Apistogramma sp "Rio Mamore" or A.maciliensis?

[valice]

Apistogramma sp "Rio Mamore" or A.maciliensis?

Picture courtesy of chuencp39 from AquaticQuotient.com

From what I read in Mike's old posting in Krib, A.maciliensis has a yellow patch above the lateral line and in the picture, there seemed to be the yellow patch. So is this A.sp "Rio Marmore" or A.maciliensis?

Or are they the same fish?

 

[Mike Wise]

Scientifically, there is no "A. maciliensis". It is still A. trifasciata maciliensis. The fish pictured has been labeled both A. maciliensis & A. sp. Mamoré. Römer's Atlas 1 lists the fish as "A. maciliensis" but other specialists claim that the dark markings are not the same as A. t. maciliensis, and continue to label it "A. sp. Mamoré". The yellow area above the lateral band seems to appear on both A. cf. trifasciata (Rio Guaporé) (A 206) and A. sp. Mamoré (A 207). It is much more extensive on some populations of A. sp. Mamoré from the Rio Guaporé than on those from the Rio Mamoré.

The history of the name "A. maciliensis" is an interesting one, involving many people in the hobby, commercial trade, & science. It is a bit long and convoluted so I won't go into it unless you are really interested.

 

[aquaticclarity]

Mike,

I'd like to hear the story...it's the kind of thing that makes the fish hobby interesting, the story's behind the stories!

Jeff

 

[valice]

I too would like to hear the story... :biggrin:

 

[Mike Wise]

OK, you wanted to know the history around the name "A. maciliensis". It all started in 1909 when John D. Haseman collected specimens of an A. trifasciata-like fish near São Antonio de Guaporé, Brazil. In 1911 he named them Heterogramma trifasciatum maciliense, now modified from the neuter to the feminine maciliensis and placed in a new genus. In the description he wrote, "... I have described it only as a variety {subspecies - mw}, in order to note the difference from the typical forms, which are also found in the Rio Guaporé." Interestingly, Haseman also collected another A. trifasciata-like form in the same general area, about which he wrote, "These specimens are intermediate between the typical {Paraguayan - mw} form and the variety maciliense." These might be A. cf. trifasciata (Rio Guaporé), but I do not know if anyone has compared these specimens with preserved specimens of the Guaporé form.
In the fall of 1959, Hermann Meinken was asked to examine two live specimens of an A. trifasciata-like fish that had recently arrived at the firm Tropicarium Frankfurt. He eventually got five additional preserved specimens from another importer. In 1960, he described it as Apistogramma trifasciatum harald schultzi, recognizing it as a subspecies of A. trifasciata. The collector of the fish, Harald Schultz, wrote {trans.}, "I collected the fish among extremely dense stands of aquatic plants in shallow water up to 50 cm {20 in.}deep. There they are common and associated with many other species (often caught in the same net), among them are Aphyocharax, Megalamphodus, a carmine red Hyphessobrycon species, Three-spot Tetra, Nannostomus, Poecilobrycon, Moenkhausia, Acestrorhynchus, Chilodus, Pyrrhulina, Leporinus, Anostomus and several others whose names I do not know or have completely forgotten. It is a true fish paradise. There are also many other cichlids, such as Geophagus jurupari, Aequidens curviceps (?, perhaps a subspecies), Cichlaurus festivum and severum, and others.
The climate in this area is tropical, with hot dry summers and rainy winters. The average water temperature at 7 a.m. near the banks, in slow moving water is 23-25ºC {73.5-77ºF}. In the rays of the blazing sun the water temperature climbs tremendously during the course of the day. ... our Apistogramma is not found in the shade under the mats of floating grass {floating meadows - mw}, but in the tangle of plants in the sun-warmed lagoons that become gradually smaller during the previously mentioned dry periods and eventually dry out and have to be abandoned by the fish."
Meinken did not consider A. t. haraldschultzi to be the same as A. t. maciliensis, although he obviously knew that it existed. He lists Haseman's paper in his bibliography. For the next 20 years, both A. t. maciliensis and A. t. haraldschultzi were generally accepted as being subspecies of A. trifasciata. Then in 1980 Kullander determined that the two subspecies were the same as the holotype of A. trifasciata. Now there was only one species and no subspecies. It must be noted, however, that Kullander could not examine the type material of A. t. haraldschultzi because it is lost, and he does not mention whether or not he actually examined the type material of A. t. maciliensis.
In 1994 Marco Lacerda sent an expedition to upper Rio Madeira system in search of the legendary A. pulchra. His found this species as well as several other Apistogramma species - including an A. trifasciata-like from the Rio Mamoré. This form, A. sp. Rio Mamoré (A 207), differed from the typical Rio Paraguay form in that the body was more robust and the diagonal third stripe was missing. He described the species to Kullander, and where it was collected. In a quick response - without seeing specimens - Kullander replied that it most likely was form equivalent to A. t. maciliensis. Presently, however, Kullander still lists A. t. maciliensis as a synonym of A. trifasciata. Either he now lumps the two forms together (most likely) or considers A. sp. Mamoré a species different from A. trifasciata. I have never asked him about this. Based on Kullander's short reply, Trop Rio originally sold the fish as A. t. maciliensis, but often shortened it to "A. maciliensis" on its sales lists. Mayland & Bork (1997) labeled it A. t. maciliensis in their book, while Römer (1998, 2000), recognizing it was not A. trifasciata, listed it as A. maciliensis.
The problem with this was that no one had actually examined the type material of A. t. maciliensis. Comparing A. sp. Mamoré to the descriptions & figures of A. t. maciliensis and A. t. haraldschultzi, there are some significant discrepancies. Specimens of A. t. maciliensis exhibit " ... a very faint stripe from the pectorals to the anal in the largest specimen {~ 3.1 cm/1½ in! - mw}, but no stripes in the smaller ones ... (Haseman, 1911). For A. t. harald schultzi, Meinken (1960) states {trans.} "A dark diagonal stripe from the corner of the preoperculum to the beginning of the anal fin, which appears as a typical feature of coloration in specimens preserved in alcohol, is completely absent in live individuals, not a trace is visible." Such a stripe - faint or otherwise - is NEVER visible on live or preserved specimens of A. sp. Mamoré. Another feature of A. sp. Mamoré that is different on A. t. maciliensis and A. t. haraldschultzi is the shape of the lateral band. On figures and descriptions of A. t. maciliensis and A. t. haraldschultzi, the lateral band is visible on the flanks from the eye and the base of the tail, and is relatively even in width. On A. sp. Mamoré, the lateral band typically is much broader toward the tail and narrows headward - often becoming invisible on the front half of the body. Obviously there are some important questions that need to be answered. Only examination of the existing type material might be able to prove or disprove whether or not A. sp. Mamoré is the same species as A. t. maciliensis (unless the type material of A. t. haraldschultzi can be found, we can only depend on Meinken's description). The opportunity appeared in 2006 when Dr. Römer, David Soares, and I examined the type material of A. t. maciliensis at the Field Museum in Chicago. On seeing the holotype, I know I was very disappointed. The nearly one century stay in alcohol had been tough on the specimens. Fins had eroded measurably from what is seen on the original plate, although we could recognize its sex (I will let Dr. Römer discuss this further; I do not want to "steal his thunder"). Black markings were missing except for a few tiny spots here and there; certainly not enough to determine whether it was either A. trifasciata or A. sp. Mamoré. The only diagnostic feature that might be useful is the shape of the body. It certainly has the deep, stumpy body of A. sp. Mamoré. The problem arises on the condition of the fish when collected. The eye is enormous compared to fully-grown specimens of the above species, yet its finnage indicated that it was a sexually mature specimen. To my way of thinking, it looked like a stunted fish. Such stunting often malforms the body, too. To my way of thinking, even it shape cannot be used for determining the species.
To add to the confusion, Trop Rio introduced an A. trifasciata-like form from the lower Rio Guaporé in 1996 (A. cf. trifasciata Rio Guaporé (A 206). This fish had the same diagnostic features of A. trifasciata - except it had a honey yellow back and the diagonal band was faint on large specimens, but almost invisible on small specimens. This fish certainly matches Haseman's description of A. t. maciliensis more closely than does A. sp. Mamoré! I even suggested that this was the true A. t. maciliensis in several articles and on line. Then in 2004 I received an email from Jeff Cardwell. He had returned from Bolivia where he had collected some Apistogramma specimens that he wanted me to identify - including some A. trifasciata. The unknown (to him) fish were easily identified, but the A. trifasciata surprised me because they showed NO diagonal band - not even on large males. He supplied me with collecting information. His fish came from a pool close to a stream entering the Río San Martin in the general vicinity of Magdalena, Bolivia. This biotope is similar to that described by Schultz for A. t. haraldschultzi. Specimens of A. trifasciata from the same area - but coming from flowing streams - all showed a pronounced diagonal band. Certainly the two forms would meet during high water periods when the stream overflowed its banks and flooded the lake. Could the presence or absence of the diagonal band be due merely to where these fish live? That is my suspicion. If it is true, then A. t. maciliensis is merely a color morph of A. trifasciata, there is no valid A.maciliensis, and A. sp. Mamoré is a still scientifically undescribed species.

 

[aquaticclarity]

Thanks Mike. That info is very informative if not completly cloudy! The joys of trying to place nature in neat little boxes.

Jeff

 

[brad]

Mike, I quickly read your response and didn't see anything pertaining to cross breeding. Has anyone tried this to see if the offspring are fertile or which traits stay true in the offspring?

 

[Mike Wise]

Do you mean crossbreeding A. trifasciata with A. sp. Mamoré? There is no real reason to do this. They are very obviously 2 different species. As for crossing the different forms of A. trifasciata, I do not know if this has occurred. Sadly Jeff Cardwell's lake form that might be the true A. t. maciliensis are no longer in the hobby that I know about.

 

[brad]

Sadly Jeff Cardwell's lake form that might be the true A. t. maciliensis are no longer in the hobby that I know about.

So what are the Maciliensis that we occasionally see for sale most likely to be if they're not true Maciliensis?

So let me get this staright: Trifasciata and Mamore are 2 species, and Maciliensis is a sub species (colour morph???) of Trifasciata?

 

[Mike Wise]

So what are the Maciliensis that we occasionally see for sale most likely to be if they're not true Maciliensis?

There is no scientifically valid A. maciliensis! A. t. maciliensis is only known as preserved specimens collected by Haseman in 1909. Although the specimens collected by Cardwell might be the same form as Haseman's, the condition of the original type material makes it impossible to prove. I imagine that most "A. maciliensis" sold commercially or by hobbyists are A. sp. Mamoré, based on unsupportable identifications by Mayland & Bork, Römer, & Glaser & Glaser.

So let me get this staright: Trifasciata and Mamore are 2 species, and Maciliensis is a sub species (colour morph???) of Trifasciata?

Yes, that is how it stands right now. A. t. maciliensis is a subspecies if we believe Haseman, or a color morph if the lake form found by Cardwell actually mixes with the stream form during high water periods. I have a problem with the lake fish even being a true color morph if it mixes with the typical stream form at times. Perhaps there is something in the lake habitat that alters their color. This occurs with A. sp. Schwarzkehl/Black-throat ("A. viejita" CF III) (A 124) and A. sp. Rotflecken/Red-flecked ("A. viejita" CF II) (A 125). Their dark marking and other features are identical, but the lake form is much more colorful.

 

[brad]

O.K, so Maciliensis MAY be to Trifasciata what viejita III is to viejita II?

I'll start to understand how this all works eventually.lol

So, knowing that there are probably no Maciliensis on the market today, why is there still such confusion and so many fish sold under this name? We don't have Poodles being sold and Saint Bernards, or Bulldogs being sold Golden Retreivers, so why the mix ups when it comes to fish?

 

[Mike Wise]

O.K, so Maciliensis MAY be to Trifasciata

It depends on what you mean by "Maciliensis". If you mean A. trifasciata maciliensis, then yes it IS A. trifasciata. If you mean A. maciliensis (a separate species), then no it does NOT exist.

what viejita III is to viejita II?

"A. viejita II & III" are names originally used by Linke & Staeck for 2 color morphs of an undescribed species (A. sp. Black-throat/Red-flecked). They originally believed that they were color forms of A. viejita. They are not. The fish that they named "A. viejita I" is the true A. viejita.

I'll start to understand how this all works eventually.lol

So, knowing that there are probably no Maciliensis on the market today, why is there still such confusion and so many fish sold under this name? We don't have Poodles being sold and Saint Bernards, or Bulldogs being sold Golden Retreivers, so why the mix ups when it comes to fish?

The problem is that several very popular books have erroneous information. Supplement No.4 to Southamerican Cichlids II (Glaser & Glaser), South American Dwarf Cichlids (Mayland & Bork), & Cichlid Atlas 1 (Römer) list the scientifically undescribed species, A. sp. Mamoré as either A. t. maciliensis or A. maciliensis. I recommend seeing Dr. Kullander's list of valid apisto species (http://www2.nrm.se/ve/pisces/acara/apistogr.shtml). The names that are indented are synonyms of the species above them. It has not been up-dated this year. It does not include A. huascar, A. pantalone, A. rositae, & A. wapisana, which Römer recently described & named in Cichlid Atlas 2.

 

[alexkona26]

mike, you're saying that what Dr. U. Roemer has defined in Cichlid Atlas 1 ppg. 546-553 is not the true "A. maciliensis" but (maybe) an A. sp. Rio Mamore? Dr. Roemer described though, regarding A. maciliensis' distribution: "...Collection sites of A. maciliensis are known from the Rio Mamore and the Rio Guapore, both of which are tributaries of the Rio Madeira and thus eventually drain into the Amazon River. At least in the Rio Guapore, A. maciliensis occurs sympatrically with A. trifasciata...". "...The type locality (of the specimen described) is the Rio Guapore at Sao Antonio de Guapore."... (Cichlid Atlas 1, 2001/202 English edition- pg. 548).

 

[Mike Wise]

To tell the truth, THERE IS NO SPECIES NAMED A. maciliensis, never was, and definitely is not now. The species labeled "A. maciliensis" in CA I was described by Staeck as A. erythrura (formerly called A. sp. Mamoré or, erroneously, A. maciliensis). Now there are specimens labeled Heterogramma (now Apistogramma) trifasciatum maciliense, a 'variety' of A. trifasciata in Chicago's Field Museum. Uwe, Dave Soares & I went there in 2005 to inspect the holotype. Turns out that it was in such poor condition that nothing could be seen different than what was in the original description except the sex. Its small size and large eyes indicate that it probably is a stunted specimen, as are the others. Since then Jeff Cardwell sent me a photos of specimens of A. trifasciata that don't show a 3rd diagonal band that were collected in the area near the collecting locality of H. t. maciliense. Like this variety, they were collected from a lake not far from a river in Bolivia. The river had normal Guaporé forms of A. trifasciata with a diagonal stripe. The river and lake merge during the rainy season, so there is gene mixing. It appears that the 'maciliense' form is just a lacustrine morph of the Guaporé forms of A. trifasciata. Nothing more.

 

[apistodave]

Mike those fish in Chicago are pitiful--I think Trifasiata as a species should be left alone with no tags and a re-description of the red tailed job is in order--do you know of any DNA comparisons? If the fish is in Alcohol sometimes DNA can still be done. Probably too old. Why any scientist would do descriptions with specimens like that could only have been done long ago--I recently sent two 30 inch fish to Chicago in Alcohol and DNA could be done from them.

 

[Mike Wise]

Dave, I have to agree. 100 years in alcohol/formalin sure hasn't helped them. If they have been preserved in formalin sometime over the century in a bottle, I doubt that any usable DNA samples are possible. There are red-tailed specimens that belong to both A. erythrura (a.k.a. A. sp. Mamoré) and trifasciata. My guess is that you're talking about the red-tailed morph of erythrura. The red is much brighter on them. They are one several different color morphs of erythrura, but all show the same diagnostic black makings that distinguish them from trifasciata. I only wish they were more available in the hobby today.

 

[apistodave]

I had some from last year but they didn't last. I think that this is one of those fish (erythrura) are difficult to get good pairs from. I think the secret is to get 15 or 20 of them and put them in a large tank and let them choose. The other thing would be to get the second generation spawning before you think about thinning the herd. I am going to Germany in Nov to pick up the fish we collected in Peru, but I am also going to go wee some wholesalers in the Netherlands and if I see these fish, I'll get a bunch. ONe question---I have had these two sp and the brighter red tail specimens have fry with clear tails--another mystery?

 

[Mike Wise]

From what I understand, both the red and blue morphs of A. erythrura are found together, so I wouldn't be surprised at getting mixes of both morphs from a single spawn. The clear tails? Odd. Maybe a lack of some special food found in their natural habitat? I don't know.

 

[alexkona26]

thank you, Sir Mike. i appreciate your response & explanations. just shared your reply to my querry to my friends. by the way, i saw a pair of this so called A. sp. Rio Mamore in one of my fav fish shops here in Milan, Italy. the shop is quite new, just 2 years & run by a young man & he has a lot apistos. I saw this beautiful pair of Mamore - i mean, textbook beauty- unfortunately i wasn't able to have them coz they cost so much. i got a pretty pair of baenschis though. by the way, referring to Apisto Dave (greetings sir Dave Soares!), the shop where i bought my latest apistos were from Germany. Sir Mike, are there other morphs of A. trifasciata? i told the shop that i'd like to have a pair but what morph/form do you suggest? i'm currently re-stocking so what do you suggest, if you don't mind. thanks again!

 

[Ttw]

You are correct Mike. Both color forms are found together. I collected these in Bolivia. Not only were the two color morphs found together but both would come from the same spawn when they were in my tanks at home.