New Info on the genus Hypsophrys

[Mark Smith]

Relationships of the New World cichlid genus Hypsophrys Agassiz 1859
(Teleostei: Cichlidae), with diagnoses for the genus and its species

Zootaxa 1523: 59–64 (2007)

PROSANTA CHAKRABARTY & JOHN S. SPARKS

Abstract

Two monotypic Neotropical cichlid genera, Hypsophrys Agassiz 1859 and Neetroplus Günther 1867, are well known but
poorly diagnosed. The possession of a single supraneural (versus two for most Middle American species), a strongly
rounded snout with a small and slightly subterminal mouth (versus straight snout profiles with terminal mouth) provide
morphological support for the sister-group relationship of Hypsophrys and Neetroplus recovered in recent molecular
phylogenetic analyses. Based on these shared features Neetroplus is synonymized with Hypsophrys. In addition, the
senior synonym Hypsophrys unimaculatus should no longer be improperly suppressed in favor of the more familiar, but
junior, H. nicaraguensis.

[Lisachromis]

Are they saying that "nics" are H. unimaculatus and not H. nicaraguense? And that N. nematopus is now H. nematopus?

[Marko Lenac]

very interesting. i am also interested if nematopus goes to hypso genus? where we can find the all text?

[Mark Smith]

It appears to be so, Lisachromis. Only time will tell if this assessment will hold true over time, though.

[michi tobler]

Hi all,

I have a pdf of the full paper. if anyone is interested, just shoot me an email.

Cheers, m

[Lisachromis]

It appears to be so, Lisachromis. Only time will tell if this assessment will hold true over time, though.

Wow, wonder if the new names will hold up. Would love to hear peoples opinions on this.

[Willem Heijns]

for argument's sake : Heros spilurus shares all three diagnostic characters with Hypsophrys:
1 supraneural
strongly rounded snout (almost vertical)
small mouth.
is it then Hypsophrys spilurus from now on?

[michi tobler]

Frankly, that Neetroplus was synonymized with Hypsophrys was a matter of time (see e.g. FCA). I think the authors just went back to the type specimens and looked for morphological traits that confirm what we have been expecting based on molecular genetic work. That is exactly what hopefully will be done for other genera too.

The fact that they recognize H. unimaculatus rather than H. nicaraguensis was a surprise to me, especially after the elaborations on this topic by Kullander & Hartl in the 1990s. I have the feeling that this is the part that will cause some debate after all.

Cheers, m

[michi tobler]

for argument's sake : Heros spilurus shares all three diagnostic characters with Hypsophrys:
1 supraneural
strongly rounded snout (almost vertical)
small mouth.
is it then Hypsophrys spilurus from now on?

I just say two words that I have said so many times in this context: Convergence and taxon sampling!!!

Cheers, m

[Willem Heijns]

please explain?

[michi tobler]

Dear Willem,

as you mentioned, the diagnosis of new Hypsophrys includes 1 supraneural, strongly rounded snout profile and a small slightly subterminal mouth. You imply that A. spilurus should then be a Hypsophrys too. Firstly - and that is just a gut feeling - I would disagree on that because a strongly rounded head profile is not the same as a rounded snout. I could be wrong but if I picture the three species in my head, I think I can see the difference. I might be completely wrong...;o)

So, let us assume you are right and spilurus shares the traits that now diagnose Hypsophrys. That's how my two key words play in. Taxon sampling: How can clear diagnoses of genera be made by looking only at two (or a few) species? I think in order to get a robust nomenclature a more holistic approach is needed. If more species are included, we will be forced to come up with more than three traits diagnosing a genus. If we use more traits, we will be able to identify cases like spilurus that may share a certain amount of traits due to convergence. What I'm trying to say is that I don't think spilurus is close related to the two other species even if they share the key traits and if that is the case, someone will need to provide a more detailed diagnosis, because obviously then the current one does not serve its purpose. Interestingly enough, there are other yet unpublished diagnoses of Hypsophrys that rely on other traits.... and guess what... spilurus was considered more closely in the other work...

So long, Michi

[cichla]

Dear all.

Following the diagnosis for Hypsophrys provided by CHAKRABARTY & SPARKS spilurus has to be included in this genus. I agree with Willem in the point of view that it share one supraneural spine, a strongly rounded snout with a small, slightly subterminal mouth (anyway, a very weak character, since it is not supported by statistics).

I made a small experiment and download sequences (cyt b) for unimaculatus, nematopus and
spilurus and obtained the genetic distance (using K2, log and JC). The distance between unimaculatus and nematopus is the ‘same’ as between spilurus and unimaculatus or nematopus.

Thus, there is no (character based) reason (if one accept the provided diagnosis) not to include spilurus within Hypsophrys. However, following the tree based classification, spilurus is not part of Hypsophrys, because in the trees published by Concheiro et al. (2007) and Hulsey et al. (2004) the three taxa not building a monophyletic unit.

IS

[Juan Artigas]

Wanting to add to the argument and without having read the paper yet (Michi as per your offering would you be so kind and send me a copy?) I would like to add that apparently the unique feautures of Hypsophrys nicaraguensis (oops unimaculatus) of cave digging with a tread motion and eggs without adhesive filaments are disregarded as diagnostic characters that are worth to be considered as the start or a new generic lineage. I think those features are much more relevant than a rounded head after all (we can include Thropheus duboisi in Hypsophrys for that matter!).

On the name Hypsophrys unimaculatus, if I remember correctly Kullander stated in his original paper he would submit the case (And that of Parachromis gulosus versus P. managuensis) to the momenclatural commission of the ICZM, to declare valid the widely used junior synonym name against the forgotten original names, as far as I know this hasnt happened yet? (It many not happen after this paper if it hasnt) So technically as I understand it, Hypsophrys unimaculatus and Parachromis gulosus are still the legally valid names.

[michi tobler]

Hi all,

I don't have anything substantial to add, I think we're pretty much in agreement.

(anyway, a very weak character, since it is not supported by statistics).

How could I forget to mention modern diagnostic methods in my statement above... statistics... I couldn't agree more!

I made a small experiment and download sequences (cyt b) for unimaculatus, nematopus and
spilurus and obtained the genetic distance (using K2, log and JC). The distance between unimaculatus and nematopus is the ‘same’ as between spilurus and unimaculatus or nematopus.

Analysis of genetic distance are not very useful in that regard (especially if only focusing on cyt b). Correct me if I'm wrong but all you are comparing is the overall similarity of base pairs. The big difference to phylogenetic approaches is that such analyses do not account for where the difference occurs. So, by only looking at three species and one trait (gene) you run into the same problems that I outlined above for traits traditionally used.

if I remember correctly Kullander stated in his original paper he would submit the case (And that of Parachromis gulosus versus P. managuensis) to the momenclatural commission of the ICZM

I do indeed remember the same... and that will - as in many other cases that concern our hobby - be the final ruling...

Anyway... although I think qualitatively this is a step in the right direction... there's a long way to go and as you guys I disagree quite a bit in the hows...

Cheers from St Louis, m

[Willem Heijns]

I'm not sure you guys noticed the smiley in my earlier post. I need to be more careful with my little jokes what I meant to say was (and I fully agree with Michi on this) only three diagnostic characters is hardly enough to combine two genera into one. using my common sense it is very hard to believe these two species should belong to one genus (or even be sister species for that matter). the breeding behaviour mentoined by Juan-Miguel is a very good example for that.

about the name unimaculatus: Kullander and Hartel (1997) never suggested it to be suppressed in their article. they say: "stability may be better served by retaining nicaraguensis and suppressing unimaculatus, but we prefer to leave this issue to a taxonomic revision of Hypsophrys". according the the ICZN (1997, third edition) a ruling should have been necessary. Kullander (pers. comm.) never applied for that. and I don't know of anyone else that did.

again according to the ICZN (both the third and fourth edition) as long as the required action (art. 23.9.2 4th edition) or the ruling by the Commission have not taken place the prevailing name should be used. in our case: nicaraguensis

come to think of it: would you consider this species having a small slightly subterminal mouth?

[Bas Pels]

using my common sense it is very hard to believe these two species should belong to one genus (or even be sister species for that matter). the breeding behaviour mentoined by Juan-Miguel is a very good example for that.

In my eyes, we should remember taxonomy is not mathematics. In math, an outcome is right, or wrong. In taxonomy, something else, apart from the 'simple' hard science is just as important.

Both species we discuss here, may be closely related. I have not seen many studies, but the ones I saw all put them closely together. However, as Willem says, common sense makes it hard to believe the species belong in the genus. They are so different.

Apparently, fish can be closely related, and look very different. It is also possible they are not so closely related, but look still very much the same.

The decision whether a given relatedness (perhaps determinable through hard science) should result in the dividing of a genus, or the synomising of another genus, is thus much harder. This is something whgich has to do with persuasion

Going back to the original acticle discussed here, I can not find much persuation for the synomizing of Neetroplus into Hypsophrys. Yes ,3 characters are mentioned, but not a single word is devoted to any of the other characteristics. Thus the publication did not persuade me to accept the end of Neetroplus

The above may be off the mark, but if so, please tell me

[Philippe Burnel]

and what about "panamensis" often included in Neetroplus ?

Michi, when I'll be back from hollydays i'll ask the pdf file

Philippe

[cichla]

First of all thanks to Michi for making the pdf available .

Dear Philippe,
panamensis is already removed from Neetroplus in the last "revision" of the genus by Rogers (1981). However, this taxonomic treatment (Rogers 1981) is not mentioned in the current paper

IS

[Joe Middleton]

Dear Philippe,
panamensis is already removed from Neetroplus in the last "revision" of the genus by Rogers (1981). However, this taxonomic treatment (Rogers 1981) is not mentioned in the current paper

What was it removed to, at that time? Allgayer put it in Archocentrus, right? (Continuing discussion from different forum.)

[Joe Middleton]

for argument's sake : Heros spilurus shares all three diagnostic characters with Hypsophrys:
1 supraneural
strongly rounded snout (almost vertical)
small mouth.
is it then Hypsophrys spilurus from now on?

I actually like this idea...