[Peter Finke]

I have limited time only for replying because of a travel immediately starting.
1. The carotene-thing is highly plausible but not fully clear yet. Similar colour changes occur in the original locations, too (as we know from Peter Beyers and possibly your own observations). They might equally be explained by change of food. But we have no empirical proof of such food-changes in the original environment, haven’t we? Nevertheless, it’s highly probable.
2. The most remarkable consequence is: Colour markings, at least the changing blue-red zones of fish in the bintan-harveyi-group, must be excluded as criteria for species determination. For non-genetic identifications only structural properties remain safe (or not? see no 3.). In my view, the consequence is that some species-descriptions by Kottelat and Ng become obsolete. But y
3. As long as there is no real proof to be wrong (and in my view we do not have such a proof) clear structural features remain important for species distinctions at least at a sub- or semispecies level, length of the ventral fins for instance. Therefore I am not convinced that the “Mimbon98” was an alfredi. In my memory we had no proof of that determination besides structure and colour and behaviour. If you write “The cf. alfredi „Mim­bon 98″ is i. m. o. P. alfredi too, but a lit­tle dif­fer­ent in colour­ing and the larger lenght of fins and espe­cially ventral-​filaments” then the “in my opinion” is decisive. There is no persuading argument for it. We had a fish from the trade without any indication of a reliable location, hadn’t we?
4. Following you, Martin, the only safe criterion for species determination remaining (at least for the round-tailed Paros of the bintan-harveyi-type) is a valid location. But even this is doubtful because of the great genetic similarities we know so far already. In this situation, I think it is a bit courageous to say that the “Mimbon98” is, “in your opinion”, an alfredi! (Or: it’s frankly admitting that one does not know for sure).