Re: undescribed apisto species

[Mike & Diane Wise <apistowise@fgn.net>]

Sarah,

You are correct about all the fish listed 'A. sp. "Description/Place Name"'.
Right now there are approximately 3 undescribed 'forms' for every
scientifically described species of Apistogramma. Some of these are probably
just geographic variations of other known species, but we are not positively
sure.

Those with 'cf.' in the name are more likely to be the same as the species
named than those with 'sp.', but we should never presume that they are the same
without detailed study. After all, cf. stands for 'confer', Latin for similar
to or conforms to. All it means is that the fish in question is similar to the
named species, but has features that indicate that it might not be the same
species. A good example is A. cf. caetei (Guamá). This fish is found in a river
about 20 miles from the type A. caetei. It looks very much like A. caetei; so
much so that it was generally thought to be just a less colorful form of A.
caetei. Mitochondrial DNA studies now show that A. caetei & A. cf. caetei
(Guamá) are more distantly related to each other than all of the Mbuna genera
in Lake Malawi. In other words species of Pseudotropheus are more closely
related to species of Melanochromis, Labidochromis, etc. than A. caetei is
related to A. cf. caetei (Guamá).

The ASG has a list of apisto species on it. I don't know of a more complete
list on the web. It's about a year old and several new forms been reported
since then. I imagine that we average about 1 new form every month. Even I have
problems keeping up. Undoubtedly Koslowski's new book "Die Buntbarsche
Amerikas, Band 2" is the most complete publication, showing photos and
discussing around 200 different forms plus many different geographic
populations of several species.

When you "figure this whole apisto game out" please let me know. I've been
trying for 20 years and I now have more questions needing answers than when I
started. :-) That's what makes them fun.

Mike Wise

Samala wrote:

> I also have a question about apisto's that haven't
> been scientifically described yet.  Is it safe to
> presume that all the "species" that are listed A. sp.
> "Description/Place Name", are not yet described?  What
> about the cf's?  I imagine they would need more of a
> genetic study to establish that they are separate/the
> same, correct?  Is there a list of apisto's that
> haven't been described yet somewhere on the web?
>
> Just trying to figure this whole apisto game out!
> Thanks guys!
>
> >Sarah
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More
> http://faith.yahoo.com
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This is the apistogramma mailing list, apisto@listbox.com.
> For instructions on how to subscribe or unsubscribe or get help,
> email apisto-request@listbox.com. apisto-digest@listbox.com also available.
> Web archives at http://lists.thekrib.com/apisto
> Trading at http://blox.dropship.org/mailman/listinfo/apisto_trader



-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the apistogramma mailing list, apisto@listbox.com.
For instructions on how to subscribe or unsubscribe or get help,
email apisto-request@listbox.com. apisto-digest@listbox.com also available.
Web archives at http://lists.thekrib.com/apisto
Trading at http://blox.dropship.org/mailman/listinfo/apisto_trader