mjuniorc;2289566; said:
well said bro..... that is a good point....
When the first batches of Kelberis came in (excluding Scat's as I believe his came from Japan) they came in three shipments. All from various locations. Soon after they reached good size to be properly identified they were said to be Kelberis.
Now, lets take for example the specie noted as "Madiera type sp" as pictured on this website, later to be described as Cichla Pleiozona.
(
http://www.fishbase.org/summary/SpeciesSummary.php?id=62992)
One of The distinguishing feature is that of the fourth bar on the caudal peduncle. As clearly pictured on the German website. You can see evident of gold spangles. In addition the bars seem to point in a V shape.
On Fishbase it notes the following;
presence (with occasional exceptions) of dark vertical bar (bar 4) anteriorly on caudal peduncle which is typically absent in both
kelberi and
monoculus, and from
kelberi by absence of light spots on anal and pelvic fins and lower lobe of caudal fin (Ref. 57716).
Now, take a look at one of my (what is said to be Kelberi)
The first picture is when it was smaller (7-8"). As you can see the gold spangles are just starting to develop.
The second picture (12") (bottom) the gold spangles are more pronounce and you can still see the 4th bar on the caudal peduncle. Two of what is said to be KELBERI's yet look so DIFFEREN'T. Body color differs, head shape differs and bars differ.
Now, you tell me. Possibility of Pleiozona or a mix of a Pleizona sp & Kelberi?
So what does prove? That gold spangles is not a clear cut form of identification. You want to get scientific than we need to start counting the scales. Anyways, just thinking outside the box and see what peoples thoughts are.
Also, this point is directed to my mentor Red....come out the closet and post you freak.... I know you'll see this...HAHAHAHAHA.... =-P
This is something that we battle about over the phone..hahahahaha
