Any links to the proof? i want to see.
And yeh that 1 'Sevict' was the only fry that survived because it was bred in a community tank.
any one ever seen this???
- Thread starter skooby
- Start date
Any links to the proof? i want to see.
And yeh that 1 'Sevict' was the only fry that survived because it was bred in a community tank.
As if.
Show me even one phylogenetic tree that shows this relationship?? There is well over half a dozen phylogenetic trees out there that I have seen, and while they do contradict and conflict to a minor degree.......nothing even close to what you are suggesting.
Here's one examplehttp://www.zardoyalab.com/pdfs/RicanMPE2008.pdf Note that nics sample right beside neets, right with in the Ampholophine calde of the tribe Heroini. "exCichlasoma" festae, somwhere between the Ampholophine and Herichthyne clade, of the tribe Heroini.......every other phylogenetic study based on mitochondrial and nucleur markers has shown very similar results.
Here's another phylonetic study for the tribe Cichlasomatini.http://ciclidos-mexico.com/articulos/Musilova_et_al_2009_Andinoacara.pdf Firemouth and pearl cichlid are used as the outgroup. Note "exC." festae is not even sampled in this study (it's a Heroine so what for, other then as part of the outgroup?). A very large group of 'Acaras' is used in this study, and broken down into clades based on the results.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Taxonom...d=318559&lvl=3&lin=f&keep=1&srchmode=1&unlock
There we go. I tend to follow ncbi because we use ncbi extensively for work.
The second study not sampling Festae doesn't really mean anything besides the fact that it wasn't sampled.
The first study though, is based on mitochondrial DNA, which is definitely good. I'll read through it and if it's correct then I'll follow it. After all, ncbi can and has been wrong.
There we go. I tend to follow ncbi because we use ncbi extensively for work.
The second study not sampling Festae doesn't really mean anything besides the fact that it wasn't sampled.
The first study though, is based on mitochondrial DNA, which is definitely good. I'll read through it and if it's correct then I'll follow it. After all, ncbi can and has been wrong.
That is not a DNA study, what so ever, but rather a list of scientific names of CA/SA cichlids.......many of which are EXTREMELY outdated. Notice they have festae as well as a few CA cichlids listed as Cichlasoma......cichlids that should be refferred to as "exCichlasoma", "Cichlasoma' or "Heros" because their generic placement is still in limbo. It's been 30 YEARS now since Sven Kullander resticted the genus Cichlasom to a group of South American Acaras......should never use the term Cichlasoma with out quotations around it, to avoid confusing them with South American Acaras......something your ncbi has appaerantly done. Poor source for CA/SA scientific names.
Here's another phylogenetic tree from kirk O. Winemiller, showing all New world cichlid groups, based on 3 mitochondrial and 2 nucleur markers. Shows the wider picture of common ancestory: http://aquaticecology.tamu.edu/featured-research/evolutionary-ecology/
As you can see again, festae is well with in the Heroine group and no CA cichlids, such as Hypsophrys nicarguense (nics) are part of the Cichlasomatini tribe, because they are Heroines, not Acaras!
By the way the first link I provided, if you read it, you would know that it is also based on nucleur markers, as well as mitchondrial DNA. Also note the outgroup of Aequidens and Cichlasom is specifically shown on pg. 947......if festae was really closely related to Acaras it would be nestled in this gruop rather then around Rocio octafasciatum (JD) and the Herichthyines.
And c'mon, anybody half familiar with CA/SA cichlids should know, just by looking at the darn fish that a festae and a nic are more closely related to other CA cichlids then Acaras
They look and actlike a CA cichlid...and every single DNA study so far, shows this.What this has to do with the fish in question? Well the idea of a blood parrot X oscar cross came up in conversation, even though there is little doubt the fish is simply a severely deformed oscar. What cichlids can and can't be hybirdized likely has most to do with how genetically close or distant the fishes are. Generally at the level of tribe seems to be the barrier in terms of how genetically close a cichlid needs to be, in order to hybirdize. Though undoubtebly there would be some other factors......some fish are just not inclined to breed with other species; sometimes very closely related species cannot for what ever reason, and on rare occasion sometimes the very strange and unlikely is possible. A claim is often made that SA cichlids (with the exception of festae) can not cross outside of their genus. That is very like true of Oscars .......but Astronotus is the only genus in its tribe. Never seen a Blue acara (Andinoacara pulcher) X Port acara (Cichlasoma portalgrensis) cross........though it wouldn't suprise me one bit if they were able to hybirdize as they are quite closely related. Different genus, but same tribe (Cichlasomatini). Similarily it would not be too suprising if a Hypselcara temporalis (chocalate) were able to cross with Hoplarchus psittacus if you could get them to do the deed...... different genus, but closely related fish with in the same clade of the same tribe. So I really don't beleive that genus level is the limitation for cross breeding SA cichlids. In general, most SA cichlids apear to be much less inclined to hybirdize then CA cichlids, though.
So many words. Obviously it's not a DNA study, it's a taxonomic database. Remember, just because a study from 30 years ago say one thing doesn't mean things haven't changed since then. But let me read everything first.
Yes, a lot has changed in 30 years......but some of the list is over 30 years out of date!
All these are, in this taxonomic database still listed as Cichlasoma: mayan, trimac, salvini, grammodes, festae, itslanum, ufermanni. They are fishes still in generic limbo, with the exception of trimac which many ichthyologists place in the Amphilophus genus. They are NOT in the same genus as a port acara..... and should in the very least get a quotataion mark around the name Cichlasoma to avoid confusing them with these Acaras.
Since NCBI is a taxonomic database for all organisms, I guess i am not really being fair. It really can't be up to date and accurate for all organisms, just because of the huge size of the database!
I would suggest using the Cichlid Room Companion (CRC) for a more accurate list of Cichlids since it is a site that specializes and is devoted only to cichlids.http://www.cichlidae.com/gallery/default.php They are quite conservative and do not change names the minute a new study comes out. The tribe that the genus belongs to is listed. As well, if you click under classification, the genera that belong to a particular tribe are listed under the tribe.
I would suggest using the Cichlid Room Companion (CRC) for a more accurate list of Cichlids since it is a site that specializes and is devoted only to cichlids.http://www.cichlidae.com/gallery/default.php They are quite conservative and do not change names the minute a new study comes out. The tribe that the genus belongs to is listed. As well, if you click under classification, the genera that belong to a particular tribe are listed under the tribe.
