Knipowitschia ephesi Ahnelt, 1995, a junior synonym of Gobius ricasolii Di Caporiacco, 1935 (Teleostei: Gobiidae)

Abstract

Gobius ricasolii was described in 1935 by Di Caporiacco from the lower Küçük Menderes River drainage in Turkey. This species has not yet been listed as a freshwater fauna of Turkey. Ahnelt (1995) described Knipowitschia ephesi from the same locality based on materials collected by Curt Kosswig in 1948. We examined the type materials of G. ricasolii to clarify its taxonomic status and identified it as a member of the genus Knipowitschia. Since morphological, morphometric and meristic characteristics of K ephesi overlap largely with those of K ricasolii, we consider K. ephesi as a junior synonym of K ricasolii. A revised diagnosis of this species is presented.

Full text

Zoology in the Middle East, 2019
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09397140.2019.1648402
*Corresponding author. Email: erdogancicek@nevsehir.edu.tr
© 2019 Taylor & Francis
Knipowitschia ephesi Ahnelt, 1995, a junior synonym of
Gobius ricasolii Di Caporiacco, 1935 (Teleostei: Gobiidae)
Erdoğan Çiçeka,*, Ronald Frickeb, Soheil Eagderic, Sevil Sungurd and Stefano Vannie
aDepartment of Biology, Faculty of Art and Sciences, Nevşehir Hacı Bektaş Veli University,
Nevşehir, Turkey;bLauda-Königshofen, Germany; cDepartment of Fisheries, Faculty of Natural
Resources, University of Tehran, Karaj, Iran; dHealth Services Vocational School, Nevşehir
Hacı Bektaş Veli University,Nevşehir, Turkey; eMuseo Zoologico e Historia Naturale de la
Specola, Universita di Firenze, Firenze, Italy
(Received 6 June 2019; accepted 22 July 2019)
Gobius ricasolii was described in 1935 by Di Caporiacco from the lower Küçük Men-
deres River drainage in Turkey. This species has not yet been listed as a freshwater
fauna of Turkey. Ahnelt (1995) described Knipowitschia ephesi from the same locality
based on materials collected by Curt Kosswig in 1948. We examined the type materi-
als of G. ricasolii to clarify its taxonomic status and identified it as a member of the
genus Knipowitschia. Since morphological, morphometric and meristic characteristics
of K. ephesi overlap largely with those of K. ricasolii, we consider K. ephesi as a jun-
ior synonym of K. ricasolii. A revised diagnosis of this species is presented.
Keywords: Freshwater; taxonomy; Küçük Menderes River
Introduction
Di Caporiacco (1935) described Gobius ricasolii based on five specimens collected in a
small lake named Kuyuncu near Aya Soluq (Selçuk), in the lower Küçük Menderes
River drainage, in September 1932. This species was not listed in later studies and/or
checklists of Turkish freshwater fishes (Sözer, 1941; Geldiay & Balık, 2007; Kuru,
2004; Fricke, Bilecenoğlu, & Sarı, 2007; Kuru, Yerli, Mangıt, Ünlü, & Alp, 2014;
Çiçek, Sungur-Birecikligil, & Fricke, 2015, 2016). Ladiges (1964) cited the study of Di
Caporiacco (1935) but failed to clarify the taxonomic status of G. ricasolii. Gobius
ricasolii has been addressed in the type catalogues of Museo Zoologico e Historia Natu-
rale de la Specola, Firenze by Vanni (1991) and Nocita and Vanni (1997).
In 1995, Ahnelt described Knipowitschia ephesi based on materials collected by
Curt Kosswig in 1948 from Ephesos in the Küçük Menderes drainage. The ancient
Ephesos is located three kilometres southwest of Selçuk in the Turkish İzmir Province.
In the description of K. ephesi, the type locality and geographical distribution of this
species has been described as “probably deltaic part of the Küçük Menderes River in
which the ancient site of Ephesus is situated” (Ahnelt, 1995). The Kuyuncu Lake (now:
Aya Soluk) is the closest water body to the ancient site of Ephesus locating near Ephe-
sus (37°57'N, 27°18'E). Ahnelt (1995) did not compare his new species with G. ricasolii
as he was not aware of this species (H. Ahnelt, pers. comm., 2018). This present study
aimed to clarify the taxonomic identity of G. ricasolii vis-à-vis K. ephesi.
Published online 06 Aug 2019

2 E. Çiçek et al.
Material and Methods
We used the morphometric and meristic data of the original description of K. ephesi (Ahnelt,
1995). The specimens of G. ricasolii were examined by S.V. Since the type specimens were
small, dried and fragile, they were photographed and morphological characteristics were meas-
ured using the software ImageJ to the nearest 0.1 mm. Methods for description, counts and meas-
urements followed Ahnelt (1995). All measurements were made point-to-point, not by projec-
tions.
Abbreviations
A, anal fin; C, caudal fin; D1, D2, first and second dorsal fins; HL, lateral head length; LL, scales
in latera series; P, Pectoral fin; V, Pelvic fin; SL, standard length.
Results
Knipowitschia ricasolii (Di Caporiacco, 1935) (Figures 1–2; Tables 1–2)
Gobius ricasolii Di Caporiacco, 1935: 258 (Kuyuncu Lake near Selçuk, Küçük Menderes River
drainage, Turkey).
Knipowitschia ephesi Ahnelt, 1995: 156, fig. 1 (Ephesus, Küçük Menderes River drainage, Tur-
key).
Material examined: Five syntypes of Knipowitschia ricasolii (MZUF 5551-5555, 13.0-17.1 mm
SL), İzmir prov.: Kuyuncu Lake near Selçuk, 37°57 N 27°18 E, September 1932, Di Caporiacco
leg., deposited in the Universita di Firenze, Museo Zoologico e Historia Naturale de la Specola,
Firenze, Italy (MZUF). – Knipowitschia ephesi (ZMH 2177.1, holotype, 18.3 mm SL; ZMH
2177.2-11, 10 paratypes, 14.8-18.9 mm SL; Izmir prov.: Ephesus, 37°58'N 27°17'E), deposited in
the Universität Hamburg, Biozentrum Grindel und Zoologisches Museum, Ichthyology, Ham-
burg, Germany (ZMH).
Generic classification. Based on the description of the genus Knipowitschia by Econo-
midis and Miller (1990) the examined type materials of G. ricasolii were identified as a
species of Knipowitschia by possession of the fusiform body, the oblique mouth, the
imbricate ctenoid scales with naked head, breast and abdomen, the lateral series scales
less than 26, the anterior nostrils with a short tube-like structure and the posterior one
pore-like broad isthmus with the branchiostegal membrane attached to the entire lateral
margin, the pelvic-fin disc reaching almost to the anus and its anterior well-developed
membrane, the caudal peduncle longer than the second dorsal-fin base, a rounded cau-
dal-fin shorter than the head, six rays in the first and seven to eight branched rays in the
second dorsal fin, the cephalic lateral line with a short median preorbital series r and s,
the longitudinal row p of interorbital without transverse rows, the transverse infraorbital
rows between levels of rows b and d along the cheek with rearmost descending behind
posterior end of row d, and short row b below the rear of the eye.
Morphological comparison. Morphometric and meristic data of G. ricasolii and
K. ephesi are presented in Tables 1–2. All morphometric and meristic characteristics of
K. ephesi largely overlap with those of G. ricasolii. In addition, the diagnostic charac-
teristics of K. ephesi were similar to those of G. ricasolii, i.e. reduction of squamation to
one axillar patch or two well-separated axillar and caudal peduncle patches, naked head,
breast and abdomen, large eyes, interorbital distance about half of eye diameter, moder-
ate interdorsal space, a lack of cephalic lateral-line canals, developed longitudinal row p
of interorbital and longitudinal row u of oculoscapular sensory papillae, positions of the
first and second dorsal-fin origins over anterior half of pectoral fin and vertical to anus,
respectively, and reaching pelvic-fin disc near to anus.

Zoology in the Middle East 3
Table 1. Morphometric measurements of Knipowitschia ephesi based on Ahnelt (1995) and exam-
ination of the type specimens of Gobius ricasolii.
K. ephesi G. ricasolii
No. ZMH 2177.1 &
ZMH 2177.2-11
MZUF 5551-
5555
N 11 5
Standard length 14.8-18.9 13.0-17.1
In percent of SL
Head length 31.0-34.0 25.2-32.4
Head width 11.5-14.9 11.4-17.5
Distance from snout to origin of first dorsal fin 41.0-43.5 35.3-44.4
Distance from snout to origin of second dorsal fin 56.3-62.9 48.7-60.3
Distance from snout to vertical anus 54.2-61.0 41.7-64.2
Distance from snout to vertical anal fin origin 61.5-65.0 51.4-67.3
Distance from snout to vertical of pelvic spinous ray origin 34.5-37.4 32.4-41.9
Caudal peduncle length 24.2-29.4 21.1-25.5
First dorsal fin base 10.1-13.5 9.6-16.1
Second dorsal fin base 14.5-18.0 12.9-23.4
Anal fine base 11.2-13.9 13.1-15.8
Caudal fine length 22.2-25.9 17.7-23.0
Pectoral fine length 22.7-24.2 17.3-23.6
Distance from pelvic disc origin to tip of longest pelvic ray 19.2-24.5 14.4-23.0
Body depth of origin 21.0-24.0 17.0-23.3
Body depth at anal fin origin 14.0-16.0 10.3-14.9
Body width at anal fin origin 6.7-9.5 6.7-13.8
Caudal peduncle depth 9.0-10.8 7.5-10.5
Distance from origin of pelvic spinous ray to anus 20.4-25.0 17.9-24.5
In percent of CP
Caudal peduncle depth 31.5-41.0 34.4-41.1
In percent of HL
Snout length 20.1-25.6 17.1-24.7
Eye diameter 21.9-30.0 25.9-31.3
Postorbital length 49.0-53.5 50.3-59.1
cheek depth 11.2-22.0 19.8-27.6
Head width 35.0-43.5 34.6-51.1
In percent of E
Interior orbital distance 28.5-57.5 34.1-62.0
Diagnosis. A Knipowitschia species with 6 rays in first dorsal fin and its origin over
anterior half of P, second dorsal fin with one unbranched and 7-8 branched rays and its
origin vertical to anus; anal fin with one spine and 6-8 soft rays and its origin below first
to third rays of D2; pectoral fin with 14-16 soft rays; caudal fin with 11-13 soft rays;
squamation reduced to one or two well-separated patches of ctenoid scales imbricated
on caudal peduncle, first patch from axilla to vertical of anterior part of interdorsal
space (6-11 scales) and second patch on caudal peduncle if present (0-14 scales); head,
breast, and abdomen without scales; cephalic lateral-line canals absent, short median
preorbital series r and s sensory papillae, long internal preopercular mandibular row i
sensory papillae passing a horizontal prolongation of row d, longitudinal row p of

4 E. Çiçek et al.
Figure 1. Syntypes of Gobius ricasolii Di Caporiacco, 1935 (MZUF 5551-5555). (1) 15.7 mm SL,
(2) 17.1 mm SL, (3) 15.9 mm SL, (4) 14.8 mm SL and (5) 13.0 mm SL. Turkey, İzmir prov.:
Kuyuncu Lake, near Aya Soluk (Selçuk), Küçük Menderes River drainage.
interorbital and developed longitudinal row u of oculoscapular sensory papillae; eyes
large, interorbital distance about half of eye diameter; C rounded, shorter than head.
Colouration. Body yellow, head darker. A brown band from eye to rostrum and a small
vertical band inferiorly; a brown vertical band behind eye reaching dorsum, interrupted
in lower parts. A narrow stripe on flank, accompanied by a series of rather large blotch-
es below stripe and some irregular brown spots very close to each other above strip. A

Zoology in the Middle East 5
Figure 2. Holotype of Knipowitschia ephesi (ZMH 2177.1). 18.3 mm SL. Turkey, İzmir prov.:
Ephesus, Küçük Menderes River drainage, western Anatolia (photograph: Irina Eidus, ZMH).
Table 2. Meristic characters of Knipowitschia ephesi based on Ahnelt (1995) and type specimens
of Gobius ricasolii.
Knipowitschia ephesi Gobius ricasolii
Collection nos. ZMH 2177.1 and ZMH 2177.2-11 MZUF 5551-5555 (n=5)
D1 (first dorsal fin) VI VI
D2 (second dorsal fin) I/7-8 I/7-8
A (anal fin) I/6-7 I/7-8
C (caudal fin) 11-13 12
P (pectoral fin) 15-16 14-15
V (pelvic fin) I/5 I/5
LL (scales in lateral
setries)
(6-10) + (0-14) 8-11(8:1, 10:3, 11:1)+ 0-
14(0:2, 5:1, 14:2)
rather large, oblong blotch on top of caudal peduncle and a dark area at the base of
caudal fin; all fins transparent, distal portion of first dorsal fin and base of anal fin dark-
er; two oblique bands barely visible on second dorsal fin (Di Caporiacco, 1935).
Distribution. Endemic to the Küçük Menderes River drainage. This species is reported
to be seriously threatened by water extraction, habitat destruction and pollution
(Crivelli, 1996).
Discussion
When Ahnelt (1995) described K. ephesi, he was not aware of G. ricasolii (H. Ahnelt,
pers. comm., 2018). Di Caporiacco (1935) gave detailed information about the fresh
colouration; Ahnelt (1995) did not include colouration because of the faded colouration
of the preserved specimens. Therefore, the colour of the original description of
K. ephesi could not be compared with those of K. ricasolii. In addition, there were no
any non-overlapping differences in morphometric, meristic and other characters studied
here between K. ephesi and K. ricasolii to discriminate them.
As we were unable to find any difference between K. ephesi and K. ricasolii, it was
concluded that these two nominal species represent one species and K. ephesi is treated
as a junior synonym of K. ricasolii.
Acknowledgements
We thank Paolo Parenti (Università degli Studi di Milano, Department of Earth and Environmen-
tal Sciences) for drawing our attention to Gobius ricasolii, and for translating the original descrip-

6 E. Çiçek et al.
tion. We are grateful to Ralf Thiel (ZMH) for providing the picture of holotype of K. ephesi and
Salim Serkan Güçlü from providing specimens and pictures of K. ephesi and Hadi Poorbagher
(University of Tehran) for performing a language check.
Disclosure Statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
References
Ahnelt, H. (1995). Two new species of Knipowitschia Iljin, 1927 (Teleostei: Gobiidae) from
Western Anatolia. Mitteilungen aus dem Hamburgischen Zoologischen Museum und Institut,
92, 155–168.
Çiçek, E., Sungur-Birecikligil, S., & Fricke, R. (2015). Freshwater fishes of Turkey: A revised
and updated annotated checklist. Biharean Biologist, 9, 141–157.
Çiçek, E., Sungur-Birecikligil, S. & Fricke, R. (2016). Addenda and errata of: Freshwater fishes
of Turkey: a revised and updated annotated checklist. FishTaxa, 1: 116–117.
Crivelli A. J. (1996). The freshwater fish endemic to the Mediterranean region. An action plan for
their conservation. Arles: Tour du Valat Publication.
Di Caporiacco, L. (1935). Escursione del Prof. Nello Beccari in Anatolia. Pesci. Monitore Zoo-
logico Italiano, 46, 255–259.
Economidis P. S., & Miller, P. J. (1990). Systematics of freshwater gobies from Greece. Journal
of Zoology London, 221, 125–170.
Fricke, R., Bilecenoğlu, M. & Sarı, H. M. (2007). Annotated checklist of fish and lamprey species
(Gnathostomata and Petromyzontomorphi) of Turkey, including a Red List of threatened and
declining species. Stuttgarter Beiträge zur Naturkunde, Serie A, 706, 1–172.
Geldiay, R., & Balık, S. (2009). Freshwater Fishes of Turkey. Izmir: Ege University Press.
Kuru, M. (2004). Recent systematic status of inland water fishes of Turkey. Gazi University
Journal of Gazi Educational Faculty, 24, 1–21.
Kuru, M., Yerli, S. V., Mangıt, F., Ünlü, E., & Alp, A. (2014). Fish biodiversity in inland waters
of Turkey. Journal of Academic Documents for Fisheries and Aquaculture, 3, 93–120.
Ladiges, W. (1964). Süßwasserfische der Türkei. 2. Teil, restliche Gruppen. Mitteilungen aus dem
Hamburgischen Zoologischen Museum und Institut, 61, 203–220.
Nocita, A., & Vanni, S. (1997). Cataloghi del Museo di Storia Naturale dell’Università di Firenze
– Sezione de Zoologia « La Specola ». XVII. Actinopterygii Perciformes: Eleotridae e Go-
biidae. Atti della Società Toscana di Scienze Naturali, Seria B, 104, 61–69.
Sözer, F. (1941). Türkiye Gobiidleri. Revue de la Faculté des Sciences, Université d'Istanbul,
Serie B, Sciences Naturelles, 6, 128–169.
Vanni, S. (1991). Cataloghi del Museo Zoologico « La Specola » dell’Università di Firenze. VIII.
Osteichthyes: Tipi. Atti della Società Toscana di Scienze Naturali, Seria B, 96, 219–229.