Aphanius Nardo, 1827
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.4810.3.2 |
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:7F0D8427-C06F-4E2B-AE47-13D3654CB286 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03B187D4-DF10-FF98-FF4F-60D5FE6AD9C6 |
treatment provided by |
Plazi |
scientific name |
Aphanius Nardo, 1827 |
status |
|
Aphanius Nardo, 1827 View in CoL View at ENA
Fig. 8 View FIGURE 8
Type species. Aphanius nanus Nardo 1827 View in CoL is the type species of Aphanius View in CoL , but is a synonym of A. fasciatus (Kottelat et al. 2007) View in CoL . Micromugil timidus Gulia 1861 , also a synonym of Aphanius fasciatus View in CoL , is the type species of Micromugil Gulia, 1861 .
Diagnosis. Aphanius is distinguished from other genera in the family Aphaniidae by the unique male colour pat- tern, comprising a pale to deep yellow or orange caudal fin, well distinct from silvery interspaces between grey or brown flank bars. Although the caudal fin can also be yellow in some Anatolichthys species, particularly A. iconii , the interspaces of the flank bars are the same colour as the caudal fin. Aphanius is further distinguished by presence of a dermal sheath at the anal-fin base in the nuptial female (vs. absence in Aphaniops ); presence of a black dorsalfin margin in the male (vs. absence in all Aphaniops except A. sirhani ); and presence of head canals (vs. absence in Anatolichtys).
Included species. Aphanius almiriensis , A. fasciatus
Distribution. The genus Aphanius is widespread in coastal lagoons and estuaries of the Mediterranean Sea basin ( Fig. 9 View FIGURE 9 ), where it is only absent from southern France (extirpated), Spain (introduced) and Morocco west of the Moulouya River estuary ( Valdesalici et al. 2019).
Remarks. Aphanius almiriensis and A. fasciatus are superficially very similar and difficult to identify in the field. Kottelat et al. (2007) and Valdesalici et al. (2019) discussed the characters distinguishing these two species in detail. Cavraro et al. (2017) documented the existence of intraspecific genetic diversity between different popula- tions of A. fasciatus . These differences are clearly intraspecific and specimens we examined could not be distin- guished morphologically.
No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.