Cichlid Fish Forum banner
1 - 20 of 22 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
363 Posts
Awesome fish, but you won't see color like that unless they are in a species-only tank. Great peacock that stays relatively small, but very docile... along with the Kandense (Blue Orchids), probably the least aggressive peacock species.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
625 Posts
What is the peacock that is exactly like this but royal blue with a yellow top? I've seen it in the profiles but my name recognition is only relatively strong with Mbuna at the moment.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,013 Posts
JoelRHale said:
What is the peacock that is exactly like this but royal blue with a yellow top? I've seen it in the profiles but my name recognition is only relatively strong with Mbuna at the moment.
You are probably thinking of the Hap, Otopharynx Lithobates (Zimbabwe Rock).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
625 Posts
Yes, thanks to both of you! In my mind as I'm learning I still think of the false peacocks (the ones with the abnormally similar body shape) as Aulonocara instead of what they really are. The Placidochromis and Nimbochromis body shapes are what I see as Haps.

So much to learn, I love it!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,783 Posts
JoelRHale said:
Yes, thanks to both of you! In my mind as I'm learning I still think of the false peacocks (the ones with the abnormally similar body shape) as Aulonocara instead of what they really are. The Placidochromis and Nimbochromis body shapes are what I see as Haps.

So much to learn, I love it!
[rant]
Personal peeve, I find that you learned the the term false peacock disturbing.

Aulonocara are simply Haps with the fancy marketing name of Peacocks, nothing more or less.

Not attacking you at all, but the idea that a Otopharynx lithobates (Z-Rock) would be called a false anything seems well...


If you think of Peacocks as small to medium sized haps, which would be the correct the way the term hap was historically used (before some smart people started marketing Aulonocara as Peacocks around 1971), you will save yourself a lot of heartache worrying about it - that is how important the distinction is as far as what you can keep together or how pretty the various haplochromine cichlids of Lake Malawi are IMHO.
[/rant]

Sorry for venting, but I feel better :D .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
625 Posts
Ha, don't worry about it. If the tone of my post was more along the lines of "listen to me, for I know all, and anyone who question me is an idiot," I might have felt attacked. I really know very little about these guys and have plenty to learn. There is a fish guy at a LFS that talks very smugly (and I don't really like) who used that term and I just figured it made sense, but consider it stricken from my vocabulary. :thumb:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
104 Posts
GoofBoy said:
Aulonocara are simply Haps with the fancy marketing name of Peacocks, nothing more or less.
I think Ad Konings would disagree with you :lol:

Peacocks are not Haps and Haps are not Peacocks. There is no fancy marketing, it is fact.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,783 Posts
dtune21 said:
GoofBoy said:
Aulonocara are simply Haps with the fancy marketing name of Peacocks, nothing more or less.
I think Ad Konings would disagree with you :lol:

Peacocks are not Haps and Haps are not Peacocks. There is no fancy marketing, it is fact.
I'll stick with Paul V. Loiselle's written opinion here.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
392 Posts
I'm gonna have to take a little time to read through that article, but without going too deeply into it and playing a half-cocked devil's advocate isn't it possible that a Loiselle article from 26 years ago might be outdated or outside the current paradigm of the taxonomy of the lake? All three of Ad's books have come out since that Loiselle article.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31,206 Posts
dtune21 said:
GoofBoy said:
Aulonocara are simply Haps with the fancy marketing name of Peacocks, nothing more or less.
I think Ad Konings would disagree with you :lol:

Peacocks are not Haps and Haps are not Peacocks. There is no fancy marketing, it is fact.
Note, Peacocks are generally accepted as those fish in the genus Aulonocara, Alticorpus and Lethrinops. (perhaps Taeniolethrinops as well, since it's been split)

The cichlids of Lake Malawi belong to two distinct flocks, haplochromine and tilapiine. All Mbuna, Peacocks and ex-Haplochromis species belong to the haplochromine flock. p14. Konings, Malawi in their natural habitat, 3rd edition.

Now most in the scientific community lump fish in two groups from there, mbuna and Haplochromines. If you really want to go digging through Google Scholar, you are going to find that the "Peacocks" are viewed as mbuna, not the Hap group, but of the Hap flock... if that makes sense.... at least according to some. (Molecular systematics and radiation of the haplochromine cichlids (Teleostei: Perciformes) of Lake Malawi, Moran et. al 1994)
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/10/5/1015.short

In the book Malawian Cichlid Fishes, the classification of some Haplochromine genera, David H. Eccles and Ethelwynn Trewawas, treat them as part of the Haplochromine group, but not mbuna. (1989)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,783 Posts
702Cichlid said:
I'm gonna have to take a little time to read through that article, but without going too deeply into it and playing a half-cocked devil's advocate isn't it possible that a Loiselle article from 26 years ago might be outdated or outside the current paradigm of the taxonomy of the lake? All three of Ad's books have come out since that Loiselle article.
My comments in this thread were directly related to fact that Aulonocara were once classified as Haplochromis and the origins of the term peacock, so I consider the article dead on point. Especially regarding the 'There is no fancy marketing' comment which is why I referenced the article.

Paul V. Loiselle said:
This misapprehension was dispelled in 1971 when a steady stream of small, brilliantly colored, haplochromines began to flow from the lake into thetanks of importers in North America, Europe and Japan. One of the earliest and most spectacularly successful of these newcomers was a brilliant blue Aulonocara species promptly (anh felicitously) christened the Malawi Peacock.
Paul V. Loiselle said:
Aulonocara sp. ­ Red-shouldered Peacock. This was the first representative of the group to be exported. Its dazzling coloration gave rise to the trade name of Peacock Cichlid, which, preceded by some distinguishing adjective, has subsequently come to be applied to any small Malawian haplochromine with a metallic blue base color regardless of its generic identity.
My understanding, as far as taxonomy, is that Haplochromis is the placeholder for non-classified Pseudocrenilabrinae until someone can figure out where they should go - kind of like Psuedotropheus for mbuna.

If you have a different/better definition, I would love to learn - as I am by no means an expert.

Many Aulonocara & Sciaenochromis were 'non-classified' Haplochromis once upon a time.

Aulonocara now are in Sub-family Pseudocrenilabrinae Tribe Pseudocrenilabrini

Sciaenochromis now are in Sub-family Pseudocrenilabrinae Tribe Pseudocrenilabrini

So, both have now been Classified. To play devil's advocate back at you.

What is it that now makes a Sciaenochromis a 'Hap' but not an Aulonocara other than the popularity of the Aulonocara genera and the term Peacock?

If the Aulonocara aren't Malawian haplochromines, what are they?

Newbies seem to think Aulonocara are somehow radically different than all of the genus which are lumped together under the generic umbrella of 'Haps'.

I know of no scientific reason for this umbrella. If anyone does, please share.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
40,501 Posts
Paul Loiselle, who lectures locally and continues to visit and study in Madagasgar and other exotic locales regularly might object to being relegated to providing "dated" knowledge. :thumb: :lol:

Just kidding, I did not know if you were aware he remains quite active in the field, just not a focus on Malawi these days.

Great speaker by the way if you get a chance to attend a lecture.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
256 Posts
:lol: I can verify that that is indeed an actual fish. Jack will be happy to know he has started an interesting conversation. :fish:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
392 Posts
@Goofboy - See, that's what i get for flying off half-cocked before reading the whole article. 1985 or no, I think that article does a great job of illustrating your point. Note to self--read before typing in the future.

@DJ - I know Loiselle is still active and an expert in his own right, I had made a late night ignorant assumption that an article written 26 years ago and then edited for taxonomic veracity 14 years ago might not be the end-all or the most commonly held current knowledge...after reading the article it does definitely apply pretty dang well.

@Fogel - Super interesting, i am going to have to do a ton of digging through Google Scholar!
 
1 - 20 of 22 Posts
Top