Hoplias Lacerdae

[Felipe Cantera]

Here is a more helpful picture from your site: http://www.aqvaterra.com/imagenes/others_species/tetras36.jpg

If the wolf in question has the same jaw structure as the fish on the left then it's malabaricus or in the malabaricus family.
CORRECT

If it is the same as the wolf on the right, then it is lacerdae, aimara or in the lacerdae family.
CORRECT

If you are saying that australis is in the lacerdae family, then it MUST have the same jaw structure as lacerdae (one of the defining traits).
SIMILAR....NO IDENTICAL

Malabaricus may have multiple species under it's classification, but since not much work has been done to separate them into different species, they are all classified as malabaricus.
YES, THAT'S WHY WE CALL IT FOR "MALABARICUS GROUP"

This fish in question has the same jaw structure as the fish on the left, therefore it is malabaricus.
NOT IN MY OPINION...AND THAT BECAUSE THE JAW STRUCTURE OF THE H.australis, EVEN IF IT BELONGS TO THE "LACERDAE GROUP" AND EVEN IF THE JAW STRUCTURE IS MUCH MORE SIMILAR TO THE H.lacerdae...LOOKS LIKE SOMETHING BETWEEN THE JAW OF BOTH...
WE COULD SAY; H.malabaricus to the left....H.lacerdae to the right...and H.australis between those two...even if it's more to the right.

I realize that there are multiple visual differences between malabaricus and lacardae, but the jaw structure just seems to be the easiest and fastest way to separate the species.
OF COURSE!!
BUT NOT WHEN WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE H.australis...FOR PEOPLE WHO DONT KNOW THE H.australis, I GUESS THEY HAVE MORE DIFFICULT TO SEE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN malabaricus-australis THAN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN malabaricus-lacerdae..iF THEY JUST LOOK AT THE JAW STRUCTURE AND NOT TO THE BODY SHAPE, PATTERNS AND COLOR

 

[fishinman]

more pics...

 

[fishinman]

1 more

 

[King-eL]

Looks like a mala with a "V" shape. Not "U" shape which is a lac.

 

[Felipe Cantera]

typical shaw of an australis....lol

 

[KRSwop1]

I place my trust in Felipe.

He's someone who has seen these fish in the field and in the aquarium every day for years....not based on a couple fish or internet photos.

This is a group of fish poorly described by science, which makes the observations and expertise of Felipe that much more significant. Who do you think the scientists will consult when they get around to classifying these fish?

The same is true of Gymnogeophagus, Australoheros, Crenicichla and other fish of Uruguay....

Matt

Actually when they are going to classify a new species, there's lots of actual scientific tests that are done (DNA, checking scale counts, fin ray counts, etc.) They don't just take the word of locals.

 

[KRSwop1]

typical shaw of an australis....lol

I think what would be most helpful is some chin shots of a australis and a malabaricus right next to eachother, like you have of the mala and lac on your website.

Otherwise, all signs point to mala. It's a very nice looking fish, don't get me wrong, but I think Felipe is wrong. He still hasn't provided any specific information to back up his claim.

The Jaw of this fish looks definitely more mala than lac, and if he says it would be somewhere inbetween the two but more lacerdae side, I'm not seeing it. Others are welcome to judge for themselves too, does the chin shot of this fish (much better new shots by the way) look more like mala or lacerdae? I don't even see a somewhat resembelence to lacerdae. It's 100% mala to me.

 

[DannyLee94]

I think what would be most helpful is some chin shots of a australis and a malabaricus right next to eachother, like you have of the mala and lac on your website.

Otherwise, all signs point to mala. It's a very nice looking fish, don't get me wrong, but I think Felipe is wrong. He still hasn't provided any specific information to back up his claim.

The Jaw of this fish looks definitely more mala than lac, and if he says it would be somewhere inbetween the two but more lacerdae side, I'm not seeing it. Others are welcome to judge for themselves too, does the chin shot of this fish (much better new shots by the way) look more like mala or lacerdae? I don't even see a somewhat resembelence to lacerdae. It's 100% mala to me.

Definately looks like the v shape mala, dont see what the fuss is.

 

[hopelessamor]

I think what would be most helpful is some chin shots of a australis and a malabaricus right next to eachother, like you have of the mala and lac on your website.

Otherwise, all signs point to mala. It's a very nice looking fish, don't get me wrong, but I think Felipe is wrong. He still hasn't provided any specific information to back up his claim.

The Jaw of this fish looks definitely more mala than lac, and if he says it would be somewhere inbetween the two but more lacerdae side, I'm not seeing it. Others are welcome to judge for themselves too, does the chin shot of this fish (much better new shots by the way) look more like mala or lacerdae? I don't even see a somewhat resembelence to lacerdae. It's 100% mala to me.

IMHO,the 4th and 6th pics could be somewhere inbetween a lac and a mala.

fishinman could also do a lateral line scale count 40 to 45 for an H.australis and count the pores along the dentary(5 for an australis).

something about the rounded head shape(in lateral view) and color and body color is making me lean towards felipe's i.d.

And when my curupira was several inches smaller ,it portrayed more of a V-shape than the more pronounced u-shape that it does currently at 14"....fishinman's wolf is only 6" and i have seen 3 juvenile curupiras at 10cm to 15cm exhibiting v-shapes akin to the malabaricus.

 

[channarox]

i do see that the dentiaries are slightly more apart than in malabaricus in the 4th pic...im no expert though,could still be a mala.