robertprice
July 11th, 2013, 08:57 AM
Since I must often pick between two alternative names for certain fish (e.g. Astatheros and Amphilophus), and have myself added a subspecies each to Kingsnakes, Boa constrictors and authored an entirely new genus of Ratsnakes in the past, I try to exercise moderation in an age when the "Species Concept" has become poorly defined, often as a result of phylogenetic studies. Having been trained by some of the great lower vertebrate taxonomists of the 20th century (Samuel McDowell who dissected the first known Coelocanth, Janis Roze, and Herndon Dowling), I retained a semi-classical approach to not fly off the handle unless there was ample reason. I wish I could say the same for some modern cichlid taxonomists, but they are often overly influenced by minor genetic variation and the natural, although debatably ethical desire to have your name stuck on something. I don't not fancy myself either a conservative lumper, or an extravagant splitter, and I believe my past work reflects that moderation.
I have studied scales extensively, in fish and snakes, and erected the Black Boa as a new subspecies as it had significantly more tail base scales than any other variant. My decision was eventually accepted by nearly all. From 1988-1990, I ventured into genetics by publishing the splitting of Trans Pecos and Santa Rosalia Ratsnakes into a new genus, Bogertophis, as they had two to four more chromosomes than any other American terrestrial snakes, plus a totally different scale ultrastructure, and large eyes with verical pupils like vipers. Most recently, I ignored the less significant differences in ground breaking but totally embryonic genetic analyses of Amphilophine cichlids, that do not support a clear differentiation between Red Devils and Midas Cichlids, as they still interbreed. Perhaps they are on the road to speciation, and I proposed the designation semi-species for such animals in 1991, but it was not accepted. I do support the recently named Lake Apoyo Amphilophus species, because although at leat 6 live together, they are apparently isolated enough so that they do not interbreed in normal wild conditions. As of yet, I do not support all of Oldrich Rican's allocation of several Amphilophus to Astatheros, notably what would be type species, marancanthus. Neither do many others.
I guess the point of this little discouse is to say getting your name in Who's Who is not sufficient cause to rename all the fish you can. Granted, the "Cichlasoma" mess in the New World and the bigger hodgepodge in the African Rift Cichlids are daunting, and the scientists who broke up Cichlasoma and Ad Konings work in Lakes Tanganyika and Malawi are to be applauded, but erecting new taxa based on single, often poorly and subjectively defined differences is not.
I have studied scales extensively, in fish and snakes, and erected the Black Boa as a new subspecies as it had significantly more tail base scales than any other variant. My decision was eventually accepted by nearly all. From 1988-1990, I ventured into genetics by publishing the splitting of Trans Pecos and Santa Rosalia Ratsnakes into a new genus, Bogertophis, as they had two to four more chromosomes than any other American terrestrial snakes, plus a totally different scale ultrastructure, and large eyes with verical pupils like vipers. Most recently, I ignored the less significant differences in ground breaking but totally embryonic genetic analyses of Amphilophine cichlids, that do not support a clear differentiation between Red Devils and Midas Cichlids, as they still interbreed. Perhaps they are on the road to speciation, and I proposed the designation semi-species for such animals in 1991, but it was not accepted. I do support the recently named Lake Apoyo Amphilophus species, because although at leat 6 live together, they are apparently isolated enough so that they do not interbreed in normal wild conditions. As of yet, I do not support all of Oldrich Rican's allocation of several Amphilophus to Astatheros, notably what would be type species, marancanthus. Neither do many others.
I guess the point of this little discouse is to say getting your name in Who's Who is not sufficient cause to rename all the fish you can. Granted, the "Cichlasoma" mess in the New World and the bigger hodgepodge in the African Rift Cichlids are daunting, and the scientists who broke up Cichlasoma and Ad Konings work in Lakes Tanganyika and Malawi are to be applauded, but erecting new taxa based on single, often poorly and subjectively defined differences is not.