1979/11/28 by R. M. McDowall
Agricultural and Biological Sciences · Environmental Science · #Fish Biology and Ecology Studies #Ichthyology and Marine Biology #Fish Ecology and Management Studies
paper · doi:10.2307/1443883
was described by Whitley (1943) for a juvenile centrolophid captured off the coast of Tasmania. No additional specimens of Tubbia are reported in the literature. Haedrich (1967) suggested that Tubbia tasmanica Whitley, 1943, is a junior synonym of Schedophilus huttoni (Waite) from New Zealand, indicating thereby his view that Tubbia is a synonym of Schedophilus Cocco. Later, however, Haedrich and Horn (1972), although not including Tubbia in a key to centrolophid genera, included it in a key to the species of Icichthys Jordan and Gilbert, and concluded, from examination of the type of T. tasmanica, that Tubbia is probably not a synonym of Schedophilus. That T. tasmanica is not a junior synonym of S. huttoni is evident from their disparate vertebral counts (43-44 in T. tasmanica compared with 30 in S. huttoni). However, doubt about the identity and status of Tubbia has persisted due to the known existence of only the holotype, a small juvenile 72.5 mm SL. Further specimens of Tubbia (57, 116, 371 mm SL) have been collected recently from the New Z aland region, the largest being an adult female with well-developed gonads. A centrolophid described by Smith (1934) as Schedophilus medusophagus Cocco has 44 vertebrae, but S. medusophagus has only 25 vertebrae (Haedrich, 1967). The vertebral count of Smith's specimen suggested that it might be a Tubbia, and examination has shown that it is. These specimens enable a reassessment of the genus and preparation of a proper description of the genus and species.