A.PROPHECY Posted January 29, 2009 Report Share Posted January 29, 2009 yea maybe devils or chromid Etroplus maculatus ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
go4itgirl Posted March 17, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 17, 2009 Just to say that I now have many many of these fish and the parents make superb parents taking their own food and crushing it and spitting it out for the babies. Fascinating to watch. wee one loves watching "her babies". Feel sorry for parents chasing all those littlies through the weed. LOL. Dad is starting to get a raised forehead but they are still both definitely a gold colour. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David R Posted March 18, 2009 Report Share Posted March 18, 2009 I hope you're not planning on unleashing them on the unsuspecting public without identifying them first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phoenix44 Posted March 18, 2009 Report Share Posted March 18, 2009 put some more pics up and make sure the MACRO mode on your camera is on. the button looks like a tulip. then we can ID the fishy for certain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
livingart Posted March 18, 2009 Report Share Posted March 18, 2009 as a proph said probably chromides hard to tell from the pics though check out these pages green chromide http://www.aquariumlife.net/profiles/as ... 100126.asp orange chromide http://www.aquariumlife.net/profiles/as ... 100053.asp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phoenix44 Posted March 18, 2009 Report Share Posted March 18, 2009 That's a pretty big chromide though. and the raised forehead thing is not consistent with chromides is it? plus breeding chromides isn't exactly an easy task with the whole brackish breeding thing going on.. but i dunno.. it wont be the first time I'm wrong :lol: EDIT - Minus the green chromide.. i just checked out its profile. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
livingart Posted March 18, 2009 Report Share Posted March 18, 2009 sorry didn't read the size of fish :oops: i bred chromides in freshwater a few years back though Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
go4itgirl Posted March 19, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 19, 2009 These have been idenitified as Red or Midas cichlids by Paul Billingsley. sorry I didn't make that clearer in an early posting Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
livingart Posted March 19, 2009 Report Share Posted March 19, 2009 thank you for clarification Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David R Posted March 19, 2009 Report Share Posted March 19, 2009 These have been idenitified as Red or Midas cichlids by Paul Billingsley. A common name is hardly "identified". By "red cichlids" do he/you mean "red devils"? Because "red devils" and "midas cichlids" are actually two different species (midas = Amphilophus citrinellus, red devil = A. labiatius). Wild caught fish (or captive bred from a known source) are distinctly different, A. citrinellus grows larger (to ~ 14" for males) and develops a large nuchal hump. A. labiatus is smaller (10-12" for males) and has much larger lips and IIRC no (or not much of a) nuchal hump. Large male A. citrinellus; A. labiatus: More pictures here: http://tangledupincichlids.com/photo.html However, all of this is pretty much irrelevant, mostly because of this hobbys sad habit of not learning Latin names. Chances are, unless you can positively trace the origins of your fish back to wild populations, that they have been (unintentionally) hybridised somewhere along the way. Most people aren't able to tell the difference, and didn't bother trying to learn. The common names 'midas' and 'red devil' got mixed up by ignorant hobbyists and lazy retailers/wholesalers, and before you know it because of their willingness to [inter]breed are unknowingly creating confusion. So I guess it doesn't really matter what you call them, because there is no governance or rules for using common names you can call them what ever you like, and as long as you're not trying to pass it off as a Latin name for one species or another then you can't technically be wrong. This is a prime example of why common names are nonsensical rubbish and anyone who considers themselves to have a slight interest in fish should go to the trouble of learning a bit about Latin/Binomial nomenclature. Sadly, we don't have the opportunity to buy wild caught and positively identified fish from people like Jeff Rapps, and even if we did I'm sure there would still be more people out there who would rather by 10 2cm fry for $10 on trademe than pay $20 for a single F1 fish from a known locality and a reputable breeder. BTW, none of this is a dig at you personally, just lamenting about the sad state of our hobby in general... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj Posted March 19, 2009 Report Share Posted March 19, 2009 so that equates to a dig? ... just a polite one Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ryanjury Posted March 19, 2009 Report Share Posted March 19, 2009 so that equates to a dig? ... just a polite one I think it equates to a if your going to actually identify something then use a Sc name if at all possible because common names cause confusion and don't actually identify anything.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David R Posted March 19, 2009 Report Share Posted March 19, 2009 Meh, take it as you will. If go4itgirl chooses to take it as a dig then thats fine by me, she could also choose to be informed and motivated to do more research and further her own knowledge of the fish she is keeping. Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you react to it.... :roll: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj Posted March 19, 2009 Report Share Posted March 19, 2009 heh true :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muzz Posted March 19, 2009 Report Share Posted March 19, 2009 Just trying to further my own knowledge. How do we ID fish that have been in the aquarium trade for a long time. That have been breed for colour, finnage and size etc. They dont look like there wild cousins but are true to species blood lines (not hybrid). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David R Posted March 20, 2009 Report Share Posted March 20, 2009 They dont look like there wild cousins but are true to species blood lines (not hybrid). If you know they aren't hybrids and are true species then you must already know what they are. No amount of selective breeding will change a species name, so long as it hasn't been crossed with a different species. Crossing two different subspecies together would create a hybrid, for example crossing Polytperus bichir bichir with Polypterus bichir lapradei, but crossing two of the same species from different localities would not, for example crossing two reigonal varieties of frontosa, say Cyphotilipia frontosa Burundi and C. frontosa Zaire, would not. Just look at people, the child of a black african man and an asian woman would still be Homo sapiens, despite the vast difference in "reigonal varieties". So how would you identify a fish of unknown origins (like the A. citrinellus/labiatus in this thread)? By finding the descriptions for each species (fishbase.org is a good place to start) and looking at pictures from a reliable source (ie in books like Axelrods Encyclopedia, or on sites like tangledupincichlids.com that use their own pics of their own positively ID'd fish, not from random websites using random pictures from unknown sources). The most important thing to remember is that it is far better to admit you don't know and aren't sure and proliferate a mystery than to guess or say you know when you really aren't 100% sure and proliferate a misnoma.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muzz Posted March 20, 2009 Report Share Posted March 20, 2009 So what you are saying here is that I can interbreed angelfish, Pterophyllum Scalare and Pterophyllum Altum to get the traits that I'm looking for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
livingart Posted March 20, 2009 Report Share Posted March 20, 2009 Crossing two different subspecies together would create a hybrid, for example crossing Polytperus bichir bichir with Polypterus bichir lapradei substitute Pterophyllum Scalare and Pterophyllum Altum into that sentence Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muzz Posted March 20, 2009 Report Share Posted March 20, 2009 Just look at people, the child of a black african man and an asian woman would still be Homo sapiens Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phoenix44 Posted March 20, 2009 Report Share Posted March 20, 2009 No. the genus is just Homo. and the species is Homo sapiens. or H. Sapiens sapiens to be more correct. 2 humans, irrespective of race will still produce the same species. geographic segmentation has not lead the human race to form distinct species. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muzz Posted March 20, 2009 Report Share Posted March 20, 2009 I got some more learning to do then :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
livingart Posted March 20, 2009 Report Share Posted March 20, 2009 try here for some info on angelfish genetics http://theangelfishsociety.org/genetics.htm the average angelfish available nowadays is the result of hybridisation Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David R Posted March 20, 2009 Report Share Posted March 20, 2009 substitute Pterophyllum Scalare and Pterophyllum Altum into that sentence Neither of those are subspecies of anything, both separate species, what am I missing? The link looks interesting, although in my breif scan of it I saw more talk of genetic mutation and recessive genes rather than inter-species hybrids. Although I don't doubt that most angelfish sold in stores are "mongrels". how then does it fit this sentance. black african man = Nigeroid asian woman = mongoloid Two different species of Homo sapiens As Phoenix pointed out, Homo sapiens IS the species (Genus = Homo, species = sapiens). It never ceases to amaze me how many people incorrectly use the word species. Wikipedia has a lot of good information if you want to learn more, the page for species is interesting, as is the page for Race (classification of human beings). I hate wiki though, its one of those things where a quick check of something can lead to hours of distraction when there are much more important things you should be doing... :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phoenix44 Posted March 20, 2009 Report Share Posted March 20, 2009 That's a very good link mark.. now you just have to fins me some nice angels like them! PS- i like altums Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
livingart Posted March 20, 2009 Report Share Posted March 20, 2009 wiki page is good too http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pterophyllum yes phoenix i would love some true altums, they grow into stunning fish saw some biggies in auckland years ago at a pet shop by the riccarton racecourse i think Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.