Families of Cobitoidea

The forum for the very best information on loaches of all types. Come learn from our membership's vast experience!

Moderator: LoachForumModerators

Post Reply
User avatar
Bagrus dude
Posts: 63
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 12:14 pm

Families of Cobitoidea

Post by Bagrus dude » Mon Aug 20, 2007 4:41 am

Šlechtová, V, J Bohlen & HH Tan, 2007. Families of Cobitoidea (Teleostei; Cypriniformes) as revealed from nuclear genetic data and the position of the mysterious genera Barbucca, Psilorhynchus, Serpenticobitis and Vaillantella. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 44: 1358–1365.

There is now a Vaillantellidae.
Top
User avatar
The.Dark.One
Posts: 340
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 4:56 pm
Location: Castleford, England

Post by The.Dark.One » Mon Aug 20, 2007 11:15 am

Do they use Botiidae or Cobitidae for Botia and Syncrossus etc?

Thanks
Top
User avatar
Bagrus dude
Posts: 63
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 12:14 pm

Post by Bagrus dude » Thu Aug 23, 2007 4:23 am

Botiidae.

There are now five families of loaches: Nemacheilidae, Balitoridae, Cobitidae, Vaillantellidae and Botiidae.
Top
User avatar
The.Dark.One
Posts: 340
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 4:56 pm
Location: Castleford, England

Post by The.Dark.One » Thu Aug 23, 2007 6:35 am

Thanks
Top
User avatar
Bagrus dude
Posts: 63
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 12:14 pm

Post by Bagrus dude » Thu Aug 23, 2007 6:52 am

More details
Top
User avatar
mikev
Posts: 3103
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 6:06 pm
Location: NY

Post by mikev » Thu Aug 23, 2007 12:22 pm

So Pangio's are no longer Botia's... Nice.

Does anyone have the paper?
Top
User avatar
Martin Thoene
Posts: 11186
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 5:38 am
Location: Toronto.....Actually, I've been on LOL since September 1998

Post by Martin Thoene » Thu Aug 23, 2007 2:52 pm

Pangio never were Botia. The two families were and still are under Cobitidae.

Martin.
Image Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.

Image
Top
User avatar
mikev
Posts: 3103
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 6:06 pm
Location: NY

Post by mikev » Thu Aug 23, 2007 3:08 pm

Martin Thoene wrote:Pangio never were Botia. The two families were and still are under Cobitidae.

Martin.
Nope. They used to be in the same family (this is what I meant), but now Botia's are expelled into Botiidae, see the link above.

This again groups together the former Botia genus but on the family level. At least, Botia, Yasuhikotakia and Syncrossus are now back together. While not mentioned, I'm guessing that Chromobotia is also there...we need to see the actual paper to confirm this and see what else was shifted and why

This rearrangement seems very logical, unlike the current setup where very similar Botine genus existed on the same level of hierarchy as Pangio's or Misgurnus.
Top
User avatar
Martin Thoene
Posts: 11186
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 5:38 am
Location: Toronto.....Actually, I've been on LOL since September 1998

Post by Martin Thoene » Thu Aug 23, 2007 4:17 pm

Oh yeah. I read it again. Now it's clear as mud.

Kottelat's going to throw his teddy in the corner....I can see it now :roll:

Martin.
Image Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.

Image
Top
User avatar
Bagrus dude
Posts: 63
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 12:14 pm

Post by Bagrus dude » Thu Aug 23, 2007 4:19 pm

mikev wrote:Does anyone have the paper?
I do
Top
User avatar
Martin Thoene
Posts: 11186
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 5:38 am
Location: Toronto.....Actually, I've been on LOL since September 1998

Post by Martin Thoene » Thu Aug 23, 2007 4:37 pm

So I have a question HH. Are the Kottelat designated names still the same and does that mean that Chromobotia is therefore grouped with the Botiidae?

Martin.
Image Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.

Image
Top
User avatar
Bagrus dude
Posts: 63
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 12:14 pm

Post by Bagrus dude » Thu Aug 23, 2007 5:16 pm

The answer to that question is in an earlier paper.
Top
User avatar
mikev
Posts: 3103
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 6:06 pm
Location: NY

Post by mikev » Thu Aug 23, 2007 7:57 pm

Bagrus dude wrote:
mikev wrote:Does anyone have the paper?
I do
Uggh, any chance of getting it? It should be in the library but I would not get there for a week...
Oh yeah. I read it again. Now it's clear as mud.

Kottelat's going to throw his teddy in the corner....I can see it now
This new classification, if it holds, undoes his wrongdoings....LMAO.

Still, there are some things that remain unclear. For instance, why the Rosies are not in Yasuhikotakia... and why Yasuhikotakia is not divided as was argued in the Jan genetics paper.
Top
Mark in Vancouver
Posts: 14252
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 12:41 pm
Location: British Columbia

Post by Mark in Vancouver » Thu Aug 23, 2007 8:33 pm

Thanks, HH, for muddying our waters! :)

As the loach book enters layout stage, we must inform them of some shuffling. Then, upon its much anticipated, long overdue, and god-it's-killing-me release, it will be accurate for six months and then they'll shift the nomenclature again...

Still, this is extremely timely information, and we all owe you thanks.

MM.
Your vantage point determines what you can see.
Top
User avatar
cybermeez
Posts: 447
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 8:16 am
Location: New York, USA

Post by cybermeez » Thu Aug 23, 2007 8:49 pm

Finally! A true genetic study of loaches! The interesting thing is that, for the most part, it appears to fall in line with the long held suspicions of most loach enthusiasts. In my gut I just KNEW those Vaillantella maasi weren't Kuhlis. :wink:
Top
Post Reply

Return to “Loach Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 349 guests