specie, subspecie and morpho

[jose_vogel]

I was wondering how can anyone decide whether a fish is a new specie, a subspecie or a form (morpho) of an existing one.

The doubt arise when I read the paper of A. erythrura. I asked myself why this fish is a new specie and not a subspecie of A. trifasciata (I read the discussion chapter of the paper and -for me- it´s not clear). Besides I wonder why the red-cheek form of A. borelli is just that, a color variation.

Finally, I wonder why Datz puts differents A-numbers to different species and different color variations.

Thanks in advance.

 

[ed seeley]

Part of it depends on the description of the original species. When it's described if a new slightly different specimen still falls within the species description then it is included as a form or subspecies within that species. If it has some difference that means it can't be included within that species then it gets specific status. Species descriptions can also be redefined or reviewed to change whether things are the same species or different.

 

[bigbird]

it makes us all think and keeps this forum going.
When I lived in Brazil, each river and seperate tributary has same fish type but always different in a small way or another. the more Apistos found, the more difficult it will be to differentiate, as each subspecies might just be another morph or new species. Minute details seperate each individual.
That is what makes the apsito and nearly every fish so unique in their own way. The good news is, that for the next 10000years, each day a new apisto will be caught and catalogued . This makes our hobby so much more interesting. We thus enjoy it. It would be nice if Datz and all others could use the same numbers and agree to the same apisto sub group, thus simplyfying it all. We will always wonder ,agree , disagree, argue and contemplate on what how and if. Makes it frustrating. Cheers jk :biggrin:

 

[tjudy]

In a nutshell.. it is what taxonomists do.

A 'morph' name, such as A. sp. 'rotpunkt' creates a 'placeholder' for a fish that has not been taxonomically classified, but is recognized as being a unique type... maybe. It is possible that a morph can be eventually included in a species that already exists.

A 'subspecies' name, such as Chromidotilapia guentheri guentheri, indicates that the species is the same as another population, but they are significantly different enough that they warrant recognition as being unique. I do not think that the subspecies designation is being applied very often anymore. The advent of molecular comparisons provides a way to recognize differences in the populaitons to warrant them being different species entirely.

Color variations are usually tank strains and were identified/discovered through artificial selection.

A-numbers are not relevant to the science of taxonomy... purely a hobby thing.

 

[jose_vogel]

Thanks a lot.

If I group yours answers, I´ll get the picture of what I needed.

Thanks again

 

[Gordon C. Snelling]

Speaking from an entomological point of view I can say that the subspecies designations has very much fallen from favor. The only group where it still is very popular is among the butterfly and moth people and is really considered as nothing more than a way for a taxonomist to rack up species publications. I have been finding in my own work with ants that most things described as subspecies are ultimately falling with in the variability of the ant within a single colony let alone the overall population. On some occasions though we are finding that the sub species in question really is distinct enough to recognize at which point it gets elevated to full species. I have several I am looking at that are going to be elevated.

 

[jose_vogel]

Gordon, what a surprise!

I´ve read some works written by your father.


Anyway, in your post, you wrote the magical words: "distinct enough". Who says how much is enough?

 

[Gordon C. Snelling]

Jose
Good to see you. As you know then distinct enough is in the realm of whoever is looking ant or other critter, and is sometimes I think relegated to a coin toss.

 

[tjudy]

Hi Gordon... getting a bit off the fish topic, but this is a questions that I have wondered about.

Is molecular data being used for taxonomy of colonial insects? If so, how much molecular variation is there between individuals of a colony (I cannot image there would be much difference if any)? How much variation is there between colonies of the same species? Can the lineage of colonies be traced using molecular comparison?

My understanding of the life cycles of these insects is limited, but with regards to honeybees my understanding is that there is little if any outcrossing between colonies. A queen lays the eggs that become the drones that inseminate her or her daughter queens, correct? If that is the case, aren't the bees basically genetic clones? Similar genetically to what one might see in colonies of parthegenetic insects like aphids?

Just curious. These are the mental ramblings that keep me up at night. :wink:

 

[ed seeley]

I'll bow to the expert knowledge of the guy who specialises in them but I thought that the queens mate once when on their nuptial flight and that can be with an individual from any colony as all the ones in the area should release their winged males and females at the same times (as they will have the same conditions to stimulate the release). Once mated and the colony starts the queen doesn't mate again. In fact the drones are hatched from unfertilised eggs so are haploid with only one set of chromosones from the mother. The female workers and young queens are from fertilised eggs.

 

[tjudy]

I am certainly no expert. I know that there are species from which the winged mating individuals 'hatch' out from all the colonies in an area at the same time, but is that true for all species? With bees, I though tthe type of adult that is born is determined by how it is raised (food it is fed). All the eggs come from the queen.

 

[dw1305]

Bees

Hi all,
Ed is right, bees (and other Hymenoptera) are "haplo-diploids" (n + 2n), and Ted is on the right track because of this system of sex determination sister workers are more closely related to one another than they would be if they were diploids (2n), and whether a 2n larvae becomes a worker or queen is dependent upon feeding.

Proper description via Wikipedia
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplodiploidy>

cheers Darrel (in Bath)

 

[Gordon C. Snelling]

Must keep in mind that this applies strictly to honey bees really. Most be species are solitary and have a much different reproductive strategy. That said Honey bee queens will mate with what ever males happens to catch her in flight. If there are several colonies in the area that have flying drones then the chances are better that she will mate outside the colony than if hers in the only colony in the area. Males/drones are indeed from unfertilized eggs while the worker and reproductive female develop from fertile eggs. With honey bees whether a female becomes reproductive is food dependent. In the case of solitary bees the population is either fully fertile males or females. With no official queen.