Identification Needed Please

[freccle]

I've been told these might be New World cichlids
any ideas anyone
http/www.sunrise1.plus.com/fish2.htm (the top ones)
I seem to have acquired a neighbours fish tank (they went on holiday, didn't come back). The Melanochromis Chipokae has been removed so it's just the top ones now

 

[england]

I've been told these might be New World cichlids
any ideas anyone
[URL="http/www.sunrise1.plus.com/fish2.htm"]http/www.sunrise1.plus.com/fish2.htm[/URL] (the top ones)
I seem to have acquired a neighbours fish tank (they went on holiday, didn't come back). The Melanochromis Chipokae has been removed so it's just the top ones now

ha lucky ole you just aqquring a tank,,,
iam guessing along the lines of vieja of some sort
and one looks like a sarja

http/www.fishforums.net/content/Cichlids...2/Tbar-Cichlid/

 

[Dan Robbins]

You have an Archocentrus Spilurus also known as a Jade-eye cichlid.
And the other is an african species of some description.
im not brilliant on my africans, but maybe a male Melanochromis of some species?

Dan

 

[freccle]

You have an Archocentrus Spilurus also known as a Jade-eye cichlid.
And the other is an african species of some description.
im not brilliant on my africans, but maybe a male Melanochromis of some species?

Dan

Thanks everyone. Dan is the top ones that are the Archocentrus Spilurus?
I've moved the bottom one into a different tank on his own

 

[Dan Robbins]

Yep their Archocentrus Spilurus.

 

[jayjay]

Cryptoheros spilurus (not Archocentrus), but then I wouldn't say they were pure specimens, that or they haven't been incredibly well looked after or are stressed.

 

[Dan Robbins]

Cryptoheros is an outdated genus name.
Cryptoherious is still used.
the genus Archocentrus contains 9 described species to date, and i would clarify that these are indeed Spilurus.
i would agree however that some speciemens look like Spilurus/septemfasciatus hybrids.

 

[freccle]

I'm not surprised they are stressed. The tank is ridiculously over stocked - there are about 12 in a 3ft tank and they had an agressive Malawi in with them. They seem happier now he's been moved but there's not a lot I can do about the overstocking. They don't seem to be fighting amongst themselves so I should be grateful for small mercies. Not a tank I'd choose to have myself but heyho

 

[jayjay]

Which paper says that? I go by fishbase and cichlidae, fish base is normally accurate, making 3 Archocentrus valid. We could argue all day it doesn't matter (the fish are still the same, searching both names will help gain more information on the species however) and without the most recent paper classifying them we would never know the answer, unless you have it to hand?

Clicky.

 

[Dan Robbins]

Yeah, as said, I go by Aqualog. but again, i would not classify a red devil under Archocentrus but under Amphilophus which is stated under archocentrus as a scientific name on fish base.
It really goes by what information you follow.
I would call the following species under Archocentrus
spilurus.
centrarchus.
nigrofasciatus.
septemfasciatus.
spinosissimus.
altoflavus.
sajica.
myrnea.
nanoluteus
panamensis.

Either way, both are correct.

 

[jayjay]

Amphilophus citrinellus (Midas) are shown as just that on fishbase, one row is species which have been Archocentrus. then a few to the right are the now valid names.

Way off topic now any how.

 

[Dan Robbins]

oh yes, i know that, I was just stating that i dont follow all the scientific names which are labelled.
Red devils and midas are under Amphilophus as fish base says, but alot of sources claim that the list above for Archocentrus is still valid.
Completly off topic i know.
But i think you get your answer freccle.