Chromaphyosemion by any other name

[TyroneGenade]

I think Chromaphyosemion is a very useful sub-genus, and far more explicit than the "BIV Group." I decry the recent splitter tendency to try to elevate it to a genus level without sufficient study and publications to justify it, though.

I must repectfully disagree. The work of Scheel, Amiet, Murphy & Collier and Sonnenberg all lead the same way: The BIV Group is something special and very distinct from the rest of Aphyosemion. The only thing holding it back is the rest of the Aphyosemion taxanomic mess. If you want to split Chrom. from A. then you will have to take Diapteron and Kathetys along for the ride (much to the delight of Seegers). Both these groups are basal to the the rest of the Aphyosemion phylogenetic (family) tree. If you are going to split them then the Calliurum Group must follow...

Once you begin to play the name game then you better have all your ducks in a row else we have the dreaded "Aphyposemion" problem that we had with "Cichlasoma" for a decade.

I beleive Figure 2 (from Murphy, W.J. and Collier, G.E (1999) Phylogenetic Relationships of African Killifishes in the Genera Aphyosemion and Fundulopanchax Inferred from Mitochondrial DNA Sequences
Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 11:351–-360) is the way things are going to go.

I am told by Huber that Sonnenberg is doing the workd as we speak so keep practicing those subgenus names as in the short while you will be using them.

As a side note, very few is any of the subgenus names are new. Most are quite old. Paraphyosemion dates back to the 70s. Many of the subgenera are far better described than the actual genera. Amiet constantly raises this issue in his book: auna of Cameroon. Vol 2. Le Genus Aphyosemion Myers. (This is an excellent book by the way! well worth its salt.) Amiet also long ago put batesii in Aphyosemion, seeing alread that it is far from Fundulopanchax where it dwelled for many years.

My vote is that we continue with Chrom. as it will be raised to something distinct from the rest of Aphyosemion and Sonnenberg has already published it as a full genus name. Of course, I can't force you to accept the change. You have to judge for yourself.

Regards

[whuntley]

My vote is that we continue with Chrom. as it will be raised to something distinct from the rest of Aphyosemion and Sonnenberg has already published it as a full genus name. Of course, I can't force you to accept the change. You have to judge for yourself.

Regards

One publication is rarely the final answer on such issues.

My main interests are first, to make a fish ID clear to me, second, to facilitate my communications about it to others, and third, to lower my confusion level when I'm asked to judge a show. [None of those are trivial problems, particularly that last one!]

The world of taxonomy will always be swinging between the "Lumpers" and the "Splitters" and we are just in a temporary ascendency of the "Splitters." [Every new crop of graduate students wants to set the world on fire with a definitive new description of something or other. :wink:]

In practice, I have come to see the wisdom of designating one summarizing author as the defining one for national standard nomenclature. Each new volume of Huber or Lazara contains changes and updates, but they tend to be behind the times as far as current literature is concerned. That is OK, for they provide us a standardized communications method that isn't being revised monthly.

I'm a hobbyist, and unqualified to judge the validity of Sonnenberg's paper. Likewise, most of what Costa says is greek to me. [I don't do Portugese, either! ] I'm just delighted that we have dedicated scribes like Dr. Ken Lazara and Prof. Jean Huber to translate the literature to a useful format for me and my fellow hobbyists. I tend to like KilliData better than KMI, but will always follow the latter for AKA purposes, to assure some uniformity in communication, here.

As such, that makes Chromaphyosemion a sub-genus for the time being.

As certainly as night follows day, our ability to describe genomes will be followed by insight into what they mean. When that happens, I suspect the world of taxonomy will become an unpenetrable morass of differing opinions. I'm too old to be looking forward to that particular mess. Have fun, Tyrone.

ttfn

Wright

[TyroneGenade]

As certainly as night follows day, our ability to describe genomes will be followed by insight into what they mean. When that happens, I suspect the world of taxonomy will become an unpenetrable morass of differing opinions. I'm too old to be looking forward to that particular mess. Have fun, Tyrone.

Read the October Scientific American? Lovely article on just how useful those series of "junk" DNA may be for the cell. It is those same series of "Junk" DNA that is used for phylogenetics because "they don't matter and mutate randomly."

The mess is here already...

The simple definition of species and genera are:
Any organism that corresponds more to the type of a species than any other belongs to that species. Any group of organisms that correspond more to each other than any other group form a genus.

Simple and functional and totally unobjective...

regards

[whuntley]

I have to admit that genus and species bother me less than "sub-species" and "sub-genus."

Our western US pupfish and springfish are the confusing recipients of trinomial nomenclature that, I think, confuses more than it clarifies. It is almost as if Miller (and others) were so steeped in academic indecision that they didn't want to go out on a limb and declare obviously isolated populations to be distinct species. Perhaps they were still influenced by the earlier concepts of viable offspring defining a species. I don't know.

Likewise, most sub-genera are the result of inability/indecision/unwillingness to go ahead and split groups off into their own genus, as Tyrone (Sonnenberg) would like to do with Chromaphyos.

Earlier I mentioned my three personal reasons for being a "nomenazi." Others that are important to the hobby are in the areas of species maintenance within the hobby, and the dealings with government agencies regarding endangered and threatened "species." I'm sure there are more, but those are just the ones I encounter all the time.

Bottom line is I still think we need to make our language common enough to facilitate accurate communication.

Work by Scheel and other on hybridization, plus loss of some nice but irreplaceable species in the '70s and early '80s has more-or-less forced us to become the ultimate splitters, in that we use primarily collection codes or location to define breeding stock. I deplore that, but see no good way out, for right now. YMMV.

Wright

[TyroneGenade]

..forced us to become the ultimate splitters, in that we use primarily collection codes or location to define breeding stock. I deplore that, but see no good way out, for right now...

Oh but brother Wright there IS a way! Research! Using DNA fingerprinting, microsatelites, allozyme work etc we can define the natural reproductive boundries of each breeding population very accurately. If the funding could be found we could dispense with collection codes forever and replace them with biologically meaningful disignations such as "Rufiji Clade"...

But then what do we do with the dozen Rufiji River Camp collection codes? The mind boggles...

I fear we have made a bigger mess than we need... but it sure is pretty.:-)