they clearly all have different pearling, to me the esco has more swivel pearling on face and gill plate , Vont's look the best to me as far as carpintis
Vontehillos
- Thread starter GMFISHNUT
- Start date
jgentry;3928765; said:
Im with you on this buddy, youve hit the nail on the head, this is the main question i think we would all like to have answered.
Time will tell, but for now, i for one think that fish collected all over this area should definitely be labelled with their collection points, and kept seperated in our aquariums until further observations and study can be done.
Keep in mind, some of the photos that just came from Don are TWENTY YEARS OLD (Lahillas, Chairel).
Also, the Vonts have similar "swivel pearling" to Escons judging by the photos that exist so far for Vonts (and by the ones I saw in person today). That could be completely irrelevant anyway since some authorities think Chairel and Escons are the same fish from the same place.
Also, the Vonts have similar "swivel pearling" to Escons judging by the photos that exist so far for Vonts (and by the ones I saw in person today). That could be completely irrelevant anyway since some authorities think Chairel and Escons are the same fish from the same place.
cchhcc;3928930; said:
The Chairels in Dons pics also differ from my Chairels i have.
I can understand fully, why there are plenty of people who believe that Chairels and Esco's are the same fish. But having seen both races up close in the flesh, they do appear (in my eyes anyway) to be quite different. Notably the facial markings and the colour of the pearls, Esco's pearls are deeper blue, larger and bolder than Chairels. Well..... in the specimens i have observed anyway.
the problem with that approach is that it assumes a discrete number of collection and differentiation between one and another.
What's to keep the vendor or collector from naming fish from one throw of a cast net one (made up) location...and a throw from a few yards down the bank another one ("super green" for example). There WILL be diffrences in the fish from both casts...and within the casts.
There is natural variation in any population...and unless there's some sort of feature that permanently keeps one "location" from mixing with another, then isolating and breeding fish from one spot in a population is less authentic than taking fish from a broader pool (that may or may not be named differently by the collector / vendor).
Matt
What's to keep the vendor or collector from naming fish from one throw of a cast net one (made up) location...and a throw from a few yards down the bank another one ("super green" for example). There WILL be diffrences in the fish from both casts...and within the casts.
There is natural variation in any population...and unless there's some sort of feature that permanently keeps one "location" from mixing with another, then isolating and breeding fish from one spot in a population is less authentic than taking fish from a broader pool (that may or may not be named differently by the collector / vendor).
Matt
Jimmy Side eye;3928904; said:
dogofwar;3929007; said:
Exactly. You can't capture a few fish from the wild, start a breeding program with a few fish that are likely siblings, and consider the resulting similarities in their offspring charateristics of a new "race" until you significantly broaden your gene pool and still see the same unique characteristics.
ira;3928728; said:
Ira, does Don have any more recent pics of the Lahillas and Chairel? Those are in his 1993 book.
It would be cooler than cool to see all three in a tank together......sort of like the chancho / amarillo shot someone posted before.
What's with the hybrids? Seems irrelevant to the topic.
