1. 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!

Aqualog South American Cichlids II vs DATZ South American Dwarf Cichlids

Discussion in 'The Lounge' started by valice, Nov 7, 2006.

  1. valice

    valice New Member 5 Year Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2006
    Messages:
    75
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Given the above two books which is a better choice?
  2. Mike Wise

    Mike Wise Moderator Staff Member 5 Year Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2004
    Messages:
    9,814
    Likes Received:
    1,328
    Trophy Points:
    113
    First let me say that I helped produce the DATZ book. You may think I am biased for it. All I can suggest that you read some of my early posts about Aqualog's SACII.

    Even before I knew that DATZ would produce its book, I was critical of SACII for the high number of mis-identified species - between 10 & 20% errors. It even shows photos of the same fish under 2 different names!

    The DATZ book not only is newer, but shows more forms (but not necessarily more color morphs) of apistos & definitely more species/forms of the other dwarf cichlids. I trust the identifications, too. The authors (Stawikowski & Koslowski, for the most part) are very careful about identifying fish. Many are listed as "cf." just to let you know that the fish might not be the actual species. I like that. The DATZ book also has good sections on care, breeding, and ecology based on people with experience in these. Miller & Schliewen's preliminary DNA studies on the phylogeny of apistos is unique.

    So DATZ is a better "picture book" in my biased, but not bigotted, opinion. The DATZ book is not as easy to get as SACII, but I sell it for $32.00 + postage right now.
  3. Fatts

    Fatts New Member 5 Year Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2004
    Messages:
    138
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I have to agree with Mike. No contest. I never look at my Aqualog books but I look at the DATZ pub at least once a week.
  4. valice

    valice New Member 5 Year Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2006
    Messages:
    75
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Thanks Mike.
    I would basically use the book either DATZ or AquaLog primarily as an ID tool. The sequencing of the species in DATZ by A-numbers is kinda difficult to use.

    And Mike, you have a PM regarding the DATZ book.
  5. blueblue

    blueblue Active Member 5 Year Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2004
    Messages:
    1,876
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    38
    i have both books and Mike is right. Aqualog has a lot of errors.
    Datz is much much more accurate. :)
  6. Mike Wise

    Mike Wise Moderator Staff Member 5 Year Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2004
    Messages:
    9,814
    Likes Received:
    1,328
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I ignore the A-numbers when other common or scientific names are available. I don't understand why you would have problems using the DATZ book. I find the DATZ book much easier to use when identifying apistos. All of the similar looking species are on the same page. It beats having to go through the entire book, like Aqualog's, looking for similar looking fish.
  7. blueblue

    blueblue Active Member 5 Year Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2004
    Messages:
    1,876
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    38
    by the way, for the A number, i think it could be useful for people to refer to.
    For example, if i am talking about a particular "cf"... i could cite the A number and friends who have the Datz book could immediately find it out... it could be a smart idea :)
  8. Mike Wise

    Mike Wise Moderator Staff Member 5 Year Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2004
    Messages:
    9,814
    Likes Received:
    1,328
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I agree. This is the best use for A-numbers. For example, it would be hard to describe the different A. cf. taeniata & A. cf. restiuclosa without them.