| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Marc
Moderator
Joined: Jun 15, 2010
Posts: 915
Location: Chennai
Status: Offline
|
 Posted: Thu Dec 30, 2010 11:42 am Post subject: Re: ID Barb |
 |
|
Kastor, with regards to your above post, I feel IAH already has two forums dedicated for such subjects where discussions on exploration and native fishes are encouraged.
These forums can be more useful than a single sticky thread which may get a bit tangled (confusing  ) if all of us use it for different species.
You can see that there are threads on specific species that keep surfacing from time to time which indeed give a lot of information. 
This is just an opinion.........admins to decide  |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Yogesh
Moderator
Joined: Sep 18, 2005
Posts: 3515
Status: Offline
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 30, 2010 12:01 pm Post subject: Re: ID Barb |
|
|
Picture of Puntius sp. commonly found at Tungareshwar, Vasai.
 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Marc
Moderator
Joined: Jun 15, 2010
Posts: 915
Location: Chennai
Status: Offline
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 30, 2010 12:15 pm Post subject: Re: ID Barb |
|
|
| Looks like P. mahecola is quite common there. Further research might prove that the northern population is different from the southern one and then maybe P. amphibius would become a valid species |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rasikanayak
Moderator
Joined: Jan 25, 2005
Posts: 2927
Location: Bangalore
Status: Offline
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 30, 2010 6:47 pm Post subject: Re: ID Barb |
|
|
What happens when you find the middle one from north and south population?
Juveniles from Kali river basin.........from two different locations at around 1.5 inches.
Perils of collecting from the wild.....quarantine is a must. Fungus on the mouth of one,when caught! Hope it survives.
Regards,
Nayak. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Marc
Moderator
Joined: Jun 15, 2010
Posts: 915
Location: Chennai
Status: Offline
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 30, 2010 9:59 pm Post subject: Re: ID Barb |
|
|
Now this thread is becoming really interesting
Nayak,
Good question. Now to answer your question.....
There are three main species involved in this complex a) P. mahecola b) P. melanostigma c) P. amphibius
As per the present taxonomic status, P. mahecola described by Valenciennes is a valid speceis...it is a barb with a black caudal spot. P. melanostigma was described by Day which is also a barb with a caudal spot....therefore now a subjective synonym which means in simple terms "the author is not very sure".
Now the type locality of P. mahecola is mahe (kerala) hence the name mahe-cola.
The type locality of P. melanostigma is also kerala. The type locality of P. amphibius is bombay.
Now we come to your part of the question......what happens when we collect a fish from middle. As per current taxonomic standing, if your fish has a caudal blotch (where ever collected from) it is P. mahecola. If your fishes are consistently deeper in body shape and are from Kerala close to Wynaad then the species P. melanostigma could be revalidated.
Now the identity of P. amphibius is in question as it is known to be a barb without any body markings. This is because the drawing of Valenciennes and the syntypes in the French museum are fish without any markings. P&K 2005 argue that specimens of P. mahecola and P. amphibius were collected during the same time (early 19th centuary) and one lot has a spot and the other lot does not. Therefore they conclude that P. amphibius is indeed a fish without caudal spot. One thing they did not consider much is ill-preserved specimens and fish in stress do lose the spot.
Another intereting fact is that there is one more fish P. arenatus which does not have a caudal spot. The identity of P. arenatus was not discussed by P&K 2005.
Now to sum up with a few of my contemplations.
1) If you find a barb near bombay without a caudal spot then that is P. amphibius.
2) A deep barb from Kerala with caudal spot could be P. melanostigma
Unless the above two species are either validated or made 'objective' synonyms we have to id any fish with just a caudal blotch and no other body markings as P. mahecola
Hope I was able to throw some light into this  .
Below are some pics from my collection which could indeed be these fishes, but needs further investigation. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vyastk
Moderator
Joined: Mar 23, 2007
Posts: 1731
Location: Bangalore / Coimbatore
Status: Offline
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 30, 2010 10:53 pm Post subject: Re: ID Barb |
|
|
| Marc wrote (View Post):
|
Now the type locality of P. mahecola is mahe (kerala) hence the name mahe-cola.
|
Do you by any chance have the paper?. Never knew the fish was named after my hometown!.
Strangely have never seen this fish around those locales! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
beta
Committed Member of IAH
Joined: Jun 29, 2003
Posts: 4263
Location: Chennai
Status: Offline
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 30, 2010 11:11 pm Post subject: Re: ID Barb |
|
|
| Marc wrote (View Post):
|
Hope I was able to throw some light into this .
Below are some pics from my collection which could indeed be these fishes, but needs further investigation.
|
As a moderator you are supposed to analyze all the specimens/literature and reduce the confusion surrounding them |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Marc
Moderator
Joined: Jun 15, 2010
Posts: 915
Location: Chennai
Status: Offline
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 30, 2010 11:17 pm Post subject: Re: ID Barb |
|
|
| beta wrote (View Post):
|
| Marc wrote (View Post):
|
Hope I was able to throw some light into this .
Below are some pics from my collection which could indeed be these fishes, but needs further investigation.
|
As a moderator you are supposed to analyze all the specimens/literature and reduce the confusion surrounding them
|
Sorry
That was the best I could manage. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
beta
Committed Member of IAH
Joined: Jun 29, 2003
Posts: 4263
Location: Chennai
Status: Offline
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 30, 2010 11:22 pm Post subject: Re: ID Barb |
|
|
Expectations are very high at the moment!
Just Joking, it was commendable effort putting all that down |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kastor48252
Regular Poster on IAH
Joined: Dec 09, 2008
Posts: 665
Location: Mumbai Dahisar (w)
Status: Offline
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 31, 2010 12:33 am Post subject: Re: ID Barb |
|
|
This is all very interesting info.
Marc, you are an asset to IAH dude. Hats off to you. 
Keep up the good work.  |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Shankar
Committed Member of IAH
Joined: Nov 19, 2003
Posts: 3719
Location: Chennai
Status: Offline
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 31, 2010 5:10 am Post subject: Re: ID Barb |
|
|
Another mahecola for you.
 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Yogesh
Moderator
Joined: Sep 18, 2005
Posts: 3515
Status: Offline
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 31, 2010 10:30 am Post subject: Re: ID Barb |
|
|
| Marc wrote (View Post):
|
There are three main species involved in this complex a) P. mahecola b) P. melanostigma c) P. amphibius
As per the present taxonomic status, P. mahecola described by Valenciennes is a valid speceis...it is a barb with a black caudal spot. P. melanostigma was described by Day which is also a barb with a caudal spot....therefore now a subjective synonym which means in simple terms "the author is not very sure".
Now the type locality of P. mahecola is mahe (kerala) hence the name mahe-cola.
The type locality of P. melanostigma is also kerala. The type locality of P. amphibius is bombay.
Now we come to your part of the question......what happens when we collect a fish from middle. As per current taxonomic standing, if your fish has a caudal blotch (where ever collected from) it is P. mahecola. If your fishes are consistently deeper in body shape and are from Kerala close to Wynaad then the species P. melanostigma could be revalidated.
Now the identity of P. amphibius is in question as it is known to be a barb without any body markings. This is because the drawing of Valenciennes and the syntypes in the French museum are fish without any markings. P&K 2005 argue that specimens of P. mahecola and P. amphibius were collected during the same time (early 19th centuary) and one lot has a spot and the other lot does not. Therefore they conclude that P. amphibius is indeed a fish without caudal spot. One thing they did not consider much is ill-preserved specimens and fish in stress do lose the spot.
Another intereting fact is that there is one more fish P. arenatus which does not have a caudal spot. The identity of P. arenatus was not discussed by P&K 2005.
Now to sum up with a few of my contemplations.
1) If you find a barb near bombay without a caudal spot then that is P. amphibius.
2) A deep barb from Kerala with caudal spot could be P. melanostigma
Unless the above two species are either validated or made 'objective' synonyms we have to id any fish with just a caudal blotch and no other body markings as P. mahecola
Hope I was able to throw some light into this .
Below are some pics from my collection which could indeed be these fishes, but needs further investigation.
|
Brilliantly drafted!
Thanks Marc. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Yogesh
Moderator
Joined: Sep 18, 2005
Posts: 3515
Status: Offline
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 31, 2010 11:12 am Post subject: Re: ID Barb |
|
|
I had 4 of them which we caught, very skittish & fast moving chaps.
Andy also had his opinion about mahecolas & amphibius discussion earlier.
| andyrushworth wrote (View Post):
|
|
the cyprinid in the new pic is the one that was known as P. amphibius but after a new study is now thought to be the true Mahecola I've currantly got five of them , what you should notice is a dark blotch appear on the dorsal fin when the males become excited ! I like this fish though plain of colour it has a certain charm
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Marc
Moderator
Joined: Jun 15, 2010
Posts: 915
Location: Chennai
Status: Offline
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 31, 2010 12:59 pm Post subject: Re: ID Barb |
|
|
Thanks Beta, Kastor, Yogaranda
Beta, Guess we all improve over the years
Shankar, Thats a good example of a stressed fish losing its blotch |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheChannaGuy
Frequent Visitor to IAH
Joined: Dec 16, 2010
Posts: 125
Location: Mumbai
Status: Offline
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 01, 2011 1:00 am Post subject: Re: ID Barb |
|
|
First of all, I apologize to everyone who have pooled their knowledge in this interesting thread.And I am really sorry for being stupid on the first day of this year.
But I am now seriously confused and plead you to clear my doubts which i mention below:
Before reading, let me make it very clear that I am not aquainted personally with these fish and am highly ignorant of scientific protocol followed before nomenclature. The below doubts arise since most aquarium and aquaculture websites including government gazetteers name the more colourful fish from mahe as puntius mahecola / assimilis and the bland fish from maharashtra as puntius amphibius. But marc has shed light on some recent advances in nomenclature since a paper published in 2005.
By what has been revealed so far, I gather that the fish in these two pics have either been/would be classified into the same species ( as northern and southern population variants ) or into the same species complex. If this is true, what about the obvious differences, not only in the colour ( wrt. blotches and caudal linings ) ( Here, I would also like to point at the difference between the shape of the caudal blotches. The maharashtrian fish has an oval blotch while the keralite fish has a pear shaped blotch ) but also evident in the body form ( the one from kerala has a deep oval body like a tinfoil barb while the one from maharashtra has an elongated body like a silver shark ). I find some differences in the head too, ( the mahe barb seems to have a rummy nose ) but might be an error of perception.
I think that these are totally different barbs and deserve their own species. Aren't fish analysed genetically before being classified. Evolution can be convergent or divergent and genotypes are more conclusive than phenotypes in determining specific relations. However if the kerala variant in my pic has already been separately classified as Puntius assimilis, and not as Puntius mahecola, ingore this post as a newbie's folly. |
Last edited by TheChannaGuy on Sat Jan 01, 2011 1:36 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Guest(s): 1,909
![[News Feed]](images/powered/feed_20_news.png "News Feed"){kind=small}
![[Forums Feed]](images/powered/feed_20_forums.png "Forums Feed"){kind=small}
![[Downloads Feed]](images/powered/feed_20_down.png "Downloads Feed"){kind=small}
![[Web Links Feed]](images/powered/feed_20_links.png "Web Links Feed"){kind=small}
![[Validate robots.txt]](images/powered/valid-robots.png "Validate robots.txt"){kind=small}