KH40 — Goblinfish in Peam Krasop mangrove creeks
Status: This account draws on all six pages, including the figures and Table 1. Additional supplements or corrections have not been ruled out.
Identity and scope
Chhuoy S., Ngor P.B., Uy S., Sup M., Glue M., Kong M., Lim M., Rog S. & Sinovas P. (2025). A first record of goblinfish Trichosomus trachinoides (Actinopterygii: Perciformes: Synanceiidae) from Cambodian coastal waters. Cambodian Journal of Natural History 2025(1):2–7.
Original article · Saved PDF · Structured pilot extraction.
The short communication describes a morphological identification of seven preserved fish collected on 3–7 June 2023. The authors interpret them as the first documented Cambodian records of this species. This is evidence of recorded presence, not evidence of recent arrival, abundance or a population trend. The paper itself uses both goblinfish and mangrove waspfish as common names (printed p.2).
This paper provides specimen-based evidence of coastal biodiversity.
Coverage of the source
| Printed pages | PDF pages | Components examined |
|---|---|---|
| 2 | 1 | Identity, background classification, synonyms, campaign introduction |
| 3 | 2 | Material examined, dates, coordinates, vouchers, measurement method, diagnosis, Figure 1 |
| 4 | 3 | Distribution argument and Figure 2 specimen photographs |
| 5 | 4 | Full Table 1, net method, environmental summaries, associated invertebrates |
| 6 | 5 | Associated fishes, comparisons, limitations implicit in design, acknowledgements, Figure 3 habitat photograph |
| 7 | 6 | Reference list and citation leads |
No supplement or correction is identified in the six-page file. A targeted public search did not establish whether separate material exists; absence is not confirmed. The final review must check the journal record and subsequent corrections.
Study units and methods
Seven vouchers correspond to four dated coordinate groups, all within one June 2023 campaign. Coordinates are reported by the paper; positional accuracy and datum are not specified. The number of decimal places does not establish field positioning accuracy.
| Date | Reported latitude, longitude | Vouchers | Standard length (mm) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3 June 2023 | 11.520948, 102.989651 | RUAFI-M00054 | 17.02 |
| 4 June 2023 | 11.509400, 103.023730 | RUAFI-M00052; M00053 | 34.69; 33.49 |
| 5 June 2023 | 11.44834, 103.04243 | RUAFI-M00058 | 46.64 |
| 7 June 2023 | 11.487840, 103.078930 | RUAFI-M00055; M00056; M00057 | 24.58; 24.96; 20.31 |
Source: printed p.3. Vouchers are held at the Royal University of Agriculture. Specimens were fixed in 5% formalin, rinsed and transferred to 70% ethanol. Identification used morphological keys and comparative literature; measurements used a digital calliper to 0.01 mm. Molecular confirmation is not reported. The described capture gear is a seine net with 1 mm mesh, 5 m length and 2 m depth (p.5). Standardised catch effort and surveyed absence locations are not reported in this paper.
Findings and environmental context
The reported habitats were sandy, muddy and debris substrates in mangrove creeks. The following are pooled source summaries (p.5), not measurements assigned to each of the four coordinates. The number of environmental measurements and instrumentation are not specified here.
| Variable | Reported range | Mean ± SD |
|---|---|---|
| Water depth | 0.45–1.10 m | 0.68 ± 0.29 m |
| Dissolved oxygen | 6.64–6.96 mg/L | 6.81 ± 0.13 mg/L |
| pH | 7.61–8.31 | 7.97 ± 0.31 |
| Temperature | 28.8–29.3 °C | 29.03 ± 0.26 °C |
| Salinity | 5–18 ppt | 11.25 ± 5.85 ppt |
| Water clarity | 21–105 cm | 56.63 ± 42.20 cm |
Table 1 reports morphometric summaries and meristic counts for seven specimens. The structured extraction preserves all its rows, their original denominators, and the errors below. Associated fauna on pp.5–6 are preserved at the reported taxonomic resolution; genus-level identifications are not converted to species. These pooled accompanying-fauna records are not allocated to individual sites.
Figures 1–3 provide a location map, three specimen views and a habitat photograph. They support the account but do not provide additional independent sampling campaigns. International comparison records and general species ecology cited from other papers remain secondary context, not new Cambodian observations.
Contradictions and interpretation limits
1. Impossible total-length summary: Table 1 (p.5) gives mean 34.36 mm, SD 8.31 mm, range 23.03–25.10 mm. The mean exceeds the maximum. Values are preserved and excluded from quantitative interpretation pending correction; no replacement maximum is guessed. 2. Dorsal-fin counts: the diagnosis (p.3) gives 14 spines and five soft rays; Table 1 and the specimen discussion (pp.5–6) give 15 spines and four soft rays. The discussion distinguishes some literature descriptions but leaves ambiguity with its own diagnosis. Preserve each assertion separately. 3. Orbit denominator: the comparison on p.6 uses 12.80–22.16 while referring to % SL; Table 1 gives that range as % head length and gives 4.72–9.80 as % SL. Do not use that interspecies comparison without clarification. 4. Cross-report gear/coordinate mismatch: KH20 Table 1 (printed p.218, PDF p.110) labels three of the matching coordinate/date pairs as plankton-net positions (S01, S04, S09), whereas KH40 describes seine-net capture. The fourth matches KH20's S05 seine position. This supports a shared-campaign candidate, but it does not prove which gear/coordinate assertion is correct or make each matching record an identical sampling event. 5. The paper does not estimate detection probability, population size, change over time or treatment effects. Seven fish and four coordinate groups are not seven independent studies or repeat monitoring.
Fauna & Flora supported the study; the Koh Kong Provincial Department of Environment permitted fieldwork; the Royal University of Agriculture provided laboratory and collection facilities (p.6). These are reported roles, not evidence for or against a finding's validity.
Source relationships, leads and reuse
This paper and the fish chapter of the Peam Krasop biodiversity report may describe the same June 2023 collection. Their specimen counts cannot be added as independent observations without resolving that overlap. Gear assignments also remain uncertain.
The reference list points to A Field Guide to the Marine Living Resources in Cambodia (Ing, Jensen & Va, 2006) and regional taxonomic guides. The guide's bibliographic identity and underlying Cambodian observations need retrieval and checking. A cited guide is not automatically an eligible primary study.
No separate raw measurement file was verified. The table and voucher list are accessible in the paper. Original source attribution and access terms apply.
Plain-language account
Researchers identified seven goblinfish from mangrove creeks in Koh Kong in June 2023 and kept specimens in a university collection. Their paper documents the species in Cambodia and describes the conditions where it was collected. It does not tell us how common the fish is or whether its population is changing. Several measurement and sampling details need clarification before they are reused for comparisons.
Source clarifications
The account identifies conflicting measurement and sampling details and possible overlap with the Peam Krasop biodiversity report. These issues affect comparisons with other studies.