A
Anonymous
Guest
Yep, C. argi has yellow on the had only. The criteria used to define different species, and even genera as you know varies greatly across genera, and depending on who is doing the work. (clumpers and seperators) The logic does not translate from one group on organisms to the next either. One person might use morphology, while the next guy may almost completely ignore it (morphology is highly plastic in some genera). The next guy may use feeding habits, as was done with the haplochromines in lake Tanganyika. ONLY using color though is rare, and ultimately the boundary is shot down at some point. Usually other factors come into play, dentition, cranial morphology, range, etc. At the end of the day, genetic work needs to be done on closely related species to determine their relationship. Are we dealing with a geographical color variant of the same species? An integrade? A subspecies? (then you get into what constitutes a subspecies, which again, varies according to who is doing the work) or a genetically and reproductively isolated population - a species? Admittedly, I'm a bit in the dark as to the the ranges of these species (C. argi, acanthops, etc) and where they may overlap. If you have any information as to the classification, (you said they only used color) I'd be very interested in seeing it. This fish is going to be one of my life long projects I think.
Cheers
Jim
Cheers
Jim