云南鲤属(Cyprinus)鱼类的分类整理

关于鲤属鱼类的分类,过去已有两次比较系统的研究,但对亚属的划分、种下阶元的判定等仍有争议。原因是分类所循的外形性状变异较大,且多互相重叠。本文试从骨骼比较入手,寻找新的、较为稳定的分类依据。经比较分析,鲤属鱼类的第一脊椎横突、上颌骨、上筛骨、额骨、枕骨突、犁骨、下咽骨和下颌骨等存在明显差异,可作为划分亚属和种的鉴别特征。据此重新分类整理,认为Mesocyprinus亚属仍能成立,首次把产于洱海的厚唇鲤cyprinus crassilabris Chen et Hwang归入杞麓鲤Cyprinus carpio chilia Wu et al.的同物异名;Cyprinus pellegrini pellegrini Tchang,Cyprinus pellegrini barbatus Chen et Hwang,Cyprinns yunnanensis yunnanensis Tchang和Cyprinus yunnanensis daliensis Chen et Hwang在骨骼上有明显分化,由亚种提升为各自独立的种。整理后云南共有鲤属鱼类12个种和亚种,以骨骼特征做出检索表。

SYSTEMATIC STUDY OF THE GENUS CYPRINUS (PISCES: CYPRINIDAE) IN YUNNAN, CHINA

The present paper deals with the genus Cyprinus in Yunnan Province. There have deen two systematic studies of the genus Cyprinus. One was done by Chen and Hwang (1977) and the other was done by Wang (1979). However, there are still many problems, such as the division of subgenera and the status of different taxa at species or subspecies level. These problems might result from the fact that the external characters applied by previous authors vary and greatly overlap. In view of the fact, a detailed comparison of skeleton was made with the purposes of finding reliable characters and applying them to the systematic study of Cyprinus. There are obvious differences in the shape of transverse process of the first vertebra, maxilla, supraethmoid, frontal, occipital process, vomer, pharyngeal and the bone of lower jaw in Cyprinus, They are good diagnostic characters for dividing subgenera and species. The characters and numbers of observed specimens are presented in Tab, 1 , According these skeletal characters, an artificial key to species is given, in which twelve species and subspecies are included. Finally, three different systems of the genus Cyprinus are shown in Tab. 2. As a result, it may well be that the Cyprinus consists of two natural groups, corresponding to subgenus Mesocyprinus and subgenus Cyprinus. Cyprinus crassilabris Chen et Hwang is amalgamated firstly and synonymized to Cyprinus carpio chilia Wu et al. The authers insist that C. micristius micristius Regan C. micristius fuxianensis Yang et al. are valid subspecies and that C. Pellegrini Pellegrini Tehang, C. pellegrini barbatus Chen et Hwang, C. yunnanensis yunnanensis Tehang andC. yunnanensis daliensis Chen et Hwang are deserved the status of different species instead of subspecies.