ID help A. tucurui and A. piauiensis?!

[DaRe]

I don't manage to upload pictures so I'll link to them instead...

Are these guys correctly identified?

http://www.ciklid.org/artregister/artreg_visa_art.php?ID=1583
http://www.ciklid.org/artregister/artreg_visa_art.php?ID=283

any help would be greatly appreciated!

/David

 

[wethumbs]

I think they are correctly labeled. I looked through a few other apistos on that website and only found the Apistogramma viejita to be incorrectly labeled since it was clearly a domestic form of Apisto macmasteri.

 

[DaRe]

Yep, I know that one and I will remove it. Not so easy to get hold of viejita pictures these days

Thanks alot for your assistance!

/david

 

[wethumbs]

p.59 in Datz South American Dwarf Cichlids has a textbook picture of A. viejita by Ingo Koslowski.

 

[DaRe]

I'd love to have on eof those pictures in the species register. Maybe I could contact Ingo? anyone know werre he is or how to reach him?

Today I added pictures of these species:
http://www.ciklid.org/artregister/artreg_visa_slakte.php?ID=6
Apistogramma sp. "winkelfleck"
Apistogramma trifasciata
Apistogramma steindachneri
Apistogramma resticulosa
Apistogramma nijsseni
Apistogramma inconspicua
Apistogramma inconspicua
Apistogramma eunotus
Apistogramma caetei
Apistogramma cruzi
Apistogramma alacrina
Apistogramma borellii

I think they should be correct, but if you have time to assist me in verifying that would be great. Sorry for just taking rather than giving, I hope to be able to change that going forward!

 

[Mike Wise]

The fish pictured as A. cruzi is not the true A. cruzi. I cannot say which species it is from the photos available, but it is not A. cruzi.

There are at least 2, possibly more species/forms listed as "A. eunotus". These should be labeled "A. cf. eunotus". None are the holotype (with deep body/high back) form of A. eunotus.

The fish labeled "A. inconspicua" do not show the double caudal patch that is seen on A. inconspicua. The fright pattern on the fish is rather odd, however, so it might just be the photos do not show the normal dark markings - including the caudal patch.

The pattern of stripes on the caudal fin of the fish labeled "A. resticulosa" is wrong for this species. It is a resticulosa-complex species, most likely one of the forms of A. cf. taeniata.

Your members have some very nice fish on your club's site!

 

[DaRe]

Fantastic feedback! Thanks. I will see to adjusting it a bit.

What makes you draw those conclusions for cruzi?

I think some of the ones called eunotes on our site was sold as babyface... Not sure if that is valuable though.

Would you say A. inconspicua is close enough to keep it for now until I find a photo of a better representative for the species?

A. resticulosa. Did you click on the photo it will enlarge abit up to 1200 pixels width, not sure if that help in identifying though. Any idea on which one of these it would represent:
A 1 Apistogramma taeniata "Cupari"
A 2 Apistogramma cf. taeniata "Tapajós"
A 3 Apistogramma cf. taeniata "Arapiuns"
A 4 Apistogramma cf. taeniata "Igarapé A?u"
A 5 Apistogramma cf. taeniata "Óbidos"
A 6 Apistogramma cf. taeniata "Curuá-Una"
A 7 Apistogramma cf. taeniata "Curuá"
A 8 Apistogramma cf. taeniata "Prainha"
A 9 Apistogramma cf. taeniata "Xingu"
A 10 Apistogramma cf. taeniata "Blauglanz"



/David Rejdemyhr

The fish pictured as A. cruzi is not the true A. cruzi. I cannot say which species it is from the photos available, but it is not A. cruzi.

There are at least 2, possibly more species/forms listed as "A. eunotus". These should be labeled "A. cf. eunotus". None are the holotype (with deep body/high back) form of A. eunotus.

The fish labeled "A. inconspicua" do not show the double caudal patch that is seen on A. inconspicua. The fright pattern on the fish is rather odd, however, so it might just be the photos do not show the normal dark markings - including the caudal patch.

The pattern of stripes on the caudal fin of the fish labeled "A. resticulosa" is wrong for this species. It is a resticulosa-complex species, most likely one of the forms of A. cf. taeniata.

Your members have some very nice fish on your club's site!

 

[Mike Wise]

Fantastic feedback! Thanks. I will see to adjusting it a bit.

What makes you draw those conclusions for cruzi?

You can see the true A. cruzi, which Tom Christoffersen collected in the Río Mazan: http://apisto.sites.no/fish.aspx?fishIndexID=2287&gruppeID=1. It looks nothing like your fish: bicolored & non-patterned caudal fin vs. spots in the center of the caudal; metallic scales above the lateral band vs. non-metallic scales; different caudal spot shape. The problem is that A. cruzi comes from a location that is not commercially collected. See the effort Tom had to undergo just to collect this species: http://apisto.sites.no/page.aspx?PageId=60. Another problem is that the holotype used by Kullander to describe A. cruzi is different from some of the paratypes (specimens from the Río Putumayo = A. sp. Putumayo). This led to many collectors and hobbyists thinking that any eunotus-like fish with well developed abdominal stripes was A. cruzi. This is wrong. Most of the fish sold commercially as "A. cruzi" are actually A. sp. Nanay/Melgar. If I were asked to buy this fish, I would not. Why? Because I think that the wild parents of this fish were originally a mixture of 2 different species (A. sp. Pebas and A. sp. Putumayo), usually sold as A. sp. Algodon. The specimens in the photo show characteristics of both species. Still, with only 2 photos, one cannot be positive.

I think some of the ones called eunotes on our site was sold as babyface... Not sure if that is valuable though.

The photos by Enrico Richter are similar to those I have seen of a fish sold commercially as "A. sp. Baby-face". They are probably a population of A. sp. Pebas, but I am not positive. Gunnar Lutzen's and Kaj Persson's photos show fish typically sold as "A. eunotus". This is A. cf. eunotus Orangeschwanz/Orange-tail.

Would you say A. inconspicua is close enough to keep it for now until I find a photo of a better representative for the species?

If it were me, I would not. First, I believe that the fish in the photos is a female (or at best a juvenile male). Second it is more deep-bodied/high-backed than A. inconspicua. Third, and most important, the fish do not show the double caudal patch that is diagnostic of commbrae-complex species - and it should be very visible on a fish showing a fright pattern.

 

[DaRe]

ok, thanks.

 

[DaRe]

p.59 in Datz South American Dwarf Cichlids has a textbook picture of A. viejita by Ingo Koslowski.

Anyone who know how to get hold of Ingo. I'd like to ask him if we can use his picture...

 

[Rolo]

Anyone who know how to get hold of Ingo. I'd like to ask him if we can use his picture...

I just answered your mail that you can use my photos of A. viejita. ;-)

regards,
Rolo

 

[Rolo]

Are these guys correctly identified?

http://www.ciklid.org/artregister/artreg_visa_art.php?ID=1583

any help would be greatly appreciated!

/David

I'm not absolutely sure, but I would say, they are more likely young A. rubrolineata.

regards,
Rolo

 

[Mike Wise]

Ingo's photos usually aren't available to anyone but DATZ and himself, of course. Check with Rainer Stawikowski, editor of DATZ.

 

[DaRe]

I just saw the mail. Super! That made my weekend.:biggrin:

If anyone else wishes to contribute to this open, non commercial species register let me know. It is run by the Nprdic cichlid association and currently i am part of the board running it, we have member from all o ver the world but mostly in Sweden, Denmak, Finland. An overview what we lack can be seen here, but please check for bad pictures in the reg as well meny can be replaced.
http://www.ciklid.org/artregister/artreg_visa_slakte.php?ID=6


/David

I just answered your mail that you can use my photos of A. viejita. ;-)

regards,
Rolo