Is this Frontosa?
- Thread starter confusedfishkeeper
- Start date
Its a Cyphotilapia sp.
Too small to tell if gibberosa or other.
Cyphotilapia frontosa = 7 stripes
Cyphotilapia gibberosa = 6 stripes
Cyphotilapia sp. north and other sp. = 6 stripes
Neolamprologus tretocephalus = 5 stripes
Too small to tell if gibberosa or other.
Cyphotilapia frontosa = 7 stripes
Cyphotilapia gibberosa = 6 stripes
Cyphotilapia sp. north and other sp. = 6 stripes
Neolamprologus tretocephalus = 5 stripes
In all Cyphotilapia the males can grow humps.
C. sp north develops the biggest humps.
N.tretocephalus does not develop a hump.
Tretocephalus stay smaller and leaner. I suspect yours will fill out and look more like frontosa with time. It's possible to be fooled by some photos, but in person not really, not if you're familiar with them.
There are two, and only two, species of Cyphotilapia gibberosa and frontosa. Sp. North was suggested by some who were not biologists when they speculated that 6 and 7 barred frontosa would be split into two species, about the early to mid 2000s. This included a French cichlid writer who spent time diving the lake. It never happened. Scientists determined the difference in bars was superficial and that other characteristics confirm them as the same species. It escapes me at the moment the year this was done, 2007 maybe, but it was before 2010. For a while some held on to hope that they might yet be split, but it never happened. (meanwhile, Ad Konings never liked that they split giberrosa into a separate species)
For varying reasons, sp. North persists in the minds of some after all these years. You see it on some forums, even an occasional article, but it's essentially an outdated name that was never official in the first place. The correct name is still (Cyphotilapia) frontosa.
Pretty sure yours are frontosa, not giberrosa. The giberrosa "mask" can be ambiguous vs the frontosa eye bar when they're small, but even at smaller sizes giberrosa generally have more blue and a different look than yours. It's possible they haven't settled yet and some time and better photos would make a difference, but I think frontosa based on those photos.
With some exceptions, male frontosa humps, both 6 and 7 bar types, tend to be larger or more exaggerated than on gibberosa. And Tanzanian giberrosa tend to get larger humps more frequently than Congo coast giberrosa.
There are two, and only two, species of Cyphotilapia gibberosa and frontosa. Sp. North was suggested by some who were not biologists when they speculated that 6 and 7 barred frontosa would be split into two species, about the early to mid 2000s. This included a French cichlid writer who spent time diving the lake. It never happened. Scientists determined the difference in bars was superficial and that other characteristics confirm them as the same species. It escapes me at the moment the year this was done, 2007 maybe, but it was before 2010. For a while some held on to hope that they might yet be split, but it never happened. (meanwhile, Ad Konings never liked that they split giberrosa into a separate species)
For varying reasons, sp. North persists in the minds of some after all these years. You see it on some forums, even an occasional article, but it's essentially an outdated name that was never official in the first place. The correct name is still (Cyphotilapia) frontosa.
Pretty sure yours are frontosa, not giberrosa. The giberrosa "mask" can be ambiguous vs the frontosa eye bar when they're small, but even at smaller sizes giberrosa generally have more blue and a different look than yours. It's possible they haven't settled yet and some time and better photos would make a difference, but I think frontosa based on those photos.
With some exceptions, male frontosa humps, both 6 and 7 bar types, tend to be larger or more exaggerated than on gibberosa. And Tanzanian giberrosa tend to get larger humps more frequently than Congo coast giberrosa.
Last edited:
Nice to know.?
I looked it up. Gibberosa became officially invalid in 2015.
Konings, A. F. 2015 [ref. 34660]Tanganyika Cichlids in their natural habitat. 3rd Edition. Cichlid Press, El Paso (TX). 1-408.
I looked it up. Gibberosa became officially invalid in 2015.
Konings, A. F. 2015 [ref. 34660]Tanganyika Cichlids in their natural habitat. 3rd Edition. Cichlid Press, El Paso (TX). 1-408.
Thanks, that's a lot of info. The pic is not the best of course. The fish is a bluish for sure. I hope they turn out to be frontosa.
Ad never did like it and has argued this in interviews, so it's no surprise he didn't change it in the 2015 edition of his book. But it's currently valid according to taxonomic registries and continues that way in scientific papers. Konings is respected and I've seen him cited by other scientists, but he's not infallible. I posted an example of this on cyphos.com where I was a mod for years, but lost it when cyphos.com died a few years back... lost a lot time consuming research I posted there. Would be a huge chore to attempt to find it again, but it was two similar looking Malawi cichlids Konings originally said were the same species. But he based this only on observing their general shape and similar color pattern. Once they were more closely studied, genetics and other factors showed they were different fish, not even the same genus.
Taxonomic entries:
https://www.fishbase.se/summary/Cyphotilapia-gibberosa.html
https://www.itis.gov/servlet/SingleRpt/SingleRpt?search_topic=TSN&search_value=649470#null
From a 2019 scientific paper:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-56771-7
Konings has never accepted it, but taxonomy currently does.
Taxonomic entries:
https://www.fishbase.se/summary/Cyphotilapia-gibberosa.html
https://www.itis.gov/servlet/SingleRpt/SingleRpt?search_topic=TSN&search_value=649470#null
From a 2019 scientific paper:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-56771-7
And this 2020 paper (a pain to download) includes more than one reference to Cyphotilapia giberrosa, including a table listing it as a "valid species."
Konings has never accepted it, but taxonomy currently does.
Thanx for this information.[...]
And this 2020 paper (a pain to download) includes more than one reference to Cyphotilapia giberrosa, including a table listing it as a "valid species."
Konings has never accepted it, but taxonomy currently does.
It seems there is some lack of unity in the taxonomists. Because the catalog of fishes CAS follows Ad Konings.
Normaly fishbase just lacks a bit behind the CAS and changes its content a bit later. So I did not bother to check fishbase after checking CAS.
It would not be the first time that some papers disprove Konings views later. Which is not ment to take anything away from him.
