Lake Victoria Cichlid ID Mystery

Hi everyone

@Reedfish you and I were discussing this a little while back. They've grown since!

The fishes pictured below were sold to me as "Flamebacks". What I do know is that there are a handful of cichlids from this lake that go by this name, and as far as I can tell (which I'll admit here, may not be a reliable guess) is not one of the typical "Flamebacks", nor a Kyoga Flameback, or the sometimes-referred-to-as "Flameback" Pundamilia nyererei.

The names mentioned above were my first guesses going by the name they were sold as, as well as their ambiguous colouration as juveniles. Granted, the fishes in these pictures are still very young (the biggest being 3 inches/7,5cm), but some patterning has begun to develop. My guess has now shifted to some species of Astatotilapia or Xystichromis, but again I'm not sure.

Both Reedfish and I have gone through our respective copies of Lake Victoria Basin Cichlids by Mark Smith, and came out unsure. That was a while back, however. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. @Jack Stone do you or any other Rift Lakers have an idea, or could tag someone that does?

flare copy by Timothy Smith, on Flickr

left5 copy by Timothy Smith, on Flickr

right2 copy by Timothy Smith, on Flickr

Thanks in advance!

 

Xystichromis phytophagus?

 

http://badmanstropicalfish.com/profiles/profile144.html

 

Are they wild caught or not?

I'm not sure about these but apparently some African cichlids are quite mixed genetically and are sometimes just completely unidentifiable hybrids. Not sure if it's that but it could be an idea if CB

 

I've got be honest ...they all look very similar to me.. I think you need a DNA test!

 

The first one looks like it could be getting a bit of blue coming in...
www.african-cichlid.com/BlueObliquidens.htm

 

Thanks for the replies everyone. It is quite confusing, but that's perhaps because I asked for an ID too early on. These are very young fishes, after all. My main concern with ID, as I have said to Reedfish previously, is that an accurate ID is important so that I can provide both the correct environment as well as the correct diet. Since we've narrowed it down to possible Xystichromis/Astatotilapia, I know now to include a lot more algae/greenery in their meals, as well as clues to how to structure their surroundings.

X. phytophagus is apparently one of the more common Victorian cichlids so it might be. What makes it difficult is that (a) there are multiple colour varieties of this species, depending on locality, and (b) there are very few photos of juveniles and their colouration, and definitely not a photo for juveniles of every different variety.

Haha, you see the problem with Xystichromis and Astatotilapia, in that both are superficially similar. Greenwood (way back when), while erecting the Xystichromis genus, gave rather small or internal features as diagnostic characters (teeth, osteology, and intestine length/shape), which are inaccessible in my living specimens. Astatotilapia might be polyphyletic, though, so where one genus ends and another begins may yet be determined. There are also a handful of other very similar genera, all previously lumped into Haplochromis.

Given the price I got them for, it is highly unlikely that they're wild caught.

Hybridization is a big problem with Victorian cichlids, both in the wild in their current crisis as well as in captivity. It is a good point to bring up here, as these specimens might have a mixed heritage that confuses the issue.

Normally in very similar fishes, DNA would be a good route (for a molecular biologist), but fishes from the Rift Lakes often confuse the data through hybrid introgression - basically, genes aren't maintained in a single species lineage due to back-crossing with parental lineages. In short, the picture is fuzzied, and the family tree becomes a bit more of a family criss-cross. This is a common theme among groups that have rapidly radiated.

I might agree with this one. While none of my fish have quite that male colouration (yet), I have some females that look strikingly similar to those in this link. Definitely worth considering.

 

A bit of an update!

Once allowed to settle in, grow up, establish a hierarchy, and get to breeding, these fish eventually show their full colours. Pictured below is the dominant male, who doesn't add much more clue as to what I'm dealing with here. The closest I'm finding is perhaps Xystichromis phytophagus, or perhaps a hybrid of one.



Less dominant males hold a slightly less bold dress than this, although they are also getting some action with the females. Females and nondominant males look very similar, although reproductive females take on a bit of "gold".



A very enjoyable fish, if not a little scrappy between each other. Basically spawning nonstop. So far I've let them go the natural route - parents hold and defend their fry as long as they can, and the survivors, well, survive. But I'll probably be stripping one of the holding females of her eggs soon, and placing the eggs in a tumbler. It's just a matter of extracting one from between the rockscape...

 

That male is a stunner!

 

Very nice

 

He is stunning @SalmonAfrica

Quite true... you don't ever hear much about Victorian cichlids

 

Thanks all, I really did not know what to expect, colour wise, from these fishes. I have another male who is similarly colouring up as above, but has a few nibbled fins since he's stepping into dominant territory.

True. This is the only species of Victorian available from my nearest shops, although I know that true Astatotilapia latifasciata is available from local breeders, too.

I'm in the same boat with books - it's hard to believe that between both our collections, we each have the same book on the topic.

 

Oh wow. The funny thing is, Nick James is the "local breeder" I was talking about. He has a hatchery based in Grahamstown, where he breeds a quite few species of cichlid.

This would be a very difficult group to get popular... besides so many species looking very similar, very few are bred in large numbers.

This name has been the bane of a proper identification since I picked up this fish

 

From your pic its name is on its tail - it is a timothy fish

 

This was taken just before I packed up my fish room. The stark contrast between males and females was astounding. The female up top was bouncing back from an extended mouthbrooding session, hence some loss in condition.

Very much missing the dynamics of this group, but glad I got to learn more about them.

 

They were so gorgeous, love the photography too.