Rocio ocotal , Juan J. Schmitter-Soto, 2007

Juan J. Schmitter-Soto, 2007, A systematic revision of the genus Archocentrus (Perciformes: Cichlidae), with the description of two new genera and six new species., Zootaxa 1603, pp. 1-78: 59-61

publication ID

z01603p001

publication LSID

lsid:zoobank.org:pub:AFFCB590-1FC7-4CD0-950C-D1D1A6E59F6C

persistent identifier

http://treatment.plazi.org/id/C614F1F1-8CF4-A5BD-44EC-6EF2BD1765BE

treatment provided by

Thomas

scientific name

Rocio ocotal
status

new species

Rocio ocotal  , new species

Figures 22, 25

Cichlasoma (Parapetenia)  sp., Miller 1957: 241 (preliminary detection).

Cichlasoma octofasciatum  (part. et non Regan), Stawikowski & Werner 1998 (misidentification).

Holotype. UMMZ 245583, 70 mm SL (Fig. 25), R. A. Paynter, Jul. 21, 1954. Laguna Ocotal, “Lacandona region,” Chiapas, Mexico. 

Paratypes. UMMZ 171140 (5, 49-96 mm SL). Paratopotypes. 

Diagnosis. No unique autapomorphies, but distinguished from the other Rocio  species as follows: abdomen reddish in life (Miller 1957, Stawikowski & Werner 1998) (vs. whitish-greyish); pelvic fins usually falling short of anal-fin origin (vs. nearly always reaching caudad beyond 1st or 2nd anal-fin spine); lingual cusp in lower symphysial teeth absent (vs. usually present); isolated secondary pores (i.e., in addition to the pored scales on the extended caudal fin) present (vs. none or sporadic); spots on scales on side of body absent (vs. present); dentary pores 4 or 5 (vs. always 4) (fig. 16 in Schmitter-Soto, in press).

Description. D. XVIII-XIX,9-10; A. VIII-IX,6-9, modally 7; pectoral 16. Gill rakers elongated, pointed or digitiform. Scales cycloid on shoulder (rostrad to origin of dorsal fin, dorsad to base of pectoral fin). Scale rows on cheek modally 5; predorsal scales modally 14; pored lateral-line scales (not counting scales overlapping between the two segments of the lateral line) 29-30; scales from lateral line to origin of dorsal fin 3.5- 4.5; scales from lateral line to base of first dorsal-fin ray 2.5-3.5 (additional meristic data appear in Table 3).

Largest specimen examined, 96 mm SL. Body usually slender, depth 41-46% of SL. Head length 35-41% of SL; orbital diameter 21-23% of head length (further morphometric data appear in Table 4). Head profile convex, straight above orbits. Maxilla reaching only a horizontal line, not a vertical, from orbit. Corners of lower lip straight, not curved downward, tapering, rounded. Sometimes five instead of four dentary pores.

Pectoral and pelvic fins often falling short of first anal-fin spine. Filamentous rays of dorsal fin to midcaudal fin. Scales between between dorsal fin rays, distally in two rows, up to 5 scales long.

Gut simple, anal and anterior esophageal loops adjacent; gut length shorter than standard length of fish; distance from last loop in gut to esophagus always less than 16%. Genital papilla a little longer than broad, rounded, sunk, cylindrical, erect, somewhat crenulate at tip; pigmented just in basal half and margins.

Stripe from snout to eye diffuse or absent. Eyes reddish. Bars on sides rather indistinct, especially in two almost completely black specimens. Lateral blotch rather rounded. 12-16 rows of light spots on sides, centered in each scale, not always visible; breast region bronze-yellowish or blackish. No clear dots or streaks on anal fin. Axil of pectoral fin with same coloration as breast or dusky; base of pectoral fin pale; isolated melanophores on pectoral ray inner (posterior) bases. Abdomen reddish in life (Stawikowski & Werner 1998).

Distribution. Probably endemic to Laguna Ocotal, a rather isolated, highland water body in the Lacantún- Usumacinta drainage, Chiapas, Mexico (Fig. 22-pictures in Miller 1957).

Etymology. From the Spanish “ ocotal,” meaning “an ocote forest,” “ ocote ” being a species of Pinus  ; the name of the lake where the species lives. A noun in apposition.

Remarks. The view that the Ocotal population is in fact a new species was already expressed nearly 50 years ago (Miller 1957). This is one of the many species in several families that the late Dr. Miller detected as new, but did not get to describe (Hendrickson et al. 2002).