just a thought

[Christophe de Medeiros]

Hi
I have read the article from Van Oijen(the generic classsification of haplochromine cichlids of lake Victoria 1996) about the taxonomy of Haplochromis spp from lake Victoria, one thing comes to my mind, The aim of this article was to stabilize the taxonomy of the diverses scientists who work on this species and to unify the divergents points of vue. For this purpose the genus Haplochromis has been erected as a generic genus in place of the varied genera Greenwood described. The main reason is that many species from differents genera do overlap in their oral and pharyngeal dentition, morphology and neurocranial measurements.The Greenwood genera were unable to show the phyletics links between the many genera and also was in contradiction with the molecular datas thats suggest a monophyletic origin of the super flock. The author stated that it's more easy to understand the challenge of this super flock by using the name haplochromis in place of The Greenwood genera First this article was wrote before some scientists from Leiden ,Lippitsch, Bouton adn Zwennes described news genera in 1998 (Pundamilia, Mbipia, Lithochromis)
In 2003 Lippitsch described Pyxichromis paradoxus from Edward and George Lake, this description validated the genus Pyxichromis. So the things are not clearer for me since this article because using only the genus haplochromis do not reflect the diet specializations nor the diversity of this super flock, If a piscivorous fish is in the same genus than an oral sheller, how do we know his special diet? If the genus reflect a certain type of technique to collect the food and the food itself, using only one genus will not show at my vue the particularity of its biology. In Malawi lake taxonomy, the genera are numerous and reflect well the diversity of this haplochromines. Is the relatively short age of the Victoria super flock an valuable argument to keep all this species in one genus? Many questions come to my mind but I have yet no clear answer about this .
Did someone read this article and what does he think about?
xris

[Mark Smith]

Hi Samaki:

I have not seen this article you are referring to. I do remember in CLOFFA vol. 4, published in 1991, that the entry for Haplochromis includes all the Greenwood genera, possibly for differing reasons though.

I would like to see the description of Pyxichromis paradoxus by Lippitsch in 2003 if anyone has a pdf they could e-mail me. I collected many of the Haplochromines from the northern end of Lake Edward in January 1994, and it would be useful to find out if I unknowingly photographed this species then.

[Greg Steeves]

Hi Chris

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

[Christophe de Medeiros]

Hi greg
I'm having almost the same feeling than you, We know they all came from one ancestor species, perhaps is it none useful to search to illustrate the phyletics relation ship in the genus between so close species in this case, the genera perhaps might help to know what type of alimentary diet the fish have. In this case Greenwood genera may help but surely have to be more precisely descripted(some of them surely have to be abandoned) as Greenwood said in his article from 1979. But as yu pointed out, this is a huge work Greenwood done, I feel strange that most of his points of vue are purely put aside despite the fact that Neochromis is used and validated by the Leiden scientists.
Mark I'll send the pdf to you.
xris

[Endymion]

This year around 30 new species will be described. But they gonna use Haplochromis as genus, but they will use haplochromis in the same way as cichlidpress uses it.

Species that will be descibed that I remeber is Haplcohromis (Yssichromis) sp. "argens" and Haplochromis sp. "kribensis"

[Mark Smith]

Hi Endymion:

Do you know if these new descriptions will consist mainly of Lake Victorian cichlids, or will it include some Lake Edward descriptions too?

[Endymion]

As far as I know it is only Lake Victoria cichlids that will be described and its only pelagic living species and maybe species that lives over sand and mud that will be described.

[Mark Smith]

Thanks Endymion!

Do you know the names of the authors, where they plan to have the work published and possibly when??

[Youenn]

Researchers from Leiden. Mainly, Frans Witte and Martin van Oijen. May be publications in september, depends on reviewer and review I think.
According Frans, Les Kaufman is also supposed to described some species like Haplochromis sp "rockkribensis".
But just wait.

[Endymion]

When I talk to Frans Witte one month ago he said that they don't gonna describe "rockkribensis" because there was already a decription of that species started. But it was something strange with that work. But maybe there has been something that has changed?

[Youenn]

No Endymion. It is not Frans and Leiden who is supposed to described this species. But Les Kaufman is in the way to describe several including rockkribensis according Frans/
Remember, we were together in Leiden with Frans

[Mark Smith]

Thanks, gentlemen, for the interesting information. I definitely look forward to this (these) publications in the coming months.

[taeniopareius]

So the well-known "rockkribensis" is the one getting described? Just want to double check that nothing new is known about the phytoplanktivorous "kribensis".

[Endymion]

No Endymion. It is not Frans and Leiden who is supposed to described this species. But Les Kaufman is in the way to describe several including rockkribensis according Frans/
Remember, we were together in Leiden with Frans

Ok so you are Yves.

[Youenn]

yes