I'm looking for information on the taxonomic history of the "surinamensis complex" and the revisions that have led to the many species we have now. Am I right in thinking that in the past the species "surinamensis" was used to describe a large number of fish (both substrate spawning and mouth brooders) from many different locations? And since then it has been revised and now only refers to one specific population from Suriname, and the rest have been described as different species? If so, which species have been derived from the "surinamensis" complex?
Why do I ask?
To import fish into New Zealand we have a list of allowed species. This was compiled in the mid 90's based on [a fairly unthorough] survey of species that were already present in the country (before the list you could import pretty much anything). Since being compiled, there have been a few additions to the list, but no effort has been made to keep the names up to date as they are reviewed (eg. the genus Cichlasoma is still used to describe many species that are no longer in the genus). The name G. surinamensis is on there despite the fact that the fish we get are (and probably always have been) altifrons. Getting new species added to the list is a difficult process and involves a fair bit of money as well as having to provide scientific papers to show there is no risk to the native ecosystem.
What I would like to do is ask the authorities who are responsible for maintaining the list why fish that were once able to be legally imported when they were considered to be G. surinamensis are now no longer able to be imported because the list has not been kept up to date with the taxonomic revisions, and try to get them to amend the list to include as many different species of Geophagus as possible.
Cheers
Why do I ask?
To import fish into New Zealand we have a list of allowed species. This was compiled in the mid 90's based on [a fairly unthorough] survey of species that were already present in the country (before the list you could import pretty much anything). Since being compiled, there have been a few additions to the list, but no effort has been made to keep the names up to date as they are reviewed (eg. the genus Cichlasoma is still used to describe many species that are no longer in the genus). The name G. surinamensis is on there despite the fact that the fish we get are (and probably always have been) altifrons. Getting new species added to the list is a difficult process and involves a fair bit of money as well as having to provide scientific papers to show there is no risk to the native ecosystem.
What I would like to do is ask the authorities who are responsible for maintaining the list why fish that were once able to be legally imported when they were considered to be G. surinamensis are now no longer able to be imported because the list has not been kept up to date with the taxonomic revisions, and try to get them to amend the list to include as many different species of Geophagus as possible.
Cheers
