It is practically difficult to differentiate Placocheilus robustus and Placocheilus caudofasciatus from Red River drainage of China. Without stated reasons, P. robustus has been assumed as the synonyms of P. caudofasc...It is practically difficult to differentiate Placocheilus robustus and Placocheilus caudofasciatus from Red River drainage of China. Without stated reasons, P. robustus has been assumed as the synonyms of P. caudofasciatus. The present study aims to decipher the morphological differences between two species so as to provide reliable clues for their classification by multivariate morphometry. A total of 72 specimens of two species in genus Placocheilus were examined. Besides morphological character comparisons, 10 anatomic landmarks were utilized and 23 frame structures and 15 general characters measured. The scatter plot results of principal component analysis showed that all specimens were clustered together and could not be defined as two distinct species. No significant morphological differences existed in four diagnostic characters between P. robustus and P. caudofasciatus. Thus the results of the present study fail to support P. robustus as a valid and independent species.展开更多
基金FundaUon items： This study was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China （NSFC31160419） and Yunnan Provincial Key Discipline Project of Forestry in Southwest Forestry University.We greatly appreciate invaluable assistance of Prof. Jun-Xing YANG and Miss Li-Na DU during specimen examinations and insightful feedbacks of Dr. XiaoYong CHEN dudng manuscript preparations.
文摘It is practically difficult to differentiate Placocheilus robustus and Placocheilus caudofasciatus from Red River drainage of China. Without stated reasons, P. robustus has been assumed as the synonyms of P. caudofasciatus. The present study aims to decipher the morphological differences between two species so as to provide reliable clues for their classification by multivariate morphometry. A total of 72 specimens of two species in genus Placocheilus were examined. Besides morphological character comparisons, 10 anatomic landmarks were utilized and 23 frame structures and 15 general characters measured. The scatter plot results of principal component analysis showed that all specimens were clustered together and could not be defined as two distinct species. No significant morphological differences existed in four diagnostic characters between P. robustus and P. caudofasciatus. Thus the results of the present study fail to support P. robustus as a valid and independent species.
