Jump to content

Identification of Victorian Cichlid


UriB
 Share

Recommended Posts

G'day folks,

I'm new to this forum but it has be highly recommended by some dear friends so I thought I'd post my first topic.

I bought these Vics a couple of weeks ago (very happy with them) but I'm not sure that they are what they were advertised as?! I won't tell what they were advertised as so as not to influence your decision, have a go and see what you can come up with!

BTW, I have my own personal opinion as well :confused:

MALE

IPB Image

IPB Image

IPB Image

FEMALE

IPB Image

IPB Image

Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

G'day and welcome!

They are very fine examples of Neochromis nigricans, which has been reclassified as Neochromis rufocaudalis. Very nice fish! Not very common in the hobby, so it would do a great service of you bred these up and got some fry circulating!

Cheers,

Andrew.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

G'day and welcome!

They are very fine examples of Neochromis nigricans, which has been reclassified as Neochromis rufocaudalis. Very nice fish! Not very common in the hobby, so it would do a great service of you bred these up and got some fry circulating!

Cheers,

Andrew.

Thx Andrew, I've placed this inquiry on other forums with the hope of gaining some more knowledge about these, they were sold to me as nyererei 'Flame Back' but I had my doubts. One of the females is already holding so lets cross our fingers and hope for the best, thx again.

Uri

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm... That's a worry. It's clear to me that they can't be real nyererei, but if they were bred as, and sold as nyererei, it could lead one to assume that they are a hybrid with rufocaudalis that has taken on much of that species' traits... Hopefully this is not the case.

I have found that a lot of shops will receive two related types of fish and mislabel them, e.g. one shop near me received Goyder River and Coen River M. trifasciata in an order, and applied the Coen River name to the Goyders and vice-versa. It could be that your lfs got both nyererei and nigricans in an order and got the labelling wrong - definitely worth asking about.

What other feedback have you had elsewhere?

Cheers,

Andrew.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm... That's a worry. It's clear to me that they can't be real nyererei, but if they were bred as, and sold as nyererei, it could lead one to assume that they are a hybrid with rufocaudalis that has taken on much of that species' traits... Hopefully this is not the case.

I have found that a lot of shops will receive two related types of fish and mislabel them, e.g. one shop near me received Goyder River and Coen River M. trifasciata in an order, and applied the Coen River name to the Goyders and vice-versa. It could be that your lfs got both nyererei and nigricans in an order and got the labelling wrong - definitely worth asking about.

What other feedback have you had elsewhere?

Cheers,

Andrew.

Pundamilia pundamilia so far, and the other was nigricans I would assume like your's. It was from a private buyer whose credentials I'm unsure of.

Edited by UriB
Link to comment
Share on other sites

G'day and welcome!

They are very fine examples of Neochromis nigricans, which has been reclassified as Neochromis rufocaudalis. Very nice fish! Not very common in the hobby, so it would do a great service of you bred these up and got some fry circulating!

Cheers,

Andrew.

Yep I Agree with Andrew definately are Nigricans

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thx Chris for the vote, that's 4x Neochromis nigricans, 1 Pundamilia pundamilia and 1 Hap. sp. blue obliquidans.

Thx benno, I'm really pleased with the outcome, I can't wait for the fry to be born!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me, this is definitely the fish that has been circulating in the Australian hobby for years as "Haplochromis nigricans", but I am going to throw a spanner in the works now...

All this being said, I am very doubtful that the "nigricans" we have in Australia are true Neochromis rufocaudalis. One has only to google that species to find that the true species is smaller and has an entirely different head shape, although the colour is identical.

In a bid to put the question to rest for myself, as much as for anyone else, I have established contact with Dr Ole Seehausen. If anyone here has read his magnificent work, "Lake Victoria Rock Cichlids", you would know that he is clearly the best authority to consult on this matter.

Dr Seehausen has very kindly offered to review these photos, as well as some others of "Aussie nigricans" and I will post his reply here when I hear back from him.

Cheers,

Andrew.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me, this is definitely the fish that has been circulating in the Australian hobby for years as "Haplochromis nigricans", but I am going to throw a spanner in the works now...

All this being said, I am very doubtful that the "nigricans" we have in Australia are true Neochromis rufocaudalis. One has only to google that species to find that the true species is smaller and has an entirely different head shape, although the colour is identical.

In a bid to put the question to rest for myself, as much as for anyone else, I have established contact with Dr Ole Seehausen. If anyone here has read his magnificent work, "Lake Victoria Rock Cichlids", you would know that he is clearly the best authority to consult on this matter.

Dr Seehausen has very kindly offered to review these photos, as well as some others of "Aussie nigricans" and I will post his reply here when I hear back from him.

Cheers,

Andrew.

Hey greta work Andrew will look forward to Ole's reply to see if we have the right fish here in Oz

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, here we have it folks... Straight from the best source possible - and I'm afraid it isn't very good news...

Dear Andrew

This is clearly no Neochromis at all. It looks like an aquarium hybrid population involving “Haplochromis” sp. “thick skin” or Pundamilia and probably Neochromis.

best wishes

Ole

It's a big shame - and it would seem that we have never had the true species here at all.

This information knocks one more "species" off our disgracefully small list of Victorians in Australia.... tragic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, here we have it folks... Straight from the best source possible - and I'm afraid it isn't very good news...

Dear Andrew

This is clearly no Neochromis at all. It looks like an aquarium hybrid population involving “Haplochromis” sp. “thick skin” or Pundamilia and probably Neochromis.

best wishes

Ole

It's a big shame - and it would seem that we have never had the true species here at all.

This information knocks one more "species" off our disgracefully small list of Victorians in Australia.... tragic.

Bugger, bugger, bugger.........oh!....did I forget to mention BUGGER!!! :angry:

ps. Andrew, thx for all your research :clap & as much as it pains me, they'll have to go!!

Edited by UriB
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi again,

I replied to Ole to thank him for helping us out with this, and I mentioned the curiosity of this "species" appearing to remain unchanged here ever since it came. This is his reply...

Dear Andrew,

It is indeed a common observation that interspecific hybrids of Victoria cichlids retain a fairly stable appearance. The main “appearance features” are probably often determined by many genes that were fixed for different alleles in the parental species and get combined in the hybrids. Say 10 genes determine the curvature of the dorsal head profile, say all are fixed for + alleles (20 + alleles, strong convex curvature) in one species (say a neochromis) and for - alleles (20 - alleles, concave profile) in the other (say a Pundamilia). F1 hybrids will have 10 + and 10 - alleles. Higher generation hybrids will segregate for all combinations of allele numbers, but extremely few individuals will have 20 alleles of the same type. So hybrids will appear stably intermediate. Many “unique” aquarium populations that do not resemble anything from the wild probably are of such origins. I think there is absolutely nothing wrong with such populations as great and beautiful and interesting aquarium fish. One just has to be cautious when thinking of such populations in the context of conservation.

I would love to rewrite my book, but will probably need to retire from my job before I could.... well that is a few decades to go. But yes we are finding new species every year, and hopefully one day some of these will be described.

Many good wishes

Ole

Here's Hoping he finds time to review the current Lake Vic situation one day!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I did the deed last night, as beautiful as they were, it had to be done, at least I'll have some photos of 'em.

On a slightly different note though; I got some Pundamilia nyererei from 'debgrafish' last night (16 in total) these were correctly identified in an earlier post (around the middle of February this year) It's a good feeling to know that people with like-mindedness care :) thx Andrew and a special thx to Debra (debgrafish)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Andrew,

Great that you've been able to enter into dialogue with Ole. I've been trying without success since I got into Vics. Maybe I'm trying the wrong place (EAWAG)?

If there are any Victoriaphiles still left I have some quite good resources online for anyone interested. Won't post links here in case it's not the right thing to do (cross linking) but will PM the links to anyone interested

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...