Hypsophrys Agassiz 1859

Prosanta Chakrabarty & John S. Sparks, 2007, Relationships of the New World cichlid genus Hypsophrys Agassiz 1859 (Teleostei: Cichlidae), with diagnoses for the genus and its species., Zootaxa 1523, pp. 59-64 : 59

[[ Hypsophrys Agassiz 1859 ]]

Introduction

Until recently, the vast majority of Mexican and Central American cichlids were traditionally placed in the catch-all Cichlasoma , with only a few species placed in other, usually monotypic, genera (Chakrabarty, 2006a); included among these are Petenia , Hypsophrys , and Neetroplus . Although the relationships of Mexican and Central American cichlids have recently been elucidated (Hulsey et al. 2004, 2006; Chakrabarty, 2006a,b) and taxonomic reviews have clarified these relationships (Kullander, 2003), many taxonomic problems persist. Here, we diagnose two long-standing genera that lack adequate diagnoses. We also provide corroborative morphological character support for the sister-group relationship recovered in recent molecular phylogenetic studies.

Günther (1867) described Neetroplus as differing from Heros in “having a front series of flat incisor-like teeth.” This feature was used to simultaneously distinguish the genus and species ( Neetroplus nematopus ) from members of Heros . Heros at the time included the majority of cichlids from Central America. Subsequently, species of Heros were placed in various genera that now comprise the majority of species in the tribe Heroini (Kullander 1983, 1996). Several Central American cichlid taxa including members of Tomocichla and Paraneetroplus possess spatulate or incisor-like teeth, but these species have never been recovered as closely related to Neetroplus .

Hypsophrys unimaculatus Agassiz 1859 , in the first mention of the genus and species, was described as “resembling Chrysophrys ,” a genus in Sparidae, and was noted to have a single spot on the flanks with dorsal and anal fins that extend posteriorly over the caudal fin. This species was determined to be a senior synonym of Hypsophrys nicaraguensis ( Guenther 1864) ; however, Kullander & Hartel (1997) proposed keeping the younger name to preserve familiar nomenclature. There is no type material associated with Hypsophrys unimaculatus (Eschmeyer, 2007). Kullander & Hartel (1997) state “ Hypsophrys is easily identified as being the same as Heros nicaraguensis Guenther using Agassiz’s description.” As was the case with Neetroplus , the simultaneous description of genus and species included insufficient diagnoses with vague and non-apomorphic characters. It has been suggested that Hypsophrys be considered a nomen nudum and made unavailable (Neave 1939-1940; Eschmeyer, 2007; also see comments in Kullander & Hartel 1997). Eschmeyer (2007) comments that Hypsophrys should be unavailable because no distinguishing features were provided; however, we argue as Kullander & Hartel (1997) did, that distinguishing features were provided, particularly the pigmentation pattern and fin proportions. Here we attempt to remedy the taxonomic complications associated with these taxa and offer updated diagnoses for both species.