My Vieja Hartwegii
+ - 22cm:

Very nice specimen. Don't see them around my area very often. Full tank shot?

very nice one of my favs

Nice shots of a underrated beauty.

Agreed.

Your's looks to be a male, and if wild, a 'Rio Planatar' perhaps? Other source?
Here's a known 'Rio Tapijulapa' female:



She and her boyfriend didn't get along as well as I'd hoped - even in a 180 gallon tank with ample hiding spaces for cristsakes. I only got one spawn before he murdered her. Fortunately about 150 of them are about 1.5" now. They weren't reared together and I'd kept my fingers crossed. I've can't remember seeing that happen on animals that size in a 6' tank. The male, however, was (and is) fully 12" so probably should have kept a closer watch. The attack was pretty much an overnight affair. Really didn't expect it since the fry hadn't even reached 1/4". These guys can be murderous towards con-specifics in anything less than a 7' tank which I knew then - and all too well now - especially if they aren't well acclimated as relative youngsters. Don't have any excuse except "I was working with what I had." I'd like to say, "If I had to do it all over again I'd do it differently," but there wasn't any outward sign of impending disaster. Quite possible that they weren't under close scrutiny at all for 48 hours continuously, but when you're breeding upwards of a dozen species of med/large CA's that isn't always expedient. They probably should have been the ones receiving closest attention in that interim is about all I can say. Was it a mistake? Yes, very probably. And one I'm not proud of. It hurt badly when it happened and it hurts to admit it even now. I honestly believed the male was unable to enter her "cave," but I hadn't verified it with my own eyes. We all know that fish are able to squeeze themselves in tighter spaces than one would ever suspect. There have been instances of more than one Central American (males) actually "permanently" trapping themselves in "caves" in hot pursuit of the object(s) of their affection(s). It is rare, but it can happen. I'm generally opposed to the "incomplete divider" method for numerous reasons - keeping colonies of brood stock is probably foremost amongst them, but when keeping isolated pairs - something I seldom do because that itself has intrinsic drawbacks - it may have it's advantages. Yet for my purposes it generally does not.

That being said, worth mentioning something else of utmost importance to some hobbyists. Hartwegi (Hartweg's cichlid) serves as one more poignant example (out many Central American cichlids I'm aware of) where knowing the collection point or particular population of wild caught specimens can make a profound difference, unless one happens to be indifferent towards important distinctions, which is fine by me.

I for one simply can't appreciate that anyone past infancy in the (especially American) cichlid hobby would ever maintain, in general, as a rule, that "wild caught" is "overblown" or "doesn't make any difference." One such case in point; here's a wild hartwegi 'Rio Planatar':



Yes, this is a similar sized female. And yes, she shows much more olive/yellow (rather than blue) about the head (and perhaps more gold in the dorsal?) than her 'Rio Tapijulapa' counterpart. The approximate reverse is the case for the males, i.e., Tapijulapa males tend to show more yellow about the head. So I believe it's a mistake to refer to a "yellow-headed and/or blue-headed variant," and I may have mentioned that as well - if it didn't get excised for falling under grounds for banishment "controversial." Wouldn't mention anything "controversial" at all if there wasn't a little nook for that first created by fallacy to begin with. I think NorCali hit the nail on the head when he said, "underrated" and might have added "under-appreciated" and "not always well identified." Hopefully, the obvious intent here as elsewhere is merely to inform, when appropriate, with bonafide, credible information. To be clear, there are never any attacks on my part, except perhaps towards habitual instigators, if/when bizarre, intemperate, immoderate fallacies (better known as smears) go on relentlessly without (what should be) notably brazen incitement to immediate censure. In that vein, my information w/r/t wild hartwegi comes from approximately 4 sources in no particular order of importance: 1) Handling them in the vats at Don Conkel's farm. 2) Seeing them in a 150 glass enclosures in Don's house. 3) Keeping/breeding them in 90, 120 and 180 glass tanks on my own premises. 4) Brief discussions I have had about them with Don about likely differences between the aforementioned populations.

I honestly don't know if there is anything "scientific factual" about most (if not all) of the population variances between the species DC supplies. I merely take him at his word on collection points and/or variations in populations since I've seen them with my own eyes (and haven't ever had any realistic or tangible reason not to take it on face value).

Suppose you'd ask me "Is there a plainly obvious difference between 'Rio Tulija' and 'Rio Nachatal' argentea?" I'd have only one response: "Of course. A small child could see that. Or else they missed something when I got my driver's license, and wasn't told I had to take out an eyeglass prescription."

There is another good source (besides Werner & Staikowsky whom aren't ichthyologists?) of information about hartwegi - Dr. Robert Miller (deceased) another good friend of Conkel's, and it was Don who directed me a few years back to the article by Dr. Miller & Dr. Taylor, of which at least snippet is worth examining:



Wish everyone interested in cichlid taxonomy would be able to read the entire article, or one like it. Some of it is above my head. Nonetheless, I hadn't really understood the word "meristics" until reading this article. My undergraduate degrees are in math & physics and know nothing of the biological sciences except what the Nature Channel, National Geographic, and Scientific American lay before me. Dr. Miller's paper's have had to help serve as an "introduction" to professional scientific writing - along with the genetics papers by Perez & Rican and associated cichlid genetics research - which I find largely incomprehensible apart from the abstracts. Even Bayesian inference (which in my understanding is relied upon for interpretation of genetic data) is outside the scope of the normal "Mathematical Probability & Statistics" course that I took as an advanced undergrad requiring two courses in calculus as prerequisite. Boy, do I feel stupid. Apparently, to truly understand cichlid phylogenetics or independeltly "verify" taxonomy one probably must start with at least a Bachelor of Science in mathematics or equivalent?

If I were a moralizer, which I'm not, I'd be hard pressed to ignore the fact that as "hobbyists" or "breeders" or "consumers" we often take a good deal on faith, trusting what we can with our own two eyes, trusting whom we do with a reasonable measure of skepticism, and leaving paranoia to the paranoiacs. For instance, when a reputable scientist within a reputable university, such as Dr. Lydeard, maintains that according to his genetic testing "sp Catemaco" is indeed a "new species," and not fenestratus, albeit un-described within the literature, I know whom I'm inclined to believe, not as a "fervent" or "zealous" believer, or disciple, but as one who tends to take for granted what legitimate scientists report - as opposed to "random web-forum reportage." I wish that would extend to the science of climatology, as well, but for obvious reasons it doesn't - third coldest winter on record here in Kansas, for what that's worth. At the risk of beating it to death, as per a recent conversation with Ron Coleman even cytochrome-b testing may come into question, and apparently he's not the first to say so. Anyhow, Lydeard is apparently as conclusively convinced as he can be, same as Robert Miller was if I recall. The only remaining "controversy" is amongst one or two hobbyists, upon what ground I know not, beings there doesn't appear to be any in the science. Dr. Lydeard would have to vouch for that, and no one I know of has asked him "in the web hobby." What remains is for Melanie Styasni at the NaturaL History Museum to do the write up, to make the description "official" if that word "official" is even used by ichthyologists. Who knows, it could well be. I might wonder when Newton's law (or Einstein's universal law ) of gravitation was called "official." I don't recall seeing the word "official" in any of my undergrad physics texts (or in the few grad level texts I cracked) but who knows, perhaps I overlooked it? It is certainly within the realm of possibility.

One thing I know for certain: if one relies extensively on the www for information, at some point one is in for a very rude awakening (hopefully).

We no longer live in the Information Age, we live in the age of TMI. Or better yet, the TMUI age: Too Much Useless Information. In my unofficial estimate, 99.9% of all valuable textual "information" actually exists away from the web, in libraries or bookstores or unpublished manuscripts. And no, I do NOT believe everything I read in TV Guide, either. Ferreting out information on the web will have to remain the next best thing, for some. It has its limited uses, I spse.

If anyone feels victimized by a TMUI post, then those are the breaks. I've gotten used to it, vis a vis a few of the aquatics forums, and so now it's your turn LoL! Lastly, as per censorship, I'm about as unimpressed with it as a human being could possibly be, noting thus far that on some of the forums the expression it takes is about as biased as one could ever conceive, and that those doing the censoring are largely ignorant or immune to the actual "controversial" content therein, or the deleterious effect it might have on the hobby overall. I've never been a suck-up, and don't expect to become one any time soon, not even towards any of my "dearest friends" here or elsewhere. Does THAT count as an infraction? I don't believed I've received one here, so that'd be another first...Something tells me the little tide is turning, the bigger tide has turned, and that those who have made the scurrilous accusations, and abide with those who have, unaccounted, and unaccountable, may possibly be about to receive just deserts, feeling the pinch already.

Anyhow, this hartwegi pic-post sat idle for a few days, without much ado, so hopefully this helps with a little extra info...would love to hear what others think of this excellent specimen...and if there are any plans to find him a female get ready for fireworks!

Best As Always,
Paul

This post has been edited by mojarraman: Mar 9 2010, 06:58 PM

Good info. But let's just keep it to good info. Thanks.

good info, mojarraman!
I hope you can post more good info like that later on!
Thank you!
Dan Ye-Jennings

I must concur, very good info and I do feel your pain as to members on other sites.
Don't think for a minute members can't see whats going on. Even Stevey Wonder can
see that So keep doing your thing....

Thanks for the nod. I'm done "kicking dust" if someone chose to see it as that, but defending myself and trusted friends/associates isn't something I'd normally shy from - as if they needed any defense. Some aren't instantly apprised of everything that takes place in cyberspace, is all. Never was a big Beatles fan but "Let It Be" I rather fancied. Takin' it to heart was the hard part. I like King Curtis' instrumental version. Then again, supposedly I prefer nursery rhymes to fairy tales. Who knows?

And thanks, Dan, for posting all the really cool pics that I finally got a chance to look at, realizing Mojarraman banishment wasn't fully "transferable," at least not yet...LoL not everybody has to ape each and every other so-called moderator. If MFK & CM hadn't squelched me (never thought I was near that shrill and about 250 favorable emails to DC confirms) I'd have seen them sooner. Better late than never. And Dan, it was a real pleasure to get a chance to visit w/ both you and John. DC thinks the world of you both.

I'm curious about something: did Ted Judy get a chance to correct the mislabeled fish (bulleri) to P. gibbiceps at his website? That's kinda been bugging me for quite a while, and since I finally found out for sure that he was your's, I was hoping you'd suggest that he get the right ID on it!

Rare & beautiful animals they are, and high time that hobbyists get more acquainted with them.

Here's a shot of one of my P. gibbiceps breeders not long after arrival about a year ago:

The yellowish bruise (from netting) on the abdomen is unfortunate because thus far this might serve (near as I can tell) as a "reference" (hand-held) photo for this species. Also sorry for the washed-out photo quality but I'm still using a Stone Age 5Meg P&S. Don wants to use this one for publication:

He thinks the second shot was Photoshoped. He may be right LoL! But only ever-so-slightly...anyone that's kept these animals knows how hard they are to photo...to capture all the color...let alone w/ a P&S...and that no photograph could do them real justice. So yes, it was tweaked, moving it "nearer to life" yet still inanimate compared to the real thing.

This post has been edited by mojarraman: Mar 12 2010, 05:31 PM

Great pics. Gibbys are such a beautiful fish at adult size. I had a 13" male Gibbiceps that just lit up like a xmas tree. I have 3 6" specimens from DC doing well along with some Bulleri and Nebuliferum. I really love the riverine CA's. I have a really nice group of T. Coeruleus from DC as well. All adults. I'm REALLY looking forward to him collecting some Lentiginosum in April/May.

WOW thats deep Paul, for you to past some pics of some Gibbs. I must say they're Hot. I going later today to pick up a group of them from a guy in Nj that got a order from DCT. I can only hope that the frys came from your pair...
I LIKE YOUR STYLE!!!!

Ricky

I said it more then once.... But I see that we have the same taste in fish, and also have some of the same ones and I'm still waiting for your T.Coers to pull the trigger... Now that you brought it to light, I'll be waiting for DCT to bring some Lents back into the hobby as well... So with that said, if I can use a phrase from Rodney King..
CAN WE ALL JUST GET ALONG!!!!!!!

They bred once for me but I lost the male when I moved. So I have 4 males and 2 females now. Hoping something will happen. Even Don said they are tough to breed but Lents are much easier he says.

Thanks Ricky. Likewise. My gibbs have only spawned once and so none have gone to Odessa yet. I have 2 males and 5 females all sexually mature. The pair bonding isn't fully established.

I'm probably the first one to say it, and almost regret that: there are some serious issues about getting P. gibbiceps to maintain the immaculate cardinal red in the fins (probably their salient feature and clearly visible at well over 20 paces) in the home aquarium. Of course those concerns are dietary. Spirulina flake is not the answer. Plenty of available diatomaceous algae would be the first option, which isn't as easy/hard as it sounds. I am not opposed to drizzling small quantities of store-bought beta-carotene onto koi pellets, but is limited in effectiveness. There are probably no packaged foods available to "solve the problem." I could be wrong about that. It might even boil down to the phytoplankton within the algae. I could be wrong about that, too.

By even mentioning this I'm opening up a whole new can of worms, dietary-wise.

I said a few years back that rare reophilics were the "final frontier" in terms of CA cichlids. DC was saying the same thing to me privately. I believe that it will come to pass, and is coming to pass. IMHO, the incredibly beautiful, peaceful Paraneetroplus are in some ways the "end game" for many a CA cichlid hobbyist. Just that so few people really know how good they look. Even DC's pictures are "faulty." Everybody's are. No one has yet shown me a picture of nebuliferus worth looking at. I've had long-term guests in my home, and inevitably they gravitate towards my colony of 8 mature nebs. They've only spawned twice. I'll post pics. I hope nobody minds my saying so, but nebs are the shibby. Unequivocally. I would have never known that without seeing them in the vats at Don's farm. I would never have had the slightest idea. I think they are the prettiest, and perhaps the most peaceful of all Centrals. Enclosure, diet, and community/environment are all key. Is it ironic that this fish, nebuliferus, has been "concealed" from hobbyists this long?

I'll tell a story, a true story. About the second or third time I was at Don's farm, I asked him, "Is there anything else I should look at?" He said, "Yes, Paul, climb up there to the back row of vats, if you can, without falling off. You work on scaffolding so it shouldn't be any problem." I did as directed. I simply couldn't believe my eyes. There before me were about 10 (probably three trios) of the most incredible cichlids I'd ever seen, about 1' long each. I was spellbound. I was staring at nebuliferus. I didn't even know what they were. I exclaimed, "Jesus Christ, Don, what are THOSE!?" He took a slow puff on his slender cigar, and laconically quipped, "Those are nebuliferus." Then he murmured, as a veritable army of ants began stinging my arm that had been crawling off the beam I was using to support myself, "Look over there to your right." So I did. The picturesque violets shimmering off the undersides of a colony of irregularis 30 feet away almost made me queasy. I was loosing my grip - both literally and figuratively. Just couldn't contain myself. "Holy ship, Don, what are THOSE!?" He paused a moment, collecting himself a bit, "You haven't seen those? They're irregularis." I said, 'No, Don, I HAVEN'T seen those. Are you kidding? Are you KIDDING? This is the Holy Grail, Don, why hadn't you told me about these BEFORE???" Well, "Paul, you didn't ask," he smiled. My response? "No ship. I've GOT to have them." He laughed out loud. He knew he'd be makin' money that day. And on the weekend, no less.




My advice to someone extremely seriously "interested" in keeping Central American (and apparently now South American) cichlids? Go to Don's farm before making final decisions about what you might want to keep. Go there on a sunny day. And plan to spend the whole afternoon. But at least look at his website, including the Powerpoint slideshows:
Expeditions & Activities
Don Conkels Tropicals - Cichlid Safari
Raceway Propagation
Costa Rican Cichlid Compound


This post has been edited by mojarraman: Mar 13 2010, 12:28 PM

Post more pics of your fish and Don's farm please. I had a group of 5 Nebs but they picked each other off. The remaining 2 get along fine now but I really dont think theyre a pair. My buddy bought a large pair from Don a couple months ago. I'm hoping something will occur with those or the 3 gibbs I have or even the Bulleri but I am focusing my efforts on Coeruleus and Asfraci right now. I had spawned some wild Irregulare a while back but the male then killed off both females and ate the eggs! Both my riverine tanks are set up like rivers with very strong current. It's cool to watch the fish 'glide' in the current. The riverine cichlids are definitely my thing. Not too aggressive but just enough.

nice fish everyone,what going on ricky(lol)

I must say NCC, I'll leaning in that direction as well and for the same reasons. I think the riverine cichlid are some beautiful and underated fish. Paul, if you could be so kind as to start up a new thread with more of your knowledge and pictures that would be great. That way we can continue on without further highjacking the OP thread...
SORRY FOR THE DERAILMENT.....

I was just going to say that.....I'll start it. It'll be called "Riverine cichlids"

that 13 incher must have been a stunner, damn...

Yep! Came home one day and he was dead with a big hole in the side of his head. Had no signs of being ill.

This post has been edited by NorCaliCichlids: Mar 15 2010, 02:44 PM