Seriously Fish
AdminAccount
AdminAccount

Hyphessobrycon compressus

Mayan Tetra

Meek, 1904

Formerly Hemigrammus compressus Meek, 1904

On this page9 sections
Specimen from the Río Usumacinta basin, Chiapas Province, southern Mexico.
Specimen from the Río Usumacinta basin, Chiapas Province, southern Mexico.Marco Endruweit

Quick facts

Length
45mm SL1.8in SL
Tank base
not recorded
Temp
20–26°C68–79°F
pH
6.5–8.0
Hardness
not recorded

Difficulty5 of 6 measures

Beginner

More bars, more demanding.

Space
any tank
Water
tap water
Temp
unfussy
Temperament
unknown
Social
shoal
Compatibility
community tank

H. compressus is the type species of the genus Hyphessobrycon but is not well-known in the ornamental trade. Hyphessobrycon was raised by Durbin in Eigenmann (1908) as a subgenus of Hemigrammus, differing from the latter by the absence of scales on the caudal-fin.

Etymology

Hyphessobrycon: from the Ancient Greek υπελάσσων (hyphesson), meaning 'of lesser stature', and used as a prefix in this case, plus the generic name Brycon.

compressus: from the Latin compressus, meaning 'compressed', apparently in reference to this species' compressed body shape.

Distribution

Known from southern Mexico, Guatemala, and Belize.

Type locality is 'Río Papaloapam basin at El Hule, Oaxaca, Mexico'.

Habitat

Has been collected from smaller rivers, streams, temporal freshwater swamps and larger permanent lakes.

Sympatric species include Astyanax aeneus and Poecilia sphenops.

Water conditions

Temperature
20–26°C68–79°F
pH
6.5–8.0
Hardness
not recorded

Diet

Probably an opportunistic omnivore by nature.

Sexual dimorphism

Nuptial adult males apparently develop a much darker colour pattern than females.

Notes

H. compressus is the type species of the genus Hyphessobrycon but is not well-known in the ornamental trade.

Hyphessobrycon was raised by Durbin in Eigenmann (1908) as a subgenus of Hemigrammus, differing from the latter by the absence of scales on the caudal-fin.

The grouping was revised by Eigenmann (1918, 1921) while Géry (1977) created artificial groups of species based on colour pattern, and these definitions are still widely used today, e.g., the H. agulha group, the H. heterohabdus group, etc. These cannot be considered to represent monophyletic assemblages, however, and their concepts continue to be redefined.

Weitzman & Palmer (1997) hypothesised the existence of a monophyletic assemblage within the genus based on colour pattern and male fin morphology that they termed the ‘rosy tetra clade’, with one of the characters supporting its monophyly being presence of a prominent dark marking on the dorsal-fin. This assemblage, plus other morphologically similar species, is considered to represent Hyphessobrycon sensu stricto by some authors, with the remaining species included in a much-expanded H. heterohabdus group.

Others have proposed conflicting, typically more restricted, views of both the genus and/or its constituent species groups, and significant confusion remains. What is clear is that, as currently recognised, Hyphessobrycon is a polyphyletic lineage containing several genera.

The process of splitting it up has already started, and Malabarba et al. (2012) revalidated the genus Ectrepopterus Fowler, previously considered a synonym of Hyphessobrycon. They also analysed its relationships within the Characidae in the context of Mirande's (2010) previous work, but included the type species, H. compressus, for the first time in such a study. The results demonstrated that H. compressus is more closely-related to 'rosy tetra' representatives such as H. eques, H. pulchripinnis, and H. socolofi than other members of the genus including H. anisitsi, H. bifasciatus, H. elachys, H. herbertaxelrodi, and H. luetkeni.

References

  1. Meek, S.E. (1904). The fresh-water fishes of Mexico north of the isthmus of Tehuantepec. Field Columbian Museum, Zoological Series v. 5, i-lxiii + 1-252
  2. Reis, R. E., S. O. Kullander and C. J. Ferraris, Jr. (eds) (2003). Check list of the freshwater fishes of South and Central America. CLOFFSCA. EDIPUCRS, Porto Alegre, i-xi + 1-729
  3. Endruweit, M. (2013). World Wide Web electronic publication, www.aquariophil.org, accessed on 2013.09.09 Aquariophil
  4. Calcagnotto, D., S. A. Schaefer, and R. DeSalle (2005). Relationships among characiform fishes inferred from analysis of nuclear and mitochondrial gene sequences. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 36(1), 135-153
  5. Oliveira, C. A., G. S. Avellino, K. T. Abe, T. C. Mariguela, R. C. Benine, G. Orti, R. P. Vari, and R. M. Corrêa e Castro (2011). Phylogenetic relationships within the speciose family Characidae (Teleostei: Ostariophysi: Characiformes) based on multilocus analysis and extensive ingroup sampling. BMC Evolutionary Biology 11(1), 275-300
  6. Géry, J. (1977). Characoids of the World. T.F.H. Publications, Inc., 1-672
  7. Weitzman, S. H. and L. Palmer (1997). A new species of Hyphessobrycon (Teleostei: Characidae) from the Neblina region of Venezuela and Brazil, with comments on the putative `rosy tetra clade'. Ichthyological Exploration of Freshwaters 7(3), 209-242
  8. Zarske, A. (2014). Zur Systematik einiger Blutsalmler oder "Rosy Tetras" (Teleostei: Ostariophysi: Characidae). Vertebrate Zoology 64(2), 139-167
  9. Mirande, J. M. (2010). Phylogeny of the family Characidae (Teleostei: Characiformes): from characters to taxonomy. Neotropical Ichthyology 8(3), 385-568
  10. Malabarba, L. R., V. A. Bertaco, F. R. Carvalho & T. O. Litz. (2012). Revalidation of the genus Ectrepopterus Fowler (Teleostei: Characiformes), with the redescription of its type species, E. uruguayensis. Zootaxa 3204, 47-60

Distribution

Profile completeness16 of 24

67% complete

Missing: hardness, aquarium size, temperament, aquarium notes, maintenance, water condition notes, behaviour and compatibility, reproduction.