Squalius semae, a new species of chub from the Euphrates River, Eastern Anatolia (Teleostei: Cyprinidae) Davut Tura Maurice Kottelat Esra Bayçelebi Zoology in the Middle East 2017 63 1 33 42 Davut Tura & Maurice Kottelat & Esra Bayçelebi, 2017 Davut Tura & Maurice Kottelat & Esra Bayçelebi 2017 [185,356,1449,1472] Actinopterygii Cyprinidae Squalius Animalia Cypriniformes 2 35 Chordata species semae sp. nov.     Holotype. FFR 724, 197mm SL; Turkey: ErzurumProv.: Serçeme Stream(tributary of Karasu Stream) ( 39°56.85’N 40°48.24’E);  D. Turan, E. Bayçelebi& C. Kaya,  26.v.2013. –  Paratypes. FFR 725, 26, 133– 228 mmSL; same data as holotype. – FFR 669, 9, 121– 174 mmSL; Turkey: Erzurum: Sırlı Stream(tributary of Karasu Stream) ( 40°13.06’N 41°06.03’E);  D. Turan& R. Buyurucu,  23.iv.2005. – FFR 593, 52, 50–161 mmSL; Turkey: Erzurum: Toprakkale Stream(tributary of Karasu Stream), ( 40°14.51’N 40°59.67’E);  D. Turan& R. Buyurucu,  15.viii.2009. – FFR 700, 8, 91–200 mmSL; Turkey: MuşProv.: Karasu Stream(a tributary of Murat River) ( 38°38.94’N 41°46.98’E);  D. Turan, E. Bayçelebi& C. Kaya,  22.ix.2013. – FFR 703, 4, 86–123 mmSL; Turkey: MuşProv.: Murat River( 38°51.97’N 41°00.00’E);  D. Turan, E. Bayçelebi& C. Kaya,  22.ix.2013. – FFR 710, 5, 86–123 mmSL; Turkey:  AğrıProv. Doğubeyazıt Dist.: Murat River( 39°36.81’N 43°30.98’E);  D. Turan, E. Bayçelebi& C. Kaya,  16.vii.2012. – FFR 722, 13, 64–123 mmSL; Turkey: MuşProv.: Mercimekkale Stream(tributary of Murat River) ( 38°04.07’N 41°31.73’E);  D. Turan, E. Bayçelebi& C. Kaya,  22.ix.2013. – FFR 727, 2, 165– 190 mmSL; Turkey: TunceliProv.: Pülümür Stream( 39°08.39’N 39°38.31’E);  C. Kaya& M. Kocabaş,  27.x.2013. – CMK 26645, 4, 174– 195 mmSL; Turkey: ErzurumProv.: Serçeme Stream(tributary of Karasu Stream) ( 39°56.85’N 40°48.24’E);  D. Turan, E. Bayçelebi& C. Kaya,  26.v.2013. Allfrom the Euphrates Riverdrainage.   Diagnosis.  Squalius semae sp. n.is distinguished from all other species of  Squaliusin eastern Anatoliaby the combination of the following characters: mouth slightly subterminal to terminal, with a marked chin in males, slightly marked in females; the upper lip thick, slightly projecting beyond lower lip, its anterior width approximately 1.7–2.0 times its width at the corner of the mouth; scale pockets somewhat narrow, with dense dark brown pigments, and almost covered by the posterior margin of preceding scales; a band of densely-set dark brown or blackish pigments along the posterior margin of each flank scale; head length 26.0–32.2% SL, approximately 1.1–1.3 times body depth; anal, pelvic and pectoral fins with numerous black pigments on rays; dorsal fin with numerous black pigments on rays and membranes; dorsal-fin origin behind pelvic-fin base; posteriormost point of anal fin at tip of 3th or 4th branched ray; caudal fin slightly forked, lobes slightly rounded; and 41–46 total lateral line scales.  Comparison with closely related species.  Squalius semaeis distinguished from  S. berakby having numerous black pigments on anal-fin rays in life ([ Figure 3A], vs.  Table 2. Frequency distribution of meristic features of three species of  Squaliusfrom Euphrates River drainages.      Total lateral line  scales  N 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 mean    S. semae 30 - - 2 2 10 13 1 1 43.4    S. seyhanensis 16 - - - 1 - 7 5 3 44.5    S. berak 16 - - 4 5 7 - - - 42.1    Transv. line  scales  Above lateral line  Below  lateral line  N 6 7 8 9 mean 3 4 5 mean    S. semae 30 - 5 25 - 7.8 6 24 - 3.8    S. seyhanensis 16 - - 14 2 8.1 3 13 - 3.8    S. berak 16 - - 16 - 8.0 11 5 - 3.3   Branched anal-fin rays  Branched  dorsal-fin rays  N 7½ 8½ 9½ mean 7½ 8½ 9½ mean    S. semae 30 1 28 9 8.0 1 29 - 8.0    S. seyhanensis 16 1 15 - 7.9 1 15 - 7.9    S. berak 16 5 11 - 8.1 2 14 - 7.7 pigments on rays orange in live specimens, greyish when preserved [ Figure 3B]); by the absence of a dark stripe on the upper part of the flank, from the head to the end of the caudal peduncle (vs. presence of a faint dark stripe); by having thicker rays in all fins (thick and fleshy, vs. slender and not fleshy) and the tip of the snout rounded (vs. slightly pointed). It also differs from  S. berakin the pigmentation pattern on the scales. In  S. semae,there is a band of densely-set dark brown or blackish pigments along the posterior margin of each flank scale, resulting in a contrasted reticulate pattern ( Figure 2a). In  S. berakthere are a few grey pigments along the posterior margin of each scale (Figure 2b).   Squalius semae sp. n.is distinguished from  S. seyhanensisby having black pigments on anal-fin rays in life ([ Figure 3A] vs. pigments orange in life, greyish when preserved [ Figure 3B]).  Squalius semae sp.n.is further distinguished from  S. seyhanensisby the width of the gape of the mouth smaller than its length (vs. width greater than its length). Besides, the two species differ in the pigmentation pattern on the scales. In  S. semae sp.n., the scale pockets are somewhat narrow, with faintly dense dark brown or blackish pigments, and almost covered by the posterior margin of preceding scales ( Figure 2a). In  S. seyhanensis, the scale pockets are broad, exposed and densely covered by melanophores forming a black crescent-shaped mark, and approximately one third of the pigments on scale pockets are covered by the posterior margin of preceding scales ( Figure 2c).  Squalius semae sp.n.has a narrower band of densely-set pigments along the posterior margin of each scale than observed in  S. seyhanensis .  Kaya, Turan, and Ünlü (2016)identified the  Squaliuspopulations of Batmanand Silvan streams (Tigris River drainage) as  Squaliussp.  Squalius semae sp. n.is distinguished from  Squaliussp. by having numerous black pigments on anal and pelvic-fin rays in life (vs. anal and pelvic-fin rays with orange pigments). Further the two species differ in the pigmentation pattern of the scales. In  S. semae sp. n., the scale pockets are somewhat narrow and almost covered by the posterior margin of preceding scales, and there is a band of densely-set dark brown or blackish pigments along the posterior margin of each scale, resulting in a contrasted reticulate pattern. In  Squaliussp., the scale pockets are somewhat large and not covered by the posterior margin of preceding scales, and there are a few melanophores along the posterior margin of the scales.  Figure 2. Pigments on flank scales: (a)  Squalius semae sp. n., FFR 669, 174 mm SL; (b)  S. berak, FFR 775, 164 mm SL; (c)  S. seyhanensis, FFR 729, 228 mm SL.  Figure 3. Pigments on rays and membranes of anal-fin of  Squaliusspecies from Euphrates River: A:  S. semae sp. n., FFR 725, 187 mm SL; B:  S. berak, FFR 775, 164 mm SL; C:  S. seyhanensis, FFR 729, 228 mm SL.   Squalius semae sp. n.is distinguished from  S. adanaensisby having numerous black pigments on anal and pelvic-fin rays (vs. anal and pelvic fins without black or orange pigments) and thicker and fleshy fin rays (vs. slender and not fleshy). Further the two species differ in the pigmentation pattern of the scales and the shape of flank scales. In  S. semae sp. n., there is a band of densely-set dark brown or blackish pigments along the posterior margin of each scale, resulting in a contrasted reticulate pattern; flank scales have a smooth posterior margin. In  S. adanaensis, there are no or only few melanophores along the posterior margin of the scales; most flank scales have a somewhat undulating posterior margin. The two species are also distinguished by the shape of the mouth. In  S. semae sp. n., the width of the gape of the mouth is slightly smaller than its length, the corner of the mouth is in front of a vertical through the anterior margin of the eye, and the upper lip is thick (the width of the upper lip at the tip of the snout is 1.7–2.0 times its width at the corner of the mouth). In  S. adanaensis, the length of the mouth gape is approximately equal to its width, the corner of the mouth is about below the anterior margin of the eye, and the upper lip is thin (the width of the upper lip at the tip of the snout is 1.3–1.5 times its width at the corner of the mouth).   Squalius semae sp. n.is distinguished from  S. turcicusby the presence of black pigments on anal-fin rays (vs. absence) and the shape of the body in specimens larger than about 160 mmSL (dorsal profile of body convex and ventral profile approximately as convex as dorsal profile, vs. dorsal profile of body straight and ventral profile convex). The two species further differ by the pigmentation pattern of the scales. In  S. semae sp. n., there is a band of densely-set dark brown or blackish pigments along the posterior margin of each flank scale, resulting in a contrasted reticulate pattern ( Figure 2a; vs. a few light brown pigments) and the caudal fin has a greyish margin (vs. with black margin).  Squalius semae sp. n.further differs from  S. turcicusby having a round- ed snout (vs. pointed), a less rounded outer margin of the anal fin (slightly convex, vs. convex), a distinct chin in males (vs. indistinct), the dorsal fin with slightly convex outer margin (vs. straight or slightly convex), and thicker fin rays (thick or fleshy, vs. thin).  Figure 4. Distribution of the species of  Squaliusin Anatolia:  S. adanaensis(),  S. anatolicus (),  S. aristotelis(),  S. berak(),  S. cappadocicus(),  S. carinus(),  S. cephaloides(),  S. cii( n),  S. fellowesii(),  S. kosswigi(),  S. kottelati(),  S. lepidus(▲),  S. orientalis(),  S. pursakensis(),  S. recurvirostris(),  S. semae sp. n.( ©),  S. seyhanensis(),  S. turcicus(*) and  Squaliussp. ( ¢).   Squalius semae sp. n.is distinguished from  S. orientalisby the presence of black pigments on anal- and pelvic-fin rays (vs. anal and pelvic-fin rays with orange pigments).  Squalius semae sp. n.has a band of densely-set dark brown or blackish pigments along the posterior margin of each flank scale, resulting in a contrasted reticulate pattern ( Figure 2a; vs. few melanophores). It further differs from  S. orientalisin having fewer branched anal-fin rays (7½ or 8½, mean 7.9, vs. 8½ or 9½, mean 8.8), a somewhat longer and more slender head (head length 26.0–32.2% SL, mean 27.7, vs. 23.9– 27.7, mean 25.6; head depth at nape 58-65% HL, mean 61.3, vs. 63–72, mean 68.1), and by having a very faintly distinct vertical black bar behind the opercle (vs. conspicuous), and denser melanophores along the free margin of each flank scale.  Figure 5. Scatterplot of the scores of the first two principal components (PC I against PC II) on 28 morphometric characters for 63 specimens of three species of  Squalius:  S. berak(Ǫ),  S. semae sp. n.(∆) and  S. seyhanensis(+).   Squalius semae sp. n.is distinguished from  S. kottelatiand  S. lepidus(of the lepidus-group) by the lower jaw not projecting (vs. projecting), by having fewer branched anal-fin rays (7½ or 8½, mean 7.9, vs. 8–10½, mean 9.4), and a blunt (vs. pointed) head in males. Further, it has fewer lateral line scales than  S. lepidus(total 41–46, vs. 48–49).  Squalius semae sp. n.is further distinguished from  S. kottelatiby the absence of a broad dark stripe on the upper part of the flank from the head to the end of the caudal peduncle (vs. presence). The three species of the  S. cephalusgroup present in the Euphrates River drainage (  S. seyhanensis,  S. semae sp. n.and  S. berak) were compared using principal component analysis (PCA). The PCA was performed on 28 morphometric characters. The PCA shows that the new species almost separated from  S. seyhanensisand  S. berakas well as from each other ( Figure 5). The most important loadings on PC II are for the body depth, distance between pelvic-fin origin and anal fin origin, the height of the dorsal and anal fins, the length of the upper caudal lobe, the length and width of the snout, and the head width.   Description.Body shape as in Figure 1a–b; morphometric and meristic data are given in Tables 1–2. Body moderately deep, slightly compressed laterally. Dorsal profile of body convex, ventral profile approximately equal to dorsal profile. Head long (length 26.0–32.2% SL), approximately 1.1–1.3 times body depth, its dorsal profile slightly convex above eye and convex on snout. Mouth slightly subterminal to terminal, its corner not reaching vertical through anterior margin of eye. Length of mouth gape approximately slightly greater than its width. Upper lip thick, anterior width approximately 1.7–2.0 times width at corner of mouth. Snout with rounded tip. Dorsal fin with 4 simple and 7½ (1) or 8½* (29) branched rays, its height approximately equal to pectoral-fin length, outer margin slightly convex. Pectoral fin short, its length 16.4–20.0% SL, outer margin rounded, with 15–17 branched rays. Pelvic fin rounded, with 1 simple and 8 branched rays. Anal fin with 3 simple and 7½ (1), 8½* (28) or 9½ (9) branched rays, fleshy, outer margin convex posteriorly. Caudal fin slightly forked, lobes slightly rounded. Total number of lateral line scales 41 (2), 42 (2), 43 (10), 44* (13), 45 (1) or 46 (1); 7* (5) or 8 (25) scale rows between lateral line and dorsal-fin origin; 3 (6) or 4* (24) scale rows between lateral line and anal-fin origin. Gill rakers 3 + 8–9 = 11–12 on outer side of first gill arch. Pharyngeal teeth 5.2–2.5, distinctly hooked, serrated.  Sexual dimorphism.There are small tubercles on the head in the males, which are absent in the females.  Colouration.In life, general body colour silvery, pelvic, anal and pectoral fins yellowish, and dorsal and caudal fins light greyish. Numerous black pigments on anal, pelvic and pectoral fin rays. Dorsal fin with numerous black pigments on rays and membranes. A faint narrow black bar behind opercle. Formalin-fixed adults and juveniles dark brown on back and upper part of flank, yellowish on belly. Faint black bar behind opercle. Dorsal and caudal fins dark grey; pectoral, pelvic and anal fins light greyish. Scale pockets with dense dark brown or blackish pigments, and almost covered by posterior margin of preceding scales. A band of densely-set dark brown or blackish pigments along posterior margin of each flank scale, resulting in a contrasted reticulate pattern ( Figure 2a). Anal, pelvic and pectoral fins with black pigments on rays ( Figure 3A). Dorsal fin with numerous black pigments on rays and membranes.   Etymology.The species is named for Sema Turan, the beloved wife of the first author. Distribution and Notes on Biology.  Squalius semae sp. n.is presently known from Sırlı, Toprakkale and Serçeme streams (tributaries of Karasu Stream), Pülümür Stream and Murat River (northeastern drainage of Euphrates) ( Figure 4). It inhabits cool, swift flowing water, with a cobble and pebble bottom.  Salmo euphrataeus,  Oxynoemacheilussp.,  Alburnoides velioglui,  Alburnus mossulensisand  Capoeta umblawere collected with  S. semae sp. n.The maximum size observed in the field was about 600 mmSL. 1611943263 FFR Turkey 39.9475 Karasu Stream 11 40.804 Serceme Stream 2 35 FFR 724, 197 1 Erzurum holotype 1611943259 2013-05-26 FFR D. Turan & E. Baycelebi & Kaya Turkey 40.217667 Karasu Stream 11 41.1005 Sirli Stream 2 35 FFR 725, 26, FFR 669, 9 1 Erzurum paratype 1611943250 2005-04-23 FFR D. Turan & R. Buyurucu Turkey 40.241833 Karasu Stream 11 40.9945 Toprakkale Stream 2 35 FFR 593, 52 1 Erzurum paratype 1611943254 2009-08-15 FFR D. Turan & R. Buyurucu Turkey 38.649 Murat River 11 41.783 Karasu Stream 2 35 FFR 700, 8 1 Mus paratype 1611943268 2013-09-22 FFR D. Turan & E. Baycelebi & Kaya Turkey 3 36 38.866165 Murat River 11 41.0 2 35 FFR 703, 4 1 Mus paratype 1611943257 2013-09-22 FFR D. Turan & E. Baycelebi & Kaya Turkey 39.6135 Murat River 11 43.516335 Agri Prov. Dogubeyazit Dist. 3 36 FFR 710, 5 1 Agri paratype 1611943258 2012-07-16 FFR D. Turan & E. Baycelebi & Kaya Turkey 38.067833 Murat River 11 41.52883 Mercimekkale Stream 3 36 FFR 722, 13 1 Mus paratype 1611943269 2013-09-22 FFR D. Turan & E. Baycelebi & Kaya Turkey 39.13983 Pulumur Stream 11 39.6385 3 36 FFR 727, 2 1 Tunceli paratype 1611943267 2013-10-27 CMK C. Kaya & M. Kocabas Turkey 39.9475 Karasu Stream 11 40.804 Serceme Stream 3 36 CMK 26645, 4 1 Erzurum paratype 1611943261 2013-05-26 D. Turan & E. Baycelebi & Kaya Turkey Euphrates River All 3 36 1 Erzurum paratype