- This topic has 58 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Martin, – you click on action, then reply, then theres a button ‘anhang’ (in the german site), under that theres a button ‘datei hinzufügen, press that and you can add a photo 🙂
It should be quite uncomplicated..Thank yo Helene. Best wishes.
In adition to my words about the cf. “tweediei” some more notes. Most of forms we got from trade the last two decades, are not identical with the described species. Without a link to the location or a (really) true origin we cannot decide which species is near to our trade-paros. So the naming cf…… is not more than a well-meant orientation.
Now some examples of trade-paros I documented for comparism.Martin
Sorry but for me it`s not possible to add a pic. They are always to large. Sorry.
Best wishes, Martin
Now very small pictures. First P. cf. alfredi “trade/Kota Tinggi” traded in year 2002 is a “alfredi with no whitish ventralfilaments
Second also, only little different from import 2015
Third a different one without any bluish-greenish markings, traded 2006. I think Ekona showed this type some month before.
Fourth P. cf. trade Tanjong Malim , traded around 2001, is near to rubrimontis (Horst Linke also got from me and described it in his books as P. sp. Tanjong Malim.
Fifth is a very red one, perhaps near but not identic to rubrimontis. Traded 2015We don`t know the real origin, the locality is an information from the exporter. And not from local fisher (and they know more than one locality and sometimes they mix them shurely). They most likely come from peninsular Malaya
hello Martin,
try to open the pictures in windows drawing software (right click and choose open with and choose this option). In the software choose resize and you can choose from % or pixels. If you resize it to like 20% of the original size, it should be possible to add them. Works for high qualityx JPEGs (@ 13 MB) for me. If still too big, resize it more the same way.
The site is really set to limit photos to 800px, but even if the photos are bigger, the site should automatically resize them, – so maybe its something else ?
You are welcome to send me some photos, and I will try to upload themNow the reference-species: Three times Parosphromenus alfredi “Sedili” self caught 2009.
First pic shows a male after capture in Sedili (pic N. Neugebauer), they are very red because of shrimp
Second a male of F2 or F3-generation (shows the lack of red markings in caudal, dorsal and anal fin)
Third shows a young male of F5-generation (alter getting grindal, fed with beta-carotinoids)Fourth is the famous P. cf. alfredi “Mimbon1998” with only a little red colours because we didn`t know to feed carotinoids They had very nice long whitish ventral filaments. In my opinion also a. P. alfredi from another origin.
We can see a lot of difference (also) in cause of food.
Martin
A remarkable and helpful comparison, but a disturbing and question-rising, too! First,many thanks, Martin!
Then: The influence by different food is highly probable, since it is well-proved in all of these cases. But could you exclude other accompagnying factors that may trigger those colour differences additionally? If not, it is surely remarkable in its own that food is suffcient for making that difference.
But other questions arise concerning structural features. The caudal of the first (red) fish seems to be slightly more elongated; in its son (or grandson) in picture two it is much less developed. Or is this an illusion that is caused by different perspectives of the photos? (I think a bit on the case of the difference between tweediei from Western Malaysia and the certainly closely related phoenicurus from Sumatra. It was stunning that the elongated shape of the wild caught spec. Langgam was nearly lost in the generations bred at that time mainly by Martin Fischer. At the same time the limited red zones of the father fish in later generations extended over large areas of the unpaired fins of the sons and grandsons. But that’s colour; your series shows how uncertain it is to rely for species determinazation on that!).
Certainly not caused by food (or would you say even that? I don’t think so) is the remarkable difference in the length of the ventrals with respect to the Mimbon-fish (the last picture). I have not seen such a big difference within one and the same Paro-species (with the exclusion of so-called “blue line”; that is no scientifically controlled species however; it’s a trade name only used for surely different fish from Sumatra. I had some with very long ventrals indeed and at another time some with very short. Nobody was able to control their identities. Probably that were different fish bearing the same trade-name.) Here, you place the Mimbon98 within the range of alfredi (as I know well; you gave me one of the last young males). Are there other examples for a Parosphromenus-species with such a variability of ventral-length? If any one could say, it’s you. I never have encountered that (well: perhaps with some “bintan”, but that’s the same thing as the blue-line problem: mostly trade fish without approved identity).
To my opinion, I should place the first three and the Mimbon not wthin the alfredi range. When I remember correctly, Kottelat and Ng in their description did not mention such a big difference in verntral length as pypical for alfredi. But as I said: Especially wth this species you are most experienced. Here, I believe what you believe.A remarkable and helpful comparison, but a disturbing and question-rising, too! First,many thanks, Martin!
Then: The influence by different food is highly probable, since it is well-proved in all of these cases. But could you exclude other accompagnying factors that may trigger those colour differences additionally? If not, it is surely remarkable in its own that food is suffcient for making that difference.
But other questions arise concerning structural features. The caudal of the first (red) fish seems to be slightly more elongated; in its son (or grandson) in picture two it is much less developed. Or is this an illusion that is caused by different perspectives of the photos? (I think a bit on the case of the difference between tweediei from Western Malaysia and the certainly closely related phoenicurus from Sumatra. It was stunning that the elongated shape of the wild caught spec. Langgam was nearly lost in the generations bred at that time mainly by Martin Fischer. At the same time the limited red zones of the father fish in later generations extended over large areas of the unpaired fins of the sons and grandsons. But that’s colour; your series shows how uncertain it is to rely for species determinazation on that!).
Certainly not caused by food (or would you say even that? I don’t think so) is the remarkable difference in the length of the ventrals with respect to the Mimbon-fish (the last picture). I have not seen such a big difference within one and the same Paro-species (with the exclusion of so-called “blue line”; that is no scientifically controlled species however; it’s a trade name only used for surely different fish from Sumatra. I had some with very long ventrals indeed and at another time some with very short. Nobody was able to control their identities. Probably that were different fish bearing the same trade-name.) Here, you place the Mimbon98 within the range of alfredi (as I know well; you gave me one of the last young males). Are there other examples for a Parosphromenus-species with such a variability of ventral-length? If any one could say, it’s you. I never have encountered that (well: perhaps with some “bintan”, but that’s the same thing as the blue-line problem: mostly trade fish without approved identity).
To my opinion, I should place the first three and the Mimbon not wthin the alfredi range. When I remember correctly, Kottelat and Ng in their description did not mention such a big difference in verntral length as pypical for alfredi. But as I said: Especially wth this species you are most experienced. Here, I believe what you believe.A remarkable and helpful comparison, but a disturbing and question-rising, too! First,many thanks, Martin!
Then: The influence by different food is highly probable, since it is well-proved in all of these cases. But could you exclude other accompagnying factors that may trigger those colour differences additionally? If not, it is surely remarkable in its own that food is suffcient for making that difference.
But other questions arise concerning structural features. The caudal of the first (red) fish seems to be slightly more elongated; in its son (or grandson) in picture two it is much less developed. Or is this an illusion that is caused by different perspectives of the photos? (I think a bit on the case of the difference between tweediei from Western Malaysia and the certainly closely related phoenicurus from Sumatra. It was stunning that the elongated shape of the wild caught spec. Langgam was nearly lost in the generations bred at that time mainly by Martin Fischer. At the same time the limited red zones of the father fish in later generations extended over large areas of the unpaired fins of the sons and grandsons. But that’s colour; your series shows how uncertain it is to rely for species determinazation on that!).
Certainly not caused by food (or would you say even that? I don’t think so) is the remarkable difference in the length of the ventrals with respect to the Mimbon-fish (the last picture). I have not seen such a big difference within one and the same Paro-species (with the exclusion of so-called “blue line”; that is no scientifically controlled species however; it’s a trade name only used for surely different fish from Sumatra. I had some with very long ventrals indeed and at another time some with very short. Nobody was able to control their identities. Probably that were different fish bearing the same trade-name.) Here, you place the Mimbon98 within the range of alfredi (as I know well; you gave me one of the last young males). Are there other examples for a Parosphromenus-species with such a variability of ventral-length? If any one could say, it’s you. I never have encountered that (well: perhaps with some “bintan”, but that’s the same thing as the blue-line problem: mostly trade fish without approved identity).
To my opinion, I should place the first three and the Mimbon not wthin the alfredi range. When I remember correctly, Kottelat and Ng in their description did not mention such a big difference in verntral length as pypical for alfredi. But as I said: Especially wth this species you are most experienced. Here, I believe what you believe.Before I will show some more pictures of species references with shure origins, I will try to clear something:
The first picture-group of 5 paros, none picture shows a paro we could assign to one of the described species. They are undescribed forms from other origins, probably peninsular Malaya.
The second 4 pictures show P. alfredi. I am shure the Sedili-Paro is an alfredi. 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. The other differences you mention Peter are variances or illusions (perspective). Nothing to do with food. The long filaments of alfredi “Mimbom98” in this stock have been very constant, like it is not so in alfredi Sedili-stock.
Now we know that the red pigments, which are put on a base of a reflecting tourquise zone, are very instable and depend on carotinoids food must contain (ore contains not). The red markings get their brightness from this iridescent base. All bright red coloured paros are concerned. If the red pigments are gone, a tourquoise colour appears.
The brownish-red colours of P. quindecim or linkei for example surprisingly are not.
Every species (tweediei, alfredi, rubrimontis, opallios and shurely the undescribed others too) should be very red in nature (all I cought). They loose the reed pigments by get fed with carotionless nutrition over long time. Since I feed them with beta-carotin-bostered grindal, I had this effect nevermore.
Martin
Now Parosphromenus tweediei “Pontian, Sri Bunian, Pekan Nenas, Parit Bharu”:
It is helpful to read the thread once before, because of the explanation of the variance and the existence of the red bands.
Healthy P. tweediei look like this. The forms of Pekan Nenas, Sri Bunian or Parit Bharu looked identically. They show (nearly) only red markings in unpaired fins.
After beeing in capture with a carotineless nutrition, over some month sometimes colouring change like this.
Martin
This one is a shure P. tweediei “Pekan Nenas” too. It nearly looks like an nice alfredi-type. The red pigments are nearly gone and expose the base of iridescent tourquise coloured bands.
For explanation of my thesis:
A P. tweediei which has no source of carotene could lose the red colouring nearly complete, but no, P. tweediei is not identical with P. harveyi. There must be a genetic disposition too and we have shure other differences. But all the species and forms of harveyi-group are genetically near and perhaps the lack or existence of trace-elements in water or nutrition plays a important role in their appearance.
The best carotene-fed up P. alfredi doesn`t look the same as tweediei. The same should be in rubrimontis, alfredi, opallios and the cf….types.
But carotene supply explains differences in locations (different food/trace-elements), generations (different food/trace-elements) and the splitting in apparently different stocks (different food/trace-elements) and has nothing to do with genetic constant qualities.This all doesn´t mean that the paros are not healthy, the lack of red pigments ist reversible by feeding the right food.
Martin
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).
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.