identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
4D4D87EEFFB0FFCB78B3FC0DFACA300D.text	4D4D87EEFFB0FFCB78B3FC0DFACA300D.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Gonorhynchus McClelland 1838	<div><p>Gonorhynchus McClelland 1838</p><p>(Figures 1, 2, 3 A, 3C, 5, 7, 8, 11)</p><p>Gonorhynchus McClelland 1838:943 (type species: Gonorhynchus brevis M’Clelland 1839:373, by subsequent designation by Jordan 1919:195). Gender masculine.</p><p>Tariqilabeo Mirza &amp; Saboohi 1990:405 (subgenus of Labeo Cuvier, 1816:194; type species: Labeo macmahoni Zugmayer 1912:597, by original designation). Gender masculine.</p><p>Akrokolioplax Zhang &amp; Kottelat 2006:21 (type species: Epalzeorhynchos bicornis Wu 1977, by original designation). Gender feminine.</p><p>McClelland (1838) first described the genus Gonorhynchus, but without any discussion of inclusive species or type designation. Jordan (1919) subsequently designated Gonorhynchus brevis M’Clelland 1839 as the type species, now recognized as a junior synonym of G. latius (Hamilton 1822) . In the same publication, however, Jordan (1919) synonymized Gonorhynchus with Crossocheilus as M’Clelland (1839) had needlessly renamed Cyprinus gohama Hamilton 1822 (which at the time of Jordan’s publication was considered a junior synonym of Crossocheilus latius) as G. b re vi s.</p><p>Cyprinus gohama was initially considered a junior synonym of Cyprinus latius Hamilton 1822 (= Crossocheilus latius) by Day (1877) but placed under the name Cirrhina (= Cirrhinus Oken 1817) latia . Curiously, Day (1878) later synonymized several species, including Crossocheilus latius (Hamilton 1822), under Cirrhina gohama (Hamilton 1822), but later Day (1880) reverted back to the name Cirrhina latia . Cyprinus sada Hamilton 1822 was consistently treated as a junior synonym in these publications (Day 1877, 1878). Unfortunately, the type specimens of none of these nominal taxa are available. Specimens from the Koshi River (eastern Nepal into Bihar, India), one of the rivers from which Cyprinus gohama was originally described, were examined by us, but are not diagnosable from specimens from the Teesta River, the type locality of C. latius (see account for G. latius below), based on the characters listed by Hamilton (1822) or additional characters examined here. As specimens from the original type localities are indistinguishable and Day (1877) served as first reviser, precedence is given to G. latius as the senior synonym of the type species of the genus, G. brevis .</p><p>The similarly named genus Gonorynchus Scopoli 1777 is comprised of marine species in the order Gonorynchiformes . Gonorynchus has been misspelled as “ Gonorhynchus ” in a few instances, as noted by Grande (1999).</p><p>Diagnosis. Gonorhynchus (Fig. 2) belongs to the tribe Labeonini based on the following characters: 1) incised border on the first anal-fin pterygiophore; 2) ventrally expanded rostral fold; and 3) presence of a superficial posterior labial fold (Stiassny &amp; Getahun 2007). Reid (1982) diagnosed Labeonini as having a vomero-palatine organ, a terete process on the basioccipital, and the neural complex of the Weberian apparatus in direct contact with the supraoccipital region. Although these characters could not be examined in specimens on loan to us, Stiassny &amp; Getahun (2007) reported them as present in G. diplochilus . Molecular phylogenies place species of Gonorhynchus within Labeonini (Wang et al. 2007; Zheng et al. 2010, 2012; Yang et al. 2012).</p><p>Gonorhynchus is distinguished from other labeonin genera (see Yang et al. [2012] for list of genera) by the following combination of characters: 1) rostral cap covering upper lip, which is not visibly separated from snout by groove and not attached to lower lip; 2) upper lip very thin or absent, widening substantially at corner of mouth connecting upper jaw to lower lip; 3) inferior mouth; 4) lower lip free only on anterior and lateral edges, posterior edge connected to underside of head (not modified into rounded mental disc), central region equally thick as lateral edges, anterior edge with large papillae; 5) sublachrymal groove uniformly narrow from corner of mouth to rostral barbel, not expanding anteriorly to contain rostral lobe (rostral lobe absent); 6) 8½ branched dorsal rays.</p><p>Species included. Gonorhynchus latius (Hamilton 1822), G. diplochilus (Heckel 1838), G. wattanah (Sykes 1839), G. macmahoni (Zugmayer 1912), G. burmanicus (Hora 1936), G. b i c o r n i s (Wu 1977), and G. periyarensis (Menon &amp; Jacob 1996) .</p><p>Comparison. Gonorhynchus is herein compared with morphologically similar labeonins from Asia. Gonorhynchus is distinguished from Crossocheilus by the absence of a rostral lobe (although a rostral flap may be present) (Fig. 3 A) vs. present (Fig. 3 B) and a very thin upper lip (sometimes absent) that widens at the corner of the mouth (Fig. 3 C) vs. a thicker upper lip that does not widen at the corner of the mouth (Fig. 3 D). In the material examined, Gonorhynchus species have generally more vertebrae (34–38 vs. 31–33) and pored lateral scales (lateral-line scales plus pored scales on caudal fin 35–42 vs. 28–35) than Crossocheilus species. These higher counts in Gonorhynchus are consistent with data from previous descriptions, including those of Heckel (1838), Day (1877), Zugmayer (1912), Menon &amp; Jacob (1996), and Zhang &amp; Kottelat (2006). Kullander et al. (1999) listed several characters differentiating Gonorhynchus and Crossocheilus based primarily on examinations of G. diplochilus and C. oblongus . Two of these characters are listed above (e.g., relative upper lip size and presence/ absence of rostral lobes), but the remaining characters were not found to distinguish the two genera upon examination of additional species.</p><p>Gonorhynchus differs from Garra through the absence of a mental sucking disc. Epalzeorhynchos possesses movable rostral lobes just dorsal to the rostral barbels, which are absent in Gonorhynchus, although G. b i c o r n i s has movable flaps on the tip of the snout. Differences between G. b i c o r n i s and several other labeonin genera (see below) discussed by Zhang &amp; Kottelat (2006) apply to all Gonorhynchus species and these genera. Unlike Paracrossochilus, Gonorhynchus has a vestigial and non-papillose upper lip, if lip is present (Kottelat et al. 1993; Zhang &amp; Kottelat 2006). Gonorhynchus differs from Rectoris and Pseudocrossocheilus by having the lower lip disconnected from the rostral cap (vs. connected), and from Sinocrossocheilus in the presence of 8½ (vs. 7½) branched dorsal rays, the upper jaw connected (vs. disconnected) to the lower lip by a frenum around the corner of the mouth, and the absence (vs. presence) of a centrally protruding lower lip covered by papillae (Zhang &amp; Chen 2004; Zhang &amp; Kottelat 2006; Yuan et al. 2008; Zhu et al. 2012).</p><p>Remarks. As noted by Kullander et al. (1999), G. macmahoni is morphologically similar to G. diplochilus based on initial descriptions (Zugmayer 1912; 1913). In an examination of freshly collected specimens, Mirza &amp; Saboohi (1990) noted the presence of lateral lobes on the snout of G. macmahoni, which would exclude this species from Gonorhynchus as diagnosed here. However, without an examination of these specimens (whereabouts unknown), it is unclear as to the exact location and features of these structures. The status of this species was most recently reviewed again by (Mirza &amp; Arshard 2008), who observed the syntype to be morphologically similar to G. diplochilus, except in lacking fringes present on the rostral fold in G. diplochilus as well as all other species of Gonorhynchus . Additionally, there was no mention of the presence of rostral lobes by Mirza &amp; Arshard (2008). We examined digital images of the syntype of G. macmahoni (NMW 81256), discussed and shown in figure 1 (page 465) of Mirza and Arshard (2008), and observed no rostral lobes. Also, there appear to be no fringes on the rostral fold, which distinguishes this species from all other species in the genus, which possess well-developed fringes, or fimbriae, on the rostral fold. We tentatively retain G. macmahoni as a valid species pending the examination of additional specimens from the type locality, the Dasht River, a coastal river in western Pakistan draining directly into the Arabian Sea, and surrounding areas.</p><p>Gonorhynchus adiscus was revalidated by Sayyadzadeh et al. (2015) based on morphological data and a phylogenetic analysis of the mitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase I (COI) gene. This species was previously synonymized with G. diplochilus by Bianco &amp; Bănărescu (1982). Characters used by Sayyadzadeh et al. (2015) to diagnose G. a d i s c u s and G. diplochilus included the length of rostral barbels, the presence and length of maxillary barbels, counts of rakers on the first gill arch, and counts of scales between the anus and anal-fin insertion, based on specimens from the Sistan, Mashkid, and Makran basins in eastern Iran and western Pakistan (Table 1). However, in their morphological comparisons, Sayyadzadeh et al. (2015) did not include specimens from the Indus River where G. diplochilus is extensively distributed in the headwaters, or any from the Helmand River in Afghanistan where G. a d i s c u s is also reported. An examination of Gonorhynchus specimens from the Indus and Helmand Rivers reveals that the characters listed by Sayyadzadeh et al. (2015) do not differentiate G. a d i s c u s from G. diplochilus .</p><p>Table 1 contains comparisons of characters between Sayyadzadeh et al. (2015) from specimens in the Sistan, Makran, and Mashkid basins and specimens examined here from the Helmand and Indus Rivers. The inclusion of specimens from the Helmand and Indus Rivers indicates substantial overlap in the lengths of the rostral and maxillary barbels, the number of rakers on the first gill arch, and the number of scales between the anus and analfin insertion between populations re-validated as G. a d i s cu s (Sistan and Helmand basins) and those treated as G. diplochilus (Makran, Mashkid, and Indus River basins) by Sayyadzadeh et al. (2015). Sharma et al. (2014) also reported gill raker counts of 17–21 in specimens of G. diplochilus from the Poonch River (Indus River basin) in India, which overlap those of G. adiscus reported by Sayyadzadeh et al. (2015). An additional specimen examined by us from the Makran region of southeastern Iran (USNM 205897) was consistent with data presented for G. diplochilus in the same region by Sayyadzadeh et al. (2015) in lacking maxillary barbels, possessing a rostral barbel length equal to 11.7% of head length, and possessing two scales between the anus and anal-fin insertion (we were unable to get a count of rakers on the first gill arch). Based on these additional morphological data, we recommend that G. adiscus continue to be treated as a junior synonym of G. diplochilus . The molecular phylogeny presented in Sayyadzadeh et al. (2015) resolved G. adiscus and G. diplochilus as monophyletic clades, with G. adiscus more closely related to G. latius than to G. diplochilus, supporting their claim for these populations as separate species. However, this phylogeny may not accurately reflect species relationships as only the COI gene was incorporated. The broad geographic range of G. diplochilus from India to Iran holds the possibility of multiple opportunities for divergence via allopatric speciation; however, thorough sampling of populations from throughout this range is required to collect additional morphological and molecular data to test for population differences that would lead to species diagnoses.</p><p>The description, illustration, and reported similarities to other Gonorhynchus species of the specimen from the Brahmaputra basin used in the description of G. gobioides in M’Clelland (1839) suggest it is morphologically similar to G. latius . Based on M’Clelland (1839), G. gobioides is distinguished from all other species in the genus by the absence of barbels as all other species in the genus possess at least one pair of barbels on the snout. Bleeker (1860) and Günther (1868) recognized the species as valid in the genus Crossocheilos . Curiously, no mention is made of G. gobioides in the revisions of Indian fishes by Day (1877, 1878) or in the check list of freshwater fishes of India (Menon 1999). M’Clelland (1839) noted the absence of barbels in another species—therein G. petrophilus, currently recognized as a junior synonym of Schizothorax richardsonii (Gray 1832), which possesses two pairs of barbels (Kullander et al. 1999; Chen &amp; Chao 2000; He &amp; Chen 2006). It is possible that M’Clelland (1839) also missed this character in the description of G. gobioides, particularly if dealing with a small or damaged specimen. Furthermore, as noted by M’Clelland (1839), the specimen of G. gobioides was questionably the same species described as Cyprinus mosario by Hamilton (1822). The description of C. mosario lacks details, with the species being described as similar to G. latius except in lacking “tendrils” (= barbels). We have observed no specimens of Gonorhynchus lacking rostral barbels. In light of the absence of the types for both species to confirm the absence of barbels, but their otherwise similarity to G. latius, we recognize G. gobioides and C. mosario as questionable junior synonyms of G. latius . The remaining species of Gonorhynchus discussed in M’Clelland (1839) that have not been synonymized with G. latius ( G. bimaculatus, G. brachypterus, and G. caudatus) belong to the genus Garra .</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/4D4D87EEFFB0FFCB78B3FC0DFACA300D	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Ciccotto, Patrick J.;Page, Lawrence M.	Ciccotto, Patrick J., Page, Lawrence M. (2016): Revised diagnosis of the genus Gonorhynchus McClelland (Teleostei: Cyprinidae: Labeonini) with redescription of G. latius (Hamilton) and revalidation of G. wattanah (Sykes). Zootaxa 4127 (3): 471-492, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4127.3.4
4D4D87EEFFBCFFDC78B3FF3AFC49366F.text	4D4D87EEFFBCFFDC78B3FF3AFC49366F.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Gonorhynchus wattanah McClelland 1838	<div><p>Revised Description of Gonorhynchus wattanah</p><p>Deccan Latia</p><p>(Figures 8, 11)</p><p>Chondrostoma wattanah Sykes 1839:160, pl. 63, fig. 4 (type locality: India: Deccan: Beema [Bhima] River); no types known</p><p>Chondrostoma wattanah from the Bhima River on the Deccan Plateau was briefly described by Sykes (1839a), with the same short description appearing again in Sykes (1839b). A slightly more complete description, as well as an illustration of a specimen (Fig. 8), were provided two years later (Sykes 1841). Sykes (1841) indicated that C. wattanah is similar to the ‘ Garra ’ division of cyprinids of Hamilton (1822), which included Gonorhynchus latius . Day (1876) initially speculated that the specimen illustrated in Sykes (1841) may represent Garra lamta (Hamilton 1822), but subsequently synonymized C. wattanah with G. latius (Day 1877), presumably based on the description and illustration provided by Sykes (1841) as there are no records of Sykes having preserved material from his expedition (Kottelat 1996; Knight et al. 2014). Our comparison of the illustration with more recently collected specimens from the Bhima River suggest C. wattanah is a member of Gonorhynchus, consistent with previous publications (Day 1877, 1878; Menon 1999), although curiously the specimen(s) described by Sykes lacked “tendrils” [= barbels] (Sykes 1839a; 1839b; 1841). Other species that are known to possess barbels, such as Garra mullya (Sykes 1839), were also reported to lack barbels by Sykes (1839a; 1839b; 1841). It seems likely that Sykes missed these characters during his descriptions.</p><p>An examination of specimens that are identified as Gonorhynchus from the Bhima River were found to be morphologically distinct from G. latius and all other Gonorhynchus species. We consider these specimens to represent the species described as C. wattanah by Sykes (1839a, 1839b, 1841) based on similarities in meristics, body shape, and coloration (specifically the thin, dashed stripe along the lateral line). In his initial description, Sykes (1839a) stated that the names of new species, unless otherwise noted, were derived from the names used by the local people of Maharashtra, including C. wattanah (therein capitalized as C. Wattanah). We propose the common name Deccan Latia, in reference to the distribution of the species on the Deccan Plateau.</p><p>Diagnosis. A member of Gonorhynchus as diagnosed above. Gonorhynchus wattanah is differentiated from its congeners by the following combination of characters: absence of rostral flaps on tip of snout (vs. present in G. bicornis); larger specimens (&gt; 65 mm SL) with small tubercles present all over head, occasionally extending onto the humeral, breast, and predorsal regions (vs. absent in all other species except G. periyarensis where tubercles are only present on the snout and cheek), and 20–24 rakers on the first gill arch (vs. 15–17 in G. p e r i ya re n s i s); thick midlateral stripe absent (vs. present in G. burmanicus). Cheek height in G. wattanah is generally larger (mean 26.0, range 21.2–29.8 % HL) than in G. latius (mean 18.9, range 14.4–24.6 % HL) and G. diplochilus (mean 19.7, range 12.7–22.8 % HL). Compared to G. latius, G. wattanah possesses modally fewer circumpeduncular scales (16 vs. 20), scales between the anus and anal-fin insertion (4½ vs. 6), and lateral-line scales (34 vs. 37).</p><p>Description. Morphometric and meristic data presented in Table 4. Body slightly arched dorsally, deepest at dorsal-fin insertion. Ventral profile from tip of snout to anal fin flat to slightly concave. Snout conical, rounded at end. Head short, longer than wide. Eyes dorsolateral. Dorsal-fin origin anterior of pelvic-fin origin. Pectoral fin reaching approximately halfway between pectoral-fin insertion and pelvic-fin origin. Pelvic fin to or slightly beyond anus. Anal fin not reaching base of caudal fin. Axillary pelvic lobe well-developed. Caudal fin forked.</p><p>Body entirely scaled; scales large. Lateral-line scales and pored scales on caudal fin 34–35 + 2–3 (mode 34 + 2), predorsal scales 9–10, scale rows above lateral line 4½, scale rows below lateral line 4½, circumpeduncular scales 16, 3½ scales rows between lateral line and pelvic-fin origin, 3½–4½ scales between anus and anal-fin origin (mode 4). Dorsal fin with 3 simple and 8½ branched rays; anal fin with 3 simple and 5½ branched rays; pelvic fin with 1 simple and 8 branched rays; pectoral fin with 1 simple and 14 branched rays; caudal fin with 10+9 principal rays, 9+8 branched). Abdominal vertebrae 23–24, caudal vertebrae 11–12, total vertebrae 35–36. Rakers on first gill arch 20–24 (based on 5 specimens from ANSP 85003 [n=1] and CAS-SU 41130 [n=4]).</p><p>Rostral cap covering upper lip which is not visibly separated from snout by groove and not attached to lower lip; rostral cap with 17–19 fimbriae superficial to upper jaw. Mouth inferior; upper lip very thin or absent, widening substantially at corner of mouth connecting upper jaw to lower; lower lip free only on anterior and lateral edges, posterior edge connected to underside of head (not modified into rounded mental disc), central region equally thick as lateral edges, anterior edge with large papillae; sublachrymal groove uniformly narrow from corner of mouth to rostral barbel, not expanding anteriorly to contain rostral lobe. Rostral barbels shorter than eye diameter; maxillary barbels present in 8 out of 9 specimens examined; when present, tiny, sometimes hidden in corner of mouth. Small tubercles on all surfaces of head in larger specimens, extending onto back, breast and/or flanks in largest specimens.</p><p>Color in 75% Ethanol. Dorsally light to dark brown. Flanks and lateral portions of head mottled dark brown, with irregular clusters of brown spots. Dark pigment around pores of lateral line, producing very thin dashed stripe in larger specimens. Venter cream to yellow. Dorsal-fin and pectoral-fins rays with dark stippling; inter-radial membranes otherwise clear. Anal fin and pelvic fins clear. Small, isolated dark spots on caudal fin, particularly in middle portion. Smaller specimens (43 mm SL and less) substantially less dusky; thin stripe around pores on lateral line present on anterior one-third of flank behind operculum.</p><p>Remarks. In Figure 9, the minimum polygon clusters formed by plotting the second sheared principal component of the morphometric data against the first principal component of the meristic data for populations of G. latius and G. wattanah were compared. Size accounted for 93.7% of the observed variance and the second principal component accounted for 2.0%. Cheek height had the highest loading on the sheared second principal component (-0.63). The first principal component of the meristic data accounted for 60.0% of the total variance. Variables with the highest loadings were total lateral-line scales (0.41), lateral-line scales (0.38), scale rows above lateral line (0.37), and scale rows between the pelvic-fin origin and lateral line. Gonorhynchus wattanah has a greater cheek height (mean 26.0, range 21.2–29.8 % HL) than G. latius (mean 18.9, range 14.4–24.6% HL). Scale counts in G. wattanah in general are lower than those of G. latius (Tables 2–4).</p><p>The specimens from the Godavari River are smaller than the Bhima River specimens and lack tubercles. Due to the similarity in body shape and meristic values (Fig. 9), and the occurrence in geographically close river basins, we consider the Godavari River population to be conspecific with the Bhima River populations, with these specimens likely representing sexually immature individuals. The southernmost distribution of G. latius is thus the Mahanadi River (Fig. 6). Specimens from the Mahanadi River are similar to G. latius from the Ganges, Brahmaputra, Surma, and Hooghly Rivers (all outflow into the Bay of Bengal at or near the Ganges Delta) in morphometrics, meristics, and pigmentation (Fig. 9, Tables 2–3).</p><p>Distribution. The species is distributed in the Krishna and Godavari River basins in western India (Fig. 10). Jadhav et al. (2011), Karat et al. (2012), and Laxmappa et al. (2015) report “ Crossocheilus cf. latius ” and “ Crossocheilus latius ” in other stretches of the Krishna River basin; presumably these were specimens of G. wattanah .</p><p>Neotype Designation. There is no mention of type material in Sykes (1839a). In the more thorough description by Sykes (1841), an illustration is presented, presumably of one of the original specimens examined (Fig. 8), but again no type (s) are mentioned. An examination of museum records suggests that the material examined by Sykes is lost. While the illustration is available to designate as a lectotype (Article 74.4; ICZN 1999), we designate a neotype in accordance with Article 75 of the Code (ICZN 1999) in light of the historical confusion of this (and other) species in the genus and the presence of diagnostic characters in the neotype that are not evident in the illustrated specimen. Although tubercles are noted to be absent in this species by Sykes (1839a, 1839b, 1841), they are present in recently examined material and are an important diagnostic feature of the species. It seems likely that Sykes based his descriptions on females and/or sexually immature males. The following specimen is selected as the neotype: ANSP 85003, received from the Indian Museum and collected at the right bank of the canal below the Empress Garden in Pune, India (Fig. 11). This specimen is from the Bhima River basin, near the type locality of Chondrostoma wattanah (Paragon, downstream of confluence of Bhima River and the Mula Mutha River), and possesses the characters diagnostic of G. wattanah (Table 4).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/4D4D87EEFFBCFFDC78B3FF3AFC49366F	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Ciccotto, Patrick J.;Page, Lawrence M.	Ciccotto, Patrick J., Page, Lawrence M. (2016): Revised diagnosis of the genus Gonorhynchus McClelland (Teleostei: Cyprinidae: Labeonini) with redescription of G. latius (Hamilton) and revalidation of G. wattanah (Sykes). Zootaxa 4127 (3): 471-492, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4127.3.4
4D4D87EEFFA3FFDF78B3FCCAFA10311B.text	4D4D87EEFFA3FFDF78B3FCCAFA10311B.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Gonorhynchus McClelland 1838	<div><p>Key to Species of the genus Gonorhynchus</p><p>A dichotomous key was constructed for Gonorhynchus based on data collected here and characters reported in Menon &amp; Jacob (1996) for G. periyarensis . Species distributions by river basin are provided in parentheses after species names.</p><p>1 Triangular rostral flaps present on tip of snout......................................... G. bicor nis (Salween River)</p><p>- Rostral flaps absent................................................................................... 2</p><p>2 Large specimens (&gt; 65 mm SL) with tubercles on snout and cheeks............................................. 3</p><p>- Large specimens without tubercles....................................................................... 4</p><p>3 15–17 rakers on first gill arch, tubercles only on cheeks and snout....................... G. periyarensis (Periyar River)</p><p>- 20–24 rakers on first gill arch, tubercles on head, occasionally extending onto humeral, breast, and predorsal regions.......................................................................... G. wattanah (Bhima and Godavari Rivers)</p><p>4 Thick midlateral stripe coloring entirety of midlateral scales and partially coloring scales above and below; dorsolateral spots, if present, form uniform reticulated pattern; crescent-shaped spot present on 5th–6th lateral-line scales and extending onto ante- rior halves of scales above and below................................ G. burmanicus (Irrawaddy and Salween Rivers)</p><p>- Thick midlateral stripe absent, although thin stripe (less than one scale wide) may be present; dorsolateral spots, if present, forming irregular patches, not uniform reticulated pattern; crescent-shaped spot occasionally present on 5th–6th lateral-line scale.................................................................................................... 5</p><p>5 Total lateral-line scales 40 (rarely 36–38); restricted to drainages of the Bay of Bengal................................................................... G. latius (Ganges, Brahmaputra, Meghna, Subarnarerkha, and Mahanadi Rivers)</p><p>- Total lateral-line scales 35–38; restricted to drainages of the Arabian Sea and the Gulf of Oman, and inland endorheic basins in Afghanistan and Iran .................................................................................. 6</p><p>6 Rostral fold without fringes....................................................... G. macmahoni (Dasht River)</p><p>- Rostral fold with fringes........ G. diplochilus (Indus, Sistan, and Helmand Rivers; coastal drainages of the Gulf of Oman)</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/4D4D87EEFFA3FFDF78B3FCCAFA10311B	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Ciccotto, Patrick J.;Page, Lawrence M.	Ciccotto, Patrick J., Page, Lawrence M. (2016): Revised diagnosis of the genus Gonorhynchus McClelland (Teleostei: Cyprinidae: Labeonini) with redescription of G. latius (Hamilton) and revalidation of G. wattanah (Sykes). Zootaxa 4127 (3): 471-492, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4127.3.4
