Which "Texas"? - ID please

  • We are currently upgrading MFK. thanks! -neo
Wow, I forget there are people that have been in the hobby as long, or longer, than me on here sometimes.

I haven't seen one listed as a Pearl Scale in decades Mo ... brought a laugh seeing it again. Thanks! That's what we used to list them at when I worked in a LFS back in the early 90's.

Never seen them listed as a 'green texas' though ... blue texas sure, never as green. Of course, common names are different all over the place, hell sometimes even in the same city. I've seen a single tetra species listed under 3 different 'common names' all within the same town.

Not to mention a common name can be applied to an entire genus ... I've seen Media Luna labridens listed as 'yellow texas' and deppi as 'turquoise texas' ...

After screaming my voice hoarse at people calling Tapajos geo's 'redheads' instead of the common name of 'orangehead', I've given up trying to shout into the wind as it were.

The 90's? LOL Try the 70's. My point wasn't to dispute that they were called. I know people refer to them by the "flavored" Texas name. My point was that it would make much simpler to refer to the scientific name. When I see "ID Please" that's where my head goes. No offense intended to anyone. Common names and the new "pseudo" scientific names just make me crazy. You will never see me refer to a fish as a "manny" or a "jag", "red devil" etc. Maybe it's my age showing thorough. 40+ years of keeping cichlids and it pretty much sets you on your path. ;)

Even in the same city, as I mentioned. It would be great if we were like you guys down there when it came to common names ... if there were a standardized list it would make life much easier since it's darn near impossible to learn to pronounce scientific latin (My college offered latin, but it was ecclesiastical latin which from what I understand is pronounced differently so I passed). But alas, we get all confused up by the twenty different common names plus the wacky names people make up (see redhead geo for tapajos above) to make it sell better.

I had not honestly seen 'green texas' as a common name for the fish before joining this site. So I wouldn't say that was the common name myself. With that name, I'd assume it was H. sp. pantepec or H. sp. poza rica.

If I ever owned a pet store, it would definitely be latin names for the cichlids!!!!

I will be the first to admit that even the latin names will bite you in the butt...with all the changes and reclassification's. But at least that happens less frequently. It's all good. Enjoy the hobby.
 
Maybe we should start calling H. carpintis the "False Texas Cichlid" to further confuse things ;)

Matt

Wow, I forget there are people that have been in the hobby as long, or longer, than me on here sometimes.

I haven't seen one listed as a Pearl Scale in decades Mo ... brought a laugh seeing it again. Thanks! That's what we used to list them at when I worked in a LFS back in the early 90's.

Never seen them listed as a 'green texas' though ... blue texas sure, never as green. Of course, common names are different all over the place, hell sometimes even in the same city. I've seen a single tetra species listed under 3 different 'common names' all within the same town.

Not to mention a common name can be applied to an entire genus ... I've seen Media Luna labridens listed as 'yellow texas' and deppi as 'turquoise texas' ...

After screaming my voice hoarse at people calling Tapajos geo's 'redheads' instead of the common name of 'orangehead', I've given up trying to shout into the wind as it were.
 
The 90's? LOL Try the 70's. My point wasn't to dispute that they were called. I know people refer to them by the "flavored" Texas name. My point was that it would make much simpler to refer to the scientific name. When I see "ID Please" that's where my head goes. No offense intended to anyone. Common names and the new "pseudo" scientific names just make me crazy. You will never see me refer to a fish as a "manny" or a "jag", "red devil" etc. Maybe it's my age showing thorough. 40+ years of keeping cichlids and it pretty much sets you on your path. ;)

I will be the first to admit that even the latin names will bite you in the butt...with all the changes and reclassification's. But at least that happens less frequently. It's all good. Enjoy the hobby.

Oh, I just meant to point out it wasn't that long ago we still used Pearl Scale cichlid at our LFS. Usually at my favorite LFS here they list them as Carpentis. The rest of that was directed more at our Aussie friend than you. I usually try to use the scientific name most of the time as well, and I even am one of the few that seems to enjoy the reclassification of them.



Maybe we should start calling H. carpintis the "False Texas Cichlid" to further confuse things ;)

Matt

Shush you!! Besides, that would get confusing since we'd have to call all the members of Herichthys that, which would just get even more confusing!!!
 
The fish looks beautyfull Joao!

Glad i sent it over, that Bordeaux Texas :)
 
Wow !

Firstly, thank you all for the input. Very interesting.

Secondly, as regards the "common names", I am Portuguese and in Portugal we usually identify fish by the latin names. So, for me, this is an H. carpintis. (period).
However, being this an internacional forum am knowing that in the US many people prefer (or only use) the common names, I used "Texas" (between " ") in the topic title just to narrow the ID to the "texas family" (if that exists...)
My idea was not to start a quarrel about common names...


Matt is correct, unless you have a collection point, it's impossible to tell for sure the variant. You are likely to get all kinds of guesses and looks like...but not the correct answer. Part of the reason your fish appears so dark is that it's being viewed/photographed against a white sand substrate. Carpinte are one of my faves...regardless of the flavor. Good luck with it.

Aquamojo,
You - and Matt- are right. I am likely to get all kind of guesses of what it looks more like and it´s totally impossible to know the variant not knowing the collection point (as I said earlier).

But this fish has always been this dark even when it was in Miguel´s bare bottom tank. So being truth that the white substract plays an important role in the darkness of fish (in general), this in particular has always been black with blue.
As I said, a bit different from all the other carpintis I have seen. But in my country we don´t have access to many locations ("escondido" and "vontehilo" have been imported in the past, but only a few times). That´s why I asked if this fish had the traits of any specific location I didn´t know. Not to pass it in the future as from location A or B - of course - but just to have an idea and improve my knowledge on the location traits.

Finally, lovely carpintis have been posted in this thread ! With all the diversity within the species, they all have something.
 
I don't mind using scientific names, in fact I tend to put scientific names along with the common names anyways, so that people using either would know what I'm talking about - and if they don't, they can google it to find out and be sure.

Anyways, I guess to each their own, I like using both names and I personally find that both names are fine - and when there are confusions it simply needs to be cleared up and tada! But I guess everybody feels differently about it.
 
Oh, I just meant to point out it wasn't that long ago we still used Pearl Scale cichlid at our LFS. Usually at my favorite LFS here they list them as Carpentis. The rest of that was directed more at our Aussie friend than you. I usually try to use the scientific name most of the time as well, and I even am one of the few that seems to enjoy the reclassification of them.





Shush you!! Besides, that would get confusing since we'd have to call all the members of Herichthys that, which would just get even more confusing!!!

What irritates me is that most of my LFS stores label them as Texas cichlids. Even common names can be confusing; similar to all Green Terrors just being called Green Terrors. This is an example of the benefits of using the scientific names to identify the fish.


Sent from my iPhone using MonsterAquariaNetwork app
 
I don't mind using scientific names, in fact I tend to put scientific names along with the common names anyways, so that people using either would know what I'm talking about - and if they don't, they can google it to find out and be sure.

Anyways, I guess to each their own, I like using both names and I personally find that both names are fine - and when there are confusions it simply needs to be cleared up and tada! But I guess everybody feels differently about it.

I agree with you because both tend to have benefits; if one does not know the scientific name, perhaps the common name might help or vice versa. There is a reason both exist, even if it had the potential to be confusing because oftentimes common names or sometimes scientific names may be confusing.


Sent from my iPhone using MonsterAquariaNetwork app
 
MonsterFishKeepers.com