Mike, 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 Cincinnati > will see photos of the fish in Jeff's talk." Will these photos be available at the internet? http://www.freeweb.hu/dwarfcichlids/ Please visit this site, perhaps the best apisto site in Hungary. It is interesting, though it was written in Hungarian. Regards, Zsolt > 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 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. > > 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 other. > > > >Thanks, > > > >Zsolt FAZEKAS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.