Cypselurus oligolepis (Bleeker, 1865)

Shakhovskoy, Ilia B. & Parin, Nikolay V., 2022, A review of the flying fish genus Cypselurus (Beloniformes: Exocoetidae). Part 2. Revision of the subgenus Poecilocypselurus Bruun, 1935 with descriptions of three new species and five new subspecies and reinstatement of Exocoetus apus Valenciennes and E. neglectus Bleeker, Zootaxa 5117 (1), pp. 1-109 : 37-38

Cypselurus oligolepis subsp.

We were not able to assign a specimen of C. oligolepis (IORAS 03993, Red Sea?, collector—N.P. Kornilov) to any subspecies with certainty. The characters of this specimen ( Fig. 14 ) are given below.

Length 131 mm SL (mature female), D 12, A 8, P I 15, Spred 25, Str 10, Sp.br 24 (5+19), Vert 39 (24 + 15). Measurements (in % SL): aA 79.2, aD 71.9, aV 58.1, cV 31.9, pV 37.7, c 25.9, po 12.1, o 7.8, ao 5.0, io 10.2, Hc 20.0, H 21.9, h 7.6, Dc 27.0, lP 60.9, lP 1 37.4, lV 30.0, lD 18.3, lA 9.2, HD 11.3, HA 7.0(?), p 16.1. Lower jaw shorter than upper jaw. Jaw teeth very small, mainly tricuspid and with additional cusps; arranged in 3 rows. Palatine teeth numerous. Pectoral fins brown to 8 th ray (to the membrane between 6 th –7 th rays proximally), with large pale tip and very narrow posterior edging. Tip of pectoral fin reaching penultimate dorsal-fin ray. Pelvic fins pale. Tip of pelvic fin reaching penultimate anal-fin ray. Dorsal fin gray (with faint pale brownish tinge anteriorly). Tip of last dorsal-fin ray protruding beyond middle of caudal peduncle but not reaching origin of caudal-fin upper lobe. Penultimate dorsal-fin rays not elongated. Anal fin pale. First anal-fin ray beneath 6 th dorsal-fin ray. The second ray of dorsal and anal fin longest. Caudal fin pale brown with dark dots along posterior margin. Few dark specks on gill covers and under eyes.

This specimen is similar to C. o. georgii in the high value of index po / o (1.55), but differs from it in higher number of transverse scales (Str), more posterior pelvic fins and deeper body and head. Because the place of capture is doubtful, as stated on the label, it must not be ruled out that this specimen might not have been captured in the Red Sea, but in some neighboring area of the Indian Ocean, and this might explain why this specimen differs from other specimens from Red Sea. This specimen belongs to C. oligolepis without doubt, but subspecific identity is unclear and further study is required.

Figures

FIGURE 14. Cypselurus oligolepis subsp. (131 mm SL, IORAS 03993, Red Sea?).