Freshwater Fishes of Northern Vietnam

Mô tả thành phần loài, đặc điểm sinh học, hình dạng các loài cá miền Bắc Việt Nam!

fRESHWATER June 2001

fisHes

Of NORTHERN VIETNAM

~~ Envionmn an oil eeometUi

Maurice Kottelat

June 2001

Environment and Social Development Sector Unit

East Asia and Pacific Region

The World Bank

Freshwater Fishes of Northern Vietnam

A preliminary check-list of the fishes known or expected to occur in northern Vietnam with

comments on systematics and nomenclature

Maurice Kottelat, June 2001

Route de la Baroche 12, Case Postale 57, CH-2952 Comol, Switzerland (address for correspondence); and

Department of Biological Sciences, National University of Singapore, 10 Kent Ridge Crescent, Singapore 119260.Email: mkottelat@dplanet.ch

Report prepared under World Bank Swiss Consultant Trust Funds for the largely Danish-funded Freshwater

Biodiversity Overlay to Support the Vietnam National Hydropower Study as part of the World Bank EnvironmentDepartment's Global Overlays Program Some photographs were obtained during different activites and the authorretains all rights over all photographs included in this report

This report is a published work in the sense of art 8.1 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature It isissued for the purpose of providing a public and permanent record (art 8.1.1)

This publication was developed and produced by the Environment and Social Development Unit (EASES), East Asiaand Pacific Region of the World Bank The Environment, Rural Development, and Social Development Units arepart of the Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development (ESSD) Network

Papers in the EASES Discussion Paper Series are not formal publications of the World Bank They are published andcirculated to encourage discussion and comment within the development community The findings, interpretations,judgments, and conclusions expressed in this paper are those of the author and should not be attributed to the WorldBank, to its affiliated organizations, or to members of the Board of Executive Directors or the governments theyrepresent

Copies of this paper are available from:

Tony Whitten, Senior Biodiversity Specialist, EASES, Room MC8-209, The World Bank, 1818 H St NW,

Washington DC 20433, USA; twhitten@worldbank.org

Table of Contents

Part I

A preliminary check-list of the fishes known or expected to occur in northern

Part 2

Annex 1: Translation of selected parts of Mai D Y (1978), Identification

Annex 2: Nomenclatural status of names of Vietnamese fishes proposed

Annex 3: Reproduction of the original Nguyen and Doan (1969) 123

Color Plates

ii Part 1: Freshwater Fishes of Northern Vietnam

Acknowledgements

I am pleased to thank the following persons for their help at different stages of this work: Pham DucTien, Nguyen Huu Dung, Mai Quang Phuc and Ngo Sy Van assisted in the field; Ng Heok Hee (ZRC,UMMZ) identified some of the catfishes; Fang Fang (NRM) translated some Chinese texts; Jean-ClaudeHureau, Guy Duhamel, Patrice Pruvost, Monique Margout (MNHN), Sven Kullander, Erik Ahlander(NRM), Yang Jung-Xing and Cui Gui-Hua (KIZ) provided access to material under their care and variousmuseum and library facilities; Sven Kullander (NRM) and Peter K L Ng (ZRC) commented on themanuscript; Zhou Wei provided information on the distribution of some species in the Chinese part of theHong River basin Mai Dinh Yen provided welcome insights into the history of Vietnamese ichthyologyand also access to Vietnamese literature

Pham Duc Tien also translated sections of Mai (1978) which is presented as Annex 1

This publication reports results from work conducted in 1998 as part of an aquatic biodiversity

assessment of the Halong Bay World Heritage Site (northern Vietnam) funded through Swiss ConsultantTrust Funds at the World Bank and in 1999-2000 as part of the Freshwater Biodiversity Overlay toSupport the Vietnam National Hydropower Study, a project of the World Bank Environment

Department's Global Overlays Program, with financial support from Danish and Swiss Consultant TrustFunds, and executed by WWF Indochina Programme

This report would never have come to light without the efforts, help, tenacity and friendship of TonyWhitten of the World Bank who planned and organised the work, and made enormous efforts to get allpossible benefit from it

This report is a product of one of the projects in the World Bank's Global Overlays Program primanrly

financed by the Danish government, though in this case funds from the Swiss government were used

to support Dr Maurice Kottelat's contribution This particular Overlay project concerned freshwater

biodiversity in the context of the Vietnamese National Hydropower Study It was coordinated by theNational Environmental Agency on behalf of the Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment,with technical assistance provided by the World Wide Fund for Nature's office in Hanoi The

objective of the project was to enable water resource planning, particularly with regard to

hydropower, to proceed in full consideration of freshwater biodiversity functions and their broadeconomic values

Maurice Kottelat has used photographs taken during the curtailed field work together with his

unparalleled knowledge of the fish of the region to write a critical analysis of the fish fauna of

northern Vietnam Despite data limitations, this report will be essential reference for those

undertaking the biodiversity work as part of environmental assessments (EAs) for any project

affecting water in the area

This is the first time such a report has been published by the World Bank, but we do so in recognition

of the foundational role of taxonomy in sustainable development, of the importance of freshwaterbiodiversity in the lives of the riparian people of Vietnam (many of them among the poorest of thecitizens), and of the need to understand the biological resources for rational planning We will ensurethat, at least in work connected to projects financed by the World Bank, full account is taken of thisreport, and we look forward to being able one day to producing a user-friendly field guide to theseanimals as the World Bank has supported elsewhere in the region

East Asia and Pacific Region Environment and Social Development Unit

East Asia and Pacific Region

Part 1

A Preliminary Check-list of the Fishes Known or Expected to

Occur in Northern Vietnam with Comments on Systematics and

Nomenclature

Abstract

268 native species are recorded from the freshwaters of Vietnam (from the Ca River basin northwards)and immediately adjacent waters in China and Laos The systematic status and nomenclature of all

species have been reevaluated Compared to the last synthesis of the fishes known from the same area,

20 (10 %) of the 203 formerly recognised species are invalid, 85 (42 %) additional species are

recognised, and the names of 150 (74 %) of the then-known species are shown to be incorrect (eitherbecause of misidentifications, or for various nomenclatural reasons) The fish fauna of the Chinese

Provinces of Yunnan, Guangxi, Guangdong, and Hainan has been compared with the Vietnamese fishfauna where relevant in an attempt to make the nomenclatures used in the two countries compatibleand in agreement with the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature Some of the systematic

findings and nomenclatural changes are summarised in Tables 1 and 2

One assumes that when [experimental biologists] state that they used 5 ml ethanol, they were not using 6 ml of methanol; and yet, if the experimental animal is wrongly identified,

what are the grounds for such an assumption?

* understanding the distribution of Vietnamese improve and disseminate ideas and findings.fish and other organisms within and beyond

* providing recommendations for appropriate to export specimens temporarily for identification)design and implementation of hydropower and precluded completion of the work Despite this, Iother water use programs or projects that have used the photographs taken during the brief

2 Part L- Freshwater Fishes of Northern Vietnam

field work, together with my knowledge of the work and research It also interferes with scientificfish of the region to write a critical analysis of the exchanges Exchange of material, data and

fish fauna of northern Vietnam I must stress that knowledge is necessary for good management ofthis analysis based primarily on photographs has natural resources, and is beneficial for the countrysevere limitations, primarily that it is virtually in the long run; if one is able to benefit from theimpossible in this way to identify small-sized results of research conducted abroad, there is nospecies with any confidence and that these small need to replicate it and this saves time, effort andspecies are the most likely to be endemics with money The present work had to be done withoutlimited distributions, and thus of the greatest physical access to the samples I obtained in thebiodiversity value As a result their number and field and this obviously has limited the

diversity is probably grossly underestimated in conclusions In many instances, very little

this report Nevertheless, the numerous additional work is needed to solve complexnomenclatural and taxonomic problems which problems, but this last step has not been possible.have been identified on the basis of the

photographs alone is an indication of the desperate 2 A significant part of the north Vietnameseneed for critical analysis of this fauna by trained fish fauna is shared with southern China

specialists with transnational experience Although significantly more advanced, in many

aspects the state of our knowledge of the ChineseThe purpose of the present check-list is to fish fauna is similar It is therefore not surprisingpresent an overview of our present knowledge on that many species are known under completelythe diversity, systematics and nomenclature of the different names on either side of the border I havefreshwater fishes of northern Vietnam It also attempted to make these two sets of data

includes a selected bibliography of the compatible

publications of greatest immediate concern when

working on this fauna The list in this report includes all the fishes

which have been recorded in the scientificAlthough two books have already been literature or observed by myself in Vietnam northpublished on the fishes of northern Vietnam of (and including) the Ca River basin It also(Chevey & Lemasson, 1937; Mai, 1978) they are includes species recorded from within a fewoutdated and misleading, and it appears that the kilometres upstream or downstream of the

fish fauna of Vietnam is one of the most poorly Vietnamese border in Laos (Kottelat, 2001) and inknown in the World, both quantitatively and Yunnan Province of China (Chu & Chen, 1989,

Province of China Records based on the literature

As a result of the war and politics, Vietnamese are included but only if they seem reasonablyichthyology has evolved with little contact with reliable; that is, either there are ways to confirmthe outside world and this has had unfortunate the identification from the document itself or fromconsequences Ichthyological work published in voucher specimens, or the author(s) is (are) knownVietnam is very difficult to reconcile with work to be well experienced Fisheries records have notpublished outside the country The first task is to been taken into consideration since they tend to beadjust the nomenclature used in Vietnam to ensure unreliable and/or too superficial for seriousthat it conforms to the International Code of biodiversity work

Zoological Nomenclature [ICZN hereafter]

(International Commission on Zoological A very small area of northern Vietnam drainsNomenclature, 1999) The situation is aggravated to the Mekong basin near Dien Bien Phu, Lai

fishes of that area Data on the fishes of adjacent

1 Decisions of a strictly scientific nature areas in Laos can be found in Kottelat (2001).can be influenced by non-scientific considerations,

and this negatively impacts the efficiency of field

Pellegrin (1934) records several species from material from northern Vietnam and immediatelyHanoi which have not been reported again from adjacent areas The spellings in the synonymiesnorthern Vietnam As they all belong to the follow exactly those in the cited publications; thisSundaic fauna (the fauna of the land masses explains the apparent inconsistencies The absenceformerly connected across the Sunda shelf: of a colon (:) between a scientific name and anBorneo, Java, Sumatra, the Malay Peninsula, author name indicates that this is an originalMekong basin), I assume that the material has description (that is, a new scientific name

been mislabelled and may have been obtained in proposed in this publication); the presence of a

southern Vietnam These species are: Macrones colon indicates subsequent use of a name

wolffi [now Mystus wolffii], Datnioides proposed in earlier publications

microlepis, Ambassis wolffi [Parambassis wolffii],

Catoprafasciata [Pristolepisfasciata], The discussions on the status of Chinese

Trichopodus leeri [Trichogaster leerii], and species of the family Cyprinidae is based to some

Microphis boaja [Doryichthys boaja] extent on Chen (1998) In many cases I have

followed these conclusions, but I have to indicate

Field observations were conducted in Quang Ninh that the species diversity is severely

province in October 1998 and in the Lo River underestimated for many groups The second partbasin in December 1999 Detailed locality data of this monograph on Chinese cyprinids (Yue,and discussion of the material from the 1998 2000) arrived as this report was being completedsurvey will be given in a separate paper For and could not be taken into account A quickbureaucratic reasons, the material obtained during evaluation suggests, however, that it does notthe 1999 survey could not be examined and affect the present conclusions

identifications and discussions are based solely on

photographs and raw field observations, which

explains why many comments are written in the Annexes

conditional tense or with reservations Part 2 of this report comprises selected sections of

the book on north Vietnamese fishes by MaiAbbreviations used are: ICZN, International (1978) which were translated while preparing thisCode on Zoological Nomenclature; KIZ, Kunming report This translation forms Annex 1 A paperInstitute of Zoology, Kunming; MNHN, Museum usually cited as Hao & Hoa (1969) (here NguyenNational d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris; SL, Standard & Doan, 1969) presents a number of

solved in a separate analysis which forms AnnexThe species concept used herein is the 2 The original Nguyen and Doan paper is veryphylogenetic species concept (see Cracraft; 1989; difficult to obtain and so is here reproduced asMayden & Wood, 1995; Kottelat, 1997) The Annex 3

synonymies include only references based on

Part I Freshwater Fishes of Northern Vietnam 4

Table 1 Nomenclatural acts and changes made in this report

Acanthorhodeus dayeus Mai, 1978, tentative junior of Glyptosternon quadriocellatum Mai, 1978

synonym of A polyspinus Holcik, 1972 Lissochilus longibarbis Nguyen & Doan, 1969, tentative

Acrossocheilus iridescens yuanjiangensis Wu & Lin, 1975 junior synonym of Poropuntius alloiopleurus (Vaillant,

junior synonym of A i microstoma (Pellegrin & Chevey, 1893)

Altigena bibarbata Mai, 1978, junior synonym of Bangana Microphysogobio yunnanensis (Yao & Yang, 1977)

lemassoni Pellegrin & Chevey, 1936 Microphysogobio giganteus Mai, 1978, tentative synonym Altigena dorsoarcus Mai, 1978, junior synonym of of Pseudogobio guilinensis Yao & Yang, 1977

Bangana xanthogenys (Pellegrin & Chevey, 1936 Nemacheilus laterivittatus Zhu & Wang, 1985, junior Altigena tetrabarbata Mai, 1978, tentative synonym of synonym of Schistura caudofurca (Mai, 1978)

Bangana Ixanthogenys (Pellegrin & Chevey, 1936) Onychostoma brevicephalus Nguyen & Doan, 1969, junior Ancherythroculter lini Luo, 1994, tentative synonym of A synonym of Scaphiodonichthys macracanthus (Pellegrin &

daovantieni (Banarescu, 1967) Chevey, 1936)

Arius fangi Chaux, 1949, tentative junior synonym of Onychostoma microcorporus Nguyen & Doan, 1969, junior Arius arenarius Muller & Troschel, 1849 synonym of Scaphiodonichthys acanthopterus (Fowler,

Barbatula uniformis Mai, 1978, tentative synonym of 1934)

Schistura incerta (Nichols, 1931) Onychostoma vietnamensis Banarescu, 1967, synonym of Barbodes (Barbodes) huangchuchieni rhomboides Wu & Onychostoma lepturus (Boulenger, 1899)

Lin, 1977, tentative junior synonym of Poropuntius Opsariichthys elegans Pellegrin & Chevey, 1934, junior alloiopleurus (Vaillant, 1893) synonym ofParazaccofasciatus (Koller, 1927)

Barbus bonvaloti Vaillant, 1893, junior synonym of Paradaniops Nguyen & Doan, 1969, junior synonym of

Folifer brevifilis (Peters, 1881) Opsarius McClelland, 1838

Botia gigantea Mai, 1978, junior synonym of Botia Paradaniops macropterus Nguyen & Doan, 1969, junior pulchra Wu, 1939 synonym of Opsarius pulchellus (Srnith, 1931)

Botia hexafurca Mai, 1978, junior synonym of Botia Parazacco vuquangensis Nguyen, 1995, junior synonym of robusta Wu, 1939 Parazaccofasciatus (Koller, 1927)

Carassioides cantonensis melanes Mai, 1978, junior Percocypris retrodorsalis Cui & Chu, 1990, junior synonym

synonym of Carassioides acuminatus (Richardson, 1846) of Percocypris tchangi (Pellegrin & Chevey, 1936)

Culter recurvirostris Sauvage, 1884, junior synonym of Pseudolaubuca sinensis vietnamensis Mai, 1978, junior Culterflavipinnis Tirant, 1883 synonym of Pseudolaubuca sinensis Bleeker, 1865

Cyprinion orientalis Vaillant, 1893, junior synonym of Puntius ocellatus Mai, 1978, junior synonym of Puntius Carassioides acuminatus (Richardson, 1846) brevis (Bleeker, 1850)

Daniops nammuensis Nguyen & Doan, 1969, junior Rasborinus Oshinia, 1920, junior synonym of Metzia Jordan

synonyrn of Opsarius pulchellus (Srnith, 1931) & Evermann, 1902

Garra alticorpora Chu & Cui, 1987, tentative junior Saurogobio dabryi vietnmamensis Mai, 1978, junior

synonym of Garra poilanei Petit & Tchang, 1933 synonym of Saurogobio immaculatus Koller, 1927

Garra angulostomata Mai, 1978, tentative junior Siniperca robusta Yu, Kwang & Ni, 1986, junior synonym

synonym of Garra caudofasciata Pellegrin & Chevey, of Siniperca vietnamensis Mai, 1978

Garra cyclostomata Mai, 1978, junior synonym of Garra 1964, junior synonym of Squalidus atromaculatus Nichols

poilanei Petit & Tchang, 1933 & Pope, 1927

Garra obturostris Mai, 1978, junior synonym of Garra Vanmanenia Hora, 1932, junior synonym of Homalosoma gracilis Pellegrin & Chevey, 1936 Boulenger, 1901

Varicorhinus argentatus Nguyen & Doan, 1969, New substitute names:

tentative synonym of Onychostoma lepturus (Boulenger, Acheilognathus elongatoides, substitute for Pararhodeus

Varicorhinus erythrogenys Nguyen & Doan, 1969, Acanthorhodeus elongatus Regan, 1908)

tentative synonym of Onychostoma lepturus (Boulenger, Parabotia dubia, substitute for Botia elongata Mai, 1978,

1870

Nomen oblitum:

Albula Osbeck, 1765 Glyptothorax spectrum, substitute for Glyptosternon

minutum Mai, 1978, a junior secondary homonym of

Carpio cantonensis Heincke, 1892, proposed for an

Cyprinus acuminatus Richardson, 1846

Hemibarbus longianalis Nguyen & Doan, 196, primary

junior homonym of H longianalis Kimura, 1943 Lectotype designation for:

Pararhodeus elongatus Mai, 1978, junior secondary Onychostoma macracanthus Pellegrin & Chevey, 1936

homonym of Acanthorhodeus elongatus Regan, 1908)

Botia elongata Mai, 1978, junior primnary homonym of First reviser actions:

Botia elongata Bleeker, 1870 Cyprinus acuminatus Richardson, 1846 has precedence

over C carassioides Richardson, 1846

G,lyptosternon minutum Mai, 1978, junior secondary Glyptosternon quadriocellatum Mai, 1978 has precedence

homonym of Glyptothorax minutum Hora, 1921 over G minutum Mai, 1978

Part 1: Freshwater Fishes of Northern Vietnam 6

Table 2 Fishes of northern Vietnam and immediately adjacent waters

List of native species presently known and comparison with nomenclature used in Mai (1978) - indicates the 86

species not recorded by Mai (1978) ? indicates species whose identity cannot be decided on the basis of published

or other available data * indicates the 54 species whose names in Mai (1978) correspond to present systematic and

Family Engraulididae

Family Cyprinidae

Pararhodeus elongatus 11 Acheilognathus elongatoides

Acanthorhodeus longibarbatus 14 Acheilognathus longibarbatus

Acanthorhodeus macropterus 15 Acheilognathus macropterus

? Acanthorhodeus dayeus 17 Acheilognathus polyspinus

Acanthorhodeus tonkinensis 18 Acheilognathus tonkinensis

Lissochilus clivosius 20 ? Acrossocheilus clivosius

Cyclocheilichthys iridescens 21 Acrossocheilus iridescens

Erythroculter hypselonotus daovantieni 25 Ancherythroculter daovantieni

Altigena bibarbata (same as 27)

Altigena tetrabarbata (same as 29)

Carassioides cantonensis cantonensis 30 Carassioides acuminatus

Carassioides c melanes (same as 30)

*Cirrhinus molitorella 32 Cirrhina molitorella

Erythroculter recurvirostris 34 ? Culterflavipinnis

Names used in Mai (1978) Name in present report

Erythroculter ilishaeformis 35 ? Culter mongolicus

Culter erythropterus 36 Cultrichthys erythropterus

*Cyprinus multitaeniatus 40 Cyprinus multitaeniatus

Garra angulostomata (same as 47)

Garra obturostris (same as 48)

Garra cyclostomata (same as 50)

Pseudohemiculter serrata 53 Hainania serrata

*Hemiculter leucisculus 57 Hemiculter leucisculus

Hypophthalmichthys molitrix Harmandi 58 Hypophthalmichthys harmandi

Lissochilus macrosquamatus 59 Hypsibarbus macrosquamatus

Lissochilus annamensis 60 Hypsibarbus cf wetmorei

*Luciobrama macrocephalus 62 Luciobrama macrocephalus

*Luciocyprinus langsoni 63 Luciocyprinus langsoni

Ischikauia macrolepis hainanensis 67 Metziaformosae

Rasborinus lineatus lineatus 68 Metzia lineata

*Microphysogobio kachekensis 69 Microphysogobio kachekensis

Microphysogobio labeoides (same as 69)

*Microphysogobio vietnamica 70 ? Microphysogobio vietnamica

? Microphysogobio buas 71 Microphysogobio yunnanensis

*Mylopharyngodon piceus 72 Mylopharyngodon piceus

? Gymnostomus microstomus (same as 79)

? Gymnostomus argentatus (sarne as 79)

8 Part 1: Freshwater Fishes of Northern Vietnam

? Gymnostomus erythrogenys (same as 79)

Opsariichthys uncirostris 84 Opsariichthys bidens

Daniops macropterus (same as 85)

*Osteochilus salsburyi 86 Osteochilus salsburyi

Megalobrama terminalis 87 Parabramis pekinensis

Parator macracanthus 88 Paraspinibarbus macracanthus

? Lissochilus longibarbis 95 Poropuntius alloiopleurus

Microphysogobio giganteus 97 ? Pseudogobio guilinensis

*Pseudohemiculter dispar 98 Pseudohemiculter dispar

*Pseudohemiculter hainanensis 99 Pseudohemiculter hainanensis

Pseudolaubuca sinensis vietnamensis 101 Pseudolaubuca sinensis

*Puntius semifasciolatus 103 Puntius semifasciolatus

Rasbora cephalotaenia steineri 105 Rasbora steineri

Epalzeorhynchus mutabilis 106 Rectoris mutabilis

Rhodeus ocellatus vietnamensis 109 ? Rhodeus vietnamensis

Pseudoperilampus hainanensis (same as 109)

Sarcocheilichthys nigripinnis 110 Sarcocheilichthys hainanensis

Saurogobio dabryi vietnamensis 111 Saurogobio immaculatus

Onychostoma microcorpus 112 Scaphiodonichthys acanthopterus

Onychostoma macracanthus (same as 112)

Onychostoma brevicephalus 113 Scaphiodonichthys macracanthus

Megalobrama macrops affinis 115 Sinibrama affinis

*Spinibarbichthys denticulatus 116 Spinibarbichthys denticulatus

Squalidus chankaensis vietnamensis 119 Squalidus atromaculatus

*Squaliobarbus curriculus 120 Squaliobarbus curriculus

121 Tanichthys albonubes Toxabramis swinhonis Houdmeri 122 Toxabramis houdemeri

Plagiognathops microlepis 125 Xenocypris microlepis

Names used in Mai (1978) Name in present report

Homaloptera tetraoloba 137 ? Homalosoma tetraloba

Homaloptera ventrosquamata 138 ? Homalosoma ventrosquamata

Homaloptera monoloba 141 ? Liniparhomaloptera monoloba

Homaloptera disparis 142 Liniparhomaloptera disparis

Micronemacheilus pulcher 143 Micronemacheilus taeniatus

Gastromyzon elongatus 148 ? Pseudogastromyzon elongata

Barbatulafasciolata 153 Schistura cf fasciolata

Barbatula hingi (same as 153)

? Barbatula uniformis (same as 155)

*Sinogastromyzon chapaensis 166 Sinogastromyzon chapaensis

Sinogastromyzon minutus 167 Sinogastromyzon minutum

*Sinogastromyzon rugocauda 168 Sinogastromyzon rugocauda

*Sinogastromyzon tonkinensis 169 Sinogastromyzon tonkinensis

10 Part 1 Freshwater Fishes ofNorthern Vietnam

? Cobitis taenia dolichorhynchus 175 Cobitis cf sinensis

*Misgurnus anguillicaudatus 177 Misgurnus anguillicaudatus

Family Bagridae

Hemibagrus elongatus hongus (same as 181)

182 Hemibagrus pluriradiatus

*Hemibagrus vietnamicus 183 Hemubagrus vietnamicus

Pseudobagrus fulvidraco 186 ? Pelteobagrusfulvidraco

Pseudobagrus virgatus (same as 186)

Pseudobagrus vachellii 189 Pelteobagrus vachelli

190 Pelteobagrus virgatus

Family Cranoglanididae

Family Siluridae

Parasilurus cochinchinensis 192 Pterocryptis cochinchinensis

Silurus cucphuongensis 193 Pterocryptis cucphuongensis

Silurus wynaadensis 194 ? Pterocryptis gilberti

Parasilurus asotus 195 Silurus asotus

Glyptosternon hainanensis 199 Glyptothorax honghensis

Glyptosternon interspinalum 200 Glyptothorax interspinalum

? Glyptosternon pallozonum (same as 200)

Glyptosternon quadriocellatum 201 Glyptothorax quadriocellatus

Glyptosternon minutum (same as 201)

Euchiloglanis macrotrema 202 Pareuchiloglanis macrotrema

Names used in Mai (1978) Name in present report

Protosalanx hyalocranius 211 Protosalanx chinensis

*Coreoperca whiteheadi 220 Coreoperca whiteheadi

Siniperca scherzeri kwangsiensis 221 Siniperca scherzeri

Siniperca chuatsi vietnamensis 222 Siniperca vietnamensis

Micropercops macropectoralis 235 "Micropercops" macropectoralis

Micropercops hotayensis 236 "Micropercops" hotayensis

Rhinogobius hadropterus 245 Rhinogobius giurinus

*Rhinogobius leavelli 246 Rhinogobius leavelli

12 Part 1: Freshwater Fishes of Northern Vietnam

Family Mastacembelidae

*Mastacembelus armatus 262 Mastacembelus armatus

Mastacembelus aculeatus 263 Sinobdella sinensis

Family NOTOPTERIDAE Remarks The identity of the species listed as A.

bengalensis by Nguyen et al (1999: 26) from Vu

(1939) The species which he called A nebulosa (of

Notopterus notopterus: Mai, 1978: 15 which A bengalensis is possibly a senior synonym, but

Notopterus notopterus: Nguyen, Nguyen & Le, 1999: 26 this involves complicated taxonomic and nomenclatural

only from the Indian Ocean, from the African coast to

Remarks The family Notopteridae has been revised northern Sumatra, so that it seems very unlikely that this

bengalensis) is distinguished, among other characters,

by its mottled body Another species with mottled bodyknown from throughout the Indo-Pacific region is A

Family ELOPIDAE marmorata (Ege, 1939: 88, fig 15) The species has

already been recorded from central Vietnam (for

? Elops machnata (Forsskal, 1775) example from Hue by Chevey, 1936b: 130) and if an eel

with a mottled body exists in the area, I expect that it is

Elops saurus: Mai, 1978: 6 this species

Remarks The identity of the species reported as

Elops saurus by Mai (1978: 6) is not clear The family Family CLUPEIDAE

Elopidae has been reviewed by Whitehead (1962) The

genus Elops includes 6 species world wide Elops saurus ? Nematalosa nasus (Bloch, 1795)

is known only from the Western Atlantic Ocean, thus

Mai's identification is extremely unlikely Using ? Clupanodon punctatus: Mai, 1978: 11

Whitehead's identification key, the 100-106 lateral line

scales indicated by Mai lead to E saurus, E affinis (a Remarks The identity of the species recorded asspecies from the Pacific Coast of Central America) or E Clupanodonpunctatus by Mai (1978: 11) is not clear senegalensis (a species from the Atlantic Ocean along A synopsis of the family Clupeidae has been publishedthe coasts of western Africa) by Whitehead (1985) The correct name for the species

Whitehead recognises two Indo-Pacific species (E often recorded as Clupanodon punctatus is Konosirus

machnata and E hawaiensis), distinguished by the punctatus This species is known along the northwestern

number of vertebrae (63-64, vs 68-70) and mouth Pacific coast from Korea until Japan and Hong Kong.morphology (lower jaw projecting and covering anterior There is no authenticated record south of Hong Kong.part of premaxillary tooth-band when mouth is closed, In addition, Mai's figure shows a fish with a appearance

vs lower jaw included, whole premaxillary tooth-band quite different from the one illustrated by Whitehead,exposed) Mai's figure shows the lower jaw slightly with its deeper body, blunt head and clearly inferiorprojecting anteriorly and, if this detail is accurate, this mouth, all characters which disagree with the diagnosissuggest that this species could be E machnata of Konosirus, but agree well with that of the genus

Nematalosa Of the 9 known species of Nematalosa,

four have been recorded from the coasts of the South

Family ANGUILLIDAE China Sea: N come, a marine, pelagic species; N.

galatheae, a marine species entering freshwater, known

pattern; N japonica, a marine species; and N nasus, a

Anguilla japonica: Chevey, 1935: 1422 (Thanh Tri, marine species known to enter at least some estuariesnear Hanoi), 1936a: 66 (Thanh Tri near Hanoi) and known from the Persian Gulf to southern Japan On

Anguillajaponica: Chevey & Lemasson, 1937: 114 the basis of similarities between Mai's figure and the

Anguillajaponica: Mai, 1978: 280 data in Whitehead (1985: 249), I tentatively identify

this species as N nasus This needs to be confirmed by

? Anguilla marmorata Quoy & Gaimard, 1824 critical examination of carefully preserved samples

Anguilla bengalensis: Nguyen, Nguyen & Le, 1999: 26

(Vu Quang)

14 Part 1: Freshwater Fishes of Northern Vietnam

Clupanodon thrissa: Mai, 1978: 9 Coilia mystus: Mai, 1978: 14

Remarks See Whitehead (1985: 239) for a recent Remarks The identity of the species called C mystus

description, accurate figure and summary of biological by Mai (1978: 14) is not clear According to Whitehead

to base of first pectoral-fin ray Mai's figure is not verydetailed and it does not show the maxilla conspicuously

? Tenualosa reevesii (Richardson, 1846) extending beyond the opercle (but the figure does not

appear very accurate as it shows a forked caudal fin,

Macrura reevessii: Mai, 1978: 8 while all Coilia have a pointed one) No species with 6

pectoral filaments and a short maxilla has yet been

Remarks The identity of the species identified as recorded from the area So I tentatively retain the

Macrura reevessii by Mai (1978: 8) is not clear The identification C mystus as correct.

generic name Macrura is a synonym of the genus Hilsa,

but the species sometimes known as Alosa reevesii or

Hilsa reevesii (note correct spelling) in fact is a member

of the genus Tenualosa See Whitehead (1985: 222) for a Family CYPRINIDAE

synopsis of the genus Tenualosa reevesii is known from

the southern coast of China and from Phuket on the Acheilognathus barbatulus Gunther, 1873

Indian Ocean coast of Thailand, suggesting that it might (Fig 2)

occur in intermediate areas, but this needs confirmation;

it is a marine species, known to ascend rivers to breed Acheilognathus barbatulus: Kottelat, 2000b: 83, 2001 Hilsa keele is another species with a very similar (Laos: Nam Ma)

appearance, is known from the Indo-Pacific coasts from

South Africa to southern China and New Guinea, Remarks Although not yet recorded from Vietnam,

tolerates low salinity, but is not known to penetrate into this species is known from the Song Ma basin in Laos

Vietnam This species is known from China where it hasbeen recorded from the Huanghe (Yellow River),Changjiang (Yangtze), Zhujiang (Pearl River) and

Family ENGRAULIDIDAE Lancangjiang (Mekong) (Lin, in Chen, 1998: 505) This

very broad distribution suggests that a critical

to confirm that a single species is involved, or that this

Coilia Grayi: Pellegrin, 1907: 500 (Hanoi) wide distribution is possibly the result of introductions

Coilia Grayi: Pellegrin, 1934: 334 (Hanoi) (the broadly disjunct range in Yunnan [see Chen & Li, in

Coilia Grayi Chevey & Lemasson, 1937: 15 Chu & Chen, 1989: 131, fig 123] suggests introduction,

Coilia grayii: Mai, 1978: 13 insufficient sampling or habitat extinction)

Remarks See Whitehead et al (1988) for a synopsis Acheilognathus elongatoides Kottelat, new substitute

Engraulidae) The presence of 7 pectoral filaments

distinguish this species from all other species of the Pararhodeus elongatus Mai, 1978: 181

genus Whitehead et al have apparently missed the

records of this species from northern Vietnam All Remarks The original description is uninformative to

species of Coilia have a pointed caudal fin and it is reach an opinion as to the possible identity of this

interesting to note that the figure of C grayii in Chevey species The figure is not detailed enough (especially the

& Lemasson (1937) (as well as the one of C mystus in fish has no mouth) I am tentatively retaining the speciesMai, 1978) show a fish with a forked caudal; this needs as valid in the genus Ac-heilognathus In Acheilognathus

elongatus Regan (1908: 356; see, e.g., Yang et al., 1990)

and I propose Acheilognathus elongatoides as a new

substitute name (ICZN art 60.3)

Acheilognathus kyphus (Mai, 1978) Kottelat (2001) reported A longibarbatus from the

(Fig 3) Nam Mat basin in northeastern Laos (Song Ca basin).

Again, this identification needs confirmation by direct

Pararhodeus kyphus Mai, 1978: 182 comparison with fresh material from the type locality.

Remarks The distinctive colour pattern of the body

and dorsal fin of this species is apparently unique in the Acheilognathus macropterus (Bleeker, 1870)

Acanthorhodeus macropterus: Mai, 1978: 185

Acheilognathus "lamus"

(Fig 4) Remarks Acanthorhodeus macropterus is now

placed in the genus Acheilognathus (Arai & Akai, 1988:

Acanthorhodeus lamus: Nguyen, Nguyen & Le, 1999: 208) Acanthorhodeus taenianalis is considered as a

27 (Vu Quang) synonym of Acheilognathus macropterus (e.g., Lin, in

Chen, 1998: 419), but judging from the wide

Remarks This is a nomen nudum (that is, a name distribution range of this species (from Heilongjiang to which has no validity in zoological nomenclature) and the Hong River basins), it is likely that closer

without information on this species it is not possible to examination may reveal that several species are

discuss its identity The genus Acanthorhodeus is now involved See also under Acheilognathuspolyspinus.

considered as a synonym of Acheilognathus (see Arai &

Akai, 1988: 205; Kottelat, 2000c: 198).

The specimen on Fig 4 was identified in the field Acheilognathus aff meridianus (Wu, 1939)

as conspecific with his A "lamus" by Prof Nguyen Thai (Fig 7)

Tu Juveniles of several species of Acheilognathus

exhibit the black blotch in the dorsal fin Remarks This species was discovered during the

1998 survey in Quang Ninh Province It seems closely

related to Acheilognathus meridianus known from

Acheilognathus longibarbatus (Mai, 1978) Guangdong and Guangxi Provinces in China.

(Fig 6)

? Acheilognathus deignani: Holcik, 1971: 29 (Song Acheilognathuspolyspinus (Holcik, 1972)

Acanthorhodeus longibarbatus Mai, 1978: 186

? Acheilognathus longibarbatus: Kottelat, 2001 (Laos: Acanthorhodeus taenianalis: Pellegrin, 1907: 500

Acanthorhodeus tonkinensis: Pellegrin, 1934: 334

Remarks I am unable to identify Acanthorhodeus (Hanoi)

longibarbatus of Mai (1978: 186) with any species Acanthorhodeus taenianalis: Chevey & Lemasson, described from southern China and therefore tentatively 1937: 64

consider it as a valid species The species was described Acanthorhodeus polyspinus Holcik, 1972: 5 (Hong from Cao Bang and Na Ri Rivers in the Pearl River River near Hanoi)

basin ? Acanthorhodeus dayeus Mai, 1978: 187 (Song Day,

Holcik (1971: 29) reported Acheilognathus Hoa Binh)

deignani from the Song Boi in Hoa Binh Province This

species was originally described from the Mekong basin Remarks Mai (1978) does not mention this species

in northern Laos A comparison of fresh material from although it is known only from northern Vietnam both localities is needed and is likely to show that they Judging from his description and figure, it is possible are not conspecific Comparing Holcik's data with the that his Acanthorhodeus dayeus is the present species.

figures and description in Mai (1978) suggests that Mai (1978: 185) considers that the Acanthorhodeus

Holcik's material could be conspecific or closely related taenianalis of Chevey & Lemasson (1937: 64) in fact

to A longibarbatus This needs confirmation by direct are specimens of Acheilognathus macropterus From comparison Holcik's (1971) work is not mentioned by Chevey & Lemasson's description, and especially their Mai (1978) figure, I think their material is actually A polyspinus; I

cannot exclude the possibility that Mai's A macropterus

16 Part1: Freshwater Fishes ofNorthern Vietnam

is in fact also A polyspinus Pellegrin's (1907: 500) A inconspicuously striped body (e.g A yunnanensis, A taenianalis and (1937: 334) A tonkinensis have later xamensis) and might belong to Poropuntius, but this is

been used as type material for A polyspinus not clear The other lineage includes species with a

barred colour pattern and apparently is Acrossocheilus

s.s Contrary to Wu et al (1977), I do not think that the

Acheilognathus tonkinensis (Vaillant, 1892) distance between the lobes of the lower lip can be used

(Fig 9) alone to distinguish subgenera as there are species with

intermediate conditions Acrossocheilus elongatus of

Acanthorhodeus tonkinensis Vaillant, 1892: 127, 1904: these authors is in fact a species of Onychostoma (see

465 (Lai Chau) below 0 elongatum).

Acanthorhodeus tonkinensis: Pellegrin, 1907: 500 The type species of Acrossocheilus is A.

(Hanoi) formosanus (Regan, 1908), a species originally described

Acanthorhodeus tonkinensis: Chevey & Lemasson, 1937: from Taiwan which does not appear in recent literature

62 on Taiwan fishes, e.g Chen & Fang (1999) who list a

Acanthorhodeus macropterus tonkinensis: Holcik, 1971: single species of this genus, A paradoxus Gunther, 1868.

26 (Song Boi) In a review of the Chinese species, Shan et al (in Yue,

Acanthorhodeus tonkinensis: Mai, 1978: 184 2000: 123) treat A formosus as valid and A paradoxus

Acheilognathus tonkinensis: Chen & Li, in Chu & Chen, (Giinther, 1868) as a junior synonym of A labiatus

1989: 130 (Yunnan: Hekou) (Regan, 1908) (which is incorrect; if these are synonyms,

Acheilognathus tonkinensis: Kottelat, 2001 (Laos: Nam then the valid name should be A paradoxus) The Mat) identity of the Chinese mainland "A formosus" requires

confirmation.

Remarks Chinese authors record a very wide The description of the species called Lissochilus

distribution for this species in China, ranging from the clivosius by Mai (1978: 94) is uninformative (and the Hong River to the Huang He basins Careful comparison values in the description disagree with those in the table

of fresh samples from throughout this range will under A laocaiensis) and I cannot comment on the probably show that several species are confused under identity of the species (but I note that Shan et al., in Yue, this name 2000: record 28-33 gill rakers on the first gill arch while

Mai records only 7-9) At best, the identification needs confirmation The available data do not allow one to

Acheilognathus sp A decide whether or not it is distinct from A iridescens

(Fig 10) [placed in genus Cyclocheilichthys by Mai, 1978: 90].

The difference between L laocaiensis and L.

Remarks This species was observed during the 1999 clivosius is in the number of serrae along the posterior

survey of the Lo River basin Presently, it is not edge of the last simple dorsal-fin ray (9, vs 11-12), the identifiable with any of the species known from Vietnam, number of gill-rakers on the first gill-arch (7, vs 7-9), Laos or China, but considering the various problems head length (10.75 % SL, vs 12.63) and body depth (11 mentioned, it should be expected that some of them may % SL, vs 14.93) Considering that Mai's specimens of L.

turn out as conspecific once the material is properly laocaiensis were 31-48 mm SL and those of A cliviosus

examined 34-72 mm SL, the difference in the number of serrae on

the dorsal-fin spine falls within the variation expected in any cyprinid, especially as this number usually increases

? Acrossocheilus clivosius (Lin, 1935) with the size of the fish The difference in the number of

gill rakers (7, vs 7-9) is not a difference, especially as

? Lissochilus laocaiensis Nguyen & Doan, 1969: 12 the figure of 7 gill rakers given in the table p 94

(Suoi Trinh Quyen, Lao Cai) becomes 7-9 on p 93, so that there is a complete overlap

Lissochilus clivosius: Mai, 1978: 94 and agreement instead of a difference The morphometric

? Lissochilus laocaiensis: Mai, 1978: 93 values for the two species in the table differ from both

those cited in their respective descriptions and those in

Remarks The systematics of the genus the key (see Table below) so that one does not know

Acrossocheilus is very confused and authors have used what the real values are Those in the key could suggest a this name for very different fishes As currently used difference, but I cannot ascertain which are in fact the (more or less following Wu et al., 1977), the genus correct set of values.

seems to include several different lineages (Kottelat,

2000a: 38) One of them includes species with a plain or

340, 184 mm SL); it has 40+3 lateral line scales andtable descrip- key about 4+11 gill-rakers on the first gill arch (difficult to

A lvs7st

HeadkrighinSL 10.75% 259% 3.6-3.8fim[263-Z7.8%]

Adi1adghinSL 1263% 24.1% 45trrh[2-250%] Lissochilus lamus Mai, 1978: 101 (Lam River)

BalydhinSL 14.93% 28.0%

Remarks Using the data in Mai's key (1978: 92),

this species would belongs to a group without dark barsThe difference in intensity of colour pattem mentioned on body But his description (p 101) mentions 5 bars

in the key (black bars conspicuous in L laocaiensis, vs which also appear on his figure 43 The species is also

black bars diffuse in L clivosius) might be real; it might said to be distinguished from the other species

just as well be the result of a preservation artifact or considered by Mai as congeneric by the number ofreflect differences in the water quality, age, etc [lateral line] scales [39], the number of gill rakers onTherefore, at this stage, with the published data, there first branchial arch [20], the number of serrae on lastdoes not seem to be ways to distinguish the two species simple dorsal-fm ray [15] and the length of the

In addition, I note that in the original description of mandibular barbel But the species has obvious

L laocaiensis, Nguyen & Doan report the head length affinities with A iridescens which Mai (1978: 90)

to be 3.5-4.4 times in the length [it is not clear to me places in the genus Cyclocheilichthys.

whether they used SL or TL] and the lateral line scale It is very difficult to decide of the distinctness of A.count 36-38 (vs 38-40 in Mai, 1978: 93) lamus and A iridescens on the basis of the available

data The single specimen of L lamus has 39 lateral line

scales and thus falls within or at the limit of the

Acrossocheilus iridescens (Nichols & Pope, 1927) variation range of A iridescens (41-43 in A iridescens

(Fig 11) according to Mai [p 90, in a different genus], 39-41

according to Wu & Lin [in Wu et al., 1977: 290], 40-43

Cyclocheilichthys microstoma Pellegrin & Chevey, according to Chen & Li [in Chu & Chen, 1989: 208],1936b: 227 (Ba Mun, Nam So, a tributary of Da River) 41-42 according to Chevey & Lemasson [1937: 53, 54],

Cyclocheilichthys iridescens: Chevey & Lemasson, and 41-44 according to Shan et al., in Yue [2000: 124])

Cyclocheilichthys microstoma: Chevey & Lemasson, uninformative The number of gill-rakers for A

Acrossocheilus (Acrossocheilus) iridescens Cyclocheilichthys microstoma (a synonym of A yuanjiangensis Wu & Lin, in Wu et al., 1977: 290 iridescens, see above) has about 4+11 and this character

Cyclocheilichthys iridescens: Mai, 1978: 90 pelvic-fin origin in A lamus could be slightly more

Acrossocheilus iridescens yuanjiangensis: Chen & Li, backwards and the body deeper This, combined with

in Chu & Chen, 1989: 208 (Yunnan: Hekou) the presence of the species in the Lam River, leads me

Acrossocheilus iridescens: Kottelat, 2001 (Laos: Nam to tentatively accept it as valid, pending examination of

Remarks Wu & Lin (in Wu et al., 1977) recognise

three subspecies of A iridescens: A i iridescens on Acrossocheilus xamensis Kottelat, 2000

longipinnis, see Ye, in Pan, 1991: 153] in Pearl River

basin and A i yuanjiangensis in the Hong River basin Acrossocheilus xamensis Kottelat, 2000a: 38 (Laos: Nam

in Yunnan For lack of material and data, I am unable to Xam)

comment on the status of these species But, if the Hong Acrossocheilus xamensis: Kottelat, 2001 (Laos: Nam

River material is considered to be a distinct species or Xam)

subspecies, its correct name is A microstoma as this

name has priority over A yuanjiangensis I have Remarks This species was discovered in 1998 in the

examined the holotype of C microstoma (MNHN 1935- Nam Xam in Laos and is expected to occur in Vietnam

18 Part 1: Freshwater Fishes of Northern Vietnam

Anabarilius transmontana: Chen, in Chu & Chen, 1989: ? Aphyocypris kikuchii: Nguyen, Nguyen & Le, 1999: 26

Remarks This species was recorded from the Lo Remarks This species is reported from Vu Quang by

River basin in Wenshan (Yunnan) and its presence is Nguyen et al (1996: 26) A priori, this identificationexpected in the same basin downstream, in Vietnam seems erroneous as this is a species known only from

Taiwan (Wu et al., 1964: 14; Tzeng, 1986: 53; Li, 1981:194; Chen & fang, 1999: 61); its real identity will remain

(Fig 13)

Erythroculter hypselonotus daovantieni Banarescu, Aspidoparia morar (Hamilton, 1822)

1967a: 221 (Song Boi)

Erythroculterpseudobrevicauda macrothalmus [sic] Aspidoparia morar: Kuang, in Chu & Chen, 1989: 33

Nguyen & Doan, 1969: 15 (Hanoi; Ha Tay; Nam Ha, Da (Yunnan: Hekou)

River basins)

Erythroculter hypselonotus daovantieni: Mai, 1978: 151 Remarks An introduced species.

Erythroculter hypselonotus: Chen, in Chu & Chen, 1989:

89 (Yunnan: Hekou)

Bangana lemassoni (Pellegrin & Chevey, 1936)

Remarks The species identified as members of (Fig 14)

Erythroculter by Mai (1978) in fact should be called

Culter Luo & Chen (in Chen, 1998: 194) tentatively list Varicorhinus Lemassoni Pellegrin & Chevey, 1936a: 19, Culter hypselonotus (as originally described by Bleeker, fig 1 (Lai-Chau / Bac Me, Song-Gam, tributary of Lo

1871: 72) as a synonym of C dabryi The name C River)

hypselonotus has been widely used in the literature for Sinilabeo lemassoni: Banarescu, 1973: 106

another species since Lin (1934b: 621), for example by Varicorhinus Lemassoni: Chevey & Lemasson, 1937: 38

Banarescu (1967a: 219), Lu (in Pan, 1991: 90), Anonym Altigena bibarbata Mai, 1978: 68

(1981: 35) This species was renamed Ancherythroculter Altigena Lemassoni: Mai, 1978: 69

lini by Luo (1994: 48) and is known only from the Pearl Sinilabeo rendahli lemassoni: Chu & Cui, in Chu &

Bangana lemassoni: Kottelat, 2001 (Laos: Nam Xam)

Banarescu (1967a: 221) described a distinct

subspecies of C hypselonotus (sensu Lin) from the Hong Remarks The genus Altigena is treated as a synonym River basin, E h daovantieni He distinguished it from of Sinilabeo by Banarescu (1973) and Wu et al (1977:

the specimens from Guangxi by the number of branched 333) In fact, several (or all ?) species placed in

anal rays (31 in his single specimen, vs 23-26 in the 2 Sinilabeo belong to Bangana (Kottelat, 1984: 802; 1998:

specimens from Guangxi) Luo & Chen (in Chen, 1998: 24)

154) report 23-28 in 15 specimens from the Pearl River Altigena bibarbata Mai (1978: 68) apparently

and Mai (1978: 151) reports 26-29 in an unstated number differs from B lemassoni only in the number of barbels

of specimens from unstated localities in northern (2, vs 4) The anterior barbels are rudimentary in B.

Vietnam [it is not stated whether they are from the Hong lemassoni (see Chevey & Lemasson, 1937: 39) and one

River or the Pearl River basin]) Chen (in Chu & Chen, expects that in some specimens it can be absent Unless1989: 89) reports 25-29 in 8 specimens from Hekou in further data are provided to support recognition of thisthe Hong River basin and Bo'ai in the Pearl River basin, species, I do not see anything in the original description

At this stage, I tentatively conclude that the Hong

River and Pearl River material cannot be distinguished Bangana tonkinensis (Pellegrin & Chevey, 1934)

and must be called Ancherythroculter daovantieni But

further comparison is needed and may show A Varicorhinus tonkinensis Pellegrin & Chevey, 1934: 338 daovantieni and A lini to be distinct (river Ngoi-Thia at Nghia Lo, tributary of Hong River

upstream of Yen Bay)

Varicorhinus Graffeuili Pellegrin & Chevey, 193 6a: 21, Carassioides acuminatus (Richardson, 1846)

fig 2 (type locality: Vietnam: Phong To, Nam Lung, (Fig 15)

tributary of Black River)

Varicorhinus tonkinensis: Chevey & Lemasson, 1937: 37 Cyprinion orientalis Vaillant, 1893: 203 (Da River)

Varicorhinus Graffeuili: Chevey & Lemasson, 1937: 40 hybrid Cyprinus carpio x Carassius auratus: Pellegrin,

Sinilabeo tonkinensis: Banarescu, 1973: 108, fig 8 1907: 499 (Hanoi)

Labeo tonkinensis: Mai, 1978: 82 hybrid Cyprinus carpio x Carassius auratus: Pellegrin,

Sinilabeo tonkinensis: Chu & Cui, in Chu & Chen, 1989: hybrid Cyprinus carpio x Carassius auratus: Chevey &

259 (Yunnan: Hekou) Lemasson, 1937: 25

Carassioides cantonensis cantonensis: Mai, 1978: 26

Remarks Varicorhinus graffeuilli is treated as a Carassioides cantonensis melanes Mai, 1978: 27 (Kien synonym of B tonkinensis following Banarescu (1973: Giang, Quang Binh)

107) I am not sure whether the two species identified by Carassioides cantonensis: Nguyen, Nguyen & Le,

Mai (1978: 82, 83) as Labeo tonkinensis and L graffeuili 1999: 26 (Vu Quang)

really are the present species as he gives transverse scale

counts between lateral line and pelvic origin of 6V2 while Remarks This species has usually been called

it should be only 4 according to Banarescu [but this is Carassioides cantonensis (Heincke, 1892), but this apparently a consistent disagreement, as Mai gives 8 '2 name is not available for zoological nomenclature as it

for B lemassoni and its synonyrns, while Banarescu was explicitly proposed for an hybrid (ICZN art 1.3.1) gives 6-7) Heincke (1892: 70) clearly stated that he thought that

the specimen was a hybrid and he used the generic

name Carpio which he and other contemporary authors

Bangana xanthogenys (Pellegrin & Chevey, 1936) used only for intergeneric hybrids of Carassius and

Cyprinus; his use of the German word "Bastard" clearly Labeo xanthogenys Pellegrin & Chevey, 1936b: 221 indicates that he was meaning an individual specimen of (Than Son, a tributary of Lo River) hybrid origin and not a species of hybrid origin.

Labeo xanthogenys: Chevey & Lemasson, 1937: 42 In addition, the name Carpio cantonensis is not the

Altigena dorsoarcus Mai, 1978: 71 valid name for this species as there are two older

? Altigena tetrabarbata Mai, 1978: 72 available names, both proposed by Richardson (1846)

Sinilabeo decorus xanthogenys: Chu & Cui, in Chu & and based on Chinese paintings: Cyprinus acuminatus

Chen, 1989: 256 (Yunnan: Hekou) (p 289) and C carassioides (p 291) Richardson's

descriptions are not very informative, but Reeves's

Remarks Banarescu (1973: 106) considered Labeo figures (reproduced in Whitehead, 1970, pls 13b and

xanthogenys as a synonym of B lemassoni (itself 14b, respectively) clearly show the present species As treated as a subspecies of his Sinilabeo tungting) The they are simultaneous synonyms, as first reviser, I retain photographs of the holotypes of B lemassoni and B C acuminatus as having priority.

xanthogenys suggests that they are different species, B The type material of both C acuminatus and C.

xanthogenys being characterized by the very deep body carassioides has not been preserved (Whitehead, 1970) and the strongly arched dorsal profile Chu & Cui (in (ICZN art 75.3.4) As the original description is based

Chu & Chen, 1989: 256) treat B xanthogenys as a only on drawings which may not represent the

subspecies of B decorus, a species of the Pearl River specimens with the best accurary (e.g in number of basin barbels), a neotype designation is necessary to clarify

The fish illustrated as Altigena dorsoarcus by Mai the taxonomic status of these taxa (ICZN art 75.3.1) (1978: 71) does not seem to differ from the holotype of Characters regarded as differentiating this taxa are

B xanthogenys and therefore I treat it as a synonym given by Wu et al (1977: 429; Luo & Yue, in Yue, Strangely, B xanthogenys is not mentioned by Mai 2000: 426; Fang, 1936: 689) (ICZN art 75.3.2) As a (1978: 73), except for a brief statement on how it differs neotype I select the single specimen on which Heincke from A tetrabarbata (1892) had based his Carpio cantonensis); it had been Mai distinguishes his single specimen of A collected in Canton, as were the models of Reeve's

tetrabarbata from B xanthogenys by the absence of drawings (ICZN 75.3.6), and it agrees with

papillae on the lips I treat it as a tentative synonym of Richardson's description (ICZN art 75.3.5) and is

75.3.3, 75.3.7).

20 Part ]: Freshwater Fishes of Northern Vietnam

Mai (1978: 27) described a subspecies C c Cirrhinus cirrhosus (Bloch, 1785)

melanes differing from his C c cantonensis by the (Fig 16)

pharyngeal teeth formula (4.1-1.4, vs 4.2-2.4), eye size

("smaller", vs "larger"), pectoral-fin rays (1,13 vs 1,13- Remarks An introduced species Usually incorrectly

17) and number of gill-rakers (46, vs 42) The figures appears as Cirrhinus mrigala (a junior synonym) in the effectively show a difference in eye size, but apparently fisheries literature (Roberts, 1997) Feral individuals this is the only difference which can be retained have been observed at several localities during the 1999 [although not mentioned in the text, the figure shows a survey of the Lo River.

more slender anal spine in C c melanes] The difference

in pectoral-fin rays (1,13, vs 1,13-17) is not a difference.

The two pharyngeal teeth counts have been observed Cirrhinus molitorella (Valenciennes, 1844)

together in the same populations in China (Fang, 1936:

689, Liu, in Pan, 1991: 228; Wu et al., 1977: 429, etc) Labeo (Diplocheilichthys) Garnieri Sauvage, 1884: 210

Mai does not indicate on how many specimens of each (Hanoi)

subspecies this count was observed Simnilarly he does Labeo Garnieri: Pellegrin, 1907: 499 (Hanoi)

not indicate on how many specimens the gill-raker counts Labeo collaris: Chevey & Lemasson, 1937: 43

were obtained; this would be desirable as such counts Cirrhina molitorella: Mai, 1978: 76

usually exhibit variability Wu et al (1977: 429) and Liu Cirrhinus molitorella: Chu & Cui, in Chu & Chen, 1989:

(in Pan, 1991: 228) record a range of 40-50 gill rakers, 265 (Yunnan: Hekou)

that is encompassing the two counts given by Mai With Cirrhina molitorella: Nguyen, Nguyen & Le, 1999: 26

the available data I conclude that C c melanes is a (Vu Quang)

synonym of C acuminatus.

Vaillant (1893: 203) described Cyprinion orientalis Remarks The genus Cirrhinus has been revised by

from the Da River This species has never been Banarescu (1972, 1983) and by Roberts (1997).

mentioned again in the literature I have examined the

holotype (MNHN 1892-264, 107 mm SL) and found it to

be Carassioides acuminatus ? Crossocheilus namlenensis Nguyen & Doan, 1969

? Crossocheilus namlenensis Nguyen & Doan, 1969: 11

Carassius auratus (Linnaeus, 1758) (Nam Len, Tuan Giao, Lai Chau)

(Fig 17)

Remarks The nomenclature and correct spelling of

Carassius auratus: Vaillant, 1904: 298 (Ky Cung, Lang Crossocheilus namelenensis are discussed in Annex 3.

Son) The name does not appear in Mai (1978) From the

Carassius auratus: Pellegrin, 1907: 499 (Hanoi) original description, I am unable to comment on the

Carassius auratus: Pellegrin, 1934: 334 (Hanoi) identity of this species There is no record of the

Carassius auratus: Chevey & Lemasson, 1937: 24 presence of the genus Crossocheilus in the Hong River

Carassius auratus: Mai, 1978: 24 basin and it is not expected to occur there Species

Carassius auratus: Nguyen, Nguyen & Le, 1999: 26 (Vu identified as memnbers of Crossocheilus in northern Quang) Vietnam by earlier authors are now placed in

Carassius auratus: Kottelat, 2001 (Laos: Nam Ma) Neolissochilus and Onychostoma.

Remarks The systematics of the genus Carassius in

East Asia is confusing The ancestor of today's Ctenopharyngodon idella (Valenciennes, 1842)

domesticated goldfishes was introduced to Japan from (Fig 18)

China at a date between 1502 and 1748 (Okada,

1959-60: 531) Available data show that at least five Ctenopharyngodon idellus: Chevey & Lemasson, 1937:

genetically and morphologically distinct stocks are 77

known in Japan which are considered as distinct species

or subspecies (Teitler & Fujita, 1993; Hosoya, in Remarks An introduced species.

Nakabo, 1994: 212-213) The status of the species from

China and Vietnam should be critically re-evaluated.

? Culterflavipinnis Tirant, 1883 by Chen for C dabryi (iii,23-29), a species widely

distributed throughout China but not recorded from

Culter recurvirostris Sauvage, 1884: 213 (Hanoi) Vietnam Chen's figure of this species is not too

Culter recurviceps: Vaillant, 1893:204 (Da River) dissirnilar from Mai's drawing, but C dabryi has more

Culter recurviceps: Pellegrin, 1907: 500 (Hanoi) lateral line scales than C flavipinnis (64-70 [Chen's

Ervthroculterpseudobrevicauda: Chevey & Lemasson, data], vs 70-75 [Mai's data])

1937: 84

Erythroculter ilishaeformis recurvirostris: Banarescu,

1967a: 217 (Hanoi and Da River basin) ? Culter mongolicus (Basilewsky, 1855)

Erythroculter recurvirostris: Mai, 1978: 152

Erythoculter ilishaeformis: Chen, in Chu & Chen, 1989: Erythroculter ilishaeformis: Mai, 1978: 154

92 (Yunnan: Hekou)

Remarks The species identified as member of Remarks The species identified as members of Erythroculter by Mai (1978) in fact should be called Eiythroculter by Mai (1978) in fact should be called Culter and E ilishaeformis in fact is C alburnus Culter according to Luo & Chen (in Chen, 1998: 188) according to Luo & Chen (in Chen, 1998: 186)

and C recurvirostris in fact is C recurviceps But the However, I note that the specimen illustrated by Mai

anal-ray count given by Mai (1978: 152) for his C (1978: 154) has an appearance quite different from the

recurvirostris (iii,26-30 [figure 68 shows ii,25]) does C alburnus illustrated by Chen, differing in body and

not agree with those of Chen (iii,24-26 based on head shape, orientation of mouth and position of theChinese material), Chevey & Lemasson (ii,24 based on dorsal-fin origin relative to pelvic-fin origin Clearly, a

Vietnamese material) or the original description of C critical examnination of the Vietnamese material is

recurvirotris (Sauvage, 1884:213, based on Vietnamese needed Culter alburnus being known from Mongolia to

material; total 27, figure shows ii,25) Banarescu southern China, it does not seem unlikely that several(1967a: 218) considers the material from southern species might be confused under this name

China identical with the Vietnamese one, but does not But, in fact, Mai's drawing looks very similar to the

The drawings in Mai (1978) and Chevey & 1998: 190) and I tentatively retain this as the correctLemasson (1937) also differ from the one in Chen in identity of the species Culter mongolicus too is a

having the distance between pelvic-fin and anal-fm species widely distributed from Mongolia to northernorigins about equal to head length (vs much smnaller) Vietnam

The figures of other Vietnamese material also agree

with Mai's drawing on this character (holotype of C.

recurvirostris in Sauvage, 1884: pl 6 fig 3 and Cultrichthys erythropterus (Basilewsky, 1855)

Banarescu, 1967a: pl 1 fig 3; lectotype of C.

flavipinnis Tirant, 1883 in Kottelat, 1987: 13) Figures Culter brevicauda: Pellegrin, 1907: 500 (Hanoi)

of specimens from Guangxi (Zheng, 1981: 38 as E Culter brevicauda: Pellegrin, 1934: 334 (Hanoi) pseudobrevicauda), from Guangdong (Lu, in Pan, 1991: Culter brevicauda: Chevey & Lemasson, 1937: 83

94, as E recurviceps; holotype of C recurviceps in Culter erythropterus: Mai, 1978: 158

Whitehead, 1970; pl 17a), from Hainan (Anonym, Culter erythropterus: Nguyen, Nguyen & Le, 1999: 27

1986: 73, as E.pseudobrevicauda) all show the smaller (Vu Quang)

distance between the pelvic and anal fins This seems to

indicate that the specimens from the Hong River basin Remarks The genus identified as Culter by Mai

could be distinct from those from the Pearl River basin (1978) in fact should be called Cultrichthys (Luo &

and Hainan I tentatively admit it and use the oldest Chen, in Chen, 1998: 182)

available name, C flavipinnis, for the Vietnamese

species The type locality of C flavipinnis is Hue and

the anal-fin ray count of the holotype is iii,24 (Kottelat, Cyprinus dai (Nguyen & Doan, 1969)

1987: 13)

The species reported as E ilishaeformis by Chen Laichowcypris dai Nguyen & Doan, 1969: 10 (Da River

(in Chu & Chen, 1989: 92) from the Hong River at in Lai Chau and Hoa Binh provinces)

Hekou (Yunnan, right at the border with Vietnam) Laichowcypris day: Mai, 1978: 29

agrees with C flavipinnis (it has iii,24-25 anal-fin rays) Cyprinus day Nguyen, Le, Le & Nguyen, 1999: 14

The anal-ray count in Mai (1978) needs

confirmation Interestingly, it agrees with the one given

22 Part 1: Freshwater Fishes of Northern Vietnam

Remarks The genus Laichowcypris was created for L Cyprinus multifaeniatus Pellegrin & Chevey, 1936

day, a species of carp distinguished by the presence of 4 (Fig 19)

rows of pharyngeal teeth (vs 3 in the other species) This

character is also found in other species of Cyprinus and Cyprinus carpio var multitaeniata Pellegrin & Chevey,

apparently cannot be use to define lineages, or at least 1936b: 220 (Ba Be Lake)

not without a more detailed analysis This conclusion Cyprinus Carpio var multitaeniata: Chevey &

(although based on other concepts) was also reached by Lemasson, 1937: 23

Nguyen et al (1999) The nomenclature and correct Cyprinus multitaeniatus: Mai, 1978: 33 (Ba Be Lake)

spelling of Laichowcypris dai are discussed in Annex 3.

Remarks A valid species known from Ba Be Lake and

Guangxi (China) The 1999 survey of the Lo River basin

? Cyprinus hyperdorsalis Nguyen, 1991 observed specimens with a general appearance very

similar to this species as illustrated by Chevey &

Cyprinus hyperdorsalis Nguyen, 1991: 36 (Ta Khoa, Son Lemasson (1937: fig 4), Mai (1978: 33) and Wu et al.La; Suoi Rut, Ha Son Binh) (1977: pi 8-8) but apparently differing in having slightly

fewer lateral line scales, shorter barbels and the absence

Remarks Despite their economic value and of the dark longitudinal stripes on the body Its statusagricultural interest, the systematics of the carps (genus cannot be determined without access to the specimens

Cyprinus) is very confused Several species have been

described from China and Vietnam in very vague terms

and it is impossible to state how many species exist The Cyprinus rubrofuscus La Cepede, 1803

domesticated varieties and feral stocks A few species

have been introduced in several countries and hybrids Cyprinus carpio: Pellegrin, 1907: 499 (Hanoi)

may have been produced, willingly or not Some Chinese Cyprinus carpio: Chevey & Lemasson, 1937: 20

species are apparently already extinct Cyprinus carpio: Mai, 1978: 31

Apparently, the species listed by Vietnamese Cyprinus (Cyprinus) carpio rubrofuscus: Zhou, in Chu &

authors as the European C carpio is the Asian C Chen, 1989: 49 (Yunnan: Hekou)

rubrofuscus or some related species I have not seen Cyprinus carpio: Nguyen, Nguyen & Le, 1999: 26 (Vu

evidence that real C carpio has been introduced in Quang)

Vietnamese waters, but its presence would not be Cyprinus rubrofuscus: Kottelat, 2001 (Laos: Nam Mat)

unexpected In fact the question has arisen whether one

or the other new endemic carps described from China Remarks This is the species commonly identified as

and Vietnam could not be based on feral stocks of real C the common carp, C carpio, a species native to eastern

carpio This should be carefully investigated Europe and central Asia Contrary to what is often

It is very difficult to get an impression of C believed, the European carp is not introduced in Europe

hyperdorsalis from the data I can extract from the from Asia (Kottelat, 1997: 57, 2001) Cyprinus carpio

original description, but with its very deep body (38-46 has been introduced worldwide, but many cultivated

% SL), short head (25-28 % SL), 37-38 lateral line stocks in Asia in fact are C rubrofuscus, a species native

scales, 17-21 branched dorsal-fm rays, it is somewhat to China (and Japan and Vietnam ?)

reminiscent of some cultivated stocks of C carpio It

seems however that the transverse scale count (V/28/l/6l/2

to pelvic-fin origin) could be distinctive A careful Discogobio microstoma (Mai, 1978)

redescription is needed

Garra microstoma Mai, 1978: 60 (Na Ri)

the Pearl River basin in China which could fit with the

Cyprinus exophthalmus Mai, 1978: 34 few usable pieces of information in the original

description of G microstoma The key mentions a

Remarks Apparently a valid species A careful small, protrusible, slightly quadrate disc The textredescription is needed mentions the preorbital length larger than postorbital

length (the figure shows a reverse relation), atransversely enlarged disc, the presence of a groove onthe snout with spines on side of the snout The figure

shows the dorsal-fin origin conspicuously in front of the Elopichthys bambusa: Chevey & Lemasson, 1937: 71

pelvic-fin origin and a dark submarginal stripe along Elopichthys bambusa: Mai, 1978: 133

each caudal-fin lobes.

The genus Discogobio also has the lower lip Remarks Gymnognathus harmandi, originally

modified into a sucking disc It is distinguished from described by Sauvage (1884: 214) from Hanoi, has been

Garra in having only two rows of pharyngeal teeth (a considered to be a synonym of Elopichthys bambusa

character not mentioned by Mai) and details of the from China The description and figure of Sauvage structure of the disc (data not provided) The genus has seem to agree with those of Luo (in Chen, 1998: 111) been reviewed by Chu, Cui & Zhou (1993) and an But the fish described and illustrated by Mai (1978: additional species described by Cui, Zhou & Lan 133) under the name E bambusa differs in having only

(1993) The characters used in the Chu et al.'s 86 lateral line scales (vs 103-116) and the dorsal-fin identification key are not mentioned in the description origin above the pelvic-fin origin (vs clearly behind).

of G microstoma It seems, however, that G This needs to be clarified.

microstoma has some superficial similarity with D.

laticeps described by Chu et al (1993: 241) They share

the lateral line count (38-40) and the general Folifer brevf ills (Peters, 1881)

appearance (keeping in mind that the original figure of (Fig 21)

G microstoma does not look very natural and with the

uncertainties about the position of the eye) with a Barbus bonvaloti Vaillant, 1893: 202 (Da River)

forward dorsal-fm origin The figure of D laticeps Labeobarbus brevif lis: Chevey & Lemasson, 1937: 52

shows a species with a disc with a small median pad in Tor brevifilis: Mai, 1978: 85

the middle of a wide lower lip giving the impression of Tor (Folifer) brevifilis: Chu & Cui, in Chu & Chen,

a laterally expanded disc But D laticeps has 1989: 146 (Yunnan: Hekou)

inconspicuous tubercles on the snout and apparently has

no markings on the caudal fin Discogobio multilineatus Remarks Zhou & Cui (1996: 132) discussed the described by Cui et al (1993: 157) has a similar body position of Folifer and concluded that it cannot be a

shape and conspicuous tubercles at the tip of the snout subgenus of Tor Wu et al (1977: 329), Chu & Cui (in

(two of them much larger) and a dark submarginal stripe Chu & Chen, 1989: 146), Chen, Pan, Liu & Liang (in

along each caudal lobe But D multilineatus differs Pan, 1991: 166) and others distinguish two subspecies,

from G microstoma in having 5-6 dark stripes along the F b brevifilis on the mainland and F b hainanensis

sides The mental disc of D multilineatus appears from Hainan island Material from the Hong River basin

larger and more rounded than the one of D laticeps is considered as typical F brevifilis Vaillant (1893:

Discogobio laticeps, D multilineatus and several other 202) described Barbus bonvaloti from the Da River

species of the genus are known from the Pearl River basin This name has been overlooked by all subsequent basin in Guangxi and Yunnan authors I have examined the holotype of B bonvaloti

I hypothesize that that Garra microstoma in fact is (MNITHN 1892-262, 294 mm SL) and conclude that it is

a species of Discogobio As all but two species of a junior synonym of F brevifilis.

Discogobio were been described after 1978, D.

microstoma is very likely to remain as a valid name, but

with the present data, it is impossible to know whether it Garra apogon (Norman, 1925)

is distinct from all named species or is a senior Discognathus apogon Norman, 1925: 570 (Ngoi Tio,

synonym of one of the recently described species The Lao Cai)

two species described before 1978 are D yunnanensis ? Garra Poilanei: Chevey & Lemasson, 1937: 29 (Ha

which has only very small tubercles on the snout and D Giang)

longibarbatus, an endemic to Lake Fuxian (Yunnan)

with very long barbels Discogobio yunannensis is also Remarks Garra apogon (Norman, 1925: 570) shares

known from the Pearl River and Hong River basins in with G poilanei among Vietnamese species of Garra

Yunnan and its presence in the Hong River basin in the absence of barbels but is supposed to be

Vietnam is not impossible distinguished in having only 40-42 "scales in a

longitudinal series" (vs total about 48-50) Norman did not describe the position of the anus, but from his

Elopichthys bambusa (Richardson, 1844) comment "pelvics, which reach vent or a little beyond",

it seems clear that the anus is somewhere in advance of

Gymnognathus Harmandi Sauvage, 1884: 214 (Hanoi) the anal fin but not immediately posterior to the

pelvic-Elopichthys dahuricus: Pellegrin, 1907: 500 (Hanoi) fin base as in G poilanei The specimen illustrated by

24 Part 1: Freshwater Fishes of Northern Vietnam

Chevey & Lemasson (1937: fig 9) possibly is G Garra caudofasciala (Pellegrin & Chevey, 1936)

apogon: it has no barbels and the anus is about at 2/3 of (Fig 23)

the distance between the pelvic-fm base and the anal-fm

origin Chevey & Lemasson counted 47-49 lateral line Discognathus caudofasciatus Pellegrin & Chevey,

scales (this also agrees with their figure); the difference 1936b: 223 (Lai Chau)

with the value recorded by Norman could be due to Garra caudofasciata: Chevey & Lemasson, 1937: 26

different methods of counting The specimen illustrated Garra caudofasciata: Mai, 1978: 58

by Chevey & Lemasson has the dorsal-fin origin closer Garra angulostomata Mai, 1978: 59

to the tip of the snout than to the caudal-fin base, while Placocheilus caudofasciatus: Chu & Cui, in Chu &

(according to Norman) the reverse condition is Chen, 1989: 278 (Yunnan: Jinping in Nam Na basin [Da

Garra caudofasciata: Nguyen, Nguyen & Le, 1999: 26

(Vu Quang)

(Fig 22)

Remarks Wu et al (1977: 382), followed by other

Discognathus Bourreti Pellegrin, 1928: 340 (Lo River Chinese authors, consider that G caudofasciata is

Garra Bourreti: Chevey & Lemasson, 1937: 30 only two (vs three) rows of pharyngeal teeth and the

Garra orientalis: Mai, 1978: 52 anterior edge of the disc becoming narrower and thicker,

Garra orientalis: Chu & Cui, in Chu & Chen, 1989: 275 forming an horizontal skin fold separated from the fleshy(Yunnan: Hekou and Luichun) pad by a deep groove The structure of the mental disc

Garra orientalis: Nguyen, Nguyen & Le, 1999: 26 (Vu evolves during growth in species of Garra and in the

the Nam Ma (Laos) I do not see any difference from

Remarks The genus Garra has been revised by Menon what is observed in other species of Garra The loss of

(1964) and the species of Yunnan by Chu & Cui (1987) one row of pharyngeal teeth is a reductive character andMenon's revision is not very reliable as for many species a priori is difficult to use to diagnose evolutionary

it is based on too few specimens Menon (1964: 239) lineages (genera) For these reasons, I cannot treattreated all East and Southeast Asian species with a Placocheilus as distinct from Garra.

deeply notched snout as synonyms of G nasuta Menon's The description of G angulostoma in Mai (1978:

G nasuta is an assemblage with a range extending from 59) is not very informative Despite the vague

Assam to northern Vietnam and Fujian (China) Kottelat information on differences between this species and G.(2000a: 42) has shown that material from the Salween, caudofasciata, the figure suggests a very strong

Chao Phraya, Mekong and Hong River basins are distinct resemblance with G caudofasciata as illustrated in from G nasuta, but could not clear the question of which Chevey & Lemasson (1937: fig 7), Wu et al (1977: 47),name to apply to the Hong River species Chu & Cui (in Chu & Chen, 1989: 279) or KottelatChinese authors (Wu et al., 1977: 379; Chu & Cui, (2001) Especially, it shows the two dark semicircular

in Chu & Chen, 1989: 275; etc.) call the population from marks on the middle of caudal fin lobes Until further

the Hong River basin G orientalis Garra orientalis is a data becomes available, I treat them as synonyms.species originally described from Fujian (China) Huang

(in Chu, 1984: 354) published a figure of a 170 mm SL

specimen from Fujian This specimen differs from those Garra gracilis (Pellegrin & Chevey)

of the Yuanjiang basin in having a groove across the

snout, but not the conspicuous notch which was present Discognathus gracilis Pellegrin & Chevey, 1936a: 26

in all (about 200) specimens observed during the 1999 (Hagiang)

survey of the Lo River basin This notch and the Garra gracilis: Chevey & Lemasson, 1937: 28

proboscis were already fully developed in specimens Garra obturostris Mai, 1978: 55

only 70 mm SL and apparently in both sexes Therefore, Garra gracilis: Mai, 1978: 56

I tentatively treat the Hong River population as distinct

from the South East Chinese one The earliest name Remarks I tentatively consider G obturostris of Mai

available for it is Garra bourreti, but the possibility (1978: 55) as a juvenile of G gracilis; but it might as

remains that G rhynchota Koller (1926b: 121) from well be the juvenile of another species The species was

Hainan could be the same species (G schismatorhyncha described on the basis of a single specimen, 36 mm SL,Nichols & Pope, 1927: 358 is a synonym) and it should be expected that, as in other species of

Garra, the shape of the snout, of the head and of the juveniles have later been discovered to have barbels mouth may significantly change during growth (see (see, i.a., Onychostomafusiforme in Kottelat, 1998: 41) photographs of G theunensis in Kottelat, 1998: 31) It Mai (1978: 50) identifies a species of Garra

has a lateral line scale count similar to those published without barbels from Lai Chau as "A imberba

for G gracilis but apparently could differ by the anus (Vinciguerra)" and places in its synonymy G imberba

position ("near pelvics" in G obturostris, vs Garman, apparently without realising that these are two

I have examined the holotype of G gracilis from the Yangtze basin (China) has sometimes been (MNHN 1935-328, 87.0 mm SL) Its lower lip is confused with a Myanmar species whose name is very damaged; the disc is small, transversally elongated, its similar, G imberbis (Vinciguerra, 1890: 277) Koller length about twice in its width This species possibly (1926a: 130) and Fang (1943: 401) treated the two

belongs to the genus Discogobio but this can be decided names as homonyms and used the next available name, only by examination of fresh material with an intact G pingi, for the Chinese species This is not correct as

disc the two names although having the same meaning and

same etymology are based on different words, have different spellings and are thus available (ICZN art.

Garra laichowensis Nguyen & Doan, 1969 56.2, also example after art 58.15) Imberbis (feminine

imberbis, neuter imberbe) and imberbus (feminine

Garra laichowensis Nguyen & Doan, 1969: 11 (Nam imberba, neuter imberbum) are two alternate forms of

Mu, Phong Tho, Lai Chau) the adjective meaning beardless (Oxford Latin

Garra laichowensis: Mai, 1978: 54 Dictionary, 1968: 832).

Both G imberba and G pingi are based on

Remarks According to Mai (1978: 52, 54) this material from the Yangtze basin in Kiating, Sichuan, species is distinguished in having the posterior edge of and I follow Fang (1943: 401) and Wu (1977: 373) in the mental disc with a median notch This would considering them as synonyms; but G imberba has

distinguish it from all species of the genus A detailed priority, being the oldest name of the two Chinese redescription and careful illustrations are needed authors (e.g., Chu & Cui [1987; in Chu & Chen, 1989])

recognise 3 subspecies in G imberba: G i imberba (as

G p pingi) from the Mekong, Hong River and Yangtze

Garra poilanei Petit & Tchang, 1933 basins in Yunnan and Sichuan, G i yiliangensis Wu &

(Fig 24) Chen, in Wu (1977) from the Pearl River basin in

Yunnan and G i hainanensis Zheng & Chen (1983: 74)

Garra Poilanei Petit & Tchang, 1933: 189 (Lung Van, from Hainan island They seem to represent valid Thanh Hoa Province) species under the species concept used here.

Discognathus Poilanei: Pellegrin & Chevey, 1936b: Menon (1964: 232) and Mai (1978: 50) listed G.

224 (Ha Giang, Lo River basin) poilanei Petit & Tchang (1933: 189) as a synonym of Garra Poilanei: Chevey & Lemasson, 1937: 29 G imberba This species was originally described from

Ageneiogarra imberba: Mai, 1978: 51 Thanh Hoa Province, Vietnam The species reported

Garra cyclostomata Mai, 1978: 56 and illustrated as G poilanei from the vicinity of Ha

?'Garra alticorpora Chu & Cui, 1987: 96 (Yunnan: Giang by Chevey & Lemasson (1937: 29) is

Pingbian) misidentified or the figure is not accurate as it shows the

? Garra pingi pingi: Chu & Cui, in Chu & Chen, 1989: anus somewhat in front of the anal fin instead of

270 (Yunnan: Hekou) immediately behind the pelvic-fin base If the figure is

Ageneiogarra imberba: Nguyen, Nguyen & Le, 1999: accurate, it possibly represents G apogon (see above).

27 (Vu Quang) I have examined the two syntypes of G poilanei.

Garra cyclostomata: Kottelat, 2001 (Laos: Nam Xam) They are in a very poor state, eviscerated, the heads

have been dried and most scales are missing; their poor

Remarks The distinction between Garra and state was already mentioned by Petit & Tchang.

Ageneiogarra relies only on the presence (vs absence) Nevertheless, they can be recognised as reasonably

of barbels In my point of view, this character (used similar to G imberba, sharing the absence of barbels,

alone) has no utility in distinguishing genera of the forward position of the anus, the wide mouth and Cyprinidae In several genera, similar species are disc and the large size The mouth of both specimens is known which differ (among other characters) by the deformed, but appears similar to the one of the G.

presence or absence of barbels In several species which imberba illustrated in Kottelat (1998: fig 38) with have been described as without barbels in adults, which they have been compared directly Kottelat

26 Part 1: Freshwater Fishes of Northern Vietnam

(1998: 34) temporarily concluded that G poilanei could Remarks This species was originally described from

not be distinguished from G imberba Hainan island (Banarescu & Nalbant, 1966: 9, 1973:

The fish identified as G cyclostomata in Kottelat 209) In a revision of the Chinese species, He & Chen (in(2001) is from the Nam Xam basin in Laos The Nam Chen, 1998: 405) treat it as endemic to Hainan TheXam flows to Vietnam where it is known as Song Chu, a identity of the material recorded by the Vietnameseriver crossing Thanh Hoa province and entering the Gulf authors needs confirmation (see also under G

of Tonkin at Thanh Hoa This material can thus be yuanjiangensis) but the species is tentatively recorded

considered as topotypical of G poilanei The agreement here on the basis of specimens observed in 1999 in the

with the types of G poilanei, however, is not perfect as Lo River basin

this Nam Xam material has 9/2 branched dorsal-fin rays

(vs 81/2) and a more slender caudal peduncle It differs

from G imberba of similar sizes by the general Gobiobotiayuanjiangensis Chen & Tsao, 1977

appearance with an arched dorsal profile (vs only

sligthly arched), a pointed snout when seen from below Gobiobotia longibarba yuanjiangensis Chen & Tsao, in(vs broadly triangular), a more arched mouth and thicker Wu et al., 1977: 561 (Yunnan: Yuanjiang and Hekou)

lips In conclusion, I tentatively consider G poilanei as ? Gobiobotia longibarbayuanjiangensis: Chen & Li, in distinct from G imberba I will not discuss here the Chu & Chen, 1989: 121 (Yunnan: Hekou)

status of G yiliangensis (from the Pearl River basin) and

G hainanensis (from Hainan island), but clearly these Remarks This species is recorded from the Hong

need to be compared to G poilanei River basin in Hekou (Yunnan) just opposite the border

Chu & Cui (1987: 96) described G alticorpora on and is thus expected to occur in Vietnamese waters too.the basis of two specimens from the Hong River basin in He & Chen (in Chen, 1998: 404) treats G 1.

Pingbian (Yunnan, about 60 km upriver from Lao Cai) It yuanjiangensis as a synonym of G meridionalis Both G.

is distinguished from G imberba in its deeper body at yuanjiangensis and G meridionalis are illustrated in

dorsal and anal-fm origins and a more slender caudal Chen & Li (in Chu & Chen, 1989: 120, 122) and G.

peduncle This seems to agree with my present concept yuanjiangensis has a longer snout The figures in the

of G poilanei and I tentatively consider them as original descriptions of the two species in Chen & Tsaosynonymns Chu & Cui (1987: 95; in Chu & Chen, 1989: (in Wu et al., 1977: pls 10-7, 10-8) also show a

270) also recorded G imberba (as G p pingi) from the difference in snout shape, but the reverse Awaiting aHong River, including in Hekou The presence of two clarification of the status of these two nominal species, Ispecies so similar and almost in sympatry requires tentatively retain G yuanjiangensis as distinct It is also

Garra cyclostomata Mai (1978: 56) has 50 lateral Chu & Chen, 1989) represents another species, either anline scales, two tiny barbels, and the anus immediately additional one, or the one identified here as G kolleri.

behind pelvic-fm base It is based on specimens 50-57

mm SL Despite the presence of the tiny barbels (which I

consider as a juvenile character), I have little hesitation Hainania serrata Koller, 1927

in treating it as a juvenile of the G imberba group See (Fig 26)

photographs in Kottelat (1998: 31) to see the evolution in

body shape in G theunensis, another species of the G Hemiculter serracanthus:Chevey & Lemasson, 1937: 82

Nguyen et al (1999: 27) place Ageneiogarra

imberba in the family Ageneiosidae This is obviously Remarks This species is redescribed by Lu (in Pan,

not correct Ageneiogarra (a synonym of Garra) is a 1991: 103) and Luo & Chen (in Chen, 1998: 180).member of the family Cyprinidae Ageneiosidae is a

family of South American catfishes (Nelson, 1994)

Hemibarbus medius Yue, 1995 Gobiobotia kolleri Banarescu & Nalbant, 1966 ? Hemibarbus longianalis Nguyen & Doan, 1969: 14

Hemibarbus labeo: Mai, 1978: 113 Gobiobotia kolleri: Mai, 1978: 202 Hemibarbus labeo: Nguyen, Nguyen & Le, 1999: 26 (Vu Gobiobotia koleri: Nguyen, Nguyen & Le, 1999: 27 (Vu Quang)

Quang)

Remarks The genus Hemibarbus has been revised by Chen & Li (in Chu & Chen, 1989: 49) record H.

Yue (1995) The species previously identified as maculatus from several localities in Yunnan, in the Hemibarbus labeo is in fact an assemblage of several Yangtze, Pearl, Hong River and Mekong basins Their species and the fishes from southern China and Hainan figure apparently shows a real H maculatus but the

island previously referred to this species are a distinct origin of the specimen used as model is not stated; it is

species, H medius Although not very detailed, the likely a specimen from the Yangtze basin The identity

account of H labeo in Mai (1978: 113) suggests that at of their material from the Hong River and Mekong

least part of his material belongs to H medius This is basins is not known.

suggested by the information on the number of gill The possibility of the presence in Vietnam of rakers on the first gill arch (10-13 according to Mai; 11- H maculatus, however, should not be neglected as this

15 in H medius, vs 15-20 in H Iabeo) Locality data species could be mixed with fry of cultivated fishes are not provided for Mai's material, so that it is not clear imported in the country This is how the presence of the

in which basin it has been collected The presence of the species is explained in the Mekong basin in Laos species in Vietnam in the Xijiang basin in expected Its

presence in the Hong River basin is confirmed by

specimen MNHN 1937-18 which has 3+ 10 gill-rakers ? Hemibarbus cf umbrifer (Lin, 1931)

on the first gill-arch It is not reported from Yunnan by (Fig 27)

Chen & Li (in Chu & Chen, 1989).

The possibility of the presence of H labeo in ? Hemibarbus labeo: Chevey & Lemasson, 1937: 50 Vietnam, however, should not be neglected as this

species could be mixed with fry of cultivated fishes Remarks On the basis of the description and figure of imported in the country This is how the presence of the H labeo in Chevey & Lemasson, their material cannot species is explained in Laos be H Iabeo or H medius, although this identification

The name H longianalis has not been used since had been accepted by Mai (1978: 113) The spots on the its original description by Nguyen & Doan (1969: 14) side and the large eye exclude an identification as H.

As far as I can understand the original description, the labeo or H medius The last simple dorsal-fin ray

lateral line scale count and the number of gill-rakers on shorter than the head and not conspicuously thicker than

the first gill arch suggest that it is a synonym of H the branched rays excludes an identification as H.

medius But the name H longianalis Nguyen & Doan is maculatus or H macracanthus These characters are permanently invalid because it is a junior primary shared with H umbrifer, a species endemic to the

homonym of H Iongianalis Kimura, 1943, itself a Xijiang basin (thus potentially expected in that basin in junior subjective synonym of H labeo Pallas, 1776 northern Vietnam); Chevey & Lemasson's material has

more lateral line scales than Chen's (1998: 248) (45-49,

vs 43-44) These authors may have used different

Hemibarbus macracanthus Lo, Yao & Chen, 1977 methods of counting, but the published drawings (if

accurate) suggest that this difference is real The Hong

Hemibarbus maculatus: Mai, 1978: 1 11 River species might thus be distinct Most of Chevey &

? Hemibarbus maculatus: Chen & Li, in Chu & Chen, Lemasson's material was from the Lo River basin, and 1989: 49 (Yunnan: Hekou) this is apparently the only species of the genus which I

observed in the same basin in 1999.

Remarks The genus Hemibarbus has been revised by

Yue (1995) The species previously identified as H.

maculatus is in fact an assemblage of several species Hemiculter leucisculus (Basilewsky, 1855) and the fishes from the Xijiang basin previously

referred to this species are a distinct species, H CulterBalnei Sauvage, 1884: 213 (Hanoi)

macracanthus Although not very detailed, the account Hemiculter leucisculus: Pellegrin, 1907: 500 (Hanoi)

of H maculatus in Mai (1978: 111) suggests that at Hemiculter Balnei: Chevey & Lemasson, 1937: 81 least part of his material belong to this species This is Hemiculter leucisculus: Chevey & Lemasson, 1937: 80 suggested by the inforrnation on the dorsal spine longer Hemiculter leucisculus: Mai, 1978: 157

than the head, which is a character distinguishing H Hemiculter leucisculus: Chen, in Chu & Chen, 1989: 75

macracanthus from all other species of the genus (Yunnan: Hekou)

Locality data are not provided for Mai's material The Hemiculter leucisculus: Nguyen, Nguyen & Le, 1999: presence of the species in Vietnam in the Xijiang basin 27 (Vu Quang)

in expected, but its presence in the Hong River basin

needs confirmation.

28 Part 1: Freshwater Fishes ofNorthern Vietnam

Remarks The genus Hemiculter has been revised by Remarks I tentatively identify this species as a Luo & Chen (in Chen, 1998: 163) member of the genus Hypsibarbus It has a superficial

similarity with H annamensis (known only from Hang Giang basin) and with a species reported from the

Hypophthalmichthys harmandi Sauvage, 1884 Mekong basin in Yunnan by Chu & Cui (in Chu & Chen,

(Fig 28) 1989: 194) as Barbodes pierrei which Rainboth (1996a:

61) identified as closely related to H annamensis It

Hypophthalmichthys harmandi Sauvage, 1884: 212 shares with this species the large number of lateral line (Hanoi) scales (30-33) As it is apparently distinct from H Hypophthalmichthys Harmandi: Pellegrin, 1907: 500 annamensis, I retain the name H macrosquamatus as

(Hanoi) valid, but this deserves confirmation by a comparison

Hypophthalmichthys Harmandi: Pellegrin, 1934: 334 with the appropriate species and not with Lissochilus and

Hypophthalmichthys Harmandi: Chevey & Lemasson,

1937: 90

Hypophthalmichthys molitrix Harmandi: Mai, 1978: 174 Hypsibarbus cf wetmorei (Smith, 1931)

Remarks Chen (in Chen, 1998: 228) recognised two Lissochilus annamensis: Mai, 1978: 95 (Lam River)

species of Hypophthalmichthys in China (plus H nobilis

which he placed in the genus Aristichthys; see below): H Remarks The identity of the specimen illustrated as

molitrix throughout China with 91-124 lateral line scales Lissochilus annamensis by Mai (1978: 95) is discussed and 11-14 branched anal-fin rays and H harmandi from by Rainboth (1 996a: 60, 128) [but Rainboth erroneously Hainan island with 78-88 lateral line scales and 15 identified the Song Lam of Mai as the one in the Song Ba

branched anal-fin rays The type locality of H harmandi basin near Nha Trang which is outside of the area

is Hanoi Mai (1978: 175) records the species from covered by Mai's book and in the then 'southern

Vietnam with 85-97 lateral line scales and 12-16 Vietnam').

branched anal-fin rays As the species is widely

cultivated, it is important to clear its identity If the

cultivated stocks are hybrids, it would be important to "Labeo" rohita (Hamilton, 1822)

find uncontaminated stocks of the indigenous species (Fig 30)

Remarks An introduced species Further research will

? Hypophthalmichthys molitrix (Valenciennes, 1844) probably show that the correct name for this species is

Rohita rohita.

Remarks See under H harmandi.

Hypophthalmichthys molitrix is reported in the fisheries

literature and reports, but it is not clear to me whether the ? "Lissochilus" brevispinus Nguyen & Doan, 1969

species really occurs or is cultivated in Vietnam The

species is known in China from the Pearl River basin, so ? Lissochilus brevispinus Nguyen & Doan, 1969: 12 that its presence (naturally, not cultivated stocks) might (Suoi Rut, Hoa Binh)

be expected in that basin in Vietnam if suitable habitats

exist Remarks The nomenclature and correct spelling of

Lissochilus brevispinnus are discussed in Annex 3 The name does not appear in Mai (1978) From the original

Hypophthalmichthys nobilis (Richardson, 1845) description, I am unable to comment on the identity of

(Fig 29) this species Species placed in Lissochilus by Vietnamnese

authors are placed here in Acrossocheilus, Hypsibarbus

Remarks An introduced species Usually placed in and Poropuntius.

genus Aristichthys, but Howes (1981) showed that it is

congeneric with Hypophthalmichthys species.

Luciobrama macrocephalus (La Cepede, 1803)

Hypsibarbus macrosquamatus (Mai, 1979) Luciobrama longiceps Pellegrin, 1907: 501 (Hanoi)

Luciobrama typus: Pellegrin, 1934: 335 (Hanoi)

Lissochilus macrosquamatus Mai, 1978: 99 Lucriobrama typus: Chevey & Lemasson, 1937: 67

Luciobrama longiceps: Chevey & Lemasson, 1937: 68 masculine (Rasborinus) to a gender whose name is

Luciobrama macrocephalus: Mai, 1978: 116 feminine (Metzia).

Remarks Redescribed in Luo (in Chen, 1998: 108).

"Metzia"formosae (Oshima, 1920)

(Fig 31)

Luciocyprinus langsoni Vaillant, 1904

Remarks Redescribed by Luo & Chen (in Chen,

Luciocyprinus Lang-Soni Vaillant, 1904: 299 (Ky 1998: 120, as Rasborinusformosae) This species has

Cung, Lang-Son) been observed during the 1999 survey of the Lo River

Luciocyprinus langsoni: Mai, 1978: 121 basin and the 1998 survey in Quang Ninh Province.

Following recent authors, I arn treating it as congeneric

Remarks This species has long been known as Fustis with Metzia lineata, but the general appearance

vivus in the Chinese literature As independently shown suggests that close examination will show that they

by Mai (1978: 121) and Kottelat (1983: 384, fig 1), F belong to distinct genera.

vivus is a junior synonym of L langsoni.

Metzia lineata (Pellegrin, 1907)

Megalobrama terminalis (Richardson, 1846) (Fig 32)

Megalobrama terminalis: Pellegrin & Chevey, 1936b: Ischikauia lineata Pellegrin, 1907: 502 (Hanoi)

229 (Haiduong) Rasborinus lineatus: Chevey & Lemasson, 1937: 89

Megalobrama Hoffmanni: Mai, 1978: 166 Rasborinus lineatus lineatus: Mai, 1978: 160

? Ischikauia macrolepis hainanensis: Mai, 1978: 162

Remarks Redescribed in Luo & Chen (in Chen, Rasborinus lineatus: Nguyen, Nguyen & Le, 1999: 27

1998: 200) The species identified as M terminalis by (Vu Quang)

Mai (1978: 167) is in fact Parabramis pekinensis; his ? Ischikauia marcrolepis hainannensis: Nguyen,

M hoffmanni is the real M terminalis Nguyen & Le, 1999: 27 (Vu Quang)

Remarks Redescribed by Luo & Chen (in Chen,

? Metzia aiba (Nguyen, 1991) 1998: 118, as Rasborinus lineatus) Their synonymy

includes a number of nominal species from a wide area

Rasborinus albus Nguyen, 1991: 14 (Nghia Dan, Nghe in China and Taiwan Rasborinus lineatus as recognised

Tinh Province) by them extends from Korea to central Vietnam and a

Rasborinus albus: Nguyen, Nguyen & Le, 1999: 27 (Vu comparison of the data in the literature suggests that Quang) several species might be involved Awaiting a critical

revision of the genus, I retain M lineata for the north

Remarks The description of this species has not yet Vietnamese species because its type locality is Hanoi been translated and I am unable to comment on its But if, as Luo & Chen, one wishes to consider that a identity as it is not accompanied by any illustration single, widely-distributed species is involved, the valid

name for it should be M mesembrinum Jordan & Evermann, 1902.

? Metzia hautus (Nguyen, 1991) The identity of Ischikauia macrolepis hainanensis

of Mai (1978: 162) is not clear The key (p 140) gives

Rasborinus hautus Nguyen, 1991: 14 (Thanh Chuong, the body depth as 4.6-5.0 times in SL, the description (p Nghe Tinh Province) 162) gives it as 26.8 % SL (that is, 3.7 times in SL) and

the figure (p 162) shows it as 3.4 times in SL) While the Remarks The description of this species has not yet slender body described in the key could fit with M

been translated and I am unable to comment on its formosae, the deep body shown on the figure and in the identity as it is not accompanied by an illustration description suggest M lineata Luo & Chen (in Chen,

The etymology of the specific name is not 1998: 118) consider I macrolepis and Rasborinus

explained as it does not seem to be a Latin word, it is hainanensis as synonyms of Metzia lineata while Chen

treated as a noun in apposition and does not have to & Fang (1999: 86) treat M macrolepis it as a valid agree in gender with the generic name and is retained as species (of Rasborinus) [Maybe that there has been

hautus even if moved from a gender whose name is some confusion between some very similar names:

30 Part ] Freshwater Fishes of Northern Vietnam

Rasborinus hainanensis Nichols & Pope (1927: 377) (a Banarescu & Nalbant (1978: 246) treat several

junior synonym of M lineata) and Ischikauia other nominal species of Microphysogobio as subspecies

hainanensis Nichols & Pope (1927: 374) (a junior of M kachekensis but do not provide evidence for this

Chen I-Shiung (pers comm.; Chen & Fang, 1999: kachekensis and M Iabeoides would be in the edge of

86) consider that the types of Ishikauia macrolepis and the lower jaw, "strongly cornified, extending beyond

R takakii are conspecific Judging from the original lower lip" in M kachekensis vs "only slightly cornified, descriptions and figures, R takakii Oshima (1920: 130) not extending into mouth beyond lower lip" in M and Acheilognathus mesembrinum, both described from labeoides As they have not examined material of M

Taiwan, are conspecific As A mesembrinum is the type kachekensis sensu stricto, their only source of

species of Metzia Jordan & Evermann (1902: 323) and informnation is the original description which seems

R takakii the type species of Rasborinus Oshima (1920: uninformative as Oshima only wrote "outer edge of

130), Metzia has priority over Rasborinus (see Berg, lower jaw horny" Unless evidence is provided that there1932: 156; Myers, 1934: 43) are two species of Microphysogobio on Hainan island, I

decide to follow Anonym (1986) and recognise only M kachekensis I follow Banarescu & Nalbant (1978, as M

(Fig 33) conspecific with the Hainan one [But this material could

also be conspecific with M yunnanensis, see below].

Microphysogobio labeoides: Banarescu & Nalbant,

1973: 267 (northem Vietnarn)

Microphysogobio labeoides: Mai, 1978: 195 ? Microphysogobio vietnamica (Mai, 1978)

? Microphysogobio kachekensis: Mai, 1978: 197

? Microphysogobio kakhekensis: Nguyen, Nguyen & Le, Microphysogobio vietnamica Mai, 1978: 199

1999: 27 (Vu Quang)

Microphysogobio labeoides: Nguyen, Nguyen & Le, Remarks The figure shows the large dorsal (extending

Microphysogobio labeoides: Kottelat, 2001 (Laos: Nam paired fins which are typical of Abbottina rivularis and

seems to exclude M tafangi which has a longitudinal

Remarks The genus Microphysogobio is revised by stripe There is a contradiction between the key, theBanarescu & Nalbant (1973) and Yue (in Chen, 1998) description and the figure as to the position of the anus

Both recognise M labeoides and Banarescu & Nalbant The key says it is closer to the anal fin [implied: than to(1973: 267) report it from northern Vietnam The the pelvic fin], the text says it is midway between the twospecimens obtained during in the 1999 survey of the Lo fins and the figure shows it immediately behind the baseRiver basin and those from the Nam Ma and Nam Mat in of the pelvic fins It is necessary to examine the types toLaos agree with their descriptions The species is also diagnose the species and decide of its identity

known from Hainan island and the Pearl River basin in

China

Both authors also recognise M kacheckensis but Microphysogobioyunnanensis (Yao & Yang, 1977)

both descriptions are copied on the original description

by Oshima (1926: 13) The species has not been reported Abbottinayunnanensis Yao & Yang, in Wu et al., 1977:

since, except by Anonym (1986: 102) who treated M 527 (Yunnan: Hekou)

labeoides as a synonym The type locality of both M Abbottinayunnanensis: Chu & Cui, in Chu & Chen, labeoides and M kachekensis is Hainan island, and 1 1989: 113 (Yunnan: Hekou)

tend to think that this synonymy is likely to be correct ? Microphysogobio buas Mai, 1978: 198

Yue (in Chen, 1998: 363) lists the M kachekensis of

Anonym (1986) in his synonymy of M labeoides, but Remarks This species is reported from the Hong River

without discussion Apparently, the distinction between basin in Hekou (Yunnan) and is thus expected from thethe two nominal species relies mainly in the difference in Vietnamese part of the basin I hypothesize that M buas lateral line scale count, 34 in M kachekensis according of Mai (1978: 198) is the same species The description

to Oshima and 38-40 in M labeoides according to Chen and figures are quite uninformative and it is necessary toand Banarescu & Nalbant [Mai report 37-39 and 37-41 examine the types as well as fresh specimens to confirmrespectively] This difference might in fact be due to this identification

different methods of obtaining this count

I also considered the possibility that M buas could one of them might turn out as conspecific once the

be the species identified here as Platysmacheilus cf material can be examined

exiguus, but the (ambiguous) mention by Mai that the

species differs from other Microphysogobio by the

median lobe on the lower lip suggests it has a median Ochetobius elongatus (Kner, 1867))

lobe (unless it means the species is missing the lobe ?),

and this excludes its being a Platysmacheilus Ochetobius elongatus: Chevey & Lemasson, 1937: 75 [If M buas indeed has no median lobe on the lower Ochetobius elongatus: Mai, 1978: 135

lip, it could well be the Platysmacheilus listed below;

then it should be checked whether the M labeoides Remarks The species is redescribed by Luo (in Chen,

from the lower Hong River are distinct from the M 1998: 107)

yunannensis from the upper Hong River].

Onychostoma elongatum (Pellegrin & Chevey, 1934)

(Fig 34)

Crossochilus elongatus Pellegrin & Chevey, 1934: 340 Barbus tonkinensis Sauvage, 1884: 211 (Hanoi) (river Ngoi-Thia at Nghia Lo)

Mylopharyngodon aethiops: Chevey & Lemasson, Crossochilus elongatus: Chevey & Lemasson, 1937: 48

Mylopharyngodon piceus: Mai, 1978: 117 Onychostoma elongatum: Kottelat, 2000b: 84 (Laos:

Nam Ma)

Remarks Redescribed in Luo (in Chen, 1998: 100) Onychostoma elongatum: Kottelat, 2001 (Laos: Nam

Ma)

Neolissochilus benasi (Pellegrin & Chevey, 1936) Remarks The identity of this species is discussed by

Kottelat (2000b: 84) The holotype (MNHN 1934-263,

Crossochilus Benasi Pellegrin & Chevey, 1936b: 226 111 mm SL) has been examined

(rivers Ngoi Pho Tao and Sapa, Lao Cai)

Crossochilus Benasi: Chevey & Lemasson, 1937: 46

Crossocheilus benasi: Mai, 1978: 102 Onychostomafangi Kottelat, 2000

? Barbodes benasi: Chu & Cui, in Chu & Chen, 1989: (Fig 37)

182 (Yunnan: Hekou and Xichou)

Neolissochilus benasi: Rainboth, 1985: 31 Remarks This is the first record of this species for

? Crossocheilus benasi vuha: Nguyen, Nguyen & Le, Vietnam It was obtained during the 1998 survey in

by Fang (1940: 138) as Varicorhinus elongatus but this

Remarks Crossochilus benasi is a species of name is not available because, when placed in the genus

Neolissochilus (Rainboth, 1985: 31) The species level Onychostoma, it is an homonym of Onychostoma

systematics of the genus Neolissochilus is in need of a elongatum (Pellegrin & Chevey) The species described

critical revision, but the species N benasi apparently is by Fang has been renamed as Onychostomafangi by

Crossocheilus benasi vuha is apparently a name The species was originally described from Chinawhich has not yet been published accompanied by a (Guangxi Province: San-Fan, Lo-Chien-Hsien) on thedescription It is a nomen nudum, without validity in basis of two specimens All records in the literature

1981: 85;Chen, 1989: 119;Kottelat, 1998: 41)arebased on either the same specimens or Fang's original

authenticated record) If the identification of the

Remarks This species was observed during the 1999 Vietnamese specimen is confirmed, this is thus thesurvey of the Lo River basin Presently, it is not second record of the species in 60 years, suggesting thatidentifiable with any of the species known from the correct habitat or distribution range of the species isVietnam, Laos or China, but it should be expected that very poorly sampled

32 Part 1: Freshwater Fishes of Northern Vietnam

I tentatively consider Varicorhinus argentatus and

Onychostoma laticeps: Mai, 1978: 40 V erythrogenys as redescribed by Mai (1978: 48, 49) to Onychostoma gerlachi: Nguyen, Nguyen & Le, 1999: 26 be small individuals of 0 lepturus This of course should

Varicorhinus (Onychostoma) gelachi: Chu & Cui, in Chu the same localities The accounts of these species in Mai

& Chen, 1989: 216 (Yunnan: Hekou, Wenshan and (1978) are based on a single specimen 170 mm SL from

Onychostoma gerlachi: Kottelat, 2001 (Laos: Nam Ma) 147 mm SL from Lai Chau for 0 argentatus and an

unstated number of specimens from an unstated locality

Remarks This species is redescribed by Chen, Pan, 64-159 mm SL for 0 erythrogenys.

Liu & Liang (in Pan, 1991: 162) Capeta [sic] According to the text, they differ in 0 lepturus

macrolepis imberbis Koller, 1926 is possibly the same having no barbels and 0 argentatus having a pair of tiny

species (or a name available for another species of barbels and 0 erythrogenys having a pair of barbels.

Onychostoma) but this can only be established by an The only other difference which can be extracted fromexamination of the original material This nominal the text is that in 0 argentatus and 0 lepturus the body

species was described from Hainan; in the last 75 years is plain silvery or white while in 0 erythrogenys there

the name has apparently never been cited in the Chinese are irregular black spots along the sides and a black

In several species of Onychostoma, the barbels are

known to be present in juveniles and to disappear in

(Fig 38) pattern is basically the same in all species (a dark

longitudinal stripe) and may be more or less distinct in

Onychostoma laticeps: Chevey & Lemasson, 1937: 33 the same species depending of the water quality but also

? Varicorhinus argentatus Nguyen & Doan, 1969: 13 of how fresh the specimens are when they are fixed

? Varicorhinus erythrogenys Nguyen & Doan, 1969: 13 additional stripes, coloured patches, etc.; unpubl obs.).(Suoi Rut, Hoa Binh; Thac Ba, Yen Bai) Banarescu (1971: 247) reports that his specimens have a

? Varicorhinus microstomus Nguyen & Doan, 1969: 13 midlateral stripe, better marked on the caudal peduncle

Onychostoma vietnamensis Banarescu, 1971: 244 (Song Chevey & Lemasson (1937: 32) describe it as greenish

Onychostoma leptura Banarescu, 1971: 247 (Song Koi I am presently unable to comment on the identity of

Gymnostomus lepturus: Mai, 1978: 46 that if it has a slender last simple dorsal-fin ray, no

? Gymnostomus microstomus: Mai, 1978: 47 barbels and a plain body as described by Mai (1978: 47)

? Gymnostomus argentatus: Mai, 1978: 48 (Phong Tho, it could be one more synonym of 0 lepturus While the

? Gymnostomus erythrogenys: Mai, 1978: 49 material from the Na Ri and Ngan Son rivers in the Pearl

Onychostoma lepturus: Kottelat, 2001 (Laos: Nam Ma, River basin as the same species I also tentatively list

from the Pearl River basin in Guangdong Province

Remarks Onychostoma lepturus was originally (China) (Chen, Pan, Liu & Liang, in Pan, 1991: 159).described from Hainan island A comparison of fresh Chen, Pan, Liu & Liang (in Pan, 1991: 158) also recordsmaterial from Hainan with the Vietnamese specimens 0 barbatus and 0 barbatulus from the same basin, two

which are referred to this species is needed species with a slender last simple dorsal-fin ray

Mai (1978: 35) divided his species of I have examined the holotype of 0 vietnamense

Onychostoma into two genera, Gymnostomus for those Banarescu (1971: 244) (MNHN B.2652, 223 mm SL)with a last simple dorsal-fm ray not ossified and and cannot distinguish it from 0 lepturus as described

Onychostoma for those in which this ray is ossified He by Boulenger (1900: 961, pl 19) and diagnosed by

placed 0 lepturus in Gymnostomus, but in this species, Kottelat (2001) The species identified as 0 vietnamense

as already recorded by Banarescu (1971: 247), the last in Kottelat (2001) is possibly a small size specimen of 0.

ovale.