LOGIN

RSS Facebook Twitter YouTube
GLOSSARY       

SEARCHGLOSSARY

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

PROFILESEARCH

Avatar

Please consider registering
guest

sp_LogInOut Log In sp_Registration Register

Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search

— Forum Scope —




— Match —





— Forum Options —





 

Minimum search word length is 4 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

sp_Feed Topic RSS sp_TopicIcon
Phylogenetic Relationships of Species of Hypselobarbus
September 27, 2012
4:00 am
Avatar
Stefan
Community Helper
Forum Posts: 1567
Member Since:
January 29, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Phylogenetic Relationships of Species of Hypselobarbus (Cypriniformes: Cyprinidae): An Enigmatic Clade Endemic to Aquatic Systems of India


M. ARUNACHALAM (India), M. RAJA (India), M. MURALIDHARAN (India) & RICHARD L.
MAYDEN (USA)

Zootaxa 3499

 

Preview: http://www.mapress.com/zootaxa.....9p073f.pdf

September 27, 2012
8:15 am
Avatar
Matt
Málaga, Spain
Admin
Forum Posts: 8239
Member Since:
June 13, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

A copy for me if possible please.

Cake or death?
September 27, 2012
8:17 am
Avatar
Bojan Dolenc
Member
Forum Posts: 91
Member Since:
September 26, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

What`s about Hypselobarbus mussullah (Sykes, 1839) (Humpback mahseer), which is not included here? It appears, that there is 12 species of this genus.

September 27, 2012
9:06 am
Avatar
Erwin
Member
Forum Posts: 22
Member Since:
March 10, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Interesting also from another point of view (hope to get the paper soon, to get deeper in the materia), because the authors seem to include Puntius sarana (Hamilton, 1822) also in their Hypselobarbus. But Systomus immaculatus is the type species of Systomus McClelland, 1839, and a synonym of Puntius sarana. If the authors believe, that P. sarana is a Hypselobarbus, than Hypselobarbus is a synonym of Systomus, because Hypselobarbus was described later as Systomus (by Bleeker in 1860).

 

You're right Bolan, if Hypselobarbus mussullah is really not included, than the type species of Hypselobarbus is missing.

 

Also from the abstract its not clear how they treat Gonoproktopterus. Because it looks like they treat it as a synonym. If that's the case another species is missing: B. nashii (Day, 1869).

September 27, 2012
10:48 am
Avatar
Bojan Dolenc
Member
Forum Posts: 91
Member Since:
September 26, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I found this taxonomyc Note for H. mussullah:     

"Sykes (1839) described Barbus mussullah from Ghod river, Sirur, Pune District. Maharashtra, India. There has been considerable debate on the generic status of the species. This species has been treated as Tor mussullah by Talwar and Jhingran (1991), Jayaram (1997, 2005, 2010) following the discussions given in Hora (1943). Menon (1992, 1999), however suggested that the species considered as Tor mussullah by Hora (1943) is same as Tor khudree and he placed T. mussullah under genus Hypselobarbus following Rainboth (1989). However, both the original suggestion of the genus Hypselobarbus by Bleeker (1860), with Barbus mussullah as its type species, and resurrection of the resurrection of genus Hypselobarbus by Rainboth (1989) is based on the illustration by Sykes (1839) and not by examining specimens.
Suggestions made by Hora (1943) that the species should be called Tor mussullah seems more valid as the species called as 'musunda' in the type locality of Barbus mussullah and neighboring areas is indeed a Tor species (Neelesh Dahanukar pers. obs.)."

September 28, 2012
8:37 am
Avatar
Matt
Málaga, Spain
Admin
Forum Posts: 8239
Member Since:
June 13, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

That may be the briefest discussion I've ever seen in a phylogeny paper. :)

P. sarana is mentioned in the introduction but after that appears only in the figures and does not seem included in the authors' Hypselobarbus.

Gonoproktopterus is treated as a synonym based on 'morphological characteristics', and I guess B. nashii isn't included since they consider it an Osteochilus, but it isn't mentioned in the paper. H. mussullah is neither included nor referred to as far as I can see?

Cake or death?
September 28, 2012
8:58 am
Avatar
Erwin
Member
Forum Posts: 22
Member Since:
March 10, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Indeed, Matt, P. sarana was only in the abstract mentioned, because the authors where of the opinion, that it looks similar, but it is not closely related, as they also attested.

 

I mentioned B. bashii, because in the paper of Pethiyagoda et. al. [http://www.pfeil-verlag.de/04biol/.../count.php?url=http://www.pfeil-verlag.de/04biol/pdf/ief23_1_12.pdf] this species turned out to be related to Gonoproktopterus (now in this paper considered a synonym of Hypselobarbus, as you already wrote).

September 28, 2012
10:48 am
Avatar
Bojan Dolenc
Member
Forum Posts: 91
Member Since:
September 26, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

So Gonoproktopterus curmuca (Hamilton - Buchanan) is now Hypselobarbus curmucua and Puntius jerdoni (Day, 1870) is no more Gonoproktopterus jerdoni but also now Hypselobarbus. Wink Complicated!

Forum Timezone: Europe/Paris

Most Users Ever Online: 246

Currently Online: Atanas
1 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)

Devices in use: Desktop (2)

Top Posters:

Stefan: 1567

Plaamoo: 1257

mikev: 1134

Malti: 1099

Mark Duffill: 1012

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 0

Members: 30518

Moderators: 0

Admins: 2

Forum Stats:

Groups: 4

Forums: 10

Topics: 4603

Posts: 36641

Newest Members: Kevin20359, troides, noos, ziedive, wildfish007

Administrators: dunc: 1323, Matt: 8239