Since the express objective of Kullander's 2012 paper was just to formally name a long known species rather than a revision of the genus Krobia
, I can follow his reasoning insofar as no revised generic diagnosis, nor a discussion of the characters which led Kullander & Nijssen (1989) to exclude the species from Krobia
, is offered by Musilova & al. (although the same measure must then be applied to the largely unexplained name changes and other novelties presented by him in CLOFFSCA, even if this was only a compilation rather than a revision). Musilova & al. have just made a name change according to tree topology. As I would conclude from several previous discussions here and alsewhere, this is a procedure we strongly dislike, at least when the results are not in accordance with our gut feeling, don't we?
On the other hand, Musilova & al. offer a quite comprehensive analysis (even if the datasets are incomplete), and the results regarding the species composition of Krobia
are consistent. This is deceidedly not a phylogenetic paper of the sort "I have downloaded some sequences from GeneBank (to hell with correct identifications of species!) and added a few new ones - Voilá, here is a sensational new classification"
According to the diagnoses of Krobia
(Kullander & Nijssen 1989) and Aequidens
(Kullander 1986), the paloemeuensis
could be placed in neither genus. Technically speaking, they occupy an intermediate position between these genera. It was perhaps the more vague diagnosis of Aequidens
or the weight given to characters shared between Krobia
and other genera (e. g. Bujurquina
) that led Kullander to override the definition of Aequidens
rather than that of Krobia
. However, the results of Musilova & al. could well be taken as a decision guidance in favor of Krobia
, especially when the generic placement is supposed to reflect "current knowledge".
Some of the characters differenciating Krobia
" are rather vague. The number of vertical bars behind the lateral spot is variable at least in A. paloemeuensis
sp. "Red Eye", and the course of the lateral band is difficult to assess in some species or at least specimens of Krobia
, see e.g. the neotype of K. itanyi
in Kullander & Nijssen (1989) (which, by the way, does not correspond very well in this respect with the fishes identified as K. itanyi
in the hobby), where the band takes a decidedly straigt course, well separated from the upper lateral line. Life specimens which agree in this respect with the neotype have been figured by W. Staeck (DCG-Informationen 29, no. 9, 1998).