Neotropical Freshwater Fishes: A dataset of occurrence and abundance of freshwater fishes in the Neotropics

The Neotropical region hosts 4225 freshwater fish species, ranking first among the world's most diverse regions for freshwater fishes. Our NEOTROPICAL FRESHWATER FISHES data set is the first to produce a large-scale Neotropical freshwater fish inventory, covering the entire Neotropical region from Mexico and the Caribbean in the north to the southern limits in Argentina, Paraguay, Chile, and Uruguay. We compiled 185,787 distribution records, with unique georeferenced coordinates, for the 4225 species, represented by occurrence and abundance data. The number of species for the most numerous orders are as follows: Characiformes (1289), Siluriformes (1384), Cichliformes (354), Cyprinodontiformes (245), and Gymnotiformes (135). The most recorded species was the characid Astyanax fasciatus (4696 records). We registered 116,802 distribution records for native species, compared to 1802 distribution records for nonnative species. The main aim of the NEOTROPICAL FRESHWATER FISHES data set was to make these occurrence and abundance data accessible for international researchers to develop ecological and macroecological studies, from local to regional scales, with focal fish species, families, or orders. We anticipate that the NEOTROPICAL FRESHWATER FISHES data set will be valuable for studies on a wide range of ecological processes, such as trophic cascades, fishery pressure, the effects of habitat loss and fragmentation, and the impacts of species invasion and climate change. There are no copyright restrictions on the data, and please cite this data paper when using the data in publications.Fil: Tonella, Lívia Helena. Universidade Estadual de Maringá. Departamento de Engenharia Química. Laboratorio de Pesquisa.; BrasilFil: Ruaro, Renata. Universidade Estadual de Maringá. Departamento de Engenharia Química. Laboratorio de Pesquisa.; BrasilFil: Daga, Vanessa Salete. Universidade Federal do Paraná; BrasilFil: Garcia, Diego Azevedo Zoccal. Universidade Estadual de Londrina; BrasilFil: Barroso Vitorino Júnior, Oscar. Instituto Natureza do Tocantins-Naturatins; BrasilFil: Lobato de Magalhães, Tatiana. Universidad Autonoma de Queretaro.; MéxicoFil: Reis, Roberto Esser. Museu de Ciências e Tecnologia; BrasilFil: Di Dario, Fabio. Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro; BrasilFil: Petry, Ana Cristina. Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro; BrasilFil: Mincarone, Michael Maia. Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro; BrasilFil: Assis Montag, Luciano Fogaça. Universidade Federal do Pará; BrasilFil: Pompeu, Paulo Santos. Universidade Federal de Lavras; BrasilFil: Teixeira, Adonias Aphoena Martins. Universidade Estadual da Paraiba; BrasilFil: Carmassi, Alberto Luciano. Universidade Federal de Sao Paulo; Brasil. Universidade Federal do São Carlos; BrasilFil: Sánchez, Alberto J.. Universidad Juárez Autónoma de Tabasco; MéxicoFil: Giraldo Pérez, Alejandro. Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais; BrasilFil: Bono, Alessandra. Universidad de Vale do Rio dos Sinos; BrasilFil: Datovo, Aléssio. Universidade de Sao Paulo; BrasilFil: Flecker, Alexander S.. Cornell University; Estados UnidosFil: Sanches, Alexandra. Universidade de Sao Paulo; Brasil. Universidade Federal do São Carlos; BrasilFil: Godinho, Alexandre Lima. Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais; BrasilFil: Matthiensen, Alexandre. Embrapa Suínos e Aves; BrasilFil: Peressin, Alexandre. Universidade Federal de Lavras; BrasilFil: Silva Hilsdorf, Alexandre Wagner. Universidade de Mogi das Cruzes; BrasilFil: Barufatti, Alexéia. Universidade Federal da Grande Dourados; BrasilFil: Hirschmann, Alice. Universidade Federal do Pampa; BrasilFil: Jung, Aline. Universidade Do Estado de Mato Grosso (unemat);Fil: Cruz Ramírez, Allan K.. Universidad Juárez Autónoma de Tabasco; MéxicoFil: Braga Silva, Alline. Instituto Federal de Goiás; BrasilFil: Cunico, Almir Manoel. Universidade Federal do Paraná; BrasilFil: Tagliaferro, Marina Beatriz. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Austral de Investigaciones Científicas; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Córdoba. Instituto de Diversidad y Ecología Animal. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas Físicas y Naturales. Instituto de Diversidad y Ecología Animal; Argentin

Photography-based taxonomy is inadequate, unnecessary, and potentially harmful for biological sciences

The question whether taxonomic descriptions naming new animal species without type specimen(s) deposited in collections should be accepted for publication by scientific journals and allowed by the Code has already been discussed in Zootaxa (Dubois & Nemésio 2007; Donegan 2008, 2009; Nemésio 2009a–b; Dubois 2009; Gentile & Snell 2009; Minelli 2009; Cianferoni & Bartolozzi 2016; Amorim et al. 2016). This question was again raised in a letter supported by 35 signatories published in the journal Nature (Pape et al. 2016) on 15 September 2016. On 25 September 2016, the following rebuttal (strictly limited to 300 words as per the editorial rules of Nature) was submitted to Nature, which on 18 October 2016 refused to publish it. As we think this problem is a very important one for zoological taxonomy, this text is published here exactly as submitted to Nature, followed by the list of the 493 taxonomists and collection-based researchers who signed it in the short time span from 20 September to 6 October 2016

A new species of Ituglanis from the Rio Xingu basin, Brazil, and the evolution of pelvic fin loss in trichomycterid catfishes (Teleostei: Siluriformes: Trichomycteridae)

Datovo, Aléssio (2014): A new species of Ituglanis from the Rio Xingu basin, Brazil, and the evolution of pelvic fin loss in trichomycterid catfishes (Teleostei: Siluriformes: Trichomycteridae). Zootaxa 3790 (3): 466-476, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3790.3.

Fig. 10 in Ituglanis macunaima, a new catfish from the rio Araguaia basin, Brazil (Siluriformes: Trichomycteridae)

Fig. 10. Hydrographic map showing geographic distribution of the Ituglanis macunaima. Symbols: star, holotype; circles, paratypes.Published as part of Datovo, Aléssio & Landim, Maria Isabel, 2005, Ituglanis macunaima, a new catfish from the rio Araguaia basin, Brazil (Siluriformes: Trichomycteridae), pp. 455-464 in Neotropical Ichthyology 3 (4) on page 462, DOI: 10.1590/S1679-62252005000400002, http://zenodo.org/record/541780

Monophyly of the Agoniatinae (Characiformes: Characidae)

Dagosta, Fernando C.P., Datovo, Aléssio (2013): Monophyly of the Agoniatinae (Characiformes: Characidae). Zootaxa 3646 (3): 265-276, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.3646.3.

Evolution of the facial musculature in basal ray-finned fishes

Abstract Background The facial musculature is a remarkable anatomical complex involved in vital activities of fishes, such as food capture and gill ventilation. The evolution of the facial muscles is largely unknown in most major fish lineages, such as the Actinopterygii. This megadiverse group includes all ray-finned fishes and comprises approximately half of the living vertebrate species. The Polypteriformes, Acipenseriformes, Lepisosteiformes, Amiiformes, Elopiformes, and Hiodontiformes occupy basal positions in the actinopterygian phylogeny and a comparative study of their facial musculature is crucial for understanding the cranial evolution of bony fishes (Osteichthyes) as a whole. Results The facial musculature of basal actinopterygians is revised, redescribed, and analyzed under an evolutionary perspective. We identified twenty main muscle components ontogenetically and evolutionarily derived from three primordial muscles. Homologies of these components are clarified and serve as basis for the proposition of a standardized and unifying myological terminology for all ray-finned fishes. The evolutionary changes in the facial musculature are optimized on the osteichthyan tree and several new synapomorphies are identified for its largest clades, including the Actinopterygii, Neopterygii, and Teleostei. Myological data alone ambiguously support the monophyly of the Holostei. A newly identified specialization constitutes the first unequivocal morphological synapomorphy for the Elopiformes. The myological survey additionally allowed a reinterpretation of the homologies of ossifications in the upper jaw of acipenseriforms. Conclusions The facial musculature proved to be extremely informative for the higher-level phylogeny of bony fishes. These muscles have undergone remarkable changes during the early radiation of ray-finned fishes, with significant implications for the knowledge of the musculoskeletal evolution of both derived actinopterygians and lobe-finned fishes (Sarcopterygii)

The Jaw Adductor Muscle Complex in Teleostean Fishes: Evolution, Homologies and Revised Nomenclature (Osteichthyes: Actinopterygii)

<div><p>The infraclass Teleostei is a highly diversified group of bony fishes that encompasses 96% of all species of living fishes and almost half of extant vertebrates. Evolution of various morphological complexes in teleosts, particularly those involving soft anatomy, remains poorly understood. Notable among these problematic complexes is the <i>adductor mandibulae</i>, the muscle that provides the primary force for jaw adduction and mouth closure and whose architecture varies from a simple arrangement of two segments to an intricate complex of up to ten discrete subdivisions. The present study analyzed multiple morphological attributes of the <i>adductor mandibulae</i> in representatives of 53 of the 55 extant teleostean orders, as well as significant information from the literature in order to elucidate the homologies of the main subdivisions of this muscle. The traditional alphanumeric terminology applied to the four main divisions of the <i>adductor mandibulae</i> – A₁, A₂, A₃, and Aω – patently fails to reflect homologous components of that muscle across the expanse of the Teleostei. Some features traditionally used as landmarks for identification of some divisions of the <i>adductor mandibulae</i> proved highly variable across the Teleostei; notably the insertion on the maxilla and the position of muscle components relative to the path of the <i>ramus mandibularis trigeminus</i> nerve. The evolutionary model of gain and loss of sections of the <i>adductor mandibulae</i> most commonly adopted under the alphanumeric system additionally proved ontogenetically incongruent and less parsimonious than a model of subdivision and coalescence of facial muscle sections. Results of the analysis demonstrate the impossibility of adapting the alphanumeric terminology so as to reflect homologous entities across the spectrum of teleosts. A new nomenclatural scheme is proposed in order to achieve congruence between homology and nomenclature of the <i>adductor mandibulae</i> components across the entire Teleostei.</p></div

Differentiated mandibular sections.

<p>Medial view of left <i>segmentum mandibularis</i> and associated structures of (A) <i>Umbra pygmaea</i> (Salmoniformes: Umbridae; USNM 333152) and (B) <i>Anabas testudineus</i> (Anabantiformes: Anabantidae; USNM 393943). <i>Ramus mandibularis trigeminus</i> digitally colored in green.</p