[retro_gk]

Happy fishing!

You might also want to stock up on paper towels. Wrapping breather bags in paper towels will ensure they don’t come in direct contact with each other.

[retro_gk]

Why not use the SFnumber as the tagging metric? Rather than different series of numbers (Cyprinid-SF001, Characin-SF001 etc), give each species a unique, serially awarded number.

Suppose the first unnamed species Matt enters is Pangio sp. SF001, the next data entry becomes (e.g.) Pethia sp. SF002, the third, Characidium sp. SF003 and so on. In effect, each species gets a random identifier. If a future revision of Characidium explicitly places Characidium sp. SF003 in the new genus Boneywasawarriorwayayixia, without describing the species, the database will show it as Boneywasawarriorwayayixia sp. SF003. It doesn’t matter what genus the fish is placed in because the SFnumber is your id.

Should be easy to implement, with three data fields for each species, , and . Assign an SFnumber to all entries in the database if you want, with the number only being displayed if the field is blank.

FWIW, if you go with separate series of numbers for each group of fish, I’m in favour of barb, tetra and loach over cyprinid, characin and botiid. A lot of people can distinguish a barb from a tetra, many cannot differentiate a cyprinid from a characin to save their lives.

[retro_gk]

sp. 001… is the simplest and most consistent form. If a collection locality is known, or if the fish has other names (trade or hobbyist), sp. “location” and alternative names should be mentioned somewhere and, if possible, included in the meta/search tags for the page. This is for the benefit of search engines.

That said, an SFnum label is a good idea. Publicity is always a good thing with online media

[retro_gk]

Quite an achievement, congratulations!

I’d love to hear more about the actual spawning. Sounds like they spray the eggs around and make no effort to conceal or stick them a-la Corydoras?

I’d also like to see more pictures of the spawning tank, if possible.

[retro_gk]

This one seems to have more pored scales than P. thelys. Can’t think of any species with red opercular marks off hand, but courting males of many species do show some red there, as part of an overall “lateral reddening”.

[retro_gk]

That rules out sophore and chola. Something from the Pethia ticto group.

[retro_gk]

Do I see a serrated dorsal spine?

@Matt said:
Is this one P. sophore perhaps?

 

[retro_gk]

jaintianensis?

[retro_gk]

Wischnath’s Atlas of livebearers of the world has a picture of P. reticulata x P. latipinna hybrids on page 274. The author mentions such crosses are “mostly infertile”.

I don’t think there ever has been a successful Poecilia x Xiphophorus cross, although reports surface from time to time.

[retro_gk]

The head is not malformed, although the fish does appear a bit underfed. They are not very good at competing for food and invariably starve when kept in mixed company.

[retro_gk]

QUOTE (Matt @ Mar 20 2012, 04:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Can ayone confirm that the two species names above are now categorically considered synonymous, with the former taking precedence?

Also, it seems some consider it to belong to the genus Prionobrama though this doesn’t appear to have been widely-followed?

Souza-Lima’s thesis puts paraguayensis in the synonymy of nattereri, based on an examination of Steindachner’s type material. I do not know if she moved it to Prionobrama in the same publication. pecescriollos provides conflicting information with 2 dates for her thesis. See here for more, with an extract from her thesis.

The other paper referenced in your link above seems to be an abstract of a paper presented at a conference, not a full paper.

I’d keep it as A. nattereri for now.

[retro_gk]

Caudal seems a bit off, the description illustrates a fish with a lunate tail. The dorsal fin insertion is spot on, though. I received some fish from Andrew in 2008 as irrorata. I think those were an undescribed species. Bohlen has pictures on his website of a fish that has a caudal matching the description, but has the dorsal that is a bit forward.

[retro_gk]

Really hard to make a definitive ID without a good photograph of the mouth. Could be a Labeo, Cirrhinus, Tylognathus or Henicorhynchus. My money is on Cirrhinus, fwiw.

[retro_gk]

I think the picture on Glaser’s website shows a displaying male (red nose, I remember reading a long time ago that tiger barbs can be sexed by the males developing a very red nose when “excited”), which might account for the greater amount of black on the fins. The black pigment may not be so prominent otherwise.

Wish I could get a few of those

in reply to: Acanthocobitis spp. #344444

[retro_gk]

As best as we know now, yes.

[Author]

Posts