Species Diversity 17: 145–150
25 November 2012

Redescription of a Poorly Known Southeastern Pacific
Scorpionfish (Scorpaenidae), Phenacoscorpius eschmeyeriParin and Mandrytsa
Hiroyuki Motomura1,4, Naoko Kanehira2 and Hisashi Imamura3
1 The Kagoshima University Museum, 1-21-30 Korimoto, Kagoshima 890-0065, Japan

E-mail: motomura@kaum.kagoshima-u.ac.jp

2 Morioka-kita High School, 298-1 Makinobayashi, Takizawa-mura, Iwate-gun, Iwate 020-0173, Japan

3 Laboratory of Marine Biology and Biodiversity (Systematic Ichthyology), Faculty of Fisheries Sciences, Hokkaido University,

3-1-1 Minato-cho, Hakodate, Hokkaido 041-8611, Japan
4 Corresponding author(Received 17 July 2012; Accepted 4 October 2012)

A poorly known scorpionfish (Scorpaenidae), Phenacoscorpius eschmeyeri Parin and Mandrytsa, 1992, has been
known only from the holotype from the Sala y Gomez Ridge, southeastern Pacific Ocean. Two new specimens of the species, collected from the Nazca Ridge, near the type locality, and found in the fish collection of the Hokkaido University
Museum, are described in detail. The holotype was also reexamined. The two diagnostic characters of the species given in
the original description to separate it from a related congener, Phenacoscorpius adenensis Norman, 1939, were found to beinvalid, but a new series of diagnostic characters was found. A revised diagnosis of the species is thereupon provided. A
color photograph of P. eschmeyeri when fresh is published for the first time.
Key Words: Teleostei, Actinopterygii, Phenacoscorpius adenensis, morphology, diagnosis.

Introduction
The deepwater scorpionfish genus Phenacoscorpius Fowler, 1938 (Scorpaenidae) is characterized by having the lateral line incomplete, with only a few anterior pored lateralline scales present (Eschmeyer 1965b; Poss 1999; Motomura
2008). Five species of the genus in the Indo–Pacific are regarded as valid species (Motomura 2008; Motomura andLast 2009; Motomura et al. 2012). One of these five species, Phenacoscorpius eschmeyeri Parin and Mandrytsa in
Mandrytsa, 1992, was originally described on the basis of asingle specimen from the Sala y Gomez Ridge, southeastern
Pacific Ocean. No additional specimens of this species havebeen reported since its original description.
During a deep-sea survey conducted by the Japan Marine Fishery Resources Research Center in 1999, two specimens of Phenacoscorpius were collected from the Nazca
Ridge; this ridge is located on the same seamount chain as
the Sala y Gomez Ridge, the type locality of P. eschmeyeri.
The newly collected specimens are herein identified as P. eschmeyeri. Examination of the holotype and the new specimens revealed that two important identifying charactersgiven by Parin and Mandrytsa in Mandrytsa (1992) for P.
eschmeyeri, i.e., 16 pectoral fin rays and six anal fin soft rays,
are invalid for diagnosis. The new specimens are described
below in detail and a revised diagnosis for P. eschmeyeri is
provided. The first color description of P. eschmeyeri is also
given here, based on a photograph of a new specimen taken
before preservation; the fresh coloration of the species wasotherwise unknown.

Material and Methods
Measurements generally follow Motomura (2004a, b), except head width (Motomura et al. 2005b, 2006a), and maxillary depth (Motomura et al. 2006b). Body depth was measured vertically from the origin of the pelvic-fin spine; second body depth was defined as the direct distance between
the origins of the last dorsal-fin spine and the first anal-fin
spine. Post-nuchal-spine length is taken from the posterior
end of the nuchal spine tip to the dorsal-fin origin. Counts
follow Motomura et al. (2005a–c) and Motomura and Johnson (2006), with predorsal scale counts following Motomura
et al. (2006b). The last two soft rays of both the dorsal andanal fins are counted as single rays, each pair being associated with a single pterygiophore. Counts of preopercularspines begin with the uppermost spine. Standard length isexpressed as SL. Terminology of head spines follows Randall and Eschmeyer (2002: fig. 1) and Motomura (2004b: fig.
1) with the following additions: the spine at the base of theuppermost preopercular spine is referred to as the supplemental preopercular spine (Eschmeyer 1965a); the spine on
the lateral surface of the lacrimal bone is referred to as thelateral lacrimal spine (Motomura and Senou 2008: fig. 2;
Motomura et al. 2011b: fig. 1); and the coronal and pretympanic (as an extra spine) spines are as figured in Chen (1981:
fig. 1) and Motomura et al. (2004: fig. 14b) respectively.
The specimens examined in this study are deposited in the© 2012 The Japanese Society of Systematic Zoology

146

Hiroyuki Motomura et al.

Fig. 1. Photographs of Phenacoscorpius eschmeyeri. A, ZIN 49328, holotype, 132.8 mm standard length; B, fresh specimen, HUMZ 164422,
124.0 mm standard length; C, preserved specimen, same as B.

Hokkaido University Museum, Hakodate, Japan (HUMZ)
and the Laboratory of Ichthyology, Zoological Institute,
Russian Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg, Russia (ZIN).
As comparative material, 54 specimens of Phenacoscorpius
adenensis Norman, 1939 were examined; these were listed in
Motomura et al. (2012).
Phenacoscorpius eschmeyeri Parin and Mandrytsa, 1992
[New English name: Eschmeyer’s No-line Scorpionfish](Fig. 1; Table 1)
Phenacoscorpius eschmeyeri Parin and Mandrytsa in Mandrytsa, 1992: 10, fig. 1 (type locality: Sala y Gomez Ridge,

southeastern Pacific Ocean, 25°02′S, 90°41′W).
Material examined. ZIN 49328, holotype, 132.8 mm
SL, Sala y Gomez Ridge, 25°02′S, 90°41′W, 630 m depth,
FRV Gerakl, 3 November 1975; HUMZ 164422, 124.0 mm
SL, Nazca Ridge, 25°29′S, 90°19′W, 584 m depth, 24 October 1999; HUMZ 166546, 110.7 mm SL, Nazca Ridge,
25°31′S, 90°18′W, 580 m depth, 28 October 1999.
Diagnosis. A species of Phenacoscorpius with the following combination of characters: pectoral fin rays 16–17,
middle rays branched; pored lateral-line scales 2–7; palatine
teeth present; second preopercular spine usually absent; nuchal and parietal spines fused to each other, forming single

Phenacoscorpius eschmeyeri rediagnosed

Table 1.

147

Counts and measurements of Phenacoscorpius eschmeyeri.
Holotype
Sala y Gomez Ridge

Standard length (SL, mm)
Dorsal fin rays
Pectoral fin rays (left/right)
Pelvic fin rays
Anal fin rays
Pored lateral-line scales (left/right)
Predorsal scale rows
Gill rakers (upper+lower=total)% of SL
Body depth
2nd Body depth
Body width
Head length
Snout length
Orbit diameter
Interorbital width1
Interorbital width2
Head width
Upper-jaw length
Maxillary depth
Post-nuchal-spine length
Between tips of opercular spines
Postorbital lengthPre-dorsal-fin lengthPre-anal-fin length
Pre-pelvic-fin length
1st dorsal-fin spine length
2nd dorsal-fin spine length
3rd dorsal-fin spine length
4th dorsal-fin spine length
5th dorsal-fin spine length
11th dorsal-fin spine length
12th dorsal-fin spine length
1st anal-fin spine length
2nd anal-fin spine length
3rd anal-fin spine length
Longest anal fin soft ray length
Pectoral fin length
Pelvic fin spine length
Longest pelvic fin soft ray length
Caudal fin length
Caudal peduncle length
Caudal peduncle depth

Non-types
Nazca Ridge

ZIN 49328

HUMZ 164422

HUMZ 166546

132.8

124.0

110.7

XII, 8
16/16
I, 5
III, 6
4/3—
5+16=21

XII, 917/17
I, 5
III, 5
5/7—
6+15=21

XII, 917/17
I, 5
III, 53/2
12
7+15=22

33.2
—
—
44.5
11.6
13.9
5.0
4.6
13.4
22.3
7.2
—
—
19.4
43.8
80.6
53.5
4.4
7.9
—
—
—
8.8
4.7
6.3
12.0
8.1
17.0
—
12.1
19.2
—
18.5
8.9

35.7
25.2
19.8
46.0
12.0
13.1
5.3
4.9
14.0
23.8
7.0
11.3
6.5
22.8
44.0
75.2
42.7
5.4
8.3
11.5
11.0
—
—
8.8
7.5
—
11.6
18.0
35.2
13.7
19.0
—
18.1
9.4

34.6
23.3
19.5
44.4
12.4
12.4
5.6
5.1
13.9
22.6
6.5
11.0
5.8
20.4
43.7
75.2
43.9
—
6.8
10.5
9.6
9.5
4.2
8.2
6.6
13.8
10.9
—
36.2
12.4
18.5
20.1
20.2
9.0

Mean
34.5
24.3
19.7
45.0
12.0
13.1
5.3
4.9
13.8
22.9
6.9
11.2
6.1
20.9
43.8
77.0
46.7
4.9
7.7
11.0
10.3
9.5
6.5
7.2
6.8
12.9
10.2
17.5
35.7
12.7
18.9
20.1
19.0
9.1

1 at vertical midline of eye; 2 at posterior end of preocular spine base.

large spine; relatively long post-nuchal spine (11.0–11.3%
SL), snout (11.6–12.4%), upper-jaw (22.3–23.8%), pre-dorsal-fin (43.7–44.0%), pre-anal-fin (75.2–80.6%), and prepelvic-fin (42.7–53.5%) lengths; relatively short spines andsoft rays in dorsal, pelvic, and anal fins; 0–1 distinct blackspots on posterior half of caudal peduncle; largest recorded
specimen 133 mm SL.
Description. Morphometrics and selected meristics ofP. eschmeyeri given in Table 1. Body moderately compressedfrom side to side anteriorly, progressively more compressed
posteriorly. Nape and anterior body moderately arched.
Body moderately deep, but body depth less than headlength. Uppermost ray and lower 9 rays of pectoral fin unbranched, remaining rays branched; ninth or tenth ray longest. Second soft rays longest among pelvic and anal fin rays.
No distinct papillae, tentacles, or cirri on head and body. No
supraocular tentacles. No fimbriate flap on posterior lacrimal spine. Pectoral fin axil without skin flap. Cycloid scales

148

Hiroyuki Motomura et al.

covering opercle, cheek, and area defined by orbit, suborbital ridge, upper preopercle, nuchal spine, and lower posttemporal spine. Ctenoid scales (some scales cycloid) covering interorbital and occiput region; scales becoming smaller
anteriorly; other parts of head not covered with scales. Wellexposed ctenoid scales covering lateral surface of upper
body, scales becoming cycloid ventrally. Body scales notextending onto rays or membranes of fins, except basal partof caudal fin. Exposed cycloid scales covering anteroventral
surface of body and pectoral fin bases. Embedded cycloid
scales covering area between first anal-fin spine base andanus. Lateral line incomplete; last pored lateral-line scale
below spinous portion of dorsal fin.
Mouth large, slightly oblique, forming angle of about 20
degrees to longitudinal axis of head and body. Posterior
margin of maxilla just reaching to a vertical drawn throughposterior margin of orbit. Lateral surface of maxilla smooth,
without ridges, tentacles, or scales. Lower jaw with symphyseal knob. Width of symphyseal gap separating premaxillary teeth bands subequal to width of each band. Upper andlower jaw each with band of villiform teeth, tooth band ofupper jaw wider than that of lower jaw, lengths of most teeth
in both jaws equal. Vomer and palatines with villiform teeth;
width of vomer plate subequal to length of palatine plate.
Underside of dentary with 3 sensory pores on each side, firstpore below tip of anterior lacrimal ridge, second pore below
a point between anterior and posterior lacrimal spines, thirdpore located on posterior margin of dentary. A pore behindsymphyseal knob of lower jaw on each side. Underside oflower jaw smooth, without ridges or tentacles.
Dorsal profile of snout steep, forming an angle of about
50 degrees to longitudinal axis of head and body. Nasal
spine simple, somewhat conical, directed upward. Anterior
nostril with low membranous tube and no tentacle. Ascending process of premaxilla not intruding into interorbital
space, its posterior margin not extending beyond level ofposterior margin of posterior nostril. Median interorbital
ridge absent. Interorbital ridges poorly developed, separatedby shallow channel, beginning posterior to nasal spines andnot conjoined to each other. No distinct ridge on anterioredge of occiput. Interorbital ridges diverging anteriorly andposteriorly in dorsal view, space between interorbital ridges narrowest at a vertical through anterior margin of pupil.
Interorbital space shallow, only about one-tenth of orbit extending above dorsal profile of head. Preocular spine simple,
directed nearly upward. Supraocular spine simple, its tip located above middle of eye. Postocular spine simple, slightly
shorter than tympanic spine. Tympanic spine simple; basesof tympanic spines joined with interorbital ridges. Coronal,
interorbital, and pretympanic spines absent. Occiput nearlyflat. No distinct transverse ridge at rear of occiput. Occiput
surrounded laterally by tympanic and nuchal spines. Nuchal and parietal spines fused to each other, forming single
large spine. Sphenotic with small spines. Postorbital smooth.
Pterotic spine simple. Upper posttemporal spine absent, but
distinct ridge present. Lower posttemporal spine simple, itsbase longer than that of pterotic spine. Supracleithral andcleithral spines flattened, rounded, lacking pointed tips.

Single lateral lacrimal spine present but small (absent insmaller specimen). Anterior lacrimal spine indistinct, notpointed; no additional spines at anterior base of lacrimal
spine. Posterior lacrimal spine simple, not strongly pointed,
triangular, its tip not reaching upper-jaw lip. Posterior lacrimal spine larger than anterior spine. Suborbital ridge with
4–6 spines, first spine below middle of eye. Preopercle with
4 or 5 spines, uppermost spine largest with supplemental
preopercular spine on its base, second spine small or absent, third to fifth spines without median ridge. Preopercle
without serrae or spines between uppermost preopercularspine and its own upper end. Upper opercular spine simple,
without median ridge. Lower opercular spine simple, with
distinct median ridge. Space between upper and lower opercular spines not covered with fleshy skin. Posterior tips ofupper and lower opercular spines not reaching opercularmargin.
Origin of first dorsal-fin spine above first pored lateralline scale. Posterior margin of opercular membrane extending beyond vertical drawn through origin of second dorsal-fin spine. Posterior tip of pectoral fin reaching verticaldrawn through middle of soft-rayed portion of dorsal fin.
Posterior tip of depressed pelvic fin not reaching to anus.
Origin of pelvic fin spine anterior to origin of pectoral fin.
Origin of first anal-fin spine slightly posterior to origin oflast dorsal-fin spine.
Color when fresh (Fig. 1B). Body and fins pale reddish,mottled with whitish blotches, without black stripes, bands,or blotches. Dark areas faintly seen through opercle and abdomen. Color when alive unknown.
Color of preserved specimens (Fig. 1C). Body uniformly white, except for black eyes and spot on caudal peduncle. No black blotch on spinous portion of dorsal fin.
Remarks. Phenacoscorpius eschmeyeri and P. adenensis can be easily distinguished from their congeners in the
Indo–Pacific by having teeth on the palatines (Motomura
2008; Motomura and Last 2009). Parin and Mandrytsa in
Mandrytsa (1992) separated P. eschmeyeri from P. adenensis by its having 16 pectoral fin rays (vs 17 rays in the latter) and six anal fin soft rays (vs five rays). However, thenewly collected specimens of P. eschmeyeri have 17 pectoral fin rays on both sides of the body and five anal fin softrays (Table 1); no other morphological difference between
the holotype and the new specimens was found. In fact, thenumber of anal fin soft rays of the holotype (six) is unusualin the Scorpaenidae, species of which usually have five rays
if there are three spines in the anal fin (six rays if two spines)
and is most likely to be a deformity. The number of pectoral fin rays in some species of Scorpaenidae, including Phenacoscorpius, has a range of variation; e.g., Phenacoscorpius
megalops Fowler, 1938 has 16–18 rays (Motomura 2008).
Thus, the two characters, i.e., numbers of pectoral and anal
fin rays, given by Parin and Mandrytsa in Mandrytsa (1992)
cannot be used to separate the two species.
Examination of the holotype and the two new specimens
showed that the nuchal and parietal spines of the specimens
are fused to each other, forming a single large spine. This isa unique character among the species of Phenacoscorpius;Phenacoscorpius eschmeyeri rediagnosed

the nuchal and parietal spines of other congeners are indeed basally fused, but still present as two distinct spines(Motomura 2008; Motomura and Last 2009; Motomura etal. 2012). In Scorpaeninae, such a condition of the spine asfound in P. eschmeyeri is known only in the western Indian
Ocean species Neoscorpaena nielseni (Smith, 1964), and isregarded as a diagnostic character for the monotypic genus
Neoscorpaena Mandrytsa, 2001 (Eschmeyer 1986; Motomura et al. 2011a).
In addition to the nuchal spine character, a detailed comparison of P. eschmeyeri with P. adenensis revealed that the
post-nuchal-spine length of P. eschmeyeri (11.0–11.3%
of SL) is greater than that of P. adenensis (3.2–9.5% of SL;
Motomura et al. 2012: table 1). Lengths associated with thepost-nuchal-spine length, i.e., pre-dorsal-fin (mean 43.8%
of SL), pre-anal-fin (77.0%), and pre-pelvic-fin (46.7%)
lengths, of P. eschmeyeri are also greater than those (40.1%,
68.5%, and 38.4% respectively) of P. adenensis (see range ofvalues in Motomura et al. 2012: table 1). Furthermore, theunpaired fins, i.e., the spines and soft rays of the dorsal,
pelvic, and anal fins, of P. eschmeyeri are extremely shortcompared with those of P. adenensis; for example, third
dorsal-fin spine length 10.5–11.5% of SL in P. eschmeyerivs 16.3–20.7% in P. adenensis (see Table 1; Motomura et al.
2012: table 1). Moreover, P. eschmeyeri tends to have a relatively longer snout (11.6–12.4% of SL) and upper jaw (22.3–
23.8%) than P. adenensis (9.4–12.0% and 19.4–22.6% respectively), although there is a slight overlap between the two
species. The examined specimens of P. eschmeyeri (110.7–
132.8 mm SL) are larger than those of the small species P.
adenensis (17.8–79.4 mm SL); proportions vary ontogenetically in most scorpaenids, and these apparent morphometric differences might disappear when smaller specimens ofP. eschmeyeri that are of comparable size to P. adenensis are
examined.

Acknowledgments
We are especially grateful to Drs Valentina G. Sideleva
and Mikhail V. Nazarkin (ZIN) for the opportunity to examine the holotype of P. eschmeyeri. We greatly appreciate comments on the manuscript by Mr. Gordon Yearsley(Hobart, Asutralia). This study was supported in part by aGrant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C) from the Japan
Society for the Promotion of Science, Tokyo, Japan (JSPS)(23580259), a Grant-in-Aid for Young Scientists (B) from
the Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture,
Japan (19770067), and the JSPS Asian Core Program—Establishment of Research and Education Network on Coastal
Marine Science in Southeast Asia.

References
Chen, L.-C. 1981. Scorpaenid fishes of Taiwan. Quarterly Journal of the
Taiwan Museum 34: 1–60.
Eschmeyer, W. N. 1965a. Western Atlantic scorpionfishes of the genus

149

Scorpaena, including four new species. Bulletin of Marine Science
15: 84–164.
Eschmeyer, W. N. 1965b. Three new scorpionfishes of the genera Pontinus, Phenacoscorpius and Idiastion from the western Atlantic
Ocean. Bulletin of Marine Science 15: 521–534.
Eschmeyer, W. N. 1986. Family No. 149: Scorpaenidae. Pp. 463–478. In:
Smith, M. M. and Heemstra, P. C. (Eds) Smiths’ Sea Fishes. Macmillan South Africa, Johannesburg.
Mandrytsa, S. A. 1992. New species and records of species of Phenacoscorpius and Plectrogenium in the Pacific, Atlantic, and Indian
Oceans. Voprosy Ikhtiologii 32: 10–17.
Motomura, H. 2004a. New species of scorpionfish, Scorpaena cocosensis(Scorpaeniformes: Scorpaenidae) from the Cocos Islands, Costa
Rica, eastern Pacific Ocean. Copeia 2004: 818–824.
Motomura, H. 2004b. Revision of the scorpionfish genus Neosebastes(Scorpaeniformes: Neosebastidae) with descriptions of five new
species. Indo–Pacific Fishes 37: 1–75.
Motomura, H. 2008. Scorpaenopsis stigma Fowler, 1938, a junior synonym of Phenacoscorpius megalops Fowler, 1938, with commentson the type series of P. megalops (Teleostei: Scorpaenidae). Zoological Studies 47: 774–780.
Motomura, H., Béarez, P. and Causse, R. 2011a. Review of Indo-Pacificspecimens of the subfamily Scorpaeninae (Scorpaenidae), deposited in the Museum national d’Histoire naturelle, Paris, with description of a new species of Neomerinthe. Cybium 35: 55–73.
Motomura, H., Causse, R. and Struthers, C. D. 2012. Phenacoscorpius
longilineatus, a new species of deepwater scorpionfish from thesouthwestern Pacific Ocean and the first records of Phenacoscorpius adenensis from the Pacific Ocean (Teleostei: Scorpaenidae).
Species Diversity 17: 151–160.
Motomura, H., Fricke, R. and Eschmeyer, W. N. 2005a. Redescriptionof a poorly known scorpionfish, Scorpaena canariensis (Sauvage),
and a first record of Pontinus leda Eschmeyer from the Northern
Hemisphere (Scorpaeniformes: Scorpaenidae). Stuttgarter Beiträge zur Naturkunde. Serie A, Biologie 674: 1–15.
Motomura, H. and Johnson, J. W. 2006. Validity of the poorly known
scorpionfish, Rhinopias eschmeyeri, with redescriptions of R. frondosa and R. aphanes (Scorpaeniformes: Scorpaenidae). Copeia
2006: 500–515.
Motomura, H. and Last, P. R. 2009. Phenacoscorpius longirostris, a new
species of deep water scorpionfish (Scorpaeniformes: Scorpaenidae) from the northern Tasman Sea, southwestern Pacific Ocean.
Zootaxa 2290: 27–35.
Motomura, H., Last, P. R. and Gomon, M. F. 2006a. A new species ofthe scorpionfish genus Maxillicosta from the southeast coast ofAustralia, with a redescription of M. whitleyi (Scorpaeniformes:
Neosebastidae). Copeia 2006: 445–459.
Motomura, H., Last, P. R. and Yearsley, G. K. 2005b. Scorpaena bulacephala, a new species of scorpionfish (Scorpaeniformes: Scorpaenidae) from the northern Tasman Sea. Zootaxa 1043: 17–32.
Motomura, H., Last, P. R. and Yearsley, G. K. 2006b. New species ofshallow water scorpionfish (Scorpaenidae: Scorpaena) from thecentral coast of Western Australia. Copeia 2006: 360–369.
Motomura, H., Paulin, C. D. and Stewart, A. L. 2005c. First recordsof Scorpaena onaria (Scorpaeniformes: Scorpaenidae) from thesouthwestern Pacific Ocean, and comparisons with the Northern Hemisphere population. New Zealand Journal of Marine andFreshwater Research 39: 865–880.
Motomura, H. and Senou, H. 2008. A new species of the scorpionfish
genus Scorpaena (Scorpaenidae) from Izu Peninsula, Pacific coastof Japan. Journal of Fish Biology 72: 1761–1772.
Motomura, H., Struthers, C. D., McGrouther, M. A. and Stewart, A.
L. 2011b. Validity of Scorpaena jacksoniensis and a redescriptionof S. cardinalis, a senior synonym of S. cookii (Scorpaeniformes:

150

Hiroyuki Motomura et al.

Scorpaenidae). Ichthyological Research 58: 315–332.
Motomura, H., Yoshino, T. and Takamura, N. 2004. Review of the scorpionfish genus Scorpaenopsis (Scorpaeniformes: Scorpaenidae) inJapanese waters with three new records and an assessment of standard Japanese names. Japanese Journal of Ichthyology 51: 89–115.
Poss, G. S. 1999. Scorpaenidae. Scorpionfishes (also, lionfishes, rockfishes, stingfishes, stonefishes, and waspfishes). Pp. 2291– 2352.

In: Carpenter, K. E. and Niem, V. H. (Eds) FAO Species Identification Guide for Fishery Purposes. The Living Marine Resources ofthe Western Central Pacific. Vol. 4. Bony Fishes Part 2 (Mugilidae to
Carangidae). FAO, Rome.
Randall, J. E. and Eschmeyer, W. N. 2002 (dated 2001). Revision of the
Indo-Pacific scorpionfish genus Scorpaenopsis, with descriptionsof eight new species. Indo–Pacific Fishes 34: 1–79.