id this paratheraps species

[the animal guy]

Bottom line John is that you have nice fish Bro, and it seems like when people post the nicest and rarest fish theres always an issue with some people on this site, However this didn't start until I started posting pictures from a new Vendor. Back to the Thread, Yo john I might want some fry to from that amazingly new DNA tested pair

that's the way it goes though.. You post it up you hear comments.

And when things are false to a person, they wanna straighten it out to help educate others..

 

[armac]

If you have not read this thread it is entertaining and bring up this particular fish about a year ago.

http://www.monsterfishkeepers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=206296

 

[capefeartarheel]

However this didn't start until I started posting pictures from a new Vendor.

And just like that, the ball is back in "Team Drama Queens" court, because, after all, its all about them.

 

[buddha1200]

Its great to hear you guys comment,I have the documentation that dna tests it against fenestratus(piebald or blue etc) so keep it comin with your false statements that just prov es they are what I say they are,because none of you have provided and facts except other statements from other people. I asked to be provided with info from someone who has keep them before and all I got where more articles stating that they are indeed rare. As we all know piebald fene's are not rare you can purchase them anywhere.If anyone can provide me with the documentation actual dna proof these are not what they claim to be post it. I have signed documents from three different scientist and a lab analysis sheet. Now the ball is in your court now. But I know all you guys are going to do is just keep posting staements that others have made(heard them all seen them all) anyway hope you all have a nice day I know I will knowing that all my statements here are true and verified with actual legal documentation.Will post more pics of this rare

 

[darth pike]

buddha1200 - They are beautiful fish. When the paper is published, can you post the link to it (most of them are published in .pdf files now a days as well). That would end all of these arguements. I want to read it to see if it's strickly the DNA sequences that seperate them for fene's or if there are other classic diagnostics at work. DNA seems to be destroying the classic diagnostic tools used to classify cichlids (pike cichlids are geos??? Really??) so I am curious. I am one of the few people here that collect and enjoy reading the scientific drival in those articles.

Until the paper is printed and has undergone peer review, it's not 'official' yet. According to classic diagnostics, they do key out as fene's ... but DNA has been trumping traditional diagnostics, so we aquarists can really never know anymore what is a 'species' and what isn't, especially if the scientists can't even tell anymore. Hence I always take the wait and see attitude and then find/read the paper.

I would say arguing about it is pointless until the paper comes out for either side, but sadly arguements tend to be the primary type of post here.

Again, absolutely beautiful fish.

 

[jgentry]

They are very nice looking fish. They are colored slightly different and look a little bulkier the Fene's to me but I'm not good at ID'ing parathreps anyway. Without knowing anything about them if I saw this pair in a store I would assume they are Fene's

New species or different varient they are nice fish either way so I don't really understand how it makes much difference to anyone.

 

[Squiddy]

buddha1200 - They are beautiful fish. When the paper is published, can you post the link to it (most of them are published in .pdf files now a days as well). That would end all of these arguements. I want to read it to see if it's strickly the DNA sequences that seperate them for fene's or if there are other classic diagnostics at work. DNA seems to be destroying the classic diagnostic tools used to classify cichlids (pike cichlids are geos??? Really??) so I am curious. I am one of the few people here that collect and enjoy reading the scientific drival in those articles.

Until the paper is printed and has undergone peer review, it's not 'official' yet. According to classic diagnostics, they do key out as fene's ... but DNA has been trumping traditional diagnostics, so we aquarists can really never know anymore what is a 'species' and what isn't, especially if the scientists can't even tell anymore. Hence I always take the wait and see attitude and then find/read the paper.

I would say arguing about it is pointless until the paper comes out for either side, but sadly arguements tend to be the primary type of post here.

Again, absolutely beautiful fish.

True. Yes. 'cept that eventually we pretty much know what's a dog, and a dalmation, and what's a wolf, and what's a dingo, jackel &tc &tc. Or it's a synspilus bla bla bla. Generally don't "need" science anymore for that - not a desperate need, of course. If there WAS ever any argument, cchhcc originally maintained that sp. catemaco was "NOT" a new species. Mojarraman presented the name of one scientist who has done the cytochrome b testing and is convinced that it is. His peers may have already reviewed it. Who knows?

I'm not "genetically tested" to be human. But there's pretty much the opinion that I am. If somebody like cchhcc comes along and says, "squiddy's NOT human," or "squiddy's NOT a new species," without anything to back it up but an apparent malice towards homo sapien generally (or Don Conkel specifically?) then where's the "argument?"

Whatever the species is, whether anyone cares or not, the "thing" is relatively new to the hobby. Or at least to cchhcc. Good enough. Good looking cichlid. Where's the argument?

 

[darth pike]

True. Yes. 'cept that eventually we pretty much know what's a dog, and a dalmation, and what's a wolf, and what's a dingo, jackel &tc &tc. Or it's a synspilus bla bla bla. Generally don't "need" science anymore for that - not a desperate need, of course.

In general, yes ... we know dogs are wolves, ect ect. Funny you should mention synspilus though, as it seems P. melanurus might actually be a synspilus. DNA might be striking again.

If there WAS ever any argument, cchhcc originally maintained that sp. catemaco was "NOT" a new species. Mojarraman presented the name of one scientist who has done the cytochrome b testing and is convinced that it is. His peers may have already reviewed it. Who knows?

Where's the argument?

And hence that is the heart of the 'arguement'. Until the paper is published, it is not a new species. It's still a fene, as that is what it appears to be using classical diagnostic tools. Now the paper might be rejected (though I've yet to see/read about one being rejected since the inclusing of DNA diagnostics), hence the wait and see attitude by myself. As you said, it may have been already reviewed and going through it's rewrite for publication.

Mojarraman and buddha1200 obviously have inside info on this subject, but usually the rest of us don't have access to that info until it's offically published. Now becuase of the info posted by Mojarraman (Thanks Mojarraman!!), I do honestly believe it will become a seperate species. But until it has a name (which often are rejected during the pier review, hence I have 'inside' info as to what the gold saum's scientific name will be, I don't tell people incase it gets changed in the rewrite), and is published ... I will stick by my wait and see attitude. Technically, you should continue to call it a fene until the paper is publish by the strictist scientific sense, but as I said ... I've yet to see a DNA thesis rejected so I think it's safe to say it will be a new species.

But then, most aquarist don't care about the constant reshuffling of species and genus that SA/CA species go through. I just happen to enjoy the scientific side of it.

edit: I don't really want to drag this into the dry, realm of the politics of publishing scientific articles and take away from the beauty of the fish anymore than this thread already has ... but it is kind of central to the arguement that's been stuffing the thread instead of more pics that should be in it. So the quicker the arguements stop, the more pics hopefully will start. I for one am all for more pics buddha1200!!

 

[Squiddy]

. Until the paper is published, it is not a new species!

Perhaps that's mistaken. After looking a little closer, I think we should weigh the matter. From the nature of the discussion, I believe that Dr. Lydeard has established that it is a new species, sp. Catemaco, and that there is no "official" dispute or argument because there are no grounds. I won't add an exclamation point, since someone more familiar with the subject matter would have to do that.

So I believe that you may be in error when you claim,

"But until it has a name (which often are rejected during the pier review, hence I have 'inside' info as to what the gold saum's scientific name will be, I don't tell people in case it gets changed in the rewrite), and is published ... I will stick by my wait and see attitude. Technically, you should continue to call it a fene until the paper is publish by the strictist scientific sense,"

and that technically it needs to be called Cichlasoma (Theraps [Paratheraps]) sp. "Catemaco," Lago Catemaco, Vera Cruz, Mexico. Would appear it has been named, accepting (at least) Don Conkel at face value -, not seeing a reason not to - but has not been officially described, which appears to be up to Melanie Styasni to do, and officially named "Conkeli?"

That is as clear an impression as I can glean from what I read. That well may be heart of the "argument" if there ever was one, or now is a new one.

 

[darth pike]

Yeah, your right ... I didn't mean to add the exclaimation point. I'm certainly not empathic on that point. As I stated, I believe it will become officially a new species. I was just mentioning that until the DNA evidence is published in a scientific paper, that it should technically still be considered a fene since that is what it diagnosticlly (without DNA evidence) is. Science is like the law, they love technicalities. If there were diagnostic differances, then you could use Paratheraps cf. fenestratus 'Catemaco.' Or affin though it's not common to use that prefix anymore. exHeros would be more accurate than Cichlasoma though, as the cichlasoma lineage is for large scaled forms (acaras, ports) and Heroine for small scale forms. Or at least that is what I was corrected by in a post by those much more versed in Ickthyology than I.

In science, it's publish or perish as it were. Nothing is established until it's published. We have the inside track on what will be published thanks to Mojarraman, and we all (well most of us at least) believe it will be described as a new species. It may keep the 'conkeli' as the specific name, or it might be changed. I'd be interested to see which it is actually.

Personally, until publication I would use the Paratheraps cf. fenestratus 'Catemaco' instead of just Paratheraps fenestratus to indicate it will be a new species and to prevent hybridization with fenes. But I know I would be told that's inaccurate by those scienitific minded folks.

Of course, a lot of those people don't even accept changes when they are made ... I have head fish being called genus names that they haven't existed in for 20+ years.

edit: Note that Paratheraps is being argued about it's 1) validity and 2) which species belong to it. If you were to be consersative, it could be listed as a Vieja ... Theraps was deffinately restricted to the elongated riverine species and thus wouldn't be valid.

edit edit: I hope buddha1200 finds a scientific naming debate better than the arguing that's been going on ... and more appropiate to the thread, but if not, just drop me a line and I'll stop posting.