Cichlasoma sp. cf dimerus
- Thread starter Mahlerfan
- Start date
Not going to argue over the cf part but sp. indicates undescrbed species. This species is described.
peathenster,
my apologies as I think I'm not making my meaning clear. What I mean by Cichlasoma sp. cf dimerus is that these fish are not C. dimerus but an undescribed species closely related to C. dimerus. There are actually several undescribed species closely related to Cichlasoma dimerus, including C. sp. 'La Palma' and C. sp. 'Zonja Honda' both from Uruguay. These were imported from Brazil. In photos the difference between these Cichlasoma and C. dimerus may not be as apparent, but in my tanks they look very different from each other.
peathenster,
This short article http://www.practicalfishkeeping.co.uk/content.php?sid=2535 I think does a better job describing what I meant by calling these fish Cichlasoma cf dimerus than I did in this thread. Thanks.
This short article http://www.practicalfishkeeping.co.uk/content.php?sid=2535 I think does a better job describing what I meant by calling these fish Cichlasoma cf dimerus than I did in this thread. Thanks.
I like this discussion because it helps to describe the variability out there, even within a species (or?).
There are often complaints about the revolving names of some cichlids.
As DNA research evolves, and more and more location variants of a species are found, I believe it will get even more confusing as opposed to less.
Of course if your a strict lumper, or a confirmed splitter, your blood pressure may be influenced by the news either way.
Take the DNA research supporting that Vieja synspilum, and V melanurus are actually simply color variants of the 1 species, V melanurus.
And the name melanurus trumps the name synpsilum because it was used (formerly described) in 1862 as opposed to synspillum much later in 1935.
Or how Cichlidae.com is now placing (following DNA sequencing) the former Astatheros nourisatti in Theraps, or
the former Herichthys bocourti and pearsei in the genus Vieja.
There are often complaints about the revolving names of some cichlids.
As DNA research evolves, and more and more location variants of a species are found, I believe it will get even more confusing as opposed to less.
Of course if your a strict lumper, or a confirmed splitter, your blood pressure may be influenced by the news either way.
Take the DNA research supporting that Vieja synspilum, and V melanurus are actually simply color variants of the 1 species, V melanurus.
And the name melanurus trumps the name synpsilum because it was used (formerly described) in 1862 as opposed to synspillum much later in 1935.
Or how Cichlidae.com is now placing (following DNA sequencing) the former Astatheros nourisatti in Theraps, or
the former Herichthys bocourti and pearsei in the genus Vieja.
Thanks guys. Regional variations are expected, and I guess the question is where one draws the line. Just wanted to point out that the definition of a species is based on the ability to produce fertile offsprings, not geographical distribution or phenotypic differences, nor DNA sequence variation....
