Amphilophus citrinellus vs. Amphilophus labiatus

  • We are currently upgrading MFK. thanks! -neo
I'm 20 years late but I came across this in my digging for ways to diagnose the two species against eachother/find ways to identify mutts. I figure (in spite of the fact that it may have been posted elsewhere on this site since this thread) I should contribute (in the event that someone else stumbles across this) that we now know that citrinellum is a social benthic detritivore, while labiatus is a solitary crevice feeding active predator. In my "research" I have found that labiatus has a small upward fold/knob of tissue at the tip of the top lip (even in captive or immature specimens) that is completely absent in non crevice feeding amphilophus. This trait appears to carry down to mutts as well. I will continue my search for any other body proportions that can be used to diagnose the two species externally for the layman.
 
RD.

Thread 'A. cf. citrinellus - A potential case of F1 Midevils?'

Hopefully this works this time .......



I was reading Jason's sticky on midas vs red devils the other day & while I agree with pretty much everything that he posted, according to some of the most recent studies that have taken place in the various crater lakes I'm beginning to think that this is a far more complicated issue than simply being able to rely on reputable vendors.

In his sticky Jason states;



"Trying to determine the identity of an adult fish is difficult enough, but these fish as juveniles look very similar to one another.

Here's the problem with these...
Click to expand...
  • Like

Good luck
 
RD. said:
RD.

Thread 'A. cf. citrinellus - A potential case of F1 Midevils?'

Hopefully this works this time .......



I was reading Jason's sticky on midas vs red devils the other day & while I agree with pretty much everything that he posted, according to some of the most recent studies that have taken place in the various crater lakes I'm beginning to think that this is a far more complicated issue than simply being able to rely on reputable vendors.

In his sticky Jason states;



"Trying to determine the identity of an adult fish is difficult enough, but these fish as juveniles look very similar to one another.

Here's the problem with these...
Click to expand...
  • Like

Good luck
Click to expand...
Ah... not sure if you had it in there, but this reminded me to check another paper I've been meaning to read on Amphilophus phylogeny, being "Not a simple case – A first comprehensive phylogenetic hypothesis for the Midas cichlid complex in Nicaragua (Teleostei: Cichlidae: Amphilophus)" by Geiger et al. 2010 (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2010.05.015). It states:

"...there is genetic structure within the L. Nicaragua Midas cichlids that is not covered by current taxonomic classification or sample location. Consequently, treating all identified phenotypes and described species as members of a highly polymorphic A. citrinellus does also not reflect the discovered pattern and should be discarded. The prominent basal position of four L. Nicaragua individuals belonging to four different phenotypes might be a consequence of retained alleles common to these individuals whose genotypic similarity is reflected in joint clustering in the Bayesian analysis. However, neither all individuals a priori identified as A. citrinellus nor as A. labiatus clustered according to species assignment or geographic origin of individuals."

"Lake Nicaragua’s species assemblage does not constitute a monophyletic group as it contains the four most basal taxa of the in-group, belonging to four different putative species (Fig. 1). Interestingly, individuals of L. Nicaragua do not cluster according to their geographic or taxonomic identity while in contrast individuals from L. Managua are largely grouped according to their geographic origin within the lake basin – a preliminary indication of restricted gene-flow between populations from opposing shores."

So in short yes we have no clue what any of the midas/red devils in the hobby are even if they are traceable to the great lakes. Disregard my previous statement. Midas/red devil IDing is once again out of my jurisdiction.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RD.
This is why, in my opinion, it's such a boon to have importers bring in F0 (Wild Caught) fish, then breed and distribute F1 fish. All while making their exact collection point known. This way we know what we have.

But anytime we are collecting fish from unknown origins we are risking having hybrids or mislabeled fish.

Having said that, I'm not turning my nose up at every single "unknown origin" Cichlid. Most of the fish in my tanks could be described as such.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
MonsterFishKeepers.com
Top Bottom