Takahashi did a 2003 phylogeny of Xenotilapia in 2003 and thought that Enantiopus was a synonym of Xenotilapia. I'm not aware of any recent work on this group of fishes. Personally I disagree with Takahashi on making Enantiopus a synonym of Xenotilapia and think it is a distinct genus.
Funny thing cichlidae seemed to accept it http://www.cichlidae.com/section.php?id=108&n=tsd but have not changed their profiles/catalog of cichlids.
Maybe waiting for the next paper as although Enantopius may not be a valid genera Xenotilapia is thought to be polyphyletic and therefore in need of a revision (KoblmÃƒÂ¼ller et al. 2004). This topic will be addressed in a separate paper. Or so I read.
did anyone find any idea of why inquiring ichthyologists sought to reclassify in the first place? I read somewhere awhile back that E. Kilesa may have been derived from a hybridization of E. Melanogenys and X. Ochrogenys but other than that, mere conjecture, is their any evidence, dna etc.?
Not read that mate any chance of a reference? Takahashi has I hesitate to say it but a bit of a rep like Ad of publishing evidence and conjecture and changes before getting the the proof that could change folks minds.
Sure I have a lot of time for their energies and expertise but kind of think we should take these things with a pinch of salt. I have heard Icthologists suggest we hobbyists are desperate for new classifications and accept them at the drop of a hat but dealers follow hobbyists and are thus always behind, bless em.
For me Enantiopus is a valid genus (that should be expanded rather than got rid of) until someone comes up with a lot more conclusive evidence than in Takahashi et al and the DNA studies so far given.
I want to say that I got the Ochrogenys ref from Ad's book but I'm just too lazy to look it up at the moment 8) . Either way, I'm with you 24. To me it's a clear classification that, if anything should include ochrogenys.
The statement about the E. Kilesa being a hybrid was written in Ad Konings book: Tanganyikan cichlids in their natural habitat
As both Ochrogenys and Melanogenys breed at the same time of the year, together in the same area. However Melos build pits and Ochrogenys build turrets. The behaviour of the Kilesa is a mix of building pits and turrets. There were some other indications of it being a hybrid like it's colour.
Problem is if we lose a genus because there was a natural genus cross found (and proved) in the wild, we might have a lot less?
But if ochrogenys was in Enantopious then it would be just a simple species cross (if proved).
If there are a number of species crosses about then DNA evidence will tend to give bigger and fewer genera than conventional morphological studies.