Garra culiciphaga Common name. Red stripe barb. Diagnosis. Distinguished from other species of Garra in Central Anatolia, Mediterranean, and Dead Sea basins by: ● wide, orange or reddish lateral stripe from eye to caudal base in nuptial male / ○ gular disc incomplete / ○ skin behind lower jaw with a wide lateral lobe, very narrow, almost split in middle / ○ lateral lobe on skin behind lower jaw strongly papillate on entire surface / ○ chin between lateral lobes strongly pointed anteriorly, reaching deeply between lateral lobes / ○ a black spot at posteriormost caudal peduncle in juveniles / ○ 7½ branched dorsal rays / ○ 29−34 scales in total lateral series / ○ lateral line incomplete, with 7−11 pored scales / ○ one pair of very small barbels / ○ scale in rows 2–3 above and below lateral line densely pigmented in middle, forming indistinct stripes. Size up to 70 mm SL. Distribution. Türkiye: Lower Tarsus, Seyhan and Ceyhan drainages, also in a coastal stream at İskenderun. Likely introduced to Lake Balık (Gölbaşı-Hatay). Habitat. Slow-flowing rivers and streams, densely vegetated springs, and wetlands. Spawns in dense vegetation of submerged plants, roots, or algae. Biology. Usually solitary. Lives 3−4 years. Spawns first time after first winter. Spawns April−September, fractional spawner. Several males follow female into dense vegetation and spread small, transparent, and sticky eggs widely in vegetation. First-time spawners spawn later in spring than older spawners. Larvae solitary, inhabit dense vegetation, feed on plankton and detritus. Conservation status. LC. Remarks. Earlier placed in Hemigrammocapoeta. Further reading. Pellegrin, 1927 (description); Geiger et al. 2014 (molecular phylogeny, placement in Garra); Hamidan et al. 2014, Behrens-Chapuis et al. 2015 (molecular phylogeny); Bayçelebi 2020 (distribution). Garra culiciphaga: a misnamed fish? The field of etymology is replete with misconceptions, and at times, consulting the original descriptions or older literature can reveal errors even in well-known names that have been in use for decades. For instance, the name “ culiciphaga,” ascribed by Jacques Pellegrin to the species, is understood to refer to its efficacy in the destruction of mosquito larvae (Culex, mosquito; phaga, to eat). Pellegrin had received the type specimens from D.E. Tok, the head doctor of the antimalarial service in the Adana region. In his own words, Pellegrin stated that “according to the experiments of the latter (D.E. Tok), these fish are excellent destroyers of mosquito larvae, hence the name given to the species.” In the original description, he stated that he had received the material with a postscript attached, denoting the fish’s mosquito-eating behaviour, which D.E. Tok had sent. However, in the batch of samples he had received, there was another species, which he noted as “ Aphanius fasciatus,” known as an “excellent mosquito destroyer.” D.E. Tok had likely referred to A. fasciatus as “d’excellents destructeurs,” a case that was misinterpreted by Pellegrin. According to the rules of zoological nomenclature, the name culiciphaga cannot be changed, even if based on misinformation. Further reading. Pellegrin 1927 (description).

Published as part of Freyhof, Jörg, Yoğurtçuoğlu, Baran, Jouladeh-Roudbar, Arash & Kaya, Cüneyt, 2025, Handbook of Freshwater Fishes of West Asia, GmbH, Berlin / Boston :De Gruyter on page 186, DOI: 10.1515/9783111677811, http://zenodo.org/record/17881367