Bathyaethiops breuseghemi?

[hambriento]

here You are mate!
Bathyaethiops breuseghemi

Sorry about quality of pict dont have good camera:/

P.s Hey Matt Did You find any papers on D. boaja it is important form me:) please

Attached files

[Matt]

Ooh very nice and thanks for posting – how many did you get?

I’ve checked all the journal databases I have access to and have been unable to locate a single paper discussing life history, biology, ecology, etc. of any Doryichthys sp. never mind D. boaja! There’s nothing of use in Roberts (1989), Rainboth (1996), Kottelat (2001) or Kottelat & Widjanarti (2005) although the species is mentioned briefly in each one. Seems this genus remains largely unstudied sorry.

#340765

[coelacanth]

Perhaps needs its own thread, but how to tell between breuseghemi and caudimaculatus?, because I’d call that fish a “caudimac” based on how I’ve been told to tell them apart.

[Matt]

QUOTE (coelacanth @ Feb 5 2011, 02:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Perhaps needs its own thread

Sorted.

#340783

[hambriento]

I bought two pairs:)

Greetings from PL Pete

#340809

[Matt]

Haven’t been able to get hold of the descriptions but here are the pics I have in reserve for when I get around to the profiles. What do you guys think?

B. breuseghemi:

B. caudomaculatus:

No idea if the ids are correct but Kuba’s fish looks more like the one in HW’s photo to me?

Attached files

[hambriento]

HI Guys!

I still insist it is breuseghemi for me.There are visible differences in shape colour of fins and whole body! But I am young and long road to pass…

#340821

[coelacanth]

QUOTE (hambriento @ Feb 7 2011, 03:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I still insist it is breuseghemi for me.There are visible differences in shape colour of fins and whole body! But I am young and long road to pass…

#340924

coelacanth

Participant

OK, here’s my recollections, readings, mumblings, call them what you will…
Fish used to come in from the Congo either as un-named contaminants or as Phenacogrammus altus. These were the fish now on here as Bathyaethiops breuseghemi.
More rarely another fish used to come in, similar but not as attractive, these are what we are now calling Bathyaethiops caudomaculatus.
I remember quite recently when breuseghemi were on the lists, at high prices, with quite a bit of fanfare, when they arrived I went along to see them and kind of went “Oh, they’re just altus, had them before, tough as old boots”. Still stunning fish though, and they live a long time and I bet are easy to breed if you get a decent number together.
We have Boulenger’s FW Fishes of Africa here, and the figure of Micralestes altus (now P. altus) shows a deep-bodied fish with a rounded caudal spot (the text is slightly ambiguous here). The text doesn’t mention any distinctive colours other than the spot, but preserved specimens can lose colour. There are scale counts and meristics if anyone wants them.
Baensch 1-5 has pictures of “all three”.
One is the fish we are here calling breuseghemi and labelled as such, one is the fish we are calling caudomaculatus and labelled as such. Of the other two labelled as caudomaculatus, one is definitely of the fish we are calling breuseghemi, the other also looks to be but it’s a poor picture with too much side reflection.
The picture of Phenacogrammus altus, IMO, could very easily simply be a poor image of an older specimen of the same fish as is labelled B. caudomaculatus (my “fish sense”, such as it is, says it is).
So, what’s what here? I certainly don’t know.

One thing I’ve noticed while looking into this, there’s a fish called either Rhabdalestes or Hemigrammopetersius pulcher, whatever the pics in Baensch are under this name they ain’t it, the colour pattern is very similar to Hemigrammus pulcher but it gets slightly larger, sounds as if it could be stunning! The fish at top left of page 49 in Baensch, labelled as Bathyaethiops sp. could well be very similar.

Next bit of interest, according to Boulenger, Alestopeterius caudalis, the Yellow Congo, should be a reddish fish with a silver lateral band which darken onto the peduncle and continues into the tail. If the figure is an accurate representation, it’s also a deeper-bodied fish….
Aspirin, anyone? I haven’t finished yet….

#340925

Matt

Keymaster

This is what the Congo Fishes website have listed as P. altus:

That’s very interesting about P. caudalis – would love to see that Boulenger paper.

Attached files

#340927

andy rushworth

Participant

Good read that Pete , didn’t they used to be known in the trade as African Moon Fish , or Moon Tetra ?

#340928

coelacanth

Participant

QUOTE (andy rushworth @ Feb 10 2011, 06:45 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Good read that Pete , didn’t they used to be known in the trade as African Moon Fish , or Moon Tetra ?

Yeah, although Citharinus sp. also used to get called African Moon Fish, as did Psettus sebae (possibly a corruption of African Mono in the case of the Psettus)…

#340956

coelacanth

Participant

QUOTE (Matt @ Feb 10 2011, 06:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is what the Congo Fishes website have listed as P. altus:

At first glance that looks like a fairly different fish from the two species we are here calling Bathyaethiops, but looking more closely at it and them, it looks to be a fish which has only recently gone into preservative (it has that “oh sh*t!” look about it), and you can still see the remnants of the red pigmentation on the dorsal fin and the lobes of the caudal, very similar to the B. caudomaculatus images. Both pics of the caudomacs on here are of young male fish IMO (anal fin morphology), whereas the preserved fish looks to be a female, which could for me easily explain the deeper body shape. So, without counting scales etc., they could be the same or very similar. Feel free to disagree y’all.

QUOTE

That’s very interesting about P. caudalis – would love to see that Boulenger paper.

You’ll have to come back over for that, it’s a set of big heavy books. I have to keep rescuing them anyway, since Paul found out how much they’re worth he keeps trying to put them on ebay….

#341009

Matt

Keymaster

QUOTE (coelacanth @ Feb 11 2011, 06:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

it looks to be a fish which has only recently gone into preservative (it has that “oh sh*t!” look about it)

Thought the same yep, and agree it could easily be the same species as in the two Hippocampus pics.

You have Boulenger originals? Nice!

#341012

coelacanth

Participant

QUOTE (Matt @ Feb 13 2011, 10:25 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thought the same yep, and agree it could easily be the same species as in the two Hippocampus pics.

Methinks someone needs to take a look at the type series of some of these (if they still exist)

Bit more fun for you on this topic. If the figure in Characoids of the World (from Poll, 1959 which sadly I don’t have) is accurate, then B. caudomaculatus should have a rounded peduncular spot and the same herringbone pattern on the flanks as seen in the images here labelled breuseghemi. Breuseghemi is differentiated from caudomaculatus only by being less deep in the body, with the peduncular spot more posterior and only on the lower part. There’s an image of what is supposedly the third species of Bathyaethiops, B. greeni, here http://magical-creatures.blogspot.com/2009…og-post_01.html, and it does correspond pretty closely to the line drawing shown.
Pause for breath….
Taking stuff from Characoids of the World is always going to be a worry, it’s way out of date and it’s from TFH, but that aside, it does state that the members of the Phenacogrammus altus group are characterised by their deep body and the relatively small number of scales bewtween dorsal fin and lateral line (4 or 5). Looking at those two Hippocampus images of “caudomacs”, that’s what I see. So unless someone can argue otherwise, I’m going to suggest that those two fish are actually a P. altus-group fish and not a Bathyaethiops at all.
To change tack, while searching the Poll reprints we do have here, I came across a fish called Dundocharax from Angola, which looks like a cross between Distichodus decemmaculatus and Elachocharax, and I want some!!

QUOTE

You have Boulenger originals? Nice!

Yeah, they’re lurvely! I just have to keep an eye on them, if he’s not trying to sell them he’s trying to colour them in with crayons….

[coelacanth]

OK, here’s my recollections, readings, mumblings, call them what you will…
Fish used to come in from the Congo either as un-named contaminants or as Phenacogrammus altus. These were the fish now on here as Bathyaethiops breuseghemi.
More rarely another fish used to come in, similar but not as attractive, these are what we are now calling Bathyaethiops caudomaculatus.
I remember quite recently when breuseghemi were on the lists, at high prices, with quite a bit of fanfare, when they arrived I went along to see them and kind of went “Oh, they’re just altus, had them before, tough as old boots”. Still stunning fish though, and they live a long time and I bet are easy to breed if you get a decent number together.
We have Boulenger’s FW Fishes of Africa here, and the figure of Micralestes altus (now P. altus) shows a deep-bodied fish with a rounded caudal spot (the text is slightly ambiguous here). The text doesn’t mention any distinctive colours other than the spot, but preserved specimens can lose colour. There are scale counts and meristics if anyone wants them.
Baensch 1-5 has pictures of “all three”.
One is the fish we are here calling breuseghemi and labelled as such, one is the fish we are calling caudomaculatus and labelled as such. Of the other two labelled as caudomaculatus, one is definitely of the fish we are calling breuseghemi, the other also looks to be but it’s a poor picture with too much side reflection.
The picture of Phenacogrammus altus, IMO, could very easily simply be a poor image of an older specimen of the same fish as is labelled B. caudomaculatus (my “fish sense”, such as it is, says it is).
So, what’s what here? I certainly don’t know.

One thing I’ve noticed while looking into this, there’s a fish called either Rhabdalestes or Hemigrammopetersius pulcher, whatever the pics in Baensch are under this name they ain’t it, the colour pattern is very similar to Hemigrammus pulcher but it gets slightly larger, sounds as if it could be stunning! The fish at top left of page 49 in Baensch, labelled as Bathyaethiops sp. could well be very similar.

Next bit of interest, according to Boulenger, Alestopeterius caudalis, the Yellow Congo, should be a reddish fish with a silver lateral band which darken onto the peduncle and continues into the tail. If the figure is an accurate representation, it’s also a deeper-bodied fish….
Aspirin, anyone? I haven’t finished yet….

[Matt]

This is what the Congo Fishes website have listed as P. altus:

That’s very interesting about P. caudalis – would love to see that Boulenger paper.

Attached files

[andy rushworth]

Good read that Pete , didn’t they used to be known in the trade as African Moon Fish , or Moon Tetra ?

[coelacanth]

QUOTE (andy rushworth @ Feb 10 2011, 06:45 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Good read that Pete , didn’t they used to be known in the trade as African Moon Fish , or Moon Tetra ?

Yeah, although Citharinus sp. also used to get called African Moon Fish, as did Psettus sebae (possibly a corruption of African Mono in the case of the Psettus)…

[coelacanth]

QUOTE (Matt @ Feb 10 2011, 06:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is what the Congo Fishes website have listed as P. altus:

At first glance that looks like a fairly different fish from the two species we are here calling Bathyaethiops, but looking more closely at it and them, it looks to be a fish which has only recently gone into preservative (it has that “oh sh*t!” look about it), and you can still see the remnants of the red pigmentation on the dorsal fin and the lobes of the caudal, very similar to the B. caudomaculatus images. Both pics of the caudomacs on here are of young male fish IMO (anal fin morphology), whereas the preserved fish looks to be a female, which could for me easily explain the deeper body shape. So, without counting scales etc., they could be the same or very similar. Feel free to disagree y’all.

QUOTE

That’s very interesting about P. caudalis – would love to see that Boulenger paper.

You’ll have to come back over for that, it’s a set of big heavy books. I have to keep rescuing them anyway, since Paul found out how much they’re worth he keeps trying to put them on ebay….

[Matt]

QUOTE (coelacanth @ Feb 11 2011, 06:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

it looks to be a fish which has only recently gone into preservative (it has that “oh sh*t!” look about it)

Thought the same yep, and agree it could easily be the same species as in the two Hippocampus pics.

You have Boulenger originals? Nice!

[coelacanth]

QUOTE (Matt @ Feb 13 2011, 10:25 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thought the same yep, and agree it could easily be the same species as in the two Hippocampus pics.

Methinks someone needs to take a look at the type series of some of these (if they still exist)

Bit more fun for you on this topic. If the figure in Characoids of the World (from Poll, 1959 which sadly I don’t have) is accurate, then B. caudomaculatus should have a rounded peduncular spot and the same herringbone pattern on the flanks as seen in the images here labelled breuseghemi. Breuseghemi is differentiated from caudomaculatus only by being less deep in the body, with the peduncular spot more posterior and only on the lower part. There’s an image of what is supposedly the third species of Bathyaethiops, B. greeni, here http://magical-creatures.blogspot.com/2009…og-post_01.html, and it does correspond pretty closely to the line drawing shown.
Pause for breath….
Taking stuff from Characoids of the World is always going to be a worry, it’s way out of date and it’s from TFH, but that aside, it does state that the members of the Phenacogrammus altus group are characterised by their deep body and the relatively small number of scales bewtween dorsal fin and lateral line (4 or 5). Looking at those two Hippocampus images of “caudomacs”, that’s what I see. So unless someone can argue otherwise, I’m going to suggest that those two fish are actually a P. altus-group fish and not a Bathyaethiops at all.
To change tack, while searching the Poll reprints we do have here, I came across a fish called Dundocharax from Angola, which looks like a cross between Distichodus decemmaculatus and Elachocharax, and I want some!!

QUOTE

You have Boulenger originals? Nice!

Yeah, they’re lurvely! I just have to keep an eye on them, if he’s not trying to sell them he’s trying to colour them in with crayons….

[Author]

Posts