Tyrannochromis Species Discussion

[Ged]

This is the discussion that started in the Classifieds Forum in Andrews FS thread for Labyrinth Aquarium.

To continue and promote the discussion it has been here to the Cichlid Discussion Forum.

[timothy2]

you sure the tyrannochromis are macrostoma and not nigriventer?

[Andrew]

Yes, these are certainly T. macrostoma and definitely not nigriventer.

[timothy2]

awesome, any pics on your facebook page?

[Andrew]

Not yet - been flat out in the shop today! Will try to put a short vid up tomorrow.

Sold a trio today as well... Thanks to buyer!

A.

[Link2Hell]

this link gives you an idea of the differences

http://forums.waterw...nt-t135309.html

and this one

http://forums.waterwolves.com/Tyrannochromis-juvies-t134530.html

[Andrew]

Thanks Chris! Yes, they are quite easily discernable from each other. Magnificent fish!

[daci]

IMHO

Due to the history of tyrannochromis sp. in Oz that the parent fish needed to be seen for the following reasons:

a.

from: Ed Martin: I myself was confused by the taxonomy for a couple years until I read Ad's article on Tyrannochromis from cichlid news and exchanged emails with him with further questions I had. What's going on is that I think the collectors and exporters on Lake Malawi are still using very old books to identify the fish they catch, and still export using the old erroneous names. Because T. nigriventer has such a broad range of different melanin patterns depending on where they're found in the lake it kind of makes sense that the collectors (and for a while, ichthyologists too) would regard the southern populations of T. nigriventer with the horizontal stripes as a separate species from the northern populations which is what the original species description is based on: http://malawicichlids.com/mw08113.htm.

b.From the link that Link2Hell: to tell the different from just ONLY the 'horizontal bars' of a sub adult speciment isn't conclusive proof!

To me both of the fish are Nigs

Below is another link that we could be use until we see the parent fish,

http://forums.eastco...read.php?t=6194

and if you have the time then read more the the man himself

http://how.didigethere.com/download....e%20Malawi.pdf

I would love to get hold of the macrostoma myself and sincerely hope if you could get hold of the parents fish picture or better still a vidz.

thank you

[Andrew]

Sorry for the delay in reply folks. Things have been quite hectic.

As requested by one user, I sent photos of the stock I have by email. I was further asked to produce footage of the parents, which are not under my care.

The person that bred these fish also has T. nigriventer, coupled with a lot of experience. He is not concerned that the stock I have could be T. nigriventer, and nor am I. He is unable to supply video footage of the parent colony, as they are kept without light and in a low aquarium. He has, however, offered to net the fish out and take some dry photos for us here. I will share them when he is able to send them to me.

I also have experience of T. macrostoma. I have observed both males and females in Lake Malawi. I have also had a long-running desire to have the fish in Oz, and have researched them quite extensively. One irrefutable difference between T. macrostoma and T. nigriventer is the ridge on the snout (premaxillary pedicel). On T. nigriventer, the ridge is found mid-way between the eye and mouth, whereas on T. macrostoma, it is closer to the eye. The fish I have here all sport a ridge closer to the eye than mouth.

The tear-stribe debate is unreliable. As is the base body patterning. I have studied the links provided ablove and I am in no doubt that these are T. macrostoma.

I have decided to retain the remaining fish until sexual maturity, in order to put this to bed, once and for all. I fail to see how video footage and photographs will decide this conclusively, as apart from the ridge on the snout, even the experts will tell us there is little reliable visual difference between T. macrostoma and T. nigriventer "Southern". As Konings puts it - the only discernable difference between the two species is the premaxillary pedicel - all other visual attempts to identify the species are futile.

Hope this helps.

Andrew.

[YAL05T]

Bam! Sorry Andrew. Top notch research as per usual.

[Andrew]

I should add - by visual, I mean externally visible. Sorry - I'm old. lol

[daci]

@YAL05T, have you actually read the Ad Konings article from Cichlid Press that i put up earlier on? If yes, do you have any comments on the article as far as this topic concern?

Hi Andrew

Thank you for your reply and I also hope that you won't take my previous post in a negative way.

The reason that prompted me for my previous reply due to the fact that

a. Link2Hell put up the two links on 'how to tell the different between T-Macs and T-Nigs' ---> which imo those two are link to hell in itself (excuse for my awefully dry humour, no offence intended Chris). The last thing I want to do as a hobbyist is to buy a fish then have to wait for 2/3 years to know what the fish actually is.

b. You then follow up with

Thanks Chris! Yes, they are quite easily discernable from each other. Magnificent fish!

I am sure you know that they are not easily discernable at the juvenile stage from just look and colour.

My apology!

Michael

[Andrew]

No apology necessary, Michael. We are all still learning, and even with all the experience we have under our belts, we should never be afraid to be shown something new. I'm actually glad that there are people who question things to a deeper level - otherwise we would have nothing but misnomers getting around.

I find that the two species are easily discernable when looking at the premaxillary pedicel - which is visible from the juvenile stage. But then, I have looked at many pictures and articles about these two over the years, plus the live specimens in the lake.

Chris, as always was trying to help, and I don't feel that the linked articles were totally misleading. There was some erroneous information, but the specimens photographed show the very difference I have been talking about. Add to that - T. maculiceps is an obsolete species, absorbed into T. macrostoma, and specimens exported from the lake as T. maculiceps are in fact macs.

More information may yet come to light. From one edition to another of Malawi Cichlids, Konings reviews what he has already provided. For example, I was surprised to learn that Ad has reverted back to what he considered a junior synonym in the past with Met/Ps. livingstonii, which he now (once again) refers to as lanisticola!

No one should ever purport to know everything, and I certainly don't. However, I am highly confident that what I have is what it's supposed to be.

Thanks for your input.

Andrew.

[kanned_guru]

From one edition to another of Malawi Cichlids, Konings reviews what he has already provided. For example, I was surprised to learn that Ad has reverted back to what he considered a junior synonym in the past with Met/Ps. livingstonii, which he now (once again) refers to as lanisticola!

Taxonomy is great isn't it? Pseudotropheus livingstonii and Metriaclima lanisticola are in fact different fish, it was AJ Ribbink who screwed that up.

[YAL05T]

I have actually. I just know that Andrew will not name something willy nilly to "spice up" a fish to make a sale. I have only known Andrew for 2-3 years and in that short period of time he has never failed to research prior to selling or advising on any cichlid.

[daci]

thank you andrew

i have to say the lanisticola vs p. livingstonii saga was a complete stuff up!

also thank you for bringging up T. maculiceps issue too because i was going to ask you for your opinion on this particular wild (the author claimed) specimen of the T Maculiceps on this link.

http://www.cichlid-forum.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=175666

I know you are very busy but if you could have a look at least on the first page for the maculiceps photograph. According to Konings that T-macs and T-maculiceps are the same fish but from the photo they do look quite different. I have never seen a maculiceps in the flesh hence i cannot comment.

Thank you

Michael

[daci]

hi YAL05T

how are you

i was asking you whether or not you have read the article and that if you have any comment on the article written by Konings...no offence intended in any way!

So you have read the link, im awaiting for you input

thanks

michael

[Andrew]

Hi Michael,

I had a look at the link and I'm not sold as to whether T. maculiceps is an obsolete species or not. All I can do is observe and defer to Ad Konings' experience as a field naturalist to make the decision on our behalf. Konings did say that he was able, from 72 specimens, to demonstrate that "we are dealing with a single species with a high degree of anatomical variation". However, he does not elaborate on this and we are left to conjecture as to why. What I do notice in the pictured specimen is a premaxillary pedicel that is much further along the snout than what T. macrostoma is known to have. Everything else about it is reminiscent of T. macrostoma, and certainly not nigriventer. I have never seen "T. maculiceps" in the flesh and have no experience with it, so I will have to (if I ever have the opportunity), ask Ad what degrees of anatomical variation can be found in the species. Usually when dealing with species, anatomical variation is used to separate species, and variations within species are chromatic/melanistic in nature. That said, I do defer to Ad's work, as I could never claim to have had such close involvement with these fish.

Don't even start me on the lanisticola/livingstonii debate... even though I brought it up...lol

YAL05T, thank you for your confidence. It is my hope to never let anyone down by selling a misnomer. There are some fish getting around at the moment that are part of a complex which is hard to separate into its species (those who have them know which ones). I have been asked to get some for a customer, but I will not do so until they have been DNA tested. Another retailer, myself, and some hobbyists who own these fish are all keen to fund it. However, when I can identify species without DNA testing, I will bring them in for stock.

Cheers,

Andrew.

[kanned_guru]

The fish that were once referred to as T maculiceps were from around Chirwa Island and were considered different to T macrastoma due to having a more elongated body in _some_ specimens.

[Andrew]

And one more thing about the link - when oh when will we have Taeniochromis holotaenia in Oz??!! I WANT!!!!

[daci]

that is one epic tank i have to say...Rob eats your heart out my friend

[Andrew]

At the risk of getting too far OTT - I am just sitting here watich my Champsochromis spilorhynchus spawning... No matter how many times I see it, I cannot get over the sheer majesty and splendour of that fish - by far my favourite Malawi (and Malombe).

[aqc]

• Cichlid press has a couple of free spots on its Malawi safari later this year if anyone is keen - you can check out the fish in the flesh so to speak and ask the Ad man your questions one-on-one
  

• I'm a tang man myself but he's booked up, so malawi's the next best thing - i've just been given the itinery, deposits due by May
  

• Alex, I'm still keen to volunteer on your trip!
  

[Ged]

I always rely on Fishbase as my diffinitive guide for valid scientific names.

On the issue of Tyrannochromis species Fishbase quotes Snoeks and Hanssens.

Quote Snoeks and Hanssens, 2004 (Ref. 55954): "We tentatively accept the synonymy of T. polyodon (Trewavas, 1935) and T. maculiceps (Ahl, 1927) with [the] species (T. macrostoma (Regan, 1922)) as suggested by Konings (1996). [but] A definite conclusion cannot be given, as we have not examined the types of these nominal species."

Fishbase still has T. maculiceps and T. polyodon listed a valid names and not as synonyms of T macrostoma.

I am try to get the relevant pages from Snoeks and Hanssens book "The cichlid diversity of Lake Malawi/NyasaNiassa: identification, distribution and taxonomy"

[Andrew]

Ah Ged, what would we do without you? Thank you.