Archive

Cen­sus Spring 2015 synopsis

Parosphromenus Newslet­ter No. 118 Dato : 25.05.2015

Spring Cen­sus 2015 Parosphromenus-​Project

Com­men­ta­tion of syn­op­sis and godfathers

Eng­lish: Inter­pre­ta­tion of Syn­op­sis (by Ben­jamin Wilden)

Gen­eral:

In this spring cen­sus 58 mem­bers has send in a report.13 of these reported no Paros.
That was all in all a good par­tic­i­pa­tion.

It seems that still all species are present in our stock, although in vary­ing numbers.

That brings us directly to a prob­lem, which increased heav­ily since last year but in ear­lier years was seen very sel­dom: the reported fish have in many cases not been iden­ti­fied after pur­chase. That means in these cases the name which was used in trade has just sim­ply been taken over. In a few cases the iden­ti­fi­ca­tion has been cor­rect. In the har­veyi group a cor­rect deter­mi­na­tion is often not pos­si­ble. In any case it is always good and inter­est­ing to know under which name the fish had been traded, spe­cially if later on is planed an exchange with other breeders.

But there are many fish traded under the name P. deiss­neri or recently also under the name of P. gunawani. Espe­cially this species had been sel­dom or never imported com­mer­cially yet. There­fore there is a need to be scep­ti­cal about the traders nam­ing.

I can only reg­is­ter the fish which are reported to me in this way, as it is pre­sented to me. Some hold­ers are not quite sure about the species. That is o.k. We will think about this sub­ject con­cern­ing the next census.

In par­tic­u­lar because of the two men­tioned species we must unfor­tu­nately assume that we were not able to sus­tain all species in our stock.

In gen­eral we can see that some very pop­u­lar species as P. linkei, P. quin­decim or P. nagyi are very fre­quently and con­stant in stock, while oth­ers like P. phoeni­cu­rus or P. cf. bin­tan by imports are very numer­ous. All other species are dis­trib­uted between some few hold­ers. These can sus­tain the species over some time and get enough off­spring to give some away to others.

But many exam­ples show us that P. fil­a­men­to­sus, spe­cially P. cf. fil­a­men­to­sus spec. Ampah and also P. anju­ga­nen­sis and many oth­ers, that a stock which once has been rel­a­tively numer­ous can­not be regarded as secured.


We thank all who have taken part in the Census.

Spec­i­fi­ca­tions:

P. alfredi is con­tin­u­ally rep­re­sented with few fish in stock. Also the off­spring make us hope­ful. Yet the species is bred by just a small num­bers of hold­ers, though very con­stant.

P. allani belongs to the crit­i­cal species. The two loca­tion vari­a­tions are only present at one friend each.


P. anju­ga­nen­sis is an exam­ple for an shock­ing stock-​reduction in the last two years. At that time these species belonged to the most numer­ous, now it has nearly dis­ap­peared.

P. bin­tan appears to be fur­ther­more the most fre­quently held species.
The indi­cated sources how­ever shows why — Fish from the P. bintan-​harveyi group are rel­a­tively good com­mer­cially available.

Whether it really is P. bin­tan or not can­not be con­firmed with­out loca­tion.
The sit­u­a­tion is dif­fer­ent in the local­ity forms. These can be found just at a few hold­ers who how­ever are hold­ing the num­bers of fish rel­a­tively constant.

P. deiss­neri seems to have dis­ap­peared from our stock.

Indeed this species had been reported by a holder, how­ever it is unknown if this species had ever been imported by Ruine­mans.

P. fil­a­men­to­sus fur­ther­more is not as well rep­re­sented as in recent years. How­ever I would esti­mate the species as less endan­gered. Also for the vari­a­tion „Ampah“ there are off­spring who give hope.

P. gunawani is again poorly rep­re­sented and also under seri­ous threat.

P. har­veyi was only reported by four hold­ers. Although the num­bers of fish are rel­a­tively high the stock is declin­ing.

P. linkei is going on to be very secured. There have been reported many fish and off­spring.
Yet the loca­tion forms can just be found at a few holders.

P. nagyi can be con­sid­ered all in all as safe. How­ever, inside the indi­vid­ual loca­tion groups can be observed a cer­tain turnover, spe­cially con­cern­ing the num­ber of the hold­ers.

P. opal­lios is going on to be poorly rep­re­sented, the small num­ber of fish as well as few hold­ers point us to that the species is not safe.
Spe­cially the loca­tion forms will die out shortly, because there are left only sin­gle fish.

P. ornat­i­cauda is going on to be poorly rep­re­sented and will prob­a­bly fur­ther­more rely on being imported.

P. pahuen­sis is going on to be very low in stock.

P. palu­di­cola has just been reported by three hold­ers, but that has always been so. Some off­spring give hope.

P. par­vo­lus also just had been reported by three hold­ers. How­ever they have rel­a­tively numer­ous fish and some off­spring.

P. phoeni­cu­rus is going on to be good rep­re­sented on the basis of the import of Aquar­ium Diet­zen­bach.

P. quin­decim has remained sta­ble. The species is fre­quent and can be con­sid­ered as secured.

P. rubi­mon­tis also has remained sta­ble. The species is not fre­quent but there have been reported some off­spring.

P. suma­tranus must be con­sid­ered as crit­i­cal. Just a few hold­ers and no off­spring.

P. tweedie remains to be rep­re­sented rea­son­ably well. There have been reported rel­a­tively numer­ous off­spring at sev­eral holders.




X

Right Click is Disabled

Please respect our image usage rights and do not copy the images found on this web­site with­out prior per­mis­sion. Thank You — The Parosphromenus Project Staff