Redescription of the Striped Catfish Mystustengara (Hamilton, 1822) (Siluriformes: Bagridae), India
A. Darshan 1,
P.C. Mahanta 2, A. Barat 3& P. Kumar 4
1 ,2,3,4 Directorate of Coldwater
Fisheries Research, Bhimtal, Nainital,Uttarakhand 263136, India
1 achom_darshan@yahoo.com
(corresponding author), 2 pcmahanta@rediffmail.com, 3 abarat58@hotmail.com,4 prem_nrc@rediffmail.com
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o2813.842 | ZooBank: urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:E3B36E3A-296A-4113-8EE7-6332EC07655F
Editor: W. Vishwanath, Manipur
University, Imphal, India. Date
of publication: 26 January 2013 (online & print)
Manuscript details: Ms # o2813 | Received 24
May 2011| Final received 19 November 2012 | Finally accepted 29 December 2012
Citation: A. Darshan,
P.C. Mahanta, A. Barat & P.
Kumar (2013). Redescriptionof the Striped Catfish Mystus tengara (Hamilton, 1822) (Siluriformes:Bagridae), India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 5(1):
3536–3541; doi:10.11609/JoTT.o2813.842
Copyright: © Darshan et
al. 2013. Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. JoTTallows unrestricted use of this article in any medium, reproduction and
distribution by providing adequate credit to the authors and the source of
publication.
Funding: Department of Biotechnology, Government of India
(DBT- RA program commencing from July 2009).
Competing Interest: None.
Acknowledgements: The authors are thankful to Prof. W. Vishwanath for giving access to D.D. Mukerji’scaptions from Hamilton’s manuscript and valuable comments. The first author is
grateful to Department of Biotechnology, Government of India for awarding
fellowship under DBT- Postdoctoral program in Biotechnology and Life Sciences.
Abstract: The Bagrid Catfish Mystus tengara was
described from a pond located in India under the genusPimelodus. The validity of the fish has been
confused and has frequently been treated as a
synonym of Mystus vittatus. In this study, the species is rediagnosed and redescribed on
the basis of fresh material collected from the Ganga-Brahmaputra drainage. M. tengara is diagnosed from congeners in having a unique combination of the following
characters: body with a distinct tympanic spot and four brown stripes which are
separated by a pale narrow interspace; origin of adipose-fin not reaching the
base of the last dorsal-fin ray, 31–42 gill rakerson first branchial arch, eye rounded with a diameter
19.0–23.8 % HL and dorsal spine length 12.3–17.2 % SL, maxillary barbel length 254.5–360.5 % HL. A key for the identification of Mystus species from Ganga-Bramaputradrainage is also provided.
Keywords: Francis Hamilton,
Ganga-Brahmaputra basin, Pimelodus tengara, redescription.
For
figures, images, tables -- click here
Hamilton (1822) described Pimelodus tengara(now Mystus) from a pond located in India. The identity of the fish is based solely
on his description and drawings as he did not preserve
any type specimens. The fish has often been treated as a synonym of Mystus vittatus (Bloch) (Venkateswarlu& Menon 1979; Sharma & Dutt1983; Roberts 1992; Menon 1999).
Drashan et al. (2010) redescribed and revalidated Mystus carcio(Hamilton) which had previously been considered as a
synonym of either M. tengara or M. vittatus. They also treated the latter two species as valid. However, a detailed description of M.tengara is lacking.
In the present study, several fish
specimens consistent with Hamilton’s (1822) description of Mystus tengara were examined. Here we redescribe M. tengara and distinguish it from its closest
congener, M. vittatus and other striped Mystus of the Ganga-Brahmaputra drainage,
viz., M. dibrugarensis (Chaudhuri),M. cavasius (Hamilton), M. carcio (Hamilton), M. gulio(Hamilton) and M. bleekeri (Day).
Materials and Methods
Measurements were made with a dial caliper to the nearest 0.1mm. Subunits of the head are presented as
proportions of head length (HL). Head length and measurements of body parts are given as proportions of
standard length (SL). Methods for
counts and measurements follow Ng & Dodson (1999). Numbers in parentheses following a count
are the number of specimens with that count. Dorsal fin height is measured from the
base of spinelet to the highest point of the dorsal
fin. Twenty specimens were
dissected and cleared for osteological studies. Clearing and staining of specimens
follow Hollister (1934) and osteological nomenclature
follows Mo (1991) and Darshan et al. (2010). Gill rakerswere counted on the first left branchial arch in 17
specimens. Methods for counting
gill rakers and vertebrae follow Roberts (1992) and
Roberts (1994) respectively. The
examined materials are deposited in the Manipur University Museum of Fishes
(MUMF) and Directorate of Coldwater Fisheries Research (DCFR) fish Museum.
Mystus tengara(Hamilton, 1822)
(Fig. 1; Images 1 & 2b)
Pimelodus tengara Hamilton,
1822: 183, Pl.3, fig. 61 (type locality: Ponds of India).
Bagrus tengara Valenciennes, in Cuvier & Valenciennes,
1840: 414.
Macrones tengara Day, 1877: 447, Pl. CI,
fig. 5 (in parts, description).
Mystus tengara Misra, 1976: 104; Jayaram& Singh, 1977: 263 (name only); Talwar & Jhingran, 1991: 571, fig. 189 (in part); Jayaram & Sanyal, 2003: 107,
fig. 25; Jayaram, 2006: 54, fig. 21 (in part); Vishwanath et al., 2007: 135, fig. 174 (description and
figure); Shrestha, 2008: 151, pl. 39, fig. 131 (description
and figure); Darshan et al., 2010: 51–53, fig.
2, 4d & b (description and fig.); Darshan et al. 2011: 2182
(comparative description).
Mystus vittatus Shrestha, 2008: 151, pl. 40, fig. 132 (description
and figure); Shaw & Shebbeare, 1937: 94
(in parts); Roberts, 1992: 81, fig.2.
Material examined: 1 ex., v.2009, 74.6mm SL, Brahmaputra River at Goalpara, Assam, India 26011’46”N & 90038’04”E, coll. A. Darshan (MUMF 9535); 20 ex.,
24.v.2007, 67.9–75.7 mm SL, Kolkata, West Bengal, India, coll. A. Darshan (MUMF 9520/1 - MUMF 9520/20); 15 ex., 30.xii.2008,
52.1–77.5 mm SL, Brahmaputra River at Guwahati, India (MUMF 9523/1 - MUMF
9523/15); 8 ex., 12.x.2009, 67–86 mm SL, wetlands of ComillaDistrict, Bangladesh, purchased in Agartala fish
market, Tripura, India, coll. W. Vishwanath (Unregistered); 2 ex., 16.vii.2008, 75.8–85.6 mm SL; Ganga
River at Patna, India, coll. R.K. Sinha (MUMF 9534/1
- MUMF 9534/2); 23 ex., 14–15.v.2010, 58.5–88.4 mm SL, Ganga
River at Gai-Ghat, Patna, India, coll. A. Darshan & Rajesh Sinha (MUMF
9539/1 - MUMF 9539/23); 15 ex., 17–18.iii.2011, 76–95 mm SL, Sarda Sagar reservoir situated at
the border of Uttarakhand and Uttar Pradesh states,
India, 28040’N & 8002’E, coll. A. Darshanand party (DCFR Unregistered).
Diagnosis: Mystus tengara differs from
its congeners by a unique combination of the following characters: body with a
distinct tympanic spot and four brown stripes which are separated by pale
narrow interspaces; origin of adipose-fin not reaching the base of last dorsal-
fin ray, 31–42 gill rakers on first branchial arch, eye rounded with a diameter 19.0–23.8
% HL and dorsal spine length 12.3-17.2 % SL, maxillary barbel length 254.5–360.5 % HL.
Description: Morphometric data are given in Table 1. Dorsal profile rising evenly from tip of
snout to origin of dorsal fin then sloping gradually ventrally from there to
the end of caudal peduncle. Ventralprofile roughly straight up to the end of anal finbase, then sloping gently dorsally to the end of the caudal peduncle.
Head
depressed. Skin covering dorsal
surface of head thin. Anterior
cranial fontanel extends from the level of posterior nasal opening to posterior
orbital margins, separated from posterior fontanel by a narrow epiphyseal
bar. Posterior fontanel extends to
base of occipital process in juvenile and uptoanterior one-third of supraoccipital bone in adult. Supraoccipital process long, wide
at base about one-fifth of its length, reaching basal bone of dorsal fin,
tapering distally. Eye
rounded, located entirely in dorsal half of head.
Mouth
sub-terminal. Oral teeth small and villiform, arranged in irregular rows. Premaxillarytooth band slightly curved backward, of equal width throughout. Tooth band on vomercontinuous across midline and crescentic, band width
about one-third of premaxillary with equal width
throughout, extending to the level of lateral end of premaxillarytooth band. Dentarytooth band separated in the middle by thick skin, slightly broader than premaxillary tooth band at symphysis,
tapering posterolaterally. Gill openings wide and free from
isthmus. First branchial arch with 8+23 = 31(4) or
9+24 = 33(2) or 9+25 = 34(3) or 8+27 = 35(2) or 8+31 = 39(3) or 9+32 = 41(2) or 10+32 =
42(1) gill rakers.
Barbels in four pairs, maxillary pair reaching at least posterior end of
anal fin base in adult and frequently reaching distal tip of caudal fin or
beyond in juvenile specimens, nasal reaching base of occipital process, outer
mandibular reaching distal tip of pectoral fin and inner mandibular barbel extend upto base of
pectoral fin. Skin smooth. Lateral line complete
and midlateral in position.
Dorsal-fin with spinelet, spine and seven branched
rays. The spine is serrated
anteriorly near the distal tip with 2–4 serrations and posteriorly with
8–10. Adipose
fin long, origin not reaching base of last dorsal fin ray and deeply incised at
posterior end. Pectoral fin
with a backwardly curved stout spine and 7–8 branched rays. Spine with 11–16
large posterior serrations and anteriorly rough. Posterior fin margin
almost straight. Pelvic fin
short with i,5 rays. Anal fin with ii-iii, 7–10
rays. Caudal fin deeply forked with
i,7,7,i or i,7,8,i or i,8,8,i rays, upper lobe longer.
Osteological character: Branchiostegal with 9(20) rays. Ribs with
8-9, attached from 6th to 13th or 14thvertebra. Vertebrae with 18+16 = 34(1) or 19+15 = 34(1) or 19+16 = 35(3) or
20+15 = 35(2) or 19+17 = 36(6) or 20+16 = 36(6) or 20+17 = 37(1). Closed haemal canal appears from 11th (20) vertebra
onwards. Caudal
fin with five hypural plates (20), three on the upper
and two on the lower lobe. Parhypural free
from first hypural plate. Hypurapophysisand secondary hypurapophysis fused. Procurrent rays respectively with 12 and 13 on upper and lower lobe of caudal
fin. Epural:
single, laterally flattened and curved backward.
Colouration: Specimens preserved in 10% formalin have a body with a distinct
oval dark brown tympanic spot and four brown stripes (a mid-dorsal and three lateral
stripes), all the stripes are separated by pale longitudinal lines of equal
wide. The pale longitudinal lines
separating the mid-dorsal and lateral stripes originate from below the middle
of the base dorsal fin and extend up to the posterior portion of adipose fin
base. Lateral lines appear as thin
pale lines in the middle of the midlateral stripe.
Distribution: Ganga and Brahmaputra drainage in India, Bangladesh and
Nepal. The species is also recorded
from Narmada and Mahanadi basins in northern India, Indus River drainage of
Pakistan (Talwar& Jhingran 1991; Mirza 2003) and Afghanistan (Coad
1981).
Discussion
Roberts (1998) reported that Francis Hamilton made all his
drawings from fresh specimens and discarded them after completing the drawing and
did not preserve any type specimen. He also reported that the description of the fishes
were written later (sometimes much later) from the drawings. Robert’s (1998) assumption might be
partly correct. But Francis
Hamilton must have certainly noted some important points about the fishes,
without which he would not have been able to write detailed descriptions of all
the 271 species in his book on Gangetic fishes. Mukherji (1931), on the basis of the manuscript of
Hamilton’s Gangetic fishes, reported that Mystus tengara was
collected from Brahmaputra River at Goalpara, on 29
July 1808. Goalparawas the place where Francis Hamilton stayed as the rainy season station in 1808
during his Bengal survey. The name
‘tengara’ is in fact a Bengali or Assamese local name
of Pimelodus tengara(now Mystus). Hamilton (1822) usually used local names
in naming a fish.
Hamilton (1822) mentioned that ‘tengara’ was very common in the ponds of India. Subsequent
workers felt the type locality mentioned in the original description may not be
correct and modified it without giving any reason (examples: lower Bengal:
Sharma & Dutt 1983; India: Roberts 1992; northern
parts of Bengal: Talwar & Jhingran1991; Jayaram 2006, Jayaram& Sanyal 2003). It can be assumed that the type locality
of Mystus tengarais in the Ganga-Brahmaputra basin on the basis of Mukerji’s(1931) report of its collection and also the fact that Hamilton’s (1822) work
on Gangetic fishes was confined to this basin. Thus, striped catfishes of the genus Mystus from the Ganga-Brahmaputra basin have been
made in order to redescribe M. tengaraand to clarify its type locality.
Hamilton (1822) shows two figures (plate
3, fig. 61) of Mystus tengara along with the description of the fish. One of his figures shows the lateral
view, showing the striped pattern of the fish (see fig. 1) and another the
dorsal view showing the extent of the cranial fontanel invading the supraoccipital region. A cleared and stained mature specimen of M. tengaraclearly shows that half of the posterior fontanel is located at the posterior
portion of frontal and the remaining portion at the supraoccipitalbone. In the case of M. vittatus, posterior
fontanel tapers posteriorly to a point at the anterior border of the supraoccipital bone, not invading the supraoccipitalregion. The same structure can also
be observed in the formalin preserved specimens after drying for some time
(Image 2). Moreover, Mystus tengara differs from M.vittatus (Image 3) in having a longer maxillary barbel length (254.5–360.5 % HL vs.
214.3–244.9) and dorsal spine length (12.3–17.2 % SL vs.
10.7–12.2); body colour pattern consisting of a dark brown oval tympanic
spot with distinct margin (vs. diffuse tympanic spot); four brown stripes (for
details see description) separated by the three pale interspace lines (vs.
three brown stripes separated by two pale interspace lines of equal width, one
above and another below the mid-lateral stripe). Moreover, M. vittatushas a diffused dark spot at the base of caudal fin, sometimes indistinct in
some specimens (vs. no such spot in M. tengara). Day (1877) also observed this black spot
in M. vittatus collected from Madras (southern
India), though Bloch (1794) did not mention it.
Our extensive surveys of the Ganga and
Brahmaputra River drainage have not encountered any species of Mystus with a short posterior fontanel (not invading
the supraoccipital region) as in Mystus vittatus. Several records of M.vittatus from northeasternIndia and Gangetic basin were found to be
misidentifications of either M. tengara or M.carcio (Darshan et al.
2010; above list of synonymy). For
easy identification the species has also been incorporated in the given
artificial key.
Mystus tengaradiffers from M. bleekeri in having a shorter
adipose-fin base (24.0–31.7
% SL vs. 42.0–47.2); adipose-fin origin not in contact with the
base of last dorsal fin ray (vs. in contact), more gill rakerson the first branchial arch (31–42 vs.
11–15) and fewer vertebrae (34–37 vs. 38–40). It differs from M. dibrugarensis in having more number of gill rakers(31–42 vs. 28) on the first arch and also in the absence of a thin black mid-lateral line and the black spot at the base of the caudal
fin (vs. presence). M. tengara differs from M. carcio in having a smaller eye (diameter:
19.0–23.8 % HL vs. 39.3–42.3), wider interobital(32.3–37.5 % HL vs. 25.6–30.7), adipose-fin base (24.0–31.7 %
SL vs. 8.5–11.9), maxillary barbel(254.5–360.5 % HL vs. 151.9–195.8); shallower head (16.2–19.7
% SL vs. 21.9–25.9) and body depth at anus (20.7–24.3 % SL vs.
24.4–28.2); shorter post-adipose distance (13.6–17.1 % SL vs.
17.9–20.5), pectoral spine length (15.0–20.4 % SL vs.
22.1–31.1); absence of coracoid shield (vs. presence) and continuous vomerine tooth band (vs. separated).
Comparative material and
sources:
Mystus vittatus: EBS/ZSI/F-6140, 4 ex., 73.9–94.3 mm SL, India: Tamil Nadu, Cauvery River
near Kumbakonam. MUMF 9527–9528, 2 ex., 72.7–76.8 mm SL, India: Tamil Nadu Tranquebar; ZSI Unregistered, 10 ex., 69.1–80.1 mm
SL, southern India: freshwater pond at Tranquebar,
coll. by Prof. R. Natarajan, 06.iv.1985.
Mystus bleekeri: ZSI 1076, (lectotype), 101.5mm SL, India: Yamuna River, date unknown.
MUMF 9521, 10 ex., 85.6–108.3 mm SL, India:
Ganga River at Patna, 16.vii.2008. MUMF 9522, 10 ex.74.2–98.8 mm SL, India: Brahmaputra River at Guwahati, 30.xii.2008.
Mystus gulio:
Data from Jayaram & Sanyal(2003).
Mystus carcio: ZSI
FF4081 (1), 47.9mm SL, India: Assam: Brahmaputra River at Guwahati. ZSI FF4080
(1), 42.9mm SL, same data a above. MUMF 9518/1 (1),
39.0mm SL, India: Assam: Brahmaputra River at Guwahati. MUMF
9518/3-9518/10 (8), 30.2–47.9 mm SL; same data as above. MUMF 9519/1-9519/17 (17), 39.0–47.0 mm SL, same data as
above. MUMF 9531 (1), 36 mm SL; India: Assam: UjanBazar, Guwahati.
Mystus dibrugarensis: Unregistered (5),
68.5–78.1 mm SL, India: Assam: Dibru River at Tinsukia.
REFERENCES
Bloch, M.E. (1794). Naturgeschichte der ausländischen Fische. Schlesinger, Berlin, 8: 1–174, pls.361–396.
Coad, B.W. (1981). Fishes of Afghanistan, an annoted checklist. National Museum of Canada
Publications in Zoology 14: i-v + 1-26.
Cuvier, G. & A. Valenciennes (1840). HistoireNaturelle des Poissons.Tome Quartozième. Pitois-Levrault, Paris, 464pp+pls.389–420.
Darshan, A., N. Anganthoibi& W. Vishwanath (2010). Redescription of the striped catfish Mystus carcio (Hamilton) (Siluriformes:Bagridae). Zootaxa2475: 48–54.
Darshan, A., W. Vishwanath, P.C. Mahanta & A. Barat (2011). Mystus ngasep, a new catfish species (Teleostei: Bagridae) from the
headwaters of Chindwin drainage in Manipur, India. Journal
of Threatened Taxa 3(11): 2177–2183.
Day,
F. (1875–78). The Fishes of India; Being a Natural
History of the Fishes Known to Inhabit the Seas and Fresh Waters of India,
Burma, and Ceylon. Bernard Quaritch,
London, 778 pp, pls. 195.
Hamilton,
F. (1822). An Account of The Fishes Found in The
River Ganges and Its Branches. Archibald
Constable, Edinburgh and Hurst, Robinson, London, 405pp.
Hollister, G. (1934). Clearing and dying fishes for bone study. Zoologica 12: 89–101.
Jayaram, K.C. (2006). Catfishes of India. Narendra Publishing House, Delhi, 383pp.
Jayaram, K.C.
& A. Sanyal (2003). A
taxonomic revision of the fishes of the genus Mystus Scopoli (Family: Bagridae). Records of the Zoological Survey of India Occasional Paper207: 1–136.
Jayaram, K.C.
& K.P. Singh (1977). On a collection of fish from north Bengal. Records of Zoological Survey of India 72:
243–275.
Menon, A.G.K. (1999). Checklist
of freshwater fishes of India. Records of Zoological
Survey of India, Miscellaneous Publication, Occasional Paper No. 179:
1–366.
Mirza, M.R. (2003). Checklist
of freshwater fishes of Pakistan. Suppl. Ser. 3: 1–30
Misra, K.S. (1976). The Fauna of India and Adjacent Countries.Pisces. Vol. III. Teleostomi: Cypriniformes;Siluri. Zoological Survey of
India, Calcutta, 367pp.
Mo,
T.P. (1991). Anatomy, Relationships
and Systematics of The Bagridae (Teleostei:Siluroidei) With A Hypothesis of SiluroidPhylogeny. Theses Zoologicae 17. Koeltz, Koenigstein, 216pp.
Mukerji, D.D. (1931). Captions Copied from Hamilton-Buchanan’s MS. of Gangetic Fishes. Unpublished
manuscript, 44pp.
Ng, H.H. & J.J. Dodson
(1999). Morphological
and genetic descriptions of a new species of catfish, Hemibagrus chrysops, from Sarawak, east Malaysia, with an
assessment of phylogenetic relationships (Teleostei: Bagridae). The Raffles Bulletin
of Zoology 47: 45–57.
Roberts, T.R. (1992). Revision of the striped catfishes of Thailand
misidentified as Mystus vittatus,
with descriptions of two new species (Pisces: Bagridae).Ichthyological Exploration of Freshwaters 3: 77–88.
Roberts, T.R. (1994). Systematic revision of Asian bagrid catfishes of the genus Mystus sensu stricto, with a
new species from Thailand and Cambodia. IchthyologicalExploration of Freshwaters 5: 241–256.
Roberts, T.R. (1998). Francis Hamilton and the freshwater stingrays described in his Gangetic fishes (1822). Archives of
Natural History 25(2): 267–280.
Sharma,
S.V. & S. Dutt (1983). Taxonomic studies on four
species of the genus Mystus Scopoli,
1777 (Siluriformes: Bagridae). Records
of Zoological Survey of India 81: 331–344.
Shaw,
G.E. & E.O. Shebbeare (1937). The fishes of northern Bengal. Journal of Royal Asiatic Society of Bengal, Science 3:
1-137, Pls. 6.
Shrestha T.K. (2008). Ichthyology
of Nepal. Himalayan Ecosphere, Nepal, 390pp+72pl.
Talwar, P.K.
& A.G. Jhingran (1991). Inland
Fishes of India and Adjacent Countries (Vol. 1 & 2). Oxford & IBH Publishing Co. Pvt Ltd.,
New Delhi, 1062pp.
Venkateswarlu, T.
& A.G.K. Menon (1979). A list of
fishes of the river Ganges and its branches. Acta Ichthyologica Et Piscatoria Vol. 1X Fasc. 1
Vishwanath, W., W.S. Lakra & U.K. Sarkar (2007). Fishes of North East India. National Bureau of Fish Genetic Resources, Lucknow,
UP., India, 264pp.