About Oreochromis

[Philippe Burnel]

Have just seen the description of a new sub-species of Oreochromis mosambicus : O. m. bassamkhalaffi
http://emirati-tilapia.webs.com/


In the description we can read :

The scientific name Oreochromis: oreos is a Greek word which means “of the mountains” and chroma is also Greek and means “colour”

As a few days ago i've translated the genus profile (Oreochromis) into french i remember what is in CRC catalog :

Masculine, aurum = gold (Latin) + Chromis (from chroma = color [Greek])

So... who is right ? (I've not been able to get Gunther's description of the genus.

Philippe

[cichla]

Dear Philippe, Dear all,
in the dictionaries I used, 'oreo' is translated in the sense of “of the mountains”.
The type species of Oreochromis is described from a Crater-lake (see http://acsi.acnatsci.org/base/pdf_get.html?file=137974 ). Hence, it seems to make sense to use 'oreo' in this meaning.
Greetings, IS

BTW: what do you think about the description of O. m. bassamkhalaffi?

[Philippe Burnel]

Yes, you are right, I just have a look to latin dictionaries such as this one : http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... 99.04.0059
and Oreos means "from the mountains"
Anyway if the descriptor would have mean (is this correct in english ???) "gold" it would be Aureochromis...

So Anton must update the genus profile

[Rico Morgenstern]

BTW: what do you think about the description of O. m. bassamkhalaffi?

Despite some shortcomings (the characters of the subspecies are described, but are not compared in detail with those of supposed O. m. mossambicus), the name is apparently available for merely technical reasons.

As this subspecies is not a natural population (it cannot even be excluded, that it is of hybrid origin, as some color traits, especially the pattern of the caudal fin, resemble that of O. aureus), it may not be valid.

The chief question is however: Should new names at all be based on populations that are knowingly of artifical origin? I think, definitely not!

RM

[cichla]

The chief question is however: Should new names at all be based on populations that are knowingly of artifical origin? I think, definitely not!

Yes, see: Dr. Dr Maurice Kottelat (Commissioner of “The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature”): [It is a] „biological non sense of naming new taxa on the basis of introduced stocks of unknown origin ...“. „ Supposing that giving new names to introduced or captive stocks might make sense (to most systematists it certainly does not!), this should at least be based on direct examination of material of already named, related taxa ...“ (Kottelat 1997: 94).

Some experts of Tilapia like cichlids said that the named subspecies is based on a hybrid. If so, then the (sub-)species taxon is unavailable (cf. article 23.8. of the “International Code of Zoological Nomenclature”: „A species-group name established for an animal later found to be a hybrid must not be used as the valid name for either of the parental species ...“).

Is there any expert of Oreochromis who is able to confirm the hybrid origin or approve the possible validity of the new taxon?

BTW: Few days ago there was a post by a French participant. Why is it deleted? Anyway, the contribution is still available in French: http://www.cichlidsforum.fr/-vp256389.html

[Tachymarptis]

I deleted it myself, because as I didn't read the original published paper, but only the online summary, I found inadequate to give an opinion (which was rather negative). I may give it again, but with some reserve:

I found that the description was more complete concerning the author's family ("Saker Falcon from Jaffa"...) than that of the fish itself. And yes, I found inadequate to compare the new subspecies to an introduced one supposed to represent the nominate subspecies.

Otherwise, concerning the principle of describing a fish after a hybrid, I would not be so categorical, as natural upheavals often lead to similar conditions, and many natural species are recognized of hybrid origin, which is more and more evident thanks to molecular analysis. But probably this should prove to be a rather ancient mechanism. As many evidences from human disturbance show, speciation (or subspeciation) may be effective in a very short amount of time in many organisms, perhaps only some centuries or even decades. And, for example, the dog, which is artificial, is considered a different species (or subspecies) than the wolf (under Canis familiaris). So, maybe the bassamkhalafi could be one day considered as valid, but not now, otherwise, everyone could create an artificial pond, introduce a mixed hybrid and give it a well-chosen name.

Patrick T.

[Philippe Burnel]

I deleted it myself,

Quite a pity.... it was funny