Re: A. sp Erdfesser (A. pulcher ID)

[Mike & Diane Wise <apistowise@bewellnet.com>]

Marco,

You most likely are right. You have seen more fish than any of us. It does, however,
match  the type series of A. pulchra pretty close as described by Kullander (young,
colorless, and dead). He didn't have live colors to describe. Right now the only way to
know for certain is to know where it or its ancestors were collected.

Mike Wise

Marco Lacerda wrote:

> Mike & Diane Wise wrote:
> >
> > In my opinion the fish in Aqualog SAC-II, page 56 (S03805-4), is a male A.
> > pulchra. What makes me think it's A. pulchra is the shorter
> > length of the dorsal fin base on the back of the fish.

> > "Three types of caudal fin pattern: a) up to 5 ill-defined vertical spot-stripes
> > on dorsal half near middle in upper lobe, b) immaculate, c) about 6 bars along
> > middle, continuing band continuation and broader than it."
> >
> > Mike Wise
>
> Mike, I respect your opinion, but I note following points which make me
> believe the Aqualog fish is NOT pulchra:
>
> 1) Regarding the caudal-fin pattern on Kullander, like you described
> above - Yes, that's true that sometimes the caudal-fin is unspotted, or
> the lower half unspotted; when this happen, the unspotted region is
> ALWAYS red in color, like it happens in the A. sp. Red-tail Xingu. I
> have noticed that and confirmed after seeing more than 100 wild males
> from the type locality, since 1994.
>
> 2) In A. pulchra, ALL WILD MALES (and also all F1 and F2 offspring) have
> ALWAYS a conspicuous yellow stripe over the lateral black band (like you
> described for A. maciliensis males). In the japanese book (page 36) you
> see it easily, and also in all other photos of A. pulchra, pls check it.
> There is no sign of such stripe in the Aqualog fish.
>
> 3) The caudal fin of A. pulchra is never slightly pointed, but truncate;
> the Aqualog fish has it slightly pointed.
>
> 4) The caudal spot in the Aqualog fish is extended into the caudal fin,
> in A. pulchra, not. Pls check it also.
>
> 5) You are likely right and the Aqualog fish is not A. gephyra either.
> It is not very clear what A. gephyra indeed is. Even Kullander (pers.
> comm.) told me that after seeing samples collected by Chao in middle Rio
> Negro, he could not them tell apart from A. agassizii or A. gephyraŠ
> I think this matter has been already discussed in this list, the fishes
> form the middle and middle-upper Rio Negro share characters of both A.
> gephyra and A. pulchraŠ
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This is the apistogramma mailing list, apisto@majordomo.pobox.com.
> For instructions on how to subscribe or unsubscribe or get help,
> email apisto-request@majordomo.pobox.com.
> Search http://altavista.digital.com for "Apistogramma Mailing List Archives"!





-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the apistogramma mailing list, apisto@majordomo.pobox.com.
For instructions on how to subscribe or unsubscribe or get help,
email apisto-request@majordomo.pobox.com.
Search http://altavista.digital.com for "Apistogramma Mailing List Archives"!