- This topic has 58 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Now finally my ‘p.tweediei’made themselves available for very good photos – and surprise :S … they are not p.tweediei ..
I had them a long time, over a year, – but they were small when I got them, – and for a long time they were strangely inactive in regards to spawning and spawning behaviour, they never showed much colour. There was one clear male, but he was always standing under the same root and showing no interest in any of the females. The rest four to my view were all females.
Untill one day I realized one of these were a male, and I then decided to take this ‘new’ male with one of the females in a smaller tank, and they very succesfully spawned.
At that time I managed to take some good photos, – and at that time began thinking, – is this tweediei .. hmmm… so now – I would like to ask here ?I am sure now, – tweedeie its not … but what then ?
Alfredi ? rubrimontis ?
I am probably most believing rubrimontis at this point.They were bought in my local shop – (wildcaught p.tweediei with no location)
These are beautiful little fish regardless of a positive identification.
About 10 weeks ago I was supplied with a group of fish via Ruinemans described as P. Phoenicurus (they are still on Ruinemans stock list). Just like described by Helene, they were small and not showing much colour, but under torch light the larger part of the caudal fin was showing as a vibrant red. They have grown on a bit but I think I too have just a couple of males and there is no discernible courtship behaviours and so I am yet to see them in their full colours to confirm or deny their identification. The dominant male stays largely in the same place under the heater, and the body shape is much like Helene’s photographs. I wonder if we have the same fish? Time will tell.
Looking at these photographs, I wonder id p. opalios should also be considered. There are few good photographs of Opalios to compare against, but I think it is a close match.Helene, your fish maybe tweediei nevertheless. We know that this species is sometimes more blueish; it seems to depend on environmental conditions, especially food. Our friend Prof. Peter Beyer from Freiburg university (Germany) caught at the locations in Western Malaysia himself for several times, and at the same place where the fish had been nearly fully red before, two years later he caught tweediei with much less red and much more blue in the fins.
He made some experiments in Germany with different food, and they resulted in an astonishing change of the colours. But the explanation is not fully complete.
Of course, since your fish are from trade and the trade is completely unreliable in choosing names as they just like, it could be something else, of course. But it can be tweediei nevertheless. If your parent fish look definitely like the unmistakenly red tweediei, then it is very likely that their children are tweediei although they do look more as opallios or alfredi. P. opallios is very improbable because that species is from Kalimantan and has very rarely been traded. P. alfredi is more likely, but the sites of that beautiful species are largely destroyed; I doubt that commercial fishers have much to find there. So, from this point of view it is the most probable solution that they are blue ancestors of the original red P. tweediei.
For decision, you should show the parents to us again.
Another important question is: When did you buy these fishes? P. alfredi has (to my knowledge) not been traded later than 2008 or 2009. perhaps not later than 2006.
This fish is the male that I bought – and I bought it in august 2013, so a little more than a year ago.
This particular fish is the ‘father’ of now many offspring, – but the offspring is yet too small for any identification.
The more I look at this male the more I do think rubrimontis. But I will continue to try to make better photos. Its difficult to get good photos of this fish, because they dont show off a lot.
So the second and third photo show clearly rubrimontis that look exactly like mine and I caught myself in Malaysia.
Thank you all for comments.
Bernd, good to hear your observations, – I think I feel quite confident that I have p.rubrimontis now. But I will keep Peters remark in the back of my head also regarding tweediei.
I will take more photos when I can.Hi Helene,
Are these the same as the ones you wrote about last year, in the topic P. tweediei (?) in Holland?
In that same thread, Peter indicated that he had received 8 of these fish as well, and confirmed them as correctly determined.
Your doubts might concern me as well, as I acquired 2 couples from the same import. I suggest to take a look at the the pictures that I’ve posted in a seperate thread. Should I really doubt about their ID?
Those are the same fish as I was talking about in that thread, yes. But looking at your photo I think yours looks much more like p.tweediei than mine.
And I think we were really just ‘assuming’ that it was the same import, – we don’t really know for a fact, do we ?
I mean mine were bought in a shop in Copenhagen, and although they came from the same importer at the same time 🙂 .. well, it could be two different species.
Its true Peter also had some at that time, I forgot that, – but again, – we just assumed it was the same import. We didn’t know for a fact.
But I cannot get the photos of my fish to correspond with tweediei, – yours, yes, but mine not. The black band in the caudal is too narrow. And when Bernd says they look like the rubrimontis he brought home himself, – then I am much more inclined to say that mine at least are rubrimontis 🙂I think that mixing reminders of fish that from different imports will be pretty much standard in the wholesale companies at least, so the risk of getting differents species form the same batch is quite high. Could very well be the case. I think Peter is right that Paro is Paro for the traders. 🙁
Thank you Helene for confirming that mine look like tweediei 🙂
The import had been announced last year on Ruinemans’ website during their summer break. In the months before that time, only a large quantity P. linkei had been available.
A mix with linkei stowaways, would rather mean that you shouldn’t hesitate any longer. But I agree that it still could be different species. The fishermen might have checked several nearby locations in one and the same region, and have put everyting together at the end of the day :unsure:
Whatsoever, I don’t have enough experience to exclude one or other identification because of the black band in the caudal. I’ve compared the pictures in the species section but don’t see any difference. :huh:
So I can only tell you my observations:
-my males already had moments that they looked as bleuish as on your pictures.
-my females totally behave and look the same way as you described and photographed. The species section confirms the colouration of tweediei females.
-the dorsal of your males seems to match with the description of tweediei males: slightly pointed, but not extremely long. Compare with rubrimontis: the male always has a pointed dorsal fin, partly very long, almost like a pennant.I do not think the dealer makes any guilt. The Paros is collected in the countries of origin safely in large sanctuaries, it can not be determined catch as many Paros in the individual biotopes that a shipment is worth, so they are once collected from different biotopes and then sent. In Singapore, there are large collection stations where fish from the area, Sumatra, Thailand, Borneo and Malaysia collected and then sent all over the world.
Steff, I definitely see yours looking as tweediei, but mine .. this black band is too narrow. I have never seen them looking as clear as the one in your photo
I also spoke to Zahar Zaharia, who lives there, and he thinks it is highly unlikely actually that it should be rubrimontis because the area where its found is so destroyed, and there are very rarely anyone catching for commercial. But of course it can’t be ruled out. He doesn’t think they are tweediei though either.
I am confused :blink:
But I am determined to find out somehow. B) I have got 20 little offspring who deserves to know who their father is![quote=”helene” post=4030]I am determined to find out somehow. B) I have got 20 little offspring who deserves to know who their father is![/quote]
Your approach is comprehensible. It’s more or less for the same reason that I reacted in this thread. I’m glad to have offspring from 2 couples. But after some generations, I’l try to exchange descendants of this unique import in 08/2013, and assure a healthy continuation.
How much of the imported number of fish will still remain? So I particulary noticed that you got 6 of them as well. In case yours turn out not be tweediei at all … how will I be sure about the fish of other Project members mentioning P. tweediei trade (Ruinemans 2013) in the Census?
While taking mine out of his tank, Armin told me that the couples he delivered for identification to Peter and Martin had been swimming in it as well. Let’s hope nobody will ever forget to write down in the census from who the fish was obtained B)
Yes, you are completely right, – but I think that is also what we at least aim to do – to write the origin of the fish and if this is an import, then this will be mentioned, and if you get the fish from private, then this is mentioned too.
I looked into Horst Linkes new book just now, – I have to say, I still think the one I showed at the photo in the beginning of this thread looks so much similar to the one on page 455 if you are so lucky to have to the book, – if not, this is a photo of a rubrimontis. Horst Linke writes that theres one characteristic with rubrimontis, and thats a ‘large dark spot at the base of the caudal fin’ …. I actually think I am seeing that in the photo of mine.. perhaps.. ?
BUT … I am also thinking now that since I got these 6 fish (I lost one ) – the experience with them has been ‘strange’. First I separated what I thought was 2 pairs – with absolutely no effect. The fishes showed no interest in each other at all. For some months I left it like that. Then I gave up and put them all together in a larger tank, thinking they had to grow. There was always one male with very clear dominant colours, but totally inactive – always just under a root.
Then after a year – where basicly I just fed them – another male started to show colours more, and looked more interested in one of the females, – so I cought these out. And they produced the offspring in a day.
I then took the other male and female and separated into a tank – to this day they don’t show any interest in each other, same story. The two males are sort of looking the same, – however one of them was always larger and more clear in colour.And then I am just thinking, – perhaps, as we know, – it could happen that fish caught from two or more small localities are just put into one bag and exportet as such, – and perhaps when I bought mine, there were more ‘species’ or variants, and perhaps this can explain the stage behaviour ? The non interest in spawning behaviour.
And I also think, that looking at Horst Linkes descriptions, – there are so many variants within this group of parosphromenus – tweediei/rubrimontis – that it may end up being impossible to say more than it does certainly belong in this group, but which excatly might be impossible to say ever.I still think, Steff, that yours look different from mine, the red band seems much more substantian all the way around, and the black band at the end of the caudal broader – and even if I could get my fish to flash, I doubt they would ever show that the same way. I still haven’t really seen them flash seriously though.
But you are also right in that it could also be interesting to hear how it went with the other fish that was sold from this import.
Have you double checked the answers of Armin and Peter on your question about P. opallios in the 1st thread about this import?
P. Opallios was simultaneously present on the European market in 2013, … and Bernd is right about the fact that all fish are collected in Singapore.
This knowledge and the pictures, especially the one at the bottom of Martin Hallmanns description of this species on the German IGL website, make me even doubt about the ID my ‘tweediei’ couples. I don’t like to doubt, although it doesn’t change or influence the importance of the fish at all.
I’d like to find out more about the importance of the width of the black band in the caudal fin. Unfortunately, the book of Horst Linke is not present on my bookshelf. But I do recognise and confirm your descriptions of the behaviour of our fish.
This makes me wonder about the observations of the persons named Menzel (spring census 2014) and Mogens (autumn census 2013). Armin told me that he thought that these tweediei had been catched as small, young fish, and had grown up in a tank before being exported. At that time, I didn’t ask him why he thought so.
I have posted some new pictures of the juveniles I have. It will allow you to compare one day.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.