Hoplias Comparison Photo Possible ID Again.....

[channarox]

Hi again....
Well....the first one is a cf.lacerdae for sure...and I "think" the second one is also a cf.lacerdae, but the angle is not the best (even if the lines looks to be parallel as they does on the cf.lacerdae).
But the biggest problem is if YOU dont think that both are cf.lacerdae and still think that one of them looks as a cf.malabaricus.
I think you said that you bought one of these from Ken and the other one from John....right?
Well....my solution is;
I must send some uruguayan fishes to USA in march....and I can send 1 cf.lacerdae to you....for free of course....and then you can return what you think is a "mala" to Ken or John.
I hope you like the idea?

Regards!
Felipe

and great deal.

 

[KRSwop1]

Just based on the pattern alone, the second one is definitely a lacerdae. The first one had me cautious to say anything until you posted the shot from under it's chin. But definitely, without a doubt, the second one is a lac. Where were these collected? Amazing deal by the way. 150 for a lac is an incredible price. I paid $500 for my old one at 5".

 

[jrpatter]

Damn mine looks like the second one. I knew from the get go its probably MALA.
Chris i feel for you. What happen to the others are we the only one that is coming forward?

As Felipe said the second looks like a Lacardae, however the angle of the picture is bad. That is why we have asked for better pics of the teeth lines of the second fish.

John

 

[Felipe Cantera]

Damn mine looks like the second one. I knew from the get go its probably MALA.
Chris i feel for you. What happen to the others are we the only one that is coming forward?

Ok...it looks like the info I am able to give it's even worse than my english?????
I try again.....

1) Look at my site; there you have a VERY GOOD PIC of both species togheter and can easy....very easy....see the diff. I am talking about (=lines)

2) My opinion is; the first photo is perfect and the fish is a H.cf.lacerdae, the second photo is not so good (because the angle), but still looks as a H.cf.lacerdae

3) Now...if we are talking about "species"....we must understand that the place for the holotype (for both species) is far...very far away from Uruguay.
But the most important question here is; who have been looking at these 2 species recently and can tell us that they realy are lacerdae and malabaricus?

4) I prefere to use the "cf." before the name of the sp., until someone make a closer study of all the hoplias "sp" we have in this country.

5) Price; why should the uruguayan cf.malabaricus cost 20usd?, I have seen a lot of the ("common") malabaricus you have in USA and let me tell you that the diff. with "our" cf.malabaricus is enormous....so the question is; should a "new", or at least a diff. variety of a species from the "malabaricus complex", cost the same as the real malabaricus?
If the price depends on how hard it is to get the species at the market....both our cf.malabaricus and cf.lacerdae should cost much more..or maybe not?....but I dont know...I realy dont know what makes the price and which price should be the correct for new species/new varieties of Hoplias.
The only thing I know for sure is that these Hplias are not "real" malabaricus or "real" lacerdae....and that only 25-30 have been exported from Uruguay the last 20 years.

Regards!
Felipe
www.aqvaterra.com

 

[hdoddballs]

Ok...it looks like the info I am able to give it's even worse than my english?????
I try again.....

1) Look at my site; there you have a VERY GOOD PIC of both species togheter and can easy....very easy....see the diff. I am talking about (=lines)

2) My opinion is; the first photo is perfect and the fish is a H.cf.lacerdae, the second photo is not so good (because the angle), but still looks as a H.cf.lacerdae

3) Now...if we are talking about "species"....we must understand that the place for the holotype (for both species) is far...very far away from Uruguay.
But the most important question here is; who have been looking at these 2 species recently and can tell us that they realy are lacerdae and malabaricus?

4) I prefere to use the "cf." before the name of the sp., until someone make a closer study of all the hoplias "sp" we have in this country.

5) Price; why should the uruguayan cf.malabaricus cost 20usd?, I have seen a lot of the ("common") malabaricus you have in USA and let me tell you that the diff. with "our" cf.malabaricus is enormous....so the question is; should a "new", or at least a diff. variety of a species from the "malabaricus complex", cost the same as the real malabaricus?
If the price depends on how hard it is to get the species at the market....both our cf.malabaricus and cf.lacerdae should cost much more..or maybe not?....but I dont know...I realy dont know what makes the price and which price should be the correct for new species/new varieties of Hoplias.
The only thing I know for sure is that these Hplias are not "real" malabaricus or "real" lacerdae....and that only 25-30 have been exported from Uruguay the last 20 years.

Regards!
Felipe
www.aqvaterra.com

Ah your website link does not work.

 

[jrpatter]

Just wait a few days and try again. The internet wasnt very reliable down there and it went down from time to time. The address is correct and it works fine for me.

John

 

[dookie]

They look great. The marbling pattern on the bottom fish is definitely not a mal. If the top one has the same marbling you should be fine.