distinction (agassizii & gephyra

[Randy <carey@spacestar.net>]

IDMiamiBob@aol.com wrote:

> These Ayacucho may be closely related to agasizzii. I was at Dave
> Soares's
> place in March and saw A. gephyra in a tank right next to A.agasizzii
> "Rio
> Tefe" and except for the labels on the tank, the two were identical.
> How
> they are distinguished is beyond me.

The two are quite distinguishable. [1] A. gephyra's ventrals are much
shorter and have minimal extentions (adult males). [2] The pattern in
the caudal for gephyra has spots on the upper portion but not on the
lower. [3] The shape of the gephyra's caudal is shorter and more
rounded. Also, I seem to see the dorsal extension going back farther in
agassizi, but this feature is not as distinguishable as are the first
three features.

This distinction is clear in Linke. What about the Aqualog. Page 34
shows a spectacular gephyra. On page 36, the upper right fish betrays
the other gephyra on the bottom row of that page. The upper right
picture follows agassizii in all three accounts (longer ventrals, lack
of upper caudal pattern, and a more pointed caudal. I'll assume it is
actually a misidentified agassizii.

I had previously recognized the aqualog betraying the distinctions noted
by Linke in macmasteri and viejita. An associate of Linke argued that
the Staeck/Linke book is correct. He informed me that the Czechs often
inter-breed various species of this complex, so domestically obtained
specimens might lose the distinction of a species. Have photo's of these
cross-breeds found a way into the Aqualog?!? As I suggested earlier,
refer to Staeck/Linke before the Aqualog.

- --Randy