7 research outputs found
The catfish family Ariidae (Teleostei) in New Guinea and Australia : relationships, systematics and zoogeography / by Patricia Joan Kailola
No full textTypescript (Photocopy)Includes 3 published papers by the author in back of volume 2Bibliography: leaves 510-541 of vol. 12 v. : ill ; 30 cm.Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Adelaide, Dept. of Zoology, 199
Moisture Content and Absorption Levels of Carbon Dioxide in Binuang Bini (Octomeles sumatrana Miq) Trees For Climate Change Management
No full textBinuang bini (Octomeles sumatrana Miq) is a fast-growing tree with numerous economic benefits, such as the provision of wood for carpentry purposes, building boards, water management, and absorption of carbon dioxide (CO2). Therefore, this tree species has great potential and needs to be included in Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD)+\u27s mitigation program to tackle climate change. In its development, REDD+ has made it possible to carry out carbon trading in the world. Therefore, countries capable of performing protective functions and carry out reforestation, afforestation, and restoration, have the opportunity to be involved in world carbon trading. This study aims to determine the moisture content and carbon absorption rate of Binuang bini trees as a first step to regulate the allometric equation using destructive and laboratory analysis. The results show that the water content in the roots, leaves, as well as the base, middle, and tip of the stem were: 73.69%, 68.39%, 65.59%, 61.22%, and 66.26%, respectively. Furthermore, the sample test results indicate a very close relationship between carbon concentration and absorbance in the O. sumatrana tree with a simple linear regression equation: Y = 0.002X + 0.0593 with R2 = 0.9896. Therefore, this regression equation can be used to calculate the carbon concentration sample for the O. sumatrana tree fraction. The carbon content in 3 tree samples with a breast height diameter of 9.24 cm, 10.08 cm, and 11.68 cm was 2,585 kg. 2,913 kg, and 4,654 kg, respectively. In addition, the carbon sequestration for each tree diameter per year is 1.581 kg year-1, 1,782 kg year-1and 2,847 kg year-1, respectively
PENERAPAN STRATEGI SOCIAL FORESTRY DALAM PENGELOLAAN HUTAN KEMASYARAKATAN (HKm) DI KABUPATEN HALMAHERA UTARA
No full textForest damage issue at North Halmahera arose for reasons such as: Forest
Management Authority concession approval operation and Shifting Cultivation
system. One of the solutions to overcome those issues is implementing society
forest management. This research aimed to: 1) identify issues impacting toward
society forest management at North Halmahera from various area development
subsystems, 2) formulate society forest management goal based on identified
issue, 3) formulate social forestry strategy in society forest management based on
drafted issues and goals.
This research used survey and descriptive basic method. Research was
undertaken at Talaga Paca village for: 1) as an area suggested obtaining
concession approval for society forest management of 500 hectare land, 2) has the
exact same condition to other villages thus considered as representative. Data
gathered is subsystem data of society social-economical, agriculture, forestry and
government policy in society forest management. Data obtained then descriptively
analyzed to identify various issues affected in society forest management at North
Halmahera District from various area development subsystems.
Research result showed that issues caused forest damage at Talaga Paca
village was 17.501,8 kg/year farmer food (rice) needs deficit, revenue deficit
when converted into rice value categorized as poor (305 kg), firewood deficit
originated from farming land, low farming land productivity, farming had not
meet firewood and craft needs, firewood deprivation, wood theft, sifhting
cultivation activity, and there is no government policy regarding society forest
management form particularly using social forestry system. Society forest
management carried out is: forest engineering through FEM that is by
Management Regime III toward production forest also Management Regime IV
toward conservation forest and social manipulation through society empowering
and institutions forming
Pateobatis hortlei
No full textPateobatis hortlei (Last, Manjaji-Matsumoto & Kailola, 2006) Hortle’s Whipray Himantura hortlei Last, Manjaji-Matsumoto & Kailola, 2006: 22, Figs 1 –7. Holotype: CSIRO H 5155-01. Type locality: Minajerwi River estuary, West Papua, Indonesia. Local synonymy: Himantura nasuta - Filewood, 1973: 12 (PNG). “ Himantura nasuta ”— Kailola, 1987: 29 (Pai’ia Inlet, Gulf of Papua). Himantura hortlei— Last et al., 2006 (possibly PNG). Pateobatis hortlei— Last et al., 2016a: 601 (PNG); White et al., 2018: 252, figs (PNG). PNG voucher specimens: (17 spec.) CSIRO H 7615-01, female 280 mm DW, south of Kerema, Gulf of Papua, 8°2’55.2” S, 145°43’30” E, 17 m depth, 20 Jun. 2014; CSIRO H 7616-01, juvenile male 220 mm DW, south of Kerema, Gulf of Papua, 8°1’26.4” S, 145°44’1.2” E, 14–15 m depth, 17 Jun. 2014; CSIRO H 7802-01, male 370 mm DW, south of Kerema, Gulf of Papua, 8°5’11.4” S, 145°47’10.8” E, 20 m depth, 11 Jun. 2014; CSIRO H 7814- 0 2, juvenile male 250 mm DW, CSIRO H 7814-03, juvenile male 290 mm DW, south of Deception Bay, Gulf of Papua, 7°58’52” S, 144°40’7” E, 22–23 m depth, 28 Nov. 2014; CSIRO H 8020-02, juvenile male 160 mm DW, east of Fly River mouth, Gulf of Papua, 8°34’22” S, 144°4’31” E, 9 m depth, 1 Apr. 2015; CSIRO H 8021-01, female 410 mm DW, east of Fly River mouth, Gulf of Papua, 8°39’21” S, 144°8’46” E, 11–17 m depth, 1 Apr. 2015; CSIRO H 8025-01, juvenile male 240 mm DW, south of Deception Bay, Gulf of Papua, 8°6’39” S, 144°25’45” E, 12–15 m depth, 5 Apr. 2015; KFRS E.642, female 300 mm DW, east of Fly River mouth, Gulf of Papua, 8°34’22” S, 144°4’31” E, 9 m depth, 1 Apr. 2015; KFRS E.646, juvenile male 290 mm DW, KFRS E.647, juvenile male 290 mm DW, KFRS E.648, juvenile male 250 mm DW, south of Deception Bay, Gulf of Papua, 7°58’52” S, 144°40’7” E, 22–23 m depth, 28 Nov. 2014; KFRS E.657, juvenile male 250 mm DW, south of Deception Bay, Gulf of Papua, 8°0’27” S, 144°35’37” E, 21–22 m depth, 30 Nov. 2014; KFRS E.677, juvenile male 250 mm DW, KFRS E.678, juvenile male 260 mm DW, south of Deception Bay, Gulf of Papua, 8°9’6” S, 144°26’25” E, 20–24 m depth, 5 Dec. 2014; KFRS E.734, juvenile male 230 mm DW, south of Kerema, Gulf of Papua, 8°2’22.2” S, 145°37’13.2” E, 15–16 m depth, 15 Jun. 2014; KFRS E.749, juvenile male 250 mm DW, south of Deception Bay, Gulf of Papua, 8°7’0” S, 144°29’ E, 18 m depth, 1 Dec. 2014. Remarks: First recorded from PNG by Filewood (1973) as Himantura nasuta. An unregistered specimen collected from West Papua in 1954–55 examined by the senior author during a visit to the RMNH collection in Leiden, Netherlands, had a handwritten label which read: Himantura nasuta nov L.W. Filewood det. July 1968 (The second known specimen!) One of the destroyed KFRS specimens, E.292, collected from Pai’ia Inlet in July 1967 had the comment ‘holotype’ on the collection card, presumably the first specimen recorded for this species. Thus, Filewood appears to have intended to describe this species as new and call it Himantura nasuta, but no formal description was ever published. Common in the bycatch of the Gulf of Papua prawn trawl fishery. One specimen observed in the bycatch of the trap fishery in Wewak on the north coast, suggesting a wider distribution around mainland New Guinea. Previously placed in the genus Himantura.Published as part of White, William T. & Ko'Ou, Alfred, 2018, An annotated checklist of the chondrichthyans of Papua New Guinea, pp. 1-82 in Zootaxa 4411 (1) on page 60, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4411.1, http://zenodo.org/record/122187
Platycephalus endrachtensis Quoy and Gaimard 1825
No full textPlatycephalus endrachtensis Quoy and Gaimard, 1825 Common English name: Northern sand flathead (Figs. 28–29; Table 11) Platycephalus endrachtensis Quoy & Gaimard, 1825: 353 (type locality: Shark Bay, WA, Australia); Cuvier in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1829: 240; Imamura, 2008: 405, figs. 1 b, 2 –3, 6b. Platycephalus arenarius Ramsay & Ogilby, 1886: 577 (type locality: Middle Harbor, Port Jackson, NSW, Australia); McCulloch, 1929: 401; Gloerfelt-Tarp & Kailola, 1984: 113, unnumbered fig.; Hutchins & Swainston, 1986: 127, fig. 202; Allen & Swainston, 1988: 52, fig. 277; Paxton & Hanley, 1989: 467; Knapp, 1991: 29, tab. 3; Kuiter, 1993: 102, unnumbered fig.; Allen, 1997: 80, pl. 21 - 16; Knapp, 1999: 2407, unnumbered fig.; Grant, 2004: 194, pl. 88; Hoese et al., 2006: 939; Imamura, 2006: 304, tab. 1. Trudis arenarius: Whitley, 1964: 57. Material examined. Lectotype: MNHN 6865, 175 mm SL (snout damaged, measured by Blanc & Hureau, 1968), Shark Bay, WA, Australia, designated by Imamura (2008). Paralectotype: MNHN 2007 -0128 (ex. MNHN 6865), 153 mm SL (snout damaged, measured by Blanc & Hureau, 1968), collected with lectotype. Other specimens (21 specimens, 97.2–330 mm SL, from): 12 specimens, including AMS B. 7136, holotype of Platycephalus arenarius Ramsay & Ogilby, 1886, were listed in Imamura (2008); 8 additional specimens: AMS E.1581, 1 of 6 specimens, 286 mm SL, 35 km SE of Double Island Point, Qld (about 26 ° 10 ’S, 153 ° 20 ’E), 29 June 1910; CSIRO 5974-14, 330 mm SL, Jimbaran Bay, Bali, Indonesia (08° 45 ’S, 115 ° 10 ’E), from Kedonganan fish market, 5 Oct. 2002; CSIRO A 1424, 113.9 mm SL, Port Gregory, WA (28 ° 12 ’S, 114 ° 15 ’E), 25 Aug. 1945; CSIRO CA 2964, 259 mm SL, off Port Headland, WA (20 ° 14 ’S, 117 ° 45 ’E), 27.0 m depth, 22 Aug. 1982; NMV A22147, 1 of 2 specimens, 120 mm SL, 2 km E of St. Helens, Tas (41 ° 16 ’S, 148 ° 22 ’E), 13 Nov. 1969; NTM S. 10733 -044, 302 mm SL, Jimbaran fish market, Bali, Indonesia (08° 46 ’S, 115 ° 10 ’E), 1981; WAM P. 32381 -009, 177 mm SL, Cape Peron North, WA (25 ° 30.484 ’0”S, 113 ° 33.688 ’0”E), 25 Feb. 2003; WAM P. 32429 -004, 170 mm SL, Cape Bellefin, WA (25 ° 49.939 ’S, 113 ° 14.274 ’E), 1 Mar. 2003. Diagnosis. A species of Platycephalus with the following combination of characters: first dorsal fin with a single small isolated spine anteriorly; second dorsal- and anal-fin rays usually 13; interorbital width 7.7 –12.0% HL; postorbital length 50.7–56.9 % HL; snout, area anteroventral to the eye, interorbit and occipital region scaled; upper iris lappet simple, triangular; a finger-like interopercular flap present; upper jaw without large caniniform teeth; teeth absent on dorsal surface of anterolateral edge of upper jaw; palatine teeth arranged in two rows; usually four or more dark longitudinal bands on caudal fin. Description. Counts and measurements shown in Table 11. Data for all specimens presented first, followed by lectotype condition in parentheses. Lectotype Paralectotype Holotype of P. arenarius Non-types MNHN 6865 MNHN 2007 -0128 AMS B. 7136 n = 20 SL (mm) 175 * 153 * 239 97.2–330 Counts: Snout, area anteroventral to eye, interorbit and occipital region scaled; lower half of suborbital region naked. Interorbit narrower than orbital diameter. Upper iris lappet simple, triangular; lower simple, weakly convex. Nasal and preorbital spines absent. One suborbital spine present below posterior margin of eye in 177 mm SL or smaller specimens (including lectotype), absent in larger specimens. Lower preopercular spine slightly longer than upper, not reaching opercular margin. Supplemental preopercular spine usually present in 207 mm SL or smaller specimens, absent in larger specimens (absent in lectotype). Finger-like interopercular flap present; margin of interopercle smooth. Maxilla reaching from near anterior margin of pupil to middle of eye (upper jaw damaged in lectotype). Upper jaw with moderate or large conical, or small caniniform teeth anteromedially. Palatine teeth in two rows, villiform in outer row, moderate conical in inner. Vomerine teeth sparsely arranged in one or two rows (vomer damaged in lectotype); number of teeth tending to increase with growth. Fleshy sensory tubes from suborbitals and preopercle not covering cheek region. Posterior tip of pelvic fin reaching from just anterior to origin of anal fin, to base of third anal-fin ray (not examined in lectotype). Posterior margin of caudal fin mostly straight, or slightly rounded (slightly rounded). Color in alcohol. Color of lectotype mostly faded, retaining melanophores only on area between ninth and last anal-fin rays, and four brownish bands on caudal fin (Fig. 29 A). In other specimens (Fig. 28), ground color of head and body pale to dark brown above, paler below. Dorsal surface of head and body with small dark spots. Side of body with or without gray or brown band. First and second dorsal, pectoral and pelvic fins with small pale to dark brown spots. Anal fin with melanophores along rays; area with melanophores tending to become broader with growth, from the 10 th to last rays in smallest (97.2 mm SL) specimen, and from second to last rays in largest (330 mm SL) specimen. Caudal fin with three to six (usually four or more; three in faded specimens) dark brown or black longitudinal bands. Distribution. Known from Australia, from Cliff Point, Qld (ca. 22 ° 32 ’S) to St. Helens, Tas (41 ° 16 ’S), and from Hamelin Bay, WA (ca. 34 ° 10 ’S) to Port Hedland (20 °0’S) and Bali, Indonesia, in estuaries and coastal bays on clean sand in depths from 1–60 m (e.g., Hutchins & Swainston, 1986; Kuiter, 1993; Knapp, 1999; Hoese et al., 2006; Imamura, 2008; this study). Size. Maximum length 45 cm (e.g., Hutchins & Swainston, 1986; Kuiter, 1993). The largest specimen examined during the present study was 330 mm SL (362 mm TL) (Fig. 28). Remarks. The name Platycephalus endrachtensis had been mistakenly referred to a species having a yellow blotch on the upper portion of the caudal fin when fresh by many authors (e.g., Taylor, 1964; Gloerfelt-Tarp & Kailola, 1984; Sainsbury et al. 1985; Hutchins & Swainston 1986; Knapp, 1999) until Imamura (2008) revealed it to be a senior synonym of P. arenarius Ramsay & Ogilby, 1886 (Fig. 29 B), P. westraliae being the species with a yellow blotch [see Imamura (2008) for a detailed discussion]. Platycephalus endrachtensis most resembles P. angustus, P. australis, P. cultellatus and P. indi cus, P. westraliae, and Platycephalus sp. 1 and sp. 2 (sensu Nakabo, 2002) in having usually 13 second dorsal- and analfin rays, the snout, area anteroventral to the eye, interorbit, and occipital region scaled, large caniniform teeth absent on the upper jaw, a finger-like interopercular flap, palatine teeth arranged in two rows and the caudal fin with dark brown or black longitudinal bands It can be distinguished from P. angustus, P. cultellatus, and Platycephalus sp. 1 and sp. 2 in having the first dorsal fin with a single small isolated spine anteriorly (usually two in the latter four species), and also from P. angustus in lacking teeth on the dorsal surface of the upper jaw (present in P. angustus specimens ca. 76 mm SL or larger) and having vomerine teeth in one or two rows (vs. number of vomerine tooth rows tending to increase with growth, from two to four rows in 106–184 mm SL specimens, respectively, and forming a single broad band of teeth in larger specimens). Platycephalus endrachtensis is also separable from P. westraliae in having a simple triangular upper iris lappet (usually broad and bilobed in P. westraliae) and by lacking a yellow blotch on the caudal fin when fresh (yellow blotch present on upper portion of caudal fin in P. westraliae). Platycephalus endrachtensis differs from the above eight species in having a narrower interorbit and shorter postorbital region (interorbital width 7.7 –12.0% HL and postorbital length 50.7–56.9 % HL in P. endrachtensis vs. 7.3–17.3 % HL and 55.5–67.8 % HL in P. angustus, 6.5–18.1 % HL and 51.6–63.6 % HL in P. australis, 6.5 –19.0% HL and 51.8–66.8 % HL in P. cultellatus, 7.2–18.4 % HL and 51.4–61.6 % HL in P. i n di cu s, 6.3 –17.0% HL and 51.2–60.9 % HL in P. westraliae, 8.2–17.2 % HL and 53.9–61.7 % HL in Platycephalus sp. 1, and 9.2–17.9 % HL and 54.4–63.5 % HL in Platycephalus sp. 2) (Fig. 19). The generally greater number (usually four or more vs. two or three, respectively) of longitudinal bands on the caudal fin may also help to differentiate P. endrachtensis from the other species (except P. australis, P. cultellatus, and Platycephalus sp. 1 and sp. 2). Knapp (1999) stated that P. endrachtensis (as P. arenarius) was distributed around northern Australia from Jervis Bay, NSW to Hamelin Bay, WA. However, there have been no specimens collected from the area between Cliff Point, Qld (ca. 22 ° 32 ’S) and Port Hedland, WA (20 °0’S) deposited in the major Australian ichthyological collections (i.e., AMS, CSIRO, NMV, NTM, QM and WAM) visited by the present author. Pending the collection of voucher specimens, the above area is omitted from the distribution of P. endrachtensis.Published as part of Imamura, Hisashi, 2015, Taxonomic revision of the flathead fish genus Platycephalus Bloch, 1785 (Teleostei: Platycephalidae) from Australia, with description of a new species, pp. 151-207 in Zootaxa 3904 (2) on pages 190-193, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3904.2.1, http://zenodo.org/record/23355
Cathorops multiradiatus
No full textCathorops multiradiatus (fig. 7 and 8) Bagrus arioides Kner, 1863: 227, fig. 15 [Type locality: río Bayano, Panama. Holotype: ZSM destroyed. Preoccupied by Bagrus arioides Valenciennes, 1840, objectively invalid]. Arius multiradiatus Günther, 1864: 173 [New name for Bagrus arioides Kner, 1863. No type designated].- Regan, 1906: 126 and 128 [Panama; diagnosis in key; synonymy; brief redescription].- Meek & Hildebrand, 1923: 122 and 123 [Panama: Chame Point, Balboa, Panama City Market; diagnosis in key; redescription].- Hildebrand, 1946: 127, fig. 28 [Ecuador: Gulf of Guayaquil off Puerto Pizarro, Panama: Panama Bay; synonymy; redescription; distribution]. Tachisurus multiradiatus.- Eigenmann & Eigenmann, 1888: 146 [only name].- Eigenmann & Eigenmann, 1890: 50 and 92 [diagnosis in key; synonymy; distribution]. Tachysurus multiradiatus.- Jordan & Evermann, 1896: 121 and 132 [diagnosis in key; synonymy; brief redescription]. Tachysurus emmelane Gilbert, 1898: 2785 [Type locality: Panama. Holotype: SU 5818].- Gilbert & Starks, 1904: 31, pl. 6, figs. 11 and 11 a [Panama: Panama Bay; redescription]. Tachysurus equatorialis Starks, 1906: 766 [Type locality: Guayaquil, Ecuador. Holotype: USNM 53470].- Evermann & Radcliffe, 1917 [Ecuador; redescription]. Cathorops multiradiatus.- Allen & Robertson, 1994: 69 [new combination].- Kailola & Bussing, 1995: 862 and 881 [diagnosis in key; synonymy; redescription].- Chirichigno & Vélez, 1998: 160 [Peru; diagnosis in key].- Eschmeyer et al., 1998 [synonymy, distribution].- Marceniuk & Ferraris, 2003: 449 [synonymy, distribution].- Ferraris, 2007: 40 [synonymy, distribution]. Diagnosis. Cathorops multiradiatus can be distinguished from all congeners by the following combination of characters: 16–19 gill rakers on first arch; 15–18 gill rakers on second arch; 25–27 anal fin rays; posterior margin of pectoral fin spine with long and conspicuous serrations. Additional characters help distinguish this species from each of its congeners from the Pacific coast of Central and South America. Cathorops multiradiatus is distinguished from C. dasycephalus in possessing vomerine tooth plates absent (vs. vomerine tooth plates present) and osseous bridge formed by lateral ethmoid and frontal without granulation (vs. granulated osseous bridge along its length). Cathorops multiradiatus differs from C. fuerthii in having medial groove of neurocranium deep and large, with lateral margins regular and progressively narrower posteriorly (vs. median groove narrow and shallow, with irregular margins along its length), shorter distance between posterior nostrils (5.1–5.8 vs. 5.8–7.3 % SL), larger orbital diameter (4.1–5.2 vs. 3.7–4.1 % SL), accessory tooth plates shorter (2.1–2.8 vs. 3.9–4.9 % SL) and narrower (0.7–1.2 vs. 1.6– 2.2 % SL), and shorter pectoral fin spine (16.9–18.7 vs. 19.5 –21.0% SL). Cathorops multiradiatus differs from C. hypophthalmus in possessing a shorter distance between anterior nostrils (3.7–4.5 vs. 6.9–7.1 % SL) and between posterior nostrils (5.1–5.8 vs. 8.2–8.5 % SL), larger orbital diameter (4.1–5.2 vs. 3.0– 3.5 % SL), shorter external mental barbel (18.4–24.6 vs. 34.5–38.1 % SL), shorter internal mental barbel (8.6–16.7 vs. 26.1–31.2 % SL), and shorter dorsal fin spine (18.2–21.3 vs. 25.0– 25.2 % SL). Cathorops multiradiatus differs from C. manglarensis in possessing a shorter maxillary barbel (22.9–27.7 vs. 28.4–38.2 % SL) (fig. 3), shorter pectoral fin spine (16.9–18.7 vs. 18.5–22.5 % SL), dorsal fin spine longer than pectoral fin spine (vs. dorsal fin spine shorter than pectoral fin spine) (fig. 4), and shorter and narrow accessory tooth plates, with small and few molariform teeth (fig. 9) (vs. longer and wider accessory tooth plates, with large and numerous molariform teeth) (fig. 5). Cathorops multiradiatus differs from C. tuyra in possessing a shorter distance from tip of snout to dorsal fin origin (31.2–34.8 vs. 34.5–39.8 % SL), shorter supraoccipital process (9.8–11.5 vs. 11.3– 13.7 % SL), and accessory tooth plates and dentary with relatively small molariform teeth (vs. accessory tooth plates and dentary with very large molariform teeth). Neotype Males Female n Mean Range Standard length (mm) 192.0 3 120.0-209.0 174.0 Head length 27.5 3 25.1 22.9 -27.0 23.5 Snout length 6.4 3 6.4 5.5-6.9 5.8 Distance between anterior nostrils 4.5 3 4.2 4.0- 4.2 3.7 Distance between posterior nostrils 5.8 3 5.5 5.3-5.7 5.1 Anterior nostril to orbit length 7.1 3 7.0 6.8-7.4 6.6 Posterior nostril to orbit length 5.3 3 5.5 5.3-5.7 4.5 Orbital diameter 4.1 3 4.7 4.2-5.2 4.5 Interorbital distance 14.2 3 14.5 14.2-14.8 11.7 Maxillary barbel length 25.7 3 25.5 22.9-27.7 27.6 External mental barbel length 18.6 3 21.7 18.4-24.6 20.8 Internal mental barbel length 12.7 3 13.5 8.6-16.7 15.3 Snout to maxillary barbel length 1.7 3 2.0 1.5-2.3 0.9 Snout to external mental barbel length 2.7 3 3.0 2.7-3.3 3.5 Snout to internal mental barbel length 1.9 3 2.4 2.2-2.5 2.9 Mouth width 10.7 3 9.6 9.2 -10.0 9.2 Lower-jaw length 1.9 3 1.6 1.4 -2.0 1.0 Premaxillary length 0.9 3 1.1 0.9-1.4 1.2 Premaxillarys width 6.6 3 5.5 4.6-6.7 5.8 Distance between accessory tooth plates 6.3 3 5.0 4.3-5.3 5.6 Length of accessory tooth plates 2.5 3 2.5 2.1-2.8 2.5 Width of accessory tooth plates 0.9 3 0.7 0.7 - 0.7 1.2 Width of cephalic shield at lateral ethmoid area 13.0 3 13.1 13.0- 13.2 10.6 Width of cephalic shield at frontals area 6.0 3 6.5 5.7 -7.0 5.9 Width of cephalic shield at epioccipital area 12.2 3 12.0 11.6-12.7 10.9 Width of cephalic shield at supracleithrum area 18.1 3 16.5 15.5-17.4 16.1 Lateral ethmoid to supracleithrum distance 25.0 3 22.0 20.3-24.3 19.9 Snout to post. margin of medial groove length 22.2 3 20.6 17.8-23.4 19.4 Supraoccipital process length 10.2 3 10.5 9.8-11.5 9.9 Supraoccipital process width 3.1 3 2.7 2.5-2.7 2.2 Nuchal-plates length 7.2 3 6.6 6.2-7.2 6.7 Nuchal-plate width 7.3 3 7.3 6.9-7.5 6.3 Body height 18.1 3 16.5 15.8-16.9 16.9 Body width 21.7 3 20.7 20.1-21.3 18.9 Snout to pectoral fin length 23.9 3 20.7 19.2-22.6 21.8 Snout to dorsal fin length 33.9 3 32.7 31.2-34.8 31.6 Snout to pelvic fin length 48.1 3 47.4 45.4-50.7 48.3 Snout to adipose fin length 75.8 3 74.1 72.0- 77.6 74.2 Snout to anal fin length 63.1 3 67.5 62.6-73.7 64.6 to be continued. Neotype Males Female n Mean Range Caudal-peduncle height 8.6 3 9.7 9.1-10.1 7.2 Pectoral fin spine length 17.9 3 17.8 16.9-18.7 16.9 Dorsal fin spine length 20.1 3 19.6 18.2-21.3 18.3 Pelvic fin base length 3.5 3 4.2 4.1-4.4 4.3 Pelvic fin height 12.1 3 13.1 12.9-13.7 13.6 Adipose fin base length 8.8 3 7.5 5.8 -9.0 7.6 Adipose fin height 4.1 3 4.1 3.7-4.3 3.5 Anal fin base length 20.0 2 22.3 21.5-23.2 21.2 Anal fin height 9.4 2 13.6 13.5-13.7 12.5 Caudal fin upper lobe length - 2 31.6 31.4-31.8 31.7 Caudal fin lower lobe length - 2 29.5 29.8 -30.0 28.0 Description. (Table 1 and 3). Head moderately long and depressed, profile slightly convex at level of frontals and supraoccipital. Body wider than deeper on pectoral girdle area. Cephalic shield moderately granulated and visible under skin, moderately long and broad on lateral ethmoid and epioccipital area and narrow on frontal and supracleithrum areas. Osseous bridge formed by lateral ethmoid and frontals slender and visible under skin. Medial groove of neurocranium formed by frontals and supraoccipital very distinct, deep and large, progressively narrower posteriorly. Supraoccipital process of moderate length and funnel shaped, its posterior part considerably narrower than its base and profile moderately convex. Nuchal plate half moon shaped, long and wide. Snout round in transverse section. Anterior and posterior nostrils closer among themselves. Eyes lateral and relatively large. Interorbital distance and distance between nostrils and orbit large. Short maxillary barbel, reaching base of pectoral fin spine and moderately long mental barbels, external mental pair reaching margin of gill membrane, internal pair not reaching margin of gill membrane. Mouth of moderate size, lower jaw moderately arched. Lips moderately thick, lower thinner than upper. Vomerine tooth plates absent. One pair of elongated and narrow oval shaped accessory tooth plates, quite small and distant from each other. Accessory tooth plates with small molariform teeth. Premaxillary moderately long and wide. Dentary with posterior projection poorly development or absent, with many sharp teeth on anterior portion and few small molariform teeth on posterior portion. Sixteen to nineteen (19) acicular gill rakers on first arch, 6 (6) on upper limb, 10–13 (13) on lower limb. Fifteen to eighteen (17) spike shaped gill rakers on second arch, 4–5 (5) on upper limb, 10–13 (12) on lower limb. Ten to eleven (10) soft pectoral fin rays. Pectoral fin spine short and thin; anterior margin granulated on two thirds, serrated on distal third; posterior margin straight on basal fourth, distal three quarters with quite long serrations. Seven (7) dorsal fin rays. Dorsal fin spine of moderate length and thin, longer than pectoral fin spine; anterior margin granulated on basal two thirds, distal third serrated; posterior margin serrated almost all its length. Six (6) pelvic fin rays, low and length of base long. Adipose fin small, its base less than half as long as anal fin base. Twenty-five to twenty-seven (27) anal fin rays, low and length of base long. Upper and lower lobes of caudal fin of moderate length, upper longer than lower. Caudal peduncle high. Lateral line reaching base of caudal fin upper lobe. Coloration in alcohol. Head dark brown on dorsal and lateral portions, ventrally whitish. Body with same dark brown color on dorsal portion, progressively lighter towards lateral line and whitish under lateral line, with few brown spots. Barbels dark brown. All fins dark beige overall. Sexual dimorphism. Sexual dimorphism was observed in 1 female (174.0 mm SL) and 4 males (120.0– 209.0 mm SL) with respect to following morphological features (Table 3). Males with relatively longer and wider head than females, as expressed by longer head, longer snout, greater distance between nostrils and orbit, greater distance between lateral horn of lateral ethmoid and external branch of supracleithrum, greater distance from tip of snout to posterior margin of medial groove of neurocranium, greater distance from tip of snout to dorsal and anal fins origin, greater interorbital distance, greater distance between nostrils, and wider cephalic shield on lateral ethmoid, frontal and epioccipital areas. Males have wider body than females. Females with larger accessory tooth plates than males (fig. 9) and males with accessory tooth plates generally covered by epithelial tissue. Dentary in females with a longer posterior expansion and larger and more molariform teeth on posterior portion than males (fig. 9). Pelvic fin and maxillary barbel longer in females than in males. Males present longer pectoral and dorsal fin spines, relatively longer caudal fin lower lobe, and deeper caudal peduncle than females. Distribution. The literature indicates that C. multiradiatus occurs from Guatemala to Paita, Peru (Hildebrand, 1946; Kailola & Bussing, 1995). The examined specimens are from Panama and Colombia (fig. 6). Common in shallow coastal areas and mangrove regions. Remarks. Kner (1863) described Bagrus arioides based on one specimen collected in the River Bayano, in Panama. The name is preoccupied by a species described by Valenciennes (1840) from Bengal, India. Homonymy was recognized by Günther (1864), who proposed Arius multiradiatus as a replacement for Bagrus arioides Kner, 1863. According to Article 59 (a) of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (1999), which deals with cases of primary homonyms, Bagrus arioides Kner, 1863 must be definitely rejected and recognized as an invalid senior synonym of Cathorops multiradiatus (Günther, 1864). The specimen examined by Kner (1863) was destroyed (personal communication of Dirk Neumann) and C. multiradiatus may be recognized by its original description, partially reproduced by Günther (1864), with the number of anal-fin rays was long identified as an exclusive characteristic of the species within the genus (Eigenmann & Eigenmann, 1890; Jordan & Evermann, 1896; Regan, 1906; Meek & Hildebrand, 1923; Hildebrand, 1946; Kailola & Bussing, 1995). Cathorops manglarensis has a similar number of anal-fin rays, rendering the recognition of C. multiradiatus imprecise, if based exclusively on its original description. Given the loss of the holotype, the previously only known type specimen of B. arioides, a neotype is herein designated to insure the stability of the name and to avoid future doubts concerning the identity of the species. The specimen chosen as neotype of C. multiradiatus is a male of 192.0 mm SL, from the Bay of Panama, belonging to the National Museum of Natural History (USNM 79408). The nominal species Tachysurus emmelane Gilbert, 1898 and Tachysurus equatorialis Starks, 1906, are recognized as junior synonyms of C. multiradiatus. The determination of the specific status of both nominal species is based on their original descriptions. Tachysurus emmelane Gilbert, 1898 was described based on one specimen of 280 mm TL, colleted in Panama. The original description presents characteristics of the species common to C. multiradiatus, which also distinguishes it from C. manglarensis: “ posterior mandibular (dentary) teeth stronger than those in front bluntly conic, not, however, granular or flat and pavement like (molariform), as are the posterior mandibular teeth in T. fuerthii, T. melanopus and T. liropus ”, “ palatine (accessory tooth plates) teeth granular (molariform), in small oblanceolate patches, which taper to a point laterally, and are widely separated on medial line, the patches agreeing in size and shape with those in T. liropus ”, “ the maxillary barbels reaching edge of gill membrane in front of pectoral spine, the outer mental barbels extending beyond gill membrane,..., the inner not to edge of membrane ”, “ gill rakers 6 + 13 ”, “ dorsal spine... its length to tip of calcified portion 1 2 / 5 in head ” and “ pectoral spine strong, ridged and granulated in front, the hinder edge with very strong serrae; length of spine 1 ¾ in head ”. Additionally, the type specimen of T. emmelane was examined by Dave Catania (Department of Ichthyology, California Academy of Sciences), that sent the following data on the type: 6 + 13 gill rakers on first gill arch; 6 + 13 gill rakers on second gill arch; maxillary barbel 52.4 mm (22.8 % SL) (fig. 3); pectoral fin spine 41.5 mm (17.9 % SL) (fig. 4); dorsal fin spine 44.8 mm (19.5 % SL and longer than pectoral-fin spine) (fig. 4); pectoral fin spines with long and conspicuous serrations on posterior surface. Starks (1906) described Tachysurus equatorialis based on only one specimen from Guayaquil, Ecuador. Tachysurus equatorialis differs from C. manglarensis and may be recognized as a synonym of C. multiradiatus based on the following characteristics presented in its original description: “ palatine patches (accessory tooth plates) small, elliptical, and widely separated, each bearing about 30 bluntly rounded teeth (molariform); length of each patch two-fifths of length of eye and half as wide as long ”, “ posterior, median, mandibular (dentary) teeth not enlarged as in other species ”, “ maxillary barbel reaching to axillary pore; posmental barbel to base of pectoral spine; and mental barbel to base of branchiostegal membrane ” and “ gill rakers.... 6 + 13 in number ”. The condition of T. equatorialis as a synonym of C. multiradiatus is also based on observations done by Hildebrand (1946). The author redescribed C. multiradiatus based on the examination of three specimens from the Gulf of Guayaquil and on specimens examined by Evermann & Radcliffe (1917), on which the authors based their redescription of Tachysurus equatorialis (USMN 77596). Hildebrand (1946) compared the cited specimens with specimens from Panama identified as C. multiradiatus and the type-specimen of T. equatorialis (USNM 53470), recognizing that all of them did not differ meaningfully from each other and probably represent the same species. Additionally, the type specimen of T. equatorialis was examined by Carl J. Ferraris (California Academy of Sciences) and Richard P. Vari (Division of Fishes, Smithsonian Institution) and the latter sent the following data on the type: 6 + 14 gill rakers on first gill arch; 5 + 13 gill rakers on second gill arch; maxillary barbel 35.5 mm (18.6 % SL) (fig. 3); pectoral fin spine broken; dorsal fin spine broken; pectoral fin spines with long and conspicuous serrations on posterior surface. Material Examined. Neotype (herein designated): USNM 79408 (male, 192.0 mm SL) Panama, Panama Bay, Balboa, canal zone, May 0 5 and 0 6 1911, Meek, S. E. & Hildebrand, S. F. USNM 388315 (1, 209.0 mm SL) collected with neotype; USNM 292703 (1, 174.0 mm SL) Colombia, Sandy Beach immediately South of Punta Canchaco in enseada de Juan Chaco, about 1, 1/ 2 hrs. by motor boat north of Buenaventura (03º 56 ' 40 '' N 77 º 21 ' W), Sep 18 1969, Knapp, L.; USNM 0 0 286400 (3, 120.0–125.0 mm SL) Colombia, off Cape Manglares, south of Tumaco (01º 39 ' 00'' N 79 º 02' 30 '' W to 01º 37 ' 30 '' N 79 º 02' 00'' W), Oct 27 1970, Knapp, L.Published as part of Marceniuk, Alexandre P., 2007, Description of Cathorops manglarensis, a new species from the Colombian Pacific, with redescription of Cathorops multiradiatus (Siluriformes; Ariidae), pp. 33-48 in Zootaxa 1529 on pages 40-46, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17763
