identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
30A5A73B7E8D5C448F9A2D83AC7E88E3.text	30A5A73B7E8D5C448F9A2D83AC7E88E3.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Gangaichthys indonepalicus Khandekar & Thackeray & He & Mohapatra & Agarwal 2026	<div><p>Gangaichthys indonepalicus sp. nov.</p><p>Figs 2, 3, 4; Tables 2, 3</p><p>Type material examined.</p><p>Holotype. • NRC -AA-9519, 40.6 mm SL; India: Bihar State: Pashchim Champaran District: near Balgangwa, Akshay Khandekar, 5 January 2025 . Paratype. • NRC -AA-9695, 36.5 mm SL (damaged), same data as holotype .</p><p>Referred material.</p><p>• NRC -AA-9696, fragmentary, same data as holotype except collected from ~ 900 m N, 7 January 2025 .</p><p>Diagnosis and comparative remarks.</p><p>The diagnosis for the new species and comparative remarks against the monotypic Bihunichthys, Garo, Nagaichthys, Pillaiabrachia are provided under the description of the genus above. Gangaichthys indonepalicus sp. nov. is further distinguished from other chaudhuriids in having 28 abdominal vertebrae (vs 34 abdominal vertebrae in Chendol lubricus and 39–41 in Chendol keelini); 36 caudal vertebrae (vs 42–45 caudal vertebrae in Chaudhuria caudata, 42–47 in Chaudhuria fusipinnis, 46–49 in Chaudhuria ritvae, 35 in Chendol lubricus, 25–28 in Chendol keelini, and 44–46 in Pillaia kachinica); 64 total vertebrae (vs 70–74 total vertebrae in Chaudhuria caudata, 71–74 in Chaudhuria fusipinnis, and 74–76 in Chaudhuria ritvae); 37 dorsal fin-rays (vs 39–42 dorsal fin-rays in Chaudhuria caudata, 44–48 in Chaudhuria fusipinnis, 40–43 in Chaudhuria ritvae, 43–45 in Chendol keelini, and 42–44 in Pillaia kachinica); 35 anal fin-rays (vs 39–43 anal fin-rays in Chaudhuria caudata, 44–48 in Chaudhuria fusipinnis, 41–44 in Chendol keelini, and 44–45 in Pillaia kachinica); six caudal fin-rays (vs 8–9 caudal fin-rays in Chaudhuria caudata, eight in Chaudhuria ritvae, 8–11 in Pillaia indica, and 10–12 in Pillaia kachinica); a single pectoral fin-ray (vs 7–9 pectoral fin-rays in Chaudhuria caudata, 6–10 in Chaudhuria fusipinnis, 7–10 in Chaudhuria ritvae, 12–14 in Chendol lubricus, 14–17 in Chendol keelini, 6–9 in Pillaia indica, and 10–11 in Pillaia kachinica); the absence of anterior spinelike projection on neural arch (vs presence of spinelike projection on neural arch in front of neural spine in Chaudhuria caudata, Chendol keelini and Pillaia indica); a single fused hypural (vs hypural divided into two in Chaudhuria caudata, and Pillaia indica).</p><p>Description of the holotype.</p><p>Body elongate, eel-like (Fig. 2 A – C), greatest depth at dorsal-fin origin, 26.7 × in SL. Dorsal and ventral profile more or less straight in abdominal and anterior caudal region, after which body tapering towards tail. Body anteriorly round in cross section up to anus, becoming increasingly laterally compressed posteriorly. Head elongate, cylindrical, 7.7 × in SL; eyes reduced, covered by skin (Fig. 2 D, E); mouth terminal, snout short, rounded, its length contained 3.5 × in head length; tube of anterior nostril short, situated at tip of snout, projecting slightly from it; posterior nostril a fairly large opening, partially covered by skin flap (Fig. 2 D). Lips fleshy, well-developed on upper and lower jaws; rictus situated in front of vertical through anterior margin of posterior nostril (Fig. 2 D – F). Postorbital part of head slender, with six long branchiostegal rays supporting prominent gill membrane partially covering base of pectoral fin; gill opening restricted to ventral and ventrolateral side of head (Fig. 2 F). Scales and lateral line canals absent, therefore myomeres and myosepta along body visible under microscope (but not clearly visible in Fig. 2 B). Dorsal, anal, and caudal fins confluent. Dorsal-fin rays 37. Anal-fin rays 35. Caudal-fin rays 3 + 3. Pectoral-fin rays 1. Pelvic fin absent. Total number of vertebrae 64, comprising 28 abdominal and 36 caudal vertebrae.</p><p>Colouration (Fig. 3 A, B).</p><p>Overall colour in life very pale and translucent in parts, with a few vascularised pink patches on gills and anal region, vertebral column visible as a pink line along caudal fin. Body, head and fins unpigmented, translucent; fin membranes translucent and fin rays whitish. In preservative, overall colouration faded to off-white, body slightly more opaque (Fig. 2 A – C).</p><p>Osteology (Fig. 4).</p><p>The head skeleton is well ossified. The neurocranium is slender with the broadest part in the occipital region, tapering anteriorly. Nasal short and relatively broad with a posteriorly extending end contacting the dorsal surface of the lateral ethmoid. Lacrimal prominent with an expanded anterior part, narrow posteriorly and turning upward to form an ascending process which articulates with lateral end of lateral ethmoid. Paired frontals form anterior two-thirds of skull roof, suture between them distinct only posteriorly; the parietal, pterotic, supraoccipital, and epiotic form the posterior one-third of the skull roof. The parietal sutures anteriorly with posterior margin of the frontal and is incompletely divided anteriorly. The supraoccipital is bordered anterolaterally by the parietal, laterally by the pterotic, posterolaterally by the epiotic and exoccipital. Thus, the paired exoccipitals are separated by the supraoccipital. The foramen magnum is bordered by the supraoccipital dorsally and the exoccipital laterally and ventrally. The autosphenotic and prootic form the lateral wall of the neurocranium. The autosphenotic anteriorly sutures the narrow frontal descending lamina, dorsally contacting the parietal or the supraoccipital as the suture between these two bones is not clear, posteriorly sutures with the anterior margin of the pterotic. The prootic extends anteriorly. The anterior process (anterior extension) of prootic is evident. It is dorsally free from the autosphenotic. A large foramen enclosed by the dorsal margin of the prootic and ventral margin of the autosphenotic. As for the jaws and supsensorium, the premaxilla and maxilla are fused. The hyomandibula articulates with the neurocranium by two articulate heads: with the autosphenotic by the anterior one, with the pterotic by the posterior one. A large foramen pierces the low region of the hyomandibula. The metapterygoid has no anterior process to bridge it and the posterodorsal corner of the quadrate. No toothplate or teeth observed on the dorsal surface of hypobranchial 3. For the pectoral girdle, only an elongated cleithrum and a short supracleithrum are observed. No ossified scapula, coracoid, postcleithrum and pectoral ray are observed. There are totally 64 vertebrae including the ultimate compound ural centrum. All neural spines laterally narrow and tapering to a point posteriorly or dorso-posteriorly. No anterior spinelike projection present on neural arch. The first haemal spine appears at the vertebra 32. No ossified ribs are observed. The dorsal fin and anal fin are long and connected to the caudal fin by a membrane. There are 37 dorsal fin rays and 38 fin pterygiophore of dorsal fin. The first and second pterygiophores insert in the space between the neural spines of centra 26 and 27 and the first pterygiophore supports no ray, whereas the last pterygiophore inserts in the space between the neural spines of centra 61 and 62. There are 35 anal fin-rays and pterygiophores respectively, one pterygiophore supporting one ray. The first pterygiophore inserts in the space between the unclosed haemal spine of centra 28 and 29, whereas the last one inserts in the space between the haemal spine of centra 62 and 63. For the caudal skeleton and fin-rays, hypural is weakly ossified compared to vertebrae centra, and there are six caudal rays.</p><p>Variation.</p><p>We were able to only collect limited mensural data from the paratype, which notably varies from the holotype in size-standardised values for head length, snout length, and pectoral fin length; the smaller paratype having both an absolutely and relatively longer pectoral fin (Table 2).</p><p>Etymology.</p><p>The specific epithet is a toponym formed from India and Nepal, reflecting the distribution of the species in the Indo-Nepal border region. Suggested English common name is Indonepalese blind earthworm eel.</p><p>Distribution and natural history.</p><p>Gangaichthys indonepalicus sp. nov. is known from two closely-spaced localities in Balgangwa village, Pashchim Champaran District, Bihar State, India; and based on photographic records from Triveni in Nawalparasi District, Lumbini Province, Nepal; all within an 11 - km straight-line distance. Gangaichthys indonepalicus sp. nov. appears to be exclusively subterranean as it has only been recovered from handpumps (borewells) reaching depths of up to ~ 10 m below the surface. The holotype and paratype (NRC -AA-9695) were collected from the same borewell after pumping out ~ 2000–2500 litres of water (Fig. 2 C). The holotype emerged intact, while the other specimen sustained damage during pumping and died immediately. Subsequently, an additional specimen was collected from another handpump, ~ 1 km north of the type locality (Fig. 2 C). This specimen was severely damaged and dead. We sampled a few nearby wells and ponds but could not find any additional specimens of the new species.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/30A5A73B7E8D5C448F9A2D83AC7E88E3	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	Khandekar, Akshay;Thackeray, Tejas;He, You;Mohapatra, Anil;Agarwal, Ishan	Khandekar, Akshay, Thackeray, Tejas, He, You, Mohapatra, Anil, Agarwal, Ishan (2026): Gangaichthys indonepalicus, a new genus and species of miniature stygobitic earthworm eel (Synbranchiformes, Chaudhuriidae) from alluvial aquifers in the Indo-Gangetic Plain, Bihar, northern India. ZooKeys 1289: 185-202, DOI: 10.3897/zookeys.1289.188089
6DE857DDBEC45832BCCD010348EEDB49.text	6DE857DDBEC45832BCCD010348EEDB49.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Gangaichthys Khandekar & Thackeray & He & Mohapatra & Agarwal 2026	<div><p>Gangaichthys gen. nov.</p><p>Figs 2, 3, 4; Tables 2, 3</p><p>Type species.</p><p>Gangaichthys indonepalicus sp. nov.</p><p>Diagnosis.</p><p>Gangaichthys gen. nov. differs from all other genera of the family Chaudhuriidae by a number of morphological characters such as complete absence of body pigmentation, reduced eyes, and apparent absence of ribs. It differs further by the combination of the following characters: 64 vertebrae in total (28 abdominal + 36 caudal); and 37 dorsal, 35 anal, a single pectoral, and six caudal fin-rays; dorsal and anal fins long, connected to caudal fin by a membrane; anterior process of the prootic evident, dorsally free from the autosphenotic; all neural spines laterally narrow and tapering to a point, oriented posteriorly or postero-dorsally; absence of anterior spinelike projection on neural arch; preorbital extension of ectopterygoid does not reach beyond coronoid process of dentary; metapterygoid elongated; a single hypural, premaxilla and maxilla fused (Tables 2, 3).</p><p>Comparative remarks.</p><p>The stygobitic Gangaichthys gen. nov. exhibits classic reductive traits associated with hypogean environments, including complete absence of body pigmentation, apparent absence of ribs, and reduced eyes. These traits are often the result of convergent evolution, driven by relaxed selection in dark, resource-poor habitats, rather than indicators of phylogenetic distinctiveness (Dahanukar et al. 2023). However, the new genus can be easily diagnosed from all other chaudhuriid genera by several previously used, osteological, morphological, and meristic diagnostic characters.</p><p>Gangaichthys gen. nov. and the monotypic Bihunichthys are similar in having a single pectoral fin; however, they can be easily distinguished from one another by the absence of anterior spinelike projection on neural arch (vs presence of spinelike projection on neural arch in front of neural spine); by having 37 dorsal, 35 anal, and six caudal fin rays (vs 39–43 dorsal, 41–44 anal and a single caudal fin ray in Bihunichthys); non-overlapping vertebrae counts — 64 total vertebrae including 28 abdominal + 36 caudal (vs 74 total vertebrae including 33–35 abdominal + 39–41 caudal). Gangaichthys gen. nov. and the monotypic Garo are similar in the number of total vertebrae (64 vs 65 in Garo) but can easily be distinguished from each other in having a single pectoral, 37 dorsal, 35 anal, and six caudal fin rays (vs 19–20 pectoral, 40–44 dorsal, 37–38 anal, and 12 caudal fin rays). Gangaichthys gen. nov. and the monotypic Nagaichthys have similar number of abdominal vertebrae (28 vs 25–27 in Nagaichthys) and pectoral fin rays (1 vs 0–4); however, both can be easily separated from one another in having non overlapping counts of total (64) and caudal (36) vertebrae (vs 54–59 total and 28–32 caudal vertebrae); having 37 dorsal, 35 anal, and six caudal fin rays (vs 29–32 dorsal, 29–32 anal, and four caudal fin rays). The new genus and the monotypic Pillaiabrachia both lack ribs and have six caudal fin rays, but can be easily distinguished from each other by having a single pectoral, 37 dorsal and 35 anal fin rays (vs pectoral fin absent, 31 dorsal, and 33 anal fin rays in Pillaiabrachia); 64 total vertebrae including 28 abdominal and 36 caudal (vs 71 total vertebrae including 37 abdominal and 34 caudal). Gangaichthys gen. nov. and Chaudhuria share a similar number of abdominal vertebrae (28 vs 27–29 in Chaudhuria) and caudal fin rays (6 vs 6–9), but can be easily separated by having non overlapping counts of total (64) and caudal (36) vertebrae (vs 70–76 total and 42–49 caudal vertebrae); having a single pectoral, 37 dorsal, and 35 anal fin rays (vs 6–10 pectoral, 39–48 dorsal, and 32–48 anal fin rays). Gangaichthys gen. nov. and Chendol have similar number of dorsal (37 vs 36–45) and caudal fin rays (6 vs 4–6) but can be easily separated by having a single pectoral and 35 anal fin rays (vs 12–17 pectoral and 36–44 anal fin rays); 64 total vertebrae including 28 abdominal + 36 caudal (vs 66–68 total, 34–41 abdominal + 25–35 caudal vertebrae).</p><p>Gangaichthys gen. nov. is most similar to Pillaia, having a similar number of vertebrae (total 64 vs 62–74 in Pillaia, abdominal 28 vs 26–29, and caudal 36 vs 35–46); number of fin rays (dorsal 37 vs 34–44 and anal 35 vs 33–45). However, both these genera can be easily diagnosed from each other on the basis of non-overlapping pectoral (1 vs 6–11) and caudal (6 vs 8–12) fin ray counts.</p><p>Etymology.</p><p>From the Sanskrit Ganga for the Ganga or Ganges River and the Greek word ichthys meaning fish. Gender masculine.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/6DE857DDBEC45832BCCD010348EEDB49	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	Khandekar, Akshay;Thackeray, Tejas;He, You;Mohapatra, Anil;Agarwal, Ishan	Khandekar, Akshay, Thackeray, Tejas, He, You, Mohapatra, Anil, Agarwal, Ishan (2026): Gangaichthys indonepalicus, a new genus and species of miniature stygobitic earthworm eel (Synbranchiformes, Chaudhuriidae) from alluvial aquifers in the Indo-Gangetic Plain, Bihar, northern India. ZooKeys 1289: 185-202, DOI: 10.3897/zookeys.1289.188089
