Cichlid Fish Forum banner
1 - 20 of 40 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,338 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I need some opinions from Umbee owners past and present. I picked up this fish a few weeks ago at the bargain price of $6. They labeled him as a mystery fish. This was from a mom and pop store... They seemed to know thir fish but they said some guy brought them in... Likely story...

At any rate, he or she is about 5" including tail and is hold it's own with a tank full of brutes (they're actually all pansies but I's like to think they're brutes) in a 240. It's got some blue spots on it's gill plates resembling the beginigs of what looks like Umbee... But never made the connection until last nite...

My wife and I were flipping through my latest aquisition Axelrods Atlas of fresh water aquarium fishes (1993 version, that I got for $11) and my wife stopped on this picture and said "This looks like the mystery fish":


I said "Holy ****, you're right!" So I ran down stairs and examined the thing and found lots of similar qualities. I came up and checked a few other reference books I have and then checked the internet looking for juvi pics... none could be found...

So I need some experienced opinions on this.... do I have an Umbee?????? And if so, what should I expect? Realisticly,from your experiences .









 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,089 Posts
Although I have not kept umbee...that looks like like one to me. It has the classic blue speckles on the gillplate. however, there's something about it's scales that looks slightly different to me...mabye my eyes are playing tricks on me :lol:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,440 Posts
Although I have never owned an umbie I have seen a few before and know how to distinguish one from an Amphilophus. The Axelrod picture is mislabeled and is definately an Amphilophus species. Your fish as well, TFG, is some sort of Amphilophus, hard to tell for sure which species of Amphilophus as it is a juvie; might even be some kind of flowerhorn type of fish. Mouth and snout are definately Amphilophus. Umbie is classified as a Caquetaia and has a very different mouth very similar to spectabile or kraussii; it is a protrusible mouth and if you see the fish yawn you would definately see it is very different then an Amphilophus species.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
168 Posts
i was almost thinkin flowerhorn also....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
819 Posts
That is not an umbie, sadly. I hate to throw the hybrid word around but that would be my best guess. Some sort of Amphiliphus and Herichthys (which would account for the slight blue spotting visible) cross, but that's a total guess. You can see where it's going through some sort of color change and is a bit mottled.

This is the only photo I have of my baby umbies, but they look pretty similar up to the 6-8" range. These guys are about 1" in the pics.



 

·
Registered
Joined
·
903 Posts
Yeah I agree TFG-beautiful fish but very aggressive-I have owned Umbee before but I have a male for the first time-really an ugly fish until they hit around 8-10 inches and really start to get pretty and grumpy at the same time! Bernie is correct Umbee is Caquetaia I think what you have might be a cross-nice fish anyways!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,070 Posts
There is no denying that your mystery fish resembles the fish in the Atlas - especially the spot on the upper side of the caudal peduncle... But something about the body shape of your fish is different? Almost more compact or stocky?

IT will be interesting to see how he/she develops - whatever it is!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,089 Posts
It definately resembles the fish in the atlas. Other than the head shape, to only major difference from a normal umbee i can see in that fish is the scales. normal umbees have green scales taht sparkle with iredecense :lol: Eventuallly you'll be able to tell if it's an umbee or not, since males get two feet long :lol: I think that fish may be a hybrid between a caquatia and an amphliphus now that i think about it...if those two can hybridize.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,440 Posts
IMO, absolutely nothing Caquetaia-looking about TFG's fish nor is that Axelrod picture even an umbie.

Although it could be any of a number of midas cichlid-type fishes, I think that Axelrod picture is a juvie Amphilophus labiatus as it has A. labiatus written all over its lips :lol:, in particular the front part of it's top lip.

TFG's fish is quite likely as Frameshift suggests, an Amphilophus x Herichthys cross, though it could be any kind of "flowerhorn" hybrid fish.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,070 Posts
I'm not implying the fish in the Atlas is an Umbee - I have no idea how to identify or differentiate about 99% of cicihlids... I just think there are some very clear similarities betwen TFG's fish and the one pictured ion the Atlas - be it an Umbee, a Hibryd or whatever...

I would also say that if anybody was to accidentally purchase an Umbee as a mystery fish TheFishGuy is one of the few I can think of that has the space to keep it!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,338 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
Well, I bought the little guy for $6 because he resembled what my labiatum fry looked like when really young... kind of... and because I weasled the guy down on price :lol: So it was shocking to see that picture in the atlas and I kind of freaked a little :lol: Then after doinf a bunch of research and not being able to find pictures of young fish I really freaked :lol: I guess we'll see how it turns out...

As per the name change spelling... well that kind of goes along with the synspilus synspilum thing. It depends how long you've been around in this hobby as to how annoying the scientists can be. I mean, why on Gods green earth would you change something like the last letter in a fishes name? (I'm not really looking for an answer, simply because there will never be a good enough answer)

Also, this atlas is only the seventh edition, as I said in my original post it came out in 1993. Things change fast in the fish world for some stupid reason. Like I told my wife (who asked why I wanted such an obsolete book) "We've got the internet honey, all I've got to do is type in the name from this book and somewhere I'll find the newest most up to date name, so why pay $75 for the latest edition that's obsolete the day it's published?"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,440 Posts
artemis1 said:
Oh, and aren't umbee's C. ubifera, not C. ubiferum?
Cichlasoma umbriferum and Nandopsis umbriferus are synonyms of Caquetaia umbrifera. All 3 refer to the same fish (an Umbie) but Caquetaia umbrifera is the current term.

Scientific names have the rules of latin. The specific epithet (2nd word in a species name), if it is a noun or adjective, has to agree in both case and gender with the genus name. So of course if the genus name is changed, the ending of the specific epithet may also have to be changed to agree with the genus.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,440 Posts
TheFishGuy said:
Well, I bought the little guy for $6 because he resembled what my labiatum fry looked like when really young... kind of... and because I weasled the guy down on price :lol: So it was shocking to see that picture in the atlas and I kind of freaked a little :lol: Then after doinf a bunch of research and not being able to find pictures of young fish I really freaked :lol: I guess we'll see how it turns out...

As per the name change spelling... well that kind of goes along with the synspilus synspilum thing. It depends how long you've been around in this hobby as to how annoying the scientists can be. I mean, why on Gods green earth would you change something like the last letter in a fishes name? (I'm not really looking for an answer, simply because there will never be a good enough answer)

Also, this atlas is only the seventh edition, as I said in my original post it came out in 1993. Things change fast in the fish world for some stupid reason. Like I told my wife (who asked why I wanted such an obsolete book) "We've got the internet honey, all I've got to do is type in the name from this book and somewhere I'll find the newest most up to date name, so why pay $75 for the latest edition that's obsolete the day it's published?"
I agree TFG, makes very little difference if your book has the more current genus or they are labeled all 'Cichlasoma'. 25 years now since Cichlasoma has become invalid for CA Heroine and the genuse are all still up in the air. Virtually nothing has been decided for sure or for certain. :lol: There changing the genus names all the time, coming up with more and more new ones, and there all obsolete in a few months or years anyways.

The book is a great pick up. Beautiful pictures. I would love to have a copy of it myself. Our public library has it as a reference book but I haven't looked at it for at least a few years. But from what I remeber of it there was at least one picture that was mis-labled so it is not always reliable for identification purposes. That one picture might be the one you just showed here :lol: though I am not certain as it is very possible there are some that I am not aware of.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
819 Posts
I think there are some miss-id uros as festae, or I might be thinking of Conkels old book.

Knowing a bit about Latin REALLY helps with fishkeeping I've found out. Kind of an odd connection.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,338 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 ·
Frameshift said:
I think there are some miss-id uros as festae, or I might be thinking of Conkels old book.

Knowing a bit about Latin REALLY helps with fishkeeping I've found out. Kind of an odd connection.
They're mislabeled in both, in one of them it shows the uro as the larger growing species... :?
 
1 - 20 of 40 Posts
Top