Salmo chilo, Turan, Kottelat & Engin, 2012
|
publication ID |
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111677811 |
|
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17821237 |
|
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/C85F87D2-FD2C-FD67-28AB-FF5EFC37FDF4 |
|
treatment provided by |
Felipe |
|
scientific name |
Salmo chilo |
| status |
|
Salmo chilo View in CoL View Figure
Common name. Ceyhan trout.
Diagnosis. Distinguished from other species of Salmo in Mediterranean basin by: ● dorsal head profile strongly convex / ● snout blunt / ● mouth conspicuously subterminal, with fleshly maxilla and lower lip / ○ maxilla short, depth of upper jaw 2.5–2.9 times in length of maxilla / ● size of adipose equal in male and female / ● length of maxilla equal in male and female / ○ 10–13 parr marks, distinct up to about 200 mm SL / ○ a narrow (equal or smaller than eye pupil) white ring around red spots / ○ 7–13 black spots on opercle / ○ 1–12 black spots behind eye and on cheek (more than one spot in individuals larger than about 160 mm SL) / ○ four broad bands on flank distinctive in all size groups / ○ few red spots on flank in individuals of all size groups / ○ 108–114 lateral-line scales counted until end of hypural complex / ○ 24–26 scale rows between dorsal origin and lateral line / ○ 15–17 scale rows between anal origin and lateral line / ○ 13–14 scale rows between adipose origin and lateral line / ○ 18–21 gill rakers. Size up to 300 mm SL.
Distribution View Figure . Türkiye: Göksu, Tekir, Fırnız, Göçüksu, and other tributaries of upper Ceyhan and Sarız, a tributary to upper Seyhan.
Habitat. Mountain streams, usually spring-fed, with cold, clear water and moderate currents, gravel, and pebble beds.
Biology. Spawns November–February.
Conservation status. LC.
Remarks. The very limited genomic data suggest a relatively weak genetic differentiation for this species, making it very close to or even identical to European S. farioides and S. lourosensis . Admittedly, increased sample sizes and taxon sampling will be required to assess the validity of retaining the species more rigorously. However, its genetic differentiation is weaker than that observed between other recognised trout species elsewhere.
Further reading. Turan et al. 2012b (description); Alp et al. 2003 (spawning time); Hashemzadeh Segherloo et al. 2021 (genomic data).
No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.
