LOGIN

RSS Facebook Twitter YouTube
GLOSSARY       

SEARCHGLOSSARY

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

PROFILESEARCH

Avatar

Please consider registering
guest

sp_LogInOut Log In sp_Registration Register

Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search

— Forum Scope —




— Match —





— Forum Options —





 

Minimum search word length is 4 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

sp_Feed Topic RSS sp_TopicIcon
Carnegiella id
January 27, 2015
11:51 am
Avatar
Matt
Málaga, Spain
Admin
Forum Posts: 8239
Member Since:
June 13, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Any thoughts folks? Collected from the rio Juruena system (upper rio Tapajós basin).

Carnegiella-strigata-FD.jpgImage Enlarger

Cake or death?
January 27, 2015
4:39 pm
Avatar
Darrell Ullisch
Member
Forum Posts: 14
Member Since:
August 13, 2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Certainly not strigata. Mostly resembles Carnegiella marthae, but I'm thinking the Tapajos is a long way from the range of either subspecies.

January 27, 2015
6:41 pm
Avatar
coelacanth
Veteran
Forum Posts: 514
Member Since:
July 30, 2008
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Looks more like myersi to me, but I'm betting there are cryptic spp. within the taxon.

January 27, 2015
7:30 pm
Avatar
Byron Hosking
Veteran
Forum Posts: 152
Member Since:
November 3, 2008
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I like to take things in steps, so bear with me, lol.

No adipose fin, so definitely Carnegiella (of the known and described genera).  I agree this is certainly not C. strigata; and the keel is not shallow enough for C. myersi plus there is the anal fin ray count that Gery gives as 33-36 and I don't think that applies here.

The thoracic lines appear more obvious than just spots though the latter are rather obvious in the lower portion of the keel.  Gery considered these distinctive within C. marthae but he doesn't use them to differentiate.  He does mention anal fin rays however, and if my eyes are not deceiving there are 26 or a few more in the fish in the photo.  According to Gery, this signifies a fish from the Peruvian Amazon and Rio Madeira as opposed to one from the more northern Rio Negro and Rio Orinoco range.

C. schereri is a distinct species [though not all agree] that in appearance is near-identical to C. marthae to my eyes.  Gery felt this was a subspecies, just one of the several variants of the C. marthae group.  I only mention this because the fish in the photo may be C. schereri as I have not seen the description [anyone have this?  Fernandez-Yepes, 1950] and one cannot be certain of online photos.  But C. schereri is known in the Mato Grosso, according to this:

http://collections.si.edu/search/results.htm?q=record_ID:nmnhvz_5087681

so it seems logical it could be in the adjoining system, as it apparently ranges over much of the Peruvian Amazon down to the Mato Grosso.  One collection entry in the Smithsonian:

http://collections.si.edu/search/results.htm?view=&date.slider=&q=Carnegiella+marthae&dsort=&start=0

puts C. marthae in the Rio Urubasxi, also a southern tributary of the Rio Negro, admittedly a distance west of the Juruena.

I would venture, as an amateur I admit, that the fish in the photo is from the C. marthae/C. schereri species complex.

Byron.

Byron Hosking, BMus, MA Vancouver, BC Canada
January 29, 2015
11:41 am
Avatar
Matt
Málaga, Spain
Admin
Forum Posts: 8239
Member Since:
June 13, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Thanks a lot guys - so where in the database should we include it? Laugh

Cake or death?
Forum Timezone: Europe/Paris

Most Users Ever Online: 246

Currently Online:
1 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)

Devices in use: Desktop (1)

Top Posters:

Stefan: 1567

Plaamoo: 1257

mikev: 1134

Malti: 1099

Mark Duffill: 1012

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 0

Members: 30513

Moderators: 0

Admins: 2

Forum Stats:

Groups: 4

Forums: 10

Topics: 4603

Posts: 36641

Newest Members: vandviden, drwonga, dg, Jamieson22, FraziersAquarium

Administrators: dunc: 1323, Matt: 8239