On the Species of Gymnorhamphichthys Ellis, 1912, Translucent Sand‐Dwelling Gymnotid Fishes from South America (Pisces, Cypriniformes, Gymnotoidei) H
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
This article was downloaded by: [MNHN Muséum National D'Histoire Naturelle] On: 08 May 2013, At: 01:36 Publisher: Taylor & Francis Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Studies on Neotropical Fauna and Environment Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/nnfe20 On the species of Gymnorhamphichthys Ellis, 1912, translucent sand‐dwelling Gymnotid fishes from South America (Pisces, Cypriniformes, Gymnotoidei) H. Nijssen a , I. J. H. Isbrücker b & J. Géry c a Curator of Fishes, Dept. of Ichthyology, Zoologisch Museum, Plantage Middenlaan 53, Amsterdam, The Netherlands b Dept. of Ichthyology, Zoologisch Museum, Plantage Middenlaan 53, Amsterdam, The Netherlands c Argentonesse, Castels, Saint‐Cyprien, France Published online: 21 Nov 2008. To cite this article: H. Nijssen , I. J. H. Isbrücker & J. Géry (1976): On the species of Gymnorhamphichthys Ellis, 1912, translucent sand‐dwelling Gymnotid fishes from South America (Pisces, Cypriniformes, Gymnotoidei), Studies on Neotropical Fauna and Environment, 11:1-2, 37-63 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01650527609360496 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms- and-conditions This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material. Downloaded by [MNHN Muséum National D'Histoire Naturelle] at 01:36 08 May 2013 Studies on Neotropical Fauna and Environment II (1976), pp. 37-63. On the Species of Gymnorhamphichthys Ellis, 1912, Translucent Sand-dwelling Gymnotid Fishes from South America (Pisces, Cypriniformes, Gymnotoidei) by H. Nijssen, I. J. H. Isbrücker & J. Géry (Amsterdam - St. Cyprien) INTRODUCTION Gymnorhamphichthys hypostomus was originally described by Ellis (in Eigen- mann, 1912: 436-437), based on the holotype, 215 mm total length, from San Joaquin, Rio Guaporé system, Bolivia. There were ten paratypes, 75 to 180 mm total length. Four paratypes were collected in the Rio Guaporé system (Rio Mamoré, Bastos, and Maciel), five are from the Essequibo river system, (formerly British-) Guyana (Konawaruk and Tumatumari), and one from the upper Rio Parana (Puerto Bertoni). The holotype was figured in 1913 (Ellis, pi. 23, fig. 2), and the head of another specimen, with a much shorter snout, in the dendrogram (Ellis, loc. cit., pi. 15). Urumara rondoni was originally described by A. de Miranda Ribeiro (1920: 6-7) from the single holotype, 140 mm total length, from the Rio Guaporé system, Rio 17 de Fevereio, a tributary of Rio Cautario. It was figured for the first time by Curra & P. de Miranda Ribeiro (1961, fig. 1). Gymnorhamphichthys hypostomus petiti was originally described and figured by Géry & Vu (1964: 486-492, pi. 1). The holotype and 21 paratypes, 73 to 122 mm total length, are from the upper Rio Araguaia. The authors suggested a synonymy of Gymnorhamphichthys with Urumara, but as they had not examined type material of either, verification of this hypothesis was im- possible. The contrary opinion, i.e. that the two genera are distinct, was expressed by Fernandez-Yépez (1968?: 33). We were faced with this controversy when we started our study of 158 Downloaded by [MNHN Muséum National D'Histoire Naturelle] at 01:36 08 May 2013 polymorphic specimens (one is shown in fig. 14). These were collected during recent expeditions to Surinam (the Brokopondo Research Project, 1964-1967, sponsored by the Foundation for Scientific Research in Surinam and the Netherlands Antilles, with the financial aid of the Netherlands' Foundation for the Advancement of Tropical Research). Completion of our study was made possible by the help of many colleagues, who provided addi- tional material from Guyana, Venezuela, Colombia, Bolivia, and Brazil, 38 H. NÜSSEN et al. including the type material of Gymnorhamphichthys hypostomus, Urumara rondoni, and Gymnorhamphichthys hypostomus petiti. We have considered all the examined samples as representatives of two species: Gymnorhamphichthys hypostomus (known from six specimens), and Gymnorhamphichthys rondoni (all other specimens), treating Gymno- rhamphichthys hypostomus petiti as a junior synonym of Gymnorhamphichthys rondoni. We are grateful to the following persons for the loan of material and/or for information: Dr M. Boeseman and Dr G. F. Mees, Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden (RMNH), Dr J. E. Böhlke and Mr W. G. Saul, Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Penn. (ANSP), Dr H. A. Britski, Museu de Zoologia, Universidade de Sâo Paulo (MZUSP), Mrs M. M. Dick and Dr T. R. Roberts, Museum of Comparative Zoology, Cambridge, Mass. (MCZ), Dr W. N. Eschmeyer and Miss P. Sonoda, California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco, Calif. (CAS), Dr J. P. Gosse and Mr E. Walschaerts, Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique, Brussels (IRScNB), Dr P. H. Greenwood, Mrs Dr R. H. Lowe-McConnell, and Mr G. Howes, British Museum (Natural History), London (BMNH), Dr H. A. Knôppel, Max- Planck-Institut für Limnologie, Pion (MPIL), Dr H. Travassos, Museu Nacional, Rio de Janeiro (MNRJ), Dr S. H. Weitzman and Mr W. L. Fink, National Museum of Natural History, Washington D.C. (USNM), Dr L. P. Woods, Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, 111. (FMNH). The material indicated by GSC is located in the personal collection of the third author at Saint-Cyprien, France. Mr G. Howes (BMNH) kindly read the manuscript. The photographic illustrations were made by Mr L. A. van der Laan, Instituut voor Taxonomische Zoologie (Zoologisch Museum), Amster- dam (ZMA). Figure 15 was made by Dr J. P. Gosse. A visit to Cambridge, Mass, was made possible by a grant of the Netherlands Organization for the Advancement of Pure Research (Z.W.O.) to the first author. HISTORICAL ACCOUNT AND CONCLUSIONS Ellis (in Eigenmann, 1912: 436) recognized Gymnorhamphichthys as a new genus, stating: "Anterior portion of sides without scales, but other characters much the same as in Rhamphichthys". Describing the single species in this genus, Gymnorhamphichthys hypostomus, Ellis (loc. cit.: 437) remarks: "... anus on or a little behind the vertical from the posterior margin of the eye...", "... snout produced, straight and tubular, its length varying in a direct Downloaded by [MNHN Muséum National D'Histoire Naturelle] at 01:36 08 May 2013 ratio with that of the body...", and: "The snout is also subject to variation, growing longer in the larger fish, hence the rather large range of the measurements in which the length of the head or snout figure...". Ellis gives for the snout in head ratio a variation of 1.6 to 2.0. We examined the holotype and nine paratypes of Gymnorhamphichthys hypostomus (one of the three paratypes of Tumatumari, CAS (IUM 12613) is missing) and found that Ellis' statement regarding the position of the anus must GYMNORHAMPHICHTHYS SPECIES FROM SOUTH AMERICA 39 have been based on the holotype and on the two paratypes from Konawaruk only, which have the anal pore situated on the vertical extending from the eyes. In the remaining paratypes the anal pore is situated more posteriorly, viz., in the specimens from Upper Rio Parana and from Tumatumari (the second available paratype from Tumatumari is damaged) between gill opening and a vertical extending from the pectoral fin base; in the specimen from Rio Mamoré just in front of the vertical from the pectoral fin base; and in the specimens from Bastos and Maciel at the vertical from the pectoral fin base. A. de Miranda Ribeiro (1920: 6), apparently unaware of the existence of the genus Gymnorhamphichthys, described a new genus, Urumara, stating: "Faciès de Rhamphichthys. Dorsal adipose inexistente, caudal idem, em seu logar uma cauda terete, filiforme. Anus entre as peitoraes; anal posterior â estas." A more complete generic diagnosis of Urumara was given by Curra & P. de Miranda Ribeiro (1961: 474), reading: "Cuerpo totalmente desnudo; origen del orificio anal entre las verticales que pasan por el borde posterior del opérculo y la base de las pectorales." We examined the single holotype of Urumara rondoni, sent to Amsterdam by Dr H. Travassos. The specimen (fig. 5) is now in bad condition (not well preserved and the snout bent). The posterior portion of the fish is, however, scaled. The anal pore is just in front of a vertical extending from the pectoral fin base. In these characters the specimen agrees with the paratype of Gymnorhamph- ichthys hypostomus from Rio Mamoré. When describing Urumara rondoni, A. de Miranda Ribeiro did not refer to Gymnorhamphichthys hypostomus. Curra & P. de Miranda Ribeiro (loc. cit.: 475) compared Urumara rondoni with Ellis' description of Gymnorhamphichthys hypostomus, stating: "Similar a Rhamphichthys y Gymnorhamphichthys de los cuales, difiere fundamental- mente en la posicion del orificio anal y en la escamacion." It appears that they did not examine type material of Gymnorhamphichthys hypostomus. There are numerous very small scales present on the posterior part of the body in both Gymnorhamphichthys hypostomus and in Urumara rondoni. The minute scales become clearly visible in preserved specimens after having been dried a little. It is apparent that all (re-examined) paratypes of Gymnorhamph- ichthys hypostomus belong to the same species as represented by the holotype of Urumara rondoni. As there is no evidence to support generic status for Urumara, it is considered a synonym of Gymnorhamphichthys.