ID

[Shane Puthuparambil]

Those both are great answers!

I hope to learn more about the species as time goes on!

 

[ButtNekkid]

Hi,

So... if Nijsseni was described (don´t know if it is).
I could write Apistogramma sp. aff. Nijsseni for Panduro?

 

[Mike Wise]

No, it would be (and actually is) A. panduro. Only undescribed species use 'sp.', 'cf.' and 'sp. aff./affin'. Species with these added monikers do not have a name recognized under the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature like those of scientifically described species. Some species will have several of these unofficial names. A. panduro is a good example. Before being scientifically described, it was called A. sp. "Pandurini", and A. sp. "Sky-blue" in the hobby and on commercial stock lists. A. sp. "Oregon" on the other hand is closely related to A. nijsseni and still undescribed. It could be called A. cf. nijsseni (note lower case 'n') or A. sp. aff. nijsseni.

 

[ButtNekkid]

Hi,

What does ´cf´ stand for?

 

[Bart Hazes]

Hi,

What does ´cf´ stand for?

colour form

 

[Tom C]

The International Code for Zoological Nomenclature says something like:
- aff. = affinis, to species you believe are distinct, but closely related. (Apistogramma (sp.) aff. agassizii, means a fish you believe is NOT agassizii, but a related species to it)
- cf. = confer, to species you suppose are the same. (Apistogramma cf. agassizii, means a fish you believe to be agassizii, but it seems a little bit different and therefor needs better scientific determination to confirm)

Usually capitalised CF means color form (informal, not scientific) A. viejita CF II = A. viejita color form 2.

 

[ButtNekkid]

I love this site!
Now... where would one find out whether an Apisto is scientifically described or not?

 

[Bart Hazes]

I think there are cases where a fish name has been published but not all experts accept it as valid. So there may be some ambiguity. From the two online sources I use, listed below, I normally consider Catalog of Fishes as the gold standard but it would be good to hear from the experts if there is something better for Apistogramma.

Fishbase: http://fishbase.org/search.php (and search for genus=apistogramma)
This gives 115 hits but if you click the 'valid names only' button you are left with 89

Catalog of Fishes: http://researcharchive.calacademy.org/research/ichthyology/catalog/fishcatmain.asp (and search for apistogramma)
This gives 112 hits but only those with Current Status: valid should be counted.

From recent new Apistogramma species description papers I get the impression that there are supposed to be just over 90 described species.

 

[Mike Wise]

My understanding is that any species names that comply with the rules of the ICZN are recognized as valid species. If there is disagreement, then it is submitted for review by the ICZN who makes the final determination. If I counted correctly there are presently 94 scientifically described apisto species with 2 of them considered "incertae sedis". That is less than a third of the known forms that I personally feel are distinct species. It also doesn't include Apistogrammoides pucallpaensis nor Taeniacara candidi.

 

[Bart Hazes]

My understanding is that any species names that comply with the rules of the ICZN are recognized as valid species. If there is disagreement, then it is submitted for review by the ICZN who makes the final determination. If I counted correctly there are presently 94 scientifically described apisto species with 2 of them considered "incertae sedis". That is less than a third of the known forms that I personally feel are distinct species. It also doesn't include Apistogrammoides pucallpaensis nor Taeniacara candidi.

Hi Mike,

Does the ICZN, or other organization, maintain an authorative list of up to date valid species, or are your 94 based on a personal list updated as new species appear. I have access to a university library so can get many of the species description papers but some are in books or aquarium magazines that I can't get. I also just found this online resource with freshwater scientific fish names that includes lists of publications where the fish is discussed (as does Catalog of Fishes). It was released in 2016 so latest species, like A. megastoma, are missing.

https://www.researchgate.net/profil...water-Fish-List-19th-Edition-October-2016.pdf

Apistogramma starts on page 197. As you can see it includes synonyms and A-numbers. A list of A-numbers is also given at the start of the alphabetical section of species names starting with "A".

 

[Mike Wise]

AFAIK the ICZN doesn't keep a list of species. It only sets out the standards needed to describe a new taxon. It is up to the describer and those particularly interested in a taxon to verify what is new and what isn't. The 94 scientifically described valid species I mentioned are based on my personal apisto species list, which I started in 1985 and have maintained since. I haven't taken the time (recently) to count the number of invalid scientific names (subspecies, synonyms, homonyms, etc.) nor names used for forms discussed commercially or in the hobby, but I guess it's close to 500. I believe I have the original descriptions of every valid apisto species plus original introductions for many of the undescribed species. I guess it helps to have started with apistos when there were only a couple dozen - and particularly have the help of many apistophiles over the decades.

 

[Bart Hazes]

The discussion about valid species has stimulated me to create a list of Apistogramma species. I started a new thread to announce this and to post updates to as I add personal 'apisto pages' for the species I've kept myself. The new thread is here

http://www.apistogramma.com/forum/threads/valid-apisto-species-list.22395

 

[Drayden Farci]

I have had a pair of these for about a month now, and the fry are ~2 weeks old and growing quickly. The mother is a really amazing parent - while I don't think Tucano Tetras are much of a threat due to their size, she has successfully raised 40-60 fry in the past two weeks and not killed the male

 

[Shane Puthuparambil]

Congrats! I have a small group growing out from the initial spawn and now my female is in the cave again.

 

[Drayden Farci]

Congrats! I have a small group growing out from the initial spawn and now my female is in the cave again.

I thought you lost them all? Only some?

I moved the Tucano's to a mesh breeder box last night, as the fry have taken over the tank so there is no safe place from the mother's wrath any longer. I will be watching the male for signs of aggression and if necessary, I'll move him to a breeder box as well temporarily.

 

[Shane Puthuparambil]

In the process of moving the pair to a larger tank, I stumbled upon some week-2week old fry which I transfered to a small 5 gallon tank to growout.

I would just find a small plastic tote and move all the fry into it, makes the process of growout easier. Then the other fish will be able to swim around.

 

[Drayden Farci]

In the process of moving the pair to a larger tank, I stumbled upon some week-2week old fry which I transfered to a small 5 gallon tank to growout.

I would just find a small plastic tote and move all the fry into it, makes the process of growout easier. Then the other fish will be able to swim around.

I could put the fry in the mesh breeder, but with 40 of them I would rather have them patrol the tank and munch on the wood/grime growing everywhere, along with the BBS I'm feeding. Moving the 6 Tucano's took all of 2 minutes last night, and they will be fine in the net for a few weeks. More worried about the male. I need to get started on my 33 Long stand so I can get it up and running.