I have read this paper throughly. The purpose appears to be to discredit Greenwoods genera descriptions. There is such a huge case made of previous works that point out flaws in these groupings yet absolutely nothing about any positive aspects. I find it difficult to believe that a well rounded ichthyologist spends 50 years studying the fauna of a region, publishes volumes on his findings and hypothesis' yet didn't get anything right. There are many references made to previous works by other scientists that support stances made in the paper yet, of the two mentioned that I had immediate access to, the discrediting was vague at best. I must admit that although I adhere to Humphrey's work where no other exists, there are some valid points made however, the complete lack of agreement left me a little bitter. I feel if you are going to point out the negative, you must also point out the positive. This was not the case. Also, the solution to the taxonomic issues presented is to revert back to describing all these cichlids under the genus Haplochromis. I feel positive advancement such as concentrating on difference in these species, sorting out the mess, and redescriptions would have turned this into a worthy work. Much effort was made to show why Greenwood's designations were inaccurate, but absolutely no realistic solution was presented. Repopulating Haplochromis makes no sense to me. If you really want to offer a solution, publish your own descriptions based on your own work and let your peers judge it's merit.
I welcome any and all taxonomic work with these cichlids and absolutely recognize all modern descriptions I have seen thus far, however, in lieu of that, Greenwood in many cases, is the best game in town. It makes absolutely no sense to revert back to a 1888 generic assignment when there is a better, not perfect but better, base on which to launch further classifications.
This is a good read however as the historic account on the subject matter is excellent and it is always good, whether you agree or not, to hear differing points of view.
In all fairness, Van Oijen did mention that the monotypic genus Allochromis (questionably monotypic as Kaufman discovered a similar scale eater in Nawampassa) could be accepted as valid due to specialized dentition. Nice to throw the brother a bone