I have seen festae called heros festae, cichlasoma festae, ex cichlasoma festae, and amphilophus festae. Are these all the same fish or are they different species? I see some referred to as "true" red terrors, what are false red terrors then?
Can Someone Explain Festae Names To Me
- Thread starter spankymaz
- Start date
Festae are true Red Terrors, Mayan are False Red Terrors. As far as cichlasoma festae, ex cichlasoma festae , now their called Mesoheros, that's just the scientist's making sure your keeping up with them changing the genus.
they are both badass in their own rights.....i read that Mayans have been found 3 miles out in the ocean or some crazy stuff like that. Getting some for my Moray tank and converting everything to Brackish shortly. Mayans, Texas, JDs, Pearls, Blackbelts........couple of beers..............PAAAAAR-TEEEE!!!!
Yes. Festae have been re-classified several times. When they were initially described they were put into the Heros genus, then moved to Cichlasoma which used to be a catch-all for lots of SA cichlids. It was removed from that genus and basically orphaned which resulted in being called 'Cichlasoma' or ex-Cichlasoma. It has now been classified as Mesoheros festae. They are all the same fish, and it takes people a long time to get on board with the newest classification. The most current one is Mesoheros. This is the fish considered the "true red terror."
Likewise, Mayans have been moved all over the place. They are now known as Mayaheros urophthalmus. These are the "false red terrors."
Much of the reasoning for the new classifications is the advancement of DNA technology.
In the past, relationships were based of visible characteristics that suggested relationships, past and present. I know this is an oversimplification, but if a cichlid in the new world looked like an Amphilophus, scientists figured, there must be related.
But the new DNA technology has allowed us to pinpoint (to some degree) the evolutionary migrations and tract relationships to a greater degree, and many of these contradict characteristics like body shape, color, or other visible clues.
So although many aquarists think Mesoheros festae resembles wherever x uropthalmus ends up, it really doesn't.
Below is a link where much of the research can be found by aquarists
www.facebook.com/groups/854456601280181/
Also a word of caution about dropping uropthalmus in salt water.
I have seen the group in Isla de Mujeres that lives in sea water, they have evolved to live there over millenia, and may at some point be separated into a separate species.
So the idea that you could drop any fresh water variant into a salt water tank, may not be a great idea.
Mesoheros festae
fresh water uropthalmus on Riviera Maya, Yucatan, Mexico.
In the past, relationships were based of visible characteristics that suggested relationships, past and present. I know this is an oversimplification, but if a cichlid in the new world looked like an Amphilophus, scientists figured, there must be related.
But the new DNA technology has allowed us to pinpoint (to some degree) the evolutionary migrations and tract relationships to a greater degree, and many of these contradict characteristics like body shape, color, or other visible clues.
So although many aquarists think Mesoheros festae resembles wherever x uropthalmus ends up, it really doesn't.
Below is a link where much of the research can be found by aquarists
www.facebook.com/groups/854456601280181/
Also a word of caution about dropping uropthalmus in salt water.
I have seen the group in Isla de Mujeres that lives in sea water, they have evolved to live there over millenia, and may at some point be separated into a separate species.
So the idea that you could drop any fresh water variant into a salt water tank, may not be a great idea.
Mesoheros festae
fresh water uropthalmus on Riviera Maya, Yucatan, Mexico.
Mayaheros urophthalmus and Mesoheros festae are very different fish. One is from Central America (Mayaheros) and the other from Northern South America (Mesoheros). They can be easily confused when young but turn into much different fish.
It's much better to call them "urophthalmus" or "Uros" (or probably even "Mayan cichlids") and "festae" than to go down the "true" / "false" road. Uros have been the "red terror" in the hobby for a lot longer than festaes have, wouldn't they be the "true" ones?
Duane's explanation of the new classification and names is spot on. Looking forward to better genomic science that will lead to more re-shuffling of cichlid names (among other benefits)!
Matt
It's much better to call them "urophthalmus" or "Uros" (or probably even "Mayan cichlids") and "festae" than to go down the "true" / "false" road. Uros have been the "red terror" in the hobby for a lot longer than festaes have, wouldn't they be the "true" ones?
Duane's explanation of the new classification and names is spot on. Looking forward to better genomic science that will lead to more re-shuffling of cichlid names (among other benefits)!
Matt
Much of the reasoning for the new classifications is the advancement of DNA technology.
In the past, relationships were based of visible characteristics that suggested relationships, past and present. I know this is an oversimplification, but if a cichlid in the new world looked like an Amphilophus, scientists figured, there must be related.
But the new DNA technology has allowed us to pinpoint (to some degree) the evolutionary migrations and tract relationships to a greater degree, and many of these contradict characteristics like body shape, color, or other visible clues.
So although many aquarists think Mesoheros festae resembles wherever x uropthalmus ends up, it really doesn't.
Below is a link where much of the research can be found by aquarists
www.facebook.com/groups/854456601280181/
Also a word of caution about dropping uropthalmus in salt water.
I have seen the group in Isla de Mujeres that lives in sea water, they have evolved to live there over millenia, and may at some point be separated into a separate species.
So the idea that you could drop any fresh water variant into a salt water tank, may not be a great idea.
Mesoheros festae
fresh water uropthalmus on Riviera Maya, Yucatan, Mexico.
my Morays are in FW atm, I am getting ready to slowly .....very slowly graduate them to Brackish along w/ some other cichlids proven to live good or better in BrackishMuch of the reasoning for the new classifications is the advancement of DNA technology.
In the past, relationships were based of visible characteristics that suggested relationships, past and present. I know this is an oversimplification, but if a cichlid in the new world looked like an Amphilophus, scientists figured, there must be related.
But the new DNA technology has allowed us to pinpoint (to some degree) the evolutionary migrations and tract relationships to a greater degree, and many of these contradict characteristics like body shape, color, or other visible clues.
So although many aquarists think Mesoheros festae resembles wherever x uropthalmus ends up, it really doesn't.
Below is a link where much of the research can be found by aquarists
www.facebook.com/groups/854456601280181/
Also a word of caution about dropping uropthalmus in salt water.
I have seen the group in Isla de Mujeres that lives in sea water, they have evolved to live there over millenia, and may at some point be separated into a separate species.
So the idea that you could drop any fresh water variant into a salt water tank, may not be a great idea.
Mesoheros festae
fresh water uropthalmus on Riviera Maya, Yucatan, Mexico.