# Red Terror, False RT or something else



## DIYhunter (Mar 3, 2011)

Just curious at this point he/she is at 3"


----------



## bernie comeau (Feb 19, 2007)

"exCichlasoma" urophthalmus. Commonly known as a Mayan cichlid. NOT festae.

Other common names are 'red terror', and the fish is often sold at an LFS under this name. It is sometimes refferred to as a 'false red terror' though I doubt it is ever sold at an LFS under this name, nor do those who seek and aquire this species, call it that. Generally, it is only those who purchase it, thinking it is festae, that refer to it as a 'false red terror'.


----------



## hauntingurcoma (Dec 19, 2011)

nice mayan!


----------



## Chromedome52 (Jul 25, 2009)

I find the markings and shape of that fish somewhat disconcerting, as it shows certain characteristics of both species. It is clearly not a pure _festae_, but it does not look like any pure _urophthalmus _form that I've seen, either. I do not easily throw out the word "hybrid", but I don't know how else to explain the appearance of that fish. I wouldn't even say that it's a hybrid between those two species, as some of the things I'm seeing don't normally occur on either one.


----------



## bernie comeau (Feb 19, 2007)

Chromedome52 said:


> certain characteristics of both species.


Curious to know what you see as the suposed festae characteristics of this fish?


----------



## DIYhunter (Mar 3, 2011)

Sorry I posted this this morning then headed off to work. A buddy of mine bought this as a Red Terror. After I looked at it for a bit & kept asking him where he purchased it. I didn't have the heart to tell him this in not a Festae.

Either way, I won't be able to keep this fish housed for very long as my tank is already on it's way to being crowded.

I just wanted to try an identify the fish as best I could before letting someone else own it.

Thanks for the comments & input.


----------



## Chromedome52 (Jul 25, 2009)

Let me point out that I *did *say I'm not sure there's any _festae _in the fish, only that certain characteristics that are not Mayan are similar to _festae_. Those same characteristics could be from any number of species - just not _urophthalmus_.

That said, the fish shows blotches down the side, with the bars paler than the center. This is typical of juvenile or transition _festae_, and just doesn't happen on the anterior bars of a Uro. However, there are metallic spangles on those spots, which I don't recall ever seeing on _festae_, either. That is what makes me think there's another species involved. Also, the body is rather elongate for a Mayan, but the nose looks too pointed for either species. That could be the angle of the shot, but it just doesn't look right to me.

At first glance, Mayan jumps out, but when I look at the details, I have to say it looks hybrid. There are certainly enough large CA fish that are tough enough to cross with them. It's absolutely not festae, no Y-bar and the caudal ocellus rather large.


----------



## bernie comeau (Feb 19, 2007)

Chromedome52 said:


> That said, the fish shows blotches down the side, with the bars paler than the center. This is typical of juvenile or transition _festae_, and just doesn't happen on the anterior bars of a Uro. However, there are metallic spangles on those spots, which I don't recall ever seeing on _festae_, either. That is what makes me think there's another species involved. Also, the body is rather elongate for a Mayan, but the nose looks too pointed for either species. That could be the angle of the shot, but it just doesn't look right to me.


It is possible for any CA cichlid to express bars as spots, or any state in between, dependant on age, state, mood or status ect. Common for uros to exhibit blue spangling along the bars and when bars are in a more faded state, this blue spangling certainly can be apperant in and around the blotches----pictures in my aqualog show just that. 
I don't agree there is anything untypical about the head or nose shape for a uro, nor is it a look, pattern or coloration that I have not seen on many young uros in the past.

Regardless, not too sure why the mods moved this thread to the SA section (?), since nobody is claiming the fish to be a festae


----------



## Chromedome52 (Jul 25, 2009)

> It is possible for any CA cichlid to express bars as spots, or any state in between, dependant on age, state, mood or status ect


NOT TRUE. Uros do not show the *anterior *bars as anything but bars. They may fade, but they do not fade to spots, EVER. This is an important characteristic that makes _urophthalmus _stand out from most other CA cichlids.



> Common for uros to exhibit blue spangling along the bars and when bars are in a more faded state, this blue spangling certainly can be apperant in and around the blotches----pictures in my aqualog show just that.


One those pictures in Aqualog, the "iridescence" is not as bright as the OP's fish, and it is on the entire bar, not just the center. What's more, the center part on the OP's fish is darker than the rest of the bar, and that is the ONLY place the iridescence is showing. What you claim is not seen on any of the photos in Aqualog.

The OP's fish is not pure Mayan. No way, no how.


----------



## bernie comeau (Feb 19, 2007)

Chromedome52 said:


> EVER.


Like you have seen every uro that has ever been, in every mood, state it could possibly be in :lol:

Seen it on my own uros to know that the fish is no different then any other CA cichlid in this reagard. Stripes can be exhibited as spots.

Look at the thick lip specimen in the aqualog-----a spot in the middle of the body mixed with blue spangles. Also in the aqualog--- 2 other specimens show these blue spangles mixed though out the bars, anotyher at the very bottom of the bars---just goes to show that when the bars or spots are faded , the blue spangles are visible. When the bars are pronounced, the blue spangles show along the sides of the bars.
The 2 posterior spots, after the tail spot, are most promanent on this specimen, just like many uro juvies. Seen enough, and owned enough uros over the last 35 years to know there is nothing especially unusual about this uro. It's a species very familiar to me. I first encountered it in 1977----and as an 11 yr. old kid I was able to identify it from our big blue book which had the original description and drawing.At the time, the only picture we had of the fish (besides the drawing) was a black and white photo in the bunterbarsche bulletin. Owned a number of uros since the first one, and have come to know this species well. You think it is a hybrid, I most definately think it is nothing but a uro.


----------



## DIYhunter (Mar 3, 2011)

A few pics I took this evening...


----------



## Steffano2 (Jan 11, 2007)

Nice pictures


----------



## mattmean (Feb 9, 2012)

from what im told the spot the on tail. if it goes past half way down its festae, if it goes past the mid point its more the false red terror


----------



## mattmean (Feb 9, 2012)

this is mine getting into a scap.


----------



## bernie comeau (Feb 19, 2007)

Chromedome52 said:


> NOT TRUE. Uros do not show the *anterior *bars as anything but bars. They may fade, but they do not fade to spots, EVER. This is an important characteristic that makes _urophthalmus _stand out from most other CA cichlids.


Where the [email protected] did these rules ever come from? Who made this up?? The evidnece against this is staring you right in your face! But of courrse if you beleive this to be some iron clad law :lol: , then i guess the fish has to be a hybrid. The thick lip specimen with the spot in the mid-body doesn't square well with your suposed rule, not to mention the 'rio Candelaria' in a a passive mood in the the aqualog showing a mid-body spot aperant over it's stripes...if you really want to make this rediculous claim i can fill a page of examples contrary to your ridiculous assertion!!!


----------

