how many Loricariidae

kgroenhoej · Post by **kgroenhoej** » 04 Oct 2003, 19:27

According to this web-page there's more than 5 Loricariidae:

http://www.funet.fi/pub/sci/bio/life/pi ... index.html

Right or wrong?

-Klaus

Post by **Silurus** » 04 Oct 2003, 19:35

Those are subfamilies (as indicated by the -inae suffixes). There is only one family (-idae suffix), the Loricariidae.
It's essentially correct, except for the Ancistriinae (which may not be a natural group).

kgroenhoej · Post by **kgroenhoej** » 04 Oct 2003, 21:33

Thanks.

So Lithogeneinae is a valid subfamilie at the same level as Loricariinae, and Dekeyseria is not?
Is the subfamilie Lithogeneinae accepted by all as a valid subfamilie (I can't find it on Jon Armbrusters taxa list (although he refers to Lithogeneinae on the Neoplecostominae page))?
So how many subfamilies is widely accepted (and identified) as being part of Loricariinae (including Ancistriinae)?

-Klaus

Post by **Silurus** » 04 Oct 2003, 22:03

The Lithogeninae was created by Gosline (1947), but the only genus in it (Lithogenes) was subsequently reassigned to the Neoplecostominae. Recent research indidcates that it is a valid subfamily.
As for the Ancistrinae, Jon Armbruster's work indicates that this is not a natural group (but this is yet to be formally published). Excluding the Ancistrinae, the other four subfamilies (Lithogeninae, Neoplecostominae, Hypostominae, Loricariinae) are currently considered valid.

YouTube · Post by **Jools** » 05 Oct 2003, 08:24

Silurus wrote:Excluding the Ancistrinae, the other four subfamilies (Lithogeninae, Neopl*costominae, Hypostominae, Loricariinae) are currently considered valid.

... and Hypoptopomatinae.

Jools