newly described: Apistogramma ortegai

[Rolo]

Hi,

there's a new species description.
If I see it right, the new species includes what we know as A. sp. "Pebas" and A. sp. "Papagei/Papagallo".


Apistogramma ortegai (Teleostei: Cichlidae), a new species of cichlid fish from the Ampyiacu River in the Peruvian Amazon basin
RICARDO BRITZKE, CLAUDIO OLIVEIRA & SVEN O. KULLANDER, 2014

Abstract
Apistogramma ortegai, new species, is described from small streams tributaries of the Ampiyacu River near Pebas, in eastern Peru. It belongs to the Apistogramma regani species group and is distinguished from all other species of Apistogramma by the combination of contiguous caudal spot to bar 7, presence of abdominal stripes, short dorsal-fin lappets in both sexes, absence of vertical stripes on the caudal fin, and reduced number of predorsal and prepelvic scales.

http://www.mapress.com/zootaxa/2014/f/zt03869p419.pdf

regards,
Rolo

 

[Tom C]

Thank you, Rolo. I'm right now only a small boat-trip away from the actual location...

The link to the description doesn't work for me, but this one does; http://www.mapress.com/zootaxa/2014/f/zt03869p419.pdf

I am a little bit chocked by this description. A quick look tells me that they collected all their specimens from one, small stream, and still they conclude that this species description covers all the forms with a double caudal spot from this area?
Ok, I am probably a "splitter", but still....

 

[themountain]

Here is a map of the area for everybody who is interested
https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=216195166924589661222.0004bcf1b36e26a90bc6c&msa=0

 

[Mike Wise]

Looking at the position of the type locality of A. ortegai, so close to Pebas, I would expect to see a Pebas form. The male holotype (MUSM 48898) and female paratype (MUSM 48899), however, appear to represent the Papagei form. I find this odd, unless there have been some 'transplants' by commercial collectors in the area. This has occurred with other fish (A. alpahuayo and Nannostomus mortenthaleri come to mind).

As for physical differences between the 2 forms, they are quite distinct, especially in the females' brood patterns. These are so distinct that one can separate the forms by only looking at the lateral spots on the flanks. For me, it looks like we may have the same problem as we do with A. alacrina - 2 different forms/species(?) lumped together because of similar, but different physical features. It's general recognized that Dr. Kullander tends to be a 'lumper' as opposed to someone who is a 'splitter'. This is a case where genetics studies could be helpful.

For now I'll change the species on my species list to:

A. ortegai (Papagei) - Holotype form
A. cf. ortegai (Pebas)
​

Rolo, thanks for the 'heads up'.

 

[Rolo]

That's a good decision, Mike. I'll do it the same.

But the Papagei is known from the Rio Ampiyacu, so that fits to the type locality.

regards,
Rolo

 

[Tom C]

Yes, a good decision...
I suppose we'll also need A. cf. ortegai (Roca Eterna)?

I've thought that the genetic studies made by Miller & Schliewen 10 years ago indicated that A. sp. "Pebas" and A. sp. "Papagei" were two separate species...

 

[Mike Wise]

Yes, a good decision...
I suppose we'll also need A. cf. ortegai (Roca Eterna)?

Yes, I changed this on my list, too, as well as the 'A. sp. Emerald Pebas' species found in the same drainage as Roca Eterna. I am still debating if A. sp. Napo 1 and A. cf. eunotus (Shish-ita) are part of the same sub-complex.

I've thought that the genetic studies made by Miller & Schliewen 10 years ago indicated that A. sp. "Pebas" and A. sp. "Papagei" were two separate species...

I just checked, M&S didn't mention these species specifically. They just wrote that they, and the cruzi-like species, were all genetically part of the eunotus-complex.

 

[ADC Nederland]

Can someone please explain to me how these guys get the authority to just change names as they see fit. I had both species at the same time and like Mike Wise said, they are different from each other.

Meanwhile we are sitting here with our thumbs up our "filters" and we'll just have to take this dude's word for it ? I know, I know... it's a rant but I hate it when people mess with the names.

You get used to the names and then some dude changes the name cause he's what ? The authority ? The world wide animal naming convesion ?

Sorry, I forgot to take my pills.

 

[Mike Wise]

What can I say? Taxonomists change names to confuse the aquarium hobbyist! I guess you're talking about the taxonomists and not me (I hope). All of the authors are experienced taxonomists who have scientifically described new species in the past. Is A. ortegai a valid name? Yes, because it conforms with the rules of the ICZN (International Code of Zoological Nomenclature). Does it make their claim true, that both the Pebas and Papagei forms are the same species? No, not really. It depends on what other taxonomists accept. My problems are that, like you, they are distinctly different in several significant ways. For a long time the two forms also have been known to have different, separate, patterns of distribution in the Río Ampiyacu. The authors claim that they collected both forms together near the town of Pebas. This is the first time I have heard or read of such an occurrence. As I wrote earlier, I find this odd, unless there have been some 'transplants' by commercial collectors in the area. This has occurred with other fish (A. alpahuayo and Nannostomus mortenthaleri come to mind). The Papagei form is more time consuming and expensive to collect because it occurs (at least it did in the past) much farther up the Ampiyacu than the Pebas form, which is found around the town of Pebas. It would be well worth a collector's time to collect them and transplant them in a suitable habitat closer to Pebas. As TomC wrote, "they collected all their specimens from one, small stream, and still they conclude that this species description covers all the forms with a double caudal spot from this area?" This is acceptable by the code, but IMHO does not give 'due diligence' in examining the actual distribution and population/species variation of the(se) species. So I accept the Papagei form as A. ortegai, but for now question if the Pebas form paratypes are the same species, which is anyone's right. Thus I will use the name A. cf. ortegai (Pebas) for the form formerly called A. sp. Pebas in the hobby. I would really like to see if or how genetically different the 2 forms are. This and collecting populations for many areas in the area would really help understand what we are dealing with.

 

[Frank Hättich]

So it could happen that some other taxonomist comes up with a rival description for sp. pebas and then the description that gets more acceptance from the taxonomists community will become the established one? In other branches of science it is quite normal to have two or more rival theories at the same time, but did this already happen in Apisto taxonomy?

 

[ADC Nederland]

Mike, thank you for that explenation.

For someone who often imports Apisto's from other countries and different sources, this is all very confusing because not all sources update names or have the correct names in the first place... A lot of times I import fish from a list and I have to identify them when they arrive and discover they are something completely different.

 

[Mike Wise]

So it could happen that some other taxonomist comes up with a rival description for sp. pebas and then the description that gets more acceptance from the taxonomists community will become the established one? In other branches of science it is quite normal to have two or more rival theories at the same time, but did this already happen in Apisto taxonomy?

This has happened many times in the past: A. bitaeniata was once a subspecies of A. pertensis; A. pertensis as H. taeniatum; A. caetei as H. taeniatum; A. regani as H. ortmanni, H. taeniatum, and even A. borellii. I'm sure there are others. As more data on distribution and morphology of similar looking forms is found, more splitting will occur.

 

[rr16]

I'm only just skimming the surface on my knowledge of different Apistos and I find it fascinating already. But then I've always found speciation and the definition of a "species" to be interesting. For instance polar bears can hybridise with grizzlies to produce fertile offspring and some polar bears are more closely related (genetically) to some brown bears, than the same brown bears are to other populations of brown bears (Polar bears are classed as Ursus maritimus, brown bears as one species of Ursus arctos). I digress, but hey ho! Like I said, I find it fascinating and I think that the species rule of not being able to breed to produce fertile offspring means the two parents are a different species works fine for most relatively stable species that have evolved relatively little over relatively recent time, however for organisms such as Apistogramma which are undergoing a relatively rapid evolutionary radiation, this rule may as well go out of the window! It's always interesting to see how traditional taxonomy based on morphological characteristics compares with genetic relatedness according to genetic analysis (phenotypes vs genotypes in a way) in any organism. With the relatively recent increased understanding of epigenetics, whereby I understand environmental factors (stresses) can impact upon the degree of expression of certain proteins (due to methylation of the nucleic acids) and then subsequently passed on to the offspring to change phenotypic traits relatively rapidly within a population (in some ways almost combining Darwinism and Lamarckism - or at least I interpret it that way), the whole idea of speciation and variations in populations could be even more interesting than we previously thought. I suppose two populations of an organism could have some quite different appearances, yet still be part of the same species, being genetically one organism (according to the DNA sequences) but morphologically two very different organisms (due to differences in the degree of expression of certain proteins because of varying degrees of methylation). With a relatively rapidly changing group of organisms such as some cichlids, it would be really interesting to determine quite how much of an effect epigenetics plays as opposed to just genetics on the different species or types and populations. Sorry, don't think I had a point really, but just more of a wandering ramble! Hope it wasn't too boring, meaningless or random (or factually inaccurate as I don't claim to be an expert on genetics at all and have just picked up things from different sources over the years and put them together).

 

[Linus_Cello]

PhD candidates need to get their degrees, and academic taxonomists need to tenure. How do they does this? Revise the taxonomy and write papers on this. Ughh splitters...

 

[gerald]

"Acceptable" by the ICZN code or not, it is just plain sloppy and poor science IMO to exclude paratypes from other collection sites in a species description if you're going to say anything about its range beyond the holotype collection site. Some publications (and their peer reviewers) are more rigorous about this than others. There are recognized standards for describing species, but NO standards for what constitutes a "scientific journal". Species descriptions have been published in hobbyist magazines, and some people create journals to publish their own (and friends) work.

QUOTE="Mike Wise, post: 89965, member: 701"] As TomC wrote, "they collected all their specimens from one, small stream, and still they conclude that this species description covers all the forms with a double caudal spot from this area?" This is acceptable by the code, but IMHO does not give 'due diligence' in examining the actual distribution and population/species variation of the(se) species. ... collecting populations for many areas in the area would really help understand what we are dealing with.[/QUOTE]

As to that eternal question "what is a species?" the real essence is to what extent two "populations" do or don't interbreed and produce fertile offspring that survive to adulthood IN NATURE. Loads of species interbreed, and some of those hybrids are fertile, but if the hybrids generally fail to produce surviving offspring in nature, then the hybrids are a "dead-end" (reproductively isolated) and the two original populations are considered distinct species (or subspecies). This can of course change as the environment changes, and a population that split and diverged into two "different" species can sometimes re-merge into one species, or even create a third species if the hybrids select each other and rarely breed with the two parent species. Or, as my ichthyologist friend Mike Sandel once said (soon after becoming a father): "Taxonomy is the diaper used to organize the mess of evolution into discrete packages".

 

[ADC Nederland]

From what I gather from my contacts within the hobby and in the Apistogramma area of the hobby no one understands the name change and probably do not accept it just because a "known" person decides it is the way it is... That might have worked in the old days when access to knowledge was limited and only a select few people ever reached far enough into South America to even see Apisto's in the wild... but now, we have bus loads of hobbyists traveling to South America to collect and the see the fish in the wild.

Knowledge has also become a lot more accessable and I don't believe we live in a world where 1 person can dictate the order of things. I think we need more people to look at the species and the subspecies and come to an educated decision to change a name.

Apistogramma Sp. Papagei is one of my favorite species, so is the Pebas and these names are well established... I don't really see the problem with just calling them Apistogramma Papagei and Apistogramma Pebas.

But then again, I grew up in times where people are taught to question things and why they are the way they are.

 

[Rolo]

I don't really see the problem with just calling them Apistogramma Papagei and Apistogramma Pebas.

No, you can't do that... be careful.

If you call them e.g. Apistogramma papagei, that would mean, it it a species which ist scientifically described by that name. Of course it is not. So, this is - and was in the past - WRONG!
So, if you keep calling them Apistogramma sp. "Papagei" like it was called before, that would mean it is a scientifically UNdescribed species. And again: it is not! It IS described as A. ortegai.

But you can keep calling them by their "common name" Papagei-Apistogramma. So everybody would know that's the common name for A. ortegai.

But the best way is to do it like Mike proposed: A. ortegai (Papagei) ,A. cf. ortegai (Pebas) and A. cf. ortegai (Roca Eterna)

regards,
Rolo

 

[ADC Nederland]

I've been speaking to several well established people in the Apistogramma area of the hobby and not everyone is accepting of the name change. People like Uwe Romer, who isn't just anyone, even said he believes the Pebas and the Papagei are two different species.

Like I said before, I am in no position to argue the scientific side of this discussion but based on the different opinions expressed by well established people in the hobby I am triggered to question this matter.

My question is, who decides that a name change is official and when do these changes become officially recognized by the rest of us, by breeders, wholesalers and evetually by the customers and hobbyists in stores.

 

[regani]

As far as I understand it the naming right to any species lies with whoever first describes it scientifically.
There are certain rules how the name has to be made up, i.e. is is usually derived from a name (e.g. discoverer or location or to honour someone) or a Greek or Latin word describing a feature of the species (e.g. 'taeniatus'). The spelling, especially ending of the name has to follow Latin (?) grammar rules.
Apart from that it is completely up to the author(s) which name they want to choose for an undescribed species. Names given to the species by hobbyists, traders, local indigenous populations etc have no bearing whatsoever on the scientific name.
Unless the scientific publication describing the species is found to be flawed or a later revision of the species reveals something new that may spur a name change, the name given in the publication is now the official name of the species. No point complaining about it.

 

[ADC Nederland]

It's not that I am complaining, I am searching for answers, since a lot of people on the forum also expressed confusion regarding the differences between the Pebas and Papagei, although from the same complex, they still are very different, even to the untrained eye these differences can be seen.

Again, I am not complaining, I have no scientific background to prove anyone wrong or right, I look and listen to people around me and I see more people not understanding the change... Which begs to be looked at more indepth.