Frontosa species discussion

[callum]

frontosa in NZ are generally burundi.. which have 6 bands

Kigoma variant have 7 bands

havent heard of any of them in nz..

[livingart]

some conjecture on this, i have a female with 7 clear bars on one side and 6 on the other

some would say it is bad breeding

some others would say maybe mixed bloodlines

i say it is a nice fish about 10 inches long

1 of his females has held and spat, too many other mouths for any survivors

[David R]

some others would say maybe mixed bloodlines

They're all the same species anyway. It happens in datnoids and that would be simply genetic variation, not "hybrids"...

[ryanjury]

They're all the same species anyway. It happens in datnoids and that would be simply genetic variation, not "hybrids"...

The kigoma and burundi are actually classified as 2 different species rather than variants of the same species so technically if they were crossed they would be hybrids.. End of the day it doesn't really matter as they are still awesome fish and it is not like we will see (nor will anyone want to pay for) higher quality ones in NZ.

http://www.cichlid-forum.com/profiles/c ... .php?cat=9

[David R]

Classified by whom? The Feb '10 PFK magazine has an article on fronts written by Ad Konnings, and says in 2003 Takahashi Nakaya suggested the southern populations be regarded as a a seperate species (C. gibberosa), but the author believes the morphological variation falls within the species. He goes on to say that fronts are a deep water fish and has been in the lake for several millions of years, and that there would have been several times the lake level would have dropped enough so that the lake was split in three. "One would have confidently expected to see several species of Cyphotilipia living sympatrically at any or at least many different localieies around the lake - much as we do with those of Cyprichromis or Petrochromis. That this is not the case strongly suggests that C. frontosa it is not likely to be speciated soon and that the recognition of new species of this genus is based on personal opinion rather than evolution. A single species reflects much more the known natural history of the Tanganyikan humphead."

The article was an interesting read, even for someone who isn't particularly interested in rift lake cichlids (I bought it because of an article on Geophagus!), I suggest you try find a copy of the magazine.

So is C. gibberosa really a valid species? Or is it a case as mentioned in this thread of internet chinese whispers fuelled by an industry who wants to sell more fish and a hobby that wants more varieties of rare fish?

[livingart]

Put some pics up of your fronnies

got any pics gentlemen?

[David R]

Sorry, I'll try keep the intellectual stuff to a minimum.

[smidey]

Sorry, I'll try keep the intellectual stuff to a minimum.

this thread is for posting your pics, not discussing fronts

[livingart]

i like the intellectual stuff as well

just that lately so many threads seem to go off topic then degenerate

[David R]

There's not the same controversy surrounding the taxonomy of fronts as there is other rift lake cichlids.

Could you split the conversation part into a new thread? It seems like an interesting and worthwhile discussion to me, and while it may be slightly off-topic its still fairly relevant to the subject at hand...

[firenzenz]

So is C. gibberosa really a valid species? Or is it a case as mentioned in this thread of internet chinese whispers fuelled by an industry who wants to sell more fish and a hobby that wants more varieties of rare fish?

I hope you aren't suggesting that Takahashi Nakaya and Ad Konnings should be included into the crowd of Chinese whisperers and 'chest beaters'.

I can imagine there is always going to be debate about the issue of- at what level locational variances become defined enough to create the argument for new species.

No more so than Rift valley cichlids and Sth American Loricariidae

I would suggest that doesn't take away from the desirable situation of isolating these difference where ever possible.

For the punter though, I can imagine it is pure semantics.

I guess in this case I'm a punter because I look at Callum beautiful fish with babies on the way and yhink that many more can enjoy these genus at ever decreasing prices. Well done Callum.

PFK is a great mag alright. I did subscribe for a year but got annoyed with all the reptile articles.

Hmmm.. maybe should give it another go

[David R]

I hope you aren't suggesting that Takahashi Nakaya and Ad Konnings should be included into the crowd of Chinese whisperers and 'chest beaters'.

Certainly not! The biggest difference is that the chest beaters and chinese whisperers KNOW that they are right and their claims are set in concrete, while the likes of Konnings and Nakaya say things like "in 2003 Takahashi Nakaya suggested the southern populations be regarded as a a separate species" and "Although this appears to be a good morphological difference, I feel this image is based on the morphological variation falls totally within the species". (both quotes from the afore mentioned PFK article). Not once in the article did Konnings say he was right and Nakaya was wrong, he simply stated his beliefs and the evidence to back them up, and disagreed with Nakayas suggestion to split the genus into more than one species.

True taxonomists make suggestions, float ideas, and admit all the grey areas on their knowledge, while the internet experts argue about taxonomy as if it is a clear cut black and white subject.

[smidey]

this thread is for posting your pics, not discussing fronts

now this is a discussion thread my post makes no sense :lol:

[kiwiplymouth]

now this is a discussion thread my post makes no sense :lol:

Thats ok, we are used to it :lol:

[smidey]

Thats ok, we are used to it :lol:

:lol: still bitter about the PT crack?

[kiwiplymouth]

:lol: still bitter about the PT crack?

It would take a lot more than that to make me bitter .

I am well aware that my taste is often in my backside .

Opps better get back on topic before the big stick comes out again

[livingart]

didn't see a big stick anywhere

[Fishman]

Try this guys if you want more info...

http://www.cyphos.com/forums/index.php

[phoenix44]

I have Axelrod's Encyclopedia of Exotic Tropical Fishes book.

Boulenger (1906)

C. frontosa (7 bar)

"Recently therehas been considerable taxonomix revision done to this genus, which was once thought to be monotypic. We now know that there are no fewer than two valid species, with several more nominal species under investigation".

Takahashi et al (2003)

C. gibberosa

"Newly described species is made up of several populations..... care and husbandry is nearly identical to that of their cousins C. frontosa, with the only exception being that males are said to be more aggressive than their calmer cousins".

Axelrod & Scott (2005)

[David R]

So Axelrod doesn't share Konnings sentiments, and it seems like C. gibberosa is widely accepted as being a valid species. Makes sense if you're a collector/wholesaler looking for new names, or a hobbyist looking for a point of difference. TBH I tend to agree with Konnings, given the subtle differences and lack of geographic isolation I think it would be more logical to keep it as a monotypic genus and split it at subspecies level to define distinct regional varieties.

[livingart]

i would run with that too

[phoenix44]

I don't think it is up to an individual taxonomist to decide whether the fish belong to a certain species or not. Once the theory gets put out, there needs to be scientific research done on the matter. This usually involves DNA testing among others. Then the scientific community gathers and agrees or disagrees on the matter. It can be a long and winding process and can take years if not decades.

If Axelrod states that "there was taxonomic revision done to the genus" - then rest assured it was not conjured up by one person.

[ryanjury]

I agree there doesn't seem to be much difference between them, but I don't believe it is that easy to just conjure up a new species to make them rarer or worth more? Like Phoenix has suggested I would imagine there is alot of scientific type stuff that has to go into it before a new species is defined and accepted.

It is difficult when most of the rift lake fish evolved from the same fish they were just separated in different conditions so evolved differently. I was watching an awesome program on the congo river last night and a similar thing has happened there, due to the depth of the river and the fast flow with predators swimming up and down it species have been separated into different populations. These populations have been evolving differently, they were doing all sorts of genetic testing to see if they were related and stuff like that.

[firenzenz]

TBH I tend to agree with Konnings, given the subtle differences and lack of geographic isolation I think it would be more logical to keep it as a monotypic genus and split it at subspecies level to define distinct regional varieties.

When you say 'lack of geographical isolation' I assumming the migratory habits of this fish are factored into some of the theories and opinions of this 'heady selection' of experts being quoted in this thread.

As a deeper water fish does that make them greater travelers?

Behavioural difference is sited, what do we know about seasonal or lifetime migration of these fish or lack of it?

Do the terms 'distinct regional varieties' and 'lack of geographical isolation' in the same sentence lead to a logical conclusion?

If Axelrod states that "there was taxonomic revision done to the genus" - then rest assured it was not conjured up by one person.

One would hope that to be the case.

The 'art of science' is as much about the interpretation of facts as facts themselves.

[phoenix44]

Either ways... you can't just make up a new species.

Axelrod has the same chance of splitting a genus and 'creating' a new species as I do - Zilch.

You need data, findings, research and analysis to do that.

I'd be more interested to see why / what is Konning's theory is behind a monotypic genus.