Re: payaminonis???

[Mike & Diane Wise <apistowise@fgn.net>]

Bill,

Location names is my preferred method. I really
don't like codes because they do not mean anything
except to the specialist, and as I once read,
"specialization is for insects". ;-) Unfortunately
we don't always have all of the information we
need. This is true for the problem with the
different forms of A. payaminonis.

The material for the original description of A.
payaminonis came from several side streams of the
Rio Payamino, a tributary of the upper Rio Napo in
Ecuador. The first live import was a female from
the Rio Coca (upper Rio Napo) of Ecuador. Staeck's
fish came from the Rio Payamino drainage, plus the
Rio Aguarico (upper Rio Napo) in Ecuador, & the
Rio San Miguel (upper Rio Putumayo) on the
Ecuador/Colombia border. I do not know if Staeck
kept these fish as separate populations, but I
doubt it. Kästner found his A. payaminonis form as
contaminants among fish exported from Manaus,
Brazil. I personally doubt that this fish is
Brazilian in origin. It probably was mixed with
the Brazilian fish sometime after being shipped to
Germany.

Now, looking at the photos of Staeck's, Kästner's,
& Mike's fish I see differences. Some have a
double tipped caudal fin with a weak pattern of
banding. Others have round to subtruncate tails
with no banding. There is minor variation in the
size and shape of the lateral & caudal spots.
Abdominal markings differ, too. Whether or not any
of these are significant enough to make them
different species is debatable. For now I want to
assume that the fish from each locality are the
same species although possibly geographically
different populations. Still Staeck's fish exhibit
features that do not exactly match those described
by Kullander in his original description.
Koslowski sees sufficient differences from
Staeck's fish that he labels Kästner's fish 'A.
cf. payaminonis'. Mike's fish come from a location
different from any of the other locations. The
location is still a 'commercial secret' that I
will continue to respect until notified otherwise.
All that I can say is that they were collected in
Peru. Yet Mike's fish most closely resemble
Kullander's original description.

So what do we do? Should we list them all as 1
species, 3 or 4 different populations of a single
species, or 3 different 'cf' forms that may or may
not be different species? I don't know, but I
would hate to see them mixed & then discover that
we have the same problem that occurred with A. sp.
Tefé & A. agassizii. Maybe for the time being we
should just list them by who collected them. Thus
we have A. cf. payaminonis (Staeck) for offspring
from Staeck's stock, like David Soares' & A. cf.
payaminonis (Melgar) for Mike's fish, etc. (I
understand that Kästner's fish has disappeared in
the hobby). I think this is far superior to using
inexact location names like Ecuador, Peru, &
Brazil(?) respectively. Just my opinion.

Mike Wise

William Vannerson wrote:

>  >>>Any suggestions?Is it too soon to suggest
> adding location codes like the killie folks do.
> It's possible they are different species.  AZnd
> it's sounds equally plausable they are
> geographic variations of the same species.Bill
> Vannerson
> McHenry, IL
> http://vannerson.home.att.net/

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is the apistogramma mailing list,
apisto@listbox.com.
For instructions on how to subscribe or
unsubscribe or get help,
email apisto-request@listbox.com.
apisto-digest@listbox.com also available.
Web archives at http://lists.thekrib.com/apisto





-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the apistogramma mailing list, apisto@listbox.com.
For instructions on how to subscribe or unsubscribe or get help,
email apisto-request@listbox.com. apisto-digest@listbox.com also available.
Web archives at http://lists.thekrib.com/apisto
Trading at http://blox.dropship.org/mailman/listinfo/apisto_trader