2013
DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3640.4.4
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Description of <i>Loraxichthys lexa</i>, new genus and species (Siluriformes: Loricariidae) from the Río Huallaga Basin, central Peru, with notes on the morphology of the enigmatic <i>Lipopterichthys carrioni</i> Norman, 1935

Abstract: A new genus and species of armored catfish, Loraxichthys lexa, collected in 1955 by the Catherwood Foundation Peruvian-Amazon Expedition from the vicinity of Tingo María, Huánuco, is described herein. Loraxichthys is diagnosed by two uniquely derived characters: two to four robust evertible posterior cheek odontodes with hooked tips, longer than odontodes anterior to them but no more than twice their length; and skin folds on dorsal border along first pelvic-fin ray crenulated in mature males. Loraxichthys lex… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
6
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

1
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 16 publications
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…To date, there has been no comprehensive examination of relationships between all five species of Cordylancistrus; however, every phylogenetic study that has examined more than a single species has found them to be paraphyletic with respect to other closely related genera (i.e., Dolichancistrus, Leptoancistrus). These include two studies based on morphological data (Armbruster, 2008;Salcedo, 2013) and two studies based on molecular data (Lujan et al, 2015, in press). The most comprehensive of these is that by Lujan et al (in press), which examines relationships between four valid species (Co. aequinoctialis, Co. torbesensis, Co. platycephalus, and Co. santarosensis), and one species described herein as new.…”
Section: T He Genusmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To date, there has been no comprehensive examination of relationships between all five species of Cordylancistrus; however, every phylogenetic study that has examined more than a single species has found them to be paraphyletic with respect to other closely related genera (i.e., Dolichancistrus, Leptoancistrus). These include two studies based on morphological data (Armbruster, 2008;Salcedo, 2013) and two studies based on molecular data (Lujan et al, 2015, in press). The most comprehensive of these is that by Lujan et al (in press), which examines relationships between four valid species (Co. aequinoctialis, Co. torbesensis, Co. platycephalus, and Co. santarosensis), and one species described herein as new.…”
Section: T He Genusmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…C. chimu differs from congeners except C. anale , Chaetostoma bifurcum Lujan et al ., 2015a, C. breve , C. brevilabiatum , Chaetostoma changae Salcedo, 2006, Chaetostoma daidalmatos Salcedo, 2006, Chaetostoma dermorhynchum Boulenger, 1887, Chaetostoma dupouii Fernández‐Yépez, 1945, C. fischeri Steindachner, 1879, C. formosae , Chaetostoma floridablancaense , Chaetostoma guairense Steindachner, 1881, Chaetostoma jegui Rapp Py‐Daniel, 1991, C. joropo , C. lepturum Regan, 1912, C. leucomelas , Chaetostoma lineopunctatum Eigenmann & Allen, 1942, C. marginatum , C. milesi , C. niveum , C. palmeri , C. patiae , C. paucispinis , Chaetostoma pearsei Eigenmann, 1920, Chaetostoma stannii Lütken, 1874, Chaetostoma stroumpoulos Salcedo, 2006, C. tachiraense , Chaetostoma taczanowskii Steindachner, 1882, C. thomsoni , Chaetostoma trimaculineum Lujan et al ., 2015a, C. vagum (new synonym of C. anale , see below), Chaetostoma vasquezi Lasso & Provenzano, 1998, Chaetostoma venezuelae (Schultz, 1944) and Chaetostoma yurubiense Ceas & Page, 1996, by having curved cheek odontodes ( vs . cheek odontodes straight through most or all of odontode length in C. anomalum , Chaetostoma branickii Steindachner, 1881, Chaetostoma carrioni (Norman, 1935), C. dorsale , Chaetostoma lexa (Salcedo, 2013), Chaetostoma loborhynchos Tschudi, 1846, Chaetostoma machiquense Fernández‐Yépez & Martín Salazar, 1953, Chaetostoma marmorescens Eigenmann & Allen, 1942, Chaetostoma microps Günther, 1864, Chaetostoma nudirostre Lütken, 1874, C. platyrhynchus , C. sovichthys and Chaetostoma spondylus Salcedo & Ortega, 2015). Chaetostoma chimu further differs from species with straight cheek odontodes in addition to C. guairense and C. pearsei by having a parieto‐supraoccipital excrescence ( vs .…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This genus is one of the most species‐rich of the subfamily Hypostominae along with Hypostomus and Ancistrus , and is in need of taxonomic review with several species of uncertain validity, and a number of undescribed species. Although there have been different works dealing with the taxonomy of Peruvian and Ecuadorian species of Chaetostoma (Lujan et al ., 2015a, 2015c; Salcedo, 2006, 2013; Salcedo et al ., 2011; Salcedo & Ortega, 2015), the status of Colombian and especially Venezuelan species is comparatively poorer, despite modest efforts in the past (Ballen, 2011; Ballen et al ., 2016). Currently 23 species have been documented in Colombia, which represents about half the known diversity in the genus.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, Lipopterichthys Norman and Loraxichthys Salcedo also exhibit these traits. Chaetostoma differs externally from Lipopterichthys by having 14 (vs. 12) branched caudalfin rays, from Loraxichthys by having short (vs. long) hypertrophied evertible odontodes on three cheek plates, and from both genera by having an adipose fin (Salcedo, 2013).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 96%