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

Puntius Denisonii

Home Forums Fresh and Brackish Water Fishes Puntius Denisonii

This topic contains 50 replies, has 11 voices, and was last updated by  Matt 7 years, 8 months ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 51 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #299444

    ulster exile
    Member

    In the Knowledge base (which I love btw /rolleyes.gif” style=”vertical-align:middle” emoid=”:rolleyes:” border=”0″ alt=”rolleyes.gif” /> but this reference also described the larger species as being the one which grew to 6″ (15cm) whereas the Denisonii are smaller and in reality grow to more like 4″ (10cm). Most references to P. Denisonii use the 6″/15cm size reference though…which is correct or is it a case that there is so much confusion over the two, than there isn’t a definitive answer?

    Possibly the reason that I am curious about both of these issues is that these are the only fish which I have ached to own but ruled out because I felt my tank wasn’t suitable (100cm x 60ishcm x 41cm just over 200l). Whilst I wouldn’t have them now anyway, the fish still intrigue me

    #305136

    Matt
    Keymaster

    Hope you don’t mind but I’ve shifted this into the tropical freshwater forum. Thanks for the input on tank size for P. denisonii; I think you’re quite right and have changed the information in the profile.

    The reference regarding P. chalakkudiensis, hmmmm /smile.gif” style=”vertical-align:middle” emoid=”:)” border=”0″ alt=”smile.gif” />

    #305139

    ulster exile
    Member

    Lol sorry about the incorrect placement /wacko.gif” style=”vertical-align:middle” emoid=”:wacko:” border=”0″ alt=”wacko.gif” />

    Lastly, I look forward to seeing the changes

    #305256

    Matt
    Keymaster

    Ok it seems that P. chalakkudiensis is definitely the larger fish; they’ve been seen up to 8″ SL! /wacko.gif” style=”vertical-align:middle” emoid=”:wacko:” border=”0″ alt=”wacko.gif” /> Pics below for comparison, top one is chalakkudiensis (best pic I could find), bottom one is denisonii.

    Attached files

    #305262

    ulster exile
    Member

    Wow Matt, excellant work

    #305263

    dunc
    Keymaster

    I really love the denisonii.. just a shame you need a beast of a tank for a decent shoal.

    #305265

    ulster exile
    Member

    That’s not what I’d call a shame Dunc, I call that a reason /wink.gif” style=”vertical-align:middle” emoid=”;)” border=”0″ alt=”wink.gif” />

    #305266

    dunc
    Keymaster

    Heheh good choice

    #305267

    Matt
    Keymaster

    One of my dreams is to have a massive tank set up as an Asian stream biotope with denisonii, Barilius and P. assimilis /wacko.gif” style=”vertical-align:middle” emoid=”:wacko:” border=”0″ alt=”wacko.gif” />

    #305268

    ulster exile
    Member

    It has been suggested that they be re-labelled crossocheilus instead of puntius hasn’t it? Their likeness to SAE’s is probably part of the reason why I like them so much – I totally love my SAE’s and the Denisonii are so similar, except from the colour differences and lack of barbels on the denisonii. Even the apparent texture of the scales appears the same on both fish.

    #305269

    Matt
    Keymaster

    Yeah there was a rumour a revision was being conducted a couple of years back. Nothing must have come of it as it’s still a Puntius

    Attached files

    #305900

    Matt
    Keymaster

    The plot thickens…there’s a Heiko Bleher interview that discusses P. chalakkudiensis/denisonii here BUT the fish concerned don’t have the black dorsal markings. This would suggest the existence of a third denisonii-type fish or that Heiko could only get denisonii for the display. Hmmm…

    #305901

    Matt
    Keymaster

    I put a query up on the feedback bit under the interview and Matt Clarke (the author of the article) came back with the following:

    “Hi Matt,
    I’ve heard various reports of being able to distinguish the two species on the basis of differences in the dorsal/caudal fin markings, as well as the colour and shape of the red stripe. I’m not sure that any of these characters are particularly reliable aids to identifying the two fish.

    I saw some of the early “denisonii” imports, which are now believed to have been denisonii, and these definitely looked like those to my eye. My gut feeling on seeing them, before checking the label, was that they looked like challakudiensis.

    I’ve been completely unsuccessful in trying to track down a copy of the original description of P. challakudiensis, which I assume provides an accurate diagnosis allowing you to separate the two species, probably on something more than colour alone. If it doesn’t, then a revision of this little group must be sorely needed.

    Perhaps Heiko will be able to clarify this.”

    He’s quite right of course, colour can never really be taken as an accurate indicator of species without having read the relevant scientific paper(s). I´m still 100% positive that the fish in that video are P. denisonii though. /tongue.gif” style=”vertical-align:middle” emoid=”:p” border=”0″ alt=”tongue.gif” />

    #305902

    ulster exile
    Member

    Matt, two words…you rock!

    I’d almost forgotten about this, but have found your updates informative and helpful – thanks

    #305910

    Matt
    Keymaster

    No problem at all, I’m genuinely interested myself! More because I’ve never seen that fish with the dorsal spot among denisonii imports; I still think they are two different fish. I’m going to try and get a copy of the description paper for chalakkudiensis and see where that takes us…

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 51 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.