# Need help understanding species classification



## CichlidPadawan (May 4, 2013)

Hi all! New to the forum and need help understanding the different types of haplochromines and sub species and what not. I've been trying to look up info on the web but the wiki pages like this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplochromine are hard for me to comprehend. I need someone to lay it out in layman terms. Is there a visual chart or something lol? I know a genus is a group of fish that share similar characteristics but what is a sub-family? Are aulonocara in the same group as haps because some sites list them separately from haplochromis? I own peacocks, haps, and mbunas but haven't really grasped the categories yet. Just trying to understand my fish  plus people keep asking me questions I can't answer lol. Any info would be appreciated greatly!


----------



## ratbones86 (Jun 29, 2012)

aulonocara is a peacock cichlid. Haplochromies are a species all their own seperate from the mbuna like demasoni, yellow labs, rusties, cobue, ect.... Haps are like borleyi, venustus, and stuff. Haps get a bigger body vrs peacocks and mbuna. peacocks are bigger than mbuna but smaller than haps. Look up the haps on google nd doa n image search then search peacocks then mbuna's and you will see the differences


----------



## CichlidPadawan (May 4, 2013)

Oh I get the differences I just don't understand the classifications (classifications may not be the right word I'm lookin for). Like I thought aulonocara was a genus all it's own but still under the hap species like Copadichromis, Nibochromis, Placidochromis, & Protomelas.


----------



## Fogelhund (Dec 3, 2002)

ratbones86 said:


> aulonocara is a peacock cichlid. Haplochromies are a species all their own seperate from the mbuna like demasoni, yellow labs, rusties, cobue, ect.... Haps are like borleyi, venustus, and stuff. Haps get a bigger body vrs peacocks and mbuna. peacocks are bigger than mbuna but smaller than haps. Look up the haps on google nd doa n image search then search peacocks then mbuna's and you will see the differences


This is almost entirely wrong. I'll explain later why.


----------



## Fogelhund (Dec 3, 2002)

Here is a chart that shows relations, what is more similarly related to other fish.

http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/fi ... 17-3-l.jpg

Family, sub-family and Genus is a system of grouping fishes with similar characteristics.

When it comes to Malawian cichlids, people tend to lump them into groups for their convenience. Typically we do talk about Haps, Peacocks and Mbuna as subsets of the Haplochromine flock, though you can make more splits from there (not really very important). For many years people believed Peacocks were a subset of "Haps", but it turns out from a genetic perspective they are actually closer related to mbuna, and a subset of them.

If you look back at the chart, you will see some Lethrinops are closely related to the Aulonocara listed. In all probability these should be listed in the same group as Peacocks. The challenge with cichlid nomenclature is that the ichthyologists have lumped things together based upon certain similar characteristics. While these fish may share similar characteristics, the placement within certain Genus doesn't really say much about the fish being from the same evolutionary family tree, as it does that they've evolved in similar directions, due to similar environmental pressures and niches. Once we fully understand molecular biology, we should be in a better position to understand evolution in cichlids, and then decide if we've got the genus right.

As far as Haps, Peacocks and Mbuna are concerned, please understand that for every generality someone can come up with to attempt to describe these groups, there is almost always an exception to that generality. We've grouped these fish as follows... you can use the drop downs to show the lists. http://www.cichlid-forum.com/profiles/?region=M

Cichlids are a very complex group from a scientific perspective, and it can be very complicated. The groups, mbuna, Haps, Peacocks are grouped for our convenience, and typically people will keep tanks of mbuna or tanks of Haps and Peacocks. Like I said above, plenty of exceptions and outclauses on that one too. I think that the first thing someone should learn about these fish, is that sweeping generalized statements are almost always going to be inaccurate.

I don't know that I've made it less complicated for you, but do understand the link on our site groups things together for you in a practical manner in the simplistic way you are looking for.


----------



## CichlidPadawan (May 4, 2013)

Thanks so much! This is exactly what I've been looking for! I'll probably have more questions after I've had time to study this chart. Appreciate the detailed reply.


----------



## lilscoots (Mar 13, 2012)

Fogelhund said:


> ratbones86 said:
> 
> 
> > aulonocara is a peacock cichlid. Haplochromies are a species all their own seperate from the mbuna like demasoni, yellow labs, rusties, cobue, ect.... Haps are like borleyi, venustus, and stuff. Haps get a bigger body vrs peacocks and mbuna. peacocks are bigger than mbuna but smaller than haps. Look up the haps on google nd doa n image search then search peacocks then mbuna's and you will see the differences
> ...


Thank you Fogelhound, the biologist in my chair was saying "oh goodness, where to start". What you had next was a good summation.


----------



## ratbones86 (Jun 29, 2012)

Fogelhund you ever think of writing a book with all your knowledge in it? Would be a good read lol. Reason i love this hobby i learn new stuff every day. I had no clue about any of that and i appreciate the info on that as well. I thought that was really how they were all classified together, as not taught any different from anyone. Also Where does it show where they started from or does anyone really know where the first cichlids are from? In some videos i've watched they said they might have came from the ocean and from fish like dameizls and fish like them. Any truth to that and what do you know on it?


----------



## DJRansome (Oct 29, 2005)

While waiting for Fogelhund to publish, you can read books by Ad Konings to understand classification of Lake Malawi cichlids.


----------



## ratbones86 (Jun 29, 2012)

Ok where is a good place to get them? i never see any anywhere around where i live


----------



## DJRansome (Oct 29, 2005)

I got mine through my club but you can order via Amazon or Cichlid Press.


----------



## ratbones86 (Jun 29, 2012)

Ok what are some good books I should check out?


----------



## DJRansome (Oct 29, 2005)

I like Malawi Cichlids in their natural habitat 4th edition published 2007 and Tanganyika Cichlids in their natural habitat published 1998.


----------



## ratbones86 (Jun 29, 2012)

Ok thanks


----------



## CichlidPadawan (May 4, 2013)

Hmm this chart http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/fi ... 17-3-l.jpg seems to be missing some text to help explain what exactly I'm looking at. There are a lot of numbers, some pics with arrows with no text. I keep looking over it and over it and I'm still not exactly sure what I'm looking at.


----------



## CichlidPadawan (May 4, 2013)

I'll have to check out some of those books to djransome.


----------



## brinkles (Jan 30, 2011)

"Mbuna" means "rock dweller" to the locals, "Peacock" means Aulonocara, but also hybrids thereof, and "Hap" means any lake Malawi cichlid that doesn't fit the previous two groups.

There are thousands of species between just these informal groupings. The scientific names are regularly changed. The deeper you dig into it, the more confused you will get! Some of the genus are just "trash can" placeholders, like pseudotropheus, and don't really mean anything. Many species aren't described at all.

That chart, if it contained every known species of haplochromine, would probably cover a gym floor! I can see species names, but they're just a tiny sampling.


----------



## 7mm-08 (Jan 12, 2012)

Fogelhund said:


> the placement within certain Genus doesn't really say much about the fish being from the same evolutionary family tree, as it does that they've evolved in similar directions, due to similar environmental pressures and niches.


This is the kicker and what I had problems with at first. They aren't grouped by how closely related they are, but by seemingly arbitrary reasons such as how they feed. I'm guessing if it were feasible to quickly run and compare genomes of the different species, that things would be quite different.


----------

