Hydrocyini

The current classification of the characids is problematical. Roberts (1969: 443) divided the African Characidae into the sub-families Hydrocyninae, (to include only Hydrocynus) and Alestiinae (to include all remaining African characids). On the basis of several characters, some authors postulated (Roberts 1966: 215; Roberts, 1967: 242; Roberts, 1969: 443) Hydrocynus to be related to the genus Alestes. However, in the absence of any osteological definition of either Hydrocynus or Alestes, no evidence could be presented to either corroborate or refute Roberts’s hypothesis of relationship between these genera.

Géry (1977: 18) subsequently erected the family Alestidae to include Roberts's sub-families Hydrocyninae and Alestiinae. Géry's (1977) work was not based on a cladistic analysis of the and the characters he used to define the Alestidae appear to be a mixture of plesiomorphies and apomorphies. Vari (1979: 342) included Roberts's Hydrocyninae with the Alestiinae because the latter represented a non-monophyletic assemblage with some of its members being more closely related to Hydrocynus than to members of their own sub-family. The current classification of the characids is clearly unsatisfactory but pending further phylogenetic analysis the concept of the Characidae sensu Greenwood et al. (1976).

In order to maintain a homogenisation with the other two tribes, we prefer to use the term Hydrocyini which therefore includes only species belonging to the genus Hydrocynus. All these species are pike-like predators, commonly termed 'tigerfishes' (dogfishes in French) for their prominent dentition and dark lateral stripes.

Bibliography