Present status and re description of Iranibarbus or Luciobarbus barbuls Heckel 1849 a valid Cyprinidae species of Iran

Western Iran Barbus species, are scientifically, environmentally and economically important. Some of them are the largest riverine freshwater species, that will grow in size and weight to 170 cm, and 120 kg respectively. These species although are vulnerable species but there is scarce information on taxonomy or present environmentally status of these exclusive species. Luciobarbus barbulus is one of the uniquely significant large species. In order to find new record on present status of large Barbus species a sampling program carried out in western Iran, during the resent year since 2013 to now. The validity of Luciobarbus barbulus a Cyprinid fish, which several authors have synonymies with different species is reaffirmed. This species overlaps in distinction with L. mystaceus, L scheich, and other similar species. In this study re description of L.barbulus is given. Our study reviled that Luciobarbus barbulus(Heckel 1846) is valid species and differ from L. mystaceus, L scheich, L. kersin, L. pectoralis, L. rajanorum. L. barbulus is not a subspecies of Luciobarbus mystaceus (Heckel 1846). This species differs from L. mystaceus in having thick and very wide fleshy lip, inferior mouth and slightly shorter head. In Luciobarbus barbulus head is more inferior. The details of differences between these species are given. This species is one of stable growing fish without dimorphism, that retain it’s shape from a fingerling species to a giant fish. The details on new record, new photo of this exquisite species and other precious large Luciobarbus species are given.


Introduction
Identifying of fish species specifically according to original descriptor, is very important.It is substantially is a bases for future distinctive classifying of fishes by modern and precision tools, such as DNA fingerprinting or other molecular or biochemical studies.Without dependable knowledge on identifying different fish species, other kind of analyzing may led to more confusing, mixing and generating useless mass of data [1] Western Iran Barbus species, are scientifically, environmentally and economically important species.Some of them are the largest riverine freshwater species, that will grow in size and weight to 170 cm, and 120 kg respectively.These species although are vulnerable, but there is inadequate information on taxonomy or present environmentally status of these exclusive species.Luciobarbus barbulus is one of these uniquely significant large species.
Luciobarbus barbulus was one of 15 species among specimens collected by Theodor Kotschy 1841 -1842, in the water system around Shiraz and was sent to Heckel in Vienna Museum (NMW).
Luciobarbus barbulus briefly described by Heckel (1849) [2].But during the last decades it has been reported and described for several times.Despite Heckel(1849) described some of distinctive features of Luciobarbus barbulus and outlined its difference with Luciobarbus mystacus but from 1970 arise some doubts about validity of this species.However There are also conflicting views on the validity and synonymy of several nominal "Barbus" species.(See more details on www.briancoad.com)[3] The possible syntype of Luciobarbus barbulus (NMW 53957) as stated by Almaça (1986) [4] and Coad (1997) [5] is in too poor condition.As some of morphological and meristic characters of Luciobarbus barbulus Heckel (1849), overlap with other similar species such as L. mystaceus, L scheich, L. kersin, L. pectoralis, L. longiceps, L. rajanorum.These species have been put a problematic group of Barbus species.The stated nominal species, more or less have a similar shape with Luciobarbus barbulus.So clear view on classifying of this species may be considered as a bases for morphological compression of other members of this group, description of this species may facilitate describing other related species.
In addition, recently arises more critical view on morphological classifying of fish species or on some less studied genus."Like many other Cyprinids the Brbus genus was long included in Barbus.It appears to be a very close relative of the typical barbels -which include that genus type species Barbus barbus, and may well warrant inclusion in Barbus.Many modern authors prefer to consider it a subgenus instead.It is, moreover, not entirely clear what species to place in Luciobarbus if it is deemed valid.The IUCN argues for a rather inclusive circumscription.Non with standing the taxonomy and systematics of this ill-defined assemblage, their closest living relative is probably Aulopyge huegelii."[6].

The exist problem on L. barbulus
During the last decades L. barbulus has been reported and described for several times or has been synonymized with other related species.
Valiallahi, (20000 in his PhD.Tesses on Barbus species of Iran states: "Despite the clear description of stated authors from 1970 arise some doubt about type locality and validity on L. barbulus.Also there was conflicting view on morphological character of this species" [14].
Possibly syntype of L. barbulus (NMW 53957) was examined by Almaça (1986) He states that a probable syntype of L. barbulus (from Kara Agatsch, Iran) was found, but it is in so bad conditions that nothing can be recognised by its examination curiously, all the specimens which could be identified with L. barbulus original description proceed from the Mediterranean coast of Western Asia: Lake Tiberias (Israel), Orontes and Lake Homs (Syria), and Lake Antakya (Turkey).As L. barbulus was described from Iran there is here an intriguing geographical problem which can't be solved before more information be available.(Almaça 1983) [4,16].Regarding similarity and overall morphology, Almaça realised that there is a close affinity between L. barbulus and group bocagei (Almaça 1984b(Almaça , 1990)).Later Almaça (1984aAlmaça ( , 1984bAlmaça ( , 1986Almaça ( , 1991) ) [4,9] retained barbulus as a full species known only from the Levant, despite Heckel's record from the Qarah Aqaj (= Mand) of Fars, Iran.(Coad, 2017) Krupp (1985) places Luciobarbus barbulus in Luciobarbus pectoralis Heckel, 1843 and gives data on the disposition of the holotype of Luciobarbus pectoralis (in the Naturhistorisches Museum Wien under NMW 54474, 116 mm standard length, 1839, Th.Kotschy [17,18,19].Karaman (1971) places this species in the synonymy of Barbus rajanorum but other authorities consider it to be Luciobarbus pectoralis (q.v.) [20].
Coad states that the synonymy of Luciobarbus barbulus with L. pectoralis remains uncertain (Coad, 2017) [3].The possibly syntype of L. barbulus (NMW 53957) also was seen by Dr. B.W. Coad (1997) he states that: it is in too poor condition to be of any value, being mostly bones.Coad state, another syntype is listed as NMW 6596 and measures 119.3 mm standard length.He continued that in 1997 this was the only syntype recognised.The catalogue in Vienna lists only 1 fish, while Heckel's description refers to several fish.NMW 6596 is mostly bones and is dried.The fleshy lip fold of the original description could not be discerned, teeth are missing and the dorsal fin is broken off short [3].According to.Armantrout N.B (1981) L. barbulus and L. longiceps are very closed and probably the same species.[22].According to Almaça (1983) L. barbulus is separated from L. mystaceus by having thinner lips, shorter barbels, the last unbranched dorsal ray weaker and shorter, more dense denticles spread over a shorter length of ray, higher anal fin, gill rakers less numerous and the upper dorsal profile is rectilinear and oblique to the back.
On the name of L. barbulus, Coad (1997) stated: I retain it as a species under Heckel's name for this taxon until the systematics of this and related species can be worked out [3].

Results
Luciobarbus barbulus (Heckel 1846) is valid species and differ from L. mystaceus, L scheich, L. kersin, L. pectoralis, L. rajanorum .(seeHeckel 1843Heckel ,1846Heckel ,1849b)) [7,23,24] Although there is high degree of overlap in some of meristic and morphometric characters but these taxa differ from each other.L. barbulus is not a subspecies of Luciobarbus mystaceus (Heckel 1846).This species differ from L. mystaceus in having thick and very wide fleshy lip, inferior mouth and slightly shorter head (fig.1,2,4).In Luciobarbus barbulus the back adjoins with a slight bump directly to the posterior part of the head, so head is more inferior(fig.1-6) but in Luciobarbus mystaceus with thinner lips pointed head, mouth is subterminal [2].The body depth after dorsal fin in Luciobarbus mystaceus is thicker and the trunk join to caudal fin with more slope than in Luciobarbus barbulus [28].
In fingerling specimens, the dorsal fin length, head shape and body depth between these two species are more resemble, but in larger fish the proportion of body depth with dorsal in L. mystaceus is less, so body is thicker than in L. barbulus.and proportion of head length to body depth in L. barbulus is more than in L. mystacus.(table 1.)In adult fish at same size L. barbulus have more cylindrical body but in L. mystcus body depths is more wider.In small fish head of L. barbulus is smaller or equal in size with head of Luciobarbus mystacus but in adult fish head in L. barbulus will grow more bigger than in L. mystaceus (fig.11).
The obvious features in first view separate these two species are as follow: Exactly as Heckel(1849) state the lips of Luciobarbus barbulus are thick with wide fleshy lip fold which forms a small median lobe.The dorsal fin, is far less obliquely truncated and when folded back, hardly reaches the beginning of the anal fin." [7,23,24].These fishes have more variable features and sometime abnormality in vertebra or in size of fins.There is probably hybrid between these fishes and other related species, but stated feature are more stable and Luciobarbus barbulus is a distinct species that retain it's shape from fingerling to a giant fish (fig.[1][2][3][4][5][6]11) Resent record on present status of these species shows that, for now (2017) it may be caught from nearly all of the places or locality or stations that are mentioned at this paper sometimes with extensive effort per catch, or in some place simply by trapping net or rod and line angling.but because of habituate degradation, pollution and over expedition of water and damming at routes for spawning, all of these valuable species are rare and their habitats are under threat, all of these species require précises protection.[25,26,27,28,29].As our catch efforts indicate the stock of this species are declining from Azabayjan Ghabi, Mahabad, Kurdestan, Kernanshah, Ilam, Lorestan, Kosestan and Fars province.
The biology and population of these species need more investigation.Information on stock, biology and distribution of these species is inadequate.This fish could be one of best candidate for inland fishery and aquaculture development.Kurdistan summer 2016, one of the giant fishes of Iran that retain its shape and character's from a fingerling fish to a giant fish, Image kindly provided by: Sayed Mohamad Mokhtar Jasemi, 2016.

Discussion
To clarify, contradiction and suspicious on validity of Luciobarbus barbulus we have to refer on the original writing of Heckel (1846-1849 b) [7].When Heckel (1849) received 15 Persian fish species, were collected by Theodor Kotschy around Shiraz, he previously have described the Syrian fish species.Heckle's remarks on L. barbulus and L. mystaceus is clear and obvious, so that eliminate any doubt about differences between Luciobarbus barbulus and Luciobarbus mystaceus.He stated "the water systems around Shiraz yielded the … 15 species.Considering Luciobarbus barbulus, Heckel (1849) states: "this species is distinguished from all other barbs of Syria by its very wide fleshy lip fold which forms a small median lobe below the symphysis of the lower jaw.This peculiarity reminds us of our Luciobarbus mystaceus, which it resembles remarkably in its entire appearance; however, the head is slightly shorter, the back adjoins with a slight protuberance directly to the posterior part of the head; the dorsal fin, which in Luciobarbus mystaceus, when folded back, reaches past the middle of the anal fin base, is here far less obliquely truncated; its height is only such that, when folded back, it hardly reaches the beginning of the anal fin."Heckel( 1849) stated that this fish inhabits the Kara-Agatsch River; our specimens are 7-8 inches long and were caught near the village of Gere".[7,23,24] Heckel (1849) stated that: "We also have a few, 9 inch long individuals from the Kueik (Queik) near Aleppo which we had considered to be chance deviations of Luciobarbus mystaceus before we encountered the Persian specimens" [23].When continued description of L. barbulus he stated that "but the most significant deviation [between two species] concerns the pharyngeal teeth of which there are five on the inner row, as in all barbs, but not four as in Luciobarbus barbulus."[24] Considering pharyngeal teeth Almaça 1990, state: "actually, I only found 4 outer teeth in the specimens belonging to L. mystaceus barbulus, and 4 or 5 in L. mystaceus mystaceus" [9] Contrary to Almaça 1990 stated remark, our examination shows, that pharyngeal teeth is not distinctive, stable or a good characters for separating these two species.In these two species and other related species, pharyngeal teeth is 2.3.4,rarely 1.3.4 and in some specimens is 2,3,5 or 1,3,5 [9] [30].
In conclusion according to Heckle,(1849) Luciobarbus barbulus is an species of Persia and is differ from L. mysaceus that were seen both from Shiraz, Iran and in the Kueik (Queik) near Aleppo in Syria.

Morphology
Among all Barbus and Luciobarbus species collected at western Iran and the specimen were examined in CMN, we carried out full analyses and measurement on 25 specimens.
The results are as follow and the measurement are summarised in Table 1: The inferior mouth is moderate in size, lips are very thick and well developed, sometimes extraordinarily so; lower lip very broad, with a short lobule at symphysis.As stated by Heckel (1849) this species is distinguished from all other barbs of Iran and Syria by its very wide fleshy lip fold which forms a small median lobe below the symphysis of the lower jaw and, the back adjoins with a slight protuberance directly to the posterior part of the head (fig1and 2).Barbells are relatively thick.Two pairs of barbells, The anterior barbell does not extend past the anterior eye margin level and the posterior one not past the posterior eye margin in all sizes of fish, rostral 1.3; maxillary 1.45 times the diameter of eye.
Head comprised 3.7 times in the standard length and including 2.6(2.2-3.1)times the snout and 8.5 times of the orbit.Standard length including 4.4 (3.8-5.3)times the body depth.Dorsal fin with 4 unbranched 7-9, average of 8, branched rays, Anal fin with 3 unbranched and range of 6-9 average of 7 branched rays.Upper profile of the dorsal fin rectilinear, slightly concave, and oblique.Last unbranched ray of the dorsal fin and denticles of its rear edge strong.Denticeles long and spread over the 9/10 of the depth of the ray.In older fishes the last unbranched ray contains 36 denticles and in younger 23.Average 29 range 22-36 denticels.when the dorsal fin is pushed back its tip, will not reach or extends scarcely to the origin of anal fin.Origin of the dorsal fin at the same level or slightly forward the origin of the ventral fin.
Dorsal fin length and proportion of standard length with body depth and head length are important character for Luciobarbus barbulus and other related species, in this species dorsal fin height among 25 specimens with total length of 108-610 average of 298 cm is between 22-100 mm, average of 52 mostly 56.(With body Weight from 12 to 2100 g and average of 349.1 g).Gill rakers, 17-24, average 20.Phnryngea1 teeth mostly compressed, otherwise with pointed tip, mostly 4-3-2.The fifth tooth very small and rounded and sometimes absent apparently independent of size.
Considering the size of fishes lives at the Zagross mountain basin rivers, after L. esocinus , L. barbulus is the second large Barbus species, that will attain size of some 1.5 m, with a weight of about 90 kg or more.

2 Colour
The back and upper flank are dark greyish.The lower flank and the belly whitish.Upper flank scales are outlined with pigment, and the anterior edge of the dorsal fin and the caudal fin margin are yellow bright red in fresh fish specimens.The colour in different locality is slightly different and mostly is uniform.The back is dark greyish and the lower part of body whitish.The overall colour is silvery and the anal and caudal fin lobe sometimes are bright red.The dorsal fin is grey and the pectoral and pelvic fins yellowish to bright red.The peritoneum is black.

Similarity and Local and Common names:
Overall morphology points to a close affinity between L. mystaceus, L scheich, , L. rajanorum, L. belayewi.Although there are several arabic and local names for these species but apparently local fisherman do not distinguish differences between all individual of these group, in Kermanshah province local fisherman called these group by name of Dolenj.

Table continued :
selected morphometric and meristic characters in Lucioarbus barbulus.