Taxonomic review of the Hyphessobrycon panamensis species-group (Characiformes: Characidae)

Abstract

A taxonomic review of the Hyphessobrycon panamensis species-group is presented, with recognition of six valid species. In Central America, H. panamensis was restricted to the drainages of both Atlantic and Pacific coasts of Panama; H. savagei was recorded at the río Pírris and río Térraba, Pacific coast of Costa Rica, and Hyphessobrycon bussingi, new species, described from the río Sixaola basin, Atlantic coast of Costa Rica, and from the río Changuinola, río Guarumo and río San San, Atlantic coast of Panama. At trans-andean South America, H. columbianus was recorded at the río Acandí, Colombia, and its geographical distribution was extended into the coastal drainages in San Blas province, Panama; H. condotensis was recorded at the río Atrato, río Baudó, lower río Magdalena and río San Juan basins, Colombia, while H. sebastiani was considered as its junior synonym. Hyphessobrycon daguae was revalidated, erected to the specific level, considered as senior synonym of H. chocoensis, and recorded from the río Dagua, río Patía and río Telembí basins, in Colombia, the río Mira, at the border between Colombia and Ecuador, and the río Cayapas, río Mataje, and río Santiago, in Ecuador. Color pattern and secondary sexual characters (e.g. number, arrangement and shape of hooks in mature males) suggest that the Hyphessobrycon panamensis species-group is a putatively monophyletic lineage.

Phylogenomics of trans-Andean tetras of the genus Hyphessobrycon Durbin 1908 (Stethaprioninae: Characidae) and colonization patterns of Middle America

“…Despite the lack of samples of H. daguae in our study, we hypothesize that this species belongs to the Choco ´species group because of the observed correlation of phylogeny (i.e., species groups) with geographic distributions (i.e., geological blocks). Furthermore, close relationships of H. daguae with species of Hyphessobrycon in northwestern South America has been proposed based on morphological characters, see Ota et al [26]. The taxonomy of Hyphessobrycon species distributed in the Choco ´block has remained in flux [26,33,95] and the presence of cryptic diversity has been suggested [96].…”

“…Furthermore, close relationships of H. daguae with species of Hyphessobrycon in northwestern South America has been proposed based on morphological characters, see Ota et al [26]. The taxonomy of Hyphessobrycon species distributed in the Choco ´block has remained in flux [26,33,95] and the presence of cryptic diversity has been suggested [96]. Our work uncovered cryptic diversity in the region (Figs 4 and 5) and disagrees with the current taxonomic hypothesis of four valid species of Hyphessobrycon (i.e., H. columbianus, H. condotensis, H. daguae, and H. ecuadoriensis) distributed in the Choco ´block (see Ota et al [26]).…”

“…The taxonomy of Hyphessobrycon species distributed in the Choco ´block has remained in flux [26,33,95] and the presence of cryptic diversity has been suggested [96]. Our work uncovered cryptic diversity in the region (Figs 4 and 5) and disagrees with the current taxonomic hypothesis of four valid species of Hyphessobrycon (i.e., H. columbianus, H. condotensis, H. daguae, and H. ecuadoriensis) distributed in the Choco ´block (see Ota et al [26]). For example, the species H. sebastiani was proposed as a junior synonym of H. condotensis based on morphological and coloration characters [26].…”

“…The majority of Hyphessobrycon species (~95%) are distributed east of the Andes and are hereafter referred to as cis-Andean species. On the other hand, only nine species are distributed west of the Andes (known as trans-Andean species; Fig 1 [22][23][24][25] are distributed in northwestern South America and eastern Panama in the biogeographic Choco ŕegion, and five species (H. bussingi Ota, Carvalho & Pavanelli 2020, H. compressus (Meek 1904), H. panamensis Durbin 1908, H. savagei Bussing 1967, and H. tortuguerae Bo ¨hlke 1958) [26][27][28][29][30] are distributed in Central America and southern Mexico (Fig 1).…”

“…Previous systematic work based on both morphological and molecular data has shown that Hyphessobrycon is not monophyletic [14,17,31]. Instead, species currently classified within Hyphessobrycon belong to multiple different characin lineages, highlighting the need for a phylogenetically-informed taxonomic revision of the genus as currently described [e.g., 12,14,26,32]. Furthermore, the phylogenetic placement of H. compressus (Meek, 1904) [27], the type species and most northernly distributed species of Hyphessobrycon, is contentious.…”