Australoheros behind bars?

[FEW]

A small curiosity...

Darwin’s fish collection from Laguna del Diario, Maldonado, UY, May & June 1833.
from: Darwin's 'Fish in Spirits of Wine' [Beagle animal notes] (1832-1836), CUL-DAR29.1.B1b-B20 (Darwin Online, http://darwin-online.org.uk/)



Transcript:
1833 Fish in Spirits of Wine, Maldonado
660. Fish, fresh water lake. Maldonado May.
Lake left dry by breaking of bank; Lake
sometimes a little brackish; above green-
ish black sides paler, Slightly indescent.
- June. Maldonado -
661. Fish. Fresh water lake; blueish silvery.
669. Five species of fish from a lake which
was suddenly drained. The fish with
beard I have seen 8 or 9 inches long
* The smallest fish with black spots on side
I think is full grown.. I have taken them
so repeatedly in brooks &c of the same size.
.....

Comment on species:
660: Chromis facetus, Jenyns
661: Hydrocyon Hepsetus
669: Poecilia decem-maculata. Jenyns N.S.
Lebias lineata, Jenyns N.S.
Tetragonopterus interruptus, Jenyns N.S

[Willem Heijns]

I am still puzzled by these bars. As it stands, Australoheros species have either 3 or 4 abdominal bars. Illustrated like this:



the 7 bar condition (abdominal bar numbers are 5, 6 and 7).




the 8 bar condition (abdominal bar numbers are 5, 6, 7 and 8 ).


In some of the descriptions by Ottoni et al and also in the description of ykeregua and angiru it says: "six or seven vertical flank bars" with "a midlateral blotch in the fourth flank bar". That would leave us with only two or three abdominal bars. Can somebody help me count?

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", Ottoni et al: "bars 6 and 7 interrrupted"). I have seen quite a few pictures of Australoheros species in the meantime and on many of them bar 5 is indeed not interrupted. See also the first picture (a female scitulus in breeding dress). Something to chew on....

[cichla]

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",

Actually, the diagnosis of Australoheros is published by Rican & Kullander (2006: 139): ''unique breeding coloration characteristic in the interruption of the abdominal bars in their middorsal part.''

[Willem Heijns]

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.

[cichla]

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.

Dear Willem,
ok, I see, sorry. Anyhow, I am not sure if I get it 100%. There are two questions: 1) are you saying that the diagnosis given by Rican & Kullander (2006: 139): ''unique breeding coloration characteristic in the interruption of the abdominal bars in their middorsal part.'' needs to be modified? 2) Which paper by ''Ottoni et al'' you are talking about (meanwhile there are some)?
Cheers, Ingo

[Willem Heijns]

About the generic diagnosis: Rican & Kullander (2006) did not say "ALL abdominal bars interrupted", although their illustration (figure 2) does show a specimen with all abdominal bars interrupted. I for one am led to believe that they do mean all bars. If that is correct and no exception is made, then many species will not comply with the generic diagnosis and will have to be removed from Australoheros. BTW: all this makes me think of Robert Allgayer who got seriously criticized for his revised diagnosis of Theraps and the description of a new species (Theraps nourissati) that did not fit the generic diagnosis.

Here's what Ottoni and his friends do with this character:

Ottoni et al 2008:
ribeirae with all bars continuous except bars 6-7 that are interrupted

Ottoni & Costa 2008:
all nine species have 7 vertical bars, all continuous except bars 6 and 7 which are interrupted

Ottoni & Cheffe 2009:
Color patterns are fundamental to the taxonomy of Australoheros which is diagnosed by vertical trunk bars 5-6 being interrupted.
taura with 7 vertical bars; bars 1-5 continuous, bars 6-7 interrupted

Ottoni 2010:
Australoheros is characterized by having a unique breeding coloration (body bar 5-7 interrupted)
capixaba has 7 trunk bars (bars 1-5 continuous, 6-7 interrupted)

Ottoni et al 2011:
perdi has all vertical bars continuous except bars 6-7 which are interrupted.

I must admit Ottoni and the others are not talking about breeding coloration, but it would seem strange to me that bar 5 would be interrupted in breeding condition only (and bars 6 and 7 would always be interrupted). Adding to that (as I said before), there are quite a few Australoheros species with bar 5 uninterrupted even in breeding condition (like the scitulus pictured above). And if bars 6 and 7 (what about bar 8 by the way?) would always be interrupted, why haven't Rican & Kullander noticed that?

As a bonus, here's how Ottoni et al (2011) count scalerows.
The series of scales through the inferior lateral line to the caudal peduncle is called "E0".
The series of scales through the superior lateral line is called "E2".
The series of scales between the upper and lower lateral line is called "E1".

And then: There are two scalerows between the lateral lines.

[cichla]

Bar pattern: I am still convinced that some of the ''problems'' with the numbering of the bars depends on the different ways how the participants count them. And second (but not less important) the variation (in particular of the anterior bars) of the bar pattern in Australoheros is ''greater'' than in other South American Heroine cichlids.

Scale rows: Yes, Willem, you are right the counting of E(x) is unusual in their papers. However, be aware that the upper lateral row ''jumped'' one scale row up and down (at least in some ''species''/''specimens''). So, it may come that the distance between upper and lower part of lateral line is indeed 2 scale rows.

[Willem Heijns]

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). Like this:



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.....

[cichla]

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?

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.....

Yes, at least in some specimens it seems that the upper lateral line start in E2 row and ''jumped'' up to E3 (e.g. holotype of A. muriae). Means that there are two scale rows between upper and lower part. However, I am not sure, and I don't know how Ottoni et al (2011) count it. The methods are not accurate described.

[cichla]

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).

Yes, I think this is how Rican et al (2005) count the bars. It seems that the number of ''abdominal bars'' depends on whether bar 5 is split in an anterior and a posterior part or not.

[Rico Morgenstern]

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?

Unfortunately, the scale cover of the fins is not accurately described for A. facetus by R&K, so we do not know anything about the variation. We have only the line drawings. I count 4 rows of dorsal fin scales (including the basal sheath), which does differ only slightly if at all from the photos of the topotypes (4 or 5 rows according to Ingo, I count 4 but the outermost scales are poorly discernable on the photos). Also, the scale cover (except for the basal row) seems not to extend to between the spines, which would be in agreement with the line drawing.

Be that as it may, an accurate redescription of A. facetus, based on material from the entire range, is still lacking. It would certainly be a thankless task, since most people do notice only works containing descriptions of new species. Nevertheless it is necessary to exactly know the 'old' species (including all the former synonyms) before one after another new is 'produced'.

[Willem Heijns]

I was not aware of the fact that the upper lateral line sometimes switchers scalerows. The picture of muriae is not very clear. What seems to be the anterior part could also be a scratch of some kind (because it is continuous).

Anyway, does it happen more often and are there any examples?

[cichla]

@ Rico: thank you for the informative post.
@ Willem: Yes, it seems there are some specimens/species of the facetus-group which show this pattern.

[Florent]

A new paper,

OTTONI, F.P.: Life colouration of three Australoheros species from the rio Paraíba do Sul basin, southeastern Brazil (Teleostei: Labroidei: Cichlidae)

: http://www.senckenberg.de/files/content ... i_9-13.pdf

[cichla]

Thank you, Florent.
Well, it is an important ''add on'' to Ottoni's previous papers. Ottoni add some further features which distinguish the species disputed. Anyhow, the major challenge is still there: the different procedure to count the bars.
Best, IS

[Paulo José Alves]

HI

So, what is the species that is present in Portugal´s waters? The traditional name attached to it is facetum, is this still correct?

[cichla]

Dear Paulo, dear all,
well, the specimen (just one, not very representative) which I have seen resembles the species from ''Rio''. So, it might be (likely) that it is not the facetus.
Yours, IS

[Paulo José Alves]

Dear Cichla

OK, thank you.