Re: NANFA-- Is this Fundulus auroguttatus or rubrifrons?

Bruce Stallsmith (
Sun, 24 Sep 2000 16:57:12 EDT

You've hit upon some confusing taxonomy here. Cingulatus was originally
declared an invalid name by Gilbert et al. in 1992, based upon the apparent
fact that the holotype in a Paris museum turned out to be F. lineolatus. So,
F. auroguttatus replaced it and F. rubrifrons was described to separate the
eastern and southern populations in Florida within the original cingulatus
species. Cingulatus is about to be resurrected and auroguttatus retired,
because it turns out there _is_ a valid holotype for F. cingulatus in Paris,
and the F. lineolatus examined turns out to have been a filing error of some
sort in the museum's collection. Carter Gilbert is working on a paper to
correct the situation. Rubrifrons still stands as a separate species. The
big difference between rubrifrons and cingulatus lies in the name rubrifons:
"red face", which apparently is usually enough to differentiate the two
without resorting to ray counts or molecular analysis.

--Bruce Stallsmith
Huntsville, AL

>From: Tony <>
>Subject: NANFA-- Is this Fundulus auroguttatus or rubrifrons?
>Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 01:06:15 +0700
>I had read an article on page 50 in FAMA magazine April 1987 and see pics
>beautiful NA killie F. cingulatus. Is this cingulatus F. auroguttatus or
>rubrifrons? Is it easy to distinguish these two species?

Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at

/"Unless stated otherwise, comments made on this list do not necessarily
/ reflect the beliefs or goals of the North American Native Fishes
/ Association"
/ This is the discussion list of the North American Native Fishes Association
/ To subscribe, unsubscribe, or get help, send the word
/ subscribe, unsubscribe, or help in the body (not subject) of an email to
/ For a digest version, send the command to
/ instead.
/ For more information about NANFA, visit our web page,