Apitogramma and other species...

[Chaos engine]

Hi People,

I´m trying to confirm some IDs of fishes in pictures that i have in my archive... I´ll put the dwarf cichlid´s pictures here, but if you want to see the other species, go to http://www.flickr.com/photos/h_anatole/sets/72157619560641389/

Here the dwarf!

Dicrossus sp. tapajós

Crenicichla aff. stockii

Biotoecus cf. opercularis

Uaupesi??

A. sp. "manaus

??

A. sp. "Rg mamoré" - 1

A. sp. "Rg mamoré" - 2

A. sp. "Mamoré blue"

?

?

?

A. sp. "guttata xingu" - male

A. sp. "guttata xingu" - female

Apistogramma sp. 1 'caetei bel - acre'

Apistogramma cf. stacki (1)

A. aff. hippolitae - female

A. aff. hippolitae - male 1

A. aff. hippolitae - male 2

Best regards!

 

[Mike Wise]

These are my suggestions:
1. Dicrossus sp. - picture not good enough to determine species
2. I don't know; no experience with large pike cichlids.
3. OK
4. A. gibbiceps
5. A. gibbiceps? Fish show very few dark markings for positive identification.
6. Immature regani-group? species. Can't say what species.
7. A. sp. Xingu
8. regani-group species; no way to identify without dark markings and tail.
9. Probably A. erythrura - no dark markings for positive identification. Defininely not A. cf. resticulosa Mamore Blue!
10. Agassizii-group species; not enough visible diagnostic features for a positive identification.
11. Either a macmasteri-group or eunotus-complex species; not enough visible diagnostic features for a positive identification.
12. Juvenile of either a macmasteri- or regani-group species; not enough visible diagnostic features for a positive identification.
13. A. sp. Xingu, possibly either the "Samauma" or "sp. aff. Peixoto" population.
14. Probably the female of the above species.
15. A. acrensis
16. Probably correct; not enough visible diagnostic features for a positive identification.
17. cacatuoides-group? species; not enough visible diagnostic features for a positive identification. Definitely not A. hippolytae; probably a male.
18. OK
19. OK

 

[Mike Wise]

... picture not good enough to determine species ... Fish show very few dark markings for positive identification ... no way to identify without dark markings and tail ... no dark markings for positive identification ... not enough visible diagnostic features for a positive identification.

This is not to throw abuse on the original poster - far from it. I always enjoy trying to ID fish from people's photos. I do want to use it as a teaching prop.

Too many photos that come to this section are similar to these. Some of the photos are good enough for a good ID - some are not. If you want a decent ID, then I suggest that you look at your photos critically. Ask yourself:

1. Does it show the fish's head/body shape accurately (as perpendicular to the camera as possible; not head on or tail on shots)?

2. Does it show the fish's finnage accurately (raised spines, spread tail)?

3. Does it show the fish's dark markings on the head, body and fins accurately? These are the most important diagnostic features on apistos. These dark markings are best seen on stressed/frightened males and females in a neutral mood. This is why it is helpful (to me) that photos of the female be provided if possible.

4. What was the name that the fish was sold as? Sometimes it hints at what it is; sometimes not, but it doesn't hurt to add this information.

5. How large is the fish in the photo? Juvenile/small specimens are next to impossible to identify down to species level. Size of mature specimens can be very useful.

6. Is the fish domestically bred? Most domestic fish are either accurately identified or at least have a commercial name that can be cross referenced.

7. Is the fish wildcaught? Wildcaught fish usually show diagnostic features better because they haven't been altererd by line breeding. If it is wildcaught, can you find out which country/region that the fish came from? If one can eliminate species from some areas, it helps to narrow down the possible species that it can be. Were there any contaminant (by-catch) fish in the shipment? Sometimes these 'oddballs' can indicate the country of origin of the apisto.

I know it is next to impossible to get all of this data, but if one can provide more information than just a photo, it can really help to identify your fish.

 

[Chaos engine]

Hi Mike!!

First of all, tank you for the help! I´m mading a database of fish pictures and I tried to put the best pictures of each specie here, but i know that most of than are not good... But let me try to help with some answers to your questions:

All that pictures were taken on Aquarium stores and distributors in Brazil, and i´m sure that all of than are wildcaught.

I always look for the biggest fishes to take the pictures, but sometimes there´s no adults in the aquariuns...

I made the ID of 2, 3, 18 and 19. The fish of picture 17 was together with 18, and i agree that is not hippolitae, but it looks like a female to me - I´ll try to find other pictures here.

To the other pictures, i put here the names used in the companys (They call many species as caetei or ortmanni, to cheat Brazilian envirommental agents). Where i put the same name, is cause the fishes are together, but in pictures 7 and 8 they are in a tank with "reserved" label. I think they could mix the fishes on that tanks.

I´ll edit other pictures of the fishes in 1, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11/12 (same specie) and 16 to put here.

Tank you again!

 

[Hudson Ensz]

Chaos Engine, Where do you live in brazil?
The "uapesi" deffinately apears to be A. gibbiceps, i caught some that looked identical on the Anavilhas, beautiful fish.
Are those your fish? if they are congratulations for having an amazing collection!
Thanks mike wise for your help in IDing them!
Hudson

 

[Hudson Ensz]

I know its really late but i searched your posts and it seems that the larger crenicichla is either Crenicichla lucius or crenicichla inpa.