Map of type localities of Apistogramma (made by Roland Kipper)

[JosVermeulen]

Here's a link to the map: https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewe...&ll=-23.19775619805804,-34.13224848784546&z=3

 

[Mike Wise]

Rolo's been busy!

 

[gerald]

Wow! fabulous reference, with species lineages and groups coded by symbol color & shape. Thank you Rolo and Jos! I'm guessing A. pleurotaenia, mapped at the mouth of Rio La Plata, was probably from somewhere much farther upstream ??? Are there really any Apistos that far south?

 

[Mike Wise]

Yes, A. borellii and A. trifasciata are found in the area around the mouth of the La Plata in Uruguay and Argentina. We don't know where the holotype of A. pleurotaenia was collected. It came from an import "from the La Plata". All recent specimens attributed to A. pleurotaenia are imports - with no known collecting location other than 'from the La Plata region'.

Many of the older descriptions used specimens imported for the aquarium trade. You can't always trust other older species distributions. Just look at A. bitaeniata and A. cacatuoides and their original type localities. At least Rolo added the latest updated distributions. BTW A. bitaeniata in the hobby might not be the same species as the holotype. There was a single bitaeniata-like specimen imported from the upper Rio Madeira (Porto Velho, Brazil) that might be the same as the holotype of 'A. pertense var. bitaeniata Pellegrin 1936'. We just don't know enough to say anything for sure.

 

[themountain]

Only 16 of 90 marked species in Peru?? That must be an error ?

 

[Rolo]

Thank you
Yes, it has been a bit of work, because I tried to be as precisely as possible. Sometimes not easy. But I had fun doing this.
And do not mix up type locality with catching location or distribution area, as Mike said, sometimes this could be something very different.

Well, Mike, if you now give me all coordinates of proved catch locations of new undescribed species, I could add them, too. ;-)

regards,
Rolo

 

[Mike Wise]

Only 16 of 90 marked species in Peru?? That must be an error ?

This is only the scientifically described species, not the undescribed species. Undescribed species can't have type localities because there is no holotype specimen. BTW, I did a quick check of my latest species list (01/17) and counted about 70 described + undescribed species in Peru.

 

[Mike Wise]

Well, Mike, if you now give me all coordinates of proved catch locations of new undescribed species, I could add them, too. ;-)

regards,
Rolo

Now that would be difficult. Original collecting locations for many undescribed species are only known to the native collectors. They consider them a 'trade secret'. Then the problem: how do we decide when an undescribed species was first collected? Several importers bring in the same species at the same time and they don't know where they were collected.

 

[MickeM]

Yes, A. borellii and A. trifasciata are found in the area around the mouth of the La Plata in Uruguay and Argentina. We don't know where the holotype of A. pleurotaenia was collected. It came from an import "from the La Plata". All recent specimens attributed to A. pleurotaenia are imports - with no known collecting location other than 'from the La Plata region'.

Many of the older descriptions used specimens imported for the aquarium trade. You can't always trust other older species distributions. Just look at A. bitaeniata and A. cacatuoides and their original type localities. At least Rolo added the latest updated distributions. BTW A. bitaeniata in the hobby might not be the same species as the holotype. There was a single bitaeniata-like specimen imported from the upper Rio Madeira (Porto Velho, Brazil) that might be the same as the holotype of 'A. pertense var. bitaeniata Pellegrin 1936'. We just don't know enough to say anything for sure.

Hi Mike + all..

I just want to get some words clarified/verified ... often being used when species+scientific taxonomic descriptons are discussed..

Is the term "holotype" referring to one or several fishes/ individuals/ specimens used in the 1st description ??

Do the old(quite common) term "Terra Typica-specimen/s"(TT) still exist when research+documentation is done today.. or do the term "Terra Typica" simply refer to a group of collected fishes found in/on the specific "original type locality" ( "1st" documented collection site).. rather than to one single specimen (holotype..!!??) ??


Thanks to you all devoted people.. and thanks for sharing knowledge..!!

/Micke

 

[Rolo]

Hi,

The holotype is just ONE specimen. From the type series, that are all specimen examined for the description, one specimen is selected to be the holotype, the others are the paratypes. The holotype defines the species, e.g. if there are more than one species in the type series.
The catch location of this holotype is the type locality. Terra typica is just another word for that, respective it's latin, type locality is english.

Regards
Rolo


Gesendet von meinem GT-I9505 mit Tapatalk

 

[MickeM]

Thanks for the explanations+ all your great work Rolo !!