Cichlid binomials changing?

[LogiBear]

I think binomials is the right word... If not, i mean "scientific names"

These names keep changing and im wondering if someone could bring me up to date on a few...

For example, the Veija group used to be one thing but now its split into Maskoheros, Paraneetroplus, and something else as well as Veija, right? Why did they do this? Werent they all at one point in Veija? Why do they need to be switched around so often?

I know fish like Festae or Salvini are often just referred to as 'exCichlasoma' even though they have a genus after being removed from the melting pot that used to be Cichlasoma. But seriouasly, what is the point of changing the names if people just refer to them as they were before.

Any other major changes that have gone on that ive missed?

 

[ryansmith83]

As duanes said in another thread, a lot of it has to do with DNA testing which is revealing that not all fish that are currently grouped together are related, and vice versa. They also go by things like jaw structure and other evolutionary traits.

As we learn more, fish are re-classified. As science moves forward so do we.

 

[LogiBear]

As duanes said in another thread, a lot of it has to do with DNA testing which is revealing that not all fish that are currently grouped together are related, and vice versa. They also go by things like jaw structure and other evolutionary traits.

As we learn more, fish are re-classified. As science moves forward so do we.

Ok fair enough. But still, how is it that they can switch a fish around like a dozen times in a few years?

 

[darth pike]

Most often a genus gets described and refined, which leaves out several species that used to be in that genus. But because they don't tend to work on the new ones at the same time, those orphans usually get shuffled back into an older classification. This can happen several times before someone gets around to working with them properly where they finally get their 'new' name.

 

[dogofwar]

Because new techniques allow scientists to know more.

Willem Heijns Heroine Cichlid Group on Facebook described the progression of techniques about as well as I've seen: https://www.facebook.com/groups/854456601280181/

To help our members appreciate the impact of the recent paper by Říčan et al. (2016) on heroine cichlids, here’s an overview of how taxonomic research and classification developed over time. Six stages can be distinguished.

1. Morphology was the only criterion for all classification. Taxa (species) were grouped together based on morphological similarity.
2. Still using morphology, research was done into the descent of taxa. How did morphological characters evolve over time? From the recovered phylogenetic trees a classification was derived.
3. The first molecular phylogenetic studies only used mitochondrial DNA. The trees generated by these studies were used for classification, but resulted in conflict with morphology and the classification built on morphological characters.
4. Adding nuclear DNA did not solve this problem. Instead conflict between nuclear and mitochondrial DNA arose and the conflict between DNA and morphology persisted. In addition, only a very small part of DNA (7 genes) was used.
5. Looking for “total evidence” both nuclear and mitochrondrial DNA, together with morphology were used to study the interrelationships in heroine cichlids. But combining conflicting datasets did not lead to an acceptable solution. Compromising was not the answer.
6. The next-generation sequencing (i.e. ddRAD) is based only on nuclear DNA and uses a huge number (140,000) of DNA loci to build the phylogenetic tree. Given this tree an analysis is made of the evolution of morphological characters, needed to diagnose the defined taxa (genera). This order of steps is by far the most impressive aspect of Říčan’s paper.

Ok fair enough. But still, how is it that they can switch a fish around like a dozen times in a few years?

 

[duanes]

It may seem like every year but its really not.
Shall we take the species in Vieja, there are (were) 19 species.
When looking at the list, it may be surprising what species were grouped there by today's standards, a little science goes a long way.

• Chromis fenestrata Günther, 1860 (valid)
• Heros melanurus Günther, 1862 (valid)
• Heros parma Günther, 1862 (synonym)
• Heros bifasciatus Steindachner, 1864 (valid)
• Heros guttulatus Günther, 1864 (valid)
• Heros melanopogon Steindachner, 1864 (synonym)
• Cichlasoma zonatum Meek, 1905 (valid)
• Cichlosoma maculicauda Regan, 1905 (valid)
• Cichlosoma gadovii Regan, 1905 (synonym)
• Cichlosoma sexfasciatum Regan, 1905 (synonym)
• Cichlasoma globosum Miller, 1907 (synonym)
• Cichlasoma nigritum Meek, 1907 (synonym)
• Cichlasoma manana Miller, 1907 (synonym)
• Cichlasoma synspilum Hubbs, 1935 (synonym)
• Cichlasoma heterospilum Hubbs, 1936 (valid)
• Cichlaurus hicklingi Fowler, 1956 (synonym)
• Vieja panamensis Fernández-Yépez, 1969 (synonym)
• Cichlasoma (Theraps) hartwegi Taylor & Miller, 1980 (valid)
• Paratheraps breidohri Werner & Stawikowski, 1987 (valid)