In much of the literature this species is pictured with the invalid name R. paviei, due to an issue with spelling which was corrected by Kottelat (2005), and the common name 'sidestripe rasbora' although the latter has yet to find popularity in the aquarium hobby. There are a number of similar-looking species including R. sumatrana, R. hobelmani and R. laticlavia and it can be problematic to separate members of this 'group'. If the collection locality of the fish is known identification is easier as R. paviana is the only species found in Indochina following current knowledge (Tan and Kottelat, 2009).
Among them R. paviana is most similar to R. sumatrana as the two share scale counts and some other morphological aspects. In R. paviana adults develop dark reticulated edges to the scales, the dark lateral stripe is always present and widens into a tear/triangular/diamond-shaped blotch at the caudal peduncle which should be more circular in shape when present in R. sumatrana. R. paviana should also have yellowish fins with or without black tips to the dorsal although some forms of R. sumatrana can appear identical in these respects, and similarly the black marking above the anal fin (supra-anal streak) can vary in shape and size in both species depending on collection locality.
In R. hobelmani the lateral stripe is said to be diffuse, reaching its widest point under the dorsal fin and tapering into a small precaudal blotch and there is a dark supra-anal streak running from the anal fin to the caudal peduncle. The fins are dusky-coloured. The most prominent distinguishing characters for R. laticlavia would appear to be the presence of black dots on the operculum and below the lateral stripe which is curved ventrally and extends from the caudal peduncle as far as the pelvic fins. There also exist numerous other laterally-striped rasboras but these are more easily separated from R. paviana and its allies.
Rainboth's 'Fishes of the Cambodian Mekong' characterised members of Rasbora by possession of an unbranched, non-spiny first dorsal fin ray and seven soft dorsal rays, origin of the dorsal fin in the middle of the body, five branched anal fin rays, a small mouth not extending below the eye and a lack of barbels. It's long been recognised as a polyphyletic lineage as noted by Kottelat (1999) amongst others, and in 2010 the results of a phylogenetic analysis by T. Y. Liao et al. suggested a number of changes in order to improve the taxonomy. The authors found species of rasborin genera to actually represent a monophyletic grouping existing in six clades and erected four new genera (all containing former members of Rasbora) in order to preserve monophyly of the existing groups i.e. Boraras, Horadandia, Rasbora, Rasboroides and Trigonostigma.
According to the authors the first two clades are monotypic; R. brittani should now be referred to as Kottelatia brittani and R. dorsiocellata as Brevibora dorsiocellata. The third clade comprises Boraras brigittae, Horadandia atukorali, Rasboroides vaterifloris, Trigonostigma heteromorpha and three species previously included in Rasbora but also moved into new genera; Trigonopoma gracile, T. pauciperforatum and Rasbosoma spilocerca. The results for B. brigittae and T. heteromorpha were found to be inconclusive in some respects and further work regarding their phylogenetic position was recommended.
The fourth clade includes Rasbora semilineata, R. borapetensis, R. rubrodorsalis and an undescribed fish similar to R. beauforti. Clade five consists of R. daniconius, R. hubbsi, R. paucisqualis, R. wilpita, R. kobonensis, R. ornata and R. cf. daniconius. Clade six, meanwhile, is subdivided into two groupings. The first contains R. einthovenii, R. elegans and R. cephalotaenia and the second R. lateristriata, R. argyrotaenia, R. volzii, R. paviana, R. rasbora (plus an undescribed, similar fish), R. caudimaculata and R. trilineata. As this final clade contains the type species (see below) its members retain the generic name Rasbora as do clade five species because they don't differ sufficiently to warrant the erection of a new genus/genera.
Unfortunately many species weren't included in the analysis, meaning inevitable questions are raised regarding the correct placement of the 40 or so other Rasboras, in particular. As the genus had previously been split into various 'species groups' (groups of closely-related species) dating back to Brittan (1972, who referred to them as 'species complexes') Liao et al. proposed the following arrangement whilst noting it may be subject to change with further phylogenetic studies:
R. semilineata species group: R. semilineata, R. borapetensis, R. rubrodorsalis.
R. trifasciata species group: R. trifasciata, R. amplistriga, R. api, R. bankanensis, R. dies, R. ennealepis, R. hubbsi, R. johannae, R. kluetensis, R. meinkeni, R. nodulosa, R. paucisqualis, R. rutteni, R. sarawakensis, R. taytayensis, R. tobana, R. truncata, R. tuberculata.
R. daniconius species group: R. daniconius, R. armitagei, R. dandia, R. kobonensis, R. labiosa, R. microcephalus, R. ornata, R. wilpita.
R. einthovenii species group: R. einthovenii, R. cephalotaenia, R. elegans, R. jacobsoni, R. kalochroma, R. kottelati, R. nematotaenia, R. patrickyapi, R. tubbi.
R. argyrotaenia species group: R. argyrotaenia, R. aprotaenia, R. aurotaenia, R. baliensis, R. borneensis, R. bunguranensis, R. dusonensis, R. evereti, R. hobelmani, R. hossi, R. lateristriata, R. laticlavia, R. leptosoma, R. philippina, R. septentrionalis, R. spilotaenia, R. steineri, R. tawarensis, R. tornieri, R. volzii.
R. sumatrana species group: R. sumatrana, R. atridorsalis, R. calliura, R. caudimaculata, R. dorsinotata, R. notura, R. paviana, R. rasbora, R. subtilis, R. trilineata, R. vulgaris.
Not classified: R. beauforti, R. chrysotaenia, R. gerlachi (validity in question), R. lacrimula (said to compare most closely with R. dies and R. semilineata which are members of the R. trifasciata and R. semilineata groups, respectively) R. kalbarensis, R. reticulata, R. vulcanus (possibly not Rasboras) and R. zanzibarensis (identity in question).
NB - this list has been amended from that published in Liao et al. to reflect subsequent new species descriptions and taxonomical changes.
Shortly afterwards a paper investigating systematics of the subfamily Danioninae was published by Tang et al. (2010) Their results differed wildly from those of Liao et al. and the four new genera plus Boraras and Trigonostigma were synonymised with Rasbora based on an incomplete knowledge of relationships within the group, an approach they describe as 'more conservative'. Though perhaps neither conclusion is satisfactory we decided to adopt the system of Liao et al. pending future studies, if only because we prefer to retain Boraras and Trigonostigma.
The identity of the type species, often given as R. rasbora in the past, is no longer in question; when Bleeker first referred to the name Rasbora in 1859 only four nominal members were included of which R. cephalotaenia (known as Leuciscus cephalotaenia at the time) should be considered the type. Howes (1980) suggested the separation of a number of species into the new genus Parluciosoma with type species P. (Rasbora) argyrotaenia but the monophyly of that grouping was not recovered by Liao et al..
Editing needs JavaScript. This is the text as it was last saved.