This species occasionally appears in the aquarium hobby, but the trade is largely reliant on commercially-produced ‘tiger barbs’ of questionable origin.

It was considered a synonym of P. anchisporus for a number of decades following Alfred (1963), but revalidated by Kottelat and Tan (2011).

The type series was collected from a small clear-water stream with a pH of 6.0, forming a series of riffles and deeper pools, with a maximum width of 5 metres and depth ranging from 10 cm to 1 metre. The substrate was composed of sand gravel and rocks, with some leaf litter and overhanging marginal vegetation.

Prior to its description P. kamalika was referred to as P. amphibius, a putatively valid species probably restricted to western India.

It differs from all congeners in the following combination of characters: 4½/1/2½ scales in a transverse line between the mid-dorsal…

This species was considered to be a phenotype of the similar-looking P. gelius prior to its description.

Following Knight (2013) it is included a group of closely-related species alongside P. gelius and P. canius, the trio being distinguished from other members of the genus Pethia by the following combination of characters: lateral line incomplete with 3-4 por…

This species’ identity was settled and a neotype designated by Knight (2013), with its validity having been discussed since the late 19th century.

P. canius and the closely-related P. gelius were both described by Hamilton (1822) and share the type locality of ‘northeastern Bengal’. Although Hamilton did not provide drawings M’Clelland (1839) included colour illustrations depicting two quite different-looking species.

This species was considered a colour form of the related Pethia cumingii prior to its description.

It can be told apart from P. cumingii by the following combination of characters: maximum standard length 33.6 mm (vs. 41.2 mm); smaller eye diameter (9.8-10.5, vs. 10.8-12.1 % SL); 11+13 (vs. 11+15) vertebrae; cleithrum with a single spine (vs. smooth); proximal arm of fifth ceratobranchial with an oval…

This fish has been widely misidentified and sold as the congener P. tiantian and its vernacular name of ‘Burmese bumble-bee barb’ but actually appears to be an undescribed member of the genus Pethia.

This assemblage was erected by Pethiy…

Probably a micropredator feeding on small insects, worms, crustaceans and other zooplankton in nature. In the aquarium it should accept dried foods of a suitable size but should not be fed these exclusively.

Daily meals of small live and frozen fare such as Daphnia, Artemia, Moina, etc., along with good quality flakes and granules will result in the best colouration and encourage the fish to come into breeding condition.

It can be told apart from similar-looking congeners such as P. crescentus and P. muzaffarpurensis by the following combination of characters: barbels absent; lateral line incomplete with up to 5 pored scales; 20-22 lateral line scales; 8 predorsal scales; dorsal-fin with a vertically-orientated black streak and a black tip with orange markings; a dark spot at the base of the caudal peduncle.

This species is almost identical to the wild form of ‘P.‘ semifasciolatus which is best known as the ‘golden barb’ in the aquarium hobby due to the popularity of a yellowish ornamental strain. The natural colour pattern is greenish in both species, however, and in terms of external characters they’re only reliably distinguished by the fact that ‘P.‘ semifasciolatus possesses a pair of prominent maxillary barbels wherea…