Cichlid Fish Forum banner
1 - 10 of 10 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
642 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Can anyone help me with all the different lamprologus genuses? What's the significance of the quotes around 'lamprologus' as opposed to without? How closely related are they all? Can anyone point me towards an article or something that explains it?

Thanks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,503 Posts
It is my understanding that "lamprologus" is an out of date moniker sometimes still given to "neolamprologus". All lamprologines, within the cichlid genus, regardless of whether my "outdated moniker" theory holds up 8, are, of course, quite closely related.

For example: I have, in my posession, a 1/2 Neolamprologus Buescheri, 1/2 Altolamprologus Calvus Hybrid. This is rare but, obviously, it happens.

I only know of a few fish still commonly referred to as "Lamprologus" although I'm sure there's many more; namely Lamprologus Meleagris (AKA Neolamprologus Stappersi) and Lamprologus Furcifer. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
642 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
Thanks for the input and the article. Although I'm embarassed to admit that the article is about 3 years of college beyond my comprehension. :oops:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,006 Posts
When looking for 'lamps' on breeder lists, you'll want to check both the lamprologus and neolamprologus sections. Hard to say always where they'll be found.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31,206 Posts
Lamprologus refers to the riverine Lamprologines.

"Lamprologus" refers to those (primarily) shell dwellers, that were once Neolamprologus, and perhaps again are Neolamprologus for now... LOL

The italics are important.

There is also Lepidiolamprologus, Variabiliochromis..

I wouldn't get incredibly hung up on the nomenclature though. The naming protocol is a human construct, and doesn't necessarily reflect how related species are. The naming seems to be somewhat fluid as well, fish moving around.. etc. There are fish that seem to be in the wrong genus at times, and at others they seem to be corrected.

Neolamprologus/Altolamprologus fasciatus is one such fish... originally described in 1898 as Lamprologus fasciatus, in 1998 Konings moved the fish to Altolamprologus. In 2007 Stephan Koblmüller did phylogenetic research and concluded that they should be grouped with Neolamprologus.... Konings doesn't agree... so we have a bit of a split. In the end, us hobbyists should really just use these as labels.

I know, it is kind of confusing...
another article of note..

http://www.cichlidae.com/article.php?id=158

Suffice to say, the Lamprologine group should see many changes over the next few decades in terms of names.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
642 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
"The good news is that several teams of researchers have recently devoted substantial effort to sorting out these fishes; the bad news is that the results don't all agree with each other, so the process is ongoing."

I think this kind of sums it all up pretty nicely. LOL. This article is a lot more my level. Thanks for the information.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
40,487 Posts
And each one changes his mind a lot as well. :thumb:
 
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
Top