identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
03FE1B36474BD448FF25FD68FF47B740.text	03FE1B36474BD448FF25FD68FF47B740.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Kurtus gulliveri Castelnau 1878	<div><p>Kurtus gulliveri Castelnau 1878 [= Kurtus gulliveri]</p> <p>Figure 1</p> <p>Kurtus gulliveri Castelnau 1878a: 233 (type locality, freshwater pond near the Norman River). Castelnau (1878a) described Kurtus gulliveri from an unspecified number of specimens collected by T.A. Gulliver from a freshwater pond near the Norman River. He noted that the largest specimens are “a little over 4 inches long.” Le Danois (1963) noted that there are four syntypes in the MNHN, and an additional syntype is listed in the AMS (Eschmeyer et al. 2018). Ramsay &amp; Ogilby (1886) also mentioned the AMS specimen in their redescription of the species, but gave the registration number as AMS B.9208 (vs B. 9209 in Eschmeyer et al. 2018). No MAMU types are listed by Stanbury (1969), or by any other authors. A single 67.5 mm SL (ca 81+ mm TL) specimen is in the collection (MAMU F.394). The old, external label for the specimen says “ KURTUS GULLIVERI, Casteln. NORMAN RIVER”, which is repeated on a card inside the jar. The index card for the specimen says “ Kurtus gulliveri, Castl. […] 1 sp. 3½″ Norman River”. We regard this specimen as an additional syntype of Kurtus gulliveri.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03FE1B36474BD448FF25FD68FF47B740	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Gill, Anthony C.;Russell, Barry C.;Nelson, Gary	Gill, Anthony C., Russell, Barry C., Nelson, Gary (2018): F. L. de Castelnau’s Norman River fishes housed in the Macleay Museum, University of Sydney. Zootaxa 4459 (3): 565-574, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4459.3.9
03FE1B364748D449FF25FE00FEB9B593.text	03FE1B364748D449FF25FE00FEB9B593.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Pseudoambassis macleayi Castelnau 1878	<div><p>Pseudoambassis macleayi Castelnau [= Ambassis macleayi]</p> <p>Figure 2</p> <p>Pseudoambassis macleayi Castelnau 1878b: 43 (type locality, Norman River). Castelnau (1878b: 43) described Pseudoambassis macleayi from “numerous specimens, the largest being under two inches and a half long” from the Norman River. Macleay (1881) simply listed the species in his catalogue of Australian fishes. McCulloch (1929b) considered it as a valid species of Ambassis, but did not indicate whether he had seen any type specimens. Whitley (1935: 358) noted: “There are three specimens of macleayi in the Macleay Museum for the Norman River, and the largest, 52 mm. in standard length, is selected as the lectotype of the species.” He mistakenly believed that Pseudoambassis Castelnau (1878b) was preoccupied by Pseudambassis Bleeker (1874), and erected a replacement name, Austrochanda, for P. macleayi. Allen &amp; Burgess (1990) considered P. macleayi as a valid species of Ambassis, and noted (p. 171): “Whitley (1935) designated a specimen, 52 mm SL, from the Norman River as lectotype. It was part of the Macleay Museum collection that was eventually transferred to the Australian Museum. However, this specimen is apparently lost, as it could not be located during the present study.”</p> <p>Eschmeyer et al. (2018) noted that the lectotype of P. macleayi is in MAMU, but also listed a specimen in the Queensland Museum (QM I.5332) as a paralectotype, and further remarked that two specimens had been exchanged to the AMS from the QM. However, J. Johnson (pers. comm.) confirmed there are eight specimens of an original 10 in QM I.5332; the two missing specimens were exchanged to the AMS (AMS IA.6057–58). The hand-written label for the jar says “ Pseudoambassis convexus De Vis Queensland cotypes”. The original registry entry for the jar says “ Austrochanda macleayi ” in the identification column, and in the remarks column says “ paratype of Pseudoambassis convexus, De Vis ” followed by “ 2 specimens exchanged to Aust. Mus. April 10, 1934 ”. These details are consistent with Whitley’s (1935) treatment of Pseudoambassis convexus De Vis (1884), which he considered to be a synonym of Austroambassis macleayi, noting (p. 358) “ Types in Australian and Queensland Museums examined.” The identification of the QM specimens transferred to the AMS as A. macleayi is thus attributable to Whitley. Whether the remaining specimens in the QM are truly types of P. convexus is less certain (J. Johnson, pers. comm.).</p> <p>There are three specimens in the Macleay Museum collection (MAMU F.433), which measure 36.0, 40.4 and 50.2 mm SL (TL not determinable for any of the specimens owing to severe damage of the caudal fins). The old external label for the jar says “ PSEUDOAMBASSIS MACLEAYI, Casteln. NORMAN RIVER ”; an internal card similarly says “ Pseudoambassis Macleayi, Casteln. Norman River, N. Australia ”. The specimens match an index card, which states: “ Pseudoambassis macleayi, Cast. […] 2 sp. 1½″–2½″ Norman River”. The miscount of two rather than three specimens is probably a result of the counting having been made with the specimens still in the jar, with one being overlooked. There are similar miscounts for other MAMU index cards. Jenny Anderson’s entry in the catalogue of the Macleay Museum fish collection lists three specimens, which she mistakenly listed as mere ‘topotypes’. They were therefore not listed in Stanbury’s (1969) type catalogue, and accordingly were excluded from the 1970 transfer of fish types to AMS.</p> <p>The specimens in MAMU F.433 are fragile and appear to have been desiccated at some stage. Nonetheless, it was possible to ascertain the following characters, which in combination are diagnostic for Allen &amp; Burgess’s (1990) concept of Ambassis macleayi: single supraorbital spine; no nasal spine; two transverse scale rows on cheek; 10 segmented rays each in dorsal and anal fins; lateral line incomplete; pectoral fin with 15 rays (checked in lectotype only). We therefore regard the three specimens in MAMU F.433 as the lectotype and paralectotypes of A. macleayi.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03FE1B364748D449FF25FE00FEB9B593	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Gill, Anthony C.;Russell, Barry C.;Nelson, Gary	Gill, Anthony C., Russell, Barry C., Nelson, Gary (2018): F. L. de Castelnau’s Norman River fishes housed in the Macleay Museum, University of Sydney. Zootaxa 4459 (3): 565-574, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4459.3.9
03FE1B364749D44EFF25FBD4FBD9B763.text	03FE1B364749D44EFF25FBD4FBD9B763.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Pseudoambassis elongatus Castelnau 1878	<div><p>Pseudoambassis elongatus Castelnau [= Ambassis elongatus]</p> <p>Figure 3</p> <p>Pseudoambassis elongatus Castelnau 1878b: 44 (type locality, Norman River).</p> <p>Castelnau (1878b) described Pseudoambassis elongatus from “several specimens not much over an inch long” (p. 44) from the Norman River. Macleay (1881) simply listed the species in his catalogue of Australian fishes. McCulloch (1929b) regarded it as a valid species of Ambassis, but did not mention whether he had seen the syntypes. Whitley (1935) noted that there were two small syntypes in the Macleay Museum, the larger of which he designated lectotype. He illustrated the lectotype as well as the dorsal and anal fins of the paralectotype (Whitley 1935:fig. 6), and considered them to be juveniles of Austrochanda macleayi (Castelnau). Allen &amp; Burgess (1990) considered P. elongatus to be a valid species of Ambassis, but noted (p. 163): “Apparently the type specimen is lost. It is not among the collections of AMS or MNHN.” Allen et al. (2006) also regarded P. elongatus as a valid species of Ambassis, and listed MAMU as the repository for the lectotype and paralectotype, but did not examine either specimen.</p> <p>There are two specimens in the Macleay Museum (MAMU F.431), which agree well with Whitley’s illustrations of the lectotype and paralectotype. The old external label for the specimens says “ PSEUDOAMBASSIS ELONGATUS, Casteln. NORMAN RIVER”; an internal card in the jar repeats the same information. The index card for the specimens says “ Pseudoambassis elongatus, Cast. […] 2 sp. 1″ Norman River”. As with the P. macleayi types, Jenny Anderson’s entry in the catalogue of the Macleay Museum fish collection mistakenly lists the specimens only as ‘topotypes’. They too were not listed in Stanbury’s (1969) type catalogue, and accordingly were excluded from the 1970 transfer of fish types to the AMS.</p> <p>The specimens are in very poor condition. The larger of the two (the lectotype) is in particularly poor condition, with the head bent to the left and partially disarticulated from the body (Figure 3). The lectotype measures approximately 29 mm SL, and the paralectotype 22.5 mm SL. Details discernible from the specimens are as follows: single supraorbital spine; nasal spine absent; two transverse scale rows on cheek; dorsal and anal fins each with seven segmented rays; lateral line incomplete; predorsal scales nine; vertical scale rows from upper edge of gill opening to caudal-fin base 25; horizontal scale rows from anal-fin origin to dorsal-fin base 11. This combination of characters is unique among Australian ambassids (Allen &amp; Burgess 1990), and we regard the two MAMU specimens in F431 as the lectotype and paraalectotype of Ambassis elongatus.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03FE1B364749D44EFF25FBD4FBD9B763	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Gill, Anthony C.;Russell, Barry C.;Nelson, Gary	Gill, Anthony C., Russell, Barry C., Nelson, Gary (2018): F. L. de Castelnau’s Norman River fishes housed in the Macleay Museum, University of Sydney. Zootaxa 4459 (3): 565-574, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4459.3.9
03FE1B36474ED44FFF25FA99FC06B6AA.text	03FE1B36474ED44FFF25FA99FC06B6AA.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Acanthoperca gulliveri Castelnau 1878	<div><p>Acanthoperca gulliveri Castelnau 1878 [= Parambassis gulliveri]</p> <p>Figure 4</p> <p>Acanthoperca gulliveri Castlenau 1878b: 45 (type locality, Norman River).</p> <p>Castelnau (1878b) described Acanthoperca gulliveri as a new genus and species from the Norman River. It is currently recognised as a valid species of the ambassid genus Parambassis, which occurs in northern Australia and southern New Guinea (Allen &amp; Burgess 1990; Allen et al. 2006; Pusey et al. 2017). Castelnau’s statement (p. 45) “My largest specimen is about eight inches long” and “The specimens are in a dry state” indicates that he had multiple specimens. However, McCulloch (1929b: 196) implied that there was a single specimen: “type in the Paris Museum” [= MNHN]. Similarly, Whitley (1935: 360) indicated that there was a single specimen, but that “the type [...] is preserved in the Macleay Museum” (p. 360). Allen &amp; Burgess (1990) followed McCulloch in assuming the type was in Paris, but—because they were unable to locate the specimen during a visit to the MNHN—believed the specimen had been lost. In so doing, they overlooked Bauchot &amp; Desoutter’s (1987) treatment of the species, which stated that there were two syntypes in Paris (registration numbers MNHN A-4290 and A-4291). The same specimens were listed as the sole syntypes by Allen et al. (2006) and Eschmeyer et al. (2018). However, as noted by Whitley (1935), there is also a specimen in the Macleay Museum, The specimen (MAMU F.426) measures 142 mm SL (ca 177 mm TL). The old external label for the specimen says “ ACANTHOPERCA GULLIVERI, Casteln. NORMAN RIVER ”. There is also an internal label written on card with “ Acanthoperca Gulliveri, Casteln. Norman River, Gulf of Carpentaria”. It matches an index card, which states “ Acanthoperca Gulliveri, Cast. [...] 1 sp. 6 ½″ Norman River.” Although the specimen is currently in 70% ethanol, it appears to have dried at some past period of time, and has some debris adhering to the skin. It agrees well with Allen &amp; Burgess’s (1990) description of Parambassis gulliveri and we regard it as a third syntype of the species.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03FE1B36474ED44FFF25FA99FC06B6AA	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Gill, Anthony C.;Russell, Barry C.;Nelson, Gary	Gill, Anthony C., Russell, Barry C., Nelson, Gary (2018): F. L. de Castelnau’s Norman River fishes housed in the Macleay Museum, University of Sydney. Zootaxa 4459 (3): 565-574, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4459.3.9
03FE1B36474FD44FFF25FB28FF6AB198.text	03FE1B36474FD44FFF25FB28FF6AB198.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Therapon	<div><p>Therapon terrae-reginae Castelnau [= Amniataba percoides]</p> <p>Figure 5</p> <p>Therapon terrae-reginae; Castelnau 1878b: 46 (Norman River).</p> <p>This is the only non-type specimen of Castelnau’s Norman River fishes in the Macleay Museum, which we include primarily as evidence that the MAMU Norman River specimens match with Castelnau’s collection. Castelnau (1878a) described T. terraereginae on the basis of a single specimen from northern Queensland, possibly from the Fitzroy River. He further noted that he had seen a six-inch Fitzroy River specimen of the same species in the Brisbane Museum (now Queensland Museum). He reported on an unspecified number of specimens from the Norman River in his 1878b paper. However, he introduced confusion by noting “The specimen on which I formed this species is not in my possession having been returned to the Brisbane Museum, so I cannot compare the specimens that I have from the Norman River with the type.” As can be discerned from his original description, the Queensland Museum specimen is not the type. According to Bauchot &amp; Desoutter (1987), the holotype is instead deposited in the MNHN (MNHN A-703). Vari (1978) included T. terraereginae in the synonymy of Amniataba percoides (Günther 1864).</p> <p>MAMU F.569A includes a single 66.5 mm SL specimen (TL not determined, owing to caudal-fin damage). The old label says “ THERAPON TERRAE-REGINAE NORMAN RIVER”. The index card for the specimen also says “ Therapon terrae-reginae […] 1 sp. 3″ Norman River.” We believe this specimen is Castelnau’s Norman River specimen. It agrees well with Vari’s (1978) description of Amniataba percoides. We note, however, that it does not key to that species using Vari’s key, owing to an error in the first couplet (A versus AA): in contrast to the key, A. percoides has an exposed, serrated posttemporal (versus covered with skin and not serrate according to the key).</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03FE1B36474FD44FFF25FB28FF6AB198	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Gill, Anthony C.;Russell, Barry C.;Nelson, Gary	Gill, Anthony C., Russell, Barry C., Nelson, Gary (2018): F. L. de Castelnau’s Norman River fishes housed in the Macleay Museum, University of Sydney. Zootaxa 4459 (3): 565-574, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4459.3.9
03FE1B36474CD44DFF25FB3BFF61B5DA.text	03FE1B36474CD44DFF25FB3BFF61B5DA.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Engraulis nasutus Castelnau 1878	<div><p>Engraulis nasutus Castelnau 1878 [= Thryssa nasuta]</p> <p>Figures 6–7</p> <p>Engraulis nasutus Castelnau 1878b: 51 (type locality, Norman River).</p> <p>Castelnau (1878b) described Engraulis nasutus on the basis of an unspecified number of specimens from the Norman River. He noted that “I have seen only one adult specimen seven inches long, but I have a small specimen preserved in spirits, which is silvery with the upper parts of a light brown, fins yellow”. This suggests he had at least two specimens.</p> <p>Identification of the species has been problematic. Macleay (1879) considered it to be a valid species of Engraulis, stating (p. 367): “This species is described by Count Castelnau […] from one adult specimen, 7 inches long, sent to him from the Norman River, Gulf of Carpentaria. Its special distinguishing character seems to be a strong longitudinal ridge along the top of the head.” Macleay’s mention of a single specimen is curious, given that there are two specimens in MAMU (see below). Ogilby (1910) considered E. nasutus to be a valid species of Anchovia Jordan &amp; Evermann in Jordan (1895), and compared it with his new species A. aesturia. It is unlikely that Ogilby saw type material of E. nasutus, as all of his comparative data for the species is identical to that in Castelnau’s original description. McCulloch (1929a) regarded E. nasutus as a valid species of Anchoviella Fowler (1911), but did not indicate whether he had examined the syntypes. Whitley (1964) considered both E. nasutus and A. aestuaria to be valid species of Thrissina Jordan &amp; Seale (1925). Whitehead et al. (1988) tentatively placed E. nasutus in the synonymy of Thryssa hamiltoni (Gray 1835), which was followed also by Wongratana et al. (1999). Paxton et al. (2006) listed it as incertae sedis in the Engraulidae, and as a possible synonym of Thryssa hamiltoni. They noted (p. 317): “ syntypes whereabouts unknown.”</p> <p>There are two specimens in the Macleay Museum (MAMU F.1194; Figures 6–7), measuring 99.5 and 104.5 mm SL (TL not determinable owing to caudal-fin damage). They correspond to an index card stating “ Engraulis nasutus, Cast. […] 2 sp. 6″ Norman R., N. Australia ”. The specimens have the following characters (where two counts are presented, the first is from the 99.5 mm SL specimen): predorsal scutes 1; abdominal scutes sharply keeled, 14 prepelvic + 9 postpelvic = 23 total; maxilla relatively short, reaching to posterior border of preopercle; anal-fin rays 34 (iv,30; anterior ray tips damaged in 104.5 mm SL specimen); total dorsal-fin rays 13; uppermost pectoral-fin ray not filamentous; teeth in jaws fine and conical, not canine-like; lower gill rakers 25 (checked in 104.5 mm SL specimen only). This combination of characters is unique among engraulids to the species currently called Thryssa aestuaria (Ogilby 1910). According to Paxton et al. (2006), there are three other species of Thryssa known from the Gulf of Carpentaria: T. hamiltoni, T. scratchleyi (Ramsay &amp; Ogilby 1886) and T. setirostris (Broussonet 1782). The MAMU specimens differ from T. hamiltoni in having fewer prepelvic scutes (14 vs 15–20) and more lower gill rakers (25 vs 11–15); from T. scratchleyi in having fewer abdominal scutes (14 prepelvic + 9 postpelvic vs 19 + 12) and more lower gill rakers (18–23 in T. scratchleyi); and from T. setirostris in having a much shorter maxilla (reaching to preopercle edge vs to at least tip of pectoral fins), fewer abdominal scutes (16–18 + 9– 10 = 25–28 in T. setirostris) and more lower gill rakers (10–12 in T. setirostris).</p> <p>We regard the specimens in MAMU F.1194 as syntypes of Engraulis nasutus Castelnau, 1878, and identical to Anchovia aestuaria Ogilby, 1910. Engraulis nasutus thus is a subjective senior synonym of A. aestuaria. We here follow Eschmeyer et al. (2018, and references therein) in recognising Thryssa Cuvier (1829) rather than Thrissina Jordan &amp; Seale (1925) (Kottelat 2013) as the correct generic name for Thryssa nasutus.</p> <p>Pusey et al. (2017) recorded only a single engraulid from freshwaters of northern Australia, Thryssa scratchleyi. Thryssa nasuta is known only from estuarine and marine areas (Whitehead et al. 1988, Wongratana et al. 1999); presumably the syntypes of E. nasutus were collected from the lower, estuarine reaches of the Norman River.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03FE1B36474CD44DFF25FB3BFF61B5DA	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Gill, Anthony C.;Russell, Barry C.;Nelson, Gary	Gill, Anthony C., Russell, Barry C., Nelson, Gary (2018): F. L. de Castelnau’s Norman River fishes housed in the Macleay Museum, University of Sydney. Zootaxa 4459 (3): 565-574, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4459.3.9
