Sinorhodeus, Li & Liao & Arai & Zhao, 2017

Li, Fan, Liao, Te-Yu, Arai, Ryoichi & Zhao, Liangjie, 2017, Sinorhodeus microlepis, a new genus and species of bitterling from China (Teleostei: Cyprinidae: Acheilognathinae), Zootaxa 4353 (1), pp. 69-88 : 70-73

Sinorhodeus gen. nov. Li, Liao & Arai

Diagnosis. Sinorhodeus can be distinguished from all other genera of Acheilognathinae by the following characters: pharyngeal teeth 0,0,4–4,0,0, longitudinal scales 41–46, transverse scales 16–18, white spots on dorsalfin rays absent, a black blotch on dorsal fin in juvenile absent, less developed wing-like yolk sac projections in larvae. Similar to Rhodeus in absence of barbels and incomplete lateral line, but distinguished from it by absence of white spots on dorsal-fin rays (vs. present), absence of a black blotch on dorsal fin in juvenile (vs. present), and less developed wing-like yolk sac projections in larvae (vs. well developed, Fig. 1A ). Similar to Tanakia sensu lato ( Tanakia , Paratanakia , and Pseudorhodeus ) in absence of white spots on dorsal-fin rays, absence of a black blotch b b! "! "# "!

%& ’ &! (" &) * &

" b " "# $" % (" ("& ("

Sinorhodeus microlepis +, ­./01 +, ­.­ 2 +, ­.­ +, ­.­2/ +, ­./0­ +, ­.­2 +, ­.­23 4

Sinorhodeus microlepis & +, ­./0. +, ­.­ +, ­.­ 3 +, ­.­2­ +, ­./00 +, ­.­2& +, ­.­21 4

Sinorhodeus microlepis +, ­./0/ +, ­.­ & +, ­.­ 1 +, ­.­20 +, ­.­22 +, ­.­2 +, ­.­2. 4

Acheilognathus macropterus 5,3 2/&­ 5,3 //­. 5,3&0 ­0 5,3 3../ 5,33& 5,3331­0 5,3.2 ­1 et al. &2 3 Acheilognathus meridianus 5,3 2/ & 5,3 //02 5,3&0 0 5,3 3./ 5,33& / 5,33310 5,3.2 ­0 et al. &2 3 Acheilognathus rhombeus 5,3 2/ ­ 5,3 //0. 5,3&0 0 0 5,3 3.// 5,33& & 5,333100 5,3.2 0 1 et al. &2 3 Acheilognathus tabira tabira 5,3 2/3 5,3 //00 5,3&032& 5,3 3.­2 5,33& &. 5,333.2& 5,3.2 0­ et al. &2 3 Acheilognathus typus 5,3 2/3. 5,3 /­23 5,3&032/ 5,3 3.­1 5,33& 5,333.2/ 5,3.2&2 et al. &2 3 Acheilognathus 6 striatus 5,3 2/32 5,3 //0­ 5,3&032 5,3 3./0 5,33& &1 5,333.2 5,3.2 0/ et al. &2 3 Paratanakia chii 5,3 2/00 5,3 /­1/ 5,3&03.2 5,3 3/ ­ 5,33& ­3 5,333..2 5,3.2&1. et al. &2 3 Paratanakia himantegus 5,3 2­23 5,3 /­.& 5,3&03.1 5,3 3/3 5,33& ­0 5,333..1 5,3.2&. et al. &2 3 Pseudorhodeus tanago 5,3 2­ 5,3 /­/ 5,3&03/3 5,3 3/1& 5,33& 0­ 5,333./3 5,3.2&/2 et al. &2 3 Rhodeus albomarginatus 5,3 2/­2 5,3 /­ ­ 5,3&033 5,3 3/ 0 5,33&.1 5,333.3 5,3.2& / et al. &2 3 Rhodeus amarus 5,3 2/1 5,3/ ­20 5,3&03 & 5,3 3.0 2 5,33&. 5,333. & 5,3.2&2­ et al. &2 3 Rhodeus atremius 5,3 2/10 5,3 /­ / 5,3&03&2 5,3 3.0­ 5,33& 33 5,333.&2 5,3.2&. et al. &2 3 Rhodeus colchicus 5,3 2/.& 5,3 /­&2 5,3&03& 5,3 3/2 5,33& 3/ 5,333.& 5,3.2& 0 et al. &2 3 Rhodeus fangi 5,3 2/.3 5,3 /­&& 5,3&03&1 5,3 3/2 5,33& 30 5,333.&1 5,3.2&& et al. &2 3 Rhodeus meridionalis 5,3 2/.1 5,3 /­& 5,3&03&. 5,3 3/23 5,33& 12 5,333.&. 5,3.2&&& et al. &2 3 Rhodeus ocellatus kurumeus 5,3 2/­& 5,3 /­32 5,3&033 5,3 3/& 5,33&./ 5,333.3 5,3.2& 0 et al. &2 3 Rhodeus ocellatus ocellatus 5,3 2//. 5,3 /­ 3 5,3&03 / 5,3 3/ 1 5,33&. 5,333. / 5,3.2& et al. &2 3 Rhodeus pseudosericeus 5,3 2/­ 5,3 /­3 5,3&0333 5,3 3/&& 5,33&.­ 5,333.33 5,3.2&32 et al. &2 3 Rhodeus sericeus 5,3 2/­1 5,3 /­3 5,3&033. 5,3 3/&3 5,33& /2 5,333.3. 5,3.2&3& et al. &2 3 Rhodeus shitaiensis 5,3 2/­/ 5,3 /­31 5,3&033­ 5,3 3/&. 5,33& /& 5,333.3­ 5,3.2&33 et al. &2 3 Rhodeus sinensis 5,3 2/­0 5,3 /­3/ 5,3&0312 5,3 3/&­ 5,33& /3 5,333.12 5,3.2&3. et al. &2 3 Rhodeus suigensis 5,3 2/0­ 5,3 /­1. 5,3&0310 5,3 3/ / 5,33& ­ 5,333.10 5,3.2&11 et al. &2 3 Tanakia lanceolata 5,3 2­2/ 5,3 /­.1 5,3&03.­ 5,3 3/3. 5,33& 0& 5,333..­ 5,3.2&.3 et al. &2 3 Tanakia limbata 5,3 2­20 5,3 /­./ 5,3&03/2 5,3 3/3­ 5,33& 0 3 5,333./2 5,3.2&.. et al. &2 3

Danio dangila 7 82 11 &1 (9&0&.0/ (9320..2 (9320..& (9320/&3 (9320/1. (9320/­­ et al. &2 3 Nipponocypris sieboldii 7 822­.1 (9&0&/,: 0/2.0,: 0/ &2,:1 &­,:1 &,:1 3 et al. &2 3 on dorsal fin in juvenile, and less developed wing-like yolk sac projections in larvae ( Fig. 1B ), but distinguished from them by uninterrupted incomplete lateral line (vs. complete in Tanakia and Paratanakia , interrupted incomplete in Pseudorhodeus ) and absence of barbels (vs. present). Distinguished from Acheilognathus by incomplete lateral line (vs. complete, except A. typus with incomplete lateral line), absence of white spots on finrays of dorsal fin (vs. present), and less developed wing-like yolk sac projections in larvae (vs. not developed, Fig. 1C ). Sinorhodeus also can be further distinguished from all other genera by fewer pharyngeal teeth (0,0,4–4,0,0 vs. 0,0,5–5,0,0) ( Table 3).

F81 F81+G F81+I GTR+G GTR+I GTR+I+G HKY+I JC+G JC+G+I HKY HKY+G

Cyt b 1

2

3

EGR1 1

2

3

EGR2B 1

2

3

EGR3 1

2

3

IRBP2 1

2

3

RAG1 1

2

3

RH 1

2

3

Type species. Sinorhodeus microlepis .

Etymology. The generic name, Sinorhodeus , is derived from the Latin Sino, meaning "Chinese", and Rhodeus , a genus of bitterling fish, in reference to its distribution in China and morphological similarity to Rhodeus . The gender is masculine.

Figures

FIGURE1. Three types of wing-like yolk sac projections.Arrows show a wing-like yolk sac. A, welldeveloped inprolarva of Rhodeus albomarginatus. B, less developed in prolarva of Tanakia lanceolata. C, not developed in prolarva of Acheilognathus omeiensis.