recently my female convict cichlid bred with a red ceibal cichlid and the offspring are alive and well. Does this happn often I thought they could not breed. I have added another thread with pictures of their growth so far also the parents.
South American x Central American success!
- Thread starter ChrisH
- Start date
Interesting, while I can see the external simalarites they have evolved in some pretty different conditions. Perhaps they both evolved from some common ansester in the not so distant past (in geological terms). I suppose it's possibile that the most recent common ansester was split (isolated) due to contenental drift and evolution took it's course. This is all just interesting speculation on my part, but they are apprently close enough to each other geneticly speaking to reproduce. It will be interesting to see if the fry are viable and can reproduce. Definatly puts a dent in the SA/CA breeding theory although I still think crossing a Midas to a Discus is still streching things a bit. I have never seen this before and would definatly like to hear some other thoughts on this.
I would raise those fry.
I would raise those fry.
I am on the fence about removing the fry and making a small grow out tank for them. Would this be best idea?
I've not seen that happen before!
Remove some and grow them out - I'd also like to see how they turn out.
I think it speaks to just how genetically similar many cichlids are, especially relatively unspecialized ones like Cryptoheros (Amatitlania) "convicts" and Australoheros "chanchitos".
I'd bet that they had a common ancestor somewhere back in time.
Matt
Remove some and grow them out - I'd also like to see how they turn out.
I think it speaks to just how genetically similar many cichlids are, especially relatively unspecialized ones like Cryptoheros (Amatitlania) "convicts" and Australoheros "chanchitos".
I'd bet that they had a common ancestor somewhere back in time.
Matt
As far as I'm aware no one has created this cross before so you should definitely grow some out. I would also like to know how closely related they are to central cichlids. With festae they geographically live in south america but are genetically central. I wonder if that's the case with these guys
Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using MonsterAquariaNetwork App
Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using MonsterAquariaNetwork App
I sent an e-mail to Dr. Wayne S. Leibel asking him if he as ever heard of this and if he could shed some light on this for us. I copied a link to this thread for him to look at. Hopfully I will be hearing back from him soon.
Ingo Seidel posted on CRC: Amatitlania and of Australoheros are indeed closely related. According to the current analyses based on molecular data (e.g. López- Fernández et al. 2010) these genera are even 'sister' taxa (means the most close related genus of Amatitlania is Australoheros).
Here's a link to that work: http://aquaticecology.tamu.edu/files/2012/07/Lopez-Fernandez-et-al.-2010-MPE.pdf
Some good discussion:
The genus Australoheros, although restricted in its distribution
to southern South America’s Paraná-La Plata basins, has been
shown to be deeply nested among Central American taxa by all
molecular studies. But, the position of Australoheros is far from congruent
among these studies. While we recover the genus nested
within amphilophines and weakly related to Amatitlania and part
of ‘Cryptoheros’, Hulsey et al. (2004) found it as sister to ‘Cichlasoma’
festae and at the base of a clade including Caquetaia umbrifera,
tomocichlines and herichthyines (sensu this paper). Similarly to
Hulsey, Concheiro Pérez et al. (2006), found Australoheros at the
base of Astatheros and the herichthyines, whereas Rican and Kullander
(2006) found it as sister to a clade of amphilophines and
our caquetaines, and Rican et al. (2008) placed it at the base of
all Central American cichlids in their combined molecular trees
and MP analysis of genes and morphology (Rican et al., 2008,
Figs. 1–3, 6). Interestingly, Rican et al.’s (2008) morphological analysis
weakly grouped Australoheros with ‘Cryptoheros’ panamensis
and placed it close to Cryptoheros sensu lato, Archocentrus and Herotilapia,
further suggesting extensive morphological homoplasy
within amphilophines (see above). Given the variable position of
Australoheros and the fact that Rican et al. (2008) included the largest
number of species from the genus, we interpret our results with caution. This is especially true from a biogeographic point of view,
since interpretation of the origin of Australoheros and its current
geographic distribution seems more difficult on the basis of our
topology (i.e. nested within an otherwise Central American clade)
than that of Rican et al. (i.e. from a basal position with respect to
all Central American taxa). Overall, all studies coincide in placing
Australoheros within the Central American assemblage, and most
studies place the genus in a position near to or inside amphilophines.
Further study is needed to establish the position of Australoheros
and to infer its biogeographic history.
Matt
Here's a link to that work: http://aquaticecology.tamu.edu/files/2012/07/Lopez-Fernandez-et-al.-2010-MPE.pdf
Some good discussion:
The genus Australoheros, although restricted in its distribution
to southern South America’s Paraná-La Plata basins, has been
shown to be deeply nested among Central American taxa by all
molecular studies. But, the position of Australoheros is far from congruent
among these studies. While we recover the genus nested
within amphilophines and weakly related to Amatitlania and part
of ‘Cryptoheros’, Hulsey et al. (2004) found it as sister to ‘Cichlasoma’
festae and at the base of a clade including Caquetaia umbrifera,
tomocichlines and herichthyines (sensu this paper). Similarly to
Hulsey, Concheiro Pérez et al. (2006), found Australoheros at the
base of Astatheros and the herichthyines, whereas Rican and Kullander
(2006) found it as sister to a clade of amphilophines and
our caquetaines, and Rican et al. (2008) placed it at the base of
all Central American cichlids in their combined molecular trees
and MP analysis of genes and morphology (Rican et al., 2008,
Figs. 1–3, 6). Interestingly, Rican et al.’s (2008) morphological analysis
weakly grouped Australoheros with ‘Cryptoheros’ panamensis
and placed it close to Cryptoheros sensu lato, Archocentrus and Herotilapia,
further suggesting extensive morphological homoplasy
within amphilophines (see above). Given the variable position of
Australoheros and the fact that Rican et al. (2008) included the largest
number of species from the genus, we interpret our results with caution. This is especially true from a biogeographic point of view,
since interpretation of the origin of Australoheros and its current
geographic distribution seems more difficult on the basis of our
topology (i.e. nested within an otherwise Central American clade)
than that of Rican et al. (i.e. from a basal position with respect to
all Central American taxa). Overall, all studies coincide in placing
Australoheros within the Central American assemblage, and most
studies place the genus in a position near to or inside amphilophines.
Further study is needed to establish the position of Australoheros
and to infer its biogeographic history.
Matt
Well that clears that up..............You can clearly see the family resemblance. Kinda took the long way around the block but I get what is being said, which is basicly what I was infering in my oiginal post. What is interesting is the distance which sperates these fish from each other. It would be easier to understand if this fish were from the extream northern part of South Amercia but these guy hail from the south central part of the contnent. They had to take many evloutionary twists and turns to arrive in their current rang of distrabution. From my laymans perspective they will need to redo the whole genus again. Ready to learn new names?
