (vs. 22–24, Table 3), pectoral-fin tip barely reaching tip of depressed pelvic fin (vs. surpassing tip of pelvic fin, Fig. 6); from M. nasus, ranging from the Gulf of California to Peru, by having six or seven anal-fin rays (vs. eight), scales present along base of soft dorsal fin (vs. soft dorsal fin naked), pectoral-fin tip barely reaching tip of depressed pelvic fin (vs. surpassing tip of pelvic fin, Fig. 6); from M. ophicephalus, which occurs from Ecuador to Chile, by having 48–54 scales with pores along lateral line to caudal-fin base (vs. 63–66), six or seven anal-fin rays (vs. nine), S-shaped posterior margin of the caudal fin (vs. concave), scales present along base of soft dorsal fin (vs. soft dorsal fin naked); from M. paitensis, ranging from the Gulf of California to Peru, by 48–54 scales with pores along lateral line to caudal-fin base (vs. 76–98), 18–21 dorsal-fin rays (vs. 22–25, Table 3), 16–20 pectoral-fin rays (vs. 21–23, Table 3); scales present along base of soft dorsal fin (vs. soft dorsal fin naked), pectoral-fin tip barely reaching tip of depressed pelvic fin (vs. surpassing tip of pelvic fin, Fig. 6); from M. panamensis, ranging from the Gulf of California to Chile, by six or seven anal-fin rays (vs. eight or nine), scales present along base of soft dorsal fin (vs. soft dorsal fin naked), pectoral-fin tip barely reaching tip of depressed pelvic fin (vs. surpassing tip of pelvic fin, Fig. 6); from M. undulatus, found in California, United States, by 18–21 dorsal-fin rays (vs. 23–27, Table 3), and six or seven anal-fin rays (vs. eight or nine); scales present along base of soft dorsal fin (vs. soft dorsal fin naked). Description: D. IX-XII+18–21; A. I+6-8; P. 16–19; C. 17; GR. 10–15; LL. 48–55; SA. 6–11; SB. 12–19 (Tables 3, 4). Body slender in lateral view, not compressed, ventral profile flat; maximum depth at first dorsal-fin origin. Dorsal profile convex, ascending, from snout to first dorsal fin, sometimes with small concavity near snout tip, nearly horizontal along first dorsal-fin base, straight, slightly descending along second dorsal-fin base, concave on caudal peduncle. Ventral profile convex, descending at snout, slightly concave on head to pelvic fin base, nearly horizontal from pelvic fin to anal-fin origin, ascending, nearly concave, along anal-fin base to caudal-fin base. Snout long, deep, with blunt to pug nose tip, triangular in lateral view. Mouth subterminal, upper jaw slender, rear tip on vertical passing through middle of eye. Premaxilla with 4–6 rows of acicular teeth, external most slightly larger, 4–7 tooth rows on dentary. Eye slightly oval, nearly two times snout length, not adjoining dorsal profile. Interorbital space smaller than orbital diameter, slightly convex, covered with ctenoid scales. Nostrils small, anterior nostril one nearly round, posterior larger, oval, nearly on horizontal line through ventral pupil border. Head with five sensory pores on snout, in a semicircle around mouth angle, followed by larger central pore, lower jaw with four pores, two on each side encircling mental barbel, pores otherwise absent; mental barbel short, rigid, with blunt tip without pore. Lateral line slightly arched to second dorsal-fin origin, then descending straight to caudal peduncle, nearly horizontal elsewhere to caudal-fin tip. Preopercle margin rough, with about 10 subtle spines. Opercle tip fleshy, blunt, well behind vertical line that passes through pectoral-fin base. Gill rakers short, two or three in upper limb rudimentary. Ctenoid scales on trunk, belly, pectoral-fin base, opercle, preopercle, infraorbital, and interorbital region to snout, cycloid scales in gular area and encircling nostrils. Dorsal fin without evident scales in interradial membranes, second dorsal fin with basal sheath of two scales; pectoral-fin base covered by small ctenoid scales, rows of cycloid scales present along pectoral-fin rays (outer third and tip naked); caudal-fin base covered with large ctenoid scales, rows of cycloid scales along rays (tips naked). Spinous dorsal fin short, first spine shortest, second and third spines longest; second dorsal fin adjoining first one. Origin of second dorsal fin well behind vertical line through pectoralfin tip, second dorsal soft rays much shorter than longest first dorsal spines. Anal-fin origin in vertical line passing through sixth-seventh ray of second dorsal fin; first spine very slender. Pectoral fin falcate, not reaching vertical line passing through last spine of first dorsal fin and pelvic-fin tip. Pelvic-fin origin behind pectoral-fin base, as long as pectoral fin. Caudal peduncle short, deep, depth greater than orbital diameter. Caudal fin short, emarginated, lower lobe slightly longer and much stouter than upper lobe. Color in alcohol. Type material with straw-beige pigmentation, mostly faded due to the age of the specimens. Other specimens examined: upper half light brown, lower creamy white, sometimes with a silvery hue. Yellow hue may be present below eye, in operculum, pelvic and caudal fins. Dorsal and anal fins straw-beige to light brown, darkening slightly along the rays; pectoral fin light brown, somewhat darker in the upper rays, but not forming a dark hue. Caudal-fin rays dusky, slightly darker at the base (Fig. 6B). Color of fresh material. Silver gray dorsally to flanks, whitish ventrally; silvery hue below eye; first dorsal fin dusky, longest spines dark-tipped; second dorsal fin dusky at base, beige elsewhere; anal fin beige; ventral fin beige with black line along spine; pectoral fin dusky, darkened in upper 3–4 rays; caudal fin dusky, darker along upper and lower caudal lobes (Fig. 6C). Distribution and habitat. Western South Atlantic along the southern and southeastern coasts of Brazilian, from Rio de Janeiro to Rio Grande do Sul (Fig. 4). Fishing. Targeted by recreational fishermen. Remarks. Cuvier described Umbrina gracilis based on specimens collected in Brazil by Auguste de Saint-Hilaire and his colleagues from the Freycinet Expedition.As Freycinet was engaged in a circumnavigation the globe, it seems reasonable to assume that Saint-Hillaire met Freycinet’s naturalists in Rio de Janeiro, where Saint-Hillaire set out on his expeditions, and that Rio de Janeiro is the type locality of U. gracilis. Cuvier confirmed that the specimen he used to describe U. gracilis had 20 dorsal-fin rays and 18 pectoral-fin rays. Günther (1860) also included this species in his catalog of fishes of the British Museum and reported that it has 75 scales on lateral line and a uniform color. Günther’s counts of the lateral scales need to be treated with caution, however, given that he may have confused lateral line counts with those of the oblique series of scales found above the lateral line. Similar discrepancies were detected by Jordan & Evermann (1898) in their account of U. martinicensis. Umbrina gracilis was synonymized with Menticirrhus martinicensis by Jordan & Eigenmann (1899), although once again, with no explicit justification for their decision, although Jordan & Evermann (1898) confirmed that the description of this nominal species was based on “the dried skin of a young specimen, distorted and varnished”. This convinced all subsequent authors to doubt the validity of the species. In his unpublished thesis on the taxonomy of Menticirrhus, Irwin (1971, Fig. 58) upheld the synonymy of U. gracilis with M. americanus, following previous authors, such as Miranda Ribeiro (1915) and Fowler (1951), although he noted the existence of considerable variation in the counts of the soft dorsal fin between populations from the western North Atlantic and western South Atlantic. Irwin did not conclude this analysis, however, because that he was unable to examine an adequate sample of the material from the western South Atlantic. In his extensive review of the classification of sciaenids of the western Atlantic, Chao (1978) reassessed Irwin’s data, and concluded that he had recognized one of the U. gracilis syntypes (MNHN 9037) as M. littoralis, but unexpectedly claimed that Irwin had disregarded this specimen as part of the type material because the locality and the collector of the specimen are not consistent with the original description of Cuvier’s (Bauchot, MNHN, Paris, pers. commun.; see also Bauchot & Desoutter 1987). Chao disregarded the validity of U. gracilis, contrarily to Irwin (1971), including it in synonymy of M. americanus. However, Chao wrongly stated specimen MNHN 44 (Fig. 6A) as a lectotype. We disagree with Chao’s viewpoint on the status of U. gracilis, and consider it to be a valid member of the genus Menticirrhus for the following reasons: (i) we observed several specimens with 18–21 dorsal-fin rays and 16–19 pectoral-fin rays, which are quite similar to the original description of U. gracilis, (ii) all the specimens with 18–21 dorsal-fin rays and 16–19 pectoral-fin rays are morphologically distinct from M. americanus, presenting a slender body with a long snout, color more or less uniformly silvery gray on the back, without irregular dark bars, and pectoral fin not reaching or barely reaching the pelvic-fin tip. In addition, other Menticirrhus species, such as M. americanus, M. cuiaranensis, M. martinicensis, and M. littoralis have 22 rays in the soft dorsal fin, and (iii) the genetic evidence restricted M. gracilis to southern-southeastern Brazil, with no evidence of gene flow with populations from other areas. Following Chao (1978), we retained specimen MNHN 44 as the lectotype of M. gracilis in our present designation, with MNHN 9622 thus becoming a paralectotype of this species (Fig. 6B). We independently confirmed that paralectotype has 19 pectoral-fin rays., Published as part of Marceniuk, Alexandre Pires, Caires, Rodrigo Antunes, Rotundo, Matheus Marcos, Cerqueira, Najila Nolie Catarine Dantas, Siccha-Ramirez, Raquel, Wosiacki, Wolmar Benjamin & Oliveira, Claudio, 2020, Taxonomic revision of the Menticirrhus americanus (Linnaeus, 1758) and M littoralis (Holbrook, 1847) (Percomorphacea: Sciaenidae) species complexes from the western Atlantic, pp. 301-333 in Zootaxa 4822 (3) on pages 317-320, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4822.3.1, http://zenodo.org/record/4401566, {"references":["Cuvier, G. & Valenciennes, A. (1830) Histoire naturelle des poissons. Tome Cinquieme. Livre Cinquieme. Des Scienoides. Chez F. G. Levrault, Paris, 499 pp.","Chao, L. N. (1978) A basis for classifying western Atlantic Sciaenidae (Teleostei: Perciformes). NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) Technical Report NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service) Circular, 415, 1 - 64.","Gunther, A. (1860) Catalogue of the fishes in the British Museum. Catalogue of the acanthopterygian fishes in the collection of the British Museum. Squamipinnes, Cirrhitidae, Triglidae, Trachinidae, Sciaenidae, Polynemidae, Sphyraenidae, Trichiuridae, Scombridae, Carangidae, Xiphiidae. Vol. 2. British Museum, London, xxi + 548 pp.","Bauchot, M. L. & Desoutter, M. (1987) Catalogue critique des types de poissons du Museum national d'Histoire naturelle. (Suite) (Famille des Sciaenidae). Bulletin du Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle, 9 (3), 1 - 43.","Jordan, D. S. (1887) Notes on typical specimens of fishes described by Cuvier and Valenciennes and preserved in the Musee d'Histoire Naturelle in Paris. Proceedings of the United States National Museum, 9 (593), 525 - 546. https: // doi. org / 10.5479 / si. 00963801.9 - 593.525","Linnaeus, C. (1758) Systema naturae per regna tria naturae, secundum classes, ordines, genera, species, cum characteribus, differentiis, synonymis, locis. Tomus I. Editio Eecima, reformata. Impensis Direct. Laurentii Salvii, Holmiae, 824 pp. https: // doi. org / 10.5962 / bhl. title. 542","Vasconcelos, A. (1945) Nossos peixes, part III. Os Cienideos. Boletim da Secretaria de Agricultura, Industria e Comercio do Estado de Pernambuco, 12 (2), 113 - 118.","Fowler, H. (1951) The Brazilian and Patagonian fishes of the Wilkes expedition. Boletim do Instituto Oceanografico, 2 (1), 3 - 39. https: // doi. org / 10.1590 / S 0100 - 42391951000100001","Travassos, H. & Paiva, M. P. (1957) Lista dos Sciaenidae marinhos brasileiros contendo chave de identificacao e proposta de \" nomes vulgares oficiais \". Boletim Instituto Oceanografico, 8 (1 / 2), 139 - 165. https: // doi. org / 10.1590 / S 0373 - 55241957000100004","Benvegnu-Le, G. Q. (1978) Distribuicao dos peixes teleosteos marinhos demersais na plataforma continental do Rio Grande do Sul. Tese de doutorado, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, 94 pp.","Chao, L. N. (1977) Sciaenidae. In: Fischer, W. (Ed.), Identification sheets of Central West Atlantic, fishing area 30 and 31. FAO, Rome, sheets 1 - 48.","Menezes, N. A. & Figueiredo, J. L. (1980) Manual de peixes marinhos do Sudeste do Brasil. IV. Teleostei (3). Museu de Zoologia da USP, Sao Paulo, 96 pp.","Jardim, L. F. A. (1988) Sinopse das especies de Menticirrhus Gill, 1861 (Osteichthyes, Sciaenidae) do Atlantico ocidental. Revista Brasileira de Zoologia, 5 (2), 179 - 187. https: // doi. org / 10.1590 / S 0101 - 81751988000200001","Holbrook, J. E. (1847) Southern ichthyology: or, a description of the fishes inhabiting the waters of South Carolina Georgia and Florida. No. II. Wiley, New York and Putnam, London, 32 pp., 4 pls.","Cassano, V. P. F. & Levy, J. A. (1990) Sistematica bioquimica de Menticirrhus americanus e M. littoralis (Teleostei: Perciformes: Sciaenidae). Boletim dos Instituto Oceanografico, 38 (1), 87 - 91. https: // doi. org / 10.1590 / S 0373 - 55241990000100009","Nion, H., Rios, C. & Meneses, P. (2016) s. n. In: Peces del Uruguay: Lista sistematica y nombres comunes. Segunda edicion corregida y ampliada. DINARA, Montevideo, pp. i-xi + 19 - 172.","Jordan, D. S. & Evermann, B. W. (1898) The fishes of North and Middle America: a descriptive catalogue of the species of fishlike vertebrates found in the waters of North America, north of the Isthmus of Panama. Part II. Bulletin of the United States National Museum, 47, 1241 - 2183. https: // doi. org / 10.5962 / bhl. title. 39717","Irwin, R. J. (1971) Geographical variation systematics and general biology of shore fishes of the genus Menticirrhus, family Sciaendae. Ph. D. dissertation, Tulane University, New Orleans, Louisiana, 295 pp."]}

Menticirrhus cuiaranensis sp. nov. Figure 5, Tables 3, 4 Menticirrhus littoralis (not of Holbrook 1847).— Chao 1977: 29 (in part; FAO fact sheets; description).— Chao 1978: 31 (in part; basis for classifying the western Atlantic sciaenids; description).— Menezes & Figueiredo 1980: 45 (in part; guide to the fishes from the southeastern Brazilian coast; short description).— Jardim 1988: 182 (in part; synopsis of Menticirrhus).— Camargo & Isaac 2001:143 (estuarine fishes of the northern Brazilian coast; listed).— Chao 2003:1627 (in part; FAO species identification guide; western Central Atlantic; description).—Casatti & Menezes in Menezes et al. 2003: 87 (in part; catalog of the marine fishes of Brazil; listed). Doubtful references to this species Menticirrhus littoralis (not of Holbrook 1847).— Cervigón 1992: 406 (fishes of Venezuela; list, short description).— Cervigón 1993: 282 (fishes of Venezuela; list and short description).— Marín 2000: 75 (fishes of Venezuela; listed) Material Examined. Holotype: MPEG 38944 (1, 222 mm SL), Cuiaraná, Salinópolis, Pará, Brazil. Paratypes: MPEG 33252 (1, 184 mm SL), Cuiaraná, Salinópolis, Pará, Brazil; MPEG 33255 (12, 187– 220 mm SL), Cuiaraná, Salinópolis, Pará, Brazil; MPEG 35241 (3, 94– 117 mm SL), Ajuruteua, Bragança, Pará, Brazil; MPEG 35242 (9, 78– 102 mm SL), Ajuruteua, Bragança, Pará, Brazil; AZUSC 5030 (3, 154– 174 mm SL), Bragança, Pará, Brazil; LBP 28919 (1, 169 mm SL), baía do Caeté, Bragança Pará; MZUSP 125779 (1, 204 mm SL), baía do Caeté, Bragança Pará; MPEG 32830 (1), Furo da Ostra, Bragança, Pará, Brazil. Non-type specimens: UFPB 397 (1), Praia do Forte, Paraíba, Brazil; UFPB 618 (1), praia do Tibau, Paraíba, Brazil; AZUSC 5935 (7, 170– 199 mm SL), Praia da Caueira, Aracajú, Sergipe, Brazil; MZUSP 69826 (3, 154– 184 mm SL), Vitória, Espírito Santo Brazil; MZUSP 7955 (2, 185 mm SL), Atafona, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Diagnosis. Menticirrhus cuiaranensis, which occurs from the northern, northeast and eastern coasts of Brazil, is distinguished from its congeners in the western Atlantic as follows: from M. americanus, which is found in the United States and the Gulf of Mexico, by having 16–19 pectoral-fin rays (vs. 20–23, rarely 19, Table 3), pectoral fin barely reaching tip of depressed pelvic fin (vs. surpassing tip of pelvic fin, Fig. 7), body without dark bars (vs. with irregular dark bars, Fig. 7); from M. gracilis, which is found on the southern coast of Brazil, by having 22–24 dorsal-fin rays (vs. 18–21, Table 3); from M. martinicensis, which occurs from the Caribbean and South America, by having 16–19 pectoral-fin rays (vs. 20–24, rarely 19, Table 3), pectoral-fin tip barely reaching tip of depressed pelvic fin (vs. extending beyond tip of the pelvic fin, Fig. 7), body without irregular dark bars (vs. with irregular dark bars, Fig. 7); from M. littoralis, which is found in the United States and the Gulf of Mexico, by having 6–11 gill rakers in the first arches (vs. 12–15, Table 3), a dusky caudal fin, without a distinctive dark spot on the dorsal lobe (vs. pale caudal fin, with a dark spot on the upper lobe, Fig. 7); and from M. saxatilis, which is found in the United States and the Gulf of Mexico, by body without irregular dark bars (vs. with dark bars, Fig. 7), and pectoral-fin tip barely reaching tip of depressed pelvic fin (vs. surpassing tip of pelvic fin, Fig. 7). Menticirrhus cuiaranensis can also be distinguished from its congeners from the eastern Pacific as follows: from M. elongatus, which occurs from the Gulf of California to Peru, by having pectoral-fin tip barely reaching tip of depressed pelvic fin (vs. surpassing tip of pelvic fin); from M. nasus, ranging from California to Peru, by having 16–18, rarely 19, pectoral-fin rays (vs. 19–22), scales present along base of soft dorsal fin (vs. soft dorsal fin naked), pectoral-fin tip barely reaching tip of depressed pelvic fin (vs. surpassing tip of pelvic fin); from M. ophicephalus, ranging from Ecuador to Chile, by having 49–55 scales with pores along lateral line to caudal-fin base (vs. 63–66 scales), S-shaped posterior margin of its caudal fin (vs. concave margin), scales present along base of soft dorsal fin (vs. soft dorsal fin naked); from M. paitensis, which occurs from the Gulf of California to Chile, by having 49–55 scales with pores along lateral line to caudal-fin base (vs. 76–98 scales), 16–19 pectoral-fin rays (vs. 21–23), scales present along base of soft dorsal fin (vs. soft dorsal fin naked); from M. panamensis, which ranging from the Gulf of California to Chile, by having 16–19 pectoral-fin rays (vs. 20–23), scales present along base of soft dorsal fin (vs. soft dorsal fin naked), pectoral-fin tip barely reaching tip of depressed pelvic fin (vs. surpassing tip of pelvic fin); and from M. undulatus, found in California, in the United States, by scales present along base of soft dorsal fin (vs. soft dorsal fin naked), and the body without lines or dark bars (vs. with dark lines). Description: D. X-XI+I,22–24; A. I+7; P. 16–19; C. 17; GR. 7–11; LL. 50–55; SA. 8–11; SB. 13–18 (Tables 3, 4). Body slender in lateral view, not compressed, ventral profile flat; maximum depth at first dorsal-fin origin. Dorsal profile slightly convex, steeply ascending, from snout to eye-level, convex to first dorsal-fin origin, nearly straight on first dorsal-fin base, slightly convex, descending at second dorsal-fin base, caudal peduncle slightly concave. Ventral profile convex on snout, concave below anterior eye border, descending over head to pelvic-fin origin, straight from pelvic-fin base to vent, ascending, slightly concave along anal-fin base to caudal-fin base. Snout short, deep, blunt, slender at tip in lateral view, mouth subterminal, dorsal profile naked. Premaxilla with 4–6 rows of acicular teeth, external most 9–15 teeth large, caniniform, 3–5 rows on dentary. Eye round, shorter than snout length, not adjoining dorsal profile. Interorbital space smaller than orbital diameter, slightly convex, covered with ctenoid scales. Nostrils small, anterior one round, posterior larger, nearly on horizontal line at ventral pupil border. Head with five sensory pores on snout, forming a semicircle around mouth corner, followed by larger central pore; lower jaw with four pores, two on each side encircling mental barbel, pores otherwise absent; mental barbel short, rigid, with blunt tip, without pore. Lateral line slightly arched to second dorsal-fin origin, straight, descending to caudal peduncle, nearly horizontal elsewhere to caudal-fin tip. Preopercle margin rough, with about 10–15 very short spines. Opercle tip angled, with small, fleshy projection, vertical posteriorly, passing through pectoral-fin base. Gill rakers short, 2–3 rudimentary on upper limb. Large, ctenoid scales present on trunk, belly, opercle, preopercle, interorbital, and infraorbital, cycloid on gular region and around nostrils (absent in specimens smaller than 50 mm SL), snout tip naked. Dorsal fins with two rows of small, cycloid scales on interradial membranes, sheath of scales on base of second dorsal; anal fin scaleless; pectoral fin with a cluster of small, cycloid or ctenoid scales on base, rows of corresponding scales along rays, absent on pectoral tip; caudal fin with a cluster of large, ctenoid scales, rows of cycloid scales along three-quarters of rays-length. Spinous dorsal fin short, first spine shortest, second spine longest; second dorsal fin adjoining first one. Origin of second dorsal fin slightly behind vertical line passing through pectoral-fin tip, second dorsal soft rays much shorter than longest dorsal spines. Anal-fin origin on vertical line passing through sixth second dorsal-fin ray; first spine very slender. Pectoral fin falcate, relatively long, reaching vertical line passing through last spine of the first dorsal fin, not surpassing pelvic-fin tip, approximately equal to length of second anal-fin spine. Pelvic fin as long as pectoral fin, its origin nearly at vertical line passing through mid-pectoral fin, as long as pectoral fin. Caudal peduncle short, depth larger than orbital diameter. Caudal fin short, emarginated, central rays short. Color in alcohol. Upper half of body straw-beige, lower half whitish; head darker from dorsal margin to eye, lighter below, with yellowish hue below eye and on ventral opercle margin; caudal fin yellow, with subtle black hue on tip; fins otherwise hyaline (Fig. 5A). Color of fresh material. Background color light gray on dorsum and flanks, silvery ventrally on snout, below eye, near anal fin and belly. Sides of body with slender oblique dark lines accompanying center of scales. First dorsal-fin anterior membrane dirty yellow, dusky on posterior interradial membranes, tip of longest spines blackened. Second dorsal and anal fins light gray, dusky along rays; pectoral fin dirty yellowish, with dark hue on upper anterior third, increasing near tip of upper pectoral rays; pelvic fin yellow to cream beige, with darkened line along spine. Caudal fin dusky, darker along rays; margins of upper and lower caudal-fin lobes irregularly darkened along its length (Fig. 5B). Distribution and habitat. Western South Atlantic along Brazilian coast, from Pará state to northern Rio de Janeiro state (Fig. 4), but probably also present in the area of influenced by Amazon-Orinoco plume. It is often found in shallow coastal waters at depths of up to 10 meters, over soft bottoms, mainly in estuarine areas and the surf zone (Fig. 5C). Fishing. Sometimes targeted by recreational anglers and artisanal fishers using cast-nets and fishing weir. Etymology. Menticirrhus cuiaranensis is named in reference to the artisanal fishermen village of Cuiaraná, at Salinópolis, Pará state, Brazil, where the holotype specimen was collected (Fig. 5C). Remarks. Menticirrhus cuiaranensis is closer to M. gracilis and M. littoralis, but it can be distinguished from these species through a set of morphological features, in addition to the genetic evidence (Fig. 5, Table 3). The new species differs from M. gracilis by having more rays in the second dorsal fin (22–24 dorsal-fin rays vs. 18–21), and from M. littoralis by having fewer rakers in the first gill arch (7–11 vs. 12–15). Live and fresh specimens of M. littoralis also have a dark spot on the upper caudal lobe (Figs. 2B, C), which is absent in all specimens of M. cuiaranensis (Fig. 5) and M. gracilis (Fig. 6). ...Continued on the next page TABLE 4. (Continue d), Published as part of Marceniuk, Alexandre Pires, Caires, Rodrigo Antunes, Rotundo, Matheus Marcos, Cerqueira, Najila Nolie Catarine Dantas, Siccha-Ramirez, Raquel, Wosiacki, Wolmar Benjamin & Oliveira, Claudio, 2020, Taxonomic revision of the Menticirrhus americanus (Linnaeus, 1758) and M littoralis (Holbrook, 1847) (Percomorphacea: Sciaenidae) species complexes from the western Atlantic, pp. 301-333 in Zootaxa 4822 (3) on pages 309-314, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4822.3.1, http://zenodo.org/record/4401566, {"references":["Holbrook, J. E. (1847) Southern ichthyology: or, a description of the fishes inhabiting the waters of South Carolina Georgia and Florida. No. II. Wiley, New York and Putnam, London, 32 pp., 4 pls.","Chao, L. N. (1977) Sciaenidae. In: Fischer, W. (Ed.), Identification sheets of Central West Atlantic, fishing area 30 and 31. FAO, Rome, sheets 1 - 48.","Chao, L. N. (1978) A basis for classifying western Atlantic Sciaenidae (Teleostei: Perciformes). NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) Technical Report NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service) Circular, 415, 1 - 64.","Menezes, N. A. & Figueiredo, J. L. (1980) Manual de peixes marinhos do Sudeste do Brasil. IV. Teleostei (3). Museu de Zoologia da USP, Sao Paulo, 96 pp.","Jardim, L. F. A. (1988) Sinopse das especies de Menticirrhus Gill, 1861 (Osteichthyes, Sciaenidae) do Atlantico ocidental. Revista Brasileira de Zoologia, 5 (2), 179 - 187. https: // doi. org / 10.1590 / S 0101 - 81751988000200001","Camargo, M. & Isaac, V. (2001) Os peixes estuarinos da regiao norte do Brasil: lista de especies e consideracoes sobre sua distribuicao geografica. Boletim do Museu Paraense Emilio Goeldi, Zoologia, 17 (2), 133 - 157.","Chao, L. N. (2003) Sciaenidae. In: Carpenter, K. E. (Ed.), The living marine resources of the Western Central Atlantic. Vol. 3. Bony fishes part 2. Opistognathidae to Molidae. FAO species identification guide for fishery purposes and American Society of Ichthyologist and Herpetologists Special Publication No. 5. FAO, Rome, pp. 1583 - 1653.","Cervigon, F. (1992) Tiburones, Peces batoideos y Peces oseos. In: Cervigon et al., Fichas FAO de identification de especies para los fines de la pesca. Guia de campo de las especies comerciales marinas y de aguas salobres de la costa septentrional de Sur America. FAO, Rome, pp. 163 - 456, pls. 3 - 40.","Cervigon, F. (1993) Los peces marinos de Venezuela. Fundacion Cientifica Los Roques, 2, 1 - 499. https: // doi. org / 10.2307 / 1446324","Marin, G. (2000) Ichthyofauna and fisheries of the Unare Lagoon, Estado Anzoategui, Venezuela. Acta Biologica Venezuelica, 20 (3), 61 - 92."]}

En la Región Tumbes, a pesar de su biodiversidad y condiciones para la acuicultura solo se cultiva langostino; el descenso de los desembarques de los principales recursos hidrobiológicos requiere identificar nuevas especies con potencial acuícola. El objetivo del estudio fue determinar el método de inducción para desove, obtener gametos viables y efectuar pruebas de larvicultura a fin de obtener semillas de ostra en ambiente controlado. Los reproductores fueron inducidos al desove mediante combinación de estímulos de desecación - shock térmico inverso. De 185 ostras inducidas desovó el 86,96% (54% machos, 46% hembras) con tiempo de respuesta de 2,4± 1h, y producción de óvulos de 53,19± 15,84x106. La primera larva veliger se obtuvo 17 horas después de la fertilización, el cultivo larvario duró 29 días con larva pediveliger de 366,21± 23,8 μm de altura valvar (AV). La mayor fijación se produjo en sartas de valvas de la misma especie, obteniéndose semillas de 1 mm en 37 días de cultivo. El cultivo en laboratorio se efectuó durante 50 días, alcanzando 12,3± 4,1 mm de AV. Las semillas fueron sembradas en sistemas suspendidos en un estanque experimental y en el mar. A 175 días de cultivo los ejemplares alcanzaron 47,34 mm de AV en el estanque experimental y 43,0 mm de AV en el mar, con supervivencia de 98,4% en el estanque y 94,6% en el mar. ABSTRAC: The Tumbes Region is characterized, despite its biodiversity and conditions for aquaculture, by the exclusive culture of shrimp. The identification of new species with aquaculture potential is required given the decrease in landings of the main hydrobiological resources. The study aimed to determine the spawning induction method, to obtain viable gametes, and to perform larviculture tests to obtain S. prismatica seeds in a controlled environment. A combination of drying - reverse thermal shock stimuli was used to induce spawning. A total of 86.96% (54% males, 46% females) out of 185 induced oysters spawned with a response time of 2.4 ± 1h, and egg production of 53.19 ± 15.84x106. The first veliger larva was obtained 17 hours post-fertilization, the larval culture lasted 29 days with pediveliger larva of 366.21± 23.8 μm valve height (VH). The greatest fixation was in strings of valves of the same species, producing 1 mm seeds in 37 days of culture. After 50 days of laboratory culture, a VH between 12.3± 4.1 mm was obtained. The seeds were sown in suspended systems in an experimental pond and in the sea. At 175 days of culture, the specimens reached 47.34 mm VH in the experimental pond and 43.0 mm VH in the sea, with survival of 98.4% and 94.6% respectively.

Se evaluó el acondicionamiento al cautiverio y el crecimiento de juveniles de Mycteroperca xenarcha empleando dietas comerciales. Durante 14 meses (5 meses de acondicionamiento y 9 de crecimiento) se trabajó con 105 ejemplares de tallas homogéneas, distribuidos en cuatro grupos de tratamiento: T1 (pellet 50%) T2 (pellet 40%) T3 (pellet 50%+alimento fresco) y T0 (alimento fresco). Mensualmente se registró longitud total (Lt) y peso total (Pt). Se determinó el incremento diario de peso individual (IDPI), la tasa de crecimiento específica, factor de condición, factor de conversión alimenticia y supervivencia de cada tratamiento. Estadísticamente se fijaron dos grupos en términos de Lt: T1-T2 y T3-T0 (ANOVA, F=4,272; p = 0,012, Tukey p = 0,236 y p = 0,694), registrándose mejores valores de crecimiento en T3 (22,50 mm) y T0 (29,34 mm). Los mejores resultados en IDPI se obtuvieron en T3 (0,28 g/día) y T0 (0,31 g/día). Con relación al incremento en peso, los tratamientos no evidenciaron diferencias significativas (ANOVA, F = 0,403, p = 0,752). El factor de condición K mostró diferencia significativa entre tratamientos (ANOVA, F = 31,05; p < 0,05), verificándose dos grupos: T1–T2 y T3–T0 (Tukey p = 0,994 y p = 0,422). Estos resultados indican que para garantizar el crecimiento de M. xenarcha en condiciones de cautiverio se debe incluir alimento fresco en la dieta, sugiriendo que los alimentos formulados no cumplen por sí solos con los requerimientos nutricionales de la especie. Palabras clave: Mycteroperca xenarcha, mero, pellet, crecimiento en cautiverio ABSTRACT: The captive conditioning and growth of juveniles of Mycteroperca xenarcha were assessed by using commercial diets. Over a 14-month period (5 months of conditioning and 9 months of growth) we worked with 105 specimens of homogeneous sizes, which were distributed in four treatment groups: T1 (pellet 50%) T2 (pellet 40%) T3 (pellet 50% + fresh food) and T0 (fresh food). Total length (TL) and total weight (TW) were recorded monthly. Individual daily weight increase (IDWI), specific growth rate, condition factor, feed conversion factor and survival of each treatment were determined. Statistically, two groups were fixed in terms of TL: T1-T2 and T3-T0 (ANOVA, F=4.272, p = 0.012, Tukey p = 0.236 and p = 0.694), by recording better growth values in T3 (22.50 mm) and T0 (29.34 mm). The best results in IDWI were obtained in T3 (0.28 g/day) and T0 (0.31 g/day). Regarding the increase in weight, the treatments did not show significant differences (ANOVA, F = 0.403, p = 0.752). The (K) condition factor showed a significant difference between treatments (ANOVA, F = 31.05, p < 0.05), with two groups: T1-T2 and T3-T0 (Tukey p = 0.994 and p = 0.422). These results suggest that to ensure the growth of M. xenarcha under captive conditions, fresh food should be included in the diet and it is strongly implied that the formulated foods do not, by themselves, meet the nutritional requirements of the species. Keywords: Mycteroperca xenarcha, mero pellet, growth in captivity

Peprilus xanthurus (Quoy & Gaimard, 1825) (Fig. 2, Tables 3, 6) Seserinus xanthurus Quoy & Gaimard, 1825: 384. [Type locality: Rio de Janeiro Bay. Syntypes: MNHN 0000- 4060 (1), A- 5326 (1)].��� De Lanois, 1963: 222 [MNHN type catalog].��� Fowler, 1906: 119 [listed]. Rhombus xanthurus Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1833: 405 [description].��� Jordan & Evermann 1896: 966 [comparison with Rhombus paru; distribution; synonymy]. Stromateus paru Fordice, 1884: 313 [in part; synonymy of R. xanthurus and R. argentipinnis; southward to Brazil].���von Ihering, 1897: 43 [in part; occurrence, Rio Grande do Sul; synonymy of Stromateus gardenii and S. alepidotus].��� Pozzi & Bordale, 1935: 164 [in part; occurrence; Argentina, 35 o 30��S to 38 o 30 ��� S]. Seserinus paru, Fowler, 1916: 402 [in part; listed].��� Fowler, 1942: 142 [error in spelling of generic name; referable to Seserinus xanthurus Quoy and Gaimard, 1824]. Peprilus paru, Meek & Hildebrand, 1925: 411 [in part]. Simobrama xanthura Fowler, 1944: 1 [new genus; description]. Peprilus xanthurus De Buen, 1950: 105 [Mar del Solias, Uruguay]. Seserinus paru Ringuelet & Aramburu, 1961: 83 [in part; Argentina]. Simobrama xanthurus Ringuelet & Aramburu, 1961: 83 [Argentina]. Peprilus paru (not of Linnaeus, 1758).���Miranda Ribeiro, 1915: 4 [description; distribution; comments on Sesserinus xanthurus].��� Haedrich, 1967: 106 [in part; revision; synonymy]; Horn, 1970: 202 [in part; revision; synonymy].��� Haedrich & Horn, 1972: 32 [in part; identification key; distribution, New York to Argentina].��� Cervig��n & Cousseau, 1971: 22 [in part; ichthyological collection Instituto de Biologia Marina, Mar del Plata, Argentina].��� Menni et al., 1984: 196, 328 [in part; Uruguay and Argentina; illustrated].��� Cerqueira & Haimovici, 1990: 599 ���613 [in part; Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil; population dynamics].��� Haimovici et al., 1994: 66 [in part; fishes of Brazil Subtropical Convergence Ecosystem].��� Lopes, 1992: 99 ���100 [distribution; southeastern Brazilian coast, Ba��a de Guanabara].��� Figueiredo & Menezes, 2000: 32 [in part; description; distribution], 98 [Fig. 32; Santa Catarina].��� Menezes, 2003: 104 [in part; Brazilian coast].��� Bernardes et al., 2005: 260 [southern Brazilian coast; description and photograph].��� Azevedo et al., 2007: 10 ���14 [southeastern Brazil, Rio de Janeiro; parasitology].��� Mabraga��a et al., 2011: 9 [in part; barcoding; fishes of Argentina].��� Fischer, Pereira & Vieira, 2011: 101 [in part; Patos Laguna, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil]. Diagnosis. Peprilus xathurus differs from its congeners by the presence, mainly in fresh specimens, of a conspicuous dark spot over the eyes, from snout to nape (vs. inconspicuous or indistinct marking in all other representatives, Fig. 2 e, f), 11���12 pre-caudal vertebrae (vs. 13 or more, rarely 12 in all other representatives, except P. x an t hu r u s, Table 3), 28���29 vertebrae (vs. 30 or more vertebrae in P. medius, P. ovatus, P. simillimus, and P. snyderi, Table 3), body height 58.5���74.1 % SL (vs. 33.0��� 52 % SL in P. bu r t i, P. ovatus, P. simillimus, P. s n y d er i, and P. triacanthus), moderately falcate dorsal fin (vs. not falcate in P. triacanthus, or conspicuously falcate in P. p ar u Figs. 2, 4), anal fin falcate (vs. not falcate P. simillimus, P. ovatus, P. snyderi, P. bu r t i, and P. t r i a c an t hu s, Fig. 2), and no series of pores along the front half of the body under the dorsal fin (vs. 17���25 conspicuous pores in P. triacanthus). Peprulis xanthurus is further distinguished from sympatric P. crenulatus by specimens smaller than 110 mm SL, with orbital diameter 5.1 ���8.0 in anal-fin height (vs. 1.6 ���5.0 in P. xanthurus, Fig. 3 a), and 5.5���9.2 in the specimens larger than 109 mm SL (vs. 3.2���5.2, Fig. 3 a), in the specimens larger than 109 mm SL, the orbital diameter 3.9���5.9 in pectoral-fin height (vs. 3.2���3.8 in P. xanthurus, Fig. 3 b), in the specimens larger than 109 mm SL, the orbital diameter 1.5���2.3 in post-orbital length (vs. 1.1���1.4, rarely 1.5, in P. xanthurus, Fig. 3 c). Peprulis crenulatus is additionally distinguished from C. paru by having moderately long to short dorsal fin and relatively long caudal fin lobe, the length of the lower lobe of the caudal fin is more than 1.2 times the length of the dorsal fin (vs. 1.2 times the length or less) (Figs. 1, 4). Molecular diagnosis. The DNA barcode of P. xanthurus form a distinct cluster with genetic distances to all other representatives ranging from 9.0 to 13.0% (excluded P. ovatus from the Pacific coast of Mexico, and P. snyder from the eastern Pacific; Fig. 5). The genetic distance to P. crenulatus is 13.0%, and 10.0% to P. burti and P. paru (Table 4). The P. xanthurus haplotypes differ from those of all other members of the genus (excluded P. ovatus from the Pacific coast of Mexico and P. snyderi from the eastern Pacific) by 48 to 74 bases, 74 from P. crenulatus, 60 from P. burti and 58 from P. p ar u (Table 5). Description. Morphometric data in Table 6, meristic data in Table 3. Counts D. III ���IV. 39 ���47; A. II ���III. 36 ���42; P. 20���22; vertebrae 11���12 + 17���19; gill rakers 2���6 + 13���16. Body compressed, short and very deep. Dorsal profile steep at snout, convex from eye to origin of dorsal fin, descending, convex along dorsal base to caudal peduncle. Ventral profile steep to convex from snout to origin of anal fin, with small concavity in front of anal fin, ascending, mildly convex along anal fin base to caudal peduncle. Head, dorsum and nape with vertical rows of branched, subdermal canals. Head deep, with very short snout and small mouth, barely reaching anterior border of eye, upper jaw fixed, very slender, with teeth long, conical or tricuspid in upper jaw, conical in lower jaw. Eye lateral and small, slightly closer to ventral margin than dorsal margin, post-orbital region larger than eye diameter. Peprilus xanthurus Opercle with prominent lobe on posterior margin, sometimes with concavity on posterodorsal margin. Scales cycloid, small, deciduous on flanks and dorsal and anal fin bases to nape, present also on belly, under eye (4���5 horizontal rows) and preopercle, absent from pectoral base and opercle. Dorsal fin base long and falcate, anteriorly with small, plate-like spines partially embedded in skin. Pectoral fin falcate, 2 nd and 3 rd rays longest. Caudal peduncle short and relatively deep. Anal fin base longer than dorsal fin, very falcate. Caudal fin very forked, upper lobe slightly longer than lower lobe. Lateral line very arched in small individuals, less so in larger individuals, with 67���85 small scales, some of them pored, in upper margin of caudal peduncle. Coloration of the fresh specimens. Upper head half dark gray, with a red-tinged snout in some specimens, upper third of trunk grayish blue, flanks silvery white. Dorsal fin dusky, sometimes with a light yellow hue, darker on the anterior rays, distal margin of soft rays black; anal fin gray, some specimens with yellow hue at base of the longer soft rays and black distal margin; pectoral fin dusky, darker at the tip, upper rays and base in some specimens. Caudal fin dirty yellowish, dusky on tips (Fig. 2 e, f). Coloration of the preserved specimens. Brown with a silvery hue on the flanks, some specimens have small, black irregular spots on the snout, and others on the upper opercular margin. Dorsal and anal fins dusky, longer soft rays darker, pectoral fin dusky, with many melanophores on the base, upper rays and inter-radial membranes. The caudal fin is hyaline (Fig. 2 c, d). Morphological variation. Significant variation in found in the development of P. xanthurus in the 70 to 194 mm SL size interval (Fig. 6), with negative or positive allometry in 14 of the 22 characters examined (Table 6, Fig. 7). Small specimens possess a deeper head and body (Fig. 7 b, c), larger eyes and wider mouth (Fig. 7 a, d). Negative allometry was observed in the pre-pectoral distance and dorsal fin height (Fig. 7 e, g). The distance between the snout to dorsal fin is the only character with positive allometry (Fig. 7 f). Similarly, P. x a nt h ur u s was characterized by isometric growth in the caudal peduncle height and post-orbital distance, whereas in P. crenulatus, these morphometric variables were positively allometric (Fig. 7 i, h). Significant variation was observed in the anterior third of the lateral line profile, which is very curved in the small specimens and slightly curved in the large individuals, possible as a result of positive allometry in the ontogeny of the predorsal distance (Figs. 2 g, h, 3 f). Sexual dimorphism. Sexual dimorphism was observed between five females (126���206 mm SL) and five males (155���198 mm SL) in five morphological features (Fig. 2 e, f). The anterior portion of the body is longer in the males in comparison with the females, as shown by the distance from the tip of the snout to the dorsal fin (31.2 to 34.8 % Sl vs. 27.8���31.8 % Sl). Females have a taller body and broader head, as indicated by the body depth (63.9���72.7 % Sl vs. 58.6���68.5 % Sl) and interorbital distance (9.4���10.4 % Sl vs. 9.1���9.8 % Sl) and mouth width (7.1���8.4 % Sl vs. 6.9���7.3 % Sl). The dorsal fin base in longer in females than males (64.7���67.3 % Sl vs. 60.2���63.8 % Sl). Distribution and habitat. Peprilus xanthurus occurs from Isla Margarita in Venezuela to Argentina (11 ��N to 38 ��S), inhabiting estuarine and coastal marine waters at depths of up to 95 m (Fig. 8 b). The species is very rare or absent on the northern and northeastern Brazilian coast (4 ��N to 13 ��S), but very common between the Brazilian state of Bahia-Esp��rito Santo and S��o Paulo (15 �� to 25 ��S), where it forms large schools and is caught in large quantities by trawlers, and abundant in local fish markets (A. Marceniuk, pers. obs.). Remarks. Quoy & Gaimard (1825) described Seserinus xanthurus based on two specimens collected in Rio de Janeiro Bay, Brazil. The examination of the type specimens indicated that P. xanthurus is a valid species (Fig. 2 a), based on the relatively high anal fin to orbital diameter ratio, of 5.1���5.5 (vs. 3.2 ���5.0, rarely 5.1, in P. crenulatus). The type specimens also present a large dark spot from snout to nape (Fig. 2 a, e, f). The species status of P. xanthurus is further corroborated by the absence of P. crenulatus between Cape Frio, Rio de Janeiro and Paran�� (23 o S to 25 o S), including the type locality of P. xanthurus (Fig. 8). Bernardes et al. (2005) identified a specimen of Peprilus xanthurus based on the presence of a long falcate anal fin, and the smaller eye in comparison with the post-orbital region, a conspicuous characteristic in the adult specimens. Figueiredo & Menezes (2000) and Fischer et al. (2011) also contain images of specimens with a long, falcate anal fin and small eyes, similar to Peprilus xanthurus. Material examined: Type specimens: MNHN 4060 Rio de Janeiro Bay, Brazil; MNHN 3326 Rio de Janeiro Bay, Brazil. Non-type specimens. Venezuela: LBP 18874 (1, 135 mm SL), Isla Margarita, mouth of Rio Nueva Esparta. Brazil; MZUSP 60879 (1, 89 mm SL), Corumbau extractive reserve, Abrolhos, Bahia; MZUSP 67597 (1, 125.2 mm SL), 19 o 25 ' S, 39 o 35 ' W, 15 m deep, Esp��rito Santo, north to rio Doce; CIUFES 654 (2, 82��� 146 mm SL), Camburi beach, Vit��ria, Esp��rito Santo; AZUSC s/n (3, 144 ��� 166 mm SL), Vit��ria, Esp��rito Santo; MZUSP 67657 (2, 79��� 84 mm SL), S��o Jo��o da Barra, Rio de Janeiro; MZUSP 67596 (3. 90���100 mm SL), Cabo de S��o Tom��, Rio de Janeiro; NPM 1914 (1, 99 mm SL), in front of the mouth of the rio Maca��, Maca��, Rio de Janeiro; LBP 8641 (1, 109 ��� 152 mm SL), 23 �� 30 ' 22.6 '' S, 45 ��02'01.7'' W, Ubatuba, S��o Paulo; LBP 10045 (2, 134 ��� 186 mm SL), 23 �� 51 ' 38.7 " S, 46 ��09' 10.5 " W, Bertioga, S��o Paulo; AZUSC 747 (3, 82��� 129 mm SL), 23 o 57 ' 00'' S, 46 o03' 30 '' W, Inda���� beach, Bertioga, S��o Paulo; AZUSC 720 (4, 99��� 140 mm SL), 23 o 53 ' 00'' S, 46 o02' 00'' W, S��o Paulo; MZUSP 67584 (1, 88 mm SL), Bertioga, S��o Paulo; AZUSC 1402 (3, 81��� 104), 23 o 59 ' 00'' S, 46 o08'00'' W, Arvoredo island, Guaruj��; AZUSC 838 (1, 92 mm SL), 23 o 54 ' 30 '' S, 46 o07' 42 '' W, Iporanga beach, Guaruj��, S��o Paulo; LBP 10031 (2, 167 ��� 194 mm SL), 24 �� 37 '00" S, 46 ��08'00" W, Santos, S��o Paulo; AZUSC 1333 (2, 142 ��� 160 mm SL), 24 o 15 ' 30 '' S, 46 o 34 ' 10 '' W, Mongagu��, S��o Paulo; MPEG apm 432 (5, 122 ��� 172 mm SL), industrial fishery, S��o Paulo; MZUSP 67632 (1, 160 mm SL), 27 o 33 'S, 48 o 1 'W, Santa Catarina; MZUSP 67672 (1, 91.8 mm SL), 28 o 26 ' S, 48 o 40 ' W, 43 m, Santa Catarina; MZUSP 67576 (2, 108 ��� 132 mm SL), 28 o 42 ' S, 48 o 46 ' W, 54���56 m, Santa Catarina; MZUSP 67631 (3, 106 ��� 136 mm SL), 29 o 43 ' S, 49 o 55 ' W, 24 m deep, Rio Grande Do Sul; MZUSP 67683 (57), 30 o 47 ' S, 50 o 28 ' W, Rio Grande do Sul; MZUSP 67682 (1), 31 o 30 ' S, 51 o00' W, Rio Grande do Sul; MZUSP 67676 (6), 33 o 32 ' S, 52 o 53 ' W, Rio Grande do Sul; MZUSP 67593 (2, 129,7��� 132.1 mm SL), 34 o 34 ' S, 53 o 58 ' W, 22 m deep, Uruguay., Published as part of Marceniuk, Alexandre P., Caires, Rodrigo, Siccha-Ramirez, Raquel & Oliveira, Claudio, 2016, Review of the harvestfishes, genus Peprilus (Perciformes: Stromateidae), of the Atlantic coast of South America, pp. 311-332 in Zootaxa 4098 (2) on pages 323-329, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4098.2.6, http://zenodo.org/record/266950, {"references":["Quoy, J. R. C. & Gaimard, J. P. (1825) Description des Poisson s. Chapter IX. Pp. 329 - 616. In: Freycinet, L. de, Voyage autour du Monde ... execute sur les corvettes de L. M. \" L'Uranie \" et \" La Physicienne, \" pendant les annees 1817, 1818, 1819 et 1820. Paris.","De Lanois, Y. (1963) Catalogue des types de poissons du Museum national d'Histoire naturelle (Nomeidae, Stromateidae, Apolectidae, Kurtidae). Bulletin du Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle, 35 (3), 228 - 234.","Fowler, H. W. (1906) New, rare or little known scombroids. No. 3. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 58, 114 - 122.","Cuvier, G. & Valenciennes, A. (1833) Histoire naturelle des poissons. Tome neuvieme. Suite du livre neuvieme. Des Scomberoides, 9, 246 - 279.","Jordan, D. S. & Evermann, B. W. (1896) The fishes of North and Middle America: a descriptive catalogue of the species of fishlike vertebrates found in the waters of North America, north of the Isthmus of Panama. Part I. Bulletin of the United States National Museum, 47, 1 - 1240.","Fordice, M. W. (1884) Review of the American species of Stromateidae. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 22, 664 - 672.","von Ihering, H. (1897) Os peixes da costa do mar no Estado do Rio Grande do Sul. Revista do Museu Paulista, Sao Paulo, 2, 25 - 63.","Pozzi, A. J. & Bordale, L. F. (1935) Cuadro sistematico de los peces marinos de Argentina. Anales de la Sociedad Cientifica Argentina, 120 (1), 145 - 189.","Fowler, H. W. (1916) Cold-blooded vertebrates from Costa Rica and the Canal Zone. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 68, 389 - 414.","Fowler, H. W. (1942) A list of the fishes known from the coast of Brazil. Arquivos de Zoologia do Estado de Sao Paulo, 3 (6), 115 - 184.","Meek, S. E. & Hildebrand, S. F. (1925) The marine fishes of Panama. Part II. Field Museum of Natural History, Publications, Zoological Series, 15, 331 - 707.","Fowler, H. W. (1944) Description of a new genus and new species of American stromateid fishes. Notulae Naturae, 142, 1 - 4.","De Buen, F. (1950) El Mar del Solis y su fauna de peces, 2. Publicaciones Cientificas SOYP, Montevideo, 2, 45 - 144.","Ringuelet, R. A. & Aramburu, R. H. (1961) Peces marinos de La Republica Argentina. Claves para el reconocimiento de familias y generos. Catalogo critico abreviado. Agro, La Plata, Argentina, 2 (5), 1 - 141.","Miranda-Ribeiro, A. (1915) Fauna Brasiliense. (Peixes). Arquivos do Museu Nacional, 17, 1 - 680.","Haedrich, R. L. (1967) The stromateoid fishes: systematics and a classification. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, 135 (2), 31 - 139.","Horn, M. H. (1970) Systematics and biology of the stromateid fishes of the genus Peprilus. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, 140 (5), 165 - 261.","Haedrich, R. L. & Horn, M. H. (1972) A key to the stromateoid fishes. Woodws Hole Oceanographic Institution Technical Report, 72 - 15, 1 - 48. http: // dx. doi. org / 10.1575 / 1912 / 99","Cervigon, F. & Cousseau, M. B. (1971) Catalogo sistematico de la colleccion ictiologica del Instituto de Biologia Marina. Contribuciones. Instituto de Biologia Marina, Mar del Plata, 169, 1 - 28.","Menni, R. C., Ringuelet, R. A. & Aramburu, R. H. (1984) Peces marinos de la Argentina y Uruguay, catalogo critico y ilustrado, claves para La determinacion de familias, generos y especies, nombres vulgares, glossario. Editorial Hemisferio Sur, Buenos Aires, 360 pp.","Cerqueira, R. & Haimovici, M. (1990) Dinamica populacional do gordinho Peprilus paru (Pisces, Stromateidae) no litoral sul do Brasil. Revista Brasileira de Biologia, 50 (3), 599 - 613.","Haimovici, M., Martins, A. S., Figueiredo, J. L. & Vieira, P. C. (1994) Demersal bony fish of the outer shelf and upper slope of the southern Brazil Subtropical Convergence Ecosystem. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 108, 59 - 77. http: // dx. doi. org / 10.3354 / meps 108059","Lopes, P. R. D. (1992) As familias Labridae, Percophidae, Labrisomidae, Blenniidae, Eleotrididae, Trichiuridae, Scombridae e Stromateidae (Pisces, Perciformes) na colecao do Laboratorio de Ictiologia da Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro. Sitientibus, Feira de Santana, 10, 95 - 101.","Figueiredo, J. L. & Menezes, N. A. (2000) Manual de peixes marinhos do Sudeste do Brasil. VI. Teleostei (5). Museu de Zoologia da USP, Sao Paulo, 116 pp.","Menezes, N. A. (2003) Familia Stromateidae. In: Menezes, N. A., Buckup, P. A., Figueiredo, J. L. & Moura, R. L. (Eds.), Catalogo das especies de peixes marinhos do Brasil. Museu de Zoologia da USP, Sao Paulo, pp. 104.","Bernardes, R. A., Figueiredo, J. L., Rodrigues, A. R., Fischer, L. G., Vooren, C. M., Haimovici, M. & Rossi-Wongtschowski, C. L. D. B. (2005) Peixes da Zona Economica Exclusiva da regiao sudeste-sul do Brasil: levantamento com armadilhas, pargueiras e rede de arrasto de fundo. Edusp, Sao Paulo, 304 pp.","Azevedo, R. K., Abdallah, V. D. & Luque, J. L. (2007) Aspectos quantitativos da comunidade de metazoarios parasitos do gordinho Peprilus paru (Linnaeus, 1758) (Perciformes, Stromateidae) do litoral do estado do Rio de Janeiro, Brasil. Revista Brasileira de Parasitologia Veterinaria, 16 (1), 10 - 14.","Mabragana E., Diaz de Astarloa, J. M., Hanner, R., Zhang, J. & Gonzalez Castro, M. (2011) DNA Barcoding Identifies Argentine Fishes from Marine and Brackish Waters. PLoS ONE, 6 (12), 1 - 11.","Fischer, L. G., Vieira, J. P. & Pereira, L. E. D. (2011) Peixes Estuarinos e Costeiros. 2. ed. Rio Grande, Luciano Gomes Fischer, 130 pp."]}

Peprilus crenulatus Cuvier, 1829 (Fig. 1, Tables 2, 3) Peprilus crenulatus Cuvier, 1829: 214 [original description; type locality: Cayenne, French Guiana. Syntypes: MNHN 0000- 4060 (1), A- 5326 (1)].���Cuvier, 1836���1849: 141, fig. 3, pi. 64.��� De Lanois, 1963: 222 [MNHN type catalog]. Rhombus crenulatus Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1833: 410 [redescription]. Rhombus argentipinnis Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1833: 405 [original description. Type locality: Montevideo, Uruguay. Syntypes: MNHN 0000- 4061 (3)].��� De Lanois, 1963: 222 [MNHN type catalog]. Stromateus gardenii G��nther, 1860: 399 [in part; Catalog of Fishes of the British Museum; northeastern Brazilian coast, Bahia]. Rhombus orbicularis Guichenot, 1866: 245 [original description, type locality: Cayenne, French Guiana. Syntypes: MNHN 0000- 4306 (8)]. Stromateus paru von Ihering, 1897: 43 [in part; occurrence, Rio Grande do Sul; synonymy of Stromateus gardenii and S. alepidotus].��� Pozzi & Bordale, 1935: 164 [in part; occurrence; Argentina, 35 o 30��S to 38 o 30 ��� S]. Rhombus paru Devincenzi, 1924: 220 [fishes of Uruguay].��� Devincenzi & Legrand, 1936: plate 26 [Uruguay; ichthyological album]. Seserinus paru Ringuelet & Aramburu, 1961: 83 [in part; fishes of Argentina] Peprilus paru (not of Linnaeus, 1758).��� Haedrich, 1967: 106 [in part; revision; synonymy].��� Horn, 1970: 202 [in part; revision; synonymy].��� Haedrich & Horn, 1972: 32 [in part; identification key; distribution, New York to Argentina].��� Cervig��n & Cousseau, 1971: 22 [in part; ichthyological collection Instituto de Biologia Marina, Mar del Plata, Argentina].��� Lopez & Miquelarena, 1980: 281 ���283 [description; distribution; synonymy; Argentina].���Shimizu in Uyeno et al., 1983: 429 [fishes trawled off Suriname and French Guiana; description, photograph].��� Menni et al., 1984: 196, 328 [in part; fishes of Uruguay and Argentina; illustrated].��� Valdez & Aguillera, 1987: 162 [Gulf of Venezuela; description; photograph].- Cerqueira & Haimovici, 1990: 599 ���613 [in part; Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil; population dynamics].��� Haimovici et al., 1994: 66 [in part; Brazil Subtropical Convergence Ecosystem].��� Figueiredo & Menezes, 2000: 32 [in part; description; distribution].��� Camargo & Isaac, 2001: 148 [estuarine fishes; northern Brazilian coast].��� Figueiredo et al., 2002: 221 [description; material from southern Brazilian coast].��� Menezes, 2003: 104 [in part; catalog of marine fishes of the Brazilian coast].��� Mabraga��a et al., 2011: 9 [in part; barcoding; Argentina].��� Fischer, Pereira & Vieira, 2011: 101 [in part; Patos Laguna, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil]. Morphological diagnosis. Peprulis crenulatus differs from its congeners, except P. xanthurus, by having 11���12 pre-caudal vertebrae (vs. 13 or more, rarely 12, in all other representatives, excluding P. x an t hu r u s, Table 3); 28���29 total vertebrae (vs. 30 or more in P. medius, P. ovatus, P. simillimus, and P. snyderi, Table 3); body height 58.5 ���79.0% SL (vs. 33.0��� 52.% SL in P. burti, P. simillimus, P. snyderi, P. ovatus, and P. triacanthus, Fig. 1, Table 2); no series of pores along the front half of body under the dorsal fin (vs. 17���25 pores in P. triacanthus); a moderately falcate dorsal fin (vs. not falcate in P. triacanthus, or conspicuously falcate in P. pa r u Figs. 1, 4); specimens larger than 90 mm SL, with an extremely falcate anal fin (vs. not falcate or moderately falcate in P. burti, P. simillimus, P. snyderi, P. ovatus, and P. triacanthus, Fig. 1 g, h). Peprulis crenulatus is further distinguished from sympatric P. xanthurus by the lack of a conspicuous dark spot over the eyes, from snout to nape (vs. with a conspicuous dark spot over the eyes, especially conspicuous in fresh specimens, Figs. 1, 2 e,f); in specimens smaller than 110 mm SL, the orbital diameter 1.6 ���5.0 in anal-fin height (vs. 5.1 ���8.0, Fig. 3 a); in specimens larger than 109 mm SL, the orbital diameter 3.2���5.2 in anal-fin height (vs. 5.5���9.2, Fig. 3 a); in specimens larger than 109 mm SL, the orbital diameter 2.9���3.8 in pectoral-fin height (vs. 3.9���5.9, Fig. 3 b); in specimens larger than 109 mm SL, the orbital diameter 0.8���1.4 in post-orbital length (vs. 1.5���2.3, Fig. 3 c). Peprulis crenulatus is additionally distinguished from P. p ar u by having moderately long to short dorsal fin and relatively long caudal fin lobe, the length of the lower lobe of the caudal fin is more than 1.2 times the length of the dorsal fin (vs. 1.2 times the length or less) (Figs. 1, 4). Molecular diagnosis. The DNA barcode of P. crenulatus forms a distinct cluster with genetic distances of 10.0 to 13.0% from all other species (except P. ovatus from the Pacific coast of Mexico and P. snyderi from the eastern Pacific; Fig. 5). Genetic distance to P. xanthurus is 13.0%, and 11.0% to P. burt i and P. pa r u (Table 4). The haplotypes of P. crenulatus differed from all other members of the genus (excluding P. ovatus and P. snyderi) by 60 to 74 bases, 74 from P. xanthurus, 64 from P. b ur t i, and 66 from P. paru (Table 5). Description. Morphometric data in Table 2, meristic data in Table 3. Counts D. III ���V. 39 ���45; A. III ���IV. 36 ���41; P. 20���22; vertebrae 11���12 + 17���18; gill rakers 3���7 + 14���18. Body compressed, short and very deep. Dorsal profile steep at snout, convex from eye to origin of dorsal fin, descending, slightly convex along base of dorsal fin to caudal peduncle. Ventral profile steep along head to pectoral girdle, descending, slightly concave from pectoral girdle to origin of anal fin, ascending, mildly convex along base of anal fin to caudal peduncle. Head dorsum and nape with vertical rows of branched, subdermal canals. Head deep, with very short snout and small mouth, barely reaching anterior border of eye, upper jaw fixed, teeth long, conical or tricuspid in upper jaw, conical in lower jaw. Eye lateral and large, post-orbital region as large as eye diameter. Opercle with small lobe on posterior margin, occasionally with concavity on posterodorsal margin. Scales cycloid, small, deciduous on flanks and dorsal and anal fin bases to nape, present also on belly, under eye (4���5 horizontal rows) and preopercle, absent on pectoral base and opercle. Dorsal-fin base long and discreetly falcate, anteriorly with small, plate-like spines partially embedded in skin. Pectoral fin falcate, 2 nd and 3 rd rays longest. Anal-fin base longer than dorsal fin, falcate. Caudal peduncle short, relatively low. Caudal fin forked, upper lobe slightly longer than lower. Lateral line slightly arched, with 59���79 small scales, some of them pored, extending to upper margin of caudal peduncle. Peprulis crenulatus Coloration of the fresh specimens. Grayish brown on upper half of the head and along the dorsal margin, silvery on flanks, with a slight orange-red hue on the snout of some specimens (Fig. 1 f, h). Dorsal fin dusky, darker on the tips of the longer rays, some individuals with a yellow hue on the posterior soft rays; anal fin whitish at base, slightly dusky at the tip, tips of soft rays slightly yellowish, with scattered melanophores in some specimens; pectoral fin hyaline with very small, pepper-like black dots, slightly yellowish in some specimens. Caudal fin light yellowish (Fig. 1 f, h). Coloration of the preserved specimens. Light brown on the head and upper third of the trunk, silvery white on flanks; fins hyaline (Fig. 1 e, g). Morphological variation. Significant variation is found in the development of P. crenulatus, in the 56 to 135 mm SL size interval (Fig. 6), expressed by either negative or positive allometry in 16 of the 22 characters examined (Table 2, Fig. 7). Smaller specimens present a deeper head and body (Fig. 7 b, c), larger eyes (Fig. 7 a), and wider mouth (Fig. 7 d). Smaller specimens also have longer snout to pectoral base distance and longer snout to dorsal fin distance (Fig. 7 e, f). Positive allometry was observed in the depth of the caudal peduncle (Fig. 7 i), post-orbital distance (Fig. 7 h), and the depth of the dorsal and anal fins (Fig. 7 g). No variation was detected in the profile of the lateral line. Sexual dimorphism. The small number of fresh specimens examined did not permit the differentiation of males and females. Distribution and habitat. Peprilus crenulatus occurs between French Guiana and Argentina (5 �� 41 ��� N to 38 ��00��� S), inhabiting estuarine and coastal marine waters at depths of up to 136 meters (Fig. 8). The species is relatively common on the northern coast of Brazil, but it is rare or absent between Cape Frio in Rio de Janeiro State to Paran�� State (22 �� 50 ��� S to 26 ��00��� S), resurging on the coast of the Brazilian state of Santa Catarina, south to Argentina (26 ��00��� to 38 ��00��� S). In the Brazilian Northeast, specimens were collected near the Munda�� Lagoon in the state of Alagoas (9 �� 40 ' S). The species was not observed in the catches of the industrial fishery of S��o Paulo and either in the state���s fish markets, but it is common in the catches of artisanal fisheries of the northern coast of Brazil, though always in small number of specimens (A. Marceniuk, pers. obs.). It probably does not form large schools. Remarks. Peprilus crenulatus was described by Cuvier (1829) based on two specimens collected in Cayenne. Our examination of the type specimen revealed that it represents a valid species, based on the presence of a short anal fin, which is especially short in smaller specimens (Fig. 1 e, f). The nominal species Rhombus argentipinnis (Fig. 1 c, d), described from three specimens from Montevideo, Uruguay, and Rhombus orbicularis (Fig. 1 b), described from eight specimens obtained from the same type locality of Peprilus crenulatus, share the relatively short anal fin with Peprilus crenulatus, and are thus recognized as junior synonyms of this species. The morphometric data also confirm that Rhombus argentipinnis and Rhombus orbicularis are conspecifics of Peprilus crenulatus, which is distinguished from P. xanthurus by the ratio of the orbital diameter to anal-fin height, which is 1.2 in Peprilus crenulatus, 3.0��� 3.5 in Rhombus argentipinnis, and 1.4���1.6 in Rhombus orbicularis (vs. 5.1���8.8 in P. xanthurus). The exact identification of specimens presented in the literature is difficult to ascertain, given that Peprilus paru was for many years considered the only harvestfish species found in the western South Atlantic. However, it was possible to assign to Peprilus crenulatus the specimens collected in Suriname (reported in Uyeno et al., 1983), based on the provided photograph. The presence of 29 vertebrae in the specimens presented by Lopez & Miquelarena (1970) allows them to be distinguished from Peprilus paru in the western North Atlantic. This study also presents an illustration depicting a specimen with a relatively short anal fin, which can be identified as Peprilus crenulatus. The same criterion was used to identify the specimens examined by Figueiredo et al. (2002) as P. crenluatus. Material examined: Type specimens. MNHN 4061, 3, syntypes of Rhombus argentipinnis, Montevideo, Uruguay (photographic image); MNHN 6828, 1, syntypes of Peprilus crenulatus, Cayenne (photographic image); MNHN 4306, 8, syntypes of Rhombus orbicularis, Cayenne, French Guiana (photographic image). Non-type specimens: Brazil. MZUSP 103940 (1, 86 mm SL), 0 1 o 59 '09''N, 48 o 42 '07''W, Amap��; MZUSP 67653 (1, 68 mm SL), Alegre, Marapanim, Par��; AZUSC 1067 (1, 109 mm SL), Ajuruteua, Bragan��a, Par��; MPEG apm 137 (2, 115 - 131 mm SL), Ajuruteua, Bragan��a, Par��; MPEG apm 109 (3, 123 ��� 128 mm SL), Ajuruteua, Bragan��a, Par��; MPEG apm 1174 (7, 85��� 92 mm SL), Ajuruteua, Bragan��a, Par��; MPEG apm 1182 (3, 71��� 110 mm SL), Ajuruteua, Bragan��a, Par��; MPEG apm 1211 (2, 103 ��� 107 mm SL), Ajuruteua, Bragan��a, Par��; MPEG apm 1218 (6, 86��� 109 mm SL), Ajuruteua, Bragan��a, Par��; MPEG apm 275 (2, 121 ��� 123 mm SL) Ajuruteua, Bragan��a, Par��; MPEG apm 181 (1, 111 mm SL), Ajuruteua, Bragan��a, Par��; MZUSP 67583 (1, 102 mm SL), rio Curuca, Ilha de S��o Lu��s, Maranh��o; MZUSP 51150 (2, 59��� 63 mm SL), 9 o 37 'S, 35 o 48 'W, lagoa Munda��, Maceio, Alagoas; MNH-UFAL 1134 (2, 96��� 116 mm SL), Macei��, Alagoas; MZUSP 67669 (3, 56��� 78 mm SL), Bahia, Maragogipe, mouth of rio Paragua��u, 12 o 45 ' S, 38 o 56 ' W; MZUSP 61308 (3, 97��� 107 mm SL), 17 o 45 ' S, 39 o 10 ' W, mouth of rio Caravelas, Bahia; MZUSP 79266 (2, 46.7���88 mm SL), Corumbau extractive reserve, Bahia; MZUSP 67604 (4, 94��� 106 mm SL), 18 o 45 ' S, 39 o 35 ' W, S��o Mateus, Esp��rito Santo; MZUSP 67668 (3, 56��� 85 mm SL), rio Doce, Espirito Santo; MZUSP 67636 (4, 88��� 96 mm SL), Cabo de S��o Tom��, Rio de Janeiro; LBP 10538 (2, 65��� 76 mm SL), 22 �� 22 ' 26.9 '' S, 41 �� 43 ' 14.3 '' W, Maca��, Rio de Janeiro; NPM 139 (1, 114 mm SL), Santana archipelago, 15 m deep, Maca��, Rio de Janeiro; NPM 173 (1, 111 mm SL), Santana archipelago, 15 m deep, Maca��, Rio de Janeiro; NPM 2598 (1, 125 mm SL), fish marked, Maca��, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; fish marked, Maca��, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; MZUSP 67595 (4, 109 ��� 121 mm SL), 22 o 33 ' S, 41 o 24 ' W, 46���74 m deep, Rio de Janeiro; MZUSP 67581 (1, 76 mm SL), Moela island, Santos, S��o Paulo; MZUSP 67607 (3, 87��� 118 mm SL), 28 o 28 ' S, 48 o 29 ' W, 70 m deep, Santa Catarina; MZUSP 67643 (2, 107 ��� 118 mm SL), 29 o 13 ' S, 49 o 35 ' W, Santa Catarina; MZUSP 67626 (1, 119 mm SL), 29 o 34 ' S, 49 o09' W, 76���91 m deep, Rio Grande do Sul; MZUSP 67654 (1, 133 mm SL), 30 o06' S, 48 o 56 ' W, 136 m deep, Rio Grande do Sul; MZUSP 67650 (3, 101 ��� 112 mm SL), 31 o 45 ' S, 51 o 26 ' W, 15 m deep, Rio Grande do Sul; MZUSP 67649 (2, 43.4���97.7 mm SL), 32 o05' S, 51 o 55 ' W, 13 m deep, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil; MZUSP 67681 (1, 68 mm SL), 32 o 58 ' S, 52 o 30 ' W, 13 m deep, Rio Grande do Sul; MZUSP 67663 (2, 66��� 72 mm SL), Rio Grande do Sul, 33 o 58 ' S, 52 o 50 ' W, 29 m deep; MZUSP 67586 (1, 113 mm SL), Rio Grande do Sul, 32 o 36 ' S, 51 o 33 ' W; MZUSP 67633 (8, 80��� 91 mm SL), Rio Grande do Sul., Published as part of Marceniuk, Alexandre P., Caires, Rodrigo, Siccha-Ramirez, Raquel & Oliveira, Claudio, 2016, Review of the harvestfishes, genus Peprilus (Perciformes: Stromateidae), of the Atlantic coast of South America, pp. 311-332 in Zootaxa 4098 (2) on pages 316-320, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4098.2.6, http://zenodo.org/record/266950, {"references":["Cuvier, G. (1829) Le Regne Animal, distribue d'apres son organisation, pour servir de base a l'histoire naturelle des animaux et d'introduction a l'anatomie comparee. Tome II. Deterville Libraire, Crochard Libraire, Paris, 406 pp. http: // dx. doi. org / 10.5962 / bhl. title. 49223","De Lanois, Y. (1963) Catalogue des types de poissons du Museum national d'Histoire naturelle (Nomeidae, Stromateidae, Apolectidae, Kurtidae). Bulletin du Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle, 35 (3), 228 - 234.","Cuvier, G. & Valenciennes, A. (1833) Histoire naturelle des poissons. Tome neuvieme. Suite du livre neuvieme. Des Scomberoides, 9, 246 - 279.","Gunther, A. (1860) Catalog of fishes in the British Museum. Vol. 2. Taylor & Francis, London, 548 pp.","Guichenot, A. (1866) Notice sur une nouvelle espece de poissons appartenant au genre des rhombes du Museum de Paris. Memoires de la Societe Imperiale des Sciences Naturelles de Cherbourg, 12 (2), 243 - 247.","von Ihering, H. (1897) Os peixes da costa do mar no Estado do Rio Grande do Sul. Revista do Museu Paulista, Sao Paulo, 2, 25 - 63.","Pozzi, A. J. & Bordale, L. F. (1935) Cuadro sistematico de los peces marinos de Argentina. Anales de la Sociedad Cientifica Argentina, 120 (1), 145 - 189.","Devincenzi, G. J. (1924) Peces del Uruguay, II. Anales del Museo de Historia Natural de Montevideo, Segunda Serie, 1.","Devincenzi, G. J. & Legrand, D. (1936 - 1940) Album ictiologico del Uruguay, 3 a. y 4 a. series. Anales del Museo de Historia Natural de Montevideo, Segunda Serie, 5.","Ringuelet, R. A. & Aramburu, R. H. (1961) Peces marinos de La Republica Argentina. Claves para el reconocimiento de familias y generos. Catalogo critico abreviado. Agro, La Plata, Argentina, 2 (5), 1 - 141.","Haedrich, R. L. (1967) The stromateoid fishes: systematics and a classification. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, 135 (2), 31 - 139.","Horn, M. H. (1970) Systematics and biology of the stromateid fishes of the genus Peprilus. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, 140 (5), 165 - 261.","Haedrich, R. L. & Horn, M. H. (1972) A key to the stromateoid fishes. Woodws Hole Oceanographic Institution Technical Report, 72 - 15, 1 - 48. http: // dx. doi. org / 10.1575 / 1912 / 99","Cervigon, F. & Cousseau, M. B. (1971) Catalogo sistematico de la colleccion ictiologica del Instituto de Biologia Marina. Contribuciones. Instituto de Biologia Marina, Mar del Plata, 169, 1 - 28.","Lopez, H. L. & Miquelarena, A. M. (1980) La familia Stromateidae em La Argentina (Osteichthyes, Stromateoidei). Obra del Centenario del Museo de La Plata, 6, 279 - 288.","Uyeno, T., Matsuura, K. & Fujii, E. (1983) Fishes trawled off Suriname and French Guiana. Japan Marine Fishery Resource Research Center, Tokyo, 519 pp.","Menni, R. C., Ringuelet, R. A. & Aramburu, R. H. (1984) Peces marinos de la Argentina y Uruguay, catalogo critico y ilustrado, claves para La determinacion de familias, generos y especies, nombres vulgares, glossario. Editorial Hemisferio Sur, Buenos Aires, 360 pp.","Valdez, J. & Aguillera, O. (1987) Peces del Golfo de Venezuela, com enfasis em los peces de fondo de La plataforma noroccidental del Falcon y la de Los Monjes, incluyendo peces de localidades contiguas. Conicit Editorial, Caracas, 216 pp.","Cerqueira, R. & Haimovici, M. (1990) Dinamica populacional do gordinho Peprilus paru (Pisces, Stromateidae) no litoral sul do Brasil. Revista Brasileira de Biologia, 50 (3), 599 - 613.","Haimovici, M., Martins, A. S., Figueiredo, J. L. & Vieira, P. C. (1994) Demersal bony fish of the outer shelf and upper slope of the southern Brazil Subtropical Convergence Ecosystem. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 108, 59 - 77. http: // dx. doi. org / 10.3354 / meps 108059","Figueiredo, J. L. & Menezes, N. A. (2000) Manual de peixes marinhos do Sudeste do Brasil. VI. Teleostei (5). Museu de Zoologia da USP, Sao Paulo, 116 pp.","Camargo, M. & Isaac, V. (2001) Os peixes estuarinos da regiao norte do Brasil: Lista de especies e consideracoes sobre a sua distribuicao geografica. Boletim do Museu Paraense Emilio Goeldi, Serie Zoologica, 17 (2), 133 - 157.","Figueiredo, J. L., Santos, A. P., Yamaguti, N., Bernardes, R. A. & Rossi-Wongtschowski, C. L. D. B. (2002) Peixes da zona economica exclusiva da regiao sudeste-sul do Brasil. Levantamento com rede de meia-agua. EDUSP, Sao Paulo, 242 pp.","Menezes, N. A. (2003) Familia Stromateidae. In: Menezes, N. A., Buckup, P. A., Figueiredo, J. L. & Moura, R. L. (Eds.), Catalogo das especies de peixes marinhos do Brasil. Museu de Zoologia da USP, Sao Paulo, pp. 104.","Mabragana E., Diaz de Astarloa, J. M., Hanner, R., Zhang, J. & Gonzalez Castro, M. (2011) DNA Barcoding Identifies Argentine Fishes from Marine and Brackish Waters. PLoS ONE, 6 (12), 1 - 11.","Fischer, L. G., Vieira, J. P. & Pereira, L. E. D. (2011) Peixes Estuarinos e Costeiros. 2. ed. Rio Grande, Luciano Gomes Fischer, 130 pp."]}

Made available in DSpace on 2022-04-28T19:03:31Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 Previous issue date: 2016-04-06 Currently, seven valid species are recognized in the genus Peprilus. Found from United States to Argentina, Peprilus paru has a complex nomenclatural history, with seven junior synonyms, three from North America and four from South Amer-ica. As there has been no recent research, it remains unclear whether species representatives in the north-south axis rep-resent different populations of a single species or distinct species. By comparison of type specimens as well as a comprehensive collection of non-type specimens, this paper aims to clarify the taxonomic status of the nominal species listed as junior synonyms of Peprilus paru in the Atlantic side of South America. Based on morphological data and DNA barcoding, Peprilus crenulatus Cuvier, 1829 and P. xanthurus (Quoy & Gaimard, 1825) are resurrected, while Rhombus argentipinnis Cuvier, 1833 and Rhombus orbicularis Guichenot, 1866, are considered to be junior synonyms of P. crenu-latus. Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi Acervo Zoológico Universidade Santa Cecília Museu de Zoologia da Universidade de São Paulo, Caixa Postal 42494 Laboratorio Costero de Tumbes Instituto Del Mar Del Peru, Calle José Olaya s/n, C.P. Departamento de Morfologia Instituto de Biociências Universidade Estadual Paulista Departamento de Morfologia Instituto de Biociências Universidade Estadual Paulista

The Atlantic goliath grouper is a critically endangered species that inhabits estuarine and reef environments and is threatened primarily by fishing activities and habitat destruction. Despite the urgent need for protection, its genetic conservation status remains unknown. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the gene flow among the populations of the species along the coast of Brazil based on the control region of the mitochondrial DNA. The results indicate low haplotype diversity (0.40-0.86) and very low nucleotide diversity (0.1-0.5%). They also show that the genetic diversity of the species varies considerably along the coast and that this finding may be especially important for the identification of priority areas for its conservation. The population analyses indicate a low but significant degree of genetic structuring (ΦST =0.111), probably due to the occurrence of rare haplotypes at some locations, although the genetic differentiation between sites was not correlated with geographic distance (r=0.0501; p=0.7719), and the shared haplotypes indicate that gene flow occurs among all locations along the Brazilian coast. The results of the pairwise FST indicate a high degree of genetic differentiation between locations. The incipient population structuring detected in the present study is not related systematically to the geological or physical features of the Brazilian coast. The complex interaction of fluctuations in sea level, marine currents, and the reproductive characteristics of the species hampers the identification of the specific role of each of these processes in the gene flow dynamics of the population units of the Atlantic goliath grouper. The low overall levels of genetic diversity, the pairwise FST values and the significant population structuring among groups (ΦCT) identified in the present study all reinforce the critically endangered status of the species and are inconsistent with the presence of a single, panmictic population of groupers on the Brazilian coast. The results of this study suggest that, though it may be incipient, the observed genetic structuring must be taken into account in order to prevent potential problems, such as outbreeding depression, in the management of wild stocks., El mero guasa del Atlántico está críticamente en peligro, habita en ambientes estuarinos y arrecifes, los cuáles están amenazados principalmente por las actividades de pesca y la destrucción de su hábitat. A pesar de la necesidad urgente de protección, su estado de conservación genética aún es desconocido. El objetivo del presente estudio fue evaluar el flujo génico entre las poblaciones de esta especie a lo largo de la costa de Brasil analizando la variabilidad genética de la región control del ADN mitocondrial. Los resultados indican baja diversidad haplotípica (0.40-0.86), y una muy baja diversidad nucleotídica (0.1-0.5%). Además se observa que la diversidad genética de la especie varía considerablemente a lo largo de la costa y este resultado puede ser especialmente relevante para la identificación de áreas prioritarias de conservación. Los análisis poblacionales indican un bajo, pero significativo grado de estructuración genética (ΦST =0.111), lo cual es probablemente debido a la ocurrencia de haplótipos raros en algunas localidades, aunque la diferenciación genética entre sitios no está correlacionada con la distancia geográfica (r=0.0501; p=0.7719), y los haplotipos compartidos indican que el flujo génico ocurre entre todas las localidades a lo largo de la costa brasileña. Los resultados de la distancia dos a dos indican un FST de alto grado de diferenciación genética entre las localidades. La incipiente estructuración poblacional detectada en este estudio no está relacionada sistemáticamente con las características biogeográficas de la costa brasileña. La compleja interacción de las fluctuaciones en el nivel del mar, las corrientes marinas, y las características reproductivas de la especie dificultan la identificación del rol específico de cada uno de estos procesos en la dinámica del flujo genético de las diferentes unidades poblacionales del mero guasa del Atlántico. Los bajos niveles generales de la diversidad genética, los valores de FST dos a dos, y la significante estructuración poblacional entre los grupos (ΦCT) identificada en el presente estudio, todo refuerza el estado de peligro crítico de la especie y son inconsistentes con la existencia de una simple, población panmíctica de meros guasa de la costa brasileña. Los resultados de este estudio sugieren que, a pesar de que puede ser incipiente, la estructuración genética observada debe ser tenida en cuenta con el fin de evitar problemas potenciales, tales como la depresión exogámica, cuando se maneja poblaciones silvestres.

Silveira, Rosana Beatriz, Siccha-Ramirez, Raquel, Silva, José Rodrigo Santos, Oliveira, Claudio (2014): Morphological and molecular evidence for the occurrence of three Hippocampus species (Teleostei: Syngnathidae) in Brazil. Zootaxa 3861 (4): 317-332, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.3861.4.2

Hippocampus reidi Ginsburg, 1933 Common name: Longsnout seahorse Hippocampus reidi Ginsburg, 1933: 561 (orig. descr.; St. George, Grenada, British West Indies; Porto Bello; Panam��; Jamaica; Haiti; holotype USNM 86596); Beebe & Tee-Van, 1935: 318 (Haiti); Duarte-Bello & Buesa, 1973: 90 (Cuba); Lourie et al. 1999 (redescription, distribution). Hippocampus obtusus Ginsburg, 1933: 562 (org. descr.; off Cape Atteras, North Carolina, U.S. A;. holotype USNM 84527); Lourie et al. 1999: 117; Smith-Vaniz et al. 1999: 190; Kuiter 2009: 19 (redescription, distribution). Hippocampus poeyi Howell Rivero, 1934: 32 (orig. descr.; Havana, Cuba; holotype MCZ 33913); Lourie et al. 1999: 117; Kuiter 2009: 19 (redescription, distribution). Diagnosis. (Proportions and meristic data of 104 specimens, 68���188 mm in height). Rings 11 + 30���39; dorsal-fin rays 15���18 on 2 + 1 rings; pectoral-fin rays 14���18; anal-fin rays 4. HL/SnL 2.0��� 2.6. Coronet little developed, CI 1���2. Spines absents or small: on the head, principally on sphenotic bone with an evident spine on each side of head, and on frontal with a simple or bifurcated spine on each eye; on body and tail, distributed regularly on rings or absent. Dermal appendages often present in juveniles, rarely in adults. Coloration. Three basic patterns are present in combination or independently: 1) presence of irregular white and black or brown stripes on the rings of the body and tail, where they can be distributed on the dorsal and lateral sides, continuous or interrupted (Figure 2 B); 2) numerous black and white dots, or brown spots all over body and tail (Figure 2 C); 3) a single even color without markings (Figure 3 D). Dorsal fin with diffuse pigmentation, with dark sub-marginal band from first to last ray, and margins free of dark pigmentation (Figure 2 C). Habitat. In waters from 15 to 55 m in depth. Found on marine algae, sponges, corals, mangrove roots and on artificial substrates. Distribution. Americas, Western Atlantic: USA, Bermuda, Bahamas, Cuba, Haiti, Belize, Panama, Jamaica, Barbados, Granada, Colombia, Venezuela, Argentina and Brazil (Vari, 1982; Lourie et al., 1999; Piacentino, 2008; Boehm et al., 2013; present study)., Published as part of Silveira, Rosana Beatriz, Siccha-Ramirez, Raquel, Silva, Jos�� Rodrigo Santos & Oliveira, Claudio, 2014, Morphological and molecular evidence for the occurrence of three Hippocampus species (Teleostei: Syngnathidae) in Brazil, pp. 317-332 in Zootaxa 3861 (4) on pages 322-323, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3861.4.2, http://zenodo.org/record/228069, {"references":["Ginsburg, I. (1933) Description of five new species of seahorse. Journal of the Washington Academy of Science, 23 (12), 560 - 563.","Lourie, S. A., Vincent A. C. & Hall, H. J. (1999) Seahorses: An identification guide to the world's species and their conservation. Project Seahorse, London, 214 pp.","Vari, R. P. (1982) The seahorses (Subfamily Hippocampinae). In: Fishes of the Western North Atlantic. Memoirs of the Seas Foundation for Marine Research. Memoir, 1 (8), 173 - 189.","Boehm, J. T., Woodall, L., Teske, P. R., Louries, S. A., Baldwin, C., Waldman, J. & Hickerson, M. (2013) Marine dispersal and barriers drive Atlantic seahorse diversification. Journal of Biogeography, 40 (10), 1839 - 1849. http: // dx. doi. org / 10.1111 / jbi. 12127"]}

Hippocampus erectus Perry, 1810 Common name: Lined seahorse Hippocampus erectus Perry, 1810: unnumbered p. 177, Pl. 45 (orig. descr.; American seas, coast adjacent to Mexico and West Indies; no type specimen); Lourie et al. 1999 (redescription; distribution); Woodall et al. 2009 (new distribution). Hippocampus hudsonius DeKay, 1842: 322, Pl 53, Fig. 171 (orig. descr.; Hudson River, New York; no type specimen). Hippocampus punctulatus Guichenot, 1853: 174, Pl. 5, Fig. 2 (orig. descr.; Cuba; syntypes MNHN 6092); Dum��ril, 1870: 40 (redescription of syntypes). Hippocampus guttulatus G��nther, 1876: 202 (in part, Caribbean). Hippocampus villosus G��nther, 1880: 8, Pl. 1, Fig. D (orig. descr.; off Bahia, Brazil; holotype BMNH 1879.5.14.464); Lourie et al.; 1999: 91; Kuiter, 2009: 82 (Valid as Hippocampus villosus G��nther 1880). Diagnosis. (Proportions and meristic data of 85 specimens, 59���120 mm in height.) Rings 11 + 31���35; dorsal-fin rays 17���19 on 2 + 1 rings; anal-fin rays 4; pectoral-fin rays 14���18. HL/SnL 2.5���3.2. Coronet well-developed, CI 3���4; small to large spines or absent; on head, principally on sphenotic with single spine on each side of head; frontal with bifurcate or simple spine, very evident over each eye, and one central, horn-like spine at junction with coronet; spines on body and tail distributed regularly on rings. Coloration. In preservative without defined pattern, often with irregular, white dorsal stripes that extend laterally on body and tail, parallel to rings. Finer white lines that run down the neck laterally may cross the rings. In life color varied: beige, yellow, light orange, dark orange and reddish brown; dorsal fin pigmented between and on rays, showing sub-marginal dark band from first to last ray, with edges free of pigmentation (Figure 2 A). Habitat. Shallow waters to 73 m in depth. Found on marine algae, mainly floating Sargassum sp., sponges and artificial substrates such as moorings, anchoring boats and pieces of fishing nets. FIGURE 1. Morphotypes identification by Canonical Discriminant Functions (Wilks��� Lambda, 1 st canonical function = 0.028, p = 0.00; 2 nd canonical function = 0.412, p = 0.00). Distribution. Americas, Western Atlantic: Canada (Nova Scotia), USA, Bermuda, Bahamas, Cuba, Haiti, Caribbean, Leeward Islands, Mexico, Guatemala, Belize, Panama, Colombia, Venezuela, Uruguay, Argentina and Brazil (Vari, 1982; Lourie et al., 1999; Piacentino, 2008; Boehm et al., 2013; present study). Europa, Eastern Atlantic: Portugal, Azores Archipelago (Woodal et al., 2009)., Published as part of Silveira, Rosana Beatriz, Siccha-Ramirez, Raquel, Silva, Jos�� Rodrigo Santos & Oliveira, Claudio, 2014, Morphological and molecular evidence for the occurrence of three Hippocampus species (Teleostei: Syngnathidae) in Brazil, pp. 317-332 in Zootaxa 3861 (4) on pages 320-322, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3861.4.2, http://zenodo.org/record/228069, {"references":["Perry, G. (1810) Genus Syngnathus; or, Hippocampus. Species erectus. Arcana, May, 328 - 330.","Lourie, S. A., Vincent A. C. & Hall, H. J. (1999) Seahorses: An identification guide to the world's species and their conservation. Project Seahorse, London, 214 pp.","Woodall, L. C., Koldewey, H. J., Santos, S. V. & Shaw, P. W. (2009) First occurrence of the lined seahorse Hippocampus erectus in the eastern Atlantic Ocean. Journal of Fish Biology, 75, 1505 - 1512. http: // dx. doi. org / 10.1111 / j. 1095 - 8649.2009.02371. x","Gunther, A. C. L. G. (1880) Report on the scientific results of the voyage of H. M. S. Challenger during the years 1873 - 76. Report on the shore fishes procured during the voyage of H. M. S. Challenger in the years 1873 - 1876. Zoology, 1 (6), 1 - 82, 1 - 32. [reprinted: electronic edition by David C. Brossard from original documents in the library holdings of Dartmouth College, Hanover New Hampshire. 2004]","Vari, R. P. (1982) The seahorses (Subfamily Hippocampinae). In: Fishes of the Western North Atlantic. Memoirs of the Seas Foundation for Marine Research. Memoir, 1 (8), 173 - 189.","Boehm, J. T., Woodall, L., Teske, P. R., Louries, S. A., Baldwin, C., Waldman, J. & Hickerson, M. (2013) Marine dispersal and barriers drive Atlantic seahorse diversification. Journal of Biogeography, 40 (10), 1839 - 1849. http: // dx. doi. org / 10.1111 / jbi. 12127"]}

Hippocampus patagonicus Piacentino & Luzzatto, 2004 Hippocampus patagonicus Piacentino e Luzzatto, 2004: 340 (orig. descr.; Negro River, San Antonio Oeste Bay, Argentina; holotype MACN 8806). Diagnosis. (Proportions and meristic data of 59 specimens, 32���153 mm in height). Rings 11 + 34���37. Dorsal-fin rays 16���19 on 2 + 1 rings; pectoral-fin rays 13���15; anal-fin rays 4. HL/SnL 2.85���3.9. Coronet little developed, CI 1���2. Spines small to medium, rounded. Sphenotic bone with one strong spine on each side of head; frontal with one simple spine over each eye. Spines on the body and tail distributed regularly on the rings or absent; dermal appendages on body and tail spines may be present in both juveniles and adults. Coloration. Body color varies: brown, beige, yellow and white; pattern of dark diagonal streaks on the side of the head bordered by intense pigmentation formed by tiny white dots. Tiny black dots and small white dots constituting irregular-shaped spots on body and tail. Dorsal fin with diffuse pigmentation and dark elongated spot on first rays, edges of fin without pigmentation in some fish (Figure 2 E). Habitat. Shallow waters up to 22 m in depth. Found on marine algae, principally on floating Sargassum sp., sponges and artificial substrates. Distribution. Americas, Western Atlantic: Argentina and Brazil (Piacentino & Luzzatto, 2004; Boehm et al., 2013; Gonz��lez et al. 2014; present study)., Published as part of Silveira, Rosana Beatriz, Siccha-Ramirez, Raquel, Silva, Jos�� Rodrigo Santos & Oliveira, Claudio, 2014, Morphological and molecular evidence for the occurrence of three Hippocampus species (Teleostei: Syngnathidae) in Brazil, pp. 317-332 in Zootaxa 3861 (4) on page 323, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3861.4.2, http://zenodo.org/record/228069, {"references":["Piacentino, G. L. M. & Luzzatto, D. C. (2004) Hippocampus patagonicus sp. nov., nuevo caballito de mar para la Argentina (Pisces, Syngnathiformes). Revista del Museo Argentino de Ciencas Naturales, 6, 339 - 349.","Boehm, J. T., Woodall, L., Teske, P. R., Louries, S. A., Baldwin, C., Waldman, J. & Hickerson, M. (2013) Marine dispersal and barriers drive Atlantic seahorse diversification. Journal of Biogeography, 40 (10), 1839 - 1849. http: // dx. doi. org / 10.1111 / jbi. 12127","Gonzalez, R., Dinghi, P., Corius, C., Medina, A., Maggioni, M., Storero, L. & Gosztonyi, A. (2014) Genetic evidence and new morphometric data as essencial tools to identify the Patagonian seahorse Hippocampus patagonicus (Pisces; Syngnathidae). Journal of Fish Biology, 84, 459 - 474. http: // dx. doi. org / 10.1111 / jfb. 12299"]}

The genus Pterois includes nine valid species, native to the Red Sea and Indian Ocean throughout the Western Pacific. P. volitans and P. miles are native to the Indo-Pacific, and were introduced into Florida waters as a result of aquarium releases, and have been recently recognized as invaders of the Western Atlantic and Caribbean Sea (Costa Rica to Venezuela). Thus far, cytogenetic studies of the genus Pterois only cover basic aspects of three species, including P. volitans from Indo-Pacific Ocean. Considering the lack of more detailed information about cytogenetic characteristics of this invasive species, the objective of the present study was to investigate the basic and molecular cytogenetic characteristics of P. volitans in Venezuela, and compare the results with those from the original distribution area. For this, the karyotypic characteristics of four lionfish caught in Margarita Island, Venezuela, were investigated by examining metaphase chromosomes by Giemsa staining, C-banding, Ag-NOR, and two-colour-Fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) for mapping of 18S and 5S ribosomal genes. Comparing the sequences of the 16S gene of the specimens analyzed, with sequences already included in the Genbank, we corroborated that our specimens identified as P. volitans are in fact this species, and hence exclude the possibility of a misidentification of P. miles. The diploid number was 2n=48 (2m+10sm+36a) with FN=60. Chromosomes uniformly decreased in size, making it difficult to clearly identify the homologues except for the only metacentric pair, and the pairs number two, the largest of the submetacentric series. C-banding revealed only three pairs of chromosomes negative for C-band, whereas all remaining chromosomes presented telomeric and some interstitial C-positive blocks. Only two chromosomes were C-banding positive at the pericentromeric regions. Sequential staining revealed Ag-NOR on the tips of the short arms of chromosome pair number two and the FISH assay revealed that 18S rDNA and 5S rDNA genes are co-located on this chromosome pair. The co-localization of 5S rDNA and 45S rDNA is discussed. Both constitutive heterochromatin and NOR location detected in samples examined in this study, differ from those reported for P. volitans in previous analysis of specimens collected in Indian Ocean (Java), suggesting the occurrence of chromosome microrearrangements involving heterochromatin during the spread of P. volitans.Rev. Biol. Trop. 62 (4): 1365-1373. Epub 2014 December 01. El género Pterois contiene nueve especies válidas, nativas del Mar Rojo y el Océano Índico en el Pacífico occidental. P. volitans y P. miles son nativas del Indo-Pacífico, y fueron introducidas en las aguas de Florida como resultado de la liberación de peces confinados en acuario y han sido reconocidas recientemente como invasoras en el Atlántico Occidental y Mar Caribe (Costa Rica hasta Venezuela). Los estudios citogenéticos realizados hasta ahora en el género Pterois cubren solamente aspectos básicos de tres especies que incluyen a P. volitans del océano Indo-Pacífico. Debido a la ausencia de información detallada sobre las características cromosómicas de esta especie invasora, el objetivo del presente estudio fue investigar las características citogenéticas en ejemplares de Venezuela mediante técnicas convencionales y moleculares y comparar los resultados con los reportados para el área de distribución original. Para ello, se investigaron las características cariotípicas mediante tinción con Giemsa, bandeo-C, impregnación con Nitrato de Plata (Ag-NOR) e hibridación fluorescente in situ (FISH) dual para localizar los genes ribosomales 18S rDNA y 5S rDNA en cuatro ejemplares de pez león capturados en la Isla Margarita, Venezuela. La comparación de secuencias del gen 16S de los especímenes analizados con secuencias ya incluidas en el Genbank permitieron corroborar la identificación de P. volitans excluyendo así la posibilidad de una identificación errónea de P. miles. El número diploide fue 2n=48 (2m+10sm+36a) con un FN=60. Los cromosomas presentaron tamaños que disminuyen de manera uniforme dificultando la identificación de homólogos, excepto el único par metacéntrico y el par cromosómico número 2. El bandeo-C reveló tres pares de cromosomas bandas-C negativos, mientras que los restantes presentaron bloques bandas-C positivos en posición telomérica y, en algunos casos, intersticial. Sólo dos cromosomas mostraron bandas-C pericentroméricas. La tinción secuencial reveló las Ag-NOR localizadas en los extremos de los brazos cortos del par número dos y el ensayo FISH demostró que los genes 18S rDNA y 5S rDNA se localizan en ese mismo par. Se discute la co-localización de los genes 5S rDNA y 18S rDNA. La distribución de la heterocromatina constitutiva y localización de las NORs en los peces examinados difirió de la reportada para ejemplares de P. volitans del Océano Índico (Java), sugiriendo que durante la propagación de P. volitans han ocurrido reorganizaciones cromosómicas que involucran la heterocromatina.