The Status of Pseudolabrus psittaculus (Richardson, 1840), with Notes on other Species of the Genus

Transactions of the Royal Society of New Zealand : Zoology, Volume 10, Issue 16, 17 May 1968, Page 151

The Status of Pseudolabrus psittaculus (Richardson, 1840), with Notes on other Species of the Genus

J. H. Choat

By

[Received by the Editor, August 17, 1967.]

Abstract

The status of four nominal species included in the genus Pseudolabrus Bleeker 1861 is discussed. Pseudolabrus psittaculus (Richardson, 1840) is removed from the synonymy of Pseudolabrus miles (Bloch and Schneider, 1801) and reinstated as a valid species. Pseudolabrus pittensis Waite, 1910 is synonymised with Pseudolabrus fucicola (Richardson, 1840). A re-examination of the distribution of Pseudolabrus celidotus (Bloch and Schneider, 1801) is made to determine whether this species should be included in the Australian fauna.

The coastal waters of southern Australia, Tasmania, and New Zealand all contain fish of the genus Pseudolabrus, which constitute a characteristic element of the shallow water faunas of these regions. Although the majority of species have a southern temperate distribution there are at least four representatives in Japanese and Korean waters. The main characteristics of the genus have been described elsewhere (Choat, 1965: 451). This paper deals with the status and relationships of five nominal species of Pseudolabrus from Australia, Tasmania and New Zealand, and re-examines some of their distributional records. The species concerned are P. miles, P. psittaculus, P. fucicola, P. pittensis and P. celidotus, all of which, except P. pittensis, have been recorded from both Australian and New Zealand waters.

The Status of Pseudolabrus psittaculus (Richardson,, 1840)

P. psittaculus has had a confused taxonomic history and is presently included in the synonymy of P. miles. However, an examination of both species has shown that they are distinct in a number of characters.

The distribution of P. psittaculus is Tasmania (type locality Port Arthur), Bass Strait, the coasts of South Australia, Victoria, and New South Wales. Records of this species from New Zealand in Hutton (1872: 43), (1873: 165) and Thomson (1892: 209) refer to P. miles which, with the exception of one doubtful record from Japan, is. confined to New Zealand. Both P. miles and P. psittaculus differ from most other members of the genus in the possession of a number of unusual characters, which probably explains their present synonymy. These are:

(3) Lack of emargination of the membrane between the radials of the dorsal and anal fin

(4) A striking body colouration of hyacinth red.

Both species were regarded as being distinct up till 1913 when they were synonyraised by McCulloch (1913: 372) in a review of the Australian species of Pseudolabrus. However, after a direct comparison of miles and psittaculus, McCulloch (1921: 136-137) reinstated the latter as a valid species, writing, “This species is quite distinct from P. miles with which it has been confused Notwithstanding this, McCulloch (1929: 309) placed psittaculus once more in the synonymy of miles where it has remained till the present day. Previous to this, Rendahl (1926: 3) had also synonymised these species, although he incorrectly placed them in the genus Lahrichthys.

Nine specimens of P. psittaculus collected from the coasts of Tasmania and South Australia, and ranging from 101 to 191 mm S.L. were compared with a series of 13 P. miles ranging from 110 to 204 mm S.L, from New Zealand. Both species were similar in dorsal, anal, pectoral fin and lateral line counts, but differed in body and cheek scalation.

Differences in proportion were also noted. The snout of P. miles was usually in the order of 2.7 to 2.9 when expressed as a ratio of the head length, as opposed to 3.1 to 3.5 in P. psittaculus. No great reliance can be placed on these figures, however, as the proportions are a function of size, and most of the specimens of P. psittaculus were distorted due to prolonged preservation. The differences in colour pattern can be seen in Figures 1 and 2. Both have a general colouration of light red, becoming paler ventrally, with the red pigment in longitudinal rows on the body. A series of yellow ocelli occur on the membranes of the vertical fins. The main differences lie in the position of the dark markings associated with the caudal peduncle and fin. It also appears that the ocelli and the dark margins of the vertical and caudal fins are more pronounced in P. miles. These colour characteristics remained constant over the full size range of the specimens examined. In view of the differences in scalation and colour pattern, P. psittaculus is removed from the synonymy of P. miles and re-instated as a distinct species.

The identification of a pseudolabrid from Japanese waters as P. miles must be regarded as doubtful. The only published description (Kamohara, 1958: 7) is very brief but gives the following data: D.IX/11, A.lll/10, L.1at.27, 2 scales above the lateral line, scales on cheeks minute, in 6or 7 rows. It differs from specimens of P. miles in having 27 lateral line scales as opposed to 26, and in having only two scales above the lateral line (see Table I). A figure in Kamohara (1958: pi. 11, Fig. 3) of a specimen 90mm S.L. shows that the characteristic black bar at the base of the caudal fin is lacking. Until such time as Japanese and New Zealand material can be compared, no definite statement can be made concerning the identity of this species.

The Status of Pseudolabrus fucicola (Richardson, 1840) and Pseudolabrus pittensis Waite, 1910

P. fucicola is characterised by having four series of cheek scales, 13 pectoral rays, the basal areas of the dorsal and anal fins devoid of scaly sheaths, and the posterior margin of the caudal fin rounded. The main features of the colour pattern are as follows. Body purplish becoming buff ventrally, the dorsal region with four pale blotches, a black bar at the base of the pectoral fin. It has been recorded from Tasmania (type locality Port Arthur), Flinders Island, and New Zealand (Wellington Harbour). This species was included in Waite’s account (1923: 151) of the fishes of South Australia, but was later omitted, due to lack of confirmation, from a descriptive catalogue by Scott (1962). The sole New Zealand

record is due to Hutton (1873: 265) who collected a specimen from Wellington Harbour. Hutton provided the following colour notes for this specimen. “ Darkish purple, passing to light on the belly, a yellowish band from the mouth below the eye; four or five irregular yellow spots on the back under the dorsal and the sides slightly varied with the same colour, humeral region yellowish; lips and pectorals reddish, ventrals black except the bases which are grey.”

Further records of this species from New Zealand in Gill (1893: 116), Waite (1907: 22), (1911: 224) and Phillips (1927: 41) appear to be simply a relisting of Hutton’s record. The type appears to be lost and the species is mentioned only as a footnote by Gunther (1862; 112) in the Catalogue of Fishes in the British Museum.

Waite (1910: 26) obtained a pseudolabrid measuring 271 mm T.L. from the Chatham Islands, New Zealand. This specimen was characterised by four series of cheek scales, 13 pectoral rays, no sheath of scales at the base of the dorsal and anal fins, and a rounded caudal fin. The main feature of the colour pattern was six dark transverse bands on the body, and on the basis of these was described as a new species, Pseudolabrus pittensis, the banded parrot fish.

Numerous specimens of P. pittensis were observed and collected in the Wellington area during 1960 and 1961. Considerable variation was noted in the colour pattern. Most adult specimens observed were dark slaty grey on the dorsum, becoming paler ventrally, with six dark transverse bars on the body (see Figure 3). In juvenile specimens the body scales were greenish brown giving the body a mottled appearance, against which the transverse bands were often indistinct (see Figure 4). The dark transverse bands were also indistinct in a number of adult specimens and in such cases the areas on the dorsum between the bands appeared as a series of pale blotches. This pattern was also characteristic of most preserved specimens examined.

It is significant that all the colour notes of P. fucicola, whose main characteristic is a series of pale blotches on the dorsum, appear to have been compiled from preserved material. As the separation of P. fucicola from P. pittensis is based on colour pattern alone (Waite, 1911; 224), there is the possibility that these specimens are synonymous.

A specimen of P. fucicola, 224 mm S.L. (Australian Museum Reg. No. I 14179) from Port Arthur, Tasmania, was compared with a series of P. pittensis ranging from 192 to 243 mm S.L. from the Wellington area. The two species agreed in all structural characteristics. Although the specimen of P. fucicola was faded due to long preservation, the pale blotches on the dorsum were still discernible, their positions being as follows; first beneath the fourth and fifth dorsal spines, second beneath the ninth dorsal spine, third beneath the fourth dorsal ray, and fourth beneath the seventh dorsal ray. It will be noted with reference to Figure 3 that these pale dorsal patches correspond very closely with the inter-band areas on the dorsum of fresh specimens of P. pittensis. It is concluded that the differences in colour pattern used to distinguish P. fucicola and P. pittensis are merely the result of different conditions of preservation; the species are thus synonymised, the name fucicola having priority.

The Occurrence of Pseudolabrus celidotus (Bloch and Schneider, 1801) in Australian Waters

The “ Spotty ”, Pseudolabrus celidotus, is an abundant fish in New Zealand waters and is also included in the Australian fish fauna by McCulloch (1913; 375), (1927: 70), (1929; 309). However, in spite of these and other Australian records the author was unable to locate any specimens of P. celidotus in the Queensland, Australian, Victorian, South Australian or Tasmanian Museums. Two specimens in the Tasmanian Museum, 161 and 191 mm S.L. and identified as P. celidotus, were found to be P. tetricus. A specimen in the Australian Museum collected at Deewhy, N.S.W., and labelled P. celidotus? ” was found to be P. psittaculus. Moreover, an examination of the literature showed that there are but three works dealing with specimens of P. celidotus from Australian waters first hand.

Richardson (1848: 53) describes in some detail both Labrus celidotus and Labrus bothryocosmus (a synonym of P. celidotus) and records the former as occurring in “ Seas of New Zealand and Australia; Southern Island of New Zealand (Forster) ; Woosung, North of China (Sir Everard Home) ;” and the latter from “ the coasts of South Australia and Van Diemen’s Land ”. No indication is given as to whether the material used in his description of Labrus celidotus was from New Zealand or Australian waters. However, the descriptions and plates of both his species show that he was certainly dealing with P. celidotus.

Gunther (1862: 113-114) describes both celidotus and bothryocosmus under the generic heading of Labrichthys, and gives their distributions as New Zealand and Australia, and the coasts of South Australia and Tasmania respectively. With his

description of Labrichthys celidotus he lists the following material in the collections of the British Museum as being Australian in origin.

One specimen from Australia collected by Richardson,

One specimen from Port Essington presented by the College of Surgeons.

Four specimens from Botany Bay presented by the College of Surgeons.

Under the heading Labrichthys bothryocosmus he lists two of Richardson’s specimens, apparently syntypes, from “Tasmania and South Australia”.

Bleeker (1863; 444) gives very brief colour notes on two labrids from Port Jackson, 138 and 197 mm T.L., identified as Pseudolabrus celidotus. Although Johnstone (1882: 123) notes that Labrichthys bothryocosmus is common in Tasmanian waters he gives no details of individual specimens. The numerous later recordings of P. celidotus from Australian waters all appear to be reiterations of either Richardson’s or Gunther’s work. Waite (1923: 152) includes it in the South Australian fish fauna although it is omitted in a later catalogue, Scott (1962), and although McCulloch (1927: 71) lists P. celidotus from N.S.W. he observes that proof of its existence is required.

As the only specimens in existence which can be attributed to the Australian region are those listed by Gunther, the author obtained data and loan material to verify these identifications. Dr P. H. Greenwood kindly provided data on the syntypes of Labrus bothryocosmus Richardson, 1848 which demonstrates that this material is conspecific with P. celidotus. He also arranged loan of two specimens identified as Labrichthys celidotus from Port Essington and Botany Bay (see above) ; both proved to be P. celidotus. The Port Essington, Northern Territory, record is puzzling as the genus Pseudolabrus has a largely temperate distribution although P. guntheri does extend as far north as latitude 23° 26' S. No pseudolabrids have since been collected or recorded from the latitude of Port Essington nor from more tropical regions despite some recent large-scale collecting expeditions. McCulloch (1913: 376) makes particular mention of this record writing “The specimen referred to by Gunther from Port Essington, Northern Australia, is doubtless some other species ”. The fact that it is P. celidotus suggests strongly that there has been some error in labelling. Doubts must also be cast on the locality data of the Botany Bay specimen, which was also presented by the Royal College of Surgeons.

The fish previously identified as P. bothryocosmus is merely a sexual phase of P. celidotus, although the two have very distinctive colour patterns (Choat, 1965). Therefore the record of Johnstone (1881: 123) which lists bothryocosmus as common but fails to mention celidotus must be regarded with suspicion. Other than the very doubtful record of Bleeker, which fails to give any diagnostic data, the collections of Richardson represent the only concrete proof of the species occurrence in Australia. The fact that no further specimens have come to light since Richardson’s collections suggests that the records may be due to a confusion of locality labels. This material was collected during the voyage of the Erebus and Terror which visited both Australia and New Zealand waters, and some confusion of localities could conceivably have occurred. Until further Australian records of this species come to light, it should be considered as being confined to the New Zealand region.

Acknowledgments

The author wishes to thank, firstly, Dr L. R. Richardson who provided the initial stimulus and guidance for this work. Thanks are also due to the following museum workers who made available the data and specimens necessary for this

study: The late Mr G. Mack, Queensland Museum; Dr F. H. Talbot, the Australian Museum; Miss J. Dixon, National Museum of Victoria; Mr T. D. Scott, the South Australian Museum; and Mr A. Andrews, the Tasmanian Museum. The author is especially grateful to Dr P. H. Greenwood, of the British Museum, who provided data and loan material of early records of P. celidotus.

Literature Cited

Sleeker, P., 1863. Notes on fishes from New Holland. Verst. Med. K. Akad. Wett., 15: 443-451.

Choat, J. H., 1965. Sexual dimorphism in the labrid fish Pseudolabrus celidotus (Bloch and Schneider) 1801. Pacif. Sci., 19(4): 451-457.

Gill, T., 1893. A comparison of antipodal faunas. Mem. Nat. Acad. Sci. Wash., 6: 98-117.

Gunther, A., 1862. Catalogue of the Fishes in the British Museum. 4: 534 pp. London.

Hutton, F. W., 1872. Catalogue of the Fishes of New Zealand. 133 pp., 12 plates, Wellington.

Johnstone, R. M., 1882. Classified catalogue of Tasmanian fishes. Proc. R. Soc. Tas., 109-144.

Kamohara, H., 1958. A review of the labrid fishes found in the waters of the Kochi Prefecture. Repts. Usa Mar. Biol. Stat., 5(2): 1-20. 8 plates.

McCulloch, A. R., 1913. Studies on Australian fishes, No. 3. Rec. Aust. Mus., 9: 355-389. 8 plates. Royal Zoological Society of N.S.W. Mem., 5: 534 pp.

Phillips, W. J., 1927. A bibiography of New Zealand fishes. N.Z. Marine Dept. Fisheries Bull. No. 1: 68 pp.

Rendahl, H., 1926. Fishes of New Zealand and the Auckland-Campbell Islands. Vidd. Med., 81: 1-7.

Richardson, J., 1848. Ichthyology of the Vovage of the H.M.S. Erebus and Terror, 139 pp., 60 plates. Newman. London.

Scott, T. D., 1962. The Marine and Fresh Water Fishes of South Australia. 338 pp. Government Printer, Adelaide.

Thomson, G. M., 1892. Notes on sea fishes. Trans. Proc. N.Z. Inst., 24: 202-215.

Waite, E. R., 1907. A basic list of New Zealand fishes. Rec. Cant. Mus., 1: 48 pp. Pt. 2. Rec. Cant. Mus., 1(3): 157-272. 34 plates.

J. H. Choat, Zoology Department, University of Queensland, Brisbane.

(1) A strongly lunate caudal fin in the adult

(2) Acute form of the snout which fails to become obtuse with age

Species Number of scale series on cheek Transverse scale series on body Above lateral line Below lateral line P. miles Total Specimens: 13 5 6 7 3 4 9 10 1 10 2 1 ' 12 1 12 P. psittaculus Total Specimens: 9 3 4 5 3 4 8 9 1,7 1 7 2 9 0

Table I Differences in Scalation of P. miles and P. psittaculus