What about subgenera?
Another problem is the validity of the genera of Greenwood for Haplochromine.
Different authors (Snoeks, Van Oijen...) argue that several where not clearly defined and decided to come back to the genera Haplochromis until a proper work will improve and resolve the problem.
Since these publications, some have been rehabilitated and other genera have been defined and described. So, except these genera, all the other have to be under Haplochromis genus. And we wait for soon publications.
May be the former Greenwood genera have to be mentioned with quotation mark (and not under bracket because they are not subgenera).
On of the big problem is that some non described species have been put in some genera where they obviously not belong. for exemple, Neochromis sp. "Entebbe" which quite surely not a Neochromis.
I think, that for described species, you were wright to use Eshmeyer catalog as basis. although if we know that a lot of work remain to be done on systematics of Haplochromine.
(And sorry for my poor english, I am French...)

The Association Haplochromis (http://www.haplochromis.org) have made an up-to-date list of Haplochromine known both described and non described fish which synonimy.
