the animal guy;3867961; said:10 by 4?!
Wow. This you must show us!! Have you posted it up before??
It sits in is backyard, last time he posted a picture of it, it had snow piled up on it.
My newest acquistion: sp. 'Conkeli'
- Thread starter cchhcc
- Start date
It sits in is backyard, last time he posted a picture of it, it had snow piled up on it.
the first two pics look like Pie-balds and the last one looks like a different sp. period IMHONemesis;3867692; said:I'm sorry I missed all this. I'm not sure whether the two(or three for that matter) are different species. I guess DC is the man to answer that. But I can however distinguish a difference between the "pie bald" and "sp. catemaco" that DC is putting out. Here are a couple pics for comparison, all relatively the same size. They may be the same species, just different race. Or they may be different species. We can only go by what the man who's collecting them is saying at the moment, until everything is official. Really don't want this to turn into an argument, just a healthy discussion.
cchhcc's "sp. conkeli"
View attachment 462051
Ira's "pie bald"
View attachment 462058
Ira's/ now my "sp. catemaco" in bag.
View attachment 462052
I would love to see updated pics Chris. Pie bald, sp. catemaco, or sp. conkeli, they all are amazing looking fish imo, whether they be the same or different.
Again, sorry for bringing back this thread, I just find it an interesting discussion, and wanted to give my input. Please keep this clean fellas.
Yes, visual cues mean very little to nothing in identifying fish. For example, are how many species in the following photos:
Answer: ONE! Heck, the first two photos are of the same fish, just a few months apart. Color, body shape, and a host of other visuals cannot be relied upon to determine a species. There is a huge variation among many species. Lots of the differences we "think" we see are just age related body changes anyway.
By the way, to whoever posted it, this is not my fish. I took that photo in a LFS. This fish was not looking too healthy at the time, so I didn't purchase it.
Answer: ONE! Heck, the first two photos are of the same fish, just a few months apart. Color, body shape, and a host of other visuals cannot be relied upon to determine a species. There is a huge variation among many species. Lots of the differences we "think" we see are just age related body changes anyway.
By the way, to whoever posted it, this is not my fish. I took that photo in a LFS. This fish was not looking too healthy at the time, so I didn't purchase it.
bottom line is that what you have chris is a piebald, a nice one at that so what is the real issue? Shed some light for me, do you actually think yours is something else other than a Piebald?
I think my fish, and many like it, are simply the piebald, pink, or marbled version of Paratheraps fenestratus. However, I recognize that there may be some very cool races within that species, some of which are for sale by some MFK vendors. Ira appears to have a particularly hot one (the one he and Don Conkel are calling Catemaco).
My more recent posts were to refute the overuse of simple visual cues to differentiate species, and the fact that a race is not in itself a separate species until officially described, in the scientific use of the term, as such.
My more recent posts were to refute the overuse of simple visual cues to differentiate species, and the fact that a race is not in itself a separate species until officially described, in the scientific use of the term, as such.
I guess the question is then. Are the piebald fenestratus and sp. catemaco the same, or is the piebald variant just line bred? The picture I posted of my "sp. catemaco" is only about 5" and shows no signs of moulting, which leaves me to believe that they are born, or at a very young age get their almost completely white color. As a matter of fact I cannot spot any black on either the male or female, just hues of orange. It doesn't mean it will not still happen, I guess I will just have to wait and see.
So, there are 3 possible answers to the question above.
1. Piebalds and sp. catemaco are the same species, just different race's as you expect. The better looking being labeled as sp. catemaco.
2. Piebalds are just a line bred cross between sp. catemaco and fenestratus. Sp. catemaco being a new species.
3. They are both 2 completely different species.
Another question is, have you ever seen any wild piebalds? I have only seen f1 and so on for sale. Where has it been stated that any piebald being sold was wc in sp. catemaco?
Also, has anyone ever had a spawn with their piebalds? What do you get? Being that they have been in the hobby so long, someone has to have an answer to that question.
So, there are 3 possible answers to the question above.
1. Piebalds and sp. catemaco are the same species, just different race's as you expect. The better looking being labeled as sp. catemaco.
2. Piebalds are just a line bred cross between sp. catemaco and fenestratus. Sp. catemaco being a new species.
3. They are both 2 completely different species.
Another question is, have you ever seen any wild piebalds? I have only seen f1 and so on for sale. Where has it been stated that any piebald being sold was wc in sp. catemaco?
Also, has anyone ever had a spawn with their piebalds? What do you get? Being that they have been in the hobby so long, someone has to have an answer to that question.
cchhcc;3868190; said:
Of the same batch nonetheless, yes? Please give us an updated picture of yours. Which was the one in the net I'm guessing. Was your fish wild caught? Can you find out what part of the lake? Might as well just be different race's from different locations in the lake. Buddha's as well as mine were caught on the north shore.
All fenestratus piebald, etc. are from the same lake (Catemaco). Similar (or the same) fish have been called piebald fenestratus, conkelii, and catemaco. There is a line bred piebald version that originated in Australia I think (that purple marbled fish that's been around the boards), but the original piebald fenestratus has been collected in the wild by several collectors and vendors. Conkel featured that fish in his 1993 book and has called that fish a number of different things, and he may now be differentiating them by appearance or collection location.
The issue is most sources think they are all the same species, and at least two vendors are marketing a particular race as " sp. Catemaco." I've seen very similar fish for years in my DCT supplied LFS, and they called them "sp. Conkelii." They were the pale white fish with the darker fin edges like I've seen you guys post on this board. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so I wouldn't apply any particular superlatives to either fish, unless of course you think a white Midas is more valuable than a yellow Midas, etc. etc.
I don't know where my fish came from (other than DCT), but I agree there is likely a high degree of variability throughout the lake. That wouldn't be unusual.
Ultimately, a vendor can be a "splitter" as much as he likes for marketing purposes. There will always be a market for new or different fish.
The issue is most sources think they are all the same species, and at least two vendors are marketing a particular race as " sp. Catemaco." I've seen very similar fish for years in my DCT supplied LFS, and they called them "sp. Conkelii." They were the pale white fish with the darker fin edges like I've seen you guys post on this board. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so I wouldn't apply any particular superlatives to either fish, unless of course you think a white Midas is more valuable than a yellow Midas, etc. etc.
I don't know where my fish came from (other than DCT), but I agree there is likely a high degree of variability throughout the lake. That wouldn't be unusual.
Ultimately, a vendor can be a "splitter" as much as he likes for marketing purposes. There will always be a market for new or different fish.
I wonder if the different variants will ultimately be classified as different species or the same. If dna testing proves them to be different species, but they come from the same lake, would they be classified as different species? Is it possible for two fish of the same genus but different species to inhabit the same locale?
Also is there anyone selling the "original" wc piebald fenesrtatus at the moment? Or does anyone happen to own one of these? I'm interested to know what part of the lake they were caught.
Also is there anyone selling the "original" wc piebald fenesrtatus at the moment? Or does anyone happen to own one of these? I'm interested to know what part of the lake they were caught.
