I'm not trying to burn ya man! lol I'm genuinely concerned that I got the colors wrong. My color vision is just bad enough that while I'm normally right in what color I think something is, I can get colors wrong and at the most inopportune times lol. A light, metallic green and a gold are two colors that I mess up on regularly.
I'm also not trying to burn anyone, I just like starting these sorts of discussions. This is how we learn! For example, the well written retorts I received when I claimed Max was a black gatf are the reason that I am now absolutely convinced that there aren't any, at least that we can keep in aquaria.
The black tail of the wallacei in the picture is indeed normal judging from the literature that I've read, but I don't count the tail color on the little guy against it because the color of a fish can often develop as it gets larger. For example, armies and tats often have tails that are essentially clear until 6-7 inches also, even though both of their tails can get quite dark as adults.
Wallacei is extremely closely related to scomberoides, so it stands to reason that they would look quite similar. The only real difference is the color, the shape of the head and the scale counts. While we obviously can't count scales on the OP's fish, we have head shape and color to work off of. For the head shape, a scomb will usually have the curve of the topline segue smoothly into the tip of the snout with no notch or a very, very slight notch. Wallacei will have a dramatic indentation where the anterior dorsal margin meets the head. The OP's fish has this indentation and head shape just like the wallacei in the picture. And, as you've confirmed, the color of the OP's fish matches the wallacei perfectly.
In my opinion, it therefore stands to reason that the fish in the OP is in fact wallacei and not scomberoides. They are incredibly similar in the same way as a tat and an army are when small, but the differences are present and pronounced.
Thoughts?
The both look gold to me though.
wned:
