Aphaniops Hoedeman, 1951

Freyhof, Jörg & Yoğurtçuoğlu, Baran, 2020, A proposal for a new generic structure of the killifish family Aphaniidae, with the description of Aphaniops teimorii (Teleostei: Cyprinodontiformes), Zootaxa 4810 (3), pp. 421-451 : 428-429

Aphaniops Hoedeman, 1951

Figs. 5–6

Type species. Lebias dispar Rüppell 1829

Diagnosis. Aphaniops is distinguished from other genera in the family Aphaniidae by absence of a dermal sheath at the anal-fin base in the nuptial female (vs. presence). It is further distinguished from Anatolichthys by presence of head canals (vs. absence), and absence of black dorsal- and anal-fin margins in the male in all species except A. sirhani (vs. presence).

Included species. Aphaniops dispar , A. furcatus , A. ginaonis , A. kruppi , A. richardsoni , A. sirhani , A. stiassnyae , A. stoliczkanus , A. teimorii .

Distribution. Aphaniops occurs from the southeastern Mediterranean Sea basin in Egypt and Israel southwards to Somalia and eastwards to southwestern India including the Arabian Peninsula and the Gulf basin ( Fig. 7 ).

Remarks. We were unable to examine specimens of A. furcatus , and the description by Teimori et al. (2014) does not provide sufficient details to determine whether this species possesses the diagnostic characters of the genus. We follow Esmaeili et al. (2020) in including it in Aphaniops .

As discussed by Hoedeman (1951), Aphaniops lacks the dermal sheath overlapping the base of the anterior anal-fin rays present in the nuptial females of other Aphaniids. Discrepancies in fin-ray counts between Aphaniops and Aphanius published by Hoedeman (1951) could not be confirmed by Villwock et al. (1983) or ourselves.

Teimori et al. (2018a) described an Aphaniops species from Hormozgan Province ( Iran) as Aphanius hormuzensis . However, Article 16.4. of the International Code for Zoological Nomenclature ( ICZN, 1999) states that the fixation of name-bearing types for a new species has to be explicit: “Every new specific and subspecific name published after 1999, except a new replacement name…, must be accompanied in the original publication 16.4.1. by the explicit fixation of a holotype,…..and 16.4.2. where the holotype or syntypes are extant specimens, by a statement of intent that they will be (or are) deposited in a collection and a statement indicating the name and location of that collection.”

That means that for species described after 1999 it has been obligatory to indicate the name and location of the collection and holotype (if extant) in new species descriptions. In the description of Aphanius hormuzensis , the authors designated “ ZM-FISBUK 157 “ as the holotype of this new species, without mentioning which collection ZM-FISBUK might be and where this collection is located. The holotype of A. hormuzensis is therefore invalid, because it does not fulfil the requirements of Article 16.4.2, and the name Aphanius hormuzensis Teimori, Esmaeili, Hamidan & Reichenbacher 2018 is not available following the rules of zoological nomenclature. The lead author of this study (JF) communicated this issue to Bettina Reichenbacher, one of the authors of the species description, in 2018 but it has not been resolved, hence the taxon is briefly re-described here as Aphaniops teimorii . Due to the limited availability of materials, the redescription is largely based on data presented by Teimori et al. (2018a) in addition to our own materials.

Figures

FIGURE 5. Aphaniops cf. dispar, FSJF 3487, female, 43 mm SL, male, 37 mm SL; Israel: salt marshes at Atlit.

FIGURE 6. Aphaniops teimorii, left, from the top: ZFMK-ICH 122627, male, holotype, 33 mm SL; FSJF 4100, male, paratype, 39 m SL; Iran: Govdar River; right, from the top: not preserved, female, ~35 mm SL; Iran: Govdar River; not preserved, male, ~30 mm SL; Iran: Minhab River.

FIGURE 7. Records of Aphaniops species.