Publication2 med aquascape Publication1cs complete | Page 60

Here's my view about the generic assignment of
Cichlasoma synspilum Hubbs 1935. An important
aspect is the phylogenetic position of this spe-
cies. If we restrict ourselves to three species (and
we really don't need more), there are two rele-
vant interrelationships, which I shall call A and B
(see below). I won't consider the third where
breidohri and maculicauda are sister species and
synspilum is more remotely related.
A is my favourite because it is backed up by Říčan
et al. (2008), who used 6 molecular markers and
81 morphological characters to construct their
phylogenetic tree. It looks like this:
and Vieja (including maculicauda). The position
of synspilum differs between A and B. In A it is
congeneric with maculicauda and therefore part
of Vieja. In B it is congeneric with breidohri and
therefore part of Paratheraps.
I adhere to situation A (following Říčan et al.
2008. The results of their molecular analysis
(especially the cyt-b gene) clearly indicate that
Cichlasoma synspilum is the sister species of
Vieja maculicauda. As Říčan et al (2008) state:
there is strong support for this relationship. The
relationship of Cichlasoma synspilum with Para-
theraps breidohri is thus more remote. The mor-
phological analysis also shows this close rela-
tionship between synspilum and maculicauda,
although I must say it is not as strongly support-
ed. When the authors combine all characters
(both molecular and morphological) in one anal-
ysis (the “total evidence”) the results also show
that Cichlasoma synspilum is more closely relat-
ed to Vieja maculicauda than to Paratheraps
breidohri. Therefore it will have to be assigned
to Vieja. The valid name for this species thus be-
comes Vieja synspila (Hubbs 1935). From the
same line of reasoning (close relationships with
Paratheraps breidohri) it follows that the species
bifasciatus, fenestratus, guttulatus, hartwegi
and zonatus also belong to Paratheraps. A few
species (i.e. heterospilus, ufermanni) still need to
be clearly assigned to either of the two genera
(or may be even to a new genus).
How can we (as aquarists) use all this? I believe
it is important to use the right name for our cich-
lids, but how can we tell if a species belongs to
Paratheraps or Vieja.
After all, we can’t look into their DNA. Fortu-
nately there is a fairly easy way to do this. The
difference between the two genera is simply in
their coloration, in the black markings to be
more precise. The mid-lateral stripe in all Para-
theraps species runs from the caudal peduncle
all the way to the gill covers (with a slight down-
ward slope).
I have long thought it was the other way around,
leading to situation B like this:
When it comes to the generic assignment of
synspilum it is important to choose between A
and B.
Assuming that taxonomic genera have to reflect
natural (=monophyletic) groups and that we have
two generic names (Paratheraps and Vieja) availa-
ble to us both A and B give us two possible gener-
ic groupings:
1. We group all three species into one genus. The
name of that genus would be Vieja, because it is
the oldest available name. This goes for A and B.
2. We group the three species into two genera,
based on their interrelationships. Then we get (for
both A and B) Paratheraps (including breidohri)
24