# How many types of acara?



## Kipling (Mar 18, 2017)

Hi,
I see Andinoacara pulcher marketed as blue, neon blue, electric blue, and for good measure, electric blue neon.
Can someone please advise if there is any difference between "neon" and "electric blue"?
Cheers


----------



## thornsja19 (Feb 4, 2017)

Basically if it's a Blue Acara, it's the natural form or it's mislabeled. You can tell because if it's a true Blue Acara, they're very easy to mistake for a Green Terror when young, and even adults keep the similar coloration. Neon Blue and Electric Blue Neon are just different trade names for the Electric Blue Acara, which is a man made color morph of the natural Blue Acara. There 2 are easy to tell apart though, natural Blue Acaras and the man made Electric Blue Acaras have a similar body shape but the coloration is nowhere close. You'll be able to tell the difference just by looking at them


----------



## Kipling (Mar 18, 2017)

Many thanks for that clarification.
Cheers


----------



## FireHorn123 (Apr 16, 2017)

From what I recall there is a black acara too which for some reason is coming up as Cichlosoma Bimaculatum. Which is funny because when Cichlasoma was still a thing the Genus aquedens was a thing as well. I wonder why the black acara was never scientifically named Aquedens isn't it in the same genus a Aquendens Pulcher and Aquedens Rivulatus?


----------



## Mr Chromedome (Feb 12, 2013)

The fact that _Cichlasoma bimaculatum_ was the basis for the genus _Cichlasoma_ is the reason for the breakup of the old "Cichlasoma" complex. It also caused a lot of questions about _Aequidens_, which is still being sorted out. The more recently described Genus _Andinoacara_ was erected to contain the Blue Acara and Green Terror types of Cichlid, but _Aequidens_ is still a genus, containing species such as _diadema, metae, tetramerus_ and the more recently introduced _patricki_.


----------



## FireHorn123 (Apr 16, 2017)

That's really interesting the way that happened so Green Terrors are Andinocara Rivulatus and not Aquedens Rivulatus now? Wow how am I just now realizing this  I've called the, Aquedens for so long. Are they gonna rename the black acara Andinocara Bimaculatum?


----------



## Mr Chromedome (Feb 12, 2013)

The Black Acara is not an Acara. It is a true _Cichlasoma_ species. That was determined in 1983 by Kullander, who published a revision of _Cichlasoma_ that removed most of the species previously placed in that Genus. However, the Port Cichlids, of which there are now several species, are the true _Cichlasoma_ species. _Andinoacara_ is a more recent description in the effort to clarify those species that were generally referred to as _Aequidens_.


----------



## BC in SK (Aug 11, 2012)

Mr Chromedome said:


> The Black Acara is not an Acara. It is a true _Cichlasoma_ species. That was determined in 1983 by Kullander, who published a revision of _Cichlasoma_ that removed most of the species previously placed in that Genus. However, the Port Cichlids, of which there are now several species, are the true _Cichlasoma_ species.


I find it rather odd that some view _Cichlasoma_ species as some how a different grouping then other Acaras :-? There is really nothing about this genus that would warrant them as being seperate from other Acaras.
Acara is a defunct genus. It became a common name to refer to this entire grouping and is essentially a common name for the tribe _Cichlasomatini_. All the Acara genera (eg. _Aequidens, Andinoacara, Cichlasoma, Krobia, Laetacara. ect_) are in the tribe _Cichlasomatini_.
A number of _Cichlasoma_ species, such as the Port Acara (_Cichlasoma portalgrensis_), were among those placed in the defunct genus, Acara. One would think they would have more claim to be called an Acara, since unlike most Acaras, once apon a time they were actually in the defunct genus, Acara!
I started in this hobby, being given a tank at 9 yrs. old. Port Acara was among my first fish. All through the '70's and 80's, though not a common fish, they were around and everyone I knew or talked to called them Port ACARAS. I realize common names can be different over time and in different places, but I never even heard the term "Port Cichlid" until about 10 years ago coming on to the internet. For me, it would be like calling a Blue Acara, a "Blue cichlid" :lol: 
Not sure I have ever actually seen a Black Acara but certainly read about it in the late '70's. Everyone knew that changes in classification were coming, but at the time I thought it was a simple matter of changing the name _Cichlasoma bimaculatum_ to _Aequidens bimaculatum_. But since _Cichlasoma bimaculatum_ is the first _Cichlasoma_ described, the type species, it gets the name; it 'owns' the name. In 1983, didn't know classification had those kind of rules  All the CA cichlids that were formerly in the genus _Cichlasoma_ were now in generic limbo; in need of re-classification. The term Cichlasoma used to mean CA cichlids (and few SA like sevs, festivum and chocalates) but it really doesn't mean that today since the genus is restricted to the Port Acaras.


----------

