My newest acquistion: sp. 'Conkeli'

[armac]

Just curious, if he has not been to the lake since that article, which mentions him collecting there years back, then you do the math. From what the article mentioned, collecting there was not too common.

Just being realistic, not argumentative.

 

[VRWC]

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?

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.

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.

This isn't a discussion as to whether the fish are wild or not!

Are you sure?

 

[Nemesis]

Yeah, I know where your going. But I think we should steer clear of that topic. You know.. it would be kinda cool if we can have at least one thread not get closed! We can go back and forth about it, but the fact of the matter is, if you really want the answer to that ask dc. End of story.

 

[armac]

no problem............I deal with facts........case closed

 

[Nemesis]

Are you sure?

Yup, I'm sure. If you didn't notice, the reason for me asking whether cchhcc's fish were wild, was merely to find out whether they were caught in the same location as the "sp. Catemaco", or if there are different variants of the fish based on location of the lake. The link reverse provided answered my question. If you haven't read it you should. The only logical explanation for having all 3 in the same lake, is that the pink or sp. Catemaco was the native species, and the normal fenestratus was somehow introduced, making the still wild piebald fenestratus. Or is there a better explanation?

Oh and thanks for pointing that out vrwc, wouldn't want anyone to get confused

 

[Nemesis]

no problem............I deal with facts........case closed

Glad we could agree on something

 

[cchhcc]

Yeah, I know where your going. But I think we should steer clear of that topic. You know.. it would be kinda cool if we can have at least one thread not get closed! We can go back and forth about it, but the fact of the matter is, if you really want the answer to that ask dc. End of story.

Good post. We should be able to continue this conversation without it degenerating... but it seems some people get defensive if someone questions their fish in any way. I could not possibly care less what someone's opinion of my fish are, so I don't understand it when people get touchy about their own. Oh well......

Anyway, Nemesis, keep in mind that no one splits up the very different looking variants of citrinellus or labiatus into different species, even when they are living side by side. It would seem inconsistent to begin splitting up the similarly variable fenestratus.

The very existence of xanthic/oligomelanic morphs of a given species BY DEFINITION indicates that there will be a high degree of variability in coloration. Granted, in an isolated area of a lake, a breeding population may even be able to produce a certain "type" or "look", but that is not on its own what determines a distinct species.

I have no concern for the ultimate classification of the various types, but I do agree keeping them separate is wise. It's just good business to be able to offer distinct looking fish. The same has been done with Midas cichlids for years. How many times were "Barred Midas" chosen over the typically colored Midas in the last several years? The difference was definitely marketed, but they were never claimed to be a new species.

I prefer to wait for the ichthyologists to tell me what a given fish is. They don't sell fish! At the same time, I appreciate the fact that many or most of the best fish are coming from sellers. I have no vested interest in knocking down one vendor or building up another. As DC doesn't stop by here much and isn't a MFK vendor, it's disappointing that we don't get to hear from him much. Only good things could come from the discussion.

 

[Tom500]

What a fantastic looking fish, nice pick up!

 

[dogofwar]

Laguna Catemaco is a crater lake...which means that it is biogeographically isolated from other bodies of water. Laguna Catemaco was formed about 2 million years ago, when lava flow blocked its current northern end.

That means that the fish in the lake have evolved in isolation from other bodies of water...and perhaps explains why the "fenestratus" found there are different than the widely distributed riverine fenestratus.

The fish in the lake are highly evolved to that 28 square mile habitat. I would guess that succeeding generations of fish - raised outside of the lake's unique characteristics...and bred to appeal to aquarist aesthetics - will result in fish that are more and more different from what's found in the native habitat...

Matt

 

[Nemesis]

I agree, whether the "sp. Catemaco" be classified as it's own species or not, it should be marketed with a different name. Might not keep the "sp", but something along the lines of laguna catemaco fenestratus, or pink fenestratus. Sort of like how carpinte are described by their collection location. If it is classified as a different species, then it should be named as such. I guess we all just have to wait and see. Can we also agree that there is a difference between the "piebald" and "pink" fenestratus?

Perhaps the "sp" should have not yet been given.

And as for dc, I could care less what anybody says about him. All I know is that he offers top quality fish at reasonable prices. And I will call them whatever he says they are until I am proven otherwise. I don't give a crap what anyone else says about them. Wild fish or not wild fish, new species or not new species, they're beautiful fish, and i wouldn't see them any differently.