• Hello guest! Are you an Apistogramma enthusiast? If so we invite you to join our community and see what it has to offer. Our site is specifically designed for you and it's a great place for Apisto enthusiasts to meet online. Once you join you'll be able to post messages, upload pictures of your fish and tanks and have a great time with other Apisto enthusiasts. Sign up today!

Status taxonômico de Apistogramma Regan, 1911 e sua classificação

a.d.wood

Member
5 Year Member
Messages
264
Location
Staffordshire, UK
It's not a new book, just a review of the classification based on Romer (2006) on 6 or 7 pages.

The paper shows the group, sub group and species (both undescribed and described) groupings but doesn't look at the lineage aspects of the major groups.

It also includes a number of images showing a selection of fish from the respective groupings.

I have this as a pdf (1mb), if anyone would like to see it, please add your email address to this thread and I'll pass it on.

Andrew
 

Tom C

Well-Known Member
5 Year Member
Messages
582
Location
Norway
I had a look at the ”Status taxonômico de Apistograma Regan, 1911 e sua classificação”

I get a “not so good” feeling when observing that
- they didn’t get all the pictures right (The “female" A. cf. eunotus “Orangeschwanz” is obviously a male)
- they present pictures of very young fish without mentioning that it actually are very young fish ( A. sp. “Pebas” (“Morado”))
- They sometimes capitalize the first letter in the names, and sometimes not (“A. sp. pebas” and “A. sp. zwilling”, but “A. sp. Breitbinden” and “A. sp. Jurua”).
- They call the A. sp. “Harlequin” for “A. sp. Arlequin” (I know they don’t pronounce the “H”, but anyway…..)
- They list “A. sp. Arlequin” and A. rositae as two different species (The fish formerly known as A. sp. “Harlequin” was described as A. rositae by Römer in 2006)

I can accept the use of groups and subgroups. But I can not, without any arguments or “proves”, accept that they, for example, keep the A. sp. “Putumayo”, A. cruzi and A. sp. “Nanay” in the A. eunotus-subgroup, while they surprisingly put A. sp. “Pebas” and A. sp. “Papagei” in the A. sp. Rotpunkt-subgroup.
The work of M. Miller and U. Schliewen, based on analyses of the DNA on most of the known forms of Apistogramma, represents to me “facts”.
Based on these facts, Miller and Schliewen concluded that A. sp. “Pebas” and A. sp. “Papagei” should be classified together with A. eunotus, A. cruzi and A. sp. “Nanay”.

If I understood right, the authors also present some arguments for describing new species based on colour morphology alone (!).

Therefore, unfortunately, this is a work of minor value to me.

Ricardo (RAF): You have contributed with pictures to this publication: could you tell us something about the authors? Experienced ichthyologists/taxonomists, or students?
 

Microman

Member
5 Year Member
Messages
387
Location
Shropshire,England.
Well Tom, Unfortunately i have to agree....
I too feel that the paper has nothing of value to offer whatsoever and to be honest i feel quite dissappointed.
From my quick observation of the paper,in translated pigeon English, the work has far too many silly mistakes and statements that i personally dont agree with to mention here. Tom you just scraped the surface....
In brief it looks like a paper compiled by people who have very little working knowledge of the genus Apistogramma rather than experienced ichthyologists/taxonomists or even experienced hobbyists.
Are these works peer reviewed prior to publication? I know many are not and unfortunately it doesnt seem to be the case with this publication.If i am wrong,and i often am, and the paper has been reviewed it would be interesting to know who by.
How anybody can work on and review the classification in 2009/2010 without citing Miller and Schliewens work is beyond me im afraid.
Mark...
 

Mike Wise

Moderator
Staff member
5 Year Member
Messages
11,202
Location
Denver, Colorado, U.S.A.
I just got a copy of the paper (thanks Andrew!) and translated it to English (thanks Google Translate:biggrin:). I must agree with Mark (microman) and Tom (TomC), there's nothing new here. It is basically a list of species groupings based on Römer's computer generated classification system found in CA2. As I've said in the past, I believe that it has serious flaws that make the groupings not logical. One thing did give me a big laugh. Parts of the paper are exact translations of what I wrote in the introduction to my species list that is found on Norwegian and Portuguese sites! I bet he got it from the Portuguese site. This doesn't bother me at all, but I do wish that Britsky (a respected ichthyologist) & Mehanna had done more than simply "parrot" one book. Koslowski's groupings based on physical features - and for the most part corroborated by Miller & Schiewen's genetic studies - are much more logical. These also seem to match paleogeographic distribution data with which I am working. In general, Britsky & Mehanna's paper looks like a quick piece of 'fluff' that was used to fill out an issue of a magazine. I would have expected better from such a good ichthyologist.
 

RAF

Member
5 Year Member
Messages
105
Location
Lisbon, Portugal
Hi all,

just came upon this thread, hadn't read it before. I have the paper with me since the author sent it. I did provide some of the photos,as well as others did.

I have't read the paper yet since I was coordinating the APC convention and time wasn't enough to spare for any other task, but I'll read it soon.

I know Ricardo Brietzke from some long talks in MSN and e-mails, he is starting to dedicate his study on Apistogramma and his paper, as far as I know, intendes to put forward some hipotesis based on earlier studies in Apistogramma populations, colour forms and chromatic communication.

As some of you know, I'm not a biologist, so I'm not prepared to judge a paper for it's scientific merits, but I can make my opinion based on my expirience and on my logical thinking.

The works that I'm familiar with are Romer's and Koslowsi's, and Ricardo's paper isn't, by far, as comprehensive as the books and papers published by them... although I can find some incongruences in the A classification and in some options by Romer, probably some incongruences can be found also in Ricardo's paper.

Now, about the colour (Mike... I know you'll disagree :) )...

In the thread

"A designação do da espécie em relação às
diversas variações de cores é um tanto quanto
controversa. Entretanto, o número maior de estudos que
envolvem a delimitação da cor para as espécies de
ciclídeos sul-americanos se torna sugestivo de uma
compreensão maior da importância e da validez de tal
delimitação para este grupo de peixes. Desta forma, o
padrão de coloração e sua distribuição em relação ao
gênero , tornam estas espécies
enigmáticas."

... what the author does is put forward the hipothesis that colour should (?) be more valued when regarding species and populations classifications, but he doesn't defend that it should be the only factor to be regarded. In this aspect (although DNA is always the final judge) I think it's a valid hipothesis. If we look at what was done regarding other cichlid genera/groups (Malawi mbunas, Tanganyika Tropheus, Discus and so on) and looked upon as valid methodology, why can't it be applied - not exclusivly - to Apistogramma?

Cheers
 

Mike Wise

Moderator
Staff member
5 Year Member
Messages
11,202
Location
Denver, Colorado, U.S.A.
Now, about the colour (Mike... I know you'll disagree :) )...

In the thread

"A designação do da espécie em relação às
diversas variações de cores é um tanto quanto
controversa. Entretanto, o número maior de estudos que
envolvem a delimitação da cor para as espécies de
ciclídeos sul-americanos se torna sugestivo de uma
compreensão maior da importância e da validez de tal
delimitação para este grupo de peixes. Desta forma, o
padrão de coloração e sua distribuição em relação ao
gênero , tornam estas espécies
enigmáticas."

... what the author does is put forward the hipothesis that colour should (?) be more valued when regarding species and populations classifications, but he doesn't defend that it should be the only factor to be regarded. In this aspect (although DNA is always the final judge) I think it's a valid hipothesis. If we look at what was done regarding other cichlid genera/groups (Malawi mbunas, Tanganyika Tropheus, Discus and so on) and looked upon as valid methodology, why can't it be applied - not exclusivly - to Apistogramma?

Cheers

I accept what Britzke wrote in the above paragraph:

"The designation of the species in relation to several variations of colors is somewhat controversial. However, the larger number of studies that involve defining the color for the species South American cichlids becomes suggestive of a greater understanding of the importance and validity of such definition for this group of fishes. Thus, the color pattern and its distribution in relation to gender make these species enigmatic."

Ready et al. discribed color as a visual diagnostic feature in separating 3 species in caetei-complex. Although they were identical meristically, they were distinct in their DNA and color. The problem I have with using color as a diagnostic feature is when it is used for separating species that are polychromatic within a single population. Ready's 3 caetie-like fish occurred as distinct populations in 3 river systems that genetic analysis indicated had been separated from each other for 2 million years. For me color is not useful if the different color forms are found in the same population. So, in most polychromatic species 2 or more color forms are found together, thus color isn't useful for these species.
 

RAF

Member
5 Year Member
Messages
105
Location
Lisbon, Portugal
Mike, I agree with you - and who am I not to (?)-, and it's based on that particular study by J. Ready that the author extrapulates the hipothesis for other species/populations.

I don't read his "paper" as being a conclusive one, but rather a question.
 

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
17,915
Messages
116,201
Members
13,027
Latest member
tonc61

Latest profile posts

Josh wrote on anewbie's profile.
Testing
EDO
Longtime fish enthusiast for over 70years......keen on Apistos now. How do I post videos?
Looking for some help with fighting electric blue rams :(
Partial updated Peruvian list have more than this. Please PM FOR ANY QUESTIONS so hard to post with all the ads poping up every 2 seconds….
Top