Anyone familiar with the systematics of Indian barbs???

retro_gk · Post by **retro_gk** » 03 Mar 2005, 05:13

Hi all,
This follows a discussion from another forum, where we are trying to decide whether Puntius filamentosus, P. mahecola and P. "fabulosus" are different species or merely variants...

Does anyone have any thoughts??

Mike_Noren · Post by **Mike_Noren** » 03 Mar 2005, 10:07

According to Eschmeyer Catalog of Fishes P. mahecola is a junior synonym of P. filamentosus and they refer to: Menon, A. G. K. 1999. Check list - fresh water fishes of India. Rec. Zool. Surv. India, Misc. Publ., Occas. Pap. i-xxviii + 1-366

I am, however, not personally familiar enough with indian barbs to say if this is a reasonable synonymization; I've not checked the reference so it may be mis-referenced (not that uncommon); and I think the entire Puntius/Barbus complex is in dire need of a complete revision anyway.

'Caveat emptor', basically.

Mike_Noren · Post by **Mike_Noren** » 03 Mar 2005, 10:09

Hmmm... Weird. After answering I noticed the date. I apologize for resurrecting an ancient thread, but it was in the recent activity list!

Post by **Silurus** » 03 Mar 2005, 12:06

I believe P. mahecola and P. filamentosus are different species. One look at the illustrations in the original descriptions (Valenciennes, 1844), and one can immediately surmise that they are not the same fish.
I can post pictures if necessary.

retro_gk · Post by **retro_gk** » 03 Mar 2005, 17:33

HH, Pics would be awesome...
thanks

Post by **Silurus** » 03 Mar 2005, 18:40

Here is P. filamentosus:

and here is P. mahecola:

As you can see, P. mahecola is more like a P. sarana-type fish.

retro_gk · Post by **retro_gk** » 04 Mar 2005, 07:24

Hmm, neither fish have barbels in the pics, ....what then is this fish? http://www.transfish.de/barbenasiaen/ba ... ntosus.jpg

Sterba, in "freshwater aquarium fishes of the world", states mahecola is identical to filamentosus, except for the presence of a pair of barbels

Similarly, Beavan, in "the handbook of Indian fishes", describes Barbus lepidus as identical to Barbus filamentosus, but with one pair of barbels. He makes no mention of P.mahecola

So,
a) Is Sterba wrong in his identification?

I am familiar with fish identical to Valenciennes' drawing of P.filamentosus, but the fish I thought were mahecola (based on Sterba) have barbels, therefore, assuming Valenciennes was correct in his drawing,

b) Could the fish in the link above be B.lepidus as stated by Beavan? or could it be another species altogether?

And I thought catfish taxonomy was a mess!!