What is the difference Between a GT and a fake GT?
- Thread starter JIENKINZ
- Start date
So are you saying A. Rivulatus is extinct or something? You keep refering to everyones gold and silver saums as A. Aequinoctalis. Whats the difference between the two. Lets leave A. Stalsbergi out since we know they are different.blackghostuk;4105205; said:
blackghostuk;4105205; said:
So how is what I said inaccurate?
Andinoacara stalsbergi is a new name for Rivulatus, linked below.
http://www.tangledupincichlids.com/images/rivul3.jpg
Also, from what I have found, A. aequinoctalis is a new taxonomy for the gold saum.
A. rivulatus is not extinct. Nearly all GT's in the hobby are A. aequinoctalis. Gold Saums, Silver Saums (the ones that are not stalsbergi). If you look at the first 2 fish on this page...
http://www.lem.net/alf/css-andinoacara.htm
...you'll see A. rivulatus (probably) and then A. aequinoctalis (and then A. stalsbergi).
They are obviously different species, but although the latter 2 have now been named, rivulatus cant yet be officially recognised as Gunther gave no collection location when he described the original specimen. It may turn out that aequinoctalis is an invalid junior synonym of rivulatus (from the original Chromis genus) but for now, aequinoctalis stands.
A 3rd species is out there, as you can see in the above link. Whether it is the original rivulatus is still to be determined, and wont be until the entire region has been extensively collected and studied. But for now, aequinoctalis is not rivulatus, and according to Stalsberg, the first fish in the link is rivulatus.
I hope all this makes sense. It's very difficult to explain.
TrikkyMakk, stalsbergi is not a new name for rivulatus. It's a new name for a fish that was called rivulatus in the trade, but wasnt rivulatus. Both 'rivulatus' and aequinoctalis have dark scales on a blue (aequinoctalis) or white ('rivulatus') background. Stalsbergi has blue scales on a dark background.
http://www.lem.net/alf/css-andinoacara.htm
...you'll see A. rivulatus (probably) and then A. aequinoctalis (and then A. stalsbergi).
They are obviously different species, but although the latter 2 have now been named, rivulatus cant yet be officially recognised as Gunther gave no collection location when he described the original specimen. It may turn out that aequinoctalis is an invalid junior synonym of rivulatus (from the original Chromis genus) but for now, aequinoctalis stands.
A 3rd species is out there, as you can see in the above link. Whether it is the original rivulatus is still to be determined, and wont be until the entire region has been extensively collected and studied. But for now, aequinoctalis is not rivulatus, and according to Stalsberg, the first fish in the link is rivulatus.
I hope all this makes sense. It's very difficult to explain.
TrikkyMakk, stalsbergi is not a new name for rivulatus. It's a new name for a fish that was called rivulatus in the trade, but wasnt rivulatus. Both 'rivulatus' and aequinoctalis have dark scales on a blue (aequinoctalis) or white ('rivulatus') background. Stalsbergi has blue scales on a dark background.
This argument comes just as often as the "True and FalseTexas Cichlid" argument. It hardly ever ends well but it is pretty entertaining and informative to read. Green Terrors may be widely dispersed, misnamed fish of various color forms but they are all quite striking fish in my opinion.
Accord to Alf (in a recent thread about these fish elsewhere), the fish that he believes diagnosticly to be A. rivulatus has never been in the exported to the hobby. He sent the fish he believes to be them to Kullander for DNA testing. They are orange rimmed btw, not silver.
blackghostuk;4129259; said:
There is definitely a lot of confusing information out there. Thanks for the info though and the link!
