Hoplias Lacerdae
- Thread starter fishinman
- Start date
You guys can say what you think (which seems to happens with all Holpias caught from Uruguay and Argentina on this forum) If Felipe says it is Australis (which is in the lacerdae group) then that is what it is, he is the expect. So you have an even rarer fish, Good pick up. There are lots of different Hoplias out there and many are undiscribed, The comman malabaracus range is much farther north and all the southern species have not been looked at closely by any scientist to determine what they are. Enjoy your fish and don't worry about the armchair experts. Ken
Well... that would be cool if it turned out to be hoplias australis. Does anyone know where I can get a pic of an ID'd hoplias australis?
I will try to get a better under jaw pic in the next few days...
I will try to get a better under jaw pic in the next few days...
fishinman;3826858; said:
I have a trip to the north, north west and central part of Uruguay between the 30 of january and the 12 of february....I can take some pics of the 3 species (H.malabaricus, H.lacerdae, H.australis)....just in case you dont get any trough the forum.
Felipe Cantera;3827031; said:
That would be great if you could. I'm sure there are many people on this forum looking to see how you ID'd this fish as h. australis, me being one of them. I especially interested in seeing how this fish in question could be labeled as h. australis (which I guess is supposed to be in the lacerdae family and not malabaricus) when it has converging dentiaries (a malabaricus trait). It's also interesting to note that the "Black Wolf Sp.", recently identified as hoplias curupira, has parallel dentiaries and is classified as being in the Lacerdae family (since parallel dentiaries is in fact a lacerdae family trait). How this fish could be h. australis (in the lacerdae family) with converging dentiaries, well let's just say I'm looking forward to your post.
Ken,
This is why vendors bring in mislabeled fish, because the importer can charge a little more for something "rare." You guys believe every word they say and don't do the research on the fish you have yourself. This is why some of these "armchair experts" have been the ones to properly ID fish for certain vendors. Thanks for playing though.
KRSwop1;3828028; said:
Well...first of all; I wish my english was good enough to explain what I know and give you the answer I think you want...
I am not an exporter, I am a collector, been that since 32 years ago, and work full time with the collecting since 1994...so to ID a lacerdae, malabaricus or australis is not so hard when you collect/work in a country as Uruguay....with hundreds of Hoplias every where.
I would not get so blind on "coverging versus parellel"...depends on size and even how you hold the fish....the most important is if the "lines" goes to each other (=malabaricus) or not (=lacerdae), and if they goes to oppos. direction...in the lacerdae they never goes to each other...and goes parallel even if they can look as a "V" (but the lines never met each other, as they almost do on the malabaricus), look at; pic 33 and pic 34
http://www.aqvaterra.com/imagenes/others_species/tetras35.jpg
And; http://www.google.com.uy/search?hl=...ustralis&btnG=Buscar+con+Google&meta=&aq=f&oq=
I think Fishinman's photos show us an elongated Hoplias, with a typical coloration, shape, pattern, etc....from a typical H.australis.
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. If it is the same as the wolf on the right, then it is lacerdae, aimara or in the lacerdae family. 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).
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. This fish in question has the same jaw structure as the fish on the left, therefore it is malabaricus.
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.
Judging from the pics provided, this wolf has the same pattern as malabaricus (dashes above and below the lateral line vs blotches down the middle of the lateral line), the structure of the tail is the same as malabaricus (the top and bottom of the last half of the body come together and meet at the tail ><, while in lacerdae they run parallel and meet at the tail =< ), and the irridescent sheen on the fish says malabaricus (lacerdae and aimara have a more flat, molted color to them).
Until there is more thorough classification work done on the malabaricus species, many wolves will just be lumped under hoplias malabaricus this one included.
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. If it is the same as the wolf on the right, then it is lacerdae, aimara or in the lacerdae family. 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).
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. This fish in question has the same jaw structure as the fish on the left, therefore it is malabaricus.
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.
Judging from the pics provided, this wolf has the same pattern as malabaricus (dashes above and below the lateral line vs blotches down the middle of the lateral line), the structure of the tail is the same as malabaricus (the top and bottom of the last half of the body come together and meet at the tail ><, while in lacerdae they run parallel and meet at the tail =< ), and the irridescent sheen on the fish says malabaricus (lacerdae and aimara have a more flat, molted color to them).
Until there is more thorough classification work done on the malabaricus species, many wolves will just be lumped under hoplias malabaricus this one included.
im sorry,but until the OP can get a good pic of under the jaw,i cant help but agree with KRSwop.
from what i can see,the wolf has dentiaries most similar to a malabaricus,and therefore cannot be in the lacerdae group.
of course,it COULD just be the pic,or the way he was holding the fish.
from what i can see,the wolf has dentiaries most similar to a malabaricus,and therefore cannot be in the lacerdae group.
of course,it COULD just be the pic,or the way he was holding the fish.
Felipe Cantera;3827031; said:
Thanks...that would be great. I can't seem to find of good pic of H. australis (a live specimen at least) anywhere on the net.
There is a lot of good information in this thread...I will say, however, that the under jaw of my wolf looks similar to the fish on the left in the photo posted above. I will make it a priority to get a good under jaw pic when I get home from work tonight.
...thanks everyone for your input...makes for an interesting discussion
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
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
