"Arapaima gigas"? Try "Arapaima arapaima"

  • We are currently upgrading MFK. thanks! -neo
waiting for them to discover arapaima "onlygetstosixfootish" so i can keep 1 without having to build an olympic size pool to house 1
 
I'm not convinced. I haven't been able to find any literature on this, or any other group of scientists that support this. I doubt the number of rays in the caudal fin and a depth difference in the caudal peduncle is enough to constitute an entire new species.
 
arapaimag;3995334; said:
Don't you think that Prof (Dr) Donald Stewart and Dr Leandro Castello (Woods Hole Research Centre) are better qualified to determine if a genus (Arapaima) should have different species than any of us hobbyists?

Many of whom answer questions and give advice on this genus and have never even owned the fish.

While there are other scientists researching Arapaima. Who has done more recent studies than these 2 and their graduate and undergraduate students on Arapaima?

I was contacted by Kapil Mandrekar an Ichthyologist from the State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry
located in Syracuse, last year and learned to further respect the focus of their lab in the area of taxonomy, ecology, conservation and biology of Arapaima. He is working on his graduate degree in Ecology under the guidance of Dr Stewart.

Remember Arapaima gigas was described by Achille Valenciennes in 1847, along with three other species: A. mapae, A. agassizii and A. arapaima. In 1868 Albert Gunther studied Arapaima but concluded that Valenciennes had got it wrong and there was only one species — and that was A. gigas.

Albert Gunther was wrong and these fish were correctly identified by A. Valenciennes 163 years ago. I feel Prof Stewart and Dr Castello are to be thanked on their research confirming the original diagnosis and the discovery of the 5th species.
Click to expand...

I have to stand with Arapaimag on this one and say that I would side with the field researches and experts. Many here have falsely used the phenotypic difference argument that extra fin rays or scales are akin to the differences seen amongst our species Homo.
However that presence of extra fin rays or scales is a morphological difference that highlights a structural difference between individuals in a population.

Extra bones and structural features are not equivalent to the different skin colours and the purely phenotypic differences we see in our human populations.
I am sure final judgements will be made after closer genetic analysis but if enough individuals carry these structural changes in an area and differ from those in other or neighbouring areas one could assume that they are a sub-species or a new species.
Reproductive isolation alone is not the gold standard in speciation but more so the degree of genetic drift between individuals and populations but time will tell.
Hobbyists must remember thatmany of the distinguishing features and species discriptions we use to identify many species today often rely upon very old initial field descriptions which are often incorrect or incomplete in their depth of investigation.

 
Well said. ^
 
Countdown til the first JDMer has all 5 species in a 180 starts...NOW!
 
I remember watching a documentary about a chinese scientist who wanted to find out whether chinese people were a different species but after much research found that we are all the same.
 
Nabbig2;4007126; said:
I'm not convinced. I haven't been able to find any literature on this, or any other group of scientists that support this. I doubt the number of rays in the caudal fin and a depth difference in the caudal peduncle is enough to constitute an entire new species.
Click to expand...
no, it does not. BUT, these are not what makes it a different species. that is done by the genetic research. these are just physical differences that allow for identification of the fish without a DNA test. A. gigas are illegal in texas, but i emailed joedy gray, the man in charge of permits, and he said that their lawyers confirmed that they ARE seperate species and that if a specimen with 31 caudal fin rays was obtained, it would be classified as A. arapaima and would be completely legal. now to convince the 'rents that an above ground swimming pool with no chlorine would be nice... :D
 
Do they all grow to monster sizes or can I finally own one of these beast at a smaller size?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
MonsterFishKeepers.com
Top Bottom