what is the scientific name of acei? thank you.

Pseudotropheus acei

Unless there has been a more recent revision to the taxonomy! :o

i read on another forum that acei don't even have a scientific name. can you supply your source for the scientific name? thank you.

http://www.cichlid-forum.com/profiles/species.php?id=1460

http://www.malawimayhem.com/profile_show.php?id=639

I'm pretty sure they are under the Pseudotropheus genus in Ad Konings back to nature guides.

Some sites list them as a Gephyrochromis, but most use Pseudotropheus. :?:

HUh....I couldn't find them in the list of spcies...I think you may be right...

I guess that's just a trade name...I gues since it is undescribed then...Pseudotropheus species "acei"

Really...to me...it dosnt' really look like it belong in Pseudotropheus,,,but I'm no expert...

i'm not right, i asked because i didn't know. i read on another forum that acei don't have a scientific name.

so the answer is that acei don't have a scinetific name?

I'd agree with that...

from the quick bit of research I did on the web, and that Orbital came up with same results that I did, I'd say that the fish we call acei has never been formally described by science.

what does formally described mean?

It means that a formal description of the species has been published in scientific literature

what i mean is that what is a formal description? what elements must it have?

Good question! I'm not exactly sure! I believe it has to have an anotomical description...anyone else know?

I'm not sure either, from what I've heard its mostly based off jaw structure and teeth types. Body shapes may play a factor too.

This may be of interest.
http://www.hagblomfoto.com/article_names.htm

This is all I have to offer
http://www.gcca.net/fom/Gephyrochromis_acei.htm

that linked article is plagiarised from others, so i dunno about it.
i was just wondering is all.

i meant the one orbital put up.

Really? what do you mean?

I think for most of our purposes Pseudotropheus will do. My understanding is that they were previously classified as Gephyrochromis. I haven't look into classifications much myself, but it seems the pseudotropheus genus is kinda for most oddball/unidentified mbuna. It was still almost recently that the pseudotropheus groups was subdivided (example- pseudotropheus lombardoi search can bring up some reliable though dated info), and crossbreeding is relatively common of pseudotropheus and other genus(I hear maylandia again- just forum talk), anything that has not been identified tends to have stayed as pseudo

i mean the article is a patchwork copy of previously published artciles. that particular author is the worst copy offender i've ever seen in cichlids. a lot of the info isn't on the web anymore but for example, see that second paragraph under CLASSIFYING CICHLIDS? he's changed it a little now but it's still a very close copy of an article written many years ago by Wlad Franco-Valias.
anyway, doesn't matter, some people steal and cheat in this hobby all the time for reasons i will never understand. takes all kinds, i guess.

Does the article answer your question? :huh:

here's how Franco-Valias' article written in the 1990's begins

Back in mid 1758 a Swedish scientist devised a universal system to classify all living beings, the Systema Naturae (Nature’s System) which is still used today. To keep it universal, Latin was the chosen language as it is a dead language, neutral, and not subject to changes.

The scientist’s name was Carl von Linné, and true to his system he latinised his name to Linnaeus. This fact is a hint of things to come for many of what we call "Latin" names are really latinised names from other languages, primarily Greek.


compare with that paragraph..-

barf, no, the article does not answer my question.

i mean, i know how cichlids are named, but i don't know what must be included in a valid formal description.

This is a reply from Micheal Oliver re: the question

"Quote"

Whole books are required to give full answers to your questions.
One such book, and a good one, is: Winston, Judith E. 1999. Describing species. Practical taxonomic procedure for biologists.

In brief, cichlid taxonomists try to identify distinct species, usually considered to be populations or groups of populations of mutually interbreeding individuals that are reproductively isolated, in nature, from other such groups (the "biological species definition"). The "in nature" part is important, because many distinct species, including many cichlid species, can interbreed in the artificial circumstances of captivity. Of course, that's a rather theoretical definition, and usually very hard to apply in practice. One also expects different species to have consistent differences from their closest relatives. These might be differences of shape, or color pattern, or breeding behavior, or (common in some cichlid subgroups) male coloration. But, closely related species may be virtually indistinguishable except genetically and by their refusal to interbreed (*they* can obviously detect some critical difference that we haven't yet spotted). The actual naming is governed by a set of rules, the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. Basically, the name of a new species has to be published, available, and valid; each of these terms has a specific meaning with its own rules under the Code.

The Code does not have rules about coining the "temporary names"
you mention, called cheironyms ("Cairo-nimz"). A cheironym is just an unpublished scientific name, a manuscript name; it is not a valid scientific name. (Such a name may be 'published' in the ordinary sense that it has appeared in print somewhere, but this is not all that is meant by publication in the sense of the Code.) Pseudotropheus "acei" is a good example. This name was coined by someone (I don't know whom, perhaps an aquarium fish collector or importer) and this temporary name has stuck. Eventually it will get a proper scientific name. I use the cheironym on my own site as the most widely known name for this
creature: http://malawicichlids.com/mw09005e.htm . Yes, the best generic assignment of this species is controversial, and despite the current use of Pseudotropheus, I think based on the form of its jaw teeth that it may end up in Gephyrochromis, though this is by no means clear. However, it is quite clear that this *species* is distinct from other species (even though we're not clear yet on what its closest relatives are, and therefore on which genus it belongs in).

Michael Oliver

"End quote"

Hope this helps

:goodpost: :goodpost: :goodpost:
Very nice post barf!