Northeastern Naturalist 118 J.J. Wright, R.E Schmidt, and B.R. Weatherwax 22001166 NORTHEASTERN NATURALIST 2V3(o1l). :2131,8 N–1o3. 31 New and Previously Overlooked Records of Several Fish Species from the Marine Waters of New York Jeremy J. Wright1,*, Robert E Schmidt1, and Bryan R. Weatherwax1 Abstract - The marine fish fauna of New York represents a highly diverse species assemblage, composed of both migratory and resident taxa that utilize a wide variety of habitats. Recently, the New York State Museum took possession of Dr. Howard Reisman’s personal ichthyology collection, which included many specimens from Shinnecock Bay, Long Island. Examinations of these specimens has provided evidence to suggest that an additional 4 species should be added to previously compiled lists of marine species known to occur in the vicinity of New York. The prior lack of recognition of the presence of these species in Shinnecock Bay is apparently attributable to a number of factors, including historical taxonomic confusion, actual range expansion, aquarium releases, and simple lack of historical documentation of rare or transient species. Introduction New York’s marine ichthyofauna represents a relatively diverse (at least 326 species from 109 families) assemblage, composed of nearshore, open ocean, and deepwater species, which include both resident and migratory, estuarine, diadromous, and/or obligately marine taxa (Briggs and Waldman 2002). This high level of fish species biodiversity is thought to stem from 2 sources, the first of which is New York’s mid-latitudinal position, which causes seasonal fluctuations in resident species due to major changes in water temperature and the movements of migratory species (Briggs and Waldman 2002). The second factor is the great variety of marine habitats that are found throughout the area, including the many sheltered bays along the southern edge of Long Island, which serve as nursery areas for many migratory fish species as well as providing conditions more conducive to the survival of stray individuals belonging to southern, warmer water species (Briggs and Waldman 2002, Sullivan 1991). In spite of these high levels of species diversity, the marine fishes of New York are comparatively poorly studied relative to their freshwater counterparts throughout the state. The marine fish fauna has, however, been the subject of multiple attempts to provide a comprehensive list of species known to occur, either permanently or transiently, in the area (Bean 1903, Briggs and Waldman 2002, Nichols and Breder 1927). In July of 2014, the New York State Museum, in cooperation with colleagues at Stony Brook University’s Southampton Marine Sciences Center, took possession of Dr. Howard Reisman’s personal collection of fish specimens. Dr. Reisman is Emeritus Professor of Biology and Marine Science at Southampton College, Long Island University, where among other courses, he taught ichthyology nearly every fall 1New York State Museum, 3140 Cultural Education Center, Albany, NY 12230. *Corresponding author - jeremy.wright@nysed.gov. Manuscript Editor: John Waldman Northeastern Naturalist Vol. 23, No. 1 J.J. Wright, R.E Schmidt, and B.R. Weatherwax 2016 119 semester for 35 years while performing research on a broad range of topics, from fish behavior to their physiological ecology. The Reisman Collection includes material from several marine regions around the world, including the Gulf and Pacific coasts of Mexico, coastal California, and Long Island, NY, obtained by Dr. Reisman during class trips and his research pursuits over the course of his ichthyological career. His tropical marine biology course generated multiple collections from the South Pacific and the Caribbean, also contained in the material now deposited at the NYSM. We are still in the process of confirming the identifications of the majority of this material and accessioning it into the NYSM Ichthyology Collection, but we have completed this process for all of Dr. Reisman’s collections from New York’s marine waters. Over the course of our examinations of this material, most of which was obtained from Shinnecock Bay, Long Island, we identified several lots of specimens that had the potential to represent species that had not previously been included in major lists of New York marine fish species. Detailed examinations of these specimens and the scientific literature confirmed both their identity and the lack of records of their occurrence in New York waters. Herein we provide accounts detailing the identity of these species, the characters used to confirm the identities of Dr. Reisman’s specimens as new species occurrences in New York waters, and, where available and pertinent, additional information regarding the taxonomy and overall distributions of these species as indicated by literature accounts and museum voucher specimens. Study Area and Methods Study area Shinnecock Bay is a 3600-ha embayment on the western end of the South Fork, Long Island, about 122 km east of New York City (Fig. 1). Historically, this Figure 1. Study area, Long Island, New York, with major inlets and embayments, including Shinnecock Bay, indicated. Northeastern Naturalist 120 J.J. Wright, R.E Schmidt, and B.R. Weatherwax 2016 Vol. 23, No. 1 embayment contained low-salinity waters until a hurricane opened a channel, Shinnecock Inlet, through the southern barrier beach in 1938. Ocean water flowing through the new inlet raised the salinity of the Bay to essentially that of seawater. By the 1950s, the inlet had been stabilized by rock groins and is now the easternmost of 5 major inlets through the southern Long Island barrier beach. The western basin is ≤2 m deep, and the eastern basin averages 3 m in depth. The latter basin has substantial areas of Zostera marina L. (Eelgrass). The Shinnecock Canal (built in 1919) connects Shinnecock Bay with Peconic Bay to the north; the canal has a lock that allows Peconic Bay water to flow south but prevents th e reverse. Shinnecock Bay and its inlet have long been known to harbor tropical fish species. New York State Department of State (1998) listed 47 species of marine tropical visitors in their summary of marine resources in Shinnecock Bay. Many tropical marine strays are captured from the Shinnecock system from late July through late October, with many commercial aquaria harvesting these primarily juvenile fishes for public display. Methods We confirmed existing specimen identifications through the examination of specimens in conjunction with the appropriate taxon-specific literature (see accounts for citations). To ensure that the specimens and species discussed here had not previously been recorded from New York’s marine waters, we first examined the several publications that have compiled lists of New York’s marine fishes (Bean 1903, Briggs and Waldman 2002, Nichols and Breder 1927). We then examined additional literature to confirm that none of the species had been documented in work published subsequent to Briggs and Waldman’s (2002) list, as well as to determine the known distributional limits of these species. In addition to our literature searches, we queried the registries of major ichthyology collections throughout the eastern United States to explore the possibility that individuals of these species had previously been collected in the vicinity of New York but had simply not been included in any published work. Institutions surveyed included the Academy of Natural Sciences of Drexel University (ANSP), American Museum of Natural History (AMNH), Florida Museum of Natural History (FLMNH), Harvard Museum of Comparative Zoology (MCZ), North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences (NCSM), The Smithsonian Institution (USNM), and the New York State Museum (NYSM). Finally, to determine whether any of the species documented here may have been recorded in New York waters under previously used synonymous names, we performed detailed surveys of the taxonomic literature involving each of these taxa, the details of which, where pertinent, can be found in th e accounts below. Results Antennariidae Only one antennariid species, Histrio histrio L. (Sargassumfish), has historically been recorded from New York’s marine waters, where it can rarely be found in transient clumps of Sargussum spp. (sargassum weed) carried north by the Gulf Stream Northeastern Naturalist Vol. 23, No. 1 J.J. Wright, R.E Schmidt, and B.R. Weatherwax 2016 121 (Bean 1903, Briggs and Waldman 2002, Nichols and Breder 1927). New York is near the northern limits for this fish species and the largely tropical to subtropical family as a whole. The northernmost records of H. histrio are from Georges Bank in the 1930s (Pietsch 2002). The Reisman Collection contained a single 71-mm (SL) antenariid specimen (NYSM 71559) collected from Shinnecock Bay on 26 October 2001 (Fig. 2). Examination of this specimen quickly showed that it is not H. histrio, however, but belongs to a taxon that has not previously been recorded from New York, representing a northward range extension for its species. Antennarius striatus. Antennarius striatus (Shaw and Nodder) (Striated Frogfish) is a widespread circumtropical species. This species was described from specimens collected in Tahiti on one of Cook’s expeditions, and the lectotype (BMNH 1978.3.1.2, 77 mm) is still in surprisingly good condition (Pietsch and Grobaker 1987). In the Western Atlantic, this species has frequently been called A. scaber (for instance, see Robins et al. 1986), now a junior synonym of A. striatus (Pietsch and Grobaker 1987). Schwartz (2005) listed only one Striated Frogfish specimen from North Carolina, collected in September 1971. The northern limit of this species’ range along the North American Atlantic coast is widely cited as New Jersey, based on a single specimen, the holotype of A. teleplanus Fowler, now also in the synonymy of A. striatus (Pietsch and Grobaker 1987). That specimen (ANSP 38162) was collected by commercial fishermen in Cape May, NJ, on 30 September 1911. Our specimen was easily assigned to the genus Antennarius by the presence of the following combination of characters (taken from Pietsch and Grobaker 1987): close-set dermal spinules covering the skin (naked areas present between pores of Figure 2. Specimen of Antennarius striatus (NYSM 71559) collected from Shinnecock Bay on 26 October 2001. Scale bar = 1 cm. Northeastern Naturalist 122 J.J. Wright, R.E Schmidt, and B.R. Weatherwax 2016 Vol. 23, No. 1 acoustico-lateralis system); distinct esca; third dorsal spine mobile, not bound to the surface of the cranium by the skin of the head; broad attachment of the pectoral lobe to the side of the body; short caudal peduncle; all caudal rays bifurcate; and 11 dorsal-fin rays (11–14 in Antennarius). Characters of the illicium (about as long as second dorsal spine; anterior end of illicium pterygiophore extending anteriorly beyond symphysis of upper jaw, slightly overhanging the mouth) and esca (consisting of 2 worm-like appendages) confirm the assignment of this specimen to the A. striatus group, while the condition of the esca distinguishes this specimen from the other member of the A. striatus species group, A. hispidus (Bloch and Schneider), in which the esca consists of an oval-shaped tuft composed of numerous, slender filaments (Pietsch and Grobaker 1987). The wide array of esca morphology and color forms found in A. striatus, along with its widespread geographical distribution, have contributed to the generation of significant taxonomic confusion regarding this species (Pietsch and Grobaker [1987] placed 28 nominal forms in the synonymy of A. striatus). Reisman’s specimen displays the bifid esca and pectoral-fin ray count (11) that Pietsch and Grobaker cite as being typical of individuals from the Western Atlantic. Interestingly, however, this specimen displays a solid-black color phase (Fig. 2), which Pietsch and Grobaker (1987) found in only 6% of the material th ey examined, and which Robins et al. (1986) suggested may represent females in breeding condition, although this hypothesis appears to lack support (summarized in pp. 37–38 of Pietsch and Grobaker [1987]). Furthermore, our specimen displays a pinkish esca, noted by Pietsch and Grobaker from only two (ANSP 10648, ANSP 97667) of the many lots that they examined for this species. This specimen therefore represents not only the northernmost existing record of A. striatus (over 300 km NE of Cape May, NJ), but a well-preserved example of a relatively rare phenotype, which may prove useful in future morphological studies of this taxon. Serranidae Briggs and Waldman (2002) list 8 serranid species as occurring in New York waters: Centropristis philadelphica (L.) (Rock Sea Bass), C. striata (L.) (Black Sea Bass), Epinephelus itajara (Lichtenstein) (Goliath Grouper), E. morio (Valenciennes in Cuvier and Valenciennes) (Red Grouper), E. nigritus (Holbrook) (Warsaw Grouper), E. niveatus (Valenciennes in Cuvier and Valenciennes) (Snowy Grouper), Mycteroperca microlepis (Goode and Bean) (Gag), and M. phenax Jordan and Swain (Scamp). Following the molecular phylogenetic analysis of Craig and Hastings (2007), 2 of these species (E. nigritus and E. niveatus) are now placed in the resurrected genus Hyporthodus. Of the species listed by Briggs and Waldman, only 2—C. striata and H. niveatus—are commonly found in New York waters, with the rest being represented by 1 or only a few collection records. The Reisman Collection contained a single collection of 4 serranid specimens from Shinnecock Bay, which were seined from an Eelgrass bed in 1990 (no further date information available). These specimens were originally identified as E. guttatus (L.) (Red Hind), a species which rarely ventures farther north than Florida. Northeastern Naturalist Vol. 23, No. 1 J.J. Wright, R.E Schmidt, and B.R. Weatherwax 2016 123 A single 340-mm specimen (MCZ 2815) was collected from the waters off Charleston, SC, by John Holbrook in the mid-1800s, though no exact collection date is given. Examination of the Reisman specimens, however, shows that 3 of the 4 individuals possess 11 soft anal-fin rays, while members of the genus Epinephelus have 7–9, or occasionally 10 (Smith 1971). Additional characters identify these individuals as M. phenax, a species which, while rare, has been collected from Shinnecock Bay on a number of occasions (ANSP 128609, AMNH 36113, AMNH 39185, NYSM 51937; see also Alperin and Schaefer [1965]). The remaining specimen from this collection possesses 8 soft anal-fin rays, which, coupled with its slightly rounded caudal fin and strongly curved dorsal profile, indicates that its assignment to the genus Epinephelus is correct (Smith 1971). Further study of this specimen (Fig. 3) revealed that it represents a species that was previously unknown from New York waters. Epinephelus adscensionis. Epinephelus adscensionis (Osbeck) (Rock Hind) is a moderate-sized grouper, rarely found north of Florida (Robins et al. 1986). The northern end of the range of the Rock Hind is often cited as Massachusetts, based on a single record (USNM 58857) of a small specimen collected in Katama Bay, southeast end of Martha’s Vineyard, on 19 September 1899 by the US Fish Commission (Nichols and Breder 1927, C.L. Smith 1971, H.M. Smith 1 899). Epinephelus adscensionis was originally described as Trachinus adscensionis by the Swedish botanist Pehr Osbeck, while passing through Ascension Island in 1752 on his way to China. His description is lengthy, but no specimens were saved (Osbeck 1765). In addition to the type locality, this species is quite common in tropical waters of the western Atlantic Ocean. It has rarely been documented in northern waters. The online database of the North Carolina State Museum’s ichthyology collection lists 2 records of Rock Hind: 1 at Wrightsville Beach in June 1972 (NCSM 28268), and the other on the Papoose shipwreck, 42.5 mi SSE of Beaufort in September 1977 (NCSM 44107). Reisman’s Rock Hind specimen (NYSM 71554; Fig. 3) is discolored, but clearly shows a body pattern consisting of darker, brownish-red colored spots on a Figure 3. Specimen of Epinephelus adscensionis (NYSM 71554) collected from a Shinnecock Bay eelgrass bed in 1990. Scale bar = 1 cm. Northeastern Naturalist 124 J.J. Wright, R.E Schmidt, and B.R. Weatherwax 2016 Vol. 23, No. 1 lighter background, which is consistent with only 2 species of Epinephelus found in the Western Atlantic: E. adscensionis and E. guttatus. The extent of this specimen’s discoloration renders the evaluation of characteristics related to vertical fin coloration, which can be used to distinguish between these species, problematic. It does, however, still maintain the dark dorsal saddles that are characteristic of E. adscensionis, particularly those on the caudal peduncle and below the junction of the spiny and soft dorsal fins (Fig. 3). These, coupled with the specimen’s unscaled maxilla, are sufficient to confirm its identification as E. adscensionis, representing the first specimen known from New York waters and the first recorded collection north of the Carolinas in over a century . Echeneidae Briggs and Waldman (2002) list 3 species of echeneids from the marine waters of New York: Echeneis naucrates L. (Sharksucker), Remora brachyptera Lowe (Spearfish Remora), and R. remora (L.) (Remora). Of these species, only E. naucrates was said to be “not uncommon” in New York, with the 2 Remora species being represented by only a few collection records apiece. Remora species, as well as E. naucrates, prefer warmer, tropical waters, with even the latter, “not uncommon” species being referred to as “… the rarest of strays …” in northern waters by Collette (2002), who cites only 4 confirmed records from the Gulf of Maine, beginning in 1839. Including these records, we were able to find only 15 collections of E. naucrates from north of the Carolinas in natural history collections, of which 6 (AMNH 514, 564, 18843, 58771; USNM 89525; NYSM 2605) originate from New York. The Reisman Collection contained 2 lots of echeneid specimens from New York waters. The first of these (NYSM 71616) consisted of 2 Remoras, which were attached to a Kajikia albida (Poey) (White Marlin) caught in the Hudson Canyon, approximately 90 miles southwest of Shinnecock Inlet. The other lot (NYSM 71599) contained a single 405 mm (SL) individual collected on hook and line near Buoy 17 of Western Shinnecock Bay on 26 August 1991, which was assigned to the genus Echeneis based on characters provided by Collette (2003), including: pointed pectoral fins; nearly truncate caudal fin; anal-fin with 29–41 soft rays; elongate body (depth contained 8 to 14 times in SL); and large suction disc with 18–28 laminae (Figs. 4, 5). Further examination of this fish revealed a combination of characters indicating that the specimen is not E. naucrates, however, but represents a species that, apparently owing to a somewhat confusing taxonomic history, has not been included in previous lists of New York’s marine fishes (Bean 1903, Briggs and Waldman 2002, Nichols and Breder 1927). Echeneis neucratoides. Echeneis neucratoides Zuiew (Whitefin Sharksucker) is the only member of its family that does not show a worldwide distribution, being found exclusively in western Atlantic waters (Collette 2002). It differs from E. naucrates in several characters (Collette 2003), which all serve to identify the Reisman specimen as E. neucratoides (Reisman specimen condition in parentheses): Disc laminae usually 21 (21; Fig. 4); dorsal-fin rays usually 36 (35); anal-fin soft rays Northeastern Naturalist Vol. 23, No. 1 J.J. Wright, R.E Schmidt, and B.R. Weatherwax 2016 125 usually 33 (32); and more white on fins at all sizes (distinctively large white areas on caudal fin, other vertical fins difficult to discern; Fig. 5). While the dorsal and anal-fin ray counts in our specimen are slightly lower than those stated by Collette’s key, they nonetheless support its identification as E. neucratoides, as E. naucrates is characterized by larger numbers of both dorsal (usually 39) and anal-fin (usually 36) rays. Figure 4. Suction disc of Echeneis neucratoides specimen (NYSM 71599) collected from western Shinnecock Bay on August 26, 1991, demonstrating the reduced number of disc laminae (21) that is diagnostic of this species. Scale bar = 1 cm. Figure 5. Caudal fin of E. neucratoides specimen (NYSM 71599), demonstrating the distinctively wide, white caudal-fin margins that are diagnostic of this species. Scale bar = 1 cm. Northeastern Naturalist 126 J.J. Wright, R.E Schmidt, and B.R. Weatherwax 2016 Vol. 23, No. 1 At first glance, this species would apparently show an even greater preference for tropical waters than E. naucrates, as recent records of its collection from northern waters are nearly nonexistent in the literature. This dearth of literature accounts, however, is the result of an entwined taxonomic history between the 2 currently recognized species in this genus, with several junior synonyms existing for E. neucratoides, which itself appears to have been considered a synonym of E. naucrates by multiple authors. Junior synonyms for E. neucratoides include E. albacauda Mitchill, E. holbrooki Günther, E. lineata Holbrook, and Leptecheneis neucratoides Gill. Of the above synonyms, E. albacauda appears to have been the most widely used and recognized (almost exclusively as E. albicauda, rather than the original spelling) following its description from New York Bay by Mitchill (1817), including a record by De Kay (1842) from “… a considerable distance up the Hudson River.” Günther (1860) would later place E. albacauda in the synonymy of E. naucrates, erecting a new name, E. holbrooki, for individuals with a reduced number of disc laminae, while apparently disregarding the fact that this condition was widely recognized as a defining characteristic of E. albacauda. Gill (1864) recognized E. albacauda as a valid species in his new genus Leptecheneis, identifying E. holbrooki as a junior synonym of E. lineata, and strongly suggesting that both names were junior synonyms of E. albacauda, based on their reduced number of disc laminae relative to E. naucrates. Gill also made note of Zuiew’s (1789) earlier description of E. neucratoides and its decreased number of disc laminae, but apparently did not consider the 2 forms conspecific. Jordan and Gilbert (1882) were the next to treat this species, including E. neucratoides and all junior synonyms in the synonymy of E. naucrates. Jordan and Evermann (1898) would later amend this classification, recognizing E. neucratoides (with the spelling E. naucrateoides) as a valid species with a reduced number of disc laminae (stated as 21 in Jordan and Gilbert [1882]), and including E. holbrooki, E. lineata, and L. neucratoides as junior synonyms. Without explanation, however, they retained E. albacauda, which Jordan and Gilbert had previously acknowledged showed a reduced number of disc laminae, in the synonymy of E. naucrates, remanding all previously such identified specimens, many of which originated from northern waters, to th at taxon. This confusion appears to have persisted until rather recently, as the 3 historical records cited by Collette (2002) for E. naucrates from the Gulf of Maine represent specimens originally reported as E. albacauda (Goode and Bean 1879, Storer 1863, Wheatland 1852). It is likely that this past synonymy of E. albacauda with E. naucrates is the reason for the omission of E. neucratoides from the lists of New York’s marine fishes compiled by Briggs and Waldman (2002), Nichols and Breder (1927), Nichols (1918), and Bean (1903), because no literature records would have existed for these specimens under their currently recognized name. When one examines historical accounts of E. albacauda, however, it becomes clear that E. neucratoides is likely to be much more common than E. naucrates in northern waters, including those of New York. In addition to Mitchill’s (1817) original record and De Kay’s Hudson River specimen, De Kay examined several individuals that are also likely to have come from Northeastern Naturalist Vol. 23, No. 1 J.J. Wright, R.E Schmidt, and B.R. Weatherwax 2016 127 New York waters, although he gave no specific locality data. Fowler (1912; as E. alba-cauda) and Tracy (1906, 1910; as E. naucrateoides) documented E. neucratoides from the waters of New Jersey and Rhode Island, respectively. Fowler referred to this species as “common at times”, with Tracy stating that it was more commonly seen than E. naucrates, listing a specimen collected from a trap in Dutch Island Harbor in October 1905, as well as 2 specimens previously listed by Bean (1880) from Newport, RI. In his later work on the marine fishes of New York, Bean (1903) discussed E. neucratoides and was clearly aware of its distinctiveness from E. naucrates, which he treated as a separate species. He apparently did not recognize the species from New York’s waters, however, instead listing only a specimen collected in Woods Hole in 1871, and several additional individuals collected during the following 10 years. Bean had, however, collected the species himself, from Gravesend Bay, Long Island, in 1897 (AMNH 435). He mentions this specimen in his account for E. naucrates (Bean 1903) and one must assume that he found his specimen to agree with the accepted description of E. albacauda, which, although it had clearly been shown to be distinct from E. naucrates by several previous authors (e.g., Gill 1864), would nonetheless have been considered a junior synonym at that point, following the work of Jordan and Evermann (1898). Current museum registries demonstrate that these past taxonomic confusions have widely been remedied, although outside of Tracy’s (1909) apparently largely overlooked report on Rhode Island fishes, we were unable to find any work utilizing these specimens that might have served as an unambiguous published record of E. neucratoides in New York or other northern waters. In addition to the specimens cited above from New York and Rhode Island, we found several records of this species from Connecticut (USNM 14839), Massachusetts (USNM 14815, 16223, 28705, 33267, 35673), New Jersey (ANSP 130309; USNM 120501, 126031), and Rhode Island (USNM 25732). In our own collections, we determined that one 448- mm (SL) specimen (NYSM 11429) collected in September 1864 from the Hudson River at SingSing (now Ossining) and previously identified as E. naucrates is, in fact, E. neucratoides. A re-examination of specimens identified as E. naucrates from northwestern Atlantic waters in institutions with more extensive holdings than our own would be likely to uncover additional instances of misidentifications reflecting the confused taxonomic history of this apparently not uncommon, but historically overlooked component of the region’s marine fauna. Ostraciidae The family Ostraciidae contains mainly tropical species that are closely related to Tetraodontidae (pufferfishes) and Monacanthidae (filefishes) but which are easily recognized by the fusion of their hexagonal, plate-like scales into an armor covering nearly the entire body (only the caudal peduncle is uncovered). Four ostraciid species have been recorded in the literature from the bays of Long Island: Acanthostracion polygonius Poey (Honeycomb Cowfish), A. quadricornis (L.) (Scrawled Cowfish), Lactophrys trigonus (L.) (Buffalo Trunkfish), and L. triqueter (L.) (Smooth Trunkfish) (Briggs and Waldman 2002). Of these species, only L. triqueter, while still uncommon, has been listed as regularly collected in northern Northeastern Naturalist 128 J.J. Wright, R.E Schmidt, and B.R. Weatherwax 2016 Vol. 23, No. 1 waters, including several specimens from Great South, Jamaica, and Shinnecock bays taken by various researchers (Alperin and Schaefer 1965; Briggs 1970, 1975; Briggs and Waldman 2002). The remaining species were represented by only 1 or a few records of very small (14–34 mm), obviously transient juvenile specimens (Briggs and Waldman 2002), although A. quadricornis and L. trigonus have apparently become more common in recent collections (T. Gardner, Suffolk County Community College, Riverhead, NY, pers. comm.). The Reisman Collection contained a single 115-mm (SL) ostraciid specimen (NYSM 71399), collected from Shinnecock Bay on 17 September 1973 (Fig. 6). We were able to assign this specimen to the genus Lactophrys based on the lack of horn-like projections anterior to its eye, which are distinctly visible in Acanthostracion species (Böhlke and Chaplin 1992, Robins et al. 1986). Examination for diagnostic characters within the genus indicates that this specimen does not belong to either of the Lactophrys species known to occur in marine areas near Long Island, but in fact represents a species that has not previously been reported from this region of the Western Atlantic Ocean. Lactophrys bicaudalis. Lactophrys bicaudalis (L.) (Spotted Trunkfish) is a predominantly Western Atlantic species, occurring from central Florida to Brazil, including the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea (Robins et al. 1986), with records also known from the waters around Ascension Island in the Eastern Atlantic (Tyler 1978). Diagnostic characters distinguishing this species, and our specimen, from congeners, include: the presence of spines on the posterior of the ventrolateral ridge formed by its armor plates (absent in L. triqueter); 12–14 rakers on the first gill arch (12 in our specimen, 8–9 in L. triqueter and 17–18 in L. trigonus); and continuous armor posterior to the dorsal fin (armor interrupted by a small, separate plate in Figure 6. Specimen of Lactophrys bicaudalis (NYSM 71399) collected from Shinnecock Bay on 17 September 1973. Scale bar = 1 cm. Northeastern Naturalist Vol. 23, No. 1 J.J. Wright, R.E Schmidt, and B.R. Weatherwax 2016 129 L. trigonus) (Böhlke and Chaplin 1992, Randall 1968, Robins et al. 1986). A color pattern of evenly distributed dark spots on a light background, which is clearly present in our specimen, further identifies it as L. bicaudalis (Fig. 6), as other Lactophrys species show a pattern of either pale or white spots on a darker background (L. triqueter, juvenile L. trigonus) or black lines and scrawls over a relatively dark, bluish-grey background (adult L. trigonus). Confirmed collections of L. bicaudalis in the Western Atlantic are confined to waters south of central Florida. A possible specimen was collected in 1977 (NCSM 37576) from an intake screen at the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, situated in an intake canal off the lower Cape Fear River in North Carolina. This individual was initially determined to represent L. bicaudalis, but has since been changed to L. triqueter in the registry of the North Carolina State Natural History Museum’s Ichthyology Collection registry, based on the lack of any spines on the posterior part of the specimen’s armor. There is some uncertainty over the ontogenetic timing of spine formation in those Lactophrys species that possess them, but it seems likely that even this small specimen (30 mm TL) should show some indication of spine development, were it to represent L. bicaudalis. The previous northernmost confirmed record of this species along the Atlantic coast of the United States is therefore represented by a specimen collected just over 1500 km SSW of our specimen’s collection locality, from the Indian River Lagoon, Volusia County, FL, in November 2004 (FLMNH 181348). Discussion The specimens contained in the Howard Reisman Ichthyological Collection, now accessioned into the NYSM Ichthyology Collections, unambiguously support the addition of the species discussed here to lists of New York State’s known marine ichthyofauna. Examinations of the early literature render the presence of Epinephelus adscensionis and Echeneis neucratoides, while rare, unsurprising in Long Island waters. In the case of E. adscensionis, given the historical records of this species from the coastal waters of Massachussetts, one would infer its presence to the south, as well. In fact, multiple specimens (1 to 3) of E. adscensionis are now routinely taken from Shinnecock Bay each summer and fall, most likely due to increasing collections of fishes from the bay for research and aquarium purposes (T. Gardner, pers. comm.). Echeneis neucratoides, in contrast, has been historically documented numerous times in both the tidal Hudson River and the vicinity of Long Island, but has rarely been correctly recognized due to early (and continued) taxonomic confusion within this genus. The possibility exists, on the other hand, that Antennarius striatus has undergone a minor northward range expansion from its previous northernmost extent in southern coastal New Jersey, as the reproductively mature condition of our specimen of this highly sedentary species might be taken to imply long-term residence and maturation in Shinnecock Bay. Though our specimen from 2001 represents the earliest known occurrence of this species, at least 3 additional individuals have recently been collected from the bay (2 in September 2014 and 1 in September Northeastern Naturalist 130 J.J. Wright, R.E Schmidt, and B.R. Weatherwax 2016 Vol. 23, No. 1 2015; T. Gardner, pers. comm.). The multiple occurrences over the past 15 years of this previously undocumented species may be evidence of a recently established, burgeoning resident population. As mentioned above, however, stray larval and juvenile individuals from many warmer-water species are often found in Shinnecock Bay, particularly in the months of September and October, which are the only months during which A. striatus has been found in Long Island waters. Antennariid species, while sedentary at postlarval stages, are nonetheless voracious predators with rapid growth rates (Pietsch and Grobaker 1987) and it is conceivable that stray larval individuals could attain adult sizes in a single season of growth. In this case, the new documentations of this species would most likely be attributable to increasing interest and collection efforts in the bay by scientists and aquarists seeking these rare warm-water strays. Lacking other evidence, and given the number of transient species present in Shinnecock Bay from year to year, we must consider the latter scenario as the more likely one. In the case of Lactophrys bicaudalis, the great distance of our adult specimen’s collection locality from this species’ native range, in conjunction with the lack of any record of this species in intervening areas, makes the identification of likely scenarios for its presence in Shinnecock Bay more difficult. The possibility exists that this individual represents an aquarium release; however, L. bicaudalis (and ostraciid species in general) is not commonly kept, due to the difficulty of its upkeep and the ability of trunkfishes to secrete ichthyotoxic substances when stressed (Thomson 1964). Other tropical ostraciid species (e.g., Acanthostracion quadricornis, Lactophrys trigonus) are regularly found in Shinnecock Bay at a similar time of the year, but only as juveniles (≤40 mm SL). Considering a more recent collection of one juvenile L. bicaudalis from Shinnecock Bay (T. Gardner, pers. comm.), it is possible that L. bicaudalis simply represents an exceedingly rare transient species in Shinnecock Bay, with Reisman’s adult specimen arriving there as the result of transport via the Gulf Stream. The documentation of previously undetected marine species diversity in Shinnecock Bay underscores the need for continued sampling efforts in New York’s coastal waters, even in comparatively well-surveyed areas. The possibility of the establishment of potentially harmful exotic species in New York’s marine waters is amplified by the modern warming of the world’s oceans, including the western Atlantic (Gillett et al. 2008, Levitus et al. 2000, Solomon et al. 2007). Trends of oceanic warming may allow for population growth and increased ecological impacts of currently present non-native species, as well as facilitate the introduction, whether anthropogenic or natural, of additional exotic marine species. We have little doubt that future studies of New York State’s marine fish assemblages will continue to detect and add these taxa to the list of species that are known to occur in this area. Acknowledgments We wish to thank Christopher Paparo and Clifford Knee (Stony Brook University Southampton Marine Sciences Center) for initially contacting us and facilitating the transfer of Northeastern Naturalist Vol. 23, No. 1 J.J. Wright, R.E Schmidt, and B.R. Weatherwax 2016 131 these specimens to the NYSM Ichthyology Collection. We are also grateful to Dr. Howard Reisman, whose long career in the study of fishes mad this manuscript possible. We also appreciate T. Gardner’s communications regarding recent fish collections in the Shinnecock Bay area. Literature Cited Alperin, I.M., and R.H. Schaefer. 1965. Marine fishes new or uncommon to Long Island, New York. New York Fish and Game Journal 12(1):1–16. Bean, T.H. 1880. Check-list of duplicates of North American fishes distributed by the Smithsonian Institution in behalf of the United States National Museum, 1877–1880. Proceedings of the United States National Museum 3:75–279. Bean, T.H. 1903. Fishes of New York. New York State Museum Bulletin 60:1–784. Bloch, M.E., and J.G. Schneider. 1801. M.E. Blochii, Systema Ichthyologiae iconibus cx illustratum. Post obitum auctoris opus inchoatum absolvit, correxit, interpolavit Jo. Gottlob Schneider, Saxo. Berolini. Sumtibus Austoris Impressum et Bibliopolio Sanderiano Commissum. Pp. i–lx + 1–584, Pls. 1–110. Böhlke, J.E., and C.C.G. Chaplin. 1992. Fishes of the Bahamas and Adjacent Tropical Waters. Second Edition. University of Texas Press, Austin, TX. 771 pp. Briggs, P.T. 1970. Rare or uncommon fishes seined in Great South Bay, New York. New York Fish and Game Journal 17(1):53–54. Briggs, P.T. 1975. Shore-zone fishes of the vicinity of Fire Island Inlet, Great South Bay, New York. New York Fish and Game Journal 22(1):1–12. Briggs, P.T., and J.R. Waldman. 2002. Annotated list of fishes reported from the marine waters of New York. Northeastern Naturalist 9(1):47–80. Collette, B.B. 2002. Remoras and sharksuckers. Family Echeneidae. Pp. 406–409, In B.B. Collette and G. Klein-MacPhee (Eds.). Bigelow and Schroeder’s Fishes of the Gulf of Maine. Third Edition. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. 748 pp. Collette, B.B. 2003. Echeneidae. Remoras (sharksuckers, discfishes). Pp. 1414–1419, In K.E. Carpenter (Ed.). FAO Species Identification Guide for Fishery Purposes. The Living Marine Resources of the Western Central Atlantic. Vol. 3: Bony Fishes Part 2 (Opistognathidae to Molidae), Sea Turtles and Marine Mammals. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy. 752 pp. Craig, M.T., and P.A. Hastings. 2007. A molecular phylogeny of the groupers of the subfamily Epinephelinae (Serranidae) with a revised classification of the Epinephalini. Ichthyological Research 54:1–17. Cuvier, G.F., and A. Valenciennes. 1828. Histoire Naturelle des Poissons. Vol. 2. F.G. Levrault, Paris, France. 490 pp. De Kay, J.E. 1842. Natural History of New York. Part 4. Fishes. W.A. White and J. Visscher, Albany, NY. 415 pp. Fowler, H.W. 1912. Records of fishes for the middle Atlantic states and Virginia. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 64:34–59. Gill, T.N. 1861. Two new species of marine fishes. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 13:98–99. Gill, T.N. 1864. Notes on the nomenclature of genera and species of the family Echeneidoidae. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 16:59–61. Gillett, N.P., P.A. Stott, and B.D. Santer. 2008. Attribution of cyclogenesis region seasurface temperature change to anthropogenic influence. Geophysical Research Letters 35(9):L09707. Northeastern Naturalist 132 J.J. Wright, R.E Schmidt, and B.R. Weatherwax 2016 Vol. 23, No. 1 Goode, G.B., and T.H. Bean. 1879. A catalogue of the fishes of Essex County, Massachussetts, including the fauna of Massachussetts Bay and the contiguous deep waters. Bulletin of the Essex Institute 11:1–38. Goode, G.B., and T.H. Bean. 1880. Catalogue of a collection of fishes sent from Pensacola, Florida, and vicinity, by Mr. Silas Stearns, with descriptions of six new species. Proceedings of the United States National Museum 2(1879):121–156. Günther, A.1860. Catalog of the Acanthopterygian Fishes in the British Museum. Vol. 2. Taylor and Francis, London, UK. 569 pp. Holbrook, J.E. 1855. Ichthyology of South Carolina. John Russell, Charleston, SC. 182 pp. Jordan, D.S., and B.W. Evermann. 1898. The Fishes of North and Middle America: A Descriptive Catalog of the Species of Fish-like Vertebrates Found in the Waters of North America, North of the Isthmus of Panama. Bulletin of the United States National Museum No. 47, Part 3. US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. 952 pp. Jordan, D.S., and C.H. Gilbert. 1882. Synopsis of the Fishes of North America. Bulletin of the United States National Museum No. 16. US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. 1074 pp. Jordan, D.S., and J. Swain. 1885. A review of the American species of Epinephelus and related genera. Proceedings of the United States National Museu m 7(1884):358–410. Levitus, S., J.I. Antonov, T.P. Boyer, and C. Stephens. 2000. Warming of the world ocean. Science 287:2225–2229. Lichtenstein, M.H.C. 1822. Die Werke von Marcgrave und Piso über die Naturgeschichte Brasiliens, erläutert aus den wieder aufgefundenen original Abbildungen. IV. Fische. Abhandlungen der Königlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin 1820– 1821:267–288. Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema Naturae per Regna Tria Naturae: Secundum Classes, Ordines, Genera, Species, cum Characteribus, Diferentiis, Synonymis, Locis. 10th Edition. Laurentius Salvius, Stockholm, Sweden. 824 pp. Lowe, R.T. 1839. A supplement to the synopsis of the fishes of Madeira in the second volume of the Transactions of the Zoological Society. Annals and Magazine of Natural History: Series 1 4(26):405–424. Mitchill, S.L. 1817. The fishes of New York described and arranged. In a supplement to the memoir on the same subject, printed in the New-York Literary and Philosophical Transactions, Vol. 1. Pp. 355–492. The American Monthly Magazine and Critical Review 2(4):241–248. Nichols, J.T. 1918. Fishes of the Vicinity of New York City. American Museum of Natural History Handbook Series, No. 7. American Museum of Natural History Press, New York, NY. 122 p. Nichols, J.T., and C.M. Breder Jr. 1927. The Marine Fishes of New York and Southern New England. New York Zoological Society, New York, NY. 192 pp. New York State Department of State (NYSDOS). 1998. Estuarine finfish. Technical Report Series. South Shore Estuary Reserve, Long Island, NY. 45 pp. Osbeck, P. 1765. Reise nach Ostindien und China. Johann Christian Koppe, Rostock, Germany. 552 pp. Pietsch, T.W. 2002. Frogfishes. Family Antennariidae. Pp. 270–272, In B.B. Collette and G. Klein-MacPhee (Eds.). Bigelow and Schroeder’s Fishes of the Gulf of Maine. Third Edition. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. 748 pp. Pietsch, T.W., and D.B. Grobaker. 1987. Frogfishes of the World: Systematics, Zoogeography, and Behavioral Ecology. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA. 420 pp. Northeastern Naturalist Vol. 23, No. 1 J.J. Wright, R.E Schmidt, and B.R. Weatherwax 2016 133 Poey, F. 1860. Memorias Sobre la Historia Naturel de la Isla de Cuba, Acompañadas de Sumarios Latinos y Extractos en Francés. Vol. 2. Imprenta de Barcina, Habana, Cuba. 442 pp. Poey, F. 1876. Enumeratio Piscium Cubenism. Anales de la Sociedad Española de Historia Natural 5:131–218. Randall, J.F. 1968. Caribbean Reef Fishes. TFH Publications, Inc., Neptune City, NJ. 318 pp. Robins, C.R., G.C. Ray, and J. Douglass. 1986. A Field Guide to Atlantic Coast Fishes of North America. Houghton Mifflin Co., New York, NY. 354 pp. Schwartz, F.J. 2005. Frogfishes of North Carolina. Journal of the North Carolina Academy of Sciences 121(3):145–148. Shaw, G., and F.P. Nodder. 1794. The Naturalist’s Miscellany: Or Coloured Figures of Natural Objects; Drawn and Described Immediately from Nature. Vol. 6. J. Cooper, London, UK. 190 pp. Smith, C.L. 1971. A revision of the American groupers: Epinephelus and allied genera. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 146:69–241. Smith, H.M. 1899. Fish fauna of the Woods Hole region. Science (NS) 10(259):878–881. Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (Eds.). 2007. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. 996 pp. Storer, D.H. 1863. A history of the fishes of Massachusetts. Memoires of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences 15:389–434. Sullivan, J.K. 1991. Fish and wildlife populations and habitat status and trends in the New York Bight. A Report to the Habitat Work Group for the New York Bight Restoration Plan. New York-New Jersey Harbor and Estuary Program, New York, NY. 114 pp. Thomson, D.A. 1964. Ostracitoxin: An ichthyotoxic stress secretion of the Boxfish, Ostracion lentiginosus. Science 146(3641):244–245. Tracy, H.C. 1906. A list of the fishes of Rhode Island. Special Issue 21 reprinted from the Thirty-Sixth Annual Report of the Commissioners of Inland Fisheries of Rhode Island. E.L. Freeman and Sons, Providence, RI. 61 pp. Tracy, H.C. 1910. Annotated list of fishes known to inhabit the waters of Rhode Island. Reprinted from the Fortieth Annual Report of the Commissioners of Inland Fisheries of Rhode Island. E.L. Freeman Company, Providence, RI. 141 pp. Tyler, J.C. 1978. Ostraciidae. In W. Fischer (Ed.). FAO species identification sheets for fishery purposes. West Atlantic (Fishing Area 31). Vol. 3. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy. [var. pag.]. Wheatland, H. 1852. Notice of several fishes of rare occurrence. Journal of the Essex County Natural History Society 1(3):123–125. Zuiew, B. 1789. Echeneidis nova species. Nova Acta Academiae Scientarium Imperialis Petropolitanae 4:279–283.