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

Formosania spp.

Home Forums Fresh and Brackish Water Fishes Formosania spp.

This topic contains 7 replies, has 3 voices, and was last updated by  Matt 5 years, 1 month ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 18 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #301818

    Matt
    Keymaster

    Is the id of F. stigmata in the trade confirmed Mike?

    #345912

    mikev
    Participant

    QUOTE (Matt @ Nov 1 2011, 08:38 AM) < {POST_SNAPBACK}>
    Is the id of F. stigmata in the trade confirmed Mike?

    No, and given our current knowledge of them, I have doubts that anyone can confirm it…. have to go by the vendor’s name for now.

    Incidentally, I also have serious doubts about the id of F.lacustre, I think the photos show a mix of two or more different species.

    #345914

    Matt
    Keymaster

    If you mean the images here, I agree with you. Charles’ fish don’t look the same as Odyssey’s…

    It might be better to start referring to such questionably-named fishes as cf. whatever or using a numbering system rather than assigning definitive specific names. Just look what happened with Pangio kuhlii as a result of similar misidentification…

    #345922

    mikev
    Participant

    QUOTE (Matt @ Nov 2 2011, 09:13 AM) < {POST_SNAPBACK}>
    If you mean the images here, I agree with you. Charles’ fish don’t look the same as Odyssey’s…

    FWIW, here is my understanding of the lacustre mess.

    Formosania is a very unfortunate name; the genus occurs also in mainland China, and in fact F.lacustre is perhaps the only species that is native to Taiwan (albeit it also occurs in the mainland). Lacustre in the US (and likely elsewhere) were imported from two different sources; shipments of 2-3 years ago came from mainland, reflected a typically lower price ($10 or so), and were a mix of lacustre (which is the Charles fish, btw) with an unknown mainland species (which is Odyssey’s fish, but — careful — more than one species may be involved here). The shipments that came direct from Taiwan (last year) had only “Charles fish” and thus are true lacustre), and Taiwan fish always costs more than mainland resulting in the street price of $20 or so (How about ID’ng fish by the price tag?) My fish (6) came from such a shipment, and there was no contaminant in the entire shipment.

    My problem is that I probably have all of the same sex

    all seem fit and fat, but unfortunately equally so. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sm7v364vU_4
    stigmatas are more more outgoing.

    Going on a limb here: JP on LOL mentioned his group (3 I think) spawning more than once, and producing eggs but no fry. He privately mentioned that his female is “colorful” (non-lacustre to me) while male(s) are mottled (lacustre)… perhaps the species are similar enough to try to x-breed but not similar enough for viable offsprings.

    Now, as for C.stigmata (I cannot force myself to use F. for a mainland fish!): there are several more species out there, including what I think is a very common C.davidi (that we have no reliable photos of), and at least one species is very similar to C.stigmata…I kept a contaminant from Lh.disparis a few years ago… very similar to what I have now, but I’m pretty sure not the same species.

    QUOTE
    It might be better to start referring to such questionably-named fishes as cf. whatever or using a numbering system rather than assigning definitive specific names. Just look what happened with Pangio kuhlii as a result of similar misidentification…

    Yes, definitely. Perhaps you could design a Warning sign saying “Provisional identification” too…

    #345924

    torso
    Participant
    mikev wrote on Nov 2 2011, 06:52 PM:
    FWIW, here is my understanding of the lacustre mess.
    Formosania is a very unfortunate name; the genus occurs also in mainland China, and in fact F.lacustre is perhaps the only species that is native to Taiwan (albeit it also occurs in the mainland). Lacustre in the US (and likely elsewhere) were imported from two different sources; shipments of 2-3 years ago came from mainland, reflected a typically lower price ($10 or so), and were a mix of lacustre (which is the Charles fish, btw) with an unknown mainland species (which is Odyssey’s fish, but — careful — more than one species may be involved here). The shipments that came direct from Taiwan (last year) had only “Charles fish” and thus are true lacustre), and Taiwan fish always costs more than mainland resulting in the street price of $20 or so (How about ID’ng fish by the price tag?) My fish (6) came from such a shipment, and there was no contaminant in the entire shipment.
    My problem is that I probably have all of the same sex /sad.gif” style=”vertical-align:middle” emoid=”:(” border=”0″ alt=”sad.gif” />
    Now, as for C.stigmata (I cannot force myself to use F. for a mainland fish!): there are several more species out there, including what I think is a very common C.davidi (that we have no reliable photos of), and at least one species is very similar to C.stigmata…I kept a contaminant from Lh.disparis a few years ago… very similar to what I have now, but I’m pretty sure not the same species.

    I agree.
    the shipment of lacustre came directly from Taiwan to me (short stop in Germany) as r. rubromacultus did (these in a bad shape)- as they are more the hiding type I´ couldn’t sex them. a 140 cm river tank is going to be ready this weekend for them, a. normani, the new l. guilinensis (beautyful species) and may be m.pulcher.
    cheers Charles

    #345925

    mikev
    Participant

    They are not too hiding lately, after settling in the river tank (that is a 30breeder running on AquaClear 802)… they worked out the hiding spaces that give them the view of the front of the tank and (shocking!) I even saw them a couple of times waiting for food in front. But Stigmata’s are doing this all the time.

    If you figure out sexing please tell… With most hillies three months in a qtank with intensive feeding makes the females obvious… but I cannot see the difference here, and there seems to be no discernible difference in the few the vendor still has.

    I am thinking about getting a couple more…. the issue is not $ or fitting them into this river tank, but it is very hard to allocate a qtank at the moment.

    #345928

    Matt
    Keymaster

    To confirm, we know that the fish exported from Taiwan are F. lacustre for sure given it’s the only species occurring there, yes?

    However, are we separating the purported mainland fishes solely on the basis of colour pattern or are there other differences? Do we know the diagnostic characters for these species? If not, caution should probably be exercised in terms of assigning and using specific names.

    I also think we should refer to all of these whether positively identified or not by the currently valid genus, which is Formosania

    #345931

    mikev
    Participant

    It seems to be the only Taiwan species, yes. However, compare with Fishbase photo of F.lacustris == what is this?

    The photo is from G.Ott which may mean we are wrong and it is more complicated…perhaps someone can ask him?

    And it seems that F.lacustris is the correct spelling.

    http://fishbase.org/keys/description.php?keycode=538

    gives diagnostics. Head shapes of alleged “F.stigmata” and F.lacustris are different (stigmata == flatter).

    #345936

    Matt
    Keymaster

    That’s the (over-exposed?) photo that led me to say we shouldn’t try to identify any of these via colour pattern based on the limited info we have available. There have been phylogenetic studies that have shown all Formosania on Taiwan to be F. lacustre so maybe patterning varies somewhat depending on locality?

    CAS says that F. lacustre is correct and it’s the name used in all the papers I have. Not sure where Fishbase has got that alternative spelling from.

    Am attempting to get hold of an identification key to the genus in English which will hopefully help…

    #345941

    Thomas
    Member

    Hi,

    the differences in patterning of the fishbase pics could be related to different ages. Compare with my Formosiana:

    A smaller one (about 6-7cm)

    And a bigger one (up to 9 or 10 cm)

    Cheers,
    Thomas

    Attached files

    #316264

    Matt
    Keymaster

    Hi Thomas, do you have any idea what species yours might be, or where they were imported from?

    Also, should Odyssey’s pics be removed from the F. lacustre profile and relisted as a ‘sp.’?

    Finally, what about this one?

    Formosania-maybe.jpg

    #316213

    Thomas
    Member

    Matt, I bought them as Crossostoma lacustre three years ago, imported from Taiwan.

    #316202

    The.Dark.One
    Member

    Pier have some in similar to these. I thought the Pier ones might be Vanmanenia hainanensis because I assumed they were Chinese but there are also some Taiwanese fish as well as Chinese so could these be V. lacustre/lacustris?

     

    Vanmanenia-hainanensis-1.jpg

    #316054

    Matt
    Keymaster

    Cheers Thomas, and yours do look like Charles’ fish too…

    Señor Oscuro, do you consider lacustre to be a Vanmanenia then? The one in your pic looks a bit like the images I have labelled as V. pingchowensis?

    Vanmanenia-pingchowensis.jpg

    #315236

    The.Dark.One
    Member

    Hi Matt

     

    Sorry, I mistyped, I meant F. lacustre not V. lacustre! I will check with Neil what he got them in as.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 18 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.