Three new flasher wrasses. Wow!!!

Baldguy

Well-Known Member
View Badges
Joined
Jul 19, 2013
Messages
963
Reaction score
749
Location
Fort Worth
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
https://reefbuilders.com/2016/02/22...rritus-p-paineorum-p-alfiani-flasher-wrasses/
paracheilinus-alfiani-paineorum-xanthocirritus-new-species-1.jpg

The middle one is P. alfiani. OMG!!!
 
:) Me too. Here's another site that talks of the same article that includes a link to the article “Review of the Indo-Pacific Flasher Wrasses of the genus Paracheilinus”. Some of the best pics of all flashers I've ever seen.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Beautiful fish! None of my flashers ever flashed :/
 
I have a suspicion that one of the species, paineorum, is a hybrid. I also wouldn't be surprised to see a few new species described in the next couple of years. Too bad that so many of these flashers are in areas where there is no fish collection going on.
 
Hate to think what would be charged for the first P. Alfiani's to hit the market, if they ever do.
 
Couldn't resist this one from DD. This is the second Paracheilinus xanthocirritus DD has had in the last few weeks. They're calling it a Yellow Filamented Flasher.
0316161-119.jpg
Ahh so your the gentleman who beat me to it lol. Congrats on the fish. I picked up a yellow flasher last night from DD. I didn't feel like waiting around for another filamented as that was the first one I saw.
 
:) Yep, I got it. DD did have another one a couple weeks ago but it looked a little beat up. I resisted that one. Still amazes me how DD came up with a newly described species. Must have been mixed in with a bunch of known flashers and the timing of the article let LA identify them.
 
Hybrids of flavianalis x filamentosus are rather common.
Are you saying that DD were mistaken in naming it Paracheilinus xanthocirritus? Or that the scientists who authored that paper were mistaken in calling it a new species?
 
Or that the scientists who authored that paper were mistaken in calling it a new species?
Rather that.
Classification is messy when sequences offer little (if any) differences.

Not to say that they are "wrong" necessarily, but I have my suspicions if some are actually unique species.
 
Last edited:
Rather that.
Classification is messy when sequences offer little (if any) differences.

Not to say that they are "wrong" necessarily, but I have my suspicions if some are actually unique species.
Agreed, they have been a little overzealous with what is being described as a new species, especially since they come mixed in with filamentosus and flavianalis, just not in as great of numbers and showing shared traits of both species.
 
Agreed, they have been a little overzealous with what is being described as a new species, especially since they come mixed in with filamentosus and flavianalis, just not in as great of numbers and showing shared traits of both species.
They do have a pretty good discussion of hybrids and mitochondrial DNA in the article and still conclude they are new species so I don't think they are blindly proclaiming three new species. And the authors are respected experts in their field. I suppose time will tell. In any case this is a beautiful fish. :)
 
Understood, and I have the utmost respect for those gentleman. :)

The issue I cannot get past is how come we never see those species without the presence of the others?
 
They do have a pretty good discussion of hybrids and mitochondrial DNA in the article and still conclude they are new species so I don't think they are blindly proclaiming three new species. And the authors are respected experts in their field. I suppose time will tell. In any case this is a beautiful fish. :)
Very respected in their field, but this is akin to what they did with Cirrhilabrus condei/marinda, which on further examination of specimens from each 'species' doesn't really stand up to scrutiny.
 

IF YOU HAD TO TAKE A REEFING EXAM, WOULD YOU PASS?

  • Yes!

    Votes: 32 45.7%
  • Not yet, but I have one that I want to buy in mind!

    Votes: 9 12.9%
  • No.

    Votes: 26 37.1%
  • Other (please explain).

    Votes: 3 4.3%
Back
Top