Why are Wild Red Devils brightly colored?

[RD.]

Rd adult Red Devils are found in shallow water in Nicaragua....along with juvs

I never doubted that for a minute, but older/wiser colored morphs tend to spend more time in the deeper water, at least according to Barlow et al. Their data was pretty specific as to the depths that the colored morphs were typically found in Lake Nicaragua, and the fact that those morphs were the most difficult to observe due to the turbidity of the water.

Who am I to argue with George Barlow? If you have something more to add regarding your personal experience while fishing there I'm certainly all ears. Thanks.

Matt, I think that what I am attempting to get across is getting lost in translation. What you are saying is very true, all I'm attempting to state is that not ALL amphs carry the genes to trigger this orange/yellow/red color, and that many of those that do, do not spend a great deal (if any?) time in the shallows where the stronger UV rays would reach them. And, in lakes such as Apoya where the fish do apparently carry these gold morph genes, the water is crystal clear, and the fish do not express this type of coloration. Maybe it's all just a big coinky dink, but I don't think so, and neither did the researchers that spent countless hours in the field studying these fish in their natural habitat.

Another example of a WC fish imported by Rapps, that not only kept it's color, it actually appears to have gained while in captivity. Below is a pic after 6 months in his tank.

http://www.monsterfishkeepers.com/f...ing-my-quot-TRUE-quot-WC-Amphilophus-LABIATUS

And when someone asked him if the fish gets any sunlight he had this to say;

No he doesn't... Don't know where the idea that sunlight makes devils more red, came from. I read that in the wild the reddest specimens can be caught in the deepest darkest parts of the lake. I think its down to genetics on the most part with diet playing some part aswell. But you'll never get an standard RD or Midas or MidDevil red by diet alone. Genetics is the main feature.

I guess you know where I stand on that.

 

[dogofwar]

Neil - I think we're typing past each other.

I'm certainly not saying that ALL Amphs carry the gene to become red. Most wild "Red Devils" are barred (not orange).

And I agree that fish in turbid and/or deep water are often more brightly colored than fish in clear water - evolution (birds and other predators) weed out individuals that stick out!

What I am saying is that natural sunlight will enhance the coloration of just about any red, yellow or orange fish (i.e. any fish with chromatophores -xanthophores, containing yellow pigment and erythrophores, containing red pigment). In other words, natural sunlight (or full spectrum artificial light and/or color enhancing food) will result in fish with brighter oranges, reds and yellows than fish without.

The other point is that the spectacular orange coloration that you see from wild-caught "red devils" isn't because of superior genes (whatever that means) but because of exposure to sunlight (and the resulting impact on their chromatophores). This is true of both "pure" fish (in their native waters), the myriad ("un-pure") "mi-devil" populations in Florida, Hawaii and elsewhere...and home aquarium fish (of known and unknown provenance).

Sunlight, of course, won't result in a barred or brown fish becoming bright orange...but it certainly will result in an orange fish becoming brighter orange (or the reds and yellows in a barred "red devils" becoming more intense).

Matt

 

[RD.]

Yes, that I totally agree with - sunlight helps enhance the color of most fish.


Having said that, how do you explain the super bright (red/orange) specimens that never recieve UV rays, such as Cyberman's fish in my last post, or Tom's orange male, or the scores of super bright orange/white creamsicles seen in the hobby?

I'm not just talking about fish that have the genes for morphing, and those that do not and remain barred for life. Even Barlow et al spoke about various fish being much stronger in colororation, than other specimens. (among the gold morphs) I'm guessing that people such as Rapps ask their collectors to keep the brightest most intensely colored fish they can find, not a boat load of regular barred specimens. Color sells, new names are even sometimes created (Red Isletas), and these fish are being hand picked by the collectors. The regular barred morphs that are caught most likely get sold as food fish at the Granada market.

So yes, I understand that most orange/red amphs will look even better when exposed to UV rays, but the fish that Rapps brings in are being cherry picked because of their genetic make up, which has determined their true potential for color, not just because they were tanned from the sun.

That may seem like splitting hairs, or a case of which came first, the chicken or the egg, but sans the genetics, and sans the turbid water, these amphs would probably look just like the barred/spotted ones in the clear water of Lake Apoya, where UV rays easily penetrate to greater depths, and not like the sexy hot colors we currently see being imported from the great lakes. If your theory was correct, and UV rays played the largest part in these amphs color, the reverse should be true & the clearest bodies of water should be producing the brightest fish - but that's not the case. In fact it's the exact opposite, with Lake Masaya being the most turbid (and now most polluted) lake in the area, being the lake that produces the greatest number of colorful morphs of these amphilophus.

To quote George Barlow; "gold morphs are most abundant at deeper depths, and in more turbid water."





Also keep in mind that ALL fish look better when viewed in natural light, and when photographed under natural sunlight, such as many of the WC fish being sold. Every fish in my tank looks 100% more intense in coloration if I remove them from their tank in the basement & take them outside and view them (or photograph them ) under natural sunlight. In our last home I used to leave the lights off all day in one of my tanks that was upstairs in a room that recieved a lot of natural light because IMO the fish looked much better (exhibited nicer colors and hues) with the tank lights off, than with the lights on.

 

[cichlidfish]

Are you guys done fighting yet lol? Its all genetics. I have seen Petsmart RDs/Midas that are extremely bright red. I am sure they searched the deepest depths of Lake Nic for them...

 

[CANAMONSTER]

I think what Dog is saying is that of the same of Red Arowana and how people "Tan" them. Makes them turn nice and red but it goes back to normal once you stop and are left with its natural genetic color.

 

[dogofwar]

And they'd be even redder if they were exposed to sunlight... like if random farmed "mid-devils" were let loose into the canals of Florida or ponds of Hawaii... and became the flaming orange fish that we see in pictures.

Matt

Are you guys done fighting yet lol? Its all genetics. I have seen Petsmart RDs/Midas that are extremely bright red. I am sure they searched the deepest depths of Lake Nic for them...

 

[cichlidfish]

And they'd be even redder if they were exposed to sunlight... like if random farmed "mid-devils" were let loose into the canals of Florida or ponds of Hawaii... and became the flaming orange fish that we see in pictures.

Matt

I agree.

 

[RD.]

Yes, they would be redder, maybe, but that's not what makes them red.

Is this too difficult for some folks to understand? lol



The OP asked ......

Why are Wild Red Devils brightly colored?

The reality is, most aren't. In fact, according to Barlow et al only approx 10% of the population in Lake Nicaragua & Lake Managua are brightly colored, what the researchers refer to as the "gold" morph - which can be red/orange/white/yellow/ or any combination of those colors, including piebald.

Which is exactly why I previously stated that the "brightly colored" specimens are all cherry picked by the collectors in Nic. Take a close look at the thread of Cyberman's two WC A labiatus that I previously linked to.

Take a CLOSE look at both "wild" fish. Collected from the same body of water, both fish considered gold morphs by researchers, and both are kept in the exact same water parameters, and fed the exact same diet - yet one is brightly colored, while the other looks quite drab in comparison. Ding-ding-ding, that's right, it's back to genetics.

So again, someone please explain how the super bright (red/orange) specimens that never recieve UV rays, such as Cyberman's fish in my last post, or Tom's orange male, or the scores of super bright orange/white creamsicles seen in the hobby, become so bright & colorful?



Anyone?



Amelanism is a pigmentation abnormality characterized by the lack of pigments called melanins (black pigment) and can affect reptiles, fish, amphibians, etc. The appearance of an amelanistic fish depends entirely on the remaining non-melanin pigments. In some cases where a fish does not completely fade or finish peeling, with some black pigment remaining, the condition is known as hypomelanism.

A direct quote from Barlow's paper;

"Most Midas cichlids are of the normal cryptic coloration, but about 7 to 10% are brilliantly colored. These bright morphs lack the species-typical markings and have lost the ability to change their patterns; they range in hues smoothly from white through yellow, orange and red, though yellow through orange prevail. All start life normal in color, but at highly variable ages they lose most or all of their melanin, revealing the bright hues that most of them possess. The degree of development of this xanthomorphism varies among the lakes and appears to be positively correlated with turbidity of the water."

The actual timing of de-pigmentation is determined by a different set of genes hence the reason why some fish seem to peel very early in life, while others are almost adult size before they begin to fade/peel. And of course in the wild fading/peeling at too early of an age/size makes the fish a much easier target for prey, so many wild morphs can be late bloomers.


This has nothing to do with "superior genes", I'm not even sure why that term was used, Matt? F10,000 fish can still exhibit the exact same traits, including midevils, and many do. Genes are genes, some fish simply carry different sets that exhibit different color traits and are expressed differently from the rest of the fish within their species. This is what Barlow and his team of researchers were referring to. For anyone that actually takes the time to read some of his papers on these fish it will become pretty apparent as to what his findings were.


BTW - for those that don't know who Dr. George Barlow is, this should help explain why he was known in academic circles as "The Dean of Cichlids", long before most here even knew what a cichlid was.

http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2007/07/30_barlow.shtml

http://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/inmemoriam/georgewebberbarlow.html

http://www.tfhmagazine.com/details/articles/a-fond-farewell-to-one-of-cichlidoms-greats.htm



Of course if there is someone here who feels that they hold the same kind of credentials as the late George Barlow, or they have spent more time in Central America studying fish from the midas complex, then please hold your hand up & be counted.


Otherwise ........

 

[dogofwar]

Why so hostile?

I'm not disputing that there are orange red devils found at depth and/or in turbid waters (including shallow ones).

Nor am I disputing that colorful red devils are less common than barred ones.

Nor that orange red devils are orange because their genetic code makes them orange.

Nor that some fish have more orange than others.

Nor that some fish retain their color absent some spectra of sunlight better than others.

Nor that some fish gain more color than others when exposed to sunlight.

I have no idea about either Tom's or Cyberman's individual fish nor the effect that sunlight would or wouldn't have on the coloration of these two fish.

Color enhancing foods and artificial light (and photogrpahy) play important roles in the coloration of fish.

Matt

PS I am seldom on MFK anymore due to this sort of dumbassery

 

[RD.]

Hostile? lol Hmmmm, not enough of these in my comments?

Honestly I just don't understand your constant repetition with regards to sunlight, and red/orange fish in general? I got that way back when you brought goldfish into the discussion, as I believe everyone else did. No argument with that, known that for decades, but certainly worth bringing up in a discussion such as this. Thanks for that.

What I didn't/don't understand, is why you are being so thick headed about the TON of research with regards to this particluar genus that lives in these particular waters, with regards to turbidity, and color? It's a bit more complicated than simply stating "it's the sun". The midas complex has been studied more than any other cichlid on the planet, so I guess I felt that one should give credit where credit is due (Barlow et al) and the OP could further understand the complexity of this fish, and their individual color, bright and/or otherwise.

Silly me.

And now it is this type of dumbassery that is causing you to seldom be on MFK? Wow, really?