- This topic has 58 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
(Between two lectures in Dresden, Germany):
I strongly recommend not to take the question of exact species determination as serious and important as some seem to take it. You must know that Parosphromenus is a young genus that is developing still today. Many processes of species-differentiation have not yet come to a halt. It is most intelligible that we have quite a few semi-species (a serious concept of the most modern theories of species). The hitherto outcomes from the genetic research on Paros say the same thing: very near to each other, except for P. parvulus and P. ornaticauda (which we aquarists know since long from our close obervations of the behaviour).
The valid scientific names of our fishes do not reflect that situation. This sort of “scientific description” leads to strict differetiations that are not met by the underlying facts. It is most likely that the Paro-nomenclature has to be revised in later times, and I shall not anticipate what the outcome will be when the genetical informations have much more developed and the taxonomical methods have been revised in that light.
No “young search for their father”, as I read here. WE search, and we apply methods which are much too strict for that highly mobile system of evolving species that we see in the Paro-world. Take that as the interesting fact, not those names of some people who mostly have not seen the living fish or even his behaviour.The names are not irrelevant, nobody must mistake bintan for deissneri or alfredi for rubrimontis, but the eager discussion in this threat does not reflect the factual problem: the highly flexible actual evolution of a young genus. There is a remarkable variation within the boundaries of those species, and it can evoke that discussions, but the discussions mus reflect the biological situation in south-east Asia and not the wishful thinking of some aquarists who like to have it clearer than nature is ready to deliver.
Thank you for your comment Peter, – it is a help with your expert view, – but I think this ‘eager’ discussion was also coming to the same conclusion, – and the learning that I had from this discussion was a great help to understand how difficult it is to determine species. And that there are times when it just has to be left unanswered or open.
We are always looking for the help of ‘experts’ for identification, – and always in the end has to contact some of you for final help. This is of course fantastic that we can do that, – but if we don’t question things we never learn ourselves.
In the project I think we do put a lot of emphasis on species identification, and naming or trying to id the fish, – so to me no discussion can be ‘too much’. A lot of the information that we can find in the few books etc is centered around identification and just getting to the place where one can say, that the fish you have is not a clear species, seems to be important when you read about it, and also when you report to Census.🙂 and please forgive my expression ‘looking for their father’ 🙂 … of course they are not, I was merely using a bit of humour , which I think there should be a place for in this forum. And ‘knowing’ who the father is relevant for me, because I do report to the Census, – and of course I would like to be as accurate as possible, – even if this means I have to write that the species is unclear :).
And Steff, I know that Mogens does not have the fish anymore unfortunately.
All comments in this thread are interesting for me, included the ones of Peter. It’s wonderfull to read different approaches.
From scientific point of view, it probably must look useless to discuss about the ID of fish whereof the exact place of catch hasn’t been established.
The major part of people with an ordinary living room tank doesn’t bother about it neither.
But taking in mind the 4th and main objective of the Project (menu on the left :whistle: ), our mutual exchange of questions and answers about the origin and ID of Paro’s becomes relevant.
Not that we are so eager to give them a name, but because we understand the necessity to label our paros when we distribute their young, or exchange in order to make new pairs.
I agree with Helene, and hence, also realize that ‘species unclear’ means that I don’t need any new couples. Who will want them?
Steff, I regret to say it but you are wrong:
1. I fully understand an aquarist who wishes to know which Paro he/she has, especially if there is a suspicion that the trade name was wrong.
2. But I have to explain why there are a few cases in which this wish could not be matched even by the experts.
3. Take the following comparison: Suddenly, there is an unknown bird in your garden. You ask an expert and he tells you the species. Even – say – in winter-time when there are birds from the east or the north as guests in our regions and some look a bit different than our nominate species an expert can tell it. The taxonomic situation is clear, even underlined with detailed genetic knowledge.
4. Our case is different, and all Paro-friends must know the backgrounds. There is no complete knowledge of the world’s Paros. The hitherto taxonomy is in many cases OK, but in some it is uncertain and instable: the round-tailed forms with red in the fins. Take the question that Martin Hallmann and I have tackled in our book on the Paros: Which fish had Walter Foersch, the founder of Paro-aquaristis? He thought “deissneri”, but surely they were not deissneri. But – as the fine coloured photos by Hans-Joachim Richter tell us – they probably were no tweediei, no rubrimontis and no alfredi either. There is an undescribed form from Western Malaysia – spec. Kota Tinggi – which come near to Foersch’s fish. Maybe ist was to be found at Ayer Hitam in those times. Now, the location is destroyed. We will never know for sure which form it was. I had got some from Foersch personally, and will never know.
5. In your case maybe the situation changes in a few years, but presently it is impossible to say. We have new knowledge about an astonishing variety even in tweediei, according to food and other environmental conditions that can change. We see that the hitherto used methods of taxonomy are oldfashioned and unreliable. In many cases there is no problem; a quindecim is a quindecim and a filamentosus is a filamentosus, but if the determination is based on colours only and we have no lacation for sure (the trade situation), it is impossible to decide even for experts in some cases. And the reason is not their weak expertise, but the weak old-fashioned methods of taxonomy and the habits of the trade.
6. It is likely that more genetic information will not solve your problem. All we know now, the species in question are very near to each other. It is more likely that a bold scientist will revise the genus altogether with the new methods of genetically underlined determination and throw some of the species away which are based on colour differences only and tell us: Paros develop presently very fastly; the changing environmental situation results in many semi-species. The species differentiation has not yet come to a halt in theses cases.
7. This is the most likely explanation for your problem. It is a very interesting situation, quite different to the problems of the majority of aquarists. We have a genus which is in rapid change itself. Isn’t that interesting, a very specific situation of great suspense? A different thing is your motives. I fully understand them, but I have to explain the backgrounds why it cannot be met presently.I fully appreciate you explanation, Peter. You shouldn’t regret. I agree with all elements of it. Moreover, it contributes in a positive way to this discussion.
I am familiar with your clarification as I do have read the book you mention, and often open it again for consultation. So I hope there wasn’t anything in my comments that gave the impression that I disagree. My previous reaction was quite provocative, due to my practical motives as aquarist. I know you understand them.
When feeding my controversial P. tweediei (?) this evening, I understood their name doesn’t influence the fact that they are very goodlooking. Of course I’ll continue to breed them, in spite of the unexpected constraints that I’ll have to keep in mind.
I agree that its a discussion which we learn from, and worth while, – I definitely learned a lot.
I am still though a little in doubt as to how I should name this particular species when it comes to Census.Hey,
as I personally discussed with Helene, I will probably say something about this discussion in the Census.
Please remember the origin of your fish and keep as much information as possible. Even if there is no chance to identify it will help you und the ones you give your offspring to. That is the point I see in all the discussion before there is no real need for the exact species name, but you want to separate your fishes and keep them as special.
This is it at the moment, I will gernerally say something about this.
[quote=”helene” post=4033]
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.[/quote]I know that my answer comes late but I would like to say something to this assumption.
I don’t believe that belonging to different species or variants results in no interest in courtship or spawning behaviour.
I observed instant courting in the following “combinations”:
– pahuensis female and rubrimontis male
– quindecim male and female of unknown species, supposedly belonging to the harveyi-group (surely not quindecim!)
– nagyi male and female of unknown species, supposedly belonging to the harveyi-groupAt least pahuensis and quindecim are so different from other species like rubrimontis that I saw the immediate courtship behaviour with really great surprise. This corresponds to the explanations Peter gave: Paro “species” are very young in evolutionary terms – and in my opinion only persist by being geographically separated. As soon as natural barriers are removed, the “species” will mingle and produce new forms.
So I think that belonging to different forms is not the reason for the disinterest in spawning behaviour of your fish.
I just want to post photos of the fry of this particular species, which has now grown to adult age.
The species is still listed in the Census as P.tweediei (commercial trade Ruinemans 2013) ..Thanks, Helene, for showing the photos.
I must say – I find it extremely difficult to find important differences between these fish and mine so-called P. cf. rubrimontis Mimbon 2008. If I see differences, I am not sure if they are not only due to different quality/exposure of the photographs.
Look at this young male:
And the same fish a few weeks later:
I admit – I believe I wouldn’t be able to tell them apart from your fish in an aquarium.
🙂 This species is a tricky one. As I have been writing I had a very succesfull spawning with it, with about 40 fry. Of these most unfortunately was males, but a few females luckily.
I have kept some of them in a 60 liter tank, – mostly males, – and when I have seen these together they still only show a little red. Some of the very subdued males almost show no red.
But today I have found a male and female that were clearly showing mating behaviour in this big tank, and I have seperated them into a small tank.
Even it was a bit stressfull to catch them (finding the right male and the female) it took less than five minutes in the little tank before they were in and out of the new cave 🙂
And now I clearly see the red and the resemblance to p.tweediei is much more striking.
The species is in the last Census as P.tweediei (Ruinemans 2013) – and I am not so much in doubt about that anymore.
This is the species which we actually also talked about – and I showed a few photos of – at our recent meeting in HamburgHelene, those are fantastic looking fishes and your photos really capture the beauty of them :cheer: . These really are tricky to ID not knowing the collection location – the several forms just look very similar. I think Peter’s explanation of this whole situation in a previous thread around these fishes, is well taken by me.
Today my P. spec.”TCE 2015″ spawned (see my photos there). My fish look similar, except that when spawning today, the male showed almost no red.
I have recieved P. tweediei from a verified collection location, Sri Bunian, in Johor, Malaysia. These are F1 fishes of the ones Lawrence Kent and Peter Beyer collected in Dec. 2014. (Photos of those wild fish is in the species account on the website.) Once they grow out I will photograph them and post to the forum for comparison.
In any case, good luck with raising the young. (What water parameters do you have, maybe something with temperature or pH affects ratio of males to females. As with other fishes this could be something with which to experiment).
Hi Helene,
This is Great news!!!
I as you will remember got seven of these fishes from you at the Hamburg meeting and keep them in a 20 l tank. There Clearly was a pair but the five others Were not yet old enough for clear determination. I Now think that almost all of them are males. The pair shows occasional mating like behaviour but i could not find them spawning yet. Probably they are also not yet completely mature. Sally one of the youngsters died only a week after i got them. Maybe the Journey had been a bit too stressful for him. It had stopped eating two days After they arrived…
Good luck to you and your beautiful fish, Helene!
Sorry to hear that, Rafael, – I am glad at least the ‘pair’ was a pair.
I hope then that you will get fry and hopefully more females then. I have a 60 liter with ‘excess-males’, – I simply have too many. And it actually goes well, it becomes a little bit of a ‘display-tank’ then, with boraras also. The males get by, – they each find a little place to guard. I also give them caves, even there are no females, and some of the more dominant males occupy the caves.
With your pair – did you provide them with a cave ?
I find that sometimes, if you have a pair, they can stay ‘inactive’ for a long time but if you suddenly give them an attractive option as a cave, they suddenly get much more in the mood for spawning.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.