Vieja synspilA VS. Paratheraps synspilUM

[duanes]

Common names can be different from place to place, state to state, even city to city.
I remember when the pearl cichlid was Geophagus braziliensus, but from what I understand, in Australia its a Satanoperca, or in other places it refers to what aquarists call the Texas cichlid, that in some places in Texas, are called the Rio Grand perch.
Quetzal and Red head are both names for the same fish, unless you also want to call bifasciatus a red head,(because it has a red head, and is sometimes called that).
Sometimes importers will give a fish a different name, they think is more appealing, and sell better. Sometimes they don't know in San Fransisco its called a quetzal and at the same time called a red head in Providence.
Here in the jungle where I live, Red Snapper is called Pargo, but its still red snapper in my mind, even when its deranged from foraging too long in the hot sun.

Lucky for me, a banana is still a banana, or is it a plantano, or plantain.

Sorry for the derail, its getting hot, sunstoke is setting in, and the sanctity of the pool is calling, or is it the undertaker and the vultures (AKA zopilotes in Costa Rica).



but wait, I've found a tasty morsel for lunch.

 

[jaws7777]

Damn thats paradise....

 

[Frank Castle]

Same genus, same species, same fish. Just different morphs. The way an animal looks plays the tiniest role in determining the species. Often times animals that look identical can be miles apart on the phylogenetic tree while two animals that look nothing alike can be one in the same.

Like a Rock Hyrax and an Elephant?

duanes you're from Coasta Rica?

 

[duanes]

I'm in Panama, but as far as going to Costa Rica, it's about the same as going from Wisconsin to Illinois, just takes a bit more time and effort.

 

[jaws7777]

Post number 2 half way down after the vieja pics (or whatever they are called now)

Jeff touches on this subject

http://www.monsterfishkeepers.com/f...ny-plecos-ornatum-red-pikes-geos-dats.657008/

 

[smitty03281964]

An interesting post. I never get tired of listening to this great debate.

 

[bigguapote]

A customer of mine directed me to this thread.
Duane is spot on in his reply on pg 2.

There are additional questions as to other points (synspila/synspilus/synspilum) that I will try to briefly comment on as well.

It's true that the genus name to which a fish species is assigned may be more likely to be reclassified based on learned ancestral as well as current relationships among related species.
DNA research has provided many unforeseen clues as well as solidified suspected relations regarding common ancestors and emerging species.

So using the fish known as synspila, for example: this fish has been included in genus Cichlasoma, Theraps, Paratheraps, Paraneetroplus, and Vieja in the years I've know this fish.

The species names remain generally the same, as they are assigned uniquely to each species based on observed traits of the fish, but the endings can change.
For example, argentea: argent translates to 'silver' in Latin.
But in the most recent redescription of several middle American cichlid genera, the fish most recently known as Vieja argentea is now known as Maskaheros argenteus.

The last few letters in the species name are determined by the gender of the genus name.
For example, synspila and argentea contain feminine ending 'a', so Vieja synspila is gender appropriate in that both genus and species are of feminine declension.
Argenteus (still means 'silver') corresponds to the masculine ending genus Maskaheros.
The 'um' ending, by the way, can be neuter, thus allowing versatility in the 'gender appropriateness'.

I am not a student of the Latin language, nor do I have a degree in ichthyology (I earned my master's in aquatic biology..), so I can only share some basics on this nomenclature confusion.

As for what's a synspila and what's not, the synonymy or of trade names (quetzal, red head, 'not melanura' has already been mentioned. What's also been mentioned is that the species of synspila has been determined to be synonymous with melanura through recent DNA experiments.

You can check out the below link to peruse the most recent work we've been discussing.
Taxonomy and systematics of the herichthyins (Cichlidae: Tribe Heroini), with the description of eight new Middle American Genera

In the case of which species name will take precedence, age rules. In other words, the species melanurum was formally described by Guenther in 1862, so that predates and presides over the species synspilum which was described later by Hubbs in 1935.

We as aquarists may not be able to visualize the synonymy of the two fish.
This work comes well-respected and fully scrutinized by peers before shared.
For this we ought to be thankful that individuals are dedicating much time, effort, and expertise to the subjects of our interest.

For now, I am using the designation Vieja melanura 'variety synspila' to differentiate 'synspila' (as we've known the fish with red head) from Vieja melanura.
I will never breed the two different looking fish together and until further informed, will continue to refer to them as such and label photos I share accordingly.

Please don't focus so much on the text included on the below photos, as they were labeled at the time I took them. So if Paraneetroplus was the accepted genus name back when the photo was taken, then that's what it reads.
But as many aquarists agree, the 'Guatemalan melanura' have a distinctive look that we associate with that species.
The classic 'red head synspila' has a distinctive look as well, but as many of us who have collected this species from it's northern ranges (Quintana Roo state of Mexico) can conclude, they are not a red-headed fish when occurring in the lagoons and cenotes found in this region. This species complex is widely distributed in the Yucatan and Usamacinta basin and variable over it's range. So again, deferring to the experts who have the equipment and know how to use it well, I'm going stick with above designations.





Below is photo of immature individual of same stock as above fully mature fish.
Often photos are posted that give no sense as to the size/age of fish, and can thus be misleading or confusing as well.



See what I mean by northern races lacking the red head?




And then there's the distinctive Guatemalan melanura as below.





Where, then, could you draw the line on the below fish?
Laguna Bacalar is in extreme southern Quintana Roo, MX by Chetumal - just north of border with Belize.
When this situation exists, I am more inclined to agree that maybe we are dealing with a variable species in which geographical variation has not actually resulted in definitive speciation- yet

 

[Frank Castle]

Very VERY helpful post B bigguapote ....I been studying greek/latin nomenclature on and off since 1994 and I think you understand it better than ME judging by that post.

What do you think of breeding a very brightly colored, supposed female to a male Kamfa Flowerhorn?

I mean, I don't see a hump on the head, so I'm guessing she's a girl and she's a good 4 inches+, ....are there any other ways to determine sex? Flowerhorn is the same size, but he has a HULKING forehead.

 

[smitty03281964]

Thanks you Jeff for also taking the time to share your understanding of the topic.

 

[duanes]

Frank, "to me" mating a true anything to a flower horn, whether they have a huge hump or not, makes the offspring mongrel mutts and would be worthless to me.
And an action unworthy of any true cichlidiot.
If you are going to go for exaggerated features, why not just keep goldfish.