Is this a true ornatum?!

  • We are currently upgrading MFK. thanks! -neo
Darth is correct... cf. ornatum is really cf. gephyrum...

Great discussion here: http://www.cichlidae.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=7890

If you haven't joined CRC , you really should... There is no better source of information regarding cichlids, especially Mexican cichlids in the universe...

http://www.cichlidae.com/docs/membership.php


Matt

darth pike said:
Nope. They are the same fish that Conkel and Rapps has had ... the one being sold as cf. ornatum ... which is really cf. gephyrum according to the expects (including the collector that found them).
Click to expand...
 
dogofwar - Do you happen to have the Cichlid News that the thread mentions? Where Oliver talks about where he found them and such? Or did it come out during your lapse in ACA membership?
 
dogofwar said:
Darth is correct... cf. ornatum is really cf. gephyrum...

Great discussion here: http://www.cichlidae.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=7890

If you haven't joined CRC , you really should... There is no better source of information regarding cichlids, especially Mexican cichlids in the universe...

http://www.cichlidae.com/docs/membership.php


Matt
Click to expand...

I am a CRC subscriber, but I don't post on their forums. Thanks for the link. So no closer to this original article Chris is talking about? :(
 
They summerize it in the thread ... basically these fish are found north of the range of both ornatum (southern most of the species), as well as north of the gephyrum range as well. Their markings are much closer to gephyrum than ornatum. But I'd love to track down the article and read it for myself. Not that I'm going to argue species against Oliver Lucanus ...
 
dogofwar said:
Darth is correct... cf. ornatum is really cf. gephyrum...

Great discussion here: http://www.cichlidae.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=7890
http://
Click to expand...

There is a variety of opinions on this thread. No consensus. The fish is sold by Jeff Rapps as exCichlasoma cf. ornatum, and this fish is typically known and called so in the hobby.

I think it's a little silly to jump on the cf. gephyrum bandwaggon for the following reasons:

1) The fish doesn't even have a genus name yet :irked:Hasn't been determined yet. Still in limbo; doesn't have a valid name so we call it an ex"Cichlasoma" just because we need some kind of name to refer to it as.

2) As soon as you use cf. or aff. in a name your saying: it's similar to, might be, but were not sure. It might be an as of yet undescribed species. No doubt it is similar to either species. Could be either---really hasn't been determined yet, for sure. And if it is an undescribed species, who's to say it's closer to one or the other......even DNA tests may never accurately reveal that.

3) As Willem Heijns points out, the vaidity of gephyrum may be questionable. Originally described as a subspecies, Eigenmenn who described the fish, even questioned whether the fishes he had might be an exC. atromaculatum X exC. ornatum cross. At least he had some doubts. Kullander later resurected it to full species status......but he did the same for the exC. urophthalmus subspecies, and none of these are generaally recognised today. Is gephyrum even a valid species? Who knows .... I certainly don't know:ROFL:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
MonsterFishKeepers.com
Top Bottom