Willem Heijns wrote:I have also critisized Ottoni et al for the character of the interruption of the abdominal bars (diagnosis Australoheros: "abdominal bars interrupted in their middorsal part",
Willem Heijns wrote:I meant to say that Ottoni et al used the wrong character state (bars 6 and 7 interrupted) to assign species to Australoheros for which the diagnostic character is as Ingo stated. But now it appears that some earlier recognized Australoheros species also show only bars 6 and 7 interrupted.
Willem Heijns wrote:About scalerows: Ingo, do you mean to say that the upper lateral line in a given specimen is not consistently in one and the same scale row? If not, then the upper lateral line is either in scalerow E2 (leaving one scalerow between upper and lower lateral line) or it is in scalerow E3 (with two scalerows in between). In any case it should have been made clear in the paper. But it isn't.....
Willem Heijns wrote:I have adjusted the bar numbering to comply with Rican 2005. Australoheros species with 4 abdominal bars have bar 5 divided into two separate bars (now numbered 5a (anterior) and 5p (posterior).
cichla wrote:Australoheros facetus is redescribed as ''It ... has the shortest dorsal scale cover of all Australoheros species and the least scaled dorsal and anal fins among Australoheros'' (Rican & Kullander 2008). However, the specimens collected by FEW at the type-locality (and depicted here) have (at least some) a densely scaled dorsal- and anal fin base (with four to five rows... so far it is observable from the photos). Is the redescription not accurate or I am wrong?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest