IGL Badis wiki

Hi, Stefan!
You are right. WR is from Meghalaya. I'm going to correct this. Thanks!
But: EM is badis-group. If it's not badis-group, then ferrarisi isn't badis-group too.
Sorry!
Charly

Hi, Stefan!
You are right. WR is from Meghalaya. I'm going to correct this. Thanks!
Charly

My pleasure!

Hi, Stefan!
But: EM is badis-group. If it's not badis-group, then ferrarisi isn't badis-group too.
Sorry!
Charly

Hi, Stefan!
I think I owe you an explanation, why I consider B. sp. East Myanmar as a member of the B. badis-group(although I think nobody cares except the two of us).
So...EM has a dorsal spot, a caudal spot that isn't circled by the last transversal bar as in the cory-group, and it has a cleithral spot.
Only the geographical distribution is an obstacle, because there is a huge gap between EM and the nearest badis group neighbour, which is ferrarisi.
But, if we look good enough, we may find some missing links.
Charly

Thanks for that It doesn't have a cleithral blotch The anterior dorsal fin blotch is not a characteristic of any group, not even of the genus itself so that one doesn't count as a valid differentiating character in Badidae.

I find it a strange philosophy to say that if species A (EM) doesn't fit B (badis group) then C (ferrarisi) isn't a member of the group B either; there is no logic in that idea and it's not supported in biology, could you agree?

How do you mean "...if we look good enough, then..."? I don't follow.

Hi Charly

Deine Behauptung ala "es interessieren sich eh nur du und Stefan für die Systematik der Gattung Badis " finde ich ziemlich ungerecht .
Ich z.b. enthalte mich erst einmal der Meinung ,da ich die mir zur Verfügung stehenden Arbeiten zum Thema durcharbeiten möchte .
Was ich mich aber frage ,wer hat Badis ferrarisi zur Badis badis Gruppe gestellt ,und vor allem warum ? In Der Revision von Britz ,Kullander wurde Badis ferraisi jedenfalls nicht mit Badis badis in eine Gruppe gestellt.Es wurde nur dargestellt das es Zeichnungsmerkmale ( Punkt auf dem oberen Cleithrum)gibt ,die in der B. badis Gruppe,aber auch bei Badis ruber zu finden sind , sowie das er in einigen morphometrischen und meristischen Merkmalen mit beiden ! Gruppen Übereinstimmungen aufweist . Gibt es mittlerweile auch phylogenetische Analysen/Vergleiche mit anderen Badis Arten ,die eine Zuordnung zu einer der Gruppe erhärtet ?

Mathias, check page 370 of the revision; ferrarisi is included in the badis group The entire reasoning behind the badis group is interesting if you read page 370.

Species (usually, but it is possible) do not fit into a group based on single characters but often a combination of character (states), encounting for what you said; the cleithral blotch being present in more species of other groups than solely those of the badis group.

There is only 1 phylogenetic paper availble on the family (Ruber et al.) which can be downloaded from Lukas Ruber's website - or I can send it to you if you don't already have it? Not all species are in there simply because there wasn't material available of all species at that time. So it could be that ferrarisi is missing (I dont quite remember but I think it is).

This is what I understood of your post, the rest I'm not so sure about ha ha!

Sorry, Mathias!
Ich habe nicht gemeint, daß sich keiner für Badis-Systematik interessiert, aber ich halte es für ein ziemlich unwichtiges Thema, ob irgend ein Badis in irgend eine Gruppe zu zählen ist oder nicht.
Und es ist schon lange so etwas wie ein running gag in der Badis- Ecke, daß sich Stefan und ich lustvoll über irgend welche dots, spots und blotches rumstreiten. "Ihr immer mit euren dots und spots" Zitat von Auke de Jong.
Also, wenn du dich an der Nummer beteiligen willst, ich freu mich drauf. Willkommen im Club! Alle anderen natürlich auch!
Und ich dachte immer, das interessiert nur solche Nerds wie Stefan und mich.
Okay, let me continue in english: what's the reason behind the group system? Evolution. We can say, that members of one group have one ancestor, that means they are evolved from one single form.
The fact, that members of one group have a common geographical distribution (e.g. the south east in the ruber group, the north-west in the badis-group and the north in the corycaeus group) fits pretty well in that theory. But...Badis sp. EM doesn't fit in. It is separated from the easternmost badis group member by many kilometers, a whole river system. and the whole corycaeus group. I have to admit it, I put it in the badis group only by exclusion. Not very much of a point.
So what can we make about it? An own group? No group at all?
Maybe EM is a very ancestral form (Darwin himself forbid the word primitive) of the genus, that has survived in a remote area of the Badis-distribution.
That could mean (i've got to choose my words very carefully), that EM is a relict from the time, when the groups were not fully developed. We often see, that an ancestral form is "pushed aside" by the modern forms and could only survive in a remote spot. Ancestral forms often live at the fringe of the distribution area and modern forms in the middle.
I've got to stop now, before someone asks me again, what I had to breakfast before writing in the forum.
And, by the way, with "if we lok good enough" I mean to literally look in the rivers between Pakistan and Malaysia. And of course China.
There should be many unknown Badis. Who would have thought, that there is something like Badis khwae in Central Thailand?
And, Stefan, can you send me the Ruber-paper too?
Best
Charly

Hi guys, here's a brief reply with a link to the PDF by Rüber et al.

Rüber L, Britz R, Kullander S & Zardoya R (2004) Evolutionary and biogeographic patterns of the Badidae (Teleostei: Perciformes) inferred from mitochondrial and nuclear DNA sequence data. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 32: 1010-1022.
http://sorayavillalba.com/lukas/pdf/MPE2004.pdf

Thanks!
Charly

You're welcome Charly

I have to disagree with your comments above: The revision does not establish monophyletic groups, which are needed to observe that multiple biological entities have a common ancestor. Their founding of species groups is not based on species monophyly since no comprehensive phylogenetic research was done on Badidae. Species groups are units formed, however, by single entities (in this case species taxa) sharing particular character(s) (states). The species of the B. badis group (page 370) only sharing a cleithral blotch but otherwise have no outstanding diagnostic character. If the species of the B. badis group as defined by Kullander & Britz (2002) is a monophyletic clade needs proper examination. Currently it is not possible to say if it is true or false. Therefore your idea about biological entities being descendants from a common ancestor is an idea, but not backed up by results from actual research and thus not neccesarily true or a fact. Based on that I assume, for now, that the species groups from the revision are made for ease in taxonomy.

The later published Rüber et al. (2004) supports the assigned species groups from the revision, however few species are used and there's much that still needs answering, as disclosed in the discussion of Rüber et al. (2004).

"Who would have thought, that there is something like Badis khwae in Central Thailand?"

'Central Thailand' isn't important because political borders are not recognized in biology in terms of natural borders, whereas mountain ranges, rivers and the like are. In other words; political borders are man-made, invisble lines on a map that carry no significant biological value. River systems and drainages, on the other hand, are interesting.

Regarding EM: I think it's impossible to draw any biogeographical conclusions from that entity when its exact location remains still unknown. Let's wait for the description. I do doubt it's an ancestral form, since there is no evidence indicating it could be just that.

Hi, Stefan!
Central Thailand is not only a political definition. It is also a geographical one, that means the Chao Phraya River and its tributuaries.
Charly

Hi, Stefan!
Central Thailand is not only a political definition. It is also a geographical one, that means the Chao Phraya River and its tributuaries.
Charly

I'm not sure I follow; do you mean a badid occuring in that river?

Hi, Stefan!
No Badis in the Chao Phraya itsself, as far as we know for now. But B. khwae lives in the Khwae Noi, that is east of the Chao Phraya - Salween - watershed. And- remember - we have B. ruber in the Mekong system.
Charly

Hi, Stefan!
No Badis in the Chao Phraya itsself, as far as we know for now. But B. khwae lives in the Khwae Noi, that is east of the Chao Phraya - Salween - watershed. And- remember - we have B. ruber in the Mekong system.
Charly

Ah so you meant that the Chao Phraya acts as a natural barrier?