Acta Universitatis Carolinae Environmentalica 1–2 (2009): 69–78

Present Status of Fish Species Diversity of the River in the Vicinity of Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh,

HARI RAJ SINGH, MOHINDER SINGH JOHAL*

Department of Fishery Biology, College of Fisheries, G.B. Pant University of Agriculture & Technology, Pantnagar-263 145, Uttaranchal Pradesh, India (e-mail: [email protected]) *Department of Zoology, Panjab University, Chandigarh-160 014, India (e-mail: [email protected])

Abstract: Fish diversity of eighty kilometer stretch of the river Ganga, one of the sacred rivers of India in the vicinity of Allahabad (25° 28′ N; 81° 54′ E) has been described. This river stretch supports seventy six fish species belonging to fifty three genera, twenty four families and ten orders. The history of Indian fisheries begins with the report on the fish diversity of this river by Hamilton (1822) describing the occurrence of 272 freshwater fish species which include exclusively hillstream, riverine and estuarine fishes. The present studies have pointed out that there is significant reduction in the maximum size of most of the fish species under report due to ecological degradation. Further 75% of the fish species need immediate attention for their conservation. Due to the lack of data on the composition fish diversity of the area under report for the last two decades, it is opined that the criteria of assigning the IUCN conservation categories cannot be applied, hence, new criteria based on the frequency occurrence of reported fish in the collection sites and percentage occurrence of a fish species in each collection site has been suggested.

Key words: fish species, reduction in size, frequency of occurence, conservation

INTRODUCTION

Rivers have formed the nuclei for human settlement from the origin of mankind. Many of the earliest civilizations emerged from the fertile floodplains. The earliest systematic colo- nization of the Nile, Mesopotamic, Indus and Chinese rivers occurred where there had been a concentrated efforts aimed at the domination of the hydrobiological regimes for the benefit of agriculture. In India, the river Ganges is considered to be the most sacred river in Northern India, hence, almost all the big cities of this region are located on the banks of this river. Va- rious activities such as religious, transportation, recreation, tourism and fishery have contri- buted substantially to the economic upliftment of the locals residing along the river stretches. The history of Indian fishery particularly the fish diversity starts with the ichthyofaunal survey of this river by Hamilton (1822), who described the occurrence of 272 freshwater fish species inhabiting the long stretch of this river starting from upper North-west Himalayas (Gangotri) to the Bay of Bengal. After the classic work of Hamilton (1822), several workers (Hora, 1929; Sarkar, 1953; Karamchandani, 1962; Venketeswarlu, 1972, 1977; Venkateswarlu

69 & Rao, 1977; Vekateswarlu & Menon, 1979; Tilak, 1986–87; Prakash et al., 1996; Sinha et al., 1998; Payne et al., 2004; ) have have published information on ichthyofauna of the dif- ferent stretches of the river Ganges. Till now, detailed investigations on the fish diversity in the vicinity of Allahabad where there lies the confluence of the rivers Ganges and Yamuna (Fig. 1) has not been carried out. Considering this lacuna, an extensive ichthyofaunal survey of a stretch of approximately 80 km upstream of the river Ganges in the vicinity of Allahabad was carried out and the outcome is reported in this communication which includes 76 fish spe- cies alongwith the size range of each fish species, conservation status as per CAMP workshop (1998) and the present conservation status according to our own observations. Authors are of the view that the present observations shall form the base line information for future similar type of studies and shall help the fishery biologists to evaluate the fish diversity deficit in this stretch in the coming years as a result of water management practices and anthropological activities.

Tab. 1: Fish diversity of the river Ganges in the vinicity of Allahabad Maximum length Conservation Status S. Range (cm) reported 1. CAMP Workshop Name of the Fish No. (cm) by Talwar and 2. Present Observations Jhingran (1991) Molur and Walker (1998) Class: Subclass: Neopterygii Division: Teleostei Subdivision: Clupeomorpha Order: Clupeiformes Clupeidae 1. 12–15 25 VU R Goniolosa manmina (Ham.) 2. Gudusia chapra (Ham.) 13–15 20 LRlc C 3. Hilsa (Tenualosa) ilisha (Ham.) 16–23 60 CR Rt Engraulidae 4. 13–15 30 NE C Setipinna phasa (Ham.) Subdivision: Osteoglossomorpha Order: 5. Osteoglossiformes: Notopteridae Chitala chitala (Ham.) 25–30 122 EN VR 6. Notopterus notopterus (Pallas) 14–17 61 LRnt R Subdivision: Euteleostei Superorder: Ostariophysi 7. Order: Cypriniformes Cyprinidae Amblypharyngodon mola (Ham.) 7–8 20 LRlc R 8. Aspidoparia jaya (Ham.) 7–8 15 VU R 9. A. morar (Ham.) 7–8 17.5 LRnt R 10. Catla catla (Ham.) 22–97 – VU R 11. Chagunius chagunius (Ham.) 19–24 – NE R 12. Chela (Chela) labuca (Ham.) 4–5 5.5 LRlc R 13. Cirrhinus mrigala (Ham.) 22–84 99 LRnt R 14. C. reba (Ham.) 14–22 30 VU R

70 15. Crossocheilus latius latius (Ham.) 14–18 12.4 DD R 16. Brachydanio rerio (Ham.) 6–8 4.5 LRnt R 17. Danio devario (Ham.) 6–8 10 LRlc R 18. Esomus danricus (Ham.) 6–7 12.5 LRlc R 19. Labeo bata (Ham.) 18–32 61 LRnt R 20. L. calbasu (Ham.) 20–62 90 LRnt R 21. L. fimbriatus (Bloch) 23–30 91 LRnt R 22. L. gonius (Ham.) 16–22 150 LRnt R 23. L. pangusia (Ham.) 13–15 60 LRnt R 24. L. rohita (Ham.) 8–10 100 LRnt R 25. Osteobrama cotio cotio (Ham.) 8–10 15 LRnt R 26. Salmostoma bacaila (Ham.) 11–15 – NE R 27. Securicula gora (Ham.) 12–20 – NE R 28. Puntius chola (Ham.) 8–9 10 VU R 29. P. conchonius (Ham.) 7–10 14 VU R 30. P. sarana sarana (Ham.) 9–12 31 VU R 31. P. sophore (Ham.) 6–10 13 LRnt C 32. P. ticto (Ham.) 4–7 10 LRnt C 33. Rasbora daniconius (Ham.) 7–9 13 NE R Order: Siluriformes Siluridae 34. Ompok bimaculatus (Bloch) 15–22 45 EN R 35. O. pabda (Ham.) 13–15 17 EN R 36. Wallago attu (Bl. & Schn.) 23–30 200 NE A 37. Bagridae Aorichthys aor (Ham.) 20–40 150 NE A 38. A. seenghala (Sykes) 25–108 150 NE A 39. Mystus bleekeri (Day) 10–12 13.5 VU R 40. M. cavasius (Ham.) 10–13 40 LRnt C 41. M. gulio (Ham.) 12–15 – NE R 42. M. menoda (Ham.) 14–20 45 NE C 43. M. tengara (Ham.) 7–9 18 NE C 44. M. vittatus (Bloch) 8–10 21 VU C 45. Rita rita (Ham.) 16–40 150 LRnt R 46. Bagarius bagarius (Ham.) 20–116 – VU R 47. (Ham.) 7–8 15 NE R 48. Schilbaeidae Ailia coila (Ham.) 9–11 18 VU R 49. Clupisoma garua (Ham.) 16–24 – VU A 50. Eutropiichthys vacha (Ham.) 15–21 35 EN A 51. Silonia silonida (Ham.) 15–25 100 LRnt R Pangasiidae 52. Panagasius panagasius (Ham.) 30–85 CR R Heteropneustidae 53. Heteropneustes fossilis (Bloch) 16–22 30 VU C Clariidae 54. Clarias batrachus (Linn.) 19–25 46 VU

71 Order: Beloniformes 55. Belonidae Xenentodon cancila (Ham.) 18–23 40 LRnt R Order: Cyprinodontiformes 56. Aplocheilidae Aplocheilis panchax (Ham.) 4–6 9 DD R Order: Perciformes 57. Chandidae = Ambassidae Chanda nama (Ham.) 3–5 11 NE VR 58. Parambassis ranga (Ham.) 4–5 – NE R Sciaenidae 59. Johnius coitor (Ham.) 12–16 – NE VR Nanidae 60. Badis badis (Ham.) 4–5 8 NE R 61. Nandus nandus (Ham.) 10–13 20 LRnt R Anabantidae 62. Anabas testudineus (Bloch) 13–15 – VU C Belontidae 63. Colisa fasciatus (Schn.) 7–8 12 LRnt R Gobiidae 64. Glossogobius giuris giuris (Ham.) 7–8 30 LRnt R 65. Mugilidae Mugil cephalus (Linn.) 16–20 – NE R 66. Rhinomugil corsula (Ham.) 19–22 – VU R 67. Sicamugil cascasia (Ham.) 6–8 10 VU R Channidae 68. Channa marulius (Ham.) 30–68 122 LRnt R C. orientalis (Schn.) 69. syn. C. gachua (Ham.) 9–11 13 LRnt R 70. C. punctatus (Bloch) 10–16 31 LRnt R 71. C. striata (Bloch) 20–29 75 LRlc R Order: Synbrachiformes 72. Synbrabchidae Monopterus cuchia (Ham.) 30–40 60 LRnt VR Order: Mastacembeliformes 73. Mastacembelidae Macrogranthus aral (Bl. & Schn.) 13–18 – NE R 74. M. pancalus (Ham.) 9–15 18 LRnt R 75. Mastacembelus armatus (Lacepede) 18–50 61 LRnt R Order: Tetradontiformes 76. Tetraodontidae Tetradon cutcutia (Ham.) 4–5 – LRnt R

IUCN Categories Present Status Evaluated CR = Critically endangered A = Abundant EN = Endangered C = Common VU = Vulnerable R = Rare LRnt = Lower risk near threatened VR = Very Rare LRlc = Lower risk least concern Rt = Rarest DD = Data deficient NE = Not evaluated NR = Not reported

72 MATERIAL AND METHODS

Approximately twenty collection sites of the river Ganges (Fig. 1) in the vicinity of 80 km of Allahabad ( 25° 28′ N; 81° 54′ E) were visited once in a month during the period April 2007 to March 2008. Fishing was done employing various fishing nets e.g., cast-net, drag-net of the varying mesh sizes (1.00 cm, 2.00 cm, 5.00 cm). Fishes were also collected from the fish landing stations namely Sadiapur, Daraganj and Rasoolabad and various fish markets which receive fish only from the river Ganges. Freshly caught fishes were killed in the 10% formaldehyde solution, brought to the laboratory, washed in tap water to remove the mucous, dust particles, other extraneous matter and preserved in the 10% formaldehyde solution. Preserved fishes were identified upto species level following the works of Talwar and Jhingran (1991) and Jayaram (1999). The correct was assigned to the reported fish species after Florenza (1988). During the field trips, visit to the fish landing stations and fish markets, the maximum and minimum size of each reported fish species was also recorded alongwith the frequency occurrence of each fish species (only number not weight) in order to determine the current conservation status of each reported fish species. As there is no past data on the frequency occurrence of various species from this region, therefore, the criteria suggested by IUCN (1994) and Molur and Walker (1998) for assigning the various conservation categories cannot be applied, therefore, the authors have devised new criteria to assign the five con- servation categories on the basis of frequency occurrence of the reported fish species on the basis of frequency occurrence of each fish species in the catch and collection sites which is as follows: Adundant(A): Frequency occurrence 30–40% in the catch and 100% in the collection sites. Common( C ): Frequency occurrence 10–30% in the catch and 60–80% in the collection sites. Rare (R): Frequency occurrence 5–10% in the catch and in the collection sites. Very Rare (VR): 1–5% in the catch and in the collection sites. Rarest (Rt): Occur very occasionally in the catch and in the collection sites. The classification adopted for the reported fish species is generally after Nelson (1994) and Howes (1991) with inputs from Echmeyer (1990). Arrangement of genera (Table 1) in each family is arbitrary, not based on the affinities. The classification upto subfamily, tribe and subtribe to the group of Cyprinid genera suggested by Rainboth (1991) have been omitted intentionally to avoid confusion.

TOPOGRAPHY

The Ganga River system (Fig. 1) has its modest beginning at Gumukh (30° 55′ N; 79° 7′ E) in the ice caves of Gangotri Glaciers as Bhagirithi stream at an elevation of 4 100 m a.s.l. This stream joins another stream Alaknanda at about 50 km upstream of Hardwar and become known as ‘Ganga’ the most sacred river of India. It traverses a distance of 2 507 km to meet the ocean in Bay of Bengal in West Bengal. During its long journey the river Ganga passes

73 Fig. 1: Map of the river Ganga starting from the origin at Gumukh in Uttrakhand up the end point in the Bay of Bengal. Area of collection is marked with the square. Map not drawn to scale through seven states of India viz., Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Delhi, Bihar and West Bengal of India. During its course it receives the water from five major tributaries namely, Yamuna, Ghaghara, Kosi, Soin and Gandak. The major contribu- tion (60%) to the Ganga river system is by Himalayan streams in the north and rest (40%) is being contributed by Peninsular streams. The weathers of Ganga river basin is predominantly influenced by south–west mon- soon (June–August, September), long spell of dry summer (March–June) and winter (October–February). Ecologically, the Ganga river basin is divided into following three distinct regions: Upper Ganga Plain (73° 3′ – 82° 21′ E and 25° 15′ – 30° 17′ N) Middle Ganga Plain (81° 47′ – 87° 50′ E; 24° 30′ – 27° 50′ N) Lower Ganga Plain (86° 30′ – 89° 58′ E; 21° 25′ – 26° 50′ N) Allahabad (81° 54′ E; 25° 28′ N), the study area is located in the middle Ganga plain (Fig. 1).

OBSERVATIONS AND DISCUSSION

Fish diversity of 80 km upstream stretch of the river Ganga in the vicinity of Allahabad comprised of 76 species belonging to fifty three genera, twenty four families and ten orders.

74 The maximum number of species (27 comprising 35.5%) belong to the order Cypriniformes (35.5%) followed by the orders Siluriformes (27.6%; 21 species), Perciformes (19.4%; 15 species), Clupeiformes (5.2%; 4 species), Mastacembeliformes (4%; 3 species), Osteo- glossiformes (2.6%; 2 species) and rest of the orders viz., Beloniformes, Synbranchiformes and Tetradontiformes are represented by one species each consisting of 1.3% of each order respectively. Out of seventy six species eleven species viz., Gudusia chapra (Ham.), Puntius sarana sarana (Ham.), Wallago attu (Bl. & Schn.), Aorichthys aor (Ham.), A. seenghala (Sykes), Mystus gulio (Ham.), M. menoda (Ham.), M. teengara (Ham.), M. vittatus (Bloch), Clupisoma garua (Ham.) and Eutropiichthys vacha (Ham.) are of common occurrence or abundantly available, hence, these eleven species can be considered as commercial fish spe- cies. All these fishes are harvested in the natural waterbodies in the vicinity of in the 80 km upstream stretch of the river Ganges in the vicinity of Allahabad by professional fishermen using drag and cast nets under the supervision of state officials. The activities like fishing of commercial fishes and their marketing provide ample and gainful employment to the locals. There has been ecological degradation in the Ganga river basin due to soil erosion, dis- charge of city effluents, industrial pollution and urbanization resulting in reduction in the maximum size of most of the fishes as compared to the maximum size reported by the ear- lier workers (Day, 1878, Talwar and Jhingran, 1991). It has been observed that there is 50% reduction in 25 (33%) fish species. It is worthwhile to mention here that in the following seven species the reduction is size is more than 70%: – Chitala chitala (75%), Notopterus notopterus (71%), Labeo gonius (86%), Wallago attu (85%), Aorichthys aor (78), Rita rita (74%) and Silonia silonida (75%). Dogra (2009) pointed out thar BOD of Ganga water in the vicinity of Allahabad is 4.9 mg . l–1. because of the release of tannery effluents released by 100 units of leather industry in the upstream portion of Ganga river in the vicinity of Kanpur (Tripathi and Chaturvedi, 2009). This low level of oxygen is responsible for slow growth rate of almost all the fish species. Government of India initiated a habitat restoration program under the name ‘Ganga Action’ Plan about twenty years back keeping in mind extreme degradation of ecology of Ganga River due to several reasons. The present studies have indicated that there is no impact on the the ecology of the Ganga River at least in the vicinity Allahabad as is evident from the reduction in the maximum size of most of the fish species under report. The rivers of Northern India are known for the catches of Indian major carps namely, Labeo calbasu (Ham.), L. Rohita (Ham.), Catla catla (Ham.) and Cirrhinus mrigala (Ham.) and few minor carps viz., Puntius sarana sarana (Ham.) and Cirrhinus reba (Ham.) (Wel- comme, 1985; ZSI, 1991). It is matter of concern that CAMP report (Molur and Walker, 1998) on the basis of IUCN criteria has included Labeo calbasu (Ham.) and L. rohita in the category of lower risk near threatened (LRnt); Cirrhinus mrigala (Ham.) in lower risk least concern (LRlc) where as Catla catla (Ham.) Cirrhinus reba (Ham.) and Puntius sarana sa- rana (Ham.) in the category of vulnertable species. Based on the present observations, these five fish species have been included in the category of ‘Rare’ indicating that the frequency occurrence of these fish species is never more than 5–10% and they have been found to inhabit only in 5–10% of the collection sites under report. Considering the conservation status (Table 2) according to the IUCN (1994) and CAMP workshop evaluation (Molur and Walker, 1998) criterion, 73.68% of the fishes under report

75 belong to some category of conservation (Table 2). From Table 2, it is evident that 20 fishes belong to either data deficient (DD) or not evaluated (NE). If these twenty are excluded, then 100% of the fishes under report need special attention of the fish conservationists. As already mentioned that conservations status of Indian freshwater fishes was evaluated on the basis of IUCN criteria (Molur and Walker, 1998) a decade back on the all Indian basis. Till now locali- ty-wise conservation status of fish species has not been evaluated, primarily due to the fact that past data on the fish diversity, fish catch, percentage decline of the fish species during last one or two decades decade are not available. To overcome this lacuna, the authors have suggested new method on the basis of percentage frequency occurrence of each species in a locality and percentage availability of each fish species in the localities under report (details are given in the section materials and methods). It is worthwhile to mention here that 21.05% fish species have common or abundant occurrence, hence, these fishes can be designated as commercial fish species. On the other hand 78.95% fishes are included in the categories rare (R), very rare (VR) and rarest (Rt). By applying both the criterion the difference in percentage of the fish species which need attention of the fish conservationists for their conservation is not significant. It can be concluded that three fourth of the fish fauna of the Ganga River in the vicinity of Allahabad need strong conservation strategies and fish habitat restoration initiatives.

Tab. 2: Number of fish species included in IUCN (1994) categories (Molur and Walker, 1998) and categorization on the basis of abundance

IU CN Criteria Present observations Critically Endangered (CR) 02 Abundant (A) 05 Endangered (EN) 04 Common (C) 11 Vulnerable (VU) 18 Rare (R) 54 Lower risk-near threatened (LRnt) 26 Very Rare (VR) 05 Lower risk-least concern (LRlc) 06 Rarest (Rt) 01 Data Deficient (DD) 02 Not Evaluated (NE) 18

There is apparent observation that the present collection lacks the presence of stream fishes of plains which prefer clear, having slow water current and highly oxygenated water. It means small streams which are normally present along the banks of the river, located parallel or vertical are either have dried completely or polluted to an extent that they cannot support the fish fauna. In a recent study on the Indus and Ganga river systems it has been proved that these streams provide breeding grounds for most of the main riverine fish spe- cies (Johal, 2002), hence, the ecology of the streams determine the fish diversity and fish populations of the major river systems. There are sixteen fish species which have been reported earlier from similar type of stretch of the Ganga river system having almost similar ecological conditions but are absent in the present collection (Table 3). It is apparent from the Table 3 that 80% of the fishes which could not be included in the present report are stream fishes. Another pecu- liarity of the fish diversity of the area under report is the absence of exotic fishes, which is a good sign.

76 Table 3: List of Fishes collected earlier from the similar type of stretch of the Ganga River but absent in the present collection

S.No. Name of Fish Reference 1. Brachydanio rerio (Ham.) Sarkar, 1953 2. Esomus danricus (Ham.) Sarkar, 1953 3. Lepidocephalus guntea (Ham.) Sarkar, 1953 4. Glossogobius giuris (Ham.) Sarkar, 1953; Venkateswarlu, 1977 5. Osteobrama cotio cotio (Ham.) Prakash et al., 1996 6. Barilius bendelisis (Ham.) Prakash et al., 1996 7. Acanthocobitis botia (Ham.) Prakash et al., 1996 syn. Nemacheilus botia Day 8. Barilius barila Ham.) Venkateswarlu, 1977 9. B. bola (Ham.) Venkateswarlu, 1977 10. Puntius amphibious (Val.) Venkateswarlu, 1977 11. Mystus gulio (Ham.) Venkateswarlu, 1977 12. Gagata sexualis (Tilak) Ventakeswarlu, 1977 13. Glyptothorax telchitta telchitta (Ham.) Venkateswarlu,1977 14. Hara hara (Ham.) Venkateswarlu, 1977 15. Sisor rhabdophorus (Ham.) Venkateswarlu, 1977 16. Xenentodon cancila (Ham.) Venkateswarlu, 1977

Summary

The present observations have indicated that the fish diversity of a stretch of 80 km up- stream of the river Ganga in the vicinity of Allahabad, the confluence of the rivers Yamuna and Ganga, India consists of 76 species comprising 29% of the fish diversity reported by Day (1822) for the first time which is a positive sign. The negative signs are the absence 16 fish species which should occur under normal conditions, reduction in the maximum size in most of the fish species even upto 80% in some and 75% of the fish species immediately need conservation measure and fish habitat restoration programme for their propagation and optimum growth.

Acknowledgement

Senior author (HRS) is thankful to University Grants Commission, New Delhi for pro- viding the financial assistance to carry out the present work.

77 REFERENCES

Day, F., 1878: The Fishes of India: Being a natural history of the fishes known to inhabit the seas and freshwaters of India, Burma and Ceylon. Text. 778pp. + Atlas 195 pls. London. (Reprinted by Today & Tomorrow Book Agency, New Delhi in 1971). Dogra, D., 2009: How to save rivers? The Daily Tribune, Dated September 1, 2009, 129 (242): 9. Eschmeyer, M.N., 1990: Catalog of the Genera of Recent Fishes. California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco, USA. 697 pp. Florenza de Luca (Comp.), 1988: Taxonomic authority list. ASFIS Reference Series No. 8. FAO Rome, Italy. 465 pp. Hamilton, F., 1822: An Account of the Fishes Found in the River Ganga and its Branches. Archibald Constable & Company, 99, Cheapside, London, UK. 405 pp. + 39 pls. Hora, S.L., 1929: An aid to the study of Hamilton Buchnan’s “Ganges Fishes”. Mem. India Mus., 9: 169–192. Howes, G.J., 1991: Systematics and Biogeography: An overview. pp. 1–28. In: Cyprinid Fishes: Systematics, Biology and Exploration. (eds. I.J. Winfield & J.S. Nelson), Chapman Hall, London, UK. 660 pp. Florenza, De L., (Comp.), 1988: Authority List. FAO ASFIS Series No. 8. Food and Agriculture of the United Nations, Rome, Italy. 465 pp. IUCN, 1994: Categories for Conservation. WCU, Gland, Switzerland. Jayaram, K.C., 1999: The Freshwater Fishes of the Indian Region. Narendra Publishing House, Delhi, India. 551 pp. + XVIII pls. Johal, M.S., 2002: Ecology of hillstreams of Himachal Pradesh and Garhwal region with special reference to fish communities. Project Report. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Washington, USA. 63 pp. + 18 appendices. Karamchandani, S.J., 1962: On a collection of fishes from the Ganga river at Dighwara. Trop. Ecol., 3 (1&2): 79–83. Molur, S., Walker, S., (eds.), 1998: Report of the Workshop “Conservation Assessment and Management Plan for Freshwater Fishes of India”. Zoo Outreach Organisation, Conservation and Breeding Specialist Group, Coimbatore, Kerala, India. 156 pp. Nelson, J.S., 1994: Fishes of the World. John Wiley & Sons, New York, USA. 599 pp. Payne, A.I., Sinha, R.K., Singh, H.R., Haq, S., 2004: A review of the Ganga Basin: Its Fish & Fisheries. Pp. 229–251. In: Proc. Second Internatio nal Symposium on the Management of the Large Rivers for Fisheries. Vol. I. FAO Regional Office, and Pacific, Bangkok, Thailand. Prakash, P., Rai, S.C., Ahmad, S.H., 1996. Ichthyo-faunal diversity of river Burhi Gandak (Bihar). Fishing Chimes, 9: 21. Rainboth, W.J., 1991: Cyprinids of the Southeast Asia. Pp. 156–209. In: Cyprinid Fishes: Systematics, Biology and Exploration. (eds. I.J. Winfield and J. S. Nelson). Chapman & Hall, London, UK. 660 pp. Sarkar, H.L., 1953: On a collection of fish from Rajgir, Patna District, Bihar. J. Asiatic Soc. (Sci.), 19 (2): 117–119. Sinha, M., De, D.K., Jha, B.C., 1998: The Ganga-Environment and Fishery. Project report. Central Inland Fishe- ries Institute, barrackpore, West Bengal, India. 145 pp. Sriwastwa, V.M.S., Venkateswarlu, T., 1976: Fishes of Uttar Pradesh, India. Indian, J. Zootomy, 17 (3): 179–186. Talwar, P.K., 1991: Pisecs. Pp. 59–145. In: Faunal resources of Ganga. Part. I. Zoological Survey of India, Kol- kata, West Bengal, India. 145 pp. Talwar, P.K., Jhingran, A.G., 1991: Inland Fishes of India and Adjacent Countries. Vols. I & II. Oxford and IBH Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi, India. 1158 pp. Tilak, R., 1986–87: Studies on the fish fauna of Uttar Pradesh Terai. 1. On the extension of range of distribution of Conta conta (Hamilton) and Chandramara chandramara (Hamilton). Matsya, 12–13: 84–92. Tripathi, G., Chaturvedi, H., 2009: Shoemaker feel the punch. Hindustan Times, September 5, 2009, 85 (227): 10. Venkateswarlu, T., 1972: Fauna of Bihar State (India). 1. Fishes. Indian J. Zootomy, 13 (3): 119–126. Ventateswarlu, T., 1972: Fishes of river Poonpun (Bihar). Acta Ichthyologica et Piscaroria, 7 (1): 41–58. Ventateswarlu, T., Menon, A.G.K., 1979: A list of fishes of the river Ganges and its branches. Acta Ichthyologica et Piscatoria, 9: 45–70. Venkateswarlu, T., Rao, R.K.V., 1973: Scientific and local names of commercial fishes of river Ganga and its branches. Sea Food J., 5 (6): 1–7. Welcomme, R.LK., River Fisheries. FAO Fish. Tech. Pap., (262). 330 pp. ZSI., 1991: Faunal Resources of Ganga. Part I. Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata, India. 145 pp.

78