No, it is a completely different species. Green = Scleropages formosus, Batik = Scleropages inscriptus.
Anyone own this arowana species?
- Thread starter bobkyaw
- Start date
Its good to see youre still around Hao, as far as I knew, even though theyre from different locations, they were the same fish, and Ive always heard merlion used as one of this fishes common names, but I couldnt swear to it-
David, Ive been out of the loop for a while, but before I sold my last asian arowana, they were all considered S Formosus- but before that, each of the 4 types of asian aros had its own scientific name- but if the snakeskins have a new (to me at least) scientific name, Ill stand corrected-
so am I correct to believe that everyone agrees that the rest of the asians are still called Scleropages Formosus? Thanks for the info guys
Sent from my iPhone using MonsterAquariaNetwork app
David, Ive been out of the loop for a while, but before I sold my last asian arowana, they were all considered S Formosus- but before that, each of the 4 types of asian aros had its own scientific name- but if the snakeskins have a new (to me at least) scientific name, Ill stand corrected-
so am I correct to believe that everyone agrees that the rest of the asians are still called Scleropages Formosus? Thanks for the info guys
Sent from my iPhone using MonsterAquariaNetwork app
I don't know about them being the same fish. I remember Indo Dragon posting photos comparing the Batik and the Nami. From what I know, Batiks develop more gold than the Nami and the gold is much more intense on the Batik. Batiks have a 5th level like shine similar to the RTG (HBRTG). There were more features but it's been awhile, I haven't been keeping up to date with these fish.
As it stands right now, there is S. formosus and S. inscriptus. However, there is a movement to recognize the color varieties as separate species that would leave us with five species. This is based on a 2003 genetic survey of the various populations. It would leave us with this-
| S. formosus- | green aro & XB |
| S. macrocephalus- | silver Asian aro |
| S. aureus- | RTG |
| S. legendrei- | super red |
| S. inscriptus- | batik aro |
This is heavily disputed however, based on the fact that the individual color strains are determined genetically via geographically diverse haplotypes. I, personally, am not convinced that the data supports a five species scenario.
Chix is on the ball, S. inscriptus is certainly a distinct species regardless of what you consider the others to be. Personally I haven't done enough research on the debate about splitting vs lumping, though in other areas (many african cichlids, Hypancistrus Spp, etc) I think the separate species could be justified.
Anyone know if these are legal in the us or do the same laws apply?
Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using MonsterAquariaNetwork App
Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using MonsterAquariaNetwork App
This is the Scleropages Inscriptus, (I know a lot about fish, but not a lot about fish keeping). This type of Arowana is rarely seen on sale and will have a beautiful flower like marking on its scales when mature. This species is not the same as the Green Arowana, Jardini, or the Red Tail or Golden variants. This is a new species, and its not very well known yet. Most animals that take this long to discover almost always have an extremely small population in a specific area.
S. inscriptus is different from other species of Scleropages are not only because of maze like markings on scales but also of having the bones of the circumorbital and opercular series.
Scleropages formosus is classified as GREEN Arowana and Gold Crossback Arowana is still remains in there by default, as 2003 reclassification did not include Gold crossback strain. It's a big question why it doesn't considered.
