Need a little help understanding this...

[StillLearningApistos]

Hey, everyone. I've posted a few times here and there, mostly about a year or so ago. As the name implies, I'm still trying to understand/learn all I can about this genus, but, as many of you know, the whole common name/trade name/random naming of different "varieties", or "forms", or "colors", or whatever name anyone wants to call them is getting a bit cumbersome. Specifically in regard to the trade names/crosses/color forms thing. Trust me...I understand that taxonomy is tough, especially with such a rich and diverse genus and, essentially, very little field research outside of the aquarium trade going on due to location and funding. I'm a wildlife biologist by trade. I had the same issues with the whole renaming/rearranging/splitting of the genus Etheostoma (darters) in the eastern US several years ago. The difference there, though, is I could drive to all of those locations and collect each geographic set and look at them myself, or just go to one of a handful of universities and look at the collections there. It was much easier than going to South America. Hahaha.

With all that being said, I'm having a few issues with a couple species and their identification. I'm not here to argue lumping vs. splitting or anything like that. That's a whole other discussion and typically is very subjective. What I'm curious about is in regard to two "species" in particular. I'm looking to get a couple new species/forms/something, and I've been in contact with a breeder. He sent me his list, and what the fish were sold to him as, along with a couple pictures, but the more I read on here and the internet as a whole, the more I'm starting to wonder if it's accurate? Here is what I'm looking for guidance/an opinion on. Some of you in here have made this your life/love, and I trust what you can tell me. And before anyone says anything...yes, I'm aware it's hard to get ID's from pictures alone, especially some of these, but it's what I have, so whatever you can tell me would be helpful. The beauty of the fishes isn't in question...just what species name you would give them.

Here is one that I'm told is "Apistogramma sp. Purple". The seller told me that it is "A. orgegai Pebas", but when I search "A. sp. Purple" here and on the internet, it seems that most call them something different, but I can't quite find one that looks like this. Most of what the internet calls "A. sp. Purple" is more slender bodied with a different overall shape. Thoughts/help with this whole "Apistogramma sp. Purple" thing?

The second question I have is about this guy. I am told, as was the seller, that it is "Apistogramma viejita", but after reading here and elsewhere, and comparing other pics, I'm almost positive myself that it is actually "A. macmasteri". Thoughts?

Sorry if I come across in any way. I don't mean to if so. I'm just genuinely curious about this stuff. I realize that this genus is huge, rich, and diverse, and that many species are isolated as hell. I'm just trying to understand. I appreciate the help.

Thanks!

Tony

 

[MacZ]

The second question I have is about this guy. I am told, as was the seller, that it is "Apistogramma viejita", but after reading here and elsewhere, and comparing other pics, I'm almost positive myself that it is actually "A. macmasteri". Thoughts?

Can't help you with the A. ortegai-group species, but with this one.

I estimate 99% of fish offered in the non-specialty trade under the names A. viejita or A. sp. "Viejita" or A. sp. "Viejita II" or similar names, are forms of A. macmasteri. Sometimes colour breeds, sometimes more or less wild form, nobody in the trade (or elsewhere outside the dwarf cichlid afficionado circles) really cares. E.g. the picture in the Wikipedia-article for A. viejita shows A. macmasteri "Gold", a domestic colour breed you won't find in nature.

The true A. viejita you can find here:

Welcome to Toms Homepage

The list is the most comprehensive and complete list you will find anywhere, curated by Tom, Mike and Frank, all present here on the forum.

 

[StillLearningApistos]

Can't help you with the A. ortegai-group species, but with this one.

I estimate 99% of fish offered in the non-specialty trade under the names A. viejita or A. sp. "Viejita" or A. sp. "Viejita II" or similar names, are forms of A. macmasteri. Sometimes colour breeds, sometimes more or less wild form, nobody in the trade (or elsewhere outside the dwarf cichlid afficionado circles) really cares. E.g. the picture in the Wikipedia-article for A. viejita shows A. macmasteri "Gold", a domestic colour breed you won't find in nature.

The true A. viejita you can find here:

Welcome to Toms Homepage

The list is the most comprehensive and complete list you will find anywhere, curated by Tom, Mike and Frank, all present here on the forum.

See, based on this, again, I'd have to agree with your statement. This looks more like A. macmasteri to me, and a one that has been selected for that red patch. Though the spot at the base of the caudal fin/peduncle looks a bit more defined, based on the pictures, anyway. But I know it's one fish from one breeder and that variation occurs everywhere.

Thanks for the response!

 

[Mike Wise]

As for the first question. Purple in English = morado in Spanish. One of the original commercial names used for this species was A. sp. "Morado". Specimens of this species, unfortunately, were included among the paratypes for A. ortegai. Genetic testing (unpublished) has shown that this species is different from A. ortegai. The holotype and other listed specimens in the paper were collected near Pebas, where local collectors had transplanted them from a more distant and dangerous (coca production) location in the middle Rio Ampiyacu. Thus the List on Tom's site (https://www.tomc.no/page.aspx?pageid=127) lists it as A. cf. ortegai (Pebas). I could add some other interesting information, but that is for Dr. Sabaj-Pérez to provide.

As for the photo of the fish, it is an older male (note nuchal hump) and a bit obese. These are wild caught specimens that Tom and I collected in 2008 near Pebas:

 

[StillLearningApistos]

As for the first question. Purple in English = morado in Spanish. One of the original commercial names used for this species was A. sp. "Morado". Specimens of this species, unfortunately, were included among the paratypes for A. ortegai. Genetic testing (unpublished) has shown that this species is different from A. ortegai. The holotype and other listed specimens in the paper were collected near Pebas, where local collectors had transplanted them from a more distant and dangerous (coca production) location in the middle Rio Ampiyacu. Thus the List on Tom's site (https://www.tomc.no/page.aspx?pageid=127) lists it as A. cf. ortegai (Pebas). I could add some other interesting information, but that is for Dr. Sabaj-Pérez to provide.

As for the photo of the fish, it is an older male (note nuchal hump) and a bit obese. These are wild caught specimens that Tom and I collected in 2008 near Pebas:
View attachment 16290

Interesting. So the fish I posted is, according to what you're telling me and unbpulished genetic data, not A. orgegai, but instead, A. morado/A. sp. purple?

 

[StillLearningApistos]

As for the first question. Purple in English = morado in Spanish. One of the original commercial names used for this species was A. sp. "Morado". Specimens of this species, unfortunately, were included among the paratypes for A. ortegai. Genetic testing (unpublished) has shown that this species is different from A. ortegai. The holotype and other listed specimens in the paper were collected near Pebas, where local collectors had transplanted them from a more distant and dangerous (coca production) location in the middle Rio Ampiyacu. Thus the List on Tom's site (https://www.tomc.no/page.aspx?pageid=127) lists it as A. cf. ortegai (Pebas). I could add some other interesting information, but that is for Dr. Sabaj-Pérez to provide.

As for the photo of the fish, it is an older male (note nuchal hump) and a bit obese. These are wild caught specimens that Tom and I collected in 2008 near Pebas:
View attachment 16290

You know, this actually makes me wanna get hold of several individuals of this group and look at morphometrics and meristics between each of the species. Do you know of any papers or anyone currently doing work on them? I'd love to read/talk with them if so. I've always been interested in similar species using morphological characters. I know that genetics is sometimes needed, but it's always fun to try.

You've got me interested in this...

 

[Ben Rhau]

I estimate 99% of fish offered in the non-specialty trade under the names A. viejita or A. sp. "Viejita" or A. sp. "Viejita II" or similar names, are forms of A. macmasteri.

It would say far greater than 99% are macs. Viejita would never be offered for general sale, they would all be spoken for.

 

[anewbie]

It would say far greater than 99% are macs. Viejita would never be offered for general sale, they would all be spoken for.

They must be in a very difficult to reach location because they are also never imported - not htat i have a huge interest.

 

[MacZ]

It would say far greater than 99% are macs. Viejita would never be offered for general sale, they would all be spoken for.

I wrote 99 because I like to include 1% error margin. Just the very unlikely chance.

 

[Tom C]

They must be in a very difficult to reach location because they are also never imported ....

We collected A. viejita at the type locality, in January 2017:

Before that time it was very difficult to collect them, as the area was controlled by the FARC guerrillas.

It is easy to get to this area, but of course you'll have to know where to go, invest time and money to get there, and know what to catch.
One reason for low interest from the collectors and exporters could be that A. viejita doesn't show much color when caught and frightened:

 

[StillLearningApistos]

So, again, just for verification, the pictures I posted originally are, as far as those in here can tell based on knowledge, experience, and pics posted, A. macmasteri (assuming some bred variety) and A. morado/sp. purple, correct? Not A. viejita and/or A. ortegai?

 

[MacZ]

So, again, just for verification, the pictures I posted originally are, as far as those in here can tell based on knowledge, experience, and pics posted, A. macmasteri (assuming some bred variety) and A. morado/sp. purple, correct? Not A. viejita and/or A. ortegai?

Not A. viejita but A. macmasteri, correct.

 

[Mike Wise]

... and not "A. morado/sp. purple". It is not a scientifically described species. It is best to refer to it as A. cf. ortegai (Pebas). Morado/Purple is just a commercial name.

Original description for A. ortegai: Britzki et al. 2014. Apistogramma ortegai (Teleostei: Cichlidae), a new species of cichlid fish from the Ampyiacu River in the Peruvian Amazon basin. Zootaxa 3869(4):409-419.

Paper is online at: https://www.researchgate.net/public...e_Ampyiacu_River_in_the_Peruvian_Amazon_basin