# paratheraps cichlids available?



## SoBlue98 (Nov 8, 2014)

I have been searching for a long time online and just can't find any cichlids for sale in the genome.. they really are beautiful fish and I just really would like to know how to obtain one.. any type of input would help. thanks!


----------



## CjCichlid (Sep 14, 2005)

Check your PM's! :thumb:


----------



## Iggy Newcastle (May 15, 2012)

CjCichlid said:


> Check your PM's! :thumb:


+1


----------



## Ryan_R (Aug 20, 2014)

I think the genus is now Paraneetroplus?


----------



## BC in SK (Aug 11, 2012)

Ryan_R said:


> I think the genus is now Paraneetroplus?


That is based on 1 DNA study. Not everyone is so quick to jump on the Paraneetroplus bandwagon!
cichlidae.com has not:http://www.cichlidae.com/index_catalog.php

IMO, the study raises many unanswered questions.
The study used mitochondrial as well as nuclear markers......but concludes that CA cichlids are so closely related that nuclear markers shed no light on their ancestry, so relies exclusively on mitochondrial DNA to reach their conclusions.
The study only tested 2 of the 4 Paraneetroplus species. 
The 2 Paraneetroplus species end up in different clades.....conflicts with morphology. One group has _Paraneetroplus bulleri_ and all the Veija and Paratheraps species; the 2nd group _exCichlasoma tuyrense_ and the one other Paraneetroplus species sampled (of the top of my head can't remember which one of the other 3 it is). 
What is this, a case of convergent evolution? Hard to believe since all 4 Paraneetroplus species look to me like regional variants of each other :lol: 
Could a hybirdization event in the past, explain this? Mother to mother to mother. Even a hybirdization event millions of years ago could show a relationship today that is not really all that accurate!
Or are all the Paratheraps/Veija more recently evolved from Paraneetroplus? Hard to believe the types with the specialized mouth/snout are the more ancient???

Until they test all 4 Paraneetroplus species and numerous regional variants of _P. bulleri_, I don't think we have any answers!


----------



## Ryan_R (Aug 20, 2014)

Interesting! Thanks for your thoughts! :thumb:

Honestly, I was just going on a recent study on CA cichlid biogeography (I can't recall if searching 'Paraneetroplus' brought me to that), and Jeff Rapps' site. Most of my cichlid primary literature reading has been SA and Malagasy cichlids, as that's what I've been keeping lately.... Though I just got six Herotilapia/Archocentrus :wink: Rainbows!.

Funny to hear you mention "hybridization". I was at a bird evolution meeting recently, and hybridization in vertebrates is quite the taboo among many tetrapod cladists.... but some folks I was having dinner with think they have data demonstrating that it's happened in some birds. I thought cichlids (especially CA's) could very well do it in nature. It'd be a fun study for someone to do. Throw the "biological species" concept out the window. :lol:

Thanks!
-Ryan


----------



## BC in SK (Aug 11, 2012)

Ryan_R said:


> I thought cichlids (especially CA's) could very well do it in nature.


There is no doubt that cichlids hybridize in nature.They have been collected/observed enough times to know it is fact.
But it is supposed to be rare. In most instances statistically insignificant. Plus the fact that in most instances the hybrid offspring are generally thought to be "in-between types" that are in most instances, less well adapted to making a living then either parent.

The scenario I envision is something like this: A hurricane, flood ect. A species of fish finds itself where it was not before. No mates, it hybridizes with another species. As time goes on, the succeeding generation breed with their own 'type' and with in a few generations, the traits have separated and the fish resembles only one parent. As long as the original or founding mother was of another species, it's going to show an inaccurate relationship. Even millions of years later it HAS to show a closer relationship to the 'founding mother' based solely on mitochondrial DNA, even though after millions of years that maybe the only DNA left that connects the fish to the other species. Fishes ranges changes over time. Does not seem like such an unlikely scenario on the hurricane prone Atlantic coast.
Usually DNA supports morphology. When it conflicts, it certainly raises questions.


----------

