opinion on the status of Simpsonichthys whitei

[stormhawk]

Costa has made some hiccups here and there but everyone is human so we can't blame the fella. Indecisiveness however, is a problem that he might have to overcome.

Take for example, Stenolebias bellus. Originally he named it as Plesiolebias bellus but apparently had placed the species in the new genus Stenolebias beforehand. Confusing right?

As for the issue of whitei and papilliferus, the answers lie directly in the paper I mentioned earlier. In it he would have stated the keys on which he differentiates this species from whitei. There was a great deal of discussion recently on the SAA mailing thread but I'd not want to see that happen here.

Until someone, or somebody comes up with a comprehensive revision of the close relationship between the two species, or can prove without doubt that these two are one and the same species (by all means whitei), we'll just have to stick to their current taxonomic status. [/i]

[hwchoy]

well Tyrone just showed they should be different

[stormhawk]

I've not kept whitei or papilliferus yet but in short, the differences may lay more in the appearance of the females of each species. It may prove as a diagnostic tool in identification of the species since at least one species of Simpsonichthys was described on the basis of the unique marking on the female of the species. This particular species is none other than Simpsonichthys ocellatus. The species was described on the basis of the large mid-body spot present on the females that was unique to this species.

Furthermore, the etymology of the species name, papilliferus, may also hold the key to the identification of the species. It could perhaps, grow slightly larger, or have a different number of rays in the fins.

What is really important here is to ensure that the fish remains that way. In short, if one receives it as papilliferus, keep it as such and vice versa for those who receive them as whitei.

All the answers lie in Costa's paper on the genus Nematolebias. Without a copy of that paper we are very much in murky waters.

[hwchoy]

See Raf's pic above. I think that's what is meant, that the spots merge into "filaments".

anyway I wrote to Costa, see if can get any answers or perhaps the paper out of him

[stormhawk]

Costa? It would be a miracle if he ever replies. I once sent him an email regarding Simp. constanciae about 2 years back and um.. yes, no reply as yet.

The best fella to bug for a copy of the paper would be you know who...

[hwchoy]

Costa? It would be a miracle if he ever replies. I once sent him an email regarding Simp. constanciae about 2 years back and um.. yes, no reply as yet.

The best fella to bug for a copy of the paper would be you know who...

like that huh? well just got the Science magazine out of *you know who* so how about you bug him

[TyroneGenade]

As for the issue of whitei and papilliferus, the answers lie directly in the paper I mentioned earlier. In it he would have stated the keys on which he differentiates this species from whitei.

Indeed. I obtained a copy of the paper from Stefano. The 4 points I gave ealier are the 4 diagnostic features Costa uses to pry the two "species" apart. The pictures he supplies clearly show the differences but were (IMHO) picked especially for their contrast. I have 4 male whitei in with about 20 females (quite a party going on) and they show alot of variation in the shap of the spots in the dorsal fins and on the body.

The picture I supplied of the whitei is perhaps the best picture illustrating the features of that fish. The papilliferus picture is perhaps a bit wanting but clearly shows the absence of the dark band in the anal fin and the way how the spots morph into striations. The body spotting/barring seems very variable in both species and IMHO cannot be used to diagnose the 2 species.

I will see how quickly I can get the article onto the SAA website...

Regards

[stormhawk]

Tyrone, if its possible could you make a PDF version of the article and email it to me?