Taxonomia das populações de Hyphessobrycon boulengeri (Eigenmann, 1907) e Hyphessobrycon reticulatus Ellis, 1911 (Characiformes: Characidae)

Abstract

A taxonomic revision of Hyphessobrycon boulengeri (Eigenmann, 1907) and H. reticulatus Ellis, 1911 populations is presented with the description of a new species. A total of 600 specimens from southeastern and south Brazil were examined, ranging from Espírito Santo to Rio Grande do Sul. Morphometric multivariate analysis, osteologic characters, and color pattern allowed to recognition of H. boulengeri as valid species, occurring in coastal drainages from Rio de Janeiro to Rio Grande do Sul, and upper Paraná, Iguaçu, and Uruguay rivers, and a new species was found from rio Doce and rio da Prata in Espírito Santo State. H. boulengeri is diagnosed by presenting a humeral spot vertically elongate and relatively rounded; a narrow midlateral dark stripe in flank, weakly joined to caudal-peduncle blotch; caudal peduncle spot usually diamond shaped, with rounded edges; body with reticulated pattern formed by cromatophores concentration on posterior margin of scales; a narrow stripe on anal fin base and bony hooks strongly curved and very conspicuous on anal fin of males larger than 32.1 mm. Hyphessobrycon sp1. n. differs from the majority of congeners by the following combination of characters: a rounded humeral spot, sometimes with diffuse vertical tips; caudal peduncule blotch slightly rounded, extending onto middle caudal fin rays in few specimens; midlateral dark stripe absent in flank; body scales with intense pigmentation on their margins, forming a reticulated pattern; narrow lateral stripe along anal fin base, and 3 rd and 4 th infraorbitals co-ossified. Furthermore Hyphessobrycon sp1. n. is separated from H. boulengeri by the absence of midlateral dark stripe on flank and the co-ossification of infraorbitals 3 rd and 4 th . A short comment about biogeographic distribution of species in coastal and continental drainages of southeast and south Brazil is made.

Common barriers, but temporal dissonance: Genomic tests suggest ecological and paleo‐landscape sieves structure a coastal riverine fish community

“…A community-wide effect supporting alternative scenarios have been suggested based on inferred congruence of population histories associated with Pleistocene climatic changes in the Atlantic Forest (Carnaval et al, 2009;Leite et al, 2016;Paz et al, 2018; but see Thomé, Zamudio, Haddad, & Alexandrino, 2014 The ramifications of the variation in the ephemerality of isolation across space, and among taxa, can be extended to consideration of the speciation process and distribution of diversity. For example, one of the oldest and one of the youngest divergence estimates (i.e., the northern division in H. boulengeri and the southern division in Hollandichthys, respectively; Figure 3) correspond to the proposed boundaries of putative species recognized by morphological data (Bertaco & Malabarba, 2013;Carvalho, 2006). In addition, for Bryconamericus, one species boundary corresponds to the southern division inferred in our study (Hirschmann, Fagundes, & Malabarba, 2017); however, we note the lack of a correspondence between the designation of two other species within this taxon and the regional structure inferred here (i.e., north clusters: populations 40 and 41 for B. ornaticeps and population 42 for B. tenuis -see Supporting Information S1), which results in a paraphyletic species under the currently proposed nomenclature.…”

Development of secondary sexual characters and their relationship to ontogeny and seasonal reproductive period in Hyphessobrycon igneus (Ostariophysi: Characiformes)

“…Additional male behaviours and morphological characters, such as courtship displays and fin colour and shape, also appear to play a role in mate choice in many fishes (Forsgren et al ., ), with fin variation being commonly observed in various fish groups (Py Daniel & Cox‐Fernandes, ). The differences in male and female anal‐fin shape observed herein is often used as a character in the study of Characidae systematics (Miquelarena & Aquino, ; Canan & Gurgel, ; Miquelarena & Aquino, ; Bertaco & Lucinda, ; Carvalho, ; Carvalho & Bertaco, ; Matheus, ; Bertaco et al, ; Carvalho et al, ; Lucena & Malabarba, ; Carvalho, ; Jerep & Malabarba, ). Nevertheless, there can be intrageneric variation in this pattern; for example, anal‐fin shape is similar in males and females of H. togoi (Oyakawa et al, ) and Hyphessobrycon nicolasi Miquelarena & López, (Miquelarena & López, ).…”

“…Thus, the characters of fin shape and colour are related to sexual maturation in males and, once established, remain throughout adulthood rather than being lost or undergoing regression. In some Hyphessobrycon spp., including H. igneus, males have hooks on the pelvic and anal fins (Lima & Moreira, 2003;Carvalho, 2006;Garcia-Alzate & Román-Valencia, 2008;Garcia-Alzate et al, 2010). In other Characidae species, males lack hooks on their fins (Bertaco & Carvalho, 2005;Garcia-Alzate & Román-Valencia, 2008), have hooks only on their anal fin (Bertaco et al, 2007;Garcia-Alzate & Román-Valencia, 2008;Carvalho, 2011), have hooks on three or more ( , 0-4; , 5-9; , 10-14; , 15-19; , >20) distinct fins (Bertaco & Malabarba, 2005;Garcia-Alzate & Román-Valencia, 2008;Miquelarena & López, 2010), or have hooks on all their fins (Miquelarena & López, 2006;Bertaco et al, 2007;Camelier & Zanata, 2014).…”

“…Fishes can also show sexual dimorphism in the shape of caudal, pelvic, pectoral and anal fins (Py Daniel & Cox-Fernandes, 2005). Sex differences in fin shape, size and coloration have been reported for many species of Characidae (Miquelarena & Aquino, 1995;Canan & Gurgel, 1997;Miquelarena & Aquino, 1999;Bertaco & Lucinda, 2005;Carvalho, 2006;Carvalho & Bertaco, 2006;Matheus, 2006;Miquelarena & López, 2006;Oyakawa et al, 2006;Bertaco et al, 2007;Alcaraz et al, 2009;Menezes & Weitzman, 2009;Zanata & Camelier, 2009;Carvalho et al, 2010;Lucena & Malabarba, 2010;Miquelarena & López, 2010;Zanata & Camelier, 2010;Jerep & Malabarba, 2011;Camelier & Zanata, 2014). The development of bony hooks on fin rays (Fig.…”

“…The development of bony hooks on fin rays (Fig. 1) is a male secondary sexual character often used in phylogenetic analyses of many Characidae taxa (Von Ihering & Azevedo, 1936;Andrade et al, 1984;Garutti, 1990;Azevedo, 2000;Oliveira et al, 2002;Lima & Moreira, 2003;Malabarba & Weitzman, 2003;Silvano et al, 2003;Azevedo, 2004;Lampert et al, 2004;Bertaco & Carvalho, 2005;Bertaco & Malabarba, 2005;Gonçalves et al, 2005;Andrade et al, 2006;Carvalho, 2006;Miquelarena & López, 2006;Sato et al, 2006;Bertaco et al, 2007;Lampert et al, 2007;Garcia-Alzate & Román-Valencia, 2008;Garcia-Alzate et al, 2010;Miquelarena & López, 2010;Carvalho, 2011;Dala-Corte & Fialho, 2013;Camelier & Zanata, 2014). These hooks are often interpreted to be contact organs during spawning (Wiley & Collette, 1970), but their real function is still poorly understood.…”