Search

Ophidion zavalai new species Figs. 1, 3, 5 and 6, Table 3 urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act: B9D7C4E8-5A9B-4402-A5FC-FD275639EF60 Ophidion holbrookii (not of Putnam 1874) — Menezes & Figueiredo 1980: 47 (guide of fishes of southeastern Brazil; short description; first report from western South Atlantic)— Robins & Ray 1986: 99 (in part; assigned to Southeastern Brazil}— Smith 1997: 361 (in part; assigned to Southeastern Brazil)— McEachran & Fechhelm 1998: 748 (in part; assigned to Southeastern Brazil)— Nielsen et al. 1999: 41 (in part; FAO Fisheries Synopses; short description; illustration; occurrence in Southeastern Brazil)— Nielsen & Robins 2002: 972 (in part; reported to Southeastern Brazil)—Menezes & Figueiredo in Menezes et al. 2003: 59 (catalog of marine fishes of Brazil; listed)— Lea & Robins 2003: 7 (in part; assigned to Southeastern Brazil)— Zavala-Camin & Rotundo 2011: 3–10 (anatomy of the head lateral line and hearing system) — Britski & Figueiredo 2019: 204 (plate 004 from Burkhardt 1865–1866; Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; regarded as new species of “ Ophidium ”). Doubtful references for this species Ophidion cf. holbrookii — Garcia Jr. et al. 2010: 47; 2015: 51 (fishes of Bacia Potiguar, coast of Rio Grande do Norte; Brazil. Short description; photograph). Holotype: MPEG 039113 (1, 271 mm SL, male), 24º14’59” S / 46º41’32” W, laje da Conceição, Itanhaém, São Paulo, Brazil Paratypes: MPEG 039114 (1, 250 mm SL, female), laje da Conceição, Itanhaém, São Paulo, Brazil; NPM 6885 (2, 195 mm SL, male, 294 mm SL, female), 24º14’59” S / 46º41’32” W, laje da Conceição, Itanhaém, São Paulo, Brazil; MZUSP 125946 (2, 208 mm SL, female, 271 mm SL, male), 24º14’59” S / 46º41’32” W, laje da Conceição, Itanhaém, São Paulo, Brazil; AZUSC 6916 (1, 218 mm SL, female), 24º14’59” S / 46º41’32” W, laje da Conceição, Itanhaém, São Paulo, Brazil; ZUEC 17383 (2, 190 mm SL, female, 296 mm SL, male), 26º15’23” S / 48º01’58” W, barra de S„o Francisco, S„o Francisco do Sul, Santa Catarina, Brazil; LPB 31046 (2, 188 mm SL, female, 278 mm SL, male) 26º15’23” S / 48º01’58” W, barra de São Francisco, São Francisco do Sul, Santa Catarina, Brazil; AZUSC 6917 (1, 281 mm SL, male), 26º15’23” S / 48º01’58” W, barra de São Francisco, São Francisco do Sul, Santa Catarina, Brazil. Non-type specimens: AZUSC 1616 (9, 250– 291 mm SL), 24º34’50” S / 46º39’01” W, Parcel Pedro II, Praia Grande, S„o Paulo, Brazil; AZUSC 1698 (5, 244– 285 mm SL), 25º15’45” S / 47º39’55” W, Ilha do Bom Abrigo, Cananéia, S „o Paulo, Brazil; AZUSC 6917.1 (15, 148– 217 mm SL, male), 26º15’23” S / 48º01’58” W, barra de São Francisco, S„o Francisco do Sul, Santa Catarina, Brazil; AZUSC 6685 (1, 255 mm SL), 26º38’16” S / 48º37’43” W, barra de Barra Velha, Barra Velha, Santa Catarina, Brazil. Diagnosis. Ophidion zavalai n. sp. is distinguished from its western Atlantic congeners as follows: from O. antipholus by the rear of skull not outlined in dark pigment (Fig. 5) (vs. rear of skull broadly outlined in dark pigment); lacking a dark streak along the lateral line (vs. may have a dark streak along the lateral line, Fig. 5); from O. dromio by having 63–65 vertebrae, rarely 67 or 68 (vs. 67–69, Table 3); 14–16 caudal vertebrae (vs. 17, rarely 16, Table 3); from O. grayi by lacking irregular rows on body (vs. 2 irregular rows of dark brown spots, upper row from top of body to lateral line, lower row from lateral line down, Fig. 5); lacking dark brown spots on head and dorsal fin (vs. top of head and dorsal fin with scattered dark brown spots, Fig. 5); from O. guianense by rocker bone present (vs. absent, Fig. 6); 7.9–11.4 body height at center of the eye (vs. 13–14, Table 3); from O. josephi by having 107–135 dorsal-fin rays (vs. 138–146, Table 3), 88–107 anal-fin rays (vs. 114–121, Table 3), lacking dark spots on body (vs. 3 rows of dark spots along body, Fig. 5); from O. lagochila by having 2 upper gill rakers (vs. 3), rear of top of head not outlined in black (vs. outlined in black, Fig. 5), juvenile without a dark streak along the lateral line (vs. with a dark streak along the lateral line, Fig. 5); from O. marginatum by having 107–135 dorsal-fin rays (vs. 147–158, Table 3), 88–107 anal-fin rays (vs. 118–124, Table 3), body and lateral line without dark stripes (vs. with 2–3 dark stripes along its body and one at lateral line, Fig. 5); from O. puck by having 63–68 vertebrae (vs. 70, Table 3), 14–16 preanal vertebrae (vs. 17–18, Table 3); from O. robinsi by lacking dark brown spots (vs. with dark brown spots, Fig. 5); from O. selenops by having 88–107 anal-fin rays (vs. 123–129, Table 3), lacking a dark line along top of back before dorsal fin (vs. with a dark line along top of back before dorsal fin, Fig. 5); from O. holbrookii by caudal-fin length 0.7–2.8 (vs. 2.9–7.7, Table 3); postorbital length 8.4–11.2 (vs. 11.7–15.3, Table 3) in specimens less than 230 mm SL. Description. Meristic and morphometric characters are shown in Table 3. Body moderately compressed, elongate with tapering tail. Head moderately broad, not depressed, bones firm in touch. Scales elongate, not overlapping, present on flanks and belly, 32 to 40 scales transversely across trunk above beginning of anal fin, 152 to 230 scales in transversal rows from pectoral base to caudal fin base. Pectoral fin pointed, shorter than postorbital distance; pelvic fin origin below anterior margin of orbit to mid-eye, longest ray not reaching pectoral fin base. Head without scales, except on predorsal region to supratemporal canal (about 27–41 predorsal scales). Anterior nostril a small tube over upper lip, posterior nostril slender, oval, over horizontal imaginary line through mid-eye. Snout rounded to slightly pointed, roughly equal to eye diameter. Eye large, oval, slightly elongated, lens well developed. Upper jaw ends just below mid-eye to posterior margin of orbit, rear upper jaw border partially covered by infraorbital regions in young specimens, exposed in adults; 3–4 rows of villiform teeth on jaws, larger on outer series, 3–4 rows of villiform teeth on vomer, palatines long with 3 rows of villiform teeth. Opercular and nasal spines absent. Upper branch of anterior gill arch with 2 knob–like rakers, lower branch with 4–7 short rakers. Head canals: supraorbital 2, infraorbital 3, supratemporal 4, preopercle to lower jaw 5. Rocker bone with sickle to semicircular, half-doughnut shape, dorsal profile semicircular, ventral profile with anterior arm moderately long, slightly triangular to rounded, rear arm with ventral margin truncate to slightly indented. Concavity between arms gentle to semicircular, more so on largest specimens. Swimbladder carrot-like, pointed on rear portion, with two small, fringed anterior horns, sulcus present on ventral portion. Rocker bone abuts anterior portion of the bladder. Color in life. Dark brown to tan on dorsum and flanks, whitish or light tan on belly, head tan, with whitish or silvery hue on opercle, eye lens dark, cornea dark brown with some golden hue. Pectoral fin dusky, pelvic fin whitish, dorsal and anal fins dusky with narrow black margin. Younger specimens pale or more yellow in ground color than adults. Morphological variation. Significant developmental morphological variation was identified in two meristic and six morphometric characters in specimens ranging from 148 to 325 mm SL (Table 3). Smaller specimens have fewer dorsal-fin and anal-fin rays (Table 3); a shorter postorbital distance (Fig. 3e), a shorter outer and inner pelvic ray (Figs. 3f,g), shallower body at dorsal- and anal-fin origin (Figs. 3h,i), and a narrower interorbital distance. In addition, head shape and coloration vary between young and adult specimens (Fig. 5, see Color in life). Females exhibit a cylindrical gas bladder, posterior portion narrow, anterior portion with 2 small lateral chambers, this condition does not vary during ontogenetic development (Fig. 6), they also lack of rocker bone and parapophyses modifications that compose sonic apparatus (Fig. 6). Adult males present a posterior portion of gas bladder distended and narrow (Fig. 6), a differentiated chamber in anterior portion of gas bladder articulating with the reniform rocker bone (shape of a human kidney) (Fig. 6), and parapophyses modified at first neural spine (Fig. 6). n males, the rocker bone and parapophyses exhibit evident ontogenetic differentiation, being reduced at juvenile stages when the rocker bone is less evident in lateral view radiographs and differentiated from parapophyses which are clearly distinguishable (Fig. 6). Sexual dimorphism. In a sample of 15 females (158–250 mm SL) and 35 males (148–296 mm SL), we observed a difference in the pattern related to dorsal outline between males and adult females (rectilinear and steeply inclined vs slightly rounded, Fig. 5). Examinations of gas bladder and x-ray reveal that males possess a rocker bone and modifications to the anterior vertebral parapophyses (Fig. 6). Distribution and habitat. Ophidion zavalai is found on soft bottom associated coastal marine habitats. It occurs in the western South Atlantic, off the eastern to southeastern coast of Brazil (Fig. 4), Etymology. The new species is named in honor of Dr. Luis Alberto Zavala-Camin, researcher at the Instituto de Pesca, S„o Paulo, Brazil, and professor at the Universidade Santa Cecília in Santos, Brazil, for his great contribution to the knowledge of marine fishes in Brazil. Remarks. The description of O. zavalai is based on the knowledge and account of variation associated with ontogenetic and sexual development, yet not described for gas bladder and sonic apparatus (Lea & Robins 2003). Also, structures used by males for sound production and display for females (Rose 1961; Marshal 1967; Courtenay 1971; Parmentier et al. 2006; Nguyen et al. 2008; Zavala-Camin & Rotundo 2011) are likely important in species recognition. The gap observed between the distribution of O. holbrookii and O. zavalai (Fig. 4) is supported by an extensive search of zoological collections and literature of the northeastern coast of Brazil. Material from Brazilian collections (Universidade Federal da Paraíba; Universidade Federal de Alagoas) regarding Ophidion were either based on identifications or specimens deposited were too small to be properly identified. Personal communication with colleagues (Dr. Claudio Sampaio, UFAL) support absence of these taxa from northeastern Brazil. Also, there is no mention of this species taxa in most of the known literature for the region (Eskinazi 1972; Araújo et al. 2004; Nobrega et al. 2009).A presumable report of Ophidion (as Ophidion cf. holbrookii) from Northeastern Brazil (Bacia Potiguar) has been made by Garcia Jr. et al. (2010, 2015), but regardless of the similarity of specimen depicted to O. zavalai, the description is rather short and with no meristic data, and material of this specimen is not available. Specimens from this area previously identified as O. holbrookii (MNHN 00005772) were found to be Lepophidium. Thus, the occurrence of Ophidion holbrookii and O. zavalai in northeastern Brazil has yet to be confirmed.

Ophidion zavalai new species Figs. 1, 3, 5 and 6, Table 3 urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act: B9D7C4E8-5A9B-4402-A5FC-FD275639EF60 Ophidion holbrookii (not of Putnam 1874) — Menezes & Figueiredo 1980: 47 (guide of fishes of southeastern Brazil; short description; first report from western South Atlantic)— Robins & Ray 1986: 99 (in part; assigned to Southeastern Brazil}— Smith 1997: 361 (in part; assigned to Southeastern Brazil)— McEachran & Fechhelm 1998: 748 (in part; assigned to Southeastern Brazil)— Nielsen et al. 1999: 41 (in part; FAO Fisheries Synopses; short description; illustration; occurrence in Southeastern Brazil)— Nielsen & Robins 2002: 972 (in part; reported to Southeastern Brazil)—Menezes & Figueiredo in Menezes et al. 2003: 59 (catalog of marine fishes of Brazil; listed)— Lea & Robins 2003: 7 (in part; assigned to Southeastern Brazil)— Zavala-Camin & Rotundo 2011: 3–10 (anatomy of the head lateral line and hearing system) — Britski & Figueiredo 2019: 204 (plate 004 from Burkhardt 1865–1866; Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; regarded as new species of “ Ophidium ”). Doubtful references for this species Ophidion cf. holbrookii — Garcia Jr. et al. 2010: 47; 2015: 51 (fishes of Bacia Potiguar, coast of Rio Grande do Norte; Brazil. Short description; photograph). Holotype: MPEG 039113 (1, 271 mm SL, male), 24º14’59” S / 46º41’32” W, laje da Conceição, Itanhaém, São Paulo, Brazil Paratypes: MPEG 039114 (1, 250 mm SL, female), laje da Conceição, Itanhaém, São Paulo, Brazil; NPM 6885 (2, 195 mm SL, male, 294 mm SL, female), 24º14’59” S / 46º41’32” W, laje da Conceição, Itanhaém, São Paulo, Brazil; MZUSP 125946 (2, 208 mm SL, female, 271 mm SL, male), 24º14’59” S / 46º41’32” W, laje da Conceição, Itanhaém, São Paulo, Brazil; AZUSC 6916 (1, 218 mm SL, female), 24º14’59” S / 46º41’32” W, laje da Conceição, Itanhaém, São Paulo, Brazil; ZUEC 17383 (2, 190 mm SL, female, 296 mm SL, male), 26º15’23” S / 48º01’58” W, barra de S„o Francisco, S„o Francisco do Sul, Santa Catarina, Brazil; LPB 31046 (2, 188 mm SL, female, 278 mm SL, male) 26º15’23” S / 48º01’58” W, barra de São Francisco, São Francisco do Sul, Santa Catarina, Brazil; AZUSC 6917 (1, 281 mm SL, male), 26º15’23” S / 48º01’58” W, barra de São Francisco, São Francisco do Sul, Santa Catarina, Brazil. Non-type specimens: AZUSC 1616 (9, 250– 291 mm SL), 24º34’50” S / 46º39’01” W, Parcel Pedro II, Praia Grande, S„o Paulo, Brazil; AZUSC 1698 (5, 244– 285 mm SL), 25º15’45” S / 47º39’55” W, Ilha do Bom Abrigo, Cananéia, S „o Paulo, Brazil; AZUSC 6917.1 (15, 148– 217 mm SL, male), 26º15’23” S / 48º01’58” W, barra de São Francisco, S„o Francisco do Sul, Santa Catarina, Brazil; AZUSC 6685 (1, 255 mm SL), 26º38’16” S / 48º37’43” W, barra de Barra Velha, Barra Velha, Santa Catarina, Brazil. Diagnosis. Ophidion zavalai n. sp. is distinguished from its western Atlantic congeners as follows: from O. antipholus by the rear of skull not outlined in dark pigment (Fig. 5) (vs. rear of skull broadly outlined in dark pigment); lacking a dark streak along the lateral line (vs. may have a dark streak along the lateral line, Fig. 5); from O. dromio by having 63–65 vertebrae, rarely 67 or 68 (vs. 67–69, Table 3); 14–16 caudal vertebrae (vs. 17, rarely 16, Table 3); from O. grayi by lacking irregular rows on body (vs. 2 irregular rows of dark brown spots, upper row from top of body to lateral line, lower row from lateral line down, Fig. 5); lacking dark brown spots on head and dorsal fin (vs. top of head and dorsal fin with scattered dark brown spots, Fig. 5); from O. guianense by rocker bone present (vs. absent, Fig. 6); 7.9–11.4 body height at center of the eye (vs. 13–14, Table 3); from O. josephi by having 107–135 dorsal-fin rays (vs. 138–146, Table 3), 88–107 anal-fin rays (vs. 114–121, Table 3), lacking dark spots on body (vs. 3 rows of dark spots along body, Fig. 5); from O. lagochila by having 2 upper gill rakers (vs. 3), rear of top of head not outlined in black (vs. outlined in black, Fig. 5), juvenile without a dark streak along the lateral line (vs. with a dark streak along the lateral line, Fig. 5); from O. marginatum by having 107–135 dorsal-fin rays (vs. 147–158, Table 3), 88–107 anal-fin rays (vs. 118–124, Table 3), body and lateral line without dark stripes (vs. with 2–3 dark stripes along its body and one at lateral line, Fig. 5); from O. puck by having 63–68 vertebrae (vs. 70, Table 3), 14–16 preanal vertebrae (vs. 17–18, Table 3); from O. robinsi by lacking dark brown spots (vs. with dark brown spots, Fig. 5); from O. selenops by having 88–107 anal-fin rays (vs. 123–129, Table 3), lacking a dark line along top of back before dorsal fin (vs. with a dark line along top of back before dorsal fin, Fig. 5); from O. holbrookii by caudal-fin length 0.7–2.8 (vs. 2.9–7.7, Table 3); postorbital length 8.4–11.2 (vs. 11.7–15.3, Table 3) in specimens less than 230 mm SL. Description. Meristic and morphometric characters are shown in Table 3. Body moderately compressed, elongate with tapering tail. Head moderately broad, not depressed, bones firm in touch. Scales elongate, not overlapping, present on flanks and belly, 32 to 40 scales transversely across trunk above beginning of anal fin, 152 to 230 scales in transversal rows from pectoral base to caudal fin base. Pectoral fin pointed, shorter than postorbital distance; pelvic fin origin below anterior margin of orbit to mid-eye, longest ray not reaching pectoral fin base. Head without scales, except on predorsal region to supratemporal canal (about 27–41 predorsal scales). Anterior nostril a small tube over upper lip, posterior nostril slender, oval, over horizontal imaginary line through mid-eye. Snout rounded to slightly pointed, roughly equal to eye diameter. Eye large, oval, slightly elongated, lens well developed. Upper jaw ends just below mid-eye to posterior margin of orbit, rear upper jaw border partially covered by infraorbital regions in young specimens, exposed in adults; 3–4 rows of villiform teeth on jaws, larger on outer series, 3–4 rows of villiform teeth on vomer, palatines long with 3 rows of villiform teeth. Opercular and nasal spines absent. Upper branch of anterior gill arch with 2 knob–like rakers, lower branch with 4–7 short rakers. Head canals: supraorbital 2, infraorbital 3, supratemporal 4, preopercle to lower jaw 5. Rocker bone with sickle to semicircular, half-doughnut shape, dorsal profile semicircular, ventral profile with anterior arm moderately long, slightly triangular to rounded, rear arm with ventral margin truncate to slightly indented. Concavity between arms gentle to semicircular, more so on largest specimens. Swimbladder carrot-like, pointed on rear portion, with two small, fringed anterior horns, sulcus present on ventral portion. Rocker bone abuts anterior portion of the bladder. Color in life. Dark brown to tan on dorsum and flanks, whitish or light tan on belly, head tan, with whitish or silvery hue on opercle, eye lens dark, cornea dark brown with some golden hue. Pectoral fin dusky, pelvic fin whitish, dorsal and anal fins dusky with narrow black margin. Younger specimens pale or more yellow in ground color than adults. Morphological variation. Significant developmental morphological variation was identified in two meristic and six morphometric characters in specimens ranging from 148 to 325 mm SL (Table 3). Smaller specimens have fewer dorsal-fin and anal-fin rays (Table 3); a shorter postorbital distance (Fig. 3e), a shorter outer and inner pelvic ray (Figs. 3f,g), shallower body at dorsal- and anal-fin origin (Figs. 3h,i), and a narrower interorbital distance. In addition, head shape and coloration vary between young and adult specimens (Fig. 5, see Color in life). Females exhibit a cylindrical gas bladder, posterior portion narrow, anterior portion with 2 small lateral chambers, this condition does not vary during ontogenetic development (Fig. 6), they also lack of rocker bone and parapophyses modifications that compose sonic apparatus (Fig. 6). Adult males present a posterior portion of gas bladder distended and narrow (Fig. 6), a differentiated chamber in anterior portion of gas bladder articulating with the reniform rocker bone (shape of a human kidney) (Fig. 6), and parapophyses modified at first neural spine (Fig. 6). n males, the rocker bone and parapophyses exhibit evident ontogenetic differentiation, being reduced at juvenile stages when the rocker bone is less evident in lateral view radiographs and differentiated from parapophyses which are clearly distinguishable (Fig. 6). Sexual dimorphism. In a sample of 15 females (158–250 mm SL) and 35 males (148–296 mm SL), we observed a difference in the pattern related to dorsal outline between males and adult females (rectilinear and steeply inclined vs slightly rounded, Fig. 5). Examinations of gas bladder and x-ray reveal that males possess a rocker bone and modifications to the anterior vertebral parapophyses (Fig. 6). Distribution and habitat. Ophidion zavalai is found on soft bottom associated coastal marine habitats. It occurs in the western South Atlantic, off the eastern to southeastern coast of Brazil (Fig. 4), Etymology. The new species is named in honor of Dr. Luis Alberto Zavala-Camin, researcher at the Instituto de Pesca, S„o Paulo, Brazil, and professor at the Universidade Santa Cecília in Santos, Brazil, for his great contribution to the knowledge of marine fishes in Brazil. Remarks. The description of O. zavalai is based on the knowledge and account of variation associated with ontogenetic and sexual development, yet not described for gas bladder and sonic apparatus (Lea & Robins 2003). Also, structures used by males for sound production and display for females (Rose 1961; Marshal 1967; Courtenay 1971; Parmentier et al. 2006; Nguyen et al. 2008; Zavala-Camin & Rotundo 2011) are likely important in species recognition. The gap observed between the distribution of O. holbrookii and O. zavalai (Fig. 4) is supported by an extensive search of zoological collections and literature of the northeastern coast of Brazil. Material from Brazilian collections (Universidade Federal da Paraíba; Universidade Federal de Alagoas) regarding Ophidion were either based on identifications or specimens deposited were too small to be properly identified. Personal communication with colleagues (Dr. Claudio Sampaio, UFAL) support absence of these taxa from northeastern Brazil. Also, there is no mention of this species taxa in most of the known literature for the region (Eskinazi 1972; Araújo et al. 2004; Nobrega et al. 2009).A presumable report of Ophidion (as Ophidion cf. holbrookii) from Northeastern Brazil (Bacia Potiguar) has been made by Garcia Jr. et al. (2010, 2015), but regardless of the similarity of specimen depicted to O. zavalai, the description is rather short and with no meristic data, and material of this specimen is not available. Specimens from this area previously identified as O. holbrookii (MNHN 00005772) were found to be Lepophidium. Thus, the occurrence of Ophidion holbrookii and O. zavalai in northeastern Brazil has yet to be confirmed., Published as part of Rotundo, Matheus Marcos, Caires, Rodrigo Antunes, Oliveira, Claudio, Kuranaka, Mariana, Figueiredo-Filho, Jessé Miranda De & Marceniuk, Alexandre Pires, 2023, Taxonomic revision of the Ophidion holbrookii Putnam, 1874 (Ophidiiformes: Ophidiidae) species complex, with description of a new species from Brazil, pp. 237-252 in Zootaxa 5318 (2) on pages 244-248, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5318.2.4, http://zenodo.org/record/8169565, {"references":["Putnam, F. W. (1874) Notes on Ophidiidae and Fierasferidae, with description of new species from America and the Mediterranean. Proceedings of the Boston Society of Natural History, 16, 339 - 348.","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.","Smith, C. L. (1997) National Audubon Society field guide to tropical marine fishes of the Caribbean, the Gulf of Mexico, Florida, the Bahamas, and Bermuda. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., New York, New York, 720 pp.","McEachran, J. D. & Fechhelm, J. D. (1998) Fishes of the Gulf of Mexico. Vo. 1. Myxiniformes to Gasterosteiformes. University of Texas Press, Austin, Texas, 1112 pp. https: // doi. org / 10.7560 / 752061","Nielsen, J. G., Cohen, D. M., Markle, D. F. & Robins, C. R. (1999) FAO species catalogue. Ophidiiform fishes of the world (Order Ophidiiformes). An annotated and illustrated catalogue of pearlfishes, cusk-eels, brotulas and other ophidiiform fishes known to date. FAO Fisheries Synopsis. No. 125. Vol. 18. FAO, Rome, 178 pp.","Nielsen, J. G. & Robins, C. R. (2002) Ophidiidae In: Carpenter, K. E. (Ed.), The living marine resources of the Western Central Atlantic. Vol. 2. Bony fishes part 1 (Acipenseridae to Grammatidae). FAO Species Identification Guide for Fishery Purposes and American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists Special Publication No. 5. FAO, Rome, pp. 965 - 972.","Menezes, N. A. & Figueiredo, J. L. (2003) Familia Ophidiidae. In: Menezes, N. A., Buckup, P. A., Figueiredo, J. L. & Moura, R. L. (Orgs.), Catalogo das Especies de Peixes Marinhos do Brasil. Museu de Zoologia USP, S \" o Paulo, pp. 59 - 60.","Lea, R. N. & Robins, C. R. (2003) Four New Species of the Genus Ophidion (Pisces: Ophidiidae) from the Western Atlantic Ocean. Natural History Museum, The University of Kansas, Scientific Papers, 31, 1 - 9. https: // doi. org / 10.5962 / bhl. title. 8466","Zavala-Camin, L. A. & Rotundo, M. M. (2011) Gross anatomy of the head lateral line and hearing system of the Ophidiinae, Genypterus blacodes, Raneya brasiliensis and Ophidion holbrookii, of Southern Brazil. Bioikos, 25 (1), 3 - 10.","Britski, H. A. & Figueiredo, J. L. (Orgs.) (2019) Peixes do Brasil: aquarelas de Jacques Burkhardt 1865 - 1866. Trad. Marcelo Biancalana, Edusp, S \" o Paulo. [unknown pagination]","Rose, J. A. (1961) Anatomy and sexual dimorphism of the swim bladder and vertebral column in Ophidion holbrookii (Pisces, Ophidiidae). Bulletin of Marine Science of the Gulf and Caribbean, 11 (2), 280 - 308.","Courtenay, W. R. Jr. (1971) Sexual dimorphism of the sound producing mechanism of the striped cusk-eel, Risola marginata (Pisces: Ophidiidae). Copeia, 1971 (2), 259 - 268. https: // doi. org / 10.2307 / 1442826","Nguyen, T. K., Lin, H., Parmentier, E. & Fine, M. L. (2008) Seasonal variation in sonic muscle in the fawn cusk-eel Lepophidium profundorum. Biological Letters, 4 (6), 707 - 710. https: // doi. org / 10.1098 / rsbl. 2008.0383","Eskinazi, A. M. (1972) Peixes estuarinos do nordeste oriental brasileiro. Arquivos de Ciencias do Mar, 12 (1), 35 - 41.","Nobrega, M. F., Lessa, R. & Santana, F. M. (2009) Peixes Marinhos da Regiao Nordeste do Brasil. Editora Martins & Cordeiro, Revizee Score Nordeste, Fortaleza, 208 pp."]}

Rotundo, Matheus Marcos, Caires, Rodrigo Antunes, Oliveira, Claudio, Kuranaka, Mariana, Figueiredo-Filho, Jessé Miranda De, Marceniuk, Alexandre Pires (2023): Taxonomic revision of the Ophidion holbrookii Putnam, 1874 (Ophidiiformes: Ophidiidae) species complex, with description of a new species from Brazil. Zootaxa 5318 (2): 237-252, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5318.2.4, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5318.2.4

Ophidion holbrookii Putnam, 1874 Figs. 1–4 and Table 3 Ophidium holbrookii Putnam, 1874: 340 (original description; United States, Florida, Key West; holotype unknown). Ophidion holbrookii. — Jordan & Gilbert, 1883: 793 (fish synopsis; listed).— Rose 1961: 280–308 (anatomy of swim bladder and vertebrae; sexual dimorphism).— Cohen & Nielsen 1978: 16 (NOAA Technical Reports: listed).— Robins & Ray, 1986: 99 (Atlantic coast fishes; plate 16; short description).—Valdez & Aguillera, 1987: 62 (Fishes of Venezuela; short description and illustration; perla).–Gomez-Soto & Contreras—Balderas, 1988: 12 (fauna del laguna Madre de Tamaulipas, Mexico, first record; listed).– Smith, 1997: 361 (short description; distribution).— McEachran & Fechhelm, 1998: 748 (Fishes of Gulf of Mexico; description; drawing).— Castro-Aguirre et al. (1999): 164 (fishes of Mexico; listed). — Nielsen et al., 1999: 41 (FAO Fisheries Synopses; short description; illustration; senior synonymy of O. beani Jordan & Gilbert, 1883).— Leopold, 2004: 87 (Fishes of Guyana; brotule de banc; short description).— Nielsen & Robins, 2002: 972 (FAO Species Identification Guide, Living Marine Species of Western Central Atlantic; diagnosis; short description; drawing; senior synonymy of O. beani Jordan & Gilbert, 1883). — Lea & Robins, 2003: 7 (description of four new western Atlantic Ophidion species; comparison). —Garrido-Linares, & Acero. 2006: 297 (Ophidiiformes of Colombian Caribbean; listed).— Caires et al. in Marceniuk et al., 2021: 198 (Fishes of Northern Brazilian coast; description; photograph). Ophidium graellsi (not of Poey, 1861).— Jordan & Gilbert, 1882: 301 (fishes from Pensacola).— Jordan & Gilbert 1883: 953 (fish synopsis; listed). Ophidium beani Jordan & Gilbert, 1883: 143 (original description; type locality, United States, Florida, off Pensacola; Syntypes: USNM 30868).— Jordan, 1885: 126 (Catalog of fishes on North America; listed).— Jordan & Evermann, 1898: 2487 (fishes of North and Middle America; description). Ophidion sp. —Arai in Uyeno et al., 1983: 223 (Fishes trawled off Suriname and French Guiana; description; photograph). — Lea & Robins, 2003: 7 (comment of Arai’s image; re-identified as O. holbrookii). Holotype: MCZ 34010, formerly BSNH 1117, (138 mm SL), Key West, Florida, U.S.A., 1872, coll. C.J. Maynard. Non type specimens. United States: UF 124058 (1, 188.6 mm SL, female), 34°6’0.000” N / 77°46’12.000” W, North Carolina, 02 Sep. 1959, coll. R / V Silver Bay; UF 28320 (1, 200.2 mm SL), 33°27’36.000” N / 78°6’36.000” W, North Carolina, 22 Jun. 1968, coll. J. Gillikin et al.; UF 180111 (1, 159.0 mm SL, female), 31°10’48.000” N / 81°20’60.000” W, Georgia, 30 May 1961, coll. F. Blossoms; UF 37849 (7, 269.3, 247.2, 243.4 mm SL, all male, 229.3, 222.9, 199.2, 205.6 mm SL, all female), 29°32’24.000” N / 87°39’36.000” W, Alabama, 30 Jun. 1983, coll. G. Burgess; CAS 216613 (4), 30°15’57.600” N / 81°15’0.000” W, Florida, 29 Oct. 1973, coll. R / V Dolphin; UF 37487 (1, 131 mm SL), 24°37’60.000” N / 82°28’0.000” W, Florida, 18 Apr 1980, coll. G. Burgess; UF 185151 (1, 207.4 mm SL, female), Gulf of Mexico, Florida, 29 Jan. 1963, no collection data. Mexico: UF 232191 (1, 246.4 mm SL, male), 22°15’36.000” N / 89°2’60.000” W, Yucatan, 13 Dec. 1952, coll. R / V Oregon. Puerto Rico: UF 221855 (1, 214.7 mm SL, male), 18°6’0.000” N / 67°22’48.000” W. Colombia: UF 221832 (9, 218.4 mm SL, male, 192.5, 193.8, 160.8, 171.5, 190.8 mm SL, all female, 186.7, 173.9, 177.3, unsexed), 11°57’36.000” N / 72°28’48.000” W. Guyana: UF 205082 (1, 191.5 mm SL, female), 7°39’36.000” N / 57°33’36.000” W, 31 Aug. 1958, coll. R / V Oregon. Suriname: UF 167743 (1, 198.8 mm SL, male), 6°57’36.000” N / 55°52’48.000” W, 26 Jun. 1972, coll. R / V Oregon II; UF 232193 (1, 205.1 mm SL, male), 6°55’48.000” N / 56°18’36.000” W, 29 Jan. 1974, coll. R / V Oregon II. Diagnosis. Ophidion holbrookii is distinguished from its western Atlantic congeners as follows: from O. antipholus by the rear of skull not outlined in dark pigment (Fig. 2) (vs. rear of skull broadly outlined in dark pigment), the absence of a dark streak along the lateral line (Fig. 2) (vs. may have a dark streak along the lateral line); from O. dromio by having 59–66 vertebrae (vs. 67–69, Table 3); from O. grayi by the absence of irregular rows on body (vs. 2 irregular rows of dark brown spots, upper row from top of the body to lateral line, lower row from lateral line down, Fig. 2), the absence of dark brown spots on head and dorsal fin (vs. top of head and dorsal fin with scattered dark brown spots; from O. guianense by rocker bone present (vs. absent); 97–107 anal-fin rays, rarely 96 (vs. 91–96, Table 3), 4 rakers on lower gill arch (vs. 5–6, Table 3); from O. josephi by having 116–137 dorsal-fin rays (vs. 138–146, Table 3), 96–107 anal-fin rays (vs. 114–121, Table 2), without dark spots on body (Fig. 2) (vs. 3 rows of dark spots along body); from O. lagochila by having 2 rudiments on upper gill arch (vs. 3), rear of top of the head not outlined in black (Fig. 2) (vs. outlined in black), juvenile without a dark streak along the lateral line (vs. with a dark streak along the lateral line); from O. marginatum by having 116–137 dorsal-fin rays (vs. 147–158, Table 3), 96–107 anal-fin rays (vs. 118–124, Table 3), body and lateral line without dark stripes (Fig. 2) (vs. with 2–3 dark stripes along its body and one at lateral line); from O. puck by having 59–66 vertebrae (vs. 70, Table 3), 13–16 preanal vertebrae (vs. 17–18, Table 3); from O. robinsi by lacking dark brown spots (Fig. 2) (vs. with dark brown spots); from O. selenops by having 96–107 anal-fin rays (vs. 123–129, Table 3), the absence of a dark line along top of back before dorsal fin (Fig. 2) (vs. with a dark line along top of back before dorsal fin); from O. zavalai n. sp. by caudal-fin length 2.9–7.7 (vs. 0.7–2.8, Table 3); and 11.7–15.3 of postorbital length (vs. 8.4–11.2, Table 3) in specimens less than 230 mm SL. Description. Meristic and morphometric characters given in Table 3. Body moderately compressed, elongate with tapering tail. Head moderately broad, not depressed, bones firm in touch. Scales elongate, not overlapping, present on flanks and belly, about 30 to 40 scales transversely across trunk above beginning of anal fin, about 150 to 170 scales in transversal rows from pectoral base to caudal fin base. Pectoral fin variably long and pointed, usually shorter than postorbital distance; pelvic-fin origin below orbit anterior margin, longest ray not reaching pectoral-fin base. Head without scales, except on predorsal region to supratemporal canal. Anterior nostril as small tube over upper lip, posterior nostril slender, oval, over horizontal imaginary line through mid-eye. Snout triangular, slightly shorter than eye diameter. Eye large, oval, slightly elongated, lens well developed. Upper jaw ends just below mid-eye to posterior margin of orbit, rear upper jaw border partially covered by infraorbital regions in young specimens, exposed in adults; 3–4 rows of villiform teeth on jaws, larger on outer series, 3–4 rows of villiform teeth on vomer, palatines long with 3 rows of villiform teeth. Opercular and nasal spines absent. Upper branch of first gill arch with 2 knob-like rakers, lower branch with 4–7 short rakers. Head canals: supraorbital 2, infraorbital 3, supratemporal 4, preopercle to lower jaw 5. Rocker bone with sickle to semicircular, half-doughnut shape, dorsal profile semicircular, ventral profile with anterior arm triangular or with ventral margin slightly blunt, rear arm with ventral margin rounded to truncate or slightly indented. Concavity between arms gentle to semicircular, more so on largest specimens. Swim bladder carrot-like, pointed on rear portion, with two small, fringed anterior horns, sulcus present on ventral portion. Rocker bone abuts anterior portion of the bladder. Color in preserved specimens. Tan to brownish on upper third and head, beige to light tan elsewhere, paler on belly, sometimes darker along lateral line and anal fin base; eye lens dark, cornea dusky, darker on upper margin. Pectoral fin dusky or yellow, pelvic fin dirty whitish or dusky, dorsal and anal fins dusky with slender black distal margins, sometimes with dark area following distal lines in caudal fin base. Young specimens lighter in color, with dark areas less evident. Specimens may be light tan due to preservation. Morphological variation. No significant variation was found in the development of Ophidion holbrookii from 131 to 269 mm SL (Table 3). Sexual dimorphism. Sexual dimorphism has been observed in the dorsal profile of the head in adult males and females of O. holbrookii. Males exhibit a straight, strongly inclined dorsal profile, whereas in females this profile is slightly rounded (see Fig. 2). Radiographs of examined specimens show variation for the rocker bone and parapophyses of anterior vertebrae described for males and females of O. zavalai n. sp. (see Zavala-Camin & Rotundo 2011), as described by Rose (1961) in specimens captured by shrimp trawlers in the Dry Tortugas west of Key West, Florida (USA). Distribution and habitat. Ophidion holbrookii is found in soft bottom associated coastal marine habitats. It can be found from the east coast of the United States to Suriname, including throughout Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea (Fig. 4). Remarks. Until recently, Catalog of Fishes stated that whereabouts of the holotype of O. holbrookii were unknown (Fricke et al. 2022). The confusion regarding the status of holotype arose from the fact that Putnam deposited the type specimen in Boston Society of Natural History (catalog number 1117), but this collection was later merged to Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University (MCZ), a condition confirmed by A. Wilkinson, MCZ. The catalog number of the holotype of O. holbrookii is MCZ 34010, and the type specimen is in good condition (Fig. 2a), although its swim bladder and rocker bone were extracted by Putnam and later included with the specimen. Ophidion holbrookii has been diagnosed by being tan without markings, except for a dark edge to edge to the dorsal and anal fins, by the presence of the rocker bone, the form the gas bladder, 4 developed rakers on the lower gill arch and long pelvic rays, the longer of the two extending to a point under or nearly under the pectoral-fin base, however, some of the characters listed may apply to more than one species sensu Arai (1983) and Lea & Robins (2003). Additionally, Lea & Robins (2003) diagnosed O. holbrookii with dorsal profile from the tip of snout to tip of nape straight rather than convex, however, this trait shows sexual variation, common in adult males (Fig. 2). The synonymy of Ophidion holbrookii and Ophidion beani Jordan & Gilbert, 1883 is supported by the shape of a long gas bladder (Lea & Robins 2003)., Published as part of Rotundo, Matheus Marcos, Caires, Rodrigo Antunes, Oliveira, Claudio, Kuranaka, Mariana, Figueiredo-Filho, Jessé Miranda De & Marceniuk, Alexandre Pires, 2023, Taxonomic revision of the Ophidion holbrookii Putnam, 1874 (Ophidiiformes: Ophidiidae) species complex, with description of a new species from Brazil, pp. 237-252 in Zootaxa 5318 (2) on pages 240-244, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5318.2.4, http://zenodo.org/record/8169565, {"references":["Putnam, F. W. (1874) Notes on Ophidiidae and Fierasferidae, with description of new species from America and the Mediterranean. Proceedings of the Boston Society of Natural History, 16, 339 - 348.","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","Rose, J. A. (1961) Anatomy and sexual dimorphism of the swim bladder and vertebral column in Ophidion holbrookii (Pisces, Ophidiidae). Bulletin of Marine Science of the Gulf and Caribbean, 11 (2), 280 - 308.","Cohen, D. M. & Nielsen, J. G. (1978) Guide to the identification of genera of the fish order Ophidiiformes with a tentative classification of the order. Vol. 55. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Circular 417, 1 - 73. https: // doi. org / 10.5962 / bhl. title. 63242","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.","Smith, C. L. (1997) National Audubon Society field guide to tropical marine fishes of the Caribbean, the Gulf of Mexico, Florida, the Bahamas, and Bermuda. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., New York, New York, 720 pp.","McEachran, J. D. & Fechhelm, J. D. (1998) Fishes of the Gulf of Mexico. Vo. 1. Myxiniformes to Gasterosteiformes. University of Texas Press, Austin, Texas, 1112 pp. https: // doi. org / 10.7560 / 752061","Castro-Aguirre, J. L., Espinosa Perez, H. & Schmitter-Soto, J. J. (1999) Ictiofauna estuarino-lagunar y vicaria de Mexico. IPN, Mexico City, 711 pp.","Nielsen, J. G., Cohen, D. M., Markle, D. F. & Robins, C. R. (1999) FAO species catalogue. Ophidiiform fishes of the world (Order Ophidiiformes). An annotated and illustrated catalogue of pearlfishes, cusk-eels, brotulas and other ophidiiform fishes known to date. FAO Fisheries Synopsis. No. 125. Vol. 18. FAO, Rome, 178 pp.","Leopold, M. (2004) Guide des poissons de mer de Guyane. Ifremer, Brest, 214 pp.","Nielsen, J. G. & Robins, C. R. (2002) Ophidiidae In: Carpenter, K. E. (Ed.), The living marine resources of the Western Central Atlantic. Vol. 2. Bony fishes part 1 (Acipenseridae to Grammatidae). FAO Species Identification Guide for Fishery Purposes and American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists Special Publication No. 5. FAO, Rome, pp. 965 - 972.","Lea, R. N. & Robins, C. R. (2003) Four New Species of the Genus Ophidion (Pisces: Ophidiidae) from the Western Atlantic Ocean. Natural History Museum, The University of Kansas, Scientific Papers, 31, 1 - 9. https: // doi. org / 10.5962 / bhl. title. 8466","Jordan, D. S. (1885) A catalogue of the fishes known to inhabit the waters of North America, north of the Tropic of Cancer, with notes on species discovered in 1883 and 1884. United States Commission of Fish and Fisheries, Report of the Commissioner, 13, 789 - 973. https: // doi. org / 10.5962 / bhl. title. 8874","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 III. Bulletin of the United States National Museum, 47, 2183 - 3136. https: // doi. org / 10.5962 / bhl. title. 39717","Uyeno, T., Matsuura, K. & Fujii, E. (1983) Fishes trawled off Suriname and French Guiana. Japan Marine Fishery Resource Research Center, Tokyo, 519 pp.","Zavala-Camin, L. A. & Rotundo, M. M. (2011) Gross anatomy of the head lateral line and hearing system of the Ophidiinae, Genypterus blacodes, Raneya brasiliensis and Ophidion holbrookii, of Southern Brazil. Bioikos, 25 (1), 3 - 10.","Fricke, R., Eschmeyer, W. N. & van der Laan R. (2022) Eschmeyer's catalog of fishes: genera, species, references [Internet]. San Francisco: California Academy of Science. Available from: http: // researcharchive. calacademy. org / research / ichthyology / catalog / fishcatmain. asp (accessed 27 June 2023)"]}

Spintherobolus papilliferus is an endangered characid endemic of the Atlantic Rainforest, known from sparse locations in the upper rio Tietê basin around the metropolitan area of São Paulo city, and from an affluent of rio Itapanhaú, a coastal stream in Bertioga, São Paulo State. In 2020, S. papilliferus was sampled from the rio Ribeira de Iguape basin in Juquitiba, São Paulo State, representing a new distributional record. We compared 17 morphometric and six meristic characters from all specimens with data from the rios Tietê and Itapanhaú. An overlap in the morphological data from the three populations was detected, except for five measure whose values are lower in rio Ribeira de Iguape. MANOVA and LDA revealed that this population differs significantly from the other two, showing shallower body and caudal peduncle, among other features. These morphological differences may be due to environmental selective pressures since rio Ribeira de Iguape drainage is marked by fast waters which can influence the shape of fish bodies over time. DNA-barcoding of all Spintherobolus species corroborate that the rio Ribeira de Iguape population belongs to S. papilliferus. We also present a hypothesis for the disjunct distribution of S. papilliferus involving headwater capture and discuss the implications for the conservation of this endangered species. Resumo Spintherobolus papilliferus é um caracídeo endêmico da Mata Atlântica e ameaçado de extinção, conhecido de localidades esparsas na bacia do alto rio Tietê, região metropolitana da cidade de São Paulo, e de um afluente do rio Itapanhaú, um riacho costeiro em Bertioga, Estado de São Paulo. Em 2020, S. papilliferus foi amostrada na bacia do rio Ribeira de Iguape em Juquitiba, São Paulo, representando um novo registro de distribuição. Comparamos 17 caracteres morfométricos e seis merísticos dos exemplares com dados dos rios Tietê e Itapanhaú. Houve sobreposição nos valores dos dados exceto em cinco medidas cujos valores são menores no rio Ribeira de Iguape. MANOVA e LDA revelaram que esta população difere significativamente das demais populações, sendo estes exemplares caracterizados pelas menores alturas do corpo e pedúnculo caudal, dentre outras características. Estas diferenças morfológicas possivelmente decorrem de pressões ambientais, pois a drenagem do rio Ribeira de Iguape possui ambientes de corredeiras velozes que podem influenciar no formato do corpo dos peixes. DNA-barcoding de todas as espécies de Spintherobolus corroborou que a população do rio Ribeira de Iguape pertence à S. papilliferus. Apresentamos também uma hipótese para a distribuição disjunta de S. papilliferus envolvendo captura de cabeceiras e discutimos implicações para a conservação dessa espécie ameaçada.

In a nuclear reactor core, the heat generated by nuclear fission in the fuel is removed by a cooling fluid. While heat transfer must be optimized to increase process efficiency, the temperature in the core must not exceed certain safety limits, making thermal analysis of fuel elements the subject of various investigations, both in their design and operation. Different ways to model this type of problem are possible. In this work, an analytical approach through the energy balance in the subchannel and a numerical approach using the Finite Volume Method were studied. The results obtained were compatible, which indicated the validity of the developed numerical model, providing greater reliability to other analyses that can be made based on the simulation performed., No núcleo de um reator, o calor produzido por fissão nuclear no combustível é removido por um fluido refrigerante. Mesmo que a transferência de calor deva ser otimizada a fim de aumentar a eficiência do processo, a temperatura no núcleo não deve exceder determinados limites de segurança, o que torna análise térmica em elementos combustíveis alvo de diversas investigações, tanto em seu designquanto em sua operação. Diferentes formas de modelar esse tipo de problema são possíveis. Neste trabalho foi estudada uma abordagem analítica por meio do balanço de energia no subcanal e uma abordagem numérica pelo Método dos Volumes Finitos. Os resultados obtidos se mostraram compatíveis, o que indicou a validade do modelo numérico desenvolvido, garantindo uma maior confiabilidade a outras análises que podem ser feitas com base na simulação realizada.

Key to Upper Paraná basin species of Imparfinis 1. 11−12 gill rakers on first ceratobranchial; conspicuous longitudinal dark stripe along flank; first dorsal-fin ray longer or approximately of same length of second ray........................................................ I. schubarti 1’. 5−7 gill rackers on first ceratobranchial; inconspicuous longitudinal dark stripe along flank; first dorsal-fin ray shorter than second ray;.......................................................................................... 2 2. Orbital diameter 11.8−19.9% in HL; caudal peduncle depth 8.0−12.2% in SL................................. I. mirini 2’ Orbital diameter 20.0− 25.5 in HL; caudal peduncle depth 5.3−7.6 in SL.......................................... 3 3. 39−40 vertebrae, 7−8 gill rackers on first ceratobranchial, body uniformly colored.......................... I. piperatus 3’. 38 vertebrae, 5−6 gill rackers on first ceratobranchial, body mottled colored............................... I. lepturus

Silva, Gabriel S. C., Reia, Lais, Morimoto, César K., Benine, Ricardo C., Oliveira, Claudio (2023): Integrative taxonomy of Imparfinis (Siluriformes, Heptapteridae) from the Upper Paraná River basin, Brazil, with description of a new species. Zootaxa 5249 (3): 357-377, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5249.3.3, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5249.3.3

Imparfinis lepturus, new species (Fig. 3; Table 4) urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act: 057B59BB-CADB-4EEF-9F44-6ED11BC85520 Holotype. MZUSP 127602, 44.9 mm SL, Brazil, Goiás, Aporé, Upper Paraná River basin, rio Corrente, 18°30’50.7”S 52°05’46.4”W, 15 Jul 2022, J. Crispim, L. Reia, G.S.C. Silva. Paratypes. Brazil, Goiás, Aporé: LBP 25732, 16, 22.6−44.1 mm SL, 1 c&s (39.5 mm SL), Upper Paraná River basin, rio Corrente, 18°30’50.7”S 52°05’46.4”W, 28 Nov 2017, R. Devidé, B. Melo, C. Araya, G.S.C. Silva. LBP 32018, 12, 31.9−51.3 mm SL, 2 c&s (30.9−39.3 mm), same data as the holotype. Diagnosis. Imparfinis lepturus differs from its congeners by having a mottled colored body, with concentrated chromatophores forming patches of black pigmentation (Fig. 3 and 6) (vs. uniformly counter-shaded). Additionally, the new species differs from trans-Andean species by absence of a short extension of the pectoral, dorsal, and upper caudal-fin rays (vs. presence in I. usmai and I. nemacheir), by having six gill rakers on the first ceratobranchial (vs. 10-11 in I. spurrelii), 38 vertebrae (vs. 39−40 in I. usmai, 42 in I. lineatus, 42−43 in I. timana, 45 in I. spurrellii). The new species differs from Amazon species by having 38 vertebrae (vs. 39−40 in I. munduruku, 40 in I. hasemani, 41 in I. cochabambae, 43−44 in I. longicauda), by having six gill rackers on the first ceratobranchial (vs. 15 in I. cochabambae), by absence of a short extension of the pectoral, dorsal, and upper caudal-fin rays (vs. present in I. guttatus). The new species differs from I. piJpersi from Sipaliwini River and from I. minutus from S„o Francisco River by having longer maxillary barbel, reaching pelvic-fin origin (vs. not surpassing distal tip of adpressed pectoral fin), from I. minutus from S„o Francisco River by having 38 vertebrae (vs. 41), from I. mishky from Uruguai and lower Paraná basins by having 38 vertebrae (vs. 41), six gill rackers on first ceratobranchial (vs. nine), and maxillary barbel only reaching pelvic-fin origin (vs. surpassing pelvic-fin origin). Finally, the new species differs from its congeners from the Upper Paraná basin by having three irregular rows of teeth on premaxilla (vs. 5-6 in I. mirini, I. piperatus, and I. schubarti); by having 38 vertebrae (vs. 39−40 in I. piperatus; 40−41 in I. schubarti), by having six gill rackers on first ceratobranchial (vs. 7−8 in I. mirini and 11 in I. schubarti), a greater eye diameter 21.3−26.3% of HL (vs. 11.8−19.9% in I. mirini), by smaller caudal peduncle depth 6.6−7.6% of SL (vs. 8.0−12.2% in I. mirini; 10.0−12.3% of SL in I. schubarti), by having the first dorsal-fin ray shorter than the second (vs. longer or approximately of same length that second ray in I. schubarti), by having the lower caudal-fin lobe darker (vs. both lobes hyaline in I. mirini and I. piperatus), and by absence of dark strip along flank (vs. presence of conspicuous longitudinal dark stripe in I. schubarti). Description. Morphometric data are summarized in Table 4. Head slightly convex in lateral view. Snout short and rounded in dorsal view. Lateral profile of head slightly convex from snout tip to occipital region. Eyes large and elliptical, dorsolaterally positioned, just anterior to midpoint of head. Mouth subterminal. Upper jaw longer than lower jaw. Premaxilla and dentary with three irregular rows of small conic teeth. Maxillary barbel reaching posterior end of dorsal-fin base, when outstretched. Outer mental barbel longer than inner barbel. Outer mental barbel reaching posterior end of pectoral-fin base when outstretched. Inner mental barbel reaching the origin of pectoral-fin base when outstretched. Branchiostegal membrane free, supported by seven rays and joined to isthmus only at anteriormost point. Six gill rakers along anterior margin of first ceratobranchial. Greatest body width at cleithral region, progressively narrowing anteriorly towards snout tip and posteriorly towards caudal fin. In lateral view, body depressed and convex in shape from end of head to dorsal-fin origin; slightly concave from dorsal-fin origin to adipose-fin origin; straight from adipose-fin origin to caudal peduncle. In lateral view, ventral profile straight and descending from snout tip to opercular region; slightly convex from opercular region to pelvic-fin origin; straight from that point to anal-fin origin; slightly concave from that point to origin of lower procurrent caudal-fin rays. Precaudal vertebrae 12 (seven supporting pleural ribs) and caudal vertebrae 26, total vertebrae 38. Pectoral fin with one simple and eight branched rays. Pelvic fin i,5. First pelvic-fin ray shorter, second, third and fourth branched rays longer. Dorsal-fin i,6. Dorsal-fin unbranched ray slightly convex. First basal radial inserted in vertebra 7 and last basal radial anterior to neural spine of vertebra 12. Adipose fin long (22.6−26.7% of SL). Anal fin iv,8. Caudal skeleton composed of a plate formed by parhypural + hypurals 1 and 2 in lower lobe, upper lobe plate formed by hypurals 3 and 4 fused, hypural 5 free, and pleurostile fused to compound centrum. Caudal fin with i,8+9,i principal rays. Upper and lower caudal-fin lobes approximately symmetrical. Six to seven procurrents rays in dorsal and ventral lobes. Color in alcohol. Background color of body yellowish dorsolaterally and white ventrolaterally. Irregular dark-brown patches formed by concentrated melanophores along lateral portion of body. Head yellowish. Five conspicuous dark brown saddles along dorsal portion of body: first just after head, second at dorsal-fin origin, third at insertion of last dorsal-fin rays; fourth at mid-point between dorsal and adipose fins. Anterior and posterior region at insertions of adipose fin densely darkly pigmented. Humeral region with a large dark blotch. All fins hyaline. Distribution and habitat. The new species is only known from the rio Corrente, Upper Paraná River basin at the municipality of Aporé, in Goiás state, Brazil (Fig. 1a). Specimens were captured in fast-water habitat, associated with marginal vegetation (Fig. 4). Etymology. The specific epithet lepturus is from Greek lepto meaning slender, and oura meaning tail, in reference to the depressed caudal peduncle. An adjective.

Key to Upper Paraná basin species of Imparfinis 1. 11−12 gill rakers on first ceratobranchial; conspicuous longitudinal dark stripe along flank; first dorsal-fin ray longer or approximately of same length of second ray........................................................ I. schubarti 1’. 5−7 gill rackers on first ceratobranchial; inconspicuous longitudinal dark stripe along flank; first dorsal-fin ray shorter than second ray;.......................................................................................... 2 2. Orbital diameter 11.8−19.9% in HL; caudal peduncle depth 8.0−12.2% in SL................................. I. mirini 2’ Orbital diameter 20.0− 25.5 in HL; caudal peduncle depth 5.3−7.6 in SL.......................................... 3 3. 39−40 vertebrae, 7−8 gill rackers on first ceratobranchial, body uniformly colored.......................... I. piperatus 3’. 38 vertebrae, 5−6 gill rackers on first ceratobranchial, body mottled colored............................... I. lepturus, Published as part of Silva, Gabriel S. C., Reia, Lais, Morimoto, César K., Benine, Ricardo C. & Oliveira, Claudio, 2023, Integrative taxonomy of Imparfinis (Siluriformes, Heptapteridae) from the Upper Paraná River basin, Brazil, with description of a new species, pp. 357-377 in Zootaxa 5249 (3) on page 372, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5249.3.3, http://zenodo.org/record/7691068

Pareques acuminatus (Bloch & Schneider, 1801) Figures 1 and 2, Tables 2 and 3 Type specimen: Neotype: UF 210054 (1, 100 mm SL), 24.5458333, -81.7533333, USA, Florida, Florida Keys, 0.25 mi offshore from Key West. Non type specimens: UF 68203 (2, 118– 128 mm SL), 30.1191080, -85.7246760, USA, Florida, St. Andrew Bay at Panama City; UF 3944 (1, 143 mm SL), 28.9166667, -85.1166667, USA, Florida, S of Apalachicola Bay; UF 171937 (1, 102 mm SL), 25.9786910, -80.1178480, USA, Florida, Broward, Hallandale Public Beach; UF 218870 (4, 100–117 mm SL), 24.8458333, -80.6208333 USA, Florida, Florida Keys, 0.33 mi SSW of Alligator Lighthouse, shallow ledge of reef; UF 218787 (2, 118– 123 mm SL), 24.8375000, -80.7241667, USA, Florida, Florida Keys, patch reefs at SW end of Lower Matecumbe; UF 248271 (1, 75 mm SL), 24.5458333, -81.7533333, USA, Florida, Florida Keys, 0.25 mi offshore from Key West; UF 159940 (1, 91 mm SL), 17.7885500, -64.6172111, Virgin Islands (USA), St. Croix, north shore of Buck Island Reef National Monument; UF 140955 (2, 59–81 mm SL), 23.5367660, -79.5550540, Bahamas, Cay Sal Bank, Anguilla Islands, southwest shore of Cotton Cay; UF 46091 (2, 60–85 mm SL), 17.2000000, -88.1866667, Honduras, shrimp grounds off Belize, inside main reef; CIRUV 021016 Colombia, Isla Providencia; UVTP 2557 Colombia, Granate; CIRUV 017066 Colombia, Isla Aguja; UF 214068 (2, 95–135 mm SL), 11.9463050, -66.6785970, Venezuela, Los Roques Islands, Gran Roque Island (El Roque), S side of SW corner at pinnacle, labeled as Equetus horsti . Diagnosis: Pareques acuminatus is distinguished from its congeners in the western Atlantic as follows: from P. lineatus by having 44–49 lateral line pored scales (vs. 50–55, excluding specimens from Colombia; Table 3), 6 scales above lateral line (vs. 8–9; Table 2) and 8 scales below (vs. 9–10; Table 2), 8 straight white stripes, usually wider than black stripes on sides (vs. not more than 7 irregular, not straight and narrower white stripes; Fig. 2), and presence of submarginal white stripe on soft dorsal fin (vs. absence of whitish submarginal stripe); from P. iwamotoi by absence of dark bar between eyes (vs. presence of dark bar between eyes), body with 3–5 broad dark horizontal stripes and narrow stripes in between those (vs. one dark stripe from midbody to caudal-fin base), and absence of wide transverse dark bar from dorsal-fin origin almost to pelvic-fin base (vs. presence of this bar); from P. umbrosus, by having chin with 5 pores (vs. 6 pores), and sides coloration, black to dark brown with broad white stripes (vs. brownish with thin black lines). Pareques acuminatus can also be distinguished from its congeners from the eastern Pacific as follows: from P. fuscovittatus by first dorsal fin without yellow rear edge (vs. with yellow rear edge) and 9–10 dorsal-fin spines (vs. 12); from P. lanfeari, by head with horizontal dark stripes (vs. without dark horizontal stripes), body with 3–5 broad dark horizontal stripes and narrow stripes between those (vs. body with 4 thin black horizontal stripes), iris brown (vs. iris yellow-brown), and 44–49 scales at lateral line (vs. 52–59); from P. perissa by having 9–11 dorsalfin spines (vs. 12), 36–40 dorsal-fin soft rays (vs. 32–33), seven anal-fin soft rays (vs. 8) and 44–49 scales in lateral line (vs. 50–53); from P. sp. A by having 12–17 gill rakers on first arch (vs. 19–23) and 36–40 dorsal-fin soft rays (vs. 42–45); from P. viola by having 44–49 scales in lateral line (vs. 50–56). Molecular diagnosis: The DNA barcode of Pareques acuminatus shows that the specimens analyzed form a distinct, strongly supported cluster, with a bootstrap value of 90% (Fig. 3), with genetic distances between this species and all the congeners analyzed ranging from 6.2% to 14.8% (Table 4). Pareques acuminatus presents 29 positions in COI with different nucleotides when compared directly with P. lineatus (Table 5). Pareques acuminatus presents 5 unique haplotypes and differs from P. lineatus by 29 mutational steps (Fig. 4). Description: Counts and measurements in Tables 2 and 3. Body oblong, compressed, moderately deep, dorsum elevated, tapering posteriorly to slender caudal peduncle. Head upper profile moderately steep, slightly concave from snout tip to dorsal-fin origin; lower profile of head almost straight from mandibular tip to pelvic-fin origin; snout blunt, rounded, overhangs upper jaw; posterior nostril elongate, larger than oval to rounded anterior nostril; mouth small, inferior, almost horizontal, lower jaw included; teeth villiform in both jaws, those of upper-jaw outer row enlarged, recurved; vomer and palatines toothless; upper jaw reaching slightly past middle-orbit; three marginal pores on snout, three smaller pores on rostrum; five pores on chin, one medial, two mental pairs; eye diameter moderate, larger than interorbital, similar to snout length; preopercular border smooth, membranous. First dorsal fin higher than second, reaching 4th ray when adpressed in adults, farther in younger or immature individuals, and even to caudal-fin distal end in some juveniles; second dorsal fin long, posterior border somewhat rounded; pectoral-fin insertion below about middle of first dorsal fin, tip pointed; pelvic-fin length slightly shorter than pectoral fin, its origin just after pectoral-fin base, tip usually rounded, eventually pointed, reaching beyond pectoral-fin tip in adults, much longer in juveniles; anal-fin base short, distal tip usually pointed, second spine rather stout; caudal fin convex to almost straight in adults, lanceolate to filamentous in juveniles. Body and head covered with ctenoid scales, except preorbital, tip of snout and lower jaw; small ctenoid scales covering soft dorsal- and anal-fin bases. Swim bladder simple, carrot-shaped, without distinct diverticula or anterior horns. Live colors: Adults (Fig. 2d): Generally black to very dark brown head, body, and fins, without golden tones on face and belly. A series of conspicuous white longitudinal, almost straight stripes on entire head and body: the first extending from the insertion of the first dorsal fin along each side of the base of the second dorsal fin to about mid-fin; the second and third start together on the front of the nape then, on each side of the body, divide and pass along the upper back, enclosing a dark stripe, then join again under the middle of the second dorsal and continue for a short distance further along the base of the soft dorsal; the fourth starts on the forehead above the eye and the fifth at the top edge of the eye, then both run parallel to near the rear of the soft dorsal, then join and run along the upper edge of the caudal peduncle; the sixth runs from the lower edge of the eye along the top edge of the pectoral base and along the lower flank to above the anal fin, where it fades out as it continues along the center of the caudal peduncle; the seventh runs parallel to the sixth, and join it at the caudal peduncle, after the anal fin; an eight white stripe runs from the lower end of the opercle to the anal-fin origin; fins blackish to dark brown, the border of soft dorsal with a submarginal whitish stripe and the posterior margin of the spinous dorsal fin usually white, eventually faded; anterior portion of snout and lips darkened; forehead often with a broad whitish blotch that reaches the dorsal-fin origin; iris golden brown, pupil black. Juveniles: Recently recruited individuals (Fig. 2a): white with a shadow of yellow; a black transverse bar crossing upper head, a black stripe in the interorbital and two small conspicuous black dots, one on snout tip, the other just below it; a black stripe from anterior border of eye, crossing orbit to the end of the middle caudal fin; a black stripe from tip of the white spinous dorsal fin that curves back on the shoulder and merges with the lateral one below the center of the soft dorsal; soft dorsal and anal fins translucent; pectoral fins translucent, with a black basal section; pelvic fin white with a black bar down its center. Changes with growth (Fig. 2c, e): As the fish grows, the existing black stripes shrink, and two additional stripes form, one running from upper head to middle of the soft dorsal and another one from below eye to lower caudal peduncle; pectoral and pelvic fins became black with outer borders white; tip of snout with large black spot and a bar from upper jaw to eye and another in the interorbital; the first dorsal is black with white outer borders and a black-centered ocellus at about the middle of the anterior part of the fin. With further growth, the black body stripes shrink and increase in number to 8, the first dorsal fin becomes dark with a white band along its rear edge and the ocellus reduces its size to just a dark area at the tip of the fin; the pectoral, pelvic, anal, and caudal fins are greyish with black outer borders. As the fish grows further, the overall color becomes black, the white color is conspicuously restricted to the stripes described for adults and the spiny dorsal-fin ocellus disappears completely. The above description is based in our observations of live and preserved specimens, and published pictures (i.e., Miller & Woods, 1988, Holt & Riley, 1999; Robertson & Van Tassel, 2019). Nocturnal coloration: At night, juveniles and adults sometimes display a large black bar that runs from the tip of the spinous dorsal fin to the tip of the pelvic fin and another smaller bar from the middle of the second dorsal fin to the middle of the anal fin. Color of preserved specimens: Adults and immature specimens blackish-brown color and white stripes become more evident, not faded. The juveniles maintain their basic coloration, the black marks rarely faded. Distribution and habitat: Pareques acuminatus occurs from Virginia and the Gulf of Mexico to Cuba and Puerto Rico in the Central Caribbean and to Colombia in northern South America (Fig. 4); it does not occur in Bermuda (Smith-Vaniz et al., 1999). The southern limit of the range in the Caribbean is unclear; a specimen from Puerto Rico (UF 214350) presented meristics of P. acuminatus and coloration of P. lineatus; a picture of a Puerto Rican specimen taken by Randall (1996), clearly displays the coloration of P. lineatus; on other hand, the illustration of Cervigón (1993: 268) clearly shows a specimen of P. acuminatus showing that the species range through Central America reaches northern South America, west of the Orinoco plume. It lives in rocky and coral reefs from one to about 100 meters deep, usually between three and 30 meters. Recently recruited juveniles can be observed in very shallow water under ledges or near sand pockets close to reef crevices, often in small groups of about the same age. Young are also found in small groups in deeper water and adults live among rocks, under ledges, inside caves and, eventually in the open. Their habits are mainly nocturnal, spending the day sheltered and feeding at night on sand, mud, and rubble bottoms close to the reef, feeding on crustaceans, polychaetes, small bony fishes, and zooplankton. Remarks: Grammistes acuminatus was described by Bloch & Schneider (1801) with no known types or type locality; the description was based in “Chaetodon, lineis fuscis, longitudinalibus, varius” of Seba (1759), who presented an illustration of the examined specimen (Fig. 1a), but it differs from Seba´s description by the number of dorsal-fin rays (49–50 versus 45–50) and the number of anal-fin rays (9 versus 11). The absence of diagnostic characters and geographic locality prevent the recognition of which molecular and morphological lineages of Pareques acuminatus complex is the one originally described by Seba (1759) and Bloch & Schneider (1801). Thus, it is necessary to designate a neotype to define the identity and to establish a type locality for Grammistes acuminatus [= Pareques acuminatus]. According to the recommendations of Article 75.3 of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN, 1999), the authors choose as a neotype for Pareques acuminatus the specimen with 100 mm SL, collected in Key West, Florida, USA, deposited at the University of Florida (UF 210054), which shares the unique morphological characters of the samples found in North America and parts of the Caribbean., Published as part of Carvalho-Filho, Alfredo, Oliveira, Claudio, Maximiano, Loriane, Tavera, Jose, Acero, Arturo & Marceniuk, Alexandre Pires, 2022, Review of the Pareques acuminatus (Bloch & Schneider, 1801) species complex with revalidation of Pareques lineatus (Cuvier, 1830) from the Western Atlantic (Percomorphacea: Sciaenidae), pp. 401-418 in Zootaxa 5195 (5) on pages 404-409, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5195.5.1, http://zenodo.org/record/7223667, {"references":["Bloch, M. E. & Schneider, J. G. (1801) Systema Ichthyologiae Iconibus cx Ilustratum. Post obitum auctoris opus inchoatum absolvit, correxit, interpolavit Jo. Gottlob Schneider, Saxo. Sumtibus Auctoris Impressum et Bibliopolio Sanderiano Commissum, Berolini, lx + 584 pp.","Seba, A. (1759) Locupletissimi rerum naturalium thesauri accurata descriptio et iconibus artificiosissimis expressio per universam physices historiam. Vol. III. Janssonio-Waesbergios, Amstelaedami [Amsterdam], 212 pp., 116 pls.","Miller, G. C. & Woods, L. P. (1988) A new species of sciaenid fish, Pareques iwamotoi, from the western Atlantic, with color descriptions of prejuvenile and juvenile Pareques acuminatus and Pareques umbrosus. Bulletin of Marine Science, 43 (1), 88 - 92.","Holt, G. J. & Riley, C. M. (1999) Larval and juvenile development of the cubbyu Pareques umbrosus with notes on the high hat Pareques acuminatus larvae. Bulletin of Marine Science, 65 (3), 825 - 838.","Smith-Vaniz, W. F., Collette, B. B. & Luckhurst, B. E. (1999) Fishes of Bermuda: History, Zoogeography, Annotated Checklist, and Identification Keys. American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists, Special Publication No. 4. American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists, Lawrence, Kansas, 424 pp., 12 pls.","Randall, J. E. (1996) Caribbean Reef Fishes, Third Edition, Revised and Enlarged. T. F. H. Publications, 368 pp.","Cervigon, F. (1993) Los Peces Marinos de Venezuela, Vol. 2. Fundacion Cientifica Los Roques, Caracas, 499 pp."]}

Carvalho-Filho, Alfredo, Oliveira, Claudio, Maximiano, Loriane, Tavera, Jose, Acero, Arturo, Marceniuk, Alexandre Pires (2022): Review of the Pareques acuminatus (Bloch & Schneider, 1801) species complex with revalidation of Pareques lineatus (Cuvier, 1830) from the Western Atlantic (Percomorphacea: Sciaenidae). Zootaxa 5195 (5): 401-418, DOI: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5195.5.1

Pareques lineatus (Cuvier, 1830) Figures 1 and 2, Tables 2 and 3 Type specimens: Syntypes: MNHN 0043 (1), Brazil; MNHN 7475 (1), Brazil. Non-type specimens: CIRUV 017067 Colombia, Banco Animas; UVTP 2557 Colombia, Taganga; UF 214350 (1, 131 mm SL), 17.9119370 -67.0477090, Puerto Rico, La Parguera, fish pots; AZUSC 5848 (7, 97–129 mm SL), Brazil, Paraíba, João Pessoa, Penha beach; NPM 3257 (1, 83 mm SL), Brazil, Pernambuco, off Pernambuco; CIUFES 1699 (1, 97 mm SL), Brazil, Espírito Santo, Vitória, Ilha do Boi; CIUFES 1964 (1, 116 mm SL), Brazil, Espírito Santo, Itapemirim, Ilha dos Franceses; NPM 2915 (1, 103 mm SL), Brazil, Rio de Janeiro, Macaé, Arquipélago de Santana; AZUSC 4484 (3, 100–116 mm SL), Brazil, São Paulo, Ubatuba, Ilha das Couves; MZUSP 70555 (1, 114 mm SL), Brazil, São Paulo, Ubatuba, Ubatuba bay; AZUSC 2955 (1, 144 mm SL), Brazil, São Paulo, São Sebastião, Toque Toque Pequeno; AZUSC 4526 (1, 161 mm SL), Brazil, São Paulo, São Sebastião, Toque Toque Pequeno; MZUSP 46228 (2, 70–110 mm SL), Brazil, São Paulo, São Sebastião, Baraqueçaba beach; MZUSP 2460 (1, 143 mm SL), Brazil, São Paulo, Ilha da Vitória; MZUSP 45594 (1, 125 mm SL), Brazil, São Paulo, Arquipélago dos Alcatrazes; MZUSP 44647 (1, 120 mm SL), Brazil, São Paulo, Santos, Laje de Santos; AZUSC 3905 (1, 151 mm SL), Brazil, São Paulo, Cananéia, Ilha do Bom Abrigo; MZUSP 55386 (1, 135 mm SL), Brazil, Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, Ilha do Arvoredo; MZUSP 46641 (1, 143 mm SL), Brazil, Santa Catarina, Porto Belo; MZUSP 49098 (2, 115– 134 mm SL), Brazil, Santa Catarina, Porto Belo. Diagnosis: Pareques lineatus, is distinguished from its congeners in the western Atlantic as follows: from P. acuminatus by having 50–55 lateral-line scales, excluding specimens from Colombia (vs. 44–49; Table 3), 8–9 scales from lateral line to origin of dorsal fin (vs. 6; Table 2) and 9–10 scales from lateral line to first anal fin spine (vs. 8; Table 2) and coloration of adults, brownish with 5–7 longitudinal, irregular white stripes thinner than dark ones (vs. 8 straight white stripes wider than dark ones; Fig. 2h) and by absence of submarginal white stripe on soft dorsal fin (vs. presence of whitish submarginal stripe); from P. iwamotoi by absence of dark bar between eyes in adults (vs. presence of dark bar between eye), and absence of wide, transverse dark bar from dorsal-fin origin almost to pelvic-fin base (vs. presence of transverse bar); and from P. umbrosus by 5 pores on chin (vs. 6 pores), and color, brownish with white horizontal stripes (vs. brownish with thin horizontal black lines). Pareques lineatus can also be distinguished from its congeners from the eastern Pacific as follows: from P. fuscovittatus by first dorsal without yellow rear edge (vs. with yellow rear edge), 10 dorsal-fin spines (vs. 12), 12–15 gill rakers in first arch (vs. 16–20); from P. lanfeari by head with horizontal dark stripes (vs. without horizontal dark stripes), body with 3–5 broad dark stripes and thin pale stripes between those (vs. body with 4 thin black horizontal stripes) and iris brown (vs. iris yellow-brown); from P. perissa, by having 9–11 dorsal-fin spines (vs. 12), 37–40 dorsal-fin soft rays (vs. 32–33) and seven anal-fin soft rays (vs. 8); from P. sp. A, by having 12–15 gill rakers on first arch (vs. 19–23), 10 dorsal-fin spines (vs. 8–9), and 37–40 dorsal-fin soft rays (vs. 42–45); from P. viola, by having 12–15 gill rakers on first arch (vs. 17). Molecular diagnosis: The DNA barcode of Pareques lineatus shows that the specimens analyzed form a distinct, strongly supported cluster, with a bootstrap value of 92% (Fig. 3), with genetic distances between this species and all the congeners analyzed ranging from 6.2% to 14.3% (Table 4). Pareques lineatus presents 29 positions in COI with different nucleotides when compared directly with Pareques acuminatus (Table 5). Pareques lineatus presents 6 unique haplotypes and differs from P. acuminatus by 29 mutational steps in COI (Fig. 4). Description: Counts and measurements in Tables 2 and 3. Body oblong, compressed, moderately deep, dorsum elevated, tapering posteriorly to slender caudal peduncle. Head upper profile moderately steep, slightly concave from snout tip to dorsal-fin origin; lower profile of head almost straight from mandibular tip to pelvic-fin origin; snout blunt, rounded, overhangs upper jaw; posterior nostril elongate, larger than oval anterior nostril; mouth small, inferior, almost horizontal, lower jaw included; teeth villiform in both jaws, those of upper-jaw outer row enlarged, recurved; vomer and palatines toothless; upper jaw barely reaches middle of orbit; three marginal pores on snout and three smaller pores on rostrum; five pores on chin, one medial and two mental pairs; eye diameter moderate, larger than interorbital, similar to snout length; preopercular border smooth, membranous. First dorsal fin higher than second, reaching 4 th ray when adpressed in adults, farther in younger or immature, and even caudal-fin distal end in juveniles; second dorsal fin long, posterior border somewhat rounded; pectoralfin insertion below about middle of first dorsal fin, tip pointed; pelvic-fin length slightly shorter than pectoral fin, its origin below or just after posterior pectoral-fin base, tip rounded to pointed, reaching beyond pectoral-fin tip in adults, much longer in juveniles; anal-fin base short, distal tip usually pointed, second spine rather stout; caudal fin convex to almost straight in adults, lanceolate to filamentous in juveniles. Body and much of head covered with ctenoid scales; small ctenoid scales covering soft dorsal- and anal-fin bases. Swim bladder simple, carrot-shaped, without distinct diverticula or anterior horns. Live colors. Adults (Fig. 2h). Generally dark brown to brownish grey head, body, and fins, often with golden tones on face and belly. A series of whitish longitudinal, somewhat irregular stripes on upper head, rarely on lower, and anterior body: the first a thin one extending from the insertion of the first dorsal fin along each side of the base of the second dorsal fin to about mid-fin; the second and third start together on the front of the nape then divide and pass along the upper back on each side of the body, enclosing a dark elongate triangle, then join again under the middle of the second dorsal and continue for a short distance further along the base of the soft dorsal; the fourth starts on the forehead above the eye and the fifth at the top edge of the eye, then both run parallel to near the rear of the soft dorsal, then join and run along the upper edge of the caudal peduncle; the sixth runs from the lower edge of the eye along the top edge of the pectoral base and along the lower flank to above the anal fin, where it fades out as it continues along the center of the caudal peduncle; the seventh runs parallel to the sixth, which is much more faded, and joins it above the anal fin; fins greyish brown, the border of soft dorsal with a thin black line and the posterior margin of the spinous dorsal fin usually dark, sometimes white; anterior portion of snout and lips bluish black; forehead often with a broad whitish blotch that reaches the dorsal-fin origin; iris golden brownish, pupil black. Juveniles: Recently recruited individuals (Fig. 2e): yellowish white; a black transverse bar crossing upper head, a black stripe in the interorbital and two small conspicuous black dots, one on snout tip, the other just below it; a black stripe from anterior border of eye, crossing orbit to the end of the middle caudal fin; a black stripe from tip of the white spinous dorsal fin that curves back on the shoulder and merges with the lateral one below the center of the soft dorsal; soft dorsal and anal fins translucent; pectoral fins translucent, with a black basal section; pelvic fin white with a black bar down its center. Changes with growth (Fig. 2f, g): As the fish grows, the existing black stripes shrink, and two additional stripes form, one running from upper head to middle of the soft dorsal and another one from below eye to lower caudal peduncle; pectoral and pelvic fins became black with outer borders white; tip of snout with large black spot and a bar from upper jaw to eye and another in the interorbital; the first dorsal is black with white outer borders and a black-centered ocellus at about the middle of the anterior part of the fin. With further growth, the black body stripes widen, become brown, and increase in number to 5–7, the first dorsal fin becomes dark with a white band along its rear edge and the ocellus reduces its size to just a dark area at the tip of the fin; the pectoral, pelvic, anal, and caudal fins are greyish with black outer borders. As the fish grows further, the overall color becomes brown, and the white color is restricted to the stripes described for adults and the spiny dorsal-fin ocellus disappears completely. Nocturnal coloration: At night, juveniles and adults sometimes display a large black bar that runs from the tip of the spinous dorsal fin to the tip of the pelvic fin and another smaller bar from the middle of the second dorsal fin to the middle of the anal fin. Color of preserved specimens: adults and immature specimens brown color and white stripes becomes more grayish and faded. The juveniles maintain their basic coloration, the black marks eventually slightly faded. Distribution and habitat: Pareques lineatus apparently occur from Puerto Rico eastern through the Lesser Antilles south to Santa Catarina, Brazil (Fig. 4). The northern limit of the range of P. lineatus is not clear: meristics of samples from Trinidad & Tobago (USNM 413238 and 413240) agree with P. acuminatus and the coloration with P. lineatus (pictures of live specimens can be found at https://biogeodb.stri.si.edu/caribbean/en/gallery/specie/3802), also meristics of a voucher from French Guiana (UF 242486) agree with P. acuminatus whereas its coloration is the same as P. lineatus. It thrives in rocky and coral reefs from one to about 100 meters deep, usually between three and 30 meters. Recently recruited juveniles can be observed in very shallow water under ledges or near sand pockets close to reef crevices, often in groups of 3–7 of about the same age. Young are usually found in small groups up to three individuals in depths between five and 20 meters, Adults are observed in groups of three to at least 25 individuals, among rocks, under ledges, inside caves and, eventually, at daylight, in the water column, mixing schools with fishes of similar size, such as haemulids (Fig. 5a). Their habits are mainly nocturnal, spending the day sheltered and feeding at night on sand, grass beds, mud, and rubble bottoms close to the reef, feeding on crustaceans, polychaetes, small bony fishes, zooplankton, and algae. A group of about 20 adults was observed and photographed by Dr. Cláudio L.S. Sampaio (Fig. 5b) cleaning and picking mucus or parasites off a large stingray, Hypanus berthalutzae Petean, Naylor & Lima, 2020, that stayed quietly at the bottom, in Aracaju, Sergipe, Brazil. Remarks: The original description of Cuvier (1830) is based in several specimens collected from Brazil, two of which become syntypes (MNHN 0043 and 7475; Fig. 1). He compared theses fishes only with Eques balteatus [= Eques lanceolatus] and Pareques punctatus [= Eques punctatus], stating correctly that the first dorsal fin was not so high, the number of rays was smaller, the teeth were stronger, and the longitudinal, grayish, stripes do not turn up to the back of neck. Also, he described their coloration as dark brown with 6–7 thin grayish longitudinal stripes. Unfortunately, he gave no scale counts, some of which are diagnostic characters for these species. Examining the pictures of the syntypes, we were able to count the lateral-line pores, the series of transverse scales, and the number of scales from the lateral line to the origin of the dorsal fin, and those from the lateral line to the origin of the anal fin. Thus, we concluded that Pareques lineatus is a valid species based on the color pattern and scale counts of the types (Fig. 2; Table 3). Eques pulcher, as described by Steindachner (1867) is here considered as junior synonym of P. lineatus based in the lateral-line scale count (50)., Published as part of Carvalho-Filho, Alfredo, Oliveira, Claudio, Maximiano, Loriane, Tavera, Jose, Acero, Arturo & Marceniuk, Alexandre Pires, 2022, Review of the Pareques acuminatus (Bloch & Schneider, 1801) species complex with revalidation of Pareques lineatus (Cuvier, 1830) from the Western Atlantic (Percomorphacea: Sciaenidae), pp. 401-418 in Zootaxa 5195 (5) on pages 409-414, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5195.5.1, http://zenodo.org/record/7223667, {"references":["Cuvier, G. & Valenciennes, A. (1830) Histoire naturelle des poissons. Tome cinquieme. Livre cinquieme. Des Scienoides. F. G. Levrault, Paris, xxviii + 499 + 4 pp., pls. 100 - 140.","Petean, F. F., Naylor, G. J. P. & Lima, S. M. Q. (2020) Integrative taxonomy identifies a new stingray species of the genus Hypanus Rafinesque, 1818 (Dasyatidae, Myliobatiformes), from the Tropical Southwestern Atlantic. Journal of Fish Biology, 97 (4), 1120 - 1142. https: // doi. org / 10.1111 / jfb. 14483","Steindachner, F. (1867) Ichthyologische Notizen (VI). Sitzungsberichte der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Classe, 56 (1), 307 - 376, pls. 1 - 3."]}

Key to the adult species of the genus Pareques. 1a. Dark bar on upper head between eyes absent; broad oblique dark bar from dorsal-fin origin to anal fin absent............ 2 1b. Dark bar on upper head between eyes present; broad oblique dark bar from dorsal fin origin to anal fin present.............................................................................................. P. iwamotoi (Atlantic) 2a. 35–45 dorsal-fin soft rays.............................................................................. 3 2b. 32–33 dorsal-fin soft rays............................................................... P. perissa (Pacific) 3a. First dorsal fin without yellow rear edge; 7–8 anal-fin rays.................................................... 4 3b. First dorsal fin with yellow rear edge; 6–7 anal-fin rays.................................... P. fuscovittatus (Pacific) 4a. Chin with 5 pores..................................................................................... 5 4b. Chin with 6 pores.................................................................... P. umbrosus (Atlantic) 5a. 50–59 scales at lateral line.............................................................................. 6 5b. 44–49 scales at lateral line........................................................... P. acuminatus (Atlantic) 6a. 35–41 dorsal-fin soft rays.............................................................................. 7 6b. 42–45 dorsal-fin soft rays................................................................. P. sp. A (Pacific) 7a. 12–15 gill rakers on first arch, stripes on head and body....................................... P. lineatus (Atlantic) 7b. 15–17 gill rakers on first arch, stripes only on body or absent.................................................. 8 8a. Four thin black horizontal stripes on body; 35–38 dorsal-fin soft rays............................. P. lanfeari (Pacific) 8b. Charcoal grey, no stripes on body; 40–41 dorsal-fin soft rays..................................... P. viola (Pacific), Published as part of Carvalho-Filho, Alfredo, Oliveira, Claudio, Maximiano, Loriane, Tavera, Jose, Acero, Arturo & Marceniuk, Alexandre Pires, 2022, Review of the Pareques acuminatus (Bloch & Schneider, 1801) species complex with revalidation of Pareques lineatus (Cuvier, 1830) from the Western Atlantic (Percomorphacea: Sciaenidae), pp. 401-418 in Zootaxa 5195 (5) on pages 415-416, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5195.5.1, http://zenodo.org/record/7223667

Chorioamnionitis (CA) is an acute inflammation of the placenta, chorion, and amnion, and is a common cause of adverse maternal and fetal complications whose etiology cannot always be identified. It is characterized by maternal fever, maternal and fetal tachycardia, maternal leukocytosis, and a fetid odor of the amniotic fluid. When associated with ismo-cervical incompetence it brings risk of abortion. Given the above, this study aims to report the experience of nursing students in the nursing care in a case of chorioamnionitis and isthmus cervical incompetence in hospital practice. This is a descriptive study, experience report type, developed in the months of October/November 2019, by six students and a field preceptor, in a maternity hospital in the sector of rooming-in, during internship practice located in the urban area in a city in the metropolitan region of Cariri Ceará. A search was conducted in the journal portal in the Scielo and Lilacs databases, to support a better understanding of the investigated phenomenon. The data analysis occurred through the steps of the nursing process, discussion of the complete clinical case obtained during data collection. The experience in the assistance to the case of subsidized the knowledge about the presented disease and an opportunity to learn the assistance aligning the theory from the practice during the care to the high-risk pregnancy. La corioamnionitis (CA) es una inflamación aguda de la placenta, el corion y el amnios, siendo una causa común de complicaciones maternas y fetales adversas, cuya etiología no siempre puede ser identificada. Se caracteriza por fiebre materna, taquicardia materna y fetal, leucocitosis materna y mal olor del líquido amniótico. Y cuando se asocia a incompetencia del ismo cervical, representa riesgo potencial para la gestante y el feto. Ante lo anterior, el presente estudio tiene como objetivo relatar la experiencia de académicos en el cuidado de enfermería en un caso de corioamnionitis e incompetencia del istmo cervical en la práctica hospitalaria. Se trata de un estudio descriptivo, tipo relato de experiencia, desarrollado en octubre y noviembre de 2019, por seis estudiantes y un preceptor de campo, en el sector de alojamiento conjunto, en una maternidad ubicada en el casco urbano de un municipio de la región Metropolitana de Cariri Ceará. Se realizó una búsqueda en el portal de la revista en las bases de datos Scielo y Lilacs para apoyar una mejor comprensión del fenómeno investigado. El análisis de datos ocurrió a través de las etapas del proceso de enfermería, discusión del caso clínico completo obtenido durante la recolección de datos. La experiencia en el cuidado del caso subsidió el conocimiento sobre la enfermedad presentada, configurándose como una oportunidad de alineamiento entre la teoría y la práctica durante la atención del embarazo de alto riesgo. A corioamnionite (CA) é uma inflamação aguda da placenta, cório e âmnio, sendo causa comum de complicações adversas maternas e fetais, cuja etiologia nem sempre pode ser identificada. Caracteriza-se por febre materna, taquicardia materna e fetal, leucocitose materna e odor fétido do líquido amniótico. E quando associada à incompetência istmo-cervical representa potencial risco à gestante e ao concepto. Diante do exposto, o presente estudo tem por objetivo relatar a experiência de acadêmicos na assistência de enfermagem em um caso de corioamnionite e incompetência istmo cervical na prática hospitalar. Trata-se de um estudo descritivo, tipo relato de experiência, desenvolvido nos meses de outubro e novembro de 2019, por seis estudantes e uma preceptora de campo, no setor de alojamento conjunto, em uma maternidade localizada na zona urbana em um município na região Metropolitana do Cariri cearense. Foi realizada uma busca no portal de periódicos nas bases de dados Scielo e Lilacs para subsidiar a melhor compreensão do fenômeno investigado. A análise de dados se deu por meio das etapas do processo de enfermagem, discussão do caso clínico completo obtido durante a coleta de dados. A experiência na assistência ao caso subsidiou o conhecimento acerca da enfermidade apresentada, configurando-se como oportunidade de alinhamento entre a teoria e prática durante o cuidado à gestação de alto risco.

The objective of this work is to evaluate pedagogical ways for the teaching and learning of Language and Hispanic Literature using films, interested in the intellectual promotion of undergraduate students in Letters-Spanish. The central question that seeks to answer is: how to use the cinema as a pedagogical resource, among so many others possible, in the teaching and learning of Hispanic Language and Literature? Theoretical basis is taken by researchers such as Leffa (1988), Benicá (2016), Jesus (2012), Cipolini (2010), Arrojo (1986), among others. Adopting the qualitative research as method, we use an academic project entitled "literary cinema" as a source of data collection. We conclude at the end of the research that the films help in the linguistic and cultural acquisition of students learning Language and Hispanic Literature, sharpening their curiosity and taste for learning using a pedagogical tool with such an attractive aspect. O objetivo deste trabalho é avaliar caminhos pedagógicos para o ensino e aprendizagem de língua e literatura hispânica por meio do uso de filmes, com vistas à promoção intelectual de discentes de graduação em Letras-Espanhol. A pergunta fulcral que se busca responder é: como utilizar o cinema como recurso pedagógico, entre tantos outros possíveis, no ensino e aprendizagem de língua e literaturas hispânicas? Toma-se como base teórica pesquisadores como Leffa (1988), Benicá (2016), Jesus (2012), Cipolini (2010), Arrojo (1986), entre outros. Adotando a pesquisa qualitativa como método, utilizamos um projeto de extensão intitulado “cinema literário” como fonte de coleta de dados. Concluímos, ao final da pesquisa, que os filmes ajudam na aquisição linguística e cultural dos discentes aprendizes de língua e literatura hispânica, aguçando a curiosidade e o gosto em aprender mediante uma ferramenta pedagógica de aspecto tão atrativo.

Rineloricaria zawadzkii, new species Fig. 1. Table.1. Rineloricaria nigricauda —Costa e Silva et al. 2015 [molecular delimitation] Holotype. MZUSP 126857, Male, 156.3 mm SL, São Paulo state, Guararema municipality, Rio Paraíba do Sul basin, 23º21’45.7”S 45º59’26.2”W 08 Abr 2008, A.P. Vidotto, R. Teixeira. Paratype. All from Brazil, LBP 6444, 1, 133.6 mm SL, São Paulo State, municipality of Guararema, Paraíba do Sul river basin, 23º22’26.2”S 46º03’10.6”W, 09 April 2008, A.P. Vidotto, R Teixeira. LBP 6459. 3, 153,3–176.5 mm SL, São Paulo State, municipality of Guararema, Paraíba do Sul river basin, 23º22’08.5”S 46º01’28.3”W, 09 April 2008, A.P. Vidotto, R Teixeira. LBP 6465, 2, 136.6–157.3 mm SL, São Paulo State, Guararema municipality, Paraíba do Sul river basin, 23º22’08.5”S 46º01’28.3”W, 09 April 2008, A.P. Vidotto, R. Teixeira. LBP 11400, 1, 89.4 mm SL, Rio de Janeiro State, Cordeiro municipality, Paraíba do Sul river basin, 21º59’37.1” S 42º16’41.4”W 20 October 2010, C. Oliveira, G.J.C. Silva, K.Y. Abe. AO Ribeiro. LBP 21958, 2, 106.3–109.4 mm SL, Rio de Janeiro State, Casemiro de Abreu municipality, São João river basin, 22º28’31.2” S 42º09’01.2”W May 2010, D. Freitas, F. Lima. LBP 21958, 2, 106.3–109.4 mm SL, Rio de Janeiro State, Casemiro de Abreu municipality, Rio São João basin, 22º28’31.2” S 42º09’01.2”W May 2010, D Freitas, F Lima. MZUSP 14131, 1, 171.9 mm SL, Rio de Janeiro State, Macacu municipality, Rio Macacu basin, 22º32’0.0” S 42º50’0.0”W May 2010, Castro & Pompeu. MZUSP 121460, 2, 99.5 – 108.2 mm SL, Rio de Janeiro State, Conceicao de Macabu municipality, Rio Macaé basin, 22º11’56.0” S 41º50’23.0”W 2 May 2014, OT Oyakawa, P Camelier, M Melo, J C. Nolasco. Non-Type. LBP 7919, 7, 72.3–110.4 mm SL, São Paulo State, municipality of Ubatuba, Rio Tavares basin, S 23°26’44.1’’ W 45°05’23.2’’, 12 December 2008, C. Oliveira. LBP 14355, 1, 67,3 mm SL, São Paulo State, municipality of Caraguatatuba, Rio Juqueriqueré basin, S 23°41’50.16” W 45°28’58.98”, 30 June 2011, GJC Silva, JM Henriques, JCP Alves, B Belo, R Devidé. LBP 14330, 1, 66.0 mm SL, São Paulo State, Municipality of São Sebastião, Rio Uma basin, S 23°43’28.02” W 45°44’1.80”. Diagnosis. Rineloricaria zawadzkii can be distinguished from all congeners by have nuptial males with hypertrophied odontodes covering the lateral and dorsal region of the head and body, mainly in the lateral of the first half of the caudal peduncle (vs. nuptial male with hypertrophied odontodes covering the lateral of the head and dorsum of the head and pre-dorsal region). Additionally, Rineloricaria zawadzkii can be distinguish from all congeners, except R. aequalicuspis Reis & Cardoso, 2001, R. anhanguapitan Ghazzi, 2008, R. anitae Ghazzi, 2008, R. aurata (Knaack, 2003), R. baliola Rodriguez & Reis, 2008, R. capitonia Ghazzi, 2008, R. isaaci Rodriguez & Miquelarena, 2008, R. jaraguensis (Steindachner, 1909), R. kronei (Miranda Ribeiro, 1911), R. latirostris (Boulenger, 1900), R. maacki Ingenito, Ghazzi, Duboc & Abilhoa, 2008, R. malabarbai Rodriguez & Reis, 2008, R. maquinensis Reis & Cardoso, 2001, R. microlepidogaster (Regan, 1904), R. pentamaculata Langeani & de Araujo, 1994, R. reisi Ghazzi, 2008, R. rupestris (Schultz, 1944), and R. tropeira Ghazzi, 2008 by a wide post-pectoral naked area (vs. slender post-pectoral naked area) (see figure 1). Moreover, Rineloricaria zawadzkii can be distinguished from R. aequalicuspis, R. anhanguapitan, R. capitonia, R. maacki, R. malabarbai, R. maquinensis, R. reis i and R. tropeira by abdomen completely covered by plates (vs. abdomen partially or completely naked). Rineloricaria zawadzkii can be distinguished from R. pentamaculata, R. rupestris, R. baliola and R. isaaci by having the naked area on the tip of the snout not reaching the first pore of the laterosensory system (naked area on the tip of the snout not reaching the first pore of the laterosensory system). Rineloricaria zawadzkii can be distinguished from R. anitae, R. jaraguensis, R. kronei, R. latirostris and R. microlepidogaster by having four lateral plate series in longitudinal rows below the dorsal fin, mid-dorsal series absent (or mid-dorsal series with 1–2 plates, sometimes asymmetric) (vs. five lateral plate series in longitudinal rows below the dorsal fin, the mid-dorsal series present with more than four plates). Description. Morphometric data of holotype and paratypes in Table 1. Body strongly depressed. In lateral profile, body slightly convex from the tip of the snout to the base of the dorsal fin and relatively flat from the base of the dorsal fin to the caudal peduncle. Head elongated with slightly convex lateral margin in dorsal view (figure 2). Snout with small, elliptical, naked area, not reaching the most anterior pore of infraorbital ramus of sensory canal. Eyes elliptical with large, deep postorbital notch. Lower lip covered by irregularly sized papillae well organized and arranged concentrically around oral cavity. Short maxillary barbel adorned with very small papillae; teeth acute and bicuspidate; dentary teeth larger than those of premaxilla; 5–7 (6) teeth on premaxilla and 5–7 (6) on dentary; lateral cusp smaller than the medial cusp. Lateral surface of body entirely covered by plates, weakly keeled with odontodes along lateral line pores most developed than those on rest of body. Dorsal series with 22 plates. Mid-dorsal plates series absent. Median series with 26–28 (27) plates, bearing the laterosensory canal. Mid-ventral series with 16–19 (17). Ventral series with 23 plates. Abdomen entirely covered by plates, from opercular region to urogenital papilla. In large adult individuals (upper 120 mm SL) the base of the pectoral, pelvic and anal fins possess a narrow naked area. Lateral region of body, posterior to pectoral-fin insertion, with a broad naked area (see Vera-Alcaraz et al. 2012). Dorsal fin II,7; its origin slightly posterior through pelvic-fin origin. Dorsal-fin unbranched ray (or second dorsal fin) slightly convex. Tip of adpressed dorsal-fin rays surpassing anal-fin origin. Pectoral-fin rays I,6; when adpressed its tip not reaching pelvic-fin ray insertion. Pelvic-fin rays i,5; its distal margin straight to slightly convex; tip of adpressed pelvic-fin ray not reaching anal-fin origin. Anal-fin rays i,5; distal margin slightly convex. Caudalfin rays i,10, i; truncate, with short, thin filament on upper caudal-fin ray. Color in alcohol. Background color of dorsal surface of body brown, with five (or four) transverse dark brown bars, first on the base of the dorsal fin and four (or three) on the dorsum of the caudal peduncle. Dark bars inconspicuous in adult individuals, more apparent in juveniles. Caudal fin hyaline with dark brown basal bar and a dark brown terminal bar. Dorsal fin variegate, with a dark-brown terminal stripe. Pectoral and pelvic fins variegate, with a dark-brown terminal stripe. Anal fin hyaline or with a tiny and inconspicuous dark stripe on subterminal region. Sexual dimorphism. Male specimens of Rineloricaria zawadzkii have hypertrophied odontodes over almost entire lateral surface, dorsal surface of trunk, and the dorsal surface of the spine of the pectoral fin. The odontodes are denser and longer on the side of the anterior half of the tail and the side of the head. Distribution. Rineloricaria zawadzkii is known from main channel of Rio Paraíba do Sul, in coastal river from Rio de Janeiro State, such as Rio Macaé, Rio São João and Rio Macacu, and in coastal river from São Paulo State, such as Rio Tavares, Rio Juruqueré and Rio Una (Figure 3). Habitat. The juvenile specimens were collected in streams less than 1m deep with variable speed current. The adult specimens were collected in the main channel of the river associated with the mud bottom, occasionally in places deeper than 2m, which is unusual for the genus. Etymology. The new species is named in honor of Dr. Claudio Henrique Zawadzki, an important taxonomist of Loricariidae, known among friends by the nickname “cabelo”, hair in Portuguese language. During investigations, the new species received the nickname “Cabeluda”, hairy in Portuguese, due to the large hair-like odontodes. A genitive noun., Published as part of Silva, Guilherme José Da Costa, Costa, Gabriel De Souza Da & Oliveira, Claudio, 2022, A new species of spiny Rineloricaria (Siluriformes: Loricariidae) from the Rio Paraíba do Sul basin and costal rivers from Rio de Janeiro State, pp. 285-292 in Zootaxa 5175 (2) on pages 286-290, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5175.2.6, http://zenodo.org/record/7003559, {"references":["Ghazzi, M. S. (2008) Nove especies novas do genero Rineloricaria (Siluriformes, Loricariidae) do rio Uruguai, do sul do Brasil. Iheringia, Serie Zoologia, 98, 100 - 122. https: // doi. org / 10.1590 / S 0073 - 47212008000100014","Rodriguez, M. S. & Reis, R. E. (2008) Taxonomic Review of Rineloricaria (Loricariidae: Loricariinae) from the Laguna dos Patos Drainage, Southern Brazil, with the Descriptions of Two New Species and the Recognition of Two Species Groups. Copeia, 2008, 333 - 349. https: // doi. org / 10.1643 / CI- 06 - 218","Vera-Alcaraz, H. S., Pavanelli, C. S. & Zawadzki, C. H. (2012) Taxonomic revision of the Rineloricaria species (Siluriformes: Loricariidae) from the Paraguay River basin. Neotropical Ichthyology 10, 285 - 311. https: // doi. org / 10.1590 / S 1679 - 62252012000200006"]}

Rineloricaria zawadzkii, new species Fig. 1. Table.1. Rineloricaria nigricauda —Costa e Silva et al. 2015 [molecular delimitation] Holotype. MZUSP 126857, Male, 156.3 mm SL, São Paulo state, Guararema municipality, Rio Paraíba do Sul basin, 23º21’45.7”S 45º59’26.2”W 08 Abr 2008, A.P. Vidotto, R. Teixeira. Paratype. All from Brazil, LBP 6444, 1, 133.6 mm SL, São Paulo State, municipality of Guararema, Paraíba do Sul river basin, 23º22’26.2”S 46º03’10.6”W, 09 April 2008, A.P. Vidotto, R Teixeira. LBP 6459. 3, 153,3–176.5 mm SL, São Paulo State, municipality of Guararema, Paraíba do Sul river basin, 23º22’08.5”S 46º01’28.3”W, 09 April 2008, A.P. Vidotto, R Teixeira. LBP 6465, 2, 136.6–157.3 mm SL, São Paulo State, Guararema municipality, Paraíba do Sul river basin, 23º22’08.5”S 46º01’28.3”W, 09 April 2008, A.P. Vidotto, R. Teixeira. LBP 11400, 1, 89.4 mm SL, Rio de Janeiro State, Cordeiro municipality, Paraíba do Sul river basin, 21º59’37.1” S 42º16’41.4”W 20 October 2010, C. Oliveira, G.J.C. Silva, K.Y. Abe. AO Ribeiro. LBP 21958, 2, 106.3–109.4 mm SL, Rio de Janeiro State, Casemiro de Abreu municipality, São João river basin, 22º28’31.2” S 42º09’01.2”W May 2010, D. Freitas, F. Lima. LBP 21958, 2, 106.3–109.4 mm SL, Rio de Janeiro State, Casemiro de Abreu municipality, Rio São João basin, 22º28’31.2” S 42º09’01.2”W May 2010, D Freitas, F Lima. MZUSP 14131, 1, 171.9 mm SL, Rio de Janeiro State, Macacu municipality, Rio Macacu basin, 22º32’0.0” S 42º50’0.0”W May 2010, Castro & Pompeu. MZUSP 121460, 2, 99.5 – 108.2 mm SL, Rio de Janeiro State, Conceicao de Macabu municipality, Rio Macaé basin, 22º11’56.0” S 41º50’23.0”W 2 May 2014, OT Oyakawa, P Camelier, M Melo, J C. Nolasco. Non-Type. LBP 7919, 7, 72.3–110.4 mm SL, São Paulo State, municipality of Ubatuba, Rio Tavares basin, S 23°26’44.1’’ W 45°05’23.2’’, 12 December 2008, C. Oliveira. LBP 14355, 1, 67,3 mm SL, São Paulo State, municipality of Caraguatatuba, Rio Juqueriqueré basin, S 23°41’50.16” W 45°28’58.98”, 30 June 2011, GJC Silva, JM Henriques, JCP Alves, B Belo, R Devidé. LBP 14330, 1, 66.0 mm SL, São Paulo State, Municipality of São Sebastião, Rio Uma basin, S 23°43’28.02” W 45°44’1.80”. Diagnosis. Rineloricaria zawadzkii can be distinguished from all congeners by have nuptial males with hypertrophied odontodes covering the lateral and dorsal region of the head and body, mainly in the lateral of the first half of the caudal peduncle (vs. nuptial male with hypertrophied odontodes covering the lateral of the head and dorsum of the head and pre-dorsal region). Additionally, Rineloricaria zawadzkii can be distinguish from all congeners, except R. aequalicuspis Reis & Cardoso, 2001, R. anhanguapitan Ghazzi, 2008, R. anitae Ghazzi, 2008, R. aurata (Knaack, 2003), R. baliola Rodriguez & Reis, 2008, R. capitonia Ghazzi, 2008, R. isaaci Rodriguez & Miquelarena, 2008, R. jaraguensis (Steindachner, 1909), R. kronei (Miranda Ribeiro, 1911), R. latirostris (Boulenger, 1900), R. maacki Ingenito, Ghazzi, Duboc & Abilhoa, 2008, R. malabarbai Rodriguez & Reis, 2008, R. maquinensis Reis & Cardoso, 2001, R. microlepidogaster (Regan, 1904), R. pentamaculata Langeani & de Araujo, 1994, R. reisi Ghazzi, 2008, R. rupestris (Schultz, 1944), and R. tropeira Ghazzi, 2008 by a wide post-pectoral naked area (vs. slender post-pectoral naked area) (see figure 1). Moreover, Rineloricaria zawadzkii can be distinguished from R. aequalicuspis, R. anhanguapitan, R. capitonia, R. maacki, R. malabarbai, R. maquinensis, R. reis i and R. tropeira by abdomen completely covered by plates (vs. abdomen partially or completely naked). Rineloricaria zawadzkii can be distinguished from R. pentamaculata, R. rupestris, R. baliola and R. isaaci by having the naked area on the tip of the snout not reaching the first pore of the laterosensory system (naked area on the tip of the snout not reaching the first pore of the laterosensory system). Rineloricaria zawadzkii can be distinguished from R. anitae, R. jaraguensis, R. kronei, R. latirostris and R. microlepidogaster by having four lateral plate series in longitudinal rows below the dorsal fin, mid-dorsal series absent (or mid-dorsal series with 1–2 plates, sometimes asymmetric) (vs. five lateral plate series in longitudinal rows below the dorsal fin, the mid-dorsal series present with more than four plates). Description. Morphometric data of holotype and paratypes in Table 1. Body strongly depressed. In lateral profile, body slightly convex from the tip of the snout to the base of the dorsal fin and relatively flat from the base of the dorsal fin to the caudal peduncle. Head elongated with slightly convex lateral margin in dorsal view (figure 2). Snout with small, elliptical, naked area, not reaching the most anterior pore of infraorbital ramus of sensory canal. Eyes elliptical with large, deep postorbital notch. Lower lip covered by irregularly sized papillae well organized and arranged concentrically around oral cavity. Short maxillary barbel adorned with very small papillae; teeth acute and bicuspidate; dentary teeth larger than those of premaxilla; 5–7 (6) teeth on premaxilla and 5–7 (6) on dentary; lateral cusp smaller than the medial cusp. Lateral surface of body entirely covered by plates, weakly keeled with odontodes along lateral line pores most developed than those on rest of body. Dorsal series with 22 plates. Mid-dorsal plates series absent. Median series with 26–28 (27) plates, bearing the laterosensory canal. Mid-ventral series with 16–19 (17). Ventral series with 23 plates. Abdomen entirely covered by plates, from opercular region to urogenital papilla. In large adult individuals (upper 120 mm SL) the base of the pectoral, pelvic and anal fins possess a narrow naked area. Lateral region of body, posterior to pectoral-fin insertion, with a broad naked area (see Vera-Alcaraz et al. 2012). Dorsal fin II,7; its origin slightly posterior through pelvic-fin origin. Dorsal-fin unbranched ray (or second dorsal fin) slightly convex. Tip of adpressed dorsal-fin rays surpassing anal-fin origin. Pectoral-fin rays I,6; when adpressed its tip not reaching pelvic-fin ray insertion. Pelvic-fin rays i,5; its distal margin straight to slightly convex; tip of adpressed pelvic-fin ray not reaching anal-fin origin. Anal-fin rays i,5; distal margin slightly convex. Caudalfin rays i,10, i; truncate, with short, thin filament on upper caudal-fin ray. Color in alcohol. Background color of dorsal surface of body brown, with five (or four) transverse dark brown bars, first on the base of the dorsal fin and four (or three) on the dorsum of the caudal peduncle. Dark bars inconspicuous in adult individuals, more apparent in juveniles. Caudal fin hyaline with dark brown basal bar and a dark brown terminal bar. Dorsal fin variegate, with a dark-brown terminal stripe. Pectoral and pelvic fins variegate, with a dark-brown terminal stripe. Anal fin hyaline or with a tiny and inconspicuous dark stripe on subterminal region. Sexual dimorphism. Male specimens of Rineloricaria zawadzkii have hypertrophied odontodes over almost entire lateral surface, dorsal surface of trunk, and the dorsal surface of the spine of the pectoral fin. The odontodes are denser and longer on the side of the anterior half of the tail and the side of the head. Distribution. Rineloricaria zawadzkii is known from main channel of Rio Paraíba do Sul, in coastal river from Rio de Janeiro State, such as Rio Macaé, Rio São João and Rio Macacu, and in coastal river from São Paulo State, such as Rio Tavares, Rio Juruqueré and Rio Una (Figure 3). Habitat. The juvenile specimens were collected in streams less than 1m deep with variable speed current. The adult specimens were collected in the main channel of the river associated with the mud bottom, occasionally in places deeper than 2m, which is unusual for the genus. Etymology. The new species is named in honor of Dr. Claudio Henrique Zawadzki, an important taxonomist of Loricariidae, known among friends by the nickname “cabelo”, hair in Portuguese language. During investigations, the new species received the nickname “Cabeluda”, hairy in Portuguese, due to the large hair-like odontodes. A genitive noun.

O gênero Acinetobacter sp. tem sido cada vez mais reportado como causador de infecções, sobretudo em hospitais, e se destaca por causar infecções graves e ser de difícil tratamento. Compreender a prevalência bem como a sazonalidade das infecções por este patógeno é importante, visto que a partir dessas análises, podem-se estabelecer intervenções de controle de infecção hospitalar. Assim, esse estudo tem como objetivo pesquisar a prevalência e a sazonalidade de infecções por Acinetobacter sp. em hospitais da cidade do Natal-RN. Os dados referentes aos isolados clínicos de Acinetobacter sp. foram colhidos junto ao serviço de Controle de Infecção Hospitalar de quatro hospitais envolvidos no estudo, no período de março de 2013 a março de 2014; enquanto que o perfil de resistência aos antimicrobianos foi realizada pelo nosso grupo de pesquisa. Observou-se que este gênero bacteriano foi o quarto microrganismo mais isolado nesse período. A prevalência de Acinetobacter no hospital A foi de 12,6% com 72 amostras isoladas no período; no hospital B, 4,3%, com 37 amostras ; no hospital C, 9,7%, 20 e no hospital D foi de 4,1%, 26 com uma média de isolamento ao longo do período estudado de 7,6%(±2). A maioria dos isolados, 59,4%, foi detectada nos meses mais quentes. O gênero Acinetobacter foi mais frequentemente isolado a partir de secreção traqueal, hemoculturas e secreção de feridas. As infecções em pacientes do sexo masculino corresponderam a 56,1% (87 isolados). A maioria (58,2%) das amostras recolhidas foram provenientes de pacientes internados em UTIs. A mortalidade foi de 42,7% com a presença de multirresistência observada na maioria (106 ou 68,4%) dos isolados. Os pacientes que tinham 63 anos ou mais, correspondiam à 75%. Esse estudofornece evidências da prevalência e sazonalidade das infecções por Acinetobacter e pode embasar tanto as estratégias de controle de infecção por essa bactéria, como a política de uso de antimicrobianos, direcionando a terapia empírica.

Paving is of very significant importance for the population, in a globalized world it is impossible not to need paved roads to get around. Obviously, in some places there is not always adequate paving, or even any paving, but it is important to understand that a well-structured and well-executed pavement project can bring benefits not only to drivers but to the population as a whole. The main objective of the research is to analyze the asphalt paving of the municipality of Gurupi carried out by the City Hall and the National Department of Infrastructure and Transport between the years 2020 to 2021. The research is classified as documentary and exploratory, with a qualitative approach, since will be collected in the municipality's Transparency Portal and the management reports prepared by the city of Gurupi, in the time period studied. The roads that have the maintenance carried out by the DNIT proved to be of better quality and greater durability in relation to future maintenance, than those that have their maintenance carried out by the City Hall. La pavimentación tiene una importancia muy significativa para la población, en un mundo globalizado es imposible no necesitar carreteras pavimentadas para moverse. Evidentemente, en algunos lugares no siempre existe la pavimentación adecuada, ni siquiera pavimentación alguna, pero es importante entender que un proyecto de pavimentación bien estructurado y bien ejecutado puede traer beneficios no solo a los conductores sino a la población en su conjunto. La investigación tiene como objetivo principal analizar la pavimentación asfáltica del municipio de Gurupi realizada por la Alcaldía y el Departamento Nacional de Infraestructura y Transporte entre los años 2020 al 2021. La investigación se clasifica como documental y exploratoria, con carácter cualitativo. enfoque, ya que serán recogidos en el Portal de Transparencia del municipio y los informes de gestión elaborados por la ciudad de Gurupi, en el período de tiempo estudiado. Las vías que cuentan con el mantenimiento realizado por el DNIT resultaron ser de mejor calidad y mayor durabilidad en relación al mantenimiento futuro, que aquellas que cuentan con el mantenimiento realizado por la Alcaldía. A pavimentação é de importância muito significativa para a população, em um mundo globalizado é impossível não necessitar de vias pavimentadas para se locomover. Obviamente que em alguns locais nem sempre há uma pavimentação adequada, ou nem mesmo qualquer pavimentação, mas é importante que se entenda que um projeto de um pavimento bem estruturado e bem executado pode trazer benefícios não só para motoristas e sim para a população como um todo. A pesquisa tem como objetivo principal analisar a pavimentação asfáltica do município de Gurupi realizada pela Prefeitura Municipal e o Departamento Nacional de Infraestrutura e transporte entre os anos de 2020 a 2021. A pesquisa se classifica como documental e exploratória, de abordagem qualitativa, uma vez que serão coletados no Portal de Transparência do município e os relatórios de gestão elaborados pela prefeitura de Gurupi, no período temporal estudado. As vias que tem a manutenção realizada pelo DNIT se mostrou de melhor qualidade e maior durabilidade em relação as futuras manutenções, do que os tem sua manutenção realizadas pela Prefeitura Municipal.

We present in this article, for the area of structural and functional genetics, a preliminary theoretical model based on the representation of transcriptomes and proteomes as families of formal languages, in which the phenomenon of translation is described as a artificial language transduction process (present in programming languages compilers), making it possible to unify the transcriptomic and proteomic data.

Tese (doutorado) - Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Centro de Comunicação e Expressão, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Estudos da Tradução, Florianópolis, 2022. A presente pesquisa tem como principal objetivo traduzir do espanhol para o português brasileiro uma seleção de cem cartas escritas por Mariquita Sánchez entre os anos de 1804 e 1868. Ela nasceu na Argentina no início do século XIX e viveu mais de uma década exilada no período em que Juan Manuel de Rosas esteve no poder pela segunda vez (1835-1852). Apesar de não ser uma escritora, no sentido canônico da palavra, escreveu diversas cartas a personalidades públicas da sociedade portenha, devido a sua condição social e seu nível de letramento, interagindo também no meio político, mesmo que este, em geral, fosse restrito aos homens. O processo de tradução, pautado na teoria da tradução ilusionista de Jirí Levý (2011a, 2011b), nos fizeram refletir sobre as tomadas de decisões necessárias para que o leitor tivesse a ?ilusão? de estar lendo as cartas escritas por Mariquita, as quais não são apenas de questões de ordem linguística, mas também culturais. Apontamos ainda como objetivo secundário a disponibilização de um corpus epistolar inédito traduzido para a língua portuguesa, que pode favorecer críticas de tradução e análises linguísticas em uma perspectiva diatópica e diacrônica. Propomos análises epistolares, descrevendo o estilo de escrita de Mariquita e os assuntos tratados com os seus correspondentes, além de comentários à tradução, com base em estudos teóricos da área como Rónai (2012), Schleiermacher (2007) e Venuti (1995). Concluímos que Madame Mendeville, como também ficou conhecida, utilizava as cartas para mitigar os efeitos causados pela distância dos seus amigos e familiares no exílio, assim como para estabelecer relações sociais e políticas. Abstract: The following research has as its main purpose to translate from Spanish into Brazilian Portuguese a selection of one hundred letters written by Mariquita Sánchez between the years 1804 and 1868. The author was born in Argentina in the early nineteenth century and lived for more than a decade in exile during the period in which Juan Manuel de Rosas was in power for the second time (1835-1852). Although she was not a writer, in the canonical sense of the word, she wrote several letters to public people from Buenos Aires, due to her social position and level of education, also interacting in the political context, even when this area was usually restricted to men. The translation process, based on the illusionist translation theory by Jirí Levý (2011a, 2011b), prompted us to reflect about the translation decisions that are required so that the reader has the \"illusion\" to be reading the letters written by Mariquita, decisions that are not only linguistic, but also influenced by cultural issues. We also present as a secondary objective the production of an unpublished epistolary corpus, translated into Portuguese, which can support translation criticism and linguistic analyses from a diatopic and diachronic perspective. We propose epistolary analyses, describing Mariquita's writing style and the topics addressed with her correspondents, as well as comments on the translation, based on theoretical studies of the area, such as Rónai (2012), Schleiermacher (2007) and Venuti (1995). We conclude that Mariquita Sánchez, also known as Madame Mendeville, used letters to mitigate the effects caused by the distance from her friends and family while she was in exile, as well as to establish social and political relationships.

Rare diseases are associated with difficulties in addressing unmet medical needs, lack of access to treatment, high prices, evidentiary mismatch, equity, etc. While challenges facing the development of drugs for rare diseases are experienced differently globally (i.e., higher vs. lower and middle income countries), many are also expressed transnationally, which suggests systemic issues. Pharmaceutical innovation is highly regulated and institutionalized, leading to firmly established innovation pathways. While deviating from these innovation pathways is difficult, we take the position that doing so is of critical importance. The reason is that the current model of pharmaceutical innovation alone will not deliver the quantity of products needed to address the unmet needs faced by rare disease patients, nor at a price point that is sustainable for healthcare systems. In light of the problems in rare diseases, we hold that re-thinking innovation is crucial and more room should be provided for alternative innovation pathways. We already observe a significant number and variety of new types of initiatives in the rare diseases field that propose or use alternative pharmaceutical innovation pathways which have in common that they involve a diverse set of societal stakeholders, explicitly address a higher societal goal, or both. Our position is that principles of social innovation can be drawn on in the framing and articulation of such alternative pathways, which we term here social pharmaceutical innovation (SPIN), and that it should be given more room for development. As an interdisciplinary research team in the social sciences, public health and law, the cases of SPIN we investigate are spread transnationally, and include higher income as well as middle income countries. We do this to develop a better understanding of the social pharmaceutical innovation field’s breadth and to advance changes ranging from the bedside to system levels. We seek collaborations with those working in such projects (e.g., patients and patient organisations, researchers in rare diseases, industry, and policy makers). We aim to add comparative and evaluative value to social pharmaceutical innovation, and we seek to ignite further interest in these initiatives, thereby actively contributing to them as a part of our work.

Vivemos um momento marcado pela revalorizacao do territorio e sua utilizacao na analise e implementacao de politicas publicas, sobretudo politicas sociais. Este texto aborda os processos de exclusao social, pobreza e desigualdade na cidade de Campos dos Goytacazes. Trata-se de uma cidade importante na rede urbana do estado do Rio de Janeiro, constituindo-se num polo regional relevante na oferta de comercio e servicos. Juntamente com outras cidades do Norte Fluminense, Campos dos Goytacazes tambem tem sido utilizada como suporte para as atividades de exploracao de petroleo na Bacia de Campos. Apesar de sua importância e da dinâmica economica, a cidade e marcada por uma elevada exclusao social que, no tecido urbano, apresenta uma expressao territorial. Neste texto, pretendemos abordar a desigualdade sob a otica da exclusao social, buscando contribuir com a producao e a leitura de indicadores sociais territorializados da Cidade de Campos dos Goytacazes – RJ, dando visibilidade as areas de inclusao e exclusao social, por meio da espacializacao dos dados secundarios dos dois ultimos censos demograficos (2000 e 2010) disponibilizados pelo Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatistica (IBGE). Com base nos indicadores, espacializamos os dados e verificamos a concentracao de setores marcados pela elevada exclusao ao norte da cidade, tendo como grande divisor o Rio Paraiba do Sul. Palavras-chave : Desigualdade, exclusao social, Campos dos Goytacazes. THE SPACES OF SOCIAL EXCLUSION IN THE CITY OF CAMPOS DOS GOYTACAZES-RJ ABSTRACT We live in a moment marked by the revaluation of the territory and its use in the analysis and implementation of public policies, especially social policies. This text addresses the processes of social exclusion, poverty and inequality in the city of Campos dos Goytacazes. It is an important city in the urban network of the state of Rio de Janeiro, constituting a relevant regional center in the supply of trade and services. Like other cities in Norte Fluminense, Campos dos Goytacazes has also been used as support for oil exploration activities in the Campos Basin. Despite its importance and economic dynamics, the city is marked by a high social exclusion that, in the urban space, has a territorial expression. In this text, we intend to address inequality from the perspective of social exclusion, seeking to contribute to the production and reading of territorialized social indicators of Campos dos Goytacazes - RJ, giving visibility to the areas of social inclusion and exclusion, through the spatialization of secondary data from the last two demographic censuses (2000 and 2010) provided by the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE). Based on the indicators, we spatialized the data and verified the concentration of sectors marked by the high exclusion to the north of the city, having as great divide the Paraiba do Sul River. Keywords : Inequality, social exclusion, Campos dos Goytacazes. LOS ESPACIOS DE EXCLUSION SOCIAL EN LA CIUDAD DE CAMPOS DOS GOYTACAZES-RJ RESUMEN Hemos vivido un momento marcado por la revaluacion del territorio y su uso en el analisis e implementacion de politicas publicas, especialmente de las politicas sociales. Este texto aborda los procesos de exclusion social, pobreza y desigualdad en la ciudad de Campos dos Goytacazes. Es una ciudad importante en la red urbana del estado de Rio de Janeiro, constituyendo un centro regional relevante en el suministro de comercio y servicios. Al igual que otras ciudades en Norte Fluminense, Campos dos Goytacazes tambien ha sido utilizada para apoyar actividades de exploracion petrolera en la cuenca de Campos. A pesar de su importancia y dinamica economica, la ciudad ha sido marcada por una alta exclusion social que, en el tejido urbano, tiene una expresion territorial. En este texto, intentamos abordar la desigualdad desde la perspectiva de la exclusion social, buscando contribuir a la produccion y lectura de indicadores sociales territorializados de Campos dos Goytacazes - RJ, dando visibilidad a las areas de inclusion y exclusion social, a traves de la espacializacion de los datos secundarios de los ultimos dos censos demograficos (2000 y 2010) divulgados por el Instituto Brasileno de Geografia y Estadistica (IBGE). Con base en los indicadores, espacializamos los datos y verificamos la concentracion de sectores marcados por la alta exclusion al norte de la ciudad, teniendo como gran division el rio Paraiba do Sul. Palabras clave : Desigualdad, exclusion social, Campos dos Goytacazes. https://doi.org/10.22238/rc24482692201917026695

Rineloricaria rodriquezae, new species Fig. 1. Table.1. Rineloricaria sp. 8 ��� Costa-Silva et al. (2015) [molecular delimitation] Holotype. MZUSP 125901, 127.2 mm SL, Minas Gerais state, Rio Parana��ba municipality, Parana��ba River, Upper Paran�� River basin, S 19��11���32.00��� W46��24���44.90���, 17 Oct 20201, G.J. Costa-Silva, G.S.Costa e Silva Paratypes. All from Brazil, Minas Gerais state, Rio Parana��ba municipality, Parana��ba River basin: LBP 11721, 7, 40.2���140.5 mm SL, same data as holotype. LBP 11741, 7, 51.5���108.5 mm SL, Ribeir��o de Fora, S 19��11���32������ W 46��24���44������, 18 May 2011, R. Britske, G.J. Costa-Silva, R. Devid��, C. Oliveira. Non-type. LBP 30680, 5, 76.3���98.3 mm SL, Federal District, Bras��lia, Ribeir��o Santana, Parana��ba River basin, S 16�� 0���53.53��� W 47��48���3.45��� GSC Silva & L Reia Diagnosis. Rineloricaria rodriquezae differs from all congeners, except R. anhaguapitan, R. anitae, R. baliola, R. capitonia, R. tropeira and R. zaina by the presence of a dark bar on the subterminal region of the caudal fin (vs. absence of a dark bar on subterminal region of the caudal fin; Fig. 1), but R. rodriquezae presents an extension of the upper unbranched caudal fin ray extended on filament, while R. anhaguapitan, R. anitae, R. baliola, R. capitonia, R. tropeira and R. zaina do not present this extension. Additionally, the new species differs from its congeners by having five series of lateral plates in longitudinal rows below the dorsal fin (vs. four series of lateral plates in longitudinal rows below the dorsal fin in R. microlepidota, R. aurata, R. beni, R. cadeae, R. castroi, R. catamarcensis, R. cubatonis, R. felipponei, R. henselli, R. jurupari, R. lanceolata, R. langei, R. lima, R. longicauda, R. magdalenae, R. misionera, R. nigricauda, R. pareiacantha, R. parva, R. quadrensis, R. sanga, R. setepovos, R. sneiderni, R. stellate, R. thrissoceps, R. uracantha, and R. wolfei); by having the lateral plate of the mid-dorsal series consisting of two keeled plates situated around the insertion of the first ray of the dorsal fin (vs. lateral plate of the mid-dorsal series consisting in five to seven keeled plates extended posteriorly around end of the dorsal-fin base in R. cacerensis, R. daraha, R. fallax, R. formosa, R. hasemani, R. jubata, R. melini, R. microlepidogaster, R. morrowi, R. osvaldoi, R. teffeana, and R. zaina) (see more in Vera-Alcaraz et al. 2012); by the presence of the dorsal unbranched caudal-fin ray extended as long filaments (vs. dorsal unbranched caudal-fin ray not extended as long filaments in R. aequalicuspis, R. anhaguapitan, R. anitae, R. baliola, R. capitonia, R. heteropteran, R. isaaci, R. jaraguensis, R. maacki, R. malabarbai, R. maquinensis, R. microlepidota, R. pentamaculata, R. reisi, R. rupestris, R. tropeira and R. zaina); and by absence of hypertrophied odontoides on the predorsal region in mature males (vs. presence of hypertrophied odontodes in R. altipinnis, R. caracasensis, R. eigenmanni, R. konopickyi, R. phoxocephala, R. platyura, and R. stewarti). Description. Morphometric and meristic data are summarized in Table 1. Small-sized loricariid (maximum 140.5 mm SL). Head and snout triangular in dorsal view. Dorsal profile of head ascending convexly approximately 45�� to eyes. Eyes relatively large (12.9���11.9% of HL), dorsolaterally positioned, elliptical with large, deep postorbital notch. Iris operculum present and well developed. Oral disk rounded with papillae randomly distributed. Lower lip larger than upper lip, not reaching cleithrum; border with elongated fringes; lower lip inner surface covered with irregular-sized papillae arranged concentrically around oral cavity. Maxillary barbel short covered by small papillae. Teeth slender with two cusps; central cusp larger than lateral cusp. Premaxillary teeth 5���6 (mode 6). Dentary teeth 5���8 (mode 8). Snout very short, elliptical. Snout naked area not reaching most anterior pore of infraorbital ramus of sensory canal. Lower surface of head naked. Head lacking ridges. Predorsal region keeled with small odontoids covering plates. In dorsal view, body elongated and compressed. Greatest body width at pectoral-fin insertion, progressively narrowing anteriorly towards snout tip and posteriorly towards caudal-fin. Dorsal profile of head and trunk covered by dermal plates, except for naked area around dorsal-fin insertion. In lateral view, body depressed and convex in shape from snout tip to dorsal-fin origin; slightly concave and descending from dorsal-fin origin to first upper procurrent caudal-fin ray, rising posteriorly to insertion of caudal fin. Greatest body depth at unbranched dorsal-fin ray insertion. In lateral view, ventral profile straight and descending from snout tip to opercular region; slightly convex from opercular region to pelvic-fin origin; straight from that point to lower procurrent caudal-fin ray origin. Lateral surface of body entirely covered by plates, median and mid-ventral series with keels; dorsal series with 23���25 plates. Mid-dorsal plate series truncated 1���3. Median series with 26���27 plates. Lateral line complete. Mid-ventral series with 14���16. Ventral plates series with 20���21 plates. Abdomen entirely covered by plates, from cleithrum to urogenital papilla. Lateral abdominal plates larger and forming regular series of nine to ten elongate plates on each side; median abdominal plates smaller, irregularly arranged, anteriorly consisting of small, rounded plates on pectoral girdle region, posteriorly consisting of larger and trapezoidal plates. Dorsal fin ii,7; its origin slightly posterior through pelvic-fin origin. Dorsal-fin unbranched ray slightly convex. Tip of adpressed dorsal-fin rays surpassing anal-fin origin. Pectoral-fin rays i,6; when adpressed its tip passing adpressed pelvic-fin ray insertion reaching. Pelvic-fin rays i,5; its distal margin straight to slightly convex; tip of adpressed pelvic-fin ray reaching anal-fin origin. Adipose fin absent. Anal-fin rays i,5; distal margin slightly convex. Caudal-fin rays i,10, i; truncate, with short, thin filament on dorsal caudal-fin ray. Color in alcohol. Background color of the dorsal region of head and trunk red to brown (Fig 1; 2). Five (six in one specimen: LBP 11741, SL 89.7) dark transversal bars along the dorsal surface of body: first at dorsal-fin origin, second at end of dorsal-fin base, following bands equidistant to each other. Chromatophores widely concentrated on compound-pterotic and on posterior two predorsal plates forming dark brown conspicuous area. Anterior margin of head with irregular reddish dots. Ventral surface of body yellowish. Dorsal, pectoral, and pelvic fins with irregular dark brown stripes, distal region with reddish band. Caudal fin hyaline with a vertical subterminal dark bar and with a small dark brown spot on its base; caudal-fin middle region with irregular dark-brown stripes; on distal portion large, vertical dark-brown band (Fig.1; 2). Sexual dimorphism. Adult males with hypertrophied odontodes on lateral margin of head extending from postrostral plate to opercle and in pectoral-fin rays. Distribution. Rineloricaria rodriquezae is known from Ribeir��o de Fora and a small stream reaching the Parana��ba River both tributaries of the Parana��ba River, in the Upper Paran�� River basin, centralBrazil. (Fig. 3). Habitat. Rineloricaria rodriquezae was collected in small drainages with moderate water flow and average deep of 60 cm (Fig. 4). The riparian forest is preserved, and the canopy covers almost the entire bed. The rivers where the specimens were sampled do not cross urban perimeters, and no signs of severe environmental degradation were detected. The type locality where the new species was caught, is a stream river with sand botton and gravel. Smaller individuals were collected from small roots of riparian vegetation and submerged trunks and branches, while the larger individuals, including the holotype, were always collected from submerged trunks and branches. Remarks. The new species is known from the Rio Parana��ba (type locality) in Minas Gerais state and Ribeir��o Santana in Distrito Federal. The population of Rineloricaria rodriquezae sampled in Ribeir��o Santana presents the eyes diameter significantly bigger than the population of the type locality 15.6���17.5% in HL (vs. 10.3���12.9% in HL; see table 1). For this reason, although it shares the diagnosis of R. rodriquezae, we find it more convenient that the population of Ribeir��o Santana not to be included in the type series. We propose that an integrative taxonomy be carried out to assess whether even more species are distributed in the upper Paran�� River basin. Etymology. The specific name rodriquezae honors M��nica Sonia Rodriguez in recognition for her contribution on the knowledge to the genus Rineloricaria., Published as part of Costa-Silva, Guilherme Jos�� Da, Oliveira, Claudio & Costa, Gabriel De Souza Da, 2021, New species of Rineloricaria (Siluriformes: Loricariidae) from the Parana��ba River basin, Brazil, pp. 531-540 in Zootaxa 5072 (6) on pages 532-537, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5072.6.2, http://zenodo.org/record/5751527, {"references":["Costa-Silva, G. J., Rodriguez, M. S., Roxo, F. F., Foresti, F. & Oliveira, C. (2015) Using different methods to access the difficult task of delimiting species in a complex neotropical hyperdiverse group. PLoS ONE, 10, 1 - 12. https: // doi. org / 10.1371 / journal. pone. 0135075","Vera-Alcaraz, H. S., Pavanelli, C. S. & Zawadzki, C. H. (2012) Taxonomic revision of the Rineloricaria species (Siluriformes: Loricariidae) from the Paraguay River basin. Neotropical Ichthyology, 10, 285 - 311. https: // doi. org / 10.1590 / S 1679 - 62252012000200006"]}

Rineloricaria rodriquezae, new species Fig. 1. Table.1. Rineloricaria sp. 8 — Costa-Silva et al. (2015) [molecular delimitation] Holotype. MZUSP 125901, 127.2 mm SL, Minas Gerais state, Rio Paranaíba municipality, Paranaíba River, Upper Paraná River basin, S 19°11’32.00” W46°24’44.90”, 17 Oct 20201, G.J. Costa-Silva, G.S.Costa e Silva Paratypes. All from Brazil, Minas Gerais state, Rio Paranaíba municipality, Paranaíba River basin: LBP 11721, 7, 40.2–140.5 mm SL, same data as holotype. LBP 11741, 7, 51.5–108.5 mm SL, Ribeirão de Fora, S 19°11’32’’ W 46°24’44’’, 18 May 2011, R. Britske, G.J. Costa-Silva, R. Devidé, C. Oliveira. Non-type. LBP 30680, 5, 76.3–98.3 mm SL, Federal District, Brasília, Ribeirão Santana, Paranaíba River basin, S 16° 0’53.53” W 47°48’3.45” GSC Silva & L Reia Diagnosis. Rineloricaria rodriquezae differs from all congeners, except R. anhaguapitan, R. anitae, R. baliola, R. capitonia, R. tropeira and R. zaina by the presence of a dark bar on the subterminal region of the caudal fin (vs. absence of a dark bar on subterminal region of the caudal fin; Fig. 1), but R. rodriquezae presents an extension of the upper unbranched caudal fin ray extended on filament, while R. anhaguapitan, R. anitae, R. baliola, R. capitonia, R. tropeira and R. zaina do not present this extension. Additionally, the new species differs from its congeners by having five series of lateral plates in longitudinal rows below the dorsal fin (vs. four series of lateral plates in longitudinal rows below the dorsal fin in R. microlepidota, R. aurata, R. beni, R. cadeae, R. castroi, R. catamarcensis, R. cubatonis, R. felipponei, R. henselli, R. jurupari, R. lanceolata, R. langei, R. lima, R. longicauda, R. magdalenae, R. misionera, R. nigricauda, R. pareiacantha, R. parva, R. quadrensis, R. sanga, R. setepovos, R. sneiderni, R. stellate, R. thrissoceps, R. uracantha, and R. wolfei); by having the lateral plate of the mid-dorsal series consisting of two keeled plates situated around the insertion of the first ray of the dorsal fin (vs. lateral plate of the mid-dorsal series consisting in five to seven keeled plates extended posteriorly around end of the dorsal-fin base in R. cacerensis, R. daraha, R. fallax, R. formosa, R. hasemani, R. jubata, R. melini, R. microlepidogaster, R. morrowi, R. osvaldoi, R. teffeana, and R. zaina) (see more in Vera-Alcaraz et al. 2012); by the presence of the dorsal unbranched caudal-fin ray extended as long filaments (vs. dorsal unbranched caudal-fin ray not extended as long filaments in R. aequalicuspis, R. anhaguapitan, R. anitae, R. baliola, R. capitonia, R. heteropteran, R. isaaci, R. jaraguensis, R. maacki, R. malabarbai, R. maquinensis, R. microlepidota, R. pentamaculata, R. reisi, R. rupestris, R. tropeira and R. zaina); and by absence of hypertrophied odontoides on the predorsal region in mature males (vs. presence of hypertrophied odontodes in R. altipinnis, R. caracasensis, R. eigenmanni, R. konopickyi, R. phoxocephala, R. platyura, and R. stewarti). Description. Morphometric and meristic data are summarized in Table 1. Small-sized loricariid (maximum 140.5 mm SL). Head and snout triangular in dorsal view. Dorsal profile of head ascending convexly approximately 45° to eyes. Eyes relatively large (12.9–11.9% of HL), dorsolaterally positioned, elliptical with large, deep postorbital notch. Iris operculum present and well developed. Oral disk rounded with papillae randomly distributed. Lower lip larger than upper lip, not reaching cleithrum; border with elongated fringes; lower lip inner surface covered with irregular-sized papillae arranged concentrically around oral cavity. Maxillary barbel short covered by small papillae. Teeth slender with two cusps; central cusp larger than lateral cusp. Premaxillary teeth 5–6 (mode 6). Dentary teeth 5–8 (mode 8). Snout very short, elliptical. Snout naked area not reaching most anterior pore of infraorbital ramus of sensory canal. Lower surface of head naked. Head lacking ridges. Predorsal region keeled with small odontoids covering plates. In dorsal view, body elongated and compressed. Greatest body width at pectoral-fin insertion, progressively narrowing anteriorly towards snout tip and posteriorly towards caudal-fin. Dorsal profile of head and trunk covered by dermal plates, except for naked area around dorsal-fin insertion. In lateral view, body depressed and convex in shape from snout tip to dorsal-fin origin; slightly concave and descending from dorsal-fin origin to first upper procurrent caudal-fin ray, rising posteriorly to insertion of caudal fin. Greatest body depth at unbranched dorsal-fin ray insertion. In lateral view, ventral profile straight and descending from snout tip to opercular region; slightly convex from opercular region to pelvic-fin origin; straight from that point to lower procurrent caudal-fin ray origin. Lateral surface of body entirely covered by plates, median and mid-ventral series with keels; dorsal series with 23–25 plates. Mid-dorsal plate series truncated 1–3. Median series with 26–27 plates. Lateral line complete. Mid-ventral series with 14–16. Ventral plates series with 20–21 plates. Abdomen entirely covered by plates, from cleithrum to urogenital papilla. Lateral abdominal plates larger and forming regular series of nine to ten elongate plates on each side; median abdominal plates smaller, irregularly arranged, anteriorly consisting of small, rounded plates on pectoral girdle region, posteriorly consisting of larger and trapezoidal plates. Dorsal fin ii,7; its origin slightly posterior through pelvic-fin origin. Dorsal-fin unbranched ray slightly convex. Tip of adpressed dorsal-fin rays surpassing anal-fin origin. Pectoral-fin rays i,6; when adpressed its tip passing adpressed pelvic-fin ray insertion reaching. Pelvic-fin rays i,5; its distal margin straight to slightly convex; tip of adpressed pelvic-fin ray reaching anal-fin origin. Adipose fin absent. Anal-fin rays i,5; distal margin slightly convex. Caudal-fin rays i,10, i; truncate, with short, thin filament on dorsal caudal-fin ray. Color in alcohol. Background color of the dorsal region of head and trunk red to brown (Fig 1; 2). Five (six in one specimen: LBP 11741, SL 89.7) dark transversal bars along the dorsal surface of body: first at dorsal-fin origin, second at end of dorsal-fin base, following bands equidistant to each other. Chromatophores widely concentrated on compound-pterotic and on posterior two predorsal plates forming dark brown conspicuous area. Anterior margin of head with irregular reddish dots. Ventral surface of body yellowish. Dorsal, pectoral, and pelvic fins with irregular dark brown stripes, distal region with reddish band. Caudal fin hyaline with a vertical subterminal dark bar and with a small dark brown spot on its base; caudal-fin middle region with irregular dark-brown stripes; on distal portion large, vertical dark-brown band (Fig.1; 2). Sexual dimorphism. Adult males with hypertrophied odontodes on lateral margin of head extending from postrostral plate to opercle and in pectoral-fin rays. Distribution. Rineloricaria rodriquezae is known from Ribeirão de Fora and a small stream reaching the Paranaíba River both tributaries of the Paranaíba River, in the Upper Paraná River basin, centralBrazil. (Fig. 3). Habitat. Rineloricaria rodriquezae was collected in small drainages with moderate water flow and average deep of 60 cm (Fig. 4). The riparian forest is preserved, and the canopy covers almost the entire bed. The rivers where the specimens were sampled do not cross urban perimeters, and no signs of severe environmental degradation were detected. The type locality where the new species was caught, is a stream river with sand botton and gravel. Smaller individuals were collected from small roots of riparian vegetation and submerged trunks and branches, while the larger individuals, including the holotype, were always collected from submerged trunks and branches. Remarks. The new species is known from the Rio Paranaíba (type locality) in Minas Gerais state and Ribeirão Santana in Distrito Federal. The population of Rineloricaria rodriquezae sampled in Ribeirão Santana presents the eyes diameter significantly bigger than the population of the type locality 15.6–17.5% in HL (vs. 10.3–12.9% in HL; see table 1). For this reason, although it shares the diagnosis of R. rodriquezae, we find it more convenient that the population of Ribeirão Santana not to be included in the type series. We propose that an integrative taxonomy be carried out to assess whether even more species are distributed in the upper Paraná River basin. Etymology. The specific name rodriquezae honors Mónica Sonia Rodriguez in recognition for her contribution on the knowledge to the genus Rineloricaria.

Made available in DSpace on 2022-04-29T08:31:59Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 Previous issue date: 2021-10-01 In this study, a new species of Moenkhausia is described from the upper rio Juruena, rio Tapajós basin, Brazil. It is distinguished from all congeners by the presence of minute bony hooks in all fins of both mature females and males and combination of a prepelvic region flattened, dorsal portion of the humeral blotch extending two scales horizontally and vertically, lateral line with 28–32 scales, five scale series above and below lateral line; circumpeduncular scales 13–14, anal-fin rays 16–19 and dorsal portion of eyes blue in live specimens. The new species is also supported by high divergence in the mitochondrial gene cytochrome c oxidase subunit I (COI). The presence of minute fin bony hooks in both females and males, population variations and late development of the lateral line in Moenkhausia andrica are discussed. Laboratório de Ictiologia Setor de Zoologia Instituto de Biociências de Botucatu Universidade Estadual Paulista Laboratório de Biologia e Genética de Peixes Departamento de Biologia Estrutural e Funcional Instituto de Biociências de Botucatu Universidade Estadual Paulista Laboratório de Ictiologia Setor de Zoologia Instituto de Biociências de Botucatu Universidade Estadual Paulista Laboratório de Biologia e Genética de Peixes Departamento de Biologia Estrutural e Funcional Instituto de Biociências de Botucatu Universidade Estadual Paulista

The multiple ovulation and embryo transfer (MOET) is the most used biotechnology in commercial sheep herds to produce embryos, however, several factors can interfere with the success and financial viability of the technique. The objective of the work was to evaluate the impact of technical training on the costs and financial feasibility of biotechnology. The study was carried out over four years (2017-2020) in a commercial system, in the state of SP, Brazil. Dorper breed ewes (n=35) were submitted to the MOET program using a conventional protocol (256 mg FSH) for up to five times (n=65). Artificial insemination took place on day 16 by laparoscopy and embryos were surgically collected with transfer to recipients (n=140) five days later. Direct costs for carrying out the MOET, reproductive rates and financial results of the cabanha were raised. The average amount of total structures and embryos transferred per collection showed a significant difference between years (P0.05) in the rates of pregnancy, permanent and transient adherence of donors. The gross margin per pregnancy was negative only in the first year and increased substantially in the following years, stabilizing the annual variation between costs and value of animals. In conclusion, the technical training of the veterinarian over four years was able to reduce costs and increase the efficiency of MOET, making the use of the technique financially viable in a Dorper sheep herd, accelerating the genetic improvement in the herd. La ovulación múltiple y transferencia de embriones (MOET) es la biotecnología más utilizada en los rebaños comerciales de ovejas para la producción de embriones, sin embargo, varios factores pueden interferir con el éxito y la viabilidad financiera de la técnica. El objetivo del trabajo fue evaluar el impacto de la capacitación técnica sobre los costos y la viabilidad financiera de la biotecnología. El estudio se llevó a cabo durante cuatro años (2017-2020) en una cabaña en el estado de SP, Brasil. Se enviaron ovejas de raza Dorper (n = 35) al programa MOET utilizando un protocolo convencional (256 mg de FSH) hasta cinco veces (n = 65). La inseminación artificial se realizó el día 16 por laparoscopia y los embriones fueron extraídos quirúrgicamente con transferencia a los receptores (n = 140) cinco días después. Se elevaron los costos directos para realizar el MOET, las tasas de reproducción y los resultados financieros de la cabaña. La cantidad promedio de estructuras totales y embriones transferidos por colección mostró una diferencia significativa entre años (P0.05) en las tasas de embarazo, adherencia permanente y transitoria de las donantes. El margen bruto por gestación fue negativo solo en el primer año y aumentó sustancialmente en los años siguientes, estabilizando la variación anual entre costos y valor de los animales. En conclusión, la formación técnica del veterinario a lo largo de cuatro años consiguió reducir costes y aumentar la eficiencia del MOET, haciendo viable económicamente el uso de la técnica en un rebaño de ovejas Dorper, acelerando la mejora genética en el rebaño. A múltipla ovulação e transferência de embriões (MOTE) é a biotecnologia mais utilizada nos rebanhos comerciais ovinos para produção de embriões, porém, vários fatores podem interferir no sucesso e viabilidade financeira da técnica. O objetivo deste estudo foi avaliar o impacto do treinamento do médico-veterinário nos custos e viabilidade financeira desta biotécnica. O estudo foi realizado ao longo de quatro anos (2017-2020) em uma cabanha no estado de SP, Brasil. Ovelhas pluríparas da raça Dorper (n=35) foram submetidas ao programa de MOTE utilizando protocolo convencional (256 mg FSH) por até cinco vezes (n=65). A inseminação artificial aconteceu no dia 16 por laparoscopia e a coleta cirúrgica dos embriões com transferência para as receptoras (n=140) cinco dias após. Foram levantados os custos diretos para realização da MOTE, índices reprodutivos e resultados financeiros da cabanha. A quantidade média de estruturas totais e embriões transferidos por coleta foi superior (P0,05) nas taxas de gestação, aderência permanente e transitória das doadoras. A margem bruta por gestação foi negativa apenas no primeiro ano e aumentou substancialmente nos anos seguintes, estabilizando a variação anual entre custos e valor de venda dos animais. Em conclusão, o treinamento técnico do médico-veterinário ao longo dos quatro anos foi capaz de diminuir os custos e aumentar a eficiência da MOTE, viabilizando financeiramente o uso da técnica em rebanho ovino da raça Dorper, acelerando o melhoramento genético na cabanha.

This paper aims at offering a training programme for legal translators from the analysis of legal translation competence. To do so, before analyzing the different competences at stake in legal translation, we will recall why legal translation is thought to be different from the transla­tion of other text types and will also go through some opinions that defend different training backgrounds for legal translators. Our training proposal can be adapted to both translation and law graduates as well to professional translators not familiar with legal texts. O objetivo do presente artigo é propor um programa formativo para tradutores de textos jurídicos a partir da análise da competência tradutora em tradução jurídica. Para isto, antes de analisar o desenvolvimento das áreas competentes que entram em jogo na tradução jurídica, recordaremos porque cabe diferenciar a tradução jurídica da tradução de outros tipos de textos e repassaremos argumentos que defendem a idoneidade, para o tradutor jurídico, de contar com uma formação que seja estritamente tradutológica, estritamente jurídica ou bem uma combinação de ambas. A proposta formativa que oferecemos pode ser adaptada a qualquer formato e duração e está dirigida tanto a egressos de direito como em tradução ou a tradutores profissionais que não trabalham com textos de caráter jurídico.

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"]}

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-jicm-10.1177_08850666211054444 for Latin American Consensus on the Management of Sepsis in Children: Sociedad Latinoamericana de Cuidados Intensivos Pedi��tricos [Latin American Pediatric Intensive Care Society] (SLACIP) Task Force: Executive Summary by Jaime Fern��ndez-Sarmiento, Daniela Carla De Souza, Anacaona Martinez, Victor Nieto, Jes��s L��pez-Herce, Vanessa Soares Lanziotti, Mar��a del Pilar Arias L��pez, Werther Brunow De Carvalho, Claudio F. Oliveira, Juan Camilo Jaramillo-Bustamante, Franco D��az, Adriana Yock-Corrales, Silvina Ruvinsky, Manuel Munaico, Viviana Pavlicich, Ricardo Iramain, Marta Patricia M��rquez, Gustavo Gonz��lez, Mauricio Yunge, Cristian Tonial, Pablo Cruces, Gladys Palacio, Carolina Grela, Maria Sl��cker-Barrio, Santiago Campos-Mi��o, Sebastian Gonz��lez-Dambrauskas, Nelson L S��nchez-Pinto, Pedro Celiny Garc��a and Roberto Jabornisky in Journal of Intensive Care Medicine

O objetivo do presente artigo é propor um programa formativo para tradutores de textos jurídicos a partir da análise da competência tradutora em tradução jurídica. Para isto, antes de analisar o desenvolvimento das áreas competentes que entram em jogo na tradução jurídica, recordaremos porque cabe diferenciar a tradução jurídica da tradução de outros tipos de textos e repassaremos argumentos que defendem a idoneidade, para o tradutor jurídico, de contar com uma formação que seja estritamente tradutológica, estritamente jurídica ou bem uma combinação de ambas. A proposta formativa que oferecemos pode ser adaptada a qualquer formato e duração e está dirigida tanto a egressos de direito como em tradução ou a tradutores profissionais que não trabalham com textos de caráter jurídico. This paper aims at offering a training programme for legal translators from the analysis of legal translation competence. To do so, before analyzing the different competences at stake in legal translation, we will recall why legal translation is thought to be different from the translation of other text types and will also go through some opinions that defend different training backgrounds for legal translators. Our training proposal can be adapted to both translation and law graduates as well to professional translators not familiar with legal texts.

Additional file 4: Dataset 3. Coverage levels of the 21 protein-coding genes found in the A. scabripinnis and A. paranae B chromosomes. gDNA coverage is shown as number of copies. Additionally, we add a track showing the position of the B-specific SNPs found in the A. scabripinnis libraries. The dotted lines delimit the CDS region and the shaded zones indicate the regions amplified in the qPCR experiments. The coverage pattern attributed to each gene can be found in the Table 1.

Agência 1 São várias as razões para se escrever um trabalho relacionado aos sistema de transmissão em corrente contínua, se destacam a rápida e precisa controlabilidade do elos de corrente contínua e as possibilidades de suas aplicações de forma a contribuir com o amortecimento de oscilações eletromecânicas no sistema elétrico de potência. O presente documento aborda os principais aspectos sobre o sistemas de controle das interconexões em CCAT. Após vários anos de utilização em diversos sistemas elétricos pelo mundo, é notório o sucesso relacionado a essas conexões em corrente contínua, o texto tem o objetivo de apresentar o comportamento em regime permanente e o comportamento dinâmico desses sistemas, de forma que possamos entender as exigências mínimas para um controle preciso e robusto em sistemas de transmissão baseado no princípio dos conversores fonte de corrente (CSC), denominados comercialmente de classic converters. There are several reasons for writing a document related to the high voltage direct current transmission system, highlighting the fast and precise controllability of the HVDC and the possibilities of their applications in order to contribute to the damping of electromechanical oscillations in the electric power system. This document addresses the main aspects of the HVDC control systems. After several years in various electrical systems in use around the world, is notorious the success related to these HVDC connections, the text aims to present the behavior in steady state and dynamic behavior of these systems, so that we can understand the minimum requirements for robust and precise control for a transmission systems based on the principle of current source converters (CSC), known commercially for classic converters.

Whole‐genome duplication (WGD) events occur in all kingdoms and have been hypothesized to promote adaptability. WGDs identified in the early history of vertebrates, teleosts, and angiosperms have been linked to the large‐scale diversification of these lineages. However, the mechanics and full outcomes of WGD regarding potential evolutionary impacts remain a topic of debate. The Corydoradinae are a diverse subfamily of Neotropical catfishes with over 170 species described and a history of WGDs. They are divided into nine mtDNA lineages, with species coexisting in sympatric—and often mimetic—communities containing representatives of two or more of the nine lineages. Given their similar life histories, coexisting species of Corydoras might be exposed to similar parasite loads and because of their different histories of WGD and genome size they provide a powerful system for investigating the impacts of WGD on immune diversity and function in an animal system. Here, we compared parasite counts and the diversity of the immune‐related toll‐like receptors (TLR) in two coexisting species of Corydoras catfish (C. maculifer and C. araguaiaensis), one diploid and one putative tetraploid. In the putative tetraploid C. araguaiaensis, we found significantly lower numbers of parasites and significantly higher diversity (measured by both synonymous and nonsynonymous SNP counts) in two TLR genes than in the diploid C. maculifer. These results provide insight into how WGD may impact evolution, in this case by providing greater immunogenetic diversity., The full evolutionary impacts of whole‐genome duplication (WGD) events on species (especially in animal systems) remain unclear. In our study, we look at parasite abundance and immunogenetic diversity in two species of Corydoras catfish, a diploid (Corydoras maculifer, right) and a putative (Corydoras araguaiaensis, left) allotetraploid that coexist in a sympatric community. We found the putative tetraploid species exhibited fewer external parasites and had significantly higher immune gene diversity.

Melanorivulus larissae, new species (Figs. 1-2; Table1) Holotype. ZUEC 17154, male, 23.4 mm SL: Brazil, São Paulo, Ouroeste, Ribeirão Santa Rita, tributary of Rio Grande, Rio Paraná basin, 19°59’56’’S, 50°22’55”W, altitude 494 m; Daniel Sobral dos Santos, 12 May 2017. Paratypes. ZUEC 17155 (5 males, 21.0– 26.9 mm SL, 5 females, 21.1–26.1 mm SL, 2 C&S); MZUSP 123086 (1 male 22.1 mm, 1 female 22.0 mm); LBP 29539 (1 male, 23.1 mm SL; 1 female, 22.7 mm SL); collected with the holotype. Diagnosis. Melanorivulus larissae is distinguished from all other species of Melanorivulus, except from those belonging to the M. pictus species group, by two color pattern features, i.e., sides of body light greenish gray above the anal fin base in males and presence of an irregular black stripe between the postorbital region and the mid-length of the pectoral fin in both sexes. Melanorivulus larissae is distinguished from all other species of the M. pictus species group by sides of body light bluish gray in males (vs. greenish blue or greenish gold), 10–12 oblique red bars, 8 of which chevron-like, bifurcated and complete, i.e., running from dorsum to ventral area, and 2–4 incomplete bars, at the sides of body (vs. 8 oblique red lines at the sides of body in M. ofaie; 9–10 in M. egens, M. faucireticulatus, M. scalaris and M. vittatus, 16 in M. rutilicaudus, thick red lines in M. scalaris, M. litteratus, M. ofaie, M. planaltinus, and M. vittatus), and caudal fin in males light yellow, with 3–4 irregular vertical red lines (vs. never a similar color pattern). Melanorivulus larissae is also distinguished from other species of M. pictus species group by lower caudal fin length in males (23.9–28.0% SL vs 29.4–39.8% SL, except from M. planaltinus, M. ofaie, and M. polychro- mus), and females (24.5–29.6% SL vs 30.6–38.9% SL; except in M. giarettai, M. ofaie, M. nigropunctatus, and M. polychromus), lower head length in females (24.3–28.6% SL vs 28.7–38.9% SL, except in M. leali and M. pictus), greater snout length in males (20.3–28.7% SL vs 11.4-17.1% SL, except M. ofaie), and females (19.6–23.0% SL vs 11.4–18.5% SL, except M. nigropunctatus), and by a lower number of vertebrae (28–29 vs. 30–32 except M. apiamici, M. litteratus, M. rutilicaudus, M. scalaris, M. egens, and M. interruptus), and lower number of pelvic-fin rays (6 vs. 7–8 except M. giarettai, M. planaltinus, M. nigropunctatus, M. polychromus, and M. nigromarginatus), in both sexes. Additionally, M. larissae differs from M. giarettai, M. vittatus, M. polychromus, M. egens, M. proximus, M. amambaiensis, M. faucireticulatus, M. ivinhemensis, and M. leali by a lower number of caudal fin rays (28–30 vs. 31–34). It can be distinguished from all remaining species of the M. pictus species group, except in M. planaltinus, M. leali, and M. pictus, by the presence of rounded dorsal fin in both sexes (vs. slight pointed or pointed dorsal fin), by higher caudal-fin rays counts (32–33 vs. 28–31 in M. amambaiensis, M. apiamici, M. egens, M. faucireticulatus, M. ivinhemensis, and M. leali); by anal-fin origin between pleural ribs of 15 th and 16 th vertebrae (vs. 13 th and 15 th vertebrae in M. egens, M. faucireticulatus, M. leali, M. litteratus, M. rutilicaudus, and M. formosensis); by dorsalfin origin on vertical through base of 8 th anal-fin ray (vs. vertical through base of 7 th or 9 th- 10 th anal-fin ray in M. apiamici, M. egens, M. faucireticulatus, M. pictus, M. polychromus, and M. proximus). Description. Morphometric data presented in Table 1. Largest male examined 26.9 mm SL, largest female examined 26.1 mm SL. Dorsal profile gently convex from snout to end of dorsal-fin base, approximately straight along caudal peduncle. Ventral profile slightly convex from lower jaw to anal-fin origin, approximately straight along caudal peduncle. Body slender, compressed, greatest body depth at level of pelvic fin base. Snout pointed in lateral view. Jaws short. Short dorsal and anal fins; rounded in males and females, without filaments in both sexes. Caudal fin oval shaped, longer than deep. Pectoral fin rounded, with its posterior margin reaching 60% of the distance between pectoral and pelvic fins bases. Pelvic fin elliptical, short, its tip reaching the first anal fin ray base in males and uro- genital papilla in females. Pelvic fin bases in close proximity medially. Dorsal-fin origin at vertical through base of 9th anal-fin ray in males and females at the level of the 21 th vertebra. Anal-fin origin at the 16 th vertebra. Dorsal-fin rays 9–10; anal-fin rays 13–14; caudal-fin rays 28–30; pectoral-fin rays 12; pelvic-fin rays 6. No scales on dorsal and anal-fin bases. TABLE I. Morphometric and selected meristic data for the holotype (H) and paratypes of Melanorivulus larissae. SD = standard deviation. Scales cycloid. Frontal squamation E-patterned; E-scales not overlapping. Longitudinal series of scales 27–30; transverse series of scales 8; scale rows around caudal peduncle 16. No contact organs on scales and fin rays. Cephalic neuromasts: supraorbital 3 + 3, parietal 1, posterior rostral 1, infraorbital 1 + 10 + 1, preorbital 1, otic 1, post-otic 1, supratemporal 1, median opercular 1, ventral opercular 1, preopercular 2 + 4, mandibular 3 + 1, lateral mandibular 2, paramandibular 1. Two neuromasts on caudal-fin base. Six branchiostegal rays. Gill-rakers on first branchial arch 1 + 7. Vomerine teeth 2. Total vertebrae 28-29. Color in life. Males (Fig. 1). Sides of body bluish light gray, with 12–13 oblique red bars, 3–4 centralmost forming chevron-like rows, branching at midline, with forward-pointing vertices at midline, remaining bars simple, some males presenting X-shaped red bars. Caudal peduncle presenting small, roughly square-shaped red blotches, juvenile males presenting very small black spot at the upper portion of the caudal peduncle. Anteroventral portion of flank white, long dark longitudinal stripe with irregular shape extending between opercular area and first red chevron-like bar. Dorsum light brown. Venter whitish. Sides of head light brown, opercular region light yellow with golden tint and irregular dark stripes. Jaws light brown. Iris pale yellow. Dorsal fin light yellow, with 2–3 irregular, oblique brown lines. Anal fin middle portion light yellow, basal area light blue, with short narrow red bars, and distal portion with black margin. Caudal fin light yellow, with 3–4 irregular, vertical red bars. Pelvic fin light yellow with light blue pigmentation at basis and black margin at distal portion. Pectoral fin hyaline. Females (Fig. 2). Sides of body light brown, with 9–10 dark red oblique bars, forming a chevron-like pattern, chevron vertices at lateral midline and pointing forward to the head. Irregular first vertical lines overlapping with long longitudinal dark stripe with irregular shape extending from postorbital region to anterior portion of trunk. Opercular area golden, with irregular dark blotches. Dorsum light brown, presenting scattered dark spots. Venter white. Jaws brown. Iris pale orange, anterior and posterior edges of eye dark brown. Dorsal fin hyaline, with two irregular, oblique dark lines. Anal fin with basal portion light blue, and distal portion with a black margin. Caudal fin hyaline, with 3–5 grey vertical bars; black spot on its dorsal portion. Pectoral and pelvic fins hyaline. Distribution and habitat. The new species is known only from the type-locality, a stream tributary of Ribeirão Santa Rita, itself a tributary of Rio Grande, Rio Paraná basin, northwestern São Paulo state, Brazil (Fig. 4). The type locality is a small headwater, first order stream, located in the surroundings of the city of Ouroeste, São Paulo, Brazil. The stream has clear water, with maximum depth of 5 cm. The stream channel is hidden by grasses and sedges (Fig. 3). Etymology. Named in honor of Larissa da Silva Sobral, daughter of the discoverer of the species.

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."]}

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)