mattrox Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 I'm sure this has been discussed before but I want to re-examine this.In Australia it seems to me it is almost certain that we do not have the the true Xystichromis phytophagus. And I'd venture to say that we don't even have hybridised Christmass fulu.From photos I have seen, and a bit of hunting around the place it seems to me that they are possibly Astatotilapia brownae in some instances or brownae x sp.44 in others. And I realise I have only seen some "Christmas fulus" and other populations in other people's tanks may look different to the ones I have come across. Text book taxonomy based on my limited reading is not good enough and I want to canvass other people's thoughts. I also know people will have fish which breed true and I am not trying to call every Christmas Fulu a hybrid either. Just want to get a little closer to the real story.I don't know enough about events around the arrival of the first Victorian Basin Cichlids in Australia but here is a quote from "Frenzy" whose opinion on Victorian Basin Cichlids I respect."The fish sold as phytopahgus here are not as colourful and I believe are more closely related to Xystichromis sp "carp". However, I can't confirm if these ever came into the country either.You'll be hard pressed to even find a picture of x. sp carp on google. The only picture I have is in Ole Seehausens book and this is the fish that most resembles the fish that gets around in Australia as X. phytophagus."Frenzy bought some Christmas Fulus and virtually had a positive ID from the foremost Vic Hap expert.http://auscichlids.com/forum/index.php?topic=3667.0And then there is this quote too from Mr_Docfish, I'm sure Oliver won't mind me quoting him:"Many years ago I remember these fish "arriving" in Australia under the name "brownae" and most were sent over to Melbourne (to someone well known in the industry but now retired) and he pointed out they were "obliguidens"... then a few days later, he pointed out they are now "phytophagus" as that was the pic on the cover of the latest "Cichlid News" at the time (now start checking your collection to find the arrival time... if you collection goes that far) then after a couple of months later, some friends I know here in Perth picked up some "Flame Back Nyererei" from this same guy in Melbourne......Confused yet???Well, since then a few others have "obtained" new blood line of different species and now we happen to have several fish varieties all muddled up....From what I can see, these look like the original "obliguidens" that I first had - but they throw out a myriad of different colour morphs, and after spending many hours in books, trying to decipher these fish, I am at a loss to what we actually have left over in this hobby... too many guys changing names too often - as I call them "Picture Book Taxonomists" - that is, if it looks like a picture in a book, then thats the new name - now I want $5 more for this new species....."It seems that there is some strong evidence that some Christmas Fulus going around are brownae.I know some specimens would be easy to mix up expecially when full coloured so I am sure there are also brownae x sp. 44 going around as Fulus too.I also know Tranced has an interest in Vic Basin fish. I know he posts from time to time so I hope he can contribute.Does anyone else have anything that can help out? And if people are keeping fulus or brownae is it possible to post pics?I'm not out to call anyone's fish a hybrid. But it would be good to know what Victorians we have and get things right.... I don't see anypoint and burying our head in the sand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ged Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 I have to agree Matt that the state of the Vics here in Australia are dire we have to ask the hard questions and get it right. Andrew wrote some great posts on the state of Victorian cichlids. I see if I can locate the posts. Ged Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ged Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 Hi all,Without wanting to drop a bombshell, I want to put forward the following info and get your opinions on it.A couple of years ago, I set about amassing whatever Vics were around to stop them dwindling in numbers. Two of the first I got were Xystichromis phytophagus and Neochromis nigricans (now rufocaudalis). The nigricans were the exact same fish we have always had as "nigricans" in Oz and I began to doubt their purity based on differences in size and appearance. I liaised with Ole Seehausen and supplied him with pics of the fish, which he confirmed for me were definitely hybrids. He said they appear to be from a hybrid population that has existed in the European hobby for decades. The long and the short of that is that any N. nigricans flaoting around Oz are Hybrids. Ole also made a point of saying that there is no need to start panicking and eradicating this hybrid strain - and that it is a perfectly legitimate ornamental fish as long as it is not interbred with any pure species.I also became concerned that the "Fulu" are incorrectly labelled in Australia. The fish that I obtained and proliferated are certainly not X. phytophagus and appear to be H. sp. 44 "Thickskin". I believe that if you were to obtain some "Fulu" and some "Thickskin", you would find it very difficult (if not nigh on impossible) to distinguish them from each other. I am of the impression that we may never have had real "Fulu" here and that "Thickskin" has been introduced twice - once as itself and once as "Fulu". I have never seen a fish in Australia that appears as X. phytophagus should.I'm not claiming to be a great guru on Vics - it's just that when something like this comes up, I research the daylights out of it and formulate an opinion.It's important for me to raise this issue and get any feedback on it. It would be terrific if anyone who has any of these fish looks into these possibilities - also, if anyone claims to have irrefutably pure X. phytophagus or Neochromis rufocaudalis, please let us know and post pics if possible!Cheers,Andrew.Here are a few examples (there are many more on Google images). Note the horizontal markings in each example. I have not seen these markings in any specimen in Australia. Our "phytophagus" resemble sp. 44 much more closely.The below fish is Astatotilpia sp. 44 Thickskin.The below fish is what we have as X. phytophagus in Australia. A. sp. 44 is highly variable from individual to individual, and I noticed the same in my "Fulu". But all in all, the "Fulu I have seen in Oz seem more like washed out 44s than what they're supposed to be. Then, of course, there is the disastrous possibility that the below fish is hybrid between the two... I will try to contact Ole Seehausen again and see what he says...Hi all,There's some info I want to raise in Cichlid Discussion, but I don't want to stir up a hornet's nest... I'm bringing this up in hope of preventing further confusion and incorrect naming of the few Vics getting around the hobby.A couple of years ago, I set about amassing whatever Vics were around to stop them dwindling in numbers. Two of the first I got were Xystichromis phytophagus and Neochromis nigricans (now rufocaudalis). The nigricans were the exact same fish we have always had as "nigricans" in Oz and I began to doubt their purity based on differences in size and appearance. I liaised with Ole Seehausen and supplied him with pics of the fish, which he confirmed for me were definitely hybrids. He said they appear to be from a hybrid population that has existed in the European hobby for decades. The long and the short of that is that any N. nigricans flaoting around Oz are Hybrids.I also became concerned that the "Fulu" are incorrectly labelled in Australia. The fish that I obtained and proliferated are certainly not X. phytophagus and appear to be H. sp. 44 "Thickskin". I believe that if you were to obtain some "Fulu" and some "Thickskin", you would find it very difficult (if not nigh on impossible) to distinguish them from each other. I am of the impression that we may never have had real "Fulu" here and that "Thickskin" has been introduced twice - once as itself and once as "Fulu". I have never seen a fish in Australia that appears as X. phytophagus should.I'm not claiming to be a great guru on Vics - it's just that when something like this comes up, I research the daylights out of it and formulate an opinion. I would really like your thoughts A) on this issue and B) on how to bring this up on the forum without an online lynching...lolAndrew. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishinf Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 very interesting this is a fish sold to me a xmax fulu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattrox Posted November 30, 2012 Author Share Posted November 30, 2012 As a start I want to post some pics of fish (I think are a good representation of their species) (not my pics)sp. 44 (red tailed hap)brownaeJust for confusion I added the last picture because how the hell can you tell just from that, that it is not a sp. 44?And to add to the confusion I have seen it suggested on some web pages that some people think sp. 44 and brownae (and Hap. obliquidens which it they type species of Haplochromis genus, which I haven't seen a picture of, even on cichlid room companion) are all the same soecies. With people like that there will be hybids everywhere.And brownae is on the UCIN redlist as critically endangered.So if you happened to get fish off Frenzy before he got rid of them....... your fish are valuable as they are probably some of the last pure brownae in Australia...... Unless the Christmas Fulus that people have are actually brownae! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattrox Posted November 30, 2012 Author Share Posted November 30, 2012 very interesting this is a fish sold to me a xmax fuluThanks fishinf. I believe that some fulus are sp. 44 or crosses and some are brownae. When you get a chance, get a photo of your male in full breeding dress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishinf Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 sold my colony a while back but i do have some big ones in my fry tank around the 10cm mark i could take out and try to get some shots when displaying Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattrox Posted November 30, 2012 Author Share Posted November 30, 2012 I am really new to Vic Basin cichlids. but when I want to find something out, I want to get it right. Any pieces of the puzzle help.Knowing that one population of Christmas Fulus was virtually certain to be brownae, it stands to reason that there are others out there.There are passionate Vic Basin enthusiasts in Europe and Ole seemed happy to reply to e-mails. If there was enough evidence to sort this out once and for all it would actually help conserve brownae. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattrox Posted December 1, 2012 Author Share Posted December 1, 2012 This is a brownae from Australian Aquarium Magazine Issue 2 2007 And this is an Aussie "Christmas fulu"Vic cichlids are so confusing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason130497 Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 Real nice fish, but whats minimum tank size for them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattrox Posted December 1, 2012 Author Share Posted December 1, 2012 If you get Christmas Fulus that are brownaes they are aggressive and difficult to keep colonies as fish keep getting beaten up. A bare minimum would be a 4ft tank but I hear a 6ft tank gives more room for other fish to take refuge.I think it would be pretty much the same if you got Fulus that are sp 44 or sp 44 crosses.I would urge people to be very careful when mixing Fulus from different breeders. I have a strong suspicion some are proper brownae which are critically endangered. The pic of the Fulu I posted above STRONGLY resembles brownae.If you are getting new blood think carefully. Grow out males so you can cross reference your males with the new ones. Make sure your fish are throwing consistent fry. If they all colour up the same it is probably worth saving the aquarium strain until a proper ID can be obtained. If you bring in a new female and all of a sudden the fry change in appearance exclude this female from future breeding.What action can we take to get proper IDs of so called fulus? The photo I posted was from a member advertising Fulus for sale. Perhaps someone interested in conservation could buy some to grow out. In my opinion it is important to get a proper ID because these fish could well contribute to the on going survival of a critically endangered species. I'd go buy the lot if I lived close enough to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattrox Posted December 1, 2012 Author Share Posted December 1, 2012 Oh Hell, I just e-mailed Dr. Seehausen....... I hope I'm not pestering him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ged Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 Oh Hell, I just e-mailed Dr. Seehausen....... I hope I'm not pestering him.Too late now The other great person to contact is Greg Steeves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noddy65 Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 Surely theres so much confusion and doubt about all these species in Aus now that theres no point trying to find pure species any more...its better to assume that theyre all hybrids? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattrox Posted December 1, 2012 Author Share Posted December 1, 2012 Not if it can be shown that populations of unhybridised fish are around.Because if there are then, should they be identified to prevent them being bred with hybridized Fulus? Especially if they are the critically endangered brownae. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason130497 Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 arent most of the lake victorian fish, like the fulus endangered? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ant Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 I agree with Noddy there. It is such a shame though. What a stunning fish the Vic haps are. I would assume that hybridization would be an issue even in the wild, never seen species (except for a few humans) so desperate to breed (cichlids in general). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattrox Posted December 1, 2012 Author Share Posted December 1, 2012 arent most of the lake victorian fish, like the fulus endangered?Yes, to different extents. Some are critically endangered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason130497 Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 I thought so, shame that we cant protect them from habitat loss Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattrox Posted December 1, 2012 Author Share Posted December 1, 2012 I think the problem with assuming they are all hybid are:1)They will no longer be able to to sold through the ACE classifieds or Cichlid societies. (Unless they are treated as Discus)2) There might be legitimate A. brownae out there that will then become part of this aquarium strain of Astatotilipia.3) If real Christams Fulus were to turn up it all gets even uglier.I would have thought that Cichlid Societies around the country would make this a priority. It has been established through Frenzy and Dr. Seehausen that A. brownae extists in a legitimate form in Australia. Even European collectors wanted some of the fry shipped over. To me it looks like Bubbles28 has fish that on face value closely resemble A. brownae. If I were closer I would be buying up all his fry available and keeping them in a species tank as a first priority and then liasing with experts on thier identity.I am sure he is not the only one with possible A. brownae. He had to get them from someone.I have heard through one LFS owner in Perth that he no longer gets A. brownae in as in his opinion the official A. brownae population has hybridised fish.It seems like a perfect time to eliminate this confusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ged Posted December 2, 2012 Share Posted December 2, 2012 I agree Matt that is worthwhile to try and establish if pure lines are available and trying to protect them at all costs. The role of cichlid clubs and association is to preserve the species that we have here in country. I too would have a tank dedicated to Vics if I knew that they were a pure strain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattrox Posted December 2, 2012 Author Share Posted December 2, 2012 Oh Hell, I just e-mailed Dr. Seehausen....... I hope I'm not pestering him.Too late now The other great person to contact is Greg Steeves.I just joined up on Hills Country Cichlid Club forum where he is a member. They are also heavily involved in the C.A.R.E.S program and would have people who would be interested in helping to sort out the mess.I just posted so hopefully we can get a consensus.If anyone has mature male "Christmas Fulus" can I ask for photographs of them. If they end up hybrids we can just call them A. "Australian Aquarium Strain" or Astatotilapia AAS or something. That way atleast if people trade them the don't have to call them Christmas Fulus, just incase the real deal turns up somewhere.But I imagine that there are populations of A. brownae going around that are not hybridised that can be saved. And while we are at it, if you have A. brownae (I know Majestic has it on its stock list) a photo would be helpful to see if the official A. brownae are still intact as a species. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason130497 Posted December 2, 2012 Share Posted December 2, 2012 Mattrox you named a new species :O lucky... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattrox Posted December 2, 2012 Author Share Posted December 2, 2012 No.... not really. hehehe they are a blend of species. I suspect the flashy name and pictures of the genuine X. phytophagus get people buying the fish. Probably what the person who originally called them Christmas Fulu wanted.Anyway this highly variable hybrid line really should stop being bred and distributed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason130497 Posted December 2, 2012 Share Posted December 2, 2012 I agree, fish genetics are just as important as human genetics.Preservation of a species that is critically endangered should always be high on the list Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.