Jump to content

hecqui vs meeli


YeW

Recommended Posts

Hi Guys -

Here's a VERY bad pic of my Neolamprologus "hecqui" (taken crouched below the level of the tank because they kept hiding on me!!!)

It shows the uneven barring on the male.

Thoughts? Are they N. hecqui?

user posted image

Link to comment
Share on other sites

as far as the hecqui i've owned have gone, they havn't really had barring,

more of what I would call a random cowprint when they are angry about something.

Here's a pic of mine

user posted image

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been told by various reputable sources that all hequi sold in Australia are meeli. I tend to agree with them, hequi the true ones aren't as "sparkly" and are much duller not to mention don't grow any where as big as the meeli sold as hequi. That my opinion. Yew if you want to ask Malcom who owns Wet petz a lfs in QLD he has researched this a touch and might have some more answers for you. Mick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello Dave,

Your fish look the same as fish that I sell as N. meeli. They are known by most in the hobby as N. hecqui, although I don't believe this is correct. I think it was Michael (Stillmanz) that first pointed out that we had them mislabelled at Wetpetz.

After a brief on-line search I found a credible article clarifying the issue. I can't seem to find this article on-line these days, but I'm sure I've got it somewhere, and when I can find it I'll e-mail it to Yew.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I notice N. meeli is also importable thumb.gif. So we could bring in a locality of this fish.

Reasons why I'm not sure whether mine are meeli or hecqui.

1. mine breed in a harem

2. mine have irregular bars when breeding - no blotches when not.

3. mine are big (well, the male is 7cm or so?).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So far I've found this, which may help although I can't remember when or where I got it from:

My point is just that at this moment it is hard to say what hecqui is. There is just one dark coloured type of hecqui, that may not have anything to do with the boulengeri / meeli complex and may well be something completely different. What I dno't know at the moment. All other specimens that were registered as hecqui belong to the boulengeri / meeli complex. So the information in the scientific and hobbyist literature on hecqui is probably incorrect. The groups I made were based on similarities in overall habitus and melanin pattern. No further morphological study was done. I am sure that within what I call boulengeri, all specimens are conspecific; I am also sure that all specimens of the meeli group are conspecific. I am less sure about the southern group boulengeri / meeli in which the largest variability was found. They may represent a third species, they may be boulengeri, they may be meeli. Or everyhting may be one widely distributed species with clinal geographical variation. Again without a thorough morphological study, it is difficult to say at the moment. People who would look only at the populations at both ends would say "How is it possible that there is any doubt that they are different species?" But if one has a look at the broad picture, then it becomes obvious that the situation is more complex. At the moment I keep all options open.

Jos Snoeks

Ron Anderson wrote:

 Hello Jos, Thank you for the interesting information. Are you saying that *hecqui* is very scarce, and probably not in the hobby? There is one thing present on my black tipped fish not present on my *boulengeri*kigoma, and that is a black spot at the base of the caudal. HOw many species/variants have this marking? Of the pictures you saw of *boulengeri*, did any exhibit a black marginal band on unpaired fins? Are there any external differences between the complexes, that I could look at, such as dorsal or anal fin ray counts? thanks, Ron >

Dear Ron, > > > >Just to straighten out some taxonomic issues before the discussion continues. > >I had a student now already five years ago now reviewing our collections of the lamprologines and analysing their distribution patterns. Most of the results are not published. > >A few of the results are relevant to the boulengeri - meeli - hecqui discussion. > > > >* First of all, the one and only type specimen of hecqui available is a dark specimen and the melanin pattern is hardly visible. The specimen is only about 6 cm long and has been found in the mouth of an Auchenoglanis catfish caught at Kalemie. You can forget about all the other reports about hecqui by Boulenger, Poll and others, probably also in the aquarium literature; they are not the real hecqui. We have looked at 287 specimens from 21 localities and they all belonged to the boulengeri - meeli complex. I identified tentatively two specimens from Mvua as possibly conspecific with the type of hecqui. > > > >* I prefer to talk in terms of the boulengeri / meeli complex, rather than of separate species at the moment. The reason is the following. We distinguished (again tentatively, since we did not do a comparative morphometric study yet, and I have only seen a photograph of the types of boulengeri) three groups. We did find a high variability in various characters such as body depth, eye size and the melanin pattern on the dorsal fin and the body. One group is present on the east coast from Rumonge (Burundi) to just south of the Malagarazi delta (Tanzania); this is most probably boulengeri. A second group on the west coast from Kalemie to Tembwe corresponds to the types of meeli. A third group was found between Sumbu (Zambia) to Myako (Tanzania) and was named boulengeri / meeli because it had intermediate characters. At this moment I am not sure how much of the variation we found is geographical or how many species can actually be distinguished. Only a detailed comprehensive study > >can answer these questions. So I just give this information for what it is worth now. In total for this complex we looked at about 300 specimens from 23 localities. >

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only info I could find that distinguished the two was in the keying out of the species (as per Brichard).

L. hecqui....lower lateral line atrophied; 48-54 scalesin long. line; max. size 60mm

L. meeli....lower lateral line not atrophied (more than 20% of long. line); 42-50 scales in long. line; max. size 67mm

Seems very muddy to me dntknw.gif

merjo smile.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tend to lean towards what we have in Aust is meeli, but having said that there may be the odd hecqui that has been imported with them. I have only seen a handfull of pics to compare with though.

Mine bred in a holding tank (1 male bred with two females) tank was also full of rainbows and raised their young very well with the ozzies trying to get a snack.

At the time there were 6 in that tank only those 3 ever bred, while they were together the other trio stayed down the other end and never formed a bond while in that tank until they were moved to another one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yew this is a link to the pic of L hequi http://www.cichlid-forum.com/profiles/species.php?id=1764 but you might be interested to know they have a new species variient (mbita I think they call it) which looks very similiar to our fish. Here is a pic of meeli http://www.cichlid-forum.com/profiles/species.php?id=1766 Have a look it has an excellent selection of shelldweller profiles on that site. And yes I don't know whty they have been classified Lepidiolamprologus but it is the fish we are talking about. Mick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have 2 males with 1 female hecqui.

The males are 8cm+ and very stocky, with strong markings.

The female is around 4cm and has no bold markings.

I purchased them as Lamprologus hecqui, now called Lepediolamprologus hecqui.

I have been to Wetpetz and my hecqui look nothing like their meeli.

The meeli look streched out and show little colouration.

I have looked at numerous pictures and my fish look most like Neolamprologus boulengeri.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep I wouldn't be suprised if there is a fair few locality varients out there. Which is sad really as in a few years the strains will be all blurred. They are nice fish though, I find alittle too aggressive some times but thats just charector isn't it. Mick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...