Geophagus ID
- Thread starter swervo513
- Start date
Is there anyway you can get a better picture of the first one? If you can get a more detailed picture we should be able to ID it easier.
As for surinamensis I believe the story is all Geos in the Suri complex (aka abalios, altifrons, etc.) were orginally called Geophagus surinamensis. Once they were all described the real Geophagus surinamensis was found to only come from a small region in Suriname. These fish are hardly ever export and if they are they end up in Europe. But distributors unable to ID Geos when they are small just lump them into the group "Surinamensis". It sucks but people are getting more demanding about having there fish labeled properly so hopefully in the future there won't be this dilemma.
As for surinamensis I believe the story is all Geos in the Suri complex (aka abalios, altifrons, etc.) were orginally called Geophagus surinamensis. Once they were all described the real Geophagus surinamensis was found to only come from a small region in Suriname. These fish are hardly ever export and if they are they end up in Europe. But distributors unable to ID Geos when they are small just lump them into the group "Surinamensis". It sucks but people are getting more demanding about having there fish labeled properly so hopefully in the future there won't be this dilemma.
I may be wrong, but my understanding is that G. surinamensis is mostly found in eastern Surinam (in the Marowijne and Surinam rivers) with a very limited distribution (in three river systems). The pictures and descriptions of holotypes are very poor, and there has been no collection in or export from that region for decades. It is probably safe to assume that no G. surinamensis exists in the trades, not in the US anyway.
A number of species were collectively referred to as the G. surinamensis "complex", which was split into 7 described species (including G. altifrons) in the 80s, as well as a number of undescribed species (including what later became described as G. abalios).
Here is a good read http://books.google.com/books?id=ZTlf--EJsWEC&pg=PA31&lpg=PA31#v=onepage&q&f=false
A number of species were collectively referred to as the G. surinamensis "complex", which was split into 7 described species (including G. altifrons) in the 80s, as well as a number of undescribed species (including what later became described as G. abalios).
Here is a good read http://books.google.com/books?id=ZTlf--EJsWEC&pg=PA31&lpg=PA31#v=onepage&q&f=false
Kanta;4740905; said:
Kanta;4741415; said:
Not trying to come across as rude but the above is very contradictory.. Why would you throw out an ID, then say there are many species a few posts later? The OP is asking what species they have and "surinamensis" is not a genus, it's a species. If there are not "true strains in the hobby" then why just throw that out there as the ID to begin with???
hope that these photos help. sorry for the crappy quality but its my camera phone and this guy does not stay still.
this guy was sold to me as 'royal jurapari' along with the other fish on this thread. I looked at the owner and said you think that these are both jurapari? he said thats what i bought them as. I told him I know what jurapari look like and neither of them are it.
Peathenster is onto it, they were probably sold to you as "surinamensis" as it seems that very fewwholesalers/retailsers have moved on from the days when almost every Geophagus was lumped under the "surinamensis complex". Its not really a marketing ploy, I think anyone informed enough to know what the real G. surinamensis is like is likely to know they're never going to find one correctly named in an average LFS, more just a matter of shops/wholesalers making life easier for themselves.
