Dolopichthys Garman, 1899

Diagnosis. Females of Dolopichthys differ from those of Chaenophryne by the presence of sphenotic spines (vs. absence of sphenotic spines), opercle deeply notched posteriorly (vs. opercle not deeply notched posteriorly), pelvic bones rod shaped, with or without slight distal expansion (vs. pelvic bones triradiate or greatly expanded distally); from Oneirodes, Tyrannophryne, Phyllorhinichthys, Microlophichthys, and Danaphryne by having the dorsal margin of frontal bones nearly straight (vs. dorsal margin of frontal bones strongly convex) and subopercle long and narrow, ventral end strongly oval (vs. subopercle short and broad, ventral end nearly circular); from Ctenochirichthys, Leptacanthichthys, Chirophryne and Puck by the pectoral-fin lobe broad, shorter than the longest pectoral-fin rays (vs. pectoral-fin lobe narrow, longer than longest pectoral-fin rays); from Bertella by having the hyomandibula with a double head (vs. hyomandibula with a single head); from Dermatias by the depth of caudal peduncle less than 20% SL (vs. greater than 20% SL); from Lophodolos by the illicial apparatus emerging near the tip of snout, between the frontal bones (vs. illicial apparatus emerging from the dorsal surface of head, between or behind sphenotic spines); from Pentherichthys by having the lower jaw with a symphysial spine (vs. lower jaw without a symphysial spine, ventral margin of dentaries at symphysis concave), and caudal-fin rays without internal pigment (vs. caudal-fin rays internally pigmented); and from Spiniphryne by the skin naked or the presence of only minute, widely spaced dermal spinules, visible only with the aid of a microscope in cleared and stained specimens (vs. skin covered with close-set dermal spinules) (Pietsch, 2009).