They were collected from Lake Apoyo.. so I don’t see how it cannot be imported. And brought to a farm. Can’t be hoga and can’t be Flaveolus the dorsal spine count is off
Please help identify
- Thread starter LAQGUY
- Start date
How do you know they were collected from lake apoyo? There haven't been imports from nicaragua in roughly a decade mainly due to political reasons, and the ban on export of nicaraguan fish
I’m sure this is true but several times 10+ years ago there was indeed imports to some farms. This isn’t an argument I’m just stating facts that that is were this individual originates from. And he was produced in captivity from his parents, so on and so forth. I’m not just some hobbyist that picked up a fish and just trying to figure out what it is. I know where these fish come from. Just wasn’t sure what species.
As a hobbyist who collected extensively all over Central America including Nicaragua, its very easy to bring fish back even from lake apoyo ha. Most people believe that collecting or visting within these countries is dangerous or not possible, most of these ideas are also from the same people that never did…some go to those places and bring back “rare” fish which teally aren’t that hard to catch, really look foward to seeing how your fish turn out good luck !!!
So you're telling us you went from not knowing what the fish was at all when you first got them to "I knew where they were from the whole time and his whole genealogy I just didn't know what species"
Did you read what I wrote. I knew this was an Amph as for what spices exactly I did not. I was able to get the information from a coworker exactly were we got them in the beginning, since there always has to be a paper trail for fish moving in this industry. I was only able to get this information within the last few days. I even presented all of everyone's ideas and I was leaning more towards Hogo until he pointed out the count of dorsal spines. I am not 100% certain my self but he is I am now leaning to that direction unless there is more information that shows Hogo is more likely. Just to be clear I am not being contentious, I am passionate for what I do yes but I aimed to have this discussion on this forum for the exchange of information and debate.
And where did your coworker get the idea to count fin rays? In the description of chancho, flaveolus and astorquii all of them essentially share fin ray counts.
These are the exact numbers from the description of the species.
Astorquii:
Dorsal - 16-18 hard (typically 17, 77.8% of the time), 10-12 soft (typically 11, 72.2% of the time)
Anal - 6-7 hard (typically 7, 66.7% of the time), 8-9 soft (typically 9, 61.1% of the time)
Flaveolus:
Dorsal - 16-17 hard (typically 17, 83.3% of the time), 11-12 soft (typically 11, 72.2% of the time)
Anal - 6-7 hard (typically 7, 72.2% of the time), 8-9 soft (typically 9, 77.8% of the time)
Chancho:
Dorsal - 16-17 hard (typically 16, 60% of the time), 10-12 soft (typically 12, 45% of the time)
Anal - 6-8 hard (typically 7, 70% of the time), 8-10 soft (typically 8, 55% of the time)
Yours from what I can see:
Dorsal - 16 hard, 11 soft
Anal - 8 hard, 8 soft
So if going solely by fin ray counts, the one you posted could be either flaveolus or astorquii, given you're CERTAIN they're from lake apoyo. Lateral line scales and rows of scales on the cheek also vary slightly between species but I personally don't think this is reliable enough given the only real diagnostic would be in atypical individuals with extreme counts of either.
The exact diagnosis for the three species states: (SL is standard length aka length of snout to end of peduncle)
Astorquii: Head length is 34.6-39.5% SL. Breeding dress shows a black head. Lacks grey interorbital bar (present in chancho).
Flaveolus: Head length is 32.7-37.8% SL, distance from snout to origin of dorsal fin is 38.9-42.8% SL (shorter than chancho). Breeding dress shows a yellow-green head.
Chancho: Head length is 34.6-38.2% SL, distance from snout to origin of dorsal fin is 41.6-47.5% SL (longer than flaveolus). Breeding dress shows a yellow-green head, possesses grey interorbital bar (bar connecting the eyes) (absent in astorquii).
Yours has an interorbital bar, which rules out astorquii. However this also does not mean it is chancho or flaveolus just yet. Yours has a head length of about 33% SL. This would immediately rule out chancho, but I also am not sure where they got the numbers for "distance from snout to origin of dorsal fin" as in my own digital measurements I do not get anywhere near those numbers.
Going back to hogaboomorum (from its original description):
Dorsal - 17 hard, 11-12 soft
Anal - 7 hard, 8 soft
"Tips of pectoral fins usually extending back of anal opening".
With regard to citrinellus (still applies my logic with regard to every other body of water containing Amphilophus sp):
"Due to the large variation in morphology and colouration, it is difficult to identify tangible non-subjective characters that can be used to reliably identify the species as the body form varies from elongate forms to deep forms and markings present on one colour morph would be absent in other colour morphs. As such, most diagnosis of species appears to be done relative to other species that are known to be present within the habitat being studied. For instance, Barlow & Munsey (1976) diagnoses the Midas cichlid in the Great Lakes of Nicaragua as having "thinner lips, a deeper body, steeper forehead, and higher fins" when compared to Amphilophus labiatum. However, even these subjective differences breakdown in the some of the crater lakes of Nicaragua as some individuals have developed fleshy lips and slender bodies, possibly due to the absence of Amphilophus labiatum in these lakes. As a result of this, researchers hoping to identify the Midas cichlid from gross morphology would have to be very familiar with it and other species within the habitat and recognize that the morphology varies from habitat to habitat."
Do what you will with this information.
Then there is something wrong with the alleged apoyo source, as like I said before yours still has the interorbital bar. I recommend counting again.
Last edited:
