Cryptoheros cutteri (Fowler, 1932) , Juan J. Schmitter-Soto, 2007
treatment provided by
|Cryptoheros cutteri (Fowler, 1932)|
Cryptoheros cutteri (Fowler, 1932) , n. comb.
Figures 5, 11
Archocentrus cutteri , Allgayer 1994: 15 ( new combination).
Cryptoheros spilurus (part. et non Günther), Allgayer 2001: 14 (misidentification).
Holotype. ANSP 53930, 112 mm SL (Fig. 11), C. B. Worth, Aug. 24, 1930. Rio Lancetilla , Atlántida Dept., Honduras.
Paratypes. ANSP 53931-53933 (3, 38-108 mm SL), paratopotypes.
Diagnosis. Autapomorphy (Schmitter-Soto, in press): a wine-colored abdomen in life (in adults). Bars on sides of body with alternating intensity, the second one much lighter than first and third. Further distinguished from other species in the subgenus by arms of first epibranchial bone, which are divergent (vs. parallel); supraoccipital crest undulating (vs. straight); ventral angle of articular obtuse (vs. right-angled); absence (vs. presence) of an anteriorly directed pronounced convexity on ventral process of articular; procurrent rays of caudal fin 2 (vs. 3-4).
Description. D. XVII-XIX,9-11; A. VIII-X,7-9 (one specimen of 60 with 11 spines). Gill rakers on lower limb of first arch modally 7. Scale rows on cheek 4-6; scales from lateral line to origin of dorsal fin 4- 6 (contra Fowler 1932, who counted 7); scales from lateral line to base of first dorsal-fin ray 2.5-3.5; circumpeduncular scales modally 18 (further meristic data appear in Table 3).
Largest examined specimen, 112 mm SL. Body depth (44-54%, usually greater than 49% of SL). Head length 32-43% of SL (further morphometric data appear in Table 4). Head profile convex or straight, concave above orbits. Teeth embedded; pointed or bluntish, slightly labiolingually compressed and retrorse, bicuspid. Upper symphysial teeth subequal to adjacent teeth, not abruptly larger; lower symphysial teeth may be slightly shorter than adjacent teeth. Upper lip medially narrow; lower lip squarish or rounded at corner, its lower angle acute.
Pectoral and pelvic fins always reaching caudad beyond 2nd anal-fin spine. Filamentous rays of dorsal fin at least to mid-caudal fin. Subsidiary pored scales on caudal fin always present, occasionally forming twoscale rows; scales between dorsal fin rays distally in two rows, up to 11 scales long.
In specimens from ca. 35 mm SL and larger, gut simple with two intermediate loops; medial and anal loops twisted and directed dorsad. Peritoneum pigmented only dorsally (to half sides), mainly anteriorly; with isolated blotches posteriorly. Genital papilla rounded, as long as broad, or oval, longer than broad or broader than long; in some, the tip crenulated or notched; sunken; no pigment, except on margins, basal half, and posterior(caudal) side.
No vertical bar on head; no interorbital bands, but postorbital-nape region somewhat dark; a stripe from snout to eye, sometimes diffuse; suborbital streak straight, sharp-ended; no opercular spots, but opercle dark, except on postorbital region. Eyes blue-greenish. No longitudinal stripe. Bars on sides of body, medially much more intense; 1st bar I-shaped, somewhat inclined on head; intensity alternating: 1st, 3rd, 5th, 7th bars, especially 3rd, much more intense than 2nd, 4th, 6th; 2nd, 4th bars may be dorsally evanescent; 3rd bar and sometimes also 5th and 7th may extend slightly onto base of dorsal fin. An ocellus may be present on spinous dorsal fin of mature females. Soft dorsal and anal fins usually immaculate; sometimes light dots discernible at bases. About 13 rows of light spots on sides, smaller than scales; breast region yellowish-greenish or olive (or “wood brown” according to Fowler ). Axil of pectoral fin somewhat dark (part of 1st bar); base of pectoral fin yellowish or white. Caudal blotch two-thirds or more on peduncle, across lateral line, usually forming a saddle.
Distribution. Atlantic Honduras ( Ríos Celán, Lancetilla, Aguán, Jutiapa, and others) north to Guatemala ( Ríos Achuelo, Matasano, and others) (Fig. 5).
Remarks. Synonymized with Cichlasoma spilurum by Miller (1966) with no explicit justification. This move was followed by Allgayer (2001), who added that the Honduran so-called “ « Archocentrus » sp. « Yojoa » ” also belonged in Cr. spilurus , but acknowledged that “[plusieurs formes locales, notamment du Honduras[,] sont connues.”
Fowler’s (1932: 381) figure is not accurate: it depicts the holotype as showing all the bars of approximately the same intensity, which is not the case (Fig. 11). The figure contains other errors, e.g. the size of the scales on the breast, which are much smaller and numerous than shown. Fowler (1932) thought his new species was “[r]elated to Heros octofasciatus ZBK ” and felt that he needed to compare Cr. cutteri with R. octofasciata , not with Cr. spilurus .
I was unable to examine specimens of the “ Río Papaloteca” Archocentrus (Velasco 2001) from northern Honduras, but nearby specimens ( from Rio Jutiapa , UMMZ 228665 ) are identifiable as Cr. cutteri .
No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.