Silbersaum Green Terror has been described

New cichlid species and taxonomy
Post Reply
a.d.wood
Posts: 31
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 8:38 am
Location: Staffordshire, UK
Contact:

Silbersaum Green Terror has been described

Post by a.d.wood » Thu Dec 03, 2009 9:17 am

MUSILOVÁ, Z., SCHINDLER, I. STAECK, W. (2009). Description of Andinoacara stalsbergi sp. n. (Teleostei: Cichlidae:Cichlasomatini) from Pacific coastal rivers in Peru, and annotations on the phylogeny of the genus. Vertebrate Zoology. 59 (2): 131 – 141.

Abstract
Andinoacara stalsbergi sp. n. is described from the drainages of trans-andean rivers and lakes at the Peruvian Pacific coast where this species occurs between Río Chira (Depto. Piura) in the north and Río Pisco (Depto. Ica) in the south.

It is distinguished from its sister species A. rivulatus by the possession of a conspicuous white margin of both the dorsal and caudal fin and scales with light centres and contrasting dark marginal lines forming a fine reticulate pattern on the body sides.

Studies based on molecular data confirm the status of Andinoacara stalsbergi sp. n. and reveal its phylogenetic relationships to its congeners. The reconstruction of the phylogeny within the genus Andinoacara results in the existence of two clades: one with A. stalsbergi sp. n., A. rivulatus, A. sapayensis and A. biseriatus and another with the remaining species.

Etymology
Named in honour of ALF STALSBERG (Tjodalyng, Norway), the collector of the holotype, in recognition of his longstanding commitment to increase the knowledge about cichlid fishes.



Currently you are able to download a copy of this description here:

http://www.vertebrate-zoology.de/vz59-2 ... silova.pdf

Andrew

paulwmin
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 1:35 pm
Location: Denver

Re: Silbersaum Green Terror has been described

Post by paulwmin » Thu Dec 03, 2009 10:13 am

Awesome! Been a long time coming.


So, if Andinoacara stalsbergi is green terror and A. rivulatus is Gold Saum, what is the one that has the scale pattern of the gold saum, but the fin margins of the green terror (aka White Saum)?

User avatar
Philippe Burnel
CichlidRoom Expert
Posts: 1115
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 5:54 am
Location: France/ Normandy
Contact:

Re: Silbersaum Green Terror has been described

Post by Philippe Burnel » Thu Dec 03, 2009 1:01 pm

The problem seems to be the "goldsaum" which is the rivulatus in this publication but it seems that everybody don't agree with that !(see the CRC catalog)

Rico Morgenstern
CichlidRoom Expert
Posts: 387
Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2007 4:01 am
Location: Germany

Re: Silbersaum Green Terror has been described

Post by Rico Morgenstern » Sat Dec 05, 2009 8:21 am

a.d.wood wrote:Currently you are able to download a copy of this description here:

http://www.vertebrate-zoology.de/vz59-2 ... silova.pdf
Cannot open the pdf :(

taeniopareius
Posts: 274
Joined: Thu May 04, 2006 2:59 pm

Re: Silbersaum Green Terror has been described

Post by taeniopareius » Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:25 am

I can open it right now. Is there type specimens of rivulatus avaliable at all though? I just skim through the paper quickly but so far did not find comparision with type specimens of rivulatus. In Gunther 1860 is rivulata is just a name in the list or is there any description or any figure? Gunther's list is not in the reference.

Rico Morgenstern
CichlidRoom Expert
Posts: 387
Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2007 4:01 am
Location: Germany

Re: Silbersaum Green Terror has been described

Post by Rico Morgenstern » Sun Dec 06, 2009 4:56 am

Rico Morgenstern wrote:Cannot open the pdf :(
Have resolved the problem!
taeniopareius wrote:I can open it right now. Is there type specimens of rivulatus avaliable at all though? I just skim through the paper quickly but so far did not find comparision with type specimens of rivulatus. In Gunther 1860 is rivulata is just a name in the list or is there any description or any figure? Gunther's list is not in the reference.
As the chief subject of this paper is to name formally a new species rather to revise the entire A. rivulatus complex, and the distinctness from A. rivulatus (and any of the synonymous taxa, all described from Ecuador) is well supported by the geographical range of the new species, it is not mandatory to include the type material into comparision. Günther's paper is not merely a list, it contains a (rather short) description, but no figure.
paulwmin wrote:So, if Andinoacara stalsbergi is green terror and A. rivulatus is Gold Saum, what is the one that has the scale pattern of the gold saum, but the fin margins of the green terror (aka White Saum)?
The color of the fin margins is reported to be polymorphic in some populations of A. rivulatus, but there are also strains with exclusively broad orange or narrow white margins. The latter are known from some rivers within and north of the Rio Esmeraldas drainage and are considered by some to be a distinct species. Neither this view nor the claim that this is in fact the true A. rivulatus and the 'Goldsaum' is another species can be regarded as well justified so far. But, as indicated above, the new species is not affected by this problem.

RM

taeniopareius
Posts: 274
Joined: Thu May 04, 2006 2:59 pm

Re: Silbersaum Green Terror has been described

Post by taeniopareius » Sun Dec 06, 2009 9:20 am

I think that by knowing the location alone is not sufficient, especially when we know that there are up to 3 fish in the region that is confused with rivulatus. It is not conclusive yet that the goldseam rivu [used as rivulatus in this paper in quote below] is the real rivulatus or not.

"In the vicinity of Tumbes (Depto. Tumbes) in the extreme north of Peru (Río Tumbes and Río Zarumilla) and in the adjacent Pacific slope of
Ecuador this species is replaced by another species of the A. rivulatus group, which is also known in popular aquarium literature as ”Aequidens” sp. “Goldsaum” and treated as A. rivulatus by STAWIKOWSKI & WERNER (1998) and KULLANDER (2003)."

According to Mr. Alf's website http://www.lem.net/alf/aeq.htm#rivulatus the rivulatus is from Rio Esmeraldas [according to Mr. Alf it is where rivulatus was collected and described] seems to be different from the gold seam. If the Esmeraldas fish is the same as goldseam then that's no problem. If not it is like comparision between 2 undescribed species. In this case a comparision with type specimens of rivulatus would be preferable.

May anyone summarizes the description of rivulatus from Gunther's? Does Mr. Alf visit this forum? Perhaps Mr. Alf whom the green terror is named after may shed some light on this. :)

Rico Morgenstern
CichlidRoom Expert
Posts: 387
Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2007 4:01 am
Location: Germany

Re: Silbersaum Green Terror has been described

Post by Rico Morgenstern » Mon Dec 07, 2009 5:52 am

For a better understanding, let me get somewhat deeper into the taxonomic history of Andinoacara rivulatus
Chromis rivulata, n. sp.

D. 13/11. A. 3/8. L. lat. 28. L. transv. 3/9.

Nape of the neck convex; the upper profile of the head is straight, abruptly descending. The total length is three times the height of the body, and 3 2/3 times the length of the head. The width between the orbits equals 1 1/2 diameters of the eye. The posterior dorsal and anal rays reach to the middle of the caudal, if laid backwards, and the ventral to the second anal spine. Greyish-green, with broad dark vertical bars, less distinct with age. A black blotch below the lateral line, corresponding to the last four dorsal spines; praeorbital and cheeks with oblique, waving, bluish, shining silvery streaks ; the scales of the operculum and of the anterior part of the body with spots of the same colour. Dorsal fin with dark longitudinal streaks ; ventral and anal greyish; pectoral and caudal colourless.—Several specimens of different ages; the largest 4 inches long.
This is the original text of Günther‘s description. A precise locality is not given, but as per title (and according to the fish collection database of the Natural History Museum, London) the material is from the „Andes of Western Ecuador“. In 1862, Günther synonymized C. rivulata with Acara pulchra and gives a slightly different redescription, which is based on the same material from Western Ecuador.

Boulenger (1899) removed the species from the synonymy of A. pulchra, and gives more precise data on the fin and scale counts of the five type specimens and of 29 additional specimens collected by Dr. Enrico Festa in Rio Peripa and Rio Vinces (Rio Daule and Guayas drainage, respectively).

Regan (1905) restricted Acara rivulata to the largest type specimen, on the remainder he based a new species, Acara aequinoctialis. That means in fact, he designated a lectotype of A. rivulata, and the paralectotypes are also syntypes of A. aequinoctialis. The morphometric differences can all be attributed to the smaller size of the types and the additional material (from Festa's collection described by Boulenger). In 1911, Fowler described Aequidens azurifer from Rio Chimbo, Ecuador.

None of these various descriptions and redescriptions is very conclusive with regard to the identification of life fish, but the crucial fact is, that all of them refer to material collected in Ecuador. The range of the new species A. stalsbergi, especially its limit against that of 'Goldsaum' in northern Peru is well documented, and as the ranges do not overlap, the identity of the new species with any of the previously described taxa is excluded. The confusion of A. stalsbergi with A. rivulatus came up subsequently, when the life colors etc. of Ecuadorian fish was not known. As this lack of information was remedied in the middle of the 1980s, it became clear that the Peruvian fish is in fact a different species.
taeniopareius wrote:If the Esmeraldas fish is the same as goldseam then that's no problem. If not it is like comparision between 2 undescribed species. In this case a comparision with type specimens of rivulatus would be preferable.

If the (slightly) different form from the Esmeraldas system is indeed the true A. rivulatus (I have found no published evidence except for the unproven statement on Alf Stalsberg's website, that the type locality is really there) and if the 'Goldsaum' would really be specifically distinct, the geographical argument for the distinctness of A. stalsbergi from A. rivulatus would even be stronger for the ranges would be separated by another species.

RM

taeniopareius
Posts: 274
Joined: Thu May 04, 2006 2:59 pm

Re: Silbersaum Green Terror has been described

Post by taeniopareius » Tue Dec 08, 2009 8:22 am

Thanks for the description of rivulatus. Though there is little to no doubt that the Peruvian silverseam stalsbergi is a different species from the Ecuador/Peru goldseam, assuming that goldseam is the true rivulatus simply because they are from Ecuador is a bit premature. What if there is more than one rivulatus-like Andinoacara in Ecuador? It is a bit regrettable that lectotype is not examined [especially if it is still in London].

Cichlid-Power
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 3:07 pm

Re: Silbersaum Green Terror has been described

Post by Cichlid-Power » Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:35 pm

Hi all you guys, that was wondering about “my” Andinoacara stalsbergi, it’s a beautiful fish, and I will try to explain a little to all of you.
First of all, I’m and hobby aquarist with special interest in Cichlids, and have been working with Cichlids since 1970 and Aequidens since 1975.
It was in that time I got my first Silbersaum (Andinoacara stalsbergi), but we called it Aequidens rivulatus, since we all thought that this was the fish Günther described in 1859.
The reason for that, Günther did not specified the collecting site, he did not know where it was, because he or the British Museum got a collection that was given/sold to the Museum and it was among the fish there, he described Andinoacara (“Acara – Aequidens”) rivulatus.
It has taken me long time to get so fare and several trips to Ecuador, before I think I can say that I have reach a goal.
So after collect in Peru in 1994 and search the distribution of the fish north and south I can now say I know where to find it.
But still nothing happen, the fish has been known since Lüling collect the fish in 1972.
So when the Goldsaum came on the market here in Scandinavia in 1980-81 people seem to have forgotten the Silbersaum (Andinoacara stalsbergi), and they said that this fish was Aequidens rivulatus. I did not agree with this, because I had both fishes at home. The A. stalsbergi and the Goldsaum. But nobody wanted to listen to what I was saying.
At that time I did not know about the real Aequidens rivulatus, (Günther 1859), so I decide to visit Ecuador for the first time to look for the Aequidens rivulatus. I went west to the city Santo Domingo de Los Colorados, further west and came to the city Quininde or Santa Rosa which is the official name. About 24 kilometres west of it I came to a small river. It had nice clear water. When I start to collect there, I caught a cichlid, but I did not know then that this was the true Andinocara (Aequidens) rivulatus. Unfortunately, I did not manage it to bring live fish back home, but conserved fish which I sent to the Nat. Hist. Museum in Stockholm , Sweden to Dr. Kullander. He put them in his collection but did not do anything else.
So in 1989 I went back to Ecuador and this time I wanted to bring live fish back. So after I have been collect out in the Selva, I went to the small river and I collect the same species again, and this time I also manage to bring live fish back.
I was nagging Dr. Kullander if he could take a look at the material I’ve sent to him, but nothing happen. Until some years later he was going to London in a business trip and would also visit the British Museum, and I asked him again if he could compare Günter’s material with the one I had collect in Ecuador. He did so and called me and said, my material was the same as Günter’s. So now I new where about Günther’s fish came from.
Even if the Andinoacara rivulatus have some similarity to the Goldsaum, I don’t think they are the same fish, this I think after collecting the Goldsaum many places in south Ecuador and kept the fish and compare it with the other fish, A. stalsbergi and A. rivulatus, I think the fish is a species of it’s own.
Regan also thought so and in his description from April 1905 he describe the fish as Acara aequinoctalis, and he said in the end of his description; quotation; “Although similar to A. rivulatus in color, this species is markedly different in othere characters”. end quotation.
So after what I have heard, there will be a re-description of the fish next year, so let us wait to see what these scientist will do, they have done a grate job with the Andinocara stalsbergi.
I’m proud to get the honour to get a fish named after me, for me it was good that the fish at last got a name.

Alf Stalsberg

:)

taeniopareius
Posts: 274
Joined: Thu May 04, 2006 2:59 pm

Re: Silbersaum Green Terror has been described

Post by taeniopareius » Thu Dec 10, 2009 6:45 am

Thank you very much Mr. Alf. What characters Regan saw for difference between aequinoctalis and rivulatus though? I hope a through comparision including types would be done this time for the upcoming paprer since it would directly involve Gunther's rivulatus.

Rico Morgenstern
CichlidRoom Expert
Posts: 387
Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2007 4:01 am
Location: Germany

Re: Silbersaum Green Terror has been described

Post by Rico Morgenstern » Thu Dec 10, 2009 1:43 pm

Dear Alf, nice to have you here, thank you for your detailed explanation!

First of all we can make the note here, that there are sufficient reasons to rule out the possibility, that the specimens described by Günther as Chromis rivulata are conspecific with the species Andinoacara stalsbergi, that’s the reason why I have stated that it was unnecessary to examine them.

The reason for the former confusion of the two was, however, not the ‘unknown‘ type locality (in fact it is known, though not as precisely as it would be desirable) but the insufficient knowledge of the characters, which make it now so easy to recognize this species. In other words: nobody knew that the Ecuadorian and Peruvian Andinoacara were distinct species. Lüling, to whom we owe not only the first introduction of A. stalsbergi into the hobby but also valuable field observations, identified the species in accordance with the knowledge of his time as Aequidens rivulatus.

When the ‘Goldsaum‘ cichlid appeared in the hobby, absolutely nothing was known about its origin (retrospectively, however, it is interesting to note that ‘Cichlasoma‘ festae, which has largely the same distribution, appeared at about the same time). Therefore the species remained unidentified and was referred to as Aequidens sp.. That it is from Ecuador, was apparently first discovered by U. Werner, R. Stawikowski and companions in 1985. They have found this cichlid at many localities from the the north (including tributaries of the Esmeraldas system) to the south and from the lowlands to the foothills of the Andes. Therefore they concluded that the ‘Goldsaum‘ was A. rivulatus and the Peruvian ‘Silbersaum‘ an undescribed species (published in DATZ 38 [no.12], pp. 533-538 ).

If I got it right, your reason for considering the fish from the Esmeraldas drainage the ‚true‘ rivulatus is simply, that Dr. Kullander has identified it as conspecific with the type in London. But the question is, would Kullander by the same time have identified the ‘Goldsaum‘ as distinct? Judging from the treatment in the NRM collection database, in CLOFFSCA and in FishBase I guess he would not.

I would admit, that there are some differences between the ‚Goldsaum‘ and the fish considered the ‚true‘ rivulatus by you. If they are specifically distinct, remains to be determined. Should this be the case, than it would of course to be necessary to examine the type material again in the hope to to be able to assign it (and thereby the name) unambiguously to one or the other species. It must, however, be taken into consideration, that a type is nothing more or less than the bearer of the name, it does not necessarily represent the species, to which it is assigned, in an appropriate way.
taeniopareius wrote:hat characters Regan saw for difference between aequinoctalis and rivulatus though?
The differences are mainly based on body and head proportions, and on lower scale counts (which are however not in agreement with the counts given previously by Boulenger for the same specimens) in Acara aequinoctialis. However, as I have already noted, the syntypes are also part of the type series of Chromis rivulata, and all (including the additional material without type status) are smaller than the specimens to which Regan restricted his Acara rivulata.

In conclusion, I would suggest to follow Kullander in assigning both the ‚Goldsaum‘ and the Esmeraldas cichlid to Andinoacara rivulatus until further notice, and to defer the decision, if they are distinct species or not, and if so, which of them bears the name rigthly, to a future revision.

RM

Dean Hougen
Posts: 135
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 10:34 pm
Location: Norman, OK
Contact:

Re: Silbersaum Green Terror has been described

Post by Dean Hougen » Sun Dec 13, 2009 11:59 pm

Alf, it is great to see you on the CRC. Congrats again on the fish! That is quite an honor but you deserve it if anyone does.

Rico, you make some excellent points. However, I wouldn't go too much by what Sven says in somewhat formal documents (like FishBase) when trying to determine what he thinks in private. My experience is that he is much more conservative in public documents than if you are just asking his opinion as a friend in private. (This is, I think, as it should be.) Then again, what Sven actually said to Alf is only known by Sven and Alf at this point, as far as I know, and what Sven actually thinks is really only known to Sven.

For now, perhaps, we should talk of Andinoacara cf. rivulatus "Goldsaum" rather than Andinoacara sp. "Goldsaum" as a middle ground.


Dean
Chair, American Cichlid Association (ACA)
President, Oklahoma Aquarium Association (OKAA)

ACA 2012 Convention in Indianapolis, IN
http://www.aca2012indy.com

Heiko Bleher
CichlidRoom Expert
Posts: 43
Joined: Mon May 21, 2007 6:09 pm
Location: Italy
Contact:

Re: Silbersaum Green Terror has been described

Post by Heiko Bleher » Tue Dec 22, 2009 7:14 pm

Hi Guys,

just back from some very exciting Amazon expeditions with several new (cichlid)discoveries, mainly very beautiful Apistogramma species (2-4), a new angelfish species (almost sure, very different from the 3 described species), living endemic in an completly unexplored river basin, a new Green discus variant (S. aequifasciatus), in a place so far never known to occur... and much more. I recorded 500 different species and made several underwater films. Soon some of it on my website.

But let me tell you my part of the A. rivulatus & Co., which has not been mentioned (maybe intentionally?, or because no one can/will "look" as far back as into the aquarium trade/hobby in the 1960s...).
First of all the "Goldsaum" was imported from Peru by Aquarium Rio (Heiko Bleher), already in 1968-1969, and sold as Aequidens rivulatus collected in the Río Túmbes basin. And the "Silversaum" also sold as just another colour morph of A. rivulatus (what I still belive it is, see below). (The perfect black and white drawings of C. H. Eigemann 1922-1924 show that species named as A. rivulatus - it is identical painted on page 337).
I had started to collect extensively in the late 1960s, also in the 1970s, into the early 1980s in Peru, and Dora de Sanchez, the lady owner of Aquario Lima, shipped both of them them to me in Frankfurt and I sold them worldwide. Lueling, a good friend, actually visted me a few times in my Frankfurt installation before he left (again) for South America (it must have been 1969 or 1970) and we talked about many fishes he and I had collected, and also A. rivulatus. He was a very kind man and we had a lot in common. I also brought the first ones of those "A. rivulatus" to Sweden (by car) in the 1970s and sold them to Ronny Thulin. So I think they were there before Alf mentioned. And the "Goldsaum" and "Silbersaum" (not always with this German name) were very well known by then (latest by begin of 1970 - as A. rivulatus) in the trade, and that both morphs came from Peru. (Besides no one exported or collected ornamental fishes commercially in Ecuador until the begin of the 1980s.)

Interesting is also, that in 2002 I went for the first time to collect into the Loja-Department of Ecuador, the extreme southeastern part from where I knew that no one in history had done ichthyological research (places I am always search, as last week, since the 1960s...). And guess what: I discovered a "Silbersaum" in the headwaters of the Nagaritza river basin, a river that flows evntuelly into the Amazon basin. That is in the eastern slope (the Amazon slope) of the Andes. Until my discovery the A. rivulatus "Silbersaum" hat only been known from the western/Pazific slopes. I told Patrick DeRahm, my dear friend, about it and also mentioned it to Steack. And one day Alf contacted me to find out about it. He asked for pictures and information, and later he also went to Nagaritza. But none of this is mentioned in the A. stalsbergi description (I wonder why? Intentionally?).
In any event, why I mention this, is because if one looks closely into the map and the distribution pattern of the rivers and basins, one can see that the Tumbes ("Goldsaum" habitat) and also the Nagaritza fish (one of the "Silbersaum" habitats) come from high up – almost from the same, or similar (mountain)source not far from each other (only a few km distance). And that should give to wonder. Two, practically the same cichlid species (which even DNA shows that they are not far apart from each other, as 1.6% in total difference is normally not much, by some molecular biologists definitely not, nor by most reviewers of such MS). I collected in both river basins and these fishes behave, live and swim identicallly, and also their reproductive behaviour is the same. They also look identical, except for the colour in the edges of dorsal and tail fins, in the seam. But we know this from many cichlids, and specially the genus Symphysodon and the species S. haraldi with its extreme colour variations and it is still just a single species, also by genetics.

Now I do not want to argue if anyone of those two (morphs?) is really the species A. rivulatus (or A. rivulata), as Guenther's description does not mention any such (fin)colour pattern at all, only the drawing of Eigenmann shows it. And jsut as I think of it, the Río Piura is also very close by (but again Pazific slope).
I just wanted to mention the above and put some records strait, and that still I have my doubt of these being two really separate species (sorry Alf). Also because I collected them as well in many places also in the Río Pisco in Ica and in the Departmento Lambayeque (I have since early been a Huaco collectors, ancient ceramics of the pre-Colombian period manufactured in the two regions were some of my preferred ones and I digged for it, not only for fishes...).

Anyhow, this is a small contribution to this and I wish you all a merry Christmas and a very (fish)healthy and happy new year and with the only wish I have, that we do not end up soon with 100,000 fish (species)names and at the end we do not know anymore what is what. Just think (again) of the genus Symphysodon, or the genus Tropheus... what will happen is every "morph" will have a scientific name?

Always

Heiko Bleher
http://www.aquapress-bleher.com
Heiko Bleher

Rico Morgenstern
CichlidRoom Expert
Posts: 387
Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2007 4:01 am
Location: Germany

Re: Silbersaum Green Terror has been described

Post by Rico Morgenstern » Tue Dec 29, 2009 4:08 am

Heiko Bleher wrote:But let me tell you my part of the A. rivulatus & Co., which has not been mentioned (maybe intentionally?, or because no one can/will "look" as far back as into the aquarium trade/hobby in the 1960s...).
First of all the "Goldsaum" was imported from Peru by Aquarium Rio (Heiko Bleher), already in 1968-1969, and sold as Aequidens rivulatus collected in the Río Túmbes basin.
Dear Heiko,
I have never heard or read about such an early introduction of A. rivulatus (Goldsaum), not to mention your contribution to it. Of course I can only refer to the situation in Germany in this connection, but maybe the time was not ripe in 1968 or 69 for such a large and comparatively aggressive cichlid to get a considerable distribution in the hobby, so it fell into oblivion, otherwise it would have been noticed in the literature. Why should such an information be omitted intentionally?

With regard to the validity of A. stalsbergi, it seems to me, that you are confusing this species with white-seamed color morphs of A. rivulatus. If the Nagaritza fish (which other species have you collected there?) looks identical with the 'Goldsaum' in every respect except the color of the fin margin, it is possibly a color variant of this species (could you please post a photo here), and there would likewise be no reason to to mention it in the description of A. stalsbergi, for the latter species is different and always readily distinguishable from A. rivulatus regardless of the color of their fin margins.

RM

User avatar
Philippe Burnel
CichlidRoom Expert
Posts: 1115
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 5:54 am
Location: France/ Normandy
Contact:

Re: Silbersaum Green Terror has been described

Post by Philippe Burnel » Tue Dec 29, 2009 4:21 am

I agree with Rico in this
you are confusing this species with white-seamed color morphs of A. rivulatus.
The difference between A.s and A. r is, mainly, in the inverse patern of the scales.

Post Reply

Return to “Taxonomy”