# Vieja, Theraps, Paratheraps.



## TheFishGuy (Apr 21, 2005)

Ok, Who's who on this list?

argentea
bifasciatum
breidorhi
coeruleus
fenestratum
gibbiceps
godmani
guttalatum
hartwegi
heterospilus
intermedium
irregulare
maculicauda
melanurum
nebuliferum
omonti
panamense
regani
seiboldi
synspilus
zonatum

And did I miss any? If so, feel free to add/correct the list...


----------



## dwarfpike (Jan 22, 2008)

Currently? 

argentea -- _Vieja_
bifasciatus -- _Paratheraps_
breidorhi -- _Paratheraps_
coeruleus -- _Theraps_
fenestratus -- _Paratheraps_
gibbiceps -- _Paraneetroplus_
godmanni -- _Chuco_
guttalatus -- _Paratheraps_
hartwegi -- _Paratheraps_
heterospila -- _Vieja_
intermedium -- _Chuco_
irregulare -- _Theraps_
maculicauda -- _Vieja_
melanurus -- _Paratheraps_
nebuliferum -- _Paraneetroplus_
omonti -- _Paraneetroplus_ 
panamensis - _Cryptoheros_
regani -- _Vieja_
seiboldi -- _Tomocichla_
synspilus -- _Paratheraps_
zonatum -- _Paratheraps_

Note: As with all new world cichlids, these genus are subject to the change at the drop of a hat or a sneeze.

Note #2: some of the specific names are changed slightly to corrospond to the new genus gender ... they have to match since it's latin.


----------



## Chromedome52 (Jul 25, 2009)

_Theraps _as a genus is recognized by all authorities for a small group of elongate species. Most are rheophilic, I believe.

_Paratheraps _is a genus that is still being "debated". It was originally poorly described, but that was corrected. However, many authorities don't accept the correction, either. So those species are "officially" placed in _Vieja _on sites like Fishbase and the California Academy of Sciences Fish Catalogue. Part of this is valid, because the only two species names published as belonging to _Paratheraps _are _breidorhi _(type species) and _hartwegi_. Others have been put there by knowledgeable experts who say they meet the characteristics of that genus better than they do _Vieja_, but these experts have not bothered to properly publish these changes, so they are technically just "opinions".

So, despite the assignment of _Paratheraps _to some of them, Dwarfpike's list is essentially correct.

I looked for a sneezing smiley, can't find one, so Ah-Chooo!! :lol:


----------



## dwarfpike (Jan 22, 2008)

I treat _Paratheraps_ much like _Astatheros_ ... a temporary stay due to restricting other genus. I imagine these two will be broken up further when someone gets around to them.


----------



## M0oN (Dec 8, 2003)

Pearsii got moved again?


----------



## dwarfpike (Jan 22, 2008)

pearsii should be considered ex_Cichlasoma_ ... I haven't heard anything new about their reassignment since then.


----------



## TheFishGuy (Apr 21, 2005)

Yes! I knew it would be you who would answer! :lol:

So... essentially cichlasoma... 

At our last social gathering for the OCA I brought nine bags of fish to auction off. I labeled them all cichlasoma... Because technically they are...

Nice list isn't it? Wouldn't it be nice to have six of each?

I've got blackbelts, synspilum, fenestratus and bifas... I'm after intermedium (because I know someone who has them) and I'm after regani and argentea... But I really want them all! :lol:

Thank you dwarfpike.


----------



## Chromedome52 (Jul 25, 2009)

Technically, _Cichlasoma _is the one name that *can't *be applied to any of them, hence the use on some sites of exCichlasoma, or "Cichlasoma".

_Cichlasoma _is officially limited to the "Port" Cichlids of South America - things that we used to call _Aequidens_!

Thank You, Sven Kullander! :x

Note: above nomenclature only applies for today or until the reader has finished perusing this post. Or until someone sneezes!


----------



## TheFishGuy (Apr 21, 2005)

Ok, I've got the ultimate response from Willem Heijns:

by Willem Heijns Â» Fri Aug 14, 2009 6:00 am

Maybe I can be of assistance here.

Your question is about the status of three cichlid generic names: Vieja, Theraps and Paratheraps.

All three names are available, which means that they have been described according to the rules set by the ICZN. Whether these names stand for valid genera depends on the species assigned to them as type species. If a proposed type species really belongs to another genus described earlier, than it would bear the name of that other genus. Take breidohri. This species was designated as type species of Paratheraps by Werner & Stawikowski. If breidohri should be assigned to another genus with an older name than Paratheraps, than the name Paratheraps would become a junior synonym of that older name and therewith invalid.
As it stands now, all three generic names in question are valid, because none of their type species is thought to belong to another genus with an older name. So we have three valid names already:
Vieja maculicauda,
Theraps irregularis,
Paratheraps breidohri.

Now which other species should be assigned to our three genera? There are no ICZN rules for that. It's all a matter of opinion. If you think a species belongs to one of those genera than you simply say so. But I would always ask you why you believe that to be right. Many hobbyists fail to answer such a question, I hate to say.
A widely accepted practice among taxonomists nowadays is to try and define genera as natural groups. A natural group consists of species sharing a common ancestor. In other words: if the members of a group of species are more closely related to each other than either of them is to another genus, they should be grouped into a genus of their own.
So your question really is: how are all these species related? Many studies have been undertaken in this respect. Most of them suffered from a (too) small taxon sampling (if you study only ten species you can only say something about those ten) and/or a bad choice of characters to look at (one gene doesn't tell the whole story).

But there is hope. Last year a paper was published that contained almost all Central American heroine cichlids and also was based on no less than three DNA markers as well as 81 morphological characters. The best I have seen yet. I reviewed this paper in Cichlid News (July 2009) and this review will soon appear on this this site as well. But if you want to go to the source, try this:

ŘÃ­čan, O., R.Zardoya & I.Doadrio. 2008. Phylogenetic relationships of Middle American cichlids (Cichlidae, Heroini) based on combined evidence from nuclear genes, mtDNA and morphology. Mol.Phyl.Evol. 49: 941-957

As for the three genera in question, the results of this study are:

Vieja:
maculicauda, melanura, synspila

Theraps:
irregularis, coeruleus, godmani, intermedius, lentiginosus, microphthalmus, nourisatti

Paratheraps:
breidohri, bifasciatus, fenestratus, guttulatus, hartwegi, zonatus.

Note the endings of the specific names. They change according to the gender of the generic name. Vieja is feminine, Theraps and Paratheraps are masculine.

Some species on your list are missing here. They are thought to belong to other genera. They are:

Paraneetroplus:
bulleri, nebuliferus, gibbiceps (omonti is a synonym), but also regani, argenteus

not assigned (yet):
Heros heterospilus, Heros wesseli

Note that the study combines Theraps and Chuco into one genus. The older name is Theraps, therefore Chuco is rendered a junior synonym of Theraps.

Panamense belongs to Cryptoheros and should be called Cryptoheros panamensis.

All in all it's quite complicated. But more studies (also on taxonomy) are underway. More to follow...


----------



## RyanR (Apr 29, 2008)

Thanks for posting that response, TFG!

The Rican paper is a nice one.... I think I have it at the office. I could post it for y'all, if interested.

-Ryan


----------



## Chromedome52 (Jul 25, 2009)

I've read the Rican paper as well, and while it does clarify the relationships between the species, it stops short of actually re-assigning them. What it does is provide a framework for others to redo the arrangement of the Central American Cichlids. Like Kullander, it throws a monkey wrench into the machine, and leaves it for someone else to pull it out. However, it provides the tools needed to fix things.

As for _Paratheraps_, Willem states:



> Take _breidohri_. This species was designated as type species of _Paratheraps _by Werner & Stawikowski.


Unfortunately, in the original description of the genus, the type species was not made clear, as there was also mention of a close relationship between the new species _breidohri _and _hartwegi_, and no type was designated. Supposedly they wrote another paper correcting this, but its publication is not recognized by Kullander or Eschmeyer, who run the two most prominent online ichthyological databases. If one goes to the California Academy of Sciences Catalogue of Fishes and Fishbase, you will not find _Paratheraps _as a valid genus; _breidohri _is placed in _Vieja _because _Paratheraps _is considered a junior synonym due to the lack of a properly designated type.

If you go here make sure Genera is checked and type in Paratheraps to see Eschmeyer's position.

In effect, everything is still muddied up, but it is settling out. If you use Cichlasoma, enclose it in quotation marks ("Cichlasoma"). The same thing is done with "Geophagus" brasiliensis, as they know that group of species don't properly fit within the genus.


----------



## eddy (Jan 16, 2009)

Anyone know where I can find some zonatums?


----------



## TheFishGuy (Apr 21, 2005)

just bumping this awesome thread


----------



## conoholic (Nov 12, 2005)

Vieja: 
*maculicauda*, melanura, synspila

sweet so the black belt is a vieja?? i have 2 bb growing out in my 75 atm.


----------



## bernie comeau (Feb 19, 2007)

conoholic said:


> Vieja:
> *maculicauda*, melanura, synspila
> 
> sweet so the black belt is a vieja?? i have 2 bb growing out in my 75 atm.


Yup, that one for sure is a Veija, as the black belt is the 'type' species of the genus. Good to see a newer study placing synspilum ( and melanura) back into the same genus with a blackbelt. From my perspective, these fishes are just too similar to have them being placed into seperate genuses.

All CA cichlids have common ancestory ------ it's just a question of how far back in time you want to go. After the name Cichlasoma became invalid for CA cichlids , it's too bad they just didn't adopt the name Heros for the whole group and be done with it. :lol: It would have made it a lot simplier and we would all know what fishes were refferring to and talking about. Now with smaller groupings, the ichthyologists got to get there relationships right. Because they are all so closely related, morphology can be very deceiving, because 2 fishes with somewhat different ancestory, can apear more similar if they both make there living in the same manner.
The problem, so far, with DNA, is that almost all studies are based on only one gene (cytochrome b gene). Based on this one gene, sometimes you get rediculous outcomes. For example , based on this one gene, certain populations of "exCichlasoma" urophthalmus are more closely related to Petenia splendida, then they are to other populations of "exCichlasoma" urophthalmus. Same situation, I beleive beween certain populations of the convict cichlid and Cryptoheros myrnae. From my perspective, I would supose a hybirdization event in the distant past could easily account for this.


----------



## TheFishGuy (Apr 21, 2005)

this is not the end of all this though... things will keep changing... Because BB is vieja now doesn't mean it'll stay... I like the whole complex... All of them are very similar in my eyes... Ever notice how everything on this list goes vertical when you try to catch it... From 1/2 to 16" they all go nuts when you try to net them! LOL This whole complex should have the name spasticnetius _________ :lol:


----------



## bernie comeau (Feb 19, 2007)

TheFishGuy said:


> this is not the end of all this though... things will keep changing... Because BB is vieja now doesn't mean it'll stay...


Yes, very true.
The ichthyologists will probably try and put each species into there very own seperate genus and then give species status to every single regional variant. :lol: That's what they did with JD and the Convict cichlid.

Yeah, my BB sure can be fast when they want to be. They go a little "nuts" as soon as they see a net. One of the hardest fishes to catch ---- though i had jag , dovii and pike cichlid that gave me even more problems trying to catch because of their incredible speed.


----------



## TheFishGuy (Apr 21, 2005)

I've got fenestratus fry at the moment and even at an inch they're nuts! LOL


----------

