What causes this?

neutrino

Goliath Tigerfish
MFK Member
Jan 22, 2013
2,408
2,682
179
Mid-Atlantic, US
Little more on nutrition... IMO it's not so much that you have to be an expert and know individual nutrients and add them to foods or look for them on packaging, etc. Lot of the color producing nutrients are in the carotenoid family and are naturally found in primary food sources like crustaceans (krill, shrimp), algae, spirulina, salmon, etc.

Some people get the idea that the color of the food or nutrient equals that color in the fish. Not necessarily. It's how an animal processes the nutrient. Example is I've seen people say astaxanthin is bad for blue fish, since it's largely responsible for the pink in flamingos and the red in salmon. But if you research it, for technical reasons that have to do with the way astaxanthin is bound to proteins, it's also responsible for the blue in blue lobsters. Astaxanthin can produce blue, green, purple, etc.

Some of the same people seem to think spirulina is good for blue fish primarily because of its blue-green color, but spirulina actually has a number of yellow and red/orange nutrients, so it's not just about blue fish, it's a nutritional food source in general because of the overall synergy of nutrients. As I understand it, the blue in blue-green algae comes from phycocyanin. However, that doesn't mean the key to blue fish depends solely on phycocyanin. I've seen reports of a discus study that found astaxanthin and beta-carotene (red/orange pigments) improved the color of blue discus. I've seen the same with my Zaire blue fronts, they look good with sources of astaxanthin like krill or salmon. So it's not as simplistic as feeding red/orange foods to enhance orange and red or blue (or blue-green) foods to enhance blue.

That's why I say, at least for me, it's not so much about trying to come up with a secret formula to get a particular color I want from my fish or to max out their growth, etc. To me it's more that overall good health and nutrition brings out the natural vibrance and color that's already in their genes. It's a subject I like and have done a good bit of reading, but doesn't make me an expert-- ultimately I like to keep it simple and go with what has worked for me... another way to put it is I want my fish to look good because they feel good.
 

gamerpond1

Gambusia
MFK Member
Jun 3, 2012
879
4
18
Texas
That's exactly why I referred to the Wayne Leibel article rather than explain it myself. That way I don't have to argue and no one has to take my word for it, you can simply read the history written by a biology professor who's a well known cichlid expert (especially SA cichlids) with numerous cichlid publishing credits. The confusion isn't only the fault of hobbyists, as you see in the article it's taken time for the experts themselves to sort it out, and until they did there was different opinions even among the experts.

But, for now, and unless or until they get reclassified, gold saums are rivulatus as explained in the Wayne Leibel article I linked above and also as stated on this Alf Stalsberg web page (A. stalsbergi are named after Alf Stalsberg). Stalsberg is one of those who did not always believe gold saums were rivulatus, but note his comment on this:
...which is why he currently lists them as "Andinoacara rivulatus (Goldsaum)".

This illustrates one of the problems with the whole subject, the same writers have said different things at different times-- until the work was done to officially classify gold saums (and non-stalsbergi white saums) as rivulatus. In fact, at one time current stalsbergi were considered 'true rivulatus' by some. So it gets confusing and an older article or source may well reflect an outdated understanding. And, who knows, they could be reclassified again in the future.

As for the cichlid profiles you referenced, it's not the only one they have that's inaccurate or out of date. Another example, even more in my wheelhouse, is here where they list 5 different frontosa as "sp. North". There IS no Cyphotilapia "sp. North" and there never was in any official way. Sp. North was suggested by some as a possible name for six striped C. frontosa, under the assumption six striped frontosa and seven striped frontosa in the northern part of the lake (as distinguished from C. gibberosa in the southern part of the lake) would be split into two species. This never happened, the most recent study done says they are morphs of the same species and both are C. frontosa. So "sp. North" is a defunct term that was never official in the first place. It isn't recognized and doesn't appear on official taxonomic registries, not even as an "invalid synonym". It was a suggested name that was prematurely picked up on and used by some as though it was official when it wasn't. Yet the cichlid profiles on that site still lists them with this outdated term that was never official in the first place.
Then why change it up now the silver saum has been listed as a green terror since 06 and the gold saum has been listed as a sp. since 06 I swear taxonomy is one of the most inconsistent publications ever they need to narrow the field of people that are able to change it down to one specific degree

Sent from my SM-T210R using MonsterAquariaNetwork App
 

neutrino

Goliath Tigerfish
MFK Member
Jan 22, 2013
2,408
2,682
179
Mid-Atlantic, US
That's nothing, you should see what's happening now as a result of genetic testing. Numerous animals that look virtually identical and were always thought to be a single species are now being reclassified into two or even multiple species. This is happening everywhere, just one example: giraffes no longer single species

Like a lot of things in science, what we think we know is always changing.
 

justarn

Arapaima
MFK Member
May 24, 2011
8,732
3,348
203
41
Kent UK
just saw this! made me think of this thread, what is it white saum sp or summit?
 
zoomed.com
hikariusa.com
aqaimports.com
Store