I.D??

[COL]

All the representatives of said "species", IME, have all had far more extensive striping/networked patterns than is regularly encountered in L-260, and I should know--I have kept trios of both.

Here are some, not in any particular order, "monte dourado" specimens (with due respect to their photographers);

They look quite similar, IMO, to the fish in question, not to mention that differing individuals have varying wash hues; even those by-caught together; take a look at the PC profile or something.

This, also, is in light of recent influx of Rio Jari specimens gaining more widespread popularity and henceforth importing interest. Given so many signs pointing to said "species", I do not personally believe that it is likely to be anything else.

 

[davo]

Thank you COD. I might see if i can get them either way.

 

[davo]

Just worked it all out lol.
The mystery of it all is the aqualog catalogue messed up and pictures a young H. sp "Monte Dourado" as the L318, where as the Datz book, the original identifier, shows the L318 to be a different fish (shown below). So thats where the confusion comes in, and the Monte Dourado hasn't been given an email or scientific name. Also its colours vary greatly, adding to I.Ding problems i guess! Anyway, that should be case closed. Cheers COL for pointing in the right direction.

 

[COL]

Aqualog is incorrect, although there was initial speculation that young monte dourado could be L-318 and vice versa (that was quickly overlooked). If there is ever a dispute between aqualog and DATZ regarding L numbers, aqualog is always wrong. Keep that in mind.