Also one more thing, most of the descriptions done nowadays, especially within the last decade, are based on genetics.
Astronotus orbicularis vs. Crassipinis.
- Thread starter Backfromthedead
- Start date
Convincing, I'll give yall that. I would still love to hear from more keepers of all of these species. It just contrasts with everything I've historically read about these species.
I would also love to examine the so called genetic evidence myself. I am quite capable of interpreting PCR, SGR, NGS via any means of statistical analysis if there was sufficient and scholarly data abound.
But from the level of certainty you seem to be expressing these tests have already been done and the results somewhat published???? Links please!
I would also love to examine the so called genetic evidence myself. I am quite capable of interpreting PCR, SGR, NGS via any means of statistical analysis if there was sufficient and scholarly data abound.
But from the level of certainty you seem to be expressing these tests have already been done and the results somewhat published???? Links please!
I don't know what to tell you, I don't know if anything I can find and provide will be credible enough. Kevin (current owner of tangled up in cichlids) himself told you the same thing I did, he has kept/imported all of them. He is in regular contact with the people doing all the fancy genetic work for all the recent taxonomic reevaluations. I would take his word for it.
I may not be qualified by level of a degree to make you believe me, but it doesn't take that much to understand how cut and dry this is, even if you think they're different fish based on morphology, past nomenclature, or past understanding of how they fit together taxonomically. The whole crassipinnis/orbicularis thing happened years ago. It's the same as siquia and nigrofasciata in convicts. One is now a synonym of the other, in spite of whatever morphological differences they may have, as hard as it is to believe.
...
I already knew what TUIC was calling them before I started this thread. It's not about me "believing" you. It's about empirical evidence.
If it was as "cut and dry" as you're suggesting I think there would be a consensus by now amongst the reputable vendors still calling them all bumblebee oscars. If it had "happened years ago" then why is there still confusion? Why all the sudden is this mikoljii popping up? That's why I started this thread. It's an investigation, you see, you'll have to back up what you're saying with more than just "TUIC says so". Lol.
If TUIC has the pertinent information I'm inquiring about it, I want to see/read it.
If the nomenclature debate is rooted in genetic variance than this can be put to rest with some evidence.
If the nomenclature is depending on something more broad/less empirical like catch location than we are just relying on the hearsay of the importers/vendors.
Again, I intend no disrespect and actually respect the "opinions" of anyone with the knowledge to weigh in on the discussion.
This thread contributes a lot. Lots of examples at various stages varying in appearance under the same moniker. A lot of them resemble the recently described mikoljii imo.
www.monsterfishkeepers.com
Bumblebee Oscar updates
That looks pretty close to the orinoco oscar I had. Maybe, I just loved how much yellow they had and the flecks or orange mixed with those black freckles they had near their face. I really hope to find some again someday.
www.monsterfishkeepers.com
"Morphologically, it differs from Astronotus crassipinnis and Astronotus ocellatus in pre-orbital depth, caudal peduncle depth, head width, and caudal peduncle length, with significant differences in average percentage values. Osteologically, it differs from the two described species by lacking a hypurapophysis on the parahypural bone (hypural complex) and having two or three supraneural bones. Another characteristic that helps diagnose the new species is the morphology of the sagitta otolith, which is oval with crenulated dorsal and ventral margins and a rounded posterior edge. Genetically, the new species is distinct from all the other lineages previously proposed for the genus, delimited by five single locus species delimitation methods, and also has unique diagnostic nucleotides. Phylogenetic analyses support the monophyly of the new species as well as all other species/lineages. Astronotus species have considerable genetic, anatomical, and sagitta otolith shape differences, but have few significant traditional morphometric and meristic differences, because there is high variability in counts of spines, soft dorsal-fin rays, and lateral-line scales. It is clear that this new species is genetically and anatomically differentiated from all other species within the genus, and deserves recognition as a new valid species."This thread contributes a lot. Lots of examples at various stages varying in appearance under the same moniker. A lot of them resemble the recently described mikoljii imo.
Bumblebee Oscar updates
That looks pretty close to the orinoco oscar I had. Maybe, I just loved how much yellow they had and the flecks or orange mixed with those black freckles they had near their face. I really hope to find some again someday.
People still use the term bumblebee oscar in regards to crassipinnis, because orbicularis is crassipinnis. Therefore the common name comes with it as a synonym. There is also a possibility that the ones being sold as bumblebee oscars under the name crassipinnis are from locales formerly known as orbicularis. As for the crassipinnis/"orbicularis" resembling mikoljii, I personally don't think they do at all. I turn back to TUIC for this one, I believe he has the best picture of them full grown online. Rusty Wessel has one adult that looks exactly like the one in this picture.
I haven't kept crassipinnis yet, but have friends who have; crassipinnis is darker with more/more prominent stripes, mikoljii is more of a muted brown with some warped patterns. The main trademark I see of the species is the rows of dotted red scales along the abdomen. Mikoljii is what was formerly known as "astronotus sp. rio orinoco/puerto carreno".
This is great. Thank you. The spots/dots are what I'm mainly looking at and confused with. IE If I buy crassipinnis from one vendor and orbicularis from another will I see these spots on both at maturity...
Because they are the same fish, and the dots on "both" are more connected to the stripes as opposed to in a little assembly along the abdomen.
Some vendors are not up to date on nomenclature, some just refuse to be because no one buying knows what new names belong to what, and it's easier to sell people things with a name they're familiar with. IE, why people still sell synspilums as synspilums as opposed to melanura, or why some vendors still refer to siquia as siquia as opposed to nigrofasciata.
Agree with you completely. To clarify what I was suggesting earlier, since crassipinis(orbicularis) display some of the same subtle differences in caudal-peduncle length and depth, pre-orbital depth as the mikoljii do vs ocellatus, is it not entirely unlikely that some vendors once historically assigned the orinoco oscar(mikoljii) to orbicularis or crassipinnis? And therefore generalized them to "bumblebee" as well?
So imo the confusion lies in that perhaps(again, historically):
Crassipinnis=orbicularis="bumblebee"=possibly mikoljii as well?
In the end I guess bumblebee is just the marketing term and has little bearing on the actual phylogenetic identity of each species, but its just interesting to me that you can purchase bumblebee from a particular vendor and end up with...who knows...
No, mikoljii has always been a. sp. "orinoco". Admittedly mikoljii and crassipinnis/"orbicularis" have very similar looking juveniles, but that's why catch locations are kept, maintained, and listed when selling.
All species of oscar are notoriously hard to breed, so unlike other cichlids that are easier to breed and thus fall into the hands of less trustworthy people more frequently, where catch locations can get lost in translation, wild strains of oscars only really either come from the people who collect them, or the people who bred the ones they got from those people, and subsequently know what they're doing/saying because they spent the time, money, space and effort on breeding them.
