Difference between A. baesnchi Ink50 and Inka1

[regani]

While we are exchanging pictures of A. baenschi I thought i throw in one of my own
Not as nicely photographed as the others, but you can make out some differences compared to ADCs pics and Noddys second pic. Is it a different type of baenschi? I have no idea. I leave that discussion to people who know more than me...

 

[ADC Nederland]

I cannot help to ascertain you posted only (!) 4 images, 2 males and 2 females just to claim there's two varieties.

One doesn't need to have any knowledge at all of statistics to know that the shown differences could just as well be a result of individual coloration, thus not being a regularity. This has been mentioned before and you didn't come up with any - let alone a valid - reply to those serious comments.

I've seen an A. borellii going into a pond looking just like a normal one and coming out a few months later with bright orange finnage. And there's numerous species of ornamental fish kept outside in ponds during summertime, just to come out with intensified and sometimes unknown colors. Has that A. borellii become of another color variation in some mysterious way? Have those ornamental fish become of another color variety just by sitting in that pond? I doubt.

Yet you persevere... it's time for some serious arguments, not just a repetition of earlier made statements.

(or is it the fact that you're a breeder and seller of tank bred Apistogramma that it comes in handy to have "the" wild-forum of a certain species, where others just offer - according to you - a "color variation" ?)

I won't argue with anyone, I am simply giving my point of view and expressing my experiences with the species. I've had both the wildcaught and the bred inka color variant and to label the Inka color variant simply as the Baenschi without adding the Inka is misleading. Hence my example of the Cacatuoides (Double Red), you're not gonna sell or label it as a plain Cacatuoides, doing so would imply that it was caught in the wild or it is carrying wild color paterns, which is simply not the case.

Anyways, I am not gonna debate or argue with anyone over this issue and I respect everyones views and I ask nothing more or less in return. We can disagree and still be friends, anyone chosing to take an aggressive stance on the matter has no place here. I believe no one has all the answers (except for Mike Wise ... and I'm joking ofcourse !!!

 

[DutchyIvo]

That was not an aggressive stance, merely a very disappointed one. As there's some queries you don't respond to, though those could help us understand your point of view better and provide for some interesting conversations. Isn't that what we're all here for, to chat and share and compare views?

So below a few thoughts for you to respond to, as one enthusiast to another.

The color differences you point out are visible on your pictures. Let's not deny that, but is it strange or even aggressive to mention that differences in coloration can vary between individuals and mood? I guess not. So that's an invitation to elaborate some further on that matter, sharing your views, which was why we're here. Simply put, if you've seen a lot of wilds with the color pattern you show and you've seen a lot of tank breds with the color pattern shown, there's no-one that should undermined those observations and that would also mean there's some regularity, to whatever exact degree.

Moreover, couldn't the color variances you show (let's assume here that it's not an individual difference, but a regularity) be a result of breeding generation after generation? There's more ornamental fish species were natural colors simply 'fade away' just by breeding generation after generation. Wouldn't labeling as A. baenshi (tank bred) be enough in such a case?

Off course, A. cacatuoides (double red) isn't a wild form, thus shouldn't be labeled as such. Everyone will agree on that. But not only it's tank bred, it's selectively bred as well. And with that one being selectively bred the comparison to the fish in question here only makes sense if A. baenschi (Inka) would be selectively bred as well. Otherwise you're implicitly comparing how labeling should take place with selectively bred strains to how labeling should take place with a non-wild-non-selectively bred form, which are two different things if you ask me. (See before: if not selectively bred, why not just A. baenschi (tank bred)?)

But, to wrap things up. Let's say labeling would be necessary, and let's say labeling as A. beanschi (tank bred) wouldn't be enough. Then why choose an addition that was in use before as one of the temporary names for the species as a whole and is now being mentioned as a synonym for the species as a whole. That's rather confusing: differentiating this color form thus labeling it, but choosing an addition that refers to something that was in use for the species as a whole and is still considered a synonym for the species as a whole. If you want to make an addition, then why not choose one of the distinctive characters you brought up? A. baenschi (Orange Stipe(d tail)) would be far less confusing if you ask me.

 

[gerald]

All cichlid species show some variation in color, fin size & shape, etc. The observed variation may be differences between populations in different locations, or it may be variation between individuals, even siblings, within a local population. Differences can be genetically controlled, or environmentally-determined, or some combination of genetic and non-genetic factors. I dont know how large a geographic range A. baenschi has, but if the observed variation is spread over the species' range (not geographically predictable and not reproductively isolated) then there's not much reason to recognize those differences as distinct forms, biologically. For domesticated strains, sure, people like to develop strains and give them names, like blue rams, gold rams, balloon rams. It's a useful distinction for ornamental fish trade, but has no ecological or taxonomy meaning. There are of course many unrecognized "new" species out there, and some of those subtle differences just might be indicators of different species, IF (and only if) they are reporoductively isolated. Did you hear about the "new" species of leopard frog in Staten Island, New York? In the 1930's Carl Kauffeld suspected it might be different from northern and southern leopard frogs (based on its different mating call), but the genetic work to prove it was just recently done.

 

[ADC Nederland]

I usually don't like these discussions but I'll bite for just this once.

Let's get back to the original comment here because I think you guys are completely twisting the conversation.

The original poster asked the difference between the Inka50 and the Inka1... People responded and 1 comment in particular said that there is only 1 Baenschi. The comment in question didn't really help anyone but the statement was not correct and I simply pointed out that aside from the Wild Caught / Wild color variant, the Inka variant is a different color variant, I posted photo's showing the differences.

At no point in the conversation did I state that the Inka is a wild caught variant, at no point in the conversation did I get into details about it being tank bred... I simply stated that there is a Inka variant in the hobby. That should have ended that conversation... But then people started to twist things around.

If you want to get into it in detail, I can be very short., The Inka variant that I know and have right now is a bred species, bred by breeders, wholesalers and so on.

We can go on and on but I know a lot of breeders who breed the Inka variant. I don't know at what point this turned into a discussion about where it came from, if it is wildcaught or not or if I am talking out of my ass... The whole discussion doesn't really address the issue it started with in the first place.

My conclusion to this discussion is that, like others pointed out, The Inka50 and the Inka1 are the same variant and wholesalers and retailers give fish the same names as their suppliers stocklist indicates.

Does the Baenschi (Inka) excist, yes it does, as far as I know, it's a bred variant, just like the Cacatuoides (Double Red) and it's different then it's Wild caught variant.

 

[Evan]

I have never heard that the Inka was a line bred variant. I thought it was just a trade name.

I have kept wild caught A. baenschi that display the orange line in the caudal fin. I don't believe that is a line bred trait.

I have never had a female A. baenschi that showed the degree of color that yours does.

I can post a picture of my wild type A. baenschi if it would be helpful.

 

[Mike Wise]

Does the Baenschi (Inka) excist, yes it does, as far as I know, it's a bred variant, just like the Cacatuoides (Double Red) and it's different then it's Wild caught variant.

I think we are arguing over nothing but color morphs/variants. I think we all agree that whatever it is labeled all refer to 1 species - A. baenschi. I have no idea where the names "Inka 50" and "Inka 1" come from. Maybe Inka 50 is a corruption of the original common name for the species in Japan - A. sp. Inca 500. I've been told that the 500 refers to the original price/pair - ¥500,000(!) back in 2002. Where Inka 1 came from is anyone's guess. That's the problem with common names. They can be used - and abused - by commercial sellers. A. borellii (Opal) - which as far as I know no longer exists - comes to mind. I don't have photos of any of the first Japaneses imports, but I do have a photo by Frank Warzel that shows a specimen from the first importation (2003) into Germany (as A. sp. Inka). In most respects it looks very similar to Mike's (Noddy65) Inka 50. I've seen wild specimens of A. baenschi that show varying degrees of color, some more colorful than others. I've seen them at exporters in Peru where they are all mixed together. I don't know if this is how they were collected in the wild or if they were mixed later at the exporter. At the moment the many parts of the area where A. baenschi is collected is controlled by the drug trade, so non-locals are looked on with suspicion. I don't think I want to go there right now to check for different color populations.

As for ADC Nederland's claim that "A. baenschi (Inka)" exists as a domestic strain, I guess it's possible, but it's indistinguishable from some wild specimens. I, personally, agree with Dutchylvo, that naming a domestic strain the same as what was once an all-inclusive name, is a poor idea, marketingwise. I would much prefer a more descriptive name for the strain. But, then, there are several names used for fish that I don't really care for very much.