Redescription of Polydactylus sexfilis (Valenciennes inCuvier and Valenciennes, 1831), a senior synonym of
P. kuru (Bleeker, 1853) with designation of a lectotype(Perciformes: Polynemidae)
Hiroyuki Motomura1*, Yukio Iwatsuki2, and Seishi Kimura3
1

Miyazaki University, the United Graduate School of Agricultural Sciences, Kagoshima University, 1-1 Gakuen-kibanadai-nishi,
Miyazaki 889-2192, Japan (e-mail: a02113u@cc.miyazaki-u.ac.jp)
2
Division of Fisheries Sciences, Faculty of Agriculture, Miyazaki University, 1-1 Gakuen-kibanadai-nishi, Miyazaki 889-2192,
Japan (e-mail: yuk@cc.miyazaki-u.ac.jp)
3
Fisheries Research Laboratory, Mie University, P.O. Box 11, Wagu, Shima, Mie 517-0703, Japan(e-mail: kimura-s@bio.mie-u.ac.jp)
Received: July 7, 2000 / Revised: August 29, 2000 / Accepted: September 30, 2000

IchthyologicalResearch©The Ichthyological Society of Japan 2001

Ichthyol Res (2001) 48: 83–89

Abstract Polydactylus kuru (Bleeker, 1853), originally described from Jakarta, Java, Indonesia, has been regarded as a valid species. However, examination of two syntypes of
Polynemus kuru revealed their close similarity to three syntypes of Polynemus sexfilis
Valenciennes in Cuvier and Valenciennes, 1831, in the synonym of which the former isherein included. Polydactylus sexfilis, which is widely distributed in the Indo-Pacific region,is redescribed on the basis of a newly-designated lectotype and two paralectotypes, and awide range of non-type material. The species is characterized by six pectoral filaments, 15 or
16 pectoral fin rays, 61–67 pored lateral line scales, 8–10 scales above the lateral line, 12–14
below, 11–14 and 15–18 upper and lower series gill rakers, respectively (27–31 total), teeth
present on vomer and a long second dorsal fin ray (mean 26% [range 21–30%] of standard
length).
Key words Polynemidae · Redescription · Polydactylus sexfilis · Polydactylus kuru ·SynonymyThe threadfin, Polydactylus sexfilis (Valenciennes
in Cuvier and Valenciennes, 1831), a widelydistributed Indo-Pacific species originally describedfrom Mauritius, has usually been regarded as a valid
species (e.g., Sauvage, 1891; Munro, 1955; Jones andKumaran, 1980). Although Polydactylus kuru (Bleeker,1853), originally described from Jakarta, Java, Indonesia,
has also been regarded as a valid species (e.g., Kendall
and Goldsborough, 1911; Weber and de Beaufort, 1922;
Mishra and Krishnan, 1993), type materials of the twohave never been directly compared. Examination of two
syntypes of Polynemus (5Polydactylus) kuru showed
them to correspond closely with three syntypes of
Polynemus (5Polydactylus) sexfilis. Accordingly, Polydactylus kuru is herein regarded as a junior synonym of
the latter.
Polydactylus sexfilis is redescribed herein on the basisof a wide range of material, including a newly-designatedlectotype and two paralectotypes, because the taxonomic
characters of the species have been somewhat equivocal to date. In addition, Polydactylus sexfilis is compared with the following related Indo-Pacific polynemid

species: Polydactylus nigripinnis Munro, Polydactylus
plebeius (Broussonet) and Polydactylus sextarius (Blochand Schneider).

Methods
Counts and measurements generally follow Hubbs andLagler (1958) and Feltes (1991), with some modifications
following Motomura et al. (2000). Standard length andtotal length are expressed as SL and TL, respectively.
Terminology of the supraneural bones follows Mabee(1988), and the formula for configuration of the supraneural bones, anterior neural spines and anterior
dorsal fin pterygiophores, Ahlstrom et al. (1976). The
configuration of the supraneural bone and vertebral
counts were confirmed from X-ray photos taken of all
specimens. Institutional codes follow Leviton et al.
(1985), with additional institutional abbreviations as follows: Center for Research and Development of Oceanology, Indonesian Institute of Science, Ambon, Indonesia(CRDOA); Division of Fisheries Sciences, Miyazaki Uni-

84

H. Motomura, et al.

Fig. 1. Lectotype (A) of Polynemus (5Polydactylus) sexfilis (MNHN 9731, 265 mm SL) and one of two syntypes (B) of Polynemus
kuru (RMNH 6006, 198 mm SL)

versity, Japan (MUFS); Phuket Marine Biological Center, Thailand (PMBC); Shanghai Fisheries University,
China (SFU).

Polydactylus sexfilis (Valenciennes inCuvier and Valenciennes, 1831)(English name: golden sixthread tasselfish)(Japanese name: Nan’you-agonashi)(Fig. 1A, B)
Polynemus sexfilis Valenciennes in Cuvier and Valenciennes,
1831: 515 (type locality: Mauritius); Günther, 1860: 325(Mauritius); Sauvage, 1891: 312 (Madagascar); Munro, 1955:
97 (Sri Lanka); Kagwade, 1970: 50 (India); Jones andKumaran, 1980: 200 (Laccadive Archipelago, India).
Polynemus kuru Bleeker, 1853: 600 (type locality: Jakarta, Java,
Indonesia); Günther, 1860: 325 (Ternate, Halmahera, Indonesia); Weber, 1913: 141 (Ambon, Indonesia); Weber and deBeaufort, 1922: 209 (Ambon, Indonesia).

Trichidion kuru; Bleeker, 1863: 156 (Sidangoli, Halmahera,Indonesia); Bleeker, 1983: 22, pl. 453, fig. 1 (locality notprovided, originally Polynemat pl. 1, unpublished plate by P.
Bleeker).
Polydactylus sexfilis; Fowler, 1935: 282 (Shanghai and Hong
Kong, China); Munro, 1967: 192 (New Guinea); Talwar andJhingran, 1992: 909 (India, name only in Key); Senou, 1995:
847, 1339 (Iriomote Island, Ryukyu Islands, Japan).
Polydactylus kuru; Talwar and Kacker, 1984: 750 (India);
Kendall and Goldsborough, 1911: 263 (Nukuhiva, Marquesas Islands); Mishra and Krishnan, 1993: 285 (locality notprovided, but probably India).
Polydactylus sextarius (not of Bloch and Schneider); Fricke,
1999: 306 (Mascarene Islands).
Lectotype. MNHN 9731, 265 mm SL, Mauritius, collected
by J.-F. Desjardins.
Paralectotypes. MNHN A. 3027, 9728, 2 specimens, 92–
96 mm SL, Mauritius, collected by J. R. C. Quoy and J. P.
Gaimard.
Other materials (n 5 35, 36–217 mm SL). ANSP 77717 (2specimens), 137–163 mm SL, Honolulu, Oahu Island, Hawaiian

Redescription of Polydactylus sexfilis
Islands; ANSP 87002 (2), 110–116 mm SL, Laysan Island,
Hawaiian Islands; ANSP 89923 (4), 130–154 mm SL, Laysan
Island, Hawaiian Islands; ANSP 95564, 168 mm SL, Guam;
ANSP 101489, 90 mm SL, Marquesas Islands, Polynesia; ANSP
104561, 196 mm SL, Honolulu, Oahu Island, Hawaiian Islands;
ANSP 107349, 54 mm SL, North West Bay, Mahé Island,
Seychelles Islands; ANSP 145362 (3), 88–101 mm SL, West Island, Cocos-Keeling Islands, Australia; ANSP 145363, 100 mm
SL, West Island, Cocos-Keeling Islands, Australia; BMNH
1874.11.9:12, 210 mm SL, Palau; FRLM 16635, 104 mm SL,
Lombok Island, Indonesia; FMNH 91312 (2), 73–76 mm SL,
Dunidu Island, Maldives; FSKU-P 21009, 138 mm SL, Okinawa
Island, Ryukyu Islands, Japan; MNHN A. 3023, 154 mm SL,
Pondicherry, India; MNHN 1967-561, 92 mm SL, Marquesas
Islands, Polynesia; NSMT-P 2288, 63 mm SL, Misaki, Kanagawa,Japan; QM I. 12370, 126 mm SL, Dobo, Aru Islands, Indonesia;
RMNH 6006 (2 syntypes of Polynemus kuru Bleeker), 87–
198 mm SL, Jakarta, Java, Indonesia; RMNH 33884 (3), 203–
217 mm SL, Jakarta, Java, Indonesia; URM-P 32074, 36 mm SL,
Nakagusuku fish market, Okinawa Island, Ryukyu Islands, Japan; URM-P 36431–36433 (3), 62–72 mm SL, Amitori Bay,
Iriomote Island, Ryukyu Islands, Japan; ZMH 1001, 101 mm SL,
Kaneohe Bay, Oahu Island, Hawaiian Islands.

Diagnosis. A species of Polydactylus with the following combination of characters: six pectoral filaments, notreaching to origin of anal fin; 15 or 16 pectoral fin rays;
61–67 pored lateral line scales; 8–10 scales above lateralline, 12–14 below; 11–14 upper series gill rakers, 15–18
lower, 27–31 total; teeth present on vomer; second dorsal
fin ray long (mean 26% [range 21–30%] of SL).
Description. Counts and proportional measurements
as percentages of SL of the lectotype, paralectotypes andother material of Polydactylus sexfilis are given in Table 1.
Characters given in the diagnosis are not repeated. Datafor the lectotype are presented first, followed by otherspecimen data (if different) in parentheses.
Body oblong, compressed; maxilla covered with scales;
orbit diameter greater than snout length; lower lip welldeveloped; posterior margin of maxilla reaching levelof posterior margin of adipose eyelid; depth of posterior
portion of maxilla shorter than dermal eye opening;teeth villiform in broad bands on vomer, palatines andectopterygoids; all pectoral fin rays unbranched; sixth
pectoral filament longest, extending slightly beyond (extending slightly beyond or reaching to) level of posterior
tip of upper part of pectoral fin; thickness of base of
all first dorsal fin spines similar; second dorsal fin baselength equal to (approximately equal to) anal fin baselength; distance between pelvic and anal fin origins lessthan (approximately equal to) head length; lateral line
simple, extending from upper end of gill opening toupper end of lower caudal fin lobe; formula for configuration of supraneural bones, anterior neural spines andanterior dorsal pterygiophores 0/0/012/111/1/1/1/1/; vertebrae 10 1 14; swimbladder large.

85

Coloration.—Body in life uniform golden or silvery(Munro, 1955; Jones and Kumaran, 1980). Color of body inalcohol largely uniform golden; upper sides of head goldtinged, becoming white on lower sides; occasionally 7–9
prominent dark stripes along longitudinal scale rows
above lateral line, 1 or 2 faint stripes below (generally
stripes not apparent); snout region semitransparent; baseand posterior portion of first and second dorsal fins lightyellow, tips blackish-brown, otherwise whitish-cream; pelvic fin light yellow posteriorly, otherwise whitish-cream;anal and caudal fins yellow; intensity of pectoral fin pigmentation variable; pectoral filaments whitish-yellow.
Distribution and ecological note. Polydactylus
sexfilis is widely distributed in the Indo-Pacific region,
generally in the vicinity of oceanic islands (Fig. 2). The
species is considered to be less dependent upon large
freshwater rivers (based on known locality data) thanother heavily-dependent polynemid species.
Remarks. According to Bleeker (1853), the syntypesof Polynemus kuru included two specimens, 125 and
280 mm TL. Subsequently, Hubrecht (1879) reported a
total of five examples of the species (group A, 4 specimens; group B, 1 specimen), which were originally registered as RMNH 6006; 87 mm SL (120 mm TL), 198 mm
SL (281 mm TL), 203 mm SL (291 mm TL), 204 mm SL(288 mm TL) and 217 mm SL (311 mm TL). The total
lengths (120 mm TL and 281 mm TL) of the two smallest specimens are closest to those given by Bleeker, thespecimen being likely to have resulted from shrinkageof the snout region, the 5 mm difference for the smallest
being easily damaged in polynemid fishes owing to
the high proportion of cartilaginous tissue. Accordingly,
we herein identify the two smallest specimens as theoriginal syntypes for Polynemus kuru, the remaining
three being reregistered (RMNH 33884) as non-type
Bleeker specimens.
Valenciennes (in Cuvier and Valenciennes, 1831) described Polynemus sexfilis on the basis of three specimens (MNHN 9731, 265 mm SL; MNHN A. 3027, 96 mm
SL; MNHN 9728, 92 mm SL). We herein designate thelargest specimen (MNHN 9731) as the lectotype, the remaining syntypes (MNHN A. 3027 and MNHN 9728)
becoming paralectotypes.
The characters of the syntypes of Polynemus kuru
were found to be consistent with those of the lectotype,paralectotypes and other material of Polydactylus sexfilis(Tables 1, 2). Accordingly, Polydactylus kuru (Bleeker,1853) is regarded as a junior synonym of the latter.
Fricke (1999) synonymized Polydactylus sexfilis with
Polydactylus sextarius (Bloch and Schneider, 1801), but
his opinion was clearly erroneous (see Comparisons).
Although Munro (1955, 1967) and Menon and Babu Rao(1984) described the pectoral fin of Polydactylus sexfilis

86

H. Motomura, et al.

Table 1. Counts and proportional measurements of Polydactylus sexfilis, including types and non-type specimens, expressed aspercentages of standard length

Standard length (mm)Counts (modes)
Dorsal fin rays
Anal fin rays
Pectoral fin rays
Pectoral filaments
Pelvic fin rays
Pored lateral line scales
Scales above/below lateral line
Gill rakers
Measurements (means)
Head length
Body depth
Second body depth
Body width at pectoral fin base
Snout length
Dermal eye opening
Orbit diameter
Interorbital width
Postorbital length
Upper jaw lengthPre-1st dorsal fin lengthPre-2nd dorsal fin length
Preanal fin length
First dorsal fin origin to anal fin origin
Pelvic fin origin to anal fin origin
Second dorsal fin base length
Anal fin base length
Longest pectoral fin length
Longest pectoral filament length (6th)Pectoral fin base length
Longest pelvic fin ray length (1st)Longest 1st dorsal fin spine length (3rd)Second dorsal fin spine length
Longest 2nd dorsal fin ray length (2nd)Longest anal fin spine length (3rd)Longest anal fin ray length (2nd)Caudal peduncle length
Caudal peduncle depth
Upper caudal fin lobe length
Lower caudal fin lobe length

Lectotype of
Polynemus
sexfilis
MNHN 9731

Paralectotypesof Polynemus
sexfilis
MNHN A.
3027–9728(n 5 2)Syntypes of
Polynemus kuru
RMNH 6006(n 5 2)

Non-type specimens of
Polydactylus sexfilis(n 5 33)

265

92–96

87–19836–217

VIII-I, 13
III, 11
16
6
I, 5
62
8/13
14 1 17 5 31

VIII-I, 13
III, 11
15–16
6
I, 5
62–64
8/13
13 1 17 5 30

VIII-I, 13
III, 11
16
6
I, 5
64
8–9/12–13
13 1 17–18 5 30–31

VIII-I, 12–13 (13)III, 11–12 (11)
15–16 (16)6I, 5
61–67 (64)
8–10 (9)/12–14 (13)
11–14 1 15–18 5 27–31 (30)

30
29
31
14
5
7
8
8
18
14
37
62
66
44
29
15
15
20
29
10
15
21
9
25
8
21
25
14
43
39

33–34
27–28
28–29
11–12
6
8–9
10
10
18–19
15
39
63
63–68
41–42
27–28
15–16
15–16
21–22
33–40
10–11
17
21
9–10
25–26
9–10
23
24
13
42–45
40–44

28–30
27
32
9–11
5
7
8–9
8–9
17–19
14
34–35
61
62–64
42–43
28–29
16–17
16–18
20–22
30–33
10–11
16–17
21
9
27
8
22–24
26–27
14
39–43
39–41

27–34 (32)
26–32 (29)
28–35 (30)
11–17 (13)
5–8 (6)
6–9 (8)
8–11 (9)
8–11 (10)15–20 (18)
13–15 (15)34–40 (37)59–64 (62)60–67 (64)38–46 (42)
20–30 (26)
14–18 (16)
15–17 (16)
20–23 (21)
28–41 (35)
9–11 (10)
16–19 (17)18–23 (21)
8–11 (9)21–30 (26)
7–10 (9)20–26 (23)
23–29 (26)
13–16 (14)39–48 (44)37–46 (41)

Modes and means in parentheses include type specimen data

as being black, the fin membrane pigmentation was
found to be quite variable (from no pigment to entirely
black) in this study.
Comparisons. Like Polydactylus sexfilis (Valenciennes in Cuvier and Valenciennes, 1831) and twoother Indo-West Pacific Polydactylus species, viz.

Polydactylus nigripinnis Munro, 1964 and Polydactylus
sextarius (Bloch and Schneider, 1801), are characterizedby six pectoral filaments. Polydactylus sexfilis can be easily distinguished from Polydactylus sextarius in lacking alarge black spot anteriorly on the lateral line (vs present
in the latter), and possessing villiform teeth in broad

Redescription of Polydactylus sexfilis

87

Fig. 2. Localities of specimens of Polydactylus sexfilis examined in the present study

Table 2. Frequency distributions of selected counts of Polydactylus sexfilis
Pectoral fin rays (n 5 38)

Pored lateral line scales (n 5 38)

15
10P

60
1

16
28L,P,S

61
4

62
7L,P

63
8

Scales above/below lateral line (n 5 34)
8
15L,P,S

9
18S

10
1

/

64
12P,S

65
3

66
1

67
2

Gill rakers (n 5 38)
12
8S

13
19L,P,S

14
7

27
1

28
8

29
10

30
15P,S

31
4L,S

L, P, and S indicate lectotype and two paralectotypes of Polynemus sexfilis, and two syntypes of Polynemus kuru, respectively

bands on the vomer (vs teeth absent) and unbranchedpectoral fin rays (vs almost branched). Furthermore,
Polydactylus sexfilis differs from Polydactylus nigripinnis
in having villiform teeth in broad bands on the vomer (vsteeth absent in the latter) and a shorter pectoral fin(posterior tip not reaching to posterior tip of pelvic fin vsextending beyond the latter) and higher gill raker counts(mode 30 [range 27–31] vs 27 [23–27]).
Polydactylus sexfilis is most similar to Polydactylus
plebeius (Broussonet, 1782) in overall body appearance,
but differs from the latter in having higher counts ofpectoral filaments (6 vs 5 in the latter), lower counts ofpectoral fin rays (mode 16 [range 15–16] vs 17 [16–18])
and higher counts of gill rakers (30 [27–31] vs 26 [24–32])(see Table 2). Furthermore, Polydactylus sexfilis tends
to have a longer second dorsal fin ray than Polydactylus
plebeius, although the proportional length measurements for such overlapped between the two species(mean 26% [range 21–30%] of SL vs 22% [19–28%]; Fig.

3). Both anal and caudal fin rays of Polydactylus sexfilis
are also slightly longer than those of Polydactylus
plebeius (anal fin: mean 23% [range 20–26%] of SL vs
19% [17–23%]; upper caudal fin: 44% [39–48%] vs 39%[33–44%]; lower caudal fin: 41% [37–46%] vs 36% [30–41%]).
Comparative material examined. Polydactylus nigripinnis
Munro: CRDOA K. 322, 154 mm SL, Inpres fish market,
Kupang, West Timor, Indonesia; CSIRO A. 1827 (1 of 3paratypes of Polydactylus nigripinnis), 94 mm SL, Kerema Bay,
Gulf of Papua, Papua New Guinea; CSIRO A. 1828 (holotype
of Polydactylus nigripinnis), 103 mm SL, Purari River; CSIRO
A. 1830 (1 of 3 paratypes of Polydactylus nigripinnis), 100 mm
SL, Purari River; FRLM 21472, 139 mm SL, Ambon, Indonesia;
FRLM 23413, 161 mm SL, Rumahtiga fish market, Poka,
Ambon, Indonesia; FRLM 23468–23470 (3 specimens), 143–
172 mm SL, Passo fish market, Ambon, Indonesia; URMP 20814, 149 mm SL, Kerema Bay, Gulf of Papua, New
Guinea. Polydactylus plebeius (Broussonet): AMS I. 10581,
119 mm SL, Manila, Luzon Island, Philippines; AMS IB. 2329,

88

Fig. 3. Relationship between standard length and longest second dorsal fin ray length in Polydactylus plebeius (open symbols) and Polydactylus sexfilis (closed symbols)

117 mm SL, Geraldton District, Western Australia, Australia;
BMNH 1855.11.7.35 (1 of 2 syntypes of Polynemus taeniatus
Günther), 139 mm SL, Guadalcanal, Solomon Islands; BMNH
1858.4.21.85 (1 of 2 syntypes of Polynemus taeniatus), 147 mm
SL, Ambon, Indonesia; BPBM 8433, 80 mm SL, Papara, Tahiti,
Society Islands; BPBM 35868, 171 mm SL, Grindstone, Rahah
Bay, Oman; BSKU 25698, 205 mm SL, Colombo market, Sri
Lanka; BSKU 45336, 148 mm SL, Kochi, Japan; FMNH 21441,
210 mm SL, Tahiti, Society Islands; FMNH 91473 (15), 53–
127 mm SL, Tahiti, Society Islands; FRLM 1624, 6681–6682,
9815, 11357, 13712–13714 (8), 95–245 mm SL, Goza, Shima,
Mie, Japan; FRLM 23422, 57 mm SL, Tantui, Ambon, Indonesia;
MNHN A. 5440 (holotype of Polynemus lineatus Lacepède),254 mm SL, Reunion Island, Mascarene Islands; MUFS 1394,
12731 (2), 186–309 mm SL, Miyazaki, Japan; MUFS 12982–
12985 (4), 164–187 mm SL, Totoro, Nobeoka, Miyazaki, Japan;
MUFS 14110, 14125–14126 (3), 143–160 mm SL, Meitsu, Nango,
Miyazaki, Japan; MUFS 14201–14201 (2), 271–323 mm SL,
Noumea, New Caledonia; MUFS 14315, 14349, 14351 (3), 161–
172 mm SL, Meitsu, Nango, Miyazaki, Japan; MUFS 14480,
180 mm SL, Phuket Island, Thailand; MUFS 15760–15761 (2),203–209 mm SL, Kushima, Miyazaki, Japan; MUFS 15762,
15765 (2), 205–238 mm SL, Oshima, Meitsu, Nango, Miyazaki,
Japan; MUFS 15775, 233 mm SL, Kushima, Miyazaki, Japan;
MUFS 16829–16830, 16834 (3), 118–130 mm SL, Kalairt fish
landing port, Chennai (5Madras), India; MUFS 16849, 16851–
16852 (3), 103–111 mm SL, Shanmugam fish market, Chennai(5Madras), India; NSMT-P 783, 131 mm SL, Tokyo fish market,
Tokyo, Japan; NSMT-P 19247, 119 mm SL, off Ito, Shizuoka,
Japan; NSMT-P 23943 (2), 195–223 mm SL, Ishigaki Island,
Ryukyu Islands, Japan; NSMT-P 29332, 56 mm SL, Okinawa

H. Motomura, et al.
Island, Japan; NSMT-P 53857, 51 mm SL, Kuta, southern coastof Lombok Island, Indonesia; NSMT-P 53918, 53920 (2), 46–
56 mm SL, Gerupuk, southern coast of Lombok Island, Indonesia; NSMT-P 54111, 48 mm SL, Hamajima, Mie, Japan; PMBC
5922, 234 mm SL, Phuket Island, Thailand; SAM 12076, 198 mm
SL, East London, South Africa; SAM 18448, 166 mm SL, Natal,
South Africa; SAM 19747, 76 mm SL, East London, South
Africa; SFU 3832, 171 mm SL, Hong Kong, China; SFU 10031,
173 mm SL, Hainan Island, China; UMMZ 171715, 98 mm SL,
Indonesia; URM-P 701, 877 (2), 148–166 mm SL, Okinawa
Island, Japan; URM-P 3048, 331 mm SL, Chinen fish market,
Okinawa Island, Japan; URM-P 6227, 149 mm SL, Okinawa
Island, Japan; URM-P 24672, 24675, 24677–24678, 24680–24682,
25025–25026 (9), 132–180 mm SL, Nakagusuku fish market,
Okinawa Island, Japan; USNM 30503, 252 mm SL, New
Guinea; USNM 55608 (holotype of Polydactylus agonasi Jordan and McGregor), 155 mm SL, Tokyo, Japan; USNM 56398(3), 135–138 mm SL, Tokyo, Japan; USNM 86575, 189 mm SL,
Mauritius; USNM 106889, 112 mm SL, Honolulu, Hawaii;
USNM 112734, 175 mm SL, Suva, Fiji Islands; USNM 115739,
79 mm SL, Pagai, Samoa; USNM 226566, 108 mm SL, Santo,
New Hebrides; USNM 278193, 192 mm SL, mouth of Rewa
River, Fiji Islands; USNM 278216 (2), 47–58 mm SL,
Peu, Vanikoro Island, Santa Cruz Islands; USNM 278220,
43 mm SL, Madagascar; USNM 349503, 60 mm SL, Mauritius;
YCM-P 44, 85 mm SL, Nobikaigan, Yokosuka, Kanagawa,Japan; YCM-P 133, 144 mm SL, Manazuru fish market,
Kanagawa, Japan; YCM-P 25293 (3), 103–150 mm SL,
Ogasawara Islands, Japan; YCM-P 25328 (2), 108–148 mm SL,
Ogasawara Islands, Japan. Polydactylus sextarius (Bloch andSchneider): AMS I 28114-009 (2), 102–104 mm SL, west ofnorthwest Madagascar; ANSP 52870, 135 mm SL, Hong Kong,
China; ANSP 54807, 59 mm SL, Durban, Natal, South Africa;
ANSP 76415, 92 mm SL, Tai Po, China; ANSP 77390, 127 mm
SL, Tugela River, Natal, South Africa; ANSP 86372 (2), 94–
136 mm SL, Delagoa Bay, Mozambique; ANSP 163038, 89 mm
SL, San-Tu, Fukien, China; FMNH 58981, 120 mm SL, Colombo, Sri Lanka; MUFS 15628–15630 (3), 128–145 mm SL,
Oshima, Meitsu, Nango, Miyazaki, Japan; MUFS 16643–16647(5), 151–168 mm SL, Kushima, Miyazaki, Japan; SFU 1669,
126 mm SL, Hainan Island, China; SFU 3833–3834 (2), 98–
124 mm SL, Hong Kong, China; SFU 3835, 139 mm SL,
Guangzhou, China; SFU 3871, 127 mm SL, Dongshan, Fukien,
China; UMMZ 196223, 124 mm SL, Jakarta, Java, Indonesia;
UMMZ 219965, 142 mm SL, Vietnam; YCM-P 6200, 104 mm
SL, Taiwan; ZMB 565 (holotype of Polynemus sextarius),
125 mm SL, Tranquebar, India; ZMH 13665, 86 mm SL, Java,
Indonesia; ZMH 13666 (2), 67–78 mm SL, China.
Acknowledgments We are most grateful to G. Duhamel, J.-C.
Hureau and P. Pruvost (MNHN), and M.J.P. van Oijen and J.
van Egmond (RMNH) for loans of the types of Polydactylus
sexfilis and P. kuru, respectively. We are also grateful to thefollowing persons and institutions for specimen loans: M.
McGrouther and K. Parkinson (AMS); W.G. Saul and M. Sabaj(ANSP); J. Maclaine and A.-M. Hine (BMNH); A.Y. Suzumoto(BPBM); Y. Machida and K. Sasaki (BSKU); T. Peristiwady (CRDOA); M.A. Rogers and K. Swagel (FMNH); H.
Ida (FSKU-P); K. Matsuura (NSMT); S. Bussarawit and U.
Satapoomin (PMBC); J. Johnson (QM); L. Hoenson (SAM);
H.-L. Wu (SFU); D.W. Nelson (UMMZ); T. Yoshino (URM);
S.L. Jewett, L. Palmer and J.T. Williams (USNM); M. Hayashi(YCM); H.-J. Paepke (ZMB); H. Wilkens (ZMH). Lastly, we

Redescription of Polydactylus sexfilis
thank Y. Motomura (Miyazaki, Japan) for her assistance and
G.S. Hardy (Thames, New Zealand), who read the initial manuscript and offered helpful comments. This study was supported
in part by grants awarded to the first author by the Fujiwara
Natural History Foundation (Tokyo, Japan), the Sasakawa
Scientific Research Grant from the Japan Science Society(Tokyo, Japan), and the Ito Foundation for the Advancement of
Ichthyology (Tokyo, Japan), and to the second author by the
Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture (10640684)(Tokyo, Japan).

Literature Cited
Ahlstrom EH, Butler JL, Sumida BY (1976) Pelagic
stromateoid fishes (Pisces, Perciformes) of the eastern
Pacific: kinds, distributions, and early life histories and observations on five of these from the Northwest Atlantic. Bull
Mar Sci 26:285–402
Bleeker P (1853) Nieuwe bijdrage tot de kennis derichthyologische fauna van Ternate en Halmaheira (Gilolo).
Nat Tijdschr Ned Ind 4:595–610
Bleeker P (1863) Troisieme memoire sur la faune ichthyologique de lile de Halmaheira. Ned Tijdschr Dierk 1:153–
159
Bleeker P (1983) Atlas ichthyologique des Indes OrientalesNéêrlandaises. Plates for planned tomes 11–14. Smithsonian
Institution Press, Washington, DC
Bloch ME, Schneider JG (1801) Systema ichthyologiae
iconibus cx illustratum. Post obitum auctoris opus inchoatum
absolvit, correxit, interpolavit J.G. Schneider, Saxo Berolini.
Berolini, Berlin
Broussonet PMA (1782) Ichthyologia sistens piscium descriptiones et icones. Decas, London
Cuvier GL, Valenciennes A (1831) Histoire naturelle despoissons, vol 7. Levrault, Paris
Feltes RM (1991) Revision of the polynemid fish genus
Filimanus, with the description of two new species. Copeia
1991:302–322
Fowler WH (1935) A synopsis of the fishes of China. Hong
Kong Nat 6:276–284
Fricke R (1999) Fishes of the Mascarene Islands (Réunion,
Mauritius, Rodriguez). An annotated checklist with descriptions of new species. Koeltz, Köenigstein
Günther A (1860) Catalogue of the acanthopterygian fishes in
the collection of the British Museum (Natural History), vol 2.
Squamipinnes, Cirrhitidae, Triglidae, Trachinidae, Sciaenidae,
Polynemidae, Sphyraenidae, Trichiuridae, Scombridae, Carangidae, Xiphiidae. British Museum, London
Hubbs CL, Lagler KF (1958) Fishes of the Great Lakes region.
Bull Cranbrook Inst Sci 26:1–213

89
Hubrecht AA (1879) Catalogue des collections formées etlaissées par M.-P. Bleeker. De Breuk & Smits, Leiden
Jones S, Kumaran M (1980) Fishes of the Laccadive Archipelago. Mathrubhumi Press, Cochin
Kagwade PV (1970) The polynemid fishes of India. Bull Centr
Mar Fish Res Inst 18:1–69
Kendall WC, Goldsborough EL (1911) Reports on the scientific results of the expedition to the tropical Pacific, in chargeof Alexander Agassiz, by the U.S. Fish Commission steamer“Albatross,” from August, 1899, to March, 1900. XIII. The
shore fishes. Mem Mus Comp Zoöl Harv Coll 26:241–343, pls
1–7
Leviton AE, Gibbs RH Jr, Heal E, Dawson CE (1985)
Standards in herpetology and ichthyology: Part I. Standard
symbolic codes for institutional resource collections in herpetology and ichthyology. Copeia 1985:802–832
Mabee PM (1988) Supraneural and predorsal bones in fishes:development and homologies. Copeia 1988:827–838
Menon AGK, Babu Rao M (1984) Polynemidae. In: Fischer
W, Bianchi G (eds) FAO species identification sheets forfishery purposes-western Indian Ocean. Fishing Area 51,
vol 3. FAO, Rome, pp 1–2, “POLYN Eleu 1” to “POLYN Poly
7”
Mishra SS, Krishnan S (1993) Polydactylus konadaensis a
new threadfin fish from India with a key to species of the
Polynemidae of India. Rec Zool Surv India 92:285–291
Motomura H, Iwatsuki Y, Kimura S, Yoshino T (2000) Redescription of Polydactylus macrochir (Günther 1867), a seniorsynonym of P. sheridani (Macleay 1884) (Perciformes: Polynemidae). Ichthyol Res 47:327–333
Munro ISR (1955) The marine and freshwater fishes of Ceylon.
Department of External Affairs. Halstead Press, Canberra
and Sydney
Munro ISR (1964) Additions to the fish fauna of New Guinea.
Papua New Guinea Agric J 16:141–186
Munro ISR (1967) The fishes of New Guinea. Department
Agricultural Stock and Fisheries, Port Moresby
Sauvage HE (1891) Histoire physique, naturelle et politique deMadagascar. Histoire naturelle des poissons. Hist Nat Poiss
Madagascar 16:1–543
Senou H (1995) Polynemidae. In: Nakabo T (ed) Fishes ofJapan with pictorial keys to the species (in Japanese). Tokai
University Press, Tokyo, pp 847, 1338–1339
Talwar PK, Jhingran AG (1992) Inland fishes of India andadjacent countries, vol 2. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 543–1097
Talwar PK, Kacker RK (1984) Commercial sea fishes of India.
Zoological Survey of India, Calcutta
Weber M (1913) Die Fische der Siboga-Expedition. Brill,
LeidenWeber M, de Beaufort LF (1922) The fishes of the IndoAustralian Archipelago, vol 4. Heteromi, Solenichthyes,
Synentognathi, Percesoces, Labyrinthici, Microcyprini. Brill,
Leiden