Maylandia or Metriaclima (rebound)

[SergeS]

Yes, I know this topic is old and I may be opening a second can of worms here

I was making a summary of the whole discussion for a Dutch forum I am admin for, and when writing the post some questions came up on my end. Here goes.

Recently, several species were 'moved' from Pseudotropheus to other genera. This is expected and not new. Other species were moved previously, species such as P. zebra, P. greshakei, and several others from the Zebra complex were moved from the melting pot that Pseudotropheus was (and still is, in my opinion) to the new Maylandia/Metriaclima genus - note that I am not venting my personal opinion here I assume that more species will probably move at some point in time.

However, some of the species that got a new name, were renamed into Metriaclima. Species that were never part of the Zebra complex (as far as I know). Several species from the P. elongatus complex (Ad Konings) and the Pseudotropheus sp "kingsizei" (now Metriaclima pulpican as per Tawil, 2002). I think that the species from the Elongatus complex have not been fully described yet, so the problem may be less of an issue there?

Now, as Metriaclima is not completely recognized as valid, where does this leave these fish? Is Metriaclima pulpican invalid as a name?

Also, I have tried to find the article from Tawil where this change was published, but I am not sure where to look, so I don't have it handy, for which I apologize. If it is available on the net, I would be grateful if someone can send me a link.

By no means do I want to re-start the discussion, just looking for some answers out of interest in this hobby!

[adkonings]

Now, as Metriaclima is not completely recognized as valid, where does this leave these fish? Is Metriaclima pulpican invalid as a name?

Hi Serge,

The Code for zoological nomenclature leaves no room for "not completely valid", it is either valid (available name) or invalid (nomen nudum). For what Metriaclima is concerned there is no question whether it is valid or not; there is no problem with its description and is therefore 100% valid. Up to now nobody has questioned the validity of Metriaclima, so there is no doubt/confusion that it is a properly described name. The question, however, is whether Maylandia is a validly described name and there the opinions differ. I will not reiterate the long discussions we had which can be read when going back in this thread, but the proponents of Metriaclima regard Maylandia as a nomen nudum because the authors Meyer & Foerster actually described the zebra complex, not the (sub)genus. If you want to use Metriaclima pulpican or Cynotilapia pulpican or Pseudotropheus pulpican, it is all correct; it is just a matter of opinion whether you think it has closer affinities with either of these genera. The proponents of Metriaclima, however, say it is incorrect to call it Maylandia pulpican because the name Maylandia is not available as it has not been described. But this has nothing to do with the species you would like to place in the genus. I'm sure that certain authors would want to add to this discussion.... it has been a long time!
Ad

[SergeS]

Ad,

thanks, that is a very clear answer. I was not fully aware that the code gave us 'the freedom' to use multiple genera for the same fish. Like I said, I really do not want to re-start the discussion on Metriaclima vs Maylandia, but I was just wondering where these recent developments such as the M. pulpican and the Elongatus complex would fit into the picture.

And let's face it, in practice, the majority of the people who hold these, and similar, species, probably don't really care which genera is used, as long as it's clear to everybody which species is meant.

BTW, thanks Lisa (or whoever) for splitting this topic off.

[Juan Artigas]

I was not fully aware that the code gave us 'the freedom' to use multiple genera for the same fish. Like I said, I really do not want to re-start the discussion on Metriaclima vs Maylandia, but I was just wondering where these recent developments such as the M. pulpican and the Elongatus complex would fit into the picture.

I think what Ad tried to express is that the ICZM allows you to select one available generic name for a given species. Of course, for a genera to be seen with a species name there must be general acceptance, which is regularly based on reasons and evidence exposed by the proposing person to place the species under that genus. For instance, very few people would follow me if I chose Metriaclima as a generic assignment for Heros octofaciatus. The topic here is that if Maylandia is a nomen nudum (not available name) people can not call a fish species in that genus, in that case it is not a mater of opinion anymore.