taxonID	type	description	language	source
03B187D4DF1EFF96FF4F624DFC06DE94.taxon	description	References to bars in the keys and subsequent text correspond to the dark brown or black vertical flank bars. The silvery-white alternating bars are referred to as interspaces. Several genera are identified by male colour pattern. The key is therefore designed to permit identification of nuptial adult males larger than 30 mm SL. This does not necessarily mean that smaller and younger males cannot be identified via the same characters, but it should be noted that some character states change with age and size of individuals. See Figure 1 for a two-way demonstration of character states against genera, with simplified cladograms provided by previous studies.	en	Freyhof, Jörg, Yoğurtçuoğlu, Baran (2020): A proposal for a new generic structure of the killifish family Aphaniidae, with the description of Aphaniops teimorii (Teleostei: Cyprinodontiformes). Zootaxa 4810 (3): 421-451, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4810.3.2
03B187D4DF1EFF96FF4F624DFC06DE94.taxon	discussion	Remarks. The generic concept for Aphaniidae suggested here is based on the criteria monophyly, morphological diagnosability, and reasonable compactness (Gill et al. 2005; Borkenhagen 2017). The proposed genera fulfil these criteria, because all of them are monophyletic groups that can be diagnosed by a combination of morphological characters (with few complications see below), and the genera each encompass one to 13 species, which are much more closely related to each other than to the species of another genus. The grouping of Aphaniidae into well-defined genera is based on phylogenies published by Hrbek et al. (2002) and Hrbek & Mayer (2003), who analysed the genes encoding the 12 S and 16 S ribosomal RNAs, several transfer RNAs, and complete NADH dehydrogenase subunits I and II. These comprehensive analyses are partly congruent with the COI-based studies by Geiger et al. (2014) and Esmaeili et al. (2020). Esmaeili et al. (2020) separated Aphaniops and Paraphanius and maintained all other species in Aphanius, but this approach fails to account for morphological characters and ignores the ambiguous phylogenetic position of Tellia (see Hrbek et al. 2002). Our concept of eight genera integrates morphological characters and the compactness of the monophyletic species groups in Aphaniidae, even if this concept is challenged by the poor diagnosability of the proposed genus Apricaphanius against Anatolichthys. Four of the eight aphaniid genera proposed in the present study are diagnosable by anatomical characters. Aphaniops possesses head canals (vs. absent in the other genera except Aphanius) and lacks a dermal sheath overlapping the base of the anterior anal-fin rays in the nuptial female (vs. present in other genera). Tellia does not possess head canals or a pelvic fin (vs. pelvic fin present in other genera). Kosswigichthys does not possess head canals and possesses three rows of conical teeth (vs. one row of tricuspid teeth in other genera). Aphanius possesses a pelvic fin, a dermal sheath at the anal-fin base, and head canals. The remaining genera Anatolichthys, Apricaphanius, Esmaeilius, and Paraphanius share the combination of possessing a single row of tricuspid teeth, a pelvic fin, a dermal sheath at the anal-fin base, and not possessing head canals. To keep these groups of species in a single genus (Anatolichthys) would violate the criterion of monophyly. Anatolichthys, Apricaphanius, Esmaeilius, Paraphanius can be distinguished from one another by colour pattern. This phenomenon is particularly pronounced in Paraphanius, which exhibits an unusually derived colour pattern (see discussion below). Anatolichthys, Apricaphanius, and Esmaeilius can in the main be distinguished by colour pattern, but three problematic species are discussed in detail below.	en	Freyhof, Jörg, Yoğurtçuoğlu, Baran (2020): A proposal for a new generic structure of the killifish family Aphaniidae, with the description of Aphaniops teimorii (Teleostei: Cyprinodontiformes). Zootaxa 4810 (3): 421-451, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4810.3.2
03B187D4DF18FF92FF4F60D5FC25DF1A.taxon	description	Figs. 2 – 3	en	Freyhof, Jörg, Yoğurtçuoğlu, Baran (2020): A proposal for a new generic structure of the killifish family Aphaniidae, with the description of Aphaniops teimorii (Teleostei: Cyprinodontiformes). Zootaxa 4810 (3): 421-451, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4810.3.2
03B187D4DF18FF92FF4F60D5FC25DF1A.taxon	type_taxon	Type species. Anatolichthys splendens Kosswig & Sözer 1945.	en	Freyhof, Jörg, Yoğurtçuoğlu, Baran (2020): A proposal for a new generic structure of the killifish family Aphaniidae, with the description of Aphaniops teimorii (Teleostei: Cyprinodontiformes). Zootaxa 4810 (3): 421-451, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4810.3.2
03B187D4DF18FF92FF4F60D5FC25DF1A.taxon	diagnosis	Diagnosis. Anatolichthys is distinguished from Kosswigichthys by possessing a single (vs. three) row of tricuspid (vs. conical) teeth and presence (vs. absence) of black or dark-brown bars in the caudal fin of the male. It is distinguished from the remaining genera in the family Aphaniidae by a combination of characters, none unique to the genus. Head canals absent (vs. present in Aphanius and Aphaniops); a dermal sheath at the anal-fin base in nuptial female present (vs. absent in Aphaniops); pelvic fin present (vs. absent in Tellia); black or dark-brown bars in the caudal fin of male present (vs. absent in Paraphanius); flank pattern in male comprising a series of black or brown bars (vs. small whitish or blue vertically-arranged spots or very narrow bars in Paraphanius); a bold, black spot at centre of the caudal-fin base in female present (vs. absent in Paraphanius); dorsal- and anal-fin margins black in male (vs. without black margins in Aphaniops, except A. sirhani, yellow in Tellia, only dorsal-fin margin black in Aphanius).	en	Freyhof, Jörg, Yoğurtçuoğlu, Baran (2020): A proposal for a new generic structure of the killifish family Aphaniidae, with the description of Aphaniops teimorii (Teleostei: Cyprinodontiformes). Zootaxa 4810 (3): 421-451, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4810.3.2
03B187D4DF18FF92FF4F60D5FC25DF1A.taxon	distribution	Distribution. Anatolichthys is widely distributed in inland waters of central and southwestern Anatolia as well as the southern Black Sea basin, where it is found in the Sakarya, Kızılırmak and Yeşilırmak River drainages (Fig. 4, Yoğurtçuoğlu & Ekmekçi 2017). Southern records from the Levant are discussed below.	en	Freyhof, Jörg, Yoğurtçuoğlu, Baran (2020): A proposal for a new generic structure of the killifish family Aphaniidae, with the description of Aphaniops teimorii (Teleostei: Cyprinodontiformes). Zootaxa 4810 (3): 421-451, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4810.3.2
03B187D4DF18FF92FF4F60D5FC25DF1A.taxon	discussion	Remarks. Anatolichthys splendens, only known from Lake Gölcük, has not been found since the 1980 s and is obviously extinct, following the stocking of the lake with alien fish species. Our unpublished COI data agree with Hrbek et al. (2002) in the placement of Anatolichthys close to Kosswigichthys, and the sister-genus relationship of Aphanius to these genera. With 13 member species, Anatolichthys is the richest genus in the family Aphaniidae, and there is significant diversity in body shape plus colour and scale patterns. In particular, the absence or reduction of scales in pelagic lacustrine species (A. transgrediens, A. saldae, A. splendens, and A. sureyanus) has been studied extensively (Ermin 1946, Grimm 1980, Villwock 1963), and they had been separated from Aphanius in the genera Anatolichthys and Turkichthys by earlier authors (Kosswig & Sözer 1945, Ermin 1946). Hrbek et al. (2002) found these pelagic species Anatolichthys and Turkichthys to be nested within a group of species previously identified as Aphanius anatoliae and A. danfordii. The most atypical Anatolichthys species is A. villwocki, which lacks the bold, black caudal-fin bars present in all congeners. This character state is shared with Esmaeilius sophiae, but Anatolichthys villwocki is clearly distinguished from all Esmaeilius species except E. isfahanensis by possessing a black (vs. white) dorsal-fin margin. Geiger et al. (2014) placed A. villwocki between A. danfordii, A. marassantensis and the other Anatolichthys species, whereas Hrbek et al. (2002) considered it as sister to A. meridionalis. The results of these studies suggest that the relatively high number of flank bars and the presence of rows of spots on the caudal-fin represent an apomorphic condition in A. villwocki, since it is not shared with A. danfordii, A. marassantensis or A. meridionalis. Due to its phylogenetic position within Anatolichthys, A. villwocki is not recognised as a distinct genus despite its higher number of flank bars and caudal-fin colour pattern. Pellegrin (1911, 1923) published records of Cyprinodon sophiae from the region of Damascus in Syria, and Bodenheimer (1935) and Tortonese (1938) found similar fishes elsewhere in Syria and Jordan. Krupp (1985) and JF searched for these fishes at some of these locations in the Barada River in Syria, and Suwaima in Jordan, but were unable to find them. Figures by Krupp (1985), depicting individuals collected in the 19 th century from Damascus, suggest that they belong to Anatolichthys due to the presence of two black caudal-fin bars and a black dorsal fin with hyaline base in the male. It is clearly not a species of Esmaeilius, which is found in the adjacent lower Tigris. Krupp (1985) discussed whether this species might represent an introduced population of A. marassantensis but subsequently rejected this hypothesis.	en	Freyhof, Jörg, Yoğurtçuoğlu, Baran (2020): A proposal for a new generic structure of the killifish family Aphaniidae, with the description of Aphaniops teimorii (Teleostei: Cyprinodontiformes). Zootaxa 4810 (3): 421-451, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4810.3.2
03B187D4DF18FF92FF4F60D5FC25DF1A.taxon	materials_examined	Material examined. Anatolichthys anatoliae: FSJF 2483, 15, 19 – 36 mm SL; IUSHM 2017 - 1280, 48, 10 – 30 mm SL; Turkey: Aksaray prov.: spring in Köşk Park within Sultanhanı, 38.2414 33.5458. — FSJF 2485, 38, 25 – 45 mm SL; IUSHM 2017 - 1282, 30, 21 – 40 mm SL; Turkey: Konya prov.: Meyil Lake, about 3 km southwest of Esentepe, 37.9861 33.3514. — FSJF 2527, 9, 21 – 30 mm SL; IUSHM 2017 - 1283, 25, 16 – 31 mm SL; Turkey: Konya prov.: stream north of Sarıyayla, draining to former Lake Samsam, 39.1189 32.7592. — FSJF 2610, 4, 21 – 38 mm SL; IUSHM 2017 - 1279, 21, 12 – 46 mm SL; Turkey: Konya prov.: stream at Gölyazı at road from Eskil to Cihanbeyli, 38.5526 33.2009. — FSJF 2514, 10, 16 – 26 mm SL; Turkey: Aksaray prov.: spring area at eastern shore of former Lake Büget in Esmekaya north of the first mosque, 38.2655 33.4427. — ZMH 3489, 10, 27 – 37 mm SL; Turkey: Niğde prov.: Niğde. — ZMH 3495, 28, 28 – 39 mm SL; Turkey: Konya prov.: stream 20 km north of Çumra. — ZMH 3490, 10, 34 – 45 mm SL, Turkey: Aksaray prov.: Aksaray. Anatolichthys danfordii: FSJF 2601, 16, 23 – 42 mm SL; IUSHM 2017 - 1276, 30, 16 – 45 mm SL; Turkey: Kayseri prov.: spring Soysallı west of Soysallı, west of Develi, 38.3902 35.3656. — ZMH 3473, 1, 29 mm SL; ZMH 3474, 1, 32 mm SL; ZMH 3475, 8, 19 – 27 mm SL; Turkey: Kayseri prov.: Çayırözü, about 15 km northwest of Develi, 38.4172 35.2894. — ZMH 3476, 21, 19 – 36 mm SL; Turkey: Kayseri prov.: Soysallı, 38.2014 35.3631. FSJF 2508, 2, 26 – 45 mm SL; Turkey: Kayseri prov.: Canal north of Senir at road to Sultansazlığı National Park, 38.2013 35.2525. — ZMH 3477, 33, 19 – 43 mm SL; ZMH 3478; 1, 40.1 mm SL; ZMH 3479, 1, 46 mm SL; Turkey: Kayseri prov.: Develi, Ilipınar. Anatolichthys fontinalis: FSJF 3456, 20, 22 – 38 mm SL; Turkey: Burdur prov.: spring in Lake Yarışlı basin, 37.5806 29.9472. — FSJF 3690, 23, 14 – 36 mm SL; Turkey: Burdur prov.: spring Karaevli, 2 km southeast of Burdur, 37.5797 30.4007. Anatolichthys iconii: FSJF 2325, 16, 25 – 32 mm SL; IUSHM 2017 - 1273, 10, 23 – 28 mm SL; Turkey: Isparta prov.: spring Karaot at shore of Lake Eğirdir, about 4 km north of Yenice village, 38.1349 30.9074. — FSJF 2476, 6, 28 – 39 mm SL; IUSHM 2017 - 1274, 13, 26 – 34 mm SL; Turkey: Isparta prov.: lower stream Çayköy at Koysazı bridge, southeast of Eğirdir, 37.8415 30.8916. — FSJF 2271, 16, 18 – 35 mm SL; IUSHM 2017 - 1281, 7, 19 – 32 mm SL; Turkey: Konya prov.: spring Eflatun Pınarı at Sadıkhacı, 37.8251 31.6743. Anatolichthys irregularis. FFR 08653, 1, 35 mm SL; FFR 08654, 14, 22 – 42 mm SL; FSJF 3460, 3, 29 – 31 mm SL; FSJF 3461, 10, 25 – 30 mm SL; Turkey: Denizli prov.: spring Kaklık, 37.8560 29.3852. Anatolichthys maeandricus: FSJF 1876, 37, 16 – 40 mm SL; FSJF 3027, 9, 27 – 40 mm SL; FSJF 3639, 39, 18 – 35 mm SL; IUSHM 2017 - 1278, 9, 28 – 41 mm SL; Turkey: Denizli prov.: Işıklı spring at Işıklı, 38.3214 29.8511. — FSJF 2470, 5, 26 – 38 mm SL; IUSHM 2017 - 1277, 3, 25 – 27 mm SL; Turkey: Afyonkarahisar prov.: spring Düden, 5 km east of Dinar, 38.0519 30.1756. Anatolichthys marassantensis: FSJF 3455, 29, 28 – 43 mm SL; Turkey: Ankara prov.: Hirfanlı Reservoir, 39.1525 33.6367. — FSJF 3733, 20, 18 – 35 mm SL; Turkey: Ankara prov.: Hirfanlı Reservoir at Geçitli, 39.1559 33.6327. — FSJF 3634, 66, 23 – 43 mm SL; Turkey: Kayseri prov.: Kapuzatan close to Kayseri, 38.7749 35.2083. — ZMH 3480, 86, 19 – 55 mm SL; ZMH 3484, 1, 33 mm SL; ZMH 3485, 1, 40 mm SL; Turkey: Kayseri prov.: Kayseri, Karpuzatan, 38.7736 35.4531. — ZMH 3482, 20, 17 – 35 mm SL; Turkey: Samsun prov.: Lake Balık about 12 km east of Bafra, 41.5792 36.0833. — ZMH 3481, 33, 18 – 28 mm SL; ZMH 26068, 18, 23 – 35 mm SL; Turkey: Kırşehir prov.: springs in Kırşehir. Anatolichthys meridionalis: FSJF 2460, 7, 21 – 36 mm SL; IUSHM 2017 - 1275, 22, 20 – 39 mm SL; Turkey: Antalya prov.: small field canal south of Kırkpınar, north of Kızılcadağ, 37.1392 29.9181. — FSJF 3669, 3, 27 – 29 mm SL; Turkey: Burdur prov.: reservoir south of Yeşilova, 37.4908 29.7433. — FSJF 3465, 14, 26 – 29 mm SL; Turkey: Antalya prov.: spring Kocapınar, 2 km northwest of Mursal, 36.6907 29.8023. — ZMH 3502, 17, 23 – 39 mm SL; Turkey: Lake Gölhisar. Anatolichthys saldae: ZMH 3507, 40, 32 – 38 mm SL; Turkey: Burdur prov.: Lake Salda, 37.5296 29.6567. Anatolichthys splendens: ZMH 3505, lectotype, 31 mm SL; ZMH 3506, 1, 38 mm SL; Turkey: Isparta prov.: Lake Gölcük. Anatolichthys sureyanus: ZMH 7850, 40, 16 – 34 mm SL; Turkey: Burdur prov.: shore of Lake Burdur at road from Burdur to Yeşilova. Anatolichthys transgrediens: ZMH 3509, 52, 23 – 33 mm SL; Turkey: Afyonkarahisar prov.: spring Akpınar at the south shore of Lake Acıgöl, 37.8172 29.9263. Anatolichthys villwocki: FSJF 2626, 4, 31 – 55 mm SL; IUSHM 2017 - 1285, 6, 24 – 48 mm SL; FSJF 3501, 17, 29 – 41 mm SL; Turkey: Afyonkarahisar prov.: spring about 11 km east of Emirdağ, 39.0481 31.3272. — FSJF 3091, 12, 20 – 35 mm SL; Turkey: Konya prov.: Lake Ilgın, 38.3208 31.8903. — FSJF 3741, 12, 20 – 35 mm SL; Turkey: Eskişehir prov.: spring Başkurt 20 km southeast of Çifteler, 39.2660 31.1463.	en	Freyhof, Jörg, Yoğurtçuoğlu, Baran (2020): A proposal for a new generic structure of the killifish family Aphaniidae, with the description of Aphaniops teimorii (Teleostei: Cyprinodontiformes). Zootaxa 4810 (3): 421-451, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4810.3.2
03B187D4DF1BFF9CFF4F661EFE37D8BE.taxon	description	Figs. 5 – 6	en	Freyhof, Jörg, Yoğurtçuoğlu, Baran (2020): A proposal for a new generic structure of the killifish family Aphaniidae, with the description of Aphaniops teimorii (Teleostei: Cyprinodontiformes). Zootaxa 4810 (3): 421-451, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4810.3.2
03B187D4DF1BFF9CFF4F661EFE37D8BE.taxon	type_taxon	Type species. Lebias dispar Rüppell 1829	en	Freyhof, Jörg, Yoğurtçuoğlu, Baran (2020): A proposal for a new generic structure of the killifish family Aphaniidae, with the description of Aphaniops teimorii (Teleostei: Cyprinodontiformes). Zootaxa 4810 (3): 421-451, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4810.3.2
03B187D4DF1BFF9CFF4F661EFE37D8BE.taxon	diagnosis	Diagnosis. Aphaniops is distinguished from other genera in the family Aphaniidae by absence of a dermal sheath at the anal-fin base in the nuptial female (vs. presence). It is further distinguished from Anatolichthys by presence of head canals (vs. absence), and absence of black dorsal- and anal-fin margins in the male in all species except A. sirhani (vs. presence).	en	Freyhof, Jörg, Yoğurtçuoğlu, Baran (2020): A proposal for a new generic structure of the killifish family Aphaniidae, with the description of Aphaniops teimorii (Teleostei: Cyprinodontiformes). Zootaxa 4810 (3): 421-451, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4810.3.2
03B187D4DF1BFF9CFF4F661EFE37D8BE.taxon	distribution	Distribution. Aphaniops occurs from the southeastern Mediterranean Sea basin in Egypt and Israel southwards to Somalia and eastwards to southwestern India including the Arabian Peninsula and the Gulf basin (Fig. 7).	en	Freyhof, Jörg, Yoğurtçuoğlu, Baran (2020): A proposal for a new generic structure of the killifish family Aphaniidae, with the description of Aphaniops teimorii (Teleostei: Cyprinodontiformes). Zootaxa 4810 (3): 421-451, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4810.3.2
03B187D4DF1BFF9CFF4F661EFE37D8BE.taxon	discussion	Remarks. We were unable to examine specimens of A. furcatus, and the description by Teimori et al. (2014) does not provide sufficient details to determine whether this species possesses the diagnostic characters of the genus. We follow Esmaeili et al. (2020) in including it in Aphaniops. As discussed by Hoedeman (1951), Aphaniops lacks the dermal sheath overlapping the base of the anterior anal-fin rays present in the nuptial females of other Aphaniids. Discrepancies in fin-ray counts between Aphaniops and Aphanius published by Hoedeman (1951) could not be confirmed by Villwock et al. (1983) or ourselves. Teimori et al. (2018 a) described an Aphaniops species from Hormozgan Province (Iran) as Aphanius hormuzensis. However, Article 16.4. of the International Code for Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN, 1999) states that the fixation of name-bearing types for a new species has to be explicit: “ Every new specific and subspecific name published after 1999, except a new replacement name …, must be accompanied in the original publication 16.4.1. by the explicit fixation of a holotype, … .. and 16.4.2. where the holotype or syntypes are extant specimens, by a statement of intent that they will be (or are) deposited in a collection and a statement indicating the name and location of that collection. ” That means that for species described after 1999 it has been obligatory to indicate the name and location of the collection and holotype (if extant) in new species descriptions. In the description of Aphanius hormuzensis, the authors designated “ ZM-FISBUK 157 “ as the holotype of this new species, without mentioning which collection ZM-FISBUK might be and where this collection is located. The holotype of A. hormuzensis is therefore invalid, because it does not fulfil the requirements of Article 16.4.2, and the name Aphanius hormuzensis Teimori, Esmaeili, Hamidan & Reichenbacher 2018 is not available following the rules of zoological nomenclature. The lead author of this study (JF) communicated this issue to Bettina Reichenbacher, one of the authors of the species description, in 2018 but it has not been resolved, hence the taxon is briefly re-described here as Aphaniops teimorii. Due to the limited availability of materials, the redescription is largely based on data presented by Teimori et al. (2018 a) in addition to our own materials.	en	Freyhof, Jörg, Yoğurtçuoğlu, Baran (2020): A proposal for a new generic structure of the killifish family Aphaniidae, with the description of Aphaniops teimorii (Teleostei: Cyprinodontiformes). Zootaxa 4810 (3): 421-451, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4810.3.2
03B187D4DF15FF9EFF4F624DFDD9DE62.taxon	description	Fig. 6	en	Freyhof, Jörg, Yoğurtçuoğlu, Baran (2020): A proposal for a new generic structure of the killifish family Aphaniidae, with the description of Aphaniops teimorii (Teleostei: Cyprinodontiformes). Zootaxa 4810 (3): 421-451, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4810.3.2
03B187D4DF15FF9EFF4F624DFDD9DE62.taxon	materials_examined	Holotype. ZFMK-ICH 122627, 33 mm SL; Iran: Hormozgan prov.: Govdar River near Kahoorestan, 27.1990 55.6390. Paratypes. FSJF 4021, 5, 31 – 35 mm SL; Iran: Hormozgan prov.: Hormalin River at Bastak, 27.1360 54.2667. FSJF 4100, 3, 26 – 39 mm SL; same data as holotype (captive-bred).	en	Freyhof, Jörg, Yoğurtçuoğlu, Baran (2020): A proposal for a new generic structure of the killifish family Aphaniidae, with the description of Aphaniops teimorii (Teleostei: Cyprinodontiformes). Zootaxa 4810 (3): 421-451, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4810.3.2
03B187D4DF15FF9EFF4F624DFDD9DE62.taxon	diagnosis	Diagnosis. Aphaniops teimorii is distinguished by a combination of non-unique characters. It is somewhat similar to A. ginaonis from Iran and A. kruppi from Oman in that males possess 12 – 17 brown bars on the flank, the anterior-most of which is located beneath the pectoral fin and the posterior-most on the caudal-fin base (vs. flank bars in males absent or restricted to the caudal peduncle in A. dispar, A. richardsoni and A. stoliczkanus). It is distinguished from A. kruppi by presence of a long narrow bar (vs. a diamond-shaped or vertically-elongate black or dark-brown blotch) at the caudal-fin base in females, and 12 – 17 (vs. 9 – 14) brown bars on the flank in the male. According to the molecular data presented by Teimori et al. (2018 a), A. teimorii is closely related to A. ginaonis, which is endemic to a single spring connected to a stream in which A. teimorii occurs (Reichenbacher et al. 2009 b). The two species exhibit the same colour pattern in both males and females, and possess 4 – 5 scale rows on the caudal-fin base. Aphaniops teimorii is distinguished from A. ginaonis by possessing 7 ½ – 8 ½ (vs. 5) branched dorsal-fin rays. Diagnostic otolith and osteological characters are provided by Teimori et al. (2018 a).	en	Freyhof, Jörg, Yoğurtçuoğlu, Baran (2020): A proposal for a new generic structure of the killifish family Aphaniidae, with the description of Aphaniops teimorii (Teleostei: Cyprinodontiformes). Zootaxa 4810 (3): 421-451, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4810.3.2
03B187D4DF15FF9EFF4F624DFDD9DE62.taxon	description	Description. See Figure 6 for general appearance. Dorsal head profile straight. Dorsal profile straight or slightly convex from nape to dorsal-fin origin. Ventral profile convex. Body deeper than wide, deepest at about dorsalfin origin and widest at pectoral-fin base or centre of belly in females. Lower jaw gently upturned, oriented about 45 ° to body axis. Caudal peduncle compressed laterally, its length 1.6 times in its depth in holotype, 1.5 – 1.6 times longer than deep. Pectoral fin rounded, reaching almost to or slightly beyond pelvic-fin base. Anal-fin origin below vertical through second or third branched dorsal-fin ray. Pelvic fin not reaching or reaching anus. One large scale present between pelvic-fin bases. Anus situated slightly anterior to anal-fin origin. Dorsal and anal fins roundish in females, tip of longest dorsal-fin ray reaching to a vertical through centre of posterior anal fin ray. Dorsal and anal fins elongated in males, posterior tip of dorsal fin reaching vertical of tip of anal fin or to a point slightly before. Caudal fin rounded to truncate. Largest individual examined 39 mm SL. Dorsal and anal fins with 7 ½ – 8 ½ branched rays. Caudal fin with 8 + 7 – 8 + 8 branched rays. Pectoral fin with 15 – 16 and pelvic fin with 7 – 8 rays. Trunk and head entirely scaled. Scales large and cycloid in females, with small ctenae in males. Scale above pectoral-fin origin enlarged. One scale row on upper portion of opercle. Flank with 24 – 26 scales along lateral series. 4 – 5 additional rows of small scales on anterior caudal-fin base. Teimori et al. (2018 a) counted 27 – 29 flank scales but did not describe the method used. Nine scale rows between dorsal- and pelvic-fin origins. 14 circumpeduncular scales. Teeth tricuspid, median tip longer than laterals. Colouration. See Figure 6 for general appearance. Live and preserved males: all yellow, orange, silvery and blue colours faded in preserved specimens. Lateral head and flank silvery to whitish with brown or dark-grey pattern of bars and blotches, dorsal head and back brown or dark-grey. Lower cheek, breast and belly whitish or pale yellow. Lateral head and flank with a bluish hue in life. Flank between pectoral-fin base and vertical through pelvicfin origin with a brown or yellowish-brown network pattern forming roundish silvery or pale-bluish blotches, often just a few silvery blotches on grey or brown background. Flank with 12 – 17 bars, confluent with brown or dark-grey back. Bars brown in life, black in preserved individuals. Interspaces silvery, narrower than bars. Pectoral fin hyaline or greyish-blue in life, blackish in preserved individuals. Pelvic fin hyaline or white. Anal fin hyaline or yellow in life, whitish in preserved individuals, greyish-blue or yellow anteriorly with 2 – 4 narrow black bars. Dorsal fin with irregularly set and shaped bands, often restricted to blotches on rays. Caudal fin hyaline with 2 wide, black bars. A pale grey or black blotch on unbranched caudal-fin rays at upper and lower extremities. Living and preserved females: top of head and back pale-brown. Cheek, ventral surface of head, belly and flank silvery-grey or pale-brown. Flank with a series of 12 – 17 narrow, vertically-elongate bars along lateral midline, bars anterior to vertical through dorsal-fin origin often faded. A narrow dark-brown or black bar at centre of caudal-fin base. All fins hyaline in life, grey in preserved individuals.	en	Freyhof, Jörg, Yoğurtçuoğlu, Baran (2020): A proposal for a new generic structure of the killifish family Aphaniidae, with the description of Aphaniops teimorii (Teleostei: Cyprinodontiformes). Zootaxa 4810 (3): 421-451, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4810.3.2
03B187D4DF15FF9EFF4F624DFDD9DE62.taxon	distribution	Distribution. Aphaniops teimorii has been collected from coastal rivers and streams between the Merhan and Minhab River drainages in southern Iran (Esmaeili et al. 2020) (Figure 7).	en	Freyhof, Jörg, Yoğurtçuoğlu, Baran (2020): A proposal for a new generic structure of the killifish family Aphaniidae, with the description of Aphaniops teimorii (Teleostei: Cyprinodontiformes). Zootaxa 4810 (3): 421-451, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4810.3.2
03B187D4DF15FF9EFF4F624DFDD9DE62.taxon	etymology	Etymology. Named for Azad Teimori (Kerman, Iran) for his many valuable contributions to the biology of Iranian killifishes. A noun in genitive, indeclinable.	en	Freyhof, Jörg, Yoğurtçuoğlu, Baran (2020): A proposal for a new generic structure of the killifish family Aphaniidae, with the description of Aphaniops teimorii (Teleostei: Cyprinodontiformes). Zootaxa 4810 (3): 421-451, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4810.3.2
03B187D4DF15FF9EFF4F624DFDD9DE62.taxon	materials_examined	Material examined. Aphaniops cf. dispar: FSJF 3487, 4, 32 – 43 mm SL; Israel: salt marshes at Atlit, 32.6919 34.9403. — FSJF 3636, 4, 40 – 45 mm SL; Eritrea: Shukoray River, 14.6202 40.3296. — FSJF DNA- 2599, 2, 35 – 36 mm SL; Egypt: el-Guna, Qesm Hurghada, 27.3886 33.6778. — TAUP 6318, 10, 27 – 37 mm SL; Egypt: En Mussa, Sinai, about 60 km inland. — ZMH 4379, 20, 28 – 38 mm SL; Egypt: creeks in Siwa Oasis. — ZMH 7549, 26, 21 – 44 mm SL; Egypt: Lakes in Wadi El-Raiyan about 65 km southwest of Faiyum. — ZMH 7548, 26, 22 – 56 mm SL; Egypt: Bitter Lake. — ZMH 7550, 2, 46 – 62 mm SL; ZMH 7551, 2, 45 – 46 mm SL; ZMH 7552, 2, 37 – 49 mm SL; ZMH 7553, 2, 44 – 47 mm SL; ZMH 7554, 2, 47 – 49 mm SL; ZMH 7555, 2, 36 – 55 mm SL; Egypt: Lake Timsah south of Ismailia. — ZMH 13176, 2, 51 – 54 mm SL; Egypt: Cairo. — ZMH 13177, 4, 27 – 41 mm SL; Egypt: Suez. — ZMH 4376, 14, 24 – 44 mm SL; Saudi Arabia: Sarso Island in Farasan Archipelago. — ZMH 13181, 4, 24 – 31 mm SL; ZMH 13206, 14, 22 – 37 mm SL; Yemen: Socotra. — ZMH 13183, 4, 46 – 49 mm SL; ZMH 13196, 1, 46 mm SL; Ethiopia: north-west of Harrar. Aphaniops ginaonis: FSJF 3274, 40, 16 – 36 mm SL; FSJF 3275, 37, 16 – 34 mm SL; Iran: spring Geno, 27.4411 56.3056. Aphaniops teimorii: FSJF 4021, 5, 31 – 35 mm SL; FSJF 3275, 37, 16 – 34 mm SL; Iran: Hormuzgan prov.: Hormalin river at Bastak, Mirahmad, 27.1360 54.2667. Aphaniops kruppi: ZFMK-ICH 103668, holotype, 46 mm SL; FSJF 3671, paratypes, 69, 21 – 51 mm SL; Oman: spring in Al Mudayrib, 22.6129 58.6752. FSJF 3537, 2, 26 – 32 mm SL; Oman: Wadi Bani Khalid at Sayh al Hayl, 22.5953 59.0869. — FSJF 4088, 25, 27 – 39 mm SL; Oman: Al Mudayrib, 22.6128 58.6675. — FSJF 4091, 10, 26 – 43 mm SL; Oman: Falaj in Bani Bu Ali, 22.0239 59.3179. — FSJF 4101, 50, 18 – 38 mm SL; Oman: Wadi Bani Khalid north of Muqal, 22.619 59.093. Aphaniops cf. kruppi: FSJF DNA- 2590, 4, 25 – 54 mm SL; Oman: stream Al Hoota below Al Hoota Cave, 23.0756 57.3583. Aphaniops richardsoni: ZMH 2407, 30, 30 – 45 mm SL; ZMH 4377, 30, 30 – 42 mm SL; ZMH 4378, 20, 18 – 43 mm SL; Israel: Ein Feshka. Aphaniops sirhani: FSJF 3672, 12, 23 – 44 mm SL; Jordan: Azraq Oasis, 31.8342 36.8201. Aphaniops stoliczkanus: FSJF 3532, 34, 27 – 44 mm SL; Oman: Wadi Fanja in Fanja, 23.4581 58.1069. — FSJF 3533, 19, 23 – 35 mm SL; Oman: Wadi northeast of Al Amarat, 23.5400 58.5208. — FSJF 3670, 16, 21 – 31 mm SL; India: Gujarat: Narara-Salt Pans at Vadinar, 22.4428 69.7174. — FSJF 3673, 2, 36 – 39 mm SL; Iran: Southern Sistan and Baluchistan prov.: Kajou River at Ghasr-Ghand, 26.2596 60.7464. — FSJF 4002, 6, 33 – 42 mm SL; Iraq: Shatt al Arab at Basra, 30.5395 47.8312. — FSJF DNA- 2600, 2, 35 – 38 mm SL; UAE: Khor Kalba, 25.0142 56.3614. — FSJF 4096, 14, 29 – 37 mm SL; Oman: Hatta pools, 24.7129 56.1862. — FSJF 4074, 30, 27 – 44 mm SL; Oman: Al Juwayf, 24.5491 56.1057. — FSJF 4082, 2, 32 – 34 mm SL; Oman: outflow of Ghubrat Tanuf Cave, 23.0718 57.3681. — FSJF 4087, 2, 28 – 30 mm SL; Oman: Wadi Kabbah about 3 km east of Saman, 22.9835 58.5943. — FSJF DNA- 2603, 2, 31 – 45 mm SL; Bahrain: Jirdab, 26.1000 50.6167. — ZMH 4374, 23, 19 – 39 mm SL; Pakistan: Salt Pans of Karachi and Hawks Bay. — ZMH 4373, 30, 21 – 41 mm SL; Iraq: south of Karbala (likely from Euphrates). — ZMH 4380, 4, 20 – 30 mm SL; Iraq: Al Fallűjah.	en	Freyhof, Jörg, Yoğurtçuoğlu, Baran (2020): A proposal for a new generic structure of the killifish family Aphaniidae, with the description of Aphaniops teimorii (Teleostei: Cyprinodontiformes). Zootaxa 4810 (3): 421-451, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4810.3.2
03B187D4DF10FF98FF4F60D5FAB2DB2E.taxon	description	Fig. 8	en	Freyhof, Jörg, Yoğurtçuoğlu, Baran (2020): A proposal for a new generic structure of the killifish family Aphaniidae, with the description of Aphaniops teimorii (Teleostei: Cyprinodontiformes). Zootaxa 4810 (3): 421-451, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4810.3.2
03B187D4DF10FF98FF4F60D5FAB2DB2E.taxon	type_taxon	Type species. Aphanius nanus Nardo 1827 is the type species of Aphanius, but is a synonym of A. fasciatus (Kottelat et al. 2007). Micromugil timidus Gulia 1861, also a synonym of Aphanius fasciatus, is the type species of Micromugil Gulia, 1861.	en	Freyhof, Jörg, Yoğurtçuoğlu, Baran (2020): A proposal for a new generic structure of the killifish family Aphaniidae, with the description of Aphaniops teimorii (Teleostei: Cyprinodontiformes). Zootaxa 4810 (3): 421-451, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4810.3.2
03B187D4DF10FF98FF4F60D5FAB2DB2E.taxon	diagnosis	Diagnosis. Aphanius is distinguished from other genera in the family Aphaniidae by the unique male colour pattern, comprising a pale to deep yellow or orange caudal fin, well distinct from silvery interspaces between grey or brown flank bars. Although the caudal fin can also be yellow in some Anatolichthys species, particularly A. iconii, the interspaces of the flank bars are the same colour as the caudal fin. Aphanius is further distinguished by presence of a dermal sheath at the anal-fin base in the nuptial female (vs. absence in Aphaniops); presence of a black dorsalfin margin in the male (vs. absence in all Aphaniops except A. sirhani); and presence of head canals (vs. absence in Anatolichtys).	en	Freyhof, Jörg, Yoğurtçuoğlu, Baran (2020): A proposal for a new generic structure of the killifish family Aphaniidae, with the description of Aphaniops teimorii (Teleostei: Cyprinodontiformes). Zootaxa 4810 (3): 421-451, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4810.3.2
03B187D4DF10FF98FF4F60D5FAB2DB2E.taxon	distribution	Distribution. The genus Aphanius is widespread in coastal lagoons and estuaries of the Mediterranean Sea basin (Fig. 9), where it is only absent from southern France (extirpated), Spain (introduced) and Morocco west of the Moulouya River estuary (Valdesalici et al. 2019).	en	Freyhof, Jörg, Yoğurtçuoğlu, Baran (2020): A proposal for a new generic structure of the killifish family Aphaniidae, with the description of Aphaniops teimorii (Teleostei: Cyprinodontiformes). Zootaxa 4810 (3): 421-451, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4810.3.2
03B187D4DF10FF98FF4F60D5FAB2DB2E.taxon	discussion	Remarks. Aphanius almiriensis and A. fasciatus are superficially very similar and difficult to identify in the field. Kottelat et al. (2007) and Valdesalici et al. (2019) discussed the characters distinguishing these two species in detail. Cavraro et al. (2017) documented the existence of intraspecific genetic diversity between different populations of A. fasciatus. These differences are clearly intraspecific and specimens we examined could not be distinguished morphologically.	en	Freyhof, Jörg, Yoğurtçuoğlu, Baran (2020): A proposal for a new generic structure of the killifish family Aphaniidae, with the description of Aphaniops teimorii (Teleostei: Cyprinodontiformes). Zootaxa 4810 (3): 421-451, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4810.3.2
03B187D4DF10FF98FF4F60D5FAB2DB2E.taxon	materials_examined	Material examined. Aphanius almiriensis: FSJF 3738, 23, 18 – 40 mm SL; Turkey: Çanakkale prov.: estuary of Tuzla River, 39.5693 26.1695. Aphanius fasciatus: FSJF 153, 3, 18 – 28 mm SL; Italy: Sardinia, Brackish lagoon north of Arbarax, 39.9500 09.6833. — FSJF 209, 6, 11 – 29 mm SL; Italy: Sardinia, Brackish lagoon at Cagliari, 39.2667 09.0333. — FSJF 2141, 32, 13 – 28 mm SL; Italy: Laguna di Comacchio, southeast of Comacchio, 44.6612 12.1847. — FSJF 2149, 40, 18 – 48 mm SL; Italy: Laguna Veneto, at road to Chioggia, 45.2150 12.2250. — FSJF 3012, 50, 15 – 47 mm SL; Tunisia: Oued Zahzah two km south of Bechechema, 35.8230 10.16112. — FSJF 3278, 30, 17 – 33 mm SL; Algeria: Lake at Meggarine, 33.2050 06.0992. — FSJF 4038, 2, 27 – 35 mm SL; Croatia: Lagoon in the city of Pag, 44.4397 15.0558.	en	Freyhof, Jörg, Yoğurtçuoğlu, Baran (2020): A proposal for a new generic structure of the killifish family Aphaniidae, with the description of Aphaniops teimorii (Teleostei: Cyprinodontiformes). Zootaxa 4810 (3): 421-451, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4810.3.2
03B187D4DF11FF9BFF4F662CFE72DB73.taxon	description	Fig. 10	en	Freyhof, Jörg, Yoğurtçuoğlu, Baran (2020): A proposal for a new generic structure of the killifish family Aphaniidae, with the description of Aphaniops teimorii (Teleostei: Cyprinodontiformes). Zootaxa 4810 (3): 421-451, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4810.3.2
03B187D4DF11FF9BFF4F662CFE72DB73.taxon	type_taxon	Type species. Kosswigichthys asquamatus Sözer 1942	en	Freyhof, Jörg, Yoğurtçuoğlu, Baran (2020): A proposal for a new generic structure of the killifish family Aphaniidae, with the description of Aphaniops teimorii (Teleostei: Cyprinodontiformes). Zootaxa 4810 (3): 421-451, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4810.3.2
03B187D4DF11FF9BFF4F662CFE72DB73.taxon	diagnosis	Diagnosis. Kosswigichthys is distinguished from all other genera in the family Aphaniidae by possessing three (vs. one) rows of conical (vs. tricuspid) teeth. It is further distinguished from Anatolichthys, Aphanius, and Aphaniops by absence of black or dark-brown bars in the caudal fin of the male (vs. presence, except in Aphaniops furcatus), possession of a hyaline caudal fin in the male (vs. yellow or orange in Aphanius), absence of head canals (vs. presence in Aphanius and Aphaniops), presence of a dermal sheath at the anal-fin base in the nuptial female (vs. absence in Aphaniops), and possession of a naked body (vs. covered by scales in Aphanius).	en	Freyhof, Jörg, Yoğurtçuoğlu, Baran (2020): A proposal for a new generic structure of the killifish family Aphaniidae, with the description of Aphaniops teimorii (Teleostei: Cyprinodontiformes). Zootaxa 4810 (3): 421-451, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4810.3.2
03B187D4DF11FF9BFF4F662CFE72DB73.taxon	distribution	Distribution. Kosswigichthys is endemic to Lake Hazar in Eastern Turkey (Fig. 4).	en	Freyhof, Jörg, Yoğurtçuoğlu, Baran (2020): A proposal for a new generic structure of the killifish family Aphaniidae, with the description of Aphaniops teimorii (Teleostei: Cyprinodontiformes). Zootaxa 4810 (3): 421-451, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4810.3.2
03B187D4DF11FF9BFF4F662CFE72DB73.taxon	discussion	Remarks. The phylogenetic analysis by Hrbek et al. (2002) and our own unpublished COI data place K. asquamatus as the sister clade to Anatolichthys. The morphological differences between Kosswigichthys and Anatolichthys are very clear, and might be related to the specialised pelagic ecology of K. asquamatus. The slender body shape and lack of scales are comparable to the pelagic Anatolichthys species A. saldae and A. splendens, but in contrast K. asquamatus has conical teeth, no bars on the caudal fin in males, and a slightly upturned (vs. distinctly superior) lower jaw. As in the case of the sympatric loach Oxynoemacheilus hazerensis, K. asquamatus seems to be a relict species in the ancient rift lake Hazar (Freyhof et al. 2019).	en	Freyhof, Jörg, Yoğurtçuoğlu, Baran (2020): A proposal for a new generic structure of the killifish family Aphaniidae, with the description of Aphaniops teimorii (Teleostei: Cyprinodontiformes). Zootaxa 4810 (3): 421-451, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4810.3.2
03B187D4DF11FF9BFF4F662CFE72DB73.taxon	materials_examined	Material examined. Kosswigichthys asquamatus: FSJF 2511, 30, 25 – 36 mm SL; Turkey: Elazığ prov.: north-eastern shore of Lake Hazar, 38.4733 39.3016.	en	Freyhof, Jörg, Yoğurtçuoğlu, Baran (2020): A proposal for a new generic structure of the killifish family Aphaniidae, with the description of Aphaniops teimorii (Teleostei: Cyprinodontiformes). Zootaxa 4810 (3): 421-451, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4810.3.2
03B187D4DF12FF87FF4F6635FBDBD89A.taxon	description	Fig. 11	en	Freyhof, Jörg, Yoğurtçuoğlu, Baran (2020): A proposal for a new generic structure of the killifish family Aphaniidae, with the description of Aphaniops teimorii (Teleostei: Cyprinodontiformes). Zootaxa 4810 (3): 421-451, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4810.3.2
03B187D4DF12FF87FF4F6635FBDBD89A.taxon	type_taxon	Type species. Lebias mento Heckel, 1843	en	Freyhof, Jörg, Yoğurtçuoğlu, Baran (2020): A proposal for a new generic structure of the killifish family Aphaniidae, with the description of Aphaniops teimorii (Teleostei: Cyprinodontiformes). Zootaxa 4810 (3): 421-451, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4810.3.2
03B187D4DF12FF87FF4F6635FBDBD89A.taxon	diagnosis	Diagnosis. Paraphanius is distinguished from all other genera in the family Aphaniidae by the unique nuptial male colour pattern, comprising a dark grey, bluish or almost black background colour with irregular or regular iridescent bluish, white or silvery spots, often arranged in vertical rows or narrow bars (vs. background colour silvery with brown or black bars in Anatolichthys, Aphanius, Kosswigichthys and most Aphaniops species, males with silvery vermiculation or roundish to ovoid silvery spots or blotches on grey background in other Aphaniops species). Male Paraphanius are further distinguished by absence of bars in the caudal fin and instead possess very narrow, blue-white or silvery rows of spots or small blotches forming bands on a grey, black or blue background (vs. bars presence in caudal fin of Anatolichthys, Aphanius, and all Aphaniops except A. furcatus). Female Paraphanius are distinguished from other Aphaniid genera by presence of numerous silvery spots or small blotches on the flank (vs. absence, usually with narrow bars or brown or black blotches or spots) and absence of a bar or diamond-shaped to roundish bold black blotch at the centre of the caudal-fin base (vs. presence in Anatolichthys, Aphaniops, and Aphanius). Paraphanius is further distinguished by presence of a dermal sheath at the anal-fin base in the nuptial female (vs. absence in Aphaniops), absence of head canals (vs. presence in Aphaniops and Aphanius), and absence of black dorsal- and anal-fin margins in the male (vs. presence in Anatolichthys and Kosswigichthys, presence of black dorsal-fin margin only in Aphanius), possession of a single row of tricuspid teeth (vs. three rows of conical teeth in Kosswigichthys), and the body being completely covered by scales (vs. naked in Kosswigichthys).	en	Freyhof, Jörg, Yoğurtçuoğlu, Baran (2020): A proposal for a new generic structure of the killifish family Aphaniidae, with the description of Aphaniops teimorii (Teleostei: Cyprinodontiformes). Zootaxa 4810 (3): 421-451, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4810.3.2
03B187D4DF12FF87FF4F6635FBDBD89A.taxon	distribution	Distribution. Paraphanius species are widespread from Antalya to the Seyhan, Ceyhan and Orontes drainages on the Mediterranean coast of Turkey (Kara et al. 2010, Erk’akan & Özdemir 2011, Wildekamp et al. 1999), and southwards to the northern Dead Sea basin in the Levant. Paraphanius is also widespread in the Tigris and Euphrates river drainages from northern Syria to the Iraqi Marshes (Krupp 1985). A translocated population of P. mentoides inhabits the crater lake Nemrut in eastern Turkey, and some landlocked populations exist in central Turkey (Geiger et al. 2014) (Fig. 12).	en	Freyhof, Jörg, Yoğurtçuoğlu, Baran (2020): A proposal for a new generic structure of the killifish family Aphaniidae, with the description of Aphaniops teimorii (Teleostei: Cyprinodontiformes). Zootaxa 4810 (3): 421-451, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4810.3.2
03B187D4DF12FF87FF4F6635FBDBD89A.taxon	discussion	Remarks. The colour pattern of Paraphanius species is clearly distinct from that exhibited by other Aphaniids, which typically comprises a series of bars on a silvery background. This pattern could be interpreted as being a reverse (silvery bars on brown background in Paraphanius vs. brown bars on a silvery background) of the situation found in other aphaniid genera. These bars can be partly (in some Aphaniops and Apricaphanius species) or completely (in some Aphaniops spp. and Apricaphanius saourensis) dissociated into spots or a vermiculate flank pattern. In juvenile individuals the flank is silvery with a brown mottled pattern in all Aphaniids analysed for this character (A. anatoliae, A. irregularis, A. maeandricus, A. marassantensis, A. meridionalis, A. villwocki, A. fasciatus, A. dispar, A. kruppi, A. stoliczkanus, P. mento, P. mentoides, P. orontis, P. similis, P. striptus. T. apoda, A. baeticus, A. saourensis, E. sophiae, E. isfahanensis, E. persicus, and E. vladykovi). As they grow, male Paraphanius develop indistinct dark-brown bars with pale brown interspaces, which are often only visible in live individuals with aggressive mood. The brown bars later become wider, often partly confluent to each other, and silvery spots appear in the interspaces, which often form narrow bars. Paraphanius striptus is a valid species, and the only member of the genus to maintain a distinct pattern of wide dark-bluish bars with narrow silvery interspaces throughout ontogeny. In other Paraphanius species, the development of silvery spots is not restricted to males and or interspaces between the flank bars, and some species, particularly P. alexandri and P. mentoides, develop minute silvery spots over the entire flank which entirely mask the barred pattern. The silvery spots may be organised in vertical rows or narrow bars in juvenile individuals, but these typically dissociate in adults except in P. mentoides, P. striptus, and some populations of P. mento. This pattern of ontogenetic development clearly demonstrates that the flank pattern of silvery bars or spots on a dark background exhibited by Paraphanius species is not a reverse condition of that seen in other Aphaniids. In reality, the dark-grey, brown or black bars are so wide that the silvery interspaces appear to form bars, or they become confluent, with the silvery spots formed by small gaps in the dark pigmentation. Comparable colour patterns are exhibited by Anatolichthys irregularis (Fig. 3), in which the adult male appear black with a pattern of yellowish blotches (Yoğurtçuoğlu & Freyhof 2018), and some male Apricaphanius which appear blackish with whitish spots. The distribution map of Paraphanius species (Fig. 11) suggests that P. mento is geographically separated from P. striptus (Fig. 12). However, Goren (1974) suggested that both species occur in Israel, and in some cases occur in sympatry. This situation has not been revisited, because we did not possess sufficient material to confirm the occurrence of P. mento in the Jordan River drainage within the framework of this study. Esmaeili et al. (2020) clearly based their diagnosis of Paraphanius on Parenti (1981), because they examined only two juvenile individuals (24, 27 mm SL) from Beirut (Lebanon). Parenti (1981) examined eight individuals, but it remains unclear of which species because her specimens originated from the aquarium trade. In AMNH I- 28610 there are three cleared and stained individuals, and we expect that the published osteological characters were based only on these specimens. Parenti (1981) stated that P. mento possesses an upturned lower jaw (vs. not upturned in other Aphaniid species). However, there exists a wide variation in mouth morphology throughout the family, particularly among Paraphanius and Anatolichthys species, rendering this character unsuitable for diagnosis of Aphaniid genera. Esmaeili et al. (2020) distinguished Paraphanius from Aphaniops by possession of 9 – 14 (vs. 8 – 9) dorsal-fin rays. However, Villwock et al. (1983) counted 8 – 12 dorsal-fin rays in Aphaniops, while Akşiray (1948) counted 7 – 11 branched dorsal-fin rays in some Turkish Paraphanius species. The large overlap in dorsal-fin ray counts indicate that this character cannot be used to distinguish these genera. Parenti (1981) stated that P. mento possesses a unique pattern of neuromasts on the head, but we did not find it distinctive from other Aphaniids lacking head canals. Parenti (1981) also stated: “ In A. mento, as well as in Orestias, Kosswigichthys, and Anatolichthys, the interhyal is cartilaginous and the urohyal is embedded …. ”. Esmaeili et al. (2020), who treated Kosswigichthys and Anatolichthys as synonyms of Aphanius, misinterpreted this information when they wrote: “ Also, according to Parenti [1981], Aphanius mento possesses several diagnostic features not found in other members of the genus Aphanius, including a cartilaginous interhyal (ossified in other Aphanius species), an embedded urohyal (not embedded in other Aphanius), … ”. However, Parenti (1981) clearly confirmed that she examined Paraphanius mento, Kosswigichthys asquamatus, Anatolichthys transgrediens and A. splendens, and that all share these two osteological characters. Teimori et al. (2018 b) examined the urohyal bone in several aphaniid species and found Paraphanius to be nested within Aphaniops in a cladogram, but mention that Paraphanius mento can be distinguished from the studied Aphaniops species by morphometry of the urohyal bone. More research is needed to verify if the urohyal bone in Paraphanius is a unique shape. Esmaeili et al. (2020) additionally distinguished Paraphanius by certain otolith characters and a thin or less developed epural (vs. thick and well developed in Aphanius and Aphaniops) but give no details, which species were examined and how variable this character is. Esmaeili et al. (2020) only examined two juvenile Paraphanius. We recommend that these characters should be re-examined using a larger series of material. While we fully support the conclusion of Esmaeili et al. (2020) to treat Paraphanius as a distinct genus, the only definitive diagnostic characters confirmed during the present study were elements of the unique colour pattern.	en	Freyhof, Jörg, Yoğurtçuoğlu, Baran (2020): A proposal for a new generic structure of the killifish family Aphaniidae, with the description of Aphaniops teimorii (Teleostei: Cyprinodontiformes). Zootaxa 4810 (3): 421-451, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4810.3.2
03B187D4DF12FF87FF4F6635FBDBD89A.taxon	materials_examined	Material examined. Paraphanius alexandri: FSJF 2318, 21, 22 – 33 mm SL; Turkey: Hatay prov.: stream Arsuz east of Arsuz, 36.3992 35.8860. — FSJF 2605, 12, 34 – 46 mm SL; Turkey: Kahramanmaraş prov.: spring Çöçelli north of Çöçelli, south of Kahramanmaraş, 37.2812 37.1248. — FSJF 3464, 13, 22 – 39 mm SL; Turkey: Kahramanmaraş prov.: Elbistan, 38.1831 37.2194. Paraphanius boulengeri: FSJF 2506, 12, 24 – 37 mm SL; FSJF 3737, 3, 32 – 39 mm SL; Turkey: Adıyaman prov.: River connecting lakes Gölbaşı and Azaplı south of Gölbaşı, 37.7903 37.6263. Paraphanius mento: NMW 59832, 5 35 – 40 mm SL; Iraq: Mossul. — FSJF 2650, 57, 16 – 52 mm SL; Syria: spring of stream Barada north-west of Damascus, 33.6753 36.0555. — FSJF 2689, 17, 29 – 44 mm SL; Syria: spring Al Fawwar, 33.2332 35.9248. — FSJF 2701, 21, 27 – 46 mm SL; Syria: Nahr al Tammasiyyar near Magsoofa, 33.2935 35.9707. — FSJF 2657, 8, 22 – 32 mm SL; Syria: River Orontes at Shayzar, 35.2716 36.5628. — FSJF 2659, 2, 31 – 43 mm SL; Syria: spring south of Qala’ at al Jarras, 35.3303 36.3106. — FSJF 2683, 16, 21 – 36 mm SL; Syria: River Orontes at Mashr’a al Bouz, 35.9508 36.3958. — FSJF 2691, 14, 22 – 34 mm SL; Syria: Reservoir of Nahr al Hawaiz, 35.3419 36.0156. — FSJF 2758, 54, 16 – 40 mm SL; Syria: River Orontes at Al Ghassaniyya, 34.5938 36.5336. — FSJF 4001, 2, 31 – 32 mm SL; Iraq: Shatt al Arab at Basra, 30.5395 47.832. Paraphanius mentoides: FSJF 2270, 39, 26 – 61 mm SL; Turkey: Antalya prov.: spring Kırkgöz, 37.1098 30.5805. — FSJF 3108, 7, 35 – 42 mm SL; Turkey: Antalya prov.: stream at Döşemealtı, 37.0239 30.5918. — FSJF 3678, 26, 28 – 66 mm SL; Turkey: Bitlis prov.: Nemrut Lake, 38.6444 42.2367. Paraphanius orontis: FSJF 2431, 9, 18 – 29 mm SL; Turkey: Hatay prov.: River Orontes at Sinanlı, 36.0974 36.0785. — FSJF 3490, 40, 25 – 37 mm SL; Turkey: Antalya prov.: Titreyengöl, 36.7524 31.4516. Paraphanius similis: FSJF 3126, 14, 29 – 37 mm SL; Turkey: Konya prov.: Shallow pool east of Ereğli, 37.5390 34.0865. — FSJF 2434, 9, 15 – 24 mm SL; Turkey: Adana prov.: Seyhan below water regulation doors at Yüreyir, south of Adana, 36.9754 35.3354. — FSJF 4012, 5, 26 – 30 mm SL; Turkey: Niğde prov.: spring in Zengen, 37.8299 34.2499. Paraphanius striptus: FSJF 2680, 1, 22 mm SL; Syria: Canal draining from spring at Al Asha’ari, 32.7389 36.0092. — FSJF 3495, 62, 19 – 31 mm SL; Israel: Einot Timsach east of Ma’agan Micha’el, 32.5510 34.9239. — FSJF 3529, 42, 23 – 36 mm SL; Israel: Nachal HaKibbutzim, 32.5031 35.5247.	en	Freyhof, Jörg, Yoğurtçuoğlu, Baran (2020): A proposal for a new generic structure of the killifish family Aphaniidae, with the description of Aphaniops teimorii (Teleostei: Cyprinodontiformes). Zootaxa 4810 (3): 421-451, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4810.3.2
03B187D4DF0EFF86FF4F6191FF32DE49.taxon	description	Fig. 13	en	Freyhof, Jörg, Yoğurtçuoğlu, Baran (2020): A proposal for a new generic structure of the killifish family Aphaniidae, with the description of Aphaniops teimorii (Teleostei: Cyprinodontiformes). Zootaxa 4810 (3): 421-451, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4810.3.2
03B187D4DF0EFF86FF4F6191FF32DE49.taxon	type_taxon	Type species. Tellia apoda Gervais 1853	en	Freyhof, Jörg, Yoğurtçuoğlu, Baran (2020): A proposal for a new generic structure of the killifish family Aphaniidae, with the description of Aphaniops teimorii (Teleostei: Cyprinodontiformes). Zootaxa 4810 (3): 421-451, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4810.3.2
03B187D4DF0EFF86FF4F6191FF32DE49.taxon	diagnosis	Diagnosis. Tellia is distinguished from all other genera in the family Aphaniidae by absence (vs. presence) of the pelvic fin. It is further distinguished by presence of a wide, black sub-marginal bar bordered by a yellow marginal band in the anal, dorsal and caudal fins of the male (vs. 0 – 14 bars or bands in the caudal fin, no distinct yellow margin in anal, dorsal and caudal fins, caudal fin entirely yellow in Aphanius species), plus a combination of non-unique characters as follows: head canals absent (vs. present in Aphaniops and Aphanius); dermal sheath at the anal-fin base in the nuptial female present (vs. absent in Aphaniops); flank pattern in the male comprising a series of black or brown bars (vs. small whitish or blue spots, arranged in vertical series or very narrow bars in Paraphanius); a bold, black spot at centre of the caudal-fin base in the female present (vs. absent in Paraphanius).	en	Freyhof, Jörg, Yoğurtçuoğlu, Baran (2020): A proposal for a new generic structure of the killifish family Aphaniidae, with the description of Aphaniops teimorii (Teleostei: Cyprinodontiformes). Zootaxa 4810 (3): 421-451, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4810.3.2
03B187D4DF0EFF86FF4F6191FF32DE49.taxon	distribution	Distribution. Tellia is restricted to northern Algeria (Pellegrin 1921) (Fig. 14) but only a captive population originating from a single collection by Van Der Zee & Vonk (1991) remains. Despite intensive field work, no additional populations have been found and this species appears to be extinct in the wild.	en	Freyhof, Jörg, Yoğurtçuoğlu, Baran (2020): A proposal for a new generic structure of the killifish family Aphaniidae, with the description of Aphaniops teimorii (Teleostei: Cyprinodontiformes). Zootaxa 4810 (3): 421-451, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4810.3.2
03B187D4DF0EFF86FF4F6191FF32DE49.taxon	discussion	Remarks. Tellia is clearly diagnosed by absence of the pelvic fin as well as by a unique nuptial male colour pattern. Hoedeman (1951) synonymised Tellia with Aphanius, because absence of pelvic fins seems not to be enough for an own genus. We support this view, since the pelvic fin is occasionally absent in individuals, but never entire populations, belonging to other genera, particularly Apricaphanius and Anatolichthys. In addition, molecular data presented by Hrbek et al. (2002) and Geiger et al. (2014) as well as the unique colour pattern of male Tellia strongly support its recognition as a distinct genus. Hrbek et al. (2002) and Esmaeili et al. (2020) discussed the phylogenetic position of Tellia and suggested it to be the sister of all Aphaniid genera except Aphaniops and Paraphanius. However, Hrbek et al. (2002) and Geiger et al. (2014) alternatively recovered Tellia as the sister taxon to all other Aphaniid species. There were no statistical differences between these contrasting placements (Hrbek et al. 2002), therefore further research is required to resolve the phylogenetic position of Tellia within Aphaniidae.	en	Freyhof, Jörg, Yoğurtçuoğlu, Baran (2020): A proposal for a new generic structure of the killifish family Aphaniidae, with the description of Aphaniops teimorii (Teleostei: Cyprinodontiformes). Zootaxa 4810 (3): 421-451, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4810.3.2
03B187D4DF0EFF86FF4F6191FF32DE49.taxon	materials_examined	Material examined. Tellia apoda: FSJF 3462, 21, 26 – 44 mm SL; Algeria: stream south of Ain M’Lila, east of Fourchi, 36.0000 6.5667.	en	Freyhof, Jörg, Yoğurtçuoğlu, Baran (2020): A proposal for a new generic structure of the killifish family Aphaniidae, with the description of Aphaniops teimorii (Teleostei: Cyprinodontiformes). Zootaxa 4810 (3): 421-451, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4810.3.2
03B187D4DF08FF80FF4F60D5FE6DDF66.taxon	description	Fig. 15	en	Freyhof, Jörg, Yoğurtçuoğlu, Baran (2020): A proposal for a new generic structure of the killifish family Aphaniidae, with the description of Aphaniops teimorii (Teleostei: Cyprinodontiformes). Zootaxa 4810 (3): 421-451, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4810.3.2
03B187D4DF08FF80FF4F60D5FE6DDF66.taxon	type_taxon	Type species. Lebias iberus Valenciennes in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1846.	en	Freyhof, Jörg, Yoğurtçuoğlu, Baran (2020): A proposal for a new generic structure of the killifish family Aphaniidae, with the description of Aphaniops teimorii (Teleostei: Cyprinodontiformes). Zootaxa 4810 (3): 421-451, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4810.3.2
03B187D4DF08FF80FF4F60D5FE6DDF66.taxon	diagnosis	Diagnosis. Apricaphanius is superficially similar to Anatolichthys, from which it is distinguished by having a narrow, black dorsal-fin margin (vs. wide black margin in Anatolichthys) followed by a narrow or wide white or hyaline sub-marginal band in nuptial males. Nuptial male Anatolichthys never have a white sub-marginal band in the dorsal fin. In the male Anatolichthys the dorsal fin is completely black or it has a wide greyish or black margin, followed by a white proximal band (A. iconii) or by a proximal row of white spots or blotches distinctly or slightly above the dorsal-fin base, or by a hyaline field with single or rows of brown spots. Furthermore, male Apricaphanius are diagnosed by the absence of flank bars (in A. saourensis) or possession of 14 – 22 irregular, usually vertically split, flank bars, overlaid with numerous minute whitish spots in the adult male (vs. 5 – 13 regular flank bars, except A. villwockii, and not overlaid by spots in all species except A. irregularis). Apricaphanius is distinguished from the remaining genera in the family Aphaniidae by the following combination of non-unique characters: head canals absent (vs. present in Aphanius and Aphaniops); dermal sheath at the anal-fin base in the nuptial female present (vs. absent in Aphaniops); possession of a single row of tricuspid teeth (vs. three rows of conical teeth in Kosswigichthys); body covered by scales (vs. naked in Kosswigichthys); pelvic fin present (vs. absent in Tellia); black or dark-brown bars in the caudal fin of the male present, rarely absent in A. saourensis (vs. absent in Paraphanius); flank pattern in the male comprising a series of black or brown bars or intricate silvery vermiculation (vs. small whitish or blue sports arranged in vertical series or very narrow bars in Paraphanius); a bold, black spot at the centre of the caudal-fin base in the female present (vs. absent in Paraphanius); dorsal- and anal-fin margins in the male black (vs. without black margins in Aphaniops, yellow in Tellia, only dorsal-fin margin black in Aphanius); background colour of caudal fin identical to interspaces between flank bars (vs. caudal fin pale or deep yellow or orange, distinct from silvery interspaces between flank bars in Aphanius).	en	Freyhof, Jörg, Yoğurtçuoğlu, Baran (2020): A proposal for a new generic structure of the killifish family Aphaniidae, with the description of Aphaniops teimorii (Teleostei: Cyprinodontiformes). Zootaxa 4810 (3): 421-451, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4810.3.2
03B187D4DF08FF80FF4F60D5FE6DDF66.taxon	distribution	Distribution. Apricaphanius species are distributed along the coastline of the Iberian Peninsula from the southern Atlantic slope of Spain (lower Guadalquivir region) to Catalonia, plus the Oued Saoura basin in northwestern Algeria (Blanco et al. 2006; Doadrio et al. 2002, Gonzales et al. 2014) (Fig. 14). Other records from Algeria represented in Figure 14 are based on historic records of fishes identified as A. iberus by Pellegrin (1921) and may have been populations of A. saourensis, but none have been confirmed since.	en	Freyhof, Jörg, Yoğurtçuoğlu, Baran (2020): A proposal for a new generic structure of the killifish family Aphaniidae, with the description of Aphaniops teimorii (Teleostei: Cyprinodontiformes). Zootaxa 4810 (3): 421-451, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4810.3.2
03B187D4DF08FF80FF4F60D5FE6DDF66.taxon	etymology	Etymology. Based on the Latin substantive Apricus, shining, for the many small white spots on the flanks of the male, which give them a shiny appearance. Gender masculine.	en	Freyhof, Jörg, Yoğurtçuoğlu, Baran (2020): A proposal for a new generic structure of the killifish family Aphaniidae, with the description of Aphaniops teimorii (Teleostei: Cyprinodontiformes). Zootaxa 4810 (3): 421-451, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4810.3.2
03B187D4DF08FF80FF4F60D5FE6DDF66.taxon	discussion	Remarks. The molecular phylogeny presented by Hrbek et al. (2002) placed Apricaphanius as sister genus to all Aphaniids, except Aphaniops, Paraphanius and Tellia. The molecular tree published by Esmaeili et al. (2020) placed Apricaphanius close to Esmaeilius, while Geiger et al. (2014), placed Apricaphanius as sister to Aphanius and Anatolichthys in their analysis of Mediterranean species (Fig. 1). The results of these studies clearly demonstrate that Apricaphanius cannot be placed in Anatolichthys, and that it represents a distinct, well-distinguished phylogenetic group. To avoid paraphyly, Apricaphanius must be treated as a distinct genus despite its superficial similarity to Anatolichthys. Apricaphanius and Anatolichthys species lack head canals and possess pelvic fins, a dermal sheath at the analfin base in the nuptial female, and a single row of tricuspid teeth. Male Apricaphanius and Anatolichthys possess a black dorsal-fin margin, which is narrow in Apricaphanius (vs. wide, often the entire dorsal fin is black in Anatolichthys). Male Apricaphanius are well distinguished from all Anatolichthys by presence of a white or hyaline sub-marginal band in the dorsal fin often with some isolated brown spots or blotches (vs. absence in Anatolichthys). Male Apricaphanius either lack flank bars (A. saourensis) or possess 12 – 22 narrow, irregular set and shaped flank bars which are usually split vertically and overlaid with numerous minute whitish spots in adults (vs. 5 – 13 regularly set and shaped bars, not overlaid by spots in all but one Anatolichthys species). Male Anatolichthys villwocki possess 13 – 25 narrow brown flank bars, but also 4 – 14 vertical rows of small black or brown spots in the caudal fin (vs. 1 – 4 bold black bars in Apricaphanius species). The flank bars are not very easy to see in male Apricaphanius, since the flank bars and dorsal-fin colour pattern often dissociate in adult individuals larger than 25 mm SL. The flank pattern in the adult male Anatolichthys irregularis also comprises numerous small white spots (Yoğurtçuoğlu & Freyhof 2018) and this is also the case in some species of Paraphanius such as P. alexandri and P. mentoides. We suspect the presence of small white spots on the flank has evolved at least four times in Aphaniidae, and its occurrence in Apricaphanius, Anatolichthys irregularis, Paraphanius and Tellia is the result of convergent evolution.	en	Freyhof, Jörg, Yoğurtçuoğlu, Baran (2020): A proposal for a new generic structure of the killifish family Aphaniidae, with the description of Aphaniops teimorii (Teleostei: Cyprinodontiformes). Zootaxa 4810 (3): 421-451, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4810.3.2
03B187D4DF08FF80FF4F60D5FE6DDF66.taxon	materials_examined	Material examined. Apricaphanius baeticus: FSJF 4015, 1, 28 mm SL; Spain: Arroyo del Moscardo between Lebrija and Las Cabezas de San Juan, 36.957729 - 5.994935. — FSJF 4102, 25, 20 – 33 mm SL; Spain: Arroyo Salado, 37.4176 - 4.8825. — ZMH 9281, 10, 23 – 28 mm SL; Spain: Arroyo de Mascardo, Lebrija. Apricaphanius iberus: ZFMK-ICH 53133, 1, 23 mm SL; Spain: Mar Menor at Estrella del Mar, 37.6795 - 0.8297. — ZFMK-ICH 59739 - 59740, 2, 23 – 28 mm SL; Spain: canals at Empuriabrava, 42.2526 3.1122. — ZFMK-ICH 59745, 1, 28 mm SL; Spain: Estartit, 42.0471 3.1926. — ZFMK-ICH 59746, 59747, 2, 20 – 33 mm SL, Riu de Llastres at Miami Platja, 40.9922 0.9312. — ZMH 4372, 10, 21 – 24 mm SL; Spain: Saltworks at Santa Pola, (about 38.1857 - 0.6074). Apricaphanius saourensis: FSJF 3635, 10, 22 – 36 mm SL; Algeria: Mazzer prov.: La tombe de Moché, Oued Saoura, 30.3168 - 2.2685.	en	Freyhof, Jörg, Yoğurtçuoğlu, Baran (2020): A proposal for a new generic structure of the killifish family Aphaniidae, with the description of Aphaniops teimorii (Teleostei: Cyprinodontiformes). Zootaxa 4810 (3): 421-451, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4810.3.2
03B187D4DF09FF8DFF4F6685FD9ADED8.taxon	description	Fig. 16 – 17	en	Freyhof, Jörg, Yoğurtçuoğlu, Baran (2020): A proposal for a new generic structure of the killifish family Aphaniidae, with the description of Aphaniops teimorii (Teleostei: Cyprinodontiformes). Zootaxa 4810 (3): 421-451, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4810.3.2
03B187D4DF09FF8DFF4F6685FD9ADED8.taxon	type_taxon	Type species. Lebias sophiae Heckel, 1847.	en	Freyhof, Jörg, Yoğurtçuoğlu, Baran (2020): A proposal for a new generic structure of the killifish family Aphaniidae, with the description of Aphaniops teimorii (Teleostei: Cyprinodontiformes). Zootaxa 4810 (3): 421-451, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4810.3.2
03B187D4DF09FF8DFF4F6685FD9ADED8.taxon	diagnosis	Diagnosis. Esmaeilius is distinguished from Anatolichthys and Apricaphanius by possession of a hyaline caudal fin, with a white margin in some species, without bars or rows of spots, or with 1 – 5 indistinct vertical rows of small brown spots usually restricted to the proximal portion in E. sophiae, (vs. caudal fin with 1 – 4 bold black or brown bars, or 4 – 14 vertical rows of small brown spots in Anatolichthys villwocki), plus a white dorsal- and often caudaland anal-fin margins in the male, except E. isfahanensis which possesses black dorsal- and anal-fin margins (vs. dorsal and anal-fin margins black, caudal-fin margin hyaline). Esmaeilius is distinguished from other genera in the family Aphaniidae by the following combination of nonunique characters: head canals absent (vs. present in Aphanius and Aphaniops); dermal sheath at the anal-fin base in the nuptial female present (vs. absent in Aphaniops); a single row of tricuspid teeth (vs. three rows of conical teeth in Kosswigichthys); body covered by scales (vs. naked in Kosswigichthys); pelvic fin present (vs. absent in Tellia); flank pattern in male comprising a series of black or brown bars (vs. small whitish or blue spots arranged in vertical series or very narrow bars in Paraphanius); a bold black spot at centre of the caudal-fin base in female present (vs. absent in Paraphanius); dorsal- and anal-fin margin white or black in male (vs. without white or black margins in all Aphaniops except A. sirhani, yellow in Tellia, only dorsal-fin margin black in Aphanius); background colour of caudal fin identical to interspaces between flank bars (vs. caudal fin pale or deep yellow or orange, distinct from silvery interspaces between flank bars in Aphanius).	en	Freyhof, Jörg, Yoğurtçuoğlu, Baran (2020): A proposal for a new generic structure of the killifish family Aphaniidae, with the description of Aphaniops teimorii (Teleostei: Cyprinodontiformes). Zootaxa 4810 (3): 421-451, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4810.3.2
03B187D4DF09FF8DFF4F6685FD9ADED8.taxon	distribution	Distribution. Esmaeilius species are widespread in inland waters of Iran and the lower Shat-al-Arab River drainage in Iraq (Fig. 18). Esmaeili et al. (2020) provided a detailed map showing the distribution of the genus.	en	Freyhof, Jörg, Yoğurtçuoğlu, Baran (2020): A proposal for a new generic structure of the killifish family Aphaniidae, with the description of Aphaniops teimorii (Teleostei: Cyprinodontiformes). Zootaxa 4810 (3): 421-451, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4810.3.2
03B187D4DF09FF8DFF4F6685FD9ADED8.taxon	etymology	Etymology. Named for Hamid Reza Esmaeili (Shiraz) for his extensive contribution to the understanding of diversity within this genus. Gender masculine.	en	Freyhof, Jörg, Yoğurtçuoğlu, Baran (2020): A proposal for a new generic structure of the killifish family Aphaniidae, with the description of Aphaniops teimorii (Teleostei: Cyprinodontiformes). Zootaxa 4810 (3): 421-451, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4810.3.2
03B187D4DF09FF8DFF4F6685FD9ADED8.taxon	discussion	Remarks. Esmaeilius is distinguished from Anatolichthys and Apricaphanius by colour pattern, specifically the absence of bars in the caudal fin (vs. presence of bars in all species except A. villwocki) and presence of white (vs. black) dorsal- and usually caudal- and anal-fin margins in all species except E. isfahanensis. This combination of characters never occurs in Anatolichthys or Apricaphanius species. Anatolichthys villwocki is similar to E. sophiae in possessing rows of small brown spots in the caudal fin but it differs by possessing black (vs. white) dorsal- and anal-fin margins. Esmaeilius isfahanensis is similar to Anatolichthys and Apricaphanius species in possessing black dorsal- and anal-fin margins but it differs by lacking bold black bars in the caudal fin. Brachylebias persicus Priem, 1908 was transferred to Aphanius by Gaudant (2011), becoming a senior secondary homonym of Cyprinodon persicus Jenkins, 1910 (= Aphanius persicus), and Aphanius farsicus was proposed as the replacement name by Teimori et al. (2011). When the phylogenetic groups of Aphanius are separated into different genera, Brachylebias must be considered as incertae sedis as we find no arguments to place it in one of the genera recognised here and it may represent a distinct (extinct) evolutionary lineage. Brachylebias, Aphaniops and Aphanius share the presence of a preopercular canal (Gaudant (2011), and therefore B. persicus might have been a Miocene species of Aphaniops or Aphanius (see Discussion below). While there is a need to re-examine the materials of Brachylebias, we currently find it highly unlikely that Brachylebias might have been a species of Esmaeilius. Brachylebias persicus and Cyprinodon persicus became secondary homonyms when both were placed in Aphanius. Because the two names are no longer congeneric, and because the replacement name was raised after 1960, the older name Cyprinodon persicus Jenkins must be reinstated as the valid name (ICZN 1999: Art. 59.4). This makes Aphanius farsicus a junior synonym of Cyprinodon persicus. The molecular phylogeny and results of four different molecular species delimitation methods published by Esmaeili et al. (2020) strongly suggest that an excessive number of Esmaeilius populations have been recognised as species. Esmaeilius darabensis, E. persicus, E. isfahanensis, E. shirini, and E. vladykovi were supported by all four methods, but E. arakensis is only supported by two methods while E. pluristriatus is paraphyletic with only a single population supported by one method. Teimori et al. (2012), Esmaeili et al. (2012), Gholami et al. (2014), and Esmaeili et al. (2014 a, b) find it difficult to clearly distinguish E. arakensis, E. kavirensis, E. mesopotamicus, and E. pluristriatus from E. sophiae by morphology and used a series of vague or overlapping character states, while there is little molecular distance between them. Gholami et al. (2013) recognised that geographic isolation of these species might have occurred in the Holocene, thus explaining the minor molecular differences. We recognise all four of these nominal species as populations of E. sophiae because they have largely been diagnosed by otolith shape, a character likely to vary between individual populations in the family Aphaniidae (Schulz-Mirbach et al. 2006, Reichenbacher et al. 2009 a, Annabi et al. 2013). The same might be true for scale surface microstructure as suggested by Gholami et al. (2013). We see no reason to treat E. arakensis, E. kavirensis, E. mesopotamicus, and E. pluristriatus as distinct species and therefore, we synonymise them with E. sophiae. It must be noted that we fully support distinguishing species with little or no molecular separation, provided they can be clearly distinguished by non-overlapping morphological characters, including colour pattern, and by patterns in their independent evolutionary histories. The same can be said for morphologically-congruous populations separated by deep molecular differences. Such ‘ cryptic’ species are uncommon, but E. darabensis appears to be a genuine example. Esmaeili et al. (2014 b, 2020) suggested that it is most closely related to E. persicus, from which it is well distinguished by colour pattern, while it is morphologically identical to E. sophiae.	en	Freyhof, Jörg, Yoğurtçuoğlu, Baran (2020): A proposal for a new generic structure of the killifish family Aphaniidae, with the description of Aphaniops teimorii (Teleostei: Cyprinodontiformes). Zootaxa 4810 (3): 421-451, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4810.3.2
03B187D4DF09FF8DFF4F6685FD9ADED8.taxon	materials_examined	Material examined. Esmaeilius persicus: FSJF 2229, 5, 30 – 37 mm SL; FSJF 4017, 18, 25 – 33 mm SL; Iran: Fars prov.: spring Pirbanoo about 10 km south of Shiraz, 29.5189 52.4656. Esmaeilius isfahanensis: FSJF 3497, 13, 31 – 38 mm SL; Iran: Esfahan prov.: Zayandeh River at Varzaneh bridge, 32.4255 52.6538. Esmaeilius sophiae: FSJF 2225, 44, 16 – 42 mm SL; Iran: Fars prov.: spring Ghadamgah near Dorodzan Dam, about 88 km north of Shiraz, 30.2548 52.4246. — FSJF 3217, 44, 23 – 42 mm SL; FSJF 3245, 37, 19 – 34 mm SL; FSJF 3251, 23, 20 – 35 mm SL; Iran: Shiraz prov.: spring Malous, 10 km of Shiraz city, 29.8770 52.4806. — FSJF 4064, 55, 17 – 42 mm SL; Iran: spring Cheshme Ali, 36.2793 54.0838. — FSJF 4103, 6, 30 – 33 mm SL; Iran: Talabe-Gavkhuni. Esmaeilius vladykovi: FSJF 4039, 4, 22 – 32 mm SL; Iran: Shahrestan-e Bakhtiari va Chahar Mahall, 3 kilometers west of Boldaji, 31.9256 50.9047.	en	Freyhof, Jörg, Yoğurtçuoğlu, Baran (2020): A proposal for a new generic structure of the killifish family Aphaniidae, with the description of Aphaniops teimorii (Teleostei: Cyprinodontiformes). Zootaxa 4810 (3): 421-451, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4810.3.2
