Any "Panama Green" Umbee Still Around?

[dogofwar]

"Panama Green" is Caquetaia umbrifera (Meek & Hildebrand, 1913)

Accordng to Cichlid Room Companion: http://www.cichlidae.com/gallery/species.php?id=873

Original description as Cichlasoma umbriferum:
Meek, Seth Eugene & S. F. Hildebrand. 1913. "New species of fishes from Panama". Field Museum of Natural History. Publication 166; Zoology series 7 (3); pp; 77-91 (crc00139).

Taxonomic history:
Cichlasoma umbriferum, Meek et al, 1913, original combination.
Cichlaurus umbrifer, Jordan et al, 1930, new combination.
Caquetaia umbrifera, Kullander, 1983, new combination.

Diagnosis: By far the largest species of its genus. Caquetaia umbrifera can be distinguished from the other Caquetaia species by its coloration (mostly blue) and the bright blue spots on the cheek. It shows a specific breeding coloration with the females turning yellow and the pelvic fins becoming black while guarding fry.

Type locality: Río Cupe at Cituro, Panama.

Distribution: The Pacific slope of Panamá (Río Chucunaque) to the drainages of the Río Atrato and Río Magdalena (Colombia).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't have the original description from Meek and Hildebrand (in 1913) but I guarantee that it has a type location.

Matt

 

[baldtaxguy]

Yes, agreed, one description exists for Caquetaia umbrifera, which includes "the Panama green." I should have made that point in my question about the "real life example."

You are correct...

 

[baldtaxguy]

How's ur candy Scott? LOL. every time I see you I'm going to ask you to share!

On a serious note, Mo thanks for the lesson I learned a lot from reading your posts!

Hey Patrick!! This weekend, the candy was "Hoptimum" by the Sierra Nevada Brewery, Chico, CA. In my top 10 for 2012 brews. Maybe I'll "share my candy" at Sunday's mtg.

Agreed, Mo and Matt sharing the knowledge, it may stick if its repeated enough.

 

[the animal guy]

I really want a pitch black Umbee. If there is such, that'd be frikin crazy..

I've not seen one yet.

But the one caught by UmbeeKing is Definitely a new strain of Umbee. It is quite different by looks. He is the man. Just the Umbee isn't at all a black one. That's real talk. I use no imagination to pretend it is black like some of you just because it is named "black Umbee"..

But everyone got different tastes. No umbee is better than another. Depends on what you like.

Im not in the debate going on and I aint reading about it. Too deep for simple me. Just droppin in to talk Umbees.

cheers

 

[dogofwar]

Sadly, these threads always seem to devolve into this.

UK and friends claiming to be doubted, 'dissed and otherwise hated-on...

And other people confused at the defensiveness, secrecy and hostility to the most basic inquiries...and honest attempts to bring clarity to such issues as how to determine and describe a new species and
how to use scientific names.

It's not like anyone's saying that UK is collecting all of his "wild" fish from fish farm ponds!

The facts:

UK brought back some umbee from somewhere in Colombia that look different than the fish already in the hobby
It seems to be different from both the umbees with a trade name of "Panama Green" and the "black" umbees that Oliver Lucanus collected.

"Controversy"?

That UK's umbees are a new species
That UK can make up a trade name that appears to be a scientific name (kind of)
That the availability of UK's umbees are the single most significant happening in the fish hobby since the Python

My perspectives:

No - they're not a new species until scientists describe them as a new species
Yes - but it's a stupid thing to do. It only confuses the issue and makes UK seem uninformed
No - only a small, small percent of people who keep fish can properly keep an umbee. I rank the discovery of the greener version of Australoheros sp. "Red Ceibal" in roadside ditch 10 km down the road higher

Matt

 

[RD.]

no hostility Neil, just stating the facts that not all described species are described by the river by which they were caught and for this "black umbee" Oliver was selling it more closely resembles a panama green than those that Chris brought back

Now that we have cleared up the described species portion of that comment, no one has suggested that Oliver's "black umbees" are the same as the ones that UK collected.

In a previous discussion that took place several months back, you asked;

The obvious distinction between the fish Chris collected and ANY that you can find articles or pics about is that Chris's Male has red freckling, explain that ??

My response to that was ........... Intraspecific variation, or genetic differentiation between the populations. That's why not all of these black morphs will necessarily all look exactly the same.

UK then stated;

This has been my favorite thing you have said thus far. This supports what Im talking about... It supports why I have given this fish a descriptive name over a River base name. Simply because it is found in various Rivers system in Colombia. Each population different in color or what have you. My question to you is, Is this fish a color variant ( which it appears to be) or a sub species? and What do you think of the Panama Green? just curious

and;

I question it being a sub species because of the Red freckles and blunt snout this fish posses. While tall bodied like the Rio Mag blue Umbees it is strangely unique in built.

To which I responded;

Impossible to say with any certainty at this point, which is why I recommended proceeding with caution when breeding these various fish. IMHO a river base name would make more sense, as the genetics of this species could easily vary from river to river, or drainage system to drainage system. If all one is looking to do is selective line breed for what they personally feel is the ultimate umbee, then I guess it doesn't really matter.

Which is why I previously stated in this discussion that geographic variants can vary in their DNA make-up, but at the end of the day they are still the same genus, and species. And posted the following ........... The Sciaenochromis fryeri is a classic example of just how easily this can take place, even within the same body of water (Lake Malawi), with each geographical variant (14 collection locations in total) having different variations in colors/markings. For anyone attempting to breed a group of these fish to as close as they are found in the wild, the collection location becomes very important. To those that don't care, they can go to their LFS and buy "Electric Blue Haps" that originate from SE Asia.

http://www.cichlid-forum.com/articles/s_fryeri.php

There are many morphs of S. fryeri throughout Lake Malawi, but all have the same electric blue color. Typically, males of the southern populations display a white blaze that northern populations lack. Differences also arise in the coloring of their dorsal, anal, and caudal fins, and there is some body depth variation as well. The most common collection points for these white blaze specimens is Maleri Island. The Likoma Island variants lack the full white blaze, but extra large specimens can display the blaze. The Likoma Island variants also tend to have a very reddish anal fin.

Same genus, same species, yet a number of variables in color/markings, and even body shape, and all of these populations are found within the same body of water. I will also add that I have personally seen large dominant wild males, where the blue was as dark as night, and the fish had a solid white blaze from the tip of it's snout that carried up into the dorsal fin, while other large dominant males from different geographic locations in the lake were an intense light sky blue, and had no white blaze whatsover.

It is not uncommon for geographic variants of the same species, to differ in color, markings, shape, size, feeding strategies, etc-etc.


And finally, I don't see anyone here attempting to diminish anything that UK has done. Quite the opposite, some of us are simply attempting to help steer him in the right direction.

 

[Aquamojo]

Same genus, same species, yet a number of variables in color/markings, and even body shape, and all of these populations are found within the same body of water. I will also add that I have personally seen large dominant wild males, where the blue was as dark as night, and the fish had a solid white blaze from the tip of it's snout that carried up into the dorsal fin, while other large dominant males from different geographic locations in the lake were an intense light sky blue, and had no white blaze whatsover.

Here's a classic example of what you are describing. Here's a pair of Paratheraps "coatzacoalcos" from Rio Carolina. Female on top, male on bottom.

Siblings...same brood. Female on top, male on bottom.

Pictures of the two on the bottom are the dominant pair. Of the eight that I still have these are the only two that are this color.

I would love to see any new fish introduced in to the hobby. It's what keeps it interesting.

 

[flowerpower]

While I don't see the two sides of this argument ever seeing eye to eye.., I do see this coming to an inevitable conclusion: F2 fry all day!!!
Some will splurge to be amongst the first and at that point Chris will either release the collection point, or he won't.
If he does, they'll be known as Caquetia sp. Black 'Rio _______' and others may end up importing more wild specimens to study, breed and sell (F2's all day!!!)
If he doesnt, they'll be known simply as Caquetia sp. 'Black' (F2's all day!!!)
Either way, one would be fooling themselves by denying the fact that Chris was 'first'. Unless of course someone else collects the same fish without even knowing it (which is likely to happen eventually if he keeps the provenance of 'his' umbees a secret).

Sounds like a no brainer to me.

Now, can we see some new pics of these fish and some of their offspring? I wanna know what to expect from the f2's I'll be owning in a couple of years *joke*.

 

[RD.]

The ironic part is that there is no argument here, and there never was.

 

[LOPAKA]

While I don't see the two sides of this argument ever seeing eye to eye.., I do see this coming to an inevitable conclusion: F2 fry all day!!!
Some will splurge to be amongst the first and at that point Chris will either release the collection point, or he won't.
If he does, they'll be known as Caquetia sp. Black 'Rio _______' and others may end up importing more wild specimens to study, breed and sell (F2's all day!!!)
If he doesnt, they'll be known simply as Caquetia sp. 'Black' (F2's all day!!!)
Either way, one would be fooling themselves by denying the fact that Chris was 'first'. Unless of course someone else collects the same fish without even knowing it (which is likely to happen eventually if he keeps the provenance of 'his' umbees a secret).

Sounds like a no brainer to me.

Now, can we see some new pics of these fish and some of their offspring? I wanna know what to expect from the f2's I'll be owning in a couple of years *joke*.

actually Ed the fish will be known as sp. Gorillus as Chris will have rights to naming the fish if it is indeed classified as a new species.

and as for disclosing exact location, this in fact doesn't need to happen to be classified (before you Bill Nye the science guys get up on here telling me thats a lie think about some species that have GENERIC locals) *choco*

btw mojo, put the fish under the same lighting spectrum b4 posting comparison pics..... I can create the same allusion with dovii w/ the same specimen