"Groups and Complexes" are perplexing me

[LyreTail]

This "Group and Complex" thing is confusing me. I see conflicting info Between my Book "Mergus Cichlid atlas Vol 1" and some info on this site.
For example - A sp "Papagei" is A. cruzi in the Eunotus complex in Mergus Cichlid atlas, but here you have it as the "regani group" and the "pebas" complex

Furthermore I am confused why one species would belong to another species group or complex. If they are a different species then they are a different species. What happened to the practice of sub species or just giving different groups or complexes different genus names?

I have been keeping these fish for awhile now and never cared about this nomeclature as long as I was raising fish to spawn and sell, but it seems like I get asked more and more. Perhaps someone can guide me to a web site or explain this confusion away

 

[Mike Wise]

I can understand your confusion. Probably the best way to explain the concept is to say that the terms "species-groups" and "species-complexes" have no hard and fast definitions in taxonomy. They are informal aids to help taxonomists separate species-rich genera, like Apistogramma, into closely related groupings of species. It makes for easier identification because you don't need to search through every species in a genus, only those within a group having similar features. If English reader had access to books that list fish by group/complex instead of alphbetacal order, I think they would understand the advantages of this method of species ID better. The group/complex concept also helps in understanding how the different species are interrelated within a genus. One of the problems with using an informal system is that each 'expert' has his own opinion on what constitutes a group or complex. I personally prefer & use the group/complex system worked out by Koslowski described in his latest book (2002). Others work, too, but will vary in detail and ease of use.

Right now ichthyologists tend to shy away from terms such as subgenus, superspecies, subspecies, etc. and use species-groups/complexes/populations instead. If it helps you, you can think of these informal terms in this way:

Species-group = subgenus
Species-complex = all species that originated from a common ancestor (monophyly) in the genus
Population = subspecies

It is a bit dated but you might want to look at a paper I wrote on the subject about 15 years ago on the "Description, Distribution, & a Proposed Phylogeny of Apistogramma Species-groups". You can find it at http://www.apisto.com/, then click on phylogeny. It might help you understand how groups/complexes are determined. Just remember that the concept is mostly used only as an aid to identifying species. It certainly isn't necessary to understand them to enjoy our fish.

 

[LyreTail]

Well I read your article and I think it helped me a bit ( except for the small fact that I am still getting conflicting "complexes") -


I still wonder why you are using species names to designate Groups and then sometimes the same species name again in Complex. Seems like it would have been less comfusing to give them numbers and then letters or something similar like an outline for a book ie Group 1 complex a, group 1 complex b etc

The Mergus Cichlid Atlas Vol1 has a Dichotomous key that I find rather tedious to wade through but then they order the book in alphabetical order when going through each profile of each species. I can understand a better way to organize would be helpful - that one is not.

Taxonomy really is only intended to group those living things with similar characteristics and has little to do with genetics or distrubution even though they will obviously play a large role in determining Characteristics
It seems like you are trying to form a phylogenetic tree using partial cladistics based soley on charateristics or distribution, or perhaps I missed the point and you are just trying to fix the taxonomic tree with out doing what was done with the Mikrogeophagus?.

Recently I just read some pople in Germany decided to "fix" a ( pretty messed up) Loricairidae Genus called "Peckolita" and split off some of the so called "wood eating" Peckolitas into a new Genus. This is just an example, but I think it draws one to wonder who is in control
The problem is that there are 10 synonyms for some species out there and it is hard to figure out what's what because of so much manipulation

 

[Mike Wise]

I am still getting conflicting "complexes"

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by 'conflicting "complexes"'. If you mean the description of a 'species-complex' in biological terms (a grouping of species that originated from a single ancestor (monophyly), then you are correct, they are not the same. It might be better to think of the apisto species-complexes used in the article as sub-groups within a group. They are used (by me, at least) only for helping with identifications.

I still wonder why you are using species names to designate Groups and then sometimes the same species name again in Complex.

I did't make up the names. I simply used what other authors used, in this case Koslowski in his 1985 book. Sure, I could change the regani-group/regani-complex to, say, regani-group/ortmanni-complex, but that would probably just add another confusing layer of names to the many different systems out there right now.

Taxonomy really is only intended to group those living things with similar characteristics and has little to do with genetics or distrubution even though they will obviously play a large role in determining Characteristics

Your quite right. In pure form, taxonomy is used only as descriptive 'boxes' in which to put similar looking species. In most cases, however species that are very similar looking (especially in skeletal structures) actually are closely related, too. There are always exceptions. An obvious one is Taeniacara candidi. This species for all intent is an Apistogramma that cladistically is closely related to A. elizabethae & A. agassizii. It was put into its own genus simply because it does not have a lateral line system. Cladistics would say it's an apisto, but Taxonomy considers it different enough to have its own genus. As for distribution, in apistos at least, it appears that many of the groups/complexes actually do show a restricted distribution pattern - probably because they have evolved recently from just a few dozen species.

I personally don't believe that all of the species in some of the groups or complexes are monophyletic (coming from a single ancestor), but for the most part they work out to be so. I just use the system to aid in identification of the 200+ forms of apistos out there. If I had to rely on a 'sort through the mug shots' - or even Uwe's - system to find a species it could take forever. I just prefer the 'divide & eliminate' system of groups/complexes.

 

[LyreTail]

Conflicting info is comparing what I found on this site and what I found listed in Uwe Romer's book -" mergus cichlid atlas vol 1"
I was looking at my Apistogramma sp "Papagei" and found the exact picture of my male and female in Uwe's book named Apistogramma cruzi and it said it was in the Eunotus complex. This site has differing complex. My book does not mention groups, but it does have a difficult ID key that I have not bothered to use

 

[Randall]

Taxonomy confusion

Taxonomy really is only intended to group those living things with similar characteristics and has little to do with genetics or distrubution even though they will obviously play a large role in determining Characteristics.

Hello LyreTail,

Historically, I think that you and Mike are absolutely right. More recently, however, some taxonomists (some of the better ones) are paying much more attention to molecular data analyses, distribution, breeding behavior, color pattern and trophic considerations than their predecessors. For some years now, personel at institutions like the University of Leiden, University of Vienna, American Museum of Natural History, Royal Museum of Central Africa and Max Planck Institute, to site only a partial list, utilize far more data from sources derived from other means than the tried and true morphological ones.

Many scientific descriptions today, especially descriptions that concern taxa or groups of taxa about which not very much is known, commonly utilize these additional data to either corraborate or refute data derived from more traditional means. In some circles, it seems that this practice is becoming quite common place.

As for Apistogramma sp. "Papagei," Koslowski's model places the taxon in the Pebas-Apistogramma-complex in the Apistogramma-regani-group. As Mike states, a species-complex may be viewed as a monophyletic assemblage. Different species-complexes may, in turn, be arranged into larger groups based on supposed levels of relatedness. This arrangement can be of value when dealing with highly speciose genera like Apistogramma.

It should be noted, however, that different workers offer different opinions concerning phylogenetic relationships. That's why Romer's and Koslowski's proposed Apistogramma models don't always jive.

Okay, having contributed this much, I'm going back to the western Africa forum where I belong.

Good luck!

Randall Kohn

 

[Mike Wise]

Conflicting info is comparing what I found on this site and what I found listed in Uwe Romer's book -" mergus cichlid atlas vol 1"

You must realize that Uwe finished writing the manuscript for his excellent book in late 1997 - 7 years ago. Many new species have been discovered since then. Many have expanded our knowledge on interrelationships between species. I use Koslowski's group/complexe system because he describes them well and they make sense to me. He finished his manuscript in December 2001, so it is now about 3 years old and new discoveries have led me to modify his system, too. That's the problem with working with an ever changing genus.

I was looking at my Apistogramma sp "Papagei" and found the exact picture of my male and female in Uwe's book named Apistogramma cruzi and it said it was in the Eunotus complex.

Uwe's chapter on A. cruzi has pictures of several species besides A. cruzi, but I don't see one that is A. sp. Papagei. A. sp. Papagei has a double spot (caudal patch) that is formed from the caudal spot and part of Bar 7 on the caudal peduncle. None of the fish in the A. cruzi chapter show this. Which picture is similar to your fish? As I see it the following species are shown:

A. sp. Tahuayo (eunotus-complex) - page 356-357, 366 (bottom)
A. sp. Putumayo (cruzi-complex) - page 359 (top)
A. cruzi (cruzi-complex) - page 359 (bottom), 360-361 (top)

I won't make a guess on the females, but imagine they are mixed, too.

I don't recall seeing a picture of A. sp. Papagei in Uwe's book. I'm sure is will be in volume 2 - sadly under the confusing name "A. sp. Nanay".

 

[Neil]

LyreTail,

I would add only that this site's function is to permit the opportunity for "updated" information, which is so badly needed in an area (Dwarf Cichlids, in general) that suffers from "outdated" references for ever-changing material. Although many of the resources available for we hobbyists is very good and instructive, it simply cannot keep up with what is happing in discovery and research. There is also a core disagreement on classification and categorization, which precludes the need for a wider understanding of the field in general for relative accuracy.

In addition to the advantage that we have here with our daily ability to present and discuss ideas (new and old), we also are blessed with some IMO of the most knowledgeable and contemporary figures in the field lending us their "take". I consider no-one's word to be gospel, but I sure do pay close attention when Mike Wise tackles a controversial subject. Heck, I even pay close attention when Randall says something about cichlids from outside the "borders" of Western Africa. 8O

Neil

 

[Mike Wise]

Neil is 100% correct. These are ideas put out for consideration, based on the best available information. I know of no one who is always correct (especially me!). Just ask my kids!

 

[LyreTail]

Thank you - Updated info makes perfect sense, and the explanation of two different systems also makes sense, allthough more confusing LOL

I will check out all those pictures again for the caudal spots - sure looked like it could be my exact fish though last ime I looked - even the female was nearly a twin.

I got my fish from Mike Jacobs in Florida, but he was hard to pry import information out of. I was curious where they were collected, so I could get a better idea when researching and writing about them

 

[LyreTail]

OK - checked Photos again comparing Uwe Romers ( Mergus Cichlid Atlas) page 359 ( bottom picture) to my 3 alpha males and I see one very important distinguishing difference that is always there

Mine have the bright yellow coloration in the rear of the Dorsal and anal fins as well as the yellow in nearly half of the caudal fin where the cruzi species alpha male does not have any yellow in any picture on fins at all. On my fish the black line and black dots fade an come back probably based on mood and I have seen them in all sorts of stages of darkness. I have even seen them nearly completely disappear. but referring back to pictures I have taken at various times I do not see any noticeable difference in pattern.
There also seems to be more subtle difference in the pattern of colors on the fish.

 

[Mike Wise]

The fish you are referring to is the true A. cruzi from the Rio Napo. Mike Jacobs has never had the real A. cruzi, however. I imagine that you do have a color form of A. sp. Parrot/Papagei. A lot of yellow in the dorsal fin of the males is usual for this species. This is the problem with trying to identify apistos using colors. Too many are polychromatic. That is why I depend on the dark (black) markings. Please check your females. See if they show 2 spots on the caudal peduncle that are linked together by a narrow dark stripe, making a blunt wedge shaped caudal patch. Brooding females of A. sp. Papagei also develop very few flank spots from the lateral band. 2 or 3 toward the middle is more common. A. cruzi females will develop 5 or 6.

 

[LyreTail]

male and female of my spawning pair
http://groups.msn.com/LyreTailsAquarium/discusandangelfish.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=397


Thanks for pointing out the difference in the female - I think I see what you are describing in the caudal patch - I did not notice that nor thought it was important
Female with new swimming fry
http://groups.msn.com/LyreTailsAquarium/discusandangelfish.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=463

 

[Mike Wise]

Yes, it looks like one of the color morphs of A. sp. Papagei. The female shows the double caudal patch. Once she is guarding fry she should have only 2 or 3 flank spots in front of this patch - toward the middle of the flanks.