Botia Gray

Maurice Kottelat, 2004, Botia kubotai, a new species of loach (Teleostei: Cobitidae) from the Ataran River basin (Myanmar), with comments on botiine nomenclature and diagnosis of a new genus., Zootaxa 401, pp. 1-18 : 11-12

Botia Gray

Botia Gray, 1831 (type species: Botia almorhae Gray, 1831 , by monotypy). Gender feminine.

Hymenphysa M'Clelland, 1839 (type species: Cobitis dario Hamilton, 1822 , by subsequent designation by Jordan, 1919a). Gender feminine.

Diacantha Swainson, 1839 (type species: Diacantha zebra Swainson, 1839 , by subsequent designation by Swain, 1883; spelled Diacanthus p. 190, first reviser [Eschmeyer, 1990: 123] retained Diacantha as correct original spelling). Gender feminine. [Eschmeyer considered D. zebra as type by monotypy; in fact Swainson originally included two species, D. zebra and D. flavicauda ]

Hymenophysa Bleeker, 1859 (incorrect subsequent spelling of Hymenphysa M'Clelland, 1839 )

Diagnosis. Distinguished from other genera within the subfamily Botiinae by the following combination of characters: Mental lobe developed in a barbel. Fronto-parietal fontanelle narrow. Anterior chamber of gas bladder almost entirely covered by bony capsule; posterior chamber large or rather reduced. Anterior process of premaxilla entire, not surrounding a cavity; rostral process rather long, with a more or less distinct ridge along inner edge. Top of supraethmoid narrow or broad. Optic foramen very small. Suborbital spine not strongly curved backwards (based on Taki, 1972: 74, 76). Suborbital spine bifid. Head naked.

Remarks. The spelling Hymenophysa used by Fang (1936), Nalbant (1963, 2002), Taki (1972) and others is not correct. The correct original spelling used by M'Clelland (1839: 443) is Hymenphysa . Hymenophysa of Bleeker (1859: 303) is an incorrect subsequent spelling of Hymenphysa M'Clelland, 1839 . Authors (e.g. Nalbant, 1963: 359, 2002: 317) often list Cobitis hymenophysa Bleeker, 1852 as type species of Hymenphysa by tautonymy. As the generic name predates the specific name by 13 years, this of course cannot be the case. In the original description of Hymenphysa , only three species are listed ( C. dario , C. geto , C. grandis ) and the type species has to be selected among them. The earliest valid type species designation is by Jordan (1919a: 195) who designated C. dario . Botia dario is placed in Botia s.s. by Nalbant (1963, 2002), Taki (1972) and others, and therefore Hymenphysa is a junior subjective synonym of Botia .

The valid name for the lineage called Hymenophysa by Fang, Nalbant, Taki and others is Syncrossus Blyth, 1860 .

Included species:

Botia almorhae Gray, 1831 (synonyms: B. grandis Gray, 1832 ,? B. rostrata Guenther, 1868 ;? B. lohachata Chaudhuri, 1912 ,? B. dayi Hora, 1932 )

Botia birdi Chaudhuri, 1910 (synonym:? B. javedi Mirza & Syed, 1995 )

Botia dario (Hamilton, 1822) (synonyms: Cobitis geto Hamilton, 1822 , Diacantha flavicauda Swainson, 1839 , D. zebra Swainson, 1839 )

Botia histrionica Blyth, 1860

Botia kubotai , new species

Botia macrolineata Teugels, De Vos & Snoeks, 1986

Botia striata Rao, 1920 (synonym: B. s. kolhapurensis Kalawar & Kelkar, 1958 )