Are they Maciliensis.

[Microman]

I recently purchased a pair of Apistogramma Trifasciata Maciliensis and noted that the diagonal band running from the base of the pectoral fins to the anus is clearly visible on both male and female.Mayland and Bork wrote on page 145 that this band is not visible.Is this correct?Have I been sold Apistogramma Trifasciata rather than Maciliensis.
I do not have a digital camera to show the fish.
Any advice would be appreciated.

 

[Apistt_ed]

...

The third band is a sure giveaway of A. Trifasciata. The problem with this is that at one point, there was some controversy of are they different species or the same.. and I have no doubt like anyone else who's seen these two fish as they are totally different. I have included some pictures of the two different ones, which I am keeping at the moment. hope this clears it up a little.

my A. Maciliensis male
http://www.freewebtown.com/jVang/malemac.JPG

My A. Trifasciata
http://www.freewebtown.com/jVang/trifasciataM.JPG

another picture
http://www.freewebtown.com/jVang/trifasciataM2.JPG

john

 

[Mike Wise]

John,

You are correct. The two species that you show are different species, but neither conforms to the descriptions of Haseman (A. trifasciata maciliensis) or Meinken (A. t. haroldschultzi - a synonym of Haseman's fish). The fish you list as A. maciliensis is presently an undescribed species closely related to A. trifasciata, commonly called A. sp. Mamoré. It is incorrectly identified as "A. maciliensis" in several books. In my opinion they are wrong.

As far as I know, no photos of live specimens of A. t. maciliensis have ever been published. Jeff Cardwell, however collected a form of A. trifasciata from the Bolivian part of the Rio Guaporé system that match the description of A. t. maciliensis (& A. t. haraldschutzi) quite closely - more so than any other fish recently discovered. They were collected only in lakes, just like A. t. maciliensis & A. t. haraldschultzi. I am fairly confident that they are the same form/population that Haseman and Meinken described. This fish conforms in every way to the typical A. trifasciata except that they do not show a diagonal stripe from pectoral fin to anus. It is probably weakly visible on larger preserved specimens (as described by both Haseman & Meinken), but I have no verification of this. Based on the published descriptions of the 3 subspecies of A. trifasciata, and those of A. sp. Mamoré, I presently believe that the fish that Cardwell collected is the same morph that Haseman and Meinken described - and that there is not enough difference between the 3 A. trifasciata 'subspecies' to warrent any of them being separate species.

In other words there is no valid species call "A. maciliensis". It is just a morph/population of A. trifasciata.