Pelvicachromis roloffi ID

[_BaDgUy_]

I bought in an auction a few weeks back a pair of Pelvicachromis roloffi, or at least thats what was written on the bag. Didn't make a case of it, since they were stressed out, and therefore not much colors.

Now they have finally settled in some time ago, and I always had a doubt about them.

The female looks alot like a normal P. pulcher. The male also looks like a P. pulcher, but the fins seem a bit more flowing, a bit longer, and there seems to be a bit more red on the underpart of the body, all the way up to the snout.

Anyone can tell me pointers on IDing P. roloffi, as I seriously doubt they are real. I presume I have an extra colourful pair of P. pulcher.

Thanks!

 

[Neil]

_BaDgUy_,

Here is a direct quote from L&S I.
"Numerous small roundish black spots bordering yellowish golden are usually observed in the vacinity of the bases of dorsal and caudal fins. This spotted pattern is a trait particular to Pelvicachromis roloffi." (Thys, 1968).
However, I think that if you feel that you have an "an extra colourful pair of P. pulcher", then I would say that it is unlikely that you have roloffi.
Neil

 

[_BaDgUy_]

Apart from those spots, do both P. pulcher and P. roloffi look alike?

Any good pictures of P. roloffi lying around on the net so I could compare?

Also, what is the adult size of P. roloffi?

Thanks,
David

 

[Randall]

Pelvicachromis roloffi

Dear David,

I'd need to see a photo or two to ID your purported P. roloffi.

Thanks!

Randall Kohn

 

[_BaDgUy_]

I'll try to get my hands on a digital camera to take some pictures. Hopefully this weekend.

David

 

[jonah]

Here is a direct quote from L&S I.
"Numerous small roundish black spots bordering yellowish golden are usually observed in the vacinity of the bases of dorsal and caudal fins. This spotted pattern is a trait particular to Pelvicachromis roloffi." (Thys, 1968).

I have a female rollofi (male died) and this is a very good description. Lots of yellow and a row of small black spots on the fins.

 

[Randall]

IDing Pelv. roloffi

Dear David,

Although it is rare in the hobby, you could conceivably have P. roloffi.

Like Neil notes, P. roloffi exhibit a few round dark spots in the caudal and doral fin base and a dark broad lateral stripe, extending from the mouth through the caudal peduncle. Males grow to about 9 cm. and females to about 6 cm.

Its range extends from southern Liberia to northern Sierra Leone, and it is sympatric with P. humillis. Apparently, this fish's population density is low, so it is not widely commercially collected.

Let's see some photos, please.

Good luck!

Randall Kohn

 

[tjudy]

I think roloffi has more in common with P. subocellatus than P. pulcher.

 

[_BaDgUy_]

I was reading other posts, more specifically the one on P. "sacrimontis"..

I definitaly do not have P. roloffi, but if I compare with pictures on the web, seems like it looks more like P. "sacrimontis". Has red coloring up to the nose, and those blue iridescent blotches on the gill covers. My other regular kribs do not have those blotches.

Also, the P. couple that I have, well, they spawned about 2 weeks ago, and the fry are free swimming now. They seem to grow up about twice as fast as regular P. pulcher fry, could this help to ID them?

I also have a brother in law comming this afternoon, hopefully with his digital camera if he does not forget it... will be able to take some good quality pictures!

 

[Randall]

Pelvicachromis ID

Dear BaDgUy,

What is your name, please?

If your Pelvicachromis sp. have blue lines or blotches under the eyes and on the gill plates, you probably have Pelvicachromis sp. aff. pulcher, a.k.a. P. 'sacrimontis'. This is the only Pelv. form that exhibits this.

Best of luck with them.

Special note to the Forum:

Although this Nigerian dwarf cichlid has been around since the 1960s, the validity of the taxon Pelvicachromis 'sacrimontis' for P. sp. aff. pulcher has been controversial. It appears that contrary to what some ichthyologists have written, Pelvicachromis sacrimontis Paulo 1977 is indeed a valid taxon. After a promised diagnosis has been published, I will elaborate further.

All the best,

Randall Kohn