Ну вот, тот же Schmitter-Soto выпустил в Зоотаксе ещё одну статью:
Schmitter-Soto, JJ, 2007. Phylogeny of species formerly assigned to the genus
Archocentrus (
Perciformes: Cichlidae). Zootaxa 1618: 1–50.
Статья очень подробно объясняет отличия между родами.
Если честно, я не часто встречаю такие статьи. Просто автор решил дважды опубликоваться. Если бы он все в одной статье преподнёс было бы поменьше вопросов.
Я решил поставить не только абстракт, но и введение в статью:
Abstract
A phylogeny for 28 cichlid species that have been included in or near the same clade as Archocentrus centrarchus (type species of the genus) in previous phylogenetic analyses is presented, based on 98 morphological characters (osteology, gutcoiling pattern, pigmentation, squamation, meristics, and others), plus one cytogenetic character. Monophyly is supported for Archocentrus sensu stricto, Cryptoheros, Hypsophrys, Amatitlania, and Rocio; the relationships among these genera are not resolved. The three subgenera of Cryptoheros are also supported; Cr. panamensis is the sister group of the rest of the species in the genus. Within Cryptoheros (Cryptoheros), Cr. chetumalensis is the sister group of the clade Cr. spilurus + Cr. cutteri. Within Amatitlania the pattern is: (Am. coatepeque (Am. nigrofasciata (Am. siquia + Am. kanna))).
Introduction
The cichlid fish genus Archocentrus Gill has been redefined by Schmitter-Soto (2007) to include only Ar. centrarchus Gill in Gill & Bransford, 1877 (type species), Ar. spinosissimus (Vaillant & Pellegrin, 1902), and Ar. multispinosus [formerly Herotilapia multispinosa (Günther, 1867)]. Other species that have sometimes been assigned to Archocentrus were reassigned in that paper to the new genera Amatitlania [Am. nigrofasciata (Günther, 1867) and three new species] and Rocio [R. octofasciata (Regan, 1903) and two new species], as well as Cryptoheros Allgayer [Cr. panamensis (Meek & Hildebrand, 1913), Cr. spilurus (Günther, 1862), the resurrected Cr. cutteri (Fowler, 1932), Cr. septemfasciatus (Regan, 1908), Cr. altoflavus Allgayer, 2001, Cr. nanoluteus (Allgayer, 1994), Cr. myrnae (Loiselle, 1997), Cr. sajica (Bussing, 1974), and one new species] and Hypsophrys Agassiz [H. nicaraguensis Günther, 1864 and H. nematopus (Günther, 1867)]. The present article provides the cladistic support for these decisions.
Attempts to solve the ex-Cichlasoma problem have had a less-than-moderate success. Cichocki’s (1976) dissertation supported the hypothesis that all species then assigned to Cichlasoma Swainson formed a monophyletic group, and proposed several lineages within it; however, he chose to work out the relationships by means of a clique analysis, thus rendering his results hard to compare with subsequent parsimony-based hypotheses (Kullander 1996).
Stiassny (1991) presented a review of cichlid relationships; she demonstrated monophyly for the New World cichlids and established two main clades, one of which, her “cichlasomine group A,” included all Middle
American cichlids along with a few taxa from South America (e.g. Caquetaia Fowler).
Kullander (1998) examined South American cichlids and established the tribe Heroini, which includes, among others, the species formerly in Cichlasoma; he did not offer resolved relationships within the Heroini (and he did not include species from Middle America), but nevertheless he concluded that “the morphological basis for phylogeny reconstruction is practically available.”
Roe et al. (1997) performed the first molecular analysis of Middle American cichlids, using complete cytochrome b sequences of 19 species. These authors found that Cr. spilurus and Nandopsis (= Parachromis) dovii (Günther) were part of the same clade as the true Amphilophus Agassiz [restricted by these authors to A.
citrinellus (Günther) and A. labiatus (Günther)]. They found this clade to be basal to the “cichlasomine group A” clade, i.e. the Heroini (Kullander 1998).
The same gene allowed Martin and Bermingham (1998) to produce a partial phylogeny of Archocentrus, in the context of an analysis of 21 Middle American (almost exclusively Costa Rican) cichlids. In the present work, some of Regan’s (1905) “sections” were recognised, including a restricted version of Archocentrus. However, the
authors felt that the “relationships among the genera remain elusive,” except for the monophyly of Hypsophrys + Neetroplus Günther (a clade that apparently contradicted morphological phylogenetic analyses, although it is supported in the present paper).
Farias et al. (1999, 2000, 2001) essentially focused on South American taxa, but they did include additional taxa from Middle America, among them ‘Cichlasoma’ octofasciatum, Archocentrus citrinellus (sic), and Ar. nigrofasciatum, which showed up together in one clade with Petenia splendida Günther and Caquetaia spectabilis (Steindachner); hence the choice of additional material for the present study.
The phylogenetic reconstruction here presented establishes the monophyly and species composition of Archocentrus, along with a redefinition of Cryptoheros and Hypsophrys, and supports the diagnosis of two newly described genera (Amatitlania and Rocio —Schmitter-Soto, 2007). The cladistic analysis treats all nominal
species ever assigned to the genus Archocentrus and six newly described species (Schmitter-Soto, 2007), as well as the species that have been included in the same clade as (or as sister group to) Ar. centrarchus in relevant published phylogenetic analyses (see above).
Diagnoses and descriptions are given in Schmitter-Soto (2007), where an identification key is also available.
