Dolopichthys Garman, 1899

Dolopichthys Garman, 1899 View in CoL View at ENA

Diagnosis. Females of Dolopichthys differ from those of Chaenophryne by the presence of sphenotic spines ( vs. absence of sphenotic spines), opercle deeply notched posteriorly ( vs. opercle not deeply notched posteriorly), pelvic bones rod shaped, with or without slight distal expansion ( vs. pelvic bones triradiate or greatly expanded distally); from Oneirodes , Tyrannophryne , Phyllorhinichthys , Microlophichthys , and Danaphryne by having the dorsal margin of frontal bones nearly straight ( vs. dorsal margin of frontal bones strongly convex) and subopercle long and narrow, ventral end strongly oval ( vs. subopercle short and broad, ventral end nearly circular); from Ctenochirichthys , Leptacanthichthys , Chirophryne and Puck by the pectoral-fin lobe broad, shorter than the longest pectoral-fin rays ( vs. pectoral-fin lobe narrow, longer than longest pectoral-fin rays); from Bertella by having the hyomandibula with a double head ( vs. hyomandibula with a single head); from Dermatias by the depth of caudal peduncle less than 20% SL ( vs. greater than 20% SL); from Lophodolos by the illicial apparatus emerging near the tip of snout, between the frontal bones ( vs. illicial apparatus emerging from the dorsal surface of head, between or behind sphenotic spines); from Pentherichthys by having the lower jaw with a symphysial spine ( vs. lower jaw without a symphysial spine, ventral margin of dentaries at symphysis concave), and caudal-fin rays without internal pigment ( vs. caudal-fin rays internally pigmented); and from Spiniphryne by the skin naked or the presence of only minute, widely spaced dermal spinules, visible only with the aid of a microscope in cleared and stained specimens ( vs. skin covered with close-set dermal spinules) (Pietsch, 2009).