First record of Muraenichthys gymnopterus (Ophichthidae: Myrophinae) from east coast of India, Bay of Bengal

283-285Muraenichthys gymnopterus (Bleeker, 1853) is reported for the first time from seven specimens collected from the Shankarpur fishing harbour (West Bengal), Visakhapatnam fishing harbour (Andhra Pradesh), and Chilika lagoon (Odisha). This paper reports Muraenichthys gymnopterus for the first time from the east coast of India as well as from Chilika lagoon

First record of Shorthead fang blenny, Petroscirtes breviceps (Valenciennes, 1836), from Chilika lagoon, India.

1692-1694Shorthead fang blenny, Petroscirtes breviceps (Valenciennes, 1836), a species of the family Blenniidae (Order Blenniiformes) is reported here as first record from Chilika Lagoon, Odisha, India based on 20 specimens collected from Chilika lagoon. This also forms the first record from coastal waters of Odisha

Note on occurrence of Lutke’s halfbeak Hemiramphus lutkei Valenciennes, 1847 (Beloniformes: Hemiramphidae), along Odisha Coast

The paper reports occurrence of Lutke’s halfbeak Hemiramphus lutkei Valenciennes, 1847, for the first time from the coastal waters of Odisha coast, India. This report confirms the occurrence of this species form an extended geographical range along the east coast of India and will be helpful in further study of its biology, zoogeography and taxonomic status of the family Hemiramphidae

First record of angry worm eel Skythrenchelys zabra (Anguilliformes: Ophichthidae) from the east coast of India

413-415Skythrenchelys zabra (Castle and McCosker, 1999) a species belonging to the family Ophichthidae is reported for the first time from the east coast of India on the basis of 11 specimens collected from various fishing harbours along the West Bengal, Odisha and Andhra Pradesh coasts. The species was first described from south-west coast of India in the Arabian Sea. The present report extends the range of distribution of the species to the Bay of Bengal along the east coast of India

Parateleopus Smith & Radcliffe 1912

Parateleopus Smith & Radcliffe 1912 Type species. Parateleopus microstomus Smith & Radcliffe 1912: 140 (type locality: near Makyan Island in the Moluccas, Indonesia, lat. 0°19′20″N., long. 127°28′30″E.) Diagnosis. The following combination of characters distinguishes Parateleopus from other ateleopodid genera: small mouth, posterior end of gape vertical to near anterior nostril (Fig. 1A); gill membranes united ventrally and attached to isthmus by soft tissue (Fig. 2A); sphenotic has vertically oblong crescent-shaped protrusion from behind eye to posteroinferior region of orbit (Fig. 3A); pelvic fin stiff, relatively short, the tip extending to point anywhere between base and anterior half of pectoral fin (Fig. 4B); wide pelvic bone (Fig. 6). Comparisons. Characters distinguishing ateleopodid genera are summarized in Table 1. Mouth small, the posterior end of gape extending to a little ahead of anterior nostril and one eye diameter anterior from anterior margin of eye in P. indicus (Fig. 1A), and “maxillary not reaching vertical to anterior margin of eye” in P. microstomus (Radcliffe 1912: 140). In the remaining genera of the family (Ateleopus, Ijimaia, and Guentherus), the mouth is large, the posterior end of gape extending to a vertical through anterior margin of eye (Fig. 1B). Lower jaw short in P. indicus, the posterior end of lower jaw situated vertical to pupil (Fig. 1A), but vertical to posterior margin of eye or beyond in all other genera (Fig. 1B). The original description of P. microstomus did not mention the posterior end of gape and lower jaw, but they seem to be situated vertical to anterior nostril and to posterior margin of eye, respectively, in figure 11 in Radcliffe (1912). Gill membranes united ventrally and attached to the isthmus by soft tissue in P. indicus (Fig. 2A). Left and right gill membranes separated and free from isthmus in Ateleopus and Ijimaia (Fig. 2B). Gill membranes united to ventrolateral parts of the middle of the isthmus in Guentherus (Fig. 2C). The condition in Parateleopus microstomus is unknown. The sphenotic of P. indicus possesses a vertically oblong crescent-shaped protrusion extending from behind eye to posteroinferior region of orbit (Fig. 3A). The sphenotic possesses a sharp spine behind the eye (Fig. 3B) in all other genera. Radcliffe (1912: 139) records the sphenotic of P. microstomus as absent: “the strong bony protuberance above and behind the eye is lacking” and “no sharp, knob-like structure above or behind eye” (Radcliffe 1912: 140). Parateleopus microstomus has three dorsal-fin rays, a very different number from that in the remaining genera of the family. Our counts were 8–10, 8–12, 10–13, and 9–10 in P. indicus, Ateleopus, Guentherus, and Ijimaia, respectively. The pelvic fin of Guentherus (Fig. 4A) has three free rays followed by normal rays (Smith 1986; Senou et al. 2008; Kaga 2016; this study). The pelvic fin in the remaining genera appears to be one ray, but it is actually composed of several minute rudimentary rays attached to the front base of this dominant ray and some vestigial rays in the cutaneous membrane on the medial side of the base of that ray (Kaga et al. 2015: Fig. 3). The elongated pelvic ray in P. indicus is stiff and relatively short, with the tip extending to point anywhere between the base of the pectoral fin and the anterior half of that fin (Fig. 4B). The elongated ray of Ijimaia is stiff and short, the tip scarcely reaching a vertical through the origin of the pectoral fin or edge of the opercle (Fig. 4C), although the pelvic fin in juvenile of Ijimaia extends slightly beyond the origin of the pectoral fin (Kaga et al. 2015; this study). The pelvic fin of P. indicus resembles that of Ijimaia but may be slightly longer. The pelvic fin of Ateleopus is soft and long, the tip extending to a point anywhere between the base of the pectoral fin and proximity of the anus (Fig. 4D; also see Kaga et al. 2015: Fig. 3; Kaga 2016). Radcliffe (1912) did not mention the posterior extent of the tip of the pelvic fin and the softness of the elongated ray in Parateleopus microstomus. However, the original figure (op. cit., Fig. 11) of P. microstomus appears to show a relatively short pelvic fin extending to the anterior quarter of the pectoral fin. Howell Rivero (1935) described the pelvic bones of Ateleopus and A. indicus as wide, compared to those of Ijimaia. Based on our observation, the pelvic bone of Ijimaia (Fig. 7B) is also narrower than those in Ateleopus (Fig. 7A) and Parateleopus (Fig. 6). The pelvic bone of Guentherus is also wide (da Franca & Lorete-Ferreira 1967: Fig. 5). From our study, we have determined the number of vertebrae in P. indicus is 23–25+78–81=101–105. The count is slightly greater in Ateleopus (26–29+81–107=109–136), and much larger in Ijimaia (28–33+96–116=125–149). The number in Guentherus (24–29+50–62=76–91) is much less than in P. indicus and the number is reflected in the length of the tail (Fig. 5 ABCD), which in Guentherus is much shorter than that of the other genera (Fig. 5D). The number of vertebrae in P. microstomus was not recorded by previous investigators and will remain unknown until the holotype is found or other specimens of the species are captured. Discussion. Parateleopus indicus possesses character states that differ from those of other ateleopodid genera especially in terms of mouth size, gill membrane attachment to isthmus, and protrusion of the sphenotic bone. The species closely resembles Parateleopus microstomus by its small mouth, no sharp spine on sphenotic, and length of elongated pelvic-fin ray. The character states of gill membrane and vertebrae number in P. microstomus cannot be ascertained for want of specimens of that species. The three dorsal-fin rays of Parateleopus distinguish the species from all other ateleopodids. However, it is possibly an abnormality, a result of damage, or a degenerative condition. The capture locality of P. microstomus is near Makyan Island in Moluccas, Indonesia, which is within the distributional range of P. indicus. The number (91) of anal+caudal-fin rays in P. microstomus (fide Radcliffe 1912) is also within the range (70–92) of P. indicus (Table 2). There is a possibility that the two species are synonymous. Unfortunately, the type and only specimen of P. microstomus is lost, and we cannot verify whether or not the small number of dorsal-fin rays is an anomaly. Therefore, we provisionally recognize two species in the genus Parateleopus (P. microstomus and P. indicus) until the type specimen of P. microstomus is found or additional specimens of P. microstomus are obtained. That both species have a uniquely (for the family) small mouth and a consequent similarity in their overall head morphology, leads us to infer that they also have a similar gill-membrane attachment to the isthmus. This character can be only seen in the two species among the ateleopodids. Hence, we use the condition of gill membranes united ventrally and attached to the isthmus by soft tissue as another character state defining the genus Parateleopus. We consider the count of anal+caudal-fin rays as another possible diagnostic feature of the genus, since the count in the two species fall within a fairly narrow range. However, because of limited data points and the potential for intraspecific variation, we have eschewed such an action. Howell Rivero (1935) used the number of foramina in the pelvic bone for classifying the genera in the family Ateleopodidae. He stated that the genus Ijimaia has one foramen in the pelvic girdle (op. cit., Fig. 2), and Ateleopus and Parateleopus have two foramina (op. cit., Fig. 1). He erected the subfamilies Ateleopinae and Ijimainae diagnosing them by “pelvis wide, with two foramina and two ossified lamina” and “pelvis narrow, with one median foramen and no ossified lamina”, respectively, although no recent researcher has recognized the subfamilies (e.g., Nelson et al. 2016). Howell Rivero noted that Parateleopus has two foramina in the pelvic bone in his key to the genera. He implied that the type specimen of P. microstomus (USNM 72951) had been seen and it was female. He also reported that a specimen of Ateleopus indicus (USNM 98816, 138 mm TL) had been observed (probably by Dr. Ethelwynn Trewavas). The belly of that specimen had already been cut open when we examined it. However, the pelvic bone could not be readily observed for the presence of a foramen. Owing to its small size, it is likely that the foramen had yet to be developed, and damaged to cartilage of the bone rendered further exploration fruitless. Regan’s figure of the pelvic bone in his specimen (1911: Fig. 7B) shows two small foramina in the pelvic bone, but he did not record them, nor the size of the specimen, or the specimen accession number. We examined two specimens of P. indicus (BMNH 1900.1.20.2, 250 mm SL, and one specimen from lot ZSI F456–457 and 460, 291 mm SL) that had previously opened bellys; the specimens had one wide central foramen in their pelvic bone (Fig. 6). Guentherus has one median foramen on the ventral side of the pelvic bone (da Franca & Lorete-Ferreira 1967: Figs. 5 and 6), but the foramen of the dorsal side opens at the posterior part of the bone (Barnard 1948: Fig. 5C). The location of these foramina in Guentherus differs from those of other genera, which are situated at the center of the pelvic bone. From our studies, the number of pelvic-bone foramina in Ateleopus japonicus (295 mm SL) is one at the center and two small foramina at the anterior part of the pelvic bone (Fig. 7A). Howell Rivero (1935), using a small specimen of A. japonicus (240 mm TL) reported the foramen number at the center as two. It appears that in Ateleopus the two foramina at the center of the pelvis in small specimens become one foramen with growth. Ijimaia has one foramen at the center of the pelvis (Fig. 7B), but may also have two foramina when small, as evidenced by small specimens we examined having the posterior corner of the foramen with vestiges of one convex foramen at the center and two hollows on the sides that likely represent vestiges of two foramina. Our finding of intraspecific variation in the number of the foramina of the pelvic girdle precluded our use of this character in our diagnosis. Howell Rivero (1935) recorded no ossified lamina in Ijimaia, but we observed two such lamina on the pelvis of Ijimaia (Fig. 7B). Ecological inference. From our anatomical study, the spinal nerve in Ateleopus innervates approximately seven-eighth the length of the pelvic-fin ray internally, after which it emerges to course externally and completely cover the filamentous tip (Fig. 8) (the external fin-ray nerve was probably broken at the tip of the fin ray in the specimen figured). The same innervation pattern of the spinal nerve in the pelvic-fin ray was reported in fishes of the family Sillaginidae by Kaga (2013: Fig. 84). The sillaginids are engybenthic (sensu Mead 1970) and active foragers in their mode of life, which is near the bottom where they search for benthic organisms using their first soft pelvicfin ray as a sensory receptor (Kaga 2013). We observed snails, bivalves, echinoderms (sand dollars and brittle stars), and crustaceans in the stomachs of the Ateleopodiformes. They are all indicators of a benthic feeding mode in these fishes. It is inferred that ateleopodids maintain neutral buoyancy over the deep-sea bottom by way of their gelatinous, watery body and reduced skeletal ossification. They likely use their pelvic-fin ray as a sensory receptor in their search for prey. Ateleopus spp. have a long, soft pelvic-fin ray with a swollen, slightly flattened tip (Kaga et al. 2015; Kaga 2016; Kaga 2017). This swollen tip is formed by the external fin-ray nerve and the tapered tip of the fin ray. Cartilage was found between the segments of the tip of the pelvic fin in Ateleopus (Fig. 8). The tip of that ray of the Ateleopus is soft, movable and durable. A similar condition was also observed in two of three free rays of the pelvic fin in Guentherus (Figs. 4A and 5D). The structure and use of the two free rays in Guentherus are probably the same as in Ateleopus. In contrast, Ijimaia has a short stiff pelvic-fin ray with a tip that appears to lack an external fin-ray nerve and cartilage between segments (Fig. 7B), although the spinal nerve does innervate the fin ray. The pelvic-fin ray of Parateleopus resembles that fin ray of Ijimaia. Therefore, it is inferred that Guentherus and Ateleopus use their pelvic-fin rays more for searching benthic animals than do Ijimaia and Parateleopus. But in addition to feeding on benthos, Barnard (1948) reported the probable scales of Photichthys argenteus in the stomachs of Ijimaia loppei, suggesting that the fish may eat live fish or merely scavenge them. We can infer that in their search for food, Ijimaia and Parateleopus use other sensory organs, such as olfactory organ, eye, lateral line, and their sensory canal-bearing bony ossicles in their head (Sasaki et al. 2006: Fig.1). Howell Rivero (1935) recorded the contents of the stomach of I. fowleri as sea urchins, brittle stars, and grains of sand. The sand grains were likely ingested during their feeding on the benthos.Published as part of Kaga, Tatsuya, Iwamoto, Tomio & Mishra, Subhrendu Sekhar, 2022, Redescription of Ateleopus indicus Alcock 1891, (Teleostei: Ateleopodiformes Ateleopodidae), and its reassignment to the genus Parateleopus, pp. 176-190 in Zootaxa 5092 (2) on pages 177-183, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5092.2.2, http://zenodo.org/record/587647

Parateleopus indicus

Parateleopus indicus (Alcock 1891) [English name: Smallmouth Jellynose] (Figs. 1A, 2A, 3A, 4B, 5A, 6, and 9; Tables 1–2) Ateleopus indicus Alcock 1891: 123 (ZSI 13069, 260 mm SL, type locality: Andaman Sea, lat. 11°31′40″N., long. 92°46′40″E.); Alcock 1892: plate II (ZSI 13069, 260 mm SL, Andaman Sea, illustration); Alcock 1899: 123 (ZSI 13069, 260 mm SL, Andaman Sea; ZSI 141/1, 456–458/1, 460/1, 232.5– 343 mm SL, Arabian Sea, off Travancore coast, description); Howell Rivero 1935: 96 (specimen in BMNH, 305 mm TL, Andaman Sea; USNM 98816, 138 mm TL, Philippine Islands: between Gailolo & Kayoa Islands, “Albatross” St. D5626, description); Norman 1939: 32 (BMNH 1939.5.24.574–576, 3, 260– 370 mm TL, Maldive area; BMNH 1900.1.20.2, 270 mm TL, Arabian Sea, description); Stauche & Blache 1964: 50 (key); Talwar 1977 (ZSI 13069, Andaman Sea, type catalog); Adam et al. 1998: 9 (1939.5.24.574–576, 285– 385 mm SL, Maldive area, checklist); Manilo & Bogorodski 2003: S79 (Arabian Sea, checklist). Holotype. ZSI 13069 (260 mm SL; Fig. 11), Andaman Sea, 188 to 220 fathoms. Other materials examined. 12 specimens (122.3–350 mm SL): BMNH 1900.1.20.2, 250 mm SL, Laccadive Sea, India, 224–284 fathoms; BMNH 1939.5.24.574–576, 3 specimens, 260–350 mm SL, Western Indian Ocean, Maldive area, Maldives Maldive; SAIAB 14049, 192 mm SL, Indian Ocean, Kenya, off Mombasa, 03°49′00″S, 040°00′00″E; SAIAB 14109, 164.5 mm SL, Indian Ocean, Kenya, off Malindi, 03°11′00″S, 040°38′00″E; USNM 98816, 122.3 mm SL, Indonesia, Moluccas; ZSI F141 / 1, 232.5 mm SL, Andaman Sea, 405 fathoms; ZSI F456– 457 /1, F460/1, 3 specimens, 291–343 mm SL, Laccadive Sea, 224–284 fathoms; ZSI F2380 /1 (dried specimen), off North Andaman Island, 235 fathoms. Diagnosis. As for genus. In addition, 8–10 dorsal-fin rays distinguish the species from its congener. Description. Counts and measurements of Parateleopus indicus are given in Table 2. Data of other materials are shown in parenthesis when variation is recognized between holotype and other materials. Body elongate, compressed; tail moderately long, length 1.6 (1.4–1.7) in SL, tapering to caudal fin, completely enveloped in soft gelatinous tissue, without scales on surface. Head large, length 5.6 (5.1–6.3) in SL, slightly compressed, covered with thick gelatinous tissue forming gelatinous snout. Anterior nostril with a short tube; posterior nostril large, without a tube, situated just in front of upper half of eye. Eye small, its diameter approximately equal to or slightly larger than pectoral-fin base. Interorbital space wide, with a deep longitudinal groove below the gelatinous skin. A flat vertically oblong crescent-shaped protrusion of sphenotic bone from behind eye to posteroinferior region of orbit. Mouth very small, subterminal, protractile, gape very narrow, width of gape slightly larger than eye diameter, posterior end of gape extending to a little anterior of anterior nostril, also an eye diameter anterior from anterior margin of eye. Maxillary buried posteriorly under thick gelatinous tissue and extending to anterior edge of orbit. Lower jaw short, length 2.8 (2.3–3.1) in HL. Posterior end of lower jaw situated vertical of pupil. Both lips thick with wrinkles and tiny papillae. Upper jaw with five to seven rows of villiform teeth in adults (three or four rows in specimen 232 mm SL and two or three rows in specimen 122 mm SL); lower jaw toothless. Palatine, vomer, and tongue toothless. Symphysis of lower jaws slightly convex dorsally in front. Preopercular margin not free; gill opening wide; posterior end of opercle usually acute and pointing slightly upward. Both gill membranes united ventrally and attached to isthmus by soft tissue. Gill rakers on upper part of lower limb of first gill arch a little flattened, lower ones stumpy: rakers on other gill arches all stumpy. All tips of gill rakers bluntly pointed and weakly spinulose. No pseudobranchiae. Branchiostegal rays seven. Dorsal-fin origin at same vertical or slightly behind that of pectoral-fin base. Dorsal-fin base short, less than snout length. Dorsal fin long, its length approximately equal to pectoral-fin length. Pectoral-fin base short, almost equal to eye diameter. Pectoral fin long, its length approximately equal to length from posterior margin of eye to dorsal-fin origin, the tip reaching just anterior to anus (reaching anus in two specimens, 250 and 291 mm SL). Pelvic fin jugular, relatively short, the tip slightly tapered and extending to point anywhere between base of pectoral and anterior half of pectoral fin (both tips of pelvic fin broken in holotype). Pelvic fin appearing like one short stiffened ray, but anterior two rays rudimentary, attached to front base of this short ray in specimens to about 323 mm SL; some vestigial rays in cutaneous membrane on medial side of base (posterior two rays still separated in a specimen 122 mm SL). (Anterior two rudimentary rays becoming very small and undetectable in large specimens, 343–350 mm SL). The short stiffened ray somewhat curved with many fine segments. Precise count of pelvic-fin rays difficult because of posterior several rays in cutaneous membrane and rudimentary anterior rays. Anal-fin base long, continuous with caudal fin. Anus just in front of anal-fin origin. Color in preserved specimens. Head and body brownish, blackish, or grayish. Lips light brownish or whitish. Oral and gill cavities light brownish or whitish. Eye dark purplish. All fins blackish, brownish or grayish except whitish or light brownish of pelvic fin. Anal-fin base brownish or translucent; pterygiophores visible. Distribution. Known from Indonesia (Moluccas) and the Indian Ocean, including the Andaman Sea, Laccadive Sea, and Arabian Sea: Maldives, and now from off Kenya, the western Indian Ocean. Depth range from 188 to 405 fathoms (343 to 740 m). Remarks. Howell Rivero (1935: 96) recorded the distribution of Ateleopus indicus as: “ Philippine Islands, between Gailolo & Kayoa Islands, Albatross St. no. D5626, Nov. 1909. USNM No. 98816.” However, based on our research, the eastern end of the distribution is the Moluccas, Indonesia, based on that specimen. Howell Rivero (1935) probably assumed that the Moluccas were in the Philippines because the specimen was captured during the Albatross Philippines Expedition of 1907–1910. Norman (1939) also incorrectly ascribed that specimen as from the Philippine Islands. The capture location between Gillolo and Kayoa Islands is in the Moluccas, Indonesia. There are no records, so far as we know, of captures within the Philippine Islands. On the other hand, although the westernmost capture of A. indicus was formerly the Maldives in the Arabian Sea (Norman 1939; Adam et al. 1998; Manilo & Bogorodski 2003), specimens SAIAB 14049 and 14109 represent the first record of Parateleopus indicus from Kenya and the westernmost record of the species. Kaga et al. (2015: Fig. 3) reported that the five pelvic-fin rays of postlarva A. japonicus (258 mm SL) were still separated. In a juvenile of 251 mm, the anterior two rays of the fin had become rudimentary and attached to the third ray, and the posterior two rays had become covered with cutaneous membrane. In a 122.3 mm specimen of P. indicus, however, the anterior two rays had already become rudimentary and attached to the third ray, although the posterior two rays were still separated. The metamorphosis from postlarva to juvenile in P. indicus thus appears to begin at a smaller size than in A. japonicus. A specimen of P. indicus of 322.5 mm SL has ripe ovaries (Fig. 4B). Alcock (1899) described them as “a pair of thin-walled sacks loosely filled with largish eggs (over 1 millim. in diameter in spirit) and opening by a common orifice behind the vent”. We have observed ripe ovaries in specimens of A. japonicus greater than about 600 mm SL. The largest specimen of P. indicus we examined is 350 mm SL. Ateleopus attains more than 800 mm SL (Kaga et al. 2015), P. microstomus attains at least 350 mm TL (Radcliffe 1912), based on the one known specimen. Ijimaia attains a large size of about 2 m TL (Howell Rivero 1935). Guentherus attains more than 680 mm SL (Barnard 1948). P. indicus may be the one of smallest species of ateleopodid. The gelatinous snout of the holotype of P. indicus is pointed (Figs. 1A and 9) but we consider that shape to be an incidental condition resulting from its preservation. Other specimens of P. indicus had a variety of shapes of the gelatinous snout (Figs. 4B and 5A).Published as part of Kaga, Tatsuya, Iwamoto, Tomio & Mishra, Subhrendu Sekhar, 2022, Redescription of Ateleopus indicus Alcock 1891, (Teleostei: Ateleopodiformes Ateleopodidae), and its reassignment to the genus Parateleopus, pp. 176-190 in Zootaxa 5092 (2) on pages 183-187, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5092.2.2, http://zenodo.org/record/587647

Redescription of Ateleopus indicus Alcock 1891, (Teleostei: Ateleopodiformes Ateleopodidae), and its reassignment to the genus Parateleopus

Kaga, Tatsuya, Iwamoto, Tomio, Mishra, Subhrendu Sekhar (2022): Redescription of Ateleopus indicus Alcock 1891, (Teleostei: Ateleopodiformes Ateleopodidae), and its reassignment to the genus Parateleopus. Zootaxa 5092 (2): 176-190, DOI: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5092.2.

Rediscovery of <em>Trichonotus cyclograptus</em> (Alcock, 1890) after 123 years: A sand diver fish species from Bay of Bengal

802-803Trichonotus cyclograptus (Alcock, 1890) is a sand diver fish species of family Trichonotidae, rediscovered from Bay of Bengal after 123 years. The present site of the collection of the specimens is more than 400 kilometers away northwardly from the type locality. Both the type locality as well as the current locality is within the Bay of Bengal along the East coast of India, which suggests that the species might be endemic to Bay of Bengal and within these 123 years the species is not been reported from elsewhere in the world. This species is also reported for the first time from West Bengal coast

New record of white-spotted pufferfish Arothron hispidus (Linnaeus, 1758) (Tetraodontiformes: Tetraodontidae) from West Bengal, India, compared with other Arothron species occurring in India

Two specimens of Arothron hispidus (Linnaeus, 1758) (111.7 – 112.8 mm in standard length), was collected in May 2019 from the Frasergunj fishing harbour in West Bengal, eastern India. Herein, we report this species for the first time from West Bengal. We have described the diagnostic features of the collected specimens and compared them with other Arothron species found in Indian waters

Ateleopodidae

Key to the genera in the family Ateleopodidae 1a. Pelvic fin with three free rays followed by normal rays............................................... Guentherus 1b. Pelvic fin with one elongated ray and several rudimentary rays................................................. 2 2a. Small mouth, posterior end of gape situated at vertical near anterior nostril; gill membranes united ventrally and attached to isthmus by soft tissue........................................................................ Parateleopus 2b. Mouth large, posterior end of gape extending to vertical through anterior margin of eye; gill membranes separate and free from isthmus............................................................................................. 3 3a. Pelvic fin (one elongated ray) soft, long, extending to a point anywhere between base of pectoral and proximity of anus.................................................................................................. Ateleopus 3b. Pelvic fin (one elongated ray) stiff, short, scarcely reaching origin of pectoral fin or edge of opercle, except in juveniles which sometimes have a longer ray extending beyond pectoral-fin base........................................... IjimaiaPublished as part of Kaga, Tatsuya, Iwamoto, Tomio & Mishra, Subhrendu Sekhar, 2022, Redescription of Ateleopus indicus Alcock 1891, (Teleostei: Ateleopodiformes Ateleopodidae), and its reassignment to the genus Parateleopus, pp. 176-190 in Zootaxa 5092 (2) on page 187, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5092.2.2, http://zenodo.org/record/587647