# Archocentrus spilurus - profile change request



## eric (Jan 1, 2002)

A member requested the following change to this profile. If you feel qualified, please reply. http://www.cichlid-forum.com/profiles/s ... php?id=136



> I believe the photographs linked to this entry are, in fact of Cryptoheros myrnae, rather than Cryptoheros spilurus. If that is not the case then the two photographs are of fish that are in no way typical for the species. I keep both species (so feel I have some knowledge of them).


----------



## Ichy (Oct 26, 2003)

Eric ,
looks like a tough one to call . I can definately see why the member mentioned it to you though. To me they look like spilurus with a high level of yellow and low barring . ( which is pretty much what a myrnae is right lol) . 
I will have to second them on these pictures being( while very nice looking specimens) atypical form ones I have seen before . 
Thanks
Tim


----------



## Chromedome52 (Jul 25, 2009)

Once upon a time...

The various convict types have been misidentified many, many times over the decades. To point out the long running confusion of the group, at one time, the real _spilurum _was identified by Paul Loiselle as _spinosissimum_. It is very possible that, at the time those photos were taken, the fish were known as _spilurus_. However, there is no question in my mind that they are the species currently identified as _myrnae_. The fish were with us before they were described as a new species.

The use of _Cryptoheros _over _Archocentrus _for the "convictoids" has been widely accepted by taxonomists, though there is still some debate over _Amatitlania _given the close genetic relationships of these species. _Archocentrus _is currently limited to three species: _centrarchus_, _spinosissimus_, and _multispinosus_ (formerly _Herotilapia_), the last based on morphology, but not supported by DNA according to Rican et al., 2008.

Edited to correct relationship of multispinosa.


----------



## smitty (May 7, 2004)

Interesting!


----------



## eric (Jan 1, 2002)

Changed to myrnae http://www.cichlid-forum.com/profiles/s ... php?id=136

Should any of the description also be edited?


----------



## bernie comeau (Feb 19, 2007)

eric said:


> Changed to myrnae http://www.cichlid-forum.com/profiles/s ... php?id=136
> 
> Should any of the description also be edited?


Well, for starters, Cryrptoheros myrnae is from Panama ( not the Belize, Honduras and Guatamal listed for C. spilirus.)

Common name is wrong for C. myrnae.

Difficulty:2 i'd have my doubts about this. C. myrnae not common at all in the hobby so often wild caught or F1. My understanding is that the fish is not as easily bred. C. spilirus, on the other hand, about as easy to breed as a convict.

Water hardness: hard. Not too sure that would be correct for a fish from Panama.

pH listing is probably accurate enough, though was probably not so accurate for C. spilirus (pH 7.5-8.5).

not sure the description of this fish having very high conspecific aggression is accurate for C. myrnae. can't say as i have never kept that fish----but it is true for C. spilirum;

More then obvious the pictures are not C. spilirus. Like others i beleive it to be C. myrnae. But who can say, with absolute certainty that the pictures arer NOT C. septemfasiatus?

It's still a profile for C. spilirus, with a name change to C. myrnae. Would it not have made more sense just to change the pictures?


----------



## bernie comeau (Feb 19, 2007)

So you are just going to leave it like that??  
In the very least the Geo. origin should be changed to Panama and Costa Rica. 
As far as water and pH this is the kind of water C. myrnae has been collected from one location:
http://www.cichlidae.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=575

pH 8.45, GH: dH5*, KH: dH4* (Jaun Artigas also says he collected from similar water). 
So pH quite typical of what is often found in more northern Central America, but water that is fairly soft (unlike most water bodies of more northern Central america).

In this profile it states: "these are definately a pugnacious, tough little fish in the aquarium". I have my doubts wether they are talking about C. myrnae. Certainly fits C. spilirum. I can't say for sure since I have never kept C. myrnae, but in a very general sense, it is well known that the 'yellow' Cryptoheros are not generally as aggressive as the 'black' Cryptoheros. C. spilirum, not that different then a convict cichlid when it comes to it's aggressive behavoir----but definately some, if not all of the 'yellow' Cryptoheros are generally less aggressive then the convict cichlid.

Like I mentioned before, it would make most sense just to change the pictures to pictures of C. spilirum. We definately need a profile for C. spilirum as it has been the most common Cryptoheros species, besides the convict cichlid, for the last 30 years or so. Why would we even need a profile for an obscure fish like C. myrnae, when there is a good chance most of us will never see the fish in are life time :x


----------



## eric (Jan 1, 2002)

http://www.cichlid-forum.com/profiles/s ... php?id=136 Changes made!

What other changes should be made to this profile? If someone would like to write a piece for the comments, it would be appreciated.

In regards to C. spilirum. We can get that one up. Let's get this one fixed first.

Lots of genera changes made lately in the Central profiles. Hope you like them. If you don't, I know who to blame.


----------



## bernie comeau (Feb 19, 2007)

eric said:


> http://www.cichlid-forum.com/profiles/species.php?id=136 Changes made!
> 
> What other changes should be made to this profile?
> 
> In regards to C. spilirum. We can get that one up.


Thank you for the changes :thumb: Common name should be changed, as Cryptoheros spilirus goes by the name of 'blue eyed cichlid', so it may confuse calling C. myrnae by this name. I have seen on line, the name 'Topaz Cichlid' for C. myrnae, though probably most of us use the specific epithet (2nd word in a scientific name) as a common name for most CA cichlids (so just myrnae as a common name).

That would be great to get a profile for C. spilirus as well, especially since i think many will likely encounter this species at some point in time.

I would have preffered that convicts would be put under Cryptoheros rather then Amatitlania. The Cichlid Room comopanion has not recognised Amtitlania for at least 2 years now. I sort of doubt the name Amatitlania will last as the differences between convicts and other species of Cryptoheros are not significant enough or well suported by DNA or morpholgy. Though no big deal, from my perspective.

I know this is an SA cichlid but the name that irks me is Aequidens portalgrensis :lol: It's been almost 30 years now since it's name change to Cichlasoma portalgrensis. I was still in high school when this major event in SA/CA cichlid nomenclature happened (Sven Kullander restricting the name Cichlasoma to the port acaras) It predates the internet, by many, many years. As well, Cichlasomas should not be a seperate catagory, seperate from the Acaras. Cichlasoma dimerus is virtually the same fish as Cichlasoma portalgrensis (very, very closely related) and should be under the catagory of Acara, just the same.


----------



## ahud (Aug 22, 2009)

Glad to see there is some work being done on the profiles. Behind CRC, I think Cichlid forum has one of the nicest beginner friendly profile systems.


----------

