-
Hello guest! Are you an Apistogramma enthusiast? If so we invite you to join our community and see what it has to offer. Our site is specifically designed for you and it's a great place for Apisto enthusiasts to meet online. Once you join you'll be able to post messages, upload pictures of your fish and tanks and have a great time with other Apisto enthusiasts. Sign up today!
Apistogramma maciliensis/sp. Mamore
- Thread starter peterK
- Start date
from what I am aware of, A. maciliensis (red-tail & blue-tail) are the same fish. it has been described and is valid. I have kept this species and from my spawns with a male who had red-tail, I got blue-tailed individuals mixed in the offspring, vice versa. There is some controversy over the species as it resembles A. trifasciata to an extent. I tend to see it as a stockier species and Tris to be more elongated and slimmer. However, there is from what I have seen based on texts and reportings that there is to be a trifasciata-like fish that looks similar to the described trifasciata/maciliensis but at times lack the distinct third band running from it's gill cover to it's anal fin. Maybe someone else can elaborate that, but as for the rest of the questions, A. maciliensis is a valid species and from one brood, you can find both red-tail and blue-tail offspring.
- Messages
- 147
- Location
- Warsaw - Poland
Roemer says it's a valid name and species, while DATZ doesn't mention it at all. There are quite a few (4-5?) species in the trifasciata complex, 2 of them are A. (cf) trifasciata, and the rest are/were called different names, like A. sp. "Mamore" (those are the most common in the hobby), A. trifasciata maciliensis, A. maciliensis. The tail colour is irrelevant, as far as I know.
- Messages
- 11,218
- Location
- Denver, Colorado, U.S.A.
Sorry, but I (like Dr. Kullander) disagree with Uwe Römer' Atlas on the validity of the name & identification of A. sp. Mamoré as A.maciliensis. You can do some searches on this forum where I wrote about this problem earlier. Presently there are at least 2, but possibly more species belonging to the trifasciata-group: A. trifasciata, A. trifasciata maciliensis, A. cf. trifasciata Guaporé, & A. sp. Mamoré. A. trifasciata & A. sp. Mamoré are definitely different species. A. sp. Mamoré is a deeper bodied fish that has a lateral band that is broader than that described and pictured for either A. trifasciata, A. cf. trifasciata Guaporé, A. trifasciata maciliensis, or A. t. haraldschultzi (a synonym for A. t. maciliensis per Kullander). Additionally the lateral band is fairly constant in width throughout its length on A. trifasciata, A. cf. trifasciata Guaporé, A. trifasciata maciliensis, & A. t. haraldschultzi. It noticeably broadens toward the tail on A. sp. Mamoré.
A few years ago Jeff Cardwell brought back some fish from Bolivia that key very closely to A. t. maciliensis (& A. t. haraldschultzi). They were even collected from lake shore biotopes as reported for both A. trifasciata maciliensis & A. t. haraldschultzi. Unlike the Guaporé form of A. trifasciata from the same general location, Jeff's fish did not show the broad yellow gold expanse above the lateral band & never showed the 3rd diagonal band - which is seen on A. cf. trifasciata (usually) & A. t. macilensis (only on larger specimens). Other than lacking the diagonal band they appear to be very similar in color to the Paraguayan populations of A. trifasciata.
Dr. Römer, David Soares, & I examined most of the type material for A. t. maciliensis last year while in Chicago for the A.C.A. convention. The holotype is now 100 years old & has suffered considerably over that time. The specimens were all very small, although the holotype (just over 2 cm) can be sexed. It was a mature fish. Virtually all of the dark pigments on these specimens, however, have been lost to the effects of preservation and can no longer be used for identification purposes. That leaves only measured body proportions and Haseman's description, which is quite brief. The body of the holotype, to me, was fairly deep like A. sp. Mamoré. But based on the size of the eye vs. body proportions, I would say that the holotype was stunted while growing. The other specimens were less deep bodied than that of the holotype. I do not believe that we can depend on just the holotype for morphometric measurements. So, without dark markings presently visible & morphology unreliable, I must say that we have to depend on Haseman's brief description & the accompanying retouched photo. Based on these, I can only say that I must agree with Haseman - "This variety (= subspecies, or what modern ichthyologists prefer to call a "population") is quite different from the typical Paraguayan form, but all stages of intergradation are present, and I have described it only as a variet in order to note the difference from the typical forms, which are also found in the Rio Guaporé." Haseman collected A. cf. trifasciata Guaporé, too, but considered it a typical A. trifasciata.
For this reason I feel that A. t. maciliensis (& A. t. haraldschultzi) is only a geographic color population of A. trifasciata. I also believe that A. t. maciliensis should not be considered a separate species from A. trifasciata - nor should A. sp. Mamoré be considered the same as A. t. maciliensis, unless genetic studies or addional collections from the type locality prove it to be true.
off my soap box
A few years ago Jeff Cardwell brought back some fish from Bolivia that key very closely to A. t. maciliensis (& A. t. haraldschultzi). They were even collected from lake shore biotopes as reported for both A. trifasciata maciliensis & A. t. haraldschultzi. Unlike the Guaporé form of A. trifasciata from the same general location, Jeff's fish did not show the broad yellow gold expanse above the lateral band & never showed the 3rd diagonal band - which is seen on A. cf. trifasciata (usually) & A. t. macilensis (only on larger specimens). Other than lacking the diagonal band they appear to be very similar in color to the Paraguayan populations of A. trifasciata.
Dr. Römer, David Soares, & I examined most of the type material for A. t. maciliensis last year while in Chicago for the A.C.A. convention. The holotype is now 100 years old & has suffered considerably over that time. The specimens were all very small, although the holotype (just over 2 cm) can be sexed. It was a mature fish. Virtually all of the dark pigments on these specimens, however, have been lost to the effects of preservation and can no longer be used for identification purposes. That leaves only measured body proportions and Haseman's description, which is quite brief. The body of the holotype, to me, was fairly deep like A. sp. Mamoré. But based on the size of the eye vs. body proportions, I would say that the holotype was stunted while growing. The other specimens were less deep bodied than that of the holotype. I do not believe that we can depend on just the holotype for morphometric measurements. So, without dark markings presently visible & morphology unreliable, I must say that we have to depend on Haseman's brief description & the accompanying retouched photo. Based on these, I can only say that I must agree with Haseman - "This variety (= subspecies, or what modern ichthyologists prefer to call a "population") is quite different from the typical Paraguayan form, but all stages of intergradation are present, and I have described it only as a variet in order to note the difference from the typical forms, which are also found in the Rio Guaporé." Haseman collected A. cf. trifasciata Guaporé, too, but considered it a typical A. trifasciata.
For this reason I feel that A. t. maciliensis (& A. t. haraldschultzi) is only a geographic color population of A. trifasciata. I also believe that A. t. maciliensis should not be considered a separate species from A. trifasciata - nor should A. sp. Mamoré be considered the same as A. t. maciliensis, unless genetic studies or addional collections from the type locality prove it to be true.
off my soap box
