Cichlidae classification

[Juan Artigas]

I have created a page for Cichlidae mayor classification, comments are welcomed. Three sub-families are recognized; Cichlinae, Etroplinae and Pseudocrenilabrinae:

http://www.cichlidae.com/gallery/spe_classification.php

Thanks!

[Darrell Ullisch]

This is great, thank you Juan! I've always had trouble finding this level of classification for Cichlidae, having it all in one place is very useful.

However, I found it quite interesting that Tribe Hemichromini did not include Hemichromis, but that it did include Thysochromis. Lamboj placed Thysochromis in the Chromidotilapiini in his book. Did I miss a change?

[Philippe Burnel]

That's great but I think that you'll allways find somebody to say that things are wrong because nobody exactly agrees with his neighbour.
Why dont you include Cyprichromis and paracyprichromis in ectodinii ? and not in their own tribe Cyprichromini
Why Cardiopharynx is not included in ectodini ?
Chalinochromis => lamprologini

Anyway that's a good idea that must become more refined with the help of everybody here

Philippe

[Juan Artigas]

Thanks for your comments, As you can see it is not yet complete, so your comments are very valuable. In regards to what you mention Philippe I totally agree on the fact this is not to be agree on consensus, there cant be such, but we can certainly improve it bits by bits. In the title of the page I mention this is the Cichlid Room Companion view of things. I am certainly not planning to adopt one tribe per genus and one subfamily per tribe (as some authors closely suggest). This could render the classification useless. One thing I will always try is to give a reference and reasons why certain genera are included in a certain tribe. I will later create a report that expands each tribe giving more information about it. Please keep the comments coming.

[Philippe Burnel]

Why dont you include Cyprichromis and paracyprichromis i

"do you" and not "dont you".. sorry

[Juan Artigas]

Any reference for placing Mazarunia and Taeniacara in a tribe?

[cichla]

Any reference for placing Mazarunia and Taeniacara in a tribe?

Taeniacara is part of the Tribe: Geophagini (Haseman, 1911) for sure (based on morphology and molecular data).
Source: López-Fernández et al. (2005): Morphology, molecules, and character congruence in the phylogeny of South American geophagine cichlids. Zool. Scripta 34, 627–651.

[cichla]

Any reference for placing Mazarunia and Taeniacara in a tribe?

Based on molecular data, Mazaruinia is thought to be closely related to Guianacara.
López-Fernández et al. (2010): Multilocus phylogeny and rapid radiations in Neotropical cichlid fishes. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 55: 1070–1086

[Simon Morgan]

I've felt for a long time that traditional classification doesn't suit modern thinking about evolution. We try to pigeon-hole everything into discrete little boxes, but in reality, organisms are part of a continuous spectrum of variability. Why hasn't anyone come up with an alternative method yet?

[Bas Pels]

I was very surprised seeing Australoheros among Cichlasomini

Anybody got a publication?

[cichla]

Why hasn't anyone come up with an alternative method yet?

Actually there is an alternative approach, the Phylogenetic taxonomy. The advocates of this approach even have their own Code of Nomenclature, the PhyloCode. For instance new species are not in need to be included in a genus.
I think, however, that the traditional Linnean nomenclature corresponds better with the human desire to order the things (in our case species and genera).
Greetings, IS

[cichla]

Tribe: Herichthyni. The correct spelling should be Herichthyini. See Huber: ''The genitive form produces the stem 'ichthy-' ... like Aplocheilichthyini for Aplocheilichthys''.

Herichthyini is part of Heroini. See: López-Fernández et al. (2010): Multilocus phylogeny and rapid radiations in Neotropical cichlid fishes. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 55: 1070–1086.

Australoheros is a member of Heroini (evidenced by morphological and molecular data).

[Simon Morgan]

[quote="cichla"][quote="Simon Morgan"] Why hasn't anyone come up with an alternative method yet?[/quote]
Actually there is an alternative approach, the Phylogenetic taxonomy. The advocates of this approach even have their own Code of Nomenclature, the PhyloCode. For instance new species are not in need to be included in a genus.
I think, however, that the traditional Linnean nomenclature corresponds better with the human desire to order the things (in our case species and genera).
Greetings, IS[/quote]
Thanks, I studied biology as a student but wasn't aware of this development, I must do my homework, eh?

[Juan Artigas]

I've felt for a long time that traditional classification doesn't suit modern thinking about evolution. We try to pigeon-hole everything into discrete little boxes, but in reality, organisms are part of a continuous spectrum of variability. Why hasn't anyone come up with an alternative method yet?

I think modern taxonomy is focused on a phylogenetic approach. Regardless evolution may be both abrupt or a continuous spectrum of different creatures, I believe Linnean taxonomy help us to better understand it, as you can keep a phylogenetic tree in your head more easily by assigning mayor classifications to animals. Beyond that, both systems serve a purpose as they are basically created so we can know what we are referring to when talking about an organism by a name.

[cichla]

I think, we should differentiate between Nomenclature and Classification.
There are two different approaches for nomenclature the ICZN and the PhyloCode. The majority follow the ICZN.
And there are several approaches for classification. The two major ones are the ''Evolutionary Classification'' and the ''Phylogenetic Classification''. One of the major difference is how paraphyletic groups are treated. The first one recognize (name) paraphyletic groups the second wouldnt.
For instance there is no problem to recognize the Tribe Acaroniini under the Evolutionary Classification, but this tribe will be a synonym of Tribe Cichlasomatini under the Phylogenetic approach.

[Juan Artigas]

Good point. Thank you

[Rico Morgenstern]

I've felt for a long time that traditional classification doesn't suit modern thinking about evolution. We try to pigeon-hole everything into discrete little boxes, but in reality, organisms are part of a continuous spectrum of variability. Why hasn't anyone come up with an alternative method yet?

How to classify things that are part of a continuum? Wouldn't it be even impossible to recognize something like a species than? However, I think the 'traditional' Linnean classification should be seen as a tool describing a state rather than a process. Seen as such, it is certainly not purely artifical.

There are two different approaches for nomenclature the ICZN and the PhyloCode. The majority follow the ICZN.

For a discussion of Phylocode (among many other interesting things: Did you know, i. e., who is the type of Homo sapiens?) see the FAQ section of the ICZN website:

http://iczn.org/category/faqs/frequently-asked-questions

To the cichlid classification:

There is a fourth subfamily: Ptychochrominae Tawil, 2001 (authorship and date not checked), which contains all genera from Madagascar except Paretroplus; see Sparks & Smith (2004):

http://homepage.mac.com/wmleosmith/pubs/assets/10_SparksSmithCichlid.pdf

For the most recent (?) classification of Neotropical cichlids see:

http://homepage.mac.com/wmleosmith/pubs/assets/20_SmithetalCichlinae.pdf

A tribe name 'Herichthyini' is not available. As family group names (family, subfamily, tribe, subtribe) are regulated by the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, they must be established according to the provisions of the relevant articles. Rican & al. have only refered to an informal group 'Herichthyines' throughout their paper.

The African cichlids are much more problematic, as there is no 'official' classification available except for Lake Tanganyika Cichlids.

It is quite correct to use Pseudocrenilabrini instead of the more familiar Haplochromini as the former name is the oldest available name for the group. The following additional genera are part of Pseudocrenilabrini: Caprichromis, Chetia, Corematodus, Ctenopharynx, Cyathochromis, Cyclopharynx, Diplotaxodon, Docimodus, Enterochromis, Exochochromis, Gaurochromis, Hemitaeniochromis, Hoplotilapia, Labrochromis, Lichnochromis, Lithochromis, Macropleurodus, Mylochromis, Naevochromis, Nyassachromis, Orthochromis, Pallidochromis, Pharyngochromis, Platytaeniodus, Psammochromis, Ptyochromis, Rhamphochromis, Sargochromis, Schubotzia, Schwetzochromis, Sciaenochromis, Serranochromis, Taeniochromis, Taeniolethrinops, Thoracochromis, Tramitichromis, Trematocranus, Tridontochromis, Tyrannochromis, Yssichromis.

Alcolapia belongs to Tilapiini, Julidochromis to Lamprologini, Congochromis and Enigmatochromis to Chromidotilapiini. Heterochromis and Tylochromis form tribes of their own: Heterochromidini Kullander, 1998 and Tylochromini Poll, 1986, respectively.

RM

[Juan Artigas]

There is a fourth subfamily: Ptychochrominae Tawil, 2001

Apparently there are even more, Kullander (1988) proposes Retroculinae and Cichlasominae. Tawil (2001) also proposes Paratilapiinae, Boulengerochrominae besides Ptychochrominae, Fernández-Yépez (1951) (I haven't check this writing yet) proposes Astronotinae, Hoedeman (1947) proposes Tilapiinae. Haseman (1911) proposes Geophaginae and Poll (1986) proposes Tylochrominae. I have decided for the time being just include the three main sub-families while I study more this matter. I find not logical to use Pseudocrenilabrinae for most African cichlids while populating the younger American cichlids and the more restricted (area and number) Madagascar cichlids with several sub-families.

Haseman, J. D.; 1911; "An annotated catalog of the cichlid fishes collected by the expedition of the Carnegie Museum to central South America, 1907-10"; Annals of the Carnegie Museum; pp. 329-373

Hoedeman, J. J.; 1947; "Encyclopaedie voor de Aquariumhouder"; Encyclopaedie voor de Aquariumhouder; Pp. X. 60.76

Fernández-Yépez, Agustín; 1951; "Presencia de Chaetobranchus en Venezuela"; Evencias; 11

Poll, Max; 1986; "Classification des Cichlidae du lac Tanganika. Tribus, genres et especes"; Academie Royale de Belgique, Mémoires de la Classe des Sciences; Collection in 8 - 2ème série; 45 (2); p 66-67

Tawil, Patrick; 2001; "L'évolution des Cichlidés"; L'an Cichlidé; v. 1; pp 69-86

http://homepage.mac.com/wmleosmith/pubs/assets/20_SmithetalCichlinae.pdf

A tribe name 'Herichthyini' is not available. As family group names (family, subfamily, tribe, subtribe) are regulated by the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, they must be established according to the provisions of the relevant articles. Rican & al. have only refered to an informal group 'Herichthyines' throughout their paper.

Thank you I had realized that, I had just procrastinated its removal, sames goes for Amphilophini and Astatheroini groups, which I left out for the same reason. I however believe they could be useful if properly proposed.

The African cichlids are much more problematic, as there is no 'official' classification available except for Lake Tanganyika Cichlids.

It is quite correct to use Pseudocrenilabrini instead of the more familiar Haplochromini as the former name is the oldest available name for the group. The following additional genera are part of Pseudocrenilabrini: Caprichromis, Chetia, Corematodus, Ctenopharynx, Cyathochromis, Cyclopharynx, Diplotaxodon, Docimodus, Enterochromis, Exochochromis, Gaurochromis, Hemitaeniochromis, Hoplotilapia, Labrochromis, Lichnochromis, Lithochromis, Macropleurodus, Mylochromis, Naevochromis, Nyassachromis, Orthochromis, Pallidochromis, Pharyngochromis, Platytaeniodus, Psammochromis, Ptyochromis, Rhamphochromis, Sargochromis, Schubotzia, Schwetzochromis, Sciaenochromis, Serranochromis, Taeniochromis, Taeniolethrinops, Thoracochromis, Tramitichromis, Trematocranus, Tridontochromis, Tyrannochromis, Yssichromis.

Alcolapia belongs to Tilapiini, Julidochromis to Lamprologini, Congochromis and Enigmatochromis to Chromidotilapiini. Heterochromis and Tylochromis form tribes of their own: Heterochromidini Kullander, 1998 and Tylochromini Poll, 1986, respectively.

Now I want to include a reference for each assignation. Would you have it available?

Thanks again

[Juan Artigas]

For the most recent (?) classification of Neotropical cichlids see:

http://homepage.mac.com/wmleosmith/pubs/assets/20_SmithetalCichlinae.pdf

I have followed this paper now for south american cichlids and removed with this all paraphyletic assignations.

[Rico Morgenstern]

Apparently there are even more, Kullander (1988) proposes Retroculinae and Cichlasominae. Tawil (2001) also proposes Paratilapiinae, Boulengerochrominae besides Ptychochrominae, Fernández-Yépez (1951) (I haven't check this writing yet) proposes Astronotinae, Hoedeman (1947) proposes Tilapiinae. Haseman (1911) proposes Geophaginae and Poll (1986) proposes Tylochrominae. I have decided for the time being just include the three main sub-families while I study more this matter. I find not logical to use Pseudocrenilabrinae for most African cichlids while populating the younger American cichlids and the more restricted (area and number) Madagascar cichlids with several sub-families.

I think this is not a matter of distribution and species number. The separation of Ptychochrominae from Etroplinae is well supported by several studies and in my view even if one takes only a look at these fishes. Personally, I would prefer the 'four-subfamily-solution' of Sparks & Smith over a splitting into much more subfamilies for sake of clearness.

Now I want to include a reference for each assignation. Would you have it available?

It's not so easy to find the proper references here for, as noted above, there is no comprehensive study on all african cichlids published so far, so the assignment is sometimes only implied by the known or proposed relationships of a genus.

The reference for Lake Malawi genera is Eccles & Trewavas 1989, I will look for the others.

Alcolapia was included in Tilapiini by Trewavas 1983, Julidochromis in Lamprologini by Poll 1986, the references for Heterochromidini Kullander, 1998 and Tylochromini Poll, 1986 are the respective original descriptions.