taxonID	type	description	language	source
1B7A87C4FFB0FFC0B7AB1A06FC2DFCDA.taxon	type_taxon	(masculine; type species Mirolabrichthys tuka Herre & Montalban in Herre 1927 by monotypy).	en	Gill, Anthony C. (2022): Revised definitions of the anthiadine fish genera Mirolabrichthys Herre and Nemanthias Smith, with description of a new genus (Teleostei: Serranidae). Zootaxa 5092 (1): 41-66, DOI: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5092.1.2
1B7A87C4FFB0FFC0B7AB1A06FC2DFCDA.taxon	type_taxon	(masculine; type species Entonanthias pascalus Jordan & Tanaka, 1927 by original designation and monotypy).	en	Gill, Anthony C. (2022): Revised definitions of the anthiadine fish genera Mirolabrichthys Herre and Nemanthias Smith, with description of a new genus (Teleostei: Serranidae). Zootaxa 5092 (1): 41-66, DOI: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5092.1.2
1B7A87C4FFB0FFC0B7AB1A06FC2DFCDA.taxon	diagnosis	Diagnosis. The following synapomorphies support monophyly of the genus: 1. Distinctive dorsal-fin shape. Mirolabrichthys species, particularly adult males, have a distinctive dorsal-fin shape. The fourth to 10 th spines are longest, most of the soft dorsal fin is distinctly elevated above the spinous portion, and the mid-posterior rays are longest, often with prolonged free tips (Fig. 1). 2. Auxiliary scales present on body. Mirolabrichthys species are relatively distinctive in having extensive coverage on the body of auxiliary scales, small scales at the bases of the normal scales (Fig. 2). Auxiliary scales are known from several other anthiadine genera (reviewed by Pogonoski & Gill 2021), although in most these are restricted to the head, nape and anterodorsal part of the body. Among Pseudanthias and near relatives, they are mostly either absent or restricted to the head and anterior body. Only a few species have extensive coverage on the body, including P. thompsoni (Fowler, 1923), P. squamipinnis (Peters, 1855), P. olivaceus (Randall & McCosker, 1982), P. huchtii (Bleeker, 1857) and P. nobilis (Franz, 1910). All but the first species appear to be closely related to each other (e. g., uniquely among anthiadines, males of these species have pigmented blotches on the distal part of their upper pectoral-fin rays), and probably should be classified in the genus Franzia. I consider the extensive coverage of auxiliary scales to be independently derived in Mirolabrichthys. The presence of auxiliary scales over much of the body, in combination with the following characters distinguishes Mirolabrichthys from other anthiadine genera: pectoral-fin rays 15 – 19; tubed lateral line scales 45 – 52; circumpeduncle scales 23 – 28; vomerine teeth small, in small patch; interopercle and subopercle either smooth or with a few small serrations.	en	Gill, Anthony C. (2022): Revised definitions of the anthiadine fish genera Mirolabrichthys Herre and Nemanthias Smith, with description of a new genus (Teleostei: Serranidae). Zootaxa 5092 (1): 41-66, DOI: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5092.1.2
1B7A87C4FFB0FFC0B7AB1A06FC2DFCDA.taxon	description	Description. See Tables 1 – 5 for variation among species. Dorsal-fin rays X, 15 – 18; dorsal-fin origin above pectoral-fin base (Fig. 1); primary shaft of first dorsal-fin pterygiophore angled distinctly posterodorsally; ADPF S / S + S / 3 / 1 + 1 / 1 / 1 / 1 / 1 / 1 (= predorsal formula 0 / 0 + 0 / 2 / 1 + 1; Fig. 3 A); dorsal-fin pterygiophores in interneural spaces 9 – 13 1 / 1 / 1 + 1 / 1 + 1 / 1 + 1, 1 / 1 + 1 / 1 + 1 / 1 + 1 / 1 or 1 / 1 + 1 / 1 + 1 / 1 + 1 / 1 + 1; terminal dorsal-fin pterygiophore in interneural space 17 – 18; anal-fin rays III, 7 – 9; terminal anal-fin pterygiophore in interhaemal space 5 – 6; pectoral-fin rays 15 – 19, no serrations on rays; pelvic-fin rays I, 5; caudal-fin rays 9 – 11 + 9 + 8 + 9 – 11; branched caudal-fin rays 7 + 6; no procurrent spur on upper procurrent ray in lower lobe; penultimate procurrent ray in lower lobe not foreshortened (see Johnson 1975, 1983). Scales moderately small, tubed scales in lateral line 45 – 52; circumpeduncle scales 23 – 28; auxiliary scales extensively present on head and body; lower jaw scaled; basal scaled area on dorsal and anal fins broad; scales with peripheral cteni only (Roberts 1993). Greatest body depth 28 – 37 % SL; head length 24 – 30 % SL; orbit diameter 5 – 7.5 % SL; predorsal length 31 – 37 % SL; preanal length 60 – 65 % SL; prepelvic length 31 – 37 % SL; caudal peduncle depth 13.5 – 16 % SL. Anterior part of upper lip of males hypertrophied (Fig. 1); mouth large, oblique, posterior margin of maxilla reaching to point ranging from vertical through posterior edge of pupil to vertical through posterior edge of eye; mouth terminal, becoming inferior in males; supramaxilla absent; premaxilla with 1 or 2 enlarged canines anterolaterally, a band of small conical teeth about 4 or 5 rows wide at symphysis reducing to 1 or 2 rows on sides of jaw, with outer-row teeth larger, those of posterior half of jaw curved anteriorly or inwards; 1 – 3 posterior teeth in band nearest symphysis enlarged and caniniform, lying almost flat against roof of mouth; dentary with 1 or 2 laterally curved, enlarged canines at front of jaw, followed by band of small conical teeth about 3 or 4 rows wide reducing to 1 or 2 rows posteriorly, outer-row teeth much larger, those of posterior part of jaw curved anteriorly or inwards; anterior third of dentary with 1 – 3 enlarged, posteriorly curved canines outside band of teeth; vomer with small patch of tiny teeth; palatine with a narrow band of small conical teeth, 2 or 3 rows wide at widest point; ectopterygoid, endopterygoid, and tongue edentate. Opercle with three flat spines, uppermost indistinct and covered by scales and skin, lowermost below junction with subopercle, middle spine closer to lowermost spine than to uppermost; preopercle finely serrated at angle and on posterior, vertical edge; interopercle and subopercle either smooth or with a few small serrations; posttemporal smooth or with indistinct serrations or crenulae; posterior rim of orbit with (Fig. 4) or without papillae. Paired pharyngobranchials (pb) 1 through 4 present, pb 4 cartilaginous; tooth plates present on pb 2 through pb 4, tooth plate on pb 4 small and autogenous; paired epibranchials (eb) 1 through 4 present; uncinate process on eb 1 fan-shaped, broadly rimmed with cartilage, and directed posterodorsally; no tooth plate on eb 2; small toothplate on eb 3 (Figs. 5 A, 6 A); paired ceratobranchials (cb) 1 through 5 present; tooth plate on cb 5; paired hypobranchials (hb) 1 through 3 present, none with toothplates; median basibranchials (bb) 1 through 4 present, bb 4 as cartilage, none with toothplates; gill rakers elongate on anterior / lateral face of first arch, 8 – 11 on eb 1, uppermost at junction with pb 1, and 22 – 27 on cb 1 and hb 1; shorter club-like rakers or rudiments present on posterior face of eb 1, cb 1 and hb 1, on both anterior and posterior faces of eb 2 – 3, cb 2 – 4 and hb 2, and on anterior face of hb 3, eb 4 and cb 5. Vertebrae 10 + 15 – 16; parapophyses present on first caudal vertebra (Fig. 7 B); epineurals present on vertebrae 1 through 11 – 13; ribs present on vertebrae 3 through 10; preural 2 (pu 2) and pu 3 haemal spines autogenous; no radial cartilages in caudal skeleton anterior to pu 3 haemal and neural spines; parhypural and hypurals autogenous; welldeveloped hypurapophysis on parhypural; single uroneural; 3 epurals; ventral tip of cleithrum with well-developed posteroventral process. Composition. Mirolabrichthys tuka Herre & Montalban in Herre, 1927, Entonanthias pascalus Jordan & Tanaka, 1927, Anthias evansi Smith, 1954.	en	Gill, Anthony C. (2022): Revised definitions of the anthiadine fish genera Mirolabrichthys Herre and Nemanthias Smith, with description of a new genus (Teleostei: Serranidae). Zootaxa 5092 (1): 41-66, DOI: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5092.1.2
1B7A87C4FFB0FFC0B7AB1A06FC2DFCDA.taxon	discussion	Remarks. Mirolabrichthys and Entonanthias were described in 1927. Myers (1929) recognised the two genera were synonymous and gave priority to Mirolabrichthys over Entonanthias owing to the former being published in March, whereas the latter was published in June. Myers’s decision has been followed by subsequent authors who have recognised Mirolabrichthys as either a valid genus or a subgenus of Anthias or Pseudanthias. However, Eschmeyer’s Catalog of Fishes (Fricke et al. 2021) provides a date of “ 27 Jan. ” for Entonanthias and “ 17 Mar. ” for Mirolabrichthys, suggesting that Entonanthias is actually the older name. Volume 17 of Annals of the Carnegie Museum includes a statement (p. xvi) that it was published in seven consignments from 9 June 1926 to 27 June 1927, and article 12 (which included the description of Entonanthias) was in the final consignment. Clearly, the date in Fricke et al. (2021) of “ 27 Jan. ” is a typographical error for “ 27 Jun. ” All three included species were represented in the phylogenetic analysis of COI sequences by Gill et al. (2021 a) and were retrieved as a monophyletic group. Kuiter (2004) recognised two additional species, one for populations of M. pascalus from the Great Barrier Reef and South Pacific, and the other for populations of M. tuka from Rowley Shoals, Western Australia. Further study is needed to address the taxonomic status of these potentially new species.	en	Gill, Anthony C. (2022): Revised definitions of the anthiadine fish genera Mirolabrichthys Herre and Nemanthias Smith, with description of a new genus (Teleostei: Serranidae). Zootaxa 5092 (1): 41-66, DOI: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5092.1.2
1B7A87C4FFB0FFC0B7AB1A06FC2DFCDA.taxon	materials_examined	Material examined. Mirolabrichthys evansi ZRC 62117 (6 W, X, 38.8 – 45.8 mm SL; M. pascalus ASIZP 56149 (1 X), AMS I. 49578 - 016 (1 W, 72.5 mm SL); M. tuka ACG CS 532 (3 CS, 41 – 56 mm SL), AMS I. 19472 - 032 (4 CS, 76 – 84 mm SL), ASIZP 59665 (1 X), ZRC 62052 (4 W, 29.4 – 46.0 mm SL).	en	Gill, Anthony C. (2022): Revised definitions of the anthiadine fish genera Mirolabrichthys Herre and Nemanthias Smith, with description of a new genus (Teleostei: Serranidae). Zootaxa 5092 (1): 41-66, DOI: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5092.1.2
1B7A87C4FFB9FFC4B7AB1BE6FD8BFD82.taxon	type_taxon	(masculine; type species Nemanthias carberryi Smith, 1954, by original designation and monotypy).	en	Gill, Anthony C. (2022): Revised definitions of the anthiadine fish genera Mirolabrichthys Herre and Nemanthias Smith, with description of a new genus (Teleostei: Serranidae). Zootaxa 5092 (1): 41-66, DOI: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5092.1.2
1B7A87C4FFB9FFC4B7AB1BE6FD8BFD82.taxon	type_taxon	(masculine; type species Emmelanthias stigmapteron Smith, 1955 (= Nemanthias carberryi Smith, 1954), by original designation and monotypy).	en	Gill, Anthony C. (2022): Revised definitions of the anthiadine fish genera Mirolabrichthys Herre and Nemanthias Smith, with description of a new genus (Teleostei: Serranidae). Zootaxa 5092 (1): 41-66, DOI: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5092.1.2
1B7A87C4FFB9FFC4B7AB1BE6FD8BFD82.taxon	diagnosis	Diagnosis. The following synapomorphies support monophyly of the genus: 1. Dorsal fin anteriorly positioned. The dorsal-fin origin of most anthiadines is usually above or slightly behind the vertical through the posterior edge of the opercle. The main (proximal) shaft of the first pterygiophore either reclines posterodorsally or is perpendicular to the body axis (Fig. 3 A, B). In Nemanthias, the dorsal-fin origin is farther forward, varying from above the midpoint of the preopercle and opercle posterior edges to above the middle of the cheek, depending on species (Fig. 8; Table 2). The primary (proximal) shaft of the first dorsalfin pterygiophore is angled distinctly anterodorsally (Fig. 3 C, D). Similar anterior positioning of the dorsal fin and forward angling of the first dorsal-fin pterygiophore occurs in Odontanthias, some species of Meganthias Randall & Heemstra, 2006 (but not others) and Sacura Jordan & Richardson, 1910 (Heemstra & Randall 1979; Randall & Heemstra 2006; Gill & Russell 2019); both molecular and morphological evidence suggests these taxa are closely related to each other (Gill & Russell 2019; Zajonz et al. 2020). It also occurs in some species of the Atlantic / eastern Pacific genera Anthias, Hemanthias Steindachner, 1875, Pronotogrammus Gill, 1863 and Baldwinella Anderson & Heemstra, 2012. However, morphological characters and preliminary molecular phylogenies suggest none of these genera is closely related to Nemanthias, and I therefore consider the similar dorsal fin position and pterygiophore orientation to be independently derived. 2. Males with posterior supernumerary spine on first dorsal-fin pterygiophore relatively elongate. Anthiadines typically have three fin spines associated with the first dorsal-fin pterygiophore, two in supernumerary association (first and second spines) and one in serial association (third spine). Typically in males with elongate spines, only the serial spine is elongate, although some species of Baldwinella may have more posterior spines also elongate, and the anterior supernumerary spine is elongate or subequal to other spines in Pseudanthias pictilis (Randall & Allen, 1978). In males of Nemanthias species, the posterior supernumerary spine on the first dorsal-fin pterygiophore is relatively elongate and is often produced, filamentous and subequal to or longer than the serial spine (Fig. 8). Clarification of the homology of anterior dorsal-fin spines in the type species, N. carberryi, is provided in Remarks below. 3. High number of circumpeduncle scales. Anthiadines typically have around 12 – 30 circumpeduncle scales. Nemanthias species are relatively derived in having smaller and more numerous circumpeduncle scales, with counts of 29 – 36, modally 31 or more, depending on species (Table 3). In addition, the following combination of characters distinguishes the genus from other anthiadine genera: branched caudal rays 7 + 6; no papillae on posterior rim of orbit; tubed lateral-line scales 50 – 64; predorsal length 20 – 31 % SL.	en	Gill, Anthony C. (2022): Revised definitions of the anthiadine fish genera Mirolabrichthys Herre and Nemanthias Smith, with description of a new genus (Teleostei: Serranidae). Zootaxa 5092 (1): 41-66, DOI: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5092.1.2
1B7A87C4FFB9FFC4B7AB1BE6FD8BFD82.taxon	description	Description. See Tables 1 – 5 for variation among species. Dorsal-fin rays X – XII, 16 – 18; dorsal-fin origin varying from above midpoint of preopercle and opercle posterior edges to above middle of cheek (Fig. 8); primary shaft of first dorsal-fin pterygiophore angled distinctly anterodorsally; ADPF 3 // 1 + 1 + 1 / 1 / 1 / 1 / 1 / 1 / 1, S // 3 / 1 + 1 / 1 / 1 / 1 / 1 / 1 or S / S / 3 / 1 + 1 / 1 / 1 / 1 / 1 / 1 (= predorsal formula 2 // 1 + 1 + 1, 0 // 2 / 1 + 1 or 0 / 0 / 2 / 1 + 1; Fig. 3 C, D); dorsal-fin pterygiophores in interneural spaces 9 – 13 1 / 1 + 1 / 1 + 1 / 1 + 1 / 1 + 1,1 / 1 + 1 / 1 / 1 + 1 / 1 + 1,1 / 1 + 1 / 1 + 1 / 1 / 1 + 1,1 / 1 + 1 / 1 + 1 / 1 + 1 / 1,1 + 1 / 1 / 1 + 1 / 1 / 1 + 1, 1 + 1 / 1 / 1 + 1 / 1 + 1 / 1 or 1 + 1 / 1 / 1 + 1 / 1 + 1 / 1 + 1; terminal dorsal-fin pterygiophore in interneural space 18 – 19; anal-fin rays III, 7 – 8 (usually III, 7); terminal anal-fin pterygiophore in interhaemal space 5 – 6; pectoral-fin rays 18 – 22, longest few rays bearing serrations (Fig. 9); pelvic-fin rays I, 5; caudal-fin rays 9 – 12 + 9 + 8 + 7 – 13; branched caudal-fin rays 7 + 6; no procurrent spur on upper procurrent ray in lower lobe; penultimate procurrent ray in lower lobe not foreshortened (see Johnson 1975, 1983). Scales relatively small, tubed scales in lateral line 50 – 64; circumpeduncle scales 29 – 36; no auxiliary scales on head or body; lower jaw scaled or naked; basal scaled area on dorsal and anal fins either narrow or scales absent; scales with peripheral cteni only (Roberts 1993). Greatest body depth 25 – 39 % SL; head length 28 – 35 % SL; orbit diameter 7 – 12 % SL; predorsal length 20 – 31 % SL; preanal length 59 – 67 % SL; prepelvic length 33 – 37 % SL; caudal peduncle depth 12 – 15 % SL. Anterior part of upper lip of males hypertrophied (Fig. 8); mouth large, oblique, posterior margin of maxilla reaching to point ranging from vertical through posterior edge of pupil to vertical through posterior edge of eye; mouth terminal, becoming inferior in males; supramaxilla absent; premaxilla with 1 or 2 enlarged canines anterolaterally, a band of small conical teeth about 4 or 5 rows wide at symphysis reducing to 1 or 2 rows on sides of jaw, with outer-row teeth much larger, those of posterior half of jaw curved anteriorly; 1 or 2 posterior teeth in band nearest symphysis sometimes enlarged and caniniform, lying almost flat against roof of mouth; dentary with 1 or 2 laterally curved, enlarged canines at front of jaw, followed by band of small conical teeth about 2 – 4 rows wide reducing to 1 or 2 rows posteriorly, outer-row teeth much larger, those of posterior part of jaw curved anteriorly; anterior third of dentary with 1 or 2 enlarged, posteriorly curved canines outside band of teeth; vomer with either an oval patch of large conical teeth or a small patch of small teeth; palatine with a narrow band of small conical teeth, 2 – 10 rows wide at widest point; ectopterygoid, endopterygoid, and tongue edentate. Opercle with three flat spines, uppermost sometimes indistinct and hidden by scales and skin, lowermost below junction with subopercle, middle spine closer to lowermost spine than to uppermost; preopercle finely serrated at angle and on posterior, vertical edge; interopercle and subopercle smooth or with indistinct crenulae; posttemporal smooth or with indistinct serrations or crenulae; posterior rim of orbit without papillae. Paired pharyngobranchials (pb) 1 through 4 present, pb 4 cartilaginous; tooth plates present on pb 2 through pb 4, tooth plate on pb 4 small and autogenous; paired epibranchials (eb) 1 through 4 present; uncinate process on eb 1 fan-shaped, broadly rimmed with cartilage, and directed posterodorsally; no tooth plate on eb 2; small toothplate on eb 3 (Figs. 5 B – C, 6 B – C); paired ceratobranchials (cb) 1 through 5 present; tooth plate on cb 5; paired hypobranchials (hb) 1 through 3 present, none with toothplates; median basibranchials (bb) 1 through 4 present, bb 4 as cartilage, none with toothplates; gill rakers elongate on anterior / lateral face of first arch, 9 – 12 on eb 1, uppermost at junction with pb 1, and 22 – 29 on cb 1 and hb 1; shorter club-like rakers or rudiments present on posterior face of eb 1, cb 1 and hb 1, on both anterior and posterior faces of eb 2 – 3, cb 2 – 4 and hb 2, and on anterior face of hb 3, eb 4 and cb 5. Vertebrae 10 + 16; parapophyses present on first caudal vertebra; epineurals present on vertebrae 1 through 12 or 1 through 15 – 17; ribs present on vertebrae 3 through 10 – 11 (usually 10); preural 2 (pu 2) and pu 3 haemal spines autogenous; no radial cartilages in caudal skeleton anterior to pu 3 haemal and neural spines; parhypural and hypurals autogenous; well-developed hypurapophysis on parhypural; single uroneural; 3 epurals; ventral tip of cleithrum with well-developed posteroventral process. Composition. Nemanthias carberryi Smith, 1954, Anthias (Mirolabrichthys) bartlettorum Randall & Lubbock, 1981, Anthias (Mirolabrichthys) bicolor Randall, 1979, Mirolabrichthys dispar Herre, 1955, Anthias (Mirolabrichthys) ignitus Randall & Lubbock, 1981, and Anthias (Mirolabrichthys) regalis Randall & Lubbock, 1981.	en	Gill, Anthony C. (2022): Revised definitions of the anthiadine fish genera Mirolabrichthys Herre and Nemanthias Smith, with description of a new genus (Teleostei: Serranidae). Zootaxa 5092 (1): 41-66, DOI: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5092.1.2
1B7A87C4FFB9FFC4B7AB1BE6FD8BFD82.taxon	discussion	Remarks. All but the type species were originally described either in the genus Anthias, within the subgenus Mirolabrichthys or in the genus Mirolabrichthys, and were later reclassified in Pseudanthias. Smith (1954) erected Nemanthias for N. carberryi, and reported that it had 11 dorsal-fin spines, with the first spine separated from the remaining spines. He later erected Emmelanthias Smith, 1955, for E. stigmapteron, noting that it resembles Nemanthias in having anteriorly positioned dorsal and pelvic fins, but differs in having 12 rather than 11 dorsal-fin spines (Smith 1955). Heemstra & Randall (1986) placed E. stigmapteron in synonymy with N. carberryi, and noted that small juveniles have 12 spines, but the first spine is minute and disappears with growth. However, this spine is visible in a 61 mm SL cleared and stained specimen but is tiny and was not apparent prior to clearing and staining (Fig. 3 D). Randall & Lubbock (1981) noted that N. carberryi is similar to Mirolabrichthys in having males with a hypertrophied upper lip but considered Nemanthias distinct because of the higher number of dorsal-fin spines and in having the first two spines elongate. They therefore overlooked the tiny first spine, and their first two spines are the homologues of the second and third spines (posterior supernumerary and serial spines, respectively) of other anthiadine species. Although the high dorsal-fin spine count has been considered of generic significance, it is here considered an autapomorphy of N. carberryi and therefore silent on relationships to other species. Additional autapomorphies for the species include the deeply incised membrane between the second and third dorsal-fin spines (Fig. 8 C), absence of supraneurals, preneural position of the first dorsal-fin pterygiophore, and presence of four (versus one) pterygiophores anterior to the third neural spine (Fig. 3 D). Although the first dorsal-fin pterygiophore is in the typical (for anthiadines) second interneural space in the remaining species of Nemanthias, they resemble N. carberryi in having the pterygiophore angled forward and the dorsal fin origin relatively anteriorly placed (see synapomorphy 1 above). Gill et al. (2021 a) incorporated three of the included species in their analysis of COI sequences, N. carberryi, N. dispar and N. regalis, and retrieved them as a monophyletic group.	en	Gill, Anthony C. (2022): Revised definitions of the anthiadine fish genera Mirolabrichthys Herre and Nemanthias Smith, with description of a new genus (Teleostei: Serranidae). Zootaxa 5092 (1): 41-66, DOI: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5092.1.2
1B7A87C4FFB9FFC4B7AB1BE6FD8BFD82.taxon	materials_examined	Material examined. Nemanthias bartlettorum AMS I. 19218 - 001 (1 W, X, paratype, 43 mm SL); N. bicolor ACG CS 14 (4 CS, 62 – 79 mm SL), AMS I. 18721 - 001 (1 W, X, paratype, 65 mm SL); N. carberryi AMS I. 48957 - 001 (1 W, CS, 61 mm SL), ZRC 62340 (2 W, X, 38.5 – 40.0 mm SL); N. dispar ACG CS 574 (3 CS, 34 – 43 mm SL), ACG CS 907 (6 CS, 43 – 48 mm SL), AMS I. 32478 - 010 (1 CS, 49 mm SL), AMS I. 49578 - 004 (1 W, 53.7 mm SL); N. ignitus ACG CS 673 (2 CS, 33 – 56 mm SL), AMS I. 19219 - 001 (1 W, X, paratype, 50 mm SL); N. regalis AMS I. 19220 - 001 (1 W, X, paratype, 42 mm SL).	en	Gill, Anthony C. (2022): Revised definitions of the anthiadine fish genera Mirolabrichthys Herre and Nemanthias Smith, with description of a new genus (Teleostei: Serranidae). Zootaxa 5092 (1): 41-66, DOI: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5092.1.2
1B7A87C4FFBDFFDAB7AB1ADEFE8CFC46.taxon	type_taxon	Pyronotanthias new genus, type species Anthias lori Randall & Lubbock in Fourmanoir & Laboute (1976).	en	Gill, Anthony C. (2022): Revised definitions of the anthiadine fish genera Mirolabrichthys Herre and Nemanthias Smith, with description of a new genus (Teleostei: Serranidae). Zootaxa 5092 (1): 41-66, DOI: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5092.1.2
1B7A87C4FFBDFFDAB7AB1ADEFE8CFC46.taxon	diagnosis	Diagnosis. The following synapomorphy supports monophyly of the genus: 1. Red stripe or series of blotches below posterior part of dorsal fin and along upper caudal peduncle. Species of Pyronotanthias are unusual in having a distinctive bright orange to red stripe or series of blotches beneath the soft dorsal fin and along the upper edge of the caudal peduncle (Fig. 10). Although the stripe or blotches are not always apparent in P. bimarginatus, P. parvirostris, P. smithvanizi and P. unimarginatus, a very narrow or diffuse orange to red stripe is evident in at least some individuals of the four species, and is particularly obvious in life (Kuiter 2004; Allen & Erdmann 2012; Tea et al. 2020). In addition, the following combination of characters distinguishes the genus from other anthiadine genera: dorsal fin X, 14 – 17, not incised between spinous and soft portions of fin; pectoral-fin rays 16 – 19, longest few rays bearing serrations; tubed lateral-line scales 41 – 56; posterior rim of orbit with papillae.	en	Gill, Anthony C. (2022): Revised definitions of the anthiadine fish genera Mirolabrichthys Herre and Nemanthias Smith, with description of a new genus (Teleostei: Serranidae). Zootaxa 5092 (1): 41-66, DOI: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5092.1.2
1B7A87C4FFBDFFDAB7AB1ADEFE8CFC46.taxon	description	Description. See Tables 1 – 5 for variation among species. Dorsal-fin rays X, 14 – 17; dorsal-fin origin varying from above pectoral-fin base to above opercle posterior edge (Fig. 10); primary shaft of first dorsal-fin pterygiophore angled distinctly posterodorsally; ADPF S // 3 / 1 + 1 / 1 / 1 / 1 / 1 / 1, S / S / 3 / 1 + 1 / 1 / 1 / 1 / 1 / 1 or S / S + Sv / 3 / 1 + 1 / 1 / 1 / 1 / 1 / 1 (= predorsal formula 0 // 2 / 1 + 1, 0 / 0 / 2 / 1 + 1 or 0 / 0 + 0 / 2 / 1 + 1; Fig. 3 B); dorsal-fin pterygiophores in interneural spaces 9 – 13 1 / 1 / 1 + 1 / 1 + 1 / 1, 1 / 1 + 1 / 1 + 1 / 1 / 1 + 1, 1 / 1 + 1 / 1 + 1 / 1 + 1 / 1 or 1 / 1 + 1 / 1 + 1 / 1 + 1 / 1 + 1; terminal dorsal-fin pterygiophore in interneural space 17 – 18; anal-fin rays III, 7 – 8 (usually III, 7); terminal anal-fin pterygiophore in interhaemal space 5 – 7; pectoral-fin rays 16 – 19; longest few rays bearing serrations; pelvic-fin rays I, 5; caudal-fin rays 7 – 11 + 9 + 8 + 7 – 11; branched caudal-fin rays 7 + 6. Scales moderately small, tubed scales in lateral line 41 – 56; circumpeduncle scales 21 – 30; no auxiliary scales on head or body; lower jaw scaled; basal scaled area on dorsal and anal fins either narrow or broad; scales with peripheral cteni only (Roberts 1993). Greatest body depth 25 – 36 % SL; head length 28 – 35 % SL; orbit diameter 7 – 12 % SL; predorsal length 29 – 37 % SL; preanal length 54 – 67 % SL; prepelvic length 31 – 37 % SL; caudal peduncle depth 13 – 16 % SL. Anterior part of upper lip of males weakly to strongly hypertrophied (Fig. 10); mouth large, oblique, posterior margin of maxilla reaching to point ranging from vertical through posterior edge of pupil to vertical through posterior edge of eye; mouth terminal, becoming inferior in males; supramaxilla absent; premaxilla with 1 or 2 enlarged canines anterolaterally, a band of small conical teeth about 4 or 5 rows wide at symphysis reducing to 1 or 2 rows on sides of jaw, with outer-row teeth much larger, those of posterior half of jaw curved anteriorly; 1 or 2 posterior teeth in band nearest symphysis sometimes enlarged and caniniform, lying almost flat against roof of mouth; dentary with 1 or 2 forward projecting or laterally curved, enlarged canines at front of jaw, followed by band of small conical teeth about 3 or 4 rows wide reducing to 1 or 2 rows posteriorly, outer-row teeth much larger, those of posterior part of jaw curved anteriorly; anterior third of dentary with 1 – 3 enlarged, posteriorly curved canines outside band of teeth; vomer with small patch of small teeth; palatine with either a small irregular patch of small teeth or a narrow band of small conical teeth, 2 – 5 rows wide at widest point; ectopterygoid, endopterygoid, and tongue edentate. Opercle with three flat spines, uppermost indistinct, lowermost below junction with subopercle, middle spine closer to lowermost spine than to uppermost; preopercle finely serrated on posterior, vertical edge; interopercle and subopercle usually smooth or with indistinct crenulae, sometimes with fine serrations; posttemporal smooth or with indistinct serrations or crenulae; posterior rim of orbit with papillae. Paired pharyngobranchials (pb) 1 through 4 present, pb 4 cartilaginous; tooth plates present on pb 2 through pb 4, tooth plate on pb 4 small and autogenous; paired epibranchials (eb) 1 through 4 present; uncinate process on eb 1 fan-shaped, broadly rimmed with cartilage, and directed posterodorsally; no tooth plate on eb 2; small toothplate on eb 3 (Figs. 5 D, 6 D); paired ceratobranchials (cb) 1 through 5 present; tooth plate on cb 5; paired hypobranchials (hb) 1 through 3 present, none with toothplates; median basibranchials (bb) 1 through 4 present, bb 4 as cartilage, none with toothplates; gill rakers elongate on anterior / lateral face of first arch, 8 – 11 on eb 1, uppermost at junction with pb 1, and 20 – 27 on cb 1 and hb 1; shorter club-like rakers or rudiments present on posterior face of eb 1, cb 1 and hb 1, on both anterior and posterior faces of eb 2 – 3, cb 2 – 4 and hb 2, and on anterior face of hb 3, eb 4 and cb 5. Vertebrae 10 + 16; parapophyses present on first caudal vertebra; epineurals present on vertebrae 1 through 12 – 15; ribs present on vertebrae 3 through 10 – 11; preural 2 (pu 2) and pu 3 haemal spines autogenous; no radial cartilages in caudal skeleton anterior to pu 3 haemal and neural spines; parhypural and hypurals autogenous; welldeveloped hypurapophysis on parhypural; single uroneural; 3 epurals; ventral tip of cleithrum with well-developed posteroventral process. Composition. Anthias (Mirolabrichthys) aurulentus Randall & McCosker, 1982, Pseudanthias bimarginatus Randall, 2011, Anthias (Mirolabrichthys) flavoguttatus Katayama & Masuda, 1980, Anthias lori Lubbock & Randall in Fourmanoir & Laboute, 1976, Anthias (Mirolabrichthys) parvirostris Randall & Lubbock, 1981, Pseudanthias privitera Randall & Pyle, 2001, Anthias (Mirolabrichthys) smithvanizi Randall & Lubbock, 1981, Pseudanthias timanoa Victor, Teitelbaum & Randall, 2020, and Pseudanthias unimarginatus Randall, 2011.	en	Gill, Anthony C. (2022): Revised definitions of the anthiadine fish genera Mirolabrichthys Herre and Nemanthias Smith, with description of a new genus (Teleostei: Serranidae). Zootaxa 5092 (1): 41-66, DOI: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5092.1.2
1B7A87C4FFBDFFDAB7AB1ADEFE8CFC46.taxon	etymology	Etymology. From the Greek πυρ, fire, νοτος, back, and Anthias. It alludes to the characteristic red blotches or stripes on the upper caudal peduncle and beneath the posterior part of the dorsal fin of the included species. Gender is masculine.	en	Gill, Anthony C. (2022): Revised definitions of the anthiadine fish genera Mirolabrichthys Herre and Nemanthias Smith, with description of a new genus (Teleostei: Serranidae). Zootaxa 5092 (1): 41-66, DOI: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5092.1.2
1B7A87C4FFBDFFDAB7AB1ADEFE8CFC46.taxon	discussion	Remarks. Gill et al. (2021 a) included three species in their analysis of COI sequences, P. aurulentus, P. lori and P. timanoa, and retrieved them as a monophyletic group.	en	Gill, Anthony C. (2022): Revised definitions of the anthiadine fish genera Mirolabrichthys Herre and Nemanthias Smith, with description of a new genus (Teleostei: Serranidae). Zootaxa 5092 (1): 41-66, DOI: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5092.1.2
1B7A87C4FFBDFFDAB7AB1ADEFE8CFC46.taxon	materials_examined	Material examined. Pyronotanthias aurulentus AMS I. 22467 - 001 (1 W, X, paratype, 29 mm SL), ZRC 61164 (1 W, X, 70.0 mm SL); P. bimarginatus USNM 398058 (1 X, paratype, 36.8 mm SL), ZRC 62122 (6 W, X, 42.2 – 45.3 mm SL); P. flavoguttatus ZRC 62054 (2 W, X, 33.4 – 36.5 mm SL), ZRC 62119 (2 W, X, 27.0 – 31.7 mm SL); P. lori ACG CS 675 (3 CS, 40 – 62 mm SL), ACG CS 934 (1 CS, 39 mm SL), AMS I. 18563 - 001 (1 W, X, paralectotype, 33.5 mm SL), USNM 216922 (2 X, paratypes of Mirolabrichthys imeldae Burgess, 1977), USNM 216923 (1 X, holotype of M. imeldae); P. privitera AMS I. 39928 - 001 (1 W, X, paratype, 44.5 mm SL); P. smithvanizi AMS I. 18603 - 001 (2 W, X, paratypes, 39 – 42 mm SL), AMS I. 20436 - 009 (1 CS, 37 mm SL); P. timanoa AMS unregistered (3 W, X, 63.4 – 75.0 mm SL).	en	Gill, Anthony C. (2022): Revised definitions of the anthiadine fish genera Mirolabrichthys Herre and Nemanthias Smith, with description of a new genus (Teleostei: Serranidae). Zootaxa 5092 (1): 41-66, DOI: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5092.1.2
1B7A87C4FFA3FFDEB7AB1E36FC52FD12.taxon	description	Parapophyses on first caudal vertebrae. Plesiomorphically in anthiadine fishes, the terminal pair of parapophyses are on the terminal precaudal vertebra, which is identified from the adjacent first caudal vertebra in lacking a haemal spine (Fig. 7 A). In contrast, the first caudal vertebra bears a pair of parapophyses in Mirolabrichthys (Fig. 7 B), Nemanthias, Pyronotanthias, Anatolanthias, Luzonichthys, Rabaulichthys, Tosana, Hemanthias, Choranthias Anderson & Heemstra, 2012 and all but three species of Pseudanthias: P. hawaiiensis (Randall, 1979), P. ventralis (Randall, 1979) and P. hangapiko Shepherd, Pinheiro, Phelps, Pérez-Matus & Rocha, 2021. Preliminary molecular studies support exclusion of these three species from Pseudanthias (Gill et al. 2021 a; L. Rocha, pers. comm.). This character was first noted by Baldwin (1990) and briefly reviewed by Pogonoski & Gill (2021). Pyronotanthias + Nemanthias + Anatolanthias + Luzonichthys + Rabaulichthys. A single character supports this relationship. Longest few pectoral-fin rays bearing serrated projections. W. F. Smith-Vaniz (in Randall & Lubbock 1981) noted that Pyronotanthias lori and P. smithvanizi have distinctive serrations on the distal parts of the longest few pectoral-fin rays. Randall & Pyle (2001) subsequently recorded this character in P. privitera (Randall & Pyle, 2001). This character also occurs in all examined species of Pyronotanthias. It otherwise occurs in all examined species of	en	Gill, Anthony C. (2022): Revised definitions of the anthiadine fish genera Mirolabrichthys Herre and Nemanthias Smith, with description of a new genus (Teleostei: Serranidae). Zootaxa 5092 (1): 41-66, DOI: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5092.1.2
1B7A87C4FFA3FFDEB7AB1E36FC52FD12.taxon	description	High number of lateral-line scales. In their key to species of the subgenus Mirolabrichthys, Randall & Lubbock (1981) differentiated the five species here newly incorporated in Nemanthias from other species in the subgenus based on their relative high numbers of lateral-line scales and pectoral-fin rays (53 – 64 versus 41 – 56 and 18 – 22, rarely 18 versus 15 – 19, rarely 19, respectively). However, N. carberryi has an intermediate number of lateralline scales (50 – 56). Nonetheless, the counts for N. carberryi are relatively high for anthiadines. Among genera that appear closely related (e. g. with parapophyses on the first caudal vertebra), such high counts are found only in several species of Pseudanthias (notably P. caudalis Kamohara & Katayama, 1959 and P. thompsoni, which appear to be closely related to each other, as well as P. calloura Ida & Sakaue, 2001 (51 – 53 scales) and P. cooperi and relatives (collectively with 46 – 55 scales; Randall & Pyle, 2001 )), and in species of Anatolanthias (62 – 64 lateral-line scales; gill arch characters not yet confirmed for the genus), Luzonichthys (51 – 78 lateral-line scales) and Rabaulichthys (51 – 59 lateral-line scales). High number of epineural bones. Anderson et al. (1990) had previously suggested a close relationship between Anatolanthias, Luzonichthys and Rabaulichthys on the basis of several derived features: anterior and posterior nares well separated from each other; vomerine dentition reduced or absent; sum of numbers of pairs of epipleural and epicaudal ribs 16 – 19. I identify the last-mentioned collectively as epineural bones, following the terminology of Johnson & Patterson (1993, 2001) and Patterson & Johnson (1995). Except for N. bicolor with 12 epineurals, Nemanthias also has relatively high numbers of epineurals (15 – 17; Table 4). Conflicting characters. The following characters have been used to diagnose Mirolabrichthys in the broad sense, or to suggest relationships within the genus. I here consider them to be homoplastic but acknowledge that they suggest relationships or generic classifications alternative to those proposed herein. Hypertrophied upper lip of males. Mirolabrichthys has been traditionally diagnosed by the presence in males of a hypertrophied upper lip. Randall & Lubbock (1981) noted that similar morphology was also found in Nemanthias carberryi. Hypertrophy of the upper lip is characteristic of all species included here in Mirolabrichthys, Nemanthias and Pyronotanthias, although it is variable in degree depending on species (Figs. 1, 8, 10). Similar morphology is not known in Anatolanthias, Luzonichthys or Rabaulichthys, which suggests conflict with the relationships implied by the above characters. Males of Pseudanthias flavicauda Randall & Pyle, 2001, P. pulcherrimus (Heemstra & Randall, 1986), P. randalli (Lubbock & Allen, 1978) and P. tequila Gill, Tea & Senou, 2017, have variously developed hypertrophy of the upper lip, which suggests a closer relationship of Mirolabrichthys, Nemanthias and Pyronotanthias with these species (and presumably also P. oumati Williams, Delrieu-Trottin & Planes, 2013, for which males are unknown, but which groups with P. randalli and P. pulcherrimus in analyses of COI sequences; Williams et al. 2013). Papillae on orbital rim. Two species of Mirolabrichthys and all species of Pyronotanthias are distinctive in having large fleshy papillae on the posterior part of the orbit (Fig. 4). They are not present in M. evansi or in species of Nemanthias. Among anthiadines, similar orbital papillae are found in species of Anatolanthias, Luzonichthys and Rabaulanthias, as well as one species of Pseudanthias, P. calloura. The character therefore implies relationships and a generic classification counter to the current proposal. However, the character is difficult to interpret in some specimens, and is possibly present in P. kashiwae, in which weakly developed papillae-like projections are apparent in some specimens. Moreover, fleshy orbital papillae are also present in the planktivorous pomacentrids Lepidozygus tapeinosoma (Bleeker, 1856), Chromis pamae Randall & McCosker, 1992 a and C. randalli Greenfield & Hensley, 1970, in the serranine serranid genus Schultzea Woods, 1958 and in the anomalopid genus Anomalops Kner, 1868. According to a recent phylogenetic study, the two species of Chromis are sister taxa, which are only distantly related to Lepidozygus (Tang et al. 2021). Johnson & Rosenblatt (1988) suggested the papillae may be associated with maintaining laminar flow of water over the eyeball. Similarly, Randall & McCosker noted the occurrence of orbital papillae in the three pomacentrids and certain anthiadines and suggested the following: “ All of these fishes are slender-bodied; they feed on zooplankton well above the substratum but must swim swiftly to cover with the approach of predaceous fishes. We believe the papillae may function to ensure a smooth flow of water over the eye when swimming rapidly ” (Randall & McCosker 1992 a: 333). If these explanations are correct, orbital papillae might be expected to occur more widely in anthiadines, as well as perhaps in other taxa with similar behaviour and general morphology such as symphysanodontids, but this is apparently not the case. Supraneural number and anterior dorsal-fin pterygiophore formula. Plesiomorphically in anthiadines, there are three supraneural bones, arranged in an ADPF of S / S + S / 3 / 1 + 1. Departures from this condition include loss of one or more supraneurals, and anterior migration of dorsal-fin pterygiophores (autapomorphic for N. carberryi). Of the three genera considered here, only Mirolabrichthys has the plesiomorphic condition (Fig. 3 A; Table 2). In the remaining two genera, either the third or second and third supraneurals are absent (the third is sometimes present as a vestige in some Pyronotanthias species, and all supraneurals are autapomorphically absent in N. carberryi; Figs. 3 B – D; Table 2). Reduction or loss of the third supraneural is not at odds with the proposed relationship of Nemanthias and Pyronotanthias to Anatolanthias (ADPF S / S / 3 / 1 + 1), Luzonichthys (ADPF S / S / 3 / 1 + 1 or S // 3 / 1 + 1) and Rabaulichthys (ADPF S / S / 3 / 1 + 1). However, although this character has been considered important in anthiadine systematics (e. g., Katayama 1959; Kendall 1976; Katayama & Masuda 1980; Anderson & Heemstra 2012), it appears to be homoplastic within the subfamily, occurring in all species of Anthias, Baldwinella, Choranthias, Hemanthias, Holanthias Günther, 1868, Meganthias, Odontanthias, Pronotogrammus, Sacura and Tosana, and some species of Plectranthias, Pseudanthias and Tosanoides (Pogonoski & Gill 2021).	en	Gill, Anthony C. (2022): Revised definitions of the anthiadine fish genera Mirolabrichthys Herre and Nemanthias Smith, with description of a new genus (Teleostei: Serranidae). Zootaxa 5092 (1): 41-66, DOI: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5092.1.2
