Cichlid Fish Forum banner

Green terrors (Rivulatus)

15K views 44 replies 12 participants last post by  Cichlid-Power 
#1 ·
Hey everyone, i am new to this site. I have a breeding pair of rivulatus, the female is currently 'gravid'? And i think she is about to lay. Anyway i have a question

How long after they mate until they lay?

Oh and i am trying to figure out how to post up pictures, help would be great :) :fish:

p.s they arent very big yet.. any pictures of yours would be cool . :thumb:
 
#2 ·
Hi, your rivulatus will lay eggs and the male will then fertilise the eggs and then around 4 day's later you will have wrigglers that will feed off of their yolk sak. I have kept Gold Saums for a while now, and currently have an unrelated group of six, that I am trying to pair off. As for posting pictures, get a photobucket account, upload your pics and then paste the
 
#6 ·
Wow, thanks dwarfpike :D
Learn something new everyday.

I've been under the impression that it's a varient of Aquidens Rivulatus.

The male is only about 8cm and the female is around 5-6cm.

They've been doing a great job looking after the fry.

Of the hundred+ that were laid, only about 4 were infertile and all the fry still appear to be there.
 
#8 ·
No worries. The genus for the blue acara group was finally described only last december, so Andinoacara hasn't really caught on yet.

While I was trying to avoid another huge debate about this group of fish (the green terrors), the A. rivulatus, A. stalsbergi (proposed name for sp. 'silbersaum'), and the gold/silver/red saum do seem to differant species. The question is now if the gold/silver/red saums are differant species, or region variants of the same species (though seperate from A. rivulatus and A. stalsbergi). I know a few Europeans believe A. rivulatus and the gold/silver/red saums to be the same fish, most concur with them being differant fish. A. rivulatus and A. stalsbergi look much closer/related than the remaining saums do to A. rivulatus.

Hope that wasn't confusing!!!
 
#9 ·
There's a lot of debate over exactly which fish is the true rivulatus. The fish Ronnie M has is the one that Alf Stalsberg considers to be the real thing, which Americans call Silversaum. However, there is some belief that this fish and the Goldsaum are actually the same species, just different populations. Silver edged individuals have come out of spawns of Goldsaum from Ecuador. Goldsaum is also found in northern Peru, but those populations are reported to always be red/gold edged. The Goldsaum was identified as Andinoacara rivulatus by Kullander in 2003, though Stalsberg considers them an undescribed species.

The original Green Terror came from further south in Peru, and was originally mistaken for rivulatus because it was said to have come from the north, near Ecuador. However, unlike the two "Saum" species, which have shiny scales with black spots, it has different scales in a netlike pattern of black with shiny centers. It is known in Europe as the "Silbersaum", which some have confused with the fish Americans call "Silversaum". Both names have the same meaning, but are different fish. The original Peruvian Green Terror was just described, and is now Andinoacara stalsbergi, after Alf Stalsberg who collected specimens of all three forms from their natural habitats, helping to define their ranges.

I just noticed that Dwarfpike and I were writing at the same time! :lol: We differ slightly in that the describers of A. stalsbergi consider the Goldsaum to be rivulatus, but no one has compared the type specimens of that species with any of these fish. They did not mention, and apparently were not aware of, the silver edged Ecuadorian populations.
 
#10 ·
Chromedome52 - It also depends on whom you ask!! I know Alf believes the orignal Green Terror from the early seventies was his 'silbersaum' (aka the new A. Stalsbergi) but other old timers disagree, and say that the A. rivulatus Jeff Rapps has been getting in is the same fish they kept at that time and that Alf's was another, undescribed species. I wasn't around back then so I can't say for certain. I rather let those with the experience and/or the PhD's work it out. :lol:

Though, I have always been able to tell the differance between a silversaum and silbersaum, Alf's silbersaum has the same reverse scale pattern on their flanks that A. rivulatus has ... rather than the common pattern on the goldsaum that the silversaum shares. (note: using the old common name descriptions here for clarity).

I agree a lot of people in the states thought the silbersaum was just the german spelling of silversaum ... but they are completely differant after looking at Alf's website.

But then I didn't want to derail the OP's post by having yet another 'true green terror' debate. :D

Note: Ronny's appear to be the silversaum, not Alf's silbersaum.
 
#11 ·
Problem is that the old pictures labeled "rivulatus" are fish from central Peru, and are stalsbergi. Wayne Leibel reported that the original importation of "Green Terror" came from central Peru, but was erroneously reported as the northern region that Goldsaum inhabits. The type location for rivulatus is in Ecuador; the range only goes into Peru if you consider Goldsaum to be that species. The describers of stalsbergi give the red edged fish as being rivulatus, based on two references.

And Jeff Rapps has had many mis-identified fish before, and likely will again. His pictures labeled rivulatus are stalsbergi from Peru. One of the pictures even says Peru. Location, location, location! :lol: :roll:
 
#12 ·
Indeed. Quite the mess. I need to read the full paper on the new A. stalsbergi. I have the Andinoacara paper, but it didn't go into all of the undescribed species ... only 2 of them (and one of those was a blue acara species).

It was funny, but Wayne was one I was refering to when I mentioned some of the old timers. :lol: I have noticed that Rapps has had rivulatus from Ecuador and Peru before (Ecuador was several years ago, and come to think about it that was when I read both Wayne's article and Paul Loiselle's article about the 'true green terror') but the recent ones have been Peru.

Any importer is only as good with identification as the collector is it seems ... :lol:

So it would seem that A. stalsbergi is the southern most of the complex, then the unidentified silversaum, then the gold saum, and finally A. rivulatus to the north? With the red saum inbetween gold and A. rivulatus???

So confusing. I knew there would be headaches with this silly blue acara genus *grumbles*
 
#13 ·
Almost right: stalsbergi is the southern most species, then Gold Saum in Peru and Ecuador, then silversaum - which Stalsberg considers to be the real rivulatus - in Ecuador only. There are no reticulate pattern Terrors from Ecuador according to Stalsberg, who did many collections and did not find any. Reports to the contrary are erroneous.

Wayne corrected himself some time ago in his TFH column; I would not hold my breath waiting for PVL to do so. This debate was covered quite thoroughly over at CRC forums some months ago.
 
#14 ·
Chromedome52 - Do you know which TFH issue it is? I must have missed that one, else I would have snapped it up.

So if the gold/silver/red suam end up being the same fish as most people think they will, they will be A. rivulatus leaving us just the two species of Green Terrors (unless you count those dwarf GT's from the early 90's that haven't been seen since, and no they weren't those silly short bodied ones you see nowadays).

mstama - sorry about the various scientific stuff in your breeding thread, green terror questions always seem to fall into this.
 
#17 ·
I also apologize for the thread hijack, but mstama called his fish rivulatus, which tends to set off these things, especially if there is no photo! :lol:

Okay, I was wrong about a couple of things, as a result of my poor memory. Due to this discussion, I went back to the discussion on CRC, and then to Alf Stalsberg's site: http://www.lem.net/alf/aeq.htm. While he has not yet updated with Andinoacara and still has stalsbergi listed as "Silbersaum", there is a detailed narrative explaining the errors of identification in the past, which he personally straightened out by going to Peru and Ecuador to collect fish. I would really love the opportunity to meet Mr. Stalsberg, as his efforts showed a dedication to clearing up this confusion, and a logical application of data that is evident if one reads it carefully. No skimming!!! :wink:

First, I was mistaken about Ronny_M's fish. It is a White Seam, an apparent recessive genetic variant of the Gold Saum. This is evident by the width of the border, which is the same as a Gold Saum. It also has the scale coloration of the Gold Saum, of course, which says that it cannot be stalsbergi. Until I went back and looked more carefully at stalsberg's photo he calls rivulatus, I did not realize that these actually are two diffent fish. In the discussion on CRC, one participant mentioned seeing 25% white seam individuals in a pond of feral Gold Saum fish in Hawaii. That number is what identifies it to me as a recessive gene, and Ronny_M's photos (the first I've seen of this form) suggest that it is not a hybrid, but a variant/population of Gold Saum. However, it is under no circumstances Andinoacara stalsbergi.

If you look at Stalsberg's site, you will find that the Ecuadoran fish from the Rio Esmerelda, which KULLANDER identified as rivulatus, has a narrow edge that resembles the recently described Peruvian fish; however, it has the scale color pattern of the Gold Saum, so it is obviously a different species from either Gold Saum (by the fin edges) or the Silbersaum/stalsbergi (by the scale coloration and geographical distribution). A look at a topographical map also shows that it is geologically isolated from the others by a small range of mountains. Stalsberg mentions this in his narrative, and most seem to have overlooked that fact. I know I did the first time.

I read the recent description of stalsbergi, and the authors seemed to be unaware of the fish that Stalsberg says Kullander identified as the real rivulatus. In fact, they describe the Red edging of the Gold Saum as one of the characters of rivulatus that makes it possible to distinguish that species from stalsbergi. They also point to the different scale patterns, which fortunately is a more dependable means of distinguishing between stalsbergi and the other two.

My conclusions are as follows: the describers of stalsbergi did not adequately research the other forms in the group prior to assigning relationships. They misread references that placed rivulatus in Ecuador as meaning the Gold Saum species, and were even unaware that there are populations of that species that also have white fin edges, not to mention the existence of the Esmerelda fish as a distinct species. Despite all that, the description is still good, and the original "Green Terror" of the American hobby is this newly described species.

Hobbyists have been placing way too much importance on the color of the "seams", and ignoring the scale pattern, which is a far more important characteristic. Patterns are always more stable than colors, as evidenced by the fact that Gold Saum can throw recessive White Seams.

The fish that Stalsberg calls the real rivulatus based on identification done by Kullander PROBABLY HAS NOT ENTERED THE AMERICAN HOBBY, SFAIK. The two species currently available are Gold Saum and stalsbergi, aka Green Terror. The region at Esmerelda, Ecuador, has not been heavily collected by commercial or even private individuals, the only one I'm aware of being - Alf Stalsberg. Since he had the sense to send preserved specimens to Kullander for ID, I tend to trust his judgement.
 
#18 ·
^^ Interesting.

Oddly enough, I was at Petsmart the other day and saw a white edged male - the above explains the genetics behind that. Very neato - I hadn't seen a white edged one before in Petsmart out of several batches of GTs (I always walk down the isle even if I'm not interested in a fish... never know when a special one comes along :lol: ).
 
#19 ·
dwarfpike said:
mstama - sorry about the various scientific stuff in your breeding thread, green terror questions always seem to fall into this.
Haha it's okay :thumb: well here's an update. The eggs were white meaning they are infertile right? WELL i totally lost hope and this morning i looked into the tank and GUESS what, lots and LOTS of little brown things, not free swimming at the moment. i will try and get some pics but dont want to go too close at the moment incase she eats them. So i have some questions.

When will they start eating? what do i feed them?

Will the female/male look after them or should i separate them?

I might think of more questions later but thanks in advance!!
 
#21 ·
My :oops: , not yours! :lol:

The parents will probably take good care of them, primarily the female with the male mostly watching the territory. The apparently fungused eggs were the empty eggshells, which often develop fungus after the fry hatch; some fish eat them right away to avoid that, some don't bother.

I would crush up any high protein food into a powder when the fry start free swimming, or I would consider starting a brine shrimp hatcher (but then I always have the jars ready for brine shrimp hatching). If they are still with the parents, the adults will often chew up the food and spit out smaller bits for the fry to feed on.

I would worry about other fish in the tank being attacked by the brooding parents. However, if the tank is large enough for them to stay away, their presence actually might strengthen the bond of the adults. I'd remove the fry after about a week or two if I wanted to raise some. I always leave some with the parents, so that they can run out the brooding process; if you take all of them, it can trigger fights between the parents.
 
#23 ·
Mstama: I have been feeding my fry very finely ground NLS, I use a mortar and pestle to grind it to a dust. I also feed them frozen baby brine shrimp.
My pair are in a 9x2x2 with fish three times their size and they have done extremely well keeping them at bay.

I plan on putting them in their own tank shortly, just waiting for it to finish cycling.

Good luck raising the fry :thumb:
(sorry for starting a discussion on your thread, did not see that happening lol)

Mdog: I double checked the size again and it's actually closer to 10cm (just under 4 inches)

Chromedome52: After reading the dicussion going on about the identity of these fish, I found the breeders and double checked with them. I can confirm that the ones I have are a varient of rivulatus as the parent of these fish are actually big green terrors, one normal and one white edged.

From what he said, he originally had a breeding pair of rivulatus. From that, a small number of white edged fry were produced. He has since grown the white edged ones and bred them with normal ones, as a result, the batches had higher numbers of white edged fry and he has since been breeding them this way.

Oh and thanks everyone for the compliments :)
The nuchal hump is not always that big as it fluctuates with his mood, that shot was taken just after the eggs were laid so he was being super protective then and his hump was at it's biggest.
 
#24 ·
I never argue with the "that's what I bought it as" argument. I think it's related to the "because I said so!" argument.

Edit: My initial answer was abnormally rude of me. I think I've been hanging around here too long, picking up bad habits. I'm going away for a while, maybe clean up the fishroom and breed some new stuff.
 
#25 ·
:? I'm sorry if I've missed something?
I didn't mean to offend you and I apologise if I did but I was just clarifying what species the fish I have are. Also, I don't recall arguing about the identity of the fish.

The reason I took the word of the LFS I bought them from is because I know he is a respectable dealer and knows his fish. I know there are a lot of fish being sold under incorrect labels, (I keep geos lol) But I trust the person I got these from :)
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top