4.6 Article

Taxonomic quest: validating two mahseer fishes (Actinopterygii: Cyprinidae) through molecular and morphological data from biodiversity hotspots in India

Journal

HYDROBIOLOGIA
Volume 815, Issue 1, Pages 113-124

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10750-018-3555-6

Keywords

Mahseer; Tor; Northeast India; Brahmaputra; Barak; Eastern Himalaya; Indo-Burma; DNA barcoding; Conservation

Funding

  1. Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata
  2. Science and Engineering Research Board, Department of Science and Technology, Ministry of Science and Technology, Government of India, New Delhi [SB/FT/LS-162/2012, PDF/2015/000302]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Mahseers, the members of the fish genus Tor, are economically important as sport and food fishes, but their population is declining in South and Southeast Asia. Taxonomic discrepancies exist in discussions surrounding a few species of mahseer in India. In this study, we hypothesize that Tor mosal is wrongly synonymized with T. putitora, and T. barakae with T. tor. To test this, we collected samples from the type localities, and from known distribution areas. We observed a clear morphological distinctiveness among these four species using Principal Component Analysis. The most prominent distinctive parameters among the four species were body depth and head length. Phylogenetic analysis using Bayesian Inference and Maximum Likelihood for both partial mtCOI and mtCytb datasets revealed monophyletic origin, and supported distinctive species level delimitation which was consensus with morphological identity. Moreover, the automatic species delimitation methods (ABGD and PTP) also quantify the four species. The mean K2P distance was 1.57% between T. putitora and T. tor, 2.60% between T. mosal and T. putitora, 3.27% between T. mosal and T. tor, and 2.63% between T. barakae and T. tor. Based on this study, we validate T. mosal and T. barakae, and provide taxonomic keys to the species.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available