# just saved fish from a horrible home and am curious



## Imasalmon (Oct 18, 2010)

3 fish pictured here last two are hybrids but not sure what of and first one may not be.
Orange and blue fish are two males from a breeding group we got.
Last 2 fish were in a mixed tank of hybrids.
Any Ideas?


----------



## Imasalmon (Oct 18, 2010)




----------



## Imasalmon (Oct 18, 2010)

I take it that no one has a clue?


----------



## noki (Jun 13, 2003)

First two pics (same fish?) is an Aulonocara "stuartgranti maleri". A Yellow Peacock/ or maybe a line bred so called Red Peacock. It is hard to guess the actual history of this fish, so it hard to say a precise name.

Third pic is a hybrid, far as one can tell from the pic. Called various trade names + "Peacock". Nobody knows for sure which fish, or how many, were used to make these Peacock hybrids.

Fourth does seem like an Aulonocara hybrid.


----------



## Imasalmon (Oct 18, 2010)

Yeah I'll post more of the first pic the first one the flash was on so it changed his color i'll post more of him. But he is one of two males in a breeding group I got. The group was two males and 3 females. Would you like pictures of both male and female so you can tell better?


----------



## MattyP (Feb 25, 2010)

1.) German Red Peacock (Ruby Red)
2.) Aulonocara Stuartgranti Maleri or Aulonocara Baenschi Benga
3.) Hybrid (usually called Dragon Blood, Fire Fish Peacock etc...)
4.) seems to be another Peacock Hybrid


----------



## 3kgtchic (Apr 16, 2010)

Charlotte NC??
I live there... I'll buy these if you're selling!


----------



## 3kgtchic (Apr 16, 2010)

3kgtchic said:


> Charlotte NC??
> I live there... I'll buy these if you're selling!


I have two I'm trying to give away if you're interested.


----------



## 24Tropheus (Jun 21, 2006)

I would guess that all are various hybrid Pecocks. Most in the hobby are crosses.
Pretty but not natural cichlids.

All the best James


----------



## sevmeera (Aug 8, 2009)

24Tropheus said:


> I would guess that all are various hybrid Pecocks. Most in the hobby are crosses.
> Pretty but not natural cichlids.
> 
> 
> > I would counter that any fish in an aquarium is not a "natural cichlid", as a matter of fact, I prefer buying fish that are aquarium raised or are of a variety that I can be assured were not wild caught. Many cichlid species we see are extinct in the wild, or near extinct, as with many of the Victorian basin species. I would rather be assured that I wasn't contributing to the extinction of beautiful cichlid species from it's natural habitat.


----------



## dielikemoviestars (Oct 23, 2007)

Anyone else think that the last one is part Protomelas "Taiwan Reef"?


----------



## 24Tropheus (Jun 21, 2006)

sevmeera said:


> 24Tropheus said:
> 
> 
> > I would guess that all are various hybrid Pecocks. Most in the hobby are crosses.
> ...


Why would anyone think that keeping wild type cichlids reduces not increases there value and hence the likelyhood of being protected in the wild? The idea that collecting cichlids for the hobby in any way damages their likely hood of survival in the wild is surely preposterous or at the very least some evidence might help. :wink: Only evidence I can find is that some of the collectors are the only ones doing any effective cichlid conservation of wild types (Stuart Grant Fund).

Erm also not natural cichlid was my attempt at stating that they are heavily line bred and/or crossed thus making ID very hard. Not meant as an insult or value opinion, just fact.

Back on topic. Sorry no way of guessing what species went into which. Yep Noki seems to have ided the main bloodlines but many hybrids look more like one parent than another so its pretty much impossible to say what is not in any one Ornamental Peacock cichlid once its been traced back to a known hybrid line. The details of which are rarely shared outside the breeding farms.

All the best James


----------



## sevmeera (Aug 8, 2009)

24Tropheus said:


> sevmeera said:
> 
> 
> > 24Tropheus said:
> ...


I never said that the hobbyist keeping of cichlids in itself contributes to extinction of wild species, and I am acutely aware of the efforts put forth by concerned hobbyists who love and care for their cichlids. That being said, there have been many occasions where I have seen fish being kept in captivity that are virtually extinct in the wild, if these are aquarium raised specimens then great, but certainly not the case every time. Given this, and the principles of logic, one can deduce that if a fish is wild caught, and nearly extinct in the wild, that the act of keeping said fish is contributing to it's extinction in the wild. As an example, I recently went to a large local fish store, that had for sale, emperor cichlids, goliath african tiger fish, and WILD CAUGHT Paratroplus, ironically the paratroplus were all males. That is why I have decided to make sure that I in no way contribute to this, not saying everyone should, but it's what I have decided to do.


----------



## 24Tropheus (Jun 21, 2006)

But we are talking about Malawi cichlids (or at least their crossed or line bred young) where collection from the wild has little or no impact on numbers and the collectors are doing something to help conserve em. 
Devil is in the detail. :wink:
If either of us was really concerned about wild Malawi cichlid stocks and conservation we would not be pointlessly arguing but making a small contribution to this fund, www.cichlidpress.com/smgfund/index.htm rather than typing or buying fish many generations from wild, culled and selected and crossed and subsidising no one but breeding farms and LFSs. :wink:

All the best James


----------



## sevmeera (Aug 8, 2009)

24Tropheus said:


> But we are talking about Malawi cichlids (or at least their crossed or line bred young) where collection from the wild has little or no impact on numbers and the collectors are doing something to help conserve em.
> Devil is in the detail. :wink:
> If either of us was really concerned about wild Malawi cichlid stocks and conservation we would not be pointlessly arguing but making a small contribution to this fund, www.cichlidpress.com/smgfund/index.htm rather than typing or buying fish many generations from wild, culled and selected and crossed and subsidising no one but breeding farms and LFSs. :wink:
> 
> All the best James


 I agree, and have made contributions to SGCCF, (when the economy was better). I have to take issue with the fact that you assert that "we" were talking about Malawi fish, that may be what _you_ were speaking about, but I don't think that is what I was speaking on. I have no issue with someone keeping a wild caught Fryeri, or Red Shoulder, but the keeping of wild caught, endangered or threatened fish is something that I don't want any part of. As I said before, I am not speaking for everyone, just making my opinion known, it is a forum after all.


----------



## 24Tropheus (Jun 21, 2006)

No worries. Just the thread started with some Malawi cichlid photos to be Ided (using this term as in its widest sense (I.e. including hybrids and line bred) in this Unidentified Cichilds bit of the forum. Sorry for any confusion but I thought that was the topic in discussion.
I hope I have assured you that buying and keeping wild type cichlids from Lake Malawi does not "contribute to their extinction in nature" but quite the reverse. And that buying line bred or hybrids does nothing to help preserve cichilds but only lines the pockets of breeders (cichlid farms in the main) and LFSs. Not that I have anything against these folk you understand, just kind of prefer the money to go to more deserving folk.

Dunno if this is the place to mention it but the EACG has an auction with fish contributed by home breeders like me, all the funds raised will go to the fund. That way even in these tight times (as you mention) we hobbyists can do our bit to help keep Lake Malawi cichlids available for all now and in the future.

Dunno but the ACA does similar stuff I believe?

All the best James


----------

