- This topic has 102 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 8 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
😛 I am gonna risk my reputation here (just kidding of course) .. but I think I would disagree that this should be a female …
Well, well, we shouldnt of course make this a competition, – it just shows you how difficult it really is 😉
And really, I am open to the fact that it may still be, – body shape and so reminds of a female – but then, I would have learned something new, – that some females can show these marks, which we normally consider to be signs of a male. Or its a species where both male and female show marks like this ?There can be quite intense female colouration in certain circumstances. One need not to take ornaticauda where te female could even look like a male during courtship. I once had a trio of P. tweediei. The male died and the two tweediei females fought which is dominant. After some time, the dominant female looked like a subdominant male. It was a striking experience, because this colouration lasted for weeks. If I did not know it was a female I should have thought it to be a weak male. And you know that tweediei has striking colours!
But nevertheless I think your animal is a male and not a female. Time will show. For long times young or subdominant males do not show the full splendour. There must not be another male present; it is sufficient to have females which enforce their needs.
I thank you all for your expertise …….. I think I don’t need to admit that it’s what I hoped for ……
He (I dare to say “he”) shows something additional now:
Ah – Helene, I forgot: Yes, looking only at the body shape, with it’s really rounded belly and so on, let me fear indeed that Martin might be right … especially with the pale colouration of the last two days …. 🙁
I must confess – I am a bit surprised about the conviction in your words ….. For me the colouration of the fish in my last pictures is as strong as in the pictures from post 1820 ……….. were you all where convinced that it is a male………
I can not see such a difference that would make me understand the change in your conviction from male to female – and I would be thankful if you could explain it to me …..
Hi Stefanie.
I think I speak here for all, that we really try our best to be helpful. I certainly do, – but it is really difficult to be 100 percent certain of this on the basis of photoes, – and I must say, the images you have showed earlier, with my experience looked very much as a male.
In the last image – if this is the same fish, it shows those signs much less, – now you say it, yes the band in the caudal fin is vaguely visible. But at the same time this fish shows no other real clear signs of being male (except for the vague band) – and to me it now (which has been the confusing point all the way) shows many more clear signs of being female (that would be the bodyform, the lack of colours in all other fins)With all our experience and good intentions it is obvious that sometimes its just not that easy. Martin gave you his opinion, and to me it sounds like he was rigth indeed, – so its pointless to argue just for the sake of arguing, – I for one have learned through this thread that a female can indeed show male characteristics in the absence of males, – more than I thought.
I am sorry for having perhaps giving you false hope that it was indeed male, – I honestly now must say I have to correct myself … – I was fooled by the fact that it showed more intense colours than I have seen in a female before
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.