Systematics, Biology, and Distribution of the Species ofthe Oceanic Oarfish Genus Regalecus (Teleostei, Lam-pridiformes, Regalecidae). Tyson R. Roberts. 2012. Mem-oires du Museum national d’Histoire naturelle. Paris.ISBN 978-2-85653-677-3. 268 p. (hard cover, includes CDwith PDF of book). J 64.49.—The oarfish may be the mostenigmatic of fishes, and so it might be fitting that the mostenigmatic of ichthyologists has chosen it for his latest subject.I’ll leave the topic of the man to his autobiography (Roberts,2005), and to the many tales told of him by others; I willmostly only praise him here for his masterful monograph.Doctor Roberts comprehensively reviews much of what isknown about oarfishes and clears up the confusing taxonomicmess that has impeded research on them. He also raises a fewintriguing hypotheses that render these incredible animalseven more remarkable despite simultaneously taking downsome of the greatest myths about them (e.g., they are notknown to reach over 8 m in length, and they are not found infreshwaters despite the widespread hoax in Thailand).

Of 20 nominal species of Regalecus most ichthyologistscurrently recognize only one widespread form. Dr. Robertspresents strong evidence that there are in fact two species:Regalecus glesne, which has a mostly antitropical distributionand has 5–11 rays in the 2nd dorsal-fin crest, and the lesserknown R. russellii, which has an equatorial distribution andonly one ray in its 2nd dorsal-fin crest. The reason that theserelatively easily distinguishable taxa were not previouslyrecognized as distinct is because of the rarity of specimens ingood condition, a confusing and messy taxonomic litera-ture, and their nearly global distribution. Most specimens incollections are from individuals that were found dead ormoribund on the shore. These fishes are extremely fragile(having handled one myself I can say a dead oarfish is aboutas tough as wet cardboard), and they often break into piecesand lose much of their heads and fins shortly after death.Roberts must be given a great deal of credit for traveling tostudy these fishes in collections around the world and forsolving some very complicated taxonomic mysteries. I wasastounded at how many lost records, drawings, and typespecimens he has rediscovered. Measurements and countsby the author, or by local researchers, are provided in anappendix of more than 200 individuals (which is almostevery known specimen). This appendix will be extremelyuseful if one or both of these species are split further, whichappears likely. The recognition of two distinct species comeswith the designation of neotypes for R. russellii and severalother closely related species of Lampridiformes. The mono-graph also includes a mitochondrial analysis, a biogeographicsurvey, morphological descriptive work, and discussions ofdiet, fossils, and living relatives. One of the more fun sectionsof the book is where Dr. Roberts discusses the remarkable sea-monster mythology of these beasts, even pointing out wheresome long thought to be fictitious stories are rooted in truth.Old artistic renderings depicting oarfishes are also dispelledfor their errors, which is why it is disappointing that Bloch’s(1795) almost completely artificial oarfish, Gymnetrus hawki-nii (complete with a bass-like caudal fin), is illustrated pro-minently on the cover.

Besides the recognition of two distinct species the mostprovocative hypothesis in this text is that all oarfishes greaterthan a meter and a half in length show evidence of autotomyor self-amputation of some, or all of, the caudal end of thebody. The evidence for this is a distinctive scarring andhealing pattern (coined the ‘‘terminus’’ by the author) at thepost-vent and always in the same pattern along intermuscularsepta in the middle of a postabdominal (i.e., caudal) vertebra.As a result of autotomy, some specimens have lost as little asthe small portion of the body that holds the already highlyreduced caudal fin while others have lost as much as threequarters of their original body length. This variation in theamount of the caudal body lost leads Dr. Roberts to suggestthat these species are capable of several rounds of autotomy(i.e., serial-autotomy). The author suggests that autotomymay be part of a metamorphosis rearranging the body shapefrom the long tapering caudal structures of the larval orjuvenile stage into a more compact adult. If this is in fact thecase, oarfishes would be the only vertebrates that carry outthis self-amputation where it is not related to predation (as inlizards that lose their tails). The autotomy hypothesis willcertainly be the most controversial point of the book, but theauthor does a very convincing job using many illustrations toshow the regular pattern seen in every examined largespecimen. Unfortunately, some questions remain. For in-stance: if this autotomy occurs when the animal is only a fewmeters long (and there is never evidence of regeneration ofthe lost sections), where and how is growth taking place,given that adults ultimately reach sizes up to 8 meters?

The book was not edited very dutifully, including a greatdeal of repetitive text (take a shot of whiskey every time hementions that shark attacks on oarfishes have never beenconfirmed). The second word in the back cover summary refersto the subject of the book as ‘‘hoarfish.’’ However, these errorsdon’t take away very much from the work. The poor editingmight even be forgivable because better editing may haveforfeited some of the more interesting rambles by the author,like the six paragraphs used to explain his unique brand ofnomenclature for vertebral counts and why using the termcaudal vertebrae is ‘‘anatomically incorrect.’’ There arefrequent moments in the book when the author’s idiosyncrat-ic style creeps onto the page, and I must admit I quite likedbriefly peering into the mind of Tyson Roberts. Among myfavorites is a diatribe on the first page of the Introduction:‘‘Some systematists, especially those in the tribe Ichtyologii, areinordinately fond of monotypic taxa ... Nature, however, oftenrushes in to fill monotypic taxa like she does a vacuum ... Oneof the most outstanding examples in marine biology is thebelated recognition of species diversity in the supposedmonotypic killer whale.’’ The text does meander a bit like thisat times but at least no one can claim this monograph is dry. Infact, I think it is perhaps one of the most interesting naturalhistory monographs ever written. It is quirky at times, butcertainly thorough and informative; I would recommend it toanyone who has even a passing interest in these strange beasts.

LITERATURE CITED

Bloch, M. E. 1795. Naturgeschichte der auslandischenFische. Vol. 9, Berlin.

Roberts, T. R. 2005. From Ichthyology to Philosophy—RoadsLess Traveled By. (Unpublished but widely circulatedmanuscript).

Prosanta Chakrabarty, Museum of Natural Science, Departmentof Biological Sciences, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge,Louisiana 70803; E-mail: prosanta@lsu.edu.

356 Copeia 2013, No. 2