[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Index by Month]

Re: differentiating apisto species


Thanks for the detailed answer.

"I told Jeff that this fish could reasonably
be called A.
> maciliensis. Those of you who go to the ACA Convention in
> will see photos of the fish in Jeff's talk."

Will these photos be available at the internet?


Please visit this site, perhaps the best apisto site in Hungary. It is
interesting, though it was written in Hungarian.






> Zsolt,
> 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
> difference between A. trifasciata & A. maciliensis is that
> maciliensis does not show (when alive, at least) the
> diagonal stripe present on all A. trifasciata. It is very
possible that
> A. maciliensis is merely a geographic population of A.
> Such populations were previously called a subspecies by
> 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.
> 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
> 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.
> 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
> location, too. I told Jeff that this fish could reasonably
be called A.
> maciliensis. Those of you who go to the ACA Convention in
> 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.
> 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 &
> 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.
> Mike Wise
> Zsolt Fazekas wrote:
> >Mike,
> >
> >What is the difference precisely between "maciliensis"
and spec. "Mamore Red"?
> >Allegedly the two apisto species quite similar to each
> >
> >Thanks,
> >
> >Zsolt FAZEKAS

Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.