PlanetCatfish.com

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 0161535759#
here's The Man

Suzuki has 5 children and lives a luxury life is not reason to judge him negatively, either.

I'm not quite sure about the luxury life part, he still rides his bike to work and so does his wife. His house doesn't look so fancy either. His daughter's are always giving him trouble for flying everywhere for work and how much that does to the planet. Kind of a catch 22 for him.

Matt,
I think you would like Dr. Suzuki, he's awesome and approachable. He speaks at the university here sometimes. A very kind man and he isn't afraid to revise his opinions when new info comes along. Also in the interviews I've listened to, he's not someone who thinks his way is the only way.
I hope you do get to meet him, reminds me a bit of David Attenborough. Sweet guy.

I was going to ask if they were anti-Sir David Attenborough too. Maybe against Davids in particular for some reason. I met David Suzuki once. Drove him in my cab about 2 blocks. I could tell he was a very spiritual person because he prayed the whole way...
Dave

David Suzuki is quite the renaissance guy. He had a long running TV science program that covered a lot of subjects, even one about fly fishing for trout, catch and release and the perceptions from a trout's eye few of an artificial fly and a real one which we fly fisher persons are well aware of but not the general public.

I like Michio Kaku better ever since I bought his great read of a book, Hyperspace. Heard the guy talking about his new book, Hyperspace, in 1997 on National Public Radio's Science Friday and ran right down to the book store.
I am very interested in quantum theory and cosmology and the search for the Theory of Everything where gravity is integrated with the rest of quantum physics to describe a theory that would unify or explain through a single model the theories of all fundamental interactions of nature.
I do not pretend to understand this stuff either. No one understands it all. Tried talking to a friend about it and he still wants me to tell him if this universe is a bubble, what does it sit in/on? "Daddy, where does the fire go when you blow out a candle?", type of question your 5 year old asks and you can't explain in anyway he can understand. I like this brain twister:
Nothing can exceed the speed of light....except the expansion of space, which is nothing.

Seriously, both are very good at conveying complex ideas to the public.

grokefish wrote:Nope, that is just silly.

Matt

OK Matt. Last chance. One of these performers on every corner for sustainability.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXhAE_M84Lg

We have an offer to do analysis on the DNA project over on the "Ask Heiko" thread.
Better not be one of you turkeys spoofing !

You guys might want to stick some zebra clippings in ethanol, and get on the stick.

raglanroad wrote:thank you for the excellent reply. My answer is rather detailed, with specific examples to show, so I'll have to take some time to compose it. A start is to realize jwhat Heiko knows. The specimens in institutions are , for some species, totally unreliable. Pteriphyllumm, as teh people in teh new study found, had a real ascarcity of anything good for reference. So if you take , for new DNA review, some piec eof mislabeled crap from the wrong river, your study is sorse than worthless. Specimens are sent from here and there for these studies.

do you know that for altum, Kullander described a trade specimen, dead from an aquarium ? Not a great locale.

dave

I await your reply to further my realization in "what Heiko knows".

Unreliability of specimens is unfortunate, but as you say progress is being made in recognition of this, it seems that this issue is being corrected. Such is science.

Pterophyllum altum was described by Pellegrin in 1903. In fact, none of the Pterophyllum species were originally described by Kullander. Although he does redescribe P. scalare, in Reis et al. 2003 it is claimed that the material is from Peru.

Yes, I know it was described for science by Pellegrin.

Aside from the risks your suggestion entails to the extremely valuable specimens of H.zebra, they are aquarium bred specimens which have little value for much study. This is one of the very few Brazilian species which has been described. Their range is so small and they are so distinctive that I doubt they will be subject for further taxonomic studies except a few specialists who will add to what is already known, additional molecular genetic info from wild fish from even more precisely recorded locations. That is how they will catch up in data quality with the information that will be used to describe the many other Brazilian Hypancistrus species.

There are a much larger number of much more ambiguous Hypancistrus species than H.zebra for which we merely have the imperfect DATZ L-number system to use for describing a particular species amongst ourselves. At this stage of the state of the art, we are likely to see those taxonomist interested in working with the Brazilian Hypancistrus species to use traditional morphometric methods, molecular genetic advances and GPS accuracy for the sample collection areas. This much synergy will bring with it very comprehensive data and create a much better understanding of relationships between all the Brazilian Hypancistrus species.

I think a consensus of sorts has been reached about the limitations that apply to aquarium strains that will arise from the wild fish most breeders will be working with in the future. We haven't had much time to do too much damage to our first aquarium bred populations of the Brazilian species. Most have not yet gone beyond the first F1 generations. Just want to add that not that many species have even been bred in captivity compared to the number of species there are.

To add to my previous post.
Despite the staggering numbers of Hypancistrus species there are to be described, the overall picture will not be muddled with the kind of sloppy work done in the past with the Cichlidae genera, Symphysodon and Pterophyllum. Such are the benefits of progress.

apistomaster wrote:David Suzuki is quite the renaissance guy. He had a long running TV science program that covered a lot of subjects, even one about fly fishing for trout, catch and release and the perceptions from a trout's eye few of an artificial fly and a real one which we fly fisher persons are well aware of but not the general public.

I like Michio Kaku better ever since I bought his great read of a book, Hyperspace. Heard the guy talking about his new book, Hyperspace, in 1997 on National Public Radio's Science Friday and ran right down to the book store.
I am very interested in quantum theory and cosmology and the search for the Theory of Everything where gravity is integrated with the rest of quantum physics to describe a theory that would unify or explain through a single model the theories of all fundamental interactions of nature.
I do not pretend to understand this stuff either. No one understands it all. Tried talking to a friend about it and he still wants me to tell him if this universe is a bubble, what does it sit in/on? "Daddy, where does the fire go when you blow out a candle?", type of question your 5 year old asks and you can't explain in anyway he can understand. I like this brain twister:
Nothing can exceed the speed of light....except the expansion of space, which is nothing.

Seriously, both are very good at conveying complex ideas to the public.

Now your talking in my language Larry. The guy that taught me motorbike design in university was a professor in Quantum cosmology and used to drift off into that subject when we were meant to be doing boring stuff like force calcs for going round corners, so I ended up studying that instead.

Actually Sir David Attenborough is my all time favorite guy, and in fact the only thing I can be really arsed to watch on the TV. I am a Massive fan of the man himself and his way of thinking, which is not much different to the way I perceive the problem.

You need to stop putting people into little boxes mate, people are far more complex than that.
Also why would I want any kind of anything on each street corner for sustainability, although that girl is very good with a bow and also balance.

Matt

Suckermouth wrote: The description of S. tarzoo includes 23 individuals for the molecular analysis, with 9 individuals being from the new species S. tarzoo, 12 individuals being from the other Discus species, as well as data from a number of other outgroups.

I used to have access to that paper, but can't find it any more. I believe that they did not collect the fish, rather got them from instutions or collections...and that the tarzoo specimens could not even be seen to have the spots that are the most distinguishing feature. correct ?
If you look at fishbase, you see that most collections from past years have no GPS location, of course, but many have no location given at all, no information, sometimes not even country, and no date or name of collector.

However, they also sampled many rivers (13 localities)

is there any more information given as to how they obtained the samples..collected personally , by students, or just sent from here and there ?

so that they could get a good scope of the genetic variation from throughout the range of Discus, which is impossible to do with specimens where you do not know their capture location.

you get the amount of variation, but not where it came from, as they would want for some studies..right ?

It's probable that each population is monophyletic, but they are not able to analyze that with their limited sample size. They even note that they were unable to get Discus from the easternmost areas of the range of Discus, which would mean that they may have captured less of the genetic variability in the genus. One of the few studies I know that uses molecular techniques to attempt to describe species in the family Loricariidae is Cardoso & Montoya-Burgos 2009; the species have not yet been described yet and they will be further studied morphologically because. These people used 200 loricariids, with a little over 10 individuals per locality. Notice that neither of these studies can do what they did without having a broad sampling of various different geographical locations, something that an aquarist buying their fish from a wholesaler or a shop can't know for sure.

usually very true. some collectors who sell fish do know where their fish are from. The best method system is studiously ignored, though, when the scientist decides he needs to ignore it. Museums do accept specimens they really want on faith, then voucher it and it's official.

What I'm saying is, that if you sent your samples into a lab, they have nothing to compare it to if you are the only person sending them fin samples of Hypancistrus. I'm assuming that a single person isn't going to have a sample size of 20 Hypancistrus of at least two species from different localities (this is conservative, even Ready et al. 2006 stated that more than 23 individuals would help them further understand the genus). If it is a collaborative approach and multiple people are sending in samples of Hypancistrus, then this approach gains more rigor as you'll eventually see trees starting to form and where your fish sample might fall on the tree. I bring up published data because that's something to compare to if a lab didn't already have prior data generated by themselves, not necessarily that you can't do a rigorous study without publication or being someone with a PhD. Its necessary to achieve a minimum N if you're going to deal with the tests that are used to determine monophyly, from which you can determine species.

Also, even if you find monophyletic groupings, you cannot simply say that they are individual species. Monophyletic groupings can be separate populations within a species. There is no set genetic difference that defines how different one monophyletic grouping must be to be a separate species. This is why Ready et al. and Cardoso & Montoya-Burgos are also taking the time to do a morphological comparison. For example, Ready et al. had found this separate clade but found that these fish did not differ in coloration from the other two species of discus, they'd have less of a case to separate out a species. Plus, they did not find a difference between S. aequifasciatus and S. discus, but they don't simply synonymize one with the other. On the flip side, some species, such as Peckoltia vittata, have a very broad morphological variation; there are likely monophyletic groupings within P. vittata, but these are not necessarily separate species.

I think we are discussing two subjects: barcoding and more extensive methods of study.

I'm going to give more than one reply to this post

thanks for doing that work to bring up the Ready study and giving your reasoning !

Dave

Matt, you're right that everyone is entitled to their opinion, but that does not make such opinion valid or correct. Just because Suzuki has 5 children and lives a luxury life is not reason to judge him negatively, either.

but I'm glad you're part of the solution, even a temporary one.

If you lived in Canada, you would see Professor Suzuki in saving energy ads many many times per day, as he sneaks into wasteful houses and does caulking and stuff.

we have a saying up here: "Get on board with Suzuki, or you aint dookie".

Raglan please do not speak for all Canadians!

We have many of these high profile environmentalists living in this area, some would say what they do is good most of the time but you also have to remember it has turned into an industry and some of these people are really good at selling themselves. I have seen them move into a house newly built and then begin to try to get further building in the area shut down as long as they get there house it's okay. The valley I live in has so many people trying to save it it's amazing but mostly because it is in their own back yard.

Suzuki is okay and he is a voice that has been broadcasted by the CBC for many years, he is a front man being used by many to get their ideas across, lets not turn him into a god.

Birger

Birger wrote:

Matt, you're right that everyone is entitled to their opinion, but that does not make such opinion valid or correct. Just because Suzuki has 5 children and lives a luxury life is not reason to judge him negatively, either.

but I'm glad you're part of the solution, even a temporary one.

If you lived in Canada, you would see Professor Suzuki in saving energy ads many many times per day, as he sneaks into wasteful houses and does caulking and stuff.

we have a saying up here: "Get on board with Suzuki, or you aint dookie".

Raglan please do not speak for all Canadians!

We have many of these high profile environmentalists living in this area, some would say what they do is good most of the time but you also have to remember it has turned into an industry and some of these people are really good at selling themselves. I have seen them move into a house newly built and then begin to try to get further building in the area shut down as long as they get there house it's okay. The valley I live in has so many people trying to save it it's amazing but mostly because it is in their own back yard.

Suzuki is okay and he is a voice that has been broadcasted by the CBC for many years, he is a front man being used by many to get their ideas across, lets not turn him into a god.

Birger

what, just because overpopulation is the base problem, and economists say there is a need to import more people into an already burdened system ...and he won't speak out against super rapid growth through immigration to support the ever expanding economic demand ? Immigration is a touchy subject. So it's avoided, even though to bring in one worker, we go hunting to bring in extended families, and most, naturally, go from low carbon footprint in their country to about the highest in the world ? Just because one could conserve like crazy for ten lifetimes and that would equal what is needed to supply one more birth ?

so how about "Saint"? Saint Suzuki. Happy ?

How define overpopulation? Ekonomical, carbon footprint, living standard or how do they decide how many people our planet can feed to be sustainable? Just curious, because I don't know and I would want to know.

Janne

If the problem being talked about is carbon emissions, then to hunt for people in order to bring them here en mass ( not refugees), where carbon and water use goes through the roof, it's a negative for the local and world environment. Many peoples in the rest of the world insist on large families, as per their history demands for longevity of the family, or as their religion demands of them. By taking their educated people, we impoverish their country all the more.

Saint Suzuki's trip is to say if we conserve, "x' , it would support "Y" number of new homes. Homes such as those just built on the morraine supplying toronto's water. the importation of thousands of engineers into Toronto is ridiculous...yes, they are educated and qualified..but there's already no jobs for those graduating here anyway.

http://suzukiwatch.wordpress.com/
ha ha, these idots claim that at his retreat home sewage is piped directly into the ocean

I mean in the view from the world, there is many localy problems but in total? There must be a good definition how many people our planet can sustain.

Janne

as things are now, it's way over sustainable level, already, right ?

raglanroad wrote:as things are now, it's way over sustainable level, already, right ?

I can also say we are to many people but that is just words, why are we to many people?

We produce far more food then it's needed to feed the whole population on this planet, we have a redicolous over consumption in the rich part's of the world, 20% of the whole population has a living standard far above more then needed, a couple of thousand people have more money than the rest of the worlds population together including countries. The whole population on this planet if we stand them side by side cover an area of 30.000 hectare if each person cover 0,5 square meter or 6,6% of the total area of Sweden. Where is the problem?

Janne

Problem is that we don't live standing side by side in Sweden with no amenities.
We need to use up almost everything in order to support what we have already in the manner we live by.
I'm sure if we all ate a bowl of grain, some leaves, and one egg per day, didn't travel or want all the things, it would be sufficient..but that's not in the cards, is it ?

I can condense my fish into a small container... what occupies a 100 g's can be put into a sandwich bag.

Hi,

I think we are discussing two subjects:

I had a feeling we were actually arguing two different points.

raglanroad wrote:I believe that they did not collect the fish, rather got them from insitutions or collections...and that the tarzoo specimens could not even be seen to have the spots that are the most distinguishing feature. correct ?
If you look at fishbase, you see that most collections from past years have no GPS location, of course, but many have no location given at all, no information, sometimes not even country, and no date or name of collector. is there any more information given as to how they obtained the samples..collected personally , by students, or just sent from here and there ?

Yes, the fish they did the molecular analysis on were collected in 1998 and deposited in various collections. They do not describe the collection process in detail. I looked up the specimens in the database and was not able to find the specimens that they say they use, therefore can't confirm that the specimens don't include data such as locality. It is not unexpected for preserved samples to lose their coloration, which is one of the unfortunate effects of preservation, so the diagnosis of coloration is not based on the fishes that they used for molecular analysis, but rather based upon images that were taken of live fishes from the same regions. I'll admit that it is only by assumption the photographed fish from the same localities are indeed the same species of fish that they were testing with molecular techniques.

you get the amount of variation, but not where it came from, as they would want for some studies..right ?

They appear to know the river from which each specimens comes from, although perhaps not the exact coordinates.

I think we are discussing two subjects: barcoding and more extensive methods of study.

I looked up DNA barcoding on Wikipedia, and my criticisms appear to be similar to those of other systematists and taxonomists.

Thank you, Milton.

What is taking me some time is that I am trying to gather together the comments Heiko has given, relating to the state of reference Pterophyllum specimens in institutions, with regard to physical deteroriation, DNA method testability at the moment, correctness of label, even existence of the specimens...and therefore the need, in the DNA age, to revisit original collection locales to get the new reference specimens.
Not getting Atabapo area altum means you may not have Pterophyllum altum at all.
I think however, that it seems any wild zebra, is Hypancistrus zebra.
So my point is that, if, indeed, they did not get Atabapo-Inirida, then it wouldn't be too difficult to be more method-correct, than the top phylogeneticist team in the field.
Supposing Heiko is wrong (in saying that only Atabapo-Inirida area altum are Pterophyllum altum, that the others such as Puerto Ayacucho area fish are hybrids, or a separate species), then such a study would not produce wrong results automatically; instead, might produce OK results - even though not by correct procedure ( by fortunate accident, or taking a gamble and not losing, if you will).

I looked up DNA barcoding on Wikipedia, and my criticisms appear to be similar to those of other systematists and taxonomists.

Absolutely: you were trained by those types, after all.
To me, their opinions are a floccinaucity; the same kinds of argument were put forward by divorce lawyers when their kind of services first could be had, automated , online.
Although you don't go "automated" for a tricky divorce worth millions, you can well do so in ordinary cases and both come out ahead, without the "help" of the bloodsuckers...


This is what impresses me about Discus and The Tarzoo Study:
1/ Top name pros involved.
2/ Great geographical stretch of the combined lengths of all the Amazonian waters where discus fish are found.
3/ Many kinds of differing-appearance Discus fish are already known.
4/ The study had 23, yes all of 23 specimens of dubious quality and perhaps authenticity.
5/ The Discus is rewritten !


ha. ha. ha. I have more wild angels with better locale believability in my living room, from just as wide a collection area.
Now let me try and take their criticism seriously.

Your criticism is appreciated, though, as we can discuss the relative merits of barcoding vs. other methods, and reach better understanding.
What are the objections ? Perhaps a 1, 2, 3 list. We already have results showing that barcoding is good for what it's meant to do.

I did a cursory wikipedia review myself and it seems each method, bar code, other molecular level analytical systems and old school morphological methods has it's advantages and disadvantages. They seem to be at their best when used to complement each other.
I don't see any single silver bulletproof approach. Each has it's flaws. Some are also better at resolving certain aspects of phylogeny than others. The goal is ultimately to create an accurate picture of the tree of all life including the long extinct and the living.
We sure get excited over small details when one steps back and tries to view the larger picture don't we?

RE: Sympysodon mess Vis-à-vis molecular mitochondrial DNA and morphological differences.
It seems that the western most species, S. aequifasciatus( as I prefer or S. tarzoo others prefer), is the most divergent species. The differences between S.discus and S. haraldi are extremely small. No surprise when you see how they are almost indistinguishable using the mitochondrial DNA analytical methods. No wonder these two species do hybridize occasionally in nature and in captivity.
What emerges from the Symphysodon species is that they are actually still very much of piece of evolutionary work in progress.
They seem to be in the process of speciation and have not become very distinct except the the greens seem the most distinctly different even if they do lose their red spots in a jar. Not all Green Discus have a red spotted body when the are alive. The anal fin coloration is always red spots on a green field but specimens have overlapping red spots which gives them the appearance of the anal fin pattern with red stripes also exist. Superficially similar to the other two species but not really the same.

apistomaster wrote:I did a cursory wikipedia review myself and it seems each method, bar code, other molecular level analytical systems and old school morphological methods has it's advantages and disadvantages. They seem to be at their best when used to complement each other.

Indeed. As we discussed on Cichlid Forum with Heiko, were DNA analyses to show altum a single species from Puerto Ayacucho to the farthest reaches of the Rio Negro basin, it would take quite a strong morphological difference or biological species argument or other, to carry any weight whatsoever in pointing to some distinction between Atabapo/Inirida and the others.

I don't see any single silver bulletproof approach. Each has it's flaws. Some are also better at resolving certain aspects of phylogeny than others. The goal is ultimately to create an accurate picture of the tree of all life including the long extinct and the living.
We sure get excited over small details when one steps back and tries to view the larger picture don't we?

RE: Sympysodon mess Vis-à-vis molecular mitochondrial DNA and morphological differences.
It seems that the western most species, S. aequifasciatus( as I prefer or S. tarzoo others prefer), is the most divergent species. The differences between S.discus and S. haraldi are extremely small. No surprise when you see how they are almost indistinguishable using the mitochondrial DNA analytical methods. No wonder these two species do hybridize occasionally in nature and in captivity.
What emerges from the Symphysodon species is that they are actually still very much of piece of evolutionary work in progress.
They seem to be in the process of speciation and have not become very distinct except the the greens seem the most distinctly different even if they do lose their red spots in a jar. Not all Green Discus have a red spotted body when the are alive. The anal fin coloration is always red spots on a green field but specimens have overlapping red spots which gives them the appearance of the anal fin pattern with red stripes also exist. Superficially similar to the other two species but not really the same.

I got a different "take" on it, but I'd have to re-read.

D

http://www.dnabarcoding.ca/pa/ge/news/s ... tions#_532

Barcoding Nemo: DNA-Based Identifications for the Ornamental Fish Trade - Jul 21, 2009 ()
[Steinke, D., Zemlak, T. S., & Hebert, P. D. N. 2009. http://www.plosone.org. 4(7) e6300.]

Background
Trade in ornamental fishes represents, by far, the largest route for the importation of exotic vertebrates. There is growing pressure to regulate this trade with the goal of ensuring that species are sustainably harvested and that their point of origin is accurately reported. One important element of such regulation involves easy access to specimen identifications, a task that is currently difficult for all but specialists because of the large number of species involved. The present study represents an important first step in making identifications more accessible by assembling a DNA barcode reference sequence library for nearly half of the ornamental fish species imported into North America.

Methodology/Principal Findings
Analysis of the cytochrome c oxidase subunit I (COI) gene from 391 species from 8 coral reef locations revealed that 98% of these species exhibit distinct barcode clusters, allowing their unambiguous identification. Most species showed little intra-specific variation (adjusted mean = 0.21%), but nine species included two or three lineages showing much more divergence (2.19–6.52%) and likely represent overlooked species complexes. By contrast, three genera contained a species pair or triad that lacked barcode divergence, cases that may reflect hybridization, young taxa or taxonomic over-splitting.

Conclusions/Significance
Although incomplete, this barcode library already provides a new species identification tool for the ornamental fish industry, opening a realm of applications linked to collection practices, regulatory control and conservation.

I don't think I need to explain in my own words what this obscure article says, Larry

the thing I notice people are missing in this argument is that if I or anyone else does barcode one of our favourite fishes, that''s not the end of it, as it is with studies from The Ivory Tower GoodFellas. Just wait till 50 or 500 other hobbyists and dealers have submitted their FRESH, PHOTOGRAPHED ( live and dead ), MEASURED Pterophyllum samples and David Suzuki sends in a few of those overfished trout population he helps decimate.
Getting some reference barcoding done is not the finished product. It gets verified many many times in the end.

Bar coding seems to have a problem sometimes where morphologically different specimens within a complex may have an identical bar code and morphologically identical specimens may have different bar code results. That seems to be the method's weak point.

I keep a lot of what I absorb only stored in my head so I am not as good as you are at digging up references.
But you know me well enough to know I don't make these things up. You know there is no other genus of fish I have studied more than Symphysodon(Discus species). I was lead to source by a friend I helped through his first wild Discus keeping experience. It was he who gave me the leads. He is one of our resident planetcatfish systematists/taxonomists, and he pointed me in the right direction a couple years ago.
Sorry, that's the best I can do. I reached my conclusions and they may not be the same as the actual goal of the workers' papers.
I have never strongly argued about the Pterophyllum classification problems because I don't feel well informed enough to do so.
But I have played this game with others who cared to debate me about the Symphysodon classification problems and the many silly myths that pertain to their care and breeding, especially the nutcase who claims Heckel Discus have been bred so frequently in Asia but in the same sentence claims they don't raise them because there is no demand for them. He claims they are not attractive enough to be kept going. Probably a few thousand F1 Heckels would quickly disappear into the Australian market alone. Probably more than 30 times that would be snapped up in North America. I expect the European Discus lovers would like their fair share, too.
I digress. S.discus and S.haraldi are hardly different bar code-wise. but it doesn't take many genes to make a very different phenotype or specialization to live in very different environments. There could be more difference than studies revealed simply be cause of those small genetic differences were not contained in the small pieces used to compare them. There is a selection bias but I don't mean that it is a conscious or nefarious bias.

I just read your post made while writing this. Interesting. No doubt any new technique can be greatly refined. None of this even became possible to attempt until PCR was perfected and simplified and the computing power available coincidentally grew exponentially during this same time. Bar coding has an enormous appeal. Maybe within 10 years one can simply use one's IPhone with the right application and scan the fish directly like can already be done for any item on the store shelves to find who has it at the lowest price?
Tri-Corders?

Your portable device will be supplied with a tube to stick a field-prepared sample in.

apistomaster wrote:Bar coding seems to have a problem sometimes where morphologically different specimens within a complex may have an identical bar code and morphologically identical specimens may have different bar code results. That seems to be the method's weak point.

Rather, dealing in those situations is one of it's strong points, I think. Barcoding is embiggened by the cromulent results thus far shown; a dwarf trout is now seen as the same species as it's bigger model , altricial form.

In central America, we used to have a genus of smaller cichlids, Cryptoheros. This contains the convict cichlid, and a few related species

In genetic research, a group of Cr septemfesciatus popped up within the group of convicts. septenfesciatus are a specis of reddish brown fishes, with blue eyes, and golden scales on the sides of the females - something completely different from a convict, in fact nobody would mistake one for the other. Not even the fish do, I never heard of hybrids between these (which does so a lot, in CA everything seems to hybrid)

Now we have Cr myrnae, to cope twith this problem. But they are as good as identical to Cr septemfasciatus

I am a chemist, but to me the above is better seen as proof of the wrongness of DNA studies to do taxonomy than something else

Hi Bas,

The problem you described within the Cichlidae, genus, Cryptoheros, is an good example of one of the drawbacks associated with the bar coding method I alluded to. (Notice how I get around this annoying affectation?: Cichlid) Cichladae isn't subjected to those asterisks *****!