identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
038087C7856CFFD5E9CB64B0FE47E464.text	038087C7856CFFD5E9CB64B0FE47E464.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Pristolepis malabarica (Gunther 1864)	<div><p>Pristolepis malabarica (Günther 1864)</p><p>Fig. 1, Table 2.</p><p>Diagnosis. Pristolepis malabarica can be distinguished from its two southern Indian congeners by the following characters: from P. marginata by the number of anal-fin spines (3 vs. 4–5), a typically deeper body (mean 48.2 ± 2.5 % SL vs. mean 42.9 ± 2.4 % SL) and by having the rays of the median fins with yellow to orange margins, when freshly collected (vs. white); and from P. rubripinnis in having the rays of the median fins with yellow to orange margins, when freshly collected (vs. red), an olive-green to brown iris (vs. bright-red), and fewer scales rows above the lateral line (3 vs 4–5) and below it (9 vs. 10). The genetic divergence between topotypic P. malabarica and topotypic P. marginata and P. rubripinnis for the COI sequences is 11.5–13.2% and 17.0–17.4%, respectively.</p><p>Pristolepis malabarica can be distinguished from the three currently recognized species of Pristolepis in southeast Asia by the following characters: from P. fasciata, P. grootii and P. pauciradiata by fewer dorsal-fin rays (13–14 vs. 15–16), from P. fasciata and P. pauciradiata by fewer scales above the lateral line (3 vs. 5), from P. fasciata by fewer scales below the lateral line (9 vs. 10), and from P. grootii by the parasphenoid tooth patch extending anteriorly to middle of orbit (vs. extending to anterior margin of orbit).</p><p>Description. Body laterally compressed, subcylindrical to oval, covered in large, thick ctenoid scales, covering also bases of pectoral, dorsal, anal, and caudal fins; axillary scale at base of pelvic fin. Head scaled, except between dorsal margin of orbit and snout. Posterior margin of opercle serrated and with two sharp spines. Angle of preopercle finely serrated. Lateral line interrupted, resulting in anterior portion with 19–23 perforated scales, posterior portion with 5–9 scales, scales sometimes extending onto caudal fin. Mouth terminal, slightly protrusible.</p><p>Teeth generally conical, retrorse, but molariform in regions of parasphenoid and basihyal-basibranchial toothplate. Premaxilla with teeth arranged in several rows along articular process, comprising outer row of larger caniniform teeth and irregular inner rows of minute teeth. Anteriormost two to three projecting parasymphyseal caniniform teeth larger than posterior teeth. Maxilla edentulous; dentary with more than eight rows of teeth; outermost row with caniniform teeth, of which 3-4 parasymphyseal caniniform teeth, interdigitate with parasymphyseal premaxillary canines in closed jaws. Parasphenoid tooth patch supporting more than six rows of teeth; anterior to mid-region with molariform teeth of varying size; posterior portion lined exclusively with antrorse conical teeth. Discrete cluster of conical teeth set in three rows on vomer. Apart from palatine with conical teeth, no dentition on other bones of hyopalatine arch. Pharyngobranchials 2 and 3 with rows of large pointed teeth, but upper pharyngeal toothplate 4 with smaller teeth, decreasing in size posteriorly. Molariform teeth of varying sizes, bordered by conical teeth on posterior part of basihyal-basibranchial tooth plate and on hypobranchial 3. Ceratobranchial 5 with larger teeth along medial area, smaller teeth distally.</p><p>Morphometric and meristic data are provided in Table 2. Dorsal fin with 13–15 spines followed by 11–14 rays, pectoral fin with 13–15 rays, pelvic-fin with 1 spine and 5 rays, and anal fin with 3 spines followed by 7–9 rays. Total vertebrae 25, with 13 abdominal + 12 caudal vertebrae (N=3). Lateral line scales 19–23 in anterior + 5–9 in posterior portion.</p><p>In adults, body olive-green to yellowish-brown, eyes intense olive-green to brown, with a yellowish margin. Fins yellowish-brown; pectoral, dorsal, anal and caudal-fin membranes with yellow to light orange margins (fading under stress). Juveniles with series of irregular yellowish bars along flanks, more conspicuous anteriorly, gradually more faded posteriorly.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/038087C7856CFFD5E9CB64B0FE47E464	Public Domain	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.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Prakash, Anjana Preetha;Raghavan, Rajeev;Britz, Ralf;Ali, Anvar	Prakash, Anjana Preetha, Raghavan, Rajeev, Britz, Ralf, Ali, Anvar (2025): The identity of Pristolepis malabarica (Günther 1864) and Pristolepis procerus Plamoottil 2017, its junior synonym (Anabantiformes: Pristolepididae). Zootaxa 5686 (3): 438-446, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5686.3.7, URL: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5686.3.7
038087C7856CFFD1E9CB62A8FACDE6D4.text	038087C7856CFFD1E9CB62A8FACDE6D4.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Pristolepis procerus Plamoottil 2017	<div><p>Pristolepis procerus, a junior synonym of P. malabarica</p><p>Pristolepis procerus was described by Plamoottil (2017: European Journal of Zoological Research) from the Chaliyar, a 169 km long river draining the Western Ghats mountains in Kerala, India. No precise type locality was provided, though it was mentioned that the holotype and paratype were collected from Kozhikode District. The poorly-written description listed ambiguous diagnostic characters, making it impossible to unambiguously distinguish and separate the ‘new’ species from its congeners .</p><p>Based on two specimens (the holotype and paratype), Pristolepis procerus was described as having 13 dorsal-fin rays. However, our series of 18 specimens of Pristolepis from various localities in the Chaliyar River (though no precise type locality was originally designated, we henceforth consider the Chaliyar River as the type locality for the purpose of this paper) includes individuals with 12 (4), 13 (13) and 14 (1) dorsal-fin rays. All of these specimens are separated genetically by a raw pair-wise distance of only 1% in their mitochondrial COI gene sequences (GenBank: PV450154 with 12 dorsal-fin rays; PV450155, PV450159 and PV450164 with 13 rays; PV450158 with 13 rays; and PV450157 with 14 rays). The range of 12–14 dorsal-fin rays of topotypic material of P. procerus thus covers the count of 12 mentioned in the description of P. malabarica (Günther, 1864), rendering this feature useless as diagnostic character.</p><p>In its original description, Pristolepis procerus was also distinguished from P. malabarica by a deeper body (47.2–47.6% SL vs. 41.4–45.5% SL), a character that inspired the specific name (the Latin word ‘ procerus ’ means ‘tall’). Additional characters considered diagnostic for P. procerus in the original description were head length, and number of lateral-line scales. A critical re-examination of the holotype of P. procerus revealed that the body depth is 47.9% SL, with body depth of 18 topotypes of P. procerus ranging from 46.5–53.2% SL. This range overlaps with the range of body depth of topotypes (N=12) of P. malabarica, and additional specimens (N=2) from the Manimala River (43.8–52.1% SL). Similarly, the head length of the holotype (37.9% SL), and the range calculated from 18 topotypes of P. procerus (33.9–39.1% SL) were within the range of 12 topotypes, and two additional specimens of P. malabarica (31.9–36.5% SL). Both these features thus have no value as diagnostic characters.</p><p>The number of lateral-line scales in the type series of P. procerus has been inconsistently listed in the original description (Plamoottil 2017, European Journal of Zoological Research), i.e., 19–21/10 lateral-line scales in Table 1 on p.41, and 19–21/10–11 lateral-line scales under comparative account on p.42. Our 18 topotypic specimens of P. procerus from the Chaliyar have 20–23/5–8 lateral-line scales (20/ 9 in the holotype by our count), which is consistent with those obtained from 12 topotypes, and two additional specimens of P. malabarica (19–22/5–8). The difference in counts of the posterior part of the lateral line, however, is likely due to differences in the method of counting. In the present study, lateral-line scales were counted following the method of Hubbs et al. (2004) up to the end of the hypural plate. In the original description of P. procerus, however, scales on the posterior portion of the lateral line included those beyond this landmark, i.e., those on the caudal-fin base. Our recounting of the lateral-line scales of the holotype of P. procerus yielded a count of 20/9, matching the counts of P. malabarica . Based on the overlapping morphometric data and counts, and the lack of any other diagnostic characters, Pristolepis procerus cannot be distinguished from P. malabarica . We therefore synonymize the former name with the latter.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/038087C7856CFFD1E9CB62A8FACDE6D4	Public Domain	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.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Prakash, Anjana Preetha;Raghavan, Rajeev;Britz, Ralf;Ali, Anvar	Prakash, Anjana Preetha, Raghavan, Rajeev, Britz, Ralf, Ali, Anvar (2025): The identity of Pristolepis malabarica (Günther 1864) and Pristolepis procerus Plamoottil 2017, its junior synonym (Anabantiformes: Pristolepididae). Zootaxa 5686 (3): 438-446, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5686.3.7, URL: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5686.3.7
