vieja Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 hey all, i am the proud new owner of an 8" male RD.... . i already had a 10" female and the two have paired up nicely (she looks ready to lay - tube hanging out)... so now that it appears that i may become a RD breeder, , i was wondering what sort of RD i have.... are the RDs that are commonly sold around the place the citrinellus variety or the labiatum (or a mixture )... i looked up the descriptions and they didn't really distinguish too well between them (except that there are more colour variants with citrinellus)... my female is 10", orange all over with a bump on her forehead (not huge, just noticable) and my male is orange all over with a splash of white around his gills. the male has elongated fins (this is how i sexed them). finally - are both available and, if so, which do you consider to be the more sought after/ better looking RD...? will post pics if necessary - i just don't have none right now.... thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ducksta Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 "i looked up the descriptions and they didn't really distinguish too well between them (except that there are more colour variants with citrinellus)..." Track down some good pic's from some reputable US based sites, differences are huge when you see them Start with pics of wild caught fish on www.tangledupincichlids.com - and focus on head shape, then move onto body shape and build. Unfortunately what we have in this country I believe has been here longer than they have been recognised properly as seperate species to the hobby so they are more than likely hybrids. However, they have become one of those accepted hybrids like discus and angelfish. And they are great fish so there is no reason why you shouldn't enjoy them fully. There is an article at www.cichlidae.com about the red devil complex which explains things well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ant Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 Here is all the info you need: http://ace.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=14001 The way i understand is that the 'Aus' RD's that are more Labiatus than citronellus have a more elongated face, and the citronellus are more orange where as the labiatus is more yellow/orange. But the best way to tell is in the lips. It describes in the article exactly how to destinguish. Unfortunately they are all likely to be mixed. Anthony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vieja Posted May 23, 2005 Author Share Posted May 23, 2005 i love this forum... so much actual knowledge ... thanks for the help, i would never have got a straight answer at the LFS... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vieja Posted May 23, 2005 Author Share Posted May 23, 2005 ok i've read the article.... excellent description adelaideant... i'm almost certain mine are labiatus (at least they are not citronellus due to their large lips). your sight ducksta, www.tangledupincichlids.com, was fantastic....! loved the wild caught pics and, again, i'm almost certain that the finnage of the citronellus looked 'fuller' (not as stream-lined as my fish). however, after reading the article (and not having my fish in front of me), i'd say it's a pretty good bet that, at some time, there was 'the presence of a Midas Cichlid in the rock pile!' thanks again... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OscarTerror Posted May 24, 2005 Share Posted May 24, 2005 hope you have better luck than I, my pair have been "doing the dance" for months with no eggs laid yet even after they look like they defiantely will.. her tube is often out so I don't think that is a real indicator anyways all the best, they're wicked fish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
r.d.m Posted May 24, 2005 Share Posted May 24, 2005 tough luck ot, ive got about 500 at th moment ,about 6 weeks old now. vieja what you probably have is a mixture of the two(as do we all)this is perfectly ok as they do cross breed in the wild, and are fertile,i think the main reason for this is ,in the 70's these fish were smuggled in to australia probably from germany and in an effort to recoup the cost a lot of indiscriminate breeding took place(ala' frontosa) which has unfortunately ruined the bloodlines of most ,if not all the central and south american cichlids and what few that were left have been finished off by the flower horn and blood parrot, most fish around tend more to the midas than rd purely by the colour alone,ive only seen a handful of red fish .but whatever wev'e got is still a lovely fish ,and the sight of two big fish herding a large group of fry is to me what cichlids are all about, good luck and welcome to the red devil club Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ant Posted May 24, 2005 Share Posted May 24, 2005 Sorry RD man i've had discussions with some yanks about them hybridising in the wild and they said it wasn't true. Anthony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ducksta Posted May 24, 2005 Share Posted May 24, 2005 Smuggled in in the 70's? Where did you possibly hear that? They were imported legally prior to the import laws taking effect. And they do not hybridize in the wild, they were hybridized when they were originally collected as a single species. Hybrid fishes swimming in the Florida Quays is not them hybridizing in naturally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ash Posted May 24, 2005 Share Posted May 24, 2005 I read in a book somewhere that in certian smaller lakes due to a lack of territorys/competition, etc - they ARE hybridizing of their own accord. I guess part way through forming a new seperate species. I mean if they had a common Amphilophus XXX ancestor and were seperated by geography & evolved seperately to A labatius & citrinellus, what happens when that geography changes again to let them mix whilst they are still close enough to breed? Just cause it doesn't always happen (like with different varients in the rift lakes) doesn't mean it can't happen elsewhere. Who says evolution doesn't screw up & backtrack sometimes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
r.d.m Posted May 24, 2005 Share Posted May 24, 2005 read the article,i think paul loiselle is a well respected expert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ash Posted May 24, 2005 Share Posted May 24, 2005 Geez, now I go look at that link & realise where I got that idea from Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ducksta Posted May 25, 2005 Share Posted May 25, 2005 Sounds interesting guys, all the lit. I have (the newest would be 3 years old) says pretty clearly that in their wild ranges wild they don't hybridise, and that places where their geography overlaps are extremely rare? If you could point me in a direction of something that suggests otherwise I'd be greatful Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ash Posted May 25, 2005 Share Posted May 25, 2005 http://www.cichlidae.com/articles/a106.php Loiselle says it happens in this article, though it is way old and he did say "there appears to be evidence" as in there isn't proof. Maybe it's been disproven since? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.