Super red juvy?
- Thread starter Drab94
- Start date
The animal guy, not only did I own one, I owned a pair. Imported from Singapore by an associate of mine who owned a LFS in Vancouver, and sent to me as a birthday gift. Use the search feature, to my knowledge one of the largest male RT ever posted on MFK.
Last edited by a moderator:
I actually mentioned my RT's, and posted pics of the large male on MFK several times over the years. Many people on MFK have seen my RT's, not exactly top secret info. Do I need to reach out to MFK members who have been to my home, and seen my fish in person? Because I can ..... lol
This male was 11-12" in TL when that pic was taken.
This male was 11-12" in TL when that pic was taken.
based on all the times he's been
hey RD. You think your some kind of big tymer. But I've seeen you here for so long and all you do is act like you've seen it all and nothing's good enough for you. RD. is a phony. Post your fish. Prove it RD.
Last edited by a moderator:
RD. You're entitled to your own opinion.
OP's fish is not a Fh.
And your fish is not better than most ever seen. You're going blind.
Talking about go to Thailand and see to know. Because not everyone here will do that..
Have u been there this year to look? No. Okay then. You're just like most of us.
Lol
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm not trying to target anyone just please try to stay within TOS during debates. As for the debate at hand I'll offer my opinion and people can make what they want of it as they are sure to do with any post they read.
As far as I know there is no definitive standard for Red Texas or Super Red Texas, so anything can "technically" be called by those names, especially since the name is neither scientific or knowjn to have been used by a particular breeder. Again this is AFAIK
That being said I believe it wasn't defined because the name itself should have served as definition enough. The fish in question should show the characteristics of a Cyannogutatus or Carpintis(which is sometimes incorrectly called Texas cichlid) in body shape and pearling with the difference being the Red Texas should have a Red Base coloration which is different from their wild counterparts normal base coloration. So in my opinion the following is a real example of a Red Texas.
Fish that don't have a red or deep orange coloration with the body shape and kind of pearls that a Texas has IMO are not Red Texas. Especially fish that have a clear flowerline. Any fish with a flowerline is by definition a type of flowerhorn as the name actually has one of the defining characteristics of their standard in their name. Now black spots/ blotches alone are not a flowerline but black splotches encircled to some degree by pearling or blue is considered a flowerline as far as I know. So any fish that is red has pearling and a flowerline is a flowerhorn. Again that's as far as I know but I think the logic is pretty sound behind what I'm saying.
Now there's nothing wrong with having a gorgeous Red pearly flowerhorn. Just realize that it is easier to breed a flowerhorn with such characteristics then it is to get a Red Texas which exhibits a certain body shape, certain kind of pearling and intense orange or red coloration. And as such the price difference between the two will be substantial as well as any perceived value generally.
As far as I know there is no definitive standard for Red Texas or Super Red Texas, so anything can "technically" be called by those names, especially since the name is neither scientific or knowjn to have been used by a particular breeder. Again this is AFAIK
That being said I believe it wasn't defined because the name itself should have served as definition enough. The fish in question should show the characteristics of a Cyannogutatus or Carpintis(which is sometimes incorrectly called Texas cichlid) in body shape and pearling with the difference being the Red Texas should have a Red Base coloration which is different from their wild counterparts normal base coloration. So in my opinion the following is a real example of a Red Texas.
Fish that don't have a red or deep orange coloration with the body shape and kind of pearls that a Texas has IMO are not Red Texas. Especially fish that have a clear flowerline. Any fish with a flowerline is by definition a type of flowerhorn as the name actually has one of the defining characteristics of their standard in their name. Now black spots/ blotches alone are not a flowerline but black splotches encircled to some degree by pearling or blue is considered a flowerline as far as I know. So any fish that is red has pearling and a flowerline is a flowerhorn. Again that's as far as I know but I think the logic is pretty sound behind what I'm saying.
Now there's nothing wrong with having a gorgeous Red pearly flowerhorn. Just realize that it is easier to breed a flowerhorn with such characteristics then it is to get a Red Texas which exhibits a certain body shape, certain kind of pearling and intense orange or red coloration. And as such the price difference between the two will be substantial as well as any perceived value generally.
Yes, all very true, with one very big caveat, the fish that you just showed pics of, Kolt, are SRT, what most would consider masterpiece specimens, worth their weight in gold and pretty much never seen here in North America.
In comparison, RT, such as some of the examples shown in this thread, are fairly common. RT's with orange base (not red), are very common, and all are priced accordingly.
In comparison, RT, such as some of the examples shown in this thread, are fairly common. RT's with orange base (not red), are very common, and all are priced accordingly.
I'll never understand you cichlid people 
I just want some wild caught African riverines and that's that. none of this fancy shmancy stuff
I just want some wild caught African riverines and that's that. none of this fancy shmancy stuff
I actually see SRT's from time to time but it is rare and they are incredibly expensive. I was actually of the mind that SRT was coined because of people started using RT to represent lower quality fish. I could of course be wrong as it's something I more or less based solely on my opinion and what I considered logical deduction.
When I was first introduced to RT's the specimens I showed above where the specimens I originally saw associated with RT's then it seemed like the term SRT suddenly showed up. So I deduced what I said above but it could have just been my lack of knowledge that led me not to know of SRT's existence earlier.
And while I admit I maybe and probably am wrong about SRT's and RT's and when and what said terminologies came to represent. I'm still personally of the mind that a flowerline denotes flowerhorn. But I still also assert I'm giving my opinion based on what i know which maybe flawed, not to be taken as definitive facts.
