Crenicichla gender in the central region of the state of Rio Grande do Sul: Crenicichla vittata heckel, 1840
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5902/2179460X26307Abstract
Eleven specimens of fish of the Crenicichla gender from the Ibicuí-Mirim and Santa Maria rivers were studied and identified as C. vittata Heckel, 1840. The data obtained (morphometric, merystic and coloring) were compared with those available in the literature.
Downloads
References
BERTOLETTI, J. J. 1985. Aspectos sistemáticos e biológicos da ictiofauna do Rio Uruguai. Veritas, Porto Alegre, 30(117): 93-129.
BOSSEMEYER, I. M. K. & WEIS, M. L. C. 1990. Gênero Crenicichla da Região Central do RS: Crenicichla lepidota Heckel, 1840. Ciência e Natura, Santa Maria.
BRITSKI, H. A. & LUENGO, J. A. 1968. Sobre Crenicichla jupiaensis, sp.n, espécie aberrante do Rio Paraná (Pisces, Cichlidae). Papéis Avulsos Zool., São Paulo, 21(18):169-82.
CASCIOTTA, J. R. 1987. Crenicichla celidochilus from Uruguay and a multivariate analysis of the lacustris group (Perciformes, Cichlidae). Copeia, 4: 883-91.
DEVINCENZI, G. J. 1939. Peces deI Uruguay. Notas complementares, III. An. Mus. Hist. Nat., Montevideo, 3(13): 1-39.
FOWLER, H. W. 1954. Os peixes de água doce do Brasil. Arq. De Zoologia do Est. de São Paulo, São Paulo, IX: 1-400.
HASEMAN, J. D. 1991. An annotated catalog of the Cichlid fishes collected by the expedition of the Carnegie Museum to Central South America, 1907-10. Ann. Carnegie Mus., Pittsburg, 7(3-4): 329-73.
HECKEL, J. 1840. Johann Natterer's neue Flussfische Brasiliens nach den Beobachtungen und Mittheilungen des Entdeckers besbeschrieben. Annin. Wien. Mus. Natges, 2: 327-470.
KULLANDER, S. O. 1981. A cichild from Patagonia. Buntbarsche Bul. J. Am. Cichl. Assn., Stockholm, 85: 13-23.
_____________. 1981. Cichlid fishes from the La Plata basin. Part. I. Collections from Paraguay in the Muséum d'Histoire Naturalle de Geneve. Rev. Suisse Zool., Geneve, 675-92.
LUCENA, C. A. S. de & AZEVEDO, P. V. de. 1989. Crenicichla punctata Hensel, 1870 uma espécie válida de ciclídeo para o sul do Brasil (perciformes, Cichlidae). Comun. Mus. Ciênc. PUCRS, Sér. Zool., Porto Alegre, 2(7): 87-105.
LUENGO, J. A. 1971. La família Cichlidae en el Uruguay. Mem. Soc. Cient. Nat. "La Salle", Venezuela, 31: 279-98.
LUENGO, J. A. & BRITSKI, H. A. 1974. Una Crenicichla nueva deI Rio Paraná, Brasil (Osteichthyes, Cichlidae). Acta. Biol. Venez., Venezuela, 8 (3-4): 553-65.
PLOEG, A. 1987. Review of the cichlid genus Crenicichla Heckel, 1840 from Surinam, with description of three new species (Pisces, Perciformes, Cichlidae). Beaufortia, Amsterdam, 37 (5): 73-98.
REGAN, C. T. 1905. A revision of the fishes of the South American cichlid genera Crenacara, Batrachops and Crenicichla Proc. Zool. Soc., London, 1: 152-68.
___________. 1913. A synopsis of the cichlid fishes of the genus Crenicichla Ann e Mag. Nat. Hist., London, 8 (11): 489-504.
RINGUELET, R. A.; ARAMBURU, R. H. & ARAMBURU, A. A. Los peces argentinos de agua dulce. La Plata, Librart., 1967. 602 p.
Von IHERING, H. 1907 Os peixes de água doce do Brasil. 1ª parte: Gymnoti e Cichlidae. Revta. Mus. Paul., São Paulo, 7:258-338.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
To access the DECLARATION AND TRANSFER OF COPYRIGHT AUTHOR’S DECLARATION AND COPYRIGHT LICENSE click here.
Ethical Guidelines for Journal Publication
The Ciência e Natura journal is committed to ensuring ethics in publication and quality of articles.
Conformance to standards of ethical behavior is therefore expected of all parties involved: Authors, Editors, Reviewers, and the Publisher.
In particular,
Authors: Authors should present an objective discussion of the significance of research work as well as sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the experiments. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Review Articles should also be objective, comprehensive, and accurate accounts of the state of the art. The Authors should ensure that their work is entirely original works, and if the work and/or words of others have been used, this has been appropriately acknowledged. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Authors should not submit articles describing essentially the same research to more than one journal. The corresponding Author should ensure that there is a full consensus of all Co-authors in approving the final version of the paper and its submission for publication.
Editors: Editors should evaluate manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit. An Editor must not use unpublished information in the editor's own research without the express written consent of the Author. Editors should take reasonable responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper.
Reviewers: Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should be conducted objectively, and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments, so that Authors can use them for improving the paper. Any selected Reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the Editor and excuse himself from the review process. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
