2018
DOI: 10.1111/jfb.13786
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A new species of Diapoma (Characiformes, Characidae, Stevardiinae) from the Rio Paraná basin, with an identification key to the species of the genus

Abstract: Diapoma nandi is described from the Piray-Miní stream, a tributary of the Rio Paraná in Argentina. It is characterized among the Stevardiinae by having a terminal mouth, two unbranched and eight branched dorsal-fin rays, one unbranched and six branched pelvic-fin rays and the absence of a caudal-fin organ and is distinguished from all congeners by the following combination of characters: unmodified scales on the lower caudal-fin lobe, lack of enlarged opercle and subopercle, incomplete lateral line, hyaline ad… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4

Relationship

2
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 25 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…with Diapoma as the only exception (Thomaz et al, 2015;Vanegas-Ríos, Azpelicueta, & Malabarba, 2018). However, and as found in different phylogenetic studies using morphological data, the mere presence of the hypertrophied caudal-fin squamation does not support a monophyletic group (Ferreira, Menezes, & Quagio-Grassioto, 2011;Menezes & Weitzman, 2009;Mirande, 2018;Vanegas-Ríos, 2018;Weitzman et al, 2005).…”
mentioning
confidence: 78%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…with Diapoma as the only exception (Thomaz et al, 2015;Vanegas-Ríos, Azpelicueta, & Malabarba, 2018). However, and as found in different phylogenetic studies using morphological data, the mere presence of the hypertrophied caudal-fin squamation does not support a monophyletic group (Ferreira, Menezes, & Quagio-Grassioto, 2011;Menezes & Weitzman, 2009;Mirande, 2018;Vanegas-Ríos, 2018;Weitzman et al, 2005).…”
mentioning
confidence: 78%
“…In addition to that squamation, all those genera can be partly or exclusively diagnosed or defined by other remarkable features associated with bony hooks, caudal muscles, and spur‐shaped structures (Arcila, Vari, & Menezes, ; Menezes & Weitzman, ; Vanegas‐Ríos, ; Weitzman & Fink, ; Weitzman & Menezes, ; Weitzman, Menezes, Evers, & Burns, ; Zarske, ). Most characters related to the terminal caudal‐fin squamation have played a crucial role in defining stable generic limits among the stevardiines, especially in those species with modified squamation on the lower caudal‐fin lobe (Arcila et al, ; Deprá, Graça, Pavanelli, Avelino, & Oliveira, ; Menezes, Weitzman, & Burns, ; Vanegas‐Ríos, , ; Weitzman & Fink, ; Weitzman, Fink, Machado‐Allison, & Royero, ;Weitzman & Malabarba, ; Weitzman & Thomerson, ); with Diapoma as the only exception (Thomaz et al, ; Vanegas‐Ríos, Azpelicueta, & Malabarba, ). However, and as found in different phylogenetic studies using morphological data, the mere presence of the hypertrophied caudal‐fin squamation does not support a monophyletic group (Ferreira, Menezes, & Quagio‐Grassioto, ; Menezes & Weitzman, ; Mirande, ; Vanegas‐Ríos, ; Weitzman et al, ).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Measurements and other counts were taken based on Fink and Weitzman (1974), with the addition of the anal‐fin lobe length and the distance between the dorsal‐ and pectoral‐fin origins, following Vanegas‐Ríos et al (2018). Measurements were taken point to point using digital calipers under a stereomicroscope and expressed as percentages of standard length ( L S ) or head length ( L H ) for units of the head.…”
Section: Ethics Statementmentioning
confidence: 99%