Nanochromis nudiceps v. Nanochromis parilus

[Cichlids1]

http://www.roundtownaquatics.com/nudiceps-parilus.htm

After reading Mary Bailey's response on the West African Yahoo group, Neil's response to my original inquiry, and the Linke and Staeck West African book, it seems tail and dorsal markings are one of the determining factors. The following link is to 3 pictures I just snapped of 3 different tail patterns and 2 distinct dorsal markings. Please ignore the dirty glass and plant litter, better pictures in a tank set up for photographing will be forthcoming. Basically I have spotted tail with no stripes, half striped tail, and striped and spotted tails. Two of these have broad white stripes on the border of the dorsal, one has a very faint stripe that only shows when the light is at a certain angle. These are all wild fish, imported this spring. Unfortunately, the person I purchased them from was unable to get any information for me in reguards to collection sites, exporter, etc. so that I might do a little research on my own.

One of the things I want to attempt is a spawn between two liked marked fish to see what they produce. Will the tails and borders be relatively close or will I get a combination of patterns. I will be setting up a 20 gallong long tank specifically for them as soon as I determine what the exact requirements are for a successful breeding attempt. I have never spawned any of the Nanochomis species, other than transvestitus, and any tips or hints would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,
Ken

 

[Z Man]

The tail just sticking in the first photo on the left side is N. parilus. The main photo ????? could be N. nudiceps.
I only get a small red 'x' in a box, no photo in #2.
Photo #3 is N. parilus.

Now I must say I am by no means any expert so the above is just my opinion. I have bred N. nudiceps long ago in 1988 but have learned since that it was actually N. parilus. Can you follow this? There are 2 color varities of N. parilus, one body is more pinkish and has no markings on the lower half of the caudal but does have the distinctive horizonal stripes on the upper. The other has a less pinkish body but does have red & white vertical stripes on the lower half of the caudal along with the top stripes. Once a female of the Parilus species lays her first spawn, her ovipositor is always down. Don't know if those on the Nudiceps are the same.

The caudal on the Nudiceps is more of a series of small dots (red/white/blue) that form a somewhat vertical group of stripes.

Above information is courtesy of Linke & Staeck.

Then again I could be way off base. Hope it helps a little.
Z-Man

 

[Cichlids1]

Guess I should double check my work...typo in the picture name...fixed now. Thanks Z-Man

Ken

 

[Neil]

Ken,
Before we started talking about all the specifics ofcharacteristics of these 2 species (and I believe they are 2 species) I would have looked at the first picture and been sure that it was in fact nudiceps. Not only is the caudal fin aligned with the info on nudiceps and differing from parilus, but also the scales have an edging that usually don't go along with the "smoother" body coloration of parilus.
In my experience, I have seen the two types of parilus and slight variation of each. As Zman mentioned, they are distinctly different, but the same species none-the-less. But the first picture shows a fish that has a "look" that I would associate with nudiceps, as well as a few of the diagnostic variables specific to that species.
the second and third pic are probably just the 2 forms of parilus, but they have differences from what I remember seeing before too. It is not unreasonable to believe that there is a combination of these 2 species and 2 forms in you batch of Nanochromis, as they are collected in areas of very close proximity with the Congo as a go between. I wouldn't even be suprised by a cross-breeding situation occuring in that area, but that is a guess. It would however explain such close similarities between the 2 species and why many of your fish have characteristics of both. They are not that far apart to begin with.
I put my vote for nudiceps on the first pic and would suggest that you get a male and female from the blander distinctly scaled fish together for breeding. That caudal fin looks like it should for a nudiceps. I would run with it and see what the fry look like.
Neil

 

[Finatic_LasVegas]

My 2.5 cents on Parilus v. Nudiceps

Hi everyone,

Having kept several Nano. species (parilus, transvestitus, sp. Zaire and now splendens) and having been a BIG fan of all Nanos. since getting bit by the cichlid bug...here's my take....

To me, there are only a couple of true species in the Nanochromis family....parilus, tranvestitus and nudiceps. I think all the others are color forms of parilus or nudiceps. Kevin Korotev and I were discussing Pelvicachromis for the same reasons. There are so many COLOR VARIETIES and COLLECTION POINTS of taeniatus, but there is one SPECIES of taeniatus (but I have to admit, I feel P. taeniatus "Bandevouri" is actually a color form of P. subocellatus (both for female breeding coloration and male general coloration/body type). Ditto on P. subocellatus. Now P. "sacrimontis," to me, should be its OWN species. It is a significant different fish both in coloration and behavior when compared to its Pelvicachromis peers. But I digress....why should Nanochromis be any different that Pelvicachromis? And don't get me started on all the BLUE fish (Auloncara, in particular and some Placidochromis and Copadichromis) in Lake Malawi that are all classified as different SPECIES because they have the tiniest variation of white or yellow (most are not discernable to me, in the least)....I just refuse to count dorsal spines and fin rays for the rest of my fish-loving life (sorry, that was a shot at Apistos :lol: -- but it's also why I run screaming to my nearest Apisto expert for ID every time I find one I like!), let alone check my fish's teeth for differentiation! Heehee

Okay, okay, stepping down from my soap box now..... :lol:

Any rebuttals are always welcome!

Cheers,
Wendy

 

[Neil]

OK Wendy, I'll bite!
In my opinion, the categorization of Nanochromis is the same as all other genera in the world of fish. It is fairly new in it's evolution and sure to change. However, I don't think that the three "types" of Nanos that you have listed constitute the range of "groups". If I was pressed into an assumption about Nanochromis groupings, I would say that there were likely three groups, but not nudiceps, parilus, and transvestitus. Similar to you, I am not going by ray or scale count, etc. I do not know how things would turn out including these issues. (Maybe Randall has some of that info). Solely by the coloration, body type and markings of the species (as well as a few other morphological elements), I would categorize these 3 groups:
1. Transvestitus - Probably the only species representative in the group. Differentiated by significant black markings, including vertical body baring and unique fin coloration.
2. Nudiceps - This group includes nudiceps, parilus, and splendens. It is differentiated by , cheek, chest and body color. These fish seem to have a (minimally) extented snout. And most significantly, a lack of black markings associated with the final group.
3. Dimidiatus - This group is the largest of the three and constitutes all the other Nano species. All "seem" to have a clear lateral line in certain states or "moods". They, for the most part, have a compressed snout. These fish are almost all clearly bland when not mature and lack alot of distinguishing characteristics that are present in both the other groups at that stage. Many of these other species (Zaire, Kapou, etc.) are commonly imported as dimidiatus or one of the other fish in this group.

There are cross-over similarities between groups, as with all groupings of fish dividing a genus. And when I first started thinking of this, I considered the fact that dimidiatus and splendens both have a clearly distinguishable dorsal spot in the female and seem to be the only Nanos with this characteristic. This, however, wasn't enough for me to discount the other more general differences between the splendens and dimidiatus.

I consider juv. representatives to be a good point of focus to show differences in some of these fish. If you looked at a juv. parilus, sp. "Zaire" and transvestitus, it is easy to tell the differences. This discounts the variability of adult coloration and characteristics that make it difficult to put anything together. But, if you looked at a juv. splendens and parilus or a juv. kapou and zaire, the similarities to each other and the distinctions from the other groups are clear.

This is obviously far from scientific, but it's a reasonable guess I think. By the way, I tend to agree on the Pelvicachromis. I really wouldn't want to touch that with a ten foot pole. All I know is that there are some interesting Pelv. species, but (for the most part) they look quite similar. Taeniatus is not quite as interesting to me anymore because they look too similar to each other and to pulcher. But there are some very beautiful krib-types out there.

I am sure we are heading for the deconstruction of the Apistogramma genus into several other genera. Boy, I can't wait for that :roll: :x
Neil
Neil

 

[Finatic_LasVegas]

Dimidiatus and true groups in Nanochromis

Neil,
EXCELLENT post. That's exactly the kind of fodder for thought that we need. If I had more exposure to the dimidiatus types, I probably would have broken the groups as you noted....and after thinking about it, can definitely see your point....particulary because of the dorsal spots on the females (as evident in the splendens I got from you). The juvenile differentiation is key, too, I think.

Perhaps due to the recent influx of new West Africans, there will be some serious discussion about the state of Pelvicachromis, Nanochromis and Chromidos (and definitely is on the latter, per Randall's recent post).

Keep all the great discussions coming!

Cheers,
Wendy

 

[minibull]

N. parilus,N. nudiceps

I have just discovered this forum and am delighted that I'm not the only person in the world to be obsessed with the West African Dwarfs. in the U.K. they are rarely seen and so it is a case of buying when you find them.
I also only keep to 48"x12" community tanks so am limited to quantities I can keep. I have bred however Thysochromis ansogii, Pelvicachromis humilis "Kenema", P. taeniatus "Moliwe" P. pulcher ,P."sacrimontis" and more relevantly N. parilus, and N. nudiceps. I cannot guarantee these species but they concurred with the descriptions in Linke and Staek and I am of the opinion that they are one and the same species, Fin count on both females was identical (parilus male had one extra dorsal fin ray (19) compared to nudiceps) size was near identical and so was behaviour. The colour differences were relatively significant but less so than between varieties of P.taeniatus for instance. To be more controvertial if the picture I have seen in one of Axelrod's books captioned N.splendens is correct then I would be suprised if this is not also the same species,
however it is probably a miss caption.
Mick O'Hare

 

[Neil]

minibull,

WELCOME TO THE FORUM

Great to have you with us, Mick! You should definitely keep up with things here, because we are starting to roll on the Westies. And it sounds like you have had plenty of experience. We are just beginning to formulate a Species Maintenance Program and would love to have your participation once we get things squared away.
We are in the midst of an IDing problem with a dimidiatus-type Nanochromis right now and the circumastance strike me as similar to this discussion. Although I said earlier that Spendens and Dimidiatus are the only 2 Nanos that appear to carry a dorsal spot, I now know that there are a number of distinctive species that have one (in the female) as well. This, as I have said before, gives me reason to suspect (on a purely non-scientific basis) that splendens is a different species from parilus. There are many other differences also, but this is a glaring example. However, it is obvious that there are also many similarities between parilus, nudiceps and splendens. Just because there are strong similarities, it does not imply that these species are not independant of one another. I am not quite as sure about nudiceps though, as I have never had them. But I have both of the others now and personally think that those that assigned splendens as a different species, were correct in their assumptions or diagnostic breakdowns. I suspect that nudiceps is a similar story. Whether you or Ken or anyone else in the past 10+ years has actually had one of these fish in a tank is a different matter.
Heck, that is what we are here for - to debate these issues and learn from the discussions.
Again, nice to have another Westie-nut aboard!
Neil

 

[minibull]

N.parilu v N.nudiceps

Thanks for the greeting. With regards to species, a few years ago a friend of mine obtained copies of the various revisions of the family Alestes ,which I had the opportunity to study in order to prepare an identification guide to these African tetras. These were copies of the original papers prepared for publication by eminant people such as Poll, Boulenger, Roman,Roberts and Stewart and many others.The most obvious thing from these papers was how little agreement there is between experts as to what constitutes a species. This is one of the reasons for the constant revision. The characteristics compared are Total length.Standard Lenght, Fin ray count, Number of scales along various parts of the body. Number and shape of teeth, Eye size, Skull Fontanel,Gill Rakers, Skeleton and various other measurable factors. The habitat and lifesyle play a part only if it can be demonstrated that similar species inhabiting the same locality do not interbreed. Some of these experts catagorically dismiss life colour as a distinguishing character as it cannot be preserved in the Type species. In the majority of the papers I had access to colour was not mentioned in the actual published description of the species. On the face of it it should be easy for the expert to distinguish genus and species with all these different measurements but in actuality the reviewer decides which characters he will use for the devision and they would rarely seem to agree. Some accept a wide variation in characters before they split a species and so reduce the number of genra and species within a family. Others tolerate much less deviation and so increase the number of species and genera. As the experts cannot agree it is impossible for the layman to decide. Access to the original descriptions showing morphological differences (if they exist) would help but unless they were major would not be definative. Possibly DNA analysis could prove the point but I'll bet some experts would find plausible arguments against even that. Without any evidence of differences other than colour then it makes no sense to consider these to be separate species, unless of course one also wishes to argue that the different varieties of taeniatus all deserve species status. For aquarists however it is not really relevant for just as we ( I hope) keep our varieties of taeniatus separate we should also keep our parilus/nudiceps separate. Anyway given that the experts rarely agree with each other a poll is probably as scientific as any other method to decide if species status is warranted.
Mick O'Hare

 

[Neil]

Great post, minibull! Very informative. I agree. This is by far not a scientific assumption, but let me further clarify my position.

Some of these experts catagorically dismiss life colour as a distinguishing character as it cannot be preserved in the Type species.

Perserved specimens do not offer color as a valid diagnostic element, but I was under the assumption that they do hold their black markings and these were one of the ingredients in identification. This is why I used the example of the Splendens' dorsal spot. Would this not be a distinguishable element in perserved specimens and therefore play a role in differentiating it from parilus. Since I do not really know what nudiceps looks like, up close and personal, I cannot give even reasonable evidence to differing markings on them. But, it also a possibility that difference can be found between parilus and nudiceps in some of the other diagnostic tools for IDing that you mentioned. Ones that we as hobbyist can utilize. Cichlids1 mentions that one or more of his fish were substantially larger than any parilus that he had seen. I do not know (the one reference that I have, L&S, lacks this info), but nudiceps may be a larger species. Parilus is supposed to be 7cm-male and 5cm-female. Although I have seen slightly larger parilus, this is about right. However, splendens is a larger species. My male is about 10 cm and my female is close to 8cm. Maybe nudiceps is a comparably larger species too. Do you have info on this?
Anyway, I think that this is an interesting subject and you have thrown some pertanant info into the mix. Keep it up!
Neil

 

[minibull]

Neil
You are right that markings that remain after preservation can be used as a descriptive character, However it would need to be shown that the markings were relatively constant in all of specimens examined and had little or no overlap with a previously described species. Without access to the original descriptions (Pseudoplesiops nudiceps, Boulenger 1899. & Nanochromis parilus, Roberts and Stewart 1976) it is impossible to clarify that. If the original description of either was based on only a few specimens it is possible that one or the other is a description of an abberant population. Mary Bailey in an article published in Practical Fishkeeping states that both fin markings appeared in broods bred by her if this is the case then fin markings cannot be used as an identifying character. With regard to size it is again not a universally accepted indicator after all we are aware of species with vastly differing sizes in different populations such as certain lake & riverine Chromidotilapia species. The "nudiceps" I possessed were slightly larger than the "parilus" but the difference was less than a centimetre with the male of the first being marginally under 8cm and the male of the latter being slightly over 7cm The females were the same size. It is worth noting that FishBase gives the max size for parilus as 4.4cm. If this is correct then it is parilus that doesn't exist in the hobby! It is quite possible that there are numerous differences between the species. Without those proper descriptions or even better someone with expertise to review the holotypes we cannot be sure. I am more inclined to accept spendens as a separate species as the original description was again by Roberts and Stewart and done at the same time as that of parilus. As I said on my original post my only contact with anything purporting to be this species is a photo which was probably mislabeled. I am however contacting the Natural History Museum for the descriptions of these three species. If I can obtain these it may settle this debate I'll see about providing you with copies if I obtain them. To be honest though,at the moment I would be happy to get a live pair of any of them regardless of what they are called !
Mick

 

[Neil]

Mick,

I am however contacting the Natural History Museum for the descriptions of these three species. If I can obtain these it may settle this debate I'll see about providing you with copies if I obtain them.

That would be great. I am not quite sure it will settle the debate because I have heard everyone with any interest in these fish debating this for years. And, as you said before, even experts disagree on the parameter with which to judge these fish. But I would sure be interested!

To be honest though,at the moment I would be happy to get a live pair of any of them regardless of what they are called !

Me too! If it is so tough to get fish over there, I am impressed with the selection that you have spawned. Maybe we can send you a care package of a few Chromidos and Nanos, once we get some of them sorted out!
Neil

 

[Neil]

To all interested in the Nudirus issue:

Borrowing from the resource that Wendy recently stumbled across, called Cichlidpark, here is more (different) pics of 1.parius and 2.nudiceps.

1.http://cichlidpark.agava.ru/Nanochromis parilius.htm
2.http://cichlidpark.agava.ru/Nanochromis nudiceps.htm

Judging by looks only, these appear to be different species. The distinctions in the caudal (and dorsal) fin, scales(at least appearance) and to a certain extent body shape, may be apparent in perserved specimens. I don't know, but they sure do seem significant.
To add to the mix, the following are old posts on the Krib from 1. Steve White and 2. Mike Wise.

1. Nanochromis nudiceps and parilus are two different fish but I don't think that nudiceps is, now, ever exported commercially (at least, not for years nor ever in any quantity), but I can really understand why identification of these fish is difficult. Years ago I had the pleasure of keeping and spawning what is apparently the true nudiceps that were acquired from Aquarium Mimbon in Germany through Waterlife Imports. The males have a more uniformly marked caudal with the red and white, while the female lacks the bars on the caudal that is so distinctive of parilus females and males of parilus, even those males of the color morph that have the red and white striping! Steve White '98

2. Nanochromis nudiceps and Nanochromis parilus are two different, but closely related species from the lower Congo River. These species have been confused for years. In the 60s N. parilus was introduced to the hobby under the name N. nudiceps. At the time N. nudiceps was the only known goby-like species of Nanochromis known. In 1976 Roberts & Stewart described N. parilus as a new species. The hobby trade didn't catch on to the differences, so N. parilus is still called N. nudiceps in the trade. They can easily be differentiated by the caudal fin pattern. Nanochromis nudiceps has rows of spots covering the entire caudal fin. The type form of N. parilus has horizontal stripes in the upper lobe of the caudal fin, while the lower lobe is translucent. There is, however, another form of N. parilus, sometimes called "super parilus". This fish has horizontal bands in the upper lobe of the tail, while the lower lobe has vertical spot rows. The differences can be easily seen in photos of the fish in Linke & Staeck's book African Cichlids I - Cichlids from West Africa. Anyone interested in West Africans really should buy this book. Mike Wise '98

To add insult to injury, is a pic from the above Cichlidpark resource of Nanochromis consortus, which is in many ways shares many of the similar characteristics that have us discussing the parilus/nudiceps (or Nudirus) debate. As a matter of fact I am pretty sure that this pic is in actuality Nanochromis splendens.

3.http://cichlidpark.agava.ru/Nanochromis consortus.htm

Now that things are sufficiently confused, we can start going through the dimidiatus-type Nanos and go crazy :?
Neil