2 new amphilophus species described
- Thread starter Camphilophus
- Start date
In my opinion (demonstrated by actions), www.cichlidae.com is well worth the price of admission. And you get a really nice Ad Konings book for joining too...
That said, one must ask whether all of these "new" Amphilophus species should really be different "species" or whether this is icthyologists doing what icthyologists need to do (which is publish).
In other words, altogether different icthyologists could lump a lot of these fish together....or others could split them into infinitely more "species".
Matt
That said, one must ask whether all of these "new" Amphilophus species should really be different "species" or whether this is icthyologists doing what icthyologists need to do (which is publish).
In other words, altogether different icthyologists could lump a lot of these fish together....or others could split them into infinitely more "species".
Matt
Anubisscott;4536191; said:
dogofwar;4537316; said:
That is true to an extent but if they never did it first I'd never know these different species even existed. They're from the same group as chancho's which is the most well known fish from the lake but still not a common one. For me it's just another amphilophus I get to chose from and if it's rarer than red devils and midas I'm happy.
the animal guy;4537534; said:
Amphilophus is my favorite group of fish so any new amphilophus is a + in my book. I'm sure when you start to see more pictures of them you'll think differently.
dogofwar;4537316; said:
For those who use it yes, but for a couple uses a year for $30 is not really worth it. Cool that they throw in a book, but only if it concerns fish that your intrested in.
Scott
irishfan;4535130; said:
Nothing new here except more names. 12 species or more now, in the Amphilophus Citrnellus complex and some figure it will go well over 30 names. No telling where or when this silliness in naming will ever end.
If it were a land animal, rather then an ornamental fish, the whole complex (RD, midas and all the rest of these fish) would probably get one name, and that's it . Maybe they would describe a few sub-species, at th most. Funny how the ichthyologist use subspecies for a fish important in aquaculture, such as Oreochromis niloticus, but when it comes to ornamental tropical varities, they are more then reluctant to classify them as subspecies. But the more strains that are given full species status, the more ways you can sell what is for the most part, the same darn fish.
