Blutkehl,Segelflossen,Putzer

[blueblue]

I have just read the South American Dwarf Cichlids by Datz (2005).
I have paid attention to Blutkehl (A157) and Segelflossen (A158);
to be frank, i could not tell the difference between them!! Plus,
besides the shape of the caudal fin of mature male,
A160 (cf. Iniridae) looks alomost the same as A158 and A157...

Moreover, the A. 162 (Putzer) on P.75 also looks the same as
A158 and A157...

So, what are the key differences among the following species
when the specimen all have red markings on the cheek? Thanks
Blutkehl (A157), Segelflossen (A158), Putzer (A162).

 

[Mike Wise]

A. uaupesi: no vertical bars except in extreme fright pattern (or dead!); very pale abdominal rows of spots.

A. sp. Blutkeh/Cutthroat: shows abdominal bars except in threat display; very pale abdominal rows of spots.

A. sp. Segelflossen/Sailfin: higher dorsal fin than others; no vertical bars except in extreme fright pattern; highly visible rows of abdominal spots

A. iniridae: shows abdominal bars that often merge together into a broad dark irregular band; round tail (although I had a male with 1 extended ray).

A. cf. iniridae: A. iniridae with red Cutthroat markings (such markings are also found on some populations of A. uaupesi).

A sp. Putzer: shows a caudal spot; deeper bodied (high back) & more laterally compressed; usually has 4 (sometime only 3 on 1 side) infraorbital pores instead of 3 in other species.

 

[blueblue]

Thanks Mike. I see more now.
Do you have some experience in crossing among them?

A. uaupesi: no vertical bars except in extreme fright pattern (or dead!); very pale abdominal rows of spots.

A. sp. Blutkeh/Cutthroat: shows abdominal bars except in threat display; very pale abdominal rows of spots.

A. sp. Segelflossen/Sailfin: higher dorsal fin than others; no vertical bars except in extreme fright pattern; highly visible rows of abdominal spots

A. iniridae: shows abdominal bars that often merge together into a broad dark irregular band; round tail (although I had a male with 1 extended ray).

A. cf. iniridae: A. iniridae with red Cutthroat markings (such markings are also found on some populations of A. uaupesi).

A sp. Putzer: shows a caudal spot; deeper bodied (high back) & more laterally compressed; usually has 4 (sometime only 3 on 1 side) infraorbital pores instead of 3 in other species.

 

[Mike Wise]

I have no experience in crossing any species or even population of Apistogramma. I never saw the reason to do this kind of thing.

 

[blueblue]

I have no experience in crossing any species or even population of Apistogramma. I never saw the reason to do this kind of thing.

Thanks and i see. Well, there are some cases that we may wish to try crossing them. For instance, when we have a pair of a species and a male fish passed away... then we may wish to try pairing the remaining female fish up with a male fish from a closely related species... especially when we are unable to get back a male fish... OR, when we get some wild caught fish, it could be very very difficult to reveal the true identity of the female fish... it may then make sense to try a kind of mixing and see if something interesting happen... Moreover, many books claimed that Blutkehl, and Segelflossen are essentially the same species as uaupesi... a crossing experient may help to reveal more details of it...

 

[KenL]

Crossing as part of some controlled scientific experiment may be considered worthwhile but I would hate any of these fish to be sold on to the public.

There are enough "freaks" already available such as parrot fish, balloon mollies, dyed fish. This sort of thing really bothers me and surely gives fish-keeping a bad name?

 

[blueblue]

Crossing as part of some controlled scientific experiment may be considered worthwhile but I would hate any of these fish to be sold on to the public.

There are enough "freaks" already available such as parrot fish, balloon mollies, dyed fish. This sort of thing really bothers me and surely gives fish-keeping a bad name?

Yes, I totally agree with you KenL. I hate those strange creatures very very much.

While i think the case is different for the species i named above because some people actually believe that some of them are the same species!! (Some are simply "cf" of one another according to some books/ hobbyists) To some extent, whether or not they are different species is NOT scientifically proved yet... and a crossing between them may simply be a mix of the same species, from different origins, i.e. similar to a marriage between people from Brazil and people from Canada...

Another thing which comes to my mind is the example of A. Macmasteri,
and A. Viejita. They are scientifically described as different species while many viejita that we find in the market and even in the natural habitat, seems to be a cross between them... So, it is another example that a crossing should be allowed (and is actually allowed, even by the Nature)...

 

[Mike Wise]

While i think the case is different for the species i named above because some people actually believe that some of them are the same species!! (Some are simply "cf" of one another according to some books/ hobbyists) To some extent, whether or not they are different species is NOT scientifically proved yet... and a crossing between them may simply be a mix of the same species, from different origins, i.e. similar to a marriage between people from Brazil and people from Canada...

My only question is: what happens if we cross all of these forms and then discover that they truly are individual species? Then all we have are mongrel fish. This is why I never cross A. agassizii from different locations (or other superspecies that have multiple forms). The only reason I see that justifies crossing forms is to produce domestic fish that are more commercially pleasing, like Red Swordtails/Helleri. As long as these are sold as domestic hybrids, it is fine. But once these are sold as one certain species there are problems. This is what we are seeing with the colorful domestic forms of macmasteri/viejita II. The same forms are being sold & pictured as both species!

Another thing which comes to my mind is the example of A. Macmasteri,
and A. Viejita. They are scientifically described as different species while many viejita that we find in the market and even in the natural habitat, seems to be a cross between them... So, it is another example that a crossing should be allowed (and is actually allowed, even by the Nature)...

Anyone who has seen wild caught specimens of these 2 species can see obvious differences. They do not naturally cross in the wild because the live in separate river systems. Koslowski (2002) shows a wild caught fish that seems to have features intermediate between these two species, but it is not known if it is a cross, an single aberant specimen, or a separate species in its own right.