Re-Description of Hypselobarbus Lithopidos (Teleostei: Cyprinidae
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 September 2013 | 5(13): 4734–4742 Western Ghats Special Series Communication ISSN Re-description of Hypselobarbus lithopidos (Teleostei: Online 0974–7907 Cyprinidae), based on its rediscovery from the Western Ghats, Print 0974–7893 India, with notes on H. thomassi OPEN ACCESS J.D. Marcus Knight 1, Ashwin Rai 2 & Ronald K.P. D’souza 3 1 Flat L, Sri Balaji Apartments, 7th Main Road, Dhandeeswaram, Velachery, Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600042, India 2 Department of Fisheries Microbiology, College of Fisheries, Yekkur, Mangalore, Karnataka 575002, India 3 Department of Applied Zoology, Mangalore University, Mangalagangothri, Manglore, Karnataka 574199, India 1 [email protected] (corresponding author), 2 [email protected], 3 [email protected] Abstract: In recent times, though the genus Hypselobarbus has been studied substantially, the identities of individual species remain ambiguous. Hypselobarbus lithopidos has been assessed as Data Deficient in the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species with a speculation that it could possibly be extinct as there has not been any validated record of this species since 1941 from its known range. In this work we report a population of this species from its type locality and re-describe this little known species to clear any taxonomic ambiguity that surrounds the identity of this species. We also attempt to clear the taxonomic ambiguity that surrounds the identity of the Critically Endangered H. thomassi with fresh collections from the type locality. Keywords: Barbus, Critically Endangered, Extinct, Gonoproktopterus, large barbs, pulchellus, South Canara, Wallacean shortfall. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o3602.4734-42 | ZooBank: urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:75112E0D-333F-4A1D-AD52-1F942923033F Editor: Anonymity requested. Date of publication: 26 September 2013 (online & print) Manuscript details: Ms # o3602 | Received 30 April 2012 | Final received 02 August 2013 | Finally accepted 08 September 2013 Citation: Knight, J.D.M., A. Rai & R.K.P. D’souza (2013). Re-description ofHypselobarbus lithopidos (Teleostei: Cyprinidae), based on its rediscovery from the Western Ghats, India, with notes on H. thomassi. Journal of Threatened Taxa 5(13): 4734-4742; http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o3602.4734-42 Copyright: © Knight et al. 2013. Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. JoTT allows unrestricted use of this article in any medium, reproduction and distribution by providing adequate credit to the authors and the source of publication. Funding: Self funded. Competing Interest:No competing interests declared. Author Contribution:JDMK and AR carried out the study; AR and RKPD carried out field surveys and collected the lost species. Author Details: Dr. J.D. Marcus Knight is a naturalist based in Chennai. Amongst others, his interest is in exploring the freshwater habitats and is currently documenting the diversity of freshwater fish in southern India. Dr. Ashwin Rai is a Research Associate with the department of fisheries microbiology, College of Fisheries and is involved in the study of Aquatic Ecology and Biodiversity. In addition he is involved studies on the endemic fish species of Western Ghats using DNA Barcoding. Ronald K.P. D’souza is currently doing his PhD at Mangalore University in the Department of Applied Zoology; his area of research is brood stock development, induced breeding and nursery rearing of selected species of Hypselobarbus with focus on H. Jerdoni, H. lithopidos and H. thomassi. Acknowledgements: We would like to acknowledge the support provided by Mark McGrouther and Amanda Hay of Australian Museum. We thank the staff and personnel of Aquatic Biosystems, Mangalore who helped in the survey and collections in the river systems of Karnataka. We also thank Beta Mahatvaraj and Pushpangathan for providing us the specimen from Kerala. The publication of this article is supported by the Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF), a joint initiative of l’Agence Française de Développement, Conservation International, the European Commission, the Global Environment Facility, the Government of Japan, the MacArthur Foundation and the World Bank. 4734 Re-description of Hypselobarbus lithopidos Knight et al. INTRODUCTION taxon. In this paper, we confirm the presence ofH. lithopidos The genus Hypselobarbus Bleeker, 1860 has always in its type locality, and redescribe it thereby clearing any interested ichthyologists and though there has been ambiguity that may surround its identity. The identity of substantial work carried out on this genus (Mukerji H. thomassi which is the closest resembling congener is 1931; Raj 1941; Jayaram 1997; Arunachalam et al. 2012; also discussed in this paper. Pethiyagoda et al. 2012), the identities of individual species remain ambiguous beginning with the identity of H. mussullah (Sykes, 1839), which is the type species MATERIALS AND METHODS of Hypselobarbus. Currently, the genus includes at least 11 other species namely, Hypselobarbus curmuca The materials used in the present study are based (Hamilton, 1807), H. dobsoni (Day, 1876), H. dubius mostly on collections from the Phalguni River, Mangalore (Day, 1867), H. micropogon (Valenciennes, 1842), H. and Kempu Hole River, a tributary of Netravathi in jerdoni (Day, 1870), H. kolus (Sykes, 1839), H. kurali southern Karnataka. The specimens used in this study (Menon & Rema Devi, 1995), H. lithopidos (Day, 1874), are registered in the Collections of the Zoological H. periyarensis (Raj, 1941), H. pulchellus (Day, 1870), and Survey of India, Southern Regional Centre, Chennai H. thomassi (Day, 1874) all endemic to the freshwater (ZSI/SRS) and the private collections of J.D. Marcus systems of peninsular India. The identity of certain Knight (MKC). Measurements were taken using a digital other species such as H. mysorensis (Jerdon, 1849) is caliper to the nearest 0.1mm. The standard length (SL) ambiguous with some considering it a valid species was measured using a foot ruler to the nearest 1.0mm. (Mukerji 1931) while others consider it a synonym of Quantification of characters follows Devi et al. (2010). H. micropogon (Menon, 1999). Similarly, a few other Subunits of the head are also expressed in proportions species such as Gobio canarensis Jerdon, 1849, Barbus of head length (HL). Numbers in parenthesis after a gracilis Jerdon, 1849, Barbus conirostris Günther, 1868 count denote the frequency of that count. Photographs and Barbus guentheri Day, 1869 are either buried in of the syntypes of both H. lithopidos and H. thomassi synonymy or lost in time. In spite of the ambiguity, from the Natural History Museum, London (BMNH), the recent authors have even highlighted the possibility Australian Museum, Sydney (AMS) and the Museum of undescribed species being concealed within this of Comparative Zoology, Harvard, (MCZ) were used to genus (Arunachalam et al. 2012). Of the known species, compare the general body shape and the lateral line Hypselobarbus lithopidos is listed as Data Deficient in scale count. All specimens used in this study were the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (Raghavan & collected from the type locality (Dakshina Kannada) and Ali 2011), H. pulchellus is listed as Critically Endangered are putative topotypes. (possibly extinct) (Devi & Ali 2011a) and H. thomassi as Critically Endangered (Devi & Ali 2011b). It is important Material examined to fill in knowledge gaps on the identity and the current Hypselobarbus lithopidos: ZSI/SRC F 8663, 14.x.2012, status of the already known species before additional 2 exs., 105.0 – 135.0 mm SL, Phalguni River, (12059’55”N species are described under Hypselobarbus. & 75001’40”E) Mangalore, Karnataka, India, coll. Ashwin As there was an urgent need to do a complete Rai; MKC 403, 14.x.2012, 1 ex., 169.0mm SL, Phalguni taxonomic reassessment of this species, we carried River, (12059’55”N & 75001’40”E), Mangalore, Karnataka, out fresh surveys in the type locality (South Canara = India, coll. Ashwin Rai. Dakshina Kannada). During these surveys specimens Barbus lithopidos (Syntype photos): BMNH of H. lithopidos which fit the original description by Day 1889.2.1.554-8 (Image 1A); AMS B.8374 (Image 1B). (1874) were collected. This highlighted the fact that this enigmatic fish was not extinct as thought previously (Ali & Raghavan 2011; Molur et al. 2011; Arunachalam et al. DESCRIPTION 2012). Incidentally, H. thomassi a very similar congener (type locality Canara) was also collected during these Hypselobarbus lithopidos (Day, 1874) surveys. There is a certain amount of taxonomic Synonyms: Barbus lithopidos Day, 1874, Puntius ambiguity surrounding the identity of this species (Devi lithopidos (Day, 1874), Gonoproktopterus lithopidos (Day, & Ali 2011b) with the population found below the 1874). Palghat/Palakkad gap being speculated as a different Morphometric and meristic data are given in Table 1. Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 September 2013 | 5(13): 4734–4742 4735 Re-description of Hypselobarbus lithopidos Knight et al. A B C Image 1. A - Barbus lithopidos (Syntype) BMNH 1889.2.1.554-8 (© http://www.nhm.ac.uk); B -Barbus lithopidos (Syntype) AMS B.8374 (© Amanda Hay, Australian Museum, Sydney); C - Barbus thomassi (Syntype) MCZ 4270 (© Creative Commons) President and Fellows of Harvard College) General body shape and appearance as in Images 1A, 1B, last simple ray weak. Dorsal-fin origin slightly behind 2A, 2B & 2C. Body elongate, moderately deep, laterally pelvic-fin origin, inserted midway between tip of snout compressed; dorsal contour ascending gradually, with and base of caudal fin. Pelvic fin with one simple and an indentation at nape and tapering gradually posterior 8(1)–9(2) branched rays. Anal fin with three simples to dorsal-fin insertion; ventral profile equally convex, and 5½ branched rays. Pectoral fin with one simple curving gently up to anal-fin origin, thence sloping and 15 branched rays. Pectoral and pelvic fins short, upward towards caudal peduncle; caudal peduncle not reaching pelvic and anal-fin origins respectively. narrow, its depth a little less than its length, concave Caudal fin with 19 (1+9+8+1) rays, deeply forked with in both dorsal and ventral profiles.