Cichlid names don't Matter
- Thread starter Calihawk
- Start date
it matters a lot to some
it doesnt matter to some.
to some it only matters to know what they have and it's all they care to know because they have other things or interests to care about.
Some get down with it because it is their passion and they wanna know everything about it as much as they can..
this world got an infinite variety of differences..
But to me, life isnt all about fish and not everything you are told is always true or is a rule to follow.
it doesnt matter to some.
to some it only matters to know what they have and it's all they care to know because they have other things or interests to care about.
Some get down with it because it is their passion and they wanna know everything about it as much as they can..
this world got an infinite variety of differences..
But to me, life isnt all about fish and not everything you are told is always true or is a rule to follow.
All of these fishes (CA cichlids) are all closely related. As to which are most closely related and have the most recent common ancestory, it's probably going to take some time, and a lot more then what is currently being used/done to determine the precise relationship between all CA cichlids.
It could very well be that many of the Veija have more recent common ancestory with Paraneetroplus and some others with Theraps, as the study concludes. Closely related fishes making their living in a similar manner, under similar conditions, tend to evolve to look similar.....even though there are other fishes that they are even more closely related to, that have different morphology and look quite different because they make their living differently.
I didn't read the study, nor does the link provided say what the study is based on. Most molecular studies of CA cichlids are based on cytochrome b. Mitochondrial DNA that will show the most recent common ancestor on the maternal side, as it is only inherited from the mother.
Problem, I think, in relying exclusively on this, is that CA cichlids are all closely related enough to hybirdize. Even one event, many thousands of years ago, will show a relationship today that is not really accurate. A fish ends up where it was not previously. A lack of mates, it crosses with another cichlid. The traits seperate after a few generations, and after a few more, are completely bred out. Thousands of years later, there is nothing left of the other species it crossed with.....other then the mitochondrial DNA which gets passed down mother-mother.
I know, just speculation, and I am not saying it is the case in this situation, between Veija species. Still, something difficult to rule out, with out looking at many other DNA markers as well. Not a simple matter to determine the precise relationship between closely related species. So i think it's going to take a long time before some of the precise relationships are determined between CA cichlids.
It could very well be that many of the Veija have more recent common ancestory with Paraneetroplus and some others with Theraps, as the study concludes. Closely related fishes making their living in a similar manner, under similar conditions, tend to evolve to look similar.....even though there are other fishes that they are even more closely related to, that have different morphology and look quite different because they make their living differently.
I didn't read the study, nor does the link provided say what the study is based on. Most molecular studies of CA cichlids are based on cytochrome b. Mitochondrial DNA that will show the most recent common ancestor on the maternal side, as it is only inherited from the mother.
Problem, I think, in relying exclusively on this, is that CA cichlids are all closely related enough to hybirdize. Even one event, many thousands of years ago, will show a relationship today that is not really accurate. A fish ends up where it was not previously. A lack of mates, it crosses with another cichlid. The traits seperate after a few generations, and after a few more, are completely bred out. Thousands of years later, there is nothing left of the other species it crossed with.....other then the mitochondrial DNA which gets passed down mother-mother.
I know, just speculation, and I am not saying it is the case in this situation, between Veija species. Still, something difficult to rule out, with out looking at many other DNA markers as well. Not a simple matter to determine the precise relationship between closely related species. So i think it's going to take a long time before some of the precise relationships are determined between CA cichlids.
....... for those that are interested in keeping up with the latest science.
Molecular systematics of the enigmatic Middle American genus Vieja
(Teleostei: Cichlidae)
http://www2.selu.edu/Academics/Faculty/kpiller/pdfs/McMahan_et_al_2010.pdf
Molecular systematics of the enigmatic Middle American genus Vieja
(Teleostei: Cichlidae)
http://www2.selu.edu/Academics/Faculty/kpiller/pdfs/McMahan_et_al_2010.pdf
Thanks for sharing! Very interesting indeed. It seem the classification if CA cichlids is so confusing and is ever changing. My question is why is this more difficult then say African and SA cichlids?
What is most confusing is that there are so many different variants if the same sp. Ever notice every "ID thread" is a CA cichlid?
To me science matters. I hate the common names as they can be miss leading when buying a fish or understanding the care for that fish. An example "Texas cichlids". A "Texas cichlid to most people is h. Cyano or h. Caprintis. There is a big difference in appearance and care for the fish. This is where a scientific name is important.
Sent from my iPhone using MonsterAquariaNetwork app
why don't the experts quit screwing around, and put the "study" money on DNA analysis.
it'd cost experts their jobs?
BTW, everybody knows pluto is a dog.
;-)
it'd cost experts their jobs?
BTW, everybody knows pluto is a dog.
;-)
I'm assuming that you didn't actually take the time to read the "study" that you are referring to.
Precisely
Thank You, always up for an interesting article. I love to read and learn about new things...however I personally don't care about some things within the same topic/subject. And that's the way we all are. Its just that what I wish to dislike happens to be something that others love dearly.
Example: Sports Officiating...I love NFL and the culture and the history of it. I hate referees and I think they are stupid and well...pretty muc irrelevant. They always flag the retaliating players with Personal Fouls when they're only standing up for themselves. Instant Replays are pointless cuz they're inconclusive, and certain plays aren't even reviewable. The Victory Formation is pointless, just call a few running plays.
