identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
8DCCFC9210EF5216AAB8DCE17048D2BB.text	8DCCFC9210EF5216AAB8DCE17048D2BB.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Triplophysa xingyiensis Yuan, Zhu & Zhang 2026	<div><p>Triplophysa xingyiensis Yuan, Zhu &amp; Zhang sp. nov.</p><p>Figs 2, 3, 4, Table 2</p><p>Type materials.</p><p>Holotype. GZNUSLS 202507016, 38.3 mm SL, was collected by Ren-Yi Zhang, Feng-Hua Yuan, Ting-Ting Zhu and Ping Yu in July 2025, at <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=105.0222&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=25.0488" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 105.0222/lat 25.0488)">Zhengtun Town</a>, Xingyi City, Guizhou Province, China (25.0488 ° N, 105.0222 ° E; ca. 1241 m Alt.; Fig. 2).</p><p>Paratypes. GZNUSLS 202407018, 35.1 mm SL, collected from the same locality as the holotype; GZNUSLS 202407013, 46.3 mm SL; GZNUSLS 202407024, 59.2 mm SL; GZNUSLS 202507023 – GZNUSLS 202507027, 38.20–77.5 mm SL, collected from the <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=105.0014&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=25.157" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 105.0014/lat 25.157)">Dingxiao subdistrict</a>, Xingyi City, Guizhou Province, China (25.1570 ° N, 105.0014 ° E; ca. 1272 m Alt.). Collected by Ren-Yi Zhang, Ting-Ting Zhu, Lei-Shan Wang, Feng-Hua Yuan, and Ping Yu in July 2024 and 2025 .</p><p>Diagnosis.</p><p>Triplophysa xingyiensis sp. nov. can be distinguished from other species of Triplophysa by the following combination of characters: (1) Eyes normal, eye diameter 9.1–17.3 % of head length (HL); (2) interorbital width 29.3–37.5 % of HL; (3) anterior and posterior nostrils closely set, anterior nostril elongated into a barbel-like tip; (4) outer rostral barbel extending posteriorly to the anterior margin of the eye; (5) body naked and scaleless, with skin pigmentation; (6) lateral line complete; (7) dorsal fin distal margin truncated; (8) pectoral fin tip not reaching the origin of the pelvic fin; (9) pelvic fin tip not reaching the anus; (10) dorsal fin rays ii, 7; pectoral fin rays ii, 7–9; pelvic fin rays ii, 5; anal fin rays i, 5; 16 branched caudal fin rays; (11) Total vertebrae 4 + 36 (Table 2, Fig. 3).</p><p>Description.</p><p>The morphological measurements were conducted on Triplophysa xingyiensis sp. nov. (Table 2). The body is smooth and scaleless, with skin pigmentation, elongated and cylindrical, gradually compressed from the dorsal to the caudal fin base. The maximum body depth anterior to the dorsal fin origin was 13.5–15.2 % of standard length. The dorsal profile was slightly convex from the snout to the dorsal fin origin and straight from the posterior dorsal fin to the caudal fin base. The ventral profile was flat.</p><p>The head is moderately long, 20.1–24.3 % of standard length, slightly compressed and flattened with width exceeding depth (head width / head depth = 1.0–1.3). The snout is short, 40.2–54.6 % of head length. The mouth is inferior and curved, with corners positioned below the anterior nostrils. The lips are smooth, thin and shallowly wrinkled; the lower lip has a V-shaped median incision. No dental processes were present. Three pairs of barbels were present: inner rostral barbels were short (19.3–30.2 % of head length), extending posteriorly to the corners of the mouth; outer rostral barbels were longer (34.3–48.0 % of head length), reaching the mid-point of the eye; and maxillary barbels were shorter (30.1–44.4 % of head length), with tips not reaching the anterior margin of the operculum. The anterior and posterior nostrils are closely spaced, with the anterior nostril forming a long tube terminating in a short barbel-like tip that does not extend beyond the anterior margin of the eye. Eyes are present and normal, with a diameter of 9.1–17.3 % of head length.</p><p>Dorsal – fin ii, 7; pectoral – fin ii, 7–9; pelvic – fin ii, 5; anal – fin i, 5; caudal – fin 16. The dorsal fin is moderately long (16.0–20.7 % of SL) with a truncated distal margin. Its origin was slightly anterior to the pelvic – fin origin and positioned posterior to the mid-point between the snout tip and caudal fin base. The first branched ray is the longest, shorter than the head length. The dorsal fin tip does not reach the vertical through the anus. The pectoral fin is well developed (15.2–19.8 % of SL), extending posteriorly to the mid-point between the pectoral and pelvic fin origins, but not reaching the pelvic fin origin. The pelvic fin length is 13.5–17.6 % of SL; its tip does not reach the anus, with the distance between the pelvic – fin tip and anus being 0.3–3.2 times the eye diameter. The anal fin is short (13.6–17.7 % of SL), with a truncated distal margin. Its origin was close to the anus (distance 1.2–4.4 mm). The anal fin tip did not reach the caudal fin base, with the distance between the anal – fin tip and anus being 5.3–11.9 times the eye diameter. The caudal fin is forked, with equally long, pointed lobes. The caudal peduncle length was 6.0– 13.7 mm and its depth was 3.5–7.6 mm. No adipose keels were present on either side of the caudal peduncle. Total vertebrae: 4 + 36.</p><p>Cephalic lateral line canals are distinct; the lateral line is complete and straight, extending beyond the pectoral – fin tip to the caudal – fin base (Fig. 4). The posterior chamber of the bladder is degenerated, with the bony capsule forming a dumbbell shape.</p><p>Colouration.</p><p>In the living environment, the body is light yellow, with irregular dark brown patches scattered on the head and dorsal portions of the lateral sides and small black blotches are present on the rays of the dorsal, pectoral and caudal fins (Fig. 2). After fixation in 10 % formalin, the base of the pectoral fin is light yellow, the belly is white and the rest of the body is light grey (Fig. 4).</p><p>Distribution and habitat.</p><p>This species is currently known only from karst subterranean rivers in Xingyi, Guizhou, China, which belong to the Nanpanjiang River system. Specimens of the new species were collected from a well, connected to the subterranean river. The cave entrance is no more than 1 metre wide and during the rainy season, water can be observed flowing out from the entrance (Fig. 5).</p><p>Sexual dimorphism.</p><p>No secondary sex characteristics were observed on the specimens of Triplophysa xingyiensis sp. nov.</p><p>Etymology.</p><p>Xingyi City, the sampling site, is the source of the species name. The Chinese common name is proposed as ‘ 兴义高原鳅’.</p><p>Comparisons.</p><p>Presently, there are a total of 44 valid cave Triplophysa species recorded in southwest China.</p><p>Among them, T. aluensis, T. gejiuensis, T. xiangxiensis, T. shilinensis, T. tianeensis, T. rosa, T. posterodorsalus, T. qiubeiensis, T. huapingensis, T. macrocephala, T. fengshanensis, T. langpingensis, T. xichouensis, T. luochengensis, T. tianlinensis, T. baotianensis, T. anshuiensis, T. erythraea, T. qingzhenensis, T. qini, T. wudangensis, T. xuanweiensis, T. cehengensis, T. yaluwang, T. ziyunensis, T. yangi, T. wenshanensis, T. xiuwenensis and T. baishuijiangensis either lack eyes or have reduced eye structures. Therefore, T. xingyiensis sp. nov. can be easily distinguished from the above species by its normal eyes.</p><p>All Triplophysa species with normal eyes, including T. xingyiensis sp. nov., possess a complete lateral line and pigmentation on the body surface. However, T. xingyiensis sp. nov. differs from T. flavicorpus, T. guizhouensis, T. longipectoralis, T. nasobarbatula, T. sanduensis and T. yunnanensis by having no scales on its body surface (vs. having small scales on the body surface). It differs from T. panzhouensis by having distinct lateral head canals (vs. indistinct lateral head canals). T. xingyiensis sp. nov. differs from T. longliensis and T. nandanensis by the tip of the pelvic fin not reaching the anus (vs. the tip of the pelvic fin reaching the anus). It differs from T. nanpanjiangensis and T. tianxingensis by having a forked caudal fin (vs. the caudal fin being shallowly emarginate). T. xingyiensis sp. nov. can be distinguished from T. nanpanjiangensis by the following characteristics: the dorsal fin (ii, 7 vs. iii, 7–8), 2 unbranched pectoral fin rays (vs. 1), the pelvic fin (ii, 5 vs. i, 6), 1 unbranched anal fin ray (vs. 3). It can be distinguished from T. tianxingensis by dorsal fin (ii, 7 vs. iii, 8), 2 unbranched pectoral fin rays (vs. 1), 2 unbranched pelvic fin rays (vs. 1) and 1 unbranched anal fin ray (vs. 1 unbranched anal fin ray). Finally, T. xingyiensis sp. nov. differs from T. xiangshuingensis by the dorsal fin (ii, 7 vs. iii, 6), 2 unbranched pectoral fin rays (vs. 1), the pelvic fin (ii, 5 vs. i, 6), 1 unbranched anal fin ray (vs. 2) and 16 caudal fin rays (vs. 14).</p><p>Amongst the above species of Triplophysa in the cave plateau loach group, T. xingyiensis sp. nov. is most morphologically similar to T. anlongensis, T. rongduensis and T. zhenfengensis . Therefore, the differences between T. xingyiensis sp. nov. and these three species can be distinguished by further morphological characteristics.</p><p>Triplophysa xingyiensis sp. nov. can be distinguished from T. zhenfengensis by the caudal fin having equally large upper and lower lobes (vs. the upper lobe being larger than the lower one), anterior nostril tubular, with the end elongated into short barbels (vs. normal morphology of anterior nostril), 2 unbranched dorsal fin rays (vs. 3), 2 unbranched pectoral fin rays (vs. 1), 2 unbranched pelvic fin rays (vs. 1), 1 unbranched anal fin ray (vs. 3) and 16 caudal fin rays (vs. 14–15).</p><p>Triplophysa xingyiensis sp. nov. can be distinguished from T. rongduensis by having a clear cephalic canals line system (vs. unclear), dorsal fin rays (ii, 7 vs. iv, 9), pectoral fin rays (ii, 7–9 vs. i, 10), 1 unbranched anal fin ray (vs. 3), pectoral fin tip not reaching the origin of pelvic fin (vs. tip reaching the origin of pelvic fin), the ratio of pectoral fin length to standard length being 15.2–19.8 % (vs. 25.9–27.5 %) and total vertebrae 4 + 36 (vs. 4 + 39).</p><p>Triplophysa xingyiensis sp. nov. can be distinguished from T. anlongensis by having a clear cephalic canals line system (vs. unclear), 2 unbranched dorsal fin rays (vs. 3), 2 unbranched pectoral fin rays (vs. 1) and 1 unbranched anal fin ray (vs. 3). The ratio of eye diameter to head length is 9.1–17.3 % (vs. 6.6–8.7 %) and the ratio of interocular distance to head length is 29.3–37.5 % (vs. 20.0–24.0 %).</p><p>Molecular results</p><p>The phylogenetic tree, based on the 13 protein-coding genes of the mitochondrial genome, revealed that Triplophysa can be divided into two distinct clades, with epigean comprising surface – dwelling species and hypogean comprising cave – dwelling species. T. xingyiensis sp. nov. formed a clade with 29 other cave – dwelling species of the genus Triplophysa (Fig. 6). The two specimens of the new species constituted a monophyletic group and exhibited consistent morphological characteristics. Furthermore, the interspecific genetic distances of Cyt b between T. xingyiensis sp. nov. and its closely-related species all exceeded 1.8 % (Table 3). Therefore, T. xingyiensis sp. nov. was further identified as a new species within the genus Triplophysa .</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/8DCCFC9210EF5216AAB8DCE17048D2BB	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Pensoft via Plazi	Yuan, Feng-Hua;Zhu, Ting-Ting;Zhang, Ren-Yi	Yuan, Feng-Hua, Zhu, Ting-Ting, Zhang, Ren-Yi (2026): A new cave species of the genus Triplophysa (Teleostei, Cypriniformes, Nemacheilidae) from Guizhou, China. Zoosystematics and Evolution 102 (2): 443-456, DOI: 10.3897/zse.102.176660
