Research Journal of Animal, Veterinary and Fishery Sciences ___________________________ ISSN 2320 – 6535 Vol. 1(7), 16-20, August (2013) Res. J. Animal, Veterinary and Fishery Sci. International Science Congress Association 16 Rediscovery of Pristolepis marginata Jerdon (Teleostei: Percomorpha: Pristolepididae) after one and a Half Century Mathews Plamoottil Govt. College, Chavara, Kollam Dt, Kerala, INDIAAvailable online at: www.isca.in Received 30th July 2013, revised 11th August 2013, accepted 22nd August 2013Abstract Pristolepis marginata Jerdon has long been placed in synonymy with Pristolepis malabarica Guenther. An examination of the specimens of the P. marginata collected recently from its type locality in Kerala shows however, that it exhibits many valid differences from P. malabarica. Jerdon’s Pristolepis is distinguished from its relative species by having dorsal fin soft rays- 12 ; dorsal spines- XV; anal fin spines- IV; anal fin soft rays- 7- 8; lateral line scales –19-21/12-15; pre orbital with 9 strong teeth; pre opercle angle with 18 serrae; Meristic and morphometric characters are analyzed well based on the topotypic materials. Keywords: Mananthavady River, percoid fish, Catopra tetracantha,interrupted lateral line.Introduction The genus Pristolepis Jerdoncomprises moderate-sized percomorph fishes having laterally compressed body with dorsal, ventral and anal fins with strong spines. They can be further recognized among other percomorphs by their greatly enlarged basibranchial tooth plate, studded with globular teeth that bite against a similar tooth patch on the parsphenoid Pristolepis marginata was the first species of Pristolepisdescribed from the Mananthavady River of Wayanad district, Kerala, India. In 1864 Guenther described Catopra malabarica from hill ranges of Travancore; it was based on one specimen received by Francis Day from Rev. Henry Baker (Junior) who collected it from (Manimala River) Mundakkayam, Kottayam district of Kerala3,4. Many taxonomists from Jerdon to Britz et al.consider Catopra malabarica as a synonym of Pristolepis marginata. Recently this author could collect eight specimens of Pristolepis marginata from its type locality, examination of which revealed that it is a different species from its closely related species. Material and Methods Fishes were collected using cast nets and preserved in 10% formalin. Methods used are those of Jayaram7,8 and measurements follow standard practices. Specimens of Pristolepis marginatacollected by this author from its type locality and which are utilized for the present study are deposited in the national museum of Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata, West Bengal; different specimens of Pristolepis malabarica and P. rubripinnis,collected by the author as comparative materials are deposited in the museum of ZSI, Kolkata, ZSIWGRC, Kozhikode and UOK/AQB, Thiruvanathapuram. Abbreviations: ZSI- Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata, West Bengal; ZSI/ WGRC- Zoological Survey of India, Western Ghats Regional Centre, Kozhikode, Kerala; UOK/AQB- University of Kerala, Department of Aquatic biology and fisheries, Kariavattom, Kerala; F- fish; HL- head length;IOW- inter orbital width; LLS- Lateral line scales; LL/D- Scales between lateral line and dorsal fin; LL/V- Scales between lateral line and ventral fin; OLS- Overlapping scales. Results and Discussion Diagnosis: Pristolepis marginata differs from all other congeners by its colour pattern, meristic and morphometric characters. Its body and fins greenish; inter spinous membrane of dorsal fin orange colored. It differs further from its south Indian congeners P. malabarica and P. rubripinnis in having 4 anal spines and 15 dorsal spines (vs. 3 anal spines and 14 dorsal spines). Description: Body roughly rectangular in outline, strongly laterally compressed; body depth 2.4 to 2.5 in SL, body width 2.0- 2.1 in its depth; dorsal contour rising gradually from snout towards the dorsal front, convex along the dorsum, abruptly attenuated at caudal peduncle; ventral contour slightly convex up to ventral fin base, then almost straight to anal fin base and strongly attenuated at caudal base. Head moderate to large, its length 2.6 to 3.1 and depth 2.7 to 3.1 in SL, pointed towards the snout. Eyes inserted in the dorso- anterior half of head, its diameter 3.5 to 4.4 in HL and 0.8 to 1.3 in IOW. Posterior nostril a round opening, located close to orbit, anterior naris at the end of a short tube, in the middle of upper lip and orbit. Research Journal of Animal, Veterinary and Fishery Sciences ________________________________________ ISSN 2320 – 6535Vol. 1(7), 16-20, August (2013) Res. J. Animal, Veterinary and Fishery Sci. International Science Congress Association 17 Figure-1 A freshly collected specimen of Pristolepis marginata, collected from Valloorkkavu of the Mananthavady River, Wayanad dt, Kerala, the type locality (ZSI FF 4935) Figure-2 A formalin preserved specimen of Pristolepis marginata (ZSI FF 4935) Mouth upturned, its width 2.9 to 3.3 in HL, maxilla ending at vertical, a little in front of anterior margin of orbit; opercle with two spines posteriorly, both of equal length and strength; pre opercle angle moderately serrated with 18 serrae; junction of inter and sub opercle slightly serrated; pre orbital with 9 strong teeth on its lower edge. Anterior base of spinous dorsal fin located above the base of pectoral fin and just in front of ventral fin; dorsal fin rays XV, 12; pectoral fin reaching 9th scale row; in smaller specimens pectorals reach anus, in larger ones it reach near to anal opening; pectoral fin rays 13-14; Pelvic fins originate just behind pectoral fin base; pelvic fin rays I, 5; third anal spine longer than other three spines; anal rays IV, 7-8; caudal rounded; caudal fin rays 14. Scales comparatively large, small scales present on chest, around the bases of soft dorsal, anal and posterior part of caudal fin; tiny scales on the bases of fin rays of dorsal, caudal and anal fins. Scales between ventral rim of orbit and ventral edge of pre opercle- 5-6; pre dorsal scales 15- 17; lateral line scales 19-21/12-15; scales between dorsal and ventral branch of lateral line ½ 2 ½; lateral transverse scales 4½/9½; scales between lateral line and dorsal fin 4½; scales between lateral line and ventral fin 9½; scales between lateral line and anal fin 9½-10½; pre pelvic scales 14- 15; pre anal scales 28-30; lateral line dorsal branch scales 19-21; lateral line ventral branch scales 6-9; overlap between dorsal and ventral branches 1- 4 scales; scales between dorsal branch of lateral line and base of middle of spinous dorsal fin 3½; scales between dorsal branch of lateral line and anterior base of spinous anal fin 9½; scales on caudal peduncle 7. Lateral line interrupted, dorsal branch extending from shoulder girdle in convex longitudinal line to vertical through base of anterior most soft anal fin ray or in front of the anal spine; dorsal lateral line branch forming a horizontal line from the anterior base or just behind soft dorsal fin to base of caudal fin and from there in a straight line to base of caudal fin; Colouration: Dorsal and lateral sides green; ventral side white or brownish white; inter spinous membrane of dorsal fin orange; remaining fins greenish; a dark band may often present on the soft dorsal, soft anal and caudal fins; base of caudal fin deep black. After preservation in formalin the fish specimens acquire a black color. Distribution: Currently known only fromMananthavady River, Wayanad, Kerala, India. Comparisons: Pristolepis malabarica (figures 3 and 4; tables 1 and 2)and P. rubripinnis are the related species of Pristolepis marginata. Pristolepis malabarica wasdescribed firstly by Guenther based on one specimen received by Francis Day from Rev. Henry Baker (Junior) who collected it from Mundakkayam (Kottayam district, Kerala) on the hill-ranges of Travancore. Due to absence of a collection of P. marginata and P. malabarica from their type localities, P. malabarica was erranously considered as a synonym of the former. To solve this problem, this author collected 14 specimens of Pristolepis malabarica from Manimala River at Mundakkayam (type locality) and 8 specimens of P. marginata from Manantavady River of Wayanad (type locality); it revealed the relevant taxonomical details of malabarica and marginata. It was understood from the study that in colour, morphometric and in many valid meristic characters (Table 2) Pristolepis malabaricadiffers from P. marginata. In P. marginata lateral line scales are 19-21/12-15 (vs. 19- 23/ 8-11 in P. malabarica), dorsal spines XV (vs. XIV in P. malabarica), pre opercle strongly serrated with 18 teeth (vs. pre opercle roughened or slightly serrated); pre orbital with 9 strong teeth on its lower edge (vs. pre orbital smooth), pectoral tip rounded (vs. pectoral tip pointed), membrane between spinous portion of dorsal fin orange (vs. hyaline to light green), body and fins green (vs. yellowish), posterior most part of ventral branch of lateral line straight (vs. posterior most part of ventral branch of lateral line bends downwards to caudal base), body width at dorsal origin 19.0- 20.8 (vs. 21.1- 23.1 in P. malabarica), length of base of pectoral Research Journal of Animal, Veterinary and Fishery Sciences ________________________________________ ISSN 2320 – 6535Vol. 1(7), 16-20, August (2013) Res. J. Animal, Veterinary and Fishery Sci. International Science Congress Association 18 fin 5.9- 7.0 (vs. 7.2- 9.2), depth of caudal peduncle 14.0- 15.3 (vs. 16.9- 18.5) and distance from anal to vent 3.8- 5.4 (vs. 6.4- 7.7) all in percent of standard length. Most relevant difference Figure-3 A freshly collected specimen of Pristoplepis malabarica from Manimala River at Mundakkayam, Kottayam Dt of Kerala, the type locality (ZSI/WGRC/IR/2373) Figure-4 A formalin preserved specimen of Pristolepis malabarica(ZSI FF 4937) between marginata and malabarica is the possession of four anal spines in marginata; in malabarica only three anal spines present. Jerdon who described P. marginata firstly mentioned the occurrence of four anal spines in it. Day9,10,11 assigned both, malabarica and marginata, to Pristolepis and distinguished them based on differences in the number of dorsal and anal-fin spines, listing 15–16 dorsal spines and 4 anal-fin spines for marginata and 14 dorsal spines and 3 anal-fin spines for malabarica. But many taxonomists including Britz et al. tried to prove that the P. marginata bears only three anal spines. But they collected their “Pristolepis marginata” from the Valappattanam River of Kannur District, and not from Mananthavady River, its type locality, to support their argument. The present study revealed that P. malabarica has 14 dorsal spines and 3 anal spines and P. marginata has 15 dorsal spines 4 anal spines. A synonymy was created between P. malabarica and P. marginata only because of the failure of procuring these two species from their type localities. The current study reveals that Pristolepis marginata and P. malabarica aretwo differentspecies. This author collected 4 specimens of P. rubripinnis (Figures 5 and 6; Table 2) from Pampa River at Edathua, its type locality. Examination of it revealed that rubripinnis differs greatly in meristic and morphometric characters from marginata. In P. rubripinnis, unlike P. marginata, distal parts of soft dorsal, anal and caudal fins are orange red (vs. Figure-5 Freshly collected specimen of Pristolepis rubripinnis from Edathua, Alappuzha Dt, Kerala, its type locality (STC/DOZ/55) Figure-6 A formalin preserved specimen of Pristolepis rubripinnis (STC/DOZ/55) greenish in P. marginata) dorsal spines are XIV (vs. XV), dorsal soft rays14 (vs. 12), anal spines 3 (vs. 4), anal soft rays 9 (vs. 7-8), lateral line scales 20-22/9-10 (vs. 19-21/12-15), body height at dorsal origin 48.6- 54.4 (vs. 40.0- 42.1), pre dorsal length 34.5- 37.6 (vs. 38.5- 41.8), length of caudal peduncle 4.7- 5.6 (vs. 10.7- 14.9) all in percent of SL and snout length 16.2- 20.2 (vs. 26.7- 31.4) in percent of HL. Research Journal of Animal, Veterinary and Fishery Sciences ________________________________________ ISSN 2320 – 6535Vol. 1(7), 16-20, August (2013) Res. J. Animal, Veterinary and Fishery Sci. International Science Congress Association 19 Table-1 Morphometric features of Pristolepis marginata and P. malabaricaSl No Characters Pristolepis marginata (n= 8) ZSI FF 4935 Pristolepis malabarica (n=14)ZSI FF4937, ZSI/WGRC 2373, UOK/AQB 112, 113 Range Mean SD Range Mean SD 2 Standard Length (mm) 79.0- 107.0 93.8 11.9 63.0- 88.0 68.0 10.1 Percentage of Standard Length 3 Head length 32.7-38.0 34.6 2.1 33.6- 36.5 35.2 1.1 4 Head depth 32.2- 37.1 35.0 1.6 31.0- 40.9 33.4 3.7 5 Head width 17.7- 20.0 18.9 1.0 18.3- 20.8 19.2 1.1 6 Body depth at dorsal origin 40.0- 42.1 41.3 0.8 41.4- 45.5 43.4 1.5 7 Body depth at anal origin 40.5- 43.6 41.7 1.3 42.3- 46.6 44.9 1.7 8 Body width at dorsal origin 19.0- 20.8 19.8 0.7 21.1- 23.1 22.3 0.8 9 Body width at anal origin 12.1- 15.0 13.4 1.0 12.7- 15.4 13.4 1.0 10 Pre dorsal length 38.5- 41.8 40.3 1.2 37.1- 40.9 39.3 1.7 11 Post dorsal length 64.5- 70.2 66.6 2.2 63.6- 68.3 66.9 1.7 12 Pre pectoral length 35.7- 39.7 37.4 1.4 32.3- 38.1 36.1 2.5 13 Pre pelvic length 41.1- 45.8 43.2 1.8 40.0-45.7 43.1 2.7 14 Pre anal length 68.6- 73.3 70.9 1.9 69.2-74.6 72.9 2.2 15 Length of soft dorsal fin 17.7- 21.0 19.7 1.3 20.0-25.0 23.3 2.2 16 Length of spinous dorsal fin 11.6- 14.3 12.6 1.0 11.4-14.3 13.4 1.2 17 Length of pectoral fin 22.8- 24.4 23.7 0.6 23.6-28.4 26.2 1.8 18 Length of pelvic fin 20.2- 23.8 22.2 1.6 20.6-23.3 21.7 1.5 19 Length of soft anal fin 13.3- 20.3 18.4 2.5 16.7-22.7 18.4 2.2 20 Length of spinous anal fin 12.6- 15.2 13.5 1.1 10.1-15.4 14.4 1.9 21 Length of base of spinous dorsal fin 42.4- 46.4 43.7 1.6 43.2- 48.3 45.2 1.9 22 Length of base of soft dorsal fin 17.3- 19.8 18.8 0.9 13.6-20.0 17.4 2.7 23 Length of base of spinous anal fin 10.7- 12.7 11.9 0.8 9.5- 11.3 10.5 0.7 24 Length of base of soft anal fin 12.4- 17.7 13.9 1.9 11.0- 16.5 13.2 1.8 25 Length of base of pectoral fin 5.9- 7.0 6.5 0.4 7.2-9.2 8.2 0.8 26 Length of base of pelvic fin 4.2- 6.3 5.1 0.7 5.1-6.2 5.4 0.5 27 Distance from pelvic to anal 28.6- 31.7 29.8 1.3 27.2- 31.4 29.3 2.9 28 Length of caudal fin 22.8- 25.9 24.6 1.1 24.3-28.7 26.5 3.1 29 Length of caudal peduncle 10.7- 14.9 12.2 1.6 7.9- 13.6 10.5 2.3 30 Depth of caudal peduncle 14.0- 15.3 14.8 0.5 16.9- 18.5 17.7 0.7 31 Width of caudal peduncle 5.0- 5.9 5.5 0.4 3.2- 6.2 4.0 1.2 32 Distance from ventral to vent 25.0- 27.7 26.3 1.2 22.8- 26.2 24.5 1.4 33 Distance from anal to vent 3.8- 5.4 4.7 0.5 6.4- 7.7 6.7 0.5 34 Head length (mm) 30.0- 35.0 32.3 2.4 22.0-31.0 23.9 3.7 Percentage of Head Length 35 Head depth 91.8- 111.4 101.7 9.2 90.9- 96.8 93.0 2.8 36 Head width 46.7- 60.6 55.0 5.6 50.0-60.0 53.6 2.6 37 Eye diameter 22.8- 28.6 25.3 2.5 25.8- 26.7 26.2 0.5 38 Inter orbital width 23.3- 30.3 25.8 2.8 26.1- 33.3 28.8 3.3 39 Inter narial width 16.4- 21.2 17.8 1.8 17.4- 22.2 19.1 2.0 40 Snout length 26.7- 31.4 29.4 2.0 28.3- 30.6 29.2 0.8 41 Width of gape of mouth 30.0- 34.4 31.9 1.8 27.6- 31.1 29.3 1.5 Research Journal of Animal, Veterinary and Fishery Sciences ________________________________________ ISSN 2320 – 6535Vol. 1(7), 16-20, August (2013) Res. J. Animal, Veterinary and Fishery Sci. International Science Congress Association 20 Table-2 Meristic characters of Pristolepis marginata and its relative species Sl. No Characters P. marginata P. malabarica P. rubripinnis 1 Dorsal fin spines XV XIV XIV 2 Dorsal fin rays 12 11- 12 14 3 Pectoral rays 13- 14 12- 14 14 4 Pelvic rays I, 5 I, 5 I, 5 5 Anal soft rays 7- 8 8-9 9 6 Anal spines IV III III 7 LLS 19-21/12-15 19- 23/8- 11 20- 22/9-10 8 LL/D 4½ 3½ 4-5 9 LL/V 9½ 8½ -10½ 10 10 OLS 1-4 0 -3 2- 4 Pristolepis tetracantha of Guenther12,13 was described from East Indies. Day considered it as a junior synonym of Pristolepis marginata, who speculated that they might be the types of Jerdon’s Pristolepis. Even thoughtheir “P. marginatadiffers (with different number of dorsal and anal spines) considerably from P.tetracantha, Britz et al. considered it as a synonym of the latter species. But the examination of syntypes of P. tetracantha by Britz et al. helped to reveal the detailed taxonomy of it. From the present study of P. marginata from the type locality, from the accounts of Britz et al.and from the details given by the Guenther, who originally described it, P. tetracantha can be considered as synonym of the P. marginata. Both the species show no difference in the dorsal and anal spines and rays (15 dorsal spines, 12 dorsal soft rays, 4 anal spines and 7-8 anal soft rays). Conclusion The redescription of Pristolepis marginata Jerdon re-emphasizes the necessity of collection of fishes from their type locality and the impending mistake in discarding the original description without sufficient reasons while creating synonymy in fish taxonomy. Comparative Material: Pristolepis malabaricaZSI/WGRC/IR/2373, 10 exs, 63- 88 mm SL, Mundakkayam, Manimala River, Kerala, collected by Mathews Plamoottil, 8.10.2011, 9.12.2011 and 9.12.2012; ZSI FF 4937, 2 exs, 65.0- 69.0 mm SL, Mundakkayam, Manimala River, Kerala, collected by Mathews Plamoottil, 14.10.2012; UOK/AQB/F/112 and 113, 2 exs, 60.0- 65.0 mm SL, Mundakkayam, Manimala River, Kerala, collected by Mathews Plamoottil, 14.10.2012. Pristolepis marginata: ZSI FF 4935, 8 exs, 82.0 mm- 103.0 mm SL, Valloorkkavu, Mananthavady River, Wayanad, Kerala, collected by Mathews Plamoottil, 20.03.2013. Pristolepis rubripinnis: STC/DOZ/55, 4 exs, 100- 136 mm SL, Edathua, Pampa River, Kerala, collected by Mathews Plamoottil, 10.01.2013. References 1.Günther A.,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 (1864)2.Jerdon T.C.,On the freshwater fishes of Southern India. Madras J. Lit. Sci.,15, 141 (1849)3.Day F., On the fishes of Cochin, on the Malabar coast of India. Part I. Acanthopterygii Proceedings of the General Meetings for Scientific Business of the Zoological Society of London, 2– 40 (1865a) 4.Day F.,The Fishes of Malabar. Bernard Quaritch, London, 131 (1865b) 5.Jerdon T.C.,On Pristolepis marginatus. Annals and Magazine of Natural History,16, 298 (1865)6.Britz R., Kumar K. and Baby F., Pristolepis rubripinnis, a new species of fish from Southern India (Teleostei: Percomorpha: Pristolepididae), Zootaxa, 3345, 59- 68 (2012)7.Jayaram K.C.,Fundamentals of fish taxonomy. Narendra publishing House, Delhi, 53-65 (2002)8.Jayaram K.C.,The freshwater fishes of the Indian region, 2nd Edition. Narendra Publications, Delhi, 459(2010)9.Whitehead P.J. P. and Talwar P.K., Francis Day (1829–1889) and his collections of Indian fishes, Bulletin of the British Museum of Natural History, Historical Series, 1–189 (1976)10.Day F.,The fishes of India: being a natural history of the fishes known to inhabit the seas and fresh waters of India, Burma, and Ceylon. William Dawson and Sons, London,30 (1878)11.Day F.,Fauna of British India including Ceylon and Burma Vol. 2, Taylor and Francis, London, , 84 (1889)12.Günther A.,Descriptions of new species of reptiles and fishes in the collection of the British Museum. Proceedings of the General Meetings for Scientific Business of the Zoological Society of London, 188–194 (1862)13.Talwar P.K. and Jhingran A.G.,Inland fishes of India and adjacent countries Balkema, Rotterdam, 2, 881 (1991)