P. melanurus
- Thread starter nutty
- Start date
Interesting thread. I always thought of these fish as 2 separate species with the Melanurus being the more elongate, gold colored species. Thanks for the update. I don't know about the Paraneetropulus designation though. I always thought gibbiceps, Bulleri, Nebuliferum, etc. was more appropriate for that group.
Two very beautiful fish. I've kept Melanarus back when they were as common as Managense. They differ in many ways from Synspilum. One obviuos aspect is their temperment. Much more laid back than Synspilum. Not disputing the news. No Cichlid is safe from the dreaded name change syndrome. I'm not going back into my extensive gallery of i.d. photos. By the time I'm done renaming them all another name change will come down.
darippa;5163458; said:
With respect now that DNA scientific data has been presented, you cannot class them as two seperate species. Doing so would be a little silly.
What you are describing is called intraspecific variability in coloration. Populations of bifasciatus and many other fish display this all the time.
Both synspilus and melanurus have long been debated about their relationship, many experts belived them to be the same species for a very long time.
For the hobby to progress with future generations of fishkeepers, you need to adopt these important findings and help others understand, so confusion with nomenclature dosen''t happen.
I see many members here still get confused over Archocentrus and Cryptoheros?
I can tell you, there are numerous scientific papers being prepared for many cichlids, especially the exCichlasoma group. These need to be assigned to a genus at some point!
Further reading to understand: http://www.cichlidae.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=11257
http://www.cichlidae.com/gallery/species.php?id=235
All the best,
Lee.
