# May-December romance for chetumalensis?



## Mr Chromedome (Feb 12, 2013)

Well, I have seen some strange things, but this might be the strangest. A couple of months ago I bought a breeder pair of Chets at a local auction. They were placed in a 20 high, but were not at all happy. The male apparently killed his mate, and I was left with a very large, 5 inch male. This is quite large for the species, and hopes of finding an appropriate mate were pretty slim. He was moved into a tank with some _Caquetaia spectabilis_, but eventually he started pushing back at the dominant fish. I figured it was too similar colorwise (the maturing _spectabilis _was developing some orange color), and he saw it as a competitor. Also, the submissive pattern on the Spec was darkening vertical bars, which looked more like another _Cryptoheros _trying to show dominance. So I moved him into a 90 with a bunch of _Ilyodon furcidens _and some mostly juvenile _chetumalensis_.

There were also two small _chetumalensis _that had been severely stunted by another hobbyist and given back to me after I gave them to him a few years ago. After being in my care for several weeks, I came to the conclusion that both were females, and moved them into the 90 when I got a bag of very young of the same species. The larger of the two, still less than 2 inches long, took over a flowerpot and was getting female style territorial. When I moved the big male over to the tank she treated him like she did everything else, trying to chase him away. That was yesterday.

Today I noticed the big male, previously very shy when I came around, was coming to the front of the tank and watching me every once in a while. As he moved near the territorial female, she did not attack as she had yesterday. They were not behaving as opponents, though the male was not yet showing male territorial behavior other than watching me.

The male is probably 5 or 6 times the mass of the little female. The opening for her flowerpot is small enough that she can get in but he cannot, and the large population of the tank could be distracting enough that he doesn't go after her. I tried to get a photo of the two next to one another, but have not had luck there yet. Below are photos of the two; the size difference does not show in the photos.

Male:








Female:


----------



## Iggy Newcastle (May 15, 2012)

opcorn:


----------



## Mr Chromedome (Feb 12, 2013)

This is embarrassing.

Entered the male in the GCCA Classic show. After the judging, one of the judges, a very good expert on this group told me it was not _Cryptoheros chetumalensis_, but _cutteri._ The giveaway is the band of blue iridescence on the flanks; neither _chetumalensis_ or _spilurus_ possess this. There were several other characteristics that identified him, but that was the most obvious.

The little female truly is a _chetumalensis_ because of the red-orange color in the dorsal. However, I now have to wait for the 12 juvenile fish obtained as that species to mature so I can see which species they are. As juveniles, the three species are indistinquishable. Obviously there are some misidentified fish in the area, as the big male was part of a misidentified breeding pair of fish.

The guy who sold the pair at auction gave me an indication that I thought provided a good provenance on the ID. Unfortunately, I did not go any deeper to verify it for myself. I shall receive thirty lashes with a dead goldfish.


----------



## CjCichlid (Sep 14, 2005)

Haah.. man. I was just about to say those looked VERY similar to the group I had which I bought as chets, but later found out to be cutteri! I'm starting to think the species C. chetumalensis is completely made up! :lol:


----------



## Mr Chromedome (Feb 12, 2013)

CJ, the person I got the male from is in South Bend area, and I'm sure he did not know that his fish were not chets when distributing their fry. However, if you look at the photo of the female above, you can see the dorsal color that identifies a real _chetumalensis_. I also learned that one of the GCCA members has a tank with at least three pairs of real chets spawning regularly, but he has trouble even giving them away in the area! He has offered to give me some, so we shall see what males look like.


----------



## Iggy Newcastle (May 15, 2012)

How was the Sunday auction? I stopped by really quick to sell some fish, then headed to the Sox/Yankees game with the kid.


----------



## CjCichlid (Sep 14, 2005)

I had two females out of my group of six, they both showed the orange in the dorsal just like the one pictured above. I believe I got my "chets" from a member of the GCCA. I also contacted the guy in South Bend (as I am from Indy) a while back with the supposed chets but he never got back to me. I requested pics of the actual pairs he was selling because in the ad I saw, they were not his. I was simply trying to find out if what he had were truly chets as I was looking for some at the time. Turns out they were cutteri.. which I figured was the case all along.

So.. now I am REALLY confused. Did I have chets all along? The saga continues..


----------



## Mr Chromedome (Feb 12, 2013)

Iggy, the auction was fast and relatively cheap, at least, if you were looking at New World (lucky for me!). Somebody paid a ridiculous price for some sort of aquarium strain Peacocks, and _Tropheus_ of course were way up there. I stole two bags of _Astatheros robertsoni_, 10 fish for a total of $10. These were young fish, but ranged from 1" to 2". Got a bag of _Apisto. baenschi_ young for $12! Felt bad about that, for a few seconds anyway.

CJ, if the female had that really bright orange, then it was _chetumalensis_; and if you got them from someone in Chicago, it may have been Ric Perez, who definitely has them. His fish were identified by Sam Borstein, who was doing a lot of research with behavior in Cryptoheros and collected and bred the three spilurus group species. Sam was the one who showed me the correct way to identify the species.

It should be noted that there are a couple of populations of _cutteri_ in the hobby. Some have more yellow-brown color than others. I was checking some old posts on the ACA forum this evening, and it is possible to confuse these males with _chetumalensis_ if you don't know what to look for.


----------



## Iggy Newcastle (May 15, 2012)

Thanks Chromedome. Kickin myself for skipping it. Glad you made out like a bandit.


----------



## CjCichlid (Sep 14, 2005)

Dang, I wish we had auctions like that here in Indy! Most of the members of the clubs around here keep nothing but Africans.. :roll: I'd be interested to hear how your group of A. robertsoni's do! You should make a thread about them!

Back to the chets.. My females did indeed have the bright orange patch on their dorsal, as well as some orange on their bellies near their pectoral fins. However, everyone I asked said they were cutteri due to the way they looked when in breeding dress..


----------



## Mr Chromedome (Feb 12, 2013)

CJ, this video is from Eric Hanneman.





I would say your fish were _chetumalensis_ based on the fact that they lack the iridescent blue band on the flanks. As you can see in Eric's video, his fish did not show the orange color in the dorsal while brooding fry, but the ID on his fish is obviously without question. I recall that he posted other photos on Cichlidae of non-brooding specimens that had a great deal of orange.

He is the one who brought these _chetumalensis_ into the country. There also may be a change in brooding color on older fish, as a thread on the ACA forum from 3 years ago shows very large, older breeders owned by Jim Cavanaugh with a dark pattern and much more orange. His fish, which came to him from Eric, actually got the size the male I entered in the show, which my experts did not think they should. This thread http://www.cichlid.org/forums/showthread.php?t=4249 has photos of his fish (and the last post in the thread also has the same video as above). This was the source of my group, and the two little females that I have are the last survivors of that group. The are severely stunted, but at least 3 years old, and seem to be showing the "older" color pattern of females that want to breed.

One of the points made repeatedly over the weekend was that many of our cichlids are quite variable within the species, but we often don't see this variability in our aquarium fish because they originated from a very small sample of the population. However, I've noticed from the many threads I've seen on _Cryptoheros_ that they also vary greatly according to age, which may be connected to diet/environment. I think you had a young pair of chets, and your "experts" were, like me, inadequately informed.


----------



## CjCichlid (Sep 14, 2005)

Son of a... well thanks for hitting me with some real knowledge. I've actually already seen the video, and read the thread you linked.. I did quite a bit of research on these guys when everyone kept telling me they were cutteri. I wish you were there to chime in when I was questioning what I had in my thread a while back! Really would have liked to keep the fry to help spread these guys around! I had multiple spawns from two different females!

Here's a video of one of the pairs with fry..


----------



## Mr Chromedome (Feb 12, 2013)

Prior to this past weekend I probably would have said they were cutteri, too! The fact is, I really didn't think there were any easily identifiable differences between the three species before this weekend, and I've already spawned both spilurus and cutteri. After talking to people who have spent a great deal of time studying the group,the differences seem almost obvious. We live and learn, even those of us who have been around for decades.


----------



## CjCichlid (Sep 14, 2005)

So, besides the orange marking on the females dorsal.. what are some other "obvious" differences?


----------



## Mr Chromedome (Feb 12, 2013)

The mouth of _chetumalensis_ is supposed to be "inferior", meaning it is somewhat below the tip of the nose; kind of like a _Labeotropheus_, except not as pronounced. It lacks the blue iridescence of _cutteri_, and _spilurus_ tends to have more of the bars showing. Sam said something about the bar pattern being different between _cutteri_ and _chetumalensis_, but I've looked at James Cavanaugh's photos of both species, and the only real difference I've noticed is the blue band on _cutteri_. The barring seems to be variable, and both these species often have the second bar faded or completely suppressed, while _spilurus_ usually shows all the bars whether breeding or not. There are some very colorful populations of _cutteri_; the Rio Monga in particular could be mistaken for Chets if you don't notice the blue band.

Of course, if the fish are not sexually mature, the three species are indistinguishable as young. Naturally they are usually obtained at a small size, so you end up having to wait for them to mature before you can figure out which species you have. I have a dozen right now that were obtained as Chets, but I have to wait for them to grow up before I will know for certain. What worries me is the possibility that there are unrealized hybrids out there; I nearly allowed such a hybrid to occur myself.


----------



## BC in SK (Aug 11, 2012)

Mr Chromedome said:


> The mouth of _chetumalensis_ is supposed to be "inferior", meaning it is somewhat below the tip of the nose; kind of like a _Labeotropheus_, except not as pronounced. It lacks the blue iridescence of _cutteri_, and _spilurus_ tends to have more of the bars showing. Sam said something about the bar pattern being different between _cutteri_ and _chetumalensis_, but I've looked at James Cavanaugh's photos of both species, and the only real difference I've noticed is the blue band on _cutteri_. The barring seems to be variable, and both these species often have the second bar faded or completely suppressed, while _spilurus_ usually shows all the bars whether breeding or not. There are some very colorful populations of _cutteri_; the Rio Monga in particular could be mistaken for Chets if you don't notice the blue band.


These distinctions might be use full. Seems to be something to it. But I am really not convinced they are reliable distinctions between the species. Are they consistent across age, conditions and various collection points of these species? Might just be traits that tend to be some what more prevalent amongst one or more populations and vary just as much from one location to the next as they do between species??

What is called "chetumalensis" in the hobby is the sarstoon-rio cahal fish (as mentioned they originate from Eric Hanneman). What exactly "chetumalensis" is and what is it's range, isn't really clear. Schmitter-Soto restricted _Cryptoheros spilirum_ to the lake Izabel drainage. Everything else (that is not cutteri) would therefor be _C. chetumalensis_ or an undescribed species. But nobody seems to follow that: from fishbase to cichlidae.com they have _C. spilirum_ listed for many countries and both _C. spilirum_ and _C. chetumalensis_ listed for Belize! Schmitter-Soto described _C. chetumalensis_ from southern Mexico and did not sample spilirum-types farther south. The range of both fishes have to start and stop somewhere. Can't have _C. chetumalensis_ found as far south, as south of the Belize-Guatamala border (rio cahal fish) and somehow _C. spilirum_ also being found in Belize! If you accept Schmitter-Soto's restriction of _C. spilirum_ to the lake Isabel drainage then I would suppose many, if not most of what is called _C. spilirum_ in the hobby doesn't come from there and is therefor _C. chetumalensis_ as well (or undescribed species).


----------



## ahud (Aug 22, 2009)

My group came from Eric's stock and did not look anything like Cj's fish.


----------

