Results for “nuchal”

This species is likely to be traded for aquaria but probably misidentified as the very similar-looking K. cyrptopterus with which wild populations were formerly considered conspecific. These two are closely-related and can be distinguished from congeners by the dorsal profile lacking a nuchal concavity (vs. possessing a nuchal concavity) and possessing short maxillary barbels (extending to the pectoral-fin base vs. ext...

Previously included as a member of the genus Cichlasoma, the midas cichlid is often confused with the red devil, A. labiatus. The two can be distinguished through differences in morphology. As suggested by its scientific name, A. labiatus often possesses characteristically large lips, although this is variable and should not be used as a defining indicator of species. More reliable differences include the bigger nuchal hump and more thick-set appearance in A. citrinellus. The midas exists in many n...

Previously included as a member of the genus Cichlasoma, the red devil is often confused with the midas cichlid, A. citrinellus. The two can be distinguished through differences in morphology. As suggested by its scientific name, A. labiatus possesses characteristically large lips, although in reality this is variable and should not be used as a defining indicator of species. Certainly, tank bred fish tend not to have these large lips. More reliable differences include the bigger nuchal hump and mo...

A. taurus can be told apart from congeners by the following combination of characters: infraorbitals and preopercle covered by thick skin and not visible externally (vs. covered by thin skin and externally visible in other Aspidoras); nuchal plate reduced, covered by thick skin and not visible externally (vs. well developed, covered by thin skin and visible externally); lateral line absent posterior to two small lateral line ossicles (vs. lateral line present on at least first body plate).

In a study conducted on the Arataye River, the main tributary of the Approuage, this species was mostly collected from stretches of rapids with rocky substrate which were reduced to a series of pools during the dry season. Other fishes observed at the same site were Auchenipterus nuchalis, Hypostomus gymnorhynchus and Moenkhausia cf. intermedia while at other localities in the river Bryconops affinis, Myleus ternetzi, M. rhomboidalis, Moenkhausia aff. barbouri, Curimata sp. and Serrasalmus sp. were collected.