Unexpected Cupid behavior… well duh, that's because they are not Cupids

Well they were listed as Cupids… I just assumed they were juvenile
What size are they - cupids don't grow that large - esp the females. The stated size of adults are around 4 inches though males will get larger than females by around an inch. I've had mine for around 6 1/2 to 7 months. They came in around 2 inches. The major difference is a bit of orange has developed at the top of the male fins and the face lines (blue) have gotten stronger.
 
I thought Geophagus, was the “group” not the specific species… so any idea what these really are???
Geophagus is a genus; but the genus is broken into informal groups or complex:
This paper list some of them:
-
I noticed that at least one of your geo has the lateral black dot but i can't tell if it is absent or faded. You could ask the seller where they came from (if wild caught where they were caught which would help a lot).

This paper describe all the geophagus in the surinamensis group; but i can't tell if these are in that group. I have my doubt since i'm not seeing the stripes in the fin that they normally have along with the blue/red clouring. Even my young one show some colouring. They do have the vertical black lines and if they also have the preopercular mark which one of them show they could lean towards g. albalios but i have my doubt given the basic colouring they are showing.

Actually if they are 2 to 3 inches they might very well be g. abalios. If a cheek tick mark is some times visible they could be g. dicrozoster but none of them are displaying cheek marks (again it can fade if not stressed and be very faint so you would have to look carefully).
--
If only some of them ahve the lateral black dot then you have two different species.

 
Last edited:
This was the seller and listing…

I would guess they are about 3 inches
 
This was the seller and listing…

I would guess they are about 3 inches
Also known as apistogramma cacatuoides - what a joke he has no clue what he is talking about. Also there is no fish called cupido cichild. The fish in question is b. cupido and it is not only in a genus far away from apistogramma the two fishes are totally different in behavior and appearance.
--
However the picture on his website is a b. cupido which looks nothing like your fish.
--
At three inches they would be close to mature b. cupdio - while they would grow a bit larger most other signs would be well defined. My guess is they are youngster of a much larger fish.
 
This was the geo, they have listed…
Do we think they could be these???
 
This was the geo, they have listed…
Do we think they could be these???
That was my guess - the pictured fish is a g. abalios; but if they are wild caught it is not uncommon for several species to come in on a single catch/import. He sells them as Geophagus surinamensis which means you could get one of 6 or so species frequently mixed together.
---
Btw a detailed close up picture of the fish when stressed would help a lot.
 
Last edited:
Well on a positive note… if I got the other fish, they were listed as much more expensive than the cupids

But the tank is going to be crowded, when 4 of these get full sized… it’s going to be a while before I get the 250 set up, but maybe a couple could go in there with some Discus down the road???
 
They require soft sand; current is a plus. They are not picky eaters and they tend to be robust. You have not said yet if they are wild caught.
 
I have think at this point, anything before they got here is pure speculation…
They have soft sand, neutral Ph soft and water… they have been shoveling mouthfuls of sand… the target do come and goes, right now, they are all just barred… there is some red on the tail, light shading
Funny thing about the spot… it only shows up in pictures… looking at them right now, no spots, then took this picture trying to show the color on the tail, and the spot shows up on the picture??
IMG_5164.jpeg
So
 
I noticed a couple white spots in the picture zoomed… I’ve not seen any on any other fish… may have to take the heat up???
 
I have think at this point, anything before they got here is pure speculation…
They have soft sand, neutral Ph soft and water… they have been shoveling mouthfuls of sand… the target do come and goes, right now, they are all just barred… there is some red on the tail, light shading
Funny thing about the spot… it only shows up in pictures… looking at them right now, no spots, then took this picture trying to show the color on the tail, and the spot shows up on the picture?? View attachment 342077So
This specific fish is g. dicrozoster. This is identified by the cheek mark; the 7 vertical black stripes with the one after the spot a y'ish shape. The other three might be the same species or different similar species and close up of them would be required. The fish can control the intensity of the various black marks based on mood; also they tend to be fainter on young fishes which want to be unnoticed.
 
This was the seller and listing…

I would guess they are about 3 inches
Maybe find another site to check. Wattley Discus has lost the plot on a lot of things. This is a typical bad example of websites providing wrong information.


Also known as apistogramma cacatuoides - what a joke he has no clue what he is talking about.
I fully agree with this statement. Apistogramma cacatuoides are commonly referred to as cockatoo dwarf cichlids and look nothing like the fish in the picture at the Wattley discus website or the OP's fish.

For @Magnum Man, let the fish grow up to be a year or more old and then try to ID them. A lot of young cichlids in the Geophagus group look similar but should be identifiable at 12 months of age.
 
Geophagus is a difficult Genus to identify species from. In the old books, from Jack Wattley's era, they were all called 'surinamensis'. But as is often the case, the trade name had nothing to do with the fish. The real G surinamensis was a very hard to to get fish. Anything that remotely looked like it got the name slapped on it. "surinamensis" became the English, trade name for the fish, and that never tells you much.

You have potentially large fish there, several times the size of a cupido. They're sweethearts, but they will test your water management as large fish that are as delicate as Discus (but IMHO, more beautiful by far). I would be very annoyed at the Wattley company's slackness - all of a sudden you have fish for a 100 gallon plus tank. That's a bad scenario for buying blind online - really unprofessional and lazy on their part. Some of the species they could be get quite large, and you won't know for some time. They're young.

I love the Geophagus family. It's not that they're a bad purchase. But they are a purchase to really think about before you make it. I keep leaning to getting some, but the size and need for pristine water makes me stop.

The Geophagines as an umbrella group contain Geophagus, Satanoperca, Biotodoma, Apistogramma, Mikrogeophagus and others. They feed by sand sifting and are great fish. My holy grail fish is Satanoperca daemon, but they grow well over a foot. I don't care how beautiful they are - I just don't have a tank large enough to make that species work.
 
For @Magnum Man, let the fish grow up to be a year or more old and then try to ID them. A lot of young cichlids in the Geophagus group look similar but should be identifiable at 12 months of age.
I think in this case these fishes can be fully identified. I'm 99.9% sure of the species of the fish i named. The real problem (as i see it) is that when collected multiple species frequently show up. I've asked numerous times but have yet to receive an answer are these wild caught or tank raised.

If tank raised they should all be the same species though i'm not sure i would trust the seller to keep similar species apart.
 
My issue is I have seen winemilleri and abalios with dicrozoster. Whether they re thrown together at the holding station or by the seller is never clear.

If those aren't glass spots, I think I see Ich too. You'd best get onto that, just in case.

Man, I feel like Debbie Downer here.
 

Most reactions

Back
Top