June 13, 2011
August 13, 2014
July 30, 2008
November 3, 2008
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:
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:
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.
Most Users Ever Online: 246
Currently Browsing this Page:
Devices in use: Desktop (1)
Mark Duffill: 1012
Guest Posters: 0
Newest Members: montecruz2, anrumawas, jsinher3, Tina Maria, KarenLynn
Administrators: dunc: 1323, Matt: 8239