- Messages
- 29
this is a total mistake here in america a lot claim to have some lifalili,but in europe this fish is realy not common.same thing for the impossible to find bimaculatus.
-
Hello guest! Are you an Apistogramma enthusiast? If so we invite you to join our community and see what it has to offer. Our site is specifically designed for you and it's a great place for Apisto enthusiasts to meet online. Once you join you'll be able to post messages, upload pictures of your fish and tanks and have a great time with other Apisto enthusiasts. Sign up today!
seriously who here have some real lifalili?
- Thread starter k98
- Start date
- Messages
- 2,822
- Location
- Stoughton, WI
You are correct.. true lifallili are hard to find. The problem is that they so closely resemble aquarium-strain bimaculatum and some populations of letourneux that have been coming in. A lot of the tank strain fish are also hybrids.
I know that Ken Davis has some (Fish_farm or FishFarmUSA on most forums and AB), and I trust he knows what he has.
I know that Ken Davis has some (Fish_farm or FishFarmUSA on most forums and AB), and I trust he knows what he has.
- Messages
- 29
bimaculatus are impossible to buy.
- Messages
- 2,822
- Location
- Stoughton, WI
My understanding is that the industry-produced strains of jewels (Florida, SEA) were originated from H. bimaculatus and H. gutattus stock (but I could be worng about that). Over the decades the strains have become so hybridized and artificially selected that there is no telling what they are really.
The natural range of the species of the range is stated as being Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone, but the exact collection location is not known (Lamboj 2004), although Lamboj shows an image of H. bimaculatus he collected in Sierra Leone, so the location in that nation is known. Sierra Leone and Liberia are not safe places to travel at the moment, but the politics in Liberia are changing, so maybe someone will be able to collect there in a few years.
The natural range of the species of the range is stated as being Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone, but the exact collection location is not known (Lamboj 2004), although Lamboj shows an image of H. bimaculatus he collected in Sierra Leone, so the location in that nation is known. Sierra Leone and Liberia are not safe places to travel at the moment, but the politics in Liberia are changing, so maybe someone will be able to collect there in a few years.
- Messages
- 29
the lifalili from lucanus are cf(confer)so............
- Messages
- 29
they are realy not like the fish pict on this forum.one of them are not true,or maybe they dont look the same,because they are not colected from the same place?
- Messages
- 1,164
- Location
- New Jersey, USA
Red Hemichromis sp. confusion
Hello friends,
Here are some observations concerning this tread.
Hemichromis lifalili is not as common as some would believe, indeed. Years ago, a very red, heavily spangled form of H. guttatus was selectivly bred in what was East Germany, and many of the H. lifalili that I've seen are probably H. guttatus and not H. lifalili. Although I've not seen them, the "Hemichromis cf. lifallili (sic) Bangui Congo" offered by Oliver Lucanus may be H. sp "Bangui" (a form that resembles H. letourneauxi and may be a population of that species), if they are collected in the Ubangi system. If not, they may very well be H. lifalili. For more information concerning H. sp. "Bangui," please refer to the following link. Now that they are available in England, Matt Clarke at "Practical Fishkeeping" magazine will be publishing a H. sp. "Bangui" article on the "PFK" web site as well.
http://www.apistogramma.com/cms/Hemichromis/Hemichromis_sp._Bangui/Hemichromis_sp._Bangui/
As for H. bimaculatus, this is even more confusing. Way back in 1979, Paul Loiselle pointed out that the popular Hemichromis species of the aquarium trade, commonly labled 'H. bimaculatus,' was in fact H. guttatus. As far as I know, the common, commercially-produced jewel fish correspond to the later species. Although some may not agree, the designation 'H. bimaculatus' corresponds to a single preserved 78 mm (SL) female specimen that is housed in the Smithsonian. When Gill described this specimen as H. bimaculatus in 1862, he wrote that its origin was "probably Liberia." Anton Lamboj's quotation on page 107 of his book, stating the type locality of this species as "possibly Liberia," is incorrect. It can not be said with absolute certainty, however, if the presumed H. bimaculatus in the European hobby, and if the specimens from Sierra Leone depicted in Lamboj's book, correspond to H. bimaculatus Gill 1862. As far as I know, the species that we call H. bimaculatus in not available in the U.S. hobby. If it is, I've never seen it.
Work with Hemichromis systematics is ongoing. Hopefully within the next couple of years, we'll have some new information.
All the best,
Randall Kohn
Hello friends,
Here are some observations concerning this tread.
Hemichromis lifalili is not as common as some would believe, indeed. Years ago, a very red, heavily spangled form of H. guttatus was selectivly bred in what was East Germany, and many of the H. lifalili that I've seen are probably H. guttatus and not H. lifalili. Although I've not seen them, the "Hemichromis cf. lifallili (sic) Bangui Congo" offered by Oliver Lucanus may be H. sp "Bangui" (a form that resembles H. letourneauxi and may be a population of that species), if they are collected in the Ubangi system. If not, they may very well be H. lifalili. For more information concerning H. sp. "Bangui," please refer to the following link. Now that they are available in England, Matt Clarke at "Practical Fishkeeping" magazine will be publishing a H. sp. "Bangui" article on the "PFK" web site as well.
http://www.apistogramma.com/cms/Hemichromis/Hemichromis_sp._Bangui/Hemichromis_sp._Bangui/
As for H. bimaculatus, this is even more confusing. Way back in 1979, Paul Loiselle pointed out that the popular Hemichromis species of the aquarium trade, commonly labled 'H. bimaculatus,' was in fact H. guttatus. As far as I know, the common, commercially-produced jewel fish correspond to the later species. Although some may not agree, the designation 'H. bimaculatus' corresponds to a single preserved 78 mm (SL) female specimen that is housed in the Smithsonian. When Gill described this specimen as H. bimaculatus in 1862, he wrote that its origin was "probably Liberia." Anton Lamboj's quotation on page 107 of his book, stating the type locality of this species as "possibly Liberia," is incorrect. It can not be said with absolute certainty, however, if the presumed H. bimaculatus in the European hobby, and if the specimens from Sierra Leone depicted in Lamboj's book, correspond to H. bimaculatus Gill 1862. As far as I know, the species that we call H. bimaculatus in not available in the U.S. hobby. If it is, I've never seen it.
Work with Hemichromis systematics is ongoing. Hopefully within the next couple of years, we'll have some new information.
All the best,
Randall Kohn
- Messages
- 29
yeah they came from bangui congo
ty
ty
Similar threads
