Why is it CYRTOCARA moorii??

[bmarine]

Because i've wanted one in my 125 show tank, i've been researching the cyrtocara moorii a lot, and research has told me that the moorii is the only member in its genus, but its also quite similar and has a lot in common with some of the scavengers in the placidochromis genus, such as the phenochilus and electra. So, being curious, is there something different about the moorii that its been given its own genus? And because there are so many similarities, why isnt it called the placidochromis moorii??

[Regalblue]

Probably their tooth shape,  but IDK.

Keep researching... you'll eventually find the reasoning.

[Ron]

Nice to see an interest in the science behind the fish we love to keep. 

Off hand, I don't know the answer. I'm also not sure that grouping C. moorii with Placidochromis makes sense. What Placidochromis species have the nuchal hump that rivals what moorii have?

I tried to look up the characteristics that define Cyrtocara. The best I could get is the source that first described it:
Boulenger, G. A.   1902 (1 July) [ref. 567]
Diagnoses of new cichlid fishes discovered by Mr. J. E. S. Moore in Lake Nyassa. Annals and Magazine of Natural History (Series 7) v. 10 (no. 55) (art. 11): 69-71. [Date of publication from Evenhuis 2003:36 [ref. 27365].]
If someone has access to a good library catalog, they might be able to find a digital copy.

I also found some allusions to Cyrtocara being used to describe species previously referred to as Hapolochromis originating from Lake Nyassa (better known now as Lake Malawi), distinguishing them from various Hapolochromis from other lakes. There was also some suggestion that C. moorii are perhaps most closely related to some deeper water, less studied species (and I forget the genus I found that those fish reside in currently).

As for what makes a fish belong to Placidochromis, I couldn't find a good paragraph on that either yet. I was amazed to see that there are 43 described species belonging to Placidochromis currently! I knew that there were a few, and a few more species found/added since the new century began, but there's 4-5 times the amount I thought there were. 

[bmarine]

Yeah i saw that too, and i also found that Yup thats true, its hump does set it apart. But, while looking at the phenochilus and reading up on it, i also read that he may develop a hump too, just not near as large as the moorii's. So there is at least one of the placidochromis that does develop a hump. And the moorii and many placidochromis are foragers who follow behind sand sifters like the fosso. Rostratus.

I did try to find stuff on the moorii's teeth though.  And from what i read, it has many "large, irregularly shaped teeth that are inserted on the jaws in an uneven fashion " and that it has no special dentition.

[Regalblue]

From CRC....  Comments: The monotypic genus Cyrtocara was erected in 1902 by G. A. Boulenger and re-described in 1989 by Eccles & Trewawas for the single species moorii Boulenger 1902. Cyrtocara moorii had been re-classified in the genus Haplochromis by Ethelwynn Trewawas in 1935 (Trewawas 1935), as the diagnosis; "a continuous margin in the dorsal fin" by Regan was not considered enough for the erection of a new genus. C. moorii was taken back to Cyrtocara in 1989 when more characters were found by the same Trewawas that guaranteed the validity of the genus (the genus Haplochromis had being limited then to some cichlids outside Lake Malawi).

On the basis of a continuous margin in the dorsal fin (The

 instead of being

 main diagnostic trait of the genus),

 divided into lappets attached to the spines, Regan (1922) included two additional species to Cyrtocara; Nimbochromis venustus Boulenger, 1908 and Protomelas annectens Regan 1922. Trewawas (1935) noted that in N. venustus the entire edge occurred only in mature males, while lappets were present in females or inmature males. Because of it's many peculiarities, Cyrtocara was considered by Trewawas (1989) to be a monotypic genus

[Regalblue]

I would say to find these references:

References:

Boulenger, George Albert. 1902. "Diagnoses of new cichlid fishes discovered by Mr. J. E. S. Moore in Lake Nyassa". Annals and Magazine of Natural History. (Ser. 7) 69-71 ( crc06767). Eccles, David H. & E. Trewavas. 1989. "The Classification of some Haplochromine genera". Malawian cichlid fishes. pp 1-334 (crc06363). Regan, Charles Tate. 1922. "The Cichlid Fishes of Lake Nyassa". Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London. 1921 (pt 4) n. 36; pp. 675-727 (crc06666). Trewavas, Ethelwynn. 1935. "A Synopsis of the Cichlid Fishes of Lake Nyasa". Annals and Magazine of Natural History. Series 10; pp. 65-118 (crc01181).

[bmarine]

Thanks! I just wondered why it was so special that it was given its own genus! So i think i understand now.

[Ron]

I had to read that passage about 6 times to insure I interpreted it correctly, LOL.

Well done Blair!

[bmarine]

Same here lol! And yeah nice job!

[Regalblue]

Thank you

$35/yr...  I better learn something & not just use it to look at pictures.