Back to Shrimpapedia

SHRIMPAPEDIA / SCIENTIFIC IDENTITY / OCT 2026

2024–2025 Neocaridina delimitation debate — evidence review

Contrasts 2024 Yang et al. broad lumping proposal, 2024 Shih et al. 8 local groups and Fuke commentary, 2025 Cai/Shih reply.

Original evidence / species identification

Contrasts 2024 Yang et al. broad lumping proposal, 2024 Shih et al. 8 local groups and Fuke commentary, 2025 Cai/Shih reply.

Illustrated research / ancestry evidence

Scientific evidence for 2024–2025 Neocaridina delimitation debate; ornamental breeder parents are undocumented and disconnected.PUBLISHED SCIENTIFIC NAME2024–2025 Neocaridina delimitationdebateINDEPENDENT STUDIES2024 / 2025 published scientificevidenceCOMMERCIAL BREEDER PARENT IDSNOT DOCUMENTED
Solid = sourced taxonomic name and studies. Unknown commercial parentage has no crossing arrow. Scientific sources cannot establish a molecular ornamental color gene.

Other taxonomic treatments

Evidence types differ: mitochondrial genome vs COI and morphology, specimen selection, allelic admixture interpretation.

Contradictions and unresolved claims

The position that these taxa are all synonyms and the position that davidi/denticulata remain distinguishable must both be described with source and uncertainty.

Ecological and breeder-pedigree limits

No consensus phylogenetic species tree should be drawn from trade morphology or an abstract.

Recorded commercial founders

Not documented in cited field taxonomy

Published, counted named-color F1/F2 ratios

No controlled commercial color F1/F2 segregation table in cited source

Primary scientific and database references