Present Status and ReDescription of Luciobarbus barbulus Heckel 1849 a Cyprinidae Species of IRAN

Western Iran barb species are scientifically, environmentally, and economically important. Some of them are the largest riverine freshwater species, which will grow in size and weight to 170 cm, and 120 kg respectively. Although these species are vulnerable, there is little information on taxonomy or environmental status of the species Luciobarbus barbulus is one of the important large species. In order to find the new record on the present status of large barb species sampling program carried out in western Iran, during the resent year since 2013 to now. This species overlaps in distinction with L. mystaceus, L scheich, and other similar species. In this study re-description of L.barbulus is given. 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, retain its shape from a fingerling species to a giant fish.


Introduction
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].The possible syntype of Luciobarbus barbulus (NMW 53957) as stated by Almaça (1986) [4] and Coad (1997) [5] is in too poor condition.Coad (1997) states that the synonymy of Luciobarbus barbulus with L. pectoralis remains uncertain [3].The possible syntype of L. barbulus (NMW 53957) was seen by 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 recognized.The catalog in Vienna lists only 1 fish, while Heckel's description refers to several fishes.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].
As some of the 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 barb species and the stated nominal species, more or less have a similar shape with Luciobarbus barbulus.So the re-description of this species is given in this paper, may assist the describing of 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 Brabus genus was long included in Barbus.It appears to be a very close relative of the typical barbells -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 withstanding the taxonomy and systematics of this ill-defined assemblage, their closest living relative is probably Aulopyge huegelii."[6].
There isn't any available paper or significant new information about Luciobarbus barbulus and other related species lives in Iran except some chick list in databases of California University Catalog of Fishes.[10] and this article is the first full paper on some taxonomical and outstanding features and present status of this taxa.

Diagnosis
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 (fig 1 . and 2).Barbells are relatively thick.

Similarity and synonyms
Is more resemble with L. mystaceus, but differ from this species and other related species such as: L scheich, L. kersin, L. pectoralis,and L. rajanorum .(seeHeckel 1843Heckel ,1846Heckel ,1849b)) [1,7,23,24] Although there is the high degree of overlap in some of the meristic and morphometric characters these taxa differ from each other.L. barbulus is not a subspecies of Luciobarbus mystaceus (Heckel 1846).Luciobarbus barbulus differs from L. mystaceus in having the: -Thick and wide lips (vs.smaller and thin head and lips), an inferior mouth (vs.sub-terminal).
-A slightly shorter head (3.7 SL/HL vs 3.9 SL/HL).(fig.1,2,4).-In L. barbulus the back adjoins with a slight bump directly to the posterior part of the head, so the head is more inferior (fig.1-6) but in L. mystaceus with thinner lips pointed head, a mouth is sub-terminal [2].-The body depth after dorsal fin in L. mystaceus is thicker and the trunk joins to caudal fin with more slope than in L. barbulus [28].-L.barbulus have the more cylindrical body but in L. mystcus body depths is wider.(fig.11).
These fishes have more variable features and sometime abnormality in the vertebra or in size of fins.
There is probably hybrid between these fishes and other related species, but stated feature is more stable and Luciobarbus barbulus is a distinct species that retain its shape from fingerling to a giant fish (fig- 6, 11)

Re-description
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 the 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, the average of 8, branched rays, Anal fin with 3 unbranched and range of 6-9 average of 7 branched rays(Table 1).
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.Denticles 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 denticles.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 the important characters for Luciobarbus barbulus and other related species, in this species, dorsal fin height among 25 specimens with the total length of 108-610 average of 298 cm is between 22-100 mm, the average of 52 mostly 56.(With body Weight from 12 to 2100 g and average of 349.1 g) see Table 1.Gill rakers, 17 24, average 20.Phnryngea1 teeth mostly compressed, otherwise with the pointed tip, mostly 4-3-2.The fifth tooth very small and rounded and sometimes absent apparently independent of size.The results are as follow and the measurement are summarized in Table 1:

Color
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 color in the different locality is slightly different and mostly is uniform.The back is dark greyish and the lower part of body whitish.eesd.ir for ethical approval of performing the project and monitoring its implementation process in accordance with the laws and regulations of IUCN in the treatment of animals.This project approved in Shahid Rajaee Teacher Training University, so it is our duty thanks, all of the staff of this institution.

. Author Contributions:
For this research articles Valiallahi J. wrote the paper, comprehended and designed the experiments; performed the experiments; analyzed the data; Dr. Coad Brian W. contributed reagents, materials, analysis tools and supervised the Ph.D. Theses, ethnically edited and revised draft manuscript, advise and has given critical suggestions" So the corresponding author declares that: if this article has any scientific value is belonging to Dr. Brian W. Coad and if there are any insufficiency and inadequacy, is belonging to corresponding author: Jalal Valiallahi.

Fig. 8 -
Fig. 8-The layout of Qarah Aqaj River and Salman Farsi dam at Shiraz in Far province, Iran, image kindly provided by Moradi Ismaeil, 2015.
The overall color is silvery and (15) J.V.C 16687, 373 TL, 297 SL, Gamasiab river have been caught in 1998.This paper is dedicated to Dr. Amin Kayvan for his help and encouragement, and hope God blessed his soul.(is no more among us,).Part of this paper is from the corresponding author Ph.D. Theses carried out at Tarbiat Modares University and Canadian Museum of Nature.We are grateful to the staff of this great museum and Dear The study on newly caught species was funded by Iran National Science Foundation (INSF), project No. 91001954.The authors thank the colleagues at this institute.Then more grateful to all of our Iranian friends in Ministry of Agriculture the Department of Fishery and Aquaculture of Kermanshah; Mohamad Ghazi, Shahmahmodi S.; Bidel R.; Haidary B. We would like thank Members of the Board of Directors of Scientific Association of Environmental Education and Sustainable development EESD www.