It is ... it was just restricted to the Port Cichlids. So while everything else that used to be called Cichlasoma isn't anymore, the Port Cichlids still are.
Tell me about Andinoacara Stahlbergi
- Thread starter TigerTalon1
- Start date
It is ... it was just restricted to the Port Cichlids. So while everything else that used to be called Cichlasoma isn't anymore, the Port Cichlids still are.
According to Wikipedia, which it says was updated in 2018:
There are currently sixteen recognized species in this genus:[1]
Though trimaculatum and istalnum are obviously wrong, as they are Heroine cichlids and not acaras.
There are currently sixteen recognized species in this genus:[1]
- Cichlasoma amazonarum S. O. Kullander, 1983
- Cichlasoma araguaiense S. O. Kullander, 1983
- Cichlasoma bimaculatum (Linnaeus, 1758) (Black acara)
- Cichlasoma boliviense S. O. Kullander, 1983
- Cichlasoma dimerus (Heckel, 1840)
- Cichlasoma geddesi (Regan, 1905)
- Cichlasoma istlanum (D. S. Jordan & Snyder, 1899)
- Cichlasoma orientale S. O. Kullander, 1983
- Cichlasoma orinocense S. O. Kullander, 1983
- Cichlasoma paranaense S. O. Kullander, 1983
- Cichlasoma portalegrense (R. F. Hensel, 1870)
- Cichlasoma pusillum S. O. Kullander, 1983
- Cichlasoma santifranciscense S. O. Kullander, 1983
- Cichlasoma taenia (E. T. Bennett, 1831) (Brown coscarob)
- Cichlasoma trimaculatum (Günther, 1867) (Three spot cichlid)
- Cichlasoma zarskei Ottoni, 2011
Though trimaculatum and istalnum are obviously wrong, as they are Heroine cichlids and not acaras.
Its intresting how luttle this genus is updated considering the former size of it. Armt trimacs now in the Amphilophus genus?
To OP where do you live that could help us identify the fish.
It's not quite that easy. The scientist that restricts the genus isn't responsible for then defining all those orphaned fish, just the ones belonging to the genus he or she are working with. Someone else usually then has to take up the next time, refine it down (Heros was next). So it's been almost 40 years since Cichlasoma has been broken up, but we still have some orphans because it takes a long while to work through the remaining ones genus by genus.
True. It can take years to separate fish out of a genus. Andinoacara themselves are an example, took years before they were separated from Aqeuidens. Satanoperca spent years as Geophagus. Geo Brasiliensis might be another example in waiting.
Then again, some fish expected to be separated are not, after all. Example: Cyphotilapia. After Cyphotilapia was split to two species (frontosa and gibberosa), many expected a third species, a so called "species North", to separate 6 and 7 stripe frontosa. Biologists examined them and said: No, same species. So there is no sp. North and never was except in some people's imagination (yet the invalid name persists in some circles).
Some genera, Cichlasoma was one, served as catch-all bins for a variety of fish not studied well enough to classify them further, but at some point someone determines the common distinctive characteristics that warrant separating out a new genus.
Then again, some fish expected to be separated are not, after all. Example: Cyphotilapia. After Cyphotilapia was split to two species (frontosa and gibberosa), many expected a third species, a so called "species North", to separate 6 and 7 stripe frontosa. Biologists examined them and said: No, same species. So there is no sp. North and never was except in some people's imagination (yet the invalid name persists in some circles).
Some genera, Cichlasoma was one, served as catch-all bins for a variety of fish not studied well enough to classify them further, but at some point someone determines the common distinctive characteristics that warrant separating out a new genus.
