A-number question

[cageman]

Hello,

today I fully trew myself in the Datz.
had it for some time but only used it for looking up pictures.

I came across some strange things with the A-numbers.
why do for example have the sp. 'schwarzkinn' different A numbers and the sp. 'Tefe' all the same numbers?
can anyone please shed some light on this for me?

greetings,

Cageman

 

[Mike Wise]

I cannot say for certain, but A. sp. Schwarzkinn has (at least) two distinct color morphs that seem to be geographically separated. They will interbreed, so they are the same species. A. sp. Tefé has several different color morphs that are found living together (sympatric), just like its close cousin A. agassizii. Therefore, there are no separate populations requiring separate A-numbers. This is just my guess.

 

[cageman]

thanks Mike.
This could indeed be a reason.

 

[cageman]

Came up with another question
Where did the Ap. personata go in the 'DATZ'?

 

[Mike Wise]

A171 (preserved fish in top photo) is A. personata. Contrary to what some authors claim, A. personata has never been pictured live. The only specimens available are the type material collected in 1967 by King Leopold of Belgium & Dr. Gosse. The fish pictured as A. personata in Römer's atlas is a very old A. gibbiceps. A172 shows a very closely related form (A. cf. personata) from Mitú, Colombia. Römer pictures it as A. brevis - which it very definitely is not. A. cf. personata might be a population of A. personata, but has a different pattern of abdominal bands & a differently shaped caudal spot.

 

[cageman]

Thanks Mike!
Missed that one:redface:
I couldn't find it in the register,...
Nice extra information, thanks.