name this fish !!!

  • We are currently upgrading MFK. thanks! -neo
Tongue33;543843; said:
Here since no one wants to back up their claims with pics of their fish or other data.. here are two that i found that defenitely would back up their calims to a point.. Problem you guys see is that you obviously do know what your talking about.. Good job..'

Getting your point across with any clarity or integrity in this thread with out any real data and a corresponding photo was the obvious error.. There is allot of mis info and if there is no back up to your claim... especially after the misidentifications that happened..

Trying to get credibility after there are 3 to 5 different opinions on an ID is just flat out hilarious.... UM DUH!

Any way now tell me and the author of the thread why these pics match the fish originally posted.. So that there can be no doubt that they are all pretty much the same sp.. :) As well as teaching us without a doubt what you know so we may intern with clarity pass the same info in the future :)

Thanks :)
http://aquavisie.retry.org/Database/Vissen/Vieja_bifasciata.html

http://burnel.club.fr/Photos/Vieja_bifasciata.html
Click to expand...


here is the problem with your asking for photographic proof...with as much misinformation as there is on the web about varying species (especially those that are similar in appearance) there is very little way to be sure that the pictures are actually the fish they are supposed to be. there are very few sites that I trust to show an accurate picture along with the species they are describing, and the 2 sites you linked to are not among those I trust. that's not to say those sites aren't trustworthy, only that I am not familiar with those sites so I won't speak as to their credibility.

here are some pics from a couple of sites that I do trust to post accurate pictures.

http://www.cichlidae.com/gallery.php?genus=Paratheraps. Based on these pics I'd say Dan's fish more closely resembles P. synspilus due to the blueish color on the sides just behind the pectoral fins (a trait I've never seen on bifasciatus) and the lack of virtually any lateral line. bifasciatus typically displays a midlateral line running the entire length of the body, though you will find pics of "claimed to be bifasc" without that solid line.

http://www.cichlid-forum.com/profiles/species.php?id=93 and you'll notice the full midlateral line as well and the "red head" is not a solid red but rather a collection of red spots that from further away give it a "red head" look. synspilum, http://www.cichlid-forum.com/profiles/species.php?id=105 has a solid red coloring on the head, not the spotted appearance of bifasciatus.

One thing about Dan's fish that bothers me is that it appears that the body is proportionally short in comparison to the tail. it could just be the camera angle, but the length of the body in comparison to the fish's girth and length of the tail looks wrong.

all that said, I'd say it's either synspilus or a synspilus hybrid. :)
 
Ya i seen those and was completely off the whole thing.. That is why it would seem that still noone can positively identify the fish.. Closest we are able to receive is an estimate.. or i'm leaning towards.. how bout you just don't know :)

One thing about Dan's fish that bothers me is that it appears that the body is proportionally short in comparison to the tail. it could just be the camera angle, but the length of the body in comparison to the fish's girth and length of the tail looks wrong.
Click to expand...
:iagree:

I have lloked at all those pics and similiarities have been in every ONE :) so ...Hybrid sounds better :)

here is the problem with your asking for photographic proof...with as much misinformation as there is on the web about varying species (especially those that are similar in appearance) there is very little way to be sure that the pictures are actually the fish they are supposed to be. there are very few sites that I trust to show an accurate picture along with the species they are describing, and the 2 sites you linked to are not among those I trust. that's not to say those sites aren't trustworthy, only that I am not familiar with those sites so I won't speak as to their credibility.
Click to expand...
:iagree: here too :)
 
Thank you J for the detailed explanation that has been by far even if you wouldn't have posted a pic the best discription of what it could be.. :) Well mainly cause you gave info :D
 
it is a bifasciatum or bifasciatumxsynspilum , look on the gills of this fish in this kind only bifasciatum have black spots on gills
 
BigTanker;548866; said:
It's definately not a black belt. Black belts have red on the face and a more solid stripe, like this:
Click to expand...

Just a side note...there is a species of Maculicada (Black Belt) that originates in the RIo Jutiapa in Honduras that does NOT have the black belt. Just thought I would mention it. I brought one back from Hondo on my last trip.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
MonsterFishKeepers.com
Top Bottom