# Can some help identify my fish?



## Neeper (Apr 16, 2011)

Hi,

I am hoping can help me identify my fish.






I think he's part flowerhorn.[/img]


----------



## Number6 (Mar 13, 2003)

why do you think it isn't a Flowerhorn? Many hybrid breeds can throw the occasional fry that one says "wow, that looks like 'x'! "


----------



## SinisterKisses (Feb 24, 2004)

I'd call it a flowerhorn. It's certainly not pure.


----------



## bernie comeau (Feb 19, 2007)

Flowerhorn, no doubt.
I supose it is possible that it has argentea genes since a flowerhorn is a cross of many CA cichlid species. But really, I think any resemblence this fish might have to an argentea is purely superfiscial.


----------



## Chromedome52 (Jul 25, 2009)

I see nothing to suggest anything other than _argentea_. Do you think it's a flowerhorn just because he has a big hump? He's a foot long male, and _argentea _*do* develop humps. Add food that enhances the hump - and there are foods marketed for this - and you have an exceptional male _argentea_. Adult _argentea _lose most of the black markings on the body, and become a big, silvery fish with one or two black spots in specific locations, which this fish has.

This is a photo of Dan-Ye Jennings' male from 2006 ACA convention, he was only about 8-9 inches.










Please tell me what about the OP's fish, BESIDES THE HUMP, makes you think it's not _argentea_?


----------



## Guest (Apr 16, 2011)

def a flowerhorn mix.. .i have a few flowerhorn mixs growing out now... never know what they will look like


----------



## bernie comeau (Feb 19, 2007)

Chromedome52 said:


> makes you think it's not _argentea_?


True, many very mature cichlids will lose some of the markings that are generally typical of the species. But the fact that there are no small black dots, anywhere, on the body or fins, would really make me question that it is an argentea.

The body shape, mouth, snout and face...... apears to be identicle to that of many flowerhorns. Can't say I have ever seen an argentea, let alone any Veija/Paratheraps with quite that body shape, face, or snout.

The marking on the shoulder apears to be ocelated..... more like a flowerhorn; unlike an argentea.

The coloration is very blue rather then yellow, as well as the eye is blue. Though that could be due to the lighting.


----------



## dielikemoviestars (Oct 23, 2007)

Uh, it's clearly _Cichlasoma michaeljacksoni_. (Watch :30-:45 and think about it's coloration.)


----------



## Guest (Apr 16, 2011)

lol i was like huh about to look up the profile for that then im like ohhhhhhhhhhh thats a joke hahahaha.. the moonwalk.. i get it.. i know i ruined the joke by explaining it but whatever lol


----------



## dielikemoviestars (Oct 23, 2007)

:lol: I was really proud of myself for that joke until I explained it to a non-cichlid-keeper and their reaction was deadpan flat.


----------



## Chromedome52 (Jul 25, 2009)

Actually, I can see the small black dots on it early in the video (about the 0:06 mark), before it gets into the bright light that washes out most of the color. The black _argentea _spot does not look ocellated at all to me, not sure how you see anything like that. As for the head shape, other than the size of the hump, it is identical to the photo of _argentea _that I posted. A little deeper bodied, as most mature and overfed _Vieja _are.

If you Google Image _Vieja argentea_, you will see that older fish are far more silvery. And _argentea _DO have blue/silvery eyes. If you Google Image Platinum Flowerhorns (and they may even be partially based on _argentea_), you will see that they have RED eyes, not blue. So again, I do not believe it is a flowerhorn. It is an exceptionally large and well developed male _argentea_.


----------



## Number6 (Mar 13, 2003)

*Chromedome52*
Although argentea can have a large nuchal hump, have you ever seen one that large? Add to that the lack of full peppering and this fishes unknown origins and you cannot rule out possible hybrid. The blue eyes do not rule out flower horn... I've seen yellow, blue, etc though it is obvious that breeders favor the red eyes.

I still suggest to the op that they answer the question I posed...


----------



## AZcichlidfreak (Nov 16, 2010)

dielikemoviestars said:


> Uh, it's clearly _Cichlasoma michaeljacksoni_. (Watch :30-:45 and think about it's coloration.)


LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :lol:


----------



## bernie comeau (Feb 19, 2007)

Chromedome52 said:


> Actually, I can see the small black dots on it early in the video (about the 0:06 mark).


True, you can see 4 larger black dots and a few smaller black dots on the upper part of the body; but nothing on the fins. 
I supose , just by chance, a CA cichlid could end up having the same body shape, mouth and snout as a flowerhorn. CA cichlids are all very, very similar. Seen many older black belts and synspillium with huge nauachal humps .......but they look nothing like this fish in terms of body shape, snout and face. Could be a very mature argentea, but really, I'm not convinced :lol:


----------



## Chromedome52 (Jul 25, 2009)

How about the broad black forehead mark, another _argentea _characteristic? It's so stretched across that nuchal hump that it's a bit pale, but it is evident. And the smaller face stripes are present as well. And look again at the dorsal, there are some small spots visible along the base of the fin.

If the fish can have a nuchal hump, it can have an enormous nuchal hump. The size of the hump makes the shape of the head and mouth look off, but they are not. As I noted before, there are foods, often used by Flowerhorn keepers, that will enhance the growth of that fatty tissue. And if they encourage growth of the fatty tissues, that will include making the fish somewhat obese. I would say the fish is fairly old, given size and shape. Diet does influence the shape of _Vieja _greatly. Given that Flowerhorns come from CA Cichlids, I'd say they resemble the shape of their ancestors, not the other way around.

The reduction of variable characters on an individual are not really proof of hybridization, only of the possibility, and the variations on that individual are well within parameters for the species. And again, Google Image search, and you will see a great deal more variability in this species than most realize it is capable of.


----------



## Number6 (Mar 13, 2003)

What you say is all true chromedome but as you admit, it's also true for the reverse... This could be a flower horn that resembles one of it's ancestors. I will admit, it's a guess either way but when trying to label a fish of unknown heritage, you need to go with the higher probabilities in all cases. The higher probability answer is that this fish is a flower horn. This is why I asked for more info from the owner... What info is there that this fish isnt a flower horn?


----------



## Chromedome52 (Jul 25, 2009)

Let's see, a fish that has all the characteristics of one species and no evident characteristics of any other species, is more likely to be a hybrid than to be the species that it looks like. :?

I GET IT! IT'S A PODPEOPLE FISH! :roll:

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, IT AIN'T A PLATYPUS.


----------



## Number6 (Mar 13, 2003)

Chromedome52 said:


> Let's see, a fish that has all the characteristics of one species and no evident characteristics of any other species, is more likely to be a hybrid than to be the species that it looks like.


 it has abnormal characteristics... We've pointed those out. 2 really odd characteristics as well. Your hypothetical explanations of those characteristics are improbable IMHO, but possible so the OP owes us more info.


----------



## 24Tropheus (Jun 21, 2006)

For a _Vieja argentea_ that sure is an impressive hump.








Is a big hump but nothing in comparison.
Or is it a duck? :wink: 




All the best James


----------



## Number6 (Mar 13, 2003)

Great example James... that is what I expect a mature argentea to look like.

What it comes down to is this... we all know (every line breeder can share an example of this) that any man made breed can suddenly throw out a genetic throw back. These genetic throw backs sure look like one of the ancestral parents sometimes even match so well that no "expert" can spot the differences. If the OP was on here saying that his fish "should be pure" as it was bought as pure and the owner knows the breeder, then I might be on here suggesting what Chromedome is. We'd be even more set if the owner shared with us some other info like yes, this fish has always had a funny looking face and yes, they've fed him foods that might explain the anomalies.

However, the OP has not shared any further info...

If the OP never returns, then I'm likely sticking with the most probable explanation of the two anomalous characteristics... this is a genetic throw back showing IMHO, 3 Flowerhorn like characteristics not regular for Argentea.

It is a guess though, and Chromedome's guess is equally valid (just less probable in my opinion).

Hope that helps out.


----------



## Chromedome52 (Jul 25, 2009)

Okay, this is going to be a long post, so long that I wrote it outside the forum so that I could just copy and paste. I also wish the OP would respond with some history on the fish, but even without that, I can point out a few things that make your frankenfish theory much less likely.

To be honest, I think a good broadside still shot, properly lit, will show more speckles than you can see in the video. That isnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t HD, and the fish is either in shadow or extremely bright light throughout the video. In mature argentea the speckles keep getting smaller as they age, all you have to do is look at a few photos of fish at different ages and this becomes obvious. Small black specks can be easily lost in a low resolution image, just compare the thumbnails to the full size images of adults.

The next thing is that you are ignoring the age of the fish. If it were only a couple of years old, then yes, there would be a reasonable possibility that it might have been a throwback from a frankenfish hybrid. However, the size of that fish suggests an age of 6-8 years; with the nuchal hump, IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢d place it at 8-10, maybe older. If you go back that far, even just six years, the probability of a frankenfish cross drops dramatically. If my age estimate is correct, the probability becomes practically nil. Flowerhorns may be ubiquitous now, but they have a relatively short history at this point in time.

There is also another possibility that I havenÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t mentioned before simply because I consider it less likely than your hybrid throwback theory. Back in the late 80s-early 90s there was an importation of argentea under the name Cichlasoma sp. Ã¢â‚¬Å"UsumacintaÃ¢â‚¬Â


----------



## bernie comeau (Feb 19, 2007)

Chromedome52 said:


> somewhere in the wilds of Canada


I wouldn't exactly call Calgary "the wilds of Canada" :lol: ......after all it is a city of 1.1 million people! But the selection of cichlids available at any given time is almost unbeleivable to someone like myself from a smaller place (pop. 260,000). It's a completely different market then Saskatoon, that's for sure. Lot's of uncommon cichlids available, both juvies and mature adults and many independant LFS's; some almost exclusively cichlid.

But getting back to topic.....the more I look at the fish, the more I think you're probably right!


----------



## Number6 (Mar 13, 2003)

Chromedome52 said:


> The next thing is that you are ignoring the age of the fish. If it were only a couple of years old, then yes, there would be a reasonable possibility that it might have been a throwback from a frankenfish hybrid. However, the size of that fish suggests an age of 6-8 years; with the nuchal hump, IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢d place it at 8-10, maybe older.


If the OP knows it is many years old, it would point us towards Argentea.

You are familiar with the fact that Flowerhorns grow at a rather rapid rate... common to hybrids. If this is a Flowerhorn, I doubt it is that old. If it is an Argentea, then it may be quite old... then it is also less likely to be (finally) posted on a forum after so long in the OP's ownership.

Agnosticism is a hard thing to defeat without new evidence!


----------



## Chromedome52 (Jul 25, 2009)

Bernie, I like to kid with my Canadian friends. Besides, Calgary's big claim to fame is a Rodeo.  :lol:

I was looking at the photo that James posted. I don't see any speckling. Do you see any speckling on that fish, Number6? I don't see any speckling. Where's the speckling?

You are down to one, and only one, mildly aberrant characteristic, which is the hump. I have seen bigger humps on Red Devils, wild specimens in fact. This is an epigenetic characteristic, and the size is a direct result of environment, not genetics. The _argentea _hump also looks different from the Frankenfish in James' video link. It is not as spherical as an _Amphilophus _hump. The shape is not that of a Flowerhorn's hump. Look at the head on views in particular to see what I'm talking about.

That will be my last shot. Sometimes you just run into a person who realizes he's wrong but is too much of a stubborn cuss to admit it. Been there, done that. Given the tone of the first post, I would surmise that Neepers bought a big trade-in fish, and didn't really get any history of the specimen. I would commend him for not being a TWIBIA, and let him draw his own conclusions based on the ideas posted here.


----------



## 24Tropheus (Jun 21, 2006)

For sure I dunno who has it right on this guy. I kind of like reading the arguement though. :thumb: 
As its a huge male with no chance of ever being bred its kind of not that important?
Impressive fish but unless I see one thats known to be pure with that kind of a hump then its just an interesting freak. Pure or hybrid. Yes?

All the best James


----------



## Number6 (Mar 13, 2003)

24Tropheus said:


> Impressive fish but unless I see one thats known to be pure with that kind of a hump then its just an interesting freak. Pure or hybrid. Yes?


 Chromedome is suggesting that no, it is not even a freak but just a fish with characteristics at the far range of normal for the species.

Chromedome, the speckling is not as apparent in the photo and I have agreed that this species does lose some of it's speckling with age... however, I found the youtube video to be well lit and clear and to my eye, it spoke volumes. 
The two main anomalous features are the hump and the overall head/body shape/ finnage issue. Side by side, a still of the youtube video and James' photo really make the oddities pop out to my eye. A black and white photo of many a flowerhorn and a black and white still of the youtube video has many similarities.

What's been interesting about this thread for me is that similarities can be explained by the throw back theory, where as the anomalies are dismissed in the argentea theory?

I'm with James on this... if it is not a throwback, then it is a freak of an Argentea.

Where the heck did Nesper go anyway? :lol:

We scared him off...


----------



## 24Tropheus (Jun 21, 2006)

Yep the body is far to wide for any pure Vegia agentina I have seen. The hump is quite frankly rediculous for a pure guy. But then I have not seen many old guys but then it is mixed with clear hybrid fish. :wink: I know not clear indication of anything but it is highly sugestive that the keeper does not get his/her cichlids from known good sourse? In the context of the other fish shown in the vidio who can guess. I have not heard of anyone line breeding this species to get a larger hump or very wide body. If any one knows of such, then please step forward.

All the best James


----------

