Current Status of Freshwater Faunal Diversity in India PDF

Ministry of Environment, Forest
and Climate Change
FRESHWATER FAUNAL DIVERSITY

Current Status of
Current Status of
IN INDIA
IN INDIA
KAILASH CHANDRA | K. C. GOPI | D. V. RAO
K. VALARMATHI | J.R.B. ALFRED
KAILASH CHANDRA
K. C. GOPI
D. V. RAO
K. VALARMATHI
J.R.B. ALFRED
ZOOLOGICAL SURVEY
OF INDIA
1916
ZOOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA

and Climate Change
Current Status of
Freshwater Faunal Diversity
in India
Kailash Chandra | K.C. Gopi | 1D.V. Rao |

K. Valarmathi | 2J.R.B. Alfred
Zoological Survey of India, M-Block, New Alipore, Kolkata-700 053, West Bengal
1Zoological Survey of India, Freshwater Biological Regional Centre, Hyderabad-48
2522-C, Lake Gardens, Kolkata-700 045, West Bengal
Zoological Survey of India

Minstry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change
Goverment of India
Citation
Kailash Chandra, Gopi, K.C., Rao, D.V., Valarmathi, K. and Alfred, J.R.B., 2017.
Current Status of Freshwater Faunal Diversity in India: 1-624 (Published by the
Director, Zool. Surv. India, Kolkata)
Published : May,, 2017
ISBN 978-81-8171-462-6
© Govt. of India, 2017
Disclaimer
It is hereby claimed that any views or opinions presented in the articles
published in this book are solely those of the authors. The editor or the
Zoological Survey of India have not independently verified the information
gathered or contained in this journal and, accordingly expressed no opinions
or makes any representation concerning its accuracy or complete reliability or
sufficiency. The ZSI disclaim any and all liability for, or based on or relating
to any such information and/or contained in, or errors in or in omissions
from, their inputs or information in this journal. The ZSI will not accept any
liability in respect of such communication, and the authors responsible will
be personally liable for any damages or other liability arising.
Published at the Publication Division by the Director, Zoological Survey of India,

M-Block, New Alipore, Kolkata-700 053 and printed at Calcutta Repro Graphics,
Kolkata–700 006.
Current Status of
Freshwater Faunal Diversity in India
डॉ कै लाश चन्द्र भारत सरकार
निदेशक भारतीय प्रािण सर्वेक्षण
पर्यावरण, वन एवं जलवायु परिवर्तन मं त्रालय
Dr Kailash Chandra
Director Government of India
Zoological Survey of India
Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change
Foreword
India is one among the seventeen mega biodiversity nations known from the
worldendowed with remarkable biodiversity in its diverse ecosystems and habitats,
and occupies the 9th position in terms of freshwater mega biodiversity. Freshwater
biodiversity provides a broad spectrum of invaluable ecosystem services, besides a
wide range of goods and services for human societies. The freshwater ecosystems
of India include all types of inland wetlands: lakes, rivers, ponds, streams,
groundwater, springs, cave waters, floodplains, as well as bogs, marshes and
swamps, including 26 Ramsar Sites. India with 2.4% of global landmass has 4% of
the world’s freshwater resources.
This document entitled “The Current Status of Freshwater Faunal Diversity in
India” is a compendium of 36 chapters, by 48 authors, dealing with the compiled
and updated information on the faunal diversity of 19 phyla (18 invertebrate phyla
and 01 vertebrate phylum with five classes) of freshwater ecosystems in India.
The document focuses on species diversity, endemism and threat status of taxa of
freshwater ecosystems, with identified gap areas of knowledge. The total number of
species of freshwater animals named and recorded from India has been compared
with the total number of species known from India and the world. As many as 9457
animal species, representing 9.7 % of the total number of Indian fauna (i.e., 97,708
species) have been recognized from the freshwater ecosystems in India, of which
invertebrate groups comprise 7861 species (83.1%) and vertebrate groups, 1597
species (16.9%).
I hope this volume will be a timely scientific publication on the freshwater faunal
diversity of India, very user-friendly to biodiversity researchers, teachers, students
and general public at large.
26th May, 2017

Kolkata )Kailash Chandra(
8595 2400 33 91+ : टेलीफै क्स ,6893 2400 33 91+ : दू रभाष ,053 700 - एम. ब्लॉक, न्यु अलीपुर, कोलकाता ,535 ,प्रािण िवज्ञान भवन
Prani Vigyan Bhawan, 535, M-Block, New Alipore, Kolkata - 700 053, Phone : +91 33 2400 6893, Telefax : +91 33 2400 8595
E-mail : [email protected], Website : zsi.gov.in
Contributors
Acharya, Shelley.
Zoological Survey of India, ‘M’ Block, New Alipore, Kolkata-700 053
Babu, R.
Southern Regional Centre, Zoological Survey of India, 130, Santhome High Road,
Chennai-600 028, Tamil Nadu
Banerji, Dhriti.
Zoological Survey of India, ‘M’ Block New Alipore, Kolkata-700 053
Bannerjee, Suranjana.
Zoological Survey of India, ‘M’ Block, New Alipore, Kolkata-700 053.
Basu, Sreemoi.
ICAR -NBAIR, H.A. Farm post, Bellary road, Bangalore-560024
Bindu, L.
Marine Biology Regional Centre, Zoological Survey of India, 130, Santhome High Road,
Chennai-600 028. Tamilnadu
Chandra, Kailash.
Deuti, Kaushik.
Zoological Survey of India, FPS Building, 27, Jawaharlal Nehru Road, Kolkata-700 016
Dhali, Dhruba Chandra.

Western Ghat Regional Centre, Zoological Survey of India, Jaferkhan Colony,
Kozkhikore-673006
Ghosh, Abhijna.
Gopi, K.C.
Zoological Survey of India, ‘M’ Block New Alipore, Kolkata-700 053,
Gupta, Devanshu.
Gupta, Renu.
Maitreyi College, University of Delhi, New Delhi, India
Hazra, Surajit.
Jaiswal, Deepa.
Freshwater Biology Regional Centre, Zoological Survey of India, Plot No.336/1, Attapur
(V), P.O. Hyderguda, Ring Road, Hyderabad-500 048
Jasmine, P.
Kamalakannan, M.
Karuthapandi, M.
Freshwater Biology Regional Centre, Zoological Survey of India, Hyderabad-500048
Kosygin, Laishram.
Makhija, Seema.
Acharya Narendra Dev College, University of Delhi, New Delhi
Mishra, Subhrendu S.
Zoological Survey of India, FPS Building, 27, Jawaharlal Nehru Road, Kolkata-16
Mitra, Santanu.
Mondal, C.K.
Mridha, Radheyshyam.
Mukhopadhyay, Amit.
Naskar, Atanu.
Paliwal, Rahul.
77/62 Mansarovar, Jaipore, 302020
Parui, Panchanan.
Rajmohana, K.
Ranga Reddy, Y. (Retd.)

Acharya Nagarjuna University, Nagarjunanaga-522 510, Andhra Pardesh
Rao, D.V.
Freshwater Biology Regional Centre, Zoological Survey of India, Plot No.336/1, Attapur
(V), P.O. Hyderguda, Ring Road, Hyderabad-500 048
Saxena, M.M.
Tantia University, Shri Ganganagar 335002 India
Selvakumar, C.
Shaik, Shabuddin.
Acharya Nagarjuna University, Nagarjunanagar-522 510
Sharma, B.K.
N orth Eastern Hill University, Permanent Campus, Shillong-793022, Meghalaya.
Sharma, Gopal.
Zoological Survey of India, Gangetic Plains Regional Centre, Sector-8, B.H. Colony,
Patna-26
Sharma, Sumita.
North-Eastern Hill University, Permanent Campus, Shillong-793022, Meghalaya
Sengupta, Jayita.
Singh, Navneet.
Zoological Survey of India, Gangetic Plains Regional Centre, Sector-8, B.H. Colony,
Patna-26
Sivaperuman, C.
Zoological Survey of India, Andaman and Nicobar Regional Centre, Port Blair - 744 102,
Andaman & Nicobar Islands
Sivaramakrishnan, K.G.
F latNo-3, Door No.7, Gokulam Apartments, Gokulam Colony, West Mambazham,
Chennai-600 033, Tamilnadu
Subramanian, K.A.
Southern Regional Centre, Zoological Survey of India, 130, Santhome High Road,
Chennai-600 028, Tamil Nadu
Suresan, P.M.
Western Ghat Regional Centre, Zoological Survey of India, Jaferkhan Colony,
Kozkhikore-673006
Tahseen, Qudsia.
A ligarh Muslim University, Aligarh-202002., Prof. Dr. Reddy Y.R. (Retd.), Acharya
Nagarjuna University, Nagarjunanagar-522 510, Andhra Pardesh
Totakura, V.R.
Acharya Nagarjuna University, Nagarjunanagar-522 510
Toteja, Ravi.
Acharya Narendra Dev College, University of Delhi, New Delhi
Tripathy, Basudev .
Valarmathi, K.
Varadharaju.
Venkatraman, C.
Contents
Chapter 1
Current Status on Freshwater Faunal Diversity of India – An Overview 1-25
Kailash Chandra, Gopi, K.C., Rao, D.V., Subramanian, K.A. and
Valarmathi, K.
Chapter 2 27-35
Protozoa (Rhizopoda)
Bindu. L and Jasmine, P.
Chapter 3
Protozoa: Ciliophora (Ciliates) 37-54
Jasmine Purushothaman, Bindu, L., Seema Makhija, Ravi Toteja,
Renu Gupta
Chapter 4
Porifera (Sponge) 55-66
Saxena, M.M.
Chapter 5
Cnidaria 67-70
Santanu Mitra, Valarmathi, K. and Subhrendu S. Mishra
Chapter 6
Platyhelminthes: Cestoidea (Cestode Parasites) from Freshwater Fishes 71-92
Suranjana Banerjee and Rajamohana, K.
Chapter 7
Rotifera : Eurotatoria (Rotifers) 93-113
Sharma, B.K. and Sumita Sharma
Chapter 8
Gastrotricha 115-125
Jasmine Purushothaman
Chapter 9
Nematoda 127-161
Qudsia Tahseen
Chapter 10
Bryozoa 163-170
Valarmathi, K. and Mitra, S.
Chapter 11
Annelida : Polychaeta 171-178
Santanu Mitra and Subhrendu S. Mishra
Chapter 12
Annelida : Oligochaeta (Microdrili) 179-186
Santanu Mitra, Rahul Paliwal, and Subhrendu S. Mishra
Chapter 13
Annelida : Hirudinea (Leeches) 187-197
Mandal, C.K. and Subhrendu S. Mishra
Chapter 14
Crustacea : Branchiopoda (Cladocera) 199-223
Sharma, B.K. and Sumita Sharma
Chapter 15
Crustacea: Branchiopoda (Anostraca, Notostraca, Laevicaudata, 225-242
Diplostraca)
Valarmathi, K.
Chapter 16
Crustacea : Copepoda—A Note 243-245
Yenumula Ranga Reddy
Chapter 17
Crustacea : Branchiura : Argulidae (Fishlice) 247-251
Valarmathi, K.
Chapter 18
Crustacea: Ostracoda (Seed shrimps) 253-271
Karuthapandi, M. and Rao, D.V.
Chapter 19
Crustacea : Eumalacostraca : Bathynellacea 273-312
Yenumula Ranga Reddy, Shabuddin Shaik and
Venkateswara Rao Totakura
Chapter 20
Crustacea : Decapoda (Shrimps and Crabs) 313-331
Valarmathi, K.
Chapter 21
Arachnida : Araneae (Spiders) 333-343
Dhruba Chandra Dhali and Pavittu Meethal Sureshan
Chapter 22
Arachnida : Acari (Mites) 345-356
Shelley Acharya
Chapter 23
Insecta : Hemiptera (Aquatic Bugs) 357-378
Srimoyee Basu and Subramanian, K.A.
Chapter 24
Insecta : Coleoptera (Aquatic Beetles) 379-400
Kailash Chandra, Deepa Jaiswal & Devanshu Gupta
Chapter 25
Insecta : Odonata (Damselflies and Dragonflies) 401-418
Subramanian, K.A. and Babu, R.
Chapter 26
Insecta : Trichoptera (Caddisflies) 419-428
Sivaramakrishnan, K.G. Selvakumar, C. and
Subramanian, K.A.
Chapter 27
Insecta : Plecoptera (Stoneflies) 429-444
Babu, R., Sivaramakrishnan, K.G., Subramanaian, K.A. and
Selvakumar, C.
Chapter 28
Insecta : Ephemeroptera (Mayflies) 445-456
Subramanian, K.A., Selvakumar, C. and
Sivaramakrishnan, K.G.
Chapter 29
Insecta : Lepidoptera 457-465
Navneet Singh
Chapter 30
Insecta : Diptera 467-485
Dhriti Banerjee, Atanu Naskar, Jayita Sengupta, Surajit Hazra,
Radheyshyam Mridha and Panchanan Parui
Chapter 31
Insecta : Hymenoptera (Aquatic) 487-499
Rajmohana K.
Chapter 32
Mollusca 501-525
Amit Mukhopadhyay, Basudev Tripathy and Abhijna Ghosh
Chapter 33
Pisces 527-570
Gopi, K.C., Subhrendu S. Mishra, and Laishram Kosygin
Chapter 34
Amphibia 571-586
Kaushik Deuti
Chapter 35
Reptilia 587-597
Varadaraju
Chapter 36
Wetland Birds 599-614
Venkatraman, C. and Sivaperuman, C.
Chapter 37
Mammalia 615-624
Kamalakannan, M., Venkatraman, C. and Gopal Sharma
Preface
Zoological Survey of India (ZSI) is the pioneer institution undertaking taxonomic
research in the country and has been carrying out, over the last hundred years,
surveys of the diverse ecosystems, distributed in varied but unique biogeographic
zones of the country for exploring, discovering/reporting and documenting the
wealth of Indian faunal diversity. ZSI has brought out numerous publications—
more than 1500 scientific books and many hundreds of scientific papers—on the
faunal diversity of varied ecosystems and conservation areas of the country. It
was felt that a scientific document dealing with an overall assessment on the
faunal diversity of freshwater ecosystems in India was necessary to facilitate the
biodiversity researchers and conservationists. We were convinced of the need of
the book that covers most updated information on the diversity of all groups of
animals of the freshwater systems in India, in such a manner that the biodiversity
researchers, students and teachers, conservation managers and the general public
may learn from this new volume ZSI is bringing out now. The exercise was not an
easy task. It taxed the taxonomic skill of experts who had firsthand experience
in handling the subject groups. We are extremely thankful to the contributors
of chapters and as well many of our colleagues who helped us in various ways
in preparing this document. The diversity of fauna pertaining to the freshwater
ecosystems of India dealt in this document represents the present knowledge,
covering the compiled, collated and updated data or information that is currently
available and known from India. It was our endeavor to make this book as much
exhaustive as possible to make it useful to all concerned. We hope that we have
been able to meet these needs and that this book may prove of value to research
students and to all who desire to know about the potential faunal diversity of
Indian freshwater systems.
Kailash Chandra, K.C. Gopi, D.V. Rao,

K. Valarmathi and J.R.B. Alfred
Chapter 1
Current Status on Freshwater
Faunal Diversity of India
– An Overview
Kailash Chandra, K.C. Gopi, D.V. Rao, K.A. Subramanian

and K. Valarmathi
Introduction
Freshwater systems form a subset of Earth’s aquatic ecosystems. They include
lakes and ponds, rivers, streams, springs, and wetlands, which can be broadly
classified into lentic and lotic systems, i.e., still and flowing waters, respectively.
The freshwater ecosystems constitute the major part of the “Inland waters”, the
aquatic systems or environment that can be fresh, saline or a mix of the two
(brackish water), located within land boundaries. The estuaries are transitional
brackish-water zones between rivers and the sea. Inland waters have more focus on
fresh water mainly because of the global importance of fresh water environments,
which dominate inland waters.
All freshwater ecosystems are regulated by the hydrological cycle, ultimately
driven by the solar-energy evaporation, without which freshwater ecosystems
would not exist on Earth. Freshwater ecosystems are important for many reasons:
they help in regulating hydrological regimes, attenuating floods, recycling of
nutrients, purification of water and recharging of aquifers. They support a wide
range of biodiversity, sustaining and sheltering their living environment for
the aquatic life, besides providing congenial riparian habitats for dependent
terrestrial wildlife. Freshwater systems also provide vital ecosystem services for
humans, e.g., drinking water, flood control, climate regulation, food production,
etc. Aquatic ecosystems nowadays play a major role in the wellness industry like
tourism and recreation as many natural open waters like backwaters and lakes,
and their scenic beauties around in the coastal plains and highland or mountain
environments are tagged as important tourism destinations.
Of all the water on Earth, approximately 3% is considered “fresh water” (i.e.,
salinity < 0.5 parts per thousand). Of the 3% of global water, that is fresh water,
only an extremely small proportion is available as habitats for living organisms
on the surface of the Earth. The available freshwater ecosystems cover only
approximately 0.8% of the surface of the Earth. Thus, significantly, much of the
Earth’s aquatic biodiversity requires the freshwater habitats, both flowing (lotic)
and static (lentic), found in these rare ecosystems. It is therefore not surprising that
freshwater habitats contain some of the most endangered taxa in the biosphere.
The number of species inhabiting a given area is the species richness.
Freshwater ecosystems support innumerable organisms as they require fresh
water for survival, and the freshwater species are those which spend at least a
portion of their lives in freshwater habitats. Many hundreds of freshwater species
1
Chandra et al.
of different groups, invertebrates like annelids (polychaetes, earthworms, leeches,

etc.), arthropods (insects and crustaceans), fishes, amphibians, molluscs (snails and
mussels), and others have been described. The list of known diversity of freshwater
species, unlike that of terrestrial life forms, is likely to be an underestimate.
Despite the relative rarity of freshwater habitats (i.e., 0.8% of the Earth’s total
surface area), the freshwater ecosystems exhibit far more intrinsic physical and
chemical characteristics, and support a disproportionately larger share of world’s
freshwater biodiversity in relation to the habitat areas occupied. The diversity
and distribution of the well-studied taxonomic groups like fishes and amphibians
provide an insight into the significance and the global patterns of freshwater
biodiversity (Abell et al., 2008).
Another important measure of significance for freshwater biodiversity is
the concept of species endemism—the indigenousness of a species by virtue of
its natural origin or occurrence in a given location or region and nowhere else
in the world. The global distribution of an endemic species is limited to a given
area (i.e., they occur only within a particular ecoregion or watershed). Areas of
high endemism often result from a combination of ecological forces including high
biological productivity and geographic isolation, as is evidenced in the endemism
in freshwater fishes and amphibians in India.
Indian Freshwater Ecosystems and Faunal diversity

India is the seventh largest country in the world covering an area of 32, 87,590 sq.
km, the largest land mass of the Indian subcontinent, and lies to the north of the
equator between 6° 45´ (the southern-
most extremity, the Indira Point in
Great Nicobar Islands of the Indian
territory) and 37° 6´ north latitude
and 68° 7´ and 97° 25´ east longitude.
India is endowed with remarkable
biodiversity in its diverse ecosystems
and habitats that are distributed in
varied, but unique biogeographic zones.
Its biodiversity richness is well-reflected in the fauna of not only the terrestrial
ecosystems, but also the aquatic ecosystems (i.e., the marine and freshwaters).
India is one among the seventeen mega biodiversity nations known from the
world, and occupies the 9th position in terms of freshwater mega biodiversity
(Mittermeier et al., 1997).
The freshwater ecosystems of India include all types of inland wetlands:
lakes, rivers, ponds, streams, groundwater, springs, cave waters, floodplains, as
well as bogs, marshes and swamps. India with 2.4% of global landmass has 4%
of the world’s freshwater resources (source: the Ministry of Water Resources,
Govt. of India). The abundant water resources include 29,000 kms of rivers, 3.15
million hectares of reservoirs, 2.35 million hectares of ponds and tanks, 0.2 million
hectares of floodplains and 33 wetlands (Ayyappan, 2007). The main freshwater
systems are 14 major rivers and their tributaries, numerous minor/ small rivers,
rivulets and streams, 44 medium reservoirs and lakes, and other small water
2
Current Status on Freshwater Faunal Diversity of India - An Overview
bodies. The National Wetland Inventory and Assessment published recently by

MoEFCC, Govt. of India estimates that 10.56 million hectares of inland wetlands
exist in India, comprising of 6.62 million hectares of natural wetlands and 3.94
million hectares of manmade wetlands. The total area of Indian wetlands is only
0.03% of the geographical extent of the country.
Freshwater ecosystems and habitats of India are distributed in diverse

biogeographic regions or environments, from cold arid Trans-Himalayan to wet
Terai regions of Himalaya foot hills and Gangetic plains, extending down to the
Southern peninsula of the mainland, and beyond to the two archipelagoes of the
Andaman and Nicobar Islands in the Bay of Bengal and Lakshadweep Islands
in the Arabian Sea. The varied freshwater systems in the mainland are directly
or indirectly associated with the numerous river-drainage systems of India, such
as the major rivers like Ganges and Brahmaputra, including their tributaries, of
Himalaya’s origin, Narmada, Tapti, and their tributaries from Vindya-Satpura
Mountains, and Godavari, Krishna and Cauvery, and their tributaries as well as
many other minor, west-flowing rivers of Western Ghats’ origin.
3
Chandra et al.
Indian Wetlands
The wetlands are the most productive natural ecosystems in the world because of
their physical proximity to both water and soil, thereby supporting large number
plants and animals in their significant diversity of characteristic species. India has
the representation of almost all types
of wetlands as defined by the Ramsar
convention. The wetland ecosystems
in India constitute the natural water
bodies, such as rivers, lakes, coastal
lagoons, mangroves, peat land, coral
reefs and man-made wetlands such
as ponds, farm ponds, irrigated fields,
sacred groves, salt pans, reservoirs,
gravel pits, sewage farms and canals.
At present, 115 wetlands (Table 1)
have been identified under the National Wetland Conservation Programme
(NWCP), and about 26 wetlands (Table 2) have been declared as Ramsar sites of
international importance under Ramsar Convention (Ramsar, 2017). According to
a study conducted by the Bombay Natural History Society (BNHS), around 160
Indian wetland sites that are home to thousands of water birds meet the criteria
to qualify them to be included in the ‘Ramsar’ category. These include already
designated ‘Ramsar Sites’. In addition, many wetlands in India are protected as
Sanctuaries and National Parks. The well known wetland protected areas are:
Keoladeo National Park, Bharatpur Bird Sanctuary, Loktak Lake, Pong Dam,
Renuka Lake, Point Calimere National Park and Chambal River Sanctuary.
Table 1. State-wise Ramsar Sites (Wetlands) in India
Sl. No. Wetland name State

1. Kolleru Lake Andhra Pradesh
2. Deepor Beel Assam
3. Nalsarovar Bird Sanctuary Gujarat
4. Chandartal Wetland
5. Pong Dam Lake Himachal Pradesh
6. Renuka Wetland
7. Hokera Wetland
8. Surinsar-Mansar Lakes
Jammu & Kashmir
9. Tsomoriri Lake
10. Wular Lake
11. Ashtamudi Wetland
12. Sasthamkotta Lake Kerala
13. Vembanad-Kol Wetland
14. Bhoj Wetland Madhya Pradesh
4
Sl. No. Wetland name State

15. Loktak Lake Manipur
16. Bhitarkanika Mangroves
Odisha
17. Chilika Lake
18. Harike Lake
19. Kanjli Wetland Punjab
20. Ropar Wetland
21. Sambhar Lake
Rajasthan
22. Keoladeo National Park
23. Point Calimere Wildlife and Bird Sanctuary Tamil Nadu
24. Rudrasagar Lake Tripura
25. Upper Ganga River (Brijghat to Narora Stretch) Uttar Pradesh
26. East Calcutta Wetlands West Bengal
Table 2. State-wise list of wetlands identified under National

Wetlands Conservation Programme
Andhra Pradesh 19. Pong Dam 40. Hidkal & Ghataprabha
1. Kolleru 20. Chandratal 41. Heggeri
Assam 21. Rewalsar 42. Ranganthittu
2. Deepar Beel 22. Khajjiar 43. K.G. Koppa wetland
3. Urpad Beel Jammu & Kashmir Kerala
4. Sone Beel 23. Wullar 44. Ashtamudi
Bihar 24. Tso Morari 45. Sasthamkotta
5. Kabar 25. Tisgul Tso & Chisul 46. Kottuli
6. Barilla Marshes 47. Kadulandi
7. Kusheshwar Asthan 26. Hokersar 48. Vembanad Kol
Gujarat 27. Mansar-Surinsar Madhya Pradesh
8. Nalsarovar 28. Ranjitsagar 49. Barna
9. Great Rann of Kachh 29. Pangong Tsar 50. Yashwant Sagar
10. Thol Bird Sanctuary 30. Gharana 51. Wetland of Ken River
11. Khijadiya Bird 31. Hygam 52. National Chambal
Sanctuary 32. Mirgund Sanctuary
12. Little Rann of Kachh 33. Shalbugh 53.Ghatigaon
13. Pariej 34. Chushul & Hanley 54. Ratapani
14. Wadhwana Jharkhand 55. Denwa Tawa
15. Nanikakrad 35. Udhwa 56. Kanha Tiger Reserve
Haryana 36. Tilaiya Dam 57. Pench Tiger Reserve
16. Sultanpur Karnataka 58. Sakhyasagar
17. Bhindawas 37. Magadhi 59. Dihaila
Himachal Pradesh 38. Gudavi Bird Sanctuary 60. Govindsagar
18. Renuka 39. Bonal 61. Sirpur
5
Chandra et al.
Maharashtra Sikkim 97. Keetham

62. Ujni 79. Khecheopalri 98. Shekha
63. Jayakawadi 80. Tamzey 99. Saman Bird Sanctuary
64. Nalganga 81. Tembao Wetland 100. Sarsai Nawar
Manipur Complex 101. Patna Bird Sanctuary
65. Loktak Lake 82. Phendang Wetland 102. Chandotal
Meghalaya Complex 103. Taal Bhaghel
66. Umiam lake 83. Gurudokmar 104. Taal Gambhirvan &
Mizoram 84. Tsomgo Taal Salona
67. Tamdil Tamil Nadu 105. Aadi jal Jeev Jheel
68. Palak 85. Point Calimere Uttarakhand
Odisha 86. Kaliveli 106. Ban Ganga Jhilmil Tal
69. Chilka 87. Pallaikarni 107. Asan
70. Kuanria Tripura West Bengal
71. Kanjia 88. Rudrasagar 108. East Kolkata wetlands
72. Daha 89. Gumti reservoir 109. Sunderbans
73. Anusupa Uttar Pradesh 110. Ahiron Beel
Punjab 90. Nawabganj 111. Rasik Beel
74. Harike 91. Sandi 112. Santragachi
75. Ropar 92. Lakh Bahoshi 113. Patlakhawa- Rasomati
76. Kanjli 93. Samaspur Chandigarh (UT)
77. Nangal 94. Alwara 114. Sukhna
Rajasthan 95. Semarai Puducherry ( UT)
78. Sambhar 96. Nagaria 115. Ousteri
The National River Conservation Directorate, under the Ministry of

Environment, Forest and Climate Change is engaged in implementing the River
and Lake Action Plans under the National River Conservation Plan (NRCP)
and National Lake Conservation Plan (NLCP).The Government of India and
the World Bank have signed three agreements, May 2011, (of which 2 deal with
biodiversity conservation) for cleaning Ganga River and to Strengthen Rural
Livelihoods and Biodiversity Conservation in India. Government of India, in
close collaboration with the State/UT Governments has been implementing the
National Wetlands Conservation Programme (NWCP), since the year 1985-
86, to prevent the degradation, ensuring the wise use for the benefit of local
communities and overall conservation of biodiversity. Under the Programme, 115
wetlands (including the 26 wetlands of international importance under Ramsar
Convention) in 24 states and 2 Union Territories have been identified under the
National Wetland Policy by the Ministry which require urgent conservation and
management interventions (National Report on Wetlands, 2009). As of now there
is no specific legal framework for wetland conservation, management and their
wise use. National Forest Commission, 2006 has demanded the launch of National
Wetland Conservation Act, National Wetland Biodiversity, National Wetland
Inventory and Wetland Ecosystem Monitoring Programmes and National Wetland
information system for checking the health of the Wetlands, the transitional zones
6
between wetlands. Baseline information on the biodiversity of water bodies in the

form of an inventory of the fauna including birds, fishes, reptiles, mammals and
invertebrates is essential to identify the wetlands that are to be designated as
Ramsar sites for inclusion in the ‘List of Wetlands of International Importance’,
and to prepare the MAPs as well as the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.
The National River Conservation Directorate, under the Ministry of Environment,
Forest and Climate Change is engaged in implementing the River and Lake Action
Plans under the National River Conservation Plan (NRCP) and National Lake
Conservation Plan (NLCP) (MoEFCC, Annual report 2005).
Role of ZSI in Freshwater Ecosystem Conservation

Zoological Survey of India (ZSI) as a premier taxonomic research organization has
been developing baseline information on the faunal diversity of water bodies in the
form of an inventory of various fauna including birds, fishes, reptiles, mammals as
well as invertebrates for monitoring and analysing the species population trends,
as well as for the evaluation of Threatened taxa. Studies on the presence of exotic/
invasive alien species and their possible impacts have also been incorporated into
the faunal documentation works. Accordingly, ZSI has developed need-based, fauna-
related reference systems such as the species inventories or faunal inventories of
selected wetlands on a priority basis to be incorporated into the information system
or its Management Action Plans for wetland conservation. ZSI has contributed
significantly to document the fauna of Indian wetlands. The scientists of ZSI have
conducted extensive field surveys and described many new species of different
faunal groups. Major contributions have been in molluscs, fishes, amphibians,
lower invertebrates, crustaceans and various insect groups. Publications in the
form of Fauna of India, Memoires, Occassional Papers, and numerous research
articles have been published on wetland fauna of India. Exclusive publications
have been brought out on the faunal diversity of wetlands of both natural and
man-made lakes as Chilka, Renuka, Ujani, Kabar, Asan, Sambhar, Nath Sagar,
Pichhola, Kopli, Vembanad, NalSarovar, Chaurs, Khijadia, Wyra, Deepor, Palar,
Krishna Sagar, Cumbum, and Subarnarekha. Future surveys are proposed for
lakes as Chandra Tal, Gobindsagar, Sasthamkota, Narayansarovar, Deeper Beel
etc. as per Vision 2020 document of ZSI, approved by the Ministry.
ZSI has augmented its efforts in recent years to make better use of the
existing expertise and knowledge, and also engaging young and talented taxonomic
researchers to identify and catalogue, including part-by-part digitization, of the
back-log zoological collections in its central and regional faunal repositories and
museums. This ongoing task is being carried out through institutional initiatives
as well as through AICOPTAX (All India Coordinated Programme on Taxonomy)
programmes specially funded by the Ministry.
Freshwater Faunal Biodiversity in India

Global assessment on biodiversity of freshwater ecosystems demonstrates
that the biodiversity potential of these systems is very much larger than that
would be expected from the area occupied by inland waters (Balian et al. 2008).
Balian and team estimated that out of the 1.32 million species described on Earth,
126,000 lived in fresh water, contributing to almost 10% of the global total.
7
Chandra et al.
Freshwater habitats in India support a significant proportion of the total

diversity of organisms, representing most of the taxonomic groups. As much as
about 9.7% of the total Indian fauna are associated with freshwater ecosystems
of India. However this estimated faunal diversity may be an underestimate due
to the inadequate exploration and identification of taxa (species) of many faunal
groups, especially invertebrates. As a result, the authentic status of the near-
absolute freshwater diversity of these groups is yet to be realized (factually true
at the terrestrial ecosystem levels also as only a fraction of the extant diversity
of these faunal groups has so far been revealed). The constraints are many with
far-reaching implications. One

serious constraint that retards
the taxonomic activities of
identifying, naming and
documenting species is the dire
dearth of skilled taxonomists.
The replacement of new
and upcoming generation of
taxonomists in the country is
not on parity—rather it is on a downward trend—with the veteran taxonomists

leaving the field from their active research. The support from the funding
institutions and agencies for undertaking biodiversity-related taxonomic research
in the country is not that promising as it is to the front-line research areas in
physics, chemistry and other modern streams of science. All this slackens the pace
of scientific documentation of biodiversity and estimation of species. However, in
the recent times, there is a surge of interest among new generation talents in the
biodiversity-related studies, like taxonomy and systematics of fauna pertaining to
various ecosystems, including freshwater ecosystems, in India.
A summary of the updated information on the freshwater faunal diversity of
India is presented here. The diversity of vertebrate and invertebrate groups for
which credible data are available is compared and discussed. Data are deficient
for many groups of invertebrates owing to knowledge gaps, either lack of available
data of work carried out in the country/ or lack of taxonomic information from
the country, which are pressing needs to be addressed. As regards freshwater
biodiversity for sustainable management and conservation of freshwater resources,
efforts are also required to gather the environmental and ecological information
data based on monitoring observations in order to analyze the conservation issues
so that freshwater biodiversity for sustainable utilization as well as management
of the resources can be cross-linked with conservation of biodiversity.
Thirty-six chapters by 48 authors have been included in this document
dealing with updated, compiled information the faunal diversity of the freshwater
ecosystems of India. The chapters though have a general format of presentation,
some authors have however differed from the normal pattern because of the
8
specific features of the group of fauna they deal with. The present overview focuses
on species diversity, endemism and threat status of taxa of freshwater ecosystems
of India. The total number of species of freshwater animals, named and recorded
from India has been compared with the total number of species known from the
world, following Alfred et al. (1998); Balian et al. (2008); Chandra et al. (2016a & b).
The diversity of fauna pertaining to the freshwater ecosystems of India dealt
in this document represents the present knowledge, covering the updated, compiled
and collated data, but, doesn’t claim to be full-proof, exhaustive information that
is currently available and known from India. Almost all the authors, other than
the authors of the chapters on mammals, birds and reptiles, are of the view that
significant share of the species diversity yet remain to be discovered and described
especially in the case of invertebrate groups. The record of 9456 species from
freshwater ecosystems of India represents approximately 9.7% of the total number
of animal species (i.e., 97,708 species) recognized from India. Given that the Indian
wetlands have altogether only 0.03% area of the total geographic extent of the
country, it becomes clear that the lotic and lentic freshwater systems of India
harbour a disproportionally large fraction (9.7%) of India’s total biodiversity.
Out of the 9456 freshwater animal species known from India, among
invertebrate groups, the phylum Arthropoda alone represents 5923 species or about
62.6% of the total. Insects (of 9 orders) have the majority with 4842 species (51.2%).
The insect order Diptera (1588 species), is the most-species rich with 16.8%, and
order Coleoptera (776 species) represents about 8.2% of all species, followed by the
orders Odonata (482 species), and Hemiptera (325 species) with 5.1% and 3.4%,
respectively. Another diverse Arthropod group class Crustacea (822 species) has
the share of 8.7% of all freshwater species. The class Arachnida (259 species) with
2.7% share is dominated by the mites (253 species), and spiders with only a few in
number (6 species). The phylum Nematoda (422 species) has the representation of
4.5% of total species. The phylum Rotifera (419 species) is represented by 4.4% of
the total. The phyla such as Mollusca (217 species) and Annelida (167 species) are
moderately diverse with 2.3%, 1.8% respectively of all the freshwater species. The
Platyhelminthes with 163 species (Turbellaria 47 species + Cestoda 116 species)
contribute 1.7% to the total. Among the remainder invertebrate groups, except for
Acanthocephala with 140 species (1.5%), all other groups have less than 40 species
(all <1% of the total): Porifera (31 species), Gastrotricha (24 species), Bryozoa (22
species), Tardigrada (10 species), Cnidaria (9 species), and Entoprocta (1 species),
which are predominantly marine. The Kingtom Protista represented by phylum
Protozoa (291 species) has a share of 3.0% of the total freshwater fauna.
The phylum Chordata comprising the vertebrates represent 1597 species
(16.9%). Among these, Pisces (Fishes) are maximum (1027 species), followed by
Amphibians (275 species) and Aves (birds) (243 species) with their shares 10.9%,
2.9% and 2.6%, respectively, of all freshwater fauna. The groups Reptiles, (46
species) and Mammals (6 species), are comparatively less in their number of
species known from the freshwater systems of India.
9
Chandra et al.
Table 3. Freshwater faunal diversity in the world and India

Kingdom Phylum No. of Species in No. of species in
world India
Total Freshwater Total Freshwater
Protista Phylum Protozoa 36400 2390 3510 291
Animalia Phylum Mesozoa 136 -- 10 --
Phylum Porifera 10876 219 502 31
Phylum Cnidaria 16383 40 1074 9
Phylum Ctenophora 187 -- 12 --
Phylum Platyhelminthes 29488 1303 1666 **116 + 47
Phylum Nemertea 1362 22 6 --
Phylum Rotifera 2049 2030 466 419
Phylum Gastrotricha 794 320 100 24
Phylum Kinorhyncha 196 -- 10 --
Phylum Nematoda 25043 1808 2914 422
Phylum Nematomorpha 360 356 20 20
Phylum Acanthocephala 1199 * 229 **140
Phylum Entoprocta 172 * 10 1
Phylum Annelida 17426 1987 1004 167
Phylum Sipuncula 147 -- 35 --
Phylum Echiura 198 -- 43 --
Phylum Arthropoda 1270711 94010 73657 5923
Subphylum Crustacea 73141 11990 3584 822
Class Insecta 1070781 75874 63880 4842
Class Arachnida 114275 6146 5907 259
Class Pycnogonida 1346 -- 17 --
Class Chilopoda 3118 -- 101 --
Class Diplopoda 7842 -- 162 --
Class Symphyla 204 -- 4 --
Class Merostomata 4 -- 2 --
Phylum Onychophora 187 -- 1 --
Phylum Tardigrada 1335 910 30 10
Phylum Mollusca 118061 5000 5188 217
Phylum Phoronida 16 -- 3 --
Phylum Bryozoa 11474 94 272 22
Phylum Brachiopoda 7390 -- 4 --
Phylum Echinodermata 6600 -- 779 --
Phylum Chaetogantha 186 -- 30 --
Phylum Hemichordata 126 -- 12 --
10
Kingdom Phylum No. of Species in No. of species in

world India
Total Freshwater Total Freshwater
Phylum Protochordata 3000 -- 119 --
Phylum Chordata 66471 17960 6002 1597
Class Pisces 33888 13000 3287 1027
Class Amphibia 7534 4117 386 275
Class Reptilia 10272 153 562 46
Class Aves 9026 566 1340 243
Class Mammalia 5751 124 427 6
1627973 128449 97708 9456

*Not estimated; **Parasitic on freshwater fishes;
Source: Alfred et al. (1998); Balian et al. (2008); Zhang (2011); Chandra et al. (2016a & b)
In the biogeographic-zone perspective, the Western Ghats and Northeast
India, and the Himalayas, the three of the four biodiversity hotspots known from
India, are the most diversity-rich for most taxa, except for the groups of marine
dominant minor phyla represented from freshwater ecosystems. These three
hotspot areas also harboured the maximum number of endemic species with the
highest endemism identified from the Western Ghats, followed by northeastern
India.
Fig. 1. Freshwater faunal Diversity in India
11
Chandra et al.
The present assessment of freshwater diversity from India is incomplete since

the focus is on animal taxa, excluding micro-organisms such as bacteria, viruses,
etc., though such groups are as significant to freshwater diversity and ecology, as
the taxa from protozoa to mammals considered in this documentation work. The
diversity of micro-organisms, their importance in freshwater ecology and their key
role in ecosystem functioning are understudied, which is a perceptible gap area,
among other things, in the biodiversity research and documentation works. It
needs to be taken up in the future assessments of micro-organismal diversity in
order to give the complete picture of freshwater biodiversity of India.
Kingdom Protista
Finlay and Esteban (1998) estimated about 2390 species of protozoans in
freshwater habitats out of 36400 species known from the world. In India, 3510
species in 6 phyla have been reported, of which 52% are free-living and the rest
parasitic species. According to the present estimate, about 1600 species of free
living protozoans have been recorded from India including the estuarine species. A
total of 106 species of ciliates belonging to 58 genera and 36 families are reported
from the fresh water ecosystems of India. The rhizopods are represented by 185
species belonging to 175 genera and 17 families from India. Nearly 7% of free-
living protozoans, as many as 90 species, are endemic to the country (Das, 1998).
Phylum Porifera
The poriferans, commonly known as sponges, are represented by over 219
freshwater species belong to 45 genera in six families globally. In India, 31 species
of freshwater sponges belonging to 11 genera are represented by a single family
Spongillidae (Soota, 1991), of which 11 species are endemic. Out of the 37 Oriental
species, over 81% (31 species) are known to occur in India (Jakhalekar and Ghate,
2013).
Phylum Cnidaria
Cnidarians are a composite group of animals that include medusa, anemones,
corals, polyps etc. They are remarkably successful in the marine realm and a few
are thriving in inland waters. Their global diversity in freshwater habitats is less
than 40 species. The Oriental region has 4 to 6 species in freshwater (Jankowski
et al., 2008). In India, 9 species belonging to 6 genera and 4 families are reported
to occur in freshwater.
Phylum Platyhelminthes
Among the platyhelminths, class Turbullaria includes free living forms found in
all aquatic habitats both marine and freshwater, while other classes (3 or 4) are
all parasitic. Globally about 6500 species of turbullarians are known, and 1303
species are reported from freshwaters, of which 36 species distributed in Oriental
region (Schockaert et al., 2008). However, turbullarians could not be dealt with in
this volume, and the related diversity information of 47 species follows Ghosh et
al. (1998). Current status of cestoda fauna of India parasitic on freshwater fishes
accounts for 5 orders, 11 families, 3 subfamilies, 25 genera and 116 species. A total
of 46 species, 22 genera, 10 families and 5 orders of freshwater fishes are found to
be infected by these 116 cestode parasites in India.
12
Phylum Rotifera
Rotifers play a vital role in many freshwater ecosystems and are ubiquitous,
occurring in almost all type of freshwater habitats. Globally, 2030 species were
recorded from freshwaters (Segers, 2007). Till date, 419 valid rotifer species
belonging to 67 genera and 25 families are recorded from freshwater environs of
India.
Phylum Nematomorpha
An interesting group of nematode-like animals, commonly called as horsehair
worms, whose free-living adults are found in freshwaters (with only 5 marine
forms), but the larval forms are parasitic, mainly on arthropods. As many as 356
freshwater species are known from the world (FADA 2017), with only 20 species
belonging to 5 genera being reported from India (Schmidt-Rhaesa and Yadav 2004,
2013; Schmidt-Rhaesa and Lalramliana, 2011, 2016; Schmidt-Rhaesa et al., 2015).
Phylum Gastrotricha
Gastrotrichs are among the most abundant, but poorly known group of freshwater
invertebrates. They are nearly omnipresent in the benthos and periphyton of
freshwater habitats. Globally 324 species are known from freshwater habitats
(Balsamo et al., 2013). In India, 24 species belonging to six genera are reported
(Sharma, 1990).
Phylum Nematoda
Nematodes are typically thread-like, unsegmented pseudocoelomates. They are one
of the most diverse groups of metazoa in aquatic sediments. Free living nematodes
are found possibly in all types of limnetic habitats. Of the 27,000 nominal species,
the freshwater forms are about 1808 species, about 7% of the total species known
from world (Abebe et al., 2008). So for, 412 species of freshwater nematodes
belonging to 119 genera and 57 families are reported from India.
Phylum Acanthocephala
Acanthocephala or thorny-headed worms form an important group of animal
endoparasites. Their life history involves one or more hosts, generally
invertebrates or lower vertebrates, mainly fishes and also affects piscivorous birds
as intermediate host. Nabi et al. (2015) reported approximately 1150 species of
these parasites, falling in four orders: Neoechinorhynchidea, Echinorhynchidea,
Aporhynchidea and Gigantorhynchidea. Bhatacharya (1998) reported 140 species
of these parasitic worms from fishes with indication of high degree of regional
endemism.
Phylum Annelida
Polychaeta: Polychaetes, commonly called as ‘brittle worms’, a non-monophyletic
group of animals among annilids, most abundantly living within sands and mud
on the seashore and marine environment. Several marine forms have penetrated
to and adapted to survive in pure freshwater systems. Globally, 168 species of
ploychaeta (Glasby and Timm, 2008) are available in freshwater. Our knowledge
on freshwater polychaete fauna of India reveals occurrence of 41 species belonging
to 25 genera in 15 families.
13
Chandra et al.
Oligochaeta: The oligochaetes are elongate and segmented annelids with no

appendages, and are either terrestrial soil-burrowing or aquatic in habit. About
half of the annelids are placed in subclass Oligochaeta. Globally 1700 species of
oligochaetes are reported from freshwater, and the present document recognises
72 species of oligochaetes placed under 20 genera and one family in the freshwater
environments of India.
Hirudinea: Freshwater leeches (Hirudinea) are mainly predatory and parasitic
annelids having terminal suckers that serve in attachment, locomotion and feeding.
Most of the leeches are blood-suckers on vertebrates or invertebrates, while others
are mainly predators and rarely scavengers. About 700 species of leeches are
known from the world, of which 482 species are from freshwaters. Seventy leech
species have been recorded so far from India, of which 55 species under 25 genera
and 5 families are from freshwater bodies, while 36 of them are endemics.
Phylum Arthropoda
Fig. 2. The crustacean diversity in Indian freshwater
Subphylum Crustacea
Crustaceans constitute a large group of the Arthropoda comprising crabs, lobsters,
crayfish, shrimp, krill, barnacles, copepods, ostracods, etc. inhabiting a wide
range of habitats, and are free-living, parasitic or sedentary organisms. There are
over 73141 known species of crustaceans divided into a number of major groups.
Four classes namely Branchiopoda, Maxillipoda, Ostracoda and Malacostraca
are available in Indian freshwater environments. As per global estimate, 11,990
species of crustaceans are known from freshwater (Balian et al., 2008) and about
822 species have been reported from Indian freshwater habitats.
Class Branchiopoda: The branchiopods include cladocerans or Water fleas, a
group of small-sized, mostly microscopic branchiopods representing one of the most
primitive groups of lower Crustacea. In all, 131 species of Cladocera are known
from inland waters of India. Other than cladocerans, the remaining are known
as large branchiopods or non-cladoceran branchiopods. Presently, 40 species of
14
large branchiopods under 14 genera, 11 families and 4 orders are known to occur
in India.
Class Maxillipoda: Subclass Copepoda: Of the nine orders known under the
subclass Copepoda, the free-living freshwater copepods generally belong to
three orders: Calanoida, Cyclopoida and Harpacticoida. All other orders contain
predominantly brackish water, marine and/or parasitic forms. The free-living
inland water Copepoda is so far known only by about 200 species in 60 genera from
India. The order Calanoida has 40 families. Truly freshwater Indian species are
typically planktonic, and belong to the family Diaptomidae. This family contains
about 470 species in 61 genera in the world, and with 45 species in 13 genera
in India. The order Cyclopoida comprises 12 families, but only four of them, viz.
Oithonidae, Cyclopinidae, Cyclopettide and Cyclopidae, are found in inland waters
of India. Out of 1,100 species in about 60 genera known worldwide, 86 species in 20
genera are known from India. The order Harpacticoida mostly represents benthic
organisms, inhabiting the sediment as interstitial, burrowing or epibenthic forms.
Nearly 50 families, with about 1,200 species occurr in freshwater as well as
brackish waters in the world, while 66 species in 29 genera are presently known
from Indian inland waters. The order Arguloidea comprises a group of primary
freshwater parasitic crustaceans, commonly known as ‘fish-lice’. The only family of
this order, Argulidae, comprises four genera, out of which only the genus Argulus is
represented by 17 species in India, of which 14 species are freshwater inhabitants.
Class Ostracoda: Ostracods, commonly known as seed shrimps, are microscopic
organisms existing in all aquatic (marine, brackish and freshwater) ecosystems,
including subterranean waters. Globally, 2103 species under three superfamilies,
15 families and 209 genera are known from freshwater systems (Martens et al.,
2008), of which about 154 species belonging to 05 families, 40 genera have been
documented from India.
Class Malacostraca: The class Malacostraca includes amphipods, isopods,
Bathynellacea and decapods etc. Amphipods are small crustaceans, highly diverse
in aquatic habitats and intertidal zones. Out of 161 species of amphipods known
so far from India, only 16 species are from freshwater. Most of the isopods are
marine inhabitants and have wide
distribution. Out of the 11000 species
of isopods known globally, only 301
species are reported from India,
which include marine, backwater,
terrestrial and parasitic forms, with
only 18 species occurring in freshwater
systems. The order Bathynellacea,
comprising small eumalacostracan
crustaceans, typically occurring in the
interstitial spaces of sandy shore sediments of lakes, sandy and gravelly banks of
rivers, streams etc, is represented by 24 species under 7 genera and 2 families from
India. The order Decapoda includes important crustaceans like shrimps and crabs
comprising 655 species of caridean shrimps and 1,476 species of brachyuran crabs
15
Chandra et al.
available in freshwater systems of the world. The caridean shrimps consisting of

118 species under 14 genera and two families, and the brachyuran crabs having
106 species under 40 genera and 5 families are known from freshwaters of India,
which include 100 species of primary freshwater crabs and 6 species of secondary
freshwater crabs.
Class Arachinida: The class Aracnida includes spiders and mites inhabiting
mostly terrestrial habitats, some in freshwater environments (Foelix, 2011). There
are 26 species under 12 genera belonging to nine families of spiders so far reported
from the World (Nyffeler and Pusey, 2014) while 6 species under 6 genera and 3
families are known so far from India. Among the mites, the Hydrachnidia (water
mites) represents the most important group of the Arachnida in fresh water. Over
6,000 species placed under 57 families, 81 subfamilies and more than 400 genera
have been described worldwide (di Sabatino, 2008), of which 253 species, 70 genera
and 25 families are reported from India, including 183 species endemic to the
country.
Class Insecta: Insects constitute the most successful among all groups of animals.
They are also the most diverse group of organisms in freshwater. It is estimated
that as many as 4842 species inhabit inland wetlands of India.
Order Hemiptera: Freshwater hemipterans, commonly known as ‘aquatic bugs’,
are secondarily adapted to aquatic ecosystems, with their nymphal and adult
stages being fully aquatic. The aquatic bugs are represented by 325 species, 84
genera and 18 families under three infraorders of suborder Heteroptera, known
from India.
Order Coleoptera: This order includes
hard bodied beetles which are
holometabolous in nature with complex
metamorphosis. The beetles are most
species-rich animal group existing on
the earth. The water-beetle fauna of
India consists of 776 species belonging
to 137 genera, and 17 families in 3
suborders.
Order Odonata: The order odonata, one of the ancient groups of insects, includes
insects with their adults having terrestrial and the larvae aquatic mode of living.
Globally, 6233 species in 685 genera of odonates are known, of which 482 species
with about 50 subspecies in 150 genera and 18 families exist in India.
Order Trichoptera: Trichoptera, commonly called Caddisflies, are among the most
diverse holometabolous aquatic insects and are primary invaders of freshwaters.
Trichopterans are extensively utilized in bio-monitoring service along with other
micro-invertebrates as their larvae are an important beneficial component of
the trophic dynamics and energy flow in their inhabiting lotic and lentic waters.
Over the world, 14,548 species belonging to 616 genera in 49 families have been
recognized (Morse 2017). In all, 28 families encompassing 102 genera and 1,227
species are on record from India.
16
Order Plecoptera: Plecoptera is a small monophyletic order of hemimetabolous

insects, commonly called stoneflies with around 3625 described species globally
included under 303 genera and 16 families, of which 128 valid species under 24
genera and 8 families are reported from India, including 91 species endemic to
India.
Fig. 3. The composition of aquatic-insect groups in Indian freshwater ecosystems
Order Ephemeroptera: Ephemeropterans, commonly known as Mayflies, are most

primitive and ancient group of insects. Globally, about 3000 species in 400 genera
and 42 families are known, of which
390 species, 84 genera and 20 families
occur in Oriental region (Barber-James
et al., 2008). The Indian subregion
has the representation of 204 species,
of which 146 species belonging to 58
genera and 13 families are reported
from India.
Order Lepidoptera: Lepidoptera forms a fascinating group of insects of economic
importance with high diversity of species consisting of butterflies and moths.
The aquatic Lepidoptera is represented by 740 species under three subfamilies,
Acentropinae, Pyraustinae (Crambidae) at global level, and in India, 80 species are
available under 3 subfamilies and 2 families.
Order Diptera: Dipterans include the group of two-winged insects, known as true
flies, inhabiting terrestrial, semi-aquatic and aquatic habitats. Adult dipterans are
usually terrestrial in habit while their larvae and pupae are aquatic and dependent
on water. In all, 40 families of Diptera are known to be aquatic worldwide, of which
36 families, 151 genera and 1,588 species known from India are aquatic or semi-
aquatic in nature.
17
Chandra et al.
Order Hymenoptera: Hymenopterans are generally terrestrial insects and are

mostly beneficial insects of economic importance as agents of biological control.
Most of them have a parasitic mode of life (parasites or parasitoids) on other group
of insects. Globally, 150 species 51 genera from 11 families of Hymenoptera are
recognized as aquatic, of which 10 species in 7 genera under 3 families from or near
water bodies are known from India.
The insect orders Megaloptera and Neuroptera (not dealt with among chapters
of insect groups of this document) are closely related members of the superorder
Neuropterida (Cover and Resh, 2008). A total of 328 species of Megaloptera and
73 species of Neuroptera are known globally. In India 26 species of Megaloptera
belonging to 7 genera under a single family are known from the freshwater
ecosystem. The Indian freshwater neuropterans are represented by 4 species
placed under 2 genera and a single family.
Phylum Mollusca
Freshwater molluscs play an important role, as the prominent links in the trophic
structure of freshwater ecosystem. The freshwater molluscs have an estimated
global diversity of 5000 species, of which 217 species comprising 150 species of
gastropods and 67 species of bivalves are reported from freshwater ecosystems of
India. About 15 species of gastropods and 18 species of bivalves have discontinuous
distribution. As many as 77 freshwater molluscs are endemic to the Western Ghats
biodiversity hotspot.
Phylum Bryozoa
The Bryozoa, also known as polyzoa, ectoprocta or moss animals, are colonial
organisms primarily inhabiting marine environment. Bryozoa is divided into two
distinctive classes, Phylactolaemata and Gymnolaemata, of which the former is
strictly restricted to fresh waters. Besides 5,000 marine species, 94 species under
24 genera, 10 families are known from the freshwaters from the world. The Indian
fauna comprise 22 species under 13 genera and 6 families.
Fig. 4. Freshwater vertebrates in India
18
Phylum Chordata
Class Pisces: Indian freshwater fish diversity is very rich with as many as 1027
species, comprising of primary, secondary and alien freshwater fishes. Among
them primary freshwater fishes include 858 species belonging to 167 genera under
40 families and 12 orders. Further, 137 species of secondary freshwater fishes
that frequently enter and thrive in freshwater reaches of rivers are also known
from India. Alien fishes that have become naturalized in Indian freshwater bodies
account for 32 species, of which 16 are considered to be potentially invasive. More
than 60.3% of the primary freshwater fishes of India are endemic to the country,
with maximum endemism of species found in Western Ghats.
Class Amphibia: Amphibians include three living orders, Anura (frogs and toads
with 6706 species worldwide), Caudata
(salamanders and newts with 693
species worldwide) and Gymnophiona
(caecilans or limbless amphibians
with 205 species worldwide), thus,
accounting 7604 species known from
the world. Of these, 386 species
belonging to 59 genera and 15 families
are known from India, sharing about
5% of the total species from the
world. Of the 386 species of Indian
amphibians, about 275 species, out of 386, dwell in freshwater bodies.
Class Reptilia: Reptiles are the first terrestrial, poikilothermic and omniote
vertebrates occurring in all kind of environment except severe cold region. About
250 species of turtles of the total 320 recognized in the world are freshwater
dwellers (Bour, 2008); though none of the lizards are strictly aquatic, at least 73
species regularly utilize freshwater habitats (Bauer and Jackman, 2008); and, 24
species of crocodilians live in tropic and warm temperate freshwater ecosystems of
the world (Martin 2008). More than 570 species of reptiles have so for been reported
from India (3 crocodiles, 33 testudines, 234 lizards and 296 snakes), which include
46 species of freshwater species, comprising one species each of Crocodylia and
Gavialidea, 21 species of testudines, two species of monitor lizards, one species
of skink, and 21 species of snakes, which are primarily or partially occurring in
freshwater habitats.
Class Aves: Birds (Aves) have colonized all continents (from the Arctic to the
Antarctic) and all habitats on earth (from the desert to the open sea). Approximately
10,000 species have been described, of which nearly 5% (560 species) need
imperative freshwater habitat in order to satisfy at least one of their life-history
traits (Dehorter and Guillemain, 2008). A total of 243 species of birds, including
wetland dependants were recorded from the wetlands of India. However, 67 forest
birds also frequent freshwater bodies.
Class Mammalia: Mammals include about 5500 species belonging 29 Orders, 154
families, of which, a total of 124 species of mammals belonging to 11 orders are
freshwater forms occurring in all continents except Antarctica. Out of 124 species
19
Chandra et al.
of global freshwater mammals, only 6 species namely, South-Asian river dolphin,

Oriental small-clawed otter, European otter, Smooth-coated otter, Himalayan
water-shrew and Elegant water-shrew, are found in India.
Knowledge gaps
There are several groups for which the information on the diversity richness and
distribution of species are vague or inaccurate. Other than the vertebrate groups,
which are reasonably better-documented in the biodiversity-related studies, all
other groups, especially minor phyla and many groups even within the major taxa
such as many minor insect orders, and families of the large orders of insects, like
Coleoptera, Diptera, Hemiptera, Hymenoptera, etc. are still understudied for their
diversity known from the freshwater ecosystems. Similarly, knowledge-gaps on
species-habitat interaction (autecology), systematic surveys and monitoring of
species diversity, status dynamics vis-à-vis habitat degradation through scientific
species sampling and analyses methodologies, need to be addressed appropriately.
Diversity and distribution of vertebrates, like fishes, are though better
documented than other groups, new species of freshwater fishes, or amphibians,
are still being described regularly from the previously unexplored or underexplored
areas, which itself is the evidence for the gap areas in the spatial coverage of
exploration of important ecosystems for biodiversity related assessment and status
studies. Almost all invertebrate groups of the freshwater ecosystems, including
molluscs, crustaceans, insects and arachnids that are generally better covered in
the biodiversity documentation studies, are still remaining unrevealed for their
realistic species diversity known from the pristine and riparian habitat environs
of major ecosystems like tropical rainforests, which are geographical gaps in the
exploration programmes. Because of these reasons, our current assessments of
estimating the faunal-diversity potential of freshwater ecosystems, or of terrestrial
ecosystems for that matter, should be interpreted with care and caution. Some
primitive invertebrate phyla such as Platyhelminthes, Nemertea, Nematomorpha,
Gastrotricha, Tardigrada, etc. are also amongst the less or least known groups for
which taxonomic knowledge and available data are to be substantially generated.
In most of these groups, their freshwater diversity is relatively poor studied,
compared to their marine or terrestrial counterparts.
Threats to the freshwater faunal diversity

Around the world, freshwater habitats are under increasing threats and pressures
due to both local and global changes (Dudgeon et al., 2005; Pattnaik, 2007).
Besides, freshwater bodies like rivers, lakes, tanks and ponds are overstrained
by poisoning in various ways like industrial wastes, sewage, and agricultural
runoff with chemical wastes and excess nutrients. Discharges of pollutants can
degrade the quality of water, as well as affect the health of its aquatic ecosystem.
Wetzel (1992) reported that freshwater bodies of the world are collectively
experiencing accelerating rates of qualitative and quantitative degradation.
Dudgeon et al. (2005) documented threats to global freshwater biodiversity under
five categories like overexploitation, water pollution, flow modification, distraction
and degradation of habitat and invasion of exotic species. These combined and
20
interacting influences have resulted in the population decline and range reduction
of freshwater biodiversity worldwide.
Freshwater ecosystems are known to be the most endangered ecosystems in
the world. Declines in biodiversity are far greater in fresh waters than in the most
affected terrestrial ecosystems (Sala et al., 2000). The threats to global freshwater
biodiversity due to overexploitation, water pollution, flow modification, destruction
or degradation of habitat, and invasion of exotic species result in population
declines and range reduction of freshwater biodiversity worldwide (Dudgeon et
al., 2005). In addition, climate change, increasing levels of water scarcity and
development goals such as increasing access to clean drinking water and sanitation
are all going to have major impacts upon freshwater systems in the future (IUCN,
2008). Conservation efforts for freshwater biodiversity are constrained by the fact
that most of the species in diverse communities are rare (Sheldon, 1988) and thus
their natural histories tend to be poorly known. Globally, awareness of the need to
conserve freshwater biodiversity seems limited. Between 1997 and 2001, only 7%
of papers in the leading journal in the field of Conservation Biology were concerned
with freshwater species or habitats (Abell, 2002).
Essential ecosystem services, such as fishes for consumption, water for
drinking and food production as well as transportation and cultural purposes, are
mostly contributed by freshwater ecosystems (Balian et al., 2008). Biodiversity
of freshwater is declining at a faster rate than that of terrestrial ecosystem, and
therefore the freshwater systems are also the most challenged ecosystem in the
world (Sala et al., 2000; Covich et al., 2004; Dudgeon et al., 2005). Protection of one
or a few water bodies cannot serve the purpose of conservation of all freshwater
biodiversity within a region.
Freshwater biodiversity provides a broad variety of valuable goods and
services for human societies. Some are irreplaceable. Conservation strategies
protecting all elements of freshwater biodiversity would guarantee that water
use for humans is sustainable while, in contrast, the magnitude of the threat
to and loss of biodiversity would be an indicator of the extent to which current
practices are unsustainable. A mixture of strategies will be essential to preserve
freshwater biodiversity in the long term. It must include reserves that protect key,
biodiversity-rich water-bodies (especially those with important species radiations)
and their catchments. In parallel, scientists must more effectively communicate
the importance and value of freshwater biodiversity to stakeholders and policy
makers, so as to make certain that all available information on freshwater
biodiversity is applied effectively to ensure its conservation.
Way forward for freshwater taxonomy in India

Inventories of freshwater biodiversity are incomplete in many parts of the
world, especially in the tropics, and rates of species loss may be higher than the
currently estimated. An immediate, coordinated effort to assess global freshwater
biodiversity, including major hotspots is an imperative necessaity . This exercise
should take place in parallel with the ongoing development of strategies for the
conservation and management of freshwater biodiversity.
21
Chandra et al.
An inference emerged out of this documentation work by ZSI is that taxonomic

research and identification of species based on increased systematic sampling
efforts are needed to address the existing geographical and taxonomical knowledge
gaps in the current understanding of knowledge on the faunal biodiversity of
freshwater ecosystems in India. In terms of diversity-richness and endemism of
species, considerable chunk of ecosystem areas including freshwater systems in
the country still remains little or under-explored, and the situation is especially
critical for the least-known groups of invertebrates. More systematic exploration
surveys are imperative, which will require additional, young-generation taxonomic
experts and increased financial means.
Acknowledgements
We wish to express our sincere thanks and deep sense of gratitude to eminent
taxonomists: Dr. Y. Ranga Reddy, Dr. K.G. Sivaramakrishnan, Dr. B.K. Sharma,
Dr. Sumita Sharma, Dr. M.M. Saksena, Dr. Q. Tahseen and many other taxonomic
experts who have contributed to this document chapters on various groups of fauna
of freshwater ecosystems. We are deeply indebted to Dr. J.R.B. Alfred, former
Director, Zoological Survey of India, for his constant encouragement, advice and
suggestions and also for critically going through the manuscripts of the chapters.
We were fortunate to have the help and cooperation of our several scientists and
colleagues as Dr. Anjum Rizvi, Dr. L. Kosygin Singh, Dr. N. Marimuthu, Dr.
S.S. Mishra, and others, assisting us in several ways, especially in correcting
and setting the chapters. We are also thankful to Shri Ratiram, Publication and
Production Officer of Zoological Survey of India for his untiring efforts in bringing
out this document in time.
References
Abebe E., Decraemer W. and Ley P.D. 2008. Global diversity of nematodes
(Nematoda) in freshwater. Hydrobiologia, 595: 67-78.
Abell R. 2002. Conservation Biology for the Biodiversity Crisis: a Freshwater
Follow-up. Conservation Biology, 16: 1435-1437. doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.
2002.01532.x
Abell R., Thieme M.L., Revenga C., Bryer M., Kottelat M., Bogutskaya N., Coad
B., Mandrak N., Balderas S.C., Bussing W., Stiassny M.L.J., Skelton P.,
Allen G.R., Unmack P., Naseka A., Ng R., Sindorf N., Robertson J., Armijo
E., Higgins J.V., Heibel T.J., Wikramanayake E., Olson D., López H.L.,
Reis R.E., Lundberg J.G., Sabaj Pérez M.H. and Petry, P. 2008. Freshwater
Ecoregions of the World: A New Map of Biogeographic Units for Freshwater
Biodiversity Conservation. BioScience, 58(5): 403-414.
Alfred J.R.B., Das A.K and Sanyal A.K. 1998. Faunal Diversity India. ENVIS
centre, Zoological Survey of India, Kolkatta.
Ayyappan S. 2007. Aquatic resource as a food production system. Proceedings of
Taal 2007: The 12th World Lake Conference. pp 13.
22
Balian E.V., Segers H., Leveque C. and Martens K. 2008. The freshwater animal
diversity assessment: an overview of the results. Hydrobiology, 595: 627-
637.
Balsamo M., Guidi L and D’Hondt J.-L. 2013. Phylum Gastrotricha, Zootaxa, 3703
(1): 79-82.
Barber-James H.M., Gattolliat J.-L., Sartori M. and Hubbard M.D. 2008. Global
diversity of mayflies (Ephemeroptera, Insecta) in freshwater. Hydrobiologia,
595: 339-350.
Bauer A.M. and Jackman T. 2008. Global diversity of lizards in freshwater
(Reptilia: Lacertilia). Hydrobiologia, 595: 581-586.
Bhattacharya S.B. 1998. Faunal diversity of India: Acanthocephala. In Alfred
J.R.B. (ed). Faunal Diversity in India, Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata:
93-98.
Bour R. 2008. Global diversity of turtles (Chelonii; Reptilia) in freshwater.
Hydrobiologia, 595: 593-598.
Chandra K., Sheela S. and Das D. 2016a. Animal Discoveries 2015. Director,
Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata: 1-140.
Chandra K., Raghunathan C. and Mondal T. 2016b. Status of marine faunal
diversity in India. In Chandra K., Raghunathan C., Mondal T. and Dash S.
(eds), Current status of marine faunal diversity in India. Zoological Survey
of India, Kolkata: 1-49.
Cover M.R and Resh V.H. 2008. Global diversity of dobsonflies, fishflies, and
alderflies (Megaloptera; Insecta) and spongillaflies, nevrorthids, and
osmylids (Neuroptera; Insecta) in freshwater. Hydrobiologia, 595: 409-417.
Covic, A.P., Ewel K.C., Hall R.O., Gille, P.E., Goedkoop W. and Merritt D.M.
2004. Ecosystem services provided by freshwater benthos. In Sustaining
biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in Soil and Sediments (Ed. D. H. Wall),
Island Press, Washington D.C., U. S. A. pp. 45-72.
Das A.K. 1998. Faunal Diversity in India: Protozoa. In Alfred J.R.B. (ed). Faunal
Diversity in India, Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata: 11-19.
Dehorter O. and Guillemain M. 2008. Global diversity of freshwater birds (Aves).
Hydrobiologia, 595: 619-626
Di Sabatino A., Smit H., Gerecke R., Goldschmidt T., Matsumoto N. and Cicolani
B. 2008. Global diversity of water mites (Acari, Hydrachnidia; Arachnida)
in freshwater. Hydrobiologia, 595: 303-315.
Dudgeon D., Arthington A.H., Gessner M.O., Kawabata Z.I., Knowler D.J.,
Leveque C., Naiman R.J., Prieur-Richared A., Soto D., Stiassny M.L.J and
Sulliva C.A. 2005. Freshwater biodiversity: importance, threats, status and
conservation challenges. Biol. Rev., 81: 163-182.
FADA 2017. Nematomorpha: World checklist of freshwater Nematomorpha species
in the Catalogue of Life. The Catalogue of Life Partnership. Checklist
Dataset http://doi.org/ 10.15468/ ia2amt accessed via GBIF.org on 2017-05-
13.
23
Chandra et al.
Finlay B.J and Esteban G.F. 1998. Freshwater Protozoa biodiversity and ecological
functions. Biodiversity and conservation, 7(9): 1163-1186.
Foelix R.F. 2011. Biology of Spiders, 3rd edition. Oxford University Press, Oxford:
432 pp.
Ghosh R.K. 1998. Faunal diversity of India: Platyhelminthes. In, Alfred J.R.B.
(ed). Faunal Diversity in India, Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata: 49-55.
Glasby C.J and Timm T. 2008. Global diversity of polychaetes (Polychaeta:
Annelida). Hydrobiologia, 595: 107-115.
IUCN, 2008. Freshwater biodiversity - a hidden resource under threat. cmsdata.
iucn.org/downloads/freshwater_biodiversity_a_hidden_resource_under_
threat_factsheet_en.pdf
Jakhalekar S.S and Ghate H.V. 2013. A Note on five freshwater sponges (Porifera:
Spongillina: Spongillidae) from Pune, Maharashtra, India. Journal of
Threatened Taxa, 5(9): 4392-4403.
Jankowski T., Allen G and Campbell R. 2008. Global diversity of inland water
cnidarians. Hydrobiologia, 595: 35-40.
Martens K., Schön I., Meisch C. and Horne D.J. 2008. Global diversity of ostracods
(Ostracoda, Crustacea) in freshwater. Hydrobiologia, 595: 185-193.
Martin S. 2008. Global diversity of crocodiles (Crocodilia, Reptilia) in freshwater.
Mittermeie, R.A., Gil P.R. and Mittermeier, C.G., 1997. Megadiversity Earth’s
biologically wealthiest Nation, CEMEX. 501p.
Morse J.C. (ed.) 2017. Trichoptera World Checklist. http://entweb.clemson.edu/
database/trichopt/ index.htm [Accessed 4 May 2017.]
Nabi S., Tanveer S., Ganaie S.A., Ahad S., Niyaz U. and Abdullah I. 2015.
Acanthocephalan infestation in fishes –A review. The Journal of Zoology
Studies, 2(6): 32-37.
Nyffeler M. and Pusey B.J. 2014. Fish predation by semi-aquatic spiders: a global
pattern. PLoS ONE 9: e99459. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0099459.
Pattnaik A.K. 2007. Institutional Mechanism for Monitoring and evaluation.
Proceedings of Taal 2007: The 12th World Lake Conference. pp 17.
Ramsar 2017. The List of Wetlands of International Importance – Ramsar List.
Published on 2 May 2017: 1-56. http://www.ramsar.org/sites/default/files/
documents/library/sitelist.pdf
Sala O.E., Chapin F.S., Armesto J.J., Berlow R., Bloomfield J., Dirzo R., Huber-
Sanwald E., Huenneke L.F., Jackson R.B., Kinzig A., Leemans R., Lodge D.,
Mooney H.A., Oesterheld M., Poff N.L., Sykes M.T., Walker B.H., Walker
M. and Wall D.H. 2000. Global biodiversity scenarios for the year 2100. Sci.,
287: 1770-1774.
Schmidt-Rhaesa A. and Lalramliana 2011. Chordodes mizoramensis
(Nematomorpha, Gordiida), a new species of horsehair worm from Mizoram,
North-East India. Zookeys, (75): 1-8.
24
Schmidt-Rhaesa A. and Lalramliana 2016. New records of Indian Nematomorpha,

with the description of a new species from the genus Chordodes.
Zootaxa, 4158(2): 272-80.doi:10.11646/zootaxa.4158.2.8.
Schmidt-Rhaesa A., Limatemjen, Yadav A.K. 2015. Chordodes combiareolatus, a
new species of horsehair worms (Nematomorpha) from Nagaland, India,
with further comments on Chordodesmoutoni. Zootaxa, 3925(2): 202-10.
doi: 10.11646/zootaxa.3925.2.3.
Schmidt-Rhaesa A. and Yadav A.K. 2004. On the occurrence of Chordodes cf.
furnessi (Nematomorpha) from praying mantis in India, and a note on
Indian nematomorph species. Current Science, 86(7): 1023-1027.
Schmidt-Rhaesa A. and Yadav A.K. 2013. One new species and a new record of
the genus Chordodes (Nematomorpha: Gordiida) from North-East India.
Zootaxa, 3693: 293-300.
Schockaert E.R., Hoog M., Sluys R., Schilling S., Tyler S and Artois T. 2008.
Global diversity of free living flatworms (Platyhelminthus, “Turbellaria”) in
freshwater. Hydrobiologia, 595: 41-48.
Segers H. 2007. Annotated checklist of the rotifers (Phylum: Rotifera), with notes
on nomenclature, taxonomy and distribution. Zootaxa, 1564: 1-104.
Sharma B.K. 1990. On some freshwater Gastrotricha from northeastern region,
with remarks on Indian taxa. Rec. Zool. Surv. India, 86(2): 211-215.
Sheldon A.L. 1988. Conservation of Stream Fishes: Patterns of Diversity, Rarity,
and Risk. Conservation Biology, 2(2): 149-156. DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.
1988.tb00166.x
Soota 1991. T.D. 1991. Freshwater sponges of India. Rec. zool. Surv. India, Occ.
Paper No. 138: 1-116.
Wetzel, R.G. 1992. Clean water: a failing resource. Hydrobiologia, 243(1): 21-30.
Zhang, Z.-Q. 2011. Animal Biodiversity : An introduction to higher-level
classification and taxonomic richness. Zootaxa, 3148: 7-12.
25
Chapter 2
protozoa (rhizopoda)
Bindu. L1 and Jasmine, P2
Abstract
Testate amoebae are polyphyletic group of protozoans. These are unicellular testate
forms that occur widely in a variety of freshwater habitats and also in marginally
brackish environments. These amoebae also inhabit in the soil, moist places and
also in association with mosses. According to the present estimate 1600 species of
freeliving protozoa have been recorded from India including the estuarine species.
Of these 185 species are rhizopods and the rest other groups. The present paper is
an inventory analysis of freeliving rhizopods from wetlands of India has including
some case studies of the present authors.
Keywords: Protozoa, Testate Amoeba, Freshwater
Introduction
Despite the important role in the food chain of wetland ecosystems, studies on
the freeliving protozoan fauna from various wetlands in India is very meager.
Importance of protozoa as bioindicators for pollution and environmental
biomonitoring has been recognized since long particularly in water purification
plants and activated sludge processes (Kelkwitz and Marson, 1908). Literature
reveals several scattered reports including the ciliates reported recently by the
present author from wetlands of Kolkata megacity. But the occurrence and
distribution of free-living protozoa in different wetlands of India have not so far
been fully surveyed and evaluated. Testate amoebae are a polyphyletic group
of protozoans. These are unicellular testate forms occur widely in a variety of
freshwater habitats and also in marginally brackish environments (Patterson
and Kumar, 2002). These amoebae also inhabit in the soil, moist places and in
association with mosses.
According to the present estimate 1600 species of freeliving protozoa have
been recorded from India including the estuarine species. Of these 185 species
are rhizopods. The present paper deals with an inventory analysis of freeliving
rhizopods from wetlands of India has been made including some case studies of the
present authors.
1 Marine Biology Regional Centre, Zoological Survey of India,

130, Santhome High Road, Chennai-600 028
2Zoological Survey of India, M-Block, New Alipore, Kolkata, India
E-mail : [email protected]
27
Bindu and Jasmine
Some Rhizopods of India
Cryptodifflugia oviformis Difflugia binucleata
Arcella conica Centropyxis aculeate
Centropyxis aerophila Cyclopyxis arcelloides
Difflugia corona Difflugia geosphaeria
28
Review of literature
Several investigators have recorded the freeliving protozoa from ponds and lakes
in India since 1840s when Cantor (1842) recorded the occurrence of six species
of freshwater protozoa from Kolkata while Mahajan and Nair (1965), Mahajan
et al. (1981), Das et al. (1993), Das et al. (1995), Mukherjee and Das (2000),
Bindu (2010), Ranju et al.(2013), Lekshmi et al. (2014) reported an appreciable
number of rhizopods from freshwater and brackishwater wetland ecosystems
across India. Nair et al.(1967, 1971) also reported 12 species of rhizopods and
20 species of heliozoans respectively from Calcutta and its environs. Das et al.
(1993-2000) on freeliving protozoa of West Bengal and Mahajan (1965, 1981) on
freeliving protozoa of Rajasthan. Mahajan (1971) had reported some freeliving
protozoa from Bharatpur bird sanctuary. Recently Choudhury and his co-workers
(1989) have contributed on soil inhabiting rhizopods of West Bengal. Mukherjee
(1990) reported a new record of Pseudochlamys patella, a rhizopod from India.
Mahajan and Nair (1965), Mahajan et al. (1981), Das et al. (1993), Das et al. (1995),
Mukherjee and Das (2000), Bindu (2010-2016) reported an appreciable number of
species from various fresh water and brackish water wetland ecosystems of India.
Das and his collaborators published several species of free-living and symbiotic
protozoa from various states in different fauna volumes. Taxonomic studies on
Indian freshwater rhizopoda were initiated by Naidu (1966) followed by Mahajan
(1971), Nair et al. (1971) and Mishra et al. (1977). In addition certain contributions
under the state fauna series (Das et al., 1993, 1995, 2000) dealt with limited
freshwater collections. Further Sharma and Sharma (2008) Bindu (2010) and
Bindu and Das (2010) documented some more species of rhizopods from freshwater
environs. Sharma and Sharma (2011) reported 21 species of testate amoebae from
Deepor Beel (a Ramsar site from Assam) and Shaikh et al. (2012) reported some
free-living protozoa from Salim Ali lake, Aurangabad. Kamble (2012) and Farooqui
et al. (2012) also reported some freshwater species from India.
Several field and experimental studies have been carried out in this regard
and results obtained there from support that protozoa may be conveniently used
for environmental biomonitoring , particularly for ecological monitoring of water
quality (Liebmann, 1962; Bick, 1973; Curds, 1973; Ricci, 1995).
Inspite of the above mentioned importance of these free-living protozoa,
the occurrence and distribution of these organisms in different wetlands of
India have not so far been seriously analyzed and evaluated and in the present
communication an inventory analysis of freeliving rhizopods from wetlands of
India has been made including some case studies of the present authors. According
to the present estimate 1600 species of freeliving protozoa have been recorded from
India including the estuarine and moss dwelling forms. Of which 185 species are
rhizopods and the rest ciliates and other groups
Methodology
Freshwater samples along with some algae, water weeds, bottom ooze and
flocculent matter arising out of washing of water weeds and aquatic plants were
collected and kept in wide mouthed sampling jars made up of glass. These jars
29
Bindu and Jasmine
were then brought to the laboratory and kept for few days keeping their lids open
to enable considerable increase in protozoa population. The samples were then
thoroughly washed, examined under the light microscope from time to time, for
protozoa.
For preparing permanent slides of freshwater testacid rhizopods empty tests
were isolated from the bottom ooze of the samples. Testacids were also collected
by squeezing different parts of the aquatic vegetation including their roots and
submerged portion of leaves and also by culturing moss samples which were
processed with non-flooded petri dish method as described by Foissner (1992).
The testacids were placed in micro slides, air dried after two or three washings in
absolute alcohol and then mounted in DPX. The species were identified following
the classification of Adl et al., 2005.
Diversity
The present communication includes an inventory of freeliving rhizopods from
wetlands of India has been made including the work of the present authors in
Kolkata wetlands, freshwater part of Vembanad lake (Ranju et al., 2013) and
Vellayani lake (Lekshmi et al., 2014); Sasthamkotta lake, at three from Kerala
(unpublished work) and different freshwater bodies from Maharashra and Uttar
Pradesh. The first report of freeliving protozoa from India dates back to 1842 when
Cantor referred about the occurrence of six species of freshwater protozoa from
West Bengal. Subsequently Wallich (1864) recorded four species of Difflugia from
Gangetic Sundarbans of Lower Bengal. Ghosh (1918-1921) published a series
of papers reporting 29 species of freeliving ciliates and one species of testacid
rhizopod from Kolkata and its nearby localities.
A detailed study of the freeliving protozoa of wetlands of West Bengal was
made by Das et al. (1993). A total of 248 species of freeliving protozoans under 124
genera belonging to 2 phyla, 2 subphyla, 7classes, 29 orders and 76 families were
recorded from West Bengal. From the distribution list it is evident that number of
freeliving protozoan species collected from Kolkata is considerably large compared
to any other district of West Bengal. This may be due to the intensive surveys
in Kolkata when compared to the other districts. As per the present record the
greatest number of rhizopods are recorded from Himachal Pradesh compared to
other states of India. 20 species of rhizopods recorded from Sasthamkotta lake,
Kerala (unpublished work). The distribution pattern of rhizopods in different
states of India is as shown below.
Table 1. Distribution of rhizopods in different states of India
Name of state Number of species recorded
Andhra Pradesh 33
Arunachal Pradesh 33
Assam 21
Himachal Pradesh 72
Kerala 25+20*
Manipur 26
30
Name of state Number of species recorded

Meghalaya 12
Maharashtra 25
Mizoram 26
Orissa 3
Nagaland 22
Rajasthan 6
Sikkim 49
Tamil Nadu 18
West Bengal 60
Tripura 25
Uttarakhand 24
Uttar Pradesh 41
*20 species recorded from Sasthmkotta lake (unpublished work)
Table-2. Diversity across family and species in the Indian subregion
Family Species
Arcellidae 20
Centropyxidae 22
Cryptodifflugiidae 2
Hyalospheniidae 16
Microcoryciidae 2
Netzeliidae 2
Phryganellidae 2
Plagiopyxidae 4
Trigonopyxidae 8
Difflugiidae 49
Lesquereusiidae 3
Heleoperidae 7
Euglyphidae 28
Assulinidae 2
Trinematidae 12
Cyphoderidae 3
Paulinellidae 3
Total 185
Distribution: Protozoa are cosmopolitan in distribution; are found in each

and every habitat of all terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems from sun splashed
mountain peaks to the dark ocean bed and from tropical forests of the equator to
the polar snows. They lead life as free-living, commensals, parasitic and symbiotic.
31
Bindu and Jasmine
As such they are capable of exploiting diverse niches and reported from unusual
environments such as thermal spring effluent, mountain snow banks, carapace
of micro crustacea and even in eye of insects. In India the highest no. of species
is recorded from Himachal Pradesh followed by West Bengal The distribution of
rhizopods in different states of India is shown in Table 1.
Endemicity: Endemicity of free living protozoa in India is nearly 7% while
that of parasitic protozoa is around 40%. Around 90 species of free living protozoa
and 550 species of parasitic protozoa are endemic in India. From the data available
none of the protozoan species has been demarcated as threatened or endangered.
Threats and conservation strategy

None of the species of protozoa in India can be demarcated as keystone species in
marine, freshwater or terrestrial ecosystem. Protozoans are not thoroughly surveyed
in India. Therefore, it would not be proper to indicate any protozoan species as rare
since it is well known that protozoans are capable of rapid multiplication by both
sexual and asexual reproduction. Threats to these organisms, more particularly
freeliving protozoa appear to be remote unless there is indiscriminate destruction
and distortion of habitats.
Future studies
Protozoa are cosmopolitan in distribution. It has been discussed earlier that free
living protozoa are available in all habitats of aquatic and terrestrial habitats
and this group is least explored in this country except in West Bengal, Rajasthan,
Orissa and some north-eastern states. In view of above, some rapid surveys
covering all underexplored states of India need to be conducted for the collection of
all the major groups of protozoa from different freshwater environs. Subsequently
detailed taxonomic study and inventorisation of these organisms are to be made
to get a first hand estimate of the protozoan diversity of the country. Further,
expertise on protozoa is to be developed in the country for the identification of the
group.
Significance
Soil inhabiting protozoa (mainly rhizopods and ciliates) help in humification
and mineralization of leaf litter on the forest floor in association with other
microorganisms. They also contribute much in soil ecosystems mainly as primary
consumers of microarthropods and soil nematodes which have significant role to
determine soil fertility. Protozoa may be conveniently used for environmental
biomonitoring particularly in evaluating water quality. Several experimental
studies reveal that protozoans actively contribute to the regulation of entire
complex of purification plants by regulating bacterial population and controlling
BOD level, by controlling pathogenic and faecal bacteria and by releasing mucous
substance to facilitate flake formation and successive sedimentation. Some species
can be used as indicator species.
Conclusion
Although workers have recorded the above mentioned freeliving protozoa from
different Indian wetlands, purposeful and thorough surveys were not so far done
32
inspite of the importance of these organisms as bioindicators for pollution and

environmental biomonitoring of water bodies. It is, therefore, quite probable that
number of species occurring in Indian wetlands are much more than what is dealt
in this paper.
Expertise in India
Bindu, L., MBRC. ZSI, Chennai
Jasmine, P. ZSI, Kolkata.West Bengal
Das, A. K (Rtd.)ZSI, Kolkata. West Bengal.
Haldar, D.P. (Retd.), Kalyani University, West Bengal
Kalavati, C.(Rtd.), Andhra University, Andhra Pradesh
Nandi, N.C(Rtd.), ZSI, Kolkata,West Bengal
Susila Nikam, Marathwada University, Aurangabad, Maharashtra
Expertise in Abroad
Arun Kumar, Department of Earth science, Ottawa, Canada
Thomasz Mieczam, Department of Hydrobiology & Ichthyobiology, Poland
Rositsa D. Davidova, University of Shumen, Bulgaria
Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful to the Director, Zoological Survey of India for
providing necessary facilities in connection with the present work.
References
Adl, S. M.,Simpson, A.G.B., Farmer, M.A., Anderson, R.A., Anderson, O.R, Barta,
J.R., Browser, S. S., Brugerolle, G., Fensome, R.A., Frederieq, S. James, T.,
Karpov, S., Kugrens, P., Krug, J., Lane, C.E., Lewis, L. A., Lodge, J., Lynn,
D.H., Mann, D.G., McCourt R.M., Mendoza, L., Nerad, T.A, Shearer, C.A.,
Smirnov, A.V., Spiegel, F.S., Taylor, M.F.J.R. 2005. The New higher level
classification of eukaryotes with emphasis on the taxonomy of protists. J.
Euk. Microbiol. 52: 399-451.
Bick, H. 1973. Population dynamics of protozoa associated with the decay of
organic materials in freshwater, Amer. Zool., 13: 149-160.
Bindu, L. 2010 On some testacids (protozoa) of Melghat wildlife sanctuary,
Maharashtra, India. J. of Threatened taxa, 2(4): 789-848.
Bindu. L and Das, A.K. 2010. On some new records of testacids (protozoa) from
Pench National Park, Maharashtra, India. Records of the Zool. Sur. of
India, 110(Part-1): 31-34.
Bindu, L. 2013. Protozoa in Faunal Diversity of Pangi Valley, Chamba District
(Himachal Pradesh), Himalayan Ecosystem Series, 3: 13-30, pls. V-VI
(Published by Director, Zool. Surv. India, Kolkata).
Cantor, T. 1842. General features of Chusan, with remarks on the flora and fauna
of that island. Ann. mag .nat. Hist., London, 9: 361-370.
33
Bindu and Jasmine
Curds, C.R.1973 The role of protozoa in the activated sludge process, 1973, Amer.
Zool., 13: 161-169.
Curds C.R. and Fey, G.J. 1969 The effect of ciliated protozoa on the fate of
Escherichia coli in the activated sludge process, Wter Res., 3: 853-867.
Chaudhury, H. 1989. A study of the protozoal content of certain soils of India. Ann.
Protistologie Paris, 2: 41-60.
Das, A.K. , Manda, A.K and Sarkar, N.C.1993. Freeliving protozoa, Fauna of West
Bengal, part 12, Zoological Survey of India, pp. 1-133.
Das, A.K., Tiwari, D.N. and Sarkar, N.C. 1995. Protozoa. Zool. Surv. India. State
Fauna Series, 4: Fauna of Meghalaya, Part 10: 1-107.
Das, A.K., Tiwari, D.N. and Sarkar, N.C. 2000. Protozoa. Zool. Surv. India, State
Fauna Series, 7: Fauna of Tripura, Part 4: 1-52.
Farooqui, A., Arun Kumar and Graeme T. Swindles.2012. Thecamoebian
communities as proxies of seasonality in lake Sadatal in the Ganga-Yamuna
Plains of North India. Palaeontologia Electronica. 15(1): 3A, 19P.
Foissner, W. 1992. Estimating the species richness of soil protozoa using the non
flooded petri dish method. In Protocols in Protozoology. Lee, J.J. and Soldo,
A. T(eds.), Allen Press, Lawrence, Kanas B-10.1-B-10.2.
Ghosh, E. 1918Studies on Infusoria, Rec. Indian Mus., Calcutta, 15: 129-134.
Ghosh, E. 1919Studies on Infusoria II. On two new species of Holophrya Ehrenberg,
Rec. Indian Mus., Calcutta, 16: 41-43.
Ghosh, E. 1920. Infusoria from Bengal, Report Sci. Convension Indian Ass. Cult.
Sci., for 1918, Calcutta: 144-149.
Ghosh, E. 1921. New hypotrichous Infusoria from Calcutta, J. Roy. Micr. Soc.,
London.
Kamble, 2012. Studies on some free-living protozoan from Pawai lake, Mumbai
(Maharashtra). Indian J. of Fundamental & Applied Life Sciences, 2(4):
141-143.
Kolkwitz, R. and Marsson, M. 1908. Okologie der pflanzlichen saprobien. Ber
Deut. Bot. Ges., 26: 505- 519.
Lekshmi, M.S., Bindu. L and Jayaprakas, V. 2014. Records of some testate
amoebae (Rhizopoda: Protozoa) from Vellayani Lake, Kerala, India. Global
Journal of Bioscience and Biotechnology, 3(3): 250-254.
Liebmann, H. 1962 Hanbuch der Frischwasserund Abwasser-Biologie; Biology des
Trinkwassers, Badewassers, Fischwassers, Vorfluters and Abwassers. Vol.
I. 2nd Edn., Munich, Oldenbourg.
Mahajan, K.K and Nair, K.N. 1965. On some freshwater ciliates (Protozoa) from
Calcutta and its environs., Rec. zool. Surv. India, 63: 2-22.
Mahajan, K.K. 1971. Fauna of Rajasthan, India. Part 10. Protozoa (No. 2) Rec.
zool. Surv. India., 63: 45-76.
34
Mahajan, C.L, Arora, N.K., Sharma, S.D and .Sharma, S.P. 1981 Protozoan
fauna of a wetland ecosystem (Bharatpur Bird Sanctuary) during drought
conditions, Int. J. Ecol. Envir. Sci., 7: 131-138.
Mishra, A.B., Guru, B.C and Dash, M.C. 1977. Observations on the distribution of
Testacea (Protozoa) in some aquatic habitats of Berhampur, Orissa, India.
Comp. Physiol. Ecol., 2(2): 42-44.
Mukherjee, R.N. 1990. On a new record of Pseudochlamys patella Claparede and
Lachmann (Protozoa: Rhizopoda) from India. Rec. zool. Surv. India, 87: 327.
Mukherjee, R.N. and Das, A.K.. 2000. Fauna of Renuka wetland, wetland ecosystem
series 2, Zoological Survey of India, pp. 7-9.
Naidu, K.N. 1966. On some thecamoebae (Rhizopoda: Protozoa) from India.
Nair, K.N., Das, A.K. and Mukherjee, R.N. 1971. On some freshwater rhizopoda
and heliozoa (Protozoa) from Calcutta and its environs. Part I. Rec. zool.
Surv. India, 65: 1-16.
Nair, K.N. 2001. Protozoa: Fauna of conservation area series-II, Zool. Surv. India,
Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve, 3-15.
Nair, K.N., Das, A.K. & Mukherjee, R.N. 1967. On some freshwater Rhizopoda and
Heliozoa (Protozoa) from Calcutta and its environs. Part I. Rec. zool. Surv.
India, 65: 1-16.
Patterson R.A and Kumar. 2000. Assessment of arcellacean (thecamoebian)
assemblages, species and strains as contaminant indicators in James lake,
northeastern Ontario, Canada. Journal Foramin. Res., 30: 310-320.
Ranju. R, Bindu. L and Jayaprakas, V. 2013. Two new reports of testate amoebae
(Protozoa: Rhizopoda) of the genera Cryptodifflugia and Difflugia from
India, Journal on new Biological Reports, 2(2): 170-172.
Ricci, N. 1995. Protozoa; Bioindicators of environmental monitoring and pollution
control. In: Pollution and Biomonitoring, Tata Mc Graw-Hill: New Delhi.
pp. 240-269.
Shaikh, J.D., Shaikh, T.T., Kamble, U.P., Jadhav, T.J., and Malik Kazim. 2012.
Studies on some freeliving protozoa from Salim Ali lake, Aurangabad,
International Multidisciplinary Res. J, 2(6): 27-29.
Sharma, S & Sharma, B.K. 2008. Zooplankton diversity in floodplain lakes of
Assam. Records of the Zoological Survey of India, Occassional Paper. No.
290: 1-307.
Sharma, S & Sharma, B.K. 2011. Testate amoebae (Protozoa: Rhizopoda) of Deeper
Beel (a Ramsar site), Assam, northern India. J. of Threatened taxa, 3(7):
1947-1950.
Wallich, G.C. 1864. On the extent and some of the principal causes of structural
variation among the Difflugian rhizopods, Ann. Nat. Hist. London, ser. 3,
13: 215-245.
35
Chapter 3
Protozoa: Ciliophora (Ciliates)
Jasmine Purushothaman1*, Bindu L2, Seema Makhija3,

Ravi Toteja3, Renu Gupta4
Abstract
Ciliates are one of the important members in the eukaryotic microbial community.
In order to better understand the distribution pattern of freshwater ciliates in
India, a comprehensive literature review was done and compiled the current
status of ciliates diversity in India. Altogether 106 species of ciliates belonging to
58 genera and 36 families are described from the fresh water ecosystems of India
so far. Majority of the species reported from India belongs to family Oxytrichidae.
It is concluded that extensive research should be made to assess the seamless
diversity of this less studied microbes.
Key words: Protozoa, Ciliates, Freshwater
Introduction
Protozoans (ciliates and flagellates) are the main components of the “microbial
loop”, which is a distinct and important element of the trophic food web in aquatic
ecosystems (Azam et al., 1983). Free living ciliates are an important intermediate
link between primary producers and higher trophic levels in every estuarine and
marine ecosystem (Zingell et al., 2007). They prey on autotrophic and heterotrophic
pico and nano plankton and are preyed upon by larger zooplankton and contribute
to the remineralization and cycling of nutrients (Blomqvist et al., 2001; Ventela et
al., 2002).
The role of ciliates as an important component of the microbial loop in
freshwaters is widely recognized (Wiackowsi et al., 2001). Ciliates are a significant
trophic link in energy transfer from heterotrophic (bacteria) and autotrophic
picoplankton to the higher consumers (Zingell et al., 2007) and play a significant role
in energy transfer and nutrient remineralization in aquatic environments (Cleven
& Weisse, 2001). Ciliates are an essential food source for rotifers, cladocerans and
copepods (Jack and Gilbert, 1997) and some fish larvae, for example the guppy
(Poecilia reticulata) larvae, can use ciliates as food in their early life stages (Lair
et al., 1994). The importance of the microbial loop is greater in oligotrophic than
eutrophic lakes, although, Weisse et al., (1998) demonstrated that almost 50% of
carbon passed through the microbial loop in ameso-eutrophic lake.
1*ZoologicalSurvey of India, Head Quarters, Protozoology Section, Kolkata

2ZoologicalSurvey of India, Marine Biology Regional Centre, Chennai, India
3Acharya Narendra Dev College, University of Delhi, New Delhi, India
4Maitreyi College, University of Delhi, New Delhi , India
37
Purushothaman et al.
Many protozoan species can be considered as a highly valuable bioindicators

in water quality analysis due to rapid growth, high turnover rates and short
generation times which allow protozoan communities to respond quickly to
changing environmental conditions (Berger et al., 1997). Ciliates are important for
the water industry because they can accelerate the process of water clarification by
consuming bacteria, and their identification and quantification permit to rapidly
assess the water quality (Curds & Cockburn, 1970; Al-Shahwani & Horan, 1991;
Curds, 1992; Silva & Silva-Neto, 2001).
Ciliates are also used as bio indicators in rivers, lakes and waste waters.
Foissner & Berger (1996) listed 300 ciliate species which can be used as bio
indicators. Occurrence of the ciliate, Metopus sp. in any water body indicates
the presence of hydrogen sulphide (Bick, 1972). Presence of this species and its
associated ciliates belonging to the genera Caenomorpha, Epalxella, Pelodinium
and Sprodinium in putrefying sludge are the indicators of the self purification
process which has been stopped due to lack of oxygen and presence of high
concentration of H2S. Many species of ciliated protozoa are used as indicators
for ecological monitoring of water quality and they can also be used in ecological
studies of aquatic habitats in which mosquitos and other vectors and intermediate
hosts of disease organisms are breeding (Bick, 1972).
The number of papers on freshwater ciliates has increased recently (Pace,
1982; Macek et al., 1996; Weisse & Müller, 1998; Kalinowska, 2000, 2004; Mieczan,
2007). In both freshwater and marine ecosystems significant vertical gradients of
protozoan diversity exist, these apparently being influenced by the distribution of
their prey, and physical and chemical variables (Ventelä et al., 1998, Thouvenot et
al., 1999, Jacquet et al., 2005). Several investigators suggest that ciliate abundance
and biomass reach maximum values in the epi- and metalimnion, with the lowest
in the hypolimnion. In the epilimnion the oligotrich Strombidium viride frequently
occurs, whereas in the meta- and hypolimnion the oligotrichs are gradually
replaced by scuticociliates (Beaver & Crisman, 1990; Zingel, 2005). Zingel & Ott
(2000) observed a positive significant correlation between ciliate numbers and
chlorophyll a and bacterial densities in strongly stratified temperate lakes.
The importance of ciliate communities to the overall productivity of freshwater
ecosystems has been well documented (Sorockin, 1972; Schonborn, 1977, 1982;
Baldock et al., 1983; Madoni, 1987a). Increasing attention is now being focused
on planktonic and benthic microfauna of lakes (Madoni, 1989, 1990;Laybourn-
Parry et al., 1990a, b), reservoirs (Barbieri & Godinho Orlandi, 1989; Simek et al.,
1999), and rivers (Baldock & Sleigh, 1988; Blatterer & Foissner, 1990; Grolière et
al., 1990); however, studies on distribution and ecology of ciliates living in ponds
covered by floating macrophytes are still few (Legner, 1964; Madoni & Viaroli,
1985).
Historical Resume
Ehrenberg (1838) and Dujardin (1841) initiated the work on ciliates. After them
an exceptional contribution was made by Kent (1882) in his book named “Manual
of Infusoria’’.
38
Hundreds of species have since been discovered and described by experts from
different parts of the world. Foissner (1977-2013) has made significant studies
on the taxonomy and ecobiology of ciliates from different parts of the world. The
pelagic ciliate communities from 58 north German lakes were described and
compared at species level by Pfitser et al., (2002), about 140 ciliate species were
identified and quantified in all investigated lakes.
Freshwater protozoa in Thailand were investigated in different provinces
of northern, eastern, northeastern and southern parts of Thailand from 1982 till
1999. The total of 166 genera and 259 species found were identified as 36 genera
and 72 species of Phytomastigophora, 9 genera and 11 species of Zoomastigophora,
23 genera and 38 species of Sarcodina, 2 genera and 2 species of Labyrinthomorpha
and 95 genera and 134 species of Ciliophora (Charubun & Charubun, 2000). Ciliate
diversity was investigated in situ in freshwater ecosystems of Antarctic (Victoria
Land, 751S), and the High Arctic (Svalbard, 791N). In total, 334 speciesfrom 117
genera were identified in both Polar Regions (Petz et al., 1995). The most detailed
studies of Turkish inland waters were performed by Şenler et al., (1998), Şenler
and Yıldız, (1998, 1999, 2004) who worked especially on rivers, small ponds and
sewage treatment plants and by Çapar, (1997, 2005, 2007a, b) on free living pond
and wetland ciliates.
India, with 2.4% of the world’s area, has over 8% of the world’s total
biodiversity, making it one of the 12 mega diversity countries in the world. Despite
this richness, the data concerning ciliate diversity from India is rather scarce. First
report of protozoa from India is made from freshwater by Grant (1842) which is an
unpublished work Cantor (1842). Since then, considerable work on protozoa from
this environs has been done by Ghosh, (1818-1929), Nair and his co-workers (1960-
1974) and Das, (1971) from West Bengal, Bhatia and Mallick, (1930) from Kashmir
and Mahajan, (1969, 1971, 1977) from Rajasthan. Earlier works on freshwater
inhabiting ciliates are available in the Ciliophora volume in the Fauna of British
India series, written by Bhatia, (1936).
The record of Ciliophora known from India, Myanmar and Sri Lanka included
274 species belonging to101genera (Bhatia, 1936).Ghosh, (1918-1929) published
a series of papers reporting 29 species of free-living ciliates and one species of
testacid rhizopod from Kolkata and its nearby localities. Mahajan and Nair (1965)
published the occurrence of 19 species of free-living ciliates from Kolkata and its
vicinity. Mukherjee and Das (2000) recorded 5 species of ciliates from Renuka
wetland which is a Ramsar site in Himachal Pradesh. Shaikh et al., (2012) recorded
7 species of protozoan ciliates from Salim AliLake, Aurangabad, India. 61 species
of ciliates under 37 genera belonging to 31 families and 12 orders were reported
by Bindu L, (2010).
In West Bengal, in all 152 species of ciliates, belonging to 2 classes, 16 orders,
52 families and 75 genera have been recorded by several investigators since 1840s
(Das et al., 1993; Piyali and Das, 1997). Ghosh (1918-29) in a series of papers
recorded 29 species of ciliates from Kolkata, while Mahajan and Nair (1965), Das
(1971), Das et al., (1993) and Piyali and Das (1997) reported a considerable number
of species from different freshwater ecosystems of Kolkata. Although Kolkata
39
metropolis abounds with innumerable freshwater wetlands and even though several
water bodies were surveyed from different parts of this mega city, the diversity
and distribution of ciliates suggests that purposeful wetland specific surveys have
not been conducted year round. Simmons (1889, 1891) recorded ciliates belonging
to 12 genera from Calcutta, without giving any specific identification of the forms.
Nair (1960) reported one new record of a ciliate from Sibpur (Howrah District).
Mahajan & Nair (1971) reported 19 species of freshwater ciliates from Kolkata and
its surrounding areas. Bindu L (2010) reported 23 species of free-living freshwater
ciliates from Kolkata wetlands including Rabindra Sarovar, a National Lake, and
an important freshwater wetland in Kolkata.
Photomicrographs of Spirotrich ciliates, a-c Euplotes aediculatus, d-f Aspidisca

sp., g-i Aponotohymena sp., j-l Paraurostyla coronate, m-o Pseudourostyla cristata,
p-r Oxytricha granulifera, showing live cell (a, d, g, h, m & p), after protargol
impregnation (b, e, h, k, n & q) and after Feulgen staining (c, f, i, l, o & r).
40
The University of Delhi have been involved in the morphological and molecular
taxonomy of ciliates from freshwater bodies namely, Okhla Bird Sanctuary,
Sanjay Lake, Pond at Rajghat in Delhi region. Sripoorna et al., 2015 studied
the diversity of freshwater Spirotrich ciliate fauna from Okhla Bird Sanctuary,
Delhi. They reported total of 12 species belonging to 10 different genera. From
the Delhi region few Spirotrich freshwater ciliate species have been characterized
and reported till date, namely, Stylonychia ammermanni (Gupta, R., et al., 2001),
Pleurotricha curdsi (Gupta, R., et al., 2003), Rubrioxytricha indica (Naqvi, I., et
al., 2006), Architricha indica nov. gen., Histriculus histrio (Gupta et al., 2006),
Coniculostomum bimarginata (Kamra, K., 1994), Notohymena limus, (Naqvi,
I., 2016), Oxytricha granulifera, Aponotohymena sp., Paraurostyla coronata,
Gastrostyla sp., Tetmemena sp., Laurentiella sp., Euplotes aediculatus, Aspidisca,
Pseudourostyla cristata and Urostyla sp. (Somasundaram et al., 2015).
At molecular level, total 8 nucleotide sequences of the freshwater ciliates have
been sequenced and submitted in Genbank database. 18S rRNA gene of Tetmemena
sp. (Acc. No. KP336401), Aponotohymena sp. (Acc no. KP336402), Gastrostyla sp.
(Acc. No. KT780432), Pseudourostyla cristata (Acc. No. KT731104), Oxytricha
granulifera (Acc. No. KU715983), Paraurostyla coronata (Acc. No. KU715982),
ITS (internal transcribed spacer) (Acc. No. KT731103) and histone (H4) gene (Acc.
No. KU761846) of Tetmemena sp. have been sequenced.
A new species of free living ciliated protozoa, Oxytricha susheelum was
recorded from fresh water in Aurangabad by Deshmukh et al., 2012. Ahamed &
Sharma (2009) reported a total of seventeen species of ciliates from different pond
localities of Lucknow city. A study on some free living protozoan from Salim Ali
lake Aurangabad was done by Shaikh et al., (2012), in which 7 species of ciliates
have been recorded.
Methodology
Collection of ciliates is a two step process; collection from field site and transporting
them to laboratory, examination and fixation. 2 litres of freshwater sample is
filtered through 20 micron plankton net and the sample is collected in a plastic
bottle. Sample should be collected from the bottom/surface/banks/submerged
slops of water body. Samples should be fixed immediately to avoid loss of cell.
The sample can be fixed in Lugol’s iodine. After Lugol’s fixation samples can be
stored in cool dark place. Ciliate abundance can be obtained by settling the fixed
samples in settling chamber and examining them under an inverted microscope
(Hasle, 1978). Lugols is a relatively harmless and versatile fixation method, which
is recommended for routine sampling of ciliates. Iodine not only enhances the
sinking of cells but also stain them dark brown in colour. Lugol’s fixed material
can be processed in several ways: SEM (Montagnes & Taylor, 1994), DAPI,
Protargol staining (Montagnes & Lynn 1993). Staining is an important process
in ciliate study. Inverted microscopes are commonly used to quantify and identify
ciliates and other microplankton in plankton samples. There are two types of
staining; temporary and permanent staining. In temporary staining we can use
Acetocarmine and 1% Methyl green in acetic acid as stain. Permanent staining
method include three steps; adherence, fixation and staining. This will be done
according to the standardised protocol (Foissner, 2007). Florescent dyes (DAPI)
41
can also be used as a diagnostic feature in ciliate study. SEM photograph of ciliates
will be taken for further identification of species.
Diversity
It is estimated that 85% of the ciliate diversity is still to be described. A total of
8,000 ciliate morphospecies are described of which about 200 are fossil tintinnids
and 2,600 are commensals and about 5,200 are true free-living species Corliss,
(2000a). About 400 new species have been described till date by Song and Wang
1999; Foissner et al., 2002; Foissner 2006. So in total there are about 5,600
described free-living ciliate species. Combining classical and modern methods, a
few researchers have discovered hundreds of new ciliate morphospecies during
the past 15 years, suggesting that most ciliate diversity is still unknown (Foissner
1993a, b; Petz et al., 1995; Song and Wang, 1999; Foissner and Xu, 2006). The
ciliates species which are distributed in the fresh water ecosystems of India is
represented in the Table.1. A total of 106 species of ciliates belonging to 58 genera
and 36 families are described from the fresh water ecosystems of India.
Table 1. List of ciliate species described from the fresh water ecosystems of India
Phylum CILIOPHORA
Class Family Genus Species Name of the species
Metopus es Muller 1776
Metopus minor var. Minor Kahl 1927
Armophorea Metopidae 1 4
Metopus nasutus Cunha 1915
Metopus spiralis Smith 1897
Colpoda cucullus Müller, 1786

Colepidae 1 4 Colpoda aspera Kahl
Colpodea
Colpoda maupasi Enriques, 1908
Colpoda steinii Maupas 1883
Opisthostomatella bengalensis Ghosh

Cryptolophosididae 1 1
1928
Blepharisma intermedium Bhandary

Heterotrichea Blepahrismidae 1 1
1962
Caenomorphidae 1 1 Caenomorpha medusula Perty 1852
Stentoridae 1 1 Stentor roeseli Ehrenberg 1835
Loxodes magnus Stokes 1887

Karyolectiae Loxodidae 1 3 Loxodess triatus(Engelmann 1862)
Loxodes vorax Stokes 1885
Dileptus monilatus (Stokes, 1886)

Kahl, 1931
Dileptus gigas (Claparède &
Lachmann, 1859)
Litostomatea Tracheliidae 3 5 Pseudomonili caryonanser(Müller,
1773) Vďačný& Foissner, 2012
Trachelius gutta Cohn 1866
Trachelius ovum (Ehrenberg, 1831)
Ehrenberg, 1838
42
Phylum CILIOPHORA
Litonotus fasciola (Ehrenberg)
Litonotus infusionus Ghosh, 1920
Litonotus procera Penard 1922
Litonotus obtusa
Acineria incurvata Dujardin 1841
Hemiophrys procera Penard 1922
Amphiletidae 4 10 Hemiophrys bivacuolata Kahl 1931
Loxophyllum nimeccense (Stein,
1859)
Loxophyllum levigatum Sauerbrey,
1928
Loxophyllum undulatum Sauerbrey,
1928
Mesodinium pulex (Claparède &
Mesodiniidae 1 1
Lachmann, 1859) Stein, 1867
Actinobolina radians(Stein, 1867)
Actinobolinidae 1 1
Strand, 1928
Lacrymaria olorMüller, 1776
Lacrymaria lagenula Claparede
&Lachmann, 1858
Lacrymaria vermicularis (Müller,
1786) Bory, 1824
Enchylidae 3 6
Trachelophyllum vastitum Stokes
1884
Phialina minima (Kahl, 1927)
Foissner, Agatha & Berger, 2002
Phialina pupula Müller, 1773
Bryophyllum spathidiodes Gelei,
1933
Spathidium moniliforme Bhatia,
Spathidiidae 2 4
1920
Spathidium muscicola Kahl 1930
Spathidiumspathula
Nassula ornata Ehrenberg 1833
Orthodonella banerjeei Ghosh, 1921
Nassophorea Nasulidae 3 3
Pseudomicrothoraxagilis Mermod
1914
Chilodontopsis bengalensis (Ghosh,
Orthodoneliidae 1 1
1921)
Leptopharynx chlorophagus Das,
1971
Leptopharyngidae 2 3 Leptopharynx torpens (Kahl, 1931)
Pseudomicrothorax dubius (Maupas,
1883) Penard, 1922
Drepanomonas dentate Fressenius
1858
Drepanomonas hooghlyensis Nair
Microthoracidae 2 4 &Das 1974
Drepanomonas revolute Penard, 1922
Opisthostomum bengalensis Ghosh
1928
43
Phylum CILIOPHORA
Oligohymenophora Epistylidae 1 1 Epistlylis niagaraKellicott 1883
Glaucoma pyriformis Ehrenberg

Glaucomidae 1 1
1838
Neobursaridiidae 1 1 Neobursaridium gigas Balech 1941
Paramecium bursaria (Ehrenberg,

1831) Ehrenberg, 1836
Paramecidae 1 2
Paramecium caudatum Ehrenberg,
1833
Platycola decumbens (Ehrenberg,
1830) Kent, 1882
Vaginicoloidae 3 3 Pyxicola affinis Kent, 1881
Vaginicola crystallina Ehrenberg,
1830
Pleuronematidae 1 1 Pleuronema crassumDujardin, 1841
Chilodonella cucullus (Muller, 1883)

Chilodonella uncinata (Ehrenberg,
Phyllopharyngea Chilodonellidae 1 3 1838)
Chilodonella spiralidentis (Bhatia &
Mallik, 1930)
Acinetidae 1 1 Tokophrya lemnarum Stein 1932
Plagiopylea Plagiopylidae 1 1 Plagiopyla nasuta Stein, 1860
Coleps octospinus Nolan, 1925

Colep selongatus (Ehrenberg, 1830)
Diesing, 1866
Prostomatea Colepidae 1 5
Coleps inermis Perty 1852
Coleps devdaniensis Mahajan, 1971
Coleps hirtus (Muller 1786)
Prorodon edentates Claparede

&Lachmann 1858
Prorodontidae 1 4 Prorodon discolor (Ehrenberg, 1835)
Prorodon teres Ehrenberg, 1838
Prorodon stewarti Ghosh, 1928
Holophrya bengalensis Ghosh, 1919

Holophryidae 1 3 Holophrya annandalei Ghosh, 1919
Holophrya simplex Schewiakoff, 1889
Urotrichidae 1 1 Urotricha globosa Schewiakoff, 1889
Pseudoprorodon lieberkuhni Butschli,

Leptopharyngidae 1 1
1889
Euplotes patella (0. F. Muller)

Spirotrichea Euplotidae 1 2 Ehrenberg
Euplotes aediculatus Pierson, 1943
Aspidiscidae 1 1 Aspidisca sp. Ehrenberg, 1830
44
Phylum CILIOPHORA
Halteriidae 1 1 Halteriagrandinella (Muller, 1773)
Oxytricha susheelum Deshmukh

et al., 2012
Stylonchia mytilus Müller, 1773
Oxytricha granulifera Foissner and
Adam, 1983
Aponotohymena sp. Foissner, 2016
Oxytrichidae 8 14
Paraurostyla coronata Arora et al.,
1999
Gastrostyla sp. Engelmann, 1862
Tetmemena sp. Eigner, 1999
Laurentiella sp. Dragesco and Njiné,
1971
Stylonychia ammermanni, Gupta
et al., 2001
Pleurotricha curdsi Shi et al., 2002
Rubrioxytricha indica Naqvi et al.,
2006
Architricha indica Gupta et al., 2006
Histriculus histrio Müller, 1773
Coniculostomum bimarginata Kamra
et al., 1994
Notohymena limus Naqvi et al., 2016
Pseudourostyla cristata Jerka-
Pseudourostylidae 1 1
Dziadosz, 1964
Urostylidae 1 1 Urostyla sp. Ehrenberg, 1830
Total 58 106
Classification
The phylum Ciliophora is composed of two sub phylum: Postciliodesmatophora and
Intramacronucleata, with, 11 classes and 19 subclasses. Postciliodesmatophora
consist of two classes; Karyorelictea and Heterotrichea. Intramacronucleata
consists of 9 classes and 19 subclasses. The classes coming under Sub phylum
Intramacronucleata are Spirotrichea, Armophorea, Litostomatea, Phyllopharyngea,
Nassophorea, Colpodea, Prostomatea, Plagiopylea and Oligohymenophorea. Class
Spirotrichea consists of 7 subclasses; Protocruziidia, Phacodiniidia, Hypotrichia,
Oligotrichea, Choreotrichia, Stichotrichia, Licnophoria. Class Litostomatea
consists of 2 sub classes; Haptoria and Trichostomatia. Class Phyllopharyngea
has 4 sub classes; Crytophoria, Rhynchodia, Chonotrichia, Suctoria. Class
Oligohymenophorea consists of 6 sub classes; Peniculia, Scuticociliata,
Hymenostomatia, Apostomatia, Peritrichia and Astomatia.
The sub phylum Postciliodesmatophora represents 61 genera (+8 genus
incertae sedis) belonging to 2 class, 4 order and 13 families. The sub phylum
Intramacronucleata represents 1119 genera belonging to 9 class, 19 sub classes,
52 order and 264 families.
45
Fig : Systematic scheme for the phylum Ciliophora
Source: http://www.nature.com/articles/srep24874/figures/3
Distribution
The ciliophorans coming under the phylum Ciliophora are universally distributed
in water bodies like freshwater ponds, streams and rivers and some species
occur in wet soils and mosses. These free-living ciliates play an important role
in the aquatic ecosystem and form an important component of the environment
monitoring surveillance and these aquatic animalcules occupy an important
position in the aquatic food chain. The role of ciliates as an important component
of the microbial loop in freshwaters is widely recognized (Wiackowsi et al., 2001).
Endemism
Ciliates are distributed globally in various habitats where they act as an important
trophic link in variety of food webs (Adl, 2003). Ciliates exhibit lesser endemism
and are considered ubiquitous and cosmopolitan in distribution. Some species show
limited geographic distribution and low dispersal abilities. For example, the large
tropical peniculine Neobursaridium gigas, a flagship tropical freshwater species,
was described over 60 years ago in Africa and yet it has only been recorded from
the Southern hemisphere (Foissner, 1999c).
Habitat
Many ciliates are associated with the surfaces of solid subjects, such as rocks,
some species of algae, or some submerged substrates. Characteristic species,
they are permanently attached forms are mainly peritrichs (eg. Vorticella,the
colonial Zoothamnium, and the loricate Cothurnia). Folliculinid ciliates are
46
brightly coloured ciliates, which build an ampulla shaped loricae. The suctorians
are carnivorous and feed on the motile ciliates of the habitat. In microaerophilic
environments such as the layers of decaying leaf litter and detritus layers, harbours
the species Loxodes, and also large heterotrich ciliates belonging to the genera
Spirostomum and Blepharisma. A true anaerobic fauna of ciliates also occurs in
freshwater sediments, mainly represented by the genera Metopus, Caenomorpha,
Plagiopyla and also the representatives of odontostomatids.
Dysterid ciliates feeding on cyanobacteria and filamentous bacteria same
as that found in hypotrich ciliates such as Euplotes, Aspidisca, Holosticha, etc.
Amphileptids ciliates are dominant carnivores and some of them are specialised
to prey on the zooids of peritrich ciliates.The naked oligotrichs include Halteria
and species of Strombidium among which S. viride contains Zoochlorellae.
Hecky and Kling, (1981) found that in Lake Tanganyika the biomass of S. Viride
equalled the phytoplankton biomass and they may play a substantial role as a
primary producer. Among the fresh water pelagic ciliates, species of Frontonia
and Euplotes are common, but which are not typically pelagic forms. Ciliates also
show high diversity on feeding large food particles. Species of Nassula specialise
on feeding filamentous Cyanobaceteria, whereas species of Frontonia and various
prostomatids specialise on feeding larger food particles such as dinoflagellates and
diatoms. The bacteriovorous ciliates are mainly the scuticociliates (Cyclidium,
Uronema) and also some stalked but unattached peritrichs. The ciliate predators
consists of prostomatids, such as Didinium, Coleps, Acaryophyra, and Actinobolina
and pleurostomatids, such as Paradileptus and Trachelius.
Gap in Research
The vast majority of microbial eukaryotic organisms are undescribed and unknown
in India. In the current scenario, the diversity of these small organisms are much
less well understood than that of larger organisms. There is a fundamental need
to document the taxonomic composition of fresh water ciliate diversity through
systematic biodiversity surveys of representative fresh water habitats, since these
microbial eukaryotic communities very much influence the health of the freshwater
ecosystem. This will give a comprehensive data to generate diversity estimates of
different fresh water habitat types and biogeographic maps for relatively common
species of freshwater. This information is critical to manage and conserve the
functional properties of freshwater ecosystems for the long term, particularly in
areas that are vulnerable to human activities.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTs
The authors are grateful to Dr. Kailash Chandra, Director, Zoological Survey
of India, for his encouragement during this study and facilities provided for the
completion of this work. Authors are thankful to the staffs of Protozoology section,
ZSI for their help during this work. Authors also extend their heartfelt gratitude
to the Principals of Acharya Narendra Dev College and Maitreyi College for their
support.
47
REFERENCEs
Adl M. S. 2003. The Ecology of Soil Decomposition. CABI Publishing: Wallingford,
UK.
Agatha S., Foissner W. 2009. Conjugation in the spirotrich ciliate Halteria
grandinella (Müller, 1773) Dujardin, 1841 (Protozoa, Ciliophora) and its
phylogenetic implications. Eur. J. Protistol. 45: 51-63
Al-Shahwani, S.M. & Horan, N.J. 1991. The use of protozoa to indicate changes
in the performance of activated sludge plants. Water Research, 6: 633-638.
Azam, F., Fenchel, T., Field, J.G., Gray, J. S., Meyer-Reil, L.A,, Thingstad, F. 1983.
The ecological role of watercolumnmicrobes in the sea. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.
10: 257-263.
Baldock B.M., Backer J.H., Sleigh M.A., 1983. Abundance and productivity of
protozoa in chalk streams. Holoarct. Ecol., 6: 238-246
Baldock B.M., Sleigh M.A., 1988. The ecology of benthic protozoa in rivers: seasonal
variation in numerical abundance in fine sediments. Arch. Hydrobiol., 111:
409-421.
Barbieri S.M., Godinho Orlandi M.J.L., 1989. Ecological studies on the planktonic
protozoa of a eutrophic reservoir (Rio Grande Reservori, Brazil).
Berger H., Foissner W., Kohmann F. 1997 Bestimmung und Ökologie der
Mikrosaprobien nach DIN 38 410. G. Fischer, Stuttgart, Jena, Lübeck, Ulm
Beaver J.R., Crisman L.T., 1990, Seasonality of planktonic ciliated protozoa in
20 subtropical Florida lakes of varying trophic state, Hydrobiologia, 190:
127-135.
Bhatia B.L. 1936. The Fauna of British India, including Ceylon and Burma,
Protozoa: Ciliophora, xxii+493 pp., London (Taylor & Francis, Ltd.).
Bick, H. 1972. Ciliated Protozoa. World Health Organization, Switzerland.
Bindu, L. 2010. On some testacids (Protozoa) of Melghat Wildlife Sanctuary,
Maharashtra, India. J. Threatened Taxa., 2(4): 827-830
Blatterer H., Foissner W., 1990 - Beitrage zur Ciliatenfauna (Protozoa: Ciliophora)
der Amper (Bayern, Bundesrepublik Deutschland). Arch. Protistenkd., 138:
93-115.
Blomqvist, P., Jansson M., Drakare A.K., Bergstrım M. and Brydsten A. 2001.
Effects of additions of DOC on pelagic biota in Clearwater systems: Results
from a whole lake experiment in northern Sweden. Microb. Ecol., 42: 383-
394.
Cantor T. 1842. General features of Chusan, with remarks on the Flora and fauna
of that Island.-Ann. Mag. nat. Hist., London, 9, pp. 361-370.
Çapar S. 1997, Systematic studies on the free-living ciliophoran species living in
Mogan Lake, Hacettepe University, Institute of Pure and Applied Sciences,
Master Thesis, 96p. (in Turkish).
48
Çapar S. 2005, A systematic study on wetland ciliates (Ciliophora, Protista) of

Göksu Delta, Hacettepe University, Institute of Pure and Applied Sciences,
PhD Thesis, 246p. (in Turkish).
Çapar S., 2007a, Hypotrich Ciliates (Protozoa: Ciliophora) Of Gelingüllü Dam
Lake, Yozgat-Turkey. Hacettepe J. Bio&Chem., 35(1): 45-56.
Çapar S. 2007b, Morphology and morphometrics of two anaerobic ciliates Metopus
minor (Kahl, 1927) and Metopushasei (Sondheim, 1929) from Göksu Delta
with ecological notes. Hacettepe J. Bio. & Chem., 35(1), 19-15.
Cleven, E.J. & Weisse, T. 2001. Seasonal succession and taxonspecific bacterial
grazing rates of heterotrophic nanoflagellates in Lake Constance. Aquat
Microb Ecol., 23: 147-161.
Corliss J.O. 2000a. Biodiversity, classification, and numbers of species of protists.
In: Nature and Human Society: The Quest for a Sustainable World, (Eds. P.
H. Raven, T. Williams). National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 130-155
Curds, C.R. & Cockburn, A. 1970.Protozoa in biological sewage treatment process.
II Protozoa as indicators in the activated sludge process.Water Research.
4: 237-249.
Curds, C.R. 1992.Protozoa and the water industry.Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge. 122p.
Dujardin F. 1841. Librairie Encyclopédique de Roret; Paris: Histoire naturelle
des zoophytes.Infusoires, comprenant la physiologieet la classification de
cesanimaux et la maniére de les étudier a l’aide du microscope.
Ehrenberg C.G. Voss; Leipzig: 1838. Die InfusionsthierchenalsvollkommeneOrgan
ismen. EinBlick in das tiefereorganischeLeben der Natur.
Foissner W. 1993b. Corticocolpodakaneshiroae n. g., n. sp., a new colpodid ciliate
(Protozoa, Ciliophora) from the bark of Ohia trees in Hawaii. J Eukaryot
Microbiol, 40: 764-775.
Foissner W. 2006. Biogeography and dispersal of micro-organisms: a review
emphasizing protists. Acta Protozool, 45: 111-136.
Foissner W & Berger H. 1996 A user-friendly guide to the ciliates (Protozoa,
Ciliophora) commonly used by hydrobiologists as bioindicators in rivers,
lakes, and waste waters, with notes on their ecology. Freshwater Biol., 35:
375-481.
Foissner, W. 1977.Electronmicroscopical studies on the argyrophilic structures of
Colpidiumcampylum (Ciliata, Tetrahymenidae). Acta BiolAcad Sci Hung,
28: 59-72.
Foissner, W. 1979 Methylgru¨n-Pyronin: Seine EignungzursupravitalenUbersicht
sfa¨rbung von Protozoen, besondersihrerProtrichocysten. Mikroskopie. 35:
108-115 (in German).
Foissner, W. 1981. Das Silberliniensystem der Ciliaten: Tatsachen, Hypothesen,
Probleme. Mikroskopie, 38: 16-26 (in German).
Foissner, W. 1991. Basic light and scanning electron microscopic methods for
taxonomic studies of ciliated protozoa.Eur J Protistol, 27: 313-330.
49
Foissner, W. 2005. Two new ‘‘flagship’’ ciliates (Protozoa, Ciliophora) from

Venezuela: Sleighophryspustulata and Luporinophrysmicelae. Eur. J.
Protistol, 41: 99-117.
Foissner W. 2013. Description of Glaucomidesbromelicola n. gen., n. sp. (Ciliophora,
Tetrahymenida), a macrostome forming inhabitant of bromeliads
(Bromeliaceae), including redescriptions of Glaucoma scintillans and G.
reniformis. J. Eukaryot Microbiol, 60: 137-157.
Gause G.F. 1934. The struggle for existence. Williams and Wilkins, reprinted 1964
by Hafner, New York, Baltimore.
Ghosh E. 1918. Studies InInfusoria.-Rec. Indian Mus., Calcutta, 15: 129-134.
Ghosh, E. 1919. Studies OnInfusoria. Ii.-On Two Species OfHolophrya, Ehrenb~Rg.-
Rec. Indian Mus., Calcutta, 16: 41-43.
Ghosh E. 1920.InfusoriaFrom Bengal.-Report Sci. Convention Indian Ass. Cult.
Sci., For 1918, Calcutta, Pp. 144-149.
Ghosh E. 1921a.InfusoriaFrom The Environment of Calcutta. I. -Bull. C,
Armichaellned. Coli., Calcutta, 2: 6-17.
Ghosh E. 1922. New Species of Vorticella From Calcutta. Bull. Carmichael Med.
Call., Calcutta, 3: 8-18, 3 Pis.
Ghosh E. 1928. Two New Ciliates From Sewer Water. J.R. Micr. Soc., London,
1928: 382-384.
Ghosh E. 1929. Two Ne\V Suctor~AFroln Sewer Water. J.R. Micr. Soc., London,
1929: 222-223, Figs. 1-2.
Ghosh F. 1921b. New Hypotricholls Infusoria From Calcutta. J.R. Inicr. Soc.,
London, 1921: 248-250.
Grolière C.A., Chakli R., Sparagano O., Pepin D., 1990. Application de la
colonisation d’un substrat artificiel par les ciliés à l’étude de la qualité des
eaux d’une rivière. Europ. J. Protistol., 25: 381-390.
Hausmann K., Bradbury P.C. (Eds.) 1996 Ciliates: Cells As Organisms. G. Fischer,
Stuttgart.
Hecky R.E. & Kling J. 1981. The phytoplankton and zooplankton of the euphotic
zone of lake Tanganyika: species composition, biomass, chlorophyll content
and spatio-temporal distribution. Limnology & Oceanography, 26: 548-564.
Ilmas Naqvi, Renu Gupta, Seema Makhija, Ravi Toteja, Jeeva S. Abraham, S.
Sripoorna and Hameed A.El-Serehy 2016. Morphology and morphogenesis of
a new oxytrichid ciliate, Notohymena limus n. sp. (Ciliophora, Oxytrichidae)
from Delhi, India. Saudi Journal of Biological Sciences, 23(6): 789-794.
Jack, J.D. and y J.J Gilbert: 1997. Effects of metazoan predators on ciliates in
freshwater plankton communities. J. Euk. Microbiol., 44: 194-199
Jacquet V., Lair N., Hoffmann L., Cauchie H.M., 2005. Spatio-temporal patterns
of protozoan communities in a meso-eutrophic reservoir (Esch-sur-Sure,
Luxemburg), Hydrobiologia, 551: 49-60.
50
Kalinowska K. 2000, Ciliates in small humic lakes (Masurian Lakeland, Poland):

relationship to acidity and trophic parameters, Pol. J. Ecol., 48: 169-183.
Kalinowska K.. 2004, Bacteria, nanoflagellates and ciliates as components of the
microbial loop in three lakes of different trophic status, Pol. J. Ecol., 52:
19-34.
Mahajan K.K. and Nair K.N. 1965. On some freshwater ciliates (Protozoa) from
Calcutta and its environs, Rec. zool. Surv. India, 63: 2-22.
Lair, N., Leveille J.C., Reyes-Merchant P. And Taleb H. 1994 The feeding of a
larval fish, Lebistesreticulatus, on ciliates and rotifers. Mar. Microb. Food
Webs, 8: 337-345.
Laybourn-Parry J., Olver J., Rees S., 1990a. The hypolimnetic protozoan plankton
of a eutrophic lake. Hydrobiologia, 203: 111-119.
Laybourn-Parry J., Olver J., Rogerson A., Duverge P. L., 1990b. The temporal and
spatial patterns of protozooplankton abundance in a eutrophic temperate
lake. Hydrobiologia, 203: 99-110.
Legner M., 1964. Annual observations on ciliates inhabiting the natant vegetation
of two naturally polluted pools. Acta Soc. Zool. Bohemoslov., 33: 193-213
Macek M., Simek K., Pernthaler J., Vyhnalek V., Psenner R., 1996. Growth rates
of dominant planktonic ciliates in two freshwater bodies of different trophic
degree, Journal of Plankton Research, 18: 463-481.
Madoni P., 1987a. Estimation of production and respiration rates by the ciliated
protozoa community in an experimental ricefleld. Hydrobiologia, 144: 113-
120.
Madoni P., 1989. Community structure of the microzooberithos in Lake Suviana
(Tusco-Emilian Apennines). Boll. Zool., 56: 159-165.
Madoni P., 1990. The ciliated protozoa of the monomictic Lake Kinneret (Israel):
species composition and distribution during stratification. Hydrobiologia,
190: 111-120.
Madoni P., Viaroli P., 1985. Microfauna distribution in shallow macrophyte-
covered basins. Verh. Internat. Verein. Limnol., 22: 2353-2355.
Mieczan T., 2007. Size spectra and abundance of planktonic ciliates within various
habitats in a macrophyte-dominated lake (Eastern Poland), Biologia
Bratislava, 62/2: 189-194.
Pace M.L., 1982. Planktonic ciliates: their distribution, abundance, and relationship
to microbial resources in monomictic lake, Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci., 39:
1106-1116.
Petz W, Song W, Wilbert N. 1995. Taxonomy and ecology of the ciliate fauna
(Protozoa, Ciliophora) in the endopagial and pelagial of the Weddell Sea,
Antarctica. Stapfia, 4: 1-223.
Pfister, G., Auer, B. And Arndt, H., 2002. Pelagic Ciliates (Protozoa, Ciliophora) Of
Different Brackish And Freshwater Lake: A Community Analysis At The
Species Level. Limnologica, Vol. 32, No. 2: 147-168.
51
R.N. Mukherjee and A.K. Das 2000 Fauna of Renuka wetland, wetland ecosystem
series 2, Zoological Survey of India, pp. 7-9.
Raikov I.B. 1972. Nuclear phenomena during conjugation and autogamy in
Ciliates. In: Research in Protozoology (Ed. Chen T.T.). Pergamon Press,
Oxford, 4: 147-291.
Renu Gupta, Komal Kamra and Gulshan Rai Sapra 2006. Morphology and Cell
division of the oxytrichids Architricha indica nov. gen., nov. sp., and
Histriculus histrio (Muller 1773), Corliss, 1960 (Ciliophora, Hypotrichida).
European Journal of Protistology, 42: 29-48.
Renu Gupta, Komal Kamra, Seema Arora and Gulshan Rai Sapra. 2003 Pleurotricha
curdsi (Shi, Warren and Song 2002) nov. comb. (Ciliophora: Hypotrichida):
morphology and ontogenesis of an Indian population; redefinition of the
genus. European Journal of Protistology. 39: 275-285 .
Renu Gupta, Komal Kamra, Seema Arora and Gulshan Rai Sapra 2001. Stylonychia
ammermanni sp. n. a new oxytrichid (Ciliophora, Hypotrichida) ciliate from
the river Yamuna, Delhi, India. Acta Protozoologica, 40: 75-82 .
Schmidt A.R., Von Eynatten H., Wagreich M. 2001. The Mesozoicamber of
Schliersee (Southern Germany) is Cretaceous in age. Cretaceous Res., 22:
423–428.
Schönborn W, Dörfelt H, Foissner W, Krienitz L, Schäfer U. 1999. Afossilized
microcenosis in Triassic amber. J Euk Microbiol, 46: 571-584.
Schonborn W., 1977 - Production studies on Protozoa. Oecologia, 27: 171-184.
Schonborn w., 1982 - Die Ziliatenproduktion in der mittleren Saale. Limnologica,
14: 329-346.
Seema Arora, Renu Gupta, Komal Kamra and Gulshan Rai Sapra 1999.
Characterization of Paraurostyla coronata sp. n. including a comparative
account of other members of the genus. Acta Protozoologica, 38: 133-144.
Şenler, N.G., İ. Yıldız, 1998, An investigation ciliate species on five rivers flowing
into Van Lake. YY, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi, 5: 1-19.
Şenler, N.G., H. Bıyık, E. Öğün, İ. Yıldız, 1998, The pollution parameters and
protozoological investigations on three rivers flowing into Van Lake.
Bulletin of Pure and Applied Science, 17: 35-50.
Şenler, N.G., İ. Yıldız, 2004, Faunistic and morphological studies on ciliates
(Protozoa, Ciliophora) from a small pond, with response of ciliate populations
to changing environmental conditions, Turk. J., Zool., 28: 245-265.
Şenler, N.G., İ. Yıldız, An investigation on the ciliated protozoan biological sewage
treatment plant of YüzüncüYıl University. Y.Y.U Fen Bilimleri Enstitü
Dergisi, 6: 1-10, 1999.
Shaikh, J.D, Shaikh, T.T, Kamble, U.P, Jadhav, T.J. and Kazum, M. 2012. Studies
on some free living protozoan from Salim Ali Lake, Aurangabad. Int.
Multidiscip. Res. J. 2(6): 27-29.
Silva, S.B.A. & Silva-Neto, I.D. 2001. Morfologia dos protozoáriosciliadospresentesem
um reator experimental de tratamento de esgotopeloprocesso de
lodosativados. Revista Brasileira de Zoociências 3: 203-230.
52
Simek K., Macek M., Vyhnalek V.1999. Uptake of bacteria-sized fluorescent

particles by natural protozan assemblage in a reservoir. Arch. Hydrobiol.
Beih. Ergebn. Limnol., 34: 275-281.
Somasundaram, S., Abraham, J.S., Gupta, R., Makhija, S. and Toteja, R. 2015.
Tetmemena sp. Y1 18S rRNA gene, partial sequence. Acc no. KP336401
Somasundaram, S., Abraham, J.S., Gupta, R., Toteja, R. and Makhija, S. 2015.
Tetmemena sp. Y1 18S ribosomal RNA gene, partial sequence; internal
transcribed spacer 1, 5.8S ribosomal RNA gene, internal transcribed
spacer 2, complete sequence; 28S ribosomal gene, partial sequence. Acc.
No. KT731103.
Somasundaram, S., Abraham, J.S., Toteja, R., Makhija, S. and Gupta, R. 2016
Tetmemena sp. Y1 histone H4 gene, partial cds. Acc. No. KU761846.
Somasundaram, S., Abraham, J.S., Gupta, R., Makhija, S. and Toteja, R. 2015.
Diverse Freshwater Ciliate Fauna from Okhla Bird Sanctuary, Delhi, India.
Global Journal for Research Analysis; 4(9): 37-41.
Song W, Wang M. 1999 New name list of marine ciliates in China. In: Song W (ed)
Progress in protozoology. Qingdao Ocean University Press, Qingdao, China,
pp 65-76
Song W, Wilbert N. 2002. Faunistic studies on marine ciliates from the Antarctic
benthic area, including descriptions of one epizoic form, 6 new species and 2
new genera (Protozoa: Ciliophora). Acta Protozool, 41: 23-61
Song W., Zhao Y., Xu K. 2003. Pathogenic protozoa in mariculture. Science Press,
Beijing (in Chinese).
Sonneborn T.M. 1937. Sex, Sex Inheritance And Sex Determination In Paramecium
Aurelia. — Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. Usa, 23: 378-383.
Sonneborn T.M. 1957. Breeding Systems, Reproductive Methods, And Species
Problems In Protozoa. — In: Mayr E. (Ed.): The Species Problem. American
Association For The Advancement Of Science, Washington D.C.: 155-324
Sorokin Y.I., 1972 - Biological productivity of the Rybinsk reservoir. In: Z. Kayak &
A. Hillbricht-Ilkowska (eds), Productivity problems of freshwaters. - Polish
Sci. Publ., Warsaw, pp. 493-503.
Thouvenot A., Richardot M., Debroas D., Devaux J., 1999. Bacterivory of
metazooplankton, ciliates and flagellates in a newly flooded reservoir,
Journal of Plankton Research, 21: 1659-1679.
Ventelä A.M., Saarikari V., Vuorio K., 1998. Vertical and seasonal distribution
of microorganisms, zooplankton and phytoplankton in a eutrophic lake,
Ventela, M.A., K. Wišckowski, M. Moilanen, V. Saarikari and K. Vuorio 2002.The
effect of small zooplankton on the microbial loop and edible algae during a
cyanobacterial bloom. Freshwater Biol., 47: 1807-1819.
Wiackowski, K., A.M. Ventela, M. Moilanen, V. Saarikari, K. Vuorio and J. Sarvala
2001. What factors control planktonic ciliates during summer in a highly
eutrophic lake? Hydrobiol., 443: 43-57 .
53
Weisse T., Műller H. 1998. Planktonic protozoa and the microbial food web in Lake
Constance, Archiv fűr Hydrobiol., 53: 223-254.
Zingel P., 2005, Vertical and seasonal dynamics of planktonic ciliates in a strongly
stratified hypertrophic lake, Hydrobiologia, 574: 163-174.
Zingel P., Ott I., 2000, Vertical distribution of planktonic ciliates in strongly
stratified temperate lakes, Hydrobiologia, 435: 19-26.
Zingel, P., H. Agasild, T. Noges and V. Kisand: 2007. Ciliates are the dominant
grazers on pico- and nanoplankton in a shallow, naturally highly eutrophic
lake. Microb. Ecol., 53: 134-142.
54
Chapter 4
Porifera (SPONGE)
M.M. Saxena
ABSTRACT
Porifers, commonly called sponges, are sessile forms, found attached to
some submerged substratum in water. Freshwater sponges belong to family
Spongillidae of Class Demospongia and constitute an important component of an
aquatic ecosystem. During different phases of their lifespan they exhibit a variety
of living modes, viz., periphytonic, planktonic, neustonic, and benthic. Shape
and microspination pattern of their siliceous spicules serve the most valuable
taxonomic clues.
Out of a total 4562 sponge species, including both marine and freshwater ones,
from the world, 486 species are recorded to harbor Indian waters. The freshwater
species in the world are around 100 of which 31 belonging to 11 genera are
recorded from India. Genera Corvospongilla and Radiospongilla are represented
by greatest five species each, whereas genera Umbrotula, Dosilia and Metania are
each represented by a single species.
Out of these total 31 species, 11 are recorded to be endemic to India. Distribution
of different species reveals the sponge Eunapius carteri to be the most
widely distributed form in India and elsewhere. On the contrary, Eunapius
calcuttanus, E. geminus, Stratospongilla gravely, Corvospongilla bhavnagarensis,
Pectinospongilla aurea, P. stellifera and P. subspinosa revealed very restricted
distribution. Ecological notes are made on some sponge species including their
inter-specific relations. Paper also points out the thrust areas of research relating
to these lesser known invertebrate denizens of freshwater ecosystems.
Key words: Freshwater sponges, Porifera, Distribution, Ecology, Endemic species,
India.
Introduction
Life in water is often more vivid than on land. Minute planktonic algae to large
angiosperms as well as minute protozoans to mammoth mammals harbour bodies
of freshwater. However, a larger variety of invertebrate forms, though not well
known and appreciated, play a highly significant role in the ecology of aquatic
ecosystems. They act as heterotrophs, themselves constitute food for many, help
cycling of matter and flow of energy, and of course some play vectors or intermediate
hosts of parasites. They inhabit almost all conceivable regions in water living as
plankton, neuston, nekton, periphyton, and benthos (Saxena, 2008).
Vice Chancellor, Tantia University, Sri Ganganagar 335002

Email: [email protected]
55
Saxena
Vast numbers of limnological investigations have been carried out in the

country, but unfortunately most of these are deficient in proper taxonomic content
of the biota. Very few studies project rightly identified flora and/or fauna; many
do not extend beyond generic level while some quote erroneous species with no
authentic record.
SPONGE FAUNA
Brief background
Out of a total 4562 sponge species, including both marine and freshwater ones,
from the world, 486 species are recorded to harbor Indian waters (Thomas, 1998).
However, a checklist published subsequently by Pattanayak (1999) showed 451
marine sponges from Indian waters. The freshwater species in the world are
around 100 of which 31 belonging to 11 genera are recorded from India (Soota,
1991).
Since the pioneering work of Annandale (1907-1915) on the freshwater sponges
of India, the subject remained almost ignored for about six decades. Following a
revision of worldwide collection of freshwater sponges by Penny & Racek (1968) a
check list was prepared by Khera & Chaturvedi (1976). Soota & Pattanayak (1982)
dealt with the freshwater sponges from the unnamed collection of Zoological Survey
of India reporting nine species belonging to six genera and extending the range of
distribution of some species. Later, ecological studies of the forms in Rajasthan
and Gujarat were initiated by Soota et al. (1983) and Soota & Saxena (1983), Soota
(1991) reviewed the freshwater sponges of India in his occasional paper published
by Zoological Survey of India. Sponge fauna of the Thar desert extending over
Rajasthan and Gujarat States was reviewed by Saxena (1996) based on surveys
conducted on over 100 bodies of water by him and his associates. He reported seven
species belonging to five genera along with some ecological observations. In a small
note Saxena (2001) observed cohabitation by several species within the body of
sponge Eunapius carteri. This species of sponge was also recorded as a new record
from Karauli district of Rajasthan by Devarshi (2006) following identification by
the author. The species has also been documented from a lake in Maharashtra by
Kakavipure & Yeragi (2008). Lately, in his lengthy paper on freshwater faunal
diversity of the Indian desert, Saxena (2015) included seven sponge species from
the region. Saxena (in press) has given a detailed account on the Sponge fauna
of Rajasthan, including aspects covering history, identification, distribution and
ecology.
Identification
Sponges, being sessile forms, are generally subject to great seasonal, geographical
and habitat variability. This variability is found not among different species
but also within the members of the same species. Hence, the characters like
their external form, size, body consistency, and colour are diagnostically often
unreliable. In freshwater sponges, the spicules always made of silica, are the
determining character. These are of three types, the skeletal (megascleres),
the flesh (microscleres), and the gemmule (gemmoscleres) spicules. Shape and
microspination pattern of these spicules serve the most valuable taxonomic clues.
56
Porifera (Sponge)
Chemically these spicules are made of 92 % silicon dioxide, 7% water, and

traces of magnesium, potassium, and sodium (Butschli, 1901).
Freshwater Sponges of India
The basic taxonomic position of freshwater sponges is as below:
Phylum PORIFERA
Class Demospongia
Sub-class Ceractinomorpha
Order Haplosclerida
Family Spongillidae
Porifers, commonly called as sponges, are sessile forms, found attached to some
submerged substratum in water. Freshwater sponges belong to family Spongillidae
of Class Demospongia constitute an important component of an aquatic ecosystem.
During different phases of their lifespan they exhibit a variety of living modes,
viz., periphytonic, planktonic, neustonic, and benthic. They are well known for
absorbing and utilizing material available in water (Soota & Saxena, 1983), while
Harrison (1974) also considered them to be helpful in evaluating the quality of
water they inhabit acting as delicate indicators of both population alterations and
pollution induced cytopathology. Freshwater sponges characteristically produce
asexual reproductive bodies called gemmules during dry summer period, which
are quite often encountered in zooplankton samples during summer and winter
seasons (Saxena, 2015).
Thirty one species belonging to eleven genera of freshwater sponges are
noted from India, (Soota, 1991). Genera Corvospongilla and Radiospongilla are
represented by greatest five species each, whereas genera Umbrotula, Dosilia and
Metania are each represented by a single species (Table 1). Taxonomic details
of Indian sponges are elaborated by Soota (1991) and those from Rajasthan are
updated by Saxena (in press).
Out of these total 31 species, 11 are recorded to be endemic to India (Table
1). As is revealed from the distribution of different species, sponge Eunapius
carteri is noted to be the most widely distributed form in India and elsewhere.
On the contrary, Eunapius calcuttanus, E. geminus, Stratospongilla gravely,
Corvospongilla bhavnagarensis, Pectinospongilla aurea, P. stellifera and P.
subspinosa revealed very restricted distribution. This cannot be ruled out that
insufficient explorations of sponge fauna could be a reason for its infrequent
records; and work in this direction may extend the range of distribution of many.
This doubt is also expressed by Saxena (1996) in his study on sponge fauna of the
Thar desert. He pointed out that the greatest diversity of sponge fauna is revealed
from Jodhpur district that could be a result of relatively more intense explorations
in this region since the Desert Regional Centre of Zoological Survey of India is
located here.
Ecological note
Soota & Saxena (1983) in their study on sponge fauna of some waters of Rajasthan
supplemented the salient limnological features of the sponge localities. Saxena
(1996) recorded the range of some physical and chemical factors of the waters
57
Saxena
harbouring different sponge species in the region. He noted these factors to range
as: transparency 0.25-2.9 m, dissolved oxygen 3.003-11.011 mg/l, pH 6.4-10.3,
carbonates 0-60.0 mg/l, bicarbonates 9.0-133.0 mg/l, free carbon dioxide 0-4.0 mg/l.
Eunapius carteri (Fig. 1) was found to occur in the widest range of these factors,
specially the carbonates and bicarbonates. Perhaps this makes this sponge the
most widely distributed one. Besides that, this sponge is collected from a variety
of substrates, such as submerged bushes, aquatic vegetation, dam walls, rocks
and iron pipes. On the exposed rocks around Jawai dam (Pali, Rajasthan) its
scars (having dry gemmules) measured even two meters in diameter. In Amer fort
tank, Jaipur, these were in plenty attached to the iron pipes while in Pratapsagar,
Jodhpur enormous bulks of this form were confined to the hydrophyte Hydrilla sp.
Sponge Ephydatia meyeni is reported to occur strictly on the undersurface of
the submerged stones in the littoral region, avoiding direct sunlight. Its congener,
E. fluviatilis has also been repoted to inhabit shaded habitats (Harrison, 1974) and
constant illumination is reported to inhibit gemmule formation in it (Rasmont,
1970). However, Harrison (1974) also pointed out that “as might be expected, there
is no hard and fast rule defining the relative tolerance of various sponge species to
light. The effects of light intensity are greatly modified by two other environmental
factors, water colour and transparency”. Soota & Saxena (1983) pointed out that
other species showed no specific trend of their occurrence and were usually found
attached to the submerged bushes, hydrophytes and stones.
Table 1. Distribution of freshwater sponges in India (after Soota & Saxena, 1983;
Soota, 1991; Saxena, 1996)
Species marked * are endemic to India
Species Distribution
1 Spongilla alba This species which has been reported both from fresh
Carter, 1849 and low salinity waters, is of wide occurrence having
been recorded from SE Asia, Africa, Australia, South
America, and the U.S.A (Florida & Louissiana), and also
from India-North Salt Lake, 24-Pargans; Port Canning
and Calcutta and Igatpuri (Maharashtra), and back
waters in Kerala. However, its clear distribution is still
debatable in view of the fact that according to Racek &
Harrison (1975, p, 163) the species shows observable
speciation trends from South America northward;
while it has been shown by Poirrier (1976, p. 211) that
though its distribution is conditioned by percentage in
water salinity of the habitat, probably more commonly
restricted to tropical and subtropical climates, its
occurrence in temperate latitudes cannot be ruled out.
2 Spongilla lacustris According to Penney & Racek (1968), distribution
(Linnaeus, 1758) restricted to Northern Hemisphere especially in cold
temperature; but reported from India-Simla (Himachal
Pradesh), Udhampur (Jammu), Ranchi (Bihar), Igatpuri
(Maharashtra), and Mysore (Karnataka).
58
Porifera (Sponge)
3 Eunapius Barring an unconfirmed report from Burma, apparently
calcuttanus* restricted to India where reported from Calcutta, and
(Annandale, 1911) 24- Parganas (West Bengal)
4 Eunapius carteri Confined from SE, S and W Asia to eastern Europe;
(Bowerbank, 1863) probably also in Africa. In India, widely represented in
the plains and even extending to moderate heights.
5 Eunapius Reportedly represented in S and tropical SE Asia
crassissimus and possibly also in Australia. In India-reported
(Annandale, 1907) from Calcutta (West Bengal), Sur Lake (Orissa), and
Assam. However, the distribution of the species in
Australia requires to be more fully corroborated as in
all probability it may be, considering the equally well
protected gemmules of the species as those of E. sinensis
(Annandale, 1910), sympatric with it.
6 Eunapius Only in India-Bangalore (Karnataka).
geminus*
(Annandale, 1911)
7 Stratospongilla Recorded from central Africa. In India-Naukuchia
bombayensis Tal, alt. 4000 ft. (U.P.), Rajkot (Gujarat), Bhim river,
(Carter, 1882) Khed, Pune dist., and Bombay (Maharastra), Bangalore
(Karnataka), Bikaner (Rajasthan).
8 Stratospongilla Only in India-Koyna river, Teloshi, Satara dist.
gravely* (Maharashtra).
(Annandale, 1912)
9 Stratospongilla Reported from Thailand through India to Africa. In
indica India-Chakradharpur, Chhota Nagpur (Bihar); and
(Annandale, 1908) Nasik & Igatpuri (Maharashtra).
10 Stratospongilla Reported from Indonesia through India to Africa. In
sumatraana India-river Yenna, Medha (Maharashtra).
(Weber, 1890)
11 Corvospongilla Embankment about 4 meters away from Gorishankar
bhavnagarensis* Lake, Bhavnagar (Gujarat).
Soota, Pattanayak
and Saxena, 1983.
12 Corvospongilla Extending from Burma (type locality) to India-Bhima
burmanica river, Khed, Pune dist., & Pimpli, Ratanagiri dist.
(Kirkpatrick, (Maharashtra); Idar (“occurring as incrustations on
1908) pebbles of recent conglomerate left by subsidence of the
water”).
59
Saxena
13 Corvospongilla Only in India-Hazatganj, Lucknow (U.P.), Santhal
caunteri* Parganas (Bihar), Lake Kailana, Jodhpur(Rajasthan),
Annandaee, 1911 Gori Shankar Lake & Kodiyar Lake, Bhavnagar(Gujarat),
and Medha, Satara dist. (Maharashtra).
14 Corvospongilla Only in India-Pulta (West Bengal), Azidam, Rajkot
lapidosa* (Gujarat), Igatpuri and river Godavari, Nasik, and
(Annandale, 1908) Pune (Maharashtra), and Manjra reservoir, Sangareddy
(Andhra Pradesh.)
15 Corvospongilla Only in India-Lake Kailana, Jodhpur (Rajasthan),
ultima* Medha (Maharashtra), Kerala, and Cape Comorin &
(Annandale, 1910) Tanjore(Tamil Nadu).
16 Radiospongilla Shown as distributed in tropical and subtropical S
cerebellata and SE Asia, as well as from China to USSR, even
(Bowerbank, 1863) perhaps extending to southeastern Europe. In India-
Mangal-dai near Bhutan frontier (Assam), Sur Lake
and Rambha(Orissa), River Jharia, Siripur, Saran dist.
(Bihar), Calcutta and neighbourhood, Behrampore
(West Bengal), Malwa Tal, alt. 3600 ft., Kumaon (U.P.),
Igatpuri, Aurangabad, & Khandalla (Maharashtra),
Bangalore (Karnataka), Ernakulum & Trichur (Kerala),
Madras and neighbourhood (Tamil Nadu), and Pagnor
talug, Nellore dist. (Andhra Pradesh).
17 Radiospongillla Only in India-Bombay; Nasik; Bhima river, Khed;
cinerea* (Carter, Kayna, Satara fort; and Karla, Pune dist. (Maharashtra);
1849) Chakradharpur, Chhota Nagpur (Bihar); and Naukuchia
Tal (alt. 4000ft.), Kumaon (U.P.).
18 Radiospongilla Discontinuously distributed in the U.S.A. and Mexico,
crateriformis China, Japan, and SE Asia; and also in India-Malabar
(Potts, 1882) (Kerala), Khandalla (Maharashtra), and Ross Island &
Diglipur (Andamans).
19 Radiospongilla Recorded from eastern Australia, and possible occurrence
hemephydatia in New Guinea. In India-Sur Lake (Orissa) where
(Annandale, 1909) reportedly growing with Radiospongilla cerebellata (=
Spongilla lacustris subsp. reticulate), Eunapius carteri
(= Spongilla carteri) and Eunapius crassissimus (=
Spongilla crassissima). Its report from Matha river
near Kharakwasla. Pune (Maharashtra) by Tonapi
(1964) requires confirmation as possibly confused with
Stratospongilla.
20 Radiospongilla Ranging from India to Indonesia and southeastwards to
indica as far as probably New Guinea. In India-Calcutta (West
(Annandale, 1907) Bengal), and Igatpuri (Maharashtra).
21 Pectispongilla Only in India-Tenmalai, (Kerala).
aurea* Annandale,
1909
60
Porifera (Sponge)
22 Pectispongilla Only in India-Trichur (Kerala).
stellifera*
Annandale, 1915
23 Pectispongilla Only in India-Trichur & Ernakulum (Kerala).
subspinosa*
Annandale, 1911
24 Ephydatia All faunal realms. In India-only in western Himalayas
fluviatilis ramsayi namely, Kumaon, Naukuchia Tal, Bhim Tal, SatTal,
(Haswell, 1882) and Nainital.
25 Ephydatia meyeni China. In India-Calcutta and neighbourhood (West
(Carter, 1849) Bengal), Bhim Tal, Kumaon, alt. 4500ft. (U.P.),
Jodhpur, Udaipur and Kota (Rajasthan), Bombay and
Pune (Maharashtra), Kerala and Cape Comorin (Tamil
Nadu). Specimens examined by the author from new
localities; Lake Rainuka (H.P); Dudhwa National Park,
and Roorkee (U.P.); and Rohtak, Panipat, Ottu lake, and
Sirsa, Hissar (Haryana).
26 Umborotula In Indian region recently reported from Andaman
bogorensis (Weber, Islands. According to Racek (1969, p.300) SE Asia to
1890) eastern Australia. He remarked that “The typically
minute size of this species represents a major obstacle
in the assessment of its true distributional range and
additional collections may yet demonstrate the fallacy
of the present assumption, that U. bogorensis displays a
widely scattered dispersal.”
27 Dosilia plumose Reported from the Philippines, probably also in other
(Carter, 1849) parts of SE Asia, [vide Gee (1932, p. 533), and Penney
and Racek (1968)]. In India-Pulta water tank (West
Bengal), Hazaribagh (Bihar), Jodhpur, Udaipur, and
Jaipur (Rajasthan), Bombay (Maharahtra), and Rambha
(Orissa).
28 Trocbospongilla Ranging from southern and SE Asia north to China and
paulula south to eastern Australia; and Amazon River (type
(Bowerbank, 1863) locality). In India-Calcutta and neighbourhood (West
Bengal). In Burma (now Myanmar)-Kawkarlik, Amherst
dist., Tenasserim.
29 Trochospongilla Cosmopolitan. In India-Kerala.
pennsylvanica
(Potts, 1882)
30 Trochospongilla From India-Calcutta & neighbourhood (West Bengal)
philottiana and through southern China and SE Asia to the
Annandale, 1907 Philippines, and possibly also occurring in Africa.
31 Metania Reportedly restricted to Burma (now Myanmar); then
vesparioides published as fauna of India
(Annandale, 1908)
*Endemic to India
61
Saxena
Waters with greater fluctuations in water level are found to hold poor taxa
diversity. Annandale (1911) observed that the sponges are found in the water
bodies in which there is a certain mixture of light and shade, containing suitable
support, and free of disturbance, for instance, result from emptying out the pond.
This statement is vindicated by Soota et al. (1983) who observed that in two twin
bodies of water at Jodhpur, having same range of physical-chemical parameters,
the least disturbed stagnant lake was represented by well flourishing five species
of sponges while the other one facing great fluctuation in water level, resulting
from constant in and outflow, was represented by a very sparse population of a
single species.
Fig. 1. Sponge Eunapiuscarteri: A. on a submerged twig, B. on dam wall, C. on

Ficusroots down water, D. full of gemmules
Sponges are known to display good inter-specific relations. These are known
to provide safe sanctuary to a variety of animals ranging from minute protozoans
to lower chordates. Sisyrid insects of order Neuroptera are regarded as ‘spongilla
flies’ as their larvae suck nutritive fluid from sponge tissue (Tonapi, 1980). The
fishes Gobius alcockii and Percilia gillisi are reported to lay eggs inside the
62
Porifera (Sponge)
osculum of sponges Eunapius carteri and E. mackayi respectively (Soota, 1991).

During a survey for sponge fauna in the Indian desert, in a lake near Bikaner
the author (Saxena, 2001) noted sponge Eunapius carteri to harbour a number
of young water scorpions Laccotrephes maculates (Fabr.) (Insecta: Hemiptera:
Nepidae) measuring 10 to 12.5 mm. A pair of adult water scorpions was also found
in coitus. He pointed out that the fact features the spongocoel as a breeding site
of the insect. However, he doubts that this relationship may be an intentional or
accidental lodgment. The other colonizers of the sponge included backswimmer
Notonecta glauca (Linn.) (Insecta: Hemiptera); seed shrimp Stenocypris malcosoni
(Brady) (Crustacea: Ostracoda) and snails Lymnaea accumineta (Lamarck) and
Bellamya bengalensis (Lamarck) (Mollusca: Gastropoda). Kakavipure & Yeragi
(2008) made a stray mention of symbiotic algae imparting brown green to yellow
colour to sponge Eunapius carteri in a lake in Maharashtra.
Thrust areas
In spite of the fact that several limnological studies are made over last about four
decades in the area, very little attention is paid to taxonomy and ecology of lower
invertebrates, and sponges are no exception. There is increasing need to explore
the sponge fauna from diverse bodies of water which may surely yield some new
records and extend the range of distribution of many. Further, the role of sponges
as bioindicators of water quality and water purifiers are yet another areas of
research need to be explored. These forms of lower level of biological organization
can also serve as good material for cytological and regenerative studies. Above all,
a correct identification of the species is very important for which there is dire need
of trained taxonomists in the country, particularly for such lower obscured groups
of animals.
REFERENCES
Annandale, N. 1907a. Notes on freshwater sponges I-V. Rec, Indian Mus., 1: 267-
273.
Annandale, N. 1907b. Notes on freshwater sponges VI-VII. Rec. Indian Mus., 1:
387-392.
Annandale, N. 1907c. Notes on the Freshwater Fauna of India. IX. Descriptions of
new Freshwater Sponges from Calcutta, with a record of two known species
from the Himalayas and a list of the Indian forms. J. Proc. Asiat. Soc, Beng.,
3: 15-26.
Annandale, N. 1907d. The fauna of brackish ponds at Port Canning, Lower Bengal.
Pt. I. Rec, Indian Illus., 1: 35-43.
Annandale, N. 1908a. Notes on freshwater sponges VIII. Preliminary notice of a
collection from Western India with descriptions of two new species. Rec.
Indian Mus., 2: 25-28.
Annandale, N. 1908b. Notes on freshwater sponges. IX. Preliminary notice of a
collection from Burma with the description of a new species of Tubella. Rec,
Indian Mus., 2: 157-158.
63
Saxena
Annandale, N. 1908c. Note on Ephydatia meyeni (Carter). Rec. Indian Mus, 2:

306-307.
Annandale, N. 1909a. Beitrage zur Kenntnis der Fauna von Ergebnisse einer
Reise von Prof. Max Weber in Jahre 1894. IX. Freshwater sponges. Zool.
Jb., 27(6): 559-568.
Annandale, N. 1909b. Notes on freshwater sponges. X. Report on a small collection
from Travancore. Rec, Indian Mus,, 3: 101.104.
Annandale, N. 1909c. Notes on freshwater sponges. XI. Description of a new
species of Spongilla from Orissa, Rec. Indian Mus., 3: 275,
Annandale, N. 1910. Notes on freshwater sponges. XII. Description of a new species
from Cape Comorin. Rec. Indian Mus., 5 31.
Annandale, N. 1911a. Notes on a freshwater sponge and polyzoan from Ceylon.
zeylan., 1: 63-64.
Annandale, N. 1911b. Notes on freshwater sponges. XIII. Specimens collected
in the Poona district, Bombay Presidency, by S. P. Agharkar. Rec. Indian
illus., 6: 225-226.
Annandale, N. 1911c. Freshwater sponges, hydroids and Polyzoa. Fauna British
India, including Ceylon and Burma: 27-126 & 241-245.
Annandale, N. 1912a. Notes on freshwater sponges. XIV. The generic position of
“Spongilla ultima.” Rec. Indian Mus., 7: 99.
Annandale, N. 1912b. Observations on the invertebrate fauna of the Kumaon
Lakes, with special reference to the sponges and Polyzoa. II. Systematic
and geographical notes on the sponges and Polyzoa. Rec. Indian Mus., 7:
137-139.
Annandale, N. 1912c. The freshwater sponges of the Malabar zone. Rec. Indian
Illus., 7: 383-397.
Annandale, N. 1912d. Zoological results of the Abor Expedition. IV. Porifera. Rec.
Indian Illus., 8: 67.
Annandale, N. 1912e. Some recent advances in our knowledge of the freshwater
Fauna of India, J. Asiat. Soc. Beng., 8: 39-53.
Annandale, N. 1915. Notes on freshwater sponges. XVI. The genus Pectispongilla
and its allies. Rec, Indian Mus., 11: 171-178. 1: 3.
Bhaduri, A.S. 1969. Gemmule germination of fresh water sponge, Ephydatia
meyeni in different temperature gradient. Adv. Abstr. Contr. Fish. aquat.
Sci. India, 3(2): 101-102.
Bowerbank, J.S. 1863. A monograph of the Spongillidae. Proc. tool. Soc. Lond.,
1863: 140-472.
Butschli, O. 1901. Einige Beobachtungen uber Kiesel-und Kalknadeln von
Spongien. Z. wiss. Zool., 69: 235-286.
Carter, H.J. 1849. A descriptive account of the Freshwater Sponges (genus
Spongilla) in the Island of Bombay, with Observations on their structure
and Development. Ann, Mag. nat. Hist., 4: 81-100.
64
Porifera (Sponge)
Carter, H.J. 1882. Spermatozoa, Polygonal Cell structure, and the Green Colour
in Spongilla together with a new species. Ann. Mag. nat. Hist., 10: 362-372.
Devarshi, Dhirendra. 2006. Record of freshwater sponge Eunapius carteri
(Bowerbank, 1863) from Keladevi Wildlife Sanctuary, Rajasthan. Zoos’
Print Journal, 21(6): 2284.
Gee, N.G. 1932a. The genus Trochospongilla of freshwater sponges. Peking nat.
Hist. Bull., 6(2): 1-32.
Gee, N.G. 1932b. The known freshwater sponges. Peking nat. Hist. Bull., 6(3):
25-51.
Harrison, F.W. 1974. Sponges (Porifera: Spongillidae). In: Pollution ecology of
freshwater invertebrates. (eds.) Hart, C.W, and Fuller, S.L.H. Academic
Press, New York and London, 29-66.
Haswell. 1882. Meyenia ramsayi. Proc. Linn. Soc. NSW, 7: 210.
Kakavipure, D.K. & Yeragi, S.G. 2008. Occurrence of freshwater sponge Eunapius
carteri (Bowerbank 1863) from Khativali-Vehloli lake near Shahapur
District Thane, Maharashtra, India. Proc. Taal 2007: the 12th World Lake
Conference: 500-505.
Khera, S. & Chaturvedi, Y. 1976. Check-list of Indian freshwater sponges. Rec.
zoo& Surv. India, Misc. Publ. Occ. Paper No. 4: 1-29.
Kirkpatrick. 1908. Spongilla loricata var barmanica. Rec. Indian Mus., 2: 97.
Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema Naturae, 10th ed., 1, Animalia: 1348.
Pattanayak, J.G. 1999. Annotated checklist of marine sponges of Indian region.
Memoirs of the Queensland Museum, 44: 439-455.
Penney, J.T. & Racek, A.A. 1968. Comprehensive Revision of a Worldwide.
Collection of Freshwater Sponges (Porifera Spongillidae). Bull. U.S. natn.
Mus., No. 272: 184 pp.
Poirrier, M.A, 1976. A taxonomic study of the Spongilla alba, S. cenota, S. wagneri
species group (Porifera: Spongillidae) with ecological observations of S.
alba. In: Aspects of Sponge Biology. (eds.) Harrison, F.W. and Cowden, R.R.,
Academic Press, New York and London: 203-213.
Potts. 1882a. Meyenia crateriformis. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philad., p. 12.
Potts. 1882b. Tubella pennsylvanica. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philad., p. 14.
Racek, A.A. & Harrison, F.W. 1975. The systematic and phylogenetic position of
Palaeospongilla chubutensis (Porifera: Spongillidae). Proc. Linn. Soc. NSW,
99(3): 157-165.
Racek, A.A. 1969. The freshwater sponges of Australia (Porifera : Spongillidae).
Aust. J. mar. Freshwat. Res., 20: 267-310.
Rasmont, R. 1970. Some new aspects of the physiology of fresh-water sponges, In:
The biology of the Porifera. Symp. zoo/. Soc. Load., No. 25: 415-422. (ed.)
Fry, W.C., Academic Press, New York.
Saxena, M.M. (in press). Sponge fauna of Rajasthan. In Fauna of Rajasthan,
Zoological Survey of India, Calcutta.
65
Saxena
Saxena, M.M. 1996. Freshwater sponges in the Thar desert. In: Faunal Diversity
in the Thar Desert: Gaps in Research. eds. Ghosh, A.K., Baqri, Q.H. and
Prakash, I. Scientific Publ., Jodhpur. 37-41.
Saxena, M.M. 2001. Sponge Eunapius carteri (Bowerbank) as a breeding site of
water scorpion Laccotrephes maculatus (Fabr.). Insect Environment, 6(4):
170-171.
Saxena, M.M. 2008. Common aquatic invertebrates of Rajasthan. In: Conserving
Biodiversity of Rajasthan (with emphasis on wild fauna and flora) ed.
Verma, Ashok. Himanshu Publications, Udaipur. pp. 141-148.
Saxena, M.M. 2015. Aquatic faunal diversity of the Indian desert: Present status
and threats. In Faunal Diversity in India, Eds. Sobti, R.C., Jaiswal, Kamal
and Mishra, Suman. Narendra Publishing House, Delhi. pp. 549-581.
Soota, T.D. & Pattanayak, J.G. 1982. On some fresh-water sponges from the
unnamed collection of the Zoo-logical Survey of India. Rec. zool. Surv. India,
80: 215-229.
Soota, T.D. & Saxena, M.M. 1983. Sponge fauna of some waters of Rajasthan and
its ecology. Trans. Isdt. & Ucds, 8(2): 131-133.
Soota, T.D., Baskaran, S. and Saxena, M.M. 1983. Sponges of Lake Kailana,
Jodhpur, Rajasthan, and their ecology. Geobios new Reports, 2: 150-152.
Soota, T.D., Pattanayak, J.G. and Saxena, M.M. 1983. On some freshwater sponges
from Gujarat (India). Rec. zool. Surv. India, 81: 255-260.
Soota, T.D, Baskaran, S. and Saxena, M.M. 1983. Sponges of lake Kailana,
Jodhpur, Rajasthan and their ecology. Geobios new Reports, 2: 150-152.
Soota, T.D. & Saxena, M.M.1983. Sponge fauna of some waters of Rajasthan and
its ecology. Trans. Isdt. Ucds., 8(2): 131-133.
Soota, T.D. 1991. Freshwater sponges of India. Rec. zool. Surv. India, Occasional
Paper No. 138. pp.116.
Thomas, P.A. 1998. Porifera. Pp. 27-36. In Alfred, J.R.B., A.K. Das and A.K. Sanyal
(eds.). Faunal Diversity of India. ENVIS Centre, Zoological survey of India,
Calcutta. pp. 497.
Tonapi, G.T. 1964. A note on the freshwater sponges of Poona. Curr. Sci., 33(12):
372-373.
Tonapi, G.T. 1980. Freshwater Animals of India. Oxford & IBH, New Delhi. pp.
341.
Weber, 1980. Spongilla sumatrana. In Zoologische Ergebnisse einer Reise nach
Neiderlandisch Ost-Indien. 1: 88.
66
Chapter 5
CNIDARIA
SANTANU MITRA*, K. VALARMATHI AND

Subhrendu S. Mishra
Abstract
Among the varied categories of Cnidarians, Hydrozoans are the only group known
to colonize freshwater habitats. Only nine species belonging to six genera in four
families and two orders of the class Hydrozoa are reported from freshwater bodies
of India till date. Although, they are considered as a valuable source of potential
bio-medical compounds, little has been studied and there is a need for further
contribution from taxonomists and scientific communities as well.
Key words: Cnidarian fauna, Hydrozoa, bio-medical compound, freshwater
habitat.
Introduction
Cnidarian fauna are most diverse in their forms, among the lower group of
animals. They are well known under their common names like Sea anemones,
Corals, Jellyfishes, Hydras, Sea-whips, Sea-fans, Sea-pens etc. All of them are
aquatic and linked together by their carnivorous feeding habits, simple anatomical
structures and possession of nematocysts. Most of the Cnidarians successfully
colonize marine environment, only few Hydrozoans, which form phylogenetically a
distinct group, found in freshwater.
Globally there are about 10,100 species of Cnidarian fauna (Zhang, 2011),
belongs to 5 classes Hydrozoa, Scyphozoa, Cubozoa, Anthozoa and Polypodizoa.
Diversity of Cnidarian fauna is quite good in India as per global context (8.5%),
and comprises 842 species (Venkatraman & Wafer, 2005). These animals are
predominantly marine and estuarine inhabitants, though a very few species are
adapted to live in lentic or lotic freshwater ecosystems. Only about 40 species of
Hydrozoan cnidarians were reported from freshwater bodies of the world (Jankoski
et al., 2008), of which only 9 species were recorded from India.
The present paper provides an updated list of the Cnidarian (Hydrozoa) fauna
occurring in freshwater habitats of India with their status and distribution. In
spite of immense ecological role, contributing a valuable source of potential Bio-
medical compounds, very little work has been done towards study of this group
of animals in India. More attention and exploration for these animals are needed
along with taxonomical studies to understand species diversity and distribution of
this diversified group.
Zoological Survey of India, Fire Proof Spirit Building

27, J.L. Nehru Road, Kolkata-700016
*E-mail: [email protected]
67
Mitra et al.
Historical Resume
Study of Indian freshwater Cnidaria began with the work of the first Director of
the Zoological Survey of India, Dr. Nelson Annandale during his tenure at the
Indian Museum (Annandale, 1905). He reported the first cnidarian species from
India as Hydra orientalis, but later treated as H. vulgaris Pallas (Annandale
1911a). A second species of the same genus, Hydra oligactis Pallas, was reported
by Annandale (1911a). Annandale (1911b) indicated occurrence of freshwater
madusae in deep pools of Koyna and Yenna river in Western Ghats, that was later
described as Limnocnida indica by Annandale (1912). Kramp (1958) described
Moerisia gangetica from Shambazar Khal, near Calcutta [=Kolkata] during
low tide, which seems to be possibly tolerant of freshwater and Moerisia lyonsi
Boulenger was reported from a high altitude lake of Meghalaya (Haldar & Mandal,
1999). Eirene menoni Kramp was reported from Baally khal, at Howrah district of
West Bengal a tributaries of River Ganges (Haldar and Choudhury 1995). Three
more new species of freshwater Hydrozoan are described from India, Mansariella
lacustris from Mansar Lake, Jammu (Malhotra et al., 1976); Keralica idukkensis
from Kerala (Khatri, 1984) and Limnocnida biharensis from a freshwater aquarium
at Bihar (Ahmed et al. 1987). Caleb (1956) described a new species of Hydra in his
Ph.D thesis but there is no published data, hence this species has no taxonomic
validity and so, not included here.
Diversity
As mentioned above, only nine species belonging to six genera, four families, two
orders of the class Hydrozoa are recorded from freshwaters of India. A systematic
list of the recorded species is given herewith.
Systematic list of Freshwater cnidarians of India

Phylum Cnidaria Verill, 1865
Class Hydrozoa Owen, 1843
Sub class Hydroidolina Collins, 2000
Order Anthoathecata Cornelius, 1992 [=Anthomedusae Haeckel, 1879]
Suborder Aplanulata Collins et al., 2005
Family Hydridae Dana, 1846
1. Hydra oligactis Pallas, 1766
2. Hydra vulgaris Pallas, 1766
Suborder Capitata Kuhn, 1913
Family Moerisiidae Poche, 1914
3. Moerisia gangetica Kramp, 1958
4. M. lyonsi Boulenger, 1908
Order Leptothecata Cornelius, 1992 [=Leptomedusae Haeckel, 1879]
Family Eirenidae Haeckel, 1879
5. Eirene menoni Kramp, 1953
68
Cnidaria
Subclass Trachylinae Haeckel, 1879

Order Limnomedusae Kramp, 1938
Family Olindiidae Haeckel, 1879
6. Limnocnida indica Annandale, 1912
7. Limnocnida biharensis Ahmed et al., 1987
8. Mansariella lacustris Malhotra, Duda and Jyoti, 1976
9. Keralica idukkensis Khatri, 1984
Distribution
Hydra vulgaris Pallas has a very wide distributional range in India. Prasad &
Mookerjee (1986) reported about 16 ecotypes of Hydra vulgaris from India. Eirene
menoni Kramp, 1953 was reported from Baally khal, at Howrah district of West
Bengal a tributary of River Ganges (Haldar and Choudhury 1995). Moerisia
gangetica reported from the Ganges river and also from different parts of India,
where as M. lyonsi only reported from a high altitude lake of Meghalaya (Haldar
& Mandal, 1999); Limnocnida indica Annandale, 1912 is very widely distributed
in freshwater ecosystems of India; Limnocnida biharensis was only reported from
a freshwater aquarium at Bihar (Ahmed et al., 1987). Mansariella lacustris was
described from Mansar lake at Jammu (Malhotra et al., 1976) and there is no other
report of this species. Keralika idukkensis was described from a freshwater lake
of Kerala (Khatri, 1984).
Endemicity
A total 5 species of freshwater medusae are endemic to India, i.e. Moerisia gangetica
Kramp, 1958; Limnocnida indica Annandale, 1911; Limnocnida biharensis Ahmed
et al., 1987; Mansariella lacustris Malhotra et al. 1976 and Keralika idukkensis
Khatri, 1984. Last three species are known from the type locality only.
Discussion
Taxonomic characters of Freshwater hydrozoans are very complicated and the
validity of many species is questionable (Jankowski, et. al., 2008). Bouillon et al.,
(2006) published an excellent work on Hydrozoans, which may help extremely in
study of these cnidarians of our country. Some freshwater medusae was described
from some specific locality of India, namely Limnocnida biharensis; Mansariella
lacustris and Keralika idukkensis. Last two species has uncertain taxonomic
status and needs re-examination of the type material (Boulion and Boero 2000)
as both the genera, Mansariella and Keralica, are treated as nomen dubium by
Jankoski (2001). The genera, Moerisia and Eirene, are usually found in coastal
waters and their presence in freshwater ecosystems is questionable but included
here for their possible tolerance to freshwater. But record of Moerisia lyonsi from a
high altitude lake of Meghalaya (Haldar and Mandal, 1999) having no connection
to sea or estuary needs to be reassessed. The recent reports of Hydrozoans from
India reflect that their study probably based on accidental encounters. Information
on Cnidarians (Hydrozoa) from several parts of the country is lacking. Study of old
water bodies will definitely provide more information on diversity and distribution
of this little known group.
69
Mitra et al.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to express their deep felt gratitude and thanks to Dr. Kailash
Chandra, Director, Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata, for providing facilities to
complete this work.
REFFERENCES
Ahmad, F.M., Sen, S.N., Mishra, K.P. and Bharti, A.K. 1987. A new species of
Limnomedusae (Coelentarata) from freshwater aquarium in India.
Annandale N. 1905. The hydra of the Calcutta tanks. J. proc. Asiat. Soc. Beng.
New series, 1: 72-73.
Annandale N. 1911a. The fauna of British India including Ceylon and Burma,
Freshwater sponges, hydroids and polyzoa. Francis and Taylor, London,
1-261.
Annandale N. 1911b. The occurrence of freshwater medusa (Limnocnida) in Indian
streams. Nature, 87: 144.
Annandale N. 1912. Preliminary description of a freshwater medusa from the
Bombay presidency. Rec. Indian Mus., 7: 253-256.
Boulion J. and Boero, F. 2000. Synopsis of the families and genera of Hydromedusae
of the world, with a list of the world wide species. Thalasia salentina, 24:
47-296.
Bouillon J., Gravili C., Pagès F., Gili J.M. & Boero F. 2006. An introduction to
Hydrozoa. Mémoires du Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, 194: 1-591.
Paris. ISBN: 2-85653-580-1.
Caleb I.D. 1956. On a new species of Hydra. Hydra gangetica sp. nov. D. Phil.
thesis. Allahabad University.
Haldar B.P. & Choudhury, A. 1995. Medusae: Cnidaria. Hugli Matla Estuary,
Estuarine Ecosystem Sereies, Part 2: 9-30.
Haldar B.P. and Mandal, C.K. 1999. Cnidaria: freshwater medusae, Zool. Surv.
India., State fauna sereis, 4: Fauna of Meghalya, Part 9: 5-10.
Jankowski T. 2001. The freshwater medusae of the world – a taxonomic and
systematic literature study with some remarks on other inland water
jellyfish. Hydrobiologia, 462: 91-113.
Jankowski T., Collins, G.A. & Campbell, R. 2008. Global diversity of inland water
cnidarians. Hydrobiologia., 595: 35-40.
Kramp, P.L. 1958. Hydromedusae in the Indian Museum. Rec. Indian. Mus., 53:
339-376, text-figs. 1-5.
Malhotra, Y.R., Duda, P.L. & Jyoti, M.K. 1976. Mansariella lacustris gen. et. sp.
nov., a new freshwater medusae from Jammu, India. Current Science, 45
(5): 190-191. fig. 1-3.
Prasad, N and Mookerjee, S. 1986. Morphogenetic analysis of ecotypes of Indian
Hydra., Rec. zool. Surv. India. Vol.13: 1-118.
Venkataraman, K and Wafar, M., 2005. Coastal and Marine biodiversity of India.
Indian Journal of marine Science., Vol. 34(1): 57-75.
Zhang Z.Q. 2011. Animal biodiversity: An introduction to higher-level classification
and taxonomic richness. Zootaxa, 3148: 7-12.
70
Chapter 6
Platyhelminthes : Cestoidea
(cestode parasites)
from freshwater fishes
Suranjana Banerjee and K. Rajamohana
Abstract
Current status of freshwater fish cestode fauna of India is represented by 5 orders,
11 families, 3 subfamilies, 25 genera and 116 species. A total of 46 species, 22
genera, 10 families and 5 orders of Indian freshwater fishes are found to harbour
116 cestode parasites. However, considerable gaps still exist in our knowledge of
the diversity and species composition of fish cestodes in the Indian subcontinent.
In addition, there are still vast areas, where surveys of fish parasites have not been
carried out. In the present study the current status of cestode parasites of Indian
freshwater fishes is discussed.
Key words: Cestoda, current status, diversity, freshwater fishes, India.
Introduction
Cestoda (Cestoidea) is a class of parasitic flatworms of the phylum Platyhelminthes.
The best-known species are commonly called tapeworms. Cestodes have perfectly
adapted to parasitic mode of life amongst all the helminths and inhabit the
intestinal tract of almost all the vertebrates including humans in their adult stages.
Larval and cystic forms are found in different body organs of almost all vertebrates
and invertebrates such as mites, crustaceans, ants, etc. Cestodes are specialized
endoparasites that are characterized by their dorsoventrally flat, segmented
bodies. The ribbon-shaped tapeworms are the largest and among the oldest of
the intestinal parasites that have plagued humans and other animals since time
immemorial. They are cosmopolitan in distribution and exist in many forms. There
are 14 orders of Eucestoda. Most of the cestode orders (except Cyclophyllidea)
have members that can infect fish (both Chondrichthyes and Osteichthyes) as
adults. Eight cestode orders Amphilinidea, Spathebothriidea, Caryophyllidea,
Trypanorhyncha, Pseudophyllidea, Proteocephalidea, Haplobothriidea and
Nippotaeniidea are found in freshwater fishes. Many cestodes are known to be
the agents of serious fish diseases and also represent important public health
problem.
Historical Resume
The British researchers Southwell (1913 a and b) and Woodland (1924) provided
the first data on fish cestodes from India, followed by the Indian helminthologists
Moghe (1925) and Verma (1926). Since then, freshwater fish cestode diversity
Zoological Survey of India, M-Block, New Alipore, Kolkata-700053, India

E-mail: [email protected]
71
Banerjee and Rajamohana
has been documented from different parts of the country by a number of Indian
helminthologists. Most of these studies comprised descriptions of new taxa and as
a result, high numbers of species (more than 250) of cestodes from freshwater fish,
have been described from the Indian subcontinent (Mackiewicz, 1981; Agarwal,
1985; Chakravarty and Tandon, 1989; Hafeezullah, 1993; Jadhav et al., 2010; Ash
et al., 2011 a & b). The Zoological Survey of India published an index catalogue
of cestode parasites of freshwater fishes from India (Kundu, 1992). Ash (2012)
made critical evaluations of earlier described species from freshwater fish hosts
of India using morphological and molecular approaches that made it possible to
clarify the species composition, host specificity and phylogenetic relationships
of selected cestode orders found in freshwater fishes like Caryophyllidea and
Proteocephalidea. However, checklist of freshwater fish cestodes of India is yet not
published.
Kundu (1992) listed as many as 78 species of cestodes from freshwater fishes
of India. However, Ptychobothrium cypseluri Rao, 1959 listed in the catalogue is
collected from a marine fish host Cypselurus poecilopterus. Ash et al. (2011 a &
b, 2012) have synonymised 17 species of order Caryophyllidea and 10 species of
order Proteocephalidea listed in the catalogue by Kundu (1992). Proteocephalus
ritae Verma, 1926 listed in the catalogue is a synonym of Ritacestus ritaii
(Verma, 1926) de Chambrier et al., 2011 reported from Uttar Pradesh. Out of
the 78 species 27 species have thus been synonymised. Two species Moravekia
chotanagpurensis Sahay and Sahay, 1976 and Neolytocestus vitellodiscontinutus
Sahay and Sahay, 1976 are under genera inquirenda; one species Adenoscolex
kashmirensis Mehra,1930 is treated as species inquirenda and four species
Guptaia garhwalensis Malhotra,1985; Mastacembellophyllalus nandensis Shinde
and Chincholikar 1977; Mastacembellophyllalus pseudeutropiusii Jadhav and
Shinde 1982 and Mastacembellophyllalus taakree Jadhav and Shinde,1977 are
treated as genera incertae sedis (Khalil et al., 1994). Thus, 43 species are valid
species in the published catalogue (Kundu, 1992). In recent years as many as 28
species of Senga Dollfus, 1934 and 27 species of Circumoncobothrium Shinde, 1968
have been described from India by various authors after the publication of Index
catalogue of freshwater fishes (Kundu, 1992).
A total of 108 nominal species of eight genera of Order Bothriocephalidea
were described mainly from perciform and synbranchiform fishes from the Indian
subcontinent, but Kuchta and Scholz (2007) considered valid only 17 species of
three genera, namely Bothriocephalus Rudolphi, 1808; Ptychobothrium Loennberg,
1889 (though Kuchta and Scholz, 2007 casted doubts upon taxa reported as species
of Ptychobothrium from Indian freshwater fish); and Senga Dollfus, 1934. The total
number of valid species under Order Bothriocephalidea needs critical evaluation.
Fourteen genera and nearly 100 species of Order Caryophyllidea belonging
to three families have been described from the Indomalayan region from catfishes
(Siluriformes: Bagridae, Clariidae, Heteropneustidae, Schilbeidae and Siluridae),
cyprinid and cobitid fishes.83 species have been synonymised and 17 are considered
to be valid (Ash et al., 2011).
72
Platyhelminthes : Cestoidea (Cestode Parasites) from Freshwater Fishes
Plate I
Line drawings of freshwater fish cestodes of India (a,d,e,f,g : after Southwell, 1930;
b,c : after Hafeezullah, 1993)
a. Gephyrolina paragonopora (Woodland, 1923) Poche, 1926; b. Lytocestus indicus
(Moghe, 1925) Woodland, 1926; c. Breviscolex naldurgensis Shinde et al., 1987;
d. Tentacularia ilisha (Southwell & Prashad, 1918) Dollfus, 1942; e. Senga
pycnomerus Dollfus, 1934; f. Ligula intestinalis (Linnaeus, 1758) Bloch, 1782;
g. Gangesia bengalensis (Southwell, 1913) Meggitt, 1927
73
In Order Proteocephalidea more than 50 species of four genera (Gangesia

Woodland, 1924; Proteocephalus Weinland, 1858; Silurotaenia Nybelin, 1942; and
Vermaia Nybelin, 1942) have been described from the siluriform and cypriniform
fish in the Indian subcontinent. Ash et al., 2011 have synonymised nearly 30
species of Gangesia Woodland, 1924 described from India. They have considered 4
species to be valid, 6 species of Gangesia to be under Uncertain Taxa and 5 to be
Nomen nudum.
Diversity
After the publication of the catalogue of cestode parasites of Freshwater fishes
(Kundu, 1992) the number of species added in this study is listed in Table-1 (recorded
till March, 2017).The species marked in asterix had been described before 1992 but
had not been included in Freshwater fish cestode catalogue (Kundu,1992).
Table 1. List of freshwater fish cestodes added in the present study
Sl. Distribution
Genus Species
No. in India
1. Djombangia mannai Banerjee, Manna and West Bengal
Sanyal, 2016
2. Lobulovarium longiovatum Oros, Ash, Brabec, West Bengal,
Kar and Scholz, 2012 Assam
3. Lobulovarium *osteobramense Gupta and Uttar Pradesh
Sinha, 1984) Oros, Ash, Brabec,
Kar and Scholz, 2012
4. Lucknowia *microcephala (Bovien, 1926) Assam,
Ash, Scholz, Oros and Kar, 2011 Uttar Pradesh,
West Bengal
5. Breviscolex *naldurgensis Shinde,Mohekar, Maharashtra
Jadhav and Haffezullah,1987
6. Gangesia *agraensis Verma, 1928 Uttar Pradesh,
West Bengal,
Assam,
Karnataka,
Haryana,
Kashmir,
Maharashtra
7. Gangesia *vachai (Gupta and Parmar, Uttar Pradesh,
1988) Ash, Scholz, de Chambrier, West Bengal,
Brabec, Oros, Kar, Chavan & Assam
Mariaux, 2012
8. Senga *yamunica Gairola and Uttar Pradesh
Malhotra, 1986
9. Senga *nayari Malhotra, 1988 Uttarakhand
74
Sl. Distribution
Genus Species
No. in India
10. Senga *mastacembali Gupta and Uttar Pradesh
Sinha,1980
11. Senga *teleostei Banerjee et al., 1990 Uttar Pradesh
12. Senga *aurangabadensis Jadhav and Maharashtra
Shinde, 1980
13. Senga *godavarii Shinde and Jadhav, Maharashtra
1980
14. Senga *paithanensis Kadam et al., Maharashtra
1981
15. Senga *maharashtrii Jadhav et al., Maharashtra
1991
16. Senga mohekarae Tat et al., 1997 Maharashtra
17. Senga armatusae Hiware, 1999 Maharashtra
18. Senga *pathankotensis Duggal and Punjab
Bedi, 1989
19. Senga kaigaonensis Wankhede and Maharashtra
Reddy, 2009
20. Senga panzraensis Mangale and Maharashtra
Kalse, 2009
21. Senga chauhani Hasnain, 1992 Bihar
22. Senga tappi Patil and Jadhav, 2003 Maharashtra
23. Senga jadhavae Bhure et al., 2007 Maharashtra
24. Senga *gachuae Jadhav et al., 1991 Maharashtra
25. Senga govindii Jadhav et al., 2012 Maharashtra
26. Senga ayodhensis Pande et al., 2006 Uttar Pradesh
27. Senga baughi Pande et al., 2006 Uttar Pradesh
28. Senga madhavii Bhure et al., 2010 Maharashtra
29. Senga rupchandensis Pardeshi and Maharashtra
Hiware, 2011
30. Senga sataraensis Bhure and Maharashtra
Nanware, 2011
31. Senga rostellare Dhole et al., 2011 Maharashtra
32. Senga chandrasekhari Dhole et al., Maharashtra
2011
33. Senga nathsagarensis Nilima, 2008 Maharashtra
34. Senga chandikapurensis Khadap et al., Maharashtra
2007
35. Senga tictoi Srivastav et al., 2007 Uttar Pradesh
75
There are about 450 families of freshwater fishes globally. Approximately,

40 are represented in India. About 25 of these families contain commercially
important species. Major warm water species are: Bagarius bagarius, Catla catla,
Channa marulius, C. punctatus, C. striatus, Cirrhinus mrigala, Clarias batrachus,
Heteropneustes fossilis, Labeo bata, L.calbasu, L. rohita, Aorichthys seenghala,
Notopterus chitala, N. notopterus, Pangasius pangasius, Rita rita, Wallago attu.
(http://nptel.ac.in/courses/120108002/module3/lecture3.pdf)
Around the world 102 species in 14 families and 7 orders of freshwater fishes
are reported to harbor cestode parasites. In the present study 46 species, 22
genera, 10 families and 5 orders of Indian freshwater fishes are found to harbour
116 cestode parasites. Current status of freshwater fish cestode fauna of India is
represented by 5 orders, 11 families, 3 subfamilies, 25 genera and 116 species.
Distribution
The majority of the species were described from Maharashtra (67 species), Uttar
Pradesh (32 species), West Bengal (23 species) and Assam (10 species). A detailed
Host-Parasite list with state wise distribution of species is given as Annexure 1.
67
Number of species
32
23
10
4 5
2 2 3 3 2 2
1 1 1 1 1

Fig. 1. State-wise distribution of species in India
Life cycle
The life cycle of cestodes is extremely varied with fish used as the primary or
intermediate host.
The general scheme of life cycle of most aquatic cestodes, including fish
cestodes, is as follows: cestode eggs in the uterus, which may contain embryos,
named oncospheres (lycophora in Cestodaria), pass with host’s faeces into
the environment. Eggs (except those taxa have coracidium) are eaten by the
intermediate hosts (crustaceans). Larvae hatch in the gut of the intermediate hosts
(with some exceptions), and using their hooks and glands, penetrate through the
intestinal wall and locate in the body cavities or other internal organs where they
metamorphose into infective larval stages or metacestodes (Ash, 2012). Three types
76
of metacestodes namely procercoid, plerocercoid, and merocercoids are commonly

found in intermediate hosts. The final host is infected by eating an intermediate
host that harbours metacestodes. Diphyllobothriidean tapeworms have three host
life-cycles, in which teleost fishes play a role of the second intermediate hosts and
represent a source of human infection (Scholz and Kuchta, 2016).
Significance
Fish helminthes with their complex life cycles may represent excellent models
for the solution of a number of theoretical questions, including host-parasite
relationships, host manipulation, biology ,ecology, zoogeography and phylogeny of
these parasites and their hosts (Williams and Jones, 1994). Fisheries are important
for the Indian economy as it provides employment opportunities, is a source of
nutritional food and foreign exchange earnings. Catfishes are an important part
of the fish fauna in wetlands and many of them are economically important as a
food source of high nutritive value. Among them five families-Bagridae, Clariidae,
Heteropneustidae, Schilbeidae and Siluridae, have been reported as definitive
hosts of cestodes (Hafeezullah, 1993; Jadhav et al., 2010). It is estimated that about
10 million tons of fish are required annually to meet the present-day demand of
fish proteins in India compared to an actual annual production of only 3.5 million
tons (Shukla and Upadhyay, 1998). Parasitic disease is the single most important
factor threatening the fishery industry worldwide, particularly in the tropics
(Williams and Jones, 1994; Schmidt and Roberts, 2000).Mortality of fishes occurs
due to heavy infestation of parasites. Therefore knowledge about fish parasites
needs to be updated periodically.
Gaps in research
Much has been accomplished in the last few years in terms of survey work on the
helminth parasite fauna of freshwater fishes in India. But the information gathered
thus far allow us to seek for general patterns about the way this host-parasite
association is established, addressing the evolutionary and biogeographical factors
that determine such association. However, considerable gaps still exist in our
knowledge of the diversity and species composition of fish cestodes in the Indian
subcontinent. Many of the biogeographical regions are practically unexplored and
intensive survey is needed to generate data on distribution of several species of
cestodes. The Deccan peninsula, North East India, Trans Himalaya and Andaman
and Nicobar Islands are under-explored. The Northern part, especially Kashmir
region and whole Southern part (among the world’s ten “Hottest biodiversity
hotspots”), which hosts some endemic catfishes, are some of the unexplored regions
of the country (Ash, 2012).
Future dimensions
The future plan should focus on intensive explorations in unexplored and
under-explored areas. More attention need to be paid to less studied fish hosts.
Modern molecular methods should be applied in systematic studies to bring the
knowledge of the India’s helminth fauna to the level corresponding to the current
global knowledge. The main emphasis should be given to building a network of
specialists all over India. Furthermore, reliable data on various hosts and their
77
helminth parasites should be incorporated into freely available on-line database

resources, for the benefit of those working on parasites and their impact on hosts
and ecosystems, including farmed animals and aquaculture (Ash, 2012).
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
complete this work.
References
Agarwal, S.M. 1985.Caryophyllaeids and caryophyllidiasis in India. Indian Review
of Life Sciences, 5: 139-161.
Ash, A. 2012. Diversity of tapeworms (Cestoda) in freshwater fish of India.
Ph.D.Thesis, in English, Faculty of Science, University of South Bohemia in
Ceské Budejovice, Czech Republic: 1-176.
Ash, A., Scholz, T., Oros, M., and Kar, P.K. 2011a. Tapeworms (Cestoda:
Caryophyllidea), parasites of Clarias batrachus (Pisces: Siluriformes) from
the Indomalayan Region. Journal of Parasitology, 97: 435-459.
Ash, A., Scholz, T., Oros, M., Levron, C., and Kar, P.K. 2011b.Cestodes
(Caryophyllidea) of the stinging catfish Heteropneustes fossilis from Asia.
Journal of Parasitology, 97: 899-907.
Ash, A., Scholz, T., de Chambrier, A., Brabec, J.,Oros, M., Kar, P.K., Chavan, S. P.
and Mariaux, J. 2012. Revision of Gangesia (Cestoda: Proteocephalidea) in
the Indomalayan region: morphology, molecules and surface ultrastructure.
Plos One, 7(10): 1-28 (e46421.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0046421).
Banerjee, S., Chaubey, A.K. and Malhotra, S.K. 1990. Cestode fauna of hill-stream
fishes in Garhwal Himalayas,India. IX. Senga teleostei n. sp. from Channa
punctatus. Indian Journal of Parasitology, 14(2): 153-156.
Banerjee, S., Manna, B.M. and Sanyal, A.K. 2016. Djombangia mannai sp. n.
(Cestoidea: Caryophyllidea: Lytocestidae) from a Siluroid Fish in West
Bengal, India. Proceedings of the Zoological Society: 1-6 pages (ISSN 0373-
5893DOI 10.1007/s12595-016-0192-9, Springer, Published online).
Bhure, D.B., Padwal, N.D.and Jadhav, B.V. 2007. A new tapeworm Senga
jadhavae n.sp. (Cestoda: Pseudophyllidea) from Mastecembelus armatus
at Augangabad. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of India, 6(2): 45-52.
Bhure, D.B., Nanware, S.S., Pathan, D.M and Dhondge, R.M. 2010. Morpho -
taxonomic observation of new pseudophyllidean tapeworm Senga Dollfus
1934 from Mastacembelus armatus. Asian J. Animal Sci., 5(2): 147-152.
Bhure, D.B. and Nanware, S.S. 2011. Systematic observation of new
pseudophyllidean tapeworm Senga from Mastacembelus armatus.
International Multidiciplinary Research Journal, 1(10): 25-28.
Blair, D. 1978. Polyonchobothrium scleropagis n. sp. (Cestoda: Pseudophyllidea)
from the Australian osteoglossid fish Scleropages leichardti Günther. J.
Helminthol., 52(2): 147-53.
78
Borde, S.N. and Jawale, S. 2008. A new species of Ptychobothridae from a fresh
water fish in Marathwada region (M.S.). National Journal of Life Sciences,
5(3): 121-124.
Bovien, P. 1926. Caryophyllaeidae from Java. Videnskabelige Meddelelser fra
Dansk naturhistorisk Forening i Kobenhavn, 82: 157-181.
Chakravarty, R. and Tandon, V. 1989. On the present status of Caryophyllidea
with a report on some caryophyllid infections in the freshwater catfish
Clarias batrachus (L.) in north-east India and a record of an anomalous
form. Indian Journal of Helminthology, 5: 37-54.
Chincholikar, L.N. and Shinde, G.B. 1976. On a new species of Circumoncobothrium
Shinde, (1968) (Cestoda-Pseudophyllidea) Carus, 1863 from a fresh water
fish in India. Marathwada University Journal of Sciences, 16(Sci): 9: 183-
185.
de Chambrier, A., Scholz, T., Ash, A. and Kar, P.K. 2011. Ritacestus gen. n. (Cestoda:
Proteocephalidea) and redescription of R. ritaii comb. n., a parasite of Rita
rita (Siluriformes) in India. Folia Parasitologica, 58(4): 279-288.
Dhole, J.S., Sonune, B.V., Reddy, Y.R. and Chavan, R.J. 2011. Two Pseudophyllidean
Tapeworms from Fresh Water Fish Mastacembelus armatus of Maharashtra
State (India) with Revised Key to Species of Genus Senga. Acta Parasitologica
Globalis, 2(2): 25-33.
Dollfus, R.P. 1934. Sur un cestode pseudophyllide parasite de poissond’ornement.
Bulletin de la societe Zoologique de France, 59: 476-490.
Duggal, C.L. and Bedi, H. 1989. On Senga pathankotensis sp. nov. and S.
lucknowensis Johri, 1956 (Cestoda: Ptychobothridae) infecting freshwater
fishes of Punjab, India. Research Bulletin of the Panjab University
Science, 40(1-2): 35-37.
Fartade, A.M. and Borde, S.N. 2013. A new species of Circumoncobothrium
maruliusae sp. nov. from freshwater fish Channa marulius (Hamilton
1822) from Godavari Basin (M.S), India. World Journal of Fish and Marine
Sciences, 5(1): 09-13.
Fartade, A.M. and Fartade, M.M. 2015. A Pseudophyllidean cestode parasite
Circumoncobothrium nathii sp.nov.from fresh water fish Channa
marulius (Hamilton, 1822) from Godavari Basin (M.S) India. Journal of
Pharmaceutical, Chemical and Biological Sciences, 3(2): 302-309.
Fartade, A.M. and Chati, R. 2016. Circumoncobothrium godavarae n. sp. from
Channa marulius (Hamilton, 1822) from Godavari basin (M.S) India.
International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, 6(1): 203-207.
Gairola, D. and Malhotra, S.K. 1986. Cestode fauna of fishes in river Ganges
around an Indian sub humid region I Senga gangesii n. sp. from Mystus
vittatus. Japanese Journal of Parasitology, 35(6) 471-474.
Gupta, S.P. and Sinha, N. 1980.Two new species of Senga Dollfus, 1934 (Cestoda:
Ptychobothriidae from fresh water fishes of Lucknow. Ind. Journ. Helminth.,
32(2): 124-128.
79
Gupta, S.P. and Sinha, N. 1984. On three new species of Caryophyllaeids from
fresh water fishes of Lucknow. Indian Journal of Helminthology, 36(1): 73-
80.
Gupta, V. and Parmar, S. 1988. On a new species Silurotaenia vachai sp.
nov. (Family: Proteocephalidae La Rue, 1911) from a fresh water fish
Eutropiichthys vacha from Lucknow.Indian Journal of Helminthology, 40:
27-31.
Hafeezullah, M. 1993. Caryophyllidean cestode fauna of India. Records of the
Zoological Survey of India, Occasional paper no. 157: 1-101.
Hasnain, M. 1992. On a new cestode Senga chauhani n. sp. from fish host Channa
punctatus from Jamshepur. National J. Helminthol., 44(1): 123-127.
Hiware, C.J. 1999. On a new tapeworm Senga armatusae from freshwater fish,
Matacembelus armatus at Pune (M.S.) India. Riv. di Parasitol., 16(LX): 12-
19.
Jadhav, B.V. 1990. On new pseudophyllidae cestodes from Mastacembelus armatus
of Daryapur (M.S.) India. Rivista di Parasitol., 7: 19-22.
Jadhav, B.V. and Shinde, G.B. 1976. Three new species of genus Circumoncobothrium
Shinde, 1968 (Cestoda: Pseudophyllidea) from a freshwater fish from
Maharashtra. Marath. Univ. J. Sci. (Nat. Sci.), XV(Sci. 8): 269-272.
Jadhav, B.V. and Shinde, G.B. 1977. On a new species of the genus
Mastacembellophyllaeus Shinde and Chincholikar (1976) (Cestoda
Monoporophyllaeidae Subhapradha, 1957) from a freshwater fish at
Aurangabad, India.1st Nat. Cong. Parasitol., Baroda, (Abstract) 9.
Jadhav, B.V. and Shinde, G.B. 1980. On a new cestode Senga aurangabadensis
n.sp.from the fish Mastecembelus armatus, Bioresearch, 43(2): 25-27.
Jadhav, B.V. and Shinde, G.B. 1982. A new cestode Mastacembellophyllaeus
pseudeutropiusii sp. nov. from a freshwater fish. Riv. Parasitol., 43(1): 117-
119.
Jadhav, B.V., Gavahne, A.V. and Jadhav, A.P. 1991. On a new Pseudophyllidae
cestode from Mastacembelus armatus at Daryapur (M.S.) India.Rivista di
Parassitologia, 7: 19-22.
Jadhav, B.V., Bhure, D.B., Padwal, N., and Nanware, S.S. 2010. Survey of
tapeworms from Aurangabad region. Records of the Zoological Survey of
India, 110(Part-1): 107-114.
Jadhav, S., Borde, S., Jadhav, D. and Humbe, A. 2012. Occurrence of a new piscine
tapeworm Senga govindii in Mastacembelus armatus (Lacepede, 1800) from
Sina Kolegaon Dam. Journal of Experimental Sciences, 3(5): 1-4.
Jawalikar, J.D., Pawar, S.B. and. Shinde, G.B. 2008. A new cestode
Circumoncobothrium yogeshwari n. sp. (Cotyloda: Ptychobothridae) from
Mastacembelus armatus.Uttar PradeshJournal of Zoology, 28(3): 399 -401.
Kadam, S.S., Jadhav, B.V. and Shinde, G.B. 1981. On a new cestoda Senga
paithanesis n. sp. (Cestoda, Ptychobothriidae) from Mastecembelus armatus,
Bioresearch, 5(1): 95-96.
80
Kadam, S.S. and Dhole, J.S. 2011. New Species of the Genus Circumoncobothrium
(Shinde, 1968) (Cestoda: Pseudophyllidea Carus, 1863) from a Fresh Water
Fish, Osmanabad. Ind. Rec. Res. Sci. Tech., 3: 14-18.
Kalse, A.T., Surayawanshi, R.B. and Patil, J.R. 2009. On a new species of
Circumoncobothrium Shinde, 1968 (Cestoda: Pseudophyllidea) from a fresh
water fish at Chalisgaon M.S. India. Proc. Zool. Soc. of India, 8(1): 28-34.
Khadap, R.M., Jadhav, B.V. and Suryawanshi, N.V. 2007. A new species of genus
Senga Dollfus, 1934 (Cestoda: Ptychobothriidae) from fresh water teleost
Mastacembelus armatus. Nat. Jr. of Life Sci., 4(3): 77-79.
Khalil, L.F., Jones, A., and Bray, R.A. 1994. Keys to the Cestode Parasites of
Vertebrates. CAB International, Wallingford, UK: 1-751.
Kharade, S.V., Mulla, Y and Shinde, G.B. 2007. A new cestode Circumoncobthrium
cirrhinae n.sp.Cotyloda (Ptycobothridae) from Cirrhina mrigala. Nat. J.
Lif. Sci., 4(3): 103-106.
Kuchta, R., and Scholz, T. 2007. Diversity and distribution of fish tapeworms of the
“Bothriocephalidea” (Eucestoda).Parassitologia, 49: 21-38.
Kundu, D.K. 1992. Index-catalogue and bibliography of cestode parasites from
Freshwater Fishes of India. Rec. zool. Surv. India., 90(1-4): 239-264.
Loennberg, E. 1889. Bidrag till kannedomenom i Sverigeforekommande Cestoder
(in Danish). Bihang. K. Sven. Vet. Akad. Handl., 14 : 1-69.
Mackiewicz, J.S. 1981. Caryophyllidea (cestoidea): evolution and classification.
Advances in Parasitology, 19: 139-206.
Mackiewicz, J.S. 1982. Caryophyllidea (Cestoidea): Perspectives. Parasitology, 84:
397-417.
Malhotra, S. 1985. Cestode fauna of hill-stream fishes in Garhwal Himalayas, India.
V. Guptaia garhwalensis gen. et sp. nov. from Schizothorax richardsonii
(Gray). Helminthology, 20: 45-49.
Malhotra, S.K. 1988. Cestode fauna of hill stream fishes in Garhwal Himalayas,
India. VI. Senga nayari sp. nov. from Mastacembelus armatus (Lacep). Ind.
Journ.Helminth., 40(1): 53-57.
Mangale, A.J., and Kalse, A.T. 2009.On a new cestode Senga panzarensis from
Mastacembelus armatus at Dhule, India.Uttar Pradesh J. Zool., 29(1): 105-
108.
Mehra, H.R. 1930. On a new species of Caryophyllaeus (Muller) from Kashmir
with remarks on Lytocestus indicus (Moghe, 1925). Proc. 17, Indian Sci.
Congr. Assoc., 3: 1-247.
Menkudale, D.V, Ugale, B.J. and Jawale, C.J. 2010. Cestoda: A New Cestode
Circumoncobothrium thapari n.sp. (Pseudophylidea Carus, 1863) from
Ophiocephalus striatus, (M.S.), India Journal of Ecobiotechnology, 2(6): 1-3.
Moghe, M.A. 1925. Caryophyllaeus indicus n. sp. (Trematoda) from the catfish
Clarias batrachus (L.). Parasitology, 17: 232-235.
81
Nama, H.S. 1979. On a new cestode Polyonchobothrium indicum n. sp. from the
fish Channa (Ophiocephalus) punctatus in Rajasthan. Bioresearch (Ujjain),
31: 5-6.
Nilima, M. Kankale. 2008. A new species of the genus Senga nathsagarensis from
freshwater fish, Mastacembelus armatus. National Journal of Life Sciences,
5(3): 81-84.
Nybelin, O. 1942. Zur Helminthenfauna der siisswasscrfisch Schweden. II.
Die Cestoden des Welses. Goteborgs Kungl. Vetenskaps-ochSamhalles
Handlingar F. 6. Scr. B, 14: 1-24.
Oros, M., Ash, A., Brabec, J., Kar, P.K. and Scholz, T. 2012. A new monozoic
tapeworm, Lobulovarium longiovatum n. g., n. sp. (Cestoda: Caryophyllidea),
from barbs Puntius sp. (Teleostei: Cyprinidae) in the Indomalayan region.
Systematic Parasitology, 83: 1-13.
Pande, P.N., Tripathi, M. and Mittal, N. 2006. On two new species of genus Senga
Dollfus, 1934 (Family: Bothriocephalidae) Luhe, 1902 from the intestine of
freshwater fishes. Indian J. Helminthol., (N.S.) 24: 6-10.
Pardeshi, K.S., Kalse, A. T. and Andhare, V.N. 2007. A new pseudophyllidean
worm fresh water fishes of Beed (M.S.). Nat. J. Lif. Sci., 4(3): 107-110.
Pardeshi, P.R. and Hiware, C.J. 2011. A new Pseudophyllidean Senga
rupchandensis n. sp. from Channa striatus (Bloch, 1973) at Jalna District
(M.S.) India. Rec. Res. Sci. Tech., 3: 7-22.
Patil, D.N. and Jadhav, B.V. 2003. On a new species of the Senga Dollfus, 1934,
Cestoda Ptychobothridae Luhe, 1902 as S. tappi n. sp. from the Shripur
Dist. Dhule (M.S.) India. J. Comparative Physiol., 1: 68-72.
Patil, S.R., Shinde, G.B. and Jadhav, B.V. 1998. A new species of the genus
Circumoncobothrium Shinde, 1968 (Cestoda: Pseudophyllidae) Carus, 1863
from Mastacembelus armatus at Vadgaon, (M.S.) India. Journal of Parasitic
Diseases, 22(2): 148-151.
Ramadevi, P. and Rao, K.H. 1973.On Senga visakhapatnamensis n.sp. (Cestoda:
Pseudophyllidea from the intestine of the freshwater fish Ophiocephalus
punctatus (Bloch). Rivista Parasitol., Roma, 34(4): 281-286.
Rao, K.H. 1959. On Ptychobothrium cypseluri n.sp. (Cestoda : Pseudophyllidea)
from the flying fish, Cypselurus poecilopterus caught off Waltair. J.
Helminthol., 33: 267-272.
Reddy, Y., Wankhede, H., Gedam, A. and Gaikwad, D. 2011. Some Ptychobothriidean
tapeworms from freshwater fish Mastacembelus armatus at Aurangabad
district (M.S.) India. International Multidisciplinary Research Journal,
1(8): 35-39.
Rudolphi, C.A. 1808. Entoozoorum sive vermium intestinalium historia naturalis,
I: xxvi + 527 Amstelaedami.
Sahay, U. and Sahay, S.N. 1976 a. On a new Caryophyllaeid cestode Moravekia
chotanagpurensis gen. et. sp. nov. from a fresh water fish Clarias batrachus
in Chotanagpur. In First National Convention of Indian Helminthologists,
(Abstract 54).
82
Sahay, S.N. and Sahay, U. 1976 b. On Neolytocestus vitellodiscontinutus gen. et

sp. nov. from Clarias batrachus a fresh water fish in Chotanagpur. In First
National Convention of Indian Helminthologists, (Abstract 53).
Sawarkar, B.W. 2013. A new tapeworm Circumonchobothrium elichpurii n.sp.from
Mastacembellus armatus in Achalpur of Amravati District, Maharashtra,
India. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, 3(2):
1-3.
Schmidt, G.D. and Roberts, L.S. 2000. Foundations of Parasitology, 6th ed.
McGraw Hill International Editions, Singapore: 1-750.
Scholz, T. and Kuchta, R. 2016. Fish-borne, zoonotic cestodes (Diphyllobothrium
and relatives) in cold climates: A never-ending story of neglected and (re)-
emergent parasites. Food and Waterborne Parasitology, 4: 23-38.
Shah, S.A.Y. 2010. Taxonomic observations of Circumoncobothrium paithenensis
n. sp. from freshwater fish Mastacembelus armatus, International Journal
of Systematic Biology, 2( 2): 21-24.
Shelke, V.P. 2007. A new ptychobothrid tapeworm from Mastacembellus armatus
at Aurangabad (M.S.) Nat. J. Lif. Sci., 4(3): 72-74.
Shinde, G.B. 1968. On Circumonchobothrium ophiocephali n.gen.n.sp.from
a freshwater fish (Ophiocephalus leucopuctatus) in India. Rivista di
Parassitologia, 29: 111-114.
Shinde, G.B. and Chincholikar, L.N. 1977. Mastacembellophyllaeus nandedensis
(Cestoda: Cestodaria Monticelli, 1892) n. g. et n. sp. from a freshwater fish
at Nanded, M.S., India. Rivista di Parassitologia, 38: 171-175.
Shinde, G.B. and Jadhav, B.V. 1980. A new tapeworm Senga godavarii n. sp. from
Mastacembalus armatus at Aurangabad India. Biology, 2: 46-48.
Shinde, G.B., Mohekar, A.D., Jadhav, B.V. and Hafeezullah, M. 1987. Two new
species of the genus Lytocestoides Baylis, 1928 (Cestoidea: Cestoda:
Caryophyllidea: Lytocestidea) from a freshwater fish in Maharashtra,
India. Bull. Zool. Surv. India, 8(1-3): 197-201.
Shinde, G.B., Sarwade, D.V., Jadhav, B.V. and Mahajan, M.A. 1994. On a
new species of the genus Circumoncobothrium Shinde, 1968 (Cestoda:
Pseudophyllidae) Carus, 1863 from Mastacembelus armatus (Cuv. and Val.)
from freshwater fish at Aurangabad (M.S.) India. Rivista Di Parasitologia,
11(55): 167-169.
Shinde, G.B. and Kalse, A.T. 1999. Two new species of the genus Cirumoncobothrium
Shinde, 1968 (Cestoda: Pseudophyllidea Carus, 1893 from a freshwater fish
at Khandesh (M.S.), India. Rivista di Parasitologia, 16: 209-215.
Shinde, G.B., Pawar, S.B. and Chauhan, S.P. 2002. A new species
Circumoncobothrium mastacembellusae n. sp. (Cestoda: Pseudophyllidae)
from Mastacembelus armatus at Paithan, India. Riv. Di. Parasit., Vol. XX
(LXII) No. 3: 195-198.
Shukla, G.S., and Upadhyay, V.B. 1998. A textbook of economic zoology. Rastogi
Publications, India : 1-205.
83
Sonune, M.B. and Kasar, C.R. 2012. New Species of the Ptychobothridean
Tapeworm Circumoncobohrium from Mastacembelus armatus. Science
Research Reporter, 2(1): 21-25.
Southwell, T. 1913a. Parasites from fish, notes from the Bengal Fisheries
Laboratory.Records of the Indian Museum, 9: 79-103.
Southwell, T. (1913b. On some Indian cestoda (Part 1). Records of the Indian
Museum, 9: 279-300.
Srivastav, A.K., Khare, R.K., Sahu, V.K. and Singh, A.R. 2007. A new species of
genus Senga Dollfus (1934) from Puntius ticto at Jhansi (U.P.). National
Journ. Life Sci., 4(3): 129-132.
Supugade, V.B. 2005. Circumoncobothrium vitellariensis n. sp. Ptycobothriidae
(Luhe, 1920) from Mastacembelus armatus (M.S.), India. Trajectory, 13(1):
43-49.
Tat, M.B. and Jadhav, B.V. 1997. Senga mohekare n. sp. (Cestoda: Ptychobothriidae)
from Mastacembelus armatus at Pune (M.S.). Rivista di Parassitologia., 17-
(L7), 2: 203-296.
Tat, M.B. and Jadhav, B.V. 2004. A new species of the genus Circumoncobothrium
Shinde, 1968 (Cestoda: Pseudophyllidea) Carus, 1863 from Ophiocephalus
gachua at Dhanegaon District, Beed. Nat. Journ. of Life Sciences, 1(1): 129-
132.
Verma, S.C. 1926. On a new proteocephalid cestode from an Indian freshwater
fish. Allahabad University Studies, 2: 353-362.
Verma, S.C. 1928. Some cestodes from Indian fishes, including four new species
of Tetraphyllidea and revised keys to the genera Acanthobothrium and
Gangesia. Allahabad University Studies, 4: 119-176.
Wankhede, H. and Reddy, Y. 2009. On a new species of the genus Senga (Dollfus,
1934) (Cestode: Ptycobothridae, Luhe, 1902) from fresh water fish
Mastacembelus armatus. Environmental Conservation J., 10(3): 63-66.
Weinland, D.F. 1858. An essay on the tapeworms of man. Cambridge, Massachusetts:
x + 93 pp.
Williams, H., and Jones, A. 1994. Parasitic worms of fish. Taylor and Francis, Ltd.,
London, U.K: 1-593.
Wongsawad, C. and B.V. Jadhav. 1998. Circumoncobothrium baimaii n.sp.
(Cestoda: Pseudophyllidae) from fresh water fish, Maesa stream Chiang
Mai, Thailand. Rivista Di Parasitologia., 15(LIX) (3): 291-294.
Woodland, W.N.F. 1924. On a new Bothriocephalus and a new genus of
Proteocephalidae from Indian fresh-water fishes. Parasitology, 16: 441–451.
84
Annexure-I: Host - Parasite list with state wise distribution of species
HOST PARASITE
Order Family Genus and species Order Family/Sub-Family Genus Species Distribution
Siluriformes Bagridae Sperata aor Amphilinidea Fam:Schizochoeridae Gephyrolina paragonopora Uttar Pradesh,
Sperata seenghala Subfam: Schizochoerinae (Woodland, 1923) Punjab
Bagarius bagarius Poche,1926.
Cypriniformes Cobitidae Lepidocephalichthys guntea Caryophyllidea Caryophyllaeidae Paracaryophyllaeus lepidocephali (Kundu, West Bengal
1985)
Hafeezullah, 1993
Siluriformes Clariidae Clarias batrachus Caryophyllidea Lytocestidae Bovienia indica (Niyogi, Gupta Assam, Madhya
and Agarwal, 1982) Pradesh,
Ash, Scholz, Oros and Maharashtra, Uttar
Kar, 2011 Pradesh,West
Bengal
Siluriformes Clariidae Clarias batrachus Caryophyllidea Lytocestidae Bovienia raipurensis Satpute Chattisgarh, West
and Agarwal, 1980) Bengal
Mackiewicz, 1994
Siluriformes Clariidae Clarias batrachus Caryophyllidea Lytocestidae Bovienia serialis (Bovien,1926) Maharashtra
Fuhrmann, 1931
Siluriformes Claridae Clarias batrachus Caryophyllidea Lytocestidae Djombangia penetrans Bovien, Maharashtra, West
1926 Bengal, Assam,
Bihar, Chattisgarh,
Siluriformes Claridae Clarias batrachus Caryophyllidea Lytocestidae Djombangia mannai Banerjee , West Bengal
Manna and Sanyal,
2016
Cypriniformes Cyprinidae Puntius sophore Caryophyllidea Lytocestidae Lobulovarium longiovatum Oros, West Bengal,
Ash, Brabec, Kar and Assam
Scholz, 2012
Cypriniformes Cyprinidae Osteobrama cotio Caryophyllidea Lytocestidae Lobulovarium osteobramense Gupta Uttar Pradesh
and Sinha, 1984)
Oros, Ash, Brabec,
Kar and Scholz, 2012
85
Platyhelminthes: Cestoidea (Cestode Parasites) from Freshwater Fishes
HOST PARASITE
86
Cypriniformes Cyprinidae Puntius sophore Caryophyllidea Lytocestidae Lytocestus longicollis Ramadevi, Andhra Pradesh
1973
Cypriniformes Heteropneustidae Heteropneustes fossilis Caryophyllidea Lytocestidae Lytocestoides fossilis Kanth, Sinha Bihar
and Srivastav, 1984
Cypriniformes Heteropneustidae Heteropneustes fossilis Caryophyllidea Lytocestidae Lucknowia fossilisi Gupta, 1961 Assam,
Maharashtra, Uttar
Pradesh, West
Bengal
Siluriformes Clariidae Clarias batrachus Caryophyllidea Lytocestidae Lucknowia microcephala (Bovien, Assam, Uttar
1926) Ash, Scholz, Pradesh, West
Oros and Kar, 2011 Bengal
Siluriformes Clariidae Clarias batrachus Caryophyllidea Lytocestidae Lytocestus indicus (Moghe, 1925) Assam, Bihar,
Woodland, 1926 Uttar Pradesh,
West Bengal,
Chattisgarh,
Maharashtra
Siluriformes Bagridae Rita rita Caryophyllidea Lytocestidae Pseudocaryophyllaeus ritai Gupta and Singh, Uttar Pradesh,
1983 West Bengal
Siluriformes Clariidae Clarias batrachus Caryophyllidea Lytocestidae Pseudocaryophyllaeus tenuicollis (Bovien, Andhra, Uttar
1926) Ash, Scholz, Pradesh, West
Oros and Kar, 2011 Bengal, Assam,
Jharkhand,
Maharashtra
Siluriformes Clariidae Clarias batrachus Caryophyllidea Lytocestidae Lytocestus filiformis (Woodland, North East India
1923) Fuhrmann and
Baer, 1925
Cypriniformes Cyprinidae Schizothorax richardsonii Caryophyllidea Capingentidae Adenoscolex oreini Fotedar, 1958 Kashmir
HOST PARASITE
Cypriniformes Cyprinidae Hypselobarbus kolus Caryophyllidea Capingentidae Breviscolex aurangabadensis Maharashtra

Shinde,1970
Labeo calbasu
Cypriniformes Cyprinidae Cirrhinus cirrhosus Caryophyllidea Capingentidae Breviscolex naldurgensis Shinde, Maharashtra
Mohekar,
Jadhav and
Haffezullah,1987
Siluriformes Clariidae Clarias batrachus Caryophyllidea Capingentidae Capingentoides gorakhnathai Agarwal Uttar Pradesh
and Singh, 1985
Siluriformes Bagridae Rita rita Proteocephalidea Proteocephalidae, Ritacestus ritaii (Verma 1926) Uttar Pradesh
Subfam: Proteocephalinae de Chambrier, Scholz,
Ash and Kar, 2011
Cypriniformes Cobitidae Triplophysa kashmirensis Proteocephalidea Proteocephalidae, Proteocephalus torulosus (Batch,1786) Kashmir
Subfam: Proteocephalinae Nufer, 1905
Siluriformes Sisoridae Bagarius bagarius Proteocephalidea Proteocephalidae, Proteocephalus vitellaris Verma, 1928 Uttar Pradesh
Subfam: Proteocephalinae
Synbranchiformes Mastacembelidae Mastacembelus armatus Proteocephalidea Proteocephalidae, Proteocephalus vitellaris Verma, 1928 Uttar Pradesh
Subfam: Proteocephalinae
Siluriformes Siluridae Wallago attu Proteocephalidea Proteocephalidae, Gangesia agraensis Verma, Uttar Pradesh,
Subfam:Proteocephalinae 1928 West Bengal,
Assam, Karnataka,
Haryana, Kashmir,
Maharashtra
Siluriformes Siluridae Wallago attu Proteocephalidea Proteocephalidae, Gangesia bengalensis Uttar Pradesh,
Subfam: Gangesiinae (Southwell, 1913) West Bengal,
Meggitt, 1927 Assam, Gujarat,
Haryana, Kashmir,
Maharashtra
87
HOST PARASITE
88
Siluriformes Bagridae Sperata seenghala Proteocephalidea Proteocephalidae, Gangesia macrones Woodland, Maharashtra,
Subfam: Gangesiinae 1924 Uttar Pradesh
Siluriformes Bagridae Catfish Proteocephalidea Proteocephalidae, Gangesia vachai (Gupta & Uttar Pradesh,
Subfam: Gangesiinae Parmar, 1988) Ash, West Bengal,
Scholz, de Chambrier, Assam
Brabec, Oros, Kar,
Chavan and Mariaux,
2012
Cypriniformes Cobitidae Acanthocobotis botia Pseudophyllidea Bothriocephalidae Ptychobothrium khami Shinde and Maharashtra
Deshmukh, 1975
Cypriniformes Cyprinidae Salmophasia phulo Pseudophyllidea Bothriocephalidae Ptychobothrium phuloi Shinde and Maharashtra
Deshmukh, 1975
Cypriniformes Cyprinidae Salmophasia balookee Pseudophyllidea Bothriocephalidae Ptychobothrium chelai Shinde and Maharashtra
Deshmukh, 1976
Cypriniformes Cyprinidae Salmophasia balookee Pseudophyllidea Bothriocephalidae Ptychobothrium clupeoidesii Maharashtra

Chincholikar, Shinde,
Deshmukh and
Jadhav, 1976
Cypriniformes Cyprinidae Raiamas bola Schizothorax Pseudophyllidea Bothriocephalidae Ptychobothrium nayarensis Malhotra, Uttarakhand
richardsonii 1983
Channiformes Channidae Channa gachua Pseudophyllidea Bothriocephalidae Senga besnardi Dollfus, 1934 Maharashtra
Channiformes Channidae Channa striatus Pseudophyllidea Bothriocephalidae Senga ophiocephalina West Bengal
(Tseng,1933) Dollfus,
1934
Cypriniformes Cyprinidae Labeo rohita Pseudophyllidea Bothriocephalidae Senga ophiocephalina West Bengal
(Tseng,1933) Dollfus,
1934
Synbranchiformes Mastacembelidae Mastacembelus armatus Pseudophyllidea Bothriocephalidae Senga lucknowensis Johri, Uttar Pradesh
1956
Channiformes Channidae Channa punctata Pseudophyllidea Bothriocephalidae Senga lucknowensis Johri, Uttar Pradesh
1956
HOST PARASITE
Siluriformes Bagridae Bagarius bagarius Pseudophyllidea Bothriocephalidae Senga lucknowensis Johri, Uttar Pradesh
1956
Channiformes Channidae Channa marulius Pseudophyllidea Bothriocephalidae Senga pycnomerus Dollfus, Uttar Pradesh
1934
Channiformes Channidae Channa marulius Pseudophyllidea Bothriocephalidae Senga khami Shinde and Maharashtra
Deshmukh, 1980
Siluriformes Bagridae Sperata vittatus Pseudophyllidea Bothriocephalidae Senga yamunica Gairola and Uttar Pradesh
Malhotra, 1986
Synbranchiformes Mastacembelidae Mastacembelus armatus Pseudophyllidea Bothriocephalidae Senga indica Gupta and Uttar Pradesh
Parmar, 1985
Synbranchiformes Mastacembelidae Mastacembelus armatus Pseudophyllidea Bothriocephalidae Senga nayari Malhotra, 1988 Uttarakhand
Channiformes Channidae Channa punctatus Pseudophyllidea Bothriocephalidae Senga punctati Gupta and Uttar Pradesh
Sinha, 1980
Synbranchiformes Mastacembelidae Mastacembelus armatus Pseudophyllidea Bothriocephalidae Senga mastacembali Gupta Uttar Pradesh
and Sinha,1980
Channiformes Channidae Channa punctatus Pseudophyllidea Bothriocephalidae Senga teleostei Banerjee et Uttar Pradesh
al., 1990
Synbranchiformes Mastacembelidae Mastacembelus armatus Pseudophyllidea Bothriocephalidae Senga aurangabadensis Maharashtra

Jadhav and Shinde,
1980
Synbranchiformes Mastacembelidae Mastacembelus armatus Pseudophyllidea Bothriocephalidae Senga godavarii Shinde and Maharashtra
Jadhav, 1980
Synbranchiformes Mastacembelidae Mastacembelus armatus Pseudophyllidea Bothriocephalidae Senga paithanensis Kadam Maharashtra
et al., 1981
Synbranchiformes Mastacembelidae Mastacembelus armatus Pseudophyllidea Bothriocephalidae Senga maharashtrii Jadhav Maharashtra
et al., 1991
Synbranchiformes Mastacembelidae Mastacembelus armatus Pseudophyllidea Bothriocephalidae Senga mohekarae Tat et al., Maharashtra
1997
89
HOST PARASITE
90
Synbranchiformes Mastacembelidae Mastacembelus armatus Pseudophyllidea Bothriocephalidae Senga armatusae Maharashtra

Hiware,1999
Siluriformes Bagridae Mystus vittatus Pseudophyllidea Bothriocephalidae Senga vittati Gairola and Uttar Pradesh
Malhotra, 1987
Siluriformes Bagridae Mystus vittatus Pseudophyllidea Bothriocephalidae Senga gangesii Gairola and Uttar Pradesh
Malhotra, 1986
Channiformes Channidae Channa punctatus Pseudophyllidea Bothriocephalidae Senga raoi Majid and Orissa
Shinde, 1984
Channiformes Channidae Channa punctatus Pseudophyllidea Bothriocephalidae Senga jagannathae Majid Orissa
and Shinde, 1984
Cypriniformes Cyprinidae Labeo rohita Pseudophyllidea Bothriocephalidae Senga pathankotensis Duggal Punjab
and Bedi 1989
Synbranchiformes Mastacembelidae Mastacembelus armatus Pseudophyllidea Bothriocephalidae Senga kaigaonensis Maharashtra

Wankhede et al., 2010
Channiformes Channidae Channa punctatus Pseudophyllidea Bothriocephalidae Senga panzraensis Mangale Maharashtra
and Kalse, 2009
Synbranchiformes Mastacembelidae Mastacembelus armatus Pseudophyllidea Bothriocephalidae Senga chauhani Hasnain, Bihar
1992
Synbranchiformes Mastacembelidae Mastacembelus armatus Pseudophyllidea Bothriocephalidae Senga tappi Patil and Maharashtra
Jadhav, 2003
Channiformes Channidae Channa gachua Pseudophyllidea Bothriocephalidae Senga jadhavae Bhure et Maharashtra
al., 2007
Synbranchiformes Mastacembelidae Mastacembelus armatus Pseudophyllidea Bothriocephalidae Senga gachuae Jadhav et Maharashtra
al., 1991
Synbranchiformes Synbranchidae Monopterus cuchia Pseudophyllidea Bothriocephalidae Senga govindii Jadhav et Maharashtra
al., 2012
Siluriformes Bagridae Rita rita Pseudophyllidea Bothriocephalidae Senga ayodhensis Pande et Uttar Pradesh
al., 2006
HOST PARASITE
Synbranchiformes Mastacembelidae Mastacembelus Pseudophyllidea Bothriocephalidae Senga baughi Pande et al., Uttar Pradesh
armatus 2006
Channiformes Channidae Channa striatus Pseudophyllidea Bothriocephalidae Senga madhavii Bhure et Maharashtra
al., 2010
Channiformes Channidae Channa striatus Pseudophyllidea Bothriocephalidae Senga rupchandensis Maharashtra

Pardeshi and Hiware,
2011
Synbranchiformes Mastacembelidae Mastacembelus armatus Pseudophyllidea Bothriocephalidae Senga sataraensis Bhure and Maharashtra
Nanware, 2011
Synbranchiformes Mastacembelidae Mastacembelus armatus Pseudophyllidea Bothriocephalidae Senga rostellare Dhole et Maharashtra
al., 2011
Synbranchiformes Mastacembelidae Mastacembelus armatus Pseudophyllidea Bothriocephalidae Senga chandrasekhari Dhole Maharashtra
et al., 2012
Synbranchiformes Mastacembelidae Mastacembelus armatus Pseudophyllidea Bothriocephalidae Senga nathsagarensis Dhole Maharashtra
et al., 2012
Synbranchiformes Mastacembelidae Mastacembelus armatus Pseudophyllidea Bothriocephalidae Senga chandikapurensis Maharashtra

Khadap et al., 2007
Cypriniformes Cyprinidae Pethia ticto Pseudophyllidea Bothriocephalidae Senga tictoi Srivastav et al., Uttar Pradesh
2007
Synbranchiformes Mastacembelidae Mastacembelus armatus Pseudophyllidea Bothriocephalidae Polyonchobothrium srivastavai Pande et Maharashtra
al., 2006
Synbranchiformes Mastacembelidae Mastacembelus Pseudophyllidea Bothriocephalidae Polyonchobothrium thapari Pande et al., Maharashtra
armatus 2006
Siluriformes Bagridae Mystus vittatus Pseudophyllidea Bothriocephalidae Polyonchobothrium allahabadense Uttar Pradesh
Malhotra, 1987
Synbranchiformes Mastacembelidae Mastacembelus armatus Pseudophyllidea Bothriocephalidae Polyonchobothrium armatus Malhotra, Uttar Pradesh
1984
Synbranchiformes Mastacembelidae Mastacembelus armatus Pseudophyllidea Bothriocephalidae Polyonchobothrium faizabadensis Singh Uttar Pradesh
91
and Capoor, 1986
HOST PARASITE
92
Synbranchiformes Mastacembelidae Mastacembelus armatus Pseudophyllidea Bothriocephalidae Polyonchobothrium visakhapatnamensis Andhra Pradesh
(Devil & Rao, 1973)
Blair, 1978
Channiformes Channidae Channa punctatus Pseudophyllidea Bothriocephalidae Polyonchobothrium indicum Nama, 1979 Rajasthan
Cypriniformes Cyprinidae Schizothorax plagiostomus Pseudophyllidea Bothriocephalidae Bothriocephalus teleostei Malhotra, Uttar Pradesh
Raiamus bendelisis 1984
Raiamus bola
Garra gotyla
Bangana dero
Labeo rohita
Cypriniformes Cyprinidae Labeo calbasu Pseudophyllidea Diphyllobothriidae Ligula intestinalis (Linnaeus, West Bengal
Labeo rohita, 1758) Bloch, 1782
Catla catla
Danio sp.
Puntius sp.
Amblypharyngodon
microlepis
Cypriniformes Cobitidae Schistura rupecola Pseudophyllidea Diphyllobothriidae Ligula intestinalis (Linnaeus, West Bengal
1758) Bloch, 1782
Siluriformes Bagridae Arius gagora Trypanorhyncha Gymnorynchidae Gymnorhynchus (larval gigas (Cuvier, 1817) West Bengal
form) Rudolphi, 1819
Clupeiformes Clupeiidae Tenualosa ilisha Trypanorhyncha Gymnorhynchidae Gymnorhynchus (larval gigas (Cuvier, 1817) West Bengal
form) Rudolphi, 1819
Clupeiformes Clupeiidae Tenualosa ilisha Trypanorhyncha Otobothriidae Poecilancistrum ilisha (Southwell West Bengal
& Prashad, 1918)
Dollfus, 1942
Clupeiformes Clupeiidae Tenualosa ilisha Trypanorhyncha Pterobothriidae Pterobothrium filicolle (Linton, 1890) Bihar, West Bengal
Yamaguti, 1952
Clupeiformes Clupeiidae Tenualosa ilisha Trypanorhyncha Tentaculariidae Tentacularia ilisha (Southwell West Bengal
& Prashad, 1918)
Dollfus, 1942
Chapter 7
Rotifera : Eurotatoria (Rotifers)
B.K. Sharma and Sumita Sharma
Abstract
The Indian literature on the phylum published since inception is reviewed, all taxa
recorded till date are evaluated and 419 valid rotifer species belonging to 65 genera
and 25 families are recognized from freshwaters environs of India. The nature and
composition of Eurotatoria is analyzed with reference to richness from different
parts of India, elements of global and regional biogeography value, distribution
of interesting taxa and taxonomic anomalies. The rich rotifer diversity of the
relatively extensively sampled northeast India (NEI); and the floodplains of Assam
and Manipur states of NEI, and Deepor Beel and Loktak Lake-two Ramsar sites
of India in particular focused attention on the ‘Rotiferologist effect’. Impediments
hampering the biodiversity progress of the Indian Rotifera are highlighted,
and the scope of systematic and biogeography is indicated with suggestions for
improvement of the state-of-art.
Key words: Biodiversity, ecosystem diversity, anomalies, dubious report,
interesting taxa, misidentification, status, scope.
INTRODUCTION
Rotifera or ‘Rotatoria’ or ‘wheel animalcules’ are pseudocoelomate metazoans
usually microscopic in size and characterized by unique ‘wheel organ’ or ‘corona’
and diagnostic ‘trophi’; the former impart an illusion of a pair of rotating wheels
and hence ‘rotating’ locomotion. The members of this phylum form an integral
component of aquatic food-webs, serve as useful bio-indicators of water quality
(Sladecek, 1983), test organisms in toxicology experiments (Arnold et al. 2011),
and fish-food in aquaculture (Lubzens, 1987; Ogata and Kurokura, 2011). The
rotifers exhibit endless profusion of body forms adapted to the living habits and
closely associated with their habitats. These micro-invertebrates are ideal tools for
ecological considerations and population dynamics analysis because of their ability
to colonize diverse aquatic and semi-aquatic biotopes and an inherent quality to
build up substantial densities within short time intervals.
The rotifers have attracted attention of naturalists and hydro-biologists
globally ever since invention of the microscope. The systematic studies on the
Indian Rotifera were initiated by Anderson (1889) based on collections from
Kolkata (Calcutta) and its environments from West Bengal. Early taxonomic
Freshwater Biology Laboratory, Department of Zoology, North-Eastern Hill University,

Permanent campus, Shillong-793 022, Meghalaya, India
e-mail: [email protected], [email protected]
93
Sharma and Sharma
progress till mid of 20th century was rather slow with important works of Murray
(1906), Edmondson and Hutchinson (1934), Hauer (1936, 1937a, 1937b), Donner
(1949), Brehm (1950, 1951) while the revisions of Ahlstrom (1940, 1943) on
Brachionus and Keratella, respectively also referred to collections from India.
‘Synopsis of taxonomic studies on Indian Rotifera’ (Sharma and Michael, 1980)
provided an overview of the progress till 1980’s. A resurgence of taxonomic interest
was registered in the following two decades till end of 20th century culminating in
a series of works. The salient features of this progress were traced in overviews
of the state-of-art of the Indian Rotifera by Sharma (1991, 1996, 1998a) and the
works of Sharma (1983, 1987), Battish (1992) and Dhanapathi (2000).
The period from the beginning of 21st century till date registered marked spurt
of apparently non-peer viewed or poorly reviewed publications mostly including
‘ad-hoc’ ecology reports and faunal listing in various online journals and ironically
loaded with incomplete species inventories, fuzzy identifications and questionable
records warranting validation (Sharma personal communication). Nevertheless
certain notable works during this period included paper on Rotifera diversity
of Northeast India (Sharma and Sharma, 2014a) and the reviews on the Indian
Lecanidae (Sharma and Sharma, 2014b), Brachionidae (Sharma and Sharma,
2014c) and Lepadellidae (Sharma and Sharma, 2015a). Besides, the works of
Sharma and Sharma (2008, 2013) provided valuable information for meta-analysis
of the rotifer diversity. On the contrary, the local inventories from Wasim district
of Maharashtra (Tayade and Dabhade, 2011), Andhra Pradesh (Karuthapandi et
al., 2013) and Jammu and Kashmir (Shah et al., 2015) are uncritical compilations
loaded with duplicate and dubious reports and thus merit caution.
The published literature and reports of all taxa of the phylum known till
date from India are scrutinized, 419 valid species are recognized and a detailed
break-up of the documented diversity is presented. A comprehensive checklist of
the Indian Rotifera is, however, being published separately and shall be available
thereafter for its reference. The nature and composition of the rotifer fauna of India
is analyzed with reference to interesting elements, biogeography and taxonomic
anomalies and nomenclatural discrepancies. The impediments hampering
progress of Rotifera taxonomy in India are analyzed vis-à-vis various lacunae and
the future biodiversity scope is indicated with suggestions for improvement of the
state-of-art of the taxon.
METHODS
This meta-analysis assessment of Rotifera biodiversity is the result of
critical overview of the Indian literature coupled with possible validation of the
documented taxa based on the published reports and on the collections examined
by the author from different parts of India. The available reports are compared
against the standard works of Koste (1978), Koste and Shiel (1987, 1989, 1990),
Shiel and Koste (1992), Segers (1995, 1996), De Smet (1996, 1997), Sharma (1983,
1987, 1998b), Sharma and Sharma (1999, 2000, 2014b, 2014c, 2015a), Sharma
and Sharma (2008, 2013), and Nogrady and Segers (2002). Segers (2002, 2007)
and Jersabek and Leitner (2013) are followed for classification, nomenclature and
94
biogeography. All the rotifer taxa described or recorded from India are considered
with particular attention to their status, validity and distribution.
RESULTS
The Indian Rotifera literature is loaded with several anomalous, ambiguous,
fuzzy and unverifiable reports which render any critical assessment of diversity
evaluation a difficult task till all the reported taxa are virtually verified. We
recognize 419 species validly known till date from India; the family-wise breakup
of the recorded rotifer is indicated in Table 1 while a critical annotated check list
of Indian freshwater Rotifera is being published separately and thus not presented
herein because of conflict of interests.
Table 1. Family-wise break up of composition of Indian Rotifera*, #
(Source: BKS, unpublished)
Families Species Genera
Subclass Monogononta
Order Ploima
Family Brachionidae 46 7
Family Epiphanidae 07 4
Family Euchlanidae 13 5
Family Mytilinidae 10 2
Family Trichotriidae 08 3
Family Lepadellidae 44 3
Family Lecanidae 89 1
Family Proalidae 03 1
Family Notommatidae 32 6
Family Scaridiidae 01 1
Family Gastropodidae 06 2
Family Trichocercidae 35 2
Family Asplanchnidae 08 2
Family Synchaetidae 11 3
Family Dicranophoridae 08 3
321 45
Order Flosculariaceae
Family Floscularidae 19 6
Family Conochilidae 04 1
Family Hexarthridae 04 1
Family Testudinellidae 13 2
Family Trochosphaeridae 11 3
51 13
95
Sharma and Sharma
Families Species Genera

Order Collothecaceae
Family Atrochidae 01 1
Family Collothecidae 08 1
09 2
Sub-class Bdelloidea
Family Adinetidae 02 1
Family Habrotrochidae 08 1
Family Philodinidae 27 3
37 5
TOTAL TAXA 419 65
* Not included: Philodinavidae and Lindiidae: unconfirmed reports.
# an annotated check list of Indian freshwater Rotifera is being published separately.
DISCUSSION
Composition, richness and diversity
A total of 419 species (S) belonging to 65 genera and 25 families are considered
valid in this biodiversity assessment of the Indian Rotifera. The richness is in
contrast to synopsis of taxonomic studies (Sharma and Michael, 1980) firstly
enlisting 241 species. Sharma (1991, 1996, 1998a) reported 310, 316 and 330
species (excluding doubtful taxa), respectively while Battish (1992) reported
242 taxa based on a slightly modified list vide Sharma and Michael (1980). The
compilation by Dhanapathi (2000) listed 300 species which on critical scrutiny
(BKS, unpublished) represented 260+ species. The distinct biodiversity update
presented in this account is facilitated by several new records by authors from
different states of NEI during the last two decades. Total rotifer richness (S) now
known from India comprised ~81% and ~24% of species of the taxon reported (vide
Segers, 2008) from the Oriental region and world-wide, respectively and thus
deserved biodiversity interest. Nevertheless, the Indian fauna is more biodiverse
than 398 species known from the relatively well studied Thai rotifer fauna (Sa-
Ardrit et al., 2013) amongst south and Southeast Asia. It is, however, not feasible
to compare the diversity of Eurotatoria of India with other countries of the Indian
sub-continent because of yet incomplete species inventories.
Indian Rotifera is characterized by notable fraction (~16 % of S) of taxa of
global biogeography interest of the following categories:
Endemic: Asplanchnopus bhimavaramensis Dhanapathi, Collotheca
hexalobata Banik, C. tetralobata Banik, Lecane jaintiaensis Sharma, L.
schraederi Wulfert, L. pawlowski Wulfert, L. vasishti Sharma, Lepadella kostei
Wulfert, L.nartiangensis Sharma & Sharma, Platyias quadricornis andhraensis
Dhanapathi, Proales indirae Wulfert, Pseudoeuchlanis longipedes Dhanapathi,
and Rotaria ovata (Anderson);
96
Australasian: Brachionus dichotomus reductus Koste & Shiel, B. kostei Shiel,

Macrochaetus danneelae Koste & Shiel, Lecane batillifer (Murray), L. shieli Segers
& Sanoamuang, Notommata spinata Koste & Shiel, Testudinella walkeri Koste &
Shiel, and Philodina squamosa Murray;
Oriental endemics: Brachionus donneri Brehm, Colurella sanoamuangae
Chittapun, Pholpunthin & Segers, Filinia camasecla Myers, Keratella edmondsoni
Ahlstrom, Lecane acanthinula (Hauer), L. blachei Berzins, L. bulla diabolica
(Hauer), L. isanensis Sanoamuang & Savatenalinton, L. latissima Yamamoto, L.
niwati Segers, Kothetip & Sanoamuang, L. solfatara (Hauer), L. superaculeata
Sanoamuang & Segers, Proales indirae Wulfert, and Ptygura stephanion (Anderson);
Paleotropical: Keratella javana Hauer, Dipleuchlanis ornata Segers,
Euchlanis semicarinata Segers, Lepadella bicornis Vasisht & Battish, L. discoidea
Segers, L. minoruoides Koste & Robertson, L. vandenbrandei Gillard, Lecane eswari
Dhanapathi, L. lateralis Sharma, L. simonneae Segers, L. unguitata (Fadeev),
Trichocerca abilioi Segers & Sarma, T. brazieliensis (Murray), T. hollaerti De Smet,
T. kostei Segers, Polyarthra indica Segers & Babu, Testudinella brevicaudata
Yamamoto, and T. greeni Koste;
Palaearctic: Squatinella bifurca (Bolton), Cephalodella trigona (Rousselet),
and Encentrum longipes Wulfert;
Holarctic: Lecane depressa (Bryce), Lecane elasma Harring & Myers, L.
elongata Harring & Myers, L. galeata (Bryce), L. levistyla (Olofsson), L. stokesii
(Pell), L. styrax (Harring & Myers), Trichocerca taurocephala (Hauer), and T.
uncinata (Voigt); and
Indo-Chinese: Lecane dorysimilis Trinh Dang, Segers & Sanoamuang.
The report of the Australasian elements in the Indian Rotifera imparted a
unique character and distinct biogeography importance and an interesting affinity
with the faunas of Southeast Asia and Australia. This salient aspect endorsed
the remarks of Sharma (2005), Sharma and Sharma, (2008), Sharma and Sharma
(2012, 2014a) and Sharma et al. (2016) based on NEI Rotifera. The presence of a
sizable component of the Oriental endemics and Palaeotropical species is notable;
the former reiterated its affinity with Southeast Asian faunas. The relative paucity
of endemic taxa is elusive as several species are awaiting descriptions pending
examination of more materials (BKS, personal communication) while several
others added recently as new records from India have been newly described
elsewhere from Thailand. The tropical-latitude populations of various Holarctic
and Palaearctic species known from our inland waters are likely to represent glacial
relicts as hypothesized by Segers (1996) while the reports of certain others at foot
hills of Himalayas may be attributed to extension of the Himalayan mountain
ranges as hypothesized by Sharma and Sharma (2014c).
Freshwater Rotifera of India revealed a large fraction of species (~ 37% of S)
of regional distribution interest in the Indian sub-region with still an important
fraction (~11%) characterized by distribution till this date restricted to NEI.
These features thus highlighted importance of Eurotatoria vis-à-vis regional
biogeography. Various members of this category included:
97
Sharma and Sharma
1. Ascomorpha ecaudis Perty, 1850 29. E. najas Ehrenberg, 1830

2. A. saltans indica Wulfert, 1966 30. Itura aurita (Ehrenberg, 1830)
3. Ascomorphella volvocicola (Plate, 31. Gastropus hyptopus (Ehrenberg,
1886) 1838)
4. Brachionus bennini Leissling, 32. G. minor (Rousselet, 1892) *
1924 33. G. stylifer Imhof, 1891
5. B. dichotomus reductus Koste & 34. Kellicottia longispina (Kellicott,
Shiel, 1980 * 1879)
6. B. dimidiatus Bryce, 1931 35. Keratella edmondsoni Ahlstrom,
7. B. donneri Brehm, 1951 1943
8. B. falcatus reductus Koste & 36. K. hiemalis Carlin, 1943
Shiel, 1987* 37. K. javana Hauer, 1937*
9. B. kostei Shiel, 1983* 38. K. serrulata (Ehrenberg, 1838)
10. B. leydigii Cohn, 1862 39. K. ticinensis (Callerio, 1921)
11. B. pterodinoides Rousselet, 1913* 40. Lecane acanthinula (Hauer, 1938)
12. B. rotundiformis Tschugunoff, 41. L. aeganea Harring, 1914*
1921 42. L. arcuata (Bryce, 1891)
13. B. sessilis Varga, 1951 43. L. aspasia Myers, 1917*
14. Cephalodella gigantea Remane, 44. L. batillifer (Murray, 1913) *
1933
45. L. bifastigata Hauer, 1938
15. C, intuta Myers, 1924*
46. L .bifurca (Bryce, 1892)
16. C.megalocephala (Glascott, 1893)
47. L. blachei Bērziņš, 1973
17. C.misgurnus Wulfert, 1937
48. L. braumi Koste, 1988
18. C. panarista Myers, 1924
49. L. bulla diabolica (Hauer, 1936)
19. C.ventripes (Dixon-Nuttall, 1901)*
50. L. doryssa Harring, 1914
20. Colurella colurus (Ehrenberg,
51. L. elasma Harring & Myers, 1926
1830)
52. L. elongata Harring & Myers,
21. C. oxycauda Carlin 1939
1926
22. C. sanoamuangae Chittapun,
53. L. eswari Dhanapathi, 1976
Pholpunthin & Segers, 1999
54. L. galeata (Bryce, 1892)
23. Cyrtonia tuba (Ehrenberg, 1834)
55. L. glypta Harring & Myers, 1926*
24. Dipleuchlanis ornata Segers,
1993* 56. L. haliclysta Harring & Myers,
1926
25. Euchlanis deflexa Gosse, 1851
57. L. jaintiaensis Sharma, 1987
26. Euchlanis meneta Myers, 1930
58. L. lateralis Sharma, 1978
27. Euchlanis semicarinata Segers,
1993* 59. L. latissima Yamamoto, 1951
28. Eosphora anthadis Harring & 60. L. levistyla (Olofsson, 1917)

Myers, 1922 61. L. ligona (Dunlop, 1901)
98
62. L. niwati Segers, Kothetip & 94. L. lindaui Koste, 1981

Sanoamuang, 2004* 95. L. longiseta Myers, 1934
63. L. pawlowskii Wulfert, 1966 96. L. minoruoides Koste & Robertson,
64. L. paxiana Hauer, 1940 1983*
65. L. perplexa (Ahlstrom, 1938) 97. L. nartiangensis Sharma &
66. L. pertica Harring & Myers, 1926 Sharma, 1987*
67. L. pusilla Harring, 1914 98. L. patella oblonga (Ehrenberg,
68. L. rhenana Hauer, 1929* 1834) *
69. L. rhytida Harring & Myers, 99. L. patella persimilis De Ridder,
1926* 1961
70. L. rugosa (Harring, 1914) 100. L. quadricarinata (Stenroos, 1898)
71. L. ruttneri Hauer, 1938 101. L. quinquecostata (Lucks, 1912)
72. L. schraederi Wulfert, 1966 102. L. rhomboidula (Bryce, 1890)
73. L. scutata (Harring & Myers, 103. L. triba Myers, 1934
1926) 104. L. vandenbrandei Gillard, 1952*
74. L simonneae Segers, 1993 105. L. heterodactyla Fadeew, 1925*
75. L. sinuata (Hauer, 1938) 106. Lophocharis naias Wulfert, 1942
76. L. solfatara (Hauer, 1938) * 107. Macrochaetus danneelae Koste &
77. L. stokesii (Pell, 1890) Shiel, 1983*
78. L. syngenes (Hauer, 1938) 108. M. longipes Myers, 1934
79. L. tenuiseta Harring, 1914 109. M. subquadratus Perty, 1850
80. L. undulata Hauer, 1938* 110. Mikrocodides chlaena (Gosse,
81. L. vasishti Sharma, 1980 1886)
82. L. verecunda Harring & Myers, 111. Monommata actices Myers, 1930
1926 112. Monommata grandis Tessin,
83. Lepadella benjamini Harring, 1890*
1916* 113. Monommata longiseta (O.F.
84. L. bicornis Vasisht & Battish, Müller, 1786)
1971 114. Monommata maculata Harring &
85. L. biloba Hauer, 1958 Myers, 1930
86. L. costatoides Segers, 1992 115. Mytilina michelangellii Reid &
87. L. dactyliseta (Stenroos, 1898) Turner, 1988*
88. L. desmeti Segers & Chittapun, 116. M. mucronata (O.F. Muller, 1773)
2001* 117. Notholca labis Gosse, 1887
89. L. discoidea Segers, 1993 118. N. squamula (O.F. Muller, 1786)
90. L. elongata Koste, 1992* 119. N. striata (Müller, 1786)
91. L. imbricata Harring, 1914 120. Notommata aurita (Müller, 1786)
92. L. kostei Wulfert, 1966
121. Notommata glyphura Wulfert,
93. L. latusinus (Hilgendorf, 1889)* 1935
99
Sharma and Sharma
122. Notommata pachyura (Gosse, 137. T. bidens (Lucks, 1912) *

1886) 138. T. brachyura (Gosse, 1851)
123. Notommata pseudocerberus De 139. T. brazieliensis (Murray, 1913)
Beauchamp, 1908
140. T. chattoni (De Beauchamp, 1907)
124. Notommata saccigera Ehrenberg,
1830 141. T. hollaerti De Smet, 1990*
125. Notommata spinata Koste & 142. T. iernis (Gosse, 1887)

Shiel, 1991* 143. T. insignis (Herrick, 1885) *
126. Platyias leloupi (Gillard, 1967) 144. T. insulana (Hauer, 1937) *
127. Proalides subtilis Rodewald, 1930 145. T. kostei Segers, 1993
128. Proales decipiens (Ehrenberg, 146. T. maior Hauer, 1936*
1832) 147. T. myersi (Hauer, 1931)
129. P. fallaciosa Wulfert, 1937
148. T. scipio (Gosse, 1886)
130. P. indirae Wulfert, 1966
149. T. siamensis Segers & Pholpunthin,
131. Rhinoglena frontalis Ehrenberg, 1997 *
1853
150. T. stylata (Gosse, 1851)
132. Squatinella bifurca (Bolton, 1884)*
151. T. sulcata (Jennings, 1894) *
133. Taphrocampa annulosa Gosse,
152. T. taurocephala (Hauer, 1931) *
1851*
134. T. selenura Gosse, 1887 153. T. tenuior (Gosse, 1886)
135. Trichotria pocillum (O.F. Muller, 154. T. uncinata (Voigt, 1902) *

1776) 155. T. voluta (Murray, 1913)
136. T. abilioi Segers & Sarma, 1993* 156. Wolga spinifera (Western, 1894)
* Species yet known to be restricted to northeast India (NEI)

Interestingly, nineteen taxa, originally described from India, are characterized
by extension of their distribution ranges. This category included the following
taxa:
1. Adineta longicornis Murray, 1906 11. Lecane bulla diabolica (Hauer,
2. Ascomorpha saltans indica 1936)
Wulfert, 1966 12. L. eswari Dhanapathi, 1976
3. Brachionus donneri Brehm, 1951 13. L. lateralis Sharma, 1978
4. B. durgae Dhanapathi, 1974 14. Lepadella bicornis Vasisht &
5. Floscularia tenuilobata Anderson, Battish, 1971
1889
15. Philodina squamosa Murray, 1906
6. Habrotrocha angusticollis
attenuata (Murray, 1906) 16. P. indica Segers & Babu, 1999
7. H. nodosa (Murray, 1906) 17. Ptygura stephanion (Anderson,

1889)
8. H. perforata (Murray, 1906)
9. Horaella brehmi Donner, 1949 18. Rotaria mento (Anderson, 1889)
10. Keratella edmondsoni Ahlstrom, 19. R. sordida fimbriata (Murray,

1943 1906)
100
Sharma (1991, 1996, 1998a) stressed lacunae on inadequate studies on detailed

analysis of the rotifer diversity from different states of India notwithstanding the
fact that the fauna is yet by no means adequately explored. This generalization
holds valid even till date after time lapse of over 120 years since inception of the
work by Anderson (1889). The regional investigations are altogether lacking except
for the report of 238 species belonging to 50 genera and 23 families, making NEI
one of the most specious and diverse region of India vis-à-vis Rotifera (Sharma and
Sharma, 2014a). Even this status now stands updated with the report of nearly 280
species (BKS, unpublished). The state of Assam of NEI is most biodiverse with the
report of 220 rotifer species (Sharma and Sharma, 2014a); 162 and 161 species are
known from the hill states of Mizoram (Sharma and Sharma, 2015b) and Meghalaya
(Sharma et al., 2016), respectively; 162 species are enlisted from Manipur (Sharma
et al., 2016); 152 species are known from Tripura (Sharma and Sharma, 2000) while
the rotifer faunas of Arunachal Pradesh and Nagaland are being investigated (BKS,
unpublished) and that of Sikkim remained unexplored expect for the sole report
of Murray (1906). Besides, the reports of 148 species from West Bengal (Sharma,
1998b) from eastern India and 177 species from Tamil Nadu (Sharma and Sharma,
2009) of south India deserved attention while the review from Jammu and Kashmir
(Shah et al. 2015) is riddled with inherent inconsistencies to provide a reliable count
of richness (BKS, unpublished). Ironically, the rotifer faunas of various other states
of north, eastern, central, western and south India are yet highly under-explored.
Interestingly, the sole study on freshwater rotifers off the Indian mainland referred
to the report from south Andaman (Sharma, 2017); the findings indicated much
scope of extending such a endeavor to freshwaters ecosystems of the Andaman and
Nicobar as well as Lakshadweep Islands.
Eurotatoria is largely overlooked vis-à-vis ecosystem diversity in the Indian
studies. Nevertheless, 220 species known (Sharma and Sharma, 2014a, 2014d)
from the floodplains of the Brahmaputra river basin characterized these ecotones
as one of the globally diverse rotifer habitats. Deepor Beel, a Ramsar site and
an important floodplain lake of NEI, is individually ranked the globally important
rotifer ‘hot-spot’ (Sharma, B.K. and Sharma, S., 2015c). This is followed by the
report of 162 species (Sharma et al., 2016) from Loktak Lake (another Ramsar site).
Total richness ( S value) of the two wetlands concurred with the report (Dumont
and Segers, 1996) for ‘All Taxa Biological Inventories (ATBI)’ for the rotifer
assemblages of temperate and subtropical lakes (S=123–210). The reports of 144
species (Sharma, 2014; Sharma et al., 2015) from Majuli- the largest river island
and 154 species from four beels of lower Assam (Sharma et al., 2017) endorsed rich
rotifer diversity of the Brahmaputra floodplains and highlighted the importance of
the ‘rotiferologist effect’ advanced by Fontaneto et al. (2012). Total richness known
from the Brahmaputra floodplains is notably higher than the reports of 110 species
(Arora and Mehra, 2003) from the backwaters of the river Yamuna at Delhi, 27
species from two floodplain lakes of Kashmir (Khan, 1987) and 38 species from four
ox-bow lakes and nine floodplain lakes of South-eastern West Bengal (Khan, 2003).
The richness is strikingly low (90 species) in the “seasonal” floodplains (hoars) of
the Barak River basin of Assam (Sharma and Sharma, 2014a).
101
Sharma and Sharma
Lecanidae, the largest family of monogonont rotifers, is most biodiverse (89

species; ~21% of S) in inland waters of India. Brachionidae (46 species) > Lepadellidae
(44 species) > Trichocercidae (36 species) > Notommatidae (32 species) collectively
comprised an important fraction (~38 % of S). The biodiversity importance of five
families of Eurotatoria broadly concurred with the reports from Thailand (Sa-Ardrit
et al., 2013) and the Oriental fauna (Segers, 2008). Interestingly, majority of the
families, except Brachionidae, include predominantly littoral-periphytic taxa
(Segers, 2001). Latitudinal variations are well known in the distribution of Rotifera
(Green, 1972; De Ridder, 1981; Dumont, 1983; Segers, 1996) while Segers (2001)
stressed the role of thermopiles in the fauna of Southeast Asia with significance of
Lecane and Brachionus. The lecanid dominance compared well with the reports from
Africa (Segers et al., 1993, 1998), Thailand (Sa-Ardrit et al., 2013) and Argentina
(Jose de Paggi, 2001). More specific information is provided in the reviews on
the Indian Lecanidae (Sharma and Sharma, 2014b), Brachionidae (Sharma and
Sharma, 2014c) and Lepadellidae (Sharma and Sharma, 2015a). The significance of
`tropic-centered’ Lecane and Brachionus, large fraction of cosmopolitan species and
occurrence of several pantropical and cosmotropical species imparted a general
‘tropical character’ to the rotifer fauna of India. This generalization is conformity
with the composition of the tropical faunas from different parts of the globe (Pejler,
1977; Fernando, 1980; Dussart et al., 1984; Segers, 1996, 2001, 2008).
Taxonomic status
The Indian literature included several examples of taxonomic and nomenclature
anomalies with ‘sloppy and uncritical’ descriptions of various taxa as indicated
below:
Genus & species inquirenda
The following taxa are affirmed as invalid vide Segers (2007) and, Jersabek and
Leitner (2013):
Diplois daviesiae Gosse, 1886
Pseudoembata acutipoda Wycliffe & Michael, 1968
Nomen nudum
Four species proposed from India are categorized as nomen nudum in the absence
of medatory taxonomic descriptions and illustrations:
Platyias dalensis: Dal Lake, Kashmir (Das & Akhtar 1976)
Lepadella bela: Uttrakhand (Sharma & Pant, 1985)
Lecane chandramohani sp. nov : Andhra Pradesh (source unknown?)
Lecane radhakrishnai sp. nov: Andhra Pradesh (source unknown?)
Of these, Lepadella bela, appearing in the species list from two lakes of
Uttarakhand (Sharma and Pant, 1985), was designated as nomen nudum vide
Sharma and Sharma (2015a). Platyias dalensis appeared in a report from Dal
Lake, Kashmir (Das and Akhtar 1976) but to our knowledge it is never described
till date. This statement also holds valid for Lecane chandramohani sp. nov and L.
radhakrishnai sp. nov which appeared in the list of Karuthapandi et al. (2013) but
102
yet remained un-described. The said three species are thus designated as nomen
nudum and considered invalid.
Species inquirenda
In all nine new species, described from India, are ‘species inquirenda’ (refer:
Segers, 2007):
Cephalodella wiszniewskii Edmondson & Hutchinson, 1934
Conochilus arboreus Rajendran, 1971
Conochilus madurai Michael, 1966
Lecane bidentata Dhanapathi, 1976
Lepadella triprojectus Sharma 1978
Lindia intermedia Dhanapathi and Rama Sarma, 2000
Polyarthra multiappendiculata Arora, 1962
Metopidia torquata, Anderson 1889
Sinantherina triglandularis Arora, 1963
Of these, Sharma (1978) described Lepadella triprojectus from West Bengal
based on a single specimen (insufficient material). According to Jersabek and
Leitner (2013), the three diagnostic tube-like projections are the result of a fungus
infection (Chytridiomycota/Hyphochytridiomycota) and represent evacuation tubes
of zoosporangia for the zoospores. We are well aware of limitation of “type material”
and possibility of a fungal infection in particular and, hence, confirm this taxon as
species inquirenda (Sharma and Sharma, 2015a).
Synonymized species / taxa

We emphasize on ‘sloppy and uncritical’ descriptions of new Indian taxa as
highlighted by synonymized 15 new species and subspecies:
Brachionus caudatus var. indica Novotná-Dvořáková, 1963 = B. ahlstromi Lindeman, 1939
B. forficula var. keralaiensis Nayar & Nair, 1969 = B. forficula Wierzejski, 1891
Conochilus dossuarius var. asetosus Arora, 1962 = Conochilus dossuarius Hudson, 1885
Euchlanis brahmae Dhanapathi, 1976 = Euchlanis triquetra Ehrenberg, 1838
Lecane curvilinealis Arora, 1965 = Lecane curvicornis (Murray, 1913)
Lecane donnerianus Dhanapathi, 1976 = Lecane ungulata (Gosse, 1887)
Lecane dorsicalis Arora, 1965 = Lecane luna (Müller, 1776)
Lecane longidactyla Arora, 1965 = Lecane curvicornis (Murray, 1913)
Lecane neali Wulfert, 1966 = Lecane crepida Harring, 1914
Lecane paradecipiens Nayar, 1968 = Lecane thalera (Harring & Myers, 1926)
Lecane padespares Arora, 1965 = Lecane curvicornis f. miamiensis Myers,
1941
Lecane tesselata Arora, 1965 = Lecane nitida (Murray, 1913)
Lecane yamunensis Novotná-Dvořáková, 1963 = Lecane papuana (Murray, 1913)
Trichocerca tropis Hauer, 1937 = Trichocerca voluta (Murray, 1913)
Platyias longispinosus Arora, 1966 = Platyias leloupi (Gillard, 1967)
103
Sharma and Sharma
Attracted by morphological plasticity inherent in several rotifer taxa, the

Indian workers have invariably designated infra-specific (sub) categories which
do not warrant nomenclatural validity. We focus caution on uncritical usage of
lower ranks while the status of certain such new names proposed from India is now
indicated as hereunder:
Lecane luna f. dorsicalis Sharma, 1978 = L. luna (Müller, 1776)
Lecane crepida f. bengalensis Sharma, 1978 = Lecane crepida Harring, 1914
Lecane luna f. dorsicalis Sharma, 1978 = Lecane luna (Müller, 1776
Lepadella patella elongata Sharma & Sharma, 1987* = Lepadella patella (O.F. Muller,
1773)
Lepadella patella oblongata Sharma & Sharma, 1999* = L. patella oblonga (Ehrenberg,
1834)
Lepadella ovalis f. larga Sharma, 1978* = Lepadella discoidea Segers, 1993
————————————————
*refer Sharma and Sharma (2015a)
TAXONOMIC IMPEDIMENTS
The progress of biodiversity and biogeography of the Indian Eurotatoria is severely
impaired by considerations highlighted below:
Poor taxonomic resolutions

The Indian literature is flooded with works explicating poor quality in context of
global levels of Rotifera taxonomy. ‘Poor illustrations’ or ‘lack of illustrations’ or
of micro-photographs in majority of works are impediments to enable an objective
opinion on actual status of the recorded taxa. These aspects vis-à-vis new reports
attract criticism on authenticity and render them invariably unverifiable. SEM
studies, morphometric analysis and studies of trophi are largely ignored in spite of
attention drawn on some aspects by Sharma and Michael (1980).
Incomplete species lists

Though routinely noticed in the Indian surveys, such inventories are handicap for
biodiversity and ecosystem diversity while biogeography attempts based on these
are vulnerable to criticism. The frequent overlooking identification of smaller due
to difficulties of sorting and mounting, and adequate expertise is a prime concern
of incomplete species inventories (BKS, personal communication).
Out-dated manuals
The rotifer workers from India frequently rely on works of Edmondson (1959),
Needham and Needham (1962), Michael (1973), Tonapi (1980) and Battish (1992)
which inevitably have current limitations to facilitate correct species delineations.
Insufficient literature updates

The global progress in Rotifera taxonomy have largely escaped attention of workers
from India. Important global manuals for several have evaded attention for various
reasons. This lacuna also holds valid for review works of the Indian origin.
104
Fuzzy species inventories

The fuzzy inventories and uncritical checklists are misleading. The lists of the
rotifers from Wasim district of Maharashtra (Tayade and Dabhade, 2011), Andhra
Pradesh (Karuthapandi et al., 2013), Jammu & Kashmir (Shah et al., 2015), and
on the Indian rotifers (Dhanapathi, 2000) are classical examples of anomalous
compilations that merit cautious use.
Lack of ‘voucher / type-specimens’

Lack of voucher species or access thereof are of concern for the Indian Rotifera
biodiversity assessment otherwise riddled with a concerning magnitude of
unverifiable records. We extend also this concern to non-availability to certain
type-specimens.
Inadequate expertise
With amateurs increasingly creating nomenclatural mess and spurious on-line
journals publishing dubious reports, lack of taxonomic expertise is of prime
importance.
Lack of biogeography considerations

The routine inventories without comments on nature and composition, and
distribution of taxa are merely rendered as ad-hoc ‘laundry lists.
Species lists vis-à-vis political boundaries

Changes in political boundaries and creation of newer states effect the rotifer
inventories of Bihar, Jharkhand, Andhra Pradesh, Telegana and Uttarakhand
etc. Changes in names of West Bengal (=Bengal) and Orissa (=Odisha) should
appropriately be followed. Such changes certainly confuse international readers.
Collaborations apprehensions
‘National Identification Advisory Service for. Rotifera’ offered by the senior author
(BKS) since the last three decades has received limited response. Our attempts to
forge national collaborations or network invoked little success.
SCOPE OF ROTIFERA BIODIVERSITY

Notwithstanding the current assessment, the biodiversity and biogeography of
the Indian Rotifera offers ample perspective for future investigators as indicated
below:
Biodiversity update
The faunal diversity of the taxon vs. regional surveys, following analogy of
Northeast Indian Rotifera and supported with extensive collections from diverse
freshwater biotopes, merit future interest. The lacunae from various states of
India need to be addressed.
Hot-spots and Ramsar site

The Himalayan and Western Ghat hot-spots offer excellent scope for faunal and
biogeography explorations on Rotifera in view yet limited information. With
105
Sharma and Sharma
Deepor Beel and Loktak Lake-two Ramsar sites known as globally rich rotifer
habitats, other (freshwater) Ramsar sites spread over scattered parts of India
provide notable potential.
Conservation areas
The freshwater biotopes of conservation areas are yet poorly explored except for our
preliminary reports from Nokrek Biosphere reserve, Meghalaya; and Kaziranga
National park and Pobitora wildlife sanctuary of Assam. Various conservation
areas of India deserve attention for the rotifer diversity.
Ecosystem diversity
The Indian Eurotatoria diversity offers great scope vis-à-vis floodplain lakes, small
wetlands, lacustrine systems, lotic ecosystems, subterranean grout waters, and
small lentic ecosystems and ephemeral waters which otherwise are under-explored
in spite of interesting biodiversity traits.
Validation of taxa
This is a stupendous task as the Indian literature is loaded with dubious and
anomalous reports without voucher specimens or illustrations to warrant
validation.
Analysis of cryptic diversity

The report of several species-groups, the Indian populations need through analysis
of their cryptic diversity with comprehensive ‘morpho-taxonomy’ based on SEM,
functional morphology, embryology, trunk-limb morphology and head-pore studies
as well as the male morphology. These efforts need to be supplemented with ‘eco-
systematic’ and molecular studies.
Epiphytic, sessile and benthic rotifers

The most of the Indian workers analyze plankton samples while epiphytic, sessile
and benthic rotifers provide ample scope to augment biodiversity of the phylum.
The latter deserved attention using specific sampling techniques.
Bdelloidea rotifers
Often un-explored in majority of works from India, this group of rotifers deserved
attention with specific sampling techniques.
Rotifera-aquatic macrophytes associations

This is much ignored aspect in the studies from India till date particularly from
wetlands and thus provided scope for future investigations to document this
interesting feature of Rotifera assemblages.
National reference collections

A national depository of Rotifera collections is essential for ‘assessment and
authentication’ of faunal diversity than individual domains. Other institutional
depositories, if any, must be designated in public domain to facilitate easy access.
106
Identification manuals / Hand-books

An ‘authentic hand-book’ or illustrative manual’ to facilitate identification of
Rotifera is long felt. The authors have initiated steps to bridge this gap.
Fauna of Indian volume
A fauna volume on Indian Rotifera desired priority attention; the write up has
been initiated by the authors.
Trained human resources
Training programs and ‘All Indian Coordinated project on Capacity Building in
Taxonomy (AICOPTAX)’, the Ministry of Environment, Forests & Climate change
(Government of India) are vital for human resources development to promote
research on Rotifera. The role of national and international specialists is useful to
develop in such programs.
Conclusion
Rotifera have been casually documented in a large fraction of ‘routine’ Indian
works over the last about 120 years rendering such sources as ‘poor quality or ad-
hoc’ reports. The ‘sloppy’ descriptions, unconfirmed reports, fuzzy identifications,
misidentifications and incomplete inventories, and erroneous local lists confound
taxonomic progress. The validation of dubious records, analyses of cryptic
diversity, and the intensive sampling of hitherto un-explored or under-explored
parts and ecosystems of India are challenges with holistic biosystematics efforts
integrating morpho-taxonomy, ecology and molecular systematic etc. With existing
ecological heterogeneity, habitat diversity, biodiversity hot-spots and possibility of
descriptions of new taxa and new records, we hypothesize still high diversity of the
Indian Eurotatoria than known in this assessment. The development of taxonomic
expertise, a national depositary, and national collaborative efforts are future keys
to Rotifera biodiversity of India.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This contribution is dedicated to help and advice received from eminent Rotiferologist
late Dr. Walter Koste, Quakenbruk, Germany and to known specialist Prof. C.
H. Fernando, Waterloo University, Canada for guiding me to acquire research
expertise on Rotifera. We are thankful to the Director, Zoological Survey of India,
Kolkata for inviting us for this contribution. We extend our sincerest gratitude to
Drs. H. Segers, Belgium and C. D. Jersabek, Austria for their help in various ways
during course of our studies on the Indian Rotifera. We sincerely thank collectively
to all those who helped in our field collections during the last four decades. The
authors have no conflict of interests.
REFERENCES
Ahlstrom, E. H. 1940. A revision of the Rotatorian genera Brachionus and Platyias
with descriptions of one new species and two new varieties. Bulletin of the
American Museum of Natural History, 77: 148-184.
Ahlstrom, E.H. 1943. A revision of the Rotatorian genus Keratella with description
of three new species and five new varieties. Bulletin of the American
Museum of Natural History, 80: 411-457.
107
Sharma and Sharma
Arnold, W.R., Diamond, R.L. and Smith, D. S. 2011. Acute and chronic toxicity of
copper to the euryhaline rotifer, Brachionus plicatilis (“L” strain). Archives
Environmental Conservation & Toxicology, 60: 250-260.
Anderson, H.H. 1889. Notes on Indian Rotifera. Journal of the Asiatic Society of
Bengal, 58: 345-358.
Arora, J. and Mehra, N.K. 2003. Species diversity of planktonic and epiphytic
rotifers in the backwaters of the Delhi segment of the Yamuna River, with
remarks on new records from India. Zoological Studies, 42(2): 239-247.
Battish, S.K. 1992. Freshwater Zooplankton of India. Oxford and IBH Publishing
Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, 233 pp.
Brehm, V. 1950. Contribution to the fresh water fauna of India. Records of Indian
Museum, 48(1): 9-28.
Brehm V. 1951. Einer neuer Brachionus aus Indien (Brachionus donneri).
Zoologischer Anzeiger, 146: 54-55.
Das, S.M. and Akhtar, S. 1976. A survey of rotifers of Kashmir with new records of
Palearctic genera and species. Rotifer News, 3: 9-12.
De Ridder, M. 1981. Some considerations on the geographical distribution of
Rotifera. Hydrobiologia, 85: 209-235.
De Smet, W.H. 1996. Rotifera 4. The Proalidae (Monogononta). In Nogrady T. (Ed.)
In: Dumont H.J. (Ed.) Guides to the Identification of the Microinvertebrates
of the Continental Waters of the World 9. SPB Academic, The Hague, the
Netherlands, 102 pp.
De Smet, W.H. 1997. Rotifera 5. The Dicranophoridae (Monogononta). In: Guides
to the identification of the Microinvertebrates of the continental waters of the
world. Vol. 12. SPB Academic Publishing bv, Amsterdam, the Netherlands,
325 pp.
Dhanapathi, M.V.S.S.S. 2000. Taxonomic notes on the rotifers from India (from1889–
2000). Indian Association of Aquatic Biology, Publication No. 10: 1-178.
Donner, J. 1949. Horaella brehmi nov. gen. nov. sp. ein neues Rädertiere aus Indien.
Dumont, H.J. 1983. Biogeography of rotifers. Hydrobiologia, 104: 19-30.
Dumont, H.J. and Segers, H. 1996. Estimating lacustrine zooplankton species
richness and complementarity. Hydrobiologia, 341: 125-132.
Dussart, B.H., Fernando, C.H., Matsumura – Tundisi, J. and Shiel, R.J. 1984.
A review of systematics, distribution and ecology of tropical freshwater
zooplankton. Hydrobiologia, 113: 77-91.
Edmondson, W.T. 1959. Rotifera. In: Freshwater Biology (Eds. H.B. Ward and
Whipple, G.C). John Wiley & Sons. Inc. New York: 420-497.
Edmondson, W.T. and Hutchinson, G.E. 1934. Report on Rotatoria. Article IX.
Yale North India expedition. Memories of the Connecticut Academy of Arts
and Sciences, 10: 153-186.
108
Fernando, C.H. 1980. The freshwater zooplankton of Sri Lanka, with a discussion
of tropical freshwater zooplankton composition. Internationale Revue
Hydrobiologie, 65: 411-426.
Fontaneto, D., Márcia Barbosa, A., Segers, H. and Pautasso, M. 2012. The
‘rotiferologist’ effect and the other global correlates of species richness in
rotifers. Ecography, 35: 174-182.
Green, J. 1972. Latitudinal variation in associations of planktonic Rotifera. Journal
of the Zoological Society of London, 167: 31-39.
Hauer, J. 1936. Neue Rotarien aus Indien I. Zoologischer Anzeiger, 116: 77-80.
Hauer, J. 1937a. Neue Rotatorien aus Indien. III. Zoologischer Anzeiger, 119: 284-
288.
Hauer, J. 1937b. Neue Rotatorien aus Indien. III. Zoologischer Anzeiger, 120: 17-19.
Jersabek, C.D. and Leitner, M.F. 2013.The Rotifer World Catalog. World Wide
Web electronic publication. http,//www.rotifera.hausdernatur.at/accessed
{03.12.2016}.
José de Paggi, S. 2001. Diversity of Rotifera (Monogononta) in wetlands of Rio
Pilcomayo national park, Ramsar site (Formosa, Argentina). Hydrobiologia,
462: 25-34
Karuthapandi, M., Rao, D. V., Innocent, X. and Deepa, J. 2013. Freshwater rotifers
of Andhra Pradesh-Checklist. International Journal for Life Sciences and
Educational Research, 1(1): 1-13.
Khan, M.A. 1987. Observations on Zooplankton composition, abundance and
periodicity in two flood–plain lakes of the Kashmir Himalayan valley. Acta
Hydrochemica et Hydrobiologica, 15: 167-174.
Khan, R.A. 2003. Faunal diversity of zooplankton in freshwater wetlands of
Southeastern West Bengal. Records of the Zoological Survey of India,
Occasional Paper No. 204: 1-107.
Koste, W. 1978. Rotatoria. Die Rädertiere Mitteleuropas. Gebrüder Borntraeger,
Berlin, Stuttgart, 2 vols., 673 pp., 234 plates.
Koste, W. and Shiel, R.J. 1987. Rotifera from Australian inland waters. II.
Epiphanidae and Brachionidae (Rotifera, Monogononta). Invertebrate
Taxonomy, 7: 949-1021.
Koste, W. and Shiel, R.J. 1989. Rotifera from Australian inland waters. IV.
Colurellidae (Rotifera, Monogononta). Transactions of the Royal Society of
South Australia, 113: 119-143.
Koste, W. and Shiel, R.J. 1990. Rotifera from Australian inland waters. V.
Lecanidae (Rotifera, Monogononta). Transactions of the Royal Society of
South Australia, 114: 1-36.
Lubzens, E. 1987. Raising rotifers for use in aquaculture. Hydrobiologia, 147:
245-255.
Michael, R.G. 1973. A Guide to the study of freshwater organisms. 2. Rotatoria.
Journal of Madurai University, Supplement, 1: 23-36.
109
Sharma and Sharma
Murray, J. 1906. Some Rotifera of the Sikkim Himalaya. Journal of Royal

Microscopical Society, London. 2(9): 637-644.
Needham J.G. and Needham P.R. 1962. A guide of the study of freshwater
biology, Holden Day Inc. San Francisco, 180 pp.
Nogrady T. and Segers H. 2002. Rotifera 6. The Asplanchnidae, Gastropodidae,
Lindiidae, Microcodinidae, Synchaetidae, Trochosphaeridae. In: Dumont
H.J. (Ed.) Guides to the Identification of the Microinvertebrates of the
Continental Waters of the World 18. Backhuys Publishers BV, Dordrecht,
The Netherlands, 264 pp.
Ogata, Y. and Kurokura, H. 2011. Use of the freshwater rotifer Brachionus
angularis as the first food for larvae of the Siamese fighting fish Betta
splendens. Fisheries Science, 78: 109-112.
Pejler, B. 1977. On the global distribution of the family Brachionidae (Rotatoria).
Archiv für Hydrobiologie, Supplement, 53: 255-306.
Sa–Ardrit, P., Pholpunthin, P. and Segers, H. 2013. A checklist of the freshwater
rotifer fauna of Thailand (Rotifera, Monogononta, Bdelloidea). Journal of
Limnology, 72(2): 361-375.
Segers, H. 1995. Rotifera 2, Lecanidae. In: Dumont, H.J. and Nogrady, T. (Eds.)
Guides to identification of the Microinvertebrates of the Continental waters of
the world. Vol. 6. SPB Academic Publishing bv. Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
226 pp.
Segers, H. 1996. The biogeography of littoral Lecane Rotifera. Hydrobiologia, 323:
169-197.
Segers, H. 2001. Zoogeography of the Southeast Asian Rotifera. Hydrobiologia,
446/447: 233-246.
Segers, H. 2002. The nomenclature of the Rotifera, annotated checklist of valid
family– and genus–group names. Journal of Natural History, 36: 621-640.
Segers, H. 2007. Annotated checklist of the rotifers (Phylum Rotifera), with notes
on nomenclature, taxonomy and distribution. Zootaxa, 1564: 1-104.
Segers, H. 2008. Global diversity of rotifers (Rotifera) in freshwater. Hydrobiologia,
595: 49-59.
Segers, H., Ferrufino, N.L. and De Meester, L. 1998. Diversity and Zoogeography
of Rotifera (Monogononta) in a flood plain lake of the Ichilo River, Bolivia,
with notes on little known species. Internationale Revue Hydrobiologie, 83:
439-448.
Segers, H, Nwadiaro, C.S. and Dumont, H.J. 1993. Rotifera of some lakes in the
floodplain of the river Niger (Imo State, Nigeria). II. Faunal composition and
diversity. Hydrobiologia, 250: 63-71.
Shah, J.A., Pandit, A.K. and Shah, G.M. 2015. A research on rotifers of aquatic
ecosystems of Kashmir Himalayas for documentation and authentication.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Section B, Biological
Sciences, 85(1): 13-19.
110
Sharma, B.K. 1978. Contributions to the rotifer fauna of West Bengal. II. Genus
Lepadella Bory de St.Vincent, 1826. Hydrobiologia, 58(1): 83‑88.
Sharma, B.K. 1983. The Indian species of the genus Brachionus (Eurotatoria:
Monogononta: Brachionidae). Hydrobiologia, 104: 31‑39.
Sharma, B.K. 1987. Indian Brachionidae (Eurotatoria: Monogononta) and their
distribution. Hydrobiologia, 144: 269‑275.
Sharma, B.K. 1991. Rotifera. In: Animal Resources of India: Protozoa to Mammalia:
State of the Art: 69‑88. Zoological Survey of India, Calcutta.
Sharma, B.K. 1996. Biodiversity of Freshwater Rotifera in India ‑ a status report.
Proceedings of the Zoological Society, Calcutta, 49(2): 73‑85.
Sharma, B.K. 1998a. Faunal Diversity in India: Rotifera. In: J.R.B. Alfred, A.K.
Das and A.K. Sanyal (Eds.), Faunal Diversity of India: 57-70. ENVIS Centre,
Sharma, B.K. 1998b. Freshwater Rotifers (Rotifera: Eurotatoria). In: Fauna of
West Bengal. State Fauna Series, 3(11): 341-461. Zoological Survey of India,
Calcutta.
Sharma, B.K. 2005. Rotifer communities of floodplain lakes of the Brahmaputra
basin of lower Assam (N.E. India): biodiversity, distribution and ecology.
Sharma, B.K. 2014. Rotifers (Rotifera: Eurotatoria) from wetlands of Majuli - the
largest river island, the Brahmaputra river basin of upper Assam, northeast
India. Check List, 10(2): 292-298.
Sharma, B.K. 2017. First report of freshwater Rotifers (Rotifera: Eurotatoria) from
south Andaman, India: composition and interesting elements. Journal of
Asia-Pacific Biodiversity, DOI: 10.1016/j.japb.2017.01.003.
Sharma, B.K., Sharma, S. and Hatimuria, M.K. 2015. Rotifer assemblages
(Rotifera: Eurotatoria) of the floodplain lakes of Majuli River Island, the
Brahmaputra river basin, northeast India. International Journal of Aquatic
Biology, 3(1): 1-13.
Sharma, B.K., Haokip, H.T. and Sharma, S. 2016. Loktak lake, Manipur, northeast
India: a Ramsar with rich rotifer (Rotifera: Eurotatoria) diversity and its
meta-analysis. International Journal of Aquatic Biology, 4(2): 69-79.
Sharma, B.K., Khan, S.I. and Sharma, S. 2017. Biodiverse rotifer assemblage
(Rotifera: Eurotatoria) of floodplain lakes of the Brahmaputra basin of
lower Assam, northeast India: composition and ecosystem diversity. Chinese
Journal of Oceanology and Limnology, DOI: 10.1007/s00343-017-6251-x.
Sharma, B.K. and Michael, R.G. 1980. Synopsis of taxonomic studies on Indian
Rotatoria. Hydrobiologia, 73: 229‑236.
Sharma, B.K., Pou, K.R S. and Sharma, S. 2016. Rich rotifer assemblage (Rotifera:
Eurotatoria) of a sub-tropical wetland of Meghalaya, northeast India:
ecosystem diversity and interesting features. International Journal of Aquatic
Biology, 4(3): 179-188.
111
Sharma and Sharma
Sharma, B.K. and Sharma, S. 1999. Freshwater Rotifers (Rotifera: Eurotatoria). In:
Fauna of Meghalaya. State Fauna Series, 4(9): 11-161. Zoological Survey of
India, Calcutta.
Sharma, B.K. and Sumita, S. 2000. Freshwater Rotifers (Rotifera: Eurotatoria).
In: Fauna of Tripura: State Fauna Series, 7(4): 163-224. Zoological Survey
of India, Calcutta.
Sharma, B.K. and Sumita, S. 2009. Biodiversity and distribution of freshwater
rotifers (Rotifera, Eurotatoria) of Tamil Nadu. Records of the Zoological
Survey of India, 109(3): 41-60.
Sharma, B.K. and Sumita, S. 2012. Deepor Beel–a Ramsar site of India, an
interesting hot–spot with its rich Rotifera biodiversity. Acta Zoologica
Hungarica, 58(2): 105-120.
Sharma, B.K. and Sharma, S. 2014a. Northeast India - An important region with a
rich biodiversity of Rotifera. In: B.K. Sharma, Dumont, H. J. and Wallace, R.
L (Eds.) Rotifera XIII: Rotifer Biology -a Structural and Functional Approach.
International Review of Hydrobiology, 99(1-2): 20-37.
Sharma, B.K. and Sharma, S. 2014b. Indian Lecanidae (Rotifera: Eurotatoria:
Monogononta) and its distribution. In: B.K. Sharma, Dumont, H.J. and
Wallace, R.L (Eds.) Rotifera XIII: Rotifer Biology - a Structural and
Functional Approach. International Review of Hydrobiology, 99(1-2): 38-47.
Sharma, B.K. and Sharma, S. 2014c. The diversity of Indian Brachionidae (Rotifera:
Eurotatoria: Monogononta) and their distribution. Opuscula Zoologica
Budapest, 45(2): 165-180.
Sharma, B.K. and Sharma, S. 2014d. Floodplains of the Brahmaputra river basin-
globally interesting ecotones with rich Rotifer (Rotifera: Eurotatoria)
biodiversity. In: Sinha, R.K. and Ahmed, B. (Eds.), Rivers for Life - Proceedings
of the International Symposium on River Biodiversity: Ganges–Brahmaputra
- Meghna River System, Ecosystems for Life, A Bangladesh - India Initiative.
International Union for Conservation of Nature, 258-270.
Sharma, B.K. and Sharma, S. 2015a. The diversity and distribution of Lepadellidae
(Rotifera: Eurotatoria: Monogononta) of India. International Review of
Hydrobiology, 100(1): 34-42.
Sharma, B.K. and Sharma, S. 2015b. Biodiversity of freshwater rotifers (Rotifera:
Eurotatoria) of Mizoram, Northeast India: composition, new records and
interesting features. International Journal of Aquatic Biology, 3(5): 301-
313.
Sharma, B.K. and Sharma, S. 2015c. New records of rotifers (Rotifera: Eurotatoria)
from Deepor beel- a Ramsar site of India with an update on its Rotifera
diversity. Journal of Threatened Taxa, 7(3): 7011-7016.
Sharma, S. and Sharma, B.K. 2008. Zooplankton diversity in floodplain lakes of
Assam. Records of the Zoological Survey of India, Occasional Paper No. 290:
1-307+28 plates. Zoological Survey of India, Calcutta.
112
Sharma, S. and Sharma, B.K. 2013. Faunal diversity of aquatic invertebrates of

Deepor Beel (a Ramsar site), Assam, northeast India. Wetland Ecosystem
Series, 17: 1-227+15 plates. Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata.
Sharma, P.C. and Pant, M.C. 1985: Structure of a littoral zooplankton community
of two Kumaun lakes (U.P.), India. Archiv für Hydrobiologie, 102: 387-
403.
Shiel, R.J. and Koste, W. 1992. Rotifera from Australian inland waters VIII.
Trichocercidae (Monogononta). Transactions of the Royal Society of South
Australia, 116: 1-27.
Sladecek, V. 1983. Rotifera as indicators of water quality. Hydrobiologia, 1983, 100:
169-201.
Tayade, S.N. and Dabhade, D.S. 2011. Checklist of rotifers in Wasim district of
Maharashtra, India. International Journal of Innovations in Bio–Sciences,
1: 27-21.
Tonapi, G.T. 1980. Freshwater animals of India-an ecological approach. Oxford &
IBH Publishing Co.
113
Chapter 8
Gastrotricha
Jasmine Purushothaman1
Abstract
Gastrotricha constitutes one of the most interesting groups of meiobenthic
freshwater and marine invertebrates comprising about 823 species in the world.
The present status of gastrotrichs studies in India is very less when compared to
the world studies and the information about its diversity and density is scanty.
About 24 species of fresh water gastrotrichs were recorded from India so far. They
are mostly dominated by the genus Chaetonotus with the record of about 20 species.
Keywords: Gastrotricha, Freshwater, invertebrate
Introduction
Gastrotricha is a cosmopolitan phylum of aquatic and wet terrestrial invertebrates
comprising about 823 described species (Kolicka, 2017). It constitutes one of the
most interesting groups of meiobenthic freshwater and marine invertebrates.
Gastrotrichs are microscopic, monophyletic, acoelomate unsegmented metazoan
worms ranging from 50 μm to 3500 μm (Kisielewski, 1997, Hochberg and Litvaitis,
2000; Todaro et al., 2006b). There are very small species, especially among
Paucitubulatina of about 70 µm length. The longest gastrotrichs belong to the
genus Megadasys and reach up to 3.5mm in length (Schmidt 1974). Gastrotrichs
swim or crawl by means of their ciliated epidermis. They inhabit aquatic and wet
terrestrial ecosystems from tropical to Polar Regions (Scourfield, 1897, Hochberg,
2005; Balsamo et al., 2008; 2009, Kieneke, 2010). Moreover there are reports of
coexistence of gastrotrichs with insects and crustaceans in astatic water bodies
and sediments in dark sea caves (Kisielewski, 1990, Todaro et al., 2006a). In
freshwater they are epiphytic or epibenthic and to some extent interstitial and
semi-planktonic.
The body of gastrotrich is elongated, strap- shaped or fusiform or tenpin-
shaped, small sized body (60-770µm) composed of three regions, a rounded head,
an ovate trunk and a caudal furca formed by two adhesive tubes. The body is
dorsally covered with a variety of cuticular structure as bristles, scales, spines
etc., to withstand effects of abrasion in the habitat. The cuticle is thin, flexible and
transparent. The head bears clusters of sensory cilia, several protective cuticular
plates and the subepical mouth having a protrusible hook like structure. The
ventral surface of the body is flattened and covered with patches of locomotory
cilia for smooth gliding over solid substratum. A strong muscular pharynx, with a
1Protozoology Section, Zoological Survey of India, Newalipore, Kolkata, India
115
Jasmine
triradaiate lumen extends for about a third of the body length and is surrounded
by a large bilobed brain. Adhesive tubes supplied with cement glands are used for
adhesion to sand grains or vegetation. They are mostly hermaphrodites.In fresh
water, gastrotrichs are either benthic or live among vegetations, and some species
are swimming in the free water. A straight gut opens in to a sub terminal anus in
the ventral side. At the sides of the anterior intestine two protonephridia is present
and it emptying into two ventral pores. Two ovaries located in the posterior portion
of the trunk (Remane 1936; Ruppert 1991). Functional testis are present in the
marine forms such as Neodasyidae, Xenotrichulidae, Musellifer, but it is absent in
freshwater species. Freshwater species all reproduce by apomictic parthenogenesis
(Hummon 1984; Balsamo et al., 1992).
Historical resume
The studies on Gastrotrichs were started from 18th Century by Remane (1936)
and Mecnikow (1865) introduced the name Gastrotricha. Initially, gastrotrichs
were only reported from freshwater, until Schultze (1853) found the first marine
species, Turbanella hyaline from the sandy samples of Island Neuwerk of North
Sea. The first broad account of gastrotrich morphology was made by Zelinka
(1889). Since then a large number of genera and species were described mainly
from the European and North American coasts. The pioneering contribution of this
group had given by Prof. Adolf Remane of the Kiel University, from North, Baltic
and Mediterranean seas. The knowledge on gastrotrich diversity and distribution
is still to be considered as fragmentary. Intensive studies have been done from
Europe and South America than Africa, South East Asia and Australia (Balsamo
et al., 2008).
The first chaetonotids was described by Grunspan (1908) from Italy.
Information on gastrotrich studies consists largely of notes on habitats and
associated fauna. The reports of intertidal marine Gastrotricha during this period
from the Central and South America were Remane (1953) described Turbanella
paliciosi from El Salvador, along the Pacific coast of Central America; du Bois-
ReymondMarcus (1952) reported the presence of the genus Thaumastoderma
from Brazil, on the southern Atlantic coast of South America; and Dioni (1960)
described Turbanella corderoi from Uruguay, also on the southern Atlantic coast of
South America. Apart from field observations on the occurrence of various species
of Gastrotrichs under measured conditions of temperature, salinity or oxygen, the
only data reported were those of Hummon (1974) on lethal limits of several marine
and brackish-water forms.
Studies on freshwater gastrotrichs from Brazil were done by Kisielewski
(1990). 54 fresh water Gastrotricha species were reported from water logged
areas of Bialoweiza forest, Poland (Kisielewski & Kisielewski 1986). In Europe,
freshwater Gastrotricha studies have been carried out in Italy, France, Germany,
Poland and Great Britain, whereas the information from other countries is still
very poor (Balsamo et al., 2008). In Denmark, only 2 freshwater species, viz.,
(Chaetonotus larus (Müller, 1773) and Ichthydium podura (Müller, 1773) have
been reported An additional species, Heterolepidoderma caudosquamatum Grilli,
Kristensen & Balsamo, 2009 was recently described from a brackish-water pond in
116
Gastrotricha
the Copenhagen’s docklands area (Grilli et al., 2009). Grilli et al., (2010) recorded
a total of 26 species of Gastrotricha belonging to the genera Aspidiophorus,
Chaetonotus, Haltidytes, Hetero lepidoderma, Ichthydium and Polymerurus
from Denmark freshwater bodies. Kawamura (1918) reported the first species,
Polymerurus nodicaudus (Voigt, 1901) in Shinshu (Nagano Prefecture), Japan.
Later, Saito (1973) reported 26 species in the ponds of Hiroshima Prefecture.
Sudzuki (1971) reported 11 species in lakes around Mount Fuji (Yamanashi
Prefecture) and Shigakogen (Nagano Prefecture). To date, about 46 gastrotrich
species have been reported from the lakes, ponds, swamps and rice paddies of
Japan (Suzuki & Furuyam 2013). Currently 224 freshwater species of Gastrotricha
known so far from Europe (223 Chaetonotida + 1 Macrodasyida).
Gastrotricha is generally less studied phylum in India and information about its
diversity and density is scanty. Annandale (1907) reported that among filamentous
algae from ponds having the representative of Gastrotrichs which agrees very
closely with the figure and description given by Zelinka (1889) on Chaetonotus
schulzei. This is the first reference on Gastrotichs in Indian literature. Limited
work has been carried out on freshwater gastrotrichs of the Indian subcontinent,
Vanamala Naidu (1962), Dhanapathi (1976), Rao and Chandramohan (1977) and
Sharma & Sharma (1987) reported on the occurrence of several known species of
chaetonotid gastrotrichs from different freshwater habitats of India. Vanamala
Naidu (1962) reported 3 species of gastrotrichs from the fresh water habitats
of India. Visvesvara (1963) described two new species from Nagpur in Central
India.Taxonomic account of seven species of gastrotrichs from West Bengal
and adjacent areas were reported by Sharma (1980). Sharma & Sharma (1990)
reported the occurrence of five species of freshwater Gastrotrichs from Meghalaya
State, North-Eastern India. There are many areas within the Indian region which
remain unexplored or under explored in marine, brackish and freshwater habitats,
offering plentiful possibility to carry out taxonomic and ecological investigations
on the gastrotrich fauna. Harkal & Mokashe (2013) reported the occurrence of
Polymerurus nodicaudus and Chaetonotus elegans species of Gastrotricha in
periphytic habitat of Kagzipura Lake, District Aurangabad, Maharashtra.
Methodology
Gastrotrichs may be collected by taking samples of sediments or vegetation.
Water samples may be filtered with a 20µM net to avoid the contamination of
other free living micro invertebrates. The filtered water will be collected in a
sampling jar and preserved in 4% formalin. For quantitative work on sediment
dwelling species, small diameter (2–5 cm) cores are preferable. For plant-dwelling
forms, quantitative samples probably could be obtained by modifying sampling
methods developed for macroinvertebrates to use very fine mesh and small sample
volumes or subsampling. A modified Baermann funnel is useful for extracting
chaetonotidians from pond sediments, but not successful in the case of dasydytids.
living animals are preferable to preserved animals for many purposes, it often
is desirable to extract the animals from the sample prior to preservation. Living
gastrotrichs often are too active for critical observations to be made, so they must
be slowed down by gently squeezing the animal. They can be slowed down by
117
Jasmine
placing it in a viscous medium such as methylcellulose, or by narcotizing it with

cocaine. If the sample must be preserved immediately, narcotize the animals with
1% MgCl2 for 10 min, and then fix them in 10% formalin with Rose Bengal. d’Hondt
recommended using MS 222 (tricaine methanesulfonate), under the cover slip for
narcotizing gastrotrichs. Gastrotrichs can also be cultured by using 0.1% malted
milk, raw egg yolk, wheat grain infusion, and bakers yeast. It is difficult to extract
or count the gastrotrichs from a sample. Gastrotrichs are handpicked and counted
under a dissecting microscope. Samples will be mounted in glycerol and observed
under compound microscope at high resolution for taxonomic identification.
Diversity
Gastrotrichs are one of the interesting groups of meiobenthic invertebrates with
considerable abundance in both freshwater and marine habitats. However, the
Gastrotricha still remains one of the most neglected groups of the animal kingdom.
Our present knowledge of this group mainly based on the studies conducted in the
areas of Europe, British Isles, and Northern continental Europe, Southern Europe
and Indian coasts.Many areas are still remaining unexplored for this group.
The numbers of gastrotrich species at the global level are estimated about 823
extant species, based on the updated classification (Balsamo et al., 2015, Kolicka,
2017). However, many regions of the world remaining largely unexplored or under
explored.
Within the Indian region, about 100 species were identified from 6 families
of Macrodasyida and 3 families of Chaetonotida.The families of Chaetonotida
represented viz., Chaetonotidae, Xenotrichulidae and Dasydytidae. Any further
intensive explorations of marine and freshwater habitats are, however, likely to
reveal the existence of more genera from this region. Little is known about the
freshwater gastrotrichs of India, and so far only 23 species were reported (Sharma,
1980). The other studies of freshwater gastrotrichs are found in the scattered
collections from Andhra Pradesh (Vanamala Naidu, 1962, Dhanapathi, 1976,
Rao&Chandramohan, 1977), Nagpur in Central India (Visveswara, 1963, 1964).
The taxonomic composition and abundance of the gastrotrich genera and
species occurring in this region are more or less in agreement with those known
from other parts of the world.
Classification
The phylum is composed of two orders: Macrodasyida and Chaetonotida, with,
17 families, 65 genera and one genus incertae sedis. The order Macrodasyida
represents with 358 species (+1 species incertaesedis) belonging to 10 families, and
35 genera. The order Chaetonotida includes 462 species belonging to 8 families
and 31 genera (Balsamo et al., 2015; Kolicka, 2017). In gastrotrichs, 486 species
are marine and 338 species are from freshwater. Only about 70 freshwater species
have been found in psammic habitats, and less than 35 species are known from
sediments of running waters. All species described from the families Dasydytidae
and Neogosseidae, with about 50 species, are semipelagic or fully planktonic: the
colonization of water column corresponds to specific, characteristic morphological
adaptations (Kisielewski 1990, Balsamo et al., 2008, Todaro et al., 2013, Kånneby
and Todaro 2015).
118
Gastrotricha
The order Macrodasyida includes all marine but two fresh water species
(Balsamo et al., 2015; Kolicka, 2017). One freshwater species belongs to the family
Redudasyidae that, however, also comprises a marine species. Another freshwater
species has been assigned to the order as incertae sedis (Marinellina flagellata).
The order Chaetonotida encompasses 130 marine, 338 freshwater species.
Three families (6 genera) are exclusively marine (Neodasyidae, Muselliferidae,
Xenotrichulidae), 4 (12 genera) are exclusively freshwater (Dasydytidae,
Neogosseidae, Proichthydiidae, Dichaeturidae), and the largest family,
Chaetonotidae, numbers marine and freshwater species (2 genera exclusively
marine, 8 freshwater and 5 including marine, brackish-water and freshwater).
Macrodasyida presently represented by 35 genera belonging to 10 families
namely, Dactylopodolidae, Lepidodasyidae, Macrodasyidae, Planodasyidae,
Turbanellidae, Thaumastodermatidae, Cephalodasyidae, Redudasyidae,
Xenodasyidae, Hummondasyidae.
The Chaetonotida are known to comprise 31genera belonging to 8
families, namely Chaetonotidae, Neodasyidae, Xenotriculidae, Dichaeturidae,
Proichthydidae, Neogosseidae, Dasydytidae, Muselliferidae.
DISTRIBUTION
The gastrotrichs inhabit in all natural aquatic ecosystems of freshwater and
marine habitat. Habitats with unpolluted conditions, favoured the colonization
and evolution of a variety of species and sub species of gastrotrichs. Hitherto,
only limited areas of the region were explored for this group. They are also
known to inhabit from tropical to Polar Regions (Scourfield 1897; Hochberg 2005;
Balsamo et al., 2008; 2010; Todaro et al. 2009; 2011; Kieneke 2010). Gastrotrichs
are considered cosmopolitan and have been reported, in the literature, from all
continents except Antarctica (d’Hondt, 1971; Balsamo et al., 2008). There are
reports of their distribution in astatic water bodies, sediments in the dark caves
of the Sea (Todaro et al., 2006a). Based on the updated classification, 823 species
of Gastrotricha were known to the world. Of these, more than 50% are known
to report in the area of Europe, British Isles, and Northern continental Europe
and southern Europe. Total 24 sp. of gastrotrichs has been reported from various
freshwater environments in India.
The freshwater gastrotrichs are mostly dominated by the genus Chaetonotus
with the record of about 20 widely distributed species. Visvesvara (1963) described
two new species from Nagpur and Central India. Faunistic surveys conducted in
recent years at several areas however, indicated a remarkable decrease of this
fauna both in their density and diversity. This is largely due to the increasing
pollution of the habitats and degradation of the natural environment.
Endemism
Endemism of gastrotrichs are generally known about very fewer and it is difficult to
mention due to the scarcity of studies and scattered reports from all over the world.
Some percentage of endemism is generally known for the terrestrial gastrotrichs
in insular ecosystems due to their isolation for long periods. Out of the 21 known
genera, only 1genus Planodasys has been reported as endemic to the Indian region
119
Jasmine
.The endemicity in general is far greater in the highly thigmotactic Macrodasyida

than in Chaetonotida, which are endowed with greater power of environmental
tolerance, locomotion and dispersal. As a result, many species of the Chaetonotida
have been reported as cosmopolitan in their distribution.
Biology
Gastrotrichs are a common component of the interstitial fauna of marine sands as
well as of the freshwater periphyton and epibenthos. It includes about 823 species
grouped into two orders: Macrodasyida, with 358 species, all of them are marine
except two fresh water and Chaetonotida, with 462 species, of which only 150
are marine or brackish. Freshwater representatives mainly belong, to the order
Chaetonotida (Balsamo & Todaro, 2002). Characteristic for this order is the tenpin-
shaped body usually with a bifurcated posterior end bearing adhesive tubes. To
date Chaetonotida include 29–30 genera of which Chaetonotus Ehrenberg, 1830
with more than 200 nominal species is the most numerous (Balsamo et al., 2009).
In fresh water gastrotrichs, their habitats are subject to unpredictable
variation, including drying. So, resistant egg types are seen in several species of the
freshwater Chaetonotidae. In Chaetonotus maximus and C. Multinensis (Balsamo
and Todaro, 1988a; Todaro and Balsamo, 1988), Heterolepidoderma sp. (Levy,
1984a, b), and Lepidodermella squammata (Hummon, 1984a), formation of the
resting (opsiblastic) egg occurs prior to the formation of sperm, during the phase
of parthenogenic egg production. Such resting eggs hatch into animals with the
usual life history of parthenogenic egg production followed by hermaphroditism
(Levy and Weiss, 1980; Levy, 1984a, b). An additional resting egg-type has also
been found in the species of L. squammata and may represent the sexual egg (Levy
and Weiss, 1980; Levy, 1984a); animals from such eggs have the usual life history
(Levy, 1984a). Thus one egg of any type or one adult in parthenogenic reproductive
phase can colonize.
Habitat
The fresh water gastrotrichs are epiphytic or epibenthic and to some extent they
behave as interstitial or semi-planktonic. Gastrotrichs are also found occasionally
on bryophytes. The Dichaeturidaeis a rare family that has been found in cisterns,
in underground water, and among mosses (Remane 1936; Ruttner-Kolisko 1955).
In a peat land complex in northern Italy, Balsamo et al., (1992) identified 21 species
of gastrotrichs.
Threats
D. elongatus is an indicator species of fringes of severe organic pollution but even
this species is absent from areas of its greatest severity (Hummon et al., 1990).
Reports also showed that the complete absence of gastrotrichs from the littoral
sites of polluted environments is in hospitable habitats for this meiobenthic
phylum.Till now no conservation measure as such has been undertaken to protect
this meiobenthic phylum from lethal effects of potential pollution in the aquatic
ecosystems. Due to the increasing pollution by anthropogenic activities most
of the meiobenthicfauna will be vanished. Although the whole phylum is being
threatened with increasing effects of habitat destruction and organic pollution
in the environment, no qualitative or quantitative data are available on the
120
Gastrotricha
percentage of decline of any species or varieties of populations of gastrotrichs from

India. Due to these reasons, it is not possible to categorize any particular species
of this group as threatened or endangered. There is also no published record of any
introduced biodiversity for this phylum.
Conservation and Gaps in Research
Gastrotrichs are highly modified in morphology and living in the habitats of
interstitial, marine and freshwater environments. Their morphological diversity
has contributed largely to expand the knowledge on systematic zoology. Gastrotrichs
are also used in a variety of experimental and interesting ecological investigations
related to aquatic biology. As they are quite sensitive to ecological stress, they are
being widely employed as indicators of pollution biology. Some of the species like
D. elongatus can be considered as an indicator species of fringes of severe organic
pollution but even this species is absent from areas of its greatest severity (Hummon
et al., 1990). Thus, the gastrotrichs both in marine and freshwater habitats offer
ample scope for carrying out various types of investigations on taxonomy, biology,
ecology, and distribution.The gastrotrichs constituting part of meiobenthos in
aquatic ecosystems play an important role in their trophic cycle by forming food
for larger animals and by contributing remarkably to the regeneration of nutrients
after their death and disintegration. Hence, their mass decline in biomass will
result not only in the loss of biological diversity, but also upsets the ecological
balance of marine and freshwater eco systems. In these circumstances, this tiny
organism has to be protected from pollution and habitat destruction. The present
status of gastrotrichs studies in India is very less when compared to the world
studies. So we have to give more importance to this less studied phylum.
Table 1. The number of family, genus and species of Phylum Gastrotrich
present in the fresh water ecosystems of India
Phylum GASTROTRICHA Indian Species
Order Macrodasyida Fresh water

Family Cephalodasyidae - -
Dactylopodolidae - -
Lepidodasyidae - -
Macrodasyidae - -
Planodasyidae - -
Redudasyidae - -
Thaumastodermatidae - -
Turbanellidae - -
Xenodasyidae - -
Order Chaetonotida -
Family Neodasyidae -
Chaetonotidae 22 -
Chaetonotus anomalus Brunson 1950
Chaelonotus brevispinosus Zelinka 1889
121
Jasmine
Phylum GASTROTRICHA Indian Species
Chaetonotus caudalspinosus Visveswara 1964

Chaetonotusformosus Stokes 1887
Chaetonotus laterospinosus Visveswara 1964
Chaetonotus longipinosus Stokes 1887
Chaetonotus monobarbatus Visveswara 1964
Chaetonotus novenarius Greuter 1917
Chaetonotus octonarius Slokes 1887
Chaetonolus schulzei Zelinka 1889
- Chaetonotus sextospinosus Visveswara 1964
Chaetonotus similis Stokes 1887
Chaetonotus spinulosus Slokes 1887
Chaetonotus tachyneusticus Brunson 1948
Chaetonotus trianguliformis Visveswara 1964
Chaetonotus vulgaris Brunson 1950
Icthydium auritum Brunson 1950
Iclhydium minimum Brunson 1950
Icthydium monolobum Brunson 1950
Lepidodermella squarnutum (Dujardin 1841)
Polymerurus magnus Visveswara 1963
Polymerurus nodicaudus Voigt 1901
Dasydytidae 1 Stylochaela abarbila Visveswara 1963
Dichaeturidae -
Muselliferidae
Neogosseidae 1 Neogossea antennigera (Goose 1857)
Proichthydiidae -
Xenotrichulidae -
-
Total 24
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTs
of India, for his encouragement during this study and facilities provided for the
completion of this work. Authors are thankful to the staffs of Protozoology section,
ZSI for their help during this work.
REFERENCES
Annandale, N. 1907. The fauna of Brackish ponds at Port Canning, Lower Bengal,
I. Rec. Ind. Mus., 1: 35-43.
Balsamo, M., Todaro, M.A., and Tongiorgi,P. 1992. Marine gastrotrichs from the
Tuscan Archipelago (Tyrrhenian Sea): II. Chaetonotida, with description of
three new species. Boll. Zool. 59: 487-498.
122
Gastrotricha
Balsamo, M., d’Hondt, J.L., Kisielewski, J. &Pierboni, L. 2008.Global diversity of

gastrotrichs (Gastrotricha) in fresh waters.Hydrobiologia, 595: 85-91.
Balsamo, M., d’Hondt, J.L., Pierboni, L., Grilli, P. 2009 Taxonomic and
nomenclatural notes on freshwater Gastrotricha. Zootaxa, 2158: 1-19.
Balsamo, M., d’Hondt, J.L., Kisielewski, J., Todaro, M.A., Tongiorgi, P., Gudi,
L., Grilli, P. and Y. de Jong. 2015. Fauna Europea: Gastrotricha. Biodiversity
Data Journal, 3: 5800.
Dioni, W. 1960.Notas Hydrobiologicas. I. Turbanella corderoin. sp. (Gastrotricha
Macrodasyoidea) gastrotrichaaberrante de aguassalobras de Rio de la Plata.
AnaisPrimeiro Congo Sul-Amer. Zoo. (La Plata): 12-24.
du Bois-Raymond Marcus E. 1952 On South American Malacopoda. Boletins da
Faculdade de Filosofia, Ciências e Letras, Universidade de São Paulo. Sér
Zool, 17: 189-209.
Dhanapathi, M.V.S.S.S. 1976. Taxonomi c notes on some Gastrotrichs from coastal
Andhra Pradesh. Mem. Soc. Zool. Guntur, 1: 76-78.
Grilli, P., R.M. Kristensen & M. Balsamo. 2009. Heterolepidoderma
caudosquamatum (Gastrotricha Chaetonotida), a new species from brackish
waters of Denmark. Zootaxa, 2173: 49-54.
Grilli P., Kristensen R.M. & Balsamo M. 2010. Contribution to the knowledge of
freshwater Gastrotricha from Denmark. Steenstrupia, 32(1): 79-92.
Grunspan T., 1908-Beitr Zgezur Systernatik der Gastrotrichen. Zool. Jahrb.
(Syst.), 26: 211-256.
Harkal Ananta D. and Mokashe Satish S. 2013. Record of Two Species of
Gastrotricha from Littoral Epiphytic Habitat of Kagzipura Lake,
Aurangabad, Maharashtra, India. 1(1): 27-29.
Hochberg, R. 2005 First record of Polymerurus (Gastrotricha, Chaetonotida) from
Australia with the description of a new species from Queensland and of
cuticular ultrastructure in P. nodicaudus. Invertebrate Biology, 124: 119-
130.
Hochberg, R. and Litvaitis M. 2000. Phylogeny of Gastrotricha: a morphology-
based framework of gastrotrich relationships. The Biological Bulletin
198(2): 299-305.
Hummon W.D. 1974 Intertidal marine Gastrotricha from Colombia. Bull Mar Sci
24: 396-408.
Hummon M.R. (1984) Reproduction and sexual development in a freshwater
gastrotrich. 1. Oogenesis of parthenogenic eggs (Gastrotricha Zoomorphology,
104: 33-41.
Kånneby, T., Todaro, M.A. 2015. The phylogenetic position of Neogosseidae
(Gastrotricha: Chaetonotida) and the origin of planktonic Gastrotricha .
Organisms Diversity & Evolution, 15(3): 1.
Kieneke, A. 2010. A new species of Thaumastoderma (Gastrotricha: Macrodasyida)
from the Antarctic deep sea with a phylogenetic anylysis of the whole genus.
Journal of Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 90: 575–
584.
123
Jasmine
Kisielewski, J. 1997. Brzuchorzeski (Gastrotricha). Fauna SłodkowodnaPolski,

Zeszyt 31. WydawnictwoUniwersytetuŁódzkiego, Łódź, 157 pp.
Kisielewski G. & Kisielewski J. 1986. Freshwater Gastrotricha of Poland III.
Gastrotricha from the Bialowieza Forest and the Bialowieza Glade.
Fragmenta faunistica, 12(30): 195-213.
Kisielewski J. 1990. Origin and phylogenetic significance of freshwater psammic
Gastrotricha. Stygologia, 5: 87-92.
Kolicka M. 2017 New arctic Gastrotricha- Three Chaetonotus (Chaetonotidae)
from Longyearbyen (Spitsbergen, Svalbergen, Svalbard Archipelago).
Annales Zologici, 67(1): 131-180.
Mečnikow E. 1865. Über einige wenig bekannte niedere Th ierformen. Zeitschrift
für Wissenschaftliche Zoologie, 15: 450-463.
Rao R.K. & Chandra Mohan P. 1977. New records of some Gastrotricha from India
with notes on their ecology. Geobios, 4: 204-206.
Remane A. 1936. Gastrotricha. In Bronns, H.G., ed., Klassen und Ordnungen des
Tierreichs, Band 4, Abt. II, Buch 1, Teil 2, Lfrg. 1-2, Akad. Verlagsges.,
Leipzig., pp. 1-242.
Remane A. 1953. Ein neues Gastrotrich aus dem Pazifik, Turbanella palaciosi nov.
spec. Zool Anz, 151: 272-276.
Ruppert E.E. 1991 Gastrotricha. In Harrison F.W. and Ruppert E.E. (Eds)
Microscopic anatomy of invertebrates. 4. Aschelminthes. Pp 41-109. J.
Wiley-Liss, New York.
Scourfield, D.J. 1897 Contribution to the Non–Marine Fauna of Spitsbergen.
Part I. Preliminary Notes, and Reports on the Rhizopoda, Tardigrada,
Entomostraca, & c. Catalog Bird British Museum, 20: 784-792.
Schmidt P. 1974. Interstitielle Fauna von Galapagos. IV. Gastrotricha. Mikro
Meeresbod, 26: 1-76.
Schultze, M., 1853. Uber Chaetonotus und Ichthydium (Ehrb.) und eine neue
verwandte Gattung Turbanella. Mull. Arch. Anat, Phys., Wiss. Medic,
Jahrg. 1853.
Sharma, B.K. 1980 Taxonomic notes on some freshwater gastrotricha from West
Bengal, India. Hydrobiologia, 70: 265-267.
Sharma, B.K.and S. Sharma.1987. On species of genus Lepadella(EurotatoriaMon
ogononta: Colurellidae) from North- Eastern India, with remarks on Indian
taxa. Hydrobiologia, 147: 15-22.
Sharma B.K. & Sharma S. 1990. On some Freshwater Gastrotricha from N.E.
Region. Rec. zool. Surv. India, 86(2): 211-215.
Sudzuki, M. 1971. Die das Kapillarwasser des LückensystemsbewohnendenGastr
otrichen Japans II. Bulletin of the Biogeographical Society of Japan, 27(5):
37-
Todaro, M.A, Leasi, F., Bizzarri, N. & Tongiorgi, P. 2006a. Meiofauna densities
and gastrotrich community composition in Mediterrareansea cave. Marine
Biology, 149: 1079-1091.
124
Gastrotricha
Todaro, M.A., Telford, J., Lockyer, A.E. & Littlewood, D.T.J. 2006b.
Interrelationships of the Gastrotricha and their place among the Metazoa
inferred from 18S rRNA genes. Zoologica Scripta, 35: 251-259.
Todaro, M.A, Perissinotto, R., Bownes, S.J. 2013. Neogosseidae (Gastrotricha,
Chaetonotida) from the iSimangaliso Wetland Park, KwaZulu-Natal, South
Africa. Zookeys, 315: 77-94.
Vanamala Naidu, K .1962. Three species of Gastrotrichs from fresh Waters of
Cuddapah, I ndia. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. N.S. (13)5: 1-4.
Visveswara, G. 1963. On some Gastrotricha from India with description of two new
species. Ann. Mag. Nat. llist., (13)6: 435-443.
Visveswara, G. 1964. On some Gastrotricha of genus Chaetonotus frOITI India.
Ann. Mag. Nat. flist., (13)7: 209-216.
Zelinka, C. 1889. Die Gastrotrichen, Eine monographisehe Darstellung ihrer
Anatomie, Biologic und Systcmatik. Zeitschr. f. wiss. Zool., 49: 209-476.
125
Chapter 9
nematoda
Qudsia Tahseen
Abstract
Nematodes, one of the important consumers and contributors in nutrient recycling
are one of the affected taxa of freshwater ecosystems. As per the latest studies
by Abebe et.al. (2008) freshwater nematodes constituted nearly two-thirds of the
19 orders, two-fifths of the 221 families and one-fifth of the nearly 1800 genera.
Of the 27,000 nominal species, the freshwater species were about 1808 showing
approximately 7% representation. In India, the diversity of freshwater nematode
is represented by 422 species distributed in 119 genera and 57 families.
Key words: Nematoda, Enoplea, Chromadorea, Freshwater, India.
Introduction
Nematodes are primarily aquatic organisms that require a film of water for
movement. They are regarded truly ubiquitous invertebrates which inhabit all
types of habitats and comprise of 90% of metazoans (Mclntyre, 1971) numerically.
These pseudocoelomate organisms are ranked second to insects with regard to
their diversity, competence and impact on human society. Nematodes not only
successfully colonize almost every geographic location including deserts, forests,
lakes, rivers, marshes and deep oceans but can also survive in extreme habitats
such as icebergs and hot springs. They even parasitise nearly all groups of
animals and a wide variety of plants. Due to their diverse feeding habits, they can
be categorized as animal parasitic, plant parasitic and free-living forms. The free-
living species further represent four main trophic groups viz., bacteriophagous,
mycophagous, omniphagous or predaceous in nature. Besides being parasites of
animals and plants, nematodes form an important component of food web due to
their crucial role in nutrient cycling as bacterivores and fungivores. Nematodes
offer excellent biological tools due to their high species richness, abundance, short
generation time, pervasiveness and tolerance, to monitor changes in environment
and can serve useful models to study interactions between biodiversity and
ecosystem functions (Moens et al. 2004).
Of the total described over 30,000 (26,642 species reported by Hugot et al., 2001)
of nematodes, approximately 50% are marine while the remaining 50% constitute
the animal parasites (15%), plant parasites (10%) and soil and fresh water species
(25%). Thus the share of fresh water species, seems to be too nominal keeping in
view the vast fresh water areas of the world. Although in both lentic (Traunspurger,
Department of Zoology, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh-202002
127
Tahseen
1996a, b, 2002) and lotic habitats (Danielopol, 1976; Anderson, 1992) nematodes
are the most abundant representatives of meiofaunal communities, the taxonomic
records on fresh water nematodes are relatively scanty and fractured and are still
in the late alpha stage compared to the terrestrial forms. It is due to the fact that
majority of the studies carried out so far on aquatic nematodes have been focused
on the marine ones.
Fossil records
As nematodes are abundant today, they existed in enormous numbers in the
past too; however, their fossil record is very limited due to their small size, soft
bodies and concealed habitats. Nematode anatomy is rather simple without many
conspicuous hard / sclerotized structures; hence the taxonomically diagnostic
features are unlikely to be preserved in normal process of fossilization. Therefore,
virtually all fossil nematodes that are taxonomically identifiable have been
reported from amber (Poinar, 2011). Transparent amber does not occur in pre-
Cretaceous strata and that constrains a reliable fossil record in the period.
Palaeontological evidence can also include their fossilized behaviour such as
the traces of life activity, locomotory patterns preserved in rocks (Fig. 2A). The
early Carboniferous limestone of Montana and the late Carboniferous Mazon
Creek sideritic concretions of Illinois yielded some aquatic fossils. The Mesozoic
nematode, Eophasma jurasicum anticipated to exist in ocean in early Jurassic
(Arduini et al., 1983), was found preserved as pyritised remains in shale (Fig. 2B).
There are no fossil records of nematode parasites of vertebrates and most fossil
evidences are of Mermithidae, the insect parasites. Balinski et al. (2013) presented
a discovery of the oldest known traces of nematode-within-sediment activity from
the Ordovician strata of China. These trace fossils are about 70 million years older
than the oldest known nematode body fossil (Poinar et al., 2008; Poinar, 2011). The
fossil record of the enoplid nematode Palaeonema suggested its probable link with
aquatic (marine and freshwater) ancestors. Another fossil representing a fresh
water nematode Cretacimermis libani, is from 120-135 million year- old amber.
Historical Review
The oldest written record of nematodes is presumably of intestinal roundworm
‘Ascaris’ in Chinese literature, about 4,690 years ago.. The scientists, Hippocrates
(430 B.C.), Aristotle (384-322 B.C.), Magnus (1200-1280 A.D) also gave references
of roundworms in their writings.
To enumerate the comprehensive history of taxonomy of all groups of
freshwater nematodes would be difficult and beyond the scope of this chapter,
therefore, some important landmarks in the history of taxonomy have been
discussed. Freshwater nematodes are predominantly free-living forms belonging
to families: Tobrilidae, Tripylidae, Chromadoridae, Cyatholaimidae, Ironidae,
Rhabdolaimidae, Leptolaimidae, Monhysteridae and Plectidae. The first record of
taxonomic studies on this group can be traced as early as in 1851 when Leidy
described the first freshwater nematode, Tobrilus longus. Later, Bastian (1865)
in his monograph, described 100 new species. He also described 22 new genera
and placed free-living nematodes under family Anguillulidae by grouping them
128
Nematoda
into continental (soil and freshwater inhabiting) and marine forms. Cobb (1918)
reported hundreds of nematodes in the top three inches of a drinking water
filter bed. Micoletzky’s (1922) monograph listed 142 genera and 931 species with
58% marine and 42% continental species. Again in 1925, he gave a good account
of free-living freshwater nematodes. Filipjev (1934) and Paramonov (1952)
brought Nematology to maturity as a Zoological Science and gave hypothesis
concerning nematode relationship, evolution and phylogenies besides offering
sound classification which formed the basis of current classification of Nemata. A
comprehensive record of free-living marine nematodes of Belgian coast was later
published by De Coninck and Schuurmans Stekhoven (1933). ‘Nematoda’ was
treated as a phylum with two classes, ‘Phasmidia’ and ‘Aphasmidia’ by Chitwood
(1933, 1937). Later he replaced these names with Secernentea and Adenophorea
and proposed new system of classification including both free-living and parasitic
nematodes. His authoritative book (1950) ‘An Introduction to Nematology’ is an
important landmark in the history of Nematology.
Thorne’s (1937, 1939, and 1949) monographs on Dorylaims, Cephalobidae
and Tylenchida as well as his book (1961) ‘Principles of Nematology’ are valuable
contributions to the field of Nematology. Goodey’s (1951) ‘Soil and Freshwater
Nematodes’ (revised in 1963), was the first book to provide a comprehensive
account of free-living nematodes, including freshwater taxa. In 1960, Meyl gave
the key to identification of free-living freshwater species of class Adenophorea
and Secernentea. Gerlach and Riemann (1973, 1974) in ‘Bremerhaven Checklist of
Aquatic Nematodes’ included genera of aquatic (marine and limnetic) nematodes
excluding the Dorylaimida. Afterwards, Ferris et al. (1973) reported freshwater
genera from eastern North America while Tarjan et al. (1977) gave an illustrated
key to nematodes found in freshwater habitats. Andrássy (1978) listed 170 genera
containing 605 species of freshwater nematodes in a checklist for European
inland waters while Tsalolikhin (1980, 1985) contributed a book on ecology
and taxonomy of freshwater nematodes of European countries. Later, the free-
living nematode fauna of the Netherlands and Italy were described and illustrated
by Bongers (1988) and Zullini (1982) respectively. Andrássy (1976) in his book
entitled, ‘Evolution as a basis for the systematization of nematodes’, subdivided
the nematodes into three subclasses: Torquentia, Secernentia and Penetrentia.
Lorenzen (1981) published the revised classification of the Adenophorea while
Jacobs (1984) presented a classification scheme including animal parasites, free-
living and phytoparasitic nematodes of continental and marine origin. Andrássy,
the legendry nematologist, made significant contributions to nematode taxonomy
by describing a large number of genera and species. Since 1952 till 2012, in his
numerous publications, he published keys to identification, proposed and raised
higher taxa, amended and put forth classification schemes and authored a
number of books on the subject including ‘Klasse Nematoda’ (1984) based on the
diagnosis of nematodes of Araeolaimida, Enoplida, Chromadorida, Monhysterida,
and Rhabditida. In the same year, Jacobs listed 117 genera and 327 species
of freshwater nematodes from Africa. Later a revised classification of phylum
Nematoda based on molecular as well as traditional systematics has been
worked out by Blaxter et al. (1998) and De Ley and Blaxter (2002). Later, Esser
129
Tahseen
and Buckingham (1987) reported 133 genera and 160 species of free-living
nematodes occupying freshwater habitats in North America. The workers viz.,
Hoeppli (1926), Hoeppli and Chu (1932), Gagarin and Lemsina (1982), Nicholas
and Stewart (1984) and Ebsary (1985), Ocaña and Zullini (1988), Zullini (1988),
Ocaña (1991), Nicholas (1993), Alekseev and Linnik (1995), Alekseev (1996) and
Tsalolikhin (1979, 1998) also published on fresh water nematodes. Gagarin (1993,
2000, 200l), described nematodes of Russia and its adjoining countries. Abebe
and Coomans (1995; 1996a,b,c,d,e,f; 2002) reported new freshwater species
from Ethiopia. Doucet and Doucet (1999) provided an updated checklist of soil and
freshwater nematodes from continental Argentina while a checklist of free-living
freshwater nematodes from South Africa was given by Heyns (2002). Recently
Abebe et al. (2006) in their book “Freshwater Nematodes: Ecology and Taxonomy”
gave up to date comprehensive information on the fresh water nematodes, with
emphasis on their biogeography and ecology.
Various scientists who worked exclusively on freshwater bodies include
Hirschmann (1952), Schiemer et al. (1969), Biro (1973), Nalepa and Quigley
(1983), Prejs and Lazarek (1988), Pehofer (1989), Anderson (1992), Prejs (1977a,
b; 1993), Traunspurger (1991; 1992; 1996a, b; 2000), Traunspurger and Weischer
(1993), Särkkä (1995), Beier and Traunspurger (2001, 2003a, b). However, these
studies largely envisaged largely the ecological aspects viz., nematodes number,
distribution, abundance, biomass with respect to sediments depth etc. Over the
last decade a lot of studies have been made on freshwater meiofauna that led
to the publication of comprehensive monographs in a special issue of Freshwater
Biology (2000, volume 44) and several books on the theme, such as Freshwater
Meiofauna (Rundle et al., 2002); Freshwater nematodes: ecology and taxonomy
(Abebe et al., 2006) and Meiobenthology (Giere, 2009). Some scientists who worked
on the functional status and resource utilization of nematode meiofauna are Beier
et al. (2004), Traunspurger and Bergtold (2006), Moens et al. (2006), Muschiol et
al. (2008), Spieth et al. (2011), Weber and Traunspurger, 2014). Nematodes were
also proposed to be models for testing ecological theories (Reiss et al., 2010). (De
Mesel et al., 2004; Hohberg and Traunspurger, 2005; Pascal et al., 2008; Evrard et
al., 2010; Steel et al., 2013; Heidemann et al., 2014) and their community structure
was considered a powerful tool to study freshwater pollution (Heininger et al., 2007;
Höss et al., 2011; Hägerbäumer et al., 2015) due to anthropogenic intervention.
Nematology in India started in the mid twentieth century but the major
focus was on the plant parasitic nematodes due to their importance in agriculture.
Most of the faunal work on nematodes was done on terrestrial nematodes. Fresh
water nematodes were virtually ignored in most survey reports except few
sporadic records by Ali and Suryavanshi, and Khera. A general reason for the
neglect of nematodes in faunal studies concerns difficulties with their minute
size, techniques for isolation and adequate characterization and identification.
The freshwater nematodes of India have been explored the least and the work
particularly on taxonomy of the free-living nematodes is relatively scanty. Ali et
al. (1969-1973) described free-living nematode species from Maharashtra while
Khera (1965-1975) described free-living nematode species from Rajasthan state.
130
Nematoda
Jairajpuri and Ahmad (1992) and Ahmad and Jairajpuri (2010) in their respective
publications on Dorylaimida and Mononchida included many species reported
from soil but having also been reported from aquatic habitats. A number of papers
were published on the reproductive biology and taxonomy of free-living nematodes
by Ahmad and Jairajpuri (1979-1982) and Tahseen and coworkers (1988-2015)
from Aligarh. Tahseen and coworkers (2005, 2006) also explored the nematode
fauna of wetland Keoladeo National Park, Shekha Jheel, Aligarh and Keetham
lake , Agra and reported good number of new and known species. In view of their
rich biodiversity and unexplored status, the freshwater habitats offer an array of
species that still lie unknown and uninventoried. In this chapter we try to have an
overview of the fresh water nematodes of India.
METHODOLOGY FOR STUDYING FRESHWATER NEMATODES

Collection and processing of samples
Samples may be collected from ponds, ditches, drains and canals, lakes, rivers and
streams with a record of the geographical coordinates at the collection site. The
sampling devices viz., dredges, worm nets, bottom scrapers, mud suckers, sledge
trawls and planktonic nets (Fig. 1C) may be used. The water and mud samples may
be collected in special sampling containers (Fig. 1A, B) and then passed through
a series of sieves (Fig. 1D) with pore size ranging from 0.4 mm to 40 um. Rocks
and other submerged material can be washed with a water spray or by vigorous
shaking or brushing.
The mud and slurry samples can be processed using Cobb’s (1918) sieving
and decantation and modified Bearman’s funnel techniques (Fig. 1G). After 24
hours a small amount of water holding extracted nematodes can be taken from
the stem of funnel into a cavity block. For coastal and mud samples, extraction
trays can be used where sample can be placed on a wire mesh lined with tissue
paper with water in the tray touching its base (Fig. 1F).
Fixation and preservation: The nematodes extracted from processed samples,
can be examined under the Stereoscopic Zoom Microscope (Olympus – SZX12) with
a range of magnifications for their generic identification. For their future use, the
extracted nematodes can be fixed in hot Formaline: Acetic Acid fixative (8 ml
of Formaline (commercial formaldehyde 40%), 2 ml of glycerol and 90 ml of
distilled water) and kept for 24 h before their further use. For dehydration,
the nematodes can be transferred to a mixture of glycerol and alcohol (95 parts
of 30% alcohol + 5 parts of glycerol) and then placed in a desiccator (Fig. 1H)
containing anhydrous Calcium Chloride. In about 3-4 weeks, the nematodes can
be dehydrated (Seinhorst, 1959) and ready to be mounted.
The wax ring method of De Maeseneer and D’ Herde (1963) for mounting
and sealing of the nematodes, can be used. A secondary sealing with nail polish
is done to prevent drying or dissolution of wax by immersion oil. For an in depth
study, the mounted nematodes are viewed under compound microscope and
measured using ocular micrometer, drawn using drawing tube and photographed
using a digital camera mounted on the Microscope.
131
Tahseen
Fig. 1. A, B, C: Sampling devices; D: Sieves of different pore size; E: Sieving of water

samples; F: Tray method for processing coastal/moist sediment samples; G: Baerman’s
funnel technique; H: Desiccator for dehydration of nematodes; I: Culture plate with
nematode population
132
Nematoda
Scanning Electron Microscopy

For scanning electron microscopy, the specimens can be fixed in 2% glutaraldehyde,
post-fixed in 2% osmium tetroxide, dehydrated in an ethanol series and critical-
point dried using CO2. The nematodes are mounted on double-sided adhesive tape
being placed on a stub and coated with 10nm gold before observing at 10 kV under
a scanning electron microscope.
Diversity of freshwater nematodes (from the Global perspective)

Fresh water nematode diversity is difficult to quantify correctly because of scanty
efforts devoted to study these habitats, in general. Often the identification may not
be up to the mark and remain unverified because of lack of voucher specimens of
most of the taxa reported in ecological studies. Further there may not be absolute
extraction of nematodes from samples due to presence of some lethargic/ inactive
species or those showing seasonality, quiescence or cryptobiosis. Some workers
who worked on fresh water nematodes and listed them from different regions of the
world include Traunspurger (2000), Michiels and Traunspurger (2005), Abebe et al.
(2006), Hodda (2006), Abebe et al. (2008), Antofica and Poiras (2009),Traunspurger
et al. (2012), Flach et al. (2012) and Traunspurger et al. (2015). As per recently
proposed classification scheme of De Ley and Blaxter (2004), the Phylum Nematoda
is divided into Class Chromadorea and Enoplea which are further splitted into
3 subclasses, 19 orders and 221 families. According to Andrássy’s (1999) old
scheme of classification, the census of nematodes showed Rhabditida to be the
most diverse taxon of the freshwater habitats. Abebe et al. (2008) carried out the
difficult task of estimating the region-wise as well as total global diversity of fresh
water nematodes and concluded that freshwater nematodes constituted nearly
two-thirds of the 19 orders, two-fifths of the 221 families and one-fifth of the nearly
1800 genera. Of the 27,000 nominal species, the freshwater species were about
1808 showing approximately 7% representation (Abebe et al., 2008).
Table 1. Global representation of freshwater nematode taxa
(after Abebe et al., 2008)
Nematode Taxa Family Genus Species

ENOPLEA
Enoplida 8 19 79
Triplonchida 6 27 140
Dorylaimida 16 103 610
Mononchida 5 20 99
Mermithida 2 52 417
CHROMADOREA
Chromadorida 4 9 36
Desmodorida 1 1 7
133
Tahseen

Desmoscolecida 3 5 9
Monhysterida 4 14 114
Araeolaimida 1 1 8
Plectida 6 13 125
Rhabditida 19 55 164
Total 75 319 1808
The data in Table 1 has been extracted from the work of Abebe and coworkers
published in 2008 and taxa may show changed/ increased number with more
freshwater species being reported in the intervening period, however, the trend of
representation of taxa may not drastically change but remain more or less same.
Diversity of freshwater nematodes (from Indian perspective)

There is often a very fine line of demarcation existing between the freshwater
and soil-inhabiting nematodes and in most cases there is virtually none. In view
of the sporadic and limited studies on Indian freshwater nematodes (Table 2),
the task of assembling all information on this group is not an easy one. However,
we are in the process of compiling a catalogue on Indian freshwater species of
nematodes. The species-wise listing of freshwater nematodes will be beyond the
scope of this chapter. Nevertheless, some of the commonly found fresh water taxa
are, hereby, reported which are of common occurrence to these habitats besides
some degree of terrestrial representation. The nematodes belonging to Dorylaimida
have the highest representation in freshwater habitats whereas members of
Order Rhabditida show greatest diversity and adaptability and occur in all
possible habitats. The genera Acrobeles, Acrobeloides, Cephalobus, Chiloplacus,
Mesorhabditis, Panagrolaimus, Panagrellus, Pelodera, Protorhabditis, Rhabditis,
Rhabditella, Teratorhabditis, Butlerius, Fictor, Mononchoides and Oigolaimella
have been reported from freshwater bodies. In Plectida (Fig. 2C-J), the freshwater
genera reported from Indian waters are Anaplectus, Chiloplectus, Choronogaster,
Cylindrolaimus, Ereptonema, Plectus, Rhabdolaimus Tylocephalus, Udonchus
and Wilsonema. Monhysterids (Fig. 4A-F) demonstrate diverse feeding habits
and are predominantly aquatic with greater percentage reported from marine
ecosystems. However, the genera commonly found in freshwater include
Eumonhystera, Geomonhystera, Hoffmaenneria, Monhystera and Monhystrella.
Chromadorida (Fig. 4G-J), the order of largely marine nematodes, with punctated
cuticle and conspicuous amphids are represented by few freshwater forms. The
genera Achromadora, Chromadorita, Chromadorina, and Punctodora have species
recorded from freshwater habitats. Some representatives of Orders Enoplida (Fig.
7A-F) and Triplonchida (Fig. 5A-G) have been reported from freshwater viz.,
Cryptonchus, Halalaimus, Ironus, Onchulus, Prismatolaimus, Tobrilus, Tripyla,
Tripylina, and Trischistoma.
134
Nematoda
Fig. 2. A: fossil evidence of activity (locomotion) after Balinski & Sun (2015);
B: Eophasma jurasicum Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File; Order:
Plectida. B, D: En face view of Plectus parvus Bastian, 1865; C, E: Anterior body
region of P. parvus Bastian, 1865; F, G, H: Tail region of Plectus geophilus de Man,
1880; I: Anterior body region of Neotylocephalus inflatus (Yeates, 1967) Holovachov
et al., 2003; J: Anterior body region of Chronogaster typicus (De Man, 1921)
(Scale bar= 10 µm).
135
Tahseen
Fig. 3. Order: Rhabditida; Suborder: Tylenchina. A: Anterior body region of

Helicotylenchus pseudorobustus (Steiner, 1914) Golden 1945; B: Tail region of
Helicotylenchus pseudorobustus (Steiner, 1914); Suborder: Rhabditina. C: Anterior
body region of Pelodera aligarhensis; D: Anterior body region of P. aligarhensis
Tahseen et al., 2014; E: Tail region of Rhabpanus uniquus Tahseen et al., 2012;
Suborder: Diplogastrina. F: Longitudinal body ridges in Diplogastrellus sp.; G: Tail
region in Diplogastrellus sp; H: Anterior body region in Oigolaimella longicauda
(Claus, 1862); I: Anterior body region in Fictor composticola Khan et al., 2008;
Suborder: Cephalobina. J: Anterior body region of Acrobeles complexus Thorne 1925;
K: Vulval region of A. complexus Thorne 1925 (Scale bar= 10 µm).
136
Nematoda
Fig. 4. Order: Monhysterida. A: Anterior body region of Monhystrella kerryi Khan

et al., 2005; B Anterior body region of Monhystera rolandi Khan and Tahseen, 2006;
C: Anterior body region of Geomonhystera glandulata Khan and Tahseen, 2006;
D: Anterior body region of Hoffmaenneria keoladeoensis Khan et al., 2005; D, E:
Vulval body region of G. glandulata Khan and Tahseen, 2006; F: Tail region of H.
keoladeoensis Khan et al., 2005; Order: Chromadorida. G: Anterior body region of
Achromadora indica Tahseen, 2001; H: Vulval region of A. indica Tahseen, 2001; I,
J: Body punctuations and tail region in A. indica Tahseen, 2001, respectively
137
Tahseen
Fig. 5. Order: Triplonchida. A: Anterior body region in Tripylina ymyensis Tahseen

and Nusrat, 2010; B, C: Anterior body region in T. valiathani Tahseen and Nusrat,
2010; D: Anterior body region in Tripylina sp.; E-G: Tail region in Tripylina spp.
138
Nematoda
Fig. 6. Order: Dorylaimida. A: Anterior body region in Paractinolaimus macrolaimus

(de Man, 1880) Meyl, 1957; B: Anterior body region in Labronema papillatum Khan,
Ahmad & Jairajpuri, 1995; C: Tail region in Tylencholaimus sp. E: Male tail region in
Laimydorus sp.; J: Vulval region in L. papillatum Khan, Ahmad & Jairajpuri, 1995;
Order: Mononchida. D: Anterior body region in Mononchus aquaticus Coetzee 1968;
I: Fine cuticular striations in M. aquaticus Coetzee 1968; Tail region in Mylonchulus
lacustris (Cobb, 1915) Andrássy, 1958 (Scale bar= 10 µm).
139
Tahseen
Fig. 7. Order: Enoplida. A, B, C: Anterior body region in Brevitobrilus dimorphicus

Tahseen et al., 2009; Vulval region in Prismatolaimus lacustris Tahseen et al.,
2006; E: Tail region in B. dimorphicus Tahseen et al., 2009; F: Tail region of Ironus
dentifurcatus Argo and Heyns, 1972 (Scale bar= 10 µm).
140
Nematoda
Table 2. A tentative representation of freshwater nematode taxa from India

(extracted from the published literature)
ENOPLEA
Enoplida 3 3 16
Triplonchida 5 10 12
Dorylaimida 14 39 218
Mononchida 5 9 35
Mermithida 2 2 6
CHROMADOREA
Chromadorida 2 5 9
Desmodorida 1 1 1
Desmoscolecida 0 0 0
Monhysterida 2 8 15
Araeolaimida 1 1 8
Plectida 2 6 22
Rhabditida 20 35 80
Total 57 119 422
Classification
Of the orders of Nematoda, only Rhabditida seems to have the widest habitat
range although its representation in marine environment is negligible (Table 2).
The orders Dorylaimida and Mononchida are solely confined to inland habitats
hence not found in estuarine or marine environments. Dry or xeric habitats may
show occurrence of orders Dorylaimida and Rhabditida whereas the presence of
Mononchida is negligible. The Orders Monhysterida, Araelolaimida, Plectida and
Enoplida are of common occurrence in all types of aquatic environments and even
in the moist soils. However, Chromadorida and Desmodorida show a very limited
presence in moist soils. Desmoscolecida is a purely aquatic taxon.
Distribution
The nematodes form an important biotic component of lotic habitats in abundance
and diversity, yet they are relatively less explored. Due to variation in water
flow rates, organic enrichment, sediment granulometry, physical characteristics
and chemistry of sediments, the lotic environments show differences in species
composition, diversity and abundance (Hodda, 2006). Fresh water nematodes of
shallow water bodies are often faced with periods of drying hence they show an
inherent ability of quiescence and may undergo anhydrobiosis in response to water
stress (Wharton, 1986; Womersley and Ching, 1989). Such characteristic also seems
to be common in nematodes of Polar Regions (Pickup and Rothery, 1991; Wharton
and Barclay, 1993; Wharton, 2004). Many freshwater nematodes particularly
Cephalobs show anhydrobiosis although the trait may remain unexpressed in
relatively stable habitats. Fresh water habitats may also show variation in food
141
Tahseen
resources hence the species largely are omnivores, non-specialized microbial

feeders or predators and often show food storage abilities for long time survival.
Some crystalline structures in the of nematodes inhabiting the extreme habitats
were earlier considered to be food storage sites (Bird et at, 1991) but were later
declared to be involved with detoxifying mechanism for sulphides. Rhabditida and
Mermithida have adopted the phoretic behaviour and get associated with insects
for dispersal under adverse conditions. Very often the nematodes in lotic habitats
are apparently occasionally or even accidentally found in either the sediments or
the water column. Springs have relatively stable conditions and those with lower
ionic content show higher abundance and species richness. Limnetic systems are
relatively less variable in water characteristics and most limnetic genera are found
to be either ubiquitous or have a widespread distribution (Andrássy, 1978; Jacobs,
1984). Some species show very short generation time and specialized adaptations
for efficient dispersal in colonizing and exploiting eutrophic environments (Hodda,
2006). The limnetic habitats often show oxygen stress. Oxygen is taken up fast
for the decomposition of the organic matter in these habitats (Zinabu and Taylor,
1989). In temperate and arctic regions, the lakes freeze for a long period in winters
and the organisms therein face oxygen shortage. Therefore, among nematodes, the
facultative anaerobes like Tobrilus gracilis withstanding anoxic conditions may be
common in these habitats (Schiemer and Duncan 1973). In Lake Baikal too, the
dominant groups are tobrilids (Tsalolikhin, 1975; Shoshin, 1999). Monhysterids
are also found to be adapted to such anoxic environment (Jacobs and Heyns, 1990).
A dorylaim, Eudorylaimus andrassyi has been reported (Hodda, 2006) to survive
in the anaerobic situation, reproduce and increase its population in deeper part of
the lake.
Endemism
Endemism cannot be worked out with context to Indian nematode fauna due to
paucity of biogeographical data on freshwater nematodes. Unless substantial
information is available on these nematodes, endemism cannot be established with
certainty.
Adaptations of fresh water nematodes

Nematodes represent the most abundant metazoans in freshwater habitats. They
can reach densities of up to 11.4 million/m2 in fresh water habitats (Michiels and
Traunspurger, 2005). Their adaptations to fresh water environment are reflected
in many ways. Besides having a strong protective cuticle (often annulated) and
hypodermis maintaining a high turgor pressure, most of the fresh-water nematodes
are around 0.5-2 mm long having slender, spindle-shaped bodies with enhanced
swimming abilities. Most aquatic nematodes possess long filamentous tails and
propel themselves faster by their whipping action. They are also characterised
by having conspicuous sense organs compared to their terrestrial counterparts.
Most peripheral sense organs including lip sensilla and somatic sensilla are long,
setiform. In several groups, numerous additional setae may be found. Amphids
are bilaterally symmetrical structures and can be spiral, circular or cyathiform in
fresh water forms demonstrating great taxonomic value. Being the inhabitants of
142
Nematoda
an environment having dim or insufficient light, these nematodes have pigment

bodies associated with the anterior pharynx, generally referred as eyespots or ocelli.
The crystalline inclusions (crystalloids) in the bodies of fresh water monhysterids
and enoplids are thought to be part of a detoxification mechanism for hydrogen
sulphide, the generally toxic end product of respiration. Some structures found in
fresh water nematodes are the stretch receptors (metanemes) as well as cephalic
organs. The buccal cavity or stoma shows great diversity in form and structure,
reflecting different feeding habits of these nematodes. The pharynx is accordingly
modified and may be cylindrical or with one or two muscular expansion/s called
pharyngeal bulb/s. The intestine is usually a simple straight tube not dissimilar
to their terrestrial counterparts and is generally taxonomically unimportant. The
excretory system mainly serves as osmoregulatory organ. Fresh water nematodes
excrete nitrogenous wastes in the form of ammonia or urea. In absence of a
specialized respiratory system, the nematodes exchange gases though the body
surface and usually are aerobic in habit with exception of deep lake nematodes
which survive in oxygen stress. The number and structure of ovaries along with
other genital components, though taxonomically important, do not show much
difference from those found in terrestrial nematodes and are largely meant to
distinguish between major taxonomic groups (Lorenzen, 1981, 1994). Likewise
the position of vulva varies from middle (e.g., members of Tobrilidae, Plectidae
etc.) to posterior (e.g., monhysterids) in aquatic nematodes. The male nematodes
may possess one (monorchic) or two (diorchic) testes irrespective of the habitat
but largely depending on the taxa they belong to. Typically, the cuticularised
spicules and a gubernaculum though important taxonomic characters, are not
habitat-specific. However, the tail shape is a character showing specificity to the
aquatic habitats as most nematodes show long tails usually with fine termini. If
the tail terminus is bluntly-rounded, it is often supplemented with a spinneret-
the outlet for caudal glands’ sticky secretion that helps in anchorage to an object
or substratum. This phenomenon of nictation is commonly found in fresh water
nematodes.
Threats
Ecological services are compromised due to aquatic ecosystems being severely
altered or destroyed at a rate much faster than they are being restored. The
maintenance of freshwater ecosystems is essential for sustenance of biotic
resources. According to UNESCO’s report, Populations of freshwater species
were reduced by half between 1970 and 2005. India with only 2.4% of the world’s
land area, represents 11-12% of biodiversity hotspots of the world. Despite the
vastness of Indian habitats, the list of known indigenous species of nematodes is
merely up to 3000 (unpublished), out of which majority are the plant parasites
holding importance in agriculture. The non parasitic nematode fauna is relatively
unexplored and undocumented. This is because of our apparent unawareness and
apathy towards our own biodiversity wealth. Our ignorance towards the existing
biodiversity is reflected in the limited use of our biodiversity resources. Many
of species facing habitat loss are likely to become extinct before being known to
science. Particularly, species with restricted ranges are vulnerable to these threats.
143
Tahseen
The increasing pollution and contamination of environment is a thing of concern

as it also is a greater driver of biodiversity loss. The soil or water pollution directly
affects the nematode diversity and can be studied using nematode models. The
mushrooming industries have opened up job avenues but at the same time they
have loaded our environment with various obnoxious chemicals and xenobiotics.
Of the biodiversity wealth, many freshwater ecosystems are least surveyed and
appear more threatened than the terrestrial ecosystems due to faulty practices
such as creation of dams, water diversion, overexploitation besides water
pollution. Therefore, there is an urgent need of taxonomic surveys facilitating
species inventorization of the freshwater ecosystems of the country before they
disappear from the scene.
Conservation and Human significance

Nematodes are quite important organisms of the earth ecosystem. They are the
causative agents of a large number of diseases to humans, live stock and other
animals bringing morbidity as well as mortality. They cause huge losses to
agriculture and horticulture globally due to infesting a wide variety of plants.
Not only forming the important component of the food chains of a complex web,
the nematodes have also been recognized as excellent experimental models
(Caenorhabditis elegans, Panagrellus redivivus and Pristionchus pacificus) in
biological research particularly on the aspects of developmental genetics and
ageing. Nematodes have now been used as bioindicators in environment monitoring
programmes replacing several bacteria and animal models; thus providing a
cost-effective strategy for testing pollutants of different categories in different
habitats due to their ubiquity and resilience and specificity to various pollutants
(Faupel et al. 2012). Ecological concepts based on coexistence of species sharing
the same resource have potential uses for more effective biological control. The
widespread degradation of freshwater ecosystems has to be stopped and a variety
of management techniques should be used to restore these systems to a more
natural and sustainable state in order to prevent continued loss of biodiversity,
ecosystem functioning, and ecological integrity.
Gaps in research
Realizing India’s rich biological heritage our ignorance towards the existing
nematode species is enormous due to their microscopic size and hidden nature.
With latest researches, the importance of nematode has been dawned on us in
all walks of life. Besides being parasites of animals and plants, the nematodes
form an important component of food web due to their important role in nutrient
cycling as bacterivores and fungivores. The aquatic nematodes in general and the
fresh water nematodes in particular are the groups which need much attention of
taxonomists but studies made on these groups are fragmentary. Although several
studies have been made on the taxonomy of soil and fresh water nematodes in
the past but they are too few to make any difference due to vastness of the area
with remote and unexplored habitats. With a huge unaccounted biodiversity in
the freshwater systems, the societal need of taxonomy is greater than ever but
the resources supporting taxonomy are becoming scarcer (Wilson, 1985; Wheeler
144
Nematoda
et al. 2004; Evenhuis, 2007) thus impeding the process of conservation. The
decreasing numbers of taxonomists, lesser number of taxonomic centers and
inadequate taxonomic training have their fall out on effective management of our
biodiversity wealth. The identification and taxonomic placement need to follow
a holistic approach to have comprehensive information about a species and its
functional status in the environment. A more complete knowledge of freshwater
nematodes and subsequently their positions in food webs may be potentially
beneficial to risk assessment and managerial approaches. Thus the inclusion of
free-living nematodes in the simulation models of freshwater food webs may help
to disentangle pathways describing the “small-scale” control of some key ecological
processes (Majdi and Traunspurger, 2015).
Expertise (India and Abroad)

In India, initially the studies in Nematology began with the taxonomic aspects
with plant parasitic nematodes and free-living soil inhabiting nematodes in focus.
Institutes busy in Nematological research are largely focusing on non taxonomic
aspects. The taxonomic studies that too on freshwater nematodes, with special
reference to wetlands, have been mostly conducted by the author and to some
extent by Prof. Irfan Ahmad and Prof. Wasim Ahmad of Section of Nematology,
Department of Zoology, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh.
Indian scientists who have expertise in taxonomy of nematodes are:
Prof. H.K. Bajaj (Retd.), Department of Nematology, Haryana Agricultural
University, Hisar
Dr. Uma Rao, Department of Nematology, Indian Agricultural Research
Institute, New Delhi
Prof. S. Subramanian, Department of Nematology, Centre for Plant Protection
Studies, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore,
There are a good number of experts working in the field of Nematology in
various Nematology Departments in Bihar, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Orissa,
Karnataka, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh etc. but largely they have been
focusing on non taxonomic themes and on management issues.
Some of the active international experts, who have dealt or presently dealing
with the taxonomy of freshwater nematodes, are:
Prof. Walter Traunspurger, University of Bielefeld, Morgenbreede 45 D-33615
Bielefeld, Germany
Prof. Walter Sudhaus, Institut für Biologie/Zoologie, AG Evolutionsbiologie,
Freie Universität, D-14195 Berlin, Germany.
Prof. Aldo Zullini, Dept. of Biotechnology & Biosciences, University of Milano
-Bicocca (Italy)
Prof. Howard Ferris, Dept. of Entomology and Nematology, UC Davis, US
Dr. David H.A. Fitch, Dept. of Biology, New York University, New York, US
Dr. Oleksandr Holovachov, Dept. of Zoology, Swedish Museum of Natural
History, Stockholm, Sweden
145
Tahseen
Dr. Paul De Ley, Nematology Dept., University of California, Riverside, US

Dr. Eyualem Abebe, Elizabeth City State University, Elizabeth city, North
Carolina, US
Dr. M.R. Siddiqi, 24 Brantwood Road, Luton, England, UK
REFERENCES
Abebe, E. & Coomans, A. (1995) Freshwater nematodes of the Galápagos.
Abebe, E. & Coomans, A. (1996a) Aquatic nematodes from Ethiopia I. The genus
Monhystera Bastian, 1865 (Monhysteridae: Nematoda) with the description
of four new species. Hydrobiologia, 324: 1-51.
Abebe, E. & Coomans, A. (1996b) Aquatic nematodes from Ethiopia II. The genus
Monhystrella Cobb, 1918 (Monhysteridae: Nematoda) with the description
of six new species. Hydrobiologia, 324: 53-77.
Abebe, E. & Coomans, A. (1996c) Aquatic nematodes from Ethiopia III. The
genus Eumonhystera Andrassy, 1981 (Monhysteridae: Nematoda) with the
description of E. geraerti n. sp. Hydrobiologia, 324: 79-97.
Abebe, E. & Coomans, A. (1996d) Aquatic nematodes from Ethiopia V. Descriptions
of Achromadora inflata n. sp.., Ethmolaimus zullinii n. sp. and Prodesmodora
nurta Zullini, 1988 (Chromadorida: Nematoda). Hydrobiologia, 332: 27-39.
Abebe, E. & Coomans, A. (1996e) Aquatic nematodesfrom Ethiopia VI. The genera
Chronogaster Cobb, 1913, Plectus Bastian, 1865 and Prismatolaimus de
Man, 1880 with descriptions of C. ethiopica n sp. and C getachewi n. sp
(Chromadorida: Nematoda). Hydrobiologia, 332: 41-61.
Abebe, E. & Coomans, A. (1996f) Aquatic nematodes from Ethiopia. VII.
The family Rhabdolaimidae Chitwood, 1951 sensu Lorenzen, 1981
(Chromadorida, Nematoda) with the description of Udonchus merhatibebi
n. sp. Hydrobiologia, 341: 197-214.
Abebe, E. & Coomans, A. (2002) Free-living aquatic nematodes of the Ethiopian
Valley. In: Tudorancea, C. & Taylor, W.D. (Eds.), Ethiopian Rift Valley
Lakes Backhuys Publishers, Leiden. pp. 143-156.
Abebe, E., Decraemer, W. & De Ley P. (2008) Global diversity of nematodes
(Nematoda) in freshwater.
Abebe, E., Traunspurger, W. & Andrássy, I. (2006) Freshwater nematodes: Ecology
and Taxonomy. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, Oxfordshire OX108DE, UK,
752 p.
Ahmad, I. & Jairajpuri, M.S. (1979) Developmental biology of Chiloplacus
symmetricus. Indian Journal of Nematology, 7: 123-139.
Ahmad, I. & Jairajpuri, M.S. (1980) Factors influencing sex attraction in
Chiloplacus symmetricus. Indian Journal of Nematology, 10: 107-117.
Ahmad, I. & Jairajpuri, M.S. (1980) Sex attraction and copulation in Chiloplacus
symmetricus (Nematoda:Acrobelinae). Nematologica, 26: 139-148.
146
Nematoda
Ahmad, I. & Jairajpuri, M.S. (1981) Sex attraction in Cruznema lambdiensis

(Nematoda: Rhabditidae). Revue de Nematologie, 4: 145-149.
Ahmad, I. & Jairajpuri, M.S. (1981) The copulatory behaviour of Cruznema
lambdiensis (Nematoda:Rhabditidae). Revue de Nematologie, 4: 151-156.
Ahmad, I. & Jairajpuri, M.S. (1981) Ageing and reproduction in Cruznema
lambdiensis (Nematoda:Rhabditidae). Nematologica, 27: 28-33.
Ahmad, I. & Jairajpuri, M.S. (1982) Sex attraction in ageing Chiloplacus
symmetricus. Nematologica, 28: 121-123.
Ahmad, W. & Jairajppuri, M.S. (2010) Mononchida: the predaceous nematodes.
Nematology monographs and Perspectives. Vol 7. Hunt, D.J. & Perry, R.N.
(Eds), Brill, Leiden, Netherlands, pp 298.
Alekseev, V.M. (1996) A new species of freshwater nematodes, Alaimus belogurovi
sp. n. from the Lake Khanka (Nematoda: Alaimidae). Zoosystematica
Rossica, 4: 17-18.
Alekseev, V.M. & Linnik, O.V. (1995) Halalaimus dolgovi sp. n. (Nematoda,
Oxystominidae), new species of marine nematode from Lake Khanka.
Hydrobiological Journal, 31: 20-24.
Ali, S.M., Farooqui, M.N. & Suryawanshi, M.V. (1970) On a new species of
Paraphelenchus (Micoletzky, 1922) Micoletzky, 1925 3-46. (Nematoda:
Paraphelenchidae) from Marathwada, India. Rivista di Parassitologia, 31:
139-142.
Ali, S.M., Farooqui, M.N. & Tejpal, S. (1969) Neotylocephalus annonae n. gen.,
n. sp. (Nematoda: Wilsonematinae) from Marathwada, India. Rivista di
Parasitologia, 30: 287-290.
Ali, S.M. & Prabha M.J. (1971) Tylenchorhynchus brassicae Siddiqi, 1961 and
Ty1enchorhynchus elegans Siddiqi, 1961, from new hosts in Maharashtra -
India. Marathwada University Journal, 10: 209-212.
Ali, S.M., Suryawanshi, M.V. & Chisty. K.Z. (1971) Odontolaifflus indlcus n.
sp. (Nematodar Cyatholaimidae) from Marathwada, India. Marathwada
University Journal, 10: 46-47.
Ali, S.M., Suryawanshi, M.V. & Chisty, K.Z. (1972) Prismatolaimus indicus sp.
n. and Oncholaimus longicauda (Daday, 1899) Andrassy, 1964 (Nematoda:
Onchulidae) from Marathwada, India. Indian Journal of Nematology, 2:
7-10.
Ali, S.M., Suryawanshi, M.V. & Chisty, K.Z. (1973) Two new species of
Drilocephalobus Coomans and Goodey, 1965 (Nematoda: Drilocephalobidae
n. fam.) from Marathwada, India, with a revised classification of subfamily
Cephalobinae (Paramonov, 1956) Paramonov, 1962. Nematologica, 19: 308-
317.
Anderson, R.V. (1992) Free-living nematode associations in pool 19, Mississippi
river. Journal of Freshwater Ecology, 7: 243-250.
Andrássy, I. (1952) Freilebende Nematoden aus dem Bukk-Gebirge. Annates
Historiconaturelles Musei Nationalis Hungarici, 2: 13-65.
147
Tahseen
Andrássy, I. (1958) Über das System der Mononchiden (Mononchidae Chitwood,

1937; Nematoda). Annales Histoirico- Naturalis Musei Nationalis
Hungarici, 50: 151-171.
Andrássy, I. (1976) Evolution as a basis for the systematization of nematodes.
Budapest, London, Pitman Publishing, 288 pp.
Andrássy, I. (1978) Nematoda. A checklist of the animals inhabiting European
inland waters with account of their distribution and ecology. In: Illies, J.
(Ed.), Limnofauna Europaea, pp. 98-117.
Andrássy, I. (1984) Klasse Nematoda (Ordungen Monhysterida, Desmoscolecida,
Araeolaimida, Chromadorida, Rhabditida). Gustav Fischer Verlag.
Stuttgart, pp. 509.
Andrássy, I. (1999) A census of genera and subgenera of freeliving nematodes.
Journal of Nematode Morphology and Systematics, 2: 45-68.
Andrássy, I. (2005) The free-living nematode fauna of Hungary I. (Nematoda
errantia). In. Csuzdi, CS. & Mahunka, S. (Eds.) Pedozoologia Hungarica,
No. 3. Hungarian Natural History Museum Budapest, pp. 518.
Andrássy, I. (2006) Halomonhystera, a new genus distinct from Geomonhystera
Andrássy, 1981 (Nematoda: Monhysteridae). Meiofauna Marina, 15: 11-24.
Andrássy, I. (2007) Free-living nematodes of Hungary. II. (Nematoda errantia.)
In. Csuzdi, CS & Mahunka S. (Eds.) Pedozoologica Hungarica, No. 4.
Hungarian Natural History Museum Budapest, pp. 496.
Andrássy, I. (2009) Free-living nematodes of Hungary III. (Nematoda errantia).
In. Csuzdi, CS. & Mahunka, S. (eds.) Pedozoologica Hungarica, No. 5.
Hungarian Natural History Museum Budapest, pp. 608.
Andrássy, I. & Esquivel, A. (2012) Free-living nematodes from nature reserves in
Costa Rica. Genera Egtitus Thorne, 1967 and Trachypleurosum Andrássy,
1959 (Dorylaimida: Actinolaimidae). Opuscula Zoologica Budapest, 43:
3-19.
Andrássy, I. & Gibson, J.A.E. (2007) Nematodes from saline and freshwater
lakes of the Vestfold Hills, East Antarctica, including the description of
Hypodontolaimus antarcticus sp. n. Polar Biology, 30: 669-678.
Antofica, A. & Poiras Larisa. (2009) Species diversity of freshwater and soil
nematodes of some localities along the Dniester River. Muzeul Olteniei
Craiova. Oltenia. Studii şi comunicări. Ştiinţele Naturii, 25: 51-54.
Arduini, P., Pinna, G. & Teruzzi, G. (1983) Eophasma jurassicum n. g. n. sp., a
new fossil nematode of the Sinemurian of Osteno in Lombardy. Atti della
Società Italiana di Scienze Naturali a del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale,
Milano, 124: 61-64.
Argo, A. & Heyns, J. (1972) Four new species of Ironus Bastian, 1865 (Nematoda:
Ironidae) from South Africa. Phytophylactica, 4: 59-66.
Aristotle. (384-322 B.C.) 1910 Historia Animalium. Translated by D’ Arey
Wentworth Thompson.
148
Nematoda
Balinski, A., Sun, Y. & Dzik, J. (2013) Traces of marine nematodes from 470 million
years old Early Ordovician rocks in China. Nematology, 15: 567-574.
Bastian, H.C. (1865) Monograph on the Anguillulidae, or free Nematoids, marine,
land and freshwater; with descriptions of 100 new species. Transactions of
the Linnaean Society of London, 25: 73-184.
Beier, S., Bolley, M. & Traunspurger, W. (2004) Predator-prey interactions
between Dugesia gonocephala and free-living nematodes. Freshwater
Biology, 49: 77-86.
Beier, S. and Traunspurger, W. (2001) The meiofauna community of two small
German streams as indicator of pollution. Journal if Aquatic Ecosystem
Stress and Recovery, 8: 387-405.
Beier, S. & Traunspurger, W. (2003a) Seasonal distribution of free-living
nematodes in the Krahenbach, a fine-grained submountain carbonate
stream in southwest Germany Nematology, 5: 113-136.
Beier, S. & Traunspurger, W. (2003b) Seasonal distribution of free-living
nematodes in the Kbrsch, a coarse-grained submountain carbonate
stream in southwest Germany Nematology, 5: 481-504.
Bird, A.F., McClure, S.G. & Nicholas, W.L. (1991) Observations on crystalloid
bodies in the pseudocoelom of Eutobrils heptapapillatus. Journal of
Nematology, 23: 39-47.
Biró, K. (1973) Nematodes of Lake Balaton. 4. Seasonal qualitative and
quantitative changes. Annales lnstituti Biologici (Tihany) Hungaricae
Academiae Scientiarum, 40: 135-158.
Blaxter, M.L., De Ley, P., Garey, J., Liu, L.X., Scheldemen, P., Vanfleteren, J.,
Mackey, L.Y., Dorris, M., Frisse, L.M., Vida, J.T., & Thomas, W.K. (1998) A
molecular evolutionary framework for the phylum Nematoda. Nature, 392:
71-75.
Bongers, T. (1988) De nematoden van Nederland Stichting Uitgeverij Koninklijke
Nederlandse Natuurhistorische Vereniging, Utrecht, Netherlands
(Natuurhistorische bibliotheek ill 46), 408 pp.
Chitwood, B.G. (1933). A revised classification of the Nematoda. Journal of
Parasitology, 20: 131.
Chitwood, B.G. (1937) A revised classification of the Nematoda. Papers on
Helminthology in Commemoration of the 30-Year Jubileum of K.I. Skrjabin
and of the All-Union Institute of Helminthology, Moscow. 69-80.
Chitwood, B.G. & Chitwood, M.B. (1950) Introduction to Nematology. Monumental
Printing Company, Baltimore, revised edition, 213 pp.
Claus, C. (1862) Über einige im Humus lebende Anguillulinen. Zeitschrift für
wissenschaftliche Zoologie, 12: 354-359.
Cobb, M.V. (1915) Some freshwater nematodes of Douglas Lake region of Michigen,
USA. Transactions of the American Microscopical Society, 34: 21-47.
149
Tahseen
Cobb, N.A. (1918) Estimating the nema population of the soil. U.S. Department
of Agriculture. Agricultural Technical Circular of US Department of
Agriculture, 1: 48 p.
Coetzee, V. (1968) Southern African species of the genera Mononchus and
Prionchulus (Mononchidae). Nematologica, 14: 63-76.
Danielopol, D.L. (1976) The distribution of the fauna in the inttrstitial habitats of
riverine sediments of the Danube and the Piesting (Austria). International
Journal of Speleology, 8: 23-51.
De Coninck, L.A.P. & Schuurmans Stekhoven, J.H. (1933) The free-living marine
nemas of the Belgian Coast. II, with general remarks on the structure
and the systems of nemas. Memoires Musée Royal d’ Histoire Naturelle de
Belgique, 58: 1-163.
De Ley, P. & Blaxter, M.L. (2002) Systematic position and phylogeny. In: Lee, D.L.
(Ed.), The Biology of Nematodes. Taylor and Francis, London, New York,
pp. 1-30.
De Ley, P. & Blaxter, M.L. (2004) A new system for Nematoda: combining
morphological characters with molecular trees, and translating clades into
ranks and taxa. Nematology Monographs and Perspectives, 2: 633-653.
De Maeseneer, J. & D’ Herde, J. (1963) Méthodes utilisées pour l’étude des
anguillules libres du sol. Revue de Agriculture Bureaux, 16: 44-447.
De Man, J.G. (1880) Die einheimischen, frei in der reinen Erde und im süssen Wasser
lebenden Nmatoden. Vorläufiger Bericht und descriptivsystematischer
Theil. Tijdschrift der Nederlansche Dierkundige Vereenigning, 5: 1-104.
De Man, J.G. (1921) Nouvellesrecherches sur les Nematodes libres terricoles de la
Hollande. Capita Zoologica, 1: 1-62.
De Mesel, L., Derycke, S., Moens, T., Van der Gucht, K., Vincx, M. & Swings,
J. (2004) Top-down impact of bacterivorous nematodes on the bacterial
community structure: a microcosm study. Environmental Microbiology, 6:
733-744.
Doucet, M.E. & de Doucet, M.M.A. (1999) Supplement to the list of soil and
freshwater nematodes recorded in continental Argentina. Nematology, 1:
217-220.
Ebsary, B.A. (1985) Two new aquatic species of Ironus Bastian, 1865 (Nematoda:
Ironidae) from Canada. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 63: 1368-1370.
Esser, R.P & Buckingham, G.R. (1987) Genera and species of free-living nematodes
occupying freshwater habitats in North America. In: Vistas on Nematology,
Society of Nematologists, Hyattsville, Maryland, pp. 477-487.
Evenhuis, N. L. (2007) Helping solve the “other” taxonomic impediment: completing
the eight steps to total enlightenment and taxonomic nirvana. Zootaxa,
1407: 3-12.
Evrard, V., Soetaert, K., Heip, C.H.R., Huettel, M., Xenopoulos, M.A., & Middelburg,
J.J. (2010) Carbon and nitrogen flows through the benthic food web of a
photic subtidal sandy sediment. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 416: 1-16.
150
Nematoda
Faupel, M., Ristau, K. & Traunspurger, W. (2012) The functional response of a

freshwater benthic community to cadmium pollution. Environmental.
Pollutution, 162: 104-109.
Ferris, V.R., Ferris, J.M. & Tjepkema, J.P. (1973) Genera of fresh water nematodes
(Nematoda) of eastern North America. Biota Freshwater Identification
Manual, 10: 1-38.
Filipjev, I. (1934) The classification of the free-living nematodes and their
relation to the parasitic nematodes. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections
(Washington) 89: 1-63.
Flach, P.Z.S., Ozorio, C.P. & Melo, A.S. (2012) Alpha and beta components of
diversity of fresh-water nematodes at different spatial scales in sub-tropical
coastal lakes. Fundamental and Applied Limnology, 108: 249-258.
Gagarin, V.G. (1993) Free-living Nematodes from the Fresh Waters of Russia and
Adjacent Countries: Order Monhysterida, Areaolaimida, Chromadorida,
Enoplida, Mononchida Gidrometeoizdat, St. Petersburg, Russia, 352 pp.
Gagarin, V.G. (2000) Fauna of free-living nematodes from littoral of Kurilskoe
Lake (Russia, Kamchatka Peninsula) and description of Rhitis eximius sp.
n. (Nematoda, Rhabditida). Biology of Inland Water, 3.
Gagarin, V.G. (2001) Free-living Nematodes of the Fresh Waters of Russia and
Adjacent Countries Fauna and the Pathways of its Formation, Ecology,
Taxonomy, Phylogeny. Nauka Publisher, Moscow, 170 pp.
Gagarin, V.G. & Lemsina, L.V. (1982) A male of Mononchus aquaticus and two
new species of free-living nematodes from Lake Issyk-kul. Zoologicheskii
Zhurnal, 61: 935-937. (In Russian).
Gerlach, S.A. & Riemann, F. (1973) The Bremerhaven checklist of aquatic
nematodes. Veröffentlichungen Institut für Meeresforschung Bremerhaven,
Supplement, 4: 1-404.
Gerlach, S.A. & Riemann, F. (1974) The Bremerhaven checklist of aquatic
nematodes. Veröffentlichungen Institut für Meeresforschung Bremerhaven,
Giere, O. (2009) Meiobenthology: The Microscopic Motile Fauna of Aquatic
Sediments. 2nd Edition. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany, 527 pp.
Golden, A.M. (1956) Taxonomy of the spiral nematodes (Rotylenchus and
Helicotylenchus) and the developmental stages and host-parasite
relationships of R. buxophilus n. sp., attacking boxwood. Maryland
Agricultural Experimental Station Buletin A-85, 28p.
Goodey, T. (1951) Soil and Fresh water nematodes – a monograph. London, 390 pp.
Goodey, T. (1963) Soil and freshwater nematodes. 2nd Edition. Rewritten by J.B.
Goodey. London, Methuen & Co., 544 pp.
Hägerbäumer, A., Höss, S., Heininger, P. & Traunspurger W. (2015) Experimental
studies with nematodes in ecotoxicology: An overview. Journal of
151
Tahseen
Heidemann, K., Hennies, A., Schakowske, J., Blumenberg, L., Ruess, L., Scheu,
S. & Maraun, M. (2014) Free-living nematodes as prey for higher trophic
levels of forest soil food webs. Oikos, 123: 1199-1211.
Heininger, P., Höss, S., Claus, E., Pelzer, J., & Traunspurger, W. (2007) Nematode
communities in contaminated river sediments. Environmental Pollution,
146: 64-76.
Heyns, J. (2002) Checklist of free-living nematodes recorded from freshwater
habitats in Southern Africa. Water SA, 28: 449-456.
Hippocrates (460-375 B.C.) 1849 Works of Hippocrates, Translated by. Adams, F.
London, “Aphorisms”.
Hirschmann, H. (1952) Die Nematoden der Wassergrenze mittelfränkischer
Gewässer. Zoologische Jahrbücher (Systematik), 81: 313-364.
Hodda, M. (2006) Nematodes in lotic systems. In: Abebe, E., Traunspurger, W.
& Andrássy, I. (Eds.), Freshwater nematodes: Ecology and taxonomy.
Wallingford: CABI publishing, pp. 163-178.
Hoeppli, R.J.C. (1926) Studies of free-living nematodes from the thermal waters of
Yellowstone Park. Transactions if the American Microscopical Society, 45:
234-255.
Hoeppli, R.J.C. & Chu, H.J. (1932) Free-living nematodes from hot springs in
China and Formosa, Hongkong Naturalist Supplement, 1: 15-28.
Hohberg, K., & Traunspurger, W. (2005) Predator-prey interaction in soil food web:
Functional response, size-dependent foraging efficiency, and the influence
of soil texture. Biology and Fertility of Soils, 41: 419-427.
Holovachov, O.V., Boström, S., De Ley, T., De Ley, P. & Coomans, A. (2003)
Morphology and systematics of the genera Wilsonema Cobb, 1913,
Erptonema Anderson, 1966 and Neotylocephalus Ali, Farooqui and Tejpal,
1969 (Leptolaimina: Wilsonematinae). Journal of Nematode Morphology
and Systematics, 5: 73-106.
Hoss, S., Claus, E., Von der Ohe, P.C., Brinke, M., Gude, H., Heininger, P. &
Traunspurger, W. (2011) Nematode species at risk - A metric to assess
pollution in soft sediments of freshwaters. Environment International, 37:
940-949.
Hugot, J.P., Baujard, P. & Morand, S. (2001) Biodiversity in helminths and
nematodes as a field of study: an overview. Nematology, 3: 199-208.
Jacobs, L.J. (1984) The free-living inland aquatic nematodes of Africa – a review.
Jacobs L.J. & Heyns J. (1990) An ecological strategy in the genus Monhystera: a
hypothesis. Revue de Nematologie, 13: 109-111.
Jairajpuri, M.S. & Ahmad, W. (1992) Dorylaimida. Freeliving, Predaceous and
Plant parasitic Nematodes. Oxford & IBH Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd., New
Delhi. 458pp.
152
Nematoda
Khan, R., Baj aj , H.K., Sul t ana R. & Tahseen, Q. (2008) Desc r ipt io n o f
Diplogastrellus gracilis (Bütschli, 1876) Paramonov, 1952, D. sikorai sp.
n. and Fictor composticola sp. n. (Nematoda: Diplogastrina) from India.
Khan, R., Hussain, A., Sultana, R. & Tahseen, Q. (2005) Description of two new
monhysterid species (Nematoda) from Keoladeo National Park, Rajasthan,
India. Nematologia Mediterranea, 33: 67-73.
Khan, R. & Tahseen, Q. (2006) Desc r ipt io n o f t wo new mo nhyst er id spec ies
(Nematoda) from sewage. Journal of Nematode Morphology and
Systematics, 8: 91-101.
Khan, Z. Ahmad, W. & Jairajpuri, M.S. (1995) Description of four new species of
dorylaimid nematodes. Afro-Asian Journal of Nematology, 5: 133-140.
Khera, S. (1965) Nematodes from the banks of still and running waters, II. Tridontus
longicaudatus n. gen., n. sp., subfamily Diplogasterinae Micoletzky, 1922
from India. Nematologica, 11: 249-254.
Khera, S. (1966) Nematodes from the banks of still and running waters III. Rogerus
rajasthanensis n. sp., sub family Cylindrolaiminae and Monhystrella gracilis
n. sp., sub family Monhysterinae from India. Nematologica, 12: 403-408.
Khera, S. (1967) Acrobelinema cornis n. gen., n. sp., subfamily Acrobelinae, Thorne
from rhizosphere of millets from India. Indian Journal of Nematology, 19:
159-163.
Khera, S. (1968) Nematodes from the banks of still and running waters. IV.
Description of a new subgenus of Rhabditis and a new species from India
(Subfamily: Rhabditinae). Journal of the Zoological Society of India, 20: 38-
41.
Khera, S. (1969) Nematodes from the banks of still and running waters. VI.
Rhabditida from sewer. Journal of Helminthology, 43: 347-363.
Khera, S. (1970) Nematodes from the banks of still and running waters. IX. Two
new genera belonging to subfamily Diplogasterinae Micoletzky from India.
Revista Brasileria de Biologia (Rio de Janeiro), 30: 405-409.
Khera, S. (1971) Nematodes from the banks of still and running waters. XI.
Subfamily Rhabditinae. Indian Journal of Nematology, 1: 237-243.
Khera, S. 1972) Nematodes from the banks of still and running waters. 12. Order
Araeolaimida. Proceedings of Zoological Society of India, 25: 49-58.
Khera, S. (1973) Studies on the embryology and post embryonic development
of Acrobelinema cornis Khera (Nematoda: Cephalobidae) with special
reference to development of gonads. Records of Zoological Survey of India,
67: 165-189.
Khera, S. (1975) On some nematodes belonging to the orders Chromadorida and
Enoplida from India. Records of Zoological Survey of India, 68: 273-286.
Leidy, J. (1851) Contributions to Helminthology. Proceedings of the Academy of
Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 5: 205-209, 224-227.
153
Tahseen
Lorenzen, S. (1981) Entwurf eines phylogenetischen Systems der freilebenden

Nematoden. Veröffentlichungen Institut für Meeresforschung Bremerhaven,
Lorenzen, S. (1994) The phylogenetic systematics of free-living nematodes. The Ray
Society, London. 381 pp.
Magnus, A. (1193-1280) 1495 De animalibus libri vigintisex novissime impressi.
Venezia.
Majdi, N. & Traunspurger, W. (2015) Free-Living Nematodes in the Freshwater
Food Web: A Review. Journal of Nematology, 47: 28-44.
McIntyre, A.D. (1971) Observations on the status of subtidal meiofauna research.
Proceedings of the First International Conference on Meiofauna. Hulings
(Ed.). Smithsonian Contribution to Zoology, 76: 149-154.
Meyl, A.H. (1960) Die freilebenden Erd- und Süßwassernematoden (Fadenwürmer).
In: Brohmer, P., Ehrmann, P. & Ulmer, G. (Eds.), Die Tierwelt Mitteleuropas,
1: 1-164.
Michiels, I. & Traunspurger, W. (2005) Benthic community patterns and the
composition of feeding types and reproductive modes in nematodes.
Micoletzky, H. (1922) Die freilebenden Erd-Nematoden mit besonderer
Berücksichtigung der steiermark und der Bukowina, Zugleich mit einer
revision sämtlicher nichtmariner, freilebender Nematoden in Form
von Genus-Beschreibungen und Bestimmungsschlüsse. Archiv für
Naturgeschichte Abteilung, 87: 1-650.
Moens, T., Traunspurger, W., & Bergtold, M. (2006) Feeding ecology of free-
living benthic nematodes. In: Abebe, E., Traunspurger W. & Andrássy, I.
(Eds.), Freshwater nematodes: Ecology and taxonomy. Wallingford: CABI
Publishing, pp. 105–131.
Moens, T, Yeates, G.W. & De Ley, P. (2004) Use of carbon and energy sources by
nematodes. Nematology Monographs and Perspectives, 2: 529-545.
Muschiol, D., Markovic, M., Threis, I. & Traunspurger, W. (2008) Predator-prey
relationship between the cyclopoid copepod Diacyclops biuspidatus and a
free-living bacterivorous nematode. Nematology, 10: 55-62.
Nalepa, T.F. & Quigley, M.A. (1983) Abundance and biomass of the meiobenthos
in nearshore Lake Michigan with comparison to the macrobentbos
Journal of the Great Lakes Research, 9: 530-547.
Nicholas, W.L. (1993) Two new species of nematode (Nematoda: Enoplida:
Thoracostomopsidae) from Lake Alexandrina, South Australia. Transactions
of the Royal Society of South Australia, 117: 163-170.
Nicholas, W.L. & Stewart (1984) Oncholaimus balli n.sp (Nematoda, Oncholaimidae)
from a volcanic crater lake in Papua-New-Guinea, with observations on the
colonization of the lake by nematodes. Nematologica, 30: 1-10.
Ocaña, A. (1991) A redescription of two nematode species found in hot springs.
Nematologia Mediterranea, 19: 173-175.
154
Nematoda
Ocaña, A and Zullini A (1988) A new species of Tobrilus (Nematoda) from spring
water. Nematologica, 34: 1-5.
Paramonov, A.A. (1952) Opyt ekologitscheskoi klassificazii fitonematod. Trudy
gelmintolgitscheskoi Laboratorii, Akademia Nauk CCCR 6: 338-369.
Pascal, P.Y., Dupuy, C., Richard, P., Rzeznik-Orignac, J., & Niquil, N. (2008)
Bacterivory of a mudflat nematode community under different environmental
conditions. Marine Biology, 154: 671-682.
Pehofer, H.E. (1989) Spatial distribution of the nematode fauna and production
of three nematodes (Tobrilus gracilis, Monhystera stagnalis, Ethmolaimus
pratensis) in the profundal of Piburger See (Austria, 913 m a.s.l.).
Internationale Revue der gesamten Hydrobiologie, 74: 135-168.
Pennak, R.W. & Ward, J.V. (1986) Interstitial faunal communities of the hyporheic
and adjacent groundwater biotopes of a Colorado mountain stream. Archiv
für Hydrobiologie (Suppl.), 74: 356-396.
Pickup, J. & Rothery, P. (1991) Water-loss and anhydrobiotic survival in nematodes
of Antarctic fell fields. Oikos, 61: 379-388.
Poinar Jr, G.O. (2011) The evolutionary history of nematodes: as revealed in stone,
amber and mummies. Nematology Monographs & Perspectives 9 (Series
Editors: Hunt, D.J. & Perry, R.N.). Leiden, The Netherlands, Brill.
Poinar Jr, G.O, Kerp, H. & Hass, H. (2008) Palaeonema phyticum gen. n., sp. n.
(Nematoda: Palaeonematidae fam. n.), a Devonian nematode associated
with early land plants. Nematology, 10: 9-14.
Prejs, K. (1977a) The littoral and profundal benthic nematodes of lakes with
different trophy. Ekologia Polska, 25: 21-30.
Prejs, K. (1977b) The species diversity, numbers and biomass of benthic
nematodes in central part of lakes with different trophy, Ekologia Polska,
25: 31-44.
Prejs, K. (1993) Distribution and feeding of the predatory nematode Anatonchus
dolichurus (Mononchoidea) in the Dokka delta (Norway) and its impact
on the benthic meiofauna. Freshwater Biology, 29: 71-78.
Prejs, K. & Lazarek, S. (1988) Benthic nematodes in acidified lakes: case of a
neglected grazer. Hydrobiologia, 169: 193-197.
Reiss, J., Forster, J., Cassio, F., Pascoal, C., Stewart, R. & Hirst, A.G. (2010) When
microscopic organisms inform general ecological theory. In: Woodward, G.
(Ed.), Integrative ecology: From molecules to ecosystems. Oxford: Academic
Press, pp. 45-77.
Rundle, S.D., Robertson, A.L. & Schmid-Araya, J.M. (2002) Freshwater meiofauna:
Biology and ecology. Leiden: Backhuys Publishers.
Särkkä, J. (1995) Profundal meiofauna in two large lakes: influence of pollution
and bathymetric differences. Archiv für Hydrobiologie, 132: 453-493.
Schiemer, F. & Duncan, A. (1973) The oxygen consumption of a freshwater benthic
nematode, Tobrilus graillis (Bastian). Oecologia, 15: 121-126.
155
Tahseen
Schiemer, F., Löffler, H. & Dollfuss, H. (1969) The benthic communities of

Neusiedlersee (Austria). Verhandlungen der Internationalen Vereinigung
für Theoretische und Angewandte Limnologie, 17: 201-208.
Shoshin, A.Y. (1999) The Baikal Lake nematode fauna: the present and prospects.
Paper presented at the third symposium of English speaking nematologists
in St. Petersburg, Russia, 21-27 August (http://www.zin.ru/conferences/
ns/).
Spieth, H.R., Möller, T., Ptatschek, C., Kazemi-Dinan, A., & Traunspurger, W.
(2011) Meiobenthos provides a food resource for young cyprinids. Journal of
Fish Biology, 78: 138-149.
Steel, H., Buchan, D., De Neve, S., Couvreur, M., Moens, T., & Bert, W. (2013)
Nematode and microbial communities in a rapidly changing compost
environment: How nematode assemblages reflect composting phases.
European Journal of Soil Biology, 56: 1-10.
Steiner, G. (1914) Freilebende Nematodes aus der Schweiz. 1. Teil einer vorlaufigen
Mitteilung. Archiv für Hydrobiologie und Planktonkunde, 9: 259-276.
Tahseen, Q. (2001) A new and a known species of Achromadora (Nematoda:
Chromadorida) from India. Journal of Nematode Morphology and
Tahseen, Q., Ahlawat, S. & Mustaqim, M. (2015) Description of a new and two
known species of Paroigolaimella Paramonov, 1952 (Diplogastridae) from
India. The Journal of Nematology, 47: 356-369.
Tahseen, Q., Ahmad, I. & Ahmad, W. (1994) Description of two new species of
Chronogaster Cobb, 1913 from India. Journal of Nematology, 26: 222-227.
Tahseen, Q., Ahmad, I., Bilgrami, A.L. & Ahmad, W. (1992) A scanning electron
microscope study on Mononchoides fortidens (Schuunnans Stekhoven,
1951) Taylor & Hechler, 1966. Nematologica, 38: 296-303.
Tahseen, Q. Ahmad, I. & Jairajpuri, M.S. (1993) SEM observations and
developmental biology of Tobrilus paludicola (Nematoda: Enoplida).
Nematologica, 39: 512-520.
Tahseen, Q., Ahmad, I. & Jairajpuri, M.S. (1994) Embryogenesis and gonad
development in Chromadorita gracilis and the effect of vitamin E on its
development. Afro-Asian Journal of Nematology, 4: 15-19.
Tahseen, Q., Ahmad, I. & Jairajpuri, M.S. (1995) Two new species of Plectidae from
India (Nematoda: Araeolaimida). Fundamentals and applied Nematology,
18: 471-477.
Tahseen, Q., Ahmad, I. & Jairajpuri, M.S. (1999) Observations on three species
of the sub family Acrobelinae (Nematoda: Cephalobidae) from India.
Tahseen, Q., Ahmad, I. & Jairajpuri, M.S. (2000) Nematicidal effects on the post-
embryonic processes of the free living nematode Cruznema tripartitum.
International Journal of Nematology, 10: 27-32.
156
Nematoda
Tahseen, Q., Akram, M., Mustaqim, M. & Ahlawat, S. (2014) Descriptions of

Pelodera scrofulata sp. nov. and Pelodera aligarhensis sp. nov. (Mononchida:
Nematoda) with supplementary information on Pelodera teres. Journal of
Natural History, 48: 1027-1053.
Tahseen, Q., Baniyamuudin, M., Hussain, A. & Ahmad, W. (2004) Two new species
of Plectinae from India. Nematology, 6: 755-764.
Tahseen, Q. & Bilgrami, A.L. (1993) Chemo-oriented sex attraction in
Hirschmaniella oryzae. Indian Journal of Nematology, 23: 87-91.
Tahseen, Q., Chowdhry, M., Kulsum, D., Ahmad, I. & Jairajpuri, M.S.
(2005) Description of Rhabdolaimus sclerorectum sp. n. (Nematoda:
Rhabdolaimidae) from Aligarh, India. Journal of Nematode Morphology
Tahseen, Q., Hussain, A. & Khan, R. (2007) Descriptions of three new and a
known species of Prismatolaimus de Man 1880 (Nematoda: Enoplida)
from freshwater habitats in India. Journal of Nematode Morphology and
Tahseen, Q., Hussain, A., Sultana, R. & Khan, R. (2009) Descriptions of the Indian
species of Poikilolaimus Fuchs, 1930 (Nematoda: Rhabditidae) with P.
jodhpurensis (Khera, 1969) Sudhaus, 1980 revisited and a brief discussion
on relationship with other congeners. Journal of Nematode Morphology
Tahseen, Q., Hussain, A., Tomar, V., Shah, A.A. & Jairajpuri, M.S. (2004)
Description of Metarhabditis andrassyana gen. n. sp. n. (Nematoda:
Rhabditidae) from India. International Journal of Nematology, 14: 163-168.
Tahseen, Q. & Jairajpuri, M.S. (1988) Description and developmental biology
of Teratorhabditis andrassyi n. sp. (Nematoda: Rhabditida). Revue de
Nematologie, 11: 333-342.
Tahseen, Q. Jairajpuri, M.S. & Ahmad, I. (1990) The life cycle of Mononchoides
fortidens (Nematoda: Diplogastrida) with emphasis on gonad development.
Nematologica, 36: 440-447.
Tahseen, Q. Jairajpuri, M.S. & Ahmad, I. (1991) Some observations on the
developmental biology of Cephalobus parvus (Nematoda: Cephalobidae).
Tahseen, Q. Jairajpuri, M.S. & Ahmad, I. (1991) Effect of agar concentration on the
matricidal hatching in Cruznema tripartitum. Nematologia Mediterranea,
19: 235-237.
Tahseen, Q. Jairajpuri, M.S. & Ahmad, I. (1991) Observations on the embryonic
and postembryonic development of Diploscapter orientalis (Nematoda:
Rhabditida). Revue de Nematologie, 14: 251-260.
Tahseen, Q. Jairajpuri, M.S. & Ahmad, I. (1992) Description and developmental
biology of Plectus zelli n. sp. (Nematoda: Araeolaimida). Fundamentals and
applied Nematology, 15: 503-510.
157
Tahseen
Tahseen, Q. Jairajpuri, M.S. & Ahmad, I. (1994) Factors affecting hatching of the
soil nematode Diploscapter orientalis. Nematologia Mediterranea, 22: 221-
223.
Tahseen, Q., Jairajpuri, M.S. & Ahmad, I. (1996) Nematicidal impact on the
embryogenesis of a cephalobid nematode, Cephalobus persegnis Bastian,
1865. Afro-Asian Journal of Nematology, 6: 98-101.
Tahseen, Q., Jairajpuri, M.S. & Ahmad, I. (1996) Nematicidal impact on
the reproductive biology of a free-living soil nematode, Mesorhabditis
cranganorensis (Rhabditida). Afro-Asian Journal of Nematology, 6: 184-187.
Tahseen, Q., Jairajpuri, M.S. & Ahmad, I. (1997) Dietary components affecting
the morphometrics of Teratorhabditis andrassyi (Nematoda: Rhabditida).
Tahseen, Q., Khan, R. & Ahlawat, S. (2015) Description of new species of
Pterygorhabditis Timm, 1957 and Aspidonema (Sachs, 1949) Andrássy,
1958 (Nematoda: Bunonematoidea) in aquatic habitats from India. Journal
of Helminthology, 1-12. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0022149X15000462
Tahseen, Q., Liang, A., Rana, D.S., Khan, R. & Ahlawat, S. (2009) Three new
species of Brevitobrilus Tsalolikhin, 1981(Nematoda) with a discussion on
relationships within the genus. Journal of Nematology, 41: 93-103.
Tahseen, Q. & Mehdi, S.J. (2009) Taxonomy and relationships of a new and the
first continental species of Trissonchulus Cobb, 1920 along with two species
of Ironus (Nematoda: Ironidae) collected from Coal mines. Nematologia
Mediterranea , 37: 117-132.
Tahseen, Q. & Mustaqim, M. (2012) Descriptions of six known species of Plectus
Bastian, 1865 (Nematoda, Plectida, Plectidae) from India with a discussion
on the taxonomy of the genus. Zootaxa, 3205: 1-25.
Tahseen, Q. & Mustaqim, M. (2015) A taxonomic review of the genus Goffartia
Hirschmann, 1952 (Rhabditida: Diplogastridae) with a note on the
relationship of congeners. Zootaxa, 4034: 070-086.
Tahseen, Q. & Nisa, S. (2006) Embryology and gonad development in Oscheius
shamimi sp. n. (Nematoda: Rhabditida). Nematology, 7: 1-11.
Tahseen, Q. & Nusrat, T. (2010) Some new and known species of genera Tripylina
Brzeski and Trischistoma Cobb, 1913 (Nematoda) with a discussion on their
relationships. Journal of Nematology, 42: 128-138.
Tahseen, Q., Qazi, M.A., Mustaqim, M., Ahlawat, S. & Bert, W. (2013) Descriptions
of ten known species of the superfamily Mononchoidea (Mononchida:
Nematoda) from North India with a detailed account on their variations.
Zootaxa, 3646: 301-335.
Tahseen, Q. & Rajan, P. (2009) Description of Mononchus intermedius sp. n.
(Mononchidae: Nematoda) with discussion on its variability. Nematologia
Mediterranea, 37: 161-167.
Tahseen, Q., Shah, A.A., Khan, R., Sultana, R., Hussain, A. & Ahmad, I. (2009)
Biogeography and variations in allopatric populations of Distolabrellus
veechi Anderson, 1983 (Nematoda: Rhabditidae). Nematology, 11: 815-826.
158
Nematoda
Tahseen, Q. & Siddiqi, M.R. (2003) Two new species of Chronogaster Cobb
(Nematoda: Araeolaimida).International Journal of Nematology, 13: 162-
166.
Tahseen, Q., Siddiqi, M.R. & Rowe, J. (2002) A comprehensive study on the species
of Diploscapter Cobb, 1913 from India including D. indicus sp. n. (Nematoda:
Diploscapteridae). International Journal of Nematology, 2: 155-160.
Tahseen, Q., Sultana, R. & Khan, R. (2007) Species of Teratorhabditis (Osche,
1952) Dougherty, 1953 (Nematoda: Rhabditida) from sewage and manure
samples in India including a discussion on relationships within the genus.
Tahseen, Q., Sultana, R., Khan, R. & Hussain, A. (2012) A new genus and species
of the family Rhabdolaimidae (Nematoda), with descriptions of two known
species and taxonomic discussion. Journal of Nematology, 44: 302-312.
Tahseen, Q., Sultana, R., Khan, R. & Hussain, A. (2012) Description of two new
and one known species of the closely related genera Cruznema Artigas, 1927
and Rhabpanus Massey, 1971 (Nematoda: Rhabditidae) with a discussion
on their relationships. Nematology, 14: 1-16.
Tarjan, A.C., Esser, R.P. & Chang, S.L. (1977) An illustrated key to nematodes
found in freshwater. Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation, 49:
2318-2337.
Thorne, G. (1925) The genus Acrobeles von Linstow, 1887. Transactions of the
American Microscopical Society, 44: 171-210.
Thorne, G. (1937) A revision of the nematode family Cephalobidae Chitwood and
Chitwood, 1934. Proceedings of the Helminthological Society of Washington,
4: 1-16.
Thorne, G. (1939) A monograph of the nematodes of the superfamily Dorylaimoidea.
Capita Zoologica, 8: 1-261.
Thorne, G. (1949) On the classification of the Tylenchida, new order (Nematoda,
Phasmidia). Proceedings of the Helminthological Society of Washington, 16:
37-73.
Thorne, G. (1961) Principles of Nematology. McGraw-Hill Book company, New
York, 553 pp.
Traunspurger, W. (1991) Fischbiologie des Königssees. Nahrungsangebot und
Nahrungswahl Band I: Das Meiobenthos des Königssees. Forschungsbericht
22, Nationalpark Berchtesgaden, Berchtesgaden, 152 pp.
Traunspurger, W. (1992) A study of the free-living freshwater nematodes of hard
substrates in the littoral of the oligotrophic Königssee (National Park
Brchtesgaden, F.R.G.). Spixiana, 15: 233-238.
Traunspurger, W. (1996a) Distribution of benthic nematodes in the littoral of an
oligotrophic lake (Königssee, National Park Berchtesgaden, F.R.G.). Archiv
für Hydrobiologie, 135: 393-412.
Traunspurger, W. (1996b) Distribution of benthic nematodes in the littoriprofundal
and profundal of an oligotrophic lake (Königssee, National Park
Berchtesgaden, F.R.G.). Archiv fiir Hydrobiologie, 135: 555-575.
159
Tahseen
Traunspurger, W. (2000) The biology and ecology of lotic nematodes. Freshwater

Biology, 44: 29-45.
Traunspurger, W. (2002) Nematoda. In: Rundle, S.D., Robertson, A.L. &
Schmid-Araya, J.M. (Eds.), Freshwater Meiofauna Biology and Ecology.
Backhuys Publishers, Leiden, The Netherlands, pp 63-104.
Traunspurger, W. & Bergtold, M. (2006) Patterns in the size structure of freshwater
nematode communities: The cases of lakes Königssee and Brunnsee,
Germany. In: Abebe, E., Traunspurger, W. & Andrássy, I. (Eds.), Freshwater
nematodes: Ecology and taxonomy. Wallingford: CABI Publishing, pp. 132-
143.
Traunspurger, W., Höss, S., Witthöft-Mühlmann, A., Wessels, M., & Güde, H.
(2012) Meiobenthic community patterns of oligotrophic and deep lake
Constance in relation to water depth and nutrients. Fundamental and
Applied Limnology, 180: 233-248.
Traunspurger, W., Threis, I. & Majdi, N. (2015) Vertical and temporal
distribution of free-living nematodes dwelling in two sandy-bed streams
fed by helocrene springs. Nematology, 17: 923-940.
Traunspurger, W. & Weischer, B. (1993) Freilebende Süßwassernematoden
aus dem Uferbereich im Naturschutzgebiet ‘HeiligesMeer’ Natur und
Heimat, 53: 83-91.
Tsalolikhin, S.Y. (1975) New nematodes from the abyssal zone of Lake Baikal.
Zoologicheskii Zhurnal, 54: 771-775.
Tsalolikhin, S.Y. (1980) Free-living nematodes of Lake Baikal. Nauka, Novosibirsk,
USSR, Russia, 120 pp.
Tsalolikhin, S.Y. (1985) Nematodes of fresh and Brackish Waters of Mongolia.
Nauka Publications, Leningrad, Russia, 115 pp.
Tsalolikhin, S.Y. (1979) The origins of the nematode fauna in Lake Issyk-Kul’.
Zoologicheskii Zhurnal, 58: 629-636.
Tsalolikhin, S.Y. (1998) On nematode fauna of high mountain lakes in the Pamir
and Himalayas. Zoologicheskii Zhurnal, 77: 1058-1063.
Weber, S. & Traunspurger, W. (2014) Top-down control of a meiobenthic community
by two juvenile freshwater fish species. Aquatic Ecology, 48: 465-480.
Wharton, D.A. (1986) A Functional Biology of Nematodes. Croom Helm, Sydney,
Australia.
Wharton, D.A. (2004) Survival strategies. In: Gaugler, R. & Bilgrami, A.L. (Eds.),
Nematode Behaviour. CAB International, Wallingford, UK, pp. 371-399.
Wharton, D.A. & Barclay, S. (1993) Anhydrobiosis in the free-living Antarctic
nematode Panagrolaimus davidi (Nematoda: Rhabditida). Fundamental
and Applied Nematology, 16: 17-22.
Wheeler, Q.D., Raven, P. & Wilson, E.O. (2004) Taxonomy: impediment or
expedient? Science, 303: 285.
160
Nematoda
Wilson, E.O. (1985) The biodiversity crisis: a challenge to science. Issues in Science
and Technology, 2: 20-29.
Womersley, C & Ching, C. (1989) Natural dehydration regimes as a prerequisite
for the successful induction of anhydrobiosis in the nematode Rotylenchulus
reniformis. Journal of Experimental Biology, 143: 359-372.
Yeates, G.W. (1967) Studies on nematodes from dune sands. 2. Araeolaimida. New
Zealand Journal of Sciences, 10: 287-298.
Zinabu, G. & Taylor, W.D. (1989) Seasonality and spatial variation in abundance,
biomass and activity of heterotrophic bacterioplankton in relation to some
biotic variables in an Ethiopian rift-valley lake (Awassa). Freshwater
Biology, 22: 355-368.
Zullini, A. (1982) Nematodi (Nematoda). En: Guide per il riconoscimiento delle
specie animali delle acque interne Italiane, 17: 1-117.
Zullini, A. (1988) The ecology of the Lambro River. Rivista di Idrobiologia, 27:
39-58.
161
Chapter 10
BRYOZOA
K. Valarmathi* and SANTANU Mitra
Abstract
Bryozoa are also known as polyzoa, ectoprocta or moss animals are small benthic
aquatic invertebrates growing as colonies of connected zooids on submerged
substrates. A total of 94 species of Bryozoans placed under 24 genera, 10 families
and two classes are known worldwide. The Indian fauna comprises a total of
22 species under 13 genera and 6 families belonging to two classes namely
Gymnolaemata and Phylactolaemata.
Key words: Bryozoa, Gymnolaemata, Phylactolaemata, Freshwater, India.
Introduction
Bryozoa are also known as polyzoa, ectoprocta or moss animals that play an
important role in water quality monitoring and palaeolimnological research and
for controlling their growth as foulers (Swami et al., 2014). They are small benthic
aquatic invertebrates growing as colonies of connected zooids on submerged
substrates and feed on suspended organic particles which they capture with a
whorl of ciliated tentacles or lophophore (Massard & Geimer, 2008). They inhabit
many aquatic environment like ponds, reservoirs, lakes, streams found stuck to
the surface of any substratum like aquatic weeds, logs, stones, bricks, etc., and
they also live together in the form a colony, and are generally yellowish-brown,
pinkish-brown, dark-brown, reddish-brown, green or black in color (Samanta,
1999, Mitra, 2016).
Annandale (1906, 1911) and Annandale and Kemp (1912) studied the freshwater
bryoazoans in India and made a significant contribution to the Indian freshwater
Bryozoa. After that nearly fifty years there were no further information of this
group. Roonwal (1969) restarted the work on Indian freshwater Bryozoans which
was followed by many significant workers like Rao (1961, 1972, 1973, 1976,
1991), Rao et al. (1962, 1978, 1979, 1985), Srivastava (1981, 1985) and Chaubey
et al. (1985). Samanta (1998, 1999, 2000, 2003, 2005) reported the occurrence of
freshwater bryozoans from West Bengal, Meghalaya, Tripura, Sikkim and Andhra
Pradesh. Kalita and Goswami (2005) reported 5 species of freshwater bryozoans
from the Deepar wetland near Guwahati Assam. Again Samanta (2007) has
Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata

163
Valarmathi and Mitra
investigated the distribution bryozoans in Uttar Pradesh and reported 5 species.

Mitra and Pattanayak (2013) reported Plumatella javanica Karepelin, from
Arunachal Pradesh. Mokashe et al. (2015) recorded Swarupella divina for the first
time from India.
Global and Indian Diversity (Table. 1 and 2)

Of the estimated 5700 or even 8000 extant species of bryozoans, only a small
number are found in freshwater habitats (Massard & Geimer, 2008). The freshwater
Bryozoa comprises two classes namely Gymnolaemata and Phylactolaemata at
global level both of them have 5 families each and the former class comprises 20
species under 8 genera whereas the latter includes 74 species under 16 genera. A
total of 94 species of Bryozoans placed under 24 genera, 10 families and two classes
are known worldwide. Massard & Geimer (2008) made a detailed analysis of the
global freshwater bryozoans and their study shows that among the seven major
zoogeographical realm the oriental region has highest species number (Table. 2).
The Indian fauna comprises a total of 22 species under 13 genera and 6 families
of the two classes. Out of the 20 species of Gymnolaemata 3 species are available
in India and out of 74 species of Phylactolaemata 19 species are available in India
(Table. 1).
Table 1. Global and Indian Distribution
World India
Class / Family
Genera Species Genera Species
Class Gymnolaemata Allman, 1856 8 20 2 3
(5 Families)
Family Victorellidae Hincks, 1880 4 8 1 1
Family Pottsiellidae Braem, 1940 1 1 - -
Family Paludicellidae Allman, 1885 1 2 - -
Family Arachnidiidae Hincks, 1877 1 1 - -
Family Hislopiidae Jullien, 1885 1 8 1 2
Class Phylactolaemata Allman, 1856 16 74 11 19

(5 Families)
Family Fredericellidae Hyatt, 1868 2 6 1 1
Family Plumatellidae Allman, 1856 9 59 6 14
Family PectinatellidaeLacourt, 1968 1 1 2 2
Family Cristatellidae Allman, 1856 1 1 - -
Family Lophopodidae Rogick, 1935 3 7 2 2
Total 24 94 13 22
164
Bryozoa
Table 2. Zoogeographical distribution

Class/Family PA NA NT AT OL AU PAC WORLD
G Sp. G Sp. G Sp. G Sp. G Sp. G Sp. G Sp. G Sp.
Gymnolaemata 6 10 4 4 4 6 2 2 3 8 2 2 - - 8 20
Allman, 1856
5F; 8G; 20sp.
Victorellidae 3 5 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 - - 4 8
Hincks, 1880
Pottsiellidae - - 1 1 1 1 - - - - - - - - 1 1
Braem, 1940
Paludicellidae 1 1 1 1 1 2 - - 1 1 1 1 - - 1 2
Allman, 1885
Arachnidiidae 1 1 - - - - 1 1 - - - - - - 1 1
Hincks, 1877
Hislopiidae 1 3 - - 1 2 - - 1 5 - - - - 1 8
Jullien, 1885
Phylactolaemata 13 34 9 28 6 24 8 20 14 39 4 14 1 2 16 74
Allman, 1856
5F; 16g; 74sp.
Fredericellidae 2 4 1 4 1 3 1 2 2 4 1 2 - - 2 6
Hyatt, 1868
Plumatellidae 6 24 4 20 3 19 6 14 9 30 2 11 1 1 9 59
Allman, 1856
Pectinatellidae 1 1 1 1 1 1 - - 1 1 - - - - 1 1
Lacourt, 1968
Cristatellidae 1 1 1 1 - - - - - - - - - - 1 1
Allman, 1856
Lophopodidae 3 4 2 2 1 1 1 4 2 4 1 1 - - 3 7
Rogick, 1935
Total 19 44 13 32 10 30 10 22 17 47 6 16 1 2 24 94
Source: Table slightly modified after Massard & Geimer, 2008.
PA: Palaearctic; NA: Nearctic; NT: Neotropical; AT: Africotropical; OL:
Oriental; AU: Australasian; PAC: Pacific Oceanic Islands
SYSTEMATIC LIST OF INDIAN FRESHWTER BRYOZOA

Phylum Bryozoa Ehrenberg, 1831
Class Gymnolaemata Allman, 1856
Order Ctenostomata (or Ctenostomatida) Busk, 1852
Family Hislopiidae Jullien, 1885
Genus Hislopia Carter, 1858
1. Hislopia prolix Hirose and Mawatari, 2011
(=Hislopia lacustris: Annandale, 1911 (vide Jung et al., 2017))
165
2. Hislopia moniliformis (Annandale, 1911)

Family Victorellidae, Hincks, 1880
Genus Victorella Saville Kent, 1870
3. Victorella pavida Saville Kent, 1870
Class Phylactolaemata Allman, 1856
Family Fredericellidae Hyatt, 1868
Genus Fredericella Gervais, 1838
4. Fredericella sultana (Blumenbach, 1779)
Family Plumatellidae Allman, 1856
Genus Afrindella Annandale, 1912
5. Afrindella tanganyikae (Rousselet,1907) (=Plumatella tanganyikae of
Annandale, 2011)
Genus Plumatella Lamarck, 1816
6. Plumatella bombayensis Annandale, 1908 (?)
7. Plumatella emarginata Allman, 1844
8. Plumatella casmiana Oka, 1907
9. Plumatella fruticosa Allman, 1844
10. Plumatella javanica Kraepelin, 1906
11. Plumatella repens (Linnaeus, 1758)
12. Plumatella ganapati Rao, Agrawal, Diwan & Shrivastava, 1985
Genus Hyalinella Jullien, 1885
13. Hyalinelladiwanensis Rao, Agrawal, Diwan & Shrivastava, 1985
14. Hyalinella punctata (Hancock, 1850)
Genus Rumercanella Hirose and Mawatare, 2011
15. Rumarcanella vorstmani (Toriumi, 1952)
Genus Stolella Annandale, 1909
16. Stolellaindica Annandale, 1909
Genus Swarupella Srivastava, 1981
17. Swarupella andamanensis (Rao, 1961)
18. Swarupella divina Wood et al., 2006
Family Lophopopidae Rogick, 1935
Genus Asajirella Oda & Mukai, 1989
19. Asajirella gelatinosa (Oka, 1891)
Genus Lophopodella Rousselet, 1904
20. Lophopodella carteri (Hyatt, 1866) ( =Stolellahimalayanus Annandale, 1911)
Family Pectinatellidae Lacourt, 1968
Genus Pectinatella Leidy, 1851
21. Pectinatellaburmanica Annandale, 1908
166
Bryozoa
Genus Varunella
22. Varunella indorana Wiebach, 1974
Plumatella fruticosa Allman, 1844
Reproduction and Life History

(Source: http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/bryozoa/bryozoalh.html)
Bryozoans can reproduce both sexually and asexually. Asexual reproduction
occurs by budding off new zooids as the colony grows, and is this the main way by
which a colony expands in size. If a piece of a bryozoan colony breaks off, the piece
can continue to grow and will form a new colony. In some bryozoan species, colonies
largely die off in the winter and regenerate the following summer. Freshwater
bryzoans can also reproduce asexually by forming masses of cells surrounded by
chitinous valves. These cell masses, known as statoblasts, remain dormant for
some time and can withstand drying and freezing; when conditions are favorable,
the statoblasts germinates and forms a new zooid.
Most bryozoans are hermaphroditic, with individuals containing both ovaries
and testes; however, these may not be at the same state of maturity at the same
time. Some species shed both eggs and sperm directly into the water where
they fuse, but the majority of species brood their eggs, within the zooecium or
in special chambers known as ovicells, and capture free-swimming sperm with
their tentacles to fertilize the eggs. The fertilized eggs divide and develop into free-
swimming larvae, which escape from the brood chamber and swim away. These
larvae eventually settle on a suitable substrate and metamorphose into a new
zooid, which becomes the parent zooid, or ancestrula, of a new bryozoan colony.
Significance of Freshwater Bryozoans

Wood (2005) investigated the pipeline menace of Freshwater Bryozoans and his
observation and suggestion to control this fouling agent is as follows. Under certain
167
conditions, conduits carrying unfiltered water from lakes or rivers eventually

become lined with bryozoans, hydroids, sponges, and many other organisms.
By blocking the conduit or clogging end use devices, these nuisance animals
impose serious economic costs. Bryozoans are probably the most common among
the fouling animals. Three factors that hamper control efforts are (1) dormant
bodies (statoblasts or hibernaculae) that tolerate harsh physical and chemical
treatments; (2) regeneration of bryozoan colonies from pockets of living tissue; (3)
easy dispersal of bryozoans through air and water. Control measures must take
into account the species involved, their source, their accessibility, the end use of
the water, and the seasonal conditions in which the problem occurs. Wood et al.
(2006) identified Pomacea canaliculata an invasive species of snail is a voracious
predator of phylactolaemate bryozoans.
Gap Area
The studies on the freshwater bryozoans is very limited and scanty and at present
very limited and very little attention is given to this group. The status of certain
freshwater Bryozoan species are not clear so a taxonomic revision of this group is
essential. It becomes very rare to see taxonomists who are working in this group
and most of the earlier workers are superannuated. The authors are not experts
of this group and the present work is merely a compilation of information for
study purpose, based on the published research articles and information available
online. More young researchers should come forward to study these poorly studied
freshwater bryozoans.
Acknowledgments
The authors are thankful to Dr. Kailash Chandra, Director, Zoological Survey of
India, Kolkata for providing research facilities, guidance and encouragement.
References
Annandale N, 1906. Notes on the freshwater fauna of India No II “The affinities of
Hislopia” J. As. Soc. Bengal (New series) ii, 59.
Annandale, N., 1911. Freshwater sponges, hydroids and polyzoa. The Fauna of
British India including Ceylon and Burma: I-VIII,1-251.
Annandale, N. & S. Kemp, 1912. Observations on the invertebrate fauna of the
Kumaon Lakes, with special reference to the Sponges and Polyzoa. Records
of the Indian Museum, 7: 129-145.
Chaubey, U. and Rao, K.S. 1985. A report on the abnormalities in Hislopia
(EctoproctaGymnolaemata) material from Central India. 1. Hydrobiol, 1(2):
101-104. http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/bryozoa/bryozoalh.html
Jakhalekar S. Report of a freshwater Bryozoa Asajirella gelatinosafrom Pune. eL
A journal 2012; 1(3):11
Jung, K.J., Wöss, E.R., Chae, H.S, Seo, J.E. 2017. Gymnolaemate Bryozoans
in Fresh and Brackish Water of South Korea: Occurrence, Taxonomical
Remarks and Zoogeographical Implications. Anim. Syst. Evol. Divers. Vol.
33, No. 1: 37-44. https://doi.org/10.5635/ASED.2017.33.1.060.
168
Bryozoa
Kalita, G and Goswami, M.M. 2005. Ectoproctan fauna of Deepar wetland of

Assam, India. Zoos’ print Journal. 21(1): 2123-2125.
Massard J.A., and Geimer, G. 2008. Global diversity of bryozoan or ectoprocta in
Mitra, S. 2016. Less Known Invertebrate Communityin Wetland Ecosystems of
West Bengal. In. Wetland Crisis and Options. Edited by G.K. Shaha. ISBN
978-81-85211-98-5. Pp. 69-77.
Mitra, S. and Pattanayak, J.G. 2013. New Record of freshwater Bryozoa from
Arunachal Pradesh, India. Rec. zool, Surv. India: 113(Part-4): 63-64, 2013.
Mokashe, S.S, Swami, P.S and Harkal, A.D. 2015. First record of Swarupella
divina, Wood 2006 (Bryozoa, Phylactolaemata) from India. Bioscience
Discovery, 6(2): 129-130, July
Rao, K.S. 1961. On new species of the genus Plumetella, Lamarck (Bryozoa;
Ectoprocta), from Andaman Island. J. Univ. sagar. 10(IIB): 51-53.
Rao, K.S. 1973. Studies on freshwater Bryozoa 3. The Bryozoa of the Narmada
River System. In: Larwood, G.P. (Ed.), Living and Fossil Bryozoa. Academic
Press, London, pp. 529-537.
Rao, K.S. 1976. Studies on freshwater Bryozoa 6. The Bryozoa of Rajasthan.
Records of the Zoological Survey of India, 69: 329-345.
Rao, K.S. 1991. Freshwater Bryozoa. Animal Resources of India: 543-547.
Rao, K.S. and Ghosh, N. 1962. On the extension of the geographical distribution
of Hislopia lacustris sub. sp. moniliformis Annandale (Ectoprocta:
Gymnolaemata) along with a note on its morphological peculiarities.
Journal of the University of Saugar, II(B): 11-13.
Rao, K.S., Agrawal, V., Diwan, A.P. &Shrivastava, P. 1985. Studies on freshwater
Bryozoa 5. Observations on central Indianmaterials. In: Nielsen, C. &
Larwood, G.P. (Eds.), Bryozoa: Ordovician to Recent. Olsen &Oslen,
Fredensborg, pp. 257-264.
Roonwal, M.L. 1969. Fauna of Rajasthan, India, Part 1. General introduction
with a list of collection localities and a bibliography of Rajasthan Zoology.
Records of the Zoological Survey of India, 61(3 & 4): 291-376.
Samanta, T.K. 1998. Freshwater Bryozoa of West Bengal. In : Fauna of West
Bengal, State Fauna Series, 3(Part 10): 445-461.
Samanta, T.K. 1999. Freshwater Bryozoa of Meghalaya. In : Fauna of Meghalaya,
State Fauna Series, 4 (Part 9): 577-587.
Samanta, T.K. 2000. Freshwater Bryozoa of Tripura. In : Fauna of Tripura, State
Fauna Series, 7(Part 4): 317-321.
Samanta, T.K. 2003. Freshwater Bryozoa of Sikkim. In : Fauna of Sikkim, State
Fauna Series, 9(Part-5): 121-127.
Samanta, T.K. 2005. Freshwater Bryozoa of Andhra Pradesh. In : Fauna of Andhra
Pradesh, State Fauna Series, 5(Part-5): 559-572.
169
Srivastava, P. 1981. Swarupella Gen. Novo (Ectoprocta: Phylactolaemata) from

India. Bioresearch, 5(1): 53-55.
Srivastava, P. and Rao, K.S. 1985. Ecology of Plumatella emarginata (Ectoprocta:
Phylactolaemata) in the surface waters of Madhya Pradesh with a note on
its occurrence in the protected water works of Bhopal (India). Environmental
Pollution (Series A), 39: 123-130.
Swami P.S., Mokashe S.S and Harkal A.D. 2014. Records of freshwater Bryozoa
in Mula Dam of Ahmednagar District, Maharashtra, India. Journal of
Entomology and Zoology Studies 2014; 2(6): 99-101.
Wood, T.S. 2004. Bryozoans. In: Yule, C. M. and Yong, H. S. (Eds.) Freshwater
Invertebrates of the Malaysian Region, Academy of Sciences, Kuala
Lumpur, Malaysia, 136-144 pp.
Wood, T.S. 2005. The Pipeline Menace of Freshwater Bryozoans. Denesia 16,
zugleich Kataloge der OÖ. Landesmuseen Neue Serie., 28: 203-208.
170
Chapter 11
Annelida : POLYCHAETa
Santanu Mitra and Subhrendu S. Mishra
Abstract
Review of literature on freshwater polychaete fauna of India reveals occurrence
of 41 species belonging to 25 genera in 15 families. Nereididae is the most diverse
family with 5 genera and 11 species. Some species, considered primarily as
estuarine component, are able to survive in pure freshwater conditions also. Very
few species are able to adapt lentic freshwater ecosystems, like ponds or lakes. A
comprehensive list of freshwater polychaetes of India is provided herewith.
Key words: Polychaeta; Annelida; freshwater.
INTRODUCTION
Polychaetes, commonly called as ‘brittle worms’, are non-monophyletic groups of
animals belonging to the phylum Annelida. This is one of the major invertebrate
communities of marine ecosystems. They are usually the most abundant animals
living in sand and mud substratum of seas hore. There are several marine forms
which have penetrated to brackish water of estuarine ecosystems and also survive
in pure freshwater systems, but unable to breed there while others have adapted
significantly to remain for their entire life-span in freshwater. Polychaetes are
considered an important faunal component in any ecosystem, exhibiting a short life
span with a high secondary production. This group is established as an important
link by the food chain; they play a leading role in demersal fishery as they are
consumed by many bottom feeding fishes.
However, systematics and ecological studies of polychaetes are comparatively
very poor than those of other major groups of animals. The global diversity of
polychaetes is about 14000 species, where as only about 320 species have been
reported from Indian waters (Misra, 1995; Pati et al., 2015). No comprehensive
report on ‘Freshwater Polychaetes’ has been brought out from India, except for
some stray reports (Dutta Munshi et al., 1989, Nesemann et al., 2004, Mitra &
Roy, 2010, Mitra et al., 2011). The present work is an attempt towards preparing
a check list of all the polychaetes that live in freshwater habitats in India as only
scattered information is currently available on this group. This comprehensive
checklist may serve as an essential database for ecological and taxonomical works
on the benthic fauna of this group in any freshwater bodies. Information was
compiled and collated based on the review of the literature on polychaete fauna in
different lentic and lotic freshwater systems found all along and across India, as
well as personal field experience of the present author.
Zoological Survey of India, 27, Jawhar Lal Nehru Road, Kolkata-700016

171
Mitra and Mishra
Historical Resume
Wesenberg-Lund (1958) initiated the listing of typical non-marine polychaetes
around the world by reporting 43 species, comprising 31 purely fresh water species.
Glasby and Timm (2008) were the first to review comprehensive global data on the
diversity of freshwater polychaetes which yielded enlisting of 168 species under 70
genera and 24 families though not more than 2% of all the species of polychaetes
found in the world. Later Glasby et al. (2009) updated it by cataloguing 197 species
representing 78 genera and 26 families of which the family Nereididae dominated
comprising 61 species.
Willey (1908) described a new species Spio bengalensis from the brackish
water ponds of Canning in Sunderban delta, which was the first work on non-
marine polychaetes in India, till the pioneering work of Southern (1921) providing
a comprehensive account of the polychaetes of brackish waters in India. In this
work, he even mentioned about some polychaetes that could live in pure fresh
water conditions. Fauvel (1932, 1953) in his studies on Polychaetes of Indian
waters mentioned only 47 brackish-water species out of the total 283 polychaetes
species known from India. Misra (1995) contributed a more detailed account on
the non-marine polychaetes from several brackish water ecosystems in India and
reported 167 species of polychaetes under 38 families, with comments on salinity
tolerance of those species. There are several reports on estuarine polychaetes that
can also tolerate freshwater conditions (Southern 1921; Misra 1995).
Table 1. Freshwater polychaete diversity in India and World
No. of No. of No of No of
Family Genus in Genus in species in species in
World India the world India
Capitellidae 6 3 4 4
Maldanidae 1 1 1 1
Orbinidae 1 1 1 1
Paraonidae 1 0 1 0
Pisionidae 1 0 1 0
Nereididae 17 5 55 11
Pilargidae 1 1 1 1
Goniadidae 1 1 1 1
Nephtyidae 2 2 3 2
Phyllodocidae 1 1 1 1
Eunicidae 1 1 1 1
Histriobdellidae 1 0 10 0
Lumbrineridae 1 1 2 2
172
Annelida : Polychaetes
No. of No. of No of No of
Family Genus in Genus in species in species in
World India the world India
Onuphidae 1 0 1 0
Sabellidae 8 1 22 1
Serpulidae 2 1 5 2
Cirratulidae 2 0 2 0
Sternaspidae 2 1 3 1
Ampharetidae 6 0 6 0
Terebellidae 1 0 1 0
Spionidae 11 4 17 5
Aeolosomatidae 3 1 27 7
Nerillidae 1 0 1 0
Protodrilidae 1 0 1 0
Potamodrilidae 1 0 1 0
TOTAL 74 25 169 41
Diversity
A thorough review of literature on the polychaetes and other aquatic annelid fauna
of the freshwater ecosystems of India reveal the occurrence of 41 species belonging
to 25 genera and 15 families (Table 2). Family-wise Global and Indian diversity
of freshwater polychaetes are compared in Table 1. The family Nereididae is the
most diverse, with 5 genera and 11 species, followed by family Spionidae, with 4
genera and 5 species. Family Aeolosomatidae, earlier considered as freshwater
oligochaete, is now treated under Polychaeta (Glasby and Team 2008; Glasby
et al., 2009). Some species, primarily considered as estuarine component, are
revealed to be able to survive in pure freshwater condition also. A few species can
thrive in lentic freshwater ecosystems, like ponds or lakes. All the 7 species of
Aeolosomatidae are very specialists in lentic and lotic freshwater bodies. Among
the typical polychaetes, Namalycastis indica and Micronephtys oligobranchia
found in the Yamuna river about 1600 km from the Ganges delta, at the elevation
of 70-100 m above sea level (Glasby and Timm, 2008). Namalycastis indica was
reported from several pond ecosystems of India located at far distances from sea-
coast (Roy and Nandi 2008; Mitra and Misra, 2012, Roy and Nandi, 2012). Mitra
and Roy (2010) reported Lumbrineris psedobifilaris from a freshwater bhery at the
East Kolkata wetlands of West Bengal, which is interestingly a new addition to
the Global list of freshwater polychaetes (Glasby et al., 2009). Dutta Munshi (1989)
initiated a very important work, the ecological study of freshwater polychaetes in
the Ganges River, but such studies were not carried out in other major rivers or in
any large freshwater system in the country.
173
Mitra and Mishra
Table 2. Systematic List of the Freshwater Polychaetes of Indian Waters

Phylum Annelida Lamarck, 1809 14. N. glandicincta (Southern, 1921)
Class Polychaeta Grube, 1850 15. N. meggitti (Monro, 1931)
Order Scolecida sensu Rouse and 16. N. reducta (Southern, 1921)
Fauchald, 1997
Genus Tylonereis Fauvel, 1911
Family CAPITELLIDAE Grube, 1862
17. Tylonereis fauveli Southern, 1921
Genus Capitella Blainville, 1828
Family PILARGIDAE
1. Capitella capitata (Fabricius, 1970) de Saint-Joseph, 1899
Genus Heteromastus Eisig, 1887 Genus Sigambra Muller, 1858
2. Heteromastus filiformes ( Claparede,
18. Sigambra constricta (Southern,
1864)
1921)
3. H. similis Southern, 1921
Family GONOIADIDAE Kinberg, 1866
Genus Parheteromastus Monro, 1937
Genus Glycinde Muller, 1858
4. Parheteromastus tenuis Monro, 1937
19. Glycinde oligodon Southern, 1921
Family MALDANIDAE
Malmgren, 1867 Family NEPHTYIDAE Grube, 1850
Genus Euclymene Verrill, 1900 Genus Nephtys Cuvier, 1817

5. Euclymene annandalei Southern, 20. Nephtys polybranchia Southern,
1921 1921
Family ORBINIIDAE Hartman, 1942 Genus Micronephthys Friedrich, 1939
Genus Scoloplos Baainville, 1828 21. Micronephthys oligobranchia
6. Scoloplos marsupialis Southern, (Southern, 1921)
1921 Family PHYLLODOCIDAE
Order Phyllodocida Dales, 1962 Oersted, 1843
Family NEREIDIDAE Blainville, 1818 Genus Hypereteone Bergstrom, 1914
Genus Dendroneriedes 22. Hypereteone barantollae (Fauvel,
Southern, 1921 1932)
7. Dendronereides gangetica Misra, Order Eunicida Fauchald, 1977
1999
Family EUNICIDAE Berthold, 1827
8. D. heteropoda Southern, 1921
Genus Marphysa Quatrefages, 1866
Genus Dendronereis Peters, 1854
23. Marphysa gravelyi Southern, 1921
9. Dendronereis aestuarina Southern,
Family LUMBRINEREIDAE
1921
Malmgren, 1867
Genus Namalycastis Hartman, 1959
Genus Lumbrineris Blainville, 1818
10. Namalycastis fauveli Rao, 1981
24. Lumbrineris bilabiata Misra, 1999
11. N. indica (Southern, 1921)
25. L. pseudobifilaris Fauvel, 1932
12. N. meraukensis (Horst, 1918)
Order Sabellida Fauchald, 1977
Genus Neanthes Kinberg, 1865
13. Neanthes chilkaensis (Southern, Family SABELLIDAE Latreille, 1825
1921) Genus Potamilla Malmgren, 1866
174
26. Potamilla leptochaeta Southern, Genus Paraprionospio Caullery, 1914

1921 33. Paraprionospio pinnata (Ehlers,
Family SERPULIDAE Rafinesque, 1815 1901)
Genus Ficopomatus Southern, 1921 Genus Pseudopolydora Czerniavasky,
27. Ficopomatus macrodon Southern, 1881
1921 34. Pseudopolydora kempi (Southern,
28. F. uschakovi (Pillai, 1960) 1921)
Order Terebellida sensu Rouse and Order Aelosomatida
Fauchald, 1997 (inserte sedis)
Family STERNASPIDAE Carus, 1863 Family AEOLOSOMATIDAE Beddard,
1895
Genus Sternaspis Otto, 1820
Genus Aeolosoma Ehrenberg, 1828
29. Sternaspis costata Marenzeller, 1879
35. Aeolosoma beddardi Michaelsen,
Order Spionida sensu Rouse &
1900
Fauchald, 1997
36. A. headleyi Beddarad, 1888
Family SPIONIDAE Grube, 1850
37. A. hemprichi Ehrenberg, 1831
Genus Polydora Bosc, 1802
38. A. hyalinum Blunke, 1967
30. Polydora ciliata (Johnston, 1838)
39. A. niveum Leydig, 1865
31. P. hornelli Willey, 1905
40. A. travancorense Aiyer, 1926
Genus Prionospio Malmgren, 1867
41. A. viride Stephenson, 1913
32. Prionospio cirrifera Wiren,1833
Importance of Polychaetes
Polychaetes serve as food for bottom-feeding fin- and shell fishes. They are used
as ‘bait organisms’ in sport fishery. Polychaetes are important food resource in
aquaculture for Crustacea as they provide correct balance of PUFA that is very
essential for maturation and egg production of shrimps; they often consume Eunice
viridis as food. Polychaetes are now-a-days used as indicator species of pollution
in EIA (Environment Impact Assessment) studies as considerable importance is
established to their presence or absence in the aquatic systems. They also play a
key role in recycling of nutrients between pelagic and benthic realms; sometimes
these animals are used as toxicological test organisms. Some polychaetes are being
used to remove organic wastes from aquaculture systems.
Scope of studies
Polychaetes are one of the most important components of marine benthic
community, but in freshwater systems though their diversity and density of
populations are not high, their occurrence or absence has of significance as
indicator species implying the health of the habitat environment. Investigations on
this group for diversity documentation works in the freshwater ecosystems of India
have not been adequately attempted. It is very much needed to have systematic
surveys along the major freshwater bodies i.e. rivers, lakes and other small and big
water bodies to investigate and study the diversity of polychaetes and also their
ecological role in these aquatic systems.
175
Mitra and Mishra
Fig. 1. Lumbrinereis bilabiata
Fig. 2. Heteromastus filiformes
Fig. 3. A group of polychaete worm (belonging to Nereidae,

Lumbrinereidae and Capitellidae)
176
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to Dr. Kailash Chandra, Director, Zoological Survey of
India, for facilities and permission during the study of leeches. The first author
extends special thanks to Dr. Ch. Satyanarayana, Sci.-C and O/C General Non-
Chordata Section. The authors also extend deep gratitude to Sri K.C. Gopi,
Scientist-F, Dr. L. Kosygin, Scientist “D” and Dr. K. Valarmathi for their valid
suggestions and given oppertunity.
References
Datta Munshi, J.S., Singh, G.N., Singh, D.K., 1989. Ecology of Freshwater
Polychaetes of River Ganga. Journal of Freshwater Biology, 1: 103-108.
Fauvel, P. 1932. Annelida polychaeta of the Indian Museum, Calcutta. Mem.
Indian Mus., 12: 1-262.
Fauvel, P. 1953. The Fauna of India including Pakisthan, Ceylon, Burma & Malay,
Annelida, Polychaeta. Indian Press Ltd., Allahabad: xii + 507 pp.
Glasby, C.J. and Timm, T. 2008. Global diversity of polychaetes (Polychaeta;
Annelida) in freshwater. Hydrobiologia, 595: 107-115.
Glasby, C.J., Timm, T., Muir, I. A., and Gill, J. 2009. Catalogue of non-marine
polychaeta (Annelida) of the world. Zootaxa, 2070: 1-52.
Misra, A. 1995. Polychaetes. Hughly Matla Estuary, Estuarine Ecosystem Series,
(2): 93-155.
Mitra, S., Chakraborty, R.K. and Misra, A. 2011. Polychaeta: Annelids. State
Fauna Series 3, Fauna of Tamil Nadu, 17(Part-2): 83-100. (Zoological
Survey of India, Kolkata).
Mitra S. and Roy M. 2010. First record of Lumbrinereis pseudobifilaris Fauvel
(Annelida: Polychaeta) from west Bengal. Rec. zool. Surv. India., 110(4):
81-82.
Mitra, S. and Misra, A. 2012. Polychaetes of the wetlands of West Bengal. J.
environ. & Sociobiol., 7(2): 141-146.
Nesemann H., Sharma, G. and Sinha, R.K. 2004. Aquatic Annelida (Polychaeta,
Oligochaeta, Hirudinea) of the Ganga River and adjacent stagnant water
bodies in Patna (Bihar, India) with description of new leech species (Family
Salifidae). Ann. Nat. Mus. Wien, 105B: 139-178.
Nesemann, H., Sharma, S., Sharma, G., Khanal, S.N., Pradhan B., Shah, D.N.
and Tachamo, R.D. 2007. Aquatic invertebrates of the Ganga River System
(Mollusca, Annelida, Crustacea [in part], 263pp. Volume 1. Chandi Media
Pvt. Ltd., Kathmandu.
Pati, S.K., Swain, D., Sahu, K.C. and Sharma, R.M. 2015. Diversity and Distribution
of Polychaetes (Annelida: Polychaeta) along Maharashtra coast, India.
In: M. Rawat, S. Dookia and C. Sivaperuman (Eds.), Aquatic Ecosystem:
Biodiversity, Ecology and Conservation. Springer, New Delhi, 53-65.
177
Mitra and Mishra
Roy, M. and Nandi, N.C. 2008. Macrozoobenthos of some lacustrine wetlands of

West Bengal, India. Proceedings of the 12th World Lake Conference (Taal
2007), 28th Oct – 2nd Nov, 2007, Jaipur, India : 506-513.
Roy, M. and Nandi, N.C. 2012. Macrozoobenthos. Fauna of Indian Museum Tank.
(Ed. Director, Zoological Survey of India). Rec. zool. Surv. India, Occ. Paper
No. 333: 121-136.
Southern, R. 1921. Polychaeta of Chilka Lake and also of fresh and brackish water
in other parts of India. Mem. Indian Mus., 5: 563-659.
Wesenberg-Lund, E. 1958. Lesser Antillean polychaetes chiefly from brackish
waters, with a survey and a bibliography of fresh and brackish water
polychaetes. Studies on the Fauna of Curaçao and other Caribbean Islands.
8: 1-41.
Willey, A.1908. The fauna of brackish ponds at Port Canning, Lower Bengal XII.
Description of a new species of polychaete worm of the genus Spio. Rec.
Indian Mus., 2(4): 389-390.
178
Chapter 12
Annelida : OLIGOCHaETa (Microdrili)
Santanu Mitra, Rahul Paliwal, and

Subhrendu S. Mishra*
Abstract
The present document recognises 71 species of Oligochaetes placed under 20
genera and one family freshwater environments of India. Taxonomic studies of
freshwater oligochaetes in India are sporadic and their diversity and distribution
in several states is not known yet. Since they are indicators of health of aquatic
bodies, besides being food source for benthic organisms, a thorough systematic
exploration and inventory of oligochaetes of various acquatic habitats in poorly
explored states are needed on priority basis.
Key words: Oligochaeta, Annelida, Freshwater, Diversity, India.
Introduction
The oligochaetes are elongate and segmented animals with no appendages belonging
to Phylum Annelida. The first segment, called prostomium, is smooth and conical
without any sensory organ, while remaining segments are with a few bristles or
chaetae. A few anterior segments with numerous sensory glands are modified into
clittelum, important for reproduction. Oligochates are either burrowing or aquatic
in habit. About half of the Annelids are placed in subclass Oligochaeta. They were
also termed as Clitellata that include all segmented animals possessing a clitellum.
However, paraphyly of clitellates has been confirmed by molecular analyses
(Siddall et al., 2001) and Clitellata has become synonymous with “Oligochaeta”
(Martin et al., 2008) by separating monophyletic leeches and branchiobellids.
The oligochaetes were classified by Benham (1890) into two convenient
groups on the basis of their body size and habitat preferences: Microdrili (small,
mainly aquatic worms, including primarily terrestrial family Enchytraeidae), and
Megadrili (larger, mostly terrestrial worms and their aquatic representatives).
Martin et al. (2008) estimated about 1,700 valid species of globally known aquatic
oligochaetes. Of these about 1100 spp. inhabit freshwater, 600 are known from
marine environment and around 100 species are living in ground water. Family
Enchytraeidae include nearly one-third of globally valid 676 species inhabiting
aquatic habitats. Michaelsen (1928) combined orders Oligochaeta and Hirudinea
into class Clitellata on the basis of their close affinities. Though Oligochaeta Grube,
1850 being older name than Clitellata Michaelsen, 1928, the latter was explicated
with the objective to include Hirudinea that follows the priority principle for
phylogenetic taxon names (Rouse and Fauchald, 1995).
*Zoological Survey of India, 27, Jawhar Lal Nehru Road, Kolkata-700016

E-mail: *[email protected]
179
Mitra et al.
Oligochaetes generally comprise of 50% of the benthic macro-invertebrate

communities in Indian lakes, rivers and streams, at least 10% of the benthic
community in estuaries near-shore, coastal areas etc., and 40% terrestrial,
freshwater and marine oligochaetes. They form an integral component of aquatic
communities throughout the world. This group largely contributes to diet of
bottom feeding omnivores. Many studies have focused on the use of freshwater
oligochaetes as indicator of trophic condition, environmental health and their
impact on sediment structure. Correct identification of oligochaetes is necessary for
bio-assessment of any aquatic environment. The aim of the present communication
is to provide a brief state of art report of freshwater oligochaetes of India and scope
of the studies for this particular group of animals.
Review of work
Stephenson (1930) authored one of the major reviews of Oligochaeta, but this was
primarily as an overview of the zoology of this group, not as taxonomic reference.
Subsequently, Sperber (1948) published the most comprehensive contribution to
the taxonomy of Naididae. Brinkhurst and Jamieson (1971) compiled voluminous
information on systematics and taxonomy of aquatic oligochaetes of the world.
Brinkhurst and Wetzal (1984) added the supplement to it with the global review,
and provided an annotated list of described or revised freshwater oligochaetes.
Further, Brinkhurst (1986) provided guide to the freshwater oligochaetes of the
world as a supplement to previous publications.
Annandale (1905) was the pioneer to put forth a note on Indian oligochate, and
described an aquatic oligochate, Chaetogaster bengalensis, from India. Stephenson
(1907 a & b) and Michaelson (1909) were next to him to work on Indian freshwater
oligochaete fauna. Stephenson had done an extensive work covering most of the
geographical range of India, leading to documentation of the fist compilation
on oligochaete fauna of India (Stephenson, 1923), followed by few other notable
contributions till 1931 (Stephenson, 1924, 1925, 1926, 1931). Aiyer (1929) gave
an account of aquatic olegochaeta from Travancore following the work of Cognetti
(1911).
In the latter half of 20th century, K.V. Naidu devoted to the study of aquatic
oligochaetes and his five-decade-long research along with co-workers was compiled
in the form of “The Fauna of India and the adjacent countries - Aquatic Oligochaeta”
(Naidu, 2005). Our knowledge on Aquatic Oligochaetes of India is mainly based on
this comprehensive work.
The present list of aquatic oligochaetes of India is largely based on Naidu
(2005). Species referred under family Microchaetidae in Naidu (2005) are regarded
as aquatic representatives of megadril oligochaetes, assigned under family
Almidae, and are not included in the present list. Similarly, species listed in the
family Aeolosomatidae are also excluded following recent observations (Rouse
and Fauchald, 1995). A total of 106 aquatic Oligochaeta species has been listed by
Singh et al. (2009), including Aeolosomatids and other Asian species that are not
recorded from Indian Territory.
Species Diversity
Classification of Oligochaeta is in a state of instability due to considerable
ongoing studies using molecular and morphological data. The systematic position
180
Annelida : Oligochaeta (Microdrili)
of the family Aeolosomatidae is uncertain. However, it has been excluded from the
present list, as it is included under freshwater polychaetes (Rouse and Fauchald,
1995; Glasby et al., 2009). Primarily terrestrial microdril family Enchytraeidae,
that is represented by 18 species under 7 genera in India is also excluded from
the purview of this communication. The present document recognises 71 species of
oligochaetes placed under 20 genera in one family as purely aquatic in habit. The
list of species known from India is provided hereunder (Table 1).
Table 1. Systematic List of freshwater oligochaetes of India
Phylum Annelida Genus Haemonais Bretscher, 1900
Class Clitellata 17. Haemonais waldvogeli Bretscher, 1900
Subclass Oligochaeta Genus Branchiodrilus Mich., 1900
Order Tubificida 18. Branchiodrilus hortensis Stephenson,
1910
Family NAIDIDAE
19. Branchiodrilus semperi (Bourne,
Subfamily Naidinae
1890)
Genus Chaetogaster von Baer, 1827
Genus Dero Oken, 1815
1. Chaetogaster cristallinus Vejdovsky,
20. Dero cooperi Stephenson, 1932
1883
21. Dero digitata (Müller, 1773)
2. Chaetogaster diaphanous
22. Dero dorsalis Ferronière, 1899
(Gruithuisen, 1828)
23. Dero indica Naidu, 1962
3. Chaetogaster diastrophus
(Gruithuisen, 1828) 24. Dero nivea Aiyer, 1929
4. Chaetogaster langi Bretscher, 1896 25. Dero obtusa d’Udekem, 1855
5. Chaetogaster limnaei bengalensis 26. Dero palmata Aiyer, 1929

Annandale, 1905 27. Dero pectinata Aiyer, 1929
6. Chaetogaster limnaei limnaei von 28. Dero plumosa Naidu, 1962
Baer, 1827 29. Dero raviensis (Stephenson, 1914)
Genus Nais Müller, 1773 30. Dero sawayai Marcus, 1943
7. Nais andhrensis Naidu & Naidu, 31. Dero zeylanica Stephenson, 1913
1981 Genus Aulophorus Schmarda, 1861
8. Nais andina Cernosvitov, 1939 32. Aulophorus carteri Stephenson, 1931
9. Nais barbata Müller, 1773 33. Aulophorus flabelliger Stephenson,
10. Nais bretscheri Michaelsen, 1899 1931
11. Nais communis Piguet, 1906 34. Aulophorus furcatus (Müller, 1773)
12. Nais elinguis Müller, 1773 35. Aulophorus gravelyi Stephenson, 1925
36. Aulophorus hymanae Naidu, 1963
13. Nais simplex Piguet, 1906
37. Aulophorus indicus Naidu, 1963
14. Nais variabilis Piguet, 1906
38. Aulophorus michaelseni Stephenson,
Genus Slavinia Vejddovsky, 1883
1923
15. Slavinia appendiculata (d’Udekem,
39. Aulophorus moghei Naidu &
1855)
Srivastava, 1980
Genus Stylaria Lamarck, 1816
40. Aulophorus tonkinensis (Vejdovsky,
16. Stylaria fossularis Leidy, 1852 1894)
181
Mitra et al.
Genus Allonais Sperber, 1948 58. Pristinella menoni (Aiyer, 1929)

41. Allonais gwaliorensis (Stephenson, 59. Pristinella minuta (Stephenson, 1914)
1920) Subfamily Tubificinae
42. Allonais inaequalis (Stephenson, Genus Tubifex Lamarck, 1816
1911)
60. Tubifex tubifex (Müller, 1774)
43. Allonais paraguayensis paraguayensis
Genus Limnodrilus Claparède, 1862
(Michaelsen, 1905)
44. Allonais pectinata (Stephenson, 1910) 61. Limnodrilus claparedianus Ratzel,
1868
45. Allonais rayalaseemensis Naidu,
1963 62. Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri Claparède,
1862
Genus Stephensoniana
Genus Monopylephorus
Cernosvitov, 1938
Levinsen, 1884
46. Stephensoniana trivandrana (Aiyer,
1926) 63. Monopylephorus limosus (Hatai 1898)
Genus Pristina Ehrenberg, 1828 64. Monopylephorus parvus Ditlevsen,

1904
47. Pristina aequiseta Bourne, 1891
Genus Bothrioneurum Stolć. 1888
48. Pristina biserrata Chen, 1940
65. Bothrioneurum iris Beddard 1901
49. Pristina breviseta Bourne, 1891
Genus Branchiura Beddard, 1892
50. Pristina evelinae Marcus, 1943
66. Branchiura sowerbyi Beddard, 1892
51. Pristina foreli (Piguet, 1906)
Genus Aulodrilus Bretscher 1899
52. Pristina longiseta longiseta
Ehrenberg, 1828 67. Aulodrilus pectinatus Aiyer, 1928
53. Pristina proboscidea Beddard, 1896 68. Aulodrilus pigueti Kowalewski, 1914
54. Pristina sperberae Naidu, 1963 69. Aulodrilus pleuriseta (Piguet, 1906)
55. Pristina synclites Stephenson, 1925 Genus Telmatodrilus Eisen, 1979
Genus Pristinella Brinkhurst, 1985 70. Telmatodrilus multiprostatus
56. Pristinella acuminata (Liang, 1958) Brinkhurst, 1971
57. Pristinella jenkinae (Stephenson, Genus Alexandrovia Hrabe, 1962

1931) 71. Alexandrovia onegensis Hrabe, 1962
Distribution
Singh et al. (2009) reviewed the freshwater oligochaeta of India and provided
information on distribution of all Indian genera in various parts of the world
and in different states of India. But species-specific distribution data are lacking
owing to absence of work from most of the regions of the country. Although,
Stephenson (1907-1931) and Naidu (1956-2005) studied Indian fauna of freshwater
oligochates, many regions of the country still remain unexplored. However, a few
more publications can be traced in recent years pertaining to record of freshwater
oligochaetes from southern states of India. Ragi and Jaya (2014) studied
oligochaetes from selected ponds of Tiruvananthapuram district, Kerala. Naveed
et al. (2014) provided a preliminary account of aquatic oligochaetes from eastern
Tamil Nadu. Hegde and Sreepada (2014), and Vineetha et al. (2015) worked on
oligochaetes of a few paddy fields of Karnataka and Kerala, respectively. Biswas
182
and Mandal (2006) gave an account of freshwater oligochates of urban habitats

of Kolkata. The Zoological Survey of India published the state fauna series with
reports of 45 species, including terrestrial forms from Odisha (Julka et al., 1989);
27 species from West Bengal (Mukhopadhyay, 1999a); 6 species from Meghalaya
(Mukhopadhyay, 1999b); 7 species from Tripura (Mukhopadhyay, 2000); 3 species
from Sikkim (Mukhopadhyay, 2003); 9 species from Uttarakhand (Biswas and
Mandal, 2010) and 31 species from Karnataka (Biswas and Mandal, 2013). Paliwal
(2014) recorded Branchiura sowerbyi from Himalayan foothills in Himachal
Pradesh.
Significance
Besides being a food source for almost all groups of aquatic organisms and a
principle biotic component among the macro-zoobenthos community, freshwater
oligochaetes function as intermediate host of Myxosporidians which cause a
serious parasitic problem for the freshwater fishes. Further, thorough surveys
of various states are needed systematically, which will add up more information
on species composition and their distribution data to the existing knowledge of
Indian freshwater oligochaetes besides helping us in understanding the life cycle
of myxosporidians infecting fishes. Oligochaetes play an important ecological role
in sediments, improving the fertility of soil by the process of bioturbation through
their burrowing activity and so, are useful in environmental risk assessment
(Chapman, 2001; Egeler and Römbke, 2007). Their presence or absence and density
in an aquatic environment can also be taken into consideration as an indicator of
health of the environment.
Discussions
Studies on the taxonomy of freshwater oligochaetes are sporadic in India and,
therefore, only scattered information is available from discrete localities. The
present checklist suggests there are 71 species of freshwater oligochaetes under 20
genera and one family. The states, namely, Jammu & Kashmir, Andhra Pradesh,
Punjab, West Bengal, Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, Karnataka, Kerala and Tamil
Nadu only have so far been explored, and that too in a very unsystematic way only.
The poorly explored states are Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Delhi, Haryana,
Rajasthan, Gujarat, Odisha, Madhya Pradesh, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand,
Arunachal Pradesh, Sikkim, Assam, Manipur, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Tripura,
Mizoram and Goa. Thus, there is a lot of scope for taxonomic studies of this group
in these states. A thorough systematic exploration and inventory of oligochaetes of
various aquatic habitats in poorly explored states are the dire need of the present
time.
Acknowledgements
India, for facilities and encouragement. The authors also extend deep gratitude to
Sri K.C. Gopi, Scientist-F, Dr. L. Kosygin, Scientist-D and Dr. K. Valarmathi for
their various help and valuable suggestions.
183
Mitra et al.
REFERENCES
Aiyer K.S.P. 1929. An account of aquatic Oligochaeta of Travancore. Rec. Indian
Mus., 31: 13-76, PI. I-V.
Benham W.B. 1890. An attempt to classify earthworms. Q. Jl microsc. Sci., (n.s.)
XXXI: 201-315.
Biswas T. and Mandal C.K. 2010. Annelida: Oligochaetes (Freshwater). Fauna of
Uttarakhand, State Fauna Series, 18: (Part 3) 173-180. (9 sp)
Biswas T. and Mandal C.K. 2013. Annelida: Freshwater Oligochaeta. Fauna of
Karnataka, State Fauna Series, 21: 30-50. (31 sp)
Brinkhurst, R.O. 1986. Guide to the freshwater aquatic microdrile oligochaetes of
North America. Can. Spec. Publ. Fish. Aquat. Sci., 84: vi+ 259 pp.
Brinkhurst, R.O. and Jamieson, B.G.M. 1971. Aquatic Oligochaeta of the world,
xii+860 pp. University of Toronto Press, Toronto and Buffalo.
Brinkhurst, R.O. and Wetzal, M. 1984. Aquatic Oligochaeta of the world:
Supplement. Can. Tech. Rep. Hydrogr. Ocean Sci., 44: 1-101.
Chapman P.M. 2001. Utility and relevance of aquatic oligochaetes in ecological
risk assessment. Hydrobiologia, 463: 149-169.
Cognetti, L.M., 1911. A contribution to our knowledge of the Oligochaeta of
Travancore. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., (8)7: 494-504.
Egeler P, Römbke J (2007) Oligochaeta (microdrile) worms in the environmental
risk assessment of pesticides in the European Union. Acta Hydrobiologica
Sinica, 31(Suppl): 151-162.
Glasby, C.J., Timm, T., Muir, I. A., and Gill, J. 2009. Catalogue of non-marine
Polychaeta (Annelida) of the world. Zootaxa, 2070: 1-52.
Hegde P.R. and Sreepada K.S. 2014. Reports on aquatic oligochaetes (Naididae)
in paddy fields of Moodabidri Taluk, Dakshina Kannada, South India. J.
Entom. Zool. Stud., 2(2): 101-107.
Julka J.M., Senapati B.K. and Paliwal R. 1989. Oligochaeta – A checklist. Fauna
of Orissa: State Fauna Series, 1(2): 79-92. (45 sp)
Martin, P., Martinez-Ansemil, E., Pinder, A., Timm, T. and Wetzel, M.J. 2008.
Global diversity of oligochaetous clitellates (“Oligochaeta”; Clitellata) in
Michaelsen, W. 1909. The Oligochaeta of India, Nepal, Ceylon, Burma and the
Andaman Islands. Mem. Ind. Mus., 1: 103-249.
Michaelsen, W. 1919. Über die Beziehungen der Hirudineenzu den Oligochäten.
Mitteilungenaus dem Naturhistorischen Museum in Hamburg, 36: 131-153.
Mukhopadhyay M.K. 1999. Freshwater Oligochaeta. Fauna of Meghalaya, State
Fauna Series, 4(9): 441-453 (6 sp)
Mukhopadhyay M.K. 1999. Freshwater Oligochaetes. Fauna of West Bengal, State
Fauna Series, 3(10): 95-123 (27 sp)
184
Mukhopadhyaya S.K. 2000. Freshwater Oligochaeta. Fauna of Tripura, State

Fauna Series, 7(Part 4): 231-237. (7 sp)
Mukhopadhyaya S.K. 2003. Freshwater Oligochaeta. Fauna of Sikkim, State
Fauna Series, 9(Part 4): 85-90. (3 sp).
Mukhopadhyaya S.K. 2005. Freshwater Oligochaeta. Fauna of Andhra Pradesh,
State Fauna Series, 5(Part 5): 307-318. (36 sp)
Naidu, K.V. 2005. The Fauna of India and the adjacent countries-Aquatic
Oligochaeta, xiv+294 pp. Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata.
Naveed M. I., Thulasiraja S., Karunakaran S., Kulandaivel C. and Tamil Selvan
R. 2014. Preliminary survey of aquatic oligochaetes in eastern Tamil Nadu,
India. Zoosymposia, 9: 014-023.
(Mollusca, Annelida, Crustacea [in part], 263pp. Nesemann, H., Chandi
Media Pvt. Ltd., Kathmandu.
Paliwal, R. 2014. Oligochaete diversity in Gobindsagar and Nangal Dam wetlands
(H.P. & PB.) India. Rec. zool. Surv. India, 114(Part-4): 559-562.
Ragi M.S. and Jaya D.S. 2014. Distribution and diversity of oligochaetes in
selected ponds of Thiruvananthapuram district, Kerala, South India.
Advances in Ecology, 2014, Art. ID 138360, 9 pages, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1155/2014/138360.
Rouse, G.W. and Fauchald, K. 1995. The articulation of annelids. Zool. Scripta,
24: 269-301.
Schmelz R.M. and Collado R. 2012. An updated checklist of currently accepted
species of Enchytraeidae (Oligochaeta, Annelida) : 67-87. In : S. Schrader
& R.M. Schmelz (eds.) Newsletter on Enchytraeidae, No. 12 –Special
issue 357, Proc. 9th International Sym. Enchytraeidae, 14-16 July 2010,
Braunschweig, Germany.
Siddall M.E., Apakupakul K., Burreson E.M., Coates K.A., Erséus C., Gelder
S.R., Källersjö M. and Trapido-Rosenthal H., 2001. Validating Livanow:
molecular data agree that leeches, branchiobdellidans and Acanthobdella
peledina form a monophyletic group of oligochaetes. Molecular Phylogenetics
and Evolution, 21: 346-351.
Singh H.S., Agrawal R. and Chaudhary A. 2009. Freshwater oligochaetes of India:
A review, Journal of Applied and Natural Science, 1(1): 89-98.
Sperber, C. 1948. A taxonomical study of the Naididae. Zool. Bidr. Uppsala, 28:
296.
Stephenson J. 1907a. Description of an Oligochaete worm allied to Chaetogaster.
Rec. Indian Mus., 1: 133-138, Pl. V.
Stephenson J. 1907b. Description of two fresh-water Oligochaete worms from the
Punjab. Rec. Indian Mus., 1: 234-251, Pl. VIII-IX.
185
Mitra et al.
Stephenson J. 1923. Oligochaeta. The Fauna of British India. Taylor and Francis,
London. xxiv + 518 pp, 262 Figs.
Stephenson J. 1926. Description of Indian Oligochaeta. Rec. Indian Mus., 28: 249-
267, PI. XIII.
Stephenson J. 1931. Description of Indian Oligochaeta II. Rec. Indian Mus., 33:
173-202.
Stephenson, J. 1924. Oligochaeta of the Siju cave, Garo Hills, Assam. Rec. Indian
Mus., 26: 127-135.
Stephenson, J. 1925. On some Oligochaeta mainly from Assam, South India and
the Andaman Islands. Rec. Indian Mus., 27: 43-73, PI. III, IV.
Stephenson, J. 1930. The Oligochaeta, xvi+978 pp. Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Vineetha S., Bijoy Nandan S. and Rakhi Gopalan K.P., 2015, Oligochaete
community structure in paddy fields and channels in Kole paddy fields,
Vembanad Kole wetland, India, Internat. J. Mar. Sci., 5(51): 1-11.
186
Chapter 13
Annelida : Hirudinea (Leeches)
C.K. Mandal and Subhrendu S. Mishra
Abstract
About 700 species of leeches (Annelida: Hirudinea) are known from the world,
whereas only 70 species have so far been recorded from India. Most of the leeches
inhabit freshwater ecosystems. As many as 55 species under 24 genera and
5 families are recorded from the freshwater bodies of India and 36 of them are
endemic.
Key words: Freshwater, Leeches, Distribution, Medicinal, Parasite.
Introduction
Mention of leeches in India is well traced in ancient literatures. Leeches were
called as ‘Jalaukas’ or ‘Jalauka’ in the medicinal work of Sushruta and in the epic
of Mahabharata. The name normally means “having water as its home”, derived
from ‘jala’ (=water) and ‘okas’ (=home). The nomenclature of leech in Sanskrit is
believed to have come from the language of aboriginals.
Majority of leeches inhabits freshwater bodies, while their number in land
and marine water is comparatively less. Freshwater leeches (Hirudinea) are
mainly predatory and parasitic annelids with terminal suckers (Anterior and
Posterior) for attachment, locomotion and feeding. They are closely related to the
Oligochaetes and the epizoic Branchiobdellidae in possession of suckers, median
genital orifice at clitellum region, and analogous jaws in the absence of setae.
Leeches are hermaphrodite annelids with reduced parapodia and setae. They are
recognized as an important macro invertebrate group of versatile habits and since
the time immemorial, they have been playing significant role for the existence of
human beings in this planet. Most of the leeches are blood-suckers on vertebrates
or invertebrates, while others are mainly predators and rarely scavengers. They
are characteristically modified for procuring and digesting their peculiar food,
which consists typically of mammalian blood and animal fluid of smaller annelids,
snails, insect larvae, and organic ooze. As predators and parasites, they occupy
intermediate position in the food chain and trophic structure. Their exclusion from
the environment is likely to affect the whole ecosystem. Leeches do not destroy
crops, fruits or vegetation etc., but are very important so far as regulation of size
and shape of the invertebrate communities is concerned. They are called blood
suckers due to their blood-sucking habit as their food. It anaesthetizes the area
of the host body by saliva and suck blood preventing clot by the help of hirudin
Zoological Survey of India, FPS Building, Kolkata-700016

187
Mandal and Mishra
secretion. Mouth, proboscis, or three jaws of some group are used to penetrate
the body of the host to suck blood from the host body. High degree of adaptability
to a wide range of environmental factors has made them adopt diverse ecological
niches. The medicinal uses and venomous qualities of leeches have made them eye-
catching and raised human curiosity to know about them.
Historical resume
Before 1900: In ancient Indian works, particularly in Sushruta-Samhita (600 BC)
leeches were classified into two distinct groups, viz., venomous and non-venomous,
with six types in each group, Krishna, Karuura, Alagarda, Indrayudha, Samudrika
and Gochandana in the first group and Kapilas, Pingalas, Shankhamukhis,
Musikas, Pundarimukhis and Savavikas in later group. Although, Linnaeus (1758)
initiated naming of leeches in the world (8 species in one genus, Hirudo), the work
of Blanchard (1897) can be treated as the base work on leeches from Indian region.
Between 1900 and 1947: Harding (1920) and Kaburaki (1921a) worked on the
leach fauna of Chilka Lake, a brackish water lagoon in Odisha. Kaburaki (1921b)
studied some leeches in the collection of Indian Museum. Harding (1924) further
described 3 species of aquatic leeches from India. Moore (1924) reported one new
species of leech from Srinagar. Harding and Moore (1927) provided a comprehensive
account of leeches comprising 51 species from the Indian subcontinent. Bhatia
(1930; 1934; 1939; 1940) contributed further to the study of Indian leeches mainly
from Kashmir.
After 1947: Baugh (1960a, b) worked on Indian Rhynchobdellid leeches. Bhatt
(1961) studied fresh water leeches from Nainital district (U.P.). Basu (1967) worked
on leeches of Pulicat Lake. Dr. M. Chandra has contributed considerably towards
study of leeches in India and all his work was consolidated (Chandra, 1991) as
a ‘Handbook on the leeches of India’. This work enlisted 54 species belonging to
25 genera and five families including 9 terrestrial species and 10 marine species.
In recent past, eight new species of freshwater leeches have been described from
India (Mandal 2004b; 2004d; 2013a; 2013b 2015a; 2015b; Naesmann et al., 2007;
Nesemann and Sharma, 2012).
Diversity
Throughout the world, more than 700 species of leeches have been known. Sket
and Trontelj (2008) listed 680 species in 91 genera and many more are described
thereafter. According to them, there are more than 480 species inhabit freshwaters.
Mandal (2004a) enlisted 62 species of leeches from Indian waters including
terrestrial and marine forms. Naesmann et al., (2007) and Nesemann and Sharma,
(2012) contributed towards recording leeches from Gangetic Plain of Bihar with
description of two new species. As per the recent update, 70 species (about 10% of
world diversity) have so far been recorded from India. However, only 55 species
belonging to 25 genera and 5 families were recorded from freshwater bodies of
India (Table-1). Photographs of some representative leeches are provided in plates
I-II.
Distribution
Freshwater leeches are usually found in stagnant waters, where water remains
throughout the year, with aquatic plants and normally parasitic over aquatic fauna.
188
Very few species are found in running water. The distributional map of leeches
of India is based on scattered reports only. Table-1 gives distributional records
of freshwater leeches known from India. Many states have not been explored
properly. Leech fauna of only three states, Jammu and Kashmir, Rajasthan and
West Bengal, are well-studied.
Table 1. Freshwater leeches and their distribution
Sl. Distribution Endemic

Name of the Species
No. India (States) Abroad to India
Family PISCICOLEDAE
1. Ozobranchus shipleyi Odisha; West Bengal Sri Lanka; Pakistan
Harding, 1909
2. Piscicola caeca Kaburaki, Odisha -- Endemic
1921
3. Piscicola olivacea Harding, Jammu & Kashmir; Soochow (China).
1920 Odisha
4. Pontobdellina macrothela Odisha Australia; China;

(Schmarda, 1861) Jamaica; Sumatra;
Sri Lanka; New
South Wales.
5. Pterobdella amara Odisha -- Endemic
Kaburaki, 1921
6. Zeylanicobdella Tamil Nadu Sri Lanka;
arugamensis De Silva, 1963 Malaysia
Family GLOSSIPHONIDAE
7. Batracobdella hardingi Bihar; Jammu & -- Endemic
Baugh, 1960 Kashmir
8. Batracobdella lobata Jammu & Kashmir -- Endemic
(Bhatia, 1934)
9. Batracobdella mahabiri Madhya Pradesh -- Endemic
Baugh, 1960
10. Batracobdella reticulata Himachal Pradesh; -- Endemic
Kaburaki, 1921 Jammu & Kashmir;
Maharashtra;
Punjab
11. Glossiphonia annandalei Bihar; Odisha --
Oka, 1921
12. Glossiphonia complanata Jammu & Kashmir Japan, U.S.A.; Endemic
complanata (Linnaeus, Europe
1758)
13. Glossiphonia cruciata Jammu & Kashmir -- Endemic
Bhatia, 1930
14. Glossiphonia heteroclita Bihar; Rajasthan; North America;
(Linnaeus, 1761) West Bengal Europe; Myanmar
189
Mandal and Mishra

Name of the Species
15. Glossiphonia weberi weberi Andhra Pradesh; Pakistan, Nepal,

Blanchard, 1897 Assam; Bihar; Sumatra; Myanmar
Jammu & Kashmir;
Madhya Pradesh;
Odisha; Rajasthan;
Tamil Nadu; Uttar
Pradesh; West
Bengal
16. Helobdella nociva Harding, Himachal Pradesh; -- Endemic
1924 Jammu & Kashmir;
Karnataka; Odisha;
Rajasthan; West
Bengal
17. Helobdella stagnalis Jammu & Kashmir; Canada; U.S.A.;
(Linnaeus, 1758) Himachal Pradesh Paraguay
18. Hemiclepsis bhatiai Baugh, Bihar; Jammu & -- Endemic
1960 Kashmir
19. Hemiclepsis marginata Himachal Pradesh; U.S.A; Paraguay;
asiatica Moore, 1927 Jammu & Kashmir; Andes; western
Meghalaya; Asia
Rajasthan; Uttar
Pradesh; West
Bengal
20. Hemiclepsis marginata Andhra Pradesh; Europe, Nepal;
marginata Muller, 1774 Bihar; Karnataka; Western Asia
Madhya Pradesh;
Maharashtra;
Odisha; Rajasthan;
Tamil Nadu; Uttar
Pradesh; West
Bengal;
21. Hemiclepsis viridis Kerala -- Endemic
Chelladurai, 1934
22. Hemiclepsis Jharkhand -- Endemic
chharwardamensis Mandal,
2013
23. Paraclepsis praedatrix Andhra Pradesh; -- Endemic
Harding, 1924 Assam; Bihar;
Haryana; Himachal
Pradesh; Karnataka;
Maharashtra;
Rajasthan; West
Bengal
24. Paraclepsis gardensi West Bengal -- Endemic
Mandal, 2004
190

Name of the Species
25. Paraclepsis jorapariensis Jharkhand; -- Endemic

Mandal, 2013 Rajasthan
26. Paraclepsis vulnifera Himachal Pradesh; -- Endemic
Mandal, 2013 Jammu & Kashmir;
Maharashtra;
Rajasthan; Tamil
Nadu
27. Placobdella ceylanica Madhya Pradesh; -- Endemic
(Harding, 1909) Odisha; West Bengal
28. Placobdella emdae Harding, Bihar; Himachal -- Endemic
1920 Pradesh;
Maharashtra;
Odisha; Rajasthan;
West Bengal;
29. Placobdella fulva Harding, Bihar; Rajasthan; Java, Sumatra
1924 West Bengal
30. Placobdella harasundarai West Bengal -- Endemic
Mandal, 2004
31. Placobdella horai Baugh, West Bengal -- Endemic
1960
32. Placobdella indica Baugh, Bihar; Jammu & Endemic
1960 Kashmir
33. Placobdella undulata Himachal Pradesh; -- Endemic
Harding, 1924 Jammu & Kashmir;
Rajasthan; West
Bengal
34. Placobdella gauripurensis West Bengal -- Endemic
Mandal, 2013
35. Placobdella godavariensis Maharashtra -- Endemic
Mandal, 2013
36. Theromyzon mathati Jammu & Kashmir -- Endemic
Bhatia, 1939
37. Theromyzon sexoculata Manipur Siberia (Russia)
(Moore, 1898)
Family ERPOBDELLIDAE
38. Barbronia weberi Andhra Pradesh; -- Endemic
(Blanchard, 1897) Himachal Pradesh;
Jammu & Kashmir;
Madhya Pradesh;
Rajasthan;
Uttarakhand; West
Bengal;
39. Erpobdella octoculata Jammu & Kashmir. Pakistan; Europe;
(Linnaeus, 1758) Palestine
191
Mandal and Mishra

Name of the Species
40. Foraminobdella Tamil Nadu -- Endemic

heptamerata Kaburaki,
1921
41. Herpobdelloidea Assam; Madhya -- Endemic
lateroculata Kaburaki 1921 Pradesh;
Maharastra;
Manipur; Odisha;
Rajasthan; West
Bengal
42. Nematobdella indica Himachal Pradesh; -- Endemic
Kaburaki, 1921 Madhya Pradesh;
Maharashtra;
Punjab; Rajasthan;
Uttar Pradesh; West
Bengal
Family SALIFIDAE
43. Odontobdella krishna Bihar -- Endemic
Nesmann & Sharma 2012
44. Salifa biharensis Nesmann Bihar -- Endemic
et al., 2004
Family HIRUDIDAE
45. Dinobdella ferox Himachal Pradesh; China; Myanmar;
(Balanchard, 1896) Manipur; Sikkim; Sri Lanka; Taiwan;
Uttar Pradesh; West Thailand
Bengal.
46. Dinobdella notata Moore, Tamil Nadu -- Endemic
1927
47. Haemopis indicus Bhatia, Jammu & Kashmir -- Endemic
1940
48. Hirudo asiatica Uttar Pradesh Afghanistan
Balanchard, 1896
49. Hirudo birmanica Andhra Pradesh; Nepal; Pakistan;
(Blanchard, 1894) Assam; Bihar; Sri Lanka;
Himachal Pradesh; Thailand
Karnataka;
Manipur; Nagaland;
Odisha; Rajasthan;
Sikkim; Uttar
Pradesh; West
Bengal;
50. Myxobdella annandalei Tamil Nadu -- Endemic
Oka, 1917
Family POECILOBDELLIDAE
192

Name of the Species
51. Poecilobdella granulosa Andhra Pradesh; -- Endemic

(Savigny, 1820) Assam; Bihar;
Gujarat; Himachal
Pradesh; Madhya
Pradesh;
Maharashtra;
Manipur; Odisha;
Punjab; Rajasthan;
Uttar Pradesh;
Tamil Nadu; West
Bengal;
52. Poecilobdella javanica Assam; Manipur; Sri Lanka; Java;
(Wahiberg, 1856) Jammu & Kashmir; Sumatra; Malaysia;
West Bengal Myanmar;
Philippines.
53. Poecilobdella manillensis Andhra Pradesh; Pakistan, Sri

(Lesson, 1842) Assam; Bihar; Lanka, Myanmar;
Karnataka; Kerala; Borneo; Malayasia,
Madhya Pradesh; Philippines; China
Maharashtra;
Odisha; Tamil Nadu;
Uttar Pradesh; West
Bengal
54. Poecilobdella viridis Moore, Himachal Pradesh; -- Endemic
1927 Jammu & Kashmir;
Kerala; Tamil Nadu;
Uttar Pradesh
55. Whitmania laevis (Baird, Manipur. Myanmar, China,
1869) Formosa ; Japan
Endemism
Mandal (2004c) gave an account of the endemic leech fauna of India. At present,
out of 55 species so far known from freshwaters of India, 36 species (about 65.5%
total species known) seems to be endemic to India (Table-1). Majority of them
belongs to the Jammu and Kashmir state probably for the extensive study of leech
fauna from that state.
Conservation and significance
There are not much conservation issues with regard to leech fauna of India.
However, destruction of habitats leads to depletion of leech population, coupled
with extensive exploitation of aquatic resources which are supposed to be food
source for leeches. On the other hand, leeches are of medicinal use by local people
from time immemorial. The ancient Ayurvedic compendium, ‘Sushruta-Samhita’,
narrates the use of leeches in medicine, dating back to 2500 years ago. Currently,
the bio-active anticoagulant and anti-inflammatory substances derived from
leeches are attracting medical and pharmaceutical attention (Sohn et al., 2001;
193
Mandal and Mishra
Whitaker et al., 2004) and even therapeutic use of leeches in osteoporosis is also
documented (Pilcher, 2004).
Acknowledgements
India, for facilities and permission during the study of leeches. The first author
extends special thanks to Dr. Ch. Satyanarayana, Sci.-C and O/C General Non-
Chordata Section. The authors also extend deep gratitude to Sri K.C. Gopi,
Scientist-F, Dr. L. Kosygin, Scientist “D” and Dr. K. Valarmathi for their valid
suggestions and given oppertunity.
REFERENCES
Basu, J.S. 1967. Zoo new fish. Leeches from pulicat Lake. Curr. Sci., 36(20): 548-
549.
Baugh, S.C. 1960a. Studies on Indian Rhynchobdellid leeches. Parasitology, 50:
217-310.
Baugh, S.C. 1960b. Studies on Indian Rhynchobdellid leeches-II. Zool. Anz., 165:
468-477.
Bhatia, M.L. 1930. Sur und nouvelle hirudinee rhynchobdelle Glossiphonia
crusiata n. sp. provenant du vivier a truites d’Achha Bal, Kashmir. Annls.
Parasit. hum. comp., 8: 344-348.
Bhatia, M.L. 1934. Nouvelle sangsu rhynchobdellide Glossiphonia lobata n. sp., de
l’establishment de pisciculture d’Achha Bal, Kashmir. Annls. Parasit. hum.
comp., 12: 121-129.
Bhatia, M.L.1939. On some leeches from Kashmir. Bull. Punjab Univ. Zool.,
Lahore, 2: 1-17.
Bhatia, M.L. 1940. On Haemopis indicus sp. nov. A new Arhynchonbdellid
carnivorous leech from Kashmir. Proc. nat. Accad. Sci. India, 10(4): 133-
144.
Bhatt, B.D. 1961. Freshwater leeches from Nainital district (U.P.). Proc. Nat.
Acad. Sci. India, 31(B): 311-314.
Blanchard, R. 1897. Hirudinees des Ides Neerlandaises. Dina weberi Zool. Ergeb.
Riese in Neirderlandisch Ost-Indien, 4: 332-355.
Chandra, M. 1991. The Leeches of India – A Handbook. Zoological Survey of India,
Kolkata: 1-117.
Chandra, M. and Mukherjee, R.N. 1985. Occurrence of Piscicola olivacea Harding
(Annelida: Hirudinea) in Laddak, J. and K., India. Bull. zool. Surv. India,
7(2-3): 327.
Harding, W.A. 1920. Fauna of Chilka Lake. Hirudinea. Mem. Indian Mus., 5(7):
509-517.
Harding, W.A. 1924. Descriptions of some new leeches from India, Burma and
Ceylon. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. Lond, 14(9): 489-499.
Harding, W.A. and Moore, J.P. 1927. Fauna British India. Hirudinea, London,
1-302.
Kaburaki, T. 1921a. Fauna of Chilka lake: On some leeches from the Chilka lake.
Mem. Indian Mus., 5(9): 661-675.
194
Kaburaki, T. 1921b. Notes on some leeches in the collection of Indian Museum.

Rec. Indian Mus., 22(5): 689-719.
Linnaeus C. 1758. Systema Naturae. Ed. X (Systema Naturae per regna tria
naturae, secundum classes, ordines, genera, species, cum characteribus,
differentiis, synonymis, locis. Tomus I. Editio decimal, reformata) Holmiae.
1: 1-824 (Leech in pp 649-650).
Mandal, C.K. 2004a. Checklist of the Hirudinea (Leech) of India. Rec. Zool. Surv.
India, 102(1-2): 41-46.
Mandal, C.K. 2004b. Placobdella harasundarai (Hirudinea: Glossiphonidae) a new
species of Leech from West Bengal, India. Rec. zool. Surv. India, 103(1-2):
99-102.
Mandal, C.K. 2004c. Endemic leech fauna of India. Rec. zool. surv. India, 103(1-2):
103-110.
Mandal, C.K. 2004d. Paraclepsis gardensi (Herudinea: Glossiphinidae) a new
species of leeches from west Bengal India. Rec. zool. surv. India, 103(1-2):
111-114.
Mandal, C.K. 2013a. Hemiclepsis chharwardamensis sp. nov. (Hirudinea:
Glossiphinidae). A new leech from Jharkhand. Rec. zool. Surv. India: 113
(Part-2): 153-155.
Mandal, C.K. 2013b. Placobdella gauripurensis sp. nov. (Hirudinea: Glossiphinidae).
A new leech from West Bengal. Rec. zool. Surv. India: 113(Part-1): 211-213.
Mandal, C. K. 2015a. A new leech from Jharkhand, India. Paraclepsis jorapariensis
sp. nov. (Hirudinea: Glossiphinidae). Rec. zool. Surv. India: 115(Part-3):
263-267.
Mandal, C.K. 2015b. Placobdella godavariensis sp. nov. (Hirudinea: Glossiphinidae)
A new leech from Maharashtra, India. Rec. zool. Surv. India: 115(Part-3):
269-272.
Moore, J.P. 1924. Notes on some Asiatic leeches (Hirudinea) principally from
China, Kashmir and British India. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci., 76: 343-388.
Nesemann, H. and Sharma, G. 2012. Description of a new species of the leech
family Salifidae (Odontobdella krishna sp. nov.) from the river Ganga at
Patna, Bihar (India). Rec. zool. Surv. India, 111(3): 1-7.
(Mollusca, Annelida, Crustacea [in part], 263pp. Nesemann, H., Chandi
Media Pvt. Ltd., Kathmandu.
Pilcher, H., 2004. Medicinal leeches: stuck on you. Nature, 432: 10-11.
Sket, B. and Trontelj, P. 2008. Global diversity of leeches (Hirudinea) in freshwater.
Hydrobiologia, 595 (1): 129-137. doi:10.1007/s10750-007-9010-8
Sohn, J.H., Kang, H.A., Rao, K.J., Kim, C.H., Choi, E.S., Chung, B.H. and Rhee,
S.K. 2001. Current status of the anticoagulant hirudin: its biotechnological
production and clinical practice. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology,
57: 606-613.
Whitaker, I.S., Rao, J., Izadi, D. and Butler, P.E. 2004. Hirudo medicinalis: ancient
origins of, and trends in the use of medicinal leeches throughout history.
British Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, 42: 133-137.
195
Mandal and Mishra
Plate I
Paraclepsis jorapariensis Placobdella emydae Barbronia weberi
Hemiclepsis marginata Glossiphonia weberi Placobdella debkuntai

asiatica
Paraclepsis jorapariensis Paraclepsis jorapariensis

(sucker) (whole body)
196
Plate I
Poecilobdella granulosa Herpobdelloidea lateroculata
Hemiclepsis marginata marginata
Hemiclepsis chharwardamensis Poecilobdella manillensis
197
Chapter 14
Crustacea : Branchiopoda
(Cladocera)
B.K. Sharma and Sumita Sharma
Abstract
Cladocera taxonomy is experiencing notable global changes because of advancements
on levels of taxonomic refinements, validity of taxa, cosmopolitanism vs. regional
endemism, vicariance, equivalence and inherent problems in several faunal works
from different biogeographic regions. The status of Indian freshwater Cladocera
is confounded with poor taxonomic resolutions, ‘sloppy’ descriptions, fuzzy
identifications, nomenclatural anomalies, species inquirenda, reports inquirenda,
lack of ‘voucher specimens’ for validation, incomplete inventories and above all
taxonomic expertise. The revalidation of known Indian taxa concurrent with
global taxonomic standards, indiscriminate ‘ad-hoc’ listing of ambiguous species
and analysis of cryptic diversity in species-groups vs. molecular systematics are
critical issues. Keeping in view these impediments, we attempt to assess the current
diversity status of freshwater Cladocera, based on our taxonomic understanding
of over three and half decades, and the critical evaluation of the published reports.
An annotated list of 131 species known from inland waters of India is compiled
with several indicated as “sensu lato”; the list is deemed to be provisional pending
possible re-validation of all the Indian taxa. The nature and composition of
freshwater Cladocera of India is analyzed with reference to interesting elements,
biogeography and taxonomic anomalies. Various impediments hampering progress
of cladoceran diversity are focused and the future biodiversity scope of the taxon is
indicated. The intensive surveys vis-à-vis ecosystem diversity from unexplored or
under-explored parts of India in general and the Himalayan region and Western
Ghats ‘hot-spots’ merit biodiversity and biogeography interest.
Key words: composition, distribution, taxa, state-of-art, taxonomy.
INTRODUCTION
Cladocera or `Water fleas’ are a group of small-sized, mostly microscopic
branchiopods representing one of the most primitive groups of lower Crustacea.
They inhabit almost all types of continental freshwaters and occur more abundantly
in ephemeral and perennial lentic environs colonizing the littoral weedy margins
while certain species are adapted to the benthic and subterranean environs. They
form an integral link in aquatic food-webs; contribute significantly to biological
productivity and energy flow in aquatic ecosystems due to rapid turnover rates;
Freshwater Biology Laboratory, Department of Zoology, North-Eastern Hill University,

Permanent campus, Shillong - 793 022, Meghalaya, India
e-mail: [email protected], [email protected]
199
Sharma and Sharma
serve as ideal tools for environmental toxicology and bioassay studies; and serve
as ‘guide-forms’ in paleo-limnological endeavors.
Cladocera taxonomy has progressed through a long history of more than
three centuries of global contributions. The recent advances in this group coupled
with application of molecular techniques have ushered in a new era of Cladocera
biodiversity with higher levels of morpho-species delineations. The developments
since 1980’s have transformed our understanding of many old sloppily characterized
species that left the present-day taxonomists with a large burden of ‘hardly usable
descriptions’ (Dumont and Negrea, 2002). Even at the recent levels of progress,
many of morpho-species have remained incompletely described and little is known
about correct geographical limits of many others; the last aspect has resulted in
a strong debate on ‘cosmopolitanism’ vis-à-vis regional endemism’ (Frey, 1987a;
Hudec, 1991; Sinev, 1999, 2001, 2011, 2012, 2016; Van Damme and Dumont,
2008a; Petrusek et al. 2004; Kotov and Taylor, 2010; Van Damme et al. 2011) in
this group of Entomostracous Crustacea.
The systematic studies on Indian freshwater Cladocera were initiated by
Baird (1860) and the status of their progress was traced by Sharma and Michael
(1987), Michael and Sharma (1988), Sharma (1991) and Chatterjee et al. (2013).
Fauna volume on Indian Cladocera (Michael and Sharma, 1988) proved useful
identification for over two decades but now itself needed a future revision in light
of current global taxonomic trends. The faunal diversity of the taxon is yet fairly
known only from the states of West Bengal (Sharma 1978; Sharma and Sharma,
1985; Venkataraman, 1999), Meghalaya (Sharma and Sharma, 1999; Sharma,
2008), Tripura (Venkataraman and Das, 2000) Assam (Sharma and Sharma, 2008,
2013, 2014; Sharma and Sharma, 2014), Manipur (Sharma and Sharma, 2009,
2010) and to some extent from Bihar (Sharma and Sharma, 2001). Undoubtedly,
species inventories from these states even required a critical re-appraisal in light
of the recent progress in Cladocera taxonomy.
This communication is an attempt to assess the existing status of biodiversity
of freshwater Cladocera of India vis-à-vis its composition and richness, interesting
elements, nomenclatural; anomalies and taxonomic ambiguities. Various
impediments compounding taxonomy in India are discussed and lacunae deserving
future attention are highlighted.
MATERIALS AND METHODS

The present appraisal is based on analysis of our samples collected, during the
last four decades, from distant localities scattered over different states of north,
northeast, east and south India, as well as our earlier works and evaluation of the
Indian literature. The collections were made from the littoral and semi-limnetic /
limnetic regions of different ecosystems by towing plankton net (# 50 µm) and were
preserved in 5% formalin. All collections were screened individually with a Wild-
stereoscopic binocular microscope; various cladocerans and their disarticulated
appendages were mounted in polyvinyl alcohol-lactophenol mixture and were
observed with a Leica DM 1000 image analyzer fitted with drawing-tube. The
different species were identified following Smirnov (1971, 1976, 1992, 1996), Michael
200
Crustacea : Branchiopoda (Cladocera)
and Sharma (1988), Korovchinsky (1992), Sharma and Sharma (1999), Sharma and
Sharma (2008), Orlova-Bienkowskaja (2001), Korinek (2002) and Benzie (2005). We
took into account notable progress in taxonomy of the subfamily Aloninae that has
resulted in separation of several new genera (Dumont and Silva-Briano, 2000; Van
Damme and Dumont, 2008a, 2008b; Van Damme et al. 2009, 2010, 2011; Sinev,
2016).
RESULTS
An annotated list of 131 species belonging to 47 genera, eleven families and four
orders, examined from freshwater environs of India is provided.
Super-class Crustacea
Class Branchiopoda
Super-order Cladocera (s. str.)
Order Ctenopoda
Family Sididae
Subfamily Sidiinae
1. Diaphanosoma brachyurum (Lieven, 1848) s. lat*
2. Diaphanosoma celebensis Stingelin, 1900
3. Diaphanosoma dubium Manuilova, 1964
4. Diaphanosoma excisum Sars, 1885*
Syn.: Diaphanosoma excisum var. longiremis Ekman, 1904
Diaphanosoma excisum var. stingelini Jenkin, 1934
Diaphanosoma paucispinosum Brehm, 1933
5. Diaphanosoma sarsi Richard, 1895*
6. Diaphanosoma senegal Gauthier, 1951*
Syn.: Diaphanosoma hydrocephalus Brehm, 1952 .
Diaphanosoma senegalensis Gauthier, 1951;
Diaphanosoma siddharthii Rao, Padmaja & Naidu, 1998
7. Diaphanosoma tropicum Korovchinsky, 1998*
8. Diaphanosomama volzi Stingelin, 1805*
Syn.: Diaphanosoma aspinosum Chiang, 1956
9. Latonopsis australis (Sars, 1888) s. lat*
Syn.: Latona tiwari Biswas, 1964
Latonopsis narenderi Rane, 1985
10. Pseudosida sazalyi Daday, 1898*
11. Sarsilatona serricaudata (Sars, 1901) s.lat.
Syn.: Latonopsis fasciculata Daday, 1905
12. Sarsilatona cf. fernandoi (Rane, 1983) *
Syn.: Latonopsis fernandoi Rane, 1983
13. Sida crystallina (O. F. Muller, 1776) s. lat*
201
Sharma and Sharma
Family Holopedidae
14. Holopedium gibberum Zaddach, 1855 s.lat
Order Anomopoda
Family Daphniidae
Subfamily Daphniinae
15. Ceriodaphnia cornuta Sars, 1885*
16. Ceriodaphnia dubia Richard, 1894 s.lat.
17. Ceriodaphnia laticaudata (P E Muller, 1776) *
Syn.: Ceriodaphnia reticulata var. kuerzii’ Stingelin
18. Ceriodaphnia pulchella Sars, 1862
19. Ceriodaphnia quadrangula (O. F. Muller, 1776)
20. Ceriodaphnia reticulata (Jurine, 1820)
Syn: Ceriodaphnia reticulata var. serrata Sars
21. Daphnia (Ctenodaphnia) carinata King, 1853 s.lat *
Syn.: Daphnia (Ctenodaphnia) longicephala Hebert, 1977
Syn.: Daphnia sarojae Rane, 1986
22. Daphnia (Ctenodaphnia) cephalata King.1853 s. lat*
Syn.: Daphnia (Ctenodaphnia) hypsicephala Daday, 1911
23. Daphnia (Ctenodaphnia) fusca Gurney, 1906
24. Daphnia (Ctenodaphnia)magna Straus, 1820*
25. Daphnia (Ctenodaphnia) similis Claus, 1876 s. lat*
Syn.: Daphnia madhuriae Rane & Jarfi, 1990
Daphnia sarojae Rane, 1986
26. Daphnia (Ctenodaphnia) similoides Hudec, 1991
27. Daphnia (Ctenodaphnia) tibetana (Sars, 1903)*
28. Daphnia (Daphnia) obtusa Kurz, 1874 emend. Scourfield,1942 s. lat
29. Daphnia (Daphnia) pulex Leydig, 1860*
30. Daphnia (Daphnia) longispina O. F. Muller, 1776 s. lat
31. Daphnia (Daphnia) lumholtzi Sars, 1885*
Syn.: Daphniopsis sumanae Rane, 1985
32. Simocephalus (Aquipiculus) heilongjiangensis Shi & Shi, 1994*
33. Simocephalus (Coronocephalus) serrulatus (Koch, 1841) *
Syn.: Simocephalus surekhae Rane, 1985
34. Simocephalus (Echinocaudus) acutirostratus (King, 1853) *
Syn.: Simocephalus vidyae Rane, 1983
Simocephalus vidyae gajareae Rane, 1986
35. Simocephalus (Echinocaudus) exspinosus (De Geer, 1778)*
Syn.: Simocephalus vamani Rane, 1985
Simocephalus (Echinocaudus) australiensis (Dana, 1852)
202
36. Simocephalus (Simocephalus) elizabethae (King, 1853)*

37. Simocephalus (Simocephalus) mixtus Sars, 1903*
38. Simocephalus (Simocephalus) vetuloides Sars, 1898*
Subfamily Scapholeberinae
39. Scapholeberis kingi Sars, 1888
Family Bosminidae
40. Bosmina (Bosmina) longirostris (O. F. Muller, 1776) s.lat.*
41. Bosmina (Eubosmina) coregoni Baird, 1857 s.lat.
42. Bosmina (Liederobosmina) meridionalis Sars, 1904 s.lat.
43. Bosmina (Bosmina) tripurae Korinek, Saha & Bhattacharya, 1999*
Syn.: Bosmina (Bosmina) cornuta (Jurine, 1820)
Bosmina (Sinobosmina) japonica Poppe & Richard, 1890
44. Bosminopsis deitersi Richard, 1895*
Syn.: Bosminopsis devendrai Rane, 1984
Family Moinidae
45. Moina belli Gurney, 1904
46. Moina brachiata (Jurine, 1820)*
Syn.: Moina rectirostris (Jurine, 1820)
47. Moina dubia Guerne & Richard, 1892
48. Moina hemanti Padhye & Dumont (2014)
49. Moina macrocopa (Straus, 1820) s lat.*
Syn.: Moina banffyi Daday, 1883
Moina easu Brehm, 1936
Moina ganapatii Brehm, 1963
Moina flagellata Hudendorff, 1876
50. Moina micrura Kurz, 1874*
Syn.: Moina dodhui Rane, 1987
Moina easu Brehm, 1936
51. Moina oryzae Hudec, 1987
52. Moina weismanni Ishikawa, 1896
53. Moinodaphnia macleayi (King, 1853)*
Family Macrothricidae
54. Macrothrix laticornis (Fischer, 1857) s. lat.*
55. Macrothrix odiosa (Gurney, 1907)*
Syn.: Guernella odiosa (Gurney, 1916)
Macrothrix capensis monodi Gauthier, 1930
56. Macrothrix spinosa King, 1853*
Syn.: Macrothrix goeldi Richard, 1897
203
Sharma and Sharma
57. Macrothrix triserialis (Brady, 1886)*

Syn.: Macrothrix chevreuxi Guerne & Richard, 1892
Macrothrix shadini Mukhamediev, 1963
58. Grimaldina brazzai Richard, 1892*
59. Guernella raphaelis Richard, 1892*
Syn.: Guernella ceylonica Daday, 1898 Brehm (1953)
60. Streblocerus serricaudatus (Fischer, 1849) s.lat.*
Family Ilyocryptidae
61. Ilyocryptus bhardwaji Battish, 1981
62. Ilyocryptus spinifer Herrick, 1882*
Syn.: Ilyocryptus halyi Brady, 1886
Family Eurycercidae
63. Eurycercus (Eurycercus) lamellatus (O. F. Muller, 1776) s. lat.*
64. Eurycercus sp.
Family Chydoridae
Subfamily Aloninae
Tribe Alonini s. str.
65. Acroperus angustatus Sars, 1863*
66. Acroperus harpae (Baird, 1834) s. lat.*
67. Alona affinis (Leydig, 1860) s.lat.*
68. Alona cambouei de Guerne et Richard, 1893
69. Alona guttata Sars, 1862* s.lat
Alona guttata var. tuberculata Kurz, 1875*
70. Alona intermedia Sars, 1862 s.lat.
71. Alona kotovi Sinev, 2012*
72. Alona pulchella King, 1853*
73. Alona quadrangularis (O. F. Muller, 1776) s lat*
74. Alona sarasinorum Stingelin 1900
Syn.: Alona taraporevalae Shirgur & Naik, 1977*
75. Anthalona harti harti Van Damme, Sinev et Dumont, 2011
76. Camptocercus australis Sars, 1896*
77. Camptocercus rectirostris Schoedler, 1862
78. Camptocercus uncinatus Smirnov, 1973*
Syn.: Camptocercus latikae Rane, 1985
79. Camptocercus cf. vietnamensis Sinev, 2012
80. Celsinotum macronyx (Daday, 1898) *
Syn.: Indialona jabalpurensis Rane, 1983
204
81. Coronatella anodonta (Daday, 1905)

82. Coronatella rectangula (Sars, 1862) s lat*
83. Coronatella monacantha (Sars, 1901) s.lat.*
Coronatella monacantha tridentata (Stingelin, 1905)
84. Euryalona orientalis (Daday, 1898) *
85. Flavalona cheni (Sinev, 1999) *
86. Graptoleberis testudinaria (Fischer, 1854) s. lat.*
Syn.: Graptoleberis testudinaria nathsagarensis Rane 2005
87. Karualona karua (King, 1853)*
88. Kurzia brevilabris Rajapaksa & Fernando,1986*
89. Kurzia latissima (Kurz, 1875) s lat.*
90. Kurzia longirostris (Daday, 1898)*
91. Leberis diaphanus (King, 1853) s. lat.*
92. Leberis punctatus (Daday, 1898)
Alona davidi punctata (Daday, 1898) ,
93. Leydigia (Neoleydigia) acanthocercoides (Fischer, 1854) s.lat.*
94. Leydigia (Neoleydigia) ceylonica (Daday, 1898)
Leydigia (Neoleydigia) australis ceylonica Daday, 1898
95. Leydigia (Neoleydigia) ciliata (Gauthier, 1939)*
Syn.: Leydigia anakammaroi Durga Prasad et al. 1985
Leydigia ciliata melghatensis Rane, 2005
96. Leydigia (Leydigia) leydigi (Schoedler, 1863) s.lat.
97. Leydigiopsis pulchra Van Damme & Sinev, 2013 S.
98. Notoalona globulosa (Daday, 1898)*
99. Ovalona cambouei (Guerne & Richard, 1983) Sinev, 2015
100. Oxyurella singalensis (Daday, 1898)*
Syn.: Oxyurella lindbergi Brehm, 1953
Oxyurella sangramsagari Rane, 1984
101. Oxyurella tenuicaudis (Sars, 1862) s.lat.
Tribe Indialonini Kotov, 2000
102. Indialona ganapati Petkovski, 1966 ex. Kotov, 2000
Subfamily Chydorinae
103. Alonella (Alonella) clathratula Sars, 1896*
104. Alonella (Alonella) excisa (Fischer, 1854) s. lat.*
105. Alonella (Alonella) exigua (Lilljeborg, 1853)
106. Alonella (Nanalonella) nana (Baird, 1850)*
107. Chydorus angustirostratus Frey, 1982*
205
Sharma and Sharma
108. Chydorus eurynotus Sars, 1901 s.lat.*

109. Chydorus invaginatus Frey, 1982
110. Chydorus parvus Daday, 1898*
Syn.: Chydorus robustus Stingelin, 1905
111. Chydorus pubescens Sars, 1901s.lat.*
112. Chydorus reticulatus Daday, 1898*
113. Chydorus sphaericus (O. F. Muller, 1776) s.lat.*
114. Chydorus ventricosus Daday, 1898*
Syn.: Chydorus brehmi Biswas, 1966
115. Dadaya macrops (Daday, 1898)*
116. Disparalona caudata Smirnov, 1996*
117. Disparalona hamata Birge, 1879 s. lat*
Syn.: Pleuroxus hamulatus Birge, 1910
118. Disparalona rostrata (Koch, 1841) s.lat.
119. Dunhevedia crassa King, 1853*
Dunhevedia crassa ciliocaudata (Sovinsky, 1891)
Syn.: Dunhevedia interrupta Brehm, 1936
120. Dunhevedia serrata Daday, 1898*
121. Ephemeroporus barroisi (Richard, 1894) s.lat.*
122. Picripleuroxus denticulatus Birge, 1879 s.lat.*
123. Picripleuroxus laevis Sars, 1862 s. lat.*
124. Picripleuroxus quasidenticulatus (Smirnov, 1996)*
125. Picripleuroxus similis Vavra, 1900 s. lat.*
126. Pleuroxus aduncus (Jurine, 1829) s. lat.
Syn.: Pleuroxus aduncus bhigawarensis Rane, 2002
127. Pleuroxus annandalei (Daday, 1908)
128. Pleuroxus trigonellus (O. F. Muller, 1776) s. lat.
129. Pseudochydorus globosus (Baird, 1843) s. lat*
Order Onychopoda
Family Polyphemidae
130. Polyphemus pediculus (Linne, 1761) s. lat
Super-order Leptodorida
Order Haplopoda
Family Leptodoridae
131. Leptodora kindtii (Focke, 1844) s. lat
* observed in our collections from different parts of India
A breakup of the cladoceran taxa recorded till date from India is indicated in
Table 1.
206
Table 1. Family-wise breakup of Indian freshwater Cladocera
Family/ taxon Species Genera

Order Ctenopoda
Family Sididae 13 05
Family Holopedidae 01 01
Order Anomopoda
Family Daphniidae
Subfamily Daphniinae 24 03
Subfamily Scapholeberinae 01 01
Family Bosminidae 05 02
Family Moinidae 09 02
Family Macrothricidae 07 04
Family Ilyocryptidae 02 01
Family Eurycercidae 02 01
Family Chydoridae
Subfamily Chydorinae 27 09
Subfamily Aloninae 38 17
Order Onychopoda
Family Polyphemidae 01 01
Order Haplopoda
Family Leptodoridae 01 01
Total 131 48
DISCUSSION
Composition and richness
The present assessment of diversity of freshwater Cladocera of India revealed 131
species with a number of them represented as “sensu lato” (species complexes). The
speciose Indian fauna comprised ~ 19.0% of ca. 700 species known globally (Kotov,
2011); the global estimate is expected to be much higher in light of recent taxonomic
studies. Our report provided significant update to the earlier Indian lists of 87, 93,
90,109, 102 and 97 species by Fernando and Kanduru (1984), Sharma and Michael
(1987), Michael and Sharma (1988), Sharma (1991), Battish (1992) and Murugan et
al. (1998), respectively. Further, the present report concurred with 133 freshwater
taxa listed (Chatterjee et al., 2013) from India (vide infra) based on ‘the literature
available’ (‘secondary data’). We, however, caution against over-emphasis on an
‘uncritical and erroneous’ report of 187 freshwater species vide Raghunathan
and Suresh Kumar (2003) riddled with unconfirmed and anomalous taxa, and
duplicate entries. Interestingly, all eleven families of freshwater Cladocera and
47 genera known from India characterize rich and diverse nature of the taxon in
inland waters of this country.
207
Sharma and Sharma
Sharma (1991) indicated inadequate studies on diversity of the taxon from

different states of India; this generalization still holds valid with regards to the
current state-of-art of investigations. Our initiative from northeast India (NEI)
culminating in high richness (75 species) from Assam state (Sharma and Sharma,
2014) is of special biodiversity value. The importance of this rich diversity merits
attention particularly in view of a conservative estimate of occurrence of up to
60 – 65 cladoceran species from tropical and subtropical parts of India (Fernando
and Kanduru, 1984; Sharma and Michael 1987). This is followed by the reports of
58 species from Meghalaya (Sharma and Sharma, 1999; Sharma, 2008), 56 species
from Manipur (Sharma and Sharma, 2009, 2010) and 50 species from Tripura
(Venkataraman and Das, 2000; BKS, unpublished) while we are yet analyzing the
collections from the states of Mizoram, Nagaland and Arunachal Pradesh of NEI.
In addition, 56 and 60 species are examined from West Bengal (Sharma, 1978;
Venkataraman, 1999) and Jammu & Kashmir (BKS, unpublished), respectively
while Padhye and Dumont (2014a, 2014b) together reported 51 species from the
Western Ghats of Maharashtra and Goa. The ‘uncritical and erroneous’ lists of 87
species from Tamil Nadu (Raghunathan and Suresh Kumar, 2002) and 54 species
from Rajasthan (Sharma et al. 2012) indicated reasonably lower valid species
(BKS, unpublished). The cladocera diversity from other states of India in general
and from the Himalayan region and Western Ghats biodiversity ‘hot-spots’ in
particular is yet inadequately known. We recommend critical re-appraisal of ‘ad-
hoc’ diversity known from the mentioned states concurrent with global Cladocera
taxonomy. In general, we attribute the existing localized Indian faunal works to
the cladocerologist effect drawing an analogy to the rotiferologist effect advanced
by Fontaneto et al. (2012).
The biodiversity of the Indian Cladocera lagged distinctly on investigations on
ecosystem diversity except for our useful findings from the floodplain lakes (beels)
of the Brahmaputra basin of Assam and pats of Manipur from NEI. The former are
characterized by the richest diversity (75 species) known till date from any part
of India, and of South and SE Asia (Sharma. and Sharma, 2014) which, in turn,
is hypothesized to their habitat diversity and environmental heterogeneity of the
sampled beels. This salient feature is affirmed by our report of 58 species (Sharma
and Sharma, 2013) from Deepor Beel (a Ramsar site) categorizing this floodplain
wetland as the richest freshwater ecosystem of Asia for Cladocera diversity. The
report of 55 species (Sharma and Sharma, 2014) from the floodplain lakes (beels)
of Majuli river island, upper Assam as well as 54 species (BKS, unpublished) from
certain beels of lower Assam our reiterated remarks on ecosystem diversity of the
floodplains of the Brahmaputra river basin. The environmental heterogeneity of
floodplains of Assam, Deepor beel (Sharma and Sharma, 2012), and Majuli wetlands
beel (Sharma and Sharma, 2014), is endorsed by our results on their globally
speciose and diverse Rotifera assemblage (Sharma and Sharma, 2005; Sharma and
Sharma, 2008, 2013). A relatively low richness (56 species) was observed in our
collections from the floodplains of Iral, Imphal and Thoubal river basins of Manipur
state of NEI (Sharma and Sharma, 2010) with the report of 51 species (Sharma
and Sharma, 2009) from Loktak Lake, Manipur- another Ramsar site. Our reports
208
from Assam and Manipur wetlands are, however, distinctly higher than the record
of only 9 species from 65 wetlands of 24-Parganas district (Nandi et al., 1993) and
36 species from 20 wetlands of South eastern West Bengal (Khan, 2003); 39 species
from 30 wetlands of the Keoladeo National Park, Rajasthan (Venkataraman, 1992)
and 29 species from 25 wetlands of Melaghat Tiger reserve, Maharashtra (Rane,
2005). Some of these differences are due to inadequate sampling and incomplete
species inventories due to inadequate expertise.
Interesting taxa
Contrary to remarks of Michael and Sharma (1988) and Sharma (1991) and
in light of recent information on biogeography of the taxon, we recognize a number
of interesting elements of Indian Cladocera. These are assigned to the following
categories:
(a) Indian endemics: Indialona ganapati, Moina hemanti and Moina oryzae;
(b) Australasian species: Daphnia (Ctenodaphnia) cephalata, Disparalona
caudata, Simocephalus (Echinocaudus) acutirostratus, Leberis diaphanus;
(c) Indo-Malaysian species: Alona kotovi, Celsinotum macronyx, Flavalona cheni,
Oxyurella singalensis, Kurzia brevilabris and Sarsilatona cf. fernandoi;
(d) Oriental endemics: Alona sarasinorum, Chydorus angustirostratus, Chydorus
reticulatus, Chydorus invaginatus, Diaphanosoma tropicum, Ilyocryptus
bhardwaji, and Leydigia (Neoleydigia) ceylonica;
(e) Asian endemics: Daphnia (Ctenodaphnia) similoides, Daphnia (Ctenodaphnia)
tibetana and Pleuroxus annandalei;
(f) Indo-Ethiopian species: Leberis punctatus;
(g) Vietnam, Hainan, Malaysia, India: Camptocercus cf. vietnamensis;
(h) Thailand, Cambodia, South Vietnam, India: Leydigiopsis pulchra;
(i) Africa and tropical Asia: Leydigia (Neoleydigia) ciliata and Notoalona globulosa;
(j) Palearctic: Acroperus angustatus, Disparalona rostrata s.lat. Holopedium
gibberum s.lat., Kurzia latissima, Picripleuroxus laevis s. lat. and Polyphemus
pediculus;
(k) Holarctic: Leptodora kindtii;
(l) Others: Chydorus parvus (Ethiopian and Indo-Malayan regions), Moina dubia
(Africa and Asia) and Oxyurella tenuicaudis (Europe and India).
The members of the stated categories imparted distinct biodiversity
value to Indian Cladocera. The Australasian elements depicted an interesting
affinity between cladoceran faunas of India, SE Asia and Australia. A better
understanding of the Cladocera of tropical and subtropical regions and that of
their geographical limits has helped in recent delineation of the Indo-Malaysian
elements in the Indian fauna (Sharma and Sharma, 2014). Of these, Alona kotovi,
a conger of A. quadrangularis, is considered as a connecting link between South
American and Australasian Chydoridae (Sinev, 2012). The presence of various
Oriental, Asian and India endemics is another biodiversity important feature. The
interesting Indialona ganapati, allocated to new tribe Indialonini, was believed
209
Sharma and Sharma
to be an extremely specialized taxon with a series of advanced characters which

were considered to have originated after the separation of Indialonini from the
main branch of the Aloninae (Kotov, 2000). Further, Kotov (loc cit.) linked this
transformation to a reduction in body size and transition to a planktonic mode of
life; the later mode is un-characteristic of many chydorids and only few species
could temporarily penetrate the plankton of some reservoirs (Fryer, 1968; Smirnov,
1971).
The occurrence of Neotropical Leydigiopsis in Assam state of NEI (Sharma
and Sharma, 2007, 2012) and SE Asia is a remarkable example of ‘tropical Amphi-
Pacific disjunction’ (Van Damme and Sinev, 2013) and this genus is represented
by one species i.e., L. curvirostris in India. We propose re-examination of
specimens of the later in light of the possibility of occurrence of its Indo-Chinese
congener Leydigiopsis pulchera described recently from Thailand and Vietnam
(Van Damme and Sinev, 2013) or its undescribed close relative. Moina hemanti,
another interesting Gondwanian member of tropical Amphi-Pacific group has its
closest relative Moina dumonti occurring in Mexico and Cuba (Kotov et al., 2004;
Padhye and Dumont, 2014a). As per Padhye and Dumont (loc cit.), molecular
analysis suggested closeness of M. hemanti to Moinodaphnia with the possibility
of the former forming a genus of its own with another Indian endemic of its clad
(M. oryzae). In addition, sub-tropical specimens of Eurycercus sp. (Sharma and
Michael, 1987), observed so far from certain wetlands of the states of Meghalaya
and Manipur of NEI (BKS, unpublished), are of biodiversity value; we are yet not
able to assign these to any taxon because of limited material.
In general, the available information indicated that highly speciose
Cladocera from NEI region of the Himalayan ‘hot-spot’ is characterized by several
biogeographically interesting elements (BKS, unpublished) in contrast to low
richness and fewer interesting taxa reported (Padhye and Dumont, 2014b) from
the Western Ghats of Maharashtra and Goa. More intensive collections from the
later ‘hot-spot’ are yet desired to affirm these remarks or otherwise.
Taxonomic status
The Indian literature is flooded with indiscriminate species lists riddled with
identification errors rendering them useless or artificially inflating their richness.
Such reports required critical scrutiny to avoid nomenclature anomalies and we
categorize our remarks as:
A. ‘Species inquirendae’ and synonymized new taxa

Many cladoceran taxa from the tropics have an uncertain identity (Kotov et al.,
2013) with Southern Asia still trailing in validly described species. Our remarks
reiterate this generalization.
In all nine new species, described from India, are ‘species inuirenda’ (refer:
Kotov, 2011):
Alona ladacensis Brehm, 1936
Alona dhilloni Battish, 1981
210
Camptocercus kapuri Battish, 1981

Daphnia katrajensis Rane, Jafri & Rafiq, 1992
Daphnia newporti Baird, 1860
Daphnia psittacea Baird, 1860
Diaphanosoma chandramohanii Rao, Padmaja & Naidu, 1998b
Holopedium ramasarmi Rao, Padmaja & Naidu, 1998a
Leydigia hardingi Nayar, 1971
We emphasize on ‘sloppy and uncritical’ descriptions of new Indian taxa
as highlighted by synonymized 20 new species and four new subspecies; these
included 12 species and one new subspecies synonymized by the authors (Sharma
and Sharma, 1990):
Alona taraporevalae Shirgur & Naik, 1977 = Alona sarasinorum Stingelin 1900
Bosminopsis devendrai Rane, 1984* = Bosminopsis deitersi Richard, 1895
Camptocercus latikae Rane, 1985* = Camptocercus uncinatus Smirnov, 1973
Daphnia sarojae Rane, 1986* = Daphnia (Ctenodaphnia) carinata King, 1853
Daphnia madhuriae Rane & Jarfi, 1990 = Daphnia (Ctenodaphnia) similis Claus,
1876
Daphniopsis sumanae Rane, 1985 = Daphnia (Daphnia) lumholtzi Sars, 1885
Diaphanosoma hydrocephalus Brehm, 1952 = Diaphanosoma senegal Gauthier,
1951
Diaphanosoma siddharthii Rao, Padmaja & Naidu, 1998 = Diaphanosoma senegal
Gauthier, 1951
Graptoleberis testudinaria nathsagarensis Rane 2005 = Graptoleberis testudinaria
(Fischer, 1854)
Indialona jabalpurensis Rane, 1983* = Celsinotum macronyx (Daday, 1898)
Latona tiwari Biswas, 1964* = Latonopsis australis (Sars, 1888) ?
Latonopsis narenderi Rane, 1985* = Latonopsis australis (Sars, 1888)
Leydigia anakammaroi Durga Prasad et al., 1985 = Leydigia ciliata (Gauthier,
1939)
Leydigia ciliata melghatensis Rane, 2005 = Leydigia ciliata (Gauthier, 1939)
Moina dodhui Rane, 1987* = Moina micrura Kurz, 1874
Moina easu Brehm, 1936 = Moina micrura Kurz, 1874
Moina ganapatii Brehm, 1963 = Moina macrocopa (Straus, 1820)
Oxyurella lindbergi Brehm, 1953 = Oxyurella singalensis (Daday, 1898)
Oxyurella sangramsagari Rane, 1984* = Oxyurella singalensis (Daday, 1898)
Pleuroxus aduncus bhigawarensis Rane, 2002 = Pleuroxus aduncus (Jurine, 1829)
Simocephalus vidyae Rane, 1983* = Simocephalus acutirostratus (King, 1853)
Simocephalus vidyae gajareae Rane, 1986* = Simocephalus acutirostratus (King,
1853)
211
Sharma and Sharma
Simocephalus vamani Rane, 1985* = Simocephalus exspinosus (De Geer, 1778)

Simocephalus surekhae Rane, 1985* = Simocephalus serrulatus (Koch, 1841)
*Synonymized by Sharma and Sharma (1990)
The stated examples reflect poor state-of-art of taxonomic standards with
rather ‘casually diagnosed and sloppily described’ new taxa. Ironically all new
Indian taxa, except only five species namely: Alona kotovi Sinev, Bosmina tripurae
Korinek et al, Chydorus angustirostratus Frey, Moina hemanti Padhye & Dumont,
Moina oryzae Hudec and Indialona ganapati Petkovski ex. Kotov, are invalidated.
On the contrary, several detailed descriptions of valid new taxa and re-descriptions
based on Indian specimens (or including India) were published by Frey (1987b),
Hudec (1987, 1991), Sinev (1999), Kotov (2000) and Kotov and Dumont 2000)
during the last few decades.
B. ‘Species inquirendae’
Seven species reported from India are categorized as species inquirendae (refer:
Kotov, 2011):
Chydorus ciliatus Poggenpol, 1874
Chydorus hermanni Brehm, 1893
Chydorus leonardi King, 1853
Daphnia (Ctenodaphnia) longicephala Hebert, 1977
Daphnia (Ctenodaphnia) projecta Hebert, 1977
Dunhevedia ciliocaudata (Sovinskii, 1891)
Moina elliptica (Arora, 1931)
B. ‘Reports inquirendae’ *
The Indian literature is confounded with a notable number of ‘dubious reports’
or ‘reports inquirendae’ indicating ‘routine and uncritical’ listing of various taxa;
lack of ‘descriptions and illustrations’ as well as ‘voucher specimens’ warrant their
confirmation difficult:
Acantholeberis curvirostris Lilljeborg, 1853 Rajasthan
Alona archeri Sars, 1988 Maharashtra
Alona bukobensis (Weltner, 1898) Jammu & Kashmir, Rajasthan
Alona cannellata Brehm, 1934 Tamil Nadu- Species inquirenda
Alona capensis Ruehe, 1914 Maharashtra
Alona dentifera (Sars, 1901) Andaman Islands, Assam, Jammu &
Kashmir, Rajasthan, West Bengal
Alona glabra Sars, 1901 Rajasthan
Alona harpularia (Sars, 1916) unspecified location
Alona holdeni (Green, 1962) Rajasthan- now under Coronatella
Alona karelica Stenroos, 1897 Tamil Nadu
Alona protzi Hartwig, 1900 West Bengal, Maharashtra,
Tamil Nadu
212
Alonopsis aureolata Doolitle, 1913 Assam

Alonopsis elongatus (Sars, 1862) Assam, Kashmir
Anchistropus minor Birge, 1893 Rajasthan
Bosmina (Eubosmina) coregoni Baird, 1857 s.lat all Indian records warrant
confirmation.
Camptocercus oklahomenis Mackin, 1930 Jammu & Kashmir
Camptocercus rectirostris Schoedler, 1862 Kashmir
Ceriodaphnia acanthina Ross, 1897 Rajasthan
Ceriodaphnia lacustris Birge, 1893 Rajasthan
Ceriodaphnia setosa Matile, 1890 Bihar
Chydorus bicornutus Doolittle, 1909 Rajasthan
Chydorus carolinae Methuen, 1910 Jammu & Kashmir
Chydorus gibbus Sars, 1890 Maharashtra
Chydorus denticulatus Henry, 1919 Rajasthan, Meghalaya
Chydorus herrmanni Brehm, 1933 unspecified location
Chydorus kallipygos Brehm, 1934 Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu
Chydorus ovalis Kurz, 1874 Jammu & Kashmir
Daphnia ambigua Scourfield, 1947 Rajasthan
Daphnia (Daphnia) catawba Coker, 1926 Jammu & Kashmir
Daphnia (Ctenodaphnia) cephalata King.1853 s. lat West Bengal
Daphnia (Ctenodaphnia) similis Claus, 1876 Jammu & Kashmir
Daphnia dubia Herrick, 1883 Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan
Daphnia (Daphnia) hyalina Leydig, 1860 Rajasthan
Daphnia (Daphnia) laevis Birge, 1879 Jammu & Kashmir, Maharashtra
Daphnia (Daphnia) longiremis Sars, 1862 Jammu & Kashmir
Daphnia (?) pulicoides Woltereck, 1932 Jammu & Kashmir
Daphnia (Daphnia) retrocurva Forbes, 1882 Kashmir
Daphnia (Daphnia) rosea Sars, 1862 Jammu & Kashmir, Maharashtra
Diaphanosoma birgei Kořínek, 1981 Gujarat
Diaphanosoma leuctenbergianum Fischer, 1850 West Bengal
Diaphanosoma modigliani Richard, 1894 West Bengal
Disparalona adiyodii Subhash Babu & Thomas, 2007 Kerala
Drepanothrix dentata (Eurén, 1861) Jammu & Kashmir
Ilyocryptus sordidus (Liévin, 1848) s.lat. Jammu & Kashmir
Latonopsis occidentalis Birge, 1892 Jammu & Kashmir, Kerala,
Rajasthan
Leptodora kindtii (Focke, 1844) s. lat Andhra Pradesh., Maharashtra,
West Bengal
Leydigia (Neoleydigia) laevis Gurney, 1927 Rajasthan
Leydigia (Neoleydigia) australis Sars, 1885 Jharkhand, Tamil Nadu,
West Bengal
Leydigia (Neoleydigia) macrodonta Sars, 1916 unspecified location
213
Sharma and Sharma
Megafenestra aurita (Fischer, 1849) Jammu & Kashmir, Rajasthan

Macrothrix hirsuticornis Norman & Brady, 1867 s.lat. Jammu & Kashmir, Rajasthan,
Tamil Nadu
Macrothrix rosea (Jurine, 1820) Jammu & Kashmir, Rajasthan,
Uttarakhand
Macrothrix tenuicornis Gurney, 1907 Jharkhand
Macrothrix tobaensis Johnson, 1956 location unspecified
Moina affinis Birge, 1893 Kashmir
Moina hutchinsoni Brehm, 1937 Rajasthan
Moina reticulata (Daday, 1905) location unspecified
Picripleuroxus striatus (Schoedler, 1862) Delhi, Jammu & Kashmir
Polyphemus pediculus (Linne, 1761) s. lat West Bengal
Rhynchotalona falcata (Sars, 1862) location unspecified
*Without illustrations and descriptions, a majority of the invalidated records are dubious
reports
C. Misidentifications and Lapsi

In light of changes in levels of Cladocera taxonomy, the following classical
misidentifications need attention vis-à-vis earlier Indian reports:
Alona costata Sars, 1862 = Alona cheni Sinev, 1999. All Indian
reports to be re-checked (Sharma and
Sharma, 2013)
Alona quadrangularis (O. F. Muller, 1776) = Alona kotovi Sinev, 2012. All Indian
reports to be re-checked (Sharma and
Sharma, 2014)
Camptocercus fennicus Stenroos, 1898 Bihar-Sharma and Sharma (2001) is a
misidentified Camptocercus uncinatus
(BKS, Unpublished)
Chydorus faviformis Birge, 1893 = Chydorus angustirostratus Frey, 1982.
All Indian reports to be re-checked
(Sharma and Sharma, 2014)
Pseudosida bidentata Herrick, 1884 = Pseudosida sazalyi Daday, 1898. All
Indian reports to be re-checked (refer:
Chatterjee et al., 2013; Sharma and
Sharma, 2013)
Simocephalus vetulus (O. F. Müller, 1776) s.lat. = Simocephalus mixtus Sars, 1903. All
Indian reports to be re-checked (Sharma
and Sharma, 2013)
We come across of a reasonable number of ‘spelling errors’ (lapsi) indicating
’casual’ listing of names of taxa by different Indian workers:
Alona exigua Alonella exigua ?
Alona guitata Alona guttata
Alona intermediate Alona intermedia
Alona quadrata an obvious lapsus and invalid name
214
Alona rectangular Alona rectangula

Bosmina longistrus Bosmina longirostris
Camptocercus macrorus Baird a taxon Baird never described.
Ceriodaphnia reticulata Ceriodaphnia reticulata
Ceriodaphnia macrura No taxon with such a name known
Ceriodaphania quardrugulata Ceriodaphnia quadrangula
Cerioda pheriereticulata No taxon with such a name known
Chyderinae sp. No taxon with such a name known
Chydorid species Chydorus sp. ?
Chydorus cornuta Invalid name and a lapsus.
Chydorus quadrangular lapsus- Alona quadrangularis
Chydorus laticaudata lapsus- Ceriodaphnia laticaudata.
Chydorus macrodonta no such taxon was described
Chydornus sp. probably Chydorus sp.
Daphnia caritiata Probably misspelling of Daphnia carinata.
Daphnia scholderi D. schoedleri -a dubious record for India.
Macrothrix toiserids perhaps spelling error of Macrothrix triserialis
Moina daphnia - misunderstanding of the generic names
Moina bachiata lapsus of Moina brachiata (Jurine)
Moina rosea No taxon with such name known
Oxyurella tenuicornis A lapsus likely of Oxyurella tenuicaudis
Taxonomic impediments vis-à-vis Indian Cladocera

The progress of cladoceran taxonomy is challenged with several limitations
impairing its progress and resulting in nomenclatural and taxonomic anomalies.
Such impediments are:
A. Levels of taxonomic resolutions

A bulk of the Indian faunal works is far below widely argued internationally
acceptable levels. Ironically, a few taxa namely: Alona kotovi, Bosmina (Bosmina)
tripurae, Diaphanosoma tropicum, Chydorus angustirostratus, Moina hemanti,
Moina oryzae, Indialona ganapati, and Notoalona globulosa are described
and illustrated from India as per global standards. The reports depicting ‘poor
illustrations’ or many ‘without illustrations’ pose limitations to enable an objective
opinion on the status of the documented taxa. SEM studies, population analysis,
trunk-limb morphology and head pore studies are ignored in spite of comments on
some aspects by Sharma and Michael (1987).
B. Insufficient literature updates

The current global progress in cladoceran taxonomy largely escaped the attention
of many Indian workers. This is particularly true of separation of several new
215
Sharma and Sharma
genera in Aloninae or even continued use of old status of several known genera /
taxa. The recent nomenclatural changes are, to a certain extent, adopted till date
in limited Indian works of Sharma and Sharma (2012, 2014), Sharma and Sharma
(2013) and Padhye & Dumont (2014b).
C. Fuzzy species lists

The fuzzy lists and checklists from India ‘without critical assessment and
authentication’ are misleading for their ‘uncritical use’ by future workers. The
checklists of Raghunathan & Suresh Kumar (2002, 2003) are examples of concern
while the lists by Fernando and Kanduru (1984), Murugan et al. (1998) and Battish
(1992) merit cautious application.
D. Out-dated literature
The Indian works often cite ‘obsolete’ works of Needham and Needham (1962),
Michael (1973) and Tonapi (1980) while Murugan et al. (1998) and Battish (1992)
fail to facilitate correct species identification. Brooks (1959) is incorrectly cited
as ‘Ward & Whipple’ or ‘Edmondson’ in several works. Fauna volume on Indian
Cladocera (Michael and Sharma, 1988) is rarely accessed in the Indian studies.
E. Lack of ‘voucher / type specimens’

It is an important limitation for verification and authentication of various
anomalous and dubious taxa reported from India. In some cases (Battish, 1981;
Rao et al. 1998a, 1998b) there is no indication of the depository of ‘type specimens’
while those submitted for Rane’s series of new taxa are not ‘accessible’ (refer:
Korovchinsky, 2011).
F. Inadequate taxonomic expertise

With amateurs increasingly creating nomenclatural mess and spurious on-
line publications resulting in dubious reports, lack of taxonomic expertise is an
alarming reality.
G. Incomplete species inventories

Routinely noticed in the Indian limnological surveys, such inventories are real
handicap both for biodiversity and ecological studies.
H. Reservations about national collaborations

Limited Indian workers availed free ‘National Identification Advisory Service for
Freshwater Zooplankton’ offered by the senior author (BKS) since the last three
decades. This coupled with apprehensions on national collaborations is detrimental
for promotion of taxonomy in India.
Future of Cladocera systematics in India

With majority of taxa described at ‘L1 level” or below, the Cladocera taxonomy is
to be radically improved from a long period of dodgy systematics being practiced in
India. Nevertheless, the biodiversity and biogeography of the taxon offers ample
future potential as indicated hereunder:
216
A. New beginning – Revalidation of Indian taxa

The most important task for Indian workers is to consult the specialized global
taxonomical literature of the few decades in particular and keep track of current
nomenclature changes or revisions. This initiative should be matched with
revalidation of known Indian taxa at ‘L 3 level’ descriptions and illustrations
vide Van Damme et al. (2010) as well as ‘authentic and critical’ descriptions of
new taxa likely to occur in the country. This stupendous task ushers in an era
of ‘new beginning’ of Cladocera taxonomy in India with potential for its valuable
contribution to their diversity in (sub) tropics and the Oriental region.
B. Analysis of cryptic diversity

With reported occurrence of several species-groups, the Indian populations need
through analysis of their cryptic diversity with comprehensive ‘morpho-taxonomy’
based on SEM, functional morphology, embryology, trunk-limb morphology
and head-pore studies as well as the male morphology. These efforts need to be
supplemented with ‘ecosystematics’ and molecular systematics.
C. New surveys vis-à-vis Ecosystem diversity

With parts of India in general and the Himalaya region and western Ghats
‘hot-spots’ in particular yet unexplored / under-explored, attention is desired on
intensive surveys vis-à-vis ecosystem diversity rather than on routine Cladocera
faunal inventories.
D. National reference collections

A national depository ‘voucher’ specimens / collections’ is essential for ‘assessment
and authentication’ of faunal diversity of the taxon rather than individual domains.
A lead role needs to be initiated by Zoological Survey of India to development a
mechanism for effective national transfer of all such individual depositories.
E. Authentic identification manual / Hand-book

The need of an ‘authentic hand-book’ or an ‘illustrative manual’ to facilitate
credible identification of Indian Cladocera is long felt. The authors have initiated
steps to bridge this gap.
F. Fauna of Indian volume-a revision

Highly desired revision of fauna volume on Indian Cladocera (Michael and Sharma,
1988), as per current global taxonomic levels, is being initiated by the authors.
A suitable support by Zoological Survey of India shall be valuable to facilitate
execution of this work.
G. Trained human resources and research initiatives

All Indian Coordinated project on Capacity Building in Taxonomy (AICOPTAX),
the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (Government of India)
can play vital role on the said aspects except for its ‘pick & choose’ policy of
promoting research programs. The short-term ‘Training workshops’ are useful for
human resources development in Cladocera systematics.
217
Sharma and Sharma
Conclusion
The taxonomy of Indian Freshwater Cladocera is passing through its transitional
phase as species lists from India have been changing with the levels of morphological
resolutions and current global knowledge. An estimate of its diversity is still ‘ad-
hoc’ pending revalidation of known Indian taxa, analysis of cryptic diversity,
and study of intensive collections from hitherto un-explored or under-explored
parts of this country. A holistic biosystematics approach integrating morpho-
taxonomy, ecosystematics and molecular systematics is desired to reach a more
realistic estimate of true diversity of the taxon in India. With varied ecological
heterogeneity, habitat diversity and biodiversity hot-spots, we hypothesize still
high diversity of the cladocerans than known now with possibility of local endemism
and descriptions of new taxa. The development of adequate taxonomic expertise,
a national depositary and collaborative efforts are keys to future biodiversity
exploration.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors dedicate this contribution to the inspiration and advice received from
Prof. (Late) D. G. Frey, Bloomington, Indiana, USA and to Prof. C. H. Fernando,
Waterloo, Canada. We are thankful to th Director, Zoological Survey of India,
Kolkata for inviting us for this contribution. We sincerely thank collectively to all
those who helped in our field collections during the last four decades. We extend
our sincerest gratitude to Dr. Alexey A. Kotov, A. N. Severtsov Institute of Ecology
and Evolution, Leninsky Prospect, Moscow, Russia for access to his vast global
literature on Cladocera taxonomy. The authors have no conflict of interests.
REFERENCES
Baird, W. 1860. Description of the two new species of Entomostraceous Crustacea
from India. Proceedings of the Zoological Society London: 213-234.
Battish, S.K. 1981. On some chydorid and macrothricid (Crustacea: Cladocera)
from Punjab with the description of three new species. Researches on
Crustacea, 11: 17-35.
Battish, S.K. 1992. Freshwater Zooplankton of India. Oxford and IBH Publishing
Co. Pvt., Ltd., New Delhi. 233 pp
Benzie, J.A.H. 2005. The genus Daphnia (including Daphniopsis) (Anomopoda:
Daphniidae), p. 1-383. In: H.J. Dumont (ed.) Guides to the identification of
the Microinvertebrates of the Continental waters of the world. SPB Academic
Publishing.
Brooks, J.L. 1959. Cladocera in: Freshwater Biology, W.T. Edmondson (Ed.). 587-
656. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Chatterjee, T., Kotov, A.A., Van Damme, K., Chandrasekhar, S.V.A. and Padhye,
S. 2013. An annotated checklist of the Cladocera (Crustacea: Branchiopoda)
from India. Zootaxa, 3667(1): 1-89.
Dumont, H.J. and Negrea, S.V. 2002. Introduction to the class Branchiopoda. In:
Guides to the identification of the Microinvertebrates of the Continental
waters of the world. Vol. 19. Backhuys Publishers, Leiden, the Netherlands,
398 pp.
218
Dumont, H.J. and Silva–Briano, M. 2000. Karualona n. gen. (Anomopoda:

Chydoridae), with a description of two new species, and a key to all known
species. Hydrobiologia, 435: 61-82.
Fernando, C.H. and Kanduru, A. 1984. Some remarks on the latitudinal distribution
of Cladocera on the Indian subcontinent. Hydrobiologia, 113: 69-76.
Fontaneto, D., Márcia Barbosa, A., Segers, H. and Pautasso, M. 2012. The
‘rotiferologist’ effect and the other global correlates of species richness in
rotifers. Ecography, 35: 174-182.
Frey, D.G. 1987a. The non–cosmopolitanism of chydorid Cladocera: implications
for biogeography and evolution. In: Gore, R.H. and Heck, K.L (Eds.),
Crustacean biogeography (Crustacean Issues 4): 237-256. A. A. Balkema,
Rotterdam.
Frey, D.G. 1987b. The North American Chydorus faviformis (Cladocera,
Chydoridae) and the honeycombed taxa of other continents. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B, 315: 353-402.
Fryer, G. 1968. Evolution and adaptive radiation in the Chydoridae (Crustacea:
Cladocera): a study in comparative functional morphology and ecology.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B, 254:
221-382.
Hudec, I. 1987. Moina oryzae n. sp. (Cladocera, Moinidae) from Tamil Nadu (South
India). Hydrobiologia. 145: 147-150.
Hudec, I. 1991. A comparison of populations from the Daphnia similis group
(Cladocera: Daphniidae). Hydrobiologia, 225: 9-22.
Khan, R.A. 2003. Faunal diversity of Zooplankton in freshwater wetlands of
Southeastern West Bengal. Records of Zoological Survey of India, Occasional
paper No. 204: 1-107.
Korinek, V. 2002. Cladocera. In: Fernando, C.H. (Ed.), A guide to tropical freshwater
zooplankton. Backhuys Publishers, Leiden, pp. 69-122.
Korovchinsky, N.M. 1992. Sididae and Holopedidae. In: Guides to the identification
of the Microinvertebrates of the continental waters of the world. Vol. 3. SPB
Academic Publishers, The Hague. 82 pp.
Korovchinsky, N.M. 2011. Description of Sarsilatona cf. fernandoi (Rane, 1983)
(Crustacea: Cladocera: Sididae) found in the south of Vietnam. Zootaxa,
3129: 29-38.
Kotov, A.A. 2000. Redescription and assignment of the chydorid Indialona ganapati
Petkovski, 1966 (Branchiopoda: Anomopoda: Aloninae) to Indialonini, new
tribus. Hydrobiologia, 439: 161-178.
Kotov, A.A. (2011) Crustacea–Cladocera checklist. Freshwater Animal Diversity
Assessment (FADA) Project. Available from: http://fada.biodiversity.be/
CheckLists/Crustacea–Cladocera.pdf (03.09.2012).
Kotov, A.A. and Dumont, H.J. 2000. Analysis of the Ilyocryptus spinifer s. lat.
species group (Anomopoda, Branchiopoda), with description of a new
species. Hydrobiologia, 428: 85-113.
219
Sharma and Sharma
Kotov, A.A. and Taylor, D.J. 2010. A new African lineage of the Daphnia obtusa
group (Cladocera: Daphniidae) disrupts continental vicariance patterns.
Journal of Plankton Research, 32: 937-949.
Kotov, A.A., Garfias–Espejo, T. and Elías–Gutiérrez, M. 2004. Separation of two
Neotropical species: Macrothrix superaculeata (Smirnov, 1982) versus M.
elegans Sars, 1901 (Macrothricidae, Anomopoda, Cladocera). Hydrobiologia,
517: 61-88.
Kotov, A.A., Van Damme, K., Bekker, E.I., Siboualipha, S., Silva-Briano, M., Ortiz,
A.A. and De La Rosa, R.G., & Sanoamuang, L. 2013. Cladocera (Crustacea:
Branchiopoda) of Vientiane province and municipality, Laos. Journal of
Limnology, 72(2): 81-108.
Michael, R.G. 1973. Cladocera. In A guide to the study of freshwater organisms.
Journal of Madurai University, Supplement, 1: 71-85.
Michael, R.G. and Sharma, B.K. 1988. Fauna of India and adjacent countries.
Indian Cladocera (Crustacea: Branchiopoda: Cladocera). Zoological Survey
of India, Calcutta, 262 pp.
Murugan, N., Murugavel, P. and Kodarkar, M.S. (1998) Cladocera (The Biology,
Classification, Identification and Ecology). Indian Association of Aquatic
Biologists (IAAB), 5: 1-55.
Nandi, N.C., Das, S.R., Bhuiyan, S. and Dasgupta, J.M. 1993. Wetland faunal
resources of west Bengal. I. North and South 24–Parganasdistrict. Records
of Zoological Survey of India, Occasional Paper, No. 150: 1-50.
Needham J.G. and Needham P.R. 1962. A guide of the study of freshwater biology,
Holden Day Inc. San Francisco, pp 180
Orlova-Bienkowskaja, M.Y. 2001. Daphniidae: genus Simocephalus. Guides to the
identification of the microinvertebrates of the continental waters of the World
17. Backhuys, Leyden, 130 pp.
Padhye, S.M. and Dumont, H.J. 2014a. Moina hemanti n. sp., a new species of
the genus Moina s.l. (Branchiopoda: Anomopoda) from Pune, India. Zootaxa
3860(6): 561-570.
Padhye, S.M. and Dumont, H.J. 2014b. Species richness of Cladocera (Crustacea:
Branchiopoda) in the Western Ghats of Maharashtra and Goa (India),
with biogeographical comments. Journal of Limnology doi: 10.4081/
jlimnol.2014.1033.
Petrusek, A., Černy, M., and Audenaert, E. 2004. Large intercontinental
differentiation of Moina micrura (Crustacea: Anomopoda): one less
cosmopolitan cladoceran? Hydrobiologia, 526: 73-81.
Raghunathan, M.B and Suresh Kumar, R. 2002. Cladocera (Crustacea) of Tamil
Nadu: Checklist and bibliography. Zoos’ Print Journal, 17: 959-960.
Raghunathan, M.B. and Suresh Kumar, R. 2003. Checklist of Indian Cladocera
(Crustacea). Zoos’ Print Journal, 18: 1180-1182.
Rane, P.D. 2005. Cladocera; Crustacea. In: Fauna of Melghat Tiger Reserve:
Fauna of Conservation Area Series, 24: 451-500. Zoological Survey of India,
Calcutta.
220
Rao, L.M., Naidu, N.J. and Padmaja, G. 1998a. Holopedium ramasarmii n.

sp. (Cladocera: Holopedidae), a new cladoceran from freshwaters of
Visakhapatnam. Uttar Pradesh Journal of Zoology, 18: 45-47.
Rao, L.M., Padmaja, G. & Naidu, N.J. 1998b. Two new species of Diaphanosoma
(Sididae: Cladocera) from freshwater bodies of North Andhra, India. Uttar
Pradesh Journal of Zoology, 18: 91-94.
Sharma, B.K. 1978. A note on freshwater cladocera from West Bengal. Bangladesh
Journal of Zoology, 6: 149-151.
Sharma, B.K. 1991. Cladocera. In: Animal Resources of India: Protozoa to
Mammalia: State of the Art. Zoological Survey of India, Calcutta: 205‑223.
Sharma, B.K. and Michael, R.G. 1987. Review of taxonomic studies on freshwater
Cladocera from India with remarks on biogeography. Hydrobiologia, 145:
29-33.
Sharma, B.K. and Sharma, S. 1985. Contributions to the Cladoceran Fauna of West
Bengal (Crustacea: Branchiopoda). Journal Meghalaya Science Society, 7 &
8: 10-24.
Sharma, B.K. and Sharma, S. 1990. On the taxonomic status of some Cladoceran
taxa (Crustacea: Cladocera) from Central India. Revue Hydrobiologie
tropicale, 23: 105-133.
Sharma, B.K. and Sharma, S. 1999. Freshwater cladocerans (Crustacea:
Branchiopoda: Cladocera). In: Fauna of Meghalaya: State Fauna Series, 4:
469–550. Zoological Survey of India, Calcutta.
Sharma, B.K. and Sharma, S. 2001. Contributions to the cladoceran fauna
(Crustacea: Branchiopoda: Cladocera) of Bihar. Records of zoological Survey
of India, 99: 31-43.
Sharma, B.K. and Sharma, S. 2005. Biodiversity of freshwater rotifers (Rotifera:
Eurotatoria) from North-Eastern India. Mitteilungen aus dem Museum für
Naturkunde Berlin, Zoologische Reihe, 81: 81-88.
Sharma, B.K. and Sharma, S. 2007. New records of two interesting chydorid
cladocerans (Branchiopoda: Cladocera: Chydoridae) from flood plain lakes
of Assam, India. Zoos’ print Journal, 22: 2799-2801.
Sharma, B.K. and Sharma, S. 2009. Faunal diversity of Cladocera (Crustacea:
Branchiopoda) of Loktak Lake (a Ramsar site), Manipur (N.E. India).
Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 106: 156-161.
Sharma, B.K. and Sharma, S. 2010. Diversity of Cladocera (Crustacea, Branchiopoda)
in Floodplain Lakes of Manipur, Northeastern India. Records of Zoological
Sharma, B.K. and Sharma, S. 2012. Notes on some rare and interesting Cladocera
(Crustacea: Branchiopoda: Anomopoda: Chydoridae) from Deepor Beel,
Assam, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa, 4: 2304-2309.
Sharma, B.K. and Sharma, S. 2014. Faunal diversity of Cladocera (Crustacea:
Branchiopoda) in wetlands of Majuli (the largest river island), Assam,
northeast India. Opuscula Zoologica, Budapest, 45(1): 83-94.
221
Sharma and Sharma
Sharma, S. 2008. Notes on some rare and interesting Cladocerans (Crustacea:

Branchiopoda) from Meghalaya. Records of Zoological Survey of India, 108:
111-122.
Sharma, S and Sharma, B.K. 2008. Zooplankton diversity in floodplain lakes of
Assam. Records of Zoological Survey of India, Occasional Paper No., 290:
1-307.
Sharma, S. and Sharma. B.K. 2013. Faunal Diversity of Aquatic Invertebrates of
Deepor Beel (a Ramsar site), Assam, northeast India. Wetland Ecosystem
Series, 17: 1-226 + 18 plates. Zool. Surv. India, Kolkata
Sharma S. and Sharma B.K. 2014. Biodiverse assemblage of Cladocera (Crustacea:
Branchiopoda) in the floodplains of the Brahmaputra river basin. In: Rivers
for Life - Proceedings of the International Symposium on River Biodiversity
(Eds. Sinha, R.K. Ahmed, B. (Eds.): 312-321. Brahmaputra - Meghna
River System, Ecosystems for Life, A Bangladesh - India Initiative, IUCN,
International Union for Conservation of Nature,
Sharma, V., Verma, V.K., Sharma, R., Sharma, M.S. and Gour, K.S. 2012. A report
on the freshwater cladocera (Crustacea: Branchiopoda) of south Rajasthan
(India). International Journal of Environmental Sciences, 3(1): 275-296.
Sinev, A.Y. 1999. Alona costata Sars, 1862 versus related palaeotropical species:
the first example of close relations between species with a different number
of main head pores among Chydoridae (Crustacea: Anomopoda). Arhropoda
Selecta, 8(3): 131-148.
Sinev, A.Y. 2001. Separation of Alona cambouei Guerne & Richard, 1893 from
Alona pulchella King, 1853 (Branchiopoda, Anomopoda, Chydoridae).
Arthropoda Selecta, 10: 5-18.
Sinev, A.Y. 2011. Redescription of the rheophilous Cladocera Camptocercus
vietnamensis Than, 1980 (Cladocera: Anomopoda: Chydoridae). Zootaxa,
2934: 53-60.
Sinev, A.Y. 2012. Alona kotovi sp. nov., a new species of Aloninae (Cladocera:
Anomopoda: Chydoridae) from South Vietnam. Zootaxa, 3475: 45-54.
Sinev, A.Y. 2016. Key for identification of Cladocera of the subfamily Aloninae
(Anomopoda: Chydoridae) from South-East Asia. Zootaxa, 4200(4): 451-486
Smirnov, N.N. 1971. Chydoridae of the world fauna. Fauna SSSR. Rakoobraznie,
1(2): 1-531. (In Russian). Smirnov, N.N. (1976) Macrothricidae and Moinidae
of the World fauna. Fauna SSSR, novaya seriya. Rakoobraznye, 1(3): 1-237.
(In Russian).
Smirnov, N.N. 1976. World Macrothricidae and Moinidae (in Russian). Fauna
USSR. Zool. Inst. Acad. Nauk. USSR, New Ser., 112: 1-237.
Smirnov, N.N. 1992. The Macrothricidae of the world. Guides to the identification
of the microinvertebrates of the Continental Waters of the world, Vol. 1. SPB
Academic Publishing, The Hague, 143 pp.
222
Smirnov, N.N. 1996. Cladocera: the Chydorinae and Sayciinae (Chydoridae) of the
world. Guides to the identification of the microinvertebrates of the Continental
Waters of the world, Vol. 11. SPB Academic Publishing, Amsterdam, 197 pp.
Tonapi, G.T. 1980. Freshwater animals of India - an ecological approach. Oxford
& IBH Publishing Co.
Van Damme, K. and Dumont, H.J. 2008a. Further division of Alona Baird, 1843:
separation and position of Coronatella Dybowski & Grochowski and Ovalona
gen. n. (Crustacea: Cladocera). Zootaxa, 1960: 1–44.
Van Damme, K. and Dumont, H.J. 2008b. The ‘true’ genus Alona Baird, 1843
(Crustacea: Cladocera: Anomopoda): position of the A. quadrangularis–
group and description of a new species from the Democratic Republic of
Congo. Zootaxa, 1943: 1-25.
Van Damme K, and Sinev AY, 2013. Tropical amphi-pacific disjunctions in the
Cladocera (Crustacea: Branchiopoda). Journal of Limnology, 72(2): 209-244.
Van Damme, K., Brancelj, A. and Dumont, H.J. 2009. Adaptations to the hyporehic
in Aloninae (Crustacea: Cladocera): allocation of Alona protzi Hartwig, 1900
and related species to Phreatalona gen. nov. Hydrobiologia, 618: 1-34.
Van Damme, K., Kotov, A.A. and Dumont, H.J. 2010. A checklist of names in Alona
Baird 1843 (Crustacea: Cladocera: Chydoridae) and their current status: an
analysis of the taxonomy of a lump genus. Zootaxa, 2330: 1-63.
Van Damme, K., Sinev, A.Y. and Dumont, H.J. 2011. Separation of Anthalona
gen. n. from Alona Baird, 1843 (Branchiopoda: Cladocera: Anomopoda):
morphology and evolution of scraping stenothermic alonines. Zootaxa,
2875: 1-64.
Venkataraman, K. 1992. Cladocera of Keoladeo National Park, Bharatpur and its
environs. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 89: 17-26.
Venkataraman, K. 1999. The freshwater Cladocera (Crustacea: Branchiopoda).
In: Fauna of West Bengal. State Fauna Series, 3(10): 251-284. Zoological
Survey of India, Calcutta.
Venkataraman, K. and Das, S.R. 2000. Cladocera. In: State Fauna Series: Fauna
of Tripura, 7(4): 277-316. Zoological Survey of India, Calcutta.
223
Chapter 15
CRUSTACEA: BRANCHIOPODA
(ANOSTRACA, NOTOSTRACA,
LAEVICAUDATA, DIPLOSTRACA)
K. Valarmathi
Abstract
The Branchiopods are a primitive and diverse class of the Crustacea characterized
by flattened and foliaceous thoracic appendages. This reasonably small taxon
of primarily freshwater crustaceans encompasses numerous primeval looking
members like fairy shrimps (Anostraca), tadpole shrimps (Notostraca), clam
shrimps (Diplostraca) and also includes highly modified associates of Cladocerans.
Except cladocera the remaining are known as large branchiopod or non cladoceran
branchiopods. Presently 40 species of large branchiopods under 14 genera, 11
families and 4 orders are known to occur in India.
Key Words: Anostraca, Branchiopoda, Diplostraca, Notostraca, India.
Introduction
The Branchiopods are a primordial and diverse class of the Crustacea characterized
by having flattened and foliaceous thoracic appendages (thoracopods); these
structures have respiratory (as well as other) function and hence the name branchio-
(breathing) poda (legs) (Greaves, 2012). It is a reasonably small taxon of primarily
freshwater crustaceans with numerous primeval members like fairy shrimps,
tadpole shrimps and encompasses highly modified associates of Cladocerans
(Martin, 1992, Olesen, 2009). Nearly half of the known branchiopod species are
cladocerans. The non-cladocerans (Anostraca=fairy shrimps, Notostraca=tadpole
shrimps, Laevicaudata=smooth clam shrimps) are generally named as ‘large
branchiopods’, despite the group being clearly paraphyletic, nevertheless, they
share a number of common characteristics like serially similar phyllopodous trunk
limbs, their preference for temporary wetlands or salt lakes (Olesen, 2009). In
India many of the major groups of non-cladoceran or large branchiopods are well
represented in various temporary and semi permanent water bodies, occasionally
in some permanent water bodies. The anostracans, inhabiting temporary rain pools
and permanent saltwater worldwide, are branchiopods lacking a carapace and
with 19-27 postcephalic segments of which 9-19 carry a pair of similar, foliaceous
limbs (Weekers et al., 2002). Most of them are about 10-30 mm long (extreme range
5-150 mm), and consist of a long cylindrical body divided into a head, a thorax with
many pairs of foliaceous limbs, the genitalia, and an abdomen and interestingly
the fairy shrimps swim upside down (Timms, 2015).
Zoological Survey of India, Crustacea Division, FPS Building,

Indian Museum Complex, 27 JL Nehru Road, Kolkata-700016
225
Valarmathi
Anostracans are divided into two suborders: the Artemiina containing two
genera Artemia and Parartemia which live in saline waters hence are called brine
shrimp and the Anostracina which accommodate the freshwater fairy shrimps
(though some live in saline waters) arranged in six extant families (Timms, 2012,
2015). In India the order Anostraca is represented by 5 families. Notostraca is a
small and widely distributed order showing an extremely conserved morphology,
with fossils from 300 million years back but morphologically identical to extant
taxa. They inhabit ephemeral water bodies and produce resistant diapausing cysts
that form egg banks in sediments and are also the dispersal stage (Sassaman et al.,
1997, Zierold, 2009). The order Notostraca comprises a single Family Triopsidae,
and two genera namely Triops Schrank, and Lepidurus Leach. Among these two
genera the genus Triops is represented by two species and the latter genus is so
far not reported from India. Both the genera have long and complex taxonomic
histories about 60 junior synonyms exist for the eleven or so species recognized
by Longhurst (1955a) (Sassaman et al., 1997). The single family Lynceidae of the
Order Laevicaudata, the Diplostracan suborders Spinicaudata with three families
and the only known Cylestheria hislopi (Baird) of the suborder Cyclestherida are
available in India.
Fossil History
Anostracans have been known, since the Lower Cretaceous period (Fryer, 1987,
Peter et al., 2002). Notostraca is an ancient order of branchiopod crustaceans
dating from the Cambrian and it represents a challenging group from both
evolutionary and ecological aspects. Its two genera, Triops and Lepidurus,
constitute a well-known example of ‘living fossils’, i.e. lineages surviving ‘over a
long period of time with minimal morphological change’ as a result of ‘unusual
morphological conservatism’(Mantovani et al., 2004). The tadpole shrimps have
a fossil record extending back at least 220 million years, mostly disarticulated
carapaces or telsons are found but well-preserved entire animals are sometimes
uncovered (Greaves, 2012). Triops has a long fossil record, specimens assigned to
this genus are reported from the Permian of Oklahoma and numerous specimens
indistinguishable from modern Triops cancriformis have been collected in Triassic
formations of Virginia and Germany. Two species described from the Middle
Jurassic of China also resemble T. cancriformis (Sassaman et al., 1997). Like the
Notostraca, clam shrimps have an extensive fossil record, extending at least to the
Carboniferous, mostly only carapaces (and not whole animals) are found (Greaves,
2012).
Baird (1860) initiated the awareness of Phyllopod crustaceans of the Indian
Empire by describing Streptocephalus dichotomus from a single male specimen
swimming in a bucket of milk (Bond, 1934). Since then there are many workers
who contributed to the knowledge of the non cladoceran branchiopods (Sars, 1887;
Alcock, 1898; Gurney, 1906, 1921,1924,1925,1930; Kemp, 1911a,b; Bond, 1934;
Mahabate, 1939; Gopinath, 1944; Chako, 1950).
Tiwari (1951, 1958,1962,1965, 1966,1971,1972,1996) made a significant
contribution to the large branchipod crustaceans of India. The contribution made
226
Crustacea: Branchiopoda (Anostraca, Notostraca, Laevicaudata, Diplostraca)
by other workers (Raj, 1951; Kulkarni, 1953; Iyengar and Basavaiah, 1956; Mathur
and Sidhu, 1957; Baid, 1958,1968,1975; Raji,1951; Karande and Inamdar, 1959,
1961a,b; Nayar, 1965; Shull, 1967; Raj, 1971; Nayar and Nair, 1968, Shanbag
and Inamdar, 1968; Issac, 1970; Malhotra and Duda, 1970; Royan et al., 1970;
Das, 1971; Das and Akhtar, 1971; Royan and Alfred, 1971; Royan and Sumitra,
1973; Radhakrishna and Durga Prasad, 1974,1976; Bhargava and Alam, 1980;
Munuswamy, 1982a,b; Battish, 1981, 1983; Joseph et al., 1992; Belk and Esparza,
1995; Ghate and Patil, 1995; Belk and Brendonck, 1997; Ghate and Shetty, 1997;
Manca and Mura, 1997) is also noteworthy.
Presently numerous remarkable investigations were carried out by Ghate, et
al. (2003), Balaraman and Nayar (2004), Durga Prasad and Simhachalam (2004,
2009) Velu, and Munuswamy (2003, 2005,2006,2007), Babu and Nandan, (2010),
Padhye et al. (2011a,b,c), Simhachalam and Timms (2012), Vikas et al (2012) and
Padhye et al. (2015), Kulkarni et al.(2015), Padhye and Dahanukar (2015) and
Padhye and Ghate, 2016). Recently Rogers and Padhye (2015) reviewed the large
branchiopod crustaceans of Indian subcontinent and Padhye et al. (2016) studied
the diversity and zoogeography of the fairy shrimps of Indian subcontinent.
Diversity
The large branchiopod crustaceans comprise about 500 species found in aquatic,
inland, saline and/or temporary wetland habitats from all continents, including
Antarctica (Brendonck et al., 2008; Rogers and Padhye, 2015). In general, the
Asian large branchiopod fauna has been poorly studied and with many areas not
surveyed and much confusion in the taxonomic literature (Rogers, 2013; Rogers
and Padhye, 2014, 2015). Rogers and Padhye (2015) made a detailed review
of large branchiopod crustaceans of Indian subcontinent (Bangladesh, India,
Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka) based on literature. Out of 86 species of large
branchiopods known earlier they have recognized only 42 species: 16 anostracans,
2 notostracans, 3 laevicaudatans, 21 spinicaudatans (with reservations), and a
single species of cyclestherid, while the rest are synonymised. Padhye and Ghate
(2016) recently described a new species of Leptestheria from Western Ghats. Based
on the above review work and the recent addition presently 40 species of large
branchiopods under 14 genera, 11 families and 4 orders are known to occur in
India (Table. 1&3). Brendonck et al. (2008) made a comparative analysis of large
branchiopod species diversity in different Zoogeographic regions. The maximum
species diversity of Anostraca, Notostraca and Spinicaudata is known from
Palaearctic region whereas highest species diversity Laevicaudata is observed in
the Neotropical region (Table. 2)
Table 1. Global and Indian Distribution of Non Cladoceran Branchiopods
World India
Order/Family
Genra Species Genera Species
Anostraca 26 307 6 13
Artemiidae 1 9 1 2
Parartemiidae 1 13 0 0
227
Valarmathi
World India
Order/Family
Genra Species Genera Species
Branchinectidae 1 45 0 0
Thamnocephalidae 6 62 2 3
Streptocephalidae 1 56 1 6
Branchipodidae 5 35 1 1
Tanymastigitidae 2 8 0 0
Chirocephalidae 9 81 1 1
Notostraca 2 15 1 2
Triopsidae 2 15 1 2
Spinicaudata 12 ~150 6 22
Cyzicidae 4 ~90 2 7
Leptestheriidae 3 ~37 2 7
Limnadiidae 5 ~55 1 7
Cyclestheriidae 1 1* 1 1*
Laevicaudata 3 36 1 3
Lynceidae 3 36 1 3
Total 43 ~508 14 40
(Source: Modified and updated after Brendonck et al., 2008; Rogers and
Padhye, 2015)
Table 2. Diversity of Anostraca, Notostraca, Spinicaudata and

Laevicaudata in different Zoogeographic regions
PA NA NT AT OL AU PAC ANT World
G Sp. G Sp. G Sp. G Sp. G Sp. G Sp. G Sp. G Sp. G Sp.
Anostraca 16 110 11 64 10 33 6 56 6 11 4 48 1 1 1 1 26 307
Artemiidae 1 6 1 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 9
Parartemiidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 13+ 0 0 0 0 1 13
Branchinectidae 1 6 1 24 1 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 45
Thamnocephalidae 2 5 3 6 3 16 4 4 2 2 1 32 0 0 0 0 6 62
Streptocephalidae 1 16 1 15 1 24 0 0 1 7 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 56
Branchipodidae 2 9 0 0 4 26 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 35
Tanymastigitidae 2 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 8
Chirocephalidae 7 61 5 16 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 81
Notostracaa 2 7 2 7 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 15
Triopsidae 2 7 2 7 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 15
Spinicaudata 9 ~50 5 ~15 5 ~13 4 ~20 6 ~30 5 23 1 1 0 0 12 ~150
Cyzicidae 3 ~20 2 6 2 2 1 ~7 3 ~10 2 10 0 0 0 0 4 ~90
Leptestheriidae 3 ~15 1 1 1 ~5 1 ~8 1 ~3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 ~37
228
PA NA NT AT OL AU PAC ANT World

G Sp. G Sp. G Sp. G Sp. G Sp. G Sp. G Sp. G Sp. G Sp.
Limnadiidae 3 ~15 2 ~10 2 ~10 2 ~10 2 ~12 3 13 1 1 0 0 5 ~55
Cyclestheriidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1* 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1*
Laevicaudata 1 8 2 7 2 13 2 4 1 4 1 2 0 0 0 0 3 36
Lynceidae 1 8 2 7 2 13 2 4 1 4 1 2 0 0 0 0 3 36
(Source: Modified after Brendonck et al., 2008)

PA, Palaearctic; NA, Nearctic; NT, Neotropical; AT, Afrotropical; OL, Oriental;
AU, Australasian; PAC, Pacific Oceanic Islands; ANT, Antarctic
Distribution: The non-cladoceran branchiopods have a worldwide distribution
including the Antarctic peninsula but maximum abundance and species richness
is noticed in steppes and deserts which covers numerous temporary water bodies
(Brendonck et al., 2008). Most of the large branchiopod crustaceans reported were
from southern and northwestern parts of India with meager reports from northeast
and various regions of the Indian subcontinent remain unexplored (Rogers and
Padhye, 2015) (Table 3).
Table 3. List of species reported from India with their
distribution in the country
Sl.
Order/Family/Species Distribution in India
No.
Order Anostraca Sars, 1867
Artemiidae Grochowski, 1896
1. Artemia franciscana Kellogg, 1906 introduced to India, where
it is spreading (Vikas et al., 2012, Rogers and
Padhye, 2015)
2. Artemia salina (Linneaus, 1758) saline ponds in Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu,
the coastal strands of Sourastra and Kutch in
Gujarat, Samhar Lake and Didwana Lake in
Rajasthan, and West Bengal
Streptocephalidae Daday, 1910
3. Streptocephalus dichotomus Baird, most common and widespread in India
1860
4. Streptocephalus echinus Bond, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh
1934
5. Streptocephalus longimanus Bond, eastern Tamil Nadu
1934
6. Streptocephalus sahyadriensis northern region of the Western Ghats
Rogers and Padhye, 2014
7. Streptocephalus simplex Gurney, Himachal Pradesh, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh,
1907 Gujarat and West Bengal
8. Streptocephalus spinifer Gurney, southern Andhra Pradesh and central
1907 Tamil Nadu.
229
Valarmathi
Sl.
No.
Branchipodidae Simon, 1886
9. Branchipodopsis affinis Sars, 1901 widespread species in various parts of India
Thamnocephalidae Packard, 1883
10. Branchinella hardingi (Qadri and Madhya Pradesh
Baqai, 1956)
11. Branchinella maduraiensis (Raj, It has been widely reported from various parts
1951) fide Belk and Brendonck, of India
1997
12. Carinophallus ornata (Daday, Sambhar Lake, Naguar District in Rajasthan.
1910)
Chirocephalidae Daday, 1910
13. Chirocephalus priscus (Daday, Punjab, Uttarakhand, Rajasthan and Sikkim,
1910) as well as adjacent Punjab, Pakistan, across the
base of the Himalayas.
Order Notostraca, Sars, 1867
Triopsidae Keilhack, 1909
14. Triops cancriformis (Bosc, 1801) Jammu and Kashmir, Gujarat, and
Uttar Pradesh.
15. Triops granarius (Lucas, 1864) Gujarat, Kashmir, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, and
Tamil Nadu
Order Laevicaudata Linder, 1945
Lynceidae Baird, 1845
16. Lynceus brachyurus Müller, 1776 Tamil Nadu (Nayar and Nair (1968) reported two
male L. brachyurus from Tamilnadu but Rogers
and Padhye doubt the species Identification and
they feel it may not be L.brachyurus)
17. Lynceus denticulatus (Gurney, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Punjab
1930) species complex
18. Lynceus indicus Daday, 1913 Uttarakhand
Order Diplostraca Gerstaeker, 1866
Suborder Spinicaudata Linder, 1945
Cyzicidae Stebbing, 1910
19. Cyzicus annandalei Daday, 1913 Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan and

20. Cyzicus indicus (Gurney, 1906) Tamil Nadu
21. Cyzicus ludhianatus (Battish, from Punjab
1981)
22. Eocyzicus bouvieri Daday, 1913b Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand
23. Eocyzicus dhilloni Battish, 1981 Punjab
230
Sl.
No.
24. Eocyzicus hutchinsoni Bond, 1934 Punjab and from Jammu and
[species-complex]
25. Eocyzicus plumosus Royan and Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu
Sumitra, 1973
Leptestheriidae Daday, 1923
26. Leptestheria dumonti Subash Kerala
Babu and Bijoy Nandan, 2010
27. Leptestheria gurneyi Padhye & A small and shallow rock pool (depth of about 30
Ghate, 2016 cm) on Devi Hasol lateritic plateau near Western
Coast, Maharshtra
28. Leptestheria jaisalmerensis Tiwari, Maharastra and Rajasthan
1962 (amended Tiwari, 1996)
29. Leptestheria nobilis Sars, 1900 Andrha Pradesh, Karnataka, Maharashtra
Rajasthan and Tamil Nadu.
30. Leptestheria sarsi (Daday, 1923) Madhya Pradesh, Tamil Nadu
31. Leptestheria simhadrii Andhra Pradesh
(Simhachalam and Timms, 2012)
32. Sewellestheria sambharensis Endemic to the saline Lake Sambhar, Rajasthan.

Tiwari, 1966
Limnadiidae Baird, 1849
33. Eulimnadia azisi Subash Babu rock pools in the Western Ghats of Kerala.
and Bijoy Nandan, 2010
34. Eulimnadia compressa (Baird, Karnataka, Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu
1849)
35. Eulimnadia gibba Sars, 1900 Tamil Nadu
36. Eulimnadia gunturensis Andhra Pradesh
Radhakrishna and Durga Prasad,
1976
37. Eulimnadia indocylindrova Durga Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra.
Prasad and Simhachalam, 2004
38. Eulimnadia micheali Nayar and Kerala, Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu
Nair, 1968
39. Eulimnadia ovata Nayar, 1965 Rajasthan
Suborder Cyclestherida Sars, 1899
Cyclestheriidae Sars, 1899
40. Cyclestheria hislopi (Baird, 1859) Bihar, Maharastra, Punjab, Tamil Nadu
and West Bengal. The single pantropical
morphospecies Cyclestheria hislopi consists of
different cryptic ‘phylogenetic’ species. (Rogers
and Padhye, 2015)
See Rogers and Padhye (2015) for details of synonymy and distributional
reports etc.
231
Valarmathi
Endemism
Of the nearly 500 described species of large branchiopods, more than one-fourth
are known only from their type localities, and several species have only been
collected once or twice (Rogers, 2009). In India also many species are known only
from their type locality and nearby areas and few species are reported from very
limited areas (Table. 3)
Biology
Among the large branchiopod crustaceans, the anostracans have universal
distribution in ephemeral ponds, saline inland water bodies, and sporadically in
marine lagoons. Some species are known from ultra-pure fresh waters in tundra
habitats to extremely turbid and silt-laden puddles (Martin 1992; Martin and
Boyce, 2004). Maximum species of anostracans seem to be filter feeders or deposit
feeders, but some are rapacious predators on other species of anostracans (Martin
and Boyce, 2004). With the exception of Antarctica the Notostracans are reported
from all continents and they are mostly restricted to temporary or vernal waters
such as freshwater rock pools, paddy fields, puddles and clay pans which are subject
to cycles of flooding and drying. Triops have been shown to withstand boiling water
and still develop normally later and the notostracans feed on detritus or on other
organisms, living or dead, they can catch other anostracans and even small fish
(Martin and Boyce, 2004). Like notostraca the clam shrimps are also known from
all continents except Antarctica, they are mostly available in the temporary water
bodies, rarely the members of the family Lynceidae are noticed in praire streams
and Cyclotheria hislopi, the single known species of the family Cylestheriidae are
available in permanent water bodies (Martin and Boyce, 2004). They are known as
filter feeders and scavenger species of the aquatic environment.
Habitat
The anostracans inhabit almost exclusively temporary standing freshwaters like
clay pans, gnammas on rock outcrops, vegetated pools, newly filled freshwater
lakes, salt lakes, ephemeral farm dams, roadside ditches, disconnected creek
pools, actually anywhere where water is ponded for more than few days (Timms,
2015). The tadpole shrimp Triops occurs in rice fields, rain pools, fishery ponds and
other temporary freshwater water bodies (Zierold et al., 2009, Hora et al., 1955,
Padhye and Ghate, 2016). The clam shrimps are also noticed in temporary and
semi- permanent inland water bodies. We could observe the cyclotheriids even in
permanent water bodies like ponds along with cladocerans among the marginal
vegetation (Personnel observation).
Life cycle
The branchiopods display a broad range of reproductive modes, including dioecy,
hermaphroditism and parthenogenesis (Brantner et al., 2013). Within Crustacea,
the class Branchiopoda is interesting both because of its phylogenetic importance
(Martin and Davis, 2001), and increasingly because of its diversity of reproductive
forms (Sassaman, 1995; Dumont and Negrea, 2002; Weeks et al., 2009). Anostracans
are gonochoric which involves male, female, and sexual reproduction. All fairy
shrimps produce drought resistant eggs, which are carried in the brood pouch
232
where they mature, a lot of species discharge these eggs regularly while some
retain them even in death (Timms, 2015). The draught resistant eggs contain an
embryo in an arrested phase of development which remains viable in the surface
sediments for many years (Timms, 2015). At suitable conditions they hatch as
nauplii. The nauplius larva is small and oval or pear shaped with three pairs of
appendages, the additional appendages are added as somites are added during the
growth (Mortin and Boyce, 2004). They have a rapid growth and few species may
mature within four days but 2-3 weeks is quite normal (Timms, 2015).
Both self-fertilization and sexual reproduction are observed among the tadpole
shrimps, like fairy shrimps they also hatch as nauplii and the notostracan larvae
contain much yolk and they do not swim (Fryer, 1988, Mortin and Boyce, 2004).
The Diplostracans (clam shrimp and water fleas) have five modes of
reproduction: dioecy (males + females = gonochorism), hermaphroditism
(organism possesses a functional ovotestis and is thus capable of self-fertilization),
parthenogenesis (reproduction via asexual means), cyclic parthenogenesis (many
bouts of parthenogenesis with periodic sexual reproduction) and androdioecy
(males + hermaphrodites; Dumont and Negrea, 2002, Brantner et al., 2013). Like
other large branchiopods the eggs of the clam shrimps hatch as a pear shaped
nauplius larva with three pairs of appendages with more metamorphic stages.
Threats, Conservation and Human Significance
Of the nearly 500 described species of large branchiopods, more than one-
fourth are known only from their type localities, and several species have only
been collected once or twice (Rogers, 2009). About 31 large branchiopod species are
included in the IUCN red list and no Indian species is noticed among them (IUCN,
2016). Many species of fairy shrimps are considered as a live feed in aquaculture
industries and they are used effectively as ‘living pills’ to provide antibiotics,
medications, or vitamins to the aquacultural livestock (Amitha et al., 2007; Basil
and Pandian, 1991; Rogers, 2009). Triops cancriformis has been reported as a rice
pest in Kashmir, India (Hora et al, 1955, Zaka-ur-Eab, 1984, Padhye and Ghate,
2016). On the contrary the Triops species are used in biological control in Japan.
In pet industries Artemia is frequently sold as ‘Sea Monkeys’ and the tadpole
shrimp Triops is sold as a ‘living fossil’ (Rogers, 2009). Any kind of anthropogenic
activities that affects the temporary water bodies will directly or indirectly affect
the diversity of large branchiopod crustaceans so if we protect the habitat we can
conserve the large branchiopod crustaceans.
Gaps in research
The works on large branchiopod crustaceans are very scattered and except for the
recent literature based on the review of Rogers and Padhye (2015) no concrete
information is available in this group. Attention should be given to make a detailed
taxonomic study based on the materials already collected and available in the
museums and fresh faunal surveys to various parts of the country is also essential.
The taxonomic ambiguity of various species of the non cladoceran branchiopods
should be solved by a detailed study of the already known species and especially by
examining more samples from different localities. Apart from that there are many
233
Valarmathi
unexplored area of this group and the youngsters should develop expertise in this
group to have a better knowledge on these poorly known organisms.
Acknowledgments
The author is thankful to Dr. Kailash Chandra, Director, Zoological Survey of
India, Kolkata for providing research facilities, guidance and encouragement. I
express my sincere thanks to Dr.S.M.Padhye for sharing his valuable publication
with me.
References
Alcock, A. 1898. Description of a new species of Branchipus from Calcutta. Journal
of the Asiatic Society, Bengal, 65: 538-539.
Babu, K.K.S., and S.B. Nandan. 2010. Two new clam shrimp species (Crustacea:
Branchiopoda: Spinicaudata) from Kerala, India. Zootaxa, 2713: 55-64.
Baid, I.C. 1958. Occurrence of Artemia salina in Sambhar Lake, Rajasthan.
Current Science, 27: 58-59.
Baid, I.C.. 1968. The arthropod fauna of Sambhar Salt Lake, Rajasthan, India.
Oikos, 19: 292-303.
Baid, I.C. 1975. Description of a new species of Branchinella Sayce from Sambhar
Lake, India (Crustacea-Branchiopoda-Anostraca). Journal of the Bombay
Natural History Society, 72: 786-790.
Baird, W. 1860. Description of two new species of entomostracous crustaceans
from India. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 28: 445-446.
Balaraman, U., and C.K.G. Nayar. 2004. A new species of the clam shrimp genus
Lynceus (Branchiopoda, Conchostraca, Laevicaudata) from Kerala, India.
Crustaceana, 77: 407- 416.
Basil, J.A., and G.T. Pandian. 1991. Culturing Artemia (Tuticorn strain) in organic
and agricultural wastes at different salinities. Hydrobiologia, 212: 11-17.
Battish, S.K. 1981. On some conchostracans from Punjab with the description of
three new species and a new subspecies. Crustaceana, 40:178-196.
Battish, S.K. 1983. On the occurrence of three species of fairy shrimps (Anostraca:
Crustacea) in Punjab, with a check-list of Indian anostracans. Researches
on Crustacea, 12: 77-84.
Belk, D. 1989. Identification of species in the conchostracan genus Eulimnadia by
egg shell morphology. Journal of Crustacean Biology, 9: 115-125.
Belk, D and J. Brtek. 1995. Checklist of the Anostraca. Hydrobiologia, 298: 315-
354.
Belk, D and C.E. Esparza. 1995. Anostraca of the Indian subcontinent.
Belk, D and L. Brendonck. 1997. Branchinella maduraiensis Raj (Crustacea,
Branchiopoda, Anostraca) shown by new evidence to be a validspecies.
234
Bhargava, S.C., and M. Alam. 1980. Occurrence of Artemia salina (Crustacea:

Phylopoda) in Didwana Lake, Rajasthan. Journal of the Bombay Natural
History Society, 77: 158-159.
Bhusnale R., Marathe A., Kulkarni M.R., Padhye S.M., and Pai, K. 2016.
Observations on the hatching dynamics and phenology of co-occurring large
branchiopods from a small temporary pool in western India using ex situ
sediment rehydration. Ann. Limnol. -Int. J. Lim., 52 (2016): 327-333.
DOI:10.1051/limn/2016020.
Bond, R.M., 1934. Report of phyllopod Crustacea (Anostraca, Notostraca and
Conchostraca) including a revision of the Anostraca of the Indian Empire.
Memoirs of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences, 10: 29-62.
Brantner, J.S., Ott, D.W., Duff, R.J and, Orridge, J.I., Waldman, J.R., and Weeks,
S.C. 2013.
Evidence of selfing hermaphroditism in the Clam Shrimp Cyzicus gynecia
(Branchiopoda: Spinicaudata). Journal of Crustacean Biology, 33(2), 184-
190.
Brendonck L., Rogers, D.C., Olesen, J., Weeks, S. and Hoeh, W.R., 2008. Global
diversity of large branchiopods (Crustacea: Branchiopoda) in freshwater.
Chako, P.I. 1950. Occurrence of the fairy shrimp (sic) Apus, in a temple tank
in Tirunelveli District, Madras. Journal of the Bombay Natural History
Society, 49: 571.
Das, S.M. 1971. On a new species of Apus (Crustacea: Notostraca) from Kashmir.
Proceedings of the Indian Scientific Congress (Abstracts) 58: 555-556.
Das, S.M and S. Akhtar. 1971. On a new species of Eocyzicus: Eocyzicus wulari n.
sp. (Conchostraca, Cyzicidae, Crustacea). Kashmir Science, 8: 111-114.
Dumont, H.J. & S.V. Negrea, 2002. Branchiopoda. Guides to the Identification of
the Microinvertebrates of the Continental Waters of the World. Ed H.J.F.
Dumont. Backhuys Publishers, Leiden. 398 pp.
Durga Prasad and G. Simhachalam. 2004. Eulimnadia indocylindrova sp. nov.
(Branchiopoda: Spinicaudata) from South India with a review of thegenus
Eulimnadia in Indomalayan region, pp. 74-81. In, Proceedings of the
International Conference on Great Himalayas: Climate, Health,Ecology
Management and Conservation. KU/AEHMS/HIRI Publishers, Kathmandu
University, Kathmandu.
Durga Prasad and G. Simhachalam. 2009. Distribution of Indian clam shrimps
(Branchiopoda: Crustacea). Current Science, 96: 71-73.
Fryer, G., 1987. A new classification of the branchipod Crustacea.Zoological
Journal of the Linnean Society, 91: 357-383.
Fryer G. 1988. Studies on the functional morphology and biology of the Notostraca
(Crustacea: Branchiopoda). Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society
of London B. Biological Sciences, 321: 27-124.
235
Valarmathi
Ghate, H.V., and S.G. Patil. 1995. New record of a conchostracan (Crustacea:
Branchiopoda) from Maharashtra State. Journal of the Bombay Natural
History Society, 92: 128.
Ghate, H.V. and N. Shetty. 1997. Records of Triops (Crustacea: Branchiopoda:
Notostraca) from Pune, Maharashtra. Journal of the Bombay Natural
Ghate, H.V.N. Rane, and S.G. Patil. 2003. New record of conchostraca(Crustacea)
from Pune, Maharashtra. Zoos Print Journal, 18: 1046.
Gopinath, K. 1944. On the occurrence of Streptocephalus dichotomus Baird in
Travancore. Current Science, 13: 81.
Greaves, P.M. 2012. An introduction to the branchiopod crustaceans. Quekett
Journal of Microscopy, 41: 679-694.
Gurney, R. 1906. On freshwater Entomostraca in the collection of the Indian
Museum, Calcutta. Journal of the Asiatic Society, Bengal, 2: 273-281.
Gurney, R. 1921. Freshwater Crustacea collected by Dr. P.A. Buxtom in
Mesopotamia and Persia. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society,
27: 836-843.
Gurney, R. 1924. Some notes on the genus Apus. Annales Magazine of Natural
History London, 9: 559-568.
Gurney, R. 1925. Some Asiatic species of Apus. Records of the Indian Museum, 27:
439-442.
Gurney, R. 1930. A new species of branchiopod from southern India. Records of the
Indian Museum, 32: 63-64.
Hora, Sunder Lal, G.M. Mulik, and H. Khajuria. 1955. Some interesting features
of the aquatic fauna of the Kashmir Valley. Journal of the Bombay Natural
Issac, M.P.L. 1970. Occurrence of Triops longicaudatus granarius. Journal of
Madurai Kamaraj University, 3: 41-50.
Iyengar, H.D.R., and N. Basavaiah. 1956. Occurrence of the fairy shrimp
Streptocephalus dichotomus (Baird, 1860) in Mysore State. Journal ofthe
Bombay Natural History Society, 53: 738.
Joseph, A.N.T., Ramakrishna, and S.G. Patil. 1992. On a new record of
Conchostraca (Crustacea) from Andhra Pradesh. Records of the Zoological
Survey of India, 90: 305-306.
Karande, A.A., and N.B. Inamdar. 1959. Observations on the taxonomic characters
of Triops orientalis (Tiwari), with a note on its biology. Journal of the
Bombay Natural History Society, 56: 215-225.
Karande, A.A., and N.B. Inamdar.. 1961a. Some observations on the biology of the
conchostracan Branchiopod [Crustacea], Leptestheriella gigas Karande &
Inamdar, 1960. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 58: 92-99.
Karande, A.A., and N.B. Inamdar.. 1961b. 1965. On Eocyzicus sp. (Conchostraca:
Branchiopoda) at Panchgani, W. India. Journal of Bombay Natural History
Society, 62: 167-168.
236
Kemp, S. 1911a. Notes on Asiatic species of Crustacea Anostraca in the Indian

Museum. Records of the Indian Museum, 6: 219-223.
Kemp, S.. 1911b. Notes on the occurrence of Apus in Central Asia. Records of the
Indian Museum, 6: 353-357.
Kulkarni, C.V. 1953. Occurrence of the brine shrimp Artemia salina in Bombay.
Kulkarni M.R., Padhye S., Vanjare A.I., Jakhalekar S.S., Shinde Y.S., Paripatyadar
S.V., Sheth S.D., Kulkarni S., Phuge S.K., Bhakare K., Kulkarni A.S., Pai
K. and Ghate H.V., 2015. Documenting the fauna of a small temporary pond
from Pune, Maharashtra, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa, 7: 7196-7210,
Availableonline at: http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o4190.7196-210.
Longhurst, A.R. 1955. A review of the Notostraca. Bulletin of the British Museum
(Natural History) Zoology, 3: 1-57.
Mahabate, T.S. 1939. On the occurrence of Apus in Gujarat, India. Current Science,
8: 471.
Malhotra, Y.R., and P.L.A. Duda. 1970. New fairy shrimp, Branchinecta
acanthopenes n. sp. (Anostraca, Branchinectidae), from India. Crustaceana,
18: 173-176.
Manca, M. & G. Mura, 1997. On Branchinecta orientalis Sars (Anostraca) in the
Himalayas. Hydrobiologia, 356: 111-116.
Mantovani B. Cesari M. & Scanabissi F. (2004). Molecular taxonomy and
phylogeny of the ‘living fossil’ lineages Triops and Lepidurus (Branchiopoda:
Notostraca). Zoologica Scripta, 33: 367-374.
Mathur, S.N., and N. Sidhu. 1957. Occurrence of Apus (Crustacea: Notostraca)
in Pilani, Rajasthan. Journal of Bombay Natural History Society, 54: 961-
962.
Martin, J.W. & G.E. Davis, 2001. An Updated Classifi cation of the Recent
Crustacea. Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, Science Series,
39: 124 pp.
Martin, J.W., and S.L. Boyce. 2004. Crustacea: Non-cladoceran Branchiopoda. Pp.
284-297 In: Yule, C.M., and H.S. Yong (editors), Freshwater Invertebrates
of the Malaysian Region. Academy of Science Malaysia and Monash
University, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. 861 pp.
Munuswamy, N. 1982a. Electrophoregram studies of three problematic
Streptocephalus species (Anostraca). Crustaceana, 43: 261-264.
Munuswamy, N. 1982b. On the occurrence of a fairy shrimp Streptocephalussimplex
echinus in the freshwater ponds of Chingleput District, TamilNadu. Journal
of the Bombay Natural History Society, 79: 439-440.
Nayar, C.K.G. 1965. Three new species of Conchostraca (Crustacea: Branchiopoda)
from Rajasthan. Bulletin of Systematic Zoology, 1: 19-24.
Nayar, C.K.G. and K.K.N. Nair. 1968. On a collection of Conchostraca (Crustacea:
Branchiopoda) from south India, with the description of two new species.
237
Valarmathi
Olesen, J. 2009. Phylogeny of Branchiopoda (Crustacea) – Character Evolutionand

Contribution of Uniquely Preserved Fossils. Arthropod Systematics
Phylogeny, 367(1): 3-39.
Padhye S.M. and Dahanukar N., 2015. Distribution and assemblages of large
branchiopods (Crustacea: Branchiopoda) of northern Western Ghats, India.
J. Limnol., 74: 371-380.
Padhye S.M. and Ghate H.V. 2016a. A new species of Leptestheria (Crustacea:
Branchiopoda: Spinicaudata) from Western Maharashtra, India. Zootaxa,
4127(2): 345-354.
Padhye, S. and Ghate, H.V. 2016b. Morphological Reassessment of Triops
cancriformis Bosc (Crustacea: Branchiopoda: Notostraca) population from
Kashmir, India with comments on the distribution of the species in India.
Proceedings of the Zoological Society, 69(1): 146-152.
Padhye, S., Ghate, H.V. and K. Pai. 2011a. New locality records and additional
information on habitats of three species of clam shrimps (Crustacea:
Branchiopoda) from a region in northern part of WesternGhats (Sahyadris),
India. Journal of Threatened Taxa, 3: 1756-1763.
Padhye, S., Ghate, H.V. and K. Pai. 2011b. New locality record and additional
information on the habitat of Cyclestheria hislopi (Baird, 1859) (Crustacea:
Branchiopoda: Cyclestherida) in India. Journal of Threatened Taxa, 3:
1445-1448.
Padhye S.M., Ghate H.V. and Pai K. 2011c. New locality records and additional
information on habitats of three species of clam shrimps (Crustacea:
Branchiopoda) from a region in northern part of Western Ghats (Sahyadris),
India. Journal of Threatened Taxa, 3: 1756-1763.
Padhye, S.M. Rabet, and H. Ghate. 2015. First faunal inventory of largebranchiopods
(Crustacea: Branchiopoda) of Western Maharashtra, Indiawith taxonomical
and distributional comments. Zootaxa, 3904: 208-222.
Padhye S.M., Kulkarni, M.R. and Dumont, H.J. 2016. Diversity and zoogeography
of the fairy shrimps (Branchiopoda: Anostraca) on the Indian subcontinent.
Hydrobiologia DOI 10.1007/s10750-017-3122-6.
Radhakrishna, Y., and M.K. Durga Prasad. 1974. Occurrence of Streptocephalus
spinifer Gurney, 1906 (Crustacea: Branchiopoda) from Andhra Pradesh.
Current Science, 44: 471.
Radhakrishna, Y., and M.K. Durga Prasad. 1976. Anostraca (Crustacea:
Branchiopoda) from Guntur district and its environs. Memoirs of the Society
of Zoology of Guntur, 1: 79-87.
Raj, P. J. S. 1951. The first record of the genus Branchinella Sayce in India and
a new variety of Branchinella kugenumaensis (Ishikawa), var.madurai.
Current Science, 20: 334.
Raj, P.J.S. 1971. Triops granarius (Lucas) (Crustacea: Branchiopoda) from Tamil
Nadu, and a review of the species from India. Journal of the Bombay Natural
238
Rogers, D.C. 2009. Branchiopoda (Anostraca, Notostraca, Laevicaudata,

Spinicaudata Cyclestherida), pp. 242-249. In, G.F. Likens (ed.), Encyclopedia
of Inland Waters. Vol. 2. Elsevier Science, Oxford.
Rogers, D.C., 2013. Anostraca catalogus (Crustacea: Branchiopoda). The Raffles
Bulletin of Zoology, 61: 525-546.
Rogers, D.C., & Padhye, S.M. 2014. A new species of Streptocephalus (Crustacea:
Anostraca: Streptocephalidae) from the Western Ghats, India, with a key to
the Asian species. Zootaxa, 3802: 75-84.
Rogers, D.C. & S. Padhye, 2015. Review of the large branchiopod crustacean
fauna of the Indian subcontinent (Anostraca, Notostraca, Laevicaudata,
Spinicaudata, Cyclestherida). Journal of Crustacean Biology, 35: 392-406.
Royan, J.P., and J.R.B. Alfred. 1971. Lynceus serratus sp. nov. (Conchostraca,
Lynceidae) from southern India. Crustaceana, 21: 37-40.
Royan, J.P., Navaneethakrishna, P and A.M. Selvaraj. 1970. Occurrence of Artemia
salina in southern India. Current Science, 39: 14.
Royan, J.P. and V. Sumitra. 1973. On the occurrence of Eocyzicus plumosus n. sp.
(Branchiopoda, Conchostraca) in Tuticorin, south India. Crustaceana, 24:
1-4.
Sars, G.O. 1887. On Cyclestheria hislopi (Baird), a new generic type of bivalve
Phyllopoda; raised from dried Australian mud. Forhandlinger i Videnskabs-
Selskabeti Kristiania, 1: 1-65.
Sassaman, C., 1995. Sex determination and evolution of unisexuality in the
Conchostraca. Hydrobiologia, 298: 45-65.
Sassaman, C., Simovich, M.A., Fugate, M. 1997. Reproductive isolation and
genetic differentiation in North American speciesof Triops (Crustacea:
Branchiopoda: Notostraca). Hydrobiologia, 359: 125-147.
Shanbag, S.V., and N.B. Inamdar. 1968. On the occurrence of Triops mavliensis
(Tiwari), Notostraca (Crustacea), in the Okhammandal Region of
Saurashtra (India). Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 65: 408-
417.
Shull, E.M. 1967. First record of the fairy shrimp Branchinella kugenumaensis
Ishikawa in Gujarat State, North India. Journal of the Bombay Natural
Simhachalam, G., and B.V. Timms. 2012. Two new species of Spinicaudata
(Crustacea: Branchiopoda) in south India with a key to Leptestheriella and
Eocyzicus. Zootaxa, 3161: 20-36.
Timms, B.V., 2012. An appraisal of the diversity and distribution of large
Branchiopods (Branchiopoda: Anostraca, Laevicaudata, Spinicaudata,
Cyclestheria, Notostraca) in Australia. Journal of Crustacean Biology, 32:
615-623.
Timms, B.V. 2015. A revised identification guide to the fairy shrimps (Crustacea:
Anostraca: Anostracina) of Australia. Museum Victoria Science Reports, 19:
1-44.
239
Valarmathi
Tiwari, K.K., 1951. Indian species of the genus Apus (Crustacea: Branchiopoda)
with description of two new species. Records of the Indian Museum, XLIX:
197-205.
Tiwari, K.K., 1954. Sex ratio and variability of apodous segments in Apus
(Phyllopoda: Crustacea). Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society,
52: 641-644.
Tiwari, K.K., 1956. Reproduction of the Notostraca. Journal of the Bombay Natural
Tiwari, K.K., 1962. New species of Conchostraca (Crustacea: Phyllopoda) from
Rajastan. Proceedings of the All-India Congress of Zoology, 1: 180-190.
Tiwari, K.K., 1966. A new genus and species of clam-shrimp [Crustacea,
Branchiopoda: Conchostraca] from the Sambhar Lake, Rajasthan.
Proceedings of the Zoological Society, Calcutta, 19: 67-76.
Tiwari, K.K., 1971. Occurrence of Branchinella? hardingiQadri and Baqai,
1956 (Crustacea, Phyllopoda: Anostraca) in Madhya Pradesh. Journal of
Zoological Society of India, 23: 89-94.
Tiwari, K.K., 1972. Taxonomic status of two recently described Branchiopoda from
Kashmir, India. Crustaceana, 23: 311-314.
Tiwari, K.K., 1996. Chapter 13: Branchiopod Crustacea of the Rajasthan Desert,
pp. 113-129. In, A.K. Ghosh, Q.H. Baquri, and I. Prakash (eds.), Faunal
Diversity in the Thar Desert: Gaps in Research. Scientific Publishers,
Jodhpur.
Tiwari, K.K., 1958. Diagnosis of a new species of the genus Branchinella Sayce
(Crustacea: Branchiopoda: Anostraca) from Sambhar Lake, Rajasthan.
Tiwari, K.K., 1965. Branchinella kugenumaensis (Ishikawa, 1894) (Phylopoda,
Anostraca) in Rajasthan, Western India. Crustaceana, 9: 220-222.
Velu, C.S., and N. Munuswamy. 2003. Occurrence of Triops granaries (Lucas),
Crustacea: Notostraca, from Madurai, Tamil Nadu. Journal of the Bombay
Natural History Society, 100: 154-156.
Velu, C.S., and N. Munuswamy. 2005. Updated diagnoses for the Indian species of
Streptocephalus (Crustacea: Branchiopoda: Anostraca). Zootaxa, 1049: 33-
48.
Velu, C.S., and N. Munuswamy. 2006. Scanning electron microscope study of the
development of mandibular structure and the molar surface morphology
of Branchinella maduraiensis and Streptocephalus dichotomus (Crustacea,
Anostraca). Canadian Journal of Zoology, 84: 1248-1262.
Velu, C.S., and N. Munuswamy. 2007. A new fairy shrimp, Branchinellites
nallurensis from south India. Journal of the Bombay Natural History
Society, 104: 334-338.
Vikas, P.A., N.K. Sajeshkumar, P.C. Thomas, K. Chakraborty, and K.K. Vijayan.
2012. Aquaculture related invasion of the exotic Artemia franciscana
and displacement of the autochthonous Artemia populations from the
hypersaline habitats of India. Hydrobiologia, 684: 129-142.
240
Weekers, P.H.H., Murugan, G., Vanfleteren, J.R., Belk, D., and Dumonta, H.J.
2002. Phylogenetic analysis of anostracans (Branchiopoda: Anostraca)
inferred from nuclear 18S ribosomal DNA(18S rDNA) sequences. Molecular
Phylogenetics and Evolution, 25: 535–544
Weeks, S.C., E.G. Chapman, D.C. Rogers, D.M. Senyo, and W.R. Hoeh. 2009.
Evolutionary transitions among dioecy, androdioecy and hermaphroditism
in limnadiid clam shrimp (Branchiopoda: Spinicaudata). Journal of
Evolutionary Biology, 22: 1781-1799.
Zak-ur-Eab, M. 1984. The European tadpole shrimp, Triops cancriformis (Bosc)
(Crustacea: Notostraca: Triopsidae) as a pest of rice plantations in Kashmir
(India). Journal of Entomological Research, 8: 103-105.
Zierold, T., Pau, J.M., Hä Nfling, B., and Mez, A.G. 2009. Sex Ratio, Reproductive
Mode And Genetic Diversityin Triops cancriformis. Freshwater Biology,
(2009). Doi:10.1111/J.1365- 2427.2009.02191.X_2009.
241
Valarmathi
NON CLADOCERAN BRANCHIOPODS
Carinophallus ornata (Daday, 1910) Streptocephalus echinus Bond, 1934
Triops granarius (Lucas, 1864) Cyclestheria hislopi (Baird, 1859)
Cyzicus annandalei Daday, 1913 Cyzicus annandalei Daday, 1913
242
Chapter 16
CRUSTACEA : COPEPODA—a Note
Yenumula Ranga Reddy
Copepods occur in almost all freshwater habitats such as temporary pools and
ponds, lakes, slowing-flowing rivers and streams, hot springs, small pools of water
within or upon plants (phytotelmata), and even in semi-terrestrial situations such
as damp moss and leaf litter in humid forests. They are extremely abundant in
freshwater, often constituting a major component of most planktonic, benthic and
groundwater communities. Of about 13,000 nominal species so far known in the
world, most of them are found in the marine environment, and only about 3, 000
species inhabit freshwaters. Ecologically, the planktonic copepods as primary and
secondary consumers constitute a significant trophic link between the algal cells
(phytoplankton: primary producers) and the juvenile fish to whales (planktivores) in
aquatic food chains. They contribute a major portion of the biomass and secondary
production in many aquatic communities. Free-living copepods in general have
the potential to be used by mankind in different ways. For example, while some
species can be easily cultivated under laboratory conditions and used as live feed
for fish and prawn larvae in aquaculture industry, the predatory species, especially
certain cyclopoid copepods, are employed as biological agents in mosquito control
and also as biological indicators for environmental monitoring purposes, both in
the field and laboratory. Some of them are also known to act as intermediate hosts
of many of human and animal parasites as well.
Of the nine orders known under the subclass Copepoda, viz. Platycopioida
Fosshagen, Calanoida Sars, Misophrioida Gurney, Harpacticoida Sars,
Mormonilloida Boxshall, Gelyelloida Huys, Cyclopoida Burmeister,
Poecilostomatoida Thorell, Siphonostomatoida Thorell, and Monstrilloida Sars,
the free-living freshwater copepods generally belong to three orders: Calanoida,
Cyclopoida, and Harpacticoida. All other orders contain predominantly brackish
water, marine and/or parasitic forms. The current status of the diversity of the
Indian free-living freshwater copepods is summarized below based on the available
literature.
Order Calanoida Sars
Though the order Calanoida has 40 families, the truly freshwater Indian species
are typically planktonic and belong to the family Diaptomidae Baird. The only
exceptions are two species of the typically brackish water/marine and demersal
family Pseudodiaptomidae Sars: Pseudodiaptomus lobipes Gurney, an endemic
Department of Zoology, Acharya Nagarjuna University, Nagarjunanagar 522 510, India

e-mail: [email protected]
243
Reddy
to West Bengal, and P. binghami Sewell, a denizen in the River Krishna and
its network of canals. The Diaptomidae, which contains about 470 species in 61
genera in the world, has two subfamilies in India: i) Paradiaptominae Kiefer,
represented only by Paradiaptomus greeni (Gurney), which is widespread in the
country in seasonal ponds and pools,; and ii) Diaptominae, comprising 44 nominal
species in 12 genera as listed here (the species number within parentheses):
Acanthodiaptomus Kiefer (1), Allodiaptomus Kiefer (4), Arctodiaptomus Kiefer
(7), Eodiaptomus Kiefer (1), Heliodiaptomus Kiefer (6), Keraladiaptomus Silva,
Kakkassery, Maas & Dumont (1), Megadiaptomus Kiefer (2), Neodiaptomus
Kiefer (7), Phyllodiaptomus Kiefer (4), Sinodiaptomus Kiefer (2), Spicodiaptomus
Rajendran (1), and Tropodiaptomus Kiefer (8). Of these, Keraladiaptomus and
Spicodiaptomus are extremely endemic whereas the other genera may be said
to have either somewhat restricted or widespread distribution. A few species can
tolerate estuarine conditions. So far, no obligate groundwater calanoids are known
from India.
Order Cyclopoida Burmeister
This order comprises 12 families, but only four of them, viz. Oithonidae Dana,
Cyclopinidae Sars, Cyclopettide Martínez Arbizu, and Cyclopidae Rafinesque, are
represented in inland waters of India. Of these, the members of Cyclopidae, much
like those of Diaptomidae, are most widely and almost exclusively distributed in
inland waters, and this family is also highly speciose with over 1,100 world species
in about 60 genera. Also, it is an ecologically highly diversified and taxonomically
difficult taxon, with species displaying planktonic, benthic, interstitial, and even
parasitic adaptations. To date, 86 species in 20 genera are known in India. The
genera together with their respective species number (within parentheses) are as
follows: Afrocyclops Sars (1), Anzcyclops Karanovic, Eberhard & Murdoch (1),
Apocyclops Lindberg (3), Brevicyclops Totakura & Ranga Reddy (3), Bryocyclops
Kiefer (2), Cryptocyclops Sars (2), Cyclops O. F. Müller (3), Diacyclops Kiefer (1),
Ectocyclops Brady (3), Eucyclops Claus (11), Halicyclops Norman (7), Haplocyclops
Kiefer (3), Macrocyclops Claus (3), Megacyclops Kiefer (1), Mesocyclops Sars (10),
Metacyclops Kiefer (4), Microcyclops Claus (10), Paracyclops Claus (3), Rybocyclops
Dussart (2), Thermocyclops Kiefer (8), and Tropocyclops Kiefer (5). The species
of Mesocyclops and Thermocyclops are very common in freshwater plankton.
In addition, the family Oithonidae has two genera, viz. Oithona Baird (2) and
Dioithona Kiefer (1), the Cyclopinidae and Cyclopettidae have one genus each, viz.
Allocyclopina Kiefer (1) and Paracyclopina (4). The species of the last-mentioned
three families generally occur in brackish interstitial conditions of river banks or
lakes, but rarely in the plankton community.
Order Harpacticoida Sars
Harpacticoids are principally benthic organisms. Those inhabiting the sediment can
be classified as interstitial, burrowing or epibenthic forms. The order Harpacticoida
has nearly 50 families, with about 1,200 species occurring in freshwater as well as
brackish continental waters in the world.
The Indian freshwater/somewhat brackish water taxa (family followed
the genus/genera, with species number within parentheses) are listed here.
244
Crustacea : Copepoda—A Note
Ectinosomatidae Sars: Ectinosoma Boeck (1); Maraenobiotus (2), Rangabradya

Karanovic and Pesce (1). Canthocamptidae Sars (most common in freshwater):
Bryocamptus Chappuis (3); Elaphoidella Chappuis (15); Mesochra Boeck (3).
Parastenocarididae Chappuis is a recently discovered family in India. Its taxa
typically exist in the freshwater interstitial/porous aquifers of rivers and streams,
and only some in phreatic waters of caves and wells: Parastenocaris Kessler (10),
Kinnecaris Jakobi (1), Siolicaris Jakobi (1), Himalayacaris Ranga Reddy, Totakura
& Corgosinho (1), Indocaris Ranga Reddy, Totakura & Shaik (3), Proserpinicaris
Jakobi (2), and Dussartstenocaris Karanovic & Cooper (1). The family Ameiridae
Monard is primarily marine/brackish water, benthic as well as interstitial: Nitocra
Boeck (4) and Nitocrella Chappuis (1). The Diosaccidae Sars has representatives
distributed in marine/brackish interstitial zones and also phreatic freshwaters:
genus Delavalia Brady (3); genus Neomiscegenus Karanovic and Ranga Reddy
(1). Interestingly, two species of Delavalia, viz. D. madrasensis and D. longifurca,
described, respectively, from the Madras (now Chennai) coast and the typically
brackish Chilka Lake, have established themselves as members of freshwater
benthos in Andhra Pradesh. Obviously, they invaded the rivers via the river
mouths, and then radiated through a network of canals into village tanks. The
Phyllognathopodidae Gurney is primitive and phylogenetically important family,
it species occurring in freshwater interstitial/phreatic waters: Phyllognathopus (1)
and Neophyllognathopus (1). The Harpacticidae Sars is a principally a marine
family with some of its species inhabiting inland waters, and known in India
by genus Harpacticella Sars (1) from Chilka Lake. The Laophontidae Scott is
principally a marine family, with some of its representatives occasionally found
in fresh water/somewhat brackish conditions, e. g. Folioquinpes Fiers & Rutledge
(1), Heterolaophonte Lang (1), Onychocamptus Daday (2), and Paronychocamptus
Lang (1). The Cletodidae Scott is mainly a brackish water/marine family, with
its species rarely found in slightly brackish conditions of lakes, etc: Kollerua
Gee (1), Cletocamptus Schmankevitsch (1); and Limnocletodes Borutzky (2)– all
found in Lake Kolleru. The family Darcythompsoniidae Lang is known by the
genus Leptocaris Scott (1); L. brevicornis is the lone Indian species, rarely found
in freshwater and brackish waters. In all, 66 species in 29 genera are presently
known from the Indian inland waters.
In conclusion, the free-living inland water Copepoda is so far known only
by about 200 species in 60 genera in India. This indeed represents only a minor
fraction of the total copepod diversity that is yet to be explored in the country. As
for the freshwater calanoids, the northeastern States deserve special attention.
Further, the faunistic investigations of the vast freshwater subterranean realm
of the country are almost completely neglected excepting the deltaic zone of the
Krishna-Godavari basin in southeastern peninsular India. It is now established in
the West that the faunal diversity of freshwater subterranean domain is no less
than that of the epigean inland waters. This deserves the due attention of the
funding agencies, researchers, policy makers and land managers in the country.
245
Chapter 17
Crustacea : Branchiura : Argulidae
(Fishlice)
K. Valarmathi
Abstract
Argulids are a group of primarily freshwater parasitic crustaceans commonly known
as ‘carp-lice’ or ‘fish lice’ and are ectoparasites of fishes primarily but occasionally
live on amphibians or invertebrates. The Family Argulidaea comprises four genera
namely Argulus, Dipteropeltis, Chonopeltis, Dolops. Out of these four genera only
the genus Argulus is represented by 17 species and one sub species in India of
which 14 species and one sub species are freshwater inhabitants. Among the17
species and one sub species of Indian Argulids and 10 species and one subspecies
are exclusively available only in India.
Keywords: Argulidae, Argulus, Branchiura, Freshwater, India
Introduction
The (sub) class Branchiura is a group of primarily freshwater parasitic crustaceans
commonly known as ‘carp-lice’ or ‘fish lice’ and are primarily ectoparasites of fishes
but occasionally live on amphibians or invertebrates, and they can move about
freely on their hosts (Poly, 2008, Moller, 2015, Dev Roy, 2015). They are obligate
parasites and utilize many different fish hosts from a wide range of families, e.g.
carps, sticklebacks, perch, roach, and even predators such as pike (Moller, 2015).
They occasionally increase in number and cause fish mortality in aquaculture
operations, aquaria of ornamental fishes and rarely in wild populations (Nandi
and Das, 1991, Dev Roy, 2015, Saha, 2016). The subclass Branchiura contains
a single family, the Argulidae, and four valid genera namely Argulus Müller,
Chonopeltis Thiele, Dipteropeltis Calman, and Dolops. According to Worms the
genus Argulus is represented by 127 species, the genus Chonopeltis is having
15 species, Dipteropeltis is represented by only 2 species and the Dolops with
13 species at global level. Among the four genera of Branchiura only the genus
Argulus was reported from India with 18 species of which 15 species were from
freshwater fishes.
The first report of Indian Branchiura of was made by Southwell (1915) who
reported Argulus foliaceous from the skin of Labio rohita in Bengal Fisheries. Later
Hora (1943) also reported this species from the then Bengal. Ramakrishna (1951)
described A. bengalensis from West Bengal, A. giganteus from Andhra Pradesh

247
Valarmathi
and a variety of A. siamensis namely A. siamensis peninsularis. From Madhya

Pradesh, Malaviya (1955, 1958) reported A. siamensis peninsularis. A.indicus.
Again Ramakrishna (1959) added A. puthanvaliensis from Kerala. From Bangalore
Sundari Bai (1973) reported A. siamensis, where as Sreenivasan (1976) reported
A. japonicas from Tamilnadu. A. boli and A.parsi were described by Tripathi (1975)
from river Son at Dehri-on-son and river Hoogly near Kolkata. Simultaneously
Thomas and Devaraj (1975) described A. cauveriensis from River Cauvery. From
Tamilnadu, Devaraj and Hamsa (1977) described A. quadristriatus as new
species. Natarajan (1982) added a new species A. mangalorensis from Karnataka.
Omprakasam and Manohar (1992) described A. krishnangiriensis from Indian
major carps the exact locality is not known but the species name is not available
in the World Register of Marine species. For the first time from Punjab, Brar and
Battish (1993) reported the occurrence of A. bengalensis, A. indicus, A. monadi,
A. schoutedeni and A. siamensis. Mallick et al. (2010) noticed the occurrence of
Argulus sp. on Indian Snow Trouts in a subtropical Himalayan Lake of Bhimtal,
Uttarakhand. Dev Roy (2015) provided a synaptic list of Indian Argulids. Saha and
Bandyopadhyay (2015) observed the infection of three species of Argulus namely
A. coregoni, A. japonicas, and A. foliaceus infecting Oranda gold fish (Carassius
auratus auratus) in West Bengal and affecting their marketing value.
Diversity, Distribution and Endemism

The Branchiurans contain four genera. The genus Dipteropeltis contains two valid
species and occurs in South America; Chonopeltis has 15 valid species and is found
only in Africa; and Dolops, with 14 valid species, has a Gondwanan distribution
(South America, Africa, and Tasmania; Fryer 1969; Poly, 2009; Worms, 2017).
The genus Argulus contains about 129 valid species and occurs on or around all
continents, except Antarctica, in marine, estuarine, and freshwater habitats and
nearly 85 species are reported from freshwater (Poly, 2009). Out of the four genera
of Branchiurans only the genus Argulus is represented by 17 species and one sub
species in India of which 14 species and one sub species are freshwater inhabitants.
Among the17 species and one sub species of Indian Argulids and 10 species and
one subspecies are exclusively available only in India (Dev Roy, 2015).
List of Species available in India

1. Argulus bengalensis Ramakrishna, 1951*
2. Argulus boli Tripathi, 1975*
3. Argulus cauveriensis Thomas and Devaraj, 1975*
4. Argulus coregoni Thorell, 1865
5. Argulus fluviatilis Thomas & Devaraj, 1975*
6. Argulus foliaceus (Linnaeus, 1758)
7. Argulus indicus Weber, 1892
8. Argulus japonicas Thiele, 1900
9. Argulus krishnagiriensis Omprakasam and Manohar, 1992*
10. Argulus mangalorensis Natarajan, 1982 (Back Water)*
248
Crustacea : Branchiura : Argulidae (Fishlice)
11. Argulus monodi Fryer, 1959

12. Argulus parsi Tripathi*
13. Argulus puthenveliensis Ramakrishna, 1959*
14. Argulus quadristriatus Devaraj & Ameer Hamsa, 1977 (Marine)*
15. Argulus schoutedeni Monod, 1928
16. Argulus siamensis Wilson C.B., 1926
17. Argulus siamensis peninsularis Ramakrishna, 1951*
18. Argulus vittatus (Rafinesque-Schmaltz, 1814) (Marine)*
(Source: Modified and updated after Dev Roy, 2015; *species available only in
India)
Dorsal
Vental
Argulus puthenveliensis Ramakrishna, 1959 (Dorsal and Ventral view)
249
Valarmathi
Significance
Argulids are obligate ectoparasites of fishes, unlike other aquatic parasites, they
retain the ability to swim freely throughout the whole of their life and quickly
increase in number, their uncontrolled proliferation leads to a disease called
argulosis. The Argulus-infected fish have reduced feeding, reduced growth rate
and behavioral changes, a significantly reduced growth rate, and loss of physical
condition makes them susceptible to stress and secondary infection (Mikheev et al.,
2015; Saha et al., 2015, De Zoysa, 2017). As these ectoparasites repeatedly change
their hosts and inflict skin damage, they can act as vectors for fish pathogens
(Mikheev et al., 2015). They are known to affect both wild and cultured fishes and
cause fish mortality which leads to the economic loss in fishery industries. Hora,
(1943) noticed the infection of fish louse Argulus foliaceous causing the heavy
mortality among carp fisheries of Bengal. Prabavathy and Sreenivasan (1976)
reported the occurrence of Argulus japonicus in brood fish ponds in Tamil Nadu.
Nandi and Das (1991) observed the juvenile mortality in some fishes at Kakdwip,
West Bengal due to argulosis. Both modern and indigenous techniques are used to
control these fish pathogens.
Acknowledgments
The author is thankful to Dr. K. Chandra, Director, Zoological Survey of India,
Kolkata for providing research facilities, guidance and encouragement.
References
Brar, M. and Battish, S.K. 1993. Systematics and bioecology of parasitic branchiura
and copepod of fishes of India (Supervisor S.K. Battish) Indiabiodiversity.
Devaraj M and Ameer Hamsa K.M.S. 1977. A new species of Argulus (Branchiura)
from a marine fish Psammoperca waigiensis (Cuvier), Crustaceana, 32(2):
129-134.
Dev Roy MK. 2015. A Synoptic list of Argulids (Crustacea: Branchiura: Argulidae)
of India. J. Environ & Sociobiol., 12(2): 237-241.
De Zoysa M, Ryu1 S Y, Kim H.C and Park B.K. 2017. A Scanning Electron
Microscopic Study of Argulusjaponicus (Crustacea: Branchiura) Isolated
from Goldfish (Carassius auratus) in Korea. Pakistan J. Zool., vol., 49(2):
1-5, 2017. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17582/journal.pjz/2017.49.2.sc3
Fryer, G. 1969. A new freshwater species of the genus Dolops (Crustacea:
Branchiura) parasitic on a galaxiid fish of Tasmania—with comments on
disjunct distribution patterns in the southern hemisphere. Australian
Journal of Zoology, 17: 49-64.
Hora, S.L.1943. The fish louse Argulus foliaceous Linn. Causing heavy mortality
among carp fisheries of Bengal. Proc. Indian Sci. Congr., 39: 66-67.
Malaviya, R.B.1955. Parasitism of Ambasis ranga H.B. by Argulus simensis susp.
peninsularis Ramakrishna. Curr. Sci., 24(8): 275.
Malaviya, R.B. 1955. Parasitism of Ophicephalus gachua Hamilton by the copepod
Argulus indicus Weber. J. Bombay. Nat. Hist. Soc., 55(2): 370-371.
250
Crustacea : Branchiura : Argulidae (Fishlice)
Mallick, S.K., Shah, N., Pandey, N.N., Haldar, R.S. and Pande, A. 2010. Occurrence
of fish louse (Argulus sp.) on Indian Snow Trout (Schizothorax richardsonii)
and Golden Mahseer (Tor putitora) in subtropical Himalayan lake of
Bhimtal, Uttarakhand, India. Indian J. Anim. Sci., 80(11): 1150-1156.
Mikheev N, Pasternak A.F. and Valtonen E.T. 2015. Behavioural adaptations of
argulid parasites (Crustacea: Branchiura) to major challenges in their life
cycle. Parasites & Vectors (2015) 8: 394. DOI 10.1186/s13071-015-1005-0.
Moller OS. 2015. Class Branchiura, Order Arguloida. Revista IDE@ - SEA, nº
103B: 1-8.
Nandi, N.C. and Das, S.R. 1991. Argulosis causing juvenile mortality in some
fishes at Kakdwip, West Bengal. Indian J. Fish., 38(2): 132-133.
Natarajan, P. 1982. A new species of Argulus Müller (Crustacea: Branchiura)
with a note on the distribution of different species of Argulus in India. Proc.
Acad. Anim. Sci., 91(4): 375-380.
Omprakasam, M and Manohar, L. 1992. Description of a new species of Argulus
Müller (Crustacea: Branchiura) parasitic on Indian major carps. Indian J.
Parasitology, 16(2): 119-121.
Poly, W.J. 2009. Branchiura (Crustacea) of the Gulf of Mexico, Pp. 837-840 in
Felder, D.L. and D.K. Camp (eds.), Gulf of Mexico–Origins, Waters, and
Biota. Biodiversity. Texas A & M University Press, College Station, Texas.
Prabavathy, G and Sreenivasan, A. 1976. Occurrence of Argulus japonicus in brood
fish ponds in Tamil Nadu. J. Inland Fish Soc. India, 8: 131-133.
Ramakrishna, G. 1951. Notes on the Indian species of the genus Argulus Müller
(Crustacea: Copepoda) parasitic on fishes. Rec. Indian Mus., 49(2): 207-216.
Ramakrishna, G. 1959. On a new species of Argulus Müller (Crustacea: Copepoda)
from Kerala. Proc. First All India Congr. Zool., 1959, pt. 2: 178-179.
Sundari Bai, A. 1973. The occurrence of Branchiura parasite Argulus sp.
(Arguloidea: Argulidae) on the carnivorus fish Lebistes reticulatus (Peters)
in Mysore State. Curr. Sci., 2: 75-79.
Tripathy, Y.R. 1975. Studies on Branchiura from Indian fishes. Dr. B. S. Chauhan
commemoration Volume, pp.117-127. Zoological Society of India Publication.
Thomas, M.M. 1962. Observations on the habits and post-embryonic development
of a parasitic branchiuran Argulus puthenveliensis Ramakrishna. Journal
of the Marine Biological Association of India (for 1961) 3: 75-86.
Thomas, M.M. and Devaraj, M. 1975. Two new species of Argulus Müller
(Crustacea: Branchiura) from River Cauvery with a key to Indian species.
Indian J. Fish., 22(1&2): 215-220.
Saha, M.M. and Bandyopadhyay P.K. 2015.First report of three species of Argulus
(Crustacea: Branchiura) infesting on redcan Oranda gold fish (Carassius
auratus auratus) in India. Biolife., 3(4): 813-819.
251
Chapter 18
Crustacea: Ostracoda (Seed shrimps)
KARUTHAPANDI, M. AND RAO, D.V.
Abstract
So far about 154 species of freshwater ostracods belonging to 05 families, 40
genera have been documented from India. The family Cyprididae representing
78%, Notodromadidae 9%, Candonidae 8%, Ilyocyprididae 4% and Darwinulidae
1% of species. The oriental zoogeographic region has 200 species, of which 58% of
species are endemic to India. There are several new species described in the past
few decades from the Indian subcontinent by various workers, but the descriptions
of most of the species seem to be insufficient to give the status of new species.
Hence, the recent studies emphasizes that there is a need for further extensive
exploration and revision on Indian freshwater ostracods as many species have not
been described completely and no much information on uncertain species.
Keywords: Freshwater Ostracods, Diversity and Distribution in India.
Introduction
Ostracods are commonly known as “seed shrimps”. They are microscopic and one
of the most diverse organisms in Crustacean and exist in all aquatic ecosystems,
viz. marine, brackish and freshwater including subterranean waters. Their most
important feature is presence of a bivalve carapace that can completely enclose
a laterally compressed and weakly segmented body. Globally, 2103 species of
freshwater ostracods were documented (Martens and Savatenalinton, 2011).
They play a vital role in food chain and energy flow in the aquatic ecosystem
(Altmsach et al., 2014). Ostracod taxonomy has been of great interest because of
their possible use as indicators in climate and environmental change, due to their
specific ecological preference and tolerance (Kulkoyluoglu, 2003). Their diversity,
abundance and seasonal fluctuations have a direct link with water quality (Tiwari
and Mishra, 1985; Padmanabha and Belagali, 2008).
The taxonomic study on Indian Ostracods was first initiated by Baird (1859).
Later Victor and Fernando (1979) listed about 56 freshwater ostracod species
from India. Subsequently, Venkataraman and Krishnamoorthy (1998) reported
120 species of ostracods from freshwater and marine habitats, which include four
families and 24 genera. The literature analysis reveals that there are several
new species described in the past few decades from the Indian subcontinent by
various workers like Baird (1859), Gurney (1907), Klie (1927), Arora (1931),
Brehm (1950), Hartmann (1964), Deb (1972, 1973a,b,c, 1983), Victor and Michael
(1975), Victor and Fernando (1979, 1981), Battish (1978, 1998, 2000), Harshey
Freshwater Biology Regional Centre, Zoological Survey of India, Hyderabad- 500048
253
Karuthapandi and rao
and Victor (1983), Harshey and Shrivastava (1983), Gupta (1984, 1988 and 1991),
Harshey and Srinivasan (1984), Harshey et al., (1987), Harshey and Patil (1988),
Harshey (1996, 2008), George et al. (1993), Jayasree et al. (1994) Venkataraman
and Krishnamoorthy (1998), Patil (2002), George and Martens (2002, 2003, 2004),
Patil and Talmale (2005a,b, 2012), Karanovic and Reddy (2008) and Harshey and
Thilak (2011). The current status of the species nomenclature and their validity
was reviewed by Kauthapandi et al., 2014. The present communication provided
a compiled valid list, diversity and distribution of Indian freshwater Ostracods.
Methodology
There are different techniques and equipment available for their collection and
studies. Generally, Ostracods are collected from the littoral regions of the water
bodies by using zooplankton net (64µm mesh size). The collections must be stored
in 100ml plastic containers, preserved with 4% formalin solution and properly
labeled with all collection details for laboratory studies. A single individual of
each species has to be picked up from sample and keep on a clean slide containing
water and glycerin (1:1 ratio) or propylene glycol for dissection under the stereo
zoom binocular microscope. The carapace of the Ostracod should be separated out
and preserved in a cavity slide or a vial and the soft internal organs need to be
mounted on the slides for further studies under a compound light microscope and
the taxonomical characteristic features need to be drawn by using camera lucida.
The identification of the species should be made following standard literatures.
The collections need to be preserved in 75% ethyl alcohol or in 96% ethyl alcohol in
case the material is needed for the DNA studies.
Habit and Habitat

Ostracods live in all aquatic environments like rivers, lakes, ponds, rice fields,
small pools and puddles, ground waters, springs, and wet leaf litter. They are
mainly colonized benthic and periphytic habitats and feed on both living and
detrital particles including organic detritus, algae, plant material, dead animals
and sometimes live animals such as young snails, worms and larvae of other
crustaceans. More rarely, they can be predators or parasites (Rossettil et al., 2006).
Stagnant water especially, lakes, reservoirs, temporary water and small pools hold
more diversity. Ostracods use their antennae, mandibles, maxillulae and in some
groups, the fifth limbs to feed. They are bisexual, even through parthenogenesis is
a very common way of reproduction. Growth is characterized by a number of molts.
Podocopids have nine instars (Karanovic, 2012).
Morphology
They are usually around 0.3 to 5 mm in length, body is covered by bivalved calcified
carapace that covers and protects the non-mineralised body parts and appendages.
The surface of the carapace ornamented with pits, striations, spines, ridges,
flanges etc. Inside the carapace have a complex body consisting of typically eight
pairs of appendages (Fig. 3,4,6). The carapaces originate from the head region,
and are hinged along the dorsal margin. The valves are closed by the adductor
muscles, which are attached directly to each valve usually just anterior of the
mid-length of the animal. These attachment points are called the adductor muscle
scars, often seen through external side of the carapace. Antennula, antenna, and
254
eyes are situated on the forehead. Mandibula and maxillula are connected to the
upper margin of the lower lip with chitinous supports. Other appendages in the
body are also connected to the body and with each other by a network of chitinous
rods. Attachment of the uropodal ramus is by far the most apparent of all other
attachments in the body, and is often used in the taxonomy of freshwater ostracods
(Karanovic, 2012).
Classification
Ostracods are considered as a separate class under Crustacea and it has been
divided into the subclasses Myodocopa (only marine representatives) and
Podocopa (Martin and Davis 2001; Horne et al., 2002). The subclass Podocopa has
the following three orders: Platycopida, which includes marine and a very few
brackish water forms; Podocopida which is present in both freshwater and the
marine environment; and Palaeocopida known only from fossils records (Karanovic
2012). All the freshwater ostracod belongs to Podocopida are very common in most
of the inland waters (Meisch, 2000).
Kingdom Animalia
Phylum Arthropoda
Subphylum Crustacea
Class Ostracoda
Subclass Order Suborder Superfamily
Cytheroidea (27 families)
Cytherocopina Terrestricytheroidea
(1 family)
Macrocypridoidea
(1 family)
Both freshwater
Podocopida Cypridocopina Pontocypridoidea and marine
(1 family)
Podocopa Cypridoidea (4 families)

Darwinulocopina Darwinuloidea (1 family)
Bairdiocopina Bairdioidea (3 families)
Sigilliocopina Sigillioidea (1 family)
Marine and a
Platycopida Platycopina Cytherelloidea (1 family) very few brackish
water forms
Palaeocopida Kirkbyocopina Puncioidea (1 genus) Fossil Records
Cypridinoidea (1 family)
Cylindroleberidoidea
Myodocopida Myodocopina
(1 family) Only marine
Sarsielloidea (3 families) representatives
Myodocopa
Thaumatocypridoidea
Halocypridina (1 family)
Halocyprida
Halocypridoidea (1 family)
Cladocopina Cladocopoidea (1 family)
255
Classification of Podocopid (Freshwater Ostracods)

Class Ostracoda Latreille 1802
Subclass Myodocopa Sars 1866 m
Order Myodocopida Sars 1866
Suborder Myodocopina Sars 1866
Order Halocyprida Dana 1852
Suborder Halocypridina Dana 1852
Suborder Cladocopina Sars 1866
Subclass Podocopa Sars 1866 m/f
Order Platycopida Sars 1866 m
Order Podocopida Sars 1866 m/f
Suborder Bairdiocopina Sars 1866 m
Superfamily Bairdioidea Sars 1866
Family Bairdiidae Sars 1866
Family Bythocyprididae Maddocks 1969
Suborder Cytherocopina Baird 1850 m/f
Superfamily Cytheroidea Baird 1850 m/f
Family Bythocytheridae Sars 1866 m
Family Cobanocytheridae Schornikov 1975 m
Family Cuneocytheridae Mandelstam 1959 m
Family Cushmanideidae Puri 1974 m
Family Cytherettidae Triebel 1952 m
Family Cytheridae Baird 1850 m
Family Cytherideidae Sars 1925 m/f
Family Cytheromatidae Elofson 1938 m
Family Cytheruridae Muller 1894 m/f
Family Entocytheridae Hoff 1942 f
Family Eucytheridae Puri 1954 m
Family Hemicytheridae Puri 1953 m/f
Family Kliellidae Schafer 1945 f
Family Krithidae Mandelstam 1960 m
Family Leptocytheridae Hanai 1957 m/f
Family Limnocytheridae Klie 1938a f
Family Loxoconchidae Sars 1925 m/f
Family Microcytheridae Klie 1938a m
Family Neocytheridae Puri 1957 m
Family Paracytherideidae Puri 1957 m
256
Family Paradoxostomatidae Brady and Norman 1889 m

Family Parvocytheridae Hartmann 1959 m
Family Pectocytheridae Hanai 1957 m
Family Psammocytheridae Klie 1938a m
Family Schizocytheridae Howe 1961 m
Family Trachyleberididae Sylvester-Bradley 1948 m
Family Xestoleberididae Sars 1928 f/m
Superfamily Terrestricytheroidea Schornikov 1969 m
Family Terrestricytheridae Schornikov 1969
Suborder Darwinulocopina Sohn 1987 f
Superfamily Darwinuloidea Brady and Norman 1889
Family Darwinulidae Brady and Norman 1889
Suborder Cypridocopina Jones 1901 m/f
Superfamily Cypridoidea Baird 1845 m/f
Family Candonidae Kaufmann 1900a m/f
Family Cyprididae Baird 1845 f
Family Ilyocyprididae Kaufmann 1900 f
Family Notodromadidae Kaufmann 1900 f
Superfamily Macrocypridoidea Muller 1912 m
Family Macrocyprididae Muller 1912
Superfamily Pontocypridoidea Muller 1894 m
Family Pontocyprididae Muller 1894
Suborder Sigilliocopina Martens 1992 m
Superfamily Sigillioidea Mandelstam 1960
Family Sigilliidae Mandelstam 1960
f- Freshwater, m- Marine, f/m- Both freshwater and maine
Classification provided by Horne, D.J., Cohen, A. and Martens, K. 2002;
Martens and Savatenalinton, 2011; Karanovic, 2012
Systematic List of Ostracod fauna of India
Class Ostracoda Latreille 1802
Subclass Prodocopa G.W. Müller, 1894
Order Podocopida Sars 1866
Suborder Cypridocopina Jones 1901
Super family Cypridoidea Baird 1845
Family Cyprididae
Subfamily Cyprettinae
1. Cypretta alagarkoilensis Victor & Michael, 1975
2. Cypretta fontinalis Hartman, 1964
257
3. Cypretta foveata Hartmann, 1964

4. Cypretta gargi Deb, 1983
5. Cypretta globosa (Brady, 1886)
6. Cypretta globula (Sars, 1889)
7. Cypretta patialaensis Battish, 1982
8. Cypretta raciborskii (Grochmalicki, 1915)
9. Cypretta ramai Deb, 1984
10. Cypretta seurati Gauthier, 1929
11. Cypretta turgida Sars, 1896
12. Pseudocypretta maculata Klie, 1932
Subfamily Cypricercinae
13. Astenocypris papyracea (Sars, 1903)
14. Bradleycypris vittata (Sars, 1903)
15. Bradleystrandesia dani (George & Martens,1993)
16. Bradleystrandesia mollis(Furtos, 1936)
17. Bradleystrandesia parva (Hartmann, 1964)
18. Bradleystrandesia reticulata (Zaddach, 1844)
19. Bradleystrandesia trichurensis (Victor et al.,1980)
20. Bradleystrandesia weberi (Moniez, 1892)
21. Bradleytriebella tuberculata (Hartmann, 1964)
22. Cypricercus indrani Deb, 1983 #
23. Cypricercus munshii Deb and Nasar, 1977 #
24. Cypricercus steosus Farkas, 1857
25. Cypricercus vietsi Farkas, 1957
26. Strandesia antetuberculata Hartmann & Petersen, 1985
27. Strandesia bicornuta Hartmann, 1964
28. Strandesia flavescens Klie, 1932
29. Strandesia calapanensis Tressler, 1937
30. Strandesia gopinathani George & Martens, 1993
31. Strandesia hartmanni Victor et al., 1980
32. Strandesia labiata Hartmann, 1964
33. Strandesia madhuriae Harshey & Srinivasan 1984
34. Strandesia odiosa (Moniez, 1892)
35. Strandesia perakensis Victor & Fernando, 1981
36. Strandesia bornemiszai Klie, 1935
37. Strandesia pupurascens (Brady, 1886)
38. Strandesia quasirotunda Hartmann & Petersen, 1985
258
39. Strandesia vinciguerrae (Masi, 1905)

40. Strandesia saetosa Hartmann, 1964
41. Strandesia victori Harshey & Srinivasan, 1984
42. Tanycypris pellucida pellucida (Klie, 1932)
Subfamily Cypridinae
43. Cypris debi Deb, 1983 #
44. Cypris decaryi Gauthier, 1933
45. Cypris dravidensis Victor & Michael, 1975 #
46. Cypris elongata Deb, 1983 #
47. Cypris globosa Deb, 1983 #
48. Cypris kumari (Arora, 1931) #
49. Cypris protubera Victor & Fernando, 1978 #
50. Cypris subglobosa Soweby, 1840
51. Pseudocypris patialaensis Battish, 1977
Subfamily Cypridopsinae
52. Cypridopsis maduraiensis Victor & Michael, 1975
53. Klieopsis horai (Klie, 1927)
54. Plesiocypridopsis angularis (Victor & Michael, 1975)
55. Plesiocypridopsis dispar (Hartmann, 1964)
56. Plesiocypridopsis newtoni (Brady & Robertson, 1870)
57. Potamocypris dubia (Masi, 1905)
58. Potamocypris narayanani George & Martens, 2002
59. Sarscypridopsis ochracea (Sars, 1924)
Subfamily Cyprinotinae
60. Cyprinotus cingalensis Brady, 1886
61. Hemicypris anomala (Klie, 1938)
62. Hemicypris arorai (Battish, 1981)
63. Hemicypris bairdi Martens & Wouters 1985
64. Hemicypris bhatiai Battish, 1981
65. Hemicypris dentatomarginatua (Baird, 1859)
66. Hemicypris derweshensis Battish, 1981
67. Hemicypris dissonus Victor & Fernando, 1976
68. Hemicypris falcatus Victor & Fernando 1976
69. Hemicypris gillensis (Battish, 1981)
70. Hemicypris malerkotlaensis Battish, 1981
71. Hemicypris megalops Sars, 1903
72. Hemicypris ovata Sars, 1903
259
73. Hemicypris pailensis Battish, 1981

74. Hemicypris pyxidata (Moniez, 1892)
75. Heterocypris anitae Battish, 1981
76. Heterocypris aurea Sars, 1895
77. Heterocypris chandrai (Arora, 1931)
78. Heterocypris fluviatilis (Furtos, 1933)
79. Heterocypris giesbrechti (G.W. Müller, 1898)
80. Heterocypris incongruens (Ramdohr, 1808)
81. Heterocypris indica (Battish, 1981)
82. Heterocypris makua (Tressler, 1937)
83. Heterocypris malini Deb, 1983
84. Heterocypris nuda (Victor & Michael, 1975)
85. Heterocypris salina (Brady, 1868)
Subfamily: Dolerocypridinae
86. Dolerocypris sinensis Sars, 1903
Subfamily: Eucypridinae
87. Eucypris biharensis Deb, 1984
88. Eucypris bispinosa (Victor & Michael, 1975)
89. Eucypris compressa Deb, 1983
90. Eucypris ellipticalis Deb, 1983
91. Eucypris gomti Deb, 1983
92. Eucypris himani Deb, 1983
93. Eucypris indica Deb, 1983
94. Eucypris inaequalis Deb, 1983
95. Eucypris munia Deb, 1983
96. Eucypris sonia Deb, 1983
Subfamily: Herpetocypridinae
97. Chrissia achandii (George & Martens, 1993)
98. Chrissia biswasi (Deb, 1972)
99. Chrissia canaliculata (Hartmann, 1964)
100. Chrissia dyalpurensis Battish, 1998
101. Chrissia fasciculata (Daday, 1910)
102. Chrissia formosa (Klie, 1938)
103. Chrissia fuelleborni (Daday, 1910)
104. Chrissia goddeerisi (George et al., 1993)
105. Chrissia halyi (Ferguson, 1969)
106. Chrissia hislopi (Ferguson, 1969)
260
107. Chrissia humilis (Klie, 1932)

108. Chrissia humilis indica Hartmann, 1964
109. Chrissia khopoliensis (Deb, 1983)
110. Chrissia krishnakantai (Deb, 1972)
111. Chrissia spinosa (Tressler, 1937)
112. Herpetocypris ludhianensis Battish, 1982
113. Humphcypris sewelli (Klie, 1927)
114. Stenocypris derupta Vavra, 1906
115. Stenocypris distincta Victor & Fernando, 1978
116. Stenocypris jabalpurensis Harshey & Patil, 1988
117. Stenocypris major (Baird, 1859)
118. Stenocypris sohni Deb, 1983
119. Stenocypris simulans Rome 1965
Subfamily Megalocypridinae
120. Sclerocypris rajasthaniensis (Deb, 1973)
Family Candonidae
Subfamily Candoninae
121. Candonopsis (Candonopsis) putealis Klie, 1932
122. Candonopsis (Candonopsis) urmilae Gupta, 1988
123. Fabaeformiscandona subacuta (Yang, 1982)
124. Indocandona krishnakanti Gupta, 1984
125. Indocandona nagarjuna Karanovic & Ranga Reddy, 2008
Subfamily Cyclocypridinae
126. Cypria brevisetigera Cole, 1965
127. Cypria devai (Arora, 1931)
128. Cypria javana javana G.W. Müller, 1906
129. Cypria minutua (Victor & Michael, 1975)
130. Cypria sharmai Battish, 1985
131. Physocypria armata (G.W. Muller, 1897)
132. Physocypria crenulata (Sars, 1903)
133. Physocypria furfuracea (Brady, 1886)
Family Ilyocyprididae
Subfamily Ilyocypridinae
134. Ilyocypris australiensis Sars, 1889
135. Ilyocypris bradyi Sars, 1890
136. Ilyocypris dentifera Sars, 1903
137. Ilyocyipris gibba (Ramdohr, 1808)
261
138. Ilyocypris mckenziei Bhatia & Mannikeri, 1975

139. Ilyocypris nagamalaiensis Victor & Michael, 1975
Family Notodromadidae
Subfamily Indiacypridinae
140. Indiacypris chalakkudensis George & Martens, 2004
141. Indiacypris dispar Hartman, 1964
Subfamily Notodromadinae
142. Centrocypris bhagirathiae Battish, 1981
143. Centrocypris horrida (Vavra, 1895)
144. Centrocypris indica Gupta, 1991
145. Centrocypris madani Battish, 1981
146. Centrocypris matthaii (Arora, 1931)
147. Gurayacypris kangraensis Battish, 1987
148. Newnhamia dumonti George & Martens, 2004
149. Newnhamia fenestrata King, 1855
150. Notodromas serrata Deb, 1984
Subfamily Oncocypridinae
151. Oncocypris bhatiai Battish, 1982
152. Oncocypris voeltzkowi G.W. Muller, 1898
153. Sataracypris gibbosa (Baird, 1837) #
Super family Darwinuloidea
Family Darwinulidae
154. Darwinula stevensoni (Brady & Robertson, 1885)
# Uncertain species
Diversity of Ostracods
Globally, freshwater ostracods were documented and classified under the order
Podocopida, which contains three superfamilies, 15 families, 209 genera and 2103
species (Martens et al., 2008; Martens and Savatenalinton, 2011; Karanovic,
2012). In India, about 154 species of ostracods belonging to five families, two
super families and 40 genera were documented from freshwater habitat (Tables
1, 2). It constitute 78% Cyprididae, 9% Notodromadidae, 8% Candonidae, 4%
Ilyocyprididae and 1% Darwinulidae. Among the global species, 87 species (4.13%)
were originally described from India (Fig.1, 2). There are many species status
consisted to be uncertain which is marked with hash sign (#) in the systematic
list. About 50 species earlier reported from India have been synonymised (Martens
and Savatenalinton 2011; Karanovic 2012) and their current valid nomenclature
was provided by Karuthapandi et al., 2014. In a recent study we have collected
and documented two more species Fabaeformiscandona subacuta and Stenocypris
simulans which are new to India.
262
Darrwinulidae Limnocytheridae
2% 8%
Ilyo
ocyprididae
2%
Notodrom
madidae Cyprididae
2%
% Candon
nidae 56%
30%
%

Fig. 1. Global Ostracoda Family percentage
Notodrom
madidae Darwinulidae
9%
% 1%
Ilyocyp
prididae
4
4%
Cando
onidae Cyprrididae
8
8% 78%

Fig. 2. Family-wise ostracoda species percentage from India
Table 1. Current Status of the Freshwater Ostracoda of the world and India
Sl. No World Oriental region India
1 Superfamilies 04 1 2
2 Families 15 06 5
3 Subfamilies 34 16 15
4 Genus 209 46 40
5 Species 2103 200 154
Table 2. Family wise ostracoda species account from India

Sl. No Families World Oriental region India
1 Cyprididae 998 154 120
2 Candonidae 545 17 13
3 Ilyocyprididae 33 08 6
4 Notodromadidae 36 15 14
5 Darwinulidae 29 04 1
6 Limnocytheridae 144 01 -
7 Laxoconchidae 04 01 -
(World and Oriental region data source from Martens et al., 2008)
263
Fig. 3. Carapace morphology

There are several new species described in the past few decades from the
Indian subcontinent by various workers, but the descriptions of most of the species
seem to be insufficient to give the status of new species. Although most Indian
taxonomists emphasized carapace morphology in ostracod identification, recent
taxonomi8c studies highlighting the morphology of soft parts also which is crucial
for their proper systematic placement. It is also observed that most of the species
reported from India lack voucher and type locality information, which additionally
264
contributes to the instability of the current Ostracoda nomenclature and validity

of the species Karanovic (2012).
Fig. 4. Typical ostracod body parts: A- Antennula; B- Antenna; C- Mandibula (Palp);

D- Mandibula (Coxa); E-Maxillula;F- First Thoracopod; G- Second Thoracopod;
H- Third thoracopod; I- Uropodal
265
Distribution and Endemism

India is one of the biodiversity rich countries in the world. However, Freshwater
faunal studies of Indian Ostracoda are limited and scattered compared to the
global studies. The distribution of Indian freshwater ostracods was given in Fig.
5. In fact, the studies in this country are confined to a few states like Andhra
Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Kerala, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Punjab,
Rajasthan and Tamil Nadu. There are no much studies from the freshwater
ecosystems of Himalaya, Western Ghats and sub terrain regions. The oriental
region is the hotspot of ostracoda diversity with 200 species, of which 83% are
endemic (Martens et al., 2008) and nearly 58% of the species are endemic to India
within the oriental region. Freshwater habitat exhibits high ostracoda diversity
even though witnessing a rapid decline in freshwater biodiversity in recent times
(Dudgeon et al., 2006, Martens and Savatenalinton 2011).
Fig. 5. Distribution of Freshwater Ostracord species in India
266
Fig. 6. A- Chrissia spinosa; B- Stenocypris derupta; C- Cyprinotus cingalensis;

D- Chrissia halyi; E- Cypris subglobosa; F- Fabaeformiscandona subacuta (Male);
G- F. subacuta (Female)
At this stage, intensive exploration and detailed revisionary investigations are

needed for confirming the validity and status of the Indian freshwater ostracods.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors are thankful to the Kailash Chandra, Director, Zoological Survey of
India, Kolkata for providing necessary facilities and encouragement.
267
REFERENCES
Altmsach, S., Altmsach, S and Pacal, P.F. 2014. Species composition and
distribution of ostracods (Crustacea: Ostracoda) in some lakes and lagoons
(kocaeli and Sakarya, Turkey). J. Ento. Zool., 2(5): 182-192.
Arora, G.L. 1931. Fauna of Lahore 2 Entomostraca (Water fleas) of Lahore. Bulletin
of the Department of Zoology University of the Punjab, 1: 62-100.
Baird, W. 1859. Description of some new recent Entomostraca from Nagpur
collected by Rev. S. Hislope. Proc. Zool. Soc. London, 1859: 213-234.
Battish, S. K. 1978.A new genus and new species of Cypridid Ostracod from India,
with notes on its biology. Zool. J. Linn. Soc., 64: 283-292
Battish, S. K. 1998.A new species of Cypridid Ostracod from India. Proc. Zool. Soc.
Calcutta, 52 (1): 33-37.
Battish, S. K. 2000. A Synopsis of the recent Indian freshwater ostracoda with
description of a new species. Proc. Zool. Soc. Calcutta, 53(2): 109-137.
Brehm, V. 1950. Contributions to the freshwater fauna of India. Records of the
Indian Museum 48(2): 9-28.
Deb, M. 1972. Two new species of Stenocypris Sars, 1889. J. Zool. Soc. India, 1:
91-95.
Deb, M. 1973a. First record of the genus Sclerocypris, Sars 1924 (Crustacea:
Ostracods) from India with description of two new species. J. Zool. Soc.
India, 25: 47-52.
Deb, M. 1973b. Fauna of Rajasthan (India): Crustacea-Ostracoda. Records of the
Zoological Survey of India, 67: 233-259.
Deb, M. 1973c. Notes on a collection of Ostracoda from Delhi. Records of the
Deb, M. 1983. Brief descriptions of new species on Ostracoda: Crustacea from
Maharashtra state (India). Rec. zool. Surv. India, 81: 135-166.
Dudgeon, D., Arthington, A.H., Gessner M.O., Kawabata, Z., Knowler, D.J
Leveque, C. Naiman, R.J., Prieur-Richared, A., Soto, D., Stiassny, M. L.
J and Sullivan, C. A. 2006. Freshwater Biodiversity: Importance, threats,
status and conservation challenges. Bio. Rev., 81: 163-182.
George, S., Martens K. and Nayar. C.K.G. 1993. Two new species of freshwater
Ostracoda of the genus Parastenocypris Hartmann, 1964 from Kerala,
India. Hydrobiologia, 254: 183-193.
George, S and Martens K. 2002. On a new species of Potamocypris (Crustacea,
Ostracoda) from Chalakkudy River sand, Kerala (India) with a checklist of
Potamocypris species of the world. Zootaxa, 66: 1-15.
George, S and Martens K. 2003. On a new species of the genus Newnhamia King,
1855 (Crustacea, Ostracoda) raised from Chalakkudy River sand, (Kerala,
India) with notes on the taxonomy and distribution of the Notodromadidae.
268
George, S and Martens K. 2004. On the taxonomic position of Indiacypridinae

(Crustacea, Ostracoda) with description of a new species of Indiacypris
Hartmann, 1964 from Chalakkudy River (Kerala, India). J. Nat. Hist., 38:
537-548.
Gupta, L.P. 1984. Indocandona krishnakanti gen. et. sp. nov. (Crustacea:
Ostracoda: Candonidae) from subterranean water of Bihar, India. Rec. zool.
Surv. India, 81: 291-298.
Gupta, L.P. 1988. Candonopis urmilae, a new species of subterranean Crustacea
(Ostracoda: Candonidae) from India. Rec. zool. Surv. India, 85: 419-427.
Gupta, L.P. 1991. Studies on Crustacea (Ostracoda) of Bihar, India. II. Centrocypris
indicus sp. nov. Rec. zool. Surv. India, 89: 147-153.
Gurney, R. 1907. Further notes on Endomostraca of Lower Bengal and Chota
Nagpur. Rec. Indian Mus., 1: 21-25.
Harshey, D.K. and Thilak. J. 2011. Freshwater Ostracods (Arthropoda:
Creustacea). Zoological Survey of India, Fauna of Madhya Pradesh
(including Chhattisgarh), State Fauna Series, 15(3): 31-44.
Harshey, D.K. and Victor, R. 1983. On Parastenocypris biswasi (Deb), 1972-A
freshwater Ostracoda (Crustacea: Ostracoda) from India. Mitteilungen aus
dem Hamburgischen Zoologischen Museum und Institut, 80: 177-182.
Harshey, D.K. 1996. On some new records of fresh water Ostracods (Crustacea:
Entomostraca) from India. Rec. Zool. Surv. India, 95(3-4): 215-227.
Harshey, D.K. 2008. Crustacea (Ostracoda). Faunal Diversity of Jabalpur District,
Madhya Pradesh. Edited by the Director, Zoological Survey of India,
Kolkata. 63-75.
Harshey, D.K. and Srinivasan, A.K. 1984. A new species of Strandesia Vavra, 1895
(Crustacea: Ostracoda) from India. Biovigyanam, 13(2): 104-106.
Harshey, D.K and Shrivastava, A.K. 1983. Some new recodes of freshwater
ostracods from India. Curr. Sci., 15: 741.
Harshey, D.K., Shrivastava A.K. and Patil. S.G. 1987. Three new species of
Strandesia Vavra, 1895 (Crustacea: Entomostraca) from India. Current
Science, 45(2): 43-48.
Harshey, D.K and Patil, S.G. 1988. New species of Strandesia jabalpurensis from
India. J. Biosci. 5(1): 6-10.
Hartmann, G. 1964. Asiatische Ostracoden, Systamatische und Zoogeographische
untersuchungen. Inter. Rev. Gesamten Hydrobiol. Systemat. Beihefte, 3:
1-155.
Horne, D.J., Cohen, A and Martens, K. 2002. Taxonomy, morhology and biology
of Quaternary and living Ostracoda. In: Holmes, J.A. and Chivas, A.R.
(eds). The Ostracoda. Applications in Quaternary Research. Geophysical
Monograph 131, American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC. 5-36.
Jayasree Thilak., Rao, K. S., Singh, K., Anil and Sunil, K. 1994. Observations on
the Ostracoda fauna of central India with special reference to the western
Narmada basin. J. Aqua. Biol. Fish., 1(2): 41-50.
269
Karanovic, I and Ranga Reddy, Y. 2008. The second representatives of the genus
Indocandona Gupta (Crustacea, Ostracoda) from a well in southestern
India. Crustaceana, 72: 603-610
Karanovic, I. 2012. Recent freshwater Ostracods of the World - Crustacea,
Ostracoda, Podocopida. Published by Springer, London. 1-608.
Karuthapandi, M., Rao, D.V. and Xavier Innocent, B. 2014. Freshwater Ostracoda
(Crustacea) of India - a checklist. J. Threat. Taxa, 6(12): 6576-6581.
Klie, W. 1927. Zur ke nutnis der Mikrofauna von British Inidan. Records of the
Indian Museum 1: 157-165.
Klie, W. 1938. Ostracoden aus Formosa. Bull. Biogeo. Sco. Japan, 8: 21-23.
Kulkoyluoglu, O. 2003. Ecology of freshwater Ostracoda (Crustacea) from Lake
and Reservoir in Bolu, Turkey. J. Freshwater. Ecol., 18(3): 343-347
Martens, K and Savatenalinton. S. 2011. Monograph: A subjective checklist of the
Recent, free-living non-marine Ostracoda (Crustacea). Zootaxa, 2855: 1-79.
Martens, K., Schon, I., Meisch, C and Horne, D. J. 2007. Global diversity of
Ostracods (Ostracoda, Crustacea) in freshwater. Hydrobiologia, 595: 185-
193.
Martin, J.W and Davis, G.E. 2001. An updated classification of the recent
Crustacea. Nat. Hist. Mus. Los Angeles, Science series, 39: 1-124.
Meisch, C. 2000. Freshwater Ostracoda of Western and Central Europe. Spektrum
Akademischer Verlag, Gustav Fischer, Heidelberg, Germany.
Padmanabha, B and Belagali, S.L. 2008. Ostracods as indicators of pollution in the
lakes of Mysore. J. Environ. Biol., 29(3): 415-418.
Patil, S. G. 2002. Freshwater Ostracoda. In: Fauna of Ujani. Zoological Survey of
India, Wetland Ecosystem Series, 3: 87-90.
Patil, S.G. and Talmale. S.S. 2005a. The freshwater Ostracoda. In: Fauna of
Nathsagar Wetland, Director (Edit.), Zoological Survey of India, Wetland
Ecosystem Series, 7: 63-75.
Patil, S. G and Talmale. S. S. 2005b. A checklist of freshwater Ostracods (Ostracoda:
Crustacea) of Maharashtra, India. Zoos’ Print Journal, 20(5): 1872-1873.
Patil, S. G and Talmale S. S. 2012. Freshwater Ostracods. In: Fauna of Maharashtra
Part-2 Invertebrate, Director (Edit.), Zoological Survey of India, State
Fauna series, 20(2): 309-319.
Rossettil, G., Martens, K. Meish, C. Tavernelli, S and Pieri, V. 2006. Small is
beautiful: Diversity of freshwater ostracods (Crustacean: Ostracoda) in
marginal habitats of the province of Parma (Northern Italy). J. Limnol.,
65(2): 121-131.
Thilak Jayasree., Rao, K.S., Singh, K., Anil and Sunil, K. 1994. Observations on
the Ostracoda fauna of central India with special reference to the western
Narmada basin. J. Aqua. Biol. Fish., 1(2): 41-50.
Tiwari, T.N. and Mishra, M.A. 1985. A preliminary assignment of water quality
index to major Indian rivers. J. Environ. Protect., 5: 276-279.
270
Venkataraman, K and Krishnamoorthy. 1998. Crustacea - Faunal Diversity in

India. Published by ENVIS center, Zoological survey of India, Calcutta.
134-144.
Victor, R and Fernando, C.H. 1979. The freshwater Ostracods (Crustacea:
Ostracoda) of India. Rec. zool. Surv. India, 74(2): 147-242.
Victor, R and Fernando, C.H. 1981. Freshwater Ostracods (Crustacea: Ostracoda)
of the subfamily Dolerocypridinae Triebel, 1961 from Southeast Asia. Zool.
J. Linn. Soc., 72: 107-116.
Victor, R and Michael, R.G. 1975. Nine new species of freshwater Ostracods from
Madurai area in southern India. Florida Mus. Nat. His., 9: 361-376.
271
CRUSTACEA : EUMALACOSTRACA : Chapter 19
BATHYNELLACEA
Yenumula Ranga Reddy1, Shabuddin Shaik2 and

Venkateswara Rao Totakura3
ABSTRACT
Bathynellaceans are minute, vermiform, primitive eumalacostracan crustaceans,
which are a typical component of the groundwater fauna worldwide. The faunistic
investigations undertaken on this group since 2002, especially in the deltaic plain
of the Krishna-Godavari basin of the southeastern peninsular India, have yielded
nearly nominal 30 species in five genera. Nothing is known about this group from
the rest of the country. This essay is primarily meant to provide the reader with
the basic morpho-taxonomic details of the bathynellacean body and its various
appendages. It will also serve as a basis for further study, and as an introduction
to the literature. Besides the identification keys to the Indian genera and their
species, the various sampling methods adopted are described and illustrated.
Notes are also given on the biogeography and the anthropogenic threats to, and
conservation of, the Indian bathynellaceans.
Key words: Bathynellacea, morpho-taxonomy, identification keys, biogeography,
conservation.
INTRODUCTION
The Order Bathynellacea is a compact group of Eumalacostraca crustaceans,
typically occurring in the interstitial spaces of sandy shore sediments of lakes,
sandy and gravelly banks of rivers, streams and phreatic systems like caves
and borewells, and springs. There are, of course, a few exceptions. For example,
Baicalobathynella magna (Bazikalova, 1954) lives in Lake Baikal on soft bottoms
at depths ranging from 0.2 m to1440 m (Bazikalova, 1954) besides in gravel and
pebble of the rivers discharging into Lake Bakal (Drewes & Schminke, 2011). The
Australian Hexabathynella halophila Schmike, 1972, is known from a marine
beach, having a water salinity of 27‰ and such like Australian examples include
Brevisomabathynella clayi Cho & Humphreys, 2010 and B. uramurdahensis Cho &
Humphreys, 2010, and a few species can live in oligohaline and polyhaline waters
as well. The African Thermobathynella adami Capart, 1951, was found in a hot
spring, at temperatures ranging up to 55°C.
Bathynellaceans have no fossil record (Schram, 2008) and are found almost
throughout the world, with the exception of the Antarctica and certain parts of
Northern Hemisphere that had been covered by ice during the last glacial period.
Also, they are not known from Central America, volcanic islands and several
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected]
Department of Zoology, Acharya Nagarjuna University, Nagarjunanagar 522 510, India
273
Ranga Reddy et al.
islands of continental origin such as New Caledonia, Fiji, Caribbean islands

(Schminke & Cho, 2013). They apparently feed on detritus, bacteria and fungi, and
also on protozoans and other animals, and could even be cannibalistic (Schminke
& Cho, 2013). Sexes are separate, and no resting stages exist. Eggs are shed freely
and pass through a nauplius and parazoeal (larval) phases (the latter comprising
three or four instars) before the appearance of a juvenile bathynellacean.
Historically, the discovery of Bathynellacea dates back to 1882 when
Vejdovsky described Bathynella natans Vejdovsky, 1882 from a well in Prague,
Czech Republic, but he could not fix it in the taxonomic hierarchy. It was Calman
(1899) who reexamined Vejdovsky’s preparations and placed the species in the then
Order Syncarida (now Superorder Syncarida Packard, 1885). Bathynellaceans
are phylogenetically close to, but more primitive than, the extinct and fossilized
syncarid Order Palaeocaridacea, and represent one of the oldest groups of
freshwater fauna, whose ancestors inhabited the sea during the Carboniferous,
or even earlier (Schminke, 1974). According to Schminke’s (2014) review of the
origin of Bathynellacea, there are two opposing and as yet unresolved hypotheses,
i. e. marine vs. freshwater. The marine hypothesis maintains that Bathynellacea
invaded continental groundwater from the sea via marine interstitial beaches
(“two-step model”), whereas the freshwater hypothesis supports the view that
this group reached the groundwater from the sea via epigean freshwaters and the
interstitial of gravelly banks of rivers and streams.
Following the increasing number of species discovered, especially in Europe (see
Chappuis, 1929), preliminary systems of classification were proposed for Syncarida
(Siewing, 1959; Brooks, 1962). Noodt (1965) introduced the first classification of the
Bathynellacea Chappuis, 1915, and it was adopted by Brooks (1969) and reinforced
by Schminke (1973, 1975, 1978). Coineau (1996, 1998) provided a synthesis of all of
the hypotheses and classifications of the Superorder Syncarida as a whole. Among
the chief contributors to the bathynellacean taxonomy, mention must be made
of Delamare Deboutteville (1953-1973), Coineau (1964-2013), Noodt (1965-1974),
Serban (1972-2000), Schminke (1972-2013), Camacho (1986-2016), and Cho (1995-
2015) (see Coineau & Camacho, 2013, for the list of complete references).
It cannot be overemphasized that vast tracts of the globe still remain
terra incognito for bathynellaceans (Ranga Reddy, 2002a). As for the Indian
subcontinent, or even South Asia as a whole, regular faunistic investigations on
this group have started only recently and mostly in the coastal deltaic belt of the
Krishna-Godavari Basin in the southeastern peninsular India (see Ranga Reddy,
2002a, b, 2004a, b, 2006, 2011, 2014; Ranga Reddy & Schminke, 2005a, b, 2009a,
b; Ranga Reddy & Totakura, 2010; Ranga Reddy et al., 2008, 2011; Totakura &
System_5/Article_1/1st proof/26.4.17/274
Ranga Reddy 2014; Elia et al., 2016). Mention must also be made here of the
contributions made to the bathynellacean group by Elia (2009), Shabuddin (2016),
and Totakura (2013), in their doctoral theses. No molecular tools have yet been
used to study the India bathynellacean taxonomy. However, Camacho et al. (2013)
recommend the integrative approach of combining morphological and molecular
data to discern the subtle differences between the species, especially in the family
the Bathynellidae.
This essay gives the basic morpho-taxonomic details of the bathynellacean
body and its various appendages, sampling methods, the identification keys to
the hitherto known Indian genera and their species. Notes are also given on the
biogeography and the threats and conservation of the Indian Bathynellacea.
274
Crustacea : Eumalacostraca : Bathynellacea
SAMPLING METHODS
The various methods of sampling of the subterranean fauna have been dealt with
in extenso in a sampling manual brought out by the European Project PASCALIS
(Protocols for the Assessment and Conservation of Aquatic Life In the Subsurface)
(see Malard et al., 2002; http//www.pascalis-project.com). The following are the
common methods employed for collecting the bathynellaceans and other stygobiotic
animals.
A. Collection of samples from the field
1. Karaman & Chappuis method (Chappuis 1942) (Fig. 1A). This method consists
in digging a few holes of varying depths (10-30 cm), a few meters apart from
one another, in the alluvial deposits next to a stream or river, and sampling the
subsurface water that seeps into the pits. Coring is also done in the dug-out pits, as
detailed in the Coring and filtration method (see below). Each time the sample is
filtered through bolting-silk plankton net (mesh size 70 μm), and the filtrate fixed
in 5% formaldehyde in plastic vials.
2. Coring and filtration method (Fig. 1B-C). A rigid PVC tube (length c. 70 cm,
diameter c. 10 cm) is used to extract cores directly from the sediment surface to a
depth of 10-50 cm from both exposed and submerged parts of stream/river banks.
At each sampling site, the core samples are pooled in a bucket, filled with the
water from the sampling spot and stirred vigorously. The supernatant is filtered,
and the filtrate fixed as mentioned above.
3. Direct filtration of water from residential and farm bores (Fig. 1D-F). When
sampling a borewell in any residential area, plankton net (mesh size 70 µm) is tied
to the inlet delivery tube of overhead tank and left over there for a day or two for
filtering the incoming water. For sampling an agricultural bore, plankton net is
either tied securely to the outlet delivery tube or manually held against the water
current for at least 30 minutes when bore water is being pumped out of the bores.
The filtrate is then fixed as mentioned already.
4. Sampling of open boreholes (Fig. 1F). Generally these boreholes (or
borewells) of varying depths (30 m-140 m or more) are drilled by various agencies
for harnessing groundwater for drinking or agriculture purpose. Before the pump-
set is fitted to the open boreholes, the groundwater samples are collected from near
the bottom by using haul nets. Haul nets are simple plankton nets of different
sizes suitable for the wells, having a diameter of 4-10 cm. The weighted plankton
haul net (mesh size 70 µm) is sent down, the bottom sediments of the borehole are
then disturbed by moving the net a little up and down, and then hauling up the
net. The filtrate is fixed as before.
Any of the samples collected must always be labeled right at the respective
sampling sites themselves. The label should invariably contain the following
information: name of the habitat and the nearby place/town and its coordinates
(always carry GPS device to the field), the method and date of collection, collector’s
name, and if possible, some water parameters such as temperature, pH, etc., are
also measured and entered in the Field Notebook
Laboratory methods
Sorting of the samples and dissecting of specimens (Fig. 2A-F): samples are scanned
under a binocular stereomicroscope and the bathynellacean specimens together
with those of the other interstitial animal groups are sorted out into small vials in
275
Ranga Reddy et al.
Fig. 1. Different types of sampling methods. (A) River bank, Karman-Chappuis method; (B) R.
Godavari, direct coring method; (C) Filtering supernatant of core sample; (D) Direct
filtration of water pumped out of an agricultural borewell; (E) Water from a hand-operated
suction pump filtered through plankton net; (F) Sampling a newly dug-out borehole; and
(G) Direct filtration of drippings from cave ceilings (here, stalactites).
276
Fig. 2. Laboratory methods. (A) A view of the chemicals, reagents, needles, etc.
used for slide preparation; (B) Making dissection; (C-F), Different stages in
preparing permanent mounts; and (G) Making line drawings by using the
Leica trinocular microscope.
277
Ranga Reddy et al.
Fig. 3. Habitus: (A) Camachobathynella meghalayaensis (female, dorsal); (B)

Serbanibathynella secunda (female, ventral); and (C) Habrobathynella
savitri (male, lateral).
70% alcohol. Two sharp tungsten needles (c. 0.2 mm in diameter) mounted on glass
or metal or plastic holders are used for dissecting the various appendages. The tip of
the needle has to be sharpened by electrolysis in the medium of saturated solution
of KOH, using 6-volt power supply. Alternatively, the tip the tungsten needle is
cautiously dipped into NaNO2 crystals melted in a metal spoon held over Bunsen
burner. If tungsten wire is not available, micro-dissecting needles or fine insect
pins mounted on a metal or plastic holder can be used. Dissection of the various
appendages is also done under binocular stereomicroscope at a magnification of
about 90× and in the medium of glycerol. For permanent preparations, the habitus
and/or appendages are mounted in glycerol, and sealed with paraffin and Araldite.
278
Preparation of illustrations (Fig. 2G): drawings are made with the aid of a
drawing tube mounted on high-resolution compound microscope equipped with
Universal Condenser for Adaptation (UCA), Interference Contrast objective prism
and 1-2× magnification changer. The black-and-white contrast of the line drawings
can be enhanced with 0.3 mm HB Staedtler leads and then thickened and composed
into the components of figures, using Adobe Photoshop CS3 Extended software.
Ocular and Stage Micrometers need to be used for collecting the morphometric
data.
Morphological characterization of species: detailed and accurate line
drawings with pencil have to be made of the habitus in dorsal, lateral and
ventral views, and of the appendages starting from the antennules to the last
abdominal appendages. Making line drawings of given species is a conventional
way collecting its morphological data. Hence accurate drawings constitute the
heart of any taxonomic paper. Wherever necessary and possible, digital images of
taxonomically important body parts body and/or appendages are also taken, using
a good Digital Camera, or still better, Scanning Electron Microscope.
For establishing a definitive new species, the types (holotype, allotype, and
some paratypes, etc.) must perforce be designated and deposited in the national
and international repositories, and their registration numbers duly mentioned in
the manuscripts. A good acquaintance with the provisions of the International
Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN, 1999) is a must.
Here, the bathynellacean description of the external morphology is based
chiefly on the following accounts: Schminke (1973), Ranga Reddy & Totakura (2010),
and Coineau & Camacho (2013). Schminke’s (2011) monographic compilation of
the Parabathynellidae is also made use of.
Abbreviations. A I = antennule; A II = antenna; enp = endopod (enp-1 to enp-4
= endopodal segments 1 to 4); exp = exopod (exp-1 and exp-2 = exopodal segments
1and 2); Lb = labrum; Md = mandible; MX I = maxillule; Mx II = maxilla; Prg =
paragnath; Th I-VIII = thoracopods I-VIII; Urp = uropod.
EXTERNAL MORPHOLOGY
Bathynellaceans are small (generally 0.5-3.0 mm in length), blind and
vermiform animals (Fig. 3A-C). Body comprises head, thorax and pleon (abdomen);
head is without rostrum and with 5 pairs of appendages: antennules (A I),
antennae (A II), mandible (Md), maxillule (Mx I) and maxilla II. In addition, a
flap-like structure called labrum (Lb) lies immediately in front of mouth, and
1 tiny paired but fused lobe-like structure, termed paragnath (Prg), is located
immediately posterior to and often overlapping Md (see The appendages). Thorax
consists of 8 somites/segments (thoracomeres), each of which has 1 pair of legs or
thoracopods, i. e. thoracopods I-VII (Th I-VIII), which are typically biramous and
almost similar in structure in both sexes; Th VIII in male is transformed into penile
organ but reduced to a variable degree in female (see below). Pleon has 6 somites
(pleomeres), of which the last one called pleotelson, bears 1 pair of caudal furcae
(furca, singular) posteriorly and 1 pair of dorsal or dorso-lateral setae near base of
caudal furcae. Each caudal furca with 1 terminal and generally 2-4 inner spines
of varying lengths and 2 unequal dorsal setae, sometimes none; each furca with
a small or large modified projection, called “furcal organ” at inner distal corner.
279
Ranga Reddy et al.
First pleomere (abdominal somite) with or without paired uniramous appendages

or pleopods. Sixth pleomere, called pleotelson, with 1 pair of biramous Urp (tail
feet) (see below).
Drewes & Schminke (2011) recognized only two families under Bathynellacea,
viz. Bathynellidae Grobben, 1905 and Parabathynellidae Noodt, 1964, treating the
third family Leptobathynellidae Noodt, 1965, as a synonym of Parabathynellidae.
However, according to Serban (1972, 1980), Coineau & Serban (1973, 1978),
Ranga Reddy et al., 2011; and Coineau & Camacho (2013), Leptobathynellidae is
a valid taxon. Pending detailed morphological as well as molecular phylogenetic
studies, it seems appropriate to uphold the view expressed by Drewes & Schminke
(2011). Currently, while Bathynellidae has more than 100 species in 28 genera,
and is mainly distributed in temperate regions, Parabathynellidae contains about
180 species in 48 genera and has much wider distribution in both tropical and
temperate zones.
THE APPENDAGES
The principal morphological differences between the two families, viz. Bathynellidae
and Parabathynellidae are as detailed in Table 1 and depicted as in Figs. 3-16.
Table 1. Principal morphological differences between Bathynellidae and
Parabathynellidae*
Bathynellidae Parabathynellidae
Pleotelson setae dorsal, stout lateral, slender
AI 7-segmented 6-segmented (exception:
7-segmented in Chilibathynella)
A II 1-to 5-segmented; generally 7-segmented; bent backwards
directed anteriorly, with and without exopod
1-segmented exp bearing
sensory seta
Lb free margin smooth serrulate, fringed with setules or
rarely smooth
Md palp prehensile, 3-segmented, non-prehensile, 1-segmented
with 2 stout apical seta with 1-3 apical setae, or, rarely,
palp completely absent.
Mx I: setae on
outer margin of plumose smooth

distal endite
Th I coxa generally with 1 long invariably without any seta
feathered seta
Th I-VII exp 1-segmented 2-segmented (exception:
1-segmented in Atopobathynella
and Chilibathynella)
Th I-VII enp-3 always without seta at the said seta generally present,
outer distal corner but rarely absent
280
Bathynellidae Parabathynellidae
Th VIII male strongly built; exp large small, with basal segment of
with 4 or 5 seta protopod bulging into more or
less spherical structure; exopod
greatly reduced and without
setae.
Th VIII female epipod present epipod absent
Pleopod I always present, uniramous generally absent(exception:
and 2-segmented 1-segmented in Chilibathynella)
Urp sympod rather short, with oblique distinctly elongate, with
row of spines at end longitudinal row of spines
Urp exp vs. enp always shorter either shorter or longer
*based on the hitherto known Indian taxa.
The taxonomically important morphological details of each of the appendages,
based on the hitherto known Indian taxa of the family Parabathynellidae alone,
are summarized below, but figures are given for certain species of both families.
A I (Fig. 4): uniramous, with 6 or 7 segments, and without any sexual
dimorphism except in Atopobathynella and Chilibathynella species in which
second segment in male has characteristic ‘antennal organ’ at inner distal corner.
Proximal 3 segments (praecoxa, coxa and basis) constituting peduncle, has 2
flagella: primary or outer flagellum either 3- or 4-segmented and accessory or inner
flagellum small, lobe-like, bearing 3 unequal setae (inner flagellum completely
fused to third segment in the 2 nominal Indian Atopobathynella spp.). Fourth
segment (counted from base) produced at outer distal corner into apophysis of
variable length. Fifth and sixth segments with 2 or 3 aesthetascs each. Length of
apophysis, number and relative lengths of aesthetascs on last 2 segments and setal
armature of different segments are taxonomically important.
A II (Fig. 5): uniramous, bent backwards and shorter than AI; 1-segmented in
Atopobathynella (Fig. 5E), 2-segmented in Habrobathynella (Fig. 5D), 5-segmented
in Parvulobathynella, (Fig. 5G) and 6-segmented in Chilibathynella (Fig. 5F); if
more than 1-segmented, basal segment devoid of armature.
Lb (Fig. 6): free margin of this unpaired, arched structure either straight,
concave or bilobed and usually beset with varying numbers of denticles or spinules
or setules; ventral surface is variously ornamented among different taxa.
Md (Fig. 7): 3 parts can be recognized: i) the distal part, called pars incisiva, has
3 or 4 teeth; ii) pars molaris (“Borstenlobus”) has 6 claws on a distinct rectangular
lobe in Chilibathynella (Fig. 7G), 5 or 6 unequal teeth on a characteristic pyriform
structure in Habrobathynella (Fig. 7E), 5 teeth/spines on short protuberance in
Atopobathynella (Fig. 7H) and 3 unequal teeth are directly fused to the Md body
(corpus mandibularis) in Parvulobathynella (Fig. 7F); and iii) the tooth of ventral
edge lying between pars incisiva and pars molaris, the size and orientation of
which varies in different taxa. Palp 1-segmented, carrying non-prehensile apical
seta; palp completely absent in Habrobathynella (Fig. 7D, E).
281
Ranga Reddy et al.
Prg (Fig. 8): with lateral projections/arms and a median projection, called
coupler. Prg is not described in most world species of Parabathynellidae. And yet,
the size and orientation of the lateral arms and the shape and size of the coupler
are found to be species-specific at least in Habrobathynella (see Ranga Reddy
et al., 2014; Elia et al., 2016).
Fig. 4. A I: (A) Serbanibathynella secunda; (B) Indobathynella prehensilis;

(C) Camachobathynella meghalayaensis; (D) Habrobathynella vaitarini; (E) Atopobathynella
paraoperculata; (F) Chilibathynella kotumsarensis; and (G) Parvulobathynella macrodentata.
Mx I (Fig. 9): with 2 endites; proximal endite small, carrying 4 unequal

armature elements on inner distal margin; distal endite elongate and armed with
5-7 claw-like setae, and 2 or 3 simple setae on outer distal corner.
Mx II (Fig. 10): 2- to 4-segmented and armed with setae; apical segment with
282
Fig. 5. A II: (A) Serbanibathynella secunda; (B) Indobathynella prehensilis;

Fig. 6. Lb: (A) Serbanibathynella secunda; (B) Indobathynella prehensilis;

paraoperculata; (F) Chilibathynella kotumsarensis; (G) Parvulobathynella projectura; and
(H) Parvulobathynella macrodentata
283
Ranga Reddy et al.
Fig. 7. Md: (A) Serbanibathynella secunda; (B) Indobathynella prehensilis;

(C) Camachobathynella meghalayaensis; (D) Habrobathynella ajraoi; (E) Habrobathynella
vaitarini; (F) Parvulobathynella macrodentata; (G) Chilibathynella kotumsarensis; and
(H) Atopobathynella paraoperculata.
284
Fig. 8. Prg: (A) Serbanibathynella secunda; (B) Indobathynella prehensilis;

(C) Camachobathynella meghalayaensis; (D) Habrobathynella indica; (E) H. vaitarini;
(F) H. borraensis; (G) Atopobathynella paraoperculata; (H) Parvulobathynella macrodentata;
(I) P. distincta; and (J) P. projectura.
or without prehensile claw-like seta(e); number of armature elements on inner

distal corner of the first segment varies from 0 to 4 among different taxa, and this
is an important taxonomic criterion.
Th I-VII (Figs. 11-13): typically biramous, with outer ramus/branch (exp) and
inner ramus/branch (enp). Basal or first portion of thoracopod, referred to as the
protopod, consists of 2 segments, coxa/coxopodite and basis/basipodite. Coxa is
unarmed but generally bears a club-shaped structure called epipod at outer distal
285
Ranga Reddy et al.
Fig. 9. Mx I: (A) Serbanibathynella secunda; (B) Indobathynella prehensilis;

(C) Camachobathynella meghalayaensis; (D) Habrobathynella borraensis;
(E) Atopobathynella paraoperculata; (F) Chilibathynella kotumsarensis; and
(G) Parvulobathynella distincta.
corner. Exp is either 2-segmented as in Habrobathynella and Parvulobathynella
(Fig. 11D, G) or 1-segmented as in Atopobathynella, Chilibathynella.(Fig. 11E-
F). Enp invariably 4-segmented. Setal pattern of basis and rami varying in
different taxa and also between Th I-VII, and generally expressed as setal formula.
Ornamentation, if any, of exp and enp segments need to be described.
286
Fig. 10. Mx II: (A) Serbanibathynella secunda; (B) Indobathynella prehensilis;

(C) Camachobathynella meghalayaensis; (D) Habrobathynella krishna; (E) Atopobathynella
287
Ranga Reddy et al.
Fig. 11. Th I: (A) Serbanibathynella secunda; (B) Indobathynella prehensilis;

(C) Camachobathynella meghalayaensis; (D) Habrobathynella savitri; (E) Atopobathynella
paraoperculata; (F) Chilibathynella kotumsarensis; and (G) Parvulobathynella distincta.
288
Fig. 12. Th IV: (A) Serbanibathynella secunda; (B) Indobathynella prehensilis;

paraoperculata; (F) Chilibathynella kotumsarensis; and (G) Parvulobathynella distincta.
289
Ranga Reddy et al.
Fig. 13. Th VII: (A) Serbanibathynella secunda; (B) Indobathynella prehensilis;

paraoperculata; (F) Chilibathynella kotumsarensis; and (G) Parvulobathynella distincta
Th VIII (Figs. 14): very short and reduced to mere triangular/crescentic/
globular lobe in female (Fig. 15D-F), but transformed into a complex penile
organ of different shapes and much taxonomic significance. Generally, protopod
prominently developed, oval or narrow and elongate in Habrobathynella spp. (Fig.
14D) or laterally expanded (hemispherical) in Atopobathynella spp. (Fig. 14G); basal
segment of protopod characteristically large and balloon-shaped in Chilibathynella
(Fig. 14F). Basis usually distinct from basal protopod (coxa) as in Habrobathynella
290
Fig. 14. Th VIII male: (A) Serbanibathynella secunda; (B) Indobathynella prehensilis;
(C) Camachobathynella meghalayaensis; (D) Habrobathynella krishna; (E) Parvulobathynella
macrodentata; (F) Chilibathynella kotumsarensis; and (G) Atopobathynella paraoperculata.
spp., but fused to coxa in Parvulobathynella spp., and somewhat triangular or

conical and beset with 1 seta at outer distal angle. Protopod extended distally into
dentate and inner lobes, constituting penile region; dentate lobe ornamented with
varying number of denticles in transverse/oblique rows; inner lobe always smooth
and shorter than dentate lobe in Habrobathynella and Parvulobathynella spp.,
but slightly longer in Chilibathynella kotumsarensis. In Habrobathynella indica,
penile region is drawn out into unusually large, double-horn-like structure—a
unique feature in Parabathynellidae (not figured). Outer lobe (epipod) small,
291
Ranga Reddy et al.
Fig. 15. Th VIII (A-F) and Pleopod I ( G-K) : (A) Serbanibathynella secunda; (B) Indobathynella
prehensilis; (C) Camachobathynella meghalayaensis; (D) Habrobathynella krishna;
(E) Atopobathynella paraoperculata; (F) Parvulobathynella projectura; (G) Chilibathynella
kotumsarensis; (H) Camachobathynella meghalayaensis; (I) Serbanibathynella secunda;

(J) Indobathynella prehensilis (male); and (K) Indobathynella prehensilis (female).
conical, generally smooth and fused to basal protopod in Habrobathynella, but

indiscernible in Parvulobathynella spp. In certain species of Habrobathynella,
it is denticulate, suggesting its ‘dynamic role in copulation as an element of the
male genital complex’ (Ranga Reddy & Totakura, 2010: 42; Coineau & Camacho,
2013: 373). Exp and enp small but distinct, showing great variation in size, shape,
orientation and ornamentation, as in Habrobathynella. Exp is fused to basis
(baexopod) in Atopobathynella; enp is apparently absent in Parvulobathynella
(Fig. 14E).
292
Pleopod I (Fig. 15): present only in Chilibathynella kotumsarensis among the

hitherto species of Parabathynellidae; 1-segmented and armed with 1 apical and
1 subapical setae.
Fig. 16. Pleotelson: (A) Habrobathynella krishna; (B) Parvulobathynella distincta;

(C) Chilibathynella kotumsarensis; (D) Atopobathynella paraoperculata;
(E) Indobathynella prehensilis; (F) Serbanibathynella secunda; and
(G) Camachobathynella meghalayaensis.
293
Ranga Reddy et al.
Urp (Fig. 16): basal segment, called sympod, has a row of similar (homonomous) or
dissimilar (heteronomous) spines on inner distal margin or corner, and rarely 1 seta on outer
distal margin, as in the Indian Atopobathynella spp. (Fig. 16D). Exp and enp of Urp vary in their
relative size, shape and armature among taxa; enp generally sickle-shaped.
SYSTEMATIC ACCOUNT
Subphylum Crustacea Brünnich, 1772
Class Malacostraca Latreille, 1802
Subclass Eumalacostraca Grobben, 1892
Superorder Syncarida Packard, 1885
Order Bathynellacea Chappuis, 1915
Family Bathynellidae Chappuis, 1915
Genus Serbanibathynella Ranga Reddy & Schminke, 2005
S. primaindica Ranga Reddy & Schminke, 2005
S. secunda Totakura & Ranga Reddy, 2014
Genus Indobathynella Ranga Reddy & Totakura, 2012
I. prehensilis Ranga Reddy & Totakura, 2012
Genus Camachobathynella Ranga Reddy, Shaik & Totakura,
2015
C. meghalayaensis Ranga Reddy, Shaik & Totakura, 2015
Family Parabathynellidae Noodt, 1965
Genus Chilibathynella Noodt, 1964
C. kotumsarensis Ranga Reddy, 2006
Genus Atopobathynella Schminke, 1973
A. operculata Ranga Reddy, Drewes & Schminke, 2008
A. paraoperculata Ranga Reddy & Totakura, 2015
Genus Habrobathynella Schminke, 1973
H. nagarjunai Ranga Reddy, 2002
H. schminkei Ranga Reddy, 2004
H. indica Ranga Reddy & Schminke, 2005
H. plenituda Ranga Reddy & Schminke, 2009

H. krishna Ranga Reddy & Totakura, 2010
H. savitri Ranga Reddy & Totakura, 2010
H. vaitarini Ranga Reddy & Totakura, 2010
H. vidua Ranga Reddy & Totakura, 2010
H. ajraoi Totakura & Ranga Reddy, 2014
H. parakrishna Totakura & Ranga Reddy, 2014
H. pseudoindica Totakura & Ranga Reddy, 2014
294
H. borraensis Ranga Reddy, Shaik & Totakura, 2014

H. adishankara Elia, Shaik & Ranga Reddy, 2016
H. muvattupuzha Elia, Shaik & Ranga Reddy, 2016
Genus Parvulobathynella Schminke, 1973
P. distincta Ranga Reddy, Elia & Totakura, 2011
P. projectura Ranga Reddy, Elia & Totakura, 2011
P. macrodentata Ranga Reddy & Totakura, 2012
N.B. About a dozen new bathynellacean taxa in our samples await formal
description.
Family Bathynellidae Chappuis, 1915
Genus Serbanibathynella Ranga Reddy & Schminke, 2005
Diagnosis: A I 7-segmented, second segment with apophysis at distal inner corner;
A II 7-segmented; Md without gnathobase, 3 teeth on proximal segment of palp;
palp 3-segmented, first and second segments subequal in length and with massive
musculature and a joint between them; 2 long and sturdy setae on short distal
segment; Mx II 4-segmented; enp of Th I–VII 3-segmented, second segment
without feathered seta at outer distal corner; Urp with similar spines on sympod;
furca with 5 spines, second one from inner margin longest.
Type species: Serbanibathynella primaindica Ranga Reddy & Schminke, 2005.
Other species: S. secunda Totakura & Ranga Reddy, 2014
Remark: Both species occur only in borewells (see Ranga Reddy & Schminke, 2005;
Totakura & Ranga Reddy, 2014).
Table 2. Chief morphological differences between Serbanibathynella
primaindica and S. secunda.
Characters primaindica secunda
A I: seta on basis present absent
Lb: shape of medial free margin concave convex
Md: teeth on proximal segment 3 4
Mx I: claws on proximal endite 4 3
Mx II: claws on segment 1 7 5
claws on segment 3 5 7
Th I-VII: build of enp slender strong
Th VIII male: setae on exp 4 5
Th VIII female: exp and enp distinct fused completely
armature elements 3 2
Pleotelson: sympod spine row homonomous inhomonomous
Genus Indobathynella Ranga Reddy & Totakura, 2012
Diagnosis: Mx II 3-segmented and strongly prehensile; first segment unarmed;
second segment large, bearing 7 setae; third segment with 1 apical claw and 1 seta.
295
Ranga Reddy et al.
Male Th VIII uncinate, with only 1 lobe (outer lobe) on coxa; Exp fused to basis
and with 2 setae; enp totally absent. Female Th VIII reduced to 1 simple lobe. Th
I-VII with 2-segmented exp and enp except for 3-segmented enp on Th I. Pleopod
I 1-segmented, with 2 plumose setae; sexually dimorphic. A II with 4-segmented
endopod, exp shorter than enp-1, and basis unarmed. Md with 3-segmented palp,
similar in both sexes, and prehensile; gnathobase fused to basal segment of palp
and represented by 5 teeth. Prg cuneiform and basally fused. Mx I with 1 slender
claw on proximal endite; distal endite with 8 armature elements including 3
smooth subterminal outer setae. A I 7-segmented. Enp of Urp with 2 claws and 1
seta; exp with 3 setae including 1 ventro-medial seta. Caudal furca with 4 unequal
spines and 1 seta. Pleotelson with 2 dorsal setae.
Type species: Indobathynella prehensilis Ranga Reddy & Totakura, 2012
Other species: Currently none.
Remarks: I. prehensilis is a highly aberrant bathynellacean species, showing an
intriguing mix of plesiomorphic and apomorphic morphological features, and it is
confined to phreatic waters of borewells (Ranga Reddy & Totakura, 2012).
Genus Camachobathynella Ranga Reddy, Shaik & Totakura, 2015
Diagnosis: Animals slightly exceeding 1 mm in length. A I 7- segmented, with 5
setae on segment 7. Enp of A II 5- segmented and perpendicular to A I, and exp
without medial seta. Md palp 3-segmented and gnathobase moderate in size. Prg
defined at base, densely covered with spinules and ending in dentate projection.
Lb somewhat triangular with apical spinules. Max II 4- segmented; setal formula
6-4-6-4. Male Th VIII penile region consisting of moderately developed anterior
plate, internal lobe and small lobe; basis slightly tapering distally and armed with
2 unequal setae at about mid-inner margin; exp about 4 times as long as wide and
armed with 5 setae; and enp absent. Female Th VIII with large epipod, unarmed
coxa and basis; exp and enp 1- segmented, with 2 setae each; enp slightly shorter
than exp. Pleopod I 2- segmented, second segment with 6 setae. Urp sympod with
5 equal spines in oblique row; exp with 5 setae; enp 1.5 times longer than exp
and with 3 claws and 4 setae. Caudal furca with 4 spines, increasing in length
from inner to outer margin. Furcal organ large and dorso-lateral. Pleotelson with
2 dorsal moderately strong setae.
Type species: Camachobathynella meghalayaensis Ranga Reddy, Shaik & Totakura,
2015.
Other species: currently none.

Remarks: C. meghalayaensis an interesting Palearctic species on the Indian
subcontinent (Ranga Reddy et al., 2015). Morphologically, it is decisively primitive
as compared with the hitherto known four tropical Gondwanan species in two
genera of Bathynellidae, viz. Nannobathynella marcusi Noodt, 1969, from São
Paulo (Noodt, 1969), Nannobathynella africana Schminke and Wells, 1974, from
Zimbabwe (Schminke & Wells, 1974), and Nannobathynella eburnea Schminke,
1979, from Ivory Coast (Schminke, 1979), and Agnathobathynella ecclesia
Schminke, 1980, from Malawi (Schminke, 1980). All the current records show that
C. meghalayaensis is apparently endemic to the Meghalaya State.
296
Family Parabathynellidae Noodt, 1965

Genus Chilibathynella Noodt, 1964
Diagnosis: A I 7- segmented, with sexual dimorphism, with ‘antennal organ’ at
inner distal corner of second segment in male. Antenna 4- to 6- segmented. Md
pars molaris with 8 claws. Mx II 4-segmented with profuse setation. Exp of Th I-VII
1-segmented; outer plumose seta of enp-2 of Th V-VII rudimentary or absent. Th
VIII male with large subglobular protopod and large bulbous posteriorly directed
basis; small enp with 2 or 3 setae; exp with tooth-like structures. Th VIII female
1-segmented. Pleopod I I-segmented, with terminal seta(e). Urp sympod with row
of several spines. Both dorsal setae on caudal furca smooth and subequal in length,
short, not reaching beyond tip of terminal spines.
Type species: Chilibathynella clandestina Noodt, 1963 (Central Chile)
Other species: C. australiensis Schminke, 1973 (Southern Australia) and C.
kotumsarensis Ranga Reddy, 2006 (India).
Remarks: For dichotomous key for the above-mentioned species, the reader is
referred to Schminke (2011). Two more species have recently been added to this
genus by Camacho & Hancock (2012) from New South Wales, Australia: C. joshuai
Camacho & Hancock, 2012, and digitus Camacho & Hancock, 2012.
Genus Atopobathynella Schminke, 1973
Diagnosis: A I 6-segmented, with ‘antennal organ’ in male. A II 1-segmented, with
2 smooth and 1 plumose apical setae, and 1 inner proximal seta. Lb heterodont
with numerous teeth, of which middle ones smaller. Md with pars incisiva with
generally 3 and rarely 2 teeth; pars molaris with 1 row of 5 or 6 claws; palp very
short. Distal endite of Mx I with 6 or 5 claws. Mx II generally 4-segmented, with
setal formula: 2-4-n-7. Exp of Th I-VII 1-segmented, of Th II-VII with 2 apical
setae and 1 ventral subapical seta; enp of Th I-VII 4-segmented, fourth segment
tiny, of Th II-VII with 1, rarely 2 very long claws; setal formula of segments 1-3:
0+0/0+1/0+1. Th VIII rather small, semicircular in lateral view; protopod massive,
anteriorly with dentate lobe; external lobe drawn out into anteriorly-directed
conical projection; basis triangular, as large as external lobe, with 2 setae of
unknown homology. Pleopod I represented by 1 seta. Urp sympod generally with
homonomous row of sever spines; enp with dagger-like extension and with 2 setae
at base.
Type species: Atopobathynella valdiviana Noodt, 1965 (Chile)
Other species: A. chelifera Schminke, 1973 (Australia), A. compagana Schminke,
1973 (Australia), A. hospitalis Schminke, 1973 (Australia), A. gascoyneensis Cho,
Humphreys, & Lee, 2006 (Australia), A. glenayleensis Cho, Humphreys, & Lee,
2006 (Australia), A. hinzeae Cho, Humphreys, & Lee, 2006 (Australia), A. readi
Cho, Humphreys, & Lee, 2006 (Australia), A. schminkei Cho, Humphreys, & Lee,
2006 (Australia), A. wattsi Cho, Humphreys, & Lee, 2006 (Australia), A. operculata
Ranga Reddy, Drewes & Schminke, 2008 (India), and A. paraoperculata Ranga
Reddy & Totakura, 2015 (India).
Remarks: According to Ranga Reddy & Totakura (2015), the hitherto known
297
Ranga Reddy et al.
two Indian species (some more Indian new species in our samples await formal
description), viz. A. operculata and A. paraoperculata stand out in the genus
by the following characters: (i) the inner flagellum of the antennule is fused to
the fourth segment or the first segment of the outer flagellum; (ii) the ‘antennal
organ’ consists exclusively of two massive lobes; (iii) the antenna has three-instead
of four armature elements; (iv) the proximal segment of the maxillule has two
instead of four distinct claws; (v) the uropodal sympod has an outer seta in its
distal third; (vi) the uropodal sympod also has an inhomonomous row of spines,
with strongly developed distalmost spine; and (vii) the anal operculum is massive,
reaching as far back as caudal furca. While the first, fourth and fifth characters are
unique in the family Parabathynellidae (Ranga Reddy et al., 2008), the other three
characters render both species quite distinct from all their known congeners. A.
operculata and A. paraoperculata can be easily separated from each other mainly
by the following principal criteria: the second A I segment in the female has one
seta vs. two setae seta at inner distal corner; A II is distinct vs. fused; the labrum
is with vs. without tubular pores; the tooth/ spine that is next-to-the proximalmost
one (see below) of the mandibular pars molaris is normal vs. modified; enp2 of Th
I has one vs. two setae; the sympod of Urp has eight vs. four spines; the uropodal
enp has one normal seta vs. two weak setae; Urp exp is shorter than vs. as long as
endopod; and pleotelson is armed vs. unarmed.
Both A. operculata and A. paraoperculata have so far been known only from
the interstitial hyporheic habitats in the costal deltaic region.
Key to Atopobathynella Schminke, 1973
1. Caudal furca with 3 or 4 spines............................................................................2
Caudal furca with more spines.............................................................................4
2. Urp sympod with inhomonomous spine row and with 1 lateral seta; A II with
3 armature elements; Mx I proximal segment with 2 distinct claws...................
................................................................................................................................3
Urp sympod with homonomous spine row and without lateral seta; A II with 4
armature elements; Mx I proximal segment with 4 distinct claws......................
................................................................................................................................8
3. Urp sympod with 4 spines; Urp enp with 1 normal seta; massive anal
operculum rounded distally; Lb with tubular pores; enp of Urp with 1 seta
............................................................................................................A. operculata
Urp sympod with 8 spines; enp of Urp with 2 weak setae; massive anal
operculum triangular and pointed distally; Lb without tubular pores; enp of
Urp with 2 setae........................................................................A. paraoperculata
4. A I segment 1 with dorsal simple seta; labrum with 16 teeth; Urp sympod
greatly dilated; Urp exp and enp of much reduced in size.............. A. schminkei
A I segment 1 with 2 dorsal simple setae; Lb with more than16 teeth; Urp
sympod not dilated; Urp exp and enp normal size..............................................5
5. Exp of Th II–VI with 4 setae (2 terminal, 2 ventral), both terminal setae long
but subequal in length; Th II–VII enp-4 with 2 claws............................ A. readi
298
Exp of Th II–VI with 3 setae (2 terminal, 1 ventral), dorsal terminal seta

shorter than ventral one; Th II–VII enp-4 with 1 claw.......................................6
6. Exp of Th I with 2 terminal and 1 ventral setae; setae of enp of Urp unequal in
length (proximal seta 25% shorter)..................................................A. hospitalis
Exp of Th I with 2 terminal setae only; setae of enp of Urp subequal in
length.....................................................................................................................7
7. Th I without epipod; exp of Th VII with 2 setae; male A I with antennal
organ.......................................................................................................A. hinzeae
Th I with epipod; exp Th VII with 3 setae; male A I without antennal
organ............................................................................................ A. gascoyneensis
8. Enp of Urp with 2 long setae, reaching beyond tip of enp; Th I with epipod.....9
Enp of Urp with 2 short setae, not reaching beyond tip of enp; Th I without
epipod...................................................................................................................11
9. Caudal furca with 5 spines; spine row of Urp sympod with 4 homonomous
spines................................................................................................. A.valdiviana
Caudal furca with more spines; spine row of Urp sympod with more 10
homonomous spines............................................................................................10
10. Dorsal terminal seta of exp of Th II–VII short (only 1/3 as long as ventral seta);
caudal furca stretched (3 times longer than wide); exp of Urp long (over half as
long as enp)..............................................................................................A. wattsi
Dorsal terminal seta of exp of Th II–VII long (as long as ventral seta); caudal
furca normal (1.5 times longer than wide); exp of Urp short (less than half as
long as enp)................................................................................... A. glenayleensis
11. Exp Th I–VII with tiny dorsal seta; caudal furca twice as long as wide; male A
I with antennal organ as long protrusion with 2 setae at inner distal corner of
second segment.....................................................................................A. chelifera
Exp Th I–VII with long dorsal seta; caudal furca slightly longer than wide; male A
I with antennal organ as rod-like seta as long as next segment.A. compagana
Genus Habrobathynella Schminke, 1973
Diagnosis: Md palpless, pars molaris somewhat pyriform, bearing 5-6 teeth. Male
Th VIII globular to oval in outline, basis bearing 1 seta, and exp highly chitinised,
generally distinct from basis and as incurved claw or hook (appearing as rectangular
or conical denticulate structure in ventral view) and enp represented by 1 seta.
Caudal furca armed with 4 spines. Lb generally vaulted or sometimes nearly
straight, with 8-12 main teeth. A II 2-segmented, distal segment with 4 setae. A
I 6-segmented, apophysis on segment 4 digitiform and penultimate segment with
2–3 aesthetascs. Mx II 2- or 3-segmented; segment 2 with 1 modified, somewhat
prehensile seta; segment 3 either distinct or fused to massive prehensile terminal
claw. Th I–VII with 2-segmented exp. Urp sympod spine row inhomonomous
(exception: homonomous in H. nagarjunai).
Type species: Habrobathynella milloti (Delamare Deboutteville & Paulian 1954)
(Madagascar)
299
Ranga Reddy et al.
Other species: H. jeanneli (Delamare Deboutteville & Paulian 1954) (Madagascar),

H. nagarjunai Ranga Reddy, 2002 (India), H. schminkei Ranga Reddy, 2004 (India),
H. indica Ranga Reddy & Schminke, 2005 (India), H. plenituda Ranga Reddy
& Schminke, 2009 (India), H. krishna Ranga Reddy & Totakura, 2010 (India),
H. savitri Ranga Reddy & Totakura, 2010 (India), H. vaitarini Ranga Reddy
& Totakura, 2010 (India), H. vidua Ranga Reddy & Totakura, 2010 (India), H.
ajraoi Totakura & Ranga Reddy, 2014 (India), H. parakrishna Totakura & Ranga
Reddy, 2014 (India), H. pseudoindica Totakura & Ranga Reddy, 2014 (India), H.
borraensis Ranga Reddy, Shaik & Totakura, 2014 (India), H. adishankara Elia,
Shaik & Ranga Reddy, 2016 (India), and H. muvattupuzha Elia, Shaik & Ranga
Reddy, 2016 (India).
Key to the species of Habrobathynella Schminke, 1973
1. All spines of Urp sympod equal in size .........................................H. nagarjunai
Either or both of ultimate and penultimate spines of Urp sympod longer than
others ....................................................................................................................2
2. Both ultimate and penultimate spines of Urp sympod longer than others;
setae on pleotelson absent....................................................................... H. vidua
Either ultimate or penultimate spine of Urp sympod longer than others; setae
on pleotelson present............................................................................................3
3. Penultimate spine of Urp sympod longer than others........................................4
Ultimate spine of Urp sympod longer than others..............................................9
4. Ultimate spine of Urp sympod unmodified and of the size of others; setae on
Urp enp as long as or shorter than exopod..........................................................5
Ultimate spine of Urp sympod modified into a typical seta; at least one seta of
Urp enp as long as or longer than exopod ...........................................................8
5. Setae on Urp enp shorter than exopod; pleotelson setae extremely
reduced...................................................................................................H. krishna
Setae on uropodal endopod as long as or larger than exopod; pleotelson setae
normal....................................................................................................................6
6.
Male Th VIII rectangular, protopod being not expanded
distally...........................................................................................H. parakrishna
Male Th VIII subglobular, protopod being expanded distally............................7
7. Mx II segment 1 with 2 setae; fifth AI segment with 2 aesthetascs; A II segment

1 short........................................................................................ H. muvattupuzha
Mx II segment 1 with 1 seta; fifth A I segment with 3 aesthetascs; first II
segment long................................................................................. H. adishankara
8. Mx II segment 1 with 2 unequal setae; Mx II segment 3 unfused to terminal
claw; spine-row margin of Urp sympod undilated; Prg with large and bilobed
coupler and large lateral lobes.........................................................H. schminkei
Mx II segment 1 with 1 greatly reduced seta; Mx II segment 3 fused to terminal
claw; spine-row margin of Urp sympod dilated; Prg with unilobed coupler and
small lateral lobes...................................................................................H. savitri
300
9. Md pars molaris (“lobe”) fork-like with 4 teeth; male Th VIII with extraordinary
long basipodal seta...................................................................................H. ajraoi
Mdr pars molaris (“lobe”) nearly pyriform with 5 or 6 teeth; male Th VIII with
short basipodal seta............................................................................................10
10. Urp sympod with 3 proximal spines..................................................................11
Urp sympod with either 4 or 6 proximal spines................................................14
11. Male Th VIII with penile region (inner and dentate lobes) produced into
unusually long penis-like organ extending forward up to Th VII........................
................................................................................................................. H. indica
Male Th VIII with unproduced penile region..................................... H. jeanneli
12. Mx II segment 1 with 2 setae; Th I without seta on enp-1...................................
.......................................................................................................H. pseudoindica
Mx II segment 1 with 1 setae; Th I with1 seta on e1........................................13
13. Urp exp produced into short spinous process at inner distal angle; A I segment
5 with 2 aesthetascs; female Th VIII absent........................................H. milloti
Urp exp without any such process at inner distal angle; A I segment 5 with 3
aesthetascs; female Th VIII present............................................... H. borraensis
14. Urp sympod with 4 proximal spines; Mx II segment 3 not fused to terminal
claw; pleotelson setae longer than caudal furca...............................H. plenituda
Urp sympod with 6 proximal spines; Mx II segment 3 fused to terminal claw;
pleotelson setae shorter than caudal furca........................................H. vaitarini
Genus Parvulobathynella Schminke, 1973
Diagnosis: A I 6-segmented. A II 5-segmented; seta; formula: 0+0/0+1(0)/
1+0/1+0/3(1). Lb lobes with spinules. Md with proximal-most tooth of pars incisiva
lying perpendicular to other teeth; cutting edge with 4-5 small teeth. Mx I with
proximal endite protruding only slightly, with 4 setae; distal endite with 5 claws,
distal 3 claws grouped together, other 2 claws spaced apart on inner margin; 2
setae on distal outer margin. Mx II 3- or 2-segmented, prehensile; proximal endite
without setae; terminal segment tiny, fused to or distinct from sturdy curved claw.
Th I-VII with 2-segmented exp; enp 4-segmented; setal formula 0+0/0+1/0+0/2(1).
Pleotelson without lateral setae. Caudal furca rounded terminally, with 1 terminal
spine and 2 inner spines or setae (rearranged from Schminke, 2011).
Type species: Parvulobathynella ypacaraiensis (Noodt, 1963) (Paraguay)
Other species: P. composicola (Jakobi, 1961) (Brazil), P. duodecima Cho &
Schminke, 2001 (South Africa), P. octacantha Cho & Schminke, 2001(South Africa),
P. pentodonta (Serban & Coineau, 1982) (Ivory Coast), P. riegelorum (Noodt, 1965)
(Chile), P. distincta Ranga Reddy, Elia & Totakura, 2011 (India), P. projectura
Ranga Reddy, Elia & Totakura, 2011 (India), and P. macrodentata Ranga Reddy
& Totakura, 2012 (India).
Remark: Of the three Indian species, while P. distinct and P. projectura inhabit the
alluvial sediments of rivers (Ranga Reddy et al., 2011), P. macrodentata is confined
to borewells (Ranga Reddy & Totakura, 2012).
301
Ranga Reddy et al.
Key to Species of Parvulobathynella Schminke, 1973

1. Body with rounded protuberance at postero-lateral angle of each of thoracic
and abdominal segments; Lb smooth............................................... P. projectura
Body without such protuberances; Lb spinulose.................................................2
2. Th I alone without epipod; Urp enp with 2 separate spines ....... P. camposicola
Either Th I-II or Th I-III without epipod; Urp enp with 1 separate or fused
spine.......................................................................................................................3
3. Th I-II without epipod...........................................................................................4
Th I-III without epipod ........................................................................................7
4. Md with large, contiguous molar teeth; ventral edge tooth large and with
proximal denticle......................................................................... P. macrodentata
Md with small, closely-spaced molar teeth; ventral edge tooth small and
without denticle.....................................................................................................5
5. Urp enp with fused spine; inner spines on caudal furca only slightly smaller
than terminal spine..........................................................................P. pentodonta
Urp enp with separate spine; inner spines of caudal furca distinctly smaller
than terminal spine...............................................................................................6
6. Urp enp with small, bare, spiniform inner terminal seta; maxillule with
rudimentary distal–most armature element on proximal endite.. P. duodecima
Urp enp with tiny inner terminal spinous process; the said armature element
on maxillule strong.......................................................................... P. riegelorum
7. Terminal furcal spine as long as furca; epipod Th IV-VII
unsegmented........................................................................................P. distincta
Terminal spine distinctly shorter than furca; epipod on Th IV-VII
bisegmented...........................................................................................................8
8. Urp enp with small, naked, terminal spiniform seta; labrum with 8
spinules............................................................................................. P. octacantha
Urp enp with tiny terminal spine; labrum with 28 spinules.....P. ypacaraiensis
BIOGEOGRAPHY
To understand the biogeography of the Indian Bathynellacea, it would only be
appropriate to refer to the milestones in its biogeographical evolution of India.
India was initially nestled in the supercontinent Pangaea at high southerly

latitudes between Late Paleozoic and Early Permian ca. 255 Ma. The Pangaea was
intact during the Late Triassic and Early Jurassic periods, but the first stage of
its rifting took place in the Middle Jurassic period ca. 180 Ma. Before its journey
into northern latitudes, the Indian plate rifted from other Gondwana landmasses
at different times in the geological past—from Africa along with Madagascar
ca. 180-170 Ma, from Antarctica-Australia ca. 130 Ma, and from Madagascar
ca. 90 Ma. Eventually, the docking against Asia began ca. 55-65 Ma. During its
tectonic evolution from the Pangaean times to the present day, the Indian plate
acted both as a biotic “ferry” and a biotic sink (Rust et al., 2010), and experienced,
302
inter alia, extensive exchange between the peninsular autochthonous and the
Asian Tertiary biota (Mani, 1974; Chatterjee & Scotese, 1999; Briggs, 2003; Ali
& Aitchison, 2008). As a result, the modern terrestrial and freshwater biota of
India are overwhelmingly “Oriental” despite the fact that a few living relicts, both
invertebrates and vertebrates that might date back to the pre-drift period, do exist
here. According to Mani (1974), “The Peninsula per se is biogeographically India
vera, the largest and the oldest region of differentiation of the original floras and
faunas of India.”
Generally, all the obligate subterranean fauna (stygobionts) may be good
candidates for historical biogeography. However, the crustaceans as a group are
better suited for this purpose because they are dominant and widespread in the
ecosystems of both of karstic and alluvial aquifers. And amongst crustaceans, the
members of the order Bathynellacea, in particular, have long been recognized
as suitable objects for understanding the history of the earth crust as well as
biological speciation. This is because they belong to vey an ancient lineage, live as
unobtrusive ecological generalists, occupy relatively inaccessible, cryptic habitats,
i.e. interstitial spaces of sandy river banks, caves, etc.; and are endowed with very
limited powers of dispersal, lacking resting stages. Further, the biogeographical
studies based on stygobionts assume special importance at this juncture when
the globalization of world’s economy has brought about increasing effects of
homogenization of the world’s biota. As a result, the study of biogeography, which
was once “a pillar of evolution science”, has now come to be greatly distorted by the
presence of alien invasive organisms. For example, the biogeographical catastrophe
that has befallen the San Francisco Bay, USA, which reportedly has some 234
invasive species, constituting about 90% of its aquatic population is worthy of note
(Schram, 2008).
All the four genera of the Parabathynellidae show typical Gondwanan
heritage (Ranga Reddy 2011), but, not surprisingly, all their 20 species (see
Systematic Account) are endemic to peninsular India. On the other hand, all
the three known Indian genera of Bathynellidae are endemic to India. Whereas
Serbanibathynella and Indobathynella are confined to the peninsular zone, the
monotypic Camachobathynella occurs in the northeastern Meghalaya state of the
Extra-Peninsular area of the ancient Indian Peninsula, and it is “in all probability a
younger Palaearctic intrusive ...” (Ranga Reddy et al. 2015: 712). Serbanibathynella
and Indobathynella might have evolved as Briggs’ (1989) “peculiar fauna on the
Indian plate, which existed far out in the Tethys Sea as an isolated continent for
about 100 ma.” All in all, the present-day geographic distribution of Bathynellacea
can more plausibly be explained by the vicariance model rather than by the classic
dispersal model (see Schram 1977; Schminke 1981).
The biogeographical affinities of the four Indian parabathynellid genera and
their implications are outlined below.
Genus Chilibathynella. When it was known only by two species, viz. the
Chiliean C. clandestina and the Australian C. australiensis, this genus was
presumed to be “an entirely austral group”, displaying transantarctic relationships
(Schminke 1974). Also, in terms of panbiogeography, this genus was believed
303
Ranga Reddy et al.
to belong to the southern temperate track, which connects the southern South
America, Australia, Tasmania, and New Zealand, with Pacific basin baseline
(Lopretto & Morrone 1998). However, the discovery of the Indian cavernicolous
C. kotumsarensis has extended the biogeographical range of the genus far north
into the tropical belt of Northern Hemisphere (Ranga Reddy 2006). Till date, this
species is endemic to the Kotumsar Cave in Chhattisgarh state and further Indian
species, if any, of this genus have yet to be discovered.
Genus Habrobathynella. Originally established for two Madagascan species
(H. milloti and H. jeanneali), this genus is most speciose in India, with 14 species
having already been known from the peninsular region. Most of these species
inhabit alluvial sediment of rivers and streams of the Krishna-Godavari basin,
but are yet to be discovered in far inland phreatic ecosystems (Ranga Reddy et
al., 2014). The speciation process of within this genus vis-à-vis other genera, in
the interstitial hyporheic habitats of the Krishna-Godavari basin is remarkable.
Among the known species, H. schminkei, given its recent find in a far-flung cave in
Meghalaya state (unpubl.), has such a remarkably wide range of distribution
that runs counter to the generally accepted concept of short-range endemism
of Harvey (2002), Schram (2008), Eberhard et al. (2009), Karanovic & Cooper
(2011a, b), and several other stygobiologists. Harvey’s (2002) stipulated
distribution range is only <10,000 km2. Hence this species, inter alia, prompts
much deeper morphological as well as molecular studies to determine if it is a
cryptic species (see Totakura & Ranga Reddy, 2015: 4).
Genus Atopobathynella. Of the 12 species so far known under this genus,
one species is from Chile, nine from Australia and two from India. This genus
is also known from an undescribed Madagascan species (Schminke, 1981). The
geographical range of this genus thus extends to both East and West Gondwana
continents. Prior to its Indian records, Lopretto & Morrone (1998) assigned this
genus as well as Chilibathynella to the southern temperate track (see above),
which is no longer tenable.
Genus Parvulobathynella. This is a most derived genus, presently containing
nine species in the world, all from the Gondwana landmasses. This is yet another
iconic case of Gondwanan lineage.
Not surprisingly, the Indian bathynellaceans show no close phylogenetic
affinity with their Asian counterparts. In fact, the latter taxa are clearly
plesiomorphic, which prompted Schminke (1974) to presume that East Asia was
the centre of evolution of Bathynellacea.
THREATS AND CONSERVATION MEASURES

As already mentioned under Introduction, bathynellaceans inhabit mainly the
hyporehic zone of rivers and streams and the phreatic systems like caves and
borewells. How these habitats have been threatened by various anthropogenic
activities, and the measures to be initiated to protect and conserve the
bathynellaceans are summarized below.
304
1. Loss and pollution of hyporheic habitats

The hyporheic zone present within the sandy banks of rivers and streams and
sandwiched between the surface water and groundwater ecosystems as a dynamic
ecotone is well known to harbor a heterotrophic assemblage of both interstitial
and benthic community (hyporheos) of diverse groups of organisms including
some ancient and relictual taxa (see Hakenkamp & Palmer, 1999). Indeed, our
stygofaunistic investigations have revealed that the bathynellacean species
richness is higher in the hyporheic system than in the phreatic ecosystems (Ranga
Reddy, 2014). However, scant attention, if any, has been paid to the study of
biodiversity and functioning of hyporheic ecosystems in India. It is disconcerting to
note that these unique and as-yet unexplored ecosystems have already come under
the devastating impact of excessive sand extraction, fuelled by the construction
boom in the wake of rapid urbanization. In Andhra Pradesh state where regular
stygofaunistic investigations have just begun for the first time in the country, the
Government has legalized the sand mining and auctioning as a social welfare
measure, thus further exacerbating the loss of hyporheic habitats and their
irreplaceable biodiversity.
In this context, it is also noteworthy that bathynellaceans are apparently
more sensitive than other stygobionts to chemical pollutants. A case in point is
the local extinction of Habrobathynella indica at its type locality, i.e. the River
Krishna at Vijayawada city. Not even a single specimen of this species has been
found at its type locality despite periodic samplings after it was first collected on
31 August 1998 (two males and two females turned up in a sample collected on 7
December 2008 in the same river, but 47 km downstream of the type locality). One
possible reason for the local extinction of H. indica is that the untreated domestic
sewage is being continuously released into the river. Furthermore, the deleterious
effects of increased industrial pollution in the vicinity of the type locality cannot
be underestimated (Ranga Reddy & Totakura, 2010). Some of the measures/
recommendations to protect and conserve hyporheic biodiversity include:
At least certain tracts of each of our river banks must be given legal
protection against the sand mafia so that such protected corridors could ensure the
regeneration and preservation of the hyporheic biota. Dry-pit mining is preferable
to other mining methods.
Large rivers and streams should be used for selective sand mining instead of
small rivers and streams.
Immediate steps need be taken to encourage research activities leading to
the finding of suitable, low-cost and easily available alternatives to river sand for
construction industry.
To enforce strict antipollution measures and to monitor point sources pollution.
2. Overexploitation and contamination of groundwater

Groundwater was once thought to be an inexhaustible natural resource. There
are no legal curbs whatsoever on the extraction of groundwater for drinking,
agricultural or industrial purpose. As a result, people are exploiting it so much
305
Ranga Reddy et al.
that water tables are falling at dangerously low levels on every continent. Hence,
incalculable damage is being done to the phreatic fauna including bathynellaceans.
Many valuable species must have already gone extinct by the relentless
overexploitation of groundwater alone. Furthermore, the State Governments in
India have aggravated the problem by offering the farmers either free or subsidized
electricity supply to operate the agricultural pump sets. Overexploitation of
groundwater is compounded by the fact that groundwater recharging has been
reduced by changes in land use. Besides being depleted, groundwater is becoming
increasingly polluted by fertilizers, pesticides, sewage, fuel from leaking storage
tanks, and other contaminants.
Some measures to enhance the groundwater supply and ameliorate its quality
include water-saving technologies such as root-zone irrigation, educating the
general public and impressing upon them its dwindling supply, economy of its
use, and reducing subsidies for fertilizers and pesticides. According to Danielopol
et al. (2003), “Groundwater ecosystems should be included in the plans for the
establishment of protected areas and natural resources.”
3. Threats to cave ecosystems

What with its vast territory, ancient and varied geomorphology, hydrology, and
climate, the Indian subterranean domain has given rise to numerous natural caves
and cavities of varied shapes and sizes. So far, no regular faunistic studies of the
Indian caves have begun. Our recent survey of certain caves has revealed not only
several interesting bathynellaceans and other ancient crustaceans as well (see
Ranga Reddy, 2006; Wilson & Ranga Reddy, 2011; Totakura et al., 2014; Wilson et
al., 2015). Unfortunately, cave ecosystems in India have already been threatened
by a host of anthropogenic activities such as mining/quarrying, agriculture,
religious rituals and the consequent pollution, land clearance, etc. (Harries et al.,
2008; Biswas, 2009, 2010). There are no legal curbs whatsoever on such ongoing
pernicious myopic activities, which are indeed threatening the very existence of not
only the cave organisms but the caves themselves. The State Governments have
indeed added to the problem by converting the caves into tourist spots. Certain
caves are even illumined and artificially aerated as part of tourism industry (e.
g. Belum Caves and Borra Caves in Andhra Pradesh). In safeguarding the caves,
NGOs can play a vital role in creating awareness among the general public about
the cave organisms and their importance. More importantly, the Central and State
Government need to enact suitable, stringent legislation to protect the caves in
the country. The funding agencies will do well to play proactive role in liberally
funding and encouraging biospeleological research in India.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Our sincere thanks are due to the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate
Change, and the Department of Science and Technology, Ministry of Science and
Technology, Government of India, New Delhi, for providing funding support under
Research Projects, 22018/08/2010-CS(Tax), and SR/SO/AS-21/2011, respectively
306
REFERENCES
Ali, J.R. & Aitchison, J.C. 2008. Gondwana to Asia: Plate tectonics, paleogeography
and the biological connectivity of the Indian sub-continent from the Middle
Jurassic through latest Eocene (166–35 Ma). Earth-Sci. Rev., 88(3-4): 145-
166.
Bazikalova, A. 1954. New species of the genus Bathynella from Lake Baikal. Trudy
Baik. Limbol. St. Acad. Sci., 14: 355-368.
Biswas, J. 2009. The biodiversity of Krem Mawkhyrdop of Meghalaya, India, on
the verge of extinction. Curr. Sci., 96(7): 904-910.
Biswas, J. 2010. Kotumsar Cave biodiversity: a review of cavernicoles and their
troglobiontic traits. Biodiversity Conserv., 19: 275-289.
Briggs, J.C. 1989. The historic biogeography of India: isolation or contact? Syst.
Zool., 38: 322-332.
Briggs, J.C. 2003. The biogeographic and tectonic history of India. J. Biogeogr.,
30: 381-388.
Brooks, H.K. 1962. On the fossil Anaspidacea, with a revision of the classification
of the Syncarida. Crustaceana, 4: 229-242.
Brooks, H.K. 1969. Syncarida. In: Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology (Eds. R.
C. Moore). Part R, Arthropoda 4. Vol. 1. Geological Society of America and
University of Kansas, Lawrence : 345-359.
Calman, W.T. 1899. On the characters of the crustacean genus Bathynella
Vejdovsky. J. Linn. Soc. Zool., 27: 338-344, Pl. 20.
Camacho, A.I. & Hancock, P. 2012. Two new species of the genus Chilibathynella
Noodt, 1963 and Onychobathynella bifurcata gen. et sp. nov (Crustacea:
Syncarida: Parabathynellidae) from New South Wales, Australia. J. Nat.
Hist., 46 (3-4): 145-173.
Camacho, A.I., Dorda, B.A. & Rey, I. 2013. Old and new taxonomic tools: description
of a new genus and two new species of Bathynellidae from Spain with
morphological and molecular characters. J. Nat. Hist., 47: 393-1420. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1080/00222933.2013.768361.
Chappuis, P.A. 1929. Anaspidacea. In: Handbuch der Zooogie (W. Kükenthal-
Krumbach). Bd. 3: Lief 6: 594-606, Berlin; De Gruyter.
Chappuis, P.A. 1942. Eine Methode zur Untersuchung des Grundwasserfauna.
Acta sci. math. Nat. Kolozsvar., 6: 3-7.
Chatterjee, S. & Scotese, C.R. 1999. The breakup of Gondawana and the evolution
and biogeography of the Indian plate. Proc. Indian Natl. Sci. Acad., 65A:
397-425.
Coineau, N. 1996. Sous-classe des Eumalacostracés (Eumalacostraca Grobben,
1892). Super-ordre des Syncarides (Syncarida Packard, 1885). In: J. Forest
(ed.) Traité de Zoologie, Crustacés, 7(2): 897-954.
Coineau, N. 1998. Syncarida. In: Encyclopaedia Biospeologica (Eds. C. Juberthie
& V. Decu) Tome II, Moulis, Bucarest, Sociéte´ Biospéologie, 2: 863-876.
307
Ranga Reddy et al.
Coineau, N. 2000. Adaptations to interstitial groundwater life. In: Ecosystems of

the World 30. (Eds. H. Wilkens, D.C. Culver, & W. F. Humphreys) Vol. 30:
Subterranean Ecosystems. Elsevier : The Netherlands : 189-210.
Coineau, N. & Camacho, A.I. 2013. Superorder Syncarida Packard, 1885. Treatise
on Zoology–Anatomy, Taxonomy, Biology. In : Traité de Zoologie 4A (Eds.
J.C. von Vaupel Klein, M . Charmantier-Daures & F.R. Schram). Brill,
Leiden: 357-449.
Coineau, N. & Serban, E. 1973. Le genre Acanthobathynella Coineau
(Podophallocarida Bathynellacea) et la sous-famille des Acanthobathynellinae
nov. Ann. Spéléol., 28: 503-516.
Coineau, N. & Serban, E. 1978. Sur les Parabathynellidae (Podophallocarida,
Bathynellacea) d’Afrique du Sud, Ctenophallonella mutlumuviensis n. g. n.
sp. Bull. Mus. Nat. Hist. Nat., Paris, 510, (Zoologie), 351: 71-89.
Culver, D.C., Kane, T.C. & Fong, D.W. 1995. ‘Adaptations and natural selections in
caves: The evolution of Gammarus minus. Harvard Univ. Press: Cambridge,
USA: 223pp
Danielopol, D.L., Griebler, C., Ginatilaka, A. & Notenboom, J. 2003. Present state
and future prospects for groundwater ecosystems. Environ. Conserv., 30:
104-130.
Drewes, J. & Schminke, H.K. 2011. Number of families within Bathynellacea
(Malacostraca) and year of publication of their names, with redescription
of Baicalobathynella magna (Bazikalova, 1954) from Lake Baikal.
Crustaceana, 84: 1377-1401.
Eberhard, S.M., Halse, S.A., Williams, M.R., Scanlon, M.D., Cocking, J. &
Barron, H.J. 2009. Exploring the relationship between sampling efficiency
and short-range endemism for groundwater fauna in the Pilbara region,
Western Australia. Freshwat. Biol., 54: 885-901. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
j.1365-2427.2007.01863.x
Elia, B., 2009. A study of systematics, phylogeny and biogeography of
Bathynellacea (Crustacea, Malacostraca, Syncarida) of peninsular India
with the description of eight new species. Ph. D. Thesis, Acharya Nagarjuna
University, Nagarjunanagar.
Elia, B., Shaik, S. & Ranga Reddy, Y. 2016. Two new species of the genus
Habrobathynella Schminke, 1973 (Syncarida, Parabathynellidae) from
the southwestern peninsular India. Zootaxa, 4150(2): 149-167. http://doi.
org/10.11646/zootaxa.4150.2.4
Hakenkamp, C.C. & Palmer, P.A. 1999. The ecology of hyporheic meiofauna. In :
Streams and Ground Waters (Eds. J.B. Jones & P.J. Mulholland). Academic
Press, New York: 307-336.
Harries, D.B., Ware, F.J., Fischer, C.W., Biswas, J. & Kharpran-Daly, B.D. 2008. A
review of the biospeleology of Meghalaya, India. J. Cave Karst Stud., 70(3):
163-176.
Harvey, M.S. 2002. Short-range endemism among the Australian fauna: some
examples from non-marine environments. Invert. Syst., 16: 555-570. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1071/IS02009.
308
ICZN, 1999. Fourth edition. The International Commission for Zoological

Nomenclature. International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, London.
Karanovic, T. & Cooper, S.J.B. 2011a. Molecular and morphological evidence
for short range endemism in the Kinnecaris solitaria complex (Copepoda:
Parastenocarididae) with descriptions of seven new species. Zootaxa, 3026:
1-64.
Karanovic, T. & Cooper, S.J.B. 2011b. Third genus of parastenocaridid
copepods from Australia supported by molecular evidence (Copepoda,
Harpacticoida). Studies on Freshwater Copepoda, 293-337.
Lopretto, E.C. & Morrone, J.J. 1998. Anaspidacea, Bathynellacea (Crustacea,
Syncarida), generalised tracks, and the biogeographical relationships of
South America. Zool. Scr., 27: 311-318. doi:10.1111/j.1463-6409.1998.
tb00463.x
Malard, F., Dole-Olivier, M.-J., Mathieu, J. & Stoch, F. 2002. Sampling manual
for the assessment of regional groundwater biodiversity. European Project
PASCALIS. Available at: http//www.pascalis-project.com
Mani, M.S. 1974. Biogeographical evolution in India. In: Ecology and Biogeography
in India (Eds. M.S. Mani). Dr. W. Junk b. b. Publ., The Hague: 698-724.
Noodt, W. 1965. Natürliches System und Biogeographie der Syncarida
(Crustacea, Malacostraca). Gewäss. Abwäss. 37/38: 151-167.
Noodt, W. 1969. Bathynellidae vom Tropenrand in São Paulo
Naturwissenschaften 56: 144-145.
Ranga Reddy, Y. 2002a. Why neglect groundwater biology ? Curr. Sci., 83(8): 931-
932.
Ranga Reddy, Y. 2002b. Habrobathynella nagariunai n. sp., the second
representative of Bathynellacea (Crustacea, Syncarida) from groundwaters
of South India. Hydrobiol., 470: 37-43.
Ranga Reddy, Y. 2004a. Little known biodiversity of subterranean freshwater
habitats in India, with special reference to crustacean fauna. J. Bombay
nat. Hist. Soc., 101(1): 186-189.
Ranga Reddy, Y. 2004b. Existence of the Order Bathynellacea (Crustacea,
Syncarida) in South Asia: a new species of the genus Habrobathynella
Schminke from River Pennar, South India. J. Bombay nat. Hist. Soc.,
101(2): 277-284.
Ranga Reddy, Y. 2006. First Asian report of the genus Chilibathynella Noodt,
1963 (Bathynellacea, Syncarida), with the description and biogeographic
significance of a new species from Kotumsar Cave, India. Zootaxa, 1370:
23-37.
Ranga Reddy, Y. 2011.Gondwanan heritage in groundwater crustaceans of
peninsular India. Curr. Sci., 101(2): 156-158.
Ranga Reddy, Y., 2014. On the little-known hyporheic biodiversity of India, with
annotated checklist of copepods and bathynellaceans (Crustacea) and
a note on the disastrous implications of indiscriminate sand mining. J.
Threat. Taxa., 6 (1) : 5315-5326. http://dx.doi.org//dx.doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.
o3734.5315-26.
309
Ranga Reddy et al.
Ranga Reddy, Y. & Schminke, H.K. 2005. Morphological diversity of

habrobathynellids (Parabathynellidae, Bathynellacea) in India, with the
description of a new species. J. Nat. Hist., 39(24): 2217-2224.
Ranga Reddy, Y. & Schminke, H.K. 2005. A new bathynellid from India with
unusual mouthparts (Bathynellacea: Bathynellidae). J. Crust. Biol., 25(1):
25-30.
Ranga Reddy, Y. & Totakura, V.R. 2010. A taxonomic revision of the genus
Habrobathynella Schminke, 1973, with the description of four new species
from southeastern India (Crustacea, Malacostraca, Bathynellacea).
Zootaxa, 2532: 1-54.
Ranga Reddy, Y. & Totakura, V.R. 2012. A new phreatic species of the genus
Parvulobathynella (Malacostraca: Bathynellacea) from southeastern India,
along with an updated key to the species. J. Crust. Biol., 32(5): 871-882.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/193724012X645844.
Ranga Reddy, Y. & Totakura, V.R. 2015. Atopobathynella paraoperculata n. sp.
(Syncarida, Bathynellacea, Parabathynellidae) from the River Krishna,
southeastern India. Crustaceana, 88: 343-358.
Ranga Reddy, Y., Drewes, J. & Schminke, H.K. 2008. A new species of the genus
Atopobathynella Schminke, 1973 (Crustacea, Syncarida, Bathynellacea)
from the hyporheic zone of the River Godavari, South India. Zootaxa, 1829:
52-60.
Ranga Reddy, Y., Elia, B. & Totakura, V.R. 2011. First Asian record of the genus
Parvulobathynella (Malacostraca, Bathynellacea) with description of
two new species from southeastern India and amendment of the generic
diagnosis. J. Crust. Biol., 31(3): 485-508. http://dx.doi.org/10.1651/10-3435.1
Ranga Reddy, Y., Shaik, S. & Totakura, V.R. 2014. Habrobathynella borraensis n. sp.,
the first cavernicole of Habrobathynella Schminke, 1973 (Parabathynellidae,
Bathynellacea, Syncarida) from Borra Caves of southeastern India, with a
note on the taxonomic significance of paragnath morphology. J. Crust. Biol.,
34(1): 90-106. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/1937240X-00002210.
Ranga Reddy, Y., Shaik, S. & Totakura V.R. 2015. Camachobathynella
meghalayaensis n. gen., n. sp., the first Palearctic element of Bathynellacea
(Eumalacostraca: Bathynellidae) from northeastern India. J. Crust. Biol.,
35(5): 700-713. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/1937240X-00002355

Rust, J., Singh, H., Rajendra, S.R., McCann, T., Singh, L., Anderson, K., Sarkar,
N., Nascimbene, P.C., Stebner, F., Thomas, J.C., Kraemer, M. S.,
Williams, C.J., Engel, M.S., Sahni, A. & Grimaldi, D. 2010. Biogeographic
and evolutionary implications of a diverse paleobiota in amber from the
early Eocene of India. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 107: 18360-18365.
Schminke, H.K. 1972. Hexabathynella halophila gen. nov., sp. nov. und die Frage
nach der marinen Abkunft der Bathynellacea (Crustacea: Malacostraca).
Mar. Biol., 15: 282-287.
310
Schminke, H.K. 1973. Evolution, System und Verbreitungsgeschichte der Familie

Parabathynellidae (Bathynellacea, Malacostraca). Akad. Wíss. Lit.
Mikrofauna des Meeresboden, 24: 1-192.
Schminke, H.K. 1974. Mesozoic intercontinental relationships as evidenced by
bathynellid Crustacea (Syncarida: Malacostraca). Syst. Zool., 23: 157-164.
Schminke, H.K. 1975. Phylogenie und Verbreitungsgeschichte der Syncarida
(Crustacea, Malacostra. Verh. dt. Zool. Ges., Bochum 1974: 384-388.
Schminke, H.K. 1978. Die phylogenetische Stellung der Stygocarididae (Crustacea:
Syncarida) Unter besondere Berücksichtingung morphologischer
Ähnlichkeiten mit Larvenformen der Euricada. Z. Zool. Syst. Evol., 16: 225-
239.
Schminke, H.K. 1979. Nannobathynella eburnea sp. n. und die Verbreitung der
Bathynellidae (Bathynellacea, Syncarida) in den Tropen. Arch. Hydrobiol.,
86: 112-124.
Schminke, H.K. 1980. Agnathobathynella ecclesi gen. n., sp. n. aus Malawi und
die Formenvielfalt der Familie Bathynellidae (Crustacea, Bathynellacea).
Bijdr. Dierk., 50: 145-154.
Schminke, H.K. 1981. Perspectives in the study of the zoogeography of interstitial
Crustacea: Bathynellacea (Syncarida). Int. J. Speleol., 11: 83-89.
Schminke, H.K. 2011. Arthropoda: Crustacea: Malacostraca: Bathynellacea
Parabathynellidae. In: Invertebrate Fauna of the World 5, National Institute
of Biological Resources, Seo-gu Incheon, Republic of Korea, 21: 1-244.
Schminke, H.K. 2014. Freshwater origin of Bathynellacea (Malacostraca).
Crustaceana, 87(10): 1225-1242. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/15685403-
00003322.
Schminke, H.K. & Wells, J.B.J. 1974. Nannobathynella africana sp. n. and the
zoogeography of the family Bathynellidae (Bathynellacea, Malacostraca).
Arch. Hydrobiol., 73: 122-129.
Schminke, H.K. & Cho, J.-L. 2013. Biology and ecology of Parabathynellidae
(Crustacea, Bathynellacea) – a review. Crustaceana, 86: 1266-1273.
Schram, F.R. 1977. Paleozoogeography of Late Paleozoic and Triassic Malacostraca.
Syst Biol., 26(4): 367-379. doi: 10.1093/sysbio/26.4.367
Schram, F.R. 1986. Crustacea. New York: Oxford University press.
Schram, F. R., 2008. Does biogeography have a future in globalized world with
globalized faunas? Contrib. Zool., 77: 127-133.
Serban, E. 1972. Bathynella (Podophallocarida, Bathynellacea). Trav. Inst. de
Spéléol. "Emile Racovitza", 11: 11-224, 82 figs., 17 tabs.
Serban, E. 1980. La mandibule et l’individualisation des ensembles évolutifs
majeurs dans l’ordre des Bathynellacea (Malacostraca, Podophallocarida).
Bijdr. Dierk., 50(1): 155-189.
Shaik, S. 2016. Biodiversity of Indian caves and hyporheic habitats, with special
reference to phylogenetic systematics and biogeography of Copepoda,
Bathynellacea and Isopoda (Crustacea). Ph. D. Thesis, Acharya Nagarjuna
University, Nagarjunanagar.
311
Ranga Reddy et al.
Siewing, R. 1959. Syncarida. In: Bronn, H.G. (ed.) Klassen und Ordnungen des
Tierreichs. Akademische Verlagsgesellsch. Geest & Portig, Leipizig.
Thomson. V(1)121: 4(2): 1-121.
Totakura, V. R., 2013. Biodiversity of subterranean groundwaters of India, with
special reference to Bathynellacea and Copepoda (Crustacea). Ph. D. Thesis,
Acharya Nagarjuna University, Nagarjunanagar.
Totakura, V.R. & Ranga Reddy, Y. 2014. Three new species of the genus
Habrobathynella Schminke, 1973 (Syncarida, Parabathynellidae) from the
peninsular India. Zootaxa, 3826(1): 139-168. http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/
zootaxa.3826.1.4
Totakura, V.R., Ranga Reddy, Y. & Shaik, S. 2014. Three new species of
Parastenocarididae (Copepoda, Harpacticoida) from India. Zootaxa,
3821(5): 501-537. http://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.3821.5.1 .
Totakura, V.R. & Ranga Reddy, Y. 2015. Monograph. Groundwater cyclopoid
copepods of peninsular India, with description of eight new species. Zootaxa,
3945(1): 1-93. http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.3945.1.1
Vejdovsky, F. 1882. Tierische Organismen der Brunnengewässer von Prag. Prag
70 pp.
Wilson, G.D.F. & Ranga Reddy, Y. 2011. Andhracoides shabuddin gen. nov.,
sp. nov., a new phreatoicidean isopod (Crustacea, Hypsimetopidae) from
hypogean aquatic habitats in Andhra Pradesh, India. Zootaxa, 2869: 35-53.
Wilson, G.D.F., Shaik, S. & Ranga Reddy, Y. 2015. A new species of Andhracoides
Wilson & Ranga Reddy, 2011 (Isopoda: Hypsimetopidae) from Belum Cave,
Andhra Pradesh, India, with a phylogenetic review of the family. J. Crust.
Biol., 35(2): 216-240. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/1937240X-00002333.
312
Chapter 20
CRUSTACEA : DECAPODA
(Shrimps and Crabs)
K. Valarmathi
Abstract
The order Decapoda which comprises the familiar crustaceans like shrimps and
crabs are an important group of the class Malacostraca. A global estimate accounts
655 species of caridean shrimps and 1,476 species of brachyuran crabs are available
in freshwater. In India two families of the Caridean shrimps namely Atyidae and
Palaemonidae are well represented by 118 species and 14 genera. Among the
brachyuran crabs106 species belonging to 40 genera and 5 families are known from
freshwater. This includes 100 species of primary freshwater crabs placed under
the families Gecarcinucidae and Potamidae; and 6 species of secondary freshwater
crabs belonging to the families Hymenosomatidae, Sesarmidae and Varunidae.
Key words: Crustacea, Decapoda, Caridea, Brachyura, Freshwater, India.
Introduction
The order Decapoda is a remarkably diverse group of the class Malacostracans
both morphologically and ecologically and is a group of great economic and
environmental importance (Dixon, 2003). The decapod crustaceans possess ten
pairs of thoracic legs. The first one to 3 pairs of legs are modified in different groups
to carryout some specialized functions and they are often considered as important
taxonomic characters to differentiate allied taxa. Out of 15,000 described species
of decapod crustaceans about 3000 species (ca. 20%) are considered as freshwater
species, which includes caridean shrimps, freshwater crayfish, brachyuran and
anomuran freshwater crabs (De Grave et al., 2008; Yeo et al., 2008; Vogt, 2014). The
freshwater carideans are dominated by the nearly exclusively freshwater Atyidae
and the Palaemonidae but these families also include many brackish water and
marine representatives (De Grave et al., 2008; Vogt, 2014). At present 45 genera
are recognized under the family Ayidae and the genus Caridina is numerically
dominated. The species rich genus Macrobrachium of the family Palaemonidae is
well represented in many freshwater ecosystems.
An estimate of 6800 species of brachyuran crabs are known globally of
which most of them are marine but one fifth of them are strictly freshwater
forming the largest assemblage within Brachyura which in turn forms a species
rich group of freshwater Decapod crustaceans (Cumberlidge et al. 2009). The
freshwater crabs can be divided into primary freshwater crabs that belong to the
families Gecarcinucidae, Potamidae, Potamonautidae, Pseudothelphusidae and

313
Valarmathi
Trichodactylidae, and the secondary freshwater crabs that have representatives

in Gecarcinucidae, Goneplacidae, Hymenosomautidae, Ocypodidae, Sesarmidae,
Portunidae, Xanthidae and Varunidae (Yeo et al., 2008; Vogt, 2014). Among the 5
families primary freshwater crabs of the families Gecarcinucidae and Potamidae
are well established in India and a few species of secondary freshwater crabs
belonging to the families Hymenosomautidae, Sesarmidae, and Varunidae are
reported in freshwater zones.
Fossil Record
The fossil record of freshwater decapod crustaceans is generally very sparse and
from India Potamon sivalense was described by Glaessner (1933) from the Siwalik
beds (Middle Miocene to Pliocene) in the northern part of the Indian Subcontinent,
but there is no information on the exact location and age (Klaus et al., 2011).
Historical Resume
Caridea: As for as the Caridean shrimps are concerned Fabricius (1798) described
three new species of Palaemon (=Macrobrachium) from Southern India. Much
later Henderson and Matthai (1910) reported the distribution of 9 species of
Palaemon (=Macrobrachium) including three new species from Southern India.
Kemp (1913, 1917, 1918, 1924 and 1925) made a significant contribution to the
Indian decapod taxonomy and described many new species. Chopra and Tiwari
(1947) reported the distribution of 3 species of Caridina including a new species
and 3 species of Macrobrachium from then Patna State. Subsequently, Tiwari
(1947) provided preliminary description of major characters of the two new species
of Palaemon (=Macrobrachium) collected from Bengal. The contribution made by
Tiwari (1949a,b, 1952,1955a,b and 1963) is highly commendable which resulted
in addition of many new species of freshwater shrimps from India and adjoining
countries. Pillai (1964) reported four species of Atyid shrimps from Kerala and later
a new species Caridina natarajani was described by Tiwari and Pillai (1968). From
Dharwar area of Karnataka Jalihal et al. (1984) erected five new species of the genus
Caridina. Jayachandran and Joseph (1985a,b, 1988a,b,c, 1989), Jayachandran
(1984, 1987,1991,1992,2001 and 2002) made a noteworthy contribution to the
taxonomy, distribution and bioecology of palaemonids shrimps of Kerala and they
have also described many new species from there. While studying the freshwater
prawns of Dharwar area of Karnataka Jalihal et al. (1988) recorded 10 species of
Macrobrachium of which three species were new to science. While investigating the
faunal resources of West Bengal (North & South 24 Parganas districts) Nandi et
al. (1993 & 1999) reported some Atyid and Palaemonid shrimps from West Bengal.
Richard and Chandran (1994) studied the freshwater prawns of the family Atyidae
from Chennai (=Madras) and reported the occurrence of four species of Caridina.
The faunal inventory of Meghalayan Palaemonid prawns by Ghosh and Ghattak,
(1999) revealed the distribution of 9 species of Macrobrachium.
Maya Deb (2000) and Ghosh and Roy (2000) reported 8 species of
Macrobrachium from Tripura. While studying the distribution of prawns in Assam,
Dutta (2001) noticed the presence of Caridina weberi de Man, and 8 species of
Macrobrachium. Mariappan et al. (2002a) reported the distribution of 7 species of
314
Crustacea: Decapoda (Shrimps and Crabs)
Macrobrachium in River Cauvery, Tamilnadu. Roy et al. (2003) studied the decapod
fauna of Sikkim and reported Macrobrachium hendersoni (de Man) along with six
species of crabs. From Manipur Roy et al. (2004) reported 10 species Decapods
comprising 8 species of Macrobrachium. Jayachandran and Raji (2004) described a
new beautifully colored M. ornatus from the Muvattupuzha River at Pothanikkad,
Kerala. Ghosh et al. (2005) while investigating the freshwater prawns of Andhra
Pradesh reported the occurrence of five species of Macrobrachium. Jayachandran
and Raji (2005) during the exploration of Western Ghats described three new
species of Macrobrachium from Kerala. Almelkar and Sankolli (2006) described
two new species of Macrobrachium from Mahrashtra. From Kanchipuram and
Thiruvallur district of Tamilnadu Mariappan and Richard (2006) recorded 6
species of Caridina including a new species and 3 species of Macrobrachium.
Raghunathan and Valarmathi (2007a,b) reported 4 species of Caridina and
4 species of Macrobrachium from a paddy field located in Singaperumal Koil
near Chennai and 3 species of Caridina and 5 species of Macrobrachium from
Bannerghatta National Park, Karnataka. Jayachandran et al. (2007) described a
new species of freshwater prawn namely M. kulsiense from the Kulsi River, one
of the tributaries of River Bramaputra (India). Tessa Thomas and Jayachandran
(2007) reported the occurrence of C. jalihali for the first time outside its type
locality from paddy fields and adjoining channels at Anchal, Kollam District and
recommended it as a candidate species for aquarium. Patil et al. (2007) while
exploring the freshwater Decapods of Narth Sagar wetland noticed the presence
of M. lamarrei (H. M. Edwards) and M. kistnense (Tiwari). Klotz (2008) described
a new species namely M. agwi from Alipurduar District, West Bengal. Valarmathi
(2009) made an investigation of the Atyid and Palaemonid Shrimps of Southern
India. Silas and Jayachandran (2010) described C. mathiassi from Southern
Western Ghats. From Vamanpuram River, Kerala Jayachandran and Thomas
(2012) described a new species namely C. vithuraensis. Thomas, (2011) described
C. chalakkudiensis, C. keralensis from Kerala and this information is available
in her thesis but there were no further published information about this species
and moreover the validity of the species is doubtful. Unnikrishnan et al. (2011)
described M. madhusoodani from Ithikara River Kerala. Subsequently Pillai and
Unnikrishnan (2013) found a new species M. snpurii from Kerala. Valarmathi and
Raghunathan (2013) studied the freshwater shrimps of Karnataka and reported
6 species of Caridina and 14 species Macrobrachium from the state. Pillai et al.
(2015) described M. indianum from Pamba River in Kerala.
Brachyura: The Indian freshwater crabs are poorly investigated (Cumberlidge
et al. 2009, Pati and Sharma, 2014) and the earlier contributions were made by
Wood-Mason (1871), Henderson (1893, 1912 and 1913), Doflein (1900) etc. Alcock
(1909a,b, 1910) made a significant contribution to the Indian carcinology. The
contribution made by other workers like Chhapkar (1956) Ramakrishna (1950),
Bott (1970), Ramakrishna (1977), Dutta (1983), Pretzman (1984), Krishnamurthy
(1995), Ghosh and Ghatak (2000) and Srivastava (2005) is worth mentioning.
Bahir and Yeo (2005) revised the genus Oziotelphusa and added 8 new species
to this genus. Again Bahir and Yeo (2007) made a detailed revision of the
gecarcinucid crabs of southern India and they have reported 23 species belonging
315
Valarmathi
to 9 genera which includes the description of 10 new species and 6 new genera. At
present the taxonomy, phylogeny and status of freshwater crabs of Western ghats
is progressing well (Ghatak & Ghosh, 2008; Pati & Sharma 2011,2013, 2014a,b;
Klause et al., 2014; Pati and Sudha Devi, 2015a,b; Pati et al., 2016). Recently Pati
and Singh (2017) added a new species of Himalayapotamon from Uttarakand.
Valarmathi and Mitra (In Press) studied the decapods crustaceans of Himachal
Pradesh and Mitra (In press) investigated the availability of freshwater crabs in
Mizoram.
Diversity
A global estimation of freshwater shrimps reveals that 655 species caridean
shrimps are available in freshwaters (De Grave et al., 2008) and the present
investigation shows that in India 118 species of shrimps belonging to 14 genera
and 2 families are available in freshwater. It is numerically dominated by the
genus Macrobrachium of the family Palaemonidae and Caridina of the family
Atyidae. Out of 6,800 globally known species of brachyuran crabs, a total of 1,476
species under 238 genera are considered as freshwater crabs (Yeo et al., 2008) and
in India (Table.1) at present 106 species of brachyuran crabs belonging to 40 genera
and 5 families are reported from freshwater. This includes 100 species of primary
freshwater crabs placed under the families Gecarcinucidae and Potamidae, and 6
species of secondary freshwater crabs belonging to the families Hymenosomatidae,
Sesarmidae and Varunidae.
Subphylum CRUSTACEA Brünnich, 1772
Class MALACOSTRACA Latreille, 1802
Subclass EUMALACOSTRACA Grobben, 1892
Superorder EUCARIDA Calman, 1904
Order DECAPODA Latreille, 1802
Suborder PLEOCYEMATA Burkenroad, 1963
Table 1. General Classification and genera wise species distribution of

freshwater Decapod crustaceans in India
Number
Infraorder/Section/Superfamily/Family Genera
of species
Infraorder CARIDEA Dana, 1852 Atyopsis Chace, 1983 2
Superfamily ATYOIDEA de Haan, 1849 Paratya Miers, 1882 2
Family ATYIDAE de Haan, 1849 Caridina H. Milne Edwards, 26
1837[in H. Milne Edwards,
1834-1840]
Superfamily PALAEMONOIDEA Rafinesque, Arachnochium Wowor and 2
1815 Ng, 2010
Family PALAEMONIDAE Rafinesque, 1815 Exopalaemon Holthuis, 1950 2
Leander Desmarest, 1849 1
Leandrites Holthuis, 1950 1
Leptocarpus Holthuis, 1950 3
316
Number
of species
Superfamily PALAEMONOIDEA Rafinesque, Macrobrachium Bate, 1868 68
1815 Nematopalaemon Holthuis, 2
Family PALAEMONIDAE Rafinesque, 1815 1950
Palaemon Weber, 1795 6
Rhopalaemon Ashelby and 1
De Grave, 2010
Troglindicus Sankolli and 1
Shenoy, 1979
Urocaridella Borradaile, 1915 1
Infraorder BRACHYURA Latreille, 1802 Arcithelphusa Pati and Sudha 1
Section EUBRACHYURA de Saint Laurent, Devi, 2015
1980 Austrothelphusa Bott, 1969 1
Superfamily GECARCINUCOIDEA Rathbun, Baratha Bahir and Yeo, 2
1904
Barytelphusa Alcock, 1909 4
Family GECARCINUCIDAE Rathbun, 1904
Ceylonthelphusa Bott, 1
Cylindrothelphusa Alcock, 1
1909
Gecarcinucus H. Milne 2
Edwards, 1844
Ghatiana Pati & Sharma, 4
2014
Globitelphusa Alcock, 1909 4
Gubernatoriana Bott, 1970 5
Lamella Bahir and Yeo, 2007 1
Inglethelphusa Bott, 1970 1
Liotelphusa Alcock, 1909 4
Maydelliathelphusa Bott, 5
1969
Oziotelphusa Müller, 1887 7
Perbrinckia Bott, 1969 1
Pilarta Bahir and Yeo, 2007 1
Sartoriana Bott, 1969 2
Snaha Bahir and Yeo, 2007 2
Sommaniathelphusa Bott, 1
1968
Spiralothelphusa Bott, 1968 3
Travancoriana Bott, 1969 7
Vanni Bahir and Yeo, 2007 7
Vela Bahir and Yeo, 2007 3
317
Valarmathi
Number
of species
Superfamily POTAMOIDEA Ortmann, 1896 Acanthopotamon Kemp, 1918 3
Family POTAMIDAE Ortmann, 1896 Alcomon Yeo and Ng, 2007 2
Subfamily POTAMINAE Ortmann, 1896 Himalayapotamon 9
Pretzmann, 1966
Lobothelphusa Bouvier, 1917 1
Subfamily POTAMISCINAE Bott, 1970 Eosamon Yeo and Ng, 2007 1
Indochinamon Yeo and Ng, 5
2007
Larnaudia Bott, 1966 1
Potamiscus Alcock, 1909 5
Quadramon Yeo and Ng, 2007 1
Tiwaripotamon Bott, 1970 1
Trichopotamon Dai and Chen, 1
1984
Superfamily MAJOIDEA Samouelle, 1819 Hymenicoides Kemp, 1917 1
Family HYMENOSOMATIDAE MacLeay, Neorhynchoplax Sakai, 1938 1
1838
Superfamily GRAPSOIDEA MacLeay, 1838 Geosesarma De Man, 1892 2
Family SESARMIDAE Dana, 1851
Family VARUNIDAE H. Milne Edwards, 1853 Pyxidognathus A. Milne- 1
Edwards, 1879
Varuna H. Milne Edwards, in 1
Audouin et al., 1830
Total 224
Distribution: With the exception of Antarctica, freshwater caridean shrimps

are available in all the main biogeographical region. The Oriental region is species
rich and Nearctic region is having lowest species diversity (De Grave et al, 2008). In
India the decapods are widely distributed and available in various types of inland
aquatic habitats like Rivers, rivulets, lakes, streams, ponds, water seepages etc.
Endemism
Due to their restricted distribution and isolation, the freshwater decapods have
a great number of endemic species. Being one of the mega biodiversity countries,
India has numerous endemic species most of them are restricted to its biodiversity
hotspots like Western Ghats and Northeastern Himalaya. Recently Raghavan et al.,
(2015) made a detailed analysis on the Endemic freshwater decapod crustaceans of
Western Ghats region and their study reveals that forty-nine species and six sub-
species of caridean shrimps in four genera (Caridina, Leptocarpus, Macrobrachium
and Troglindicus) and two families (Atyidae and Palaemonidae) occur in the
Western Ghats region, of which 35 species and three sub-species (69%) are
endemic. They have also emphasized that as far as the diversity and distribution
318
of gecarcinucid crabs are concerned thirty-nine species belonging to 14 genera are

known to occur in peninsular India, of which 36 species (92%) are endemic to the
Western Ghats. The following decapod genera namely Troglindicus Sankolli and
Shenoy, Baratha Bahir and Yeo, Barytelphusa Alcock, Cylindrothelphusa Alcock,
Gecarcinucus H. Milne Edwards, Ghatiana Pati & Sharma, Gubernatoriana Bott,
Inglethelphusa Bott, Lamella Bahir and Yeo, Pilarta Bahir and Yeo, Snaha Bahir
and Yeo, Travancoriana Bott, Vanni Bahir and Yeo, Vela Bahir and Yeo, are
endemic to India (Dev Roy, 2014). Apart from the species described under these
genera there are many endemic species which are known only from their type
locality. Many decapod species described from northeastern parts of India are also
mostly narrow range endemics.
Biology and life Cycle

The females of both the caridean shrimps as well as the freshwater brachyuran
crabs carry fertilized eggs, the availability of ovigerous females throughout the year
shows that they are continuous breeders (Valarmathi,2009, Pathre and Meena,
2010) but they have specific season when the breeding activity is in peek. Many
species of cardiean shrimps show abbreviated to a lengthy larval development. The
highly abbreviated larval development is characterized by a minimum number of
large size eggs where as the species with a huge number of small sized eggs shows
prolonged larval development. The larval biology of Atyid and Palaemonid shrimps
have been studied by many workers in India (Ravindranath, 1981, Jalihal et al.,
1993, Almelkar et al., 2006, Jalihal et al., 2006a,b,c, Mariappan and Richard, 2007).
The primary freshwater crabs undergo direct development in which the large,
yolky eggs hatch directly into juvenile crabs whereas the secondary freshwater
crabs which are basically marine but adapted to the freshwater or semi terrestrial
environments have highly abbreviated development or possess one or more larval
stages (Kaur et al., 2006, Yeo et al., 2008).
Habitat: The decapod crustaceans are available in most of the lentic and
lotic freshwater ecosystems like rivers, lakes, ponds, streams etc. They are mostly
nocturnal and during the day they hide themselves under the small boulders,
crevices, under the soil, vegetation debris etc. They are part of the macrobenthos
and live among the aquatic vegetation, leaf litter etc. Shrimps are exclusively
aquatic whereas the crabs are adapted to a semi terrestrial mode of life.
Significance
Freshwater decapods have many potential candidates which can be utilized in
aquaculture, local wild fishing industries, aquarium trade, medicinal purpose
etc. Holthuis (1912) identified many decapod custaceans which have commercial
value. Jalihal et al. (1994) suggested the Atyid shrimps of the genus Caridina
for experimental biology. Mariappan et al. (2002b) recommended M. nobili as a
candidate species for rural nutrition. M. rosenbergii which is commonly known as
scambi is wildly cultured in India and other countries M. malcolmsonii supports
many aquaculture industries in south India. Apart from that M. gangeticum, M.
idella idella, M. idella georgii, M. divakarani, M. equidens, M. sulcatus, M. dayanum,
M.lamarrei lamarrei, M. lamarrei lamarroides, M. mirabile, M. scabriculum, M.
319
Valarmathi
rude, M. villosimanus are either marketed locally or exported (Jayachandran and

Indira, 2010). Rice cum prawn culture (‘Oru Nellum oru Meenum’ in Malayalam
or One rice One fish programme developed by Kumarakom Unit of Kerala
Agricultural University, under the leader ship of Dr. K.G. Padmakumar) is a win
win Land Use model and in this system the rice and fish are grown alternatively
or in sequence (Jayachandran and Indira, 2010). Recently Jayachandran (2006)
and Jayachandran et al. (2005, 2006) have introduced the prawns and shrimps of
ornamental value to the aquarium.
Freshwater crabs are consumed by many people because of their delicacy,
medicinal and nutritive value. Paragonimiasis, also known as endemic haemoptysis,
oriental lung fluke infection, pulmonary distomiasis, parasitical haemoptysis,
parasitare haemopte, Gregarinosis pulmonum, etc. is one of the most important
food-borne parasitic zoonoses caused by one or more of the trematode species of
the genus Paragonimus. The freshwater crabs Potamiscus manipurensis, Alcomon
superciliosum and Maydelliathelphusa lugubris were identified as a potential
hosts of Paragonimus. Ingestion of undercooked crabs and raw crab extract were
the major mode of infection and Paragonimiasis is reported in various parts of
Northeastern states of India (Singh et al., 2012).
Threats and Conservation

The major threat for all the decapod crustaceans are habitat destruction, flow
modification (from dams and alteration of drainage patterns), sedimentation (from
soil erosion), pollution (from mining, pesticides, and fertilizers which leads to
eutrophication and toxic algal blooms), over-harvesting of species and competition
from introduced species (Cumberlidge, 2014). Almost all the freshwater ecosystems
face serious threats due the anthropogenic activities like various kinds of pollution,
sand mining, human occupancy and encroachment of freshwater ecosystems etc.,
which affect the freshwater decapods either directly or indirectly. Because of their
nutritive and medicinal value and economic importance in some areas the shrimps
and crabs have been over exploited by the locals and fishermen. Over exploitation
and wastage of juveniles and small sized sub adults are common factors that we
can observe in many areas. Mariappan and Balasundaram (1999) observed the
mass mortality of Macrobrachium juveniles in River Cauvery. Jayachandran and
Indira (2010) stated that in wild condition Vembanad Lake is the natural abode for
M. rosenbergii and during the peak breeding season (June to December) nearly 40
to 60% of the catch constituted berried females. This is a major threat to the wild
population of the species in the lake and they have also mentioned that freshwater
prawns form an important dollar earning commodity, biologically rich in diversity,
proper managerial planning is absolutely necessary for sustainable utilization of
these resources. Most of the freshwater decapod crustaceans are narrow range
endemics and the above said facts leads them to face serious threat. Recently
Ragavan et al., (2015) made an assessment on the threat and conservation of
Western Ghat Decapod crustaceans. Their study reveals that Macrobrachium
gurudeve, a Vulnerable palaemonid, restricted to a single location in the east-
flowing Bhavani River in the state of Kerala. The two vulnerable species of crabs
namely Oziothelphusa biloba is known from two closely located sites in Kerala and
O. wagrakarowensis occurs in two locations in Karnataka.
320
Future Prospects
Among the crustaceans the decapods gain more attention due to its aquaculture
potential and economic importance. Though we have more than 100 species of
shrimps only a few species are considered for aquaculture and very less number of
species are found supporting the local wild fisheries. Although many species have
ornamental value at global level, in India the awareness and utility of ornamental
shrimps is sporadic. Inspite of their medicinal value and protein content the
conception of freshwater crabs is very limited and there are no reports of culture of
any freshwater crabs. There are many beautifully colored freshwater crabs which
can be considered for aquarium. Studies on the freshwater Decapod Crustaceans
in India is very scanty and many areas are still unexplored. When compared to the
global scenario, further extensive and intensive taxonomic, molecular, phylogenetic
and other eco-biological investigations in India is essential.
Acknowledgments
The author is thankful to Dr. Kailash Chandra, Director, Zoological Survey of
India, Kolkata for providing research facilities, guidance and encouragement.
References
Alcock, A. 1909a. Diagnoses of new species and varieties of freshwater crabs. Nos.
1-3. Rec. Indian Mus., 3(3): 243-252.
Alcock, A. 1909b. Diagnoses of new species and varieties of freshwater crabs. Rec.
Indian Mus., 3(4): 375-381.
Alcock, A. 1910. Catalogue of the Indian Decapod Crustacea in the collection of the
Indian Museum. Part 1.Brachyura. Fasciculus II. The Indian Freshwater
Crabs – Potamonidae. Trusees of the Indian Museum, Calcutta, pp. 1-134,
pls. 1-11.
Almelkar G.B. & Sankolli K.N. 2006. Description of two new prawns of the
genus Macrobrachium Bate, 1868 (family Palaemonidae)-Macrobrachium
bombayense and Macrobrachium kulkarni from Konkan, Maharashtra,
India. In: Freshwater Prawns: Advances in Biology, Aquaculture &
Marketing. Proceedings of Freshwater Prawns 2003, International
Symposium on Freshwater Prawns, 20-23 august 2003, Kochi, India (ed. By
C.M. Nair & D.D. Nambudiri), Allied Publishers, New n Delhi, India. pp.
186-195.
Almelkar G.B., Sankolli, K.N. and Shenoy Shakuntala., 2006. Laboratory
metamorphosis of Macrobrachium bombayense Almelkar & Sankolli,
2006 and M. kulkarni Almelkar & Sankolli 2006 (Palaemonidae) from
Konkan, Maharashtra, India. In: Freshwater Prawns: Advances in Biology,
Aquaculture & Marketing. Proceedings of Freshwater Prawns 2003,
International Symposium on Freshwater Prawns, 20-23 august 2003, Kochi,
India (ed. By C.M. Nair & D.D. Nambudiri), Allied Publishers, New Delhi,
India. pp. 196-211.
Bahir, M.M. and Yeo, D.C.J. 2005. A revision of the genus Oziotelphusa Müller,
1887 (Crustacea: Decapoda: Parathelphusidae), with descriptions of eight
new species. The Raffles Bulletin of Zoology, Supplement No. 12: 77-120.
321
Valarmathi
Bahir M.M and Yeo D.C.J 2007. The Gecarcinucid freshwater crabs of southern
India (Crustacea: Decapoda: Brachyura). Raffles B. Zool. 16: 309-354
Bott, R. 1970. Die Süßwasserkrabben von Europa, Asien, Australien und
ihretammesgeschichte. Eine Revision der Potamoidea und Parathelphusoidea
(Crustacea, Decapoda), vol 526. AbhSenckenbNaturforsch Ges, Frankfurt,
pp 1-338.
Bouvier, E.L. 1918. Sur quelques crustacés décapodes recueillis par M. Guy
Babault dans les eaux douces de l’Inde Anglaise. Bulletin du Muséum
national d’Histoire naturelle, Paris [1er série] 24: 386-393.
Chhapgar, B.F. 1956. Extension of range of the freshwater crab Paratelphusa
(Oziotelphusa) hydrodromus (Herbst). Journal of the Bombay Natural
History Society, 53(4): 732.
Chopra, B. and Tiwari, K.K. 1947. Decapoda Crustacea of the Patna State, Orissa.
Rec. Indian Mus., 45: 213-224.
Cumberlidge, N. 2014. Freshwater decapod conservation: recent progress and
future challenges. In: Advances in freshwater decapod systematics and
biology/by Darren C.J. Yeo, Neil Cumberlidge and Sebastian Klause
(editors). Crustaceana monographs: 19: 53-69.
Cumberlidge, N., Ng, P.K.L., Yeo, D.C.J., Magalhaes, C., Campos, M.R., Alvarez,
F., Naruse, T., Daniels, S.R., Esser, L.J., Attipoe, F.Y.K., Clotilde-Ba, F.L.,
Darwall, W., McIvor, A., Baillie, J.E.M., Collen, B. and Ram, M. 2009.
Freshwater crabs and the biodiversity crisis: Importance, threats, status,
and conservation challenges. Biological Conservation, 142: 1665-1673.
Deb, M. 2000. Custacea: Decapoda (Shrimps). Zool. Surv. India. State Fauna
series. Fauna of Tripura. 7(4): 263-266.
De Grave, S., Cai,Y and Anker, A. 2008. Global diversity of shrimps (Crustacea:
Decapoda: Caridea) in freshwater. Hydrobiologia. 595: 287-293.
Dixon. C.J., Ahyong, S.T. and Schram, F.R. 2003. A new hypothesis of decapod
phylogeny. Crustaceana, 76(8): 935-975.
Dutta, N.K. 1983. Studies on the systematics and distribution of crabs in Assam.
J. Bombay nat. Hist. Soc., 80(2): 539-548, figs. 1-6.
Dutta, N.K. 2001. Studies on the systematics and distribution of prawns in Assam.
Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 98(1): 18-25.
Fabricius, J.C. 1798. Supplementum Entomologiae systematicae : 1-572.
Ghatak, S.S. and Ghosh, S.K. 2008. Crustacea : Decapoda : Palaemonidae :
Gecarcinucidae. Fauna of Goa, State Fauna Series, 16: 165-172. Published
by the Director, Zool. Surv. India, Kolkata.
Ghosh, H.C., Ghatak, S.S. 1999. Crustacea: Decapoda: Potamonidae. Zool. Surv.
India. Fauna of Meghalaya, State Fauna Series, 4(Part 9): 569-576.
Ghosh, H.C., Ghatak, S.S. 2000. Crustacea: Decapoda: Potamonidae. Zool. Surv.
India. Fauna of Tripura, State Fauna Series, 7(Part 4): 273-275.
322
Ghosh, S.K. 1998. Crustacea: Decapoda: Grapsidae. State Fauna Series, Fauna of

West Bengal, Zoological Survey of India, 3(10): 329-343.
Ghosh, S.K. and Roy, T., 2000. Palaemonidae (Crustacea: Decapoda). Zool. Surv.
India. Fauna of Tripura, State Fauna Series, 7(4): 267-272.
Ghosh, S.K., Ghatak, S.S., and Roy, T. 2005. Crustacea : Decapoda: Palaemonidae.
Zool. Surv. India. Fauna of Andhra Pradesh, State Fuana Series, 5(Part 5):
551-558.
Glaessner, M.F., 1933. Tertiary crabs in the collection of the British Museum. The
annals and magazine of natural history, zoology, botany and geology, 12:
12-13.
Henderson, J.R. 1893. A contribution to Indian Carcinology. Transaction of the
Linnaean Society of London (Zoology), Series, 2, 5: 325-458.
Henderson, J.R. 1912. Description of a new species of Freshwater Crab from
Southern India. Rec. Indian Mus., 8(2): 111-112.
Henderson, J.R. 1913. A new variety of freshwater crab from Travancore. Rec.
Indian Mus., 9(2): 47-49.
Henderson, J.R. and Matthai. 1910. On certain species of Palaemon from south
India. Rec. Indian. Mus., 5: 277-305.
Holthuis, L.B. 1980. FAO Species catalogue. Vol. 1, Shrimps and prawns of the
world. An annotated catalogue of species of interest to fisheries. FAO Fish.
Synop., 125(1): 1-261.
Jalihal D.R., Almelkar, G.B. and Sankolli, K.N. 1994. Atyid shrimps of the genus
Caridina H. Milne Edwards. 1837. Potential Crustacean material for
experimental biology. Crustceana, 66(2): 178-183.
Jalihal, D.R., Sankolli, K.N. and Shenoy, S. 1993. Evolution of larval developmental
patterns and the process of freshwaterization in the prawn genus
Macrobrachium Bate, 1868 (Decapoda, Palaemonidae). Crustaceana, 65(3):
365-376.
Jalihal, D.R. Sankolli, K.N. and Shenoy, S. 2006. Larval development of
Macrobrachium sankollii Jalihal and Shenoy, 1988 and M. tiwarii Jalihal,
Shenoy and Sankolli, 1988, from River Malaprabha, Karnataka, India.
In: Freshwater Prawns: Advances in Biology, Aquaculture & Marketing.
Proceedings of Freshwater Prawns 2003, International Symposium on
Freshwater Prawns, 20-23 august 2003, Kochi, India (ed. By C.M. Nair &
D.D. Nambudiri), Allied Publishers, New Delhi, India: 212-227.
Jalihal, D.R., Shenoy, S and Sankolli, K.N. 1984. Five new species of freshwater
Atyid shrimps of the genus Caridina H.Milne Edwards from Dharwar area
(Karnataka state, India). Rec. zool. Sur. India, Occ. Paper No., 69: 1-40.
Jalihal.D.R., Shenoy, S. and Sankolli, K.N.1988. Freshwater prawns of the genus
Macrobrachium Bate, 1868 (Crustacea, Decapoda, Palaemonidae) from
Karnataka, India. Rec. zool. Sur. India, Occ. Paper No., 112: 1-74.
323
Valarmathi
Jalihal, D.R., Shenoy, S. and Sankolli, K.N. 2006a. Partially abbreviated life
history of the riverine Atyid prawn Caridina gurneyi Jalihal, Shenoy and
Sankolli, 1984, from River Malaprabha, Karnataka, India. In: Freshwater
Prawns: Advances in Biology, Aquaculture & Marketing. Proceedings of
Freshwater Prawns 2003, International Symposium on Freshwater Prawns,
20-23 august 2003, Kochi, India (ed. By C.M. Nair & D.D. Nambudiri),
Allied Publishers, New Delhi, India. pp. 228-237.
Jalihal, D.R., Shenoy, S and Sankolli, K.N. 2006b. Prolonged development of
an Atyid prawn Caridina shenoy Jalihal and Sankolli, 1984 from River
Malaprabha, Karnataka, India. In: Freshwater Prawns: Advances in
Biology, Aquaculture & Marketing. Proceedings of Freshwater Prawns 2003,
International Symposium on Freshwater Prawns, 20-23 august 2003, Kochi,
India (ed. By C.M. Nair & D.D. Nambudiri), Allied Publishers, New Delhi,
India : 238-248.
Jayachandran, K.V. 1987. Palaemonid prawn resources in the estuaries of Kerala
with description of a new species of Macrobrachium. Proc. Natn. Sem.
Estuarine Management, 1987, Trivandrum : 367-372.
Jayachandran, K.V. 1991. First record of Macrobrachium canarae (Tiwari,
1955) and M. Sankolli Jalihal & Shenoy, 1988 outside the type locality.
Mahasagar, 24(2): 139-142.
Jayachandran, K.V. 1992. Redescription Macrobrachium lamarrei lamarroides
(Tiwari) with a note on M. lamarrei lamarrei (H. Milne Edwards)
(Palaemonidae). Mahasagar, 25(1): 19-24.
Jayachandran , K.V. 2001. Palaemonid Prawns Biodiversity, Taxonomy, Biology
and Management. Oxford & IBH Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd. Calcutta. 1-624.
Jayachandran , K.V. 2005. Diversity of Palaemonid prawns of the Himalayan
region. Proc. Natl. Symp. On Status of Cold Water fisheries with reference
to fragile Himalayan Aquatic Ecosystem (Prof. M. K. Jyoti et al.,): 157-165.
Jayachandran, K.V. 2006. Why not Prawns and Shrimps in Aquaria?. Proc.Natn.
Conf. Ornamental Fishes “Aqua Ornamentals – 2006, S. C. Nattika, pp. 19-
22.
Jayachandran, K.V. and N.I. Joseph. 1985a. On a new subspecies of Macrobrachium
idella (Decapoda, Palaemonidae) from the south-west coast of India. Aquatic
Biology, 5: 130-134.
Jayachandran, K.V. and N.I. Joseph. 1985b. A new species of Macrobrachium
from the south-west coast of India (Decapoda: Palaemonidae). Journal of
Natural History, 19: 185-190.
Jayachandran , K.V. and Joseph, N.I. 1986. On a new species of Macrobrachium
(Decapoda: Palaemonidae) from the South-west coast of India. Crustaceana
50(2): 217-224.
Jayachandran, K.V. and Joseph, N.I. 1988a. Studies on the ovaries of slender river
prawn, Macrobrachium idella (Hilgendorf, 1898) (Decapoda, Palaemonidae).
Zoologica orientalis. 5(1&2): 6-9.
324
Jayachandran, K.V. and Joseph, N.I. 1988b. Meteorological and Hydrographical

Features of Vellayani Lake, Kerala, India. Int. Revue ges. Hydrobiol. 73(1):
113-121.
Jayachandran, K.V. and Joseph, N.I. 1988c. Growth pattern in the slender river
prawn, Macrobrachium idella (Hilgendorf). Mahasagar, 21(3): 189-195.
Jayachandran, K.V. and Joseph, N.I. 1989. Palaemonid prawn resources on the
south-west coast of India. J. Aqua. Trop., 4: 65-76.
Jayachandran, K.V. and Joseph, N.I. 1992. On a new record and redescription of
Macrobrachium novaehollandiae (De Man) from Indian waters (Decapoda:
Palaemonidae). Rec. zool. Surv. India, 91(3-4): 475-479.
Jayachandran, K.V., Lal Mohan, R.S. and Raji, A.V. 2007. A new species of
Macrobrachium Bate, 1868 (Decapoda, Palaemonidae) from the dolphin
trenches of Kulsi River, N. India, possibly under threat. Zoologischer
Anzeiger., 246: 43-48.
Jayachandran , K.V. and Raji, A.V. 2004. An ornate new species of Macrobrachium
Bate, 1868. (Palaemonidae) from Kerala, India. J. Inland Fish. Soc. India,
36(1): 41-44.
Jayachandran , K.V. and Raji, A.V. 2005. Three new species of Macrobrachium
Bate, 1868 (Decapoda, Palaemonidae) from the Western Ghats of Kerala
state, India. Crustaceana, 77(10): 1179-1192.
Jayachandran, K.V., Raji, A.V., and Thomas, T. 2006. Prawns and shrimps of
ornamental value from Kerala. Proc. Sem. Recent Trends in Mariculture (19-
20) July, 2005) Organised by Dept. of Zoology St. Peter’s College, Kolenchery,
Ernakulam : 77-79.
Jayachandran, K.V. And Indira, B. 2010. Sustainable exploitation of Freshwater
Prawn diversity of India for Food and livelihood security with emphasis on
planning. Indian J. Sci. Res., 1(2): 127-132.
Jayachandran, K.V. and Thomas, T. 2012. Caridina vithuraensis sp. nov.
(Decapoda: Atyidae) from VamanapuramRiver,Kerala region of Western
Ghats, India. Zootaxa, 3301: 61-68.
Johnson, W.C. 1978. Culture of freshwater prawns (Macrobrachium rosenbergii)
using geothermal waste water. LET:ck-8/24/78. (downloaded from web).
Joseph, N.I. and Jayachandran, K.V. 1986. Breeding behaviour of the slender river
prawn, Macrobrachium idella (Decapoda, Palaemonidae). Aquatic Biology,
5: 127-132.
Kaur, N., Islam, R., Besra, S and Pandey, P.N. 2006.Reproductive Biology of
Freshwater Crab, Paratelphusaspinigera, Wood Mason (Crustacea-
Decapoda). J. Indian Fish. Assoc., 33: 49-57.
Kemp, S. 1913. Crustacea Decapoda. Rec. Indian Mus, 8: 289-310, pl. 17-31.
Kemp. S. 1917a. Notes on the Fauna of the Matlah River in the Gangetic delta.
Rec. of. Ind. Mus.,13: 233-241.
Kemp. S. 1917b. Notes on the Crustacea Decapoda in the Indian Museum. Atyidae
of the genus Paratya- (=Xiphocaridina). Rec. Indian Mus., 13: 293-306.
325
Valarmathi
Kemp. S. 1918. Crustacea decapoda of the Inle lake basin. Rec. Indian Mus., 14:
82-102.
Kemp, S. 1924. Crustacea Decapoda of the Siju cave, Garo hills, Assam. Rec.
Indian Mus., 26(1): 41-48, pl. 3.
Kemp. S. 1925. On various Caridea. Notes on crustacea Decapoda in the Indian
Museum.17. Rec. Ind. Mus., 27: 249-343.
Klotz, W. 2008. Macrobracium agwi – new species of freshwater prawn (Decapoda:
Palaemonidae) from East Bengal, India. Zootaxa, 1844: 47-54.
Klaus, S., Böhme M., Schneider, S., Prieto, J., Phetsomphou, B. 2011. Evidence
of the earliest Freshwater Decapod fossil from Southeast Asia (Crustacea:
Decapoda: Brachyura). The Raffles Bulletin of Zoology, 59(1): 47-51.
Klaus, S., Fernandez, K. and Yeo, D.C.J. 2014. Phylogeny of the freshwater crabs
of the Western Ghats (Brachyura, Gecarcinucidae). Zool. Scr., 43(6): 651-
660. doi:10.1111/zsc.12078.
Krishnamurty, P. 1995. Crustacea: Decapoda. Zool. Surv. India Himalayan
Ecosystem Series: Fauna of Western Himalaya, Part 1, Uttar Pradesh: 23.
Mariappan, N. 1997. Studies on the freshwater prawns of Atyidae and
Palaemonidae of Chengalput MGR Dist., Tamilnadu, India. Ph.D. Thesis.
Madras University.
Mariappan, P. and Balasundaram, C. 1999. Mass mortality of Macrobrachium
Juveniles in River Cauvery southern India. Zoo’s Print Journal, 1-14(1-10):
130-131.
Mariappan, N. and Richard, J. 2006. Studies on freshwater prawns of family
Atyidae and Palaemonidae from Kanchipuram and Thiruvallur districts,
Tamilnadu, India, including one new species of the Genus Caridina H.
Milne Edwards, 1837. Rec.zool.Surv.India, Occ. Paper No., 243: 1-80.
Mariappan, P., Balamurugan, P. and Balasundaram, C. 2002a. Diversity and
utilization of freshwater prawns (Macrobrachium) in River Cauvery in
Tamilnadu Zoo’s Print Journal, 17(10): 919-920.
Mariappan, P., Balamurugan, P and Balasundaram, C. 2002b. Freshwater
prawn, Macrobrachium nobilii a promising candidate for rural nutrition.
Aquaculture Asia. 8(4): 13-14.
Mariappan, N. and Richard, J. 2007. Studies on the Larval development of six
freshwater prawns of the Genus Caridina H. Milne Edwards, 1837 (Atyidae:
Decapoda) from Kanchipuram and Thiruvalluvar Districts, Tamilnadu,
India. Rec. zool. Surv. India, Occ. Paper No., 261: 1-80.
Mitra, S. (In Press). Freshwater crabs (Crustacea: Decapoda: Gecarcinucidae &
Potamidae) of Mizoram, with description of three new species. [54 txt, 2
tables, 17 maps and 27 Plates.] ( Submitted to Publication division, ZSI,
Kolkata).
Nandi, N.C., Das, S.R., Bhuinya, S. and Dasgupta, J.M. 1993.Wetland Faunal
resources of West Bengal. I. Norand south 24 Pargana districts. Rec. zool.
Surv. India. Occ. Pap. No. 150:
326
Nandi, N.C., Venkataraman, K., Das, S.R., Bhuinya, S and Das, S.K.1999. Faunal
resources of West Bengal-2 some selected Wetlands of Haora and Hugli
District. Rec. zool. Surv. India, 97(4): 103-143.
Ng, P.K.L. 1988. The Freshwater Crabs of Peninsular Malaysia and Singapore.
Department of Zoology, National University of Singapore, Kent Ridge,
Singapore, pp. vi-viii + 1-156.
Ng, P.K.L., Guinot , D. And Davie, P.J.F. 2008. Systema Brachyrourum: Part
1. An annotated checklist of extant brachyuran crabs of the world. Raffles
Bull. Zool., Supplement, 17: 1-286.
Ng, Peter K.L., Nesemann, Hasko F. and Sharma, Gopal. 2011. A new
freshwater species of Neorhynchoplax Sakai, 1938 (Crustacea: Decapoda:
Hymenosomatidae) from Patna, Bihar, India. Zootaxa, 3063: 53-63.
Pathre, R.F. and Meena, P. 2010. Breeding cycle and Fecundity of the freshwater
crab Barytelphusa cunicularis (Decapoda: Potamonidae). World Journal of
Zoology, 5(2): 96-102.
Pati S.K, Sharma R.M. 2013 A new species of freshwater crab, Travancorianagranulata
n. sp. (Brachyura: Gecarcinucidae) from the southern Western Ghats of
India. Zoosyst Evol., 89(2): 275-281, doi:10.1002/zoos.201300013
Pati S.K, Sharma R.M. 2014a. Description of Ghatiana, a new genus of
freshwatercrab, with two new species and a new species of Gubernatoriana
(Crustacea: Decapoda: Brachyura: Gecarcinucidae) from the Western Ghat
Mountains, India. J. Nat. Hist., 48(21-22): 1279-1298, doi:10.1080/0022293
3.2013.859315.
Pati S.K., Sharma R.M. 2014b. Freshwater crabs (Crustacea: Decapoda: Brachyura:
Gecarcinucidae) in the collection of the Western Regional Centre, Pune. Rec
zool. Surv. India, 363: 1-44
Pati, S. and Devi, A.S. 2015a. Spiralothelphusa, gibberosa, a new freshwater
crab (Brachyura: Gecarcinucidae) from Thrissur district, Kerala, India.
Zootaxa., 3963(3): 416-424., available online at http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/
zootaxa.3963.3.5 [details]
Pati, S.K. & Devi, A.S. 2015b. Description of a new genus and new species of
freshwater crab (Brachyura: Gecarcinucidae) from the Western Ghats,
Kerala India. Zoological Studies, 54, 35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40555-
015-0112-0
Pati, S.K. and Singh. 2017. A new species of freshwater crab of the genus
Himalayapotamon Pretzmann, 1966 (Decapoda, Brachyura: Potamidae:
Potaminae) from Uttarakhand, northern India. Zootaxa, 4237(1): 191-200.
https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4237.1.11
Pati, Thackeray and Khaire, 2016. Five new species of freshwater crabs of the
genera Ghatiana Pati & Sharma, 2014, and Gubernatoriana Bott, 1970
(Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura: Gecarcinucidae Rathbun, 1904) from the
Western Ghats, India.
327
Valarmathi
Patil, S.G., Yadav, B.E. and Jadhav, S.S. 2007. Addition to the freshwater Decapoda
(Crustacea) from Nathsagar Wetland, Maharashtra. Bionotes, 9(3): 8
Pillai, P.M.; Unnikrishnan, V. 2013. Morphology and molecular phylogeny of
Macrobrachiumsnpurii, a new species of the genus Macrobrachium Bate,
1868 from Kerala, India. Zootaxa., 3664(4): 434-444.
Pillai, P.M., Unnikrishnan, V& Prasannan, K. 2015. Macrobrachiumindianum
(Decapoda: Palaemonidae), a new species of hill stream prawn from Pambar
River, Kerala, India. Zootaxa, 3936(4): 559–566
Pillai. R.S. 1964. Four species of Caridina from Travancore, including a new
variety. J. Mar. Biol. Ass. India, 6(1): 42-47.
Pretzmann, G. 1984. Results of the Austrian-Indian Hydrobiological Mission
1976 in the Andaman Islands. Part III. Brachyura from the Andaman
Islands. Annales des Naturhistorischen Museums in Wien, 86(B): 141-144.
Raghavan, R., Dahanukar, N., Philip, S., Iyer, P., Kumar, B., Daniel, B. & Molur,
S. (2015) The conservation status of decapod crustaceans in the Western
Ghats of India: an exceptional region of freshwater biodiversity. Aquatic
Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 25: 259-275. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1002/aqc.2490
Raghunathan, M.B. and Valarmathi, K. 2007a. Freshwater prawn and shrimp
(Crustacea: Decapoda) diversity in Singaperumalkoil paddyfield near
Chennai. Rec. zool. Surv. India, 107(2): 93-101.
Raghunathan, M.B. and Valarmathi, K. 2007b. Crustacea : Freshwater Prawns.
Zool. Surv. India, Fauna of Bannerghatta National Park, Coservation Area
Series, 33: 25-31.
Ramakrishna, G. 1950. Notes on some Indian Potamonid crabs (Crustacea:
Decapoda). Rec. zool. Surv. India, 48(1): 89-92.
Ramakrishna, G. 1977. Occurrence of Hymenicoidescarteri Kemp from the River
Ganga at Varanasi together with notes on other material of the species in
the Zoological Survey of India. Records of Zoological Survey of India, 72:
239-241.
Rathbun, M.J. 1904. Les Crabes d’eau douce (Potamonidae). Nouv. Arch. Mus.,
sér., 4,6: 225-312, pls. 9-18.
Ravindranath. K.-1981. Larval stages of freshwater shrimp, Caridina rajadhari
Bouvier. (Crustacae: Decapoda: Atyidae). Proc. Indian. Acad. Sci. (Anim.
Sci), 90(6): 683-702.
Richard, J. and Chandran, M.R. 1994. A Systematic Report on the freshwater
prawns of Atyid genus Caridina H. Milne Edwards 1837 from Madras
(Tamilnadu: India). Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 91(2):
241-259.
Roy, T.K., Ghosh, S.K. and Ghatak, S.S. 2003. Crustacea: Decapoda: Palaemonidae
and Potamonidae. Zool. Surv. India. Fauna of Sikkim, State Fauna Series,
9(Part 5): 117-119.
328
Roy, T.K., Ghosh, S.K. and Ghatak, S.S. 2004. Crustacea: Decapoda: Palaemonidae
and Potamonidae. Zool. Surv. India. Fauna of Manipur, State Fauna Series,
10(Part 3): 119-123.
Silas, E.G. & K.V. Jayachandran, 2010. Description of a new species of Caridina H.
M. Edwards from the hill streams of southern Western Ghats, Tamil Nadu,
India. — Indian Journal of Fisheries, 57: 1-5.
Singh, T.S., Sugiyama, H and Rangsiruji, A. 2012. Paragonimus & paragonimiasis
in India. Indian J. Med. Res. 136: 192-204.
Srivastava, O.P., 2005. Freshwater crabs (Potamonids) in thecollection of the
southern regional station, Zoological Survey of India, Chennai. Records of
the Zoological Survey of India, 104: 115-122.
Thomas, T. 2011. Freshwater shrimps of the family Atyidae De Haan of Kerala
and culture of a selected species for forage/food in aquaculture. Thesis
submitted to Mahatma Gandhi University for the award of the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy In Zoology (Faculty of Science).
Thomas, T. and Jayachandran, K.V. 2007. New locality record of Caridina jalihali
Mariappan & Richard (outside the type locality) with notes on diagnostic
characters and sexual dimorphism. Rec. zool. Surv. India, 107(3): 95-99.
Tiwari, K.K. 1947. Preliminary descriptions of two new species of Palaemon from
Bengal. Rec. Indian. Mus., 45: 229-331.
Tiwari, K.K. 1949a. On a new species of Palaemon from Banaras, with a note on
Palaemon lanchesteri De Man. Rec. Indian. Mus., 45: 333-347.
Tiwari, K.K. 1949b. Systematic position of three species of Palaemonid prawns
from the Philippines and China. Rec. Ind Mus., XLVII: 73-76.
Tiwari, K.K. 1952. Diagnosis of New species and subspecies of the genus Palaemon
Fabricious (Crustacea: Decapoda). Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. Mus.,12(5): 27-32.
Tiwari. K.K.,1955a. New species and subspecies of Indian Freshwater prawns.
Tiwari. K.K., 1955b. Distribution of the Indo-Burmese freshwater prawns of the
genus Palaemon Fabr., and its bearing on the Satpura Hypothesis. Bull.
natl. Inst. Sci. India, 7: 230-239.
Tiwari, 1963. A note on the freshwater prawn, Macrobrachium altifrons
(Henderson, 1893) (Crustacea : Decapoda: Palaemonidae). Proc. Zool. Soc.,
16(2): 225-238.
Tiwari, K.K. and Pillai, R.S. 1968. A new species of Caridina H.Milne Edwards
(Crustacae: Decapoda: Atyidae) from Trivandrum, India. Proc. Zool. Soc.
Calcutta, 21: 1631-1671.
Unnikrishnan, V.; Pillai, P.M.; Jayachandran, K.V. 2011. Macrobrachium
madhusoodani sp. nov. (Decapoda, Palaemonidae) from Ithikkara River,
Kerala, India. Crustaceana, 84: 123-124.
Valarmathi, K. 2009. Studies on the freshwater prawns of the families Atyidae and
Palaemonidae (Crustacea: Decapoda: Caridea) from Southern India. Ph.D.
Thesis (Unpublished). Submitted to Madras University.
329
Valarmathi
Valarmathi, K and Raghunathan, M. B.2013. Crustacea: Decapoda: Caridea

(Freshwater Shrimps). ZooI. Surv. India. Fauna of Karnataka, State Fauna
Series, 21: 63-72.
Valarmathi, K and Mitra, S.(In Press). Crustacea: Decapoda. ZooI. Surv. India.
Fauna of Himachal Pradesh, State Fauna Series (In Press).
Vogt, G. 2014. Life span, early life stage protection, mortality, and senescence
in freshwater Decapoda. In: Advances in freshwater decapod systematics
and biology/by Darren C.J. Yeo, Neil Cumberlidge and Sebastian Klause
(editors). Crustaceana monographs, 19: 17-52.
Wood-Mason, J. 1871. Contribution to Indian Carcinology on Indian and Malayan
Telphusidae. Part-1. Journal of Asiatic Society of Bengal, 40(2): 189-207.
Yeo, D.C.J. and Ng, P.K.L., Cumberlidge, N., Magalhaes, C., Daniels, S.R and
Campos, M.R. 2008. Global diversity of crabs (Crustacea: Decapoda:
Brachyura) in freshwater. Hydrobiologia, 595: 275-286.
330
Decapod Crustaceans
Caridina simoni Bouvier, 1906
Macrobrachium lamarrei
lamarrei (H. Milne Edwards,
1837)
Barytelphusa cunicularis
(Westwood, in Westwood & Sykes,
1836)
Himalayapotamon babaulti
(Bouvier, 1918)
331
Chapter 21
Arachnida : Araneae (Spiders)
1*Dhruba Chandra Dhali and

2Pavittu Meethal Sureshan
Abstract
Almost all extant spiders are terrestrial, living mainly on land. Some inhabit
either its entire life under freshwater environments or for a few moments. From
India, reports of such fauna are not available so far. There is no fossils record so
far throughout the World too. Perusal of different literatures, news items, data
on direct observations, photographs and material examined reveals that India
hasabout six species (0.36% to the total) under six genera belonging to three
families. The superfamilies Lycosoidea (83%) and Dictynoidea (17%) are those
documented as freshwater spiders only. Superfamily Lycosoidea consists of two
families i.e. Lycosidae and Pisauridae whereas Dictynoidea has only Cybaeidae.
Family Pisauridae is most diverse (50%) followed by Lycosidae (33.33%) and
Cybaeidae (16.67%). Freshwater semi-aquatic spiders are recorded from West
Bengal, Goa, Maharashtra, Kerala and Chhattisgarh. In comparison to global
scenario (0.05% to the total fauna) India is a better promising region for research
regarding freshwater spider fauna.
Key words: Freshwater, semi-aquatic, spiders, India.
Introduction
Almost all extant arachnids including spiders are terrestrial, living mainly on
land. However, some inhabit either its entire life under freshwater environments
or for a few moments (Foelix, 2011). The diving bell spider, Argyroneta aquatica
(Clerck, 1757) is one of the few species known to live almost entirely under water.
Nyffeler and Pusey (2014) reported more than 80 incidences of fish predation by
semi-aquatic spiders – observed at the fringes of shallow freshwater streams,
rivers, lakes, ponds, swamps, and fens and opined that fish predation by semi-
aquatic fauna are geographically widespread, occurring on all continents excepting
Antarctica. They provided a checklist of 26 species (0.05% to the total fauna)
under 12 genera belonging to nine families. From India, reports of such fauna are
not available so far. Perusal of different literatures, news items, data on direct
observations, photographs and material examined reveals that India has not less
than six species (0.36% to the total) under six genera belonging to three families.
In comparison to global scenario India is a better promising region for research
regarding freshwater spider fauna.
1Western Ghat Regional Centre, Zoological Survey of India,
Jaferkhan Colony, Kozkhikore-673006

*E-mail- [email protected]
2Shyampur Siddheswari Mahavidyalaya, Ajodhya, Howrah, West Bengal-711312
333
Dhali and Sureshan
Fossil History
There is no fossil record so far known throughout the World (Dunlop et al., 2017).
Historical Resume
Clerck (1757) was the first to sketch the early history of Arachnida more so of
spiders. Indian spiders were studied first by Blackwall (1864). The 20th century
witnessed the publication of Fauna of British India: Arachnida by Pocock (1900)
which is considered as the Bible of Indian spiders. Tikader (1987) provided a
checklist of modern Indian spiders.
First freshwater spider, Pardosa pseudoannulata (Bösenberg & Strand)
was photographed by Bhattacharjee (1931-32) from Kolkata, West Bengal. Gajbe
(2003) provided a checklist of 186 species form Chhattisgarh including an aquatic
of Dolomedes Latreille. Sebastian and Peter (2009) showed evidence that Pardosa
pseudoannulata (Bösenberg & Strand) is semi-aquatic in nature. Sudhikumar
(2014) reported an individual of Cybaeus Thorell. Kulkarnni et al. (2015) recorded
and reported 14 species of spiders from aquatic vegetation of a small temporary
pond, Pune, Maharashtra including two species of semi-aquatic nature. Adarsh
and Nameer (2016) published a field photo of Nilus albocinctus (Doleschall) as
aquatic from Chinnar Wild Life Sanctuary, Kerala.
Materials and Methods

During various field surveys by the authors (from November, 2015 to December,
2016) at different places of India, specimens were collected either by hand or by
sweeping with an aquatic insect net and preserved temporarily in 70% alcohol as per
recommendations of Tikader (1987), Alfred & Ramakrishna (2004). The examples
were identified by consulting literatures of Tikader and Malhotroa (1980); Jose et
al. (2003); Silva et al. (2015) and then photographed with the help of Stereo Zoom
Binocular Microscopes, model Leica EZ4 HD. Specimens examined in the present
study are deposited in the “National Zoological Collections of Zoological Survey of
India, Western Ghat Regional Centre Calicut” (ZSIK).
A total of 16 incidences of semi-aquatic (freshwater) spiders were gathered
(Table 3). Four (25%) of the incidences (Table 3) were previously reported in
the scientific literature and rest of the observations included photographic
documentation (25%) and material examined (50%).
Diversity
There are 26 species under 12 Genera belonging nine families so far reported from
the World (Nyffeler and Pusey, 2014). The superfamilies Lycosoidea and Ctenoidea
are those documented as preying upon fish under open-field conditions and all can
be loosely categorized as hunting spiders (i.e., spiders that forage without the aid of
a catching web). Approximately 80% of reports of fish predating freshwater spiders
were attributable to Pisauridae (nursery web spiders), with Ctenidae (wandering
spiders; 10.3%), Trechaleidae (longlegged water spiders; 4.5%), Lycosidae (wolf
spiders; 1.1%) and Liocranidae (spinylegged sac spiders; 1.1%) comprising the
remainder (Table 1). The most dominant group of fish-catching spiders are in the
genus Dolomedes Latreille (Pisauridae) (Table 1).
334
Six species under six genera belonging to three families are known so far
from India (Table 2). The superfamilies Lycosoidea (83%) and Dictynoidea
(17%) are those documented as freshwater spiders only. Superfamily Lycosoidea
consists of two families i.e. Lycosidae and Pisauridae whereas Dictynoidea has
only Cybaeidae. Family Pisauridae is most diverse (50%) followed by Lycosidae
(33.33%) and Cybaeidae (16.67%) (Table 2).
Table 1. Global diversity of freshwater spiders (Nyffeler and Pusey, 2014).
Sl.
Family Genus Species
No.
1. Ctenidae Ancylometes bogotensis (Keyserling)
rufus (Walckenaer)
2. Cybaeidae Argyroneta aquatic (Clerk)
3. Desidae Desis marina (Hector)
4. Liocranidae Agroeca lusatica (L. Koch)
5. Lycosidae Pardosa pseudoannulata (Bösenberg & Strand)
6. Pisauridae Dolomedes dondalei Vink & Dupérré
Latreille facetus L. Koch
fimbriatus (Clerck)
mizhoanus Kishida
okefinokensis Bishop
plantarius (Clerck)
raptor Bösenberg & Strand
saganus Bösenberg & Strand
scriptus Hentz
sulfureus L. Koch
tenebrosus Hentz
triton (Walckenaer)
vittatus Walckenaer
sp. – photographed
in Queensland (not facetus L. Koch)
Nilus spp.
Tinus sp.
7. Sparassidae Heteropoda natans Jäger
8. Theraphosidae Hemirrhagus pernix (Ausserer)
Hysterocrates gigas Pocock
9. Trechaleidae Trechalea tirimbina Silva & Lapinski
9 12 26
335
Dhali and Sureshan
World Distribution
Freshwater aquatic spiders are geographically widespread, occurring in all
continents excepting Antarctica i.e. in between 40°S and 40°N (Nyffeler and Pusey,
2014).
India
Freshwater semi-aquatic spiders are recorded from West Bengal, Goa, Maharashtra,
Kerala and Chhattisgarh (Table 3; Fig. 1).
Fig. 1. Diversity and distribution of freshwater spiders throughout India.
Classification
Most recent updated classification of Dunlop and Penny (2011) and World Spider
Catalog (2017) are followed.
336
Fig. 2. Photographs of freshwater spiders. A. Fish predation by Pardosa pseudoannulata

(Bösenberg & Strand); B. Cybaeus sp. (Photo captured in Aranmula forest range
by Sudhikumar); C. General Habitus (dorsal view) of Dolomedes sp.; D. General
habitus (dorsal view) of Pardosa pseudoannulata (Bösenberg & Strand); E.
General habitus (dorsal view) of Hippasa sp.; F. Dolomedes sp. (Photo captured
in Sanjay Gandhi National Park by Alamy).
337
Dhali and Sureshan
Fig. 3. Photographs of freshwater spiders. A. Nilus albocinctus (Doleschall) (Photo

captured in Thattekad Bird Sanctuary by M. J. Palot); B. General Habitus
(dorsal view) of Nilus albocinctus (Doleschall); C. Hygropoda sp. (Photo captured
in Goa by Sahapedia); D. General habitus (dorsal view) of Hygropoda sp.
338
Table 2. Diversity across family genera and species of freshwater spiders in the
Indian sub-continent (Fig. 2 & 3)
Sl. No. Family Genus Species

1. Cybaeidae Simon Cybaeus sp.
2. Lycosidae Sundevall Pardosa pseudoannulata (Bösenberg & Strand)
Hippasa sp.
3. Pisauridae Simon Dolomedes spp.
Hygropoda sp.
Nilus albocinctus (Doleschall)
3 6 6
Endemism
Scanty knowledge.
Biology
The aquatic spiders of genera worldwide are semi-aquatic predators with a leg span
of 6–9 cm and a weight of, 0.5–2 g (longer and weightier than normal terrestrial
counterpart. Though the Dolomedes spp. appear to differ in their foraging time,
some species are diurnal and others nocturnal, and that share a common foraging
pattern in that they can swim, dive and walk on the water surface film (Nyffeler
and Pusey, 2014). These spiders possess large strong chelicerae capable of piercing
the skin of vertebrates (Uzenbaev and Lyabzina, 2009) and are equipped with
powerful venom containing hundreds of different neurotoxins, some of which are
specific to vertebrate nervous systems (McCormick et al., 1993; Gregio et al., 1998;
Jiang et al., 2013).
Habitat
Vegetations on the margins of freshwater streams, rivers, creeks, bayous, lakes,
ponds, swamps, and fens.
Life cycle
Unknown so far.
Threats:
Habitat destruction i.e. engulfing of freshwater wetlands.
Conservation and Human Significance

There is no conservation steps taken either globally or nationally.
Generally, spiders are a bioresource all having venom (to their own preys)
excepting uloborids and only few species are known lethal to human. They also
exert considerable control to insect pests in the ecosystem by both lowering &
stabilizing pest population. So, they are excellent candidates of biological pest
management. Spider venom is a potential bioresource due to its pesticidal and
medicinal value. Spider silk is also valuable due its tensile nature. Pardosa
339
Dhali and Sureshan
pseudoannulata (Bösenberg & Strand) is one of the most common wandering

spiders in agricultural fields and a potentially good bio indicator for heavy metal
contamination (Li et al., 2016). But, cases of direct significance of freshwater
spiders to human are unknown so far.
Gaps in research
Globally the superfamilies Lycosoidea and Ctenoidea are documented as aquatic
under open-field conditions and all can be loosely categorized as hunting spiders
(i.e., spiders that forage without the use of a catching web) (Nyffeler and Pusey,
2014). Approximately 80% reports of aquatic species were attributable to Pisauridae
(nursery web spiders), with Ctenidae (wandering spiders; 10.3%), Trechaleidae
(longlegged water spiders; 4.5%), Lycosidae (wolf spiders; 1.1%) and Liocranidae
(spinylegged sac spiders; 1.1%) comprising the remainder (Nyffeler and Pusey,
2014). The most dominant group of freshwater spiders is in the genus Dolomedes
(Pisauridae).There is no documentation of aquatic species from India so far.
Expertise
There is none working on freshwater spider fauna in India and Abroad also. Who
so ever reported aquatic spiders got the evidences during their field survey and
photo shoot in wild.
Table 3. Reports of freshwater spiders under natural conditions in the field,
based upon published literature, unpublished data and material examined from
India (see Fig. 2 & 3).
Sl. Predator (spider taxon) Type of State Source
No. Species Family evidence
1 Pardosa Lycosidae Direct observation West Bengal Nyffeler and Pusey
pseudoannulata (2014)/
(Bösenberg & Bhattacharjee (1931-
Strand) 32)
2 Pardosa Lycosidae Direct observation West Bengal Material examined
pseudoannulata
(Bösenberg &
Strand)
3 Pardosa Lycosidae Direct observation Kerala Sebastian and Peter
pseudoannulata / Photo (2009)
(Bösenberg &
Strand)
4 Pardosa Lycosidae Direct observation Kerala Spider India Yahoo
pseudoannulata / Photo Group and
(Bösenberg & Spider India Flickr
Strand) Pool
5 Dolomedes sp. Pisauridae Indirect Chhattisgarh Gajbe (2003): Zoos’
observation Print Journal, 18
(10): 1223-1226.
6 Dolomedes sp. Pisauridae Photo Maharashtra Alamy
340
7 # Hippasa sp. Lycosidae Direct observation Maharashtra Kulkarnni et al.

(2015): Journal of
# Nilus Pisauridae Threatened Taxa,
albocinctus 7(6): 7196–7210.
(Doleschall)
8 Dolomedes sp. Pisauridae Direct observation Goa Shapedia
9 Dolomedes sp. Pisauridae Direct observation Kerala Material examined
(Aralam WLS)
10 Hygropoda sp. Pisauridae Direct observation Goa Shapedia
11 Hygropoda sp. Pisauridae Direct observation Kerala Material examined
(Kakkavayal)
12 Cybaeus sp. Cybaeidae Indirect Kerala The Hindu
observation (Aranmula) Newspaper (2014)
13 Nilus Pisauridae Photo and Direct Kerala Material examined
albocinctus observation (Thattekad
(Doleschall) BS)
albocinctus observation (Aralam WLS)
(Doleschall)
albocinctus observation (Tushargiri,
(Doleschall) Kozhikode)
albocinctus observation (Kakkavayal,
(Doleschall) Kozhikode)
17 Nilus Pisauridae Photo and Direct Kerala Adarsh and Nameer
albocinctus observation (Chinnar (2016): Journal of
(Doleschall) WLS) Threatened Taxa,
8(4): 8703–8713.
# Though authors [Kulkarnni et al. (2015)] recorded and reported 14 species
under eight families, only two species of the superfamily Lycosoidea, were
considered as semi-aquatic. Moreover, they mentioned that the collections were
made from aquatic vegetation’s and not directly from water. So, species marked (#)
are included here in the list (Table 2 & 3).
Remarks
There are no taxonomic notes on the genera Dolomedes Latreille and Hygropoda
Thorell from India excepting report only of immature individuals. There might be
several species freshwater species from the genus Dolomedes and other genera
from the country. A better understanding of the diversity, biology, nutritional
ecology of fresh aquatic spiders and their ecosystem role is needed.
Acknowledgements
of India, Kolkata, for providing facilities and encouragements. DCD us grateful
341
Dhali and Sureshan
to the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate change for a Post Doctoral
Fellowship to pursue post doctoral research in Zoological survey of India. The
first author is grateful to Prof. Dinendra Raychaudhuri (Ramakrishna Mission
Vivekananda University, West Bengal) for his ever ending supports. We wish to
thank those scientists who identified spiders based on photographs, news reports
and direct observation- including Robert Raven (Queensland Museum), P.A.
Sebastian (Sacred Heart College, Kerala), S.K. Jose (Devmatha College, Kerala),
A.V. Sudhikumar (Christ College, Kerala), C.K. Adarsh and P.O. Nameer (Kerala
Agricultural University, Kerala), M.J. Palot (Western Ghat Regional Centre,
Zoological Survey of India) and , many people who provided published, unpublished
information and photographs (Alamy, Sahapedia and The Hindu).
References
Adarsh C. K. and Nameer P. O. 2016. A preliminary checklist of spiders (Araneae:
Arachnida) in Chinnar Wildlife Sanctuary, Western Ghats, India. Journal
of Threatened Taxa, 8(4): 8703-8713.
Alfred, J. R. B. and Ramakrishna. 2004. Collection, Preservation and Identification
of Animals. Zool. Surv. India, Kolkata: 310.
Blackwall, J. 1864. Descriptions of seven new species of East Indian spiders
received from the Rev. O. P. Cambridge. Annual Magazine of Natural
History, 14(3): 36-45.
Bhattacharjee G.C. 1931-32. The fish-eating spiders in Bengal and their habits.
Transact Bose Res Inst Calcutta, 7: 238-249.
Clerck, C. 1757. Svenska spindlar, uti sina hufvud-slågter indelte samt under
några och sextio särskildte arter beskrefne och med illuminerade figurer
uplyste. Stockholmiae, 154.
Dunlop, J.A. and Penney, D. 2011. “Order Araneae Clerck, 1757. In: Zhang, Z.-
Q. (Ed.) Animal biodiversity: An outline of higher-level classification and
survey of taxonomic richness”. Zootaxa, 3148: 149.
Dunlop, J.A., Penney, D. and Jekel, D. 2017. A summary list of fossil spiders and
their relatives. In World Spider Catalog. Natural History Museum Bern,
online at http://wsc.nmbe.ch, version 18.0, accessed on {17January, 2017}.
Foelix, R. 2011. Biology of spiders. Oxford University Press (3rd edition), 419pp.
Gajbe, P. 2003. Check list of Spiders (Arachnida: Araneae) of Madhya Pradesh and
Chhattisgarh. Zoo’s print journal, 18(10): 1223-1226.
Gregio A.M.T., Heleno M.G., Von Eicksted V.R. and Fontana M.D. 1998. The
neuromuscular action of Ancylometes sp. spider venom in the rat phrenic
nervediaphragm preparation. Toxicon, 37: 545-550.
Jiang L., Liu C., Duan Z., Deng M.and Tang X., 2013 Transcriptome analysis of
venom glands from a single fishing spider Dolomedes mizhoanus. Toxicon,
73: 23-32.
Jose, K.S., Sebastian, P.A., Davis S. and Varghese A.P. 2003. First record of
Thalassius albocinctus (Doleschall) (Araneae: Pisauridae) from India.
Entomon, 28(4): 309-314.
342
Kulkarni M.R., Padhye S., Vanjare A. I., Jakhalekar S. S., Shinde Y. S., Paripatyadar
S.V., Sheth S. D., Kulkarni S., Phuge S.K., Bhakare K., Kulkarni A.S., Pai
K. and Ghate H.V. 2015. Documenting the fauna of a small temporary pond
from Pune, Maharashtra, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa, 7(6): 7196-
7210.
Li C.C., Wang Y., Li G.U., Yun Y.L., Dai Y.J., Chen J. and Peng Y. 2016.
Transcriptome Profiling Analysis of Wolf Spider Pardosa pseudoannulata
(Araneae: Lycosidae) after Cadmium Exposure. Int. J. Mol. Sci., 17, 2033;
doi:10.3390/ijms17122033.
McCormick K.D., Kobayashi K., Goldin S.M., Reddy N.L. and Meinwald J. 1993.
Characterization and synthesis of a new calcium-antagonist from the venom
of a fishing spider. Tetrahedron, 49: 11155-11168.
Nyffeler, M. and Pusey, B.J. 2014. Fish Predation by Semi-Aquatic Spiders: A
Global Pattern. Plos One, 9(6): e99459. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0099459.
Pocock, R.I. 1900. The fauna of British India, Arachnida. Taylor & Francis,
London: 153-279.
Sebastian P.A and Peter K.V. 2009. Spiders of India. First edition. Hyderabad:
Universities Press. 734 p.
Silva, E.C., Gibbons, A. and Sierwald, P. 2015. Description of the male of Dolomedes
raptoroides Zhang, Zhu & Song, 2004 (Araneae: Lycosoidea: Pisauridae).
Zootaxa, 3946(1): 139-145.
Tikader, B.K. 1987. Hand book of Indian spiders. Ed. Director Zool. Surv. India,
Calcutta: 251 pp.
Tikader, B.K. and Malhotra, M.S. 1980. Fauna of India, spiders (Lycosidae). Zool.
Surv. India, Calcutta, I (2): 248-447.
Uzenbaev S.D. and Lyabzina S.N. 2009. An experimental study of the effects of
spider venom on animals. Entomol Rev., 89: 479-486.
World Spider Catalog 2017. World Spider Catalog. Natural History Museum Bern,
online at http://wsc.nmbe.ch, version 17.5, accessed on {14th January 2017}
343
Chapter 22
Arachnida : Acari (Mites)
SHELLEY ACHARYA
Abstract
In contrast to other arachnids, mites have invaded aquatic systems at least ten
times , with some lineages giving rise to thousands of water dwelling species.
The hydrachnida represent the most important group of arachnida in freshwater.
Based on the available information this chapter has been prepared which reflects
the global diversity of freshwater acari with its Indian diversity. Over 6,000
species have been described worldwide, representing 57 families, 81 subfamilies
and more than 400 genera. In India, it includes 253 species in 70 genera and 25
families with 183 endemic species. Distribution of water mites has been shown in
different Biogeographical regions of the world as well as in the Biogeographical
zones of India.
Key Words: Water mite, Diversity, Biogeographic zones, Distribution
INTRODUCTION
In contrast to other arachnids, mites have invaded aquatic systems at least ten
times, with some lineages giving rise to thousands of water-dwelling species.
Every possible type of aquatic habitat contains mites, from temporary puddles on
rocky outcrops to the stygian permanency of marine rifts. The Hydrachnida (water
mites) also called Hydrachnellae, Hydracarina, represent the most important
group of the arachnida in freshwater. Originating from terresetrial ancestors, they
have colonized all kinds of freshwater habitats. Water mites are highly diversified
both in lotic and lentic habitats as well as in springs and interstitial waters.
Hydrachnida belong to the cohort Parasitengona (Actinedida), a group whose
species are characterized by a complex life cycle involving a heteromorphic parasitic
larva, two pupa-like resting stages and free living predacious deutonymphs and
adults.
Hydracarina can usually be found around the edges of ponds and lakes, either
swimming in the vicinity of submerged plants or foraging on their leaves and stems.
They are often brightly coloured, most often some shade of red or green, although
blue, yellow and tan colours are also seen. The adults are rarely larger than about
2mm or smaller than 0.5mm. The largest known varieties can reach 8mm. Having
eight legs and a pair of palps, they can appear at first to resemble tiny spiders, but a
closer inspection reveals that what would be cephalothorax and abdomen in a spider
is fused into a single body part having no sign of segmentation in the water mites.
They are almost exclusively freshwater in their habitat, and whilst a few are
Zoological Survey of India, ‘M’Block, New Alipore, Kolkata-700053
345
Acharya
parasitic upon such creatures as the freshwater mussel, most are free-living
and carnivorous. These seize upon worms, small crustaceans and small insects
encountered in their foragings, and use their penetrating mandibles (homologous
to the chelicera of the spiders) to pierce the cuticle of the prey and suck out its
juices.
Aquatic oribatids, astigmatans and water mites have not altered their diet
drastically from that of their terrestrial relatives. Some water mites share top
predator rank with vertebrates in freshwater systems because they are almost
immune to predation by fish. Therefore , they are likely to be useful as indicators
of organic pollution, salinity and general ecosystem health.
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Research on water mites from India started at the beginning of the 20th century
with publications of K. Viets (1926a, b), followed later on by publications of Walter
(1928) and Lundblad (1934). Cook (1967) published his comprehensive work on
the water mites from India in which he summarized the water mite fauna of India
until that time. He reported 173 species of water mites, describing many new
species and genera. Cook’s work as he stated gave “an adequate beginning to our
knowledge of the water mite fauna of Maharashtra, Mysore (Karnataka), Madras
(Chennai, Tamil Nadu) and Kerala”. Lundblad studied the water mites from
Calcutta (Kolkata, West Bengal) and Bombay (Mumbai, Maharashtra), resulting
in his comprehensive paper published in 1968. Later on papers with records of
water mites from India were published by Nayar (1969a, b), while Prasad (1974)
in his A catalogue of mites of India reported 197 water mites from India. Tomar
& Raychaudhury (1981, 1983b) studied mostly the water mites of the genus
Arrenurus. During the 20th century and in the beginning of 21th century more
authors published mostly ecological or faunistical studies on water mites (e.g.,
Kumar & Dobrigyal 1992), usually as part of a study of parasitism on invertebrate
(insects and mollusks) fauna. Examples of these are Bishth (1979), Malahotra et
al. (1983), Rajendran & Prasad (1992), John & Inasu (2005). In the first decade
of 21th century the number of publications dealing with the systematics of water
mites from India increased. Panesar studied water mites in the Indian Himalayas
(Panesar 2004, Panesar & Gerecke 1994) and Smit & Pešić (2008) studied water
mites of the genus Arrenurus. Recently, Pešić et al. studied water mites mostly
from the Indian Himalayas (Pešić & Panesar 2008, 2009, Pešić & Gerecke 2008,
Pešić et al. 2007a, b, 2008) although other regions of India were studied as well but
to a much lesser extent (e.g., Pešić & Ranga Reddy 2009, Pešić et al. 2008, 2009) .
The aim of this paper is to compile data on the Indian water mites and their current
geographic distribution in India, which will be significant in understanding the
gaps in our knowledge on the water mites of India.
MORPHOLOGY
Water mites are characterized by bright colours and a highly diversified
morphology. Plesiotypically, body shape is globular but it may also be flattened
346
dorso-ventrally or laterally, or elongated into a worm-like form (Fig. 1). Length

ranges from 0.2 mm up to 10 mm, although most species are between 0.5 and
1.5 mm. As in all Acari, the body of a water mite is divided into two principal
units, gnathosoma and idiosoma. The gnathosoma is a complex of trophic and
sensory structures composed of a sclerotized capsule (capitulum) and two pairs
of appendages (palps and chelicerae). The idiosoma, or body proper, may be soft-
skinned or the integumental muscle-attachment sites are transformed to more or
less extended sclerotized plates with tendencies to develop complete sclerotization.
The idiosoma is also characterized by the presence of series of defensive glands and
mechanoreceptive slit organs. The ventral side includes four pairs of sclerotized
coxal plates (insertion points for legs and leg muscles), the genital field and the
opening of the excretory system. The four pairs of legs of adults are six-segmented
and usually bear one pair of terminal claws. Size and chaetotaxy of leg segments
are modified in relation to modes of locomotion and reproduction.
METHODOLOGY
(a) Handpicking: The parasitic aquatic mites attached to the body of aquatic host
is located with had lens and are collected with fine brush.
(b) Dipping: In most cases water mites are collected by this method. The collecting
tools like white enamel bowl and wide mouthed pan with long handle are
immersed in water and lifted with water with a quick movement. The water
sample is then observed under binocular microscope and the mites are collected
with fine brush.
(c) Netting: The free living water mites are collected with great success with nylon
nets of narrow mesh fitted with an iron ring having a long handle. The visible
water mites can be scooped up with the help of this net. Another type of net,
the birge net, is also used for collection. A fine mesh nylon net fitted with a
fine sieve at the wider mouth of a funnel, the narrow end of the funnel is open
and a long wire is attached to this end which helps to put the net into deep
water. The contents of the Birge net are examined with hand lens and mites
are collected with a fine brush.
Table 1. Mites that spend the majority of their life in subaquatic

freshwater habitats
Suborder Family Habitats
Mesostigmata Dithinozerconidae Moss in mountain streams
Oribatida Hydrozetidae On/in macrophytes in standing fresh water
Trhypochthoniidae Benthic in running fresh water
Camisiidae Benthic in streams
Ameronothridae Restricted to ephemeral pools
347
Acharya
Suborder Family Habitats

Astigmata Acaridae Freshwater fish tanks
Histiostomatidae Freshwater fish tanks
Hyadesiidae Algae in freshwater, mussel beds
Prostigmata Halacaroidea Interstitial freshwater, freshwater decapods
Hydracarina Benthic and planktonic in standing and
running freshwater, interstitial freshwater,
inside freshwater mussels, snails and
crayfish
GLOBAL DIVERSITY
The Hydrachnidia (water mites) represent the most important group of the
Arachnida in fresh water. Over 6,000 species have been described worldwide,
representing 57 families, 81 subfamilies and more than 400 genera (Di Sabatino
et al., 2008).
Based on available information, the Palaearctic region represents one of
the better investigated areas with the highest number of species record (1,642
species). More than 1000 species have been recorded in each of the Neotropical
(1,305 species) and Nearctic regions (1,025 species). Known species richness in
lower in Afrotropical (787 species) and Australian (694 species) regions and lowest
in the Oriental region(554 species). The total number of genera is not correlated
with species richness and is distinctly higher in the Neotropical (164 genera);
genera richness is similar in the Palearctic, Nearctic and Australian regions (128-
131 genera) and is lower in the Afrotropical and oriental regions with 110 and 94
genera respectively.
Australian fauna is also characterized by the highest percentage of endemic
genera(62%) followed by Neotropical (50.6%) and Afrotropical (47.2%) regions.
Lower values are recorded for the Palearctic (26.9%), Oriental (24.4%) and Nearctic
(21.4%). The palearctic and Nearctic have the highest faunistic similarity, some
minor affinities are also evident for the generic diversification of Holarctic and
Oriental famiies (Di Sabatino et al., 2008).
Table 2. Genera richness of water mite families in each biogeographic region
Family PA NA NT AT OL AU World
Stygothrombiidae 1 1 0 0 0 0 1
Hydrovolziidae 2 1 0 1 1 0 3
Acherontacaridae 1 1 0 0 1 0 1
Hydrachnidae 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Limnocharidae 4 3 3 2 2 3 6
Eylaidae 1 1 2 1 1 1 2
Apheviderulicidae 1 1 0 0 0 0 1
348
Piersigiidae 1 1 0 0 1 2 3
Hydrophantidae 27 23 12 9 13 10 50
Hydrodromidae 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Teratothyadidae 0 0 0 1 1 0 2
Rhynchohydracaridae 0 1 3 0 0 0 3
Ctenothyadidac 0 0 0 0 1 1 2
Thermacaridae 1 1 1 0 1 0 1
Zealandothyadidae 0 0 0 0 0 2 2
Stygotoniidae 0 0 0 0 0 1 1`
Sperchontidae 2 2 4 1 1 1 4
Teutoniidae 1 1 0 0 0 0 1
Rutripalpidae 1 1 0 0 0 0 1
Anisitsiellidae 8 5 11 9 16 6 33
Lebertiidae 2 3 2 1 1 0 4
Acucapitidae 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Oxidae 2 2 3 3 2 2 4
Tiorrenticolidae 4 4 5 3 5 1 6
Pontarachnidae 0 0 0 1 0 1 1
Limnesiidae 3 9 20 4 3 4 7
Omartacaridae 0 1 1 0 1 1 2
Hydgobatidae 5 6 33 19 5 24 7
Ferradasiidae 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
Pionidae 9 9 4 2 3 6 14
Astacorotonidae 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Wettinidae 1 1 0 1 0 3 5
Frontipdopsidae 1 1 1 2 1 1 2
Aturidae 19 16 26 18 14 29 62
Lethaxonidae 1 2 1 1 1 0 2
Mideidae 2 1 0 0 0 0 2
Gretacaridae 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Momoniidae 4 3 4 1 2 6 13
Mideopsidae 1 1 3 3 2 4 8
Nudomideopsidae 1 3 0 0 0 2 3
Uchidastygacaridae 2 3 0 0 0 1 4
Kantacaridae 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
Nipponacaridae 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
Neocaridae 1 2 1 0 0 0 2
Bogatiidae 1 1 0 0 0 0 2
349
Acharya
Chappuisididae 2 1 1 0 0 0 2
Krendowskiidae 1 2 3 1 1 0 4
Acalyptonotidae 1 2 0 0 0 0 2
Athienemanniidae 4 4 1 3 1 4 16
Harpagopalpidae 0 0 0 1 1 0 1
Hungarohydracaridae 3 0 1 1 2 0 4
Arenohydracaridae 0 1 1 0 0 0 1
Amoenoacaridae 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
Laversiidae 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
Arrenuridae 2 1 5 8 2 2 12
Total Genra 131 131 164 110 94 128 428
Total families 42 44 31 28 33 30
Freshwater mite (Hydrachnidia) species and genera (SP/GN) per zoogeographic
region : PA-Palaearctic; NA–Nearctic; NT–Neotropical; AT–Afrotropical; OL–
Oriental; AU–Australian; PAC–Pacific Oceanic Islands; ANT–Antarctic (Di
Sabatino, 2008)
DIVERSITY IN INDIA
Table 3. Total number of families, genera and species known so far from India
is shown.It includes 253 species in 70 genera and 25 families of water mites of
which 183 species are endemic to India. (After Pesic, 2008)
Superfamily Family Genus Species Endemicity
HYDROVOLZIOIDEA Hydrovolziidae 2 3 3
EYLAOIDEA Limnocharidae 2 2 1
Eylaidae 1 3 1
HYDRACHNOIDEA Hydrachnidae 1 5 1
HYDRYPHANTOIDEA Hydrodromidae 2 5 1
Hydryphantidae 9 15 13
LEBERTIOIDEA Anisitsiellidae 11 25 21
Bandakiopsidae 1 1 1
Lebertiidae 1 2 2
Oxidae 1 2 0
Sperchontidae 2 9 7
Torrenticolidae 4 9 16
HYGROBATOIDEA Aturidae 10 35 30
Feltriidae 1 10 8
Frontipodopsidae 1 1 0
Lethaxonidae 1 2 2
350
Superfamily Family Genus Species Endemicity

Limnesiidae 3 8 6
Hygrobatidae 3 29 24
Pionidae 2 7 2
Pontarachnidae 2 2 0
Unionicolidae 3 26 10
ARRENUROIDEA Arrenuridae 3 39 23
Harpagopalpidae 1 1 0
Hungarohydracaridae 2 8 8
Mideopsidae 1 4 3
TOTAL 25 70 253 183
Note: Records of species of uncertain assessment from the study area and
species from the study area of unknown origin are not included here.
Table 4. Distribution of water mites in different states/ Union Territories of
India (After Pesic et al., 2010)
States/UTs No. of States/UTs No. of States/UTs No. of
species species species
Andhra Pradesh 6 Kerala 80 Tripura 0
Arunachal Pradesh 0 Madhya Pradesh 0 Uttar Pradesh 13
Assam 21 Maharashtra 104 Uttaranchal 19
Bihar 5 Manipur 0 West Bengal 42
Chhattisgarh 0 Meghalaya 0 Andaman and 3
Nicobar Islands
Goa 0 Mizoram 0 Chandigarh 0
Gujarat 2 Nagaland 0 Dadra and Nagar 0
Haveli
Haryana 0 Orissa 0 Daman and Diu 0
Himachal Pradesh 27 Punjab 5 Lakshadweep 0
Jammu and 10 Rajasthan 7 National Capital 0
Kashmir Territory of Delhi
Jharkhand 0 Sikkim 0 Puducherry 0
Karnataka 51 Tamil Nadu 31
It is observed that water mite fauna are better studied in southern and western
part of India while the central and north eastern parts are very incompletely
known. The Indian water mite fauna is mostly represented by species (the number
of species are given in parentheses) of the genera Arrenurus (32), Atractides (21),
Axonopsis (16), Neumania (14) and Monatractides (15) (more than 35% of the
whole fauna). From an ecological point of view, most work was done on running
351
Acharya
and standing waters. The highest number of water mites has been collected from
streams. The large proportion (77 species) of thesespecies are known from the
mountain areas: most records come from the Himalayas in the northern part of
India, but also from the Ootacamund area of southern India which represent an
island of temperate habitats urrounded by tropical condition. The lowland running
water habitat is strongly affected by human impact in most areas, especially in
the southern part of India, where most of the streams have been transformed
for irrigation (Cook 1967). Probably, many of the older collecting sites have been
destroyed in the past decades due to human impact. Fauna of standing water
bodies, like lakes and ponds, includes 86 water mite species; most records come
from the southern (Maharashtra, Kerala, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu) and eastern
part of India (West Bengal), while the fauna of the Himalayas is still poorly studied
(Pesic et al, 2010).

Fig. 3. Water mites of India: Number of species vis a vis habitat preferences
(Pesic et al., 2010)
Endemicity
Table 5. Numbers of endemic water mite families, subfamilies, genera and
percentage of endemic genera in each biogeographic region
PA NA NT AT OL AU
Endemic families 2 2 2 – 1 4
Endemic subfamilies 4 3 12 1 2 3
Endemic genera 34 28 83 52 23 80
Percent endemic genera 26.9 21.4 50.6 47.2 24.4 62.0
PA: Palaearctic; NA: Nearctic; NT: Neotropical; AT: Afrotropical; OL: Oriental;
AU: Australasian (Di Sabatino et al., 2008)
In the Oriental region more than 500 species in 94 genera, 51 subfamilies and
33 families have been found (Di Sabatino et al., 2008). Our knowledge of the region
is far from complete, many areas have hardly been explored. India is the country
best investigated, but with large differences in the state of knowledge of different
regions and a high percentage of endemic species. About 67% (183 species) of
352
the species occur only in India. This situation reflects the unsatisfactory state of
knowledge on water mites in India. As the freshwater acarine fauna of majority
of the states of India still remain unexplored and whatever distributional data
available are insufficient, it is rather difficult to make any comment on the degree
of endemism in this taxon in India.
Fig. 5. Map showing distribution of water mites in different Biogeographical

zones of India
VALUES
Mites have been employed as bioindicators in terrestrial systems but water
mites are typically ignored in studies of freshwater health. Pieczynski (1976)
studies show that water mites to be insensitive to long periods without oxygen,
changes in temperature and dehydration. Gerecke and Schwoerbel (1991)
stated that almost all studies of lotic mites show that they decline in polluted
vs. unpolluted sections of streams. It is clear that physical factors play a great
role in determining the distribution, abundance and variety of water mites in a
body of water. The temperature, chemical constitution, depth, substrate and water
velocity in an aqueous environment affect the nature of its hydracarine population.
Water mites depend on a diversity of other organisms for prey, hosts and even
oviposition sites, the presence of certain mites may be used to indicate the presence
of these other organisms.For example, if Unionicola crassipes (Unionicolidae) is
353
Acharya
present, then its oviposition and transformation sites- freshwater sponges- must
also be present. Hygrobates fluviatilis (Hygrobatidae) emerged as a pollution
indicator as its dominance of the water mite assemblages increased with increasing
pollution. Gerecke and Schwoerbel(1991), their study indicates that this particular
species is extremely tolerant of organic pollutants.
THREATS
Organic pollution may virtually eliminate the water mite fauna of a stream.
It is observed that in the zones where pollution from the domestic sewage had
increased, species richness had decreased drastically, whereas in areas where
purification plants had improved water quality, species richness had also increased.
CONSERVATION STRATEGIES AND FUTURE STUDIES

As the population of mites of economic importance is considerably high, the
loss of these tiny creatures has not yet attracted the attention of conservationists.
But it is high time to formulate strategies for conservation of the taxon for the role
they play in maintaining the ecological balance. So, the destruction of habitats
should be checked and the use of poisonous chemicals either in the form of
pesticides or fertilizers and discharge of industrial affluents must be controlled.
The studies in these field are incomplete in many aspects. An extensive
study in the fields like taxonomy, bionomics and ecology are urgently needed.
These studies will certainly enlighten ways for effective and useful conservation
strategies needed for this taxon.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
complete this work.
REFERENCES
Alfred, J.R.B, Das, A.K. and Sanyal, A.K. 1998. In: Faunal Diversity in India:
Bisht, R.S. 1979. Limnesia lembangensis Piersig (Acarina) on two aquatic
Hydrophilidae from Bhimtal, India. Geobios, 6(2): 89-90.
Cook. D. R., 1967. Water mites from India. Mem. Amer. Ent. Inst., 9: 411pp.
Di Sabatino, A., Smit, H., Gerecke, R., Goldschmidt, T., Matsumoto, N. & Cicolani,
B., 2008. Global diversity of water mites (Acari, Hydrachnidia; Arachnida)
Eye on Nature. 2013. Hydracarina parasitic on a male fragile forktail Damselfly.
https://eyeonnature.wordpress.com/2013/06/06/damselfly-hitchhikers/
Gerecke. R. and Schwoerbel. J, 1991. Water quality and water mites (Acari:
Actinedida) in the upper Danube region, 1959-1984. Modern acarology, 1:
483-491.
John, C.C. and Inasu, N.D. 2005. Water mites associated with the fresh water
mussel Lamellidens marginalis (Pelecypoda: Unionidae). Zoos’ Print
Journal, 20(9): 1986-1987.
354
Kumar, N. and Dobrigyal, A.K. 1992. Some observations on the Water Mites of
a Hillstream Khandagad in Gharwal Himalaya. Journal of Freshwater
Biology, 4(3): 193-197.
Lundblad, O. 1934. Report on Hydracarina (Yale North India Expedition Article
7). Memoirs of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Science, New Haven,
10: 85-118.
Malahotra, P.R., Sarkar, P.K., Bhuyan, M., Chakraborty, B.C. & Baruah, I. 1983.
Water mites (Arrenurus sp.) parasitising mosquitoes in Assam. Indian
Journal of Medical Research, 78: 647-650.
Nayar, E. 1969a. New species of water mites (Hydracarina) from Kerala. Part 1.
Bulletin of Entomology, 10: 46-53.
Nayar, E. 1969b. New species of water mites (Hydracarina) from Kerala. Part II.
Bulletin of Entomology, 10: 71-77
Panesar, A. 2004. Evolution in water mites (Hydrachnellae, Actinedida, Acari).
A revision of the Anisitsiellidae Koenike, 1910. Bonner Zoologische
Monographien, 52: 1-144.
Panesar, A.R. and Gerecke, R. 1994. A New Partnunia Species (Acari, Actinedida,
Hydryphantidae) from Keylong (Himalaya, India). Aquatic Insects, 16: 241-
247.
Pešić, V. and Smit, H. 2007a. Water mite species of the genus Hydrodroma Koch
(Acari: Hydrachnidia, Hydrodromidae) from Australia. Part II. Zootaxa,
1509: 41-50.
Pešić, V. and Smit, H. 2007b. First records of water mites (Acari: Hydrachnidia)
from Bhutan, with description of two new species. Zootaxa, 1613: 45-56.
Pešić, V. and Gerecke, R. 2008. A new water mite (Acari, Hydrachnidia,
Sperchontidae) from the Himalaya Mountains (Northern India). Vestnik
Zologii, 42(1): 77-80.
Pešić, V. and Panesar, A. 2008. Studies on water mites (Acari, Hydrachnidia) from
the Himalayas, I. The water mite genus Feltria Koenike, with descriptions
of eight new species. Zootaxa, 1758:1-28.
Pešić, V. and Panesar, A. 2009. Studies on water mites (Acari, Hydrachnidia) from
the Himalayas, II. New records and descriptions of seven new species from
India. Zootaxa, 2119: 1-22.
Pešić, V. and Ranga Reddy, Y. 2009. New records of water mites (Acari:
Hydrachnidia) from interstitial freshwaters of India, with descriptions of
three new species. Zootaxa, 2158: 20-32.
Pešić, V. and Smit, H. 2009a. Water mites of the family Torrenticolidae Piersig,
1902 (Acari: Hydrachnidia) from Thailand, Part I. The genera Torrenticola
Piersig, 1896, Neoatractides Lundblad, 1941 and Pseudotorrenticola Walter,
1906. Zootaxa, 1982: 38-62.
Pesic,V., Chatterjee, T. and Borodoloi, S., 2010. A checklist of the water mites
(Acari: Hydrachnidia) of India, with new records and description of one new
species. Zootaxa, 2617: 1-54.
355
Acharya
Pieczynski, E. 1976. Ecology of water mites (Hydracarina) in lakes. Polish

Ecological Studies, 2: 5-54.
Pieczynski, E.1976. Ecology of water mites (Hydracarina) in lakes. Polish
Ecological Studies, 2: 5-54.
Prasad, V. (1974). A catalogue of mites of India. Indira Acarology Publishing
House, Ludhiana, 320 pp.
Rajendran, R. and Prasad, R.S. 1992. Influence of mite infestation on the longevity
and fecundity of the mosquito Mansonia uniformis (Diptera: Insecta) under
laboratory conditions Journal of Biosciences, 17(1): 35-40.
Smit, H. and Pešić, V. 2008. New records of the water mite genus Arrenurus
from India, with the description of one new species (Acari: Hydrachnidia:
Arrenuridae). Zootaxa, 1894: 53-58.
Tomar, S.S. and. Raychaudhuri, D.N. (1981). Studies on Indian water mites. I.
Genus Arrenurus (Arrenuridae: Prostigmata) from West Bengal. Acarologia,
22: 283-290.
Tomar, S.S. and Raychaudhuri, D.N. (1983b). A new water-mite of genus Arrenurus
(Arrenuridae: Prostigmata) from West Bengal, India. Acarologia, 24: 435-
437.
Viets, K. (1926a). Indische Wassermilben. Zoologische Jahrbücher, Abteilung für
Systematik, Geographie und Biologie der Tiere, 52(5-6): 369-394.
Viets, K. (1926b) A note on Indian water-mites. Records of Indian Museum,
Calcutta, 28(3): 171-172.
Walter, C. (1928). Zur Kenntnis der Mikrofauna von Britisch Indien. II.
Hydracarina. Records of Indian Museum, Calcutta, 3(1): 57-108.
Walter, D. E. and Proctor, H. C. 2013. Mite: Ecology, Evolution and Behaviour-Life
at a micorscale. Springer: 494.
356
Chapter 23
Insecta : HEMIPTERA (AQUATIC BUGS)
Srimoyee Basu1 and K.A. Subramanian2
Abstract
India is represented by 325 species under 84 genera and 18 families of freshwater
hemipterans. The Western Ghats and Central India are well explored, whereas,
the Eastern Himalayan States and Western Himalayan regions of India are still
unexplored. Systematic identification of these aquatic bugs through morphological
studies has progressed rapidly. But, molecular identification involving DNA
barcoding is still lacking in India. An intensive field survey is urgently required
to update the baseline databases of freshwater hemipterans from India and to
understand their regional diversity and distribution pattern in inland freshwater
ecosystems.
Keywords: Hemiptera, Freshwater, India, Diversity, Distribution, Systematics
Introduction
Freshwater Hemipterans, commonly known as ‘aquatic bugs’, are secondarily
adapted to aquatic ecosystems. However, their nymphal and adult stages are
fully aquatic. The aquatic bugs, belonging to the suborder Heteroptera (true bugs)
are encompassed under three Infraorders such as, Nepomorpha, Gerromorpha
and Leptopodomorpha based on their niche and habitat preferences. They are an
integral component of freshwater ecosystems and play a major role in the food web
of the ecosystem as being predators, scavengers or collectors. The evolutionary
history shows that all families were present in the Mesozoic and probably date back
into the Triassic (Popov, 1971). The Nepomorphan has an extensive fossil record,
while the Gerromorphan have less fossil record in comparison to Nepomorpha.
Gerromorpha is a sister group to the Panheteroptera including Nepomorpha and
Leptopodomorpha (Schuh and Slater, 1995) and all members of the aquatic bugs
are predicted to be at least of the same age.
Nepomorphans are the true aquatic bugs, living underwater. Gerromorphans
are semi-aquatic bugs, living on the surface water, whereas Leptopodomorphans
are the shore dwellers, inhabiting the littoral zones or intertidal zones. They are
hemimetabolous insects and both nymphs and adults of these bugs play a major
role in sustainable management of aquatic habitat. These aquatic bugs are found
in both lotic and lentic freshwater habitats ranging from mountainous lake,
forested pools, ponds, hill streams, rivers, waterfalls, water splashed rocks, hot
springs, cascades etc. Because of their habitat specificity and sensitivity, they are
1 ICAR-NBAIR, H.A. Farm post, Bellary road, Bangalore-560024
2 Survey of India, Southern Regional Centre, Santhome High Road, Chennai-600028
357
Basu and Subramanian
indicators of the changes in the freshwater ecosystem’s health and ideal candidates
for biomonitoring. Their size vary from 1 mm to about 100mm. They possess a
specialized beak-like structure, rostrum, which helps in piercing and sucking.
Besides, the poor dispersal capabilities of these insects also serve as
zoogeographical indicators (Jordon, 1951; Hungerford and Matsuda, 1958a, b;
Thirumalai, 1999) and they are important indicators of long-term environmental
changes. Knowledge on the diversity and distribution of this group helps in
understanding the functional aspects of community structure and provides the
baseline data required for developing a strategy for the effective conservation
and management of the freshwater ecosystem. They have tackled the constraints
of living in aquatic environments by possessing several morphological and
physiological adaptations. Some of them (Corixidae, Nepidae, Geridae etc.) are
efficient bio-control agents of harmful vector like mosquito larvae. Nepomorpha,
Gerromorpha and Leptopodomorpha colonize new habitats as they are migratory
in nature and many species are attracted to light (Fernando, 1961). However, they
are encountered mostly in apterous forms. But, population living in temporary
pools consists of macropterous forms.
Fossil History
The evolutionary history of aquatic Hemiptera dates back into the Mesozoic
and Triassicera. However, the oldest fossil of Gerromorphan bug is Karanabis
kiritschenkoi Bekker-Migdisova, 1962 from the Upper Jurassic which belongs
to Mesoveliidae (Popov and Bechly, 2007). However, the rich fossil record of
Nepomorpha in the Mesozoic creates a mystery on the habitat preferences of
Gerromorpha due to the scarcity of Mesozoic Gerromorphan fossil (Grimaldi and
Engel, 2005).
Historical Resume
The Heteroptera or true bugs are the largest and most diverse groups of insects.
The most comprehensive work on this group, until now, is ‘The Biology of
Heteroptera’ by Miller (1956, 1971). The taxonomic studies on aquatic Hemiptera
was undertaken by Linnaeus (1758) in his 10th edition of Systema Naturae, which
included 12 species from Neotropical, Afrotropical and Palaearctic regions. The
earliest volume dealing with this group was Fabricius’s Systema Rhyngotorum
(1775). This was followed by Amyot and Serville (1843) in Histoire naturelle des
insectes hemipteres. Stal (1868-1869) and (1870-1875) described 66 species of
aquatic Hemiptera. Schuh and Slater (1995) discussed the systematic of these
bugs. Reuter (1912) discussed and analyzed about their synonymy.
The Gerromorpha or semi-aquatic bugs are defined by the members having the
ability to traverse the water surface film accompanied by four long and segmented
antennae. Earlier, they were treated under the group Amphibicorisae (Dufour,
1833; Leston et al., 1954). But, recent treatment by Schuh and Slater (1995);
Andersen (1982); Polhemus and Polhemus (2007, 2008); Henry (2009) showed that
it consists of eight families placed among four super families. Among the 8 families,
Hermatobatidae, Macroveliidae and Paraphrynoveliidae are not reported from
358
Insecta : Hemiptera (Aquatic bugs)
Gerromorpha
Gerridae Hydrometridae
Mesoveliidae Veliidae
Hebridae
359
Nepomorpha
Aphelocheiridae Belostomatidae Corixidae
Nepidae Micronectidae Pleidae
Helotrephidae Notonectidae Naucoridae
360
Nepomorpha
Ochteridae Gelastocoridae
Leptopodomorpha
Saldidae Leptopodidae
India. Most of the information on morphology, classification, phylogeny and bio-
geography is derived from the monographic work of Andersen (1982); Spence and
Andersen (1994). Faunistic knowledge on Gerromorpha is limited to the taxonomic
studies by Distant (1903, 1910a and b), Annandale (1919), Bergroth (1915), Paiva
(1919a and b), Dover (1928), Hafiz and Mathai (1938), Hafiz and Riberio (1939),
Hafiz and Pradhan (1947), Pradhan (1950a, b and 1975), Gupta (1981), Roy et al.
(1988), Ghosh et al. (1989), Polhemus and Starmuhlner (1990), Bal and Basu (1994,
1997, 2000), Chen and Zettel (1999), Thirumalai (1986, 1989, 1992, 1994a and b,
1996, 1999, 2000, 2002), Chandra et al., (2012), Jehamalar and Chandra (2013a, b).
The revisionary work of Andersen (1975, 1980, 1990 and 1993), Den Boer (1965),
361
Hennig (1981), Polhemus and Andersen (1984), Hungerford and Matsuda (1958a
and b, 1960, 1962, 1965), Polhemus (1994), Polhemus and Polhemus (1994, 1995),
Chen and Nieser (1993a and b), Chandra and Jehamalar (2012a), Jehamalar and
Chandra (2013c, d), Basu et al., (2014, 2016) on few genera of Gerridae; Andersen
(1981a, 1983, 1989), Polhemus (1990a), Lundblad (1936), Jehamalar (2015)
on Veliidae; Andersen and Polhemus (1980) on Mesoveliidae; Hungerford and
Evans (1934), Polhemus and Polhemus (1995), Jehamalr and Chandra (2014b) on
Hydrometridae; Andersen (1981b) and Zettel (1998) on Hebridae of the World are
important to understand the present scenario of Indian Gerromorpha.
The true water bugs or Nepomorpha occur all over the world except
Antarctica, with about 2000 species altogether, was first recognized as a group by
Latreille (1810) under the name Hydrocorisae. The taxa historically were placed
in the Hydrocorisae (Dufour, 1833; Leston et al., 1954) and are characterized by
short antennae that are concealed in part or entirely by the eyes. Taxonomy,
nomenclature, higher classification and phylogeny of Nepomorpha were reviewed
by many workers and important contributions have been made by Popov (1971),
Stys and Kerzhner (1975), Rieger (1976), Stys and Jansson (1988), Mahner (1993),
Andersen (1995), Polhemus et al. (1995) and Hebsgaard et al. (2004). Thirumalai
(2007) published a checklist on the Indian Nepomorpha, which enlisted 153 species
under 34 genera of aquatic bugs found in India. However, the number increased
to 157 species with the discovery of more new species under different families in
recent years in India. The earlier knowledge on Indian aquatic bugs is mainly
limited to taxonomic contributions by Distant (1903, 1906, 1910a and b), Annandale
(1919), Paiva (1919a, b), Dover (1928), Hutchinson (1933, 1940), Hafiz and Mathai
(1938), Hafiz and Riberio (1939), Hafiz and Pradhan (1947) and Pradhan (1950a).
The revisionary work of Lundblad (1933), Chen (1960) and Wroblewski (1960,
1962, 1972) on the genus Micronecta (Micronectidae), Todd (1955) on the genus
Nerthra (Gelastocoridae), Esaki and China (1928), Polhemus (1990b) and Papacek
and Zettel (2003 and 2004) on the family Helotrephidae. Polhemus and Polhemus
(1988), Sites et al., (2011), Basu et al. (2013) on Aphelocheiridae, La Rivers (1971a
and b, 1974) on Naucoridae, Lansbury (1972 and 1973) on the genera Ranatra,
Montonepa and Cercotmetus (Nepidae), Hungerford (1933), Brooks (1951) and
Lansbury (1968) on the genera Notonecta, Anisops, Enithares (Notonectidae)
and Jaczewski (1934), Kormilev (1971), Chandra and Jehamalar (2012b) on the
family Ochteridae of the world are noteworthy to understand the nepomorphan
fauna of India. Consolidated information on the occurrence as well as the present
status of aquatic bugs in India pertains to the works of Bal and Basu (1994, 1997,
2000, 2002, 2003, 2004), Ghosh et al. (1989), Nahar (2004), Papacek and Zettel
(2004), Polhemus and Starmuhlner (1990). Ravishankar and Venkatesan (1988),
Thirumalai (1983, 1986, 1989, 1994a, 1998, 1999, 2001, 2002, 2004 and 2007),
Thirumalai and Raghunathan (1988), Thirumalai and Kumar (2005), Thirumalai
et al. (2004, 2006), Venkatesan and Rao (1980) and Zettel (1997a, b, 1998, 2000
and 2001), Chandra et al., (2012), Jehamalar and Chandra (2013a, b).
The major taxonomic work on the infraorder Leptopodomorpha has been
carried out by Reuter (1912), Drake and Chapman (1952), Schuh et al. (1987),
Cobben (1959, 1980, 1985), Polhemus and Polhemus (2007, 2012), Zettel et al.,
(2013).
362
Diversity
Polhemus and Polhemus (2008) and Alder and Foottit (2009) mentioned that
approximately 4656 species of aquatic and semi-aquatic bugs belonging to three
infraorders, 20 families and 326 genera inhabit freshwater globally. In addition,
more than 1100 species remain undescribed (Polhemus and Polhemus, 2007). Of
these, 1103 species occur in the Oriental region. Whereas, the species richness
is higher in Neotropical region and it is represented by 1289 species. India is
represented by 318 species under 82 genera and 18 families (Thirumalai, 1999,
2002, 2007). Among these, the families like Veliidae, Gerridae, Corixidae,
Micronectidae, Hebridae, Helotrephidae and Naucoridae are high species rich
families. However the current number of species is 4940 globally. Global freshwater
aquatic Heteroptera diversity is provided in Table 1.
Table 1. Global diversity of freshwater aquatic Heteroptera

(Polhemus and Polhemus, 2008).
Infraorder Family Species

Gerromorpha Gerridae 777
Veliidae 1011
Hebridae 230
Hydrometridae 128
Mesoveliidae 47
Hermatobatidae 12
Macroveliidae 3
Paraphrynoveliidae 2
Nepomorpha Belostomatidae 160
Nepidae 271
Notonectidae 406
Corixidae and Micronectidae 613
Pleidae 38
Aphelocheiridae 84
Naucoridae 404
Ochteridae 69
Gelastocoridae 111
Helotrephidae 181
Potamocoridae 10
Leptopodomorpha Leptopodidae 41
Saldidae 335
Omaniidae 6
Aepophilidae 1
Total 4940
363
Classification of Aquatic bugs of Indian Subregion
Infraorder Gerromorpha Family BELOSTOMATIDAE

Superfamily Gerroidea Subfamily Belostomatinae
Family GERRIDAE Subfamily Lethocerinae
Subfamily Rhagadotarsinae Superfamily Ochteroidea
Subfamily Trepobatinae Family GELASTOCORIDAE
Subfamily Gerrinae Subfamily Nerthrinae
Subfamily Eotrechinae Family OCHTERIDAE
Subfamily Cylindrostethinae Superfamily Corixoidea
Subfamily Ptilomerinae Family CORIXIDAE

Subfamily Corixinae
Subfamily Halobatinae
Subfamily Cymatinae
Family VELIIDAE
Family MICRONECTIDAE
Subfamily Microveliinae
Subfamily Micronectinae
Subfamily Rhagveliinae
Superfamily Naucoroidea
Subfamily Haloveliinae
Family APHELOCHEIRIDAE
Subfamily Veliinae
Subfamily Aphelocheirinae
Subfamily Perittopinae
Family NAUCORIDAE
Superfamily Mesovelioidea
Subfamily Cheirochelinae
Family MESOVELIIDAE
Subfamily Laccocorinae
Subfamily Mesoveliinae
Subfamily Naucorinae
Superfamily Hydrometroidea
Superfamily Notonectoidea
Family HYDROMETRIDAE
Family NOTONECTIDAE
Subfamily Hydrometrinae
Subfamily Anisopinae
Superfamily Hebroidea Subfamily Notonectinae
Family HEBRIDAE Superfamily Pleoidea
Subfamily Hebrinae Family PLEIDAE
Subfamily Hyrcaninae Family HELOTREPHIDAE
Infraorder Nepomorpha Subfamily Fischerotrephinae
Superfamily Nepoidea Subfamily Helotrephinae
Family NEPIDAE Infraorder Leptopodomorpha
Subfamily Nepinae Family LEPTOPODIDAE
Subfamily Ranatrinae Family SALDIDAE
364
Family wise diversity is summarized Table 2.

Table 2. Aquatic bugs diversity across family, genera and species
in the Indian subregion
Sl. No. Infraorder Family No. Genera No. Species

I Gerromorpha
1 Gerridae 26 93
2 Veliidae 13 33
3 Hydrometridae 1 5
4 Hebridae 4 22
5 Mesoveliidae 1 3
II Nepomorpha
6 Aphelocheiridae 1 8
7 Nepidae 3 24
8 Naucoridae 7 20
9 Notonectidae 4 32
10 Corixidae 7 20
11 Micronectidae 2 27
12 Pleidae 1 4
13 Helotrephidae 6 13
14 Ochteridae 1 2
15 Gelastocoridae 1 5
16 Belostomatidae 2 5
III Leptopodomorpha
17 Leptopodidae 2 2
18 Saldidae 2 7
Total 84 325
Distribution
Aquatic and semi-aquatic hemipterans are distributed in a wide range of freshwater
habitats ranging from pond, lake, forested small temporary pool, rivers, hill
streams, canal within agricultural field, waterfalls, cascades, mountainous lake
or stream etc. They occur on all continents except Antarctica and more diverse
in tropical areas. High diversity of water bugs is found in the pristine habitats
of Eastern Himalaya and Western Ghats. However, many families especially of
the Infraorder Leptopodomorpha are yet to be completely documented. They are
also found in the high altitudinal regions and show variance in diversity across
altitudinal gradients and land use pattern. Hence, they are the ideal candidates
for zoogeographical, ecological and biomonitoring studies. Nevertheless, the
documentation of the updated list of species is still incomplete and many more
species are yet to be described.
365
Endemism
A high percentage of tropical endemic species are found. Although several species
are cold adapted and associated with stream or waterfalls with high structural
complexity (Polhemus et al., 1992) Due to poor dispersal capabilities, they serve
as zoogeographical indicators (Thirumalai, 1999). Some species has wide habitat
distribution and few are restricted to either lentic or lotic habitats. The Oriental
realm especially the Indian subregion supports a wide variety of aquatic bugs due
to its complex biogeographic past. Though an intensive study is presently focused
on this area, resulting in a good number of new taxa, which are mostly endemics.
Biology
Aquatic and semi-aquatic bugs mainly inhabit inland freshwater habitats, though
several species are associated with intertidal brackish water and marine habitats.
They are predaceous or scavengers except family Corixidae (detritivore), feeding
on other aquatic insects. Few species of the family Belostomatidae, Aphlocheiridae,
Naucoridae, Nepidae and Gerridae are known to predate on other aquatic insects
of their own size, and even tadpoles, fish, molluscs, frogs etc. by immobilizing
preys. They have sexual dimorphism and males are often smaller than females.
All members of the aquatic bugs migrate to new habitats and some of them are
attracted to light. They mostly encountered in apterous forms. However, the
temporary pools are mainly dominated by macropterous population. Species
diversity is affected with the land use pattern altitude, habitat and microhabitat.
Life cycle
The aquatic Hemipterans are hemimetabolous insects i.e., they undergo incomplete
metamorphosis. The life cycle stages consist of egg, nymph and adult. They produce
one or two or sometimes several generations per year. In general, the overwintered
adults lay eggs in springs, develop in summer and further replicate their cycle.
Though, several studies have been undertaken on life histories of these bugs in
laboratory conditions. Usually, eggs are laid and glued on the rocks and plants
or sometimes on the back of the males (Belostomatidae). The eggs are relatively
tough, hexagonal, oval or spindle shaped with button-like or peg like micropylar
processes. There are five nymphal instars and the nymphs are morphologically
alike to adults, but without reproductive development. The entire life cycle of
these bugs may take 2 to 3 months (Leong, 1962). In some species life cycle starts
from mid May to July and new generations appear in late August to October and
overwinter until March to April (Ohba and Goodwyn, 2010). However, their life
cycle depends on the temperature and availability of food resources. They usually
found to mate throughout the year, but mating increased during February. They
stridulate to attract their mates. Most of them have well-developed forelegs with
tooth or spines for grasping females. Although, surface ripples also attract mates
(Wilcox, 1969), in a few species of water striders, mating occur on the surface water
and the pair copulate for several hours or even days (Birch et al., 1979). In true
aquatic bugs (Nepomorpha), they complete their entire life cycle including mating
underwater.
366
Longevity
The life span of adult usually lasts for one to six months. However, it varies
according to species and depends on temperature of the aquatic habitat.
Threats
The major threat is the impact of anthropogenic disturbances on inland freshwater
ecosystems. Habitat destruction, deforestation, rapid urbanization, changes in
the land use pattern such as dam construction, encroachment, siltation, weed
infestation, industrial or pesticidal pollution, over exploitation and electrofishing
to catch fishes in streams or rivers, which also affects other aquatic insects are
the real threats to these bugs inhabiting in such ecosystems. On the other hand,
introduction of exotic insect species to control weeds causes loss of native insect
population. Climate change and global warming are immediate threats to this
freshwater ecosystem, especially in Tropics.
Conservation and Significance

The first and principal actions necessary for conservation of these bugs, are the
restoration and management of inland freshwater habitats through protection and
preservation of bio-resources of the habitats. The effective conservation of species
requires understanding of how and where population occurs in a landscape and
what are the factors affecting this population. One of the major attempts to protect
the aquatic fauna is to set priorities among the several deserving candidates of
aquatic habitats and to find out the factor responsible for their decline. The major
approaches to conserve should be a combination of ecological, biotechnological and
socio-cultural and legal. The ecological and biotechnological approach involves
rapid identification through taxonomic studies and DNA Barcoding of them and
their different life stages. The awareness creation among local communities and to
involve them in management of freshwater habitats is also required.
Gaps in research
Several species especially of the family Leptopodidae, Saldidae, Helotrephidae,
Micronectidae, Veliidae are still unknown from India. Many freshwater
ecosystems of India are under surveyed and unexplored, mainly the Eastern
Himalayan Biodiversity Hotspots and the Western Himalaya. However, major
work on wetlands of Western Ghats has already been undertaken by Thirumalai
(1986, 1989, 1992, 1994, 2004) and Thirumalai and Kumar (2005). However, the
molecular studies involving DNA barcoding technique is still lacking and initiative
is required. Though, few species were barcoded recently and published at NCBI
databases by Basu and Venkatesan (2016).
Future dimensions
An intensive survey in the unexplored areas of India is required to update the
baseline information and to understand their pattern of distribution.
Combined approaches of both morphological and molecular systematic studies
and phylogenetic analysis are needed.
Studies on impact of several ecological and environmental factors and the
367
impact of anthropogenic disturbances on species of freshwater Hemipterans should

be one of the priorities.
Studies on cryptic species population and to resolve the problem through
molecular study is also obligatory.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
complete this work.
References
Alder, P.H. and Fottit, R.G. 2009. Introduction. In: Insect Biodiversity Science and
Society, Fottit, R.G. and P.H. Alder (Eds.). A John Weileys & Sons, Ltd.,
Publications. p. 3.
Amyot, E. and Serville, A. 1843. Histoire naturelle des insects, Hemipteres,
Libraire Encyclopedique de Report, Paris. XXVI: 675.
Andersen, N.M. and Polhemus, J.T. 1980. Four new genera of Mesoveliidae
(Hemiptera: Gerromorpha) and the Phylogeny of Classification of the
family. Entomologica scandinavica, 11: 369-392.
Andersen, N.M. 1975. The Limnogonus and Neogerris of the Old World with
character analysis and a reclassification of the Gerrinae (Hemiptera:
Gerridae). Entomologica Scandinavica Supplements, 7: 1-96.
Andersen, N.M. 1980. Hygropetric water striders of the genus Onychotrechus
Kirkaldy with description of a related genus (Insecta: Hemiptera: Gerridae).
Steenstrupia, 6(10): 113-146.
Andersen, N.M. 1981a. A new genus of Veliidae and descriptions of new oriental
species of the subfamily (Hemiptera: Veliidae). Entomologica scandinavica,
12: 339-356.
Andersen, N.M. 1981b. Semi-aquatic bugs: phylogeny and classification of Hebridae
(Heteroptera: Gerromorpha) with a revision of Timasius, Neotimasius and
Hyrcanus. Systematic Entomology, 6: 377-412.
Andersen, N.M. 1982. The semi-aquatic bugs (Hemiptera, Gerromorpha):
Phylogeny, adaptations, biogeography and classification. Entomonograph,
3: pp. 455.
Andersen, N.M. 1983. The Old World Microveliinae (Hemiptera: Veliidae) I. The
status of Pseudovelia Hoberlandt and Perivelia Poisson, with a review of
Oriental species. Entomologica scandinavica, 14: 253-268.
Andersen, N.M. 1989. The Old World Microveliinae (Hemiptera: Veliidae) II. Three
new species of Baptista Distant and a new genus from the Oriental region.
Entomologica scandinavica, 19: 363-380.
Andersen, N.M.1990. Phylogeny and taxonomy of water striders, genus Aquarius
Schellenberg (Insecta, Hemiptera, Gerridae) with a new species from
Australia. Steenstrupia, 16(4): 37-81.
368
Andersen, N.M. 1993. Classification, phylogeny and zoogeography of the pond

skaters Genus Gerris Fabricius (Hemiptera: Gerridae). Canadian Journal
of Zoology, 71(12): 2473-2508.
Andersen, N.M. 1995. Phylogeny and classification of aquatic bugs (Heteroptera,
Nepomorpha). An essay review of Mahner’s ‘Systema Cryptoceratum
Phylogeneticum’. Entomologica scandinavica, 26: 159-166.
Annandale, N. 1919. The fauna of certain small streams in the Bombay Presidency.
Records of the Indian Museum, 16(1): 109-161.
Bal, A. and Basu, R.C. 1994. Insecta: Hemiptera: Mesoveliidae, Hydrometridae:
Veliidae and Gerridae; Belostomatidae; Nepidae: Notonectidae and Pleidae.
Records of the Zoological Survey of India, Fauna of West Bengal, State
Fauna Serie, 3(5): 535-558.
Bal, A. and Basu, R.C. 1997. Hemiptera – Water Bugs. Records of the Zoological
Survey of India, Fauna of Delhi, State Fauna Series, 6: 261-276.
Bal, A. and Basu, R.C. 2000. Insecta: Hemiptera: Water Bugs. Records of the
Zoological Survey of India, Fauna of Tripura, StateFauna Series, 7(2): 427-
443.
Bal, A. and Basu, R.C. 2002. Insecta: Hemiptera:Water Bugs. Records of the
Zoological Survey of India, Fauna of Kabar Lake, Wetland Ecosystem
Series, 4: 77-87.
Zoological Survey of India, Fauna of Sikkim, State Fauna Series, 9(2): 541-
557.
Zoological Survey of India, Fauna of Manipur, State Fauna Series, 10: 293-
310.
Basu, S., Subramanian, K.A. and Saha, G.K. 2013. Overview of the species of
Aphelocheirus (Hemiptera: Heteroptera: Aphelocheiridae) of India, with
description of a new species from West Bengal. Zootaxa, 3700(2): 293-299.
Basu, S., Subramanian, K.A. and Polhemus, D.A. 2014. Two new species of
Amemboa Esaki (Heteroptera: Gerridae) from West Bengal, India. Zootaxa,
3774(6): 567-577.
Basu, S., Polhemus, D.A., Subramanian, K.A., Saha, G. K., Venkatesan, T. 2016.
Metrocoris Mayr (Insecta: Hemiptera: Gerridae) of India with descriptions
of five new species. Zootaxa, 4178(2): 257-277.
Bergroth, E. 1915. Hemiptera from the Bombay Presidency. Journal of the Bombay
Natural Histrory Society, 24: 170-179.
Brooks, G.T. 1951. A revision of the Genus Anisops (Notonectidae, Hemiptera).
University of Kansas Science Bulletin, 34(8): 301-519.
Birch, M.C., Cheng, L. and Treherne, J.E. 1979. Distribution and environmental
synchronization of the marine insect Halobates robustus in the Galapagos
Islands. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B., 206: 33-52.
369
Chandra, K., Jehamalar, E.E. and Raghunathan, C. 2012. Aquatic and semiaquatic
Heteroptera (Hemiptera: Insecta) of Great Nicobar Biosphere Reserve,
Andaman and Nicobar islands, India. Rec. zool. Surv. India, 112(2): 79-89.
Chandra, K. and Jehamalar, E.E. 2012a. Lathriobates manohardasi sp. nov.
(Hemiptera: Gerromorpha: Gerridae) from Tamilnadu, India, with a key to
the species. Zootaxa, 3186: 64-68.
Chandra, K. and Jehamalar, E.E. 2012b. Morphological differences in three species
of the genus Diplonychus (Hemiptera: Belostomatidae) known from India.
Rec. zool. Surv. India, 112(2) : 91-99.
Chen, L.C. 1960. A study of the genus Micronectaof India, Japan, Taiwan and
adjacent regions. Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society, 33(3): 99-
118.
Chen, P.P. and Nieser, N. 1993a. A taxonomic revision of the Oriental water strider
genus Metrocoris Mayr (Hemiptera, Gerridae) I. Steenstrupia, 19(1):1-43.
Chen, P.P. and Nieser, N. 1993b. A taxonomic revision of the Oriental water strider
genus Metrocoris Mayr (Hemiptera, Gerridae) II. Steenstrupia, 19(2): 45-
82.
Chen, P.P. and Zettel, H. 1999. Five new species of the Halobatinae genus
Metrocoris Mayr, 1865 (Insecta: Hemiptera: Gerridae) from the Continental
Asia. Annalen des (k.k.) naturhistorischen (Hof) Museums in Wien, Vienna,
101B: 13-32.
Cobben, R.H. 1959. Notes on the classification Saldidae with the description of a
new species from Spain. Zool. Medded., Leiden, 36: 303-316.
Cobben, R.H. 1980. The Saldidae of the Hawaiian archipelago (Hemiptera:
Heteroptera). Pacific Insects, 22(1-2): 1-34.
Cobben, R.H. 1985. Additions to the Eurasan Saldid fauna with a description of
fourteen new species (Heteroptera, Saldidae). Tijdschrift voor Entomologie,
128: 215-270.
Den Boer, M.H. 1965.Revisionary notes on the Genus Metrocoris Mayr (Heteroptera:
Gerridae) with descriptions of four new species. Zoologische Verhandelingen
Leiden, 74: 1-38.
Distant, W.L. 1903. The Fauna of British India including Ceylon and Burma.
Rhynchota, 2: 167-191.
Distant, W.L. 1906. The Fauna of British India including Ceylon and Burma.
Rhynchota, 3: 13-51.
Distant, W.L. 1909. Oriental Rhynchota, Heteroptera. Annals and Magazine of
Natural History, 5(8): 491-507.
Distant, W.L. 1910a. The Fauna of British India including Ceylon and Burma.
Appendix, 5: 137-166 & 310-353.
Distant, W.L. 1910b. Some undescribed Gerrinae. Annals and Magazine of Natural
History, 5(8): 140-153.
370
Dover, C. 1928. Notes on a collection of aquatic Rhynchota from the Buitenzorg

Museum. Treubia, Bogor, 10: 65-72.
Drake, C.J. and Chapman, H.C. 1952. A new species of Micracanthia from Florida
(Hemiptera: Saldidae). Florida Entomologist, 35(4): 147-150.
Dufour, L. 1833. Recherches anatomiques et physiologiques sur les Hemipteres.
Memories des Savants Etrangersde l’Academy of Science Paris, 4: 129-462.
Esaki, T. and China, W.E. 1928. Amonograph of the Helotrephidae, subfamily
Helotrephinae (Hemiptera: Heteroptera). EOS-Revista Espanola de
Entomologia, 4: 129-172.
Fabricius, J.C. 1775. Systema Entomologiae, sistens insectorum classes, ordines,
genera, species, adiectis synonimis, locis, descriptioibus, observatioibus.
Officina Libraria Kortii, Flensurgi et Lipsiae (Flensburg ad Leipzig,
Germany), pp. xxxii+832pp.
Fernando, C.H. 1961. Aquatic insects taken at light in Ceylon, with a discussion
and bibliography of references to aquatic insects at light. Ceylon Journal of
Science (Biological Sciences), 4: 46-54.
Ghosh L.K., Biswas, B., Chakraborty, S.P. and Sen, G.C. 1989. Insecta: Hemiptera.
In: Fauna of Orissa, State Fauna Series 1. (Ed.) Jairajpuri, M. SH. Zoological
Survey of India, Calcutta, 1(Part 3): 181-224.
Grimaldi, D. and Engel, M.S. 2005. Evolution of the insects. Cambridge University
Press: New York.
Gupta, Y.C. 1981. A new species of Ventidius Distant (Hemiptera: Gerridae) from
India. Oriental Insects, 15(1): 97-102.
Hafiz, H.A. and Mathai, G. 1938. On a collection of aquatic Rhynchota from the
Rajmahal Hills, Santal Parganas, Bihar. Records of the Indian Museum,
40(2): 207-210.
Hafiz, H.A. and Riberio, K.S. 1939. On a further collection of aquatic Rhynchota
from the Raaajmahal Hills, Santal Parganas, Bihar, with a description of
Micronecta santala sp. nov. Records of the Indian Museum, 41(4): 423-436.
Hafiz, H.A. and Pradhan, K.S. 1947. Notes on a collection of aquatic Rhynchota
from the Patna State, Orissa, with descriptions of two new species. Records
of the Indian Museum, 45(4): 347-376.
Hebsgaard, M.B., Andersen, M. and Damgaard, J. 2004. Phylogeny of the true
water bugs (Nepomorpha: Hemiptera: Heteroptera) based on 16S and 28S
rDNA and morphology. Systematic Entomology, 29: 488-508.
Hennig, W. 1981. Insect phylogeny. (Eds.) John Wiley & Sons. New York, USA.
pp. 514.
Henry, T.J. 2009. Bioiversity of Heteroptera. In: Insect Biodiversity. (Eds.)Foottit,
R.G. and Adler, P.H. Science and Society, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, UK.
Hungerford, H.B. 1933. The Genus Notonecta of the World. University of Kansas
Science Bulletin, 21: 5-195.
371
Hungerford, H.B. and Evans, N.E. 1934. Te Hydrometridae of the Hungarian

National Museum and other studies in the family (Hemiptera). Annales
Historico-Naturales Musei Nationalis Hungarici, 28: 31-112.
Hungerford, H.B. and Matsuda, R.1958a. The Tenagogonus-Limnometra. Complex
of the gerrinae. Kansas University Science Bulletin, 39(9): 371-457.
Hungerford, H.B. and Matsuda, R. 1958b. A new primitive Ptilomera from the
Himalaya and other notes (Gerridae, Hemiptera). Bulletin of the Brooklyn
Entomological Society, 53(5): 117-123.
Hungerford, H.B. and Matsuda, R. 1960. Concerning the Genus Ventidius and five
new species (Heteroptera: Gerridae). Kansas University Science Bulletin,
40(1): 323-343.
Hungerford, H.B. and Matsuda, R. 1962. The Genus Cylindrostethus Fieber from
the Eastern Hemisphere. Kansas University Science Bulletin, 63(3): 83-111.
Hungerford, H.B. and Matsuda, R. 1965. The Genus Ptilomera Amyot & Serville
(Gerridae: Hemiptera). Kansas University Science Bulletin, 45(5): 397-515.
Hutchinson, G.E. 1933. A revision of the Distantian and Paivian types of
Notonectidae and Corixidae in the Indian Museum. Records of the Indian
Museum, 35(4): 393-408.
Hutchinson, G.E. 1940. A revision of the Corixidae or India and Adjacent Regions.
Transactions of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences, 33: 339-476.
Jaczewski, T. 1934. Notes on the Old World Species of Ochteridae. Annals and
Magazine of Natural History, 13(10): 597-613.
Jehamalar, E.E. and Chandra, K. 2013a. On a collection of aquatic and semi-
aquatic bugs (Hemiptera: Heteroptera) from Chhattisgarh, India. Rec. zool.
Surv. India, 113(1): 183-195.
Jehamalar, E.E. and Chandra, K. 2013b. On the genus Anisops (Heteroptera :
Nepomorpha : Notonectidae) from Andaman and Nicobar islands, with a
new record to India. Rec. zool. Surv. India, 113(2): 55-59.
Jehamalar, E.E. and Chandra, K. 2013c. On the genus Tenagogonus Stål
(Hemiptera: Heteroptera: Gerridae) from India with a description of a new
species. Zootaxa, 3616(4): 378-386.
Jehamalar, E.E. and Chandra, K. 2013d. Two new species of Metrocoris Mayr
(Hemiptera: Heteroptera: Gerridae) from India. Zootaxa, 3734 (1): 063-071.
Jehamalar, E.E. 2015. Strongylovelia lillyae sp. nov. (Hemiptera: Gerromorpha:
Veliidae) from Tamil Nadu, India: the first species of the genus described
from the Indian subcontinent. Zootaxa, 4033(2): 287-292.
Jehamalar, E.E. and Chandra, K. 2014b. On the genus Hydrometra Latreille
(Hemiptera: Heteroptera: Hydrometridae) from India with description of
two new species. Zootaxa, 3779: 501-17.
Jordon, K.H.C. 1951. Zoogeographisce Betrachtungen uber das ostiliche Sachsen
dargestelitandentschen Neuf under von Heteropteren. Zoologischer
Anzeiger, 147: 79-84.
372
Kormilev, N.A. 1971. Ochteridae from the Oriental and Australian regions. Pacific
Insects, 13: 429-444.
La Rivers, I. 1971a. Descriptions and notes concerning some Oriental Aphelocheirus
(Hemiptera: Aphelocheiridae).Bulletin of the Southern California Academy
of Sciences, 70: 69-72.
La Rivers, I. 1971b. Studies of Naucoridae (Hemiptera). Biological Society of
Nevada Memoirs, 2: 1-120.
La Rivers, I. 1974. Catalogue of taxa Described in the family Naucoridae
(Hemiptera). Supplement No 1: Corrrections, Emendations and Additions
with descriptions of new species. Occasional Papers-Biological Society
of Nevada, 38: 1-17.
Lansbury, I. 1968. The Enithares (Hemiptera - Heteroptera: Notonectidae). Pacific
Insects, 10(2): 353-442.
Lansbury, I. 1972. A review of the Oriental species of RanatraFabricius (Hemiptera:
Heteroptera: Nepidae). Transactions of the RoyalEntomological Society of
London, 124(3): 287-341.
Lansbury, I. 1973. A review of the genus Cercotmetus Amyot & Servile, 1843
(Hemiptera: Heteroptera: Nepidae). Tijdschrift voor Entomologie, 116(5):
83-106.
Latreille, P.A. 1810. Considérations générales sur l’ordre naturel des animaux
composant les classes des crustacés, des arachnides, et des insectes; avec
un tableau méthodique de leurs genres, disposés en familles. (Ed.) Schoell,
F. Paris, France. pp. 444.
Leong, C.Y. 1962. The life history of Anisops breddini Kirk. (Hemiptera:
Notonectidae). Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. (Ser. 5), 13: 377-383.
Leston, D., Pendergrast, J.G. and Southwood, T.R.E. 1954. Classification of the
terrestrial Heteroptera (Geocorisae). Nature, 174: 91.
Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema naturae per regna tria naturae secundum classes,
ordines, genera, species, cum characteribus, differntiis, synonymis, locis.
Tomus I. Ed. Decimal reformata.-Laurentii Salvii, Holmiae.v+824pp.
[Facsimile, British Museum (Natural History), London, 1956].
Lundblad, O. 1933. Eine new Micronecta Art aus Vov derindien. Entomologisk
Tidskrift, Stockholm, 3-4: 217-219.
Lundblad, O.1936. Die attweltlichen Artender Veludengatungen Rhagovelia and
Tetraripis. Arkiv for zoologi, 28(21): 1-63.
Mahner, M. 1993. Systema Cryptoceratorum Phylogeneticum (Insecta,
Heteroptera). Zoologica, 48: 1-302.
Miller, N.C.E. 1956. The Biology of Heteroptera. Leonard Hill Books, London, 162
pp.
Miller, N.C.E. 1971. The Biology of Heteroptera. 2nd ed., rev. Hampton, Classey.
Xiii+206 pp.
373
Nahar, S.C. 2004. Aquatic insects. Fauna of Bihar (including Jharkhand). Zool.
Surv. India, State Fauna Series, 11(part 1): 195-213.
Ohba, S.Y. and Goodwyn, P.J. 2010. Life cycle of the water scorpion Laccotrephes
japonensis, in Japanese rice fields and a pond. J. Insect. Sci., 10: 1-10.
Paiva, C.A. 1919 a. Aquatic and Semi-aquatic Rhynchota from the Satara and
Poona Districts. Records of the Indian Museum, 16(1): 152-156.
Paiva, C.A. 1919 b. Rhynchota from the Garo Hills, Assam. Records of the Indian
Museum, 16(3): 349-377.
Papacek, K. and Zettel, H. 2003. On the species taxonomy of the Limnotrephinae
genera Limnotrephes, Mixotrephes and Tiphotrephes (Hemiptera:
Helotrephidae). Tijdschrift Voor Entomologie, 146: 219-234.
Papacek, K. and Zettel, H. 2004. Helotrephidae of the World (Hemiptera:
Heteroptera: Nepomorpha): Checklist and bibliography. Acta Societatis
Zoologicae Bohemicae, 68: 99-108.
Polhemus. J.T. 1990a. Miscellaneous studies on the genus Rhagovelia Mayr
(Heteroptera: Veliidae) in Southeast Asia and the Seychelles Islands,
with keys and description of new species. Bulletin of the Raffles Museum
(Zoology), 38(1): 65-75.
Polhemus. J.T. 1990b. A new tribe, a new genus and three new species of
Helotrephidae (Heteropter) from Southeast Asia, and a world checklist.
Acta Entomologica Bohemeslovaca, 87: 45-63.
Polhemus, J.T. and Andersen, N. M. 1984. A revision of Amemboa Esaki with notes
on the Phylogeny and ecological evolution of Eotrechinae water striders
(Insecta:Hemiptera: Gerridae). Steenstrupia, 10(3): 65-111.
Polhemus, J.T. and Polhemus, D.A. 1988. The Aphelocheirinae of Tropical Asia
(Heteroptera: Naucoridae). The Raffles Bulletin of Zoology, 36(2): 167-300.
Polhemus, J.T. and Starmuhlner, F. 1990. Results of the Austrian-Indian
Hydrobiological Mission 1976 to the Andaman Islands Part: X. List of
Aquatic Hemiptera in the inland waters of the Andaman Islands. Annalen
des Naturhistorischen Museums in Wien, 91(B): 43-51.
Polhemus, D.A., Maciolek, J. and Ford, J. 1992. An ecosystem classification of
inland waters for the tropical Pacific. Micronesica, 25: 155-173.
Polhemus, D.A. 1994. Taxonomy, Phylogeny, and Zoogeography of the Genus
Cylindrostethus Fieber in the Paleotropical Region (Heteroptera: Gerridae).
Bishop Museum Occassional Papers, 38: 1-34.
Polhemus, J.T. and Polhemus, D.A. 1994. The Trepobatinae (Heteroptera:
Gerridae) of New Guinea and surrounding regions, with a review of the
word fauna. Part 2. Tribe Naboandelini. Entomologica Scandinavica, 25(3):
333-359.
Polhemus, J.T., Jansson, A. and Kanyukova, E. 1995. Infraorder Nepomorpha-
Water bugs. In: Catalogue of the Heteroptera of the Palearctic Region.(Eds.)
Aukema, B. and Rieger, C.1: 13-76.
374
Polhemus, J.T. and Polhemus, D.A. 1995. Revision of the Genus Hydrometra
Latreille in Indochina and the Western Malaya Archipelago (Heteroptera:
Hydrometridae). Bishop Museum Occasional Paper, 43: 10-72.
Polhemus, J.T. and Polhemus, D.A. 2007. Global trends in the description of
aquatic and semi-aquatic Heteroptera species, 1758-2004. Tijdschrift voor
Entomologie, 150: 271-288.
Polhemus, J.T. and Polhemus, D.A. 2008. Global diversity of true bugs (Heteroptera:
Insecta) in freshwater. Hydrobiologia, 595: 379-391.
Polhemus, J.T. and Polhemus, D.A. 2012. Guide to aquatic Heteroptera of
Singapore and Peninsular Malaysiya. VIII. Leptopodomorpha, Familes
Saldidae, Leptopodidae and Omaniidae. Raffles Bulletin of Zoology, 60: 329-
341.
Popov, Y.A. 1971. Historical development of the hemipterous infraorder
Nepomorpha. Trudy Paleontological Institute Academy of Science, Nauk,
USSR, 28: 1-228. (In Russian).
Popov, Y.A. and Bechly, G. 2007. Heteroptera: bugs. - pp. 317-328. In: Martill,
D.M., Bechly, G. and Loveridge, R.F. (eds): The Crato Fossil Beds of Brazil:
Window into an Ancient World. xvi + 625 pp. - Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, UK.
Pradhan, K.S. 1950a. On a collection of Aquatic Rhynchota from the Rihand Dam
Site, Mirzapur District (U.P.) with the description of a new water strider.
(Insecta: Hemiptera: Gerridae). Records of the Indian Museum, 48(2): 101-
105.
Pradhan, K.S. 1950b. On the Distribution of the Genus Amemboa Esaki (Hemiptera:
Heteroptera) with the description of a new species. Records of the Indian
Museum, 48(3&4): 11-16.
Pradhan, K.S. 1975. On Ptilomera (Proptilomera) himalayensis Hungerford and
Matsuda (Hemiptera: Gerridae: Ptilomerinae). ZSI, Calcutta Newsletter,
1(4): 57-59.
Ravishankar, S. and Venkatesan, P. 1988. Redescription of two Oriental species of
genus Laccotrephes Stal (Heteroptera: Nepidae) with a key to south Indian
species. Entomon, 13(3&4): 227-234.
Rieger, C. 1976. Skelett und Muskulatur des Kopfes und Prothorax von Ochterus
marginatus Latreille. Zoomorphologie, 83: 109-191.
Reuter, O.M. 1912. Zur generischen Teilung der Palaarktischen un Nearktischen
Acanthiaden. Ofver. Finska Vet.-Soc. Forh., 54, (Afd. A, 12): 1-24.
Roy, S.P., Pathak, H.S. and Kumar, V. 1988. Faunistic composition of aquatic
insects of Eastern Bihar with notes on their some aspects of ecology. Records
of the Zoological Survey of India, 54(1): 49-57.
Schuh, R.T., Galil, B. and Polhemus, J.T. 1987. Catalog and Bibliography of
Leptopodomorpha (Hetreoptera). Bulletin of American Museum of Natural
History, 185: 243-406.
375
Schuh, R.T. and Slater, J.A. 1995. True bugs of the world (Hemiptera: Heteroptera):
classification and natural history. Comell University Press.
Sites, R.W., Arunachalam, M. and Sundar, S. 2011. A new species of Aphelocheirus
(Hemiptera: Heteroptera: Aphelocheiridae) from southern India. Zootaxa,
2916: 35-40.
Spence, J.R. and Andersen, N.M. 1994. Biology of water striders: interactions
between systematic and ecology. Annual Review of Entomology, 39: 101-
128.
Stal, C. 1868-69. Hemiptera Fabriciana L. Kongliga Svenska vetenskaps-
akademiens handlingar, 7(11): 1-148; 8(1): 1-130.
Stal, C. 1870-1875. Enumeratio Hemipterorum. Bidrag till en forteckning ofver alla
hittills kanda Hemiptera, jemtes systematica meddelanden. -P.A.Norstedt
& Soner, Stockholm, 5 parts. Svenska Vetenskaps-Akademiens Handlingar,
Part 1, 9(1): 1-232, 1870; Part 2, 10(4): 1-159, 1872; Part 3, 11(2): 1-163,
1873; Part 4, 12(1): 1-186, 1874; Part 5, 14(4): 1-162, 1875.
Stys, P. and Kerzhner, I.M. 1975. The rank and nomenclature of higher taxa in
recent Heteroptera. Acta Entomologica Boheonslov, 72: 65-69.
Stys, P. and Jansson, A. 1988. Check-list of recent family group and genus group
names of Nepomorpha (Heteroptera) of the World. Acta Entomologica
Fennica, 50: 1-44.
Thirumalai, G. 1983. New record of two species of the genus Anisops Spinola
(Hemiptera: Insecta) from the lower Western Ghats, Kerala. Bulletin of the
Zoological Survey of India, 5(1): 123-124.
Thirumalai, G. 1986. On Gerridae and Notonectidae (Heteroptera: Hemiptera:
Insecta) from Silent Valley, Kerala. Records of the Zoological Survey of
India, 84 (1-4): 9-33.
Thirumalai, G. 1989. Aquatic and Semi-aquatic Hemiptera (Insecta) from Javadi
Hills, Tamilnadu. Miscellaneous Occassonal Papers of Records of the
Thirumalai, G. and Raghunathan, M.B. 1988. Population fluctuations of three
families of aquatic Heteroptera in a perennial pond. Records of the Zoological
Thirumalai, G. 1992. A new record of Pleciobates tuberculatus Esaki from India
with a key to the known species of Pleciobates Esaki (Gerridae: Heteroptera:
Insecta). Hexapoda, 4(2): 170-174.
Thirumalai, G. 1994a. Aquatic and semi-Aquatic Hemiptera (Insecta) of Tamilnadu.
I. Dharmapuri and Pudukkottai Districts. Miscellaneous Occassonal Papers
of Records of the Zoological Survey of India, 165: 1-45.
Thirumalai, G.1994b. On the Genus Rhagovelia Mayr from India with a new record
and description of a new species (Rhagoveliinae: Veliidae: Heteroptera).
Records of the Zoological Survey of India, 94(2-4): 381-394.
376
Thirumalai, G. 1996. A new record of the subgenus Ventidiodes Hungerford and

Matsuda of the genus Ventidius Distant from India (Halobatinae: Gerridae:
Heteroptera). Arunachal Forest News, 14(2): 14-16.
Thirumalai, G. 1998. The Genus Nerthra (Say) from India with a description of a
new species from Arunachal Pradesh, North Eastern India. Records of the
Zoological Survey of India, 96(1-4): 189-193.
Thirumalai, G. 1999. Aquatic and semi-aquatic Heteroptera (Insecta) of India.
Indian Association of Aquatic Biologists (IAAB) Publication No, 7: 1-74.
Thirumalai, G. 2000. Diversity of the semi-aquatic bugs Heteroptera: Hemiptera:
Insecta) in Arunachal Pradesh. Journal of Aquatic Biology, 15(1): 35-39.
Thirumalai, G. 2001. Insecta-Aquatic and semi-aquatic Heteroptera. Zoological
Survey of India, Fauna of Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve Fauna of conservation
AreaSeries, 11: 111-127.
Thirumalai, G. 2002. A checklist of Gerromorpha (Hemiptera) from India. Records
of the Zoological Survey of India, 100(Part 1-2): 55-97.
Thirumalai, G. 2004. A checklist of aquatic and semi-aquatic Hemiptera (Insecta)
of Karnataka. Records of the Zoological Survey of India, 102(1-2): 57-72.
Thirumalai, G., Kumar, R.S. and Sharma, R.M. 2004. Aquatic and semi-aquatic
Hemiptera (Insecta). Zoological Survey of India, Fauna of Pench National
Park, Fauna of Conservation Area Series, 20: 233-250.
Thirumalai, G. and Kumar, R.S. 2005. Aquatic and semi-aquatic Hemptera
(Heteroptera) of Karaikal and Pondicherry. Records of the Zoological Survey
of India, 105(1-2): 5-24.
Thirumalai, G., Sharma, R.M. and Namboodiri, M.P.S. 2006. Aquatic and semi-
aquatic Hemiptera (Insecta). Zoological Survey of India, Fauna of Tadoba
Andhari Tiger Reserve, Fauna of Conservation Area Series, 25: 251-272.
Thirumalai, G. 2007. A synoptic list of Nepomorpha (Hemiptera: Heteroptera)
from India. Records of the Zoological Survey of India Occasional Paper No.,
273: 1-84.
Todd, E.L. 1955. A Taxonomic Revision of the Family Gelastocoridae (Hemiptera).
Kansas of University Science Bulletin, 36(1): 277-475.
Venkatesan, P. and Ragunatha Rao, T.K. 1980. Description of a new species and
a key to Indian species of Belostomatidae. Journal of Bombay Natural
Wilcox, R.S. 1969. Acoustical behavior, sound-producing structures and biology of
Buenoa. PhD. Thesis. Dept. Zool., Univ. Mich., Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Wróblewski, A.1960. Notes on some Asiatic species of the genus MicronectaKirkaldy
(Heteroptera, Corixidae). Annales Zoologici, Polon, Warszawa, 18(17): 301-
331.
Wróblewski, A.1962. Notes on some Asiatic species of the genus MicronectaKirkaldy
(Heteroptera, Corixidae) II. Bulletin de l Academie Polonaise des Sciences
Sc II, Warszawa, 10(1): 29-37.
377
Wróblewski, A.1972. Further notes on Micronectinae from Ceylon (Heteroptera,

Corixidae). Bulletin of Entomology, Pologne, 42(1): 3-52.
Zettel, H.1997a. Limnotrephes minutissimus sp. n (Heteroptera: Helotrephidae)
aus Indien. Linzer Biologische Beiträge, 29(2): 683-687.
Zettel, H. 1997b. One new genus and two new species of Helotrephidae (Insecta:
Heteroptera) from India, with notes on the phylogeny of the family. Annalen
des Naturhistorischen Museums in Wien, 99B: 83-95.
Zettel, H. 1998. Eine taxonomische Revision der Gattung Hyrcanus Distant, 1910
(Heteroptera: Hebridae) mit Neubeschreibungen von vier Arten aus Indien,
Thailand, Laos und China. Stapfia, 55: 585-606.
Zettel, H. 2000. Aphelocheirus boukali sp. n. (Heteroptera: Aphelocheiridae)
aus Sudindien. Zeitschrift der Arbeitsgemeinschaft österreichischer
Entomologen, 52: 11-14.
Zettel, H. 2001. Die Indische Zwergschwimmwanze Nanonaucoris gen. n. eine
neue gattung der Naucorini (Heteroptera: Naucoridae) aus Sudindien.
Linzer Biologische Beiträge, 33(2): 1085-1095.
Zettel, H., Panganitihon, C.V. and Freitag, H. 2013. A new intertidal shore
bug (Heteroptera: Saldidae) from the Philippines. Zeitschrift der
Arbeitsgemeinschaft Osterreichischer Entomologen, 65: 81-86.
378
Chapter 24
Insecta : Coleoptera
(Aquatic Beetles)
Kailash Chandra1, Deepa Jaiswal2 & Devanshu Gupta3
ABSTRACT
The aquatic beetle fauna of India consists of 776 species belonging to 137 genera,
and 17 families under 3 suborders. The suborder Polyphaga includes 371 species,
Adephaga 353 species, and Myxophaga 7 species. Dytiscidae includes maximum
numbers of species 256, followed by Hydrophilidae (212 species), Scirtidae (75
species), Gyrinidae (73 species), Hydraenidae (45 species), Elmidae, Psephenidae
(24 species each), Noteridae (16 species), Haliplidae, Dryopidae (10 species each),
Georissidae, Helophoridae (7 species each), Hydroscaphidae, Hydrochidae (5
species each), Epimetopidae (4 species), Spercheidae (3 species), and Sphaeriusidae
(2 species). In terms of biogeographic distribution, the highest diversity of aquatic
beetles is present in the Indian Himalayan Landscape (357 species), followed by
Deccan Peninsula (193 species), Western Ghats, Northeast (171 species, each),
Gangetic Plains (167 species), Semi-Arid (64 species), Islands (43 species), Coasts
(37 species), Trans-Himalaya (26 species) and Desert (24 species).
Key words : Aquatic Coleoptera, Diversity, Biogeography, Distribution.
INTRODUCTION
The order Coleoptera includes hard bodied beetles which are holometabolous in
nature with complex metamorphosis, their forewings are folded into chitinous
elytra, hind wings membranous, protected under elytra while in resting stage.
They are characterized by mandibulate mouthparts, antennae with 11 or fewer
antennomeres, larvae worm-like, and the male aedeagus and the female ovipositor
are retracted into the abdominal apex when not in use. Based on the number of
described animal diversity, the beetles are the most species-rich animal group
existing on the Earth. Slipinski et al. (2011) estimated that there are about
3,86,500 species belonging to 29,500 genera and 176 families under 4 suborders
(Archostemata, Myxophaga, Adephaga, and Polyphaga), representing 40% of the
total animal diversity of the world. Grove & Stork (2000) hypothesized that about
70–95% of all the beetle species are yet to be discovered and described and also
emphasized that it would take 200 years to explore the entire beetle fauna of
the world. The beetles are found everywhere and in almost all ecosystems where
animals can thrive with the exceptions of arctic snow and the sea water.
1, 3
Zoological Survey of India, ‘M’ Block, New Alipore, Kolkata-700053
([email protected]; [email protected])
2Freshwater Biology Regional Centre, Zoological Survey of India, Hyderabad
([email protected])
379
Chandra et al.
Jäch & Balke (2008) in his global assessment of water beetles estimated
that the planet earth harbors about 12,600 species of Coleoptera, thriving solely
on aquatic ecosystems in part of their life cycle. Aquatic beetles or water beetles
live in almost all kinds of aquatic habitats, such as rivers, springs, lakes, ditches,
puddles, seepages, and ground water. Based on their association with aquatic
life as of adults and of immature stages, the aquatic beetles can be classified into
following six groups: 1. True Water Beetles, 2. False Water Beetles, 3. Phytophilous
Water Beetles, 4. Parasitic Water Beetles, 5. Facultative Water Beetles, and 6.
Shore Beetles (Jäch, 1998). The adults of the true water beetles remain submerged
for most of the time in water whereas their larvae and pupae may be aquatic or
terrestrial. The species in this group are highly adapted to aquatic life showing
important morphological adaptations such as swimming hairs on legs, divided
eyes, plastron, large claws, and streamlined body form. In false water beetles, only
the juvenile stages are aquatic, the adult stage is always predominantly terrestrial.
Parasitic water beetles come in association with water only when their hosts are
submerged whereas facultative water beetles and shore beetles are predominantly
terrestrial beetle families with their juveniles live in very wet habitats (Jäch,
1998).
Out of 4 suborders of Coleoptera, the suborder Myxophaga is truly aquatic
whereas 8 of the 11 extant families of Adephaga are regarded as truly aquatic
(Gyrinidae, Haliplidae, Meruidae, Noteridae, Amphizoidae, Aspidytidae,
Hygrobiidae, Dytiscidae). As far as Polyphaga is concerned, the largest suborder of
Coleoptera, only 13 of the 150 families are regarded as truly aquatic (Helophoridae,
Epimetopidae, Hydrochidae, Spercheidae, Hydrophilidae, Hydraenidae, Scirtidae,
Elmidae, Dryopidae, Lutrochidae, Psephenidae, Cneoglossidae, and Eulichadidae)
Jäch & Balke (2008).
The beetle fauna of India is highly diverse and holds about 4.66% of all
known species of the world, with about 17,431 species belonging to 113 families
under 3 suborders (Adephaga, Myxophaga, and Polyphaga) (Ramakrishna &
Alfred, 2007). Out of them, seventeen families can be said to be truly aquatic:
Hydrophilidae, Scirtidae, Gyrinidae, Hydraenidae, Elmidae, Psephenidae,
Noteridae, Haliplidae, Dryopidae, Georissidae, Helophoridae, Hydroscaphidae,
Hydrochidae, Epimetopidae, Spercheidae, and Sphaeriusidae.
The available information on the aquatic beetles of the families; Dytiscidae,
Haliplidae, Gyrinidae, and Noteridae of India is mainly because of the works done
by Vazirani (1952, 1955, 1964, 1966, 1969a, b, c; 1970, 1973a, b; 1975, 1976a, b,
c, 1977a, b, c, d, e, f, g, 1980, 1981, 1984). Vazirani (1977a) published catalogue
of Dytiscidae of India which was recently updated by Ghosh & Nilsson (2012),
reporting 254 species from India. Vazirani (1984) in his concluding contribution
wrote the fauna of India of Gyrinidae and Haliplidae. Further contributions have
been made mainly by Biswas & Mukhopadhyay (1995), Mukhopadhyay et al.
(2000), Mukhopadhyay & Ghosh (2003, 2007, 2010), Mukhopadhyay & Sengupta
(2004), Mukhopadhyay (2007, 2010), Ghosh et al. (2000, 2014) and Deepa et al.
(2015). The world catalogues of aquatic families have been published by Hansen
(1998, Hydraenidae; 1999, Hydrophiloidea), Nilsson & Vondel (2005, Haliplidae,
380
Insecta : Coleoptera (Aquatic Beetles)
Noteridae), Jäch et al. (2016, Elmidae) and Nilsson (2011, Noteridae; 2015,
Dytiscidae). The catalogues of Palearctic Coleoptera have been compiled by Löbl &
Smetana (2003, Myxophaga, Adephaga; 2004, Hydrophiloidea; 2006, Byrrhoidea).
Except the families, Dytiscidae, Gyrinidae, and Haliplidae, dealt in various
publications, the information on the diversity and distribution of aquatic beetles,
especially in the families, Hydrophilidae, Scirtidae, Hydraenidae, Elmidae,
Psephenidae, Noteridae, Dryopidae, Georissidae, Helophoridae, Hydroscaphidae,
Hydrochidae, Epimetopidae, Spercheidae, and Sphaeriusidae is completely lacking.
Thus, in the present chapter, an attempt has been made to study the current
status of diversity and distribution of aquatic beetles in different bio-geographic
zones of India. The chapter dealt with the families which come under true or false
water beetle categories as classified by (Jäch, 1998). The families representing
phytophilous water beetles, parasitic water beetles, facultative water beetles, and
shore beetles are not included. The detailed information of each taxa, reported in
the chapter is as follows.
STATUS OF aquatic BEETLES (COLEOPTERA) OF INDIA

Species Diversity
and 17 families under 3 suborders (Tables 1). The suborder Polyphaga includes
371 species, Adephaga 353 species, and Myxophaga 7 species (Table 1). Dytiscidae
includes maximum numbers of species 256, followed by Hydrophilidae (212 species),
Scirtidae (75 species), Gyrinidae (73 species), Hydraenidae (45 species), Elmidae,
Psephenidae (24 species each), Noteridae (16 species), Haliplidae, Dryopidae
(10 species each), Georissidae, Helophoridae (7 species each), Hydroscaphidae,
Hydrochidae (5 species each), Epimetopidae (4 species), Spercheidae (3 species),
and Sphaeriusidae (2 species) (Table 1). Seven genera were found to be monotypic:
Rhantaticus (Dytiscidae), Laorina, Macronychoides, Paramacronychus (Elmidae),
Monstrosostea (Dryopidae), Ophthalmocyclus, Morastus, and Pseudocercyon
(Hydrophilidae) (Table 2).
Suborder Adephaga
Adephaga includes 44,990 species (18% aquatic) under 11 families globally
(Jäch & Balke, 2008; Slipinski et al., 2011). The families, Gyrinidae, Haliplidae,
Meruidae, Noteridae, Amphizoidae, Hygrobiidae, and Dytiscidae are truly aquatic
in nature. Among them, the members of the following 4 families; Gyrinidae,
Haliplidae, Noteridae, and Dytiscidae are found in India, which are a major
component of water beetle fauna with a total of 353 species, reported from all the
biogeographic zones of the country. Meruidae, Amphizoidae, and Hygrobiidae are
not yet recorded from India. Though one species of Amphizoidae was reported from
India, but it was later shifted in the family Dytiscidae (Nilsson & Vondel, 2005).
1. Family Gyrinidae
The beetles in this family show peculiar swimming behavior where adults
rapidly revolve around a fixed point on the surface of the water. They are found
381
Chandra et al.
in static or moderately running water and preferably live in the habitats with
rich oxygen contents. The beetles are commonly known as whirligig beetles and
can be distinguished from the other Adephagan families by following characters:
compound eyes divided completely, so placed with upper pair on the dorsal surface
of the head, remains above the water line and the lower pair on the ventral surface
of the head, remains below the water line when the beetle swims; antennae short
with a broad, cup-shaped scape, subtriangular pedicel and elongate but compact
flagellum, and meso- and metathoracic legs broadly expanded and fringed with
setae for swimming (Roughley, 2001a).
Gyrinidae with its worldwide distribution consists of about 1,000 species under
25 genera globally (Slipinski et al., 2011). The Indian fauna is represented by 73
species belonging to 5 genera under 3 subfamilies; Gyrininae (5), Enhydrinae (5)
and Orectochilinae (63) (Tables 1, 2). Orectochilinae is the most diverse subfamily
in the region, which includes 63 species under a single genus, Orectochilus
representing 33.3% of the global diversity of the genus (Table 2). Vazirani (1984)
in the fauna of India of family Gyrinidae reported that the members of this genus
generally occur in running waters, streams and occasionally in perennial ponds.
In the subfamily Gyrininae, the genus Gyrinus consists of 3 species, and the
genera Aulonogyrus and Metagyrinus each with a single species. Enhydrinae is
represented by the genus Dineutus, which consists of only 5 species (105 species
worldwide) from the country.
2. Family Haliplidae
The family Haliplidae is a comparatively small group of inconspicuous, small
water-dwelling beetles, which are commonly termed as crawling water beetles.
The features that distinguish these beetles from other families are: extremely large
meta-coxal plates which cover most of the abdominal ventrites, tarsal formula 5-5-
5 and body form adapted for aquatic life (Roughley, 2001b). The members of this
family are moderate swimmers, may be found in diverse freshwater habitats such
as in brackish water, in the static or moderately-running water of pools, ponds,
lakes, marshes, ditches, canals, and rivers etc. The availability of the beetles
depend on the climatic conditions and they can breathe through microtracheal
gills in juvenile stages at the water surface.
Haliplidae consists of 220 species under 5 genera: Algophilus, Apteraliplus,
Brychius, Peltodytes, and Haliplus (Nilsson & Vondel, 2005). The Indian fauna
of this family is represented by 10 species belonging to the genus Haliplus (Table
2) (Vazirani, 1984; Vondel, 1993). The genus Haliplus is widely distributed in
Australian, Afrotropical, Nearctic, Neotropical, Oriental and Palaearctic regions.
The Haliplus species from India belong to the subgenus Liaphlus, which was
revised from the oriental region by Vondel (1993). H. angustifrons Régimbart,
1892 was the first species, described from India with its type locality situated in
Konbira, Ranchi district, Bihar (now in Jharkhand). This species has also been
widely reported from Nepal, Sri Lanka and Myanmar (Nilsson & Vondel, 2005).
3. Family Dytiscidae
The beetles in this family are adapted well to aquatic life. The adults and larvae
live in water and can be found in any aquatic ecosystems. They mostly feed on
382
aquatic invertebrates and fish eggs. This is why they are commonly called as
‘predacious diving beetles’. The streamlined and flattened body of the adults along
with the flattened or paddle-like tibia, femur and/or tarsi of metathoracic legs,
give them a characteristic shape to adapt to aquatic life. They can be distinguished
from the beetles in the family Hydrophilidae by 1st visible abdominal sternum and
short palpi whereas lack of prosternal platform differentiates them from Noterids
and a single pair of eyes from Gyrinids (Roughley & Larson, 2001).
This family is worldwide in distribution with about 4,303 species belonging
to 190 genera so far described globally (Nilsson, 2015). The Indian fauna of
this family is represented by 254 species (7.3%) belonging to 36 genera under 6
subfamilies; Hydroporinae, Copelatinae, Dytiscinae, Laccophilinae, Agabinae,
and Colymbetinae (Table 2) (Ghosh & Nilsson, 2012). Out of 190 genera, reported
worldwide, 36 (18.9%) have been recorded from India (Table 1). The maximum
species diversity is reported in the subfamily Hydroporinae (96 species), followed
by Copelatinae, Dytiscinae, (46 species each), Laccophilinae (31 species), Agabinae
(27 species), and Colymbetinae (8 species) (Table 2). The following genera of
Hydroporinae are widely distributed in India: Hydrovatus (18 species), Hyphoporus
(13 species), Hydroglyphus (12 species), and Microdytes (10 species). Copelatinae
with 46 species is composed of only 2 genera: Copelatus and Lacconectus (23 species
each). Lacconectus shows Oriental and Palearctic distribution and is highly diverse
in the Indian region, representing 32.4 percent of the global diversity of the genus
(Nilsson, 2015). Laccophilinae includes only 2 genera: Laccophilus (22 species) and
Neptosternus (9 species). In Agabinae, the genera Agabus and Platambus include
12 species, each whereas Platynectes consists of 2 species and Hydronebrius 1
species.
4. Family Noteridae
The members of this family are called as burrowing water beetles. They
are usually found in large numbers in sunny, and shallow lentic habitats, and
generally avoid the situations where they need to burrow (Miller, 2009).
Globally the family includes 258 species belonging to 16 genera under
3 subfamilies; Noterinae (240 species), Notomicrinae (11 species), and
Phreatodytinae (7 species) (Nilsson, 2011). The Indian fauna is represented by 16
species (6.2%) belonging to 4 genera under the subfamily Noterinae. The highest
numbers of species are reported in the genus Canthydrus (7 species), followed by
Neohydrocoptus (5 species), Noterus (3 species) and Hydrocanthus (1 species).
Suborder Myxophaga
Myxophaga includes 84 species under 4 families from the world: Lepiceridae
(2 species), Torridincolidae (60 species), Hydroscaphidae (22 species), and
Sphaeriusidae (23 species) (Jäch, 1998; Jäch & Balke, 2008; Slipinski et al., 2011).
The two known species of Lepiceridae are reported from Mexico and Venezuala
(Jäch, 1998) whereas Torridincolidae occurs in South America, Africa and with
few species from Asia. The members of Hydroscaphidae and Sphaeriusidae are
worldwide in distribution and are also reported from India.
383
Chandra et al.
Some Aquatic Coleoptra (Photo K.A. Subramanian)
384
5. Family Hydroscaphidae
The beetles in this family are small sized and commonly called as skiff beetles.
They can be distinguished by the presence of a distinct notopleural suture and of
their aquatic life (Hall, 2001). They are found on algal mats, over which a thin water
film flows (Vanin et al., 2005). The world fauna of this family includes about 22
species under 3 genera: Scaphydra (3 species), Yara (2 species), and Hydroscapha
(17 species) globally (Fikáček & Šípková, 2009). The Indian fauna of this family
is relatively rich with about 5 species belonging to the genus Hydroscapha,
representing 22.7% of the total described diversity of the family (Löbl & Smetana,
2003; Fikáček & Šípková, 2009). Fikáček & Šípková (2009) recently described 2
new species H. khasiorum and H. rajani from the state of Meghalaya and reported
H. monticola Löbl, 1994 as new to the fauna of India. The other two species are
reported from Uttarakhand state (Löbl & Smetana, 2003).
6. Family Sphaeriusidae
The beetles in this family are called as minute bog beetles which can be
distinguished from other families of the suborder by their comparatively large
and prominent head, capitate antennae, design of meso- and metasternum, large
posterior coxal plates and unequal length of visible abdominal sternites. They
are found in mud, under stones, or on algae along the edge of streams and rivers,
among the roots of plants, in mosses associated bogs or inhabiting moist leaf litter
further away from the bodies of water (Hall, 2001). This monogeneric family is
widely distributed, and includes 23 species belonging to the genus, Sphaerius
from the world (Jäch & Balke, 2008). The Indian fauna consists of 2 species; S.
gustavlohsei (Löbl, 1995) from Sikkim and S. laeviventris Champion, 1923 from
Uttarakhand (Löbl & Smetana 2003).
Suborder Polyphaga
7. Family Elmidae
The beetles in this family are commonly called as riffle beetles and they can
be both aquatic and semi-aquatic in nature. The slender antennae, hairless eyes,
and nonswimming legs with large claws distinguish them from other families
of superfamily Byrrhoidea (Shepard, 2002a). Till date, 1498 species belonging
to 147 genera under 2 subfamilies Elminae and Larainae have been described
from the world (Jäch et al., 2016). The Indian fauna includes about 24 species
belonging to 12 genera in the subfamily Elminae (Jäch et al., 2016). The genus
Stenelmis includes maximum number of species 7 followed by Podelmis (4 species),
Grouvellinus, Rudielmis, and Leptelmis (2 species, each). The other genera of
the family are represented by only a single species each. The adults and juvenile
stages of the subfamily Elminae live totally aquatic habitats and on occasions
leave water (Shepard, 2002a). The subfamily Larainae is centered in Afrotropical
and Neotropical regions with lower diversity in the Oriental region.
8. Family Dryopidae
The beetles in this family are commonly called as long-toed water beetles which
can be separated from other families of superfamily Byrrhoidea by the presence
385
Chandra et al.
of short antennae with most segments broader than long (Shepard, 2002b). There
are about 300 species belonging to 33 genera, occurring in almost all the bio-
geographical regions of the world except in Australian continent (Jäch & Balke,
2008). The species in this family are found in forest litter and the adults of the most
of the species live aquatic life (Shepard, 2002; Jäch & Balke, 2008). The Indian
fauna of this family is poorly known with only 10 species belonging to 6 genera
Sostea (3 species), Helichus (2 species), Pachyparnus, Dryops, Elmomorphus, and
Monstrosostea (1 species, each) so far reported from the country.
9. Family Psephenidae
The beetles in this family are called as water penny beetles. They can be easily
distinguished from related families of superfamily Byrrhoidea by their soft body,
serrate to pectinate antennae, anterior coxae with exposed trochantin and their
association with streams (Shepard, 2002c). The adults remain active during the
summer months, and males are generally found on the banks of the rivers whereas
the females may lay eggs on rocks below the water (Shepard, 2002). The larval
stages are purely aquatic, and the larvae are found in running water (Jäch &
Balke, 2008). There are 290 species belonging to 35 genera under 4 subfamilies:
Eubrianacinae, Eubriinae, Psepheninae, and Psephenoidinae, worldwide. The
Indian fauna is represented by 24 species belonging to 9 genera under 3 subfamilies,
Eubriinae (17 species), Psephenoidinae (6 species), and Psepheninae (1 species).
10. Family Scirtidae

The beetles in this family are known as plate-thigh beetles, distinguished by other
families by their compact and elliptical body with greatly enlarged metathoracic
coxal plates and saltatorial behavior (Young, 2002). The larval stages are aquatic,
but in some cases it has been reported that the scirtid larvae may be found in
wet soil and on rotten logs. There are about 800 species belonging to 35 genera of
family Scirtidae occuring on all continents (Slipinski et al., 2011). So far as Indian
fauna of this family is concerned, it includes about 75 species under 8 genera:
Cyphon (24 species), Hydrocyphon, Scirtes (12 species each), Elodes (8 species),
Exochomoscirtes (6 species), Ora, Ypsiloncyphon (5 species each), and Sacodes (3
species).
11. Family Hydrophilidae

The members of this family are called as water scavenger beetles and are
characterized by long maxillary palpi, even longer than antennae, may be confused
for antennae; antennae short clavate, inserted in front of eyes, 6-9 segmented
with a 3 segmented pubescent club (Tassell, 2002). Globally, there are about 2835
species belonging to 169 genera under 4 subfamilies: Horelophinae (1 species),
Horelophopsinae (2 species), Hydrophilinae (1852) and Sphaeridiinae (980 species)
(Short & Fikáček, 2011). The Indian fauna of family Hydrophilidae is represented
by 212 species belonging to 41 genera under 2 subfamilies: Hydrophilinae (138
species) and Sphaeridiinae (74 species). In terms of generic diversity, Sphaeridiinae
is represented by 20 genera and Hydrophilinae by 21 genera from India. The most
diverse genera of Hydrophilinae are: Laccobius (48 species), Enochrus, Helochares,
Berosus (10 species, each), Hydrophilus (8 species), Agraphydrus, Anacaena,
386
Oocyclus (7 species each), Pelthydrus (5 species), Allocotocerus and Sternolophus

(4 species, each). Whereas the major genera of subfamily Sphaeridiinae are:
Cercyon (17 species), Coelostoma, Sphaeridium (9 species, each), Dactylosternum
(7 species), Pachysternum (5 species), and Oosternum (4 species).
12. Family Georissidae

The beetles in this family are called as minute mud-loving beetles. The species are
generally riparian in all stages (Jäch, 1998). Georissidae includes 80 species under
a single genus, Georissus, which are found in all major bio-geographic regions of
the world (Jäch, 1998; Hansen, 1999). Jäch (1998) proposed that the species in the
family have reverted to terrestrial habits from aquatic ancestors. The Indian fauna
is represented by 7 species with most of them restricted to Indian Himalayan
Landscape.
13. Family Helophoridae

Helophoridae is a relatively small family of superfamily Hydrophiloidea with
about 192 species classified into a single genus, Helophorus globally (Short &
Fikáček, 2011). The adults of the genus Helophorus can be easily differentiated by
their elongate body and 5 longitudinal furrows on pronotum. The majority of the
species occur mostly on Palaearctic and Nearctic regions and only a few species are
known from the Afrotropical and Oriental regions (Hansen, 1999; Short & Fikáček,
2011). The Indian fauna is represented by 7 species, constituting 3.6% of the total
diversity of the genus as of family (Hansen, 1999).
14. Family Hydrochidae

This family is represented by 181 species under a single genus, Hydrochus from
the world (Short & Fikáček, 2011). Among them, 5 species (2.8%) have been so for
reported from India (Hansen, 1999). The species in this family are purely aquatic
in nature and are present in all continents. The beetles live in static water with
full of vegetation or they may be found near the edges of moderately flowing water
(Jäch & Balke, 2008).
15. Family Epimetopidae

This family includes 29 species under 3 genera worldwide: Epimetopus (19
species), Eumetopus (8 species), Eupotemus (2 species) (Short & Fikáček, 2011).
Epimetopus occur in the new world, Eupotemus in Africa, and Eumetopus in Asia
(Jäch & Balke, 2008). There are only 4 species belonging to the genus, Eumetopus
so far reported from India.
16. Family Spercheidae

The species in this family are called as filter feeding water scavenger beetles. The
adults and larval stages generally live in static water (Jäch, 1998). Out of the total
18 species under a single genus, Spercheus, 3 species have been so far recorded
from India, constituting 16.7% of the total diversity of the world (Hansen, 1999).
17. Family Hydraenidae

The beetles in this family are called as minute mass beetles which can be
distinguished by their abdominal structure, having 6 or 7 visible abdominal sterna,
387
Chandra et al.
a small intercoxal sternite between metacoxae and antennal club in many species
with 5 pubescent antennomeres which in case of hydrophilids are 3 (Perkins, 2001).
Globally, Hydraenidae includes 1600 species under 42 genera, occurring on
all continents. The Indian fauna is represented by 45 species under 8 genera,
constituting 2.8% of the total diversity. The maximum number of species (18) are
in recorded in the genus Ochthebius, followed by Hydraena (12 species), Limnebius
(6 species), Davidraena (3 species), Gondraena, Protochthebius (2 species, each),
Laeliaena, and Aulacochthebius (1 species, each).
BIOGEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION
The distribution of the aquatic beetles in different bio-geographic regions of India
is summarized in Table 3. The highest diversity of aquatic beetles is present in
the Indian Himalayan Landscape (357 species), followed by Deccan Peninsula
(193 species), Western Ghats, Northeast (171 species, each), Gangetic Plains (167
species), Semi-Arid (64 species), Islands (43 species), Coasts (37 species), Trans-
Himalaya (26 species) and Desert (24 species) (Table 3, Fig. 1). The families
Dytiscidae and Hydrophilidae, representing more than 50% of the total aquatic
beetle diversity of India, are distributed in all the bio-geographical zones of the
country. Gyrinidae has not been reported from the Coasts and Trans-Himalayan
regions. The Trans-Himalaya, Coasts, Islands, Semi-Arid and, Desert fauna is less
Fig. 1. Bio-geographical distribution of Aquatic Beetles in India.
388
explored whereas the fauna of Indian Himalayan Landscape, Gangetic-Plains,

Northeast, Peninsular and Western Ghats has been explored well (Fig. 1).
CONCLUSION AND FUTURE PROSPECTS

and 17 families under 3 suborders. The suborder Polyphaga includes 371 species,
Adephaga 353 species, and Myxophaga 7 species. Dytiscidae include maximum
numbers of species 256, followed by Hydrophilidae (212 species), Scirtidae (75
species), Gyrinidae (73 species), Hydraenidae (45 species), Elmidae, Psephenidae
(24 species each), Noteridae (16 species), Haliplidae, Dryopidae (10 species each),
Georissidae, Helophoridae (7 species each), Hydroscaphidae, Hydrochidae (5
species each), Epimetopidae (4 species), Spercheidae (3 species), and Sphaeriusidae
(2 species).
In terms of taxonomic studies, the fauna of the aquatic beetles of India needs
revisionary works especially at generic level, focusing more on advanced tools of
identification and species delimitation such as use of male genitalia and DNA
barcodes for better understanding of differences in the population, inhabiting
in different ecological zones of the country. Most of the taxonomic works on the
aquatic beetles of India is focused mainly on two major families, Hydrophilidae and
Dytiscidae. Whereas, the fauna of the families, Haliplidae, Dryopidae, Georissidae,
Helophoridae, Hydroscaphidae, Hydrochidae, Epimetopidae, Spercheidae,
Elmidae, and Psephenidae have been less worked out. If the taxonomic studies
focusing on these less explored families will be conducted in future, it will surely
enhance our knowledge of the aquatic beetle fauna of India with lots of new
discoveries and new findings.
Moreover, very less work has also been carried out on the biology and ecology
of these beetles from India in comparison to the world. There is need to explore this
aspect of aquatic beetle ecology for assessing their potential use in sustainability
of the aquatic ecosystems. Being indicator taxa, the aquatic beetles are vulnerable
to even small changes in the environment, therefore, they can be used as model
organisms for assessing the effect of climate change especially on freshwater
ecosystems. There is need to explore the diversity of these beetles in less surveyed
areas such as Trans-Himalayas, Coasts, Islands, Semi-Arid and Desert areas.
Surveying these areas will undoubtedly reveal the hidden diversity of these beetles
in the area with many a species as new to science.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors thank to Shri K.C. Gopi, Additional Director, Zoological Survey of
India, Kolkata for his help. The second and third authors are specially thankful to
the Director, Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata for providing necessary facilities
and encouragements. The second author thanks Dr. D.V. Rao, Officer-in-Charge,
ZSI, Hyderabad, for providing facilities to carry out work and Dr. Jäch Manfred,
Entomologist, Natural History Museum, Vienna, Austria for providing literature
and scientific suggestions. The third author is also thankful to Miss Priyanka Das
and Mr. Joyjit Ghosh, Junior Research Fellows at Zoological Survey of India, New
389
Chandra et al.
Alipore, Kolkata for their help and support. The authors are thankful to Dr. K.A.
Subramanian for photograph.
Table 1. Generic and species level diversity of aquatic beetles families
(Coleoptera) in India with respect to their global status.
Sl.
Family Genera Species
No.
World India % World India %
Suborder ADEPHAGA
1. Gyrinidae1 25 5 20.0 1,000 73 7.3
2. Haliplidae2 5 1 20.0 220 10 4.5
3. Noteridae3 16 4 25.0 258 16 6.2
4. Dytiscidae4 190 36 18.9 4,303 254 6.0
Suborder MYXOPHAGA
5. Hydroscaphidae5 3 1 33.3 22 5 22.7
6. Sphaeriusidae6 2 1 50.0 23 2 10.0
Suborder POLYPHAGA
Superfamily BYRRHOIDEA
7. Elmidae7 149 12 8.0 1,498 24 1.6
8. Dryopidae8 33 6 18.1 300 10 3.3
9. Psephenidae9 35 9 71.4 290 24 8.3
Superfamily SCIRTOIDEA
10. Scirtidae10 35 8 22.9 800 75 9.4
Superfamily HYDROPHILOIDEA
11. Hydrophilidae11 169 41 24.3 2,835 212 7.5
12. Georissidae12 1 1 100.0 80 7 8.8
13. Helophoridae13 1 1 100.0 192 7 3.6
14. Epimetopidae14 3 1 33.3 29 4 13.8
15. Hydrochidae15 1 1 100.0 181 5 2.8
16. Spercheidae16 1 1 100.0 18 3 16.7
Superfamily STAPHYLINOIDEA
17. Hydraenidae17 42 8 19.0 1,600 45 2.8
Total 711 137 19.2 13,649 776 5.7
World Data: 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 17
Spilinski (et al., 2011); 3Nilsson (2011);
4Nilsson
(2015); 7Jäch (2016); 11-16Short and Fikáček (2011).
390
Table 2. Number of species in genera of aquatic beetles (Coleoptera)

from India and the World.
Number of
S.N. Family Subfamily Genus %
species
World India
Suborder ADEPHAGA
1. Gyrinidae Gyrininae Aulonogyrus 55 1 1.8
2. Gyrinidae Gyrininae Gyrinus 188 3 1.6
3. Gyrinidae Gyrininae Metagyrinus 3 1 33.3
4. Gyrinidae Enhydrinae Dineutus 105 5 4.8
5. Gyrinidae Orectochilinae Orectochilus 195 63 32.3
6. Haliplidae - Haliplus 161 10 6.2
7. Noteridae Noterinae Canthydrus 65 7 10.8
8. Noteridae Noterinae Hydrocanthus 52 1 1.9
9. Noteridae Noterinae Neohydrocoptus 29 5 17.2
10. Noteridae Noterinae Noterus 7 3 42.9
11. Dytiscidae Agabinae Agabus 172 12 7.0
12. Dytiscidae Agabinae Hydronebrius 4 1 25.0
13. Dytiscidae Agabinae Platambus 64 12 18.8
14. Dytiscidae Agabinae Platynectes 46 2 4.3
15. Dytiscidae Colymbetinae Colymbetes 21 1 4.8
16. Dytiscidae Colymbetinae Rhantus 106 7 6.6
17. Dytiscidae Copelatinae Copelatus 431 23 5.3
18. Dytiscidae Copelatinae Lacconectus 71 23 32.4
19. Dytiscidae Dytiscinae Cybister 100 21 21.0
20. Dytiscidae Dytiscinae Dytiscus 27 2 7.4
21. Dytiscidae Dytiscinae Eretes 4 2 50.0
22. Dytiscidae Dytiscinae Hydaticus 140 15 10.7
23. Dytiscidae Dytiscinae Rhantaticus 1 1 100.0
24. Dytiscidae Dytiscinae Sandracottus 16 5 31.3
25. Dytiscidae Hydroporinae Clypeodytes 39 5 12.8
26. Dytiscidae Hydroporinae Geodessus 2 2 100.0
27. Dytiscidae Hydroporinae Hydroglyphus 89 12 13.5
28. Dytiscidae Hydroporinae Leiodytes 27 6 22.2
29. Dytiscidae Hydroporinae Peschetius 9 2 22.2
30. Dytiscidae Hydroporinae Pseuduvarus 2 1 50.0
31. Dytiscidae Hydroporinae Uvarus 65 2 3.1
391
Chandra et al.
Number of
species
World India
32. Dytiscidae Hydroporinae Yola 46 3 6.5
33. Dytiscidae Hydroporinae Allopachria 45 1 2.2
34. Dytiscidae Hydroporinae Boreonectes 16 1 6.3
35. Dytiscidae Hydroporinae Deronectes 57 1 1.8
36. Dytiscidae Hydroporinae Herophydrus 43 2 4.7
37. Dytiscidae Hydroporinae Hydroporus 182 2 1.1
38. Dytiscidae Hydroporinae Hydrovatus 205 18 8.8
39. Dytiscidae Hydroporinae Hygrotus 73 3 4.1
40. Dytiscidae Hydroporinae Hyphoporus 18 13 72.2
41. Dytiscidae Hydroporinae Hyphydrus 138 6 4.3
42. Dytiscidae Hydroporinae Methles 7 1 14.3
43. Dytiscidae Hydroporinae Microdytes 45 10 22.2
44. Dytiscidae Hydroporinae Nebrioporus 58 5 8.6
45. Dytiscidae Laccophilinae Laccophilus 262 22 8.4
46. Dytiscidae Laccophilinae Neptosternus 99 9 9.1
Suborder MYXOPHAGA
47. Hydroscaphidae – Hydroscapha 17 5 29.4
48. Sphaeriusidae – Sphaerius 23 2 8.7
Suborder POLYPHAGA
Superfamily BYRRHOIDEA
49. Elmidae Elminae Grouvellinus 35 2 5.7
50. Elmidae Elminae Heterlimnius 14 1 7.1
51. Elmidae Elminae Indosolus 2 1 50.0
52. Elmidae Elminae Laorina 1 1 100.0
53. Elmidae Elminae Leptelmis 26 2 7.7
54. Elmidae Elminae Macronychoides 1 1 100.0
55. Elmidae Elminae Macronychus 11 1 9.1
56. Elmidae Elminae Paramacronychus 1 1 100.0
57. Elmidae Elminae Podelmis 15 4 26.7
58. Elmidae Elminae Rudielmis 2 2 100.0
59. Elmidae Elminae Stenelmis 42 7 16.7
60. Elmidae Elminae Zaitzevia 18 1 5.6
61. Dryopidae – Dryops 79 1 1.3
392
Number of
species
World India
62. Dryopidae – Elmomorphus 16 1 6.3
63. Dryopidae – Helichus 36 2 5.6
64. Dryopidae – Monstrosostea 1 1 100.0
65. Dryopidae – Pachyparnus 14 2 14.3
66. Dryopidae – Sostea 49 3 6.1
67. Psephenidae Eubriinae Dicranopselaphus 40 4 10.0
68. Psephenidae Eubriinae Granuleubria 8 3 37.5
69. Psephenidae Eubriinae Macroeubria 22 1 4.5
70. Psephenidae Eubriinae Microeubria 8 4 50.0
71. Psephenidae Eubriinae Schinostethus 28 5 17.9
72. Psephenidae Psephenoidinae Afropsephenoides 3 1 33.3
73. Psephenidae Psephenoidinae Odontanax 5 1 20.0
74. Psephenidae Psephenoidinae Psephenoides 8 4 50.0
75. Psephenidae Psepheninae Mataeopsephus 12 1 8.3
Superfamily SCIRTOIDEA
76. Scirtidae – Cyphon 350 24 7.8
77. Scirtidae – Elodes 103 8 7.8
78. Scirtidae – Exochomoscirtes 46 6 6.9
79. Scirtidae – Hydrocyphon 95 12 13.0
80. Scirtidae – Ora 10 5 50.0
81. Scirtidae – Sacodes 17 3 17.6
82. Scirtidae – Scirtes 250 12 4.8
83. Scirtidae – Ypsiloncyphon 67 5 7.5
Superfamily HYDROPHILOIDEA
84. Hydrophilidae Hydrophilinae Agraphydrus 18 7 38.9
85. Hydrophilidae Hydrophilinae Allocotocerus 27 4 14.8
86. Hydrophilidae Hydrophilinae Ametor 5 2 40.0
87. Hydrophilidae Hydrophilinae Anacaena 111 7 6.3
88. Hydrophilidae Hydrophilinae Berosus 273 10 3.7
89. Hydrophilidae Hydrophilinae Chaetarthria 49 2 4.1
90. Hydrophilidae Hydrophilinae Crenitis 41 1 2.4
91. Hydrophilidae Hydrophilinae Enochrus 222 10 4.5
92. Hydrophilidae Hydrophilinae Helochares 180 10 5.6
93. Hydrophilidae Hydrophilinae Hydrobiomorpha 55 3 5.5
393
Chandra et al.
Number of
species
World India
94. Hydrophilidae Hydrophilinae Hydrochara 23 2 8.7
95. Hydrophilidae Hydrophilinae Hydrophilus 48 8 16.7
96. Hydrophilidae Hydrophilinae Laccobius 245 48 19.6
97. Hydrophilidae Hydrophilinae Notionotus 16 3 18.8
98. Hydrophilidae Hydrophilinae Oocyclus 48 7 14.6
99. Hydrophilidae Hydrophilinae Ophthalmocyclus 1 1 100.0
100. Hydrophilidae Hydrophilinae Paracymus 81 2 2.5
101. Hydrophilidae Hydrophilinae Pelthydrus 63 5 7.9
102. Hydrophilidae Hydrophilinae Regimbartia 10 1 10.0
103. Hydrophilidae Hydrophilinae Sternolophus 9 4 44.4
104. Hydrophilidae Hydrophilinae Thysanarthria 10 1 10.0
105. Hydrophilidae Sphaeridiinae Amphiops 20 3 15.0
106. Hydrophilidae Sphaeridiinae Armostus 13 2 15.4
107. Hydrophilidae Sphaeridiinae Australocyon 19 1 5.3
108. Hydrophilidae Sphaeridiinae Cercyon 259 17 6.6
109. Hydrophilidae Sphaeridiinae Coelostoma 104 9 8.7
110. Hydrophilidae Sphaeridiinae Cryptopleurum 24 3 12.5
111. Hydrophilidae Sphaeridiinae Dactylosternum 77 7 9.1
112. Hydrophilidae Sphaeridiinae Gillisius 2 2 100.0
113. Hydrophilidae Sphaeridiinae Mircogioton 8 1 12.5
114. Hydrophilidae Sphaeridiinae Morastus 1 1 100.0
115. Hydrophilidae Sphaeridiinae Noteropagus 4 1 25.0
116. Hydrophilidae Sphaeridiinae Oosternum 28 4 14.3
117. Hydrophilidae Sphaeridiinae Pachysternum 21 5 23.8
118. Hydrophilidae Sphaeridiinae Paracymus 81 2 2.5
119. Hydrophilidae Sphaeridiinae Paromicrus 14 1 7.1
120. Hydrophilidae Sphaeridiinae Paroosternum 9 1 11.1
121. Hydrophilidae Sphaeridiinae Peratogonus 3 2 66.7
122. Hydrophilidae Sphaeridiinae Protosternum 9 2 22.2
123. Hydrophilidae Sphaeridiinae Pseudocercyon 1 1 100.0
124. Hydrophilidae Sphaeridiinae Sphaeridium 42 9 21.4
125. Georissidae – Georissus 80 7 8.6
126. Helophoridae – Helophorus 192 7 3.6
127. Epimetopidae – Eumetopus 8 4 50.0
394
Number of
species
World India
128. Hydrochidae – Hydrochus 181 5 2.8
129. Spercheidae – Spercheus 18 3 16.7
Superfamily STAPHYLINOIDEA
130. Hydraenidae Hydraeninae Davidraena 3 3 100.0
131. Hydraenidae Hydraeninae Gondraena 3 2 66.7
132. Hydraenidae Hydraeninae Hydraena 673 12 1.8
133. Hydraenidae Hydraeninae Laeliaena 3 1 33.3
134. Hydraenidae Hydraeninae Limnebius 127 6 4.7
135. Hydraenidae Ochthebiinae Aulacochthebius 11 1 9.1
136. Hydraenidae Ochthebiinae Ochthebius 422 18 4.3
137. Hydraenidae Ochthebiinae Protochthebius 4 2 50.0
Total 9,064 776 8.6
Table 3. Bio-geographical distribution of the families of aquatic beetles

(Coleoptera) in India.
Sl. Trans Semi- Gangetic North- Deccan Western
Family Himalayas Desert Coasts Islands
No. Himalaya Arid Plains east Peninsula Ghats
1. Gyrinidae - 30 7 2 34 22 32 14 - 4
2. Haliplidae - 5 2 2 4 1 4 - - -
3. Noteridae - 4 - - 1 1 5 - 1 1
4. Dytiscidae 20 112 37 19 48 71 42 52 35 33
5. Hydroscaphidae - 2 - - - 3 - - - -
6. Sphaeriusidae - 2 - - - - - - - -
7. Elmidae - 11 - - 7 1 8 3 - -
8. Dryopidae - 4 - - 1 3 2 - - -
9. Psephenidae - 20 - - 1 5 1 - - -
10. Scirtidae - 27 - - 2 13 7 7 - -
11. Hydrophilidae 6 97 16 3 52 43 81 90 1 4
12. Helophoridae - 6 - - - 1 - - - -
13. Epimetopidae 1 - - - 1 2 1 - -
14. Georissidae - 6 - - 1 - - - - -
15. Spercheidae 1 - - 2 - 1 - - -
16. Hydrochidae 2 - 1 4 - - - -
17. Hydraenidae 27 2 - 13 2 8 4 - 1
Total (Number
26 357 64 24 167 171 193 171 37 43
of species)
395
Chandra et al.
References
Biswas, B. & Mukhopadhyay, P. 1995. Insecta: Coleoptera: Hydrophilidae. In,
Fauna of West Bengal, State Fauna Series, 3 (Part 6A): 143-168 (Published
by: Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata).
Deepa, J. Chandra, K., Rao, C.A.N. & Ghosh, S.K. 2015. On a Collection of
Aquatic Beetles (Coleoptera: Gyrinidae, Haliplidae, Noteridae, Dytiscidae,
Hydrophilidae and Hydrochidae) of Madhya Pradesh, India. Rec. zool. Surv.
India, 114(1): 89-103.
Fikáček, M. & Šípková, H. 2009. New Asian Hydroscapha, with comments on
male-female association of co-occuring species (Coleoptera, Myxophaga,
Hydroscaphidae). Zootaxa, 2286: 31-48.
Ghosh S.K., Mukhopadhyay P. & Biswas S. 2000. Insecta: Coleoptera: Gyrinidae,
Dytiscidae & Hydrophilidae, Zoological Survey of India, State Fauna Series,
7: Fauna of Tripura, Part 3: 35-51 (Published by: Zoological Survey of India,
Kolkata).
Ghosh, S.K. & Nilsson, A.N. 2012. Catalogue of the diving beetles of India
and adjacent countries (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae). Skörvnöpparn, Umeå,
Ghosh, S.K., Chandra, K. & Deepa, J. 2014. Aquatic Beetles (Coleoptera) of Madhya
Pradesh, India. Rec. zool. Surv. India, 114(Part-1): 89-103.
Grove, S.J. & Stork, N.E. 2001. An inordinate fondness for beetles. Invert. Tax.,
14: 733-739.
Hall, W.E. 2001. Microsporidae Crotch, 1873, pp. 24-26. In, American beetles. Volume
1. Archostemata, Myxophaga, Adephaga, Polyphaga: Staphyliniformia (Eds.
Arnett, R.H. Jr. & Thomas, M.C.). CRC Press LLC, Boca Raton, Florida, pp.
443.
Hansen, M. 1998. World Catalogue of Insects Volume 1, Hydraenidae (Coleoptera),
pp.169.
Hansen, M. 1999. World Catalogue of Insects Volume 2, Hydrophiloidea
(Coleoptera), pp. 416.
Jäch, M.A. & Balke, M. 2008. Global diversity of water beetles (Coleoptera) in
Jäch, M.A. 1998. Annotated check list of aquatic and riparian/littoral beetle
families of the world (Coleoptera). In, Water Beetles of China, Vol. II (Eds.
Jäch, M.A. & L. Ji), Zoologisch-Botanische Gesellschaft in Österreich and
Wiener Coleopterologenverein, Wien: 25-42.
Jäch, M.A., Kodada, J., Brojer, M., Shepard, W & Čiampor, F. 2016. World
Catalogue of Insects, volume 14, Coleoptera: Elmidae and Protelmidae, pp.
318.
Löbl, I., & Smetana, A. 2003. Archostemata-Myxophaga-Adephaga. In, Catalogue
of Palaearctic Coleoptera, vol. 1. Apollo Books, Stenstrup, 819 pp.
396
Löbl, I., & Smetana, A. 2004. Hydrophiloidea-Staphylinoidea. In, Catalogue of

Palaearctic Coleoptera, vol. 2. Apollo Books, Stenstrup, 942 pp.
Löbl, I., & Smetana, A. 2006. Scarabaeoidea, Scirtoidea, Dascilloidea, Buprestoidea
and Byrrhoidea. In, Catalogue of Palaearctic Coleoptera, vol. 3. Apollo
Books, Stenstrup, 690 pp.
Miller K.B. 2009. On the systematics of Noteridae (Coleoptera: Adephaga:
Hydradephaga): phylogeny, description of a new tribe, genus and species,
and survey of female genital morphology. Syst. and Biodiv., 7(2): 191-214.
Miller, K.B. & Bergsten, J. 2012. Phylogeny and classficiation of whirligig beetles
(Coleoptera: Gyrinidae): relaxed-clock model outperforms parsimony
and time-free Bayesian analyses. Sys. Ent., 37: 705-746. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1111/j.1365-3113.2012.00640.x
Mukhopadhyay, P. 2007. Insecta: Coleoptera: Polyphaga: Hydrophiloidea :
Hydrophilidae.In, Fauna of Andhra Pradesh, State Fauna Series, 5(Part-
3): 402-415. (Published by: Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata).
Mukhopadhyay, P. 2010. Insecta : Coleoptera : Polyphaga : Hydrophiloidea :
Hydrophilidae. In, Fauna of Uttarakhand, State Fauna Series, 18(Part-2):
323-334 (Published by: Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata).
Mukhopadhyay, P. and Ghosh, S. K. 2003. Insecta : Coleoptera : Gyrinidae
& Dytiscidae. In, Fauna of Sikkim, State Fauna Series, 9(Part-3): 19-33
(Published by: Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata).
Mukhopadhyay, P. and Ghosh, S.K. 2007. Insecta: Coleoptera (Aquatic) Adephaga:
Fam. Gyrinidae and Fam. Dytistiscidae. In, Fauna of Andhra Pradesh,
State Fauna Series, 5(Part-3): 439-459 (Published by: Zoological Survey of
India, Kolkata).
Mukhopadhyay, P. and Ghosh, S.K. 2010. Insecta : Coleoptera : Adephaga : Fam.
Gyrinidae & Dytiscidae. In, Fauna of Uttarakhand, State Fauna Series,
18(Part-2): 269-282 (Published by: Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata).
Mukhopadhyay, P. and Sengupta, S. 2004. Insecta: Coleoptera: Polyphaga:
Hydrophiloidea: Hydrophilidae. In, Fauna of Manipur, State Fauna Series,
10: 449-458 (Published by: Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata).
Mukhopadhyay, P., Ghosh, S.K., Saha, S.K. and Biswas, S. 2000. Insecta:
Coleoptera: Gyrinidae, Dytiscidae and Hydrophilidae. In, Fauna of
Meghalaya, State Fauna Series, 4(Part 5): 77-92 (Published by: Zoological
Survey of India, Kolkata).
Nilsson A.N. 2011. A World Catalogue of the Family Noteridae. Version
16.VIII.2011. URL: www2.emg.umu.se/projects/biginst/andersn/WCN/wcn_
index.htm.
Nilsson A.N. 2015. A World Catalogue of the Family Dytiscidae. Version 1.I.2015.
URL http://www2.emg.umu.se/projects/biginst/andersn/.
Nilsson, A.N. and Vondel, B. J. van. 2005. World Catalogue of Insects volume
7, Amphizoidae, Aspidytidae, Haliplidae, Noteridae and Paelobiidae
(Coleoptera, Adephaga), pp. 171.
397
Chandra et al.
Perkins, P.D. 2001. Hydraenidae Mulsant, 1844. In, American beetles. Volume 1.
Archostemata, Myxophaga, Adephaga, Polyphaga: Staphyliniformia (Eds.
Arnett, R. H. Jr. & Thomas, M.C.). CRC Press, Baco Raton, London, New
York, Washington D.C, 228-232.
Ramakrishna and Alfred, J.R.B. 2007. Faunal Resources in India: 1-427 (Published
by the Director, Zool. Surv. India, Kolkata).
Roughley, R.E. 2001a. Gyrinidae Latreille, 1810. In, American beetles. Volume 1.
Arnett, R. H. Jr. & Thomas, M.C.). CRC Press, Baco Raton, London, New
Roughley, R.E. 2001b. Haliplidae Aubé, 1836. In, American beetles. Volume 1.
Arnett, R.H. Jr. & Thomas, M.C.). CRC Press, Baco Raton, London, New
Roughley, R.E. and Larson, D.J. 2001. Dytscidae Leach, 1815. In, American
beetles. Volume 1. Archostemata, Myxophaga, Adephaga, Polyphaga:
Staphyliniformia (Eds. Arnett, R. H. Jr. & Thomas, M.C.). CRC Press, Baco
Raton, London, New York, Washington D.C, 156-186.
Shepard W.D. 2002a. Dryopidae Billberg, 1820. In: American beetles. Volume 2.
Polyphaga: Scarabaeoidea through Curculionoidea (Eds. Arnett, R. H. Jr.
& Thomas, M.C.). CRC Press, Baco Raton, London, New York, Washington
D.C, 121-123.
Shepard W.D. 2002b. Elmidae Curtis, 1830. In: American beetles. Volume 2.
D.C, 117-120.
Shepard, W.D. 2002c. Psephenidae Lacordaire, 1854. In: American beetles. Volume
2. Polyphaga: Scarabaeoidea through Curculionoidea (Eds. Arnett, R. H. Jr.
D.C, 133-134.
Short, A.E.Z. & Fikáček, M. 2011. World catalogue of the Hydrophiloidea
(Coleoptera): additions and corrections II (2006–2010). Acta Ento. Mus. Nat.
Pragae, 51(1): 83-122.
Slipinski, S.A., Leschen, R.A.B & Lawrence, J.F. 2011. Order Coleoptera Linnaeus,
1758. In, Animal biodiversity: An outline of higher-level classification and
survey of taxonomic richness (Ed. Zhang, Z.Q.), Magnolia Press, pp. 237.
Tassell, E.R.Van. 2001. Hydrophilidae Latreille, 1802. In, American beetles. Volume
1. Archostemata, Myxophaga, Adephaga, Polyphaga: Staphyliniformia
(Eds. Arnett, R.H. Jr. & Thomas, M.C.). CRC Press, Baco Raton, London,
New York, Washington D.C, 187-208.
Vanin, S.A., Beutel, R.G. & Arce-Pérez, R. 2005. Hydroscaphidae LeConte, 1874.
In, Handbook of Zoology. Volume IV Arthropoda: Insecta. Part 38 Coleoptera,
Beetles. Vol. 1: Morphology and systematics (Archostemata, Adephaga,
Myxophaga, Polyphaga partim) (Eds. R.G. Beutel & R.B. Leschen). Walter
de Gruyter, Berlin & New York, pp. 49-52.
398
Vazirani, T.G. 1952. On a collection of aquatic Coleoptera from the mettur Dam,
Salem District, Madras, with the description of a new species. Rec. Ind.
Mus., 50: 423-428.
Vazirani, T.G. 1955. On a collection of Gyrinidae (Coleoptera) in the Zoological
Survey of India with the descriptions of two new species. Rec. Indian Mus.,
53: 13-17.
Vazirani, T.G. 1964. Fauna of Rajasthan, India, Part V. Aquatic Beetles (Insecta:
Coleoptera : Dytiscidae). Rec. zool. Surv. India, 62: 29-49.
Vazirani, T.G. 1966. A review of the Indian Haliplidae (Insecta: Coleoptera) with
descriptions of two new species. Proc. Zool. Soc. Calcutta, 19: 127-134.
Vazirani, T.G. 1969a. Contribution to the study of aquatic beetles (Coleoptera).
2. A review of the subfamilies Noterinae, Laccophilinae, Dytiscinae and
Hydroporinae (in part) from India. Ori. Ins., 2(3 &4): 221-341.
Vazirani T.G. 1969c. Contribution to the study of aquatic beetles (Coleoptera). IV.
A review of Pleurodytes Régimbart (Col. Dytiscidae). Ann. Soc. Ent. Fr.,
(Nouvelle Série) 5: 137-141.
Vazirani, T.G. 1969b. Contribution to the study of auatic beetles. IV. A review of
Pleurodytes Regimbart (Col., Dytiscidae). Annls. Soc. ent. Fr., 5(1): 137-141.
Vazirani, T.G. 1970. Contribution to the study of aquatic beetles (Coleoptera). IX.
On a collectionof Dytiscidae from South Andaman Islands. Ori. Ins., 4(2):
177-184.
Vazirani, T.G. 1973a. Contributions to the study of aquatic beetles (Coleoptera) 11.
On a collection of Gyrinidae, Dytiscidae and Hydrophilidae from Andaman
Islands. Rec. zool. Surv. India, 67: 81-85.
Vazirani, T.G. 1973b. Contributions to the study of aquatic beetles (Coleoptera) 12.
On a collection of Dytiscidae from Gujarat with description of a new species.
Rec. zool. Surv. India, 67: 287-302.
Vazirani, T.G. 1975. Some new records of Dytiscidae (Coleoptera) from Tamil Nadu
(India). Newsl. zool. Surv. India, 1: 20-21.
Vazirani, T.G. 1976a. Contributions to the study of aquatic beetles (Coleoptera) 15.
Subgeneric classification of Platynectes Regimbert (Dytiscidae). Rec. zool.
Surv. India, 71: 169-173.
Vazirani, T.G. 1976b. Some new records of Dytiscidae (Coleoptera) from N. E.
India. Newsl. zool. Surv. India, 2: 61-63.
Vazirani, T.G. 1976c. Some new records of Dytiscidae (Coleoptera) from Uttar
Pradesh, India. Newsl. zool. Surv. India, 2: 65-67.
Vazirani, T.G. 1977a. Catalogue of Oriental Dytiscidae. Rec. zool. Surv. India, Occ.
Paper No. 6: 1-111.
Vazirani, T.G. 1977b. Collection of Gyrinidae (Coleoptera) from Madhya Pradesh.
Newsl. zool. Surv. India, 3: 251-253.
Vazirani, T.G. 1977c. Collection of Gyrinidae (Coleoptera) from Maharashtra.
399
Chandra et al.
Vazirani, T.G. 1977d. Notes on a collection of Dytiscidae (Coleoptera) from

Maharashtra with description of a new species. Rec. zool. Surv. India, 73:
123-133.
Vazirani, T.G. 1977e. On the collection of Gyrinidae (Coleoptera) from N. E. India.
Vazirani, T.G. 1977f. Some new records of Dytiscidae (Coleoptera) from South
Gujarat. Newsl. zool. Surv. India, 3: 41-45.
Vazirani, T.G. 1977g. Some new records of Indian Haliplidae (Coleoptera). Newsl.
zool. Surv. India, 3: 169.
Vazirani, T.G. 1980. Dytiscidae: Coleoptera from Himachal Pradesh with
description of a new species. Bull. zool. Surv. India, 3(1 & 2): 27-30.
Vazirani, T.G. 1981. Collection of Dytiscidae (Coleoptera) from Madhya Pradesh.
Bull. zool. Surv. India, 3(3): 257-265.
Vazirani, T.G. 1984. The fauna of India. Coleoptera. Family Gyrinidae and family
Haliplidae. Calcutta: Zoological Survey of India, xvi+140pp.
Vondel, B J. van. 1993. Revision of the Liaphlus species of the oriental region
excluding China (Coleoptera: Haliplidae). Tijd. Ent., 136: 289-316.
Young, D.K. 2002. Scirtidae Fleming, 1821. In: American beetles. Volume 2.
D.C, 87-89.
400
Chapter 25
Insecta : Odonata
(Damselflies and Dragonflies)
Subramanian, K.A. and Babu, R.
Abstract
Dragonflies and Damselflies (Insecta: Odonata) are key components of wetland
ecosystem. Indian fauna is represented by 482 species, about 50 subspecies in 150
genera and 18 families. High diversity and endemism is found in the hill streams
and rivers of Western Ghats and eastern Himalaya. The taxonomy of adult is
well worked out, however the descriptions of larva and their ecology remains
as a major gap area, especially for several elusive hill stream breeding species.
Geographically, the central India, eastern ghats, eastern Himalaya and Andaman
Nicobar islands remains under explored where new species and records are still
expected to be scientifically documented.
Key Words: Dragonflies, damselflies, India, diversity, aquatic insects
Introduction
The order Odonata is one of the ancient groups of insects. Fossil evidences suggest
that origin of this group dates back to Permian (250 million years BP). The word
“Odonata” is derived from the Greek word “odontos” meaning the toothed, which
highlights the toothed nature of mandibles of this insect group. The adults are
terrestrial and the larvae aquatic. The adult dragonflies are characterized by long
slender abdomen, large globular eyes, long wings with nodus and pterostigma, and
a unique mechanism of sperm transfer. The sperms are produced in the gonads
situated in the last abdominal segment and transferred to the secondary genitalia
at the second abdominal segment before copulation.
Based on their morphology, the order Odonata is divided into three groups,
viz. damselflies (Zygoptera), Anisozygoptera and dragonflies (Anisoptera). The
suborder Anisozygoptera is a living fossil with four species of which Epiophlebia
laidlawi is known from Eastern and Central Himalaya. Dragonflies and damselflies
can easily be distinguished and they differ significantly in morphology. However,
their general life history is comparable, and so they are treated together further.
Odonata larvae live in freshwater habitats and only a few species can tolerate
brackish waters. They are highly specific to particular aquatic habitat, and utilize
both running and standing waters for breeding. This habitat specificity makes
them an ideal model system to address questions in ecology, evolutionary biology,
biogeography and for monitoring health of freshwater ecosystems.
Fossil History
The oldest fossils of Odonata belong to the Protodonata, a basal group which is
now extinct. These fossil records are from Upper Carboniferous (Pennsylvanian)
Zoological Survey of India, Southern Regional Centre, Chennai-600091
401
Subramanian and Babu
sediments of Europe which are about 325 million years old. The Protodonata were
fast flying with a wingspan up to 75 centimeters and spiny legs, which presumably
aided in capturing their prey. About the time when dinosaurs started appearing
in the Triassic, Protodonata went extinct.
Another fossil group of Odonata is the Protoanisoptera (Family: Meganeuridae),
which have been found in Kansas, USA and Commentry, France. The Meganeuridae
in contrast to modern Odonata lacked a nodus and pterostigma and were very
large species with a wing span of over 50cm. The lower Permian fossils of Odonata
which were over 250 million years old belong to small Protoanisopterans and
Zygopterans. Fossil records of larvae are found from Mesozoic and some workers
have suggested that aquatic larval stages of Odonata started during Lower
Permian.
Historical Resume
Pre-1900: Drgonflies are commonly mentioned in folklores and stories from time
immemorial in different Indian cultures. In fact, in the dry plains of southern
India, it is widely believed among farmers and common people that the swarms
of Pantala flavescens are harbingers of rains. The first scientific descriptions
available on odonates found in India are that of Neurobasis chinensis Linnaeaus
(1758), Aeshna juncea (Linnaeus, 1758), Libellula quadrimaculata Linnaeus, 1758,
Orthetrum cancellatum (Linnaeus, 1758) and Sympetrum vulgatum (Linnaeus,
1758). These species descriptions were based on specimens collected beyond the
biogeographic boundaries of Indian subcontinent. However, Rhyothemis variegata
( Linnaeaus, 1763) was the first dragonfly to be described scientifically based on
specimens from India. During 18th century, Drury (1770, 1773) and Fabricius
(1775-1798) described many species from India. Numerous species were described
by Selys-Longschamps (1840-1891) and Rambur (1842).
1901-1947: After Selys, Laidlaw and Fraser contributed significantly to the
knowledge on Indian Odonata. In addition to Laidlaw and Fraser workers like
Williamson, Ris, Lieftinck, Asahina contributed to the knowledge on Indian
Odonata. Between 1920 and 1935 Fraser published a series of papers in Records
of Indian Museum, Memoires of Indian Museum and Journal of Bombay Natural
History Society which was eventually compiled into three volumes of Fauna of
British India-Odonata (Fraser, 1933-1936). These volumes still remain as a basic
reference source for identification of Indian Odonata. The studies by Laidlaw (1914-
1932) were mostly confined to some families of dragonflies and damselflies. Both
Fraser and Laidlaw restricted their studies mostly in Western Ghats and Eastern
Himalaya. A significant contribution to Indian Odonatology during this period was
the discovery of Anisozygoptera species, Epiophlebia laidlawi by Tillyard (1921)
from Darjeeling. Other significant worker during this period was Needham.
1948 to 2017: Immediately after independence, workers like Bhasin (1953),
Singh (1955), Singh and Baijal (1954), Singh et al. (1955) contributed to the
knowledge on Indian Odonata. The several new species descriptions of Singh and
Baijal from the Himalaya were later found to be synonyms of widespread common
species by subsequent workers. Between 1978-1994 Asahina conducted several
studies on odonates from western and eastern Himalaya and described several
new taxa. After this period, the focus was on to survey unexplored and under
402
Insecta: Odonata (Damselflies and Dragonflies)
explored areas of the country. The scientists of ZSI surveyed many conservation
areas, wetlands and states to document the odonate fauna. In Zoological Survey
of India, scientists viz., Kumar, Lahiri, Mitra, Prasad, Singh, Sinha, Srivastrava,
Ram, Kulkarni, Radhakrishnan, Emiliyamma, Babu, Gaurav Sharma, Supriya
Nandi, Subramanian, Jaffer and Talmale published fauna of many states and
conservation areas. (Babu et al., 2013; Emiliyamma et al., 2007; Kumar and Prasad,
1981; Mitra, 2002a,b, 2003; Mitra and Babu, 2010; Prasad, 1996a,b, 2001, 2004,
2007a,b; Prasad and Varshney, 1988, 1995; Ram et al., 2000) . The contributions
on Odonata of eastern India by Mitra and Lahiri are worth special mentioning.
(Lahiri, 1987, 2003; Lahiri et al., 2007; Mitra, 2002b). They also described
several new species and new records from Eastern India. Recently, researchers
from other organizations such as Krushnamegh Kunte, Shantanu Joshi, Parag
Rangnaker, Raymond Andrew, Ashish Tiple, David Raju, Pankaj Khorpade and
others has contributed to the growth of knowledge on Indian Odonata diversity.
Prof. Tembhare and his student Prof. Raymond Andrew at Hislop College, Nagpur
contributed significantly to the endocrine system, reproductive anatomy and
Odonata fauna of Central India. Dr. G. K. Walia and her students from Punjabi
University, Patiala made substantial progress to the cytogenetics Odonata of
India. Hämäläinen (2002, 2011, 2013) also contributed significantly to the growth
of Indian Odonata.
Diversity of Odonata
Globally 6233 species in 685 genera of odonates are known of this, 482 species,
about 50 subspecies in 150 genera and 18 families exist in India. Extant Odonata is
broadly divided into three suborders the Zygoptera or damselflies, Anisozygoptera
and the Anisoptera or dragonflies. The Anisozygoptera with four relict species
was earlier recognized as a third suborder of Odonata. However, recent studies
groups Anisozygoptera with Anisoptera and some authors bring them together
under a new name Epiprocta (Anisoptera + Anisozygoptera) (Trueman, 1996,
2007; Lohmann, 1996; Rehn, 2003; Kalkaman et al., 2008). An over view of extant
global, Oriental and Indian Odonata diversity is provided in table-1 (Schorr and
Paulson, 2017).
Table-1. Diversity of Odonata.
Suborder Family World India

Zygoptera Genera Species Genera Species
Hemiphlebiidae# 1 1 0 0
Perilestidae# 2 19 0 0
Synlestidae 9 38 1 6
Lestidae 9 153 5 26
Platystictidae 9 262 3 15
Amphipterygidae# 1 5 0 0
Argiolestidae# 20 114 0 0
Calopterygidae 21 180 6 9
Chlorocyphidae 20 155 7 22
403
Suborder Family World India

Zygoptera Genera Species Genera Species
Devadattidae# 1 13 0 0
Dicteriadidae# 2 2 0 0
Euphaeidae 9 75 6 18
Heteragrionidae# 2 57 0 0
Hypolestidae# 1 3 0 0
Lestoideidae# 2 9 0 0
Megapodagrioniidae# 3 29 0 0
Philogangidae 1 4 1 1
Philogeniidae# 2 40 0 0
Philosinidae# 2 12 0 0
Polythoridae# 7 60 0 0
Pseudolestidae# 1 1 0 0
Rimanellidae# 1 1 0 0
Thaumatoneuridae# 2 5 0 0
Isostictidae# 12 45 0 0
Platycnemididae 43 452 14 52
Coenagrionidae 122 1350 12 61
Genera Incertae sedis 14 71 1 1
Anisozygoptera
Epiophlebiidae 1 4 1 1
Anisoptera
Austropetaliidae# 4 11 0 0
Aeshnidae 54 473 13 47
Petaluridae# 5 11 0 0
Gomphidae 100 1004 29 83
Chlorogomphidae 3 52 3 11
Cordulegastridae 3 55 3 8
Neopetaliidae# 1 1 0 0
Synthemistidae 26 147 2 15
Macromiidae 4 123 2 17
Corduliidae 21 164 2 2
Libellulidae 144 1032 39 87
Total Diversity 685 6233 150 482
Note: Families in ‘#’ are not represented in India.
404
Classification of Odonata of India

Order Odonata Fabricius, 1793
Suborder Zygoptera Selys, 1854
Superfamily Lestoidea Calvert, 1901
Family Synlestidae Tillyard, 1917
Family Lestidae Calvert, 1901
Superfamily Platystictoidea Kennedy, 1920
Family Platystictidae Kennedy, 1920
Superfamily Calopterygoidea Selys, 1850
Family Calopterygidae Selys, 1850
Family Chlorocyphidae Cowley, 1937
Family Euphaeidae Yakobson & Bainchi, 1905
Family Philogangidae Kennedy, 1920
Superfamily Coenagrionoidea Kirby, 1890
Family Platycnemididae Yakobson & Bainchi, 1905
Family Coenagrionidae Kirby, 1890
Genera Incertae sedis
Suborder Anisozygoptera Handlirsch, 1906
Superfamily Epiophlebioidea Muttkowski, 1910
Family Epiophlebiidae Muttkowski, 1910
Suborder Anisoptera Selys, 1854
Superfamily Aeshnoidea Leach, 1815
Family Aeshnidae Leach, 1815
Superfamily Gomphoidea Rambur, 1842
Family Gomphidae Rambur, 1842
Superfamily CORDULEGASTROIDEA Needham, 1903
Family Chlorogomphidae Needham, 1903
Family Cordulegastridae Hagen, 1875
Superfamily Libelluloidea Leach, 1815
Family Macromiidae Needham, 1903
Family Corduliidae Selys, 1850
Family Synthemistidae Tillyard, 1917
Family Libellulidae Leach, 1815
Distribution
Diversity: Though 482 species of Odonata are found in India, high diversity and
endemism is restricted to southern Western Ghats, Eastern Himalaya, Western
Himalaya and Andaman and Nicobar islands. Western Ghats and Eastern
405
Himalaya have 191 and 256 species respectively. High diversity is found in hill
streams, and forested riverine habitats and most of the endemic species are
restricted to this habitat. Habitats like ponds, lakes, coastal marshes, irrigation
canals and paddy fields have common and wide spread species (Mitra et al., 2011;
Subramanian, 2009, 2012; Subramanian et al., 2011).
Endemism: One hundred and eighty six taxa, including subspecies belonging
to 69 genera are endemic to India. Highest endemism is found in Western Ghats
and Sri Lanka. Within Western Ghats, high endemism is found in mountains south
of Coorg in Karnataka. Here, the streams and rivers of Coorg, Wayanad, Nilgiris,
Anamalai’s, Cardamom Hills and Agasthyamalai are rich in endemic species. High
endemism is found in family Gomphidae and genera such as Protosticta, Macromia
and Idionyx. In the Eastern Himalaya, high endemism is found in Khasi Hills,
and Darjeeling-Sikkim Himalaya. Species of Platycnemididae and Gomphidae
are highly diversified here with many endemics (Babu et al., 2013; Mitra, 2002a;
Subramanian, 2007). The Distribution of endemic species across different regions
of India is provided in Table 2.
Table 2. Distribution of Endemic Species
Eastern Western Western Andaman & Peninsular
Superfamily Family
Himalaya Himalaya Ghats Nicobar India
Coenagrionoidea Coenagrionidae 4 3 6 1 4
Platycnemididae 10 1 14 1 7
Platystictoidea Platystictidae 2 1 10 1 -
Lestoidea Lestidae 4 - 2 - 1
Synlestidae 2 - - - -
Calopterygoidea Calopterygidae 2 - 2 - 1
Chlorocyphidae 3 - 2 3 1
Euphaeidae 6 - 4 - 1
Genera incertae sedis 1 - - - -
Aeshnoidea Aeshnidae 7 1 - 2 3
Gomphoidea Gomphidae 17 4 28 2 7
Cordulegasteroidea Chlorogomphidae 3 - 2 - -
Cordulegasteridae - 1 - - -
Corduliidae 1 - - - -
Libelluloidea Macromiidae 2 1 8 - 2
Synthemistidae 3 - 12 - -
Libellulidae 3 2 4 - -
Biology
Habitat: Odonates are primarily aquatic insects and their life is closely tied with
water bodies. They use a wide range of flowing and stagnant water bodies. Even
though species are usually highly specific for a habitat, some have adapted to
urbanization and use man-made water bodies. This habitat specificity has an
important bearing on the distribution and ecology of odonates. Species using
406
restricted habitats like hill streams tend to be narrowly distributed when compared
to pool breeders, which are widespread.
Life cycle
Eggs: Odonates lay their eggs in a wide range of aquatic habitats, which is species
specific: from damp soil to thundering waterfalls. Females select the egg-laying
site mainly by physical characters such as length of shoreline. Species breeding in
rivers prefer long straight shores. It is observed that long straight shores of lakes
are tend to be colonised by riverine species. Visual cues also play an important
part in oviposition. It has been observed that many pool breeders are deceived by
smooth shining surfaces, such as bonnets of cars and wet roads and they try to lay
their eggs in these unnatural sites.
Damselflies insert their elongate and cylindrical eggs into a plant body. Their
elaborate ovipositor is serrated and adapted for making incisions in the tissues of
plants and placing the eggs in them. Some are generalists and some are specific in
their selection of the plant for egg laying. Dragonflies lay their broad and elliptical
eggs either in flight or by perching on an overhanging vegetation or rock. Eggs are
laid in successive batches: a damselfly lays about 100-400 eggs and dragonflies,
usually about several hundreds to thousands per batch. Eggs hatch immediately
in the tropics, usually in 5-40 days. In many stream dwelling dragonflies the eggs
are invested with gelatinous substance which expands and becomes adhesive on
contact with water. This helps the egg from being carried away far from its habitat
by water current.
Small parasitic Hymenoptera belonging to the families Mymaridae,
Tetragrammidae and Trichogrammidae parasitise eggs of damselflies. Parasitizing
females climb or swim beneath the water to search for the eggs in the submerged
plants and lay their eggs.
Larval stages: The larva is a sophisticated predator. Their cryptic colouration
and keen eyesight makes them a full-fledged predator. Larvae are generally
ambush predators, that is they wait for their prey to come close before striking.
But some systematically stalk their prey. When they are in the striking range they
shoot-out their formidable jaws which virtually stabs the prey. They are gluttonous
and feed on any moving and seizable prey including their own kind. Last instar
larvae of bigger species are known to catch small fishes, tadpoles and even freshly
emerged adults of their own species.
A larva completes its development in two months. The number of larval
instars is very variable within and between species and is usually 9-15. When they
are ready to moult, they stop feeding and crawl up to emergent vegetation or rock.
This usually happens after sun set and the larvae moult into adults just before
sunrise. The newly emerged adults are wet and delicate, and as the day warms
up, they become dry and robust for their maiden flight. Species of the tropics and
warm temperate latitudes complete one or more generations per year.
Adult stage: Newly emerged males and females leave their emergence site and
occupy nearby landscapes. Generally males travel farther than females. In a few
species maturation period serves as a resting stage and lasts about 8-9 months.
407
Damselflies complete their maturation period in about three weeks or less where
as dragonflies takes two weeks. During the maturation period, sequential changes
occur in the colour of the body and wings.
Flight: Odonates surpass all other groups of insects in their flying skills.
Odonates have uncoupled wings unlike moths, butterflies, wasps and bees. In
uncoupled wings, fore and hind wings are unattached to each other and they beat
independently. The powerful thoracic muscles help them in long sustained flight
and good maneuverability. Odonates can hover and turn 180° while in flight.
Dragonflies are stronger fliers than damselflies and they can reach a speed up
to 25-30 km per hour. This difference in flying abilities influences their dispersal
and geographic distribution. It is generally observed that big powerful fliers have
wider geographic range than small weak fliers do.
Like many other organisms, dragonflies also migrate. One of our most common
species, Pantala flavescens migrates immediately after the monsoons. Large
swarms of these dragonflies move through prominent clearings in the landscapes
such as highways and railway tracks. Recent studies show that Pantala flavescens
migrate across the Arabian Sea to reach east African shores using winds of Inter
Tropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ). Generally it is observed that dragonflies which
breed in temporary pools migrate.
Larval stages of water mite (Hydrachnidia) parasitise odonates. For example,
Arrenurus cupidator is a common ectoparasite of coenagrionid damselflies. The
mite larvae seek the final instar host larvae by random tactile search. The larvae
briefly feed on host larva and when adult damselfly emerges, the mite larvae get
attached to the adults. Mite larva pierces the host body and start feeding. The
larvae detach only when the host comes back to water for oviposition. The detached
larvae complete two more larval stages as predator before moulting into an adult.
Feeding: Adult dragonflies are aerial predators and catch small insects
like mosquitoes, midges, small butterflies, moths and bees on wing. Most of the
dragonflies are day flying but a few actively hunt during twilight hours. Dragonflies
capture their prey by perching at a vantage-point and making short sallying flights
or by flying continuously. Large number of adults sometime congregate especially
during dawn and dusk near tree canopies to feed on swarming insects. They feed
in flight, using the legs to capture the prey and transfer it to the jaws. The legs are
highly specialized for this purpose, particularly with regard to its position, relative
length, articulation and complement of spines. Their vision is well developed as in
butterflies and as far as dragonflies are concerned, the whole head is an eye.
Reproduction: Sexually matured dragonflies return to the breeding habitat
from their foraging or roosting site. Usually males mature earlier than females and
reach the breeding habitat first. Matured males hold territory, but species may or
may not show pronounced site fidelity. Resident males show aggressive behaviour
towards conspecific males, which enter their territory. Aggressive behaviour
may be simple “wing warning” by perched males and a display of abdomen. More
elaborate aggressive encounters occur in flight, progressing from mutual threat
display to physical fighting.
408
Odonates are sexually dimorphic. Newly emerged males and females are
similarly coloured. Males acquire bright colouration as they become reproductively
mature. Colours and patterns in the wings and body may play an important
role in territoriality and courtship. Courtship is more evident in damselflies
than in dragonflies. It ranges from simple submissive posture by males towards
approaching females to elaborate displays where the male flies towards an egg
laying site and allows itself to be carried by the water current for a short distance.
Competition over sexually receptive females is very intense among male odonates.
A receptive female adopts a characteristic posture towards a potential male
and pairing follows immediately. The last abdominal segments of the male have
claspers, which are used to hold the female by her thorax. The structure of the
female thorax is such that the male clasper fits exactly into it. This “hardware key”
prevents mating between closely related species. During copulation or just before
that, the male transfers his sperms into an accessory genital organ at the second
abdominal segment. This accessory genitalia has a complicated harpoon shaped
structure, which removes sperms of previously mated male before insemination.
Multiple mating in both males and females is common among odonates.
Egg laying: Egg laying commences immediately after copulation. The male
continues to hold the female and flies with her to an egg-laying site or just
accompanies her. It is usually observed that territory holding males accompany
females and non-territory holding males maintain physical contact with the
female while laying eggs. Usually during this period the female is very vulnerable
to the attack by other males. Non mated males attack the mated pair and try to
hijack the female. Some damselflies lay eggs in submerged plants. In such cases
the hovering male anchors the egg-laying female.
Longevity: Most of the records of longevity in nature refer only to reproductive
period. During this, most damselflies live up to 8 weeks and dragonflies up to 6
weeks. If we include maturation period, it may extend up to 7-9 and 8-10 weeks,
respectively. Dragonflies encounter a large number of predators throughout their
life. Fishes are important predators during the larval stage. Birds such as Falcons,
Hawks, Bee-eaters, Kingfishers, Herons and Terns have been observed to feed
on odonates. Large dragonflies, robberflies (Asilidae) and spiders are important
invertebrate predators.
Threats: Recent studies conducted in Eastern Himalaya and Peninsular
India demonstrats that odonate fauna of the subcontinent is threatened due to
anthropogenic activities such as habitat destruction, agricultural expansion,
pesticide and industrial pollution. Recent IUCN assessment have categorized eight
species as Vulnerable and 17 species as Near Threatened from the subcontinent.
Conservation and Human Significance

Odonates are a dominant group of aquatic insects. They are one of the dominant
invertebrate predators in the wetland ecosystem. Being predators both at larval
and adult stages, they have a significant role in the wetland food chain. Adult
odonates feed on mosquitoes, blackflies and other blood-sucking flies and act as
an important biocontrol agent for these harmful insects. Many species of odonates
inhabiting in agro ecosystems play a crucial role in controlling pest populations.
409
In addition to the role of odonates in ecosystem function, their value as

indicators of quality of the biotope is now being increasingly recognised. Recent
studies have shown how species assemblages of dragonflies change with levels of
human disturbance. Dragonflies found at undisturbed habitats with good riparian
vegetation were specialists with narrow distribution. On the other hand, species
recorded at industrial land or urban areas with disturbed riparian vegetation were
generalists with wide habitat preference and distribution. These studies also show
that dragonflies are sensitive not only to the quality of the wetland but also to the
major landscape changes, especially changes in the riparian zone.
Current IUCN Redlist Assessment (2016) categorizes two Endangered, fifteen
Vulnerable and eight Near Threatened species (Table 3) from India.
Table 3. IUCN Threat Status of Indian Odonata (Version 2016-3)
Sl. No. Species IUCN Status

1 Idionyx galeata Endangered
2 Libellago balus Endangered
3 Anormogomphus kiritshenkoi Near Threatened
4 Asiagomphus personatus Near Threatened
5 Elattoneura atkinsoni Near Threatened
6 Epiophlebia laidlawi Near Threatened
7 Heliogomphus promelas Near Threatened
8 Idionyx optata Near Threatened
9 Indocypha vittata Near Threatened
10 Indolestes indicus Near Threatened
11 Indothemis carnatica Near Threatened
12 Megalogomphus hannyngtoni Near Threatened
13 Melanoneura bilineata Near Threatened
14 Merogomphus martini Near Threatened
15 Neallogaster ornata Near Threatened
16 Phylloneura westermanni Near Threatened
17 Planaeschna intersedens Near Threatened
18 Bayadera hyalina Vulnerable
19 Chlorogomphus xanthoptera Vulnerable
20 Chloropetalia selysi Vulnerable
21 Coeliccia fraseri Vulnerable
22 Disparoneura apicalis Vulnerable
23 Libellago andamanensis Vulnerable
24 Platysticta deccanensis Vulnerable
25 Protosticta sanguinostigma Vulnerable
410
Gaps in research
Detailed taxonomic description of adults of Indian Odonata is available. However
many regions of eastern Himalaya, western Himalaya, central Indian highlands,
Eastern Ghats, Andaman & Nicobar islands are un or under explored. Many
species are known only from type specimens collected nearly a century ago. Hence
it is important to assess the current status of these species by fresh field studies.
Further, information gaps exist on description of larval stages and their ecology.
Larval stages of only about 80 Indian species are known and full life history is
worked out only less than 25 species. A good understanding of larval ecology is
crucial to assess wetland health. This paucity of ecological information is a serious
lacuna when designing any biomonitoring tool. Future studies on dragonflies may
be directed to have a comprehensive understanding of their distribution, ecology
including that of larval stages and their value as a conservation tool.
Acknowledgements
We thank Dr. Kailash Chandra, Director, ZSI and Prof. K. G. Sivaramakrishnan for
critical inputs, encouragement and support for the preparation of this manuscript.
Expertise
India
1. K.A. Subramanian, ZSI, SRC, Chennai, Tamil Nadu
2. R. Babu, ZSI, SRC, Chennai, Tamil Nadu
3. K.G. Emiliyamma, ZSI, WGRC, Kozhikode, Kerala
4. Gaurav Sharma, ZSI, HARC, Solan, Himachal Pradesh
5. Jaffer Palot, ZSI, WGRC, Kozhikode, Kerala
6. S.S. Talmale, ZSI, CZRC, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh
7. Manoj V. Nair, WII, Dehradun, Uttarakhand
8. Shantanu Joshi, Mumbai
9. R. Andrew, Dept. of Zoology, Hislop College, Nagpur, Maharashtra
10. G. K. Walia, Dept. of Zoology, Punjabi University, Patiala.
Abroad
1. Matti Hämäläinen, Naturalis Biodiversity Center, P.O. Box 9517, 2300
RA, Leiden, The Netherlands.
2. Rory A. Dow, Naturalis Biodiversity Center, P.O. Box 9517, 2300 RA,
Leiden, The Netherlands.
3. M. Bedjanič, Kolodvorska 21b, SI-2310 Slovenska Bistrica, Slovenia.
4. Nancy van deer Poorten, Toronto, Canada.
References
Asahina, S. 1978. A new and some known species of Odonata from Kashmir
(Insecta). Senckenbergiana Biol., 59(1/2): 115-120.
Asahina, S. 1981. A revision of the Himalayan dragonflies of the genus
Cephalaeschna and its allies (Odonata: Aeshnidae). Bull. Natn. Sci. Mus.,
(A) 7(2): 57-77.
411
Asahina, S. 1984a. Assamese and Burmese Coeliccia species in the collection of

Ehrich Schmidt (Odonata: Platycnemididae). Trans. Shikoku ent. Soc., 16:
1-9.
Asahina, S. 1984b. Gynacantha arnaudi sp. nov. and enigmatic Gynacantha from
Assam (Odonata: Aeshnidae). Chô chô, 7: 2-8.
Asahina, S. 1985a. Further contribution to the taxonomy of South Asiatic Coeliccia
species (Odonata: Platycnemididae). Chô chô, 8(2): 2-13.
Asahina, S. 1985b. Contributions to the taxonomic knowledge of the Megalestes
species of Continental South Asia (Odonata: Synlestidae). Chô chô, 8(10):
2-18.
Asahina, S. 1986. Revisional notes on Nepalese and Assamese dragonfly species
of the genus Chlorogomphus (Odonata: Cordulrgasteridae). Chô chô, 9(1):
11-26.
Asahina, S. 1994. Records of Gomphid Dragonflies recently collected by Japanese
Entomologists from Nepal and Darjeeling District. Tombo, 37(1-4): 2-17.
Babu, R., Subramanian, K.A. and Supriya Nandy 2013. Endemic Odonates of
India. Rec. zool. Surv. India, Occasional Paper No. 347: 1-60.
Baijal, H.N. 1955. Entomological Survey of the Himalayas part IV. Notes on some
insects collected by the second Entomological Expedition to the North West
Himalayas (1955) with description of three new species of Odonata. Agra
Univ. J. Res. (Sci.) suppl., 4: 741-766.
Bhasin, G.D. 1953. Odonata. Indian Forest Leafl., 121(3): 63-69.
Drury, D. 1770. Illustrations of Natural History- Exotic Insects, 1: 112-115.
Drury, D. 1773. Illustrations of Natural History- Exotic Insects, 2: 84-85.
Emiliyamma, K.G., Radhakrishnan, C. and Palot, M.J. 2007. Odonata (Insecta) of
Kerala. Rec. zool. Surv. India, Occ. Paper No. 269: 1-195.
Fabricius, J.C. 1775. Entomologica Systematica, 420-426.
Fabricius, J.C. 1787. Odonata. Mantissa Insectorum, 1787: 336-340.
Fabricius, J.C. 1793. Libellula. Entomologica Systematica, 2: 373-383.
Fabricius, J.C. 1798. Libellula. Entomologica Systematica, Suppl., 283-286.
Fraser, F.C. 1924. A survey of the Odonata fauna of western India with special
remarks on the genera Macromia and Idionyx and descriptions of thirty
new species, with Appendix I and II. Rec. Indian Mus., 26(5): 423-522.
Fraser, F.C. 1926. A revision of the genus Idionyx Selys. Rec. Indian Mus., 28(3):
195-207.
Fraser, F.C. 1931. Additions to the survey of the Odonata (Dragonfly) fauna of
Western India, with descriptions of nine new species. Rec. Indian Mus., 33:
443-474.
Fraser, F.C. 1933. Fauna of British India, including Ceylon and Burma, Odonata,
Vol. I, pp. XIV+ 423, 180 text figs, 1 map. Taylor & Francis Ltd., London.
Fraser, F.C. 1934. Fauna of British India, including Ceylon and Burma, Odonata,
Vol. II, pp. XXIV+ 398, 4 pls. Taylor & Francis Ltd., London.
412
Fraser, F.C. 1936. Fauna of British India, including Ceylon and Burma. Odonata,
Vol. III, pp. XII + 461, 2 pls. Taylor & Francis Ltd., London.
Hämäläinen, M. 2002. Notes on the Libellago damselflies of the Andaman
and Nicobar Islands, with description of a new species (Zygoptera:
Chlorocyphidae). Odonatologica, 31(4): 345-358.
Hämäläinen, M. 2011. Notes on the taxonomic status of Vestalis submontana
Fraser, 1934 from South India (Zygoptera : Calopterygidae). Notulae
Odonatologicae, 7(8): 71-73.
Hämäläinen, M. 2013. Description of Bayadera kinnara sp. nov. from Burma, with
taxonomic notes on its congeners (Odonata: Euphaeidae). TOMBO, Fukui,
55: 45-49.
International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN).www.redlist.org. Version
2016-3 Accessed on 3rd May, 2017.
Kalkman, V.J., Clausnitzer, V., Dijkstra, K.-D.B., Orr, A.G., Paulson, D.R. and
van Tol, J. 2008. Global diversity of dragonflies (Odonata) in freshwater.
Kumar, A. and M. Prasad, 1981. Field ecology, zoogeography and taxonomy of the
Odonata of Western Himalaya, India. Rec. zool. Surv. India, Occ. Paper No.
20: 1-118.
Lahiri, A.R. 1987. Studies on the Odonata fauna of Meghalaya. Rec. zool. Surv.
India, Occ. Paper No. 99: 1-402.
Lahiri, A.R. 2003. On a new species of the genus Bayadera Selys (Odonata:
Euphaeidae) from India with notes on its Indian representative. Rec. zool.
Surv. India, 101(3-4): 39-42.
Lahiri, A.R., Sandhu, R. and Walia, G.K. 2007. Gynacantha palampurica sp. nov.
from Northern Himachal Pradesh, India (Odonata : Aeshnidae). Rec. zool.
Surv. India, 107(Part-3): 45-49.
Laidlaw, F.F. 1914. Zoological Results of the Abor Expedition 1911-1912; XXV.
Odonata. Rec. Indian Mus., 8: 335-349.
Laidlaw, F.F. 1915. Notes on Oriental dragonflies in the Indian Museum, No. 3.
Laidlaw, F.F. 1916a. Notes on Oriental dragonflies in the Indian Museum. No. 4.
The genus Pseudagrion. Rec. Indian Mus., 12: 21-25.
Laidlaw, F.F. 1916b. Notes on Indian Odonata. Rec. Indian Mus., 12: 129-136.
Laidlaw, F.F. 1917a. A list of the dragonflies recorded from the Indian Empire with
special reference to the collection of the Indian Museum, Part-I. The Family
Calopterygidae. Rec. Indian Mus., 13: 23-40.
Laidlaw, F.F. 1917b. A list of the dragonflies recorded from the Indian Empire with
special reference to the collection of the Indian Museum, Part-I. The Family
Agrioninae. Rec. Indian Mus., 13: 321-348.
Laidlaw, F.F. 1919. A list of the dragonflies recorded from the Indian Empire
with special reference to the collection of the Indian Museum, Part-II. Rec.
Indian Mus., 16: 169-195.
413
Laidlaw, F.F. 1920. Description of a new species of the genus Pseudophaea

(=Euphaea, Selys) from Western India with some remarks on the section
Dispar of the genus. Rec. Indian Mus., 19: 23-27.
Laidlaw, F.F. 1922. A list of the dragonflies recorded from the Indian Empire
with special reference to the collection of the Indian Museum, Part-V. The
subfamily Gomphinae. Rec. Indian Mus., 24: 367-426.
Laidlaw, F.F. 1924. Notes on Oriental dragonflies of the genus Aciagrion. Proc.
U.S. nat. Mus., 66 Art 10: 1-9.
Laidlaw, F.F. 1932. A Revision of the Genus Coeliccia (Order Odonata). Rec. Indian
Mus., 34: 7-42.
Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema Naturae. Regnum Animale. Editio decimal. 1. Laurentii
Salvii, Holmiae: iv+1-823.
Linnaeus, C. (1763). Amoenitates Acad., 6: 412.
Lohmann, H. 1996. Das phylogenetische System der Anisoptera (Odonata).
Entomologische Zeitschrift 106: 209-252.
Mitra, A., Dow, R., Subramanian, K.A. and Sharma, G. 2011. The status and
distribution of dragonflies and damselflies (Odonata) of the Eastern
Himalaya. In: Status and Distribution of Freshwater Biodiversity in the
Eastern Himalaya, (Compilers: Molur, S., Smith, K.G., Daniel, B.A. and
Darwall, W.R.T.), pp. 54-66. Cambridge, UK and Gland, Siwtzerland:
IUCN, and Coimbatore, India: Zoo Outreach Organization.
Mitra, T.R. 2002a. Endemic Odonata of India. Rec. zool. Surv. India, 100 (3-4):
189-199.
Mitra, T.R. 2002b. Geographical distribution of Odonata (Insecta) of Eastern India.
Mem. zool. Surv. India, 19 (9), pp. XI+ 208.
Mitra, T.R. 2003. Ecology and biogeography of Odonata with special reference to
Indian fauna. Rec. zool. Surv. India, Occ. Paper No. 202: 1-41.
Mitra, T.R. and Babu, R. 2010. Revision of Indian species of the families
Platycnemididae and Coenagrionidae (Insecta: Odonata: Zygoptera)-
Taxonomy and Zoogeography. Rec. zool. Surv. India, Occ. Paper No. 315:
1-103.
Prasad, M. 1996a. An account of the Odonata of Maharashtra State, India. Rec.
zool. Surv. India, 95: 305-327.
Prasad, M. 1996b. Studies on the Odonata fauna of Bastar, Madhya Pradesh,
India. Rec. zool. Surv. India, 95: 385-428.
Prasad, M. 2001. Record of damselfly Aciagrion occidentale (Odonata:
Coenagrionidae) from Lakshadweep and Minicay Islands, India. Bionotes,
3(3): 70.
Prasad, M. 2004. Insecta : Odonata. In: Fauna of Gujarat, State Fauna series, No.
8, Part-3, pp. 19-40, Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata.
Prasad, M. 2007a. Insecta : Odonata. In: Fauna of Mizoram, State Fauna series,
No. 14, pp. 143-186, Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata.
414
Prasad, M. 2007b. Insecta : Odonata. In: Fauna of Andhra Pradesh, State Fauna
series, No. 5, Part-3, pp. 115-181, Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata.
Prasad, M. and Varshney, R.K. 1988. The Odonata of Bihar, India. Rec. zool. Surv.
India, Occ. Paper No. 110: 1-47.
Prasad, M. and Varshney, R.K. 1995. A Check-list of the Odonata of India including
data on larval studies. Oriental Insects, 29: 385-428.
Ram, R., Chandra, K. and Yadav, K. 2000. Studies on the Odonata fauna of
Andaman and Nicobar Islands. Rec. zool. Surv. India, 98(3): 25-60.
Rambur, M.P. 1842. Histoire Naturelle des Insects. Névropteres, pp. XVIII+534.
Librairie Encyclopedique de Roret, Paris.
Rehn, A.C. 2003. Phylogenetic analysis of higher-level relationships of Odonata.
Systematic Entomology, 28: 181–239.
Schorr, M. and Paulson, D. 2017. World Odonata List. https://www.pugetsound.
edu/academics/academicresources/slater-museum/biodiversity-resources/
dragonflies/worldodonata-list2/ [accessed on 5th April, 2017].
Selys- Longchamps, E. De. 1840. Monographie des Libellulidees D’ Europe, pp.
220. Librairie Encyclop. De. Roret, Rue Haute-Feuille, No. 10 bis, Paris.
Selys- Longchamps, E. De. 1853. Synopsis des Calopterygines. Bull. Acad. r. Belg.
Cl. Sci., (2) 1: 20, Annexe pp. 1-73.
Selys- Longchamps, E. De. 1854a. Monographie des Calopterygines. Mem. Soc. r.
Sci. Liege, 9: 291 (with Hagen).
Selys- Longchamps, E. De. 1854b. Synopsis des Gomphines. Bull. Acad. Roy.
Belgique, (II) 21: 23-113.
Selys- Longchamps, E. De. 1859. Addition au Synopsis des Calopterygines. Bull.
Acad. Roy. Belgique, Sci., (2) 7: 437-451.
Selys- Longchamps, E. De. 1860. Synopsis des Agrionines. Derniere Legion:
Protoneura. Bull. Acad. Belgique, Sci., (2) 10: 431-462.
Selys- Longchamps, E. De. 1862. Synopsis des Agrionines. Seconde Legion: Lestes.
Bull. Acad. Belgique, Sci., (2) 13: 288-338.
Selys- Longchamps, E. De. 1863. Synopsis des Agrionines. Quetrieme Legion:
Platycnemis. Bull. Acad. Belg. Sci., (2)16: 150-176.
Selys- Longchamps, E. De. 1865. Synopsis des Agrionines. 5me Legion: Agrion.
Bull. Acad. Belgique, Sci., (2) 20: 375-417.
Selys- Longchamps, E. De. 1869. Odonates recueillis a Madagascar, et. auxiles
Mascareignes ec Comoros, Researches sur la Faune de Madagascar et de
ses dependencea d après les decouvertes de F.P.L. Pollen et D.C. van dam
5me parte, p. 24.
Selys- Longchamps, E. De. 1876. Synopsis des agrionines (suite). Le grand genre
Agrion. Bull. Acad. Roy. Belg., (II) 41: 247-322., 496-539, 1233-1309; 42:
490-531, 952-989.
Selys- Longchamps, E. De. 1877. Synopsis des Agrionises. 5me Legion, Agrion
(suite et fin) les generes Telebasis, Agriocnemis, et Hemiphlebia. Bruxelles,
pp. 1-65.
415
Selys- Longchamps, E. De. 1883. Synopsis des Aeschnines. Bull. Acad. Roy.
Belgique, Sci., (3)5: 712-748.
Selys- Longchamps, E. De. 1891. Odonates in ‘Viaggio’ Di Leonardo Fea in
Birmania e Regional Viccine, Annali. Mus. civ. Stor. nat. Giacomo Doria
Serie 2, 10: 433-518.
Singh, S. 1955. Entomological Survey of the Himalayas Part V- on two new species
of Odonata. Agra Univ. J. Res. (Sci.), 4: 171-174.
Singh, S. and H.N. Baijal, 1954. Entomological Survey of the Himalayas II- on a
collection of Odonata. Agra Univ. J. Res. (Sci.), 3: 385-400.
Singh, S., Baijal, H.N., Gupta, V.K. and Mathew, K. 1955. Entomological survey
of the Himalayas, Part- XIV. Notes on some insects collected by the
second entomological expedition to the North-West Himalayas (1955) with
description of three new species of Odonata. Agra Univ. J. Res. (Sci.), 4
(suppl.): 741-766.
Subramanian, K.A. 2007. Endemic odonates of the Western Ghats: Habitat
distribution and Conservation. In: Odonata-Biology of Dragonflies (Ed.
Tyagi), pp. 257-271. Scientific Publishers, Jodhpur, India.
Subramanian, K.A. 2012. Foraging and Breeding Behaviour of Peninsular Indian
Odonata. In: Dynamics of Insect Behaviour (Eds. Anathakrishnan, T.N. and
Sivaramakrishnan, K.G.), pp. 158- 171. Scientific Publishers (India). ISBN-
ISBN-978-81-7233-740-7.
Subramanian. K.A. 2009. Dragonflies of India-A field guide. Vigyan Prasar,
Department of Science and Technology, Govt. of India, p.1-168. ISBN: 978-
81-7480-192-0.
Subramanian. K.A., Kakkassery, F. and Nair, M.V. 2011. The status and
distribution of dragonflies and damselflies (Odonata) of the Western Ghats.
In: Status and Distribution of Freshwater Biodiversity in the Western Ghats,
(Compilers: Molur, S., Smith, K.G., Daniel, B.A. and Darwall, W.R.T.), pp.
63-74. Cambridge, UK and Gland, Siwtzerland: IUCN, and Coimbatore,
India: Zoo Outreach Organization.
Tillyard, R.J. 1921. On an anisozygopteraus larva from the Himalayas (Order
Odonata). Rec. Indian Museum, 22: 93-107.
Trueman, J.W.H. 1996. A preliminary cladistic analysis of odonate wing venation.
Odonatologica, 25: 59-72.
Trueman, J.W.H. 2007. A brief history of the classification and nomenclature of
Odonata. Zootaxa, 1668: 381-394.
416
Plate I
Caconeura risi Davidoides martini
Disparoneura quadrimaculata Drepanosticta carmichaeli
Esme mudiensis Euphaea dispar
417
Plate II
Gomphidia kodaguensis Onychogomphus nilgiriensis
Libellago andamanensis Phylloneura westermanni
Tramea transmarina
418
Chapter 26
Insecta : TRICHOPTERA (Caddisflies)
K.G. Sivaramakrishnan1, C. Selvakumar2 and

K.A. Subramanian3
Abstract
Trichoptera of India comprised 1,227 species belonging to 102 genera and 28
families. Systematic studies placing the Indian species in a global context have
progressed rapidly in the last few decades. However, much remains to be done in
terms of the morphological and molecular characterization of the fauna at species
level. Trans Himalaya, Central Himalaya, North East, Gangetic plain and the
Western Ghats are reasonably well explored with regard to species diversity and
distribution of the Trichoptera. Intensive surveys are needed to generate data on
spatio-temporal distribution dynamics and associate unknown larval and adult
stages of many species. Indian literature pertaining to work done on importance
of Trichoptera and impact from climate change and biomonitoring potential of
caddisflies are briefly presented. Aspects of research on future dimensions are also
indicated.
Key words: conservation, diversity, biomonitoring, caddisflies, India
1. Caddisflies –the “underwater architects”

Caddisflies (Trichoptera) are among the most diverse holometabolous aquatic
insects which along with dragonflies, mayflies, stoneflies and dobsonflies are
primary invaders of freshwaters. They are distributed in every continent except
Antarctica. They are exceeded in number of species only by aquatic Diptera
(Mackay and Wiggins, 1979). Trichoptera are closely related to the Lepidoptera
and the two orders together form the superorder Amphiesmenoptera (Kristensen,
1991). Their eggs, larvae and pupae are usually found in or very near freshwater
bodies. Imagos are aerial and perch on leaves and twigs of riparian flora. They
are moth-like insects with wings covered by hairs, not scales, a diagnostic feature
of the Lepidoptera. In fact, the word Trichoptera is derived from the Greek word
‘trichos’ meaning hairs, and “pteron” meaning wing i.e., wings covered with hairs.
Adult antennae are usually prominent, in some species exceptionally long and
have well developed maxillary and labial palps, but never with coiled proboscis,
diagnostic of adult Lepidoptera (de Moor and Ivanov, 2008).
1Flat 3, Gokulam Apartments, No. 7, Gokulam Colony, West Mambalam, Chennai-600 033
2Zoological Survey of India, PraniVigyanBhavan, M-Block, New Alipore, Kolkata-700 053
3Zoological Survey of India, Southern Regional Centre, Santhome High Road, Chennai-600028
1Corresponding author: E-mail: [email protected]
419
Sivaramakrishnan et al.
Also like Lepidoptera, larvae of Trichoptera have exploited silk in constructing

retreats and larval cases of marvellous bioarchitecture that are keystone
adaptations accounting for the ecological diversity and success of the order as
a whole (Wiggins, 2004). Fittingly, caddisfly larvae are called “underwater
architects” (Wiggins, 2004). Trichoptera larvae can be distinguished from all other
insects with segmented thoracic legs, by the presence of a pair of anal prolegs,
each with a single curved terminal claw and very short antennae consisting of
a single segment. The pupa is exarate and possesses a pair of strong functional
mandibles, non-functional in the adult. The abdomen has a number of segments
adorned with characteristic sclerotized, dorsal hook-bearing plates. Larval and
pupal stages entirely depend on an aquatic environment. The larvae have exploited
every conceivable microhabitat of the freshwater systems from montane springs,
streams both intermittent and perennial, rivers, big and small, the splash zones of
waterfalls and the depth of lakes to temporary waters and even rain water-filled
treeholes (phytotelma). Their larvae are an important and beneficial component
of the trophic dynamics and energy flow in lentic and lotic waters they inhabit
and are extensively utilized in biomonitoring surveys along with other benthic
macroinvertebrates (Lenat, 1993). Trichoptera, like the Ephemeroptera and
Plecoptera are ideal objects for biogeographic, phylogenetic and phylogegraphic
analyses.
The order Trichoptera inhabit a diverse array of freshwater habitats in all
continents excluding Antarctica (Morse (ed.) 2017). At present, around 49 families
of Trichoptera have been recognized over the globe comprising 616 genera and
14,548 species (Morse (ed.) 2017). Globally, Oriental region is species rich with,
5,313 (405 spp./Gm2) species of which most of them are endemic to the region
(Morse, 2016). From India, 28 families encompassing 102 genera and 1,227 species
are recorded.
Being a holometabolous order of inland water insects, it is difficult and laborious
to correlate the different life stages, and with extreme dearth of specialists in this
speciose taxon in India, the “Fauna of India on Trichoptera” has so far not seen the
light of the day. Traditionally, morpho-taxonomical investigations on Trichoptera
are almost on imagos since structures for identification of caddisfly species are
found almost exclusively in the adult stage, and largely in genital morphology
(Wiggins, 2004). However, the caddisfly larval assemblages are vital for the
ecological integrity of freshwaters. Unfortunately, there is acute paucity of work on
larval taxonomy not to mention about larval-adult association which is practically
absent. Hence priority attention needs to be paid to the multifaceted study of
Trichoptera in India including extensive spatial and temporal field explorations
2. Historical Perspectives
Though European workers have been pioneers in caddisfly research followed
by North Americans and experts from other developed countries, there has not
been enough progress on Trichoptera in India. Kolentini (1859), Walker (1852),
Mac Lachlan (1875) and Hagen (1864-1873) initiated study of Indian Trichoptera
In the latter half of eighteenth century. Subsequently Morton (1900-1902), Banks
420
Insecta : Trichoptera (Caddisflies)
(1911, 1913-1939) and MacLachlan (1916) added significantly to knowledge in the

early nineteenth century. Martynov (1935-36) worked on the collections of the
Indian Museum (Zoological Survey of India) followed by Mosely (1935, 1936, 1938)
on some Indian Trichoptera. Taxonomic investigations on adult caddisflies of India
were continued by Kimmins (1950-1957), Schmid (1968, 1969, 1971, 1983, 1984,
1995), Wiggins (1968) and Malicky and his group (1979-2012). Schmid personally
collected adults from Arunachal Pradesh, Sikkim, Assam, Manipur, West Bengal,
Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Uttar Pradesh and other places and published
several monographs. He predicted that there would be more than ten thousand
species of Trichoptera which remain to be unpublished from inland waters of India
(Schmid, 1984). Though perhaps this appears to be slightly an overestimate, India’s
unexplored species diversity of caddisflies is undoubtedly explosive. Recently Saini
and his co-workers, Parey, Pandherand Kaur (2011, 2013) published extensively
on more than forty species of adult Trichoptera of Indian Himalaya. Ghosh and
Chaudhury (1987) from ZSI published on a new species of Phryganeidae. Malicky
(1979) published on Caddisflies of Andamans. Sharma and Chandra (2009) updated
the checklists of Higler (1992), Saini et al., (2001). Recently Parey (2015) has
updated the checklist of Plenitentoria Group of caddisflies. Saini and Kaur (2012)
collated scattered information on published literature on Indian Trichoptera. Work
on larval Trichoptera of India remain scanty with a few exceptions viz., caddisfly
larvae of the larvae of Great Nicobar Biosphere Reserve (Chandra and Jehamalar,
2013), spatiotemporal distribution of larvae of the genera of the Western Ghats of
peninsular India (Dinakaran and Anbalagan, 2010), larval descriptions on a new
species of Lepidostoma from Alagar hills (Dinakaran et al., 2013) and sporadic
reports from southern eastern Ghats (Dinakaran and Anbalagan, 2007). Dr.Morse
of Climson University, South Carolina is motivating caddisfly workers from India
to continue systematic work on this taxon.
3. Taxonomic diversity, Endemism and Patterns of distribution

Biodiversity among caddisflies is a reflection of the effectiveness of natural
selection in subdividing resources of energy in freshwater ecosystems. Taxonomy
provides the vocabulary that opens doors to interpreting the diversity evident
in ecology, phylogeny and biogeography (Wiggins, 2004). Much of the biological
diversity of Trichoptera is revealed at the level of family. As mentioned earlier,
around 45 extant families are now recognized in the world and 28 of them are
represented in India. Details of recorded genera and species of Trichoptera within
India are presented in Table 1.The caddisflies are extensively distributed in the
Himalayan belt especially in the Himalaya, Indo-Burmese and the Western Ghats
biodiversity hotspot. Details of larval generic distribution in the Western Ghats
are found in Dinakaran and Anbalagan (2010).
The available data is inadequate to estimate the extent of endemism precisely.
According to Ghosh (1998) more than 80% of species are endemic to India. It is also
impossible at this point of time to provide information on threatened species as the
faunistic explorations and even alpha taxonomic work on this taxon in India has
not progressed much.
421
Table. 1. Current status of Indian Trichoptera
Suborder Infraorder Family Genus Species

ANNULIPALPIA Hydropsychidae 15 96
Philopotamidae 7 130
Stenopsychidae 1 14
Dipseudopsidae 2 13
Ecnomidae 1 8
Polycentropodidae 5 17
Pseudoneureclipsidae 1 9
Psychomyiidae 5 71
Xiphocentronidae 5 45
INTEGRIPALPIA BREVITENTORIA Calamoceratidae 2 6
Leptoceridae 13 297
Limnocentropodidae 1 3
Molannidae 2 8
Odontoceridae 1 2
Helicopsychidae 1 28
Sericostomatidae 4 6
PLENITENTORIA Apataniidae 4 22
Goeridae 2 31
Limnephilidae 7 44
Uenoidae 1 5
Brachycentridae 2 12
Lepidostomatidae 3 65
Phryganeidae 2 10
Phryganopsychidae 1 1
SPICIPALPIA Glossosomatidae 3 25
Hydroptilidae 8 52
Hydrobiosidae 1 12
Rhyacophilidae 2 193
TOTAL 28 102 1,227
4. Ecological diversity and Adaptive trends

Caddisflies are known primarily for the ability of their larvae to construct cases
and carry them while procuring food as an adaptive strategy to protect from
predators and to enhance respiratory efficiency (Wiggins, 2004). Fifteen families
from India are portable case-makers (Integripalpia). Nine families from India are
422
retreat-makers (Annulipalpia) forming a second major lineage. Four families are

cocoon-making (Spicipalpia). They prefer cool running waters for the most part.
Plate 1 provides the diagnostic features of some Indian families of Trichoptera
based on larval architecture. Four principal functional feeding groups (FFG) were
recognized viz., scraper, shredder, collector and predator. Each genus was assigned
to a functional feeding group. Burton and Sivaramakrishnan (1993) categorized
the FFG’s of caddisfly larvae of Silent valley streams along with other aquatic
insects.
5. Evolution and Biogeography

Invasion of freshwater during Triassic was the essential innovation for Trichoptera,
probably due to selection pressure from terrestrial predators as evidenced from
fossil history. As on date there has been no fossil study of Trichoptera of India.
However, two fossil caddisfly species from Burmese amber dated to Cretaceous-
late-Albian are known: Palerasnitsynus ohlhoffi Wichard, Ross, & Ross 2011
(Psychomyiidae) and Burminoptila bemeneha Botosaneanu 1981 (Hydroptilidae)
(Morse, 2016). The hypothesis of Wiggins (2004) for the evolution of construction
behaviour in American families of Trichopteran larvae appears applicable to Indian
families as well and investigation on morphological and molecular phylogenies of
Indian caddisfly fauna should also be in the priority list to arrive at a holistic
picture. Same is true with regard to the biogeographic and phylogeographic history
of Trichoptera of India to test the origin and biogeographic diversification patterns
of Trichoptera in India.
423
6. Biomonitoring Potential
Worldwide, caddisfly larvae are a well-represented group with high species
diversity in montane streams and rivers and are widely used in water quality
assessment. Sivaramakrishnan et al., (1996) made pioneering investigations on
the utility of benthic macroinvertebrate assemblages on biomonitoring of Kaveri
river catchment. Subramanian and Sivaramakrishnan (2005) prepared a working
manual on biomonitoring techniques using aquatic insects of Indian genera. The
biomonitoring potential of the larvae of trichopteran genera of India are highlighted
in these publications.
7. Climate Change Impacts

Trichopteran communities are highly vulnerable to global climatic changes
including global warming and this study is gaining momentum throughout the
world. Selvakumar et al., (2015) have made preliminary investigation on this aspect
adopting a trait –based approach on the river basins of the Western Ghats. More
in-depth studies on the impact of climate change on imperilment and vulnerability
of caddisfly species are urgently needed in India.
8. Conservation Priorities and Modalities

We are presently in an “Era of anthropogenic megaextinction”. Habitat
fragmentation, global climate change impacts and alien species invasion have
created a ’‘biodiversity crisis” in our fragile lentic and lotic inland waters jeoperdizing
the “biotic integrity” of lakes, streams and rivers. Ecological, biotechnological,
socio-cultural and legal conservation measures are to be promoted to protect
the precious biological heritage of our inland waters including aquatic insects of
which the larval caddisfly species assemblages constitute a dominant component.
Prioritization of caddisfly taxa and microhabitats for conservation is yet another
important research area.
9. Future Dimensions
Future caddisflies workers should concentrate on following accepts of Indian
Trichoptera
l Detailed morphological descriptions of life stages.
l Habitat, microhabitat associations and biogeographic studies.
l Rapid identification methods, DNA Barcodes and life stage associations.
l Molecular phylogenetic and phylogeographic studies.
l Origin and diversification of evolutionary lineages.
l “Cryptic species” conservation to safeguard hidden subspecific diversity –
role of conservation genetics
l Microsatellite loci, Evolutionary Significant Units
l Next Generation Sequencing
424
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
complete this work.
References
Banks, N. 1911. Notes on Indian neuropteroid insects, Proceedings of the
Entomological Society of Washington, 13, pp 99-106, plate 6.
Banks, N. 1913. Synopses and descriptions of exotic Neuroptera, Transactions of
the American Entomological Society, 39: 201-242.
Banks, N. 1939. Notes and descriptions of Oriental Oestropsychidae (Trichoptera),
Psyche, 47: 52-61.
Burton, T.M. and Sivaramakrishnan, K.G.1993. Composition of the insect
community in the streams of the Silent valley National park in Southern
India. Tropical Ecology, 34(1): 1-16.
Chandra, K. and Jehamalar, E.E. 2013. Studies on the Caddis Fly larvae
(InsectaTrichoptera) of Great Nicobar Biosphere Reserve, Nicobar Islands,
India. Rec. zool. Surv. India, 113(Part-l): 25-30.
deMoor F.C. and Ivanov, V.D. 2008. Global diversity of caddisflies (Trichoptera:
Insecta) in freshwater. Hydrobiologia, 595: 393–407.
Dinakaran, S. and Anbalagan, S. 2007. Diversity, trophic relationships and
biomonitoring potential of Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera
communities in streams of southern Eastern Ghats.Entomon, 32: 169-175.
Dinakaran, S. and Anbalagan, S. 2010. Spatio-temporal dynamics of caddisflies in
streams of southern Western Ghats. Journal of Insect Science, 10.46: 1-15.
Dinakaran, S., Anbalagan, S. and Balachandran, C. 2013. A new species of
caddisfly (Trichoptera: Lepidostomatidae: Lepidostoma) from Tamil Nadu,
India. Journal of Threatened Taxa, 5(1): 3531–3535.
Ghosh, S.K. 1998. Faunal diversity in India: Trichoptera, pp 319-323. In: Faunal
diversity in India, Alfred, J.R.B., Das, A.K. andSanyal, A.K. (Eds.), Envis
centre, Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata.
Ghosh, S.K. and Chaudhury, M. 1987. A new species of EubasilissaMartynov
(Trichoptera: Phryganeidae) from India, Bulletin of the Zoological Survey
of India, 8: 185-186.
Higler, L.W.G. 1992. A check-list of the Trichoptera recorded from India and a
larval key to the families. Oriental Insects, 26: 67-106.
Kimmins, D.E. 1950. Indian caddis flies (Trichoptera) I. New species of the genus
Limnocentropus Ulmer, Annals and Magazine of Natural History, 12: 590-
603.
Kimmins, D.E. 1957. Entomological results from the Swedish expedition 1934
to Burma and British India. Trichoptera. The genus Chimarra Stephens
(Fam. Philopotamidae), ArkivförZoologi, 11: 53-75
425
Kolenati, F.A. 1859. Genera et species Trichopterorum, Pars Altera, Nouveaux

Mémoires de la SociétéImpériale des Naturalistes de Moscou, 11: 141-296.
Kristensen, N.P. 1991. Phylogeny of extant hexapods. Pages 125-140 in CSIRO
(editors). The Insects of Australia. Cornell University Press. Ithaca
Lenat, D.R. 1993. A biotic index for the southeastern United States: derivation and
list of tolerance values, with criteria for assigning water-quality ratings,
Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 12: 279-290.
Mackay, R.J and Wiggins, G.B. 1979. Ecological diversity in Trichoptera. Ann.
Rev. Entomol., 24: 185-208.
Malicky, H. 1979. NeueKöcherfliegen (Trichoptera) von den Andamanen- Inseln,
Zeitschrift der ArbeitsgemeinschaftÖsterreichischerEntomologen, 30: 97-
109.
Malicky, H. 2005. Beiträgezur Kenntnisasiatischer Oecetis (Trichoptera,
Leptoceridae), Linzer BiologischeBeiträge, 37: 605-669.
Malicky, H. 2009. Ubersichtuber die Gattung Pseudoneureclipsis (Trichoptera,
Polycentropodidae), mitBeschreibung von neuenArten. Linzer biol. Beitr.
41(1): 709-735. (Trich. 304)
Martynov, A.V. 1926. On the family Stenopsychidae Mart., with a revision of
the genus StenopsycheMcLachl. (Trichopt.). Eos-Revista Espanola de
Entomología, 2: 281–308.
Martynov, A.V. 1935. On a collection of Trichoptera from the Indian Museum. Part
I. Annulipalpia, Records of the Indian Museum, 37: 93-209.
Martynov, A.V. 1936. On a collection of Trichoptera from the Indian Museum. Part
II- Integripalpia. Records of the Indian Museum, Calcutta, 38: 239-306.
McLachlan, R. 1875. Descriptions de plusieures Névroptères-
PlannipennesetTrichoptères nouveau de l’île de Célèbes et de
quelquesespècesnouvelles de Dipseudopsis, avec considérationssurce
genre”, Tijdschriftvoor Entomologie, 18: 1-21.
Morse, J.C (2016). Keynote: Trichoptera fauna of Asia. Zoosymposia, 10: 020–028.
Morse, J.C. (ed.) 2017. Trichoptera World Checklist. http://entweb.clemson.edu/
database/trichopt/index.htm [Accessed 30 January 2017.]
Morton, K.J. 1900. Descriptions of new species of Oriental Rhyacophilidae,
Transactions of the Royal Entomological Society of London, 1900: 1-7,
plate 1.
Morton, K.J. 1902. A new Indian micro-Trichopteron, The Entomologist’s Monthly
Magazine (series 2), 13: 283.
Mosely, M.E. 1935. The Indian caddis-flies (Trichoptera) III. Inaequipalpia,
Mosely, M.E. 1936. The Indian caddis-flies (Trichoptera) IV: Limnophilidae,
Mosely, M.E., 1938. The Indian Caddis-flies (Trichoptera) V: Sericostomatidae
McLachlan, Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 40: 486-496.
426
Pandher, M.S. and Saini, M.S. 2011. First report of the genus Kisaura Ross
(Trichoptera, Philopotamidae) from India with the description of six new
species. ZooKeys, 152: 71–86.
Pandher, M.S., Saini, M.S. andParey, S.H. 2013. Review of the genus Stenopsyche
McLachlan (Trichoptera: Stenopsychidae) in India. Zootaxa, 3717(1): 065-
075.
Parey, S.H. 2015.An Updated Checklist and Distribution of Plenitentoria Group
of Caddisflies (Trichoptera: Integripalpia) from India. Indian journal of
Applied Research, 5(4): 6-14.
Parey, S.H., Morse, J.C. andPandher, M.S. 2016. Three new species of the genus
LepidostomaRambur (Lepidostomatidae: Trichoptera) from India. Zootaxa
4136(1), 181-187.
Saini, M.S. andParey, S.H. 2011. Four new species of the genus LepidostomaRambur
(Trichoptera: Lepidostomatidae) from the Indian Himalayas, with a
checklist to its Indian species. Zootaxa, 3062: 25-36.
Saini, M.S. and Kaur, L. 2012. Bibliography of Indian Trichoptera. International
journal of Environmental Sciences, 2(3): 1699-1716.
Saini, M.S., Pandher, M.S. and Ramamurthy, V.V. 2012. Three new species of
the genus Kisaura (Trichoptera, Philopotamidae) from Indian Himalaya.
Vestnikzoologii, 46(6): e-25-e-30.
Saini. M.S., Kaur, M. and Bajwa, P.K. 2001. An updated check-list of the Indian
Trichoptera along with an illustrated key to its families. Records of the
Zoological Survey of India, 99(1-4): 201-256.
Schmid, F. 1968. La sous-famille des apataniinesenInde (Trichopera,
Limnophilidae), Canadian Entomologist, 100: 1233-1277.
Schmid, F. 1971. Quelques nouveaux Glossosoma Orientaux (Trichoptera:
Glossosomatidae), Naturaliste Canadien, 98: 607-631.
Schmid, F. 1983. Encore quelques Stactobia McLachlan (Trichoptera,
Hydroptilidae), Naturaliste Canadien, 110: 239-283.
Schmid, F. 1984. Essaid’evaluation de la faunemondiale des trichoptères (abstract),
Pages 337 in Morse, J.C. (ed.) Proceedings of the 4th International
Symposium on Trichoptera. The Hague, Dr. W. Junk.
Schmid, F. 1995. Les Oecetis du groupe de testaceaenInde (Trichoptera:
Leptoceridae), Fabreries, 20: 57-78.
Selvakumar, C., Janarthanan, S. Sivaramakrishnan, K.G. 2015. Impact of climate
change and habitat fragmentation on the diversity and distribution of
Trichoptera of the Western Ghats-A case study. Abstract in: National
Conference on Impact of Climate Change on Environment and Biodiversity,
organized by Sri Paramakalyani Centre for Environmental Sciences,
ManonmaniamSundaranar University, Alwarkurichi, Tamil Nadu.
Sharma, R.M. and Chandra, K. 2009. Checklist of Indian caddisflies (Insecta:
Trichoptera). Zoological Survey of India. Pp1-33.
427
Sivaramakrishnan, K.G., Hannaford, M.J., and Resh, V.H. 1996. Biological

assessment of the Kaveri river catchment, south India, using
benthicmacroinvertebrates: Applicability of water quality monitoring
approaches developed in other countries IJEE, 22: 113-132.
Subramanian, K.A. and Sivaramakrishnan, K.G. 2005. Biomonitoring of
freshwater systems-A methodology manual (Funding ATREE Small Grants
Programme).
Walker, F. 1852. Cataloque of the Specimens of Neuropterous Insects in the
Collection of the British Museum, Part I: Phryganides-Perlides. London,
British Museum.
Wiggins, G.B. 2004. Caddisflies: The underwater Architects. University of Toronto
Press, 292 pp.
428
Chapter 27
Insecta : PLECOPTERA (STONEFLIES)
Babu, R., Sivaramakrishnan, K.G.1,

Subramanaian, K.A. and Selvakumar, C.2
Abstract
Stoneflies (Insecta: Plecoptera) are restricted to cold hill streams. Indian fauna
is represented by 128 species, 24 genera and 8 families with 91 endemic species.
High diversity and endemism is found in Himalayan streams. Stoneflies are very
sensitive to water quality and are reliable indicators of ecosystem health. Several
parts of the Western Ghats, eastern ghats and Himalaya are still unexplored and
taxonomy of adults and larva are need to be worked out in detail.
Key Words: Stoneflies, India, aquatic insects, diversity
Introduction
Plecoptera is a small monophyletic order of hemimetabolous insects, commonly
called stoneflies with around 3625 described species globally included under 303
genera and 16 families (De Walt et al., 2017). Stoneflies are distributed over all
continents except Antarctica and constitute a significant ecological component of
running water ecosystems (Fochetti and Tierno de Figueroa, 2008). Stonefly larvae
are generally found in high altitude cold temperate streams, though some genera
have penetrated to the cooler areas of subtropics and tropics. The larvae are
distributed in stony streams attached to the surfaces of boulders and the adults
are found near the streams or on tree trunks, stones and bushes (Plate 1). They
are not conspicuous insects except the Chloroperlidae which are bright green in
colour. The larvae play vital role in the food chain of freshwater ecosystems. Adults
are week fliers and prefer to run to elude predators. They are diurnal except a
few species of Setipalpia which are nocturnal. Food of the adults consists of algae,
lichen and foliage, though many species may not feed at all as adults and live
only for a few weeks. The composition of stonefly fauna varies in different seasons
and in different habitats. Brachyptery or winglessness is usually found during the
winter season.
Stoneflies have been the object of scientific study in Europe for a very long
time, with the first species being described by Linnaeus in 1758 and placed within
the genus Phryganea of the Trichoptera. Burmeister first proposed the order name
Plecoptera in 1839. The order name Plecoptera comes from the latin “plecto”,
meaning feather or wing meaning plaited or folded and the greek “pteron”,
Southern Regional Centre, Zoological Survey of India, Chennai, 600 028.

1Flat 3, Gokulam Apartments, No. 7, Gokulam Colony, West Mambalam, Chennai-600 033.
2Zoological Survey of India, Prani Vigyan Bhawan, New Alipore, Kolkata-700053.
429
Babu et al.
meaning feather or wing, and refers to the ability of the adult to fold its wings over
their back. Species diversity of Plecoptera is highest in cold, fast flowing and rocky
streams (Sivec and Yule, 2004).
Fossil History
The ancient insect order Plecoptera diverged as early as in the early Late
Carboniferous and the fossil record of Plecoptera is considered relatively complete.
Stem-relatives of most of its constituent families have been recovered from
Mesozoic strata. Recent discovery of a new fossil species of the pteronarcyid
stonefly, Pteroliriope sinitshenkovae from the middle Jurassic Daohugon locality
in China provides additional support to the view that divergence of most stonefly
families took place very early, probably in the Triassic or even in the Permian (Cui
et al., 2016). Global fossil records of Plecoptera are presented in Table 1. However,
no fossil stonefly has so far been excavated from India.
Table 1. Global Fossil Stoneflies (†No living species) (De Walt et al., 2017)
Suborder Superfamily Family Genera Species
Antarctoperlaria Eusthenioidea Eustheniidae 1 1
Gripopterygoidea †Euxenoperlidae 4 9
” Gripopterygidae 2 3
” †Siberioperlidae 6 18
Arctoperlaria Nemouroidea †Baleyopterygidae 5 16
” Capniidae 2 4
” Leuctridae 1 1
” †Mesoleuctridae 4 11
” Nemouridae 1 1
” †Palaeonemouridae 8 32
” †Perlariopseidae 15 54
” †Pronemouridae 3 7
” Taeniopterygidae 7 9
” Genera Incertae sedis 2 2
Perloidea Chloroperlidae 1 2
” †Palaeoperlidae 4 7
” Perlidae 2 2
” Perlodidae 3 3
” †Platyperlidae 1 8
” †Tshekardoperlidae 2 8
” Genera Incertae sedis 12 19
Pteronarcyoidea Pteronarcyidae 1 1
Not assigned †Gulouidae 1 1
” †Perlapsocidae 1 1
” †Perlopseidae 1 3
Genera Incertae sedis 6 6
96 229
430
Insecta : plecoptera (Stoneflies)
Historical Resume (Review of literature)

Needham (1909) was the first American Entomologist who worked on Indian
Plecoptera. Taxonomic publications regarding Indian species of Plecoptera include
Aubert (1959, 1967), Banks (1895, 1898, 1914, 1918, 1920, 1939), Burmeister (1839),
Classen (1924), Enderlein (1909), Fitch (1847), Frison (1929, 1935, 1942), Grubbs
and Stark (2004), Grubbs and DeWalt (2012), Hagen (1861), Harper (1974, 1977),
James (1974), Jewett (1958, 1960, 1970, 1975), Kawai (1968), Kimmins (1946,
1950a, b), Kondratieff and Kirchner (1988), Mason and Stark (2015), Muranyi and
Li (2013, 2016), Muranyi et al. (2015), Navas (1922), Needham (1909), Needham
and Classen (1925), Newman (1838, 1839), Pictet (1841), Provancher (1878),
Ricker (1952), Ricker and Ross (1968), Say (1823), Shimizu (1997), Singh and
Ghosh (1969), Stark (1989), Stark and Brown (1991), Stark and Sivec (1991, 2007,
2008, 2014, 2015), Surdick (1981), Walker (1852), Wu (1923), Zwick (1981, 1982a,
b), Zwick and Sivec (1980) and Zwick et al. (2007).
Taxonomic diversity, Endemism and Patterns of

distribution in India
Stonefly fauna of India encompasses 128 valid species included under 24 genera and
8 families (Table 2). Of the eight families of Plecoptera known from mountainous
north of India viz., Capniidae, Leuctridae, Nemouridae, Taeniopterigidae,
Chloroperlidae, Perlidae, Perlodidae and Peltoperlidae, only one family, Perlidae
(possibly with one species of Amphinemurinae: Nemouridae) is recorded so far
from southern India (Sivaramakrishnan et al., 2011).
Table 2. Global diversity of Stoneflies (World genera and species)*
(De Walt et al., 2017)
Sl. Suborder Superfamily Family World India
No. Genera Species Genera Species
1 Antarctoperlaria Eusthenioidea Diamphipnoidae 2 6 - -
2 ” ” Eustheniidae 6 22 - -
3 ” Gripopterygoidea Austroperlidae 10 15 - -
4 ” ” Gripopterygidae 53 308 - -
5 Arctoperlaria Nemouroidea Capniidae 21 288 1 7
6 ” ” Leuctridae 12 364 1 1
7 ” ” Nemouridae 20 673 7 67
8 ” ” Notonemouridae 23 120 - -
9 ” ” Taeniopterygidae 13 106 2 2
10 ” Not assigned Scopuridae 1 8 -
11 ” Perloidea Chloroperlidae 20 196 1 2
12 ” ” Perlidae 53 1090 8 40
13 ” ” Perlodidae 55 339 2 3
14 ” Pteronarcyoidea Peltoperlidae 10 68 2 6
15 ” ” Pteronarcyidae 2 12 - -
16 ” ” Styloperlidae 2 10 - -
303 3625 24 128
*nomen dubium, species inquirenda, temporary names and subspecies are not
included.
431
Babu et al.
Distribution of Plecoptera in different states of India is presented in Table

3 and 4. Highest number of species were recorded from the state of Arunachal
Pradesh (34 species of two families), followed by West Bengal (24 species of four
families, mostly from North Bengal), Meghalaya with twenty two species of three
families and Himachal Pradesh with 21 species of six families. All the species
reported from the Western Ghats region are endemic to India. Out of 19 species
reported, 17 species are endemic to the Western Ghats. Among eight families of
stoneflies reported from India, six families are recorded from Trans-Himalayan
and four families each from the Himalayan and North East Indian biogeographic
zones (Table 5).
Table 3. Distribution of Stoneflies in different States of India along with

endemic species
Sl. No. State / Union Territory Family Genus Species Endemic

1 Andaman & Nicobar Islands - - - -
2 Andhra Pradesh - - - -
3 Arunachal Pradesh 2 8 34 26
4 Assam 4 9 19 14
5 Bihar - - - -
6 Chhattisgarh - - - -
7 Delhi - - - -
8 Goa - - - -
9 Gujarat - - - -
10 Haryana - - - -
11 Himachal Pradesh 6 12 21 12
12 Jammu & Kashmir 4 6 9 1
13 Jharkhand - - - -
14 Karnataka 1 4 10 10
15 Kerala 1 2 8 8
16 Madhya Pradesh 1 1 1 1
17 Maharashtra 1 2 2 2
18 Manipur 2 5 13 11
19 Meghalaya 3 7 22 14
20 Mizoram 1 1 1 -
21 Nagaland - - - -
432
Sl. No. State / Union Territory Family Genus Species Endemic

22 Odisha 1 1 2 2
23 Pondicherry - - - -
24 Punjab - - - -
25 Rajasthan - - - -
26 Sikkim 4 5 7 4
27 Tamil Nadu 2 3 12 12
28 Telangana - - - -
29 Tripura - - - -
30 Uttarakhand 1 1 1 -
31 Uttar Pradesh - - - -
32 West Bengal 4 12 24 10
Table 4. Distribution of various families of stoneflies in different States of India
S. No. of Species
State
No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7# 8
1 Arunachal Pradesh - - - 29 5 - -
2 Assam - - 1 10 1 7 -
3 Himachal Pradesh 3 - 1 10 1 5 1
4 Jammu and Kashmir 2 2 - 4 - - 1
5 Karnataka - - - - - 10 - -
6 Kerala - - - - - 8 - -
7 Madhya Pradesh - - - - - 1 - -
8 Maharashtra - - - - - 2 - -
9 Manipur - - - 12 1 - -
10 Meghalaya - - 1 17 - 4 -
11 Mizoram - - - 1 - - -
12 Odisha - - - - - 2 - -
13 Sikkim 2 - - - - 3 1 1
14 Tamil Nadu - - - 1 - 11 - -
15 Uttarakhand - - - - - 1 -
16 West Bengal - - 1 12 2 9 -
1. Capniidae, 2. Chloroperlidae, 3. Leuctridae, 4. Nemouridae, 5. Peltoperlidae,
6. Perlidae, 7. Perlodidae, 8. Taeniopterygidae
# Perlodidae: India: Himalaya, but exact locality unknown for two species.
433
Babu et al.
Table 5. Distribution of Stoneflies in different bio-geographic zones of India
Himalayan (N 28°-32°)
Semi-arid (N 22°-28°)
Trans –Himalayan
Islands (N 07°-14°)
Deccan Peninsula
Desert (N 24°-28°)
Coasts (N 08°-22°)
North East India
Gangetic plain
Western Ghats
Sl.
Family Common Name
No.
(N 32°-37°)
(N 08°-22°)
(N 12°-18°)
(N 24°-28°)
(N 21°-28°)
1 Capniidae Small winter stoneflies  - - - - - - - - -
2 Chloroperlidae Green stoneflies  - - - - - - - - -
3 Leuctridae Rolled-winged stoneflies -  - - - - -  - -
4 Nemouridae Spring stoneflies   - -  - -  - -
5 Peltoperlidae Roachlike stoneflies -  - - - - -  - -
6 Perlidae Common Stoneflies   - -   -  - -
7 Perlodidae Perlodid stoneflies  - - - - - - - - -
8 Taeniopterygidae Winter stoneflies  - - - - - - - - -
(- Data not available)
Systematic Overview
The order Plecoptera includes 16 families of which 4 families are included in the
suborder Antarctoperlaria present only in the southern Hemisphere (hence, not
represented in India) and the remaining 12 families are included in the suborder,
Arctoperlaria distributed mostly in the Northern Hemisphere. The stonefly
(Plecoptera) fauna of India distinctly differs between the areas north and south
of the Indo-Gangetic plain: there are 8 families known from the northern states,
while only a single species of Nemouridae (Kimmins 1950a) and members of 4
Perlidae genera occur in the southern region of India (Stark and Sivec, 2014;
Zwick 1981, 1982a; Zwick and Sivec, 1980). In a nutshell, diversity of Indian
stonefly genera and species increases progressively from southern peninsular
tropics towards the northern subtropical, temperate and alpine upper Himalayas
(Das 1991; 1998). Sivaramakrishnan et al. (2011) have made a brief systematic
overview of the families of Plecoptera of India and the present account provides
recent updates.
Family Capniidae
Seven species of Capnia viz., C. bifida, C. gibbera, C. hingstoni, C. longicauda,
C. manii, C. montana and C. pedestris are recorded from India. All the species
are recorded only from Himachal Pradesh and Jammu and Kashmir of Western
Himalaya.
Family Leuctridae
Jewett (1958) described Rhopalopsole magnicerca from India. Zwick and Sivec
(1980) recorded this species from Meghalaya and West Bengal. Nymphs occur in
swift, rocky-bottomed streams.
434
Family Nemouridae
The family Nemouridae popularly called ‘spring stoneflies’ is ranked first in terms
of plecopteran species richness in India distributed mostly in the Himalayan
ranges (De Walt et al., 2017). Totally around 67 described species from 7 genera
are known from India of which 46 species are endemic. Both the subfamilies
viz., Amphinemurinae and Nemourinae are represented in India. However, our
knowledge of this family is sparse and there are great differences in the number
of species reported from the states. Hitherto no Neumouridae were reported from
Sikkim (Tierrno de Figueroa and Fochetti, 2003), while there are records of 29
species from Arunachal Pradesh (Kimmins, 1950b; Aubert, 1967). Recently, while
describing a new species of Amphinemoura from Darjeeling district of West Bengal,
India and a new species of Sphaeronemoura from the West Garo Hills district of
Meghalaya, India, Muranyi and Li (2013) have provided an exhaustive checklist
of the family Nemouridae from the Indian Subcontinent with zoogeographical
comments.
Family Taeniopterygidae
Subfamily Brachypterainae is represented in Himalayas in India by Kyphopteryx
sp. and Mesyatsia sp. whereas subfamily Taeniopteryginae is not recorded so far
from India.
Family Chloroperlidae
This family is represented by two species viz., Xanthoperla acuta and X. kishanganga
and recorded from Western Himalayas (Jammu and Kashmir) of India.
Family Perlidae
The taxonomic situation of this family was cleared by the significant publication
entitled “Synopsis of the World Genera of Perlinae” by Sivec et al. (1988). The family
Perlidae is divided into two subfamilies namely, Perlinae and Acroneurinae. The
genera of Perlinae recorded from India are Chinoperla (1 species), Kammimuria
(4 species), Neoperla (14 species), Perla (4 species), Phanoperla (11 species)
and Tyloperla (1 species) (Chandra and Sharma, 2009). Since then, many new
species of Perlinae are described. From a historical perspective, our knowledge
of the diversity and distribution of Indian Neoperla has accumulated slowly since
Needham’s (1909) and Klapálek’s (1909) nearly simultaneous publication of the
species name N. indica. Needham’s description gained priority (Zwick and Sivec,
1980). However, the type material is missing and identity of this species remains
in doubt (Stark and Sivec, 2015). The current list of Indian Neoperla includes
16 species documented by Jewett (1975), Zwick and Sivec (1980), Zwick (1981),
Zwick et al. (2007), and Stark and Sivec (2015- Table 1). Recently, records and
descriptions are provided for a formally recognized species of Neoperla collected in
India bringing the number of described species from India to 19. Neoperla agumbe
from Karnataka State, N. emarginata from Madhya Pradesh State and N. orissa
from Orissa State are described as new and new records of several Indian States
are given for N. asperipenis, N. biseriata, N. hamata, N. nitida, N. ochracea and
N. schlitz. Four additional species represented by females with eggs are described
under informal designations and the putative female and eggs are described for N.
schlitz (Stark and Sivec, 2015).
435
Babu et al.
Genus Phanoperla Banks, 1938, currently includes 50 species (DeWalt et al.,

2017) widely distributed over mainland Southeast Asia, the Indian Subcontinent
and several Asian islands including Borneo, the Philippines and Sri Lanka (Mason
and Stark, 2015). The most recent major systematic treatments are those of Zwick
(1982a, b) in which 34 species were formally recognized, including a minimum of 7
endemic Sri Lankan and 8 additional species from India (Mason and Stark, 2015-
Table 1). Zwick (1982a) and others have demonstrated the value of egg morphology
in the systematic study of Phanoperla and recently Mason and Stark (2015) have
studied the egg morphology of P. peniculus Kawai (1968) from light trapping
materials from Agumbe Ghats, Karnataka, India. They have also provided a
revised key for Indian and Sri Lankan Phanoperla males.
Tyloperla is a small genus of Asian stoneflies which currently includes 15
species (Stark and Sivec, 2014- Table 1) of which only 4 species viz., T. agumbe, T.
barog, T. karnataka and T. schmidi are known from India. Stark and Sivec (2014)
have presented a key for species known from the Indian Subcontinent.
The subfamily Acroneurinae Klapálek, 1914 was established for Perlidae
Latreille, 1802 taxa having hammer on male sternum 9. The distribution of
Acroneurinae covers all of the Nearctic, Neotropics and Oriental realms and the
eastern part of the East Palaearctic (DeWalt et al., 2017). The tropical or subtropical
stonefly genus, Brahmana, a member of the subfamily Acroneurinae in the family
Perlidae was established by Klapálek (1914). Members of Brahmana are known
from insular and peninsular Southeast Asia to Indian subcontinent, including
China, Nepal and the Himalayas (Klapálek, 1916). Five species are known from
the region of which 3 are recorded from India viz., B. benigna (Needham 1909)
from Sikkim, B. chrysostoma Klapálek (1916) from Sikkim and northern area of
West Bengal, and B. microphthalma Klapálek (1916) from Meghalaya. All these 3
species are described based only on the female adult and the locations of the type
specimens are not specified (Cao and Bae, 2013). This Oriental genus is valid but
poorly known, apparently closely related to Acroneuria. Recently Murányi and Li
(2016) presented an annotated checklist of the subfamily Acroneuriinae from the
Oriental realm with comments on their status and distribution.
Family Perlodidae
Subfamily Perlodinae is represented in Himalayas in India by Filchneria amabilis,
Filchneria shobhaae and Neofilchneria uncata. Adults are similar to perlid
stoneflies. They are often greenish or yellowish but sometimes darker.
Family Peltoperlidae
Although the Peltoperlidae extend into the Oriental Region, the distribution of the
family as a whole is centred on Palaearctic East Asia and North America (Illies,
1965). Stark (1989) placed Asian peltoperline stoneflies in 5 genera. They are
‘cockroach-like’. Thorax is much wider than either head or abdomen. Five species
of Cryptoperla and one species of Peltopteryx are recorded from India. Stark and
Sivec (2007) presented a checklist of Asian Peltoperlidae.
Endemism
Around 91 species of stoneflies are endemic to India. Among these 56 species are
endemic to the Eastern Himalaya, 12 species to the Western Himalaya, 17 species
436
to the Western Ghats and one species is endemic to the Eastern Ghats and Central
India. A total of 40 species of the family Perlidae in particular are recorded from
India, among these 90% are endemic. Furthermore, 46 out of 67 species of family
Nemouridae are endemic to India (Figure 1).
Fig. 1. Endemic stoneflies of India
Biology and life cycle pattern

There is dearth of information on seasonality, life cycles, egg incubation strategies
and general bionomics of tropical stonefly species in general and Indian species
in particular. It is still a mystery whether the numerous morphospecies that
are presently recorded from the tropics are true biospecies or are there regional
variation and morphoclines over vast tropical areas (Zwick, 2003). In tropical Asia,
stonefly life cycles appear to be a seasonal with adult emergence throughout the
year, while stoneflies in temperate regions typically have highly synchronized life
cycles, with emergence of the entire population occurring within a few weeks. Life
cycle studies on Indian stoneflies are virtually absent. Many stoneflies remain in
the vicinity of the stream or lake, mate on or near the ground under stones or in
vegetation and therefore do not need the capacity of flight. This applies to alpine
Himalayan species where low air temperatures restrict flight activity. Sexual
dimorphism occurs in several species whereby the males are short-winged, while
females have wings of normal length. This saves the males energy which can be
utilized elsewhere, while normal-winged females once mated are able to function
as the dispersal agent (Brittain, 1990). Egg structure is mostly species specific.
Evolution and Biogeography

According to Illies (1965), Banarescu (1990) and Zwick (1990, 2000), Arctoperlaria
and Antarctoperlaria originated as independent lines at the splitting of Pangea
and the subsequent separation of Gondwanaland and Laurasia, at the end of
Triassic Period. Antarctoperlaria possibly began their diversification before the
437
Babu et al.
continents separated, producing some sister-groups distributed in South America

and New Zealand. The absence of Antarctoperlaria from South Africa and India
may be interpreted as a later extinction event. These lands became warmer
and drier during their northward journey after separation from Antarctica and
Australia. The Oriental stonefly fauna inclusive of that of India was colonized from
close Palearctic areas, as suggested by the decrease in species numbers towards
the South. The first penetration was by members of 3 families viz., Nemouridae,
Peltoperlidae and Perlidae that extended down into the rain forests of Southeast
Asia, thus having somewhat overcome the usual aversion of the Order Plecoptera
for warmer climates.
Biomonitoring potential and Climate change impacts

Stoneflies are an essential component of the aquatic biodiversity of high elevation
montane streams and rivers of India, being sensitive biological indicators of water
quality and assessing the regional effects of climate change along with mayflies and
caddis flies. Accurate identification of stoneflies and other aquatic insects is crucial
for employing biotic indices as sensitive tools in bio-monitoring. Unfortunately
larvae and female specimens of stoneflies are very difficult to identify to species
level which precisely compromises our ability to accurately assess water quality
and to conduct ecological and conservation assessments of individual species
(Gattolliat et al., 2016).
Conservation
Extensive exploration in developed nations undoubtedly reveal that stonefly
species have vanished from parts of landscape and in the context of absence of
extensive survey of stoneflies in many eco-region of India, we really do not know
how many of our stonefly species have become locally extinct and how many species
are really threatened. Improvements in land and water management may bring
them back through natural recolonization. Though holistic study of freshwater
biota is far more desirable compared to taxon focused ecology, stoneflies warrant
attention as vital components of lotic zoobenthos since they also provide different
environmental information than other aquatic insect orders (Heino et al., 2003;
Park et al., 2003). Unfortunately no conservation measures are initiated yet in
India to conserve this precious biological heritage.
Future priorities in Plecoptera Research

The future research priorities should focus on exploration of under and unexplored
areas, especially in the North East Himalaya, Western Himalaya and Western
Ghats, DNA barcoding studies to delineate species boundaries, establish larva-
adult associations and species biology studies. A study in the lines of Gattolliat
et al. (2016) is very much needed to completely document species diversity of
Plecoptera.
Acknowledgements
Authors are very grateful to Dr. Kailash Chandra, Director, Zoological Survey of
India, Kolkata for providing facilities and encouragements.
438
References
Aubert, J. 1959. Plècoptères du Pakistan. Mem. Soc. Vaudoise Sci. Nat., 12: 5-91.
Aubert, J. 1967. Les Nemouridae de l’Assam (Plècoptères). Mitt. Schweiz. Ent.
Ges., 39: 209-253.
Banarescu, P. 1990. Zoogeography of Fresh Water: General Distribution and
Dispersal of Freshwater Animal, Vol. 1. Aula-Verlag, Wiesbaden.
Banks, N. 1895. New Neuropteroid Insects. Trans. American Entomol. Society,
22(3): 313-316.
Banks, N. 1898. Descriptions of New North American Neuropteroid Insects. Trans.
American Entomol. Society, 25(3): 199-218.
Banks, N. 1914. New neuropteroid insects, native and exotic. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci.
Philadelphia, 66: 608-632.
Banks, N. 1918. New Neuropteroid Insects. Bull. Harvard Coll. Mus. Comp. Zool.,
62(1): 3-22.
Banks, N. 1920. New Neuropteroid Insects. Bull. Harvard Coll. Mus. Comp. Zool.,
64(3): 314-325.
Banks, N. 1939. New genera and species of neuropteroid insects. Bull. Harvard
Coll. Mus. Comp. Zool., 85(7): 439-504 (Plecoptera 441-454).
Brittain, J.E. 1990. Life history strategies in Ephimeroptera and Plecoptera. In:
Mayflies and Stoneflies: Life Histories and Biology (Ed. Cambell, I.C), pp.
1-12. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Bostan.
Burmeister, H.C.C. 1839. Handbuch der Entomologie (Plecoptera): vol. 2, Berlin:
T.C.F. Enslin, pp. 863-881.
Cao, T.K.T. and Bae Y.J. 2013. A Rare Tropical Stonefly Brahmana flavomarginata
(Plecoptera: Perlidae: Acroneuriinae) from Vietnam. Anim. Syst. Evol.
Divers., 29(2): 179-183. DOI: 10.5635/ASED.2013.29.2.179
Chandra, K. and Sharma, R.M. 2009. Checklist of Indian Stoneflies (Insecta:
Plecoptera). http://zsi.gov.in/WriteReadData/userfiles/file/Checklist/22.pdf.
Claassen, P.W. 1924. New species of North American Capniidae (Plecoptera).
Canadian Entomologist, 56: 43-48, 54-57.
Cui, Y., Bethoux, O., Kondratieff, B., Shih, C. and Ren, D. 2016. The first fossil
salmonfly (Insecta: Plecoptera: Ptronarcyidae), back to the Middle Jurassic.
BMC Evol. Biol., 16: 217. DOI: 10.1186/s12862-016-0787-9
Das, B.C. 1991. Plecoptera. In: Animal Resources of India: Protozoa to Mammalia
(Ed. Jairajpuri, M.S.), pp. 259-260. Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata.
Das, B.C. 1998. Plecoptera. In: Faunal Diversity in India (Eds. Alfred, J.R.B., Das,
A.K. and Sanyal, A.K.), pp. 180-182. ENVIS Centre, Zoological Survey of
India, Kolkata.
DeWalt, R.E., Maehr, M.D., Neu-Becker, U. and Stueber, G. 2017. Plecoptera
Species File Online. Version 5.0/5.0. [10th March, 2017]. http://Plecoptera.
SpeciesFile.org
439
Babu et al.
Enderlein, G. (1909) Klassifikation der Plecopteren, sowie Diagnosen neuer

Gattungen und Arten. Zoologischen Anzeiger, 34(13/14): 385-419.
Fitch, A. 1847. Winter insects of eastern New York. American J. Agri. Sci., 5: 274-
284.
Fochetti, R. and Tierno de Figueroa, J.M. 2008. Global diversity of stoneflies
(Plecoptera: Insecta) in freshwater. Hydrobiologia, 595: 365-377.
Frison, T.H. 1929. Fall and winter stoneflies or Plecoptera of Illinois. Illinois Nat.
Hist. Surv. Bulletin, 18: 345-409.
Frison, T.H. 1935. The stoneflies or Plecoptera of Illinois. Illinois Nat. Hist. Surv.
Bulletin, 20: 281-471.
Frison, T.H. 1942. Studies of North American Plecoptera with special reference to
the fauna of Illinois. Illinois Nat. Hist. Surv. Bulletin, 22: 235-355.
Gattolliat, J.L., Vinson, G., Wyler, S., Pawlowski, J. and Sartori, M. 2016. Towards
a comprehensive COI DNA barcode library for Swiss stoneflies (Insecta:
Plecoptera) with special emphasis on the genus Leuctra. Zoosymposia, 11:
135-155.
Grubbs, S.A. and Stark, B.P. 2004. Acroneuria covelli (Plecoptera: Perlidae),
a new stonefly species from eastern North America. Proc. Entomol. Soc.
Washington, 106(4): 797-800.
Grubbs, S.A. and DeWalt, R.E. 2012. Perlesta ephelida, a new Nearctic
stonefly species (Plecoptera: Perlidae). Zookeys. 194: 1-15. DOI:10.3897/
zookeys.194.2972
Hagen, H.A. 1861. Synopsis of the Neuroptera of North America. With a List of
the South American Species. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, 1-347.
Harper, P.P. 1974. New Protonemura (S.L.) from Nepal (Plecoptera:
Nemouridae). Psyche: A Journal of Entomology, 81(3-4): 367-376.
Harper, P.P. 1977. Capniidae, Leuctridae and Perlidae (Plecoptera) from Nepal.
Oriental Insects, 11: 53-62.
Heino, J., Muotka, T., Mykrä, H., Paavola, R., Hä Mä Lä Inen, H. and Koskenniemi,
E. 2003. Defining macroinvertebrate assemblage types of headwater
streams: implications for bioassessment and conservation. Ecological
Applications, 13: 842-852.
Illies, J., 1965. Phylogeny and zoogeography of the Plecoptera. Annual Review of
Entomology, 10: 117-140.
James, A.M. 1974. Four new species of stoneflies in North America
(Plecoptera). Annals Entomol. Soc. America, 67(6): 964-966.
Jewett, S.G. 1958. Entomological survey of the Himalaya. Part XXIII-Stoneflies
(Plecoptera) from the North-West (Punjab) Himalaya. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences (India), Allahabad, 28(4): 320-329.
Jewett, S.G. 1960. Entomological survey of the Himalaya. Part XXXI-New and
little known stoneflies (Plecoptera) from the North-West (Punjab) Himalaya
collected by Prof. Mani’s third entomological expedition. Agra University
Journal of Research, 9: 229-232.
440
Jewett, S.G. 1970. Stonefly records from the Northwest (Punjab) Himalaya.
Oriental Insects, 4(4): 481-482. DOI:10.1080/00305316.1970.10433984
Jewett, S.G. 1975. Records and descriptions of stoneflies from Northwest (Punjab)
Himalaya and Mt. Makalu, Nepal Himalaya. Oriental Insects, 9(1): 1-7.
DOI:10.1080/00305316.1975. 10434838
Kawai, T. 1968. Stoneflies (Plecoptera) from Thailand and India with description
of one new genus and two new species. Oriental Insects, 2(2): 107-139.
Kimmins, D.E. 1946. New Species of Himalayan Plecoptera. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist.,
Series 11, 13: 721-740. DOI: 10.1080/00222934608654596
Kimmins, D.E. 1950a. Some new species of Asiatic Plecoptera. Ann. Mag. Nat.
Hist., Series 12, 3: 177-192. DOI: 10.1080/00222935008654705
Kimmins, D.E. 1950b. Some Assamese Plecoptera, with descriptions of new
species of Nemouridae. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., Series 12, 3: 194-209.
DOI:10.1080/00222935008654707
Klapálek, F. 1909. Vorlaufiger berhicht uber exotische Plecopteren. Wiener
Entomologische Zeitung, 28(7/8): 215-232.
Klapálek, F. 1914. Analytická tabulka Fam. Perlidae a jeji dvou Subfam., Perlinae
a Acroneuriinae (Plecoptera). Acta Societatis Entomologicae Bohemiae
(Časopis), 11: 53-69.
Klapálek, F. 1916. Subfamilia Acroneuriinae Klp. Acta Societatis Entomologicae
Bohemiae (Časopis), 13: 45-84.
Kondratieff, B.C. and Kirchner, R.F. 1988. A new species of Acroneuria from
Kentucky (Plecoptera: Perlidae) and new records of stoneflies from eastern
North America. J. Kansas Entomol. Soc., 61(2): 201-207.
Mason, D. and Stark, B.P. 2015. Notes on the genus Phanoperla Banks from Sri
Lanka and India (Plecoptera: Perlidae). Illiesia, 11(04): 29-40.
Murányi, D. and Li, W. 2013. Two new species of stoneflies (Plecoptera :
Nemouridae) from Northeastern India, with a checklist of the family in the
Zootaxa, 3694(2): 167-177.
Indian Subcontinent.
Murányi, D. and Li, W. 2016. On the identity of some Oriental Acroneuriinae taxa
(Plecoptera: Perlidae), with an annotated checklist of the subfamily in the
realm. Opusc. Zool. Budapest, 47 (2): 173-196.
Murányi, D., Li, W. and Yang, D. 2015. A new genus and species of winter stoneflies
(Plecoptera: Capniidae) from Southwest China, with a commented checklist
of the family in the Oriental Realm. Zootaxa, 4059 (2): 371-382.
Navás, L. 1922. Insectos nuevos o poco conocidos I. Memorias de la Real Academia
de Ciencias y Artes de Barcelona, 3(17): 383-400.
Needham, J.G. 1909. Notes on the Neuroptera in the Collection of the Indian
Museum. Records of the Indian Museum, 3: 185-210.
Needham, J.G. and Claassen, P.W. 1925. A Monograph of the Plecoptera or
Stoneflies of America, North of Mexico. The Thomas Say Foundation, 2:
1-397.
441
Babu et al.
Newman, E.A. 1838. Entomological notes. Entomological Magazine, 5(4): 372-402.

Newman, E.A. 1839. On the Synonymy of the Perlites, together with brief
characters of the old and of a few new species. Art. IV. Magazine of Natural
History, New Series 3(25): 32-37, 84-90.
Park, Y.S., Cereghino, R., Compin, A. and Lek, S. 2003. Applications of artificial
neural networks for patterning and predicting aquatic insect species
richness in running waters. Ecological Modelling, 160(3): 265-280.
Pictet, F.J. 1841. Histoire naturelle générale et particuliére des insectes Névroptéres.
Famille des Perlides, Genéve: Kessmann. Paris: J.-B- Bailliére, I-XIV,1-423.
Provancher, L. 1878. Additions et corrections aux Neuropteres de la Province de
Quebec. Naturaliste Canad., 10(4): 124-128.
Ricker, W.E. 1952. Systematic studies in Plecoptera. Indiana Univ. Publ. Sci.
Series 18: 1-200.
Ricker, W.E. and Ross, H.H. 1968. North American species of Taeniopteryx
(Plecoptera, Insecta). J. Fish. Res. Board Canada, 25(7): 1423-1439.
Say, T. 1823. Description of insects belonging to the Order Neuroptera Linn., Latr.
Collected by the Expedition authorized by J.C. Calhoun, Secretary of War,
under the command of Major S.H. Long. The Western quarterly reporter of
medical, surgical, and natural science, 2(11): 160-165.
Shimizu, T. 1997. The species of the Nemoura ovocercia group (Plecoptera:
Nemouridae). Aquatic Insects: International Journal of Freshwater
Entomology, 19(4): 193-218.
Singh, R.K. and Ghosh 1969. A new species of the genus Perlodes (Plecoptera:
Perlodidae) from India. Zoologischer Anzeiger, 182: 134-136.
Sivaramakrishnan, K.G., Arunachalam, S., Sundar, S. and Selvakumar, C. 2011.
A brief conspectus and research priorties on Plecoptera (Stoneflies) of India.
In: Entomology: Ecology and Biodiversity (Ed. Tyagi, B.K.), pp. 105-118.
Scientific Publishers, Jodhpur, India.
Sivec, I. and Yule, C.M. 2004. Insecta: Plecoptera. In: Freshwater invertebrates
of the Malaysian region (Eds. Yule, C.M. and Yong, H.S.), pp. 443-456.
Academy of Sciences, Malaysia.
Sivec, I., Stark, B.P. and Uchida, S. 1988. Synopsis of the world genera of Perlinae
(Plecoptera: Perlidae). Scopolia, 16: 1-66.
Stark, B.P. 1989. Oriental Peltoperlinae (Plecoptera): A generic review and
descriptions of a new genus and seven new species. Entomologica
scandinavica, 19: 503-525.
Stark, B.P. and Brown, L.D. 1991. What is Acroneuria evoluta Klapálek (Plecoptera:
Perlidae)? Aquatic Insects: Int. J. Freshwater Ent., 13(1): 29-32.
Stark, B.P. and Sivec, I. 1991. Descriptions of Oriental Perlini (Plecoptera:
Perlidae). Aquatic Insects: Int. J. Freshwater Ent., 13(3): 151-160. DOI:
10.1080/01650429109361436.
Stark, B.P. and Sivec, I. 2007. New species and records of Asian Peltoperlidae
(Insecta: Plecoptera). Illiesia, 3(12): 104-126.
442
Stark, B.P. and Sivec, I. 2008. New Stoneflies (Plecoptera) from Asia. Illiesia, 4(1):
1-10.
Stark, B.P. and Sivec, I. 2014. Three New Species of Tyloperla Sivec & Stark
(Plecoptera: Perlidae) from India. Illiesia, 10(04): 32-42.
Stark, B.P. and Sivec, I. 2015. New species and records of Neoperla (Plecoptera:
Perlidae) from India. Illiesia, 11(07): 75-91.
Surdick, R.F. 1981. New Nearctic Chloroperlidae (Plecoptera). Great Basin
Naturalist. 41: 349-359.
Tierno de Figueroa, J.M. and Fochetti, R. 2003. Mesyatsia karakorum (Šámal, 1935)
(Plecoptera: Taeniopterygidae): an addition to the stonefly-fauna of Sikkim
(Himalaya, India). Boletin de la Asociacion espaňola de Entomología, 27(1-
4): 237-238.
Walker, F. 1852. Part I. Phryganides-Perlides. Catalogue of the specimens of
neuropterous insects in the collection of the British Museum. 1: 1-192.
Wu, C.F. 1923. Morphology, anatomy and ethology of Nemoura. Bull. Lloyd Libr.
Ent., 3: 1-81.
Zwick, P. 1981. The South Indian species of Neoperla (Plecoptera: Perlidae).
Oriental Insects, 15: 113-126.
Zwick, P. 1982a. A revision of the Oriental stonefly genus Phanoperla (Plecoptera:
Perlidae). Systematic Entomology, 7: 87-126.
Zwick, P. 1982b. Contribution to the knowledge of Phanoperla Banks, 1938
(Plecoptera: Perlidae). Mittelungen der Schweizerischen Entomologischen
Gesellschaft, 59: 151-158.
Zwick, P. 1990. Transantarctic relationships in the Plecoptera. In: Mayflies and
Stoneflies, Life History and Biology (Ed. Campbell, I.C.), pp. 141-148.
Kluwer Academic Publishers, London.
Zwick, P. 2000. Phylogenetic System and Zoogeography of the Plecoptera. Annual
Review of Entomology, 45: 709-746.
Zwick, P. 2003. Plecoptera research today: Questions to be asked in the new
millennium. In: Research Updated on Ephemeroptera and Plecoptera (Ed.
Gaino, E.).
Zwick, P. and Sivec, I. 1980. Beiträge zur Kenntnis der Plecoptera des Himalaja.
Entomologica Basiliensia, 5: 59-138.
Zwick, P., Anbalagan, S. and Dinakaran, S. 2007. Neoperla biseriata sp. n., a new
stonefly from Tamil Nadu, India (Plecoptera: Perlidae). Aquatic Insects, 29:
241-245.
443
Babu et al.
Plate I
Nymphal sampling in hill stream Adult sampling using light trap
Nymphal sampling (Leaf debris) Nymphal sampling (Under stones)
Neoperla sp. Phanoperla sp. Cryptoperla sp.
Perlid Adult emergence Perlid Adult A mating pair
444
Chapter 28
Insecta : Ephemeroptera (Mayflies)
K.A. Subramanian1, C. Selvakumar2 &

K.G. Sivaramakrishnan3
Abstract
Ephemeroptera of India comprises 146 species belonging to 58 genera and 13
families. Systematic studies placing the Indian species in a global context have
progressed rapidly in the last few decades. However, much remains to be done in
terms of the morphological and molecular characterization of the fauna at species
level. The Western Ghats region, Central Himalayas region and the Gangetic plain
are reasonably well explored with regard to species diversity and distribution of the
Ephemeroptera. To date, the Deccan peninsula, North East, Trans Himalaya and
Andaman and Nicobar Islands are under-explored. The remaining biogeographical
regions are practically unexplored and intensive survey is urgently needed to
generate data on spatio-temporal distribution dynamics and unknown of larval
and adult stages of several species of mayflies.
Key words: Ephemeroptera, India, current status, diversity, distribution.
Introduction
Ephemeroptera, popularly known as mayflies are most primitive and ancient of
the extant insect groups. Their evolutionary history dates back to Carboniferous
or Permian about 290 million years ago and they attained the highest diversity
during Mesozoic. Ephemeroptera together with Odonata is traditionally
considered as Paleoptera i.e., sister group of Neoptera or all other orders of insects.
However, recent molecular phylogentic studies suggests that Ephemeroptera is a
sister group to Odonata and other Neopteran insect orders. Ephemeroptera are
primarily aquatic insects. The larval stages are completely aquatic and adults are
terrestrial. Ephemeroptera undergo hemimetabolous metamorphosis and have
a unique maturation phase (subimago) between nymph and adult. Adults have
transparent wings and glossy abdomen which ends in three abdominal cerci. Males
have extended forelegs to grasp the female during mating. They have very short
adult life span extending from few hours to few weeks. Mayflies highly habitat
species and are found both in lotic and lentic habitats. Their high habitat specificity
and sensitivity to water quality makes them an ideal candidate for biomonitoring
studies.
1Zoological Survey of India, Southern Regional Centre, Santhome High Road, Chennai-600028
2Zoological
Survey of India, Prani Vigyan Bhavan, M-Block, New Alipore, Kolkata-700 053
3Flat3, Gokulam Apartments, No. 7, Gokulam Colony, West Mambalam, Chennai-600 033
1Corresponding author : E-mail : [email protected]
445
Subramanian et al.
Fossil History
Fossil history of Ephemeroptera date back to Lower Carboniferous. The mayfly
larvae of this period roughly resembled modern Siphlonuridae with 9 pairs of gills
and articulated wing pads with complete venation. From Mesozoic some extinct
families such as Mesephemeridae, Hexagenitidae and several recent lineages have
been documented. A Fossil Prosopistomatidae described from Burmese amber was
dated about 100 million years ago. It is inferred that during Cretaceous-Tertiary
mass extinction, many ancient lineages went extinct and Tertiary mayfly fauna
was similar to recent Ephemeroptera.
Historical Resume
Pre-1900: The first mayfly from India was described as early as 1843, when
Palingenia indica (Ephoron indicus) was described by Pictet. Subsequently, Walker
(1853) described Caenis perpusilla and Cloeon debilis (Procloeon debilis) based on
the specimens at British Museum and on the collections of W.W. Saunders. During
this period, Hagen (1858) worked on baetine mayflies of Sri Lanka. Up to 1900 two
species of Ephemeridae and Palingenidae and one species of Heptageniidae was
described.
1901-1947: During this period, important workers such as Needham (1909),
Ulmer (1920), Chopra (1924, 1927), Navas (1931), Hafiz (1937) and Traver (1939)
described many species. Needham worked on Ephemeroptera in the collection of
Indian Museum and Ulmer described Ecdyonurus bengalensis from Darjeeling,
West Bengal. Chopra worked on Ephemeroptera of Chilka lake and described four
species. He also worked on Palingeniidae and Ploymitarcyidae. Hafiz and Traver
worked on Ephemeroptera of the subcontinent.
1948-2016: Tremendous progress was made on the knowledge of Indian
Ephemeroptera during this period. Workers like Gilles (1949, 1951, 1957),
Kimmins (1947), Kapur and Kriplani (1963), Dubey (1970, 1971), Kaul and
Dubey (1970), Peters (1967, 1975), McCafferty (1973), Hubbard and Peters (1978),
Srivastava (1980, 1990), Sivaramakrishnan (1981-2016), Venkataraman and
Sivaramakrishnan (187, 1989), Selvakumar et al. (2012-2016), Kluge (2014), Kluge
and Novikova (2014) and Kubendran et al. (2014, 2015) contributed substantially
to the knowledge on Ephemeroptera of India. Significant discovery of new
genera during this period was Petersula Sivaramakrishnan 1984, Edmundsula
Sivaramakrishnan 1985, Indoganodes Selvakumar, Sivaramakrishnan & Jacobus,
2014 and Klugephlebia Selvakumar, Subramanian & Sivaramakrishnan, 2016
from southern Western Ghats which are Gondwanian relict.
Recently many species were described and catalogued from the Western
Ghats (Sivaramakrishnan et al., 2009; Subramanian & Sivaramakrishnan, 2009;
Sivruban et al., 2013; Anbalagan et al., 2014; Blachandra et al., 2016; Barber-
James et al., 2013; Kluge & Novikova, 2014; Kulge, 2014; Kluge et al., 2014 &
2015; Kubendran et al., 2014 & 2015).
Diversity
Globally, about 3000 species in 400 genera and 42 families are currently known
(Barber-James et al., 2008). Of these, 390 species in 84 genera and 20 families occur
446
in the Oriental region. About 49% of the genera (41 genera) is endemic to the region.
The fauna of the Indian subregion (India, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Nepal, Bhutan
and Bangladesh) is represented by four suborders, fifteen families, sixty genera
and 204 species (Sivaramakrishnan et al., 2009). Current status of Ephemeroptera
fauna of India is represented by four suborders, thirteen families, fifty eight genera
and 146 species. Species rich families are Leptophlebiidae (12 genera, 23 species),
Ephemeriidae (4 genera, 18 species), Heptageniidae (10 genera, 25 species) and
Baetidae (12 genera, 45 species). Four families (Leptophlebiidae, Ephemeriidae,
Heptageniidae and Baetidae) are with more than 10 species. Species rich genera
with more than ten species each are Ephemera (Ephemeriidae), Baetis and Cloeon
(Baetidae). Family wise diversity is summarized table-1.
Table-1. Ephemeroptera diversity across family and genera in India
Sl. No.
Suborder Family No. Genera
No. Species
I Carapacea
1 Prosopistomatidae 1 2
I Rectracheata
2 Leptophlebiidae 12 23
3 Ephemeridae 4 18
4 Polymitarcyidae 4 5
5 Potamanthidae 2 2
6 Caenidae 2 9
7 Neoephemeridae 1 2
8 Ephemerellidae 3 5
9 Teloganodidae 5 8
10 Tricorythidae 1 1
III Setisura
11 Heptageniidae 10 25
IV Pisciforma
12 Ameletidae 1 1
13 Baetidae 12 45
Total 58 146
Distribution
Mayflies are distributed in diverse inland freshwater habitats. High diversity is
found in pristine hill streams. High diversity of mayflies are found in the Western
Ghats region (76), Central Himalayas region (29) and the Gangetic plain (21)
are reasonably well explored with regard to species diversity and distribution
of the Ephemeroptera. To date, the Deccan peninsula (18), North East (10),
447
Subramanian et al.
Trans Himalaya (9) and Andaman and Nicobar Islands (3) are under-explored.
The remaining biogeographical regions (Coast, Desert, Sem- Arid and Eastern
Himalaya) are practically unexplored and intensive survey is urgently needed to
generate data on spatio-temporal distribution dynamics. The documentation of
species diversity is far from complete and many new species remain to be described.
Endemism
Mayfly fauna of India, a country endowed with two mega diversity hotspots,
appears to be an assemblage of ancient Gondwanan derivatives, with a high
percentage of endemism, a few Laurasian spillovers, along with some younger
faunal elements that might have diversified in several spells at different periods
in geological history by vicariant and dispersal events, through “out of India and
towards India” exchanges between Indian Subcontinent on the one hand and
Afrotropics including Madagascar, Oriental Southeast Asia and Palearctic North
on the other. Due to poor dispersal ability of adults, most of the mayfly species
have restricted distribution. Generally, species of lakes, ponds and other lentic
habitats have wide distribution when compared to the species of lotic habitats.
Biology
Habitat: Mayflies inhabit all aquatic habitats except for marine environment,
polluted and underground waters. Some species are found in brackish waters
also. Lotic-erosional habitats are species rich than lotic-depositional and lentic-
depositional habitats. In the higher altitudes (>3000m) species diversity is poor.
Species of lentic habitats are found in ponds, lakes, water tanks, paddy fields etc.
In lotic habitats, runs and riffles with bottom substrate as boulders and cobbles
have higher diversity than cascades or waterfalls. Species diversity is also reduced
in habitats with bottom substrate as sand or mud.
Life cycle
Emergence: In the last larval instar (nymph) food uptake stops, alimentary canal
and Malpighian tubules degenerate, the former fills up with water and later with
air to develop into an aerostatic organ. Spermatogenesis and oogenesis is already
completed before moulting. Haemolymph, mouthparts, visceral muscles and gonads
undergo considerable changes. During this period, oxygen uptake and drift activity
increases. Subimago, leave the nymphal skin by rupturing the mesonotal cuticle
along the midline, which is completed in 10-15 minutes. The subimago, depending
upon the species emerge either from the water surface, above water or underwater.
In some species more than one type of emergence is observed. Temperature and
light intensity influence the metamorphosis. In tropical region, most of the species
emerge within two hours after sunset.
Swarming: Conspicuous mating swarms of males are typical of mayflies. The
mating swarm typically consist of several specimens to thousands of individuals.
They swarm over land marks such as vegetation, rock, bush, tree, shore line,
bridge, road etc. The size, timing, height and time of swarm depends on many
factors such as weather, temperature, etc. Typically tropical species swarm during
night. However, in the high altitudes of Western Ghats and Himalaya, swarming
is also observed in the afternoon.
448
Mating: Mating usually takes place in flight which lasts from a few seconds
to several minutes. Males grab the females from below using its fore legs curved
around the wing roots. The male abdomen is turned up and the forceps grasps the
apex of female abdomen and penis is inserted into oviduct opening or copulatory
pouches.
Oviposition: Eggs are always deposited in water. However sometimes females
are attracted to oviposit in manmade objects such as car roof tops or smooth roads.
Depending on species several types of oviposition are observed: (i) females release
few eggs at a time by dipping the tip of abdomen on water surface; (ii) releasing
all eggs at a time on water surface; (iii) female fall on water surface and release
the eggs by rupturing the abdominal wall; (iv) female approach the waterline from
shore and release eggs; (v) female crawl beneath the water surface to deposit eggs
on stones or logs. Females typically lay 500 to 3000 eggs which is influenced by
environmental variables.
Larval stages: Species are morphologically adapted to current velocity which
include hydrodynamic body shape (eg. Prosopistoma), stabilizing and retention
structures (Eg. Epeorus), friction discs, sclerotized gill margins with microtrichia
or suckers formed by gills. The mayfly larvae require high oxygen content in the
water which is generally 3-4 times higher than in other aquatic insect groups such
as Diptera. Apart from gills, cutaneous breathing is also important for mayfly
larvae.
The larvae are considered “trophically generalized” or “selectively
omnivorous”. The feeding types are classified as (i) grazers-scrappers feed on
attached algae and mouth parts (maxillae) are scrape-like (ii) shredders feed on
coarse particulate organic matter (CPOM) and mouth parts are not particularly
specialized (iii) gatherers-collectors feed on fine particulate organic matter
(FPOM) without specialized on mouth parts (iv) filter feeders use FPOM and
seston (plankton, nekton and detritus) (v) predators feed on small benthic animals
such as nematodes, oligochaetes etc. Feeding is opportunistic and depends upon
availability, substrate composition and seasonality.
Adult stage: Adult mayflies do not feed and reproduction and dispersal are
the sole functions of adults. Adults do not move away from water but some species
are found far away from their emergence site. Females of most species exhibit
“upstream compensatory flight” to minimize downstream drift of eggs and larvae.
This flight may vary from several meters to kilometers.
Longevity: The lifespan of typical adult mayflies usually lasts for 24 hours.
However, depending on species, it varies from few hours to days.
Threats: Recent studies conducted in Eastern Himalaya and Peninsular
India demonstrate that the habitat of mayflies especially the hill streams of
the subcontinent is threatened due to anthropogenic activities such as habitat
destruction, agricultural expansion, pesticide and industrial pollution.
Conservation and Significance

Mayflies are an important group of aquatic insects, especially in lotic habitats. They
have a significant role in the wetland food chain. The larvae and adults are prey
449
Subramanian et al.
for many species of invertebrate and vertebrate predators. In addition to the role
in wetland ecosystem function, their value as indicators of quality of the biotope is
very well recognized. Studies across the globe have shown that mayflies are very
sensitive indicators of wetland pollution and how species assemblages change with
levels of human disturbance. Mayflies found at undisturbed habitats with less
pollution and good riparian vegetation were specialists with narrow distribution.
On the other hand, species recorded at industrial or urban areas with polluted
wetlands and disturbed riparian vegetation were generalists with wide habitat
preference and distribution. These studies also show that mayflies are sensitive
not only to the quality of the wetland but also to the major landscape changes,
especially changes in the riparian zone. They are ideal objects for integrated
phylogenetic, biogeographic and phylogeographic studies, being endowed with
several archaic traits in all life stages along with rather weak dispersal powers.
Many of the montane mayflies, both larvae and adult are equally charismatic.
Gaps in research
Larval and adult stages of several species of mayflies are unknown. Moreover
many regions of India especially the rivers, streams and other wetlands of eastern
and western Himalaya, central India are under explored. Future research should
focus on correlating adult and larval stages and exploring under and unexplored
regions. To our knowledge, DNA barcodes were generated for 40 species belonging
to 32 genera under 10 families of Ephemeroptera from South India by Selvakumar
et al. (2016), no other aspects of molecular work was undertaken on mayflies in
India so far.
Future dimensions
Sivaramakrishnan (2016) suggested following aspects for future studies on mayfly
systematics in India should focus on: 1. Intensive explorations in unexplored
and under-explored areas, primarily to avoid bias in understanding patterns of
mayfly species diversity and distribution; 2. Larval-adult associations employing
modern molecular techniques; 3. Species delimitation fine-tuning and unraveling
the mysteries of intra specific genetic diversity; 4. Combined molecular and
morphological systematic and phylogenetic studies; 5. Molecular phylogeography of
genera representing ancient evolutionary lineages; 6. Study of cryptic variation in
species inhabiting evolutionary refugia, ecological refuges and in crucial ecological
indicator taxa; and 7. Study of impacts of habitat fragmentation, climate changes
and anthropogenic pollution on present mayfly genus and species composition;
range contractions and range extensions of imperiled species and those vulnerable
to extinction especially due to genetic erosion in lotic and lentic aquatics in different
biogeographic regions of India.
References
Anbalagan, S., Balachandran, C., Kannan, M., Dinakaran, S. & Krishnan, M. (2014).
First record and a new species description of Dudgeodes (Ephemeroptera:
Teloganodidae) from South India. Turkish Journal of Zoology, DOI:10.3906/
zoo-1401-74.
450
Balachandran, C., Anbalagan, S., Kannan, M., Dinakaran, S. & Krishnan, M.

(2016) A new species of Prosopistoma Latreille, 1833 (Ephemeroptera:
Prosopistomatidae) from South India, Zootaxa, 4178: 289-294.
Barber-James, H., M., Gattoliat, J.L., Sartori, M. & Hubbard, M.D. (2008). Global
diversity of mayflies (Ephemeroptera, Insecta) in freshwater. Hydrobiologia,
595: 339-350.
Barber-James, H., Sartori, M., Gattolliat, J-L. & J. Webb, (2013) Jan. 21 World
checklist of freshwater Ephemeroptera species. World Wide Web electronic
publication. Available online at http://fada.biodiversity.be/group/show/35
[10.11.2014].
Chopra B. (1924). The fauna of an island in the Chilka Lake. The Ephemeroptera
of Barkuda Island. Records of the Indian Museum, 26(5): 415-422.
Chopra B. (1927). The Indian Ephemeroptera (Mayflies). Part I. The sub-order
Ephemeroidea: Families Palingeniidae and Polymitarcidae. Records of the
Indian Museum, 29(2): 91-138, pl. 8-10.
Hafiz HA. (1937). The Indian Ephemeroptera (mayflies) of the sub-order
Ephemeroidea. Records of the Indian Museum, 39: 351-370, pl. 4-5.
Kluge, N.J. & Novikova, E.A. (2014) Systematics of Indobaetis Müller-Liebenau
& Morihara 1982, and related implications for some other Baetidae genera
(Ephemeroptera). Zootaxa, 3835(2): 209-236.
Kluge, N.J. (2014) New Oriental tribe Iscini, new non-dilatognathan species
of Notophlebia Peters & Edmunds 1970 and independent origin of
Dilatognathus-type mouth apparatus in Atalophlebiinae (Ephemeroptera:
Leptophlebiidae). Zootaxa, 3760(4): 522-538.
Kluge, N.J. Selvakumar, C., Sivaramakrishnan, K.G. and Jacobus, L.M. (2015)
Contribution to the knowledge of the mayfly genus Teloganella Ulmer, 1939
(Ephemeroptera: Ephemerelloidea). Zootaxa, 4028(2): 287-295.
Kluge, N.J., Sivaramakrishnan, K.G., Selvakumar, C. and Kubendran, T.
(2014) Notes about Acentrella (Liebebiella) vera (Müller-Liebenau, 1982)
(= Pseudocloeon difficilum Müller-Liebenau, 1982 syn. n. = Platybaetis
arunachalae Selvakumar, Sundar, and Sivaramakrishnan, 2012 syn. n.)
(Ephemeroptera: Baetidae). Aquatic Insects, 35(3-4): 63-70.
Kubendran, T., Balasubramanian, C., Selvakumar, C., Gattolliat, J.L. and
Sivaramakrishnan, K.G. (2015) Contribution to the knowledge of
Tenuibaetis Kang & Yang 1994, Nigrobaetis Novikova & Kluge 1987 and
Labiobaetis Novikova & Kluge 1987 (Ephemeroptera: Baetidae) from the
Western Ghats (India). Zootaxa, 3957(2): 188-200.
Kubendran, T., Rathinakumar, T., Balasubramanian, C., Selvakumar, C. and
Sivaramakrishnan, K.G. (2014) A new species of Labiobaetis Novikova &
Kluge, 1987 (Ephemeroptera: Baetidae) from the southern Western Ghats
in India, with comments on the taxonomic status of Labiobaetis. Journal of
Insect Science, 14(86): 1-10.
451
Subramanian et al.
Navas L. (1931). Comunicaciones entomol?gicas. Insectos de la India. 4. a Serie.

Revista de la Academia de Ciencia Exacta Fisico-Quimicas y Naturales de
Zaragoza, (1)15: 11-41.
Needham JG. (1909). Notes on the Neuroptera in the collection of the Indian
Museum. Records of the Indian Museum, Calcutta, 3: 185-210, pl. XIX-XXI.
Pictet FJ. (1843-1845). Histoire naturelle generale et particuliere des Insectes
Nevropteres. Famille des Ephemerines. Bailliere edit., Paris (Kessmann et
Cherbuliez edit., aussi Geneve). 300 pp. (1843), 49 plates (1845).
Selvakumar, C. Arunachalam, M. and Sivaramakrishnan, K.G. (2013). A new
species of Choroterpes (Ephemeroptera: Leptophlebiidae) from Southern
Western Ghats, India. Oriental Insects, 47(2-3): 169-175.
Selvakumar, C., Janarthanan, S. and Sivaramakrishnan, K.G. (2015). A new
species of the Choroterpes Eaton, 1881 subgenus Monophyllus Kluge,
2012 and a new record of the subgenus Choroterpes, s.s. (Ephemeroptera:
Leptophlebiidae) from southern Western Ghats, India. Zootaxa, 3941(2):
284-288.
Selvakumar, C., Sivaramakrishnan, K.G. Janarthanan, S. (2015). A new record of
Potamanthellus caenoides Ulmer 1939 (Ephemeroptera: Neoephemereidae)
from the southern Western Ghats of India. Biodiversity Data Journal, 3:
e5021. 1-5. doi: 10.3897/BDJ.3.e5021
Selvakumar, C., Sivaramakrishnan, K.G. and Janarthanan, S. (2016). DNA
barcoding of mayflies (Insecta: Ephemeroptera) from South India,
Mitochondrial DNA Part B, 1: 1, 651-655.
Selvakumar, C., Sivaramakrishnan, K.G., Luke M. Jacobus., Janarthanan, S. &
Arumugam, M. (2014). Two new genera and five new species of Teloganodidae
(Ephemeroptera) from South India. Zootaxa, 3846(1): 087-104.
Selvakumar, C., Sivaruban, T., Subramanian, K.A. and Sivaramakrishnan, K.G.
(2016). A new genus and species of Atalophlebiinae (Insecta: Ephemeroptera:
Leptophlebiidae) from Palni hills of the southern Western Ghats, India.
Zootaxa, 4208(4): 381-391.
Selvakumar, C., Sundar, S. and Sivaramakrishnan, K.G. (2012). Two new mayfly
species (Baetidae) from India. Oriental Insects, 46(2): 116-129.
Sivaramakrishnan, K.G. (1984). New genus and species of Leptophlebiidae:
Atalophlebiinae from southern India (Ephemeroptera). International
Journal of Entomology, 26(3): 194-203.
Sivaramakrishnan, K.G. (1985). New genus and species of Atalophlebiinae
(Ephemeroptera: Leptophlebiidae) from southern India. Annals of the
Entomological Society of America, 78: 235-239.
Sivaramakrishnan, K.G. (2016). Systematics of the Ephemeroptera of India:
Present status and future prospects. Zoosymposia, 11: 033-052.
Sivaramakrishnan, K.G. Subramanian, K.A. & Ramamoorthy, V.V. (2009).
Annotated Checklist of Ephemeroptera of Indian subregion. Oriental
Insects, 43: 315-339.
452
Sivaramakrishnan, K.G., Venkataraman, K. and Balasubramanian, C. (1996).

Biosystematics of the genus Nathanella Demoulin (Ephemeroptera:
Leptophlebiidae: Atalophlebiinae) from south India. Aquatic Insects, 18(10):
19-28.
Sivaruban, T., Barathy, S., Arunachalam, M., Venkataraman, K. &
Sivaramakrishnan, K.G. (2013). Epeorus petersi, a new species of
Heptageniidae (Ephemeroptera) from the Western Ghats of southern India.
Zootaxa, 3731(3): 391-394.
Subramanian, K.A. and Sivaramakrishnan, K.G. (2009). A new species of
Symbiocloeon (Ephemeroptera: Baetidae) associated with a freshwater
mussel species from India. Oriental Insects, Vol. 43: 71-76.
Traver JR. (1939). Himalayan mayflies (Ephemeroptera). Annals and Magazine of
Natural History, (11)4:32-56.
Ulmer G. (1920). Neue Ephemeropteren. Archiv for Naturgeschichte, 85A(11):
1-80.
Venkataraman, K. and Sivaramakrishnan, K.G. (1987). A new species of
Thalerospyrus from India (Ephemeroptera: Hepatageniidae). Current
Science, 56(21): 1126-1129.
Venkataraman, K. and Sivaramakrishnan, K.G. (1989). A new species of
Cinygmina (Ephemeroptera) from south India and revaluation of genetic
traits of Cinygmina Kimmins 1937. Hexapoda, 1(1&2): 117-121.
Walker F. (1853). Ephemerinae. List of the specimens of neuropterous insects in
the collection of the British Museum. Part III - (Termitidae- Ephemeridae).
pp. 533-585.
453
Subramanian et al.
Plate I
454
Plate II
455
Subramanian et al.
Plate III
456
Chapter 29
Insecta : Lepidoptera
Navneet Singh
Abstract
The order Lepidoptera comprise primarily terrestrial insects with scale covered
wings. Out of about 1,57,424 described species known from the world, only 740
species are reported to be aquatic. Lepidopteran caterpillars adopt to aquatic
habit in the process of co-evolution and radiation. Only 80 species belonging
to the subfamily Acentropinae which forms 0.53% of total lepidopteran species
from India, are known to be aquatic inhabitants in India. However, very scarce
information is available about the lepidopterans that posses aquatic life stages.
Key words:
Introduction
Lepidoptera is an attractive and fascinating group of Insects in terms of species
diversity and economic importance. It is one of the most widespread and widely
recognizable insect orders in the world, encompassing butterflies (including
skippers) and moths. Lepidopteran species are mainly recognized due to the
body and wings covered with scales (modified and flattened hairs which give the
butterflies and the moths their extraordinary variety of colour patterns). However,
the definition of Lepidoptera given before the advent of cladistics, for example
by Imms, 1957, included many of the attributes which were not diagnostic for
the Order Lepidoptera. Kristensen & Skalski (1998) recognized 27 Lepidopteran
apomorphies out of which, Holloway et al. (2001) listed 10 easily observed
attributes. Phylogenetically, order Lepidoptera is the sister group of order
Trichoptera. Kristensen & Skalski (1998) suggested that the common ancestor of
the Lepidoptera and the Trichoptera had larvae that lived in wet soil conditions.
From where the Trichopterans developed the aquatic larval mode of life and
majority of the Lepidopterans moved out of water and developed the terrestrial
mode of life.
Predominantly, Lepidopterans are the terrestrial insects with about 1, 57, 424
described species from the world (Nieukerken et al., 2011), out of which only 740
species are reported to be aquatic (Mey & Speidel, 2008). The Lepidopteran species
with larvae feeding above the water surface on aquatic vegetation, mining the
aquatic vegetation or feeding externally on the submerged vegetation are actually
consider to be the aquatic. The adoption of aquatic habit by the Lepidopteran
caterpillars is an example of co-evolution and radiations with the evolution of
aquatic vegetation. The larvae of Lepidoptera have an enormous adaptive potential
Zoological Survey of India, Gangetic Plains Regional Centre, Sector-8, B.H. Colony, Patna-26
457
Singh
(Scoble, 1992), so with no exception, the semi-aquatic or fully aquatic Lepidopteran

caterpillars have developed various modes of respiration like plastron respiration,
open tracheal system, tracheal gills, or closed spiracles to support their aquatic life
style. The aquatic caterpillars can be identified by the presence of filamentous gills
on the body or by the presence of a portable case. Aquatic pupae of Lepidoptera can
be identified from the protruded abdominal spiracles (Yen, 2004).
Review of Literature
Review of literature revealed that majority (about 99 %) of aquatic Lepidopterans
belong to the single moth subfamily Acentropinae (= Nymphulinae) of family
Crambidae. In addition to Acentropinae, very few species of different moth families
like Arctiidae, Pyraustinae, Tortricidae, Noctuidae and Cosmopterygidae have the
semi-aquatic/aquatic larvae. As far as the world fauna is concerned, the diversity
of different moth families with aquatic larvae are mainly dealt by: Munroe (1983,
1995), Heppner (1991), Shaffer et al. (1996), Speidel & Mey (1999), You et al.
(2002), Henning (2003), Li et al. (2003), Speidel (2003, 2005), Yen (2004), Mey &
Speidel, (2005, 2008), You & Li (2005), Mey (2006). The Indian Lepidoptera with
aquatic larvae is mainly represented by subfamily Acentropinae. The diversity of
this subfamily is dealt by: Hampson (1896), Rose & Pajni (1985), Mandal (1991),
Arora (2000), Bhattacharya (1997, 2000) and Mathew (2006).
Methodology
The Lepidopteran taxonomy is mainly based on the adult morphology, rather than
larval characters. So, the standard methodology used for the taxonomic procedures
of the terrestrial Lepidoptera is also followed for the study of aquatic Lepidopteran
diversity. The collection of adult moths is done with the help of vertical sheet light
trap equipped with mercury bulb (125 W) at night hours. The collected moths then
killed with the ethyl acetate vapors in the killing bottles. Freshly killed specimens
are pinned and stretched on stretching boards. The dry preservation of moths is
done in ento boxes fumigated with naphthalene balls. Identification is done with
the help of available literature.
Diversity
The available information on the diversity, distributional patterns and taxonomy
of aquatic Lepidoptera is very scarce and incomplete to find the proper status
of its diversity from any region, particularly from a country like India with vast
geographic range, varied type of climatic conditions, and different topographic
patterns. However, a summary on the current status of aquatic Lepidoptera is
provided on the basis of published data. Balian et al. (2008) calculated a total
number of about 1, 26, 000 fresh water animal species, which represented about
9.5 % of the total described animal species. Where, the aquatic Lepidoptera is
represented by 740 species under three subfamilies, Acentropinae, Pyraustinae
(Crambidae) and Arctiinae (Arctiidae), which makes only about 0.44% of the total
described species (Mey & Speidel, 2008) (Table-1). However, very few species of
Noctuidae, Cosmopterigidae, Tortricidae, Nepticulidae, Cossidae, Sphingidae and
Crambidae (subfamilies: Schoenobiinae and Crambinae) do have semi-aquatic or
fully aquatic larvae (Munroe, 1977; Lange, 1978; Williams and Feltmate, 1992;
Habeck, 1994; Merritt & Cummins, (1996); Solis, 1999; Wagner, et al., 2002).
458
As far as Indian fauna is concerned, 80 species of the aquatic Lepidoptera

belonging to subfamily Acentropinae (Crambidae: Pyraloidea) are known. This
represents about 0.53% of the total described species of Indian Lepidoptera. The
adults of Acentropinae can be separated from other Pyralids from the following set
of characters: Hindwing with median nervure simple (not pectinated), Forewing
with vein R5 from cell (not stalked with R3 & R4) and vein R2 stalked with R3 &
R4. The subfamily can also be identified reliably from the protruded abdominal
spiracles of pupa (Yen, 2004). We can find two important checklists summarizing
the diversity of Acentropinae from India. Speidel & Mey (1999) catalogued 49
species of Acentropinae having the type localities from India. Mathew (2006) listed
80 species of Acentropinae (=Nymphulinae) from India (Table-2)
Table 1. (Based on Mey & Speidel, 2008)
Species in
Species Species
Superfamily Family Subfamily Oriental
in World in India
Region
Pyraloidea Crambidae Acentropinae 737 169 80
(=Nymphulinae)
Pyraloidea Crambidae Pyraustinae 02 Nil Nil
Noctuoidea Arctiidae Arctiinae 01 Nil Nil
Table 2. (Based on Mathew, 2006)

Superfamily Pyraloidea
Family Crambidae
Subfamily Acentropinae
(Mathew, 2006 used the family name Nymphulinae)
Genus Species
Agassiziella Yoshiyasu, 1989 Agassiziella albidivisa (Warren, 1896)
Agassiziella angulipennis (Hampson, 1891)
Agassiziella fuscifusalle (Hampson, 1893)
Agassiziella picalis (Guenee, 1854)
Ambia Walker, 1859 Ambia albipunctalis Warren, 1896
Ambia caeruleata Hampson, 1893
Ambia complicata Warren
Ambia conspurcatalis Warren, 1896
Ambia iambesalis Walker, 1859
Ambia lobophoralis Hampson, 1896
Ambia marginalis Moore
Ambia poritialis Walker, 1859
Ambia semifascialis Warren, 1896
Ambia tenebrosalis Hampson, 1896
Ambia xantholcuca Hampson, 1896
459
Singh
Genus Species
Aulacodes Guenee, 1854 Aulacodes colonialis Guenee
Aulacodes dominalis Walker, 1865
Aulacodes hamalis Snellen
Aulacodes saturatalis (Snellen, 1890)
Camptomastix Warren, 1892 Camptomastix exuvialis (Snellen, 1890)
Camptomastix hisbonalis (Walker, 1859)
Cataclysta Hubner, 1827 Cataclysta angulata Moore
Cataclysta trimacula Hampson
Clupeosoma Snellen, 1880 Clupeosoma sericialis (Hampson, 1896)
Elophila Hubner, 1822 Elophila melagynalis (Agassiz, 1978)
Eoophyla Swinhoe, 1900 Eoophyla melanops (Hampson, 1896)

Eoophyla peribocalis (Walker, 1859)
Eoophyla sejunctalis (Snellen, 1876)
Eristena Warren, 1896 Eristena bifurcalis (Pryer, 1877)
Eristena murinalis (Warren, 1896)
Eristena oligostigmalis Hampson, 1906
Eristena postalbalis Hampson
Eristena pulchellalis (Hampson)
Eristena straminealis Hampson, 1903
Goniopalpia Hampson, 1903 Goniopalpia deIicataIis Hampson, 1903
Nymphicola Snellen, 1880 Nymphicola blandialis (Walker, 1859)
Nymphula Schrank, 1802 Nymphula affinialis (Guenee, 1854)
Nymphula falliolatalis Swinhoe, 1890
Nymphula fusalis Hampson, 1896
Nymphula fuscicostalis Hampson, 1896
Nymphula grisialis Hampson, 1912
Nymphula leucostola Hampson, 1896
Nymphula pygmaealis Warren, 1896
Nymphula responsalis (Walker, 1865)
Nymphula votalis (Walker, 1854)
Oligostigma Guenee, 1854 Oligostigma albifurcalis Hampson, 1906
Oligostigma alicialis Hampson, 1906
Oligostigma andreusialis Hampson, 1912
Oligostigma araealis Hampson, 1897
Oligostigma auropunctalis Hampson, 1903
460
Genus Species
Oligostigma Guenee, 1854 Oligostigma chrysozonalis Hampson, 1912
Oligostigma dianalis Hampson
Oligostigma excisa (Swinhoe, 1901)
Oligostigma fumibasalis Hampson, 1896
Oligostigma hapilista Swinhoe, 1892
Oligostigma melanotalis Hampson, 1906
Oligostigma niveinotatumt Hampson
Oligostigma ornatum Moore
Oligostigma parvalis Moore, 1877
Paracataclysta Yoshiyasu, 1983 Paracataclysta fuscalis (Hampson, 1893)
Paracymoriza Warren, 1890 Paracymoriza albifascialis (Hampson)
Paracymoriza aurantialis (Swinhoe)
Paracymoriza exsolvalis (Snellen, 1882)
Paracymoriza inextricata (Moore, 1888)
Paracymoriza vagalis (Walker, 1865)
Parapoynx Huebner, 1825 Parapoynx bilinealis (Snellen, 1876)
Parapoynx crisonalis (Walker, 1859)
Parapoynx diminutalis Snellen, 1880
Parapoynx fluctuosalis (Zeller, 1852)
Parapoynx stagnalis (Zeller, 1852)
Parthenodes Guenee, 1854 Parthenodes aequivocalis Warren, 1896
Parthenodes bisangulata (Hampson, 1895)
Parthenodes gangeticalis (Lederer, 1863)
Parthenodes latifascialis Warren, 1896
Parthenodes nigra (Warren, 1896)
Parthenodes nigriplaga Swinhoe
Parthenodes olivalis Hampson
Parthenodes stellata (Warren, 1896)
Strepsinoma Meyrick, 1897 Strepsinoma croesusalis (Walker, 1859)
Teratausta Hampson, 1903 Teratausta odontalis Hampson, 1903
Aquatic Lepidoptera and Humanity

The aquatic Lepidopterans do have direct or indirect effects on human and its
activities and furthermore on the functioning of our ecosystems. The immature
stages of aquatic Lepidoptera are important constituents of different type of
aquatic food chains. Though not as a serious pest, but some species like Parapoynx
fluctuosalis, P. vittalis and P. stagnalis are known to damage rice in Asia. The
461
Singh
phytophagous larvae of some aquatic Lepidoptera have been used in control of

Hydrillia and Elodea in Florida (Buckingham, 1994). The species of subfamily
Acentropinae are very sensitive to the quality of water. They are among the first
animals to evade from the polluted waters. So, members of this subfamily are very
important to get the information of water health.
Gap in Research Area

The indication about the aquatic Lepidoptera is a surprise to many, as very scarce
information is available about the Lepidopterans that passes their life stages
in water. Even the taxonomists working on the aquatic fauna or particularly
the aquatic entomologists have little knowledge about the aquatic Lepidoptera.
As discussed under heading ‘Diversity’, only 0.44% of the Lepidopterous fauna
is known to be aquatic whereas, other aquatic animals are 9.5% of their total
discoveries. Probably, the primary reason behind it is not the low diversity of
aquatic Lepidoptera, but lack of expertise, and may be the lack of awareness.
Generally, the techniques for sampling and handling of aquatic Lepidoptera are
maxillary palpus tergum A1 tergum A2
labial palpus
window
vom Rath's organ
posterior
vental process sternum
(tg A1) A2
Fig. 1 Fig. 2
Tibia
Coxal suture
Coxa
Epiphysis
Femur
Tarsus Trochanter
Epiphysis
Fig. 3 Fig. 4
Fig. 1&2 from Holloway et. al., 2001; Fig. 3&4 from https://www.google.co.in/
search?q=epiphysis+lepidoptera
462
totally different from that of the other aquatic Insects. The Lepidopterans need
careful killing in euthanized jars followed by pinning, stretching on boards, then
dry storage in ento boxes fixed in drawers. Normally, these equipments are not
available with the aquatic entomologists or general limnologists and also, the
entomologist with expertise of Lepidoptera taxonomy usually lacks the Limnology
background. Furthermore, the taxonomy of Lepidoptera is mainly based on the
adults, and the studies on larval attributes are very limited. These are some of
the issues responsible for recording of very few species of aquatic Lepidoptera.
This chapter represents the present knowledge on the topic but is significantly
underestimate of the real diversity of aquatic Lepidoptera. There are probably
more Lepidopteran families, genera and species with aquatic representatives.
The poor exploration and knowledge of tropical Lepidoptera, especially of hot bio-
diverse regions coupled with their huge variety of aquatic habitats suggest about
the vast opportunities in the field of the taxonomic research of aquatic Lepidoptera.
Note: The plate below is reg. the characters of lepidoptera. But I think during
review, list of characters given in Introduction is deleted. So Now this plate
becomes irrelevant and should be removed.
Acknowledgements
I am thankful to Dr Kailash Chandra, Director, Zoological Survey of India for
giving me the opportunity to compile this chapter; to Dr. K. A. Subramanian,
Scientist-D, ZSI, SRC, Chennai for sending an important paper which helped a lot
in compilation of this chapter.
References
Arora, G.S. (2000) Studies on some Indian Pyralid species of Economic Importance,
Part-1. Records of zoological Survey of India, Occ. Paper, 181: 1-169
(Published by Director, Zoological Survey of India).
Buckingham, G.R. (1994) Biological control of aquatic weeds. In Rosen, D., Bennett,
F.D. & Capinera, J.L. (eds), Pest Management in the Subtropics: Biological
Control—a Florida Perspective. Intercept Ltd, Andover, 737.
Balian, E.V., Segers, H., Leveque, C. & martens, K. (2008) The Freshwater Animal
Diversity Assessment: an overview of the results. Hydrobiologia, 595: 627-
637.
Bhattacharya, D.P. (1997). Insecta: Lepidoptera: Pyralidae. Fauna of West Bengal,
State Fauna Series, 3(Part-7): 319-408 (Published by Director, Zoological
Survey of India).
Bhattacharya, D.P. (2000) Insecta: Pyralidae. Fauna of Meghalaya, State Fauna
Series, 4(Part-5): 457-512. (Published by Director, Zoological Survey of
India).
Habeck D. (1994) Lepidoptera. Pp. 320–329 In Morse J.C., Yang L.F. and Tian L.X.
(Eds.) Aquatic insects of China useful for monitoring water quality. Hohai
University Press, Nanjing.
463
Singh
Hampson, G.F. (1896). The Fauna of British India, including Ceylon and Burma.
4: 594 pp. London.
Henning, S.F. (2003). Lepidoptera. In de Moor, I.J., J.A. Day & F.C. de Moor (eds),
Guides to the freshwater invertebrates of Southern Africa, Vol. 8: Insecta
III, 209.
Heppner, J.B. (1991). Faunal regions and the diversity of Lepidoptera. Tropical
Lepidoptera, 2 supplement, 1: 85.
Holloway J.D., Kibby G. and Piggie D. (2001) The families of Malesian moths and
butterflies. Fauna Malesiana Handbooks vol. 3, Brill, Leiden.
Kristensen, N.P. (1984). Studies on the morphology and systematics of Primitive
Lepidoptera (Insecta). Steenstrupia, 10: 141-191.
Kristensen, N.P. & Skalski, A.W. (1998) Phylogeny and palaeontology. In:
Kristensen, N.P. (ed.) Lepidoptera, Moths and Butterflies. Volume 1.
Handbuch der Zoologie 35. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin: 7-25
Lange W.H. (1978) Aquatic and Semiaquatic Lepidoptera. In Merritt R.W. and
Cummins K.W. (Eds) An introduction to the aquatic insects of North
America. Kendall/Hunt, Dubuque, Iowa
Li, H.H., P. You & Wang, S.-X. (2003). A systematic study of the genus Eoophyla
Swinhoe in China, with descriptions of two new species (Lepidoptera,
Crambidae, Nymphulinae). Acta Zootaxonomica Sinica, 28: 295-301.
Mandal, D.K. (1991). Insect: Lepidoptera. In: Fauna of Lakshadweep, State fauna
Series, 2: 217-255. (Published by Director, Zoological Survey of India)
Mathew, G. (2006) An inventory of Indian Pyralids (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae). Zoos’
Print Journal, 21(5): 2245-2258.
Merritt, R.W. & Cummins, K.W. (1996) An Introduction to aquatic insects of North
America. Kendall/Hunt Publication Company.
Mey, W. (2006). Eine neue Art der Gattung Eoophyla Swinhoe, 1900 von Borneo
(Lepidoptera: Crambidae, Acentropinae). Entomologische Zeitschrift
(Stuttgart) 116(2): 91-93.
Mey, W. & Speidel, W. (2005) Two new species of Eoophyla Swinhoe, 1900 from
continental South East Asia (Lepidoptera: Crambidae, Acentropinae).
Bonner zoologische Beitrage, 53(1/2): 115-119.
Mey, W. & Speidel, W. (2008) Global diversity of butterflies [moths] (Lepidoptera)
in freshwater. Hydrobiologia, 595: 521–528.
Munroe E. (1977) Lepidoptera. Pp. 254-257. In Hurlbert S.H. (Ed.) Biota Acuática
de Sudamérica Austral. San Diego University, CA.
Munroe, E., (1983) Pyralidae. In Hodges, R.W. (ed), Check List of the Lepidoptera
of America North of Mexico. E.W. Classey Ltd., London, xxiv + 284.
Munroe, E., (1995) Nymphulinae. In Heppner, J.B. (ed), Atlas of Neotropical
Lepidoptera. Checklist: part 2, Gainesville, liv + 243.
464
Nieukerken, E.J.V., L. Kaila, I.J. Kitching, N.P. Kristensen, D.C. Lees, J. Minet,
C. Mitter, M. Mutanen, J.C. Regier, T.J. Simonsen, N. Wahlberg, S-H.
Yen, R. Zahiri, D. Adamski, J. Baixeras, D. Bartsch, B.A. Bengtsson, J.W.
Brown, S.R. Bucheli, D.R. Davis, J. De Prins, W. De Prins, M.E. Epstein, P.
Gentili Poole, C. Gielis, P. Ha¨ ttenschwiler, A. Hausmann, J.D. Holloway,
A. Kallies, O. Karsholt, A. Kawahara, S.J.C. Koster, M. Kozlov, J.D.
Lafontaine, G. Lamas, J.-F. Landry, S. Lee, M. Nuss, C. Penz, J. Rota,
B.C. Schmidt, A. Schintlmeister, J.C. Sohn, M.A. Solis, G.M. Tarmann,
A.D. Warren, S. Weller, R. Yakovlev, V. Zolotuhin, A. Zwick, (2011) Order
Lepidoptera Linnaeus, 1758. In: Zhang, Z.-Q. (Ed.), Animal Biodiversity: An
Outline of Higher-Level Classification and Survey of Taxonomic Richness.
Zootaxa, 3148: 212-221.
Rose, H.S. & Pajni, H.R. (1985). Studies on the external genitalia of some species
of subfamily Nymphulinae from North India (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae). Res.
Bull. (Sci.) Panj. Univ., 37(3&4): 1-10.
Scoble, M. J., (1992). The Lepidoptera—form, function and diversity. The Natural
History Museum, London.
Shaffer, M., Nielsen, E.S. & Horak, M. (1996). Pyraloidea. In Nielsen, E.S., Edwards,
E.D. & Rangsi, T.V. (eds), Checklist of the Lepidoptera of Australia.—
Monographs on Australian Lepidoptera, Vol. 4. CSIRO, Canberra, xiv + 529.
Solis, M.A. (1999). Nymphulinae Duponchel, [1845] (Insecta, Lepidoptera):
proposed precedence over Acentropinae Stephens, 1835. Bulletin of
Zoological Nomenclature, 56: 31-33.
Speidel, W. (2003). New species of aquatic moths from the Philippines (Lepidoptera,
Crambidae). Insecta Koreana, 20: 7-49.
Speidel, W. (2005). Acentropinae. In Huemer, P. & Karsholt, O. (eds),
Microlepidoptera of Europe, 4: 33-68.
Speidel, W. & Mey, W. (1999). Catalogue of the Oriental Acentropinae (Lepidoptera,
Crambidae). Tijdschrift voor Entomologie, 142: 125-142.
Wagner D.L., Maes K., Heppner J.B., Janzen D.H. and Landry B. (2002). On the
proposed precedence of Nymphulinae Duponchel, 1845 over Acentropinae
Stephans, 1835 (Insecta, Lepidoptera). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature,
59: 38-40.
Williams D.D. and Feltmate B.W. (1992). Aquatic Insects. CAB International,
Walingford, Oxon. Pp 358.
Yen, S.H. (2004). Insecta: Lepidoptera, Crambidae, Acentropinae. In Yule, C.M. &
Seng, Yong-Hoi (eds), Freshwater Invertebrates of the Malaysian Region.
Academy of Sciences Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, 861.
You, P., Li, H.H. & Chen, K.L. (2002). Catalogue of the Nymphulinae and
Musotiminae of China (Lepidoptera: Crambidae). In Zhang, Z.Q. (ed),
Fauna of China, 4: 37-64.
You, P. & Li, H.H. (2005). Two new species of Nymphulinae (Lepidoptera:
Crambidae) from China. Entomotaxonomia, 27(2): 131-134.
465
Chapter 30
Insecta : Diptera
Dhriti Banerjee, Atanu Naskar, Jayita Sengupta,

Surajit Hazra, Radheyshyam Mridha
and Panchanan Parui.
Abstract
Diptera (true flies), a group of two winged insects, exhibit a great diversity of
habits which can broadly be classified as terrestrial, semi-aquatic and aquatic.
Adult dipterans are usually terrestrial in habit while their larvae and pupae are
aquatic and dependant on water. The fly larvae can survive in any plausible aquatic
habitat, from the pitchers of the pitcher plant, tree holes, saturated soil and mud
puddles, to flowing streams, ponds, large lakes, rivers and even the marine, rocky
intertidal zone. They are very important in the aquatic food web and are the most
diverse and abundant macro-invertebrates collected from fresh water habitats.40
families of Diptera are known to be aquatic worldwide, of which 36 families, 151
genera and 1,588 species known from India are aquatic or semi-aquatic in nature.
Key words: Diptera, Diversity, Aquatic, India.
Introduction
Diptera (true flies), a group of two winged insects, occur almost everywhere from
high mountains to the saline sea and from the hot scorching deserts to the Arctic
and Antarctic cold deserts. They exhibit a great diversity of habits which can
broadly be classified as terrestrial, semi-aquatic and aquatic. Adult dipterans
are usually terrestrial in habit while their larvae and pupae are aquatic and
dependant on water. The flies are tolerant to extreme climatic conditions, some of
them inhabiting polluted water bodies. They are very important in the aquatic food
web and are the most diverse and abundant macro-invertebrates collected from
fresh water habitats. The fly larvae can survive in any plausible aquatic habitat,
from the pitchers of the pitcher plant, tree holes, saturated soil and mud puddles,
to flowing streams, ponds, large lakes, rivers and even the marine, rocky intertidal
zone.
7220 extant species of Diptera belonging to 1323 genera and 92 families, have
been documented from India [Banerjee, (in press); Pape and Evenhuis, 2013; Pape
and Thomson, 2016]. 40 families of Diptera are known to be aquatic worldwide, of
which 36 families, 151 genera and 1,588 speciesknown from India are aquatic or
semi-aquatic in nature.
The present overview represents these 36 families of 151 genera and 1,588
species of aquatic and water dependant Indian Diptera. The status of the their
diversity, distribution pattern of the aquatic fauna, their habitat and bio-ecology
Diptera Section, Zoological Survey of India, ‘M’ Block, New Alipore, Kolkata-700053
467
Banerjee et al.
has been enumerated along with threats to the diversity and conservation of this
mega diverse insect fauna.
Origin and Evolution and Fossil History of the Aquatic Diptera

Diptera originated from some extinct group of scorpion flies (Blagoderov et
al., 2002), sometime in the Middle Triassic. The Nematocerans (most of the
aquatic and semi-aquatic forms) dominated during this period with the advent
of Psychodomorpha and Culicomorpha (Kremzinski and Evenhuis, 2000). The
Jurassic saw a significant differentiation of Diptera fauna with rapid morphological
changes with some of the Jurassic families persisting till the present. (Kremzinski
and Evenhuis, 2000). However it was during the Cretaceous, that the present
day Lower Diptera (nematoceran) families diversified, the blood sucking adults
with aquatic larval stages (both nematoceran and orthorraphous brachycerans)
appeared and gradually established themselves.
A brief review of literature

Though the first Nematoceran Diptera from India, with aquatic life cycle stages
was discovered by Fabricius, way back in 1775, the discovery of the causation of
the malaria vector by Ronald Ross in 1903, led to the actual spurt in research
activities on the mosquitoes. Other studies on mosquito-borne diseases in India
and abroad followed through, thus initiating research on the dipteran aquatic
larval stages mostly aiming at vector control. Since then, India became a hotbed
of Diptera research with Calcutta School of Tropical Medicine being the nodal
centre. Several national institutions, started working on the different Dipteran
groups gradually over time, thus enriching the aquatic fauna in general. The
founder Director of ZSI, T.N. Annandale in 1911 initiated the work on the aquatic
dipteran fauna collected from Shimla hills and Darjeeling district, and later the
first Indian Director of Zoological Survey of India, Baini Prasad worked on the
larval architecture of aquatic Diptera. The main focus of his research was on the
anatomy of Chironomidae, Dixidae and Chaoboridae larvae.
As compared to study of the adult dipteran fauna, the larval stages of mostly
the vector groups were given importance. Dipteran larvae were studied worldwide
with keys to the larval stages were often referred for identification of the Indian
fauna. The major workers who had worked on the different Lower Dipteran groups
related to the aquatic fauna has been mentioned in the history of aquatic Diptera
research. Larval dipterans worldwide have been studied by McAlpine (1981),
Darvas et al. (1984, 1998) and Mackey and Brown (1980), Brown et al. (2010).
Datta (1997, 1998) had elaborated on the different diverse habits of flies in general.
However, the only consolidated information on the aquatic Diptera diversity from
India reports 25 families, with around 136 genera from India (Parui et al., 2003).
Collection and preservation techniques of aquatic insects

Collection: The most common techniques used for collection of aquatic insects are
the D-frame and O-frame aquatic nets, which are quite sturdy to accommodate the
resistance of the water. Both can be used in still water but the D-frame net is best
for sampling in flowing water. The size of the mesh or sieve (pore size of the net)
varies and depends upon the size of the specimens one wants to collect, usually
ranging from 20-500 μm.
468
Insecta : Diptera
Collection from lentic habitats is usually done by sweeping the net vigorously
through the water to make sure it gets into vegetation and along the banks and
is carefully lifted with the entire mass of macrophytes or sediments that comes
along. For lotic habitats, ‘Kick sampling method’ is usually followed. As mentioned
earlier, the D-frame net is more effective here. The flat side of the D-frame net is
placed on the bottom of the stream and, upstream from the net, the vegetation is
disturbed by vigorous dragging of the net, which facilitates the insects to be swept
into the net. Same is the technique for collection along the banks of streams, by
always sweeping the net upstream, letting the current carry the animals into the
net.
Preservation: The collected insects are immediately preserved in 70% ethyl alcohol
with few drops of glycerine and later carefully sorted, counted and placed in
separate vials. The vials are then labelled with all relevant information and kept
for identification.
Status of Global vis-a vis Indian Aquatic Diptera Diversity

Present study revealed that the Indian aquatic fly fauna comprises of 90% (36
families out of 40) of the aquatic fly fauna reported worldwide (Table 1, Fig. 1)
and 39.13% (36 families out of 92) of the known dipteran families from India are
aquatic or water dependant (Fig. 2). 72% (18 families) of the families of the total
known Indian Nematoceran (Lower Diptera) familiesare aquatic (Table. 2 Fig.
4), and only 26.7% (Table 2 Fig. 5) of the known Indian Brachycerans are water
reliant (18 families).
Fig. 1. The graph represents the Fig. 2. The graph represent the
comparison between World and Indian comparison between Indian families and
Aquatic Dipteran families. Indian Aquatic dipteran families.
Fig. 3. The graph represents Fig. 4. The graph represents the

the comparison between Indian comparison between Indian Brachyceran
Nematoceran families and Indian families and Indian Aquatic
Aquatic Nematoceran families. Brachyceran families.
469
Banerjee et al.
Fig. 5. The graph represents the Fig. 6. The graph represents the
comparison between World and Indian comparison between Indian dipteran genera
Aquatic Dipteran genera. and Indian aquatic genera.
Fig. 7. The graph represents Fig. 8. The graph represents the

the comparison between Indian comparison between Indian Brachyceran
Nematoceran dipteran genera and dipteran genera and Indian Brachyceran
Indian Nematoceran aquatic genera. aquatic genera.
Fig. 9. Pie diagram representing generic diversity from the

major aquatic dipteran family
470
Insecta : Diptera
Generic diversity also reveals similar status. Of the aquatic genera known
worldwide (159), 94.7% (151) are reported from India (Table. 3 Fig. 5), while of
the total Indian genera only 11.4% are water dependant (Fig. 6). Further 22.41%
of the total nematoceran genera of India are aquatic (Fig. 7) and only 6.55% of
the total brachyceran genera are aquatic (Fig. 8). The Indian Nematocera show a
predominance in the aquatic habitats occupying almost 72% of the niches occupied
by the flies.
Table 1. Diversity of Aquatic dipteran fauna worldwide vis-à-vis India
Aquatic Dipteran Aquatic Dipteran Aquatic Dipteran

families Genera Species
World 40* 159 43271*
India 36 151 1,588

*Source : Balian et al., 2010, Wagner et al., 2008.
The Family Culicidae is the most represented group showing maximum of
the aquatic generic abundance (22 genera) followed by Chironomidae (21 genera),
Ephydridae (15 genera), Limoniidae (14 genera) and Ceratopogonidae (12 genera)
(Table: 2 & 3 Fig. 9). Table 3 shows family wise representative genera known
to be aquatic in nature. Our diversity studies reveal that of the Lower Dipteran
(Nematocera), the families Culicidae, Chironomidae, Limoniidae, Tipulidae,
Ceratopogonidae, Psychodidae and Simuliidae are highly diverse (Fig. 10). Among
the Brachycera (higher Diptera) the families Ephydridae, Tabanidae, Syrphidae,
Dolichopodidae, Muscidae, Stratiomyiidae and Sarcophagidae are both high
diverse and well distributed.
Classification of Aquatic Diptera

The Diptera as an order is monophyletic with two major suborders (i) Lower
Diptera or the erstwhile Nematocera and (ii) Brachycera. The entire fly order is
traditionally divided into two major groups: the Lower Diptera (“Nematocera”),
mosquito-like flies with long antennae, and the Brachycera, stout and fast moving
flies with short antennae. The majority species of Brachycera, belong to the
clade Cyclorrapha, characterized by their adaptable larval stage (maggot) and
their means of metamorphosis (puparium). The Lower Diptera is composed of
Tipulomorpha (crane flies), Culicomorpha (mosquitoes), Psychodomorpha (sand
flies)and Bibinomorpha (march flies and gall midges) and are the most common
aquatic forms. The Brachycera is composed of Eremoneura (flies with three
larval instars), Cyclorrapha (flies that pupate in a puparium), Schizophora (flies
that escape from the puparium using a eversible frontal pouch: Drosophila) and
Calyptratae (larger flies with wings having an enlarged basal lobe called calypter:
houseflies) (Weigmann et al., 2011). A few of the brachyceran families have larval
stages which are aquatic in nature.
471
Banerjee et al.
Table 2. ‘Water - Dependent’ Dipteran families and genera of India

Nos. of Nos. of
Aquatic Aquatic
Family Name Family Name
Indian Indian
Genera Genera
Suborder Lower Diptera Infraorder Tabanomorpha
Nematocera 19. Family Rhagionidae 1
Infraorder Blephariceromorpha 20. Family Tabanidae 2
Superfamily Blephariceroide
1. Family Deuterophlebiidae 1 21. Family Athericidae 1
2. Family Blephariceridae 2 Infraorder Stratiomyomorpha
Infraorder Nymphomyiomorpha Superfamily Stratiomyoidea
Superfamily Nymphomyioidea 22. Family Stratiomyidae 7
3. Family Nymphomyioidea 1 Infraorder: Asilomorpha
Infraorder Tipulomorpha Superfamily: Empidoidea
Superfamily Trichoceroidea 23. Family Empididae 3
4. Family Trichoceridae 2 24. Family Dolichopodidae 2
Superfamily Tipuloidea Infraorder Muscomorpha
5. Family Cylindrotomidae 1 Section Aschiza
6. Family Limoniidae 14 Superfamily Phoroidea
7. Family Pediciidae 2 25. Family Phoridae 2
8. Family Tipulidae 5 Superfamily Syrphoidea
Infraorder Ptychopteromorpha 26. Family Syrphidae 4
Superfamily Ptychopteroidea Section Schizophora
9. Family Ptychopteridae 1 Subsection Acalyptratae
10. Family Tanyderidae 1 27. Family Sepsidae 3
Infraorder Psychodomorpha 28. Family Sciomyzidae 3
Superfamily Psychodoidea 29. Family Dryomyzidae 1
11. Family Psychodidae 2 Superfamily Carnoidea
Infraorder Culicomorpha 30. Family Canacidae 1
Superfamily Chironomoidea Superfamily Sphaeroceroidea
12. Family Ceratopogonidae 12 31. Family Sphaeroceridae 1
13. Family Chironomidae 19 Superfamily Ephydroidea
Superfamily Simulioidea 32. Family Ephydridae 15
14. Family Thaumaleidae 1 Subsection Calyptratae
15. Family Similudae 1 Superfamily Muscoidea
Superfamily Culicoidea 33. Family Muscidae 8
16. Family Dixidae 1 34. Family Anthomyiidae 1
17. Family Culicidae 24 35. Family Scathophagidae 1
18. Family Chaoboridae 1 Superfamily Oestroidea
Sub Order Brachycera 36. Family Sarcophagidae 3
472
Insecta : Diptera
Table 3. Aquatic Diptera Genera from India
Sl. Family Name (Sub

Aquatic Genera from India
No. order Nematocera)
1 Deuterophlebiidae Deuterophlebia Edwards, 1922

2 Nymphomyiidae Nymphomyia Tokunaga, 1932
3 Trichoceridae Paracladura Brunetti 1911, Trichocera Meigen 1803
4 Cylindrotomidae Phalacrocera Schiner, 1863
5 Limoniidae Erioptera Meigen, 1800, Gonomyia Meigen, 1818, Molophilus
Curtis, 1833, Ormosia Rondani, 1856, Rhabdomastix Skuse,
1890, Styringomyia Loew, 1845, Conosia Van der Wulp,
1880, Hexatoma latreille, 1809, Paradelphomyia Alexander,
1936, Pilaria Sintenis, 1889, Polymera Wiedemann, 1820,
Pseudolimnophila Alexander, 1919, Antocha Osten Sacken,
1859, Helius Lepeletier and servile, 1828
6 Pediciidae Dicranota Zetterstedt, 1838, Pedicia Latreille, 1809
7 Tipulidae Holorusia Loew, 1863, Leptotarsus Guérin-Méneville, 1831,
Tipula Linnaeus, 1758, Dolichopeza Curtis, 1825, Leptotarsus
Guérin-Méneville, 1831
8 Ptychopteridae Ptychoptera Meigen, 1803
9 Blephariceridae Philorus Kellogg, 1903, Blepharicera Macquart, 1843
10 Tanyderidae Protanyderus Handlirsch, 1909
11 Psychodidae Psychoda Latreille, 1797, Telmatoscopus Eaton, 1904
12 Ceratopogonidae Atrichopogon Kieffer, 1906, Bezzia Kieffer, 1899, Culicoides
Latreille, 1809, Dasyhelea Kieffer, 1911, Forcipomyia Meigen,
1818, Alluaudomyia Kieffer, 1913, Johannsenomyia Malloch,
1915, Palpomyia Meigen, 1818, Sphaeromias Curtis, 1829,
Stilobezzia Kieffer, 1911, Leptoconops Skuse, 1889, Nilobezzia
Kieffer, 1921
13 Chironomidae Clinotanypus Kieffer, 1913, Endochironomus Kieffer 1918,
Tanypus Meigen, 1803, Diamesa Meigen, 1835, Einfeldia
Kieffer 1924, Harnischia Kieffer 1921, Kiefferulus Goetghebuer
1922, Sympotthastia Pagast, 1947, Brillia Kieffer, 1913,
Cricotopus Wulp, 1874, Heterotrissocladius Sparck, 1923,
Glyptotendipes Kieffer 1913, Microchironomus Kieffer 1918,
Parametriocnemus Goetghebuer, 1932, Chironomus Meigen,
1803, Orthocladius Wulp 1874, Cryptochironomus Kieffer,
1918, Dicrotendipes Kieffer, 1913, Paracladopelma Harnisch
1923, Tripelma Kieffer 1913, Rheocricotopus Thienemann &
Harnisch 1932.
14 Thaumaleidae Thaumalea Ruthe, 1831
15 Similudae Simulium Latreille, 1802
16 Dixidae Dixa Meigen, 1818
473
Banerjee et al.

17 Culicidae Aedes Meigen, 1818, Anopheles Meigen, 1818, Aedomyia

Edwards 1912, Armigeres Theobald 1901, Culex Linnaeus, 1758,
Culiseta Felt, 1904, Ficalbia Theobald 1903, Coquillettidia
Dyar 1905, Hodgesia Theobald 1904, Heizmannia Ludlow
1905, Lutzia Theobald 1903, Malaya Leicester 1908, Mansonia
Blanchard, 1901, Mimomyia Theobald 1903, Orthopodomyia
Theobald, 1904, Stegomyia Theobald 1901, Topomyia Leicester
1908, Toxorhynchites Theobald, 1901, Tripteroides Giles 1904,
Udaya Thurmann 1954, Uranotaenia Lynch Arribalzaga,
1891, Verrallina Theobald 1903, Psorophora Robineau-
Desvoidy 1827.
18 Chaoboridae Chaoborus Lichtenstein, 1800
19 Rhagionidae Chrysopilus Macquart 1826
20 Athericidae Atherix Meigen, 1803
21 Tabanidae Chrysops Meigen, 1803,Tabanus Linnaeus, 1758
22 Stratiomyidae Stratiomys Geoffroy, 1762, Odontomyia Meigen 1803,
Allognosta Osten Sacken, 1883, Beris Latreille 1802, Oxycera
Meigen, 1803, Sargus Fabricius 1798, Adoxomyia Kertesz,
1907
23 Dolichopodidae Argyra Macquart, 1834, Asyndetus Loew, 1869
24 Empididae Hemerodromia Meigen, 1822, Rhamphomyia Meigen, 1822,
Chelipoda Macquart, 1823
25 Phoridae Diplonevra Lioy, 1864, Megaselia Rondani, 1856
26 Eristalis Latreille, 1804, Mallota Meigen, 1822, Myolepta
Syrphidae
Newman, 1838, Syritta Lepeletier & Serville, 1828
27 Sepsidae Parapalaeosepsis Duda 1926, Themira Robineau-Desvoidy,
1830, Sepsis Fallen, 1810
28 Canacidae Xanthocanace Hendel, 1914
29 Dryomyzidae Dryomyza Fallen, 1820
30 Sciomyzidae Sepedon Latreille, 1804, Dichetophora Rondani 1868,
Pherbellia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830
31 Sphaeroceridae Leptocera Olivier 1813
32 Ephydridae Chlorichaeta Becker, 1923, Chaetomosillus Hendel, 1934,
Placopsidella Kertesz, 1901, Trimerogastra Hendel 1914,
Allotrichoma Becker, 1896, Elephantinosoma Becker 1903,
Discocerina Macquart 1835, Ditrichophora Cresson, 1924,
Hecamedoides Hendel, 1917, Polytrichophora Cresson 1924,
Actocetor Becker, 1903, Ceropsilopa Cresson, 1917, Psilopa
Fallen, 1823, Discomyza Meigen, 1830, Typopsilopa Cresson,
1916
33 Muscidae Atherigona Rondani 1856, Coenosia Meigen 1826,
Dichaetomyia Malloch 1921, Graphomya Robineau-Desvoidy,
1830, Limnophora Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, Lispe Latreille,
1797, Lispocephala Pokorny, 1893, Phaonia Robineau-
Desvoidy, 1830.
474
Insecta : Diptera

34 Anthomyiidae Anthomyia Meigen, 1803

35 Scathophagidae Scathophaga Meigen, 1803
36 Sarcophagidae Sarcophaga Meigen,1826, Blaesoxipha Loew, 1861,
Sphenometopa Townsend, 1908.
Distribution of the Aquatic Diptera over the States and Union territories
The aquatic or water dependant Diptera fauna comprises of 36 families and 151
genera of among the 40 families and 159 genera of aquatic Diptera distributed
worldwide (Table 2). Amongst all the Indian states West Bengal ranks the highest
in aquatic Dipteran diversity, considering the positioning of the state on the
tropics, with abundant rainfall and high humidity as well as the extensive surveys
conducted in the state (Table 4). The high diversity pattern is also manifested
by the states of Assam, Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Sikkim, Tamil Nadu,
Kerala, Arunachal Pradesh, Meghalaya and Maharashtra. Diversity is minimum
in the UT of Dadra and Nagar Haveli which has the lowest diversity probably
because of deficient data.
Endemicity
The Indian dipteran fauna is an interesting congregation of endemic and exotic
elements. Of the known number of dipteran species of India, 110 genera and 2183
species, i.e. roughly 30-35% of species, are endemic (Datta, 1991, Ramakrishna
and Alfred, 2007). It is estimated that 25% of the known aquatic Diptera from
India are endemic to India. Since, the true aquatic nature of the flies is possible to
discern only after studying their life cycle, behaviour, ecology and habitat. It may
be presumed that the actual endemicity may be a lot more considering the range of
aquatic dipterans known from India.
Threats and Conservation
The availability and amount of food and oxygen are the most important factors
determining the distribution of Diptera in the aquatic bodies. They have equally
diverse responses to pollution, with some being exceptionally sensitive, while
others tolerate the worst imaginable water quality (Voshell, 2009). The use
of aquatic insects is a standard method and an efficient, fast, and inexpensive
technique of management of freshwater resources, monitoring of aquatic biota in
water recourses by trained health personnel and can be a critical step to describe
water quality in developing countries (Malekei-Ravasan et al., 2013). At its
simplest form, changes in water quality are equated to changes in diversity or
biotic indices (Washington, 1984; Metcalfe, 1989).
Hardly any species of aquatic dipteran insects have been listed as endangered
or threatened. However, the reason for this is that studying the distribution and
population numbers of such a diverse group of organisms is an overwhelming
task. The importance of the study of aquatic organisms in environmental impact
studies and biomonitoring of freshwater habitats calls for an urgent need for
comprehensive studies (Stein et al., 2008).
475
Banerjee et al.
Table 4. Distribution of Aquatic dipteran fauna across the

Indian States and Union Territories
476
Insecta : Diptera
Gaps in research
The diversity and distribution pattern of aquatic and water dependant Diptera
familiesare not a very rigorously studied subject, because of the complicacy of
identifying the life cycle stages and the emerging adult forms. In India, a few of the
families have been well studied but most of the aquatic families are not dealt deeply
enough. The dearth of trained taxonomist on aquatic or water dependant Diptera
specifically the eggs, larvae and pupal stages does not permit proper identification
of aquatic Diptera fauna beyond the family level in several instances.Further, the
lack of information on the aquatic Diptera fauna stems from the fact that adults
being terrestrial, are more easily available for study, compared to the unseen or
hidden life cycle stages.
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge Director, Zoological Survey of India, for providing the
opportunity to prepare this article on Aquatic Diptera. We express our gratitude to
Mr. K.C. Gopi, Additional Director and Divisional-in-charge, Entomology-A&B for
his valuable suggestions and guidance. Our sincere thanks to Dr. K. Valarmathii,
the Coordinator of this project for inviting us to write the article.
We also acknowledge Dr. Eyarin Jehamalar, Young Scientist, SERB project
for providing the larvae which have been photographed. The help of Dr. Nilotpal
Paul of Burdwan University for providing the photographs of Chironomidae and
Ceratopogonidae larva and pupa, Mr. Nikhil Bhowmick for the artistic drawings
of adult Simulidae, Mr. Biju Mukherjee for photographing the aquatic larvae and
pupae, Aniruddha Maity, SRF for the charts, is also acknowledged.
References
Annandale, N. 1911. Further Notes on Indian Phlebotomus. Rec. Indian Mus., 4:
319-320.
Banerjee, D. Animal resources of India: Protozoa to Mammalia: Insecta : Diptera.
State of Art report. Zoological Surv. India. (In press).
Balian E, Harrison I, Butchart S, Chambers P, Cordeiro J, Cumberlidge N, de
Moor F, Gascon C, James H, Kalkman V, van Dijk PP, YeoD. 2010. Chapter
2. Diversity of Species in Freshwater Systems: In: ‘Freshwater – the essence
of Life’, Conservation International and Cemex Conservation Book Series,
Eds. R.A. Mittermeier, T. Farrell, I.J. Harrison, A.J. Upgren, T. Brooks.
Earth in Focus Editions, China: pp 50-89.
Blagoderov, V.A., Lukashevich, E.D. and Mostovski, M.B., 2002. Order Diptera
Linné, 1758. The true flies (= Muscida Laicharting, 1781). History of Insects.
Dordrecht, Boston, London: Kluwer Academic. pp. 227-240.
Brown, B.V., Borkent, A., Cumming, J.M., Wood, D.M., Woodley, N.E. and
Zumbado, M. eds., 2010. Manual of Central American Diptera: Volume 2.
NRC Research Press.
Darvas, B., Papp, J., Szelenyi, G. and Koczka, F., 1984. The parasitization of
Agromyza megalopsis (Diptera: Agromyzidae) in Hungary. Novenyvedelem
(Hungary).
477
Banerjee et al.
Darvas, B., Szarukán, I. and Papp, L., 1988. Napomyza gymnostoma (Loew) (Dipt.:
Agromyzidae), an agromyzid pest on leek in Hungary. Növényvédelem,
24(10): 450-455.
Datta, M., 1991. New records of Tabanidae from Darjeeling District (West Bengal)
and Sikkim, India (Diptera). Journal of Bengal Natural History Society,
10(1): 1623.
Datta, M., Parui, P. and Mukherjee, M., 1997. Fauna of West Bengal. Zoological
survey of India, Calcutta. Insecta: Diptera, State Fauna Series, 3: 1-76.
Datta, M., 1998. Fauna of Meghalaya, Part 6. Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata.
State Fauna Series, 4: 65-89.
Kremzinski, W. and Evenhuis, N.L., 2000. Review of Diptera Palaentological
Records. In: Manual of Palaearctic Diptera, Vol.1eds. Papp, L. and Darvas,
B. Science Herald, Budapest, Hungary : 535-564.
Mackey, A.P. and Brown, H.M., 1980. The pupae of Atherix ibis (Fabricius) and A.
marginata (Fabricius) (Diptera: Rhagionidae) and a key to the families of
the aquatic Brachycera based on the pupae. Entomologist’s Gazette, 31(3):
157-161.
Malekei-Ravasan, N., Bahrami, A., Shayeghi, M., Oshaghi, M.A., Malek, M.,
Mansoorian, A.B. and Vatandoost, H., 2013. Notes on the Iran Caddisflies
and Role of Annulipalpian Hydropsychid Caddisflies as a Bio-monitoring
Agent. Journal of arthropod-borne diseases, 7(1): 71.
McAlpine, J.F., Peterson, B.V., Shewell, G.E., Teskey, H.J., Vockeroth, J.R. and
Wood, D.M., 1981. Manual of Nearctic Diptera. Volume 1 (No. 27).
Metcalfe, J. L., 1989. Biological water quality assessment of running waters based
on macroinvertebrate communities: history and present status in Europe.
Environmental Pollution, 60: 101-139.
Pape, T. and Evenhuis, N.L., (editors). (June, 2013). Family Tabanidae. Systema
Dipterorum, Version 1.5.67 records. http://www.diptera.org/; accessed on
27/01/2017.
Pape, T. and Thompson, F.C., 2016. Systema Dipterorum (version 2.0, Jan 2011),
In: Species 2000 and ITIS Catalogue of Life, 29th October 2016 (Roskov,
Y., Abucay, L., Orrell, T., Nicolson, D., Kunze, T., Culham, A., Bailly, N.,
Kirk, P., Bourgoin, T., De Walt, R.E., Decock, W., De Wever, A., eds). Digital
resource at www.catalogueoflife.org/col, Species 2000: Naturalis, Leiden,
the Netherlands.
Parui, P., Banerjee, D. and Mitra, B., 2003. In: Gupta, R.K. (Eds.). Aquatic Dipteran
Diversity in India. Reprint from Advancement in Insect Biodiversity,
Publisher: Agrobios, Jodhpur, India : 169-181.
Ramakrishna and Alfred, J.R.B., 2007. Analysis in Faunal Resources in India,
Zoological Survey of India : 101-105.
Stein, H., Springer, M. and Kohlmann, B., 2008. Comparison of two sampling
methods for biomonitoring using aquatic macroinvertebrates in the Dos
Novillos River, Costa Rica. Ecological engineering, 34(4): 267-275.
478
Insecta : Diptera
Voshell, J.R. 2009. Sustaining Americaaquatic biodiversity-Aquatic insect

biodiversity and conservation, Collage ofagriculture and life sciences,
Virginia Politechnic Institute and State University, 8pp.
Wagner, R., Barták, M., Borkent, A., Courtney, G., Goddeeris, B., Haenni, J.P. and
Sinclair, B. 2008. Global diversity of dipteran families (Insecta Diptera) in
freshwater (excluding Simulidae, Culicidae, Chironomidae, Tipulidae and
Tabanidae). Hydrobiologia, 595(1): 489-519.
Washington, H.G., 1984. Diversity, biotic and similarityindices: a review with
special relevance to aquaticecosystems. Water Research, 18: 653-694.
Wiegmann, B.M., Trautwein, M.D., Winkler, I.S., Barr, N.B., Kim, J.W., Lambkin,
C., Bertone, M.A., Cassel, B.K., Bayless, K.M., Heimberg, A.M. and Wheeler,
B.M., 2011. Episodic radiations in the fly tree of life. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences, 108(14): 5690-5695.
479
Banerjee et al.
Plate I
Showing the different habitats of Indian Aquatic Diptera.
Dried up riverbed
River side
Hillstream
480
Insecta : Diptera
Plate II
Showing the different habitats of Indian Aquatic Diptera.
Lake
Bog
Slow moving stream
481
Banerjee et al.
Plate III
Some photographs and drawing of Larvae, Pupae and adult of Culicidae family
482
Insecta : Diptera
Plate IV
Some photographs and drawing of Larvae, Pupae and adult of
Chironomidae family
483
Banerjee et al.
Plate V
Some photographs and drawing of Larvae, Pupae and adult of Stratiomyidae
family
484
Insecta : Diptera
Plate VI
Some photographs and drawing of Larvae, Pupae and adult of Tipulidae
familyfamily
485
Chapter 31
Insecta : Hymenoptera (Aquatic)
Rajmohana K.
Abstract
Hymenoptera are generally terrestrial. However, a few hymenopteran parasitoids
have as their hosts, the egg, larvae and pupal stages of several aquatic insects
coming under Heteroptera, Odonata, a few Lepidoptera, Coleoptera and even
Diptera. As per earlier reports, globally 150 species of Hymenoptera from 11
families are recognized as aquatic. Aquatic Hymenoptera in India mostly belong
to 8 families-Braconidae and Ichneumonidae (Superfamily Ichneumonoidea),
Mymaridae, Eulophidae and Trichogrammatidae (Superfamily Chalcidoidea),
Platygastridae (Superfamily Platygastroidea), Figitidae (Superfamily Cynipoidea)
and Diapriidae (Superfamily Diaprioidea). Parasitism by Hymenoptera under
water has never been studied in detail in India, that confirmed records exist for
only 10 species in 7 genera under 3 families from or near water bodies. Species
level data on aquatic Hymenoptera in India is extremely scanty. Information on
several genera having their distribution in India, that are recorded as parasitoids
of aquatic insects elsewhere, are compiled herewith inorder to focus upon the
necessity and scope of future work in this line.
Key words: Aquatic Hymenoptera, India, Ichneumonidae, Mymaridae,
Platygastridae.
Introduction
Hymenoptera is one of the most numerous groups and also one of the four great
orders of insects, the other three being Coleoptera, Lepidoptera, and Diptera
(Mason and Huber 1993). The order is divided into suborders Symphyta (sawflies),
and Apocrita, the latter is again subdivided into Aculeata (bees, wasps and ants)
and Parasitica (= Terebrantia). More than 80% of Hymenoptera are parasitic
(Lawrence, 2008). The Parasitica are a paraphyletic assemblage of taxa, and share
a similarity in basal biology and fill important ecological niches that are of great
economic importance (Zuparko, 2008). Although as adults they are free living,
during their larval stage they live as parasitoids of other insects or spiders. Hence
parasitic Hymenoptera are highly significant in influencing population dynamics
of other insects.
Hymenopterans are generally terrestrial, but quite a few of them have
adapted for an aquatic mode of life too. Hagen (1996) defined aquatic Hymenoptera
as a group which includes all hymenopteran species that parasitize any life stage
Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata-700053, West Bengal, India

487
Rajmohana
of aquatic insects. The female wasps of a few parasitoid families swim beneath the
water to lay eggs into the various life stages like eggs, larvae and/or pupae of their
aquatic insect hosts, principally Heteroptera, Odonata and also holometabolous
orders like Lepidoptera and Coleoptera. Globally 150 species from 11 families are
recognized as aquatic (Bennet, 2008). Species level data on aquatic Hymenoptera
in India is extremely scanty, that confirmed records exist for only 10 species in 7
genera under 3 families from or near water bodies in India (Table 1). Information on
several genera having their distribution in India, that are recorded as parasitoids
of aquatic insects elsewhere, are compiled herewith.
Historical resume
Hymenoptera was first observed frequenting an aquatic body by Walker (1836),
when he observed the ichneumonid wasp Agriotypes armatus descending into
water. Later Siebold (1858) and Muller (1888) found that the above mentioned
wasp was a parasitoid of the Trichopteran larvae. Interestingly Lubbock (1863)
observed the mymarid wasp Caraphractus cinctus Walker (= Polynema natans,
Lubbock) and the trichogrammatid wasp Prestwichia aquatica Lubbock, swimming
in water, which he later described as new to science. The mymarid was using its
wings for swimming, while the trichogrammatid, its legs. Another wasp, Anagrus
subfuscus Förster, (Mymaridae) was reported from dragonfly eggs in (1903) by
Heymons. He also observed the braconid wasp Chorebus stagnalis (Heymons)
(=Gyrocampa stagnalis) swimming with their legs. Needham (1908) documented
several Trichogrammitid wasps, in a water body containing Ishnura (Odonata)
eggs. Later Matheson and Crosby in 1912, identified the wasps as Hydrophylita
aquivolans (Matheson and Crosby) (=Hydophylax aquivolans, 1912). Marchal in
(1900) recorded Tiphodytes Bradley (= Limnodytes Marchal), the Platygastrid
wasp from Gerrid eggs. In 1911, Mathesin and Crosby reared them from the eggs
of Gerris remigis. In 1912, the same authors described, reported the behavior and
copulation of the mymarid Caraphractus cinctus Walker (= Polynema natans,
Lubbock) underwater, reared a few of them from the eggs of the backswimmer
Notonecta, which were inserted into the aquatic plant Ludwigia palustris.
Hoffmann (1932) compiled a list of Hymenopteran parasites from the eggs of
aquatic and semi-aquatic insects. Frohne (1939) published on the semi-aquatic
Hymenoptera in north Michigan lakes.
Lathromeroidea sp. (Trichogramatidae) was recorded as a parasitoid of
gerrid eggs by Henriquez & Spence (1993). Trichogramma species parasitizing
the eggs of Sialidae (Megaloptera) was reported by (Azan & Anderson 1969,
Barnard 1977). Hagen (1996) compiled the records of aquatic hymenoptera for
North America and Fursov (1985) elaborated a review of European Chalcidoidea
(Hymenoptera) parasitizing the eggs of aquatic insects. Bennet (2001), discussed
the evolution of aquatic behaviour in Ichneumonidae. Bennet et al (2008) compiled
the global diversity of hymenopteran wasps in freshwaters. Johnson et al, 2012,
published on the aquatic Platygastroidea. Hydrophylita lestesi (Costa Lima 1960)
(Trichogrammatidae), was observed parasitizing the eggs of Lestes sp. (Lestidae) on
leaves of Hedychium coronarium in Querino and Hamada, (2009). The same paper
reported the parasitisation by the trichogrammitd Pseudoligosita longifringiata
488
(Viggiani) on the Odonata Argia insipida Hagen. Feitosa et al., 2016 reviewed the
association of Anagrus amazonensis Triapitsyn, Querino & Feitosa (Hymenoptera,
Mymaridae) with aquatic insects in upland streams and floodplain lakes in central
Amazonia, Brazil.
Except for some instances, authentic studies on the habits and life histories
of aquatic Hymenoptera in India are extremely rare. Agriotypus himalensis
Mason (Ichneumonidae) was described from Assam, from the aquatic cocoons of
Neophylax sp. (Trichoptera: Odontoceridae). Later Sinu et al., 2007, reported the
host searching behavior and potential of an aquatic ichneumonid pupal parasitoid
of rice caseworm (Parapoynx stagnalis), in an upland rice paddy agro-ecosystem of
the Western Ghats.
Methodology
Yellow pan traps, are found to be extremely effective in collecting aquatic wasps.
Small yellow commercial rectangular or circular plastic bowls approximately 5cm
high, serve as individual pans. They are deployed in large numbers, > 50 traps at
a time. Each pan is filled with water along with a few drops liquid dish soap, so as
to break the surface tension of the water film at the surface. The pans are set out
at the day break, not obscured by vegetation, near permanent water bodies and
are emptied in the late evening the same day. Adding salt can help in retaining
the specimens in water intact, minimizing decomposition. The water in pans
are filtered through, fine-meshed net, washed thoroughly under a fine stream of
running water and then preserved in 70-90% ethanol.
Diversity of Aquatic Hymenoptera in India

A few species of parasitic Hymenoptera belonging to Braconidae and Ichneumonidae
(Superfamily Ichneumonoidea), Mymaridae, Eulophidae and Trichogrammatidae
(Superfamily Chalcidoidea), Platygastridae (Superfamily Platygastroidea),
Figitidae (Superfamily Cynipoidea) and Diapriidae (Superfamily Diaprioidea), in
India are aquatic.
Other than the egg parasitoids, in Hymenoptera, some spider wasps under
family Pompildae (Superfamily Vespoidea) are aquatic.
Superfamily Ichneumonoidea
Family Ichneumonidae
Subfamily Agriotypinae includes aquatic ectoparasitoid wasps that parasitize
caddisfly pupae and prepupae (order Trichoptera) inhabiting fast-running
streams (Townes, 1969). Agriotypus himalensis Mason, 1971, (Agriotypinae) was
described from Assam, at about 7200ft in the Himalayas, from the aquatic cocoons
of Neophylax sp. (Trichoptera: Odontoceridae). The pupa of the parasitoids bears
ribbon-like respiratory filaments.
Aquatic host searching behaviour is known in the Ichneumonid subfamilies
Cryptinae and Cremastinae as well. The former contains species that are semi-
aquatic and they search for hosts at the water surface. A few species are known to
attack nymphalids too (Bennet, 2001). Sinu et al., 2007, reported the host searching
489
Rajmohana
behavior and potential of an aquatic ichneumonid, possibly an undescribed species

of genus Apsilops in subfamily Cryptinae, which is a pupal parasitoid of the rice
caseworm, Parapoynx stagnalis (Lepidoptera) in an upland rice paddy agro-
ecosystem of the Western Ghats, India. They also observed the non-emergence of
these wasps from parasitized rice caseworms kept in a dry terrarium, corroborating
aquatic mode of life of the wasps and also stated that the semi-aquatic behavior of
the wasp could have evolved in response to the underwater pupation adopted by
the rice caseworm.
Family Braconidae
Several braconid genera like Asobara Förster, Chaenusa Haliday, Chorebus
Haliday Dacnusa Haliday Opius (Opius) Wesmael were recorded as parasitoids
of aquatic larvae-pupae of dipteran ephydrids (Parydra) else where. All the above
genera and also Phaenocarpa (Phaenocarpa) Förster parasitizing the sciomyzids
(Antichaeta) pupae, have their distribution in India (Taxapad, 2012).
Superfamily Chalcidoidea
Family Eulophidae
Several species in genus Aprostocetus Westwood, (subgenus Ootetrastichus) are
known to attack the eggs of Odonates and the coleopteran Dytiscid beetle, in plant
stems under water, though such reports are yet to be made from India. Triapitsyn
et al., (2011) reported a species of the above genus from petioles of water hyacinth
from eggs of Megamelus sp. (Delphacidae) and the dictyopharid plant hopper Taosa
sp., associated with Eichornia crassipes, the invasive aquatic weed. Aprostocetus in
India is species rich, with about 80 species (Noyes, 2016).
Family Mymaridae
Mymaridae is one of the families of parasitic Hymenoptera that have accurate
species that are aquatic and attacking the eggs of aquatic insects groups like
Odonata, Heteroptera and Coleoptera. Genus Anagrus Haliday, whose members
are reported as parasitoids of Lestes (Odonata) and Dytiscid eggs elsewhere, has
about 10 species in India. A new mymarid species- Ptilomymar heptafuniculata,
described by Manickavasagam and Palanivel in 2014, was collected during
explorations around aquatic ecosystems in Yercaud hills.
Family Trichogrammatidae
This family includes species that are parasitoids of eggs of several insects
orders. Trichogramma semblidis attack the Sciomyzid marsh flies of Sepedon. T.
japonicum are associated with aquatic habitats (Consoli et al, 2010). Both the above
mentioned parasitoid species are present in India (Noyes, 2016). Some members of
genus Paracentrobia, attack the eggs of Odonata. Their aquatic host associations
are not yet reported in India, though several species of the genus are present here
(Noyes, 2016). A few members in genus Pseudoligosita are also aquatic.
Superfamily Cynipoidea
Family Figitidae
A few genera in subfamily Eucoilinae under family Figitidae are parasitoids of
the pupae of stream inhabiting cyclorraphous dipteran families like Ephydridae
490
and Canacaeidae. Genus Kleidotoma Westwood are known to parasitise the flies
Canacaeidae, Drosophilidae, Ephydridae, Sepsidae, Sphaeroceridae, Phoridae,
Chloropidae, Anthomyiidae and Muscidae (Beardsley, 1990; Forshage and
Nordlander, 2008) and those living in concealed and decomposing habitats (Noort,
2017). The Indian fauna of Cynipoidea remain largely unexplored. Akthar et al.,
2013, reported the genus Kleidotoma for the first time from India, host remains
unknown. Several specimens of Kleidotoma were collected from the irrigated
paddy fields, in the Kerala part of South western Ghats (personal observation).
Superfamily Diapriioidea
Family Diapriidae
Diapriidae are pupal parasitoids of a wide group of dipteran families like
Sciomyzidae Stratiomyidae, Syrphidae, Muscidae, Tephritidae, Calliphoridae,
Sarcophagidae and Ephydridae, of which, the adult flies abound near marshes,
swamps and pond margins, the main breeding sites of their larva. Trichopria
Ashmead, the genus which have been reported several times in aquatic
environments elsewhere, are very common, widely distributed and much speciose
in India.
Superfamily Platygastroidea
Family Platygastridae
All members of tribe Thoronini (subfamily Scelioninae, family Platygastridae)
are known to attack the eggs of aquatic heteropetrans and odonates (Austin et
al., 2004). Under the tribe Thoronini, a total of 7 species are known from India
(Table 1). Those in the table marked with asterix, are endemic to India. Genera
belonging to Thoronini having several species (Fig. 1 to 6), namely Tiphodytes
Bradley, Tanaodytes, Microthoron Masner and Narendraniola Rajmohana, have
been collected in yellow pan traps deployed near water bodies (unpublished data).
Tiphodytes is a well known egg parasitoid of the heteropteran water striders-
Gerris and Trepobates spp. These wasps are found exclusively in aquatic habitats
and have been recorded walking on the upper and lower surfaces on the leaves
of water lilies (Masner, 1972). Rajmohana (2014) collected Tiphodytes spp. from
irrigated rice ecosystems, in Kerala.
Some species under genus Telenomus Haliday (subfamily Telenominae) and
genus Trimorus Förster (subfamily Teleasine) are also known to parasitise the
eggs of Diptera and Lepidoptera in water. Though not directly documented in
aquatic habitats, several species of the above genera with similar morphological
adaptations for an aquatic mode of life are quite common in India. Members of
Trimorus are parasitic on the eggs of the carabid ground beetles. A few species like
Trimorus sringatus Rajmohana and T. microstriae Rajmohana collected in irrigated
rice ecosystems (Rajmohana, 2014) have their wings modified for swimming. The
anal margin of their forewings is attenuated and scalloped, so as to function as an
oar when under water.
Several species of Telenomus tabanivorus group, parasitizing the eggs of
horse flies and Lepidopteran stem borers are documented in India, but without
491
Rajmohana
host associations. Since their host eggs are seen in aquatic environments, these
wasps too have derived aquatic adaptations, to enable their survival in water,
atleast for a short period.
Superfamily Vespoidea
Family Pompilidae
Other than the parasitoids, the only Hymenoptera frequenting waters, are one
or two species of Anoplius Dufour, the pompilid spider wasps. They are known
to enter water to predate upon the fishing araenid water spider, Dolomedes sp.
Though the groups are recorded in India, the instances of such predation in water,
are yet to be documented from the region.
Table 1. Species of aquatic Hymenoptera collected from or near
water bodies in India
No. Species Ref.

1. Tiphodytes crassus Rajmohana* Rajmohana (2012)
2. Tiphodytes gracilis Rajmohana* Rajmohana (2012)
3. Tiphodytes minutus Rajmohana* Rajmohana (2012)
4. Tanaodytes elongatus Rajmohana* Rajmohana (2012)
5. Narendraniola flagellata Rajmohana* Rajmohana (2012)
6. Microthoron baeiodes Masner Masner (1972) Mukerjee (1978)
7. Microthoron dunensis Mukerjee* Mukerjee (1994)
8. Apsilops sp. Sinu et al (2007)
9. Agriotypus himalensis Mason, 1971
10. Ptilomymar heptafuniculata Manickavasagam and Palanivel (2014)
Morphological features and aquatic adaptations

Aquatic Hymenoptera share a number of morphological features, facilitating them
to submerge, breathe as well as swim in water. Most of them have stiff hairs or
setae on their body, acting as a plastron for trapping air bubbles. The aquatic
Platygastroidea have a smooth and shiny body, with very little microsculpture.
The attenuate and scalloped anal margin in forewings helps in swimming (Johnson
et al., 2012). With the long marginal fringes, the effective width of wings in most
cases is large and functions as a swimming aid.
Threats
The drastic alteration of the hydrological regime of the Earth to meet the needs
of rapidly expanding societies or in response to alterations of the land and the
atmosphere has critically affected the freshwater biodiversity globally (Vorosmarty
et al., 2004). The threats to aquatic insect community arise mainly due to the
chemical pollution from industries, agriculture runoff, physical alteration of
water bodies due to construction works and drainage and also because of the alien
invasives.
492
Conservation and human significance

Parasitic hymenopterans are known to impact and regulate the populations
of their host insects. Hence their presence as natural enemies, prevent the
proliferation of their host groups, thus promoting alpha level community diversity
in aquatic ecosystems as well. Several groups of parasitic Hymenoptera are known
to attack a wide range of dipterans, whose immature stages are aquatic. Many of
the predatory aquatic heteroptera like Nepid and gerrrid bugs feeding on small
aquatic larvae are efficient natural mosquito regulators. Theoretically speaking,
the presence of the parasitoid wasps in large numbers can negatively impact the
control of mosquito larvae.
Gaps in research
Information regarding the diversity of aquatic parasitic hymenoptera in India are
far from complete, while the natural history of the group largely remain totally
unknown. Parasitism by Hymenoptera under water has never been studied in
detail in India. Specific and focused investigations are needed to generate indepth
knowledge on highly specialized biotic interactions of this kind.
Expertise in India and abroad

l Ankita Gupta, National Bureau of Agricultural Insect Resources, P. B. No.
2491, H. A. Farm Post, Bellary Road, Hebbal, Bangalore-560024, Karnataka
l Bijoy, C. Department of Zoology, KKTM College, Pullut, Kodungaloor, Thrissur-
680663, Kerala
l Girish Kumar, P., Western Ghat Regional Centre, Calicut-673006, Kerala
l Manickavasagam, Faculty of Agriculture, Annamalai University,
Chidambaram-608002, Tamil Nadu
l Debjani Dey, Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi-110012.
l Rajmohana, K., Zoological Survey of India, New Alipore, Kolkata-700053, West
Bengal
l Santhosh, S., Department of Zoology, Malabar Christian College, Calicut-
673001, Kerala
l Ramesh Kumar Anandan, National Bureau of Agricultural Insect Resources,
P. B. No. 2491, H. A. Farm Post, Bellary Road, Hebbal, Bangalore-560024,
Karnataka
l Ranjith Ravindran, Insect Ecology and Ethology Laboratory, Department of
Zoology, University of Calicut-673635, Kerala
l Prasanth Mohanraj, National Bureau of Agricultural Insect Resources, P. B. No.
2491, H. A. Farm Post, Bellary Road, Hebbal, Bangalore -560024, Karnataka
l Sudheer, K. Zamorin’s Guruvarappan College, Pokkunnu, Calicut-673 014,
Kerala
l Sheeba, M., N.S.S. College, Manjeri, Malappuram-676122, Kerala
493
Rajmohana
Abroad
l Norman F. Johnson, Department of Entomology, The Ohio State University,
1315 Kinnear Road , Columbus, OH 43212 U.S.A
l Elijah Talamas, Systematic Entomology Laboratory, USDA/ARS, Washington,
DC, United States of America
l Mattias Forshage, Department of Entomology, Swedish Museum of Natural
History, Box 50007, SE-104 05 Stockholm, Sweden
l Simon Van Noort, South African Museum, Iziko Museums of Cape Town, South
Africa
l Donald Quicke, Chulalongkorn University, Department of Biology, Bangkok,
Thailand
l John T Huber, Natural Resources Canada c/o Canadian National Collection
of Insects, K.W. Neatby Building, 960 Carling Ave., Ottawa, ON, K1A 0C6,
Canada
l Cornelis van Achterberg, Department of Terrestrial Zoology, Naturalis
Biodiversity Center, Postbus 9517, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands
l David Notton, Department of Entomology, Natural History Museum, Cromwell
Road, London, SW7 5BD, United Kingdom
l Lubomir Masner, Agriculture & Agri-Food Canada, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0C6,
Canada
l Fernando L. Consol, Departamento de Entomologia e Acarologia, ESALQ,
Universidade de São Paulo, Caixa Postal 9, 13418-900 Piracicaba, SP, Brazil
l Roger A. Burks, Entomology Dept., University of California, Riverside, CA
92521
Acknowledgments
The author is grateful to the Director, Zoological Survey of India (ZSI), Kolkata for
providing research facilities and encouragement.
References
Akhtar, M.S., Singh, L.R.K. and Ramamurthy, V.V. 2013. Description of new
dpecies of Kleidotoma Westwood (Hymenoptera: Figitidae) from India along
with a list of species. http://thebioscan.in/Journal%20Supplement/Sup%20
jrnl2013v8n1p2.htm.
Austin, A.D., Johnson, N.F. and Dowton, M. 2005. Systematics, evolution, and
biology of scelionid and platygastrid wasps. Annual Review of Entomology,
50: 553-582.
Azam, K.M. and Anderson, N.H. 1969. Life history and habits of Sialis rotunda
and S. californica in Western Oregon. Annals of the Entomological Society
of America., 62: 549-558.
Barnard, P.C. 1977. Sialis nigripes Pictet (Megaloptera, Sialidae), an alder-fly new
to Britain and Ireland. Entomology Gazette, 28: 269-274.
494
Beardsley, J.W. 1990. The genus Kleidotoma Westwood in Hawaii, with descriptions
of three new species (Hymenoptera: Cynipoidea: Eucoilidae). Proceedings,
Hawaiian Entomological Society, 30: 131-146.
Bennett, A.M.R (2001) Phylogeny of the Agriotypinae (Hymenoptera:
Ichneumonidae), with comments on the subfamily relationships of the basal
Ichneumonidae. Systematic Entomology, 26: 329-356. doi: 10.1046/j.0307-
6970.2001.00155.x
Bennett, A.M.R. (2008) Global diversity of hymenopterans (Hymenoptera: Insecta)
Costa Lima A. da. 1960. Sôbre alguns micro himenópteros aquáticos (Chalcidoidea,
Eulophidae Trichogrammatinae). Arquivos do Instituto Biológico., 27: 197-
200.
Consoli F.L., Parra J.P.R. & Zucchi R.A. 2010: Egg Parasitoids in Agroecosystems
with Emphasis on Trichogramma. Springer, Dordrecht, 482 pp.
Feitosa, M.C.B., Querino, R.B. and Hamada, N. 2016. Association of Anagrus
amazonensis Triapitsyn, Querino & Feitosa (Hymenoptera, Mymaridae)
with aquatic insects in upland streams and floodplain lakes in central
Amazonia, Brazil. Revista Brasileira de Entomologia, 60(3): 267-269. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rbe.2016.04.002.
Forshage, M. and Nordlander, G. 2008. Identication key to European genera of
Eucoilinae (Hymenoptera, Cynipoidea, Figitidae). Insect Systematics &
Evolution, 39: 341-359. DOI: 10.1163/187631208794760885.
Frohne, W.C. 1939. Semi-aquatic Hymenoptera in north Michigan lakes.
Transactions of the American Microscopical Society, 58: 228-240.
Fursov, V. 1995. A review of European Chalcidoidea (Hymenoptera) parasitizing
the eggs of aquatic insects. Bull. Irish. Biogeogr. Soc., 18: 2-12.
Hagen, K.S. 1996. Aquatic Hymenoptera. In : Merritt, R.W. and Cummins, K.W.
(eds) An introduction to the aquatic insects of North America: 862p. Debuque,
Iowa, Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.
Henriksen, K.L. 1922. Notes upon some aquatic Hymenoptera. Ann. Biol. Lacustre.,
11: 19-37.
Henriquez, N.P. and Spence, J.R. 1993. Studies of Lathromeroidea sp.
(Hymenoptera, Trichogrammatidae), a parasitoid of gerrid eggs. Can.
Entomol., 125: 693-7702.
Heymons, R. 1908. Susswasser-Hymenopteren aus der Umgcbtmg Berlins.
Deutsch. Ent. Zeit., pp. 137-150.
Hoffman, C.H. 1932. Hymenopterous parasites from the eggs of aquatic and
semiaquatic insects. Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society., 5: 33-
37.
Johnson, N.F. and Musetti, L. 2012. World genera of aquatic Platygastridae
(Hymenoptera: Platygastroidea). http://wasps.osu.edu/images/Johnson &
Musetti2013.pdf accessed on 2.3.2017.
495
Rajmohana
Lawrence, P.O. 2008. Symbiotic viruses of parasitic wasps. In: Capinera J.L (eds.)
Encyclopedia of entomology, 2nd edn, pp 3660-3667. Springer Academic,
Dordrecht.
Lubbock, J. 1864. On two aquatic Hymenoptera, one of which uses its wings for
swimming. Transactions of the Linnean Society of London, 24: 135-142
Lubbock, S.J. 1863. On two aquatic Hymenoptera, one of which uses its wings in
swimming. Transactions of the Linnean Society of London (Zoo1.), XXIV:
135-141. Plate 23, Figs. 10-15.
Manickavasagam, S. and Palanivel, S. 2014. A new mymarid of the genus
Ptilomymar (Hymenoptera) with new records from India. Oriental Insects,
48(3-4): 322-326. DOI: 10.1080/00305316.2015.1013182.
Marchal, P. 1900. Sur un Nouvel Hymenoptere aquatique. Le Limnodytes
gerriphaglls n. gen., n. sp. Annales de la Société entomologique de France.,
LXIX: 171-176.
Mason, W. and Huber, J.T. 1993. Order Hymenoptera. Hymenoptera of the world:
An identification guide to families. pp. 4-12.
Matheson, R. and Crosby, C.R. 1912. Aquatic Hymenoptera in America. Annals of
the Entomological Society of America, 5: 65-71.
Muller, W. 1889. Ueber Agriotypus armatus. Zool. Jahrb. Abth. f. Syst., IV: 1132-
113.
Needham, J.G. 1908. Notes on the aquatic insects of Walnut Lake,
Michigan. In: Hankison, T.L. (eds.) A biological survey of Walnut Lake,
Michigan., Ann. Rept. Michigan Geol. Survey. p. 252-271.
Querino, R.B. and Hamada N. 2009. An aquatic microhymenopterous egg-
parasitoid of Argia insipida Hagen in Selys (Odonata, Coenagrionidae)
and biological observations in the central Amazon, Brazil. Neotropical.
Entomoogy., 38: 346-351.
Masner, L. 1972. The classification and interrelationships of Thoronini
(Hymenoptera: Proctotrupoidea, Scelionidae). The Canadian Entomologist,
104: 833-849.
Mukerjee, M.K. 1978. Descriptions of some Baeinae-complex (Hymenoptera:
Proctotrupoidea: Scelionidae) from India. Memoirs of the School of
Entomology, St. John’s College, 5: 47-66.
Mukerjee, M.K. 1994. Descriptions of some new and records of some known
Proctotrupoidea (Hymenoptera) from Garhwal Himalayas, India. Records
of the Zoological Survey of India, 163: 1-73.
Noyes, J.S. 2017. Universal Chalcidoidea Database. World Wide Web electronic
publication. http://www.nhm.ac.uk/chalcidoids.
Rajmohana K. 2012. Descriptions of new taxa in Thoronini (Scelioninae:
Platygastridae: Hymenoptera: Insecta) from India. (29) Pages 267-
276 in Raghunathan, Sivaperuman & Venkataraman. Recent advances in
biodiversity of India. Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata. 529 pp.
496
Rajmohana, K. 2014. A systematic inventory of Scelioninae and Teleasinae

(Hymenoptera: Platygastridae) in the rice ecosystems of North central
Kerala. Memoirs of the Zoological Survey of India Vol: 22. 72 pages
Sinu, P.A., Nasser, M. and P. Dharmarajan, 2007. Host searching behavior and
potential of an aquatic ichneumonid pupal parasitoid of rice caseworm
(Parapoynx stagnalis) in an upland rice paddy agro-ecosystem of the
Western Ghats, India. Biocontrol Science and Technology, 17(10): 1037-
1045. DOI: 10.1080/09583150701666835.
Triapitsyn, S.V. & M.C. Hern‡ndez. 2011. Egg parasitoids of Taosa spp.
(Hemiptera: Dictyopharidae) in Formosa, Argentina, with descriptions of
two new species. Revista de la Sociedad Entomologica Argentina, 70(1-2):
55-61.
Taxapad, 2012. Home of Ichneumonoidea. http://www.taxapad.com, accessed on
2.3.2017.
Townes, H.K. 1969. The genera of Ichneumonidae, Part I. Memoirs of the American
Entomological Institute, 11: 1-300.
van Noort, S. 2017. WaspWeb: Hymenoptera of the Afrotropical region. URL: www.
waspweb.org.za (accessed on <day/month/year>).
Von Siebold, C.T.E. 1858. Ueber Agriotypus armatus in Trichostoma picicorne.
Amtl. Bericht d. Versamml. d. Naturforseher in Carlsruhe., p. 211.
Vorosmarty, C., D. Lettenmaier, C. Le´veˆque, M. Meybeck, C. Pahl-Wostl, J.
Alcamo, W. Cosgrove, H. Grassl, H. Hoff, P. Kabat, F. Lansigan, R. Lawford
& Naiman, R.J. 2004. Humans transforming the global water system. EOS,
American Geophysical Union Transactions, 85: 509-514.
Walker, F. 1836. Agriotypus armatus. Entomol. Mag., 3: 412.
Zuparko, R.L. 2008. Parasitic Hymenoptera (Parasitica). In: Capinera, J.L. (eds.).
Encyclopedia of Entomology. p. 2730-2736, published by Springer.
497
Rajmohana
Plate I
Fig. 1. Microthoron Baeiodes Masner
Fig. 2. Narendraniola flagellata Rajmohana Male
Fig. 3. Tanaodytes elongatus Rajmohana Male
498
Plate II
Fig. 4. Tiphodytes gracilis Rajmohana
Fig. 5. Tiphodytes minutus Rajmohana
Fig. 6. Tiphodytes crassus Rajmohana
499
Chapter 32
MOLLUSCA
Amit Mukhopadhyay*, Basudev Tripathy and

Abhijna Ghosh
Abstract
Freshwater molluscs play a pivotal role in the freshwater ecosystem. Globally,
there are estimated 5,000 species of fresh water molluscs, of which 217 have been
reported from India. This paper gives an updated nomenclature with a checklist
of 150 species of gastropods and 67 species of bivalves reported from freshwater
environment of various ecosystems of India. In terms of biogeographical
distributions of freshwater mollusc in India, 15 species of gastropods and 18 species
of bivalves have discontinuous distribution. Western Ghats is considered to be a
unique biodiversity hotspot for molluscs with a record of 77 species of freshwater
molluscs alone in this area. This paper along with an updated nomenclature of
freshwater molluscs of India also highlights their diversity, distribution and
conservation in India.
Key Words: Mollusca, Bivalves, Gastropods, Freshwater, India.
INTRODUCTION
In the freshwater environment, molluscs are an important group and their
abundance plays pivotal role in freshwater ecosystem functioning (Vaughn et al.,
2004). Fresh water molluscs are common in ponds, lakes, paddy fields, quiet water
pools, and flowing waters like lower section of perennial rivers, irrigation canals
etc. Freshwater gastropods are generally found attached to submerged vegetation,
rocks, sticks, bricks etc, but bivalves live partly buried in the sand or mud. Similar
to the gastropods the bivalves exhibit variations in shell features depending upon
the ecology of the species and may produce eco-phenotypes (Subba Rao, 1989).
Molluscs form an important component of biological monitoring in terms of rating
the water quality and status of aquatic systems (Strong et al., 2008). Based on
their occurrence, freshwater molluscs are distinguished into two- primary and
secondary freshwater species. The primary freshwater molluscs are confined
exclusively to the freshwater habitats, whereas secondary freshwater species are
distributed both in estuarine and freshwater habitats. There are estimated 5,000
freshwater molluscs in the world for which valid descriptions exist besides 10,000
undescribed species (Balian et al., 2008). A perusal of literature on malacofauna
suggests that the most referred work of Preston’s –Fauna of British India on
the Freshwater Gastropoda and Plecypoda is nearly hundred years old and 370
Zoological Survey of India, Prani Vigyan Bhawan, M-Block New Alipore, Kolkata-700 053
501
Mukhopadhyay et al.
species reported from undivided India, Burma, Ceylon (Preston, 1915), and last
the compilation by N.V. Subba Rao who consolidated information on freshwater
molluscs and published a Handbook of Freshwater Molluscs of India in 1989 with
195 species recorded from India and adjoining areas (Subba Rao, 1989). Meanwhile,
substantial information has been accumulated on freshwater molluscs of India. A
number of new species, new information on their biology, range distribution etc.
have been added to the list of Preston and Subba Rao. This paper therefore deals
with a revised list of freshwater mollusc fauna of India along with their diversity,
distribution and conservation in India.
Ideal habitat for Freshwater Mollusca

Diversity
Collections of molluscs from the Indian subcontinent are scattered far and wide.
Although there are several species mentioned in literature as occurring in India,
authors have taken into account only those species which could be physically
verified. Nevertheless, some of the species are included on the merit of the literature.
However, authors have made all efforts to present an up-to-date information for
all the available species in India. The classification was followed after Bouchet and
Rocroi (2005) for Gastropoda and Bouchet et al. (2010) for Bivalvia.
In the present work, 150 species of gastropods belonging to 51 genera and of
16 families have been ascertained to occur in India.
Table 1. A complete checklist of freshwater Mollusca with Nomenclature update
Sl.
Species with new classification References effecting nomenclature
No.
Class GASTROPODA
Order CYCLONERITIMORPHA
Family NERITIDAE
01 Neritina pulligera (Llinnaeus, 1767) Rosenberg (2013)
02 Neripteron platyconcha (Annandale and Eichhorst (2016)
Prashad, 1919)
502
Mollusca
Sl.
No.
03 Neripteron violaceum (Gmelin, 1791) Bouchet, (2016)
04 Neripteron auriculatum (Lamarck, 1816) Eichhorst (2016)
05 Neritina perottetiana (Recluz, 1841) Köhler & Rintelen (2011)
06 Neritina smithii W. Wood, 1828 Boominathan et al. (2012)
07 Neritina turrita (Gmelin, 1791) Haynes (2005)
08 Vittina variegata (Lesson, 1831) Bouchet (2016)
09 Neritodryas subsulcata (Sowerby, 1836) Rintelen (2011)
10 Clithon bicolor (Recluz, 1842) Eichhorst (2016)
11 Clithon corona (Linnaeus, 1758) Eichhorst (2016)
12 Clithon reticularis (Sowerby, 1836) Eichhorst (2016)
13 Septaria lineata (Lamarck, 1876) Eichhorst (2016)
14 Septeria porcellana (Linnaeus, 1758) Eichhorst (2016)
Order ARCHITAENIOGLOSSA
Family VIVIPARIDAE
15 Taia crassicallosa Annandale and Rao, Tripathy & Mukhopadhyay (2014)
1925
16 Filopaludina bengalensis (Lamarck, Brandt (1974), Bouchet (2017)
1822)
17 Bellamya crassispiralis (Annandale, Budha & Madhyastha (2010)
1921)
18 Mekongia crassa (Benson, 1836) Budha & Daniel (2010)
19 Idiopomadissimilis (Mueller, 1774) Brandt (1974), Bouchet (2015)
20 Bellamya micron (Annandale, 1921) Tripathy & Mukhopadhyay (2014)
21 Angulyagra microchaetophora Tripathy & Mukhopadhyay (2014)
(Annandale, 1921)
22 Angulyagra oxytropis (Benson, 1836) Tripathy & Mukhopadhyay (2014)
23 Cipangopaludina lecythis (Benson, 1836) Lu et al. (2014)
Family AMPULLARIIDAE
24 Pila globosa (Swainson, 1822) Cowie (2015)
25 Pila scutata var. compacta (Reeve, 1856) Low et al. (2013)
26 Pila theobaldi (Hanley, 1875) Ramakrishna and Dey, 2007, Madhyastha
& Daniel (2010)
27 Pila virens (Lamarck, 1822) Budha & Madhyastha(2010)
28 Pila saxea (Reeve, 1856) Cowie (2015).
29 Pomacea diffusa Blume, 1957 Pointier (ed.)(2015)
Family VALVATIDAE
30 Valvata piscinalis (Mueller,1774) Neubauer et al. (2015)
Family LITTORINIDAE
31 Mainwaringia leithii (Smith, 1876) Reid (2010)
503
Mukhopadhyay et al.
Sl.
No.
32 Cremnoconchus syhadrensis (Blanford, Reid et al. (2013)
1863)
33 Cremnoconchus canaliculatus Blanford, Reid et al., 2013
1870
34 Cremnoconchus conicus (Blanford,1870) Reid et al., 2013
35 Cremnoconchus hanumani Reid, Reid et al., 2013
Aravind, Madhyastha, 2013
36 Cremnoconchus globulus Reid, Aravind, Reid et al., 2013
Madhyastha, 2013
37 Cremnoconchus agumbensis Reid, Reid et al., 2013
Aravind, Madhyastha, 2013
38 Cremnoconchus dwaraki Reid, Aravind, Reid et al., 2013
Madhyastha, 2013
39 Cremnoconchus cingulatus Reid, Aravind, Reid et al., 2013
Madhyastha, 2013
40 Cremnoconchus castanea Reid, Aravind, Reid et al., 2013
Madhyastha, 2013
Family HYDROBIIDAE
41 Indopyrgus nevilli (Thiele, 1928) Rintelen (2011)
42 Bithynia tentaculata kashmirensis Gloer & Bossneck (2013)
(Nevill, 1884)
43 Bithynia troscheli (Paasch, 1842) Taxon Glöer, Falniowski & Szarowska (2006)
inquirendum
44 Bithynia cerameopoma (Benson, 1830) Bouchet (2015)
45 Neosataria evezardi (Blanford, 1880) Kulkarni & Khot (2015)
46 Bithynia pulchella (Benson, 1836) Bouchet (2015)
47 Bithynia textum Annandale, 1921 Madhyastha & Daniel (2010)
48 Bithynia (Gabbia) orcula Frauenfeld var. Gloer & Bossneck (2013)
producta (Nevill,1884)
49 Bithynia stenothyroides (Dohrn, 1857) Bouchet (2015)
50 Gabbia travancorica (Benson, 1860) Madhyastha (2011)
51 Mysorella costigera (Kuester,1852) Tripathy & Mukhopadhyay (2014)
Family POMATIOPSIDAE
52 Tricula gravely Prashad,1921 Tripathy & Mukhopadhyay (2014)
53 Tricula montana Benson,1843 Bouchet (2013)
Family STENOTHYRIDAE
54 Stenothyra blanfordiana Nevill, 1880 Tripathy & Mukhopadhyay (2014)
55 Stenothyra deltae (Benson, 1836) Tripathy & Mukhopadhyay (2014)
56 Stenothyra foveolata Benson,1856 Tripathy & Mukhopadhyay (2014)
57 Stenothyra hungerfordiana Nevill,1880 Tripathy & Mukhopadhyay (2014)
504
Mollusca
Sl.
No.
58 Stenothyra minima (Sowerby,1837) Tripathy & Mukhopadhyay (2014)
59 Stenothyra nana Annandale and Prashad, Tripathy & Mukhopadhyay (2014)
1921
60 Stenothyra ornata Annandale and Tripathy & Mukhopadhyay (2014)
Prashad, 1921
61 Stenothyra soluta Annandale and Tripathy & Mukhopadhyay (2014)
Prashad, 1919
62 Stenothyra woodmasoniana Nevill, 1880 Tripathy & Mukhopadhyay (2014)
63 Gangetia miliacea (Nevill, 1880) Marshall & Bouchet (2016)
Family IRAVADIIDAE
64 Iravadia annandalei Preston, 1916 Tripathy & Mukhopadhyay (2014)
65 Iravadia ennurensis Preston, 1916 Tripathy & Mukhopadhyay (2014)
66 Iravadia funerea Preston, 1916 Tripathy & Mukhopadhyay (2014)
67 Iravadia princeps Preston, 1915 Tripathy & Mukhopadhyay (2014)
Family ASSIMINEIDAE
68 Assiminea francessi (Wood, 1828) Madhyastha & Daniel (2012)
Family THIARIDAE
69 Thiara amarula (Linnaeus,1758) Bouchet, P. (2015)
70 Thiara rudis (Lea,1850) Tripathy & Mukhopadhyay (2014)
71 Thiara scabra (Mueller, 1774) Glöer & Pešić(2012)
72 Sermyla riqueti (Grateloup,1840) Glaubrecht, et al. (2009).
73 Melanoides crebra Lea, 1850 Tripathy & Mukhopadhyay (2014)
74 Melanoides nevillei (Brot, 1874) Tripathy & Mukhopadhyay (2014)
75 Melanoides nicobarica (Moerch, 1859) Tripathy & Mukhopadhyay (2014)
76 Melanoides peddamunigalensis Ray and Tripathy & Mukhopadhyay (2014)
Roy Chowdhury
77 Melanoides tuberculata (Muller, 1774) Van Damme, & Lange, 2016.
78 Stenomelania aspirans (Hinds, 1874) Glaubrecht et al. (2009), Glaubrecht and
Podlacha (2010).
79 Stenomelania plicaria (Born, 1780) Glaubrecht and Podlacha (2010).
80 Stenomelania punctata (Lamarck, 1822) Glaubrecht and Podlacha (2010).
81 Stenomelania tortulosa (Bruguiere, 1789) Glaubrecht and Podlacha (2010).
82 Tarebia granifera (Lamarck, 1822) Pointier (ed.) (2015).
83 Tarebia lineata (Gray, 1828) Tripathy & Mukhopadhyay (2014)
84 Tarebia semigranosa (von dem Busch, Tripathy & Mukhopadhyay (2014)
1842)
Family-PACHYCHILIDAE
85 Faunus ater (Linnaeus,1758) Bouchet (2015)
86 Brotia fuscata (Born) Tripathy & Mukhopadhyay (2014)
505
Mukhopadhyay et al.
Sl.
No.
87 Brotia costula (Rafinesque, 1833) Bouchet (2015)
88 Paracrostoma huegelii (Philippi, 1841) Kohler and Glaubrecht (2007)
89 Paracrostoma martini Kohler and Kohler and Glaubrecht (2007)
Glaubrecht (2007)
90 Paracrostoma tigrina Kohler and Kohler and Glaubrecht (2007)
Glaubrecht (2007)
Family- PALUDOMIDAE
91 Paludomus annandalei Preston, 1909 Tripathy & Mukhopadhyay (2014)
92 Paludomus blanfordiana Nevill, 1877 Tripathy & Mukhopadhyay (2014)
93 Paludomus conica (Gray, 1834) Tripathy & Mukhopadhyay (2014)
var. kopilensis Nevill
94 Paludomus inflatus Brot, 1880 Tripathy & Mukhopadhyay (2014)
95 Paludomus obesus (Philippi, 1842) Tripathy & Mukhopadhyay (2014)
96 Paludomus ornatus Benson, 1856 Tripathy & Mukhopadhyay (2014)
97 Paludomus pustulosa Annandale, 1925 Tripathy & Mukhopadhyay (2014)
98 Paludomus regulata Benson, 1856 Tripathy & Mukhopadhyay (2014)
99 Paludomus reticulata Blanford, 1870 Tripathy & Mukhopadhyay (2014)
100 Paludomus rotunda Blanford, 1870 Tripathy & Mukhopadhyay (2014)
101 Paludomus stephanus (Benson, 1836) Tripathy & Mukhopadhyay (2014)
102 Paludomus transchauricus (Gmelin) Tripathy & Mukhopadhyay (2014)
103 Paludomus sulcatus Reeve, 1847 Tripathy & Mukhopadhyay (2014)
104 Paludomus stomatodon Benson, 1862 Tripathy & Mukhopadhyay (2014)
105 Paludomus loricatus Reeve, 1847 Tripathy & Mukhopadhyay (2014)
106 Paludomus neritoides Reeve, 1847 Tripathy & Mukhopadhyay (2014)
Order HYGROPHILA Tripathy & Mukhopadhyay (2014)
Family LYMNAEIDAE
107 Lymnaea stagnalis (Linnaeus, 1758) Tripathy & Mukhopadhyay (2014)
108 Radix acuminata (Lamarck, 1822) Tripathy & Mukhopadhyay (2014)
109 Radix biacuminata (Annandale and Rao, Tripathy & Mukhopadhyay (2014)
1925)
110 Lymnaea horae Annandale and Rao, 1925 Tripathy & Mukhopadhyay (2014)
111 Lymnaea kashmirensis Prashad,1925 Tripathy & Mukhopadhyay (2014)
112 Radix luteola (Lamarck, 1822) Tripathy & Mukhopadhyay (2014)
113 Radix ovalior (Annandale and Prashad, Tripathy & Mukhopadhyay (2014)
1921)
114 Lymnaea andersoniana (Nevill,1881) Tripathy & Mukhopadhyay (2014)
115 Orientogalba hookeri (Reeve, 1850) Tripathy & Mukhopadhyay (2014)
116 Galba truncatula (Mueller, 1774) Tripathy & Mukhopadhyay (2014)
117 Radix auricularia (Linnaeus, 1758) Tripathy & Mukhopadhyay (2014)
506
Mollusca
Sl.
No.
118 Radix brevicauda (Sowerby, 1873) Tripathy & Mukhopadhyay (2014)
119 Radix lagotis (Schrank, 1803) Tripathy & Mukhopadhyay (2014)
120 Radix persica (Issel, 1865) Tripathy & Mukhopadhyay (2014)
121 Stagnicola tungabhadraensis Ray, 1967 Tripathy & Mukhopadhyay (2014)
Family PHYSIDAE
122 Physa acuta Draparnaud, 1805 Tripathy & Mukhopadhyay (2014)
Family PLANORBIDAE Tripathy & Mukhopadhyay (2014)
123 Planorbis planorbis tangitarensis Tripathy & Mukhopadhyay (2014)
Germain, 1918
124 Planorbis rotundatus Poiret, 1801 Tripathy & Mukhopadhyay (2014)
125 Gyraulus barrackporensis (Clessin, 1886) Tripathy & Mukhopadhyay (2014)
126 Gyraulus convexiusculus (Hutton, 1849) Tripathy & Mukhopadhyay (2014)
127 Gyraulus euphraticus (Mousson, 1874) Tripathy & Mukhopadhyay (2014)
128 Gyraulus labiatus (Benson, 1850) Tripathy & Mukhopadhyay (2014)
129 Gyraulus ladacensis Nevill,1878 Tripathy & Mukhopadhyay (2014)
130 Gyraulus pankongensis (von Martens, Tripathy & Mukhopadhyay (2014)
1882)
131 Gyraulus rotula (Benson, 1850) Tripathy & Mukhopadhyay (2014)
132 Gyraulus saltensis Germain,1922 Tripathy & Mukhopadhyay (2014)
133 Gyraulus kosiensis Glöer P. & Bössneck Tripathy & Mukhopadhyay (2014)
U. 2013
Tribe Camptocerateae Tripathy & Mukhopadhyay (2014)
134 Camptoceras lineatum Blanford, 1871 Tripathy & Mukhopadhyay (2014)
135 Camptoceras subspinosum Annandale Tripathy & Mukhopadhyay (2014)
and Prashad, 1920
136 Camptoceras terebra Benson,1843 Tripathy & Mukhopadhyay (2014)
Tribe Segmentinineae Tripathy & Mukhopadhyay (2014)
137 Segmentina calatha (Benson,1850) Tripathy & Mukhopadhyay (2014)
138 Segmentina taia Annandale and Rao, Tripathy & Mukhopadhyay (2014)
1925
139 Segmentina trochoidea (Benson, 1836) Tripathy & Mukhopadhyay (2014)
140 Hippeutis complanatus (Linnaeus, 1758) Tripathy & Mukhopadhyay (2014)
141 Intha umbilicalis (Benson,1836) Tripathy & Mukhopadhyay (2014)
Subfamily BULLININAE
142 Indoplanorbis exustus (Deshayes, 1834) Tripathy & Mukhopadhyay (2014)
Subfamily BULLININAE Tripathy & Mukhopadhyay (2014)
143 Planorbella scalaris Jay, 1839 Tripathy & Mukhopadhyay (2014)
144 Planorbella duryi (Wetherby, 1879) Tripathy & Mukhopadhyay (2014)
507
Mukhopadhyay et al.
Sl.
No.
Subfamily FERRISSINAE
145 Ferrissia baconi (Bourguignat, 1853) Tripathy & Mukhopadhyay (2014)
146 Ferrissia ceylanica (Benson, 1864) Tripathy & Mukhopadhyay (2014)
147 Ferrissia tenuis (Bourguignat, 1862) Tripathy & Mukhopadhyay (2014)
148 Ferrissia verruca (Benson, 1855) Tripathy & Mukhopadhyay (2014)
149 Ferrissia viola Annandale and Prashad, Tripathy & Mukhopadhyay (2014)
1923
150 Ferrissia fivefallsiensis Sankarappan, Sankarappan et al., 2015
Chellapandian, Vimalanathan, Mani,
Sundaram & Muthukalingan 2015
Class BIVALVIA
Subclass PTERIOMORPHIA
Order ARCOIDA
Superfamily ARCOIDEA
Family ARCIDAE
151 Scaphula celox Benson, 1836 Graf & Cummings (2015)
152 Scaphula deltae Blanford, 1867 Huber (2010), Graf & Cummings (2015)
153 Scaphula nagarjunai Janaki Ram and Graf & Cummings (2015)
Radhakrishna, 1984
Subclass PALEOHETERODONTA
Order UNIONOIDA
Superfamily UNIONOIDEA
Family UNIONIDAE
Subfamily UNIONINAE
154 Arcidopsis footei (Theobald, 1876) Tripathy & Mukhopadhyay (2014)
155 Physunio velaris (Sowerby, 1868) Graf & Cummings (2015)
156 Scabies crispata (Gould, 1843) Graf & Cummings (2015)
157 Solenaia soleniformis (Benson, 1836) Graf & Cummings (2015)
Subfamily AMBLEMINAE (Quadrulinae) Graf & Cummings (2015)
Tribe Amblemini
158 Lamellidens consobrinus (Lea, 1859) Graf & Cummings (2015)
159 Lamellidens corrianus (Lea, 1834) Graf & Cummings (2015)
160 Lamellidens generosus (Gould, 1847) Graf & Cummings (2015)
161 Lamellidens jenkinsianus (Benson, 1862) Graf & Cummings (2015)
sub sp. daccaensis (Preston, 1912)
sub.sp. obesa (Hanley and Theobald, 1877)
162 Lamellidens marginalis (Lamarck, 1819) Graf & Cummings (2015)
508
Mollusca
Sl.
No.
163 Lamellidens phenchooganjensis Preston, Graf & Cummings (2015)
1912
164 Parreysia annandalei Preston, 1912 Graf & Cummings (2015)
165 Parreysia burmanus (Blanford, 1869) Graf & Cummings (2015)
166 Parreysia corbis (Benson, 1856) Graf & Cummings (2015)
167 Parreysia corrugata (Mueller, 1774) Graf & Cummings (2015)
168 Parreysia favidens (Benson, 1862) Graf & Cummings (2015)
169 Parreysia gowhattensis (Theobald, 1873) Graf & Cummings (2015)
170 Parreysia rajahensis (Lea, 1841) Graf & Cummings (2015)
171 Parreysia sikkimensis (Lea, 1859) Graf & Cummings (2015)
172 Parreysia smaragdites (Benson, 1862) Graf & Cummings (2015)
173 Parreysia triembolus (Benson, 1855) Graf & Cummings (2015)
174 Radiatula andersoniana (Nevill, 1877) Graf & Cummings (2015)
175 Radiatula bonneaudi (Eydoux, 1838) Graf & Cummings (2015)
176 Radiatula caerulea (Lea, 1831) Graf & Cummings (2015)
177 Radiatula cylindrica Annandale and Graf & Cummings (2015)
Prashad, 1919
178 Radiatula involuta (Benson, 1856) Graf & Cummings(2015)
179 Radiatula khadakvaslaensis (Ray, 1966) Graf & Cummings (2015)
180 Radiatula lima (Simpson, 1900) Graf & Cummings (2015)
181 Radiatula nuttalliana (Lea, 1856) Graf & Cummings (2015)
182 Radiatula occata (Lea, 1860) Graf & Cummings (2015)
183 Radiatula olivaria (Lea, 1831) Graf & Cummings (2015)
184 Radiatula pachysoma (Benson, 1862) Graf & Cummings (2015)
185 Radiatula shurtleffiana (Lea, 1856) Graf & Cummings (2015)
186 Radiatula theobaldi (Preston, 1912) Graf & Cummings (2015)
187 Lamellidens exolescens (Gould, 1843) Konopleva et al., (‎2016)
Superfamily MUTELOIDEA
Family ETHERIIDAE
188 Pseudomulleria dalyi (E.A. Smith) Bogan (2010), Graf & Cummings (2015)
Subclass HETERODONTA
Super order IMPERIDENTIA
Superfamily MACTRODEA
Family SOLINIDAE
189 Neosolen aquaedulcioris Ghosh, 1920 Huber (2010)
Super order IMPERIDENTIA
Superfamily MACTRODEA
Family MACTRIDAE
190 Tanysiphon rivalis Benson, 1858 Huber, (2010), Rosenberg (2015)
509
Mukhopadhyay et al.
Sl.
No.
Superfamily SOLENOIDEA
Family PHARIDAE
Subfamily NOVACULININAE
191 Novaculina gangetica Benson, 1830 Rosenberg, (2015), Graf & Cumming
(2015)
192 Novaculina andamanensis Preston,1910 Bogan (2010),Graf & Cummings (2015)
Superfamily CORBICULOIDEA
Family CYRENIDAE
193 Corbicula annandalei Prashad, 1928 Graf & Cummings (2015)
194 Corbicula assamensis Prashad, 1928 Graf & Cummings (2015)
195 Corbicula bensoni Deshayes, 1854 Graf & Cummings (2015)
196 Corbicula cashmiriensis Deshayes, 1854 Graf & Cummings (2015)
197 Corbicula krishnaea Ray, 1967 Graf & Cummings (2015)
198 Corbicula peninsularis Prashad, 1928 Madhyastha (2014)
199 Corbicula striatella Deshayes, 1854 Graf & Cummings (2015)
200 Batissa inflata Prime, 1860 Rosenberg (2015)
201 Batissa similis Prime, 1859 Rosenberg (2015)
202 Batissa violacea Prime, 1859 Rosenberg (2015)
203 Geloina bengalensis (Lamarck) Do, Budha & Daniel (2012)
204 Geloina erosa (Solander, 1786) Bouchet (2014), He & Zhuang. 2013
205 Villorita cornucopia Prashad, 1921 OBIS (2012), Bogan (2010), Graf &
Cummings (2015)
206 Villorita corbiculoides Prashad, 1927 Graf & Cummings (2015)
207 Villorita cyprinoides (Gray, 1925) Madhyastha, 2011
Family PISIDIIDAE (Sphaeriidae)
208 Pisidium casertanum (Poli, 1791) Clewing et al. (2013), Graf & Cumming
(2015)
209 Pisidium clarkeanum G. and H. Nevill, Bolotov et al. (2015), Bogan (2010), Graf &
1871 Cummings (2015)
210 Pisidium ellisi Dance, 1967 Bogan (2010), Graf & Cummings (2015)
211 Pisidium nevillianum Theobald, 1876 Bogan (2010), Clewing et al. (2013:250),
Bolotov et al. (2015), Graf & Cummings
(2015)
212 Pisidium mitchelli Prashad, 1925 Bogan (2010), Graf& Cummings(2015)
213 Pisidium atkinsonianum Theobald, 1876. Clewing et al. (2013:250), Bogan (2010),
Graf & Cummings (2015)
510
Mollusca
Sl.
No.
214 Pisidium kuiperi Dance, 1967. Clewing et al. (2013:250), Bogan (2010),
Graf & Cummings (2015)
215 Sphaerium austeni Prashad, 1921 Bogan (2010), Graf & Cummings (2015)
216 Sphaerium indicum Deshayes, 1854 Bogan (2010), Graf & Cummings (2015)
217 Sphaerium kashmirensis Prashad, 1937 Bogan (2010), Graf & Cummings (2015)
Status of freshwater Molluscs in India:

Tripathy and Mukhopadhyay (2014) have documented 208 species of freshwater
molluscs from India. In the presently updated work, nine species of mollusca
have been added making the total documentation of 217 species of freshwater
mollusca known from India. In India, the distribution of some of the freshwater
Molluscs show discontinuous range. Some the species of gastropods viz.
Angulyagra oxytropis, A. microchaetophora, Filopaludina bengalensis f. balteata,
Pila theobaldi, Lymnaea ovalior, L. horae,Paludomus oricatus, P.stephanus, P.
reticulata, P. pustulosa, P. ornatus, P. conica v. kopiliensis ,Taia crassicallosa,
Bithynia textum, Pila theobaldi, and Corbicula assamensis, Parreysia theobaldi,
P. burmanus, P. nuttalliana, P. involuta, P. smaragdites, P. gowhattensis, P. corbis,
Lamellideus exolescens, Sphaerium austeni, S. kuiperi, Camptoceras lineatum,
Solenaia soleniformis, Scabis crispata,Physania velaris, Lamellidens jenkinsianus
subspecies obesa, L. phenchooganjensis, and Ferrissia viola are the bivalves which
are exclusively distributed in the North eastern region of India. Their restricted
distribution makes them vulnerable, threat prone and very rare.
Species viz. Bithynia troscheli, Hippeutis complanatus, Gyraulus pankogensis,
Planorbis rotundatus, P. tangitarensis, Radix auricularia, R. brevicauda, R. lagotis
f. (form) costulata, R. lagotis f. defilippi, R. lagotis f. solidissima, R. lagotis f. striata,
Galba truncatula, Bithynia tentaculata kashmirensis, Lymnaea stagnalis,Valvate
piscinalis are the gastropods and Sphaerium mitchelli, S. kashmirensis, Pisidium
casertanum and Corbicula cashmiriensis are the bivalves which show restricted
distribution from high altitude lakes, rivers of Jammu and Kashmir.
Some water bodies of Andaman and Nicobar Islands having fresh and
estuarine waters which are the home of some isolated species and are no longer
reported from the main land of India. We may call them as “exclusive Islands
species”. Potamopyrgus nevilli, Tarebia semigranosa, Stenomelania punctata,
S plicaria, S. aspirans, Melanoides nicobarica, M. nevilli, M. crebra, Thiara
amarula, Stenothyra hangerfordiana, Neritodryas subsulcuta, Neritina variegata,
N. turrita, Segmintina taia , Septaria porcellana, Theodoxus reticularis, T.bicolor
are the gastropods and Battissa similis, Batissa violeciea and Batissa inflata
are the bivalves which are restricted in their distribution within Andaman and
Nicobar group of Islands.
The Gangetic basin of West Bengal also shows isolated distribution of
esturine and freshwater molluscs. Novaculina gangetica, Tanysiphon rivalis,
511
Mukhopadhyay et al.
are the bivalves and Stenothyra woodmasoniana, S. solata, S. ornata, S. nana,

S. deltae, Iravadia princeps, Assiminea francesi, Neritina smithi, Pila globosa,
Pila incrassatula, Mainwaringia paludomoidea are the gastropods which have
restricted distribution from West Bengal only.
Some of the species viz. Lymnaea brevissima, Paludomus obesus, P. inflatus,
Physa acuta, Cremnoconchus conicus, C. carinatus, C. syhadrensis and Bithynia
everzardi are the gastropods and Parreysia khadakvaslaensis and Parreysia
cylindrical are bivalves reported from Maharastra.
Kerala backwaters, a unique, area is also home to some restricted species such as
Paludomus neritoides, P.stomatodom, P. sulcatus, P. annandalei, Iravadia funereal,
I. annandalei, Villorita cornucopia and V. prasadhi, which are not reported from
other parts of India. Species such as Ferrissia tenuis from Nilgiri Hills, Stagnicola
tugabhadraensis from Kurnool, Scaphula nagarjunai from Andha Pradesh,
Faunus ater from Goa and Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Iravadia ennurensis
from Tamil Nadu have restricted distribution. As a whole Western Ghats, a unique
biodiversity hotspot have the representation of 77 species of freshwater molluscs
of which Arcidopsis footei, Paludomus inflatus, Pila saxea, Neritina perottetiana,
Neritna platyconche, N. reticulata, Paracrostoma tigrina, Paracrostoma martini,
Cremnochonchus sp. and Psedomulleria dalyii are some of the species which are
endemic to this region. Pseudomullaria dalyii (Family: Etheridae), an endemic,
cemented bivalve confined to a couple of rivers in the central Western Ghats, is a
rare Gondwana land relict found in Western Ghats (Madhyastha, 2001). Some of
the species are only known from their type localities and are represented by only a
few species; further data regarding their population, biology, ecology, vulnerability
and rarity are not much unknown. Corbicula krishnaea from Krishna river, C.
annandalei from Kerala backwater, Tricula graveli from the bed of Narmada river
near Hosangabad of Madhya Pradesh, (Ramkrishna et al., 2007) Bellamya micron,
Filopaulodina bengalensis f. colairensis from Kolleru lake and Gyraulus saltensis
from Punjab are some of the examples .
An analysis of the endemism of freshwater molluscs in India reveals that
49 species are endemic to India, of which 33 are gastropods and 14 are bivalves;
02 species are endemic to Andhra Pradesh, 01 to Punjab, 07 to Assam, 03 to
Manipur, 01 to Megalaya, 02 to Mizoram, 13 to West Bengal, 02 to Tamil Nadu, 06
to Maharastra, 03 to Andaman and Nicobar Islands, 05 to Kerala backwater and
04 to Jammu and Kashmir. Arvind et al. (2010) documented a total of 60 species of
freshwater molluscs comprising 52 gastropods (12 families and 23 genera) and 25
bivalve species (five families and eight genera), of which 28 species are endemic to
this region. But actually, the number is not as high as documented by the earlier
authors.
Conservation Status
We present a summary which is based on the assessment of IUCN Red List
Categories and Criteria (IUCN 2001). Of the 217 species of freshwater molluscs
identified as being present in India, 107 species are gastropods and 59 species
are bivalves; 08 of the extant species do not have sufficient data to assess their
risk of threats including extinction. According to a report of IUCN, seven species
512
Mollusca
(12%) are assessed as threatened which are Cremnochonchus syhadrensis, C.

carrinatus, Arcidopsis footei, Pseudomulleria dalyi are assessed as endangered and
Cremnochonchus conicus, Parreysia khadakvasiensis and scaphula nagarjunai are
assessed as vulnerable. However, majority (88%) are assessed as Least Concern
(Arvind et al., 2010).
Table 2. The number of species of freshwater molluscs under each IUCN Red
List Category in the Indian Region
IUCN Red List category Number of Species

Extinct 0
Extinct in Wild 0
Critically Endangered 0
Endangered 3
Vulnerable 3
Near Threatened 1
Least Concern 119
Data Deficient 38
Total 216
Table 3. The number of species of freshwater gastropods under each

IUCN Red List Category in the Indian Region.

Extinct 0
Extinct in Wild 0
Endangered 2
Vulnerable 1
Near Threatened 0
Least Concern 75
Data Deficient 27
Total 149
Table 4. The threatened freshwater gastropods in the Indian assessment region
Family Species Category

Lymnaeidae Lymnaea ovalior VU
Littorinidae Cremnoconchus conicus/ EN
Cremnoconchus carinatus
Littorinidae Cremnoconchus syhadrensis EN
513
Mukhopadhyay et al.
Table 5. The number of species of freshwater bivalves under each

IUCN Red List Category in the Indian Region.

Extinct 0
Extinct in Wild 0
Endangered 1
Vulnerable 2
Near Threatened 1
Least Concern 44
Data Deficient 11
Total 67
Table 6. The threatened freshwater bivalves in the Indian assessment region.

Family Species Category
ARCIDAE Scaphula nagarjunai VU
UNIONIDAE Parreysia khadakvasiensis VU
ETHERIIDAE Pseudomulleria dalyi EN
PISIIDAE Sphaerium austeni NT
Table 7. State wise distribution of freshwater molluscs in India
Sl.
States Families Genera Species %
No.
1 Andaman & Nicobar Islands 10 20 51 25.24
2 West Bengal 14 21 65 32.17
3 Bihar 13 19 55 27.22
4 Odisha 11 16 40 19.80
5 Andhra Pradesh 13 24 43 21.28
6 Kerala 13 23 60 29.70
7 Maharashtra 10 19 60 29.70
8 Jammu and Kashmir 8 16 35 17.32
9 Delhi 9 12 17 8.41
10 Madhya Pradesh 7 7 25 12.37
11 Jharkhand 9 8 23 11.38
12 Sikkim 5 5 9 4.45
13 Arunachal Pradesh 4 5 5 (partly 2.4
Worked out)
14 Meghalaya 10 14 43 21.28
514
Mollusca
Sl.
States Families Genera Species %
No.
15 Manipur 11 16 52 26
16 Nagaland 9 16 21 10.5
17 Rajasthan 6 8 13 6.4
18 Tripura 8 14 30 14.85
As vectors, freshwater molluscs are instrumental in the transmission of
many diseases in livestock and human. They are the intermediate host of many
trematodes, of which schistosomiasis is reckoned as a potential threat to human
population. On the other hand many larval bivalves are parasitic on gills of fishes
(Ramakrisha and Dey, 2007).
Table 8. Gastropod species and nematode disease hosts
Species Diseases
Melanoides tuberculata Paragonimiasis, Echinostomiasis, Heterophyiasis
Tarebia granifera Paragonimiasis, Echinostomiasis
Thiara scabra Paragonimiasis, Echinostomiasis
Brotia costula Paragonimiasis, Echinostomiasis
Indoplanorbis exustus Cercarial Dermatitis, Echinostomiasis,
Amphistomiasis
Gyraulus convexiusculus Echinostomiasis, Amphistomiasis
Intha umbilicalis Fasiolopsiasis (Fasiolopsis buski)
Radix acuminata Schistosomiasis (Schistosoma spindale)
Radix luteola Schistosomiasis (Schistosoma indicum)
Bithynia pulchella Amphistomiasis
Lymnaea auricularia Schistosomiasis (Orientobitahszia turkestanicum),
Amphistomiasis
Ferrisia tenuis Schistosomiasis (Schistosoma haematobium)
Conservation issues
Information on population (wild stocks) sizes and levels of exploitation is too poor
to determine whether or not particular species are being seriously over-exploited.
Data on the life history, abundance, productivity and rates of exploitation from
specific localities are required for every species involved in the shell trade. However,
anecdotal evidence suggests that conservation problems are on the increase
and makes it possible to predict which areas and species are most vulnerable.
Depletion of mollusca population appears to be occurring on a local basis in India.
Population of molluscs in accessible areas especially close to tourist centers are
more vulnerable to over-collection than those in remote areas. There are several
reports of over-collecting of freshwater mollusca in West Bengal in areas where
collectors concentrate their efforts in order to meet tourist demand.
515
Mukhopadhyay et al.
Most nonmarine molluscs produce numerous planktonic larvae with great

dispersal capacity and these species are to a great extent able to withstand high
levels of harvesting. However, in some states, collection pressure may be so heavy
that even these species are under the threat of over-exploition. Species with
less “opportunistic” life histories are clearly more vulnerable. There are many
generalizations about organism which appear to be extinction-prone. Some of the
characteristics are :
1. The “basket cases” animals and plants reroute to extinction as a result of
natural causes;
2. K –selected species, that is, those with long lives and low fecundity;
3. Species which live on islands;
4. Species with long geographical ranges;
5. Species near the top of the pyramid of biomass or at the end of food chain;
6. Species with little or no power of dispersal;
7. Species with large body size;
8. Species requiring climax vegetation;
9. Species with small populations and
10. Species with specialized niches.(Kay,1986)
The listed characteristics, which emerge from a variety of studies of rare and
endangered species, serve as a profile for each group of organism. Several edible
and commercial species falls under the category of geographically widespread
species heavily exploited throughout their range. They demonstrate how heavy
demand and intensive fishing can have a considerable impact on population as
a whole, even though the species themselves are not at risk of extinction. Many
species of “ornamental” freshwater mollusca have a restricted geographical range
and are therefore vulnerable to over-collection, particularly if they occur in shallow
waters. The likelihood of populations being adversely affected is also increased if
the species concerned has a natural low population density and/or low reproductive
potential. Some shells have become important not simply because of their shape
or beautiful colour, but because of their rarity in nature. In some cases rarity may
be a genuine reflection of population densities in the wild. In other cases, a species
may be rare in trade simply because the bulk of the population is inaccessible.
Summary
Freshwater molluscan fauna in India is very rich and forms an important part of
biodiversity, comprising about 217 described species of snails. Almost all these
species are native to India, and half of them i.e. nearly 118 species are endemic.
Some freshwater and land molluscs which are not truly native to India viz. Physa
acuta, which is an exotic species or an invasive alien species, is also known recently
from India. They have become a serious pest and cause a great damage to crops and
vegetables. Recently three other exotic species viz. Planorbella duryi, Planorbella
scalaris and Pomacea diffusa have been introduced into freshwater bodies of India.
The threats from them on native species are either scarce or not adequately known,
516
Mollusca
Fig. 1 Fig. 2
Fig. 3 Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 1-2. Dorsal and Ventral view of alien invasive species Planorbella scalaris
(Jay, 1839)
Fig. 3-4. Dorsal and ventral view of Physella acuta Draparnaud; Fig. 5 Dorsal and
ventral view of Pomacea diffusa Blume, 1957
517
Mukhopadhyay et al.
Fig. 6. Planorbella duryi Top view Fig. 7. Planorbella duryi Ventral view
and if they are not eradicated in time, they may alter the ecological niche of native
species, eradicating them from their natural habitats.
Other ecological problems
Various activities connected with shell collecting can alter or degrade habitats.
Common type of disturbance includes trampling and rock removal. Flow
modification of river for construction of dam and other purposes are the threat for
freshwater molluscs in India. Little attention has been paid to the consequences
of selective removal of shells from the ecosystem as a whole, but problems exist.
It has been observed in the exploration studies that the number of freshwater
molluscs are reducing at alarming rate at polluted sites (Waghmare et al.2012,
Verma and Saksena 2010).
Conservation measures
It is very much clear that conservation of freshwater invertebrates, including
snails face particular challenges as a result of lack of awareness on the magnitude
of their importance to ecosystems and human livelihoods (Dudgeon 2000a). The
assessment of the impact of threats to molluscan biodiversity is further complicated
by limited knowledge of freshwater mollusc fauna in the region. From the current
assessment, we can anticipate a loss in biodiversity and gradual homogenization
of the regional biota unless conservation action is put in place (Kholer et al.
2012). Reversal of these trends will require a change of focus by limnologists and
water-resource managers, and also the urgent adoption of a conservation agenda
in freshwater science in Asia (Dudgeon 2000a, Dudgeon et al., 2006). There are
several courses of action that can be taken to control trade in shells, and thus avoid
overexploitation and habitat damage. Conservation problems should not exist if
the fisheries are properly managed on an ecologically sound, sustainable yield-
basis. Producer countries can implement management programmes and control
exports, and importing countries can control imports. The problems would also be
lessened if demand for ornamental shells declined. A greater “public” awareness of
the conservation issues could help in this respect.
A number of shells producing countries are now introducing legislation to
control exports of shells. Exports may be controlled through a permit system, by
prohibiting export of particular species or of unworked shells etc. In India twenty
four species of molluscs are under Wild life Protection Act, 1972, but not any one
518
Mollusca
of them from freshwater mollusca. But it is needed to include some of the endemic
and isolated species of freshwater molluscs under this act to prohibit elimination
of such species from nature. Legislation prohibiting the export of unworked
shells is beneficial to the country concerned because it encourages the shell craft
industry which is labour intensive and increases the export value of the shells.
General awareness can be increased through various seminars, symposium, short
documentary films, training programmes etc. to make aware the common people,
college students, school children and the enforcement departmental personnel and
forest managers about the conservation of molluscs and the role or significance of
molluscs in the ecosystems. Power of knowledge exercised by the common people is
evidently a great tool for conservation of nature and natural resources. Freshwater
molluscs species viz., Batissa spp, Parreysia spp, Lamelliens spp, Corbicula spp,
Villorita cornucopia and Villoritta cyprinoides are extensively used as food and sold
by low income groups for whom freshwater resources are often vital importance in
sustaining livelihood and food security. For example the Andaman tribe, Zaroas
often use Batissa spp. as a staple food in their everyday meal. Shell fishes are
consumed throughout North East India. The community people with fishing
villages around Vembanad Lake in Kerala are involved in the black calm fishery
(Villorita cornucopia and V. cyprinoides). For most people in these villages, the
black clam is their main source of income (Kripa et al., 2004).
Taxonomic research is central to ecological studies and conservation, but
it is one of the most neglected disciplines, especially in biodiversity rich areas.
Many type localities need to be resurveyed to confirm if described, range-restricted
freshwater molluscs are still present or have already become extinct and to confirm
the taxonomic status of the previously described species. The lack of trained
malacologists and funding has greatly hampered research on freshwater molluscs.
Except for a few commonly occurring species, information on ecology, population
structure and dynamics, distribution, and habitat preference of a great many
species are not known.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We are thankful to the Director, Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata for permission
for publishing this work and for accessing the National Zoological Collections at
the Mollusca Section of Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata and for encouragement
and support.
Refferences
Aravind N.A, Madhyastha, N. A, Rajendra, G.M and Anirudha, D. 2010.The status
and distribution of freshwater molluscs of the Western Ghats, IUCN.
Anbalagan Sankarappan1, Balachandran Chellapandian2, Arun Prasanna
Vimalanathan, Kannan Mani, Dinakaran Sundaram & Krishnan
Muthukalingan 2015. Vector ecology of human schistosomiasis in south
India and description of anew species of the genus Ferrissia (Mollusca:
Gastropoda: Planorbidae), J Vector Borne Dis 52, September 2015, pp. 201-
207.
519
Mukhopadhyay et al.
Balian, E.V., Segers, H., Laveeque, C. & K Martens, 2008. The freshwater Animal
Diversity Assessment an overview of the results. Hydrobiologia, 595: 627-
637.
Bojan, J. 1984. Export of clam meat. Fishing Chi., May, 1984: 26-30.
Bogan, A.E. 2010. Mollusca-Bivalvia checklist. Freshwater Animal Biodiversity
Project.
Bolotov, I., Y. Bespalaya, O. Aksenova, N. Bolotov, M. Gofarov et al., 2015. First
record of Pisidium nevillianum Theobald, 1876 (Bivalvia: Sphaeriidae) from
Myanmar. Ruthenica, 25(1): 19-23.
Boominathan, M.; Ravikumar, G.; Subash Chandran, M.D. & Ramachandra,
T.V. 2012. Mangrove Associated Molluscs of India. Lake 2012, National
Conference on Conservation and Management of Wetland Ecosystems. pp.
1-11.
Bouchet Philippe, Rocroi Jean-Pierre. 2005. Classification and nomenclator of
gastropod families. Malacologia, 7: 1-3497.
Bouchet, P. (2013). Bithynia pulchella (Benson, 1836). In: MolluscaBase (2017).
Accessed through: World Register of Marine Species at http://www.
marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=ntaxdetails&id=
Bouchet, P. (2013). Bithynia stenothyroides (Dohrn, 1857). In: MolluscaBase
(2017). Accessed through: World Register of Marine Species at http://www.
marinespecies.org/naphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=736109.
Bouchet, P. (2017). Filopaludina bengalensis (Lamarck, 1822). In: MolluscaBase
marinespecies.org/ aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=827331.
Bouchet, P. (2016). Ferrissia verruca (Benson, 1855). In: MolluscaBase (2017).
marinespecies.org/traits/ aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=875620 on 2017-05-
04.
Bouchet, P. (2013). Indoplanorbis exustus (Deshayes, 1834). In: MolluscaBase
marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=716351.
Bouchet, P. (2016). Neripteron violaceum (Gmelin, 1791). In: MolluscaBase
Bouchet, P. (2013). Tricula montana Benson, 1843. In: MolluscaBase (2017).
marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=740266 on 2017-03-15.
Bouchet, P. (2016). Vittina variegata (Lesson, 1831). In: MolluscaBase (2017).
Bouchet, P. (2015). Idiopoma dissimilis (O. F. Müller, 1774). In: MolluscaBase
520
Mollusca
Bouchet, Philippe; Rocroi, Jean-Pierre; Bieler, Rüdiger; Carter, Joseph G.; Coan,
Eugene V. (2010). Nomenclator of Bivalve Families with a Classification of
Bivalve Families».Malacologia, 52(2): 1-184.
Brandt R.A.M. 1974. The non-marine aquatic Mollusca of Thailand. Archiv für
Molluskenkunde, 105: i-iv, 1-423.
Budha, P.B. 2010. Gyraulus barrackporensis. The IUCN Red List of Threatened
Species 2010:e.T166749A6274840. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.
UK.2010-4.RLTS.T166749A6274840.en.
Budha, P.B. & Madhyastha, A. 2010. Bellamya crassispiralis. The IUCN Red List
of Threatened Species 2010: e.T166769A6279338. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/
IUCN.UK.2010-4.RLTS.T166769A6279338.en.
Budha, P.B. 2010. Gyraulus euphraticus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species
2010:e.T166755A6276208. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2010-4.
RLTS.T166755A6276208. en.
Budha, P.B. 2010. Intha umbilicalis. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species
RLTS.T166258A6191886.en.
Budha, P.B. & Daniel, B.A. 2010. Mekongia crassa. The IUCN Red List of
Threatened Species 2010: e.T166799A6286254. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/
IUCN.UK.2010-4.RLTS.T166799A6286254.en.
Budha, P.B. 2010. Segmentina trochoidea. The IUCN Red List of Threatened
Species 2010:e.T166803A6287115. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.
UK.2010-4.RLTS.T166803A6287115.en.
Do, V., Budha, P.B. & Daniel, B.A. 2012. Polymesoda bengalensis. The IUCN
Red List of Threatened Species 2012: e.T166774A1141971. http://dx.doi.
org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2012-1.RLTS.T166774A1141971.en. Downloaded
on 14 March 2017.
Clewing, C., U. Bössneck, P.V.v. Oheimb & C. Albrecht. 2013. Molecular phylogeny
and biogeography of a high mountain bivalve fauna: The Sphaeriidae of the
Tibetan Plateau. Malacologia, 56(1-2): 231-252.
Cordeiro, J. & Perez, K. 2011. Planorbella scalaris. The IUCN Red List of
IUCN.UK.2011-2.RLTS.T189326A8716640.en.
Cowie R.H. (2015). The recent apple snails of Africa and Asia (Mollusca:
Gastropoda: Ampullariidae:
Afropomus, Forbesopomus, Lanistes, Pila,
Saulea): a nomenclatural and type catalogue. The apple snails of the
Americas: addenda and corrigenda. 3940(1): 1-92.
Zootaxa.,
Dey, Anirudha 2008. Commercial and Medicinal Important Molluscs of Sunderbans,
India. Rec. zool. Surv. India, Occ. Paper No. 286: 1-54.
Dudgeon, D. 2000a. Conservation of freshwater biodiversity in Oriental Asia:
constraints, conflicts, and challenges to science and sustainability.
Limnology, 1: 237-243.
521
Mukhopadhyay et al.
Dudgeon, D., Arthington, A.H., Gessner, M.O., Kawabata, Z.-I.,Knowler, D.J.,

Lévêque, C., Naiman, R.J., Prieur-Richard, A.-H., Soto, D., Stiassny, M.L.J.
and Sullivan, C.A. 2006. Freshwaterbiodiversity: importance, threats,
status and conservation challenges. Biological Reviews, 81: 163-182.
David G. Reid. (2010). Mainwaringia leithii (E. A. Smith, 1876). In: MolluscaBase
marinespecies.org /aphia.php?p=taxdetails &id=446280
Eichhorst T.E. (2016). Neritidae of the world. Volume 1. Harxheim: Conchbooks.
695 pp.
Graf D., Cummings S. The Freshwater Mussels (Unionoida) of the World (and
other less consequential bivalves), updated 8th August 2015, MUSSEL
Project Web Site, http://www.mussel-project.net/ [9] Simpson CT.A
descriptive catalogue of the naiades, or pearly fresh-water mussels. Bryant
Walker, Detroit.
Glaubrecht M., Brinkmann N. & Pöppe J. (2009). Diversity and disparity ‘down
under’: Systematics, biogeography and reproductive modes of the ‘marsupial’
freshwater Thiaridae (Caenogastropoda, Cerithioidea) in Australia.
Zoosystematics and Evolution, 85(2): 199-275.
Glaubrecht, M. and Podlacha, K. 2010. Freshwater gastropods from early voyages
into the Indo-West Pacific: The ‘melaniids’ (Cerithioidea, Thiaridae) from
the French ‘La Coquille ’ circumnavigation, 1822-1825. Zoosystematics and
Evolution, 86: 185-211.
Glöer P. & Bössneck U. (2013) Freshwater molluscs from Nepal and North
India with the description of seven new species (Gastropoda: Bithyniidae,
Lymnaeidae, Planorbidae). Archiv für Molluskenkunde, 142(1): 137-156.
[28 June 2013].
Glöer P., Falniowski A. & Szarowska M. (2006) Bithynia leachii (Sheppard 1823)
and B. troschelii (Paasch 1842), two distinct species? Heldia, 6(1-2): 21-28.
Glöer P. & Pešić V. (2012) The freshwater snails (Gastropoda) of Iran, with
descriptions of two new genera and eight new species. ZooKeys, 219: 11-61.
[4 September 2012]
Haynes, A. 2005. An evaluation of members of the genera Clithon Montfort,
1810 and Neritina Lamarck 1816 (Gastropoda: Neritidae). Molluscan
Research, 25(2): 75-84.
Huber, M. (2010). Compendium of bivalves. A full-color guide to 3,300 of the
world’s marine bivalves. A status on Bivalvia after 250 years of research.
Hackenheim: ConchBooks. 901 pp., 1 CD-ROM.
IUCN. 2001. IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria: Version 3.1. IUCN Species
Survival Commission. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.
Kay E. Alison, 1986 Which molluscs for extension? Proceedings of a Symposium
held at the 9th International Malacological Congress, Edinburg, Scotland.
Occasional Paper of the IUCN Species Survival Commission No. 9.
522
Mollusca
Kohler, F. and Glaubrecht. M, 2007. Out of Asia and into India : on the molecular
phylogeny and biogeography of the endemic freshwater gastropod
Paracrostoma Crossmann, 1900. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society,
2007,91: 627-651.
Köhler, F; Seddon, M; Bogan, A.E.; Do V.T.; Sri-Aroon, P; Allen, D. 2012. Chapter
4. The status and distribution of freshwater molluscs of the Indo-Burma
region. unknown (ed). pp 66-88 In he status and distribution of freshwater
biodiversity in Indo-Burma. IUCN.
Köhler, F. & Rintelen, T. 2011. Neritina perottetiana. The IUCN Red List of
Threatened Species 2011: e.T175084A7095103. http:// dx.doi.org/ 10.2305/
IUCN. UK. 2011-2.RLTS.T175084A7095103.
Konopleva. Ekaterina S. Ivan N. Bolotov, Ilya V. Vikhrev, Mikhail Y.
Gofarov & Alexander V. Kondakov 2016. An integrative approach
underscores the taxonomic status of Lamellidens exolescens, a freshwater
mussel from the Oriental tropics (Bivalvia: Unionidae), Journal Systematics
and Biodiversity Volume 15, 2017 - Issue 3 Pages 204-217.
Kripa, V., Velayudhan, T.S., Shoji, J., Alloy-cious, P.S.,Radhakrishnan, P.
and Sharma, J. 2004. Clam fisheriesin Vembanad Lake, Kerala, with
observations on theSocioeconomic conditions of the clam fishers. Marine
Fisheries Information Service. T and E Series No. 178, p. 14,15, and 16.
Kulkarni S. & Khot R. (2015). Neosataria, replacement name for Sataria Annandale,
1920 (Mollusca: Gastropoda: Bithyniidae), preoccupied by Sataria Roewer,
1915 (Arachnida: Opiliones: Sclerosomatidae). Zootaxa, 3974(4): 599-600.
Low M.E.Y., Tan S.K. & Ng T.H. (2013) Pila conica (Wood, 1828), or Pila scutara
(Mousson, 1848)? The correct name for the native apple snail of Singapore
(Gastropoda: Ampullariidae). Nature in Singapore, 6: 55-60., available
online at http://rmbr.nus.edu.sg/nis/bulletin2013/2013nis055-060.pdf
Lu H.-F., Du L.-N., Li Z.-Q., Chen X.-Y. & Yang J.-X. (2014). Morphological analysis
of the Chinese Cipangopaludina species (Gastropoda; Caenogastropoda;
Viviparidae). Zoological Research, 35(6): 510-527.
Marshall, B.; Bouchet, P. (2016). Gangetia miliacea (G. Nevill, 1880). In: Mollusca
Base (2017). Accessed through: World Register of Marine Species at http://
www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=767299
Madhyastha, A. 2010. Camptoceras terebra. The IUCN Red List of Threatened
Species 2010: e.T166762A6277951. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.
2010-4.RLTS.T166762A6277951.en.
Madhyastha, A. & Daniel, B.A. 2012. Assiminea francesiae. The IUCN Red List
of Threatened Species 2012: e.T166800A1142494. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/
IUCN.UK.2012-1.RLTS.T166800A1142494.en.
Madhyastha, A. & Daniel, B.A. 2010. Bithynia textum. The IUCN Red List of
IUCN.UK.2010-4.RLTS.T166736A6271899.en.
523
Mukhopadhyay et al.
Madhyastha, A. 2011. Gabbia travancorica. The IUCN Red List of Threatened

2011-1.RLTS.T175087A7095499.en.
Madhyastha, A. & Daniel, B.A. 2010. Pila theobaldi. The IUCN Red List of
IUCN.UK.2010-4.RLTS.T166730A6270582.en.
Madhyastha, A. & Daniel, B.A. 2010. Pila theobaldi. The IUCN Red List of
IUCN.UK.2010-4.RLTS.T166730A6270582.en.
Madhyastha, N.A. 2001. Pseudomulleria dalyi (Acostea dalyi): a rare cemented
bivalve of Western Ghats. Zoos’ Print Journal 16:573.
Madhyastha, A. 2011. Villorita cyprinoides. The IUCN Red List of Threatened
2011-1.RLTS.T175076A7112167.en.
Madhyastha, A. 2014. Corbicula peninsularis. The IUCN Red List of Threatened
2014-1.RLTS.T175079A1418523.en
Magare, S.R. 2013. New record of Exotic Species of a Snail, Planorbella Duryi form
Seminolis in India. Jan-Feb, 2015, Vol-III/XVI www.srjis.com Page 2785-
2787.
Marshall, B.; Bouchet, P. (2017). Physa acuta Draparnaud, 1805. In: MolluscaBase
marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=819960 on 2017-05-03
Neubauer, Thomas A.; Bouchet, P. (2014). Hippeutis complanatus (Linnaeus, 1758).
In: MolluscaBase (2017). Accessed through: World Register of Marine Species
at http://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=716353
Neubauer, Thomas A.; Rosenberg, G.; Bouchet, P. (2015). Valvata piscinalis. In:
MolluscaBase (2017). Accessed through: World Register of Marine Species
at http://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=153998
Pointier J.P. (ed.). (2015). Freshwater molluscs of Venezuela and their medical
and veterinary importance. Harxheim: ConchBooks. 228 pp.
Preston H.B. 1915.The fauna of British India: Mollusca (freshwater Gastropoda
and Pelecypoda). London: Taylor and Francis.
Ramkrishna and Alfred, J.R.B, 2007, Faunal Resources in India: 1-427, Zool. Surv.
India, Kolkata.
Ramakrishna and Dey, A. 2007. Handbook on Indian Freshwater Molluscs.
Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata, India.
Reid D.G., Aravind N.A. & Madhyastha N.A. (2013) A unique radiation of
marine littorinid snails in the freshwater streams of the Western Ghats
of India: the genus Cremnoconchus W.T. Blanford, 1869 (Gastropoda:
Littorinidae). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 167: 93-135., a
vailable online at http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1096-3642.2012.00875.x
524
Mollusca
Rintelen, T. 2011. Indopyrgus nevilli. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species

RLTS.T189302A8713442. en.
Rintelen, T. 2011. Neritodryas subsulcata. The IUCN Red List of Threatened
2011-2. RLTS. T189582A8751010.en
Rintelen, T. 2011. Gyraulus pankongensis. The IUCN Red List of Threatened
2011-2.RLTS.T189288A8711658.en.
Rosenberg, G. (2015). Batissa violacea. In: Mollusca Base (2015). Accessed through:
World Register of Marine Species at http://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.
php?p= taxdetails&id=574116
Rosenberg, G. (2013). Neritina pulligera (Linnaeus, 1767). In: MolluscaBase
(2017). Accessed through: World Register of Marine Species at http://
marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=207646
Sharma, K.K., Komal Bangotra* and Minakshi Saini 2013 Diversity and
distribution of Mollusca in relation to the physico-chemical profile of Gho-
Manhasan stream, Jammu (J & K), International Journal of Biodiversity
and Conservation Vol. 5(4): 240-249, April 2013 Available online http://
www.academicjournals.org/IJBC DOI: 10.5897/IJBC12.127 ISSN 2141-
243X
Strong E.E, Gargominy O, Ponder WF, Bouchet P. 2008. Global diversity of
gastropods (Gastropoda : Mollusca) in freshwater. Hydrobiologia, 595: 149-
166.
Subba Rao, N.V. 1989. Handbook of Freshwater Molluscs of India. Zoological
Survey of India, Kolkata, 289pp.
Tripathy B. and Mukhopadhyay A. 2014. Freshwater Molluscs of India: An Insight
of into Their Diversity, Distribution and Conservation, Aquatic Ecosystem:
Biodiversity, Ecology and Conservation, pp 163-195, Springer-Link.
Vaughn CC, Gido KB, Spooner DE (2004) Ecosystem processes performed
by unionid mussels in stream mesocosms: species roles and effects of
abundance. Hydrobiologia, 527: 35-47
Van Damme, D. 2014. Gyraulus convexiusculus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened
Species 2014:e.T166681A42421590. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.
2014-1.RLTS. T166681A42421590. en.
Van Damme, D. & Lange, C. 2016. Melanoides tuberculata. The IUCN Red List of
IUCN.UK.2016-3.RLTS.T155675A84311752.en.
Verma A.K. and Saksena D.N. (2010). Impact of pollution on sewage collecting
river Kalpi (Morar) Gwalior (M.P.) with special reference to water quality
and Macrozoobenthic Fauna. Asian J. Exp. Bio. Sci., (1): 155-161.
Waghmare P.K.*@, Rao K.R.* and Shaikh T.A.**, 2012 A correlation between
freshwater molluscan diversity with bhima river pollution near Pandharpur,
Maharashtra, India, Trend in Lifescience Vol. 1, No. 3.
525
Chapter 33
Pisces
K.C. Gopi1, Subhrendu S. Mishra2, and LAIsHram Kosygin2
Abtract
Indian freshwater fish diversity is very rich with as many as 1027 species,
comprising of primary, secondary and alien freshwater fishes. Among them, primary
freshwater fishes include 858 species belonging to 167 genera under 40 families
and 12 orders. Further, 137 species of secondary freshwater fishes that frequently
enter and thrive in freshwater reaches of rivers are also known from India. Allien
fishes that have become naturalized in Indian freshwater bodies account for 32
species, of which 16 are considered to be potentially invasive. More than 60.3% of
the primary freshwater fishes of India are endemic to the country, with the highest
endemicity found in Western Ghats biogeographic zone. As per the IUCN Red Data
List, 17.25% among primary freshwater fishes are in threatened category, and less
than 35% fishes are Least Concerned, while status of nearly 44% is not known.
The present work, besides providing the checklist of freshwater fishes of India,
discusses the the chalanges and threats to the freshwater fish diversity of India.
Key words: Freshwater Fish; Diversity; Endemics, Conservation.
Introduction
India is blessed with rich biodiversity of fish in its inland and marine waters.
Since time immemorial, freshwater fishing has been a common avocation among
people and the communities in villages and towns wherever water bodies with fish
are available. Fish provides a staple diet and protein supplement of people, thus
making it an important resource element in the economy of many nations. Many
freshwater fish species are of immense aquaculture importance. Fish is an ideal
tool for the studies in genetics, behaviour, ecology, evolution and physiology.
Fishes, in simple definition, are aquatic vertebrates that have gills throughout
life and limbs, if any, in the shape of fins. Among vertebrates, “fishes” constitute an
amazing group that exhibits remarkable diversity in their morphology, inhabiting
habitats and biology. Fishes are a heterogeneous assemblage, yet they exhibit
phylogenetic continuity, i.e., they are not a polyphyletic group (Nelson, 2006), and
their evolutionary relationships suggest that the ray-finned fishes (Actinopterigii),
the dominant fish group in species diversity, are more closely related to mammals
than they are to the cartilaginous fishes like sharks (Nelson, 2006). In the sense
of a monophyletic group, the term fish, would apply only to the actinopterygians
1Zoological Survey of India, 234, M-Block, New Alipore, Kolkata

2Fish Division, Zoological Survey of India, 27, JLN Road, Kolkata
527
Gopi et al.
(the ray-finned fishes). Whereas “fishes” in general designates an assemblage that

is a paraphyletic group (wherein the most recent common ancestor is included but
not all the descendants from the common ancestor), and not a monophyletic group
(wherein all descendants from the common ancestor, including the most recent
common ancestor, are included).
Historical resume
References to Fish as a source of food are reflected in Kautilya’s Arthasastra as early
as 300 B.C. (Hora, 1948). The Indian Emperor Ashoka prohibited consumption of
fish in his kingdom during certain lunar period, as evidenced from the edicts on
the second pillar of the King Ashoka, which Hora (1950) interpreted as historical
evidence on fish conservation. Fish is not only a delectable delicacy on our food
plate, but also a desired subject in art, craft and culture. Indian mythology has
several stories on fish. Pisces, that is fish, is one of 12 zodiac signs in astrology.
Fish was depicted in the Madhubani painting, a traditional form of wall art widely
practiced in the Mithila region (Madhubani district of Bihar, India), a cultural
region lying between the Ganges and the Terai.
The first reference to the scientific study on fishes of India may be of Carlos
Linnaeus (1758), whose work on fishes included description of about 75 species
from India, although many of them were erroneously tagged as from ‘Habitat in
India’. M.E. Bloch also dealt with some fishes from Indian waters during 1790-1801.
Russell (1803) made a pioneering work describing 200 fishes from the ‘locality’,
Vizagapatnam, India, although his species documentation was not in binomial
mode of nomenclature. Most of his illustrations were later used by several other
authors to describe many species. Hamilton (1822) made a comprehensive work on
‘An account of the fishes found in the River Ganges and its branches’ describing 260
species of fishes new to science of which at least 177 species are treated as being
valid today. He provided apt illustrations of species with their excellent drawings
which remained as ‘equivalents’ to the type specimens in the absence of true
specimens preserved as types by him.
The freshwater fish fauna of India is highly diverse in nature. During the
period of the second and third quarters of the 19th century (1830-1860), many
British biogeographers as P. Bleeker; E. Blyth, J.E. Gray, T.C. Jerdon, J.
McClelland, W.H. Sykes, etc., made great contributions to our knowledge on
freshwater fishes of India. In the later part of the same century, the monumental
treatise on fishes of the Indian region came out, namely ‘The Fishes of India’ by
Day (1875-78, 1888), which provided a consolidated illustration on the ‘Fishes of
British India’ that included 1418 species, under 342 genera, of both freshwater and
marine fishes. This commendable memoir on Indian fishes still continues to be a
valuable referable work for Indian ichthyologists.
In the twentieth century, several Indian ichthyologists continued to contribute
to the studies on Indian fishes that had been begun by the British biogeographers in
the previous century. A sustained interest for the studies on freshwater fish fauna
was developed by the late Sunder Lal Hora, the former Director of the Zoological
Survey of India. Hora was the first Indian pioneer in Ichthyology who throughout
528
Pisces
his life devoted to fish, and his interests were extended to a variety of fields, such
as taxonomy, zoogeography, evolution, ecology and history of science, always with
a connect to fish as the motif. The outstanding contributions of Hora lie in the field
of fish taxonomy, almost wholly to the freshwater fishes of the Indian fauna. No
student of Indian freshwater fishes of the oriental region can afford to ignore the
extensive contribution of Hora in that field. Hora published a series of papers (as
many as 427), describing dozens of new species, several new genera, revising many
genera and some families, and proposing several new taxa (Jayaram, 1976). He
was the unrivalled authority on fishes for three and half decades, publishing his
first paper on fish in 1920, and reading the last paper in 1955 on the significance
of mahi-o-maratib, a fish-insignia of the Moghul times. (While presiding over a
meeting of the Asiatic Society of Bengal Calcutta, on the 5th December, 1955, in
which he read the paper; he passed away on the 8th December at the age of sixty).
Hora(1937) proposed the “Satpura Hypothesis”, a zoo-geographical hypothesis,
suggesting that the similarities between the Malayan fauna and the fauna of
Peninsular India, without an apparent connecting link, were due to the migration
from eastern regions to the western through the Satpura Range of Mountains in
central India. His theory was mainly based on evidences from fishes inhabiting
torrential streams of India with reference to their adaptation with special organs of
attachments to hold onto rocks. However, his interpretations were later challenged
and disputed as he could hardly provide any positive evidence in favour of the
Satpura Hypothesis as an explanation of the discontinuity.
After Hora, several authors contributed to the knowledge on Indian freshwater
fishes. K.S. Misra, another well-known Indian taxonomist on fishes, was Hora’s
co-worker in Zoological Survey of India. Among the leading fish taxonomists
trained by Hora, A.G.K. Menon was one of the foremost Indian ichthyologists
and zoogeographers of the 20th century. Menon (1950) strongly supported Dr.
Hora’s ‘Satpura Hypothesis’ through his work on the Eastern Ghats ichthyofauna.
However, later Menon reoriented the concept based on the critical analysis of the
distribution of fishes in the Himalayas and fossil records of the Shivaliks. On the
fish geography of the Himalayas, he surmised that the region had derived its fish
fauna from the South Chinese region and this fauna had moved westwards as far
as Africa. He also postulated the ‘Age of the transgression of the Bay of Bengal
and its significance in the evolution of the freshwater fish fauna of India’ citing
factors facilitating the south-westward migration of the fauna to the peninsular
part. Menon’s Checklist of Fishes of the Himalayas and the Indo-Gangetic Plains,
explained the distribution of the torrential stream fishes along the Himalayas
in terms of the palaeogeography of the region (Menon, 1974). His work on the
‘Monograph of the Cyprinid fishes of the genus Garra Hamilton’ revealed the
importance of zoogeographical studies in phylogeny of widely distributed groups of
animals (Menon, 1964).
Menon as an ichthyologist specialized in both marine and freshwater species
has published over 100 scientific papers, including several monographs, as well as
descriptions of 43 new species – ranging from the torrent-dwelling schizothoracine
fish from Kumaon to a blind catfish from a deep well in Kottayam. Several fish
529
Gopi et al.
species have been named after Menon by other ichthyologists. He published two
fauna volumes on Homalopteridae and Cobitidae (Menon, 1987, 1992). In his
project work on the large barbs of the west-flowing rivers of India, Dr. Menon made
the discoveries of several species new to science and discussed the endemism of fish
taxa and uniqueness of each west-flowing river compared to the east-flowing rivers.
Menon (1999) published a comprehensive account on Indian fishes the “Checklist
of the Freshwater Fishes of India”. Dr. Menon was the Founder President of the
Indian Society of Ichthyologists.
K.C. Jayaram, trained and guided by S.L. Hora, was a contemporary of other
renowned Indian Ichthyologists viz. A.G.K. Menon, E.G. Silas and P.K. Talwar.
His ‘Index Horana’ is a tribute to the work done by his mentor, S.L. Hora. Jayaram
became an ichthyologist of both National and International repute because of his
works such as the study of the taxonomy of Siluriform fishes, the zoogeography of
freshwater fishes and his revisionary contributions on the freshwater fish genera
viz. Puntius, Labeo and Tor including descriptions of new species and genera.
His books on “Freshwater Fishes of the Indian Region” and the “Fundamentals
of Fish Taxonomy” to those on identification of freshwater fishes are reference
works for the aspiring ichthyologists and researchers. He has conducted intensive
surveys of the large river systems such as Brahmaputra, Cauvery, Krishna and
Mahanadi for documenting their fish fauna. His work on the Cauvery fish fauna
is a comprehensive first-time account of the fish fauna of the entire river system.
Several new species and genera have also been named after him. He also published
the ‘Catfishes of India’ in 2006 and the revised edition of the ‘Freshwater Fishes
of the Indian Region’ in 2010. The revised editionis a comprehensive handbook on
the freshwater fish fauna of the Indian subcontinent, covering India, Pakistan,
Bangladesh, Burma and Sri Lanka, providing information of all the known species
classified according to the latest system, with their known range of geographical
distribution, included with a key for their identification to meet the requirements
of several Ichthyologists, naturalists, fishery workers, and environment scientists,
interested in the fish fauna of India and the adjacent countries.
Talwar (1991) enumerated the Indian fish taxa of 2546 species, belonging
to 969 genera and 254 families in 39 orders, occurring in the marine and inland
waters of India. Talwar and Jhingran (1991), in their work on ‘Inland Fishes of
India and adjacent countries’, have included 930 species placed in 236 genera and
99 families. Dr. Jayaram published in 1999 the first edition of the Freshwater
fishes of the Indian region. Kapoor et al. (2002) in their work on ‘Fish biodiversity
of India’ provided the information on 2118 species belonging to 209 families in 36
orders.
The turn of the 20th century, the period of nearly two decades, has been
notable with much interest generated among fish biologists in the studies on
fishes of the Indian region. Many ichthyological surveys were conducted in the
little-explored areas of the country, especially in North-east India, Assam,
and other biodiversity-rich regions by many ichthyologists, including notable
foreign ichthyologists, namely, Eric Ahlander; R. Britz; D.R. Edds; Fang Fang;
Carl Ferraris Jr., Maurice Kottelat; Musikasinthorn; Rohan Pethyagoda; Swen
530
Pisces
Kullander; Heok Hee Ng; Walter Raiboth, Tyson Roberts, Stefan van der Voortand
many others. The National Bureau of Fish Genetic Resources (NBFGR), Lucknow,
initiated germplasm inventory and prepared a database of freshwater fishes.
ZSI compiled fauna of several states (State Fauna Series), wildlife sanctuaries,
National Parks etc and published checklists and several papers on fishes by
many fish researchers, such as Arun Kumar, Yazdani, K. Rema Devi and her
co-workers, R.P. Barman, A.K. Karmakar, K.C. Gopi, L. Kosygin etc. The Zoo
Outreach Organization, Coimbatore, conducted camp workshops to assess the
threatened categories and endangered status of several freshwater fishes and
published the findings (Molur and Walker, 1998), and as well published several
new discoveries and taxonomic accounts of fishes. Notable contribution to the
taxonomic knowledge on Indian fishes came from the ichthyologists affiliated to
universities and other research institutions as Arunachalam and his students;
E.G. Silas; Gopalakrishnan; Madhusoodhana Kurup and his students; Nebeshwar;
Srikantha; Vishwanath and his students; Biju Kumar; Raju Thomas; Ajith Kumar;
Dahanukar; Rajive Raghavan; Anuradha; Shaji; Manimekhalan; Subbash Babu;
Knight and several others contributed many papers on the taxonomy of Indian
freshwater fishes. The Journal Zootaxa published many descriptions of freshwater
fishes new to science by various ichthyologists, as cited above, from India. The
journal also published the Checklist of Siluriform fishes known from the world by
Carl Ferrarris Jr. (2007), which became the latest reference manual for the entire
Siluriformes, including a large number of Indian taxa. During the last 20 years,
much information on fishes from the Indian region has been generated and added
to the literature of Indian fishes. Several changes have occurred in Siluriformes,
especially in the families Siluridae and Sisoridae, and in Cypriniformes, notably in
families Cyprinidae (with new generic taxa), and Balitoridae (with a family status
for Nemacheilian loaches).
During the last 25 years, Zoological Survey of India, based on its survey
collections and review of scattered literature, published State Fauna Series on the
freshwater fishes of the stateslike Andhra Pradesh (including Telengana) (Barman,
1993); Arunachal Pradesh (Bagra et al., 2009); Assam (Sen, 1985); Delhi (Husain,
1997); Goa (Yadav, 2008); Himachal Pradesh (Mehta & Uniyal, 2005); Karnataka
(Rema Devi et al., 2013); Madhya Pradesh (including Chhattisgarh) (Sharma,
2007); Maharashtra (Karmakar et al., 2012); Manipur (Karmakar & Das, 2005);
Meghalaya (Sen, 1995); Mizoram (Karmakar & Das, 2007); Nagaland (Karmakar
& Das, 2006); Odisha (Dutta et al., 1993); Puducherry (Remadevi 2015); Sikkim
(Karmakar, 2006); Tamil Nadu (Remadevi et al., 2000); Tripura (Barman, 2002);
Uttarakhand (Uniyal, 2010); and West Bengal (Barman, 2007). There are several
new records and new species described from India during the last two decades.
Classification and Systematics

Numerous classifications of fishes have been proposed throughout the world by the
past biologists, such as P. Artedi, J. Müller, L. Agassiz, M.E. Bloch, G. Cuvier, A.
Valenciennes, P. Bleeker, T.N. Gill, B.A. Boulenger, A. Günther, D.S. Jordan, C.T.
Regan, S. Tanaka, K. Matsubara, G.S. Myers, C.L. Hubbs, and D.E. Rosen. Their
contributions have made the classification of fishes much easier, and the present-
531
Gopi et al.
day classifications are improvements over the past ones. Nelson (2006) presented
a cladistic classification making use of reasonably sound phylogenetic information,
based on morphological and, or, molecular data, available on fishes. He preferred
the biological species concept and regarded the species as the only taxonomic
unit with evolutionary reality, and accordingly dealt his classifications based on
postulated genealogical branching points (the cladistic methodology), considering
degrees of divergence. Where the evidence seemed uncertain, he maintained the
already existing method. This chapter follows Nelson’s classification, incorporated
with the latest data on new families and genera of Indian fishes based on the
morphological and, or, molecular works on taxa in the recent times.
Table 1. Indian Freshwater Fishes: Systematic Classification
Indian Freshwater Fishes: Systematic Genera Species Endemic
Classification (Nos.) (Nos.) (Nos.)
Phylum CHORDATA
Subphylum Craniata
Superclass Gnathostomata
Class Actinopterygii
Division Teleostei
Order Osteoglossiformes
Family Notopteridae 2 2 ---
Order Anguilliformes
Family Anguillidae 1 4 ---
Order Clupeiformes
Family Clupeidae 2 2 ---
Order Cypriniformes
Family Cyprinidae 53 345 219
Family Psilorhynchidae 1 17 10
Family Cobitidae 8 28 7
Family Balitoridae 5 16 14
Family Nemacheilidae 12 113 77
Order Siluriformes
Family Amblycipitidae 1 10 08
Family Akysidae 1 02 02
Family Sisoridae 14 87 55
Family Erethistidae 4 29 19
Family Kryptoglanidae 1 1 01
Family Siluridae 4 13 07
Family Chacidae 1 1 ---
Family Clariidae 2 6 05
532
Pisces
Indian Freshwater Fishes: Systematic Genera Species Endemic

Classification (Nos.) (Nos.) (Nos.)
Family Heteropneustidae 1 2 01
Family Ailiidae 6 13 05
Family Horabagridae 3 5 04
Family Pangasiidae 1 1 ---
Family Bagridae 8 50 29
Order Mugiliformes
Family Mugilidae 2 2 ---
Order Beloniformes
Family Adrianichthyidae 1 4 01
Family Belonidae* 1 1 ---
Order Cyprinodontiformes
Family Aplocheilidae 1 7 3
Family Cyprinodontidae 1 1 ---
Order Syngnathiformes
Family Syngnathidae 3 5 1
Order Synbranchiformes
Family Synbranchidae 2 10 7
Family Mastacembelidae 2 9 4
Family Chaudhuriidae 2 2 2
Order Perciformes
Family Ambassidae* 2 9 5
Family Nandidae 1 2 1
Family Pristolepididae 1 4 4
Family Badidae 2 19 18
Family Cichlidae 2 3 1
Family Gobiidae* 6 7 ---
Family Anabantidae 1 2 ---
Family Osphronemidae 3 7 1
Family Channidae 1 14 9
Order Tetraodontiformes
Family Tetraodontidae* 2 3 2
Total 12 Orders 40 Families 167 858 522
* The genera under these 6 families exclusively found in freshwaters are included
533
Gopi et al.
Diversity of Indian freshwater fishes

The data on species diversity of freshwater fishes given here are the numbers of
fishes of valid described species based on the latest taxonomic studies and revisions
of families and genera carried out by specialists. The Web portals of Eschmeyer et
al. (2017) and Froese and Pauly (2017) were used as guides to source the taxonomic
literature and for all extant fish species available in India.
Fishes constitute more than one-half of the total number of the recognized
living species of vertebrates, with more valid species of fishes than those of
tetrapods. And still many groups of fishes are expanding with newly described
species, with a net increase in species of fish in spite of many species being
synonymised simultaneously. In the last 20 years, about 7000 fish species,
including Indian fishes have been added to the world’s total species of fishes, with
the annual increase in the number of new species at an average of 200-500 species
(Eshmeyer and Fong, 2017). In the Indian context, intensive systematic studies on
fishes, often supplemented by molecular-based phylogenetic works, have prompted
the revision of several taxa, especially families and genera of Cypriniformes
and Siluriformes, resulting in the resurrection/ erection of new families, e.g.,
Nemacheilidae (Cypriniformes) and Kryptoglanidae, Horabagridae, Ailiidae
(Siluriformes) (Kottelat, 2012; Britz et al., 2014; Jayaram, 2006; Wang et al., 2016),
and the genera like Dawkinsia, Haludaria, Pethia, Sahyadria and Ghatsa of family
Cyprinidae (Cypriniformes); and Pachypterus of Horabagridae and Kryptoglanis
of Kryptoglanidae (Siluriformes), and the consequential nomenclatural changes
among the respective taxa of freshwater fishes (Pethiyagoda et al., 2012; Raghavan
et al., 2013; Randall and Page, 2015; Kottelat, 2013; Vincent and Thomas, 2011).
The freshwater fish families recognized from India with numbers of genera,
and species in the 12 orders according to their systematic classification are given in
Table-1. The number of the species is the count of the “native primary freshwater
species” found only in freshwaters such as rivers, inland lakes, reservoirs, tanks
and ponds,enlisted with their current nomenclature (with endemic species marked
as ‘E’ within brackets)as provided in Table-2. These species may rarely occur in
weak brackish water. Native primary freshwater fishes of India are recognized
under 40 fish families of 12 orders, comprising 858 species belonging to 167
genera. This is about 2.5 percent of the total fish species (34320), and about 3.6
percent of total genera (5201) known in the world (world data, Eschmeyer and
Fong, 2017, updated as on 30 March 2017). Among theIndian freshwater fishes,
System_5/Article_Fish/1st proof/7.5.17/534
four families are most species-rich with 50 or more species as Cyprinidae (345
spp.), Nemacheilidae (113 spp.), Sisoridae (87 spp.), and Bagridae (50 spp.), and
contain approximately 70% of the total species. Out of 40 families, 14 families,
each with 10 or more species, hold the share of about 89 % of the total species of the
freshwater fishes known from India. Five families have one species in one genus,
of which two families, viz., Kryptoglanidae (endemic to India) and Chacidae, are
monotypic, containing only one species. Eight families have two species, in one or
two genera. Some 17 families known from India have only one genus, with a total of
76 species; the most species rich family with only one genus is the Psilorhynchidae
(17 species), followed by Channidae (14 species) and Amblycipitidae (10 species).
The average number of species per family is 20.
534
Pisces
Table 2a. Native Primary Freshwater Fishes of India

Osteoglossiformes: Notopteridae 26. B. canarensis (Jerdon 1849) (E) EN
1. Chitala chitala (Hamilton 1822 NT 27. B. chatricensis Viswanath & Selim
2. Notopterus notopterus (Pallas 1769) 2002 (E) VU
LC 28. B. dimorphicus Tilak & Hussain
Anguilliformes: Anguillidae 1990 (E) VU
3. Anguilla bengalensis (Gray 1831) 29. B. dogarsinghi Hora 1921 VU

NT 30. B. evezardi Day 1872(E) DD
4. A. bicolor McClelland 1844 NT 31. B. gatensis (Valenciennes 1844) (E)
5. A. marmorata Quoy & Gaimard LC
1824 LC 32. B. howesi Barman 1986 (E) NA
6. A. nebulosa McClelland 1844 NA 33. B. lairokensis Arunkumar & Tombi
Clupeiformes: Clupeidae Singh 2000 (E) NT
7. Gonialosa manmina (Hamilton 34. B. malabaricus (Jerdon 1849) (E)

1822) LC NA
8. Gudusia chapra (Hamilton 1822) 35. B. modestus Day, 1872 NA

LC 36. B. ngawa Vishwanath &
Manojkumar 2002 (E) VU
Cypriniformes: Cyprinidae
37. B. profundus Dishma & Vishwanath
9. Amblypharyngodon atkinsonii
2012 (E) NA
(Blyth 1860) LC
38. B. radiolatus Gunther 1868 DD
10. A. melettinus (Valenciennes 1844)
LC 39. B. shacra (Hamilton 1822) LC
11. A. microlepis (Bleeker 1853) LC 40. B. tileo (Hamilton 1822) LC
12. A. mola (Hamilton 1822) LC 41. B. vagra (Hamilton 1822) LC
13. Bangana almorae (Chaudhuri 1912) 42. Bengala elanga (Hamilton 1822) LC
(E)VU 43. Betadevario ramachandrani
14. B. ariza (Hamilton 1807) LC Pramod, Fang, Rema Devi, Liao,
Indra, Jameela Beevi & Kullander
15. B. dero (Hamilton 1822) LC
2010 (E) DD
16. B. diplostoma (Heckel 1838) LC
44. Cabdio jaya (Hamilton 1822) LC
17. Barbodes bovanicus (Day 1877) (E)
45. C. morar (Hamilton 1822) LC
CR
46. C. ukhrulensis (Selim & Vishwanath
18. B. carnaticus (Jerdon 1849) (E) LC
System_5/Article_Fish/1st proof/7.5.17/535
2001)(E) DD
19. B. wynaadensis (Day 1873) (E) CR
47. Chagunius chagunio (Hamilton
20. Barilius ardens Knight, Rai, d’Souza 1822) LC
& Vijaykrishnan 2015 (E) NA 48. C. nicholsi (Myers 1924) LC
21. B. arunachalensis Nath, Dam & 49. Chela cachius (Hamilton 1822) LC
Anil Kumar 2010 (E) NA
50. C. khujairokensis Arunkumar 2000
22. B. bakeri Day 1865(E) LC (E) VU
23. B. barila (Hamilton 1822) LC 51. C. macrolepis Knight & Rema Devi
24. B. barna (Hamilton 1822) LC 2014 (E) NA
25. B. bendelisis (Hamilton 1822) LC 52. Cirrhinus cirrhosus (Bloch 1795)VU
535
Gopi et al.
53. C. fulungee (Sykes 1839) (E) LC 81. Diptychus maculatus Steindachner

54. C. mrigala (Hamilton 1822) LC 1866 NA
55. C. reba (Hamilton 1822) LC 82. Eechathalakenda opicephala (Raj
1941) (E) EN
56. Danio assamila Kullander 2015 (E)
NA 83. Esomus barbatus (Jerdon 1849) (E)
LC
57. D. dangila (Hamilton 1822) LC
58. D. jaintianensis (Sen 2007) VU 84. E. danrica (Hamilton 1822) LC
59. D. meghalayensis Sen & Day 1985 85. E. malabaricus Day 1867 (E) NA
(E) NA 86. E. manipurensis Tilak & Jain 1990
60. D. rerio (Hamilton 1822) LC (E) NA
61. Danionella priapus Britz 2009 (E) 87. E. thermoicos (Valenciennes 1842)
DD LC
62. Dawkinsia arulius (Jerdon, 1849) (E) 88. Garra abhoyai Hora 1921 (E) NA
EN 89. G. alticaputus Arunachalam,
63. D. assimilis (Jerdon, 1849) (E) VU Nandagopal & Mayden 2013 (E) NA
64. D. exclamatio (Pethiyagoda & 90. G. annandalei Hora 1921 LC
Kottelat 2005) (E) EN 91. G. arunachalami (Johnson &
65. D. filamentosus (Valenciennes 1844) Soranam 2001) (E) NA
(E) LC 92. G. arunachalensis Nebeshwar &
66. D. rohani (Rema Devi, Indra & Vishwanath 2013(E) NA
Knight 2010) (E) VU 93. G. arupi Nebeshwar, Vishwanath &
67. D. rubrotinctus (Jerdon 1849) (E) NA Das 2009 (E) NA
68. D. tambraparniei (Silas 1954) (E) 94. G. bicornuta Narayan Rao, 1920 (E)
EN NT
69. Devario acuticephala (Hora 1921) 95. G. birostris Nebeshwar &
(E) VU Vashwanath 2013 NA
70. D. aequipinnatus (McClelland 1839) 96. G. ceylonensis Bleeker 1863 NA
LC 97. G. chakpiensis Nebeshwar &
71. D. assamensis (Barman 1984) (E) VU Vishwanath 2015 (E) NA
72. D. deruptotalea Ramananda & 98. G. chaudhurii Hora 1921 (E) NA
Vishwanath 2014 (E) NA
99. G. compressus Kosygin &
73. D. devario (Hamilton 1822) LC Vishwanath 1998 (E) VU
74. D. fraseri (Hora 1935)(E) VU 100. G. cornigera Shangningam &
75. D. horai (Barman 1983) (E) EN Vishwanath 2015 (E) NA
76. D. malabaricus (Jerdon 1849) LC 101. G. dampaensis Lalronunga,
77. D. manipurensis (Barman 1987) (E) Lalnuntluanga & Lalramliana 2013
DD (E) NA
78. D. naganensis (Chaudhuri 1912) (E) 102. G. elongata Vishwanath & Kosygin
VU 2000 (E) NT
79. D. neilgherriensis (Day 1867) (E) EN 103. G. emarginata Kurup &
Radhakrishnan 2011(E) NA
80. D. ostreographus (Mcclelland 1839)
(E) DD 104. G. gotyla (Gray 1830) LC
536
Pisces
105. G. gravelyi (Annandale 1919) NT 132. G. palaniensis (Rema Devi &Menon

106. G. hughi Silas 1955 (E) EN 1994) (E) VU
107. G. jenkinsonianum Hora 1921 (E) 133. G. palaruvica Arunachalam, Raja,
NA Nandagopal & Mayden 2013 (E) NA
108. G. jerdoni (Day 1867) (E) NA 134. G. paralissorhynchus Vishwanath &
Shanta Devi 2005 (E) VU
109. G. joshuai (Silas 1954) (E) NA
135. G. periyarensis Gopi 2001 (E) VU
110. G. kalakadensis Rema Devi 1993 (E)
EN 136. G. platycephala Narayan Rao 1920
(E) LC
111. G. kalpangi Nabeswar, Bagra & Das
2012(E) NA 137. G. prashadi Hora 1921 (E) NA
112. G. kempi Hora 1921 LC 138. G. quadratirostris Nebeshwar &
113. G. khawbungi Arunachalam, Vishwanath 2013 (E) NA
Nandagopal & Mayden 2014 (E) NA 139. G. rupecula (McClelland 1839) (E)
114. G. kimini Arunachalam, NT
Nandagopal & Mayden 2013 (E) NA 140. G. stenorhynchus (Jerdon 1849) (E)
115. G. lamta (Hamilton 1822) LC LC
116. G. lissorhynchus (McClelland 1842) 141. G. surendranathanii Shaji, Arun &

LC Easa 1996 (E) EN
117. G. litanensis Vishwanath 1993 (E) 142. G. tamangi Gurumayum & Kosygin
VU 2016 (E) NA
118. G. magnidiscus Tamang 2013 (E) NA 143. G. trilobata Shangningam &
119. G. manipurensis Vishwanath &
Sarojnalini 1988 (E) VU 144. G. tyao Arunachalam, Nandagopal
& Mayden 2014 (E) NA
120. G. mcclellandi (Jerdon 1849) (E) LC
145. G. ukhrulensis Nebeshwar &
121. G. menoni Rema Devi & Indra 1984
(E) VU
122. G. minimus Arunachalam, 146. Gibelion catla (Hamilton 1822) LC
Nandagopal & Mayden 2013 (E) NA 147. Haludaria afasciata (Jayaram 1990)
123. G. mlapparaensis Kurup & (E) NA
Radhakrishnan 2010 (E) NA 148. H. fasciata (Jerdon 1849) (E) LC
124. G. mullya (Sykes 1839) LC 149. H. kannikattiensis (Arunachalam &
125. G. naganensis Hora 1921 (E) LC Johnson 2003) (E) LC
126. G. nambulica Vishwanath & 150. H. melanampyx (Day 1865) (E) NA

Joyshree 2005 (E) VU 151. Horadandia brittani Rema Devi &
127. G. namyaensis Shangningam & Menon 1992 (E)NA
Vishwanath 2012 (E) NA 152. Hypselobarbus basavarajai
128. G. nasuta (McClelland 1838) LC Arunachalam, Chinnaraja &
Mayden 2016 (E) NA
129. G. nethravathiensis Arunachalam &
Nandagopal 2014 (E) NA 153. H. bicolor Knight, Rai, D’Souza,
Philip, Dahanukar 2016 (E) NA
130. G. nigricauda Arunachalam,
Nandagopal & Mayden 2013 (E) NA 154. H. canarensis (Jerdon 1849) (E) NA
131. ?G. notata (Blyth 1860) LC 155. H. curmuca (Hamilton 1807) (E) EN
537
Gopi et al.
156. H. dobsoni (Day 1876) (E) DD 183. L. fimbriatus (Bloch 1795) LC

157. H. dubius (Day 1867) (E) EN 184. L. gonius (Hamilton 1822) LC
158. H. gracilis (Jerdon 1849) (E) NA 185. L. kawrus (Sykes 1839) LC
159. H. jerdoni (Day 1870) (E) LC 186. L. kontius (Jerdon 1849) (E) LC
160. H. keralaensis Arunachalam, 187. L. microphthalmus Day 1877 LC
Chinnaraja & Mayden 2016 (E) NA 188. L. nandina (Hamilton 1822) NT
161. H. kolus (Sykes, 1839) (E) VU 189. L. nigrescens Day 1870 (E) NA
162. H. kurali Menon & Rema Devi 1995 190. L. pangusia (Hamilton 1822) NT
(E) LC 191. L. porcellus (Heckel 1844) LC
163. H. kushavali Arunachalam , 192. L. potail (Sykes 1839) (E)EN
Chinnaraja, Sivakumar & Mayden 193. L. rajasthanicus Datta & Majumdar
2016 (E) NA 1970 (E) NA
164. H. lithopidos (Day 1874) (E) DD 194. L. ricnorhynchus (McClelland 1839)
165. H. menoni Arunachalam, (E) NA
Chinnaraja, Chandran & Mayden 195. L. rohita (Hamilton 1822) LC
2014 (E) NA 196. Laubuka fasciata (Silas 1958) (E) VU
166. H. micropogon (Valenciennes, 1842) 197. L. latens Knight 2015 (E) NA
(E) EN
198. L. laubuca (Hamilton 1822) LC
167. H. mussullah (Sykes 1839) (E) EN
199. L. trevori Knight 2015 (E) NA
168. H. nasutus Arunachalam,
200. Lepidopygopsis typus Raj 1941(E)
Chinnaraja & Mayden 2016 (E) NA EN
169. H. nilgiriensis Arunachalam, 201. Naziritor chelynoides (McClelland
Chinnaraja & Mayden 2016 (E) NA 1839) VU
170. H. periyarensis (Raj 1941) (E) EN 202. Neochela dadiburjori (Menon 1952)
171. H. pulchellus (Day 1870) (E) CR LC
172. H. tamiraparaniei Arunachalam, 203. Neolissochilus dukai (Day 1878) DD
Chinnaraja, Chandran & Mayden 204. N. hexagonolepis (McClelland, 1839)
2014(E) NA NT
173. H. thomassi (Day 1874) (E) CR 205. N. hexastichus (McClelland 1839)
174. H. vaigaiensis Arunachalam, NT
Chinnaraja, Chandran & Mayden 206. N. spinulosus (McClelland 1845) DD
2014 (E) NA 207. Opsarius cocsa (Hamilton 1822) (E)
175. Labeo angra (Hamilton 1822) LC DD
176. L. bata (Hamilton 1822) LC 208. Oreichthys andrewi Marcus Knight
2014 (E) NA
177. L. boga (Hamilton 1822) LC
209. O. coorgensis (Jayaram 1982) (E)
178. L. boggut (Sykes, 1839) LC
NA
179. L. caeruleus Day 1877 NA 210. O. cosuatis (Hamilton 1822) LC
180. L. calbasu (Hamilton 1822 LC 211. O. crenuchoides Schäfer 2009 (E)
181. L. dussumieri (Valenciennes 1842) DD
LC 212. O. duospilus Keith & Kumar 2015
182. L. dyocheilus (McClelland 1839) LC (E) NA
538
Pisces
213. O. incognito Keith & Kumar 2015 (E) 240. P. manipurensis (Menon, Rema Devi
NA & Viswanath 2000) (E EN
214. Osteobrama alfredianus 241. P. meingangbii (Arunkumar &
(Valenciennes 1844) NA Tombi Singh 2003) LC
215. O. bakeri (Day 1873) (E) LC 242. P. narayani (Hora 1937) (E) LC
216. O. belangeri (Valenciennes 1844) NT 243. P. nigripinna (Knight, Rema Devi,
Indra & Arunachalam 2012) (E) NA
217. O. cotio (Hamilton 1822) LC
244. P. ornata (Vishwanath & Laisram
218. O. cunma (Day 1888) LC
2004) VU
219. O. feae Vinciguerra 1890 LC
245. P. phutunio (Hamilton 1822) LC
220. O. neilli (Day 1873) (E) LC
246. P. pookodensis (Mercy & Jacob,
221. O. vigorsii (Sykes 1839) (E) LC 2007) (E) CR
222. Osteochilichthys brevidorsalis (Day 247. P. punctata (Day, 1865) (E) LC
1873) (E) LC
248. P. rutila Lalramliana, Knight &
223. O. thomassi (Day 1877) (E) LC Laltlanhlua 2014 (E) NA
224. Osteochilus longidorsalis 249. P. sanjaymoluri Katwate, Jadhav,
(Pethiyagoda & Kottelat 1994) (E) Kumkar, Raghavan & Dahanukar
EN 2016 (E) NA
225. O. nashii (Day 1869) (E) LC 250. P. setnai (Chhapgar & Sane 1992)
226. Parapsilorhynchus discophorus (E) VU
Hora 1921 (E) VU 251. P. sharmai (Menon & Rema Devi
227. P. elongatus Singh 1994 (E) EN 1993) (E) EN
228. P. prateri Hora & Misra 1938 (E) CR 252. P. stoliczkana (Day 1871)LC
229. P. tentaculatus (Annandale 1919) (E) 253. P. striata Atkore, Knight, Rema
Devi & Krishnaswamy 2015 (E) NA
LC
254. P. ticto (Hamilton 1822) LC
230. Pethia ater (Linthoingambi &
Vishwanath 2007) (E) VU 255. P. yuensis (Arunkumar & Tombi
Singh 2003) (E) VU
231. P. aurea Marcus Knight 2013 (E) NA
256. Poropuntius burtoni (Mukerji 1933)
232. P. canius (Hamilton 1822) (E) NA
LC
233. P. conchonius (Hamilton 1822) LC
257. P. clavatus (McClelland 1845) NT
234. P. expletiforis Dishma & Vishwanath
258. Ptychobarbus conirostris
2013 (E) NA
Steindachner 1866 NA
235. P. gelius (Hamilton 1822) LC
259. Puntius ambassis (Day 1869) (E) DD
236. P. guganio (Hamilton 1822) LC
260. P. amphibious (Valenciennes 1842)
237. P. khugae (Linthoingambi & (E) DD
Vishwanath 2007) (E) VU
261. P. arenatus (Day 1878) (E) VU
238. P. longicauda Katwate, Paingankar, 262. P. bimaculatus (Bleeker 1863) LC
Raghavan & Dahanukar 2014 (E)
263. P. cauveriensis (Hora 1937)(E) EN
NA
264. P. chola (Hamilton 1822) LC
239. P. lutea Katwate, Katwate,
Raghavan, Paingankar & 265. P. crescentus Yazdani & Singh 1994
Dahanukar 2014 (E) NA (E) EN
539
Gopi et al.
266. P. deccanensis Yazdani & Babu Rao 293. R. daniconius (Hamilton 1822) LC
1976 (E) CR 294. R. hobelmani Kottelat 1984 NA
267. P. dolichopterus Plamoottil 2015 (E) 295. R. kobonensis Chaudhuri 1913 (E)
NA NA
268. P. dorsalis (Jerdon 1849) (E) LC 296. R. labiosa Mukerji, 1935 (E) LC
269. P. euspilurus Plamoottil 2016 (E) NA 297. R. microcephalus (Jerdon 1849) NA
270. P. fraseri (Hora & Misra, 1938) (E) 298. R. ornata Vishwanath & Laisram
EN 2005 (E) VU
271. P. khohi Dobriyal, Singh, Uniyal, 299. R. rasbora (Hamilton 1822) LC
Joshi, Phurailatpam & Bisht 2004 300. Rohtee ogilbii Sykes 1839 (E) LC
(E) NA
301. Sahyadria chalakkudiensis (Menon,
272. P. madhusoodani Krishna Kumar, Rema Devi & Thobias 1999) (E) EN
Pereira & Radhakrishnan 2012 (E)
302. S. denisonii (Day 1865) (E) EN
NA
303. Salmostoma acinaces (Valenciennes
273. P. mahecola (Valenciennes 1844) (E)
1844) LC
DD
304. S. bacaila (Hamilton 1822) LC
274. P. melanostigma (Day 1878) (E) NA
305. S. balookee (Sykes 1839) (E) LC
275. P. mudumalaiensis Menon & Rema
Devi 1992 (E) VU 306. S. belachi (Jayaraj, Krishna Rao,
Ravichandra Reddy, Shakuntala &
276. P. muzaffarpurensis Srivastava,
Devaraj 1999) (E) VU
Verma & Sharma 1977 (E) NE
307. S. boopis (Day 1874) (E) LC
277. P. nangalensis Jayaram 1990 (E)
NA 308. S. horai (Silas 1951) (E) VU
278. P. nelsoni Plamoottil 2014 (E) NA 309. S. novacula (Valenciennes 1840) (E)

LC
279. P. nigronotus Plamoottil 2014 (E) NA
310. S. orissaense Banarescu 1968 (E)
280. P. parrah Day 1865 (E) LC NA
281. P. puntio (Hamilton 1822) NA 311. S. phulo (Hamilton 1822) LC
282. P. sahyadriensis Silas 1953 (E) LC 312. S. punjabense (Day 1872) NA
283. P. sophore (Hamilton 1822) LC 313. S. sardinella (Valenciennes 1844)
284. P. sophoroides (Günther 1868) (E) LC
NA 314. S. untrahi (Day 1869) (E) LC
285. P. terio (Hamilton 1822) LC 315. Schismatorhynchos nukta (Sykes
286. P. viridis Plamoottil & Abraham 1839) (E) EN
2014 (E) NA 316. Schizopyge niger (Heckel 1838) NA
287. P. vittatus Day 1865 LC 317. Schizopygopsis stolickai
288. Raiamas bola (Hamilton 1822) LC Steindachner 1866 NA
289. R. guttatus (Day 1870) LC 318. Schizothorax chivae Arunkumar &
290. Rasbora ataenia Plamoottil 2016 (E) Alphonsa Moyon 2016 (E) NA
NA 319. S. curvifrons Heckel 1838 NA
291. R. caverii (Jerdon 1849) LC 320. S. esocinus Heckel 1838 NA
292. R. dandia (Valenciennes 1844) NA 321. S. huegelii Heckel 1838 NA
540
Pisces
322. S. kumaonensis Menon 1971 (E) DD 353. T. tor (Hamilton 1822) NT

323. S. labiatus (McClelland 1842) NA Cypriniformes: Psilorhynchidae
324. S. microcephalus Day 1877 (E) NA 354. Psilorhynchus amplicephalus
325. S. molesworthi (Chaudhuri 1913) DD Arunachalam, Muralidharan &
Sivakumar 2007(E) DD
326. S. nasus Heckel 1838 NA
355. P. arunachalensis (Nebeshwar,
327. S. plagiostomus Heckel 1838 NA
Bagra & Das 2007) DD
328. S. progastus (McClelland 1839) LC
356. P. balitora (Hamilton 1822) LC
329. S. richardsonii (Gray 1832) VU
357. P. breviminor Conway & Mayden
330. Securicula gora (Hamilton 1822) LC
2008 DD
331. Semiplotus manipurensis
358. P. chakpiensis Shangningam &
Vishwanath & Kosygin 2000 DD
332. S. modestus Day 1870 DD
359. P. hamiltoni Conway, Dittmer,
333. S. semiplotus (McClelland 1839) VU Jezisek & Ng 2013 (E) NA
334. Systomus chryseus Plamoottil 2014 360. P. homaloptera Hora & Mukerji
(E) NA 1935 LC
335. S. immaculatus McClelland 1839 (E) 361. P. kaladanensis Lalramliana,
NA Lalnuntluanga & Lalronunga 2015
336. S. jayarami Vishwanath & Tombi (E) NA
Singh 1986 (E) NA 362. P. khopai Lalramliana, Solo,
337. S. laticeps Plamoottil 2016 (E) NA Lalronunga & Lalnuntluanga 2014
338. S. orphoides (Valenciennes 1842) NA (E) NA
339. S. rufus Plamoottil 2014 (E) NA 363. P. konemi Shangningam &
340. S. sarana (Hamilton, 1822) LC
364. P. maculatus Shangningam &
341. S. sewelli (Prashad & Mukerji 1929)
NA
342. Tariqilabeo burmanicus (Hora 1936) 365. P. microphthalmus Vishwanath &
LC Manojkumar 1995 (E) EN
343. T. diplochilus (Heckel 1838) NA 366. P. ngathanu Shangningam &

344. T. latius (Hamilton 1822) LC
367. P. nudithoracicus Tilak & Husain
345. T. periyarensis (Menon & Jacob
1980 NA
1996) (E) EN
368. P. rowleyi Hora & Misra 1941 NA
346. Thynnichthys sandkhol (Sykes 1839)
(E) EN 369. P. sucatio (Hamilton 1822) LC
347. Tor barakae Arunkumar & Basudha 370. P. tenura Arunachalam &
2003 (E) DD Muralidharan 2008 (E) CR
348. T. khudree (Sykes, 1839) EN Cypriniformes: Cobitidae

349. T. kulkarnii Menon 1992 (E) EN 371. Acantopsis dialuzona van Hasselt
1823 LC
350. T. mosal (Hamilton, 1822) (E) NA
372. A. spectabilis (Blyth 1860) DD
351. T. putitora (Hamilton, 1822) EN
373. Botia almorhae Gray, 1831 LC
352. T. remadeviae Kurup &
Radhakrishnan 2011(E) NA 374. B. birdi Chaudhuri 1909 NA
541
Gopi et al.
375. B. dario (Hamilton 1822) LC 402. B. laticauda Bhoite, Yadhav &

376. B. histrionica Blyth 1860 LC Dahanukar 2012 (E) NA
377. B. lohachata Chaudhuri 1912 NA 403. B. mysorensis Hora 1941 (E) VU
378. B. rostrata Günther 1868 VU 404. Bhavania arunachalensis Nath,

Dam, Bhutia, Dey & Das 2007 (E)
379. B. striata Narayan Rao 1920 (E) EN NA
380. Canthophrys gongota (Hamilton 405. B. australis (Jerdon 1849) (E) LC
1822) LC
406. Ghatsa menoni (Shaji & Easa 1995)
381. Lepidocephalichthys annandalei (E) LC
Chaudhuri 1912 LC
407. G. montana (Herre 1945) (E) EN
382. L. arunachalensis (Datta & Barman
408. G. pillaii (Indra & Rema Devi 1981)
1984) (E) EN
(E) LC
383. L. berdmorei (Blyth 1860) LC
409. G. santhamparaiensis
384. L.coromandelensis (Menon 1992) (E) (Arunachalam, Johnson & Rema
LC Devi 2002) (E) EN
385. L. goalparensis (Pillai & Yazdani 410. G. silasi (Madhusoodana Kurup &
1976) LC Radhakrishnan 2011) (E) NA
386. L. guntea (Hamilton 1822) LC 411. Homalopteroides manipurensis
387. L. irrorata Hora 1921 LC (Arunkumar 1999) (E) LC
388. L. longipinnis (Menon 1992) (E) NA 412. ?H. modestus (Vinciguerra 1890) DD
389. L. micropogon (Blyth 1860) LC 413. Travancoria elongata Pethiyagoda &

Kottelat, 1994 (E) EN
390. L. thermalis (Valenciennes 1846) LC
414. T. jonesi Hora 1941 (E) EN
391. Misgurnus anguillicaudatus (Cantor
Cypriniformes: Nemacheilidae
1842) LC
415. Aborichthys cataracta Arunachalam,
392. Neoeucirrhichthys maydelli
Raja, Malaiammal & Mayden 2014
Banarescu & Nalbant 1968 LC
(E) NA
393. Pangio ammophila Britz, Ali &
416. A. boutanensis (McClelland, 1842)
Raghaban 2012 (E) NA
NA
394. P. apoda Britz & Maclaine 2007 (E)
417. A. elongatus Hora 1921 (E) LC
DD
418. A. garoensis Hora 1925 (E) VU
395. P. goaensis (Tilak 1972) (E) LC
419. A. tikaderi Barman 1985 (E) VU
396. P. oblonga (Valenciennes 1846) NA
420. A. verticauda Arunachalam, Raja,
397. P. pangia (Hamilton 1822) LC Malaiammal & Mayden 2014 (E) NA
398. Syncrossus berdmorei Blyth 1860 421. A. waikhomi Kosygin 2012 (E) NA
NT
422. Acanthocobitis pavonacea
Cypriniformes: Balitoridae (McClelland 1839) (E) VU
399. Balitora brucei Gray, 1830 NT 423. Indoreonectes evezardi (Day 1872)
400. B. chipkali Kumar, Katwate, (E) LC
Raghavan & Dahanukar 2016 (E) 424. I. keralensis (Rita & Nalbant 1978)
NA (E) VU
401. B. jalpalli Raghavan, Tharian, Ali, 425. Mesonoemacheilus guentheri (Day
Jadhav & Dahanukar 2013 (E) NA 1867) (E) LC
542
Pisces
426. M. herrei Nalbant & Banarescu 452. P. elongata Sen & Nalbant 1982 VU
1982 (E) CR 453. P. tuivaiensis Lokeswar,
427. M. menoni (Zacharias & Minimol Vishwanath & Shanta 2012 (E) NA
1999) (E) VU 454. P. walongensis Tamang & Sinha
428. M. pambarensis (Rema Devi & Indra 2016 (E) NA
1994) (E) VU 455. Schistura aizawlensis Lalramiana
429. M. periyarensis (Madhusoodana 2012 (E) NA
Kurup & Radhakrishnan 2005) (E) 456. S. altipedunculata (Bănărescu &
VU Nalbant 1968) (E) NA
430. M. petrubanarescui (Menon 1984) 457. S. andrewi Solo, Lalramliana,
(E) EN Lalronunda & Lalnuntluan 2014
431. M. pulchellus (Day 1873) (E) EN (E) NA
432. M. remadeviae Shaji 2002 (E) LC 458. S. beavani (Günther 1868) LC
433. M. triangularis (Day 1865) (E) LC 459. S. bhimachari (Hora 1937) (E) NA
434. Nemacheilus anguilla Annandale 460. S. carletoni (Fowler 1924) (E) NA
1919 (E) LC 461. S. chindwinica (Tilak & Husain
435. N. kaimurensis Husain & Tilak 1990) (E) VU
1998 (E) NA 462. S. cincticauda (Blyth 1860) DD
436. N. menoni Zacharias & Minimol
463. S. corica (Hamilton 1822) LC
1999 (E) VU
464. S. dayi (Hora 1935) (E) LC
437. N. monilis Hora 1921 (E) LC
465. S. denisoni (Day 1867) (E) LC
438. N. stigmofasciatus Arunachalam &
Muralidharan 2009 (E) DD 466. S. devdevi (Hora 1935) NT
439. Nemachilichthys ruepelli (Sykes 467. S. doonensis (Tilak & Husain 1977)
1839) (E) LC (E) DD
440. Neonoemacheilus assamensis 468. S. fasciata Lokeshwor &

(Menon 1987) (E) NT Vishwanath 2011 (E) DD
441. N. labeosus (Kottelat 1982) LC 469. S. ferruginea Lokeshwor &

442. N. morehensis Arunkumar 2000 DD
470. S. gangeticus (Menon 1987) (E) NA
443. N. peguensis (Hora, 1929) NA
471. S. himachalensis (Menon 1987) NA
444. Paracanthocobitis aurea (Day 1872)
(E) NA 472. S. horai (Menon 1952) NA
445. P. botia (Hamilton 1822) LC 473. S. inglisi (Hora 1935) (E) NA
446. P. mackenziei (Chaudhuri 1910) NA 474. S. kangjupkhulensis (Hora 1921) EN
447. P. moreh (Sykes 1839) (E) LC 475. S. kangrae (Menon 1952) (E) NA
448. P. zonalternans (Blyth 1860) LC 476. S. khugae Vishwanath & Shanta
2004 (E) VU
449. Paraschistura punjabensis (Hora
1923) NA 477. S. kodaguensis (Menon 1987) (E)
VU
450. Physoschistura chhimtuipuiensis
Lalramliana, Lalhlimpuia, Solo & 478. S. koladynensis Lokeshwar &
Vanramliana 2016 (E) NA Vishwanath 2012 (E) NA
451. P. chindwinensis Lokeswar & 479. S. liyaiensis Lokeshwor &
Vishwanath 2012 (E) NA Vishwanath 2014 (E) NA
543
Gopi et al.
480. S. maculosa Lalronunga, 503. S. scyphovecteta Lokeshwor &

Lalnuntluanga & Lalramliana 2013 Vishwanath 2013 (E) NA
(E) NA 504. S. semiarmata (Day 1867) (E) LC
481. S. manipurensis (Chaudhuri 1912) 505. S. sharavathiensis Sreekantha,
NT Gururaja, Remadevi, Indra &
482. S. minuta Vishwanath & Shanta Ramachandra 2006 (E) VU
Kumar 2006 (E) EN 506. S. shebbearei (Hora 1935) (E) NA
483. S. mizoramensis Lalramliana, 507. S. sijuensis (Menon 1987) (E) EN
Lalronunga, Vanramliana & 508. S. sikmaiensis (Hora 1921) LC
Lalthanzara 2014 (E) NA
509. S. singhi (Menon 1987) (E) VU
484. S. montana McClelland 1838 (E) NA
510. S. striata (Day 1867) (E) EN
485. S. multifasciata (Day 1878) LC
511. S. tigrina Vishwanath & Nebeshwar
486. S. nebeshwari Lokeshwor & Sharma 2005 (E) EN
512. S. tirapensis Kottelat 1990 (E) LC
487. S. nagaensis (Menon 1987) (E) VU
513. S. vinciguerrae (Hora 1935) LC
488. S. nagodiensis Sreekantha,
514. S. zonata McClelland 1839 (E) DD
Gururaja, Remadevi, Indra &
Ramachandra 2006 (E) EN 515. Hedinichthys yarkandensis (Day
1877) NA
489. S. nilgiriensis (Menon 1987) (E) LC
516. Indotriplophysa yasinensis (Alcock
490. S. obliquofascia Lokeshwor, Barat,
1898) NA
Sati, Darshan, Vishwanath &
Mahanta 2012 (E) NA 517. Triplophysa drassensis (Tilak 1990)
(E) NA
491. S. papulifera Kottelat, Harries &
Proudlove 2007 (E) CR 518. T. gracilis (Day 1877) NA
519. T. kashmirensis (Hora 1922) NA
492. S. paucireticulata Lokeshwor,
Vishwanath & Kosygin, 2013 (E) NA 520. T. ladacensis (Günther 1868) NA
493. S. phamhringi Shangningam, 521. T. marmorata (Heckel 1838) NA
Lokeshwor & Vishwanath 2014 (E) 522. T. microps (Steindachner 1866) LC
NA 523. T. shehensis Menon 1987 (E) NA
494. S. porocephala Lokeshwor & 524. T. stewarti (Hora 1922) LC
525. T. stolickai (Steindachner 1866) NA
495. S. prashadi (Hora, 1921) (E) VU
526. T. tenuicauda (Steindachner 1866)
496. S. rajasthanica (Mathur & Yazdani NA
1971) (E) NA
527. T. tenuis (Day 1877) NA
497. S. reticulate Vishwanath &
Siluriformes: Amblycipitidae
Nebeshwar Sharma, 2004 (E) EN
528. Amblyceps accari Dahanukar,
498. S. reticulofasciata (Singh &
Raghavan, Ali & Britz 2016 (E) NA
Banarescu 1982) (E) VU
529. A. apangi Nath & Dey 1989 (E) LC
499. S. rosammae (Sen 2009) (E) NA
530. A. arunchalensis Nath & Dey 1989
500. S. rupecula McClelland 1838 LC
(E) EN
501. S. savona (Hamilton 1822) LC
531. A. cerinum Ng & Wright 2010 (E)
502. S. scaturigina McClelland 1839 LC NA
544
Pisces
532. A. laticeps (McClelland 1842) LC 558. G. reticulatum McClelland 1842 NA

533. A. mangois (Hamilton 1822) LC 559. Glyptothorax alaknandi Tilak 1969
534. A. tenuispinis Blyth 1860 (E) DD LC
535. A. torrentis Linthoingambi & 560. G. anamaliensis Silas 1952 (E) VU

Viswanath 2008 (E) DD 561. G. annandalei Hora 1923 (E) LC
536. A. tuberculatum Linthoingambi & 562. G. ater Anganthoibi & Vishwanath
Viswanath 2008 (E) DD 2011 (E) NA
537. A. waikhomi Darshan, Kachari, 563. G. botius (Hamilton 1822) (E) LC
Dutta, Ganguly & Das 2016 (E) NA 564. G. brevipinnis Hora 1923 (E) DD
Siluriformes: Akysidae 565. G. caudimaculatus Anganthoibi &
538. Akysis manipurensis (Arunkumar Vishwanath 2011 (E) NA
2000) (E) DD 566. G. cavia (Hamilton 1822) LC
539. A. prashadi Hora 1936 (E) LC 567. G. chimtuipuiensis Anganthoibi &
Siluriformes: Sisoridae Vishwanath 2010 (E) DD
540. Bagarius bagarius (Hamilton 1822) 568. G. chindwinica Vishwanath &
NT Linthoingambi 2007 (E) LC
541. B. yarrelli (Sykes 1839) NT 569. G. churamanii Rameshori &
542. Creteuchiloglanis arunachalensis Vishwanath 2012 (E) NA
Sinha & Tamang 2014 (E) NA 570. G. clavatus Yumnam & Vishwanath
543. C. kamengensis (Jayaram 1966) DD 2014 (E) NA
544. C. payjab Darshan, Dutta, Kachari, 571. G. conirostris (Steindachner 1867)

Gogoi, Aran & Das 2014 (E) NA DD
545. Exostoma barakensis Vishwanath & 572. G. davissinghi Manimekalan & Das
Joyshree 2007 (E) DD 1998 (E) EN
546. E. labiatum (McClelland 1842) LC 573. G. dikrongensis Tamang & Chaudhry

2011 (E) NA
547. E. sawmteai Lalramliana,
Lalronunga, Lalnuntluanga & Ng 574. G. dorsalis Vinciguerra 1890 LC
2015 (E) NA 575. G. elankadensis Plamoottil &
548. E. stuarti (Hora 1923) DD Abraham 2013 (E) NA
549. E. tenuicaudata Tamang, Sinha & 576. G. garhwali Tilak 1969 LC

Gurumayum 2015 (E) NA 577. G. gracilis (Günther 1864) DD
550. E. vinciguerrae Regan 1905 DD 578. G. granulus Vishwanath &
551. Gagata cenia (Hamilton 1822) LC Linthoingambi 2007 (E) LC
552. G. dolichonema He 1996 LC 579. G. housei Herre 1942 (E) EN
553. G. gagata (Hamilton 1822) LC 580. G. indicus Talwar 1991 LC
554. G. itchkeea (Sykes 1839) (E) VU 581. G. jayarami Rameshori &

555. G. sexualis Tilak 1970 LC
582. G. kashmirensis Hora 1923 CR
556. Glaridoglanis andersonii (Day 1870)
DD 583. G. kudremukhensis Gopi 2007 (E)
CR
557. Glyptosternon maculatum (Regan
1905) LC 584. G. lonah (Sykes 1839) (E) LC
545
Gopi et al.
585. G. maceriatus Ng & Lalramliana 611. Myersglanis jayarami Vishwanath

2012 (E) NA & Kosygin 1999 (E) VU
586. G. madraspatanus (Day 1873) (E) 612. Nangra assamensis Sen & Biswas
EN 1994 LC
587. G. malabarensis Gopi 2010 (E) DD 613. N. nangra (Hamilton 1822) LC
588. G. manipurensis Menon 1955 (E) 614. Oreoglanis majuscule
VU Linthoingambi & Vishwanath 2011
589. G. mibangi Darshan, Dutta, (E) NA
Kachari, Gogoi & Das 2015 (E) NA 615. O. pangenensis Sinha & Tamang
590. G. nelson Ganguly, Datta & Sen 2015 (E) NA
1972 (E) NA 616. Parachiloglanis hodgarti (Hora
591. G. ngapang Vishwanath & 1923) LC
Linthoingambi, 2007 LC 617. Pseudecheneis koladynae
592. G. pantherinus Anganthoibi & Anganthoibi & Vishwanath 2010
Wishwanath 2013 (E) NA (E) NA
593. G. pasighatensis Arun Kumar, 2016 618. P. sirenica Vishwanath & Darshan
(E) NA 2007 (E)VU
594. G. pectinopterus (McClelland, 1842) 619. P. sulcata (McClelland 1842) LC
LC 620. P. suppaetula Ng 2006 (E) DD
595. G. poonaensis Hora, 1938 (E) EN 621. P. ukhrulensis Vishwanath &
596. G. punjabensis Mirza & Kashmiri Darshan 2007 (E) VU
1971 NA 622. Sisor barakensis Vishwanath &
597. G. radiolus Ng & Lalramliana, 2013 Darshan 2005 (E) VU
(E) NA 623. S. chennuah Ng & Lahkar 2003 (E)
598. G. saisii (Jenkins, 1910) (E) VU DD
599. G. scrobiculus Ng & Lalramiana 624. S. rabdophorus Hamilton 1822 (E)
2012 (E) NA LC
600. G. senapatiensis Premananda, 625. S. rheophilus Ng 2003 (E) DD
Kosygin & Saidullah 2015 (E) NA 626. S. torosus Ng 2003 (E) DD
601. ?G. sinensis (Regan 1908) DD Siluriformes: Erethistidae
602. G. stolickai (Steindachner 1867) LC 627. Conta conta (Hamilton 1822) DD
603. G. striatus (McClelland 1842) (E) 628. C. pectinata Ng 2005 (E) DD
NT 629. Erethistes hara (Hamilton 1822) LC
604. G. sykesi (Day, 1873) (E) NA 630. E. horai (Misra 1976) (E) LC
605. G. telchitta (Hamilton 1822) LC 631. E. jerdoni Day 1870 LC
606. G. trewavasae Hora 1938 (E) VU 632. E. koladynensis (Anganthoibi &
607. ?G. trilineatus Blyth 1860 LC Vishwanath 2009) (E) DD
608. G. ventrolineatus Vishwanath & 633. E. nareshi (Mahapatra & Kar 2015)
Linthoingambi 2006 (E) LC (E) NA
609. G. verucosus Rameshori & 634. E. pusillus Müller & Troschel
Vishwanath 2012 (E) NA 1849 LC
610. Gogangra viridescens (Hamilton 635. Erethistoides infuscatus Ng 2006
1822) (E) LC DD
546
Pisces
636. E. montana Hora 1950 DD 661. O. pabda (Hamilton 1822) NT

637. E. pipri Hora, 1950 (E) DD 662. O. pabo (Hamilton 1822) NT
638. E. senkhiensis Tamang, Chaudhry & 663. Pinniwallago kanpurensis Gupta,
Choudhury 2008 (E) DD Jayaram & Hajela 1981 (E) NA
639. E. sicula Ng 2005 (E) DD 664. Pterocryptis barakensis Vishwanath
640. Pseudolaguvia austrina & Nebeshwar Sharma, 2006 (E) EN
Radhakrishnan, Sureshkumar & Ng 665. P. berdmorei (Blyth 1860) LC
2011 (E) DD 666. P. gangelica Peters 1861 DD
641. P. ferruginea Ng 2009 (E) DD 667. P. indicus (Datta, Barman &
642. P. ferula Ng 2006 (E) DD Jayaram 1987) (E) DD
643. P. flavida Ng 2009 (E) DD 668. P. wynaadensis (Day 1873) (E) EN
644. P. foveolata Ng 2005 (E) DD 669. Wallago attu (Bloch & Schneider
1801) NT
645. P. fucosa Ng, Lalramliana &
Lalronunga 2016 (E) NA Siluriformes: Chacidae
646. P. jiyaensis Tamang & Sinha 2014 670. Chaca chaca (Hamilton 1822) LC
(E) NA Siluriformes: Clariidae
647. P. kapuri (Tilak & Husain 1975) LC 671. Clarias dayi Hora 1936(E)NA
648. P. lapillicola Britz, Ali & Raghavan 672. C. dussumieri Valenciennes 1840
2013 (E) NA (E) NT
649. P. magna Tamang & Sinha 2014 (E) 673. C. magur (Hamilton 1822) EN
NA 674. Horaglanis abdulkalami Subhash
650. Pseudolaguvia nubila Ng, Babu 2012 (E)NA
Lalramliana, Lalronunga & 675. H. alikunhii Subhash Babu & Nayar
Lalnuntluanga 2013 (E) NA 2004 (E) DD
651. P. ribeiroi (Hora 1921) LC 676. H. krishnai Menon 1950(E)DD
652. P. shawi (Hora 1921) LC Siluriformes: Heteropneustidae
653. P. spicula Ng & Lalramliana 2010 677. Heteropneustes fossilis (Bloch 1794)
NA LC
654. P. virgulata Ng & Lalramliana 2010 678. H. longipectoralis Rema Devi &
(E) DD Raghunathan 1999 (E) DD
655. P. viriosa Ng & Tamang 2012 (E) NA Siluriformes: Ailiidae (earlier in
Siluriformes: Kryptoglanidae Schilbeidae)
656. Kryptoglanis shajii Vincent & 679. Ailia coila (Hamilton, 1822) NT
Thomas 2011 (E) NA 680. Ailiichthys punctata Day, 1872 DD
Siluriformes: Siluridae 681. Clupisoma bastari Datta &
657. Ompok bimaculatus (Bloch 1794) Karmakar, 1980 (E) DD
NT 682. C. garua (Hamilton 1822) LC
658. O. canio (Hamilton 1822) (E) NA 683. C. montana Hora 1937 LC
659. O. karunkodu Ng 2013 (E) NA 684. Eutropiichthys cetosus Ng,
660. O. malabaricus (Valenciennes 1840) Lalramliana, Lalronunga &
(E) LC Lalnuntluanga 2014 (E) NA
547
Gopi et al.
685. E. goongwaree (Sykes 1839) DD 710. H. menoda (Hamilton 1822) LC

686. E. murius (Hamilton 1822) LC 711. H. microphthalmus (Day 1877) LC
687. E. vacha (Hamilton 1822) LC 712. H. punctatus (Jerdon 1849) (E) CR
688. Proeutropiichthys buchanani 713. Mystus armatus (Day 1865)LC
(Valenciennes 1840) (E) DD 714. M. bleekeri (Day 1877) LC
689. P. taakree (Sykes 1839) (E) NA 715. M. canarensis Grant 1999 (E) NA
690. Silonia childreni (Sykes 1839) (E) 716. M. carcio (Hamilton 1822) LC
EN
717. M. catapogon Plamoottil 2016 (E)
691. S. silondia (Hamilton 1822) LC NA
Siluriformes: Horabagridae 718. M. cavasius (Hamilton 1822) LC
692. Horabagrus brachysoma (Günther 719. M. dibrugarensis (Chaudhuri 1913)
1864) (E) VU (E) LC
693. H. nigricollaris Pethiyagoda & 720. M. gulio (Hamilton 1822) LC
Kottelat 1994 (E) EN
721. M. heoki Plamoottil & Abraham
694. Pachypterus atherinoides (Bloch 2013 (E) NA
1794) LC
722. M. indicus Plamoottil & Abraham
695. P. khavalchor Kulkarni 1952 (E) DD 2013(E) NA
696. Pseudeutropius mitchelli Günther 723. M. keletius (Valenciennes 1840) (E)
1864 (E) EN LC
Siluriformes: Pangasiidae 724. M. keralai Plamoottil & Abraham
697. Pangasius pangasius (Hamilton 2014 (E) NA
1822) LC 725. M. malabaricus (Jerdon 1849) (E) NT
Siluriformes: Bagridae 726. M. menoni Plamoottil & Abraham
698. Batasio affinis Blyth 1860 DD 2013 (E) NA
699. B. batasio (Hamilton 1822) LC 727. M. montanus (Jerdon 1849) (E) LC
700. B. convexirostrum Darshan, 728. M. ngasep Darshan, Vishwanath,
Anganthoibi & Vishwanath 2011 Mahanta & Barat 2011 (E) NA
(E) NA 729. M. oculatus (Valenciennes 1840) (E)
701. B. fasciolatus Ng 2006 (E) LC LC
702. B. flavus Plamoottil 2015 (E) NA 730. M. seengtee (Sykes 1839) (E) LC
703. B. merianiensis (Chaudhuri 1913) 731. M. tengara (Hamilton 1822) LC
(E) DD 732. M. vittatus (Bloch 1794) LC
704. B. sharavatiensis Bhatt & Jayaram 733. Rama rama (Hamilton 1822) NA
2004 (E) EN
734. Rita bakalu Lal, Dwivedi & Singh
705. B. spilurus Ng 2006 (E) DD 2016 (E) NA
706. B. tengana (Hamilton 1822) LC 735. R. chrysea Day, 1877 (E) LC
707. B. travancoria Hora & Law 1941 (E) 736. R. gogra (Sykes 1839) (E) LC
VU
737. R. kuturnee (Sykes 1839) (E) LC
708. Chandramara chandramara
738. R. macracanthus Ng 2004 NA
(Hamilton 1822) LC
739. R. rita (Hamilton 1822) LC
709. Hemibagrus maydelli (Rössel 1964)
(E) LC 740. Sperata aor (Hamilton 1822) LC
548
Pisces
741. S. aorella (Blyth 1858) LC 764. Microphis cuncalus (Hamilton 1822)

742. S. seenghala (Sykes 1839) LC LC
743. Olyra astrifera Arunachalam, Raja, 765. M. deocata (Hamilton 1822) NT

Mayden & Chandran 2013(E) NA 766. Oostethus brachyurus (Bleeker
744. O. horae (Prashad & Mukerji 1929) 1853) NA
DD 767. O. insularis (Hora 1925) (E) VU
745. O. longicaudata McClelland 1842 Synbranchiformes: Synbranchidae
LC 768. Monopterus albus (Zuiew 1793) LC
746. O. praestigiosa Ng & Ferraris 2016 769. M. cuchia (Hamilton 1822) LC
(E) NA
770. M. digressus Gopi 2002 (E) DD
747. O. saginata Ng, Lalramliana &
771. M. eapeni Talwar 1991 (E) DD
Lalthanzara 2014(E) NA
772. M. fossorius (Nayar 1951) (E) EN
Mugiliformes: Mugilidae
773. M. hodgarti (Chaudhuri 1913) (E)
748. Rhinomugil corsula (Hamilton 1822)
DD
LC
774. M. ichthyophoides Britz,
749. Minimugil cascasia (Hamilton 1822)
Lalremsanga, Lalrotluanga &
LC
Lalramliana 2011 (E) NA
Beloniformes: Adrianichthyidae
775. M. indicus (Silas & Dawson 1961
750. Oryzias carnaticus (Jerdon 1849) LC (E) VU
751. O. dancena (Hamilton 1822) LC
776. M. roseni Bailey & Gans 1998 (E) DD
752. O. melastigma (McClelland 1839) LC
777. Ophisternon bengalense McClelland
753. O. setnai (Kulkarni 1940) (E) LC 1844 LC
Beloniformes: Belonidae Synbranchiformes: Mastacembelidae
754. Xenentodon cancila (Hamilton 1822) 778. Macrognathus albus Plamoottil &
LC Abraham 2014 (E) NA
Cyprinodontiformes: Aplocheilidae 779. M. aral (Bloch & Schneider 1801)
755. Aplocheilus andananicus (Köhler LC
1906)(E) NA 780. M. fasciatus Plamoottil & Abraham
756. A. blockii Arnold 1911 LC 2014(E) NA
757. A. dayi Steindachner 1892 NA 781. M. guentheri (Day 1865) (E) LC
758. A. kirchmayeri Berkenkamp & Etzel 782. M. lineatomaculatus Britz 2010DD
1986 (E) NA 783. M. morehensis Arunkumar & Tombi
759. A. lineatus (Valenciennes 1846) (E) Singh 2000 LC
LC 784. M. pancalus Hamilton 1822 LC
760. A. panchax (Hamilton 1822 LC 785. Mastacembelus armatus (Lacepède
761. A. parvus (Sundara Raj 1916) NA 1800) LC
Cyprinodontiformes: Cyprinodontidae 786. M. malabaricus Jerdon 1849 (E) NA
762. Aphanius dispar (Rüppell 1829 LC Synbranchiformes: Chaudhuriidae
Syngnathiformes: Syngnathidae 787. Garo khajuriai (Talwar, Yazdani &
763. Doryichthys martensii (Peters 1868) Kundu 1977) (E) NT
LC 788. Pillaia indica Yazdani 1972 (E) EN
549
Gopi et al.
Perciformes: Ambassidae 813. B. laspiophilus Valdesalici & van

789. Chanda nama Hamilton 1822 LC der Voort 2015 (E) NA
790. Parambassis baculis (Hamilton 814. B. pancharatnaensis Basumatary,
1822) LC Choudhury, Baishya, Sarma &
791. P. bistigmata Geethakumari 2012 Vishwanath 2016 (E) NA
(E) NA 815. B. singenensis Geetakumari & Kadu
792. P. dayi (Bleeker 1874) (E) LC 2011 (E) NA
793. P. lala (Hamilton 1822) NT 816. B. soraya Valdesalici & van der Voort
2015 (E) NA
794. P. ranga (Hamilton 1822) LC
817. B. triocellus Khynriam & Sen 2013
795. P. serrata Dishma & Vishwanath
(E) NA
2015 (E) NA
796. P. thomassi (Day 1870) (E) LC 818. B. tuivaiei Vishwanath & Shanta
2004 (E) NA
797. P. waikhomi Geethakumari &
Basudha 2012 (E) NA 819. Dario dario (Hamilton 1822) (E)DD
Perciformes : Nandidae 820. D. huli Britz & Ali 2015(E) NA
798. Nandus andrewi Ng & Jaafar 2008 821. D. kajal Britz & Kullander 2013 (E)
(E) DD NA
799. N. nandus (Hamilton 1822) LC 822. D. urops Britz, Ali & Philip 2012 (E)
Perciformes : Pristolepididae NA
800. Pristolepis malabarica (Günther Perciformes: Cichlidae

1864) (E) NA 823. E. suratensis (Bloch 1790) LC
801. P. marginata Jerdon 1849 (E) LC 824. Etroplus canarensis Day 1877 (E)
802. P. pentacantha Plamoottil 2014 (E) NA
NA 825. Pseudetroplus maculatus (Bloch
803. P. rubripinnis Britz, Kuman & Baby 1795) LC
2012 (E) NA Perciformes: Gobiidae
Perciformes: Badidae 826. Brachyamblyopus brachysoma
804. Badis andrewraoi Valdesalici & van (Bleeker 1853) NA
der Voort 2015 (E) NA 827. Brachygobius nunus (Hamilton
805. B. assamensis Ahl 1937 (E) NA 1822) NA
806. B. autumnum Valdesalici & van der 828. Caragobius urolepis (Bleeker 1852)
Voort 2015(E) NA LC
807. B. badis (Hamilton 1822) LC 829. Pseudogobiopsis oligactis (Bleeker
808. B. blosyrus Kullander & Britz 2002 1875) LC
(E) LC 830. Sicyopterus griseus (Day 1877) LC
809. B. britzi Dahanukar, Kumkar, 831. S. microcephalus (Bleeker 1855) NA
Katwate & Raghavan 2015 (E) NA
832. Schismatogobius deraniyagalai
810. B. dibruensis Geetakumari &
Kottelat & Pethiyagoda 1989 DD
Vishwanath 2010 (E) DD
Perciformes : Anabantidae
811. B. kanabos Kullander & Britz 2002
(E) DD 833. Anabas cobojius (Hamilton, 1822)
DD
812. B. kyanos Valdesalici & van der
Voort 2015 (E) NA 834. A. testudineus (Bloch, 1792) DD
550
Pisces
Perciformes : Osphronemidae 846. C. barca (Hamilton 1822) (E) DD

835. Ctenops nobilis McClelland 1845 NT 847. C. bleheri Vierke 1991 (E) NT
836. Pseudosphromenus cupanus (Cuvier 848. C. diplogramma (Day 1865) VU
1831) LC
849. C. gachua (Hamilton 1822) LC
837. P. dayi (Engmann 1909) (E) VU
850. C. marulius (Hamilton 1822) LC
838. Trichogaster chuna (Hamilton 1822)
851. C. melanostigma Geetakumari &
LC
839. T. fasciata (Bloch & Schneider 1801)
LC 852. C. pardalis Knight 2016 (E) NA
840. T. labiosa Day 1877 LC 853. C. punctata (Bloch 1793) LC
841. T. lalius (Hamilton 1822) LC 854. C. stewartii (Playfair 1867) LC
Perciformes: Channidae 855. C. striata (Bloch 1793) LC
842. Channa amphibeus (McClelland Tetraodontiformes: Tetraodontidae
1845) (E) LC 856. Carinotetraodon imitator Britz &
843. C. andrao Britz 2013 (E) NA Kottelat 1999 (E) DD
844. C. aurantimaculata Musikasinthorn, 857. C. travancoricus (Hora & Nair 1941)
2000 (E) DD (E) VU
845. C. aurantipectoralis Lalhlimpuia, 858. Leiodon cutcutia (Hamiton 1822)
Lalronunga & Lalramliana 2016 (E)
LC
NA
Abbreviatons used. (E): Endemic species, CR: Criticaly Endanged, EN: Endangerd,
V: Vullerable, NT: Near Threatned, LC: Least Concern, DD: Data Deficient, NA: Not
Assessed.
Table 2b. Introduced Alien fishes in Indian inland waters: (32 species)
Cypriniformes: Cyprinidae 869. P. disjunctivus (Weber 1991)*
859. Barbonymus gonionotus (Bleeker 870. P. multiradiatus (Hancock 1828)
1849) 871. P. pardalis (Castelnau 1855)*
860. Carassius auratus (Linnaeus 1758)*
Siluriformes : Clariidae
861. C. carassius (Linnaeus 1758)
872. Clarias gariepinus (Burchell, 1822)*
862. Ctenopharyngodon idella
Siluriformes : Pangasidae
(Valenciennes 1844)*
873. Pangasianodon hypophthalmus
863. Cyprinus carpio Linnaeus 1758*
(Sauvage 1878)
864. Hypophthalmichthys molitrix
(Valenciennes, 1844)* Salmoniformes: Salmonidae
865. H. nobilis (Richardson 1845)* 874. Oncorhynchus mykiss (Walbaum

1792)*
866. Tinca tinca (Linnaeus 1758)*
875. O. nerka (Walbaum 1792)
Characiformes: Serrasalmidae
876. Salmo trutta Linnaeus 1758*
867. Piaractus brachypomus (Cuvier
1818)* 877. Salvelinus fontinalis (Mitchill 1814)*
Siluriformes : Loricariidae Cyprinodontiformes: Poeciliidae
868. Pterygoplichthys anisitsi 878. Gambusia affinis (Baird and Girard
Eigenmann & Kennedy 1903 1853)*
551
Gopi et al.
879. G. holbrooki Girard, 1859 885. O. mossambicus (Peters, 1852)*

880. Poecilia reticulata Peters, 1859 886. O. niloticus (Linnaeus, 1758)*
881. Xiphophorus hellerii Heckel, 1848 Perciformes : Osphronemidae
882. X. maculates (Günther, 1866) 887. Osphronemus goramy Lacepède 1801
Perciformes : Cichlidae 888. Macropodus opercularis (Linnaeus
883. Amphilophus trimaculatus (Günther 1758)
1867) 889. Trichopsis vittata (Cuvier 1831)
884. Oreochromis aureus (Steindachner, 890. Trichopodus trichopterus (Pallas
1864) 1770)
Table 3. Secondary Freshwater Fishes of India

Carcharhiniformes: Carcharhinidae 15. Lamnostoma orientale (McClelland
1. Carcharhinus leucas (Valenciennes 1844)
1839) 16. Pisodonophis boro (Hamilton 1822)
2. C. melanopterus (Quoy & Gaimard 17. P. cancrivorus (Richardson 1848)
1824) 18. P. hijala (Hamilton 1822)
3. Glyphis gangeticus (Müller & Henle Anguilliformes: Muraenesocidae
1839) 19. Muraenesox cinerius (Forsskal
4. Scoliodon laticaudus Müller & 1775)
Henle 1838 Clupeiformes: Clupeidae
5. Rhizoprionodon acutus (Rüppell 20. Anodontostoma chacunda
1837) (Hamilton 1822)
Myliobatiformes: Dasyatidae 21. Corica soborna Hamilton 1822
6. Urogymnus polylepis (Bleeker 22. Dayella malabarica (Day 1873)
1852) 23. Ehirava fluviatilis Deraniyagala
7. Himantura uarnak (Gmelin 1789) 1929
8. Pastinachus sephen (Forsskål 1775) 24. Hilsa kelee (Cuvier 1829)
Elopiformes: Elopidae 25. Nematalosa nasus (Bloch 1795)
9. Elops machnata (Forsskal 1775) 26. Pellona ditchela Valenciennes 1847
Elopiformes: Megalopidae 27. Tenualosa ilisha (Hamilton 1822)
10. Megalops cyprinoides (Broussonet 28. T. toli (Valenciennes 1847)
1782) Clupeiformes: Pristigasteridae
Anguilliformes: Moringuidae 29. Ilisha filigera (Valenciennes 1847)
11. Moringua raitaborua (Hamilton 30. I. kampeni (Weber & de Beaufort
1822) 1913)
12. M. guthriana (McClelland 1844) 31. I. megaloptera (Swainson 1838)
Anguilliformes: Muraenidae Clupeiformes: Engraulidae
13. Strophidon sathete (Hamilton 1822) 32. Setipinna brevifilis (Valenciennes
14. Gymnothorax tile (Hamilton 1822) 1848)
Anguilliformes: Ophichthidae 33. S. phasa (Hamilton 1822)
552
Pisces
34. Coilia dussumieri Valenciennes 56. Z. dispar (Valenciennes 1847)

1848 57. Z. ectuntio (Hamilton 1822)
35. C. reynaldi Valenciennes 1848 58. Z. striga (Blyth 1858)
Gonorhynchiformes: Chanidae Syngnathiformes: Syngnathidae
36. Chanos chanos (Forsskål 1775) 59. Hippichthys heptagonus Bleeker
Siluriformes: Plotosidae 1849
37. Plotosus canius Hamilton 1822 60. H. cyanospilos (Bleeker 1854)
38. P. limbatus Valenciennes 1840 61. H. penicillus (Cantor 1849)
Siluriformes: Ariidae 62. Ichthyocampus carce (Hamilton
39. Arius gagora (Hamilton 1822) 1822)
40. Cephalocassis jatius (Hamilton Scorpaeniformes: Tetrarogidae
1822) 63. Tetraroge nigra (Cuvier 1829)
41. Hemiarius sumatranus Perciformes: Latidae
(Anonymous [Bennett] 1830) 64. Lates calcarifer (Bloch 1790)
42. Ketengus typus Bleeker 1846 Perciformes: Ambassidae
Mugiliformes: Mugilidae 65. Ambassis ambassis (Lacepède
43. Crenimugil buchanani (Bleeker 1802)
1853) 66. A. buton Popta 1918
44. Ellochelon vaigiensis (Quoy & 67. A. gymnocephalus (Lacepède 1802)
Gaimard 1825)
68. A. interrupta Bleeker 1853
45. Mugil cephalus Linnaeus 1758
69. A. miops Günther 1872
46. Osteomugil cunnesius
70. A. nalua (Hamilton 1822)
(Valenciennes 1836)
71. A. urotaenia Bleeker 1852
47. Planiliza macrolepis (Smith 1846)
Perciformes: Carangidae
48. P. melinoptera (Valenciennes 1836)
72. Caranx sexfasciatus Quoy &
49. P. parsia (Hamilton 1822)
Gaimard 1825
50. P. tade (Forsskål 1775)
Perciformes: Leiognathidae
Beloniformes: Belonidae
73. Leiognathus equula (Forsskål 1775)
51. Strongylura strongylura (van
74. Secutor ruconius (Hamilton 1822)
Hasselt 1823)
Perciformes: Lutjanidae
Beloniformes: Hemiramphidae
75. Lutjanus ehrenbergii (Peters 1869)
52. Hyporhamphus limbatus
(Valenciennes 1847) 76. L. fulvus (Forster 1801)
53. H. xanthopterus (Valenciennes Perciformes: Datnioididae
1847) 77. Datnioides polata (Hamilton 1822)
Beloniformes: Zenarchopteridae Perciformes: Polynemidae
54. Dermogenys pusilla Kuhl& van 78. Eleutheronema tetradactylum
Hasselt 1823 (Shaw 1804)
55. Zenarchopterus buffonis 79. Polynemus paradiseus Linnaeus
(Valenciennes 1847) 1758
553
Gopi
Perciformes: Sciaenidae 106. Drombus globiceps (Hora 1923)

80. Dendrophysa russelii (Cuvier 1829) 107. D. triangularis (Weber 1909)
81. Johnius amblycephalus (Bleeker 108. Favonigobius reichei (Bleeker
1855) 1854)
82. J. coitor (Hamilton 1822) 109. Glossogobius bicirrhosus (Weber
1894)
83. J. gangeticus Talwar 1991
110. G. celebius (Valenciennes 1837)
84. Pama pama (Hamilton 1822)
111. G. giuris (Hamilton 1822)
Perciformes: Toxotidae
112. Gobiopterus chuno (Hamilton
85. Toxotes chatareus (Hamilton 1822)
1822)
86. T. jaculatrix (Pallas 1767)
113. Hemigobius hoevenii (Bleeker
Perciformes: Blenniidae 1851)
87. Omobranchus ferox (Herre 1927) 114. Istigobius diadema (Steindachner
Perciformes: Eleotridae 1876)
88. Bunaka gyrinoides (Bleeker 1853) 115. Odontamblyopus rubicundus
(Hamilton 1822)
89. Butis amboinensis (Bleeker 1853)
116. Periophthalmodon septemradiatus
90. B. butis (Hamilton 1822)
(Hamilton 1822)
91. B. gymnopomus (Bleeker 1853)
117. Periophthalmus argentilineatus
92. B. koilomatodon (Bleeker 1849) Valenciennes 1837
93. Eleotris fusca (Bloch & Schneider 118. P. chrysospilos Bleeker 1853
1801) 119. P. kalolo Lesson 1831
94. E. melanosoma Bleeker 1853 120. Pseudapocryptes elongatus (Cuvier
95. Giuris margaritaceus (Valenciennes 1816)
1837) 121. Pseudogobius javanicus (Bleeker
96. Odonteleotris macrodon (Bleeker 1856)
1853) 122. P. poicilosoma (Bleeker 1849)
97. Ophiocara porocephala 123. Stigmatogobius sadanundio
(Valenciennes 1837) (Hamilton 1822)
Perciformes: Gobiidae 124. Taenioides anguillaris (Linnaeus
98. Acentrogobius griseus (Day 1876) 1758)
99. A. madraspatensis (Day 1868) 125. T. cirratus (Blyth 1860)

126. T. gracilis (Valenciennes 1837)
100. Apocryptes bato (Hamilton 1822)
127. Yongeichthys nebulosus (Forsskål
101. Apocryptodon madurensis (Bleeker
1775)
1849)
Perciformes: Terapontidae
102. Awaous grammepomus (Bleeker
1849) 128. Terapon jarbua (Forsskål 1775)
103. A. melanocephalus (Bleeker 1849) 129. T. theraps Cuvier 1829
104. A. ocellaris (Broussonet 1782) 130. T. puta Cuvier 1829

Perciformes: Scatophagidae
105. Bathygobius ostreicola (Chaudhuri
1916) 131. Scatophagus argus (Linnaeus 1766)
554
Pisces
Fish
Perciformes: Kuhliidae Tetraodontiformes: Tetraodontidae

132. Kuhlia rupestris (Lacepède 1802) 135. Dichotomyctere fluviatilis
Perciformes: Kurtidae (Hamilton 1822)
133. Kurtus indicus Bloch 1786 136. D. nigroviridis (Marion de Procé
Pleuronectiformes: Soleidae 1822)
134. Brachirus orientalis (Bloch & 137. Chelonodontops patoca (Hamilton
Schneider 1801) 1822)
The species that are usually diadromous, e.g., the catadromous eels, like
Anguilla bengalensis, or the anadromous fishes, like Sicyopterus griseus, which
are observed to have populations thriving in upland freshwaters, have also been
included among the freshwater species. Such species frequently occur in freshwater
as they are diadromous, entering the freshwater in substantial numbers. The
ecological significance of these species is that if freshwater habitats were not
accessible to them they either would not exist or their range would be markedly
reduced.
As many as 32 species of alien fishes belonging to 21 genera of 9 families and
7 orders are found in the freshwater systems of India (Table 2 b). Out of these,
at least 16 species (marked with asterisks (*) in the Table 2 (b) are well-known,
potential invasive alien fishes in India. Alien fishes such as Pterygoplichthys spp.,
seemingly very innocuous exotics in their new freshwater habitats, have already
shown their impacting effects of infestation in the freshwater systems affecting the
indigenous aquatic fauna, including fishes.The inland waterbodies of India have a
combined potential of freshwater fish diversity of 890 species, including 32 species
of introduced exotic fishes (Table 2a & b).
There are many species of fish which are usually marine or brackish water
forms, but sometimes enter freshwaters of the lower-and-above reaches of rivers.
Several fishes, usually occurring in brackish waters but not known to enter fresh
waters, have been excluded, which include some of them enlisted in Jayaram
(2010). After an assessment on the distributional visitations of the species to the
freshwaters, based on literature study, 137 species have been enlisted as secondary
freshwater fishes, as provided in Table 3. Some of these species have been listed
as freshwater species in the check-list of freshwater fishes of India in the earlier
published works. The status of diversity of freshwater fishes in the inland waters
of India isconsidered, taken into all the three components of the fish diversity , i.e.,
primary and secondary freshwater fishes as well as the introduced alien fishes,
India has an overall potential of 1027 species of fishes (Tables 2 a & b; 3)
Study of ichthyofaunal diversity in different administrative states of our
country is documented during last three decades, mainly by the scientists of
the Zoological Survey of India. Table 4 depicts diversity of fish faunain each
state. However, several other species have recorded or described from the given
state after the cited document prepared, which are not included here. Further,
documentation from four states, viz., Bihar (including Jharkhand), Jammu &
Kashmir, Haryana, and Punjab, is awaited. Only for the states of Kerala and
555
Gopi et al.
Arunachal Pradesh, publications of Bijukumar and Raghavan (2015) and Bagra

et al. (2009) respectively were considered, while others are documented by the
scientists of the Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata.
Table 4. Ichthyofaunal divercity in different states of India
Sl.
State Family Genera Species Reference
No.
1. Andhra Pradesh 27 68 158 Barman, 1993
2. Arunachal Pradesh 31 93 213 Bagra et al., 2009
3. Assam 29 83 187 Sen, 1985
4. Bihar & Jharkhand 30 76 134 Karmakar et al., (in
press)
5. Delhi 24 55 87 Husain, 1997
6. Goa 20 31 58 Yadav, 2008
7. Gujarat 24 58 119 Sen & Banerjee, 2000
8. Haryana 19 46 74 Sharma (in press)
9. Himachal Pradesh 14 48 104 Mehta & Uniyal, 2005
10. Jammu & Kashmir Yet to be carried out.
11. Karnataka 30 89 213 Rema Devi et al., 2013
12. Kerala 35 88 188 Bijukumar & Raghavan
2015
13. Madhya Pradesh 27 68 172 Sharma, 2007
(including
Chhattisgarh)
14. Maharashtra 32 93 216 Karmakar et al., 2012
15. Manipur 24 64 141 Karmakar& Das, 2005
16. Meghalaya 28 74 152 Sen, 1995
17. Mizoram 20 49 89 Karmakar & Das, 2007
18. Nagaland 20 57 108 Karmakar & Das, 2006
19. Odisha 25 70 143 Dutta et al., 1993
20. Puducherry 24 43 67 Rema Devi, 2015
21. Punjab 21 50 88 Kumar (in press)
22. Rajasthan 15 36 75 Datta & Majumdar,
1970
23. Sikkim 15 43 64 Karmakar, 2006
24. Tamil Nadu 27 78 160 Remadevi et al. 2009
25. Tripura 33 78 129 Barman, 2002
26. Uttar Pradesh 34 89 153 Gopi & Kosygin 2015
27. Uttarakhand 27 67 132 Uniyal, 2010
28. West Bengal 49 147 239 Barman, 2007
556
Pisces
Biological diversity
Freshwater fishes in India also exemplify amazing diversity not only in fish
morphology but in their behaviour also. Some species like freshwater herrings,
like their marine counterparts travel in schools in substantial numbers, enter
through fresh-brackish water zones of the rivers in the coastal plain, while others
are highly territorial. Fishes are adapted to a wide variety of foods, many are
phytophagous on aquatic algae and weeds, detritivores or heterotrophs, and some
are adapted to feed on items as zooplankton. Big catfishes, like African catfish
(Clarias gariepinus), and murrels (snakeheads) like Channa marulius and C.
striatus are predators feeding on small fishes, snails, and tadpoles, and omnivores
also. Most fishes are ectotherms. Fishes like Tilapia, Oreochromis mossambicus,
exhibit parental care for their offspring. Fishes of the order Anguilliformes have
larval stage and undergo metamorphosis. Lifespan in fishes may vary from a little
over 1 year to many years, up to 15 years or more among Tor species.
Habitat diversity
Freshwater fishes of India live in almost every conceivable type of aquatic habitat,
from natural ponds in the coastal plains to the 1st order streamlets in the Trans
Himalayan areas at elevations up to 5,000 meters (m) in Ladakh, where highest-
dwelling fish in India, the nemacheilid, Triplophysa stolickai (Steindachner)
has been observed occurring in the streamlets formed by the glacial melts. The
smallest-known fish from India, an adrianichthid, the Oryzias setnai (Kulkarni)
is sporadically distributed in backwaters and tanks along the West Coast from
Gujarat to Kerala. Catfishes like Clarias magur (Hamilton), C. dayi Hora as part of
spawning migration conduct short excursions onto land immediately after onset of
monsoon and heavy showers. Synbranchids like Monopterus eapeni, M. roseni and
M. degressus; Horaglanis krishnai Menon, Horaglanis alikunhii Subhash Babu &
Nayar, H. abdulkalami Subhash Babu, (Clariidae), Kryptoglanis shajii Vincent &
Thomas (Kryptoglanidae) are subterranean, or hypogean, fishes confined to total
darkness, in underground springs, occasionally collected from deep wells in Kerala.
The nemacheilid, Schistura sijuensis (Menon) is found in Siju caves of Garo hills
in Meghalaya. Some Siluriformfishes have acquired air-breathing organs, and can
live in stagnant, tropical swamps. Hill stream fishes like nemacheilids and species
of Garra demand well-oxygenated waters to sustain life.
Morphological diversity
Among Indian freshwater fishes, the sizes range from the smallest ones, viz.,
Oryzias setnai (Kulkarni) (Adrianichthydae) and the carplet, Horadandia
brittanii, ranging in size 2-3cm to the largest ones, like the cyprinid, Tor putitora
and the catfish Pangasius sp. range in size from 1-1.5 m. Small puffer fishes like
Carinotetraodon travancoricus (Hora & Nair) and Carinotetraodon imitator Britz &
Kottelat (Tetraodontididae) have oblong bodies. Most of the species of the cyprinid
genera Danio, Devario, Dawkinsia, Haludaria, Pethia, Sahyadria, some cobitid
species and almost all balitorid and nemacheilid fishes are brilliantly coloured. All
the subterranean or hypogean species do have vestigial or no eyes. Scales may be
present or absent in closely related species. Some teleost species lack paired fins
557
Gopi et al.
(pelvic and pectoral) and scales. Species of the genus Monopterus (Synbranchidae)
lack paired fins, and rudimentary fin-ridges in place of dorsal, caudal and anal
fins. Dorsal fin in Kryptoglanid, Kryptoglanis shajii, and pelvic fins in eels are
missing, or modified into holdfast organs as in Oryzias setnai. Tetraodontid puffer
fishes have inflatable body.
Fig. 1a. Indian biogeographic zones with endemic freshwater fishes (numbers)
Endemism
Endemism is the indigenousness or nativeness of a species by virtue of its natural
origin or occurrence in a given location or region and nowhere else in the world,
and such endemic species are confined to those particular place or region only.
Endemism is the manifestation of a unique step in the process of evolution which
could be perpetuated and sustained only in the locality concerned depending on
the environmental quality of habitat. In a vast country like India, the concept
of endemism very much depends on the knowledge of the geographical range of
a species reflecting their far greater significance and higher value in biodiversity
perspectives.
A high degree of endemism is found among the freshwater fishes of India.
The endemic fishes of India are indicated in Table 2a with (E) marked with species
name. More than 60.3% of the primary freshwater fishes are endemic to the
558
Pisces
country. Number of endemic fishes in different families is given in Table-1. Almost

95% of fishes of the family Badidae known from India are endemics, followed by
87.5% of the family Balitoridae and 80% of the family Amblycipitidae. In the Indian
biogeographic-zone perspectives of endemism of fishes, among the total endemic
species, 40% are from Western Ghats; 32% from north-eastern India (including
Brahmaputra River-basin, but excluding Arunachal Pradesh of eastern Himalaya,
and Darjeeling (West Bengal) and Sikkim of Central Himalaya zones); 12% from
Himalaya; 11% from Gangetic Plain; and 4% from Deccan peninsular region (Fig. 1a
& b). The endemic status of conspicuous taxa like icthyofauna (and herpetofauna,
birds, mammals also) tend to be more stable as they are comparatively well-
studied, unlike that of large and complex groups of small organisms (e.g., insects).
In the present work, endemism among fishes of India is worked out based on their
known geographic-range endemic status, and postulating the same to national
endemism of Indian freshwater fishes.
Fig. 1b. Percentage of endemic fishes in different Biogeographic zones
Prospective studies on Indian fishes

In the recent decades, the world over, there has been an impressive increase of
information on extant and fossil material and on morphological and molecular-
based phylogenies of fishes. In the Indian context, it is evinced that more work
is needed on species diversity of fishes from diverse aquatic ecosystem habitats.
Systematists are to analyse various characters to determine homologies for the
understanding of how evolution has produced the diversity of fishes that exists
today. There is a continuous need for large efforts to do more systematic research.
Much effort needs to be made on exploring, discovering and describing all
available living species in the natural aquatic habitat systems, and identifying and
559
Gopi et al.
designating the status of species for assessing their risk of becoming endangered
or extinct due to human causes. The concerns over problems of extinction of fish
species in freshwater are ever-increasing, with much conservation effort spent on
saving populations and species that are under severe risk.
Threats to Freshwater fish diversity

Fresh waters are the most threatened ecosystems in the world. Human dependence
on freshwater resources combined with localized and distant disturbances in
the river-drainage basins, right from upstream networks to lower river reaches,
and other freshwater bodies have consequently resulted in loss of biodiversity,
notably species extinctions, comparatively at a faster pace and rates, and further
exacerbated by anthropogenic climate change (Vörösmarty et al., 2010).
In the Indian context, as also in the global scenario, fish and their habitats
face threats from both natural and man-made hazards. The fish population face
varied threats of natural hazards like floods, earthquakes, changes in the river
course, glacial water discharge, erosion, cloud burst, natural discharge of organic/
inorganic elements and diseases. The threats are further compounded by man-
made hazards like pollution, river encroachment and embankments, sand mining,
and hydro-electric and irrigation dams.Hydroelectric and irrigation dams across
the rivers and flow regulation, changing the lotic environment to lentic and
homogenisation of habitats; conversion of wetlands into other forms of land uses,
destruction of riparian vegetation, etc. have deleterious effect on biodiversity, very
vulnerable to rare and endemic species, species with large home ranges, species
with limited dispersal potential as well as low reproductive potential, species with
short life cycles, and diadromous species. Destruction of riparian vegetation upsets
and damages stream substrate composition that is used by several fishes for their
shelter and foraging.
Pollution by chemicals or inorganic elements, like arsenic,is also degrading
the aquatic systems as, e.g., arsenic poisoning in fishes reported by Maheshwari et
al. (2010). Many harmful chemicals as xenobiotics, pesticides, weedicides etc are
largely used in agricultural and cash-crop (tea) programmes, which directly and
indirectly pollute and degrade both soil and water. Plant-based poisons are widely
used in fishing by the community people in both the biodiversity hotspots of Western
Ghats and Northeastern India.Scientists believe that the global temperature rise
and the consequent effect of climate change could unleash deleterious effect on
biodiversity and its complexity on a global level. The climate-induced changes on
a pan-India scale also portend serious threat to Indian biodiversity, especially
the diversity of fishes and their populations thriving in the freshwaters. Indian
biodiversity-rich ‘hot spots’ are vulnerable to the glacial-lake outburst floods as
occurring in Himalayas and northeastern India (Das, 2010), or to monsoonic cloud
outburst and massive landslides in northeastern India and Western Ghats, heavily
eroding and decimating biodiversity, especially of the rheophilic fish populations,
in the highland river tributaries and mountain streams.
Conservation status of each primary freshwater species (Table-5) as per the
IUCN Red Data list (IUCN, 2016) were taken in to account and observed that as
560
Pisces
many as 148 species (17.25%) are in threatened category (13 Critically Endangered,
63 Endangered and 72 Vulnerable), while 36 species are Near Threatened that
liked to slip in to threatenrd category if proper conservation measures not taken.
Less than 35% of primary freshwater fishes are Least Concerned that can be
consideratively explored for human consumption. However, conservation status of
more than 44% of fishes is not known.
Table 5. Conservation status of species in different families (IUCN 2016)
Sl.
Family CR EN VU NT LC DD NA Species
No.
1. Notopteridae -- -- -- 1 1 -- -- 2
2. Anguillidae -- -- -- 2 1 -- 1 4
3. Clupeidae* -- -- -- -- 2 -- -- 2
4. Cyprinidae 7 32 37 13 116 21 119 345
5. Psilorhynchidae 1 1 -- -- 3 3 9 17
6. Cobitidae -- 2 1 1 17 2 5 28
7. Balitoridae -- 4 1 1 4 1 5 16
8. Nemacheilidae 2 9 17 3 27 6 49 113
9. Amblycipitidae -- 1 -- -- 3 3 3 10
10. Akysidae -- -- -- -- 1 1 -- 2
11. Sisoridae 2 4 9 3 28 15 26 87
12. Erethistidae -- -- -- -- 7 14 8 29
13. Kryptoglanidae -- -- -- -- -- -- 1 1
14. Siluridae -- 2 -- 4 2 2 3 13
15. Chacidae -- -- -- -- 1 -- -- 1
16. Clariidae -- 1 -- 1 -- 2 2 6
17. Heteropneustidae -- -- -- -- 1 1 -- 2
18. Ailiidae -- 1 -- 1 5 4 2 13
19. Horabagridae -- 2 1 -- 1 1 -- 5
20. Pangasiidae -- -- -- -- 1 -- -- 1
21. Bagridae 1 1 1 1 27 4 15 50
22. Mugilidae* -- -- -- -- 2 -- -- 2
23. Adrianichthyidae -- -- -- -- 4 -- -- 4
24. Belonidae* -- -- -- -- 1 -- -- 1
25. Aplocheilidae -- -- -- -- 3 -- 4 7
26. Cyprinodontidae -- -- -- -- 1 -- -- 1
27. Syngnathidae -- -- 1 1 2 -- 1 5
28. Synbranchidae -- 1 1 -- 3 4 1 10
29. Mastacembelidae -- -- -- -- 5 1 3 9
561
Gopi et al.
Sl.
Family CR EN VU NT LC DD NA Species
No.
30. Chaudhuriidae -- 1 -- 1 -- -- -- 2
31. Ambassidae* -- -- -- 1 5 -- 3 9
32. Nandidae -- -- -- -- 1 1 -- 2
33. Pristolepididae -- -- -- -- 1 -- 3 4
34. Badidae -- 1 -- -- 2 3 13 19
35. Cichlidae -- -- -- -- 2 -- 1 3
36. Gobiidae* -- -- -- -- 3 1 3 7
37. Anabantidae -- -- -- -- -- 2 -- 2
38. Osphronemidae -- -- 1 1 5 -- -- 7
39. Channidae -- -- 1 1 6 2 4 14
40. Tetraodontidae* -- -- 1 -- 1 1 -- 3
TOTAL 13 63 72 36 295 95 284 858
Abbreviatons used. CR: Criticaly Endanged, EN: Endangerd, V: Vulerable, NT:
Near Threatned, LC: Least Concern, DD: Data Deficient, NA: Not Assessed.
* Fishes of these families are primarily marine inhabitants.
Discussion
Fishes are strongly dependent on lotic and lentic waters of rivers, streams and
other wetland systems. Species and their taxonomy being well-known, available
data on their diversity are sufficient enough to model their current distributions.
Therefore, their diversity and depletion trends in the aquatic ecosystems can be
taken as an effective biodiversity tool to assess the protection level of ecosystems
and species, and take steps towards identifying systematic conservation priorities
for fresh waters and the biodiversity they support. The level of human-induced
disturbances that influence condition of rivers, their stream reaches and
other wetlands both within and outside of terrestrial protected areas, are to be
appropriately assessed and quantified. Variable number of human-induced
disturbances reflects global trends of the state of fresh waters and their supported
biodiversity (Dudgeon et al. (2006).
The scientific studies and research need to address the knowledge gap,
regarding the mismatch in the level of understanding about the factual, or
reasonably accurate knowledge on the biodiversity potential of the freshwater
systems (i.e., dimensions of biodiversity attributes of the freshwater ecosystems,
including their ecological services), management policies and biodiversity-
conservation strategies for freshwater systems, especially the river drainage
systems, their tributaries, streams and associated wetlands/floodplains.
Given the interconnected nature of freshwater ecosystems and the limited
protection afforded to them, comprehensive assessments on the disturbances,
including the problems caused by the invasive alien species, that might affect
these ecosystems and their biodiversity are imperative measures and strategies to
562
Pisces
mitigate the problems. Terrestrial protected areas seldom afford effective protection
to fresh waters and their biota, including fishes, as evidenced by upland rivulets,
riparian stream-reaches and their associated wetlands being modified, altered or
influenced by the great pressure of human-induced disturbances. Reserves alone
are not adequate for nature conservation though they are the cornerstone on which
regional strategies are built (Marguels and Pressey, 2000).
The identification of disturbances and their proximity to protected areas
can further demonstrate the level of effectiveness of terrestrial protected areas
for abating threats to freshwater ecosystems and species (Sanchez-Arguello et al.
2010). The poor protection of fresh waters causing the consequent ill-effects on
their biodiversity warrants attention with regard to policy, biodiversity planning
and implementation of conservation actions. Planning for the conservation of fresh
waters and their dependent species requires holistic consideration of the whole-
of-catchment connectivity of the drainage basin and the disturbances.Globally,
there has been very little emphasis on designating protected areas for the primary
purpose of conserving fresh waters (Nel et al., 2007). Many wetlands in India, listed
under IUCN category II protection, are facing serious threats, their protection
being highly fragmented. Wetlands lying in the floodplains of most catchments
have been filled or have had riparian vegetation heavily cleared for agriculture or
susceptible to landscape alterations and weed infestations.
The estuarine wetlands, in continuity with their upriver freshwater
stretches are important for freshwater biodiversity and ecosystem services,
and are prioritised for protection by the Convention on Biodiversity. Given the
greatest level of protection afforded to such wetlands, there is a need for greater
conservation action to protect, restore and maintain ecosystem functioning of these
wetlands in the region. It meets the international conservation targets, and as well
ensures conservation of critical habitats that support a number of endemic and
range-restricted species in the specific ecosystem.
Fish species and their diversity may be poorly represented in areas of higher
elevation, while most freshwater fish species occur in the mid and lowlands.
However endemic and rare fish species inhabit more in mid and upper elevations.
The rarity and endemism of many fish species warrant greater conservation action
than at present to protect and save them from the endangerment of extinction.
Many fish species could be at high risk because their prime habitat is in the poorly
protected upper streams, midland rivers and floodplains and coastal inland waters.
The inadequacy of the protected-area network in representing important
freshwater ecosystems and species underscores the need for freshwater-specific
conservation. The terrestrial protected area includes a large proportion of land
coverage. However, its spatial distribution is far from optimal in providing adequate
coverage of fresh waters and the fish species they support, especially endemics. A
major challenge to quantifying the effectiveness of protected areas for representing
species is the incomplete information on freshwater biodiversity. The terrestrial
protected areas are sometimes shown for their effectiveness taken into account the
occurrence of many freshwater fish species—as data are available. However, data
are inadequate for other taxa, like many invertebrate groups, amphibians, reptiles
and birds that are also reliant on fresh waters.
563
Gopi et al.
The entire catchment protection may be preferred from a conservation

standpoint. But given the multiple demands on resources that catchments
and fresh waters experience, it is rarely a feasible proposition. Although the
existing protected area network does not include broad representation of fresh
waters, additional network can be established for further protection, or existing
undisturbed areas can be linked with other critical areas through restoration.
Identifying fresh waters and species that are particularly vulnerable to local and
upstream/downstream disturbances is an imperative measure. In conservation
perspective, there is even a need for off-reserve management of fresh waters on
both public and private lands (Linke et al., 2007).
In the current era of conservation programmes, there is an important
aspect to consider the threat of global climate changes that are hard to plan for
or manage. Changes in rainfall are likely to entail variability of discharge and
reduce the extent of higher-order streams, which support richer diversity of fish;
reduced dry-season discharge in upland streams could unleash resultant changes
in habitat, negatively affecting many endemic species of fish and amphibians.
Wetland protection tends to focus on specific sites, especially lentic systems, such as
freshwater protected areas, e.g. Ramsar wetlands, and ignores the interconnected
network across catchments. Protected areas cannot act as the only strategy for
achieving freshwater conservation challenges. There is a need to build on existing
protected areas networks to provide protection to focal freshwater ecosystems,
and connect this with whole-of-catchment management. Holistic approaches to
conservation ensuring spatial-temporal protection of specific, relevant habitat cum
species conservation management would lessen or moderate the impacts, providing
ecosystem and species persistence under current pressures and anticipated global
change.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to express deep gratitude to Dr. Kailash Chandra, Director,
Zoological Survey of India for permission and facilities.
REFERENCES
Bagra K., Kadu K., Nabeshwar-Sharma K., Laskar B.A., Sarkar U.K. and Das
D.N., 2009.Ichthyological survey and review of the checklist of fish fauna of
Arunachal Pradesh, India.Check List, 5(2): 330–350.
Barman R.P. 1993. Pisces: Freshwater Fishes. Fauna of Andhra Pradesh,
StateFauna Series, 5(1): 89-334. (Publ. Director, Zool. Surv. India, Kolkata).
Barman R.P., 2002. Pisces: Freshwater Fishes. Fauna of Tripura, State Fauna
Series, 7(1): 191-320. (Publ. Director, Zool. Surv. India, Kolkata).
Barman R.P. 2007.A review of freshwater fish fauna of west Bengal, India with
suggestions for conservation of the threatened and endemic species.Rec.
zool. Surv.India, Occ. Paper No. 263: 1-48.
Bijukumar A. and Raghavan R. 2015.A checklist of fishes of Kerala, India.Journal
of Threatened Taxa, 7(13): 8036-8080.
564
Pisces
Britz R., Kakkassery F. and Raghavan R. 2014. Osteology of Kryptoglanis shajii,

a stygobitic catfish (Teleostei: Siluriformes) from Peninsular India with a
diagnosis of the new family Kryptoglanidae. Ichthyol. Explor. Freshwaters,
24(3): 193-207.
Das PK (2010). Glacial lakes emerge as series threats. The Assam Tribune
Guwahati, 72(200): 13.
Datta A.K. and Majumdar N. 1970. Fauna of Rajastan, India. Part 7. Fishes. Rec.
zool. Surv. India, 62(1 & 2): 63-100.
Datta A.K., Kundu D.K. and Kamakar A.K. 1993.Freshwater Fishes. Fauna of
Orissa, State Fauna Series, 1 (4): 1-37. (Publ. Director, Zool. Surv. India,
Kolkata).
Day F. 1875-78 (1888). The fishes of India, being a Natural History of the fishes
known to inhabit the seas and fresh water of India, Burma and Ceylon.
Francis and Taylor, London. Part 1, 1875: 1-168, 1-40 pls. Part 2, 1876: 169-
368, 41-78 pls (+51 A-C). Part 3, 1877: 369-552, 70-138 pls. Part 4, 1878:
i-xx+553-778, 139-195 pls. Supp, 1888: 779-816, 7 figs.
Dudgeon D., Arthington A.H., Gessner M.O., Kawabata Z.I., Knowler D.J.,
Lévêque C., Naiman R.J., Prieur-Richard A.-H., Soto D., Stiassny M.L.J.
and Sullivan C.A. 2006. Freshwater biodiversity: importance, threats,
status and conservation challenges. Biological Reviews, 81: 163-182.
Eschmeyer W.N., Fricke R. and van der Laan R. (eds) 2017. Catalog of Fishes:
Genera, Species, Reference (http://researcharchive.calacademy.org/
research/ichthyology/catalog/fishcatmain.asp). Electronic version accessed
on 10 April 2017.
Eshmeyer W.N. and Fong J.D. 2017. Species By Family/ Subfamily (http://
researcharchive. calacademy.org/research/ichthyology/catalog/Species By
Family. asp). Electronic version accessed on 10 April 2017.
Ferraris C.J., Jr. 2007. Checklist of catfishes, recent and fossil (Osteichthyes:
Siluriformes), and catalogue of siluriform primary types. Zootaxa No. 1418:
1-628.
Froese R. and Pauly D. (eds) 2017. Fish Base. World Wide Web electronic
publication. www.fishbase.org, version (02/2017).
Gopi K.C. and Kosygin L. 2015. Pisces. Fauna of Uttar Pradesh, State Fauna
Series, 22(1): 7-30. (Publ. Director, Zool. Surv. India, Kolkata).
Hamilton F. 1822. An account of the fishes found in the River Ganges and its
branches. Edinburgh and London, 405 pp, 39 pls.
Hora S.L. 1937. Geographical distribution of Indian freshwater fishes and its
bearing on the probable land connections between India and the adjacent
countries.Curr. Sci., 5(7): 331-356.
Hora S.L. 1948. Knowledge of the ancient Hindus concerning fish and fisheries of
India – I. Reference to fish in Arthasastra (ca. 300 B.C.). J.R. Asiat. Soc.
Bengal. Letters, 14(1): 7-10.
565
Gopi et al.
Hora S.L. 1950. Knowledge of the ancient Hindus concerning fish and fisheries
of India – II.Fishery legislation in Ashoka’s Pillar Edict V (246 B.C.). J.R.
Asiat. Soc. Bengal. Letters, 16(1): 43-56.
Husain A. 1997. Pisces. Fauna of Delhi, State Fauna Series, 6: 551-651. (Publ.
Director, Zool. Surv. India, Kolkata).
IUCN 2016. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2016-3. <http://
www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 07 December 2016.
Jayaram K.C. 1976. Index Horana. Rec. zool. Surv. India, Occ. Pap. No. 1: 191 pp.
Jayaram K.C. 2006. Catfishes of India. Narendra Publishing House, Delhi: pp 383,
pls. 111.
Jayaram K.C. 2010. The freshwater fishes of Indian region (Revised 2nd Ed.).
Narendra Publishing House, Delhi: pp 616 + 39 pls.
Kapoor D., Dayal R. and Ponniah A.G. 2002. Fish biodiversity of India. National
Bureau of Fish Genetic Resources, Lucknow, India: 775 pp.
Karmakar A.K., 2006. Fishes. Fauna of Sikkim, State Fauna Series, 9(part 1): 185-
214. (Publ. Director, Zool. Surv. India, Kolkata).
Karmakar A., Bairagi N., Das A. and Banerjee P.K. (in press). Freshwater Fishes.
Fauna of Bihar, State Fauna Series, (unpublished) (Publ. Director, Zool.
Surv. India, Kolkata).
Karmakar A.K. and Das A., 2005. Fishes. Fauna of Manipur, State Fauna Series,
10(1): 133-171. (Publ. Director, Zool. Surv. India, Kolkata).
Karmakar A.K. and Das A., 2006. Fishes. Fauna of Nagaland, State Fauna Series,
12: 393-425. (Publ. Director, Zool. Surv. India, Kolkata).
Karmakar A.K. and Das A., 2007. Fishes. Fauna of Mizoram, State Fauna Series,
14: 507-535. (Publ. Director, Zool. Surv. India, Kolkata).
Karmakar A.K., Yadav B.E., Bairagi N., Das A., Banerjee P.K. and Jadhav S.S.
2012. Freshwater Fishes. Fauna of Maharashtra, State Fauna Series, 20(1):
247-367 (Publ. Director, Zool. Surv. India, Kolkata).
Kottelat M. 2012. Conspectus Cobitidum: an inventory of the loaches of the world
(Teleostei: Cypriniformes: Cobitoidei). Raffles Bull. Zool., Suppl. No. 26:
1-199.
Kottelat M. 2013. The fishes of the inland waters of Southeast Asia: a catalogue and
core bibliography of the fishes known to occur in freshwaters, mangroves
and estuaries. Raffles Bull. Zool., Suppl. No. 27: 1-663.
Kumar P. (in press). Pisces. Fauna of Punjab, State Fauna Series, (unpublished)
(Publ. Director, Zool. Surv. India, Kolkata).
Linke S., Pressey R.L., Bailey R.C. and Norris R.H. 2007. Management options
for river conservation planning: condition and conservation re-visited.
Freshwater Biology, 52: 918-938.
Linnaeus C. 1758. Systema Naturae. Ed. X (Systema Naturae per regna tria
naturae, secundum classes, ordines, genera, species, cum characteribus,
differentiis, synonymis, locis. Tomus I. Editio decimal, reformata) Holmiae.
1: 1-824 (Pisces in pp 230-338).
566
Pisces
Maheshwari R., Rani B., and Singh U. 2010. Arsenic toxicity: A hydrogeological
calamity Asrobios. VIII (8), pp. 18-22.
Margules C.R., Pressey R.L. 2000. Systematic conservation planning. Nature, 405:
243–253.
Mehta H.S. & Uniyal D.P., 2005. Pisces. Fauna of Western Himalaya- Himachal
Pradesh, 2: 255-268. (Publ. Director, Zool. Surv. India, Kolkata).
Menon A.G.K. 1964. Monograph of the Cyprinid fishes of the genus Garra Hamilton.
Mem. Indian Mus., 4(4): 173-260.
Menon A.G.K. 1987. The Fauna of India and the adjacent countries: Pisces Vol. IV.
Teleostei – Cobitoidea, Part 1. Homalopteridae. Zool. Surv. India, Kolkata:
259 pp + 16 pls.
Menon A.G.K. 1992. Fauna of India and the adjacent countries: Pisces Vol. IV.
Teleostei – Cobitoidea, Part 2. Cobitidae. Zool. Surv. India, Kolkata: 113 pp
+ 9 pls.
Menon A.G.K., 1999. Check list - fresh water fishes of India. Rec. zool. Surv. India.
Occ. Paper No. 175: i–xxviii + 1-366.
Molur S. and Walker S. (eds) 1998. Report of the workshop “Conservation
Assessment and Management Plan for Frshwater Fishes of India”. Zoo
Outreach Organisation, Conservation Breeding Specialist Group, India,
Coimbatore, India: 1-156.
Nel J.L., Roux D.J., Maree G., Kleynhans C.J., Moolman J., Reyers B., Rouget M.
and Cowling R.M. 2007. Rivers in peril inside and outside protected areas:
a systematic approach to conservation assessment of river ecosystems.
Diversity and Distributions, 13: 341-352.
Nelson J.S. 2006. Fishes of the world. 4th edition. John Willey & Sons, Hoboken
N.J.: i-xix, 1-601.
Pethiyagoda R., Meegaskumbura M. and Maduwage K. 2012. A synopsis of the
south Asian fishes referred to Puntius (Pisces: Cyprinidae). Ichthyol. Explor.
Freshw., 23(1): 69-95.
Raghavan R., Philip S., Ali A. and Dahanukar N. 2013. Sahyadria, a new genus of
barbs (Teleostei: Cyprinidae) from Western Ghats of India. J. Threatened
Taxa, 5(15): 4932-4938.
Randall Z.S and Page L.M. 2015. On the paraphyly of Homaloptera (Teleostei:
Balitoridae) and description of a new genus of hillstream loaches from the
Western Ghats of India. Zootaxa, 3926(1): 57-86.
Remadevi K. 2015. Ichthyofauna of inland water bodies of Pondicherry, Karaikal,
Yanam and Mahe. Rec. zool. Surv. India, Occ. Paper No. 362: 1-52.
Remadevi K., Indra T.J. and Raghunathan M.B. 2009.Pisces (Freshwater).Fauna
of Tamil Nadu, State Fauna Series, 17(1): 155-163. (Publ. Director, Zool.
Remadevi K., Indra T.J., Yadav B.E., Raghunathan M.B., Krishnan S. and Jadhav
S.S. 2013.Freshwater Fishes.Fauna of Karnataka, State Fauna Series, 21:
239-276 (Publ. Director, Zool. Surv. India, Kolkata).
567
Gopi et al.
Russell P. 1803. Description and figures of two hundred fishes; collected at

Vizagapatnam on the coast of Coromandel. London, 1 & 2: i-vii + 78 pp +
85 pp, 197 pls.
Sanchez-Arguello R, Cornejo A, Pearson RG, Boyero L. 2010.Spatial and temporal
variation of stream communities in a human-affected tropical watershed.
Annales De Limnologie-International Journal of Limnology, 46: 149-156.
Sen N., 1995. Pisces. Fauna of Meghalaya, State Fauna Series, 4(1): 483-606, figs.
1-3, 39 pls., 12 maps. (Publ. Director, Zool. Surv. India, Kolkata).
Sen T.K. 1985. The Fish Fauna of Assam and the Neighbouring North-Eastern
States of India. Rec. zool. Surv. India, Occ. Paper No. 64: 218 pp.
Sen T.K., and Banerjee P.K. 2000. Freshwater Fishes. Fauna of Gujarat, State
Fauna Series, 8(1): 413-464. (Publ. Director, Zool. Surv. India, Kolkata).
Sharma H.S. 2007. Freshwater Fishes. Fauna of Madhya Pradesh (Including
Chhattisgarh), State Fauna Series, 15(1): 147-244. (Publ. Director, Zool.
Sharma I. (in press). Fishes. Fauna of Uttar Pradesh, State Fauna Series,
(unpublished) (Publ. Director, Zool. Surv. India, Kolkata).
Talwar P.K., 1991. Pisces. In: Animal Resources of India. Zool. Surv. India,
Kolkata: 577-630.
Talwar P.K. and Jhingran A.G. 1991. Inland fishes of India andadjacent countries.
Oxford & IBH publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, 1 & 2: i–xvii + 1158 pp.
Uniyal D.P. 2010. Pisces. Fauna of Uttarakhand, State Fauna Series, 18(1): 533-
Vincent M. and Thomas J. 2011. Kryptoglanis shajii, an enigmatic subterranean-
spring catfish (Siluriformes: Incerte sedis) from Kerala, India. Ichthyol.
Res., 58(2): 161-165.
Vörösmarty C.J., McIntyre P.B., Gessner M.O., Dudgeon D., Prusevich A., Green
P., Glidden S., Bunn S.E., Sullivan C.A., Reidy Liermann C. & Davies
P.M. 2010. Global threats to human water security and river biodiversity.
Nature, 468: 334–334.
Wang J., Lu B., Zan R., Chai J., Ma W., Jin W., Duan R., Luo J., Murphy R.W.,
Xiao H. and Chen Z. 2016. Phylogenetic relationships of five Asian schilbid
genera including Clupisoma (Siluriformes: Schilbeidae). PLoS ONE, 11(1)
e0145675: 1-16.
Yadav B.E. 2008. Freshwater Fishes. Fauna of Goa, State Fauna Series, 16: 243-
568
Pisces
Plate I
Some Endemic Fishes of India
Barilius bakeri Day Barilius canarensis (Jerdon)
Garra periyarensis Gopi Garra arupi Nabeshwar, Vishwanath

& Das
Garra elongata Vishwanath & Kosygin Garra tamangi Gurumayum & Kosygin
Pethia punctata (Day) Puntius mahecola (Valenciennes)
Dawkinsia tambraparniei (Silas) Glyptothorax maceriatus Ng &

Lalramliana
569
Gopi et al.
Plate II
Some Endemic Fishes of India
Sahyadria denisoni (Day) Tor khudree (Sykes)
Glyptothorax kudremukhensis Gopi Glyptothorax malabarensis Gopi
Glyptothorax senapatiensis Premananda, Glyptothoraxs crobiculus Ng &

Kosygin & Saidullah Lalramliana
Aborichthys waikhomi Kosygin Schistura prashadi (Hora)
Horaglanis alikunhii Subhash Babu & Bhavania australis (Jerdon)

Nayar
570
Chapter 34
Amphibia
Kaushik Deuti
ABSTRACT
Of the 386 species of amphibians known from India till date, about 275 species
belonging to 48 genera and 13 families dwell primarily in fresh-water ecosystems.
11 families of Anurans (frogs and toads) comprising of 42 genera and 234 species
breed in fresh-water or have tadpoles that develop in fresh-water. Both the species
of Urodelans (salamanders: Salamandridae) found in India have gilled tadpoles
with well-developed limbs that develop in fresh-water mountain lakes. 3 families
of Caecilians (limbless amphibians) comprising of 5 genera and 39 species all have
larval stages that are aquatic. Deforestation, damming of rivers, over-fishing
and pollution by domestic, agricultural and industrial sewage like pesticides,
fungicides, heavy metals, aromatic hydrocarbons; capture of frogs for frog-leg trade;
acidification, climate change and global warming and effect of UV-B radiation as
a result of ozone layer depletion are primary causes for the population decline of
fresh-water amphibians in India.
Key words: Amphibia, Anurans, Caecilians, Urodelans, India.
INTRODUCTION
Amphibians are represented today by three living orders: Anura/Salientia (frogs
and toads with 6706 species worldwide), Caudata/Urodela (salamanders and
newts with 693 species worldwide) and Gymnophiona /Apoda (caecilans or limbless
amphibians with 205 species worldwide). Thus 7604 species of amphibians are
known globally now. Of these, 386 species belonging to 59 genera and 15 families
of all three living orders of amphibians are known from India up to 2016. This
comprises about 5% of the species known from the world. In India, there are 345
species of frogs and toads (Anura), 2 species of salamanders (Caudata / Urodela)
and 39 species of caecilans or limbless amphibians (Gymnophiona). Of the 386
species of Indian amphibians, about 275 species are aquatic and dwell in fresh-
water.
Fossil History
There are no fossil records of fresh-water Indian amphibians.
Historical Resume (Review of Literature)
Pre 1900: Systematic collection of Indian amphibians started with the foundation
of the Asiatic Society of Bengal. Large number of zoological curiosities including
Zoological Survey of India, Amphibia Section, Herpetology Division, FPS Building, Indian
Museum Complex, 27 JL Nehru Road, Kolkata-700016
e-mail: [email protected]
571
Deuti
amphibians from all over the British Indian Empire and far beyond, including the
Middle East, Africa, North America, Central Asia, Sri Lanka, the Malay Peninsula
and eastern China began to arrive at the Society after about 1828. These were either
sent as gifts to the Society or collected by the staff of the Society during the many
expeditions to the then poorly explored parts of Asia. In 1866, with the passing of
the Indian Museum Act, this collection was handed over to the Indian Museum.
With the establishment of the Zoological Survey of India in 1916, the zoological
collections of the two former institutions were passed on to this organization which
is now regarded as the National Zoological Collection (NZC) of India.
The first curator of the Asiatic Society was Edward Blyth during the period
1841-1863. Blyth did little field collection himself (although he described many
species like Rana livida, Rana nigrovittata and Microhyla berdmorei) but built up
the finest zoological collection in the East by persuading friends such as Surgeon-
Major Thomas ClaverhillJerdon (1811-1872), Colonel Arthur PurvesPhayre (1812-
1885), Brian Houghton Hodgson (1800-1894) and Dr. Edward Fredrick Kelaart
(1819-1860) to send him specimens from all over India and other parts of the
British Empire, particularly from Sri Lanka, Nepal and Myanmar. Jerdonalso
made a catalogue of the reptiles inhabiting the peninsula of India in 1853 and
published the notes on Indian herpetology in 1870 in which he described several
new species of amphibians. Blyth also sent huge number of these collections to
the British Museum in London where the then curators Albert Gunther and then
George Albert Boulenger described a large number of new Indian amphibian
species.It was thought necessary to establish a formal museum, which led to the
establishment of the Indian Museum in 1874. Its first superintendent was John
Anderson and during his time, several important expeditions were organized to
different parts of India which add significantly to the collection of the Museum.
Anderson listed the amphibians accessed by the Indian Museum from 1865-1870,
described the Himalayan newt (Tylototriton verrucosus) from western Yunnan in
1871 and reported a caecilian from Goalpara (Assam) and Shillong (Khasi hills).
William Thomas Blanfordreported caecilians from Himalayas and Central India
and the genus Pyxicephalusfrom India and those donated to the Museum by
Ferdinand Stoliczka who made observations on Indian and Malayan amphibians
and described the new species, Rana vicina from Punjab. William Theobald also
contributed numerous novelties to the collection of the Museum. The first effort
to prepare a catalogue of the herpetological holdings in the Indian Museum in
1866 was made by Theobald. The last catalogue of the amphibians in the Indian
Museum was prepared by William LutleySclaterin 1892 who also described some
new species. Colonel Richard Henry Beddome an officer of the British Army
who collected in Southern India described several new reptiles from the Madras
Presidency and described the rare Black Microhylid frog (Melanobatrachus
indicus) in 1878.
1900-1947: Thomas Nelson Annandale joined as Deputy Superintendent of the
Indian Museum in 1904 and later became the Superintendent in 1907. He founded
the Zoological Survey of India in 1916. Annandale worked on the amphibians of
the Chilika lagoon, their eggs and distribution of the Himalayan salamander and
572
Amphibia
fauna of Yunnan and made an expedition to the Abor hills of Arunachal Pradesh and
Tibet from which he described several new species of amphibians. He also worked
on the tadpoles of the families Ranidae and Bufonidae. Annandale’s own student
Sunder LalHoraalthough best known as an ichthyologist and biogeographer also
published several important papers in herpetology including the development and
evolution of the suctorial oral disc in hill-stream tadpoles of the genus Amolopsand
Megophrysbetween 1920-1934. C.R.N. Rao, a teacher at the Central College in
Bangalore, also described a number of amphibians from Peninsular India like
Nyctibatrachus sanctipalustris modestus, Bufo stomaticus peninsularis, Rana
gracilis montanus, Rana bhagamandlensis, Rana limnocharis mysorensis and the
new genus Ramanella. B.R. Seshachar also worked during this period (1935-1948)
on the reproduction, egg laying and cytogenetics of caecilians in Karnataka.
1948-2014: After India’s independence, the scientists of the Zoological Survey
of India initially took up the leading role in the study of India’s amphibians. Hora’s
junior colleague, Mira Mansukhani studied the tadpoles with suctorial discs from
Darjeeling hills and the amphibians of Rajasthan, Tripura, Midnapore district of
West Bengal, described a new toad (Bufo camortensis) from Camorta Island of
Nicobars. R.S. Pillai also of the Zoological Survey of India, described several new
species from different parts of India like Microhylachakrapani, Micryletta inornata,
Micrixalus nudis, Rana murthii, Micrixalus thampii, Bufosilentvalleyensis,
Ansonia rubigina, Micrixalusgadgilietc between 1977-1991. He along with S.K.
Chanda described some species from North-eastern India like Ranadanieli, Rana
mawphlangensis, Rana bilineatabetween 1973-1981. Shyamal KumarChanda also
described a number of new species from North-eastern India like Rana senchalensis,
Rana ghoshi, Rana mawlyndipietc between 1986-1989. Anurup Kumar Sarkar
also studied the amphibians of Namdapha Tiger Reserve in Arunachal Pradesh.
He also studied the amphibians of West Bengal, Orissa, Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat,
Chotanagpur plateau in Bihar. J.C. Daniel and A.G. Sekar of the Bombay Natural
History Society studied the amphibians of the Western Ghats and Goa respectively
between 1963-1989 and 1988-1996. Thereafter, several teachers and researchers
like Sushil Kumar Dutta studied the taxonomy and life history of the amphibians
of Orissa and other parts of India and described some new species like Limnonectes
orissaensis, Microhyla sholigari, Kalophrynus orangensis between 1983-2003.
Robert Inger and S.K. Dutta prepared the first list of Indian amphibians in 1986.
Indraneil Das studied the morphology and systematics of the amphibians of South
India and Andaman & Nicobar Islands and described several new species like
Limnonectes shompenorum, Rana charlesdarwini, Kaloula assamensis, Nanorana
mokokchungensis, Leptolalaxkhasiorumetc between 1994-2010. Satyabhama Das
Biju and Franky Bossuyt made the significant discovery of the Pig-nosed frog
(Nasikabatrachus sahyadrensis) in 2003 and since then have described many
species from Western Ghats and North-eastern India.Varad Giri along with Mark
Wilkinson and David Gower worked on the caecilans of the northern Western
Ghats and described species like Gegeneophis danieli, G. pareshi, Indotyphlus
maharashtraensis while Gopal Krishna Bhatta worked on the caecilians of
southern Western Ghats and described 5 species between 2004-2011. Rachenliu
573
Deuti
Kamei with Mark Wilkinson, David Gower and S.D. Biju worked on the caecilans
of North-eastern India and described 4 new species including the genus Chikila.
Diversity
(a) Global Status: 7604 species of amphibians are known from all over the world
now. This includes 6706 species of Anurans (frogs and toads), 693 species
of Urodeles (salamanders and newts) and 205 species of Gymnophionans
(caecilians).
(b) Indian Status: As of 2016, the known amphibian species from India was 386
belonging to 59 genera and 15 families of all three living orders of amphibians.
This comprises about 5% of the species known from the world. In India,
there are 345 species of frogs and toads (Anurans), 2 species of salamanders
(Urodela) and 39 species of Caecilans (limbless amphibians). About 275 species
belonging to 48 genera and 13 families of Indian amphibians dwell primarily
in fresh-water ecosystems.
Table 1. The taxonomic status of Indian fresh-water amphibians with the names
of families, genera and number of species in each genus
Order Anura (frogs & toads)
Family Genera Number of Species
Bufonidae Bufoides 1
Bufotes 1
Duttaphrynus 19
Ghatophryne 2
Ingerophrynus 1
Pedostibes 2
Xanthophryne 2
Dicroglossidae Allopaa 2
Chrysopaa 1
Euphlyctis 5
Fejervarya 4
Hoplobatrachus 2
Ingerana 2
Limnonectes 8
Minervarya 2
Occidozyga 2
Ombrana 1
Paa 9
Sphaerotheca 4
Zakerana 18
574
Amphibia

Megophryidae Leptobrachium 3
Leptolalax 4
Megophrys 3
Scutiger 2
Xenophrys 9
Micrixalidae Micrixalus 23
Microhylidae Kalophrynus 1
Kaloula 4
Melanobatrachus 1
Microhyla 8
Micryletta 1
Ramanella 6
Uperodon 2
Nasikabatrachidae Nasikabatrachus 1
Nyctibatrachidae Nyctibatrachus 28
Ranidae Amolops 13
Clinotarsus 2
Humerana 1
Hylarana 19
Odorrana 3
Pterorana 1
Ranixalidae Indirana 11
Order Urodela / Caudata (Salamanders)

Salamandridae Tylototriton 2
Order Gymnophiona (Caecilians)

Chikilidae Chikila 4
Ichthyophiidae Ichthyophis 15
Uraeotyphlus 7
Indotyphliidae Gegeneophis 11
Indotyphlus 2
Distribution: Out of the Indian amphibians about 196 species are found in the
Western Ghats and another 102 species in North-eastern India. The rest of the
species are distributed throughout the rest of the country and some of them are
common all over India.
575
Deuti
Endemism: Out of the amphibians known from India, 234 species are endemic
(68.42%). Of these 234 endemic species, 167 species are endemic to the Western
Ghats (71.36%) and 54 species are endemic to North-eastern India (23.07%),
making these two areas as biodiversity hotspots. Besides, 2 species are endemic
to Eastern Himalayas, 2 species are endemic to Western Himalayas, 1 species to
Eastern Ghats, 5 species to Andaman & Nicobar Islands, 1 species to Northern
India, 1 species to Central India and 1 species to Northern Bengal.
THREATENED TAXA
Of the Indian amphibians, 78 species are threatened according to IUCN. Of these,
78 threatened species, 17 species are listed as Critically Endangered, 32 species as
Endangered, 22 species as Vulnerable and 7 species as Near Threatened. According
to the IUCN Red list of threatened species, the status of Indian amphibians is
4.97% Critically endangered; 9.35% Endangered; 6.43% Vulnerable and 2.04%
Near Threatened. Out of the 386 species of known Amphibians from India, 74
species (21.63%) are yet to be evaluated and 81 species (23.68%) are still under the
data deficient category.
ϯϱ ϯϮ
ϯϬ
Ϯϱ ϮϮ
ϮϬ ϭϳ
ϭϱ
ϭϬ ϳ
ϱ
Ϭ
Z E sh Ed

Number of Species of Threatened Amphibians in different threat categories.
Threats: The various threats responsible for population decline of amphibians
in India are:
Deforestation and Habitat destruction

Deforestation has affected not only the population of canopy-dwelling primates
and other forest-dwelling wild animals but also the forest-dwelling amphibians.
In some places, the opening up of the canopy has resulted in desiccation of the
moist leaf litter which has severely affected the population of the litter-dwelling
amphibians. With the rain-forest canopy no longer providing shade to the small
rain pools on the forest floor, the small frogs can no longer find their suitable
breeding habitat. Certain forestry practices such as removal of the leaf litter are
also causing amphibian population decline. Many of these amphibian species are
576
Amphibia
so far known from only one small forest patch, i.e., they are point endemic and with
the destruction of these small forest patches, these small endemic amphibians are
vanishing before scientists are discovering anything about their life and habits.
In some places, the excessive clearing of undergrowth (understory vegetation)
for housing purposes and landscape gardening has resulted in the decrease in the
presence of the bush frogs and tree frogs.
Damming of rivers
India has a number of rivers and rivulets that debouch from the hills into the
vast plains and these become turbulent during the monsoons. Engineers use the
potential of these rivers to tap hydro-electricity by damming them. As a result
the forests downstream have often been severely affected and with them the
many small living creatures including the amphibians. Besides the construction
of innumerable small check-dams over the hill-streams, has resulted in drying of
these streams, thus affecting the stream-dwelling amphibians.
Over-fishing and pollution

Moreover, over fishing in these hill-streams, often by using poisons and electric
charge from portable generators to shock the fishes has decimated the meager
population of hill-stream amphibians.
Pesticides and Fungicides

Many scientists believe that increasing use of pesticides and fungicides may be
responsible for frog deaths. Spraying of pesticides not only poison frogs directly,
it also wipes out their food supply. Amphibians are susceptible to at least 211
different pesticides. Organo-phosphate insecticides, like malathion, are known
to disturb the frog’s development, distorting the growth of their limbs at the egg
and tadpole stages. Frog deformities such as multiple or missing limbs and body
abnormalities because of unchecked use of chemicals have already been reported
from many areas. Amphibians are highly vulnerable to toxics because they
have thin permeable skin that readily absorb contaminants and their eggs lack
protective shells and are highly permeable as well. Pollution by heavy metals,
pesticides, aromatic hydrocarbons and radioactive waste is frequently invoked
as a cause for local declines. In some heavily industrialized areas, pollution is so
intense that it is a wonder that there are any amphibians left.
Global Trade and Capture of frogs

Uncontrolled international trade in amphibians is also threatening several
species. The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES)
or the Washington Convention, has already banned trade in two amphibian
species – Indian Bull Frog (Hoplobatrachustigerinus) and Green Pond Frog
(Euphlyctishexadactylus). As many as 30 frogs are killed to make a kilogram of frog
legs. India exported as much as 4000 tonnes of frog legs a year in the mid-1980s.
After the ban in India, Bangladesh and Indonesia have become major exporters
of frog legs. But not even a total ban can prevent the killings; the illegal export
continues to thrive in all the three countries. Frogs are particularly important
577
Deuti
for a country such as India, where the agricultural sector plays a vital role in the
economy. They devour pests which pose a threat to crops and prevent the spread
of vector-borne diseases like malaria because they consume parasites responsible
for the disease. An adult frog devours its own weight of insects daily. Thus if its
population goes down, the insect population goes up. The decimation of frogs
means increasing the use of pesticides which poses serious health hazards to all
living organisms. According to experts at the Bombay Natural History Society, in
many parts of western Maharashtra, crops have been badly hit by proliferating
insects as a result of large-scale slaughter of frogs.
Climate change and Global warming

The exact effects of climate change and global warming on the Indian amphibians
are not known, or whether they are affected by any specific disease. The stresses of
a changing climate could make amphibians more susceptible to infection. A change
in the moisture regime or a change in water temperature might weaken amphibian
immune systems. Warmer water might also affect a pathogen’s virulence, or its
capacity to move from one animal to another. Warmer air might increase the range
of insects that carry it.
Acidification
Another anthropogenic disturbance that is suspected to have a negative effect
on amphibian populations is acidification of water bodies. In the industrialized
nations this is happening because of increasing sulphur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen
dioxide (NO2) emissions. SO2 (in the presence of sunlight) and NO2 react with
water vapour to form sulphuric and nitric acids. The rain water contaminated with
these acids affects flora and fauna both on land and water adversely.
UV Radiation
UV radiation affects amphibian eggs in shallow lakes and ponds which either fail
to hatch or produce deformed tadpoles. It is likely that increased UV levels are
injuring other amphibians, particularly those at higher altitudes where the ozone
layer tends to be weaker. Amphibians at higher elevations could be especially
susceptible, since the higher you go, the less atmosphere there is to filter out the
Ultra-violet radiation.
Human significance
The first vertebrate animal to which virtually everyone is introduced to in their
high school practical classes is undoubtedly the common Indian toad (Duttaphrynus
melanostictus). Every year millions of amphibians are killed throughout the world
to acquaint the young biologist with the intricacies of vertebrate anatomy. Perhaps
still greater is the number that is sacrificed in research and clinical laboratories
the world over for experiments on physiology, pharmacology and medicine. In fact,
the first successful heart transplantation was performed on a frog about 65 years
ago and till recently amphibians were widely employed in human pregnancy tests
until better methods were devised. The venoms of some South American Poison-
dart frogs are used for the production of anti-fungal ointments while some other
colourful species are keptas pets in aquariums by private collectors and zoos.
578
Amphibia
Amphibians render incalculable services to agriculture. By sowing vast

areas with food and other crops, we create the most suitable conditions for the life
and reproduction of insect pests that feed on these plants. And they infact take
advantage of these ideal living conditions to inflict considerable and sometimes
catastrophic losses on our agriculture. This is where the significance of amphibians
is the greatest. Wherever we have not sharply reduced their numbers they become
active defenders of our crops and help us in saving the harvest.
The overall importance of the amphibians in the biological control of pests
has not yet been fully documented. Investigations on the amphibian diet in our
country and worldwide has revealed that the insects they feed on are mostly
destructive. Frogs and toads devour whatever small living creatures they see more
often and owing to the fact that insect pests are more numerous in our agriculture
fields than other insects, they make up 80-85% of the food consumed by them. For
instance, a single toad can eat 22,500 destructive insect pests during the growing
season from May till September at the rate of 150 per day. Therefore toads are
valuable additions to the fauna of the agricultural areas despite their warts and
unappealing appearance. Every year amphibians thus protect crops worth crores
of rupees.
One major feature of the hunting habits of frogs and toads has made them
the most versatile protectors of our crops. Insectivorous birds feed only during
the daytime. Hence their diet comprises only of pests that are active during the
day time. But amphibians hunt round the clock – mostly at twilight and by night
and even sometimes during the morning. Therefore they render great service
to mankind by exterminating the nocturnal insects that are not taken by the
birds. They also feed on poisonous insects and do not abstain from takingcertain
caterpillars that are brightly coloured and are avoided by the majority of birds.
They help in reducing the number of many blood-sucking insects which are vectors
of deadly diseases. Adults actively feed on mosquitoes and flies while the tadpoles
and young froglets consume their larvae and pupae. Tadpoles also consume many
kinds of organic materials that might otherwise pollute our ponds and rivers and
sometimes act as scavengers by feeding on dead animals. Thus in every respect
they may be considered as our true friends.
The most important function of amphibians in nature has been grossly
underestimated. While on the one hand they are active predators, on the other hand
they constitute a vital link in the food chain of life by serving as prey base for apex
predators in the ecosystem. Being extremely voracious they are natural population
regulators of the numerous invertebrate species that they feed on. In their turn,
amphibians are extremely prolific breeders, capable of rapid growth and intensive
utilization of available food resources. Thus they are able to increase their number
and biomass very rapidly and so govern the population of the secondary predators
who feed on them. They furnish food for several kind of fishes, turtles, snakes and
birds and serve as staple diet for many endangered species in the wild.
Amphibians are also utilized as food by humans in many parts of the world.
Frogs’ legs are considered a delicacy in Europe and the United States. Therefore
since 1959 the export of ‘froen frog-legs’ worth lakhs of rupees had steadily caught
579
Deuti
up. The species involved were the Indian Bull Frog (Hoplobatrachus tigerinus),
the Jerdon’s Bull Frog (Hoplobatrachus crassus), the Green Pond Frog (Euphlyctis
hexadactylus) and sometimes the Skittering Frog (Euphlyctis cyanophlyctis). It
has been estimated that 15-20 edible frogs are required to make a decent meal for
a single person and in favourable weather a frog-catcher could collect 50-60 in a
single night. This sort of wanton destruction of the entire frog population resulted
in depletion of the large-sized frogs, affecting the status of these species as well as
its commercial value. Due to this merciless removal of these common frogs from
nature, villagers in many areas felt a disturbance in the balance of nature.
Conservation value
The Indian Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 has enlisted 3 species of amphibians
in Schedule II of the Act (Tylototriton verrucosus, Pedostibeskempiand
Pedostibestuberculosus) besides enlisting all the Ranid frogs under Schedule IV.
Since 1st April, 1986, the Government of India has banned the processing and
exporting of frozen frog-legs and thus stopped the trade in frogs like the Indian
Bull Frog (Hoplobatrachus tigerinus), the Jerdon’s Bull Frog (Hoplobatrachus
crassus) and Green Pond Frog (Euphlyctis hexadactylus) which used to be killed
and exported in vast quantities. Of the Indian amphibians, 78 species are listed
as threatened according to IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature
and Natural Resources). Of these, 78 threatened species, 17 species are listed as
Critically Endangered, 32 species as Endangered, 22 species as Vulnerable and 7
species as Near Threatened. Apart from these, the Convention on International
Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) or the Washington Convention, has already
banned trade in two Indian amphibian species – Indian Bull Frog (Hoplobatrachus
tigerinus) and Green Pond Frog (Euphlyctis hexadactylus) and included them under
Appendix II. Many of the Government and Non Governmental Organizations in
India are actively organizing conservation awareness programs among the citizens
and local people against the harmful effects of habitat destruction, deforestation,
jhum cultivation, fragmentation, opening up of rain-forest canopy, damming of
rivers, pollution (industrial and chemical fertilizers and organo-chlorine and
organo-phosphate pesticides), climate change and global warming etc which are
all responsible in conserving the amphibian species of the country.
Gaps in research
Although some work has been done on the taxonomy and biodiversity of Indian
amphibians in some areas of India like the Western Ghats, this work remains
to be done in many other important areas like the Eastern Ghats, Eastern and
Western Himalayas and North-eastern India. Besides, except for a handful of
common species, nothing is known about the biology (habitat ecology, habit and
behavior, call, reproduction, larval development, metamorphosis and food habits)
of most Indian amphibians. Without knowing anything about the biological
characteristics of most Indian amphibian species, it is difficult or impossible to
understand the specific threats they are facing (adverse effects of deforestation,
habitat modification, fragmentation, diseases, pollution, global warming, climate
change and increasing UV radiation). Therefore, there is immediate need to
take up specific research projects on biological features of most of the Indian
580
Amphibia
amphibian species as well on their ecology to understand which specific factors

are leading to their decline. However, this work is not possible without properly
identifying the species being studied. So there is an urgent need to develop
expertise in morpho taxonomy as well as molecular taxonomy to understand the
systematics and phylogeny of the Indian species which have many origins (African,
Chinese, Malayan, Central Asian as well as Indian). Similarly there is need to do
bioacoustical analysis on the calls of the Indian species to understand their species
diversity. Practically nothing is known about the larvae of most Indian species.
This study must be taken up immediately along with studies on their life cycle and
developmental biology. Specific studies must also be taken up to understand the
density (numbers) of amphibians in most important ecosystems as no quantitave
data exists on all the Indian species and therefore their decline in numbers cannot
be estimated. A thorough understanding of their habitat ecology is needed to
understand the effects of habitat modification, fragmentation, pollution, global
warming and climate change on their numbers.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
complete this work.
REFERENCES
Anderson, J. 1871. A list of reptilian accession to the Indian Museum, Calcutta
from 1865-1870, with a description of some new species. J. Asiatic Soc.
Bengal, 40: 12-39.
Anderson, J. 1871. Description of a new genus of newt from Western Yunan. Proc.
Zool. Soc. London: 423-425.
Annandale, N. 1908. Breeding habits of Tylototritonverrucosus. Rec. Ind. Mus., 2:
305-306.
Annandale, N. 1909. Notes on Indian batrachia. Rec. Ind. Mus., 3: 282-286.
Annandale, N. 1912. Zoological Results of the Abor Expedition. (1911-1912) Rec.
Indian Mus., 8: 7-36.
Annandale, N. 1915. Fauna of Chilikalake. Reptiles and Batrachia. Mem. Indian
Museum., Calcutta., 5: 167-174.
Annandale, N. 1918. Some undescribed tadpoles from the hills of southern India.
Rec. Ind. Museum.,15(2): 17-23.
Annandale, N. & Rao, C.R.N. 1918. The tadpoles of the families Ranidae and
Bufonidae found in the plains of India. Rec. Ind. Museum, 15(3): 25-40.
Annandale, N. & Hora, S.L. 1922. Parallel evolution in the fish and tadpoles of
mountain torrents. Rec. Ind. Museum, 24: 505-509.
Beddome, R.H. 1877. Descriptions of new reptiles from the Madras Presidency.
Proc. Zool. Soc. London, 45: 685-686.
Beddome, R.H. 1878. Description of a new batrachian from southern India,
belonging to the family Phryniscidae. Proc. Zool. Soc. London: 722-723.
581
Deuti
Biju, S.D. & Bossuyt, F. 2003. New frog family from India reveals an ancient
biogeographical link with the Seychelles. Nature, 425: 711-714.
Biju, S.D., Bocxlaer, I.V., Giri, V.B., Loader, S.P. &Bossuyt, F. 2009. Two new
endemic genera and a new species of toad (Anura: Bufonidae) from the
Western Ghats of India. BMC Research Notes, 2: 241-246.
Blanford, W.T. 1870. Notes on some reptilia and amphibia from Central India. J.
Asiatic Soc Bengal, 39: 355-376.
Blyth, E. 1854. Notices and descriptions of various reptiles, new or little known. J.
Asiatic Soc Bengal., 23: 287-302.
Boulenger, G.A. 1883. Description of new species of reptiles and batrachians in the
British Museum. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., 5, 12: 161-167.
Boulenger, G.A. 1888. Descriptions of two Indian species of Rana. Ann. Mag. Nat.
Hist., 6(2): 506-508.
Boulenger, G.A. 1890. The fauna of British India, including Ceylon and Burma.
Reptilia and Batrachia. Taylor and Francis., xviii + 541 pp.
Chanda, S.K. 1986. On a collection of anuran amphibians from Darjeeling and
Sikkim Himalayas, with description of a new species of Rana (Ranidae). J.
Bengnat Hist. Soc., N.S. 5(2): 140-151.
Chanda, S.K. 1990. A new frog of the genus Rana (Ranidae: Anura) from Manipur,
North-eastern India. Hamadryad, 15(1): 16-17.
Chanda, S.K. 1990. Ranamawlyndipi, a new frog (Ranidae) from Khasi hills,
Meghalaya, India. J. Bengnat Hist. Soc., N.S. 9(1): 44-48.
Chanda, S.K. 1991. Amphibians of North-east India: present status and
distribution. Herpeton., 4: 1-7.
Chanda, S.K. 2002. Hand book of Indian Amphibians. Zoological Survey of India,
Kolkata, India: 335 pp.
Daniel, J.C. 1963. Field guide to the amphibians of Western India. J. Bombay nat.
Hist. Soc., 60: 415-438 and 690-702; 72(2): 506-522.
Das, I. 1996. Limnonectesshompenorum, a new species of ranid frog of the
Ranamacrodoncomplex from Great Nicobar, India. J. South Asian nat.
Hist., 2(1): 127-134.
Das, I. 1998. A remarkable new species of Ranid (Anura: Ranidae) with
phytotelmonous larvae from Mount Harriet, Andaman Island. Hamadryad,
23: 41-49.
Dasgupta, R. 1990. Distribution and conservation problems of the Himalayan newt
(Tylototritonverrucosus) in the Darjeeling Himalayas. Hamadryad, 15(1):
13-15.
Deuti, K & Hegde, V.D. Handbook on Himalayan Salamander. Nature Books
India, New Delhi, 43 pp.
Dinesh, K.P., Radhakrishnan, C., Manjunatha Reddy, A.H. and Gururaja, K.V.
2007. Nyctibatrachus karnatakaensis nom. nov., a replacement name for
the giant wrinkled frog from the Western Ghats, Current Science, 93: 247.
582
Amphibia
Dutta, S.K. 1991. An overview of the amphibian fauna of Orissa. Herpeton., 4: 7-8.
Dutta, S.K. 1997. A new species of Limno nectes from Orissa, India. Hamadryad,
22(1): 1-8.
Dutta, S.K. & Ray, P. 2000. Microhyla sholigari, a new species of Microhylid frog
(Anura: Microhylidae) from Karnataka, India. Hamadryad, 25(1): 38-44.
Gunther, A. 1864.Reptiles of British India. Published by Ray Society by Robert
Hardwicke, London, 444 pp.
Hora, S.L. 1922. Some observations on the oral apparatus of the tadpoles of
Megalophrysparva Boulenger. Proc. Asiat. Soc. Beng (New Series)., 17(1):
9-15.
Hora, S.L. 1932. Development and probable evolution of the suctorial disc in the
tadpoles of Rana afghana Gunther. Trans Royal Soc. Edinburgh., 57(2):
469-472.
Inger, R.F. & Dutta, S.K. 1986.An overview of the amphibian fauna of India. J.
Bombay nat. Hist. Soc., 83: 135-146.
Kripalani, M.R. 1953. On two remarkable tadpoles from Darjeeling district.
Everyday Science., 2: 57-61.
Kripalani, M.R. 1954. On Indian tadpoles with suctorial disc. Rec. Indian Mus.,
50: 359-366.
Jerdon, T.C. 1853. Catalogue of reptiles inhabiting the Peninsula of India. J. Asiat.
Soc. Beng., 22: 462-479 and 522-543.
Jerdon, T.C. 1870. Notes on Indian herpetology. Proc. Asiatic Soc. Bengal, 2: 66-85.
Mansukhani, M.R. & Sarkar, A.K. 1980. On a new species of toad (Anura:
Bufonidae) from Camorta, Andaman and Nicobar, India. Bull. Zool. Surv.
Ind., 3(1-2): 97-101.
Mansukhani, M.R. &Sarkar, A.K. 1981. Notes on some amphibian collections from
Tripura, India. Rec. zool. Surv. Ind., 79: 267-273.
Pillai, R.S. & Yazdani, G.M. 1973. Bufoides, a new genus for the rock toad, Ansonia
meghalayanaYazdani & Chanda, with notes on its ecology and breeding
habits.J. Zool. Soc. India., 25(1-2): 65-70.
Pillai, R.S. 1977. On two frogs of the family Microhylidae from Andamans including
a new species. Proc. Indian Acad. Sci., 86B(2): 135-138.
Pillai, R.S. & Chanda, S.K. 1977. Two new species of frogs (Ranidae) from Khasi
hills, India. J. Bombay nat. Hist. Soc., 74(1): 136-140.
Pillai, R.S. 1978. A new frog of the genus Micrixalus from Wynad, S. India.Proc.
Ind. Acad. Sci., 87(B6): 173-177.
Pillai, R.S. 1979. A new species of Rana (Family Ranidae) from Western Ghats, S.
India. Bull. zool. Surv. Ind., 2(1): 39-42.
Pillai, R.S. 1981. Two new species of amphibian from Silent Valley, S. India. Bull.
zool. Surv. Ind., 3(3): 153-158.
Pillai, R.S. & Chanda, S.K. 1981. Amphibianfauna of Garo hills, Meghalaya with
description of a new species of Rana. Rec. zool. Surv. Ind., 79: 159-168.
583
Deuti
Pillai, R.S. & Pattabiraman, R. 1981. A new species of torrent toad (Genus:
Ansonia) from Silent Valley, S. India. Proc. Ind. Acad. Sci (Animal Science),
90(2): 203-208.
Pillai, R.S. 1991. Contribution to the amphibian fauna of Andaman and Nicobar
with a new record of the mangrove frog, Ranacancrivora. Rec. zool. Surv.
Ind., 88(1): 41-44.
Rao, C.R.N. 1920. Some south Indian batrachians, J. Bombay nat. Hist. Soc., 27(1):
119-127.
Rao, C.R.N. 1937. On some new forms of Batrachia from S. India. Proceedings of
Indian Academy Science (B)., 6: 387-427.
Rao, C.R.N. & Ramanna, B.S. 1925. On a new genus of the family Engystomatidae
(Batrachia). Proc. Zool. Soc. London., 1925: 587-597.
Sarkar, A.K. 1984. Ecological studies on the amphibians of Gujarat. Bull. zool.
Surv. Ind., 6(1-3): 87-93.
Sarkar, A.K. & Sanyal, D.P. 1985.Amphibia: Fauna of Namdapha, Arunachal
Pradesh, a proposed biosphere reserve. Rec. zool. Surv. Ind., 82(1-4): 285-
295.
Sarkar, A.K. 1990. Taxonomic and ecological studies on the amphibians of
Andaman and Nicobar Islands. Rec. zool. Surv. Ind., 86(1): 103-117.
Sarkar, A.K., Biswas, M.L. & Ray, S. 1992. Amphibia: Fauna of West Bengal. State
Fauna Series., 3(2): 67-100, Zool. Surv. Ind.
Sarkar, A.K. 1993. Amphibia: Fauna of Orissa. State Fauna Series., 1(4): 39-49,
Zool. Surv. Ind.
Sarkar, A.K., Chandra, P.K. & Ray, S. 1993. Amphibia: Fauna of Andhra Pradesh.
State Fauna Series., 5(1): 65-87, Zool. Surv. Ind.
Sekar, A.G. 1991. Key to the amphibian fauna of Goa., Herpeton., 4: 14-15.
Sclater, W.L. 1892. List of batrachia in the Indian Museum, Calcutta. Printed by
Order of the Trustees of the Indian Museum, Calcutta, Taylor and Francis,
London.Viii + 43 pp.
Soman, P.W. 1963. A new Bufo from Maharashtra. J. Biol. Sci., Bombay, 6: 73-74.
Stoliczka, F. 1870. Observations on some Indian and Malayan Amphibia and
Reptilia. J. Asiat. Soc. Beng., 2, 39: 134-228.
Stoliczka, F. 1872. Observations on Indian batrachia. Proc. Asiat. Soc. Beng., 1872:
101-113.
Taylor, E.H. Notes on Indian caecilians. J. Bombay nat. Hist. Soc., 58(2): 355-365.
Theobald, W. 1866. Catalogue of the reptiles in the museum of the Asiatic Society
of Bengal. J. Asiatic Soc. Bengal, 37(extra number): 1-88.
584
Amphibia
Plate I
Aloysi Skittering Frog Annandale's Hill Frog (Paa annandalii)

(Euphlyctis aloysii)
Cricket Frog (Fejervarya sp.) Indian Bull Frogs

(Hoplobatrachus tigerinus)
Indian Bull Frog (sub-adult) Green Pond Frog

(Euphlyctis hexadactylus)
Long-tongued Frog (Hylarana Mangrove Crab-eating Frog

leptoglossa) (Fejervarya moodiei)
585
Deuti
Plate 2
Marbled Stream Frog Tadpole of Marbled Stream Frog

(Amolops marmoratus) with ventral sucker for attaching to
underwater rocks
Skittering Frog Terai Cricket Frog

(Euphlyctis cyanophlyctis) (Fejervarya teraiensis)
Caecilian Marbled Toad (Duttaphrynus stomaticus)
Himalayan Salamander Tadpole of Himalayan Salamander

(Tylototriton himalayanus)
586
Chapter 35
Reptilia
VARADARAJU
Abstract
The study deals with 46 species of fresh-water reptiles known from India. This
includes 2 species of Crocodiles belonging to 2 families, 21 species of turtles
belonging to 2 families, 3 species of lizards belonging to 2 families and 20 species
of snakes belonging to 4 families. The distribution, endemism and biology of fresh
water reptiles are also given along with the recent threats & conservation status.
Key words: Reptilia, Crocodiles, Lizards, Snakes, Turtles, Freshwater, India.
Introduction
Reptiles were the first terrestrial, poikilothermic and omniote vertebrates found to
occur in all kinds of environment in the world except the severe cold region, they
produce shelled eggs with large yolk which helps the species to live on land. Reptiles
are characterised by dry and cornified skin usually covered with epidermal scales
or scutes. The integumentary glands are a few scent glands that help to attract the
opposite mates during breeding season. Two pairs of pentadactyle limbs which end
in clawed digits (absent in snakes and limbless lizards).
There are 566 species of reptiles so for reported from India, of which 3 species
are Crocodiles, 33 species of Testudines, 234 species of lizards and 296 species of
snakes. Out of these 234 species (42%) are endemic to Indian subcontinent. The
present work deals with 46 species of fresh water reptiles comprising one species
of Crocodylia, one species of Gavialidae, 21 species of Testudines, one species of
skink, two species of monitor lizard and 20 species of snakes which are completely
or partially found to occur in fresh water habitat.
Fossil History
The Mosasaur (means the Lizard of the Meuse River (Mosa stands for
Meuse river in Holland-location where it was first described) were the first
aquatic reptiles that are closely related to snakes and monitor lizards of today.
Classified under Class: reptilia, Order: Squamata, Superfamily: Mosasauroidea,
Family: Mosasauridae Subfamily: Mosasaurinae and Tylosaurinae, Mosasaurs
are considered one of the Great Marine Reptiles that ruled the sea during the
Cretaceous period. It was extinct at the end of Cretaceous during Cretaceous mass
extinction event. Pannoniasaurus, the creature was the first mosasaur thought
to spend its entire life in freshwater. The Fossils belonging to an 84-million-
year-old freshwater sea monster have been found in Hungary, according to
Reptilia Section, Fire Proof Spirit Building, Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata -700016
587
Varadaraju
a new study Gallagher, 2005. The new mosasaur was discovered in the waste
dump of a coal mine in western Hungary. Scientists uncovered thousands of
fossils belonging to several Pannoniasaurus individuals ranging from three
feet (one meter) to 13 feet (4 meters) in length at the site. The discovery of so
many Pannoniasaurus specimens at one site also suggests the species was a true
freshwater dweller and not just a marine mosasaur that occasionally ventured
into rivers, the way some sharks do (Lindgren John et al., 2014).
Table-1. Global diversity (Family/ Genera/Species wise) of fresh water Reptiles
Region-Order/Family PA* NA NT AT OL AU PAC ANT WAS
1. Order Crocodylia 0 1(1) 5 (3) 0 1(1) 0 0 0 7# (4)**
Family Alligatoridae
Family Crocodylidae 2 (1) 1(1) 4(1) 3 (2) 5(1) 4(1) 0 0 14 (2)
Family Gavialidae 1(1) 0 0 0 2(2) 0 0 0 2(2)

Total 23(8)
2. Order Chelonia 23(7) 23(7) 56(14)
Family Chelidae
Family Pelomedusidae 19(2) 19(2)
Family Podocnemididae 7(2) 1(1) 8(3)
Family Carettochelidae 1(1) 1(1)
Family Chelydridae 2(2) 2(1) 4(3)
Family Dermatemydidae 1(1) 1(1)
Family Emydidae 1(1) 42(11) 6(1) 48(12)
Family Geoemydidae 3(1) 9(1) 57(23) 68(24)
Family Kinosternidae 12(2) 17(3) 26(4)
Family Platysternidae 1(1) 1(1)
Family Tryonichidae 4(4) 3(1) 5(3) 17(10) 26(15)
Total 257(79)
3. Order Squamata 4 2 5
Suborder Sauria
Family Agamidae
Family Corytophanidae 4 4
Family Gerrhosauridae 1 1
Family Gymnopthalmidae 7 7
Family Lanthanotidae 1 1
Family Polychrotidae 7 7
Family Scincidae 6 21 4 1 32
Family Teiidae 3 3
Family Tropiduridae 1 1
Family Varanidae 2 1 8 1 11
Family Xenosauridae 1 1
Total 73
588
Reptilia
Region-Order/Family PA* NA NT AT OL AU PAC ANT WAS

Suborder Serpentes 1 1 2
Family Acrochordidae
Family Boidae 4 4
Family Colubridae 6 21 34 11 35 1 108
Family Elapidae 1 8 3 1 13
Family Homalopsidae 25 4 29
Family Viperidae 1 1
Total 153(44)
(Source: Bour (2008); Oliver et al. (2008); Bauer and Jackman (2008);
#: indicates number of species ; **: indicate number of genera.
*: PA- Palearctic; NA- Nearctic; NT- Neotropical; AT- Afrotropical; OL-
Oriental; AU Australasian; PAC- Pacific oceanic islands; ANT- Antarctic; WAS:
World aquatic species.
Classification of Reptiles of India:
1. Order Crocodylia — Crocodiles, gharials, and alligators comprises 3
species
2. Order Squamata — Sub Order Sauria (Lizards) comprises 234 species
Sub Order Serpentes (Snakes) comprises 296 species
3. Order Testudines — Turtles and tortoises: approximately comprises 33
species
Table 2. Diversity of Fresh water Reptiles across family and genera in India.
Sl. No. Name of Family Number of Genera Number of species
1. Crocodylidae 01 01
2. Gavialidae 01 01
3. Geoemydidae 08 13
4. Trionychiidae 05 08
5. Scincidae 01 01
6. Varanidae 01 02
7. Colubridae 06 16
8. Hydrophiidae 02 02
9. Xenopeltidae 01 01
10. Acrochordidae 01 01
Total 10 Family 27 Genera 46 Species
FRESH WATER CROCODILE

Crocodiles have smooth skin on their bellies and sides, while their dorsal surfaces
are armoured with large osteoderms. The armoured skin has thick, rugged scales
providing protection to the animal. The scales have pores believed to be sensory in
function, analogous to the lateral lines of fishes. The species are characterized by
589
Varadaraju
having streamlined body it helps to swim swiftly in water and also webbed foot,
allow them to make fast turns and sudden moves in the water. Alligators are fresh
water in habit.
Crocodylus paluster or Mugger Crocodile
Endemism: None of the species of Crocodiles and Alligators are endemic to

India.
Biology:
Food: Crocodiles mainly feed on fish, amphibia, crustacea, mollusca, reptiles
and also some mammals. In addition it also cannibalise smaller crocodiles. The
feeding habit of Crocodiles varies with species , size of the animal and age of the
animal.
Reproduction: Crocodiles lays eggs either in a hole or mound nest depending
on the species. Hole nest is excavated in sand and mound nest built by vegetation.
Mating take place in water, where male and female mate several times. Nesting
lasts for few weeks to six months and lays egg at night where female protect their
nests and young ones.
Behaviour: These are highly social and not territorial animals, congregate
in rivers during feeding and basking. The mugger crocodile shows toleration in
group feedings and congregate in certain areas. However, males of all species are
aggressive towards each other during mating season, to gain access to females.
Habitat: Most of the crocodiles prefer slow moving rivers, swamps, and lakes. It
also found to occur in coastal swamps. Alligators are found in fresh water habitat.
Threats: Alligators and Crocodiles are hunted for their hides (hides are
fashioned into shoes, handbags and suitcases for the luxury trade), skin (leather
goods) and meat. Hence they are listed as endangered species.
Conservation and Human Significance: They are under varying degree
of threat and conservation measure initiated by listing under Vulnerable and
Critically endangered as per IUCN, Appendix I of CITES and Schedule I of
IWP Act. Crocodiles and alligators are at the top of food chains. They weed out
overpopulated fishes, including the voracious piranha, and dig water holes in
times of drought that save the lives of numerous animals.
590
Reptilia
FRESH WATER TURTLES

Distribution: Fresh water turtles are distributed throughout the Indian
subcontinent
Endemism: There are only two species of fresh water turtles namely Cochin
forest Cane turtle,Vijachelys silvatica (Henderson, 1912) which is endemic to the
Western Ghats and Leith’s softshell turtle, Nilssonia leithii (Gray, 1872) endemic
to peninsular India.
Batagur baska (Photo Courtesy: P.K. Pandit) Chitra indica
Biology
Food: Adult turtles feed on aquatic plants, invertebrates such as insects,
snails, and worms. Several small freshwater species are carnivorous, feed on small
fish and a wide range of aquatic life.
Reproduction: Turtles lay eggs that are slightly soft and leathery. Large
number of eggs are deposited in holes dug into mud or sand. They are then covered
and left to incubate by themselves.
Behaviour: Turtles are not social animals. However, members of same species
congregate along stream and during basking on a log.
Habitat: Most of the fresh water turtles inhabit fresh water ponds, lakes and
rivers.
Threats: Fresh water turtles population declining due to Habitat degradation,
in addition to commercial exploitation for trade its meat regionally and globally.
Conservation and Human Significance: Many came forward to protect these
species namely IUCN/SSC Tortoise and Freshwater Turtle Specialist Group
(TFTSG). It helped stimulate and mobilize CITES (Convention on International
Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora) and protected many fresh
water turtles under various categories of IUCN. The Turtles are major biodiversity
components of the ecosystems they inhabit, often serving as keystone species from
which other animals and plants benefit in the ecosystem
Gaps in research: From the studies carried out on fresh water turtles in India,
available information on behavior, reproduction is scanty.
FRESH WATER MONITOR LIZARDs

Monitor lizards have a long neck, powerful tail, claws and well-developed
limbs. Majority are terrestrial, some are arboreal and semi-aquatic monitors are
591
Varadaraju
also known. While most monitor lizards are carnivorous, feeds on eggs, smaller
reptiles, fish, birds and small mammals, some also eat fruit and vegetation,
depending on where they live.
Varanus salvator (Photo Courtesy: P.K. Pandit)
Distribution: Monitor lizards are distributed throughout Southern Asia, from

India in the west to the Philippines and the Indo-Australian islands in the east.
Endemism: It is not endemic to India.
Biology
Food: Water monitors are carnivorous, feed on variety of prey like fish, frogs,
rodents, birds, crabs, snakes and also turtles and also crocodiles and their eggs.
Reproduction: Water monitor breeds in April to October depending on moist
and season. Female produce up to 40 eggs in two-three clutches laid in natural
mounds such as termite mounds or hollow tree trunks or excavated burrows. The
nest is then covered and incubation may last for a few months.
Behaviour: The Monitor lizards try to defend themselves using their tails,
claws, and jaws. They are excellent swimmers, using the raised fin on their tails to
steer through water. It tears chunks of meat with their sharp teeth while holding
it with their front legs and then separating different parts of the fish.
Habitat: It is semi-aquatic and inhabits primary forests and mangrove
swamps.
Threats: Water Monitors are exploited for pet trade and also hunted for their
skin in India .
Conservation and Human Significance: It is protected under Appendix II of
CITES and Schedule I of IWP Act.
Gaps in research: No comprehensive study on behavior and ecology
592
Reptilia
FRESH WATER SNAKES

Freshwater snake scales are keeled, raised ridge down the center, making them
rough to the touch. The pupils in their eyes are round. The markings and coloration
vary somewhat from species to species, but for most of them they are brown, gray,
olive green or reddish with dark blotches or bands on their backs.
Cerberus rhynchops
Endemism: None of the species are endemic to India
Biology
Food: Fresh water snakes are carnivorous, feeds on fish and amphibians
(frogs, toads and salamanders). They prefer slow-moving fish.
Reproduction: They are ovoviviparous, which means that eggs incubate inside
the female body. Most species of snakes lay eggs which they abandon shortly after
laying. Mating in spring. Males pursue females. Usually only one male mates with
a female per season. Females gestate for three to five months.
Behaviour: Snakes often flick its tongue, and use their forked tongue to smell
the air.Hibernate in winter and shed their skin three to six times per year.
Habitat: Found in wide variety of fresh water habits like ponds, streams
creeks and rivers
Threats: The habitat loss and killing mistakenly as venomous and poisonous
lead to the declining population and threat to the species.
Conservation and Human Significance: Most of the snake species are not
endangered.
Gaps in research: No consolidated study on fresh water snakes in India
593
Varadaraju
Table 3. Shows Fresh water Reptiles of India and their conservation status
Sl. IUCN CITES
Scientific Name Common Name IWPA
No. Category List
Order Crocodylia
Family Crocodylidae
1. Crocodylus palustris Mugger Crocodile EN App I Sch I
Lesson, 1831
Family Gavialiidae
2. Gavialis gangeticus Gharial Cr EN App I Sch I
(Gmelin, 1789)
Order Chelonia
Family Geoemydidae
3. Batgur baska (Gray, 1830) River Terrapin Cr EN App I Sch I
4. Batagur dhongoka (Gray, Three-striped Roofed Turtle EN App II
1832)
5. Batagur kachuga (Gray, Red Crowned Roofed Tyrtle Cr EN App II
1831)
6. Cuora amboinensis South-east Asian Box VU App II
(Daudin, 1802) Turtle
7. Cyclems gemeli Fritz et al., Indian Leaf Turtle NE
2008
8. Geoclemys hamiltonii Black Spotted Pond Turtle VU App I Sch I
(Gray, 1831)
9. Hardella thurjii (Gray, Crowned River Turtle VU App II
1831)
10. Melanochelys trijuga Indian Black Pond Turtle LR/nt App II
(Schweigger, 1812)
11. Morenia petersi (Anderson, Indian Eyed Turtle VU App II
1879)
12. Pangshura smithii (Gray, Brown Roofed Turtle LR/nt App II Sch I
1863)
13. Pangshura sylhetensis Assam Roofed Turtle EN App II
(Jerdon, 1870)
14. Pangshura tectum (Gray, Indian Roofed Turtle App I Sch I
1830)
15. Pangshura tentoria (Gray, Indian Tent Turtle App II
1834)
Family Trionychidae
16. Amyda cartilaginea Asiatic Softshell Turtle VU App II
(Boddaert, 1770)
17. Chitra indica (Gray, 1831) Narrow-headed Softshell Cr EN App II Sch
Turtle IV
18. Lissemys punctata Indian Flapshell Turtle LC Sch I
(Bonnaterre, 1789)
594
Reptilia
Sl. IUCN CITES

No. Category List
19. Nilssonia gangetica Indian Softshell Turtle VU App I Sch I
(Cuvier, 1825)
20. Nilssonia hurum (Gray, Peacock Soft-shell Turtle VU Sch I
1831)
21. Nilssonia leithii (Gray, Leith’s Soft-shell Turtle VU App II Sch
1872) IV
22. Nilssonia nigricans Black Soft-shell Turtle App I
(Anderson, 1875)
23. Pelochelys cantorii Gray, Frog-faced Softshell Turtle EN App II
1864
Order Squamata
Sub-Order Sauria
Family Scincidae
24. Tropidophorus assamensis North-eastern Water Skink DD
Annandale, 1912
Family Varanidae
25. Varanus flavescens Yellow Monitor Lizard App I Sch I
(Hardwicke & Gray, 1827)
26. Varanus salvator Water Monitor Lizard App II Sch I
(Laurenti, 1768)
Sub-Order Serpentes
Family Acrochordidae
27. Acrochordus granulatus Wart Snake
(Schneider, 1799)
Family Colubridae
28. Atretium schistosum Olive Keelback Water App III Sch II
(Daudin, 1803) Snake
29. Cerberus rhynchops Dog-faced Water Snake App III Sch II
(Schneider, 1799)
30. Enhydris dussumierii Dussumier’s Smooth Scaled LC
(Dumeril & Bibron, 1854) Water Snake
31. Enhydris enhydris Common Smooth Water LC
(Schneider, 1799) Snake
32. Enhydris plumbea (Boie, Plumbeous Smooth Scaled LC
1827) Water Snake
33. Enhydris sieboldii Siebold’s Smooth Scaled LC
(Schlegel, 1837) Water Snake
34. Fordonia leucobalia White-bellied Mangrove LC
(Schlegel, 1837) Snake
35. Gerarda prevostianus Glossy Marsh Snake LC
(Eydoux & Gervais, 1837)
595
Varadaraju
Sl. IUCN CITES

No. Category List
36. Xenochrophis cerasogaster Painted Keelback Water LC
(Cantor, 1839) Snake
37. Xenochrophis Yellow Spotted Keelback LR/nt
flavipunctatus (Hallowell, Water Snake
1861)
38. Xenochrophis piscator Chequered Keelback Water App III Sch II
(Schneider, 1799) Snake
39. Xenochrophis punctulatus Spotted Keelback Water LR/nt
(Gunther, 1858) Snake
40. Xenochrophis St. John’s Keelback Water LR/nt
sanctijohannis (Boulenger, Snake
1890)
41. Xenochrophis Kramer’s Keelback Water LR/nt
schnurrenbergeri Kramer, Snake
1977
42. Xenochrophis Triangle-backed Water LR/nt
trianguligerus (Boie, 1827) Snake
43. Xenochrophis tytleri Tytler’s Keelback Water LR/nt
(Blyth, 1863) Snake
Family Hydrophiidae
44. Enhydrina schistosa Hook-nosed Snake LC
(Daudin, 1803)
45. Laticauda colubrina Banded Sea Snake LC
(Schneider, 1799)
Family Xenopeltidae
46. Xenopeltis unicolor Boie, Sunbeam Snake LC
1827
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTs
Authors are grateful to Dr. Kailash Chandra, Director, Zoological Survey of India,
Kolkata for his support, encouragement and providing necessary facilities.
REFERENCES
Annandale, N. 1906. Contributions to Indian Herpetology. No. 4. Notes on the
Indian Tortoises. J. & Proc. Asiat. Soc. Beng. 2: 203-206.
Annandale, N. 1912. The Aquatic chelonia of the Mahanadi and its Tributaries.
Rec. Indian Mus. 7: 261-266.
Bauer, A.M. and Jackman, T. 2008. Global diversity of lizards in Fresh water
((Reptilia : Lacertilia) J. Hydrobiologia: 595: 581-586.
Bennett, D. 1998. Expedition Field Techniques-Reptilia and Amphibians. Royal
Geographical Society, London. pp. 1-93.
596
Reptilia
Bour, R. 2008. Global diversity of turtles (Chelonia: Reptilia) in fresh water. J.

Hydrobiologia: 595: 593-598.
Choudhury, A.U. 1995. Some freshwater turtles from Lakhimpur district, Assam.
Cheetal, 34 (3&4): 18–24. CITES, 2016. www.cites.org
Datta, S. 1997. Freshwater turtles and land tortoises of Dhubri district. Zoo’s
Print, 12(6): 1-4.
Gallagher, W. B. 2005. Recent Mosasaur discoveries from New jersey and Delaware,
USA. Stratigraphy, taphonomy and implications for Mosasaur extinction.
Netherlands J. of Geosciences, 84-3: 241-245.
Gray, J. E. 1834. Characters of several new species of Freshwater Tortoises (Emys)
from India and China. Proc. Zool. Soc. London, 1834: 53-54.
Gunther, Albert C.L.G. 1864. The Reptiles of British India: 452 pp. 1-26, London.
IUCN, 2015. www.Redlist of Threatened species –Reptilia.IWPA, 1972.
www.iwpa, 1972.
Lindgen John, Everhart Michael J., Caldwel Michael W., 2014. Skin pigmentation
provides evidence of convergent melanism in Extinct Marine Reptiles. J.
Nature: 1038: 12899.
Oliver, S.G., Wallach, P.V. and David, P. 2008. Global diversity of snakes
(Serpentes: Reptilia) in fresh water. J. Hydrobiologia. 595: 599-605.
Theobald, W. 1874. Observations on some Indian and Burmese species of Trionyx.
Proc. Asiat. Soc. Beng., 1874: 75-86.
Theobald, W. 1875. Observations on some Indian and Burmese species of Trionyx,
with a rectification of their Synonymy and a description of two new species.
Proc. Asiat. Soc. Beng., 1875: 170-180, 3 148 Zoological Survey of India
Theobald, W. 1876. Descriptive catalogue of the reptiles of British India. Calcutta.
Tikader, B.K and Sharma R.C. 1985. Handbook-Indian Testudines. pp. 1-156
(Edited and published by Director Zoological Survey of India.
597
Chapter 36
WETLAND BIRDS
C. VENKATRAMAN AND C. SIVAPERUMAN*
ABSTRACT
A total of two hundred and forty three species of birds including wetland dependent
were recorded from the wetlands of India till date. Clearance, conversion and
degradation of natural forests, grassland and wetlands are the most far reaching
causes of endangerment in Asia, affecting nearly all bird species. Studies on
different aspects on the ecology and habitat modeling of migratory birds with
satellite tracking to be initiated in the wetlands of India.
Keywords: Waterbirds, Endandered, Poaching, Foraging
Introduction
Wetlands are important habitats for the variety of waterbirds and wetland
dependent birds (Weller, 1999). It serves as feeding, breeding, resting and roosting
areas for different species of resident and migratory birds during different seasons
of the year (Broyer and Calenge, 2010). Presence of various microhabitats in the
wetland such as open water, shallow water, mudflats, submerged vegetation,
emergent vegetation increases the available foraging area and subsequently the
abundance and richness and diversity of avifauna (Murphy et al., 1984; Safranet
al., 1997). The waterbird population tends to be high in the wetlands which possess
a variety of microhabitat. The most interesting facts that birds rely mainly on
wetlands free from pollution, rich in food availability and the lack of anthropogenic
pressure (Paracuellos, 2006).
Endemism
Endemism in wetland is not so well studied. A total of 44 species are known to
be endemic in Indian wetlands (Alfred and Nandi, 2000). An attempt is made
here to compile the avifauna of wetlands based on the field surveys and published
information.
Methodology
This chapter is prepared based on the field studies conducted by the authors
(Venkataraman and Muthukrishnan, 1993; Venkatraman, 2008; Venkatraman
and Gokula 2009; Venkatraman et al., 2012; Sivaperuman and Jayson, 2000;
Zoological Survey of India, M-Block, New Alipore, Kolkata-700053, West Bengal.

*Zoological Survey of India, Andaman and Nicobar Regional Centre,
Port Blair - 744 102, Andaman & Nicobar Islands
599
Venkatraman and Sivaperuman
Jayson and Sivaperuman, 2003; Jayson and Sivaperuman, 2004; Jayson and
Sivaperuman, 2005; Sivaperumanand Jayson 2009; Sivaperuman, 2011; 2013;
Sivaperuman et al., 2010). In addition, the available important literatures also
consulted (Sampath, 1989; Sampath and Krishnamurthy, 1989; Balachandran,
1990, 1995 & 2006; Kurup, 1991 & 1996; Anon 1992, 1993;; Jayson and Easa, 1996;
Acharya and Kar 1996; Nagarajan and Thiyagesan 1996; Oswin, 1999; Verma et
al., 2002; Biju Kumar, 2006; Gopi and Pandav, 2007; Pawar, 2011; Kannan and
Pandiyan, 2002; Ramamurthy and Rajakumar, 2014; Kurian, 2014; Kumar et al.,
2005; Gopi and Hussain, 2014). Birds were classified as migratory or resident
species based on Ali and Ripley (1983). The Common and scientific names are after
Manakadan and Pittie (2001).
Diversity
Two hundred and forty three taxa of birds including wetland dependent were
recorded from the wetlands of India, which belong to 23 Families under 9 Orders
(Table 1 and 2). Family wise analysis revealed that Anatidae (Swans, Geese and
Ducks), Scolopacidae (Sandpipers, Stints, Snipes, Godwits and Curlews), Laridae
(Gulls, Terns and Noddies) and Ardeidae (Herons, Egrets and Bitterns) were the
four most dominating families with 62% of all waterbirds falling under these
families. (Table 3). At least 67 forest birds, which are partially wetland dependant,
are not included in the given list here under. Out of 310 Indian wetland species 130
(c. 42%) are migrant, 173 resident, however the status is unknown for seven species.
Of the migrants, 107 are winter migrants, six have some passage population(s), 13
are summer migrants, and the remaining four are purely passage migrants. Of
the 173 resident species, 53 are completely resident, 38 are part resident and part
winter migrant, and 50 undertake local movements chiefly depending on water
conditions. In terms of abundance, Indian wetland birds can be categorized as Very
Common (four species), Common (26), Locally Common (115), Un-Common (45),
Rare (67), Very Rare (five), Vagrant (47) and Probably Extinct (one).
Table 1. Checklist of Waterbirds in India
Status
Sl.
Common Name Scientific Name Resident/
No.
Abundance
Grebes Family Podicipeddidae
1 Little Grebe Tachypaptus ruficollis (Pallas 1764) LC/R
2 Great Crested Grebe Podiceps cristatus (Linnaeus, 1758) WM
3 Black-necked Grebe Podiceps nigricollis Brehm, 1831 LC/WM
Pelicans Family Pelicanidae
4 Great White Pelican Pelecanus onocrotalus Linnaeus, 1758 R/WM
5 Spot-billed Pelican Pelecanus philippensis Gmelin, 1789 R/NT
6 Dalmatian Pelican Pelecanus crispus Bruch, 1832 V/WM
Cormorants/Shags Family Phalacrocoracidae
7 Little Cormorant Phalacrocorax niger (Vieillot, 1817) LC/R
600
Wetland Birds
Status
Sl.
No.
Abundance
8 Indian Cormorant Phalacrocorax fuscicollis Stephens, LC/R
1826
9 Great Cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo (Linnaeus, 1758) LC/R
Darters Family Anhingidae
10 Darter Anhinga melanogaster Pennant, 1769 R
Herons, Egrets & Bitterns Family Ardeidae
11 Little Egret Egretta garzetta (Linnaeus, 1766) LC/R
12 Western Reef Egret Egretta gularis (Bose, 1792) LC/R
13 Pacific Reef Egret Egretta sacra (Gmelin, 1789) LC/R
14 Grey Heron Ardea cinerea Linnaeus, 1758 LC/R
15 White-bellied Heron Ardea insignis Hume, 1878 CR/R
16 Goliath Heron Ardea goliath Cretzschmar, 1827 LC/Un
17 Purple Heron Ardea purpurea Linnaeus, 1766 LC/R
18 Great Egret Casmerodius albus (Linnaeus, 1758) LC/R
19 Intermediate Egret Mesophoyx intermedia (Wagler, 1829) LC/R
20 Cattle Egret Bubulcus ibis (Linnaeus, 1758) LC/R
21 Indian Pond Heron Ardeola grayii (Sykes, 1832) LC/R
22 Chinese Pond Heron Ardeola bacchus (Bonaparte, 1855) LC/R
23 Striated Heron Butroides striatus (Linnaeus, 1758) LC/R
24 Malayan Night Heron Gorsachius melanolophus (Raffles, LC/R
1822)
25 Black-crowned Night Heron Nycticorax nycticorax (Linnaeus, 1758) LC/R
26 Little Bittern Ixobrychus minutus (Linnaeus, 1766) LC/R
27 Yellow Bittern Ixobrychus sinensis (Gmelin, 1789) LC/R
28 Cinnamon Bittern Ixobrychus cinnamomeus (Gmelin, LC/R
1789)
29 Black Bittern Dupetor flavicollis (Latham, 1790) LC/R
30 Great Bittern Botaurus stellaris (Linnaeus, 1758) LC/WM
Storks Family Ciconiidae
31 Painted Stork Mycteria leucocephala (Pennant, 1769) NT/R
32 Asian Openbill-Stork Anastomus osciatans (Boddaert, 1783) LC/R
33 Black Stork Ciconia nigra (Linnaeus, 1758) LC/WM
34 Asian Woollyneck Ciconia episcopus (Boddaert, 1783) LC/WM
35 White Stork Ciconia ciconia (Linnaeus, 1758) LC/WM
36 Black- necked Stork Ephippiorhyncus asiaticus (Latham, NT/R
1790)
37 Lesser Adjutant Leptoptilys javanicus (Horsfield, 1821) Vu/R
38 Greater Adjutant Leptoptilos dubius (Gmelin, 1789) En/R
601
Status
Sl.
No.
Abundance
Ibises & Spoonbills Family Threskiornithidae
39 Black-headed Ibis Threskiornis melanocephalus (Latham, NT/R
1790)
40 Red-naped Ibis Pseudibis papillosa (Temrninck, 1824) LC/R
41 Glossy Ibis Plegadis falcinellus (Linnaeus, 1766) LC/R
42 Eurasian Spoonbill Platalea leucorodia Linnaeus, 1758 LC/R
Flamingos Family Phoenicopteridae
43 Greater Flamingo Phoenicopterus roseus Linnaeus, 1758 LC/R
44 Lesser Flamingo Phoenicopterus minor (Geoffroy, 1798) NT/R
Swans, Geese & Ducks Family Anatidae
45 Fulvous Whistling-Duck Dendrocygna bicolor (Vieillot, 1816) LC/R
46 Lesser Whistling-Duck Dendrocygna javanica (Horsfield, 1821) LC/R
47 Greylag Goose Anser anser (Linnaeus, 1758) LC/WM
48 Greater White-fronted Anser albifrons (Scopoli, 1769) LC/WM
Goose
49 Lesser White-fronted goose Anser erythropus (Linnaeus, 1758) Vu/WM
50 Bar-headed Goose Anser indicus (Latham, 1790) LC/WM
51 Knob-billed Duck Sarkidiornis melanotos (Pennant, 1769) LC/R
52 Common Shelduck Tadoma tadoma (Linnaeus, 1758) LC/WM
53 Ruddy Shelduck Tadorna feruginea (Pallas, 1764) LC/WM
54 White-winged Duck Asarcomis scutulata (S. Mulier, 1842) EN/R
55 Cotton Pygmy Goose Nettapus coromandelianus (Gmelin, LC/R
1789)
56 Gadwall Anas strepera Linnaeus, 1758 LC/WM
57 Falcated Duck Anas falcate Georgi, 1775 NT/WM
58 Eurasian Wigeon Anas Penelope Linnaeus, 1758 LC/WM
59 Mallard Anas platyrhynchos Linnaeus, 1758 LC/WM
60 Indian Spot-billed Duck Anas poecilorhyncha J .R. Forester, LC/R
1781
61 Eastern Spot-billed Duck Anas zonorhyncha Linnaeus, 1758 LC/WM
62 Northern Shoveller Anas clypeata Linnaeus, 1758 LC/WM
63 Andaman Teal Anas albogularis (Muller, 1842) Vu/R
64 Northern Pintail Anas acuta Linnaeus, 1758 LC/WM
65 Garganey Anas querquedula Linnaeus, 1758 LC/WM
66 Baikal Teal Anas Formosa Georgi, 1775 LC/WM
67 Common Teal Anas crecca Linnaeus, 1758 LC/WM
68 Marbled Duck Marmaronetta angustirostris Vu/WM
(Menetries, 1832)
602
Wetland Birds
Status
Sl.
No.
Abundance
69 Red-crested Pochard Netta rufina (Pallas, 1773) LC/WM
70 Common Pochard Aythya ferina (Linnaeus, 1758) LC/WM
71 Baer’s Pochard Aythya baeri (Radde, 1863) CR/WM
72 Ferruginous Duck Aythya nyroca (Gulden stadt, 1770) NT/WM
73 Tufted Duck Aythya fuligula (Linnaeus, 1758) LC/WM
74 Greater Scaup Aythya marila (Linnaeus, 1761) LC/WM
75 Common Goldeye Bucephala clangula (Linnaeus, 1758) LC/WM
76 Smew Mergellus albellus Linnaeus, 1758 LC/WM
77 Goosander Mergus merganser Linnaeus, 1758 LC/WM
78 White-headed Duck Oxyura leucocephala (Scopoli, 1769) En/WM
Cranes Family Gruidae
79 Demosielle Crane Antthropoides virgo (Linnaeus, 1758) LC/WM
80 Sarus crane Grus Antigone (Linnaeus, 1758) Vu/R
81 Common Crane Grus grus (Linnaeus, 1758) LC/WM
82 Black-necked Crane Grus nigricollis Przevalski, 1876 Vu/SUv
Rails, Crakes, Moorhens, Family Rallidae
Coots
83 Andaman Crake Rallina canningi (BIyth, 1863) NT/R
84 Slaty-headed Crake Rallina eurizonoides (Lafresnaye, 1845) LC/R
85 Slaty-breasted Rail Gallirallus striatus Linnaeus, 1766 LC/R
86 Water Rail Rallus aquaticus Linnaeus, 1758 LC/WM
87 Brown-cheeked Rail Rallus indicus Linnaeus, 1758 LC/WM
88 Brown Crake Amauronis akool (Sykes, 1832) LC/R
89 White –breasted Waterhen Amaurornis phoenicurus (Pennant, J LC/R
1769)
90 Black-tailed Crake Porzana bicolor (Walden, 1872) LC/R
91 Bailon’s Crake Porzona pusilla (Pallas, 1776) LC/WM
92 Spotted Crake Porzona porzona (Linnaeus, 1766) LC/WM
93 Ruddy-breasted Creake Porzana fusca (Linnaeus, 1766) LC/R
94 Watercock Gallicrex cinerea (Gmelin, 1789) LC/R
95 Purple Swamphen Porphyrio porphyrio (Linnaeus, 1758) LC/R
96 Common Moorhen Gallinula chloropus (Linnaeus, 1758) LC/R
97 Eurasian Coot Fulica atra Linnaeus, 1758 LC/R
Finfoots Family Heliornithidae
98 Masked Finfoot Heliopais personatus (G.R. Gray, 1849) En/R
Jacanas Family Jacanidae
99 Pheasant tailed Jacana Hydrophasianus chirurgus (Scopoli, LC/R
1786)
603
Status
Sl.
No.
Abundance
100 Bronze-winged Jacana Metopidius indicus (Latham, 1790) LC/R
Painted-Snipes Family Rostratulidae
101 Greater Painted Snipe Rostratula benghalensis (Linnaeus, LC/R
1758)
Oystercatcher Family Haematopodidae
102 Eurasian Oystercatcher Haematopus ostralegus Linnaeus, 1758 LC/WM
Plovers, Dotterels, Lapwings Family Charadriidae
103 Northern Lapwing Vanellus vanellus (Linnaeus, 1758) LC/WM
104 River Lapwing Vanellus duvaucelii (Lesson, 1826) NT/R
105 Grey-headed Lapwing Vanellus cinereus (Linnaeus, 1758) WM
106 Sociable Lapwing Vanellus gregarious (Pallas, 1771) Cr/WM
107 Red-wattled Lapwing Vanellus indicus (Boddaert, 1783) LC/R
108 White-tailed Lapwing Vanellus leucurus (Lichtenstein, 1823) LC/WM
109 Pacific Golden Plover Pluvialis fulva (Gmelin, 1789) LC/WM
110 Grey Plover Pluvialis squatarola (Linnaeus, 1758) LC/WM
111 Common Ringed Plover Charadrius hiaticula Linnaeus, 1758 LC/WM
112 Long-billed Plover Charadrius placidus J.E. Gray, 1863 LC/WM
113 Little ringed plover Charadrius dubius Scopoli, 1786 LC/R
114 Kentlsh Plover Charadrius alexandrines Linnaeus, LC/R
1758
115 Lesser Sand Plover Charadrius mongolus Pallas, 1776 LC/WM
116 Greater Sand Plover Charadrius leschenaultia Lesson, 1826 LC/WM
117 Caspian Plover Charadrius asiaticus Pallas, 1773 LC/WM
Sandpipers, Stints, Snipes, Family Scolopacidae
Godwits & Curlews
118 Jack Snipe Lymnocryptes minimus (Briinnich, LC/WM
1764)
119 Solitary Snipe Gallinago salitaria Hodgson, 1831 R
120 Wood Snipe Gallinago nemoricola Hodgson, 1836 Vu/WM
121 Pin-tail Snipe Gallinago stenura (Bonaparte, 1830) LC/WM
122 Swinhoe’s Snipe Gallinago megala Swinhoe, 1861 LC/WM
123 Common Snipe Gallinago gallinago (Linnaeus, 1758) WM
124 Asian Dowitcher Limnodromus semipalmatus (Blyth, NT/WM
1848)
125 Black-tailed Godwit Limosa limosa (Linnaeus, 1758) NT/WM
126 Bar-tailed Godwit Limosa lapponica (Linnaeus, 1758) LC/WM
127 Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus (Linnaeus, 1758) LC/WM
128 Eurasian Curlew Numenius arquata (Linnaeus, 1758) NT/WM
604
Wetland Birds
Status
Sl.
No.
Abundance
129 Spotted Redshank Tringa erythropus (Pallas, 1764) LC/WM
130 Common Redshank Tringa tetanus (Linnaeus, 1758) LC/WM
131 Marsh Sandpiper Tringa stagnatilis (Bechstein, 1803) LC/WM
132 Common Greenshank Tringa nebularia (Gunner, 1767) LC/WM
133 Green Sandpiper Tringa ochropus Linnaeus, 1758 LC/WM
134 Wood Sandpiper Tringa glareola Linnaeus, 1758 LC/WM
135 Terek Sandpiper Xenus cinereus (Guldenstadt, 1774) LC/WM
136 Common Sandpiper Actitis hypoleucos Linnaeus, 1758 LC/WM
137 Great Knot Calidris tenuirostris (Horsfield, 1821) Vu/WM
138 Red Knot Calidris canutus (Linnaeus, 1758) LC/WM
139 Red-necked Stint Calidris ruficollis (Pallas, 1776) LC/WM
140 Little Stint Calidris minuta (Leisler, 1812) LC/WM
141 Temminck’s Stint Calidris temminckii (Leister, 1812) LC/WM
142 Long-toed Stint Calidris subminuta (Middendorff, 1853) LC/WM
143 Curlew Sandpiper Calidris ferruginea (Pontoppidan, 1813) LC/WM
144 Dunlin Calidris alpina (Pallas, 1764) LC/WM
145 Spoon-billed Sandpiper Eurynorhynochus pygmeus (Linnaeus, CR/WM
1758)
146 Ruff Philomachus pugnax (Linnaeus, 1758) LC/WM
147 Red-necked Phalarope Phalaropus lobatus (Linnaeus, 1758) LC/WM
148 Sanderling Calidris alba (Pallas, 1764) LC/WM
149 Broad-billed Sandpiper Limicola falcinellus (Pontoppidan, LC/WM
1763)
Avocets & Stilts Family Recurvirostridae
150 Black-winged Stilt Himantopus himantopus (Linnaeus, LC/R
1758)
151 Pied Avocet Recurvirostra avosetta Linnaeus, 1758 LC/WM
Ibisbill Family Ibidorhynchidae
152 Ibisbill Ibidrhyncha struthersii Vigors, 1832 LC/R
Crab-Plovers Family Dromadidae
153 Crab-Plover Dromas ardeola Paykull,, 1805 LC/WM
Stone-Curlew & Stone- Family Burhinidae
Plovers/Thick-knees
154 Beach Thick-knee Esacus neglwctus (Vieillot, 1818) NT/R
155 Great Thick-knee Esacus recurvirostris (Cuvier, 1829) NT/R
156 Indian Thick-knee Burhinus oedicnemus indicus LC/R
(Linnaeus, 1766)
605
Status
Sl.
No.
Abundance
Coursers & Pratincoles Family Glareolidae
157 Collared Pratincole Glareola pratincola (Linnaeus, 1766) LC/WM
158 Oriental Pranticole Glareola maldivarum J .R. Forster, LC/R
1795
159 Small Pratincole Glareola lacteal Temminck, 1820 LC/R
Skimmers Family Rynchopidae
160 Indian Skimmer Rynchops albicollis Swainson, 1838 Vu/R
Gulls, Terns & Noddies Family Laridae
161 Slender-billed Gull Chroicocephalus genei Breme, 1839 LC/WM
162 Brown-headed Gull Chroicocephalus brunnicephalus LC/WM
Jerdon, 1840
163 Black-headed Gull Chroicocephalus ridibundus Linnaeus, LC/WM
1766
164 Palla's Gull Ichthyaetus ichthyaetus Pallas, 1773 LC/WM
165 Heuglin's Gull Larus fuscus heuglini Bree, 1876 LC/WM
166 Steppe Gull Larus fuscus barabensis Bruch, 1853 LC/WM
167 Mew Gull Larus canus Linnaeus, 1758 LC/WM
168 Gull-billed Tern Gelochelidon nilotica (Gmelin, 1789) LC/WM
169 Caspian Tern Hydroprogne caspia Pallas, 1770 LC/WM
170 Little Tern Sternula albifrons Pallas, 1764 LC/R
171 Bridled Tern Sterna anaethetus Scopoli, 1786 LC/R
172 River Tern Sterna aurantia J.E. Gray, 1831 NT/R
173 Common Tern Sterna. hirundo Linnaeus, 1758 LC/WM
174 Black-bellied Tern Sterna. acuticauda J .E. Gray, 1831 En/R
175 Whiskered Tern Chlidonias hybrid (Pallas, 1811) LC/R
176 White-winged Tern Chlidonias leucopterus (Temminck, LC/WM
1815)
177 Brown Noddy Anous stolidus (Linnaeus, 1758) LC/WM
178 White Tern Gygis alba Linnaeus, 1766 LC/Visi
179 Greater Crested Tern Thalasseus bergii Lichtenstein, 1823 LC/R
180 Lesser Crested Tern Thalasseus bengalensis Lesson, 1831 LC/R
181 Sandwich Tern Thalasseus sandiensis Latham, 1787 LC/V
182 Roseate Tern Sterna dougallii Montagu, 1813 LC/R
183 Black-napped Tern Sterna sumatrana Raffles,1822 LC/R
184 White-cheeked Tern Sterna repressa Hartert, 1916 LC/R
185 Saunder’s Tern Sternula saundersi Hurne, 1877 LC/V
186 Sooty Tern Onychoprion fuscatus Linnaeus, 1766 LC/R
606
Wetland Birds
Table 2. Wetland dependant and associated birds

Status
Sl.
No.
Abundance
Hawks, Eagles, Buzzards,
Family Accipitridae
Kites, Harriers
1 Brahminy Kite Haliastur indus (Boddaert, 1783) LC/R
2 Greater Spooted Eagle Aquila clanga Pallas, 1811 VU/WM
3 Indian Spooted Eagle Aquila hastata Pallas, 1811 VU/R
4 White-bellied Sea eagle Haliaeetus leucogaster (Gmelin, LC/R
1788)
5 Palla’s Fish agle Haliaeetus leucoryphus (Pallas, VU/R
1771)
6 White-tailed Eagle Haliaeetus albicilla Linnaeus, 1758 LC/WM
7 Lesser Eish eagle Ichthyophaga humilis (S. Muller & NT/R
Schlegel, 1841)
8 Grey-headed Fish eagle Ichthyophaga ichthyaetus NT/R
(Horsfield, 1821)
9 Eurasian Marsh Harrier Circus aeruginosus (Linnaeus, LC/WM
1758)
Osprey Family Pandionidae
10 Osprey Pandion haliaetus (Linnaeus, 1758) LC/WM
Pheasants, Patridges, Quails Family Phasianidae
11 Swamp Francolin Francolinus gularis (Temminck, VU/R
1815)
Owls Family Strigidae
12 Brown Fish-Owl Ketupa zeylonenesis (Gmelin,1788) LC/R
13 Tawny Fish Owl Ketupa flavipes (Hodgson, 1836) LC/R
14 Buffy Fish owl Ketupa ketupu (Horsefield, 1821 ) LC/R
Kingfishers Family Alcedinidae
15 Stork-billed Kingfisher Pelargopsis capensis (Linnaeus, LC/R
1758)
16 Brown-winged Kingfisher Pelargopsis amauroptera Pearson, NT/R
1841
17 Ruddy Kingfisher Halcyon coromanda (Latham, LC/R
1790)
18 Black-capped Kingfisher Helcyon pileata (Boddaert, 1783) LC/WM
19 Collared Kingfisher Todiramphus chloris (Boddaert, LC/R
1783)
20 Oriental Dwarf Kingfisher Ceyx erithaca (Linnaeus, 1758) LC/SM
21 Blue-eared Kingfisher Alcedo meninting Horsfield, 1821 LC/R
22 Common Kingfisher Alcedo althis (Linnaeus, 1758) LC/R
23 Blyth’s Kingfisher Alcedo hercules Laubmann, 1917 NT/R
607
Status
Sl.
No.
Abundance
24 Crested Kingfisher Megaceryle lugubris (Temminck, LC/R
1834)
25 Pied Kingfisher Ceryle rudis (Linnaeus. 1758) LC/R
Swallows & Martins Family Hirundinidae
26 Sand Martin Riparia riparia (Linnaeus, 1758) LC/Unk
27 Plain Martin Riparia paludicola (Vieillot, 1817) LC/R
28 Pale Martin Riparia diluta (Sharpe & Wyatt, LC/R
1893)
29 Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica Linnaeus, 1758 LC/R
30 Pacific Swallow Hirundo tahitica Linnaeus, 1771 LC/R
31 Red-rumped Swallow Hirundo daurica Linnaeus, 1771 LC/R
32 Wire-tailed Swallow Hirundo smithi Leach, 1818 LC/R
33 Streak throated Swallow Petrochelidon fluvicola Blyth, 1855 LC/R
Wagtails & Pipits Family Motacillidae
34 Forest Wagtail Dendronanthus indicus (Gmelin, LC/WM
1789)
35 White Wagtail Motacilla alba Linnaeus, 1758 LC/R
36 Citrine Wagtail Motacilla citreola Pallas, 1776 LC/R
37 Yellow Wagtail Motacilla flava Linnaeus, 1758 LC/WM
38 Grey Wagtail Motacilla cinerea Tunstall, 1771 LC/R
39 White-browed Wagtail Motacilla maderaspatensis Gmelin, LC/R
1789
40 Rosy Pipit Anthus roseatus Blyth, 1847 LC/R
41 Red-throated Pipit Anthus cervinus (Pallas, 1811) LC/WM
42 Buf-bellied Pipit Anthus rubescens (Tunstall, 1771) LC/WM
43 Water Pipit Anthus spinoletta (Linnaeus, 1758) LC/WM
44 Richards’s Pipit Anthus richardi Vieillot, 1818 LC/WM
Dippers Family Cinclidae
45 White-throated Dipper Cinclus cinclus (Linnaeus, 1758) LC/R
46 Brown Dipper Cinclus pallasii Temminck, 1820 LC/R
Thrushes, Shortwings, Family Muscicapidae
Robinds, Forktails, Wheaters
47 Plumbeous Water Redstart Rhyacornis fuliginosa (Vigors, LC/R
1831)
48 White-capped Redstart Chaimarrornis leucocephalus LC/R
(Vigors, 1831)
49 Little Forktail Enicurus scouleri Vigors, 1832 LC/R
50 Black-backed Forktail Enicurus immaculatus (Hodgson, LC/R
1836)
608
Wetland Birds
Status
Sl.
No.
Abundance
51 Slaty-backed Forktail Enicurus schistaceus (Hodgson, LC/R
1836)
52 White-crowned Forktail Enicurus leschenaultia (Vieilloot, LC/R
1818)
53 Spotted Forktail Enicurus maculatus Vigors, 1831 LC/R
Prinias Family Cisticolidae
54 Swamp Prinia Prinia cinerascens (Moore, 1854) LC/R
Buntings Family Emberizidae
55 Chestnut-eared Bunting Emberiza fucata Pallas, 1776 LC/R
56 Black-faced Bunting Emberiza spoddocephala Pallas, LC/WV
1776
57 Common Reed Bunting Emberiza schoeniclus (Linnaeus, LC/WV
1758)
CR – Critically Endangered, Vu – Vulnerable, En – Endangered, NT – Near threatened,

R - Rare, R – Resident, WM – Winter migrant, LC – Locally Common
Out of 310 Indian wetland birds, seven species are endemic, three fall in the
Restricted Range Species category and one comes under data deficient category;
11 are Biome-Restricted Species of which five species are from Eurasian High
Mountain (Biome 05), three from Sino-Himalayan Subtropical Forest (Biome
08), one from Indo-Chinese Tropical Moist Forest (Biome 09), and two from Indo-
Malayan Tropical Dry Zone (Biome 11) (Jhunjhunwala et al., 2001).
Table 3. Occurrence of Waterbirds Familywise
Sl. No. Family World Asia India
1 Podicipedidae 22 6 3
2 Pelecanidae 8 4 3
3 Phalacrocoracidae 37 11 3
4 Anhingidae 4 3 1
5 Ardeidae 62 30 20
6 Ciconiidae 19 11 8
7 Threskiornithidae 35 9 4
8 Phoenicopteridae 5 2 2
9 Anatidae 160 62 35
10 Gruidae 15 9 4
11 Rallidae 146 34 15
12 Heliornithidae 3 1 1
13 Jacanidae 8 3 2
14 Rostratulidae 2 1 1
609
Sl. No. Family World Asia India

15 Haematopodidae 11 2 1
16 Charadriidae 67 22 15
17 Scolopacidae 90 60 32
18 Recurvirostridae 9 3 2
19 Ibidorhynchidae 18 4 1
20 Dromadidae 1 1 1
21 Burhinidae 9 3 3
22 Glareolidae 18 4 3
23 Laridae 91 45 26
Total 840 330 186
Threats
The main pressure on Asian waterbirds is wetland drainage and conversion,
including the infilling (or ‘reclamation’) of intertidal coastal wetlands, principally
for agriculture and aquaculture. Dams and irrigation projects are also negatively
affecting wetlands. Clearance, conversion and degradation of natural forests,
grassland and wetlands are the most far reaching causes of endangerment in
Asia, affecting nearly all species classified a Critical, Endangered, and Vulnerable.
Exploitation for human use is the second most common category of threat, affecting
more than 50% of all threatened bird species; of these, c. 70% are hunted for food
and sport and c. 30% are captured for the wild bird trade.
Suggestions for conservation

With the ever increasing developments, change in the patterns of land use and
resource use, the conservation of our limited natural resources has gained greater
significance. The causes by environmental damages can be controlled only by the
implementation of serious conservation measures. Illegal poaching and hunting
should be completely banned. Felling of trees for cultivation and expansion of
settlement areas should be discouraged. Biodiversity awareness campaigning for
local settlers as well as the tourists should be initiated and this could prove very
useful in the protection of the natural resources. A broad range of national policies
on forestry, agriculture, wetlands and fisheries can have significant impacts on
biodiversity conservation. By ensuring that policies and laws at local, provincial
and national levels also take into account the principle of conservation, threats to
species can be minimized.
Though many checklists are available on the avifauna of wetlands, but there
is a lack on the various aspects of ecological studies. It is shown that there is still
a lot of research that needs to be carried out to better understand the ecology,
particularly the movements within the ecosystem and studies on different aspects
on the ecology and habitat modeling of migratory birds with satellite tracking
to be initiated in the wetlands of India. Information on phonological patterns
of migratory birds and behavioural eco-physiology of migrating waterbirds also
610
Wetland Birds
important in this region. Foraging ecology studies with the ultimate goal of
understanding the consequences of habitat selection by wintering birds in terms
of meeting energy demands is the need of the day. Specifically, the information on
waterbirds diet, foraging rates among habitats and seasons, and food availability
lack biogeographic zone wise.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Authors are grateful to Dr. Kailash Chandra, Director, Zoological Survey of India,
Kolkata for his support, encouragement and providing necessary facilities.
REFERENCES
Acharya, S., and Kar, S.K. 1996. Checklist of Waders (Charadriiformes) in Chilika
Lake, Orissa. Newsl. Birdwatchers, 36(5): 89-90.
Alfred, J.R.B. and Nandi, N. C. 2000. Faunal Diversity in Indian Wetlands. ENVIS
Newsletter, Zoological Survey of India, 6(2): 1-3
Alfred, J.R.B., Kumar, A., Tak, P.C. and Sati, J.P. 2001. Waterbirds of Northern
India. Rec. zool. Surv. India, Occ. Paper No. 190: i-xxiv, 1-227.
Ali, S. and Ripley, S.D. 1983. Hand Book of the Birds of India and Pakistan. Oxford
University Press, Oxford. 737 p.
Anon. 1992. Birds of Kole wetlands: A survey report-I. Nature Education Society
Thrissur (NEST), in collaboration with Kerala Forest Research Institute
(KFRI) and Kerala Forest Department. 16 p.
Anon. 1993. Birds of Kole wetlands: A Survey Report-II. Nature Education Society
Thrissur (NEST), in collaboration with Kerala Forest Research Institute
(KFRI) and Kerala Forest Department. 18 p.
Balachandran, S. 1990. Studies on the coastal birds of Mandapam and the
neighbouring islands (Peninsular India). Ph.D. Thesis, Annamalai
University, Tamil Nadu. 229 p.
Balachandran, S. 1995. Shore birds of the Marine National Park in the Gulf of
Mannar, Tamil Nadu. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 92(3): 303-313.
Balachandran, S. 2006. The decline in wader population along the east coast of
India with special reference to Point Calimere, South-east India. pp. 296-
301. In: Waterbirds around the world. (Eds). Boere, G.C., Galbraith, C.A.
and Stroud, D.A. The Stationery Office, Edinburgh, UK.
Biju Kumar, A. 2006. A checklist of avifauna of the Bharathapuzha River Basin,
Kerala. Zoos’ Print J., 21(8): 2350-2355.
BirdLife International. 2001. Threatened Birds of Asia: the BirdLife International
Red Data Book. Cambridge, U.K.: Bird Life International, 3026 pp.
Broyer, J. & Calenge, C. 2010. Influence of fish-farming management on duck
breeding in French fish pond systems. Hydrobiologia, 637: 173-185.
Gopi, G.V., and Pandav, B. 2007. Avifauna of Bhitarkanika Mangroves, India.
Zoos’ Print J., 229(10): 2839-2847.
611
Gopi, G.V. and S.A. Hussain (Eds.) 2014. Waterbirds of India, ENVIS
Bulletin: Wildlife & Protected Areas. Vol. 16; Wildlife Institute of India,
Dehradun-248001, India.
Jayson, E.A. and Easa, P.S. 2000. Documentation of vertebrate fauna in
Mangalavanam mangrove area. KFRI Research Report No. 183. Kerala
Forest Research Institute, Peechi. 42 p.
Jayson, E.A. and Sivaperuman, C. 2003. Avifauna of Kol wetlands of Thrissur, a
newly declared Ramsar Site in Kerala. Regional Seminar on Ramsar sites
of Kerala, 21st Feb. 2003, Kozhikode, Kerala.
Jayson, E.A. and Sivaperuman, C. 2004. Avifauna of Kole wetlands of Thrissur,
a newly declared Ramsar Site in Kerala. pp. 27-47. In: Proceeding of the
National Seminar on Wetland Avian Ecology, 15th Jan. 2004, St. Aloysius
College, Elthuruth, Thrissur.
Jayson, E.A. and Sivaperuman. C. 2005. Avifauna of Thrissur district, Kerala.
Zoos’ Print J., 20(2): 1774-1783.
Jhunjhunwala, S., Rahamani, A. R., Ishtiaq, F. and Islam, Z. 2001. The Important
Bird Area programme in India. Buceros, 6(2): 1-50.
Kumar, A., Sati, J.P., Tak, P.C. and Alfred, J.R.B. 2005. Handbook on Indian
Wetland Birds and their Conservation: i-xxvi; 1-468 (Published by the
Director, Zool. Surv. India).
Kannan, V., and Pandiyan, J. 2012. Shorebirds (Charadriidae) of Pulicat Lake,
India with special reference to conservation. World J. Zool., 7(3): 178-191.
Kurian, K. 2014. Spatio-temporal variation of waterbirds in Kachchh, Gujarat,
Western India. Ph.D., thesis. University of Madras, Chennai (Unpublished)
327p.
Kurup, D.N. 1991. Ecology of the birds of Malabar Coast and Lakshadweep. Ph.D.
Dissertation, University of Calicut, Calicut.
Kurup, D.N. 1996. Ecology of the birds of Barathapuzha estuary and survey of
the coastal wetlands of Kerala. Final Report submitted to Kerala Forest
Department, Trivandrum. 59 p.
Manakadan, R. and Pittie, A. 2001. Standardised Common and Scientific Names of
the Birds of the Indian Subcontinent. Buceros, 6(1): 1-37.
Murphy, S.M., Kessel, B. & Vining, L.J. 1984. Waterfowl population and limnological
characteristics of Taiga Ponds. Journal of Wildlife Management, 48(4):
1156-1163.
Nagarajan, R. and Thiyagesan. K. 1996. Waterbirds and substrate quality of the
Pichavaram wetlands, Southern India. Ibis, 138: 710-721.
Oswin, D.S, 1999. Avifaunal diversity of Muthupet Mangrove Forest. Zoos’ Print
J., 14(6): 47-53.
Paracuellos, M. 2006. How can habitat selection affect the use of a wetland complex
by waterbirds? Biodiversity and Conservation, 15: 4569-4582.
612
Wetland Birds
Ramamurthy, V., and Rajakumar, R. 2014. A study of avifaunal diversity and

influences of water quality in the Udhayamarthandauram Bird Sanctuary,
Thiruvarur District, Tamil Nadu. Internat. J. Innovative Res. Sci. Engg.
Tech. 3(1): 8851-8858.
Safran, R.J., Isola, C.R., Colwell, M.A., & Williams, O.E. 1997. Benthic invertebrates
at foraging locations of nine waterbird species in managed wetlands of the
northern San Joaquin Valley, California. Wetlands, 17(3), 407-415.
Sampath, K. 1989. Studies on the ecology of Shorebirds (Aves: Charadriiformes)
of the Great Vedaranyam Swamp and the Pichavaram Mangroves of India.
Ph.D. Dissertation, Annamalai University, Tamil Nadu. 202 p.
Sampath, K and Krishnamurthy. K. 1989. Shore birds of the Salt ponds at Great
Vedaranyam Salt Swamp. Stilt, 15: 20-23.
Sivaperuman, C. 2011. Avian communities of Richie’s Archipelago, Andaman and
Nicobar Islands. pp. 238. In: Proceeding of the International conference
on Tropical Island Ecosystem: Issues related to livelihood, sustainable
development and climate change. Central Agricultural Research Institute,
Port Blair.
Sivaperuman, C. 2013. Diversity and species-abundance distribution of birds in
the Ritchie’s archipelago, Andaman and Nicobar Islands. Ann. Forestry
21(1): 101-112.
Sivaperuman, C. and Jayson, E.A. 2000. Birds of Kole Wetlands, Thrissur, Kerala.
Zoos’ Print J., 15(10): 344-349.
Sivaperuman, C. and Jayson, E.A. 2009. Population dynamics of wetland birds
in the Kole wetlands of Kerala, India. J. Sci. Trans. Environ. Tech., 2(3):
152-162.
Sivaperuman, C., Venkatraman, C., and Raghunathan, C. 2010. Avifauna of
Andaman and Nicobar Islands: An Overview. pp. 399-412. In: Recent Trends
in Biodiversity of Andaman and Nicobar Islands. (Eds.) Ramakrishna, C.
Raghunathan and C. Sivaperuman. Zoological Survey of India.
Venkatraman, C., and Muthukrishnan, S. 1993. Density of waterbirds at
Vedanthangal Bird Sanctuary, Tamil Nadu. pp. 55-60. In: Bird Conservation:
Strategies for the Nineties and Beyond. (Eds.) Verghese, A., S. Sridhar and
A.K. Chakravarthy. Ornithological Society of India, Bangalore.
Venkatraman, C. 2008. Diversity of Coastal birds in Gulf of Mannar Biosphere
Reserve, Southern India. (Ed) M.V. Reddy. Wildlife Biodiversity
Conservation in India. Daya publishing house, New Delhi. Pp 104-113.
Venkatraman, C. and. Gokula, V. 2009. Coastal birds of Tamil Nadu, Rec. zool.
Surv. India, Occ. Paper, 303: 1-64, (Published by the Director, Zool. Surv
India, Kolkata.
Venkataraman, C., Nagarajan, R. and Thiyagesan, K. 2012. Resource partitioning
in nesting among waterbirds at Vedanthangal Sanctuary. IN: Recent
advances in Biodiversity of India. (eds. Raghunathan, C., Sivaperuman, C.
and Venkataraman, K.) Kolkatta: Zoological Survey of India. P. 403-408.
Weller, M.W. 1999. Wetland Birds: Habitat resources and Conservation
Implications, Cambridge University Press.
613
Wetland Birds
Anastomus osciatanus Mycteria leucocephala Phalacrocorax niger

Asian Openbill -Stork Painted Stork Little Cormorant
Numenius arquata Eurasian Curlew Actitis hypoleucos Common sandpiper
Chroicocephalus brunicephalus Charadrius dubias Little ringed Plover

Brown-headed Gull
Tringa taotanus Common Redshank
614
Chapter 37
MAMMALia
M. KAMALAKANNAN, C. VENKATRAMAN AND GOPAL SHARMA*
Abstract
A total of 428 species of Mammals have been recorded from India, of which six
species are considered as freshwater mammals in India. Threats include habitat
degradation due to developmental activities, river pollution, prey decline in their
habitat and poaching.
Key words: Mammals, habitat degradation, loss of wetland.
Introduction
Mammals are found in all types of habitat, ranging from snowy heights of the
Himalaya to sea coast, and show all types of adaptation, viz. – terrestrial, arboreal,
fossorial, volant, aquatic etc. There are about 5,416 species of mammals belonging
to 154 families and 29 orders have been reported from the world. Of which, 428
species of Mammals have been recorded from India, which is about 7.9% of the
global mammalian species, representing 48 families and 14 orders. Unlike
the marine mammals (enormous and lives in the different marine ecosystem),
the freshwater mammals are few in numbers and live either in an aquatic and
semiaquatic condition (Wilson and Reeder, 2005). Six species namely, Gangetic
Dolphin Platanista gangetica (Roxburgh, 1801), Oriental small-clawed otter Aonyx
cinerea (Illiger, 1815), European otter Lutra lutra (Linnaeus, 1758), Smooth-coated
otter Lutrogale perspicillata (I.Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1826), Himalayan water
shrew Chimarrogale himalayica (Gray, 1842) and Elegant water shrew Nectogale
elegans Milne-Edwards, 1870 are considered as freshwater mammals in India.
Gangetic Dolphin
Two subspecies namely, Ganges river dolphin Platanista gangetica gangetica
(Roxburgh, 1801) and Indus river dolphin Platanista gangetica minor Owen, 1853
have been recognised in India. The Ganges river dolphins are virtually identical in
physical appearance. They are readily identified by their elongated snout, which
can reach lengths of 20% of total body length. They are well developed for aquatic
life, have long flippers that can be up to 18% of total body length. It is distributed
in Brahmaputra, Ganges, Hoogly, Karnaphuli, Meghna and their tributaries and
Indian seas while Platanista gangetica minor are distributed only in Punjab,
inhabiting the Ganges and Indus river systems and their many tributaries,
Zoological Survey of India, M- Block, New Alipore, Kolkata-700053
(Email: [email protected] & [email protected])
*Zoological Survey of India, Gangetic Plains Regional Centre, Patna
615
Kamalakannan et al.
streams, and connecting lakes. The auditory senses are very well developed;
navigates and captures food with the help of echolocation. The South-Asian river
dolphin is declared as the National Aquatic Animal of India by the Government
of India.
There are many studies on Gangetic Dolphin especially the population status
and conservation measures [Smith (1993), Sinha (2002), Sinha and Sharma (2003)
and Braulik (2006)]. The ecology of the species were studied by the Pilleri and
Zbinden (1973), Singh and Sharma (1985) and the threats were studied by Mohan
(1995), Bairagi,(1999), Kannan et al (1997) and Senthilkumar et al. (1999).
The distribution of Platanista in the Ganges River is, between longitudes
77°E and 89°E, from mouth of the river in Bay of Bengal to as far up as the river
navigable near the foothill of Himalayas (Anderson 1879). He stated that, in the
Brahmaputra River, Platanista was present “throughout all the main rivers, as
far eastwards as longitude 95°E by latitude 27°30´N, frequenting all its larger
tributaries.” Outside the Ganges–Brahmaputra–Meghna river systems, Gangetic
Dophin were present in the Karnaphuli River (Anderson 1879) and possibly the
Sangu River in eastern Bangladesh (Haque 1976).
Kasuya and Haque (1972) recorded Gangetic Dophin in Dioghat on the
Narayani River in Nepal, 250 MSL and approximately 100 km farther upstream
than Anderson recorded in 1879. Shreshtha (1989) reported dolphins in the four
main river systems of Nepal: the Mahakali, Karnali, Narayani, and Kosi Rivers.
Susus ascend the Meghna river systems in Bangladesh at least to Sunamganj
(Jones 1982). Nine susus were also sighted in the Barak River in 2006 at Silchar in
Assam. (pers. comm. Pawlen Singha). Jones (1982) stated that the broad plume of
freshwater created by the Ganges outflow in the Bay of Bengal may facilitate the
dispersal of susus to rivers outside the Ganges–Brahmaputra–Meghna systems.
In 2006, one susu entered the Burhabalang River in the state of Orissa, which
discharges into the Bay of Bengal almost 300 km southwest of the mouth of the
Ganges. This river has never been connected with the Ganges system. In the recent
years, the dolphin’s range in substantial portions of the Ganges system, especially
in upstream areas.
The Gangetic Dolphin is endemic to the Indian sub-continent and has fairly
extensive distribution range. Due to a continued decline in its population, the
IUCN changed its status from ‘Vulnerable’ to ‘Endangered’ in 1996 and is listed
Schedule-I of the Indian Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972
Threats
Directed Intentional killing
The killing of dolphin for meat and oil is thought to have declined. But it still occurs
in the middle Ganges near Patna, in the Kalni-Kushiyara River of Bangladesh,
and in the upper reaches of the Brahmaputra. In India and Bangladesh, dolphin
oil and body parts are used to lure prey, and Ganges River dolphins are used to this
end. Efforts have been made in India to test shark liver, sardine oil and fish scrape
to find an alternative for dolphin oil (used as fish attractant). The fish scrape are
being used as the alternative of dolphin oil. The results are positive and promising.
616
Mammalia
Accidental Killing
Entanglement of Gangetic Dolphins in fishing nets causes significant damage
to the local population. Accidental killing is a severe problem throughout most of
their range. The primary cause is believed to be entanglement in fishing gear such
as nylon gillnets because their preferred habitat is often in the same location as
primary fishing grounds. The problem of accidental killing is expected to worsen
with increasing fishing intensity.
Bycatch (in fishing gear)

Monofilament gill net: When a gill net is set in the bottom is weighted to the
column of the river water and the top is held up by floats creating a wall of net.
These nets are difficult for the dolphin to see or detect with echolocation. So, they
frequently run in to them when swimming or feeding and become entangled in the
net. Gillnets are responsible for the by-catch related deaths of most dolphin and
porpoise species.
Kapda jal
The sustained and heavy exploitation of small fishes of rivers by the wide spread
use of the mosquito nets in river may affect the prey base of the Gangetic Dolphin.
While the rate of renewal of this resource is remarkable, very few studies have been
conducted in a small segment of the river on prey abundance estimates (Choudhay
et al., 2006; Kelkar et al., 2010) and further research is required to quantify this
threat in larger areas.
Chemical Pollution
The riverine ecosystem is close proximity to human activities and, therefore, is an
ultimate sink for the discharge of sewage and industrial wastewater that emanates
from human activities. The Ganges River basin is the most densely populated basin
in the world and is heavily polluted by fertilizers, pesticides, industrial chemicals,
and domestic effluents. Exposure of dolphins to toxic chemicals can affect their
reproduction and survival. In the food chain, the dolphins, are apex predator, have
been shown to accumulate high levels of persistent and toxic chemicals in their
tissues. Several studies conducted about elevated levels of DDT in the blubber of
Ganges dolphins (Kannan et al., 1994; Senthilkumar et al., 1999). Notable levels
of immunotoxic chemicals, such as butyltins and perfluorinated chemicals, have
been found in the tissues of Ganges dolphins (Kannan et al., 1997, 2005; Yeung et
al., 2009). Heavy metals, including cadmium and lead, have been measured in the
livers of Ganges dolphins (Kannan et al., 1993).
Gaps in research
The DNA sequencing of Gangetic Dolphin, survey in all distributional range and
the acoustic behaviour are some of the gap areas in the Dolphin research in India.
Small-clawed otter
The small clawed Otter is commonly known as Asian Small-clawed Otter,
Small-clawed Otter, Oriental Small-clawed Otter. This species is native to
Bangladesh, Bhutan, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, China, India (Arunachal
617
Kamalakannan et al.
Pradesh, Assam, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, West

Bengal) Indonesia, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Malaysia, Myanmar, Nepal,
Philippines, Singapore, Taiwan, Province of China, Thailand, Viet Nam.
The Small-clawed Otters occur in freshwater and peat swamp forests, rice
fields, lakes, streams, reservoirs, canals, mangrove and along the coast. In Malaysia
and Indonesia they occur in coastal wetlands, and along the banks of paddy fields.
The Small-clawed Otters have a high climatic and trophic adaptability in south
and south-east Asian tropics, occurring from coastal wetlands up to mountain
streams (Melisch et al.1996).
The ecology, status and conservation of all three Indian otter species have
well documented by Nagulu et al (1999), Hussain and Choudhury (1997) Hussain
(1999, 2000) and Choudhury (1999). The Aonyx cinerea concolor and Aonyx cinerea
nirnai are the two Indian subspecies of the small-clawed otter. It is the smallest
otter in India and similar to Eurasian otter. As its name implies, the small claws
of otter are rudimentary and not projecting beyond the tips of the toes and are
webbed between the digits. Its sleek coat is greyish brown and the underside is
light brown to the yellow and whitish throat.
In India, Aonyx cinerea concolor is distributed in Himalayan terai to North-
eastern states and Sundarbans in West Bengal and Aonyx cinerea nirnai in South
India. It is aquatic and, diurnal in behaviour; social animal lives in rivers, creeks,
estuaries and coastal areas. The groups consist four to six to 18 individuals and
spends more time in the land than the water, dig their own dens near the riverside.
The Small-clawed Otter is adapted to feed on invertebrates as evident from the
last two upper teeth (pm4 and m3) which are larger in size for crushing the
exoskeleton of crabs and other hard shelled prey. The Small-clawed Otter feeds
mainly on crabs, snails and other molluscs, insects and small fish such as gouramis
and catfish (Pocock 1941, Wayre 1978). They supplement their diet with rodents,
snakes and amphibians too.
Threats
Threats include habitat degradation due to developmental activities, river
pollution, prey decline in their habitat and poaching. In many parts of Asia,
the habitats have been reduced due to reclamation of peat swamp forests and
mangroves, aquaculture activities along the intertidal wetlands and loss of hill
streams. In India the primary threats are loss of habitats due to tea and coffee
plantations along the hills, in the coastal areas loss of mangroves due to aquaculture
and increased human settlements and siltation of smaller hill streams due to
deforestation. Increased influx of pesticides into the streams from the plantations
reduces the quality of the habitats. The threat posed by poaching is still very
significant in many parts of India, and SE Asia and will certainly count as a major
threat that needs to be constantly monitored. Poaching for pelt has been reported
from across the Western Ghats in south India (Prakash et al., 2012). It is listed as
Schedule-I species under the Indian Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, as Vulnerable
and Appendix-II species of the IUCN Red List category and CITES, respectively.
618
Mammalia
Conservation action
Since 1977, The Small-clawed Otter has been listed on CITES Appendix II which
indicates that the species is not necessarily threatened with extinction, but the
trade on its pelt must be controlled in order to avoid utilization incompatible with
their survival. However, most countries are not able to control the clandestine trade
leading to extensive poaching. Nevertheless, it is a protected species in almost all
the range countries which prohibits its killing. Once the Asian Small-clawed Otter
was common in the streams and wetlands of south and Southeast Asia but now
it is restricted to few protected areas. Creation of networks of Protected Areas,
identification of sites as wetlands of national and international importance under
the Ramsar Convention halted the degradation of its habitat.
Over the years the IUCN SSC Otter Specialist Group has developed a cadre of
biologists across Asia to conduct field surveys and to popularise otter conservation
by promoting otters as ambassadors of the wetlands. However, concerted efforts to
conserve this species are needed. For the long term survival of the species, policy
based action, research on factors affecting its survival, habitat based action on
creation and where required expansion of protected areas and communication and
awareness building actions are needed.
Eurasian otter
The Eurasian Otter is spread across Europe, Africa and Asia and the IUCN has
listed as Near Threatened. According to experts, the species has either gone
extinct from several regions or it has been reduced to small isolated populations.
Except for Europe, there is lack of data on population status and distribution of
this species from the rest of the world.
A total of four subspecies of Eurasian otter are found in India namely, Lutra
lutra aurobrunneus Hodgson, 1839, Lutra lutra kutab Schinz, 1844, Lutra lutra
monticolus Hodgson, 1839 and Lutra lutra nair F.G. Cuvier, 1823. The Eurasian
otter has a rough and grizzled coarse coat of dark olive brown colour and the under
parts are lighter. Its outer nostrils are ‘W’ shaped, the lips and throat have yellow
spots. There are many white vibrissae around the muzzle. The end of the tail
is circular in section and is three-fourth of the head and body length. The webs
extend to the last bone of each digit.
In India, Lutra lutra aurobrunneus is distributed in Uttarakhand and
Himachal Pradesh; Lutra lutra kutab Jammu and Kashmir; L. l. monticolus Sikkim
and North-eastern India and Lutra lutra nair Southern India. It is nocturnal and
largely solitary in behaviour and lives in rivers, streams, marshes, swamp forests
and coastal areas. They feed mainly fish, crab, snails, freshwater molluscs, fish,
frogs, wetland birds, etc. They take shelter on land in the burrows. Threats include
habitat degradation due to developmental activities, river pollution, pesticide use,
prey decline in their habitat and poaching. It is listed in Schedule-II species under
the Indian Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, and Appendix-I of the CITES.
Smooth-coated otter
In the Indian subcontinent they are adapted to live even in the semiarid region
of north western India and Deccan plateau (Prater 1971). Generally, it uses large
619
Kamalakannan et al.
rivers and lakes, peat swamp forests, mangroves and estuaries, and rice fields for
foraging (Foster-Turly, 1992). In South-east Asia rice fields appear to be one of the
most suitable habitats in supporting its viable populations (Melisch et al., 1996).
However, they were more abundant in the mangroves of Kuala Gula, Malaysia as
compared to the rain forest rivers (Shariff 1984).
Smooth-coated otter Lutrogale perspicillata
The Lutrogale perspicillata perspicillata is a recognised Indian subspecies.

It is a common otter in India; possess a very smooth and sleek coat rather than a
coarse coat. Its dorsal coat colour varies from blackish brown to lighter brown, or
paler tawny or sandy brown, underside is lighter. The upper lip, cheeks, throat,
and neck are whitish; muzzle is not spotted; nostrils ‘V’ shaped. The third digit is
free from webbing. Tail length is more than half of the head and body length and
distal part markedly flattened.
Distributed throughout the country except for high regions of Himalayas, and
arid regions of Gujarat and Rajasthan. Sometimes during the dry season, these
otters may become jungle hunters.
Major threats to Asian otter populations are loss of wetland habitats due
to construction of large-scale hydroelectric projects, reclamation of wetlands
for settlements and agriculture, reduction in prey biomass, poaching and
contamination of waterways by pesticides. In south-east Asian countries, there
does not seem to be any intentional otter trapping (Melisch et al., 1996) though it
is prevalent in India, Nepal and Bangladesh. It is listed in Schedule-II under the
Indian Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, is Vulnerable and Appendix-II species of the
IUCN Red List category and CITES, respectively.
Himalayan water shrew

Himalayan water shrew represents an important fauna of the Himalayan
region. It can be diagnosed by its bluish grey speckled with white hair and paler at
ventral parts. Eyes are small and the greatly reduced ears closed by a flap while
620
Mammalia
diving. Its pelage is glossy and waterproof. The feet are well-developed and its toes
are fringed with stiff long white bristle-hairs. The backs of the feet are light brown.
Its tail is dark brown at all around, except the tip of the tail, where it is white
below. They are usually associated with the clear, swift-flowing forest stream
in mountainous region (Arai et.al., 1985). This species is reported to swim well
underwater and have been observed running over stones in the bed of a stream and
plunging freely into the water (Anderson 1879).
It is found in China, India, Japan, Laos, Myanmar, Taiwan, and Vietnam.
In India, it is distributed in Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Sikkim and West
Bengal. This is a semi-aquatic and nocturnal animal, swims well under the
water. It is omnivorous in diet, feeds on insects, crustaceans and small fishes.
Inhabits burrows on the banks or near streams and associated with clear streams
in temperate evergreen forests. Hoffmann (1987), Lunde and Musser (2002),
Hutterer (2005), and Smith and Xie (2008) have reported the systematics and
ecology of the Himalayan water shrew and elegant water shrew along with other
soricomorphs. Threats include habitat loss due to agriculture expansion, selective
logging, harvesting for medical use, poisoning, pest control activities and decline
of prey species. As per the IUCN Red List category, it is a Least Concern species.
Elegant water shrew

The Elegant water shrew is characterised by its slate grey upper parts and
silver under parts. Its snout is long and the valvular ears are reduced. A unique
tail with a long tuft of white hairs is modified for swimming. The webbed feet
is brown in colour and fringed with short and stiff white hairs. In India, it is
distributed in Sikkim. This is more aquatic adapted species than the Himalayan
water shrew. Feeds on aquatic invertebrates and small fish. Inhabits montane
forests with streams at altitudes of 900-3000 m. Little is known about its their
ecology. Habitat loss is considered as threat to the species. As per the IUCN Red
List category, it is a Least Concern species.
Acknowledgement
We would like to thank the Director, Zoological Survey of India for providing the
necessary facilities and encouragements.
References
Anderson, J. 1879. Anatomical and Zoological Researches: Comprising and account
of the Zoological Results of the Two Expeditions to Western Yunnan in 1868
and 1875; and a Monograph of the Two Cetacean Genera, Platanista and
Orcella. Bernard quaritch, London, 984pp.
Arai, S., Mori, T., Yoshida, H. and Shiraishi, S. 1985. A note on the Japanese water
shrew, Chimarrogale himalayica platycephala, from Kyushu. Journal of the
Mammalogical Society of Japan, 10: 193-203.
Bairagi, S.P. 1999. Oil bait fishery of catfishes in Brahmaputra River affecting
river dolphin populations in Assam, India. Journal of the Bombay Natural
621
Kamalakannan et al.
Braulik, G. 2006. Status assessment of the Indus River dolphin, Platanista

gangetica minor, Biological Conservation, 129: 579-590.
Choudhury, A. 1999. Mustelids, Viverrids and Herpestids of North-Eastern India.
In: ENVIS Bulletin on Wildlife & Protected Areas, Mustelids, Viverrids and
Herpestids of India, 2(2): 43-47.
Choudhary, S.K., Smith, B.D. Dey, S,. Dey S. and P. Satya. 2006. Conservation
and bio-monitoring in the Vikramshila Gangetic Dolphin Sanctuary, Bihar,
India, Oryx, 40(2), 189-197.
Foster-Turly, P. 1992. Conservations ecology of Sympatric Asian otters Aonyx
Cinerea and L. Perspicillata. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Florida.
Hoffmann, R.S. 1987. A review of the systematics and distribution of Chinese red-
toothed shrews (Mammalia: Soricinae). Acta Theriologica Sinica, 7: 100-
139.
Hussain, S.A. 1999. Species profile: Mustelids, Viverrids and Herpestids of
India. ENVIS Bulletin on Wildlife & Protected Areas, 2(2): 1-38.
Hussain, S.A. 2000. Status of otter conservation in India. ENVIS Bulletin on
Wildlife and Protected Areas, 2(2): 92-97.
Hussain, S.A. and Choudhury, B.C. 1997. Status and distribution of smooth-
coated otter Lutra perspicillata in National Chambal Sanctuary. Biological
Conservation, 80: 199-206.
Hutterer, R. 2005. Order Soricomorpha. In: D.E. Wilson and D.M. Reeder
(eds), Mammal Species of the World, Johns Hopkins University Press,
Baltimore, Maryland, USA. pp. 220-311
Jones S. 1982. The present status of the Gangetic susu, Platanista gangetica
(Roxburgh), with comments on the Indus susu, Platanista minor Owen.
FAO Advisory Committee on Marine Resources Research Working Party on
Marine Mammals. FAO Fish. Ser., (5)4: 97-115.
Kannan K, Ramu K, Kajiwara N, Sinha RK, Tanabe S. 2005. Organochlorine
pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls and polybrominated diphenyl ethers in
Irrawaddy dolphins from India. Archives of Environmental Contamination
and Toxicology, 49: 415-420.
Kannan K, Senthilkumar K, Sinha RK. (1997). Sources and accumulation of
butyltin compounds in Ganges river dolphin, Platanista gangetica. Applied
Organometallic Chemistry, 11: 223-230.
Kannan K, Sinha RK, Tanabe S, Ichihashi H, Tatsukawa R. 1993. Heavy metals
and organochlorine residues in Ganges river dolphin from India. Marine
Pollution Bulletin, 26: 159-162.
Kannan K, Tanabe S, Tatsukawa R, Sinha R.K. 1994. Biodegradation capacity
and residue pattern of organochlorines in Ganges river dolphins from India.
Toxicological and Environmental Chemistry, 42: 249-261.
Kannan, K., Senthilkumar, K. and Sinha, R.K. 1997. Sources and accumulation of
butyltin compounds in Ganges River Dolphin, Platanista gangetica. Applied
organometallic chemistry, 11(3): 223-230.
622
Mammalia
Kasuya T, Haque AKMA. 1972. Some information on distribution and seasonal

movement of the Ganges dolphin. The Scientific Reports of the Whales
Institute, 24: 109-115.
Kelkar N, Krishnaswamy J, Choudhary S, Sutaria D. 2010. Coexistence of fisheries
with river dolphin conservation. Conservation Biology, 24: 1130-1140.
Lunde, D.P. and Musser, G.G. 2002. The capture of the Himalayan water shrew
(Chimarrogale himalayica) in Vietnam. Mammal Study, 27(2): 137-140.
Melisch, R., Kusumawardhani, L., Asmoro, P.B. and Lubis, I.R. 1996. The otters
of west Java - a survey of their distribution and habitat use and a strategy
towards a species conservation programme. PHPA/Wetlands International
– Indonesia Programme, Bogor, Indonesia.
Mohan, R.S. 1995. Mortality of Ganges River dolphin, Platanista gangetica, in
gillnets of Ganges and Brahmaputra in India. Tiger Paper, 22(1): 11-13.
Nagulu, V., Srinivasalu, C. and Vasudev Rao V. 1999. Status of otter in South
Indian States. An update Report 1997. In: ENVIS Bulletin on Wildlife &
Protected Areas, Mustelids, Viverrids and Herpestids of India, 2(2): 71-73.
Pilleri, G. and Zbinden, K. 1973. Size and ecology of the dolphin population
(Platanista indi) between the Sukkur and Guddu Barrages, Indus River.
Pocock, R.I. 1941. The Fauna of British India, including Ceylon and Burma. Taylor
& Francis, Ltd., London, UK.
Prakash, N., Mudappa, D., Raman, T.R.S. and Kumar, A. 2012. Conservation of the
Asian small-clawed otter (Aonyx cinereus) in human-modified landscapes,
Western Ghats, India. Tropical Conservation Science, 5: 67-78.
Prater, S.H. 1971. The Book of Indian Animals (3rd edition). Bombay Natural
History Society, Oxford University press. Bombay, 1-324.
Senthilkumar, K., Kannan, K., Sinha, R.K., Tanabe, S. and Giesy, J.P. 1999.
Bioaccumulation profiles of polychlorinated biphenyle congeners and
organochlorine pesticides in Ganges River Dolphins. Environmental
Toxicology and Chemistry, 18(7): 1511-1520.
Shariff, S. 1984. Some observation on otters at Kual Gula, Perak and National
Park, Pahang. Journal of Wildlife and National Parks, 3: 75-88.
Shreshtha, T.K. 1989. Biology, status and conservation of the Ganges River
dolphin, Platanista gangetica, in Nepal. In Biology and conservation of the
river dolphins. Occasional Paper of the IUCN Species Survival Commission,
ed. by W.F. Perrin, R.L. Brownell, Jr., K. Zhou, J. Liu, Vol. 3: 70-76 pp.
Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.
Singh, L.A.K. and Sharma, R.K. 1985. Gangetic dolphin, Platanista gangetica:
Observations on the habits and distribution pattern in National Chambal
Sanctuary. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 82: 648-653.
Sinha, R.K. 2002. An alternative to dolphin oil as a fish attractant in the Ganges
River system: conservation of the Ganges River Dolphin. Biological
Conservation, 107: 253-257.
623
Kamalakannan et al.
Sinha, R.K. and Sharma, G. 2003. Current status of the Ganges river dolphin in the
rivers Kosi and Son. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society. 100(1):
27-37.
Smith, B.D. 1993. Status and conservation of the Ganges River dolphin (Platanista
gangetica) in the Karnali River Nepal. Biological Conservation, 66: 159-169.
Smith, A.T. and Xie, Y. 2008. A Guide to the Mammals of China. Princeton
University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.
Wayre, P. 1978. Status of otters in Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Italy. In: N. Duplaix
(ed.), Otters, pp. 152-155. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
Wilson, D.E. and Reeder, D.M. 2005. Mammal Species of the World. Johns Hopkins
University Press, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Yeung LWY, Yamashita N, Taniyasu S, Lam KS, Sinha RK, Borole DV, Kannan
K. A. 2009. Survey of perfluorinated compounds in surface water and biota
including dolphins from the Ganges River and in other water bodies in
India. Chemosphere, 76: 55-62.
624
and Climate Change

Current Status of
Current Status of
IN INDIA
IN INDIA
KAILASH CHANDRA | K. C. GOPI | D. V. RAO
K. VALARMATHI | J.R.B. ALFRED
KAILASH CHANDRA
K. C. GOPI
D. V. RAO
K. VALARMATHI
J.R.B. ALFRED
ZOOLOGICAL SURVEY
OF INDIA
1916
ZOOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA

Current Status of Freshwater Faunal Diversity in India PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Current Status of Freshwater Faunal Diversity in India PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Current Status of Freshwater Faunal Diversity in India PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ministry of Environment, Forest

and Climate Change

FRESHWATER FAUNAL DIVERSITY

ZOOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA

Kailash Chandra | K.C. Gopi | 1D.V. Rao |

Zoological Survey of India

Published : May,, 2017

© Govt. of India, 2017

Published at the Publication Division by the Director, Zoological Survey of India,

26th May, 2017

Dhali, Dhruba Chandra.

Ranga Reddy, Y. (Retd.)

Kailash Chandra, K.C. Gopi, D.V. Rao,

Kailash Chandra, K.C. Gopi, D.V. Rao, K.A. Subramanian

of different groups, invertebrates like annelids (polychaetes, earthworms, leeches,

Indian Freshwater Ecosystems and Faunal diversity

bodies. The National Wetland Inventory and Assessment published recently by

Freshwater ecosystems and habitats of India are distributed in diverse

Sl. No. Wetland name State

Sl. No. Wetland name State

Table 2. State-wise list of wetlands identified under National

Maharashtra Sikkim 97. Keetham

The National River Conservation Directorate, under the Ministry of

between wetlands. Baseline information on the biodiversity of water bodies in the

Role of ZSI in Freshwater Ecosystem Conservation

Freshwater Faunal Biodiversity in India

Freshwater habitats in India support a significant proportion of the total

far-reaching implications. One

not on parity—rather it is on a downward trend—with the veteran taxonomists

Table 3. Freshwater faunal diversity in the world and India

Phylum Chaetogantha 186 -- 30 --

Phylum Hemichordata 126 -- 12 --

Kingdom Phylum No. of Species in No. of species in

Phylum Chordata 66471 17960 6002 1597

Class Pisces 33888 13000 3287 1027

Class Amphibia 7534 4117 386 275

Class Reptilia 10272 153 562 46

Class Aves 9026 566 1340 243

Class Mammalia 5751 124 427 6

1627973 128449 97708 9456

Fig. 1. Freshwater faunal Diversity in India

The present assessment of freshwater diversity from India is incomplete since

Oligochaeta: The oligochaetes are elongate and segmented annelids with no

Fig. 2. The crustacean diversity in Indian freshwater

available in freshwater systems of the world. The caridean shrimps consisting of

Order Plecoptera: Plecoptera is a small monophyletic order of hemimetabolous

Fig. 3. The composition of aquatic-insect groups in Indian freshwater ecosystems

Order Ephemeroptera: Ephemeropterans, commonly known as Mayflies, are most

Order Hymenoptera: Hymenopterans are generally terrestrial insects and are

Fig. 4. Freshwater vertebrates in India

of global freshwater mammals, only 6 species namely, South-Asian river dolphin,

Threats to the freshwater faunal diversity

Way forward for freshwater taxonomy in India

An inference emerged out of this documentation work by ZSI is that taxonomic

Schmidt-Rhaesa A. and Lalramliana 2016. New records of Indian Nematomorpha,

Bindu. L1 and Jasmine, P2

1 Marine Biology Regional Centre, Zoological Survey of India,

Some Rhizopods of India

Cryptodifflugia oviformis Difflugia binucleata