and still no name for this group of fish, as well as some others.
the begining of the end was when they came in the market. All sizes. Kind of like they been kept and bred and when numbers are met, they were let loose.
Ornatum babies are here!! All alive and well
True enough.
But obviously this name has not received much attention at all, until very recently. The CRC had it listed as a port acara type fish (Cichlasoma rather then exCichlasoma)------this error was pointed out in the thread you linked to, and it's only in the last few months that it has been corrected.
Regardless of what you call it, I think it's a good idea to use the cf. in front of it's name. If it's an undescribed species, it's likely going to be some time before it gets described------first and foremost, there going to need a genus name......28 years now
It might be difficult to determine what makes up the group (festae, atromaculatum, ornatum,gephyrum?). Then probably very questionable whether or not these fishes are seperate from Astatheros or Amphilophus. Even these last 2 groups, there still moving fish around, debating whether some of these belong to one genus or the other. Of course the genus always makes up part of a name of a species.....you won't get a name for this fish until they resolove the question of genus, first.
Congrats. Regardless of what species they actually are, they are stunning fish.
As much as I love the CRC, they are very conservative there and very slow in the name change game (which I think is a good thing btw). So while it's still the best resource for cichlid taxonomy, it's often a couple years behind.
Very true. They had to describe the blue acara group formally (Andinoacara) before they could wade into the green terror mess and actually start describing the species. They were in limbo a long time as well after Kullander starting carving up Cichlasoma, Geophagus and Aequidens (which I do think needed to be done).
I think the problem with this group is that some of the locales have been inaccessable for years so there's no scientists working with them, and they all have other stuff on their plates. I doubt it will be anytime soon that they get some attention.
I also agree with using the cf for the hobby 'ornatum' ... which is what prompted my first reply in the thread. I personally would use cf gephryum over the cf. ornatum, since I tend to believe someone like Oliver Lucanus that it looks more like the supposed gephryum than it does ornatum. I am definitely not going to argue an ID with Oliver ... again.
