Salminus affinis Steindachner, 1880

Lima, Flávio C. T., 2022, Revision of the smaller-sized dorados (Salminus), with comments on the monophyly of the genus and its biogeography (Characiformes: Bryconidae), Zootaxa 5226 (1), pp. 1-66 : 11-17

Salminus affinis Steindachner, 1880

( Figs. 5–6 )

Salminus affinis Steindachner, 1880: 80–82 [28–30], pl. 7 (fig. 2) (type locality: “...aus dem Cauca und dessen Nebenfļssen zunächst Cáceres...”) [ Colombia, Depto. Antioquia, río Cauca]; Eigenmann, 1916: 92 ( Colombia, río Magdalena at Honda; diagnosis in key); Eigenmann, 1922: 158 (in part; same material as Eigenmann, 1916); Miles, 1943: 15 (as purportedly absent from the upper río Cauca, Colombia); Miles, 1947: 167, fig. 119 (río Magdalena, Colombia; common names, fishery); Dahl, 1971: 120–121 (río Magdalena, Colombia; common names, size, ecology, fishery); Géry & Lauzanne, 1990: 121– 123 (in part; syntypes; lectotype designation); Román-Valencia et al., 1999: 166, 168 (occurrence, upper río Cauca basin, Colombia); Lehmann & Álvarez-León, 2002: 178–180 (brief description, geographical distribution, ecology, conservation status); Lima et al., 2003: 156 (distribution, common names); Maldonado-Ocampo et al., 2005: 78, 257 (fig. 79) (common names, brief description, habitat preferences, río Cauca basin, Colombia); Mojica et al., 2006: 135, 139 (occurrence, río Ranchería basin, Colombia); Ortega-Lara et al., 2006: 46 (upper río Cauca, Colombia; occurrence); Maldonado-Ocampo et al., 2008: 173 (in part; listed, Colombia, Magdalena / Cauca and caribbean basins); Olaya Nieto et al., 2008: 1349–1359 (length-weight relationship, río Sinú basin, Colombia); Lehmann et al., 2009: 285–286 (distribution, ecological notes, conservation status); Jiménez-Segura et al., 2010: 180–181 (presence and seasonality of larvae, middle río Magdalena basin, Colombia); Jiménez-Segura et al., 2011: 249–252 (in part; río Magdalena, río Sinú, and río Rancheria basins, Colombia; photo, short description, distribution, habitat, reproduction, migrations, fisheries); Lehmann & Álvarez-León, 2012: 181–183 (brief description, geographical distribution, ecology, conservation status); Usma-Oviedo et al., 2013: 288–289 (río Magdalena, río Sinú, and río Rancheria basins, Colombia; photo, short description, distribution, habitat, reproduction, migrations, fisheries); Abe et al., 2014: 3, 8–12 (río Cauca, Antioquia, Colombia; phylogenetic relationships, biogeography); Zuluaga-Gómez et al., 2014: 1078 (length-weight relationship, río Cauca, Colombia); Gutiérrez-C. & Pinilla-A., 2016: 305 (presence in floodplain lagoons, middle río Magdalena basin, Colombia); Jiménez-Segura et al., 2016: 89 (mean length at first maturation, fecundity, maximum size); López-Casas et al., 2016: 160–165 (middle río Magdalena basin; migrations); DoNascimiento et al., 2017: 63 (listed, Colombia, Magdalena / Cauca and Caribbean basins); García-Alzate et al., 2020: 105, 112 ( Colombia, distribution across the río Magdalena basin; photo); Gómez et al., 2020: 33–34, 38 (occurrence, Colombia, río Magdalena basin, río Manso, trib. río La Miel); Jiménez-Segura et al., 2020: 170, 201 ( Colombia, río Magdalena basin; impact of hydroelectric dams, synthesis on life history); Escobar Lizarazo et al., 2021: 70, 121–122 ( Colombia, Departamento Santander, lower río Sogamoso, río Magdalena basin; photo, synthesis on life history); Lasso et al., 2021: 146–149 ( Colombia, río Magdalena basin; diagnosis, photo in life, distribution, recreational fisheries).

[Not Eigenmann, 1922: 158; Eigenmann & Allen, 1942: 260; Ortega et al., 1977: 14, 37, pl. IIC; Ortega & Vari, 1986: 9; Barriga, 1991: 27; Ortega, 1996: 467; Chang, 1998: 23; Chernoff et al., 2000: 280; Goulding et al., 2003: 138; Diaz-Sarmiento & Alvarez-Léon, 2003: 313; Bogotá-Gregory & Maldonado-Ocampo, 2006: 69; Renjifo, 2007: 198, 200; Ortega et al., 2011: 37; Barriga, 2012: 108; Usma-Oviedo et al., 2016: 113; Meza-Vargas et al., 2021: 20] [Uncertain record: Boulenger, 1898: 4 ( Ecuador, río Santíago); see text]

Diagnosis. Salminus affinis can be distinguished from all congeners by lacking entirely a central caudal-fin extension (vs. central caudal-fin extension present in all remaining Salminus species, especially developed in S. brasiliensis , S. franciscanus and in some specimens of S. iquitensis ). Salminus affinis can be additionally distinguished from all congeners except S. iquitensis and S. santosi , by the presence of a dark, straight postorbital stripe extending across the contact area between infraorbitals 4 and 5 to upper portion of opercle (vs. absence of postorbital stripe in S. brasiliensis , S. hilarii , and S. franciscanus ). Salminus affinis can be additionally diagnosed from S. iquitensis and S. santosi , by lacking the numerous tiny stripes concentrated at the middle and central portions of caudal fin (vs. presence). Salminus affinis can be additionally diagnosed from S. brasiliensis by presenting considerably lower scale counts, i.e., lateral line (64–81, modally 71, vs. 79–102, modally 96), and horizontal between dorsal-fin origin and lateral line (11–13, modally 12, vs. 14–18, modally 16), and by possessing color in life mainly silvery, with golden pigmentation restricted to facial bones and underside (vs. overall color in living specimens golden). Salminus affinis can be additionally diagnosed from S. franciscanus by presenting second dentary tooth in the outer tooth series roughly of the same size as the remaining teeth (vs. second dentary tooth in the outer tooth series considerably larger than remaining dentary teeth).

Description. Morphometric data presented in Table 1 . Large-sized species, larger specimen examined 554.0 mm SL. Body elongated, slightly higher in specimens larger than 500 mm SL. Largest body height at level of dorsalfin origin. Dorsal profile slightly convex from snout tip to vertical through anterior nostril, straight to slightly concave from later point to tip of supraoccipital process, slightly convex from later point to dorsal-fin origin, straight along dorsal-fin basis, and slightly convex from dorsal-fin terminus to adipose-fin origin. Dorsal profile of caudal peduncle slightly concave. Ventral profile slightly convex from tip of lower jaw to pelvic-fin insertion, straight to slightly convex from later point to anal-fin origin, and approximately straight along anal-fin basis. Ventral profile of caudal peduncle slightly concave.

Head profile acute anteriorly (more so in specimens <300 mm SL), mouth terminal. Maxillary elongated, extending posteriorly slightly beyond vertical through posterior eye margin. Adipose eyelid well developed. Premaxilla with two teeth rows. Teeth of outer row teeth considerably larger than those of inner series other than for second tooth of inner row. Outer row with 6–11 teeth, approximately equal in size; teeth with distinct, elongate basal portion (shaft), and apical portion (crown). Crown triangular, angles possibly constituting poorly differentiated cusps. Inner tooth row with 7–16 teeth, symphyseal tooth relatively large, second tooth slightly smaller, third and subsequent teeth considerably smaller. Teeth of inner row morphologically similar to those from outer row, except for proportionally shorter shafts and being more massive overall. Middle portion of ventral margin of maxilla slightly concave. Maxilla with 23–49 teeth, similar in shape to those from outer row of premaxilla, but slightly smaller and decreasing very gradually in size posteriorly, with less developed crowns, last teeth roughly conical. Dentary with 20–41 teeth on primary, outer row, morphologically similar to those from outer row in premaxilla, and other than first to third teeth, slightly smaller than those on premaxilla (considerably larger in some specimens, e.g., MZUSP 35636, MZUSP 42202). Remaining teeth gradually decreasing in size and presenting less developed crowns. Teeth of outer dentary row, outer premaxilla row, and maxilla with crowns slightly recurved lingually. Inner tooth row with 53–62 conical teeth arranged continuously from symphysis to terminus of inner rim of replacement teeth trench. Teeth at inner row oriented at right angle relative to teeth of primary row, with apices directed lingually.

Scales cycloid. Lateral line complete, extending from supracleithrum to caudal-fin base. Lateral line scales 64(1), 66(1), 68(2), 69(7), 70(5), 71(10), 72(4), 73(5), 74*(6), 75(4), 76(3), 77(2), 79(2), or 81(1). Laterosensory tubes simple, straight or deflected downward. Horizontal scale series between dorsal-fin origin and lateral line 11(7), 12*(40), or 13(6). Horizontal scale series between lateral line and pelvic fin insertion 5(8), 6*(24), or 7(14). Circumpeduncular scales 22(6), 23*(15), 24(11), 25(13), 26(7), or 27(1).

Dorsal-fin rays ii, 9, exceptionally ii, 7(1) or ii, 10*(1). Dorsal-fin origin approximately midway between snout and hypural joint. First dorsal-fin pterygiophore inserting behind neural spine of 14 th (1) or 15 th (2) vertebrae. Anal fin rays iv, 21(3), 22(10), 23*(24), 24(11), 25(4), or 27(1). First anal-fin pterygiophore inserting behind hemal spine of 25 th (1) or 26 th (2) vertebrae. Last unbranched rays and first to second branched anal-fin rays longer; third to ninth ray gradually shortening, with remaining rays approximately equal in size. Pectoral fin-rays i, 12(5), 13*(38), or 14(7). Pelvic-fin rays i, 7. Principal caudal-fin rays 10/9. Anal fin with small hooks along last unbranched ray and anteriormost 16 th –17 th branched anal-fin rays in 8 specimens (CIUA 970, 279.0 mm SL; CIUA 3337, 285.0 mm SL; MHNUC-IC- 835, 296 mm SL; NMW 78042.1–3, 257– 325 mm SL; CAS 79269, 368.3 mm SL; IAvH-P 7848, 250.0 mm SL). Hooks limited to posterior branch of ray. Pelvic fins with hooks on branched rays 1–6 of same specimens, limited to posterior branch of ray. Scales sheath composed of two horizontal series covering basal portion of anal-fin rays. Caudal fin moderately forked to slightly emarginated. Laterosensory tube on caudal fin extending to caudal-fin terminus, with dorsally and ventrally oriented side branches along its length. Central caudal-fin extension absent.

Four branchiostegal rays. First gill arch with 12(1), 14(3), or 15(1) lower gill-rakers, 12(1), 13(2), 14(1), or 16(1) upper gill rakers and 1 at angle. Vertebrae 48(3). Supraneurals 11(3).

Color in alcohol. Overall color of specimens still retaining guanine grey dorsally, with plumbeous tint. Top of head (including supraorbital and infraorbitals 4–5), snout and anterior portion of maxilla brown; remaining infraorbitals and opercle silvery. Maxilla, gular area and dentary light brown. Dark postorbital stripe approximately straight, extending from contact area between infraorbitals 4–5 to upper portion of opercle, formed by concentration of small dark chromatophores, variously developed but always present. Sides of body clear, with silvery hue, dark grey dorsally. Humeral blotch present, little conspicuous, oval-shaped, horizontally elongated, formed by pigmentation subjacent to scales, lying immediately above lateral line, at level of second to fourth scales. Narrow, straight dark stripes extending along trunk, formed by dark chromatophores concentrated at central-distal portion of each scale. Stripes present across all trunk, more conspicuous dorsally. Broad dark stripe across caudal peduncle, starting at vertical through immediately behind adipose fin, and gradually broadening towards caudal-peduncle terminus. Caudal-peduncle stripe extending into distal portion of four middle caudal-fin rays. Anal, dorsal, pelvics, pectorals, and adipose fins clear, with few, scattered dark chromatophores. Specimens which lost guanine pigmentation as a result of long storage in formalin with overall color brown, lacking silvery pigmentation on sides of body, infraorbitals, or opercle.

Color in life. Description based on living specimens caught at the río Magdalena and from río Rancheria basins, provided by A. Linares and C. Vanegas, and also on a photo published by Escobar Lizarazo et al. (2021: 121). Sides of body clear, with silvery hue; dorsum grey. Golden-yellow pigmentation on facial bones and opercle. Some specimens with ventral area also suffused with golden-yellow pigmentation. Caudal fin red at fin lobes, yellow at basis. Dorsal, anal, pectorals, pelvics, and adipose fin orangish to reddish. Dark markings as in preserved specimens except that some longitudinal stripes with orangish to reddish pigmentation ( Fig. 6 ).

Sexual dimorphism. As described in the Description, fin hooks are present at pelvic and anal fins of mature males (CIUA 970, 279.0 mm SL; CIUA 3337, 285.0 mm SL; NMW 78042.1–3, 257– 325 mm SL; MHNUC-IC- 835, 296 mm SL; CAS 79269, 368.3 mm SL; IAvH-P 7848, 250.0 mm SL). Females grow larger than males, as exemplified by the three females from the type series (NMW 77149, 2, 506.6– 554 mm SL; NMW 56855, 460 mm SL; the last one presenting ripe oocytes), and as confirmed in field studies ( Olaya-Nieto et al., 2008). The sexual dimorphism in the species was earlier noticed by Steindachner (1880: 80, 82).

Common names: Colombia: “dorada”, “picuda”, “picuda de río”, “rayada”, “rubia”, “rubio”, “salmón” ( Dahl, 1971; Lehmann et al., 2012).

Distribution. Salminus affinis is known from the río Magdalena, río Sinú, and río Rancheria basins, Colombia ( Fig. 7 ).

Ecology, conservation. Salminus affinis is widespread at the río Magdalena basin and tributaries, occurring from the lowlands to at least 1,100 m a.sl. ( Ortega-Lara et al., 2006). The species favors clear-water, fast-flowing rivers, but also occurs at the mouth of smaller tributaries ( Dahl, 1971; Lehmann & Álvarez-León, 2002, 2012) or ciénagas (floodplains lakes) (Gutiérrez-C. & Pinilla-A., 2016). It is a carnivore, with small Characidae and terrestrial insects being recorded in gut contents (Lehmann & Álvarez-León, 2002, 2012), but typically being considered as primarily ichthyophagous when adult (e.g., Escobar Lizarazo et al., 2021).At the río Cauca basin, specimens of S. affinis presented ripe gonads at the beginning of the second rainy season, reaching the peak of gonadal development in November (Lehmann & Álvarez-León, 2002, 2012). Dahl (1971) reported finding juveniles in early February and supposed that spawning happened between December and January. Jiménez-Segura et al. (2010: 181) reported that larvae of S. affinis were rare at the middle Río Magdalena and were only found at the beginning of the first (May) and second (October) flooding seasons. At the río Sinú basin, the species is reported to spawn from March to September ( Olaya-Nieto et al., 2008). The río Magdalena has a bimodal hydrological cycle and as a result migratory fishes have two spawning seasons in the basin ( López-Casas et al., 2016), contrasting with the more common pattern of a single flood season/single spawning season found in the río Sinú basin (S. López-Casas, pers. comm.). Salminus affinis joins a general upstream fish migration during the low water season known as “la subienda” (Lehmann & ÁlvarezLeón, 2002, 2012). Specimens tagged at the middle río Magdalena basin were reported to travel between 24–130 km between tagging and recapture sites ( López-Casas et al., 2016). Mean length at first maturation is recorded as 35 cm TL ( Jiménez-Segura et al., 2016). The species is reported to reach 1 m TL and 10 kg ( Dahl, 1971), but the largest specimen reported during recent surveys, captured at the reservoir of the La Miel hydroelectric plant (río La Miel, departamento Caldas), measured 71 cm SL and weighted 1.5 kg (S. López-Casas, pers. comm.). Salminus affinis is an important target of both commercial and recreational fisheries (see Lasso et al., 2011), but its populations are decreasing across its range due to several anthropogenic impacts, more notably hydroelectric dams, overfishing, and water pollution ( Lehmann et al., 2009; Lehmann & Álvarez-León, 2012; Olaya Nieto et al., 2008).

Remarks. In the original description of Salminus affinis, Steindachner (1880: 80–84) , noticed that the species was similar to S. cuvieri (= S. franciscanus ), especially on scale counts, being distinguished by the absence of a well-developed dentary “Hundszahnes” (“canine teeth”), and the lack of a central extension of the caudal fin, both of which are present in the latter species. Subsequently, Eigenmann (1916) diagnosed Salminus affinis from S. hilarii and S. brevidens (= Salminus franciscanus ) solely by scale counts. The diagnosis presented by Eigenmann (1916) was somewhat unconvicing already at the time of its publication since the counts presented by him for S. affinis (73) was very close to the range of S. hilarii (66–72) and S. franciscanus (77–79). Géry & Lauzanne (1990) were the sole subsequent authors that had provided any additional information on the taxonomy of the species. Géry & Lauzanne (1990) listed a smaller maxillary, dorsal fin more backward-positioned, the absence of the central caudal-fin extension, and the small development of the second dentary teeth as putative diagnostic characters between S. affinis and S. franciscanus [cited by these authors as “ Salminus sp. ( S. cuvieri et S. brevidens auct.)”]. However, neither the predorsal distance (46.9–55.8 % in SL, mean 51.7 in Salminus affinis , vs. 48.0–54.2 %, mean 50.8 in Salminus franciscanus ) nor the upper jaw length (48.0–59.0 % in HL, mean 54.1, vs. 49.3–63.8 %, mean 54.4, respectively) are truly distinct between both species. The only truly diagnostic characters between S. affinis and S. franciscanus mentioned by Géry & Lauzanne (1990) are the ones that were already previously mentioned by Steindachner (1880: 80), i.e., the absence of the central caudal-fin extension, and the small development of the second dentary teeth (see also Lima & Britski, 2007). Salminus affinis is the only species in the genus that completely lacks the central extension of the middle caudal-fin rays. The second dentary tooth in S. affinis is only slightly larger than the first and the subsequent dentary teeth, a condition very distinct from the one present in S. franciscanus , where the second dentary tooth is noticeably larger than the remaining dentary teeth (see Lima & Britski, 2007). Both species can additionally be distinguished by the absence of the postorbital dark stripe in S. franciscanus .

The most similar congeners to Salminus affinis are S. iquitensis and S. santosi . Salminus iquitensis also is the geographically closer congener, since it occurs in the cis-andean basin (río Orinoco basin) immediately to the east from the trans-andean river basins inhabited by S. affinis . Both facts certainly helped to induce several authors to misidentify specimens of S. iquitensis as S. affinis (see item “Remarks” of S. iquitensis , below). Salminus affinis largely overlap in all morphometric and meristic features with S. iquitensis and S. santosi . However, as noticed in the “Diagnosis”, above, it can be diagnosed from both species by lacking the numerous tiny stripes concentrated at the middle and central portions of caudal fin present in S. iquitensis and S. santosi , and also by lacking entirely the central caudal-fin extension, which is present in both S. iquitensis and S. santosi .

Boulenger (1898) recorded Salminus affinis for the río Santiago, a coastal river system from Ecuador, based on a specimen deposited at the MZUT collection. There is no other record for any Salminus from trans-andean rivers in Ecuador, the only species of the genus recorded from that country being S. iquitensis , at the Amazon basin. Unfortunately, we were unable to examine the specimen cited by Boulenger (1898) but given the lack of any additional records of the genus for the trans-andean basins in Ecuador or the rivers draining into the Pacific Ocean in the Chocó region of Colombia immediately to the north, we consider this record doubtful and probably based on incorrect locality data.

Material examined. Type material. NMW 78042.2 (1, 276.0 mm SL), “Cauca, 1880” (= Colombia, Depto. Antioquia, río Cauca , near Cáceres , c. 7º35′N, 75º21′W; T. Grosskopf, 1878–1879, cf. Steindachner, 1880: 55); lectotype of Salminus affinis Steindachner (designated by Géry & Lauzanne, 1990: 123). NMW 78042.1 (325.0 mm SL); NMW 78042.3 (257.0 mm SL), paralectotypes; same data as lectotype. NMW 77149 (2, 506.6–554.0 mm SL); NMW 56855 (1, 460.0 mm SL), paralectotypes, same locality and collector as lectotype, December 1876.

Non types. Colombia. Río Magdalena basin. Depto. Cauca: MHNUC-IC-855 (1, 296.0 mm SL), Santander de Quilichao, río Cauca, bridge Guillermo Valencia , 3º12′19′′N, 76º29′39′′W; P. Lehmann, 3 Jan 2005. Depto. Tolima: CAS 79269 (1, 368.3 mm SL) ; FMNH 59330 (1, 445.0 mm SL) ; FMNH 59331 (1, 510.0 mm SL), río Magdalena at Honda , 5º12′N, 74º44′W; C.H. Eigenmann, 27–30 Jan 1912 . IAvH-P 8602 (1, 383.0 mm SL), río Magdalena at Honda , c. 5º12′N, 74º44′W; M.H. Sabaj, 27 Sept 2006 . Depto. Caldas: CAS ( SU) 50415 (1, 446.3 mm SL) ; CAS ( SU) 50416 (1, 302.0 mm SL), near junction of río Samana and río La Miel, near La Dorada , 5º42′6′′N, 74º44′16′′W; T. D. White, J.N. Reynolds & L. Wulff, 27 Feb 1957 . Depto. Antioquia: CZUT-IC 17777 (1, 242.8 mm SL), San Luis, río Dormillon (trib. río Samaná ), 6º0′0′′N, 74º56′22′′W; J.G. Albornoz-Garzón, 6 May 2017 . CIUA 970 (2, 267– 279 mm SL), Sonsón, río Samaná Sur (río Magdalena basin), 5º41′46′′N, 74º47′00′′W; J.G. Ospina Pábon, 28 Aug 2008 . CIUA 4268 (1, 360 mm SL), Puerto Berrío , río Magdalena, 6º29′26′′N, 74º24′17′′W; L.F. Jiménez-Segura, 8 July 2015 . CIUA 5522 (1, 264.0 mm SL), Puerto Nare, río Nare , 6º2′36′′N, 74º36′19′′W; N. Lujan et al., 7 Jul 2019 . CIUA 5836 (1, 90.8 mm SL), San Jacinto del Cauca, Ciénaga Culebras (río Cauca basin), 8º20′16′′N 74º32′21′′W; E. Parra et al., 10 Aug 2019 . CIUA 6066 (4, 207.0–240.0 mm SL), Caucasia, Ciénaga Margento (río Cauca basin), 8º1′17′′N, 74º58′5′′W; E. Parra et al., 13 Aug 2019 . CIUA 5834 (1, 230.0 mm SL), Ituango, Quebrada La Guamera (río Cauca basin), 7º14′58′′N, 75º26′43′′W; E. Parra, D. Nieto & E. Ríos, 10 Aug 2019 . CIUA 6357 (1, 240.0 mm SL) ; CIUA 6648 (1, 243.0 mm SL), Ituango, río Ituango (lower section), 7º8′54′′N, 75º40′16′′W; J. Londõno et al., Oct–Nov 2019 . CIUA 6059 (1, 230.0 mm SL), Valdivia, río Pescado (río Cauca basin), 7º21′20′′N 75º20′20′′W; E. Parra et al., 10 Aug 2019 . CIUA 6469 (1, 185.0 mm SL), Valdivia , río Cauca, 7º21′2′′N, 75º20′17′′W; E. Parra et al., 6 Oct 2019 . Depto. Córdoba: IAvH-P 7848 (4, 205.0–250.0 mm SL), San José de Uré, río Uré , c. 7º47′N, 75º32′W; R. Camacho , Feb 1961 . MZUSP 42202 (1, 149.8 mm SL), Montelíbano, río Uré (trib. río San Jorge ), c. 7º56′N, 75º31′W; L.A. Uran, 15 Jan 1985 . Depto. Bolívar : CIUA 1077 (1, 89.1 mm SL), San Pablo, ciénaga Tabacurú , 7º28′26′′N, 73º53′56′′W; F. Alvarez et al., 25 Nov 2008 . CIUA 6780 (1, 225.0 mm SL) ; CIUA 6966 (1, 224.0 mm SL), San Jacinto del Cauca, La Raya, ciénaga Ciritongo (río Cauca basin), 8º18′40′′N, 74º32′46′′W; E. Parra, D. Nieto & E. Ríos, Nov–Dec 2019 . CIUA 6551 (2, 206.0–238.0 mm SL), Montecristo, ciénaga La Caimanera (río Cauca basin), 8º16′25′′N, 74º29′47′′W; E. Parra et al., 28 Sept 2019 . CIUA 6945 (3, 176.0–195.0 mm SL), Montecristo, ciénaga Grande (río Cauca basin), 8º20′7′′N, 74º29′53′′W; E. Parra, 2 Dec 2019 . CIUA 6959 (1, 209.0 mm SL), Montecristo, Ciénaga Camanera (río Cauca basin), 8º16′25′′N, 74º29′47′′W; E. Parra et al., 6 Dec 2019 . CIUA 7285 (1, 200.0 mm SL), Montecristo, ciénaga La Raya (río Cauca basin), 8º19′16′′N, 74º31′20′′W; E. Parra, H. Calcedo & E. Nieto, 17 Oct 2020 . Depto. Santander: CIUA 3336 (1, 295.0 mm SL), Barrancabermeja , ciénaga El Opón, 6º54′46′′N, 73º53′54′′W; A. Gulfo, 21 Nov 2008 . CIUA 3337 (1, 285.0 mm SL), Barrancabermeja, ciénaga Chucurí , 6º50′10′′N, 74º36′36′′W; A. Gulfo, 3 Aug 2008 . Depto. Cesar: IAvH-P 7846 (1, 325.0 mm SL), Valledupar , río Cesar, c. 10º30′N, 73º16′W; J.N. Díaz, Feb 1963 . UARC 13 (1, 225.0 mm SL), Valledupar, mouth of río Badillo , Gua- cochita, 10º31′58′′N, 73º8′23′′W; M. Utria, 14 Jan 2011 . No precise locality: BMNH 1947.7.12 (1, 293.4 mm SL), “Magdalena River”; C. Miles, no date. Río Sinú basin: USNM 175306 (2, 183.0–194.0 mm SL), Depto. Córdoba, Lorica, río Sinú , 9º13′N, 75º49′W; G. Dahl, Aug 1954 . Río Ranchería basin: IAvH-P 51 (2, 177.3– 199.3 mm SL), Depto. La Guajira, Arroyo Tabaco , c. 11º9′N, 72º34′W; M. Bejarano, 26 Aug 1981 . IAvH-P 13969 (1, 140.5 mm SL), Depto. La Guajira, río Rancheria , c. 11º33′N, 72º36′W; M. Bejarano, 20 Jun 1981 . MZUSP 35636 (6, 1 c&s, 143.5–167.0 mm SL), Depto. La Guajira, río Rancheria ; A. Uran & E. Cordero, 12–14 July 1981 .

Figures

FIGURE 5. Salminus affinis: (A) lectotype, NMW 78042.2, 276.0. mm SL; Colombia, Antioquia, río Cauca; (B) paralectotype, NMW 77149, 554.0. mm SL; Colombia, Antioquia, río Cauca; (C) MHNUC-IC 835, 296 mm SL, Colombia, Cauca, río Cauca; (D) IAvH-P 51, 177.3 mm SL, Colombia, Guajira, río Rancheria.

FIGURE 6. Salminus affinis, living specimens. (A) Colombia,Antioquia, río Magdalena; (B) Colombia, Guajira, río Rancheria. Photos by A. Linares.

FIGURE 7. Map ofwestern Colombia,showing the knownlocalities of Salminusaffinis (red dots; red star indicatestype-locality).