A systematic revision of the genus Archocentrus

New cichlid species and taxonomy
Yan
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2006 2:59 am
Location: Israel
Contact:

A systematic revision of the genus Archocentrus

Post by Yan » Fri Sep 28, 2007 1:38 am

A systematic revision of the genus Archocentrus (Perciformes: Cichlidae), with the description of two new genera and six new species.
Schmitter-Soto, JJ
Zootaxa 1603: 1–78, 2007.
Abstract

The cichlid genus Archocentrus has been considered one of the most promising (i.e., possibly natural) genera resurrected to receive some of the species formerly included in Cichlasoma. Evidence is presented to justify generic recognition of Archocentrus, as well as eight other closely related genera (Caquetaia, Hypsophrys, Parachromis, Amphilophus, Archocentrus, Cryptoheros, Amatitlania, and Rocio). Of these, Amatitlania (type species, A. nigrofasciata) and Rocio (type species, R. octofasciata) are described as new. The present revision treats all nominal species ever assigned to Archocentrus, as well as species that have been included in or near the same clade as Archocentrus centrarchus (type species of the genus) in available phylogenetic analyses. Geographical variation in morphology of the more widespread species was examined, which has resulted in the description of six new species (Cryptoheros chetumalensis, Amatitlania coatepeque, A. kanna, A. siquia, Rocio gemmata, and R. ocotal) with a seventh resurrected from synonymy (Cryptoheros cutteri). Archocentrus includes the type species (Ar. centrarchus), plus Ar. spinosissimus and Ar. multispinosus. Cryptoheros is restricted to the species complexes of Cr. spilurus (= subgenus Cryptoheros, including also Cr. chetumalensis and Cr. cutteri) and Cr. septemfasciatus (= Bussingius n. subgen., including also Cryptoheros altoflavus, Cr. nanoluteus, Cr. myrnae, and Cr. sajica); Cryptoheros panamensis is placed in Panamius n. subgen. Herotilapia is synonymized with Archocentrus, and Neetroplus is synonymized with Hypsophrys, which now includes the type species H. nicaraguensis and H. nematopus. Lectotypes are designated for Amatitlania nigrofasciata, Archocentrus spinosissimus, Cryptoheros septemfasciatus, Cr. spilurus, and Rocio octofasciata. Cichlasoma immaculatum is considered to be a synonym of Archocentrus spilurus, not of Ar. spinosissimus.
Genus Archocentrus Gill
Archocentrus centrarchus (Gill, 1877)
Archocentrus multispinosus (Gunther, 1867)
Archocentrus spinosissimus (Vaillant & Pellegrin, 1902)

Genus Cryptoheros Allgayer
Panamius, n. subgen
Cryptoheros panamensis (Meek & Hildebrand, 1913), n. comb.
Subgenus Cryptoheros Allgayer
Cryptoheros spilurus (Gunther, 1862)
Cryptoheros chetumalensis, new species
Cryptoheros cutteri (Fowler, 1932), n. comb.
Bussingius, n. subgen.
Cryptoheros septemfasciatus (Regan, 1908)
Cryptoheros altoflavus Allgayer, 2001
Cryptoheros myrnae (Loiselle, 1997)
Cryptoheros nanoluteus (Allgayer, 1994)
Cryptoheros sajica (Bussing, 1974)

Amatitlania, new genus
Amatitlania nigrofasciata (Gunther, 1867), n. comb.
Amatitlania coatepeque, new species
Amatitlania kanna, new species
Amatitlania siquia, new species

Rocio, new genus
Rocio octofasciata (Regan, 1903), n. comb.
Rocio ocotal, new species
Rocio gemmata Contreras-Balderas & Schmitter-Soto, new species

Genus Hypsophrys Agassiz
Hypsophrys nicaraguensis (Gunther, 1859)
Hypsophrys nematopus (Gunther, 1867), n. comb.

User avatar
michi tobler
CichlidRoom Expert
Posts: 449
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 2:15 pm
Contact:

Re: A systematic revision of the genus Archocentrus

Post by michi tobler » Fri Sep 28, 2007 7:27 am

So... it is finally out;o)
Humans are not the pinnacle of evolutionary progress but only an aberrant side branch of fish evolution - Moyle

Website

User avatar
Philippe Burnel
CichlidRoom Expert
Posts: 1109
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 5:54 am
Location: France/ Normandy
Contact:

Re: A systematic revision of the genus Archocentrus

Post by Philippe Burnel » Fri Sep 28, 2007 9:09 am

very interested by the PDF file


Strange that Herotilapia is considered as synonym of Archocentrus as previous genetic studies seem to show that the 2 genus are relativly far away from each other !

User avatar
Darrell Ullisch
Posts: 371
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2005 10:54 pm
Location: SW Michigan

Re: A systematic revision of the genus Archocentrus

Post by Darrell Ullisch » Fri Sep 28, 2007 10:34 am

Philippe Burnel wrote:very interested by the PDF file.
As am I. Any idea which of the new species of Amatitlania (I hate that name already) corresponds to the HRP?
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
michi tobler
CichlidRoom Expert
Posts: 449
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 2:15 pm
Contact:

Re: A systematic revision of the genus Archocentrus

Post by michi tobler » Fri Sep 28, 2007 10:54 am

HRPs are not represented in the Schmitter-Soto paper (but we're working on that;o)

Cheers, m
Humans are not the pinnacle of evolutionary progress but only an aberrant side branch of fish evolution - Moyle

Website

Dave Schumacher
CichlidRoom Expert
Posts: 302
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 5:46 pm
Location: San Antonio, TX

Re: A systematic revision of the genus Archocentrus

Post by Dave Schumacher » Fri Sep 28, 2007 11:12 am

If anyone wants the pdf, email me at daves@davesfish.com. I'll gladly forward it to you.
Dave Schumacher
http://www.davesfish.com

Mark Smith
CichlidRoom Expert
Posts: 1343
Joined: Sun Dec 25, 2005 10:58 pm

Re: A systematic revision of the genus Archocentrus

Post by Mark Smith » Fri Sep 28, 2007 11:57 am

I must say that it is a little disappointing that the author did not include color photos of live specimens for most of the new species described, particularly R. ocotal and R. gemmata, even though he included a very nice photo of a live R. octofasciata. No way to make a visually reasonable comparison/contrast between the three species of Rocio.

User avatar
Philippe Burnel
CichlidRoom Expert
Posts: 1109
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 5:54 am
Location: France/ Normandy
Contact:

Re: A systematic revision of the genus Archocentrus

Post by Philippe Burnel » Fri Sep 28, 2007 12:04 pm

absolutly right.
This is one of my 1rst comments when I've read the publication.
One of the other one is : is there anybody able to recognize the "octo" in the type ?

Mark Smith
CichlidRoom Expert
Posts: 1343
Joined: Sun Dec 25, 2005 10:58 pm

Re: A systematic revision of the genus Archocentrus

Post by Mark Smith » Fri Sep 28, 2007 12:09 pm

Exactly! The body form of the type of the N. octofasciata looks nothing at all like the body form of the color photo of the live N. octo. Could the type have been a juvenile? Perhaps the wrong preserved body accidentally used??

Yan
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2006 2:59 am
Location: Israel
Contact:

Re: A systematic revision of the genus Archocentrus

Post by Yan » Fri Sep 28, 2007 12:29 pm

Mark Smith wrote:I must say that it is a little disappointing that the author did not include color photos of live specimens for most of the new species described, particularly R. ocotal and R. gemmata, even though he included a very nice photo of a live R. octofasciata. No way to make a visually reasonable comparison/contrast between the three species of Rocio.
I completly agree.

Poor 'cichlasoma' nigrofasciatum. Again its genus had been changed and now they became Amatitlania

User avatar
cichla
CichlidRoom Expert
Posts: 467
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 11:31 am
Location: Berlin, Deutschland

Re: A systematic revision of the genus Archocentrus

Post by cichla » Fri Sep 28, 2007 2:55 pm

Some month ago, we learn that Hypsophrys unimaculatus is the valid name. Now it is Hypsophrys nicaraguensis again. :?

Mark Smith
CichlidRoom Expert
Posts: 1343
Joined: Sun Dec 25, 2005 10:58 pm

Re: A systematic revision of the genus Archocentrus

Post by Mark Smith » Sun Sep 30, 2007 10:28 pm

I cannot help but wonder if the races (or previously proposed subspecies) of Nandopsis tetracanthus would end up being designated as distinct species by this author, particularly the variant described as "nigricans"?

Mark Smith
CichlidRoom Expert
Posts: 1343
Joined: Sun Dec 25, 2005 10:58 pm

Re: A systematic revision of the genus Archocentrus

Post by Mark Smith » Mon Oct 01, 2007 12:25 am

I've noticed in the description of R. ocotal (apparently, the only Rocio species with a reddish abdomen) that the author indicates that it is probably endemic to Laguna Ocotal in the Lacantun-Usumacinta drainage, Chiapas, Mexico. However, in Stawikowski & Werner's book, Die Buntbarsche Amerikas Band 1, on page 360, they show a Rocio species (their caption indicates "Cichlasoma" octofasciatum) from Laguna Ocotal without a reddish abdomen (or red eyes as the description of R. ocotal also states). Also, and if one is to believe what Conkel has to say in his book on Central American cichlids, he says that he collected a octofasciatum with the lower flanks and breast entirely red, from the Rio Dandriga (Juan, do you know where this river is located?). However, in the same book, Conkel shows a photo of a octofasciatum with a red breast and abdomen with a caption that says it is from Belize River, Belize.

Any thoughts out their??

mattc
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 9:59 am

Re: A systematic revision of the genus Archocentrus

Post by mattc » Mon Oct 01, 2007 2:28 am

There's a summary of this paper here.

User avatar
Juan Artigas
Administrator
Posts: 1432
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2003 7:37 pm
Location: San Luis Potosi, México
Contact:

Re: A systematic revision of the genus Archocentrus

Post by Juan Artigas » Mon Oct 01, 2007 8:47 am

Mark,

In the variations of Rocio octofasciatus (hell I felt strange writting that) those in Belize show the redder abdomen. Dandriga is in Belize. That is not that rare, as the Central American cichlids tend to show their most brilliant colors in the variants in the central area of their distribution. The red color in the belly is not exclusive of those populations though.
Juan Miguel Artigas
Editor

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

Mark Smith
CichlidRoom Expert
Posts: 1343
Joined: Sun Dec 25, 2005 10:58 pm

Re: A systematic revision of the genus Archocentrus

Post by Mark Smith » Mon Oct 01, 2007 8:55 am

Thanks Juan. I know what you mean on how odd it feels to use the new name(s). Looking over the paper in more detail, in addition to the distinct to subtle color differences for the three species of Rocio, there is a noticeable maximum size difference between all three species, R. octo being around 8 1/2 inches standard length, R. ocotal being 4 inches standard length, and R. gemmata being 2 3/4 inches standard length. Again, it is really too bad that the paper did not include photos of live specimens of R. ocotal and R. gemmata.

User avatar
Juan Artigas
Administrator
Posts: 1432
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2003 7:37 pm
Location: San Luis Potosi, México
Contact:

Re: A systematic revision of the genus Archocentrus

Post by Juan Artigas » Mon Oct 01, 2007 9:23 am

Mark,

You very rarely see Rocio octofasciatus larger than 13 cm (5 inches) Total Lenght anywhere in its range, although I agree that you can find specimens close to 20 cm, but those are not common. I haven't yet totally gasped the paper but I wonder how allometry is taking a part in this matter. There is an article in the new Cichlid News that I wrote about R. octofasciatus, you can there see underwater pictures that were taken close to the type locality of R. gemmata, nothing different to what we regularly know as R. octofasciatus. Of course I was shocked to see the distinctive eye in the type of this new species, something Juan Jacobo had told me about before. Two weeks ago I tried to reach the type locality north of Leona Vicario but rains, lack of good roads and signs precluded me to do it before dark arrived. I had to work the following days so I wasnt able to come back. This Sunday I will be back in the Cancun area and will try again for it.
Juan Miguel Artigas
Editor

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

Mark Smith
CichlidRoom Expert
Posts: 1343
Joined: Sun Dec 25, 2005 10:58 pm

Re: A systematic revision of the genus Archocentrus

Post by Mark Smith » Mon Oct 01, 2007 9:49 am

I hope you succeed on your next trip down. Let us know what you find!

User avatar
Philippe Burnel
CichlidRoom Expert
Posts: 1109
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 5:54 am
Location: France/ Normandy
Contact:

Re: A systematic revision of the genus Archocentrus

Post by Philippe Burnel » Mon Oct 01, 2007 10:36 am

Rocio octofasciatA..... yes, not only the genus changed.... :lol:

User avatar
Juan Artigas
Administrator
Posts: 1432
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2003 7:37 pm
Location: San Luis Potosi, México
Contact:

Re: A systematic revision of the genus Archocentrus

Post by Juan Artigas » Mon Oct 01, 2007 12:10 pm

Abosutelly correct, Rocio is feminine. I should have known better; Rocio: "an image evoked by the resplendent spots on cheeks and sides of some species, particularly R. gemmata. Rocio is Juan Jacobo Schmitter-Soto's wife name and he states the genus feminine, after her.
Juan Miguel Artigas
Editor

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

Post Reply

Return to “Taxonomy”