Fish biogeography

[Zealot]

Any books on freshwater fishes found in middle east?

[stormhawk]

Zealot, Mid-East I've not come across any books but a good reference for pictures that is, would be Killies Aqualog II I think, the Nothobranchius edition. Mid-East fish majority seasonal I think, in this case the Aphanius killies. Not very friendly fish. Pretty aggressive.

I could get books on fishes of Jordan though. :)

[Zealot]

Zealot, Mid-East I've not come across any books but a good reference for pictures that is, would be Killies Aqualog II I think, the Nothobranchius edition. Mid-East fish majority seasonal I think, in this case the Aphanius killies. Not very friendly fish. Pretty aggressive.

I could get books on fishes of Jordan though. :)

Thanks. Till date only come across some reference material on the cichlids of middle east. These fishes are said to very rare. Mostly tilapia.

[stormhawk]

Yup mostly Tilapia living in the coastal watersheds and river systems. Not many cichlids. Freshwater fish life very low. There was a documentary on Middle East fishes from Arabia that was shown on ch12 many years ago, that was before it became Central.

[Zealot]

Yup mostly Tilapia living in the coastal watersheds and river systems. Not many cichlids. Freshwater fish life very low. There was a documentary on Middle East fishes from Arabia that was shown on ch12 many years ago, that was before it became Central.

Literature available seems to indicate there's only Tilapia in Middle East (think is Iran). No other cichlids. Wonder why the distribution of cichlids are confined to CA, SA, Africa, Middle East and India?

[budak]

Read George Barlows "The Cichlid Fishes" (search here and in Kinokuniya) for an account of cichlid distribution.

Cichlid distribution seems to be limited northwards by other perch-like fishes (e.g. sunfish, bass in North America). Guess they do best in the tropics.

[juilian75]

but does anyone know how i could get my hands on this book

:ECOLOGY of the
PLANTED AQUARIUM
A Practical Manual and Scientific Treatise for the Home Aquarist
Second Edition (2003)

by Diana Walstad

[stormhawk]

julian, I think you have to order that book. last i heard someone got a book for a friend of mine but i'm not sure of his source. will ask if i see that person again.

zealot, i think the tilapias exist even in the gulf states. very few and many have adapted to brackish waters.

[Zealot]

I am thinking more from the perspective of the non-occurrence of cichlids in South East Asia.

Tropic - Yes.
Presence of natural predator - Snakeheads present, but we can even find eartheaters, i.e. cichlids from the genus Geophagus surviving well in our reservoirs. Not to mention peacock bass, tilapia, Luohans, etc.

[mad scientist]

but does anyone know how i could get my hands on this book

:ECOLOGY of the
PLANTED AQUARIUM
A Practical Manual and Scientific Treatise for the Home Aquarist
Second Edition (2003)

by Diana Walstad

I think Vincent from AQ has a spare copy up for grabs. autographed by Walstad herself.

[stormhawk]

well you can't use that a guideline. these are introduced and have evolved to adapt to our local conditions. since they have become feral there is a basis for the argument that it may have been possible for cichlid fishes to reach this part of the world.

cichlids, as far as i know it, evolved from marine species and some cichlids are able to live in brackish to marine waters if what i read was correct. it is highly possible that the marine ancestors that gave rise to the cichlids did not reach SEA due to many factors. Some marine fishes do not have a circumtropical distribution and some are endemic to certain areas like the South Pacific.

I'm not sure about prehistoric tectonic plate movements but if SEA was not connected to the subcontinent of India, South America and Africa, then its easy to say that none of the cichlids could have reached SEA by natural means.

[Zealot]

I'm not sure about prehistoric tectonic plate movements but if SEA was not connected to the subcontinent of India, South America and Africa, then its easy to say that none of the cichlids could have reached SEA by natural means.

Plausible. :)

[budak]

The Indian chromides (and the Madagascan cichlids) are regarded as closest to the ancestral types. Even today, many cichlids can survive well in marine habitats and their dispersion via the Sub-Saharan coast (and making the leap across a narrower Atlantic) is not unfeasible. Barlow has seen tilapia spawning in a Hawaiian coral reef. In Sentosa's underwater world, I have seen in the outdoor turtle enclosure cichlids co-existing with marine angels.

But it seems that early in their development, Africa soon became the nexus of cichlid diversification. Whether neoamerican cichlids are derived from the "presumably" East African/Indian ancestors or an offshoot from later African riverine species is unclear. But the split likely occured fairly early in cichlid history.

Ice age Sundaland may simply have been an unsuitable habitat for early cichlids (possibly due to the widespread peat swamps??), while groups like snakeheads, anabantoids and cyprinids (which also reached Africa) may had enjoyed relative comparative advantage under those circumstances.

[hwchoy]

the ancestral cichlid and killi groups should have split over africa and south america when the continents parted. now (I'm just being lazy) when did that two continents split? is it in the correct time frame.

[Zealot]

My understanding of cichlids being secondary fish, are mainly marine fishes which have adapted to freshwater. Also being lazy, from my memory and hence may all be wrong, they have swan from the ocean to inland water. Subsequently, the connection with the sea somehow got cut off and they became inhabitants of the freshwater lakes.

In this backdrop, why it couldn't happen in say Indonesia or Mekong, where some marine fishes (the ancestor of these cichlids) would swim from the sea into these water and evolved to become "cichlids"?

[stormhawk]

the ancestral cichlid and killi groups should have split over africa and south america when the continents parted. now (I'm just being lazy) when did that two continents split? is it in the correct time frame.

Choy, the killies reached North America, Europe, the Middle-East, India and SEA as well. Not just Africa and South America.

Killies of the genus Aphyosemion are related to the Nothobranchius via the species Pronothobranchius kiyawensis. Killies of the genus Paludopanchax are related to the Nothobranchius via the species Fundulosoma thierryi. Rivulus in South America has its counterpart in Africa in the Aphyosemion. Cyprinodon in North America has their counterparts in the Mediterranean genus Aphanius. Poropanchax in Africa has their counterpart in the Fluviphylax of South America. Countless others have evolved along similar lines.

As for the cichlids, I'm not an expert but since the tilapia itself has shown propensity for surviving in a whole range of habitats, it is only natural that some actually return to their ancestral home - the ocean and spawn there.

Budak, I don't think the peat swamps would have played a role in stopping the spread of cichlids. Some cichlids are known to thrive in acid waters like the Apistogramma of South America.

[hwchoy]

I don't mean absolutely none, but how many genus of killies do you have in Asia?

[stormhawk]

You want SEA or the whole of Asia?

[stormhawk]

The ricefishes or Oryziidae are no longer considered as Cyprinodonts. In other words they're not considered part of the killie group.

True killies in Asia are those from the genus Aplocheilus, which exists from the Indian subcontinent all the way along the coastline to Thailand and spread all the way until Bali I think, and the genus Aphanius, which is found in the Middle East. In fact Asia shares the Aphanius species with Europe.

[hwchoy]

I'm not saying ricefishes are killies. I'm just using it as an example of fish group speciation and the multiplicity of species found in their original "home".

My main concern is whether the killi and cichlid groups go so far back to predate the continental split of africa and south america.

[stormhawk]

For that part I'm not sure. Only fossil records of ancestor species will tell you whether they existed before the split. Other than that its very much just plain hypothesis.

:scratch: It would help if you go and search for books on paleontology, especially those with research on Cambrian fossils and especially those precursor species. I know some paleontologists found a fossil of an ancient Corydoras-type catfish somewhere in Brazil. How old that was.. I'm not sure but the name's in FB I think.

[stormhawk]

On a related subject, the article on the fossil cory aka Corydoras revelatus Cockerell, 1925.

ScotCat : The Fossil Cory (http://www.scotcat.com/articles/article49.htm)

[stormhawk]

Another article explaining the use of the fossil record in determining how cichlids colonised the Rift Lakes of Africa and the subsequent colonisation of South America via the Caribbean islands.

Theory : Evolution of the Cichlid Fishes (http://www.aquarticles.com/articles/breeding/Wilkins_Evolution.html)

[Zealot]

Another article explaining the use of the fossil record in determining how cichlids colonised the Rift Lakes of Africa and the subsequent colonisation of South America via the Caribbean islands.

Theory : Evolution of the Cichlid Fishes (http://www.aquarticles.com/articles/breeding/Wilkins_Evolution.html)

Thanks for the link. :)

[stormhawk]

Thanks for the link. :)

:) The wonders of Googling. I actually found a site with an animation that you control to see the movement and separation of the continents in prehistoric times. Can't recall the name though.

[Stuporman]

I do not think the ancestors to cichlids were marine. All of the present day distribution of cichlids can be explained by vicariance (i.e. by the splitting of the continents), not dispersal. My view is slightly biased by the fact that I shared my office with John Sparks, who worked on Malagasy cichlids, before he graduated and left for New York.

Anyway, my labmate Prosanta has written a review paper on the biogeography of cichlids:
Chakrabarty, P., 2004. Cichlid biogeography: comment and review. Fish and Fisheries 5: 97-119.

I have a pdf if anyone is interested.

[Zealot]

Thanks HH for starting this thread and apologising for clouding your thread. Got carried away.

Agree that cichlids as secondary division freshwater fishes have ancestors from marine which had invaded and successfully invaded and adapted to freshwater environment. It therefore leads me to ponder what are the genus/lineages of these "ancestor" marine fish which evolved into cichlids.

From what I've read, the nile perch are similarly evolved from marine fishes, and I believe there are many more such secondary division freshwater fishes.

[Stuporman]

Agree that cichlids as secondary division freshwater fishes have ancestors from marine which had invaded and successfully invaded and adapted to freshwater environment. It therefore leads me to ponder what are the genus/lineages of these "ancestor" marine fish which evolved into cichlid

Actually, I made a mistake with my earlier post. I meant to say marine, not freshwater. I believe (or John has convinced me) that cichlids are what would be considered primary division freshwater fishes. Their ancestors are freshwater, and that their present distribution can be explained without dispersal via a marine route.

[Zealot]

Actually, I made a mistake with my earlier post. I meant to say marine, not freshwater. I believe (or John has convinced me) that cichlids are what would be considered primary division freshwater fishes. Their ancestors are freshwater, and that their present distribution can be explained without dispersal via a marine route.

That's interesting. Definitely not in accordance with most of the literature in most of the books. How would I be able to get more details on it? Is it in the PDF you mentioned? Possible to send me the information?

Will pm you my email contact. Thanks.

[art]

Send the PDF my way too .

p.s. PDF files can be attached here too ( if allowed to be freely distributed )