taxonID	type	description	language	source
15F126E6266E58B4AFD6A48F510D1C5B.taxon	diagnosis	Diagnosis. Heptapterus differs from all other Heptapterini except Acentronichthys Eigenmann & Eigenmann, 1889, Nemuroglanis Eigenmann & Eigenmann, 1889, Chasmocranus bleekeri, ' Chasmocranus ' Chasmocranus brachynema Gomes & Schubart, 1958, ' Heptapterus ' Heptapterus multiradiatus, ' H. ' Heptapterus stewarti, and ' H. ' Heptapterus sympterygium by the presence of an adipose fin extensively fused with the caudal fin (Fig. 2). Heptapterus is distinguished from Acentronichthys by having a non-bifurcate caudal fin (i. e., caudal fin not divided in two lobes; vs. bifurcate, with distinct dorsal and ventral lobes), and from Nemuroglanis by having dark bars and stripes on back of trunk (vs. absence of dark bars and stripes on back of trunk) and 5 - 6 pairs of pleural ribs (vs. 8 - 9 ribs). It is also distinguished from ' C. ' Chasmocranus brachynema by having an elongate body, with a head length of 16.1 - 24.9 % (vs. 25.5 - 27.3 %); the posterior extension of mouth rim much shorter, with rictus barely reaching vertical line through posterior nostril (vs. posterior extension of mouth rim much longer, with rictus reaching vertical line between posterior nostril and eye); and the premaxillary tooth plate with no posterolateral extension, or with a small one (vs. with a very long posterolateral extension). It is further distinguished from C. bleekeri by having the pelvic-fin insertion posterior to vertical through insertion of dorsal fin (vs. anterior) and anal-fin insertion posterior to vertical through adipose-fin origin (vs. anterior). Additionally, Heptapterus differs from ' Heptapterus ' Heptapterus multiradiatus and ' H. ' Heptapterus stewarti by having fewer anal-fin rays (10 - 23 in Heptapterus vs. 38 - 46 and 33 - 36 in ' H. ' Heptapterus multiradiatus and ' H. ' Heptapterus stewarti, respectively). It is further distinguished from ' H. ' Heptapterus sympterygium by having the anal and caudal fins separated (vs. anal fin confluent with the caudal fin), and supraorbital pore 6 (s 6) fused or closer to each other (vs. separate and closer to the eye than to each other).	en	Depra, Gabriel de Carvalho, Aguilera, Gaston, Faustino-Fuster, Dario R., Katz, Axel M., Azevedo-Santos, Valter M. (2022): Redefinition of Heptapterus (Heptapteridae) and description of Heptapterus carmelitanorum, a new species from the upper Parana River basin in Brazil. Zoosystematics and Evolution 98 (2): 327-343, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zse.98.89413, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zse.98.89413
4923CD45E6FD55FC804F0BEEDA430F73.taxon	description	Figs 3, 4	en	Depra, Gabriel de Carvalho, Aguilera, Gaston, Faustino-Fuster, Dario R., Katz, Axel M., Azevedo-Santos, Valter M. (2022): Redefinition of Heptapterus (Heptapteridae) and description of Heptapterus carmelitanorum, a new species from the upper Parana River basin in Brazil. Zoosystematics and Evolution 98 (2): 327-343, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zse.98.89413, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zse.98.89413
4923CD45E6FD55FC804F0BEEDA430F73.taxon	diagnosis	Diagnosis. Heptapterus carmelitanorum differs from all congeners by possessing the anal-fin insertion less than one eye diameter posterior to a vertical through the adipose-fin insertion (vs. more than one eye diameter posterior). From all congeners, except H. borodini, by an isognathous mouth (vs. slightly to moderately retrognathous). It differs from all other congeners except H. borodini and H. hollandi, by the keel formed by ventral procurrent caudal-fin rays shallow, far from reaching anal-fin base (vs. keel formed by ventral procurrent caudal-fin rays deep, continuing almost to the anal-fin base, even though its anterior portion is devoid of fin rays) (Fig. 5). It differs from both H. borodini and H. hollandi by having an almost elliptical caudal fin (vs. lanceolate in H. borodini, obliquely truncate to falcate in H. hollandi; Fig. 6), the length of its dorsal lobe 18.3 - 19.3 % SL (vs. 24.4 - 43.3 % SL in H. borodini). Additionally, H. carmelitanorum differs from all other congeners, except H. carnatus, H. mbya, H. qenqo, and some specimens of H. hollandi, by having inconspicuous dorsal bars (vs. conspicuous). From H. borodini, H. carnatus, H. exilis, H. hollandi, H. mustelinus, and H. ornaticeps, by having 14 - 15 anal-fin rays (vs. 10 - 12 in H. borodini and H. hollandi; 18 - 21 in H. carnatus; 16 - 19 in H. exilis; 18 - 23 in H. mustelinus; and 19 in H. ornaticeps). Differs from H. exilis by the complete lateral line (in adults), continuous to base of hypural plate (vs. incomplete, not reaching dorsal-fin insertion). Heptapterus carmelitanorum further differs from H. hollandi by having i, 6 dorsal-fin rays (vs. i, 7).	en	Depra, Gabriel de Carvalho, Aguilera, Gaston, Faustino-Fuster, Dario R., Katz, Axel M., Azevedo-Santos, Valter M. (2022): Redefinition of Heptapterus (Heptapteridae) and description of Heptapterus carmelitanorum, a new species from the upper Parana River basin in Brazil. Zoosystematics and Evolution 98 (2): 327-343, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zse.98.89413, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zse.98.89413
4923CD45E6FD55FC804F0BEEDA430F73.taxon	description	Description. General morphology (Figs 3 - 4, 7; Suppl. material 1: Figs S 1 - S 3). Available specimens (holotype and three paratypes) ranging from 89.1 - 144.3 mm SL; morphometric data in Table 1. General shape of body presented in photographs of preserved and live specimens. Dorsal profile convex from premaxillary symphysis to end of dorsal-fin base; slightly convex from that point to adipose-fin insertion; slightly convex along adipose-fin base. Caudal-fin base rounded. Ventral profile convex from dentary symphysis to isthmus; straight or slightly convex from that point to anal opening; straight along anal-fin base; concave from its end to caudal-fin base. In dorsal view, mouth rim gently arched, convex; lateral profile of head convex due to well-developed adductor mandibulae muscle; lateral profile of body straight to slightly convex along abdomen, tapering gently to about half adipose-fin base, then tapering more abruptly to caudal-fin base. Head much depressed, flat dorsally and ventrally, rounded laterally. Mouth isognathous. Mouth rictus fleshy, folding ventrally, with large sub-labial groove beneath it (Fig. 7 a). Lips double, i. e., divided by deep labial slit into outer and inner lip (Fig. 7 b). Outer dorsal lip thickly and abundantly plicate; outer lower lip thickly, but scarcely plicate; inner dorsal and ventral lips finely and abundantly plicate (Fig. 7 b). Tubular anterior nostril not reaching mouth rim. Deep skin fold surrounding entire posterior nostril, but with deep posterior notch (Fig. 7 c). Maxillary barbel groove extending from base of barbel almost to the eye; in dorsal view, rim of groove almost parallel with body axis. Dorsal surface of snout with shallow depression posteriorly to posterior nostril, and elongate depression marking anterior cranial fontanel (Fig. 7 b). Bulging eyes covered in thick skin with no free rim, almost completely dorsal. Base of inner mental barbel slightly anterior to that of outer mental barbel, distinctly posterior to base of maxillary barbel. Maxillary barbel reaching anterior margin of first pectoral-fin ray. Shallow cleithral skin fold immediately posterior to branchial aperture, posterior terminus medial to base of first pectoral-fin ray (Fig. 7 a). Abdominal region depressed, distinctly broader than deep; in cross section, something between elliptic and rectangular. Cross section at dorsal-fin base approximately as broad as deep, between round and square. Body compressed from adipose-fin insertion to caudal fin, cross-section distinctly deeper than broad. Vertebrae 43. Ribs 9 (Suppl. material 1: Fig. S 4). Dorsal fin distal margin convex; i, 6 * (4) rays (first ray rigid only basally); each branched ray with, at least, tertiary branches; thin membrane between rays. Pelvic-fin insertion at same vertical as base of second (first branched) dorsal-fin ray (2 specimens) or between bases of first and second rays (2 *). Adipose fin continuous (i. e., connected) with the anteriormost ray of dorsal portion of caudal fin, originating slightly anteriorly to vertical through anal-fin insertion (distance less than one eye diameter); margin slightly convex. Caudal fin approximately elliptical, rays of dorsal half little longer than ventral ones; xiii, 8,8, xi * (1) xv, 7,8, xv (1), xvii, 6,7, xiv (1), xvii, 6,7, xvi (1) rays (Suppl. material 1: Fig. S 5); thin membrane between rays. Pectoral fin approximately elliptical, with anterior rays longer than posterior ones; i, 7, i (2), i, 8 * (2) rays on left side (first ray rigid only basally); on right side, i, 7, i * (4); each branched ray with, at least, tertiary branches; thin membrane between rays. Pelvic fin approximately elliptical, with anterior rays longer than posterior ones; i, 5 (4) rays on both sides; each branched ray with, at least, tertiary branches; thin membrane between rays. Premaxillary toothplate about twice as wide as long, length of lateral margin slightly higher than symphyseal margin; small posterolateral projection present; about six rows of conical teeth (tooth plate virtually identical to the one in Mees 1967, fig. 1 c). External gill rakers on first arch 1 + 6 * (3), 1 + 7 (1). Branchiostegal rays 8 (2) (Suppl. material 1: Fig. S 5). Laterosensory system. Cephalic laterosensory pores as Bockmann and Miquelarena (2008) described for Rhamdella cainguae Bockmann & Miquelarena, 2008, except in following details (Fig. 8): s 2 + i 2 pore much closer to anterior nostril (vs. at about middle of the distance between anterior and posterior nostrils); s 4 pore distinctly more medial than s 3 pore (vs. slightly more medial); s 8 with two pores (s 8 a and s 8 p; vs. s 8 with one pore); po 3 with two pores (po 3 a and po 3 p; vs. po 3 with one pore); pm 1 pore only slightly posterior to transversal line across pm 2 pore (vs. much posterior to it); pm 1 directed medially, facing antimere (vs. directed ventrally); pm 2 and pm 3 pores facing anteroventrally (vs. posteroventrally and ventrally, respectively); pm 4 and pm 5 pores anteromedial to rictus (vs. posteromedial and posterior to it, respectively); pm 10 pore slightly closer to po 1 + pm 11 pore than to pm 9 pore (vs. much closer to pm 9 pore). Eye also more distant from i 5, i 6, s 6, s 7, and s 8 pores than in R. cainguae, seemingly due to anterior displacement of eye in Heptapterus carmelitanorum. Lateral line continuous to hypural plate, with 43 (1), 46 (1), 63 (1) pores, or ending on hypural plate, but with large gap between anterior and posterior portions, with 23 (1) total pores (smallest specimen, LBP 26575). Olfactory organ. One specimen (LBP 23577) dissected with two longitudinal series of flat, triangular lamellae on right olfactory canal, each series with 32 lamellae (Fig. 9). Epidermal papillae. In LBP 23577, external surface of body covered with densely packed, flexible, perpendicularly protruding epidermal Epidermal papillae (except lips; distal half of barbels, tubular portion of anterior nostril and skin flap of posterior nostril; center of eye; distal margin of branchiostegal membrane; and nearly entire fins). Distance between adjacent Epidermal papillae ~ 0.15 mm, equal to their maximum length. Papillae slender, rod-like on most of body (Fig. 10 a, b); short, club-like, apparently with widened distal extremity on ventral surface of head (Fig. 10 c; widened portion possibly attached mucus). Very small Epidermal papillae on anterior face of first pectoral- and pelvic-fin ray; on base of caudal-fin rays; on margin of eye; on base of tubular portion of anterior nostril; on base of skin flap of posterior nostril; on ventral half of adipose fin. Scarce, but well-developed Epidermal papillae on urogenital papilla and anus. All epidermal Epidermal papillae visible only after removal of body mucus. Color in alcohol (Fig. 3, Suppl. material 1: Figs S 1, S 2). Background color greyish-brown, grading to white towards belly and to white beige towards region between anus and anal fin, and ventral side of head; transition between brown and light beige more abrupt on head than in remainder of body. Caudal spot very faint, small, at base of dorsalmost branched caudal-fin ray; DB 8 and 7 absent; DB 6 through 4 inconspicuous, dark-brown (respectively, at adipose-fin insertion; midway between dorsal and adipose fins; and terminus of dorsal-fin base); DB 3 present as roundish dark-brown spot immediately anterior to dorsal fin; DB 2 very faint, little posterior to supraoccipital, at vertical through posterior end of pectoral-fin base; DB 1 dark brown, extending to opercle; interorbital bar indistinct. Pre-orbital stripe very diffuse, dark-brown. Diffuse, dark-brown humeral spot; faint midlateral stripe present in LBP 26570 specimen; laterodorsal stripe absent. Color in life (Fig. 4, Suppl. material 1: Fig. S 3). General pattern of body dark brown, yellowish in the holotype (Fig. 4). Ventral region from isthmus to anal-fin insertion paler than remainder of body and somewhat pinkish, as well as cheek, branchiostegal membrane, cleithrum and lateral line. All fin rays dark brown. Adipose fin brownish yellow or dark yellowish brown. Interradial membranes of pectoral, anal and caudal fins yellow. Dorsal-fin interradial membrane hyaline, with scattered melanophores on basal third. Barbels dark brown dorsally and beige ventrally.	en	Depra, Gabriel de Carvalho, Aguilera, Gaston, Faustino-Fuster, Dario R., Katz, Axel M., Azevedo-Santos, Valter M. (2022): Redefinition of Heptapterus (Heptapteridae) and description of Heptapterus carmelitanorum, a new species from the upper Parana River basin in Brazil. Zoosystematics and Evolution 98 (2): 327-343, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zse.98.89413, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zse.98.89413
4923CD45E6FD55FC804F0BEEDA430F73.taxon	etymology	Etymology. The specific name is a noun in apposition derived from Carmelitanos (in Portuguese), the local appellation of people born or living in Carmo do Rio Claro (Minas Gerais, Brazil), the city where the species was discovered. The name is in honor of Carmelitanos, especially Ana Maria Vilela Soares, Jose Candido de Mello Carvalho, Moara Lemos, and Carlos Roberto Bueno Junior, for their contributions to biological science.	en	Depra, Gabriel de Carvalho, Aguilera, Gaston, Faustino-Fuster, Dario R., Katz, Axel M., Azevedo-Santos, Valter M. (2022): Redefinition of Heptapterus (Heptapteridae) and description of Heptapterus carmelitanorum, a new species from the upper Parana River basin in Brazil. Zoosystematics and Evolution 98 (2): 327-343, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zse.98.89413, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zse.98.89413
4923CD45E6FD55FC804F0BEEDA430F73.taxon	distribution	Geographical distribution and ecological notes. Heptapterus carmelitanorum is recorded only from a single unnamed stream. The watercourse is a tributary of Itaci stream - ribeirao Itaci, in Portuguese - which is an affluent of Furnas reservoir (in the Sapucai River arm), Grande River basin, in the upper Parana River system, in Minas Gerais State, Brazil (Figs 11, 12). The stream in which specimens of H. carmelitanorum were collected has its source on a mountain known as " Chapadao " (in Portuguese), approximately 1,300 meters a. s. l. Its cannel crosses successive falls (forming waterfalls), including one over 50 meters high. The type locality lies downstream from the waterfalls. According to the classification proposed by Strahler (1954), the stream may be classified as third order. The water was extremely clear (small characids readily observed) and well oxygenated. The stream depth was shallow (not exceeding 1 meter), and its bed was completely formed by rocks. Light penetration was low during samplings. In the reach, submerged tree roots and accumulated leaves and fruits (especially Fabaceae) formed some microhabitats for some species, notably Trichomycterus candidus (Miranda Ribeiro, 1949) and Cetopsorhamdia iheringi Schubart & Gomes, 1959. The specimens of H. carmelitanorum were captured in environments that combined rocks (generally juxtaposed) and a more turbulent flow (see Fig. 12). Observation during sampling suggests that the species is demersal. Species collected with H. carmelitanorum include C. iheringi, Hoplias malabaricus (Bloch, 1794), Knodus moenkhausii (Eigenmann & Kennedy, 1903), Odontostilbe weitzmani Chuctaya, Buehrnheim, & Malabarba, 2018, Oligosarcus argenteus Guenther, 1864, Pareiorhina sp., Psalidodon sp., T. candidus, T. septemradiatus Katz, Barbosa & Costa, 2013 (Azevedo-Santos et al. 2019). New collections in the same reach resulted in the capture of additional species, such as Apareiodon sp. (CICCAA 06610) and Rhamdiopsis sp. (CICCAA 06611). In addition to fishes, aquatic spiders (e. g., Tetragnatha sp.) and insects, including specimens of the order Trichoptera in cases formed by small gravels, were captured in the stretch.	en	Depra, Gabriel de Carvalho, Aguilera, Gaston, Faustino-Fuster, Dario R., Katz, Axel M., Azevedo-Santos, Valter M. (2022): Redefinition of Heptapterus (Heptapteridae) and description of Heptapterus carmelitanorum, a new species from the upper Parana River basin in Brazil. Zoosystematics and Evolution 98 (2): 327-343, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zse.98.89413, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zse.98.89413
