Callogobius liolepis Bleeker, a senior synonym of Gobiopsis aporia Lachner and McKinney (Teleostei: Gobiidae: Gobiopsis)

Abstract

Callogobius liolepis Bleeker in Koumans was briefly described from two specimens from Ambon. A later, more detailed description by Koumans was apparently based on Bleeker's unpublished description and specimens of C. okinawae (Snyder), considerably complicating the taxonomy of several species. Re-examination of the syntypes identifies C. liolepis as a species of the genus Gobiopsis Steindachner due to the absence of raised vertical ridges of papillae that characterise Callogobius and the presence of barbels in a pattern unique among gobiids to a subset of Gobiopsis. Gobiopsis liolepis (Bleeker) is determined as the senior synonym of G. aporia Lachner and McKinney based on the absence of head pores combined with the presence of a series of tightly spaced papillae over the eye, lateral scale counts of 36-42, pectoral-fin ray counts of 20-21, dorsal-fin ray counts VI+I,10 and anal-fin ray counts of I,9. The larger syntype is designated the lectotype and the smaller the paralectotype. Specimens identified as C. liolepis in museums or the literature are likely referable to C. okinawae (Snyder) or C. bifasciatus (Smith).

Full text

Accepted by W. Holleman: 7 Jan. 2014; published: 13 Feb. 2014
Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0
ZOOTAXA
ISSN 1175-5326 (print edition)
ISSN 1175-5334 (online edition)
Copyright © 2014 Magnolia Press
Zootaxa 3764 (5): 571–580
www.mapress.com
/
zootaxa
/
Article
571
http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.3764.5.5
http://zoobank.org/urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:1631DEF4-93CE-4F90-8F2E-F0208C1F63AE
Callogobius liolepis Bleeker, a senior synonym of Gobiopsis aporia Lachner and
McKinney (Teleostei: Gobiidae: Gobiopsis)
NAOMI R. DELVENTHAL1& RANDALL D. MOOI1,2
1Department of Biological Sciences, 212B Biological Sciences Bldg., University of Manitoba, Winnipeg MB, R3T 2N2 Canada.
E-mail: naomi.delventhal@gmail.com
2The Manitoba Museum, 190 Rupert Ave., Winnipeg MB, R3B 0N2 Canada. E-mail: rmooi@manitobamuseum.ca
Abstract
Callogobius liolepis Bleeker in Koumans was briefly described from two specimens from Ambon. A later, more detailed
description by Koumans was apparently based on Bleeker’s unpublished description and specimens of C. okinawae (Sny-
der), considerably complicating the taxonomy of several species. Re-examination of the syntypes identifies C. liolepis as
a species of the genus Gobiopsis Steindachner due to the absence of raised vertical ridges of papillae that characterise Cal-
logobius and the presence of barbels in a pattern unique among gobiids to a subset of Gobiopsis. Gobiopsis liolepis (Bleek-
er) is determined as the senior synonym of G. aporia Lachner and McKinney based on the absence of head pores combined
with the presence of a series of tightly spaced papillae over the eye, lateral scale counts of 36–42, pectoral-fin ray counts
of 20–21, dorsal-fin ray counts VI+I,10 and anal-fin ray counts of I,9. The larger syntype is designated the lectotype and
the smaller the paralectotype. Specimens identified as C. liolepis in museums or the literature are likely referable to C.
okinawae (Snyder) or C. bifasciatus (Smith).
Key words: Gobiidae, Gobiopsis, Callogobius liolepis, taxonomy, Bleeker
Introduction
The taxonomy of many gobiid genera and species has been complicated by enormous numbers of synonyms
generated through inadequate descriptions of small and diverse taxa. Despite many alpha taxonomic issues,
Gobiopsis Steindachner, 1861 and Callogobius Bleeker, 1874 are relatively well-defined compared to most gobiid
genera and are easily differentiated externally by the presence of barbels or distinctive raised ridges of papillae,
respectively (e.g. Larson & Murdy 2001). In a review of gobioid genera, Koumans (1931:75) introduced
Callogobius liolepis as an unpublished Bleeker name and provided a short description borrowed from Bleeker’s
notes: “Callogobius liolepis Blkr. (Museum name) differs from C. hasselti [sic] in having the base of the
preoperculum and operculum naked, distance between the eyes broader, all scales being cycloid, snout longer.”
Although authorship of this species has generally been attributed to Koumans (e.g. Eschmeyer 2013), Koumans’
(1931) unqualified attribution to Bleeker and use of his description indicates that Bleeker should retain authorship
(International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1999: Article 50.1.1). Koumans (1932:14) later provided a
more detailed description. Since that time, the species has been mentioned only infrequently in taxonomic literature
and faunal lists.
McKinney and Lachner (1978) questioned the placement of this species within the genus Callogobius, but
made no taxonomic recommendations. We examined the type materials of C. liolepis in 2007 to discover that,
despite their poor condition, the two specimens could be determined as a species of Gobiopsis. In this paper we
designate them as a lectotype and a paralectotype while presenting evidence to reassign the species to Gobiopsis
and, further, to support synonymization of G. liolepis (Bleeker in Koumans 1931) as a senior synonym with G.
aporia Lachner & McKinney, 1978. We also clarify misidentifications in the literature.

DELVENTHAL & MOOI
572 · Zootaxa 3764 (5) © 2014 Magnolia Press
Material examined
Abbreviations for institutional codes follow Fricke and Eschmeyer (2013) and/or Sabaj Pérez (2013).
Callogobius liolepis Bleeker in Koumans, 1931: RMNH.PISC.4411, lectotype, 44.0 mm SL, East Indies,
Ambon, P. Bleeker (prior to 1860) (EtOH and x-ray image); RMNH.PISC.36383, paralectotype, 42.0 mm SL,
collected with lectotype (EtOH and x-ray image).
Gobiopsis aporia Lachner & McKinney, 1978: USNM 209731, holotype, 39.9 mm SL, Ambon Island,
Moluccas, off Tandjung Suli, V.G. Springer and M.F. Gomon, 11 Jan 1973; USNM 211983, paratypes, 13: 29.5–
49.3 mm SL (39.3 mm SL specimen cleared and stained), Indonesia, off the coast of Karmundjawa Is., V.G.
Springer et al., 29 Mar 1974; USNM 209240, paratypes, 2: 36.3–41.5 mm SL (larger cleared and stained), Sri
Lanka, Kalkudah Bay, T. Iwamoto, 9 June 1970; CAS 65720, 48.6 mm SL, Papua New Guinea, Madang Province,
S.G. Poss, D. Catania et al., 12 May 1987; ROM 68690, 46.8 mm SL, Andaman Sea, Thailand, Malacca Strait,
Phuket, Kata Bay, R. Winterbottom, W. Holleman, R. D. Mooi, U. Satapoomin, 14 Nov 1993; ROM 68691,
2:13.0–37.2 mm SL, Andaman Sea, Thailand, Malacca Strait, Phuket, NW tip of Ko Mai Thon, R. Winterbottom,
W. Holleman, R. D. Mooi, U. Satapoomin, 23 Nov 1993; WAM 30920.015, 45 mm SL, Western Australia,
Kimberley, Montgomery Reef, J.B. Hutchins, 22 Nov 1997; WAM P.31805-031, 4: 37–54 mm SL, Western
Australia, Kimberley, Vansittart Bay, Long Island, J.B. Hutchins, 24 Nov 1995; WAM P.31250-042, 6: 32–51 mm
SL, Western Australia, Kimberley, east side of Wildcat Reefs, S.M. Morrison, 2 Dec 1996;WAM P.31251-036, 47.0
mm SL, Western Australia, Kimberley, Montgomery Reef, S.M. Morrison, 3 Dec 1996.
Callogobius okinawae (Snyder): RMNH.PISC.20176, 23.1 mm SL, Indonesia, Ambon, Snellius Expedition,
11–14 Sept 1930; RMNH.PISC.20293, 26.9 mm SL, Indonesia, Haroekoe, Snellius Expedition, 3–7 May 1930;
RMNH.PISC.20597, 39.5 mm SL, Indonesia, Flores, Endeh, 6–8 Nov 1930; RMNH.PISC.20607, 3: 22.6–35.8 mm
SL, Indonesia, Halmahera, Ake Selaka, Kaoe Bay, Snellius Expedition, 28 May 1930.
Mucogobius bifasciatus Smith, 1958 (= Callogobius bifasciatus): SAIAB 235, holotype, 21.0 mm SL,
Tanzania, Pemba Island, J.L.B. Smith.
Mucogobius liolepis (= Callogobius bifasciatus): SAIAB 3419, 63.4 mm SL, Tanzania, Pemba Island, J.L.B.
Smith.
Comparisons to other described species of Gobiopsis are based on Lachner & McKinney (1978, 1979),
Shibukawa (2010) and the holotypes of the following species: G. angustifrons Lachner & McKinney, USNM
213492; G. arenaria (Snyder), USNM 62237; G. asanai (Koumans) ZSI F5283/2; G. bravoi (Herre), SU 33120; G.
malekulae (Herre) FMNH 17385; G. pinto (J.L.B. Smith), SAIAB 197; G. quinquecincta (H.M. Smith), USNM
90317; G. springeri Lachner & McKinney, USNM 210011; G. woodsi Lachner & McKinney, USNM 212249.
Comparisons to Callogobius species are based on McKinney and Lachner (1978) and data from holotypes
listed in Delventhal and Mooi (2013).
Methods
Standard length was taken using dial calipers. Methods for counting fin rays, lateral scales, vertebrae, and
terminology used to specify barbel groups follows Lachner and McKinney (1978). Scale counts must be considered
approximate as G. liolepis, C. okinawae and C. bifasciatus have small, irregularly-shaped, slightly deciduous
scales. Cyanine blue was used to provide temporary contrast to aid in the observation of scales, barbels and sensory
papillae following the method first outlined in Akihito et al. (1993b:1089) and described in English by Saruwatari
et al. (1997). Observations of osteology were made using radiographs or cleared and stained specimens. Due to the
condition of the type material, detailed morphometrics and color are not re-described in detail.
Results
The types of Callogobius liolepis, the larger here designated as lectotype and the smaller as paralectotype, were in
very poor condition (Fig. 1), as reported by Akihito and Meguro (1975), apparently having been desiccated
sometime in the past. Despite this, it is evident that the specimens have no raised vertical ridges of papillae, ruling

Zootaxa 3764 (5) © 2014 Magnolia Press · 573
SYNONYMY OF CALLOGOBIUS LIOLEPIS AND GOBIOPSIS APORIA
out their membership with Callogobius as cladistically defined by Winterbottom (2003). The specimens do,
however, exhibit several of the diagnostic features of Gobiopsis listed by Lachner and McKinney (1978), including
short, well-developed barbels on the head in specific groupings (including the chin, anterior and posterior
internasals, anterior cheek tuft, and anterior gular barbels common to all species in that paper), and a roughly
horizontal fleshy fold on the midcheek. Although not as definitive, the Bleeker specimens also share the general
physiognomy of Gobiopsis, including a depressed, broad head with a wide interorbital (about 19% of head length
or 6% SL for lectotype and paralectotype, approximate due to condition of specimens), a broad snout with a
protruding lower jaw, and stout body. Fin and vertebral counts (dorsal fin VI+I,10; anal fin I,9; 10+16 abdominal
plus caudal vertebrae) are consistent with Gobiopsis, as is the first dorsal-fin pterygiophore formula of 3(221100)
for both types (cf. Lachner & McKinney 1978) (Fig. 2). The specimens were very dark due to poor preservation.
The few melanophores and pigmented areas that could be discerned were consistent with the general Gobiopsis
color pattern of a series of dark saddles and mottling found in most species, with a dark spot on the upper pectoral-
fin base (Fig. 1). Bleeker’s original color notes (p. 258, translated from the Latin; see Appendix) state, in part:
“…head and body variegated with dark in a cloud-like pattern, on the flanks the dark color forms wide irregular
transverse bands [saddles]… dark spot on the upper base of the pectoral fins, caudal base with a larger dark spot,
rays with small darkish spots arranged in 5 or 6 transverse stripes.”
FIGURE 1. Type specimens of Gobiopsis liolepis (Bleeker): A) lectotype, RMNH.PISC.4411, 44.0 mm SL; B) paralectotype,
RMNH.PISC.36383, 42.0 mm SL. Photos by M. Aizawa.
As a result of their poor condition, certain barbels were visible only on one specimen or even only on one side
as indicated in Fig. 3. We found two pairs of chin barbels at the symphysis of the lower jaw of each specimen. A
cheek tuft with at least one or more barbels was present at the anterior edge of the mid-cheek fold on either side of
each specimen. The lectotype exhibited three posterior mandibular barbels on the skin covering the posterior
portion of the dentary, and the paralectotype had three anterior gular barbels and at least two inter-mandibular
barbels along the hyoid region and below the lower jaw. This distinctive arrangement is unique to Gobiopsis sensu

DELVENTHAL & MOOI
574 · Zootaxa 3764 (5) © 2014 Magnolia Press
stricto, a group we define (following Lachner & McKinney 1979) as including those ten species treated in Lachner
and McKinney (1978): G. angustifrons, G. aporia, G. arenaria, G. bravoi, G. canalis Lachner & McKinney, G.
macrostoma Steindachner, G. malekulae, G. pinto, G. quinquecincta, G. woodsi. This arrangement is not found in
Gobiopsis species included later by Lachner and McKinney (1979: G. a t r a t a (Griffin), G. exigua Lachner &
McKinney, and G. springeri) or by Shibukawa (2010: G. namnas Shibukawa), nor in any other gobiid.
FIGURE 2. X-ray images of the type specimens of Gobiopsis liolepis (Bleeker): A) lectotype, RMNH.PISC.4411, 44.0 mm
SL; B) paralectotype, RMNH.PISC.36383, 42.0 mm SL. Photos by M. Aizawa.
Specific characters identify the species of Gobiopsis sensu stricto equivalent to Bleeker’s specimens (Table 1).
Neither type specimen has any head pores, but each exhibits a row of numerous, tightly spaced papillae medial to
each eye; G. aporia is the only member of Gobiopsis sensu stricto lacking head pores and is the only species having
a continuous series of sensory papillae around the eye in the interorbital space, described as “the nasal papillae
row…confluent with the suborbital row” (Lachner & McKinney, 1978:7, Pattern 1) (Fig. 3a,b). In addition, lateral
scale counts of 36–42 and pectoral-fin ray counts of 20–21 in both specimens is consistent with the description and
type material of G. aporia (Table 1). Only G. canalis, G. macrostoma, G. pinto, and G. w o o d s i also have pectoral-fin
ray counts of 20 or higher. Among these, G. m ac ro s tom a is the most similar to Bleeker’s specimens as it has lateral
scale counts in the appropriate range, but, in addition to having cephalic sensory pores and no papillae medial to the
eye, this species differs from Bleeker’s specimens in having ctenoid scales and no posterior mandibular barbels
(Table 1).
We conclude that Callogobius liolepis Bleeker in Koumans, 1931 is a species of Gobiopsis Steindachner, 1861
and that it is a senior synonym of G. aporia Lachner & McKinney, 1978.
For a complete species description and comparison, we refer to Lachner and McKinney (1978, 1979). Because
Koumans (1940, 1953a,b) confounded the original C. liolepis with other species and altered the description to fit

Zootaxa 3764 (5) © 2014 Magnolia Press · 575
SYNONYMY OF CALLOGOBIUS LIOLEPIS AND GOBIOPSIS APORIA
those, subsequent workers have misidentified specimens using these altered descriptions. Specifics surrounding
these issues are provided in the Discussion.
FIGURE 3. Head barbels and sensory papillae of Gobiopsis liolepis (Bleeker): A) dorsal view; B) lateral view; C) ventral
view. Arrows and labels indicate distinctive barbels and papillae found in the lecto- and paralectotype (RMNH.PISC.4411;
RMNH.PISC.36383), barbel terminology following Lachner and McKinney (1978): ACT, anterior cheek tuft; AGB, anterior
gular barbels; CB, chin barbels; IMB, inter-mandibular barbels; IOP, interorbital papillae row [portion of the nasal papillae row
of Lachner & McKinney (1978:7) confluent with the suborbital papillae and unique to this species]; PMB, posterior mandibular
barbels. Due to condition of the specimens, not all of these features were observed in both types (see text). Base illustration
modified from Lachner and McKinney (1978: plate 1a,b and plate 2a) of USNM 209247 (male paratype of G. aporia) from
plates P09253 and P09357 by Jack R. Schroeder, Smithsonian Institution, NMNH, Division of Fishes, with permission. Scale
bar is approximate.

DELVENTHAL & MOOI
576 · Zootaxa 3764 (5) © 2014 Magnolia Press
TABLE 1 . Selected distinguishing characters comparing the lecto- and paralectotype of Gobiopsis liolepis (Bleeker)
with the most similar species of Gobiopsis as presented in Lachner and McKinney (1978); all other Gobiopsis sensu
stricto have scale and pectoral-fin ray counts that are too low. Koumans (1932) reported ±45 LL scales for Bleeker’s
specimens, Bleeker about 45. Modes are presented in parentheses (when available); LL scale and pectoral-fin ray counts
for types are provided for left and right sides, respectively; ? = not observed in type specimens, presumably due to poor
condition.
Synonymy of Gobiopsis liolepis (Bleeker)
Callogobius liolepis Bleeker in Koumans 1931:75 [from Bleeker, unpublished, p. 258]. Koumans 1932:14
[description from Bleeker specimens, table of morphometrics and meristics]; Koumans 1940:168, 207 [comparison
with C. atratus Griffin = Gobiopsis atrata (Griffin)], 168 [comparison with Gunnamatta insolita Whitley =
Callogobius depressus (Ramsay & Ogilby)]; Koumans 1953a:248 [in part, list of C. okinawae of the Snellius
Expedition]; Koumans 1953b:97 [in part, description based in part on C. okinawae]; Rangarajan 1968:347, 350–
352, tab. II [following Koumans 1953b, comparison with C. mannarensis, key]; Menon & Chatterjee 1974:127–
128 [comparison with C. andamanensis, key]; Akihito & Meguro 1975:112, table 1 [listing as syntypes,
comparison with C. hasseltii (Bleeker) and C. okinawae (Snyder)]; Goren 1979a:43 [key]; Goren 1979b:216, table
II [comparison with C. clarki (Goren), data from Koumans 1953b]; Chen & Yu 1986 [listed for Taiwan, basis
unknown]; Larson & Murdy 2001:3595 [listed for western central Pacific, based on original description?].
Callogobius hasseltii (non Bleeker 1851).—Fowler 1949:133 [uncertainly synonymised from description in
Koumans 1931; correctly assigning authorship to Bleeker].
Gobiopsis aporia Lachner & McKinney 1978:11–15, key, fig. 6, tabs. 1–6, pls. 1, 2b, 7a. Lachner & McKinney
1979:5 [comparison with G. atrata (Griffin)]; Akihito 1984:267, fig. 142, pl. 354D [brief description, distribution];
Böhlke 1984:104 [type list]; Ibarra & Stewart 1987:41 [type list]; Akihito et al. 1993a: 1042 [description,
schematic drawing, key]; Akihito et al. 1993b: 1103, fig. 3 [schematic illustration of head barbels and papillae
pattern]; Larson (in Randall & Lim) 2000:638 [listed for South China Sea]; Hutchins 2001:43 [listed for Western
Australia]; Larson & Murdy 2001:3598 [listed for western central Pacific, based on original description]; Akihito
et al. 2002:1249 [brief description, distribution, key, schematic illustration], fig. 37–6; Allen & Adrim 2003:59
[list]; Shibukawa et al. (in Kimura & Matsuura) 2003:185 [brief description and photo, Bitung Sulawesi]; Hoese &
Larson 2006:1658 [list]; Shibukawa 2010:97 [general description of genus]; Allen & Erdmann 2012:976 [brief
description and photo].
Discussion
The identity of Callogobius liolepis Bleeker has had a confused history. Based on two specimens 58 and 60 mm
total length collected from Ambon, Bleeker (unpublished, p. 258; see Appendix) wrote a Latin description,
intending this to form a part of the text of his multi-volume Atlas Ichthyologique des Indes Orientales
Néêrlandaises (1862–1877). In that manuscript, now archived at the RMNH in Leiden, Bleeker emphasized that
this new species had cycloid scales, and a wide interorbital distance compared to C. hasseltii Bleeker, 1851, the
Head
pores
Inter-
mandibular
barbels
Posterior
mandibular
barbels
LL
scales
Scale
type
Pectoral-fin
rays
G. liolepis
- Lectotype
- Paralectotype
absent
absent
?
2
3
?
37, 42
36, 42
cycloid
cycloid
20, 21
21, 21
G. aporia absent 1–3(2) 2–6(3) 37–45 cycloid 19–21(20)
G. c a na li s present absent absent 50–55 cycloid 22–23
G. macrostoma present 0–4(2) absent 36–44 ctenoid 19–22(21)
G. pinto present 0–3(1) absent 50–60 cycloid 20–21(21)
G. w o od si present 0–2(2) 2–5(3) 30–36 ctenoid 20–22(21)

Zootaxa 3764 (5) © 2014 Magnolia Press · 577
SYNONYMY OF CALLOGOBIUS LIOLEPIS AND GOBIOPSIS APORIA
only species assigned to Callogobius at that time. More significantly, he noted that it had no head pores and much
more highly developed papillae (presumably barbels), including: “the two anterior mandibular papillae [= chin
barbels?] longer than the rest” (see Appendix). Upon Bleeker’s death in 1878 the publication of the Atlas, including
the description of C. liolepis, was halted. The specimens intended to be the syntypes of C. liolepis were obtained by
the RMNH. In 1983, plates for the planned volumes XI–XIV were published by the Smithsonian (Bleeker 1983).
Plate 430, which should have included the illustration of C. liolepis, was among several that were lost (Boeseman
1983:5).
We found no mention of C. liolepis in published literature until 1931, when Koumans, then curator of fishes at
RMNH, made a brief note referring to C. liolepis, which he regarded as a Bleeker museum name (Koumans
1931:75) and where he used Bleeker’s unpublished description to differentiate the species from C. hasseltii. This
appears to satisfy the criteria to establish Bleeker as the author of C. liolepis (ICZN 1999: Article 50.1.1). It seems
Koumans became aware that his 1931 note amounted to the original description, because he later published a more
detailed description using Bleeker’s two original specimens (Koumans 1932:14).
In 1940, Koumans regarded Callogobius atratus Griffin, 1933 as “very close” (p. 168) or “allied” (p. 207) to
C. liolepis. Griffin’s species was reassigned to Gobiopsis by Lachner and McKinney (1979). His later descriptions
of the species (Koumans 1940, 1953b) seem to be based partially on a translation of Bleeker’s unpublished text and
partially on specimens of C. okinawae (Snyder 1908). We examined six specimens of Callogobius collected by the
Snellius Expedition (1929–1930) that had been reported as C. liolepis by Koumans (1953a:248), and determined
that they were C. okinawae (RMNH.PISC.20176, 20293, 20597, 20607). Koumans (1940, 1953b) synonymised C.
santa (Herre 1935) with C. liolepis; however, C. santa is presently considered a synonym of C. okinawae (Akihito
& Meguro 1975). Koumans (1940, 1953b) considered C. okinawae a synonym of C. hasseltii.
The generic placement of C. liolepis was first questioned by McKinney and Lachner (1978) in a paper
describing two new species of Callogobius and summarizing data on the nominal species. They stated that C.
liolepis lacked the fleshy papillose head ridges of Callogobius and indicated they intended to relegate C. liolepis
and four other nominal species to other genera in their subsequent studies. However, this planned work never
materialized. McKinney and Lachner’s unpublished notes indicate that they examined the C. liolepis syntypes in
the 1970’s. A label found in the jar containing the C. liolepis syntypes reads: “Not a species of Callogobius
Bleeker; possibly related to Pipidonia H.M. Smith because: 1) barbels present; 2) papillae rows similar; 3)
dentition like Pipidonia; 4) general body physiognomy similar. C. liolepis cannot be identified with any known
species of Pipidonia or Pipidonia-like species. The presence of barbels and absence of vertical and transverse
ridges on the head excludes C. liolepis from Callogobius. C. liolepis is therefore considered a nomen dubium with
its exact generic affinities being unknown. J.F. McKinney 4 June 1976.” Lachner and McKinney (1978)
synonymised Pipidonia Smith with Gobiopsis Steindachner but made no mention of C. liolepis in this or
subsequent papers.
Callogobius liolepis has been included sporadically in faunal lists in literature since its description. Our studies
indicate that most of these identifications are based on Koumans (1953b), and are likely referable to C. okinawae.
Another possible source of confusion is C. bifasciatus.J.L.B. Smith (1958) described and illustrated an 80 mm TL
specimen as Mucogobius liolepis (Koumans) in the same paper in which he described M. bifasciatus Smith 1958 [=
Callogobius bifasciatus (Smith); Randall et al. 1994; Delventhal & Mooi 2013]. Both specimens were collected
from Pemba Island; the type of C. bifasciatus (SAIAB 235) is a 21 mm SL juvenile. Smith distinguished C.
bifasciatus from C. liolepis by scale counts and coloration (noting that they shared the presence of cycloid scales).
However, the scale-count difference falls within intraspecific variation (40 vs 45; C. bifasciatus scales are unevenly
sized and spaced) and the coloration difference is consistent with ontogenetic change in C. bifasciatus (juveniles
are distinctly bi-colored, becoming more mottled with age). Smith must have realized his error, as C. liolepis is not
mentioned in later publications. A specimen of C. bifasciatus from Pemba Island (SAIAB 3419, 63.4 mm SL) is
consistent with Smith’s description and illustration of his Mucogobius liolepis (Smith 1958:147, pl. IIIK). Jones
and Kumaran (1970:329) followed Smith (1958) and identified specimens from Minicoy (Laccadive Archipelago,
India) as Mucogobius liolepis (Koumans), providing a figure and description. As would be expected, their
specimens appear to be a Callogobius and not Gobiopsis liolepis (Koumans), but we cannot determine the species.
Some aspects of the description do match Callogobius bifasciatus (Smith), but others do not and this species has
not been recorded from this part of the Indian Ocean.
Takagi (1963) collected specimens from Japan that he identified as Callogobius liolepis. Akihito and Meguro

DELVENTHAL & MOOI
578 · Zootaxa 3764 (5) © 2014 Magnolia Press
(1975) examined type specimens of C. okinawae, C. hasseltii and C. liolepis and determined that Takagi’s
specimens were C. okinawae. Goren (1979a,b) included C. liolepis in a key to Callogobius species and in a table of
species and diagnostic characters for Red Sea and Indian Ocean Callogobius. Data were from Kouman’s (1953b),
but the species was likely included among Indian Ocean taxa through reference to Smith’s (1958) identification of
adult C. bifasciatus as Kouman’s liolepis (as noted above).
Gobiopsis liolepis (Bleeker) is a relatively common species of the genus known from the Andaman Sea
eastward to southern Japan and south through Indonesia, New Guinea and northern Australia (Lachner &
McKinney 1978; museum collections).
Acknowledgements
Numerous individuals and institutions hosted the first author’s visits to examine type and non-type specimens of
Callogobius and Gobiopsis. In particular, we thank D. Catania (CAS), M.A. Rogers (FMNH), M. van Oijen
(RMNH), R. Winterbottom (ROM), O. Gon (SAIAB), J. Williams (USNM), S. Morrison (WAM), and R.P. Barman
(ZSI). M. Aizawa and Y. Ikeda (BLIP) kindly photographed and x-rayed the types of G. liolepis and hosted both
authors for this work. Special thanks to L. Palmer (USNM) who facilitated use of J. Schroeder’s illustrations
P09253 and P09357 of the paratype of G. aporia (= G. liolepis) USNM 209247. M. van Oijen kindly made
available Bleeker’s unpublished manuscript and both he and Ineke Loots generously took time to edit and correct
our initial attempts at translation. R. Winterbottom provided information regarding literature. Y. Ikeda and A.C.
Gill (MAMU) provided very helpful discussion and good times, the latter clarifying nomenclature issues. R. de
Ruiter (RMNH) provided catalogue numbers for the types. J. Duong and A. Matheson (University of Manitoba
Accessibility Services) assisted in typing portions of the manuscript. This study was supported in part by a
University of Manitoba Graduate Fellowship, and an NSF Graduate Research Fellowship to NRD, and a Natural
Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada Discovery Grant 327844-06 to RDM.
References
Akihito (1984) Suborder Gobioidei. In: Masuda, H., Amaoka, K., Araga, C., Uyeno, T. & Yoshino, T. (Eds.), The Fishes of the
Japanese Archipelago. Tokai University Press, Tokyo, pp. 236–289.
Akihito, Prince & Meguro, K. (1975) On a goby Callogobius okinawae. Japanese Journal of Ichthyology, 22 (2), 112–116. [in
Japanese]
Akihito, Iwata, A., Sakamoto, K. & Ikeda, Y. (1993a) Suborder Gobioidei. In: Nakabo, T. (Ed.), Fishes of Japan With Pictorial
Keys to the Species. Tokai University Press, Tokyo, pp. 997–1087. [in Japanese]
Akihito, Sakamoto, K., Iwata, A. & Ikeda, Y. (1993b) Cephalic sensory organs of the gobiod fishes. In: Nakabo, T. (Ed.),
Fishes of Japan with Pictorial Keys to the Species. Tokai University Press, Tokyo, pp. 1088–1116. [in Japanese]
Akihito, Sakamoto, K., Ikeda, Y. & Sugiyama, K. (2002) Suborder Gobioidei. In: Nakabo, T. (Ed.), Fishes of Japan with
Pictorial Keys to the Species. Tokai University Press, Tokyo, pp. 1139–1310. [English edition]
Allen, G.R. & Adrim, M. (2003) Coral reef fishes of Indonesia. Zoological Studies, 42, 1–72.
Allen, G.R. & Erdmann, M.V. (2012) Reef Fishes of the East Indies. Volumes I–III. Tropical Reef Research, Perth Australia,
1292 pp.
Bleeker, P. (1862–1877) Atlas Ichthyologique des Indes Orientales Néêrlandaises, publié sous les auspices du Gouvernement
colonial Néêrlandaises. Tomes I–IX. Amsterdam, 168 pp.
Bleeker, P. (1874) Esquisse d’un système naturel des Gobioïdes. Archives Néerlandaises de Sciences Exacte et Naturelles, 9,
289–331.
Bleeker, P. (1983) Atlas Ichthyologique des Indes Orientales Néêrlandaises. Plates originally prepared for planned tomes XI–
XIV. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C., pp. 1–22, pls. 421–575.
Bleeker, P. (Unpublished) Callogobius liolepis Blkr. in Manuscript for Vol. XI of the Atlas Ichthyologique de Indes Orientales
Néêrlandaises. In the archives of RMNH, pp. 258.
Boeseman, M. & Bleeker, P. (1983) Atlas Ichthyologique des Indes Orientales Néêrlandaises. Plates for Volumes XI–XIV.
Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C., pp. 22.
Böhlke, E.B. (1984) Catalog of type specimens in the ichthyological collection of the Academy of Natural Sciences of
Philadelphia. Special Publication, Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 14, i–viii + 1–216.
Chen, J.T.F. & M.J., Yu. (1986) A Synopsis of the Vertebrates of Taiwan. Commercial Books Co., Taipei, Taiwan. [in Chinese]
Delventhal, N.R. & Mooi. R.D. (2013) Callogobius winterbottomi, a new species of goby (Teleostei: Gobiidae) from the
Western Indian Ocean. Zootaxa, 3630, 155–164.
http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.3630.1.6

Zootaxa 3764 (5) © 2014 Magnolia Press · 579
SYNONYMY OF CALLOGOBIUS LIOLEPIS AND GOBIOPSIS APORIA
Eschmeyer, W.N. (2013) Catalog of Fishes: species, genera, references. http://research.calacademy.org/research/ichthyology/
catalog/fishcatmain.asp).Electronic version accessed 02 Aug 2013.
Fowler, H.W. (1949) The Fishes of Oceania – supplement 3. Memoirs of the Bernice P. Bishop Museum, 12, 37–186. [from
1967 authorized reprint by Johnson Reprint Corp., NewYork]
Fricke, R. & Eschmeyer, W.N. (2013) Guide to fish collections. Electronic version. Available from: http://
research.calacademy.org/research/ichthyology/catalog/collections.asp (accessed 02 Aug 2013)
Goren, M. (1979a) Callogobius bauchotae new species from Marshall Island (Gobiidae, Pisces). Cybium 3e série. Bulletin de
la Société Française d'Ichtyologie, 7, 41–44.
Goren, M. (1979b) Red Sea fishes assigned to the genus Callogobius Bleeker with a description of a new species (Teleostei:
Gobiidae). Israel Journal of Zoology, 28, 209–217.
Hoese, D.F. & Larson, H.K. (2006) Gobiidae. In: Wells, A. & Beesley, P.L. (Eds.), Zoological Catalogue of Australia. Vol. 3 5 .
Fishes. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, Australia, pp. 1612–1697.
Hutchins, J.B. (2001) Checklist of the fishes of Western Australia. Records of the Western Australian Museum Supplement, 63,
9–50.
Ibarra, M. & Stewart, D.J. (1987) Catalogue of type specimens of Recent fishes in Field Museum of Natural History. Fieldiana
Zoology (New Series), 35, 1–112.
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (1999) International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. Fourth Ed.
International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature. On-line edition. Available from: http://iczn.org/code (accessed 29
January 2014)
Jones, S. & Kumaran, M. (1968) New records of fishes from the seas around India – Part VI. Journal of the Marine Biological
Association of India, 10, 321–331. [1970]
Koumans, F.P. (1931) A Preliminary Revision of the Genera of the Gobioid Fishes with United Ventral Fins. Proefschrift
Drukkerj Imperator N. V., Lisse, 1–174.
Koumans, F.P. (1932) Notes on gobioid fishes (1–5). Zoologische Mededelingen, 15, 1–16.
Koumans, F.P. (1940) Results of a reexamination of types and specimens of gobioid fishes, with notes on the fish fauna of the
surroundings of Batavia. Zoologische Mededelingen, 22, 121–210.
Koumans, F.P. (1953a) Biological results of the Snellius Expedition, XVI: The Pisces and Leptocardii of the Snellius
Expedition. Temminckia, 9, 177–275.
Koumans, F.P. (1953b) Gobioidea. In: Weber, M. & de Beaufort, L.F. (Eds.), The Fishes of the Indo-Australian Archipelago, v.
10. E.J. Brill, Leiden, pp. 1–423.
Lachner, E.A. & McKinney, J.F. (1978) A revision of the Indo-Pacific fish genus Gobiopsis with descriptions of four new
species (Pisces: Gobiidae). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, 262, 1–52.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5479/si.00810282.262
Lachner, E.A. & McKinney, J.F. (1979) Two new gobiid fishes of the genus Gobiopsis and a redescription of Feia nympha
Smith. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, 299, 1–18.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5479/si.00810282.299
Larson, H.K. & Murdy, E.O. (2001) Families Eleotridae, Gobiidae. In: Carpenter, K.E. & Niem, V.H. (Eds.), FAO Species
Identification Guide for Fishery Purposes. The Living Marine Resources of the Western Central Pacific. Volume 6. Bony
fishes part 4 (Labridae to Latimeriidae). FAO, Rome, pp. 3574–3603.
McKinney, J.F. & Lachner, E.A. (1978) Two new species of Callogobius from Indo-Pacific waters (Teleostei: Gobiidae).
Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 91, 203–215.
Menon, A.G.K. & Chatterjee, T.K. (1974) Callogobius andamanensis, a new gobioid fish from Curlow Island, Middle
Andamans, with key to species of Callogobius of the seas of India and Malay Archipelago. Current Science, 43, 126–128.
Randall, J.E. & Lim, K.K.P. (2000) A checklist of the fishes of the South China Sea. The Raffles Bulletin of Zoology, 8, 569–
667.
Rangarajan, K. (1968) A new species of Callogobius (family Gobiidae: Pisces) from Gulf of Mannar, India. Journal of the
Marine Biological Association of India, 10, 347–353. [1970]
Sabaj Perez, M.H. (Ed.) (2013) Standard symbolic codes for institutional resource collections in herpetology and ichthyology:
an Online Reference. Version 4.0. American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists, Washington, DC. Electronically
accessible at http://www.asih.org/ (accessed 28 June 2013)
Saruwatari, T., López, J.A. & Pietsch, T.W. (1997) Cyanine blue: a versatile and harmless stain for specimen observation.
Copeia, 1997, 840–841.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1447302
Shibukawa, K. (2010) Gobiopsis namnas, a new deep-dwelling goby (Teleostei: Perciformes: Gobiidae: Gobiinae) from Japan.
Bulletin of the National Museum of Nature and Science, Series A. Supplement, 4, 97–106.
Shibukawa, K., Peristiwady, T. & Suharti, S.R. (2003) Gobiidae. In: Kimura, S. & Matsuura, K. (Eds.), Fishes of Bitung,
northern tip of Sulawesi, Indonesia. Tokyo, pp. 175–194.
Smith, J.L.B. (1958) The fishes of the family Eleotridae in the Western Indian Ocean. Ichthyological Bulletin of the J. L. B.
Smith Institute of Ichthyology, 11, 137–163.
Steindachner, F. (1861) Beiträge zur Kenntniss der Gobioiden. Sitzungsberichte der Adademie der Wissenschaften, Wien,
Mathematische-naturwissenschaftliche Klasse, 42, 283–292.
Takagi, K. (1963) Studies of the Gobioid Fishes on the Japanese Waters on the Comparative Morphology, Phylogeny,
Taxonomy, Distribution and Bionomics. Tokyo University. [in Japanese, unpublished]
Winterbottom, R. (2003) Feia ranta, a new species of gobiid fish (Acanthopterygii; Perciformes) from Vietnam. Aqua, Journal
of Ichthyology and Aquatic Biology, 7, 97–102.

DELVENTHAL & MOOI
580 · Zootaxa 3764 (5) © 2014 Magnolia Press
APPENDIX. Bleeker’s unpublished description of Callogobius liolepis with translation following (translations edited by
Ineke Loots and Martien van Oijen). Comments additional to translation appear in square brackets.
Tome XI p. 258
Callogobius liolepis Blkr. Atl. Tab. 430, Gob. Tab. 5 fig. 9.
Callog. corpore elongate antice cylindraceo postice compresso, altitudine 5 circ. in ejus longitudine absque, 6 ad 6½ in
ejus longitudine cum pinna caudali; capite acutiusculo 3½ circ. in longitudine corporis absque, 4⅓ circ. in longitudine corporis
cum pinna caudali; altitudine capitis 2 circ., latitudine capitis 1½ circ. in ejus longitudine; linea rostro-frontali declivi rostro
tantum convexa; oculis magis sursum quam lateraliter spectantibus, diametro 5 circ. in longitudine capitis , diametro 1 circ.
distantibus; regione interoculari poro conspicuo nullo; plicis et papillis capite superne lateribus et inferne pluribus, papillis
mandibularibus 2 anterioribus ceteris longioribus; rostro convexo multo latiore quam longo, oculo non breviore, apice ante
oculum sito; tubule narium anteriore posterior longiore; maxilla superiore maxilla inferiore paulo breviore sub oculi parte
posteriore desinente; rictu valde oblique; dentibus maxillis acutis serie externa ceteris longioribus et paucioribus; lingua obtuse
rotundata; apertura branchiali paulo infra basin pinnae pectoralis desinente; capite vertice tantum squamato, rostro genisque
rugoso; sulco oculo-suprascapulari poro conspicuo nullo; squamis toto corpore cycloideis, serie longitudinali 20 circ. frontem
et dorsalem anteriorem, 45 circ. angulum aperturae branchialis superiorem inter et basin pinnae caudalis, serie transversa 15
circ. initium pinnae analis inter et dorsalem radiosam; squamis trunco postrorsum magnitudine parum accrescentibus;
appendice anali oblonga obtuse; pinnis dorsalibus distantibus, magnitudine parum accrescentibus; appendice anali oblonga
obtuse; pinnis dorsalibus distantibus, spinosa obtusiuscula corpore humiliore spinis mediis ceteris longioribus; dorsali radiosa
dorsali spinosa vix altiore postice quam antice altiore acute vel acutiuscula; pectoralibus non filosis subaequali sed ea breviore;
caudali lanceolata acutiuscula capite non longiore; colore corpore superne viridi-roseo inferne dilutiore; iride viridi margine
pupillari aurea; capite corporeque fusco nebulato-variegatis, fusco lateribus fascias latas transversas efficiente; pinnis roseis vel
aurantiacis dorsalibus vittis vel fasciis 2 vel 3 longitudinale [?] transversis; pectoralibus basi superne macula fusca; caudali basi
macula fusca majore, radiis maculis parvis fuscentibus in vittulas 5 vel 6 transversas dispositis.
B. 5. D. 6-1/8 vel 6-1/9. P. 21. V. 1/5-5/1. A. 1/8 vel 1/9. C. 5/14/5 circ.
Hab. Amboina, in mari.
Longitudo 2 speciminum 58’’’ et 60’’’.
Elongate body, cylindrical anteriorly, compressed posteriorly, depth about 5 times in length without, 6 to 6½ in length with
caudal fin; head somewhat acute, about 3½ in body length without, about 4⅓ with caudal fin; head depth about 2, head width
about 1½ in its length, rostro-frontal profile sloping, only on the snout convex, eyes looking upwards more than laterally,
diameter about 5 in head length, about 1 diameter apart; no visible pores in interocular region, many folds and papillae on the
lateral and lower sides of the head, the two anterior mandibular papillae longer than the rest [presumably what are now termed
chin barbels]; snout convex, much wider than long, not shorter than eye, tip located in front of the eye; anterior nasal tube
longer than posterior one; upper jaw a little shorter than lower jaw, ending under the posterior part of the eye; gape very
oblique; jaws with sharp teeth, teeth in outer series longer and fewer than the others; tongue bluntly rounded; branchial opening
ends a little below the base of the pectoral fin; only top of head scaled, snout and cheeks wrinkled; no pores visible in oculo-
suprascapular groove; all body scales cycloid, about 20 scales in longitudinal series between the forehead and anterior dorsal
fin, about 45 scales between the superior angle of the branchial opening and the base of the caudal fin, about 15 scales in
transverse series from anal fin origin to rayed dorsal fin; trunk scales slightly increasing in size towards the posterior part, anal
appendage [urogenital papilla] oblong, blunt; dorsal fins separate [literally: dorsal fins apart], spiny fin somewhat blunt, lower
than the body, middle spines longer than the others, rayed dorsal fin hardly higher than spiny dorsal fin, posterior part higher
than anterior part, acute or somewhat acute, ventral fin a little shorter than pectoral fins, in the middle united for almost the
whole length; anal fin nearly equal in shape and height to second dorsal fin [litt. rayed dorsal fin], but shorter; caudal fin
lanceolate, somewhat acute, no longer than the head; body color green-pink dorsally, of a fainter color ventrally; iris green,
margin of the pupil golden, head and body variegated with dark in a cloud-like pattern, on the flanks the dark color forms wide
irregular transverse bands, fins pink or orange, dorsal fins with 2 or 3 longitudinal transverse dark stripes or bands; dark spot on
the upper base of the pectoral fins, caudal base with a larger dark spot, rays with small darkish spots arranged in 5 or 6
transverse stripes.
B. 5, D. 6-1/8 or 1/9, P. 21, V. 1/5.5/1, A. 1/8 or 1/9, C. 5/14/5 approximately.
Hab. Amboina, in sea.
Length of 2 specimens 58 and 60 mm. [TL]
Rem. Cette espèce est fort distincte de l’Hasseltii par la nature cycloïdes de toutes les écailles, par l’absence d’écailles sur les
joues et les opercules, par la caudale pas plus longe que la tête, par la tête plus grande et plus large et à sillons et papilles
beaucoup plus développés, etc.
Les deux espèces ne sont connues jusqu’ici que de l’Insulinde.
Remarks. This species is very distinct from Hasseltii by having all scales cycloid, by the absence of scales on the cheeks and
opercles, by the caudal being not as long as the head, by having the head much larger and wider, and by much more developed
grooves and papillae etc.
The two species till now are only known from the East Indies.