Synechogobius heterolepidotus Koumans, 1940: 133 (Japan?). Remarks. It is a museum name; used only by Koumans (1940): 'This specimen does not belong to Synechogobius,but is an Oxyurichthys, as it has D1 VI and the teeth in upper jaw in one row. It angrees fully with auchenolepis Blkr. I do not know who described Synechogobius heterolepidotus'. The putative holotype is USNM 6292, an 80 mm SL female O. auchenolepis from Japan. Eschmeyer (2015) does not accept this as a valid name, because it was not treated as valid when mentioned by Koumans, therefore not available from Koumans (1940).

Oxyurichthys macrolepis Chu and Wu, in Chu, Chan and Chen, 1963: 425, fig. 321 (Ta Chen Island, Zhejiang Province, China). Remarks. The holotype of this species was lost in 1973 when Shanghai Fisheries University moved to Xiamen (pers.comm. H.W. Wu and C. Li). From examination of the figure and text translated by K. Ting, this is not an Oxyurichthys species, but could be Arcygobius baliurus.

Oxyurichthys ornatus Fourmanoir and Crosnier, 1964: 21 (Nosy Bé, Madagascar). Remarks. Based on the description, this could be an Amblyeleotris or an Oxyurichthys. The location of the holotype is unknown and is considered to be lost (Bauchot et al. 1991); it is possible that Fourmanoir did not send it to MNHN.