Are these isletas?
- Thread starter Pond9
- Start date
The Isletas that Jeff Rapps brought in certainly do get nuchal humps. And while Isleta is a trade name, there was a specific reason why Jeff used that name to ID this variant, as did the researchers in Nicaragua.
https://www.monsterfishkeepers.com/forums/threads/lets-see-those-red-isletas.554950/
https://www.monsterfishkeepers.com/forums/threads/lets-see-those-red-isletas.554950/
No one has stated that they are. Somehow that small detail keeps getting missed.
In my perfect world every wild fish would be tagged with an exact collection location. Even within the same body of water, and the same species, it has been proven that it is a good idea to keep collection locations separate. What may on the surface appear the same one day, could easily be divided at a later date. The top researchers studying these fish in the wild keep repeating the same thing, more species from the crater lakes will be described in the future and that the taxonomic validity of the original species A. citrinellus will have to be revisited.
As I previously stated there was a reason why Jeff used the names that he did, agree, don't agree, who cares. How in the world can too much info on describing where a fish was collected, be a bad thing?
http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/royptb/365/1547/1763.full.pdf
Las Isletas was used to describe a collection location (and shown on the map in figure one) by the researchers involved with that paper. Jeff used that name for the same reason.
See previous link where Jeff explains this in his own words.
https://www.monsterfishkeepers.com/forums/threads/lets-see-those-red-isletas.554950/
I'm not sure why this is so difficult for some to grasp?
In my perfect world every wild fish would be tagged with an exact collection location. Even within the same body of water, and the same species, it has been proven that it is a good idea to keep collection locations separate. What may on the surface appear the same one day, could easily be divided at a later date. The top researchers studying these fish in the wild keep repeating the same thing, more species from the crater lakes will be described in the future and that the taxonomic validity of the original species A. citrinellus will have to be revisited.
As I previously stated there was a reason why Jeff used the names that he did, agree, don't agree, who cares. How in the world can too much info on describing where a fish was collected, be a bad thing?
http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/royptb/365/1547/1763.full.pdf
Las Isletas was used to describe a collection location (and shown on the map in figure one) by the researchers involved with that paper. Jeff used that name for the same reason.
See previous link where Jeff explains this in his own words.
https://www.monsterfishkeepers.com/forums/threads/lets-see-those-red-isletas.554950/
I'm not sure why this is so difficult for some to grasp?
Because you really only know the genus not the species, you can call them Amphilophus barred midas, the barred part is fairly obvious, anything else would be speculation.
Although within your spawn, if you keep it long enough, some may turn out, un-barred
The one below was sold to me as Amphilophus "Amarillo. within there spawn, there were a number of markings and color variations.
Although within your spawn, if you keep it long enough, some may turn out, un-barred
The one below was sold to me as Amphilophus "Amarillo. within there spawn, there were a number of markings and color variations.
