a couple of central american questions

[seveland]

Hi, my first question is regarding Cutter's cichlid. I bought several juvenilles, the seller had them listed as Archocentrus sp. "CUTTERI" , but I have seen them elsewhere listed as Archocentrus spilurus "cutteri". Would these be classified now as Cryptoheros sp. "Cutteri" or are they just a type of C. spilurus?

Also, I was looking through the catalog here and I'm confused about the Heroines section. Are these all fish wiuthout a genus then? or are they back to Cichlasoma? I thought some such as salvini and urophthalmus were in Nandopsis

One other thing about the catalog, the central american section doesn't have Aequidens coeruleopunctatus (found in costa Rica & Panama) or Geophagus crassilabris (from Panama) listed.

[michi tobler]

Hi,

the situation with the Central American species is quite difficult...

my first question is regarding Cutter's cichlid. I bought several juvenilles, the seller had them listed as Archocentrus sp. "CUTTERI" , but I have seen them elsewhere listed as Archocentrus spilurus "cutteri". Would these be classified now as Cryptoheros sp. "Cutteri" or are they just a type of C. spilurus?

Currently, Cichlasoma cutteri is listed as a synonym of Cryptoheros spilurus (see Kullander in the CLOFFSCA). However, several spilurus-like fishes have been found in the past year that are quite distinct from the Guatemalan spilurus. Since cutteri was described from Honduras, it's possible that it's really a distinct species. Genetical analysis showed that the spilurus as we know it now is clearly more than one species. But currently we don't know which form we're supposed to call cutteri. As far as I know, it's preliminary the animals from Lago Yojoa in Honduras that are currently named cutteri.

Also, I was looking through the catalog here and I'm confused about the Heroines section. Are these all fish wiuthout a genus then? or are they back to Cichlasoma? I thought some such as salvini and urophthalmus were in Nandopsis

Yes, indeed. They're without genus. Kullander restricted the genus Cichlasoma to some South American taxa and thus left many Cental American without a valid genus. Kullander himself recomended to use "Cichlasoma" as a substitute until the generic assignment of these fishes is clear. This is now quite common in Europe. Other authors, espeacially in the US (it was espeacially Burgess, I think) put all the big species into genus Nandopsis. However, this name is restricted to the cichlids of the Carribean Islands. SO, we have to wait until some taxonomists give new names to those species that still wait for a new genus. Interestingly, many genera that are belived to be valid today (such as Archocentrus, Cryptoheros, Amphilophus sensu lato and some others) seem not to be valid as we know them today. New traditional and molecular analyses on the relationship of the Central American cichlid revealed totally new insights. So, the generic assignment of many species might change in the future.

One other thing about the catalog, the central american section doesn't have Aequidens coeruleopunctatus (found in costa Rica & Panama) or Geophagus crassilabris (from Panama) listed.

I don't know which index you mean but you're right, these species reach into Central America. However, they also can be found in northern South America and they are part of tribes typical for South America.

Greetings, Michi

[seveland]

thanks for the reply, you've been very helpful.

[Juan Artigas]

There is no much to add to Michi's excellent answer, as his always are. But I want to mention that although I am aware that Aequidenscoeruleopunctatus and Geophagus crassilabris are Central American species found in southern Costa Rica (in the case A. coeruleopunctatus) and Panama, the structure of the cichlid catalogue here is by genera, and then I separate by geographical area to easilly find the genera. When I had to decide what to do with Aequidens and Geophagus, I decided to list them just in South American to avoid more confusion, although I knew some people would reach your correct conclusions.

In regards to Cryptoheros, there is an article in the Cichlid Room Companion that covers them, including your question, it is found in:

http://www.cichlidae.info/article.php?id=205

I have kept Cryptoheros spilurus from Belize and C. "cutteri" (Type locality Rio Lancetilla, Honduras) from lake Yojoa in Honduras for many years, and in my mind there is no doubt that C. cutteri will be eventuially recognized as a valid entity, as there are clearly two groups each with distint geograhical variations (C. cutteri in Honduras and C. spilurus in Guatemala, Belize and Mexico).

All the best

[Grange]

genus Nandopsis. However, this name is restricted to the cichlids of the Carribean Islands

What's wrong with Nandopsis ramsdeni? According the FISHBASE this name is not valid.

[Juan Artigas]

I see no reason why Nandopsis ramsdeni Fowler, 1938 (Described as Cichlasoma ramsdeni) should not be part of Nandopsis, except probably that nobody has officially place it there in a paper. Probably Kullander and Reis (2003) wanted to be conservative until such paper is available and place it in limbo genus 'Cichlasoma' meanwhile. I would be very surprised that N. ramsdeni proves to be in a different genus that N. tetracanthus. Dr. Robert Miller was convinced the Antilles cichlids were part of Nandopsis and that was expressed by Burgess (2000), although not clearly installing them into that genus.

Burgess, W. E.; 2000; "The Cichlasoma story. Herichthys, the break-up"; Tropical Fish Hobbyist; v. 48 (no. 11): 44-54.

Reis, R. E., S. O. Kullander and C. J. Ferraris, Jr. ; 2003; "Check list of the freshwater fishes of South and Central America". Check CLOFSA 2003: pp. 1-729.

[michi tobler]

Dear Grange,

see my last posting in the Paratheraps-discussion: http://www.cichlidae.info/phpBB2/viewto ... 5&start=15

Cheers, Michi

[Philippe Burnel]

Yes, and we are still waiting for the answer on Cichlid-L

[Lisachromis]

I think we should make Sven come and answer these questions...

[Philippe Burnel]

"cutteri" from lake Yojoa in Honduras

Hi Juan Miguel, are you sure that "cutteri" and "Yojoa" are one and the same ?
It seems that Lago Yojoa and Rio Lentecilla are fare away from each other.
I asked this questions to friends of mine who kept these 2 forms, it seems that they are different.

Philippe

[Juan Artigas]

Philippe, as far as my opinion goes I personally don' t see more differences beween Cryptoheros cutteri Fowler, 1932 from Rio Lantecilla and those from lake Yojoa than what you can expect from many other Central American Cichlid species as geographical variations goes. Just remember the convict cichlid (even leaving out the 'Honduras Red Point' ).

[Juan Artigas]

Philippe, it took me a while but I was able to get from Uwe Werner permission to publish pictures of Rio Lancetilla Cryptoheros spilurus "cutteri", so you can judge by yourself their limited differences:

Cryptoheros spilurus "cutteri" male from Rio Lancetilla

Cryptoheros spilurus "cutteri" female from Rio Lancetilla

Cryptoheros spilurus "cutteri" male from Lake Yojoa

Cryptoheros spilurus "cutteri" female from Lake Yojoa

Cryptoheros spilurus "cutteri"

Differences as you can see are very subtle. In fact, fish I do keep from Lake Yojoa (Given to me by Jean Claude) are even more similar than the fish from Jacques Blanc, to the Rio Lancetilla fish.

All the best

[Grange]

I see no reason why Nandopsis ramsdeni Fowler, 1938 (Described as Cichlasoma ramsdeni) should not be part of Nandopsis, except probably that nobody has officially place it there in a paper.

Good article:
"Systematics and historical biogeography of Greater Antillean Cichlidae" by Prosanta Chakrabarty, 2006.