Trichromis SALVINI and TRIMAC "Correction"

[Stanzzzz7]

Exactly. I've only been in the hobby for about 25yrs but I've always thought that they were the same fish. I remember going to the library to look at Dr. Axelrod's fish almanac so that I could learn about cichlids and get visual references. Those two fish never stood out as different to me.

What about zonatus, guttulatus and sp coatzacoalcos?
All veija thought by some to be seperate species.Others think they are regional variants or even natural hybrids.
If a serious hobbyist wants to know exactly what species he has only science can tell him.
If your a casual hobbyists then it probably won't matter as the fish suites the keepers tastes and that's all that really matters.
I think there are two ways of looking at this but if you want clarity,science beats visual similarities as visual similarities can be misleading.

 

[cichlidfish]

Many people have different interest in this hobby. Not trying to be rude, but just making up things as you go without real proof behind it just sounds retarded.
Science provides the info through real studies, not just looking and making assumptions. When I am interested in something, I want to learn all about it and know facts and truths. I like to read the scientific info on my fish because I like learning and knowing the science helps me take better care of the fish.
A hobby without learning would be boring to me.

 

[8DiagramPoleFighter]

What about zonatus, guttulatus and sp coatzacoalcos?
All veija thought by some to be seperate species.Others think they are regional variants or even natural hybrids.
If a serious hobbyist wants to know exactly what species he has only science can tell him.
If your a casual hobbyists then it probably won't matter as the fish suites the keepers tastes and that's all that really matters.
I think there are two ways of looking at this but if you want clarity,science beats visual similarities as visual similarities can be misleading.

Science definitely has a place. I too am interested in knowing what I have and science helps with that but it seems that these reclassifications are being done just to do them. Even the uber smart guys at cichlidae.com argue over these things. Back to the original point, I agree with op that trimacs seem more similar to salvini than they do Midas complex. I actually have sals now and as I look at them they remind me of tris.

 

[Cyberman]

Little over a decade ago, incase you haven't forgotten, fish as diverse as Dovii and Meeki where grouped together in "Cichlasoma".... scientists got it wrong then and they've continued to get it wrong now. I just got a message from Juan (Who is a scientist who orginally thought Salvini and Trimaculatus where related) and his opinion has changed slightly and he says:

"Recent research shows that this is probably not the case but that salvini is in fact a species of hybrid origin having Thorichthys as one of its branches"

PROBABLY... so they're not completely sure of anything here and grasping at straws to somehow get these fish classified.

 

[Cyberman]

Many people have different interest in this hobby. Not trying to be rude, but just making up things as you go without real proof behind it just sounds retarded.
Science provides the info through real studies, not just looking and making assumptions. When I am interested in something, I want to learn all about it and know facts and truths. I like to read the scientific info on my fish because I like learning and knowing the science helps me take better care of the fish.
A hobby without learning would be boring to me.

You're the one acting retarded by not reading what has been written correctly.... No one is making anything up here... Its a commonly held opinion that differs from the more blinkered bigoted side of the hobby... i.e. you! Its an opinion that is backed up by an article in 1999.... therefore not made up as you put it.

 

[Cyberman]

Here's another interesting thing.....

Werner and Stavikowski mentioned a close relationship between Trimacs and salviniis ages ago - just by observing behaviour, shape AND the look at the "babys".

About 20 years ago, when asked, Uwe Werner said he changed his mind about this because it was impossible, that fish, living in that great distance, could possibly be related to each other. When asked about that colorless "salvinii" from Panama and if this one couldn't be a root to atlantic Amphilophus, he struggely and couldn't find an answer to that!

 

[8DiagramPoleFighter]

Here's another interesting thing.....

Werner and Stavikowski mentioned a close relationship between Trimacs and salviniis ages ago - just by observing behaviour, shape AND the look at the "babys".

About 20 years ago, when asked, Uwe Werner said he changed his mind about this because it was impossible, that fish, living in that great distance, could possibly be related to each other. When asked about that colorless "salvinii" from Panama and if this one couldn't be a root to atlantic Amphilophus, he struggely and couldn't find an answer to that!

I get the scientist and the DNA. That is not lost on me. It's just sometimes if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck it might just be a duck. I know what the science says but just using my own eyes, it's a no brainer to me that lyonsi, trimaculatus, and salvini are more similar to each other than they are to the Midas complex (amphilophines). They look the same, act the same, you sex them the same, etc etc. Maybe just maybe DNA isn't the way to go when classifying these fish. For the life of me, I also don't understand the need to make midas, convicts, green terrors, jack dempsey et al have different species within the complex when in essence they are super similar. I'd rather that they just be location varieties.

 

[lunsforj]

DNA is literally the road map to speciation. It cleared up how closely one species is related to another. Outdated methods such as skeletal composition, fin ray counts, pharyngeal structure etc. are not nearly as relevant as they once were.

Sidenote, when they were all labeled as cichlasoma, scientists hadn't got anything "wrong" necessarily, they just hadn't begun breaking them up yet. The cichlasomines from Central America are still believed to have stemmed from a common ancestor. It is similar to when a giant group of African cichlids were all put into the haplachromis genus.

 

[dan518]

urophthalmus zzzz7, post: 7763096, member: 141496"]With that notion do you think uropthalmus and festea should be in the same genus?[/QUOTE]
urophthalmus is the closest relative to peteina splendida, shows how looks can be misleading.

 

[dan518]

DNA is literally the road map to speciation. It cleared up how closely one species is related to another. Outdated methods such as skeletal composition, fin ray counts, pharyngeal structure etc. are not nearly as relevant as they once were.

Sidenote, when they were all labeled as cichlasoma, scientists hadn't got anything "wrong" necessarily, they just hadn't begun breaking them up yet. The cichlasomines from Central America are still believed to have stemmed from a common ancestor. It is similar to when a giant group of African cichlids were all put into the haplachromis genus.

When scientists cannot make up there mind what constitutes a species it makes it alot more confused, on a text book definition all of the heroine sp could be classed as one sp.