Glossogobius brunneus (TEMMINCK & SCHLEGEL) or Glossogobius giuris brunneus -have for a long time been used in Japan as the scientific names of a gobiid fishcalled "urohaze" in Japanese. But TAKAGI (1962) compared the ventral fins of thetype of Gobius brunneus with Japanese specimens and identified Gobius brunneusas "yoshinobori", another goby, rather than "urohaze". He decided on Rhinogobius.brunneus as the scientific name of "yoshinobori", for which Rhinogobius similis-(GILL) had previously been used. Thus it became necessary to find another scientific:name for "urohaze". TOMIYAMA (1936) listed four names as synonyms of Glossogobius giuris brunneus:Gobius brunneus TEMMINCK & SCHLEGEL, 1845, Gobius olivaceusTEMMINCK & SCHLEGEL, 1845, Gobius fasciato-punctatus RICHARDSON, 1845, and Gobiusgiurus (nec HAMILTON) RUTTER, 1897. As Gobius olivaceus and Gobius fasciatopunctatuswere published in the same year according to him, it is important, following the law of priority, to know which was published earlier in date. On the otherhand KOUMANS (1935) synonimized Gobius brunneus, Gobius olivaceus and Gobiusfasciato-punctatus to Glossogobius giuris (HAMILTON).
The results of my comparison between "urohaze" and Glossogobius giuris showedthat they were different in some respects, especially in the presence or absence ofblack specks scattered on the occiput and the dorsal part of the body (figs . 2 and_3), already pointed out by TOMIYAMA (1936) and others . Differences were also apparent in the pit organs (figs. 4-9), the gill rakers (figs . 10, 11, 13 and 14, and table6), the premaxillary (figs. 12 and 15, and table 7), the cranium (figs. 16-21 andtable 8). As BLEEKER (1869) 1) and others pointed out, differences of body shape arenoticeable, too (figs. 2 and 3, and table 5). Besides these differences, since it is, known that these two species were both collected in the same region:Tainan, _Taiwan (TOMIYAMA, 1936), Tungkang, Taiwan (LIANG, 1951), and Hainan (HARADA, .1943), it is reasonable to regard their differences as specific differences .
The affinity of the original descriptions of Gobius olivaceus from Japa n andGobius fasciato-punctatus from Canton to "urohaze" is remarkable . Gobius fasciatopunctatus clearly reveals the characteristics of "urohaze" . In the illustrations in.Richardson's Ichthyology the characteristic black specks arevery obvious. Gobiusolivaceus was only described and illustrated from a plate from Burger's collection in_Japan. Although the plate in the Fauna Japonica shows well the general characteristics of "urohaze", Burger's original plate shows a closer affinity with the characteristic black specks noticeable on the occiput and the dorsal part of the body (fig, 22 and table 9).
As for the priority of Gobius olivaceus and Gobius fasciato -punctatus, I was ableto find out that the former has priority over the latter . The reason is as follows Richardson's Ichthyology in the library of the Zoological Institute of the Universityof Tokyo is composed of three parts. The last part, which contains Gobius fasciatopunctatus, has the date October, 1845, on the cover as shown in fig. 23. Thus thedate of publication should be regarded as the 31st of October according to theInternational Code of Zoological Nomenclature. Gobius olivaceus is on page 143 inPisces of VON SIEBOLD'S Fauna Japonica, which was published in 16 instalments.There have been some papers treating the dates of publication of the instalments(table 10).
View full abstract