Help with Apisto ID

[U271]

Hello, this is my first message.
Some weeks ago I bought 2 Apisto that were sold as A. Agasazzi "Peru".
They were 1,5 - 2 cm long and now they are about 3 cm.
It´s really dificult to take pictures of them but have one. It doesn´t seem an Agasazzi but I have no idea of wich apisto can be.
Can you help me?

 

[Apistt_ed]

hello U271,

from your picture and what I can see, it looks a lot like A. trifasciata. You can definitely ID your fish if they have the distinct third band that runs from just behind the gill cover to the beginning of the anal fin. I can't see that in your picture but from the look of your fish and the lateral band and overall shape, I'm pretty sure it is A. trifasciata. If you google the name, you can compare your fish to other pictures on the net. cheers. john

 

[Apistt_ed]

here are some pictures of what A. trifasciata look like.

 

[U271]

Thank you very much Apistt_ed. I´ll try to look to their third band.
It´s possible they bred with Apisto. macilensis?

 

[blueblue]

Thank you very much Apistt_ed. I´ll try to look to their third band.
It´s possible they bred with Apisto. macilensis?

The answer is yes. A cross-breeding between them has been reported by a hobbysit in Hong Kong. The cross-bred F1 looks very much like the trifasciata.

 

[KenL]

Is maciliensis the same as A. sp "mamore"?

The pic of your fish u271 does look like A.trifasciata to me.

Trifasciata was the first apisto I managed to breed successfully

 

[Rolo]

Is maciliensis the same as A. sp "mamore"?

It IS the same, if you mean the A. maciliensis sensu Römer.

But nobody knows, if this fish is the same, what HASEMANN described as A. trifasciata maciliense in 1911. Römers opinion is very doubtful, because the type-material is lost and the description is very short.

So it's better NOT to use the name A. maciliensis for the species. It's better to call them A. sp. "Mamoré" further on.

Staeck found A. trifasciata near the type locality, who could be A. maciliensis in his opinion, because their third lateral band wasn't seeable most time, if I remember correctly. So maybe it's just a synonyme. Other experts think, A. maciliensis could be a valid species (but not the same as A. sp. Mamoré)

best regards,
Rolo

 

[Greg PL]

It IS the same, if you mean the A. maciliensis sensu Römer.
...
So it's better NOT to use the name A. maciliensis for the species. It's better to call them A. sp. "Mamoré" further on.

from what I saw (had in my fishtank) there are 2 morphs/species? of A. sp. "Mamore". one was bigger and with colors close to those of A. trifasciata, but with no 3rd stripe. the other is somewhat smaller and with fiery red tail.
size difference could be a matter of my memory or the specimens I got
Mayland&Bork treated them as A. t. maciliensis, while Roemer calls them A. maciliensis, claiming that the offsprings of one pair can have red or blue tail. Not sure if it's true.
what does the new DATZ say about it?

 

[Apistt_ed]

it is true. I have had a pair of A. sp mamore who spawned and I did get a mix of the red tail and the blue in the same spawn. That's why I believe that it's not a different color morph but rather just differences in individual fishes.

 

[Mike Wise]

The new DATZ book says it is uncertain if A. trifasciata maciliensis is the same a A. sp. Mamoré. A. trifasciata & A. sp. Mamoré are obviously different species. I personally don't believe that Mamoré is maciliensis. I can only base this on reading the original descriptions of A. t. maciliensis & A. t. haroldschultzi, and comparing them with A. sp. Mamoré. The dark markings don't match very well, nor does the distribution of the forms. Jeff Cardwell brought back from Bolivia some lake-dwelling A. trifasciata (same biotope as maciliensis & haraldschultzi) that did not show a third diagonal band when alive (similar to preserved specimens of maciliensis & haraldschultzi). These fish came from the same general area as maciliensis & haraldschultzi, too. It is my opinion that A. t. maciliensis & haraldschultzi are just ecological color morphs of the more widespread A. trifasciata. Until this is all settled by further scientific collection & examination, I suggest we don't use A. maciliensis.