sick midas cichlid

  • We are currently upgrading MFK. thanks! -neo
At least they’re not being called Red Devils (Labiatus) anymore! As I’m reading this thread and looking at the fish I’m thinking how could somebody think these are Amphilophus Labiatus, to be honest to me they look more like Amphilophus Xiloaensis than Citrinellus.

I disagree with the statement that if they do not have a nauchal hump at 3” they’ll never have one. I have seen plenty of 3” fish with no sign of a NH grow impressive NHs and turn into stunning fish. If you go through some of the threads on here you’ll find plenty. I’ll be the first to admit none of us hit a home run every time we post and I’ve had a few I wish I could’ve taken before everyone read them but that statement is just wrong.
 
I bought this one off rapps as amphilophus citrinellus..... If u go on the media section and look at my 150 update u will see i have a white amphilophus xiloaensis.... You can clearly see the difference the xilo has a longer face and less stocky body even At this size its easy to see the difference...
 
xinchavoc;4811859; said:
I bought this one off rapps as amphilophus citrinellus..... If u go on the media section and look at my 150 update u will see i have a white amphilophus xiloaensis.... You can clearly see the difference the xilo has a longer face and less stocky body even At this size its easy to see the difference...

Not yours! I was talking about the pics of the fish with the big nauchal humps. Yours is exactly what you bought it as.
 
Ohh i thought you were talking about mine and i dont think those are pure midas? Thats just my opinion they look like they have been crossed to grow big humps..
 
I am not saying its impossible for it to grow a nice hump but just not a large Nuchual hump like these!!! Personally everyones taste is different but i only care for the ones with massive heads maybe it is because I raised FH like that for so many years!!!
 
MonsterFishKeepers.com