Port cichlid project

[Mahlerfan]

I am currently working on a project involving the genus Cichlasoma, commonly known as Port cichlids or Port Acaras. The currently known 12 species are constantly confused with one another by hobbyist. There seems to be a feeling among many that without locality data, a specimen of Cichlasoma is virtually impossible to identify as to species. Locality data is invaluable in helping identify a species, however Kullander, when he revised the genus, did provide details on distinguishing between the 12 species. Unfortunately Kullander's monograph on the genus is not so readily available, and when found can be a bit expensive. I was lucky enough to get a copy years ago.
Most of the 12 species have been imported into the country at one time or another, but usually without accurate species identification. I am trying to get my hands on as many types of Ports as are available, to provide not only a written account on how the hobbyist can differentiate between the 12 species but to also provide photos of living specimens. I already have several of the known species, correctly identified in my collection. This will take me a while but I hope to post my results on the forum for all to benefit from. If any members own Port Acaras and would like to post photos, as well as any information known (collection locality, etc.), this would be a great help as it will let me know what species are still present in the hobby. Thanks.

 

[BC in SK]

Well, I no longer own port acara, but I do have a picture from 25 years back. Definately no collection point data as it's aquarium strain, but I have always wondered which species it was. At the time, both Cichlasoma bimaculatum and Aequidens portalgrensis were thought to be in the hobby, though that was before all the new species were described. And since the two are hard to distinguish, they may very well have been crossed at times. Still I am very curious to know which species it fits. My male was very mature, around 8" or more, and very, very thick and heavy bodied.

 

[TheFishJunky]

I am currently working on a project involving the genus Cichlasoma, commonly known as Port cichlids or Port Acaras. The currently known 12 species are constantly confused with one another by hobbyist. There seems to be a feeling among many that without locality data, a specimen of Cichlasoma is virtually impossible to identify as to species. Locality data is invaluable in helping identify a species, however Kullander, when he revised the genus, did provide details on distinguishing between the 12 species. Unfortunately Kullander's monograph on the genus is not so readily available, and when found can be a bit expensive. I was lucky enough to get a copy years ago.
Most of the 12 species have been imported into the country at one time or another, but usually without accurate species identification. I am trying to get my hands on as many types of Ports as are available, to provide not only a written account on how the hobbyist can differentiate between the 12 species but to also provide photos of living specimens. I already have several of the known species, correctly identified in my collection. This will take me a while but I hope to post my results on the forum for all to benefit from. If any members own Port Acaras and would like to post photos, as well as any information known (collection locality, etc.), this would be a great help as it will let me know what species are still present in the hobby. Thanks.

Sounds like a great plan. I am still working on gathering a few more for you as well. I still have the 2 and have a few more I just need to go get.I haven't forgotten you.Keep us all up to date. I wish I knew you were looking for many/all 'port' species because I passed up many I could have helped your research more.
Oh-which reminds me a friend who has a store front has probably the biggest port I have ever seen in it.too bad one fish wouldn't help your research though. It's gotta be 8" or so and very thick.But not very pretty looking - just big.

Well, I no longer own port acara, but I do have a picture from 25 years back. Definately no collection point data as it's aquarium strain, but I have always wondered which species it was. At the time, both Cichlasoma bimaculatum and Aequidens portalgrensis were thought to be in the hobby, though that was before all the new species were described. And since the two are hard to distinguish, they may very well have been crossed at times. Still I am very curious to know which species it fits. My male was very mature, around 8" or more, and very, very thick and heavy bodied.

He is an Aequidens portalgrensis imo.

 

[BC in SK]

Could be Cichlasoma portalgrensis, though what are the distinguishing characteristics from the other 11 Cichlasoma species, that identifies it as C. portalgrensis? I have a very hard time seeing the differences between these species, so that's why I would very much like to see how it would fit using Kullander's code to identify them.

I supose if I still had the fish, or could tell from the picture, 4 or more anal spines should identify it as C. bimaculatum (or one of the newer described species?) and not C. portalgrensis. Back then, some figured that C. bimaculatum had nicer fins and was not as heavily bodied but I have no idea if that really was true, or if that aplied to more mature fish as well-----or if those really were the species present in the hobby at that time, since most, if not all of the others species, have been described since.

 

[jonclark96]

I'm interested to see the results of your studies. I haven't kept many ports in the past, but I recently picked up a female araguaiense who is a nice addition to my big community tank. Anyone know of a male that is available or someone looking for a female?

 

[Mahlerfan]

BC in SK, thanks for posting the photo. Right away I can tell you it is not Cichlasoma bimaculatum. If you look at the photo the fish has thick black edges to the rear portion scales on the head and sides. This thick black edging is only found in 3 of the 12 species as described/redescribed by Kullander. The 3 are Cichlasoma dimerus, C. portalegrense and C. pusillum. It is not Cichlasoma pusillum as that species has a somewhat more elongate body than your fish as well as an enlarged cheek spot and a series of randomly scattered black spots on the gill plates. So that leaves only two of the 12 species that you Port could be - Cichlasoma dimerus or Cichlasoma portalegrense. These two species are very similar and are distinguished mostly by the reduced number of teeth in the lower jaw of C. portalegrense, but adult C. portalegrense have a more blutly rounded snout than C. dimerus and have larger dots in the caudal fin. True Cichlasoma portalegrense have a more or less egg shaped body when viewed from the side. Using these criteria I believe your Port is actually Cichlasoma dimerus.

 

[Mahlerfan]

TheFishJunky, Thanks. There is no rush, whenever you get them in will be fine. Let me know if you again come across any other Cichlasoma species in the future as I still have a ways to go in getting the 12 described forms.

Ugly cichlasoma usually means one of the species from the Cichlasoma bimaculatum complex. The six species in this group are much less colorful than the species of the Cichlasoma dimerus complex.

 

[BC in SK]

BC in SK, thanks for posting the photo. Right away I can tell you it is not Cichlasoma bimaculatum. If you look at the photo the fish has thick black edges to the rear portion scales on the head and sides. This thick black edging is only found in 3 of the 12 species as described/redescribed by Kullander. The 3 are Cichlasoma dimerus, C. portalegrense and C. pusillum. It is not Cichlasoma pusillum as that species has a somewhat more elongate body than your fish as well as an enlarged cheek spot and a series of randomly scattered black spots on the gill plates. So that leaves only two of the 12 species that you Port could be - Cichlasoma dimerus or Cichlasoma portalegrense. These two species are very similar and are distinguished mostly by the reduced number of teeth in the lower jaw of C. portalegrense, but adult C. portalegrense have a more blutly rounded snout than C. dimerus and have larger dots in the caudal fin. True Cichlasoma portalegrense have a more or less egg shaped body when viewed from the side. Using these criteria I believe your Port is actually Cichlasoma dimerus.

Thank you very, very much for the info. Based on the pictures in Aqualog Southamerican cichlids 3, C. dimerus was one of the fishes I seriously considerd iit could be, based on what I can remember the fish looked like at a young age, but that's quite a long time ago to remember. At least it's narrowed down to probably 2, with C. dimerus as the more likely. Thank you!

 

[Sab_Fan]

nice idea . . . I currently am keeping "blue" ports in my 90G tank, and juvie "red" ports in my 30G tank . . . no pics of the "red" ones yet, but here is a pic of the male blue port, which I believe to be c. dimerus

 

[Mahlerfan]

Great looking Port, thanks for posting the photo. You may be right about it's species, although I am certain several undescribed species exist, and may be entering the hobby, so one can't be 100% sure from a photo. Let me know if you get any fry as I'd like to add a few of these Blue Ports to my collection.

The Red Ports that I have received in the past have turned out to be Cichlasoma amazonarum. If you ever do get photos of yours and you can post them, I'll let you know if they match up to that species also. Thanks again.