Oh and it's not a false Green Terror. Andinoacara Rivulatus or Gold Saum would be the most accurate. Seems as though the Green Terror nomenclature confuses everyone.
+1
If you want to cut through all the confusing opinions of non-experts on the subject,
here's an article by biology professor and cichlid expert and writer Wayne Leibel.
You might note comments in the article linked above regarding a 1982 article by a German writer, the article named "The Green Terror-- That Isn't!" The fish he considered NOT to be the 'true' green terror at the time is what we now call A. stalsbergi. In other words, the fish you'll see so many insist is the 'original' or 'true' green terror was not considered the true green terror by this German writer, the fish he considered to be the real or original green terror is what we now know as A. rivulatus. Opposite of what a lot of forum posters say these days.
So, at best, the definition of "false" or "true" green terror isn't official or universal, it's somewhat contrived by hobbyists imo, especially considering that some countries have completely different common names for the same fish. Years ago false or true green terror wasn't even the question in the literature I saw, the real discussion used to be which one was the "true rivulatus".
In any case, with all the confusing forum posts, half of them repeating other confusing forum posts, at present I'll take my cue from Professor Leibel, who in the articles I've seen uses 'green terror' to informally describe any of the fish in the group he also calls "green acaras".