Is it PORT ACARA? What do u think guys?
- Thread starter Dark_Angel
- Start date
Ahh thx 4 the respond! at first I tot its Cichlasoma portalegrense, but the body is more slender than port acara that i had ever kept b4 (more rounded). How bout cichlasoma bimaculatum (black acara) ?
C. bimaculatum is another in the "Port Acara" group with 4 spines on the anal fin, but the scales do not enter the rays on the dorsal and anal fin. From your second photo it looks to me like the scales enter the fin rays (hence amazonarum), but I'm not 100% certain.
Having identified fish based off of fin ray counts, there is no way I could say how many hard anal fin rays this fish has. (They're not technically spines). Either you're much better at this than I am or you're just guessing on the number...
If you are much better at this than me, please tell me how you're distinguishing hard rays from soft rays in a photo (a bad angled photo to boot).
I'm just saying what it looks like to me - in the second photo it appears more like 4 than 3 hard anal fin rays to me - you can take it for what it's worth. More importantly though are the scales that extend up the fin rays - to my knowledge this is distinctive to amazonarum. I'm not trying to blow smoke - I have one of these fish and was uncertain of its identity until I sought help here and was given tips on how to identify it. I can tell you for certain that mine has 4 hard fin rays on the anal fin. The OP can now check his fish more carefully to help narrow down the options.
Just trying to help.
Just to clarify my reasoning some more. I've attached an image on my own fish, which I believe is C. amazonarum. The four hard fin rays are obvious (arrows), and backed up by my direct observations of the fish. Note that the hard rays look more 'solid' where the meet the body than do the soft rays. Also note the scales running up between the dorsal rays. As far as I know this is a trait unique to C. amazonarum.
Next, I've reposted the second photo of the OP. I agree that the image is not definitive in terms of the hard anal fin rays, but my interpretation is that there are four, and I don't think it amounts to just guessing. The first three rays are faint but obvious, and the fourth seems reasonable given that its appearance differs from the fin rays behind it, plus the attachment to the body looks more solid than the soft rays, as I described above. Again, the scales that extend up the dorsal fin are characteristic of C. amazonarum, unless I'm misinterpreting the character completely.
If the fish has only 3 hard anal fin rays it cannot be C. amazonarum, but then you would have to address the issue of the scales that extend up the dorsal fin. Of course, it's possible that this complex of acaras simply isn't documented well enough to make any definitive claim about species identity.
Next, I've reposted the second photo of the OP. I agree that the image is not definitive in terms of the hard anal fin rays, but my interpretation is that there are four, and I don't think it amounts to just guessing. The first three rays are faint but obvious, and the fourth seems reasonable given that its appearance differs from the fin rays behind it, plus the attachment to the body looks more solid than the soft rays, as I described above. Again, the scales that extend up the dorsal fin are characteristic of C. amazonarum, unless I'm misinterpreting the character completely.
If the fish has only 3 hard anal fin rays it cannot be C. amazonarum, but then you would have to address the issue of the scales that extend up the dorsal fin. Of course, it's possible that this complex of acaras simply isn't documented well enough to make any definitive claim about species identity.