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

small community – S. America

Home Forums My Aquarium small community – S. America

This topic contains 0 replies, has 1 voice, and was last updated by  Jakub 5 years, 9 months ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 22 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #302509

    Jakub
    Participant

    Hiya

     

    A couple of fish from my new 60l community tank. You will notice that I am not very experienced in taking fish photos 😉 Just three species in this tank:

    Hyphessobrycon rosaceus

    Apistogramma hongsloi

    Otocinclus macrospilus (?) – I think I may actually have more than one species in the mix, photos to come…

    H.rosaceus.pair_.10.12.PNG

    A.hongsloi.male_.PNG

    A.hongsloi.female.14.12.PNG

     

    I am hoping to upload something of better quality, once I have learned how to eliminate reflections, uneven lighting etc :D

    #349544

    Rüdiger
    Participant

    Hi Jakub,

    it is very difficult to tell from the small photos but I have the sneaking suspicion that you have 2 Hyphessobrycon species too? The one right, bottom looks more like an H. bentosi to me? But as I said, more a suspicion then anything certain.

    Regards

    R.

    #349545

    Jakub
    Participant

    Hmm, shouldn’t bentosi have a dark blotch just behind the gill cover? I can’t see one in the picture, but then again, the picture itself is dark :) Watching them in the tank I can only really see a very faint shade at most. I don’t know of any other good-to-see differences between the two species. Will try to get a better photo and upload for inspection…

    Cheers

    Jakub

     

    #349546

    Rüdiger
    Participant

    Of course you are right about that blotch but I used to have H. bentosi that did not show that blotch at all. (As many color caracteristics in many species often vanish in captive breeding)

    What made me think is more the shape of dorsal and anal fins in the specimen at the right in that photo. But then again, I may well be entirely off. :-)

    Regards

    R.

    #349547

    Jakub
    Participant

    I find these tetras extremely difficult to photograph – they are just to lively… One below is best I can do at the moment I’m afraid. I also caught the male Apisto with one of the otocinclus as a bonus ;)

    20121215_134952.jpg20121215_1345380.jpg

     

    #349556

    Rüdiger
    Participant

    @Jakub said:
    I find these tetras extremely difficult to photograph – they are just to lively… 

     

     

    That makes two of us! :-D To take decent photos of those guys one needs pro equipment, flashes from all sides and the whole toots.

    B.t.w. your photos aren’t half as bad as you make them out to be, especially now that they expand to a decent size.

    But I’m afraid it still looks like H. bentosi to me, the one in the center that is. I am keeping a decent Group of H. rosacaeus presently and none of them shows the distinct “sickle shaped” dorsal as my former bentosis did and the one pictured above clearly shows too. As well, the anal fin is just not as pronounced concave as it is in H. rosacaeus. But then again, I am certainly no expert.

    The Oto doesn’t look like a macrospilus either but you mentioned already that you probably have more than one species ‘in the mix’.

    Could be O. huaorani but Otocinclus is among the most difficult genera to correctly pin a spicies down. Even “experts” get it wrong as often as not, just by sight.

    #349557

    Jakub
    Participant

    Hi Rudiger:

    Would you say the female from the first picture could be bentosi also? The group were sold to me as ‘Rosy tetra’ but the shop may well have got it wrong… The dorsal fin you are referring to is actually much less sickle-shaped than it appears to be. When the males are squabbling or displaying to the females and their dorsal fin is fully extended, it look much more like a sail with trailing edge almost vertical. Would that be the case in H. bentosi too?

    Otocinclus could be any species, the shop simply had them as ‘Otos’ and fella that sold them to me was rather clueless and not attempting to hide it. On top of the six that came from that shop I also have a refugee from another aquarium and that one I think is actually macrospilus – will try to post a picture of him later.

    Regards

    Jakub

     

    #349560

    Rüdiger
    Participant

    Hi Jakub,

    as I said in my first reply, it’s rather a shot in the dark. You know, when you look at something and immediately think ” something’s different”. And I don’t really want to get nailed to the timber for that. :-)

    From the first photo I wouldn’t even be able to tell if the upper specimen is a female since the only sure distinguishing feature I know of is the swim bladder, which isn’t clearly visible. Size of individual fish as well as finnage have led me astray quite a bit when I first tried to match pairs for breeding. But as an educated guess I’d say that’s H. rosaceus. (just noticed the misspelling further up)

    The guy from the shop however you’d have to give full credits for not attempting to hide his cluelessness.:-D

    But then again, over here at least 90% of all Otocinclus species in the trade are sold as O. affinis, disregarding the fact that there is no such species at all. Only exception is O. cocama but that’s really not too difficult to tell apart, is it. ;-)

    Regards

    R.

    #349566

    Jakub
    Participant

    Rudiger: I am not nailing you to the timber at all :) just got curious that’s all. Until two months ago I had not even seen either species ‘live’. Would be nice to be sure which species I am housing…

    Did you breed the rosaceus or bentosi or both?

     

    #349571

    Rüdiger
    Participant

    Hi Jakub,

    I had a go with the H. bentosi a long time ago but very low key, I’m not into ‘intensive breeding’. If memory serves correctly, I brought up somewhere in the vicinity of 60 young from 3 pairs, one spawning each. The H. rosaceus I keep now are in a 160 l S.A. community. They are spawning regularly but there’s no chance of any fry surviving in there. I will give them away next year, together with H. pulchripinnis and Nematobrycon palmeri as first, the rosaceus have apparently developed a taste for C. hastatus and second, I want to stock up on the smaller species. Can’t help it, I’m a “mini fish” nut. :-)

    Perhaps we get lucky and one of the experts here on SF will help with the id either way.

    Regards

    R.

     

    #349588

    Matt
    Keymaster

    Always thought H. bentosi males have white pigmentation in the first few dorsal rays?

    Hyphessobrycon-bentosi-male.jpg

     

    #349595

    Rüdiger
    Participant

    @matt said:
    Always thought H. bentosi males have white pigmentation in the first few dorsal rays?

     

    Yes Matt that’s correct if you look at wild caught animals. But as I said earlier, many of the color caracteristics have vanished after years of intensive breeding especially with many breeders trying so hard to “create” new color forms.

    Have a look st the shape of the anal fin of the specimen in your photo and compare to the first photo that Jakub posted. You’ll see that the anal in the spcimen top left, which I’d say is a rosaceus, is a lot more concave than it is in the specimen bottom right and the specimen in your photo. I’m still not saying “I’m right” but that niggeling feeling doesn’t want to go. :-/

    And at the end of the day, it doesn’t matter all that much since I am convinced that hybridisation between rosaceus and bentosi is quite common place since long ago. H. rosaceus was after all traded for many years as H. bentosi rosaceus and is still quoted as such on some stock lists and on the web.

    Regards

    R.

     

    #349599

    Matt
    Keymaster

    Ah, didn’t spot that earlier, and can’t disagree on the last point. Guessing that’s where these fish with very white dorsals come from.

    Question that’s been bugging me for a while – what to do with aquarium strains that are clearly far-removed from their wild counterparts? Examples include Siamese fighters, platys, swordtails, angelfish, etc.,…how can these be designated to a particular species when their origin is so unclear?

    #349600

    Jakub
    Participant

    @matt said:
    Ah, didn’t spot that earlier, and can’t disagree on the last point. Guessing that’s where these fish with very white dorsals come from.

    Question that’s been bugging me for a while – what to do with aquarium strains that are clearly far-removed from their wild counterparts? Examples include Siamese fighters, platys, swordtails, angelfish, etc.,…how can these be designated to a particular species when their origin is so unclear?

    On top of all the breeders’ efforts there is the matter of hyphessobrycon species that haven’t been described. While the fish I have are definitely commercially bred we don’t know what genes came into the mix 10 generations back…

    #349601

    Rüdiger
    Participant

    @matt said:
    …… Guessing that’s where these fish with very white dorsals come from……..

    Yeah Matt, I believe so too.

    As to the question that’s bugging you, I believe this to be one of the major questions we have to ask and certainly answer rather sooner than later. And I believe too that we have missed that bus quite some time ago.

    As for species where alterations are achieved exclusively by selection and inbreeding I’d say the species names are still valid with the addition of a variety as it is common practice e.g. with Betta splendens. (even though some variety names are rather colorful :-) )

    Where different color forms or body modifications are achieved by cross breeding different species is exatly where we have missed that bus. Many of the “creators” have in the past conveniently failed to dokument exactly which species the have crossed in to get to the fish of their desire. If that had happened one could put a name to it, as in our example for instance:

    Hyphessobrycon hybr. bentosi x rosaceus

    Another (if not the paramount) question is, “Should we carry on breeding with specimen of uncertain origin?” How would we feel if, in the not too distant future, the best answer to the question “Which fishes are you keeping” would be, “They’re ‘longish’ and red and should be some sort of tetra.” just because we honestly can’t be more accurate. May sound a bit exaggerated but not everybody is an ichthyologist and counts scales and fin rays. :-)

    There’s a lot more to be said on that subject, but I don’t want to start a philosophical and moral discussion.

    Regards

    R

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 22 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.