Aphaniops teimorii, Freyhof & Yoğurtçuoğlu, 2020
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-DF15-FF9E-FF4F-624DFD09DB2E |
treatment provided by |
Plazi |
scientific name |
Aphaniops teimorii |
status |
sp. nov. |
Aphaniops teimorii , new species
Fig. 6 View FIGURE 6
Aphanius hormuzensis Teimori, Esmaeili, Hamidan & Reichenbacher, 2018a , nomen nudum, ( Iran, Hormuzgan Province (S- Iran), 330 m, Mehran River, Gotab village, 15 km south of Bastak GoogleMaps , 54.2628 27.1441)
Holotype. ZFMK-ICH 122627, 33 mm SL; Iran: Hormozgan prov.: Govdar River near Kahoorestan , 27.1990 55.6390. GoogleMaps
Paratypes. FSJF 4021 , 5 , 31–35 mm SL; Iran: Hormozgan prov.: Hormalin River at Bastak , 27.1360 54.2667 GoogleMaps . FSJF 4100 , 3 , 26–39 mm SL; same data as holotype (captive-bred) GoogleMaps .
Diagnosis. Aphaniops teimorii is distinguished by a combination of non-unique characters. It is somewhat similar to A. ginaonis from Iran and A. kruppi from Oman in that males possess 12–17 brown bars on the flank, the anterior-most of which is located beneath the pectoral fin and the posterior-most on the caudal-fin base (vs. flank bars in males absent or restricted to the caudal peduncle in A. dispar , A. richardsoni and A. stoliczkanus ). It is distinguished from A. kruppi by presence of a long narrow bar (vs. a diamond-shaped or vertically-elongate black or dark-brown blotch) at the caudal-fin base in females, and 12–17 (vs. 9–14) brown bars on the flank in the male. According to the molecular data presented by Teimori et al. (2018a), A. teimorii is closely related to A. ginaonis , which is endemic to a single spring connected to a stream in which A. teimorii occurs ( Reichenbacher et al. 2009b). The two species exhibit the same colour pattern in both males and females, and possess 4–5 scale rows on the caudal-fin base. Aphaniops teimorii is distinguished from A. ginaonis by possessing 7½–8½ (vs. 5) branched dorsal-fin rays. Diagnostic otolith and osteological characters are provided by Teimori et al. (2018a).
Description. See Figure 6 View FIGURE 6 for general appearance. Dorsal head profile straight. Dorsal profile straight or slightly convex from nape to dorsal-fin origin. Ventral profile convex. Body deeper than wide, deepest at about dorsalfin origin and widest at pectoral-fin base or centre of belly in females. Lower jaw gently upturned, oriented about 45° to body axis. Caudal peduncle compressed laterally, its length 1.6 times in its depth in holotype, 1.5–1.6 times longer than deep. Pectoral fin rounded, reaching almost to or slightly beyond pelvic-fin base. Anal-fin origin below vertical through second or third branched dorsal-fin ray. Pelvic fin not reaching or reaching anus. One large scale present between pelvic-fin bases. Anus situated slightly anterior to anal-fin origin. Dorsal and anal fins roundish in females, tip of longest dorsal-fin ray reaching to a vertical through centre of posterior anal fin ray. Dorsal and anal fins elongated in males, posterior tip of dorsal fin reaching vertical of tip of anal fin or to a point slightly before. Caudal fin rounded to truncate. Largest individual examined 39 mm SL.
Dorsal and anal fins with 7½–8½ branched rays. Caudal fin with 8+7–8+8 branched rays. Pectoral fin with 15–16 and pelvic fin with 7–8 rays. Trunk and head entirely scaled. Scales large and cycloid in females, with small ctenae in males. Scale above pectoral-fin origin enlarged. One scale row on upper portion of opercle. Flank with 24–26 scales along lateral series. 4–5 additional rows of small scales on anterior caudal-fin base. Teimori et al. (2018a) counted 27–29 flank scales but did not describe the method used. Nine scale rows between dorsal- and pelvic-fin origins. 14 circumpeduncular scales. Teeth tricuspid, median tip longer than laterals.
Colouration. See Figure 6 View FIGURE 6 for general appearance. Live and preserved males: all yellow, orange, silvery and blue colours faded in preserved specimens. Lateral head and flank silvery to whitish with brown or dark-grey pat- tern of bars and blotches, dorsal head and back brown or dark-grey. Lower cheek, breast and belly whitish or pale yellow. Lateral head and flank with a bluish hue in life. Flank between pectoral-fin base and vertical through pelvicfin origin with a brown or yellowish-brown network pattern forming roundish silvery or pale-bluish blotches, often just a few silvery blotches on grey or brown background. Flank with 12–17 bars, confluent with brown or dark-grey back. Bars brown in life, black in preserved individuals. Interspaces silvery, narrower than bars. Pectoral fin hyaline or greyish-blue in life, blackish in preserved individuals. Pelvic fin hyaline or white. Anal fin hyaline or yellow in life, whitish in preserved individuals, greyish-blue or yellow anteriorly with 2–4 narrow black bars. Dorsal fin with irregularly set and shaped bands, often restricted to blotches on rays. Caudal fin hyaline with 2 wide, black bars. A pale grey or black blotch on unbranched caudal-fin rays at upper and lower extremities. Living and preserved fe- males: top of head and back pale-brown. Cheek, ventral surface of head, belly and flank silvery-grey or pale-brown. Flank with a series of 12–17 narrow, vertically-elongate bars along lateral midline, bars anterior to vertical through dorsal-fin origin often faded. A narrow dark-brown or black bar at centre of caudal-fin base. All fins hyaline in life, grey in preserved individuals.
Distribution. Aphaniops teimorii has been collected from coastal rivers and streams between the Merhan and Minhab River drainages in southern Iran ( Esmaeili et al. 2020) ( Figure 7 View FIGURE 7 ).
Etymology. Named for Azad Teimori (Kerman, Iran) for his many valuable contributions to the biology of Iranian killifishes. A noun in genitive, indeclinable.
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.
Kingdom |
|
Phylum |
|
Order |
|
Family |
|
Genus |
Aphaniops teimorii
Freyhof, Jörg & Yoğurtçuoğlu, Baran 2020 |
Aphanius hormuzensis
Teimori, Esmaeili, Hamidan & Reichenbacher 2018 |