# What Species is this?



## KingPiccolo SB (Oct 12, 2012)

So i got this fish a month or so ago and the pet store said they never had this species in before and the weren't sure what it was. It might be an easy fish but i looked up pics of all the dimidiochromis species i could find, and they looked similar but i couldn't find an exact match but then i stumbled across this picture but the fish wasn't labeled.








not the main fish in the middle of the pic the mottled one towards the bottom with the orange streak on his dorsal fin.


----------



## m1ke715m (Jul 26, 2012)

the bottom fish is an ob peacock


----------



## chrish777 (Jul 26, 2012)

+1 to ob peacock, probably female as well due to the lack of color


----------



## KingPiccolo SB (Oct 12, 2012)

Now that i looked up pictures of female OB peacocks they do look very similar but his head shape is still very much like a compressiceps, he was also sold as a compressiceps.


----------



## KingPiccolo SB (Oct 12, 2012)

Well apparently there is such a thing as a dimidiochromis compressiceps ob so i'm pretty sure that what it is, thanks guys for pointing me in that direction.


----------



## chrish777 (Jul 26, 2012)

Hard to tell the shape of his head from the angle of how it is in the picture. But from the picture its head shape don't look like a compressiceps to me.


----------



## 24Tropheus (Jun 21, 2006)

Arg trying to ID the more interesting big guy. Please ignore this post. Edited. 

All the best James


----------



## 24Tropheus (Jun 21, 2006)

Personaly I see little or no evidence of Dim blood so guess http://www.cichlid-forum.com/profiles/s ... hp?id=1372 but it does have a bit more of a Mbuna look to it than most of these. Whatever OB Dims and Aulonocaras are all hybrids, a throwback to a Mbuna like guy (if this is where the OB genes came from) is poss I guess.

Kind of interested what others think.

All the best James


----------



## 24Tropheus (Jun 21, 2006)

Thing I dunno is if the OB Dims were created by crossing em with OB Mbuna or with an OB Victorian cichlid or the already common OB Aulonocara hybrid.
Things can get rather confusing with hybrids. :-?


----------



## m1ke715m (Jul 26, 2012)

looks like a standard run of the mill ob peacock to me.. i dont see any dim in it at all.. theres no elongated jaw..


----------



## testeve (Sep 17, 2012)

Not the best angle to be 100% positive, but I am about 99% positive it is a standard OB Peacock. I don't see any D. Comp in him at all. Maybe post a pic with a better angle?


----------



## KingPiccolo SB (Oct 12, 2012)

Well none of these pics are of my actual fish i was just trying to find one that looks similar, the one i have has a definite elongated jaw, i'll try to get a pic of him for this thread.


----------



## KingPiccolo SB (Oct 12, 2012)

Here are a few pics they aren't great but it's my first time taking pics of fish.


----------



## Fogelhund (Dec 3, 2002)

It does have the shape of a D. comp, but do realize that it is NOT a D. comp OB, there is no such thing. Call it what you want, but a hybrid cannot be given the name of a pure species.


----------



## nmcichlid-aholic (Mar 23, 2011)

I think the point that Fogelhund is making is that D. compressiceps does not naturally occur in an OB form, so calling your fish an OB D comp is misleading. Just as with OB peacock varieties, this is a man made hybrid that probably has some D comp in it's lineage along with some other species that does carry the OB gene - most likely some mbuna. Just wanted to help clear up any confusion.


----------



## 24Tropheus (Jun 21, 2006)

+1 for http://www.cichlid-forum.com/profiles/s ... hp?id=2321 now we see better pics.
Boy was that first photo hiding the true nature of the fish.  

All the best James


----------



## KingPiccolo SB (Oct 12, 2012)

Well the first pic wasn't even the same fish lol, it was just one i found on the internet.


----------



## nmcichlid-aholic (Mar 23, 2011)

24Tropheus said:


> +1 for http://www.cichlid-forum.com/profiles/s ... hp?id=2321 now we see better pics.
> Boy was that first photo hiding the true nature of the fish.
> 
> All the best James


The OP stated that the first photo was not actually of his fish, but just a means to describe the OB coloration of his fish that wasn't pictured. It was pretty confusing, though.


----------



## KingPiccolo SB (Oct 12, 2012)

nmcichlid-aholic said:


> 24Tropheus said:
> 
> 
> > +1 for http://www.cichlid-forum.com/profiles/s ... hp?id=2321 now we see better pics.
> ...


Yeah now going back and reading the OP it was a bit confusing sorry about that.


----------



## m1ke715m (Jul 26, 2012)

d'oh!


----------

