# Livingstonii Hybrid



## MikeyMike22 (Dec 29, 2011)

So I had a buddy give me a bucket of a few fish he wanted out of his tank.
He said they were Fusco (Nimbochromis fuscotaeniatus). I didn't look in the bucket when he gave it to me, but after getting home and putting them in the tank, I'm sure they're not fusco (at least not 100%).
They have none of the blue coloration that my other fusco's have had since 1.5". They look more like Livingstonii to me, except the skulls seem a bit elongated for N. livingstonii
Otherwise they show the same colors (cream body, dark brown spots, little red on the edge of the fins). They're body shape seems fusco-esque, but lacking the colors.

Any guesses on the mix? Fusco-who-knows? Livingstoni/Fusco? Just curious, I've got a hybrid specific tank with all my unknowns...sorry purists, I just can't flush a fish because he's mixed 

Sorry for the picture quality, I only had my cell with me when I snapped them...also, roughly 3.5-4 inches each.


----------



## Matman1110 (Oct 13, 2011)

They look more Fusco-like to me than livingstonii. Female fuscos don't get the blue coloration that u mentioned. They could be hybrids of some sort but it looks like they definitely have some Fusco genes in them. It's the head/body shape that gives it away.

I currently have a 7" male Fusco that I've raised since it was a fry.


----------



## MikeyMike22 (Dec 29, 2011)

Do the female fusco start off with the blue? I have three I recently got from my LFS and they all have blue bodies and very bright (comparatively) red tails that are highly patterned. Granted, they could all three be males, but they're only 1.5"
The only female picture in the profile page is a sub-adult, although showing no blue coloration as you said.

I guess I'll just watch them grow up a little more! One of these I was assuming was a male based only on behavior/aggression, but for now I'll assume all three are female fusco with a potential of hybridization.

Thanks for the help...education is everything!


----------



## 13razorbackfan (Sep 28, 2011)

MikeyMike22 said:


> Do the female fusco start off with the blue? I have three I recently got from my LFS and they all have blue bodies and very bright (comparatively) red tails that are highly patterned. Granted, they could all three be males, but they're only 1.5"
> The only female picture in the profile page is a sub-adult, although showing no blue coloration as you said.
> 
> I guess I'll just watch them grow up a little more! One of these I was assuming was a male based only on behavior/aggression, but for now I'll assume all three are female fusco with a potential of hybridization.
> ...


Then they have been hormoned or something similar to produce full male coloration at 1.5".

That does look like a fusco to me.


----------



## Steffano2 (Jan 11, 2007)

MikeyMike22 said:


> So I had a buddy give me a bucket of a few fish he wanted out of his tank.
> He said they were Fusco (Nimbochromis fuscotaeniatus). I didn't look in the bucket when he gave it to me, but after getting home and putting them in the tank, I'm sure they're not fusco (at least not 100%).
> They have none of the blue coloration that my other fusco's have had since 1.5". They look more like Livingstonii to me, except the skulls seem a bit elongated for N. livingstonii
> Otherwise they show the same colors (cream body, dark brown spots, little red on the edge of the fins). They're body shape seems fusco-esque, but lacking the colors.
> ...


My vote looks more to be N. polystigma?


----------



## Fogelhund (Dec 3, 2002)

They are fuscos


----------



## Chromedome52 (Jul 25, 2009)

The fish lack the tiny red speckling of _polystigma _and _linni_, and obviously don't have the downturned snout of _linni_. The flanks of _venustus _have indistinct vertical bars. The line across the face from eye to eye, the line from the eye down to the corner of the mouth, these are characteristics of _livingstonii_. Fusco has a rather plain face, even when young. The stocky body, the blotches below the horizontal band on the side, these say _livingstonii_. Fuscos have another broad horizontal band below the center band. The nose doesn't really look as long as _fuscotaeniatus_.

I would say those are female _livingstonii_, not Fuscos.


----------



## nmcichlid-aholic (Mar 23, 2011)

MikeyMike22 said:


> I've got a hybrid specific tank with all my unknowns...


Put them in here.


----------



## gverde (Mar 3, 2010)

They look like fuscos to me also.


----------



## gverde (Mar 3, 2010)

They look like fuscos to me also.


----------



## Steffano2 (Jan 11, 2007)

gverde said:


> They look like fuscos to me also.


 Plese read "Chromedome52's" reply he nailed the best reasoning as to possible ID. Now it's only a guess from a picture, we were all willing to take a stab at it.

I even stand corrected in my thinking of polystigma, I agree they don't show the fine peppering/speckling of red.


----------



## Fogelhund (Dec 3, 2002)

I'm not buying the livingstoni at all, at least not pure. They look more like fuscos that I've seen, it might turn out that they are hybrids...


----------



## 12packdale (May 21, 2010)

Imo looks like the face of a venustus


----------



## 13razorbackfan (Sep 28, 2011)

Fogelhund said:


> I'm not buying the livingstoni at all, at least not pure. They look more like fuscos that I've seen, it might turn out that they are hybrids...


Yeah...it is possible hyrbid livingstonii/fusco as the one in the first pic to the right kind of looks livingstonii while the other looks more fusco. Who knows...


----------



## Chromedome52 (Jul 25, 2009)

If you go here, and look at the short description section, you will find the same statement that I made: the dark lines radiating from the eye are *unique *to _livingstonii_. Mattman1110, if you think the fish in your avatar is a Fusco, you are, sadly, mistaken, as I can see the dark lines radiating from the eye even in that small photo.

The fact is that the true _fuscotaeniatus _is still a rare fish in the hobby (as it is in the wild), and there are a lot of misidentified _livingstonii _running around under that name. The OP's fish are pure _livingstonii_, but were sold as Fuscos. Real _fuscotaeniatus _are very elongate fish; in fact, cladistic studies have suggested placing them in _Tyrannochromis_, as they are more closely related to those species. If the head length is more than 1/3 the Standard Length of the individual, it is NOT a Fusco, but a _livingstonii_. If you check the meristics on _fuscotaeniatus_, you will find that the length of the lower jaw relative to head length actually overlaps with that of _livingstonii_, so citing jaw and head structure is a flawed argument.

A parable. Back in the late 1970s, _dovii _were still quite rare, and had only been bred by a handful of individuals, with spawns not much larger than a big pair of convicts. At the same time, _managuense _were also fairly new, but as easy to breed as they are now and as you know, extremely prolific. I had a discussion with Jim Langhammer, the first chairman of the ACA, who said he had seen a number of _dovii_, and they looked the same as _managuense _to him. I asked him, "How do you know they weren't mislabeled _managuense_?" He had not considered that people would mislabel a fish in order to make a profit. Have you considered that possibility?


----------



## noki (Jun 13, 2003)

Fusco X Livingstoni hybrid seems like the best guess.

Of course fish can be mislabeled, and F10 fish can look different from wild stock with funny body shapes and messed up patterns. If they are pure Livingstonii they are really lousy examples of the species.

Don't know about Fuscos being rare. Seems like juveniles I've seen have usually looked distinct from the other Nimbos, and the males color up differently. Hybrids can always be possible out there.
I've seen some juvenile Livingstoni that were stunning, with very attractive distinct cryptic patterns and almost white and reddish-brown. Shame that most for sale do not look that good.


----------



## Matman1110 (Oct 13, 2011)

Chromedome52 said:


> If you go here, and look at the short description section, you will find the same statement that I made: the dark lines radiating from the eye are *unique *to _livingstonii_. Mattman1110, if you think the fish in your avatar is a Fusco, you are, sadly, mistaken, as I can see the dark lines radiating from the eye even in that small photo.


My avatar photo sucks and is a very poor representation of my male fusco. Those dark lines appear there because the eyes jutt out and cast a dark shadow down his face, they are not actually black lines.

Here is my avatar blown up:









Here is another pic of my male fusco:









If you still dont think so, look at this:









But you are correct about the lines on the fusco/livingstonii pics from the OP, as that is a trait that fuscos do not have. However the head and body shape of these fish scream fusco. These fish are hybrids as I discussed in my first response to this thread. Case Closed


----------



## Chromedome52 (Jul 25, 2009)

I've made my arguments pointing to scientific references, your argument is "it looks like this to me". If you consider that case closed, then there is nothing I can do to educate you. I will leave it to you, if you are really serious about these fish, to do deeper research. I don't expect that you will.


----------



## MikeyMike22 (Dec 29, 2011)

Thanks for all the help.

They'll remain labelled as livingstonii...we'll see what happens when they get a little bigger. that barring over the eye was the "red flag" for me in the first place that they weren't fusco, thanks for the explanation Chromedome


----------



## Matman1110 (Oct 13, 2011)

MikeyMike22 said:


> Thanks for all the help.
> 
> They'll remain labelled as livingstonii...we'll see what happens when they get a little bigger. that barring over the eye was the "red flag" for me in the first place that they weren't fusco, thanks for the explanation Chromedome


I am sorry for coming back to this but i am very positive that the fish that is pictured at the very bottom of the original post is not a pure Livingstonii. As others have mentioned, it is hard to ID the fish to the right which was shot at a difficult angle, however the fish that is closer and to the bottom of the 2nd picture has more Fuscotaeniatus similarities as i will discuss right here. And i am certainly not saying that this fish is pure Fusco, but that it is a definite hybrid. Here is why:

Please look at these 2 pictures (top is fusco, bottom is livingstonii):

















I tried to find the most accurate image of each species (a pic that looks like the typical fusco/livingstonii) at around the size of your fish.

1. If you look at both pics, right away you should notice the difference in skull structure, mouth size, and jaw structure. Your hybrid fish's skull structure, mouth size and jaw angle all mimic that of the fusco pictured above in the top pic. This is a pinpointing difference as this is a classic fusco trait that makes it distinct from livingstonii especially when young.

2. You should also notice that both of these fish have distinct blotch patterns on their body. The typical Livingstonii has more circular, blotchy patterns and these blotches are usually easy to individualize where as the fusco's blotches are usually touching eachother making more of a line-like pattern. The blotches on your hybrid fish resemble both livingstonii and fusco.

3. I would say that the only defining Livingstonii trait that your fish has is the dark lines running from eye to eye/eye to mouth.

I have a tank with both of these species and *** had them for over a year. I am telling you what I have seen with my eyes, not what i have read on the internet. I spend a considerable amount of time around these fish not just at my home but at LFStores and can tell the difference quite quickly. You can go by my word, Fogulhund's word (an administrator who joined this forum in 2002), 13razorbackfan's word, gverde's word, nmcichlid-aholic's word, and noki's word. Or you can go by chromedome52's word. He quickly judged my profile pic as livingstonii which it clearly wasnt, and he is doing the same with yours.

I just cannot put this fish in the pure Livingstonii category, as others in this discussion have agreed. There are just as many fusco-defining traits in this fish as Livingstonii.


----------



## Chromedome52 (Jul 25, 2009)

Here's a wild male Fusco from 1973. Note that matman's fish has a steeper forehead, and lacks the thick lower lip of the _fuscotaeniatus_. Perhaps I am wrong, perhaps there are more hybrids out there than I thought.


----------



## 13razorbackfan (Sep 28, 2011)

I think Matman's fish looks more like a fusco than anything else.


----------



## MikeyMike22 (Dec 29, 2011)

Glad I could spark a bit of a debate!

What I'm noticing with mine and the pictures being posted is that the skull structure of the two seem to be the key. A "true" fusco's lower jaw appears to be in-line with it's lower body, whereas the livingstonii's jaw turns up from the body. If making a line from the start of the dorsal through the ventral fins, our Fusco would make a right-triangle of the jaw; livingstonii more isosceles. (Forgive me, I'm no professional and don't know all the proper wording, so I'm resorting to basic shapes  )

With that said, my guys in question show a lower jaw that is slightly turned up from the body, but mostly flat and more elongated that the livingsontii I've kept before. I think someone mentioned before that female livingstonii can have a longer skull, but I just haven't seen livingstonii with heads like these guys before. The blotches on my guys certainly seem more livingstonii to me than the fusco I've seen as well as the more white-ish bodies, where fusco tend to have a browner body and less destinguished blotches (before showing any blue in either species anyway).

I guess my conclusion would be that my guys are a hybrid of both. At 3.5-4" they don't appear to be specific to either, carrying traits of both species. The structure carries more Fusco to me and the patterning more Livingstonii.
Maybe when my "true" Fusco and Livingstonii in the tank get bigger I can have a better comparison (assuming that the ones I got from a decently reputable LFS are what they're supposed to be and less questionable than these three in the debate).

I propose a new question: Do I call them Livingstaeniatus or Fuscotonii? They both have a nice ring to them, no?


----------



## 13razorbackfan (Sep 28, 2011)

MikeyMike22 said:


> Glad I could spark a bit of a debate!
> 
> What I'm noticing with mine and the pictures being posted is that the skull structure of the two seem to be the key. A "true" fusco's lower jaw appears to be in-line with it's lower body, whereas the livingstonii's jaw turns up from the body. If making a line from the start of the dorsal through the ventral fins, our Fusco would make a right-triangle of the jaw; livingstonii more isosceles. (Forgive me, I'm no professional and don't know all the proper wording, so I'm resorting to basic shapes  )
> 
> ...


Well...I decided to name my "albino eureka ruby red 13razorbackfan" peacock so I imagine you can call it whatever you want :thumb:


----------

