easywolf31 wrote:Is there a reason why these 3 amazing species are missing in the species profiles list or maybe they're placed under another name?
Yes they are missing from the species profiles, and no, there is no good reasons for this. Generally the species profiles at Cichlid-forum are pretty decent for Malawi and Tanganyikan cichlids, and IMO, very poor for all others. Fogulhund (and maybe some others) made sure that the Malawi and Tangs were kept up to date, and the rest was pretty much ignored. The rest was in poor shape 10 years ago and has remained largely unchanged.
Lot's of outdated names such as Aequidens portalgrensis
, 34 years out of date!. Considering that the Kullander revision of 1983 was the monumental event that threw just about all CA cichlids into generic limbo with out a proper scientific name, hard to see why names that are so out dated that they pre-date the internet are still used on cichlid-forum. It would be like still using Haplochromis moori
for Cryptocara moori
or Haplochromis venustus
for Nimbochromis venustus
. Or let's take that one step further and have all of Metriaclima callanois
, Metriaclima estherae
and a few Cynotilapia species all listed in the cichlid-forum profiles as Pseudotropheus zebra
. I don't believe being 30-40 years out of date would be accepted well by rift lake cichlid keepers!
So many examples of very out dated names; even completely wrong names. Mesoheros festae
listed as Amphilophus festae
on cichlid-forum. I don't believe this fish ever was placed in the genus Amphilophus. Ever. It's just a trade name used at one time. It's been a good 10- 15 years or more that the genus Nandopsis was restricted to the Carribean island cichlids, so 3 species in the genus. One of these are not even listed in this genus and 3 others that do not belong. Probably the worst of outdated names are the Green Terrors because of the mis-information that it may cause. It is what was thought to be true about 10 years ago but needs to be completely re-vamped as the info would only serves to confuse!
Some of the info is just plain wrong. One example, salvini, where the profile talks primarily about hole in the head disease. I've had this species going on 17 years and have seen them in the hobby for over 25 years and have yet to see even one specimen with hole in the head. In the Oscar profile, no mention of hole in the head. Probably the majority I have owned or seen over the years have at least some hole in the head. Some of the Acaras listed as getting 4" are really more like 7-9". My only explanation would be that the profile must have been written when the fish was new again to the hobby and the person writing the profile had them only for months. Just a few examples.
Anyways, the omision of the banded/5-spot cichlids is far from the worst of the cichlid-profiles. IMO, besides the Malawi and Tangs, the whole cichlid-forum profiles needs to be re-vamped from top to bottom.