# Experiment: Jewels with Malawi



## DJRansome (Oct 29, 2005)

I want to see what happens when they spawn.

Originally I was going to put them with labs and hara in a 48" tank, but after purchase, I decided to try the 72" tank instead.

Six juveniles were added to the tank 6/27. The tank has three rock piles, and on advice I'm leaning a flat rock into the left corner for their potential spawning cave.

Unfortunately three individuals escaped behind the background...so now I have to fish them out to maintain my group of six for pairing.

Once I do I'll try for a picture.


----------



## klimarov (May 12, 2015)

let us know how they adapt and if they will be compatible.


----------



## Als49 (Jul 11, 2014)

Nice! I wish you use 48" because I'm also interested in keeping them in 48" or 36"


----------



## DJRansome (Oct 29, 2005)

When kept with Malawi, there are concerns they will defend half of a 48x18 when spawning so that would not leave as much room for the other fish. 72x18 may work better.


----------



## DJRansome (Oct 29, 2005)

Uh oh. 

The good news is I was successful at getting them out from behind the background.

The "be careful what you wish for" news is some of them are getting red bellies and chasing the larger pink ones.

I got some pics but I need to clean the glass and try again.


----------



## BugHunter87 (Mar 19, 2015)

Well???


----------



## DJRansome (Oct 29, 2005)

Apparently glass cleaning has not come to the top of the priority. :wink:


----------



## Iggy Newcastle (May 15, 2012)

Gotta say... I'm surprised you're trying this. Looking forward to the results opcorn:


----------



## DJRansome (Oct 29, 2005)

Me too but I gotta do something unexpected once in a while!


----------



## BC in SK (Aug 11, 2012)

DJRansome said:


> with labs and hara


These are the tank mates?
Looking at your signature, it appears that you are attempting jewels with larger haps?
Bear in mind that jewels are amongst those, that can and often do, use their smaller size as an advantage over a larger opponent. If it's haps you are attempting as tank mates, no idea (?) on the chances of working out.


----------



## DJRansome (Oct 29, 2005)

They are with the haps/peacocks. Very few adults at this time. I guess I will find out.


----------



## BC in SK (Aug 11, 2012)

I'm not saying it won't work, nor do I want to be too negative, but IMO it's got a lot less of a chance of working out well, then with mbuna. Any way you want to slice it, peacock doesn't equal mbuna!
I suppose if things don't work out, you could have a back up plan of moving the jewels with the maingano and demasoni and see how that goes. 
I know that some people have had successful mixes of haps and peacocks with other substrate spawners, but these are mixes I am unfamiliar with. There is reason why I have not kept any peacock or hap for over 30 years, because they generally don't mix well with the very tough and aggressive. So I have little experience with them. Peacocks didn't fair well in my tanks, is an understatement. Had at least 2 kinds, though do not know specifically what they were. Haps I have had polystigma and livingstonii. Aggressive but not capable/tough at all. Had a couple Crytocara moorii for a few years, purchased as adults; neither aggressive nor tough. I sort of suspect the types of haps you have are more similar to the peacocks in terms of aggression and capability/toughness. Not saying it won't work, but it certainly wouldn't be my choice of tank mate with jewel cichlids.


----------



## DJRansome (Oct 29, 2005)

Yes I can try them in 48x18 with demasoni/estherae/maingano or 48x12 with hara/labs. Yes the haps in the 72" tank are on the timid side.

I'm kind of hoping to get more than one pair and to try in several tanks.

Worst case scenario is spawning IS a problem and I can keep a single in a couple tanks. I like the pink color even if they are not red.


----------



## BC in SK (Aug 11, 2012)

DJRansome said:


> 48x12 with hara/labs.


 IMO, 33 gal. is too small of a tank to have good chance of any long term success. Not the equivalent of a larger tank, just because it's 4 ft. long! A deeper tank allows fish to stay out of each other's way; allows fish to pass by with out getting in the way. A shallow tank makes trespassing more unavoidable. 
Again, can't say it won't work. But if things don't work out well, you could definitely conclude the size of tank played a big part.


----------



## DJRansome (Oct 29, 2005)

Agreed.


----------



## BC in SK (Aug 11, 2012)

Update?


----------



## DJRansome (Oct 29, 2005)

Everyone is maturing. The jewels continue to make their way behind the background so the whole group has not been together much. No spawning from them. They mind their own business and no fighting.

The marginatus did not do well in the tank. The peacocks and borleyi seem fine, are spawning.


----------



## DJRansome (Oct 29, 2005)

The six jewels have ended up in a 36x12x18. I consider the tank too small, but it was what I had available. The contingency plan was to take them to the auction if things did not work out, but so far so good. Probably because they have not spawned. I kind of like them. :?

The odd thing is that I added a single male peacock, also with little hope but because he was not a fit for any other tank. And he is doing GREAT! Aulonocara turkis, which is a favorite in spite of being line-bred. He has colored up nicely, his behavior is spunky and fins look good. Same for the jewels.

This is just an update. I imagine things will change when the jewels spawn, but for now I am enjoying the tank.


----------



## DJRansome (Oct 29, 2005)

Update. They have been in the 75G with mbuna for a while now. Demasoni, maingano, msobo. Not the peaceful labs that were recommended, but it's what I had available.

No deaths among the jewels, but color is nothing to write home about. For the most part, they seem comfortable in the tank. Do they only color up when spawning? Would they have more consistent color with less aggressive tank mates?

Detente has been reached. I have not observed them spawning or seen eggs, but on three occasions one colored up (not the red described in the article, but visibly more colorful) and all tank inhabitants became VERY interested in the spot occupied by the colored up fish. As if there were eggs to be eaten.

If they DID spawn...they did not kill everyone in the tank, nor were they able to keep the mbuna and Synodontis away from their spot. The mbuna and the jewels have full use of the tank and take advantage of that.

So based on my one experience, I think mixing mbuna and jewels in a 75G can work.

For this tank, I'd like a more consistently colorful fish, at least with those brilliant tank mates. My jewels look like the profile pic except without the reddish cheeks. The color they have is subtle: some pink, some yellow and some turquoise spots upon close examination. But viewing the tank from a distance the color impression is not-quite-silver and not-quite-pink.


----------



## CeeJay (Aug 16, 2016)

Just wondering what your plans are once they do spawn. There not mouth breeders and would have free swimming fry. I don't think many will make it to adults.

I have some rock kirbs with same kind of set up they get along well with the other fish. I'm just afraid the buccochromis will get more hungry then I can feed him and they will just disappear. But jewels in breeding color are just awesome.


----------



## DJRansome (Oct 29, 2005)

I don't want babies...I would expect the eggs and/or fry to be eaten by the African Rift Lake fish.

I guess my jewels have not laid eggs then...I did see more color on the three occasions mentioned, but nothing awesome. :-? Have you kept them? Do you have pics?

Just trying to see if there is a mix that Cichlid-forum could recommend when stocking a tank with jewels or if a single pair works best.


----------



## mbargas (Apr 19, 2009)

DJRansome said:


> No deaths among the jewels, but color is nothing to write home about. For the most part, they seem comfortable in the tank. Do they only color up when spawning? Would they have more consistent color with less aggressive tank mates?
> 
> Detente has been reached. I have not observed them spawning or seen eggs, but on three occasions one colored up (not the red described in the article, but visibly more colorful) and all tank inhabitants became VERY interested in the spot occupied by the colored up fish. As if there were eggs to be eaten.
> 
> ...


I personally like the idea of adding jewels. Their bright ruby-red coloration is a nice contrast to the usual blue, yellow and orange colors that most Malawi Cichlids display. There is considerable color variability among the various species of jewels. Some show a very intense red throughout their bodies whereas others are only partly red with a more of a brownish coloration on the rest of their bodies so it is important to select the right stock to start out with.

In terms of compatibility, they seem to do OK, but there can be conflicts during spawning. I remember keeping a small pair of jewels in a Hap tank. When they spawned they colored up nicely and they defended a small territory but they weren't strong enough to drive all the Haps away. A few days later I found that one of the jewels was dead and the eggs were all eaten.


----------



## Fogelhund (Dec 3, 2002)

DJRansome said:


> I don't want babies...I would expect the eggs and/or fry to be eaten by the African Rift Lake fish.
> 
> I guess my jewels have not laid eggs then...I did see more color on the three occasions mentioned, but nothing awesome. :-? Have you kept them? Do you have pics?
> 
> Just trying to see if there is a mix that Cichlid-forum could recommend when stocking a tank with jewels or if a single pair works best.


If they do spawn, they are going to defend that site very rigourously, and are quite capable of doing so. It would be no different than if you put in some Neolamprologus tetracanthus, or Lepidiolamprologus nkambae in the tank. When these guys are on, they are more capable than Neolamprologus brichardi at defending a site.


----------



## DJRansome (Oct 29, 2005)

OK I will keep watching. I have not planned a tank change for them in conjunction with Sunday's auction...so they are probably there until the spring at least. As long as everyone stay's healthy. I have spare tanks for them if a problem develops.


----------



## BC in SK (Aug 11, 2012)

DJRansome said:


> six jewels


You should post some pics of your jewels. To have them over a year and not spawn; not even obvious pairing up........sort of suggests you may have ended up with only one sex.
A good side shot on mature jewels and I should be able to sex them.
I just purchased 5 neon jewels in may, all of what was left in the tank at the LFS. I knew they were mostly males when I purchased them, but when I got home and observed them it became obvious that all 5 were males. My intention was to purchase more, but have yet to do so. Just a couple more examples of getting only one sex: Purchased 3 acei. Well over a year, they never bred. Believe all 3 were males . I got rid of 2 and kept the largest. A year later purchased 3 more acei. All 3 were females as all 3 have held recently.
I know the odds are against all 6 being of one sex......but it does happen sometimes, just by chance, that all purchased are of the same sex.


----------



## DJRansome (Oct 29, 2005)

I tried when they were new without luck. Next time I clean the glass well enough for photos, I will. Thanks for offering.


----------



## mbargas (Apr 19, 2009)

DJRansome said:


> .I did see more color on the three occasions mentioned, but nothing awesome. :-? Have you kept them? Do you have pics?


Here is a lifalili jewel in a non-breeding state. Decent color but nothing like the intense red shown when breeding:


----------



## DJRansome (Oct 29, 2005)

Those are nice. Mine are not as pink. But also a different species.


----------



## BC in SK (Aug 11, 2012)

DJRansome said:


> also a different species.


Not likely. Just a different strain.
The over whelming vast majority of jewels labeled lifalili in the trade, are _Hemichromis guttatus_. They sell better when labeled lifalili, rather then just a "common jewel". Also sell better if there more colorful. The real _Hemichromis lifalili _ is a rare fish.....not even sure it is actually in the hobby!


----------



## mbargas (Apr 19, 2009)

BC in SK said:


> DJRansome said:
> 
> 
> > also a different species.
> ...


Here are my lifalilis when breeding


http://imgur.com/b203c


I believe they match the description in the species profile on this site


----------



## BC in SK (Aug 11, 2012)

mbargas said:


> I believe they match the description in the species profile on this site


Well, I don't buy the description in the profiles on this site.
But if one did: it is quite clear from the pictures you provided of your breeding pair that the mid-lateral blotch is mostly below the lateral line......so based on the description in the profiles, should make your fish _H. guttatus_. 
As far as bright red coloration......we have had pictures going back to the 1950's. There have always been bright red specimens of the common jewel (_H. guttatus_). It's not new. Only the trade name "lilifalli"!
My understanding, is that according to Anton Lambog, what is known in the trade as _Hemichromis_ sp. moanda is the real _H. lifalili_.
An example of this, is the thumbnail used by the cichlid room companion:http://www.cichlidae.com/genus.php?id=21. Take a good close look at this picture, as well as other jewels labeled H. sp. moanda, and it is pretty obvious that it is a different jewel then what is commonly labeled "lifalili". Moreover, I think it is apparent that "lilifalii" is simply a nicely colored strain of guttatus!


----------



## mbargas (Apr 19, 2009)

BC in SK said:


> mbargas said:
> 
> 
> > I believe they match the description in the species profile on this site
> ...


Here is what it says:
"Mature females of these selectively bred H. guttatus are colored bright cherry-red, while males tend to a darker violet-red. Wild H. lifalili specimens generally exhibit a more reddish-orange coloration (Loiselle, 1979)."
None of mine exhibit the violet-red coloration. I've had some in the past that showed such dimorphism.

http://www.cichlid-forum.com/profiles/s ... hp?id=2508


----------



## BC in SK (Aug 11, 2012)

Here is what it says:
"Mature females of these selectively bred H. guttatus are colored bright cherry-red, while males tend to a darker violet-red. Wild H. lifalili specimens generally exhibit a more reddish-orange coloration (Loiselle, 1979)."
None of mine exhibit the violet-red coloration. I've had some in the past that showed such dimorphism.

http://www.cichlid-forum.com/profiles/s ... hp?id=2508[/quote]
So what? Yours certainly do not show the yellow coloration as exhibited in the picture I linked to. It is most clearly NOT the same fish. The link is the real deal as it is a picture of Anton Lamboj's fish. Fish with an actual known collection point and owned by an ichthyologist who is considered one of most reputable authorities on West African cichlids.
And your not including the rest of the description of the mid-lateral blotch from the cichlid profiles......which your fish clearly fits _H. guttatus_ based on that description.
Regardless, the cichlid -forum profile is out dated and generally wrong. Nothing to do with Loiselle, just that it is not the whole picture. But by the way, reading some other threads Loiselle says he "screwed the pooch" on his descriptions back in '79.
IMO your fish is gutttatus. No, I am not certain, but I don't believe your fish is really any different then any other common jewels.
Looks very much like mine. Common box store guttatus:

Same red coloration.
Unless your fish came with the info of a specific known collection point that corresponds to the known range of _H. lifalili_, I really don't see what distinguishes your fish guttatus.


----------



## mbargas (Apr 19, 2009)

BC in SK said:


> Here is what it says:
> 
> IMO your fish is gutttatus. No, I am not certain, but I don't believe your fish is really
> Looks very much like mine. Common box store guttatus:
> ...


They may be, but IMO yours don't look at all like mine. I have some other jewels with a plumper body like yours, and looking at them side by side there is a big difference in the coloration.


----------



## BC in SK (Aug 11, 2012)

mbargas said:


> and looking at them side by side there is a big difference in the coloration.


Regardless.
I'm not sure you have taken a close look at my provided link.http://www.cichlidae.com/genus.php?id=21 You can click on the thumbnail of _H. lifalili_ to get a larger sized pic.
It is most definitely a different fish then you have. As Anton Lamboj states, it is the same fish known in the hobby as _Hemichromis_ sp. "moanda". This is obvious by looking at pics:https://www.google.ca/search?q=hemi...hUKEwi4h7-Lqb3PAhWJyoMKHfwbAScQsAQIKQ#imgrc=_
I'm willing to concede that what you have might be a slightly different fish then most common jewels. _H. guttataus_ is a variable species with a fairly large range. 
I could easily distinguish any of the jewels pictures in the link from the Cichlid Room Companion. Your fish doesn't fit any of them, other then guttatus.
I suppose it could be an undescribed species but I really don't see the major difference with yours and other guttatus.
The cichlid-form profile is pure bogus. I suppose to be fair to the author, it was written in the past and based on what an aquarist thought at the time. It references Loiselle but is certainly not written by him. The pictured jewel with it's very high mid-lateral blotch was probably thought to be lifalili at the time---- and it's not quite the same fish you have (mid lateral blotches are different :lol: ) but IMO likely just another kind of guttatus. Again, certainly not the _H. lilifalli_ shown in the link from the cichlid room companion.


----------



## mbargas (Apr 19, 2009)

Well, whatever they are. Where is a video of a pair with their fry

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ukpt0jF ... e=youtu.be

So who knows if they are guttatus or some other species, after all, some of the differences are subtle. Perhaps a hybrid of some sort?


----------



## mbargas (Apr 19, 2009)

And here is a video of a female of a bright red jewel I had several years ago. Black blotches were obliterated by the red coloration. The corresponding male had a darker coloration, not exactly violet, more of a dark crimson. I believe that these were line bred guttatus.


----------



## Leyshpunctatus (Feb 19, 2016)

So where does H. Bimaculatus come into it?


----------



## Mr Chromedome (Feb 12, 2013)

Leyshpunctatus said:


> So where does H. Bimaculatus come into it?


Doesn't exist in the hobby. There were a couple imported a very long time ago, but were all lost. Despite the fact that we've known better for over 40 years, many sources still give that name as the common red jewel.


----------



## mbargas (Apr 19, 2009)

BC in SK said:


> Unless your fish came with the info of a specific known collection point that corresponds to the known range of _H. lifalili_, I really don't see what distinguishes your fish guttatus.


Well, regardless of their species, I have noticed considerable variability in the coloration of jewel cichlids, and it is not just when they are breeding. Earlier I showed a pair that were breeding and both had the same intense coloration. Here is another breeding pair, but one of the partners is from a different source. See how it lacks the intense ruby red color

http://i1055.photobucket.com/albums/s50 ... wav4ej.jpg


----------



## mbargas (Apr 19, 2009)

http://imgur.com/lhKTJ


----------

