Is the baenschi in the aqualog or the Mergus Atlas?

[jakeowen]

I can't seem to find them, are they in there under another name?

I may pick up a pair soon.

thanks,
Jay

 

[Mike Wise]

No, it isn't. CAII is now 15 years old! The book was out of day (re: IDs) when it came out. It's not even in any of the supplement pages. A. baenschi wasn't discovered until 2003. It is in the "Aqualog Extra: Die nuesten/the latest Apistogramma" by Deiter Bork under A. baenschi. BTW Bork's "A. sp. Inka II" is the same species as A. sp. Zwilling, not A. baenschi (=A. sp. Inka I).

 

[Apistomaster]

Mike,
I only have the Aqualog Cichlids II and the supplement booklet. I have never had any A. baenschi which looked as colorful as the specimens shown in the Aqualog II series. Is that because the true A. baenschi is not quite as intensely colored?

I seem to remember the wild pairs of A. nissenji and A. panduro were much more colorful than the tank raised specimens bred in the Czech Republic in recent years. Am I just remembering something so fondly that my wild pairs were much more colorful in my mind or do you think the run of commercially bred strains have lost some color over the years of captive breeding?

 

[Mike Wise]

The first photos I saw were by the Japanese collectors. They were good looking fish. Looking at the photo, I'm pretty sure much of the color was due to the daylight in which the aquarium was located. Then again, post processing of digital photos can 'improve' on nature. Mayland & Bork's book is a prime example of this.