I checked the descriptions by Fowler. The image in Rainboth on p. 122 is undoubtebly a reprint of the original image of the holotype of Garra spinosa by Fowler. Rainboth spoke about rostral and maxillary barbels whereas Garra spinosa has merely rostral barbels. Rainboth simultaneously listed Garra spinosa as a synonym or misidentification in the entry for Garra fasciacauda on p. 121. It is surprising if an expert consciously publishes an image of a different species. It is confusing.
The former image by bobby certainly shows Garra taeniata which should be a synonym of Garra cambodgiensis if of course Kottelat was right. The latter image might contain Garra spinosa, Garra taeniatops or Garra parvifilum. All three names are regarded as synonyms of Garra cambodgiensis by Kottelat. The two species which are depicted above are obviously distinct. Small barbels speak for Garra parvifilum. But I am cautious to claim anything.
Information in contemporary ichthyological publications is really irresponsibly confused.

jn