opinion on the status of Simpsonichthys whitei

[hwchoy]

I am asking for your opinions regarding the fish known as Simpsonichthys whitei. According to references listed in FishBase, this fish was first describe by Myers in 1942 and classed under Cynolebias.

However in 1996 Costa moved it to the genus Simpsonichthys which in 1998 he apparently changed his mind and reclassified it in Nematolebias. Additionally in 2002 he revised the genus with a new species N. papilliferus while moving N. myersi back to Simpsonichthys.

So the long and short of it, this fish appears to be properly valid as Nematolebias whitei. What do you guys think?

[stormhawk]

It is valid as Simpsonichthys whitei, with Nematolebias being regarded as a subgenus within Simpsonichthys. The species should be properly known as the following:

Simpsonichthys (Nematolebias) whitei (Myers, 1942)

The species papilliferus is also considered as a species within Simpsonichthys but under the subgenus Nematolebias. The FishBase records are in need of some updating but that would require fresh input of data from the researchers in Brazil. There are several Simpsonichthys species which are also missing from the species list on FishBase.

There is more than just 3 species under that subgenus with S. constanciae being one of them. Until Costa decides to split the genus Simpsonichthys again, they are all considered as Simpsonichthys.

[hwchoy]

you got those Costa papers in question? English?

[stormhawk]

Sadly nope. I need a subscription to IEF to get them. Here's the reference:

Costa, Wilson J. E. M.: The neotropical seasonal fish genus Nematolebias (Cyprinodontiformes: Rivulidae: Cynolebiatinae): taxonomic revision with description of a new species (p. 41) IEF vol.13 - no.1 May 2002

Perhaps you should "cucuk" * HH?

*means 'to poke' in Malay, a colloquial term used to describe how to egg someone on. (for those who don't understand local speech )

[hwchoy]

yes FB has the reference of all the papers but heck, we need the papers man. how's any man to make a good judgement

[hwchoy]

There are several Simpsonichthys species which are also missing from the species list on FishBase.

not surprising given that this is really a sideline for them. Rasbora vulcanus wasn't listed for 4 years until I gave them a picture thus forcing them to create an entry

so the best way to get a species entry into FB apparently would be to send them a picture

[hwchoy]

It is valid as Simpsonichthys whitei, with Nematolebias being regarded as a subgenus within Simpsonichthys. The species should be properly known as the following:

Simpsonichthys (Nematolebias) whitei (Myers, 1942)

do you mean that Costa created a subgenus Nematolebias? Doesn't seem like the case from the title of the paper. I mean we are not scientists, and while we can subscribe to different schools of thoughts, we should not apply their statement and work in ways to suit ourselves.

e.g. I subscribe to Rainboth who assign a class of cyprinids in the genus Systomus, but I would be wrong to say Systomus is a subgenus of Puntius.

So this Nematolebias being a subgenus thing, is it described or stated somewhere in a paper? I notice similar discussions elsewhere in this forum on other genus/subgenus as well.

[TyroneGenade]

Who cares what the name is! I have the fish in the flesh spawning away merrily at 18°C in the fish room and let me tell you THEY ARE AWESOME. I wish I could snap a picture of the sparring or spawning males.

tt4n

[hwchoy]

Who cares what the name is!
tt4n

looks like that taxonomists are going out of job!

[stormhawk]

It was actually described as being a distinct genus valid and different from Simpsonichthys but Costa changed his mind again and placed it in subgeneric rank under Simpsonichthys.

Whatever the name is, it will always be known as the whitei.

But for simplicity's sake, just stick to the name I gave you if you want some accuracy (for now that is... ) until Costa decides to change his mind again.

[hwchoy]

It was actually described as being a distinct genus valid and different from Simpsonichthys but Costa changed his mind again and placed it in subgeneric rank under Simpsonichthys.

Whatever the name is, it will always be known as the whitei.

But for simplicity's sake, just stick to the name I gave you if you want some accuracy (for now that is... ) until Costa decides to change his mind again.

so he did demote Nematolebias to subgenus! geez, I don't intend to include subgenus (just tracking genus changes is bad enough ) so I'll just leave it as S. whitei.

actually the whitei shown on FB is rather much slimmer looking than the one Au gave me (abeit it being an albino).

[whuntley]

Whatever the [generic] name is, it will always be known as the whitei.

Unless it is papilliferus, (sp?) which is what I think I kept for years, thinking I had whitei.

I had a strain from Germany, that I got in the early '90s at a West Coast Weekend. It was a deep red, maroon color, with a more elongated shape than the Barra de Sao Joao strain brought in later by Cal Him and the SA Annuals group of the KCC. Those had a wider-flaring dorsal, but were otherwise a somewhat less-colorful version of the originals that I called the "DKG Reds." Both were pretty similar, and color and shape were the only differences that I recall.

I'm currently looking for the original type, and I suspect I must now seek something other than whitei.

Wright

[hwchoy]

I had read on some killi digest complaining that papilliferus is just less spotty (or the other way round) than whitei, and whether they should actually be different species.

[Raf]

Hi guys,

I just tried to post a picture of my S. papilliferus aquarium strain, an old import before the papilliferus and whitei separation, but was unable to do it. Can anyone explain me how to post a picture on this forum?

regards,

Raf

[RonWill]

I just tried to post a picture of my S. papilliferus aquarium strain, an old import before the papilliferus and whitei separation, but was unable to do it. Can anyone explain me how to post a picture on this forum?

Raf,
Instructions can be found in the following threads;
Linking pictures in our Gallery to your post/messages
Posting images in this forum

I took the liberty of creating an album for you as well. Just follow this link to "Raf Stassen's Album"

While in the Public Upload Gallery, I decided to do some 'housekeeping'. Will the following users take note and future upload should be into their respective albums.

Kee Hoe's Album

Yi Hong's Album (Killinewb)

Michael Soon (You have 2 user IDs... Michsoon & Michael Soon??)

Aryanggie's Album

[timebomb]

Can anyone explain me how to post a picture on this forum?

Raf, if you still can't figure out how to post pictures, send them to me as email attachments and I'll post them for you.

Loh K L

[TyroneGenade]

Unless it is papilliferus, (sp?) which is what I think I kept for years, thinking I had whitei.

No, they were probably not the "papilliferus" phenotype. This phenotype has to:
1) lack the sparkling blue cresent in the caudal fin
2) have the blue-gold spots along the flanks organized in gold lines
3) the spot in the dorsal fin have to be replaced by gold vermiculation
4) lack the dark submarginal band in the anal fin

If the fish in question does not have these 4 characters as described by Costa then they are not papilliferus. Looking at the picture of the DKG Red fish in Costa's book once can see they are still whitei.

However, many whitei demonstrate a phenotype approaching that of papilliferus (just enter "whitei" in the seach box on Google and browse the pics and see what I mean) leaving me to doubt that papilliferus is actually a true species but perhaps rather just an extreme colour variation. This hypothesis is yet to be tested (because I don't have any papilliferus to cross into my old whitei strain.

I've put together an article for the SAA website on these two fish but am yet to get it posted up onto the site... busy busy me...

tt4n

[Raf]

1) lack the sparkling blue cresent in the caudal fin
2) have the blue-gold spots along the flanks organized in gold lines
3) the spot in the dorsal fin have to be replaced by gold vermiculation
4) lack the dark submarginal band in the anal fin

Thanks Tyrone for your explanation, now I understand a bit more the difference. If I'm correct, my fish are papilliferus?



regards,

Raf

[hwchoy]

getting back to the topic at hand. I just realise the FishBase coordinator Nematoliebias and the various South American killifishes is none other than Wilson Costa himself. So you'd think he really meant Nematolebias whitei? Right?

[TyroneGenade]

Thanks Tyrone for your explanation, now I understand a bit more the difference. If I'm correct, my fish are papilliferus?

Yes, my best guess is that it is a papilliferus (but you clearly demonstrate my point that many whitei exhibit characteristics of "papilliferus" and vice versa).

This is a picture of a whitei. Notice the spotting in the anal and dorsal fin and the presence of a dark border. Also, while the spot line up in lines they are very different to papilliferus pictured here. In the whitei picture the blue cresent is shown very nicely as a more or less solid line. In the papilliferus picture this is harder to see but trust me, it is a series of broken dots.

Some speciemens of papilliferus do not have the striping in the body and fins as nicely pronounced as in the picture and then they look very much like whitei.