Live from the Amazon jungle: First catches in 2010

[Mike Wise]

I prefer "A. cf. sp. Masken (Río Tigre). I don't consider all "cf." forms as separate species, however. If I ruled the taxonomic world rolleyes, I would use "cf." for forms that probably are the same as the named species, and "sp. aff." for forms that probably are closely related but different species. After reading Ready, et al. (2006), where he split A. caetei into 3 distinct species, which genetially have been isolated for 2+ million years, I tend to be even more of a species 'splitter'. My guess still is that this fish is only a population of A. sp. Masken. I imagine that there still is some genetic flow between the forms from the Nanay and Tigre.

 

[Apistomaster]

Good description of your take on the Apistogramma species concept because it is similar to my own.
But for those found in generally the same area I tend to lean towards lumping them and defining them as local varieties of the same species but for those with a very wide range and many phenotypes, Apistogramma agassizi, as an example, I see more room for the argument they have differentiated enough to have earned full species designations pending on the out come of Mitochondrial DNA analysis.

Regardless of the taxonomic results, I am a strong proponent of maintaining different populations pure and not allowing indiscriminate crossing. I have been involved with Killiefish for as long as I have Apistogramma and the experience with killies has shown that nominally the same species from different locations are usually not very viable when bred with different populations form different locations even to the point of becoming nonviable after a few filial generations.