Cichlid names don't Matter

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

Calihawk

Plecostomus
MFK Member
Dec 15, 2010
1,534
22
53
559
LOL, thought the thread title would be eye catching. I dont really have much issues except that "I, personally" dont care for Genus or Filial generations, and not even Locales that much neither. When you think about it these are all the things that can be made up, or changed too often. Even those that are supposedly known or reputable evidence, vendor status, etc. Unless you caught it yourself, but who cares I bought it somewhere else too.

We've all been fed this lie that the Viejas were all from the same origin/fish. JK, its not a lie but an inconclusive study. Nature and the study of it is so complex and vast, it will never really be set. Just like many other controversies about fishes in different locales and natural hybrids being classified as something else YADA YADA.

But nothing erks me most than "Know-it-alls" arguing with you about Genus, Filial, and even Locations, when in reality...its all irrelevant.

http://www.practicalfishkeeping.co.uk/content.php?sid=3319
 
Interesting artical. Wate a while and they'll change it again. So now we have Paraneetroplus argentea & Theraps pearsei. It's like when they change the name of the corner bar that's been there forever, everyone still calls it by the old name for the next 20 years.
 
What do you mean?

I read the article from PFK (but not the journal article) and an analysis of the DNA of the species currently assigned to the genus Vieja revelas that they don't all have a common ancestor. In other words, they're more closely related to fish currently assigned to other Genuses (like Paraneetroplus) than to other species in Vieja.

Pretty amazing stuff...and a window into the evolution of cichlids!

This doesn't mean that fish names (locations, etc.) are irrelevant. It just means that when scientists gain new techniques and get funding to do research that hasn't been done before, that what we thought was "set" is not.

Matt
 
Aquanero said:
Interesting artical. Wate a while and they'll change it again. So now we have Paraneetroplus argentea & Theraps pearsei. It's like when they change the name of the corner bar that's been there forever, everyone still calls it by the old name for the next 20 years.
Click to expand...

LOL, or what about The Artist Formerly Known As.........sorry I meant Ex-Cichlasoma. Reminds me of when all these new Rock bands were coming out in the 90's with different sounds and look, and so the "Experts, Critics, Labels" just called it...Alternative.

Hmmm, I'd like to buy that one fish, uh, Genus: Miscellanius Fishus
 
dogofwar said:
What do you mean?

I read the article from PFK (but not the journal article) and an analysis of the DNA of the species currently assigned to the genus Vieja revelas that they don't all have a common ancestor. In other words, they're more closely related to fish currently assigned to other Genuses (like Paraneetroplus) than to other species in Vieja.

Pretty amazing stuff...and a window into the evolution of cichlids!

This doesn't mean that fish names (locations, etc.) are irrelevant. It just means that when scientists gain new techniques and get funding to do research that hasn't been done before, that what we thought was "set" is not.

Matt
Click to expand...

I know it really is awesome, but imagine without the article...and someone one day just thought up that maybe the Viejas were more closely related to Paraneetroplus and posted on a forum. He'd be shot and ridiculed, and the thread would have to be closed. These kinda things are that touchy, lol.

This is why I never cared for it, and its my opinion. But has anyone ever asked if they like to be called Cichlids. Maybe the name that Cichlids really prefer to be called, can only be pronounced by the sounds of Bong Water.
 
There's a big difference between someone doing molecular phylogeny on 90-odd species of fish...and someone dropping into a web forum and making baseless claims. I haven't read the actual journal article...or peer-review (feedback from fellow scientists regarding the authors' methods, assumptions, conclusions, etc.).

It's kinda like when everyone believed the sun revolved around the earth. It sure was simpler to believe that the earth was the center of the universe. And people who claimed otherwise would likely get their thread closed (or worse). But - eventually - and with scientific evidence (and people willing to believe science), the notion that the sun revolves around the earth became untrue.

That doesn't mean that the science of astronomy, the names of the planets or the months of the year are irrelevant. It just means that science has helped us know more than we did yesterday (maybe).

Matt




Calihawk said:
I know it really is awesome, but imagine without the article...and someone one day just thought up that maybe the Viejas were more closely related to Paraneetroplus and posted on a forum. He'd be shot and ridiculed, and the thread would have to be closed. These kinda things are that touchy, lol.

This is why I never cared for it, and its my opinion. But has anyone ever asked if they like to be called Cichlids. Maybe the name Cichlids really prefer to be called can only be pronounced by the sounds of Bong Water.
Click to expand...
 
Well stated Matt. I love the study of the evolution of cichlids. Even when it takes me forever, if ever to get used to the new names. I'm still struggling with Pluto not being a planet. WTF is up with that anyway........lol?
But since we're on the subject I would like to change the name of Pterophyllum leopoldi to Pterophyllum intermedius gracilis (Kullander (1986) believes P. leopoldi bridges the morphological gap between Pterophyllum and Mesonauta (festivum).) The name has a je ne sais quoi I like. So I'll be that guy on the fish forum that comes up with a new name.

So there it is Pterophyllum intermedius gracilis. Sounds good, no?

It's late I'm just having a little fun with it and a glass of wine.
 
This doesn't mean that fish names (locations, etc.) are irrelevant. It just means that when scientists gain new techniques and get funding to do research that hasn't been done before, that what we thought was "set" is not.
Click to expand...

Precisely.



Using your logic Calihawk, we should just call everything fish?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
MonsterFishKeepers.com
Top Bottom