Vieja bocourti

  • We are currently upgrading MFK. thanks! -neo
duanes

duanes

MFK Moderators
Staff member
Moderator
MFK Member
Jun 7, 2007
22,607
29,650
2,910
Isla Taboga Panama via Milwaukee
According to the CRC (Cichlid Room Companion) Neetroplus (xCichlasoma) bocourti has been reclassified as Vieja bocourti, with a tenative character.
Based on ecological, DNA and traditional morphology, it is found to have a very close relationship to Vieja heterospila.
 
Yet, another name change.

I think I like it under the Vieja tag.

Thanks Duane
 
I believe with the current advances in DNA testing, we will see many name changes in the future, because evolutionary relationships that were formerly simply based on outward appearance, or dentition may be disputed.
 
It's interesting to see CRC make a call on this. The paper in question (from 2008) does show a phylogenetic affinity between bocourti and heterospilus (in some of their analyses), but the authors do not suggest a specific revision for bocourti (as CRC notes). I'm not sure a website making the call is sufficient for it to be viewed as official or even tentative within the scientific community. For example, the Vieja designation ignores a more recent paper that suggests lumping all Paratheraps and Vieja into Paraneetroplus. I was hoping to see a new peer-reviewed study that specifically recommended placing bocourti within Vieja (or Paraneetroplus). I'm not disputing the possibility that bocourti belongs within the Vieja clade, but I would prefer to see it addressed specifically in peer-reviewed literature.
 
I thought Vieja was completely gone as a Genus--demoted to slang used by hobbyists. And I thought that all "vieja" were moved to Paratheraps. And that Bocourti was in Genus Herichthys. Jeff Rapps uses Paraneetroplus, so Paratheraps is now slang, too? I'm totally confused. And what about Trimacs? Are they Amphilophus, or Cichlasoma?
 
A paper by McMahan et al (2010 - "Molecular systematics of the enigmatic middle American genus Vieja", Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 57: 1293-1300) recommended placing all Vieja (including those often listed as Paratheraps) within Paraneetroplus.

bocourti are commonly listed as Herichthys (based on dentition I think), but you often see them listed as ex-Cichlasoma meaning that their phylogenetic placement is uncertain. The study referred to (indirectly) by Duanes in the OP suggests bocourti is more closely allied with (Vieja) heterospila than Herichthys, leading to the claim it should be within Vieja (or I guess Paraneetroplus if you agree with the paper listed above).
 
CRC does reclassify it with a "tentative character".
For me, where pearsei ends up will also be interesting, as it has long been considered Herichthys. But with Herichthys now restricted to the carpintus/cyanoguttatus clade, and other former Herichthys such as bartoni and pantostictus moved to Nosferatu, where pearsei fits in may be interesting.
Because along with it being superficially similar to bocourti, it also shows the vegetarianism.
And the other similar species, tuyrense.
 
Did you notice that CRC placed pearsei in Vieja as well? It's long been associated with bocourti, but I'm not sure the detailed analyses have been done.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
MonsterFishKeepers.com
Top Bottom