According the it ITIS (Integrated Taxonomic Information System) http://www.itis.usda.gov/ warmouth has been placed in its own genus, Chaenobryttus - now its Chaenobryttus gulosus. Anyone have any more info?

I know that warmouth used to be Chaenobryttus and it has been taken out of and put back into Lepomis on several occasions. I was not aware that it had formally and officially been moved back. Do you know if this name as been accepted by the AFS/ASIH guide? This seems to be the final word in such matters.

Warmouth are definitely different creatures than say bluegill and pumpkinseed, but so are green. It seems like the warmouth would align fairly well with the Ambloplites species as well. It appears that pretty soon every fish will be in its own Genus....

I have seen Chaenobryttus used in recent ASIH (Copeia) journal articles so I guess they accept it. I'll look for more info.

It appears that pretty soon every fish will be in its own Genus....

It certainly seems this way. I'm getting a bid tired of this. I wish there was one simple way to keep up with all of the changes.

It appears that pretty soon every fish will be in its own Genus....

It certainly seems this way. I'm getting a bid tired of this. I wish there was one simple way to keep up with all of the changes.

When was this passed through? I know of the old designation... did not know it was re-validated..

Yup....OK.... yeah now I officially place Centrarchidae taxonomy with root canal..........

Well, the cichlid guys were having all the fun and getting all the attention, so the centrarchid guys had to get busy.
Splitters RULE!
hehehheh... okay, I'm a splitter, or would be if I could find work again, and I'll be the first to admit that it's all just "busy work' for taxonomists to keep reclassifying everything, but hey, if road crews can do it, why not taxonomists? LOL
I'll also admit that it's darned annoying to have to try to keep up with all these blasted changes every other week. I've pretty much given up on the cichlids.

I'll also admit that it's darned annoying to have to try to keep up with all these blasted changes every other week

You can say that again. If I win a big lottery, I'll pay taxonomists to not change enything for just a little while

What else would they do with their time if they didn't mess around with the categories of fish!

What else would they do with their time if they didn't mess around with the categories of fish!

Probably get into bitchy little fights with other taxonomists over some perceived slight, like Dr. So-and-so wasn't mentioned in somebody's presentation at the latest ASIH meeting, or form tenuous political alliances to make sure that the guy in the department that they like the least won't get tenure.

Probably get into bitchy little fights with other taxonomists over some perceived slight, like Dr. So-and-so wasn't mentioned in somebody's presentation at the latest ASIH meeting, or form tenuous political alliances to make sure that the guy in the department that they like the least won't get tenure.

Oh how true.....But they do the "get into bitchy little fights with other taxonomists over some perceived slight" even when they have something better to do

Oh how true.....But they do the "get into bitchy little fights with other taxonomists over some perceived slight" even when they have something better to do

Bashing Herbert Axelrod and his "Double-Wide Institute for Ichthyology" is also a common activity, although I can't really disagree with them on that one....

Bashing Herbert Axelrod and his "Double-Wide Institute for Ichthyology" is also a common activity, although I can't really disagree with them on that one....

Yeah I can't disagree with that one either.....

The classification of Warmouth in Chaenobryttus dates back to Bailey's Ph.D. thesis in 1938. It was thought to be the lineage most closely related to all other Lepomis (sunfish) species. This view was validated by Branson and Moore (1962), who argued that Micropterus was most closely related to Lepomis (sans Warmouth). However, data from genetics that started with John Avise in 1977 have all resluted in Warmouth being well-nested in Lepomis.

The reason for the relatively recent use of Chaenobryttus stems from a tree based on morphology presented by Wainwright and Lauder (1992). However, as I wrote above, no comprehensive genetic datasets support this arrangement, and the morphological evidence is not very strong.

There is a book on the biology of centrarchids coming out this summer. I wrote a chapter on species diversity, taxonomy, and phylogenetics for the book. I will post an announcement when it is posted. In the mean time, my research group has published several papers on centrarchid phylogenetics and evolutionary biology. If you would like PDFs, send me an email.

Best wishes,
Tom

thomas.near@yale.edu

The classification of Warmouth in Chaenobryttus dates back to Bailey's Ph.D. thesis in 1938. It was thought to be the lineage most closely related to all other Lepomis (sunfish) species. This view was validated by Branson and Moore (1962), who argued that Micropterus was most closely related to Lepomis (sans Warmouth). However, data from genetics that started with John Avise in 1977 have all resluted in Warmouth being well-nested in Lepomis.

The reason for the relatively recent use of Chaenobryttus stems from a tree based on morphology presented by Wainwright and Lauder (1992). However, as I wrote above, no comprehensive genetic datasets support this arrangement, and the morphological evidence is not very strong.

There is a book on the biology of centrarchids coming out this summer. I wrote a chapter on species diversity, taxonomy, and phylogenetics for the book. I will post an announcement when it is posted. In the mean time, my research group has published several papers on centrarchid phylogenetics and evolutionary biology. If you would like PDFs, send me an email.

Best wishes,
Tom

thomas.near@yale.edu

Thanks for the info. I'll have to keep an eye out for that book.