- This topic has 7 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I found this image on SeriouslyFish.com
the image often doesn’t load, couse the server is quite laggy lately.The owner thought ( and was sure ), that this one is P. deissneri. I said, that it isn’t possible. My arguments were the lack of filament on the tail fin, an the suspiciously looking pattern on unpaired fins. It was too square-ish compared to photos of regular P. deissneri.
Any ideas on what species is it, and where it might come from? It is supposedly the F1 specimen, whose parents were brought by Horst Linke and Thor Dahl.
The image does not load from this page. Its uploaded in your post, but theres something going on with SeriouslyFish.com which does not seem to allow any search to go through.
If you searched the internet / images – using ‘parosphromenus deissneri seriouslyFish’ as searchwords, I am sure its the first photo that comes up ???
I dont know anything about the history – but I am certain if anything this would be a p. bintan. Try have a look in the species gallery.OH .. :S correction, – the image now uploaded fine. That is the image I found through my search also. I will leave my comment anyway, in case the upload is only sometimes..
I can’t see it, do you mean this specimen?
Nice fish, possibly a hybrid. The ventral filaments are very short for a deissneri, so I think it is a hybrid.
But since it is only one picture of one fish I won’t exclude anything.
Seriouslyfish has been down for me all day…
I asked dr Finke about this fish. I’m uploading the e-mail, as asked by him:
“Sverting, yes, this is quite an extraordinary fish. I can well imagine one could think it’s a P. deissneri, but equally one could think it is not. I shall explain my opinion: It is no deissneri and should be deleted from a homepage trying to explain that species.
The fish shown exhibits some features typical for a deissneri-male:
The dorsal fin is rather long
The pattern of blue markings especially in the caudal resembles to some extent deissneri
The same holds to a lesser extent for the dorsal
And to a still lesser extent for the anal fin.But there are some important characteristics of a male deissneri missing:
There is no black filament at the end of the caudal
The caudal is rounded, whereas that of deissneri has a rhombic from
The length of the dorsal is not enough for deissneri
The markings I spoke of in caudal, dorsal and anal are not of the typical deissneri-character (short parallel streaks with clear black intervals between each). Even in the most similar fin, the caudal, they do not show that streaky form and they are not directed strictly parallel and horizontally.So, what is this fish?
It is clearly no deissneri. All deissneri we know (I have seen many from diverse origins: wild caught one by K. Bieler, G. Kopic, A. Brown, offspring bred by these and by K. Keibel, B. Wilden, B. Bussler, and my own) do not show any marked variation. The pattern of specific fin structure and markings is remarkable stabile. P. deissneri has one of the longest dorsals of the genus (XII-XIII, 6); in fact the male deissneri appear to be rather longly drawn in general. And there was always that typical pattern of well-isolated and parallel blue streaks in all unpaired fins, and the rhombic from of the caudal with a black filament of several millimeters.
P. deissneri is one of the easiest species to determine. There are very good photos of it, especially those of Keibel or Linke. Take the cover-picture of the Parosphromenus-AMAZON-issue, showing one quindecim and two times deissneri.
Nevertheless the picture is disturbing. Which licorice gourami does it show to us? I do not know. It’s a bintan-type with its rounded caudal, but I cannot say it to be typical for the one or the other. What disturbs me most is the statement you cite that this fish is an offspring of a clearly determined deissneri. So I infer from that: This fish shown here in not wild-caught. Its an aquarium breed.
Would it be wildcaught, I should say: Well, it’s new to us, or: It’s a natural hybrid, or: It’s deformed by immissions into his natural habitat. We have very bad reports of immission of old dirty tin mines into the blackwaters of Bangka (Yashuyuki Kishi from the “Team Borneo”). But apart from my conclusion on the basis of your citation that the fish must be aquarium bred it is very unlikely that so many clear markers of deissneri would be affected simultaneously as it is the case with this fish. That it should be new to us would be possible (if it is wildcaught), and that it is a natural hybrid, too. But both is not very likely.
One interpretation I have is that it is an aquarium bred hybrid including a deissneri as ancestor. This is possible, of course, although we have little proof of it. The female deissneris could more easily be interchanged than the males. The other interpretation is that it is an unknown bintan-type (P. cf. bintan) that shows a bit more variation than we see normally. We know that P. bintan occurs on Bangka, too.
At any rate this picture does not show a deissneri. So, it should be removed from the page that tries to explain that species. There are enough perfect pictures of that species. And I appreciate the written text very much: it is well-founded with one exception: Several times only one location is named again and again. There are quite a many locations where deissneri was found and still is found. Three members of our project will travel to that island in autumn this year to look for the real deissneri.”
Again – the seriously fish site! 😀 This time I present you fish collected from Pulau Bintan:
1st
2nd
3rd
In my opinion, only the last could be P. bintan. What’s Your opinion?
O well, two further strange fish!
The second (photo by Michael Lo) is a clear male deissneri, only the black filament is missing (but this could happen). The fish has been photographed in a fearful mood, but all important markers are to be seen.
But the first and the second? Both are males but no defnite bintan-specimen! Again there are intermediate markers to deissneri to be seen. The third fish seems to be rather young.
Well, I do not know what they are! We should know whether they are aqiarium bred or caught in the natural habitats (on Bangka?). The second fish, the deissneri, is probably caught there, because M. Lo does not breed licorice gouramis but visits their habitats. But the first and the the third? Without knowing this we should prevent us from speculating.
Very interesting individuals, Sverting!
Well .. so I have joined the discussion at SeriouslyFish about the first picture of the ‘deissneri’, because it seemed that it actually is a fish which originated from wildcaught fish coming over Karsten Keibel in Denmark, who recieved these from someone in Norway in 2008, – and was able to breed these. I had a pair of ‘deissneri’ from Karsten, offspring from these fish.
And I know for a fact, that Karsten got his fish from Norway together with another species – also wild caught – from Bangka, – but they were not separated. How long time these fish had been going together I am not sure, – and maybe not all of them did go together, but I know he recieved them from Norway in one plastic bag 😉 .. – and I would really not think thats the most certain way to be able to seperate all females correctly
Although, I do know that he was able to see that some fish had a pointed caudal fin, and some not .- also the female deissneri, which then became the mother of the offspring …. but anyway, I thought I should contribute to the investigation here.
I didnt realize the connection before I went to seriouslyFish and read the whole discussion there 🙂 … and then I suddenly remembered there was a story to these fish from Norway. I dont want to discredit anyone or any such thing, – but the findings of p. deissneri in Norway was a bit of an event at that time, and everyone was quite excited. And there was another species involved which was puzzling at the time. And they all came supposedly came from Bangka.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.