# Convict?



## Briguy (Aug 10, 2009)

I think it is a female Convict but I would like another opinion. It doesn't look like any of the Black Convicts that were being sold in the same store.

















Thanks


----------



## briansbelle (May 24, 2008)

looks to be a female convict to me. and a very nice one i might add :thumb:

hope this helps
belle


----------



## Briguy (Aug 10, 2009)

Thanks belle

Her stripes were really faint when I got her but she had a lot of blue in her fins. The yellow has just come out and her stripes are showing well.


----------



## briansbelle (May 24, 2008)

yeah most fish in pet stores are stressed out, and until they feel comfortable you will never see their "true" colors.

she def looks happy now


----------



## Bronson (Sep 5, 2009)

yea thats a convict


----------



## fishman76092 (Jan 10, 2005)

I'll throw a monkey wrench in on this one-
It has convict in it, but Ill bet its a hybrid between A. siqui (HRP) and A. nigrofasciatus. Too much blue in the fins and that yellow in the tail is concerning too.


----------



## Chromedome52 (Jul 25, 2009)

First, the HRP is NOT _A. siquia_. It is, as yet, still undescribed. Michi Tobler is working on sorting out the distribution and variability of _Amatitlania _and _Cryptoheros _from Honduras, he has a few thousand specimens collected from virtually every drainage. The results of this study should be extremely interesting.

Second, there are many wild populations of the various Amatitlania species with that kind of color on the body and fins. It can be pretty much assumed that any hobby convict without a location name on it (which most from recent collections tend to have) is a hybrid of two or more species, and occasionally some of the genes for color will pop back out.

It is a female Convict, and a very nice one.


----------



## dwarfpike (Jan 22, 2008)

Appears to be a normal, aquarium strain convict to me. Note that aquarium strain convicts are most likely a mix of 2-3 convict species. There is nothing in it that hints at HRP though.


----------



## fishman76092 (Jan 10, 2005)

Chromedome52 said:


> First, the HRP is NOT _A. siquia_. It is, as yet, still undescribed. Michi Tobler is working on sorting out the distribution and variability of _Amatitlania _and _Cryptoheros _from Honduras, he has a few thousand specimens collected from virtually every drainage. The results of this study should be extremely interesting.
> 
> Second, there are many wild populations of the various Amatitlania species with that kind of color on the body and fins. It can be pretty much assumed that any hobby convict without a location name on it (which most from recent collections tend to have) is a hybrid of two or more species, and occasionally some of the genes for color will pop back out.
> 
> It is a female Convict, and a very nice one.


Great post-my bad on the A. siquia piece-my information is a bit different in that the fish from Rio Monga is an HRP that has been described as A. siquia.

As for what that fish in the photo is...
You contradict yourself. The fish is certainly not pure as you state in your post above. But you then state it is a 'convict'. It certainly has C. nigrofasciatus (C. kanna now I believe? as the true nigrofasciatus is different according to Schmitter-Soto 2007 )blood....but the blue fins and yellow tail and unpaired fins certainly show that it could have HRP blood. Considering I've personally bred that combo in the past- I must say that the fry they produced were quite similar to that fish in the photo. I could certainly be a geographical variant as well and you and I both know that without collection point, where the fish was purchased, which wholesaler/breeder had the fish, etc. There is no way to tell-just like the labiatus/citrinellus mix.

So-calling it a straight convict is misleading.


----------



## Number6 (Mar 13, 2003)

fishman76092 said:


> So-calling it a straight convict is misleading.


Convict is a common name, so attaching it to regular aquarium strain cons seems like a suitable answer to me... willing to hear "why not". 
:thumb:


----------



## Briguy (Aug 10, 2009)

Great discussion. I am learning lots. The more this fish grows the more it looks like a punked out convict. She seems to have made friends with a Green Severum 3 times her size.


----------



## Briguy (Aug 10, 2009)

Archocentrus sp. "Honduran Red Point"

http://www.gcca.net/fom/Archocentrus_sp ... -Point.htm

I found the above article that describes the Honduran Red Point as _Archocentrus_ sp. The profiles page on the this site lists Archocentrus sp. as "Cutteri" or Cutter's cichlid. Both fish look very similar.


----------



## Number6 (Mar 13, 2003)

Briguy said:


> I found the above article that describes the Honduran Red Point as _Archocentrus_ sp. The profiles page on the this site lists Archocentrus sp. as "Cutteri" or Cutter's cichlid. Both fish look very similar.


The name Archocentrus sp. "Cutteri" means that it is likely of the genus Archocentrus, and of an unrecognized or undescribed species.

The Cutter cichlid is named Archocentrus sp. "Cutteri" for now, not Archocentrus sp.

Archocentrus sp. "Honduran Red Point" is the temporary name for that species... if both names were 100% accepted as is (unlikely, but let's assume), they would become Archocentrus Cutteri and Archocentrus Honduran Red Point respectively.

Hope that clears up the naming for you.


----------



## Briguy (Aug 10, 2009)

All right I'm starting to get this. Biology and Paleo for that matter weren't my best subjects.


----------



## 24Tropheus (Jun 21, 2006)

I thought the fish called cutteri may be the real (not the hobby) spilurus.
http://www.cichlidae.com/section.php?n=fca&id=42
To be honest though I am a little lost on the Archocentrus vs. Cryptoheros arguments
http://www.cichlidae.com/section.php?n=fca&id=43
Funny enough most shops seem to try and avoid using either genus name so it is not that much of a problem I hope.
But I notice here http://www.cichlid-forum.com/profiles/c ... php?cat=18 and in Briguys web references they seem not to accept the new Cryptoheros genus, I wonder why?

To be honest I am not fully convinced I know for sure the species that have gone into the aquarium convict as we know it, are "real" species by many definitions and maybe are just regional types of the same species. (Just because a type has a separate range and description and form does not make it a separate species) just a different type. The jury is out on this I think as we do not know which will breed together if brought together in the wild.


----------



## Chromedome52 (Jul 25, 2009)

Most references that put all these fish in _Archocentrus _predate a major paper on the group. The 2007 Schmitter-Soto paper on the _Archocentrus _complex places _cutteri _as a valid species of _Cryptoheros_, which is now somewhat oddly split into three subgenera. It did not address the Honduran Red Point because someone else was already working on that fish, and he did not want to step on another person's toes. The "Convict" species were placed in the new Genus _Amatitlania_, and most believe that this is where the HRP will end up. Personally, I have reason to suspect otherwise from what I have heard and observed.

The validity of _Cryptoheros _was, and still is, questioned by some experts, but most are currently willing to accept the Schmitter-Soto paper - for now! However, there is already another paper that suggests the whole thing will have to be redone again. "Publish or die!"

Briguy, your fish lacks the blue chin of HRP, and most hybrids with HRP also have the blue chin. However, I can see where others might believe your fish to be a hybrid between that and one of the described _Amatitlania _species.


----------



## 24Tropheus (Jun 21, 2006)

It is very confusing. The species name, A. nigrofasciata, used to cover all these species, has been restricted to the northern "Convict" cichlid population ranging from El Salvador to Guatemala on the Pacific coast of Central America and from Honduras to Guatemala on the Atlantic coast. Yes?
The Aquarium Convict may contain any combination or not of
Amatitlania siquia which may or may not be the Honduran Red Point (sorry I am lost on this one)
Amatitlania coatepeque
Amatitlania kanna
and nigrofasciatus

Yes?

So what was a true species but a variant cross has now become a hybrid (if we accept these separate species (I am not sure I can))) and we can not begin to guess which species this example may or may not contain? Though you guys are somewhat making educated guesses as to this ones make up? Yes?

It is a "Convict" I think, if we define this as covering em all?
Pure may be a little misleading. :lol:

But to be honest it could be a pure nigrofasciatus as far as I know.
I am no expert.


----------



## Number6 (Mar 13, 2003)

24Tropheus said:


> So what was a true species but a variant cross has now become a hybrid (if we accept these separate species (I am not sure I can))) and we can not begin to guess which species this example may or may not contain? ...It is a "Convict" I think, if we define this as covering em all?


 :lol: it was a hybrid before the name game, as well as after, because hybridization and species are not related concepts! :thumb:

Common names do NOT tie directly to a species name, only loosely associated... that's why I was curious about fishman76092's posts... he seems to want to use a common name and species name interchangeably. I don't think that can ever be valid though... Peacock cichlids pops into my mind... it's a common name that includes a New World cichlid, species in Lake Malawi AND man-made breeds of hap/mbuna/peacock origin.


----------



## 24Tropheus (Jun 21, 2006)

Well as hybrid has multiple meanings and can even include the crossing of two populations of the same species, then I guess most aquarium cichlids fall into this. :lol:

Funny really, I was called all manner of things on a UK cichlid forum for suggesting most shop cichlids sold in the UK were really hybrids.  :lol:


----------



## Number6 (Mar 13, 2003)

24Tropheus said:


> Well as hybrid has multiple meanings


 I prefer to think of it as one meaning, but we struggle to clearly explain it... it really boils down to "a mixing of gene pools that prior to the mix were distinct enough for us to call them different pools".

It is unfortunate that the word species ever gets added to the definition.... I can understand the attitude on the UK forum, it unfortunately comes from the misguided notion that hybridization is "bad" ergo ALL hybridization is "bad". Egocentric at a minimum...


----------



## 24Tropheus (Jun 21, 2006)

I beg to differ (a bit). In biology hybrid can have many different definitions depending on what we want it to mean.

1. The first meaning is the result of interbreeding between two animals or plants of different taxa.
2 Hybrids between different subspecies within a species are known as intra-specific hybrids.
3 Hybrids between different species within the same genus are sometimes known as interspecific hybrids or crosses.
4 Hybrids between different genera are sometimes known as intergeneric hybrids.
5 Extremely rare interfamilial hybrids have been known to occur.
6 No interordinal animal hybrids (between different orders) are known.

Other types of hybrid consist of 
1 Crosses between populations or races.
The rearranging of the genetic material between populations or races is often called hybridization.
2 Breeds or cultivars within a single species. 
This meaning is often used in animal breeding. In animal breeding, hybrids are commonly produced and selected because they have desirable characteristics not found or inconsistently present in the parent individuals or populations.

The prob is when we use the word, we do not explain which meaning or type of hybrid or hybridization we are talking about?

It all gets further confused when there are different interpretations and theories and systems for what the species and sub species and genera should be labeled.

Most folk I guess would not understand (or think us pretentious) if we pre fixed it with words like population, race, intra-specific, intergeneric and interfamilial?

To me these are all different but as you rightly say are (tenuously I would say  ) linked by being a mix of genetic material.


----------



## Number6 (Mar 13, 2003)

Now, here's why I think that all your types of hybrids are more similar than dissimilar...

1. The first meaning is the result of interbreeding between two animals or plants of different taxa.

Taxonomy is the rather artificial grouping of one population of animals and saying it is "distinct" from "that" other group.

2 Hybrids between different subspecies within a species are known as intra-specific hybrids.
sub-species is a "grouping"... basically equates to a gene pool that is seperate enough from another sub-species to deserve a name to represent that grouping.

3 Hybrids between different species within the same genus are sometimes known as interspecific hybrids or crosses.
higher level grouping..

etc.

Even your population and then breed/cultivar examples fit this... the "gene pool" of a breed was dinstinct enough from other groupings that it deserved a name.

I think confusion arises when it gets assumed that taxanomic naming is the grouping and labelling of a group of similar individuals. This is definately not true as very dissimilar individuals will still be lumped in with a species norm if they are part of a single gene pool. Things like tiny sneaker males of some species immediately springs to mind. 
Sports, Albinos, or Mutants also fit...

Make sense?


----------



## dwarfpike (Jan 22, 2008)

From what I have gathered from early publications of collection locations, our standard LFS convict is most likely a cross between _Amatitlania siquia, Amatitlania nigrofasciatus_ and _Amatitlania kanna._ Though it seems most of our hobby convicts either show siquia or kanna traits more often than not.


----------



## 24Tropheus (Jun 21, 2006)

I think I understand where you are coming from,Number6 
And it seems logical if a little unusual to me.

For me the big difference comes from crossing stuff that would not cross in nature rather than the degree of separation or label 
as opposed to crossing stuff where natural crossing swarms exist or breeding from these natural crossing swarms.

Though I tend to try and keep even regional types that way (and pure) as that is what I am interested in.

If one starts with a man made cultivars or breeds etc then its pretty much a personal choice as you are not destroying anything natural anyway. The only real problem with this (I think) is fixing the traits and coming up with a label that marks it clearly as what it is and making sure it is sold as such and getting the new line consistent enough to be recognizable.

The huge problem with this as I see it is there are so many cichlids species and regional types it is pretty much impossible to make a cross that will stay recognizable and away from other lines. But this does not seem to stop folk from producing whatever crosses or lines they fancy trying and putting them on the market.

But then it is the same with plant breeding. Just an emotional thing I guess?
Ah someone has posted in between giving another bit of more useful info for the original poster. Sorry I really did not mean to hijack the thread.


----------

