Do you have any pictures of them? I'd love to see them! Such a stunning and interesting species.
Wills
Nicaraguan Cichlids - Colour localities.
- Thread starter Wills
- Start date
Do you have any pictures of them? I'd love to see them! Such a stunning and interesting species.
Wills
Not really sure of any 'not' legal ones either. nothing on a large export scale. maybe a private hobbyist snatching a few individuals and smuggling them out and in but that is it.
I had a look around but couldn't find anything. I saw you reference them on the GCAA site and found a link on google but the page was dead so couldnt see it. Would be really interested to see if you have them though.
This video is one that started me off recently on this trying to work it out but in the past I have had Nics that look like both sets in this video and just always wanted to work out what the difference is.
The ones at the start are the type I prefer and Bill mentions they have just come from a local store after being rehomed so I imagine captive bred but we don't know any heritage etc. The second pair that show up at about 2:55 Bill says he got them from Max Cichlids and they were F2 but didnt mention a location but I found a post on here while searching for Newworlds pics that Max has had some F2 Rio San Juan from Costa Rica so maybe they are the same fish?
My guess is that the ones with more black on are from Costa Rica - based on 10-15 years ago they were much more blue and yellow, and likely from Nicaraguan stock then over the last 10-15 years as those routes have close the Costa Rica stock with more black markings have become more common and thats what I see now. Also with the fish from Bills video above being from Max Cichlids who it looks got them F2 from Costa Rica strains also seems to add to this theory.
It is a guess though but will keep trying to research to get some kind of confirmation.
Wills
I've been doing a bit more digging for those that are interested 
about 50 years ago I believe Nicaraguensis was actually seen as 3 or maybe 4 species. Which were all in the old Cichlasoma or Heros family and they were Nicaraguensis, Spilotum, Baleatum and possibly Unimaculatum.
I found this paper from the 1970s that I believe is when three of the forms were classed under Nicaraguensis and managed to translate it using a mix of Acrobat and Google to get a reasonable translation out. One thing I've not worked out is where each 'species' came from, they mention the locations and the old names but not how they relate to each other? Interesting read if you want it. Any spanish speakers would be really interesting to see what you think of it? https://tropicalstudies.org/rbt/attachments/volumes/vol22-1/10-Lopez-Peces.pdf
Also found what I think is the latest research on them which is interesting too https://www.researchgate.net/profil...h-Diagnoses-For-The-Genus-And-Its-Species.pdf
H.Unimaculatum is actually referenced as the valid name here but a few other places I've seen disagree with this in the years since and still use Nicaraguensis. They also group Neets into Hypsophyrs which I'm not sure I'm on board with and again a few other places have the same issues. The link to put Nemoatopus in Hypsophyrs is both fish share a similar body shape (again not sure I agree) and they only have a single spike bone at the front of the dorsal fin where as other cichlid species have two. Interestingly they do say they think that C.Spilotum could be its own species and deserves more research.
One thing to mention on both studies is I believe they did the study on preserved specimens rather than living specimens so potentially I do feel they could have missed something like the body markings etc as discussed above with the recent Ram and Oscar species.
I can't find any research past this but will keep looking, I don't think as a family or species Hysophrys is fully explained yet. I think given they are such unique fish in terms of behaviour - burrowing with their heads for nests, their unusual relationship with P.Dovii, only cichlid with non adhesive eggs and their pretty unique appearance not just in terms of colour but also shape I do think they are 'worthy' of further research and proper classifications. Really wish I had the know how or at least the funds to contact people in the know haha.
Though someone here might find it interesting
about 50 years ago I believe Nicaraguensis was actually seen as 3 or maybe 4 species. Which were all in the old Cichlasoma or Heros family and they were Nicaraguensis, Spilotum, Baleatum and possibly Unimaculatum. I found this paper from the 1970s that I believe is when three of the forms were classed under Nicaraguensis and managed to translate it using a mix of Acrobat and Google to get a reasonable translation out. One thing I've not worked out is where each 'species' came from, they mention the locations and the old names but not how they relate to each other? Interesting read if you want it. Any spanish speakers would be really interesting to see what you think of it? https://tropicalstudies.org/rbt/attachments/volumes/vol22-1/10-Lopez-Peces.pdf
Also found what I think is the latest research on them which is interesting too https://www.researchgate.net/profil...h-Diagnoses-For-The-Genus-And-Its-Species.pdf
H.Unimaculatum is actually referenced as the valid name here but a few other places I've seen disagree with this in the years since and still use Nicaraguensis. They also group Neets into Hypsophyrs which I'm not sure I'm on board with and again a few other places have the same issues. The link to put Nemoatopus in Hypsophyrs is both fish share a similar body shape (again not sure I agree) and they only have a single spike bone at the front of the dorsal fin where as other cichlid species have two. Interestingly they do say they think that C.Spilotum could be its own species and deserves more research.
One thing to mention on both studies is I believe they did the study on preserved specimens rather than living specimens so potentially I do feel they could have missed something like the body markings etc as discussed above with the recent Ram and Oscar species.
I can't find any research past this but will keep looking, I don't think as a family or species Hysophrys is fully explained yet. I think given they are such unique fish in terms of behaviour - burrowing with their heads for nests, their unusual relationship with P.Dovii, only cichlid with non adhesive eggs and their pretty unique appearance not just in terms of colour but also shape I do think they are 'worthy' of further research and proper classifications. Really wish I had the know how or at least the funds to contact people in the know haha.
Though someone here might find it interesting
I've been doing a bit more digging for those that are interested
I found this paper from the 1970s that I believe is when three of the forms were classed under Nicaraguensis and managed to translate it using a mix of Acrobat and Google to get a reasonable translation out. One thing I've not worked out is where each 'species' came from, they mention the locations and the old names but not how they relate to each other? Interesting read if you want it. Any spanish speakers would be really interesting to see what you think of it? https://tropicalstudies.org/rbt/attachments/volumes/vol22-1/10-Lopez-Peces.pdf
Also found what I think is the latest research on them which is interesting too https://www.researchgate.net/profil...h-Diagnoses-For-The-Genus-And-Its-Species.pdf
H.Unimaculatum is actually referenced as the valid name here but a few other places I've seen disagree with this in the years since and still use Nicaraguensis. They also group Neets into Hypsophyrs which I'm not sure I'm on board with and again a few other places have the same issues. The link to put Nemoatopus in Hypsophyrs is both fish share a similar body shape (again not sure I agree) and they only have a single spike bone at the front of the dorsal fin where as other cichlid species have two. Interestingly they do say they think that C.Spilotum could be its own species and deserves more research.
One thing to mention on both studies is I believe they did the study on preserved specimens rather than living specimens so potentially I do feel they could have missed something like the body markings etc as discussed above with the recent Ram and Oscar species.
I can't find any research past this but will keep looking, I don't think as a family or species Hysophrys is fully explained yet. I think given they are such unique fish in terms of behaviour - burrowing with their heads for nests, their unusual relationship with P.Dovii, only cichlid with non adhesive eggs and their pretty unique appearance not just in terms of colour but also shape I do think they are 'worthy' of further research and proper classifications. Really wish I had the know how or at least the funds to contact people in the know haha.
Though someone here might find it interesting
Yes very interesting, thanks for sharing ?
I've been doing a bit more digging for those that are interested
I found this paper from the 1970s that I believe is when three of the forms were classed under Nicaraguensis and managed to translate it using a mix of Acrobat and Google to get a reasonable translation out. One thing I've not worked out is where each 'species' came from, they mention the locations and the old names but not how they relate to each other? Interesting read if you want it. Any spanish speakers would be really interesting to see what you think of it? https://tropicalstudies.org/rbt/attachments/volumes/vol22-1/10-Lopez-Peces.pdf
✎ EditSign
Also found what I think is the latest research on them which is interesting too https://www.researchgate.net/profil...h-Diagnoses-For-The-Genus-And-Its-Species.pdf
✎ EditSign
H.Unimaculatum is actually referenced as the valid name here but a few other places I've seen disagree with this in the years since and still use Nicaraguensis. They also group Neets into Hypsophyrs which I'm not sure I'm on board with and again a few other places have the same issues. The link to put Nemoatopus in Hypsophyrs is both fish share a similar body shape (again not sure I agree) and they only have a single spike bone at the front of the dorsal fin where as other cichlid species have two. Interestingly they do say they think that C.Spilotum could be its own species and deserves more research.
One thing to mention on both studies is I believe they did the study on preserved specimens rather than living specimens so potentially I do feel they could have missed something like the body markings etc as discussed above with the recent Ram and Oscar species.
I can't find any research past this but will keep looking, I don't think as a family or species Hysophrys is fully explained yet. I think given they are such unique fish in terms of behaviour - burrowing with their heads for nests, their unusual relationship with P.Dovii, only cichlid with non adhesive eggs and their pretty unique appearance not just in terms of colour but also shape I do think they are 'worthy' of further research and proper classifications. Really wish I had the know how or at least the funds to contact people in the know haha.
Though someone here might find it interesting
That paper is from 2007. they have been revised again since then.
- Hypsophrys, Agassiz, 1859:408, original name
- Parapetenia, Jordan et al., 1930:418, senior synonym
- Hypsophrys, Kullander, 2003:637, species delimitation (monotypic)
- Hypsophrys, Chakrabarty et al., 2007:60, species delimitation (diagnosis: two species)
- Neetroplus, Chakrabarty et al., 2007:60, junior synonym (described by Günther, 1867)
- Hypsophrys, Říčan et al., 2016:34, species delimitation (diagnosis: monotypic)
