Seminemacheilus tubae,

Yoğurtçuoğlu, Baran, Kaya, Cüneyt, Geiger, Matthias F. & Freyhof, Jörg, 2020, Revision of the genus Seminemacheilus, with the description of three new species (Teleostei: Nemacheilidae), Zootaxa 4802 (3), pp. 477-501: 494-498

publication ID

https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4802.3.5

publication LSID

lsid:zoobank.org:pub:CEAB7B85-E24D-4E30-B501-1302005C6D0C

persistent identifier

http://treatment.plazi.org/id/03C57553-FFA3-FFAA-57AA-065AF7C5894A

treatment provided by

Plazi

scientific name

Seminemacheilus tubae
status

new species

Seminemacheilus tubae  , new species

( Figs. 15–17View FIGURE 15View FIGURE 16View FIGURE 17)

urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:AEA1A646-3697-472F-9291-DD1E70BDF270

Seminemacheilus dursunavsari Çiçek, 2020:69  , Fig. 2–6View FIGURE 2View FIGURE 3View FIGURE 4View FIGURE 5View FIGURE 6 (type locality: Konya prov.: Input of Alanözü Dam Lake   GoogleMaps, Goksu River drainage, Eastern Mediterranean Basin, 37°07’48.8’’N, 32°42’19.3’’E, Turkey.) (nomen nudum)

Holotype. ZFMK 121969, 47 mm SL; Turkey: Konya prov: stream Büyükçay at Yeşilbağ, south of Beyşehir Lake , 37.5301, 31.4935GoogleMaps 

Paratypes. FSJF 3100, 1, 65 mm SL; same data as holotypeGoogleMaps  .— FSJF 2520, 3, 48–54 mm SL; Turkey: Konya prov: stream Sarıçay two km north of Beyşehir, 37.7154, 31.7084. —FFR 1370, 2, 62–66 mm SL; Turkey: Konya prov: stream Sarıçay two km northeast of Beyşehir , 37.7104, 31.7365GoogleMaps  .

Material used in molecular genetic analysis. FSJF DNA-1090  ; Turkey: Konya prov: stream Sarıçay two km north of Beyşehir , 37.7154, 31.7084. (GenBank accession numbers: MT077010, MT080176)GoogleMaps  .— FSJF DNA-1533  ; Turkey: Konya prov: stream Büyükçay at Yeşilbağ, south of Beyşehir Lake , 37.5301, 31.4935. (GenBank accession number: MT 077011View Materials)GoogleMaps  .

Diagnosis. Seminemacheilus tubae  is distinguished from other species of Seminemacheilus  by a combination of characters, none of them unique. It is distinguished by having 2–5 (6) pores in the supraorbital head canal (vs. 7–13 in S. attalicus  , 5–8 in S. lendlii  , 6–10 in S. ispartensis  ), a truncate caudal fin (vs. round in S. ahmeti  and S. ekmekciae  , slightly emarginate in S. attalicus  ), the upper lip without a median incision (vs. present in S. attalicus  and S. ekmekciae  ), and by lacking a central pore in the supratemporal head canal (vs. present S. attalicus  ). It is further distinguished from S. ispartensis  by having a scaleless body (vs. scales present on the caudal peduncle); a longer head (24–28% SL vs. 21–24), and a deeper caudal-peduncle (12–15% SL vs. 10–12). The new species further distinguished from S. lendlii  by having a shorter pre-pelvic length (53–56% SL vs. 56–59) and from S. ahmeti  by lacking black or brown dots or blotches on the belly (vs. present), and the posterior naris not reaching to the anterior eye margin when folded backward (vs. reaching).

Description. See Figures 15–17View FIGURE 15View FIGURE 16View FIGURE 17 for general appearance and Table 5 for morphometric data of holotype and five paratypes. Small, moderately deep and wide-bodied species with long head. Body deepest at about dorsal-fin origin, depth decreasing very slightly towards caudal-fin base. No hump at nape. Greatest body width at pectoral-fin base, body almost equally wide until dorsal-fin origin. Section of head roundish, flattened on ventral surface. Caudal peduncle compressed laterally, 1.1–1.3 (mean 1.2) times longer than deep. No axillary lobe at base of pelvic fin. Pelvic-fin origin below 2 nd branched dorsal-fin ray. Pectoral fin reaching approximately 60–70% (female), 85–95% (male) of distance from pectoral-fin origin to pelvic-fin origin. Pelvic fin not reaching anus. Anus about half eye diameter in front of anal-fin origin. Anal fin reaching almost to caudal-fin origin. A short or long and shallow adipose crest on caudal peduncle, reaching under dorsal-fin rays in few individuals. Margin of dorsal fin convex. Caudal fin truncate. Largest known specimen 66 mm SL.

Dorsal fin with 7½ (n=4) or 8½ (n=1) branched rays. Anal fin with 5½ branched rays. Caudal fin with 8+8 (n=3), 8+7 (n=2) branched rays. Pectoral fin with 9–11 and pelvic fin with 6 branched rays. Body without scales. Lateral line incomplete, with 5–11 pores, reaching to about vertical of 50% of pectoral-fin length (female). Ante- rior nostril opening on anterior side of a low, pointed and flap-like tube, not reaching to anterior eye margin when folded backwards. No central pore and 2–3 lateral pores on each side of supratemporal canal, 9–11 pores in anterior infraorbital canal, 4–5 pores in posterior infraorbital canal, 2–5 (6) pores in supraorbital canal and 2–8 pores in mandibular canal. Mouth small, slightly arched ( Fig. 18View FIGURE 18). Lips thick with without furrows, mental lobes thick, with deep furrows, not elevated. A median interruption in lower lip. Upper lip without median incision. Processus denti- formis small, very shallow and blunt. Lower jaw rounded, without median notch. Barbels long, inner rostral barbel reaching or reach beyond base of maxillary barbel; outer one reaching to anterior margin or middle of eye. Maxillary barbel reaching beyond vertical of posterior margin of eye. Male with much longer pectoral fin than female.

holotype holotype & paratypes Standard length (mm) 47 In percent of standard length Head length 25.7 Body depth at doral-fin origin 16.7 Predorsal length 52.0 Postdorsal lenght 35.4 Preanal length 74.4 Prepelvic length 56.0 Distance between pectoral and pelvic-fin origins 29.9 Distance between pelvic and anal-fin origins 20.1 Depth of caudal peduncle 11.8 Length of caudal peduncle 15.1 Dorsal-fin base length 14.6 Anal-fin base length 10.8 Anal fin length 18.7 Pectoral-fin length 21.2 Pelvic-fin length 12.4 In percent of head length Head depth at eye 49.0 Snout length 34.7 Eye diameter 16.5 Postorbital distance 52.0 Maximum head width 68.3 Interorbital width 39.1 Inner rostral barbel 27.7 Outer rostral barbel 33.4 Mandibular barbel 41.8 Coloration. In alcohol, body yellow with a brown pattern. Flank with a coarse or fine, mottled or marbled pat- ter of irregular shaped, partly confluent blotches. Blotches on flank forming horizontal rows in some individuals. A bold, dark-brown inner axial stripe. Back without pigmentation or with dark-brown, small, roundish spots. Poorly pigmented fields between lateral midline and series of blotches absent. No or a short dark brown bar at posterior extremity of caudal peduncle. Belly and ventral surface of head cream and belly pale yellow without brown blotches. Cheeks and head above cheeks with many small brown dots. Dorsal- and caudal-fin rays with many elongated blotches, forming 3–4 dark vertical rows in caudal fin in most individuals. Margin of dorsal and caudal fins hyaline. Anal-, pelvic- and pectoral fins hyaline or with brown dots or blotches on rays.

In life, body silvery or yellowish with dark-brown pattern. Without inner axial stripe.

Etymology. Named for Tuğba (Tuba) Kaya, beloved wife of Cüneyt Kaya (the second author), for her endless patience and support with him and his work. A noun in the genitive case, indeclinable.

Distribution. Seminemacheilus tubae  has been found in Lake Beyş e hir basin, where it seems to be quite rare as well as in the Göksu River drainage, which belongs to the Mediterranean basin.

Remarks. Based on DNA barcoding S. tubae  is well separated from all other species of Seminemacheilus  , and by a minimum K2P distance of 3.1% to S. ekmekciae  . It is supported as a distinct species by the PTP approach, but not by the mPTP delimitation. While we were waiting for the proofs of our study, Çiçek (2020) described the Seminemacheilus  species from the Mediterranean Göksu River drainage as S. dursunavsari  . It has escaped the attention of the author, reviewers and editor, that Article 16.4. of the International Code for Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN, 1999) requires that the fixation of name- bearing types for a new species to be explicit: “ Every new specific and subspecific name published after 1999, except a new replacement name…, must be accompanied in the original publication 16.4.1. by the explicit fixation of a holotype,… and 16.4.2. where the holotype or syntypes are extant specimens, by a statement of intent that they will be (or are) deposited in a collection and a statement indicating the name and location of that collection.” That means that for species described after 1999, the holotype must be finally deposited in a collection and it is obligatory to indicate the name of the collection and where it is located. When Çiçek (2020) described Seminemacheilus dursunavsari  , he designated “ NUIC-1811” as the holotype of this new species. It was not mentioned in his publication, which collection NUIC might be and where this collection is located. This makes the holotype of S. dursunavsari  invalid as it does not fulfil the requirements of Article 16.4.2, mentioned above. Therefore, the name S. dursunavsari Çiçek, 2020  is not available from the original description. Seminemacheilus dursunavsari  is only distinguished from S. tubae  by a minimum K2P distance of 0.3%, and we find no morphological characters distinguishing S. dursunavsari  from S. tubae  based on the study by Çiçek (2020). Therefore, we identify the Seminemacheilus  species of the Göksu River drainage as S. tubae  .

ZFMK

Zoologisches Forschungsmuseum Alexander Koenig

MT

Mus. Tinro, Vladyvostok

Kingdom

Animalia

Phylum

Chordata

Class

Actinopterygii

Order

Cypriniformes

Family

Nemacheilidae

Genus

Seminemacheilus

Loc

Seminemacheilus tubae

Yoğurtçuoğlu, Baran, Kaya, Cüneyt, Geiger, Matthias F. & Freyhof, Jörg 2020
2020
Loc

Seminemacheilus dursunavsari Çiçek, 2020:69

Cicek 2020: 69
2020