Re: complexes and groups

[Mike & Diane Wise <apistowise@bewellnet.com>]

Joel,

I'm guilty of being one of the many authors that has split the genus into various
groups and complexes. To answer your question in a single word - NO.

Actually, these subdivisions vary depending on the author and the purpose for
which the grouping is used. Römer and Linke & Staeck, for example, use the term
"complex" to refer to a grouping of species that display characteristics that
indicate an origin from a single ancestor. This is the definition of a true
species-complex. Römer actually subdivides some of his species-complex into two
sub-complexes (cacatuoides- & nijsseni-sub-complexes, for example). The problem
with using their complexes to ID fish is that many species can't be organized
into a monophyletic species-complexes. Their origins just aren't well enough
known. To my knowledge none of the authors has done any cladistic breakdown on
the entire genus.

My divisions (groups & complexes) are based on a system originally proposed by
Kullander in his 1980 monograph and expanded by Koslowski in his 1985 book. These
divisions are used solely for purpose of species identification. It doesn't make
any claim that the groupings are monophyletic. Since this system doesn't need to
prove relatedness, it can include all of the species in the genus. My groups are
roughly equivalent to their complexes and my complexes are roughly equivalent to
their sub-complexes. They just make no claims to inter-relatedness. For years
I've worried about my use of the term "complex" and any confusion it might cause.
I use "complex" because this is the term originally used by Koslowski. To avoid
confusion with true species-complexes, it might be better to use "sub-group"
instead. Old habits die hard I guess, so for now if you read something using
group/complex then you should understand this refers to a non-monophylogenetic
grouping.

As several people have mentioned, I have an article running in the ASG's
Apisto-Gram that describes the various groups/complexes used for IDing apistos.
It started in issue #53, continues in #56 and will continue in the next issue.
Unfortunately, this article is a bit dated (I wrote it 2 years ago). I sent an
updated version to the ASG's web master this week. He plans on placing it on the
ASG's web page sometime in the future. It will be published with a list of apisto
species names (presently over 150!), listing references, groupings, and
distribution. Until this is published on the ASG web page, ASG members interested
in the updated paper (81Kb) or species lists (either alphabetical order (106 Kb &
more detailed or by species-group 246 Kb) can contact me. Until then it's not for
open publication.

Mike Wise

joel metz, ifbma wrote:

> just a quick question on this - out of sheer curiousity, is this
>  cladistic breakdown laid out in one of the newer books (only
>  dwarf book ive got right now is linke/staeke)? just curious
>  if perhaps theres a listing of the breakdown online somewhere...
>
> thanks
>
> -joel
>
> ==
> joel metz :: magpie@echo.com :: www.echo.com/~magpie
> bike messengers worldwide :: ifbma :: www.messengers.org
> po box 191443 san francisco ca 94119-1443 usa
> ==
> i know what innocence looks like - and it wasn't there, after she got that
> bicycle...
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This is the apistogramma mailing list, apisto@majordomo.pobox.com.
> For instructions on how to subscribe or unsubscribe or get help,
> email apisto-request@majordomo.pobox.com.
> Search http://altavista.digital.com for "Apistogramma Mailing List Archives"!





-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the apistogramma mailing list, apisto@majordomo.pobox.com.
For instructions on how to subscribe or unsubscribe or get help,
email apisto-request@majordomo.pobox.com.
Search http://altavista.digital.com for "Apistogramma Mailing List Archives"!