Nine New Genera of Central and South American Cichlids Described

[Mark Smith]

An amazing paper just published, apparently solving and categorizing nearly all north and central American, and some northwest South American, cichlids with the most accurate classification thus far known/published, with nine new genera erected.

Diversity and evolution of the Middle American cichlid fishes (Teleostei: Cichlidae)
with revised classification

Oldřich Říčan, Lubomír Piálek, Klára Dragová & Jindřich Novak

http://www.senckenberg.de/files/content ... _1-102.pdf

[Bas Pels]

This requires some serious reading. Thank you very much for posting

[Mark Smith]

My pleasure. It really looks like an amazing paper.

[Philippe Burnel]

Thanks Mark,

seems strange to me to include spinosissimus in Roccio

[Bas Pels]

I tried making a list of the genera:

New genera
Kronoheros umbrifera Kronos, Greek hero
Chocoheros microlepis fully unknown, from the Choco area, Colombia
Darienheros calobrensis from the Darién area
Wajpamheros nourissati wajpam = to have mud on one’s face
Cribroheros rostratus Cribrum = sieve latjn
Further species alfari, altifrons, bussingi, diquis, longimanus, rhytisma, robertsonii
Talamancaheros sieboldii and underwoodi (n sp) Talamanca mountains
Isthmoheros tuyrensis isthmus is a thin area
Chortiheros wesseli Chórti people
Mayaheros uropthalmus and beani from the Maya people

This will result in
South Amerika
Australoheros many species
Heroina 1 specie
Caquetaia the 3 known species
(All Amphiliphini)
Mesoheros 4 species: atromaculatus festae, gephyrus, ornatus
(Herichthyni)
Antilles
Nandopsis 4 species, 1 extinct
(Herichthyni)
Central Amerika

Astatheroini
Herotilapia 1 specie
Tomocichla 2 species, tuba and asfraci
Rocio the jack dempsey’s and spinosissimus
Astatheros macracanthus
Cribroheros 8 species

Amphilophini
Petenia 1 specie
Parachromis 5 species
Kronoheros umbrifera
Chortiheros wesseli
Cryptoheros 3 species, spilurus, chetumalensis and cutteri
Amatitlania 9 species, the convicts and other former crypto’s
Hypsophrys nicaraguensis
Neetroplus nematopus
Mayaheros uropthalmus and beani
Talamancaheros sieboldii and underwoodi
Isthmoheros tuyrensis
Darienheros calobrensis
Archocentrus centrarchus
Amphilophus 17 species, the midascichlids, lyonsi, trimaculatus and istlanus
Panamius panamensis

Herichthyini
Chiapaheros grammodes
Trichromis salvini
Thorichthys 9 species
Herichthys 11 species, including the Nosferatu species

Theraps-Paraneetroplus group within Herichtines
Theraps irregularis
Wajpamheros nourissati
Cinelichthys bocourti, pearsei
Kihnichthys ufermanni
Chuco 3 species

Paraneetroplus group
Rheoheros coeruleus, lentiginosus
Oscura heterospilum
Vieja bifasciata, breidohri, fenestrata, guttulata, hartwegi, maculicauda, melanura (incl sysnspila), zonata
Maskaheros argenteus, regain
Paraneetroplus bulleri, gibbiceps, nebuliferus en omonti

Remarcable:

1 Vieja is back
2 The former longimanus/alfari group has shrunk. The calobrensis and nourissati are gone. The former is now in a relationship with other Panama species, tuyrensis being its closest relative. The latter is, as I have written (in Dutch) long ago, now combined with Theraps. In a way different descending group
3 Cryptoheros and Amatitlania are reshuffled
4 Rocio has now the Jack dempseys and spinossisimus. We will have to get used to that, but the species do resemble each other somewhat.
5 The specie formerly most close to spinosissimus, centrarchus, now appears tob e not that related. The same goes for Herotilapia
6 The combined beani and uropthalmus really feels odd

[Rico Morgenstern]

Bas, we should rather use Amphilophines, Astatheroines, etc., since the ending "-ini" denotes formally established tribes, but these are informal groups without nomenclatoral status. All genera treated in the paper belong to a single tribe, Therapsini Allgayer, 1989 (Heroini Kullander, 1998 is a synonym, but informally 'heroine cichlids' may be used for convenience).

I think this paper is a milestone even if a few minor errors and inconsistencies (without influence on the results, though) have made it into publication.
One result is that now virtually each Middle American cichlid is assigned to a named genus - the time of quotation marks is over. The only exception is Heros margaritifer which could not be assigned to any genus yet due to lack of phylogenetic information and unresolved status (possible hybrid).

The second, more important, point is that it is the first complete genus level revision of these cichlids in the age of phylogenetic systematics. It is based on the largest molecular dataset so far, adresses conflicts between the results obtained by different methods, and, above all, provides a thorough analysis of morphology, color pattern, etc.. Genera are recogized according to consistent criteria. The many monotypic genera (some of which do or may contain yet unrecognized species) are the logical and necessary consequence of this approach, as are the synonymy of Nosferatu with Herichthys and that of Paratheraps with Vieja, or the inclusion of spinosissima in Rocio.

A few open questions are left, H. margaritifer was already mentioned, and the status of Kihnichthys and Oscura needs further research because no samples from reliably identified specimens (none at all in the first case) were available for the ddRAD analysis, which provides the phylogenetic basis for the new classification.

[cichla]

Great work, no doubt. A milestone for sure. It is a major and great step to a consensus in the taxonomy and nomenclature of the Middle American cichlids.
However, it has nothing to do or at most it touches the ‘phylogenetic systematics’. So, do not stress on “the age of phylogenetic systematics” because the authors are not (or just partly) using the method of ‘phylogenetic systematics’. Nevertheless, it is still an amazing, most informative paper!

[DRE]

Feels strange that Tomocichla tuba and Talamancaheros sieboldii are in different genus as of now. Any comments on that?

[Rico Morgenstern]

I don't find it that surprizing. The similarities between the true Tomocichla species and Talamancaheros are only superficial, there is no derived character state that would definitely link them. A close relationship was proposed by the late William Bussing in 1975 based on similar shape, dentition and coloration, in combination with the distributional pattern. He already recognized, however, the superficial nature of the similarities he reported. Meanwhile we know that the color pattern is in fact quite distinct, especially if we take its development into account. All other characters they were said to share (anyway none of them uniquely) reflect ecological adaptions and can have easily evolved independently.

[DRE]

Thanks!

[Bernard GBX]

Hello,
Thanks for all that informations.
I just have a question : in later n-DNA and mt-DNA concatenated studies, Nandopsis was at the base of Amphilophines (and maybe at the base of all CAM Heroini except Australoheros). In this ddRAD study (fig 5), I see Nandopsis within the Herichthyines and there nothing about it in all the text. Is it a mistake or a real new hypothesis which could reanswered the origins of that Clade (and maybe the colonisation of greater antilles) ?
Cheers

[Bas Pels]

Bernard,

The problem with genetic research in CA cichlids is, if one makes 12 studies, the result will most often be 12 defferent phylogenies. That is, each and every time a few differences are found.

How this is possible, I don't know, but my very personal speculation is, many CA species have developed, and then these secies might have hybridized with a or more other species, resulting in further, hybridized species.

You may be aware, almost all CA species can be hybridized, and the offspring is generally fertile. Further, CA is a geologically very active area, where vulcanos pop up, erode and than others appear.

Natural hybridizing resulting in valid species is found in some species, for instance the Mexican lifebearer Xiphophorus mayae. If this would have happened som 10 million years ago, the resulting hybrid species could be at the basis of a complete genus - which wil therefore be very hard to place in a system, after all, depending on where one would look, the result could either be more to one of the parentlines or more to the other.

And why would a genus be the result of only 1 hybridising? That is, there could be 4 or 8 parentlines, some of which could, furter, overlap.

Nandopsis could very well end up in 1 study at the basis of the Amphilophines, and in another study among the more developed ones.

[Bernard GBX]

Thanks Bals,
if taxonomy and phylogeny of CA were easy, we wouldn't speak of if for hundred years.
We all think that some, yet established, species are not issued from a simple and clear lineage and as you said, we must be very humbled. The other big problem is that there is no fossil to provide support to the hypothesis (due to the volcanism and tectonic).
I just think that we make a big progress by understanding what you say. I'm just a little bit more optimistic in the understanding of phylogeny by using n-DNA or ddRAD

I was just desappointed because nearly all studies placed the Nandopsines in first position of the tree, maybe before Astatheroines and lot of scientist have explained the colonization by the GAARlandia with first arrival of Nandopsines. If they were not so basal, are we sure that the colonisation was GAARLANDIA -> Cuba and not Mayan ou Chortis block -> Cuba (and datation is perhaps false).
Cheers

[DRE]

...

Paraneetroplus group
Rheoheros coeruleus, lentiginosus
Oscura heterospilum
Vieja bifasciata, breidohri, fenestrata, guttulata, hartwegi, maculicauda, melanura (incl sysnspila), zonata
Maskaheros argenteus, regain
Paraneetroplus bulleri, gibbiceps, nebuliferus en omonti

Remarcable:

1 Vieja is back
2 The former longimanus/alfari group has shrunk. The calobrensis and nourissati are gone. The former is now in a relationship with other Panama species, tuyrensis being its closest relative. The latter is, as I have written (in Dutch) long ago, now combined with Theraps. In a way different descending group
3 Cryptoheros and Amatitlania are reshuffled
4 Rocio has now the Jack dempseys and spinossisimus. We will have to get used to that, but the species do resemble each other somewhat.
5 The specie formerly most close to spinosissimus, centrarchus, now appears tob e not that related. The same goes for Herotilapia
6 The combined beani and uropthalmus really feels odd

On the topic of melanurus and synspilus. Are they really same species? Are there any criticism towards the statement that they are the same?
I guess this is the paper that put them together:
McMahan, Caleb D.. 2011. "Paraneetroplus synspilus is a junior synonym of Paraneetroplus melanurus (Teleostei: Cichlidae)". Zootaxa. (n. 2833), pp. 1-14

So why has this not been accepted by Fishbase?

[Rico Morgenstern]

The issue has been discussed in the German hobby literature, where some authors questioned the synonymy of the two species or suggested to retain synspila at least as a 'Variety'. They have argued mostly with differences in life colors. We can certainly all agree that there are obvious differences between various populations, and that life color traits - if properly analyzed - may be as useful for species delimitation as any other character too. However, this requires careful consideration of individual variation and differences caused by mood, age or environment (obviously a very important factor in these cichlids). Furthermore, on that basis one could perhaps easily distinguish several more species of melanurus-like cichlids.

McMahan & al. (2011) performed comparative analyses of meristics and morphometrics, which covered nearly the whole geographic range of the species, whith several (in some cases numerous) specimens per locality. They found the nominal species not to be separable by means of that analyses. The only original diagnostic character said to distinguish them (i.e. the course of the black blotch row on the tail) was demonstrated to be useless because it varies within population and even individuals. So unless their results are falsified, or application of different methods and/or study of additional characters demonstrates that the two nominal species are distinct, they should be considered synonymous. If one whishes to distinguish populations or 'color forms' for hobby purposes, they should be denoted by their geographic origin, e.g. Vieja melanurus 'L. Petén' or V. melanurus 'Belize', and so on. This - of course - is only a recommendation, but everything else may cause wrong implications.

So why has this not been accepted by Fishbase?

Maybe the just didn't find the time yet to make the change. They have to handle enormous amounts of data, so its only natural that they cannot always hold pace with all the name changes etc.. FishBase is a database intended to provide basic information for every (named) fish species. As such it is a highly valuable research tool. It is not to be taken as a kind of 'official list' of which species or genus is valid and which is not. So saying "I do not accept the synonymy because FishBase doesn't" would be nonsense. With Catalog of Fishes, it is much the same. They can react faster because they have only taxonomic and nomenclatural information, and the style in which the data are presented allows quick adjustments, but what counts in the end are the taxonomic papers in which such changes are proposed and (hopefully) properly substantiated. This is why they have references there...

[DRE]

Thx!!

[Juan Artigas]

On the topic of melanurus and synspilus. Are they really same species?

Something I would like to add is that in the case of Vieja melanura as with any other organism: plant or animal, the appearance that they have, beyond the natural geographical variability commonly seen, is related to their environment including the food they take. Such is the case for the populations of Lake Peten-Itza which show a different aspect from those of different areas. Some other populations of V. melanura in rather similar habitats to those of Lake Peten, like for example those in the Cenotes (look in the catalog for pictures of V. melanura from Cenote Escondido) show a resemblance to the population of Lake Peten. It is also the case that after several generations under different conditions, like in aquarium, their aspect starts to change to a more general appearance. On that I have experience with both Vieja melanura and Thorichthys affinis which after many years in captivity they become undistinguishable from other populations (from “Thorichthys meeki" of eastern Yucatan in the case of T. affinis) from which they were originally different in coloration. I believe it is important to consider this fact when evaluating what a different species is

[DRE]

Interesting observations

[DRE]

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]

They are really quite different, just the completely different color pattern of the fry should get you to think. 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