Similiparma, Hensley, 1986

Tang, Kevin L., Stiassny, Melanie L. J., Mayden, Richard L. & DeSalle, Robert, 2021, Systematics of Damselfishes, Ichthyology & Herpetology 109 (1), pp. 258-318 : 285

Similiparma .

— Originally erected for a single species ( Glyphidodon hermani ) endemic to the Cape Verde archipelago in the eastern Atlantic Ocean, Similiparma remained monotypic until Cooper et al. (2014) referred the engimatic ‘‘ Abudefduf ’’ luridus to the genus as Similiparma lurida . The reassignment was a logical development after Cooper et al. (2009) determined that the two species were most closely related. Subsequent studies have corroborated this relationship (e.g., Cowman and Bellwood, 2011; Hofmann et al., 2012; Litsios et al., 2012a; Frédérich et al., 2013; Rabosky et al., 2013, 2018; Lobato et al., 2014; DiBattista et al., 2016; Mirande, 2016; Gaboriau et al., 2018; Delrieu-Trottin et al., 2019), even though some have persisted in calling it Abudefduf luridus (e.g., Mirande, 2016; Gaboriau et al., 2018; Rabosky et al., 2018; Delrieu-Trottin et al., 2019). Our results also support Cooper et al.’s (2014) taxonomic decision, finding a monophyletic Similiparma (100% bootstrap). Despite its long-standing recognition as a distinct genus, Kottelat (2013) treated it as a synonym of Chrysiptera without explanation, possibly following Allen (1991: 243), who placed Glyphidodon hermani in the synonymy of Chrysiptera unimaculata . In the same work, Allen (1991: 252) treated Similiparma as a valid genus with Glyphidodon hermani as its type species.

In his description of the genus, Hensley (1986) commented that Similiparma most resembled Hypsypops , Nexilosus , and Parma . Our phylogeny shows that Similiparma forms a clade with two of those genera, Hypsypops and Nexilosus , where Hypsypops is the sister taxon of Similiparma ( Fig. 1 ). The sister-group relationship between Hypsypops and Similiparma is consistent with previous findings (Cooper et al., 2009; Cowman and Bellwood, 2011; Litsios et al., 2012a, 2012b; Frédérich et al., 2013; Rabosky et al., 2013, 2018; DiBattista et al., 2016; Mirande, 2016; Gaboriau et al., 2018; Delrieu-Trottin et al., 2019). Potthoff et al. (1987) hinted at a connection between S. lurida and other microspathodontines when they noted that ‘‘[t]he distinctive preflexion larvae of M. chrysurus look very similar to those of Abudefduf luridus .’’ Both species share larval pigmentation not seen in other pomacentrids, notably ‘‘the oversized pigmented pectoral fin, the large dorsal and ventral mid-tail melanophores and the 1 or 2 large melanophores over the hind brain’’ as well as ‘‘ventral caudal finfold melanophores.’’ They reported ‘‘D. A. Hensley believes that the similarities may indicate some unknown relationship among the two genera.’’

Figures

FIG. 1. The phylogenetic relationships of damselfishes (Teleostei: Pomacentridae): (A) outgroup taxa; (B) subfamilies Microspathodontinae and Glyphisodontinae; (C) subfamily Chrominae; (D) subfamily Pomacentrinae (part I); (E) subfamily Pomacentrinae (part II). The phylogeny is based on the maximum-likelihood topology with the best log likelihood score (ln L ¼ –45,4518.728) recovered from ten independent maximum-likelihood analyses of a data matrix composed of 462 taxa and 6,865 nucleotides. Bootstrap values from 1,000 ultrafast replicates are displayed for each node