Neolamprologus brevis = Neolamprologus calliurus???

[Mean_Chlorine]

I just noticed that Fishbase and Eschmeyer lists Neolamprologus
calliurus as a junior synonym of Neolamprologus brevis.

Does anyone have any info on this, um, "surprising" turn of events?

AFAIK calliurus is up to 8 cm long, has a lyre tail, and is a harem
breeder, while brevis is never longer than 5 cm, has a round tail fin,
and forms pairs.
I find it *exceedingly* unlikely that those are one and the same
species - meaning that either the lyretail shell-dweller is not
calliurus, or something is seriously weird here.

So - anyone know what this is about?

[Amateur Cichlids]

"Mean_Chlorine" > wrote in message
...
>I just noticed that Fishbase and Eschmeyer lists Neolamprologus
> calliurus as a junior synonym of Neolamprologus brevis.
>
> Does anyone have any info on this, um, "surprising" turn of events?
>
> AFAIK calliurus is up to 8 cm long, has a lyre tail, and is a harem
> breeder, while brevis is never longer than 5 cm, has a round tail fin,
> and forms pairs.
> I find it *exceedingly* unlikely that those are one and the same
> species - meaning that either the lyretail shell-dweller is not
> calliurus, or something is seriously weird here.
>
> So - anyone know what this is about?
>

Lamprologus calliurus - BOULENGER, 1906
Lamprologus brevis - Boulenger, 1899

No new definitions as far as I've seen or as listed on the reference service
on www.cichlidpress.com
Although I don't believe they'll stay in the Lamprologus genus much longer,
these are definitely two separate species of fish.
Tim
www.fishaholics.org
(Stop visiting fishbase and become a fishaholic =) )

[Mean_Chlorine]

Thusly "Amateur Cichlids" > Spake Unto All:

>> AFAIK calliurus is up to 8 cm long, has a lyre tail, and is a harem
>> breeder, while brevis is never longer than 5 cm, has a round tail fin,
>> and forms pairs.
>> I find it *exceedingly* unlikely that those are one and the same
>> species - meaning that either the lyretail shell-dweller is not
>> calliurus, or something is seriously weird here.
>>
>> So - anyone know what this is about?
>
>Lamprologus calliurus - BOULENGER, 1906
>Lamprologus brevis - Boulenger, 1899
>
>No new definitions as far as I've seen or as listed on the reference service
>on www.cichlidpress.com

Searching Eschmeyer
(http://www.calacademy.org/research/ichthyology/catalog/fishcatsearch.html)
suggests that:

* Both species have been in Neolamprologus since 1991 (Maréchal &
Poll).
* calliurus was synonymized with brevis either in 1991 by Maréchal &
Poll, or in 2003 by Schelly et al (I'm not sure what they mean by that
double parenthesis).
Unless Eschmeyer & Fishbase are simply in error, I'm guessing that
this...
Schelly, R., M. L. J. Stiassny and L. Seegers. 2003. Neolamprologus
devosi sp. N., a new riverine lamprologine cichlid (Teleostei,
Cichlidae) from the lower Malagarasi River, Tanzania. Zootaxa No. 373:
1-11.
.... is the relevant article. Unfortunately I can't get at it from
home, so I can't check it until after the holidays.

If someone who reads this happen to have zootaxa access, feel free to
jump in here.

[Amateur Cichlids]

>
> Searching Eschmeyer
> (http://www.calacademy.org/research/ichthyology/catalog/fishcatsearch.html)
> suggests that:
>
> * Both species have been in Neolamprologus since 1991 (Maréchal &
> Poll).
> * calliurus was synonymized with brevis either in 1991 by Maréchal &
> Poll, or in 2003 by Schelly et al (I'm not sure what they mean by that
> double parenthesis).
> Unless Eschmeyer & Fishbase are simply in error, I'm guessing that
> this...
> Schelly, R., M. L. J. Stiassny and L. Seegers. 2003. Neolamprologus
> devosi sp. N., a new riverine lamprologine cichlid (Teleostei,
> Cichlidae) from the lower Malagarasi River, Tanzania. Zootaxa No. 373:
> 1-11.
> ... is the relevant article. Unfortunately I can't get at it from
> home, so I can't check it until after the holidays.
>
> If someone who reads this happen to have zootaxa access, feel free to
> jump in here.
>

First let me start on the Neolamprologus genus. In 1998 Konings published
Tanganyika Cichlids in their natural habitats. He sites the work of Stiassny
who did a study on almost all the Lamprologine species. The type species for
Neolamprologus is the N. tetracanthus. It lacks ossified cartilidge in it's
lower jaw which is found in many of the other Lamprologines. It was then
concluded that any Lamprologine species that had the ossified cartilidge was
no longer part of the Neolamprologus group. This includes <<Lamprologus>>
brevis and <<Lamprologus>> calliurus. Since the type species for Lamprologus
is the L. congoensis, a riverine species with no representatives in the
Lake, all the species currently listed as <<Lamprologus>> are in the process
of being moved to a different genus.
This of course doesn't clarify the assessment that L. calliurus is a
geographical variant of L. brevis....
Again, referencing Konings, <<L.>> brevis are a smaller species than <<L.>>
calliurus with different breeding behaviour. As you stated the calliurus are
much larger with lyre shaped tails while the brevis have rounded tails.
Female calliurus are lighter in color and have straight tails. The argument
for geogrpahical variants would be a hard one to make since they are found
in common areas throughout the Lake.
All in all, I think someone at Fishbase has gotten something wrong.
Tim
www.fishaholics.org

[Mean_Chlorine]

Thusly "Amateur Cichlids" > Spake Unto All:

>First let me start on the Neolamprologus genus. In 1998 Konings published
>Tanganyika Cichlids in their natural habitats. He sites the work of Stiassny
>who did a study on almost all the Lamprologine species. The type species for
>Neolamprologus is the N. tetracanthus. It lacks ossified cartilidge in it's
>lower jaw which is found in many of the other Lamprologines. It was then
>concluded that any Lamprologine species that had the ossified cartilidge was
>no longer part of the Neolamprologus group.

Stiassny seems to have had a change of heart, or been misquoted by
Konings.

I got hold of the N. devosi article (it appears you can download
Zootaxa articles for free if you find it via Google instead of via
their back-catalog. Quite possibly against Zootaxas intentions, but at
least I got the article), and Schelly, Stiassny & Seegers (2003)
define Neolamprologus thus:

"we follow the phenetic classification of Poll (1986) who placed
within the genus Neolamprologus all lamprologines in which the first
pelvic ray is the longest in the fin (in contrast to the condition in
Lamprologus sensu Poll, in which the second or third pelvic ray is the
longest), and which lack the defining characters of Chalinochromis,
Julidochromis, Telmatochromis, Altolamprologus, and
Lepidiolamprologus."

(If nothing else that definition sure highlights how artificial the
classification of lamprologines in general, and
Lamprologus/Neolamprologus in particuar, is!)

Schelly et al also expressly lists brevis as a member of
Neolamprologus, not Lamprologus.

Wrt my original question, Schelly et al clearly consider brevis and
calliurus to be separate species.

>All in all, I think someone at Fishbase has gotten something wrong.

That seems increasingly likely to be the case, yes. Certainly it is
incorrect to cite Schelly et al, 2003, as source for synonymizing
brevis and calliurus. It is puzzling that both Eschmeyer Catalog of
Fishes and Fishbase make the same error, but they may have influenced
eachother.