Posts Tagged ‘new species’

As the title suggest, a new species of teleost has been found out, it was collected, “sort of” unearthed, from the sand bed of a small river in south western India, thus named “ammophila” which means “sand loving”.

The new eel-loach Pangio ammophila

This species is for now known only from this location, and grows not more than 3 centimeters. It is the tiniest fish that I have ever seen* and were it not for the authors of the study, Ralf Britz, Anvar Ali and Rajeev Raghavan, probably it would have stayed in the wilderness and would not have received this attention. Readers should recall that the lead author of this study is the same one who described the “smallest vertebrate” Paedocypris progenetica, thus this fish is rather “big” for him.

This find calls our attention to some important points:

  1. It is the fourth valid Pangio species from the Indian region, the congeners of which are all distributed in the South – South Eastern Asian region.
  2. This species has a remarkably different colour pattern from the hitherto identified species of the genus, and most similar to its geographically nearest species Pangio goaensis.

These two points leads our attention to the historical bio-geography of the region. How was the present distribution of animals, in particular fishes of South – South Eastern Asia formed. The disjunct distribution of these species with its congeners in the North Eastern India and South East Asia (a huge geographical barrier), is surprising. These authors have found out Dario urops which was described recently, which also has a similar disjunct distribution. So these findings should help advance our understanding of the historical bio-geography of the region as well as the pangean and gondwanan connections of the Asian fauna.

3. Another issue that this species brings to fore is conservation of fragile habitats. This location is the only place where the species is found and is thus important (also it should harbour other species).

The unprecedented economic growth in India and especially in the region means that indiscriminate sand mining occurs in this same stream. Imagine how many of these sand loving eel-loaches would have been mined out before being noticed by the authors? How do we balance the biodiversity conservation and economic growth?

*Competing interest: I was part of the collection team which found this species and is a collaborator at the Conservation Research Group.

Ralf Britz, Anvar Ali and Rajeev Raghavan (2012). Pangio ammophila, a new species of eel-loach from Karnataka, southern India (Teleostei: Cypriniformes: Cobitidae). Ichthyol. Explor. Freshwaters,, 23 (1), 45-50

ResearchBlogging.org

Today Zootaxa, the mega journal of Zoological Systematics, published the details of a new Pristolepis fish from the Western Ghats biodiversity hotspot. The new fish is named as Pristolepis rubripinnis, and as the name suggests has “red-orange” shade on it “fins”.  The authors have put in a lot of detail in describing this species and is a must read for naturalists, students and researchers with an interest in the ichthyo-diversity of the Western Ghats.

Pristolepis rubripinnis

In this age when science means just hunting for Impact Factors, scientists often resort to tell the “story behind their publications” elsewhere, as seen in the TreeOfLife blog. I think that scientists really enjoy the process of science and that it is a real motivation for many scientists (i.e., to follow the process after a hypothesis is formulated). However, this pleasure and the process and details is not always evident while reading majority of the scientific publications.

Whereas when you read a real TAXONOMIC work you really read the hypothesis, the process, it is a beauty. Here it started after finding a “marked colour variant of Pristolepis” and recollecting the confusion in the taxonomic literature about Pristolepis species of Western Ghats, which helped them to formlate a hypothesis seeking to answer the question “is it a species new to science”? and the answer was YES!!!!!

Earlier in 1849 Jerdon had described the first ever Pristolepis species from North Kerala “above the Palakkad Gap” as this paper says. Then Günther described Catopra malabarica in 1865. However, it was found to be a junior synonym of Pristolepis marginata by Jerdon himself the next year (see the present paper by Britz et al., for an interesting read on all these). So there was only one recognized Pristolepis from South India.

However, some authors cited both P. marginata and P. malabarica to be present in India, some others said P. marginata was the only species in India, some authors also said that P. marginata and P. fasciata were present in India. It is noteworthy that P. fasciata was described from South East Asia and its type locality is in Borneo and it has stripes on its body. No Pristolepis in India has stripes (at least until now). Another funny fact is that Indian authors have “sequenced” P. fasciata from India, when this species is absent from India, just see NCBI genbank.

So this study puts to rest a lot of confusion about Pristolepis in India. It highlights the importance of proper taxonomy before phylogeny or sequencing studies. It also takes back the readers to the real science where observation is made hypothesis is formulated and it is proved right or wrong, the writing style illustrates the process (thought process) behind the find, which should be educating for young researchers. Finally we have a new species of fish that was unknown until yesterday.

References:

1) Ralf Britz, Krishna Kumar & Fibin Baby, 2012. Pristolepis rubripinnis, a new species of fish from southern India (Teleostei: Percomorpha: Pristolepididae). Zootaxa 3345: 59–68

2) Jerdon, T.C. (1849) On the freshwater fishes of southern India. Madras Journal of Literature and Science, 15, 139–149.

3) Günther, A. (1864) Descriptions of three new species of fishes in the collection of the British Museum. The Annals and Magazine of Natural History, 3rd Series, 14, 374–376.

4) Jerdon, T.C. (1865) On Pristolepis marginatus. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, 16, 298.