V E R T E B R A T A H U N G A R I C A M U S E I H l S T O R I C O - N A T U R A L l S H U N G A R I C I

Tom, l. 1959. Fase 2.

Data relating to the question of a taxonomic differentiation Of Barbus meridionalis caninus BONAPARTE and Barbus meridionalis

perènyi HECKEL

By L Borinkoy Zoological Dopartmonf of tho Hungarian National Mutwm,

Budapeit

I n t h i s study I i n t e n d to give a h i s t o r i c survey of the

species belonging to the various forms of Barbus m e r l d i o n a l l a .

I deal w i t h the d e s c r i p t i o n s , i n a chronologic order of t h e

species g i v e n by the v a r i o u s authors and subsequently analyse

those diagnoses which must be synonymized on the basis o f

our knowledge a v a i l a b l e a t present. F i n a l l y I want t o p o i n t

out the d i f f i c u l t i e s i n the d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n of the B e v e r a l

forme.

KOLLER /1926/ endeavoured t o r e v i a e the European Barbus

species, a v a i l i n g h i m s e l f of the m a t e r i a l of the Viennese

mueeum. I n the preface of h i s study he r i g h t l y p ointed out

the complicated c h a r a c t e r of t h i s problem: „Durch die Tat­

sache, dass s e i t j e h e r i n der Gattung Barbus eine Fülle von

Arten beschrieben worden war, ohne daes e i n ausreichender

Versuch gemacht wurde einen Schlüssel für diese Arten zu

f i n d e n , wurde i c h v e r a n l a s t , dies bezüglich der i n M i t t e l -

und Sudeuropa vorhandenen Barbenformen zu versuchen. * But

he, t o o , f a i l e d t o c l a r i f y t h l B problem i n r e l a t i o n t o

v a r i o u s forms of the Barbus m e r i d i o n a l l a RISSO,

But before d e a l i n g w i t h t h i s question I propose t o

discuss xhe var i o u s forms belonging t o Barbus m e r i d i o n a l i s

RISSO.

RISSO /1826/ described a new species /Barbus meridiona­

l i s / from the r e g i o n of Nice and from the mountainous brooks

of the Alps aE f o l l o w s : „Le corps de ce poisson est oblong,

renfelé, un peu a r r o n d i , d'une couleur olivâtre sur l e dos,

argentée, à nuances bleuâtres sur l e s cotes, et d'un peu mat

sur l e v e n t r e ; ses écailles sont striées, dentelées, f o r t

adhérentes à l a p e a u ; l e museau eBt très avancé,à b a r b i l l o n s

rouges ; l a mâchoire supérieure est plue longue que l ' i n ­

férieure; l a nuque est plane; l e s yeux p e t i t s , d ' i r i s doré,

l e s narines ont deux o r i f i c e s ; l a l i g n e latérale est un peu

courbe, s u i v i e de p e t i t s p o i n t s noirs-, une légère t e i n t e

rouge oolore l e s nageoires; l a caudale est fourchue, lisér-áe

de n o i r . "

I n h i s work pu b l i s h e d i n 1832-1841 BONAPARTE described

a small-bodied b a r b e l species /Barbus caninus/ g i v i n g as one

of i t s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s t h e absence of the, s e r r a t e d spines:

„Barbue c a p i t e c v a t o p y r a m i d a l i , l o n g i o r e a l t l t u d i n e c o r p o r i s ,

quintum long t u : i n i s v i x superante; s p a t i o i n t e r o c u l a r i v i x

aequante ocu L - maximum, antepositum; r a d i o osseo pinnae

do r s a l i ; - g r a c i l l i r r o , v i x s e r r u l a t e • squamis magnis r o t u n d i s .

11, P. 17, '/. 8, C. 19. L i n . l a t . squ. 50 aer. 17 /9/ 7.

Piemonte l a g h i e r u s e e l l i . "

I n the comprehensive work of CUVTER-VALENCIENNE /1642/

VALENCIENNE expressed h i s o p i n i o n t h a t Barbus m e r i d i o n a l i g

RISSO and Barbus caninus BONAPARTE belong to the sane species.

I n the same study Valencieme i n t r o d u c e d two new f orma :-Barbus

çgnalil from Perugia and Sarbus peloponnensius from Greece.

The number of scales of the l a t t e r species in, according t o

him, about 55 and the d o r s a l f i n has no s e r r a t e d spinas.

J

HECKEL /1848/ r e p o r t s a new species from T r a n s y l v a n i a c a l l i n g i t Barbus petényi,and repeats i t s d e s c r i p t i o n w i t h o u t any a l t e r a t i o n s a l s o l a t e r /1858/: „Totalgestalt g e s t r e c k t , Hinterhaupt und Vorderrücken b r e i t , A f t e r und Schwanzflosse l a n g s t r a h l i g , Dorsale ohne gesägten KnochenBtrahl.

D. 3/8, A. 3/5 u.s.w. Squ. 11-12 /55-60/ 8-9. Diese i n O e s t r e i c h nächst B. f l u v i a t i l i s am w e i t e s t e n

v e r b r e i t e t e A r t u n t e r s c h e i d e t s i c h von diesem:durch stumpfe­re Schnauze, minder f l e i s c h i g e Lippen, b r e i t e r e n H i n t e r k o p f , Mangel eines Sägestrahlee und längerstrahlige A f t e r f l o s s e ; von B. plebejus und eques durch g e s t r e c k t e r e G e s t a l t , Mangel eines Sägestachels, längere A n a l s t r a h l e n und grössere Schup­pen, von B. caninus e n d l i c h m i t dem er i n Färbung zumeist übereinstimmt, e b e n f a l l s durch g e s t r e c k t e G e s t a l t , abgerun­deten Rücken ohne Längsfurche.längere Caudale und noch höhe­re A f t e r f l o s s e , d i e b i s über d i e Basis der v o r i g e n r e i c h t . "

BIELZ /1853/ describes Fseudobarbus L e o n h a r d i i a l s o from Transylvania,and KOLLER /1926 a./ r e p o r t s a new v a r i e t y under the name Barbus m e r i d i o n a l i s RISSO v a r . r e b e l i from Albania.

When examining the diagnoses o f the species and t h e i r know ranges, we a r r i v e a t the f o l l o w i n g r e s u l t s .

Barbue caninus BONAPARTE must be regarded as synonymous, as the v a l i d name of t h i s species i s Barbus m e r i d i o n a l i s RISSO as described by RISSO from the regions of Nice and from the lowlands of Upper I t a l y , a n d as t h i s species waa the f i r s t /RI3S0, 1826/ i n a c h r o n o l o g i c a l order. As BONAPARTE showed Barbus caninus a l s o from the lowlands of Upper I t a l y , and as up t o now th e r e has been know only one small-bodied form w i t h o u t any s e r r a t e d spines i n the said r e g i o n , Barbus caninus BONAPARTE i s undoubtedly i d e n t i c a l w i t h RISSO's Barbus m e r i d i o n a l i s . Therefore Barbus caninus may not be c a l l e d a species at a l l t h i s l a t t e r may e v e n t u a l l y be designated as caninus, namely those, belonging t o the Dal­matian and I t a l i a n p o p u l a t i o n s /subspecies, v a r i e t y / i f they

d i f f e r from the populations of France and of Spain. I n the same way Barbue c a n a l i i VALENCIENNE cannot be

preserved on account of the very same considerations or even regarded as subspecies, since the I t a l i a n populations are uniform.

Barbue peloponneneius VALENCIENNE must be regarded synonymous as long as more thorough informations w i l l not be gathered concerning t h i s form, p a r t l y because t h i s species has the same number of s c a l e s /about 55/ as Barbue petényi HECKEL, and p a r t l y because KOLLER /1927/ indicated Barbus meridionalis meridionalis RISSO from the River Aepropotamos i n Greece, and STEPHANIDIS /1950/ reported Barbus meridiona­ l i s petényi HECKEL l i k e w i s e from Greece.

Therefore Barbus petényi HECKEL cannot be accepted as a d i s t i n c t s p e c i e s , but as a subspeciee only.

Pseudobarbue Leonhardii BIELZ i s indubitably synonymoue, because i t s d e s c r i p t i o n and lté place of ori g i n are i d e n t i c a l with those of Barbus meridionalis petényi HECKEL, and there l i v e s only one species i n the habitat mentioned above.

The v a r i e t y Barbue meridionalis RISSO v a r . r e b e l l KOLLER has to be regarded as i n v a l i d u n t i l further s c i e n t i f i c research, because i t had been described on the basis of a very few /4/ specimens only.

Thus there remains as the b a s i s of further research one species /Barbus meridionalis RISS0/ and two /probable/ sub­species /Barbus meridionalis caninus BONAPARTE and Barbus meridionalis petényi HECKEL/. But i n may present paper I wish to deal only with the possible d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n of the two subspecies mentioned above.

Most of the authors report Barbus meridionalis meri­ d i o n a l i s RISSO and not Barbua meridionalis caninus BONAPARTE from the Balkan Peninsula. On the basis of l i t e r a t u r a there a very small difference may be established only between the two forms.If further i n v e s t i g a t i o n s allow any d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n between Barbua meridionalis meridionalis RISSO and Barbus

meridional l a canlnuB BONAPARTE, then on the grounds of ioo-geographical considerations the l a t t e r may l i v e only l a the Balkan Penineula as a wide-spread form i n t h i s region.

L i t e r a t u r e i n d i c a t e s the greatest d i f f e r e n c e between the two subspecies the number of s c a l e s on the l a t e r a l l i n e . The number of scales of Barbus meridionalis caninus BONAPARTE found by CANESTRIKI /1874/ when examining I t a l i a n specimens was 48-50 and that of Barbue m e r i d i o n a l i s petényi HECKEL «as 55-60 found by HECKEL /1858/. I f t h i a were t r u s t t h e two forms could very e a s i l y be segregated by a simple counting of the number of s c a l e s only. But a survey of the relevant l i t e r a t u r e reveale that the varioue authors gave s c a l e numbers very d i f f e r e n t from those of the o r i g i n a l d e s c r i p t i o n s .

Our authore quoted below found the following values i n Barbue meridionalis BONAPARTE. STEIN DACHNER /1883/ exsained 9 specimens from the Lake Skutari sad found the following numbers of s c a l e s : 1 spec, had 46, 3 spec. 47, 1 spec. 49, 3 spec. 50, and 1 spec, 52. Mean 48.7. He commented on these ae follows :„Keines Erachtens glaube i c h aus der Schuppenzahl der Barbus exemplare aus dem R i e k a f l u s s e und des Sees von Scutari annehmen su dürfen, dass Barbus meridionalis Rleeo und Barbas petényi Heckel nur a l s Abarten ei»er und d e r s e l ­ben Staamart su betrachten seien, welche Ansicht J e i t t e l e a b e r e i t s i n Jahre /1862/ ausgesprochen hat."

KARAMAN /1924/ examined 7 specimené from Macedonia and found the following numbers of s c a l e s : 1 spec. 49» 1 spec. 51, 2 spec. 52, 2 spec. 53, 1 spec. 55. Mean 52,1.

VTBCISUERRA /1930/ reported two epecimens from the Lake Ochrid to have 51 s c a l e s .

OLIVA /1950/ examined 2 specimens from the Lake Preapa. having 50 and 52 s c a l e s , r e s p e c t i v e l y .

Nor do the s c a l e numbers of Barbus meridionalla pe­ tényi HECKEL epecimens correspond with those of HECKEL's

\ des c r i p t i o n . I n t h i s reepect the data of BANARBSCU /1957/ are very Important. This author examined 421 specimené from

17 Roumanian r i v e r s . He found the c h a r a c t e r i e t i c a l B c a l e formula t o be /47-50/ 51-58 /59-63/ a s against the previous statements /HECKEL: 55-60, KARAMAN: 56-59, BERG: /48/ 52-55 /60/, and so on/. His f i n d i n g s are a l l the more important as he c a r r i e d out h i s examinations i n the t y p i c a l h a b i t a t of the species /Transylvania/. I n h i s f i n d i n g s the uncomonly wide v a r i a t i o n a l values of the scale formula /47-63/ and the g r e a t divergence of the most f r e q u e n t values as i n d i c a t e d by him /51-58/ from the numbers g i v e n by HECKEL /55-60/ are very remarkable.

VLADYKOV /1931/ observed the f o l l o w i n g scale numbers on 23 petényi barbels from the Tisza: 4 spec, had 51 scales, 3 spec. 52, 3 s p e c . 53, 9 Bpec. 54, 2 spec. 55, 2 s p e c . 56. Mean 53.3.

My own i n v e s t i g a t i o n s found the f o l l o w i n g d i s t r i b u t i o n of scales on 67 specimens c o l l e c t e d from the Brook Bükkös i n the P i l i s Mountains: 13 spec, had 51 scale s , 13 spec. 52, 22 spec. 53, 7 s p e c . 54, 8 spec. 55, 2 spec. 56, 2 spec.57. And on 7 specimens from the Brook Jósva I found the f o l l o w i n g numbers: 2 spec. 5 1 , 1 spec. 52, 1 spec. 53, 2 spec. 54, and 1 spec. 55 scales. The average number of scales of the i n d i ­v i d u a l s of the 2 brooks i s 53. Comparing these values w i t h those of VLADYKOV /1931/ the home populations seem t o be homogeneous proved a l s o by the c o n c u r r i n g averages.

From the above f a c t s i t may be deduced t h a t the numbers of scales of Barbus m e r i d i o n a l i s caninus BONAPARTE ranging i n the West Balkans vary between 46-55 and those of Barbua m e r i ­ d i o n a l i s petényi HECKEL between 47-63. As the numbers of scales w i t h i n the subspecies v a r y between wide v a r i a t i o n a l l i m i t s and as also considerable overlaps occur,the d i f f e r e n ­t i a t i o n of the subspecies cannot be done on the basis of the scale numbers of i n d i v i d u a l specimens.

KARAMAN /1924/ having compared the two subspecies-, sums up h i s o p i n i o n i n the f o l l o w i n g s : „Ich fand auch, wie eus der Tabelle e r s i c h t l i c h , keine grösseren Abweichungen v o r .

weingstens n i c h t s o l c h e , d i e Führung des B. petényi a l s

selbstständiger A r t r e c h t f e r t i g e n könnten, Sie waren auf

folgendes zu reduzieren:Die Kopf und Körperhöhe i s t b e i sap.

petényi etwas k l e i n e r , ebenso die Kopf- und Körperbreite,die

B a r t e l n s i n d b e i diesem d u r c h s c h n i t t l i c h um oöa 1/4 k u r s e r ,

Die Schuppenzahl um 2-5 Schuppen gröaser, Die Schuppen etwas

k l e i n e r . "

Since I have p o i n t e d out above t h a t d i f f e r e n c e s i n the

number of scales cannot be used f o r the s e g r e g a t i o n of t h e

two subspecies, i t f o l l o w s t h a t , of the f i n d i n g s of KARAMAN,

only the d i f f e r e n c e s o f p r o p o r t i o n s g i v e n by him may

e v e n t u a l l y be acceptable. But as KARAMAN made h i s examina­

t i o n s w i t h only a few apecimens /7/ these d i f f e r e n c e s i n

measurement p r o p o r t i o n s should h a r d l y be eva l u a t e d . Thus t h e

existence o f these d i f f e r e n c e s remains an open q u e s t i o n , t o

be decided on l y by v a r i a t i o n - s t a t i s t i c a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n s on a

la r g e number of specimens.A f u r t h e r d i f f i c u l t y i n t h e proper

e v a l u a t i o n of KARAMAN's f i n d i n g l i e s t h e r e i n t h a t the place

of o r i g i n o f the epecimens s t u d i e d by him were the Lakes

Ochrid and Prespa and i t i s t h e r e f o r e d o u b t f u l t h a t these

specimens represent the t y p i c a l form as supposed a l s o by

VLADYKOV and PETIT /1930/. Concerning t h i s q u e s t i o n these

authors expressed t h e i r o p i n i o n as f o l l o w s : „Le Barbus m e r i ­

d i o n a l i s de c e t t e r e g i o n p a r a i t a i n s i établir - du p o i n t de

vue du caractère numérique de sa l i g n e l a t e r a l e - une t r a n s i ­

t i o n e n t r e l e Barbue t y p i c u s /midi de l a France/ e t l a sous-

espèce petényi Heckel."

On t h e baais of the above c o n s i d e r a t i o n s the f o l l o w i n g

problems have t o be c l a r i f i e d t o e s t a b l i s h the Formenkreis

of the species:

I t ' i s t o be examined

1. whether Barbus m e r i d i o n a l i s caninus BONAPARTE and Barbue

m e r i d i o n a l i s petényi HECKEL d i f f e r from each other and i f se

i n what respect ;

2. whether both the subspecies caninus and petényi are t o be

found i n the West Balkene or i f a s p e c i a l form l i v e s there as a t r a n s i t i o n between the two.

Any meritorious answers to these questions may be given only by comparative morphological, v a r i a t i o n - s t a t i s t i c a l and osteol o g i c a l examinations, c a r r i e d out on a greater mate­r i a l .

Adatok a Barbus meridionalis caninus BONAPARTE és a Barbus meridio­nalis p«tányi HECKEL systematikai elválasztásának kérdéséhez

Irta: Iwinkay László T*rm**z«4tu4ofnanyi Muifum, Budap*«t

Sserső a dolgozatában először történeti áttekintést ad a Barbus meridionalis formakörébe tartozó fajokról. Röviden is m e r t e t i s s egyes fajleiráeokat, majd kiértékeli,hogy mely neveket t a r t érvényesnek ée melyeket k e l l synonym!zálnl.Sze­r i n t e , s s ismeretek j e l e n l e g i állása s s e r l n t , csak egy f a j a Barbus meridionalis RISSO és két a l a k j a /valószínű a l f a j a / /Barbus a e r i d l o n a l l e caninue BOaaPABTK és Bar eue meridionalis petényi R2CKEL/ maradhat meg. A továbbiakban as irodalom a-lapján visegálat tárgyává t e s s i a két a l f a j közötti különb­ségeket különös t e k i n t e t t e l ások nyugat-halkáni előfordulá­sára. Megállapit'áeai s z e r i n t a két a l f a j kftsBtti legfontosabb /pikkelyezámbeli/ különbség nem áll fenn,aert ezek variációé értékei szélesek ée közöttük erőé fedések vannak, s Így az egyedi példányok ez alapon történő elválasstáaa nem lehetsé­ges, A két alak közötti méretaránykülöabságekre,melyek az i -rodalomban ismeretesek » szerinte ssintén nem lehet alapoz­n i , mert azok csak néhány példány vizsgálatának eredményeit

tartalmazzák. Végezetül annak a lehetőségével i s foglalko­z i k , hogy a Nyugat-Balkánon nem a Barbue meridionalia canlnüa tipikus a l a k j a él, hanem egy, a sap. caninus és ssp. petényi közötti, átmeneti forma, miként azt VLADYKOV és PBTIT /1930/ feltételezi. A két a l f a j közötti különbségek pontos megálla­pítása és a nyugat-balkáni forma tisztázása a jövő kutatásai­nak fe l a d a t a .

B i b l i o g r a p h y

1. BANARESCU, P.: Die Raesiale Zugehörigkeit e i n i g e r Rumänischer Süeswaeser-Fiecharten / I z d a n i j a , 2, No 4, 1957, p. 68-74/. - 2. BERG, L.S.: übereicht der Verbreitung der Süsswaseerflache Europas /Zoogeographica, 1, 1933, p. 107-208. spec. p. 147/. - 3. BERG, L.S.: Ryby presznich vod C.C.C.P. 1 s z o p r e d e l i t e l n i eztran /Moszkva-Leningrád, 1949, pp. 1381. spec. p. 698/. - 4. BIELZ, E.: Ubereicht der l e ­benden Fische Siebenbürgens /Verhandl. und Mitth. dee Sieb. Vereins für Naturwieeenschaften zu Hermanstadt, 4, 1853, p. 174-179/. - 5. BLANCHARD, E.: Les Poissons des eaux douces de l a France /Parie, 1866, pp. 656, spec. p. 313/. - 6. BONAPARTE, C.L.: Iconografia délia Fauna I t a l i c a Peeci I I I . /Roma, 1832-1841, faec.25-7/. - 7. CANESTRINI, G.: Proapetto C r i t i c o Dei Pesci D'Aqua Dolce D ' I t a l i a /Modena, 1865, pp. 143. epec. 33-34/. - 8. CANESTRINI, G.: Pisces / i n : Fauna D ' I t a l i a / /Milano, 1874, pp. 208. spec. p. 11/. - 9.CARAUSU, X.S.i Tratat de I c h t i o l o g i e /Bucuresti, 1952, pp. 802. spec, p. 416-417/. - 10. CUVIER, G. & VALENCIENNE, M.A.:Hietoire Naturelle des Poissons / P a r i s , 1823-1849, 16, pp. 472. spec. 142-143/. - 11. DRENSKY, P.: Zur Kenntnis der Süsswasser-fischfauna Bulgariens /Zool. Jahrb. Abt. Sysc., 59, 1930, p.

663-680/. - 12. GÜNTHER, A.: Catalogue of the Planes i n the B r i t i s h Muséum, V o l . 7. /London, 1868, pp. 512. spec. p.95/.

13. HANKÓ, B.: Magyarország halainak eredete és e l t e r j e ­dése /Sárospatak, 1931, pp.34. spec. p.18-19/. - 14. HECKEL, J.: Die Fische Ungarns /He i d i g e r ' s B e r i c h t e über d i e M i t ­t e i l u n g e n von freunden der Naturwissenschaften Wien, 3,1848, p. 194/. - 15. HECKEL, J. & KNER, R.: Die Süeswasserfische der österreichischen Monarchie mit Rücksicht auf d i e An­grenzender Länder / L e i p z i g , 1858, pp. 384. spec. p.87-89/. -16. JEITTELES, L.H.: Prodromue Faunae Vertebratorum Hungá­riáé 8 u p e r i o r i e /Verh. d. Zool. b o t . Ges. Wien, 12, 1862, p. 54-55/. - 17. KARAMAN,St.: Pisces Macedóniáé / S p l i t , 1924, pp. 90. spec. p.26-32/. - 18. KARAMAN, St.: Die Fische der Strumica /Acta Mue. Macedón. S e i . Nat., Skopje, 1-8, 1955, 3, p. 187-190/. - 19. KOLLER, 0.: Drei F i s c h a r t e n aus Alba­n i e n , d a r u n t e r eine biBher unbeschreibene Varietät von Bar­bus mer. Risso / Z o o l . Anz., 1926 a, p. 316-320/. - 20. KOL­LER, 0.: Eine k r i t i s c h e Ubersicht über d i e b i s h e r b e s c h r e i -benen m i t t e l - und südeuropäisehen Arten der Cypr i n l d e n g a t t u n g Barbus / S i t z . Ber. d. Akad. d. Wissenschaften math.-nat., Wien, 5-6, 1, 1926,b, p. 165-201/. - 21. KOLLER, 0.: Sües­wasserf ische aus Griechenland /Zool. Anz., 7 0 , 1927, p.267/. - 22. OLIVA, 0.: Notes on C o l l e c t i o n of Fishes obtained by Profe s s o r L. Komárek i n Macedonia /Vestnik C s l . zoologické s p o l e c n o s t i , Praha 14, 1950, p. 247-249/. - 23. PELLEGRIN, J.: Les Barbeaux D'Espagne / B u l l , du Mus. Nat. d' H i s t . Nat. Ser., 2, 2, 1930, No 5, p. 510-515/. - 24. RISSO, A.Î H i s t , n a t . de l'Europe merid.,111.1826,p.4 3 7 / . - 25. SEBISANOVIC, G.: P r i l o z i za fauna o k o l i c e Karlovacke / J a h r e s b e r i c h t d.k.k. Ober Realschule i n Rakovac, Agram, 1881, p. 29/. - 2 6 . STEINDACHNER, Fr.: Zur Fischfauna der Isonzó /Verh. Zool. bo t . Ges. Wien, 1 1, 1861, p. 142-144/. - 27. STEINDACHNER, Fr.: Zur F l u s s f i s c h f a u n a von K r o a t i e n / S i t z . Ber. k.k. Akad. Wiss. Math.-Nat. Wien, 52, 1, /1865/ 1866, p. 594-599/. 2 8 . STEINDACHNER, F r . : I c h t h y o l o g i s c h e Beiträge X I I . / S i t z .

Ber. k. k. Akad. Wies. Math. Nath. Wien, 86, 1 , /1882/ 1863,

p. 61-82/, - 29. STEINDACHNER, Fr.: Beiträge zur Kenntnia

der Süsswasserfische der 3 a l k a n h a l b i n s e l /Denkschr.Akad.Wien,

63, 1895, p. 181-188/. - 30. STEFHANIDIS, A.: C o n t r i b u t i o n

à l'étude lea poissons d'eau douce de l a Grèce /Praht. Akad.

Athén, 18, 1950, p.200-210/. - 31. ÜMGER, E.: A magyar márna

/Barbus petényi Heck./ ujabb csonkamagyarországi előfordulá­sáról /Halászat, Budapest,36,1935,p.5-6/. - 32. VTNCIGUERRA, D. ; Pesci d i Albania / S p e d i z i o n i s c i e n t i f i c h e i n Albania d e l l ' l a t i t u t o d i Zoologico d l <Padova, Memoria No 19, p.306/. - 33. VLADYKOV, V. à PETIT. G.: Su. quelques Poissons d'eau douce d'Albania / B u l l , de Ja Soc, Zoqi, de France, P a r i s , 5 4 , Ko 5. 1930, p. 405-407.'. - 34. VLADYKOV, V.: Poissons de l a Russie Bous-Carpathique /Mem. Soc. Zool. de Prance, P a r i s , 29, 4, 1931, p. 279-282/. - 35. VUTSKITS, Gy.s Magyar es Horvátország ritkább h a l f a j a i n a k ujabb termőhelyeiről és földrajzi elterjedéséről /Pótfüzetek a Természettud.Közlöny­höz , Budapest, 1901, p.158-162/. - 36. VUTSKITS, Gy.: Pisces / i n : Magyar Birodalom Állatvilága//Budapeat, 1918, p. 1-42/.