P. Megdelanae vs. P. Reticulata

[Miles]

Okay so I have heard there is some disagreement on these fish.. They seem to both be synonymous with each other.. However I understand the coloration of adult fish and possibly maximum size differs.

Maybe we can clear it up?

They are collected from different areas, from what I understand.. I know you can't see the tails, but assume they are all very elongated.

Heres some pics I've gathered of 'Reticulated' Colombian Rays.. including the super cool red variant that vendor N-E Cichlids is selling.

First 4 are one type.. (P. Reticulata)?

Last 4 are another type.. (P. Megdelanae)?

No?

 

[Miles]

and If I understand correctly, P. Megdelanae loses it's pattern towards maturation? Also has to do with coloration on the underside?

Here is a picture of an Adult pair.. it was labeled P. Reticulata however..

This is all presumption, I am hoping AJ can chime in.. ?

 

[Miles]

Hey there you are DW

So is the scientific identification on FishBase just a 'morph' type issue? Is it Geographical? What about adult fish? Just curious!

I am just trying to understand how to label each fish if the name is represented scientifically..

 

[Miles]

Hey there you are DW

So is the scientific identification on FishBase just a 'morph' type issue? Is it Geographical? What about adult fish? Just curious!

I am just trying to understand how to label each fish if the name is represented scientifically..

I stand corrected.. FishBase.org does not recognize P. Reticulata .. Even though it is very commonplace in alot of stingray identification manuals?

http://www.fishbase.org/Nomenclature/NominalSpeciesList.cfm?family=Potamotrygonidae

 

[rayman]

Hi Miles,

1. there is the species P. magdalenae in Columbia, in fishbase they have some pics:
http://www.fishbase.org/Photos/ThumbnailsSummary.php?ID=48569
What you can not see on these pics is the end of the tail from a sideview.

2. P. retiulata is as of Rosa a synonym of P. orbignyi.

3. Frank Schäfer from Aqualog doubt this and shows pictures of rays named reticulata. He wrote that the tail of reticulata "is prolonged into a long narrow point".

4. there were some rays breed in the Belle Isle Aquarium that look like the reticulata in Aqualog but were named P. magdalenae. Here are some pics from the James R. Record Aquarium when I'm correct these are some of the pups from Belle Isle Aquarium:
http://www.potamotrygon.de/Zoo/fortworth.htm

5. last year were som,e rays exported from Columbia named P. magdalenae, but they look very different then reticulata and the fishbase magdalenae:
http://www.amazonasrochen.ch/page/rochen/arten/magdalena.htm

 

[Miles]

Hi Miles,

1. there is the species P. magdalenae in Columbia, in fishbase they have some pics:
http://www.fishbase.org/Photos/ThumbnailsSummary.php?ID=48569
What you can not see on these pics is the end of the tail from a sideview

These are the rays I have in my aquarium. I have seen a number of pictures of these as well. Pattern differs, both of my larger ones have very elongated tails with a 'blade' and does not run to a point.

2. P. retiulata is as of Rosa a synonym of P. orbignyi.

Interesting.. Orbignyi seems to be synonymous with a variety of rays, like Motoro.. ?

3. Frank Schäfer from Aqualog doubt this and shows pictures of rays named reticulata. He wrote that the tail of reticulata "is prolonged into a long narrow point".

I have seen 'retics' with this trait as well. Would this be the sp. "red"?

4. there were some rays breed in the Belle Isle Aquarium that look like the reticulata in Aqualog but were named P. magdalenae. Here are some pics from the James R. Record Aquarium when I'm correct these are some of the pups from Belle Isle Aquarium:
http://www.potamotrygon.de/Zoo/fortworth.htm

That is the adult 'reticulata' I have seen, that many have considered "P. Megdelanae".. Notice in my pictures above. Speaking with one who has bred them, he said it lost pattern and coloration and had coloration on the underside. (notice in your link it shows the underside)

5. last year were som,e rays exported from Columbia named P. magdalenae, but they look very different then reticulata and the fishbase magdalenae:
http://www.amazonasrochen.ch/page/rochen/arten/magdalena.htm

Those look like some of the 'Raya Common' that I have imported from Peru. These 'Common' Rays come in a wide range of varieties, and use many different synonyms like 'laticeps, histrix, yepezi'.. I would not consider any of those to be Reticulata? More towards Orbignyi, and one of them looks like Scobina?

 

[darcy12877]

Wow im confused lol I have no clue what species I have then. I thought that both of my rays were retics? But could they be a Megdelanae???

 

[Miles]

Most of the differences are simply and only 'skin deep' and there is a huge difference between ' species' and 'variants' ( morphs)

I understand and completely agree with that..

Do you think that the body structure can have geographical differences, ie: the bladed vs. pointed tail?

I was just curious if each type should be represented separately.. The maturation process of each is interesting..

 

[AJfromAT]

This is an interesting question. I'm thinking all the rays except the picture 2 & 3 are Magdalenae, with different patterns for the appropriate sizes.

2&3 look to be young tiger rays to me.

From what I gather the true retics should retain the web like pattern through adulthood and have plain white undersides like a Orbignyi.

The pics of the rays with pups and an arowana look to be the same as our rays.

As well as the pics from the fishbase and the fort worth zoo.

HTH

AJ

 

[JD7.62]

This is an interesting question. I'm thinking all the rays except the picture 2 & 3 are Magdalenae, with different patterns for the appropriate sizes.

2&3 look to be young tiger rays to me.

From what I gather the true retics should retain the web like pattern through adulthood and have plain white undersides like a Orbignyi.

The pics of the rays with pups and an arowana look to be the same as our rays.

As well as the pics from the fishbase and the fort worth zoo.

HTH

AJ

Ray in picture three is for sure not a young tiger ray. Notice how well hung he is?