Convicts or hybrids
- Thread starter PwNz I R COLE
- Start date
all four convict "type" cichlids including cons.
A. coatepeque- Restricted to Lake Coatepeque, El Salvador.
A. kanna- Ranging from the very Southeast of Costa Rica to Panama.
A. nigrofasciata- Ranging from Southern Guatemala to Northern Honduras.
A. siquia- Ranging from Honduras to Costa Rica.
A. sp. “honduran red point”- Endemic to the Rio Danli, Honduras
A. coatepeque- Restricted to Lake Coatepeque, El Salvador.
A. kanna- Ranging from the very Southeast of Costa Rica to Panama.
A. nigrofasciata- Ranging from Southern Guatemala to Northern Honduras.
A. siquia- Ranging from Honduras to Costa Rica.
A. sp. “honduran red point”- Endemic to the Rio Danli, Honduras
all four convict "type" cichlids including cons.
A. coatepeque- Restricted to Lake Coatepeque, El Salvador.
A. kanna- Ranging from the very Southeast of Costa Rica to Panama.
A. nigrofasciata- Ranging from Southern Guatemala to Northern Honduras.
A. siquia- Ranging from Honduras to Costa Rica.
A. sp. honduran red point- Endemic to the Rio Danli, Honduras
A. coatepeque- Restricted to Lake Coatepeque, El Salvador.
A. kanna- Ranging from the very Southeast of Costa Rica to Panama.
A. nigrofasciata- Ranging from Southern Guatemala to Northern Honduras.
A. siquia- Ranging from Honduras to Costa Rica.
A. sp. honduran red point- Endemic to the Rio Danli, Honduras
Yes as I stated in the future it may be found that what are currently listed as different species may end up actually just being one species. And vice versa, actually. But until then, as long as they're listed as different species, then atm they're different species. 'Convict' has always been one species and whilst the designation has changed over the years (Archocentrus nigrofasciatus, Cryptoheros nigrofasciatus, Claustroheros nigrofasciatus, etc. etc.) it still all pertains to one species, which right now is named Amatitlania nigrofasciata.
All the other four species you listed;
A. coatepeque- Restricted to Lake Coatepeque, El Salvador.
A. kanna- Ranging from the very Southeast of Costa Rica to Panama.
A. siquia- Ranging from Honduras to Costa Rica.
A. sp. “honduran red point”- Endemic to the Rio Danli, Honduras
Can in the future be 'found' to be Convicts, but until then they're still different species, and that's all there is to it. Until then, no matter what they are still different species, because that's how taxonomy works. If they are found to be Convicts, then all those names - A. coatepeque, A. kanna, A. siquia, A. sp. "honduran red point" will all be gone and be replaced with 'A. nigrofasciata' or whatever Convicts are called then.
But yes, until then, they're different species from Convicts.
That's true but in all reality all those had to come from one ancestor.
Sent from my Comet
And we come from the same ancestor as gorillas, doesn't mean gorillas are a 'type' of humans.
We're both 'apes', yes, as that's a term designated to specify us. These species are all 'Amatitlania' for example, or whatever common name we might want to assign that. 'Convict and Convict-like Cichlids' perhaps.I understand what you're saying mate, but it's just that until there's scientific evidence to reclassify 'em, they'll be different species. Because until there's an actual study done, then it can't be verified as to how diverged or closely related these 'species' are.
Maybe you should write up a paper on them and get it published, and get these species to all be reclassified as 'Amatitlania nigrofiasciata'. )Yeah I'm no where near book smart enough to write a paper as to find how the genus is related. I just know enough to know that they had to come from the same ancestors in order to all be convict and convict like cichlids. For all we know they could all be cons but the separation to different regions of central America caused them to adapt different traits.And we come from the same ancestor as gorillas, doesn't mean gorillas are a 'type' of humans.
I understand what you're saying mate, but it's just that until there's scientific evidence to reclassify 'em, they'll be different species. Because until there's an actual study done, then it can't be verified as to how diverged or closely related these 'species' are.
Sent from my Comet
You can continue to ramble on that the 2 fish are the same, but for the life of me I cant understand why you continue to say this.
Here is a link from Sam Borstein http://www.borstein.info/profiles/central/archhrp.html, I have never seen a blue convict, let alone one shaped like the HRP. If you think that the HRP and the Con look alike, then it is probably because you are already seeing hybrids of the 2 fish. The true HRP is not a Convict, not even close.
Here is a link from Sam Borstein http://www.borstein.info/profiles/central/archhrp.html, I have never seen a blue convict, let alone one shaped like the HRP. If you think that the HRP and the Con look alike, then it is probably because you are already seeing hybrids of the 2 fish. The true HRP is not a Convict, not even close.
Its not rambling but more common sense. Maybe you should actually read the posts. Hrps may look different then cons but they are still of amatitlania genus. Witch makes them convict relitives one way or another. Like I said for all you know they could all be convicts but the separation to different regions cause the amatitlania ancestors to develope different traits in the fish we know and love today.
Sent from my Comet
