2021
DOI: 10.1007/s10228-020-00792-0
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Taxonomic status of nominal species of the anchovy genus Stolephorus previously regarded as synonyms of Stolephorus commersonnii Lacepède 1803 and Stolephorus indicus (van Hasselt 1823), and descriptions of three new species (Clupeiformes: Engraulidae)

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
20
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

3
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 13 publications
(20 citation statements)
references
References 25 publications
0
20
0
Order By: Relevance
“… Stolephorus bengalensis has been considered conspecific with the three new species described herein, the four species being easily separable from all other congeners, except for Stolephorus acinaces , Stolephorus andhraensis Babu Rao, 1966, Stolephorus carpentariae (De Vis, 1882), Stolephorus hindustanensis Hata & Motomura, 2022, Stolephorus holodon (Boulenger, 1900), Stolephorus ronquilloi Wongratana, 1983 and Stolephorus tamilensis Gangan, Pavan-Kumar, Jahageerdar & Jaiswar, 2020, the former having a concavely indented pre-opercular margin and lacking a spine on the pelvic scute ( Whitehead et al 1988 ; Wongratana et al 1999 ; Kimura et al 2009 ; Hata and Motomura 2018a , b , c , d , e , 2021a , b , c , 2022 ; Hata et al 2019 , 2020a , b , 2021 ; Gangan et al 2020 ). However, the former four species are distinguished from the other seven by having a predorsal scute (vs. absent in the latter) and double dark lines on the dorsum posterior to the dorsal fin (vs. no lines on the dorsum, except in S. hindustanensis and S. ronquilloi ).…”
Section: Results and Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“… Stolephorus bengalensis has been considered conspecific with the three new species described herein, the four species being easily separable from all other congeners, except for Stolephorus acinaces , Stolephorus andhraensis Babu Rao, 1966, Stolephorus carpentariae (De Vis, 1882), Stolephorus hindustanensis Hata & Motomura, 2022, Stolephorus holodon (Boulenger, 1900), Stolephorus ronquilloi Wongratana, 1983 and Stolephorus tamilensis Gangan, Pavan-Kumar, Jahageerdar & Jaiswar, 2020, the former having a concavely indented pre-opercular margin and lacking a spine on the pelvic scute ( Whitehead et al 1988 ; Wongratana et al 1999 ; Kimura et al 2009 ; Hata and Motomura 2018a , b , c , d , e , 2021a , b , c , 2022 ; Hata et al 2019 , 2020a , b , 2021 ; Gangan et al 2020 ). However, the former four species are distinguished from the other seven by having a predorsal scute (vs. absent in the latter) and double dark lines on the dorsum posterior to the dorsal fin (vs. no lines on the dorsum, except in S. hindustanensis and S. ronquilloi ).…”
Section: Results and Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The anchovy genus Stolephorus Lacepède, 1803 ( Teleostei : Clupeiformes : Engraulidae ), diagnosed by the presence of prepelvic scutes and an embedded urohyal and lack of postpelvic scutes, currently includes 37 valid species that preferentially inhabit marine and/or estuarine waters in the Indo-Pacific region ( Wongratana 1983 , 1987a , b ; Whitehead et al 1988 ; Wongratana et al 1999 ; Kimura et al 2009 ; Hata and Motomura 2018a , b , c , d , e , 2021a , b , c , 2022 ; Hata et al 2019 , 2020a , b , 2021 ; Gangan et al 2020 ). Amongst them, species with a predorsal scute, paired dark lines on the dorsum behind the dorsal fin, a long maxilla (posterior tip well beyond the preopercle posterior margin), the preopercle posterior margin concave and pelvic scute without a posteriorly projecting spine (Fig.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As an example, Krishnan & Mishra (2001) reported seven species of Stolephorus from this estuary: S. andhraensis, S. baganensis, S. commersonii, S. dubiosus, S. indicus, S. insularis, and S. waitei. However, Hata et al (2020Hata et al ( , 2021 made several revisions to the genus Stolephorus including updating the species' distribution records. The authors suggested the non-occurrence of S. baganensis, S. commersonii and S. waitei in India, thus making the records of these three species in the Godavari estuary questionable.…”
Section: Diversity and Distribution Of Fishes In The Estuarymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Stolephorus Lacepède, 1803, an Indo-Pacific genus of marine and/or brackish water anchovies (Engraulidae), comprises 32 valid species (Whitehead et al 1988;Wongratana et al 1999;Kimura et al 2009;Hata and Motomura 2018a, b, c, d;Hata et al 2019Hata et al , 2020aGangan et al 2020). Nine of these, Stolephorus baganensis Delsman, 1931, Stolephorus balinensis Bleeker, 1849, Stolephorus bataviensis Hardenberg, 1933, Stolephorus baweanensis Hardenberg, 1933, Stolephorus rex Jordan & Seale, 1926, Stolephorus bengalensis Dutt & Babu Rao, 1959, Stolephorus dubiosus Wongratana, 1983, Stolephorus oceanicus Hardenberg, 1933, Stolephorus rex Jordan & Seale, 1926 and Stolephorus tri (Bleeker, 1852), have been recorded from Borneo (Fowler 1941;Wongratana 1983;Kong 1998;Hata et al 2019Hata et al , 2020b, some (such as S. tri) being abundantly fished and marketed under local names, such as "balinau," "pusu" or "bilis" in Malaysia (Mohsin and Ambak 1996;Kong 1998;Ambak et al 2010), and "teri" or "tenaren" in Indonesia (Whitehead et al 1988;Kottelat et al 1993).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%