Nom scientifique
Centropyge fisheri
Nom vernaculaire
Poisson ange nain d'Hawaï

Photo © www.recif-france.com

Mise à jour :
Classe: Actinopterygii
Ordre: Perciformes
Famille: Sous famille : Holacanthinae
Genre: Centropyge
Espèce: fisheri
1ère Description: Snyder, 1904
Distribution: Endemique des Îles Hawaï et des Moluques.
Description: Globalement jaune-orange avec une tache noire environ égale au diamètre de l'oeil juste au-dessus de la base de l'aileron pectoral. Ailerons pelviens bleus ; aileron anal avec la marge bleue. Taille de 6 à 7 cm maximum.
Caractéristiques: Se rencontre à des profondeurs de plus de 30 m, dans les éboulis et les coraux morts.
Maintenance Sa maintenance est relativement aisée. Comme beaucoup de ces congénères, il passe sa journée à picorer le substrat à la recherche de sa nourriture. Celle-ci est composée d'algues et de micro-organismes et crustacés qu'elles contiennent. Il faudra de même lui offrir en aquarium une large proportion de nourriture végétale. La maintenance en bac d'invertébrés est possible. Dans un volume supérieur à 1000 litres plusieurs individus peuvent être maintenus.
Multiplication Pond au coucher du soleil; les oeufs sont relâchés en pleine eau et aucun soin n'est prodigué à la ponte. Les pontes en aquarium sont exceptionnelles.
Liens Fishbase
Centropyge fisheri Revision (896 ko pdf file)
Remarques Rudie H. Kuiter : Tuesday, February 01, 2005 10:31 AM
"Hi Frank,
Thanks for sending me the pdf file. I am reading it right now and I am very much surprised that it got published. It seems to me that we are going backwards here. I see similarities are pointed out, hybridisation made an issue, but I would have like to see some DNA back-up. Colouration seems to be treated as being not important. Similarities of closely related species, especially between extremes of a geographical range of species-complex, can be found in all kinds of reef fish. In my opinion the synonymy of acanthops in particular is wrong, and in addition it is more likely that flavicauda comprises 2 species. Going on the way this paper has changed the hight of the bar -so to speak- in other groups you would lump many Ctenochaetus, Thalassoma, Pseudanthias etc. The fact that some species of Centropyge in the Pacific are highly variable in colour, it does not mean that all species do elsewhere. So, for now, I can not except this work without seeing some better back-up.
I like to point out that work I'm involved with on labrids -colour/DNA- will have some real surprises in store, and one of the reasons that I'm sceptical about this paper.
Will be in Germany in May and would be good to talk about this.
Best wishes,
Rudie H. Kuiter
Aquatic Photographics
PO Box 124 110 Kananook Avenue Seaford 3198 Vic. Australia"

Richard Pyle : Tuesday, February 01, 2005 11:02 AM
3Hi Rudie & others, I've already commented to Frank & Ingo on their paper, but I'll summarize here, in case anyone is interested. While it may eventually be decided that fisheri does comprise more than one species, I seriously doubt that any of them will bear the name "flavicauda". I was thoroughly unsuccessful in finding any meaningful difference between any Pacific populations of the fisheri "cluster" -- for all characters, the range of variation within populations seems as great as the range of variation between populations. Just recently, I photographed individuals in Fiji that were absolutely indistinguishable from the Hawaiian form. I agree that the small dark purple form that I've seen in some places (e.g., Palau) leads me to think it may serve the taxonomic community well to establish a new name, but even so, it seems almost certain that the type specimen of flavicauda and that of fisheri are conspecific (fisheri being the older name). As for acanthops, I tend to agree with you that it should be retained as a distinct species -- but to be fair, there is no "right" answer here. The characters that seem important to us as humans may not correlate well with actual barriers to (or serve as reliable indicators of) historical or current gene flow. The bottom line is this: does calling these two forms [acanthops and fisheri] different species serve the communication needs of biologists more effectively than calling them the same species? My feeling -- at least for now -- is yes; and hence I prefer to recognize acanthops as a distinct species. Moreover, when in doubt, I think it's best to err on the side of nomenclatural stability. [So why am I disrupting nomenclatural stability by synonymizing flavicauda with fisheri? Because as much as I'd like to think of them as distinct species; there is simply no basis for doing so.] I also agree that molecular work will help provide more evidence to base nomenclatural decisions upon (Brian Bowen, Jennifer Schultz and I are working on this for Centropyge right now); but I'm becoming increasingly convinced that it's not "the" answer -- just another line of evidence to help us decide how best to serve the communication needs of biologists. Now, on a completely unrelated topic...Jerry has convinced me that the path to underwater photo salvation is to go digital (After trying to stretch 36 > frames out over 5.5 hrs of decompression, I was ready to be converted!). He mentioned that you had built your own housings for land strobes, and I think this is the route I'd like to go as well. My main requirement is that the housings be capable of 150m depth. I'm not ready to invest that sort of money yet, but when the time comes, I hope you don't mind if I pick your brain.... Aloha, Rich"

Rudie H. Kuiter : Saturday, February 05, 2005 4:09 AM
"Dear Igo & Frank,
However, we are wondering, why you believe that our paper should not be published. I wrote: I am very much surprised that it got published. It seems to me that we are going backwards here. I see similarities are pointed out, hybridisation made an issue, but I would have like to see some DNA back-up. .....and not much I can add to this. In species-complexes, that have members widespread geographically, the most similar are on the margins and often furthest apart. Finding no differences is no proof that species are the same, especially when using simple methods based on external features. DNA would give an extra and important support, one way of the other. DNA is an excellent tool to get a better understanding in relationships and I like to see part of determining sibling species or genus. It is very accurate in the right hands, but, like everything else, it has the potential for human error. The real problem is the reliability of samples in what they represent or where the material comes from. E.g., I'm aware of sample material of an Anthias that was identified as a Callanthias. I'm sorry to hear that some workers don't seem to care much for species being biologically different, but should fit in to a set of numbers and measurements.
Best wishes,
Rudie H. Kuiter
Aquatic Photographics
PO Box 124 110 Kananook Avenue Seaford 3198 Vic. Australia"

Ingo Schindler : Saturday, February 05, 2005 12:38 AM
"Dear Rudie,
thank you for your e-Mail and the critical comments. We supposed to get critics and we hoped to force discussion about species limits in the fisheri complex. Well, our results are in contrast to the current taxonomy. However, this is the way how science go, to publish controversy results. If our results do not convince you, you are free not to follow it. However, we are wondering, why you believe that our paper should not be published.
Colour is an important character in reef fishes. This is why we believed at first that the maledivian ‚Red Head‘ represent a hybrid and later an undescribed (sub-)species. However, during examining more specimens and photos it turn out, that there is no unambiguous difference in the colouration (see also the photos by Frank published in Datz 5/04). To check this subjective impression, we quantify the hue in different populations of C. fisheri. In contrast to the ordinary mention of a name for a colour (e.g. yellow, brown), we believe that this procedure is (at least a little bit) more objective. As the results show that there is no clear cut between the populations studied, we have to treat all as one. Since there is no other valid character or character state mention yet which separate acanthops and fisheri we have to treat acanthops as a new synonym. To keep acanthops just because on philosophical reason instead of covering the genealogy, means that the fisheri taxon would be a non-monophyletic one.
You mention your current studies on colour-morphs and DNA - analysis. Well, since we are writing our first paper on molecular data, we know the pitfalls in DNA analysis. And treat DNA - Data with the same weight as morphological data. In our view DNA-data are very important to discover the phylogeny and for taxonomic treatments, but there are also some weaknesses (different methods of alignment and calculation of genetic distances, different results based on different sequences). Further, we believe that a classification or a taxonomic treatment based only on DNA Data would not be widely accepted (see discussion in Lipscomb, Platnick and Wheeler 2003, The intellectual content of Taxonomy: a comment on DNA taxonomy. Trends Ecol. Evol. 18: 65-66). Let us see, what Rich Pyle and his team will find out.
Best wishes,
Ingo & Frank"

Ajouter un commentaire