# Pelvicachromis Sacrimontis (aka scarlet/giant/regular/-krib)



## xalow (May 10, 2007)

I am honestly not at all familiar with Pelvicachromis enough to figure out if what I have is different from the standard krib. They look the same as far as I can tell.

Here is my pair:










Fish base states the P. sacrimontis is an unjustifiable synonym for P. camerunensis, which in turn is apparently a synonym for P. kribensis. Am I getting this right?

My small pair has fry which are barely visible form my awful picture, which is why I am asking for some help clearing up this nomenclature mystery.


----------



## dwarfpike (Jan 22, 2008)

Those look regular to me ... _P. sacrimontis_ is a bright red even when small.

Best pics of the various _Pelvicachromis_ I've found is here: http://www.tedsfishroom.com/wp/imag.../west-african-cichlids/pelvicachromis-gallery

Until recently (2004 I think), _P. sacrimontis_ was considered a junior synonym for _P. pulcher_ ... aka the hobby 'krib.'

Odd note, _P. kribensis_ is actually a jr. synonym for _P. taeniatus_.


----------



## aquaticclarity (Nov 8, 2006)

Your fish are Pelvicachromis pulcher.

P. sacrimontis is a very similiar species but has a different color pattern and a slightly differnt head profile. There are 3 naturally occuring color forms yellow, green, and red.

P. sp. aff. pulcher-P. camerunensis-P. sacrimontis

Pelvicachromis sp. aff. pulcher Form A and B (sp.=species [not discribed] and aff.=affinis [silimilar to]...stated that it MIGHT be discribed as P. camerunensis (pg. 146 African Cichlids 1 Cichlids from West Africa Linke and Staeck 1994)...accourding to Lamboj P. sacrimontis was discribed in 1977 by Paulo

Jeff


----------



## dwarfpike (Jan 22, 2008)

*points to Jeff*

Listen to him, he's better at westies than I am ... I am constantly drooling at his stocklist of westies ... *chuckles*


----------



## xalow (May 10, 2007)

Thank you two so much for clearing that up.

From what I have read apparently P. camerunensis does not occur in Cameroon, another odd note in taxonomy.

The fish base thing I was alluding to is here in case anyone was curious:
http://www.fishbase.org/Nomenclature/Sy ... spelling=0

Strange how it credits it as a synonym in 1968 for a publication from 1977?

Luckily when I went to purchase these fish I had intended to buy P. pulcher, and these were cheaper than the "regular kribs". However the store did seem to have an older and much larger pair that was very dark and had a lot more red that were supposedly the parents of these fish though I think that may have been an oversight.


----------



## dwarfpike (Jan 22, 2008)

Jeff,

Does that mean that the 'Giant Red Krib Form B" isn't _P. sacrimontis_???


----------



## aquaticclarity (Nov 8, 2006)

dwarfpike said:


> Jeff,
> 
> Does that mean that the 'Giant Red Krib Form B" isn't _P. sacrimontis_???


'Giant Red Krib Form B'...where are you seeing this name? I'd guess it's sacrimontis but a picture or at least a source would help.

Jeff


----------



## dwarfpike (Jan 22, 2008)

LFS ... they got them from the Cichlid Exchange ... no pick on their site, but they have them listed as: sp. aff. pulcher "Form B" "Giant Kribensis"

They look alot like the _P. sacrimontis_ on Ted Judy's site, but with how variable a lot of them are ... I'm just not experienced enough with them out to pick out some of that detail ... yet!


----------



## aquaticclarity (Nov 8, 2006)

They SHOULD be the yellow form of sacrimontis if they really are the Form B. I'd wagger money that they are most likely the green form of sacrimontis though.


----------



## dwarfpike (Jan 22, 2008)

If I head back down there, will bring a camera. Can't promise decent pics though! :lol:

If I get the job I'm interviewing for tommorrow, I might even pick them up after the first paycheck. Am torn between them and _P. signatus_ they have though. The Giant Kribs are more colorful, but the signatus have such cool patterning.


----------



## Randall (Jul 2, 2003)

Hello guys,

There seems to be a little nomenclature confusion in this thread; hopefully, I can clear things up.

The designations Pelvicachromis (formally Pelmatochromis) pulcher -A and P. pulcher -B follow Thys' use of these names in "A preliminary contribution to a systematic revision of the Genus _Pelmatochromis_ Hubrecht sensu lato," 1968. He used the designations "pulcher -A" for P. pulcher and "pulcher -B" for P. sp. affin. pulcher (currently P. sacrimontis Paulo 1977).

The designation 'Pelvicachromis camerunensis' is popular trade name and NOT a scientific one (Thys, 1968). It has been used to label both P. pulcher and P. sacrimontis. The Fish Base entry above citing "P. sacrimontis Paulo 1977" as an unjustified replacement name for "P. camerunensis Paulo 1968" is blatantly wrong. Neither Paulo nor Thys ever described the taxon, "P. camerunensis."

The popular name, "giant krib," was first proposed by P. Loiselle in a magazine article for Pelvicachromis sacrimontis Paulo 1977. I should note that Paulo never intended to describe this species. His informal "description" was done inadvertantly in the introduction to an article concerning P. taeniatus that was published in 1977. To this day, the taxon remains undiagnosed.

From my perspective, the easiest way to distinguish Pelvicachromis sacrimontis from P. pulcher is to look at the opercular and ventral regions of the head and throat. P. sacrimontis exhibits turquoise-blue coloration, while P. pulcher does not.

I hope this clears things up a bit.

All the best,

Randall Kohn


----------

