Trifasciata and Macilinesis????

[chris1932]

What is it that makes these fish different from each other??? I have seen both in person and for the life of me I cant tell. Does anyone have a good picture of the two fish? I am asking because I can get both fish locally. I have a nice pair if Trifasciata and I like the trifas group. I just dont want to end up with the same thing I already have.

Chris

 

[Mike Wise]

I have seen the only A. trifasciata maciliensis - preserved at Chicago's Field Museum. Trust me, this form is not seen in the hobby. I assume that by "maciliensis" that you mean the undescribed species, A. sp. Mamoré. This species is often erroneously called "A. maciliensis". It is easily separated from the true A. trifasciata by:

Body shape: A. t. - more slender (like A. agassizii); A. sp. M - deeper body (like A. cacatuoides)

Lateral band: A. t. - lateral band fairly even in width and usually visible all along its length; A. sp. M - lateral band expands in width toward the tail and often is not visible in front of the pectoral fins.

Third stripe: A. t. - usually distinct from the pectoral fin to the anus, on Guaporé form it may be indistinct or broken (once considered the maciliensis population, too); A. sp. M - no third stripe.

 

[fernandoperini]

then to call AP maciliensis is missed? mamoré would be the name of the river or the species?
this of the maciliensis photo was bought as AP maciliensis red tail river mamoré, is truth or is missed?

http://img82.imageshack.us/img82/6247/maciliensismamore1kn9.jpg

http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/4585/maciliensismamor2do5.jpg

thanks

 

[bourdinite]

on this photo i look like an apisti maciliensis!!

 

[bourdinite]

on your photo, i look like an apisto maciliensis

 

[Mike Wise]

The identification of your fish is incorrect. The photos show a beautiful male A. sp. Mamoré. The red spots at the bottom of the opercula are seen only some A. sp. Mamoré, but never on A. trifasciata.

I believe the identification problem is due to Dr. Römer's book "Cichlid Atlas 1". He misidentified this species as "A. maciliensis". When the book was written (late 1990s) there was much confusion about what fish actually represents "Heterogramma trifasciatum macilense (Haseman 1911)" (now called A. trifasciata macilensis or A. maciliensis). We now know that A. sp. Mamoré is NOT the same species as Haseman's fish. Sadly Dr. Römer did not correct this error (or any other errors of which I am aware) in his second volume.

 

[chris1932]

Mike
This is where I was confused. I have Trifasciata and Mamore. I have seen fish listed for sale as "macilienisis" but they always look the same as trifasciata. The Cichlid Atlas 1 has the Mamore information, but then the DATZ book says on page 93

"It cannot be excluded that this species is identical with A. (trifasciata) maciliensis (Haseman, 1911), but for clarification a critical check of the type material is necessary"

I know you stated in a previous reply that the preserved species at the Field is the only one. Are they just not found, extinct? Did Haseman list a catch location as in river, town, or just a general area, country? How did the fish at the Field look? would it fall in the trifasciata group?