Cichla kelberi, Taxonomic Description

I've seen a few posts regarding the eventual size of C. kelberi. I thought this might shed some light on the subject (as well as make your eyes bleed )

Ichthyological Exploration of Freshwaters, Volume 17, Number 4, December 2006

A Review of the South American cichlid geneus Cichla, with descriptions on nine new species

Sven O. Kullander and Efrem J. G. Ferreira

Morphometry of Cichla kelberi

SL (mm) Min 48.1 Max 275.5 Mean 212.0 HT 275.5

Click to expand...

Of 52 specimens collected, the largest was 272.5 mm (10.725 inches) with the average being 212.0 mm (8.26 inches)

Now that's not to say there aren't larger kelberi out there but based on the taxonomic description adult females max out at about 9".

For what it is worth, here is the original taxanomic description. Note the stated size of adult females and males.

Cichla kelberi, new species

(Figs. 28-32)​

Holotype. ​

MZUSP 92397, 276 mm SL; Brazil: ​

Pará: Tucurui; 1987, P. Formagio.​

Paratypes. ​

52 specimens, 16.0-263 mm SL. Brazil: ​

Rio Araguaia drainage: MZUSP 3855; 3,​

150-195 mm SL; Mato Grosso: Rio das Mortes;​

1950, Expedição Butantan. – MZUSP 50602, 2;​

Goiás: Lago Rico, near Cocalinho; Mar 1976,

EMGOPA. – NRM 18023, 1, 246 mm SL; Mato

Grosso: Rio das Mortes, cachoeira under bridge
of MT-130 road; 20 Oct 1989, S. O. Kullander et
al. Rio Tocantins drainage: Pará: MZUSP 38410,
34 (4 measured, 251-263 mm SL); Tucurui; 1987,
P. Formagio. – MZUSP 46067, 1; Tucurui, Igarapé
Muru; 12 Sep 1970, EPA. – MZUSP 50594, 1; Baião,
Igarapé do Limão, Rio Tocantins; 9 Sep 1970, EPA.
– MZUSP 50599, 6; Cametá, Igarapé Aricura; 7
Sep 1970, EPA. – MZUSP 50601, 4, 16.0-48.4 mm SL;
Igarapé do Grilo, Rio Tocantins, Pindobazinho;
3 Sep 1970, EPA. – MZUSP 50620, 1; Utinga,
Belém; no date, no collector.​

Non-types, all translocations. Brazil: Rio Doce drainage:​

Minas Gerais: MZUSP 28964, 2; Lagoa Jacaré, Rio​

Doce; 29 Jun - 17 Jul 1983, J. R. Verani. – MZUSP 36654,​

1; Lago Carioca, Vale do Rio Doce; Nov 1985, J. R. Verani.

– MZUSP 36676, 2; Lago Dom Helvécio, Vale do Rio

Doce; 27 Nov-13 Dec 1985, J. R. Verani. – MZUSP 36686, 1;
Dom Helvécio, Rio Doce; no date, R. Haddad Rezek. Rio
Paraíba drainage: Rio de Janeiro: MNRJ uncat., 18;
Resende, Represa do Funil; 7-9 May 1982, G. W. Nunan.
– MNRJ uncat., 1; Rio Muriaé 20 km downstream of
Itaperuna, mun. Itaperuna; Aug 1989, no collector. Drainage?:
Ceará: MZUSP 3268, 2; Açude Pau Cerrado; no
date, A. Marques. Paraguay: Rio Paraná drainage: Alto
Paraná: NRM 41915, 1, 30.1 mm SL; Rio Limoy, Reserva
de Limoy; 2 Mar 1998, S. O. Kullander et al. – NRM
42401, 1, 60.0 mm SL; Rio Limoy, Reserva Limoy de
Itaipú; 1 Mar 1998, S. O. Kullander et al.​

Diagnosis. ​

Distinguished from all other species ​

of Cichla by presence in adults of small light spots​

on pelvic and anal fins, and lower lobe of caudal​

fin. Similar to C. monoculus and C. pleiozona in​

possession of three dark vertical bars on side,

presence of a pronounced occipital bar in large

specimens, absence of black or ocellated markings
laterally on head, and presence of irregular dark
blotches on anterior abdominal side. Distinguished
from C. pleiozona by less scales in a lateral
row (76-83 vs. 84-93 in C. pleiozona) and
typical absence of bar 4.​

Description. ​

Refer to Figs. 28-32 for general shape​

and colour pattern, Table 16 for morphometrics,​

and Tables 2-10 for meristics.​

Adults relatively deep (depth 31.7-33.7 % SL, ​

N = 6, 246-276 mm SL). Predorsal contour straight,

smoothly arched anterior to dorsal fin, large males

with indicated (MZUSP 38410) to pronounced (in
holotype) nuchal elevation. Maxilla reaching to
below middle of orbit. Lower jaw prognathous,
articulation below posterior margin of orbit.
Lateral line discontinuous on both sides in all
specimens.
Dorsal spines 3-6 or 4-6 longest; soft dorsal
fin rounded, not quite reaching to caudal fin base;
in large males subacuminate, reaching to or
slightly beyond caudal fin base. Soft anal fin
rounded, reaching beyond middle of caudal peduncle;
in large males subacuminate, to caudal
fin base. Caudal fin rounded, upper corner angled,
lower corner rounded. Pectoral fin pointed, fourth
ray longest, reaching halfway to end of anal fin
base. Pelvic fin subacuminate, first or second ray
longest, reaching halfway to beginning of soft
anal fin base or middle of anal fin base.
Spinous dorsal fin naked, soft dorsal fin
densely scaled except for posteriormost and distal
portion, up to four rows of scales basally and
one row on each side along with each ray. Anal
fin densely scaled except distally, with two or
three rows of scales associated with each ray.
Caudal fin densely scaled, scales covering almost
all of fin except posterior margin and middle
interradial membrane. Pelvic fin densely scaled
anteriorly on both medial and lateral side. Pectoral
fin scaled or naked basally.
Juveniles (Figs. 28-29) elongate, scales absent
on fins in the smallest. Caudal fin markedly
emarginate.​

Colouration in preservative. ​

Juveniles ca 17 mm​

SL (Fig. 28) with brown blotch anteriorly on side,​

indistinct pigmentation representing second​

blotch, and third blotch barely distinguishable ​

from succeeding brown band which ends with

slightly more intense small spot at base of caudal

fin. Fins hyaline.
Juvenile 48 mm SL (Fig. 29) with indistinct
greyish vertical bar across anterior side, below
lateral line and below posterior part of spinous
dorsal fin, both bars with dark brown blotch at
middle. Similar bar and blotch below anterior soft
portion, but blotch connected to narrow dark
brown horizontal stripe running on lower lateral
line to dark blotch at middle of caudal fin base.
Fins hyaline except for faint dark stripe across
soft dorsal fin. Caudal base blotch dark brown,
lanceolate, becoming narrower and fainter caudad
to posterior margin of caudal fin.
Young male, and young unsexed specimens,
150-195 mm SL (Fig. 31), overall brownish with
dark brown markings. Extrascapular marking
distinct, consisting of dark proximal and distal
blotches. Three dark vertical bars on side (bars
1-3), dorsally slightly separated from dorsal fin
base, becoming gradually narrower ventrally,
extending for ​

} of side. Dark spot on many scales​

on back form short irregular rows of spots in​

larger specimens; in 150 mm SL specimen entire​

dorsum to level of upper lateral line, including ​

caudal peduncle marbled with dark brown spots

and lighter ground colour. Vertical bar on caudal

peduncle absent. Small dark spots scattered on
side only in 189 mm SL specimen; two larger
specimens with irregular dark, light-margined
spots behind pectoral fin base caudad to bar 3.
Dorsal fin spinous portion dark, soft part with
more or less distinct light spots distally. Anal fin
with 3-4 rows of light spots distally; obsolete in
150 mm SL specimen. Up to five vertical rows of
hyaline spots present posterodorsally on caudal
fin. Caudal blotch round or slightly irregular,
with complete or nearly complete light margin.
Pelvic fin with a few light spots in 195 mm SL
specimen.
In adult female 246 mm SL (NRM 18023)
dorsum and dorsal margin of caudal peduncle
dark greyish brown, nape and snout grey. Side
light brown, abdomen, chest and ventral aspect
of caudal peduncle yellowish white. Side of head
brown, light or dark spots absent. Black spot
marking region of proximal extrascapular. Four
black vertical bars (bars 1-4); anterior below anterior
half of spinous dorsal fin, second below
posterior third of spinous dorsal fin, third below
soft dorsal fin, fourth anteriorly on caudal peduncle.
Bars wider dorsally, but about uniform in
width across side; bars 1-2 extend to level of
lower pectoral fin base, bar 3 slightly shorter,
bar 4 to little below lower lateral line.
Small black spot on medial side of pectoral
fin base and on adjacent side. Side, but not dorsum,
with numerous scattered, partly confluent,
small brownish spots; posterior to bar 2, including
caudal peduncle, also many scattered small silvery
spots. Spinous portion of dorsal fin black.
Soft dorsal fin brown, light spots cannot be traced.
Anal fin brown, soft portion distally grey with
successively more obvious light spots distally on
soft portion, three cross rows of hyaline spots
distally on soft portion. Caudal blotch black,
round, with almost complete silvery ring with
short interruption dorsally and ventrally. Caudal
fin brown, paler ventrally, and with indistinct
pattern of alternating dark and light vertical bars
posteriorly on dorsal lobe. Pelvic fin laterally
brown with about four cross rows of white spots
and lighter margin; medial side grey with some
light spots visible from opposite side.
Large males (Fig. 32) light brown, caudal
peduncle, abdomen and head ventrally whitish.
Snout and occiput dark brown. Postorbital dark
markings absent. Black occipital bar extending
from above gill cover obliquely anteriad across
nape. Dark brown vertical bars 1-2 below spinous
dorsal fin ventrally to about level of pectoral fin
base, bar 3 below anterior half of soft dorsal fin
ventrally to slightly below lower lateral line. Dark
brown blotch anterior to pectoral fin base. Several
dark irregular blotches on abdominal side
under adpressed pectoral fin. Scattered small dark
spots between bars 1 and 2, and dorsally between
bars 2 and 3. Dorsal surface of caudal peduncle
dark brown. Spinous dorsal fin black, soft part
brown with indistinct light spots on three posterior
interradial membranes. Anal fin greyish
brown with indistinct light spots on five posterior
interradial membranes. Caudal fin brownish
basally, otherwise greyish. Caudal blotch black,
ringed with silvery or light spots. Pelvic fin greyish
brown, lighter posteriorly. In 276 mm SL
specimen (holotype, Fig. 32), anal fin with silvery
white spots on inner ‚ of scaled portion, and all
of naked posterior membranes; lower lobe of
caudal fin with about six irregular vertical rows
of silvery white spots; lateral aspect of pelvic fin
with silvery white spots on two anterior membranes
and long stripes of same colour on posterior
membranes. MZUSP 38410 specimens generally
not well preserved, and details of the pigment
pattern on fins cannot be unambiguously determined.​

Live colouration. Photographs show breeding​

males with yellow or golden side, greenish head​

without black spot, white chest, abdomen and​

ventral aspect of caudal fin base, but side duskied

close to anal fin base. Vertical bars black. Yellow

colour of side interspersed with numerous small
black spots dorsally. Spinous dorsal fin black,
with only few light spots. Soft dorsal fin, anal fin,
and lateral aspect of pelvic fin grey to blackish
with scattered contrasting white or yellow spots.
Caudal fin ocellus with white to yellow ring.
Several light spots on proximal half of caudal fin.
Large, partially confluent black spots with white
or yellow margin on abdominal side between
pectoral fin and middle vertical bar. Nuchal hump
prominent, dark grey.
Breeding female NRM 18023 yellowish to
golden on side yellowish on cheek and gill cover,
with pattern as preserved specimen. Lower jaw,
chest, abdomen and ventral side of caudal peduncle
white. Branchiostegal membrane orange.
Light spots posterodorsally on side, light ring of
caudal ocellus and spots on anal fin yellow. Light
spots on pelvic fin white.
Other large adults, without nuchal hump,
greyish to olive on side, lower part of head, abdomen
and ventral margin of caudal peduncle white;
greyish on side next to anal fin base. Orange stripe
from angle of mouth to lower part of subopercle,
and often indistinct pale orange along abdominal
side. Spots on fins white. Anal fin and lower lobe
of caudal fin maroon.​

Etymology. ​

Named for Dieter Kelber, in recognition ​

of his promotion of Cichla as sport fishes, and​

for supporting our study with information and​

images of the tucunaré amarela (C. kelberi) and​

tucunaré azul (C. piquiti).​

Geographical distribution​

. Rio Araguaia drainage ​

and the lower Rio Tocantins drainage (Fig.​

23). Introduced in reservoirs in Rio Grande do​

Norte, Minas Gerais and Ceará (Chellappa et al.,​

2003, as C. monoculus; Fontenele, 1948, as C. ocellaris),

in the Rio Paraíba do Sul (State of Rio de

Janeiro), and the Rio Paraná.
Kelber (1999) listed Tucunaré amarela from
the Itaipu, Porto Primavera, Jupiá, Três Irmãos,
Ilha Solteira, São Simão, Porto Colômbia, Volta
Grande, Jaguara, Estreito, Promissão, Igaratá and
Paraibuna dams in the Brazilian Paraná basin, the
Funil and Ribeirão das Lajes dams in the Rio
Paraíba do Sul drainage, the Xingó dam in the
Rio São Francisco drainage, the Pacoti-Riachão
dam near Fortaleza in Ceará, the Serra da Mesa
dam in the Rio Tocantins drainage. The Tucunaré
amarela corresponds to C. kelberi according to
photographs provided by D. Kelber.​

Local names. ​

Tucunaré amarela (São Paulo,​

Brazil; Kelber, 1999), Tucunaré comum (Northeast​

of Brazil; Fontenele, 1948).​

Notes. ​

Cichla kelberi has long been confused with ​

C. monoculus ​

(e.g., Fontenele, 1958, as C. ocellaris), ​

which it resembles in shape and general colour​

pattern. We have not found any diagnostic character​

other than the light-spotted pelvic, anal and​

caudal fins, to separate the two species, but since

this character state is unique in the genus, we are

confident about species distinctness. The lateral
scale count is within the higher range of C. monoculus,
and below the range of ​

C. pleiozona. ​

The type material of Cycla toucounarai is represented​

by two preserved specimens, MNHN​

A.9490, labelled simply as coming from the​

“Amazone”, although the description (Castelnau,

1855) also mentions ​

“le lac des Perles de la province ​

de Goyaz”, and the Rio Tocantins. They were​

referred to C. monoculus by Kullander (1986). Both​

specimens have characteristic blotches on the​

abdominal side posterior to the pectoral fin base.

The larger syntype (Kullander, 1986: pl. 4 fig. 1)

is a male with nuchal hump, the smaller specimen
a female. The pigmentation of the smaller specimen
is slightly faded on both sides, and it shows
no traces of light spots on the pelvic, anal, or
caudal fins. The larger specimen possesses a black
occipital stripe, three prominent vertical bars
dorsally on the side, and trace of a dark blotch
dorsally at the root of the caudal peduncle. The
pigmentation of the right side is significantly
faded, but the dark pigmentation is relatively well
preserved on the left side. The anal fin is brownish
with indicated lighter patches distally on the
scaled portion of the anterior five soft rays. The
ventral half of the caudal fin is brownish with
indistinct lighter mottling but without light distinct
spots. The pelvic fin is brownish anteriorly
with two lighter patches on anterior soft rays. The
caudal spot is ringed with a prominent silvery
ring in both specimens.
Castelnau’s description and drawing disagree
with the preserved syntypes. The drawing shows
a specimen without occipital bar, and without
dark blotches on abdominal side, but with three
distinct vertical bars below the dorsal fin and one
anteriorly on the caudal peduncle, and some red
spots on the anal fin. The description apparently
partly refers to the drawing, but the total length
agrees with the larger syntype. Both syntypes
have D. XVI.17, the drawing shows XV.18, Castelnau
gives XV.17. He counts A. II.11, we count
A. III.11. The pectoral fin count, 14 is in agreement.
We count approximately 79 (larger syntype) and
71 (smaller syntype) scales along the midline, but
many scales are lost, and a through-going perforation
likely caused by an arrow or spear through
the larger syntype perforates the E1 row; Castelnau
gives the range 72-75.
In the description, Castelnau says that “l’anale
est piquetée de rouge et de noir”, i.e., the anal fin
is spotted with red and black. This is significant
because C. kelberi is diagnosed particularly by its
anal fin colouration. One of us re-examined the
existing syntypes with special emphasis on the
possible presence of spots on the pelvic and anal
fins, which were not mentioned by Kullander
(1986). Whereas the pigmentation on these fins is
indeed not uniform, we cannot recognize light
spots of the kind displayed by some freshly preserved
adults of C. kelberi although the silvery
caudal blotch ring is well preserved in the syntypes.
Close to imperceptible light mottling of the
otherwise brownish scaled portions of the pelvic,
anal, and caudal fins does not permit ambiguous
identification as homologous with light spots in
fresh specimens of C. kelberi, and is at least
partly referable to lost scales. The light anal fin
patches are located anteriorly on the fin in the
transition between the scaled portion and the
scaleless margin, a condition which is different
from fresh specimens in which the light spots are
located on the posterior soft rays. Whereas the
light mottling of the anal fin possibly can be correlated
with the red spots described and figured
by Castelnau, it does not match the white or yellow
spots observed in fresh preserved specimens
of C. kelberi, and is doubtfully distinct from uneven
artifactual discolouration of fins in other old
specimens of Cichla.
Whereas the larger syntype has 79 scales in
the E1 row, which is in the upper portion of the
range of counts of C. monoculus and near the
median of the slightly higher range of C. kelberi,
the smaller syntype has 71 scales, which is far
below counts observed in ​

C. kelberi, and near ​

modal for C. monoculus.​

Castelnau (1855) included material from several​

localities in his concept of C. toucounarai. He​

relates that he first saw this fish in the lac des

Perles in Goiás, later it was found in the Tocantins,

and finally in the “Amazone”. “It is known locally
everywhere as Toucounarai. The Chambioas
of the Araguaia gave it the name of Kini-teray.
Its flesh is very good, and it reaches sometimes
double the size that we have indicated.” [Translated
from the French.]
Castelnau (1855) expresses that he hesitates
to describe C. toucounarai as a new species because
it would be very close to C. monoculus, differing
by the constant absence of spots from the abdomen,
assured by observation of an “immense
quantity” of individuals of C. toucounarai. It would
be close also to C. flavomaculata but differing in
the absence of yellow spots from the body and
the colouration.
Quite clearly, the description of C. toucounarai
includes observations of ​

Cichla from the Tocantins, ​

Araguaia, and the rest of the Amazon. The syntypes​

seem to have been preserved from the​

later part of the expedition, from Western Amazonia.​

The sketch for the drawing may have been

made in the Tocantins basin, or the colouring of

the plate based on field notes from the Tocantins
basin. We also suspect that Castelnau may be
including C. piquiti in his concept of C. toucounarai.
That species does not have dark blotches on the
abdominal side and is quite common in the Tocantins
basin.
Cichla kelberi ​

frequently displays black blotches ​

behind the pectoral fin base, like the syntypes​

of C. toucounarai, but in contrast with the drawing​

and description. The anal fin spots are white,​

yellow or silvery, not red. Species of Cichla frequently

display some red colour on the anal fin,

but not in the form of small spots.
Even specimens of C. kelberi in a poor state of
preservation may maintain light markings in the
anal fin. Inasmuch as the syntypes of C. toucounarai
do not display anal fin markings, and since
the description is ambiguous and may refer to
three or even more species, we continue to consider
C. toucounarai ​

a synonym of Cichla monoculus. ​

To fix the name, we select the larger syntype​

of C. toucounarai as lectotype. It can be recognized​

by the morphological information above, and is​

figured by Kullander (1986: pl. 4 fig. 1).​

Click to expand...

Are your eyes bleeding yet?? LOL

channarox;2519070; said:

thanks scat.
interesting read.
but some part of me still tells me mono size...

Click to expand...

I don't know. I highly doubt a mono female would be mature and breeding at 9". I agree that kelberi might get a tad bigger than indicated but I think 14"-16" is a max.

Here is the fish that was used as the holotype to describe C. kelberi

lewis23;2519524; said:

Maybe just a freak of nature but this was 17"-18" when i sold it. Boy do i miss it toooo.

Click to expand...

Gorgeous fish. I've contemplated selling mine several times but always decide that I'd be kicking myself if I did so. Besides, I don't think anyone would pay what I wanted... LOL

Why did you sell yours?