Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Thanks for the photos, Lawrence – neat looking fish! Hopefully each of you is successful breeding them as you have certainly gone through a lot of discomforts (if not difficulties) to rescue them before their habitat is gone forever. Greetings to Peter Beyer and Michael Lo with congratulations!
David
Peter, sounds good, and looks like you and Horst Linke have the best contacts and knowledge of the entire scene. The blog from which this Paro Pulau Lingga post was taken is active even up to this month, so there ongoing activity by Mr. RM Nakamoto. Forgive me, I am not clear on this – is this Blog and author the same as, or part of “Team Borneo”? (if they even exist at all)?
[quote=”Peter Finke” post=5182]We have indeed not seen Paros from the island of Pulau Lingga hitherto. It is not surprising that there are some occurring. Thinking of the past 10.000 years it was included in the big landmass of Sundaland, now being an island between western Malaysia and Sumatra, just like Bintan or Bangka.[/quote]
Very interesting, then, that a new range for this genus can apparently be documented, if this report, from 2013, is substantiated. This raises the question of whether Paros occur on the neighboring smaller islands of Pulau Sebangka and Pulau Singkep, and others, all of which would have been part of Sundaland, prior to the rise in sea level.
[quote=”Peter Finke” post=5182]Let’s see if we get more pictures. This one shows the fish not in full but in in frightened colours. The location is new to us; whether the species is too, one such picture is not enough. But many thnak to you, David, for posting it. The Japanese have played since some decades an important role in Paro aquaristics. They found pahuensis or spec. Parengean a little earlier or later than Europeans.[/quote]
It has been two years since the original post, and there does not appear to be any further update of this Paro in the blog that I can see.
To make matters more interesting, in the same series of posts, there is some reference to another Paro that the author names as a “Bintan” like paro, that does appear to resemble classic bintan form, but I cannot determine if the blog is saying this fish is the same as the first fish pictured, or if it is a separate fish that was collected from Pulau Lingga. If the author is saying it was was a different fish, also collected on Pulau Lingga, then apparently two distinct forms (one more resembling alfredi/tweediei and the other more bintan form), occur on the same island. (Google translator renders the Japanese into an almost unintelligible wording in English, so it’s difficult to make out just exactly what the author is stating – so I am not sure about this last point).One cannot leave comments on the blog, however the author’s email link is provided and someone could try to contact him via email to ask for any further update or clarifying information. Perhaps this contact should best come from Peter or Horst Linke? who will have the most knowledge about the subject.
I just heard back from the breeder and Stefanie was correct in thinking the tweediei pictured were too well developed to be 10 weeks old. He re-checked his records and in fact they are 4 months old. There is one smaller fish in the batch that he sent along and that one is now 10 weeks old, but not the larger ones I photographed. So good eye 😉 . That does seem to fit better with the development sequence in the thread Helene referenced as well. More photos when I can manage them.
Thank you Helene and Peter for your valuable information. The photos of the development of the young in the other thread you referred to, Helene, are really fine, and serve as a good documentation of possible growth rates in paros. That the growth rate of young depends on several factors certainly makes sense given the same can be true of other genera and species of fish – and interesting, Peter, to note the correlation between growth rate and lifespan. I would agree that the P. tweediei to seem to have been grown out more fast than slow, yet I would emphasize that the colorations are just beginning to show (perhaps highlighted by the camera) and that the fish are still quite small. My nagyi seem to be on pace with normal growth rate, as well, based the photos in the other thread. Still no word from the breeder confirming age, but I’d have to agree it is quite possible that he is correct in his statement of nine weeks age, based also on what is known.
Stefanie, good question. I will say the breeder stated they were 9 weeks old when he sent them and I’ve had them for about a week, so 10 weeks. I will check with the breeder again, maybe he meant to say months instead of weeks.
I forgot to mention that these fish are no more than 1.75cm total length – some even less. Perhaps the camera zoom gives the appearance that these fish are larger?
About how long, on average, does it take paro young to attain 1.75cm? At the rate my nagyi fry are growing, I am thinking they will be well beyond 1.75cm after 10 months (40+ weeks.) Some are already approaching 1cm after just 8 weeks or so.
Congratulations! Hopefully the fry will survive amongst all the plants and grow out to become the next generation.
Thanks for sharing 🙂Congratulations! Neat looking cave and would be great to see photos of the adult fish as well. Thanks for sharing 🙂
Helene, thanks for the link to the thread you started on this question, I believe I missed that one in reading so many threads before getting my first paros. So, you and Peter and others have considered this question at length and even made some interesting observations. Hopefully you have found or will find a solution by trying different things. I know, when I said “maybe you could experiment”. I then thought about how much work that really takes, and time. So just take my comment lightly 🙂 Lawrence Kent sent me 7 tweediei young (9 weeks old) and already I can see at least two pairs in the mix under magnification. He thought they were not sexable, so maybe he just picked out 7 random fish (he has quite a lot of them) and if so, maybe this suggests a more balanced ratio in his offspring. I will ask him what water parameters he keeps and breeds his in.
Yes, Peter, you are right – they could be something else altogether – another option I omitted from my recent comment. Thank your for adding that option here. Looking at the colors of the fish, especially the male in flaring/breeding coloration, they do not look to be quite “classic” tweediei, as far as I can tell, based on Lawrence Kent’s photo on the website of fully sparring males of known tweediei. And they could be from somewhere else besides Malaysia, no doubt. However, as you say, this does not prevent us from making the effort to see where the fish might possibly fit into the known taxonomic system, given it’s less that final descriptions, based on what we do known and can be observed, as in the Mimbon ’98 case. If the fish could be referred to with some kind of biological or taxonomic name, I would prefer that, and at first was not happy naming a fish after an importer and year, but now see the necessity of it, given the lack of collecting locale and other deciding factors – I am accepting, as you have pointed out, that they may have to be referred to as “P. spec. TCE 2015” ad infinitum – I reread, some days ago, your explanations I referred to of the biological naming situation, and I was reminded of the limitations there, and it enabled me to let go of my want to call them some tweedie/phoenicurus/opallios to so great an extent. Yet I admit it is one fundamental characteristic of humans to want to name and categorize the phenomena we perceive, and a necessity, so that we can talk about things with some kind of common understanding. Surely this is the whole point of the Linnean binomial naming system, adopted by the scientific community. That that system, developed in it’s own time and milieu, is now seen to be incomplete or in need of augmentation is certainly no surprise, as you have shown, given the nature of the ongoing revision, or even complete discarding, of whole scientific theories and paradigms as human understanding and consciousness shifts. From a more philosophic viewpoint – your’s and other’s perspectives and comments, this discussion and the nature of biology in general reminds us of the benefits and limitations of that naming system and our human tendency to categorize, and perhaps, invites us to see something underlying or beyond the forms we seek to name. As you and others often refer to, Beauty, for instance.
Peter, these are not the P. spec. Parengean / spec. Palangan obtained by the importer in Florida. These are the more recent import via The Cichlid Exchange which share, as you say, many characteristics similar to P. tweediei.
At times I have wondered if they could be more P. alfredi? They do not have whitish-blue pelvic fins mentioned in the account for that species, but instead the blue-green/black pelvic fins of tweediei.
Or P. rubrimontis? They do not have the elongated, pointed dorsal fin tip as mentioned in the account for that species, but a rather the less extended dorsal fin tip characteristic of P. tweediei.
Or P. opallios? They do not have the blue-colored, spotted ventrals [pelvic fins] (similar to P. nagyi) with light blue filaments mentioned in the account for that species, but the pelvic fins colored as for P. tweediei, as already mentioned.
Or P. phoenicurus? They do not show the classic rhombic caudal fin shape and coloration of the wild-caught P. phoenicurus, but show shape and coloration more closely similar to P. tweediei.
I could make no conclusive judgements based on the unpaired fin spine/ray counts mentioned in the species accounts, as the counts mostly overlap in their variations. From what I could count from the photographs these fish could be any of the four species (possibly), but are not excluded as P. tweediei, based on those counts.
So based on:
- Male fin color and shape.
- Fin spine/ray counts.
- Female body and fin coloration.
- The fact that TCE also had imported P. nagyi from Malaysia at the same time this fish was imported and P. tweediei also come from Malaysia (empirical, not conclusive, evidence).
- The fact that P. tweediei is still to be found in the wild (as of Dec. 2014), even in the much altered (but more easily accessible) habitats of the palm plantations.
- That fairly recent imports in the trade (Helene’s fishes that also share many if not all of the characteristics of P. tweediei) could also be P. tweediei and indicate their ongoing accessibility to exporters. (versus P. phoenicurus – only one known commercial import from only one known collection location. P. opallios, on the other hand, has had more frequent exportations in the trade i.e. TCE 2013 and possibly again this year, listed by the same vendor, but unverified).
We have some body of facts pointing to these fish being more likely P. tweediei (or some close variant) than any of the other closely related forms.
In all of this, I think your observations in comments #4039 and #4047 of Helen’s thread “help with id ? alfredi ? tweediei ? rubrimontis?” should be well considered, as they place our questions and potential answers within the proper biological/ecological situation when it comes to the taxonomy of this genus.
I want to know what “species” this fish is and give it a biological name. However, given the limited nature of the binomial naming system seeking to be imposed, as Peter says, upon the fluid and ever-changing flow of biological life, and all of the vast uncertainty of the phylogenetic relationships of the relatively sparsely collected and documented forms of the genus, I am realizing any name we give this fish is likely to be temporary, subject to ongoing change and serves only as a reference point from which to talk about the actual fish. Add to this the changes that come into play once the fish is removed from the natural environment and begun to be propagated within the wholly different “habitat” of the aquariums of the fishkeepers, including the possibility of hybridization, genetic bottleneck (inbreeding) and completely different nutritional inputs – we can already see changes in color and body shape of captive-bred populations compared to the original wild forms. Lastly, in most of the species accounts on this website, there are the recurring provisos to the descriptions of each species of this closely related group, that there is quite a lot of color variations, among the wild collected fish and in their captive offspring. So the best we can do, in the absence of clear, known characteristics, known collection locations or especially the more certain genetic studies, is to make close observations of as many of the characteristics of the fish we have based on the available knowledge and to try to compare as many known facts as we can to seek some greater clarity about the forms we have. That is why this forum, with everyone’s contributions is so valuable in that regard, and this is exactly what is taking place in the comments and observations that have been made by everyone to best degree.
Here is a video of the spawning sequence, same as the photos above. This pair does not make a bubble nest and the male removes all eggs during spawning to be reared under a leaf. Notice how the female can both swivel and rotate her eyes, like some kind of mechanical submersible vehicle – something I had not really noticed until making this video. The video was filmed at 50% speed to allow for very smooth observation. Be sure to watch in HD. It is a joy to photo and video them and share on this forum 🙂
[quote=”Stefanie” post=5135]…(I never had P. tweediei – but the day may come 😉 ). [/quote]
I hope you do get them soon – actual tweediei are real beautiful fish! (but still not sure what these are :unsure:). I just got 7 F! tweediei juvies so am excited to see what they develop into 🙂
Helene, 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).
Well, this pair spawned again today – in an “apisto hut” 🙂 The spawning site was some cm back from the front glass and with extra tannins in the water, the photos are not very sharp, but not bad for beginner 😉 It was amazing watching the male flaring many times. No massive bubble nest was made and all the eggs were removed by the male throughout the spawning session to a place under a leaf on the ground. There we only a few spawning embraces, mostly the female just deposited eggs that fell to the ground to be picked up by the male to be moved.
