Leucos panosi ( Bogutskaya & Iliadou, 2006 )

Bianco, Pier Giorgio & Ketmaier, Valerio, 2014, A revision of the Rutilus complex from Mediterranean Europe with description of a new genus, Sarmarutilus, and a new species, Rutilus stoumboudae (Teleostei: Cyprinidae), Zootaxa 3841 (3), pp. 379-402 : 391

Leucos panosi ( Bogutskaya & Iliadou, 2006)

( Fig. 2 D)

Rutilus panosi Bogutskaya & Iliadou, 2006: 283 (type localities rivers Achelos and Louros, western Greece).

Examined materials. IZA 0 416, 7, Greece, L. Trichonis; P.G. Bianco, 25 April 1987.— IZA 8766, Greece, canal emissary of L. Trichonis, P.G. Bianco, 1 May 1987.— IZA 0 417, Greece, L. Trichonis, P.G. Bianco, 10 August 1998.— IZA 85513, 28, Greece, L. Ambrakia, P.G. Bianco, 30 April 1984.— IZA 83108B, 27, Greece, L. Joannina (introduced), P.G. Bianco, 23 February 1976.

Diagnosis. A species of Leucos characterized by moderate size, not exceeding 160–170 mm SL, usually 120–140 mm SL; absence of a mid-lateral band; peritoneal membrane blackened by dense melanophores. Leucos panosi is quite similar to L. ylikiensis from which it differs mostly for the number of total GR, usually 18–20 in L. ylikiensis and 13–14 in L. panosi . It may be distinguished from L. basak for the number of LL scales, usually 42–43 as against 36–38 in L. basak . It may be distinguished from L. aula for the absence of lateral band and the color of the peritoneal membrane, black in L. panosi and silvery in L. aula . It differs from all other species of Leucos for the high number of total GR, usually 13–14 in L. panosi and 8–10 in all others, excepted L. ylikiensis that has a higher number of total GR, usually 18–20. The closest species, both on geographical distribution and molecular grounds ( Fig. 1 B) is L. ylikiensis from western Greece.

Description. Body uniformly silvery without longitudinal band; color of eye in living fish, yellowish; fins yellowish or pale grayish in preserved specimens; a triangular pale, crescent spots at insertion of each scale of the body; snout pointed; pre-orbital distance near equal to the horizontal diameter of the eye; lips smooth; mouth terminal, or slightly inferior, its opening oblique; the corner of maxillae at the same level or slightly overpass the vertical crossing the anterior border of the orbit; profile of dorsum convex, slightly humped; paired and unpaired fins yellowish with few scattered melanophores; free margin of dorsal and anal fin concave; caudal fin moderately forked; peritoneal membrane blackened by several dense and fused melanophores; head length about 4.2–4.6 times in SL; body deep about 2.8–3.2 times in the SL; origin of the D placed slightly above the vertical crossing the insertion of the P2; LL complete, and extending from the margin of opercular membrane, to the end of caudal peduncle; 39–45 pored scales, usually 42–43; 7.5 above and 3.5 below the LL; 14 circum-peduncular scales; constantly 3 un-branched rays followed by 9 branched rays in the D; constantly 3 un-branched and usually 8 branched rays in the anal fin; P1 with 1 un-branched and 14–16 branched rays; P2 with 1 un-branched ray and constantly 8 branched rays; 12–16 total GR; fine granular tubercles on head and checks has been observed in adult reproductive males. For additional description and shape, see Fig. 2 D and Tables 1, 2.

Distribution. The species was reported for the Acheloos, and Louros river-systems in western Greece ( Bogutskaya & Iliadou, 2006). The species was found also in lakes Trichonis and Ambrakia. Leucos panosi was introduced in Lake Joannina, ( Leonardos et al., 2008), where it coexists with the introduced Rutilus rutilus .

Remarks on ecology, biology and conservation. A still-water adapted species. In fish communities, Leucos panosi tends to become dominant and invasive in lakes while it is quite rare in the flowing part of rivers Louros and Acheloos, (P.G. Bianco, pers. obs.). Spawners have been collected in February suggesting that the reproductive season may start at the end of January and extend possibly until March–April. The species is classified as of “Low Concern” among the IUCN (2013) categories.

Figures

FIGURE 2. Native species of the Rutilus complex in southern Mediterranean Europe: A) Leucos aula, 115 mm SL, R. Bacchiglione, northern Italy, April 1996 (IZA 0425); B) Leucos basak, 95 mm SL, Lake Ohrid, FYROM, August 1987, (IZA 0429); C) Leucos ylikiensis, 120 mm SL, Lake Yliki, April 1987 (IZA 8733); D) Leucos panosi, 130 mm SL, canal to Lake Trichonis, May 1987 (IZA 8766); E) Leucos albus, 98 mm SL, River Moraca, Montenegro, November 1999 (IZA 0421); F) Sarmarutilus rubilio, 100 mm SL, River Ofanto, southern Italy, February 2002 (IZA 02183); G) Rutilus pigus, 230 mm SL, Lake Major, northern Italy, (IZA 0474); H) Holotype of Rutilus stoumboudae new species, 148 mm SL, October 1998, Lake Volvi, Greece (IZA 02107).

FIGURE 1. A) Collecting localities (L. = lakes, R. = rivers) of Rutilus complex species. 1, R. Thames; 2, R. Danube (Slovakia); 3, R. Danube (Romania); 4, L. Como; 5, L. Maggiore; 6, R. Arno and R. Serchio; 7, R. Albegna and R. Cecina; 8, R. Ombrone and R. Fiora; 9, R. Tiber and R. Mignone; 10, L. Trasimeno; 11, R. Liri and R. Garigliano; 12, R. Volturno and R. Sele; 13, R. Pescara and R. Tavo; 14, R. Trigno; 15, R. Tronto; 16, R. Livenza; 17, L. Pernica; 18, R. Sava; 19, L. Drusino; 20, R. Krupa (R. Neretva basin); 21, L. Besanka (R. Neretva basin); 22, R. Moraca and R. Zeta; 23, L. Skadar; 24, L. Dojran; 25, L. Horid; 26, L. Prespa and L. Micraprespa; 27, L. Vegoritis; 28, L. Volvi; 29, L. Joannina; 30, L. Yliki and L. Paralimni; 31, L. Ambrakia; 32, L. Trichonis. Bold numbers are the different peri-Mediterranean ichthyogeographic districts described in Bianco (1990). B) A schematic temporal reconstruction of the diversification of the genus in southern Mediterranean Europe based on cyt- b is shown (modified from Ketmaier et al., 2008). For each taxon the corresponding number of the district of origin is shown; triangles indicate that multiple populations were analyzed. Numbers at nodes are divergence times in million years; all labeled nodes were robustly supported in the phylogenetic reconstructions (see Ketmaier et al., 2008 for further details).