Re: differentiating apisto species

["Zsolt Fazekas" <fazekaszs@hotmail.com>]

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.