Iran. J. Ichthyol. (September 2015), 2(3): 148–154 Received: May 19, 2015 © 2015 Iranian Society of Ichthyology Accepted: August 23, 2015 P-ISSN: 2383-1561; E-ISSN: 2383-0964 doi: http://www.ijichthyol.org

Morphological diversity of Garra rufa (Heckel, 1843) populations in

Yazdan KEIVANY*, Ali NEZAMOLESLAMI, Salar DORAFSHAN

Department of Natural Resources (Fisheries Division), Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan 84156-83111, Iran. * Email: [email protected]

Abstract: In this study 485 specimen of Garra rufa (Heckel, 1843) from 29 populations from six river systems and basins including Tigris, Karkheh, , Persis (Helleh and Mond), Hormuz and Maharlu were collected by a 5mm mesh sized seine net, anesthetized in 1% clove oil solution, fixed in 10% formalin and transferred to the laboratory for further investigations. Some 28 morphometric, 25 morphometric proportion and 10 meristic traits were examined. Different mean comparison methods, parametric and non-parametric analyses were used for statistical analyses. In comparison of the six aforementioned basins, for the proportions, Kruskal-Wallis non-parametric test and analysis of variance (ANOVA) for all the other traits, but the ratios of dorsal fin base/SL and pectoral fin/SL, showed significant differences (P<0.05). Amongst the meristic traits, except the number of vertebrae, caudal fin rays and pharyngeal teeth, all other traits were significantly different. Based on the compared data, none of the populations could be distinguished from each other.

Keywords: Cyprinidae, Meristics, Morphometrics, Morphology, Doctor fish.

Introduction relationship for this fish in Iran. Durna et al., (2009) The doctor fish (sanglis or gelecheragh in Persian), studied the genetic diversity of this species in Garra rufa (Heckel, 1843), is found in the Tigris- Anatolia, Turkey. Patimar et al. (2010) examined the Euphrates, Ceyhan, Asi (Orontes), Quwayq and growth parameters of this fish from the Kangir River Jordan river basins and coastal drainages of the in Ilam. Abedi et al. (2011) examined the age in a eastern Mediterranean and is one of the commonest population in Armand Stream in Chaharmahal & species in catches of southwestern Iran (Coad 2015; Bakhtiari Province. Nezamoleslami et al. (2015) Froese & Pauly 2015). In Iran, it is found in the studied the karyotype of the fish in Semorom River, Tigris, Persis, Maharlu, Kor and Hormuz basins Iran. However, there is little detailed information on (Berg 1949; Bianco & Banarescu 1982; Coad 1998; the morphometric and meristic variation of G. ruffa Abdoli 2000; Keivany etArchive al. 2015). The wide populations of in SIDIran (Berg 1949; Abdoli 2000; Coad distribution in Southwest Asia and inadequate 2015; Keivany et al. 2015). The aim of this study was examination of variation may mask distinct taxa, to investigate the morphometric and meristic although this is not apparent in their morphometric diversity of this species in different basins of Iran. and meristic features (Coad 2015). Rahemo (1995) studied the age of this fish in the Materials and methods Tigris River, Iraq. Gozukara & Cavas (2004) studied Specimens of G. rufa were collected from different the karyology of G. rufa from the Eastern rivers of Tigris (border rivers connecting to Tigris Mediterranean river basins in Turkey. Yazdanpanah tributaries in Iraq), Karkheh, Karun, Persis, Hormuz (2005) studied the fish in Zanjiran spring in Fars. and Maharlu basins in summer 2010 (Table 1). The Esmaeili & Ebrahimi (2006) gave a length-weight specimens were caught by a 5mm mesh sized seine 148

www.SID.ir Keivany et al.-Morphological diversity of Garra rufa populations in Iran

Table 1. Number, mean total length and weight of Garra rufa from different rivers and basins.

Mean total length±Sd Mean Weight±Sd Basins Rivers Counts (mm) (g) Alvand 12 102.25±16.00 13.72±5.00 Chamgordalan 30 79.11±15.00 7.29±4.00 Doirej 26 70.36±10.16 3.99±1.80 Godarkhosh 7 55.37±18.00 2.63±2.80 Tigris Kangir 5 62.66±3.00 2.92±0.50 Little Zab 6 61.74±9.00 2.92±1.00 Mimeh 31 79.63±9.69 5.45±1.90 Sirvan 16 69.31±6.00 3.90±1.10 Zimakan 14 60.15±14.91 2.72±1.59 Chaghalvandi 24 87.89±29.69 11.84±9.65 Chardavol 7 43.07±35.10 2.92±4.00 Karkheh Gamasiab 10 68.59±19.83 4.73±4.09 Kakareza 58 89.78±15.78 9.86±5.35 Kashkan 17 117.82±32.74 22.25±15.40 Saymareh 5 82.31±43.65 12.24±19.47 Beshar 33 79.74±20.74 6.80±4.66 Karun Karun 10 106.69±18.00 15.44±6.93 Katola 4 72.45±22.00 5.14±4.00 Marbor 15 80.98±21.77 7.53±7.44 Ahram 9 71.36±12.25 4.83±3.03 Bahoosh 8 66.90±4.65 3.77±0.80 Darolmizan 11 49.22±10.64 1.55±0.81 Persis Karzin 16 31.72±7.91 00.41±0.44 Mond 17 74.07±10.96 4.55±2.53 Safid 5 60.73±19.48 2.86±2.00 Shahpour 4 78.60±19.82 5.20±3.00 Sheldan 33 49.05±5.96 1.30±0.53 Hormuz Axe Rostam 19 54.57±12.00 2.00±1.00 Maharloo Pirbanoo 5 59.36±3.00 2.89±0.55 Total 485 net, anesthetized in 1% clove oil solution, fixed in orbital length to head length and dorsal fin height to 10% formalin and transferred to laboratory for head length were calculated. Ten meristic characters further examination. Twenty-eight morphometric including branched and unbranched dorsal fin ray, characters were measured including, standard length, pectoral fin ray, pelvic fin ray, branched and body depth, body width, head length, snout length, unbranched anal fin ray and caudal fin ray numbers, eye diameter, interorbital width, post orbital length, lateral line scales, scale above the lateral line, scale predorsal length, prepelvic Archive length, preanal length, below of the lateral SID line, predorsal scales, keel scales, dorsal fin height, dorsal fin base, pectoral fin base, pharyngeal teeth numbers and total vertebrae, on the pelvic fin base, anal fin base, pelvic fin length, left side whenever possible, were counted. Counts pectoral fin length, caudal peduncle length and and measurements were done under a caudal peduncle depth and 25 ratios including head stereomicroscope. Measurements were performed to length to standard length, body depth to standard the nearest 0.01mm. length, pectoral fin length to standard length, pelvic The non-parametric Mann-Whitney U test was fin length to standard length, caudal peduncle depth used to compare males and females for morphometric to standard length, predorsal length to standard characters after testing for heterogeneity. The non- length, snout length to head length, eye diameter to parametric Kruskal-Wallis test was used to compare head length, interorbital width to head length, post different meristic characters among basins. These 149

www.SID.ir Iranian Journal of Ichthyology (September 2015), 2(3): 148-154

Table 2. The 25 mean calculated ratios for Garra rufa from different basins.

Tigris Karkheh Karun Persis Hormuz Maharlu Ratio Mean±Sd Mean±Sd Mean±Sd Mean±Sd Mean±Sd Mean±Sd SL/FL 0.90±0.01 0.89±0.02 0.90±0.02 0.89±0.01 0.88±0.06 0.89±0.02 SL/TL 0.83±0.02 0.84±0.02 0.84±0.02 0.81±0.02 0.81±0.06 0.85±0.01 Body depth/caudal peduncle depth 1.78±0.02 1.70±0.12 1.82±0.14 1.85±0.16 1.70±0.19 1.90±0.07 Body depth/SL 0.20±0.02 0.21±0.02 0.21±0.02 0.21±0.02 0.20±0.03 0.23±0.01 Head L/SL 0.23±0.01 0.23±0.01 0.22±0.01 0.25±0.01 0.25±0.02 0.24±0.01 Snout L/Head L 0.45±0.04 0.48±0.05 0.47±0.05 0.41±0.04 0.42±0.03 0.43±0.02 Orbital diameter/Head L 0.23±0.02 0.22±0.02 0.21±0.02 0.26±0.03 0.24±0.02 0.23±0.02 Barbel 1 L/Head L 0.16±0.03 0.15±0.03 0.15±0.02 0.19±0.03 0.15±0.02 0.18±0.02 Barbel 2 L/Head L 0.11±0.03 0.01±0.03 0.10±0.02 0.14±0.02 0.11±0.02 0.17±0.02 Disk width/ Head Width 0.43±0.04 0.42±0.05 0.43±0.03 0.44±0.05 0.42±0.05 0.39±0.02 Disk L/ Head Width 0.41±0.04 0.40±0.05 0.42±0.06 0.37±0.03 0.38±0.03 0.34±0.03 Postorbital L/Head L 0.41±0.03 0.40±0.03 0.41±0.02 0.43±0.03 0.44±0.06 0.44±0.02 Postorbital L/Head width 0.59±0.04 0.61±0.04 0.58±0.03 0.61±0.04 0.64±0.04 0.63±0.03 Caudal peduncle L/SL 0.16±0.01 0.17±0.01 0.17±0.01 0.17±0.02 0.18±0.02 0.15±0.01 Caudal peduncle depth/SL 0.01±0.01 0.18±0.01 0.11±0.01 0.11±0.08 0.11±0.01 0.12±0.00 Predorsal L/SL 0.46±0.02 0.46±0.04 0.46±0.01 0.48±0.01 0.44±0.11 0.43±0.07 Caudal peduncle depth/Caudal 0.64±0.17 0.70±0.09 0.69±0.11 0.69±0.01 0.64±0.06 0.75±0.03 peduncle L Preanal L/Sl 0.75±0.02 0.74±0.02 0.74±0.02 0.74±0.02 0.75±0.08 0.73±0.02 Dorsal fin base/SL 0.17±0.02 0.17±0.01 0.17±0.01 0.17±0.01 0.17±0.03 0.14±0.03 Dorsal ray/Body depth 0.10±0.14 1.03±0.01 1.03±0.01 1.10±0.12 1.10±0.12 0.90±0.08 Predorsal L/preanal L 0.62±0.02 0.62±0.05 0.61±0.02 0.65±0.02 0.59±0.14 0.59±0.08 Dorsal ray/SL 0.22±0.02 0.22±0.01 0.20±0.02 0.24±0.01 0.24±0.03 0.20±0.02 Pelvic fin L/SL 0.18±0.01 0.18±0.01 0.18±0.01 0.18±0.01 0.18±0.02 0.18±0.07 Pectoral fin L/SL 0.22±0.01 0.21±0.02 0.21±0.02 0.22±0.01 0.22±0.02 0.21±0.01 Pectoral-Pelvic distance/preanal L 0.35±0.02 0.34±0.03 0.34±0.03 0.35±0.03 0.36±0.01 0.35±0.01 analyses were carried out using Excel 2010 and SPSS 5.51cm (5.08±3.31) for Maharlu basins (Table 1). 19 for Windows at the 95% confidence limit. Some 25 ratios were calculated for G. rufa from different basins. These ratios include the most Results common ratios used in morphometric study of fishes Morphometrics and ratios: AArchive total of 485 specimens; (Table of 2). SID 147 from Tigris, 121 from Karkheh, 62 from Karun, Meristics: There were 2-3 dorsal spiny rays in all 131 from Persis, 19 from Hormuz and 5 from specimens from different basins. The dorsal soft rays Maharlu were caught (Table 1). The largest specimen ranged 7-9. There were significant differences among (17.3cm and 58g) was from Kashkan River in some of the basins (P<0.05) (Table 3). There were 2- Karkheh basin. The standard length ranged between 3 anal spiny rays in all specimens from different 1.54-14.63cm (6.02±2.20) for all specimens, 2.61- basins. The anal soft rays ranged 3-5. There were 10.48cm (6.19±1.42) for Tigris, 1.54-14.63cm significant differences among some of the basins (7.50±2.87) for Karkheh, 3.10-10.74cm (7.09±1.88) (P<0.05) (Table 3). The principal caudal rays ranged for Karun, 1.592-8.47cm (4.19±1.38) for Persis, 17-20. There were no significant differences among 2.59-5.79cm (4.44±1.01) for Hormuz and 4.68- the basins for the caudal rays (P>0.05) (Table 3). The 150

www.SID.ir Keivany et al.-Morphological diversity of Garra rufa populations in Iran

Table 3. Minimum-maximum, mean±Sd and frequency of each count (%) of the dorsal, anal and caudal fin rays in Garra rufa from different basins.

Frequency of Frequency of Frequency of Dorsal soft rays Anal soft rays Caudal rays each count (%) each count (%) each count (%) Min- Min- Min- Basins Mean±Sd 7 8 9 Mean ±Sd 3 4 5 Mean±Sd 17 18 19 Max Max Max Tigris 7-8 7.95±0.19ab - 9 4 4-5 4.98±0.11ab - 10 90 17-19 18.98±0.18 1 2 97 Karkheh 7-9 7.98±0.18a 1 97 2 3-5 4.76±0.48a 3 19 78 17-19 18.88±0.35 1 11 88 Karun 7-9 7.90±0.39ab 2 90 8 4-5 4.83±0.37bc - 16 84 18-20 18.96±0.40 - 10 84 Persis 7-8 7.95±0.22ab - 95 5 4-5 4.97±0.17bc - 30 70 17-20 18.97±0.24 1 2 96 Hormuz 7-8 7.60±0.47c - 68 32 5 5.00±0.00a - - 100 18-19 18.89±0.31 - 10 90 Maharlu 7-8 7.80±0.44bc - 80 20 4-5 4.80±0.44bc - 20 80 19 19.00±0.00 - - 100 Similar letters indicate insignificant differences and different letters indicate significant differences among different populations.

Table 4. Minimum-maximum, mean±Sd and frequency of each count (%) of the pectoral and pelvic fin rays in Garra rufa from different basins. Frequency of each Frequency of Dorsal soft rays Pelvic fin rays count (%) each count (%) Min- 12 13 14 15 7 8 9 Basins Mean±Sd Min- Mean±Sd Max Max Tigris 12-15 12.90±0.5ab 19 76 3 2 8-9 8.78±0.41c - 22 78 Karkheh 12-14 12.80±0.5ab 20 76 4 - 7-9 8.70±0.47a 1 28 71 Karun 12-15 13.10±0.7a 16 58 24 2 7-9 8.59±0.52ab 2 37 61 Persis 12-15 12.69±0.5b 32 67 1 - 7-9 8.20±0.45a 2 75 23 Hormuz 12-14 12.94±0.4ab 10 84 5 - 8-9 8.36±0.49bc - 63 37 Maharlu 13 13.00±0.0ab - 100 - - 8-9 8.60±0.54ab - 40 60 Similar letters indicate insignificant differences and different letters indicate significant differences among different populations.

Table 5. Minimum-maximum and mean±Sd of the scales in Garra rufa from different basins.

Scales below LL LL sclaes Scales above LL Predorsal sclaes Circumpeduncle scales Basins Min- Mean ±Sd Min- Mean ±Sd Min- Mean ±Sd Min- Mean ±Sd Min- Mean ±Sd Max Max Max Max Max Tigris 3-5 3.86±0.38a 31-40 34.54±1a 3-5 3.99±0.18a 10-15 11.45±1.00a 12-17 15.05±0.85b Karkheh 3-5 3.90±0.38a 28-37 34.72±1a 3-5 4.01±0.09a 9-16 11.16±1.00ab 14-19 15.79±0.60a Karun 3-4 3.79±0.38a 32-37 34.64±1a 3-4 3.87±0.33a 9-15 11.33±1.00a 13-17 15.11±0.79b Persis 3-4 3.30±0.38b 25-35 30.90±1c 3-4 3.50±0.50b 8-13 10.59±0.95b 12-16 13.74±1.00c Hormuz 4 4.00±0.00a 30-35 32.84±1b 3-4 3.94±0.22a 10-13 11.15±0.89ab 14-16 14.84±0.68b Maharlu 4 4.00±0.00Archivea 31-34 32.80±1b 4 4.00±0.00 ofa 11-12 SID11.60±0.54a 15-16 15.40±0.54b Similar letters indicate insignificant differences and different letters indicate significant differences among different populations. pectoral rays ranged 12-15 and the pelvic rays ranged basins (P<0.05) (Table 5). 7-9 in all basins. There were significant differences The gill rakers ranged 15-34 in all basins. There among some of the basins for the pectoral rays were significant differences among some of the (P<0.05) (Table 4). basins (P<0.05) (Table 6). The vertebrae ranged 30- The scales below the lateral line ranged 3-5, on 35 in all basins. There were no significant differences the lateral line between 26-38, above the lateral line among the basins (P>0.05) (Table 6). The pharyngeal between 3-5, predorsal between 8-16 and teeth were in three rows, but in four forms; A: 2,3,5- circumcaudal peduncle 12-19 in all basins. There 5,3,2; B: 2,4,5-5,4,2; C: 2,4,4-4,4,2; D: 3,3,5-5,3,3. were significant differences among some of the Form B was the most frequent in all basins. There 151

www.SID.ir Iranian Journal of Ichthyology (September 2015), 2(3): 148-154

Table 6. Minimum-maximum and mean ±Sd of gill raker, vertebrae and various pharyngeal teeth types in Garra rufa from different basins.

Pharyngeal teeth type Gill raker Vertebrae Frequency of each count (%) frequency (%) Basins Min-Max Mean±Sd A B C D Min- Mean±Sd 30 31 32 33 34 35 Max Tigris 15-20 20.63±1.60ab 7 89 0 4 30-35 32.36±1.00 4 9 23 49 12 3 Karkheh 17-34 24.72±5.00ab 11 78 7 4 31-35 32.51±0.87 1 13 29 48 8 - Karun 20-24 21.09±1.20a 0 0 0 0 31-34 32.92±1.00 - 39 31 15 15 - Persis 16-28 21.60±1.80ab 19 77 0 0 30-34 32.07±0.87 - 7 18 52 21 2 Hormuz 20-22 21.05±1.02ab 0 86 0 0 32-33 32.50±0.53 - - 50 50 - - Maharlu 20 20.63±1.60ab 50 50 0 0 32-34 32.60±0.89 - - 60 20 20 - Similar letters indicate insignificant differences and different letters indicate significant differences among different populations. were no significant differences among the basins (Coad 2015). Berg (1949) was uncertain of the status (P>0.05) (Table 6). of this taxon A Principal Components Analysis on 448 fish Discussion and Conclusions from the Hormuz, Maharlu, Persis and Tigris River This species may attain a total length of 24cm basins and Sadi's Tomb using 20 morphometric and (Rahemo 1995), however, as in this study, in most 5 meristic characters did not separate any of these cases it barely reaches this size, e.g., 15.9cm (Krupp groups. Fish from the Hormuz basin, modally had 7 1985) and 17cm (Heckel 1843). Fish up to 18.5cm branched dorsal fin rays (as in G. persica) but total length are known from Khuzestan (Coad 2015). branched caudal fin rays were modally 17 (not 16 as Although there are significant differences in mean in G. persica). There may be some introgression in values of most ratios and meristic characters, but they this region of Iran. Ghalenoei et al. (2010) examined are highly overlapping. Besides, these characters are fish from 13 stations in the Tigris and affected by size and environmental conditions (Khara basins and found the Mond River population was et al. 2006; Daneshvar et al. 2011). Morphology is separated from the rest, which overlapped each other. usually affected by two Factors, genetics and Coad (2015) gave these characteristics for this environment. PCA has been used to separate many species which are well in the range we found: dorsal populations and species (Keivany et al. 1997; fin with 2-3, usually 3, unbranched and 7-9 branched Patimar 2004; Khara et al. 2006; Rahmani & Kiabi rays with a very strong mode at 8, anal fin with 2-3 2006; Rahmani & Abdoli 2008), however, in this unbranched and 4-6 with a very strong mode at 5 study it did not separate the studied populations. branched rays. Pectoral fin branched rays 12-14, Bianco & Banarescu (1982) referred their pelvic fin branched rays 7-8. Lateral line scales 31- material from the Helleh andArchive Mond River to G. rufa 38, ofscales from SID the dorsal fin origin to the lateral line crenulata as these fish had fewer scales (29-32 for 3-6, from the lateral line to the pelvic fin origin 2-5, Mond and 33-34 for Hablehrud versus 35-38 from predorsal mid-line scales 9-13, and scales around the the Tigris-Euphrates) and fewer gill rakers (15-21 caudal peduncle 12-17 with a strong mode at 16. versus 25-27 in Tigris-Euphrates specimens). Pharyngeal tooth formula 2,4,5-5,4,2 or 2,4,4-4,4,2 Possible syntypes of crenulata had intermediate scale (3,3,5-5,3,3 in Heckel (1843)). The gill rakers counts (31-34) between Mond and Hablehrud fish. number 16-21. In Iranian specimens, the range is 14- These authors suggest that there may be distinct 26. Total vertebrae in Iranian specimens 32-37. subspecies in these two rivers. Their sample sizes Generally, there are significant differences in the were too small to warrant subspecies recognition mean values of many characters within G. rufa

152

www.SID.ir Keivany et al.-Morphological diversity of Garra rufa populations in Iran

populations in Iran, although their ranges are Coad, B.W. 1998. Systematic biodiversity in the overlapping. However, it is unclear as to whether the freshwater fishes of Iran. Italian Journal of Zoology observed morphological differences are the result of 65: 101-108. a genetic differentiation (Lavin & McPhail 1993; Coad, B.W. 2015. Freshwater fishes of Iran. Thompson et al. 1997), of a phenotypic plasticity www.briancoad.com (accessed 1 May 2015). Daneshvar, E.; Keivany, Y. & Paknehad, E. 2013. related to different habitat characteristics Comparative biometry of the Iranian Cichlid, (temperature, turbidity, food availability, water depth Iranocichla hormuzensis, in different seasons and and flow) (Douglas & Matthews 1992; Turan et al. sexes. Research in Zoology 3(2): 56-61. 2005; Eagderi et al. 2014; Heidari et al. 2014), or of Douglas, M.E. & Matthews, W.J. 1992. Does morphology a contribution by all mechanisms (Robinson & predict ecology? hypothesis testing within a Wilson 1996; Brinsmead & Fox 2002). To trace the freshwater stream fish assemblage. Oikos 65: 213- effects of environmental factors, detailed studies of 224. relationships between ecological parameters and Durna, S.; Bardakci, F. & Degerli, N. 2009. Genetic morphological characteristics (Samaee et al. 2009) diversity of Garra rufa Heckel, 1843 (Teleostei: and to determine the contribution of genetics in Cyprinidae) in Anatolia. Biochemical Systematics differentiations of the morphology, further and Ecology 20: 1-10. Eagderi, S.; Esmaeilzadegan, E. & Pirbeigi, A. 2014. exploration using molecular techniques is necessary. Morphological responses of Capoeta gracilis and Alburnoides eichwaldii populations (Cyprinidae) Acknowledgments fragmented due to Tarik Dam (Sefidrud River, We would like to thank S. Asadollah and M. Nasri basin, Iran). Iranian Journal of for their help in fish collection. This study was Ichthyology 1(2): 114-120. financially supported by Isfahan University of Esmaeili, H.R. & Ebrahimi, M. 2006. Length-weight Technology and Iran Department of Environment relationships of some freshwater fishes of Iran. (Grant No. 11023 to YK). Journal of Applied Ichthyology 22: 328-329. Froese, R. & Pauly, D. 2015. FishBase, World Wide Web References Electronic Publication, www.fishbase.org. Abdoli, A. 2000. The Inland Water Fishes of Iran. Iranian Ghalenoei, M.; Pazooki, J.; Abdoli, A.; Hassanzadeh Museum of Nature & Wildlife, Tehran, Iran. (In Kiabi, B. & Golzarian, K. 2010. Morphometric and Farsi) meristic study of Garra rufa populations in Tigris Abedi, M.; Shiva, A.H. & Mohammadi, H. 2011. and Persian Gulf basins. Iranian Scientific Fisheries Reproductive biology and age determination of Journal 19(3): 107-118. (In Farsi) Garra rufa Heckel, 1843 (Actinopterygii: Gozukara, S.E. & Cavas, T. 2004. A karyological analysis Cyprinidae) in central Iran. Turkish Journal of of Garra rufa (Heckel, 1843)(Pisces, Cyprinidae) Zoology 35(3): 317-323.Archive offrom the SID Eastern Mediterranean River basin in Berg, L.S. 1949. Freshwater fishes of Iran and adjacent Turkey. Turkish Journal of Veterinary and Animal countries. Trudy Zoologicheskogo Instituta Sciences 28: 497-500. Akademii Nauk SSSR 8: 783-858. Heckel, J.J. 1843. Ichthyologie. In: Russegger, J. (ed.), Bianco, P.G. & Banarescu, P. 1982. A contribution to the Reisen in Europa, Asien und Afrika, mit besonderer knowledge of the Cyprinidae of Iran (Pisces, Rücksicht auf die naturwissenschaftlichen Cypriniformes). Cybium 6(2): 75-96. Verhältnisse der betreffenden Länder, Brinsmead, J. & Fox, M.G. 2002. Morphological variation unternommen in den Jahren 1835 bis 1841 von between lake- and stream-dwelling rock bass and Joseph Russegger. Schweitzerbart'sche pumpkinseed populations. Journal of Fish Biology Verlagsbuchhandlung, Stuttgart 1(2): 991-1099. 61: 1619-1638. Heidari, A.; Khoshkholgh, M. & Mousavi-Sabet, H. 2014. Tracing the effects of Sefidrud dams on Capoeta 153

www.SID.ir Iranian Journal of Ichthyology (September 2015), 2(3): 148-154

gracilis (Cyprinidae) populations using Truss and Anzali lagoon. Journal of Agricultural Sciences distances in southern Caspian Sea basin. Iranian and Natural Resources 15(1): 28-37. (In Farsi) Journal of Ichthyology 1(2): 106-113. Rahmani, H. & Kiabi, B.H. 2006. Inter-population Keivany, Y.; Nelson, J.S. & Economidis, P.S. 1997. morphological diversity in Chalcalburnus Validity of Pungitius hellenicus, a stickleback fish chalcoides (Gueldenstaedt, 1772) in Haraz and from Greece. Copeia 1997(3): 558-564. Gazafrud rivers. Environmental Sciences 10: 21- Keivany, Y.; Nasri, M.; Abbasi, K. & Abdoli, A. 2015. 34. (In Farsi) Atlas of Inland Water Fishes of Iran. Iran Robinson, B.W. & Wilson, D.S. 1996: Genetic variation Department of Environment Press. (In press) and phenotypic plasticity in a trophically Khara, H.; Keyvan, A.; Vosoughi , G.; Pourkazemi, M.; polymorphic population of pumpkinseed sunfish Rezvani, S.; Nezami, S.A.; Ramin, M. & Sarpanah, (Lepomis gibbosus). Evolutionary Ecology 10: A.N. 2006. Comparison of morphometric and 631-652. meristic of bream (Abramis brama orientalis Berg Samaee, S. M.; Patzner, R.A. & Mansour, N. 2009. 1905), in Caspian Sea and Anzali Wetland. Morphological differentiation within the Pajouhesh and Sazandegi (73): 177-187. (In Farsi) population of Siah Mahi, Capoeta capoeta gracilis, Krupp, F. 1985. Systematik und Zoogeographie der (Cyprinidae, Teleostei) in a river of the south Süßwasserfische des levantinischen Caspian Sea basin: a pilot study. Journal of Applied Grabenbruchsystems und der Ostküste des Ichthyology 25: 583-590. Mittelmeeres. Dissertation zur Erlangung des Thompson, C.E.; Taylor, E.B. & McPhail, J.D. 1997: Grades "Doktor der Naturwissenschaften" am Parallel evolution of lake-stream pairs of threespine Fachbereich Biologie der Johannes Gutenberg- sticklebacks (Gasterosteus) inferred from Universität in Mainz. 215 pp., Anhang: mitochondrial DNA variation. Evolution 51: 1955– Abbildungen, Karten, Tabellen, 169p. 1965. Lavin, P.A. & McPhail, J.D. 1993. Parapatric lake and Turan, C.; Yalcin, S.; Turan, F.; Okur, E. & Akyurt, I. stream sticklebacks on northern Vancouver Island: 2005. Morphometric comparisons of African disjunct distribution or parallel evolution. Canadian catfish, Clarias gariepinus, populations in Turkey. Journal of Zoology 71: 11-17. Folia Zoologica 54: 165-172. Nezamoleslami, A.; Keivany, Y. & Dorafshan, S., 2015. Yazdanpanah, M. 2005. Reproductive biology of Garra Karyology of Garra rufa from Semirom River, rufa (Heckel, 1843) (Cypriniformes, Cyprinidae) in Isfahan Province (Actinopterygii: Cyprinidae). Cell a spring-stream system, Zanjiran, . and Tissue: In press. (In Farsi) M.Sc. Thesis, Department of Biology, Shiraz Patimar, R. 2004. Inter- and intra-population diversity of University, Iran. (In Farsi) Rutilus rutilus caspicus (Pravdin, 1928) in four wetlands in Golestan Province. PhD thesis, Department of Fisheries, Gorgan University of Agricultural Sciences andArchive Natural Resources, Iran. of SID (In Farsi) Patimar, R.; Chalanchi, M.G.; Chamanara, V. & Naderi, L. 2010. Some life history aspects of Garra rufa (Heckel, 1843) in the Kangir River, western Iran. Zoology in the Middle East 51: 57-66. Rahemo, Z.I. 1995. Studies of the parasites of Garra tufa Heckel, 1843 (Pisces: Cyprinidae). Rivista Di Parassitologia 56: 273-278. Rahmani, H. & Abdoli, A. 2008. Inter- population morphological diversity in Vimba vimba persa (Pallas, 1814) in , Shirud River 154

www.SID.ir