Festae

  • We are currently upgrading MFK. thanks! -neo
Great question. I wana know is since ex cichlasoma basically means former cichlasoma, then ex cichlasoma can't be a true genus? So what genus are they really in? Amphilophus?

Sent from my T-Mobile myTouch Q using MonsterAquariaNetwork App
 
From looking online, seems like they're still without a category along with salvini, grammodes, mayan, and Istlanum to name a few... not sure how accurate that source was though. It said they were still scientifically in the cichlasoma genus but proven to be closer to Amphilophus.

Sent from my LG-E980 using MonsterAquariaNetwork App
 
In the past, selection of a genus had much to do with similarities of form, dentition, etc.
Today with the use of DNA sequencing, relationships often defy simple physical similarities.
In Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution a study by Perez, Rican, Orti, Bermingham, Doadrio, and Zardoya called "Phylogeny and Biography of 91 species of Heroine cichlids based on cytochrome b gene".
The festae group is part of the Heroines which are split into the Amphilophines and the Herithyines, with the festae group considered a basal group (the earliest clade to branch into another clade(also a meaning similar to primitive)) The authors consider the Heros festae clade (which includes atromaculatus) a sister group to the more modern (in evolutionary terms) Herichthyines. The Herichthyines contain Nandopsis(the most primitive), Caquetaia, the Heros octofasciatus group, Australoheros and the Heros festae group.
Simple right?
 
Great topic and thanks for the run down Duanes. I feel as though I'm in the camp that physical or phenotype is more impactful than genotype. I certainly don't deny genetic differences or similarities, but let's imagine this for a moment: let's say we have nothing but the bones or fossils of these animals to work with. This would create a conundrum similar to classifying dinosaurs or any extinct animal. We have zero genetic info to work with and have to go strictly by physical evidence like fin rays, teeth, number if vertebrae, etc. just my .02


Sent from my iPhone using MonsterAquariaNetwork app
 
I have in the past, been one to feel outward appearance was an important genus indicator.
But the more I learn about radiation of species flocks, during different geological epochs, the more I question my views.
Because the effects of convergent evolution, species in Africa can have an outward appearance very similar to South or Central America, compare the African Heterochromis multidens with many Centrals, it may be a primitive link between the 2, with a primitive ancestor present at the time of continental drift.
Or divergent evolution where because of food supplies, or the lack thereof a
single species may become 2, and in the end appear very different.
This may be occurring in Cuatro Cienegas where 3 species may be evolving from Herichthys minckleyi because of 3 different food supplies available.
And in small recently created African lakes such as Barombi mbo, in a short period of time (geologically speaking), those cichlids that would be thought of as simply Tilapia, have now become Stomatepia, Pundu, Konia, and more geni due to food specialization.
Not long ago Nandopsis not only included the Caribbean species, but those that have become Parachromis. Today there seems to be enough evidence to isolate the island species.
Compare Konia eisentraudti with Stomatepia pindu, both may be from the same Tilapine ancestor

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
MonsterFishKeepers.com
Top Bottom