Taxonomic validation of five fish species of subfamily Barbinae from the Ganga river system of northern India using traditional and truss analyses.

Abstract

Morphometric differences were investigated among five fish species of subfamily Barbinae from the Ganga river system through traditional morphometrics and the truss network system. Species taken into account were Puntius chola (Hamilton 1822), Puntius sophore (Hamilton 1822), Pethia ticto (Hamilton 1822), Pethia conchonius (Hamilton 1822) and Systomus sarana (Hamilton 1822). Although, taxonomists carefully examine external body features to discriminate these species, there is still a risk of misidentification during a visual assessment. In the present study, the traditional morphological analysis included 22 morphometric measurements and 10 meristic counts. Truss network system of 14 landmarks was interconnected to yield 91 distance variables. The principal component analysis (PCA), discriminant function analysis (DFA) and cluster analysis (CA) were employed in order to determine morphometric variations. In traditional analysis, 29 characters out of 32 were found significant (p<0.05). Eight principal components were extracted through PCA explaining 85.30% of the total variance in samples, DFA correctly classified 100.0% of original grouped cases and 100.0% of cross-validated grouped cases. Truss analysis showed that all the 90 characters were significant (p<0.05). PCA extracted four principal components explaining 96.45% of the total variance. DFA correctly classified 96.1% of original grouped cases and 92.1% of cross-validated grouped cases. The results acquired from the traditional as well as truss analyses indicate significant morphometric heterogeneity. However, variations are not the same for the two different methods (traditional and truss) employed for the analyses. Shape differences among species were evident from relative warps (RW) supporting truss network analysis. Geometric morphometric methods (GMM), but limited use of Procrustes methods revealed even very small dissimilarity between groups. In spite of determining the morphometric differentiation among species, the present study also provides a useful insight on the application and complementary role of truss analysis with traditional morphometric analysis in the correct classification of the selected species.