Hopefully this works this time .......
I was reading Jason's sticky on midas vs red devils the other day & while I agree with pretty much everything that he posted, according to some of the most recent studies that have taken place in the various crater lakes I'm beginning to think that this is a far more complicated issue than simply being able to rely on reputable vendors.
In his sticky Jason states;
I concur with both points, which has me wondering exactly how does a collector/exporter and/or their various workers differentiate between all of these various amphilophus, when the experts can't even seem to agree as to how all of these various fish should be classified? Over the years we have gone from 2 species under the midas complex, later to three species, now recently to 9 species, with the caveat of even more species that have yet to be identified & properly classified. If one compares some of the examples shown in the midas/RD sticky and posted by mou86afa, even those fish don't all conform to what is supposedly typical body structure between the two species. There are very elongated & low bodied labiatus shown (such as in the first row), and some labiatus that are very high bodied. (such as the one shown in the last row) From what I have been able to gather this is far more complex than simply a case of intraspecific variation.
This high variability in body structure or form may be explained due to what has been described as a high level of genetic differentiation between populations of same species from the different crater lakes.
In the first paper linked to below they mention A. citrinellus types with elongated bodies, and some with thick lips. This seems to be a reoccurring pattern among the various studies performed over the past few years. While A. labiatus has morphed (longer head, compressed body, and fleshy lips) due to it's specialized feeding technique of feeding on invertebrates and crustaceans found within the rock crannies, apparently some of the A. citrinellus types share some of these same physical characteristics.
The authors also state that geographically distant populations within the large lakes showed some degree of genetic differentiation as well. Perhaps someone with a more thorough understanding of genetics can help explain some of this in layman terms.
Phylogeography, colonization and population history of the Midas cichlid species complex (Amphilophus spp.) in the Nicaraguan crater lakes
Marta Barluenga, Axel Meyer
http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1471-2148-10-326.pdf
The following study demonstrates that even the jaw structure can be different between the same species (citrinellum), found in the different crater lakes.
Publishing, Ltd.
The Midas cichlid species complex: incipient sympatric speciation in Nicaraguan cichlid fishes? MARTA BARLUENGA and AXEL MEYER
Department of Biology, University of Konstanz, Universitätsstrasse 10, 78457 Konstanz, Germany
http://www.evolutionsbiologie.uni-konstanz.de/pdf1-182/P159.pdf
Jaw structure becomes relevant in this discussion as per A. Meyer's paper where he states molariform morphs having blunter, shorter snouts, larger eyes, wider heads, and deeper shorter bodies than papilliform morphs.
http://www.evolutionsbiologie.uni-konstanz.de/pdf1-182/P006.pdf
Cost of morphological specialization: feeding performance of the two morphs in the trophically polymorphic cichlid fish,Cichlasoma citrinellum
In the following paper (2010), Jeffrey McCrary et al go so far as to state that one should only assign taxonomically valid species names to unambiguously identifiable individuals and not to each phenotype that is similar due to only one character, i.e. elongate body form or thick lips
Not a simple case A first comprehensive phylogenetic hypothesis for the Midas cichlid complex in Nicaragua (Teleostei: Cichlidae: Amphilophus)
Matthias F. Geiger, Jeffrey K. McCrary, Ulrich K. Schliewen
http://www.gaianicaragua.org/Geiger_et_al_2010.pdf
The group of researchers in the paper below have taken the same cautious approach, using A. cf. citrinellus to describe this group of fish until further taxonomic work has been completed.
Local variation and parallel evolution: morphological and genetic diversity across a species complex of neotropical crate lake cichlid fishes
Kathryn R. Elmer, Henrik Kusche, Topi K. Lehtonen and Axel Meyer
http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/365/1547/1763.full.pdf
So what does all of this mean?
Given the above information I would think that the best approach when breeding any of the above wild caught species is to ensure that both parent fish come from the same body of water, and in some cases the exact same collection location within that body of water. Short of that you might as well consider the offspring of random pairings as Midevils, just like the ones that are found at your LFS.
I've been compiling some of these papers over the past few years and thought that others might be interested in reading them. If nothing else it certainly adds a new spin to the term Midevil.
Cheers
I was reading Jason's sticky on midas vs red devils the other day & while I agree with pretty much everything that he posted, according to some of the most recent studies that have taken place in the various crater lakes I'm beginning to think that this is a far more complicated issue than simply being able to rely on reputable vendors.
In his sticky Jason states;
I concur with both points, which has me wondering exactly how does a collector/exporter and/or their various workers differentiate between all of these various amphilophus, when the experts can't even seem to agree as to how all of these various fish should be classified? Over the years we have gone from 2 species under the midas complex, later to three species, now recently to 9 species, with the caveat of even more species that have yet to be identified & properly classified. If one compares some of the examples shown in the midas/RD sticky and posted by mou86afa, even those fish don't all conform to what is supposedly typical body structure between the two species. There are very elongated & low bodied labiatus shown (such as in the first row), and some labiatus that are very high bodied. (such as the one shown in the last row) From what I have been able to gather this is far more complex than simply a case of intraspecific variation.
This high variability in body structure or form may be explained due to what has been described as a high level of genetic differentiation between populations of same species from the different crater lakes.
In the first paper linked to below they mention A. citrinellus types with elongated bodies, and some with thick lips. This seems to be a reoccurring pattern among the various studies performed over the past few years. While A. labiatus has morphed (longer head, compressed body, and fleshy lips) due to it's specialized feeding technique of feeding on invertebrates and crustaceans found within the rock crannies, apparently some of the A. citrinellus types share some of these same physical characteristics.
The authors also state that geographically distant populations within the large lakes showed some degree of genetic differentiation as well. Perhaps someone with a more thorough understanding of genetics can help explain some of this in layman terms.
Phylogeography, colonization and population history of the Midas cichlid species complex (Amphilophus spp.) in the Nicaraguan crater lakes
Marta Barluenga, Axel Meyer
http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1471-2148-10-326.pdf
The following study demonstrates that even the jaw structure can be different between the same species (citrinellum), found in the different crater lakes.
Publishing, Ltd.
The Midas cichlid species complex: incipient sympatric speciation in Nicaraguan cichlid fishes? MARTA BARLUENGA and AXEL MEYER
Department of Biology, University of Konstanz, Universitätsstrasse 10, 78457 Konstanz, Germany
http://www.evolutionsbiologie.uni-konstanz.de/pdf1-182/P159.pdf
Jaw structure becomes relevant in this discussion as per A. Meyer's paper where he states molariform morphs having blunter, shorter snouts, larger eyes, wider heads, and deeper shorter bodies than papilliform morphs.
http://www.evolutionsbiologie.uni-konstanz.de/pdf1-182/P006.pdf
Cost of morphological specialization: feeding performance of the two morphs in the trophically polymorphic cichlid fish,Cichlasoma citrinellum
In the following paper (2010), Jeffrey McCrary et al go so far as to state that one should only assign taxonomically valid species names to unambiguously identifiable individuals and not to each phenotype that is similar due to only one character, i.e. elongate body form or thick lips
Not a simple case A first comprehensive phylogenetic hypothesis for the Midas cichlid complex in Nicaragua (Teleostei: Cichlidae: Amphilophus)
Matthias F. Geiger, Jeffrey K. McCrary, Ulrich K. Schliewen
http://www.gaianicaragua.org/Geiger_et_al_2010.pdf
The group of researchers in the paper below have taken the same cautious approach, using A. cf. citrinellus to describe this group of fish until further taxonomic work has been completed.
Local variation and parallel evolution: morphological and genetic diversity across a species complex of neotropical crate lake cichlid fishes
Kathryn R. Elmer, Henrik Kusche, Topi K. Lehtonen and Axel Meyer
http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/365/1547/1763.full.pdf
So what does all of this mean?
Given the above information I would think that the best approach when breeding any of the above wild caught species is to ensure that both parent fish come from the same body of water, and in some cases the exact same collection location within that body of water. Short of that you might as well consider the offspring of random pairings as Midevils, just like the ones that are found at your LFS.
I've been compiling some of these papers over the past few years and thought that others might be interested in reading them. If nothing else it certainly adds a new spin to the term Midevil.
Cheers
I'm at CC for another two quarters. I called and spoke with the head advisor for the program the other day, exceptionally unhelpful woman. Anyway, sorry for the derail, looking forward to your post.
