Please Help ID what I just bought

  • We are currently upgrading MFK. thanks! -neo
im gona jump the gun and say its a parrot x texas hybrid
 
Modest_Man;4500930; said:
Say what? Read up on your taxonomy. It's Paratheraps synspilum.

As to the rest, it's all just guessing but instead of just throwing out random fish (a dempsey, cyano, synspilum, red texas, blackbelt, carpintis, hybrid so far?) I actually back up my thoughts with other photos of similar fish and a location and distribution for a variant of synspilum that have a characteristic spotted appearance like this fish has.

It's all just guessing but at least my guess is mildly educated. :D

Also the "pure strains" are better than a hybrid comment...in regards to a hybrid, made me laugh.
Click to expand...

Taxonomic history:
Cichlasoma synspilum, Hubbs, 1935, original combination.
Cichlaurus hicklingi, Fowler, 1956, junior synonym.
Cichlasoma (Theraps) synspilum, Miller, 1966, new combination.
Paratheraps synspilus, All***er, 1989, new combination.
Vieja synspila, All***er, 1991, new combination.

I can understand how you would get confused with all the conflicting information on the net. But even Cichlid connection agrees - http://cichlidconnection.com/index.php?p=1_22_Vieja-1

Chances are this is another one of the homemade red texas's that are all over the market. These usually have Vieja in the make-up, which gives this tex some syn traits.
Modest- A rare desirable synspilus collected from a small lake is smoke up the you know what. In regards to the hybrid statement, If you agree with breeding silks with unknown hybrids then more power to you. Its just not my style.
 
Comments: The genus Paratheraps was erected for the new species P. brehidori by Uwe Werner and Rainer Stawikowski in 1987 to group some species then belonging to the Theraps section of the Cichlasoma genus. Cichlasoma had been restricted by Sven Kullander in 1983 (Kullander, 1983) to some South American species closely related to the type species, Cichlasoma bimaculatum. Paratheraps groups some Mexican, Guatemala, Belize and El Salvador cichlid species with a deep and compressed body, a rounded head and a black longitudinal bar running from the base of the pectoral to the base of the caudal fin in the middle of the caudal peduncle, among other traits.

Paratheraps was subsequently placed in synonymy of Vieja by Robert All***er (1991) arguing that the new genus complied with the meristic limits given for Vieja maculicauda Fernandez-Yepez, 1969. Most later authors have followed All***er’s view. According to Fernandez Yépez, Vieja (which in Spanish means old woman) refers the name given to cichlids in some parts of Central America, because of the close attachment of females to their fry.

Werner and Stawikowski, however, made an omission in their description in naming the type species for their genus. Although they described Paratheraps brehidori, they did not designated it as the type species for their genus, and so the description, not complying with the guidelines of the International Commission On Zoological Nomenclature (Article 13c), was declared invalid by most persons working with Cichlid taxonomy. The mistake was fixed in 1989, when Werner and Stawikowski republished the description designating Paratheraps brehidori as the type species of their genus.

This problem arose because according to the ICZM code, for a described species in a new genus to be considered type species, it must be either named so or be the only species (and a new one) treated in the paper. In Werner and Stawikowski's paper, two species are considered: P. brehidori and P. hartwegi Taylor & Miller 1980, so a type species should had been designated.

From the Appendix A of the Genera of Recent Fishes book by William N. Eschmeyer, published in 1990 by the California Academy of Sciences, I have extracted the following quote; "Werner and Stawikowski (1987) described the new genus Paratheraps for P. breidohri "gen. nov., spec. nov." They also included the species P. hartwegi (Taylor and Miller 1980). Does this establish a type species? The first part of Art. 13c (ICZM) states, "The combined description or definition of a new nominal genus and a single included new nominal species, if marked by..." What does the expression "single included new nominal species" mean? In the example of Paratheraps, the new taxon contains a single new nominal species (it also contains a second species that is not new). I interpret the Article to mean that there must be only one included species and it must be a new species (along with use of the appropriate expression). So, Paratheraps cannot date to 1987, but can date to the same authors in 1989 where a type was designated".

The name Paratheraps is then available for use, and although Robert All***er (1991) considers the diagnostic traits of Paratheraps overlapping with those found in the very vague description of Vieja by Agustin Fernandez-Yépez (1969), the fact is that the grouping exists and posses some diagnostic traits; as the longitudinal black band on the flanks in Paratheraps (vs. a vertical bar in V. maculicauda), the absence of the large black blotch on the caudal peduncle found in V. maculicauda and a larger mouth than in Vieja maculicauda. A DNA gene comparison (e.g. Concheiro et al, 2006) has also shown the grouping for Paratheraps (with the particular exception of P. synspilus & P. melanurus. For P. synspilus however, aquarium specimens of indeterminate origin were used). So, given the common traits of P. synspilus with the rest of the species of Paratheraps and until more evidence for the opposite becomes available, I consider Paratheraps as a valid genus.

Although clear limits for Paratheraps have not been established, we can expect it to group the species: fenestratus Günther 1860, from the Papaloapan river basin, melanurus Gunther 1862, from lake Peten, bifasciatus Steindachner 1864, from the lower Grijalva and the Usumacinta, Chompan and Candelaria river systems, guttulatus Gunther 1864, from Guatemala and El Salvador, zonatus Meek 1905, from the pacific slope of México south of the isthmus of Tehuantepec, synspilus Hubbs 1935 (probably in synonymy of P. melanurus), from the Champoton river system, the eastern Yucatán sink holes (cenotes) and lagoons, the upper Rio Usumacinta and the Hondo, New, Belize and Siboon rivers in Belize, hartwegi Taylor & Miller 1980, breidohri Werner & Stawikowski 1987, both species from the upper Grijalva river basin and a potentially undescribed species from Rio Coatzacoalcos system, sp. 'coatzacoalcos'.
Click to expand...

Seriously, you want to play games quoting from vendors? Cichlid Connection just works for Don Conkel, who has mislabeled more fish than you've seen in your life. :) And since when were Vieja 1 and Vieja 2 valid species names? :) The most recent of your authors is from 1991, almost twenty years ago. Things have changed since then. Trust me. Check out www.cichlidae.com, THE single best resource on cichlids available on the internet, and where that read above came from.

It's not smoke, it happens all the time. People are way to trigger happy on playing the hybrid card these days. If they don't know what it is - "hybrid, hybrid, hybrid". Read the thread I linked too, it happened to that guy. Why not another? It's also a river drainage, not a lake.

SILKS ARE HYBRIDS. Hence my statement.

Still, I'm not saying this fish is or isn't a pure species or a hybrid. No one is going to be able to tell that. I'm simply stating my opinion that it could be a non-hybrid. Some more photos would be helpful, especially after it has settled in. But when you list incorrect information as fact it hurts the hobby as a whole and I feel obligated to step in.
 
Here's pics of my f1 synspila's, about the same size of your cichlid... You most def have a hybrid
8da05276.jpg

2517ac29.jpg

842020f6.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
MonsterFishKeepers.com
Top Bottom