Re-description of Hypselobarbuslithopidos (Teleostei: Cyprinidae), based on its rediscovery from the Western Ghats, India, with notes on H.
thomassi
J.D. Marcus Knight 1, Ashwin Rai 2 & Ronald K.P. D’souza3
1 Flat L, Sri BalajiApartments, 7th Main Road, Dhandeeswaram, Velachery, Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600042, India
2 Department of Fisheries Microbiology, College of Fisheries, Yekkur, Mangalore, Karnataka 575002, India
3 Department of Applied Zoology, Mangalore University, Mangalagangothri, Manglore, Karnataka
574199, India
1 jdmarcusknight@yahoo.co.in (corresponding author), 2 winrai@yahoo.com,3 kevinroni@yahoo.com
Abstract: In recent times, though the genus Hypselobarbus has been studied substantially,
the identities of individual species remain ambiguous. Hypselobarbus lithopidos has been assessed as Data Deficient in
the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species with a speculation that it could
possibly be extinct as there has not been any validated record of this species
since 1941 from its known range. In
this work we report a population of this species from its type locality and
re-describe this little known species to clear any taxonomic ambiguity that
surrounds the identity of this species. We also attempt to clear the taxonomic ambiguity that surrounds the
identity of the Critically Endangered H. thomassiwith fresh collections from the type locality.
Keywords: Barbus, Critically Endangered, Extinct, Gonoproktopterus, large barbs, pulchellus,
South Canara, Wallaceanshortfall.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o3602.4734-42 | ZooBank:urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:75112E0D-333F-4A1D-AD52-1F942923033F
Editor: Anonymity requested. Date
of publication: 26 September 2013 (online & print)
Manuscript details: Ms # o3602 | Received 30 April
2012 | Final received 02 August 2013 | Finally accepted 08 September 2013
Citation: Knight, J.D.M., A. Rai & R.K.P. D’souza (2013). Re-description of Hypselobarbus lithopidos (Teleostei: Cyprinidae), based on its rediscovery from the Western
Ghats, India, with notes on H. thomassi. Journal of Threatened
Taxa 5(13): 4734-4742; http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o3602.4734-42
Copyright: © Knight et al. 2013. Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 UnportedLicense. JoTT allows unrestricted use of this
article in any medium, reproduction and distribution by providing adequate
credit to the authors and the source of publication.
Funding: Self funded.
Competing Interest: No competing interests
declared.
Author Contribution: JDMK and AR carried out the study; AR and RKPD carried out field surveys
and collected the lost species.
Author Details: Dr. J.D. Marcus Knight is a
naturalist based in Chennai. Amongst others, his interest is in exploring the
freshwater habitats and is currently documenting the diversity of freshwater fish
in southern India. Dr. Ashwin Rai is a Research Associate with the department of
fisheries microbiology, College of Fisheries and is involved in the study of
Aquatic Ecology and Biodiversity. In addition he is involved studieson the endemic fish species of Western Ghats using DNA Barcoding. Ronald
K.P. D’souza is currently doing his PhD at
Mangalore University in the Department of Applied Zoology; his area of research
is brood stock development, induced breeding and nursery rearing of selected
species of Hypselobarbus with focus on H. Jerdoni, H. lithopidosand H. thomassi.
Acknowledgements: We
would like to acknowledge the support provided by Mark McGroutherand Amanda Hay of Australian Museum. We thank the staff and personnel of
Aquatic Biosystems, Mangalore who helped in the
survey and collections in the river systems of Karnataka. We also thank Beta Mahatvaraj and Pushpangathan for
providing us the specimen from Kerala.
The publication of this article is
supported by the Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF), a joint initiative
of l’Agence Française de Développement, Conservation International, the
European Commission, the Global Environment Facility, the Government of
Japan, the MacArthur Foundation and the World Bank.
For figures, images, tables -- click here
Introduction
The genus Hypselobarbus Bleeker, 1860 has always interested ichthyologists and
though there has been substantial work carried out on this genus (Mukerji 1931; Raj 1941; Jayaram1997; Arunachalam et al. 2012; Pethiyagodaet al. 2012), the identities of individual species remain ambiguous beginning
with the identity of H. mussullah (Sykes,
1839), which is the type species of Hypselobarbus. Currently, the genus includes at least
11 other species namely, Hypselobarbus curmuca (Hamilton, 1807), H. dobsoni (Day, 1876), H. dubius (Day, 1867), H. micropogon (Valenciennes,
1842), H. jerdoni (Day, 1870), H. kolus (Sykes, 1839), H. kurali (Menon & Rema Devi, 1995), H.lithopidos (Day, 1874), H. periyarensis (Raj, 1941), H. pulchellus (Day, 1870), and H. thomassi (Day, 1874)
all endemic to the freshwater systems of peninsular India. The identity of certain other species
such as H. mysorensis (Jerdon,
1849) is ambiguous with some considering it a valid species (Mukerji 1931) while others consider it a synonym of H. micropogon (Menon,
1999). Similarly, a few other
species such as Gobio canarensis Jerdon, 1849, Barbus gracilis Jerdon, 1849, Barbus conirostris Günther, 1868 and Barbus guentheri Day, 1869 are either buried in synonymy
or lost in time. In spite of the
ambiguity, recent authors have even highlighted the possibility of undescribed species being concealed within this genus (Arunachalam et al. 2012). Of the known species, Hypselobarbus lithopidos is listed as Data Deficient in the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (Raghavan & Ali 2011), H. pulchellus is listed as Critically Endangered (possibly extinct) (Devi & Ali
2011a) and H. thomassi as Critically
Endangered (Devi & Ali 2011b). It is important to fill in knowledge gaps on
the identity and the current status of the already known species before
additional species are described under Hypselobarbus.
As there was an urgent need to do a complete taxonomic reassessment of
this species, we carried out fresh surveys in the type locality (South Canara = Dakshina Kannada). During these surveys specimens of H. lithopidos which fit the original
description by Day (1874) were collected. This highlighted the fact that this
enigmatic fish was not extinct as thought previously (Ali & Raghavan 2011; Molur et al. 2011;Arunachalam et al. 2012). Incidentally, H. thomassia very similar congener (type locality Canara) was
also collected during these surveys. There is a certain amount of taxonomic
ambiguity surrounding the identity of this species (Devi & Ali 2011b) with
the population found below the Palghat/Palakkad gap
being speculated as a different taxon.
In this paper, we confirm the presence of H. lithopidosin its type locality, and redescribe it thereby
clearing any ambiguity that may surround its identity. The identity of H. thomassi which is the closest resembling congeneris also discussed in this paper.
Materials and Methods
The materials used in the present study are based mostly on collections
from the Phalguni River, Mangalore and Kempu Hole River, a tributary of Netravathiin southern Karnataka. The
specimens used in this study are registered in the Collections of the
Zoological Survey of India, Southern Regional Centre, Chennai (ZSI/SRS) and the
private collections of J.D. Marcus Knight (MKC). Measurements were taken using a digital caliper to the nearest 0.1mm. The standard length (SL) was measured
using a foot ruler to the nearest 1.0mm. Quantification of characters follows Devi et al. (2010). Subunits of the head are also expressed
in proportions of head length (HL). Numbers in parenthesis after a count denote the frequency of that
count. Photographs of the syntypes of both H. lithopidosand H. thomassi from the
Natural History Museum, London (BMNH), the Australian Museum, Sydney (AMS) and
the Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard, (MCZ) were used to compare the
general body shape and the lateral line scale count. All specimens used in this study were
collected from the type locality (Dakshina Kannada)
and are putative topotypes.
Material examined
Hypselobarbus lithopidos:
ZSI/SRC F 8663, 14.x.2012, 2 exs.,105.0 – 135.0 mm SL, Phalguni River, (12059’55”N
& 75001’40”E) Mangalore, Karnataka, India, coll. Ashwin Rai; MKC 403, 14.x.2012, 1
ex., 169.0mm SL, Phalguni River, (12059’55”N
& 75001’40”E), Mangalore, Karnataka, India, coll. Ashwin Rai.
Barbus lithopidos (Syntype photos): BMNH 1889.2.1.554-8 (Image 1A); AMS B.8374
(Image 1B).
Description
Hypselobarbus lithopidos(Day, 1874)
Synonyms: Barbus lithopidos Day, 1874, Puntius lithopidos (Day, 1874), Gonoproktopterus lithopidos (Day, 1874).
Morphometric and meristic data are given in Table 1. General body shape and
appearance as in Images 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B & 2C. Body elongate, moderately deep,
laterally compressed; dorsal contour ascending gradually, with an indentation
at nape and tapering gradually posterior to dorsal-fin insertion; ventral
profile equally convex, curving gently up to anal-fin origin, thence sloping
upward towards caudal peduncle; caudal peduncle narrow, its depth a little less
than its length, concave in both dorsal and ventral profiles. Head long, snout rounded with an
indentation at the end. Mouth inferior, lips thick, lateral fold on the snout
present. Barbels 4, a maxillary pair and a rostral pair. Eye large, placed on
the upper half of the head, approximately 32–36 % HL. Dorsal-fin with
three simple and 9½ branched rays, the last simple ray weak. Dorsal-fin origin slightly behind pelvic-fin origin, inserted
midway between tip of snout and base of caudal fin. Pelvic fin with one
simple and 8(1)–9(2) branched rays. Anal fin with three simples and 5½ branched rays. Pectoral fin with one simple and 15 branched
rays. Pectoral and pelvic fins
short, not reaching pelvic and anal-fin origins respectively. Caudal fin with
19 (1+9+8+1) rays, deeply forked with the principal rays white in colour. Lateral line complete, with 37(1) -
38(2) scales + 1 scale on the caudal fin base. Transverse scales from
dorsal-fin origin to ventral fin origin ½ 6/1/ 3 ½ (1) - ½
6/1/4 (2). Predorsalscales 13(1), 14(2), prepelvic scales 12; and 15 circumpeduncular scales. Pelvic axillary
scale present. Gill rakers 5 (1), 6 (2) + 14 (1), 15 (2)
on first gill arch.
Coloration
Formalin-fixed and alcohol-preserved specimens are dark grey at the back
progressively becoming lighter at the abdomen with the fin edges becoming
black. The outer edges of each
scale has scattered pigments. In life, juveniles below the size of 50mm SL are
grey with each scale having a dark outer edge. Pelvic fins are bright red in juveniles,
which slowly lose colour as the fish ages (Images 2A,B & C). Adult specimens silvery grey with all
fins grey, the principal rays of the caudal fin are white in colour.
Distribution
Hypselobarbus lithopidos was
collected only from Phalguni River of Dakshina Kannada along the southern Western Ghats.
Discussion
Barbus lithopidoscurrently designated to the Genus Hypselobarbus (Rainboth 1989; Menon1992; Arunachalam et al. 2012; Yang et al. 2012) was
described by Day (1874) from South Canara,
India. Hypselobarbus lithopidos is endemic to the southern
Western Ghats (Shaji et al. 2000; Dahanukar et
al. 2004). The currently known
range of this species is based on reports made in the early half of the last
century (1929–1941): drainages in Trivandrum District (Pillai 1929, John 1936); PeriyarNational Park and Tiger Reserve as well as River Chaliyarat Nilambur (Raj 1941). For additional details see Raghavan & Ali (2011).
Though Hypselobarbus lithopidos has been assessed as Data Deficient (Raghavan & Ali 2011) stating that there are no
confirmed records of this species from its range since 1941, there have been
sporadic reports of this species from the Western Ghats (David 1956; Indra& Devi 1990; Yazdani et al. 2001; Cherian et al. 2001; Vijaykumaret al. 2008; Vijaylaxmi & Vijaykumar2011; Ahmad et al. 2011). Indra & Devi (1990) report H. lithopidosfrom Thekkady. Though their voucher specimens (ZSI/SRC F 1873 collected in 1975) were
untraceable, the photograph of the fish provided in the paper (Fig. 2 in Indra & Devi 1990) portrayed a very deep
bodied fish unlike the elongated streamlined fish that H. lithopidos is, raising doubts on the identity of the
specimens they had examined. The
other reports of H. lithopidos (David 1956; Vijaykumar et al. 2008; Vijaylaxmi& Vijaykumar 2011) were as a part of pollution
studies or ichthyofaunal surveys and lacked the
description or the voucher specimen of the fish identified as H. lithopidos thereby providing no clarity on the identity
of this enigmatic barb. The recent
report of this species by Ahmad et al. (2011), also
needs verification as the record of this species fails to find mention in a
subsequent phylogeny study of the genus by the same authors (Arunachalam et al. 2012) and has been stated to be
different (M. Arunachalam pers. comm.: in Raghavan & Ali 2011). The other reports (Cherianet al. 2001; Yazdani et al. 2001) were merely based
on reports prior to 1941.
Other than these unverified sporadic reports there have not been any
confirmed records of this species from Kerala, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu parts
of Western Ghats, although this area has been comprehensively explored (Easa & Basha 1995; Chandrashekhariah et al. 2000; Gopi2000; Kurup et al. 2004) leading to the species
being presumed extinct (Raghavan & Ali 2011)
During our surveys, specimens of H. lithopidos which fit the original description of Day (1874) were
collected from Phalguni River in DakshinaKannada, highlighting the fact that this enigmatic fish is not extinct as
previously thought.
Hypselobarbus lithopidos can
be distinguished from its closest resembling congener, i.e., H. thomassi by a higher lateral line scale count of
37–38 + 1 (vs. 32–33 + 1) and transverse scale row ½ 6/1/ 3
½ - 4 (vs. ½ 5/1/2 ½ - 3). It can further be distinguished from H.thomassi by a higher number of pre-dorsal scales
13–14 (vs. 11–12) and higher number of gill rakers5–6 + 14–15 (vs. 4 + 11–12) in the first gill arch.
Hypselobarbus lithopidos can
also be distinguished from H. micropogon, H.periyarensis and H. dubiusby having its last simple dorsal ray weak and articulated vs. strong osseous (Jayaram 1991). It can be distinguished from H. curmucaand H. kurali by the presence of a thin
keratinized covering on the inside of the lower jaw vs. absence of the thin
keratinized covering in the other two species. It can also be distinguished from the
latter by the white principal rays of the caudal fin whichis absent in H. curmuca and H. kurali (Talwar & Jhingran 1991). Moreover it can be further distinguished from H. curmucaby the presence of two pairs of barbels vs. one pair
of barbel in the latter. H. lithopidos can be further distinguished from H.kolus by the presence of two pairs of barbels and 38–39 lateral line scales vs. one pair ofbarbel and 40–43 lateral line scales. H. lithopidos can also be distinguished from H. jerdoni, H. dobsoniand H. pulchellus by a higher lateral line
scale count of 38–39 scales vs. 27–32 scales in the other three
species (Jayaram 1991).
It is relevant to note that Jayaram (1991) has
also reported H. lithopidos from Thekkady, Kerala (ZSI/SRC F 2088) with a lateral line scale
count of 38–40. As we could
not locate these specimens, their identity remains unclear. Evidently the range of these enigmatic
barbs is quite large. Dams and hydro-electric projects with other anthropogenic factors
such as over exploitation and use of destructive fishing practices could be a
reason for the decline in the population of these barbs in its historic
range. Wallaceanshortfall also plays a part in species being presumed extinct (Knight 2010)
which in this case is clear, with the record of H. lithopidosfrom its type locality from where it was presumed extinct.
Hypselobarbus thomassi has
been reported from several drainages north and south of PalghatGap in the Western Ghats. However,
only in Netravathi and Kabinirivers (part of the Cauvery catchment in Karnataka and Kerala) north of the Palghat Gap, are the reports of this species confirmed
while the southern Western Ghats populations are considered a different taxon
(Devi & Ali 2011b). Though recent surveys in the two areas have only
reported one specimen from Netravathi (Devi & Ali
2011b) we recorded this species in the Kempu Hole river, a tributary of the Nethravathi-Kumaradharariver systems. Hypselobarbus thomassi is consumed locally as a prized food
fish and was observed to grow to more than 600mm in length and weighing more
than 4kg. The adults are deep red
in colour with all fins becoming red. The scales are also red with the outer edges becoming dark; the coloring is true to the name given by Day (1874) as the
‘red mahseer’ of Canara(local name is Kempu Pervaul= Red Mahseer) (Image 2E).
It is relevant at this point to note that Arunachalamet al. (2012) have illustrated a Hypselobarbus sp. from Rosemala, Kerala [=Rosemalai(also spelt as ‘Rusewalai’ in pg. 70 and 71 of Arunachalam et al. 2012 )], which
they identify as H. lithopidos in figure 4 of
pg. 71. However, the image of this
species provided by the authors in pg. 66 (fig. 3A of Arunachalamet al. 2012) clearly shows a species with approximately 34 lateral line scales
on the body. This species which they speculate to be H. lithopidoscould very well be H. thomassi. Interestingly,
there is no mention of H. thomassi in that
paper.
Incidentally, we examined one specimen of H. thomassicollected below Athirapally Falls, Chalakudy River, Kerala (ZSI/SRC F
8665) (Image 2D). We could not
observe any valid differences between this specimen and the H. thomassi collected in DakshinaKannada to warrant this specimen as a different taxon (morphometricsand meristics provided in Table 1). Therefore, the contention that the
southern Western Ghats population below the Palghatgap is a different taxon (Devi & Ali 2011b) needs further validation and
substantiation.
Interestingly, Hypselobarbus pulchellus, another species whichis listed as ‘Critically Endangered’ and possibly extinct (Devi & Ali
2011c), was also collected during our surveys. We collected specimens with a lateral
line scale count ranging from 32–35 + 1–2 from SitaRiver in Dakshina Kannada (Images 3A & B). Interestingly, there is a very recent
report of a ‘Puntius pulchellus’in a newspaper (Shrivana 2013). However, the common name given in the
report being ‘Hullugende’ or ‘Haragi’
is used for either the cultured grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella) or Hypselobarbus dobsoni and not for H. pulchellus,
which is called ‘Katladi’ by the local people. Moreover, the photograph given in the
report clearly shows a fish with the dorsal fin tipped with black, which is a
characteristic of H. dobsoni and not H. pulchellus. As the report does not mention any voucher specimens, the identity of
the fish reported as H. pulchellus needs
verification. Such reports not only
hamper organized taxonomic work but also add to the ambiguity that surrounds
such little known fish (Raghavan et al. 2013). We propose to elucidate the identity of H.pulchellus in a subsequent paper.
Comparativematerial
Hypselobarbus thomassi: ZSI/SRC F 8664, 13.i.2013, 2 exs., 133–135 mm SL, Kempu Hole River (12049’52”N & 75029’60”E),tributary of Netravathi River, Karnataka, coll.Ashwin Rai; MKC 404, 13.i.2013, 1 ex., 213mm SL, Kempu Hole River (12049’52”N & 75029’60”E),tributary of Netravathi River, Karnataka, coll.Ashwin Rai; ZSI/SRC F 8665,
11.vii.2012, 1 ex. 132mm SL, below Athirapally waterfalls, ChalakudyRiver, Kerala, coll. Pushpangathan.
Barbus thomassi (Syntype photo): MCZ 4270 (Image 1C)
References
Ahmad, S., M. Muralidharan, M. Venkateshwarlu & M. Arunachalam(2011). Distribution
pattern, endemism, threat status and conservation measures of fishes in the Tunga and Bhadra rivers of
Western Ghats, India. Environmental Biology of Fishes96(10–11): 1245–1256; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10641-011-9915-y
Arunachalam, M., M. Raja, M. Muralidharan& R.L. Mayden (2012). Phylogenetic relationships of species of Hypselobarbus(Cypriniformes: Cyprinidae):
an enigmatic clade endemic to aquatic systems of India. Zootaxa 3499: 63–73.
Bleeker, P.
(1860). Conspectus systematis Cyprinorum. Natuurkundig Tijdschrift voor Nederlandsch-Indië 20:
421–441.
Chandrashekhariah, H.N.,
M.F. Rahman & S.L. Raghavan (2000). Status of fish fauna in Karnataka, pp.
98–135. In: Ponniah,
A.G. & A. Gopalakrishnan (eds.). Endemic Fish Diversity of Western Ghats. NBFGR-NATP publication, National Bureau of Fish Genetic Resources, Lucknow, India, 347pp.
Cherian, P. T.,
K.R. Devi, T.J. Indra, M.B. Raghunathan & V.M.S.
Kumar (2001). On the Ichthyofauna of Trivandrum District, Kerala, India. Records of the Zoological Survey of India99(1-4): 95–110.
Dahanukar, N., R.Raut & A. Bhat (2004). Distribution, endemism and threat status
of freshwater fishes in the Western Ghats of India. Journal of Biogeography 31: 123–136; http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.0305-0270.2003.01016.x
David, A. (1956). Studies on the
pollution of the Bhadra river fisheries at Bhadravathi (Mysore State) with industrial effluents. Proceedings of the National Institute of Science, India22(3): 13–2169.
Day, F. (1867). On the fishes of the Neilgherry Hills and rivers around their bases. Proceedings
of the General Meetings for Scientific Business of the Zoological Society of
London 2: 281–302
Day, F. (1869). Observations
on Indian fishes. Proceedings of the
General Meetings for Scientific Business of the Zoological Society of London3: 580–585.
Day, F. (1870). Notes
on some fishes from the western coast of India. Proceedings of the General Meetings for Scientific Business of
the Zoological Society of London 2: 369–374.
Day, F. (1874). On some new or
little-known fishes of India. Proceedings of the
General Meetings for Scientific Business of the Zoological Society of London1873(3): 704–710.
Day, F. (1876). On some of the fishes
of the Deccan. The Journal of the LinneanSociety of London 12(64): 565–578; http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1096-3642.1876.tb00232.x
Devi, K.R. & A. Ali (2011a). Hypselobarbus thomassi.
In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version
2012.2. <www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 12
April 2013.
Devi, K.R. & A. Ali (2011b). Hypselobarbus thomassi. In:
IUCN 2013. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.Version 2013.1. <www.iucnredlist.org>.
Downloaded on 09 September 2013.
Devi, K.R. & A. Ali (2011c). Hypselobarbus pulchellus.
In: IUCN 2013. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.Version 2013.1. <www.iucnredlist.org>.
Downloaded on 09 September 2013.
Devi, K.R., T.J. Indra & J.D.M. Knight
(2010). Puntius rohani (Teleostei: Cyprinidae), a new
species of barb in the Puntius filamentosus group from the southern Western Ghats of
India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 2(9): 1121–1129; http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o2505.1121-9
Easa, P.S. & S.C. Basha(1995). A Survey on the
Habitat and Distribution of Stream Fishes in the Kerala Part of Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve. Kerala
Forest Research Institute (KFRI), Thrissur, 87pp.
Gopi,
K.C. (2000). Freshwater fishes of
Kerala State, pp. 56–76. In: Ponniah,
A.G. & A. Gopalakrishnan (eds.). Endemic Fish Diversity of Western Ghats. NBFGR-NATP publication, National Bureau of Fish Genetic Resources, Lucknow, India, 347pp.
Günther, A. (1868). Catalogue of the Physostomi,
containing the families Heteropygii, Cyprinidae, Gonorhynchidae, Hyodontidae, Osteoglossidae, Clupeidae, Chirocenridae, Alepocephalidae, Notopteridae, Halosauridae, in the collection of the British Museum. Catalogue of the fishes in the British Museum, xx+512pp.
Indra, T.J. & K.R. Devi (1990). On a small collection of fish from ThekkadyWildlife reserve, Western Ghats. Records of the Zoological Survey of India 87(3):
249–257.
Hamilton, F. (1807). A Journey from Madras
through the Countries of Mysore, Canara, and Malabar,
performed under the orders of the most noble the Marquis Wellesley, Governor
General of India. T. Cadell and
W. Davies, London, 3: i-iv+1–479+i-xiii
Jayaram, K.C. (1991). Revision of the Genus Puntius Hamilton from the Indian region (Pisces: Cypriniformes, Cyprinidae, Cyprininae). Records of the
Zoological Survey of India Occasional Paper 135: 1–178.
Jayaram, K.C. (1997). Nomenclature
and systematic status of Barbus mussullah (Sykes, 1839). Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 94(1):
48–55.
Jerdon, T.C. (1849). On
the freshwater fishes of southern India. Madras Journal of Literature and Science 15(2):
302–346.
John, C.C. (1936). Freshwater fish and
fisheries of Travancore. Journal of the Bombay
Natural History Society 38(4): 702–733.
Knight, J.D.M. (2010). Addressing the wallacean shortfall: an
updated Checklist of Icthyofauna of Chembarampakkam tank. Taprobanica2(1): 25–29; http://dx.doi.org/10.4038/tapro.v2i1.2704
Kurup, B.M., K.V. Radhakrishnan & T.G. Manojkumar (2004).Biodiversity Status of Fishes Inhabiting Rivers of Kerala (South India) With
Special Reference to Endemism, Threats and Conservation Measures, pp.
163–182. In: Welcomme, R.L. & T. Petr (eds.). Proceedings of the second
international symposium on the management of large rivers for fisheries,
Cambodia, 2: 316.
Menon, A.G.K. (1992). Taxonomy of Mahseer fishes of the genus Tor Graywith description of a new species from the Deccan. Journal
of the Bombay Natural History Society 89 (2): 210–228.
Menon, A.G.K. & K.R. Devi (1995). Hypselobarbus kurali(Pisces: Cyprinidae) a new large barb from the south western rivers of peninsular India. Journal
of the Bombay Natural History Society 92: 389–393.
Molur, S., K.G.
Smith, B.A. Daniel & W.R.T. Darwall (Compilers)
(2011). The
status and distribution of freshwater biodiversity in the Western Ghats, India. IUCN and Coimbatore, India: 200 Outreach Organization.Cambridge, U. K. and Gland, Switzerland, 116pp.
Mukerji, D.D. (1931). On a small collection
of fish from the Bhavani River (S. India). Journal of Bombay Natural History Society 35(1):
162–171.
Pethiyagoda, R., M. Meegaskumbura& K. Maduwage (2012). Synopsis of the South Asian fishes referred to Puntius(Pisces: Cyprinidae). IchthyologicalExploration of Freshwaters 23(1): 69–95.
Pillai, R.S.N. (1929). A list of fishes taken in Travancore from
1901–1915. Journal of the Bombay Natural History
Society 33: 348–379.
Raghavan, R. & A. Ali (2011). Hypselobarbus lithopidos.
In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.Version 2012.2. <www.iucnredlist.org>.
Downloaded on 12 April 2013.
Raghavan, R., N. Dahanukar,
S. Philip, K. Krishnakuar & A. Ali (2013). ‘Phantom references’, ‘nomina nuda’ and the dilemma of
freshwater fish taxonomy in India. Current Science104(10): 1277–1279.
Rainboth, W.J. (1989). Discherodontus,
a new genus of Cyprinid fishes from South-eastern Asia. OccassionalPaper of Museum of Zoology, (University of Michigan) 718:
1–31.
Raj, B.S. (1941). Two new Cyprinid fishes from Travancore, South India,
with remarks on Barbus (Puntius)micropogon Cuv. and Val. Records of the Indian Museum (Calcutta)43(3): 375–386.
Shaji, C.P., P.S. Easa & A. Gopalakrishnan(2000). Freshwater fish
diversity of Western Ghats, pp. 33–35. In: Ponniah,
A.G. & A. Gopalakrishnan (eds.). Endemic Fish Diversity of Western Ghats. NBFGR-NATP publication, National Bureau of Fish Genetic Resources, Lucknow, India, 347pp.
Shrivana, R. (2013). Ray of hope for rare
fish. Spectrum State Scan, Deccan Herald, 2p.
Sykes, W.H. (1839). On
the fishes of the Deccan. Proceedings
of the Zoological Society of London 6: 157–165.
Talwar, P.K. & A.G. Jhingran(1991). Inland fishes of
India and Adjacent Countries—Vol. 1 & 2. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, 541.
Valenciennes (1842). In: Cuvier, G. & A. Valenciennes (1842). Histoire
naturelle des poissons. Tome seizième. Livre dix-huitième. Les Cyprinoïdes. Histoire naturelle des poissons, 16:
i–xx+1–472.
Vijaylaxmi, C. & K. Vijaykumar(2011). Biodiversity of Fish
Fauna of the Bheema River in Gulbarga District of
Karnataka. The Ecoscan 5(1&2):
21–25.
Vijaykumar, K., C. Vijaylaxmi & Z. Parveen (2008). Ichthyofaunal diversity of Kagina river in Gulbarga District of Karnataka. The Ecoscan 2(2): 161–163.
Yang, M., Hirt,
V., Sado, T., Arunachalam,
M., Manickam, R., Tang, K. L., Simons, A. M., Wu, H., Mayden, R., and Miya, M. (2012). Phylogenetic placements of
the barbin genera Discherodontus,Chagunius, and Hypselobarbusin the subfamily Cyprininae (Teleostei:Cypriniformes) and their relationships with other barbins. Zootaxa 3586: 26-40
Yazdani, G.M., K.R. Devi, M.B. Raghunathan & D.F. Singh (2001). Fauna of Nilgiri Biosphere
Reserve. Fauna of Conservation Area Series,
Zoological Survey of India 11: 207–224.