Vieja Genus Broken Up?

  • We are currently upgrading MFK. thanks! -neo
JK47

JK47

Retired MFK Admin
MFK Member
Aug 4, 2008
11,112
3,494
2,555
Washington
Thoughs? Quotes pertaining each species of the genus, from source article:

http://www.practicalfishkeeping.co.uk/content.php?sid=3319

"Eleven species (V. fenestrata, V. guttulata, V. zonata, V. hartwegi, V. bifasciata, V. breidohri, V. argentea, V. regani, V. melanura, V. synspila, and V. maculicauda) were found to be most closely related to Paraneetroplus bulleri, and have been reassigned to the genus Paraneetroplus."
"Another three species (V. intermedia, V. godmanni, and V. microphthalma) were found to be most closely related to Theraps, and have been reassigned to the latter genus"
"The two remaining species (V. heterospila and V. tuyrensis) were recovered outside of the Paraneetroplus and Theraps clades, and have been provisionally reassigned to the genus 'Cichlasoma' (which is widely considered to be eventually divided into several genera, hence the quotation marks"
 
Whatever.

Who the hell make these calls anyway? Is there some kind of fish president somewhere? Who do the naming and stuff anyway?
They dont even know what theyre doing. If they did, there wouldnt be changes. Later Viejas and Parachomis switch place. Parachromis Synspilus. Vieja Dovii.

lol What? You never know anymore since it's happening right now.

making it unworthy to believe and follow by. Im gonna make hybrids to put these junk infos in the trash.
 
I grew up with CICHLASOMA. That is what they are to me, all of them.
 
This taxonomy stuff is quite strange.

The way this happens is a guy gets to do a study of the family, finds reasons to propose a new classifcation and goes on to publish some papers about it.

Then, if peer reviews support his conclusions, the new classification is generally accepted, after a certain amount of time has passed and more peers adhere to it.

But there is no "official body" declaring that this is so.

I know that I have lost track of all this stupidity. I barely managed to adhere to Kullander's revision in the 90's, but am ginving up.

Cichlasoma and Aequidens for me.
 
Sounds good.
Article says the study created a molecular phylogeny which I would take to mean they've actually looked at the fish's DNA, which should make these classifications much more accurate than any previous study based on comparing external characteristics.

If you don't like it, I don't see why. Reality doesn't owe you any debt of being simple. I'd much rather live in a world where scientists are making new discoveries and striving to develop ever more accurate models of utility, than one where a halfhearted pseudo-ichthyologist dumps every neotropical cichlid into a couple genus, then the world shrugs and says meh, good enough.
If we just accepted near enough as good enough, or just believed whatever was more personally convenient, we'd still live in a world of medieval superstition where the sun orbits the earth and and disease is caused by evil spirits.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
MonsterFishKeepers.com
Top Bottom