# Most striking Vieja?



## Rift485

Hi I had a GT in a tank by itself for a long time before the heater unfortunately fried him. 

I have been doing the community tank thing for a while but miss the "bonding" that can develop with a larger growing cichlid like the GT. (Those with larger cichlids you know what I mean).

I have been looking at the Viejas because they get large and because they don't ALL seem to be complete terrors so I would like your opinions. I want to know the most striking species in your opinion.

In other words, I don't want the most "subtly beautiful" species because, to be honest, I would like to have a fish that actually pulls people in to look at the tank. You see, there is not a single person I know who has ever even asked me what kind of fish I have, let alone gone in for a closer look. I think it's because my fish are subtly beautiful and small.

Right now I have my eyes on the Zonatus and Regani. I want to know your thoughts!!!!

EDIT: The only one I know I don't want is the Black Belt...

opcorn:


----------



## dwarfpike

Well the regani would be the most subtly beautiful in my mind with it's pastel colors, most striking for me in argentea.


----------



## gage

for me synspilum are the most eye catching.


----------



## SinisterKisses

Most Viejas are actually quite aggressive unless you get them in massive tanks. What size are you working with? Most male Viejas also get much larger than your average male goldsaum/GT would ever get.

My favs are the argentea and fenestratus (blue). There honestly isn't a Vieja out there that I don't like though. Zonatum are another fav, regani have caught my eye recently.


----------



## lostnight

I'll go with argentea, and mature Blackbelts.


----------



## Toby_H

The best looking Vieja I have ever seen was a show quality adult male Regani...

But I think the average adult male Argentae is better looking than the average adult male Regani...


----------



## M0oN

A mature argentea or zonatus/zonatum (depending on who you talk to) of the male flavor is really somthing to behold - but both are hyper aggressive little turds (even moreso than black belts) that will quickly try to claim anything short of an 8 foot tank for themselves.

Synspilum seem to be the most docile of the group in my experience - and wild caught specimins are flat out gorgeous, but overall I give my vote to zonatus.


----------



## TheFishGuy

My vote is argentea, regani, bifas, synspilum, black belts and zonatum. All tied for first place.

But these guys are hard to compete with:

http://www.cichlidae.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=6815

I still consider theraps/paratheraps and vieja all the same group...

I currently keep

black belts
Bifas
fenestratus
and synspilum, two variants.

And like most folks am after argentea and regani, but am too cheap to pay for them LOL


----------



## fishghost

M0oN said:


> A mature argentea or zonatus/zonatum (depending on who you talk to) of the male flavor is really somthing to behold - but both are hyper aggressive little turds (even moreso than black belts) that will quickly try to claim anything short of an 8 foot tank for themselves.
> 
> Synspilum seem to be the most docile of the group in my experience - and wild caught specimins are flat out gorgeous, but overall I give my vote to zonatus.


So you can't keep them with anything else in a 6 footer?


----------



## RyanR

Rift485 said:


> EDIT: The only one I know I don't want is the Black Belt...


Awwww. Why not? 

Our's is *gorgeous*. Once they turn on the iridescence, they're amazing. She's definitely the fish that people notice. Of course, I think I need to "retool" things, as she's starting to get a bit too boisterous in the 125g.

Of course, there are a few other Vieja's that I like more than the black belts.

-Ryan.


----------



## Notrevo

I would vote a tie for Argentea and Black Belt.


----------



## Toby_H

This one right here......

http://www.cichlid-forum.com/profiles/s ... php?id=104


----------



## SinisterKisses

Heck yes...definitely the top of the list of my next must-have Vieja. They're amazing.


----------



## Beo

Having read an article on this chap's tank in Practical Fishkeeping magazine here in the UK, I had a look on YouTube and, if you are a fan of Vieja (or, indeed Thoricthys pasionis), this shows how a good community tank _could_ look. Stunning tank!


----------



## Rift485

Thanks for all the replies guys. I didn't think there would be a clear winner but figured I'd give it a shot 

I am working with a 55 gallon right now and would probably set it up with just the 1 Vieja and a group of Loaches and/or Plecos. My GT setup was just him and 2 Loaches and it worked out beautifully.

I do also like the Argentea but mainly because of that purple hue they get. The only drawbacks to that thought is I don't want to keep a silver fish as my focal point for 3 years until it finally develops the purple. That, and the fact that I like multi-color cichlids so I don't think the purple/white would do it for me.

The Zonatus are a contender but again, it seems like they are more 1 dimensional in regards to color (blue/green), except in Aquamojos shots where he gains the red fin trim as he reaches full adulthood. So I won't rule them out.

The Synspilums do look good and I love the multi-color. The only thing there is I have this "thing" (AKA a very costly personal preference, sickness, whatever) that makes me go for the harder to find species. So all in all, right now, it looks like the Regani is still in front with its multi-faceted color scheme and more difficult to find status.

=D>

However, don't let that stop you from speaking up. I can probably still be swayed one way or the other, especially if pics are involved.


----------



## Rift485

Beo said:


> Having read an article on this chap's tank in Practical Fishkeeping magazine here in the UK, I had a look on YouTube and, if you are a fan of Vieja (or, indeed Thoricthys pasionis), this shows how a good community tank _could_ look. Stunning tank!


That is just amazing, especially with such little aggression!


----------



## duaneS

No one has yet mentioned breidohri, don't know if they are the "most" colorful, but.... are very beautiful.


----------



## RyanR

duaneS said:


> No one has yet mentioned breidohri, don't know if they are the "most" colorful, but.... are very beautiful.


 :drooling:


----------



## straitjacketstar

V. regani, V. breidohri, V. bifasciatus from Rio Chacamax and V. argentea round off my top 4 in the looks department.
V. regani are a little lacking in the boldness depeartment where V. argentea more than makes up for it. I've yet to get my hands on some breidohri or Rio Chacamax Bifas but their colors are amazing.


----------



## dwarfpike

duaneS said:


> No one has yet mentioned breidohri, don't know if they are the "most" colorful, but.... are very beautiful.


I think that's because we were sticking to _Vieja_ and not _Paratheraps_, but if we are including them I'd deffinately agree!!


----------



## RyanR

dwarfpike said:


> I think that's because we were sticking to _Vieja_ and not _Paratheraps_, but if we are including them I'd deffinately agree!!


Is there any consensus on the _Paratheraps/Vieja_ thing, yet? Last I knew was that these genera were all intermixed in the "family tree", so they'll probably all pretty much be one or the other once the dust settles. opcorn:

-Ryan


----------



## dwarfpike

I heard they are being worked on atm, so until they are fixed I just follow the CRC listings. The CRC is usually pretty accurate when it comes to the genus changes, if a bit slow ... but that's common most places.


----------



## M0oN

The entirely scientific naming of CA's has been a giant mess for years and years - don't expect it to get fixed soon.

If we're just going over CA's in general - my vote goes for Cichlasoma ornatum


----------



## dwarfpike

Well, the blue acara group finally got a genus, and the rainbow cichlid got moved into _Archocentrus_ so people are working on it ... it just goes slowly.

And Moon, ex_Cichlasoma ornatum_ is south american. :thumb:


----------



## M0oN

dwarfpike said:


> Well, the blue acara group finally got a genus, and the rainbow cichlid got moved into _Archocentrus_ so people are working on it ... it just goes slowly.
> 
> And Moon, ex_Cichlasoma ornatum_ is south american. :thumb:


That's what I thought - I just wanted to show off 

The white variant of exCichlasoma beani s actually my favorite CA


----------



## MonteSS

Rift485 said:


> I am working with a 55 gallon right now and would probably set it up with just the 1 Vieja and a group of Loaches and/or Plecos. My GT setup was just him and 2 Loaches and it worked out beautifully.


How soon till you upgrade to a 6' tank. 55 wont last long.

My vote is for the Synspillus for all out impressiveness.

...Bill


----------



## RyanR

dwarfpike said:


> Well, the blue acara group finally got a genus, and the rainbow cichlid got moved into _Archocentrus_ so people are working on it ... it just goes slowly.


Wow. _Herotilapia_ is no more?

It's true though, while a lot of the relationships have been worked out with most of these guys, it takes _forever_ for the names to all get agreed on (sometimes you need to wait for someone to retire or even die), let alone how long it takes for the names to trickle on down to us hobbyists. Even at the New England aquarium, they still had all of the SA Cichlids in the Amazon display in _Cichlasoma_. Not that I would even point that out. :lol:

-Ryan


----------



## dwarfpike

Yeah, their unique teeth was the only reason they were in _Herotilapia_, but someone determined that having slightly differant teeth didn't warrent a whole knew genus when everthing else as identical to _Archocentrus_.

As for the most striking, I guess that depends on what the OP meant by 'striking' ... to me striking doesn't mean most colorful, but most likely to draw my eye while passing a tank. And the size and bright whiteness of the argentea is why I picked it. There are deffinately more colorful _Vieja_, but they don't draw my eye as much as that black and white beast.


----------



## RyanR

The _V. heterospilus_ that Rapps has are unbelievable. There are some great spawning pics in a recent thread in the forum. They'd be in my top 10 if I were to start over from scratch in the 125g.

-Ryan


----------



## RyanR

dwarfpike said:


> As for the most striking, I guess that depends on what the OP meant by 'striking' ... to mean striking doesn't mean most colorful, but most likely to draw my eye while passing a tank. And the size and bright whiteness of the argentea is why I picked it. There are deffinately more colorful _Vieja_, but they don't draw my eye as much as that black and white beast.


Great point. Our black belt always appears like a bright, ghost-like "apparition" when she's just hanging out with the fins doing their thing. It *is* really striking. I'd reckon the argentea is even more impressive.

Thanks for the rainbow info!

-Ryan


----------



## heylady

How could you *not* love a fish that looks like this?

www.cichlid-forum.com/profiles/species.php?id=104

_V. regani_, another fish that is on my "someday" list....


----------



## M0oN

Not nearly all regani look that good, is the thing.


----------



## M0oN

Argentea and Zonatus are two of my favorites because of that white coloration, dwarfpike - Argentea I'd have to admit are a bit more stunning. But the zonatus/zonatum can be very impressive too with the blues and blacks


----------



## TheFishGuy

I'm pretty sure we're talking about theraps, paratheraps and vieja. All the same in my book so you'd better duck dwarfpike... :lol:


----------



## dwarfpike

_Theraps_ was restricted to elongated riverine species though!!! Nothing like the tall thick bodied _Vieja/Paratheraps_!!! But yes, we know you would classify all cichlids from India through the middle east, african, and the americas as _Cichlasoma_ ... :lol:

*ducks for cover laughing all the while*


----------



## Macattack71

I would recommend these.


----------



## Rift485

To answer your question dwarfpike "striking" to me is tough to define. I say that for 'other people' that see my tank, more eye catching is best. However for me personally, I think I may get bored with a cichlid with only 1 or 2 colors to them. Especially if I am planning on growing one out for a number of years.

The reason I loved my GT so much (and it was only small but the most colorful one I've ever seen that size) is because you had the mix of grass green on the scales, teal green and blue in the fins, orange on the caudal, and he even started showing a bit of a pink glimmer in his pectoral fins. I would stare at him for hours because every way the light hit him gave me a completely different color combination.

We all know this hobby is more for ourselves than for others, so I would have to settle with most colorful for now. Plus I sometimes get impatient waiting for cichlids to mature  especially with species that start out brown or gray (See: why I sold my African Hap/Peacock tank)


----------



## dwarfpike

Well in the case of color, it would hard to beat Synspilums ... regani have lots of color too, but I'd term their color more pastels, more subtle than that of a synspilum. Breidohri also show a lot of differant colors, though some are fairly uniform so it would be more hit more miss.


----------



## SinisterKisses

You want colour? Every colour you could want in one!










And Vixen is a female, so a male fenestratus....drool-worthy IMO.


----------



## Rift485

I do like that! I feel like I'm picking the winner of a contest... Everyone show their best Vieja! The winner gets a free photo of the winning species in 3 years when it gets to adult size!!!!


----------



## TheFishGuy

I pulled all my fenestratus out of the 1500 this afternoon. Funny thing is, like a moron, I had also put in two bifas about the same size... Well... I pulled out seven fenestratus, now I can't tell the difference... There seems to be an imposter in the group... Mine are still young, 3-4" range...














































Yes, two of them have some pink splotches on them... the others don't. apparently there's little pink in these... Kind of disapointed in that but we'll see...


----------



## M0oN

Zonatus


----------



## TheFishGuy

M0oN said:


> Zonatus


 NICE!!!


----------



## M0oN

Too bad they're so mean! Even more striking in person, though.


----------



## gage

did anyone miss the fact he said he wants it in a 55g tank? last post on the first page...

NO Vieja/Paratheraps will be good in a tank that little... 5 foot tank MINIMUM for a single male.


----------



## Toby_H

gage said:


> 5 foot tank MINIMUM for a single male.


So I can't keep a single male Argentae in my 4' x 2' x 2'?


----------



## SinisterKisses

Well, I guess that entirely depends on your opinion of minimum tank size for a fish. IMO, no, a male shouldn't be in anything less than 5ft. long. Just too small for a big, aggressive fish like a male argentea.


----------



## SinisterKisses

gage said:


> did anyone miss the fact he said he wants it in a 55g tank? last post on the first page...


Actually, yes - I did miss that bit. Sorry, I'm with gage. No Vieja is suitable in a 55gal tank IMO. Even most females get larger than I'm comfortable with in a 55gal long-term.


----------



## dwarfpike

Toby_H said:


> gage said:
> 
> 
> 
> 5 foot tank MINIMUM for a single male.
> 
> 
> 
> So I can't keep a single male Argentae in my 4' x 2' x 2'?
Click to expand...

Well, you _*could*_ ... but since most people think a 16" male jag is crampt in a 4' long tank, I imagine a 15-16" male argentea would be too. They are the second largest in the genus behind blackbelts. While I would say a 4'x2' 120 would be the absolute minumum ... there is some poster here that has a saying about minumum requirements equaling minumum happiness ... or something to that effect.


----------



## Toby_H

dwarfpike said:


> Well, you _*could*_ ... but since most people think a 16" male jag is crampt in a 4' long tank, I imagine a 15-16" male argentea would be too. They are the second largest in the genus behind blackbelts. While I would say a 4'x2' 120 would be the absolute minumum ... there is some poster here that has a saying about minumum requirements equaling minumum happiness ... or something to that effect.


Yea I've heard that somewhere... darn fanatics 

I just find common minimum requirements odd sometimes...

Oscars are typically 12", could get 14"... 4' - 75 gal...
Argentae are typically 12", could get 15"... 5' - ?? gal...

But saying "5' tank" alone could mean a lot of things... Although I've never seen a 5' x 1' tank, I have seen a 6' x 1' tank (and it was only around 15" tall)...

Also most of the Amphilophuis commonly get 12", with larger not being uncommon at all... and 75 gal is the typically heard "minimum" for them...

I also confess I really love the way my 4x2x2 looks in a room... but I find it very unaccomodating to a community... and feel it bests suits a large "wet pet" or pair... but I hate to compromise...

...and that's why it's in storage right now....


----------



## SinisterKisses

Typical size for an argentea male is larger than 12" to my understanding. I think about 14" is more an average size for them. All I know is my 13" male midas is in a 5ft, 120gal tank by himself, and he makes that tank look small. I'll never keep him in anything less again.


----------



## M0oN

I think everyone on this site overdoes the whole minimum tank size thing - though I don't think a Vieja would be suited for a 55 gallon.


----------



## dwarfpike

Oh I love those 4'x2' 120 gallons too *Toby*, but I agree they are best used for either 1 wet pet, 1 lg pair or 2 smaller midsize pairs ... or something like an angel community.

Good point with the oscar size vs argentea, but remember argentea are far more aggressive so when trying to include others, differant rules apply. FYI, I wouldn't feel comfy keeping a 14" oscar in a 4'x18" footprint though ... everyone has their own ideas on what is comfy for the fish, and since the fish can't smack upside the head and tell us ... it will continue to vary by person. I know I'm considered conservative when it comes to tank sizes, but if you think I am, you should visit the CRC sometime. :lol:


----------



## TheFishGuy

Nope, no one missed it. And he's aware...


----------



## Notrevo

dwarfpike said:


> Oh I love those 4'x2' 120 gallons too *Toby*, but I agree they are best used for either 1 wet pet, 1 lg pair or 2 smaller midsize pairs ... or something like an angel community.
> 
> I know I'm considered conservative when it comes to tank sizes, but if you think I am, you should visit the CRC sometime. :lol:


CRC?


----------



## gage

Toby_H said:


> gage said:
> 
> 
> 
> 5 foot tank MINIMUM for a single male.
> 
> 
> 
> So I can't keep a single male Argentae in my 4' x 2' x 2'?
Click to expand...

just picture a 16" fish in a 4ft long tank, now unless it is a 4'x3' footprint minimum I would feel bad for the fish

It isn't recommended, but is still possible I suppose. I am the type that would probably try it but probably feel horrible for it if it did hit the 16"+ mark.

I guess my point is a 55g is a ton to small for this fish.

Just trying to give 100% safe advise for the OP.

PS. Toby, Oscars aren't necessarily the best example, as they are less then half as active as any Vieja I have seen, it is not necessarily the size restraint so much as the activity of the fish.

You could keep a 12" stonefish in a 36" tank, would YOU keep a 12" Oscar in a 36" tank?


----------



## gage

Notrevo said:


> dwarfpike said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh I love those 4'x2' 120 gallons too *Toby*, but I agree they are best used for either 1 wet pet, 1 lg pair or 2 smaller midsize pairs ... or something like an angel community.
> 
> I know I'm considered conservative when it comes to tank sizes, but if you think I am, you should visit the CRC sometime. :lol:
> 
> 
> 
> CRC?
Click to expand...

www.cichlidae.com


----------



## gage

TheFishGuy said:


> Nope, no one missed it. And he's aware...


actually some people did miss it 

I just don't get why we are recommending fish to a 55g tank that grow much to large and no one has mentioned it.


----------



## Electrophyste

i kept my big male JD in a 45 gall and i felt horrible, so horrible he got 130 with friends


----------



## oldcatfish

Just to cause another big debate...I'm going to throw something else out there.

Just like you can grow your fish to it's genetically largest potential by the amount and type of foods offered to it (primarily as a juvenile), you can inhibit it's growth to a certain degree by NOT feeding it as often. For example, the same fish fed 3x per day as a juvenile will get significantly larger than if it were fed only once or day. That's no myth, as it has been well documented by Dr. Herbert Axelrod (founder of Tropical Fish Hobbyist magazine) among others. And less food won't mean a shorter lifespan; in fact, all of the studies show just the opposite....a slightly underfed animal (as long as there aren't dietary deficiencies ) will live longer than a slightly overfed one.

Now, all of that being said...I agree that a 55g is just too small. A 4ft x 2ft is a bit more debatable though.


----------



## Rift485

Guess it's time for me to chime in again! (OP)

First I'll start with a fun little opinion I have that should get some blood pressures up. Deep down, I am not so sure that fish really have much of an opinion on how large or small their tank should be compared to their size (of course assuming it is at least large enough for them to move around comfortably) and also assuming the water is still kept pristine.

And I'm not even using the "any tank is too small compared to their natural habitat so what does it matter" argument. I am saying that first of all, aquarium bred fish don't know any better. They don't even know larger tanks exist. So as long as the water is clean enough to keep them in good health and are fed a healthy balanced diet I really don't see how a fish could be unhappy in 1 ft more or less tank space.

Fish and other animals don't watch tv. They don't read books. They don't talk to their WC buddies on their Nextel direct connects. They have no way of knowing that life can be any different. And as long as the conditions that affect the fish's physical state are good why would the fish be unhappy? A cichlid wouldn't swim to the end of a 4' tank, stop and think, if I could just swim one more foot my life would be so much better. IMO fish "happiness" (a questionable term regarding fish to begin with) is based solely on their dominance ranking and being well fed. And you can see it in their coloration while exerting dominance and when feeding, two things that can certainly be present in a smaller tank.

Ok....I hope everyone was sitting down for that. I still think there are reasonable minimums for certain species and going into this I knew that a 55 would be borderline at best for a Vieja. I have gone through about 8 tanks in the last 3 years so believe me, in the 2-3 yrs it would take one of these guys to reach adult size I would upgrade to at least a 75. But I've always wanted to voice my opinion on the whole "tank size vs fish happiness" debate. Is it really cruel if the fish is having all its basic needs met, often times more completely than if they were in the wild?


----------



## Rigo

back on subject, im kinda partial to the Blackbelt love the black n red with the grey. but i know im n the minority on this post because of their colorful cousins


----------



## TheFishGuy

Rift485 said:


> Guess it's time for me to chime in again! (OP)
> 
> First I'll start with a fun little opinion I have that should get some blood pressures up. Deep down, I am not so sure that fish really have much of an opinion on how large or small their tank should be compared to their size (of course assuming it is at least large enough for them to move around comfortably) and also assuming the water is still kept pristine.
> 
> And I'm not even using the "any tank is too small compared to their natural habitat so what does it matter" argument. I am saying that first of all, aquarium bred fish don't know any better. They don't even know larger tanks exist. So as long as the water is clean enough to keep them in good health and are fed a healthy balanced diet I really don't see how a fish could be unhappy in 1 ft more or less tank space.
> 
> Fish and other animals don't watch tv. They don't read books. They don't talk to their WC buddies on their Nextel direct connects. They have no way of knowing that life can be any different. And as long as the conditions that affect the fish's physical state are good why would the fish be unhappy? A cichlid wouldn't swim to the end of a 4' tank, stop and think, if I could just swim one more foot my life would be so much better. IMO fish "happiness" (a questionable term regarding fish to begin with) is based solely on their dominance ranking and being well fed. And you can see it in their coloration while exerting dominance and when feeding, two things that can certainly be present in a smaller tank.
> 
> Ok....I hope everyone was sitting down for that. I still think there are reasonable minimums for certain species and going into this I knew that a 55 would be borderline at best for a Vieja. I have gone through about 8 tanks in the last 3 years so believe me, in the 2-3 yrs it would take one of these guys to reach adult size I would upgrade to at least a 75. But I've always wanted to voice my opinion on the whole "tank size vs fish happiness" debate. Is it really cruel if the fish is having all its basic needs met, often times more completely than if they were in the wild?


 =D>

I kind of feel the same way... I know you can get away with more than most people say... But after having and seeing cichlids enjoy 14' and 1500 gallons of tank it's hard to even look at a 55 or even a 125...


----------



## SinisterKisses

Rift485 said:


> (of course assuming it is at least large enough for them to move around comfortably)


And here lies the issue with that little speech of yours. A full grown Vieja/Paratheraps/Theraps simply would NOT be able to move around comfortably in a 55gal tank. It's too narrow. Upgrade to at least a 75gal, and perhaps you can make it work.


----------



## M0oN

55 gallon wide would possibly work out, though you'll stunt your fish.

Even a 75 gallon is pushing it - I would recommend a 90 gallon.


----------



## chrispyweld

It's not the happiness of the fish for me it's seeing them display there personality and behaviors. I tend to agree with your point of view about the fishes mind set. If they have one.

I have crammed the heck out of my 125g. Stuffed it with fish!! They got on great. No aggression, everything grew normally, even had smaller species breed. But most of the time the fish just sat there looking outside the tank for the next meal. There wasn't any action!

As nice as they looked it was boring to watch. I enjoy my tanks more if there is room for them to roam. I find it interesting to see them explore and push the boundaries between their territory and the next guy over. Watching them choose a new favorite place to hang out or how they redecorate their space.

It just is more enjoyable to ME if they don't just go from one side of the tank to the other in a single stroke, turn around, and then go back.


----------



## Rift485

I would agree with that. You will get much more personality out of a fish with more space to roam. And to me that's very important and is what makes keeping fish fun.


----------



## TheFishGuy

Seeing their "natural" behavior in a massive tank is incerdibly interesting to watch. When a pair spawns they fry will take them on tour of the entire tank once they're free swimming. This of course is when they slowly get picked off... But still, seeing the little feild trip and watching the parents literally take over the entire task is awesome. Still, at the end of every day the parents somehow regain control and herd them back to their original territory... Very cool...

Size does matter. Hence what I do in my spare time....


----------



## Toby_H

TheFishGuy said:


> Hence what I do in my spare time....


lol @ "in my spare time"... I don't think you can consider the amount of time you dedicate to your 'hobby' as "spare time"... 

:thumb:


----------



## TheFishGuy

Sure it is. I spare the rest of my family by spending all my time in the basement.


----------



## Rift485

:lol: :lol:

Now back to business.

All of these gorgeous Viejas, Paratheraps, etc we've been discussing... And I can tell you the Synspilum has moved up to the front of the line.... Do they all show a drastic difference between breeding and non breeding coloration? Because I doubt i'll ever have room for an adult pair.

I know with Peacocks males would indeed brighten up a bit for breeding but I would estimate the percentage difference between non and breeding coloration was only about 20%. I could live with 80% color because they still looked great.

IYOs, what percentage would some of these Vieja's be?


----------



## TheFishGuy

My synspilum, always looks great, and out of all the fish in the 1500 he's the one people are drawn to.


----------



## DRD62

Rift485 said:


> Hi I had a GT in a tank by itself for a long time before the heater unfortunately fried him.
> 
> I have been doing the community tank thing for a while but miss the "bonding" that can develop with a larger growing cichlid like the GT. (Those with larger cichlids you know what I mean).
> 
> I have been looking at the Viejas because they get large and because they don't ALL seem to be complete terrors so I would like your opinions. I want to know the most striking species in your opinion.
> 
> In other words, I don't want the most "subtly beautiful" species because, to be honest, I would like to have a fish that actually pulls people in to look at the tank. You see, there is not a single person I know who has ever even asked me what kind of fish I have, let alone gone in for a closer look. I think it's because my fish are subtly beautiful and small.
> 
> Right now I have my eyes on the Zonatus and Regani. I want to know your thoughts!!!!
> 
> EDIT: The only one I know I don't want is the Black Belt...
> 
> opcorn:


 To me, one of the more striking Viejas which have been renamed Paratheraps Breidohri. I have an 11" male in a 180G and his coloration is awesome. I am also partial to the Regani


----------



## DRD62

To me, one of the more striking Viejas which have been renamed Paratheraps Breidohri. I have an 11" male in a 180G and his coloration is awesome. I am also partial to the Regani


----------



## Moody Fish

I love all of the Vieja species, but I have always had two favourites, and I now have them both in my tanks.

argentea

























synspilus


----------



## gage

here was my synspilum at only 4"










he was a great looking little synspilum, I regret giving him up.


----------



## fatpuffer

My syns:








[/quote]


----------



## TheFishGuy

fatpuffer said:


> My syns:


[/quote]

I have four of this same variant, and hopefully will be getting two more!


----------



## gage

Bizzare looking syn *fatpuffer*, love the blues.


----------



## fatpuffer

Really...thought they were suppose to look like that colour wise. Are there more than one type of synspilum?

Js


----------



## fatpuffer

HEre is a quick before and after pic:

Before:








Now:









Any idea if its a male of female?


----------



## gage

There are a lot of different color morphs of synspilum, depending on the collecting point I believe.


----------



## TheFishGuy

No idea on sex as they're pretty difficult to sex. But yes, there's a few color morphs depending on collection point. I have two color morphs and am currently looking for a third


----------

