First record of the Indian Ocean anchovy Stolephorus insularis Hardenberg, 1933 from the northeastern Mediterranean coast of Turkey

Preliminary Assessment of Invasive Lionfish Pterois miles Using Underwater Visual Census Method in the Northeastern Mediterranean

“…Biodiversity in the Mediterranean Sea has been considerably altered since the opening of the Suez Canal in 1869 which favored the settlement and spread of lessepsian/erythrean fish and invertebrates in the Mediterranean basin, and which appears to be accelerating (Dalyan et al, 2014;Doğdu et al, 2016;Turan et al, 2016;Gürlek et al, 2016a;Castellanos-Galindo et al, 2020;D'Amen and Azzurro, 2020;Fitori et al, 2021). Tortonese (1964) estimated there were about 30 Indo-Pacific immigrant fish species in the Mediterranean, from a total of about 550.…”

First record of the buccaneer anchovy Encrasicholina punctifer (Fowler, 1938) (Clupeiformes; Engraulidae) in the Mediterranean Sea, confirmed through DNA barcoding

“…Up to the present, two Indo‐Pacific anchovy species ( Stolephorus insularis and Stolephorus indicus ) were recorded in the Mediterranean Sea (Dalyan, Yemişken, Erguden, Turan, & Eryilmaz, ; Fricke, Golani, & Appelbaum‐Golani, ; Fricke et al., ). Encrasicholina punctifer is easily distinguishable from the native Engraulis encrasicolus by the presence of pre‐pelvic scutes, which are a morphological characteristic of both Stolephorus and Encrasicholina genera.…”

A New Stolephorus (Teleostei: Clupeiformes: Engraulidae: Engraulinae) from the Red Sea

“…2 were, in fact, exposed ribs resulting from specimen deterioration; vs. spine-like prepelvic scutes on the abdomen in species of Stolephorus ; Whitehead et al, 1988), and the anal-fin origin behind the dorsal-fin base. Dalyan et al (2014) reported three specimens from the Mediterranean coast of Turkey as S. insularis , based on the key in Whitehead et al (1988). Subsequently, Hata et al (2019) showed that the applicable name for S. insularis sensu Whitehead et al (1988) was Stolephorus bengalensis (Dutt and Babu Rao, 1959), with the nominal species S. insularis being a junior synonym of Stolephorus tri .…”

“…Subsequently, Hata et al (2019) showed that the applicable name for S. insularis sensu Whitehead et al (1988) was Stolephorus bengalensis (Dutt and Babu Rao, 1959), with the nominal species S. insularis being a junior synonym of Stolephorus tri . Dalyan et al (2014), who did not include a photograph of the Turkish specimens, gave counts, measurements, and coloration details that differed from those of specimens of S. bengalensis shown in Hata et al (2019; e.g., branched anal-fin rays 15 or 16 in Turkish specimens vs. 16–19 in S. bengalensis ; pre-dorsal-fin length 47–50% of SL vs. 52.8–57.9%; caudal-peduncle depth 6–8% of SL vs. 8.1–11.6%; HL 20–23% of SL vs. 22.7–27.7%; eye diameter 22–24% of HL vs. 24.4–33.1%; interorbital width 17–19% of HL vs. 21.2–25.4%; and a dark blue stripe on upper midline of body vs. dark stripe absent; dorsally silvery-blue, lower part of body and belly silver-gray vs. body uniformly whitish-silver). Although the maximum SL of S. bengalensis was given as 6.4 cm in Whitehead et al (1988) and Wongratana et al (1999; as S. insularis ) and 59.5 mm in Hata et al (2019), lengths of the Turkish specimens (78–93 mm SL) were significantly greater.…”

“…Although the maximum SL of S. bengalensis was given as 6.4 cm in Whitehead et al (1988) and Wongratana et al (1999; as S. insularis ) and 59.5 mm in Hata et al (2019), lengths of the Turkish specimens (78–93 mm SL) were significantly greater. Therefore, Dalyan et al's (2014) S. insularis is considered as a misidentification. Fricke et al (2015) included several characteristics of species of the genus Stolephorus reported from the northwestern Indian Ocean, including S. bengalensis (as S. insularis ) in their table 2.…”