Oxyurichthys longicauda Steindachner

Larson, Helen K. & Pezold, Frank L., 2016, The correct name for Oxyurichthys longicauda Steindachner and a few other errors, Zootaxa 4066 (2), pp. 171-172 : 171-172

The correct name for Oxyurichthys longicauda Steindachner and a few other errors

HELEN K. LARSON1 & FRANK L. PEZOLD 2

1Museum and Art Gallery Northern Territory, GPO Box 4646, Darwin, NT 0 801, Australia; Museum of Tropical Queensland, Townsville, Queensland 4810, Australia; School of Marine and Tropical Biology, James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland 4811, Australia. E-mail: [e-mail]

2College of Science & Engineering, Texas A&M University - Corpus Christi, Corpus Christi, TX; 78412-5806, USA. E-mail: [e-mail]

In 2015, Pezold and Larson published a revision of the gobiid genus Oxyurichthys , and made an error in their use of the name O. uronema (Weber) for one of the species. The reasons for this would make a fine example of one of Evenhuis’ taxonomic impediments to nirvana (2007). Pezold and Larson first considered collaborating on this work in 1983, but this did not happen until nearly a decade later. Intensive work began in 1996; by then Larson had examined syntypes of both species in 1988 and determined that Gobius uronema Weber, 1909 , was the same species as Gobius longicauda Steindachner, 1893 .

We assumed that Steindachner’s Gobius longicauda was a primary homonym of G. longicaudus Jenkins and Evermann, 1889 (a synonym of Ctenogobius sagittula (Günther)) , based on our interpretation of the 1985 version of the International Code of Nomenclature. However, a statement to this effect was absent from the final manuscript, having been edited out sometime between 2008 and 2011.

It must be confessed that when the latest version of the Code appeared in 1999, we did not notice that changes to Article 34 (Mandatory changes in spelling consequent upon changes in rank or combination) were relevant to the name of this species. Article 34.2 states that: “The ending of a Latin or latinized adjectival or participial species-group name must agree in gender with the generic name with which it is at any time combined [Art 31.2]; if the gender ending is incorrect it must be changed accordingly (the author and date of the name remain unchanged [Art. 50.3.2]).” We understood this as indicating that longicauda of Steindachner, when used with Gobius (masculine), must be in the masculine form longicaudus . In fact, longicauda is not an adjective but a noun in apposition and 34.2 does not apply. To make things clearer, in the 1999 edition Article 34.2.1 has been added that states that: “If a species-group name is a noun in apposition its ending need not agree in gender with the generic name with which it is combined and must not be changed to agree in gender with the generic name.”. The word longicauda is a noun in apposition (if he had intended an adjective, Steindachner would have used longicaudus to agree in gender with Gobius ). Further, “ longicauda ” is a legitimate noun in apposition (the Latin for tail is cauda). Therefore, G. longicauda it is not a junior homonym of G. longicaudus Jenkins & Evermann, 1889 (and see Kottelat, 2013: 415). And perhaps, by example we have added another step to total enlightenment and taxonomic nirvana: realizing and embracing the enjoyment of careful review of the latest edition of the Code.

Oxyurichthys longicauda ( Steindachner, 1893) is therefore the correct name for the species redescribed by Pezold and Larson (2015: 81-84). Larson, in Randall and Lim (2000) listed both O. longicauda and O. uronema as being present in the South China Sea, but Pezold and Larson (2015: 81) only refer to O. uronema in species’ citations.

A few other errors in the review were brought to our attention. First, the catalog numbers for the holotype and paratypes of Oxyurichthys rapa from the 11 August 2004 collection are incorrect in the Material Examined list (page 68). The correct catalog number for the holotype is given in the legend for figures 41 and 43 (page 69).

The corrected version of text for that section is given here: Material Examined. HOLOTYPE: USNM 378363, 66 mm SL, mouth of River Eke, upper end of Haurei Bay, Rapa , French Polynesia, J.T. Williams and party, 11 August 2004. PARATYPES: USNM 435840, 8 (7, 39– 56 mm SL, in ethanol, 1, 57 mm SL, C&S), same as holotype; MNHN 2014- 0 158, 1 (male, 41 mm SL), same as holotype; MNHN 2014-0159, 1 (female, 49 mm SL), same as holotype; USNM 378364, 1(20), probably vicinity of Haurei Bay, Rapa , French Polynesia, J.T. Williams and party, 18 November 2002.

Another problem was a misspelling of the name of a species described by Alvin Seale in 1914. The correct spelling is Oxyurichthys amabalis . Although the species description was reviewed early in this study, the frequent encounter of the wrong spelling in the literature (e.g. Herre, 1927, Koumans 1953) seems to have clouded our vision. The corrections would apply on: page 5, Table 1. Oxyurichthys amabilis Seale 1914 should be Oxyurichthus amabalis Seale 1914 (note Seale used a misspelling of the genus following Bleeker 1874); page 18 in the synonymy of O. auchenolepis , Oxyurichthys amabilis should read Oxyurichthus amabalis Seale, 1914 ; and on page 22, under Remarks, reference should be to the holotype of O. amabalis Seale (BSM 6432). Of less significance we also omitted two synonymies from Seale (1914). They are the addition of Oxyurichthus cristatus - Seale 1914: 75, to the synonymy of O. microlepis (page 39) and Gobiichthys tentacularis — Seale 1914: 76, to the synonymy for O. tentacularis (page 77).

Our thanks go to Maurice Kottelat, who pointed out the problem with O. longicauda , and to David Smith, for providing his nomenclatural advice. We also thank David Smith for alerting us to the error in the USNM collection numbers and Bill Eschmeyer for noting the correct spelling of Oxyurichthys amabalis .