Two New Australoheros Species

[Mark Smith]

Two new species of Australoheros (Teleostei: Cichlidae), with notes on diversity of the genus and biogeography of the Río de la Plata basin

OLDRICH RÍCAN (Czech Republic), LUBOMÍR PIÁLEK (Czech Republic), ADRIANA ALMIRÓN (Argen-tina) & JORGE CASCIOTTA (Argentina)
Zootaxa 2982: 1–26 (02 Aug. 2011)

http://www.mapress.com/zootaxa/2011/f/zt02982p026.pdf

[cichla]

Thank you Mark.
These two new taxa are probably not the last ones for this year. However, see (Rican et al 2011 page 20): ''The average for comparisons among the species described by Ottoni and Costa (2008), Ottoni et al. (2008), Ottoni and Cheffe (2009) and Ottoni (2010) ... corresponding to variation within species of Říčan and Kullander (op. cit.). Based on these considerations we believe that the number of described species from the northern Brazilian coastal drainages is a case of excessive splitting and that the species diversity is actually much lower''. And on page 22 ''The Atlantic coast species also lack clear unique diagnostic characters (Ottoni & Costa 2008; Ottoni et al. 2008; Ottoni 2010; pers. obs.), which rises questions about the validity and the number of species involved. Under the two-step system of species delimitation employed in the present study ..., only one species instead of 11 species would be recognized.''
Greetings, IS

[Paulo José Alves]

Hi

Wilson Costa is a Brasilian taxonomist very well known among killi breeders for being an overly prolific describer of species based on minimum differences. The reason for this is not only a very splitist view of the matter but also because, I was told, that he gets paid each time he describes a new species...

All The Best
Paulo José

[Rafael.]

Hi.

As cited on page 22, new species continue to arrive from the west but some will go from east...

[Philippe Burnel]

I think that one of my very old slide could show A. angiru if I compare with Staeck's picture P. 14 :

[Bas Pels]

The fishes on the second row, Australoheros kaaygua and A angiru look remarkably similar to the Australoheros Red Cerbail and A sp Local - both from Uruguay

These 2 from Uruguay - I would consider them both to be Australoheros sp cf facetus - are obviously not A kaaygua or A angiru, but this does show cichlids can look quite similar to each other

For pictures of more Uruguay Australoheros, go to http://www.aqvaterra.com/map_australoheros.php. A sp local is number 10, A red cerbail is 9 in this map

[dogofwar]

Anyone know the true identity of the fish in the hobby known as A. oblongum?

In the paper, the picture of A. angiru in breeding dress is similar (but the pics not in breeding dress are quite different).

From my experience, "oblongum" is neither a facetum nor scitulus-type Chanchito...

Matt

[cichla]

Wilson Costa is a Brasilian taxonomist very well known among killi breeders for being an overly prolific describer of species based on minimum differences. The reason for this is not only a very splitist view of the matter but also because, I was told, that he gets paid each time he describes a new species...

Dear Paulo,
it's hard to believe it. Who would pay for it?
Well, I know cases where species names are sold for ten-thousands of Dollar (then published in Blerher's 'aqua' journal), but never heard that a scientist regularly paid for every new name published.
Greetings, IS

[Bas Pels]

There is, however another quite valid reason for splitting species up:

If politicians are told a certain species is found in a certain area - they assume part of that area can be sacrifised. Were the species in that area splitted into 3 or 4 species, all these species had their own chance of conservation - resulting in more nature left

Most biologists choose conservation, I think.

But, another plesant offspin is that your name appears more often in lists of newly described species.

Splitters are doing what they think is right, and are advancing their career at the same time. This makes hard to be a lumper

[Paulo José Alves]

Dear Cichla

I heard from several people, not just one, that in Brasil ( Brazil is in English) the description of new species are rewarded monetarily. I assume it is the state, perhaps through the cientific entities, who does that.
Of course we cannot forget that the brasilian culture is very americanized and that includes the taxonomic culture, and so they are very splittist, to a fault.

All The Best
Paulo José

[Paulo José Alves]

Dear Philippe Burnel

That picture shows suposedly Astrauloheros angiru? But the A. facetus that are found wild in Portugal are exactly like that! There´s something here not clear or correct.

All The Best
Paulo José

[Mark Smith]

Hi Paulo

I'm not so sure you can make such a stereotype about American scientific culture by saying that we split to a fault? How do you justify such an accusation?

[Bas Pels]

Dear Philippe Burnel

That picture shows suposedly Astrauloheros angiru? But the A. facetus that are found wild in Portugal are exactly like that! There´s something here not clear or correct.

All The Best
Paulo José

As the facetus are now for a 100 years or more in Portugal, I would be surprised if they would still look like their ancestors did

Cichlids do adapt quickly, and therefore what used to be A facetus can become in a hunderd years quite something different

[Juan Artigas]

The fish in Philippe's picture is clearly prognathous, isn't it so that the only prognathous Australoheros species is A. facetus? Would that stop being true?

[Philippe Burnel]

My picture is very old and comes from an old cichlid show in Belgium. I remember that the fish was labelled as "facetum".
I have absolutly no idea about its real identity, and I'm looking for this identity...
If it's the true facetus will be fine to me.

[Juan Artigas]

Philippe, I was just trying to point a fact. Australoheros angiru and Australoheros kaaygua are supposedly also to be prognathous. Look at the pictures in the description. So prognathous is not longer a differential trait. Your fish however, really look like A. facetum! But I guess that is not possible to be said anymore.

[Rico Morgenstern]

On the photos of live A. angiru, the lower jaw seems to be projecting in the male but not in the female. However, according to figure 12 in Rican & Kullander (2008; the drawing for A. kaaygua is based on a specimen of A. angiru), the lower jaw of A. facetus is also stronger than in other species, and the cleft of the mouth is slightly upturned. Additionally, the descriptions and diagnoses are based on wildcaught, preserved specimens (except for life color data), and aquarium specimens may differ in certain morphological characters due to the different and often more nutrious food. Also, it is not clear from the photos if the jaw is really projecting, or if this is only caused by the lip tissue. Be that as it may, there are other features to distinguish the species.

Dear Philippe Burnel

That picture shows suposedly Astrauloheros angiru? But the A. facetus that are found wild in Portugal are exactly like that! There´s something here not clear or correct.

All The Best
Paulo José

The fish in Portugal was identified as A. facetus or formerly Cichlasoma facetum long before the species diversity in this genus was recognized, so there is no contradiction in assuming that they are another species.

Philippe, while I'm not able to say to which species your fish belongs, I am conviced it is not A. facetus. Not only the photo but also the fish itself seems to be rather old. I have kept A. facetus for a few years, and I have seen some very large specimens (about 25cm TL) which differ in several characters. The lower head profile was more upturned, causing a relatively higher position of the mouth, the upper head profile was more concave before the eyes, and the dorsal profile was more constantly sloping. Also, not even the largest fish had such long dorsal, anal and pelvic fins. Color differences include the clearly visible scale margins and the lack of the bluish-green iridescence on the fins in A. facetus. You may also compare the photo of the large A. facetus from the type locality in the CRC catalogue, which shows the typical colors and the maximum fin extensions.

If politicians are told a certain species is found in a certain area - they assume part of that area can be sacrifised. Were the species in that area splitted into 3 or 4 species, all these species had their own chance of conservation - resulting in more nature left

This is certainly a valid point, but on a long-term basis this excessive splitting may rather have a negative effect on species (and also habitat) conservation. First of all, if the term 'species' is turned into something useless (and this is certainly the case with species that are in fact only distinguishable by living in different rivers), than this will also apply to species conservation. Second, as politics has much to do with making compromises, it is unlikely that every river system/habitat with supposedly endemic species will be protected. The more such habitats are known, the more the decider in charge will have to select, and many of us have certainly made the experience that this is not necessarily the most competent person in the respective field. This will eventually increase the possibility that a habitat with real faunal pecularities will be put at the risk of destruction because the granted funds have been 'wasted' for a place which actually harbours a widespread fauna.

[Willem Heijns]

If only Říčan et al had provided a new diagnosis for forquilha. In the original description Říčan & Kullander (2008) used 40 specimens for the diagnosis and description of forquilha. 19 of them were the typeseries and 21 "additional non-type material", consisitng of ZSM 23482 (15 specimens) and ZSM 23060 (6 specimens) As can be seen in tables 1 (31 specimens of forquilha) and 2 (30 specimens of forquilha) of the same publication some of the non-type material was included in their measurements and counts.

In this new paper Říčan et al state that the non-type material of forquilha represents two different species. So this material needs to be removed from the tables in Říčan & Kullander (2008), affecting the diagnosis and description of forquilha. In which way and to what extent we do not know.

And even worse: Říčan et al state that the museum items (ZSM 23482 and ZSM 23060) need to be split in order to use the correct specimens and their data with the correct species (ykeregua and forquilha). This split is indeed made. ZSM 23482 is now ZSM 23482a, ZSM 23482b and ZSM 23482c. ZSM 23060 likewise becomes ZSM 23060a and ZSM 23060b. The new lots ZSM 23482b, ZSM 23482c and ZSM 23060b hold ykeregua (page 10 under "notes").
Looking at the list of the material used for the diagnosis and the description of ykeregua these new lots also appear with their respective numbers. ZSM 23482b holds 13 specimens, ZSM 23482c holds 2 specimens and ZSM 23060b holds 6 specimens (page 10).

Clever readers have noticed that these numbers are the same as the original numbers of ZSM 23482 and ZSM 23060 (before the split).

The original description of ykeregua is based on 31 specimens in the typeseries and 21 specimens non-type material. This adds up to 52 specimens. Looking at table 3 it can be noted that 49 specimens of ykeregua are used. So again, some (many?) of the non-type material has been used for diagnosis and description of ykeregua.

Can anyone out there clear this up for me?

[Juan Artigas]

On the photos of live A. angiru, the lower jaw seems to be projecting in the male but not in the female. However, according to figure 12 in Rican & Kullander (2008; the drawing for A. kaaygua is based on a specimen of A. angiru), the lower jaw of A. facetus is also stronger than in other species, and the cleft of the mouth is slightly upturned. Additionally, the descriptions and diagnoses are based on wildcaught, preserved specimens (except for life color data), and aquarium specimens may differ in certain morphological characters due to the different and often more nutrious food. Also, it is not clear from the photos if the jaw is really projecting, or if this is only caused by the lip tissue. Be that as it may, there are other features to distinguish the species.

Actually, the photo of the female is not clear in terms of the prognatisms while those of the males are. I don't see how can captive conditions could have affected the fish is such a way, particularly as they surely have not spent many generations (if any) in aquarium.

Philippe, while I'm not able to say to which species your fish belongs, I am conviced it is not A. facetus. Not only the photo but also the fish itself seems to be rather old. I have kept A. facetus for a few years, and I have seen some very large specimens (about 25cm TL) which differ in several characters. The lower head profile was more upturned, causing a relatively higher position of the mouth, the upper head profile was more concave before the eyes, and the dorsal profile was more constantly sloping. Also, not even the largest fish had such long dorsal, anal and pelvic fins. Color differences include the clearly visible scale margins and the lack of the bluish-green iridescence on the fins in A. facetus. You may also compare the photo of the large A. facetus from the type locality in the CRC catalogue, which shows the typical colors and the maximum fin extensions.

Aren't all of those traits differences common for geographical variations? Or, as you put it, changes produced under captive care?

If politicians are told a certain species is found in a certain area - they assume part of that area can be sacrifised. Were the species in that area splitted into 3 or 4 species, all these species had their own chance of conservation - resulting in more nature left

This is certainly a valid point, but on a long-term basis this excessive splitting may rather have a negative effect on species (and also habitat) conservation. First of all, if the term 'species' is turned into something useless (and this is certainly the case with species that are in fact only distinguishable by living in different rivers), than this will also apply to species conservation. Second, as politics has much to do with making compromises, it is unlikely that every river system/habitat with supposedly endemic species will be protected. The more such habitats are known, the more the decider in charge will have to select, and many of us have certainly made the experience that this is not necessarily the most competent person in the respective field. This will eventually increase the possibility that a habitat with real faunal pecularities will be put at the risk of destruction because the granted funds have been 'wasted' for a place which actually harbours a widespread fauna.

I was just to say just this, I cant agree more. Excessive splitting can only lead to species concept devaluation, once a species is sacrificed because of the "We can not protected them all, we have to be realistic" argument gets validated (which has been actually been given by politicians and even biologists in Mexico), then the importance of a species in the ecosystem is of less value. All habitat destruction after this can be easily justified.

[Willem Heijns]

I have to correct myself here. In my earlier post I suggested tha the diagnoses of forquilha and ykeregua could be more or less wrong. This was not my intention and certainly is not the case. All I meant to say was that specimens included in ZSM 23482 and ZSM 23060 have been used in tables accompanying the descriptions of both ykeregua and forquilha. This does not necessarily affect the diagnosis of those species.

I would like to thank Oldrich Říčan for pointing this out to me.