Any "Panama Green" Umbee Still Around?
- Thread starter aclockworkorange
- Start date
- Status
Nope. Dead wrong. Do your homework. The fish...IF DESCRIBED...is named by the person that describes the fish. The fish DOES need a location to be described.
Then do it. I think you mean "illusion" as in referring "producing a false or misleading impression of reality"....a trick of the light, instead of "allusion" which means "a passing reference". Both photos above were taken with the "same lighting spectrum"...they are called four Nikon SB900 flash units. There's no trick. ONe of them is blue...the rest are not. Talk to me about anything BUT photography. You don't have clue in that arena...which makes you 0 for 2.
BTW...look for my article about P. "coatzacoalcos" in the upcoming cichlid issue of Tropical Fish Hobbyist magazine...and cover shot where more "allusion" has been applied.
I'm done here folks. My moron quota has just been sated.
didn't say it didn't need a location moho, I said it doesn't need to be exact (gotta learn to read before you write) and as far a photography doesn't take a genious to see the lighting's not the same (has nothing to do with the flash)
you were done before you got started, stick to those amazing pics
OK guys, lets get one thing clear. It is not about the money. Its about Respect. Here it is simply and plain. I brought something new to this hobby and gave something that did not exist here a name to refer to. Upon doing so, a group of members here did not like the name and would not respect the fact that I would not disclose the locations at the time.This group of people could not get passed it and over looked the fish because of the name given. This alone blew my mind away and If you talk to anyone who knows me, I'm the kind of guy that don't take will to things like that and will continue to provoke you until something happens. Yes, I did ask for help from Mojo and RD trying to find my way through this as I have never collected something that I believe to be so profound. And as R.D. admitted very little help was given. I have been in this hobby for a while now and I have seen collectors collect new strains or new species and name them what they like. After all I believe it is there right to. Its to bad that the person who is describing the fish (scientist) who never spent the time in the jungle collecting them gets the rights in the end right??? I find it amusing how a man such as myself can show you people actual footage of this species location and show you, me actually pulling them out of there waters of there location and then show you the actual cichlid back in my tank here in the U.S.A. and still say things like there "location does not exist." When these same people would buy fish from a vendor that does have the river title on the specimen that is not proving that these fish are were they say they are from and be so satisfied not to question if they are truly from the location given or even from the wild for that matter. Now that is interesting. Dog of War you say I look un informed when the fact is Im the most Informed person on this species of Cichlid as I know where they are from and you don't. As far as crossing Locations X and Z Umbees, These are your blue Umbees that are not from the Rio Magdalena but from two distinct locations. Blue Umbriferum are not only found in the Rio Magdalena you can find them in other rivers and lakes in Colombia. So what were doing is crossing a blue umbee with a blue umbee introducing new genes trying to make a more colorful Blue UMBEE. There behavior is the same so theres nothing being lost R.D. Its not like were crossing the Black Umbee with the Blue Umbee. You see the Rio Magdalena is a large river that passes through Colombia, So even within that river system you will find different populations of Blue Umbee but no one here has even questioned that. What part of the Rio Magdalena are your UMBEES from? You see thats because your suppliers don't really know unless there down there collecting the fish themselves. Anyway Mojo, RD, and Dog of War I would like to tell all three of you that this has been the most flattering post I have ever been apart of. How many days now have you guys been dropping my name on this thread? Thank you for your wealth of knowledge and the personal time you three have devoted to keeping such an interesting thread goingI do want everyone to know that I have two strains of Gorillus both are 2 generations deep in fry. Largest fry approaching 6 inches and let me tell you these things are something different. I have not distributed these fish yet but just so you know My true intentions was always to provide my fellow hobbyist with there location points and I will do so when I'm ready to diss purse them. So there will be no confusion among the two strains. I've enjoyed this thread very much and hope that we as a community can grow together if not O welllllllll cause Im a do me.....
Seriously!!! These pics do NO justice to these guys! They are looking good bro!
OK guys, lets get one thing clear. It is not about the money. Its about Respect. Here it is simply and plain. I brought something new to this hobby and gave something that did not exist here a name to refer to. Upon doing so, a group of members here did not like the name and would not respect the fact that I would not disclose the locations at the time.This group of people could not get passed it and over looked the fish because of the name given. This alone blew my mind away and If you talk to anyone who knows me, I'm the kind of guy that don't take will to things like that and will continue to provoke you until something happens. Yes, I did ask for help from Mojo and RD trying to find my way through this as I have never collected something that I believe to be so profound. And as R.D. admitted very little help was given. I have been in this hobby for a while now and I have seen collectors collect new strains or new species and name them what they like. After all I believe it is there right to. Its to bad that the person who is describing the fish (scientist) who never spent the time in the jungle collecting them gets the rights in the end right??? I find it amusing how a man such as myself can show you people actual footage of this species location and show you, me actually pulling them out of there waters of there location and then show you the actual cichlid back in my tank here in the U.S.A. and still say things like there "location does not exist." When these same people would buy fish from a vendor that does have the river title on the specimen that is not proving that these fish are were they say they are from and be so satisfied not to question if they are truly from the location given or even from the wild for that matter. Now that is interesting. Dog of War you say I look un informed when the fact is Im the most Informed person on this species of Cichlid as I know where they are from and you don't. As far as crossing Locations X and Z Umbees, These are your blue Umbees that are not from the Rio Magdalena but from two distinct locations. Blue Umbriferum are not only found in the Rio Magdalena you can find them in other rivers and lakes in Colombia. So what were doing is crossing a blue umbee with a blue umbee introducing new genes trying to make a more colorful Blue UMBEE. There behavior is the same so theres nothing being lost R.D. Its not like were crossing the Black Umbee with the Blue Umbee. You see the Rio Magdalena is a large river that passes through Colombia, So even within that river system you will find different populations of Blue Umbee but no one here has even questioned that. What part of the Rio Magdalena are your UMBEES from? You see thats because your suppliers don't really know unless there down there collecting the fish themselves. Anyway Mojo, RD, and Dog of War I would like to tell all three of you that this has been the most flattering post I have ever been apart of. How many days now have you guys been dropping my name on this thread? Thank you for your wealth of knowledge and the personal time you three have devoted to keeping such an interesting thread going
Definatley intersting looking fish. From collecting them and keeping some in tanks do you think the fish get about the same size as the blue umbees or is to early to tell?
and mojo this would be the black umbee from Oliver you are referring to 
if that is suppose to be the same fish UK brought back I am REALLY blind, appears to more resemble a female panama green IMO
now how bout we see some pics of your panama greens you once had......
if that is suppose to be the same fish UK brought back I am REALLY blind, appears to more resemble a female panama green IMOnow how bout we see some pics of your panama greens you once had......
Chris, unless you haven't been reading anything that has been posted over the past 6 months, not ALL of us have a problem with the name you gave this fish, or the fact that you have yet to release the collection location. I'm glad to read that at some point that information will be shared, as IMO that info IS important for the hobby as a whole. Kudos to you for that.
And if you have been paying attention to what myself, Mo, amd Matt have been stating over the past few months, including in this discussion, we have been attempting to help you. The problem as I see it, is a LOT of what has been posted appears to be falling on deaf ears. To add to that, some of your followers feel the need to constantly defend everything & anything that is posted, and in some cases do so with insults & complete ignorance of the subject at hand. As though some of this information is just our "opinion". H.E.L.L.O.
No kidding, like I haven't fully explained the potential problems that can arise from crossing different geographical variants, several times now in these discussions. WTF?
Once again, any potential unique evolutionary history, and possibly unique behavioural traits, are in an instant lost forever. Genetically speaking these fish could be different/unique from each other. Crosses between two populations of a species are technically intraspecific hybrids, you guys crossing these fish from different locations do understand that, yes?
Obviously the answer to that question, is a resounding .... no.
You want respect, you state that you are informed, yet you appear to be anything but. Ditto to some of your followers, that also can't seem to grasp what's been posted on the topic of crossing two different populations of fish. You seem to want to use the mistakes of others in the past, in defense of the mistakes that you are now currently making.
Ok, fine.
A nod is as good as a wink, to a blind horse ..........
And if you have been paying attention to what myself, Mo, amd Matt have been stating over the past few months, including in this discussion, we have been attempting to help you. The problem as I see it, is a LOT of what has been posted appears to be falling on deaf ears. To add to that, some of your followers feel the need to constantly defend everything & anything that is posted, and in some cases do so with insults & complete ignorance of the subject at hand. As though some of this information is just our "opinion". H.E.L.L.O.
No kidding, like I haven't fully explained the potential problems that can arise from crossing different geographical variants, several times now in these discussions. WTF?
Once again, any potential unique evolutionary history, and possibly unique behavioural traits, are in an instant lost forever. Genetically speaking these fish could be different/unique from each other. Crosses between two populations of a species are technically intraspecific hybrids, you guys crossing these fish from different locations do understand that, yes?
Obviously the answer to that question, is a resounding .... no.
You want respect, you state that you are informed, yet you appear to be anything but. Ditto to some of your followers, that also can't seem to grasp what's been posted on the topic of crossing two different populations of fish. You seem to want to use the mistakes of others in the past, in defense of the mistakes that you are now currently making.
Ok, fine.
A nod is as good as a wink, to a blind horse ..........
now Olivers black umbee has a very close resemblance to the gorillus female if im not mistaken with all that red and a much lighter base color... is it possible uk's female could be of the same variant of oliver's if his is a male? and if olivers "black" is a female i would have to say it looks like the same variant uk has cause it has a likeness to his female cause uk's female gorillus is definitely not black like the male and has the red oliver's shows so the way i see it they may as well be the same variant..
and mojo this would be the black umbee from Oliver you are referring to
now how bout we see some pics of your panama greens you once had......
View attachment 782057
Anyone here know if the fish above is male or female? Is it still alive? I Would like to know about it more. Any links for an article? Thanks!
- Status
