- Messages
- 185
- Location
- Blairgowrie (UK)
I'm a little confused by the new Datz book's information on apistogrammoides.
It shows the family tree and seems to indicate that, for example, Apistogramma hongsloi is more closely related to Apistogrammoides pucallpaensis than to some other Apistogrammas such as Apistogramma agassizii.
In the detail given for Apistogrammoides pucallpaensis it states that the generic name will likely remain valid.
I know the whole phylogeny is still very much a work in progress but these two seem to contradict each other.
Am I missing/misunderstanding something?
It shows the family tree and seems to indicate that, for example, Apistogramma hongsloi is more closely related to Apistogrammoides pucallpaensis than to some other Apistogrammas such as Apistogramma agassizii.
In the detail given for Apistogrammoides pucallpaensis it states that the generic name will likely remain valid.
I know the whole phylogeny is still very much a work in progress but these two seem to contradict each other.
Am I missing/misunderstanding something?