the situation with the Central American species is quite difficult...
seveland wrote: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.
seveland wrote: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.