# Ps. philander dipsersus versus Ps. multicolor victoriae



## earlblewett (Jul 26, 2007)

Dear Fishfolk,

I was sold the fish below as Ps. philander dipsersus but I believe it is Ps. multicolor victoriae.
I am happy with the fish, they are very nice but I've been breeding them and don't want to mis-identify them and pass them on.

I have the book _The Cichlid Fishes of Western Africa_ by Anton Lamboj (2004) and it shows this fish as Ps. multicolor victoriae. The old Baensch Atlas volume 1 has a photo of this fish as Ps. philander dispersus but I've been told it is wrong. The information online says the Ps. philander dispersus is often mis-identified as Ps. multicolor victoriae.

Any morphological features that can be used to separate these fish that doesn't require me sedating them and counting gill rakers, etc. ?

He doesn't have a cloudy eye, that's a photo artifact. 









Best wishes,

Earl
[email protected]


----------



## Fire_Chair (Apr 7, 2007)

It's a dark Victoriae.


----------



## StructureGuy (Jul 27, 2002)

In my experience almost all the fish sold in the US right now that are labeled dispersus are actually victoriae. I've purchased them three different times from three different reputable breeders and every one was victoriae without a doubt.

Here are mine:
http://www.african-cichlid.com/victoriae.htm

They often look a lot darker like yours.

Kevin


----------



## earlblewett (Jul 26, 2007)

Dear FishFolk,

Thanks for the replies.

This wasn't a particlularly good photo, he's shy. He is usually a lot lighter coloured and is a very good looking fish. I got him from a reputable fish seller and I will buy from them again.

I've had Ps. multicolor (Egyptian mouthbrooders) and I keep Ps. nicholsi. I've been trying to get Ps. philander so I can say I've spawned all three established Pseudocrenilabrus genera. Just vanity I suppose. I haven't had any trouble selling or trading these guys as Ps. multicolor victoriae.

Best wishes,

Earl


----------

