Tropheops and Pseudotropheus

[Alex Calder]

It is my understanding that Tropheops is designated as a sub genus to Pseudotropheus.
Has any one done anything to promote Tropheops as it's own genus?

[Ken Boorman]

I think the reference you want is this one:

Original Description:

*

Trewavas, Ethelwyn; 1984; "Nouvel examen des genres et sous-genres du complexe Pseudotropheus-Melanochromis du lac Malawi"; Revue française d'Aquariologie et Herpetologie; 10 (1983); 4; pp. 97-106.

from http://www.cichlidae.com/gallery.php?genus=Tropheops

Ken

[Lisachromis]

You might get more answers if you asked this in the Taxonomy section.

[Philippe Burnel]

Traopheops was described as sub genus in the same time that Maylandia was described as sub genus.
Maylandia being now a genus (by the description of Metriaclima, junior synonym) so Tropheops can also be designated as genus. But, in fact, I don't remember any scientific publication for this (I'd have a look to the redescription of Metriaclima, maybe ?).

[Darrell Ullisch]

Philippe,The rediscription of Metriaclima/Maylandia does not mention Tropheops. If anyone can show me in the Code where it allows the automatic elevation of other subgenera as the result of elevating one subgenus, I'd like to see it, as I cannot find it (but then, it's hard to find much of anything in that mess). The only reference I can find that supposedly elevates Tropheops is an offhanded comment by Konings that says "Tropheops can be considered a genus without further much ado." This is an error on Mr. Konings' part, as it cannot be done without proper publication. The elevation of one subgenus does not automatically give the same weight to other subgenera, it has to be addressed properly.

I have been through this discussion with Killifish taxonomists. One in particular disapproved of raising Chromaphyosemion, because it did not address the other subgenera of Aphyosemion, and that meant that someone else would have to write a paper either doing so or explaining why Chromaphyosemion shouldn't have been elevated (which was undone based on a phylogenetic argument that I personally found fallacious). But, most Killifish taxonomists would never have dropped the bomb that Kullander did, either, because it didn't finish the whole job.

[Darrell Ullisch]

Oh, and Lisa is correct, this would get more attention in the Taxonomy section. I already raised the question once in the Nomenclature Help thread here, and even you didn't notice it!

But couldn't Lisa, as an administrator, just move it for you?

[Philippe Burnel]

comment by Konings that says "Tropheops can be considered a genus without further much ado."

That's exactly why I've written.

But, in fact, I don't remember any scientific publication for this

Often we follow Koning's point of view without any reflexion.
In this particular case, I think he's right and Tropheops is really a different genus.
But the valid scientific publication is still missing.
Can't we have some advance?

[Lisachromis]

Oh, and Lisa is correct, this would get more attention in the Taxonomy section. I already raised the question once in the Nomenclature Help thread here, and even you didn't notice it!

But couldn't Lisa, as an administrator, just move it for you?

I can move it. In fact I think I will.....

[Alex Calder]

By all means Lisa flex your administrative muscles if you would.

Philippe,

The more expert opinions I collect in my quest the more I notice a certain discrepancy with Ad.
He makes decisions, most of the time highly logical ones, how ever he does not adhere to the code.
I realize that it takes time to submit scientific papers, but would he not further his cause by doing so?
In return perhaps the opinion on his method would improve?

For the time being in the CB we are deep in many debates. As our primary target is the hobbyist we
find ourselves in a conundrum. When and where do we choose to draw the line? We like the idea of maintaining
proper scientific fact and yet provide so much in the way of opinion.

Perhaps I should explain what were are doing in this specific instance.
We have a section of the database that holds scientifically accepted genera names.
We have another table that holds all genera names we have been able to discover irregardless of validity.
The second table is tied to the first table in the manner of linking all possible names to a correct name.

This will serve the following purposes.
1) When an author makes a profile as they type in a genus the form will automatically generate a list of scientifically accepted genera based on what they type. If, for example, the genus is say nomen nudum it will trace back to the correct genus. Consider this spell checking in addition to maintaining a semblance of scientific accuracy.

2) When a user uses the search form they can search for Metriaclima estherae and will be presented with all matches to Maylandia estherae as it is the correct nomenclature. This feature will get to a point where it will be available to all who visit irregardless of membership. As will the profiles contain a formatted HTML and BBcode links.

3) When I form the link to explain the taxonomy for the more advanced user I am reasonably sure that the resulting page in the CoF will have a result. (I could have used Fishbase but the programmer in me honestly hates the application.)

A goal of the CB I think I left out was to educate it's users on scientific names due in part to the confusion of trade/common names. If it would convince even one person to stop saying "electric blue" I think the effort would have paid for itself.

The current ruling my coding team and I have come up with is to link Tropheops as a synonym to Pseudotropheus until the status changes in the scientific community.

And just so you know I believe I have many more nomenclature related questions for you all should you have the patience.

Additionally even if none of you ever step foot in the application the amount of help you have managed to provide does not go overlooked. On the next update to the documentation I will be listing those who have helped the project grow, you can be certain that CRC and it's users will gain mention(though likely not on an individual level ). You have all acted as a community greater than any one forum should act and I hold myself and my site to such standards. (Juan if you have the time please PM me with the desired location I should point to along with any specific formatting requests.)

[Lisachromis]

By all means Lisa flex your administrative muscles if you would.
And just so you know I believe I have many more nomenclature related questions for you all should you have the patience.

The more the merrier. Ask away. Just please start new threads for each. I look forward to seeing what you come up with.

[Alex Calder]

Traopheops was described as sub genus in the same time that Maylandia was described as sub genus.
Maylandia being now a genus (by the description of Metriaclima, junior synonym) so Tropheops can also be designated as genus. But, in fact, I don't remember any scientific publication for this (I'd have a look to the redescription of Metriaclima, maybe ?).

To update everyone, Phillipe's message made my decision in the end.
I have chose to stick with what is valid until such a time that it changes.

[Youenn]

Tropheops was described as a subgenus of Melanochromis. no?
Now, fish from this subgenus has to be under genus Pseudotropheus?

[Philippe Burnel]

Tropheops was described as a subgenus of Melanochromis. no?

Really funny..... Stay in your victorian world where you have still problems to be considered as a reference !

[Youenn]

My "dear" Philippe,

I just ask a question not more....
And It is completly true that I absolutly want to be a "reference" especially for people like you.

[Philippe Burnel]

I absolutly want to be a "reference" especially for people like you.

poor guy, if you only want to be a reference for an "amateur" as I'm.
But you are the reference of your merit, reference for "amateurs"

[Lisachromis]

Tropheops was described as a subgenus of Melanochromis. no?
Now, fish from this subgenus has to be under genus Pseudotropheus?

How about we actually answer the question/statement?

[nick a]

Sometimes "science" lags so far behind the commonly (and logically understood) reality that it can seem of limited current value to speak/communicate using antiquated/obsolete nomenclature while we wait for 'science' to catch up.

While Ad may be somewhat of a maverick to academicians--he is a pioneer to the hobbiest. Some of us appreciate his attempts to clarify the phylogenic tree with his 'wild leaps of logic' and sometimes best guesses based on his first-hand knowledge. His leaps don't always hold up--but more often they do.

Examples of both those situations can be found in this article:
[url]/http://www.academicjournals.org/AJB/PDF/Pdf2005/Oct/Kassam%20et%20al.pdf[url]

The example relevant to this thread from that article:
"Again, the finding that Petrotilapia is sister genera to Tropheops is surprisingly interesting because we expected Tropheops to be closer to Maylandia (both once lumped in the Pseudotropheus genus). From the genus Pseudotropheus, Meyer and Foerster (1984) separated
the then Pseudotropheus zebra complex and described it as a distinct genus now known as Maylandia, and at the same time, Trewavas (1984) proposed Tropheops to be a subgenus of Pseudotropheus considering its distinguished steep sloping snout and a small ventrally placed mouth. So the genus Pseudotropheus was split into three groups, viz; genus Maylandia, genus Pseudotropheus and its subgenus Tropheops. However, recently other researchers(see Konings, 2001) have advocated the elevation of the subgenus Tropheops into a distinct genus, and since then, Tropheops has been treated as a distinct genus (see Allender et al., 2003;Won et al., 2005). So our results, indicating the occupation of distinct position (not even closer to Maylandia) in our phylogenetic tree, corroborate the idea advocated by Konings (2001) that Tropheops be regarded a genus on its own."

'84~'01~'03~'05.......it's now '08. We have the the obvious physical variances, the observed ( and well documented) variance in feeding behaviours, genetic test results---everything but a 'paper'.

Is it worth the effort to communicate about the genus Tropheops in any other terms while we wait for the 'paper'?

[Dave Schumacher]

Some names are accepted so much that no one feels the need to write "the paper". They might as well save their time, and tell us something we don't already know!

[Darrell Ullisch]

Actually, that paper you quoted uses phylogenetic relationships to show that Tropheops as a group are distinct, even more closely related to Petrotilapia than Pseudotropheus. The statement you put in quotes is probably a valid published argument for elevating Tropheops, even though the paper is written about Cynotilapia. Not a well written argument, but I believe a valid one, nonetheless. (I've seen worse descriptions declared valid.) There are two earlier papers quoted, Allender et al, and Won et al, and if either of those actually argues the validity of Tropheops, rather than just using it due to Koning's offhand comments, then they would be doing the job.

As for Dave's comment, I can only say that, if you want to play the name game, you have to play by the rules. Or, in this case, the Code. Hobbyists want shortcuts, scientists know better than to use them.

[nick a]

One can't help but wish there was more time/money/researchers available to do this type of investigation!

Not sure why the link didn't work previously:

http://www.academicjournals.org/AJB/PDF/Pdf2005/Oct/Kassam%20et%20al.pdf

It is most unfortunate that their sample group didn't include a known Ps type (a Ps williamsi would have been nice!)
Their actual results can only say (my shorthand interpretation):
Tropheops is NOT closely related to May/Cyno etc...
Tropheops IS more closely related to Petro than the others......

Hence, leaving the door open for arguments from contrarians to note that Psuedotropheus & it's subgenus Tropheops are closely allied to Petros.......?