Nine New Genera of Central and South American Cichlids Described

New cichlid species and taxonomy
User avatar
smitty
Posts: 336
Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2008 9:27 am
Location: Yeadon, Pennsylvania USA

Re: Nine New Genera of Central and South American Cichlids Described

Post by smitty » Thu Sep 22, 2016 5:36 pm

Juan Artigas wrote: I am really a lot more concerned about the separation of of Talamancaheros sieboldii and Isthmoheros tuyrensis, two sister species into two different monotypic genus, privileging the somewhat different morphology but blurring their close relationship and common traits
So going forward do you stand by the list or did it leave you with several unanswered/unexplained answer. I have been in the hobby 30 plus years and am only starting to scratch the surface of some of this, and just when I think I have grasped it a little here comes another scientific study. I also was wonder why they did not include Amphilophus Flavelous in the study and no mention of Synspilum (or have they done away with that name). To be honest I feel a little more confused. I was also very surprised that they seem to place Grammodes in a section by themselves. If anyone wants to chime in and help me out. I say thanks in advance.
150gal- Dovi's; 3 AC 110 P.Filters; 2 AC 110 P.Heads; Eheim 2217,2260
180gal- Managuense; 3 AC 110 P.Filters; 2 AC 110 P.Heads; Eheim 2217,2260; FX5
210gal- Argta,Bifsct,Fnstrtus,Maculcda,Regani,Syns,Zntus; 4 AC P.Filters; 2 AC P.Hds; Eheim 2250,2262; FX5

User avatar
Juan Artigas
Administrator
Posts: 1427
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2003 7:37 pm
Location: San Luis Potosi, México
Contact:

Re: Nine New Genera of Central and South American Cichlids Described

Post by Juan Artigas » Thu Sep 22, 2016 5:56 pm

I think as most scientific works this paper answers some question and raises new ones. I suspect that the authors feel the same, I don't think they believe this is the last word on Central American cichlid taxonomy. I am by the list? Yes mostly. The work has been done using all the available techniques to generate a robust phylogeny (morphology, mtDNA, nDNA, ddDNA, ontology). A criteria was established and followed to obtain the results, genera have been solidly diagnosed. My criticism relates the number of genera proposed since many monotypic genera were described. Monotypic genera blur (to the general public) the relationship existent between different taxa. On the other side, with the exception of Oscura (no ddDNA) the genera are solidly determined and all(?) possibilities explored. What I mean is that probably there will no be need to describe more genera and the discussion can focus on how many will remain in the long run. No more 'Cichlasoma' or unresolved species (except for margaritifer). So I believe this work has been a great advance in the understanding of CA cichlids, my hope is that eventually the number of genera is reduced to reflect close relationships albeit probably not intuitive at first sight from the morphology. Genera to be evaluated in my opinion include Amatitlania, Talamancaheros or Isthomoheros and Wajpamheros at the very least. Amphilophus flavelous is irrelevant for the study
Juan Miguel Artigas
Editor

The Cichlid Room Companion
http://www.cichlidae.info

User avatar
smitty
Posts: 336
Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2008 9:27 am
Location: Yeadon, Pennsylvania USA

Re: Nine New Genera of Central and South American Cichlids Described

Post by smitty » Fri Sep 23, 2016 10:35 am

Juan thanks for taking the time to respond. Your explanation helped, however how come Amphilophus Flaveolus was irrelevant to the study but the others were not considering that Flaveolus is still around and kept in the hobby. Unless i am wrong about that.
150gal- Dovi's; 3 AC 110 P.Filters; 2 AC 110 P.Heads; Eheim 2217,2260
180gal- Managuense; 3 AC 110 P.Filters; 2 AC 110 P.Heads; Eheim 2217,2260; FX5
210gal- Argta,Bifsct,Fnstrtus,Maculcda,Regani,Syns,Zntus; 4 AC P.Filters; 2 AC P.Hds; Eheim 2250,2262; FX5

User avatar
Juan Artigas
Administrator
Posts: 1427
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2003 7:37 pm
Location: San Luis Potosi, México
Contact:

Re: Nine New Genera of Central and South American Cichlids Described

Post by Juan Artigas » Fri Sep 23, 2016 10:43 am

Amphilophus flaveolus is very closely related to other forms of Amphilophus (like A. citrinellus) so including it almost certainly would not alter any result it Říčan et al work. I urge to read the previous posts of this thread where you will find some excellent comments that will help you understand the case of Vieja melanura, put special attention in the comment by Rico Morgenstern. With regards
Juan Miguel Artigas
Editor

The Cichlid Room Companion
http://www.cichlidae.info

Miguel Monteiro
Posts: 9
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 6:34 am

Re: Nine New Genera of Central and South American Cichlids Described

Post by Miguel Monteiro » Mon Sep 26, 2016 3:19 am

No the Amphilophus is a generic character as the old Cichlasoma, with the inclusion of distant species. I didn't see the classification of istlanus in this genus, or it seems to me that there are similarities with some species.

User avatar
DRE
Posts: 332
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 3:41 am
Location: Stockholm, Sweden

Re: Nine New Genera of Central and South American Cichlids Described

Post by DRE » Sun Oct 02, 2016 12:20 am

DRE wrote:What's everyones take on the split of Talamancaheros underwoodi vs sieboldii?

What is the difference between then really? How to tell them appart? Mostly locality?
Juan Artigas wrote:They are really quite different, just the completely different color pattern of the fry should get you to think. ...
Is there another reason that you do not have T. underwoodii in the cichlid gallery and just T. sieboldii?
Discovery consists of looking at the same thing as everyone else and thinking something different

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

Re: Nine New Genera of Central and South American Cichlids Described

Post by Rico Morgenstern » Sun Oct 02, 2016 2:04 am

Both Talamancaheros sieboldii and T. underwoodi have the same fry coloration. The distinction is based on considerable genetic divergence. In the last species level revision (Bussing 1975) they have been considered conspecific. I think little is gained from recognizing 'cryptic species' separable at molecular level only. Yet there are some differences in color pattern (much more conspicuous than e.g. differences between Herichthys pame and H. pantostictus, which - if they prove to be sufficiently consistent - would support the distinction. Much more research is needed, however, and if valid, the two species should be redescribed and properly diagnosed as soon as possible.

Talamancaheros underwoodi (Regan, 1906) is not to be confused with Tomocichla underwoodi Regan, 1908, an invalid (regardless of generic allocation) senior synonym of Tomocichla tuba (1912), which is every few years attempted to be revalidated (by hobbyists and scientists alike) due to ignorance or misinterpretation of the ICZN code.

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

Re: Nine New Genera of Central and South American Cichlids Described

Post by Rico Morgenstern » Sun Oct 02, 2016 4:01 am

Juan Artigas wrote:My criticism relates the number of genera proposed since many monotypic genera were described. Monotypic genera blur (to the general public) the relationship existent between different taxa.
The generic classification by Říčan & al. (2016) is largely consequent (and consistent) in reflecting both phylogeny and evolution (or better reflecting evolution within the phylogenetic framework). The lines between closely related genera are essentially drawn where a monophyletic group has occupied a different adaptive zone (here assessed by different combination of cranial/postcranial type) than its sister group. For such a complex assemblage, applying a constant measure is a much sounder approach than generic delimitation according to the (often enough subjectively felt) degree of (dis)similarity. The phylogenetic information contained in a generic assignment (or in any other classification within the Linnean hierarchy for that matter) is anyway very limited: if you have two or more species in a genus you will nevertheless not know which are their next closest relatives, nor will you know the interrelationships of species within a genus of more than two species. So I think there is much more gained from a classification based on consistent criteria.

Why should we, e.g., distinguish between Vieja and Paraneetroplus, but not between Isthmoheros and Talamancaheros, which differ from each other in much the same respect.
Juan Artigas wrote:Genera to be evaluated in my opinion include Amatitlania, Talamancaheros or Isthomoheros and Wajpamheros at the very least.
It is not quite clear to me what are your objections Amatitlania. Do you suggest a synonymy with Cryptoheros? That's not possible because the resulting genus would not be monophyletic due to the position of Hypsophrys and Neetroplus. The lack of support for monophyly has always been a problem with Cryptoheros in the sense of Allgayer (2001). I find that Říčan & al. (2016) have found a very nice solution. The only alternative was the synonymiy of all four genera under the oldest name Hypsophrys, which again would mean departure from the general approach. All for genera have their own apomorphic character states, while none has been detected so far that is shared by Cryptoheros and Amatitlania only.

User avatar
Juan Artigas
Administrator
Posts: 1427
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2003 7:37 pm
Location: San Luis Potosi, México
Contact:

Re: Nine New Genera of Central and South American Cichlids Described

Post by Juan Artigas » Sun Oct 02, 2016 9:45 am

Rico Morgenstern wrote:For such a complex assemblage, applying a constant measure is a much sounder approach than generic delimitation according to the (often enough subjectively felt) degree of (dis)similarity. The phylogenetic information contained in a generic assignment (or in any other classification within the Linnean hierarchy for that matter) is anyway very limited:
It is clear that full relationship information can not be obtained from a name alone, but the purpose of a family group name like a genus can be better fulfilled if it is grouped with closely related species, better that the sister species are placed in different genera because of their dissimilarities.
Rico Morgenstern wrote:Why should we, e.g., distinguish between Vieja and Paraneetroplus, but not between Isthmoheros and Talamancaheros, which differ from each other in much the same respect.
I wouldn't, their close relationship is shown by modern philogenetic technologies so they can nicely fit two groups (Three with Maskaheros) in the same genus Paraneetroplus.
Rico Morgenstern wrote:It is not quite clear to me what are your objections Amatitlania. Do you suggest a synonymy with Cryptoheros? That's not possible because the resulting genus would not be monophyletic due to the position of Hypsophrys and Neetroplus. The lack of support for monophyly has always been a problem with Cryptoheros in the sense of Allgayer (2001). I find that Říčan & al. (2016) have found a very nice solution. The only alternative was the synonymiy of all four genera under the oldest name Hypsophrys, which again would mean departure from the general approach. All for genera have their own apomorphic character states, while none has been detected so far that is shared by Cryptoheros and Amatitlania only.
I would argue for a merging of Amatitlana, Cryptoheros, Neetroplus and Hypsophys into the latter.

On a personal note, I am not in any way saying that Rican et al have not followed a consistent criteria in their taxonomic proposals, on the contrary I am amazed at the elegant and beautiful way in which they did, I am also happy that the new genera have been proposed and delimitated, as a base for a better classification.
Juan Miguel Artigas
Editor

The Cichlid Room Companion
http://www.cichlidae.info

Post Reply

Return to “Taxonomy”