Eight New Middle American Cichlid Genera

New cichlid species and taxonomy
Mark Smith
CichlidRoom Expert
Posts: 1344
Joined: Sun Dec 25, 2005 10:58 pm

Eight New Middle American Cichlid Genera

Post by Mark Smith » Sun Aug 09, 2015 10:35 pm

Taxonomy and systematics of the herichthyins (Cichlidae: Tribe Heroini), with the description of eight new Middle American Genera
CALEB D. MCMAHAN, WILFREDO A. MATAMOROS, KYLE R. PILLER & PROSANTA CHAKRABARTY

Zootaxa 3999 (2): 211–234 (10 Aug. 2015)


Let the fun begin!

User avatar
DRE
Posts: 341
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 3:41 am
Location: Stockholm, Sweden

Re: Eight New Middle American Cichlid Genera

Post by DRE » Sun Aug 09, 2015 11:05 pm

Abstract

In recent years great strides have been made for improving our understanding of the evolutionary relationships among neotropical cichlids, particularly within the clade Heroini and its crown clade the herichthyins. Most phylogenetic studies have largely converged on congruent topologies for relationships among species and major lineages within the herichthyins. One major aspect missing from previous studies of these cichlids is a formal taxonomic revision, including the redefining of genera. Based on analysis of 52 species and three mitochondrial and two nuclear loci, we generate a Bayesian phylogeny for the herichthyin cichlids, and formally revise the taxonomy for genera within this clade using morphological features. Eight new genera are recognized and a key to all 16 genera of herichthyin cichlids is also presented.
Anyone with full pdf?

http://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view ... a.3999.2.3
Discovery consists of looking at the same thing as everyone else and thinking something different

Mark Smith
CichlidRoom Expert
Posts: 1344
Joined: Sun Dec 25, 2005 10:58 pm

Re: Eight New Middle American Cichlid Genera

Post by Mark Smith » Sun Aug 09, 2015 11:58 pm

Chiapaheros
Cinelichthys
Kihnichthys
Maskaheros
Mesoheros
Oscura
Rheoheros
Trichromis

Bas Pels
Posts: 2255
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 9:17 am
Location: Nijmegen - the Netherlands

Re: Eight New Middle American Cichlid Genera

Post by Bas Pels » Mon Aug 10, 2015 1:44 am

I'm really looking forward towards more info.

What species in what genus, for instance.

User avatar
Livio Leoni
Posts: 70
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 4:20 am
Location: Treviglio, Italy

Re: Eight New Middle American Cichlid Genera

Post by Livio Leoni » Mon Aug 10, 2015 4:19 am

Interesting!
I'm looking for the pdf too.

Mark Smith
CichlidRoom Expert
Posts: 1344
Joined: Sun Dec 25, 2005 10:58 pm

Re: Eight New Middle American Cichlid Genera

Post by Mark Smith » Mon Aug 10, 2015 8:19 am

Would love a copy of this paper too.

Mark Smith
CichlidRoom Expert
Posts: 1344
Joined: Sun Dec 25, 2005 10:58 pm

Re: Eight New Middle American Cichlid Genera

Post by Mark Smith » Mon Aug 10, 2015 1:17 pm

Looks like tuyrense, sieboldii and wesseli are now without a proper genus name other than the catch all "Cichlasoma" for the time being.

Also, microphthalmus is now in the genus Theraps.

Juan, I'd like your opinions on this paper when you have the opportunity. Thanks in advance.

User avatar
Philippe Burnel
CichlidRoom Expert
Posts: 1113
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 5:54 am
Location: France/ Normandy
Contact:

Re: Eight New Middle American Cichlid Genera

Post by Philippe Burnel » Mon Aug 10, 2015 1:40 pm

I'd like to get a copy too.

Philippe

User avatar
DRE
Posts: 341
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 3:41 am
Location: Stockholm, Sweden

Re: Eight New Middle American Cichlid Genera

Post by DRE » Mon Aug 10, 2015 3:04 pm

http://dcg-allgaeu.com/wissenschaftlich ... telamerika

Skickat från min D5803 via Tapatalk
Discovery consists of looking at the same thing as everyone else and thinking something different

Bas Pels
Posts: 2255
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 9:17 am
Location: Nijmegen - the Netherlands

Re: Eight New Middle American Cichlid Genera

Post by Bas Pels » Mon Aug 10, 2015 4:14 pm

Thank You!!

Mark Smith
CichlidRoom Expert
Posts: 1344
Joined: Sun Dec 25, 2005 10:58 pm

Re: Eight New Middle American Cichlid Genera

Post by Mark Smith » Mon Aug 10, 2015 4:16 pm

Perhaps microlepis and gephyrum would also be included in the genus Mesoheros?

User avatar
DRE
Posts: 341
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 3:41 am
Location: Stockholm, Sweden

Re: Eight New Middle American Cichlid Genera

Post by DRE » Mon Aug 10, 2015 4:18 pm

Yes I think so. They didn't have any speciments from those I guess.
Discovery consists of looking at the same thing as everyone else and thinking something different

Mark Smith
CichlidRoom Expert
Posts: 1344
Joined: Sun Dec 25, 2005 10:58 pm

Re: Eight New Middle American Cichlid Genera

Post by Mark Smith » Mon Aug 10, 2015 4:28 pm

That's right. Would also love to see microlepis collected someday.

User avatar
Darrell Ullisch
Posts: 373
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2005 10:54 pm
Location: SW Michigan

Re: Eight New Middle American Cichlid Genera

Post by Darrell Ullisch » Fri Aug 14, 2015 9:41 am

Four of eight new genera are monotypic. I thought the trend was to get rid of monotypic genera. And as long as they were throwing around monotypic genera, why leave tuyrense, sieboldi, and wesseli hanging?

I don't expect all of this to stand for very long. Some, yes, but certainly not all.
There are two kinds of error: blind credulity and piecemeal criticism. Sound skepticism is the necessary condition for good discernment; but piecemeal criticism is an error. - Egyptian proverb

User avatar
Philippe Burnel
CichlidRoom Expert
Posts: 1113
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 5:54 am
Location: France/ Normandy
Contact:

Re: Eight New Middle American Cichlid Genera

Post by Philippe Burnel » Fri Sep 04, 2015 11:50 am

No more point of view about this publication ?
:shock: :shock: :shock:

Rico Morgenstern
CichlidRoom Expert
Posts: 387
Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2007 4:01 am
Location: Germany

Re: Eight New Middle American Cichlid Genera

Post by Rico Morgenstern » Fri Sep 18, 2015 3:50 am

There would be of course a lot to say about this paper, but I thought it was good to let it sink in a little.

Principally, I think it is good that something happens. After years of stagnation and announced papers that never appeared, this publication is doubtlessly a step forward, and be it only for (hopefully) stimulating further works. I have somehow hoped that it can replace the 'gut feeling taxonomy' we have all applied to some extent. I still recommend that even if it is more than obvious that this paper cannot be the last word.The classification per se makes mostly sense in my view (but see comments on each genus below), a number monotypic genera are unavoidable if both monophyly and diagnosability is desired.

However, the work is not without (striking) shortcomings and technical flaws:
- no synonymies for the generic names are given
- type species are, except in the case of Thorichthys, wrongly cited (e.g. the type species of Vieja is Vieja panamensis Fernandez-Yepez, 1969, that of Tomocichla is Tomocichla underwoodi Regan, 1908, even if these names are invalid)
- no authorship and date for included species is given
- examined specimens are misidentified, fortunately only within the clades/genera (including two figured ones: fig. 5 is Paraneetroplus nebuliferus, not P. bulleri, fig. 7 is Nosferatu pantostictus, not N. steindachneri)
- all diagnoses are very superficial, some even contradictory or altogether useless (we must of course acknowledge here that, if it was that simple to define Middle American cichlid genera, we have had a stable classification for years now)
- no proper discussion of generic characters takes place
- in the key, four mandibular pores are indicated for Thorichthys, five for all other herichthyines, the opposite is correct.

Alltogether, my impression of the paper is that it has been cobbled together in a great hurry. The diagnoses largly rely on color pattern characters and could have be considerably improved had such features been properly homologized rather than just superficially described. Also other characters (dentition, shape) should have been more carefully analyzed to identify synapomorphies. It casts a strange light on the responsible editors and reviewers that such a half-baked and partly flawed paper comes to publication.

Vieja, Paraneetroplus and Maskaheros: these genera fall together in most previous molecular phylogenies, and their monophyly needs further corroboration. They are, however, well diagnosable by phenotypic characters. Exclusion of Vieja maculicauda from the group of species now placed in Vieja (= Paratheraps in the sense of the CRC catalog) is certainly not warranted. It has been consistently recovered as sister species of V. melanura across all datasets. Observations of color patern ontogeny readily indicate that it has the same downward-shifted longitudinal stripe than other species of the genus, it just becomes more reduced.

Herichthys and Nosferatu: Still I find the separation at the generic level not fully convincing due to the fact that the diagnoses presented by De la Maza & al. (2015) do not hold for all species included in each genus. However, a proper definition for Herichthys sensu lato is lacking as well.

Theraps: A split of Theraps in the sense of McMahan & al. (2010) is certainly justified, since that assemblage is morphologically highly heterogenous. There is apparently not a single character that would link all species included. A restriction to a smaller clade was therefore expected. However, the new diagnosis is just useless. A statement like "All species possess bodies that are longer than deep....." is simply ridiculus even if obviously meant here in the sense of "all species are rather elongated than deep-bodied". The former Chuco species are not separable from Vieja by body proportions. Likewise, they have more or less terminal mouths. Maybe a restriction of Theraps to T. irregularis and T. nourissati and revalidation of Chuco for the other three species could improve diagnosablity.

Kihnichthys and Cincelichthys: The diagnoses do hardly seperate those two genera but the destinction is required according to the phylogeny obtained by the authors to keep the genera monophyletic. The species of the bocourti group are certainly peculiar enough to be placed in a genus of their own, Kihnichthys needs further research.

Rheoheros: The two species of this genus are unique in color pattern, sexual dimorphism and breeding behavior. There is nothing beyond the characters developed in adaption to fast currents that would link them with Theraps irregularis. A separate genus is therefore justified, but the diagnosis needs to be improved.

Oscura: Many hobbyists consider O. heterospila closely related to (or even the allopatric sister species of) Vieja maculicauda. Hoever, similarity and kinship are not the same. No evidence for such a relationship has ever been presented, and it is clearly disproved by all published phylogenetic analyses. Already Hubbs (1936), when describing the species, found himself unable to assign it to any species group. The diagnosis of Oscura must be doubtlessly specified and further elaborated, but the phylogenetic position leaves no better option than to recognize a monotypic genus for this species.

Chiapaheros: The thin dark (red in life) lines on the head are indeed a unique and apparently derived character of C. grammodes. The original diagnosis of the species (Taylor & Miller 1980) contains a much more accurate description of this trait.

Thorichthys: There is no need to replace the diagnosis offered by Miller & Nelson (1961) by the 'mutilated' version presented by McMahan & al. (2015), which omits several useful characters

Mesoheros: This group has long been recognized but not yet properly diagnosed - also not in the present paper. There are 'rumors' that a proper treatment of this genus is underway. I don't know why M. gephyrus is omitted. It has either been forgotten or is not recognized as distinct from M. ornatus. It clearly belongs to this group but the status needs further research. It was originally considered a subspecies of M. ornatus elevated to species level en passant by Kullander (1996) without comment. 'Cichlasoma' microlepis differs in color pattern and of course squamation. It should be better treated as incertae sedis until it can be properly included in phylogenetic analyses.

Tomicichla: The diagnosis is very vague and does only partly apply, but exclusion of sieboldii is justified based on all phylogenetic analyses published so far.

Herotilapia: The revalidation of this genus was just a matter of time for a close relationship to Archocentrus centrarchus as found by Schmitter-Soto (2007) could not be proved by any other approach. Unfortunately, no comment was made on A. spinosissimus, which is also unrelated to A. centrarchus. The elevated anal spine count in these three species is likely a parallelism, behavioral adaptions (e.g. wriggler-hanging) are anyway not confined to them.

Trichromis: No question that our 'good old' salvini is best placed in a genus of its own. It resembles a number of amphilophine species (especially C. trimaculatum) in general morphology, but has a very unique color pattern, which would provide sufficient characters for an improved diagnosis.

Mark Smith
CichlidRoom Expert
Posts: 1344
Joined: Sun Dec 25, 2005 10:58 pm

Re: Eight New Middle American Cichlid Genera

Post by Mark Smith » Fri Sep 18, 2015 4:21 pm

A very cogent assessment Rico!

User avatar
Philippe Burnel
CichlidRoom Expert
Posts: 1113
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 5:54 am
Location: France/ Normandy
Contact:

Re: Eight New Middle American Cichlid Genera

Post by Philippe Burnel » Sat Oct 17, 2015 6:09 am

Excellent article by Willem Heijns in the last CN magazine :
Heijns, Willem. 2015. "Heroine cichlids". Cichlid News Magazine. v. 24(n. 4), pp. 27-29

I'm really surprised that Juan Miguel doesn't update the profiles in CRC catalog !

Philippe

User avatar
DRE
Posts: 341
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 3:41 am
Location: Stockholm, Sweden

Re: Eight New Middle American Cichlid Genera

Post by DRE » Sat Oct 17, 2015 6:12 am

Philippe Burnel wrote:Excellent article by Willem Heijns in the last CN magazine :
Heijns, Willem. 2015. "Heroine cichlids". Cichlid News Magazine. v. 24(n. 4), pp. 27-29

I'm really surprised that Juan Miguel doesn't update the profiles in CRC catalog !

Philippe
Quick summary on what he says?
Discovery consists of looking at the same thing as everyone else and thinking something different

User avatar
Philippe Burnel
CichlidRoom Expert
Posts: 1113
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 5:54 am
Location: France/ Normandy
Contact:

Re: Eight New Middle American Cichlid Genera

Post by Philippe Burnel » Sat Oct 17, 2015 6:20 am

Quick ?
.. the present results are the best we have at the moment and should not be discarded...

Post Reply

Return to “Taxonomy”