34 Bulletin ofZoological Nomenclature 56(1) March 1999 Case 3061 Hemibagrus Bleeker, 1862 (Osteichthyes, Siluriformes): proposed stability of nomenclature by the designation of a single neotype for both Bagnis nemurus Valenciennes, 1840 and B. sieholdii Bleeker, 1846, and the designation of the lectotype of B. planiceps Valenciennes, 1840 as the neotype of B.flavus Bleeker, 1846 H.H. Ng. Y.Y. Goh and P.K.L. Ng School ofBiological Sciences, National University ofSingapore, 10 Kent Ridge Crescent. Singapore 119260. Republic ofSingapore (e-mail: [email protected]) Julian Dodson Departement de Biologic, Pavillion Alexandre-Vachon, Cite Universitaire, Quebec. Canada GIK 7P4 Abstract.The purpose of this application is to stabilise the taxonomy of two species-groups within the catfish genus Hemibagrus Bleeker, 1862. The uncertain statusoftwo supposedjunior synonyms. Bagriisflaviis Bleeker, 1846and B. sieholdii Bleeker. 1846. is resolved by making them respectively objectivejunior synonyms of B. planiceps Valenciennes, 1840 and B. nemurus Valenciennes, 1840. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Osteichthyes; Siluriformes; catfish; bagridae; Hemiliagrus: Hemibagrus flavus; Hemibagrus nemurus; Hemibagrus planiceps; Hemibagrus sieboldii. 1. The nominal genus Hemibagrus was established by Bleeker (1862, p. 9) with Bagrus nemurus Valenciennes in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1840 (p. 423) as the type species by original designation. Bagrid catfishes of Hemibagrus are economically important in South, East and Southeast Asia. Their taxonomy is confusing and a number of nominal species exist for which types, even if they exist, cannot be identified with certainty. We and our colleagues have been investigating the biology ofmembers ofHemibagrusin recent years, with various ongoing studies focusing on their systematics, zoogeography and phylogeny, using both morphological and geneticcharacters(Kottelat&Lim, 1995; Ng&Ng, 1995; Dodson,Colombani&Ng, 1995). Many ofthe larger species are also being investigated for use in aquaculture. Ourstudiesarecomplicated bytheprobablesynonymyoftwo pairsofnominal taxa: Bagrusfiavus Bleeker, 1846 as thejuniorsynonym ofB.planiceps Valenciennes in & Cuvier Valenciennes, 1840; BagrussieboldiiBleeker, 1846asthejuniorsynonymofB. nemurusValenciennesin Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1840. Each pair of synonyms is considered in turn and a course of action proposed to resolve the problem. Bulletin ofZoological Nomenclature56(1) March 1999 35 Bagrusplaniceps I Bagrusflavus 2. Bagrus planiceps Valenciennes in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1840 (p. 421), B. cinisiirus Valenciennes in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1840 (p. 423) and B.flavus Bleeker, 1846 (p. 156) are three of the nominal species in the H. planiceps species-group as defined by Ng & Ng (1995). Bagrus planiceps was described from two specimens mm measuring 4 and 8 French inches (= 108 and 216 respectively) in total length, collected by Heinrich Kuhl and Johan Coenraad van Hasselt from Java. Bagrus anisurus was described from a single specimen, also collected by Kuhl and van Hasselt from Java, measuring 14 French inches (= 379 mm) in total length. Bagrus flavus was described from an unspecified number ofspecimens ofunstated size from somewhere in Java. Bagrusplaniceps had been placed in the genus Mystus Scopoli, 1777 by some workers, but is currently classified in the genus Hemihagrus (see Mo, 1991). 3. Bleeker(1858, pp. 154-155), actingasfirst reviser, synonymised B. anisurusand B.flavus under B.planiceps; the twojunior nominal taxa have not been accepted as valid species since then. Roberts (1993), who reviewed the ichthyological contri- butions of Kuhl and van Hasselt, followed this synonymy and stated that their specimens were currently deposited in the Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle (MNHN) in Paris and the Nationaal Natuurhistorisch Museum (NNM) in Leiden. Hereportedthathehadexaminedthe'holotype"oiB.pkmiceps'mXhsMNHNaswell NNM as the holotype oiB. anisurus in the (Roberts, 1993, p. 30). 4. In theNNM,thereareseven specimenscollectedby Kuhlandvan Hasseltfrom Java (NNM 2939, 2941, 2956-2959, 2962) which are labelled as B. planiceps; all are kept inseparatebottles. Ofthese, onespecimen (NNM 2956) hasa labelwhich states "Holotype (?) Bagrus anisurus'. There is also one Kuhl and van Hasselt specimen in the MNHN from Java labelled as B.planiceps (MNHN B.615). As far as is known, these are the only known specimens ofB.planiceps or B. anisuruscollected by Kuhl and van Hasselt. Roberts (1993, p. 30) had identified a specimen 102 mm standard length and 121 mm total length (MNHN B.615) as the holotype of B. planiceps. but this is incorrect: as noted in para. 2 (above), B. planiceps was described from two specimens measuring 108 and 216 mm in total length. The two specimens of B. planiceps reported by Valenciennes are thus syntypes. Roberts noted that one of thespecimensofB.planicepsused byValenciennesin hisdescription had beendrawn but the figure had never been published. Roberts (fig. 65) published this illustration, mm notingthat thefigure ofthe specimen measured 136 in total length and that this wasthree-fifthsofthenaturalsize.Thespecimenillustratedwouldmeasureabout227 mm total length in life. This would thus agree fairly closely with the measurement provided by Valenciennes for the larger specimen of B. planiceps (216 mm, total length). Wehaveexaminedthe MNHNspecimenwhich Robertsincorrectlyregarded as the holotype ofB. planiceps, which measures 121 mm in total length. As such, it does not match either ofthe two specimens used by Valenciennes for his description ofB.planicepsandcannot be regarded asa syntypeofthespecies. Oftheseven Kuhl and van Hasselt specimens ofB.planiceps in the NNM, the second largest specimen (NNM mm mm 2939: 212 total length, 179 standard length)agreesverywell with the length ofthe larger ofthe twosyntypes ofB.planiceps(216 mm total length) and we NNM are confident that it is that specimen. The largest specimen ofB. planiceps is theonewhichalsocarriesa label notingthat itmight be thetype ofB. anisurus. This 36 Bulletin ofZoological Nomenclature 56{l) March 1999 specimen (NNM 2956) measures 377 mm in total length (283 mm standard length), and compares very well with the only specimen (total length 379 mm) mentioned by Valeciennes(in Cuvier&Valenciennes, 1840, p.423) inhisdescription ofB. anisurus. Although we do not know who placed the query on the label, because the length of NNM 2956 agrees so well with the size given by Valenciennes we are confident that it is theholotypeofB. anisurus. Theotherfivespecimens ofB.planicepsareall much smallerand nonecomescloseto thesizesmentioned by ValenciennesforB.planiceps or B. anisurus. 5. The problem associated with the types of Bagrus flavus is altogether more complex. Bleeker(1846)described B.flavuswhilestationed in Batavia (nowJakarta), buthewasshortlyafterwardstransferred to Samarang, Duringthis transfer, Bleeker (1878, p. 21)stated that 'itwasout ofthequestion to movemycollectionstomy new station, so I had toleave them behind in Batavia". Boeseman (1973, p. 59) noted'that 'when Bleeker returned from the East Indies [in 1860], he still had in his possession all the original specimens, excepting a few that had already been lost in the East Indies during the period ofhis banishment from Batavia'. NNM 6. There is a series of Bleeker specimens in the labelled as B. planiceps, which may or may not include the type material of B.flavus. The problems with Bleeker's material are well known. Bleeker often placed specimens of what he considered onespecies(includingtypes) togetherin thesamebottlewithout anydata or explanation, even ifthey were from different localities. In 1862, Bleeker (p. 56) mm noted that he had 21 specimens of B. planiceps ranging from 130-335 in total length from eight localities in Java and Sumatra. As hehad synonymised B. anisurus NNM and B. flavus with B. planiceps. all his specimens in the would have been labelledas B.planiceps, and ifhehad any type material ofB.flavus, hewould almost certainlyhavemixedthemwiththenon-typesaswell.TosortoutBleeker'sspecimens ofB.flavusismademoredifficult by the fact that hedid not statethenumberorsize of his specimens when describing B.flavus from Java (Bleeker, 1846, p. 156). We examined 23 Bleeker specimens in the NNM labelled as B. planiceps (NNM 6865, mm NNM mm 22 specimens, 59-234 standard length; 12039, one specimen, 129.4 standard length), all without any data. As Bleeker in 1862 had only 21 specimens, at least two ofthe present series must have been collected after that date. Bleeker had also distributed some of his specimens to the Natural History Museum (NHM) in London, and Giinther (1864, p. 81) lists in his catalogue one specimen of Bagrus NHM planiceps 'from Dr. P. v. Bleeker'sCollection'. As thematerial wassent to the after the publication in 1862 ofvol. 2 of Bleeker's atlas (see Hubrecht, 1879), the above remarks apply to this specimen as well, and there is no way ofknowingifit is actuallya type. The same applies to any ofBleeker's specimens in othermuseumsto which they were distributed after his death (see Boeseman, 1973, p. 60). 7. According to Fricke (1991, p. 8), one syntype of B.flavus is deposited in the Staatliches Museum fur Naturkunde (SMNS) in Stuttgart (SMNS 10570, 99.8 mm standard length), but we are unable to ascertain ifit is a type. This is unlikely to be the case, as Bleeker donated the specimen to SMNS in 1860, and it was probably obtained afterhistransferto Samarangand formedpart ofthemixed seriescurrently in NNM and NHM. The generally poor degree of preservation of the NNM and NHM specimens (twisted bodies, considerable degree of shrinkage and faded NNM coloration) makestheiridentificationdifiicult. However,eight specimenswere Bulletin ofZoological Nomenclature 56(1) March 1999 37 radiographed, and two groups of vertebral counts were discerned. One group had47^9vertebrae, whereasthesecond had 50-52vertebrae. Oftheseven Kuhl and van Hasseit specimens ofB. planiceps and B. anisurus radiographed, all have 47-49 vertebrae. We radiographed five fresh specimens of B. planiceps recently collected from Java, all of which have 47^9 vertebrae. We have also radiographed 15 specimens ofwhat had been identified as B.planicepsfrom various parts ofSumatra (fresh, as well as post-Bleeker material with definite locality data). All have 50-52 vertebrae. We believe these Sumatran specimens represent an undescribed species in the B. planiceps species-group. NNM 8. Whether any of the specimens are the types of B.flams can never be established for certain. This uncertainty, compounded by the poor condition ofthe specimens and thefact that Bleekerhad specimensofB.flavusand B.planicepsfrom Java and Sumatra mixed together, makes it impracticable to select a lectotype from this series. 9. RecentcollectionsfromwestJavahaveprovided fresh specimensofanelongate Hemibagruswith47^9vertebrae, rounded caudal fin lobeswith the principal rayon theupperlobeproducedintoalongfilament, andyellowishlivecoloration,whichare all clearly referable to H. planiceps. Their yellowish coloration in life also supports thecontention that B.flaviisis a synonym ofH.planiceps. No other members ofthe Hemibagrusplaniceps species-group have been collected from Java. The only other Hemibagrus species we have obtained from Java is H. nemurus, which is easily distinguishedbyitsshorterbodywith43^5vertebraeandgenerallymoregreyishlive coloration. Although Bleeker regarded B. planiceps, B. anisurus and B. flavus as synonyms, the absence ofa type for B.flavus poses problems in studying the other species from Southeast Asia. Ng & Ng (1995) have shown that the Hemibagrus planiceps species-group is more speciose than previously believed, with new or poorly-known taxa presentin otherpartsofSoutheast Asia. It is possiblethat oneof these taxa, particularly specimens with a yellowish live color, may be attributed to B. flavus. Java is already heavily developed and some species originally described from there can no longer be found on the island (Whitten, Soeriaatmadja & Afiff, 1996, pp. 718-720). Wecannot discount the possibilitythat morethan onespeciesof Hemibagrus belonging to the H. planiceps species-group may have existed on Java during Bleeker's time. The absence ofa type for B. flavus seriously complicates our revision ofthis species-group, as there is a need to establish positively the identity of B.flavus Bleeker, 1846, and its supposed synonymy with B. planiceps. Therefore, in the interest ofclarifyingthe identity and maintaining the synonymy ofB.flavuswith B.planiceps, thedesignation ofaneotype forB.flavusis necessary. Similarproblems with the types of Hemibagrus hoevenii (Bleeker, 1846) have been discussed by Kottelat, Lim & Ng (1994) and a neotype for this species was designated by the Commission (Opinion 1840, June 1996). 10. Since the type series ofB.flavus can never be recognized with certainty, and therefore the nominal species cannot be identified, we propose that the synonymy with B.planiceps be made objective by designating a lectotype ofB.planicepsas the neotype ofB.flavus. We recognize that an alternative proposal could have been to ask the Commission to suppress the nominal species B.flavusforthe purposes ofthe Principle ofPriority but not for those ofthe Principle of Homonymy; however, we considerthat theaction we proposeismore in keepingwith thesituation. Wehereby 38 Bulletin ofZoological Nomenclature56(1) March 1999 NNM designate as the lectotype ofB.planiceps specimen no. 2939 in the Nationaal Natuurhistorisch Museum, Leiden, referred to in para. 4 (above), and propose that thisspecimen shouldalso bedesignated asthe neotypeoiB.flavus(seepara. 19(l)(a) below). Bagrus nemurusI Bagrus sieboldii 11. Bagrus nemurus Valenciennes in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1840 (p. 423) and Bagrus sieboldii Bleeker, 1846 (p. 155) are two of the nominal species in the H.nemurusspecies-group(Ng&Ng, 1995). ValenciennesdescribedB. nemurussolely from a specimen measuring 15 French inches (=406 mm) in total length collected by Kuhl and van Hasselt from Java. Roberts (1993, p. 30) noted that one of the specimens of B. nemurus examined by Valenciennes had an unpublished figure preparedfortheoriginaldescription. Hepublishedthisillustration(fig. 63)andnoted that the figure ofthe specimen measured 144 mm in total length. He indicated that this was one-third ofthe natural size, making the actual specimen illustrated about mm 432 in total length. This is too long compared to the measurement provided by mm Valenciennes (406 total length) and thus cannot be a holotype (seealso para. 12 below). Bagrus nemurus has been placed in the genus Myslus by some workers, but iscurrentlyclassified in thegenus Hemibagrus(see Mo, 1991), forwhichit is thetype species (see para. 1 above). Bleeker described Bagrus sieboldii from an unspecified numberofspecimens ofunstated size from somewhere in Java (see also paras. 2and 5 above). 12. The Javanese material collected by Kuhl and van Hasselt is deposited both in the Nationaal Natuurhistorisch Museum in Leiden (NNM) and the Museum Nationald'HistoireNaturellein Paris(MNHN). Roberts(1993,p. 28)remarkedthat the holotype ofB. nemurus 'should be in Leiden". There is no specimen referable to B. nemurus collected by Kuhl and van Hasselt from Java deposited in the MNHN, nor is there any evidence that such specimens have ever been deposited there. In the NNM, the only specimen referable to B. nemuruscollected by Kuhl and van Hasselt NNM mm is a skeleton (catalogue no. 269) of only 175 standard length. This specimen, bearing the unpublished name 'Bagrus tetragonocephalus van Hasselt' is in poor condition with the vertebral column showing evidence of being repaired (Roberts, 1993; pers. obs.). 13. Ongoingstudies by ourselvesand ourcolleagueshave shown that what is now known as H. nemurus actually consists of a complex of several species which are morphologically very similar (Ng & Ng, 1995). Many characters at present used to diflferentiatethespecieswithin thegrouparenon-osteological andit isnotpossibleto differentiate taxa on the basis of skeletal morphology alone. In the absence of a holotype, onepossibleaction would betodesignateastheneotypetheskeleton ofthe specimen collected by Kuhl and van Hasselt from Java. This, however, is not advisable since it is impossible to discern key characters such as body form, morphology ofthe soft parts and color from the skeleton. 14. Bleeker (1858, p. 151) synonymised his own species, B. sieboldii, under B. nemurus Valenciennes; the junior synonym has not been accepted as valid since then. Bleeker(1862, p. 55)subsequentlynotedthathehad32specimensof5. nemurus ranging from 105-340mm in total length from 18 localitiesin Java, Sumatra, Banka and Borneo. As he had synonymised B. sieboldii with B. nemurus. all Bleeker's Bulletin ofZoological Nomenclature 56(1) March 1999 39 NNM specimens in the would iiave been labelled as B. nemunts, and ifhe had any type material ofB. siehohiii he would have mixed it with the non-types. To sort out Bleeker'sspecimensofB.sieboldiiismadeevenmoredifficult bythefactthat Bleeker did not state the number or size of his specimens when describing B. sieboldii from Java. NNM 15. There is a series of Bleeker's specimens in the labelled as B. nenninis, which may or may not include the types of5. sieboldii. We examined 19 specimens (NNM 6863, 48.5-256 mm standard length) all without any data. As the smallest specimen reported by Bleeker(1862, p. 55)is 105mmtotal lengthand thesmallestwe have seen is 57.0 mm total length (48.5 mm standard length), some ofthe present series must have been collected after 1862. These specimens seem to belong to more than one species, but the twisted bodies, considerable degree of shrinkage, faded coloration and generally poor degree of preservation make identification difficult. According to Fricke (1991, p. 8), one syntype of B. sieboldii is deposited in the Staatliches Museum fiir Naturkunde in Stuttgart (SMNS 10572, 123.8 mmstandard length). As with B.flavus (para. 7 above), this is unlikely to be the case. It is not possible to establish for certain whether any of the NNM or SMNS specimens are the types ofB. sieboldii. Thus, it is impractical to select a lectotype from this series due to this uncertainty, compounded by the poor condition of the specimens and the fact that Bleeker had specimens of B. nemurus and B. sieboldii from Java, Sumatra, Banka and Borneo. It is just as likely that the original type material of B. sieboldii is lost. Giinther's (1864, p. 81) catalogue lists specimens of Bagrus NHM nemurus in the 'from Dr. P. v. Bleeker's Collection'. The material was sent to NHM the after the publication in 1862 ofvol. 2 ofBleeker's atlas (Hubrecht, 1879); thereisnoway ofknowingifit orBleeker'sspecimensinothermuseumsareactually type specimens. 16. We have examined a Hemibagrus with 43^5 vertebrae, a thin dark midaxial streak, and a faint humeral spot during recent collections in Java; these specimens are referable to H. nemurus. The only other species we have encountered on Java is H. planiceps, which is easily distinguished by its longer body with 47-49 vertebrae and generally more yellowish live coloration. 17. Although Bleeker(1858, p. 151) synonymised B. sieboldiiwith B. nemurus. the absence ofa type for B. sieboldii poses problems in studying the other species from Southeast Asia. Ng& Ng(1995) showed that the Hemibagrusnemurusspecies-group ismorespeciose than previously believed, with new or poorly-known taxa present in otherpartsofSoutheast Asia. Aremotepossibilityexiststhatonesuchtaxonmaybe conspecificwithB. sieboldii. Aspointedoutin para. 9(above)somespeciesoriginally described from Java are no longer found there as the island has been heavily developed. Wecannotexcludethepossibilityofmorethan onespeciesoiHemibagrus belongingto the H. nemurusspecies-group havingexisted in Java in the last century. Ourrevisionofthisspecies-groupisseriouslycomplicated bytheabsenceoftypesfor B. nemurus and B. sieboldii. and there is a need to establish positively the identity of B. nemurus Valenciennes and B. sieboldii Bleeker. The necessity to fix the identity ofB. nemurus is also made more important by the fact that it is the type species of the genus Hemibagrus Bleeker. Therefore, the designation ofa neotype is necessary in theinterestsofclarifyingtheidentityandmaintainingthesynonymyof5.sieboldii and B. nemurus. 40 Bulletin ofZoologicalNomenclature 56(1) March 1999 18. SincethetypeseriesofB. sieboldiican neverbe recognized withcertainty, and thus the nominal species cannot be identified, we propose that the synonymy with B. ni'inunis be made objective by the designation as the neotype of both nominal speciesofspecimen no. ZRC41504 in the Zoological ReferenceCollection, National University of Singapore, collected from Sungai Sokan at Cibalagung, a probable outlet ofthe Cirata Reservoir at Citarum by Y.Y. Goh and D. Wowor on 21 June 1997. This specimen is in accord with the accepted meaningofthe name Hemibagrus nemurus and, unlike the Kuhl and van Hasselt material, is in good condition. 19. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all previous fixations oftype specimens for the following nominal species and to designate as the respective neotypes the specimens indicated: NNM (a) Bugrusflavus Bleeker, 1846: specimen no. 2939 in the Nationaal Natuurhistorisch Museum, Leiden (the lectotype of Bagrus planiceps Valenciennes in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1840); (b) BagrusnemurusValenciennesinCuvier&Valenciennes, 1840: specimenno. ZRC41504in the Zoological Reference Collection, National Universityof Singapore; (c) Bagrus sieboldii Bleeker, 1846: specimen no. ZRC41504in the Zoological Reference Collection, National University ofSingapore; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Hemibagrus Bleeker, 1862 (gender: masculine), type species by original desig- nation Bagrus nemurus Valenciennes in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1840; (3) toplaceontheOthcial List ofSpecificNamesin Zoology the followingnames: (a)planicepsValenciennes in Cuvier& Valenciennes, 1840, as published in the binomen Bagrus planiceps and as defined by the lectotype designated in para. 10 (above) by Ng, Goh, Ng & Dodson (1999); (b) nemurus Valenciennes in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1840, as published in the binomen Bagrusnemurusandasdefined bytheneotypedesignated in(1)(b) above (specific name ofthe type species ofHemibagrus Bleeker, 1862); (4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the following names: {a)flavus Bleeker, 1846, as published in the binomen Bagrus flams (a junior objective synonym ofB. planiceps Valenciennes in Cuvier& Valenciennes, 1840); (b) sieboldii Bleeker, 1846 as published in the binomen Bagrus sieboldii (a junior objective synonym of B. nemurus Valenciennes in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1840). References Bleeker, P. 1846. Overzigt der Siluroieden, weike te Batavia voorkomen. Natuur- en Genee.skundig Archie]'voor Neertand's Indie, 3: 135-184. Bleeker, P. 1858. Ictuhyologiae archipelagi indici pradronius. vol. 1. Siluri. 258 pp. Lange, Batavia. Bleeker, P. 1862. AtUis icluhyologicjue de.s liides Orienudes Neerlandaises, vol. 2. Siluroides, Chacoides et Heterobranehoides. 112 pp., pis. 49-101. Muller, Amsterdam. Bulletin ofZoological Nomenclature 56(1) March 1999 41 Bleeker,P. 1878. BiographicalnoticesconcerningP. Bleeker.Pp. 11-42inLamme,W.H.(Ed.) (1973), Collectedfishpapers ofPieter Bleeker. vol. I. Junk, The Hague. Boeseman, M. 1973. Some informative remarks on the auction of Bleeker's collections. Pp. 59-61 in Lamme, W.H. (Ed.). Collectedfish papers ofPieter Bleeker. vol. 1. Junk, The Hague. Cuvier, G. & Valenciennes, A. [1840]. Hisloire naturelle des poissons. vol. 14. 464 pp. Pitois-Levrault. Paris. Dodson, J.J., Colombani, F. & Ng, P.K.L. 1995. Phylogeographic structure in mitochondrial DNA ofa South-east Asian freshwater fish, Hemihagnis nenuinis (Siluroidei; Bagridae) and Pleistocene sea-level changes on the Sunda shelf. Molecular Ecology. 4: 331-346. Fricke,R. 1991.TypesandhistoricalmaterialsinthefishcollectionoftheSlaatlichesMuseum fiir Naturkunde in Stuttgart, part 1. The Bleeker collection. Stuttgarter Beitrdge ziir Naturkunde. serie A (Biologic), 471: 1-85. Giinther, A. 1864. Catalogue offishes in the British Museum, vol. 5. xxii, 455 pp. British Museum, London. Hubrecht,A.A.W. 1879. CataloguedescollectionsformeesetlaisseesparM.-P. Bleeker. 71 pp. De Breuk & Smits, Leiden. Kottelat, M. & Lim, K.K.P. 1995. Hemibagrus hoevenii. a valid species of Sundaic catfish (Teleostei: Bagridae). Malayan NatureJournal. 49: 41^7. Kottelat, M., Lim, K.K.P. & Ng, P.K.L. 1994. Case 2934. Bagrus hoevenii Bleeker, 1846 (currently Hemibagrus hoevenii: Osteichthyes, Siluriformes): proposed designation ofa neotype. Bulletin ofZoologicalNomenclature. 51: 320-322. Mo, T. 1991. Anatomy, relationships and systematics ofthe Bagridae (Teleostei: Siluroidei) with a hypothesis ofsiluroid phylogeny. Theses Zoologicae. 17: 1-216. Ng, P.K.L. & Ng, H.H. 1995. Hemibagrus gracilis, a new species of large riverine catfish (Teleostei: Bagridae) fromPeninsularMalaysia. RafflesBulletin ofZoology,43: 133-142. Roberts, T.R. 1993. The freshwater fishes ofJava, as observed by Kuhl and van Hasselt in 1820-23. Zoologische Verhandelingen. 285: 1-94. Whitten,.4.,Soeriaatmadja,R.E.&Afiff,S.A. 1996. TheecologyofJavaandBali,x.xiv,969pp. Periplus, Hong Kong. Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin: they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn(gnhm.ac.uk).