Papiliochromis gen. n., a new genus of South American cichlid fish (Teleostei, Perciformes) Author Kullander, Sven O. text Zoologica scripta 1977 6 253 254 journal article http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1463-6409.1978.tb00777.x D0A9D253-0959-4715-8D96-2A4F3384474B Papiliochromis gen. n. Diagnosis based on living and preserved aquarium-bred specimens, two living wild specimens of unknown origin and a large number of wild preserved specimens from Colombia. New information is given in italics. For some details distinguishing P. ramirezi from Apístogramma , see Table I. Small neotropical Cichlidae with a small lobe on the first epibranchial. 3-4 small rakers along the margin of the lobe, 6 along the lateral rim of the first ceratobranchial. A single supraneural. N0 rakers along the edges 0f the lower pharyngeals. 2 lateral lines on each side, the terminal scale of the upper (anterior) at 1 -1 % scales distance from the dorsal fin. First dorsal spine inserted behind vertical line from hind margin of gill-cover. Body scales ctenoid, occasionally cycloid elements preventrally. Fins naked, except proximal caudal. Preoperculum naked, its vertical hind margin smooth or serrate . Mouth small, subinferior. Lacrimal bone narrow, its depth less than å the diameter of orbit. Secondary sex differences slight. Monogamous, openbreeder on horizontal surfaces or in pits, brood-care biparental. Type-species : Apistogramma ramirezi Myers & Harry, 1948 . The genus is currently monotypic. Etymology. Papiliochromis is derived from a combination of two generic names, Papílio ( Lepidoptera ) and Chromís (formerly the generic name of many cichlids, now a pomacentrid genus). The meaning would be “Butterfly Cichlid” in allusion to the international popular name. The gender is feminine. Relationships There are no indications suggesting that P. ramirezi is particularly closely related to Apistogramma . What suggested the original classification was probably in the first place the Z oologica S cripta 6 For Apistogramma , morphological data is based on about 40 spp., behaviour on about 10 spp. New information is in italics. small size in combination with the presence of an epibranchial lobe, but in P. ramírezi the lobe is much smaller, as already pointed out by Myers & Harry (1948), and the small size is probably coincidental. Table I. A comparison between Papiliochromis ramirezi and Apistogramma spp. based on selected morphologícal characters und reproductive behaviour.

Character	Papiliochromis	Apistogramma
Reproductive behaviour	Monogamous, open-breeder, eggs laid on horizontal surfaces or in pits, brood-care biparental	Polygynous, concealment breeder, eggs laid on vertical or roofing surfaces, maternal brood-care
Colour pattern	Bright colours. A lateral spot predominant	Usually sober colours. A lateral band, sometimes together with cross-bars, predominant
Secondary sex differences	Slight: Males with longer ventrals, females with irregular blue spotting in lateral spot	Conspicuous: Males larger, with larger fins and often additional colours
Dorsal fin origin	Behind margin o f gill-cover	Before margin of gíll-cover
Ratio dorsal spines to dorsal rays	Less than 2: l	More than 2: 1 (few exceptions)
Distance between dorsal fin and last scale in upper lateral row	1 -1 % scales	å scale
Predorsal and preventral squamation	Chíefly ctenoid	Exclusively cycloíd
Gill-rakers on lower pharyngeals	Absent	Present

The relationships of P. ramirezi are not clear, but considering the similarities in familial structure and general appearance and the shared “ sex monomorphism” high number of ceratobranchial rakers, low ratio dorsal spines to dorsal rays (D. XIV-XV 8-9 in P. ramírezí ) etc., they appear to be with Geophagus Heckel and Biotodoma Eigenmann & Kennedy . However, P. ramírezí is certainly distinct from members of these genera and others with an epibranchial lobe as presently known in one or more of the following characters: position of epibranchial rakers, colour pattern, maximum size (less than 40 mm SL in P. ramirezi ), distance between upper lateral line and dorsal fin, size of epibranchial lobe, number of supraneurals, depth of lacrimal and breeding behaviour, to mention but a few characters generally recognized. Biotodoma and Geophagus were recently revised by Gosse (1976). Although our knowledge of the species in these genera is now considerably expanded, we still lack material for a satisfactory explanation of the phylogeny of a “ Geophagus group” of genera including Papiliochromis . Further indication that P. ramirezi may be more closely related to Geophagus than to Apistogramma was presented by Wickler (1956) in a comparative study of egg-type and egg-attachment in cichlid fishes (see also Wickler 1960). It is possible, however, that the egg-type is a function of incubation type and thus only a parameter of the reproductive behaviour in general, which is already very different in P. ramírezi and Apistogramma spp., but similar in P. ramírezí and a number of Geophagus spp. Scheel’s (1972) discussion of the karyotypes of a few cichlid species was probably not intended as a serious presentation of research results, judging from the title and the style, but certainly suggests karyotype differences between Apistogramma spp. and P. ramirezi . Probably further studies will bring this out in detail. A redescription of P. ramirezi is in preparation and will amplify our understanding of the new genus.