Synspilum Question

[viejafish]

that's 2 fish. Top is Bifa, bottom is Fenestrata

Those are high quality bifa and fene with intense red.

Juvenile bifa and fene look almost identical with a full central horizontal bar as opposed to a half bar in synspillum and melanuras. Bifa has another incomplete bar above the the central horizontal bar that distinguishes it from any other Vieja, but it comes and goes so it is not a reliable ID trait. As they mature, bifa shows a golden base whereas fene shows a blue green base, and with that respect, bifa looks closer to syns than any other Viejas.

 

[dogofwar]

P. melanurus is a widely distributed fish...per CRC:

Distribution: Lowland water bodies in the eastern slope of the southern part of the Yucatan peninsula in México, northern and central Belize, south to Stann Creek (Greenfield & Thomerson, 1997). It also inhabits in Rio Usumacinta tributaries in México and Guatemala. I have always found them below 200 m but there are reports of them as high as 600 m in clear water rivers in Chiapas (Stawikowski & Werner, 1998). Water bodies include big and small rivers, coastal marsh lagoons, cenotes and lakes.

Inhabited countries: Belize (native), Guatemala (native), Mexico (native).

Habitat: Lowland water bodies within its range. Water can rank from very transparent to murky (Like the type locality). They are found mainly in larger water bodies like lagoons or big rivers, mainly in areas with slow water flow. Mud and sandy substrate is commonly found, and driftwood is normally scattered. Water plants are present on some occasions, with plants like Ceratophylum sp., Vallisneria, and floating Euchornia sp. common.


Fish from muddy, slow moving water will tend to be more colorful and taller-bodied...while fish of the same species in clean, clear, fast flowing water might have less color and more torpedo-shaped bodies. And everywhere in between.

In a scientific world in which many of the incentives are to split and describe "new species", it's actually kind of refreshing to see some taxonomic lumping going on, especially where the DNA evidence supports it. Whether there are several different geographic variants of a fish called P. melanurus or multiple species is really a judgement call. So far the scientific community (and CRC) support it.

Where taxonomy meets the marketplace (I want to buy fish that will turn out to look like I expect them to look like) is with provenance to a collection location. It's a roll of the dice without some knowledge of provenance. This is especially important in the world of Paratheraps...

Matt

It's true that morphological differences do not necessarily distinct species. Look at dog species that vary greatly in size, behavior and morphological differences among the hundred breeds of dog, and wolf. However, to hobbyists, morphological differences matter everything, not DNA. When I buy a melanuras, I expect it to look like a melanuras, not a synspillum even though they are one and the same species according to DNA.

I am not too sure how tight it is to use DNA to distinguish species. There are different ways to compare DNA, not just one way, and the standard used to distinguish one species from another based on DNA is not as uniform as one thinks.

 

[tanyaelec11]

very informative thread. Thank you

 

[Kramer123]

Those are high quality bifa and fene with intense red.

Juvenile bifa and fene look almost identical with a full central horizontal bar as opposed to a half bar in synspillum and melanuras. Bifa has another incomplete bar above the the central horizontal bar that distinguishes it from any other Vieja, but it comes and goes so it is not a reliable ID trait. As they mature, bifa shows a golden base whereas fene shows a blue green base, and with that respect, bifa looks closer to syns than any other Viejas.

Okay. I am going to get them today hopefully and I will look at them a little more closely. It seems that I do remember one of them having a full bar and the other a half. I had thought it was just the tank conditions affecting them causing that. Base colour has been the same mostly, yellowish golden in all. With the exception of one larger grayish "redhead".

The staff there have no idea about what they are. In July they got a huge cichlid shipment in lots of 25. Some Jags, these two, Cubans, GTs, Festae, Convict, Firemouth, Salvini, and tons more. Normally the staff here are pretty knowledgeable. But it seems like the two fish in question can be hard to positively ID on the best of days.

 

[notho2000]

Please post some pics when you get them.

 

[neutrino]

Nice thread... enjoying the photos.

But this caught my attention...

Taxonomy based on morphology holds much less merit (to me at least) than analysis of DNA. Cichlid species even in the same population can display an amazing array of morphological differences and Paratheraps are not an exception to this. I consider the different looking populations different variants of P. melanurus...
Matt

Agree. This is the new scientific reality with modern DNA testing, though it's not always DNA versus morphology for biologists, often both are taken into consideration. But the fact remains that DNA testing has opened up a new world in terms of recognizing and categorizing the true diversity on the planet. And the fact is that some animals that look nearly identical to each other are not closely related while other animals with a range of morphological diversity may actually be very closely related, or even the same species. This is going on not only with fish, but everything from fungi to butterflies to frogs to birds, to... on and on.

There's reams of information on this in recent science literature, much of which can be found with keywords like "cryptic species" or "cryptic diversity" (formerly unrecognized diversity or new species that have been brought to light with genetic testing). Just one simple science reference that sums some of this up:
Science Daily

Our ability to assess biological diversity, ecosystem health, ecological interactions, and a wide range of other important processes is largely dependent on accurately recognizing species. However, identifying and describing species is not always a straightforward task. In some cases, a single species may show a high level of morphological variation, while in other cases, multiple morphologically similar species may be hidden under a single species name. Cryptic species, two or more distinct species that are erroneously classified under a single species name, are found in all major groups of living things.

Is this irrelevant to hobbyists? Not exactly, but in some cases, maybe. But you wouldn't want to keep Cyphotilapia in the same tank with P. straeleni, despite the fact they mimic Cyphotilapia in appearance (straeleni feed on the scales of Cyphotilapia). And it's relevant to the extent we might want to understand the true complexity and nature of the planet.

On the other hand, sometimes hobbyists (or collectors, etc.) are ahead of the curve in recognizing something in their tanks that scientists haven't gotten around to studying or classifying yet.

 

[Kramer123]

I will post some for sure

 

[viejafish]

Another Vieja species that has half bar is Black Belt. You don't want to have BB as it is the most aggressive Vieja.

 

[tiger15]

Even though DNA has opened up a new tool to compare the relationship of one species to another, it still depends on subjective standard set by biologists on how much difference in DNA distinguishes one species from another. If a relaxed standard is used, several closely related species can be lumped together as a single species. On the other hand, if a stringent standard is used, different races of the same species can be subdivided into distinct species.

 

[dogofwar]

DNA analysis can also provide insight into into paths of evolution and speciation. So, of course, can geography, geology, morphology and other tools.

It's not a relaxed or more stringent standard to lump or split fish into species, it's peer acceptance of a piece of literature published in an academic (i.e. peer-reviewed journal). In other words, do other experts in the field accept the premise of the work?

Matt

Even though DNA has opened up a new tool to compare the relationship of one species to another, it still depends on subjective standard set by biologists on how much difference in DNA distinguishes one species from another. If a relaxed standard is used, several closely related species can be lumped together as a single species. On the other hand, if a stringent standard is used, different races of the same species can be subdivided into distinct species.