Apogonidae Günther 1859

Mabuchi, Kohji, Fraser, Thomas H., Song, Hayeun, Azuma, Yoichiro & Nishida, Mutsumi, 2014, Revision of the systematics of the cardinalfishes (Percomorpha: Apogonidae) based on molecular analyses and comparative reevaluation of morphological characters, Zootaxa 3846 (2), pp. 151-203 : 173-174

Family Apogonidae Günther 1859

Type genus Apogon Lacepède 1801

The following is a summary of known apogonid characteristics. Those in italics are known for almost all genera and species and expected where the general state is unknown.

Diagnosis. One or two anal spines, first spine usually small, supernumerary in position, second spine or first anal ray in serial association with first distal and proximal-middle radials; first segmented anal ray unbranched or branched, 7–18 rays; dorsal spines VI–IX; first segmented dorsal ray unbranched, 8–19 rays; supernumerary dorsal spines 1–2; supraneurals 0–3; principal caudal fin-rays 9+8, 13–17 branched and segmented; procurrent rays unbranched and segmented or spinous; six infraorbitals, perforated openings for passage of nerve trunks to large neuromasts, lower edge of large 1st infraorbital (lachrymal) smooth, serrated or smooth along upper edges of 2nd and 3rd infraorbitals, 3rd to 5th infraorbitals with internal shelves present or absent; preopercle ridge smooth or serrate, preopercle edges smooth, serrate or with unossified lower portion; basisphenoid present, reduced or absent; vertebrae 9–10+14–16; epineurals on first two vertebrae; ribs on 3rd to 10th vertebrae or absent on 10th vertebrae; epineurals present on ribs of 3rd to 9th vertebrae or absent on some, 6th to 9th vertebrae, or absent on all ribs; ribs rod-like or variably expanded proximally; PU2 with neural crest; PU2 and PU3 with autogenous haemal spines or fused; hypurals 1–5 present, not fused or various combinations of 1+2, 3+4 or 1–4 fused, may fuse to terminal centrum, hypural 5 splint-like or absent; parhypural free or fused to hypurals 1+2; second epibranchial articulating with third pharyngobranchial; prootic included as part of the inner orbit ring or excluded by the pterosphenoids and parasphenoid; pterosphenoids medially separate; parietal separated by supraoccipital; anterior and posterior ceratohyals sutured together by a few interdigitating struts medially or without struts; perforated anterior ceratohyal or not; seven branchiostegals, anterior three ventrally followed by two on distal side of anterior ceratohyal, two on distal side of posterior ceratohyal; swim bladder simple without anterior or posterior modifications, a dorsal oval and ventral gas glands either simple or complex; free neuromasts on head, body and caudal fin; free medial extrascapular or fused with lateral extrascapular; scales ctenoid, spinoid, cycloid or absent; single lateral-line present from posttemporal to base of caudal fin either as pored, pitted or grooved scales, or if without scales, with linear free neuromasts; secondary lateral-line scales or linear free neuromasts on lower body present or absent; if scales on body then scales on cheek, opercle, subopercle, interopercle and urohyal regions of head, predorsal scales present or absent, scales on cheek, opercle, subopercle, interopercle and gular regions of head; if body with scales then no scales on snout, interorbit, temporal region of head, supramaxilla or maxilla; no scales extending out on pectoral, pelvic, first and second dorsal and anal fins, a few scales on base of caudal fin, a scale sheath at base of second dorsal fin or not; males mouth brooding fertilized eggs; simple filaments present around the micropyle.

Distribution. Apogonids are found predominately in tropical and subtropical marine waters of all oceans from near shore to about a depth of 300 m. Many fewer shallow-water apogonids are found in fresh, estuarine, or warmtemperate waters.

Remarks. This family's diagnosis is inclusive for four subfamilies, and is believed to exclude all other percomorph families in parts or combinations of characters. Fraser (2013b) examined the literature relating to the living Kurtidae as well as morphological characters of both species. He concluded that there were only two possible synapomorphies shared by both families but neither is exclusive of other families. Kurtid morphology has many derived characters compared with other percomorphs including apogonids (for the relationship between the Kurtidae and apogonid genera Archamia Gill 1863 and Taeniamia Fraser 2013b , see the remarks of the tribe Archamiini ). Neither this study nor Fraser (2013b) focused on the question about which family is the closest sister. An answer to family relationships awaits a different focus with groups that have characters more in common with the basal apogonids Amioides and Holapogon (for the relationship between Amioides and Cheilodipterus , see the remarks of the tribe Cheilodipterini ).

In the absence of well-defined sister families analyzed using Amioides and Holapogon as the basal apogonids, the following characters are proposed as likely synapomorphies for the Apogonidae : 1) a single supernumerary anal spine with the following spine or ray in serial association with the first distal and proximal radials, 2) mouth brooding of fertilized eggs, 3) simple filaments around the micropyle of the egg, 4) swim bladder with a dorsal or anterodorsal oval and ventral gas glands, no anterior projections to skull or posterior connections with first anal pterygiophore.

Apogon , the first genus in the family, was described by Lacepède (1801) in page priority before he described Cheilodipterus the second genus. Cheilodipteroidei was erected by Bleeker (1856b) prior to Günther's Apogonina in 1859. Gill (1862) used Apogoninae and Bleeker in his 1874 revision of apogonids used Apogonini . Gill (1893) in his list of families and subfamilies used Cheilodipteridae referring to Bleeker's Cheilodipteroidei in 1859. Günther (1859) changed Cheilodipterus to Chilodipterus and that variant later appeared as a family name. Both generic based names have been used variably as family stem names though about the 1960s. Virtually, all systematic publications have used Apogonidae since the 1970s. Gon (1993), in his revision of Cheilodipterus , did not comment on family names, using Apogonidae . He noted Smith's (1961) use as Cheilodipterinae , now a tribe we recognize. We believe that the prevailing use of Apogonidae should be kept for stability at the family level.