There's been a lot of misinformation about this on forums, including this one. If you want to get the history straight-- from a cichlid expert, cichlid writer, and biologist-- this article by Wayne Leibel is a good read.
A quick synopsis is that the 'original' green terrors imported here were white edged rivulatus, shortly after came gold edged rivulatus. Then, a third fish, what is now stalsbergi, appeared in photos. (There's now known to be a fourth closely related fish, Blombergi.) Contrary to the opinion of those who think stalsbergi were the first, original, or 'true' green terrors, a German writer in 1982 called what is now stalsbergi "The Green Terror That Isn't". The problem is, and the confusion comes from, the fact he thought this was rivulatus. But, if there was a 'false' green terror in his estimation it was what we now know as stalsbergi.
So-- the confusion comes from the fact that at one time stalsbergi was thought to be true rivulatus and what is now rivulatus was thought to be another fish. To quote the article "Was this third (not original) fish, from Peru, the real A. rivulatus?" If you were into green terrors some years ago or had cichlid books, some of them had a photo of stalsbergi, then rare to unknown in the hobby, saying it was the true rivulatus. Some hobbyists jumped to the conclusion this meant it was the original green terror-- or that it was the fish the Germans thought was a green terror (at his point I refer you back to the German article that says it was the "green terror that isn't"). All of this proliferated on forums, especially where there's been no one to correct it. However, with the classification and naming of stalsbergi (which is the Peruvian fish) rivulatus (either white or gold edged, the Ecuadorian fish) , the more common and earlier imported fish is confirmed as the "true rivulatus".
The whole thing over which is the 'true' green terror, or which fish which country called white saum, etc. is moot and it's not what the experts were concerned with. They were concerned with which was the true rivulatus (first described in 1860). In that and other articles I've read, Wayne Leibel calls any of them green terrors or "green acaras". In some countries they're not called green terrors at all.
Bottom line is confusion on our part is understandable because even some publications have been confused over the years, partly due to the experts having different opinions in the past on which was rivulatus.
But when I compared wild green terrors to captive bred above, I was talking about rivulatus. Wild rivulatus I've had deserved to be called terrors.
A quick synopsis is that the 'original' green terrors imported here were white edged rivulatus, shortly after came gold edged rivulatus. Then, a third fish, what is now stalsbergi, appeared in photos. (There's now known to be a fourth closely related fish, Blombergi.) Contrary to the opinion of those who think stalsbergi were the first, original, or 'true' green terrors, a German writer in 1982 called what is now stalsbergi "The Green Terror That Isn't". The problem is, and the confusion comes from, the fact he thought this was rivulatus. But, if there was a 'false' green terror in his estimation it was what we now know as stalsbergi.
So-- the confusion comes from the fact that at one time stalsbergi was thought to be true rivulatus and what is now rivulatus was thought to be another fish. To quote the article "Was this third (not original) fish, from Peru, the real A. rivulatus?" If you were into green terrors some years ago or had cichlid books, some of them had a photo of stalsbergi, then rare to unknown in the hobby, saying it was the true rivulatus. Some hobbyists jumped to the conclusion this meant it was the original green terror-- or that it was the fish the Germans thought was a green terror (at his point I refer you back to the German article that says it was the "green terror that isn't"). All of this proliferated on forums, especially where there's been no one to correct it. However, with the classification and naming of stalsbergi (which is the Peruvian fish) rivulatus (either white or gold edged, the Ecuadorian fish) , the more common and earlier imported fish is confirmed as the "true rivulatus".
The whole thing over which is the 'true' green terror, or which fish which country called white saum, etc. is moot and it's not what the experts were concerned with. They were concerned with which was the true rivulatus (first described in 1860). In that and other articles I've read, Wayne Leibel calls any of them green terrors or "green acaras". In some countries they're not called green terrors at all.
Bottom line is confusion on our part is understandable because even some publications have been confused over the years, partly due to the experts having different opinions in the past on which was rivulatus.
But when I compared wild green terrors to captive bred above, I was talking about rivulatus. Wild rivulatus I've had deserved to be called terrors.
Last edited:
