Main Ref. | Roxo, F., C. Zawadaki and W. Troy, 2014 |
Appearance refers to | |
Bones in OsteoBase |
Specialized organs | |
Different appearance | always different morphology between mature adults |
Different colors | |
Remarks | Adult males differ from adult females by the the following characters: a papilla at the urogenital opening (vs. papilla absent in females); pelvic fin extending beyond anal-fin origin (vs. pelvic fin not reaching anal-fin origin in females); and an unbranched pectoral- and pelvic-fin ray supporting a dermal flap on their proximal dorsal surface in males. Both males and females have a membrane at anal opening, but the membrane is longer and large in females than in males, covering almost the entire urogenital opening. |
Striking features | |
Body shape lateral | elongated |
Cross section | |
Dorsal head profile | |
Type of eyes | |
Type of mouth/snout | |
Position of mouth | |
Type of scales | bony plates or armour |
Diagnosis |
Hisonotus oliveirai is diagnosed from all species ofHisonotus, except H. insperatus, H. luteofrenatus and H. paresi, by having odontodes forming longitudinally aligned rows (one odontode after the other, but not necessarily forming parallel series) on head and trunk (vs. odontodes not forming longitudinally aligned rows). It differs also from all congeners except H. insperatus, H. luteofrenatus, H. paresi, and H. piracanjuba, by the possession of a pair of rostral plates at the tip of the snout (vs. a single rostral plate). In addition, it further differs from all congeners except H. bockmanni, H. chromodontus, H. insperatus, H. luteofrenatus, and H. paresi by having a functional v-shaped spinelet (vs. spinelet non-functional, square-shaped, or absent). It can be separated from H. bockmanni and H. paresi by lacking contrasting dark geometric spots on the anterodorsal region of the body (vs. presence); from H. insperatus by having small, inconspicuous odontodes forming rows on the head and trunk (vs. large, conspicuous odontodes forming rows on the head and the trunk), head depth 51.6?59.2% HL (vs. 44.3?48.7% HL) and suborbital depth 20.9?25.5% HL (vs. 16.6?20.1% HL); from H. luteofrenatus by having caudal peduncle depth 10.8?12.5% SL (vs. 8.9?10.2% SL) and snout length 46.9?52.2% HL (vs. 67.0?75.3% HL); from H. paresi by a having head depth 51.6?59.2% HL (vs. 42.4?47.7% HL), 11-18 premaxillary teeth (vs. 6?10), and 11-15 dentary teeth (vs. 4?7); from H. piracanjuba by having caudal peduncle depth 10.8?12.5% SL (vs. 8.3?9.5% SL), and snout length 46.9?52.2% HL (vs. 67.7?72.7% HL) (Ref. 95507). |
Ease of Identification |
Lateral Lines | Interrupted: No |
Scales on lateral line | |
Pored lateral line scales | |
Scales in lateral series | |
Scale rows above lateral line | |
Scale rows below lateral line | |
Scales around caudal peduncle | |
Barbels | |
Gill clefts (sharks/rays only) | |
Gill rakers | |
on lower limb | |
on upper limb | |
total | |
Vertebrae | |
preanal | |
total | 27 - 27 |
Attributes | first rays forming locking device |
Fins number | 1 |
Finlets No. | Dorsal |
Ventral | |
Spines total | |
Soft-rays total | 9 - 9 |
Adipose fin | absent |
Attributes | forked |
Fins number | |
Spines total | |
Soft-rays total | 6 - 6 |
Pectoral | Attributes |
Spines 1 | |
Soft-rays 7 - 7 | |
Pelvics | Attributes |
Position abdominal before origin of D1 | |
Spines | |
Soft-rays 6 - 6 |