Its the cichlasoma...
Its the cichlasoma...
Currently keeping many wild betta species and other anabantoids.
The scientific name issue had been long standing for some older and even more recent cichlid species.
The old central american "Cichlasoma" species had covered broadly many species of fish.
The big problem is that scientists cant seem to agree on whether they belong to the genus or they shoudl further classified into sub-genera, or even an independent genus formed.
Now from what i know the genus "Herichthys" was established back in the 1850s. The fish inside were classified due to their teeth structure. These fish at then were restricted to a more narrow area. Intensive study had been done then, and many of the old Cichlasoma species were merged in with Herichthys.
Later on, the Herichthys were further divided into sub-genera /sections based largely on characteristics of the teeth(if i can rememeber correctly) .
In these sub-genera, Archocentrus which you mentioned is one of them. There was some talk here and there to raise these to a full independant genus. But there were still many disagreements and debates.
One of them was that the differences in certain physical chararcteristic of the fish used to distinguish and classify into different sub-genera (eg teeth) , were the results of adaptations to certain environment rather than due to true evolutionary/genetic differences.
BASCIALLY,
for myself, until someone comes along and can prove all these, i will very much prefer to refer to such fish under the good old "Cichlasoma".
However, it is true that some of such sub-genera had been widely used for a long time, and thus to many it had been accepted as the scientific genus name. (thus you read of different genus names in different places).
Another example is amphilophus.
JUST BEAR IN MIND one thing:
genus names are still changing, but the species name is always there. when in doubt, use back cichlasoma.
of coz this doesnt apply to those long recognised genus..eg Astronotus, Aequiedens..
Bookmarks