taxonID	type	description	language	source
03816E226F00CC0DFF7FDF29FC65532C.taxon	description	Aguilar & Jones (2009) found the two genera are closely related mtDNA lineages that could be considered to be one genus. Schönhuth et al. (2012), however, noted that while their mtDNA analyses supported this close relationship, their limited nuclear DNA results did not. Our recent study (Baumsteiger et al. 2017) found the strongest genomic signal coincided with splitting samples into two genera. We discovered, however, that samples from the Pit River (Northern Roach) were a confounding factor, having mixed historical ancestry with both genera. It was estimated in one analysis that approximately 80 % of the Northern Roach genome clustered with Hitch whereas only 20 % clustered with CA Roach. But all subsequent analyses found Northern Roach to be a distinct species, on par with currently identified species. Thus Northern Roach appears to be the result of an ancient hybrid speciation event (Mallet 2007) between ancestral Hitch and CA Roach but it is currently genomically different enough to warrant species status. It is our conclusion that despite hybridization between individuals in the different genera, the distinctiveness of each genus is still strongly maintained and prevalent throughout the genomes interrogated. If results were more admixed, the argument for a single genus would be more plausible. We recognize admixture between genera is uncommon but note that not all mutations lead to post-zygotic barriers (Abbott et al. 2013). Additionally, hybridization has been proposed between Roach / Hitch and other members of the subfamily Leuciscinae including Speckled Dace (Rhinichthys osculus), Arroyo Chub (Gila orcuttii), and the now extinct Thicktail Chub (Gila crassicauda) (Greenfield & Deckert 1973; Hopkirk 1973). Thus the frequency of hybridization suggests reproductive barriers are poorly developed in the endemic minnows of California. Secondly, although Northern Roach represent an ancient hybridization event and cluster primarily with individuals from the Lavinia genus (~ 80 % but only in the admixture analysis), we cannot definitively say they are Lavinia. Northern Roach still strongly resemble CA Roach in appearance (see below), but this may simply be the result of natural selection for the CA Roach morphotype. Future phylogenetic analyses between all genera within the family may provide the solution but it remains, as yet, unavailable. Thus, without universal agreement between genomic analyses or improved criteria for taxonomically delineating hybrids, we default to the original genus assignment by Snyder (1913). Therefore, the species of Hesperoleucus are as described below.	en	Baumsteiger, Jason, Moyle, Peter B. (2019): A reappraisal of the California Roach / Hitch (Cypriniformes, Cyprinidae, Hesperoleucus / Lavinia) species complex. Zootaxa 4543 (2): 221-240, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4543.2.3
03816E226F01CC09FF7FD956FACF550A.taxon	description	Lectotype: USNM 191, present designation. This species was originally described as Pogonichthys symmetricus by Baird & Girard (1854) from specimens collected in the San Joaquin River at Fort Miller, Fresno Co., CA. Paralectotypes: USNM 440410; ANSP 5330 – 33; MCZ 1961; MNHN 0000 – 0353. The benchmark California Roach is based on Baird & Girard (1854). Individuals primarily occupy streams / rivers flowing into California’s Central Valley, most of which are isolated to some degree. Groups of California Roach appear to become easily isolated from one another and adapted to local conditions, particularly following anthropomorphic changes to the landscape (Brown et al. 1992). Many of these isolated groups are distinguishable both morphologically (Brown et al. 1992) and genetically (Aguilar & Jones 2009; Baumsteiger et al. 2017). In fact, Baumsteiger et al. found every sample location of CA Roach within our study was distinctive, including support for a new subspecies and a distinct population segment (see below). Baumsteiger et al. (2017) also found California Roach from the Central Valley to be genomically distinct from those along the coast. All analyses show a clear break between these two species. Our conclusion is CA Roach sensu stricto should be limited to individuals from Central Valley drainages and the following formal description reflects this new delineation. Description. CA Roach (H. symmetricus) are small, stout-bodied cyprinids with narrow caudal peduncles and deeply forked tails. Adult individuals usually have total lengths less than 100 mm, although fish up to 150 mm TL have been observed (Moyle 2002). The head is large and conical, with large eyes and a mouth that is slightly subterminal and slants downward. Individuals in some locations, especially those in streams of the Sierra Nevada, develop a keratinous plate on the lower jaw, referred to as a “ chisel lip ”. The dorsal fin is short (8 – 10 rays) and is positioned behind the insertion point of the pelvic fin while the anal fin is also short, with 7 – 9 rays (Table 1). Pharyngeal teeth (0,5,4,0) have curved tips, which overhang grinding surfaces of moderate size. CA Roach are dark on the upper half of their bodies, ranging from a shadowy gray to a steel blue, while the lower half of the body is much lighter, usually a dull white / silver color. Scales are small, numbering 47 – 62 along the lateral line. Individuals tend to exhibit general (non-nuptial) sexual dimorphism (Snyder 1908; Murphy 1943). California Roach are highly variable in most of their characteristics across their range. Brown et al. (1992) measured 14 morphometric variables from eight watersheds around the San Joaquin Valley, including the southern end of the range (Table 1). Using these variables, a discriminant analysis correctly assigned 76 % of the individuals to the watershed from which they were collected, suggesting locations were sufficiently isolated from one another to have local adaptations or phenotypic divergence.	en	Baumsteiger, Jason, Moyle, Peter B. (2019): A reappraisal of the California Roach / Hitch (Cypriniformes, Cyprinidae, Hesperoleucus / Lavinia) species complex. Zootaxa 4543 (2): 221-240, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4543.2.3
03816E226F01CC09FF7FD956FACF550A.taxon	distribution	Distribution. Individuals were historically found in most tributaries to the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers, including tributaries in the extreme southern San Joaquin Valley (e. g. Kern River), as well as in fringe habitats (backwaters with dense riparian cover) along the main rivers (Moyle 2002; Fig. 1). Fish were rarely found in streams above 1000 m in elevation, presumably restricted by high gradients and natural barriers. In the Tuolumne River, the upstream limit was historically (and still is) Preston Falls at 885 m elevation. The historic distribution in the upper Sacramento River is poorly understood. Today CA Roach are absent from many streams as the result of habitat change and invasions of alien predators. For example, Moyle & Nichols (1973) and Brown & Moyle (1993) found they were absent from the Fresno River (Fresno Co.) and other tributaries to the San Joaquin River. They were also once common in the mainstem San Joaquin River but are absent today. Moyle (2002) documented their consistent presence in the river at Friant (Fresno Co.) until the construction of Friant Dam in the 1940 s. CA Roach are absent from most of their historic range in the Cosumnes River watershed due to the invasion of piscivorous Redeye Bass, Micropterus coosae (Moyle et al. 2003). In the upper Yuba River watershed, they are largely absent as the result of 19 th century hydraulic mining, with the exception of one small tributary to the South Fork Yuba, Kentucky Ravine (Gard & Randall 2004). The range of CA Roach has also been expanded, presumably through ‘ bait bucket’ introductions by anglers. For example, Hetch-Hetchy Reservoir (1,162 m) on the upper Tuolumne River, well above a series of natural barriers, supports a large pelagic population (P. Moyle, unpublished observations). This is unusual because CA Roach do not generally live in reservoirs, especially those with predatory fishes. Interestingly, individuals from this location were found to be admixed with Hitch (Baumsteiger et al. 2017), a factor which may explain their persistence. Soquel Creek and the Cuyama River in southern California support presumed introduced populations, although their origins are also uncertain (Moyle 2002). It is possible that the ancestor of the widely-distributed CA Roach gave rise to most other Roach species and subspecies but this has not yet been investigated phylogenetically. The ability of these fish to persist in small, often intermittent tributaries presumably led to their colonization of adjacent drainages in a number of areas through capture of interior headwater streams by erosion or tectonic movements (Snyder 1908, 1913; Murphy 1948; Moyle 2002). Because they are relatively intolerant of saline waters, dispersal to coastal streams could not have occurred through ocean waters. However, connections at low elevations may have been possible in some cases when sea levels were lower and estuaries joined the mouths of rivers (Moyle 2002). Similarly in the giant San Francisco Estuary, exchange between salt-water intolerant populations likely occurred during flood years when river outflows were high enough to create freshwater lenses in the surface waters of the estuary (Ayres 1854; Snyder 1905; Murphy 1948; Leidy 2007). During high water periods, fish may also have been able to disperse through flooded marshes on the fringes of the estuary. Today such opportunities for dispersal are largely absent (Moyle et al. 2012). Status. Moyle et al. (2015) list California Roach as a Species of Special Concern, with an IUCN status of Near – threatened. If CA Roach were a single interbreeding taxon, there would be little danger of immediate extinction because they occur in many streams over a wide area. However, the discovery that CA Roach comprise multiple lineages, some of which are under immediate threats, is of conservation concern. After all, the small, isolated populations that are the most likely to be extirpated also tend to be the most distinctive (Brown et al. 1992). Emerging appreciation for the variation within the taxon (Moyle et al. 1989; Brown et al. 1992; Jones 2001; Jones et al. 2002; Aguilar & Jones 2009; Baumsteiger et al. 2017) has highlighted the need to preserve populations endemic to specific watersheds. On a broader scale, Moyle et al. (2013) regarded the entire taxon as highly vulnerable to extinction in the next century due to massive changes to smaller streams brought on by climate change, the continuing effects of anthropogenic land and water use, and the spread of invasive species.	en	Baumsteiger, Jason, Moyle, Peter B. (2019): A reappraisal of the California Roach / Hitch (Cypriniformes, Cyprinidae, Hesperoleucus / Lavinia) species complex. Zootaxa 4543 (2): 221-240, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4543.2.3
03816E226F05CC06FF7FDFB7FC0A5205.taxon	description	This subspecies is consistent with the descriptions and distribution of the species itself, minus the Red Hills region. According to Baumsteiger et al. (2017), population structure is available within the subspecies, but only one lineage (see below) stood out in the genomic analyses and therefore would rise to the level of a DPS by our estimation. However, the presence of population structure and morphological differences (Brown et al. 1992) within the subspecies indicates isolation / adaptation among locations that, if fully investigated, may warrant additional DPS designations. We would argue this should be investigated on a case-by-case basis to evaluate the level of isolation and potential threat to each population so as to not overuse the DPS designation within the U. S. Endangered Species Act. Kaweah Roach. The current population of Kaweah Roach is highly isolated in the Kaweah River system, at the southern end of the CA Roach range. Some morphometric characters are distinctive in Kaweah Roach, including a high prevalence of chisel-lip (Brown et al. 1992). Although found to be genetically (Aguilar & Jones 2009) and genomically distinct (Baumsteiger et al. 2017), these determinations were only discovered once analyses were restricted to CA Roach samples. Therefore, we believe Kaweah Roach is a unique evolutionary lineage within CA Roach, representing a distinct population segment (DPS) that should be managed accordingly. Description. Kaweah Roach are largely similar to the description for CA Roach, with slightly different morphometric and meristic mean counts reported (Brown et al. 1992). This includes a higher prevalence of chisellip, similar to Red Hills Roach.	en	Baumsteiger, Jason, Moyle, Peter B. (2019): A reappraisal of the California Roach / Hitch (Cypriniformes, Cyprinidae, Hesperoleucus / Lavinia) species complex. Zootaxa 4543 (2): 221-240, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4543.2.3
03816E226F05CC06FF7FDFB7FC0A5205.taxon	distribution	Distribution. This distinct population segment appears to be isolated in the Kaweah River above Kaweah Reservoir. Historically it may have occurred on the Valley floor, in places such as Tulare Lake or in the lower reaches of nearby river systems such as the Kings River. Such access is now denied by dams, diversions, and altered habitats. Status. This DPS is reasonably safe, at least in the short run (50 years). The upper half of the range within the Kaweah River is bounded by Kings Canyon National Park and as such receives special protection. The lower half, which flows mostly through private lands before ending up in Kaweah Reservoir, is less secure. Individuals here may be at risk from upstream movement of invasive species such as Largemouth Bass, Micropterus salmoides, a factor which will intensify with climate change and warmer temperatures.	en	Baumsteiger, Jason, Moyle, Peter B. (2019): A reappraisal of the California Roach / Hitch (Cypriniformes, Cyprinidae, Hesperoleucus / Lavinia) species complex. Zootaxa 4543 (2): 221-240, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4543.2.3
03816E226F0ACC07FF7FD8BEFBDB52C9.taxon	description	(Fig. 2)	en	Baumsteiger, Jason, Moyle, Peter B. (2019): A reappraisal of the California Roach / Hitch (Cypriniformes, Cyprinidae, Hesperoleucus / Lavinia) species complex. Zootaxa 4543 (2): 221-240, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4543.2.3
03816E226F0ACC07FF7FD8BEFBDB52C9.taxon	materials_examined	Holotype: Museum of Wildlife and Fish Biology, University of California, Davis, WFC 3050, 51.8 mm SL, Horton Creek, Tuolumne County, CA, July 16, 2010. Paratypes. WFC 3241 – 3244, 30.4 — 40.4 mm SL, same location and date as the holotype, The Red Hills Roach has strong support for a subspecies designation (e. g. Brown et al. 1992; Jones et al. 2002; Moyle 2002), especially given its increased isolation from other populations by New Don Pedro Reservoir (constructed in 1971), unique environmental constraints, and the prevalence (~ 97 %) of the chisel-lip morphotype. Genetic and genomic analyses (Aguilar & Jones 2009; Baumsteiger et al. 2017) also found Red Hills Roach to be highly distinct, easily distinguishable from other CA Roach. In fact, our genomic study indicated a clear break between Red Hills Roach and all other CA Roach sampled in every analysis. With so many lines of support, subspecies status is clearly warranted.	en	Baumsteiger, Jason, Moyle, Peter B. (2019): A reappraisal of the California Roach / Hitch (Cypriniformes, Cyprinidae, Hesperoleucus / Lavinia) species complex. Zootaxa 4543 (2): 221-240, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4543.2.3
03816E226F0ACC07FF7FD8BEFBDB52C9.taxon	diagnosis	Diagnosis. Distinguished from other subspecies of H. symmetricus by their flattened body profile, smaller interorbital distance and fewer pectoral and pelvic rays (Jones et al. 2002; Table 1). The holotype has 8 dorsal rays, 8 anal rays, 12 pectoral rays, and 8 pelvic rays.	en	Baumsteiger, Jason, Moyle, Peter B. (2019): A reappraisal of the California Roach / Hitch (Cypriniformes, Cyprinidae, Hesperoleucus / Lavinia) species complex. Zootaxa 4543 (2): 221-240, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4543.2.3
03816E226F0ACC07FF7FD8BEFBDB52C9.taxon	description	Description. The Red Hills Roach is a genetically and morphologically distinct minnow adapted for living in small streams flowing through serpentine outcrops. They are typically small, less than 60 mm SL (Brown et al. 1992; Jones et al. 2002) and resemble CA Roach in their general appearance. Red Hills Roach exhibit an elevated frequency of “ chisel-lip ”, a keratinous projection on the lower lip used for scraping algae (Brown et al. 1992). However there is substantial temporal variation in frequency of the chisel-lip condition amongst CA Roach (Jones et al. 2002). Spawning coloration appears to be similar to that of CA Roach but is more intense. W. J. Jones (pers. comm.) describes it as follows: “ The body is dark brown to brassy above, dark black lateral band, and brilliant white below, splashed with black blotches on the sides. Dorsal and caudal fins [are] dark olive-brown to reddish-brown, with the rays often deep-olive and with the nearly clear inter-radial membranes faintly flushed with brassy color; pectoral fins [are] yellowish with orange-red axils and very strong orange coloration at base; anal and pelvic fins [are] bright orange-red at the base with lessening coloration towards the rays. Cheeks and operculum with strong gilt reflections; strong orange coloration is found on the edges of the mouth (especially in males) with some blending into the upper mouth region. A lateral band is more strongly gilt than adjacent parts of body, thus often obscuring the lateral line. In females, the coloration is similar but less intense except for the orange coloration at the base of the paired fins that appears equally intense in both sexes. Males can be distinguished primarily by breeding tubercles on the top of the head. ”	en	Baumsteiger, Jason, Moyle, Peter B. (2019): A reappraisal of the California Roach / Hitch (Cypriniformes, Cyprinidae, Hesperoleucus / Lavinia) species complex. Zootaxa 4543 (2): 221-240, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4543.2.3
03816E226F0ACC07FF7FD8BEFBDB52C9.taxon	distribution	Distribution. The Red Hills Roach is confined to Six Bit Gulch and its tributary streams: Amber Creek, Horton Creek, Minnow Creek and Poor Man’s Gulch in Tuolumne Co. (Jones et al. 2002). Six Bit Gulch, during rainy periods, flows into the western arm of New Don Pedro Reservoir on the Tuolumne River. In July 2010, Roach were observed in three discontinuous wetted reaches of Horton Creek, which covered approximately 500 meters in total wetted length (P. Moyle, unpublished observations). However, only the lower reach, which extends about 200 meters upstream from the confluence with Six Bit Gulch, appeared to be perennial (as indicated by lush growth of sedges and other riparian vegetation). A natural fish barrier approximately 1.2 km upstream from the confluence likely inhibits Roach from accessing upper Horton Creek. Roach have also been observed in Six Bit Gulch where it is forded by Six Bit Ranch Road and in a pool in Roach Creek. Status. Red Hills Roach merit protection as a threatened or endangered subspecies and rate as an IUCN status of Critical Concern (Moyle et al. 2011, 2015). They have an extremely limited distribution in a very harsh environment and less than 1,000 individuals persist in isolated summer pools (Jones et al. 2002). Their persistence is threatened by fire, depleted stream flows, lack of protection on private lands, and most notably, from invasive fishes. While some habitat is protected in the Red Hills Area of Critical Environmental Concern, much is on private land along a road and remains unprotected. Red Hills Roach has persisted only because of its physiological capacity to endure the extreme environmental conditions found in these small exposed streams.	en	Baumsteiger, Jason, Moyle, Peter B. (2019): A reappraisal of the California Roach / Hitch (Cypriniformes, Cyprinidae, Hesperoleucus / Lavinia) species complex. Zootaxa 4543 (2): 221-240, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4543.2.3
03816E226F0ACC07FF7FD8BEFBDB52C9.taxon	etymology	Etymology. Both the common and subspecies name reflect the nature of the rocks through which these small creeks flow. The Red Hills region is named for the color of the soils created by weathering one of the largest outcroppings of serpentine rocks in the Sierra Nevada. Serpentine soils are high in magnesium and other minerals and create conditions in which few species can live. The landscape has a sparse but highly endemic flora (Anacker & Harrison 2012, Harrison 2013) and streams are small and largely unshaded.	en	Baumsteiger, Jason, Moyle, Peter B. (2019): A reappraisal of the California Roach / Hitch (Cypriniformes, Cyprinidae, Hesperoleucus / Lavinia) species complex. Zootaxa 4543 (2): 221-240, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4543.2.3
03816E226F0BCC04FF7FDEF0FDF0532C.taxon	materials_examined	Holotype: USNM 74476. Originally described from Coyote Creek, Santa Clara Co., CA. Paratypes: CAS-SU 22492, 24282; USNM 75335. Snyder (1913) originally split this species into three species: H. navarroensis (from the Navarro River), H. venustus (from the Russian River), and H. subditus (Monterey region). These populations were later considered to be subspecies within the single species CA Roach, as suggested by the unpublished study of Murphy (1948). Aguilar & Jones (2009) did not find strong support for these species or subspecies with their mtDNA analysis although their microsatellite analysis found some structure among regions. As mentioned above, Baumsteiger et al. (2017) found clear evidence for populations in all coastal draining watersheds belonging to a single species. Subspecies were also detected but more broadly distributed than previously thought. Watersheds extending from the Russian River north to the Eel River (excluding the Gualala River) clustered as one subspecies and watersheds south of the Russian River (Tomales Bay to the Monterey region) clustered as a second.	en	Baumsteiger, Jason, Moyle, Peter B. (2019): A reappraisal of the California Roach / Hitch (Cypriniformes, Cyprinidae, Hesperoleucus / Lavinia) species complex. Zootaxa 4543 (2): 221-240, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4543.2.3
03816E226F0BCC04FF7FDEF0FDF0532C.taxon	description	Description. Based on previous morphological work, the Coastal Roach species has a mixture of characters (Table 1). For a cyprinid, the head is large and conical, the tail deeply forked, the eyes large, and the mouth subterminal, slanting at a downward angle. However, the body can be stout or slender, the snout short or more pointed, the caudal peduncle narrow or thick, and the fins small and rounded or long and narrow. Individuals are typically less than 120 mm total length. The dorsal fin is short (7 – 10 rays) and positioned behind the insertion point of the pelvic fin. The anal fin has 6 – 9 rays. Pharyngeal teeth (0,5 — 4,0) have curved tips which overhang grinding surfaces of moderate size. Gill rakers number 8 – 11. The scales are small, numbering 47 – 63 along the lateral line and 32 – 38 before the dorsal fin. Individuals are usually dark on the upper half of their bodies, ranging from a shadowy gray to a steel blue, while the lower half of the body is much lighter, usually a dull white / silver color. A light lateral stripe approximately two scales wide extends from upper edge of the gill opening to the base of tail and entirely above the lateral line. Below this line is a somewhat wider dark stripe and then several narrower and very distinct dark stripes which grow lighter ventrally.	en	Baumsteiger, Jason, Moyle, Peter B. (2019): A reappraisal of the California Roach / Hitch (Cypriniformes, Cyprinidae, Hesperoleucus / Lavinia) species complex. Zootaxa 4543 (2): 221-240, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4543.2.3
03816E226F0BCC04FF7FDEF0FDF0532C.taxon	distribution	Distribution. Coastal Roach are restricted to coastal watersheds, largely west of the coastal mountain range. The northernmost native population is in the Navarro River, although introduced Coastal Roach exist in the Eel River. Excluding the Gualala River (see below), watersheds south of the Navarro River do not support any Roach populations until the Russian River. Populations are then found intermittently from the Russian River south to the Tomales Bay region. Scattered Coastal Roach are found in streams around San Francisco Bay but are once again absent from coastal watersheds to the south until the Salinas and Pajaro river watersheds of the Monterey region. The population in Soquel Creek (Santa Cruz Co.) is probably introduced from the Salinas River, while the origin of the population in the Cuyuma River (San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara counties) is uncertain but may be native (Moyle 2002). Coastal Roach are widespread in the Eel River, from an introduction in the early 1970 s. This introduction was noted by Moyle (2002) and Jones (2002) and is now confirmed by Baumsteiger et al. (2017) and A. Kinziger (pers. comm. 2017). Studies show that Eel River fish originated from the Russian River mainstem and not the recently connected East Fork (via the Potter Valley Project - Power et al. 2015). Status. Due to its wide distribution throughout northern California coastal drainages, the species appears to be in little danger of extinction. However, subspecies or distinct population segments (see below) may be at risk within their particular watershed (s).	en	Baumsteiger, Jason, Moyle, Peter B. (2019): A reappraisal of the California Roach / Hitch (Cypriniformes, Cyprinidae, Hesperoleucus / Lavinia) species complex. Zootaxa 4543 (2): 221-240, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4543.2.3
03816E226F08CC02FF7FD956FF3251B2.taxon	materials_examined	Holotype: USNM 74477. Originally described as Hesperoleucus navarroensis from Navarro River, near Philo, Mendocino Co., CA. Paratype: CAS-SU 22488. Snyder (1913) described two species as occurring within the range of this subspecies: H. navarroensis from the Navarro River basin, and H. venustus, from a mixture of Russian River, Tomales Bay, and San Francisco Bay regions. Hopkirk (1973) disagreed with Snyder, placing Russian River individuals within the subspecies H. s. navarroensis and downgrading Tomales and San Francisco Bay individuals to population status. Aguilar & Jones (2009) found genetic distinctiveness for a Navarro / Russian grouping and a Tomales / SF Bay grouping within their microsatellite analyses. They also found some mtDNA distinctiveness for each location proposed (Navarro, Russian, and Tomales / SF Bay). Baumsteiger et al. (2017) found clear genomic distinctions between Navarro / Russian and Tomales / SF Bay individuals, consistent with other studies, supporting our assertion of two subspecies within the Coastal Roach species.	en	Baumsteiger, Jason, Moyle, Peter B. (2019): A reappraisal of the California Roach / Hitch (Cypriniformes, Cyprinidae, Hesperoleucus / Lavinia) species complex. Zootaxa 4543 (2): 221-240, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4543.2.3
03816E226F08CC02FF7FD956FF3251B2.taxon	description	Description. Like other Coastal Roach, members of this subspecies are relatively trim, with a slender caudal peduncle, short, pointed snout, and variable length fins (dependent on which region is sampled). Individuals are typically 80 - 120 mm total length, with a large, conical head. Eyes are large and the mouth is sub-terminal. The dorsal fin has 7 – 9 rays (average 8) and the anal fin has 6 – 9 rays (average 8). Most pharyngeal teeth (0,5 — 4,0) have curved tips which overhang slightly. Scales are small, numbering 47 – 63 (average 54) along the lateral line. Fish appear darker on the upper half while the lower half is much lighter. Northern Coastal Roach differ from Gualala Roach in having fewer anal rays (Hopkirk 1973) and one less row of scales above the lateral line (Snyder 1913).	en	Baumsteiger, Jason, Moyle, Peter B. (2019): A reappraisal of the California Roach / Hitch (Cypriniformes, Cyprinidae, Hesperoleucus / Lavinia) species complex. Zootaxa 4543 (2): 221-240, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4543.2.3
03816E226F08CC02FF7FD956FF3251B2.taxon	distribution	Distribution. Northern Coastal Roach are generally restricted to the Navarro River and Russian River basins. There are no records of Roach being found in watersheds between these basins. The exact distribution within the two watersheds is poorly documented but they appear to be present wherever water quality is suitable and alien predators are absent. The introduced population in the Eel River constitutes a major range expansion north. Status. Because this subspecies is restricted to just two watersheds in its native range, it is highly subject to localized effects of farming, ranching, water diversions, dams, and other perturbations. However there are no reports of dwindling numbers in these systems, suggesting that, for now, populations of this subspecies are relatively robust.	en	Baumsteiger, Jason, Moyle, Peter B. (2019): A reappraisal of the California Roach / Hitch (Cypriniformes, Cyprinidae, Hesperoleucus / Lavinia) species complex. Zootaxa 4543 (2): 221-240, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4543.2.3
03816E226F08CC02FF7FD956FF3251B2.taxon	description	Russian River Roach. The Russian River Roach was originally described as a population of H. venustus by Snyder (1913), along with populations in streams flowing intoTomales and San Francisco bays. Following the downgrading of this group to subspecies status, Russian River Roach were later lumped with Navarro Roach as H. s. navarroensis by Hopkirk (1973). This move was confirmed genetically by Aguilar & Jones (2009). The recent analysis by Baumsteiger et al. (2017) found them to be part of the Northern subspecies of Coastal Roach but as a distinct population segment (DPS). Hierarchical genomic analyses revealed Eel River individuals cluster (are synonymous) with Russian River individuals in all analyses. An analysis using only fish from the two watersheds showed population structure at each of three sampling locations within the Russian River whereas within the Eel River there was no population structure among the four locations sampled. This means that the Eel River population is derived from a very recent introduction from the Russian River. Description. Russian River Roach have a trim, slender body, a somewhat pointed snout, a slender caudal peduncle. The fins are somewhat longer than those of other Coastal Roach. They have 8 – 9 dorsal rays (average 9) and 7 – 9 anal rays (average 8); there are 8 – 11 gill rakers (average 10) and 47 – 60 scales in the lateral line (average 53) (Hopkirk 1973). Individuals rarely exceed 120 mm total length. Minor morphological differences were observed between Russian River and Navarro Roach by Snyder (1913) and Murphy (1948). Differences included a higher prevalence of individuals with 9 dorsal rays in the Russian rather than the 8 generally seen in Navarro (see Table 1).	en	Baumsteiger, Jason, Moyle, Peter B. (2019): A reappraisal of the California Roach / Hitch (Cypriniformes, Cyprinidae, Hesperoleucus / Lavinia) species complex. Zootaxa 4543 (2): 221-240, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4543.2.3
03816E226F08CC02FF7FD956FF3251B2.taxon	distribution	Distribution. Russian River Roach are restricted to the Russian River and its tributaries in Sonoma Co. as well as to the Eel River watershed. They are common in the middle sections of many tributary creeks, including Mark West, Santa Rosa, Maacama, Austin, and Big Sulphur and Pieta (Moyle et al. 2015). Individuals are also present in the main stem Russian River (Pintler & Johnson 1958; Cook 2005). They become increasingly rare in the lower sections of the main river, where their downstream limit appears to be Duncan’s Mill, just above the main estuary (Moyle et al. 2015). However, Goodwin et al. (1993) found that Roach seemed to move down into the estuary during the summer and return upstream in the fall. Within the Eel River watershed, fish are widespread and abundant, with Brown & Moyle (1997) finding individuals at 230 of 412 (56 %) sampling locations in the watershed. Status. Little is known of Russian River Roach abundance trends in their native habitat because few recent, systematic surveys have been conducted in tributary streams where they are most abundant. In the Russian River, gradual loss of tributary populations through dewatering and other factors, combined with mainstem river changes that reduce connectivity among tributaries may limit distribution and reduce abundance. The DPS is currently listed as a state Species of Special Concern (IUCN, Near-threatened) because of a limited distribution, the presence of dams and diversions in the Russian River watershed, and a poorly understood status (Moyle et al. 2015). Eel River fish were not included in the designation. The increasingly stressful conditions in the Russian River and its tributaries led Moyle et al. (2013) to rate the Russian River Roach as “ highly vulnerable ” to extinction in its native range as the result habitat loss due to climate change, if present trends continue.	en	Baumsteiger, Jason, Moyle, Peter B. (2019): A reappraisal of the California Roach / Hitch (Cypriniformes, Cyprinidae, Hesperoleucus / Lavinia) species complex. Zootaxa 4543 (2): 221-240, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4543.2.3
03816E226F08CC02FF7FD956FF3251B2.taxon	description	Navarro Roach. Hopkirk (1973) was the first to suggest that the original species / subspecies described by Snyder (1913) should include Russian River individuals. Aguilar & Jones (2009) and Baumsteiger et al. (2017) later found genetic distinctiveness between individuals from the Navarro and Russian rivers, prompting their recognition as distinct population segments of Northern Coastal Roach. Description. Like other Coastal Roach, Navarro Roach are small, stout-bodied cyprinids with a narrow caudal peduncle, deeply forked tail, short snout, and small, rounded paired fins. They are typically less than 100 mm total length. The head is large and conical, the eyes large and the mouth is sub-terminal and slants downward. The dorsal fin is short (7 – 9 rays; average 8) and is positioned behind the insertion point of the pelvic fin. The anal fin has between 6 – 9 rays. Pharyngeal teeth (0,5 – 4,0) have curved tips which overhang grinding surfaces of moderate size. Scales are small, numbering 47 – 63 along the lateral line and 32 – 38 before the dorsal fin. Individuals are usually dark on the upper half of their bodies, ranging from a shadowy gray to a steel blue, while the lower half is much lighter, usually a dull white / silver color. Snyder (1913) described them as having a light lateral stripe approximately two scales wide extending from upper edge of the gill opening to the base of tail and entirely above the lateral line. Below this line is a somewhat wider dark stripe and then several narrower and very distinct dark stripes which grow lighter ventrally. As mentioned previously, small morphological differences are found between Russian and Navarro populations (Table 1).	en	Baumsteiger, Jason, Moyle, Peter B. (2019): A reappraisal of the California Roach / Hitch (Cypriniformes, Cyprinidae, Hesperoleucus / Lavinia) species complex. Zootaxa 4543 (2): 221-240, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4543.2.3
03816E226F08CC02FF7FD956FF3251B2.taxon	distribution	Distribution. Navarro Roach are confined to the Navarro River and its tributaries within Mendocino Co. (including Greenwood Creek) but are widely distributed within the watershed, from the mouth throughout the river and its tributaries (Feliciano 2004). Status. The Navarro Roach, through its original lumping with CA Roach, was a state Species of Special Concern with an IUCN status of Near-threatened (Moyle et al. 2015). However with its new taxonomic status, a reevaluation will eventually be necessary, despite being widespread and abundant within its limited range. Most of the Navarro River watershed was logged and converted to orchards and vineyards in the 20 th century. While removal of big trees created more of the warm-water habitat preferred by Navarro Roach, diversion of water has greatly reduced flows, presumably countering the effects of tree removal. Because of these factors, Moyle et al. (2013, 2015) considered it highly vulnerable to extinction in the next century from climate change and other factors.	en	Baumsteiger, Jason, Moyle, Peter B. (2019): A reappraisal of the California Roach / Hitch (Cypriniformes, Cyprinidae, Hesperoleucus / Lavinia) species complex. Zootaxa 4543 (2): 221-240, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4543.2.3
03816E226F0ECC03FF7FDBEFFF395669.taxon	materials_examined	Holotype: USNM 74475. Originally described as Hesperoleucus subditus from Pajaro Basin, San Benito and Santa Clara Cos., CA. Paratypes: BMNH 1900.9.29.176; CAS-SU 22489; USNM 49579, 75338 – 40, 75342 – 43, 75345 – 50. Unlike previous listings by Snyder (1913), Tomales Bay (H. venustus) and Monterey Bay (H. subditus) species are genomically part of a southern subspecies of Coastal Roach (Baumsteiger et al. 2017). Previous works have recognized these individuals as distinct lineages both morphologically and genetically (Murphy 1948; Hopkirk 1973; Aguilar & Jones 2009). So while their distinctiveness seems consistent, their taxonomic level has not been properly defined till now.	en	Baumsteiger, Jason, Moyle, Peter B. (2019): A reappraisal of the California Roach / Hitch (Cypriniformes, Cyprinidae, Hesperoleucus / Lavinia) species complex. Zootaxa 4543 (2): 221-240, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4543.2.3
03816E226F0ECC03FF7FDBEFFF395669.taxon	description	Description. Adult total length is typically 55 – 100 mm, up to 125 mm. Roach typically have 7 – 10 dorsal rays (average 9), 6 – 8 anal rays (average 7), and 47 – 62 lateral line scales (average 54) (Hopkirk 1973). The remaining characters vary between different DPSs proposed within this subspecies (see below), including thickness of caudal peduncle, fin length, body size, and snout shape (Snyder 1913; Murphy 1948; Hopkirk 1973).	en	Baumsteiger, Jason, Moyle, Peter B. (2019): A reappraisal of the California Roach / Hitch (Cypriniformes, Cyprinidae, Hesperoleucus / Lavinia) species complex. Zootaxa 4543 (2): 221-240, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4543.2.3
03816E226F0ECC03FF7FDBEFFF395669.taxon	distribution	Distribution. Southern Coastal Roach are restricted to the drainages of Tomales Bay / northern SF Bay in the north and Monterey Bay in the south. There are no records of Roach being present in watersheds between these two systems but thorough sampling is needed to be sure of their absence. Status. Although both DPSs within this subspecies are considered to be Near-threatened (see below), the subspecies as a whole seems fairly abundant in their native ranges (Moyle et al. 2015). However, this is still probably a small subset of the original range of this subspecies, given the current geographic divide between the two DPSs within the subspecies. Both are found in areas where freshwater sources are limited and human use is high, making them candidates for decline through water manipulation. Additionally, most locations with this subspecies are relatively small, isolated creeks, making climate change an increasing problem for their persistence.	en	Baumsteiger, Jason, Moyle, Peter B. (2019): A reappraisal of the California Roach / Hitch (Cypriniformes, Cyprinidae, Hesperoleucus / Lavinia) species complex. Zootaxa 4543 (2): 221-240, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4543.2.3
03816E226F0ECC03FF7FDBEFFF395669.taxon	description	Tomales Roach. Snyder (1913) described Hesperoleucus venustus from the Russian River, Tomales Bay tributaries, and San Francisco Bay tributaries. Hopkirk (1973) recognized that Roach from these three regions were different from each other but similar enough to California Roach that he declared H. venustus to be a synonym of H. s. symmetricus. He did suggest, however, that individuals in Tomales Bay tributaries were distinct enough to be recognized as a subspecies. The genetic studies of Jones (2001), Aguilar & Jones (2009) and Baumsteiger et al. (2017) indicated that populations from Tomales Bay tributaries are distinct, which we recognize here. Jones (2001) found populations of Tomales Roach from Lagunitas and Walker creeks shared nuclear DNA allele frequencies but were reciprocally monophyletic for mitochondrial DNA haplotypes. Aguilar & Jones (2009) determined from the mtDNA analysis of fish from Lagunitas and Walker Creeks that they were clearly a distinct lineage from CA Roach. Microsatellites, however, were not as definitive, with one analysis finding weak support for Tomales Roach as a distinct lineage, while another analysis found that, although distinguishable, individuals from Lagunitas and Walker Creeks clustered with Monterey Roach. Our genomic analysis (Baumsteiger et al. 2017) provided further clarity, showing that Tomales Bay locations are clearly definable within the Southern Coastal Roach subspecies, as a distinct population segment. Description. Tomales Roach look similar to other members of the CA Roach complex but are most similar to Russian River Roach (Table 1). Adult total length is typically 55 – 100 mm, up to 125 mm. Like Russian River Roach, Tomales Roach differ from CA Roach in having a more trim, slender body, a more pointed snout, a more slender caudal peduncle, and longer fins. Tomales Roach have 8 – 10 dorsal rays (average 9), 6 – 7 anal rays (average 7), and 47 – 62 lateral line scales (average 54) (Hopkirk 1973). In tributaries to San Francisco Bay, Snyder (1905, 1908) demonstrated that sex could be established by using the ratio of pectoral fin length to body length. Males exhibited a ratio of> 0.21 while females bore pectoral fins between 0.16 and 0.20 the length of their body. Both sexes exhibit bright orange and red breeding coloration on the operculum, chin and the base of the paired fins. Males may also develop numerous small breeding tubercles (pearl organs) on the head (Murphy 1943).	en	Baumsteiger, Jason, Moyle, Peter B. (2019): A reappraisal of the California Roach / Hitch (Cypriniformes, Cyprinidae, Hesperoleucus / Lavinia) species complex. Zootaxa 4543 (2): 221-240, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4543.2.3
03816E226F0ECC03FF7FDBEFFF395669.taxon	distribution	Distribution. Tomales Roach are restricted to the Lagunitas Creek and Walker Creek drainages of western Marin County. Roach of uncertain taxonomic affinity have also been reported from Pine Gulch Creek, tributary to Bolinas Lagoon (Murphy 1948) and Salmon Creek, Marin Co. (Moyle 2002). However, a 1997 survey of Pine Gulch Creek recorded no Roach present (Fong 1999). Status. There is no indication that Tomales Roach in Walker and Lagunitas Creeks are in decline, but no regular surveys exist. Dams and diversions, however, have altered flows and habitat. They are currently listed as a state Species of Special Concern (IUCN Status, Near-threatened) but do not appear to be in immediate danger of extinction as a DPS. Fragmentation of populations, along with habitat alterations, may be limiting distribution and abundance (Moyle et al. 2015). Increasing urban water demands, coupled with predicted climate change impacts, are likely to lead to more widespread drying of stream segments and elimination of Roach populations. As a result, Moyle et al. (2013) considered Tomales Roach as “ highly vulnerable ” to extinction by 2100 from the effects of climate change. Moyle et al. (2015) considered it to be a species of “ moderate concern ”, not facing immediate extinction threats.	en	Baumsteiger, Jason, Moyle, Peter B. (2019): A reappraisal of the California Roach / Hitch (Cypriniformes, Cyprinidae, Hesperoleucus / Lavinia) species complex. Zootaxa 4543 (2): 221-240, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4543.2.3
03816E226F0ECC03FF7FDBEFFF395669.taxon	description	Monterey Roach. The Monterey Roach has been of interest because of its frequent hybridization with Monterey Hitch (L. e. harengus) (Miller 1945; Avise et al. 1975) but it retains its identity as a distinct taxon (Baumsteiger et al. 2017). Its isolation from other populations within the subspecies is of note, indicating that should be managed as a distinct population segment. Description. Monterey Roach are similar in appearance to CA Roach (see description) but can be distinguished by having fewer dorsal (7 – 9; average 8) and anal fins rays (6 – 8; average 7), fewer scales in the lateral line, slightly shorter fins, a slightly more robust body and a thicker caudal peduncle (Snyder 1913; Murphy 1948; Hopkirk 1973).	en	Baumsteiger, Jason, Moyle, Peter B. (2019): A reappraisal of the California Roach / Hitch (Cypriniformes, Cyprinidae, Hesperoleucus / Lavinia) species complex. Zootaxa 4543 (2): 221-240, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4543.2.3
03816E226F0ECC03FF7FDBEFFF395669.taxon	distribution	Distribution. Monterey Roach are widely distributed in the Pajaro, Salinas, and San Lorenzo River systems as well as Soquel Creek, all tributaries to Monterey Bay on the central coast of California. Pescadaro Creek, just north of Monterey Bay, also contains Monterey Roach. Within the Pajaro watershed, Monterey Roach no longer occur in the mainstem but are present in Uvas Creek, Llagas Creek upstream of Chesbro Reservoir, the North Fork of Pacheco Creek upstream of Pacheco Reservoir, Arroyo Dos Picachos and in the San Benito River and its tributaries, including Tres Pinos, Laguna, and Clear Creeks (Smith 2007). In the Salinas River system, Roach also have been extirpated from the mainstem and now occur primarily in tributaries such as Arroyo Seco (J. J. Smith, pers. comm. 2009) and Gabilan Creek, although recent survey information is lacking. Status. Monterey Roach are apparently still numerous and widely distributed in smaller streams in much of their native range, but the DPS has been largely extirpated from the mainstem Pajaro and Salinas River systems due to habitat alteration, degraded water quality and quantity and alien species (Smith 1982, 2007). Long-term trends are not known but populations are likely fewer and more fragmented than historically. Moyle et al. (2015) listed them as a state Species of Special Concern (IUCN status of Near-threatened) and noted they were “ highly vulnerable ” to climate change due to potential reductions in stream flow throughout the watersheds (Moyle et al. 2013).	en	Baumsteiger, Jason, Moyle, Peter B. (2019): A reappraisal of the California Roach / Hitch (Cypriniformes, Cyprinidae, Hesperoleucus / Lavinia) species complex. Zootaxa 4543 (2): 221-240, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4543.2.3
03816E226F0FCC01FF7FDC95FEA150C1.taxon	materials_examined	Holotype: USNM 74474. Originally described from Drew Creek, Lake Co., OR. Paratypes: CAS-SU 22491; UMMZ 139019. Northern Roach were first collected in 1898 by C. Rutter as Rutilus symmetricus (Rutter 1908). Rutter (1908: 139) stated “ We have but few small specimens of this form, the longest being but 3 inches long. They were taken in North Fork Pitt (sic) River near Alturas and at the mouth of Joseph Creek, several hundred miles from where any other specimens of symmetricus have been taken. The form may prove to not to be symmetricus, but we cannot identify it otherwise with the material at hand. ” In 1913, Snyder described the Goose Lake drainage fish as Hesperoleucus mitrulus. The first inclusion of Roach from the Pit River as part of H. symmetricus was by Hubbs et al. (1979). Genetically, Aguilar & Jones (2009) found that individuals from these locations were distinct from all other CA Roach. Our genomic study (Baumsteiger et al. 2017) also found all individuals collected from these locations to be distinct at the species-level in every analysis.	en	Baumsteiger, Jason, Moyle, Peter B. (2019): A reappraisal of the California Roach / Hitch (Cypriniformes, Cyprinidae, Hesperoleucus / Lavinia) species complex. Zootaxa 4543 (2): 221-240, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4543.2.3
03816E226F0FCC01FF7FDC95FEA150C1.taxon	description	Description. Northern Roach are small (adult size typically 50 – 100 mm TL) bronzy cyprinids, similar in appearance to the California Roach (Moyle 2002; Fig. 3). They have a robust body, deep caudal peduncle, short snout and short rounded fins. Northern Roach differ from CA Roach in having short rounded fins and “ cup-like ” scales (Snyder 1913; Table 1). Snyder (1908) examined 20 fish from Drew Creek, Oregon and all individuals had 8 dorsal rays and 7 anal rays. Snyder found that males had longer, larger fins than did females, especially pectoral fins; the sexes could be differentiated by the ratio of pectoral fin length to body length.	en	Baumsteiger, Jason, Moyle, Peter B. (2019): A reappraisal of the California Roach / Hitch (Cypriniformes, Cyprinidae, Hesperoleucus / Lavinia) species complex. Zootaxa 4543 (2): 221-240, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4543.2.3
03816E226F0FCC01FF7FDC95FEA150C1.taxon	distribution	Distribution. The original collections by Rutter (1908) consisted of the North Fork of the Pit River and the mouth of Joseph Creek. Snyder (1908) collected widely in the upper Pit River, Goose Lake basin of California and Oregon, and in the Summer, Abert, Harney and Warner basins of Oregon but only found Roach in tributaries to Goose Lake, Lake Co., Oregon. The first inclusion of individuals from the Pit River as part of this species was by Hubbs et al. (1979). While no mention is made of a range extension for the taxon, it is assumed this change was precipitated by the 1934 collection of 19 roach in the North Fork Pit River near Alturas, Modoc County (unpublished field notes and collections of Carl Hubbs at the Univ. of Michigan as reported in Reid et al. 2003). In the most comprehensive sampling of the Pit system in California to date, Moyle and Daniels (1982) found Roach at only 8 % of 261 collection sites. Northern Roach were found in only three widely separated drainages: (1) Ash – Rush – Willow Creek drainage, Lassen / Modoc Co., (2) Bear Creek, tributary to the Fall River, Shasta Co. and (3) Beaver Creek, Lassen Co. All locations are above Pit River Falls (Shasta Co.) which divides the Pit River Basin into upper and lower drainages. The falls are a barrier to fish movement (Kinziger et al. 2016). Historically, the waterfall was the northern range limit for some Sacramento River fishes, such as Tule Perch, Hysterocarpus traskii (Moyle 2002). Roach below the falls had unimpeded access to the Sacramento River system and are assumed to be H. s. symmetricus. However, genetic and morphometric studies have not been conducted and relationships remain uncertain. Status. Northern Roach have been uncommon in California ever since they were first collected in 1898, although by that time much of the Pit River drainage had been heavily altered by grazing, agriculture and logging (Moyle & Daniels 1982). Subsequently, alien fish species that compete with or prey on Northern Roach (e. g. Green Sunfish, Lepomis cyanellus) became widely introduced. Their absence from some streams, however, may be the result of specific habitat requirements. Northern Roach prefer spring pools and swampy stream reaches, unlike the intermittent stream habitats where other species of Roach are found (S. Reid, pers. comm.). Thus in Lassen / Modoc Co., Roach are found in small numbers, inhabiting the weedy margins of streams and, in one case, an isolated spring pond (Moyle & Daniels 1982; S. Reid, pers. comm.). However a fairly recent survey of fishes in the Oregon portion of the Goose Lake watershed found Northern Roach to be relatively abundant in six small creeks (Scheerer et al. 2010). Moyle et al. (2015) rated the Northern Roach as a Species of Special Concern in California and the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) lists their status as High Concern. Additionally, these Roach are highly vulnerable to extinction in the next century from climate change effects on their small streams (Moyle et al. 2013).	en	Baumsteiger, Jason, Moyle, Peter B. (2019): A reappraisal of the California Roach / Hitch (Cypriniformes, Cyprinidae, Hesperoleucus / Lavinia) species complex. Zootaxa 4543 (2): 221-240, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4543.2.3
03816E226F0DCC01FF7FDB7DFD845543.taxon	materials_examined	Holotype: USNM 74466. Originally described from Gualala River, Sonoma Co., CA. Paratypes: CAS-SU 14903. Gualala Roach were first collected by Snyder (1908) who recognized them as Rutilus symmetricus but noted they bore “ a distinctive local stamp by which they can be recognized without difficulty (p 175). ” He later (1913) described them as H. parvipinnis. Murphy (1948) suggested these individuals constituted a subspecies not a species. Aguilar & Jones (2009) found them to be strongly genetically different from any other Roach along the California coast, suggesting they were more than a subspecies. Baumsteiger et al. (2017) found individuals within the Gualala system to be distinctive at the species level in all analyses, with pairwise F ST estimates between these individuals and Northern Roach to be the highest in the study (0.895). Thus the consensus reconfirms what Snyder (1913) proposed, that Gualala Roach are indeed a distinct species within Hesperoleucus.	en	Baumsteiger, Jason, Moyle, Peter B. (2019): A reappraisal of the California Roach / Hitch (Cypriniformes, Cyprinidae, Hesperoleucus / Lavinia) species complex. Zootaxa 4543 (2): 221-240, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4543.2.3
03816E226F0DCC01FF7FDB7DFD845543.taxon	description	Description. Adult Gualala Roach are small (typically 50 – 80 mm) and bronzy in color, similar in general appearance to California Roach (H. symmetricus). However, they differ from other Roach species by having smaller scales (54 – 65 along the lateral line), shorter, more rounded fins, a shorter snout (in relation to head length) and a more robust body (Table 1). Gualala Roach have 7 – 8 dorsal rays (average 8) and 6 – 8 (average 7) anal rays (Hopkirk 1973). Snyder (1913 p. 66) described Gualala Roach as having “ a light lateral stripe two scales wide extending from upper edge of gill opening to base of caudal and entirely above the lateral line; below is a somewhat wider dark stripe, which in turn is followed by several narrower and very distinct dark stripes which grow lighter ventrally. ”	en	Baumsteiger, Jason, Moyle, Peter B. (2019): A reappraisal of the California Roach / Hitch (Cypriniformes, Cyprinidae, Hesperoleucus / Lavinia) species complex. Zootaxa 4543 (2): 221-240, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4543.2.3
03816E226F0DCC01FF7FDB7DFD845543.taxon	distribution	Distribution. Gualala Roach are confined to the Gualala River and its tributaries in Sonoma Co. They are the most abundant fish species in the South and Wheatfield forks and in most headwater streams (Entrix 1992; DeHaven 2008). Occurrence is greatly reduced in the colder North Fork (Parker and Pool 1964; CDFG 1991) and in the mainstem below its confluence with the North Fork (Kimsey 1953; DeHaven 2008). Status. Historically, Gualala Roach were present throughout the Gualala River basin (Higgins 1997). Agency salmonid surveys indicate Roach may have increased in abundance due to habitat alterations favorable to warm water-tolerant species (Higgins 1997). Moyle et al. (2013) rate this species as “ highly vulnerable ” to extinction due to climate change. Statewide this is a species of Special Concern (IUCN status, Near-threatened) because of its limited distribution and increasing threats from vineyard and rural residential development, including introductions of non-native fishes (Moyle et al. 2015).	en	Baumsteiger, Jason, Moyle, Peter B. (2019): A reappraisal of the California Roach / Hitch (Cypriniformes, Cyprinidae, Hesperoleucus / Lavinia) species complex. Zootaxa 4543 (2): 221-240, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4543.2.3
