Crenicichla macrophthalma vs. Cr. lenticulata

[Cichlidgeek]

I am curious what the most recent popular trend in thinking is between the validity of C. macrophthalma as compared to C. lenticulata. I bring this up because there seems to be an ever-increasing difference in hobbyists "lents" and I am wondering if these differences are merely geographical differences, as I am sure some certainly are, or whether some folks may actually have a different species altogether.

Some time ago there was talk of a special lenticulata-type pike cichlid and was believed to be, in reality, C. macrophthalma. I believe the discussion of the said fishes were between hobbyists in the USA and Japan where the Japanese importer obtained the specimens in question via a German supplier. Anyway, a quick (and unreliable) search of the Internet provided this link via Fishbase:

http://fishbase.org.cn/Summary/SpeciesSummary.php?ID=46880&AT=Jacund%E1

This does not appear to be anything like a C. lenticulata IMHO. Please correct me if I am wrong.

I truly hate relying on Google to show me accurate photos of the species in question. So, with that said, I referenced a book in my library:

Sinopsis De Las Especie De Peces De La Familia Cichlidae Presentes En La Cuenca Del Rio Orinoco
by Carlos A. Lasso and Antonio Machado-Allison (famous for work with Serrasalmus and Pygocentrus spp.)

On page 94 is a brief description of C. cf lenticulata HECKEL, 1840 and the distribution is listed as being from the central Amazonas, Rio Negro Y Orinoco. Page 95 has a black and white photo and a drawing. The drawing clearly illustrates what I would think of as a classic "lent" in subadult pattern, but the photo shows an animal that would probably be "IDed" here as a C. sp. "Venezuela," which is in fact a yet-to-be-described species.

Moving on to page 98, C. cf. macrophthalma, there is yet again a brief description, but the distribution is a bit more detailed. It says, and I quote in whole: "Cuenca del Amazonas y Rio Negro. En Venezuela ha sido citada tanto para la cuenca del Orinoco, como para el Golfo de Paria, Valencia (introducida??) y vertiente del Caribe, esto ultimo problemente sea un error. As for the photo on page 99, it looks like a typical 5-6inch long fish that people here would immediately scream "lent"!!

My Spanish starts, and ends with, Gracias. So, can anyone add to that?

Is it possible that we are seeing two different species of "lents"??

Has this been covered before and I have completely missed it???

Thanks.
---Brian

PS----
To further confuse things, here are some links to Internet images that ID the photographed fish as C. macrophthalma:

http://www.cichlidae.com/gallery/genus.php?id=85
http://akvaforum.no/profile.cfm?id=1378&tab=3
http://www.amazon-exotic-import.de/Gallerie/Cichliden/INDEX.HTM

I have no doubt that the fishes in the above links are all very similar, if not the same, however referencing back to a previous discussion between very well-experienced hobbyists ( I was a fly on the wall) it would lead me to believe that the "true" C. macrophthalma is indeed something more lenticulata-like and less like the ones pictured above. I see that one of the images is from Jeff Rapps, so I am hoping he will see this and add is valuable information.

 

[Peanut_Power]

Its very possible that there are indeed different species of lenticulata, marmorata, and the like. Personally it just seems easier when we refer to them as variants of lenticulata instead of trying to give them an entirely new species name.

You are correct in thinking that the Cr. macrophthalma picture you posted looks nothing like a lent. It actually looks more like Cr. sp. 'xingu II' or the like. Interesting.

Only way to be for certain would be to obtain some fish KNOWN to be lenticulata, and then counting rays, scales, and other taxonomically important factors. Then taking that information and comparing them to the other variants of lents and seeing what you come up with.

Problem with books though is that some are out dated, things are constantly being revised, added, or removed. I saw one book where it labeled Crenicichla percna as Crenicichla sp. 'xingu I'.

I'd really like to hear what Hadrian and Mark have to say about this since they are both well versed in the book and locality information.

 

[Scatocephalus]

I'm of the opinion that macropthalma and lenticulata are two very different and distinct species.

First, I would argue that the fish shown on fishbase as macropthalma is mislabeled. It looks nothing like the other pictures I've seen of macropthalma. Too add, macropthalma literally means big eye. The picture shown has a fish with pretty standard eye size.

Furthermore, the pic at fishbase is clearly a lugubris group pike. Macropthalma is in its own grouping and reportedly maxes out at 8". Kutty regards macropthalma as a dwarf pike and reports that body shape is akin to other dwarfs such as regani and notophthalmus. While macropthalms is found in the rio Xingu, I suspect that Jer's correct in saying the fish pictured is likely "sp. Xingu II".

I would consider this the true macropthalma which is not like lenticulata at all. Note the size of the eyes.

Regarding lenticulata, I would not be surprised at all if there are actually a minimum of 2 different species that are currently referred to as lenticulata. For example we've all seen the mature lents that retain the heavy spotting and dark body markings. I think this is the one that is typically referred to as a Rio Negro lent. The second loses all body markings as it matures. This particular version has been referred to as an Orinoco or Venezuelan lent and at one time was circulating in the hobby as a Red Back Strigata.

On page 94 is a brief description of C. cf lenticulata HECKEL, 1840 and the distribution is listed as being from the central Amazonas, Rio Negro Y Orinoco. Page 95 has a black and white photo and a drawing. The drawing clearly illustrates what I would think of as a classic "lent" in subadult pattern, but the photo shows an animal that would probably be "IDed" here as a C. sp. "Venezuela," which is in fact a yet-to-be-described species.

I suspect that what is pictured are the mature version of the Orinoco lents but as it is in black and white you lose the ability to ID the fish properly. I can see how the mature version without color would look just like "sp. Venezuela".

 

[Scatocephalus]

One other point of interest regarding the pics I posted of macropthalmus. Note the etremely exaggerrated lateral line. This, when coupled with the very large eyes seem to indicate that either this fish is nocturnal, or comes from very turbid waters with little to no visibility.

 

[Peanut_Power]

Again, you don't disappoint!!!