RSS Facebook Twitter YouTube




Zootaxa 3994(1)

Home Forums Ichthyology Zootaxa 3994(1)

Viewing 12 posts - 1 through 12 (of 12 total)
  • Author
  • #303737


    Open access – Danio annulosus, a new species of chain Danio from the Shuvolong Falls in Bangladesh (Teleostei: Cyprinidae: Danioninae)

    Danio annulosus, new species, is described from a small pool below the Shuvolong Falls in the Kaptai Lake system in Bangladesh. It shares with chain danios (D. assamila, D. dangila, D. catenatus, D. concatenatus, and D. sysphigmatus) a colour pattern consisting of series of dark rings with light interspaces along the side, complete lateral line, 14 circumpeduncular scales, a produced first ray in the pectoral fin, and a black humeral spot. It differs from other chain danios in possessing much shorter pectoral and pelvic fins, and a humeral spot that is slightly wider than deep instead of round or deeper than wide. The mitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase subunit I (COI) sequence separates D. annulosus from the most similar species, D. catenatus by a p-distance of 3.4%. Although recorded from only a single locality, Danio annulosus is expected to have a wider distribution in the Karnafuli River drainage.

    Bryconops munduruku (Characiformes: Characidae), a new species of fish from the lower Tapajós River basin, Brazil

    A new species of Bryconops is described from a right tributary of the lower Tapajós River, State of Pará, Brazil. Bryconops munduruku, sp. nov., differs from its congeners, except B. inpai and B. piracolina, by having a black adipose fin (vs. adipose fin hyaline in alcohol) and, except B. inpai, by possessing two humeral blotches (vs. lack of humeral blotch or only one humeral blotch). Bryconops munduruku differs from B. inpai by having a uniform color pattern on the posterior portion of the side of the body (vs. a dark stripe extending posteriorly from the half of the anal-fin base onto the base of the middle caudal-fin rays). It differs further from B. inpai and B. piracolina by the presence of a black adipose fin that is hyaline along its base (vs. entirely black adipose fin in B. inpai and B. piracolina). The new species is allocated in the subgenus Creatochanes by having a maxillary bone with one to three teeth on both sides, and its posterior extension reaching the junction of second and third infraorbital bones.



    For me (OSX/Firefox), both links go to the second (less interesting to me!) paper.



    Whoops! Fixed it, thanks Bill.

    Need to look at the Danio profiles again. With this and the other recent papers some of our pics may now be incorrect. Also think that it makes sense to follow Kullander’s view and retain everything in Danio. Any opinions on this?



    Thanks for the fix Matt.

    How many of these Chain Danios are available for hobbyists?

    Is Danio dangila the only one or are other species being mis-identified as that?


    General rant WRT your question:

    Since there seem to be an ever increasing number of sps in the Danio clade (meaning danios not including Devarios and their relatives), the splitting approach makes sense to me as it gives reasonable names to the sub-branches of the larger clade. To me these are names defining smaller parts but leaving the underlying phylogenetic relationships largely the same. The new genera, to my eye, make sense with the species they group together.

    On the other hand lots of people are confused by name changes, especially if they don’t know much of the fish to begin with.

    In the long run, it should go with what taxonomists say. How they come to a final decision as a group is a bit beyond me though.

    However, I think it would be helpful to have a list of scientific name synonyms (perhaps a historically based list), so one could identify the former names of the particular species.

    A similar list of common (or informal) names would be helpful. Many of theses should be called trade names, since that is the source of many and their purpose would seem to be promoting sales. In addition, many informal names are used for multiple species (like blue danio which I have seem attached to several different species). It would be useful that have a list of the different species a common name of multiple use refers to (to answer the question: what species have been referred to as blue danio?).



    Cheers Bill. Unsure how many chain danios are in the hobby – will attempt to get to the bottom of that when we update the profiles.

    The new generic placements make sense to me as well, the problem being that there is no consensus between the taxonomists. Kottelat split them up in 2013, now in 2015 Kullander retains everything in Danio. Tricky one to decide.

    We do include synonyms in profiles, and are included in the search meta data, meaning that if someone searches Danio margaritatus or Celestichthys margaritatus, for example, they will be directed to the SF profile regardless. Similarly, we include the most popular vernacular name at the top of each species, then others in the Notes section. Are you suggesting a separate, stand-alone list?



    OK forgot about the synonyms.

    Are the listed names in the note section searchable?  If so that would work fine since one goal would be to find fish by search.

    Would the notes list include the most popular name also?

    Realistically, I am not sure it makes much sense to keep adding an increasing number of poorly applied names. Mostly I like the scientific names but its annoying when they change frequently.

    Presumably databases will have individual identifiers for each species which are not their scientific name so things remain easy to track through these changes. An official taxonomically determined identifier would be nice (because everyone could use the same one), but it would have to be separate from the scientific names which have additional (phylogenetic) meaning. Perhaps this would be like L- numbers which I don’t know a lot about.


    My idea answer to the situation of conflicting naming systems would be to find a way to present both with an explanation of their differences. Drawings, phylogenetic diagrams, and text with a bunch of parentheses (like this: (vs. So and So, date, Genus species)).

    Generally speaking, probably time consuming and only worth doing where there would seem to be some controversy on the subject.



    Names in the notes section aren’t searchable unfortunately, something we can look at when the site gets its long overdue update.

    Most popular name is included at the top of the profile and is searchable.

    Some sites do assign individual identifiers to species, e.g., GBIF, whereas others such as Fishbase don’t. Agree that it would be useful to have a universal system but think it might be a little beyond our remit to get involved in that?

    Would love to include stuff like tree diagrams on the site, but don’t know how to construct them. Any advice?



    Some sites do assign individual identifiers to species, e.g., GBIF, whereas others such as Fishbase don’t.

    Must be annoying to have to changes names for them!


    Agree that it would be useful to have a universal system but think it might be a little beyond our remit to get involved in that?

    Yeah, it probably a job for the taxonomists, but I am quite willing to advocate for it. I just don’t know who to start with.


    Would love to include stuff like tree diagrams on the site, but don’t know how to construct them. Any advice?

    Can’t say I have it all figured out.

    I have drawn lots of trees by hand but it is kind of slow for a site this big. I have used MacClade in the past, but that program is now defunct and I am unfamiliar with its successor. There are probably other programs like it but I am not aware of them. There are algorithms for drawing them (I have a paper on a really old one) and a format for representing (normal not anastomosing or reticulate) trees as a nested series of parentheses. I think this might be how tree information is passed between programs that analyze these things. These text files could be converted into trees with the proper code. Creating the text files could be more tedious than the drawing the trees, but they might be obtainable from supplementary information for papers.



    Cheers Bill and yeah, the name changes eat up a lot of my time and actively slow down the process of adding new species to the KB.

    Me neither, and it’d be a convoluted process for sure.

    I’ll check out which programs are available for construction of trees, etc. and come back.



    I looked into this a bit last might.

    Mesquite is the successor to MacClade. It is free, but I am not familiar with it.

    It should be able to export trees in a variety of formats.



    That’s great, thanks Bill. I’ve downloaded it and will take a look!



    I downloaded it too. 

    If you get the cartographer module, you can plot specimens or species on maps also.

Viewing 12 posts - 1 through 12 (of 12 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.