Id this fish please-Camph.?? Cam-I pmd you about this one

[BIG_ONE]

I will point something out. Yes, Cam is correct on here. Red ZZ, any Red ZZ whether it is old school or modern will have trimac blood in them regardless. The modernize Red ZZ with all the pearlings trimac blood is very washed out, but it is still there in its genes.
Now the only flowerhorns that doesn't have any trimac genes in them is the Kamfa and GM/KML. Modern Kamfa and GM/KML? Possibly...but originally, they have their own recipe with no trimac in it(there is more that doesn't contain trimac genes, but I can't remember for sure which strain was it).

 

[BIG_ONE]

So is Amphilophus and Vieja, but your not going to call a Amphilophus hybrid a ZZ. This fish doesnt have a single pearl, How is it a ZZ?
I asked you what you based your opinion on and you get your panties in a twist? Come on brother, Spread some knowledge. If your right prove it, No need to belittle my intelligence. Im not familiar with old school US breed flowerhorns, and I doubt too many people are, But I do know what a ZZ is.
But you send me over so Ca/Sa section, So I think your the one who thinks they know a bit more than they actually do.

Old school Red ZZ is not suppose to have any pearls. All the ZZ you see now a days with pearlings is all the modern ZZ. Original aka old school Red ZZ never had any pearlings, just flowerlines and colorings.

 

[fobrinkle]

Cam is right. I had an old school ZZ that looked similar to this one. Here is a link to a couple pics, http://www.monsterfishkeepers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=121142

 

[Camphilophus]

So is Amphilophus and Vieja, but your not going to call a Amphilophus hybrid a ZZ. This fish doesnt have a single pearl, How is it a ZZ?
I asked you what you based your opinion on and you get your panties in a twist? Come on brother, Spread some knowledge. If your right prove it, No need to belittle my intelligence. Im not familiar with old school US breed flowerhorns, and I doubt too many people are, But I do know what a ZZ is.
But you send me over so Ca/Sa section, So I think your the one who thinks they know a bit more than they actually do.

I'm not belittling your intelligence, it's just not there.

 

[FishingOut]

I understand ZZ is a trimac based flowerhorn but how is this fish in question not a Trimac? I think it looks just like one and dont see why people are saying zz.
I though ZZ translated to "pearl flowerhorn" because they use to be bred for mainly their pearls. Red dragons are a whole different story.
Like Fobrinkles fish looks like an low-grade old school flowerhorn which I dont even know if its safe to call a ZZ because I dont think they called them ZZ's that far back in the linage.

 

[BC in SK]

how is this fish in question not a Trimac?

1) No tear drop marking below the eye.

2)Has red on the dorsal fin.

3) doesn't apear to have a red eye

4)doesn't exhibit an ocelated blotch above the gill area or on the body -----not typical whatsoever, for a trimac

5)The red is not only on the belly, but goes right up the body ------ again, not very typical for a trimac.

The fish is obviously not a pure trimac. Doesn't look like one. Here's a picture of my male from over 20 years ago (No such thing as a flowerhorn back then). Note the tear drop marking below the eye, the blood red eye, and the blotch above the gill area:

While the fish in question is easily distinguished from a trimac it is certainly possible for flowerhorns to produce offspring that are indistinguishable from a trimac. But still, even those are not trimacs as they pocess genes from other C.A. cichlids.

 

[honda237]

1) No tear drop marking below the eye.

2)Has red on the dorsal fin.

3) doesn't apear to have a red eye

4)doesn't exhibit an ocelated blotch above the gill area or on the body -----not typical whatsoever, for a trimac

5)The red is not only on the belly, but goes right up the body ------ again, not very typical for a trimac.

The fish is obviously not a pure trimac. Doesn't look like one. Here's a picture of my male from over 20 years ago (No such thing as a flowerhorn back then). Note the tear drop marking below the eye, the blood red eye, and the blotch above the gill area:

While the fish in question is easily distinguished from a trimac it is certainly possible for flowerhorns to produce offspring that are indistinguishable from a trimac. But still, even those are not trimacs as they pocess genes from other C.A. cichlids.

Perfect, couldn't have said it better myself. True trimacs are hard to come by, i've gone through a few supposed to be true trimacs. Luckily now i finally have some true trimacs from rapps.

 

[BIG_ONE]

1) No tear drop marking below the eye.

2)Has red on the dorsal fin.

3) doesn't apear to have a red eye

4)doesn't exhibit an ocelated blotch above the gill area or on the body -----not typical whatsoever, for a trimac

5)The red is not only on the belly, but goes right up the body ------ again, not very typical for a trimac.

The fish is obviously not a pure trimac. Doesn't look like one. Here's a picture of my male from over 20 years ago (No such thing as a flowerhorn back then). Note the tear drop marking below the eye, the blood red eye, and the blotch above the gill area:

While the fish in question is easily distinguished from a trimac it is certainly possible for flowerhorns to produce offspring that are indistinguishable from a trimac. But still, even those are not trimacs as they pocess genes from other C.A. cichlids.

Correct, but one thing that you should not base out there is the tear drop under the eye. This is very incorrect, and the reason is because there are flowerhorns out there that contains absolutely no linage of a trimac at all but still contains the tear drop. We can never base a fish being a ZZ, trimac or whatsoever with the tear drop.

 

[BC in SK]

there are flowerhorns out there that contains absolutely no linage of a trimac at all but still contains the tear drop. We can never base a fish being a ZZ, trimac or whatsoever with the tear drop.

First of all, show me one picture of a known Trimac that does not exhibit the mark below the eye. And by known, now days that means a trimac that is known to originate from wild caught fish. eg. from Jeff Rapps.

How do you know that a flowerhorn with a tear drop marking does not pocess any trimac genes? The EXACT lineages of flowerhorns are not known, unless you actually claim to be an originator of the first strains, yourself! If the trait didn't come from a trimac, what C.A. cichlid do you supose it somehow came from given the fact that none others exhibit it?

 

[Chrisplosion]

First of all, show me one picture of a known Trimac that does not exhibit the mark below the eye. And by known, now days that means a trimac that is known to originate from wild caught fish. eg. from Jeff Rapps.

How do you know that a flowerhorn with a tear drop marking does not pocess any trimac genes? The EXACT lineages of flowerhorns are not known, unless you actually claim to be an originator of the first strains, yourself! If the trait didn't come from a trimac, what C.A. cichlid do you supose it somehow came from given the fact that none others exhibit it?

Was gonna say Lyonsi but had to double check.