|Scientific Name:||Hypselobarbus mussullah (Sykes, 1839)|
Barbus mussullah Sykes, 1839
Tor mussullah (Sykes, 1839)
Sykes (1839) described Barbus mussullah from Ghod river, Sirur, Pune District. Maharashtra, India. There has been considerable debate on the generic status of the species. This species has been treated as Tor mussullah by Talwar and Jhingran (1991), Jayaram (1997, 2005, 2010) following the discussions given in Hora (1943). Menon (1992, 1999), however suggested that the species considered as Tor mussullah by Hora (1943) is same as Tor khudree and he placed T. mussullah under genus Hypselobarbus following Rainboth (1989). However, both the original suggestion of the genus Hypselobarbus by Bleeker (1860), with Barbus mussullah as its type species, and resurrection of the resurrection of genus Hypselobarbus by Rainboth (1989) is based on the illustration by Sykes (1839) and not by examining specimens.
Suggestions made by Hora (1943) that the species should be called Tor mussullah seems more valid as the species called as 'musunda' in the type locality of Barbus mussullah and neighboring areas is indeed a Tor species (Neelesh Dahanukar pers. obs.).
|Red List Category & Criteria:||Endangered B2ab(iii,v) ver 3.1|
|Assessor(s):||Dahanukar, N. & Raghavan, R.|
|Reviewer(s):||Arunachalam, M., Ali, A. & Cox, N.A.|
Hypselobarbus mussullah is assessed as Endangered because, although the species is widely distributed in the Western Ghats, it is severely fragmented with the area of occupancy (AOO) probably less than 500 km². Furthermore, the population size is declining severely in most parts of its distribution because of habitat alterations caused by pollution, heavy harvest of the species and competition created by the introduced alien species.
|Range Description:||Hypselobarbus mussullah is endemic to the Western Ghats of India. It has been described from Maharashtra (Sykes 1839, Annandale 1919, Hora 1943, Sutur 1944, Silas 1953, Jayaram 2005, Dahanukar pers. obs.), Karnataka (David 1963, Jayaram 2005, Sreekantha et al. 2007, Shahnawaz and Venkateshwarlu 2009), Tamil Nadu (Chacko 1952, Manimekalan 1998) and Kerala (Shaji and Easa 2003, Jayaram 2005, R. Raghavan and M. Arunachalam pers. comm. 2010).|
The record of this species from the northeastern Godawari River at low altitudes by Heda (2009) needs verification.
Even though this species is widely distributed the populations are severely fragmented and the AOO of the species is likely to be less then 500 km².
Native:India (Karnataka, Kerala, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu)
|Range Map:||Click here to open the map viewer and explore range.|
|Population:||This is a very rare species throughout its range (Jayaram 1995, Menon 2004, Shahnawaz and Venkateshwarlu 2009, N. Dahanukar pers. obs.). The population of this species seems to be declining.|
|Current Population Trend:||Decreasing|
|Habitat and Ecology:||The species prefers deeper portions of clear fast flowing large jungle streams and rivers in the upland areas and it attains a total length of 100 cm (Menon 1999).|
|Continuing decline in area, extent and/or quality of habitat:||Yes|
|Movement patterns:||Full Migrant|
|Use and Trade:||The species is a highly priced food fish. Heavy harvest could be a threat to the species. It is also a popular sporting fish with anglers (Hora 1943).|
|Major Threat(s):||Overfishing (including dynamite fishing), habitat loss due to pollution and introduced exotic species are the major threats to the species.|
|Conservation Actions:||There is no specific conservation action plan directed towards this species. Research is needed on the population trends, harvest trends and specific threats to the species.|
|Citation:||Dahanukar, N. & Raghavan, R. 2011. Hypselobarbus mussullah. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2011: e.T172446A6893728.Downloaded on 23 February 2018.|
|Feedback:||If you see any errors or have any questions or suggestions on what is shown on this page, please provide us with feedback so that we can correct or extend the information provided|