Angelfish and other loners

Most fish have a tremendous amount of 'cousins'. The Neon tetra comes
from a huge family of tetras - danios, mbuna, corys, rainbowfish all have
huge 'families'. Plecos are so diversified that new discoveries are all
simply numbered (ie:L121, L122 etc). Even fish which we might think are
unique, such as the Siamese fighting fish come from a very large 'family'
(Genus Betta). The same for Guppies, Firemouths, Geos and many others we
might think unique. At the other extreme, for whatever evolutionary
reason, certain fish are practically 'alone' in this world (thinking
along the lines of shape, behaviour and niche).

For these loners, was the process of evolution so harsh that every other
variant was exterminated, or perhaps their environments were so
inhospitable to having more than one of something? If their survival was
so precarious, it gives me the feeling that it's only by the slimmest of
chances that we have them here today, and that many unique fishes simply
did not survive long enough to have been seen by modern man. Or perhaps
these unique fishes were so successful that they simply mastered the
niche they found and prevented any competition through diversification.

My vote for the top three unique fish would start with the Angelfish,
which incidentally is classified into more than one species, but among
the experts, this topic is hotly debated and rarely agreed upon. At a
glance, it started with Pterophyllum scalare & P.altum with discussions
about P.eimekei - but now it's P.scalare, P.altum, P.leopoldi and
P.dumerilli.

Experts aside (and I'm sidetracking), these evolutionary variants are
fairly 'recent', and if experts have trouble distinguishing between them,
then perhaps we shouldn't worry about it ;~). In practical terms, 99.99%
of the Angelfish sold today are P.scalare in color/fin morphs (marble,
black, golden, veiltail etc) and the remaining .01% are wild caught
P.altums (silver wild coloration/marking)..imo.

My vote #2 goes to the Pompadourfish (what?). Now more commonly called
the Discus ;~). Here again, perhaps the experts are splitting hairs, and
there are two species Symphysodon discus and S.aequifaciatus and various
sub-species (willischwartzi, axelrodi, haraldi etc), but essentially,
besides slight variations in color patterns and ray counts, it's the same
fish, and there are many color morphs.

Vote #3 is not so obvious. perhaps the Elephant-nose fish or Mono
(Monodactylus argenteus with one cousin, the Sebae). Hatchetfish are
quite unique (Silver or Marble species). Anyone have any other
suggestions?
--
www.NetMax.tk

"NetMax" wrote in message
...
Most fish have a tremendous amount of 'cousins'. The Neon tetra comes
from a huge family of tetras - danios, mbuna, corys, rainbowfish all have
huge 'families'. Plecos are so diversified that new discoveries are all
simply numbered (ie:L121, L122 etc). Even fish which we might think are
unique, such as the Siamese fighting fish come from a very large 'family'
(Genus Betta). The same for Guppies, Firemouths, Geos and many others we
might think unique. At the other extreme, for whatever evolutionary
reason, certain fish are practically 'alone' in this world (thinking along
the lines of shape, behaviour and niche).

For these loners, was the process of evolution so harsh that every other
variant was exterminated, or perhaps their environments were so
inhospitable to having more than one of something? If their survival was
so precarious, it gives me the feeling that it's only by the slimmest of
chances that we have them here today, and that many unique fishes simply
did not survive long enough to have been seen by modern man. Or perhaps
these unique fishes were so successful that they simply mastered the niche
they found and prevented any competition through diversification.

My vote for the top three unique fish would start with the Angelfish,
which incidentally is classified into more than one species, but among the
experts, this topic is hotly debated and rarely agreed upon. At a glance,
it started with Pterophyllum scalare & P.altum with discussions about
P.eimekei - but now it's P.scalare, P.altum, P.leopoldi and P.dumerilli.

Experts aside (and I'm sidetracking), these evolutionary variants are
fairly 'recent', and if experts have trouble distinguishing between them,
then perhaps we shouldn't worry about it ;~). In practical terms, 99.99%
of the Angelfish sold today are P.scalare in color/fin morphs (marble,
black, golden, veiltail etc) and the remaining .01% are wild caught
P.altums (silver wild coloration/marking)..imo.

My vote #2 goes to the Pompadourfish (what?). Now more commonly called
the Discus ;~). Here again, perhaps the experts are splitting hairs, and
there are two species Symphysodon discus and S.aequifaciatus and various
sub-species (willischwartzi, axelrodi, haraldi etc), but essentially,
besides slight variations in color patterns and ray counts, it's the same
fish, and there are many color morphs.

Vote #3 is not so obvious. perhaps the Elephant-nose fish or Mono
(Monodactylus argenteus with one cousin, the Sebae). Hatchetfish are
quite unique (Silver or Marble species). Anyone have any other
suggestions?
--
www.NetMax.tk


How about clowns loaches? I know there are several Botia......species, but
clowns have distinct colouring from them, their behaviour is unique, and
their synchromised swimming is superb, like none others. Mary

NetMax wrote:
Most fish have a tremendous amount of 'cousins'. The Neon tetra comes
from a huge family of tetras - danios, mbuna, corys, rainbowfish all have
huge 'families'. Plecos are so diversified that new discoveries are all
simply numbered (ie:L121, L122 etc). Even fish which we might think are
unique, such as the Siamese fighting fish come from a very large 'family'
(Genus Betta). The same for Guppies, Firemouths, Geos and many others we
might think unique. At the other extreme, for whatever evolutionary
reason, certain fish are practically 'alone' in this world (thinking
along the lines of shape, behaviour and niche).

For these loners, was the process of evolution so harsh that every other
variant was exterminated, or perhaps their environments were so
inhospitable to having more than one of something? If their survival was
so precarious, it gives me the feeling that it's only by the slimmest of
chances that we have them here today, and that many unique fishes simply
did not survive long enough to have been seen by modern man. Or perhaps
these unique fishes were so successful that they simply mastered the
niche they found and prevented any competition through diversification.

My vote for the top three unique fish would start with the Angelfish,
which incidentally is classified into more than one species, but among
the experts, this topic is hotly debated and rarely agreed upon. At a
glance, it started with Pterophyllum scalare & P.altum with discussions
about P.eimekei - but now it's P.scalare, P.altum, P.leopoldi and
P.dumerilli.

Experts aside (and I'm sidetracking), these evolutionary variants are
fairly 'recent', and if experts have trouble distinguishing between them,
then perhaps we shouldn't worry about it ;~). In practical terms, 99.99%
of the Angelfish sold today are P.scalare in color/fin morphs (marble,
black, golden, veiltail etc) and the remaining .01% are wild caught
P.altums (silver wild coloration/marking)..imo.

My vote #2 goes to the Pompadourfish (what?). Now more commonly called
the Discus ;~). Here again, perhaps the experts are splitting hairs, and
there are two species Symphysodon discus and S.aequifaciatus and various
sub-species (willischwartzi, axelrodi, haraldi etc), but essentially,
besides slight variations in color patterns and ray counts, it's the same
fish, and there are many color morphs.

Vote #3 is not so obvious. perhaps the Elephant-nose fish or Mono
(Monodactylus argenteus with one cousin, the Sebae). Hatchetfish are
quite unique (Silver or Marble species). Anyone have any other
suggestions?

Interesting, and I have somthing for you the Coelacanth is a 400 million
yeas old has no relations, especilly to the fact that is has limbs like
our arms. No I'm not crazy I saw it on NOVA. science thinks that this is
a link to Darwen's idea that all life came from water. Here check it out.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/fish/anatomy.html

"Mary Burns" wrote in message
...

"NetMax" wrote in message
...
Most fish have a tremendous amount of 'cousins'. The Neon tetra comes
from a huge family of tetras - danios, mbuna, corys, rainbowfish all
have huge 'families'. Plecos are so diversified that new discoveries
are all simply numbered (ie:L121, L122 etc). Even fish which we might
think are unique, such as the Siamese fighting fish come from a very
large 'family' (Genus Betta). The same for Guppies, Firemouths, Geos
and many others we might think unique. At the other extreme, for
whatever evolutionary reason, certain fish are practically 'alone' in
this world (thinking along the lines of shape, behaviour and niche).

For these loners, was the process of evolution so harsh that every
other variant was exterminated, or perhaps their environments were so
inhospitable to having more than one of something? If their survival
was so precarious, it gives me the feeling that it's only by the
slimmest of chances that we have them here today, and that many unique
fishes simply did not survive long enough to have been seen by modern
man. Or perhaps these unique fishes were so successful that they
simply mastered the niche they found and prevented any competition
through diversification.

My vote for the top three unique fish would start with the Angelfish,
which incidentally is classified into more than one species, but among
the experts, this topic is hotly debated and rarely agreed upon. At a
glance, it started with Pterophyllum scalare & P.altum with
discussions about P.eimekei - but now it's P.scalare, P.altum,
P.leopoldi and P.dumerilli.

Experts aside (and I'm sidetracking), these evolutionary variants are
fairly 'recent', and if experts have trouble distinguishing between
them, then perhaps we shouldn't worry about it ;~). In practical
terms, 99.99% of the Angelfish sold today are P.scalare in color/fin
morphs (marble, black, golden, veiltail etc) and the remaining .01%
are wild caught P.altums (silver wild coloration/marking)..imo.

My vote #2 goes to the Pompadourfish (what?). Now more commonly
called the Discus ;~). Here again, perhaps the experts are splitting
hairs, and there are two species Symphysodon discus and
S.aequifaciatus and various sub-species (willischwartzi, axelrodi,
haraldi etc), but essentially, besides slight variations in color
patterns and ray counts, it's the same fish, and there are many color
morphs.

Vote #3 is not so obvious. perhaps the Elephant-nose fish or Mono
(Monodactylus argenteus with one cousin, the Sebae). Hatchetfish are
quite unique (Silver or Marble species). Anyone have any other
suggestions?
--
www.NetMax.tk


How about clowns loaches? I know there are several Botia......species,
but clowns have distinct colouring from them, their behaviour is
unique, and their synchromised swimming is superb, like none others.
Mary

While nothing compares with the precocious nature of the Clown loach, it
could be argued that some of their uniqueness is lost to their 34 other
cousins (from WebCity master Index). Because I was curious (and
control-C and control-V are so easy, and I hope Mary won't mind) here is
the WebCity samples for your viewing pleasure.

Botia almorhae "Yellow-Fin Botia" `Netzschmerle`
Botia beauforti "Beauforti's Loach" "Beaufort's Loach" `Beauforts
Schmerle`
Botia berdmorei "Polkadot Botia"
Botia birdi
Botia caudipunctata
Botia dario "Bengal Loach" "Queen Loach" `Grüne Bänderschmerle`
Botia dayi
Botia eos "Sun Loach" `Sonnenschmerle`
Botia fasciata, Botia multifasciata
Botia geto
Botia helodes "Banded Loach" "Tiger Loach" `Tigerschmerle`
Botia hymenophysa "Banded Loach" "Tiger Loach" "Indonesian Banded Loach"
Botia lecontei "Le Conti's Loach" "Red-Finned Loach" "Red-Tailed Blue
Shark" "Leconte's Loach" "Gold Fin Loach" `Le Conte-Schmerle`
`Rotflossenprachtschmerle`
Botia lohachata, Botia lochata "Pakistani Loach" "Pakistani Shark" "Yo-Yo
Loach" "Y-Loach" `Netzschmerle`
Botia longidorsalis
Botia longiventralis "Eighteen Barred Loach"
Botia lucas bahi "Barred Loach"
Botia macracanthus, Botia macracantha, Botia macranthus "Clown Loach"
"Tiger Botia" "Tiger Loach" `Prachtschmerle`
Botia macrolineata
Botia modesta, Botia rubripinnis "Orange-Finned Loach" "Blue Botia" "Blue
Loach" `Grüne Schmerle`
Botia morleti, Botia horae "Hora's Loach" "Cream Botia" "Skunk Loach"
`Horas Schmerle` `Aalstrichschmerle`
Botia nebulosa, Botia Acanthocobitis
Botia nigrolineata `Schwarzstreifen-Prachtschmerle`
Botia pulchra
Botia pulchripinnis "Red-Finned Loach"
Botia reevesae
Botia reversa
Botia robusta, Botia rostrata, Botia hirdi, Botia histrionica, Botia geto
? "Ladder Loach" "Mongoose Loach" `Kansuschmerle`
Botia rubipinnus "Red-Finned Loach" `Grüne Schmerle`
Botia rubrilabris
Botia sidthimunki "Dwarf Loach" "Chain Botia" `Zwergschmerle`
`Schachbrettschmerle`
Botia striata, Botia strigata, Botia weinbergi "Zebra Loach" "Striped
Botia" `Aebraschmerle` `Steifenschmerle`
Botia superciliaris `Spitzkopfschmerle`
Botia taenia
Botia variegata

Source: http://www.webcityof.com/miffidx.htm

I don't know if any of these can do synchronized swimming like Clowns do,
but they should all be given a fair chance ;~). As botia, the Clowns
*are* probably unique for their eventual size in the wild though.
--
www.NetMax.tk

"Justice" wrote in message
news:9o4gf.153496$Io.26657@clgrps13...
NetMax wrote:
Most fish have a tremendous amount of 'cousins'. The Neon tetra comes
from a huge family of tetras - danios, mbuna, corys, rainbowfish all
have huge 'families'. Plecos are so diversified that new discoveries
are all simply numbered (ie:L121, L122 etc). Even fish which we might
think are unique, such as the Siamese fighting fish come from a very
large 'family' (Genus Betta). The same for Guppies, Firemouths, Geos
and many others we might think unique. At the other extreme, for
whatever evolutionary reason, certain fish are practically 'alone' in
this world (thinking along the lines of shape, behaviour and niche).

For these loners, was the process of evolution so harsh that every
other variant was exterminated, or perhaps their environments were so
inhospitable to having more than one of something? If their survival
was so precarious, it gives me the feeling that it's only by the
slimmest of chances that we have them here today, and that many unique
fishes simply did not survive long enough to have been seen by modern
man. Or perhaps these unique fishes were so successful that they
simply mastered the niche they found and prevented any competition
through diversification.

My vote for the top three unique fish would start with the Angelfish,
which incidentally is classified into more than one species, but among
the experts, this topic is hotly debated and rarely agreed upon. At a
glance, it started with Pterophyllum scalare & P.altum with
discussions about P.eimekei - but now it's P.scalare, P.altum,
P.leopoldi and P.dumerilli.

Experts aside (and I'm sidetracking), these evolutionary variants are
fairly 'recent', and if experts have trouble distinguishing between
them, then perhaps we shouldn't worry about it ;~). In practical
terms, 99.99% of the Angelfish sold today are P.scalare in color/fin
morphs (marble, black, golden, veiltail etc) and the remaining .01%
are wild caught P.altums (silver wild coloration/marking)..imo.

My vote #2 goes to the Pompadourfish (what?). Now more commonly
called the Discus ;~). Here again, perhaps the experts are splitting
hairs, and there are two species Symphysodon discus and
S.aequifaciatus and various sub-species (willischwartzi, axelrodi,
haraldi etc), but essentially, besides slight variations in color
patterns and ray counts, it's the same fish, and there are many color
morphs.

Vote #3 is not so obvious. perhaps the Elephant-nose fish or Mono
(Monodactylus argenteus with one cousin, the Sebae). Hatchetfish are
quite unique (Silver or Marble species). Anyone have any other
suggestions?

Interesting, and I have somthing for you the Coelacanth is a 400
million yeas old has no relations, especilly to the fact that is has
limbs like our arms. No I'm not crazy I saw it on NOVA. science thinks
that this is a link to Darwen's idea that all life came from water.
Here check it out.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/fish/anatomy.html

Yup definitely holds the record (imo) for most unique. Thanks for the
link. That notocord is a real throwback. I *was* thinking about
freshwater fish we could keep in an aquarium though ;~), and if we open
this up to marine life, then it will get really weird (how about the
Seahorse?).
--
www.NetMax.tk

This is the one.

http://www.aquahobby.com/gallery/gpantodon.html

On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 11:01:49 -0500, NetMax wrote:

Vote #3 is not so obvious. perhaps the Elephant-nose fish or Mono
(Monodactylus argenteus with one cousin, the Sebae). Hatchetfish are
quite unique (Silver or Marble species). Anyone have any other
suggestions?

The reedfish is the only fish in its genus, and the only fish in family
polypteridae to depart from the basic bichir body.

The FW butterfly is likely a good candidate for this honour as well.

NetMax wrote:

For these loners, was the process of evolution so harsh that every other
variant was exterminated, or perhaps their environments were so
inhospitable to having more than one of something? If their survival was
so precarious, it gives me the feeling that it's only by the slimmest of
chances that we have them here today, and that many unique fishes simply
did not survive long enough to have been seen by modern man. Or perhaps
these unique fishes were so successful that they simply mastered the
niche they found and prevented any competition through diversification.

I'm grateful we have discus and angels. But what *is* their niche?
In what situation do they have an edge over standard-shaped
cichlids?

Cliff

On 21 Nov 2005 00:52:45 -0800, "Cliff L"
wrote:

NetMax wrote:

For these loners, was the process of evolution so harsh that every other
variant was exterminated, or perhaps their environments were so
inhospitable to having more than one of something? If their survival was
so precarious, it gives me the feeling that it's only by the slimmest of
chances that we have them here today, and that many unique fishes simply
did not survive long enough to have been seen by modern man. Or perhaps
these unique fishes were so successful that they simply mastered the
niche they found and prevented any competition through diversification.

I'm grateful we have discus and angels. But what *is* their niche?
In what situation do they have an edge over standard-shaped
cichlids?

Cliff

You all are discussing part of my problem with "Evolution", how enough
survived accidents in particularly unique niches can survive twice
within a reproducible time frame, it does take two to reproduce. Think
male and female Peacock, sure you can argue the female is attracted to
the beautiful feathers, but also think how hard it is for the male to
run to catch her or evade destruction from a less beautiful display.
And, how did the female come to find the riot of colors and patterns
"sexy?"

Further, I would like to see a specific gene that can accidentally
change to create a pattern such as seen on the Clown fish (or
peacock). You may find a nich rational, but finding one survivable
gene change requires real imagination. To make things more
complicated, recent knowledge about genes suggest one gene does more
than one thing, then there are all those other cellular functions that
must cooperate for the gene to survive and do something useful.

dick

On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 11:40:51 -0600, Rocco Moretti wrote:


What you are neglecting in your conception of evolution is time. Evolution
happens slowly over a long period of time. Species develop gradually - a
new species doesn't just spring fully formed from Zeus's head.

snip

Thanks, Rocco. You saved me a bit of writing with that excellent
exposition. People just don't realize how long a few billion years really
is :-).

BTW, for the original poster, I recently read of a computer simulation
which suggested that a complete eye could have evolved from a slightly
photosensitive cell in less than 500 generations. In actuality, it
probably took quite a bit longer due to horde of other factors.