No Where For This.....

[jayjay]

Not sure if this is an ok place to post this, oh well.

Anyway, there's an African cichlid section and a New World cichlids section, so where do Etroplus maculatus - Orange chromide come under? I think there are others under the Etroplus genus aswel 2 or 3? Maybe brackish as from my knowledge they benefit from brackish conditions. They are the only cichlids found on the continent of Asia

Been wondering about it, so thought I'd ask. (Sad I know)

 

[callum_parsons]

that is a very good question, i thought they where brackish
going to have to make a new room for it the Orange chromide room .lol.

 

[jayjay]

No not just for the orange chromide, the other 2 species aswel, lol.

The three fish that don't fit -

Etroplus canarensis, Canara pearlspot
Etroplus maculatus, Orange chromide
Etroplus suratensis, Green chromide

 

[CFC]

Really it should be new world and old world cichlids with the asians going under the old world forum but that would probably just confuse people

I'd stick em under brackish or oddballs for now.

 

[nmonks]

And don't forget there's a whole bunch of cichlids in western Asia, from Israel and Syria east to Iran. While related to the African species, they're geographically Asian cichlids. Then you have the Madagascan cichlids, which may be close to Africa geographically, but they are closer to the south Asian species phylogenetically, and Madagascar certainly isn't part of Africa as far as biogeography goes.

CFC is right: there should be New World and Old World cichlid sections. That's how zoologists deal with them. Anything else is arbitrary. I'd like to think everyone knows what New World and Old World mean, anyway.

Cheers,

Neale

 

[trace1]

ones newer than the other ???
sorry couldn't help myself

 

[jayjay]

Hmmm well yes, so to speak. People have nearly always lived in African, Europe and Asia. Then the America's were discovered.

 

[Lateral Line]

It is somewhat arrogant though. The Americas were "discovered" by the Europeans, but they also found civilisations there that had existed for centuries, possibly millenia. From the point of view of those native groups, there's was the old world, and they were invaded by new world peoples.

Pedantic point perhaps.

 

[jayjay]

Well the species, started in Africa I believe(?), moved to Asia; there was at one point a land bridge which allowed people to move to America, now it's under the sea somewhere. So people have moved there.

The fact they were 'rediscovered' is how most people see it.

 

[jollysue]

In reality all were immigrants to the Americas. There are new debates (well, not so new, really) about the land bridge immigration. It appears there were also immigrants on various floating devises from Asia.

Ethnocentricity goes to the power holder. Sensitivity goes to the thoughtful.

The UK is an island of immigrants and conquest, too.

 

[CFC]

I've always said that the reason the UK is such a strong military power for the relatively small size of the country is because we have a bloodline built from the DNA of invading forces. Over the last few thousand years the Romans, Vikings, Anglo Saxons and Normans have all invaded killing large portions of the male population and leaving their legacies in the form of illegitimate children, which then carry on the warrior genes of their fathers and their mothers father before them into the next generation.

 

[jollysue]

Agreed But don't forget the tenacity of the Saxons and Celts