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

Phylogenetic Relationships of Species of Hypselobarbus

Home Forums Ichthyology Phylogenetic Relationships of Species of Hypselobarbus

This topic contains 1 reply, has 2 voices, and was last updated by  Bojan Dolenc 5 years, 9 months ago.

Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #302399

    Stefan
    Member

    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/2012/f/z03499p073f.pdf

    #342133

    Matt
    Keymaster

    A copy for me if possible please.

    #342134

    Bojan Dolenc
    Participant

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

    #318842

    Erwin
    Participant

    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).

    #348954

    Bojan Dolenc
    Participant

    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.).”

    #348960

    Matt
    Keymaster

    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?

    #348963

    Erwin
    Participant

    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).

    #348966

    Bojan Dolenc
    Participant

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

Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.