Heros salvini

[darth pike]

Well, partially taking it on faith. I have several of the recent scientific articles that are tracking the DNA of the New World cichlids. Three of them (differant authors) all mention that the large scale forms (acaras) are more primitive than the small scale forms (heroine). Since I don't have the background to argue DNA (otherwise I'd question why pike cichlids are geophine but Retroculus aren't) ... and have seen several differant entries saying this is how the DNA studies should be read, I am using that as the base.

Cichlasoma are more 'pre-acaras', with Laetacara being the first acara genus in the timeline (again, according to DNA, they are the closest to the ports). The large scale forms are named Cichlasomatini becuase it was simply the first described. The the ports and acaras make a natural grouping vs the smaller scaled cichlids.

But like I said, going off this new fangled wierd arse DNA and trusting the scientists have it sorted out ... since DNA has killed classic taxonomy ... but as we know, they aren't always right.

 

[BC in SK]

Three of them (differant authors) all mention that the large scale forms (acaras) are more primitive than the small scale forms (heroine).

Cichlasoma are more 'pre-acaras', with Laetacara being the first acara genus in the timeline (again, according to DNA, they are the closest to the ports).

Sorry to take this thread off topic Not familiar with the 3 papers you mention.....but it certainly could be. Wouldn't mind reading them.

Not really understanding why you continue to call Cichlasoma specis 'pre-Acaras'?? I'm not certain what the type- species was for the now defunct Acara genus, but Cichlasoma dimerus was one of the original Acaras, first described as Acara dimerus Heckel, 1840, and Cichlasoma portalgrensis was first decribed as Acara portalgrensis Hensel, 1870. Not only that, but the term Acara, long ago, became a common name among aquarists to refer to this entire group of fishes. Though the genus Acara has long ago ceased to be a valid genus, the term Acara has continued to be used by aquarists to refer to the entire group of fishes that make up what is now the tribe Cichlasomatini. In the past, for many, many decades, C. portalgrensis was commonly called a port acara and C. bimaculatum (if it wasn't mistaken for a port acara) was commonly called a black acara. So I am really at a loss to understand how or why these fishes would not be acaras?

As far as closest relatives, according to this family tree, based on 3 genetic markers(http://wfsc.tamu.edu/winemiller/lab/Evolutionary_ecology.htm) Cichlasoma species are most closely related to Aequidend and Krobia----all of which make up the Cichlasomatines clade with in the tribe, Cichlasomatini.

 

[Jmart159]

That is a really nice looking pair and I really like your tank setup. Keep up the good work.

 

[tunafish]

Nice tank and fish. Salvini are 1 of my favorites.