# ID Help



## PitBully (Apr 14, 2009)

I went to my LFS today and saw this amazing fish. I didn't get a chance to speak with the owner. Anyone know what species this is? It appears to be either CA or SA.


----------



## TheFishGuy (Apr 21, 2005)

Central American

Paraneetroplus Argenteus, Argentina Cichlid


----------



## Chromedome52 (Jul 25, 2009)

Actually, I think FishGuy means _Paratheraps_, not _Paraneetroplus_. Others call it _Vieja argentea_, which is probably more correct. The species name _argentea _means "Silvery", probably referring to the shimmering color of the species. It is a very impressive species, and that fish looks young, as mature adults usually lose the vertical bars.

This was an adult entered in the 2006 ACA convention show, won People's Choice award.


----------



## TheFishGuy (Apr 21, 2005)

Actually, Paraneetroplus is it's most very recent name.

http://www.cichlid-forum.com/phpBB/view ... highlight=



I currently have five.


----------



## PitBully (Apr 14, 2009)

Thanks for the ID!!

I went in today and inquired about this fella, $150!! Out of my price range by far. Very beautiful fish, this store had 3 of them, all in separate tanks. They were about 6-8 inches long. Truly breathtaking fish!


----------



## Chromedome52 (Jul 25, 2009)

Actually, Vieja is the currently correct name ichthyologically:



> argentea, Cichlasoma (Theraps) Allgayer [R.] 1991:2 [Revue franÃƒÂ§aise des Cichlidophiles 1991; ref. 23088] Mexico. Original not seen. Ã¢â‚¬Â¢Valid as Cichlasoma argentea Allgayer 1991 -- (Conkel 1993:163 [ref. 22949], Nelson et al. 2004:151 [ref. 27807] as argenteum). Ã¢â‚¬Â¢Valid as Vieja argentea (Allgayer 1991) -- (Burgess 2000:50 [ref. 24818], Kullander in Reis et al. 2003:645 [ref. 27061], Miller 2006:379 [ref. 28615]). Current status: Valid as Vieja argentea (Allgayer 1991). Cichlidae: Cichlinae. Distribution: Atlantic Slope of Mexico. Habitat: freshwater.


From here:http://researcharchive.calacademy.org/research/ichthyology/catalog/fishcatmain.asp


----------



## TheFishGuy (Apr 21, 2005)

Having met and talked extensively with Willem, I'm sticking with his opinions... No offense


----------



## fishman76092 (Jan 10, 2005)

I understand that is Willem's opinion, but until its officially changed...its still Vieja. This has been a constant back and forth with Astatotheros and Paratheraps as he mentioned in that note as well. It depends on who you talk to on who thinks what.

For example:
In speaking with Ad Konings, he has many opinions on the genus Pseudotropheus and believes that the only true species for that genus is williamsi.....but until all others are reclassified and published, they remain.


----------



## dwarfpike (Jan 22, 2008)

TheFishGuy said:


> Ok, I've got the ultimate response from Willem Heijns:
> 
> by Willem Heijns Ã¯Â¿Â½ Fri Aug 14, 2009 6:00 am
> 
> 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.


The key to Mr. Heijns' arguement is here. And having talked with a couple of biologists with phd's over the years, they agree with the fact that it is opinion on placement after the initial genus description. So each of the type species would be set, all the others can be argued what or who or where.

While that description (Genus) has a set of rules long enough to fill several books, and even then gets ignored half the time (see the _Microgeophagus/Mikrogeophagus_ arguement), assigning what other fish go where has been seemingly random. DNA might be giving us a set of rules, but frankly I find DNA results wonky. Pike cichlids as Geophagines? _Retroculus_ as _Cichla_? HUH??

But then, I've been in the hobby long enough to know not to argue with Willem when it comes to cichlids and their placements.


----------



## Chromedome52 (Jul 25, 2009)

If the OP wants to find information on the species, he's not going to find it under _Paraneetroplus_. He may find some under _Cichlasoma_, but insofar as the species really wasn't widely known in the hobby B.K. (Before Kullander), most information is under _Vieja argentea_.

Having also met and talked extensively with Willem, I can tell you that he is no more an ichthyologist than I am, nor does he claim to be. However, I have also talked extensively to several people who *are *ichthyologists, such as Dr. Jim Thomerson and Dr. Stanley Weitzman (Curator emeritus of the National Museum of Natural History), both of whom explained to me the formalities of placing a species in a specific genus. Until Willem's opinion is published in a proper paper explaining how the species fits within the description of the Genus _Paraneetroplus _, it remains in _Vieja_. If it does NOT fit within the published description - and it may well be that it doesn't - the Genus would have to be redescribed to allow inclusion of _argentea _and _regani_. Morphological characteristics do not necessarily follow DNA, and the description of _Paraneetroplus _dates from 1905.

The Rican paper had a lot of names changed, but did not formally propose those changes for the various species. Their study was focused on the larger relationships of genera, and not an effort to reclassify species. Too many people have grabbed onto the details as if they were meant to be changes, but they were neither formally nor properly presented, and therefore cannot currently be accepted.


----------



## TheFishGuy (Apr 21, 2005)

> If the OP wants to find information on the species, he's not going to find it under Paraneetroplus. He may find some under Cichlasoma, but insofar as the species really wasn't widely known in the hobby B.K. (Before Kullander), most information is under Vieja argentea.


Very true...


----------

