[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Index by Month]
Re: differentiating apisto species
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: differentiating apisto species
- From: Mike & Diane Wise <email@example.com>
- Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 10:53:14 -0600
- List-software: listbox.com v2.0
- User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax)
First of all, after seeing recent photos of specimens brought back by
Jeff Cardwell, I am not sure that A. maciliensis should be considered a
species separate from A. trifasciata. Basically, the only real
difference between A. trifasciata & A. maciliensis is that A.
maciliensis does not show (when alive, at least) the distinctive
diagonal stripe present on all A. trifasciata. It is very possible that
A. maciliensis is merely a geographic population of A. trifasciata.
Such populations were previously called a subspecies by ichthyologists,
but the term is not use anymore. The original describers were probably
correct in calling this form a subspecies.
The problem with A. maciliensis is that we are not absolutely positive
what a live specimen looks like. Very little collection has occurred in
the left bank (Bolivian) tributaries of the middle Rio Guaporé, the
known home waters of the maciliensis form. What has been collected was
mostly from right bank Brazilian streams. There we find the typical
Guaporé form of A. trifasciata (with the characteristic diagonal stripe,
as well as a bright yellow base color above the lateral band) and a
geographically distinct form of A. sp. Mamoré (which also shows the
bright yellow base color above the lateral band).
The Guaporean form of A. trifasciata was originally sold by Lacerda as
A. maciliensis. This is because specimens that he sent to Dr. Kullander
were ID'd as the maciliensis form, based mainly on location. Koslowski
wrote me that he had talked to Dr. Kullander about the A. maciliensis
ID. Kullander told him that he had probably erred in calling Lacerda's
fish maciliensis; that he had only taken a quick look at the preserved
fish and noted the collecting location. I personally don't know if Dr.
Kullander wrote Lacerda that they were A. maciliensis or the maciliensis
form of A. trifasciata. Either way he seems to have erred
In his Atlas, Römer states that A. sp. Mamoré is the true A.
maciliensis. I doubt that this is true, but I am not 100% positive. A.
sp. Mamoré does not have the diagonal stripe - just like A. maciliensis,
but other than this the dark markings on the 2 forms are different. A.
maciliensis (as well as A. trifasciata) has a continuous lateral band
that is relatively even in width; A. sp. Mamoré has a lateral band that
tends to get wider toward the tail and often fades out in front of the
lateral spot (Bar 3). A. sp. Mamoré usually shows a metallic red patch
at the lower edge of the gill covers; I do not recall such a patch being
mentioned in either Hasemann's (1911 - A.t.maciliensis) nor Meinken's
(1960 - A.t.haroldschultzi) descriptions of maciliensis. For now, I
believe that A. sp. Mamoré is a separate - undescribed - species related
to A. trifasciata - but NOT maciliensis.
Last week Jeff Cardwell sent me some photos of an A. trifasciata-like
fish that he recently collected in the Rio Itonamas of Bolivia. These
fish look just like A. trifasciata in color and finnage - except none
show any part of a diagonal stripe. This fish looks like the fish
described by both Hasemann and Meinken. It comes from the right
location, too. I told Jeff that this fish could reasonably be called A.
maciliensis. Those of you who go to the ACA Convention in Cincinnati
will see photos of the fish in Jeff's talk.
It appears that 2 probable misidentifications (Kullander & Römer) have
led to confusion with regard to the maciliensis form. The original "A.
maciliensis" [A. trifasciata (Guaporé)] sold by Lacerda is still being
sold as A. maciliensis. Since Römer's Atlas has come into wide use, his
"A. maciliensis" [A. sp. Mamoré] is now being sold as A. maciliensis,
too. Two very different fish - and neither are likely to be the true
maciliensis form! I can understand why Koslowski wrote in his book
(2002) "Whether these two taxa [A.t.maciliensis & A.t.haroldschultzi]
are possibly of species rank should not be discussed here, since a
critical study of the type material is still overdue." I hope this helps.
Zsolt Fazekas wrote:
What is the difference precisely between "maciliensis" and spec. "Mamore Red"?
Allegedly the two apisto species quite similar to each other.
MSN 8 helps ELIMINATE E-MAIL VIRUSES. Get 2 months FREE*.
-- This is the apistogramma mailing list, firstname.lastname@example.org. For
instructions on how to subscribe or unsubscribe or get help, email
email@example.com. firstname.lastname@example.org also available.
Web archives at http://lists.thekrib.com/apisto Trading at