Is this Frontosa?

[neutrino]

The photo above is frontosa and is a juvenile with a lot of growing to do. As to species and distribution:

From PFK: Meet the Expert: Dr Tetsumi Takahashi

How many Cyphotilapia are there?

There are currently two valid species: C. frontosa and C. gibberosa. C. frontosa has two scale rows between upper and lower lateral lines.

It is found in the northern half of Lake Tanganyika and contains six and seven-banded morphs. The seven-banded morph is known only from Kigoma, while the six-banded morph is distributed through the other regions of the lake.

C. gibberosa has three scale rows between upper and lower lateral lines. It is found in the southern half of the lake.

Note-- the scale rows are not difficult to see on adult speciments.

Takahashi (and associates) did the actual science, so Takahashi, and not Konings or other unofficial opinions has determined the status of these fish. Here's the paper settling (until further notice) the status of 6 and 7 band C. frontosa:
Taxonomic status of the six-band morph of Cyphotilapia frontosa (Perciformes: Cichlidae) from Lake Tanganyika, Africa

Six- and seven-band morphs have been identified in a cichlid, Cyphotilapia frontosa, that is endemic to Lake Tanganyika. These color morphs have allopatric distributions; the six-band morph is widespread in the northern half of the lake while the seven-band morph is restricted to Kigoma on the east coast of the lake. Because no specimens of the seven-band morph have been available for taxonomic study except for the holotype of C. frontosa, the taxonomic status of these morphs has not been discussed. In a recent survey at the lake, 21 specimens of the seven-band morph were collected. A comparison of these with existing collection specimens of the six-band morph showed significant differences in morphometric and meristic characters; however, because all characters largely overlapped between these morphs, they are regarded as conspecific.

Collectors did later find 7 bar frontosa beyond Kigoma.

C. gibberosa was classified in 2003, also by Takahashi. The study above was done later, in 2007, specifically to determine if 6 and 7 band C. frontosa are different species or the same and specifically because of the belief of some they should be separated. They weren't. The species North in some literature was suggested by some for 6 bar frontosa, assuming it would become a third species. Takahashi agreed to study the matter and while hobbyists and others debated, the hope of some was that 2007 study would confirm 6 and 7 bar frontosa as different fish. In fact, there was some excitement for the results among those who thought they should be divided into separate species. I kind of expected it myself though I didn't have a strong opinion. Didn't happen.

Sp. North was only ever an unofficially suggested name. For whatever reasons some have held on to it, including some articles, etc. Others refer to 6 bar frontosa as "Burundi types" going back many years to when they were primarily sourced in Burundi or the hobby in general recognized the subtle differences of different populations.

IF, big if but not impossible, some future study says 6 and 7 bar frontosa should be taxonomically divided, odds are the name given would be something descriptive in Latin, as in the case with giberrosa.

 

[neutrino]

...I can even tell you who (along with some others) was suggesting Sp. North as a name in the days leading up to the 2007 study. Eric Genevelle, a French cichlid writer who did a good bit of diving in the lake and made some of the wild observations of variations in populations of Zaire Blues that, along with the "discovery" of moba gibberosa and the mystique of a purple Cyphotilapia, helped create the enthusiasm for importing Zaires from different locations. I used to have links to a couple of Eric's articles in which he discusses "Species North" but I've lost track. AND-- cyphos.com had communicated with Eric and he sent us back a lengthy description of the color differences he saw in different diving locations, sadly lost when cyphos.com went under. Other forums copied and posted some of what he wrote us, but that was also years ago and I've lost track of where those posts were.

Also back in the day-- there was a big debate over which was the purple one-- though the purple mystique actually originated with a particular import from some especially purple Kitumba years ago. Some who had or had seen moba with some purple in them believed moba was the purple giberrosa. In fact, more than one location can show some purple, but few to none are like some of those early kitumba imports.

...Also on all of this, there are still some breeders who are stubborn and continue to use Sp. North. So, again, it refuses to die in some circles, but it's not taxonomically correct and really they're just creating confusion in some people's minds.

 

[Milingu]

Well explained.

[...]

Sp. North was only ever an unofficially suggested name. For whatever reasons some have held on to it, including some articles, etc. Others refer to 6 bar frontosa as "Burundi types" going back many years to when they were primarily sourced in Burundi or the hobby in general recognized the subtle differences of different populations.

IF, big if but not impossible, some future study says 6 and 7 bar frontosa should be taxonomically divided, odds are the name given would be something descriptive in Latin, as in the case with giberrosa.

I think nobody who is in the matter ever considered C. sp. north as a valid name in sense of taxonomy. It is/was just a working title to refer to fish where the species was not clear. It litteraly means Cyphotilapia species "north". They (who ever brought this up in the field) could have called it C. sp. xyz or what ever they wanted.
To me it was not clear, that it is now within frontosa so I refered to it as sp. north to differentiate it from the frontosa 7-bar type.
And I think there is no way around using some name in addition to the correct taxonimcal name when you want to describe or differentiate between different types when you don't know the exact location.
So I guess something like C. frontosa "6-bars" ord C. frontosa "sp. north " is not wrong - as least in terms of the hobby.

 

[neutrino]

Yeah, maybe I'm being picky.

I've seen some confusion from it, including the occasional web site saying there are three species, giberrosa, frontosa and 'sp. North.' Have to say that bugs me.

Before giberrosa was classified in 2003 you just called them Burundi or Kigoma or Mpimbwe or Moba frontosa. It was frontosa + location-- or presumed location, since in some cases the original location has been debated or the same name has been collected in different spots. After 2007 some seemed confused what to call what was simply called Burundi frontosa forever. I guess that's life. I once saw a so-called "true Burundi" that was obviously a Mpimbwe at a lfs-- with a price tag of $400.

With most fish that have been called 'Sp. whatever' before they were officially classified, the 'sp. whatever' is quickly dropped in favor of the correct name, except by those not up to date (or referencing both the old and new name). Or-- the common, non 'sp. whatever' name(s) sometimes continues, like 'red head' geos. But use the old Heros sp. Curare instead of the correct Heros Severus and you're likely to be corrected if certain people, sometimes including me, happen to see it.