Ok now you have me curious to what your talking about because in my cichlid pocket professional the gold saum is a sp. and the green terror which is rivulatus has no gold tipped fins but green to white tips
Gold saum false green terror
http://www.cichlid-forum.com/profiles/species.php?id=502
Silver saum true green terror
http://www.cichlid-forum.com/profiles/species.php?id=2437
Rivulatus false green terror
http://www.cichlid-forum.com/profiles/species.php?id=2435
Sent from my SM-T210R using MonsterAquariaNetwork App
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:
I did not agree with this and did more work with these fishes, and the more I learned about these fish I was certain that this fish we called "Aequidens" sp. Goldsaum was not Andinoacara (Aequidens) rivulatus. But I had to change my mind later.
...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 So it gets confusing and an older article or source may well reflect an outdated understanding.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As for the cichlid profiles you referenced, it's not the only one they have that's inaccurate or out of date.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.