diff --git a/data/03/89/43/0389433CFFF1AE51FF27E6C478EA88D1.xml b/data/03/89/43/0389433CFFF1AE51FF27E6C478EA88D1.xml new file mode 100644 index 00000000000..a215d23c260 --- /dev/null +++ b/data/03/89/43/0389433CFFF1AE51FF27E6C478EA88D1.xml @@ -0,0 +1,1273 @@ + + + +A new species of Microhyla (Amphibia: Anura: Microhylidae), with an extended description of Microhyla nanapollexa from Vietnam + + + +Author + +Hoang, Chung Van +0000-0002-0709-974X +CAS Key Laboratory of Mountain Ecological Restoration and Bioresource Utilization and Ecological Restoration and Biodiversity Conservation Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, Chengdu Institute of Biology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Chengdu 610041, China. & Institute of Genome Research, Vietnam Academy of Science and Technology, 18 Hoang Quoc Viet Road, Hanoi, Vietnam. & University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China. +chungiebr@gmail.com + + + +Author + +Pham, Cuong The +0000-0001-5158-4526 +Institute of Ecology and Biological Resources, Vietnam Academy of Science and Technology, 18 Hoang Quoc Viet Road, Hanoi 10072, Vietnam. & Graduate University of Science and Technology, Vietnam Academy of Science and Technology, 18 Hoang Quoc Viet Road, Cau Giay, Hanoi 10072, Vietnam. +cuongiebr@gmail.com + + + +Author + +Nguyen, Truong Quang +0000-0002-6601-0880 +Institute of Ecology and Biological Resources, Vietnam Academy of Science and Technology, 18 Hoang Quoc Viet Road, Hanoi 10072, Vietnam. & Graduate University of Science and Technology, Vietnam Academy of Science and Technology, 18 Hoang Quoc Viet Road, Cau Giay, Hanoi 10072, Vietnam. +nqt2@yahoo.com + + + +Author + +Phan, Tien Quang +0000-0002-2738-5364 +Institute of Ecology and Biological Resources, Vietnam Academy of Science and Technology, 18 Hoang Quoc Viet Road, Hanoi 10072, Vietnam. +quangtien120892@gmail.com + + + +Author + +Ziegler, Thomas +AG Zoologischer Garten Köln, Riehler Strasse 173, D- 50735 Cologne, Germany. & Institute of Zoology, University of Cologne, Zülpicher Strasse 47 b, D- 50674 Cologne, Germany. + + + +Author + +Orlov, Nikolai +Zoological Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, Universitetskaya nab. 1, St. Petersburg, 199034, Russia. + + + +Author + +Jiang, Jianping +0000-0002-1051-7797 +CAS Key Laboratory of Mountain Ecological Restoration and Bioresource Utilization and Ecological Restoration and Biodiversity Conservation Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, Chengdu Institute of Biology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Chengdu 610041, China. & University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China. +jiangjp@cib.ac.cn + + + +Author + +Do, Dang Trong +Faculty of Natural Sciences, Phu Yen University, Tuy Hoa, Phu Yen, Vietnam + +text + + +Zootaxa + + +2025 + +2025-01-08 + + +5566 + + +2 + + +347 +369 + + + + +https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5566.2.6 + +journal article +307805 +10.11646/zootaxa.5566.2.6 +0b12d822-9ebc-4d3b-a639-b3c4116edd9a +1175-5326 +14703031 +46A25948-C58F-438F-8312-A9932549DBF0 + + + + + + + +Microhyla roedderi + +sp. nov. + + + + + + +LSID: + +urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act: +0299FDAF-0B60-4FF6-A2AC-F34550C27F42 + + + +( +Figs. 4 +, +5 +; +Table 2 +, Table supplement 2) + + + + + + +Holotype +. + +Adult male +IEBR +A.6271 (Field number KH2022.26), collected by + +D.T. Do +et al. + +on + + +8 April +2022 + + +in +Van Ninh District +, +Khanh Hoa Province +, +Vietnam +( +12°49'49.0"N +109°11'55.8"E +, at an elevation of + +784 m +a.s.l. + +). + + + + + +Paratypes +(n= 12). + +Nine adult males +IEBR +A.6272–6280 (Field numbers KH2022.25, KH2022.28, KH2022.29– 35) and + + +two adult females +IEBR +A.6281,.6282 (Field numbers KH2022.24, KH2022.27), collection data the same as the holotype + +; + +one adult +female +IEBR +A.6283 (Field number PY2022.67), collected in +Tay Hoa District +, +Phu Yen Province +, +Vietnam +( +12°51'31.0"N +109°12'55.2"E +, at an elevation of + +433 m +a.s.l. + +, collected by D.T. Do +et al. +on + +5 April 2022 + +. + + + + + +Diagnosis. + +Microhyla roedderi + + +sp. nov. + +is distinguished from other species of the subgenus + +Nanohyla + +by a combination of the following characters: Size medium (SVL 15.88–17.00 mm, n= +10 in +males; +20.74–21.33 mm +, n= +3 in +females); body habitus slender; snout bluntly round; tympanum hidden; canthus rostralis round, distinct; loreal region oblique, weakly concave; dorsal skin slightly bumpy with low tubercles, slightly concentrated on dosolateral area, scattered over dorsal surface of limbs and upper eyelid; ventral surface smooth; mid vertebral skin ridge and dorsomedial stripe absent; superciliary tubercles absent; supratympanic fold weakly developed; fingers slender, free of webbing, with weak skin fringes on all fingers; finger I reduced slightly, less than half of finger II in length, males without nuptial pad; grooves on dorsal surface of disks present in fingers II–IV; two round, flat palmar tubercles; hindlimbs long, tibiotarsal articulation of adpressed limb reaching well beyond snout; toe webbing formula I1–2II1–2III1–2IV2–1V; inner metatarsal tubercle oval; outer metatarsal tubercle absent; dorsal surface of head and trunk greyish brown to light brown with dark brown markings, a distinct light brown interorbital bar between eyelids, a>–<shape marking running from the eyelids to the groin; few small black spots on the flank and in the inguinal region; two small black spots in the groin region; belly and limbs ventrally lighter with white marbling; pupil black, iris copper in life. + + + + + +Description of +holotype +. + +Size medium (SVL 17.0 mm); habitus slender, head longer than wide (HL/HW 1.01); snout bluntly rounded, slightly protruding beyond margin of lower jaw, longer than diameter of eye (SL/ED 1.03); eyes protuberant, pupil round; dorsal surface of head flat; canthus rostralis round, distinct; loreal region oblique, weakly concave; nostril round, lateral, on canthus rostralis, closer to tip of snout than to eye (NED/SL 0.56); interorbital distance wider than internarial distance (IOD/IND 1.50), twice broader than upper eyelid (IOD/UEW 2.16); tympanum hidden, supratympanic fold weakly developed, from posterior corner of eye to arm insertion; vomerine teeth absent, tongue round posteriorly, free at the rear half of its length; slit like openings to a median vocal sac. + +Forelimbs shorter than snout-vent length (FLL/SVL 0.85); hand shorter than a half of forelimb length (HAL/ FLL 0.43); fingers slender, free of webbing, with weak dermal fringes on all fingers; finger I reduced notably, less than half the length of finger II (1FLO/2FLO 0.29); nuptial pad absent; finger II slightly longer than finger IV (2FLI/4FLI 1.04), much shorter than finger III (2FLI/3FLI 0.69); relative finger lengths: I<IV<II<III; tip of finger I round, not enlarged; narrow peripheral grooves absent on all fingers; grooves on dorsal surface of disks present in fingers II, III, IV, absent in finger I; relative finger disk widths IV<II<III; subarticular tubercles on fingers distinct, round, formula 1:1:2:1 (given for fingers I:II:III:IV, respectively); two round, flat palmar tubercles. +Hindlimbs slender, almost twice as long as snout-vent length (HLL/SVL 1.98), tibia longer than half of snout-vent length (TL/SVL 0.65); tibiotarsal articulation reaching beyond snout when limb adpressed along body; foot longer than tibia (FL/TL 1.39); relative toe lengths: I<II<V<III<IV; tarsus smooth, inner tarsal fold absent; tips of all toes slightly dilated, forming truncated disks, disks of all toes with peripheral grooves, dorsal surface of toe disks II, V with short median longitudinal grooves; relative toe disk widths: I<IV<V<II<III; webbing formula I1–2II1– 2III1–2IV2–1V; subarticular tubercles on toes distinct, round, formula 1:1:2:3:2 (for toes I:II:III:IV:V, respectively); inner metatarsal tubercle oval; outer metatarsal tubercle absent. + + +FIGURE 4. +Male holotype of + +Microhyla roedderi + + +sp. nov. + +(IEBR A.6271) in life: dorsolateral view (A), ventral view (B), right hand (C), and right foot (D). Scale bars = 1 mm. Photos by D.T. Do. + + + + +FIGURE 5. +Holotype of + +Microhyla roedderi + + +sp. nov. + +(IEBR A.6271) in preservative: dorsal view (A), ventral view (B), Scale bar = 10 mm. Photos by C.V. Hoang. + + +Dorsal skin bumpy with low tubercles, slightly concentrated on the dorsolateral area, scattered over dorsal surface of limbs and upper eyelid; supratympanic fold weakly developed, from posterior corner of eye to arm insertion; lateral side of head and flank smooth; ventral side of body and limbs smooth, vent area smooth. + +Coloration in life. Dorsal surface of head and trunk greyish brown to light brown with dark brown markings, a distinct light brown interorbital bar between eyelids, a>–<shape marking running from the eyelids to the groin; few small black spots on the flank and in the inguinal region; two small black spots in the groin region; supratympanic fold light brown; dorsolateral surface of arm and fingers dark brown with a small black bar near the wrist; dorsal surface of thigh, tibia, tarsus and toes brown with dark brown cross bars; throat and chest brownish grey with intense small white mottling, belly and limbs ventrally lighter with white marbling; pupil black, iris copper ( +Fig. 4 +). + + +Coloration in preservative. In ethanol, dorsal coloration changed to dark greyish brown, ventral surface of chest, belly, and limbs greyish beige; dorsal pattern, dark spots on dorsum and stripes on dorsal surfaces of limbs unchanged, dark brown pattern changed to dark grey; iris completely black ( +Fig. 5 +). + + +Variation. +Type specimens vary in body size. +Three female +paratypes +have a larger body size than those of ten males ( +SVL 20.95 +± +0.33 mm +[ +20.74–21.33 mm +; n=3] vs. 16.43± +0.35 mm +[15.88–17.00 mm; n=10] in males). Dark brown marking on dorsum is more distinctly lobed in +two paratypes +( +IEBR +A.6281, A.6283). Black spots in the flank and inguinal region are various in size (smaller in +IEBR +A.6283). For more details see +Table 2 +and +Fig. 6 +. + + + + +Natural history. +Specimens were collected at night, from 19:00 to 23:00 h, on the ground nearby streams in evergreen forest. The surrounding habitat was evergreen forest with large, medium and small hardwoods mixed with shrubs and vines ( +Fig. 7 +), at elevations between 433 and +784 m +a.s.l. Air temperatures at the sites ranged from 20.5–28.5 +oC +and relative humidity was 60–80%. Other amphibian species found at the sites included + +Limnonectes limborgi +(Sclater) + +, + +Limnonectes poilani +(Bourret) + +, + +Hylarana +sp. + +, + +Odorrana +cf. +banaorum +(Bain, Lathrop, Murphy, Orlov & Ho) + +, + +Kurixalus +sp. + +, and + +Hylarana attigua +(Inger, Orlov & Darevsky) + +. Larval stages and eggs of the new species are unknown. + + + + +Comparison. + +Microhyla roedderi + + +sp. nov. + +most closely resembles + +M. nanapollexa + +in morphology, the close relationship being supported by molecular phylogenetic position ( +Fig. 1 +, +Table 3 +). However, the new species differs from the latter by having a larger body size (SVL 15.98–17.00 mm in males, +20.74–21.33 mm +in females +vs. +SVL +15.43 mm +in male, +16.02–16.60 mm +in females of + +M. nanapollexa + +); dorsal skin bumpy with low tubercles, concentrated on the dorsolateral area, scattered over the dorsal surface of limbs and upper eyelid ( +Figs. 4A +; +6A; 6B +) ( +vs. +skin on dorsum relatively smooth with low, round tubercles concentrated on the outer edge, flanks, below and posterior to eye in + +M. nanapollexa + +( +Fig. 2A +); finger I reduced notably, less than half the length of finger II ( +Fig. 8B +) ( +vs. +partially free nub just proximal to finger II in + +M. nanapollexa + +( +Fig. 8A +); different webbing formula I1–2II1–2III1–2IV2–1V ( +vs. +I1–2II1–2½III2½–2½IV 2½–1V in + +M. nanapollexa + +) ( +Table S1 +); dorsal surface of head and trunk greyish brown to light brown with dark brown markings, a distinct light brown interorbital bar between eyelids, a>–<shape marking running from the eyelids to the groin ( +vs. +dorsal surface of greyish brown to light brown with a dark brown or brown spear shape marking, running from the posterior eyes to the groin in + +M. nanapollexa + +); and few small black spots on the flank and inguinal region ( +vs. +a black broken streak below dorsolateral folds in + +M. nanapollexa + +). + + + +TABLE 2. +Measurements (in mm) and proportions of the type series of + +Microhyla roedderi + + +sp. nov. + +and newly collected specimens of + +M. nanapollexa + +. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Species + +Microhyla roedderi + + +sp. nov. + + + +M. nanapollexa + +
SexFemales (n=3)Males (n=10)Female (n=1)Male (n=1)
Mean±SDMin–MaxMean±SDMin–MaxIEBR A.6270IEBR A.6269
SVL20.95±0.3320.74–21.3316.43±0.3515.88–17.0016.0215.43
HL6.48±0.156.33–6.635.66±0.175.43–5.876.245.78
HW6.47±0.106.35–6.535.58±0.215.14–5.865.415.27
SL2.77±0.332.54–3.152.41±0.142.17–2.682.392.19
ED2.37±0.262.1–2.612.24±0.161.89–2.421.451.40
NED1.5±0.141.39–1.661.41±0.071.29–1.511.351.31
IND1.88±0.131.73–1.981.58±0.071.48–1.671.221.19
IOD2.85±0.132.73–2.992.67±0.212.37–2.911.981.92
UEW1.27±0.041.23–1.301.16±0.071.00–1.251.071.04
FLL13.71±0.6913.07–14.4414.19±0.3913.55–14.7112.4611.43
LAL9.99±0.579.42–10.5610.48±0.3510.03–11.078.407.89
HAL5.55±0.325.35–5.916.17±0.345.45–6.604.784.53
IPTL0.38±0.030.35–0.410.43±0.050.35–0.520.120.10
OPTL0.78±0.140.65–0.930.65±0.090.52–0.800.490.43
1FL1.72±0.281.44–2.001.49±0.360.52–1.750.970.92
1FW0.38±0.030.35–0.410.43±0.050.35–0.520.110.09
1FLO0.46±0.080.41–0.550.56±0.070.50–0.700.310.30
2FLO1.91±0.291.62–2.192.11±0.251.75–2.481.501.47
3FLO3.41±0.283.22–3.733.82±0.323.13–4.153.323.12
2FLI2.5±0.441.99–2.752.64±0.172.39–2.882.061.95
3FLI3.74±0.243.53–4.014.15±0.223.73–4.463.423.27
4FLI2.22±0.401.81–2.602.61±0.242.33–3.041.981.84
2FDW0.66±0.070.58–0.710.65±0.070.52–0.730.420.36
3FDW0.83±0.040.8–0.880.78±0.060.71–0.870.650.42
4FDW0.7±0.150.53–0.800.64±0.070.51–0.740.550.47
HLL37.38±0.0337.35–37.432.49±0.8931.58–33.7333.2029.60
TL12.47±0.2212.31–12.7210.66±0.419.98–11.2610.949.76
FL16.04±0.3315.71–16.3714.3±0.6213.36–15.2115.1113.96
1TOEL2.85±0.192.68–3.062.65±0.32.18–3.092.312.14
2TOEL3.86±0.113.79–3.983.53±0.462.32–3.973.523.25
3TOEL6.38±0.665.99–7.145.48±0.464.41–6.005.855.13
4TOEL7.46±0.387.18–7.897±0.965.04–7.878.037.43
5TOEL4.37±0.413.92–4.744.05±0.883.25–6.384.393.78
+ + +......continued on the next page + + + +TABLE 2. +(Continued) + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Species + +Microhyla roedderi + + +sp. nov. + + + +M. nanapollexa + +
SexFemales (n=3)Males (n=10)Female (n=1)Male (n=1)
Mean±SDMin–MaxMean±SDMin–MaxIEBR A.6270IEBR A.6269
IMTL0.5±0.090.41–0.580.7±0.120.51–0.890.890.88
1TDW0.73±0.100.62–0.810.6±0.080.49–0.700.460.40
2TDW0.96±0.090.86–1.020.84±0.090.72–0.980.710.63
3TDW1.06±0.160.88–1.190.95±0.060.85–1.020.810.72
4TDW0.96±0.120.82–1.040.86±0.090.74–0.980.790.68
5TDW0.85±0.070.78–0.920.71±0.050.61–0.770.690.59
+ + + +Microhyla roedderi + + +sp. nov. + +differs from other known species in the subgenus + +Nanohyla + +by having a larger body size (SVL 15.88–17.00 mm in males, +20.74–21.33 mm +in females +vs. +SVL +13.6–14.7 mm +in males, +18.3–18.63 mm +in females of + +M. hongiaoensis + +; +vs. +SVL +14.4–15.6 mm +in males, +18.2–18.4 mm +in females of + +M. annectens + +; +vs. +SVL 13.2–15.0 mm in males, 15.9–17.0 mm in females of + +M. arboricola + +; +vs. +SVL +10.5–11.9 mm +in males, +12.4–14.5 mm +in females of + +M. perparva + +; +vs. +SVL +13.9–16.2 mm +in males, +15.1–17.8 mm +in females of + +M. petrigena + +); by having a smaller body size (SVL 15.9–17.0 mm in males, +20.7–21.3 mm +in females +vs. +SVL +18.2–20.2 mm +in males of + +M. albopunctata + +; +vs. +SVL +18.8–21.5 mm +in males, +21.1–23.2 mm +in females of + +M. marmorata + +); by having snout bluntly round ( +vs. +pointed in + +M. arboricola + +; obtusely pointed in + +M. perparva +, +M. petrigena + +); by having dorsum skin slightly bumpy ( +vs. +smooth in + +M. annectens +, +M. perparva +, +M. pulchella + +); by having FI <½ FII ( +vs. +nub or bulge in + +M. perparva +, +M. petrigena + +); by having dorsal median longitudinal grooves on finger disks present ( +vs. +absent in + +M. hongiaoensis + +); by having one metatarsal tubercle ( +vs. +two metatarsal tubercles in + +M. albopunctata +, +M. annamensis +, +M. hongiaoensis +, +M. marmorata + +); by superciliary tubercles absent ( +vs. +superciliary tubercles present in + +M. perparva + +). + + + + +TABLE 3. +Uncorrected (“p”) distance matrix showing percentage pair wise genetic divergence 12S rRNA–16S rRNA between members of the subgenus +Microhyla (Nanohyla) + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Species1234567891011
1 + +Microhyla roedderi + + +sp. nov. + + +0.00 +
2 + +M. nanapollexa + +9.31 +0.00 +
3 + +M. hongiaoensis + +9.338.76 +0.00 +
4 + +M. pulchella + +9.16– 9.249.61– 9.773.87– 4.03 +0.00– 0.15 +
5 + +M. albopunctata + +10.72– 10.8010.79– 10.8710.57– 10.6411.17– 11.25 +0.00– 0.08 +
6 + +M. arboricola + +10.1010.075.344.7210.56– 10.64 +0.00 +
7 + +M. marmorata + +10.49– 10.5710.23– 10.319.25– 9.4010.01– 10.327.66– 7.9910.17– 10.33 +0.00– 0.47 +
8 9 + +M. perparva +M. petrigena + +11.28 10.6711.09 10.578.62 9.269.10 9.659.28 10.259.60 10.168.78 9.34 +0.00 +7.86 + +0.00 +
10 + +M. annectens + +10.7310.879.238.68– 8.839.01– 9.098.998.92– 8.949.7810.24 +0.00 +
11 + +M. annamensis + +10.40– 10.639.75– 9.998.97– 9.1610.21– 10.708.77– 8.9210.46– 10.637.21– 7.769.19– 9.359.41– 9.588.99– 9.160.00– 0.78
+ + + +FIGURE 6. +Color pattern variation of + +Microhyla roedderi + + +sp. nov. + +in life: Dorsolateral view of female paratype (IEBR A.6283) (A) and male paratype (IEBR A.6281) (B). Photos by H.Q. Nguyen. + + + + +FIGURE 7. +Habitat of + +Microhyla roedderi + + +sp. nov. + +in the forest of Deo Ca Mountain, Khanh Hoa Province. Photo by T.Q. Phan. + + + + +Distribution. + +Microhyla roedderi + + +sp. nov. + +is currently known only from the +type +locality in Deo Ca Mountain, +Khanh Hoa +and +Phu Yen +provinces, +Vietnam +, at elevations between 433 and +784 m +a.s.l. + + + + +Conservation status. + +Microhyla roedderi + + +sp. nov. + +is likely to be endemic to Deo Ca Mountain, central +Vietnam +. However, the extent of its actual distribution range should be confirmed in further studies. Given the available information, we suggest this species be considered as Data Deficient following IUCN’s Red List categories ( +IUCN 2001 +). + + + + +Etymology. +The new species is named after Ass. Prof. Dr. Dennis Rödder, Leibniz Institut zur Analyse des Biodiversitätswandels (LIB) / Zoologisches Forschungsmuseum Alexander Koenig (ZFMK), Bonn, to honour his long-term support of conservation-based research including the support of student work and providing his expertise in species distribution modelling. We recommend “Roedder’s Narrow-mouth Frog” as the common English name and “Nhái bầu roedder” as the Vietnamese name. + + + + \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/03/89/43/0389433CFFFCAE58FF27E33D7F068FEB.xml b/data/03/89/43/0389433CFFFCAE58FF27E33D7F068FEB.xml index 4bd510516ef..3ee2d0072f6 100644 --- a/data/03/89/43/0389433CFFFCAE58FF27E33D7F068FEB.xml +++ b/data/03/89/43/0389433CFFFCAE58FF27E33D7F068FEB.xml @@ -1,106 +1,108 @@ - - - -A new species of Microhyla (Amphibia: Anura: Microhylidae), with an extended description of Microhyla nanapollexa from Vietnam + + + +A new species of Microhyla (Amphibia: Anura: Microhylidae), with an extended description of Microhyla nanapollexa from Vietnam - - -Author + + +Author -Hoang, Chung Van -0000-0002-0709-974X -CAS Key Laboratory of Mountain Ecological Restoration and Bioresource Utilization and Ecological Restoration and Biodiversity Conservation Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, Chengdu Institute of Biology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Chengdu 610041, China. & Institute of Genome Research, Vietnam Academy of Science and Technology, 18 Hoang Quoc Viet Road, Hanoi, Vietnam. & University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China. -chungiebr@gmail.com +Hoang, Chung Van +0000-0002-0709-974X +CAS Key Laboratory of Mountain Ecological Restoration and Bioresource Utilization and Ecological Restoration and Biodiversity Conservation Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, Chengdu Institute of Biology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Chengdu 610041, China. & Institute of Genome Research, Vietnam Academy of Science and Technology, 18 Hoang Quoc Viet Road, Hanoi, Vietnam. & University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China. +chungiebr@gmail.com - - -Author + + +Author -Pham, Cuong The -0000-0001-5158-4526 -Institute of Ecology and Biological Resources, Vietnam Academy of Science and Technology, 18 Hoang Quoc Viet Road, Hanoi 10072, Vietnam. & Graduate University of Science and Technology, Vietnam Academy of Science and Technology, 18 Hoang Quoc Viet Road, Cau Giay, Hanoi 10072, Vietnam. -cuongiebr@gmail.com +Pham, Cuong The +0000-0001-5158-4526 +Institute of Ecology and Biological Resources, Vietnam Academy of Science and Technology, 18 Hoang Quoc Viet Road, Hanoi 10072, Vietnam. & Graduate University of Science and Technology, Vietnam Academy of Science and Technology, 18 Hoang Quoc Viet Road, Cau Giay, Hanoi 10072, Vietnam. +cuongiebr@gmail.com - - -Author + + +Author -Nguyen, Truong Quang -0000-0002-6601-0880 -Institute of Ecology and Biological Resources, Vietnam Academy of Science and Technology, 18 Hoang Quoc Viet Road, Hanoi 10072, Vietnam. & Graduate University of Science and Technology, Vietnam Academy of Science and Technology, 18 Hoang Quoc Viet Road, Cau Giay, Hanoi 10072, Vietnam. -nqt2@yahoo.com +Nguyen, Truong Quang +0000-0002-6601-0880 +Institute of Ecology and Biological Resources, Vietnam Academy of Science and Technology, 18 Hoang Quoc Viet Road, Hanoi 10072, Vietnam. & Graduate University of Science and Technology, Vietnam Academy of Science and Technology, 18 Hoang Quoc Viet Road, Cau Giay, Hanoi 10072, Vietnam. +nqt2@yahoo.com - - -Author + + +Author -Phan, Tien Quang -0000-0002-2738-5364 -Institute of Ecology and Biological Resources, Vietnam Academy of Science and Technology, 18 Hoang Quoc Viet Road, Hanoi 10072, Vietnam. -quangtien120892@gmail.com +Phan, Tien Quang +0000-0002-2738-5364 +Institute of Ecology and Biological Resources, Vietnam Academy of Science and Technology, 18 Hoang Quoc Viet Road, Hanoi 10072, Vietnam. +quangtien120892@gmail.com - - -Author + + +Author -Ziegler, Thomas -AG Zoologischer Garten Köln, Riehler Strasse 173, D- 50735 Cologne, Germany. & Institute of Zoology, University of Cologne, Zülpicher Strasse 47 b, D- 50674 Cologne, Germany. +Ziegler, Thomas +AG Zoologischer Garten Köln, Riehler Strasse 173, D- 50735 Cologne, Germany. & Institute of Zoology, University of Cologne, Zülpicher Strasse 47 b, D- 50674 Cologne, Germany. - - -Author + + +Author -Orlov, Nikolai -Zoological Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, Universitetskaya nab. 1, St. Petersburg, 199034, Russia. +Orlov, Nikolai +Zoological Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, Universitetskaya nab. 1, St. Petersburg, 199034, Russia. - - -Author + + +Author -Jiang, Jianping -0000-0002-1051-7797 -CAS Key Laboratory of Mountain Ecological Restoration and Bioresource Utilization and Ecological Restoration and Biodiversity Conservation Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, Chengdu Institute of Biology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Chengdu 610041, China. & University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China. -jiangjp@cib.ac.cn +Jiang, Jianping +0000-0002-1051-7797 +CAS Key Laboratory of Mountain Ecological Restoration and Bioresource Utilization and Ecological Restoration and Biodiversity Conservation Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, Chengdu Institute of Biology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Chengdu 610041, China. & University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China. +jiangjp@cib.ac.cn - - -Author + + +Author -Do, Dang Trong -Faculty of Natural Sciences, Phu Yen University, Tuy Hoa, Phu Yen, Vietnam +Do, Dang Trong +Faculty of Natural Sciences, Phu Yen University, Tuy Hoa, Phu Yen, Vietnam -text - - -Zootaxa +text + + +Zootaxa - -2025 - -2025-01-08 + +2025 + +2025-01-08 - -5566 + +5566 - -2 + +2 - -347 -369 + +347 +369 - -https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5566.2.6 + +https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5566.2.6 -journal article -10.11646/zootaxa.5566.2.6 -1175-5326 -14703031 -46A25948-C58F-438F-8312-A9932549DBF0 +journal article +307805 +10.11646/zootaxa.5566.2.6 +0b12d822-9ebc-4d3b-a639-b3c4116edd9a +1175-5326 +14703031 +46A25948-C58F-438F-8312-A9932549DBF0 - + @@ -113,16 +115,18 @@ - + ( Figs. 2 , 3 ; -Tables 2 +Tables 2 ) + + Specimens examined. (n = 2), @@ -168,6 +172,8 @@ a.s.l. . + + Description of specimens examined. Morphological characters of the specimens from @@ -256,12 +262,13 @@ Coloration in preservative. In ethanol, dorsal coloration changed to dark greyis Fig. 3 ). + + Extended diagnosis. Microhyla nanapollexa - is characterized by having a small body size ( SVL 15.43 mm @@ -289,9 +296,7 @@ and IV 2 ½–1 V -; inner metatarsal tubercle oval; outer metatarsal tubercle absent; dorsal surface greyish brown to light brown with a dark brown or brown spear shape marking, running from the posterior eye to the groin; a black broken streak below dorsolateral folds; black streak shape marking absent or present on the groin region; belly and limbs ventrally lighter with white marble mixed with black spots; pupil black, iris copper in life - -. +; inner metatarsal tubercle oval; outer metatarsal tubercle absent; dorsal surface greyish brown to light brown with a dark brown or brown spear shape marking, running from the posterior eye to the groin; a black broken streak below dorsolateral folds; black streak shape marking absent or present on the groin region; belly and limbs ventrally lighter with white marble mixed with black spots; pupil black, iris copper in life. diff --git a/data/03/99/81/03998141FF8C1177FF3BCD6BFB994C32.xml b/data/03/99/81/03998141FF8C1177FF3BCD6BFB994C32.xml new file mode 100644 index 00000000000..dd9c3331d6f --- /dev/null +++ b/data/03/99/81/03998141FF8C1177FF3BCD6BFB994C32.xml @@ -0,0 +1,1116 @@ + + + +Taxonomic redescription and molecular confirmation of Lutjanus rufolineatus (Acanthuriformes: Lutjanidae) from the Andaman Islands, India + + + +Author + +Ps, Fahmeeda Parveen +Department of Ocean Studies and Marine Biology, Pondicherry University, Brookshabad Campus, Port Blair- 744112, Andaman & Nicobar Islands, India. + + + +Author + +Venu, Sasidharan +Department of Ocean Studies and Marine Biology, Pondicherry University, Brookshabad Campus, Port Blair- 744112, Andaman & Nicobar Islands, India. & Department of Marine Biology Microbiology and Biochemistry, School of Marine Sciences, Lakeside campus, Cochin University of Science and Technology, Fine Arts Avenue, Kochi- 682016, Ernakulam, Kerala. + + + +Author + +Eranhottu, Shibin +Department of Ocean Studies and Marine Biology, Pondicherry University, Brookshabad Campus, Port Blair- 744112, Andaman & Nicobar Islands, India. + + + +Author + +Ummath, Ameen +Department of Ocean Studies and Marine Biology, Pondicherry University, Brookshabad Campus, Port Blair- 744112, Andaman & Nicobar Islands, India. + + + +Author + +Kalita, Samrat +Department of Ocean Studies and Marine Biology, Pondicherry University, Brookshabad Campus, Port Blair- 744112, Andaman & Nicobar Islands, India. + + + +Author + +Pv, Mohammed Ramees +Department of Ocean Studies and Marine Biology, Pondicherry University, Brookshabad Campus, Port Blair- 744112, Andaman & Nicobar Islands, India. + + + +Author + +Sadaka, Shehin +Department of Ocean Studies and Marine Biology, Pondicherry University, Brookshabad Campus, Port Blair- 744112, Andaman & Nicobar Islands, India. + +text + + +Zootaxa + + +2025 + +2025-01-08 + + +5566 + + +2 + + +370 +380 + + + + +https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5566.2.7 + +journal article +10.11646/zootaxa.5566.2.7 +1175-5326 +14703020 +53BDF7D1-758B-42B8-B8CF-84C1449C097E + + + + + +Species: + +Lutjanus rufolineatus +(Valenciennes, 1830) + + + + + + + +Materials Examined + + + +India +, Andaman Island, South Andaman Coast, Andaman Sea, Mazar Pahar ( +11º39’23.95”N +92º 45’42.99”E +), Fahmeeda Parveen P S, Ameen Ummath, Mohammed Ramees PV Collectors, +20 March 2023 +, +2 specimens +(PUMBLRF001 +147.3 mm +SL Female, PUMBLRF002 +124.9 mm +SL Female). Andaman Island, South Andaman Coast, Andaman Sea, Netaji Subash Chandra Boss Island ( +11º40’7.27”N +92º45’54.28”E +), Ameen Ummath, Samrat Kalita Collectors, +11 April 2023 +, +1 Specimen +(PUMBLRF003 +103.6 mm +SL Male).Andaman Island, South Andaman Coast, Bay of Bengal, Collinpur ( +11º40’24.98”N +92º34’20.71”E +), Fahmeeda Parveen P S, Ameen Ummath, Collectors, +2 June 2023 +, +1 Specimen +(PUMBLRF004 +130.1 mm +SL Female). Andaman Island, South Andaman Coast, Bay of Bengal, Rutland ( +11º29’28.76”N +92º35’39.65”E +) Fahmeeda Parveen P S, Ameen Ummath Collectors, +5 June 2023 +, +2 specimens +(PUMBLRF005 +136.3 mm +SL Male, PUMBLRF006 +147.9 mm +SL Female). + + + + +Diagnosis + + + +Lutjanus rufolineatus + +has fin formula, Dorsal XI 13–14; Anal III 8; Pectoral 15–16; Lateral Line 47–49 (see +Table 1 +). Body depth +2.6–2.8 in +SL. Head length +2.4–2.5 in +SL. Eye diameter +3.4–3.8 in +HL. Interorbital space 5.1–6.0 in HL. Snout slightly pointed and +2.9–3.7 in +HL. Distinct preopercular notch. Well-developed inter-opercular knob. The preopercle covered with scales, except for the rear end. Posterior end of preopercle finely serrated. Crescentic vomerine tooth patch without a medial posterior extension. Smooth tongue without granular teeth. Dorsal and anal fins with rounded posterior profile. Presence of scale rows at the base of dorsal and anal soft rays as well as pectoral and caudal fin. Scale rows on the back rise obliquely above the lateral line. Caudal fin slightly emarginate or truncate. The meristic counts and body colouration of the collected specimens confirms that the specimens obtained are + +Lutjanus rufolineatus + +and are distinctly different from its congeners. + + + + +Distribution + + +Indo-West Pacific: +Maldives +; Andaman and Nicobar Islands (Present Study); western Pacific from southern +Japan +to +Indonesia +and northern +Australia +; eastward in southern Pacific to +Samoa +and +Tonga +( +Allen 1995 +; + +Anderson +et al. +1998 + +; + +Hoese +et al. +2006 + +; +Allen & Erdmann 2012 +). + + + + +TABLE 1. +Meristic counts of + +Lutjanus rufolineatus + +from Andaman waters. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+Meristics + +Present Study (n=6) +
Dorsal fin- SpineXI
Dorsal fin- Soft rays13–14
Pectoral fin rays15–16
Anal fin-SpineIII
Anal fin-Soft rays8
Caudal fin rays17
Pelvic fin-SpineI
Pelvic fin- Soft rays5
Lateral line count47–49
Scale row above the lateral line8–9
Scale row below the lateral line16–19
Scale row on Cheek7–8
Gill raker upper6–7
Gill raker lower13–14
+ + + + +Colour + + +In fresh condition, generally reddish or pink, with ventral side white or silvery-white; Lateral side of the body with a series of about 10 yellow stripes; A faint black spot below the anterior part of soft dorsal fin rays, above the lateral line. All fins are yellowish, whereas the pelvic fin has a white hue. The dorsal portion of the pectoral fin axil is brown. Following the fixation in formalin, colouration generally fades to tan or yellowish with the black spot on the back. + +Description + + +Body is moderately elongated and laterally compressed; convex dorsal profile with greatest body width ( +35.1–36.8 in +% SL) (see +Table 2 +); Eyes are large in size ( +25.6–28.7 in +% HL) located midpoint to the posterior margin of upper jaw; Mouth terminal, oblique and pointed; Two pairs of nostrils present in front of the eye; Posterior nostril elliptical; Canine teeth present in both upper and lower jaw; Body with ctenoid scales; Single lateral line present on both sides; Soft rays of the dorsal, anal, pectoral and pelvic fins are branched; The fifth dorsal spine surpasses other dorsal spines in size, with the succeeding and preceding spines diminishing in length; Caudal fin with branched medial rays. + + + + + +DNA Barcoding and Data Analysis + + + +The identity of + +Lutjanus rufolineatus + +was further validated through the sequencing of the cytochrome oxidase subunit I (COI) gene. PCR amplification of genomic DNA extracted from the specimen produced a band approximately 690 bp in length, which, after removal of ambiguous bases, yielded a 652 bp sequence. This sequence was subsequently submitted to the NCBI database under the GenBank accession number OR399158. Analysis confirmed that all nucleotides represented functional mitochondrial sequences, with no stop codons present. The sequence showed a high identity match (99.85%) with the COI sequence of + +L. rufolineatus + +voucher IRD BMF-316.2 (MN870411.1) in the NCBI database. Phylogenetic reconstruction produced well-defined trees, with distinct species-specific clades. In a neighbour-joining tree, the Andaman isolate of + +L. rufolineatus + +formed a unique clade alongside other lutjanid species, strongly supported by a bootstrap value of 100 ( +Figure 3 +). Genetic distances were calculated using the Kimura-2-Parameter (K2P) model in MEGA X. Both intraspecific and interspecific genetic distances were assessed, with the intraspecific distance between the Andaman isolate (OR399158) and other + +L. rufolineatus + +sequences estimated at 0.002. Interspecific distances between the Andaman isolate and other species within the genus ranged from 0.029 to 0.139 (see +Table 3 +). + + + + +TABLE 2. +Morphometric measurements of + +Lutjanus rufolineatus + +from Andaman waters. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+Morphometrics + +Present Study (n = 6) +Range (Mean ± SD) +
Total length132.1–190.1 (168.2 ± 18.9)
Standard length +103.7–149.7(132.1 ± 15.5) +% SL +
Head length38.7–40.1 (39.4 ± 0.3)
Head depth26.9–32.9 (29.7 ± 2.0)
Head width15.7–18.6 (17.7 ± 1.0)
Body depth I35.1–36.8 (36.4 ± 0.6)
Body depth II30.2–35.9 (32.3 ± 1.8)
Eye diameter10.0–11.3 (10.8 ± 0.4)
Interorbital space6.4–7.8 (7.0 ± 0.4)
Pre orbital length10.6–12.9 (11.6 ± 0.9)
Post orbital length17.1–18.4 (17.8 ± 0.5)
Lower Jaw length14.7–18.0 (16.3 ± 1.0)
Upper Jaw length13.5–15.4 (14.9 ± 0.6)
Pre pectoral length33.7–37.5 (35.8 ± 1.3)
Pectoral fin length32.5–34.3 (33.1 ± 0.6)
Pectoral base length5.9–6.3 (6.1 ± 0.2)
Pre pelvic fin length38.6–43.5 (40.8 ± 1.7)
Pelvic fin length22.9–24.3 (23.7 ± 0.5)
Pelvic base length3.1–4.9 (3.9 ± 0.6)
Pre dorsal length38.1–44.2 (41.2 ± 1.7)
Dorsal fin length (Spine)13.5–15.1 (14.4 ± 0.6)
Dorsal fin length (Soft rays)11.1–12.3 (11.9 ± 0.4)
Dorsal base length51.4–57.8 (54.8 ± 2.1)
Pre anal length69.7–71.9 (71.4 ± 1.0)
Anal fin length (Spine)15.3–18.3 (16.5 ± 1.2)
Anal fin length (Soft rays)10.7–16.5 (14.7 ± 1.9)
Anal fin base13.1–14.8 (14.1 ± 0.5)
Caudal peduncle length15.8–20.4 (17.4 ± 1.5)
Caudal peduncle depth10.6–13.2 (12.4 ± 0.8)
Caudal fin length +25.7–31.8 (28.8 ± 1.7) +%HL +
Eye diameter25.6–28.8 (27.5 ± 1.2)
Interorbital space16.4–19.5 (17.9 ± 1.0)
Pre orbital length27.0–33.5 (29.5 ± 2.2)
Post orbital length43.8–46.8 (45.2 ± 0.9)
Lower Jaw length37.7–41.9 (41.4 ± 2.2)
Upper Jaw length35.3–39.1 (37.9 ± 1.3)
+ + + +FIGURE 3. +Neighbour- Joining tree reconstruction of + +Lutjanus rufolineatus + +(OR399158) drawn with COI sequences available in Genbank. + +Atule mate + +was used as an outgroup. + + + + + +Discussion + + + +The family +Lutjanidae +presents significant taxonomic challenges due to the morphological similarities among its species, which complicate accurate identification. Many species within the family resemble each other externally, making species-level identification heavily reliant on live colour patterns. However, colour patterns often fade during preservation, leading to further complications and misidentifications in preserved specimens. One notable example is + +Lutjanus rufolineatus + +, which was initially considered a junior synonym of + +Lutjanus boutton +(Lacepède, 1802) + +( +Allen and Talbot 1985 +; Allen 1985). This misconception was later rectified by +Allen (1995) +, who confirmed + +L. rufolineatus + +as a valid, distinct species. + + + +TABLE 3. +Intra specific and interspecific genetic distance comparison between Andaman isolate of + +Lutjanus rufolineatus + +and related species of the genus + +Lutjanus + +based on COI gene. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
OR399158 + +Lutjanus_rufolineatus + +
PUMBLRF002
Andaman_Isolate
MN870411.1 + +Lutjanus_rufolineatus + +0.002
OQ387329.1 + +Lutjanus_dodecacanthoides + +0.1390.137
LC075757.1 + +Lutjanus_madras + +0.1360.1340.167
OQ439420.1 + +Lutjanus_vitta + +0.1230.1250.1710.057
MK658130.1 + +Lutjanus_kasmira + +0.0530.0550.1390.1150.117
OP316948.1 + +Lutjanus_bengalensis + +0.0610.0630.1580.1440.1240.059
OQ081758.1 + +Lutjanus +_xanthopinnis + +0.1380.1400.1870.0721.0710.1310.133
OR284345.1 + +Lutjanus_lutjanus + +0.1110.1130.1610.0720.0720.1150.1200.085
OP316948.1 + +Lutjanus_quinquelineatus + +0.0290.0310.1410.1400.1290.0550.0590.1460.127
+ + + +TABLE 4. +Comparison of meristic counts of + +Lutjanus rufolineatus + +from Andaman waters with the same species and its congeners. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+Meristics + +Present Study + + +L. rufolineatus + +(n=6) + + + +L. rufolineatus + +( +Allen 1995 +) + + +L. boutton + +( +Allen 1995 +) + + +L. dodecacanthoides + +(Koeda +et al. +2014) +
Dorsal SpineXIXIXXII
Dorsal soft rays13–1413–1413–1412
Anal spineIIIIIIIIIIII
Anal soft rays8888
Caudal fin rays17***
Pectoral fin rays15–1616–1716–1716
Pelvic spineI**I
Pelvic fin rays5**5
Lateral line count47–4945–4845–4848
Scale row above lateral line8–9669 1/2
Scale row below lateral line 16–19**20
Scale row on Cheek7–88–118–116
Gill raker upper6–76–76–76
Gill raker lower13–1413–1513–1511
+ + +In this study, we analysed the meristic characteristics of + +L. rufolineatus + +and compared them with the +holotype +( +Allen, 1995 +) and similar species, including + +L. boutton + +and + +L. dodecacanthoides + +(see +Table 4 +). Our comparison highlighted distinct morphometric differences that assist in differentiating these species. For example, + +L. rufolineatus + +and the +holotype +from +Allen (1995) +both display XI dorsal spines, while + +L. boutton + +has X and + +L. dodecacanthoides + +has XII ( + +Koeda +et al. +2014 + +). Additionally, lateral line counts in + +L. rufolineatus + +from this study were between 47–49, consistent with Allen’s findings, but different from + +L. dodecacanthoides + +, which has 48. Other features, such as scale counts and gill raker numbers, also varied slightly among these species. These distinctions underscore the importance of thorough taxonomic analysis in identifying key traits for accurate species identification and contribute to conservation efforts by clarifying species boundaries. The morphometric measurements observed in this study largely aligned with those reported by +Allen (1995) +and + +Heemstra +et al +. (2022) + +for + +L. rufolineatus + +, although some minor variations, particularly in body depth and interorbital space, suggest potential regional or population-level differences within the species. Our findings highlight the need for further research on geographic variation in + +L. rufolineatus + +populations across its distribution range. + + +In recent years, molecular tools have proven invaluable in taxonomic studies, allowing for precise species identification and discovery ( + +Ribeiro +et al. +2012 + +). The COI gene has been particularly effective for species-level identification in fishes ( + +Ward +et al. +2005 + +; + +Bhattacharjee +et al +. 2012 + +; + +Trivedi +et al +. 2014 + +; + +Gold +et al +. 2015 + +; + +Sala +et al. +2023 + +). In our study, DNA barcoding confirmed the identity of + +L. rufolineatus + +, showing high similarity with COI barcodes from GenBank. The intraspecific genetic distance between + +L. rufolineatus + +specimens in our study was 0.002, in line with + +Hebert +et al. +(2003) + +, who observed intraspecific distances below 0.01 and interspecific distances above 0.022. Phylogenetic analysis revealed that the Andaman specimens of + +L. rufolineatus + +form a well-supported clade with other members of the same species, highlighting close relationships with other blue-lined snappers like + +L. quinquelineatus + +, + +L. bengalensis + +, and + +L. kasmira + +. Similar clustering was also observed in + +Andriyono +et al. +(2022) + +, which examined + +L. rufolineatus + +and + +L. bengalensis + +in Indonesian waters, underscoring the phylogenetic cohesion within this group. + + +Historically, + +L. rufolineatus + +has often been misidentified in Indian taxonomic studies, partly due to incomplete descriptions in early literature, such as +Day (1871 +, +1875 +), which failed to distinguish it adequately from + +L. boutton + +and + +L. bengalensis + +. Reviews by +Talwar and Kacker (1984) +and + +Kapoor +et al. +(2002) + +mistakenly included + +L. rufolineatus + +based on incorrect synonymy. +Allen (1995) +clarified its taxonomic status as a distinct species in the western central Pacific, a finding corroborated by + +Anderson +et al +. (1998) + +, who documented it in the +Maldives +. + +L. rufolineatus + +did not appear in Indian snapper checklists ( + +Nair +et al. +2014 + +), underscoring ongoing uncertainties about its distribution. While it has been included in Tamil Nadu checklists (Joshy +et al. +2016; + +Mogalekar +et al. +2018 + +), these records lack detailed taxonomic descriptions. +Barman (2017) +suggested that prior records in Indian waters may have misidentified + +L. rufolineatus + +as + +L. boutton + +, further highlighting the need for accurate redescription. + + +Several biodiversity assessments in the +Andaman and Nicobar Islands +, such as those by +Roy and George (2010) +, +Rajan and Sreeraj (2013) +, + +Ranjan +et al. +(2018) + +, + +Patankar +et al. +(2018) + +, and + +Rajan +et al. +(2021) + +, did not document + +L. rufolineatus + +. This study represents the first confirmed report of + +L. rufolineatus + +in the +Andaman and Nicobar Islands +, +India +. By integrating DNA barcoding and detailed morphological analysis, this research provides a thorough taxonomic redescription of + +L. rufolineatus + +, resolving past misidentifications and improving our understanding of marine fish diversity in Indian waters. This study further contributes to biodiversity conservation efforts and enhances the accuracy of marine species cataloguing across the Indo-Pacific region. + + + + \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/03/99/81/03998141FF8C117CFF3BCED4FE284905.xml b/data/03/99/81/03998141FF8C117CFF3BCED4FE284905.xml index 8c8bca31791..d05e8b9f128 100644 --- a/data/03/99/81/03998141FF8C117CFF3BCED4FE284905.xml +++ b/data/03/99/81/03998141FF8C117CFF3BCED4FE284905.xml @@ -1,86 +1,87 @@ - - - -Taxonomic redescription and molecular confirmation of Lutjanus rufolineatus (Acanthuriformes: Lutjanidae) from the Andaman Islands, India + + + +Taxonomic redescription and molecular confirmation of Lutjanus rufolineatus (Acanthuriformes: Lutjanidae) from the Andaman Islands, India - - -Author + + +Author -Ps, Fahmeeda Parveen -Department of Ocean Studies and Marine Biology, Pondicherry University, Brookshabad Campus, Port Blair- 744112, Andaman & Nicobar Islands, India. +Ps, Fahmeeda Parveen +Department of Ocean Studies and Marine Biology, Pondicherry University, Brookshabad Campus, Port Blair- 744112, Andaman & Nicobar Islands, India. - - -Author + + +Author -Venu, Sasidharan -Department of Ocean Studies and Marine Biology, Pondicherry University, Brookshabad Campus, Port Blair- 744112, Andaman & Nicobar Islands, India. & Department of Marine Biology Microbiology and Biochemistry, School of Marine Sciences, Lakeside campus, Cochin University of Science and Technology, Fine Arts Avenue, Kochi- 682016, Ernakulam, Kerala. +Venu, Sasidharan +Department of Ocean Studies and Marine Biology, Pondicherry University, Brookshabad Campus, Port Blair- 744112, Andaman & Nicobar Islands, India. & Department of Marine Biology Microbiology and Biochemistry, School of Marine Sciences, Lakeside campus, Cochin University of Science and Technology, Fine Arts Avenue, Kochi- 682016, Ernakulam, Kerala. - - -Author + + +Author -Eranhottu, Shibin -Department of Ocean Studies and Marine Biology, Pondicherry University, Brookshabad Campus, Port Blair- 744112, Andaman & Nicobar Islands, India. +Eranhottu, Shibin +Department of Ocean Studies and Marine Biology, Pondicherry University, Brookshabad Campus, Port Blair- 744112, Andaman & Nicobar Islands, India. - - -Author + + +Author -Ummath, Ameen -Department of Ocean Studies and Marine Biology, Pondicherry University, Brookshabad Campus, Port Blair- 744112, Andaman & Nicobar Islands, India. +Ummath, Ameen +Department of Ocean Studies and Marine Biology, Pondicherry University, Brookshabad Campus, Port Blair- 744112, Andaman & Nicobar Islands, India. - - -Author + + +Author -Kalita, Samrat -Department of Ocean Studies and Marine Biology, Pondicherry University, Brookshabad Campus, Port Blair- 744112, Andaman & Nicobar Islands, India. +Kalita, Samrat +Department of Ocean Studies and Marine Biology, Pondicherry University, Brookshabad Campus, Port Blair- 744112, Andaman & Nicobar Islands, India. - - -Author + + +Author -Pv, Mohammed Ramees -Department of Ocean Studies and Marine Biology, Pondicherry University, Brookshabad Campus, Port Blair- 744112, Andaman & Nicobar Islands, India. +Pv, Mohammed Ramees +Department of Ocean Studies and Marine Biology, Pondicherry University, Brookshabad Campus, Port Blair- 744112, Andaman & Nicobar Islands, India. - - -Author + + +Author -Sadaka, Shehin -Department of Ocean Studies and Marine Biology, Pondicherry University, Brookshabad Campus, Port Blair- 744112, Andaman & Nicobar Islands, India. +Sadaka, Shehin +Department of Ocean Studies and Marine Biology, Pondicherry University, Brookshabad Campus, Port Blair- 744112, Andaman & Nicobar Islands, India. -text - - -Zootaxa +text + + +Zootaxa - -2025 - -2025-01-08 + +2025 + +2025-01-08 - -5566 + +5566 - -2 + +2 - -370 -380 + +370 +380 - -https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5566.2.7 + +https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5566.2.7 -journal article -10.11646/zootaxa.5566.2.7 -1175-5326 -53BDF7D1-758B-42B8-B8CF-84C1449C097E +journal article +10.11646/zootaxa.5566.2.7 +1175-5326 +14703020 +53BDF7D1-758B-42B8-B8CF-84C1449C097E @@ -140,7 +141,7 @@ in - + Mesoprion flaviroseus De Vis, 1884:446 diff --git a/data/03/A8/6F/03A86F76FF99FFDBFBD2705AF87782ED.xml b/data/03/A8/6F/03A86F76FF99FFDBFBD2705AF87782ED.xml index 09821bd00a6..2acbff011d9 100644 --- a/data/03/A8/6F/03A86F76FF99FFDBFBD2705AF87782ED.xml +++ b/data/03/A8/6F/03A86F76FF99FFDBFBD2705AF87782ED.xml @@ -1,99 +1,86 @@ - - - -über einige neue Fische aus Südamerika. + + + +über einige neue Fische aus Südamerika. - - -Author + + +Author -Ernst Ahl, Von Dr. +Ernst Ahl, Von Dr. -text - - -Zoologischer Anzeiger +text + + +Zoologischer Anzeiger - -1924 - -58 + +1924 + +58 - -358 -359 + +358 +359 -journal article -296069 -10.5281/zenodo.11196141 -68c4bc30-92b9-42ee-9249-6211cbbf479a -11196141 -0F016531-C0BA-4AAF-A9B5-F2C803BF3A86 +journal article +296069 +10.5281/zenodo.11196141 +68c4bc30-92b9-42ee-9249-6211cbbf479a +11196141 - -Cynolebias wolterstorfft + +Cynolebias wolterstorffi sp. n. -D. d* 19-20, Q 18-20; A. 0125-26, Q 23-24; L. lat. 40-43; Körperhöhe 31/2_3%, Kopflänge 3 % (Q) -.3% (d) in der Körperlänge. Augen 4 mal oder wenig mehr im Kopf. Interorbitalraum 21/2-3 mal in der Kopflänge; geringste Höhe des Schwanzstieles fast 8— 8 mal, und das Mandibulare 71/ 1-71 /2 mal in der Körperlänge enthalten. Schnauzenlänge gleich dem Augendurchmesser. Maul groß, mit gewaltiger Bezahnung; Kopf mit in Reihen angeordneten Poren. Beim Männchen sind die Schuppen der Brustpartie mitaufwärts gerichteten Stacheln oder Borsten besetzt. -Färbung des Männchens (in Alkohol) schwärzliclr, nach unten zu heller. Durch das Auge zieht sich ein schwarzer Streifen, und der Körper und die senkrechten Flossen sind mit zahlreichen, unregelmäßig angeordneten, runden Weißen Punkten besetzt. -Färbung Weibchens (in Alkohol) gelblich grau, dunkler braun marmoriert an Körper und Flossen. Ein dunkler Strich durch das Auge. -des - +D. ♂ 19—20, ♀ 18—20; A. ♂25—26, ♀ 23—24; L. lat. 40—43; Körperhöhe 3½ —3⅔, Kopflänge 3 ⅓ (♀) —3⅔ (♂) in der Körperlänge. Augen 4 mal oder wenig mehr im Kopf. Interorbitalraum 2½—3 mal in der Kopflänge; geringste Höhe des Schwanzstieles fast 8— 8 mal, und das Mandibulare 7/¼ —7 ½ mal in der Körperlänge enthalten. Schnauzenlänge gleich dem Augendurchmesser. Maul groß, mit gewaltiger Bezahnung; Kopf mit in Reihen angeordneten Poren. Beim Männchen sind die Schuppen der Brustpartie mitaufwärts gerichteten Stacheln oder Borsten besetzt. +Färbung des Männchens (in Alkohol) schwärzliclr, nach unten zu heller. Durch das Auge zieht sich ein schwarzer Streifen, und der Körper und die senkrechten Flossen sind mit zahlreichen, unregelmäßig angeordneten, runden Weißen Punkten besetzt. +Färbung des Weibchens (in Alkohol) gelblich grau, dunkler braun marmoriert an Körper und Flossen. Ein dunkler Strich durch das Auge. + Die Art steht ungefähr in der Mitte zwischen Cynolebias gibberosus und Cynolebias porosus -, dürfte aber näher mit /letzterer Art verwandt sein. +, dürfte aber näher mit letzterer Art verwandt sein. -Ich benenne diese ausgezeichnete Art zu Ehren des Herrn Dr. W. Wolterstorff, Kustos am Städtischen Museum für Naturund Heimatkunde zu Magdeburg, durch dessen freundliche Vermittlung ich diese schöne Form erhalten habe. Mir liegen im ganzen folgende Exemplare die, vor, wenn nicht ausdrücklich anders angegeben, sich im Besitze des Zoologischen Museums Berlin befinden +Ich benenne diese ausgezeichnete Art zu Ehren des Herrn Dr. W. Wolterstorff, Kustos am Städtischen Museum für Naturund Heimatkunde zu Magdeburg, durch dessen freundliche Vermittlung ich diese schöne Form erhalten habe. +Mir liegen im ganzen folgende Exemplare vor, die, wenn nicht ausdrücklich anders angegeben, sich im Besitze des Zoologischen Museums Berlin befinden -Nr. 1-8, +Nr. 1—8, Typen -der Art 5,7'-8,6 ern, +der Art 5,7—8,6 cm, Porto Alegre -, - -A. Adloff - -S. G. +, A. Adloff S. G. Nr. 9, Cotype -3,2 em, +3,2 cm, Porto Alegre -, - -A. Adloff - -S, +, A. Adloff S, W Wolterstorff G. -Nr. 10-11, +Nr. 10—11, Cotypen -, 7,2-8,3 em, +, 7,2-8,3 cm, Porto Alegre -, - -A. Adloff - -S, +, A. Adloff S, W Wolterstorff G. @@ -101,28 +88,20 @@ S, Nr. 12, Cotype -, 6,2 em, +, 6,2 cm, Porto Alegre -, - -A. Adloff - -S. Im +, A. Adloff S. Im Besitze des Städtischen Museums Magdeburg . -Nr. 13-15, +Nr. 13—15, Cotypen -, 7,0-10,0 em, +, 7,0—10,0 cm, Porto Alegre -, - -A. Adloff - -S. Im +, A. Adloff S. Im Besitze des Städtischen Museums Magdeburg . diff --git a/data/80/15/87/801587CC6F4AFFCBD5B8A02256FEF94D.xml b/data/80/15/87/801587CC6F4AFFCBD5B8A02256FEF94D.xml index 84faa09d0f6..27ea404051e 100644 --- a/data/80/15/87/801587CC6F4AFFCBD5B8A02256FEF94D.xml +++ b/data/80/15/87/801587CC6F4AFFCBD5B8A02256FEF94D.xml @@ -1,52 +1,51 @@ - - - -Seis Especies Nuevas del Genero Czmolebias Steindachner, 1876, de Uruguay y Paraguay (Cyprinodontiformes, Rivulidae) + + + +Seis Especies Nuevas del Genero Czmolebias Steindachner, 1876, de Uruguay y Paraguay (Cyprinodontiformes, Rivulidae) - - -Author + + +Author -Amato, Luis H. -Departamento de Ictiologia, Museo Nacional de Historia Natural, Casilla de Correo 399, Montevideo, Uruguay. +Amato, Luis H. +Departamento de Ictiologia, Museo Nacional de Historia Natural, Casilla de Correo 399, Montevideo, Uruguay. -text - - -Comunicaciones zoologicas del Museo de Historia Natural de Montevideo +text + + +Comunicaciones zoologicas del Museo de Historia Natural de Montevideo - -1986 - -1986-01-01 + +1986 + +1986-01-01 - -11 + +11 - -162 + +162 - -1 -27 + +1 +27 - -https://lib.ugent.be/catalog/ejn01:110975506068969 + +https://lib.ugent.be/catalog/ejn01:110975506068969 -journal article -10.5281/zenodo.10080631 -f82c752b-a025-41c9-ac9e-2442e84c8893 -0027-0113 -10080631 -0E6595AC-0A10-453C-9EB4-C788557C6126 +journal article +10.5281/zenodo.10080631 +f82c752b-a025-41c9-ac9e-2442e84c8893 +0027-0113 +10080631 - + - + Cynolebias affinis n. sp. @@ -62,7 +61,7 @@ Lám. III ( - + HOLOTIPO :