Talk:Aphyosemion

Aphyosemion microphtalmum

Catalog of fishes lists APHYOSEMION MICROPHTALMUM LAMBERT & GÉRY, 1968 as a valid species and it should be icluded here. The only dissenting opionion of not is Sonnerberg who did not say its not a separate species just that he is not able to identify it. It's is an instantly recognizable different looking animal and despite the fact Huber pointed out at least one different metric (it has more anal fin rays than anything in the species complex) then it should be seen as a valud species at best, or species inquirenda at worst and not a synonum of eschereichi. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.141.187.207 (talk) 06:20, 1 September 2018

This is a bit tricky. FishBase lists all of the three taxa Aphyosemion microphtalmum Lambert & Géry, 1968, Aphyosemion striatum microphtalmum Lambert & Géry, 1968 and Aphyosemion microphtalmum simulans Radda & Huber, 1976 as synonyms of Aphyosemion escherichi (Ahl, 1924).

In comparison, Eschmeyer's Catalog of Fishes ("CoF") is often a bit more up to date and it lists the current status of Aphyosemion microphtalmum Lambert & Géry, 1968 as valid, however it also mentions that at several points in time Aphyosemion striatum microphtalmum Lambert & Géry, 1968 was considered a synonym of Aphyosemion escherichi (Ahl, 1924), namely by Seegers (1988 & 1997), Wildekamp (1993) and Lazara (2001).

CoF continues with the synonymy: Aphyosemion simulans Radda & Huber, 1976 (i.e. this time without "microphtalmum") was listed as a synonym of Aphyosemion microphtalmum (by Wildekamp, Romand and Scheel 1986) but is currently considered a synonym of Aphyosemion escherichi (by Seegers 1988 & 1997, Wildekamp 1993 and Lazara 2001.)

In summary it currently looks like Aphyosemion microphtalmum Lambert & Géry, 1968 is indeed considered a valid species – but the nomenclature surrounding the taxonomy is messy, to say the least. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 02:31, 29 October 2022 (UTC).