A new Apisto species: Apistogramma barlowi

[Mike Wise]

According to Stawikowski & Werner (2003 - Die Buntbarsche Amerikas vol. 3), Dieter Bork found this species in an import shipment to Aquarium Dietzenbach in May 2002. He was told that it came from a new location far from any other collecting site for D. filamentosus. It is pictured in the Stawikowski & Werner book, as well as the DATZ book.

[rafael]

I am confused

Römer say: "Apistogramma barlowi is a member of the A. cacatuoides complex within the Apistogramma steindachneri lineage"

Koslowsky? (I suppose) on page Barsch: A. sp. "Maulbrüter": Taxonomie: A. trifasciata Linie, A. brevis Gruppe.

Are not very big difference of opinion?

Best regards,

Rafael.

[Marc]

Hi Rafael,

my most actual source is the DATZ special edition "South American Dwarf Cichlids" (written by Bohnet/Koslowski, translated by Mike Wise), here you will find:

Group: Probably basal to the Apistogramma-cacatuoides-group

There is a solid amount of work to be done at the B.A.R.S.C.H.-page.
Kind regards
Marc

[Mike Wise]

Dr. Römer's uses the term "complex" in roughly the same as "group" is used by Kullander, Koslowski, & Staeck. The term "complex" is more formal than "group". It seems that every author has different opinions on species grouping divisions. While the "groups" of K, K, & S (above) agree with each other for the most part, they are more different from Römer's.

Römer's divisions are based on computer statistical analyses of 51 physical and behavioral charateristics. The problem that I see with this is that many of the species in the genus Apistogramma are quite homogenous morphologically. I believe that many more characteristics are needed to actually understand how the different species are related to one another. Kullander (1998), after all, used 91 different morphological characteristics to divide all of the different South American cichlid genera. Farias, et al. (2000) used 1460 physical & genetic characteristics in their study of the South American cichlid genera. These genera are obviously less homogenous than the species within the genus Apistogramma. I believe that a better statistical understanding of the division of Apistogramma requires many more character sets than Römer used - possibly 100 or more. Because of this, I cannot completely accept Römer's divisions. I find many confusing and contraditory. I prefer Koslowski's (in the DATZ book) because it is based both on physical and genetic characteristics.

[Iku]

Originally Posted by Mike Wise

Try the following URLs:

A. barlowi: http://globiz.sachsen.de/snsd/publik...-08_Roemer.pdf

D. gladicauda:
http://globiz.sachsen.de/snsd/publik..._Schindler.pdf

This works for me, but I use the 'obsolete' Netscape Navigator 7.2 & Adobe Acrobat Reader.

Thanks Mike. It works.

[Heiko Bleher]

Hi, all of you apisto freaks...

this is Heiko Bleher just back from Apistogramma and dwarf cichlid lectures, from biotopes in nature and Discus, Angel and mates, as well as aquatic plants and their biotopes and more seminars in Romania where the aquarium hobby is really picking up...

I am writing to you all and Mark, because I read this thread and also have the Vertrabrate Zoology issue and read the two descriptions, and wanted to tell you all (if it is of interest), the following:
1. The mouth brooding Apistogramma I collected and discovered it in August of 1997 and already the same year we, that is W. Mikshovski in Wuerzbug, Germany breed them, and the male had the young in the moth. This was (to my knowledge) the very first discovery of a mouth brooding apisto and my discovery. And Uwe forgot altogether to mention that (as many other things...). The specimen I had grew to 10plus cm and was the largest apisto I have ever seen. And what the group name is concerned, I agree with mark, but even go further: it should only be applied when we really know more. At this point it makes no sence to write extensively about that.

2. The description of the D. gladicauda is a real joke (and I told the editor of the magazine that already - if a peer review had been one for sure it would have never come to a scientific description). I collected hundreds of D. filamentosus with a single upper and even lower sword (normally they have two, as we all know, but there are many such exceptions in nature). If we start to give fishes like this new names, we will have 100,000 species and no one can identify anyone anymore.
Besides: the Venzuela scientists had classified it already as D. filamentosus and those (normally with two swords) live in the type locality described for the one-sword-Dicrossus.
And the specimens for the description with a single sword were only holotype and 4 paratypes. Very poor. I still cannot believe, being an editor of a scientific journal for almost 20 years now (www.aqua-aquapress.com), that such things happen... and specially from pseudo-ichthyologists...

So much so good and all of you keep up the good work,

always
Heiko
www.aquapress-bleher.com

[blueblue]

Originally Posted by Heiko Bleher

2. The description of the D. gladicauda is a real joke (and I told the editor of the magazine that already - if a peer review had been one for sure it would have never come to a scientific description). I collected hundreds of D. filamentosus with a single upper and even lower sword (normally they have two, as we all know, but there are many such exceptions in nature). If we start to give fishes like this new names, we will have 100,000 species and no one can identify anyone anymore.
Besides: the Venzuela scientists had classified it already as D. filamentosus and those (normally with two swords) live in the type locality described for the one-sword-Dicrossus.
And the specimens for the description with a single sword were only holotype and 4 paratypes. Very poor. I still cannot believe, being an editor of a scientific journal for almost 20 years now (www.aqua-aquapress.com), that such things happen... and specially from pseudo-ichthyologists...

So much so good and all of you keep up the good work,

always
Heiko
www.aquapress-bleher.com

So, i just wondered who the reviewers might be? Did you write and publish an article in the journal and seek replies from the authors? As from what you said, it's quite a joke and we easily could have 10 species of A. elizabethae,
5 species of I. adoketa, ... hehee

[Mike Wise]

Most of the recent apisto & dwarf cichlid species descriptions, sadly, have been in non-juried publications (it gives Dr. Kullander the screaming fits!) The last description that I know about - that was in a jurried publication - were Ready & Kullander's description of A. eremnopyge & Kullander's description of A. alacrina (both in 2004). If I recall correctly, all of Romer's species descriptions since 1994 (A. mendezi) are in non-juried publications. The same is true for Staeck since 1991 (A. norberti). The problem is that, under the rules of the International Commission for Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN), there is no requirement that a species be described in a peer-jurried publication - or a scientific journal for that matter. Thus, species published in non-jurried publications are open to more questions of validity than those published in jurried scientific publications. This, however, does not make the names immediately invalid. It might be something to consider changing the next time the Code comes up for review.

[blueblue]

Originally Posted by Mike Wise

Most of the recent apisto & dwarf cichlid species descriptions, sadly, have been in non-juried publications (it gives Dr. Kullander the screaming fits!) The last description that I know about - that was in a jurried publication - were Ready & Kullander's description of A. eremnopyge & Kullander's description of A. alacrina (both in 2004). If I recall correctly, all of Romer's species descriptions since 1994 (A. mendezi) are in non-juried publications. The same is true for Staeck since 1991 (A. norberti). The problem is that, under the rules of the International Commission for Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN), there is no requirement that a species be described in a peer-jurried publication - or a scientific journal for that matter. Thus, species published in non-jurried publications are open to more questions of validity than those published in jurried scientific publications. This, however, does not make the names immediately invalid. It might be something to consider changing the next time the Code comes up for review.

I see Mike. While I do see your points and I understand somehow the logic, I am really surprised that a non peer-reviewed publication can be treated as an outlet for defining a species "scientifically"... you know, one may easily start a journal somewhere and publish tens of articles and then describe tens of species?!...

[zmirek]

Originally Posted by Heiko Bleher

Hi, all of you apisto freaks...

Hello Heiko it's nice to meet you here :-).

Originally Posted by Heiko Bleher

this is Heiko Bleher just back from Apistogramma and dwarf cichlid lectures, from biotopes in nature and Discus, Angel and mates

Biotope matters are the most interesting ones for many of us (including me). Is there any change to read your lectures in that matter? I know that you have described them in your "Bleher's Discus vol. 1" but for this moment I am much more focused on apisto than on discus.

Sorry for off-topic

PS. Apisto_mirek from SimplyDiscus and e-mail correspondence that's me.