You're over simplifying my point which is based on Juans article which I happen to agree with... On the subject of Robertsoni... They were called the "false Firemouth"
Trichromis SALVINI and TRIMAC "Correction"
- Thread starter Cyberman
- Start date
You're over simplifying my point which is based on Juans article which I happen to agree with... On the subject of Robertsoni... They were called the "false Firemouth"
The other page of the phylogenetic tree showing salvini is closer to Thorichthys then anything else, and on the first page trimac being shown that it just about belongs in Amphilophus
This phylogenetic tree was done in 2007, I think there are a few more recent ones about.
Phylogeny and biogeography of 91 species of heroine cichlids (Teleostei: Cichlidae) based on sequences of the Cytochrome b gene
Uropthalmus gets called the false red terror but it's in no way a festea.
Common names really mean very little.
^ yay salvini
physical similarities are not enough scientifically classify fish together in this day and age of genetics and DNA analysis. The old guesswork is the kind of stuff that led to the disaster of the cichlasoma genus in the first place. from what I've read it doesn't seem that salvini and trimacs should be grouped together.
it's all still a big mess but the scientists will work it out over the next couple of decades I'm sure.
That is old info and common names mean nothing in science. Robertsoni was never in the thorichthys genus. Amphilophus sure, but it was never called the false blue devil lol. Evolution is what shapes these cichlids. Just because they may look similar, doesn't mean they are related. It means certain species have evolved similar traits to exploit food sources. Thorichthys and cribroheros cichlids both shift for food in the substrait. But if you watch how they both do it, you will see they do it differently. If you look at the mouths of robertsoni and meeki, you will see robertsoni has a much wider mouth than meeki. The reason is robertsoni takes in large amounts of sand where meeki picks at the sand in small bites.
While DNA sequencing puts trichromis salvini closely related to thorichthys,but it has evolved to exploit different food sources and feeding strategies.
But if you want to compare similarities in species, salvini also have some features like some thorichthys like say pasionis. Things like the eye spot on the gill plate and protruding lower jaw.
I have kept trimaculatus, salvini, and lyonsi and I believe that those three fish should be grouped together based on looks and body shape. I don't see trimaculatus and lyonsi as being similar to amphilophus at all. That's my unscientific opinion. I feel like the scientists are over thinking naming these fish. I remember the days when it was just one form of convict. Now its four and the only difference is coloration and slight body differences. Those things could just be location adaptations but now that species is hella convoluted.
Last edited:
This just proves my point that the OP's argument is invalid. Subjectivity has no room in real science.
That's why I said unscientific opinion but the science behind the madness just blurs the lines and its practically pointless.
I don't think I know what you mean. DNA evidence doesn't blur the lines, it makes them transparent.
I believe science adds clarity.
I don't think just because one fish looks like another is enough for a defining answer.
Lots of fish look simular. Some fish mimic other fish, others just evolve to look the same.I believe science is much more accurate than,both those fish are yellow with three spots.
I don't think just because one fish looks like another is enough for a defining answer.
Lots of fish look simular. Some fish mimic other fish, others just evolve to look the same.I believe science is much more accurate than,both those fish are yellow with three spots.
