T. lentiginosus and T. coeruleus distribution

Discussion about cichlids from Central America

T. lentiginosus and T. coeruleus distribution

Postby Rick Thibert » Tue Mar 16, 2010 4:52 pm

I have recently acquired 12x T. lentiginosus from a reliable source from a friend in Holland. Catch location is Rio Bascan. However, I am now confused as a good friend tells me "T. lentiginosum come from the Rio Chacamax drainage and coeruleus come from Bascan. If your fish come from Bascan for sure, they are likely to be T. coeruleus". Pics for your review:

Darker fish are dominant:
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image

After seeing the pics, he adds: "The pictures look like lents but I am postive they did not come from Bascan. I am pretty sure only coeruleus come from Bascan. Socolofi and Coeruleus occur together in Bascan and Tuljia and Misol Ha. Chacamax(the head waters of the Usumacinta) have lents and Thor helleri together."


And just as a matter of interest.................................
I noticed yesterday loads of little 2" square depressions in the sand. I witnessed how these are made. They place their belly on the floor and wiggle about causing detritus to come free and immediately move to peck where they wiggled the sediment. Reminds me of a chicken having a scratch on the ground and taking a step backwards and then looking to see what it uncovered. LOL!!
Image

Your Thoughts??
Rick
User avatar
Rick Thibert
 
Posts: 591
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2007 2:10 am
Location: Newmarket, Suffolk, England

Re: T. lentiginosus and T. coeruleus distribution

Postby John Heaton » Tue Mar 16, 2010 5:27 pm

Rick, to confuse you a little further, coeruleus were considered a synonym of lentiginosus until 1987, when they were re-described,
T lentiginosus are found in the Peten's Southern and Northern drainages to the Rio Usumacinta also in the mexican drainages to the Usumacinta. T coeruleus was described from a location south of Palenque in Mexico. The Rio Bascan is located south of Palenque in the State of Chiapas, Mexico.
User avatar
John Heaton
 
Posts: 181
Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2009 1:14 pm
Location: San Andres, Peten, Guatemala, Central America.

Re: T. lentiginosus and T. coeruleus distribution

Postby Norcal_Cichlid » Tue Mar 16, 2010 10:26 pm

I've kept both but more so the Coeruleus. I'd say those fish are definitely lents though. Not sure on the distribution though. My coeruleus are from Misol Ha. I'm very jealous that your are able to get those over there!
Norcal_Cichlid
 
Posts: 259
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2004 11:51 pm

Re: T. lentiginosus and T. coeruleus distribution

Postby Willem Heijns » Wed Mar 17, 2010 3:23 am

If you take the road from Palenque to Ocosingo (southward) you will cross (at least) three rivers. First one is the Río Chacamax, which flows to the east into the Río Usumacinta. Second and third rivers are the Río Mizola and the Río Bascán, both flowing westward into the Río Tulijá (part of the Grijalva drainage). Theraps lentiginosus has its home in the Río Usumacinta system, whereas Theraps coeruleus occurs in the Río Tulijá system.
Slàinte mhath!

Uilleam
User avatar
Willem Heijns
CichlidRoom Expert
 
Posts: 790
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2005 4:18 pm
Location: Stiphout, Netherlands

Re: T. lentiginosus and T. coeruleus distribution

Postby Willem Heijns » Wed Mar 17, 2010 5:18 am

In addition, Theraps coeruleus could never have been a synonym of Theraps lentiginosus Steindachner 1864 "until 1987 when they were re-described" because the original (=first) description by Stawikowski and Werner dates from that year.

Maybe the confusion is caused by another name, published in 1985 by Seegers & Staeck. These authors proposed the name Theraps rheophilus for a species they found in a river called by them the Río Nututún. Actually, there is no Río Nututún. The name Nututún simply stands for a restaurant close the the locality of their "new" species, the famous pond in a sharp bend of the Río Chacamax, just a few kilometers south of Palenque.
Seegers and Staeck were more or less mislead by their belief that this locality is part of the Tulijá drainage, because in reference to the cichlids Stawikowski and Werner found in the Río Chamula (which later turend out to be Theraps coeruleus) they speak of "einem weiteren Fluss im Einzug des Río Tulijá" (another river in the Tulijá drainage). Theraps rheophilus is now regarded a synonym of Theraps lentiginosus.

There are those who believe the cichlids of the Usumacinta drainage and of the Tulijá system really belong to one species. If that were the case the name of this species should be Theraps lentiginosus. Such a situation would immediately lead to the intrigueing question whether not just the differences in coloration but also the substantial difference in adult size are all part of the intraspecific variation. I sincerely doubt that.
Slàinte mhath!

Uilleam
User avatar
Willem Heijns
CichlidRoom Expert
 
Posts: 790
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2005 4:18 pm
Location: Stiphout, Netherlands

Re: T. lentiginosus and T. coeruleus distribution

Postby Michael Kwist » Wed Mar 17, 2010 6:24 am

Rick got this fish from me ;)

They are fry from fish from the German fish expediton in 2008 to Mexico, the parents are caught in the Rio Bascan.. and we brought them as Lentiginosus.. if i look to the pictures from the adult fish (Rio bascan) with are collected there they look very simmiliar to the lentiginosus rio chacamax i have kept years ago.
So i hope to get some more info about this fish if i got i post it here ;)
Greetings Michael.
Michael Kwist
 
Posts: 595
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2005 7:06 am
Location: Middelburg The Netherlands

Re: T. lentiginosus and T. coeruleus distribution

Postby John Heaton » Wed Mar 17, 2010 6:44 am

heraps coeruleus could never have been a synonym of Theraps lentiginosus Steindachner 1864 "until 1987 when they were re-described" because the original (=first) description by Stawikowski and Werner dates from that year.

What you say Willem appears correct. I was misquoting from CAS.

coeruleus, Theraps Stawikowski [R.] & Werner [U.] 1987:499, Fig. [Aquarien und Terrarien-Zeitschrift v. 40 (no. 11); ref. 9097] Tributary of Río Mizol Há at Francesco Madero, about 30 kilometers south of Palenque, Mexico. Holotype: ZFMK 15501. Paratypes: ZFMK 15502-05 (4). •Valid as Cichlasoma coeruleus (Stawikowski & Werner 1987) -- (Conkel 1993:152 [ref. 22949]). •Valid as Theraps coeruleus Stawikowski & Werner 1987 -- (Allgayer 1989:6 [ref. 20696], Burgess 2000:50 [ref. 24818], Kullander in Reis et al. 2003:643 [ref. 27061]). •Synonym of Theraps lentiginosus (Steindachner 1864) -- (Miller 2006:375 [ref. 28615]). Current status: Valid as Theraps coeruleus Stawikowski & Werner 1987 Cichlidae: Cichlinae. Distribution: Atlantic Slope of Mexico. Habitat: freshwater.
User avatar
John Heaton
 
Posts: 181
Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2009 1:14 pm
Location: San Andres, Peten, Guatemala, Central America.

Re: T. lentiginosus and T. coeruleus distribution

Postby Norcal_Cichlid » Wed Mar 17, 2010 10:40 am

Here's a link to an earlier discussion about whether or not Coeruleus and Lentiginosum are the same fish...

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=8014&start=0&hilit=coeruleus
Norcal_Cichlid
 
Posts: 259
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2004 11:51 pm

Re: T. lentiginosus and T. coeruleus distribution

Postby Rick Thibert » Wed Mar 24, 2010 10:20 am

Comms to and from the collectors of these fish tell me that they did in fact collect this fish in the Rio Bascan............... if it's T. lentiginosus than they must have been in the wrong river........... (Not Bascan, but nearby Chacamax perhaps as Willem points out??)

Either they were in a different river than they thought they were OR these aren't lentiginosus buy rather coeruleus................ a pic of the adult fish I've seen looks like lentiginosus to me which tells me they weren't in Rio Bascan.

It's also worth noting that they observed both T. lentiginosus and T. coeruleus sympatrically in the Rio Bascan. But I've not heard of this anywhere before. Perhaps misidentification....???
User avatar
Rick Thibert
 
Posts: 591
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2007 2:10 am
Location: Newmarket, Suffolk, England

Re: T. lentiginosus and T. coeruleus distribution

Postby Norcal_Cichlid » Thu Mar 25, 2010 10:55 am

Well, I still say they are Lents. Maybe pollution or other man made factors have pushed the 2 species into like habitats? I know Conkel is going to collect these fish at the end of April so maybe he would know more about it? He seems to be the main guy for the riverine species. He's the ONLY one I have known of over the past 10 years or so that had T. Coeruleus of which I cleaned him out! He also said lents are much easier to breed than coeruleus. Have you bred either species? He told me he's bringing back adult lents for sale.
Norcal_Cichlid
 
Posts: 259
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2004 11:51 pm

Re: T. lentiginosus and T. coeruleus distribution

Postby Bojan Dolenc » Mon Sep 27, 2010 10:20 am

Excellent article about Theraps coeruleus in 9/2010 DATZ by Juan Miguel Artigas Azas: "Zu jedem Anlass das passenede Kleid: "Kleiner Blaue" aus Mexiko".
http://www.datz.de/Rubriken/Unterwegs/Z ... B67D747842
Change in habit, producing change of function, is the main cause of the production of change in living structure. F. Wood Jones (1953) Trends of life
User avatar
Bojan Dolenc
 
Posts: 214
Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 7:12 am
Location: Slovenia - Ljubljana

Re: T. lentiginosus and T. coeruleus distribution

Postby Dan Woodland » Mon Sep 27, 2010 10:55 am

John Heaton wrote:heraps coeruleus could never have been a synonym of Theraps lentiginosus Steindachner 1864 "until 1987 when they were re-described" because the original (=first) description by Stawikowski and Werner dates from that year.

What you say Willem appears correct. I was misquoting from CAS.

coeruleus, Theraps Stawikowski [R.] & Werner [U.] 1987:499, Fig. [Aquarien und Terrarien-Zeitschrift v. 40 (no. 11); ref. 9097] Tributary of Río Mizol Há at Francesco Madero, about 30 kilometers south of Palenque, Mexico. Holotype: ZFMK 15501. Paratypes: ZFMK 15502-05 (4). •Valid as Cichlasoma coeruleus (Stawikowski & Werner 1987) -- (Conkel 1993:152 [ref. 22949]). •Valid as Theraps coeruleus Stawikowski & Werner 1987 -- (Allgayer 1989:6 [ref. 20696], Burgess 2000:50 [ref. 24818], Kullander in Reis et al. 2003:643 [ref. 27061]). •Synonym of Theraps lentiginosus (Steindachner 1864) -- (Miller 2006:375 [ref. 28615]). Current status: Valid as Theraps coeruleus Stawikowski & Werner 1987 Cichlidae: Cichlinae. Distribution: Atlantic Slope of Mexico. Habitat: freshwater.


Willem's comments on fish and localities are correct. In my own personal experiences T. lentiginosus occur in Chacamax and T. coeruleus occur in Bascan. In the wild they are very different as Willem also stated. I have kept both fish over the years and they are very different to me - clearly they should be considered separate species.
User avatar
Dan Woodland
CichlidRoom Expert
 
Posts: 3029
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 10:49 am

Re: T. lentiginosus and T. coeruleus distribution

Postby Michael Kwist » Mon Sep 27, 2010 11:26 am

Bojan Dolenc wrote:Excellent article about Theraps coeruleus in 9/2010 DATZ by Juan Miguel Artigas Azas: "Zu jedem Anlass das passenede Kleid: "Kleiner Blaue" aus Mexiko".
http://www.datz.de/Rubriken/Unterwegs/Z ... B67D747842

Some nice pictures of the coeruleus. i see that the males on the pictures don't have much freckels on their body. I have kept coeruleus from the Rio Tulija and these did also not have much freckels. and the females shows a lot of blue.

But the question is.. does anyone have pictures of coeruleus from the Rio Bascan? I want to compare them with my fish 8)
Greetings Michael.
Michael Kwist
 
Posts: 595
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2005 7:06 am
Location: Middelburg The Netherlands

Re: T. lentiginosus and T. coeruleus distribution

Postby Rick Thibert » Tue Sep 28, 2010 2:38 am

What are the diagnostics for distinguishing T. coeruleus from T. lentiginosum?

Is Theraps rheophilus a valid species or just a synonym of lentiginosum?

Does anyone have any papers on these species?

Miller (2005) considers T. rheopilus as a valid species and instead synonymizes T. coeruleus with T. lentiginosum. He also synonymized Paraneetroplus and Tomocichla with Theraps on the basis of osteological data. Other morphological, genetic and ecological data, however, indicate that these genera represent different evolutionary lineages. Was Dr. Miller a "lumper"?? If so, seems strange that he would consider T. rheophilus a valid and sepearate species (split) when, to my eye it looks exactly like a lentiginosum?? Perhaps deeper in the body from some photos I've seen?

Extracts taken from Michi Tobler here:
http://www.cichlidae.com/section.php?n=fca&id=22
User avatar
Rick Thibert
 
Posts: 591
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2007 2:10 am
Location: Newmarket, Suffolk, England

Re: T. lentiginosus and T. coeruleus distribution

Postby Bojan Dolenc » Tue Sep 28, 2010 6:11 am

The demonstrable polyphyly of the Middle American genera Amphilophus, Archocentrus, ‘‘Cichlasoma’’, Theraps, Tomocichla, and Vieja makes any discussion of Middle American taxonomy futile in the absence of a species-level analysis.
Concheiro-Perez et al. (2007) recovered our included species, Theraps wesseli, among their ‘‘amphilophines’’, but they found the type species, T. irregularis, in its more traditional placement within their ‘‘herichthyines’’.
Rican -Zardoya et.al. (2008) instead placed again Theraps in "Herichthyns"; but Theraps wesseli among ‘‘Amphilophines’’ as "Heros" wesseli? Confusion worse confounded. :?

Artigas Azas, Juan Miguel; 2009; "Theraps coeruleus Stawikowski & Werner, 1987, the small blue corrientera"; Cichlid News Magazine; v. 18 (n. 4); pp. 14-19.

Rican, Oldrich & R. Zardoya & I. Doadrio; 2008; "Phylogenetic relationships of Middle American cichlids (Cichlidae, Heroini) based on combined evidence from nuclear genes, mtDNA and morphology"; Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution; 49: 941-957

Smith, W. L. & P. Chakrabarty & J.S. Sparks; 2008; "Phylogeny, taxonomy and evolution of Neotropical cichlids (Teleostei: Cichlidae: Cichlinae)"; Cladistics; (n. 24); pp. 1-17.

Concheiro Pérez, Gustavo A. & Oldrich Rican, Guillermo Ortíz, Eldredge Bermingham, Ignacio Doadrio, Rafael Zardoya; 2007; "Phylogeny and biogeography of 91 species of heroine cichlids (Teleostei: Cichlidae) based on sequences of the cytochrome b gene"; Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution; v.43(1), pp. 91-110.

Artigas Azas, Juan Miguel; 2005; "The Corrientera - Theraps irregularis Günther, 1862"; Cichlid News Magazine; v. 14; n. 4; pp. 14-18

Miller, Robert Rush; 2005; "Freshwater Fishes of Mexico"; University of Chicago Press, Chicago; pp. 1-524.

Heijns, Willem; 1992; "Theraps coeruleus Stawikowski & Werner, 1987"; The Cichlids Yearbooks; v. 2; p. 75.

Stawikowski, Rainer & U. Werner; 1998; "Die Buntbarsche Amerikas, Band1"; Ulmer Verlag, Stuttgart.

Stawikowski, Rainer & U. Werner; 1987; "Neue erkenntnisse über die buntbarsche um Theraps lentiginosus mit der beschreibung von Theraps coeruleus spec. nov."; Die Aquarien- und Terrarien-Zeitschrift (DATZ); 40 (11); p 499.
Change in habit, producing change of function, is the main cause of the production of change in living structure. F. Wood Jones (1953) Trends of life
User avatar
Bojan Dolenc
 
Posts: 214
Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 7:12 am
Location: Slovenia - Ljubljana

Re: T. lentiginosus and T. coeruleus distribution

Postby Rico Morgenstern » Tue Sep 28, 2010 11:25 am

michael wrote:But the question is.. does anyone have pictures of coeruleus from the Rio Bascan? I want to compare them with my fish 8)


According to Stawikowski & Werner (1998), Rio Bascan is in fact the type locality of T. coeruleus. In the original description they did only mention a small tributary to Rio Mizol Ha, so perhaps they found out the river's name only subsequently.If this is so, you will find pictures of T. coeruleus from Rio Bascan in the original description:

http://www.datz.de/Artikel.dll/Theraps-coeruleus-1987-11_NjM3ODA.PDF?UID=279A6CE3522A7655B87C240BCCC374EFFA279B9386251D

Rick Thibert wrote:Is Theraps rheophilus a valid species or just a synonym of lentiginosum?


http://www.datz.de/Artikel.dll/Theraps-rheophilus-1985-11_NjM3ODE.PDF?UID=279A6CE3522A7655B87C240BCCC374EFFA279B9386251D

The synonymy is commonly accepted, but not so far clearly demonstrated (i.e. by a careful dealing with the diagnostic characters). Seegers & Staeck had compared their material with the types of lentiginosus. These are much larger, so the different body shape and proportions and perhaps even some color features could well be attributable to size. Furthermore, if several species are 'hidden' under T. lentiginosus, the true one would be difficult to identify for the type locality is given no more precisely as "Mejico".

I don't know why Miller has regarded rheophilus valid and coeruleus a synonym of lentiginosus in his book. It may be a simple mix-up or other unintentional error by him or one of his co-workers. Allgayer (1989) has considered all three species valid, however, his additional material of T. rheophilus is evidently misidentified. The fish figured alive is clearly a male T. coeruleus, and I have checked the registration numbers of his specimens in the fish collection database of the Paris museum, they are all from Rio Tulija.
Rico Morgenstern
CichlidRoom Expert
 
Posts: 337
Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2007 4:01 am
Location: Germany

Re: T. lentiginosus and T. coeruleus distribution

Postby Michael Kwist » Tue Sep 28, 2010 2:05 pm

Rico,
Thanks for the 2 articles about the Theraps i read it now and there is much good information in it 8)
Greetings Michael.
Michael Kwist
 
Posts: 595
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2005 7:06 am
Location: Middelburg The Netherlands

Re: T. lentiginosus and T. coeruleus distribution

Postby Rico Morgenstern » Fri Oct 15, 2010 11:04 am

Just a little correction:

Rico Morgenstern wrote:I don't know why Miller has regarded rheophilus valid and coeruleus a synonym of lentiginosus in his book. It may be a simple mix-up or other unintentional error by him or one of his co-workers.


In fact this statement was an error of mine. Miller recognized T. rheophilus after examination of specimens from the type locality, and the figure shows the same fish as described by Seegers & Staeck. However, Miller's concept of T. lentiginosus is not entirely clear to me, and reasons for synonymizing T. coeruleus are not given. If compared with the original description and figure of T. lentiginosus it is obviously different.
Rico Morgenstern
CichlidRoom Expert
 
Posts: 337
Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2007 4:01 am
Location: Germany

Re: T. lentiginosus and T. coeruleus distribution

Postby Rick Thibert » Thu Oct 21, 2010 9:15 am

Thank you for the clarification Rico!

SO, do we accept T. rheophilus as a valid species?? Are they endemic to one population?? I want to learn more, but have nothing to go on! :(

Rick
User avatar
Rick Thibert
 
Posts: 591
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2007 2:10 am
Location: Newmarket, Suffolk, England

Re: T. lentiginosus and T. coeruleus distribution

Postby Juan Artigas » Thu Oct 21, 2010 11:12 pm

Rico Rico Morgenstern wrote:

According to Stawikowski & Werner (1998), Rio Bascan is in fact the type locality of T. coeruleus. In the original description they did only mention a small tributary to Rio Mizol Ha, so perhaps they found out the river's name only subsequently.If this is so, you will find pictures of T. coeruleus from Rio Bascan in the original description:


That is quite correct, Rio Mizol-Ha is a small river that flows into Rio Bascam. The type locality of Theraps coeruleus is "tributarie of Río Mizol Há at Francisco Madero, ca. 30 km south of Palenque, México". In fact, it is the opposite, Rio Mizol-Ha is a small river that flows into Rio Bascam, which in turn flows into Rio Tulija, all this in a relatively small area. The collecting spot where Rainer Stawikowski collected his types and pictured in the original description I recognize at Francisco I. Madero in Rio Bascam, just before Rio Mizol-Ha has merged into it. There is no variation of Theraps coeruleus that I am aware of. Rio Mizol-Ha is the river where the famous waterfall is found.

bascam.jpg
Rio Bascam, the town in view is Francisco I Madero
Juan Miguel Artigas
Editor

The Cichlid Room Companion
http://www.cichlidae.info
User avatar
Juan Artigas
Administrator
 
Posts: 1385
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2003 8:37 pm
Location: San Luis Potosi, México

Next

Return to Central American Cichlids

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests