Revised 3rd edition of ‘The striped catfishes of the genus M
Posted: 12 Apr 2008, 00:21
Hello All
Please see link here to the revised edition.
http://www.scotcat.com/articles/article65.htm
This edition includes both updated and additional information and images.
It now holds photographs of live specimens of:
M. albolineatus
M. atrifasciatus
M. bocourti
M. canarensis
M. carcio
M. gulio
M. malabaricus (possibly)
M. multiradiatus
M. mysticetus
M. pulcher
M. rhegma
An undescribed species from the Sittang River drainage, formerly misidentified as M. rufescens
An undescribed species from the Irrawaddy River drainage, formerly misidentified as M. rufescens
A species from the Ataran River drainage, which may be the true M. rufescens, or may be undescribed.
And drawings or preserved specimens of all species (including possible synonyms).
There is a discussion on and images of the putative types of M. armatus, and Hara malabarica (= M. canarensis) (apart from the ZSI specimen). The outcome is my opinion that M. armatus in Day’s Fishes of India is a misidentification and the specimens used then and since are not conspecific with the true M. armatus (of which the BMNH specimen is a syntype IMO).
Thanks
Please see link here to the revised edition.
http://www.scotcat.com/articles/article65.htm
This edition includes both updated and additional information and images.
It now holds photographs of live specimens of:
M. albolineatus
M. atrifasciatus
M. bocourti
M. canarensis
M. carcio
M. gulio
M. malabaricus (possibly)
M. multiradiatus
M. mysticetus
M. pulcher
M. rhegma
An undescribed species from the Sittang River drainage, formerly misidentified as M. rufescens
An undescribed species from the Irrawaddy River drainage, formerly misidentified as M. rufescens
A species from the Ataran River drainage, which may be the true M. rufescens, or may be undescribed.
And drawings or preserved specimens of all species (including possible synonyms).
There is a discussion on and images of the putative types of M. armatus, and Hara malabarica (= M. canarensis) (apart from the ZSI specimen). The outcome is my opinion that M. armatus in Day’s Fishes of India is a misidentification and the specimens used then and since are not conspecific with the true M. armatus (of which the BMNH specimen is a syntype IMO).
Thanks