lower jaw/upper jaw generic split

  • We are currently upgrading MFK. thanks! -neo
sauroid

sauroid

Candiru
MFK Member
May 7, 2005
910
5
48
somewhere in asia
bichir fanatics: i am curious about your opinions. do you think/agree that upper jaw and lower jaw bichirs should be split into two separate genera?
 
I always thought they should be seperated.If you can seperate E. calabaricus into its own genus why not upper and lower jaws-Anne
 
the ropefish has a noticeably different morphology and also lacks pelvic fins. but the different jaw structures of polypterus are noticeable as well i suppose lol

when they first hatch i don't think the jaw structure difference is noticeable (correct me if i'm wrong). i guess it would still make sense if they are separated based on jaw structure, but whether or not thats enough of a basis i don't know. personally i'm fine with the way it is so i never gave this a thought, but now the question comes up, its really bugging me!
 
If ida know it would bug ya I'da mentioned it long ago lol-Anne
 
I suggested the very same thing to a fellow bichir enthusiast several weeks ago and he wasn't as enthusiastic as I was about the idea. :(
 
Infblue said:
when they first hatch i don't think the jaw structure difference is noticeable (correct me if i'm wrong). i guess it would still make sense if they are separated based on jaw structure, but whether or not thats enough of a basis i don't know. personally i'm fine with the way it is so i never gave this a thought, but now the question comes up, its really bugging me!
Click to expand...
it's been bugging me for a very long time too that's why i had to know the bichir enthusiasts' opinion and i'm glad i'm not the only one. :)
 
i guess i misused the term 'jaw structure' earlier. it seems 'structure' is the same for all, but the 'appearance' is different, which is the term i shoulda used.

anyway just thought i'd relay this info. Anne mentioned this on another board and here's the answer from Brooklamprey. btw in case anyone's wondering he was comparing this to the two genera for gars.

I really do not see a reason to split them. In all reality they are morphologically very similiar. Appearance alone does not warrent a split.

This I also think is somewhat like the split in Lepisosteidae, in reality Atractosteus and Lepisosteus may as well be just Lepisosteus or Atractosteus and not split on outside appearance.

However Atractosteus and Lepisosteus do have seperate morphologic traits in structure of the Jaws and the skull. The Polypterids though really do not have differences in skull or Jaw structure. It is superficial that they appear different.

I do not see a reason phylogenic or morphologic to make a split in Polypterids.
Click to expand...
 
From a taxonomic viewpoint there really isn't enough morphological difference between the 'upper-jaw' and 'lower-jaw' to justify a split at the genus level...at least in my humble opinion. All of the differences can easily be accomodated at the species level. Erpetoicthys is different enough morphologically (the absence of ventral fins being significant) to justify that division.

-Joe
 
You guys are so smart. I had never even consideded this question before :hitting: :hitting: :hitting:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
MonsterFishKeepers.com
Top Bottom