A New Catalogue of the Fresh-Water Fishes of Panama

A NEW CATALOGUE OF THE FRESH-WATER FISHES OF PANAMA. By Samuel F. Hildebrand. Field Museum of Natural History, Zoological Series, 21 (4), Sept. 28, 1938: 217-359, figs. 2-13.-Dr. Hildebrand has done the many zoologists interested in the Panamanian fauna a distinct service in preparing this supplement, which brings up to date the 1916 monograph by himself and the late Dr. Meek. Although surprisingly little has been done on the fluviatile fish fauna of Panama since 1916, the collections of Breder and Behre in opposite ends of the republic have added many species to the fauna, and considerable revisional work touching Panama fishes only incidentally has necessitated a number of systematic changes. A large proportion of these is included in the present review, in addition to the results of Dr. Hildebrand's own recent field work. It must be noted, however, that those portions of Veragua between the Canal Zone and Chiriqui, as well as much of eastern Panama, still form a veritable terra incognita to the ichthyologist. Several systematic comments seem necessary. The generic name Plecostomus (p. 237) must unfortunately be superseded by Hypostomus. The description of a new Gephyrocharax (p. 254) shows no adequate comparison with South American forms. Dr. Hildebrand's quotations from Eigenmann in regard to the ranges of the two forms of Piabucina (p. 288) show that he has overlooked Myer's paper on this subject (COPEIA (166), 1928: 4). The generic name Sternarchus must give way to Apteronotus (p. 292). The author's statement that Synbranchus marmoratus stands alone in its family "with no near relatives so far as known" is peculiar in view of the close relationship of the American form with African and Indian species. (A new blind genus from Yucatan has recently been announced.) The name of the common American eel (p. 294) has been shown to be Anguilla bostoniensis, under the "rule of the first reviser". It is unfortunate that Dr. Hildebrand did not have access to Dr. Behre's cichlid material. Some of it is certainly misidentified, notably her "Cichlasoma nigrofasciatum", which seems to be Regan's C. septemfasciatum. Eulepteleotris, a supposed new genus based on two new species, one from the Atlantic and one from the Pacific slope, is identical with Erotelis (synonym Alexurus). Of all sections of the report, Dr. Hildebrand's treatment of the classification of the viviparous poeciliids is most likely to be criticized adversely. His attitude in not accepting many recent refinements in the classification of the poeciliids is a tendency still reflected in the writings of a few ichthyologists who have not yet realized the extraordinary differentiating characters that exist in the internal anatomy as well as in the gonopodium and mouth structures of these remarkable little fishes. In view of Hubbs's determination of the Gatun Lake Gambusia as an introduced northern form (Gambusia affinis speciosa), Dr. Hildebrand's defense of his identification of the fish as G. nicaraguensis is interesting. But, aside from gonopodial differences, the Gatun Gambusia does not have the deep body characteristic of? nicaraguensis, and it may be remarked that small mosquito-eating and aquarium poeciliids have been introduced into many tropical countries without records having been kept. Concerning Dr. Hildebrand's comments on the distribution of Brachyraphis episcopi it may be said that experience with this species at Barro Colorado would indicate that it is a stream rather than a lake fish. It is common in a little trickle a few yards down the hill from the laboratory buildings.