Hemichromis lifalili

[Jackd]

Not absolutely sure these are the lifalili but that is what they were sold to me as. Both male and female are very red. Finally got a spawn out them to free swimming. I have had them for months. Glad they got happy because now I am happy.

[viejo66]

The species lifalili is somewhat in limbo @ present. Anton Lamboj is of the opinion that Hemichromis species 'moanda' is the fish described by Loiselle but the fish in your pics certainly appears to be the fish that was distributed as lifalili and matches the picture in Loiselle's revision quite closely. To further confuse matters, there is an aquarium strain of guttatus that is similar overall & either fish can be labeled as lifalili in the trade. Most red jewels should probably be labeled Hemichromis 'species ?' or with code names until things are eventually cobbled out.

[viejo66]

Taking a closer look, your fish show a close resemblance to cristatus . Image stolen from Mike Wise ( But the fish are from my stock )

[Mike Wise]

Larry, would it be better to call my fish "H. sp. Congo" instead of H. cristatus? Next question. How do I handle 400, ¼"/6mm fry from one pair and expecting another brood from another pair any day now!

[viejo66]

Well, upon further research it seems that 'Kongo' hemichromis were in fact collected in Nigeria by a Congolese exporter & exported from there thereby (conveniently?) making them cristatus. All that I can say is that they are the fish ID'ed as cristatus by Lamboj & being called cristatus in the hobby. Perhaps it will all be worked out eventually.
Yes Mike, over production is a hemichromis trait. Luckily I have a wholesale buyer for most of my cristatus fry but occasionally the excess have to be considered a live food source. Not the same situation with Sp. UL-1 (pictured), I still haven't gotten any fry from them.

[Rico Morgenstern]

Not the same situation with Sp. UL-1 (pictured), I still haven't gotten any fry from them.

Image

I don't know what 'UL-1' stands for, but the figured fish appears to be the true H. cristatus. It agrees perfectly with the figures and color description in the original description by Loiselle 1979, as well as with fish subsequently collected at the type locality. Although there is generally some caution required when identifying Hemichromis species by means of Loiselle's paper, there is currently no reason for assuming, that H. cristatus is indeed the species figured by him. The fish introduced under the name Hemichromis sp. 'Kongo' belongs most likely to the same species. There are some differences in the extension and intensity of the red color, the shape of the lateral spot and the presence vs. absence of vertical pars behind the lateral spots, but the same variability is shown in Hemichromis stellifer from the Congo Basin and in West African H. guttatus/H. letourneuxi-like forms. The other fishes figured here belong most likely to the latter group, as do the fish usually identified as H. lifilili in the hobby. They resemble one of the different forms called H. sp. 'Bangui', which I have kept some years ago. Attemps to determine them led me to the conclusion, that they are either H. guttatus or H. letourneuxi. I was (and I am still) unable to distinguish between these two species as identified by Loiselle or subsequent authors.

A new revision of the genus is under way, hopefully most of the identification problems will be resolved!

RM

[viejo66]

It is my opinion also that UL-1 ( which was coined in an attempt to avoid confusion for now) is indeed the fish described by PVL. You are the first person who seems to be in agreement with that assessment other than person that I got my stock from & the importer. However, when 'cristatus-Kongo' , sensu Lamboj & 'cristatus-UL-1, sensu Loiselle are kept in the same tank they tend to almost totally ignore each other & interact with their own kind.

[emartin]

Why don't one of you send Paul an email and ask him? I'm sure he'd be more than willing to help you guys out and explain things.

[Rico Morgenstern]

Since Loiselle‘s work on the genus Hemichromis (the revision is from 1979; his last publication about it I am aware of is from 1992: „An annotated key to the genus Hemichromis Peters, 1858“, Buntbarsche Bulletin 148), many new informations have increased our knowledge: New forms have been discovered and there are expanded data on life colors and intraspecific variability, some of which seem to bridge the defined boundaries between species (i.e. between H. guttatus, H. letourneuxi and H. paynei, this does, however, not automatically mean, that the latter two are invalid), while others may lead to the separation of additional species (the Gabonese Jewelfish is clearly distinct from H. stellifer from the Congo basin and is likely to be described as new in the forthcoming revision, H. elongatus may also contain hitherto unrecognized new species).

Although some diagnostic features do not hold and the variability of life colors of several species has been underestimated by Loiselle (1979), and despite the fact, that some of the specimens figured alive by him (especially H. stellifer, corrected in the 1992 work) are misidentified, it is injust to blame Loiselle for all the confusion in naming Hemichromis species, especially since formally named and unnamed species alike are involved. Most of the chaos is generated subsequently by people, who did not carefully (or even not at all) consider his work when trying to identify these fish (often apparently under the motto „There are pictures, so why should I read the texts“), by importers, commercial breeders, traders and hobbyists who uncritically adopt the resulting misidentifications (mostly inadvertently, but there are also 'black sheep', who expect advantages from deliberately labeling a species as new or rare), and even by scientists who have improperly disregarded Loiselle‘s revision in continuing to name all the Red Jewelfishes Hemichromis bimaculatus and all Banded or Five-spotted JewelfishesH. fasciatus.

Loiselle's 1992 paper is available here:

http://www.desertfishes.org/cuatroc/literature/pdf/Loiselle_1992_Hemichromis_key_OCR.pdf.

For a photo of the holotype of H. lifalili see:

http://www.fishbase.org/photos/PicturesSummary.php?StartRow=3&ID=8604&what=species&TotRec=5

RM

[viejo66]

Paul has stated that he "Screwed the pooch" ( Sounds just like him doesn't it? ) in his revision but I believe he is being a tad too self critical, overall his annotaded key is a very useful tool as Rico has pointed out. BTW: Has anyone else happened to notice that the pictures in The Cichlid Aquarium of 'cristatus' on pages 207- bottom & 208 - top show two separate species. The male on 207 matches up well with Kongo 'cristatus while the female is pretty much classic Ogba river cristatus (which I am called H. .cf cristatus Sp. UL-1 as per Ted Judy's suggestion. Not meant to be critical but as an illustration of the reigning confusion.
Here is a shot of one of my 'Kongo-cristatus' which was raised on a diet heavy in canthxanthin - lots of red but the yellow is understated. I also have some fish that look like ringers for the cristatus on the cover of Lamboj's book which were raised by another individual using a slightly different diet formula. BTW: The photo of holotype lifalili does indeed bear a close resemblance to H. sp. Moanda. I may have to alter my thinking on this matter.

[viejo66]

Does anyone happen to have a link or pics of the type specimen(s) of H. cristatus?

[Rico Morgenstern]

Dear Viejo66, I am not aware of a photo of the holotype of H. cristatus being published anywhere, but I hope this will soon be done in the forthcoming revision of the genus. However, as I have already pointed out, there should be no problem with the identity of this species, as the fish figured alive by Loiselle agree perfectly with specimens later collected at the type locality. All the confusion has been created subsequently. In Germany, for instance, a fish actually referrable to H. letourneuxi or H. guttatus has been figured in some popular books (Linke & Staeck, 1993 edition; Aquarium Atlas Vol. 2) under that name.

However, there seems to be a problem with Hemichromis sp. "Kongo". The species figured here by you is IMO not the same as known in Germany under that name, which is in fact the fish figured in Lamboj's book (at least the German edition) as H. cristatus. Lamboj has demonstrated that they are also from southern Nigeria and not from the Congo river basin. H. cristatus is probably restricted to the Niger Delta region, since no similar fish is known from elsewhere. Some paratypes are from Guinea and western Ghana, however, in his annotated key, Loiselle (1992) expressed some doubts on their identity. The specimens from Ghana are probably referrable to Hemichromis sp. "Ankasa".

Your 'Kongo-crisatus' looks more like a variant of the guttatus/letourneuxi complex, insofar it would not be surprizing, that they are not recognized by Ogba specimens as conspecifics. Such fish have been repeatedly imported from the Congo, however, as shown for H. cristatus by Lamboj, they may have been collected elsewhere and have been only shipped from the Congo.

RM

[viejo66]

Thanks for the reply Rico. It looks as if we are in agreement that the 'UL-1' fish is most likely bonafide cristatus as per the original description. As to the picture of my 'cristatus' above, it is all a matter of diet & environment. I have some fish from the same lineage that are 'ringers' for the fish pictured in Lamboj & elsewhere, yellow stripe & all. I will try to get a some pics of a breeder female this weekend & post them. BTW, the canary yellow stripe seems to be restricted to females as far as I can determine so far.